Skip to comments.Research helps dispel marijuana myths
Posted on 08/01/2002 5:16:08 AM PDT by Behind Liberal LinesEdited on 05/07/2004 8:00:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.
Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.
(Excerpt) Read more at theithacajournal.com ...
I find that hard to believe. In fact I would like to know which hospital's emergency room(s) this study is referring to.
In many parts of the country, more people are admitted to treatment for marijuana dependence than for heroin. Clearly, we can take from this that marijuana is, in fact, a dependence-fostering drug, a dependence that an increasing number of people are seeking help to address.
Not so fast, there. There are a lot of reasons why more people would "cite themselves" for marijuana use by entering such a program than admit to heroin use -- and not the least of these is that admitted heroin users will get a whole lot more attention from law enforcement.
Also, there are monetary considerations whose importance is difficult to estimate. The available funds for these programs, their use in prolonging one's employment (if one is under suspicion of having used drugs in the workplace), their treatment by health insurance plans, must all be factored in. No assertion about the current situation can be honestly prefixed with the debate-foreclosing adverb "clearly."
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
I'm not saying that marijuana is harmless, but I wonder if "admitted for treatment" really means court-ordered "treatment" for someone who blew a drug test.
Arch Surg 1988 Jun;123(6):733-7
Marijuana and alcohol use among 1023 trauma patients. A prospective study.
Soderstrom CA, Trifillis AL, Shankar BS, Clark WE, Cowley RA.
Department of Surgery/Traumatology, Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems, Baltimore 21201-1595.
Marijuana use prior to injury was determined prospectively in 1023 patients injured as the result of vehicular (67.6%) and nonvehicular (32.4%) trauma. Most were men (72.8%); most were 30 years of age or younger (58.4%). All were admitted directly from the scene of injury. Serum delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol activity was ascertained using a radioimmunoassay. Activity of 2 ng/mL or more was detected in 34.7% of subjects. Blood alcohol determinations were made in 1006 patients; 33.5% were positive. Marijuana use among vehicular and nonvehicular trauma victims was not significantly different. Marijuana use was higher among those 30 years of age or younger and among men. Vehicular crash victims consumed alcohol more frequently. Use of marijuana and alcohol in combination (16.5%) was highly significant compared with marijuana alone (18.3%), alcohol alone (16.1%), or neither drug (49.1%).
I guess the fact that Potheads are in the minority might make it harder to get Marijuana legalized. This is good news!
The country is filled with marijuana users leading normal, productive lives. Haven't you noticed? Don't you know any? If your answer to either of the above is no then you should focus your attention on other subjects about which you are better informed (if any such exists).
I would like to know how many of the people admitted to treatment for marijuana were court ordered (because they were found in possession) and how many were there due to a true addiction.
Back in my high school drug classes in the 70's we were taught that marijuana was not a physically addictive drug, that it may be psychologically addictive, but not physically...like say alcohol, heroin or coke is.
I stopped reading here, as this association also claims that homophobia is a disease and homosexuality is a life style choice. Pass the bong, nothing to see here. BTW you would be surprised to find out that most pot smokers are not flaming liberals.
I believe the problem is that people AREN'T using the smaller quantities. They are using the same size of joint, for example. But getting a lot more THC than they might realize.
demonstrates the remarkable success the drug war is having! Meanwhile in Holland, where marijuana has been de facto legal for 40 years, 1/3 as many people smoke marijuana as here, and the marijuana/coffee shops are filled largely with American tourists. And for this we are spending tens of billions a year and arresting 700,000 people?
In many parts of the country, more people are admitted to treatment for marijuana dependence than for heroin.
If you are arrested for marijuana, they give you a choice: jail or treatment. People aren't exactly seeking help. Since so many people are being arrested for marijuana, because so many people use it, naturally you see some admissions.
You might have a point.
However, why is it so wrong to point out even potential or possible dangers to people who do so?
Conservatives and libertarians often (validly) say "yes, it is dangerous/unhealty/addictive (see, eg, junk food, tobacco and/or booze), but we feel there is still a right for a person to consume it without government interference."
Why, however, as soon as its POT does the ability to admit it might not be healthy fly out the window?
What are marijuana advocates so afraid of?
And how would you know?
Were you the abused or the abuser?
I, for one, wouldn't be surprised. Many of the ones I know are pretty darn conservative not only politically, but in their lifestyles.
We have a friend who is a recovering coke addict and has monthly urine tests with a Probation Officer. Coming off coke is a long and difficult process. He once said that if he could only smoke enough to take the 'edge' off it would help so much with sleep etc, but pot is detectable in urine for quite some time while coke clears the system in something like 3 days.
Again, how would you know?
Yep; this is the same scam used by Sarah Brady to count 25-year-old gang-bangers as "children killed by guns".
Having a hard time making sense out of you response here. Do you mean it is the "chronic" hospital emergency room(s) the study is referring to?
"...Potheads are in the minority might make it harder to get Marijuana legalized."
The 9th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall NOT be construed to DENY or DISPARAGE others (rights) RETAINED by the PEOPLE."
The framers composed this amendment because they new the essence of freedom, all of the liberties inherent to men and women, were too numerous and personal to list.
The constitution of the U.S. and of the States are designed to protect the liberties of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
One of our RIGHTS, not enumerated in the constitution, but retained by the people, which shall not be denied or disparaged is the right to ingest the substance of our choice.
You do not want to ingest marijuana, don't that is your choice. Do not use the tyranny of the majority to deny others their right.
I am sure you will be in complete agreement with me and support the constitutional right to ingest the substance of your choice because in the very near future, "they" will be have made your cheeseburger illegal.
Don't forget-it can also cause severe dampness in the underwear of some government employees,if they're confronted with rational thought while under the influence.
If you would READ the article you would find that it mentions the fact that marijuana today is far more powerful than it was in your "high school drug classes in the 70's."
Knee-jerk reactions are also indicative of heavy drug use.
And I suppose you have documentation to support your rant?
There's nothing wrong with pointing out actual proven or probable dangers (it seems obvious to me that inhaling smoke from burning leaves, whether they are tobacco, cannabis, or dandelions, can't be good for you).
Spreading dishonest and illogical BS like the article at the head of this thread is quite another matter.
By doing research instead of just making stuff up. You should try it sometime.
And your horrendous lack of grammatical skills is clear evidence that you smoked one too many, my friend.
Yep, this nonsense came from the very mother lode of BS:
There sure must be lots of heavy drug users on FR then! ROFL!!
I'm sorry A2J, I know you were trying to make the "those who don't think like me are all druggies" point.
and I DID read the article.... sorry, I'm just not swallowing it hook, line and sinker.
Oh, that's so 1993.
If by "research" you mean getting stoned to the point that you are worthless to your family, friends, and employers, then I'm not interested.
And your "research" is documented where?
Well, hell - that would have saved me some time. If the IJ is agin it, I'm fer it ;)
Its not af act, its pure myth:
Using a plant that grows wild all over the Earth, and placed here by God for the use of mankind, to destroy freedoms previously protected by the Constitution, spread corruption in the form of booty among the law enforcement offices and terrorize and suborn innocent and productive Americans.
Every point in the article you posted is either a blatant or contrived lie. If the effect of the plant's use are so obvious and well documented, why lie? What are the anti-cannabis people afraid of?
It's amazing how those who claim that libertarians represent more than anti-drug law idiots can't see that their own integrity goes up in smoke when their golden calf of marijuana is ridiculed.