Marijuana

[mr.willy]

You are an old school bible thumper aren't you?

::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

No Palehorse I'm not a bible thumper, havent been to church in a long time, sense my father's funeral in 1976, sorry to prove you wrong again and you did admit that mj is addictive your own words.

Nicotine is more addictive than THC

::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

Need to bring all of this forward,so no one will miss it

The excuses on this post to legalize marijuana is comical. One person said on this forum said it was only a herb and could not hurt anyone, and another says marijuana is a drug, but it is only for relieving pain. Do you know of another drug that you smoke? I read in a article about marijuana that it contains almost 145 different chemicals, a lot.

The chemical that relieves pain is called THC and is available in prescription form that your doctor can write and you get at your local drug store. It is called MARINOL, and it is for nausea symptoms caused by chemotheropy and other illness that causes nausea. It contains a controlled amount of THC and is more effective in treating symptoms than marijuana. Strange that no one has mentioned this fact because it does not get you high.

The excuses on this post to legalize marijuana is comical. One person said on this forum said it was only a herb and could not hurt anyone, and another says marijuana is a drug, but it is only for relieving pain. Do you know of another drug that you smoke? I read in a article about marijuana that it contains almost 145 different chemicals, a lot.

The chemical that relieves pain is called THC and is available in prescription form that your doctor can write and you get at your local drug store. It is called MARINOL, and it is for nausea symptoms caused by chemotheropy and other illness that causes nausea. It contains a controlled amount of THC and is more effective in treating symptoms than marijuana. Strange that no one has mentioned this fact because it does not get you high.

USES: This medication is used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancerchemotherapy. It is used when other drugs to control nausea and vomiting have not been successful. Dronabinol is also used to treat loss of appetite and weight loss in patients infected with HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). Dronabinol (also called THC) is a man-made form of the active natural substance in marijuana.
http://www.medicinenet.com/dronabinol-oral/article.htm

[Palehorse]

::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

No Palehorse I'm not a bible thumper, havent been to church in a long time, sense my father's funeral in 1976, sorry to prove you wrong again and you did admit that mj is addictive your own words.  ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D: ::D:

Need to bring all of this forward,so no one will miss it

So you're just a rabble rouser then? With old school beliefs that utilize scare tactics that are devoid of factual evidence or validated science?

ALL things are addictive to a degree, dependent upon the constitution of the mind of the subject. If you are weak, you are more prone to addiction than another. It wouldn't matter if it was booze, tobacco, drugs, or the internet; if you derived a sense of pleasure from it you would be in danger of addiction. Some people never learn their limitations, and still others seem to believe it is the governments responsibility to do it for them.

That will not work, as prohibition so poignantly proved by giving a foothold to organized crime within this country. One would think that this country would have learned from such an obvious mistake, but clearly we have not as the decades long war on weed has once again proven.

Alcohol is a far more prevalent destroyer of society and humanity, and the physical addiction it drives costs this country and its citizens untold millions each year. Yet, as was proven by prohibition, society will drink whether it is legal or not, no matter what the risks. Has not the last 50 years proven the very same thing surrounding marijuana, and given rise to yet another version of the organized crime element in the drug cartels and dealers? Once again, billions in annual revenue passed over in the name of ignorance. How long before the government of this country gets it and turns the tables on the drug dealers and cartels, by legalizing marijuana and taxing it?

With individuals like you spewing the latest propaganda and old school fear mongering, it may be a while yet. But, sooner or later this nation will smarten up. I just hope it is the former. . .

[mr.willy]

Palehorse where is your factual evidence or validated science for mj, Haven't seen any from you and addiction of mj  drives everyones cost up, you just keep on spinning and spinning I have now been called a old school bible thumper, rabble rouser, a Troll, I will not even mention what  hammondjam said about me on another string. ::D: ::D: regardless with what happens with mj organized crime element and the drug cartels and dealers will still be around and you darn well know it..

Keep on spinning and spinning Palehorse because YOU  cannot provide empirical evidence to support your perspectives on MJ.

[flybananas]

food is addictive better ban it

[mr.willy]

1
Statement from ONDCP Director R. Gil Kerlikowske
Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety
Annotated Remarks1
Delivered at the California Police Chiefs Association Conference
March 4th, 2010
San Jose, CA
Thank you for inviting me here today to address your conference. I especially want to thank Chief Rob Davis for that introduction.
Furthermore, I'd like to congratulate and thank your new President, Susan Manheimer.
I also want to acknowledge my friend, Barney Malekian, and congratulate him on his appointment as the COPS Director. I believe our appointments speak very clearly about the level of support and respect this Administration has for local law enforcement.
1 A few data points have been updated from the original version of the speech to ensure data accuracy.
2
You have been at the forefront of some very controversial issues, and I appreciate your leadership. Other states look to California for guidance, and your thoughtful and timely efforts on drug issues ranging from medical marijuana to pseudoephedrine are important for the health and safety of all Americans.
When President Obama asked me to serve as Director of National Drug Control Policy, he explained that one of my first duties would be drafting his Administration's first National Drug Control Strategy, laying out the policies and programs best suited to curb drug use and its consequences.
But the President didn't want a traditional policy paper, with a few people from Washington putting their ideas down and then submitting to Congress a plan that would be forgotten or disregarded by the field. Instead, he asked me to travel the country and sit down with people on every side of this issue.
Since my confirmation, I've visited 37 cities in 19 states, as well as 8 foreign countries, holding roundtable discussions and meeting with hundreds of drug prevention and treatment experts, local officials, law enforcement, parents, teachers, community groups, academics, and young people.
We also convened a working group made up of the 35 Federal agencies with a role in the anti-drug effort. The group's task was to develop a coordinated approach at the Federal level.
These months of consultations across the country helped highlight an important truth – that public safety and public health are
3
threatened by drug use and its consequences. Addressing these challenges requires a balanced, comprehensive, and evidence-based approach.
The Administration's Drug Control Strategy, which will be released soon, will build on the hard-won knowledge we already have, but it will also incorporate new information and new tools that experience in the trenches and our best research have provided us.
The scope of our country's drug problem is disturbingly clear: drug overdoses outnumber gunshot deaths in America and are fast approaching motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of accidental death. It's hard to believe since we seem to hear much more about H1N1, the Toyota recall, and texting while driving.
We are also deeply concerned about two relatively recent threats to public safety and public health: prescription drug abuse and drugged driving.
Prescription drug abuse harms the people who take these pills and those close to them. While we must ensure access to medications that alleviate suffering, it is also vital that we do all we can to curtail diversion and abuse of pharmaceuticals.
Past-year initiation of non-medical prescription drug use has surpassed the rate for marijuana.2 Moreover, between 1997 and 2007, treatment admissions for prescription painkillers increased
2 Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2009
4
more than 400 percent. The latest data from the Monitoring the Future study show that seven out of the top ten drugs used by teens are prescription drugs.3
And between 2004 and 2008, the number of visits to hospital emergency departments involving the non-medical use of narcotic painkillers increased 111 percent.4
Because prescription drugs are legal, they are easily accessible, often from a home medicine cabinet. Further, some individuals who misuse prescription drugs, particularly teens, believe these substances are safer than illicit drugs because they are prescribed by a healthcare professional and sold behind the counter. This is not the drug that people buy behind a gas station wrapped in tin foil, and so people think it is somehow safer.
We know from the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health that most people who abuse these drugs are getting them from friends and family or from a doctor.5
As law enforcement professionals and community leaders, you can help spread an important message to parents and other adults: If you have unused prescription drugs in your home, dispose of them properly. I also know that many of you have initiated take-backs with the community to help this problem, and I applaud you for that.
3 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights - 2007, SAMHSA: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services.
4 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), SAMHSA, 2010. Found at https://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/
5 See Supra note 1.
5
Another priority for us this year is drugged driving.
A Department of Transportation study released in December showed that 1 in 8 nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for an illicit drug (1 in 6 when you include illicit drugs or pharmaceuticals).6
This study highlighted the alarming prevalence of drugged driving, and I've made anti-drugged driving efforts a top priority.
We will be assessing how we can help states deal with this issue, and I will be meeting with leaders – from trainers of Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), to police chiefs, researchers, and policy makers –to see how the Administration can engage with them to reduce this threat.
This evening I'll be in Sacramento, meeting with 30 officers currently undergoing DRE training. I will encourage them in their efforts and sit down with them to better understand the issues they face in this area.
I know it is impossible to talk about drug policy issues ranging from prevention to policing, from drugged driving to treatment, without mentioning the role of the most commonly used illicit drug today – marijuana.
6 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, December 2009. Accessible at http://www.ondcp.gov/publications/pdf/07roadsidesurvey.pdf
6
You all know the impacts of marijuana in this state– from the proliferation of marijuana being grown on public lands and indoor grows, to the negative effects of marijuana use among youth, the increasing influence of violent gangs on the marijuana trade, and the problems associated with medical marijuana dispensaries.
As I've said from the day I was sworn in, marijuana legalization – for any purpose – is a non-starter in the Obama Administration. I'd like to explain why we take this position.
First, on the medical marijuana issue, I believe that the science should determine what a medicine is, not popular vote.
We've seen the problems of medical marijuana here in this state but also in places like Colorado, too, where kids are given the message that since marijuana is a medicine, it must be safe.7
But we've also seen how localities are dealing with this, with success, through zoning, planning regulations, nuisance laws, and other mechanisms.
I recently met with officials from the Netherlands, they are closing down marijuana outlets – or "coffee shops" – because of the nuisance and crime risks associated with them. What used to be thousands of shops have now been reduced to a few hundred, and some cities are shutting them down completely.8
7 "Doctor says medical marijuana laws hurt teens," NPR. Talk of the Nation, Feb, 10, 2010. Accessible at http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=5&prgDate=02-10-2010
8 "Government to scale down coffee shops," Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport, Sept. 11, 2009. Accessible at http://www.minvws.nl/en/nieuwsberichten/vgp/2009/government-to-scale-down-coffee-shops.asp. Also see "Dutch border towns to close coffee-shops," Expatica, October 24, 2008, http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/Dutch-border-towns-close-coffee_shops.html. It is also worth noting that research from MacCoun, R. and Reuter, P. (2001; Drug War Heresies, Cambridge University Press) shows that,
7
This brings me to the issue of outright legalization.
The concern with marijuana is not born out of any culture-war mentality, but out of what the science tells us about the drug's effects.
And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.9
We know that over 120,000 people who showed up voluntarily at treatment facilities in 2007 reported marijuana as their primary
despite traditionally higher rates of marijuana use in the U.S., there was a tripling in lifetime marijuana use and a more than doubling of past-month use among 18- to 20-year-olds in the Netherlands from 1984 to 1996 – a time when the commercialization of Dutch coffee shops was rapidly expanding.
9 Moore and colleagues (2005) summed up the literature on respiratory illnesses and marijuana in the 7See Moore, B.A., et al, Respiratory effects of marijuana and tobacco use in a U.S. sample, Journal of General Internal Medicine 20(1):33-37, 2005. Also see Tashkin, D.P., Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury, Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease 63(2):93-100, 2005. Other evidence on the effect of marijuana on lung function and the respiratory system, and the link with mental illness, can be found in expert reviews offered by Hall W.D, and Pacula R.L. (2003), Cannabis use and dependence: Public health and public policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press., and Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., and Reuter, P. (2009), Cannabis Policy: Moving beyond stalemate, The Global Cannabis Commission Report, the Beckley Foundation. Room et al. write, "Cannabis use and psychotic symptoms are associated in general population surveys and the relationship persists after adjusting for confounders. The best evidence that these associations may be causal comes from longitudinal studies of large representative cohorts." Also see Degenhardt, L. & Hall, W. (2006), Is cannabis a contributory cause of psychosis? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51: 556-565. A major study examining young people and, importantly, a subset of sibling pairs was released in February 2010 and concluded that marijuana use at a young age significantly increased the risk of psychosis in young adulthood. See McGrath, J., et al. (2010), Association between cannabis use and psychosis-related outcomes using sibling pair analysis in a cohort of young adults, Archives of General Psychiatry.
8
substance of abuse.10 Additionally, in 2008 marijuana was involved in 374,000 emergency visits nationwide.11
Several studies have shown that marijuana dependence is real and causes harm. We know that more than 30 percent of past-year marijuana users age 18 and older are classified as dependent on the drug,12 and that the past-year prevalence of marijuana dependence in the US population is higher than that for any other illicit drug. Those dependent on marijuana often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior.13
Traveling the country, I've often heard from local treatment specialists that marijuana dependence is as a major problem at call-in centers offering help for people using drugs.
Marijuana negatively affects users in other ways, too. For example, prolonged use is associated with lower test scores and lower educational attainment because during periods of intoxication the drug affects the ability to learn and process
10 See Supra note 1.
11 See Supra note 3.
12 Compton, W., Grant, B., Colliver, J., Glantz; M., Stinson, F. (2004), Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002, Journal of the American Medical Association, 291:2114-2121.
13 Budney, A.J. & Hughes, J.R. (2006), The cannabis withdrawal syndrome, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19: 233-238.; Budney, A.J., Hughes, J.R., Moore, B.A. & Vandrey, R. (2004), Review of the validity and significance of cannabis withdrawal syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161: 1967-1977.; Budney, A.J.,Vandrey, R.G., Hughes, J.R., Moore, B.A. & Bahrenburg, B. (2007), Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol suppresses cannabis withdrawal symptoms, Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86: 22-29.; Kouri, E.M. & Pope, H.G. (2000), Abstinence symptoms during withdrawal from chronic marijuana use, Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8: 483-492.; Jones, R.T., Benowitz, N. & Herning, R.I. (1976), The 30-day trip: clinical studies of cannabis use, tolerance and dependence. In Braude, M. & Szara, S. (eds.), The Pharmacology of Marijuana. New York: Academic Press, Vol. 2, pp. 627-642.
9
information, thus influencing attention, concentration, and short-term memory.14
Advocates of legalization say the costs of prohibition – mainly through the criminal justice system – place a great burden on taxpayers and governments.
While there are certainly costs to current prohibitions, legalizing drugs would not cut the costs of the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol-related crimes such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana-possession arrests totaled around 750,000 in 2008. 15
Our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs like Oxycontin shows that legalizing drugs is not a panacea. In fact, its legalization widens its availability and misuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2006, drug-induced deaths reached a high of over 38,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control – an increase driven primarily by the non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs.16
Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low, since drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.17
14 For a review of the evidence on marijuana and educational attainment, see: Lynskey, M.T. & Hall, W.D. (2000), The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: a review, Addiction, 96: 433-443.
15 Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008) Uniform crime reports, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
16 Heron M., Hoyert D., Murphy S., et al. Deaths: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD, National Center for Health Statistics, 2009. See http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
17 For example, see: Williams, J., Pacula, R., Chaloupka, F., and Wechsler, H. (2004), "Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among College Students: Economic Complements or Substitutes?" Health Economics 13(9): 825-843.; Pacula R., Ringel, J., Suttorp, M. and Truong, K. (2008), An Examination of the Nature and Cost of Marijuana Treatment Episodes. RAND Working Paper presented at the American Society for Health Economics Annual Meeting,
10
The relationship between pricing and rates of youth substance use is well-established with respect to alcohol and cigarette taxes. There is literature showing that increases in the price of cigarettes triggers declines in use.18
Marijuana has also been touted as a cure-all for disease and black market violence – and for California's budget woes. Once again, however, there are important facts that are rarely discussed in the public square.
The tax revenue collected from alcohol pales in comparison to the costs associated with it. Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion.19
Durham, NC, June 2008. Jacobson, M. (2004), "Baby Booms and Drug Busts: Trends in Youth Drug Use in the United States, 1975-2000," Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4): 1481-1512.
18 See, for example, Chaloupka, F., "Macro-Social Influences: Effects of Prices and Tobacco Control Policies on the Demand for Tobacco Products," Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1999, and other price studies at http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc and www.uic.edu/orgs/impacteen. Orzechowski & Walker, Tax Burden on Tobacco, 2006. USDA Economic Research Service, www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/tobacco. Farelly, M., et al., State Cigarette Excise Taxes: Implications for Revenue and Tax Evasion, RTI International, May, 2003, http://www.rti.org/pubs/8742_Excise_Taxes_FR_5-03.pdf. Country tax offices. CDC, Data Highlights 2006 [and underlying CDC data/estimates]. Miller, P., et al, "Birth and First-Year Costs for Mothers and Infants Attributable to Maternal Smoking," Nicotine & Tobacco Research 3(1):25-35, February 2001. Lightwood, J. & Glantz, S., "Short-Term Economic and Health Benefits of Smoking Cessation - Myocardial Infarction and Stroke," Circulation 96(4):1089-1096, August 19, 1997, http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/4/1089. Hodgson, T., "Cigarette Smoking and Lifetime Medical Expenditures," The Millbank Quarterly 70(1), 1992. U.S. Census. National Center for Health Statistics.
19 See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399
11
Taken together, this is less than 10 percent of the over $185 billion in alcohol-related costs from health care, lost productivity, and criminal justice.20
Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts, and other related consequences.21
Tobacco also does not carry its economic weight when we tax it; each year we spend more than $200 billion on its social costs and collect only about $25 billion in taxes.22
Though I sympathize with the current budget predicament – and acknowledge that we must find innovative solutions to get us on a path to financial stability – it is clear that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost $180 billion a year in health care, lost productivity, crime, and other expenditures.23 That number would only increase under legalization because of increased use.
Rosy evaluations of the potential economic savings from legalization have been criticized by many in the economic
20 Harwood, H. (2000), Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods and Data. Report prepared for the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse.
21 See Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE), 2009, Underage Drinking Costs. Accessed on March, 1, 2010. Available at http://www.udetc.org/UnderageDrinkingCosts.asp
22 State estimates found at supra note 27. Federal estimates found at https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/3314/RS20343_20020110.pdf, Also see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/31saul.html?em and http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0072.pdf; Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, see "Smoking-caused costs" on p.2.
23 The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-2002, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC: (Publication No. 207303), 2004.
12
community. For example, the California Board of Equalization estimated that $1.4 billion of potential revenue could arise from legalization. This assessment, according to a researcher out of the independent RAND Corporation is, and I quote, "based on a series of assumptions that are in some instances subject to tremendous uncertainty and in other cases not valid."24
Recent testimony from a RAND researcher concluded that "There is a tremendous profit motive for the existing black market providers to stay in the market, as they can still cover their costs of production and make a nice profit."25
Canada's experience with taxing cigarettes showed that a $2 tax differential per pack versus the United States created such a huge black market smuggling problem that Canada repealed its tax increases.26
Legalizing marijuana would also saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative side effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.27
24 Pacula, R. (2009). Legalizing Marijuana: Issues to Consider Before Reforming California State Law. Accessed at www.rand.org
25 Ibid.
26 Gruber J., Sen, A. & Stabile, M. (2003), "Estimating Price Elasticities When There is Smuggling:
The Sensitivity of Smoking to Price in Canada," Journal of Health Economics 22(5): 821-842.
27 See Supra note 23.
13
Now that I've told you what the research says, let me tell you what this means in practical terms. Legalization means the price comes down, the number of users goes up, the underground market adapts, and the revenue gained through a regulated market will never keep pace with the financial and social cost of making this drug more accessible.
Now let's talk about what will work to reduce drug use.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy is pursuing a combined, coordinated public health and public safety strategy.
This strategy recognizes that the most promising drug policy is one that prevents drug use in the first place.
We have many proven methods for reducing the demand for drugs. The demand can be decreased with comprehensive, evidence-based prevention programs focused on adolescence, which science confirms is the peak period for drug-use initiation and the potential for addiction.
Our young people must be made aware of the risks of drug use – at home, in school, in sports leagues, in faith communities, in places of work, and in other settings and activities that attract youth.
This is vital because an individual who reaches age 21 without smoking, using drugs or abusing alcohol is virtually certain never to do so.
14
ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign can reinforce these efforts by connecting with youth through popular television shows, Internet sites, magazines, and films. Community anti-drug coalitions can provide an environment conducive to remaining drug-free. Expanding early intervention services for drug users and treatment options for the addicted will also be major components of our effort to reduce demand for drugs in this country.
Surveys of prevalence show that these efforts work. Drug use today remains comparatively low. Annual marijuana prevalence peaked among 12th graders in 1979 at 51 percent. By 2009, annual prevalence had fallen by about one-third. Similar statistics can be found for other age groups. However, we are seeing some troubling signs that have bubbled up in the last year or two. The perception that drugs are dangerous is dropping, and that usually predicts imminent increases in use.
At the same time, we've learned that trying to manage drug-addicted criminal offenders entirely through the criminal justice system results in a costly, destructive cycle of arrest, incarceration, release, and re-arrest.
Together, we can transform this situation through new collaborations between the criminal justice system and the treatment system. Drug courts are just one example of how these systems can work together.
15
Re-entry programs that provide addiction treatment, combined with intensive monitoring and swift and certain sanctions for violations – as evidenced by Hawaii's HOPE program – are another example of the kind of scientifically supported cross-system initiatives we seek to expand, especially in the probation system, which represents a highly important but often under-utilized and forgotten role in drug and crime control.
We advocate further research on pre-arrest diversion programs like the one piloted in High Point, North Carolina. These programs threaten dealers in a community with credible sanctions, but also offer them other resources to change their lives. Research on these kinds of pre-arrest diversion programs is just emerging, but preliminary results have been positive.
We are also firm believers in the law enforcement techniques you employ every day, based on local assessments of needs and available resources.
A balanced approach based on a combination of public health and public safety strategies is the surest route to reducing drug use and its consequences. This approach employs best practices in prevention, treatment, and law enforcement with community partners. We know that working together has resulted in lowering crime and drug use.
Thank you for being on the front line of these issues. I look forward to supporting you to reduce drug use and its consequences.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speech10/030410_Chief.pdf

[flybananas]

great special on mj on natgeo. Has a LOT on the health benefits.

Also, a former surgeon general is calling for the legalization of mj.

:)

[mr.willy]

 a sea of controversy over a statement made at World AIDS Day at the United Nations regarding the teaching of masturbation in schools, Dr. Jocelyn Elders was forced to resign her post as U.S. Surgeon General in December 1994.

[mr.willy]

Marijuana is a mixture of the dried flowering leaves and tops from the plant cannabis sativa, and it contains over 400 chemicals. A medical use of marijuana has been to lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG).

CONCLUSIONS
Based on reviews by the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the Institute of Medicine and on available scientific evidence, the Task Force on Complementary Therapies believes that no scientific evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available.

BENEFITS
Initial studies in the 1970s reported that smoked marijuana resulted in lower IOP hours after administration. The NEI-sponsored studies demonstrated that some derivatives of marijuana did result in lowering of IOP when administered orally, intravenously, or by smoking, but not when topically applied to the eye. The duration of the pressure-lowering effect is reported to be in the range of 3 to 4 hours. Benefits also include euphoria as an acute effect.

RISKS
Potentially serious side effects associated with smoking marijuana include an increased heart rate and a decrease in blood pressure. Studies of single-administration marijuana use have shown a lowering of blood pressure concurrent with the lowering of IOP. This raises concerns that there may be compromised blood flow to the optic nerve, but no data have been published on the long-term systemic and ocular effects from the use of marijuana by patients with glaucoma.

Other adverse effects from the use of marijuana that have been reported include conjunctival hyperemia, impaired immune system response, impaired memory for recent events, difficulty concentrating, impaired motor coordination, tolerance to repeated doses, and short-term withdrawal symptoms after cessation. Smoking of marijuana also can lead to emphysema-like lung changes, increased risk of cancer, and poor pregnancy outcomes. Because duration of the induced fall in IOP is short, an individual would have to smoke a marijuana cigarette eight to ten times a day in order to control IOP over 24 hours.

http://www.eyecareamerica.org/eyecare/treatment/alternative-therapies/marijuana-glaucoma.cfm

[Palehorse]

You are just afraid willy. . . why not just admit it and move on?

[Palehorse]

Palehorse where is your factual evidence or validated science for mj, Haven't seen any from you and addiction of mj  drives everyones cost up, you just keep on spinning and spinning I have now been called a old school bible thumper, rabble rouser, a Troll, I will not even mention what  hammondjam said about me on another string. ::D: ::D: regardless with what happens with mj organized crime element and the drug cartels and dealers will still be around and you darn well know it..

Keep on spinning and spinning Palehorse because YOU  cannot provide empirical evidence to support your perspectives on MJ.

(marijuana - global prevalence)
(2008) "Globally, the number of people who had used cannabis at least once in 2008 is estimated between 129 and 191 million, or 2.9% to 4.3% of the world population aged 15 to 64. ... National experts in many parts of the world perceive cannabis use to be either stabilizing or increasing, although about 15 countries reported a decrease in 2007 and 2008."

(2007) "The global number of people who used cannabis at least once in 2007 is estimated to be between 143 and 190 million persons. The highest levels of use remain in the established markets of North America and Western Europe, although there are signs from recent studies that the levels of use are declining in developed countries, particularly among young people."

(2004) "Cannabis remains by far the most commonly used drug in the world. An estimated 162 million people used cannabis in 2004, equivalent to some 4 per cent of the global population age 15-64. In relative terms, cannabis use is most prevalent in Oceania, followed by North America and Africa. While Asia has the lowest prevalence expressed as part of the population, in absolute terms it is the region that is home to some 52 million cannabis users, more than a third of the estimated total. The next largest markets, in absolute terms, are Africa and North America."

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2010" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2010), p. 194.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/World_Drug_Report_2010_lo-re...
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2009" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2009), p. 89.
http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "World Drug Report 2006, Volume 1: Analysis" (United Nations: Vienna, Austria, 2006), p. 23.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume1.pdf

(2007 - risk of arrest) "To provide a sense of the intensity of enforcement, we calculated the risk a marijuana user faces of being arrested for possession. If calculated per joint consumed, the figure nationally is trivial—perhaps one arrest for every 11,000–12,000 joints.4 However, the relevant risk may be the probability of being arrested during a year of normal consumption. Since marijuana is mostly consumed by individuals who use it at least once a month,5 we estimated the risk that such individuals face. We know from prior studies (e.g., Reuter, Hirschfield, and Davies, 2001) that these risks are higher for youth. Table 2.2 presents separate estimates for those aged 12–17 and for the entire population 12 and over. We observe that the annual risk of misdemeanor arrest for those 12–17 (6.6 percent) is more than twice the rate for the full population (3.0 percent)."

Source: Kilmer, Beau; Caulkins, Jonathan P.; Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo; MacCoun, Robert J.; Reuter, Peter H., "Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets" Drug Policy Research Center (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010), p. 8.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP315.pdf

(2006 - marijuana treatment admissions by the criminal justice system) "More than half (58 percent) of primary marijuana admissions were referred to treatment through the criminal justice system."

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS): 1996-2006. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS Series: S-43, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 08-4347, Rockville, MD, 2008, p. 41.
http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/teds06/teds2k6aweb508.pdf

(1992-2002 - marijuana treatment admissions) "... between these years [1992 and 2002] the rate of substance abuse treatment admissions reporting marijuana as their primary substance of abuse3 per 100,000 population increased 162 percent. Similarly, the proportion of marijuana admissions increased from 6 percent of all admissions in 1992 to 15 percent of all admissions reported to the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) in 2002.

"During this time period, the percentage of marijuana treatment admissions that were referred from the criminal justice system increased from 48 percent of all marijuana admissions in 1992 to 58 percent of all marijuana admissions in 2002."

Source: "Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral: 2002," The DASIS Report (Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, June 5, 2005), pp. 1-2.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/MJreferrals/MJreferrals.pdf

(marijuana and safety) When examining the health affects of marijuana use, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded,

"A careful search of the literature and testimony of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death was enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate sleeping pills."

The World Health Organization reached the same conclusion in 1995.

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972);
http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncc3.htm
Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-index.htm

(marijuana and cognition) "In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
http://www.csdp.org/research/348art2003.pdf

(marijuana and cognition) "Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC100921/pdf/20020402s00015p88...

(marijuana and cognition) A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221315

marijuana and motivation) Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups.

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-probable.htm


(marijuana and psychosis) "... the expected rise in diagnoses of schizophrenia and psychoses did not occur over a 10 year period. This study does not therefore support the specific causal link between cannabis use and the incidence of psychotic disorders based on the 3 assumptions described in the Introduction. This concurs with other reports indicating that increases in population cannabis use have not been followed by increases in psychotic incidence (Macleod et al., 2006; Arsenault et al., 2004; Rey and Tennant, 2002)."

Source: Frisher, Martin; Crome, Ilana; Orsolina, Martino; and Croft, Peter, "Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005," Schizophrenia Research (Nashville, Tennessee: Schizophrenia International Research Society, September 2009) Vol. 113, Issue 2, p. 126.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/keele_study/Assessing-the-impact-of-cannab...

(marijuana and psychosis) The Christchurch Press reported on March 22, 2005, that "The lead researcher in the Christchurch study, Professor David Fergusson, said the role of cannabis in psychosis was not sufficient on its own to guide legislation. 'The result suggests heavy use can result in adverse side-effects,' he said. 'That can occur with ( heavy use of ) any substance. It can occur with milk.' Fergusson's research, released this month, concluded that heavy cannabis smokers were 1.5 times more likely to suffer symptoms of psychosis that non-users. The study was the latest in several reports based on a cohort of about 1000 people born in Christchurch over a four-month period in 1977. An effective way to deal with cannabis use would be to incrementally reduce penalties and carefully evaluate its impact, Fergusson said. 'Reduce the penalty, like a parking fine. You could then monitor ( the impact ) after five or six years. If it did not change, you might want to take another step.'

Source: Bleakley, Louise, "NZ Study Used in UK Drug Review," The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand: March 22, 2005), from the web at http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v05/n490/a08.html, last accessed March 28, 2005.. . .

[Palehorse]

(marijuana and safety) "There are health risks of cannabis use, most particularly when it is used daily over a period of years or decades. Considerable uncertainty remains about whether these effects are attributable to cannabis use alone, and about what the quantitative relationship is between frequency, quantity and duration of cannabis use and the risk of experiencing these effects.

On existing patterns of use, cannabis poses a much less serious public health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western societies."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., "WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use," (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-conclusions.htm


(marijuana and smoking) The authors of a 1998 World Health Organization report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is no evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal cardiovascular system."

Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
http://www.druglibrary.net/schaffer/hemp/general/who-probable.htm

(marijuana and safety) "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, "Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).

(marijuana and driving) "We found only limited evidence to support the claim that cannabis use increases accident risk. Participants who had driven under the influence of cannabis in the previous year appeared to be no more likely than drug-free drivers to report that they had had an accident in the previous 12 months. Prima facie, this would seem to suggest that cannabis-intoxicated driving is not a risk factor for non-fatal accidents. In this sense, the results would support those of Longo et al. (2000b) who found no relationship between recent cannabis use and driver culpability for non-fatal accidents."

Source: Jones, Craig; Donnelly, Neil; Swift, Wendy; Weatherburn, Don, "Driving under the influence of cannabis: The problem and potential countermeasures," Crime and Justice Bulletin, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (Syndey, Australia: September 2005). p. 11.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB87.pdf/$file/CJB87.pdf

(marijuana and driving) According to a literature review on the effects of cannabis on driving, "Most of the research on cannabis use has been conducted under laboratory conditions. The literature reviews by Robbe (1994), Hall, Solowij, and Lemon (1994), Border and Norton (1996), and Solowij (1998) agreed that the most extensive effect of cannabis is to impair memory and attention. Additional deficits include problems with temporal processing, (complex) reaction times, and dynamic tracking. These conclusions are generally consistent with the psychopharmacological effects of cannabis mentioned above, including problems with attention, memory, motor coordination, and alertness.

"A meta-analysis by Krüger and Berghaus (1995) profiled the effects of cannabis and alcohol. They reviewed 197 published studies of alcohol and 60 studies of cannabis. Their analysis showed that 50% of the reported effects were significant at a BAC of 0.073 g/dl and a THC level of 11 ng/ml. This implies that if the legal BAC threshold for alcohol is 0.08 g/dl, the corresponding level of THC that would impair the same percentage of tests would be approximately 11 ng/ml."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 975-6.

(marijuana and driving) "Several studies have examined cannabis use in driving simulator and on-road situations. The most comprehensive review was done by Smiley in 1986 and then again in 1999. Several trends are evident and can be described by three general performance characteristics:

"1. Cannabis increased variability of speed and headway as well as lane position (Attwood, Williams, McBurney, & Frecker, 1981; Ramaekers, Robbe, & O'Hanlon, 2000; Robbe, 1998; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley, Moskowitz, & Zeidman, 1981; Smiley, Noy, & Tostowaryk, 1987). This was more pronounced under high workload and unexpected conditions, such as curves and wind gusts.

"2. Cannabis increased the time needed to overtake another vehicle (Dott, 1972 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]) and delayed responses to both secondary and tracking tasks (Casswell, 1977; Moskowitz, Hulbert, & McGlothlin,
1976; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1981).

"3. Cannabis resulted in fewer attempts to overtake another vehicle(Dott, 1972) and larger distances required to pass (Ellingstad et al., 1973 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]). Evidence of increased caution also included slower speeds (Casswell, 1977; Hansteen, Miller, Lonero, Reid, & Jones, 1976; Krueger & Vollrath, 2000; Peck, Biasotti, Boland, Mallory, & Reeve, 1986; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley et al., 1981; Stein, Allen, Cook, & Karl, 1983) and larger headways (Robbe, 1998; Smiley et al., 1987)."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 977-8.

(marijuana and driving) A literature review of the effects of cannabis on driving found, "Another paradigm used to assess crash risk is to use cross-sectional surveys of reported nonfatal accidents that can be related to the presence of risk factors, such as alcohol and cannabis consumption. Such a methodology was employed in a provocative dissertation by Laixuthai (1994). This study used data from two large surveys that were nationally representative of high school students in the United States during 1982 and 1989. Results showed that cannabis use was negatively correlated with nonfatal accidents, but these results can be attributed to changes in the amount of alcohol consumed. More specifically, the decriminalization of cannabis and the subsequent reduction in penalty cost, as well as a reduced purchase price of cannabis, made cannabis more appealing and affordable for young consumers. This resulted in more cannabis use, which substituted for alcohol consumption, leading to less frequent and less heavy drinking. The reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed resulted in fewer nonfatal accidents."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980-1.

(marijuana and driving) "Both Australian studies suggest cannabis may actually reduce the responsibility rate and lower crash risk. Put another way, cannabis consumption either increases driving ability or, more likely, drivers who use cannabis make adjustments in driving style to compensate for any loss of skill (Drummer, 1995). This is consistent with simulator and road studies that show drivers who consumed cannabis slowed down and drove more cautiously (see Ward & Dye, 1999; Smiley, 1999. This compensation could help reduce the probability of being at fault in a motor vehicle accident since drivers have more time to respond and avoid a collision. However, it must be noted that any behavioral compensation may not be sufficient to cope with the reduced safety margin resulting from the impairment of driver functioning and capacity."

Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note: Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980.

(marijuana and violence) When examining the relationship between marijuana use and violent crime, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."

Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncc3.htm

(marijuana and amelioration of cancer) "We found that moderate marijuana use was significantly associated with reduced risk of HNSCC [head and neck squamous cell carcinoma]. This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use). Diminished risk of HNSCC did not differ across tumor sites, or by HPV [human papillomavirus] 16 antibody status. Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers."

Source: Liang, Caihua; McClean, Michael D.; Marsit, Carmen; Christensen, Brock; Peters, Edward; Nelson, Heather H.; Kelsey, Karl T, "A Population-Based Case-Control Study of Marijuana Use and Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma," Cancer Research Prevention (New Milford, CT: American Association for Cancer Research, August 2009), p. 766.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2009/07/2...

(marijuana and adolescents) In an ethnographic study of adolescents who were regular marijuana users, researchers at the University of British Columbia, concluded, "Thematic analysis revealed that these teens differentiated themselves from recreational users and positioned their use of marijuana for relief by emphasizing their inability to find other ways to deal with their health problems, the sophisticated ways in which they titrated their intake, and the benefits that they experienced. These teens used marijuana to gain relief from difficult feelings (including depression, anxiety and stress), sleep difficulties, problems with concentration and physical pain. Most were not overly concerned about the risks associated with using marijuana, maintaining that their use of marijuana was not 'in excess' and that their use fit into the realm of 'normal.'

Conclusion: Marijuana is perceived by some teens to be the only available alternative for teens experiencing difficult health problems when medical treatments have failed or when they lack access to appropriate health care."

Source: Bottorff, Joan L , Johnson, Joy L, Moffat, Barbara M, and Mulvogue, Tamsin, "Relief-oriented use of marijuana by teens," Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (Vancouver, BC: April 2009), pp. 4-7.
http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/pdf/1747-597X-4-7.pdf

(marijuana, decriminalization, and use) "Proponents of criminalization attribute to their preferred drug-control regime a special power to affect user behavior. Our findings cast doubt on such attributions. Despite widespread lawful availability of cannabis in Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities [Amsterdam and San Francisco] in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use."

"Our findings do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use."

Source: Reinarman, Craig; Cohen, Peter D.A.; Kaal, Hendrien L., "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health (Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, May 2004) Vol 94, No. 5, pp. 840 and 841.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/5/836

(cannabis - historic research) "The identification of cannabis as a potentially dangerous psychoactive substance did not, however, prevent a substantial number of these enquiries to explore the issue of whether current legislation reflected the real dangers posed by cannabis. Already in 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana concluded that 'the practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word' and that 'the use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction' (Zimmer and Morgan, 1997). In 1968 the Wootton Report stated that 'the dangers of cannabis use as commonly accepted in the past and the risk of progression to opiates have been overstated' and 'cannabis is less harmful than other substances (amphetamines, barbiturates, codeine-like compounds)'. A similar conclusion was arrived at 34 years later in 2002 when the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence proposed the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C (enforced by law in 2004 and confirmed in 2005). These views were reiterated by other enquiries, such as the Baan Committee in the Netherlands, which affirmed in 1971 that 'cannabis use does not lead directly to other drug use' (16) or by the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, which in 1973 stated that 'the existing social and legal policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm engendered by the use of the drug [cannabis]' (17). The Canadian Le Dain Commission saw 'the UN Single Convention of 1961 as responsible' for such a situation which 'might have reinforced the erroneous impression that cannabis is to be assimilated to the opiate narcotics'. The same commission, however, suggested that the UN Convention did 'not prevent domestic legislation from correcting this impression' (18)."

Source: EMCDDA (2008), "A cannabis reader: global issues and local experiences," Monograph series 8, Volume 1, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, p. 108.
http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_60586_EN_Monograph-ch7...

(marijuana and cancer risk) "Nonetheless, and contrary to our expectations, we found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung or UAT cancers ... Despite several lines of evidence suggesting the biological plausibility of marijuana use being carcinogenic (1), it is possible that marijuana use does not increase cancer risk, as suggested in the recent commentary by Melamede."

Source: Mia Hashibe, Hal Morgenstern, Yan Cui, Donald P. Tashkin, Zuo-Feng Zhang, Wendy Cozen, Thomas M. Mack, and Sander Greenland, "Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study," Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (October 2006), p. 1833.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/10/1829.full.pdf

[Palehorse]

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users
to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance
and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/02/science/is-nicotine-addictive-it-depen...
http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/addiction/addiction_media1.shtml

Viewing the chart above one can easily see that Nicotine and Alcohol are substantially more addictive than marijuana. In fact mary jane is no more addictive than caffeine! Maybe we are waging war on the wrong drugs! ::D:

[flybananas]

as i watch these reports on Drugs, Inc on natgeo, i wonder why mr willy doesn't rant on the evils of meth, heroine or cocaine?

[mr.willy]

[quoteas i watch these reports on Drugs, Inc on natgeo, i wonder why mr willy doesn't rant on the evils of meth, heroine or cocaine?
][/quote]

Will here you are with the reports.

Cocaine Facts
It was hard to find cocaine users among people with middle income in 1960s for at those times this drug was really expensive. Cocaine was a common association with music, sports and show business stars. Nowadays the majority of world's people have the possibility to take cocaine. Young adults are those who take this drug most frequently, besides, men take it twice as much as women do. Neither socioeconomic condition, nor education, nor profession influence the category of drug users.
Cocaine usage and carrying is an important problem which our country faces. In 1997 the statistics showed that 1,5 million American citizens after the age of 12 were instant cocaine addicts. Although some progress has been done in this sphere due to this number lessening from 5,7 million in 1985, the problem still has the place and we need to make the number of cocaine addicts smaller. Science is a great support. It's a well known fact how this drug influences the brain, what impact is pleasurable for the nervous system and why it's so easy to get used to it.
The two basic types of cocaine are: the hydrochloride salt and "freebase".
Cocaine is illicit, a Schedule 2 Controlled Substance, in most episodes, due the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Cocaine is called "dope friend" for the negative impact it has over individual's organism and health.
Over 200-300 cocaine addicts die of overdose every year in Texas.
The amount of America's inhabitants, which take cocaine constantly was over half million in 1983, as 1993 Household Drug survey says; in 1995 this number was 582,000 (what is 0,3% of the population). Constant usage means on 51 or more days during last year.
Cocaine is the reason of body temperature, pulse and blood pressure raising. Even after the first usage you can receive heart palpitations and cardiac trouble.
Cocaine addicts lose the interest to their family, sex, profession and every thing they do except taking another dose of the drug.


Crack Cocaine Facts
The statistics shows that of the 4,2 million America's inhabitants who have taken crack at least once, 600,000 have gotten used to it.
Some professionals say this drug is one of those to which it's really easy to get used, and some addicts say they liked it from the first time they took it.
When you smoke crack, the substance reaches your brain in eight to fifteen minutes and produce a certain impact.
Crack addicts often face problems with respiration, containing lung damage, chest congestion, wheezing, spitting up black phlegm, great hoarseness, and burning of the lips, throat and tongue.
Other impacts of crack are high body temperature, bad appetite and, perhaps, liver damage. Crack lessens the contents of dopamine, a substance which helps to regulate mood, attention and coordination.
Addicts feel constant desire to take the drug. Most crack users will take the drug until they have no money or their margin of drug is over.
Instant usage can cause the damage of nervous system; its signs will correspond with paranoid schizophrenia symptoms.
In early 80s the reason for most people to make cocaine popular was to reach absolute relaxation.
Crack is packaged into small plastic containers in the form of gray, beige of white chunks. They can be tried with marijuana or tobacco cigarette or smoked with a pipe, which is often made of glass.


Ecstasy / XTC / MDMA Facts
The impacts of constant MDMA taking is now subjected to careful scientific analysis. In 1998, the National Institute of Mental Health made some statistics for a certain group of chronic MDMA addicts, who were giving up the usage. The statistics showed that common users damaged neurons in brain, which transfer serotonin, a substance taking part in some vitally important processes as learning, sleep and maintaining of emotions. The conclusion made showed that constant MDMA users can develop chronic brain damage which results in depression, anxiety, memory loss and other neurotic diseases.
MDMA influences the coming out of serotonin from brain neurons, making additional energy, which has the power for several minutes to one hour. The impact drug produces on those who take it differs with the constitution of a person, dose's size, drug's purity and the environment where the individual takes it.
Some of MDMA's effects are a pleasurable sense, self-confidence and happiness, as well as sometimes high level of energy. As for the impact on nervous system, it produces the feelings of calmness, empathy, and acceptance.
Ecstasy addicts say the feel the sensation of mutual understanding and a wish to touch those to whom they feel it. Some drug users say that ecstasy is useful to normalize neurotic activity, as it causes the feelings of mutual understanding and it's period of action is short. But MDMA is called by Federal regulators as a drug which isn't used in the medicine.
There're secret labs providing illegal activity in Western Europe, especially in the Netherlands and Belgium, they produce a large amount of drugs in tablets, pills or powder. Besides the fact most of MDMA laboratories act in Europe, there are some examples of MDMA labs producing the drug in America.
Institutions, which export MDMA abroad, transfer it in doses of 10,000 or more pills with the use of express mail services, couriers with commercial airline transfers, of, more often, with several transmissions on board the planes from large cities in Europe to cities in America. Ecstasy is purchased in small doses at the mid-wholesale level in America for over eight dollars for a one-use package.
MDMA which is sold in clubs of American cities costs approximately from twenty to thirty dollars for a one-use package. MDMA dealers always use some marks to determine their products and to make it different from other competitors' packages. These marks are made due to special holidays or important events. Lightning bolts, butterflies and four-leaf clovers are among the most popular brand signs.
Ecstasy's impacts on nervous system are depressive mood, problems with sleep, anxiety, confusion, paranoia while using drugs and some weeks after its usage.
Some experts at The Johns Hopkins University showed that 4 days of drug taking can be a reason of some organism disorder 6 or 7 years later.
Night meetings, called "raves", are often a place where ecstasy is taken.
Many of those impacts mentioned after the use of amphetamine and cocaine are similar to the effects MDMA addicts have.
Disorders of the nervous system due to ecstasy usage are depressive mood, problems with sleep, anxiety, confusion, paranoia while using drugs and some weeks after its usage.
The effects ecstasy produce on the organism are muscle tension, teeth damage, bad vision, quickly moving eyes, sweating or freezing, and nausea.
Ecstasy includes components which vary from place to place, they often differ from MDMA content, for example caffeine or dextromethorphan. MDMA is a drug which is forbidden to produce, carry or market in America by the US Schedule I of controlled substances.
German drug producing company named Merck was the first in the United States to produce and patent MDMA.
Of the two groups of people who passed memory tests ? drug users and healthy people ? the first one had the worse results.


Heroin Facts
Heroin addict can take four doses of drug a day as well.
When an individual smokes or respires heroine, the effect of its taking comes not so quickly as after injecting it, NIDA statistics shows that all the ways to take the drug are easy to get used to.
More than 80% of drug addicts inject in somebody's presence, over 80% of people who did it alone are found dead of overdose.
Of the illegal drugs heroine is the mostly spread throughout the United States.
The National Household Survey in 1994 showed that 2.2 million of America's citizens have already taken heroin, 191,000 have taken it in last 30 days.
The feeling of pain caused by heroin can actually result in signs of physical diseases such as pneumonia and give a wait to treatment.
Current informal data tell us that people prefer to smoke or to snort heroine because they are sure this form of usage won't cause addiction to the drug.
The origin of heroine is morphine, a substance which is taken from the seed-pod of poppies in Asia.
Heroin is always alike brown or white powder.
As DAWN's Year End 1998 Emergency Department Data inform, 14 percent of all deals related to drugs, happening with emergency rooms were connected to heroine/morphine in 1998.
Heroin addiction is usually connected with serious health disorders, containing fatal overdose, damaged veins, infectious illnesses, as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis, spontaneous abortion.
When the impact of the drug is overcome, the individual may feel sleepy for some days. After this condition they again become normal.
In fact, if the individual starts taking heroin constantly after some time, it commonly results in addiction to drugs. The organism's natural reaction to the influence of drugs is lessening the amount of opioid receptors in the brain. So as a conclusion a drug addict must take a larger and larger dose time by time to receive the same impact.
When the dose of heroin comes out of the organism, the little number of opioid receptors and a little amount of heroin causes certain biochemical and physical changes, which are the sign of heroin symptoms, containing: anxiety, anger, pains in stomach, sweating, nausea, sniffing, total weakness, insomnia, feeling of heat and pain in muscles.
These awful feelings hard to overcome begin in 12 hours after not using heroin, there extreme point is two-three days and in a week they begin lessening. People rarely die from this impact.
Individuals, taking heroin, often overcome some special physical conditions. Some of them are the result of taking drugs, other are the result of a way they are taken, and others are the reason of lifestyle, which coincides with common and constant usage of heroin.


Marijuana Facts
Most marijuana addicts take the drug with the help of a cigarette which is called a "joint".
Impact of marijuana on the organism is extremely high within 10-30 minutes after it was taken and this effect may last for two or three hours.
According to statistics, marijuana is the most commonly taken illicit drug in the nation.
Marijuana is the reason of weakness of organism's immunity.
Actually, metabolites of marijuana can be found in organism by drug testing technologies in some days after it was taken. But in fact, for constant users these traces can be sometimes found in some weeks after the last usage of marijuana.
In 1995, 165,000 individuals who came into special clinics for treatment told that marijuana is the primary drug they had gotten used to and need help to give up its taking.
Taking this drug is the reason of some changes in the brain which can be commonly named with cocaine, alcohol and heroin.
Individuals taking marijuana have some kinds of troubles with respiration as people who smoke cigarettes have: croaking and coughing. These people have a larger opportunity to catch chest colds than those who don't take it. They also have more possibility to catch lung infections as pneumonia.
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, one of over 400 components in this drug plant, is responsible for the majority of marijuana's impacts on physical and psychical state. The concentration of drug is detected by the extract of THC it includes.
THC badly influences the neurons in the information-maintaining center of hippocampus, the part of brain which is responsible for studies, memory, and coinciding sensitive experience with feelings and coordination.
Marijuana using is the reason of poor blood flow to the brain.
Marijuana is often called "psychoactive" or "psychotropic" opiate and is really easy to get used to for some persons.
Marijuana has a special smell which is hard to clean off and you can feel it even after thorough, many-times' cleansing.
Second hand marijuana fume can also cause an impact.
Marijuana is a section of illicit opiates' market and most commonly taken drug in North America, that's why it concentrates the majority of petty crime and crimes, which correspond with drugs.
Scientific researches have identified that children, whom drug-users gave birth to, had smaller height, smaller weight and smaller sizes of heads, in comparison with those born from healthy mothers.
Statistics say that marijuana lessens the level of testosterone in men's organisms.
Taking marijuana may also result in low sperm concentration, which can be the reason of difficulty in giving birth to children.
Women who take THC cause the growing of testosterone levels in their systems which can be the reason of additional facial hair and acne, and the reason of damaging the reproductive women's function.
Marijuana is an illicit opiate which is most commonly taken in America. Over 69 million American citizens from the age of 12 have already used marijuana in their lifetime.
Studies show that marijuana cigarettes rushes five times as much carbon monoxide into blood and three times as much smoke into lungs as tobacco cigarettes produce.


Meth/Methamphetamie/Crystal Meth Facts
Methamphetamine is an opiate which is called among the users as Meth, Crystal, Ice, Crystal Meth, Crank, Glass, Chalk and Speed.
Methamphetamine is produced in different forms. It can be respired, smoke, orally taken or injected.
Meth has no smell, it's taking is difficult to feel.
In 1980s "ice", a form of methamphetamine used to smoke, became popular.
It's risky for methamphetamine addicts to be strongly poisoned by lead.
Even if you take small amount of meth, it can produce negative impact on your organism, as convulsions and hyperthermia; these symptoms may sometimes lead to death of the addict.
Crystal is a drug which badly affects nervous system and is easy to get used to.
Meth effects on the central nervous system are the reason of chemical reactions on brain, which make the organism feel its reserves of energy are unlimited and the person looses the necessary for other parts of body amounts of energy.
Meth's impacts to the organism are the same as with cocaine, but they are stronger and need larger doses.
Meth is like a crystal powder, it is dissolved in water or alcohol and has a bitter taste.
Studies say that bad impact on neurons including Dopamine and Serotonin is that nerve endings influenced are hard to recover, and this later may result in addict's illness of Parkinsons and Alzheiners in some years.
Meth addicts can be sober and awake for a long time and then they feel depressed and tired, even worse in comparison with the time before they used the drug.
Meth's impact on organism, shown in insomnia is usually the result of its continuous usage, which can lead addict to experience strange behavior, hallucinations, bizarre and extreme paranoia.
Women take meth twice as much as they take cocaine.
Methamphetamine can be a reason of death from heart damage, brain disorder and stroke.

http://detoxland.com/drug-facts.html

[mr.willy]

Marijuana is the most consistent gateway drug. More hard-drug users can link their first drug days to this substance. Young users are two to five times more likely to eventually move on to harder drugs. One study by The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showed that adolescents who used marijuana were 85 times more likely to use cocaine than adolescents who abstained. The same study's results showed that 60% percent of children who smoked it before they turned 15 years old would later go on to use cocaine.