![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:21
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
"In the early 1980s a committee of the National Academy of Science was asked to make a critical review of current knowledge about the effects of marijuana on health (National Academy of Sciences, 1982). The committee's report concluded that marijuana has a variety of effects, some of which are harmful to human health. Marij. use causes changes in the heart and circulation that are similar to those caused by stress. These changes might be a threat for individuals with high blood pressure or heart disease. Marij. smoke causes changes in the lungs that may lead to respiratory problems, but cancer producing agents in marijuana smoke are even more of a problem. Marijuana smoke contains about 50 percent more carcinogens than does tobacco smoke.
In males, marij. suppresses the production of male hormones, decreases the size and weight of the prostate gland and testes, and inhibits sperm production, although these effects appear to be reversible. Such specific reproductive effects have not been found for non-pregnant women. In pregnant women, however, THC crosses the placental barrier and may harm the unborn child. It can also be secreted in breast milk, thereby affecting nursing infants. Various studies have shown that marijuana blocks ovulation and can cause birth defects.
Marijuana impairs motor coordination and perception and makes driving and machine operation more hazardous. It also impairs short-term memory and slows learning. One particularly important point is that the impairment lasts for four to eight hours after the feeling of intoxication is over. This means that behavior may be affected even when the user is no longer aware of the presence of the drug."
From: Abnormal Psychology: The problem of maladaptive behavior. Sarason PhD & Sarason PhD, University of Washington.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:47:56
In reply to Re: Dangers of Marijuana (carcinogen and reprod..), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:40:21
Second Hand Smoke:
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
http://ash.org
Passive Smoking "Kills Babies" and Others [03/13-7]
Excerpts from SMOKING IN THE HOME 'KILLS BABIES'By David Fletcher, Health Correspondent, Electronic Telegraph [03/12-7]
Passive smoking kills up to 80 babies a year and is responsible for several hundred deaths of non-smokers from lung cancer, a Government committee of scientists said yesterday. It called for a ban on smoking in public places, which could include pubs, restaurants and public service buildings, and Sir Kenneth Calman, Chief Medical Officer, hinted at action being announced in a White Paper this summer.
But confirmation of the increased risk from passive smoking is likely to put pressure on firms that allow smoking. Workers can use existing health and safety legislation to sue employers by arguing that their health has been damaged by a smoky environment.
The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health said smoking caused 120,000 deaths a year, one fifth of all deaths in Britain, led to higher levels of heart disease and contributed to increasing asthma and wheezing illnesses in children. The committee said: "The enormous damage to health and life arising from smoking should no longer be accepted. The Government should take effective action to limit this preventable epidemic."
The report, by a committee chaired by Sir David Poswillo, of Guy's and St Thomas's hospitals, is the most authoritative statement by a Government body on tobacco and health for 10 years. Its findings provide the scientific evidence on smoking that will underpin a range of anti-smoking measures to be announced in a White Paper on smoking reduction.
It said children whose parents smoke were twice as likely to be the victims of sudden infant death and at a 50 per cent increased risk of suffering serious breathing difficulties. Those exposed to other people's smoke long term were up to 30 per cent more likely to contract lung cancer, resulting in several hundred extra deaths a year. Passive smoking also caused heart disease and represented "a substantial public health hazard".
Smoking in pregnancy caused increased risk of miscarriage, reduced birth weight and perinatal death. If parents continued to smoke there was an increased rate of cot deaths. The report said: "Sudden infant death syndrome, the main cause of perinatal death in the first year of life, is associated with exposure to environmental (other people's) tobacco smoke. The association is judged to be one of cause and effect."
The report, published on No Smoking Day, said: "Smoking should not be allowed in public service buildings or on public transport other than in designated and isolated areas. Where possible smoking should not be permitted in the workplace."
It comes three days after a row between the World Health Organization and tobacco manufacturers over passive smoking risk.
Manufacturers, who leaked findings of the WHO report, claimed that it found no extra risk of lung cancer from inhaling other people's smoke. WHO then issued a statement that said its study did show a link between lung cancer and passive smoking and accused the tobacco industry of staging a "wholly misleading" publicity stunt.
The chief medical officer, came down firmly on the side of WHO yesterday, he said its findings were in line with those of the latest report. "This report has a really powerful message and should not be missed."
Evidence in the report shows that half of all smokers are killed by the habit unless they quit. Those who live with a smoker have a 26 per cent increased risk of lung cancer and a 23 per cent increased risk of heart disease. People who smoke regularly have a 15 times greater risk of developing lung cancer compared with non-smokers.
One in five of the 400 cot deaths every year are the result of the mother smoking. If both parents smoke, their children have a 50 to 60 per cent increased chance of developing asthma.
click here to return to ASH's Home Web Page: http://ash.org
click here for more information about Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line, over the Internet
Presented as a public service by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
2013 H Street, N.W., Wash., DC 20006, USA, (202) 659-4310.
ASH is a 30-year-old national legal-action antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization which is entirely supported by tax-deductible contributions.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:08:42
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Missouri Dept. of Mental Health
Division of Alcohol and Drug AbuseWhat is marijuana?
Marijuana (grass, pot, weed) is the common name for a crude drug made from the plant Cannabis sativa. The main mind-altering (psychoactive) ingredient in marijuana is THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), but more than 400 other chemicals also are in the plant. A marijuana "joint" (cigarette) is made from the dried particles of the plant. The amount of THC in the marijuana determines how strong its effects will be. The type of plant, the weather, the soil, the time of harvest, and other factors determine the strength of marijuana. The strength of today's marijuana is as much as ten times greater than the marijuana used in the early 1970s. This more potent marijuana increases physical and mental effects and the possibility of health problems for the user. Hashish, or hash, is made by taking the resin from the leaves and flowers of the marijuana plant and pressing it into cakes or slabs. Hash is usually stronger than crude marijuana and may contain five to ten times as much THC. Pure THC is almost never available, except for research. Substances sold as THC on the street often turn out to be something else, such as PCP.
What are some of the immediate effects of smoking marijuana?
Some immediate physical effects of marijuana include a faster heartbeat and pulse rate, bloodshot eyes, and a dry mouth and throat. No scientific evidence indicates that marijuana improves hearing, eyesight, and skin sensitivity. Studies of marijuana's mental effects show that the drug can impair or reduce short-term memory, alter sense of time, and reduce ability to do things which require concentration, swift reactions, and coordination, such as driving a car or operating machinery.Are there any other adverse reactions to marijuana?
A common bad reaction to marijuana is the "acute panic anxiety reaction." People describe this reaction as an extreme fear of "losing control," which causes panic. The symptoms usually disappear in a few hours.What about psychological dependence on marijuana?
Long-term regular users of marijuana may become psychologically dependent. They may have a hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drug to get the same effect, and they may develop problems with their jobs and personal relationships. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.What are the dangers for young people?
One major concern about marijuana is its possible effects on young people as they grow up. Research shows that the earlier people start using drugs, the more likely they are to go on to experiment with other drugs. In addition, when young people start using marijuana regularly, they often lose interest and are not motivated to do their schoolwork. The effects of marijuana can interfere with learning by impairing thinking, reading comprehension, and verbal and mathematical skills. Research shows that students do not remember what they have learned when they are "high".How does marijuana affect driving ability?
Driving experiments show that marijuana affects a wide range of skills needed for safe driving -- thinking and reflexes are slowed, making it hard for drivers to respond to sudden, unexpected events. Also, a driver's ability to "track" (stay in lane) through curves, to brake quickly, and to maintain speed and the proper distance between cars is affected. Research shows that these skills are impaired for at least 4-6 hours after smoking a single marijuana cigarette, long after the "high" is gone. If a person drinks alcohol, along with using marijuana, the risk of an accident greatly increases. Marijuana presents a definite danger on the road.Does marijuana affect the human reproductive system?
Some research studies suggest that the use of marijuana during pregnancy may result in premature babies and in low birth weights. Studies of men and women may have a temporary loss of fertility. These findings suggest that marijuana may be especially harmful during adolescence, a period of rapid physical and sexual development.How does marijuana affect the heart?
Marijuana use increases the heart rate as much as 50 percent, depending on the amount of THC. It can cause chest pain in people who have a poor blood supply to the heart - and it produces these effects more rapidly than tobacco smoke does.How does marijuana affect the lungs?
Scientists believe that marijuana can be especially harmful to the lungs because users often inhale the unfiltered smoke deeply and hold it in their lungs as long as possible. Therefore, the smoke is in contact with lung tissues for long periods of time, which irritates the lungs and damages the way they work. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer. In addition, many marijuana users also smoke cigarettes; the combined effects of smoking these two substances creates an increased health risk.Can marijuana cause cancer?
Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer-causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. Examination of human lung tissue that had been exposed to marijuana smoke over a long period of time in a laboratory showed cellular changes called metaplasia that are considered precancerous. In laboratory test, the tars from marijuana smoke have produced tumors when applied to animal skin. These studies suggest that it is likely that marijuana may cause cancer if used for a number of years.How are people usually introduced to marijuana?
Many young people are introduced to marijuana by their peers - usually acquaintances, friends, sisters, and brothers. People often try drugs such as marijuana because they feel pressured by peers to be part of the group. Children must be taught how to say no to peer pressure to try drugs. Parents can get involved by becoming informed about marijuana and by talking to their children about drug use.What is marijuana "burnout"?
"Burnout" is a term first used by marijuana smokers themselves to describe the effect of prolonged use. Young people who smoke marijuana heavily over long periods of time can become dull, slow moving, and inattentive. These "burned-out" users are sometimes so unaware of their surroundings that they do not respond when friends speak to them, and they do not realize they have a problem.How long do chemicals from marijuana stay in the body after the drug is smoked?
When marijuana is smoked, THC, its active ingredient, is absorbed by most tissues and organs in the body; however, it is primarily found in fat tissues. The body, in its attempt to rid itself of the foreign chemical, chemically transforms the THC into metabolites. Urine tests can detect THC metabolites for up to a week after people have smoked marijuana. Tests involving radioactively labeled THC have traced these metabolites in animals for up to a month.Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1984.
Go to FACT Sheet List
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH
Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
1706 East Elm; P.O. Box 687
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102/center >
RSmith
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:19:40
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Say It Straight:
The Medical Myths of Marijuana--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
The Medical and Scientific Evidence
Political Issues: The California and Arizona Ballot Initiatives
Social and Cultural Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talking Points For Challenging the Medical Use of Marijuana Argument
The Medical and Scientific Evidence
There are over 10,000 scientific studies that prove marijuana is a harmful addictive drug. There is not one reliable study that demonstrates marijuana has any medical value.
Marijuana is an unstable mixture of more than 425 chemicals that convert to thousands when smoked. Many of these chemicals are toxic, psychoactive chemicals which are largely unstudied and appear in uncontrolled strengths.
The harmful consequences of smoking marijuana include, but are not limited to the following: premature cancer, addiction, coordination and perception impairment, a number of mental disorders including depression, hostility and increased aggressiveness, general apathy, memory loss, reproductive disabilities, and impairment to the immune system.
The Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the U. S. Public Health Service have rejected smoking crude marijuana as a medicine.
Medical marijuana has been promoted for "compassionate use" to assist people with cancer, AIDS and glaucoma. Scientific studies show the opposite is true; marijuana is damaging to individuals with these illnesses. In fact, people suffering with AIDS and glaucoma are being used unfairly by groups whose real agenda is to legalize marijuana.
AIDS: Scientific studies indicate marijuana damages the immune system, causing further peril to already weakened immune systems. HIV-positive marijuana smokers progress to full-blown AIDS twice as fast as non-smokers and have an increased incidence of bacterial pneumonia.
Cancer: Marijuana contains many cancer-causing substances, many of which are present in higher concentrations in marijuana than in tobacco.
Glaucoma: Marijuana does not prevent blindness due to glaucoma.
Marijuana is currently up to 25 times more potent than it was in the 1 960's, making the drug even more addictive.
Americans take their medicine in pills, solutions, sprays, shots, drops, creams, and sometimes in suppositories, but never by smoking. No medicine prescribed for us today is smoked.
The main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, THC (Tetra Hydrocannabinol), is already legally available in pharmaceutical capsule form by prescription from medical doctors. This drug, Marinol, is less often prescribed because of the potential adverse effects, and there are more effective new medicines currently available.
While a biomedical or causal relationship between marijuana and the use of hard drugs has not been established, the statistical association is quite convincing. Twelve to 17 year-olds who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not. Sixty percent of adolescents who use marijuana before age 15 will later use cocaine. These correlations are many times higher than the initial relationships found between smoking and lung cancer in the 1964 Surgeon General's report (nine to ten times higher).
Major medical and health organizations, as well as the vast majority of nationally recognized expert medical doctors, scientists and researchers, have concluded that smoking marijuana is not a safe and effective medicine. These organizations include: the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, National Sclerosis Association, the American Glaucoma Association, American Academy of Opthalmology, National Eye Institute, and the National Cancer Institute.
In 1994, a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug: highly addictive with no medical usefulness. The court noted that the pro-marijuana physicians had relied on non-scientific evidence.
Political Issues: The California and Arizona Ballot Initiatives
California's Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, states: "Section 11357 (criminal penalties), relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358 (criminal penalties), relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient 's primary caregiver, who possess or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."Arizona's Proposition 200, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996, states: "We must toughen Arizona 's laws against violent criminals on drugs. Any person who commits a violent crime while under the influence of illegal drugs should serve 100% of his or her sentence with absolutely no early release. " The proposition then goes on to say doctors may be permitted "to prescribe Schedule I controlled substances to treat a disease, or to relieve the pain and suffering of seriously ill and terminally ill patients."
Both of these ballot initiatives passed, with 56% support for Proposition 215 and 65% support for Proposition 200.
The language in these ballot initiatives for California and Arizona are so loosely worded that they basically legalize marijuana for everyone, sick or well, adult or child. Physicians will be able to legally dispense marijuana for migraines, depression or any other ailments.
Legalizing marijuana through the political process bypasses the safeguards established by the Food and Drug Administration to protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs. Every other prescribed drug must be tested according to scientifically rigorous protocols to ensure that it is safe and effective before it can be sold.
The California ballot initiative will make marijuana available without a written prescription, bypassing all established medical guidelines for dispensing drugs.
The Arizona ballot initiative will legalize all Schedule I drugs for medical use. Schedule I drugs are drugs that have a high potential for abuse and have no currently accepted medical use in treatment. Examples of Schedule I drugs are marijuana, LSD and heroin. Under Arizona's proposition all of these drugs would be essentially legalized for any so-called medical use.
Both of these laws allow for the possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes, however, buying and selling marijuana will remain illegal.
These ballot initiatives were passed through a major disinformation campaign financed by wealthy individuals from outside these states. The billionaire financier George Soros gave over half a million dollars to support these initiatives. Other significant contributors include George Zimmer, president and CEO of the Men's Wearhouse clothing store chain, Peter Lewis of The Progressive Corporation Insurance company in Ohio, and John Sperling, CEO of the Apollo Group, a Phoenix holding company for numerous educational institutions.
The true agenda for Proposition 215 and 200 is revealed when you examine the backers of these initiatives. The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML), the Drug Policy Foundation and the Cannabis Buyers Club in San Francisco have spearheaded the passage of the propositions. The radical legalization agenda of these groups leaves little doubt about their broader goal to legalize marijuana and other drugs. As reported in High Times magazine, the director of NORML expressly stated that the medical use of marijuana is an integral part of the strategy to legalize marijuana. A former director of NORML told an Emory University audience that NORML would be using the issue of medicinal marijuana as a red herring to give marijuana a good name.Social and Cultural Issues
The medical marijuana movement and its million dollar media campaign have helped contribute to the changing attitude among our youth that marijuana use is harmless. This softening in antidrug attitudes among teens has led to a 140 percent increase in marijuana use among high school seniors from 1994-95.
The pro-legalization organizations behind these ballot initiatives deny that there is a drug problem among our youth. As much as they seek to focus on people suffering with illnesses, we must keep the debate properly centered on the safety of our kids. In a time where drug use among kids has increased 78 percent in the last four years, this country cannot afford to undermine drug prevention efforts with these pro-marijuana ballot initiatives.
The strategy to link marijuana with current legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco is used regularly by the pro-legalization groups. The response to this argument is to state that current use among teens is 50 percent for alcohol, 34 percent for tobacco and 19 percent for marijuana. If we want to see marijuana use among youth equal to alcohol and tobacco, then we should go ahead and legalize marijuana.
Legalizing marijuana would add a third drug that combines some of the most serious risks of alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana offers both the intoxicating effects of alcohol and the long-term lung damage of tobacco.
Tobacco companies similarly advertised cigarettes as medicinal until the Federal Trade Commission put a stop to it in 1955. Medicinal marijuana is the "Joe Camel" of the promarijuana lobby, since it is children, the first time users, who are most impressed by these erroneous health claims.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:32:06
In reply to Re: Dangers of Marijuana (DEA-med.myths.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:19:40
DEA Congressional Testimony
Statement by:Donnie Marshall, Deputy Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
United States Department of JusticeBefore the:
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
Date:
June 16, 1999
Note: This document may not reflect changes made in actual delivery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on the issue of drug legalization, decriminalization and harm reduction.
I am not a scientist, a doctor, a lawyer, or an economist. So I'll do my best to leave the scientific, the medical, the legal and the economic issues to others. At the Drug Enforcement Administration, our mission is not to enact laws, but to enforce them. Based on our experience in enforcing drug laws, I can provide you with information and with our best judgment about policy outcomes that may help put into context the various arguments in this debate.
I would like to discuss what I believe would happen if drugs were legalized. I realize that much of the current debate has been over the legalization of so-called medical marijuana. But I suspect that medical marijuana is merely the first tactical maneuver in an overall strategy that will lead to the eventual legalization of all drugs.
Whether all drugs are eventually legalized or not, the practical outcome of legalizing even one, like marijuana, is to increase the amount of usage among all drugs. It's been said that you can't put the genie back in the bottle or the toothpaste back in the tube. I think those are apt metaphors for what will happen if America goes down the path of legalization. Once America gives into a drug culture, and all the social decay that comes with such a culture, it would be very hard to restore a decent civic culture without a cost to America's civil liberties that would be prohibitively high.
There is a huge amount of research about drugs and their effect on society, here and abroad. I'll let others better acquainted with all of the scholarly literature discuss that research. What I will do is suggest four probable outcomes of legalization and then make a case why a policy of drug enforcement works.
Legalization would boost drug use
The first outcome of legalization would be to have a lot more drugs around, and, in turn, a lot more drug abuse. I can't imagine anyone arguing that legalizing drugs would reduce the amount of drug abuse we already have. Although drug use is down from its high mark in the late 1970s, America still has entirely too many people who are on drugs.
In 1962, for example, only four million Americans had ever tried a drug in their entire lifetime. In 1997, the latest year for which we have figures, 77 million Americans had tried drugs. Roughly half of all high school seniors have tried drugs by the time they graduate.
The result of having a lot of drugs around is more and more consumption. To put it another way, supply drives demand. That is an outcome that has been apparent from the early days of drug enforcement.
What legalization could mean for drug consumption in the United States can be seen in the drug liberalization experiment in Holland. In 1976, Holland decided to liberalize its laws regarding marijuana. Since then, Holland has acquired a reputation as the drug capital of Europe. For example, a majority of the synthetic drugs, such as Ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine, now used in the United Kingdom are produced in Holland.
The effect of supply on demand can also be seen even in countries that take a tougher line on drug abuse. An example is the recent surge in heroin use in the United States. In the early 1990s, cocaine traffickers from Colombia discovered that there was a lot more profit with a lot less work in selling heroin. Several years ago, they began to send heroin from South America to the United States.
To make as much money as possible, they realized they needed not only to respond to a market, but to create a market. They devised an aggressive marketing campaign which included the use of brand names and the distribution of free samples of heroin to users who bought their cocaine. In many cases, they induced distributors to move quantities of heroin to stimulate market growth. The traffickers greatly increased purity levels, allowing many potential addicts who might be squeamish about using needles to snort the heroin rather than injecting it. The result has been a huge increase in the number of people trying heroin for the first time, five times as many in 1997 as just four years before.
I don't mean to imply that demand is not a critical factor in the equation. But any informed drug policy should take into consideration that supply has a great influence on demand. In 1997, American companies spent $73 billion advertising their products and services. These advertisers certainly must have a well-documented reason to believe that consumers are susceptible to the power of suggestion, or they wouldn't be spending all that money. The market for drugs is no different. International drug traffickers are spending enormous amounts of money to make sure that drugs are available to every American kid in a school yard.
Dr. Herbert Kleber, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and one of the nation's leading authorities on addiction, stated in a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine that clinical data support the premise that drug use would increase with legalization. He said:
"There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25 million...the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher than the current number. When drugs have been widely available -- as...cocaine was at the turn of the century -- both use and addiction have risen."
I can't imagine the impact on this society if that many people were abusers of cocaine. From what we know about the connection between drugs and crime, America would certainly have to devote an enormous amount of its financial resources to law enforcement.Legalization would contribute to a rise in crime.
The second outcome of legalization would be more crime, especially more violent crime. There's a close relationship between drugs and crime. This relationship is borne out by the statistics. Every year, the Justice Department compiles a survey of people arrested in a number of American cities to determine how many of them tested positive for drugs at the time of their arrest. In 1998, the survey found, for example, that 74 percent of those arrested in Atlanta for a violent crime tested positive for drugs. In Miami, 49 percent; in Oklahoma City, 60 percent.
There's a misconception that most drug-related crimes involve people who are looking for money to buy drugs. The fact is that the most drug-related crimes are committed by people whose brains have been messed up with mood-altering drugs. A 1994 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics compared Federal and State prison inmates in 1991. It found, for example, that 18 percent of the Federal inmates had committed homicide under the influence of drugs, whereas 2.7 percent committed homicide to get the money to buy drugs. The same disparities showed up for State inmates: almost 28 percent committed homicide under the influence versus 5.3 percent to get money to buy drugs.
Those who propose legalization argue that it would cut down on the number of drug-related crimes because addicts would no longer need to rob people to buy their drugs from illicit sources. But even supposing that argument is true, which I don't think that it is, the fact is that so many more people would be abusing drugs, and committing crimes under the influence of drugs, that the crime rate would surely go up rather than down.
It's clear that drugs often cause people to do things they wouldn't do if they were drug-free. Too many drug users lose the kind of self-control and common sense that keeps them in bounds. In 1998, in the small community of Albion, Illinois, two young men went on a widely reported, one-week, non-stop binge on methamphetamine. At the end of it, they started a killing rampage that left five people dead. One was a Mennonite farmer. They shot him as he was working in his fields. Another was a mother of four. They hijacked her car and killed her.
The crime resulting from drug abuse has had an intolerable effect on American society. To me, the situation is well illustrated by what has happened in Baltimore during the last 50 years. In 1950, Baltimore had just under a million residents. Yet there were only 300 heroin addicts in the entire city. That's fewer than one out of every 3,000 residents. For those 300 people and their families, heroin was a big problem. But it had little effect on the day-to-day pattern of life for the vast majority of the residents of Baltimore.
Today, Baltimore has 675,000 residents, roughly 70 percent of the population it had in 1950. But it has 130 times the number of heroin addicts. One out of every 17 people in Baltimore is a heroin addict. Almost 39,000 people. For the rest of the city's residents, it's virtually impossible to avoid being affected in some way by the misery, the crime and the violence that drug abuse has brought to Baltimore.
People who once might have sat out on their front stoops on a hot summer night are now reluctant to venture outdoors for fear of drug-related violence. Drug abuse has made it a matter of considerable risk to walk down the block to the corner grocery store, to attend evening services at church, or to gather in the school playground.
New York City offers a dramatic example of what effective law enforcement can do to stem violent crime. City leaders increased the police department by 30 percent, adding 8,000 officers. Arrests for all crimes, including drug dealing, drug gang activity and quality of life violations which had been tolerated for many years, increased by 50 percent. The capacity of New York prisons was also increased.
The results of these actions were dramatic. In 1990, there were 2,262 homicides in New York City. By 1998, the number of homicides had dropped to 663. That's a 70 percent reduction in just eight years. Had the murder rate stayed the same in 1998 as it was in 1990, 1629 more people would have been killed in New York City. I believe it is fair to say that those 1629 people owe their lives to this effective response by law enforcement.
Legalization would have consequences for society
The third outcome of legalization would be a far different social environment. The social cost of drug abuse is not found solely in the amount of crime it causes. Drugs cause an enormous amount of accidents, domestic violence, illness, and lost opportunities for many who might have led happy, productive lives.
Drug abuse takes a terrible toll on the health and welfare of a lot of American families. In 1996, for example, there were almost 15,000 drug-induced deaths in the United States, and a half-million emergency room episodes related to drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that 36 percent of new HIV cases are directly or indirectly linked to injecting drug users.
Increasing drug use has had a major impact on the workplace. According to estimates in the 1997 National Household Survey, a study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 6.7 million full-time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers are current users of illegal drugs.
Employees who test positive for drug use consume almost twice the medical benefits as nonusers, are absent from work 50 percent more often, and make more than twice as many workers' compensation claims. Drug use also presents an enormous safety problem in the workplace.
This is particularly true in the transportation sector. Marijuana, for example, impairs the ability of drivers to maintain concentration and show good judgment on the road. A study released by the National Institute on Drug Abuse surveyed 6,000 teenage drivers. It studied those who drove more than six times a month after using marijuana. The study found that they were about two-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in a traffic accident than those who didn't smoke before driving.
The problem is compounded when drivers have the additional responsibility for the safety of many lives. In Illinois, for example, drug tests were administered to current and prospective school bus drivers between 1995 and 1996. Two hundred tested positive for marijuana, cocaine and other drugs. In January 1987, a Conrail engineer drove his locomotive in front of an Amtrak passenger train, killing 16 people and injuring 170. It was later determined that just 18 minutes before the crash, both he and his brakeman had been smoking marijuana.
In addition to these public safety risks and the human misery costs to drug users and their families associated with drug abuse, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has put a financial price tag on this social ill. According to the 1999 National Drug Control Strategy, illegal drugs cost society about $110 billion every year.
Proponents of legalization point to several liberalization experiments in Europe -- for example, the one in Holland that I have already mentioned. The experiment in Holland is now 23 years old, so it provides a good illustration of what liberalizing our drug laws portends.
The head of Holland's best known drug abuse rehabilitation center has described what the new drug culture has created. The strong form of marijuana that most of the young people smoke, he says, produces "a chronically passive individual -- someone who is lazy, who doesn't want to take initiatives, doesn't want to be active -- the kid who'd prefer to lie in bed with a joint in the morning rather than getting up and doing something."
England's experience with widely available heroin shows that use and addiction increase. In a policy far more liberal than America's, Great Britain allowed doctors to prescribe heroin to addicts. There was an explosion of heroin use, and by the mid-1980s known addiction rates were increasing by about 30 percent a year. According to James Q. Wilson, in 1960, there were 68 heroin addicts registered with the British Government. Today, there are roughly 31,000.
Liberalization in Switzerland has had much the same results. This small nation became a magnet for drug users the world over. In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of the city called Platzspitz, dubbed "Needle Park." By 1992, the number of regular drug users at the park had reportedly swelled from a few hundred in 1982 to 20,000 by 1992. The experiment has since been terminated.
In April, 1994, a number of European cities signed a resolution titled "European Cities Against Drugs," commonly known as the Stockholm resolution. The signatories include some of the major European cities, like Berlin, Stockholm, Paris, Madrid, London, Warsaw and Moscow. As the resolution stated: "the answer does not lie in making harmful drugs more accessible, cheaper and socially acceptable. Attempts to do this have not proved successful. We believe that legalizing drugs will, in the long term, increase our problems. By making them legal, society will signal that it has resigned to the acceptance of drug abuse." I couldn't say it any better than that. After seeing the results of liberalization up close, these European cities clearly believe that liberalization is a bad idea.
You do not have to visit Amsterdam or Zurich or London to witness the effects of drug abuse. If you really want to discover what legalization might mean for society, talk to a local clergyman or an eighth grade teacher, or a high school coach, or a scout leader or a parent. How many teachers do you know who come and visit your offices and say, Congressman, the thing that our kids need more than anything else is greater availability to drugs. How many parents have you ever known to say, "I sure wish my child could find illegal drugs more easily than he can now."
Or talk to a local cop on the beat. Night after night, they deal with drug-induced domestic violence situations. They roll up to a house and there is a fight, and the people are high on pot or speed, or their husband or father is a heroin addict, and you can't wake him up or he's overdosed in the family bedroom. That's where you see the real effects of drugs.
Anyone who has ever worked undercover in drug enforcement has witnessed young children, 12- and 14-year old girls, putting needles into their arms, shooting up heroin or speed. To feed their habit, the kids start stealing from their parents and their brothers and sisters, stealing and pawning the watch that's been handed down from their grandmother to buy a bag of dope. Drug addiction is a family affair. It's a tragedy for everyone involved. And it wouldn't matter a bit to these families if the drugs were legal. The human misery would be the same. There would just be more of it.
Legalization would present a law enforcement nightmare
The fourth outcome of legalization would be a law enforcement nightmare. I suspect few people would want to make drugs available to 12-year old children. That reluctance points to a major flaw in the legalization proposal. Drugs will always be denied to some sector of the population, so there will always be some form of black market and a need for drug enforcement.
Consider some of the questions that legalization raises? What drugs will be legalized? Will it be limited to marijuana? If the principle is advanced that drug abuse is a victimless crime, why limit drug use to marijuana?
I know that there are those who will make the case that drug addiction hurts no one but the user. If that becomes part of the conventional wisdom, there will certainly be pressure to legalize all drug use. Only when people come to realize how profoundly all of us are affected by widespread drug abuse will there be pressure to put the genie back in the bottle. By then, it may be too late.
But deciding what drugs to legalize will only be part of the problem. Who will be able to buy drugs legally? Only those over 18 or 21? If so, you can bet that many young people who have reached the legal age will divert their supplies to younger friends. Of course, these young pushers will be in competition with many of the same people who are now pushing drugs in school yards and neighborhood streets.
Any attempt to limit drug use to any age group at all will create a black market, with all of the attendant crime and violence, thereby defeating one of the goals of legalization. That's also true if legalization is limited to marijuana. Cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine will be far more profitable products for the drug lords. Legalization of marijuana alone would do little to stem illegal trafficking.
Will airline pilots be able to use drugs? Heart surgeons? People in law enforcement or the military? Teachers? Truck drivers? Workers in potentially dangerous jobs like construction?
Drug use has been demonstrated to result in lower work-place productivity, and often ends in serious, life-threatening accidents. Many drug users are so debilitated by their habit that they can't hold jobs. Which raises the question, if drug users can't hold a job, where will they get the money to buy drugs? Will the right to use drugs imply a right to the access to drugs? If so, who will distribute free drugs? Government employees? The local supermarket? The college bookstore? If they can't hold a job, who will provide their food, clothing and shelter?
Virtually any form of legalization will create a patchwork quilt of drug laws and drug enforcement. The confusion would swamp our precinct houses and courtrooms. I don't think it would be possible to effectively enforce the remaining drug laws in that kind of environment.
Drug enforcement works
This is no time to undermine America's effort to stem drug abuse. America's drug policies work. From 1979 to 1994, the number of drug users in America dropped by almost half. Two things significantly contributed to that outcome. First, a strong program of public education; second, a strict program of law enforcement.
If you look over the last four decades, you can see a pattern develop. An independent researcher, R. E. Peterson, has analyzed this period, using statistics from a wide variety of sources, including the Justice Department and the White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy. He broke these four decades down into two periods: the first, from 1960 to 1980, an era of permissive drug laws; the second, from 1980 to 1995, an era of tough drug laws.
During the permissive period, drug incarceration rates fell almost 80 percent. During the era of tough drug laws, drug incarceration rates rose almost 450 percent. Just as you might expect, these two policies regarding drug abuse had far different consequences. During the permissive period, drug use among teens climbed by more than 500 percent. During the tough era, drug use by high school students dropped by more than a third.
Is there an absolute one-to-one correlation between tougher drug enforcement and a declining rate of drug use? I wouldn't suggest that. But the contrasts of drug abuse rates between the two eras of drug enforcement are striking.
One historian of the drug movement has written about America's experience with the veterans of Vietnam. As you may recall from the early 1970s, there was a profound concern in the American government over the rates of heroin use by our military personnel in Vietnam. At the time, U.S. Army medical officers estimated that about 10-15 percent of the lower ranking enlisted men in Vietnam were heroin users.
Military authorities decided to take a tough stand on the problem. They mandated a drug test for every departing soldier. Those who failed were required to undergo drug treatment for 30 days. The theory was that many of the soldiers who were using heroin would give it up to avoid the added 30 days in Vietnam. It clearly worked. Six months after the tests began, the percentage of soldiers testing positive dropped from 10 percent to two percent.
There may be a whole host of reasons for this outcome. But it demonstrates that there is nothing inevitable about drug abuse. In fact, the history of America's experience with drugs has shown us that it was strong drug enforcement that effectively ended America's first drug epidemic, which lasted from the mid-1880s to the mid-1920s.
By 1923, about half of all prisoners at the Federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas, were violators of America's first drug legislation, the Harrison Act. If you are concerned by the high drug incarceration rates of the late 1990s, consider the parallels to the tough drug enforcement policies of the 1920s. It was those tough policies that did much to create America's virtually drug-free environment of the mid-20th Century.
Drug laws can work, if we have the national resolve to enforce them. As a father, as someone who's had a lot of involvement with the Boy Scouts and Little Leaguers, and as a 30-year civil servant in drug enforcement, I can tell you that there are a lot of young people out there looking for help. Sometimes helping them means saying "no," and having the courage to back it up.
Let me tell you a story about one of them. He was a young man who lived near Austin, Texas. He had a wife who was pregnant. To protect their identities, I'll call them John and Michelle. John was involved in drugs, and one night we arrested him and some of his friends on drug charges. He went on to serve a six-month sentence before being turned loose.
Sometime after he got out, he and his wife came to our office looking for me. They rang the doorbell out at the reception area, and my secretary came back and said they were here to see me. I had no idea what they wanted. I was kind of leery, thinking they might be looking for revenge. But I went out to the reception area anyway.
John and Michelle were standing there with a little toddler. They said they just wanted to come in so we could see their new baby. And then Michelle said there was a second reason they came by. When he got arrested, she said, that's the best thing that ever happened to them.
We had been very wholesome people, she said. John was involved in sports in high school. He was an all-American guy. Then he started smoking pot. His parents couldn't reach him. His teachers couldn't reach him. He got into other drugs. He dropped out of high school. The only thing that ever got his attention, she said, was when he got arrested.
Meanwhile, John was listening to all this and shaking his head in agreement. He said that his high school coach had tried to counsel him, but he wouldn't listen to him. He said his big mistake was dropping out of sports. He thought that if he had stayed in sports he wouldn't have taken the route he did.
When I arrested those kids that night I had no idea of the extent to which I would ultimately help them out of their problems and influence their lives in a positive way. In 30 years of dealing with young Americans, I believe that John is more typical than not.
America spends millions of dollars every year on researching the issue of drugs. We have crime statistics and opinion surveys and biochemical research. And all of that is important. But what it all comes down to is whether we can help young people like John - whether we can keep them from taking that first step into the world of drugs that will ruin their careers, destroy their marriages and leave them in a cycle of dependency on chemicals.
Whether in rural areas, in the suburbs, or in the inner cities, there are a lot of kids who could use a little help. Sometimes that help can take the form of education and counseling. Often it takes a stronger approach. And there are plenty of young people, and older people as well, who could use it.
If we as a society are unwilling to have the courage to say no to drug abuse, we will find that drugs will not only destroy the society we have built up over 200 years, but ruin millions of young people like John.
Drug abuse, and the crime and personal dissolution and social decay that go with it, are not inevitable. Too many people in America seem resigned to the growing rates of drug use. But America's experience with drugs shows that strong law enforcement policies can and do work.
At DEA, our mission is to fight drug trafficking in order to make drug abuse the most expensive, unpleasant, risky, and disreputable form of recreation a person could have. If drug users aren't worried about their health, or the health and welfare of those who depend on them, they should at least worry about the likelihood of getting caught. Not only do tough drug enforcement policies work, but I might add that having no government policy, as many are suggesting today, is in fact a policy, one that will reap a whirlwind of crime and social decay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to try and answer any questions you might have.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:38:06
In reply to Druglegalization,decriminalization.,harm reduction, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:32:06
DEA:
WHAT MOTIVATES LEGALIZATION PROPONENTS?
Certain segments of the media, certain quarters in academia, and some frustrated Americans see legalization as an option that should be discussed. The forum participants discussed some of the factors possibly motivating advocates of legalization in order to appreciate the complexity of the debate. The group noted that many who advocate legalization are attempting to "normalize" drug use, and that many may be people who have tried drugs without significant adverse consequences.Others see potential profit in legalizing drugs, and still others simply believe that individual rights to take drugs should be protected. The group also acknowledged that the legalization concept appeals to people who may be looking for simple solutions to the devastating problem of drug abuse.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:43:46
In reply to Motivation for Legalization-DEA Forum, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:38:06
QUESTIONS TO ASK
There was consensus among the DEA forum participants on the need to ask a number of questions of those proposing legalization. Too often, the specifics of how to implement a system for the distribution and sale of legalized drugs are never discussed. Instead, simplistic rhetoric is used to deflect serious consideration of the many questions that must be thought through before one can evaluate the ramifications of their proposals. This is the great weakness of the pro-legalization position. Participants in the Forum suggested that the following questions be asked consistently in order to illustrate the shallowness of the legalization concept.Should all drugs be legalized?
Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs?Will they be limited only to people over 18, 21?
Will cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP be made available if people request them?
Who will sell drugs, the government, private companies?
Who will be liable for damages caused by drug use, and the activities of those taking drugs?
Who will collect the revenues generated by the drug sales?
How will a black market for cheaper drugs be controlled?
Who will bear the costs to society of increased drug use?
How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business? Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?
Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where?
How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect?Who will bear the costs of the expansion of social service and welfare programs that may be necessary to care for increased drug addicts through drug legalization? Would taxpayers bear this expense through increased taxes, would funding for other programs such as education be reduced?
Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized?
Will legal drugs require prescriptions?
Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, purchase drugs?
How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs?
Can we begin a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood for one year?
Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
In reply to Motivation for Legalization-DEA Forum, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:38:06
I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse. I saw them go to jail, the VA and other mental health hospitals, and the graveyard at the end. This is what happens to many with harmful drugs-I know from personal experience. I have suffered the effects of harmful chemicals, too, and to the present day. I have not smoked or drank or abused drugs now for over 14 years. I am the only one of my circle of friends left. I cry a lot (from so many losses) but have my life to be grateful for. :-) I also am well read and a researcher among other things. All I can say to those who use harmful addictive drugs is learn from these words, please.
Sincerely,
Pat
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:02:53
In reply to Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
To Those Who Seek To Be A Part of the Solution
KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO BEFORE SPEAKING AGAINST LEGALIZATION
Legalization can be a very complicated subject to discuss and it would be almost impossible for any individual to be completely prepared, current and credible on all the aspects of the legalization issue. Also, it's one thing to make your presentation effectively when you're the only speaker of the evening, quite another when equal time goes to someone speaking in favor of legalization, especially if that person is adept at public debate.No matter what the setting, we recommend couching your message in affirmative terms because legalization is about drugs and drugs are as controversial a topic as any facing the American people. Many times, even those listeners who have no sympathy for the idea of legalization might say, for instance, "Can't we do better somehow than we're doing now about our drug problems?" The answer is clearly yes. This question, by the way, provides an opportunity for you to remind the audience that they must help deal with the problem. It is your chance to ask them: Do you know about the demand reduction and prevention solutions at work in your community, in your neighborhood, in the schools, in job training and workplace settings, in jails and in treatment and prevention centers? What do you do now, and what are you willing to do? How much are you prepared to spend to make it better?
The discussion can and usually will touch on several areas of scholarship: medical science, the behavioral and social sciences, law and criminal justice, economics, international matters, and historical and cross-cultural analysis. While it is not necessary to be a specialist in all the disciplines, it is wise to be knowledgeable and comfortable with some essential questions and answers.
Arguments in favor of legalization, as mentioned earlier, often draw overly broad conclusions from limited data or research, rely on hypothetical arguments and lean heavily on research that is outdated, discredited, or "uncredited," meaning that it hasn't been subjected to rigorous review by the researcher's colleagues prior to publication.
Not all discussions of legalization issues take place in formal or structured settings. Frequently, questions are raised in the course of presentations on other subjects, often in the context of discussions such as "Can we really stop the flow of drugs in the United States?" The answers you provide to these inquiries may be even more important and persuasive than your views offered in a debate setting because they are specific and direct, and may occur in one-on-one situations
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:10:08
In reply to Speaking Against Legalization, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:02:53
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL RESOURCES
DEA is actively involved in education efforts designed to reduce the demand for drugs throughout our nation. These efforts are coordinated through DEA's Demand Reduction Section. DEA's Demand Reduction Section seeks to provide current, accurate, and persuasive information to a myriad of audiences in an effort to build support for effective drug enforcement, while educating the public about the disastrous effects of drugs.The DEA differentiates itself from other federal entities, in that it neither conducts research nor disburses grants. DEA's unique approach is to provide assistance to grassroots organizations. In many cases, what state and local officials, as well as private organizations, need most is a plan of action. This is where DEA's Demand Reduction Coordinators prove to be invaluable assets to communities. In each of DEA's 22 domestic offices, a Special Agent (S/A) is assigned the role of Demand Reduction Coordinator (DRC). As S/As and DRCs, these men and women bring a unique perspective to the drug prevention arena. They possess a clear understanding of the overall drug situation, and a broad range of experience in working with other law enforcement agencies. A Demand Reduction Coordinator may be contacted by consulting the following list:
ATLANTA FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, & Tennessee)
Drug Enforcement Administration
75 Spring Street, S.W., Room 740
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 730-3198CARIBBEAN FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Barbados
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica,
Trinidad, Tobago, & Curacao)
Drug Enforcement Administration
P.O. Box 2167
San Juan, PR 00922-2167
(787) 775-1727CHICAGO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Northern and Central Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, & North Dakota)
Drug Enforcement Administration
575 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 226-7977DALLAS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Northern Texas, & Oklahoma)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1880 Regal Row
Dallas, TX 75235
(214) 640-0820DETROIT FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Michigan, Ohio, & Kentucky)
Drug Enforcement Administration
431 Howard Street
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 234-4310EL PASO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: El Paso, TX, New Mexico)
Drug Enforcement Administration
660 N. Mesa Hills, Suite 2000
El Paso, TX 79912
(915) 832-6095HOUSTON FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Southern Texas)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1433 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77027-9506
(713) 693-3152KANSAS CITY RESIDENT OFFICE
(Serving Missouri)
Midwest HIDTA
10220 Executive Hills Boulevard, Suite 620
Kansas City, MO 64153
(816) 746-4911LOS ANGELES FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Central California, Nevada, & Hawaii)
Drug Enforcement Administration
255 East Temple Street, 20th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5632MIAMI FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Florida)
Drug Enforcement Administration
8400 N.W. 53rd Street
Miami, FL 33166
(305) 590-4604NEWARK FIELD DIVISION
(Serving New Jersey)
Drug Enforcement Administration
80 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(973) 273-5095NEW ENGLAND FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Maine, & New Hampshire)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1441 Main Street, 10th Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
(413) 785-0284NEW ORLEANS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, & Mississippi)
Drug Enforcement Administration
3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1800
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 840-1032NEW YORK FIELD DIVISION
(Serving New York)
Drug Enforcement Administration
99 Tenth Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
(212) 337-2906PHILADELPHIA FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Pennsylvania & Delaware)
Drug Enforcement Administration
600 Arch Street, Suite 10224
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 861-3288PHOENIX FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Arizona)
Drug Enforcement Administration
3010 North Second Street, Suite 301
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 664-5630ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Colorado, Utah, & Wyoming)
Drug Enforcement Administration
115 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5116
(303) 705-7353SAN DIEGO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Southern California)
Drug Enforcement Administration
4560 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 616-4374SAN FRANCISCO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Northern California)
Drug Enforcement Administration
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 12215
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-7883SEATTLE FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska)
Drug Enforcement Administration
400 2nd Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 553-1318ST. LOUIS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Missouri, Southern Illinois, Iowa, Kansas Nebraska, & South Dakota)
Drug Enforcement Administration
7911 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 538-4752WASHINGTON FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland, & West Virginia)
Drug Enforcement Administration
801 I Street N.W., Room 514
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 305-8639Assistance may also be obtained by contacting:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Demand Reduction Section
Washington, D.C. 20537
(202) 307-7936Additional Resources
Ms. Sue Rusche, Executive Director
National Drug Information Center of Families in Action
Century Plaza II
2957 Clairmont Road, N.E., Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 248-9676Ms. Susan L. Dalterio, Ph. D.
University of Texas at San Antonio
6900 West Loop 1604
San Antonio, TX 78249
(210) 458-5924Mr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D.
President, Phoenix House
164 W. 74th Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 595-5810Mr. Robert L. Dupont, M.D.
President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.
6191 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 231-9010
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:13:35
In reply to DEA Resources , posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:10:08
U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
Demand Reduction Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:Benjamin, Daniel K. "Undoing Drugs: Beyond Legalization." Basic Books, 1991.
Bugliosi, Vincent. "Drugs in America: the Case for Victory." Knightsbridge, 1991.
Gorman, Thomas J. "The Myths of Legalization." California Narcotic Officers' Association in cooperation with the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, 1994.
Krauss, Melvyn and Lazear, Edward P., editors. "Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States." Hoover Institution Press, 1991.
Inciardi, James A., editor. "The Drug Legalization Debate." Sage Publications, 1991.
Szasz, Thomas Stephen. "Our Right to Drugs: the Case for a Free Market." Praeger, 1992.
Zimring, Franklin E. "The Search For Rational Drug Control." Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Newspapers and Newsletters:
Auletta, Ken. "Six Doses of Reality Are Injected in the Argument for Legal Drugs." New York Daily News, December 17, 1989.
Bennett, Sandra. "Therapeutic Marijuana: Fact or Fiction." Drug Watch, July 1992.
Bennett, William. "Mopping up after the Legalizers: What the 'Intellectual' Chorus Fails To Tell You." Washington Times, December 15, 1989.
Bent, Daniel. "An Eye Opener for Judges on the Health Effects of Marijuana." Drug Watch, March 1992.
Buckley, William F., Jr. "The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit." New York Daily News, June 10, 1993.
Cohen, Roger. "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts." New York Times, February 11, 1992.
Collins, Christopher and Collins, Susan. "What Savings?" Baltimore Sun, March 20, 1990.
Corcoran, David. "Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate." New York Times, November 27, 1989.
DuPont, Robert L. and Goldfarb, Ronald L. "Drug Legalization: Asking for Trouble." Washington Post, January 26, 1990.
Kerr, Peter. "The Unspeakable Is Debated: Should Drugs Be Legalized?" New York Times, May 15, 1988.
Kilpatrick, James J. "Drug War: Good News, Bad News." The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, September 13, 1990.
Krauthammer, Charles. "Legalize? No. Deglamorize." Washington Post, May 20, 1988.
Labaton, Stephen. "Reno Questions Drug Policy's Stress on Smuggling." New York Times, May 8, 1993.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Heavy Legal Drug Use in Spain Prompts Calls for Tougher Laws." Christian Science Monitor, November 7, 1991.
Lapey, Janet D. "Marijuana as Medicine Refuted by NIH Scientists." Drug Watch, August 1992.
Mann, Peggy. "Reasons To Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.
Meckler, Laura. "Seven in 10 Drug Users Are Full-Time Workers." Associated Press, September 8, 1999.
Moore, Mark H. "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success." New York Times, October 17, 1989.
Ostrow, Ronald J. "Study Finds Acceptance of Marijuana for Therapy." The Oregonian, May 1, 1991.
Peterson, Robert E. "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, July 1988.
Pike, Otis. "Drug War Needs New Direction." Chicago Sun-Times, May 13, 1993.
Radonich, Timothy. "Controlling Drugs through Legalization." Northwest Libertarian (newsletter), September 1990.
Raspberry, William. "Legalize Drugs? No." Washington Post, May 14, 1988.
Regional Drug Initiative of Portland, Oregon. "Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs," September 1990.
Rosenthal, A.M. "Dismantling the War." New York Times, May 18, 1993.
Sander, Tom. " 'Weedotherapy' Works: Government Should Legalize Marijuana as Medicine." Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, March 6, 1993.
Schmoke, Kurt. "Decriminalizing Drugs: It Just Might Work-And Nothing Else Does." Washington Post, May 15,1988.
Schuchard, Marsha Keith. "Marijuana: An Environmental Pollutant." Parents' Resource Institute for Drugs (PRIDE).
Schuckit, Marc A. "Should We Legalize Cocaine?" Drug Abuse and Alcoholism Newsletter, June 1990.
Skolnick, Jerome H. "Drugs: More or Fewer Controls?" Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1988.
Thomas, Kathy. "On Legalizing Marijuana: Let the FDA Do Its Job!" Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.
U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. "Prisoner Survey Provides Look at Violent Crime." Violent Crime NET, May 1993.
Zucchino, David. "A Push to Make Drugs Legal." Philadelphia Inquirer, July 5, 1992.
(Authors of following articles were not identified.)
"Business Tax Incentives Can Help Win Drug War," Washington Times, December 15, 1989.
"The Case for Slavery." New York Times, September 26, 1989.
"Drug report: Drop in Teen and Casual Use," U.S.A. Today, September 6, 1990.
"EURAD Examines Harm Reduction." EURAD Newsletter, Spring 1991.
"How Much is a Baby Worth?" New York Times, December 15, 1989.
"Making Drugs Legal Won't Win the War." USA Today, December 15, 1989.
"Mistakes of the Legalizers," The Washington Post, April 13, 1989.
"Needle Exchange Is an Approval of Drug Use in the Most Destructive Way." Drug Watch, March 1992.
"Poll Finds 90% Favor Keeping Drugs Illicit." New York Times, September 15, 1988.
"Student Exercise for Marijuana Activist Group Given National Media Attention To Influence Court Case." Drug Prevention Newsletter, June 1991.
"There are Better Ways than Legalization To Fight the Country's Drug Problems."
Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, April 17, 1993.
Periodicals:
Bennett, Georgette. "Legalization: Would It Work?" National Law Journal, September 26, 1988.
Courtwright, David T. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. No." (See also entry for Nadelmann, Ethan A.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.
Current, William F. "Arguments Against Legalization of Illicit Drugs," Employee Assistance Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1990.
Currie, Elliott. "Towards a Policy on Drugs." Dissent, Winter 1993.
Dennis, Richard J. "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs." The Atlantic, November 1990.
Farley, Christopher John. "Hello Again, Mary Jane." Time, April 19, 1993.
France, Steve. "Should We Fight Or Switch?" American Bar Association Journal, February 1990.
Kleiman, Mark A.R. "Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized? Legalization: A Simplistic Solution to a Complex Problem." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.
Kleber, Herbert, M.D. "Our Current Approach to Drug Abuse-Progress, Problems, Proposals." New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, Vol. 330, No. 5.
Kondracke, Morton M. "Don't Legalize Drugs." The New Republic, June 27,1988.
Linn, Lawrence S. and Yager, Joel. "Physician Drug Legalization Fraught With Danger, Uncertainty." Narcotics Control Digest, June 22, 1988.
Lipman, Arthur G. "The Argument against Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.
Montagne, Michael. "The Argument for Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. Yes." (See also entry for Courtright, David T.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.
Sweezy, Martha. "Why Heroin Should Be Legalized." Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 61, #2, 1991.
Teasley, David L. "Drug Legalization and the 'Lessons' of Prohibition." Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring 1992.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary." Drugs & Crime Data, November 1992.
Weisheit, Ralph A. and Johnson, Katherine. "Exploring the Dimensions of Support for Decriminalizing Drugs." Journal of Drug Issues, Winter 1992.
Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Commentary, February 1990.
"Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs." Drug Abuse Update, September 1988.
"Physicians' Attitudes Toward the Legalization of Marijuana Use." Western Journal of Medicine, June 1989.
"Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized: Legalization is the Answer." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.
Other Sources:
Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. "Marijuana Scheduling Petition, Denial of Petition, Remand. 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. 86-22]" (Administrative Law hearing).
"Drug Legalization: Getting to No." Dr. William Olson, 1994.
"National Drug Control Strategy: Reclaiming Our Communities from Drugs and Violence," The White House, February 1994.
"Panacea or Chaos? The Legalization of Drugs in America." Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., presented in Distinguished Lecturer in Substance Abuse lecture series, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, January 15, 1993.
Russell, John S. and McNicoll, Andre. "The British Experience with Narcotic Dependency," Alcohol and Drug Commission, Ministry of Health, Province of British Columbia.
"Report of the International Control Board for 1992." International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations.
"State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities." Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 1993.
"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box." Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colombia University, September 1995.
Surveys/Studies:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, August, 1999.
University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1998, December, 1998.
University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1997, December, 1997.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1999 CASA Back to School Teen Survey, August, 1999.
Partnership for a Drug Free America. 1998 Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey, April, 1999.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, September, 1999.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1997 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Annual Report, 1997.
Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, March, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:25:35
In reply to DEA Bibliography, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:13:35
You may not mean to but the usage of illegal harmful drugs supports the following domestic drug traffickers:
DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING GANGS
Colombia- and Mexicobased traffickers in the United States are focused primarily on the wholesale drug market. They are significantly less involved in drug trafficking at the street, or "retail" level. The same is largely true of the traffickers from the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Nigeria. This insulates them, to some degree, from detection by law enforcement.Throughout the United States, lowerlevel dealing in drugs is being increasingly handled by violent and highly organized criminal gangs. There are three major types of gangs involved in street sales of drugs: prison gangs, traditional street gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Prison Gangs
Since prison gangs operate in a detached environment, the DEA is limited in its ability to target them. But the DEA will often target associates who assist in the drug trafficking process and are not currently incarcerated.Prison gangs are organized generally along racial lines. They were originally formed by prisoners to protect themselves from other inmates. For example, the Mexican Mafia was established in 1957 at the Deuel Vocational Center in Tracy, California, by Hispanic inmates to counter pressure from African-American inmates. Today, through an elaborate network of distributors and dealers, it controls part of the drug trade in Southern California.
The Black Guerilla Family had its origins in the black power movement of the 1960s. It was organized at California's San Quentin State Penitentiary in 1966. Today the Black Guerillas distribute heroin and cocaine to the California street gangs under its influence. Another San Quentin gang later became known as the Aryan Brotherhood and adopted an ideology of white supremacy. Currently, its primary interest is distributing drugs.
Two prison factions developed in the Illinois penal system: the People Nation and the Folks Nation. Two gangs under the rubric of the People Nation, the Vice Lords and the Latin Kings, are dedicated to the preservation of Latin heritage and distribute drugs in their respective neighborhoods. Prominent among the Folks Nation are the Black Gangster Disciples, a gang that has been a target of the DEA in recent years. Theories on what "Folks" is an acronym for vary. Some members interpret the name as "Follow and Obey all Laws of Kings," others call themselves "Followers of Lord King Satan."
Street Gangs
Many street gangs confine their drug trafficking activities to their own neighborhoods. However, several gangs have gone national. Such "supergangs" are hard to distinguish from major organized crime groups. For example, two supergangs, the Crips and the Bloods, have their origin in Los Angeles in the late 1960s. At first, their activities were limited to large urban areas. But these two gangs now have more than 1,000 affiliates in more than 100 cities. Many of the affiliates are "cultural" rather than "structural," meaning they take a gang's recognizable name but are not necessarily associated with other chapters. Almost half of these cities with Crips and Bloods associates are small to midsize, with populations of less than 100,000. Because drugs often yield much higher profits in small cities and in rural areas than they do in big cities, members of both gangs have moved to smaller cities and set up distribution networks that reach back to their counterparts in the large cities and sometimes to the major international trafficking groups. Street gangs frequently have ties to prison gangs. Leaders are often former prisoners and take their orders from fellow gang members still in prison.Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
Outlaw motorcycle gangs emerged following World War II. At first, they focused on riding motorcycles and throwing wild parties, but they increasingly turned to violence. In 1947, a group of outlaw bikers attending a motorcycle rally destroyed the town of Hollister, California, when one of its members was arrested. The biker gangs gradually moved into criminal pursuits, often working closely with the traditional mafia. Today the four major biker gangs are the Hells Angels, the Outlaws, the Bandidos, and the Pagans. A significant source of income for most biker gangs is drug trafficking, especially the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.Gang Activities
Although there is considerable debate over what constitutes a gang, there are several characteristics that seem to be common to the criminal gangs mentioned above. Many of these modern gangs are highly organized, they exhibit a willingness to use violence to accomplish their objectives, and they rely heavily on drug trafficking for their major source of income.Gangs like the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, and Hells Angels are far more organized than the term "gang" might suggest. Many gangs have a structured hierarchy, complete with presidents, vice presidents, and secretary treasurers. But they are not as dependent upon their leadership as traditional organized crime families. Quite often a gang will continue to function even after its leaders have been convicted and imprisoned. New members are carefully screened to determine whether they meet the personality traits needed for the violent, secretive world of gang life. Prospective Hells Angels often take polygraph tests and are required to commit a witnessed felony in order to prove their loyalty, thus making it extremely difficult for undercover law enforcement officers to infiltrate the organization.
The nature of their criminal enterprises forces them to create relationships with other criminal organizations, particularly those who distribute the illegal drugs. They frequently meet with other gangs to carve up markets, arrange for the sharing of drug shipments, pool money for buying large shipments of drugs, and negotiate disputes. Some of the larger street gangs have international connections with suppliers in Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, and other countries. The secretive nature of their operations forces them to develop a tight "command and control" structure. The profits they make from the drug trade enable them to invest in highly sophisticated technology, such as encryption devices to conceal their communications and a variety of telecommunications equipment to keep them in constant contact with their suppliers and with each other.
Gangs also use weapons to protect their turf and their drug operations from one another. There was a time when gang members relied on switchblade knives and homemade zip guns. Today, the huge profits from drug trafficking have given gangs access to wellstocked arsenals of sophisticated arms, including semiautomatic military assault weapons, .50 caliber machine guns, and a variety of explosives. Along with the sophisticated weapons comes a willingness to use them. In fact, it is impossible to join or get ahead in many gangs without committing a certifiable crime, sometimes including homicide. La Nuestra Familia, a gang of MexicanAmerican convicts, even keeps their own "Ten Most Wanted List." One can become a "captain" or a "general" in the organization by murdering someone on the list.
Gangs who, in effect, take over towns and neighborhoods are often able to maintain their drug distribution networks by demonstrating their superior firepower and their commitment to use violence to achieve their ends. Gangs have been noted for using violence against witnesses, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors. A Hells Angels motto, for example, sums up that organization's cavalier attitude about violence: "Three people can keep a secret, if two are dead."
Many of the criminal gangs involved in drug trafficking have followed a similar pattern: what starts as a loosely organized outlet for school dropouts and social misfits becomes a tightly organized criminal enterprise. Among their many criminal activities are murderforhire, auto theft, extortion, prostitution, and insurance fraud.
But no activity is more profitable than drug trafficking. Because they have every incentive to spend most of their time and energies on the most profitable part of their business, modern street gangs have become, to a great extent, smaller versions of the large, international drug groups with whom they do business. The huge amounts of money that pour in from the drug trade corrupt the communities in which the gangs live. Ten-year olds have been known to make several hundred dollars a week just for being lookouts for crack cocaine houses. The enormous profits raise the stakes in the drug trade, leading to violent battles over turf. The profits also finance the purchase of sophisticated weaponry and communications technology, often overwhelming law enforcement agencies in smaller jurisdictions.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:32:07
In reply to Domestic Trafficking, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:25:35
Whether one thinks that illegal drugs should be legal or should not be legal, one needs to take the fact into consideration that he or she is supporting this type of activity indirectly when he or she uses illegal drugs:
OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
Background: For decades, the trafficking of drugs within the United States was principally controlled by traditional organized crime groups that lived and operated inside the country. According to the 1986 President's Commission on Law Enforcement, from the 1950s to the 1970s, La Cosa Nostra "controlled an estimated 95 percent of all the heroin entering New York City, as well as most of the heroin distributed throughout the United States."In a drug trafficking network that became known as the French Connection, New York City-based crime families purchased heroin from Corsican sources, who worked with French sailors operating from Marseilles, to transship the drug directly to the United States. Ultimately, the heroin was distributed throughout the United States by domestic organized crime families to street-level dealers working in low-income, minority communities. However, in 1972, the French Connection was effectively dismantled by French and U.S. drug agents, ending the domestic mafia's monopoly on heroin distribution in the United States.
The demise of the French Connection, coupled with the subsequent emergence of criminal syndicates based in Colombia, marked significant evolution in the international drug trade. These new traffickers introduced cocaine into the United States on a massive scale, launching unparalleled waves of drug crimes and violence. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the international crime syndicates continued to increase their wealth and dominance over the U.S. drug trade, overshadowing the domestic crime families.
Today, the traffic in illegal drugs, from manufacture to final street-level sale, is controlled by international organized crime syndicates from Colombia, Mexico, and other countries. From their headquarters overseas, foreign drug lords produce and distribute unprecedented volumes of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana throughout the United States.
These traffickers model their operations after international terrorist groups. They maintain tight control of their workers through highly compartmentalized cell structures that separate production, shipment, distribution, money laundering, communications, security, and recruitment. Traffickers have at their disposal the most technologically advanced airplanes, boats, vehicles, radar, communications equipment, and weapons that money can buy. They have also established vast counterintelligence capabilities and transportation networks.
Today's international criminal organizations pose a greater challenge to law enforcement than any pervious criminal group in our history. While there are numerous characteristics that these international groups have in common with traditional organized crime -- their penchant for violence and their reliance on corruption and intimidation as tools of their business -- their sheer power, influence, and sophistication put them in a category by themselves. Whereas traditional mafia families would corrupt officers and judges, today's international drug organizations corrupt entire institutions of government.
The DEA continually demonstrates its ability and willingness to fight corruption and terrorism by international drug traffickers. For example, the DEA worked openly with the Colombian National Police (CNP) to capture Pablo Escobar, a leader of the infamous Medellin cartel, who was responsible for waging a campaign of terror and bribery. These efforts ultimately led to the death of Escobar during a shoot-out with the CNP.
Despite significant law enforcement successes in dismantling several major international trafficking organizations, international criminal groups continue to pose a significant threat to the welfare of the American people. The DEA, in cooperation with foreign, state, local, and federal counterparts, is taking aggressive action, both internationally and domestically, to combat these organizations and repair the damage they have inflicted on citizens and communities in the United States.
Posted by dennis on January 28, 2001, at 20:44:50
In reply to Re: Dangers of Marijuana (DEA-med.myths.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:19:40
Well, if your trying to convince me that cannabis is harmful and should be illegal then you have failed. As I said before I personally believe cannabis is one of the most valuable medicinal drugs there is, and always has been for thousands even millions of years, and I believe that I as a human being living on this planet have rights, I have the right to be free and live my life however I so choose, no matter how harmful you think cannabis may be, you have no right to stop me from useing it, the government has no right to punish anyone for useing anything on this earth as long as there not hurting anybody else, I believe cannabis will be at least decriminalized in the future, and I look forward to that day. The netherlands is a example of a good drug policy, they recognize that the harmful effects of prohibition are many times greater than the effects of cannabis itself, they understand that they cannot make cannabis go away just by outlawing it and makeing harsh penalties for its use, and what are the negative results of the netherlands policy towards cannabis, there are no negative results. Drug use has not gone up, and law enforcement resources are not wasted, peoples personal lives are not harmed by harsh fines and prison time, you can talk about its harmful effects all you want, but lets face it, almost everything is harmful, I think the real issue is society is afraid of cannabis, and will look for anything, will go to great lengths to prove it is harmful enough to keep its illegal classification.
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 22:26:13
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Pat, maybe you missed my point, maybe not. I 've read these studies, in general I am a well read person on many subjects. The common thread of all the studies you mention is that they are gov. funded, therefor are biased. the gov is not going to fund a study by a researcher who might turn up positive results. The outcome has to fit
the gov stance so this is clearly not the genisis
of a true unbiased study with good methodology. garbage in, garbage out. To me, all of this proves nothing, as the studies are biased. Junk science.James
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 23:08:22
In reply to Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
> I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse
james here.....
Am I know people who have led normal lives, with
no negative outcomes, using illicits.James
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 0:02:58
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
I have seen 3 pdocs in 16 years, the first I chose, the last 2 were assigned by HMO. All 3 have had no problems with my regular pot use. All
3 stated (for me) that the only negative problems they were conserned about was the legal issues.james
Posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 23:08:22
> > I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse
>
> james here.....
>
> Am I know people who have led normal lives, with
> no negative outcomes, using illicits.
>
######> I lost both my Mom and Dad to heavy drug usage.
My Ex- husband is in the throes of meth addiction, he claims that it makes him feel better.His Meth addiction has progressed to Heroin abuse and needle usage
I'm a recovering alcoholic and in the last 6 years have also seen friends auffer grave consequences from drug abuse.
From personal experience, I know that a drug addict will go to any lenght to justify his/ her addiction.
FACT-- PEOPLE DIE FROM DRUG ABUSE.just my personal opinion, i do not want to offend anybody but at the same time i take this issue very seriously.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 0:59:23
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
> FACT-- PEOPLE DIE FROM DRUG ABUSE.
james here.....Where did you get the idea that anyone is saying
that some people don't die of drug abuse ?j
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 2:33:57
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Haworth Press is pleased to announce that the charter issue, volume 1,
#1 of
Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics: Studies in Endogenous, Herbal &
Synthetic
Cannabinoids is now available. This is the first academic scientific
journal
devoted to the study of clinical cannabis, endocannabinoids and
synthetic
cannabinoids.Contents of the charter issue include a seminal review of medical
marijuana
by Leo Hollister, a review of long-suppressed results of state
sponsored
trials of cannabis as an anti-emetic in cancer chemotherapy by Rik
Musty and
Rita Rossi, a review of endocannabinoid chemistry and therapeutic
opportunities by Vincenzo di Marzo, a history of cannabis usage in
Arabic
medicine by Indalecio Lozano, molecular pharmacology of cannabis and
eicosanoids by John McPartland, a biography and translation (by Ethan
Russo)
of a case report by Jacques-Joseph Moreau on cannabis usage in
treatment of
a mental condition in 1857, an analysis of cannabis and the US
Controlled
Substances Act by Jon Gettmann, and book reviews of Hashish! by Rob
Clarke,
and The Science of Marijuana by Leslie Iversen.Issue 2 of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics (April) will contain
articles on
cannabis in medieval Azerbaijan, a translation of a selection on
cannabis
from the Byzantine Greek, Simeon Seth, a discussion of marijuana and
music,
and an exhaustive review article on cannabis and headache treatment.Issues 3 and 4 (December) will appear in a double-theme issue
pertaining to
issues of Cannabis, HIV/AIDS and Harm Reduction.The publisher of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics has generously
offered to
provide a free copy of the charter issue to anyone requesting one, by
writing, preferably on a professional letterhead, to:Print Journal Division-Sample Copies
Haworth Press
10 Alice Street
Binghamton, NY 13904Copies are also being sent to the justices of the US Supreme Court to
aid
them in their deliberations on the constitutionality of cannabis
buyers'
clubs.Annual subscriptions for this quarterly (2 single plus 1 double-theme
issue
per year) are:$43.20 for individuals
$58.50 for institutions
$85.50 for librariesAdditional discounts are available for multiple year subscriptions.
These
may also be ordered online:http://12.3.146.3/store/product.asp?sku=J175
or
http://www.haworthpressinc.com
The editor of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics is:Ethan Russo, MD
Missoula Neurobehavioral Specialists
900 North Orange Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:23:39
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences’ “Analysis of Marijuana Policy”(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government’s Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain’s monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is “new evidence” showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana’s safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: “An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes.”
References: The National Academy of Sciences report, “Marijuana and Health” (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon’s Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, “Health Aspects of Cannabis,” Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:24:38
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana is Harmless
Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment.
Marijuana and Smoking:
A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers.1 These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.2Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:5
“Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health.”
Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies,6 and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.
Footnotes
1. Michael R. Polen et al. “Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco,” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 596-601 (June 1993).
2. Donald Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993).
3. D. Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (1990).
4. Paul Donald, “Advanced malignancy in the young marijuana smoker,” Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 (1991); FM Taylor, “Marijuana as a potential respiratory tract carcinogen,” South Med Journal 81:1213-6 (1988).
5. D. Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?” op. cit.
6. Nicholas Cozzi, “Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review,” MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) newsletter, Vol. IV #2 (1993) (Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML).
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:26:04
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Footnotes
1. D. Tashkin, “Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers,” Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).
2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, “Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco,” New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988).
3. Donald Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” loc.cit.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:28:50
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana Causes Sterility and Lowers Testosterone
Government experts also concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.1 A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.2 A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.3 In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities.
Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.4 One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex.
Footnotes
1. Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit.
2. NAS Report, pp. 94-9.
3. Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 (1991).
4. NAS Report, p. 97-8.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:30:56
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other “hard” drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine “ice” when Hawaii’s marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
Footnote
1. “Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to ‘ice,’“ Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.