|
In Reply to: Re: remedy doesn't mean cure? posted by goth88 on August 20, 2002 at 19:04:51:
The chemicals in marijuana are fat soluble. Thismeans that when you smoke pot, the chemicalsare stored in the fatty tissues of your body, espe-cially in your brain's complex and fragile fat cells.The THC in one joint remains in your body longafter you smoke it. After 72 hours, only half ofthe THC leaves the body and it takes at least 3weeks for it to completely disappear. If youcontinue smoking pot during that period, it willaccumulate in your brain cells. This can result inlong and short-term memory loss, reduction ofmotivation, and impairment of even normal learning functions
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/pei/brochures/drug/pdf/marijuana.pdf.
I find it interesting that as much as we know about the harmful effects of alcohol and cigs, that we would want to tolerate another drug that could be just as harmful (in excess) as these other two. Why would we want to do this?
I'm not against drugs to ease your real pain as in your surgery. I'm not sure why you included that?
PERMITTING POT IS PERNICIOUS ROT
By Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief
THE BEGUILING NOTION that decriminalizing the use of "mild" narcotics such as marijuana would allow authorities to crack down more effectively on hard drugs still persists (even in a recent Forbes story about the Netherlands). Alas, the idea is destructive nonsense.
Marijuana is extremely harmful. One joint does the equivalent damage to the lungs of four cigarettes. Pot weakens the immune system. It also appears to reduce the IQs of babies born to inhaling mothers. It distorts perceptions, impairs memory and reduces concentration. It can be addictive psychologically, and there is growing evidence that it can also be physiologically addictive. While experts debate whether marijuana medically leads to the use of harder drugs, the fact is, as the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (See Joe Califano says "Marijuana is a Hard Drug" ) points out, that adolescents who smoke this weed are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than those who do not, and they are more prone to violent behavior and to suicide.
The experience of the 1970s, when several states decriminalized the personal possession of small amounts of pot, suggests that legalization leads to higher use. At a time when we deplore the growing number of teens who smoke and drink, it makes no sense at all to ease the availability of marijuana. We have seen how laws covering underage use of alcohol and cigarettes have been flouted. Why do we think the experience will be different with legalized pot?
The Netherlands is hardly an inspiring example of the benefits of marijuana permissiveness. From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s teenage use of pot in America declined by two-thirds; in the Netherlands it increased by 250%. The number of addicts of both hard drugs and pot have sharply increased there. (Click here for the actual data) No wonder the Dutch have upped the legal age for patrons of marijuana "coffee shops" from 15 to 18. Amsterdam is also enacting regulations to reduce the number of these pot dens by half. Moreover, the easy availability of marijuana in Holland has made the country a smuggling center to neighboring nations.
The war on drugs is like most wars--there are few cheap and easy victories. We need greater enforcement (until this election year, the Clinton Administration was giving that task short shrift). Just as important, we need a renewal of Nancy Reagan's effective "Just Say No" campaign. Until Clinton was elected, marijuana use was dropping in America.
From the Septemeber 8, 1997 issue
By Steve Forbes, Editor-in-Chief
DEADLY DECEIT
An insidious effort is under way to legalize drugs. Proponents of "medical marijuana" last year won referendums in both Arizona and California. Two more initiatives are coming up, one in Washington, D.C.; the other in Washington State. Knowing that most Americans would not countenance outright legalization, many promoters deceitfully profess their only goal is to help the seriously ill.
Don't be snookered. The issues of pain relief and legalization are distinct and separate. Despite public claims, these initiatives go well beyond tightly prescribed medicinal uses. Traditional advocates of legalization don't engage in this kind of dishonesty; they forthrightly argue that the war on drugs is futile, costing society dearly in crime and corruption.
The nausea-relieving, appetite-stimulating properties of marijuana can be reproduced. Marinol, for example, is a synthetic form of the chemical in marijuana that does this. Marinol is FDA-approved and available by prescription, primarily for patients undergoing chemotherapy or with certain conditions resulting from AIDS. Why subject such people to the more than 400 toxic chemicals found in street "pot"? The medical profession has not been as sensitive and responsive as it should have been in relieving pain and other symptoms of those suffering from major diseases. But that is no reason to leap to legalization of deadly drugs.
Medical marijuana is the stealth legalizers' Trojan Horse. Look carefully at these upcoming initiatives. In our nation's capital, if Measure 57 is passed, no prescription for marijuana will be necessary. Only a doctor's "recommendation" will be needed, and that can be oral—no mandatory records. The measure specifically allows a patient's primary caregiver—defined even as a "best friend," whatever that means—to help grow, use or buy marijuana. And this law will require the D.C. government to distribute pot, as well as allow the creation of certain nonprofit corporations for "cultivating, purchasing and distributing" it.
Washington State's Initiative 685 legalizes not only the possession and use of marijuana but also of such other drugs as heroin and LSD. (What are their medical benefits?) Any medical "practitioner" can recommend usage, with no prescription necessary; the patient only needs to claim serious illness—but no definition of "serious" has been given. Does this mean any ailment, such as headaches or stress, will do? "Practitioners" include not only doctors but also pharmacists, podiatrists and even veterinarians. Incredibly, Initiative 685 also provides that those convicted of drug possession be released from prison.
A number of states tried de facto legalization of marijuana in the 1970s. Result: usage skyrocketed. The Netherlands has had a form of legalization (so-called coffee shops that are actually hemp bars) for years, and substance abuse is alarmingly higher. (Click here for the actual data) Switzerland allowed "needle parks," where addicts could shoot up without fear of police action. The hope had been that the problem could be isolated and contained. The opposite happened. These and other experiences demonstrate that more drugs were consumed, and related crimes did not decline. Holland, for example, has become a smuggling center for neighboring nations.
Drug abuse in America peaked in 1979. Though now down 50%, use has grown alarmingly among young Americans since 1992. Consumption of such deadly drugs as heroin and cocaine in the under-26 age bracket is skyrocketing.
Antidrug leadership works, as the Reagan and Bush administrations demonstrated. While President Clinton never misses an opportunity to attack tobacco, he has been strangely mute in the drug area, except, of course, for a brief time last year when an election was in the offing. He has not taken a lead in fighting these two initiatives. His Administration has done nothing effective to combat the growing power of Latin American drug lords along the Texas border where longtime ranchers are selling their land out of sheer fear. In fact, the Administration recently proposed reducing penalties for certain kinds of drug possession. What signal does that send?
Congressional leaders should be actively opposing these referendums. As the 1985-92 period demonstrates, the war against drugs is well worth fighting—legalization would mean more addiction, especially among the young—and is winnable as well. Where are the Washington generals?
