Former Brit "Anti-Drug" Official: "Legalise Drugs"

Search

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
And yet another high ranking government official - once unshackled from the punitive punishments that could come his way if he speaks honestly while in office - comes out and admits that 21st century Prohibition is a counterproductive and destructive social policy.

From yesterday's edition of The Guardian in London, with colored emphasis added by Barman
=====

UK: Ex-Drugs Policy Director Calls For Legalisation

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n784.a03.html
Newshawk: JimmyG
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 13 Aug 2008
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2008 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact: <script>male2('letters','guardian.co.uk');</script>letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Duncan Campbell, The Guardian
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

EX-DRUGS POLICY DIRECTOR CALLS FOR LEGALISATION

A former senior civil servant who was responsible for coordinating the government's anti-drugs policy now believes that legalisation would be less harmful than the current strategy. Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's anti-drugs unit, also said that his views were shared by the "overwhelming majority" of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government.

He also claimed that New Labour's policy on drugs was based on what was thought would play well with the Daily Mail readership, regardless of evidence of what worked. Downing Street policy advisers were said to have suggested stunts such as sending boats down the Thames to catch smugglers to coincide with policy announcements.

Critchley - not be to be confused with the late Tory MP of the same name - was director of the UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit in the Cabinet Office, with the job of coordinating government policy across departments and supporting the then drugs Tsar, Keith Hellawell. In a contribution to the debate on the "war on drugs" on a BBC website, Critchley spelled out his reasons for now supporting legalisation and claimed the government's position is hypocritical. Yesterday Critchley, who is now a teacher, confirmed that the blog posting accurately conveyed his views.

"I joined the unit more or less agnostic on drugs policy, being personally opposed to drug use, but open-minded about the best way to deal with the problem," he wrote on the blog. "I was certainly not inclined to decriminalise. However, during my time in the unit, as I saw more and more evidence of 'what works', to quote New Labour's mantra of the time, it became apparent to me that ... enforcement and supply-side interventions were largely pointless. They have no significant, lasting impact on the availability, affordability or use of drugs."

He said that his views were widely held in the government but rarely expressed in public. "I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew the government's policy was actually causing harm."

Critchley believed that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. "Tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to government control, education programmes and taxation." Anyone who wished to purchase the drug of their choice could already do so. "The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is simply ridiculous."

His intervention was welcomed yesterday by drugs law reformers. "Julian Critchley is one of the brave few to tell the truth about the failure of prohibition and the need to replace it with a system of regulation," said Danny Kushlick, of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. "It is truly shameful that there are so many more who know that the war on drugs is overwhelmingly counterproductive, and yet continue to remain silent, tacitly endorsing a policy that they know creates misery, degradation and death for millions across the globe."

<hr noshade="noshade"> [SIZE=-1]MAP posted-by: Steve Heath[/SIZE]
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Here's the coverage from The Daily Telegraph

UK: Legalise Drugs, Says Former Senior Cabinet Adviser Julian Critchley

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n782/a10.html
Newshawk: use http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Wed, 13 Aug 2008
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2008 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: <script>male2('dtletters','telegraph.co.uk');</script>dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Authors: Jon Swaine, and Christopher Hope
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) LEGALISE DRUGS, SAYS FORMER SENIOR CABINET ADVISER JULIAN CRITCHLEY

Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit, said Labour's "tough on drugs" approach was like "shifting the deck-chairs around on the Titanic".

He said: "The drugs strategy doesn't work, can not work, because we have no way of controlling the supply of drugs."

It comes after a report found that police and customs are fighting a losing battle against the illegal drug trade despite billions of pounds being spent every year on fighting it. Mr Critchley, who ran the Cabinet Office's Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit in the early years of the Labour Government, said a belief that drug use could be legislated away is "folly".

He said he is in "no doubt" that their legalisation would produce a fall in crime, while providing heroin addicts with the drug on prescription would stop them committing crimes to raise money to supply their habit.

Ten years ago, the Cabinet Office's Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit was at the heart of the war on drugs in the UK, co-ordinating policy across all government departments.

Keith Hellawell ( CORR ), the controversial former police chief who went on to accuse Labour ministers of "closing their eyes" to the drugs problem, was appointed in 1998 as the public face of the government's war on drugs.

Mr Critchley, who worked behind the scenes as the unit's director, said he had taken up his role "more or less agnostic on drugs policy, being personally opposed to drug use."

But he had become convinced that anti-drugs policy and enforcement had produced "no significant, lasting impact on the availability, affordability or use of drugs."

The only way to effectively battle the problem would be to legalise drugs and take control over their supply, he claimed.

Mr Critchley said the "overwhelming majority of professionals" he had worked with, including those from the Government, NHS, police and charities, shared his view.

"Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew that the government's policy was actually causing harm," he said.

Mr Critchley dismissed arguments against legalisation based on fears of an increase in drug use as "bogus".

He said: "Tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be were it illegal.

"The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is simply ridiculous."

He recalled meetings in which "there was a very large amount of agreement that actually this drugs strategy was shifting the deckchairs around on the Titanic, we were trying to minimise harm but ultimately we knew that this was riddling while Rome burnt."

A Home Office spokesman said: "We have no intention of either decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs for recreational purposes.

"Drugs are controlled for good reason - they are harmful to health. Their control protects individuals and the public from the harms caused by their misuse."

The Conservatives rejected Mr Critchley's comments. Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve, said: "Drugs wreck lives, destroy communities and are a major cause of crime.

"The answer lies in robust policing and sentences to catch and deter the peddlers of drugs. We also need to establish a dedicated UK Border Police to stop drugs flowing into our porous borders.

"Finally we must expand residential rehabilitation so that we can actually get addicts off drugs, in contrast to Labour's policy of simply managing addiction."

A report last month from the UK Drugs Commission found that traditional crime-fighting tactics were simply not working and that the UKP5.3 billion British drug market was "too fluid" for law enforcement agencies to deal with.

In 2005-06, the Government spent UKP 380 million just on reducing supply in England, the report said, while the annual cost to the criminal justice system of dealing with Class A drugs is more than UKP4 billion.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Mr Critchley provides a detailed personal explanation of why he and the vast majority of government officials and law enforcement believe 21st century Prohibition to be a destructive and counterproductive policy for our communities.

From this week's Counterpunch (colored font emphasis within the body of the essay added by me)

================

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]The Case is Overwhelming [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]All Experts Agree: Legalize Drugs [/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]By JULIAN CRITCHLEY [/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]E[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ight years ago, I left my civil service job as director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit. I went partly because I was sick of having to implement policies that I knew, and my political masters knew, were unsupported by evidence. Yesterday, after a surreal flurry of media requests referring to a blog I wrote that questioned the wisdom of the UK's drug policies, I found myself in the thick of the debate again, and I was sorry to discover that the terms hadn't changed a bit.[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I was being interviewed on the BBC World Service, and after I tried to explain why I believe that drugs should be decriminalised, the person representing the other side of the argument pointed out that drugs are terrible, that they destroy lives. Now, I am a deeply boring, undruggy person myself, and I think the world would be a better place without drugs. But I think that we must live in the world as it is, and not as we want it to be. And so my answer was, yes, I know that drugs are terrible. I'm not saying that drugs should be decriminalised because it would be fun if we could all get stoned with impunity. I'm saying that we've tried minimising harm through a draconian legal policy. It is now clear that enforcement and supply-side interventions are largely pointless. They haven't worked. There is evidence that this works.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Unfortunately, evidence is still not a major component in our policy. Take cannabis. When I was in the Anti-Drug Unit, the moves towards making it a class C drug began, and I hoped that our position on drugs was finally moving in a rational direction. But then Gordon Brown ignored his scientific advisers to make it a class B again. It was a decision that pandered to the instincts of the tabloids, and it made no sense whatsoever.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There is no doubt at all that the benefits to society of the fall in crime as a result of legalisation would be dramatic. The argument always put forward against this is that there would be a commensurate increase in drug use as a result of legalisation. This, it seems to me, is a bogus point: tobacco is a legal drug, whose use is declining, and precisely because it is legal, its users are far more amenable to Government control, education programmes and taxation than they would be otherwise. Studies suggest that the market is already almost saturated, and anyone who wishes to purchase the drug of their choice anywhere in the UK can already do so. The idea that many people are holding back solely because of a law which they know is already unenforceable is ridiculous.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Ultimately, people will make choices which harm themselves, whether they involve diet, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise, sexual activity or pursuit of extreme sports. In all these instances, the Government rightly takes the line that if these activities are to be pursued, society will ensure that those who pursue them have access to accurate information about the risks; can access assistance to change their harmful habits should they so wish; are protected by a legal standards regime; are taxed accordingly; and – crucially – do not harm other people. Only in the field of drugs does the Government take a different line.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The case is overwhelming. But I fear that policy will not catch up with the facts any time soon. It would take a mature society to accept that some individuals may hurt, or even kill themselves, as a result of a policy change, even if the evidence suggested that fewer people died or were harmed as a result. It would take a brave government to face down the tabloid fury in the face of anecdotes about middle-class children who bought drugs legally and came to grief, and this is not a brave government.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I think what was truly depressing about my time in the civil service was that the professionals I met from every sector held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those people were forced to repeat the mantra that the Government would be "tough on drugs", even though they all knew that the policy was causing harm.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]I recall a conversation I had with a Number 10 policy advisor about a series of announcements in which we were to emphasise the shift of resources to treatment and highlight successes in prevention and education. She asked me whether we couldn't arrange for "a drugs bust in Brighton" at the same time, or "a boat speeding down the Thames to catch smugglers". For that advisor, what worked mattered considerably less than what would play well in the right-wing press. The tragedy of our drugs policy is that it is dictated by tabloid irrationality, and not by evidence.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Julian Critchley was the former director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-Ordination Unit[/SIZE][/FONT].
http://www.counterpunch.org/critchley08152008.html
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Drugs are bad.

I'll share your opinion with the many doctors, hospitals, grocery stores, pharmacies, bars, restaurants and other hundreds of thousands of places where people sell, buy and consume drugs. And I'll report back immediately what they tell me in response.

On a more immediate level, I'll let my wife know that her three diabetic medications are bad, per Kornholio at the RxForum.

And I'll let my father know that his blood pressure meds and anti-anxiety pharms are bad.

I'll tell my 20 year old daughter that birth control drugs are bad

I'll tell my brother who operates a very successful restaurant and bar that the drugs he sells (beer and liquor) are bad.

I'll tell my dentist before he works on completing my upper mouth restoration that novacaine and Valium are bad.

Will report back on what their response is.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Drugs are bad.

:lolBIG:

No shit -- psychedelic drugs RUIN LIVES.

Be careful, Kornholio, it looks like he's gonna blow.

Let's just sit here and laugh at this bird brain while he sits there frantically hitting the refresh button because nobody reads his his George Soros drivel or takes it seriously.

Hey "barnman," have your detective skills STILL not figured out who "Joe C/Mark L" is?

Just for you, I did a Goggle search with my real name and came up with 6,000+ hits. Not bad for an anonymous cyberpunk like me, huh?

I just thought I'd share that with you, because I know how much that pisses you off. :nohead:

enemies_internet_trolls.jpg
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Ruh oh!

Here comes that pesky Canadian beaver again ready to throw a monkey wrench in "barnman's" George Soros' sponsored agenda.

:nohead:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cannabis 'worse than tobacco'

_1855730_smoker300.jpg

Cannabis is linked to cancer

Cannabis poses a greater threat to health than tobacco, lung experts have warned.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2118426.stm

The warning comes on the day that Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that cannabis is to be downgraded from a class B drug to class C. This means that possession would lead to a caution, rather than arrest.

Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections

The British Lung Foundation is currently carrying out a review of research into the impact of smoking cannabis on health.

Preliminary results suggest that the drug is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco - and may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers.

Ignorance


BLF chief executive Dame Helena Shovelton said: "Many young people are simply not aware that smoking cannabis may put them at increased risk of respiratory cancers and infections.

"The government spends millions of pounds a year on smoking cessation and public education about the dangers of smoking, yet smoking cannabis is at least as harmful as smoking tobacco and, indeed, may carry a higher risk of some respiratory cancers."

She said regardless of cannabis's legal status, many young people will make their own decision about whether they wish to use it or not.

"The government have a public health responsibility to ensure they do so with full knowledge of the risks associated with smoking cannabis," she said.

"Fifty years ago, people thought smoking was a good thing. Now it is described as a public health disaster - we don't want to see the same thing happen with cannabis."

Under estimate

The report is also expected to warn that research carried out in the 1960s and 1970s may underestimate the impact of today's cannabis since it is much more potent than the cannabis smoked then.

The average cannabis cigarette smoked in the 1960s contained about 10mg of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient which accounts for the psychoactive properties of cannabis, compared to 150mg of THC today.

British Lung Foundation chairman Dr Mark Britton said: "There is an urgent need for more research into the effects of cannabis on respiratory health so that we can feel confident in the advice we give to young people.

"As a respiratory consultant physician, I see the devastating consequences of smoking-related lung diseases, such as emphysema and chronic obstructive airways diseases, every day and I am fearful that long-term cannabis smoking may be linked to similar conditions."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:smoking: + :coke: = :puppy: :hanging:
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
MARK proclaims: psychedelic drugs RUIN LIVES.

So let's turn 100% control of their production and distribution to street dealers, gangs and organized crime cartels!

=====

The aforementioned thank "JoeContrarian" for his support of the mega-profits they enjoy via 21st century Prohibition.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana


http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. It is a dry, shredded green and brown mix of flowers, stems, seeds, and leaves derived from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active chemical in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; THC for short.

How is Marijuana Abused?

Marijuana is usually smoked as a cigarette (joint) or in a pipe. It is also smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been emptied of tobacco and refilled with marijuana. Since the blunt retains the tobacco leaf used to wrap the cigar, this mode of delivery combines marijuana's active ingredients with nicotine and other harmful chemicals. Marijuana can also be mixed in food or brewed as a tea. As a more concentrated, resinous form it is called hashish, and as a sticky black liquid, hash oil.* Marijuana smoke has a pungent and distinctive, usually sweet-and-sour odor.

How Does Marijuana Affect the Brain?

Scientists have learned a great deal about how THC acts in the brain to produce its many effects. When someone smokes marijuana, THC rapidly passes from the lungs into the bloodstream, which carries the chemical to the brain and other organs throughout the body.

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the “high” that users experience when they smoke marijuana. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.1

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Research on the long-term effects of marijuana abuse indicates some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system3 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine.4 Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse.

Addictive Potential


Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2–3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.5

Marijuana and Mental Health

A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Some of these studies have shown age at first use to be a factor, where early use is a marker of vulnerability to later problems. However, at this time, it not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or is used in attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence. Chronic marijuana use, especially in a very young person, may also be a marker of risk for mental illnesses, including addiction, stemming from genetic or environmental vulnerabilities, such as early exposure to stress or violence. At the present time, the strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders6. High doses of marijuana can produce an acute psychotic reaction, and research suggests that in vulnerable individuals, marijuana use may be a factor that increases risk for the disease.

What Other Adverse Effect Does Marijuana Have on Health?

Effects on the Heart

One study found that an abuser’s risk of heart attack more than quadruples in the first hour after smoking marijuana.7 The researchers suggest that such an outcome might occur from marijuana’s effects on blood pressure and heart rate (it increases both) and reduced oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

Effects on the Lungs

Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

Effects on Daily Life

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.11 Several studies associate workers’ marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover.

What Treatment Options Exist?


Behavioral interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy and motivational incentives (i.e., providing vouchers for goods or services to patients who remain abstinent) have shown efficacy in treating marijuana dependence. Although no medications are currently available, recent discoveries about the workings of the cannabinoid system offer promise for the development of medications to ease withdrawal, block the intoxicating effects of marijuana, and prevent relapse.

The latest treatment data indicate that in 2006 marijuana was the most common illicit drug of abuse and was responsible for about 16 percent (289,988) of all admissions to treatment facilities in the United States. Marijuana admissions were primarily male (73.8 percent), White (51.5 percent), and young (36.1 percent were in the 15–19 age range). Those in treatment for primary marijuana abuse had begun use at an early age: 56.2 percent had abused it by age 14 and 92.5 percent had abused it by age 18.**

How Widespread is Marijuana Abuse?

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2006, 14.8 million Americans age 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month prior to being surveyed, which is similar to the 2005 rate. About 6,000 people a day in 2006 used marijuana for the first time—2.2 million Americans. Of these, 63.3 percent were under age 18.***

Monitoring the Future Survey


According to the 2007 Monitoring the Future survey—a national survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, marijuana use has been declining since the late 1990s. Between 2000 and 2007, past-year use decreased more than 20 percent in all three grades combined. Nevertheless, marijuana use remains at unacceptably high levels, with more than 40 percent of high school seniors reporting use at least once in their lifetimes. ****

Percentage of 8th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:

Monitoring the Future Study, 2007
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Lifetime 16.7% 19.9% 23.1% 22.6% 22.2% 22.0% 20.3%
Past Year 13.0 15.8 18.3 17.7 16.9 16.5 15.6
Past Month 7.8 9.1 11.3 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.1
Daily 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Lifetime 20.4% 19.2% 17.5% 16.3% 16.5% 15.7 14.2
Past Year 15.4 14.6 12.8 11.8 12.2 11.7 10.3
Past Month 9.2 8.3 7.5 6.4 6.6 6.5 5.7
Daily 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.8


Percentage of 10th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana:

Monitoring the Future Study, 2007
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Lifetime 30.4% 34.1% 39.8% 42.3% 39.6% 40.9% 40.3%
Past Year 25.2 28.7 33.6 34.8 31.1 32.1 32.2
Past Month 15.8 17.2 20.4 20.5 18.7 19.4 19.7
Daily 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.8

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Lifetime 40.1% 38.7% 36.4% 35.1% 34.1% 31.8% 31.0%
Past Year 32.7 30.3 28.2 27.5 26.6 25.2 24.6
Past Month 19.8 17.8 17.0 15.9 15.2 14.2 14.2
Daily 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.8

Percentage of 12th-Graders Who Have Used Marijuana

Monitoring the Future Study, 2007
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Lifetime 38.2% 41.7% 44.9% 49.6% 49.1% 49.7% 48.8%
Past Year 30.7 34.7 35.8 38.5 37.5 37.8 36.5
Past Month 19.0 21.2 21.9 23.7 22.8 23.1 21.6
Daily 3.6 4.6 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.0 6.0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Lifetime 49.0% 47.8% 46.1% 45.7% 44.8% 42.3% 41.8%
Past Year 37.0 36.2 34.9 34.3 33.6 31.5 31.7
Past Month 22.4 21.5 21.2 19.9 19.8 18.3 18.8
Daily 5.8 6.0 6.0 5.6 5.0 5.0 5.1

“Lifetime” refers to use at least once during a respondent’s lifetime. “Past year” refers to use at least once during the year preceding an individual’s response to the survey. “Past month” refers to use at least once during the 30 days preceding an individual’s response to the survey.

* For street terms searchable by drug name, street term, cost and quantities, drug trade, and drug use, visit:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/streetterms/default.asp.

** These data are from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2006: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services (Office of Applied Studies, DASIS Series: S-40, DHHS Publication No. SMA 08-4313, Rockville, MD, 2008), funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The latest data are available at 800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

*** Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H–32, DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293 Rockville, MD, 2007). NSDUH is an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 800-729-6686.

**** These data are from the 2007 Monitoring the Future survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The survey has tracked 12th graders’ illicit drug use and related attitudes since 1975; in 1991, 8th and 10th graders were added to the study. The latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.


1 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, et al. Cannabinoid receptor localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87(5):1932–1936, 1990.

2 Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D. Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry 58(10):909–915, 2001.

3 Rodríguez de Fonseca F, Carrera MRA, Navarro M, Koob GF, Weiss F. Activation of corticotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science 276(5321):2050–2054, 1997.

4 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, Gessa GL. Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 95(17):10269–10273, 1998.

5 Budney AJ, Vandrey RG, Hughes JR, Thostenson JD, Bursac Z. Comparison of cannabis and tobacco withdrawal: Severity and contribution to relapse. J Subst Abuse Treat, e-publication ahead of print, March 12, 2008.

6 Moore TH, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: A systematic review. Lancet 370 (9584):319–328, 2007.

7 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE. Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103(23):2805–2809, 2001.

8 Tashkin DP. Smoked marijuana as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 63(2):92–100, 2005.

9 Hashibe M, Morgenstern H, Cui Y, et al. Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: Results of a population-based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(10):1829–1834, 2006.

10 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158(6):596–601, 1993.

11Gruber AJ, Pope HG, Hudson JI, Yurgelun-Todd D. Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Med 33(8):1415–1422, 2003.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
MARK proclaims: psychedelic drugs RUIN LIVES.

So let's turn 100% control of their production and distribution to street dealers, gangs and organized crime cartels!

Nah, let's just ramp up enforcement and put nut jobs like you behind bars.

DEA_Structured_Cap_LG.jpg


:howdy:
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
Legalising hard drugs would be a social disaster.
:grandmais

It was a social disaster in China when opium was legalised, and it would be a social disaster in the west.

Once people got hooked and couldn't afford the overtaxed legal stuff the gangsters would have a ball.

Its a nice idea for soshul workers to chat over a drink to tho.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
40,100
Tokens
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GPITs82wP2U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GPITs82wP2U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
aw how sweet...markie's reading my posts just as I thought he was
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
aw how sweet...markie's reading my posts just as I thought he was

There are other patriotic posters who send me your crap and have been urging to me to respond to your vicious ad hominem attacks.

They tell me I shouldn't be like Bush in his bunker and should instead bury you head on.

Well, because you didn't even have the courtesy to ignore me AFTER I put you on Ignore, I think I'll give everyone exactly what they crave.

Great news for your dealer (but bad news for your poor lungs and loving family) since I imagine you'll be upping the dosage significantly over the coming weeks and months.

:finger:Welcome to "Joe C's/Mark L's" private hell, you dysfunctional reefer whack job! ":finger:
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Cool Mark. Glad to see your bipolar medications are kicking in smoothly.

"Patriotic posters" is a nice friendly name for the voices in your poor, addled dome.

Just make sure not to be pounding your other favorite psychedelic drug - alcohol - when maxing out your pharms.

And for crying out loud, mix in your GuyTakingADump cartoon to more fully flesh out your self-caricature.
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
Well, because you didn't even have the courtesy to ignore me AFTER I put you on Ignore, I think I'll give everyone exactly what they crave.

Does this mean the forum will finally see Mark at "full throttle"??....hehehe
 

New member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
231
Tokens
Only loser potheads want to legalize drugs. It's so fucking absurd, it goes beyond comprehension why people would want to open the floodgates to illicit substances. Drug prevention is just a matter of border security and good enforcement. There also needs to be an eradication of the scumbag junkie culture. Problem solved.
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Vision, not all junkies/drug users are scumbags/low lifes or criminals - Drug addiction is an universal decease... everyone can get it, and hopefully everyone should be able to avoid it. Personal choice, fuck all of u narcissists who think u have the right to decide what one person should and shouldnt do

:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte

Priceless.

To say that "everyone can get it (addicted to drugs) is like saying anyone, save for queers, needle users and prostitutes can contact AIDS.

What's next? Online gambling is a 'disease' as well?

All the word 'disease' accomplishes is it manages to avoid responsibility -- how convenient, huh pullingtriggers?

Only the most narcissistic low life would choose to take drugs and ignore the repercussions such destructive behavior has on loved ones and friends.

How self-centered can someone possibly be to care only about an immediate 'high' and nothing else? :ohno:

Next to abortion, psychedelic drug use is the most abhorrent sin.

These scumbags don't deserve our 'compassion' or sympathy, they deserve a painful kick in the ass.

I don't feel sorry for individuals who deliberately ruin their lives through psychedelic drug use, it's the pain and misery these moral imbeciles leave behind for whom my heart goes out to...

heath-ledger.jpg


Pullingtriggers, G-R-O-W U-P -- before it's too late.
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
Drug prevention is just a matter of border security and good enforcement.


:nohead: :lol:

Because our borders are secure, right?

FUCKING PRICELESS!!!!!!

:ohno: :missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte:missingte
 

Militant Birther
Joined
Nov 29, 2005
Messages
11,836
Tokens
Oh my gosh? Did JoeC took me out of his ignore list??? "God" sure loves me!!! Hmmm... I will certainly follow your advices Joe, with a smile on my face, when you admit that you are a Canadian paid poster...

God DOES love you, pullingtriggers...

Unfortunately, your own narcissism has tuned out God's wisdom and love because you have too much contempt for your OWN mind, body and spirit...

12steps.gif


One day you will understand, the only question is, will you still be living in your current body (the Bible calls your body your "holy temple") at that time, or will you become another tragic Heath Ledger?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,858
Messages
13,574,196
Members
100,878
Latest member
lisasdanceandexercise
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com