Re: 'California Does Not Need Any More Marijuana Users'

Re: 'California Does Not Need Any More Marijuana Users'
April 24, 2009

Reader Letters
by Paul Armetano

Jim Gogek's commentary (California Does Not Need Any More Marijuana Users, April 3, 2009) is built upon several false premises.

He writes: "Alcohol isn't the most dangerous drug in the world because it's worse than heroin or cocaine. It's the most dangerous drug because it's so easily accessible. ... Underage drinking is a big problem because kids can get alcohol so easily. Legal marijuana would mean more access to marijuana. The number of marijuana users would spike, including teens."

There are several problems with Gogek's presumptions. One: according to survey data, U.S. children do not have "easy access" to alcohol under legalization. In fact, because the sale of alcohol and cigarettes are regulated by state and federal governments and their use and sale are restricted to those only of a certain age, young people consistently report that it is easier for them to obtain unregulated marijuana than it is for them to access booze or tobacco.[1]

Two: Gogek falsely equates drug access with drug use. But if this premise was correct, then far more teens would presently be using marijuana than are now. According to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, which has tracked data on teen pot use since the mind-1970s, more than 85 percent of teenagers say that marijuana is "fairly easy" or "very easy to get."[2]

This percentage has not significantly changed in over 30 years, despite the government's increased emphasis on marijuana law enforcement, arrests, and interdiction efforts over the past two decades. One study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia even reported that 23 percent of teens said that they could buy pot in an hour or less.[3] That means nearly a quarter of all teens can already get marijuana about as easily and as quickly as a Domino's pizza!

In short, virtually every teenager can already get his or her hands on cannabis now if they so choose to. Yet, as Gogek points out, despite pot's easy accessibility, only a small percentage of teens use the drug regularly.

Why? Good question. According to investigators at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, "The reason for not using or stopping marijuana use cited by the fewest seniors over the 29 years of data ... was availability (less than 10 percent of seniors)."[4] Authors further discovered that the artificially high price of cannabis on the black market, as well as young people's "concern about getting arrested," seldom influenced their choice whether or not to use marijuana.

By contrast, researchers reported that young people's "concern for psychological and physical damage, as well as not wanting to get high, were the most commonly cited reasons for quitting or abstaining from marijuana use." In other words, it's not the illegality of cannabis that dissuades teens from using it. Rather, it's adolescent's personal like or dislike for the intoxicating effects of cannabis, as well as their perceptions regarding its health effects, that ultimately shape their decision to try marijuana.

But isn't it possible that legalizing the adult use of a substance that is currently prohibited might change the way some teenagers think about marijuana? It's possible, but not likely. After all, lifetime use of cannabis by Dutch citizens aged 12 and older is less than half of what it is in America despite that country's far more liberal marijuana policies.[5]

In fact, even in California where certain adults have above-ground access to pot, marijuana use rates among young people have declined at rates far greater than the national average.[6]

Writing on this issue in the forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Drug Policy, Bruce Simons-Morton and colleagues conclude, "The data provide no evidence that strict cannabis laws in the United States provide protective effects compared to similarly restrictive but less vigorously enforced laws in place in Canada, and the regulated access approach in the Netherlands. Given the cross-sectional nature of the research, the data provide no evidence of a causal association between national policies and substance use."[7]

So if our current prohibitionist policies are not effectively dissuading either access or use, why then are we steadfastly continuing with them?

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of NORML and the co-author of the forthcoming book: Marijuana Is safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (Chelsea Green, 2009). He lives in Vallejo, California.

Citations:
1. Janet Kornblum. "Prescription drugs more accessible to teens than beer." USA Today. August 14, 2008.
2. Collected annual reports from Monitoring the Future. Documents online at: http://monitoringthefuture.org
3. CASA Press Release. "National survey of American attitudes on substance abuse XIII: teens and parents." August 14, 2008.
4. Terry-McElrath et al. 2008. Saying no to marijuana: why American youth report quitting and abstaining. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 69: 769-805.
5. Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.
6. Marijuana Policy Project. Marijuana Use by Young People: The Impact of State Medical Marijuana Laws. Washington, DC: 2008.
7. Simons-Morton et al. 2009. Cross-national comparison of adolescent drinking and cannabis use in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. International Journal of Drug Policy (e-pub ahead of print).

Join Together welcomes reader letters for publication consideration. Submissions should be 300 words or less, be relevant to a recently published item, and include a full name and city/state. We reserve the right to edit for length or clarity. (How to submit)

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 25 Apr 09 08:04 AM EDT

We owe much to JTO for the intellectual honesty and political courage to allow this debate. Three comments: 1) There has been no increase in teen pot use in states that have legal mmj; the reverse is true. Google Earleywine & O'Keefe and Khatapoush & Hallfors. 2) No state that now allows mmj has repealed their laws. In fact, these states have all amended their laws to increase access for mmj patients, not restrict it. Three states (NM, RI & OR) are working to allow large-scale state-supervised mmj producers; I hope TN will follow their example. 3) As a former director of the largest WY detox facility, we admitted many patients whose alcohol & meth addictions were life-threatening. We NEVER admitted a patient under the same circumstances for pot use. Unfortunately, many tx centers require cj referral of pot users to maintain a high patient census and keep the $$ rolling in. If they were honest, they would admit that these "patients" are the most compliant and least in need of treatment. So, in response to tx professionals clamoring here to keep mmj unavailable, I quote HL Mencken (again): "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced."

Posted by David Turner on 27 Apr 09 09:28 AM EDT

Dissembling and misdirection by the director of NORML is expected. But even were Armetano’s comments responsible and credible he is outdone by his commentator Ellis, who describes himself “a former director of the largest WY detox facility” and, in a single speculative remark tosses the baby out with the bath water: “unfortunately, many tx centers require cj referral of pot users to maintain a high patient census and keep the $$ rolling in.” Truly there is much to criticize in treatment centers and SA treatment today. But to assert that they are on a par with, even comparable to Wall Street bandits is to discredit all drug treatment by inference. I suspect, Bernie, that either you are not as you present yourself, or that you were hired by a politician or board with an agenda other than the provision of service. But back to Armetano. Past the smoke and mirrors of your well-documented facts (research and statistics can justify any point of view if misused), the bottom line is that marijuana is still a health hazard, as is tobacco and alcohol. I wont follow your example and throw out a lot of statistics, but will simply state the

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 27 Apr 09 09:44 AM EDT

David, it is always energizing to be attacked personally first thing in the morning. If you have questions about my credentials, email me (tracevu@bellsouth.net) and I will send you my resume (if you are really interested in dialogue with me and not just in launching personal attacks). Re: marijuana users forced into substance abuse treatment by the cj system (whether or not they need treatment), speak with others who provide treatment services. That is a common experience nationwide, and makes access to treatment by those who do need it more difficult. Last point: I was hired to run the WY detox facility by the city, county and tribes whose residents were served by a center whose existence I helped accomplish by writing the "Targeted Capacity Expansion" CSAT grant that provided start-up funding, but only after the local mental health provider tried to give the money back to CSAT because they were intimidated by the enormity of the task. That program still exists today (8 years later) and admits patients from throughout WY and other Western states. I am very proud of my role in getting that program started.

Posted by stopthehate on 27 Apr 09 10:20 AM EDT

Two types of arguments here: Paul Armetano and Bernie Ellis use facts and logic, Jim Gogek and David Turner use false premises and personal attacks. Some people's jobs depend on keeping Mj falsely categorized, but they are hurting millions of Americans.

Posted by Jason Blanchette on 27 Apr 09 10:57 AM EDT

Bernie, you stooped really low to suggest that treatment professionals rely on mj users to keep the $$ roling in. I know where I work, the intake and counseling professionals don't make very much money. Many of them would find jobs that pay a lot more if they couldn't work in SA treatment anymore, and others would find another worthy cause to dedicate their lives to.

Posted by Bill on 27 Apr 09 11:21 AM EDT

I disagree, send them ALL to Calif., they deserve them

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 27 Apr 09 12:31 PM EDT

Jason, to repeat, "Unfortunately, many tx centers require cj referral of pot users to maintain a high patient census and keep the $$ rolling in. If they were honest, they would admit that these 'patients' are the most compliant and least in need of treatment." As you can see, I said nothing about treatment professionals in these two sentences. Staff at the tx programs I am familiar with in middle TN tell me that over half of their cj referrals are for mj, likely because of the long half-life of mj metabolites that result in most of the "dirty" urines for probationers here (and likely everywhere) being for mj. These counselors agree with me that many of these "patients" don't need treatment, but the centers require those admissions to maintain their steady flow of funds from the cj system, and are afraid to speak up for fear of losing that steady cj business. I wish it were not so and so do those tx professionals. They didn't get into the profession to help people who don't need help when there are so many who do, including people who switch to harder drugs, including cocaine, heroin, meth and alcohol, once they are in the cj system to avoid detection (successfully).

Posted by Donna on 27 Apr 09 01:14 PM EDT

WOW! Simply floored at this conversation, guys. Call yourself professional, educated in the tx world? Simply floored. Can't understand the comment from Bill but I take offense to it and this is the first for me to react this way to a dialogue on JT in this manner. A drug is a drug is a drug, guys. Let's get back to basics. If you have to be so slant on a view regarding MJ treatment, one way or the other, check in with yourself. Something is terribly wrong here. Have a nice day.

Posted by Phoebe on 27 Apr 09 02:05 PM EDT

No, Donna, not all drugs are created equal and if you consider yourself a treatment professional and believe that to be true perhaps you should find another, more unforgiving field to occupy your time with. Like televangelism perhaps.

Posted by CJ on 27 Apr 09 03:20 PM EDT

As the former ED of an outpatient facility, a mother and taxpayer, I would appreciate a shift on MJ policy from “truthiness” (i.e. David, Bill & Donna - thoughts based on learned rhetoric instead of reality) to actual science. I know it’s hard for people so indoctrinated by “reefer madness” propaganda to face facts, but I’m tired of our money going down the drain. Besides the enormous cj cost, what about the human cost? Pot IS different from other drugs. People die from alcohol, tobacco and “hard” drugs – not from MJ. It’s a fact Donna, not a slant, that people who need psychological help due to MJ don’t get it because it’s illegal, yet people who don’t need help are required to. Check in with yourself as to why you are unable to process facts. David: How does a fact about who gets TX discredit TX? I would hope the director of NORML knows FACTS about MJ. What was misleading about anything he or Ellis wrote? You just use buzz words: Dissembling, misdirection, speculative, comparable to Wall Street bandits. smoke and mirrors. You’re not being responsible or credible if you can ignore actual, quality research anytime it doesn’t justify YOUR point of view.

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 27 Apr 09 03:22 PM EDT

Re: a drug is a drug ... I did a study in Wyoming of substance use/dependence among women seeking reproductive health services in public & private women's health clinics. In this group, a comparison of the tobacco and marijuana use/dependence stats is informative. Of women who had ever used tobacco, two-thirds were still using, half met the DSM criteria for lifetime dependence and more than one-third met current dependence criteria. By contrast, of the women who had ever used marijuana, less than one-fourth were still using, less than 10% had ever met DSM lifetime dependence criteria and less than 4% met current dependence criteria. These differences are quite remarkable, particularly in light of the well-documented risks of tobacco use during pregnancy. (I can provide the paper to anyone who emails me: tracevu@bellsouth.net). I look forward to JTO continuing to be a good place to discuss these issues. Like police officers, it has been hard to relate clinical experiences honestly for fear of appearing "soft" on drugs. That appears to be changing and both society and people in serious need of substance abuse treatment will benefit as a result.

Posted by Trenity on 27 Apr 09 08:42 PM EDT

I found it humorous at how David had to resort to personal attacks, right after facts were presented to him. This was a great read. And I am thankful to see a shift in the legalization movement. Finally, fact's over personal opinion.

Posted by Edward on 27 Apr 09 08:55 PM EDT

What really aggravates me is people who are anti-marijuana for no other reason than personal opinion. Do the research. Look at the over 7,000 reports that have been released over the years that show a CLEAR MEDICAL use for marijuana. Oh even better than that, look at the thousands of years of human usage. Not a decade, not a century, but thousands of years. Only a fool would say that it has no positive value. Only a complete and total idiot would ignore all the data. Only a compassion-less person would vote to deny those in agony a medicine that has very few side effects compared to the pharmaceutical pills given out daily that are promised safe then 6 months or so later are recalled do to numerous deaths. Please O please send me a link that proves someone, anyone has died using marijuana.

Posted by Matt W. on 27 Apr 09 09:26 PM EDT

For those that are skeptical, the information is out there; you just have to do your research. A great resource for those in more information is the following site: www.erowid.org Simply stated, Cannabis is safer than alcohol, tobacco, the majority of prescription medications, fast-food and even coffee COMBINED!

Posted by Jeff D on 27 Apr 09 09:27 PM EDT

Its sad that people in this country have totally forgot their origin. As a moderate i can safely say that I have looked at both sides of the argument and one (the end of pot prohibition) is the obviously logical choice. You have the far right who are "real americans" or the average joes if you will, yet our founding fathers relied on hemp and the sativa and indica strains of the cannabis plant for over 200 medications/ treatment options and well over 1000 products. To whoever reads this I have a ? for you : Whats more harmful, smoking a joint in the privacy of your home/ property (0 deaths ever recorded mind you) or getting arrested for smoking a joint, being detained, ticketed, and possibly loosing a job which is not effected by your responsible cannabis use on your own free time. Fact: of all the marijuana prisoners in the US 90% are in for simple possession, costing the tax payers billions annually. So whats smarter, gaining tax revenue not only on the pot itself but the businesses branching off from it, or loosing billions by locking up, otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking the dry remains of the most benign substance known to man

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 27 Apr 09 09:42 PM EDT

Paul Armentano shared information with me off-thread that is well worth sharing on the nexus between mj, cj and tx: "Regarding the issue of cj referrals for mj 'tx,' you may wish to review the latest TEDS data here:http://oas.samhsa.gov/TEDS2k7highlights/TEDSHighl2k7Tbl4.htm Notably, 57% of national mj tx referrals come from the cj system, and 37% of admits had not used pot in the previous 30 days. BIOMED Central reviewed state treatment referral data from TX and found that approximately 70% of mj 'tx' admits there were from the cj system. You can read it here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/111/abstract Paul ended his note to me this way: "Thanks again to JTO for bringing these views to this forum. While I still await the day when folks from all communities can acknowledge that cannabis: A) can be used as a medicine, B) can be used responsibly by adults, C) and can be abused by adults (and young people), perhaps intellectual discussions such as these can help bring us closer to this consensus." I could not agree more.

Posted by Randy Chase on 27 Apr 09 10:09 PM EDT

I was arrested for marijuana possession when I was 15 was threatened with reform school. My parents had insurance that paid $ 10k for treatment, plus there was $5k in additional expenses. I had smoked marijuana 5 times at that point in my life. I am sure that my story is replicated many time over for marijuana users. Did some other drug user suffer because I took a bed in drug treatment for 90 days for marijuana?

Posted by Cherokee Fred Jesus on 27 Apr 09 10:42 PM EDT

I don't give a damn what others think. This was meant to be a free county for all. I like weed have for a long time and that should be my right. I do not advocate jailing baptist because because they are hypocrites and jailing them. I believe in live and let live if only more did!

Posted by Jason on 27 Apr 09 11:27 PM EDT

"it makes you stupid." I don't understand this statement. If the goal is to truly make stupidity illegal, then everyone who uses this argument should have gotten the death penalty long ago. Pretending for a second that they do become 'stupid' for four hours or so, a just punishment is to cut them off from society for a year - remove their right to vote, removing all motivation to learn about their country - eliminate the likelihood of them ever getting a job that pays above minimum wage, thus discouraging continued education? The legal repercussions of smoking pot are worse than all other reasonably predictable repercussions - the punishment does not fit the 'crime.' This barbaric behavior of jailing people for lifestyle choices used to be considered a hate crime, and I don't understand why we are expected to beg through the proper channels while some prick somewhere is making a fortune by participating in a mass hate crime.

Posted by Dustyn on 28 Apr 09 12:34 AM EDT

Why not legalize? It's not like everyone that smokes pot will stop because it is still illegal. It's time for a change! You should start listening to the people in this country, since we are the ones living in this mess, we the people had no say in.

Posted by Dino on 28 Apr 09 12:59 AM EDT

If pot smokers are considered criminals, what do you do for U.S.Presidents who committed the same crime? That one is easy. A Presidential pardon.

Posted by Brinna on 28 Apr 09 01:10 AM EDT

What is prohibited cannot be regulated or moderated. Regulation is law and order. Prohibition is a free-for-all. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Posted by jeff newman on 28 Apr 09 03:24 AM EDT

the earth is 4 billion years old. america 200+years. cannabis & hemp have been illegal for 80 years. it is a failed prohibition that we cannot let continue for another 2000 years, let alone another 2 years. imagine the ridiculous spending eradicating & pursuing the millions of people across the US who consume this plant forever? arguing state by state over whether to grant medical access to this weeds flowers is going to take a long time & resources. we need to move forward and legalize both cannabis and hemp right NOW! the benefits are so great from both of these two weeds.

Posted by jeff n on 28 Apr 09 03:28 AM EDT

as the son of an alcoholic who drank himself to death i find it truly outrageous that our culture has the audacity to legalize alcohol while instituting a prohibition on cannabis and hemp. the truth is that more people will consume cannabis if it is legalized. and many will end up preferring it to alcohol and tobacco which are the real killers and drains on our healthcare systems.

Posted by Musclecar Freak on 28 Apr 09 04:27 AM EDT

Cannabis PROHIBITION is what FUNDS MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS who are profiting by the BILLIONS each year. Cannabis PROHIBITION puts them in full control of distribution with a focus on young buyers without asking for ID (and Obama says that if those BILLIONS were diverted to a system of cannabis regulation and taxation it wouldn’t be a good way to help the US economy? COME ON!). Cannabis PROHIBITION is the primary cause of large scale turf wars that CLAIMS THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS PER YEAR, including innocent bystanders young and old and police officers. BECAUSE OF cannabis PROHIBITION there is WIDESPREAD CORRUPTION within law enforcement, the drug court system (including drug treatment programs), the prison industrial complex and politicians that are addicted to the funding these establishments “donate” to continue the UTTER FAILURE that is THE WAR on (non-alcoholic, non-tobacco, non-pharmaceutical) DRUGS. Then there are legitimate members of the above mentioned establishments profiting from cannabis PROHIBITION laws. This promotes cannabis PROHIBITION loyalty and fuels reluctance to change cannabis laws which are known to cause MUCH MORE HARM then cannabis use alone.

Posted by W.W. on 28 Apr 09 07:27 AM EDT

I commend all the people who have contributed thus far, I can not say it any better than myself. Those in favor of decriminalizing marijuana use facts, statistics, and science to debate whether or not marijuana should be a crime. Those who condemn the idea of decriminalization do nothing but avoid the aforementioned. As a current probationary participant in our criminal justice system for a marijuana offense, I'd like to give another perspective on the entire outpatient/recovery/rehabilitation system. After a minor possession charge I have spent over 2000 dollars in legal fees (not including lawyers) and am currently (forced by my probo) enrolled in my local outpatient recovery program. I am enrolled with the same people who have spent a lifetime struggling with meth, crack, and alcohol addictions. It is not only me who finds it ridiculous that I am there, it is all the other patients who actually need help. To those in favor: I think progress IS being made in the movement of decriminalization. To those opposed: Please, come up with some REAL FACTS to argue with. It is harder to argue with your repetitive rhetoric based on emotional response than on ideas derived from EVIDENCE.

Posted by David Turner on 28 Apr 09 07:52 AM EDT

Sorry my concluding comments come late to the debate. Apparently JT didn’t like me and stopped accepting: obvious. Marijuana is primarily introduced into the body via the lungs. Its damage to the lungs is far more severe even than legal cigarettes which come with a health-risk label on the pack. Nor is the reason for this increased organ damage difficult to appreciate: the cigarette user typically inhales in shallow and short hits while the typical smoker of illicit drugs draws the smoke deeply and holds the smoke much longer. By inhaling deeply the user expands the lungs maximally, exposing more lung surface to the smoke. And by holding breath longer the smoke has more time to settle on that lung surface. But of course, that is how the user achieves maximal intoxicating effect of the substance! It is also how the user inflicts maximal damage on his/her body. Common sense informs the user that smoking any substance, from tobacco to meth, damages the body, shortens life. Perhaps the man from NORML would assert that marijuana is safer than tobacco, but most normal persons would, again by common sense based on how the drug is used, know this to be absurd.

Posted by Ben on 28 Apr 09 08:56 AM EDT

David, are you really trying to tell us that Marijuana smoke is more harmful than cigarette smoke? In 2007 tobacco killed over 450,000 people, and in all recorded history noone has ever died of overdosing on marijuana (try to prove otherwise). Cigarettes have been tested and shown to have thousands of harmful pesticides and chemicals added to them. homegrown pot is all natural. I just want to know how did anyone ever fall for your BS anti pot propaganda. I would hope Americans would be smarter than that. We wont believe your lies anymore!

Posted by Jeff D on 28 Apr 09 08:58 AM EDT

Although i agree with jeff n i do not agree with the statement that, "the truth is that more people will consume cannabis if it is legalized. and many will end up preferring it to alcohol and tobacco" that is actually and factually false, the netherlands legalized it some years ago and they have a lower percentage of pot smokers (along with over all drug users whether illicit or not) than the US, so although i do agree with you that tobacco and alcohol are much more dangerous the fact is that if you legalize it, the educational aspect of doing drugs will be more out in the open rather than just trying scare kids away from drugs (which doesnt work)... i know many people, whether pot is legal or not, that wouldnt smoke... for some, such as medical patients and maybe responsible adults who might enjoy it instead of a glass of wine/ beer/ mixed drink at the end of a hard day of work, some just dont enjoy it. everything (meaning all drugs that alter body or state of mind) are different for all people so i really dont think that the legalization would raise the percentage of pot smokers

Posted by David Turner on 28 Apr 09 09:56 AM EDT

Bernie, I’m not questioning your bona fides but your agenda. As a private practice clinician with 20+ years experience providing mandated SA treatment to community supervised offenders, I agree that marijuana users are involuntarily referred for treatment. We disagree over whether marijuana smokers deserve the same consequences for breaking the law as do other illicit drug users. Minus the obvious health risks of the drug, users are, as point of fact, choosing to break the law, and accept therefore the consequences of this choice: arrest, charge, conviction and whatever sanctions the court chooses to impose. I am not justifying the law, merely pointing out that it exists, and that the consequences attendant to violating the law are known and accepted by the user. Some states are more permissive in administering the law, some judges may be stricter or more lenient in understanding and applying the law. But the user KNOWS the consequence and risk, and accepts both. Addict Behavior is, by definition, self-punishment. Addict is addict, regardless of choice of drug, or the self-invited consequence! And by the way, “forced” treatment is far easier than the alternative sentence.

Posted by James Snow on 28 Apr 09 10:33 AM EDT

I will keep my comment as brief as possible. I have been a heavy smoker for 9 years. At no time has it ever affected my life in a negative way. I have never been arrested or lost a job due to my use. I only wish I did not have to keep it so hush hush with people who do not understand it. Legalization needs to happen now, for those of us who are responsible. If you're not you would still mess up your life without cannabis.

Posted by A. Bruno on 28 Apr 09 10:43 AM EDT

David Turner: Anyone with true common sence know that pot is far less dangerous. Pot can be injested many different ways. Eaten, vaporized, water filtered or straight. When is the last time you heard of cigarettes being eaten, vaporized, or water filtered? My guess would be never. Cigarettes, down to even the filter have very dangerous chemicals in them. If you want to get into the what is more dangerous debate lets go there. Ever eaten fast food? Taken a meciation? Drank alchohol? Had anasthesia? Use flouride? Breathed in city air? Should we prohibit fast food, meds, toothpaste, anastesia, alcohol, air and manufatured food? Anyone with the rhetoric that it is dangerous for you is a hypocrite. We know arguements from prohibitionists are extreme, fear mongering opinion bias lies. When are you, and people like you going to wake up and smell what you've been shoveling? Because it truely reeks. How can one honestly call pot an "drug"? Dirt grown plants are not "drugs". I would love to hear the response from a prohibitionist to these honest, logical questions, without empty opinionated "facts" and degrading childish put downs. Thank you.

Posted by moldy on 28 Apr 09 11:00 AM EDT

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-2-21.pdf In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. Here's mine, where's yours David?

Posted by Robert Curley, News Editor, Join Together on 28 Apr 09 11:04 AM EDT

Re. David Turner's statement: "Sorry my concluding comments come late to the debate. Apparently JT didn’t like me and stopped accepting: obvious." Just to be clear, we did not censor David's comments. There is a 200-word limit for each posted comment. The reason David's initial comment was cut off mid-sentence was because he exceeded the word limit, not because Join Together had any bias regarding his posting one was or another.

Posted by Joe on 28 Apr 09 11:04 AM EDT

Let's, for sake of argument, admit that cannabis smoke is more harmful than that of cigarettes: there's new technology of vaporization now, you don't even need to smoke it anymore. And, you can eat it, too. People with successful lives (career and personal) use it, and no one knows. I don't see the harm. Let someone smoke an ounce of grass in one night and someone else drink a liter of vodka, see who gets more impaired. Let's have a serious debate. Pot may not be harmless, but it's not what you learned in reefer madness. Legalization now!

Posted by TonE on 28 Apr 09 11:29 AM EDT

I am not using my real name because I too am currently on probation. I'll keep this brief- Marijuana prohibition cost me a $10.00 an hour job doing something I love, cooking. I was on my way to being an actual chef and was praised at work daily for being so good at what I did. I even exceeded the talents of professionally trained lower level employees. I didn't lose my job because I smoked, the fact that I smoked didn't hurt my performance. Now I make min. wage and I can't drive. I have to go to NA with REAL addicts and it is so psychologically damaging. I am not a criminial, I am a casualty. This insanity MUST end.

Posted by Daniel on 28 Apr 09 11:42 AM EDT

@David...People that smoke cigarettes do so much more frequently throughout the day.the constant need for a "fix" is why we have 1 and 2 pack a day smokers. Now compare that to a typical mj user. From experience I know that after smoking marijuana, the effects last hours with no addictive draw to toke constantly. However, I will watch friends smoke cigarette after cigarette in order induce the effects of smoking. You can't simply talk about one smoke being worse than another with talking about amount and frequency. A typical cig. contains around 2 grams of tobacco compared to the .25 grams of marijuana needed to pack an average pipe. Facts... learn to use them

Posted by Xotix on 28 Apr 09 11:50 AM EDT

@ David Turner "Perhaps the man from NORML would assert that marijuana is safer than tobacco, but most normal persons would, again by common sense based on how the drug is used, know this to be absurd. " Again your view is based on opinion and not fact. Here is an interesting article on the facts behind what you claim to know. http://blog.mpp.org/research/new-study-on-marijuana-lung-problems/04162009/ Also nearly everyone I know is educated about using vaporizers. Vaporizers nearly completely eliminate alll toxins. They are becoing more available and cheaper. Educating people rather being histerical would prove to be much better strategy here as well. People are already using it. Your propaganda does nothing to stop them. Lets help them be safer then.

Posted by Dan on 28 Apr 09 11:58 AM EDT

I'm a medical professional and I am aware of the recent studies Moldy cites about the anti-carcinogenic effect of marijuana smoke. What is less clear to me is the issue of COPD/ Emphysema. I haven't found any articles linking MJ smoke to emphysema but it stands to reason that any kind of smoke could cause COPD. Which is why I would recommend vaporization as an alternative to smoking. This eliminates a lot of harmful chemicals present in smoke and makes marijuana use similar to the use of some prescription drugs that are inhaled, like albuterol.

Posted by Edward on 28 Apr 09 12:30 PM EDT

Marijuana contains THC. THC is a bronchial dilator, which means it works like a cough drop and opens up your lungs, which aids clearance of smoke and dirt. Tobacco smoke does the opposite. Also try as you might you will not find a single report that can truthfully claim that a person has ever died of lung cancer from smoking marijuana.

Posted by 800 lb Gorilla on 28 Apr 09 12:31 PM EDT

The worst things that could've ever happened to prohibitionists are vaporizers, internet-aided research and brownie mix. We are finally seeing the last throes of Anslinger paranoia. Thank you JT for allowing this debate. Practitioners who actually care about results but fear reprisals will soon no longer have to use pseudonyms like mine.

Posted by Daniel2 on 28 Apr 09 12:58 PM EDT

Please stop referring to mj as a dangerous drug. What deaths has mj caused EVER? Look up deaths by and related to tobacco and alcohol, there are your "dangerous drugs!" I think it's just ridiculous that we are still even arguing about this. Why can't people open their eyes and see what we can do with this plant. Which grows and is natural from the Earth. So much annual revenue, millions of jobs created. I can see it. Millions of Americans can see it. But not the ones who matter. Who make the laws. It takes compassionate people who want this.

Posted by xotix on 28 Apr 09 01:17 PM EDT

Posted by xotix on 28 Apr 09 01:19 PM EDT

Here is a study on COPD and cannabis http://blog.mpp.org/research/new-study-on-marijuana-lung-problems/04162009/

Posted by Joseph Leporati on 28 Apr 09 01:41 PM EDT

Amazing. You could not have said it all any better. I won't lie either, I could get marijuana right this second if I wanted to, but not alcohol. ;) I am 18 years old.

Posted by JJ on 28 Apr 09 02:13 PM EDT

I am a law abiding (with one exception), tax paying, registered voter who is also an ordained minister and regular volunteer for youth coaching and community development. Know how I unwind after a long days work: one joint. You know who else did? Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to name a few. David, propaganda has a time and place: Nazi Germany.

Posted by Joe on 28 Apr 09 02:57 PM EDT

One more thing that should not be ignored: this whole "marijuana makes you stupid" rap isn't true at all. I know several people who are very intelligent, very smart, responsible, professional, organized, motivated, good, honest people, who are also marijuana users. Normal people. Fun people. Family people. Let's drop the dishonesty and false statements about marijuana users. Marijuana is just a plant. A plant that a lot of people love and that causes little or no problems to anyone who uses it or who is close to those who do. Legalization now!

Posted by Delpart on 28 Apr 09 04:49 PM EDT

The arguments presented by Gogek are a rather scary example of the current status quo. My take on his overall stance is that he is attacking the MJ topic because it's "safe." That said, I'm surprised to see he has allowed his want for a return to complete Prohibition to be expressed. (Read above comments about alcohol availability.) This is where the real problem comes from most of these "leaders." They would return to complete prohibition because of its "ease" and overall masochistic tendencies. The lack of compassion expressed repeatedly when faced with the proof of the abuses in power that have come from Prohibition around the world boggles my mind.

Posted by Guy Claudin on 28 Apr 09 05:12 PM EDT

It is true that no one has ever died form-smoking pot, as it’s impossible to OD on it. Lungs; a recent real study showed that it actually reduces tumors in lung cancer patents. Stepping stone to harder drugs no as many test have shown. Does it get you high, of course, that's the point some people drink some smoke pot. It also helps people with chronic pain, and a lot of other problems. If legalized nobody is required to smoke it, but people who do will be able to continue to work and be good citizens of this country. Live and let live I say. Land of the free remember?

Posted by Scott on 28 Apr 09 06:21 PM EDT

There is no reason to continue with prohibition. Cali's #1 cash crop is mj @ $14bil. #2 is corn at ~ 7bil. Does anyone else see this as obvious reason to TRY and save cali's failing economy? Thanks jto

Posted by Sensi-Bill on 28 Apr 09 06:39 PM EDT

Physiologically and ethically there is no reason to decry mj above caffeine or sugar. Coalitions of the shilling (correctional facilities, police, BIg RX’s) spend millions espousing anti-pot propaganda because they’d lose billions were mj legal. My father, (a pot user) has a saying, "if it doesn't make sense, then it's got to be making dollars." Like gum sticking in your tummy for 7 years or America being the freest nation ever, obvious falsehoods incubate and grow in the heads of those who outsource their critical thinking to politicians and corporations. Statistics: #1 global consumer of illegal drugs: America Number of unprocessed, natural substances which moonlight as felonious drugs: 1. Pot was legal all but 70 years throughout history of time, so far humanity has not been eviscerated by the stupidity, psychoses and health problems posited by prohibitionists. If pot is a gateway drug and 42.4 percent of Americans have used it (WHO’S latest findings), shouldn’t a proportionate number of hard drug addicts have been spawned by unwittingly toking up? By a prohibitionist’s own logic this means either pot is not all that dangerous, or it’s not so addictive

Posted by William Taylor on 28 Apr 09 07:31 PM EDT

More facts (just for you David): On marijuana and lung cancer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm On marijuana and driving: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm On marijuana and flesh eating bacteria: http://www.webmd.com/news/20080904/marijuana-chemicals-may-fight-mrsa On marijuana and physical dependency: http://www.drugscience.org/dl/dl_comparison.html On marijuana and fatal overdose: http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/nc/nc1e.htm On marijuana and methods of ingestion: http://www.michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/node/1030

Posted by Anonymous on 28 Apr 09 07:36 PM EDT

Here's the FACTS as to why we dont want mj/hemp legal. Well a lot of us in the following industries would lose a lot of money here is a short and certianly not all inclusive list Alcohol, Prison, Tobacco, Oil, Logging, Pharmacutical, Paper, Plastics, and Lumber. Like I said I have many more filthy rich friends who don't wanna lose a cent to any cause no matter the postive outcome. It's our money and you can't any of it ok. Good luck with your lil recession.

Posted by BGG on 28 Apr 09 08:02 PM EDT

The most convincing argument for legalization has not been brought up yet. The human brain has receptors that uptake THC and only THC. Now why I ask in God's infinite wisdom would we have such a receptor in our brain? Seems to me that it is a pretty obvious answer. Does the brain have receptors specifically for cocaine, heroin, meth, caffeine, alcohol or nicotine? No it does not. Do not believe me? Check out this article (one of thousands). http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Drugs/THC/Health/mj.brain.html

Posted by James on 28 Apr 09 08:09 PM EDT

re: Dan, I am not a professional. I did however read an article off yahoo news (I believe) just about two weeks ago. I would post the link but am now unable to find it. but to summarize: use of tobacco alone seriously increases the occurance of copd. with mj even more. but mj alone shows minimal signs.as a user of both if pot were legal i would surely discontinue use of tobacco.

Posted by Ray on 28 Apr 09 08:34 PM EDT

I'd like to thank JT for hosting this discussion. I support legalization. I smoke nightly before bed. I work 40 hours a week and I am a full time university senior with a 3.7gpa. I'm just one example but there are many more like me.

Posted by Eric Helmuth, Join Together on 28 Apr 09 08:40 PM EDT

Comments were held up from posting late this afternoon and this evening because the number exceeded the limit initially set for the page. I have raised the limit to release the comments but have also removed some duplicate posts and others that contained personal attacks. Calling people a liar or similar attacks will get your comment deleted, period. And if your comment doesn't post, please don't try again under another name. All you do is create a lot more work for -- and thus annoy -- the forum admins, who are keeping up with comments the best we can. Instead, drop us a line (contact link below) if your comment doesn't post so we know there's a technical issue. Thanks.

Posted by blae on 28 Apr 09 10:16 PM EDT

I am a senior in college. I have a 3.8 GPA. I smoke marijuana every single day.

Posted by Keef on 29 Apr 09 02:51 AM EDT

Tim Henson: Do you have any factual data that can back up your claims? Also, I'm not too convinced that your personal greediness is a viable basis for an entire country to continue ignoring that prohibition of cannabis is violating our constitution rights and freedoms. Since so many people have lost jobs due to our current economic issues(me included), it seems to me like Legalisation would help create many new jobs and technologies we could all benefit from.It's greediness that has put our country in this situation. I strongly believe that most Americans would like to see their tax dollars used for something beneficial rather than paying for a Drug War that has proved to be useless by factual data. Do you really think our country should continue wasting billions on something we don't need?

Posted by Bernie Ellis on 29 Apr 09 07:41 AM EDT

It is good to see many posters have posted links to available evidence on the surprisingly low risks of mj use on lung disease. These findings surprised many of us, but they are welcome nonetheless. However, as others have pointed out, vaporizers reduce that risk further and should be used if inhaling whole-plant cannabis vapors provides the immediacy and precision of titration that patients need. As far as my "bona fides", David, you have now questioned them in two separate JTO threads but you have not had the courtesy to email me yet. My agenda was well-stated by Paul Armentano when I quoted him earlier: "I ... await the day when folks from all communities can acknowledge that cannabis: A) can be used as a medicine, B) can be used responsibly by adults, and C) can be abused by adults (and young people)...." Substance abuse treatment should not be delivered as punishment to people who neither need treatment nor need punishment. Mj use should not -- by itself -- result in incarceration or treatment. MJ dependence, in the face of meaningful negative consequences to the user or community, should be the criterion for referral to treatment.

Posted by Andrew on 29 Apr 09 08:28 AM EDT

"Remember when America had a drug problem, so we declared a war on drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?" There are still people who insist that legalisation will make drug use increase. It's a self-serving lie. I want to thank the other people in the thread for a rousing debate.

Posted by Brandon on 29 Apr 09 11:47 AM EDT

I have used marijuana when I was younger and can tell you right now I payed much more attention when I smoked. Legalize marijuana, crime rate, and use will drop. Extra money from taxing it will rise. Money will not be spent on the silly war on drugs and tax dollars going to police enforcing these stupid laws. Take a look at this. You might learn something. It really does work.. Portugal Decriminalization "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." "Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana."

Posted by doogiem on 29 Apr 09 12:48 PM EDT

"Hats off" to so many of you who have posted humble, personal, well-thought-out, disciplined, and courageous postings. You are truely inspiring to me. And to those of you in my profession (behavioral health/treatment provider) who suffer from rigid, emotionally-based "black and white" thinking and whose limited ideas of "providing good treatment" soley rests on imposing your limited experience onto all others: I have always doubted your tiring,lazy rhetoric.

Posted by Jabberwock on 29 Apr 09 01:52 PM EDT

"Herb is the healing of the nation, alcohol is the destruction." -Bob Marley

Posted by Tim Henoson on 29 Apr 09 02:38 PM EDT

Keef: It was sarcasm as to what I believe it would sound like if an anti-mj actually spoke the truth. I am against the war on drugs and anything else that does not allow americans to make educated desicions on their own. I believe that there is indeed a multi billion dollar industry been ignored due to ignorance. It wont fix everything but it sure would help get things moving in the right direction

Posted by Richard Wilson on 29 Apr 09 04:19 PM EDT

Once again, Mr. Armentano proves that empirical data holds a far stronger argument than unfounded rhetoric and broken logic.

Posted by True American on 29 Apr 09 08:12 PM EDT

When did the country I live in become this thing that allows others to tell me what I will and won't do with my liberty? Plain and simple, no bashing rehabs, no bashing potheads, just fundamental questioning of anyone who wishes to impose upon my freedom to choose. "Slippery Slope, Gateway Drug, etc,." - ridiculous, you choose what to ingest, period. Enough with the money grubbing legal system, enough with the righteous among us.....

Posted by Me on 29 Apr 09 10:12 PM EDT

You know I read some of these posts and some people are right: there are a fair share of idiots who smoke pot, but look at things from the other side of the spectrum: in general there are a lot of idiots in the world, some just happen to like to smoke marijuana. The facts are there and everyone can see them. There is a problem though. We can continue on this road of stating the facts and slowly legalizing marijuana, but if we don't change our attitude and perception of how to get to the others who oppose we will never really get anywhere. For example: if you're in a room with 3 other people who oppose marijuana use and you're trying to convince them to change their mind, or atleast be more open-minded with the issue, how do these people make you feel? They do their best to try to make you look stupid and even though you're completely right in the situation their attempts at making you look like a fool work. Why? Majority always wins in small groups, which is what we have: A bunch of small groups, like us on this website, who fearfully put forth their beliefs on this subject.

Posted by Me on 29 Apr 09 10:13 PM EDT

Continued... It is this fear that will always hold us back from a full-blown legalization. Even on the government level a politician can only expect for his polls to decrease if he even somewhat mentions that he supports marijuana. This is not right and it's things like that which cause the fear in those who could contribute a lot to making a change. I'm sure you can all take a second and remember learning about MLK Jr. and before you all go crazy about how this is no comparison with that problem, I know. What I'm trying to get across is the fact that he stood, openly, and publicly, about what he wanted. He encouraged the others who also believed to participate and not be fearful of how they would be treated at the time, but think of how the outcome will help everyone as a whole. As you can tell, by the name I provided, I am also fearful of persecution. "What can we do to change this?" That is the question most supporters should be more concerned with, not: "Where's the proof?" Why? Because the proof is there, now all we need is a backbone. That concludes my rant, sorry for going on so long.

Posted by Lance C on 30 Apr 09 07:37 AM EDT

Cannabis needs to be legalized for so many reasons: it's medical value, to take away black market sales to drug lords (cartels/gangs), the fact that it is the only drug that cannot cause death by overdose, because criminals are using public lands such as parks to plant illicit crops, and also because of the stimulus to the economy it could bring in from taxes. But the number one reason it should be legal is the fact that it was made illegal only because of corporate interests in protecting the timber industry (because hemp can be used to create paper, as well as many other useful products). So legalize it already!!!

Posted by Chris D on 30 Apr 09 09:10 AM EDT

my husband and son are currently going through the justice system for smoking a little bit of pot. what is ironic to me is that the two cops that busted them are the biggest pot users in the county. who polices the police and why do only law enforcement and people on the other side get the freedom to do whatever they want, while the real victims get the book thrown at them for doing the very same thing. you can debate this all day long, but the real debate is that the only people who are free are the cops, judges, etc....

Posted by DrSteve on 30 Apr 09 03:58 PM EDT

Have there ever been this many posts to one article on JT? I'm amazed and encouraged by the high proportion of supporters of decriminalization of marijuana, and the various pieces of clear evidence they offer in support of their views. As a chemical dependency treatment provider for the last 35 years, it is absolutely clear to me that, although some people can become dependent on cannabis, with negative consequences, most users do not (as with other drugs). Yet we are still in a political situation where even the new Obama administration resolutely refuses to consider decriminalization. This string of posts makes me hopeful that a sea change is beginning!

Posted by Chris D on 30 Apr 09 04:28 PM EDT

100 years from now we as a country are going to look back and be ashamed of all the innocent people that have been convicted of such a harmless thing as using marijuana. I lost a cousin at 16 years of age who was killed by a drunk driver. The person who killed him served less time that a friend of mine that was arrested for less than an ounce of marijuana, who wasn't even behind the wheel of a car. Debate that one you morans who are against legalizing marijuana.

Posted by Swooper420 on 30 Apr 09 06:57 PM EDT

What a great discussion!Logic and reason vs. reefer madness propaganda. Cannabis (Marijuana is a pejorative term) was criminalized for several reasons, but primarily for financial and racial reasons. Nixon is on tape calling legalizers "Jews" and using other offensive language. Here's a quote, "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ."

Posted by jamesb on 01 May 09 08:12 AM EDT

Well, I'm from the Netherlands. We have a lot of experience with decrimininalizing cannabis use and it works pretty good. We are having much less problems with cannabis than the surrounding countries that have so much stricter policies. Plus we save billions for not proscecuting users and licensed sellers and much misery amongst the population. Criminalizing cannabis use is just the perfect way to get more people using it, which will account for more hard drug use. This is logically understandable for obvious reasons: if people want to try cannabis, they dont have to get in contact with criminal drug dealers who do not ask for your age nor will they hesitate to sell you addictive hard drugs for personal profit. I've never come into contact with hard drugs nor have i ever used them. Misplaced morality is lethal in many cases and this is one of them. Get smart, people will use it anyway to do yourselves a favor and grasp control in a way that enables health controls and disables the totally counterproductive overflow of the criminal justice system.

Posted by TonE on 03 May 09 12:39 PM EDT

I wanted to expand on the issue of big corporations wanting to continue prohibition. I wonder if anyone has let them know that while a large amount of people demonize marijuana, an even larger number hate smoking and relying on fossil fuel. Oil companies and Big tobacco could come out like heroes if they used their billions to corner the cannabis and hemp fuel industries. The people get what they want and the government gets an A+ for supporting the rights of their citizens (not to mention kickbacks from these companies.) That would seem to me a more sensible approach. Big rx might lose a bit, but if mj were legal public opinion would change and we would realize that rx meds are more addictive and dangerous. The public would probably support a scaling down in the use of man-made remedies.

Posted by Relaxed on 03 May 09 01:22 PM EDT

Donna said "a drug is a drug is a drug..." so I wondered with this argument should we be sending people to treatment after they finish their 30 day supply of antibiotic DRUGS, or a week straight of vicodin after an injury? Or how about Oxycontin there is a pretty addictive pain DRUG, does that come with a trip to rehab when it is prescribed and does insurance or the Drug Courts cover this incarceration... wait I mean treatment? Should every prescription come with a trip to rehab, since a drug is a drug is a drug, right? If I find myself drinking caffeine for more than 30 days in a row (doesn't take about 30 days to create a habit?) should I start calling my insurance company for a local rehab or should I just show up to the local drug court and turn myself in? I find myself using it at work, home, when I go out with the kids, heck my children are using it! OMG should I take them with me to rehab? Or is caffeine not a drug? Donna, you have to understand that some drugs are more dangerous than others and as such should have different controls and restrictions, but NO Drug should have penalties that remove a users freedom addiction does a good enough job of that and should be treated as a health issue NOT a criminal justice matter unless a users actions dictate such not their use.

Posted by juxtapostle on 03 May 09 03:54 PM EDT

Torturing terrorists condoned by some. Punishing drug users condoned by some. Some use fear as reason to violate the freedom and privacy that Americans hold dear. Fear as just cause to steal life, and to inflict suffering, torture, and discrimination upon their brothers and sisters. Such is life in the land of the free and the home of the brave; the land of violence. Prohibition of drugs is unAmerican. Prohibition of herbs is evil. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.

Posted by Lacey R on 13 May 09 04:34 AM EDT

I find it mildly ammusing that Marijuana legisation reform comes AFTER technology Makes paper obsolete. What with computers and ebooks along with recycling making paper a thing of the past, now it's "acceptable" to even consider legalization. LOL, that's convieniant.

Ban on 'Synthetic Marijuana' Approved in Kansas

Mass. School Officials Ponder Effect of Drug Law

Nevada Legalization Campaign Gets Religious Backing

Ohio Medical Marijuana Proponents Eye Mich. Vote

ONDCP: What Americans Need to Know About Marijuana

Non-Medical Marijuana III: Rite of Passage or Russian Roulette?