cannabisnews.com: The Dark Ages of Drug Awareness










  The Dark Ages of Drug Awareness

Posted by CN Staff on July 02, 2003 at 11:06:36 PT
By Jim Smith  
Source: Daily Barometer  

The Partnership for a Drug Free America has recently published a study which indicates that kids who see at least one anti-drug public service announcement per day are less likely to do drugs than those who do not.This should not be shocking in any way as the "repetition equals truth" formula and idea of ignorant faith are often employed by legal/moral authorities to indoctrinate.
Look at religions.I'm still dumbfounded by the idea that a person is expected to make informed decisions about personal drug use, despite the fact that almost all public drug education consists entirely of gross exaggeration, continuous citing of irresponsibly flawed studies, deliberate misinformation and outright lies.The purpose of these anti-drug spots is to dissuade kids from doing drugs of any sort, because a teen who experiments with marijuana is then more likely to move on to "hard drugs" -- or so the current wisdom tells us.But this "gateway drug" myth has absolutely no foundation in reality.Whereas in 1994, 16 percent of younger American marijuana users had tried cocaine, (a sharp decline from the 80s, when that figure peaked at 33 percent) the Dutch figure for that same demographic was only 1.8 percent.This is a clear result of the Dutch government's decision to allow the sale of marijuana in legal situations, separating it from so called "hard drugs."The failure to establish any such distinction between drugs, or even classes of drugs, is precisely the problem with the American system.There is only the very rudimentary separation of legal from illegal, which is completely useless as a gauge for a drug's dangers or merits.Alcohol is legal, and its poisoning causes 4,000 deaths per year.Marijuana is not, despite the fact that there has never been a single published case of a fatal cannabis overdose.Tylenol is legal, yet a single 6 gram dose has caused liver damage, and a 10-15 gram dose can cause liver failure and death.LSD remains illegal, even though a person could swallow 500 times the threshold dose and suffer no harm whatsoever.What happens when a person tries to swallow 500 shots of bourbon?This is not to say that all recreational drugs are safe, just that many of them have been falsely vilified. More to the point -- it makes no sense to use the blanket term "drugs" while referring to specific chemicals or compounds.This is the main problem with current drug programs. Lumping all illicit chemicals into one category as "unsafe" and all FDA approved chemicals into the opposing category produces not only baseless fear in some illegal drugs, but also false confidence in legal ones.Example: on a scale of toxicity, Tylenol is closer to VX nerve gas than LSD.There needs to be an evaluation of each drug individually, based on its own properties. Proper and truthful education is the only way to provide people with what they need to make informed choices.Why this has not become clear to those in a position to implement change is mystifying.If schools were honest with kids about drugs, chances are that marijuana use would increase along with Psilocybe mushrooms and LSD. But since these are all less toxic and dangerous than most over the counter and prescription medications, I can see no problem with that.At the same time, it is likely that use would decrease among such drugs as meth, crack, heroin, and dissociative anesthetics (which have been implicated in possible permanent brain damage and include the quasi-legal Nitrous oxide and DXM, as well as the more dangerous PCP and Ketamine) due to their serious side effects and addiction potentials.What prohibition teaches us, among other lessons, is that people will use what is available, laws aside, to get high.Inebriation is a natural impulse. Even many animal species have found a way to alter consciousness -- be it by eating fermented fruit or banging their heads against a wall.Knowing this, how is it morally justifiable to keep accurate information out of the hands of kids and even educators?The deaths of countless young people could have been avoided had they simply been educated about the substances they were using.For example, DXM is an active ingredient in many over the counter cough medicines, but it is also a powerful dissociative anesthetic -- which has become popular recreationally. Kids seeking to have a little fun hear from someone that cough syrup can get them high. They go to the store and buy some bottles.With limited knowledge, it's basically a crap shoot. Maybe they spend an evening high, or maybe they suffer respiratory failure and die, as many young people have.I haven't the room to begin to go into any of these issues thoroughly, nor the breadth of scope to even touch on the probable benefits of legalizing some of the safer drugs, both in terms of public health and government revenue.Yet this is exactly why I chose this topic. This superficial article is much more in-depth and truthful than any PSA or "drug awareness" program that kids are exposed to as they grow.Jim Smith is a columnist for The Summer Barometer. The opinions in his columns do not necessarily represent those of The Barometer staff. He can be reached at:  baro.forum studentmedia.orst.eduSource: Daily Barometer (OR Edu)Author: Jim Smith Published: July 2, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Daily BarometerWebsite: http://barometer.orst.edu/Contact: baro.news studentmedia.orst.eduRelated Articles: Fleeced By Anti-Drug Ads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16625.shtmlMarijuana Policy Fails Youth http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14896.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #20 posted by freedom fighter on July 05, 2003 at 14:21:52 PT
Should is an understatement..
Just from my point of view that "ALL" human beings on the day they were born start using drugs..The real question that is constantly posed here in this site isSHOULD A CHILD BE IN A JAIL FOR SMOKING A JOINT? We are not saying that children should use drugs but we KNOW that children do use drugs..The question again!!SHOULD A CHILD BE IN A JAIL FOR SMOKING A JOINT?Thank youpazff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by FoM on July 03, 2003 at 17:53:50 PT
News Brief -- Associated Press
Willie Gets Political
  
  
Thursday, July 3, 2003The presidential primaries are seven months away, but the endorsements have begun, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. Country legend Willie Nelson -- http://www.willienelson.com/ -- has announced his support for U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- http://www.kucinich.net/ -- D-Ohio, saying he "stands up for heartland Americans who are too often overlooked and unheard."Nelson, who once famously admitted smoking pot on the roof of the White House during the Carter administration, also applauds Kucinich's efforts to legalize medical marijuana and end the drug war.A spokesman for Kucinich ("Rhymes with spinach, and they're both good for you," says his rep) tells The New York Daily News: "We hope to invite Willie back to dinner at the White House after Dennis' inauguration."Meanwhile, Nelson's Sept. 7 Farm Aid concert -- http://www.farmaid.org/ -- will take place in Columbus — which Kucinich represents. The Farm Aid concerts, started by Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp in 1985, have raised $24 million for farmers. This year's concert will feature all three, plus board member Dave Matthews, Sheryl Crow, Brooks & Dunn and Trick Pony. 
Copyright: 2003 Associated Press
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by firedog on July 03, 2003 at 17:31:50 PT
Some people do suggest that children use drugs.
Actually, that title is an understatement. In some school districts, some children are actually forced to use drugs (or else they are kicked out of school). I'm referring to Ritalin in particular.See http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/ht1170.html for a collection of links related to this subject.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on July 03, 2003 at 11:32:50 PT
no one?
"No one will ever listen to wackos like you guys if you think children should actually use drugs."But children already actually use drugs. In fact, they use drugs so often and well that they are often experts in consumption and distribution techniques. It is the prohibition of cannabis that leads directly to it's proliferation, strength and exorbitant cost.Those who would berate, or even suggest executing "dealers that sell to kids" do not seem to comprehend that the best weed comes from minors...
Prohibition Increases Crime
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by BigDawg on July 03, 2003 at 11:25:00 PT
Huh?
I've been coming to Cnews for well over a year. I don't recall anyone ever saying that kids SHOULD use drugs. I've been involved the the culture for25 years and have NEVER heard anyone suggest that kids SHOULD use drugs.However, I've heard it said that prohibition is more harmful to kids than the drugs themselves (true in the case of Cannabis).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on July 03, 2003 at 11:22:22 PT
MaryJaneFreedom 
No one is a wacko that posts here and please refrain from insulting other CNews people. No one wants young people to do drugs that posts here. Talking about the reality of drug use is important so we learn.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by MaryJaneFreedom on July 03, 2003 at 11:04:25 PT
So you all think kids should uses drugs?
I think most of you need to get your arguements in order. No one will ever listen to wackos like you guys if you think children should actually use drugs. Identify that the pro-WOD crowd focuses on subjects such as this to make you oppose it. And thus making your reasons for legalization sound barbaric. Our comments should be on possibilities where less children would use drugs if they were legal, and not distributed in our schools.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by freedom fighter on July 02, 2003 at 23:28:56 PT
Kinda old but 
I do'nt think I will forget this... Did'nt FDA have this certain rule in their decision???Yea,, Not sure if it's second, third or the first!"MARKETING!"hahaha!Thanks for the price support!paceff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by afterburner on July 02, 2003 at 21:16:27 PT:
Thank You, Lehder, for the Ginsberg Article.
Now that pot is legal in Ontario, this is the kind of analysis that today's cannabists need. On Canada Day, I was at the Hot-Box Cannabis Cafe in Toronto. A younger cannabis enthusiast was describing a bad experience he had had on acid. I opined that it's important to have a good guide, to which he agreed. Then, I thought to myself, all the negative experiences people have had with psychedelics during prohibition need to be discussed and let go of, so that new positive potentialities can be learned and experienced. Even Ginsberg said that he smoked cannabis less in the US, than in countries where it is legal.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, as Alan says, it's all natural.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on July 02, 2003 at 20:08:03 PT
News Article from Snipped Source
Federal Judge's Protest Congressional meddlers dash judicial discretion. July 1, 2003 
It wasn't the pay, although federal judges make less than a plate umpire in the major leagues.No, after 13 years of making calls on matters of far more gravity than the camber of a 3-2 forkball, U.S. District Judge John S. Martin last week said he's hanging up his robe and won't return to the federal bench. Small wonder. At least umpires get to call them the way they see them.Congress has stripped federal judges of almost all discretion to decide appropriate sentences in criminal cases. In an essay published by The New York Times last week, Martin said he is fed up with Congressional meddling that forces judges to give unjust 30-, 40- and 50-year prison sentences to low-level, non-violent felons "who society failed at every step."The last straw for Martin, a 68-year-old jurist from the Southern District of New York, came after President Bush signed new legislation April 30 dictating the sentences federal judges must impose for drug-related offenses. Congressional conservatives, determined to show constituents they're winning the "war on drugs," didn't like the fact that federal judges disregarded earlier sentencing guidelines in 18 percent of cases. The new law closes that small window of judicial discretion. Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/Opinion/Editorials/03OpOPN02070103.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by mayan on July 02, 2003 at 18:26:46 PT
PROHIBITION
As Virgil points out,the p word(prohibition) is certainly gaining in use! We cannot use it enough. The parallels between the historic flop of alcohol prohibition and the current flop of cannabis prohibition must continue to be drawn. After all, it is our freedom that the fascists wish to prohibit.The way out is the way in...Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htmU.S. Seeks to Halt Moussaoui Questioning:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030702_485.htmlSeven in 10 say White House tied Iraq to 9/11, poll says:
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/932345p-6501491c.htmlBeyond Bush - by Michael C. Ruppert:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Lehder on July 02, 2003 at 18:25:54 PT
more on marijuana and madness
again from Allen Ginsberg:"
     It is not a healthy activity for the State to be annoying so
     many of its citizens thusly; it creates a climate of
     topsy-turvy law and begets disrespect for the law and
     the society that tolerates execution of such barbarous
     law,15 and a climate of fear and hatred for the
     administrators of the law. Such a law is a threat to the
     existence of the State itself, for it sickens and debilitates
     its most adventurous and sensitive citizens. Such a law,
     in fact, can drive people mad.     It is no wonder then that most people who have smoked
     marijuana in America often experience a state of anxiety,
     of threat, of paranoia in fact, which may lead to
     trembling or hysteria, at the microscopic awareness that
     they are breaking a law, that thousands of investigators
     all over the country are trained and paid to smoke them
     out and jail them, that thousands of their community are
     in jail, that inevitably a few friends are "busted" with all
     the hypocrisy and expense and anxiety of that trial and
     perhaps punishment -- jail and victimage by the
     bureaucracy that made, propagandized, administers,
     and profits from such a monstrous law.     From my own experience and the experience of others I
     have concluded that most of the horrific affects and
     disorders described as characteristic of marijuana
     "intoxication" by the US Federal Treasury Department's
     Bureau of Narcotics are, quite the reverse, precisely
     traceable back to the effects on consciousness not of
     the narcotic but of the law and the threatening activities
     of the US Bureau of Narcotics itself. Thus, as the
     Buddha said to a lady who offered him a curse, the gift
     is returned to the giver when it is not accepted.     I myself experience this form of paranoia when I smoke
     marijuana, and for that reason smoke it in America more
     rarely than I did in countries where it is legal. I noticed a
     profound difference of affect in my case. The anxiety
     was directly traceable to fear of being apprehended and
     treated as a deviant criminal and put thru the hassle of
     social disapproval, ignominious Kafkian tremblings in
     vast court buildings coming to be judged, the
     helplessness of being overwhelmed by force or threat of
     deadly force and put in brick and iron cell.     This apprehension deepened when on returning this
     year from Europe I was stopped, stripped, and searched
     at customs. The dust of my pockets was examined with
     magnifying glass for traces of weed. I had publicly
     spoken in defense of marijuana and attacked the
     conduct of the Bureau, and now my name was down on
     a letter dossier"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Lehder on July 02, 2003 at 18:09:20 PT
marijuana and brain dysfunction
>>But rarely do we hear the other side — the fact that
   marijuana causes depression and anxiety and can lead to short-term memory loss. I dispute that marijuana causes any of these. The fact is that a strong majority of people who have smoked marijuana are pleased by the effect and are satisfied that it is both harmless and useful. Allen Ginsberg:" But the vast majority all over the world, who
     have smoked the several breaths necessary to feel the
     effect, adjust to the strangely familiar sensation of time
     slow-down, and explore this new space thru natural
     curiosity, report that it's a useful area of
     mind-consciousness to be familiar with, a creative show
     of the silly side of an awful big army of senseless but
     habitual thought-formations risen out of the elements of
     a language world: a metaphysical herb less habituating
     than tobacco, whose smoke is no more disruptive than
     insight -- in short, for those who have made the only
     objective test, a vast majority of satisfied smokers.
"http://marijuana-uses.com/examples/ginsberg_mhoax.htmBut what of "short term memory loss"? We hear this from anti's over and over - "short term memory loss," as if they've forgotton how many times it's already been said, and there the argument ends:"short term memory loss." So what? Do I take a quiz every hour? People who abstain from marijuana still lose their car keys - should they be locked up? I dispute that cannabis causes memory loss. But the idiot who fears smoking it because of "short term memory loss" is giving up the many benefits of marijuana for the sake of a most dilute and ethereal claim. Read the rest of Ginsberg's essay and learn about the marvellous benefits of smoking marijuana. During the many years of prohibition since Ginsberg wrote his essay, medicine has found that marijuana preserves the brain against trauma, nerve degeneration and Alzheimer's. It's for the benefits and insights marijuana offers that people smoke it. I'll never believe that tens of millions of people smoke it because they want to endanger themselves. Ridiculous. If marijuana were dangerous very few people would smoke it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on July 02, 2003 at 16:16:29 PT:
Did you catch that?
*Souder was traveling on official business and was unavailable for comment. He said in his letter that, since this is a medical issue, the FDA must step up to the plate and not let the Drug Enforcement Administration be the only voice of reason.*"The only...voice...of...reason". The DEA...reasonable?This Souder fellow sounds a bit much like someone badly in need of thyroid therapy. Left unchecked, hypothyroid conditions produce cretinism. Given that he's just made the DEA the only 'voice of truth', then it may be too late for him...
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 02, 2003 at 15:23:50 PT

Article from Family.org
Souder Asks FDA for Full Truth about Marijuana By David Brody, Washington, D.C., Correspondent July 2, 2003A U.S. congressman is calling on the FDA to set the record straight on so-called medical marijuana. Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., has written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calling on the agency to do a better of job of educating the public on the facts about marijuana. Some say pot alleviates pain. The congressman wants the record to be set straight. For years, Souder notes, we've heard marijuana supporters say the drug helps medical conditions like nausea and pain. But rarely do we hear the other side — the fact that marijuana causes depression and anxiety and can lead to short-term memory loss. "There are so many questions that exist today surrounding this issue that I think it's very appropriate that Congressman Souder ask for the FDA to do this," said Judy Kremer, of the group Educating Voices.Yet there's disagreement over the government's position. Three years ago, the Institute of Medicine did a scientific report on medical marijuana and concluded that the drug does alleviate pain. Alan St. Pierre, a spokesman for the pro-marijuana group NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), said that should suffice."The congressman need only to go across the street to the Library of Congress to read the most definitive report — up to date — on it," St. Pierre said. "The idea that we would have to have the FDA look at it three or four years later seems a bit of a waste of taxpayers money at this juncture."But Kremer said it's the FDA's role to prevent patients from being misled and that the first report is incomplete. What's left out is how marijuana effects people's lives."It's very, very dangerous to be suggesting that this is a medicine and that it should be taken by people who are ill," Kremer said. The FDA said it won't comment until it has reviewed the congressman's letter. Souder was traveling on official business and was unavailable for comment. He said in his letter that, since this is a medical issue, the FDA must step up to the plate and not let the Drug Enforcement Administration be the only voice of reason. Copyright: 2003 Focus on the Familyhttp://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0026735.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by AlvinCool on July 02, 2003 at 15:20:16 PT

Imagine what this would do
What if all school kids just filled out those survey forms indicating zero drug use. What would they say if their surveys just all came up clean, year after year? What can they say, to support their income, without referring to children? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on July 02, 2003 at 12:50:36 PT

chicken or egg
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_796035.htmlsee also:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22robin+murray%22+marijuana
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on July 02, 2003 at 12:09:06 PT

The greatest truth
There needs to be an evaluation of each drug individually, based on its own properties. Cannabis prohibition lives because of the fog represented by the generality of "Just say no." It is a way not to get pinned down on anything on an intellectual basis. It is the Nancy Reagan chant that got her a Medal of Freedom. Giving that nations highest award for a chant shows the absurdity of it all. But in this sentence we have not just a great truth in the substance abuse arena, we have the greatest truth. It is also the power of Erowid- http://www.erowid.org/index.shtmlWhat prohibition teaches usIt seems like the p word is gaining in use and that the number of articles that advise pragmatism is growing. It spells the beginning of the end for prohibition because when the genie is fully out of the bottle it will grant us three wishes- truth in the debate, doing the right thing, and a new plant for the garden.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on July 02, 2003 at 12:04:09 PT

Thanks JR
I know that I don't believe this report. I've never met anyone that has had trouble with mental illness because of Cannabis. Alcohol is a different story though. Prohibition of cannabis will make users paranoid but that isn't mental illness just fear about being arrested. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on July 02, 2003 at 11:51:27 PT

Prohibition drives ME insane
Cannabis use linked to later mental illness:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_796035.html
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment