cannabisnews.com: Substance Abuse: Seattle's High Substance Abuse: Seattle's High Posted by CN Staff on January 11, 2007 at 12:33:40 PT Seattle Post-Intelligencer Board Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer Seattle -- War on drugs? Please. This is Seattle. You know how we roll. You don't? According to one recent nationwide survey, we're not the sorts to be high on life.If you live here, you're among the country's second-most-frequent users of some illicit substance or the other. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health released this month shows that among the 15 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the country, Seattle ranks second in drug use. Note that the study considers marijuana an illicit drug, along with the likes of crack and heroin.Done between 2002 and 2005, the study asks respondents ages 12 and up to report past-month substance (ab)use, and 9.6 percent of us reported that we'd used something naughty. The national average was 8.1 percent. Yup. We get high, then we rob banks (Seattle had the fourth-highest number of bank robberies in the U.S. last year). If you're wondering who out-toked, -smoked, -popped and -snorted us, it was San Francisco, at 12.7 percent. Snipped:Complete Article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/299167_drugsed.htmlSource: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)Published: Thursday, January 11, 2007Copyright: 2007 Seattle Post-IntelligencerContact: editpage seattlepi.comWebsite: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #20 posted by FoM on January 14, 2007 at 20:03:42 PT Interesting News Article Michael Cutler: Gov. Patrick, Fix Bay State Drug PolicyFriday, January 12, 2007Drug abuse presents such danger to public health and safety that it requires its own war, the War on Drugs. The tangible results of three decades of this war are a quadrupling of nonviolent prisoners, resulting in a steady diversion of state funds from drug treatment and to the prison system. No price is too dear for our health and safety, but health and safety are expensive to maintain. URL: http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_cutler12_01-12-07_SK3N20V.1d9c074.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Toker00 on January 14, 2007 at 14:15:07 PT Sorry, rchandar. I didn't mean to Demonize Capitalism. It works, but ultimately for the investors and not so much for the workers. Financing a Socially Conscious Democracy would put too much money into achieving equality and not enough into Elite/Class-ism control agencies. But that is what needs to be done, desperately. Especially Health Care and Education. It wouldn't hurt them to have a healthier/smarter civilization. Or would it?Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Toker00 on January 14, 2007 at 10:49:04 PT rchandar You're right. Show how the DEA is claiming that the Law is the Law and that the buck stops with them, when it really doesn't. The Buck stops where it started. Laws made on unjustified and personal prejudices and unfairly instituted for at least seventy years, in spite of the large number of people who have re-discovered self thought and who have determined these laws to be Unconstitutional, Racist, and Inhumane, at best. Anslinger started the ball rolling and kept it rolling for thirty years, instilling his lessons of Budget Increases and Maintenance, Empire Building and Cultural Control on all future Drug Czars. We must change the future by keeping the past in the present. A Blockbuster WOULD help.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by rchandar on January 14, 2007 at 09:49:32 PT: Toker00 I think a movie should be done on this guy--a la the way they did the Nixon film. I wouldn't put it together with capitalism that much in mind, but rather the single-minded, narrow-minded, egotistical and self-glorying Anslinger who was obsessed with etching his name into the world of narcotics history. It's a remarkable story, and if Harry were painted in the kind of egotistical and narrowminded light that posterity should see him in, it may make another dent in Drug War Theory. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on January 13, 2007 at 10:19:50 PT Ron Paul He really seems like a good man. If he would win I know he would work with the Democrats if they stay in power. That would be a very good thing. I still like Obama but his fuzzy headed liberal comment must be explained before I can get rid of the red flag that popped up when he said that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Hope on January 13, 2007 at 10:09:28 PT Ron Paul for President! Is it possible?I love the man. He loves and respects the Constitution! [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Hope on January 13, 2007 at 10:08:15 PT Oh my gosh! Something good! http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012065.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on January 13, 2007 at 09:55:41 PT Hope You aren't complaining in my opinion. There is alot to be upset about these days. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Hope on January 13, 2007 at 09:54:30 PT Oops. Sorry, complaining and whining again. Chop. Chop. Chop. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Hope on January 13, 2007 at 09:53:38 PT Thank you, TokerOO We need classes like that. Everyone does.That's one problem with being activists for SOoooooooo long. Is that we think everyone knows the facts...when in fact...very, very few do.Everyone needs the real facts pounded into their heads...like the lies were.Just because we've been aware of these problems for years and years doesn't mean a guy that just realized the problems with these prohibitions a month ago knows anything about them.Lately, I've been thinking there is a lot of stuff that we've said in the past...and we're like...well ...that's been said...when it probably needs to be said again. It gets so frustrating...but we need to remember some of those things that are true that we haven't thought about in a while.Like "Marijuana is not illegal because it's "bad" for you or dangerous."It's stunning the number of people who think it is illegal because it is "bad" for you...the government said so...and they wouldn't if it weren't true...right?Oh, Lord. This is such a seemingly endless row to hoe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Toker00 on January 13, 2007 at 08:11:17 PT rchandar There's no way to ever OVER expose this guy, you know it? You are right about him being one screw-er-upper of the world. Talk about us repeating forgotten history, though! Man! These stories haven't changed during ANY period of cannabis prohibition. Malcom X was discouraged from becoming a Lawyer because of his race, so he made a small fortune as a Pot dealer. Is it any different for many young black men today? Anslinger was budget oriented just like Walters, and they BOTH use Cannabis Prohibition to justify that budget. So it's not just about racism and class-ism, it's about Capitalism as well. Profit is God to some. Is any other illegal drug as budget guaranteeing as cannabis? I doubt it. And they don't have to be. Prohibiting cannabis takes care of a whole spectrum of Corporate competition, and societal fears. Locking up Cannabis possessors is like raking your leaves each fall. You know they are gonna be there to fill the budget basket.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by rchandar on January 13, 2007 at 07:47:06 PT: Toker00 I do hope your class was seriously enlightened.No, in all seriousness. There is a lot of stuff on the Web about Anslinger. My favorite byte: in the later years of his life he supplied morphine to Senator Patrick McCarthy, the architect of "McCarthyism" and "the Committee of un-American Activities". (Wikipedia insists that Anslinger's hatred of drugs originated as a boy when he saw a morphine addict in pain.) [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Toker00 on January 12, 2007 at 09:30:54 PT You got it. They have known from the beginning there is no way to "control" (Prohibit) marijuana. The BUDGET has ALWAYS been the goal.Re: History. Martin Booth.'Some attempts had been made to attach cannabis to existing federal narcotics legislation. In 1929, a number of Congressmen led by a Texan senator approached Anslinger to append it to the Harrison Act but this was opposed ON THE GROUNDS THAT HEMP WAS A DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL CROP AND IT WAS IMPRACTICAL TO ATTEMPT TO CONTROL INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN IT. The federal government did, however, take some action that year in establishing two centres (called 'farms') at Lexington, Virginia, and Fort Worth, Texas, for the treatment of federal prisoners who were addicted to, as it was put, HABIT-FORMING NARCOTIC DRUGS including Indian hemp.There was another reason for Anslinger's reluctance to address marijuana. It was Manpower. He knew he would need many more agents to combat a drug so commonly used amongst Mexicans and Blacks...'It's never been about the danger of Cannabis, it's always been about class and racism.That's it for today class. Wage Peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by rchandar on January 12, 2007 at 06:51:52 PT: Toker00 History is an important part of the cannabis issue--and our case, especially to the young. None of the anti-drug ads, here or in other countries, ever explain why MJ was outlawed. There isn't a commercial, a lecture, a discussion at rehab, which explains this very fundamental flaw in the reasoning of Drug Warriors. What we get is a set of determinations about crime, psychiatry, and family. Anslinger is protected from his racism, from his classism, from the ultimateness of his ruse which cheated the world into believing in prohibition.So, Toker00, I encourage more posts about this remarkable man who screwed up the world permanently.--rchandar [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on January 11, 2007 at 21:57:35 PT Once upon a time... Re: History. Martin Booth.'Anslinger discouraged any unbiased scientific investigation or evaluation. He even prevented marijuana from being provided to respectable research for the purpose of research. From the mid-30's onward, he engaged upon a vigorous and sustained anti-marijuana campaign without a reasoned justification other than his personal prejudice. With few experts able to counter his claims, he was at liberty to preach as he pleased.'Sorry guys. I'm just trying to keep my mind off the Present Danger world.There wasn't a war on drugs then, and there isn't a war on drugs now. It's always been about a war on Cannabis. Always.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Toker00 on January 11, 2007 at 21:07:36 PT Set up straight and at least LOOK interested...;) Re: History'Anslinger, who maintained a very substantial file on marijuana even though he was not initially involved in legislating it, attempted to historically link the word marijuana to the Aztec Indians of Mexico. According to his argument, cannabis was called MALIHUA or MALLIHUAN in NAHUATL, the Aztec language. This was, Anslinger claimed, constructed of the noun MALLIN (a prisoner), the preposition HUA (of or suggesting a property) and the verb ANA (to capture, take, or grab). Therefore, MALIHUAN (sometimes spelt MILANA-HUAM) meant the prisoner taken captive by the plant. In other words, an addict.'In another explanation of the origin of the name:'One root for it seems to have been the Mexican military slang phrase Maria y Juana (MARY AND JANE), meaning a prostitute or brothel.'Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on January 11, 2007 at 20:48:12 PT History lesson. Now class... From: "Cannabis: a History" by Martin Booth.Hemp was sought by the US government during the war for more than fibre. In 1942, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, investigated the potential of marijuana as a truth drug to be used in the interrogation of enemy agents and captives. The first extract was termed honey oil. Tasteless and made from hashish, it was to be added to the food of interrogation subjects. When it was tested on OSS guinea pigs, they broke out in peals of laughter, became paranoid, or clammed up. The research was abandoned in favor of developing LSD for the same purpose. However, the researchers published a report on marijuana which stated that the commonest effect of honey oil was fits of laughter. Anslinger, who had been attacking marijuana for over a decade as a brain-destroying narcotic, was a signatory to the report.In retrospect, Anslinger did marijuana a huge service. He mythologized it and nationally publicised it more effectively than an advertising campaign. Certainly, much of his erstwhile sales pitch did alarm people, but there were others who questioned his propaganda and wanted to know the truth.And we are STILL questioning it. Why?Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Toker00 on January 11, 2007 at 18:21:49 PT Mayan This is in reference to your comment on the other article. I am uneasy too. So is museman. So is FoM. Strong barometers. We know it could go one way but we pray it goes the other. Ms. Toker says she saw and felt the nervousness of Bush during his speech. She contributed it too his being nervous about losing his Republican dominated powers. Where, in HELL, is Cheney? We (The American People) MUST stop this madness. But we can't. Not until they have what they want. Bush does not back down. He will have to be restrained. Who is powerful enough to do that, who isn't secretly or publicly hoping he WON'T be restrained? War Profits are a hard fix to break. So they show me.This surge is not going to be for the purpose of an exit strategy. It's pure escalation, and sure to bankrupt us into soup lines. An endless war is not possible. When you run out of funds, you have to stop. Ask Russia. But I have a feeling that when our taxes can't feasibly pay the bill, it may become privately funded by Global Bankers with no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Security Companies, if that is possible. This IS the most Privatized war in history. The Trillions missing from our Nations piggy bank could buy a lot of Private War Lords. Nothing would surprise me about these Globalists. And with no Constitution and Corporatism at the helm...I try to hope sanity prevails, but that is a SIGN of insanity THESE days.The War ON Terror is a terrible war! It's a terrible War OF Terror!The terrible war of the War ON Terror,Is the terrible terror OF War!Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by mayan on January 11, 2007 at 16:14:09 PT Toker The war on drugs is over. The drugs won. They are EVERYWHERE!!! The war on terror is over also. The "terrorists" won. They destroyed our Constitution. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Toker00 on January 11, 2007 at 12:45:57 PT Alcohol: The most prevalent and least fought drug. Aren't we glad they won the War on Drugs? Man, just imagine if they had lost it... Toke. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment