cannabisnews.com: War On Illegal Drugs Should Be Escalated War On Illegal Drugs Should Be Escalated Posted by FoM on January 28, 2001 at 13:54:05 PT By Sandra S. Bennett Source: Columbian In his Jan. 11 opinion, "Drug War's Casualties Outnumber Its Victories." David Klinger of the pro-legalization Cato Institute castigated the war on drugs. The view was seriously deficient in reality and simply reverberated the din of the pro-pot lobby. Klinger wrote that he had never seen anyone "overdose on marijuana or influence anyone to do anything more violent that attack a bag of potato chips." He's probably never seen anyone die of tobacco either, buy surely he would not claim tobacco is harmless and marijuana has far more carcinogens than tobacco, not to mention a host of other deleterious consequences that are particularly hazardous for children. Those who use drugs commit crimes while under the influence, and the devastation to the rest of the family is well documented. Drug use escalates when the supply is readily available and the consequences are either weak or nonexistent. Any policy that reduces consequences for the use or makes drugs more readily available in any way can only lead to more tragedy for society. As for Klinger's claim that he has never seen anyone do violence under the influence of pot, perhaps he is recalling the marijuana of the 1960's and '70's, which for the most part was nothing more than wild hemp, also known as ditch weed. Ditch weed, though low in THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, was strong enough to get a smoker sufficiently high. The marijuana today is extremely potent, can be life threatening if ingested and is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes throughout the nation. Society has found it abhorrent that the tobacco industry deliberately targeted children, yet today proponents of legalization actively promote drugs and a drug-using lifestyle to our children via the Internet directly into their classrooms and into their homes. Tobacco and alcohol have never been legal for children, but because these substances are legal for adults, they are readily available and are easily accessed by children. Legalizing drugs for adults would simply move the illicit market to the purview of younger and younger children, and drug trafficking and dealing would continue to flourish. Time Served Can Heal, Too: As for the thousands whom Klinger asserts are locked in prison for minor possession (primarily another hallucination of the pro-pot lobby), there are hundreds of thousands of parents who would far rather have had their children incarcerated than to have them lose their lives to illicit drugs. Even former President Clinton stated that his brother would be dead today if he had not been imprisoned and forced into treatment. The film "Traffic" shows how futile treatment is. While it is only humane to provide treatment to addicts, one does not win a war by treating the wounded. There is not one affection of society that is not created or worsened by the use of psychoactive and addictive substances. The scourge of drugs should be likened to the Bubonic Plague and treated accordingly. This plague was not eradicated by tending to the sick and dying. It was eradicated by killing the rats that carried the deadly fleas. What needs to be done globally to turn the tide on drug use does not take rocket science. It takes common sense. Society needs to view drug use as offensive, destructive and disguising behavior; to apply meaningful consequences to users, since most users coerce others into joining in this folly; and especially apply significant, unpleasant consequences to those who promote the use of illicit and addictive substances. If we aren't in a war on drugs, we certainly should be. The United States will spend $17.5 billion this year trying to contain a scourge that is costing the nation nearly $300 billion a year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lost and decimated lives. In the interest of the welfare of our country and good economic sense, it is time to double or even triple our effort in the war on drugs and quit letting legalizer propaganda undermine prevention efforts. Note: Sandra S. Bennett lives in LaCenter, WA and is director of the Northwest Center for Health and safety, past President (1999) of Drug Watch International and past President of OR Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth. Source: Columbian, The (WA) Author: Sandra S. BennettPublished: January 28, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Columbian Publishing Co. Address: 701 W 8th St, Vancouver, WA 98666 Contact: editors columbian.com Website: http://www.columbian.com/ Forum: http://www.webforums.com/forums/trace/host/msa70.html Related Articles & Web Site:The Cato Institutehttp://www.cato.org/A Changed Mind On Drug Legalization http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8285.shtmlNew Cato Institute Book Looks at Alternativeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/7/thread7815.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #29 posted by observer on January 31, 2001 at 17:47:51 PT 420 News Commentary on this article The 420 News with Richard Cowan gives time to reading and commenting on this article today.http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-521.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Dankhank on January 30, 2001 at 11:16:31 PT: disbelief This woman is her own enemy in her imagined "war." As was done in the 60's, when we only had "ditchweed" like Panama Red, Columbian black, Acapulco Gold, Jamacian collee, Sensemilla once in a while, we heard the government screaming about the danger of marijuana ... death, violence, ... etc.The lies continued, even as we found out that they WERE lies. Since they claimed the same results from the narcotics far-thinking kids reasoned: If they lied about marijuana, they probably lied about cocaine and heroin.So some of them tried that, liked it and got hooked. I lay the blame on the government for the lies that misinformed the youth about what was REALLY dangerous.Hate this evil woman for her lies, and hate her for misinforming kids and parents about what is really dangerous.More kids will get hooked because she says that: >This is essentially the same message that they give on the narcotics. So again, after a kid sees that his friend only gets giggly, spacey, and hungry after smoking pot, they KNOW that the information they got is a lie.Will kids of today again assume that if the govt. lies about pot they must be lying about everything else, too??A pox on you sandra bennett. You will kill kids because of the lies you tell ../ Hemp n Stuff [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by kaptinemo on January 30, 2001 at 04:54:43 PT: Thanksgiving came early this year I didn't have to expect to carve up any turkeys until November. But Providence moves in mysterious and wonderful ways.After having looked up Ms. Bennett courtesy of my favorite search engine, it led me to Drug Watch International's site. In the spirit of discovery - and after a very large 'belt' of my favorite anti-emetic - I took the time to peruse the site, and her writings. Evidently, Ms. Bennett's tendency towards hyperbole, conflation and outright lies is not an occasional affair; she is as loose with the facts 'supporting' her position in the vast majority of her articles she wrote for her own organization as she has tried to be here.There's just one problem: this time, she's not able to preach from the security of the pulpit to the acolytes. This time, she has ventured to come down from her exalted heights to walk amongst the great un-wash - er,... the 'public'.Where we're waiting for her.I won't try to add to the excellant comments that have already been made here. But I would like to tender a suggestion: that every person who reads this takes pen or word processor in hand and writes an LTE to the Columbian and thanks them for having the bravery to publish the remarks of a dyed-in-the-wool anti. Inform them that it takes singular bravery on the part of a newspaper to publish the unedited remarks of someone who is expressing her opinions...however wrongheaded they are. Stress the word 'opinions'. Then proceed to remind the Columbian of the many studies that the US Government has conducted over the years disproving each and every one of her allegations. How those papers that have supported her position have themselves been shot down in flames courtesy of peer reviews, and in one notable case, the producers of a Government-funded anti-pot study were caught fudging their facts and were forced to make public apology to the scientific community for their willingness to prostitute their intellectual integrity for Uncle's money. Yep, on this particular kind of turkey, it's always open season. For one of the most best storehouses on cannabis information, studies - and advice on countering anti agitprop - I suggest:Carl E. Olsen's Marijuana Archivehttp://mir.drugtext.org/olsen/Default.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by Frank on January 30, 2001 at 04:50:39 PT Marijuana Inspires Violence Doctor thanks for suturing up the wounds on my scalp. I was just setting on a park bench with some friends smoking a joint when a policeman came up behind me and began beating me across the head with a night stick. He then began to kick me in the ribs when I fell down. My friends yelled for him to stop and he began to beat them also. They are in the county jail for “resisting a policeman with violence”. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by mungojelly on January 29, 2001 at 20:13:01 PT: a P.S. on those ER visits The statistic in question is "mentions." For instance, the following counts as a "mention" of marijuana in an ER visit: "Well, you see doc, I was just sitting in my house smoking a joint, when these guys dressed in black came and busted down my door..." [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by mungojelly on January 29, 2001 at 18:56:24 PT: pathetic strawmen & debate props Klinger says that it is well nigh impossible to overdose on marijuana, and Bennett replies "how can you say that tobacco is harmless?!" Never mind that it's a pathetic strawman. Never mind that there are other ways to ingest marijuana. If the worst thing that can be said about marijuana is that it can potentially cause lung damage, its prohibition has lost all of its legs and probably its arms as well. I have an amusing prop suggestion for anyone who is debating marijuana legalization (if you can find anyone to debate): oatmeal cookies. Just plain old unadulterated oatmeal rasin cookies. Take some out and say "these cookies have marijuana in them, and I'm about to eat one" and put it in your mouth. (If you're really smooth you could just imply that they have weed in them without actually lying.) Between bites, comment on the fact that you are causing yourself no lung damage, and rhetorically ask the audience whether they feel that you are doing yourself or anyone else harm by eating a cookie. I guarantee you will have your opponents frothing at the mouth and raving like lunatics; if you're lucky they'll call the cops and demonstrate the waste of police resources, too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by DontArrestMe on January 29, 2001 at 18:39:02 PT Just the facts I am certain that there are still no deaths on the books solely attributable to pot, no matter how potent it is.As for the punishments aren't severe enough, possesion of any drug except a small amount of pot is a felony on the federal level. I assure you that someone who gets caught with a "hard" drug like coke will tell you that the amount of time they spent in prison was far from lenient unless they narced on someone. The same is true for people who grow marijuana.And as for those emergency room trips, I am certain that the vast majority of them are panic/anxiety attacks. It may seem trivial but there would likely be no mj related er visits if people haven't been persuaded by such misinformations as this that a couple of bong hits can kill you or give you a heart attack or something. A good percentage of cocaine and amphetamine related visits are also due to anxiety because of the perceived dangers of the substances. Now don't get me wrong, cocaine and meth can be life threatening but aren't as often as the government would have you think. We do use these drugs legally in the hospital and for ADD. (Don't forget marinol either)So basically the government allows the flow of misinformation, the public responds with anxiety in many of the er visits, and the government then uses the inflated figures to show that the drugs are dangerous and more so now than ever. In fact, the statistics are just a reflection of an ill informed public at the whim of government strategies for the War on Drugs.Think about it, I have personally seen someone have a panic attack after smoking mj and while some people inevitably react that way, knowing for a fact that no one just dies or suffers any acute health effects from it would reduce the er visits. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by romper on January 29, 2001 at 15:53:59 PT where do these people come from? She says I believe any parent would rather have their child incarcerated then to let drugs destroy their lives. This is crap. What parent in their right mind would want to see their son or daughter in prison for 10 years getting gang raped and and treated like some sort of scum by the gaurds? I work with 1500 hundered people and I preach about the war on drugs and injustice of our legal system every minute of the day with my coworkers and as of yet no one has offerd to try and get me fired or in any sort of trouble. As a matter of fact by the time I am done informing them on what I read on this site they are just amazed at all the info they did`nt know and one thing they all agree on is that I DO NOT BELONG IN PRISON. Don`t get me wrong childen should not have access to drugs but I pay my taxes and do my job and would bend over backwards to help another human being so why should I not be allowed to persue happiness in the way I want to? As for the comment on emergency rooms and people dying from smokeing to much pot are absured. You want to talk about punishing drug dealers? How about starting with the doctor who seven years ago put my mom on persciption zanx and now cannot function without them? How about the docor who percribed the wrong blood pressure medicine for my dad and almost killed him. What do you say to that Bennet? You think all drug users are violent thrash YOU ARE WRONG. I suggest before you ever write another article on this subject you better know your facts and get a life of your own???????????????????????????????????? Peace [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Dave in Florida on January 29, 2001 at 09:12:32 PT Whatever happened to all those kids >Any policy that reduces consequences for the use or makes drugs more readily available in any way can only lead to more tragedy for society. Well, Ms Bennent, whatever happened to all those kids (54% in 1979 as your type likes to cite) that smoked pot in high school? I graduated HS in 1972 and had smoked pot since 69'. The percentage of smokers back then was probably more that 60%. The vast majority of us are hard working productive members of socity. All you prohibitionist say "for the children", well, lady, we are the children and we are fine, we had fun as kids and have fun now. We are not hipocrites like you. All these years the use rate has been 40% to 50%. Are you saying that half of the 40 year olds today are a problem to socity?> Legalizing drugs for adults would simply move the illicit market to the purview of younger and younger children, and drug trafficking and dealing would continue to flourish." Mamm, would you mind giving us data to substaniate this claim. If drugs are legal, then stores that sold to children could lose their liscense just like alcohol dealers today. You need to smoke a fatty and lighten up! [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Robbie on January 29, 2001 at 09:02:37 PT: legalization and prohibition would dissapear with legalization, and commercial manufacturing.NO!! I don't want Phillip Morris taking over the pot growing market, number 1. Number 2, even with legalization, let's not have any corporate pot farms...this is not something ANYone should favor. I'm sure they would corrupt it almost immediately.As for this article? Noone should be worried about this chica. She grabbed a PDFA or DEA manual and wrote this article. She's not worth debating...she probably doesn't even know what she's writing about. Anybody who goes after pot doesn't even know that their position is undercut by their equating benign and dangerous illicit drugs. And anyone who doesn't put alcohol and tobacco at the top of their list is not even genuine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by aocp on January 29, 2001 at 08:11:32 PT: Small comfort >This is what doesnt make sense... if a pharmaceutical company were one of the first to pick up "legal weed", then they would make out like bandits!Which is exactly why they don't favor MJ in its bud state, since, as i understand it, a patent can't be held on something that grows naturally. If all those that could benefit from MMJ could just hold out, the pharmies will get around to maybe a patch or gum or an inhaler or something. Small comfort regarding a substance which has no lethal dose. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Mr.2toes on January 29, 2001 at 07:55:22 PT yes, I had to have another go at her. 1 in 13 drivers have had too many drinks to drive between the hours of 10pm and 1am, a drunk doesnt actually even need a car to kill or do damage though, just the alcohol plus a bad day is enough to push some drunk to do something bad.I cannot beileve some of the prejudices that come out of these peoples mouths, the most dangerous things about marijuana are the laws that supposedly "protect" us from it.If someones Marijuana that they ate sends them to the emergency room, then the pot has been laced, or has grown a mold or fungi, a little problem that would dissapear with legalization, and commercial manufacturing.This is what doesnt make sense... if a pharmaceutical company were one of the first to pick up "legal weed", then they would make out like bandits! [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Duzt on January 29, 2001 at 07:41:17 PT Desperate This is really a GOOD sign. The antis are losing the war. Most of these people have never had there lies exposed or had to deal with argueing against the truth and against just plain common sense. The more they are exposed, the more absurd and desperate their arguements will become, which is great. When those that are caught in the middle read things like this, they will start to see how ludicrous these people truly are. She also probably still has that old mindset of, "if we make drugs (through lies) seem so repulsive and portray all users as horrible people that don't belong in "free" America, nobody will use drugs." Well, any person with any common sense can see that this doesn't and won't work, it has to a point given a negative, false image, but will backfire as more and more people learn the truth. And it is the truth that shall set us free... [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Frank on January 29, 2001 at 04:53:25 PT The Real Dope "Nicotine is a more demanding mistress than heroin," said Dr. John Slade, chairman of the American Society on Addiction Medicine's nicotine-dependence committee. . "Most people quit three, four, five or even six times before they quit for good. Nicotine is an extremely addictive substance." I think people who are cought with nicotine should receive mandatory prison sentences of 25 to life and have their bank accounts taken by the government. Our government should send troops into the tobacco growing areas with heavy firepower and burn down the growers homes and crops. The government then could start a crop substitution program and force them to grow okra... at the point of a gun. Our government should ask the government of Columbia for help in destroying this drug problem at its source. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by freedom fighter on January 29, 2001 at 04:46:42 PT Real Danger It seemed to me that there are going to be some misinformed common folks who will read this and believe this tripe. I am not too worry about most of us but am concerned that there will be folks deluded by this article. It seemed that the author is trying to push someone's button. The primary goal of this article is to get a law pass to stop us from speaking out. "yet today proponents of legalization actively promote drugs and a drug-using lifestyle to our children via the Internet directly into their classrooms and into their homes""and especially apply significant, unpleasant consequences to those who promote the use of illicit and addictive substances."She is truly a war criminal. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Dan B on January 29, 2001 at 02:38:30 PT: Just Had To Comment Again . . . "The marijuana today is extremely potent, can be life threatening if ingested and is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes throughout the nation."As NotToWorry mentioned, this is an outright lie. But notice how brazen she is: marijuana is, on average, no more potent today than in the 1960s and 1970s. If it were, it would reduce the harm associated with smoking it because one would need to smoke less to achieve the same effect. Furthermore, the word ingest means "to take, as food, into the body" (according to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1994). Hear this, Bennett: the only way marijuana has ever even been suggested to cause harm is by way of inhaling the burning organic material. One cannot even get sick, let alone die, from eating raw marijuana. Eating marijuana is perhaps even safer than eating many of the foods I am sure you eat on a regular basis. In short, there is not, nor ever will be, such a thing as ingesting a "lethal" amount of marijuana. It just cannot happen.Most discerning readers know that there is no lethal dose for cannabis. Once this rather obtuse lie is revealed, then, the rest of Bennett's rhetoric should be immediately called into question. Now we know how people get to be president of organizations like Drug Watch America: the one's who lie most (and least effectively, I might add) are promoted.By the way, Bennett obviously either did not see Traffic or did not understand it at all when she did.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Ed Carpenter on January 29, 2001 at 02:23:41 PT: Columbian article by Sandra Bennett Following is taken from the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) Family Guide to Prescription Drugs, here's what it says about PROZAC:"More Common Side Effects may include: Abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, bronchitis, chills, diarrhea, dizziness, drowsiness and fatigue, hay fever, inability to fall or stay asleep, increased appetite, lack or loss of appetite, light-headedness,nausea, nervousness, sweating, tremors, weakness, weight loss, yawning.""Less Common Side effects may include: Abnormal ejaculation, abnormal gait, abnormal stoppage of menstrual flow, acne, amnesia, apathy, arthritis, asthma, belching, bone pain, breast cysts, breast pain, brief loss of consciousness, bursitis, chills and fever, conjunctivitis, convulsions, dark tarry stool, difficulty in swallowing, dilation of pupils, dimness of vision, dry skin, ear pain, exaggerated feeling of well-being, excessive bleeding, facial swelling due to fluid retention, fluid retention, hair loss, hallucinations, hangover effect, hiccups, high or low blood pressure, hives, hostility, impotence, increased sex drive, inflammation of the: esophagus, gums, stomach lining, tongue, and vagina, intolerance of light, involuntary movement, irrational ideas, irregular heartbeat, jaw or neck pain, lack of muscle coordination,low blood pressure upon standing, low blood sugar, migraine headache, mouth inflammation, neck pain and rigidity, nosebleed, ovarial disorders, paranoid reaction, pelvic pain, pneumonia, rapid breathing, rapid heartbeat, ringing in the ears, severe chest pain, skin inflammation, skin rash,thirst, twitching, uncoordinated movements, urinary disorders, vague feeling of bodily discomfort, vertigo, weight gain.""Rare Side Effects may include: Abortion, anti-social behavior, blood in urine, bloody diarrhea, bone disease, breast enlargement, cataracts, colitis, coma, deafness, decreased reflexes, dehydration, double vision, drooping of eyelids, duodenal ulcer, enlarged abdomen, enlargement of liver, enlargement or increased activity of thyroid gland, excess growth of coarse hair on face, chest, etc., excess uterine or vaginal hemorrage, extreme muscle tension, eye bleeding, female milk production, fluid accumulation and swelling in the head, fluid buildup in larynx and lungs, gallstones, glaucoma, gout, heart attack, hepatitis, high blood sugar, hysteria, inability to control bowel movements, increased salivation, inflammation of: eyes, eyelids, fallopian tubes,testes, gallbladder, small intestine, tissue below skin, and lung inflammation, kidney disorders, menstrual disorders, mouth sores, muscle inflammation or bleeding, muscle spasms, painful sexual intercourse for women, psoriasis, rashes, reddish or purplish spots on the skin, reduction of body temperature, rheumatoid arthritis, seborrhea, shingles, skin discoloration, skin inflammation and disorders, slowing of heart rate, slurred speech, spitting blood, stomach ulcer, stupor, suicidal thoughts, taste loss, temporary cessation of breathing, tingling sensation around the mouth, tongue discoloration and swelling, urinary tract disorders, vomitingblood, yellow eyes and skin." [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Richard on January 28, 2001 at 23:25:43 PT: had to pick out at least one line to savage... "Any policy that reduces consequences for the use or makes drugs more readily available in any way can only lead to more tragedy for society."I agree. I think we need to seriously reign in all the drug companies before they turn everyone into 'Prozac Zombies'.And aren't all those Bud Light commercials cute? Gee, when are we going to wake up to the fact that 'let's party' is just a junior high phrase for 'let's sit around and get pissed drunk and pretend no one in the room has a problem with alcoholism'.Wait, wait, let's not forget all the 7-11's in Texas, where you can buy single cans of iced beer within four feet of the door and your car, but god forbid you drive down the street, 'cause our ever zealous cops are under a lot of pressure to catch anyone even thinking about being intoxicated. Buy it but don't drink it? What hypocrisy. Let's get 7-11 a little more accountable. Or perhaps Ms. Bennett owns stock in the company... [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by legalizeit on January 28, 2001 at 22:29:40 PT Escalate THIS! > marijuana has far more carcinogens than tobacco, not to mention a host of other deleterious consequences that are particularly hazardous for childrenFirst, please back up your first assertion with hard data. Second, any consequences which could conceivably be "hazardous for children" are directly related to the plant's illegal status.> The United States will spend $17.5 billion this year trying to contain a scourge that is costing the nation nearly $300 billion a year, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lost and decimated lives.What scourge are we talking about here? Alcohol ruins hundreds of thousands of lives, and kills innocent victims of drunk drivers, etc., yet is legal and used by most hypocrite bureaucrats!>In the interest of the welfare of our country and good economic sense, it is time to double or even triple our effort in the war on drugsThis "lady" really frightens me. She would make a great pork-barrel politician. Let's spend 50, 100, 200 billion a year on the drug war. Have random drug testing checkpoints every 3 blocks. Build an air base every 5 miles along the border. Fly helicopters 24 hours a day over suspected pot growing areas. Send the Sixth Fleet into Colombia. Stop and drug-sniff every car driven by a minority. Amend the Constitution to strike the First and Fourth Amendments. And what will we get? If interdiction ever works, drug prices will soar, and so will crimes related to obtaining money to get drugs. Black-market kingpins and corrupt cops will get richer than ever, and drug users will still have their drugs.Get real, you pathetic excuse for a human female. Drug-free is something that mankind has never been and never will be. The drug war was doomed to failure from the very start and pouring more money into this money chasm will not change anything but for the worse. Furthermore, the children you claim to protect are harmed much more under prohibition than if certain recreational drugs were legally available to adults for use in their own homes, just as the two main govt-sanctioned drugs are now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Mr.2toes on January 28, 2001 at 21:50:57 PT Interesting... She seems to beileve that the movie she referenced is an anti-drug message, the movie basically states that you can throw a man in jail, in 'rehab', or take away his rights, but the need to escape our reality as we know it is human nature.Also interesting is that she beileves "The marijuana today is extremely potent" if that were true, well, there would be alot less lung damage amongst tokers.Funny how she states that people commit crimes, and violence while under the influence...but didnt say any specific examples.I've never met a person that does that peer-pressure thing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by No To Worry on January 28, 2001 at 21:43:07 PT Gotta laugh "As for Klinger's claim that he has never seen anyone do violence under the influence of pot, perhaps he is recalling the marijuana of the 1960's and '70's, which for the most part was nothing more than wild hemp, also known as ditch weed. Ditch weed, though low in THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, was strong enough to get a smoker sufficiently high. " This is an outright lie, even the commercial weed from the seventie's was pretty good, not to mention the Colombian Gold, Jamaican, and other exotic imports may have been even better than what is in today's black market. "The marijuana today is extremely potent, can be life threatening if ingested and is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes throughout the nation." More BS. It is now required of Emergency Room technician's to ask if the patient has used illicit drugs lately, depending on what has brought them there. If it is noted if they have; statistically, it can be used in a causative relation to the visit. Realistically, it is only a coincidence. "Society has found it abhorrent that the tobacco industry deliberately targeted children, yet today proponents of legalization actively promote drugs and a drug-using lifestyle to our children via the Internet directly into their classrooms and into their homes. Tobacco and alcohol have never been legal for children, but because these substances are legal for adults, they are readily available and are easily accessed by children. Legalizing drugs for adults would simply move the illicit market to the purview of younger and younger children, and drug trafficking and dealing would continue to flourish." I happen to be in favor of harsh penalties for providing to children, even your own children, unless medically necessary. "Time Served Can Heal, Too: "As for the thousands whom Klinger asserts are locked in prison for minor possession (primarily another hallucination of the pro-pot lobby), there are hundreds of thousands of parents who would far rather have had their children incarcerated than to have them lose their lives to illicit drugs. Even former President Clinton stated that his brother would be dead today if he had not been imprisoned and forced into treatment." I am going to trust what Clinton say's? LOL. If his brother was allowed to grow and chew his own coca leaves, it would have been no more dangerous than coffee."The film "Traffic" shows how futile treatment is. While it is only humane to provide treatment to addicts, one does not win a war by treating the wounded." True color's are showing through. "There is not one affection of society that is not created or worsened by the use of psychoactive and addictive substances. The scourge of drugs should be likened to the Bubonic Plague and treated accordingly. This plague was not eradicated by tending to the sick and dying. It was eradicated by killing the rats that carried the deadly fleas. " Anybody that uses illicit drugs, now has as many rights as flea's. True color's showing through again."What needs to be done globally to turn the tide on drug use does not take rocket science. It takes common sense." Obviously, this piece was not written by a rocket scientist. "Society needs to view drug use as offensive, destructive and disguising behavior; to apply meaningful consequences to users, since most users coerce others into joining in this folly; and especially apply significant, unpleasant consequences to those who promote the use of illicit and addictive substances. " With the exemption of the illicit part, the pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco industries do just that."In the interest of the welfare of our country and good economic sense, it is time to double or even triple our effort in the war on drugs and quit letting legalizer propaganda undermine prevention efforts." She must be joking. It is futile to combat a human drive to alter consciousness. It would be much wiser to teach wise use. Again, she is no rocket scientist. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Stripey on January 28, 2001 at 19:06:34 PT Comments Doc: That's why these people won't debate. The "evidence" looks great on paper where it can't be publicly contested.AntiAnti: Only once? =) I've done it hundreds. . . =)Remember kids, mj is "life-threatening." *laughter* [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by nl5x on January 28, 2001 at 17:51:17 PT Propaganda / vested interest These people are literally fighting for their jobs and lively hood. I agree with Dan b that bennett is somehow related to the former czar bill Bennett, wont waste my time checking though.. This article as everyone has said is not worth our time/effort dissecting/correcting. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Lehder on January 28, 2001 at 16:14:25 PT Jay Leno could read this line for line. Enough laughs to last all week. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by ANTIANTIDRUG on January 28, 2001 at 16:09:33 PT WoD WAR ON DINGBATSLOLgood one! I'm only annoyed I didn't think of it first! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by collegepark poisonee on January 28, 2001 at 15:50:15 PT: we need a war on dingbats We need a war on illinformedfear mongering dingbats. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on January 28, 2001 at 15:50:02 PT: Bennett, Eh? I have a sneaking suspicion that Sandra Bennett is related to William Bennet, former drug czar. I recognize a similar disdain for the truth.I am far too angry at this crap to respond to all of the specific comments, other than to make the general statement that anyone who cannot see the hatred oozing from this article must be either delusional (as Bennett is) or incapable of understanding much of anything. I encourage everyone to visit the site I have linked below. The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) has copied every argument made on the DEA's website and included next to each argument a much more convincing (as factual) rebuttal. If you've seen the site, you know what I mean when I say that it should be required reading for everyone involved with this issue--especially the antis.Dan B DRCNet's Answers to the DEA [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by ANTIANTIDRUG on January 28, 2001 at 15:31:41 PT WELL DONE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE! "Those who use drugs commit crimes while under the influence..."And what crime have I committed under the influence?Oh yeah.. I once forgot the punch line to a joke.This Sandra S. Bennett woman needs treatment. She seems to have a very bad case anti-humanitarianism. She seems to forget that people get killed in wars. Just because its not on her door step. I hear people tell me I should move to Holland if I want the herb on demand. I think these people should move to China or Iran where their government pandering will be gratefully received.I think the work you guys/girls do on this site and many others is breathtakingly brilliant and I wish you all the success your efforts deserve. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 28, 2001 at 14:41:28 PT: License to Distort Someone who purports to be a spokesperson has a responsibility to present facts, not distorted fiction. There are so many lies, and inconsistencies here that it does not merit even taking the time to address them. If this is the best the anti's can do, then the war is all but over. Just another little nudge, over the edge ----. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: