Marijuana's march toward mainstream confounds feds

[Jesus Malverde]

It took 50 years for American attitudes about marijuana to zigzag from the paranoia of "Reefer Madness" to the excesses of Woodstock back to the hard line of "Just Say No."

The next 25 years took the nation from Bill Clinton, who famously "didn't inhale," to Barack Obama, who most emphatically did.

And now, in just a few short years, public opinion has moved so dramatically toward general acceptance that even those who champion legalization are surprised at how quickly attitudes are changing and states are moving to approve the drug — for medical use and just for fun.

It is a moment in America that is rife with contradictions:

—People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people.

—States are giving the green light to the drug in direct defiance of a federal prohibition on its use.

—Exploration of the potential medical benefit is limited by high federal hurdles to research.

Washington policymakers seem reluctant to deal with any of it.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Marijuana-s-march-toward-mainstream-confounds-feds-4637771.php

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Good

This nation has squandered untold wealth - of both the monetary and the human variety - over the years, and it hasn't accomplished jack shit. It's time for lawmakers to cast aside the wishes of their corporate benefactors and *finally* do the right thing!

[JaneyVee]

2. Great.

[burnodo]

9. glad you like it

[tofuandbeer]

15. whew!

[Owl]

28. Wow! Where did you find that?

[hedgehog]

3. The funniest comment I heard was from a police officer who complained

that if marijuana was legal, people would smoke it!

As if, people aren't smoking it now.

As if, the fact that it would be legal wouldn't reflect a consensus that at the very least, smoking marijuana causes less harm than enforcing the law against smoking!

[rhett o rick]

4. Our authoritarian conservative leaders dont want to give up this control. nm

[intheflow]

5. "even as science reveals more about the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people."

DUH! Young people shouldn't be using any controlled substances for recreation - just like they shouldn't be drinking under 21. What a stupid correlation.

[Phlem]

17. your going to hear more

about it's potential dangers than it's benefits. Corp+Lies=MSM

-p

[Bluenorthwest]

6. They know this is the future, fast changes and no abiliity to 'control the message'.

Feds will fail as they failed in suppressing marriage equality. Years of Obama wailing about Sanctity and Gawd did not rescue that anti gay crap from the jaws of history. Now Eric and Obama are trying to hate on marijuana, as if anyone takes them seriously.

[Hydra]

7. Who ever thought the first Non-White(that we know of) President would be carrying water

For the most backward policies ever created?

We have to drag him kicking and screaming from the ideas of deranged old white people.

[Phlem]

18. drack him back to

his own rhetoric when running for president. It's a classic case of, "Ill say anything to get the Presidency", to "I don't recall saying that".



-p

[Hydra]

21. Sad, isn't it?

I remember when he did that speech about "The audacity of Hope." Cynical as I am, I was moved for a moment. Is it audacious to hope for better?

Apparently it is, and he felt the need to show us that. Quite a twist of the knife, IMO.

[MNBrewer]

23. Move me once, shame on you. Move me twice....

[burnodo]

8. what potential dangers?

what government sponsored research do they refer to?

[backscatter712]

11. Why all the things they teach you in DARE!

That marijuana's a Gateway Drug (TM), that it makes you completely looney-schizo, that it turns you into a vegetable, etc. etc. etc.

What? Kids aren't believing what they're taught in DARE anymore? Imagine that...

[retired rooster]

16. the only potential dangers lie in getting caught up in the criminal justice system.

[mainer]

10. Pot users may be less likely to get Alzheimer's

Funny how we don't hear much about this research:

Marijuana's Active Ingredient Shown to Inhibit Primary Marker of Alzheimer's Disease

Discovery Could Lead to More Effective Treatments

LA JOLLA, CA, August 9, 2006 - Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have found that the active ingredient in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, inhibits the formation of amyloid plaque, the primary pathological marker for Alzheimer's disease. In fact, the study said, THC is "a considerably superior inhibitor of [amyloid plaque] aggregation" to several currently approved drugs for treating the disease.

The study was published online August 9 in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, a publication of the American Chemical Society.

http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2006/080906.html

[Uncle Joe]

12. It's long past overdue for cannabis to be legalized.

It's also too bad the federal government doesn't have the political courage, integrity gonads, ovaries or whatever it takes to pass law on ending the longstanding, dysfunctional, counterproductive, corruptive and basically insane policies against Marijuana.

Thanks for the thread, Jesus Malverde.

[Rebellious Republican]

13. I personally know republicans who openly (somewhat) smoke pot! They are die hard vote the R letter

straight ticket all the way down the line. They also call themselves religious and quote bible and verse. The old guard GOP can not keep ignoring their old white southern christian pot smokers any longer. They will vote libertarian, much like the green party did for us in 2000.
Its scaring the shit out of them.

[L0oniX]

14. As soon as it legal I will start smoking it again ...cause there will be excellent buds ...cheap.

I hate dirt weed ...stems ...seeds ...pesticides ...bullshit. I want some of that purple stuff from Hawaii.

[Phlem]

19. Me too

let me know when you find some.



-p

[Rebellious Republican]

20. I will start smoking again because I will not lose my job over it!

Some of the best I ever had came from Humboldt, Ca. and Kentucky. Very hi resin, just touch with your finger and it stuck like glue.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Humboldt+county+pot&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=7ifPUf-fBoGS9gTgsoHoBA&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=979

The group became known as the "Cornbread Mafia" and Boone was tagged by prosecutors as their leader, earning him the nicknames "King of Pot" and "Godfather of Grass." Eventually, 70 Kentuckians were accused of growing 182 tons of marijuana.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/27/kentucky-king-of-pot-on-t_n_788772.html

[hobbit709]

22. "Excesses of Woodstock"? WTF!

[In_The_Wind]

29. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a daily wake-n-bake.

[randr]

24. The first thought of almost every one who has ever gotten high

"This is illegal?????"

[NCcoast]

25. A nation of shameless hypocrites

I'm 53 years old. My freshman year in college was 1978 and I attended a small liberal arts college in New England. I would have been shocked to find that more than 10% of the student body at the time was not smoking marijuana. And that 10% was not the sort you really wanted to hang out with. Everyone was smoking marijuana in those days... EV-REY-ONE. Which means that damn near everyone in both houses of congress has smoked marijuana. Which means that everyone of them knows exactly how harmful it isn't. Like a friend of mine likes to say 'Everyone knows the only thing marijuana leads to is a pizza'.

I knew for certain in those days that by the time I reached the age I am now, marijuana would be legal. How could it not be? The entire population had tried it and knew exactly what it was about. The only way we would not have legalized it was if we turned out to be a nation of shameless hypocrites. Which, sadly, is exactly what we turned out to be. What a sad thing that is to discover about a country that was once so progressive and so great.

[RainDog]

26. interesting article

thanks for posting! would you mind cross-posting the article in the Drug Policy Forum so that it will be easy to find in the future?

re: People are looking more kindly on marijuana even as science reveals more about the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people.

Sabet, et all, are sad to see. But not surprising to see. He has built a career on being a drug warrior. He seems disinclined to review evidence that discounts his claims.

The issue of the dangers for young people is a scare tactic. Ask any teenager which is easier to get at school - alcohol or marijuana? If marijuana were regulated through stores in the same way that alcohol is regulated, and if we had public service campaigns geared toward adults about keeping ANY legal substance out of the reach of children for whom it is not meant - we could rationally address these fears.

The claim that cannabis causes schizophrenia in teenagers has been debunked. A meta-analysis of all scientific research on this issue indicated that only those already disposed to developing schizophrenia showed any schizo-affective symptoms. What Pertwee, GB's leading pharmacologist on this subject, had to say is that cannabis poses no threat to the general population for mental health issues. What studies indicate is that rates of schizophrenia remain stable in nations, no matter the level of cannabis use.

The issue of claims of marijuana addiction is one we need to talk about more.

Because, according to the govt itself, and as noted many times, marijuana is less addictive than caffeine. You can view a table and discussion of this from 1994 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=HtGb2wNsgn4C&pg=PA266&dq=Henningfield/Benowitz+Ratings&ei=aheNSc3qLp-OkASdmazIBQ#v=onepage&q=Henningfield%2FBenowitz%20Ratings&f=false

The issue of substance abuse, for various substances, is often really a secondary issue. The underlying issue is one of mental health that exists before and after the use of any substance.

This reality is one reason we need to treat all substance abuse (not all substance use, btw) as a secondary condition, in most cases, and we need to realize that punishment does not address the actual reason for substance abuse. Just as we now, as a society, recognize that some people have a problem with substance abuse related to alcohol, and have created a social framework for those people to receive treatment and help, we need to extend this same model to substances that are more harmful than alcohol (marijuana, however, isn't among those.)

For the few who exhibit a psychological dependency on cannabis, treatment programs, of course, should be available for those people as well. Any substance can be psychologically addicting. No special threat needs to be assigned to cannabis in this regard. Moderation is entirely possible for many people, in regard to cannabis use, just as it is possible for many people in regard to alcohol use. Moderation is possible for many people regarding alcohol, even tho it is far more addictive than cannabis.

Addiction fear scares are not useful to actually deal with this issue, which comes down to this: Is marijuana more harmful to society as a legal or illegal product?

It appears to me it is more harmful for people to face a legal system that prohibits (just as it was with alcohol) than it is to have a legal substance (just as it was with alcohol.)

The overwhelming evidence regarding cannabis, in terms of a cost/benefit analysis to society --- the possible physiological dangers of the substance versus the harm/the harm of the punishment compared to the harm of the substance itself --- indicates that cannabis is benign for the majority of people, whatever their age or health. the costs of prohibition are more harmful than the use of the substance itself.

We can argue this, anyone who would like to do so, and, if so, I will be happy to refer to the studies (including ones indicating potential negatives) to argue this point. Or people can look for the evidence themselves, since there are 1000s of studies that are the basis for my view of this issue.

[HiddenAgenda63]

27. Confusion to the enemy!

[napoleon_in_rags]

30. "the drug's potential dangers, particularly for young people."

The best way to keep young people off it is to legalize it and regulate it like alcohol.

Here's how it works: When a body of people, both over and under 21 want illicit drugs, that creates a demand, and that demand is way larger than just the body of people under 21.

Sellers arise to satisfy this large demand, and get the money (98% of the money there is from adults with jobs).

The sellers can't turn anyone down for fear of making enemies and getting turned in. So they sell to high school kids.

[tdb63]

31. The Government's Marijuana Patent No. 6630507

US Patent 6630507 Titled: Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Owner: US Dept of Health and Human Services

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

The DHHS admits there is medicinal value to marijuana.

“Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia.”

[RainDog]

32. I'm beginning to think

the continued push to keep marijuana illegal at the federal level is an attempt to create two markets: a legal, synthetic pharmaceutical market and an illegal cannabis plant market.

the reasons for this are profit for a few and punishment for the many.

this is already the model with Marinol - even tho doctors with extensive patient interaction have reported that their patients prefer whole-plant cannabis to the single THC molecule Marinol.

You cannot get more corrupt than this: to create a criminal class out of people who use a natural substance that is less harmful than the synthetic one you allow.

So, how corrupt are you, politicians?