cannabisnews.com: Drug Czar Walters: Marijuana Most Abused Drug





Drug Czar Walters: Marijuana Most Abused Drug
Posted by CN Staff on September 13, 2002 at 09:51:45 PT
By The Detroit News
Source: Detroit News
John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, visited Detroit on Thursday and spoke to The Detroit News editorial board. Walters, a former Michigan State University professor, developed anti-drug education programs in the Reagan administration and was a chief of staff to drug czar William Bennett during the first Bush administration. The following are edited excerpts:  Q. Talk about your trip here. 
 A. We are focusing on how the federal government effort actually reaches people in critical areas, and 80 percent of the drug problems are in the 25 biggest cities in the United States.  What we have tried to do is re-energize a balanced effort on drug use and dispelling the cynicism that institutions that are designed to effect this problem don't work. So the president set a national goal of reducing drug use by 10 percent in two years for adults and teenagers and 25 percent in five years.  One of the reasons for coming here is to make sure we're highlighting those things that are working at the local level.  Prevention is where you want to start. If young people do not begin experimenting with drugs -- or alcohol or cigarettes -- during their teenage years, they are unlikely to start later on. If we do a better job of preventing experimentation, we change the dynamic of this problem for generations. And it is about addiction. The biggest single consumers of drugs are dependent users. They are the ones we also have the most difficulty reaching with treatment. The president has committed an additional $1.6 billion to federal treatment spending over five years.  A new survey allowed us to see the drugs people are dependent on. Over 60 percent of the 6 million (drug addicts) are dependent on marijuana. Many Baby Boomer parents believe we should legalize it and treat it like alcohol.  Q. How do you refute that?  A. According to most available data, marijuana is more than twice as important as a source of addiction and abuse than the next most important illegal drug, which is cocaine. Today, more young people are being admitted and presented for treatment for marijuana than for alcohol. That has not been true in the past. Unlike when I was in college in the 1970s, when THC content, the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana, was 1 percent, today's marijuana is 10 to 14 percent. And hybrids go up to 30 percent and above. They are not starting at 17 or 18. They are starting at 14, 13, 12 and 11.  Q. Are people dying from marijuana use?  A. Marijuana does not have the same toxicity qualities as alcohol or heroin or cocaine. But in combination with other drugs, it has now surpassed heroin in emergency room admission cases. It is a serious part of the more than 50 percent of the people who are arrested and tested for having drugs being in their system. It is not true that marijuana makes you mellow, a nice docile Cheech and Chong characters. It increases tendencies toward stealing, isolation, fighting and violence.  Q. Are we moving more toward a strategy of reducing demand instead of supply?  A. We have not -- partly because of the relationship of many of these programs to the war on terror -- shifted money to demand over supply, although the president's single largest recommendation in this area was the $1.6 billion over five years for additional treatment spending. But we are still spending more with the increases in border control. We are certainly on the supply side spending more.  Q. What are we getting for the money we're spending on reducing supply?  A. As we increase our control of the border, we will do a better job on drugs. There are signs that already has been happening since last Sept. 11, because of the heightened alert status and the sharing of information.  Q. We've been fighting supply for more than 30 years. Do we have any indication that we've done any good? Can anyone who wants drugs get them?  A. It is not possible for everyone, everywhere, any time they want to get drugs. When you actually ask young people, "Can you buy drugs?," over 50 percent say it is difficult. It is harder to buy crack than it is to buy beer, and that helps us control supply.  On the other side, what has not been understood is that the estimates of interdiction coming from Colombia are that we seize with their help 30 percent of what is shipped. Last year, cocaine purity in the United States dropped 9 percent. That is good for us. This helps us help people get into treatment because over time it is less easy to maintain the habit you've established with less and less potent drugs.  Q. Many people, including this editorial page, have questioned the effectiveness of the drug war. Are you able to say whether we are winning?  A. Drug use is too high. But I also think from my experience that is too harsh a view. When we push back against this problem with common sense ways, like prevention, treatment and enforcement, it shrinks. When we joke about it and act as if it is not a serious threat, it increases.  I think the drug war term is counterproductive in the sense you use it. The original consensus was we need to create a seriousness in the country because there was a cultural, moral dimension to it. It had to have an underlying popular support. But it has been phrased as though this is like a war, and because it has taken a long time, it's Vietnam. Therefore, we're losing, therefore, let's withdraw.  It is a problem of taking care of, educating and protecting young people. We don't say we've been educating people for hundreds of years, and it costs a lot of money, and we're not happy with the dropout rate or the SAT scores, so let's just save the money and just pay people and stay home.  Q. Making drugs harder to obtain may cut the number of users, but it has increased crime in neighborhoods like in Detroit. And in countries like Colombia it has caused the United States to start meddling in civil domestic situations. Would it not be better for the United States to tolerate slightly higher drug use but control these other unintended consequences of the war on drugs?  A. No. The overwhelming part of violence associated with the drug trade is catalyzed by the people who use drugs. Eighty percent of child abuse and endangerment cases in every metropolitan area in this country are attributed a guardian or parent using drugs. The same thing is true with crime. Over 50 percent of those arrested in every metropolitan area in the country test positive for drugs.  There's also a misperception about how the criminal justice system has worked on enforcement. There are those, especially those who want to legalize drugs, who say we've filled our prisons with low-level, nonviolent offenders. That is a gross and obvious lie. The single biggest source of growth in prisons is violent repeat offenders. The criminal justice system has done an outstanding job of sorting through drug courts and diversion programs those who have a dependence problem from those who are dangerous.  In countries where drug production exists, yes, there has been violence, and yes, there has been a problem. But parts of those countries that are not controlled by the central government are being used to market drugs and taxed by other groups or the drug traffickers. If you legalize drugs and increase the volume, you would simply increase the funding of those people who are using the money to try to take over the government or establish their own authority. The president has made this clear that the American drug consumer is the single largest funder of anti-democratic forces in this hemisphere.  Q. Is it possible to reduce supply?  A.When I was out of government, I was always struck by the businessmen who spent millions of dollars to make sure the lobbyists prevented the government from using its regulatory and other authorities to damage their business and cause a recession, but in the drug market the government couldn't do anything.  I do believe the drug problem is much smaller today because of what is being done on the enforcement side. Let me give you an example. The most famous advocate of legalization was Kurt Schmoke, mayor of Baltimore. When he took office in the 1980s, Baltimore had an above average rate of addiction. He said let's de-emphasize criminal enforcement and focus on treatment. During the 1990s, when almost every city was experiencing boom times, Baltimore had no new office buildings built, had net disinvestment and lost population. And there were an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 intravenous drug users. The rates of hepatitis and HIV infections in subpopulations were almost unbelievable. I would argue Baltimore has been more damaged by the drug problem than any city in American history.  Q. Ontario has a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. It would have a major impact on Metro Detroit. What will the Bush administration be doing on this?  A. I met with Canadian officials in June. I'm pleased to see that the Health and Justice ministry people say they don't intend to adopt in the near term this proposal. The first result if they did adopt is there would be a lot of Canadians who would be a lot worse off. I invited them to learn from the experience that the United States has paid so dearly for in regard to what drugs do. In addition to (the problem of marijuana) dependency, I was surprised to see the Canadians have no national surveys of rates of drug use, no surveys of drug dependency or trend analysis.  We already have a problem in the western part of Canada with high-potency marijuana being shipped to the United States. It is being exchanged for cocaine by gangs in the western part of the United States. Canada is a large drug supplier to the United States, and the United States is a drug supplier to Canada. Both of our populations are the worse for that. As we take the policing steps on the northern border because of the war on terrorism, we are undoubtedly going to have greater seizures of drugs. The drug problem does not respect borders. It uses borders as a way of circumventing enforcement pressure and a way of carrying on business. Note: Federal drug czar John Walters said Thursday that "more young people are being admitted and presented for treatment for marijuana than for alcohol. That has not been true in the past." Source: Detroit News (MI)Published: September 13, 2002Copyright: 2002, The Detroit NewsContact: letters detnews.comWebsite: http://www.detnews.com/Related Articles: Move To OK Pot Ripped http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14099.shtmlCanada's Pot Policy Under Fire from U.S.http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14095.shtmlDrug Czar's Visit Will Include Pot Issuehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14092.shtmlLegalize Marijuana, Senate Committee Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13989.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #26 posted by FoM on September 14, 2002 at 21:19:40 PT
News Brief from Lansing State Journal
U.S. Drug Czar Speaks Against Legalizing Pot
Published 9/14/2002
Local news briefs
Lansing State Journal
http://www.lsj.com/news/local/020914_copbeat_3b.html
EAST LANSING - White House drug czar John Walters toured the Crossroads youth shelter Friday and spoke out against efforts to relax drug laws.
Walters, a Lansing native, said he will fight efforts in Nevada and Arizona to legalize small amounts of marijuana. Those measures are on the Nov. 5 ballot.
He said legalization sends the wrong message to young people and will lead to more drug problems.
"No public health program attacks the disease while stimulating the way that disease is carried and spread," he said.
He said he was following efforts to legalize marijuana in Canada. Such a move would reverse recent efforts to streamline border security between the United States and Canada, he said. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on September 14, 2002 at 08:40:51 PT
Dan
Please let us know if you get published! Good Luck to you. You do a great job!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Dan B on September 14, 2002 at 08:17:20 PT:
Dr. Russo
I sent it to the Detroit News. Here's the updated (and shortened to around 250 words) version:Dear Editor:
 
 
Drug Czar John P.Walters would have us believe 80% of drug users abuse their children. This is, of course, completely untrue. The figure Walters uses in his September 13 article means that 80% of the people who have their children removed by a government child protective services agency use illegal drugs. But Walters’s figure is off by 30%, according to the latest figure (50%) available through the Child Welfare League of America, and that when we include alcohol. In addition, when one considers that many children are removed from the home not because of actual child abuse, but because a parent uses some illegal drug, including cannabis, you begin to see the real picture behind this number. The government has "cooked the books" by taking children from their parents and holding them for the ransom of ending all illegal drug use. Of course, John Walters believes this strategy is fine and dandy because, he reasons, any parent who uses illegal drugs is a child abuser. Strangely, he does not hold this same standard for parents who drink alcohol. For an alcoholic parent to have his or her children removed from the home, actual signs of abuse must be present. Oddly, it is alcohol that is to blame for the vast majority of child abuse and domestic violence in this country.If half of all abuse cases are associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse, the other half are not, and it makes no sense to say illegal drugs are to blame. (Dan B)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by p4me on September 14, 2002 at 07:57:53 PT
Have people forgotten about Alaska
Even in the reporting they say Nevada may be first to legalize MJ, but they never mention the state that is going to beat them to it, Alaska. Alaska has an iniative for full legalization and what little that has appeared here seems optomistic about its passing.I am going to say that an inhibited 4d4p4q is the result of more political correctness. I mean urzited may be some offensive word in Kazikstan that may offend people more than me mispelling their country, but to me it is a meaningless collection of words. I could say bullpoo to please some idiot that thinks the world will end when people call bullshit, bullshit. But why. Bullshit has no real synonym. A lie is a lie and bullshit is bullshit. Bullshit is a meaningless response to a question. Like particle inhalation is a reason to make marijuana illegal and lock people up, fine them, give them criminal records, and support a $6 trillion pee industry. It means it is a response that is not relevant. Like Johnny where is your homework today? A bullshit answer is "There was a Simpson marathon on tv last night" that is not a lie but is still bullshit because it does not answer the question. I mean I believe in giving the most articulate comment you can with the best grammar and punctuation, but the object is to communicate an idea to people that are open to new viewpoints and you cannot do that by being silent and if people do not like your style here is my tip of the day. Don't read any 4p4d4q comments.Who doesn't think politeness has a place? But the country is on the brink of creating hell on earth and I sure am not worried about any string of letters that someone choses. I mean one teacher got admonished recently for using the word niggardly which is a legitimate word. I better end because rambling is about a bad of thing as you can do. A lot of writing is about thrift in words and lots of pejoritives and slang violate that principle.1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 14, 2002 at 07:41:55 PT:
Pack It Off as an LTE
Dan B., you would be well advised to send your last comment as an LTE to this paper. If they do not bite, try the Washington Post. Nicely done!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Dan B on September 14, 2002 at 07:39:05 PT:
The Real Stats Back My Analysis
The following are statistics that I discovered at Child Help USA. Notice the huge difference between Walters's account (80%) and the real number (50%):Nearly one-half of substantiated cases of child neglect and abuse are associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse. 7 It is estimated that one in every four children in the United States (28 million) are living in a household with an alcoholic adult. 8 Men and women serving time in the nation’s prisons and jails report a higher incidence of abuse as children than the general population. 9 More than a third of women in the nation’s prisons and jails reported abuse as children, compared with 12% to 17% for women in the general population.  About 14% of male inmates reported abuse as children, compared with 5% to 8% of men in the general population. 9 Note: these statistics come from the Child Welfare League of America, a study printed in the American Journal of Public Health, and the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. And just one more "by the way": If half of these abuse cases are "associated with parental alcohol or drug abuse," the other half are not. I stand by my analysis, and then some.Dan B
Child Help USA Statistics
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Dan B on September 14, 2002 at 07:18:24 PT:
My new personal pet peeve
Eighty percent of child abuse and endangerment cases in every metropolitan area in this country are attributed a guardian or parent using drugs. First, Walters would have you believe that this means 80% of drug users abuse their children. Completely untrue. What this means is that 80% of the people who have their children taken by Child Protective Services (or one of variously named government organizations devoted to removing children from families and placing them in abusive foster care) have used "drugs." But, when you consider that a large percentage of children who are taken from their parents by the government are not removed from the home because of overt abuse, but because the parent uses some illegal drug, including cannabis, you begin to see the real picture behind this number.  The government has "cooked the books" by kidnapping large numbers of children from their parents and holding them for ransom, the ransom being that the parents must end all drug use or forfeit their children. Of course, the government thinks this is all well and good because they believe that all drug use is abuse, and they view any parent who uses illegal drugs as a child abuser (but they don't make the same connection for the more dangerous drug, alcohol. For use of that highly dangerous drug to result in the removal of children from their homes, actual signs of abuse must be present).The actual percentages on child abuse are comparable when you compare those who use illegal drugs with those who do not, and the overwhelming majority of actual child abuse and domestic violence cases stem not from the use of illegal drugs, but from the abuse of alcohol. Walters includes alcohol in his figure here. But, of course, in general he only includes the alcohol numbers when it suits his interest in promoting war instead of promoting life.Finally, violence and hard drug addiction are often symptoms of a third problem. Often, people resort to violence and hard drugs out of repeated and extreme frustration, and poverty seems to be the most likely cause of that frustration. Does this excuse violence? No. But it does mean that locking people in cages and stealing their children is not the answer. There are deeper issues at work here, and they are only exacerbated by the policies Walters et al. support in their ongoing quixotic quest for a drug free America.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by potpal on September 14, 2002 at 04:52:33 PT
use vs abuse
It is apparent that cannabis use, no matter how much or for what reason, equals abuse to the dark side.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by qqqq on September 13, 2002 at 23:20:25 PT
....yup....this is bad...read at your own risk!
....on the brite side....one thing ya gotta like about Walters,,is how he has taken the torch that was carried by such greats as Bennett,and McCaffrey,,and run with it!...There is almost no need to criticize Walters,because it seems as if he is attempting to out-do his predecessors.!!.. He's making the former czars look almost rational!
 
..It's kinda good,,because we can almost sit back,and watch this psycho-creep make an ass of himself.,,,But,, 
 
then again,
 
,come to think of it,,when we look at the 'big picture';;
,we are dealing with a very disturbing situation here.
 
..Everything is way different than normal!...When a nation can stand by,and be manipulated into such a grand deception,,where they can believe that GWBush,is actually a legitimate president?,,??
 
Who are all these people who accept the warmongering chickenhawk frenzy from this Little Ceasar empire?
 
Who are all these idiot sheeple,who are being led to believe,,and are believing,,that the grotesque media carnival on the "anniversary"of 9/11,,is "normal"?????? 
 
 
....and...speaking of "normal"....is there something normal about seeing the airwaves saturated with commercials for the military?...Is that something that American Americans feel that is necessary,and proper use of their taxes???,,,,,AND,,,how bout these new "Volunteers of America" commercials!.....I'm sorry,,but I gotta say;.FUCK!!!...I power/projectile barf when seeing these,,".Buy a library full of books for Joe Schmow,who died on 9/11,,he liked books",,,or ..;",,Donate jazz recordings to Megalon,because Furk Kreegle loved jazz,and he died on 9/11".... "Points of Light"........,....Give me a motherf*&#$ng Freakin' break!!!...How bout if we just took a coupla billion from the bomb the world fund,and applied it to the library books and jazz recordings!?.shit,,for that matter,,I'll bet they could have built several librarys,and cloned Django Rhineheart, ,and John Coltrane, with just the millions they spent on the "Volunteers of America" commercials!
..
 
 
........I hope I dont sound bitter,,or pissed or something....I've sortof avoided commenting because I dont want to make anyone uncomfortable with my loudmouth commentary................hope no one was shocked or offended by my profanity....I'm kinda bad,,,and the worst of it all,,is that I may set a bad example for others,,or I may run the risk of offending the more serious,formal,mainstream journalists,or important people who visit this site,sorry. 
 
 
..trainwreck makes an excellent point about potency,,,and,,.I like what AlvinCool said about the Walters/nurd concept...
 
....and I always wonder about guys like Walters,and what the actual real thing is about their personal life?,,,Are we to assume that Walters is an utter square?,,an absolute sterile straight arrow who never even had a glass of wine?,except for that one time when he had a glass of champagne,and it made him dizzy?,,,OR...perhaps it's more likely,when the limo picks the czar up at 6:33 AM, to take him to the royal ondcp castle,,he takes a snuggle off a pint of Old Crow,,,and then,, wigs out to gay porno,and freebases Paxil!......Who knows?... not me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by gloovins on September 13, 2002 at 23:12:14 PT
yea but here is
The Mich site :
http://www.prayes.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Tim Stone on September 13, 2002 at 21:50:20 PT
National Drug Ballot Issues
Thanks for the response, FoM. Does anyone know of a good _specific_ web site to monitor U.S. national policy reform ballot issues, one that specializes in that sort of specific thing? Apologies if I missed a memo and this is old stuff. With elections coming up, it might bear repeating. Thanks for any help. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on September 13, 2002 at 21:28:48 PT
Tim
I don't think it made it in Michigan. The drug initiative didn't make it and I looked for a marijuana only initiative and couldn't find any news. I don't think Ohio's drug treatment initiative made it but I could be wrong. I don't know about the DC Medical Marijuana one either. I know the we have Nevada, and San Francisco. I wonder if that is all there will be. I don't focus very hard on drug treatment since very few people would need treatment for Cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Tim Stone on September 13, 2002 at 20:49:00 PT
Election Politics
There was a cannabis reform measure trying to make the ballot in Michigan. With all the monkeyshines the Establishment has pulled this election season to pull out all stops to disqualify cannabis reform issues from the ballot on any flimsy pretext, I can't recall if the cannabis reform measure in Michigan actually got on the ballot. If it did, that would explain Walter's just happening to be in Detroit on business, and therefore available to give a reefer madness interview like this. Just passing through town on business, having nothing to do with trying to lobby against a cannabis initiative, since it's flat out go-to-jail-now illegal for public officials to use their office to try and affect the outcome of an election issue, to use the public dime to influence the outcome of an election in a specific direction. No, Brutus is an honorable man - sorry, wrong script. Walters is an honorable man, so I'm sure he will bend over backwards to make sure he does not even give the slightest hint of trying illegally to use his office to influence the outcome of an election. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, Walters will get away with overtly, flamboyantly illegally trying to influence drug policy reform measures in several states this election season. He will succeed because there is no political force strong enough at present to call him on his blatant election-meddling. And even if there were, the always drug-war-sympathetic judiciary would just let him off the hook, no matter how damning the evidence against him. The deck is still stacked against reform on every level of power except that of the people. It's gonna be a loooong, depressing, bloody row to hoe to get to a point where Walters gets arrested for giving election-impacting interviews like the above. And that's how far we have to go yet. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on September 13, 2002 at 16:40:28 PT
cannabis is more addictive than WHAT???
 caffeine is TWICE as addictive, and here is a chart to help make this clear. Addictive Qualities of Popular Drugshttp://www.drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm, which also shows nicotine (legal) is more addictive than heroin. Legal booze and cigarettes are choices way more addictive than cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by AlvinCool on September 13, 2002 at 15:50:18 PT
You gotta understand
John Walters is saying what he thinks is right. Remember when you were in school, or you still may be, and you looked at the geek that had no skills and couldn't communicate with anyone? The kid that was never invited to anything and wore high water pants?His name was John Walters. The reason he thinks that drugs are hard to get is he never saw any in his entire life. I assure you, nobody ever offered this guy a joint because to do so would mean you would have to hang out and listen to him. I can think of no worse way to pass my time than listen to John Walters ramble.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by trainwreck on September 13, 2002 at 15:39:09 PT
One think Mr. Walters is correct about is 
the fact that the pot is much more potent now than it was "back in the day." Decades of research and cross breeding have reaped rewards!! Of course back then, the super-dank was imported "Thai stick" or "Black-Afghani-Primo-Hash" (from the Cheech & Chong record). The feds shut down the import business, but it just became homegrown.Pinch the balloon and it just pops out elsewhere....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by MaxAllyn on September 13, 2002 at 14:46:56 PT:
What is this dude talking about??????
I want to know what John Walters thinks he is saying. He makes claims like "crack is harder to buy than alcohol" and "not everyone can get any drug at anytime". Of course this is true, everyone knows that, but what Mr. Walters failed to mention is that marijuana is easier for kids to buy than alcohol and even cigarettes. Drug dealers don't card the people that they sell to. He also failed to mention that marijuana is realitively easy to find for anyone who goes lokking for it. I came from a small town in the middle of Wyoming where there is nothing. But pot is abundant. You can buy it at school, skateparks or even have someone deliver it to your house. Rapper Eminem said it best in one of his songs, "Marijuana is EVERYWHERE, where was you brought up?" I think that if Mr. Walters and the rest of the US government want to keep pot out of the hands of children, then it needs to be legalized and the government needs to control the sale of it, just like alcohol. That would also reduce the claim that pot is a so-called "gateway drug" because if the sale were to be regulated and sold through stores, then kids would meet people that can sell them other drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 13, 2002 at 14:44:15 PT
LT to the E
Sirs,  Nothing John Walters has ever said will justify jailing people who choose to ingest a politically incorrect molecule. Walters admits these problem molecules are not all treated equally when he says, "If young people do not begin experimenting with drugs -- or alcohol or cigarettes -- during their teenage years, they are unlikely to start later on." Many children say it is now easier to buy marijuana, since the people who sell that don't care about your ID. "Underage" drinking skyrocketed during alcohol prohibition for the same reason.  John Walters will never say the drug war is failing - his paycheck depends on its never ending. Thus, I would appreciate if you would devote equal space to the opposing viewpoint, and I thank you for your previous efforts against this taxpayer-funded war on ourselves.-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=I don't feel like going through each individual paragraph and dissecting each lie, but I know someone's gotta do it. Write! Write!! Write!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on September 13, 2002 at 13:29:05 PT:
Freudian slips past John "Pee" Walter's lips
I'm sorry, I know, a bad pun, but after reading the following:"I invited them to learn from the experience that the United States has paid so dearly for in regard to what drugs do."if I were alone, I'd have burst into uproarious laughter. Yes, John, old son, the Canux have learned from our experience. They've learned that we have utterly failed in interdiction, failed in supply reduction, failed in demand reduction. we've failed in getting adequate treatment to those who desperately want to quit and be free of addictive drugs. We've failed to protect our youth from pushers who don't 'card' their prospective clients as any liquor or convenience store does when in doubt the buyer is underage. We've failed in every key aspect of the DrugWar as specified in yours and your predecessor's regimes.Failed, John, failed. And continue to fail.In short, Johnny-me-lad, the drugs have caused far less damage to society than your incredibly myopic and near-mindlessly vicious Drugwar has to American citizens.Yes, the Canux have, indeed, learned from America's 'experience'. They've seen what has happened to our society and is starting to do to theirs, with help from the likes of you and some home-grown fascists just slavering to emulate you...and want no parts of it.The Canadian Senate Report could just as well have read: The American Method: Unworkable in Canada. But then, you probably didn't read a single word of it, did you, John? Afraid of dirtying your eyes with heresy?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by delariand on September 13, 2002 at 13:18:49 PT:
Pot Giveaway CNN segment
Well, it had a cheesy "What are they smoking?" news icon, but they did tell the story like it was. The video was great, tons of delicious looking buds being sorted and weighed.This story didn't put enough focus on the negative aspects of the DEA's actions, but it didn't put false negative aspects on the actions of the WAMM either. Hopefully with more and more stories being shown on mainstream networks, they'll collectively incite each other to grow some balls down the road.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by markjc on September 13, 2002 at 12:44:53 PT:
this is disgusting
These are some of the most outrageous, disgusting comments toward marijuana I have ever herd. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by 2Spooky on September 13, 2002 at 12:44:02 PT
great info =)
Why not send all that good stuff on over to this paper? Mayhap in the form of a letter to the editor?Maybe you could even persuade this guy to do a counterpoint type of thing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by PonziScheme on September 13, 2002 at 11:38:59 PT
He lies when his lips move
 "They are not starting at 17 or 18. They are starting at 14, 13, 12 and 11."FACT: "The average age of initiation of marijuana use in 2000 was 17.5 years."
Trends In initiation of Substnace Abuse - 2001 Summary of Findings; http://www.samsha.gov/oas/nhsda/2k1nhsda/vol1/chapter5.htm#5.mariWalters is lying about figures from his own Household study that he just trumpeted 2 weeks ago!!! "I was surprised to see the Canadians have no national surveys of rates of drug use, no surveys of drug dependency or trend analysis."FACT: "Approximately 2 million Canadians over age 18 have used cannabis during the previous 12 months, approximatley 600,000 have used it during the past month, and approximately 100,000 use it daily." "A look at trends in cannabis use, both among adults and young people, forces us to admit that current policies are ineffective."
Canadian Senate: Special Committee on Illegal drugs; Cannabis: Summary report, Chapter 6 - Users and Uses: Form, Practice, Context
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 13, 2002 at 11:24:29 PT:
House of Cards
It is an absolute lie to claim that cannabis is more addictive than other popular "drugs of abuse." Science does not support it, as I have indicated in previous posts.The enormous number of people in "treatment" for "cannabis abuse" represent, for the most part, those who were caught, and were forced to take part by the legal system. It is a shame that reality does not mean anything in the War on Drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 13, 2002 at 10:26:56 PT
Heads Up: CNN Headline News
In a few minutes a segment on the Pot Giveway is coming on CNN Headline News!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by goneposthole on September 13, 2002 at 10:15:05 PT
Drug addicts are going to get their drugs today
Noelle Bush did. Lockdown Amerika, and drugs will be the only commerce that would be worthwhile. It is getting that way. Stop it, stop this insane drudgery of a drug war.It is no good. Stop it now.Cannabis is not addictive no matter what is said by the misinformed, malcontent John Walters.Enough already.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment