cannabisnews.com: Uncle Sam: Don't Light That Joint!





Uncle Sam: Don't Light That Joint!
Posted by CN Staff on June 03, 2003 at 13:21:30 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
Summer is when many kids first try marijuana, so the government announced an effort Tuesday aimed at stopping children from lighting up while they're on break from school. The “School's Out” initiative, an extension of an anti-marijuana campaign begun last September, includes anti-drug Internet resources for parents, community organizations, employers and teens. 
Summer is the riskiest time of the year for teens when it comes to drug use, said John P. Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Data released last year in the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse indicates nearly 40 percent of teens who had used marijuana first tried it during the summer. Each day in June and July, about 5,800 teens try marijuana for the first time. The anti-marijuana initiative is “going to be led by parents if it's going to work,” Walters said. “But kids are not going to spend all their time at home.” The YMCA of the USA, the American Camping Association and shopping mall operator The Mills Corporation are joining the White House's drug policy office and the Health and Human Services Department in efforts to spread the word about the dangers of marijuana. “Every day, kids make important decisions about their own self-images,” said Marla Coleman, president of the American Camping Association, adding that kids are natural risk takers. “We nurture positive risk taking,” she said. In addition to Web information, the summer initiative also includes updated post cards with information about marijuana, six parenting tips for summer and e-mail updates and new posters for teens, which will be released later this summer. “The consequences of marijuana are much greater than people understand,” said Walters, who said it was a mistake to see the drug as soft or harmless. “What we're trying to do is respond to what the research shows,” he said, referring to the “burst” of first-time use in summer.“The consequences of marijuana are much greater than people understand.” John P. Walters, Office of National Drug Control Policy.Source: Associated PressPublished:  Tuesday, June 3, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Related Articles:Keeping Kids Off Drugs - Marsha Rosenbaum http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16496.shtmlExpert Says Drug Education Failinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14841.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by afterburner on June 03, 2003 at 16:46:54 PT:
Uncle Sam,
Don't fight that joint. Pass it on. Let it grow. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by VitaminT on June 03, 2003 at 16:25:39 PT
I started smoking pot in the summer
and a wonderful summer it was!alas, it was but one among many wonderful summers I've spent - many with the blessed herb!My advice: If any young person would ask me I would tell them that in spite of laws, in spite of moral crusades, in spite of the dictates of a soceity quietly gone mad, - your body belongs to YOU, YOUR mind is it's sovreign, it's well-being, YOUR responsibility.
Be mindful of the abundance and complexity of experiences the world offers, enjoy them, avoid overindulgence in anything.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by global_warming on June 03, 2003 at 15:35:17 PT:
Excellent Article
...The recent downgrading of cannabis from a class-B to a class-C drug has given fuel to an already fiery debate over the merits of legalising drugs. Several senior figures, from high-ranking police officers to politicians, philosophers and judges, have spoken out in favour of such a move, provoking the outrage of more conservative commentators. One striking feature of the arguments on both sides is their permeating vagueness in terms of factual information - caused in no small part by contradictory research. It is crucial, then, to admit that most contributions to the debate - this included - are based not necessarily on evidence but rather on pre-existing moral, social and political views...When will we all realize that this is our world, no matter how difficult this may seem. I could argue about God and the great mysteries that have unfolded into the complex energies that we call life, but, in the end, it is just us, the people who occupy, control and live life....Naturally, to divorce the misuse of drugs from wider social problems such as unemployment, poverty, class alienation and poor education is highly artificial,...The social ills that make substance abuse are not really understood, of course one could argue about the "addictive properties", but I think that ir to easily dismisses the true underlying problem, the spiritual starvation, that permeates our modern societies.Substance abuse is a horrible thing, and when we lose our children to these demonic gateways, it can never be forgiven, yet we have to understand, that we the people, should not enact laws, that make a bad situation worse.The world is becoming a very busy place, overcrowding is a benifit of science and new medical standards, try to imagine someday, all the hospitals are empty, modern medicine has blessed us with good health, could the hospital workers invent a disease to fill thier empty beds? Imagine all the prisons have been emptied, through good education and people working together to make a better world, would the peace officers, the jail wardens lobby for some new law that would fill the empty prison cells?...The arguments surrounding the potential consequences in law of drug legalisation are perhaps more delicately balanced, and depend to a great extent on what the function of the law is deemed to be. Those who argue against legalisation purport that the law aims "to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the state", and thus that the legal status of an activity must reflect its moral value. According to that theory, the legalisation or decriminalisation of drug abuse will suggest that it is an acceptable activity. Similarly, since supreme legislative power is vested in the citizens of the UK, as represented in Parliament, it follows that popular morality should be reflected in Parliamentary legislation. It is unlikely that in the current climate a majority of UK citizens would want soft or hard drugs legalised, and it would therefore be not only constitutionally unsound but also politically foolish for legislation to be passed....This paragraph above is the true feelings of the author of this article, it is clear that the author would not legalise or go "soft on drugs", a popular saying, the jargon of some of the people,.. Here again, the author's vested interest in the status quo of the legal system is defined, supported and defended, to insure that "lawyers" will always be well paid for their services..I am not attacking lawyers, or cops or government, I am trying to say, that we all live and share this planet, is it possible that we all want the same thing, but are just a little confused?Lastly, please do not lock up people that have a health problem, a problem that has been largely brought on by all this slick legal and false statemanship.
Government must keep an open ear to what the people are saying, if they cannot hear the people, thay will topple, like all failed governments of the past.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 03, 2003 at 14:56:37 PT
Thanks Again 312
Here's the link. Sometimes articles can be really hard to find and this was one of them.http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=412005
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by 312 on June 03, 2003 at 14:53:03 PT
link
Ha, you found the link as I was writing the comment. Well done.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by 312 on June 03, 2003 at 14:52:19 PT
Friend of Marijuana
Sorry. I searched the Independent site but couldn't find the article. I think it must have been in a magazine, and someone typed it in. I don't like posting whole articles in comments and was a little reluctant, but I enjoyed reading it so much I had to share it here.It was posted on www.uk420.com (good website, excellent forums)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 03, 2003 at 14:51:12 PT
312, I Found The Link Thanks!
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16510.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 03, 2003 at 14:32:53 PT
312
Do you have the link? I've looked for this article and haven't found it so far and am going to look again. Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by 312 on June 03, 2003 at 14:23:30 PT
Lock all the children up...
...then they can learn some real crime.Something from the UKThe IndependentTitle: The drug laws don't workThe winner of The Independent's student essay competition, Rachael Scott, argues that there are legal and moral reasons to change the law in order to decriminalise drugs03 June 2003The recent downgrading of cannabis from a class-B to a class-C drug has given fuel to an already fiery debate over the merits of legalising drugs. Several senior figures, from high-ranking police officers to politicians, philosophers and judges, have spoken out in favour of such a move, provoking the outrage of more conservative commentators. One striking feature of the arguments on both sides is their permeating vagueness in terms of factual information - caused in no small part by contradictory research. It is crucial, then, to admit that most contributions to the debate - this included - are based not necessarily on evidence but rather on pre-existing moral, social and political views.Perhaps one of the simplest arguments in favour of legalisation or decriminalisation is that the alternative has not worked. Britain's "war on drugs" strategy, implementing policies based on police clampdowns and criminal sanctions, is apparently of little effect, as testified by the evidence that our drug problem is one of the worst in Europe. Countries with more relaxed laws, such as the Netherlands, have a far better record. Naturally, to divorce the misuse of drugs from wider social problems such as unemployment, poverty, class alienation and poor education is highly artificial, and the success of Dutch policy is surely linked to high standards of living and a more equal society than is evident in the UK. Nevertheless, to impose strict sanctions on drug abusers merely exacerbates the problem, for several practical reasons.First, it hands over the supply and control of illegal drugs to criminal gangs, whose sphere extends far beyond the realm of dealing and into areas such as money-laundering, human-trafficking, prostitution and terrorism. The financial power wielded by such groups clearly stems from the drug market and means that they have an interest in retaining the "war on drugs", as it keeps drug prices buoyant and therefore gives them high profits.Further, many of the deaths attributed to hard drugs are in fact the result of dealers stretching the amount they have for sale by "cutting" substances with household chemicals. The legalisation of drugs would facilitate quality controls. In addition, it would diminish the power of the gangs by undercutting black-market prices, which are swollen by the high risks involved in illegal trafficking. The Government's aim to help Afghanistan to reduce its production of opium by 70 per cent by 2008 will only inflate prices further and enhance the already documented need of addicts to turn to crime in order to fund their habit.The existence of that need is in itself further justification for the legalisation of both soft and hard drugs. Many offences in this country are known to be committed by drug abusers, either while under the influence or in order to pay their suppliers. The availability, on prescription, of currently illegal substances, and possibly their administration by medical staff, would help to prevent this, first by providing a safe environment in which addicts might succumb to the drugs' effects, and second by diminishing the financial burdens on them.Similarly, it has become apparent that drug misuse in prisons is prolific, and that an enormous number of addicts do not receive sufficient or indeed any treatment while serving sentences, with the effect that their dependency merely worsens. Imposing penal rather than community sentences for drug-related offences is not only less effective in terms of rehabilitation, but also adds to the already overcrowded prison population and immerses drug users into a broader criminal culture.Current laws increase the social stigmatisation of drug abusers as "criminals", which adds to their potentially low self-esteem and may stop them seeking help. Treating their behaviour rather as a medical problem might begin to reverse this. Much criticism has been directed at recent governments for their tentative steps towards recognising drug users as victims rather than criminals, but such an approach can surely be seen to be founded in fact.The so-called "slippery slope" or "gateway" argument against legalisation, based on the assumption that if any drug is legally available, a descent from "soft" to "hard" drugs or from occasional to dependent use will inevitably follow, holds little weight. While bearing in mind the opening premise of the present discussion, that no research-based evidence is irrefutable, a portion of the Home Office report into the reclassification of cannabis is worth examining. It asserts that "even if the gateway theory is correct, it cannot be a particularly wide gate, as the majority of cannabis users never move on to class-A drugs", and that "the risks (if any) are small and less than those associated with the use of tobacco or alcohol." It is likely that any introduction to more dangerous drugs can be explained in commercial terms - the same dealer will usually be able to offer different substances, which might not be the case if their supply were government-controlled.It is also argued that it would be unfair for taxpayers to bear the cost of drug users' self-inflicted need for prescribed substances. Again, that is flawed, and here a "slippery slope" argument may well be valid, in that if addicts are to be denied treatment because their condition is self-imposed, where is the line to be drawn? Many lung-cancer sufferers have been lifelong smokers - should they be left without treatment? An unhealthy lifestyle contributes to the risk of heart disease, yet it is not suggested that cardiac patients should be denied medical aid at taxpayers' expense. A good society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members, regardless of fault. Moreover, it is likely that the money spent would be easily recouped by the savings in both prison and police costs.The arguments surrounding the potential consequences in law of drug legalisation are perhaps more delicately balanced, and depend to a great extent on what the function of the law is deemed to be. Those who argue against legalisation purport that the law aims "to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the state", and thus that the legal status of an activity must reflect its moral value. According to that theory, the legalisation or decriminalisation of drug abuse will suggest that it is an acceptable activity. Similarly, since supreme legislative power is vested in the citizens of the UK, as represented in Parliament, it follows that popular morality should be reflected in Parliamentary legislation. It is unlikely that in the current climate a majority of UK citizens would want soft or hard drugs legalised, and it would therefore be not only constitutionally unsound but also politically foolish for legislation to be passed.That theory is open to criticism: in a country with an extremely diverse population and at a time of rapidly evolving moral standards, it is surely impossible to define - and therefore to reflect - "popular morality". In any case, by no means all that is legal is morally praiseworthy - for example, intoxication by alcohol - just as not all that is illegal is morally reprehensible per se - for example, driving at 78 miles per hour on a motorway. The latter illustration shows that many laws serve a practical, rather than moral, purpose. In the 21st century it is arguably more appropriate to view the law not as a slave to morality but as a system of regulation of society's behaviour. It follows that any act may be illegal purely by being declared illegal in the relevant manner, irrespective of the motive for doing so. In addition, the doctrine of legal certainty (which states that the law must be understandable to those bound by it) would be well served by the clarification of the current laws. Under them, a heroin addict may be prescribed drugs by his doctor and yet may receive a lengthy prison sentence if found in possession of the same drug at home. This, and other similar contradictory messages, cannot be in the interests of justice, and only total legalisation of all drugs will resolve the ambiguity.To advocate the legalisation of drugs is merely to take a pragmatic stance; to admit that the law as it stands does not work, that its ideal of eradicating drug use is illusory, and that mitigation of the problem is a worthwhile and achievable goal.Rachael Scott is the winner of this year's College of Law and 'Independent' essay competition for law students: 'Are you in favour of or against the legalisation or decriminalisation of the use of soft or hard drugs?' Comment by splan:What an amazing essay! Clearly thought out and researched, unbiased and sensible. I hope the fact that this won is not only indicative of the writers talent, but also of how much of an issue drug laws are today in the UK!Fight the powa!PLUR  --------------------
Smoke for world peace, if were all stoned, who'll be  rsed to fight?Take it Easy
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment