cannabisnews.com: Expect The Worst If Pot’s Made Legal Expect The Worst If Pot’s Made Legal Posted by CN Staff on September 12, 2003 at 07:29:33 PT By Keith Fredrickson, For the Tribune Source: Portland Tribune I’ve smoked my share of dope. I’m a baby boomer, a flower child of the ’60s who danced with joy to Dylan’s jingle-jangle verse, “Everybody must get stoned.” The tousle-haired troubadour implored my generation to smoke marijuana, and I followed his siren song. I got stoned in Pocatello, Idaho; Las Vegas; Ventura, Calif.; and a dozen other towns and cities where a pothead, gypsy journalist could find work. I got stoned, and I got busted — in Salt Lake City; Mesquite, Nev.; and St. Paul, Minn. I smoked dope and wrecked cars, careers and my children’s childhoods as I careened around the country, stoned out of my mind. I got stoned on marijuana, then I got addicted to the stuff. Then — with a little luck, a lot of tough love and strong laws that made getting stoned a riskier proposition as I grew older — I got straight. Now, one way I stay straight is helping others do the same. That’s why I work for Oregon Partnership, the only statewide nonprofit organization that provides both education on substance abuse prevention and treatment referral services. The pro-pot lobby argues that marijuana is a relatively harmless, natural substance, and that legalizing and taxing it would create revenue for our state’s battered budget. That argument doesn’t hold water. Any tax revenue that might result from marijuana’s legalization would be swamped by increased health care, law enforcement, and lost productivity costs that taxpayers and businesses would have to swallow. While the pro-legalization mantra remains the same, the types of marijuana that have become available have not. Today’s pot can be five times more potent than the grass that baby boomers like myself smoked in the 1960s and ’70s. It is more mind-altering, more harmful and more addictive, especially to youngsters whose brains are more vulnerable to the negative effects of marijuana. Given marijuana’s potency, it makes sense to keep it illegal. When people smoke this drug, they suffer memory loss, impaired coordination, distorted perception, anxiety and paranoia. And they become dissociated from their loved ones. People high on pot are a danger to themselves and to those around them. Imagine what would happen if marijuana was legalized. There would be more stoned drivers causing wrecks on our highways, more impaired employees having accidents in our workplaces and more spaced-out students dropping out of our schools. Marijuana legalization also would spawn myriad health problems. Marijuana contains a higher concentration of the same cancer-causing chemicals found in tobacco. Recent studies have determined that inhaling four joints a week is equal to smoking one pack of cigarettes a day. Short-term pot use causes lung and respiratory problems, and long-term use can be deadly. Heavy marijuana users risk lung cancer, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, heart problems and brain damage. The pro-pot lobby maintains that marijuana is not addictive. That is pure myth. If pot is not addictive, why do more than 100,000 adults in America seek treatment for marijuana addiction each year? Why do studies show that pot is the primary addictive illicit drug for the majority of teenagers in treatment? And what about other studies that found regular marijuana users experienced such withdrawal symptoms as craving, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, weight loss, increased anger, aggression, irritability and restlessness? Dope is called dope for a reason. When people smoke it, they do stupid things. Legalizing marijuana would not only be bad public policy, but it also would be very stupid. Dylan’s song has soured, and the dancing is joyless. Marijuana hurt too many people of my generation; legalizing this drug would do even more damage to the next. Keith Fredrickson is communications director for the Oregon Partnership, a statewide nonprofit organization that provides alcohol and drug prevention education and treatment referral. He lives in Hood River. Source: Portland Tribune (OR)Author: Keith Fredrickson, For the Tribune Published: September 12, 2003Copyright: 2003 Portland TribuneContact: letters portlandtribune.comWebsite: http://www.portlandtribune.com/CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #24 posted by rchandar on September 14, 2003 at 16:42:17 PT: article arrrghhh!godDAMNit!! PROOF? YES, PROOF? what PROOF does this man actually have that pot causes cancer, or that the people seeking treatment aren't merely arrestees rather than "addicts" seeking treatment?the rhetoric of this article goes like this: I am Ken Frederickson, and i head an anti-drug group in Oregon. Simply because of my life and my experiences, you should believe that legalization is a bad idea. end of article.aside from the fact that I always hated how these kinds of people always talked down to us in rehab (which DOESN'T work for everyone), the article ignores much research done out there that simply fails to show that pot is really that unhealthy. plenty of studies have concluded that alcohol is far worse.no, mr. frederickson, we're not about to harangue the streets looking for mountains of heroin Get over it, you don't know everything.stupid f#$kin' propaganda! -rchandar [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by Dan B on September 13, 2003 at 13:44:23 PT Stupid Argument That argument doesn’t hold water. Any tax revenue that might result from marijuana’s legalization would be swamped by increased health care, law enforcement, and lost productivity costs that taxpayers and businesses would have to swallow. Of course, This argument only holds water if the reader believes hat every Amrican is as stupid and as easily addicted to non-adictive substances as the writer of this article, Keith Frederickson. In other words, in order to believe that legalization of cannabis would lead to lost productivity, increases in health care csts, etc., one would also have to believe that the laws against cannabis are the only things keeping most Americans from using cannabis. The fact that 54% of 18-24 year-olds have tried cannabis under prohibition tells me that laws against cannabis don't do Jack Squat in terms of keeping people from trying it, especially given that Americans are far more likely to become habitual cannabis users than are residents of the Netherlands, for whom cannabis is e facto legal.Of course, the worst argument is that we would require increased "law enforcement" if cannabis were made legal. Where in Hell does this guy get his arguments? "Law enforcement" is overburdened today with keeping people from puting various substances in their systems. If cannabis were legalized, the vast majority of that type of law enfocement would be curtailed, allowing more police resources for the prosecution of real crimes--you know, the kinds of crimes that result in actual harm to some person or some person's property. I don't need to go on. You know the drill. This Kieth guy is several bricks shy of a full load.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by Robbie on September 13, 2003 at 11:32:14 PT Well done, Jose You perfectly countered what is, ultimately, the "party-line" that the corporate party has been putting out for a long time.So little is being done to challenge the notions that the Prohibs bring to the table, that the acceptance of the "scourge of drugs" is enough to keep people in a high state of moral terpitude.Now, we'll see what effect the "decriminalization" (read, pharmaceutical takeover) will have on the masses. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 07:24:33 PT enough preaching to the choir Here's what I sent in, to letters portlandtribune.comMariuana legalization activists like me often point out that it is the criminal status of the non-toxic herb that generates career paths on both sides of the law.A perfect example of this is Keith Fredrickson's column, "Expect The Worst If Pot’s Made Legal".Perhaps the article was written tongue in cheek. Regardless, it's easy to point out that Frederickson repeats almost every discredited theory on the harms of cannabis use, ignoring thousands of years of evidence proving that most people can and do quit smoking pot without any permanent harm.As if the fact that Richardson is EMPLOYED by an anti-drug group isn't enough to show he has not killed off too many brain cells, (another discredited and yet often recycled theory) the writer maintains that marijuana causes problems for which no caffeine, alcohol or tobacco user has ever been arrested.Meanwhile, newspapers, television and radio conveniently avoid notifying the public that Bayer AG made a multimillion dollar deal with England's GW Pharmaceuticals, which successfully developed a pain relieving oral spray made from a whole extract of the demonized herb. In the Netherlands, not only has legitimate access to marijuana led to a LOWER teen use rate than here in the United States, but also the drug has been shown safe and effective enough to be prescribed by doctors, sold in pharmacies and paid for by insurance.Canada's provinces have all but declared marijuana prohibition unconstitutional, and police chiefs in the UK and Scotland have implemented a no arrest policy for recreational pot smokers.Just say know: Drug war is fraud. It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Jose MelendezDeLand, FL [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 13, 2003 at 07:18:04 PT LTE Sirs, Keith Fredrickson makes many outlandish claims in his article. If he thinks that society will crumble once marijuana is legal, then he needs to explain the continuing existence of The Netherlands. He should also watch closely as Canada and the U.K. stop arresting cannabis smokers, to see if his dire predictions come to pass. He asks the rhetorical question, "If pot is not addictive, why do more than 100,000 adults in America seek treatment for marijuana addiction each year?" Many of them have been arrested, and their option is either "treatment" (whether they feel they need it or not) or "jail". How many adults seek treatment for alcohol addiction each year? And does Mr. Fredrickson support the return of alcohol prohibition, and the return of control of the alcohol market to the criminal underground? He also makes the rather far-fetched allegation that, "Short-term pot use causes lung and respiratory problems, and long-term use can be deadly." Show me the coroner's reports with "death from marijuana" on it, because I don't believe it. And does he support imprisoning cigarette smokers? For their own good, of course... Another assumption Mr. Fredrickson makes is that if marijuana were legal, a much larger portion of our population would be smoking it. Does he really believe there are many Americans who would smoke marijuana but has some difficulty, either ethical or practical, obtaining marijuana currently? Of course, immediately after the law is changed, there will probably be a temporary upswing in the amount of marijuana smoked in the USA. But how many of us are still celebrating the 21st amendment? [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:39:30 PT more proof, article parrots http://www.nap.edu/books/0309065313/html/38.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:36:57 PT plagiarism, boilerplate, exposed. from:http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/archive.shtml?2x1799There has been tentative evidence in the past that marijuana is addictive, but campaigners have been able to dismiss it as inconclusive, even though 100,000 in the US each year seek treatment for marijuana dependence, and many see it as a pathway to heroin or other drugs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:26:50 PT expose hypocrisy from:http://www.friendlystranger.com/info/recreational_02/redux_5.htmIt’s High time that cannabis proponents stop trying to cajole the stubborn and treacherous by way of futile stand-ins that put money in the pockets of the constabulary (for reasons of security), and just dump the facts on everybody responsible. Imagine the stand-still when these guttersnipes have to peruse documents stacked to the ceiling, and every American receives marijuana newsletters in the mail. Will those shoddy alki-philanderers in Congress think twice about repealing cannabis prohibition when every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to know why the doctors couldn’t give their deceased loved ones the Kind Bud when they were atrophying from cancer or HIV? “Well, if you could spend two million on a study for cancer-stricken rats in ’94, only to prove that you were wrong about large doses of THC producing cancer in those guinea pigs, then why couldn’t you afford to spring for my brother to smoke a little ganj for his stomach cancer?!” Just think of all the stonewalling the gov’t would do to get out of that one. “Well, see...those were rats. Your brother is a person. That explains it all...” or does it? [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 12, 2003 at 21:26:46 PT This Article Sounds Like The Movie http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/misc_reefer.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by lag on September 12, 2003 at 17:38:02 PT delariand good point I didn't start smoking until I was 22. Up until that point I wanted nothing to do with responsibility, but I did the things I needed to do, moved out of the home (across the nation), got a job, and so on. After I started smoking I still am the same way, but have recently got married to a girl who was also a consumer of cannabis and legal prescriptions at a very young age, a girl who graduated early from highschool, and on time at a fairly prestigious University with highest honors. A huge responsibility, although I am keen on Marc Emery's reasons for not having children, that and there are enough people in the world, only the basest animal instincts could inspire me to have a child. (how very different from conventional thoughts on things...raising a child a base instinct. Well, for this person it is, the only time I ever thought seriously about wanting to have a baby was a time I feared imminently for my life. That was a very telling moment. And yeah I have a lot of mixed up emotions and stuff and trouble dealing with life. But if you don't, then you are probably really talented or well, I don't think this is the place to discuss such things. And again, all that stuff was there before I started smoking. Now, it may not be feasible to allow pre-21 year olds to smoke, but it certainly should be okay for the adults (not age-wise, but maturity-wise). The most harmful thing to me at this point is our current administration. I pray to all that is good and green that it gets forcefully booted (figuratively speaking) from the WH quite soon.Sorry for the rant, it has been an incredibly long and hard week for me but also an educational week, that's prolly why I feel all preachy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on September 12, 2003 at 17:22:02 PT: He Doesn't Even Get The Point! Attention Frederickson, Is there any question that cannabis is a plant that God gave us , amongst a whole lot of other plants, fruits, herbs, nuts and basic nutirients of life? As with ALL those OTHER plants, aren't we; the faith-liberated sons and daughters of God given the free-will choice to use those of them we see fit? Isn't it our responsibility to experience or educate ourselves sufficiently to make intelligent analysis and conclusions? Aren't we all bound to recognize the medical right now legislated in 11 states and/or the religious right established in my case here in Hawaii? Aren't you really just promoting your own self-limited interests when you preach to us about the evils of marijuana which YOU experienced? We, out here in lucidity and truth studies find your opinion very revealing and indicative of massive denial and ignorance. I wish you well, but focus on something in your community more dangerous, like methamphetamine abuse and drunk drivers. Leave us legal cannabis users alone. Promote research and true clinical studies, as are currently underway in San Francisco and Montana. Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by lag on September 12, 2003 at 17:08:53 PT paulpeterson Right on! I mean, RIGHT ON! So accurate...especially the part about the drug war dissassociating people from their families. What I find to be most dissassociating in my family (since they have no clue that I smoke) is their conservatism. My dad thinks that Ann Coulter is great and Bill O'Reilly and Rush to be the king and queen of conservatism. And it's that ingrained hatred that that brand of conservatism contains (something you certainly wouldn't see on the front page of the Washington Post as something terrible (although it truly is)) that basically makes it impossible for me to deal with my parents. I want to live my life, and I want others to be able to live theirs. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by mayan on September 12, 2003 at 16:43:43 PT Start Applying Elsewhere... ...Mr. Fredrickson. Your self-interests aren't close to being everyone else's. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by goneposthole on September 12, 2003 at 15:10:39 PT oops spelled Keith Fredrickson's last name incorrectly the first time. Doggone dyslexic brain. anywho, Cannabis is a part of this world. It is here to stay, legal or not, it ain't going to go away. That's the way it is and always will be no matter what age or eon or century. The prohibitionists can like it or lump it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Robbie on September 12, 2003 at 14:47:12 PT flower child? ==>>I’m a baby boomer, a flower child of the ’60sNo, you're not. If you ever were, you'd still be. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by delariand on September 12, 2003 at 13:05:32 PT Is it our fault you can't handle your weed? Geez, you're telling me you did nothing but smoke marijuana, and you blame THAT for screwing up your life?Here's a hint: You're just a loser. The rest of us are more than capable of living our lives while smoking marijuana every day. Take my friend for example, he's been employed and going to college since graduating high school early at 17. He's been stoned almost every day since he was 15. He's been smoking nothing but the finest, most potent southern california chronic around. Now, tell me all about how the horribly potent weed of today has wrecked his mind. Tell me how kids who start smoking in high school will never finish everything. Tell me what a loser he is.You can tell me all you want, I'll never believe it [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by OverwhelmSam on September 12, 2003 at 11:55:37 PT: Sounds Just Like ONDCP Standard Boilerplate Just because this guy was a loser doesn't mean that everyone who smokes marijuana are losers. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by cloud7 on September 12, 2003 at 11:20:40 PT revision Keith Fredrickson is communications director for the Oregon Partnership, an organization dedicated to keeping drugs illegal so the employees of OP will have a job in the future. He blames his problems on external factors rather than internal ones. He lives in Hood River where his wife raises his 2 children, one of which is in a drug treatment center. Editors note: This is just a reminder to our readers that we are not responsible for misuse of facts, outright lies, derogatory slang or blatant generalizations in our editorials. As most people tend not to critically think about the war on marijuana we dont think this will be a problem, but just in case. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on September 12, 2003 at 10:34:30 PT In India and everywhere else around the world Dozens of millions of people smoke Cannabis. President Kennedy smoked Cannabis. Willie Nelson smoked Cannabis on top of the White House when Jimmy Carter was President. Cannabis was smoked openly during the 'Roaring Twenties'. Keith Ferguson's perceptions of Cannabis are distorted by 67 years of Reefer Madness. Come back and visit the real world, man. It's ok, you'll be alright. Ain't nobody trying to hurt you. The world is not going to end if some people want to smoke Cannabis sativa. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on September 12, 2003 at 10:07:41 PT: We've got this all wrong Given the paucity of facts that he has displayed, the author simply cannot have sent this to a newspaper as it is. It would be too embarassing to make such gaffes in public; I know I'd be ashamed of making such fast and loose generalizations that could easily be torn apart. No, I suggest that it was an internal memo accidentally sent to the newspaper by mistake; Mr. Fredrickson is NOT addressing the general public, but his fellow urine-testers and 'therapists'. That's why he is saying that they can expect the worst.AND THEY MOST CERTAINLY CAN. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Kegan on September 12, 2003 at 09:56:05 PT To the Author Of this article......... Open Letter to Keith Fredrickson,Dude. Are you HIGH?!?!Yours,Kegan [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by 420toker on September 12, 2003 at 09:26:54 PT funny opinion Your statement of opinion will be taken with a grain of salt just as I take exxons enviornmental report with a grain of salt. Its your industry you are bound to be biased. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by afterburner on September 12, 2003 at 08:19:11 PT: Lame, Very Lame For your information, Keith, this old dog can still cut a mean rug, that's dance with joy, buddy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by paulpeterson on September 12, 2003 at 07:48:58 PT Keith's Sorry, Tired Arguments 1) stronger levels cause a reduction in total smoking 2) tobacco products reduce apoptosis, whereas THC, etc. actually improves apoptosis (programmed cell death for cancer cells) 3) pot reduces "angiogenesis", the tendency of cancer tumors to increase blood vessell growth, etc. 4) pot is not DEADLY (at least not in the history of the world so far) 5) the drug war dissassociates people from their families, Keith 6) people NOT stoned are more dangerous to themselves and others (including on the road, it seems, from recent studies) 7) only you confirmed heavy, heavy stoners have even a mimimal impairment, which shows for you, here, very well 8) yes, any worthy drug is subject to abuse, such as by persons like you that spend many years as an advocate, and then because of your OWN ABUSE, you now believe that taking away others' rights to do what you did yourself is a worthy goal (wow). 9) you obviously are impaired in your research skills, since the myriad of health benefits proven thus far far outweigh your feigned and rumored "risks"I'll stop now, just checking in, somewhere in the Homeland. PAUL [ Post Comment ] Post Comment