cannabisnews.com: Treatment for Pot Users -- An Impractical Proposal Treatment for Pot Users -- An Impractical Proposal Posted by FoM on January 30, 2001 at 08:09:29 PT By Denele Campbell, Special To Democrat-Gazette Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Arkansas' drug czar, Bill Hardin, agrees that it would be wasteful of the state's resources to try to imprison "small-time marijuana users," but instead, he argues, they "should be placed in treatment." It is hard to believe that this opinion would be held by anyone who had given more than a moment's thought to the idea. If Hardin believes that law enforcement and prisons are starving for money now, then imagine the starvation if more than 7,000 individuals per year arrested for marijuana possession were forced into treatment programs at taxpayer expense! This is not to say that treatment instead of jail is a bad idea in all cases. But Arkansas treatment slots are available to less than half of those who voluntarily seek treatment. People in treatment find themselves limited to 12-step programs, most of which are faith-based. Improvement is desperately needed in the quantity and quality of Arkansas substance abuse treatment. Gov. Mike Huckabee has stated his support for drug court, a system that provides treatment instead of jail for certain types of offenders. Those of us working for drug policy reform also support drug court in special cases. But for marijuana possession? Hardin has offered an impractical proposal. Not only are large numbers of hard-working, otherwise law-abiding people involved in this minor offense, but there is no "treatment" for the use of marijuana. Marijuana is not considered an addictive drug. People do not commit crimes because they "crave" or are "high" on marijuana. And the long-touted problem of marijuana's "gateway" effect, leading to the use of harder drugs, has been refuted by the National Academy of Sciences. This is unlike situations involving people who abuse methamphetamine or heroin or crack cocaine, drugs that are physically addictive and which drive some addicts to commit crimes to obtain adequate supplies. There is, of course, another dangerous drug involved in the majority of incidents of antisocial behavior today, and that is alcohol. Unfortunately, the lessons alcoholism has taught us about addiction, treatment and prohibition have not been remembered in the war on (certain) drugs. In any case, when a person's crime is committed out of the force of addiction, whether forgery, burglary or theft, it makes sense to look at the root cause and devote the state's precious resources to that root cause. This is the promise of drug court and its mandated treatment option, and here I would certainly agree with Hardin. By assisting a person to gain control of substance abuse and obtain tools for a better life, we can eliminate their need to commit crime. But if the crime is simply the possession of the drug itself, the question becomes murkier. Not all substance use is substance abuse. If it were, a glass of wine with dinner would be as dangerous as a half-pint of vodka before lunch. I would argue that whether the drug of choice is marijuana, alcohol, Valium or methamphetamine, some people will struggle with lives of less than ideal circumstances. I believe we must re-establish a clear province in American society in which a man's private life is his own. To do otherwise is to abandon the promise of our Founding Fathers' highest ideals of self-determination and freedom. When we have assured ourselves that public policy offers every possible aid and intervention available through families, communities and institutions, we must then be willing to allow others the freedom to live dissolute lives--providing, of course, that they do not violate the rights of others. A man should be free to be a drunk. He should not be free if found to be drunk while driving. Finally, Hardin's position is most unreasonable when considering the thousands of Arkansas residents who use marijuana as medicine. So far nine states have legalized such use. Marijuana can be effective in pain relief; nausea and other digestive disorders; multiple sclerosis and other muscle disorders; seizures; and a variety of other ailments, including glaucoma, migraines and insomnia. No doubt many Arkansans arrested for marijuana are using it for medical purposes. In some cases, arresting officers or prosecutors may choose not to pursue a marijuana case when they find that the person is a legitimate medical user. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to provide such users with an identification card so that they could save themselves and law enforcement the trouble? Wouldn't it be reasonable and compassionate for us to grant people who are sick, disabled or dying the right to use marijuana if it helps them? At the very least, can we not at least agree that to force medical marijuana patients into "treatment" for marijuana use is an amazingly unreasonable idea? Denele Campbell , an author and mother of three, lives in the Ozark woods near West Fork, where she continues to practice the craft of piano repairing and tuning passed on to her by her father. Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR)Author: Denele CampbellPublished: Tuesday, January 30, 2001Copyright: 2001 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc.Address: 121 East Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas, 72201Contact: voices ardemgaz.com Website: http://www.ardemgaz.com/Forum: http://www.ardemgaz.com/info/voices.htmlRelated Article:Marijuana is Target in Battle on Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8315.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by Lehder on January 31, 2001 at 15:23:21 PT thanks, kap Thanks for your comments - you succeeded in restoring some optimism.I'd like to add that I have seen the good services of some church groups in my city in action. At noon the needy and the homeless line up outside the church to wait for lunch. They are seated, given a short sermon or some religious music, and respectfully fed. The church offers showers, haircuts, washing machines and personal counseling too. A neighboring church of a different denomination offers a decent evening meal and a bed for the night. A lot of alcoholics and drug addicts use these services, as well as people with a variety of other troubles that can be helped by the church. The clergy is connected with all sorts of good citizens and businessmen too, and can steer those who ask for assistance to dentists, doctors, lawyers, job counselors. I'm no believer, but I have the highest respect and good wishes for the people who provide this help.As a result of the contributions of many, anyone today can walk into almost any church and receive this kind of help as well as religious counseling for addictions, all for free, anonymously and in confidence. I hope it stays this way. I think the churches are doing just fine without having the federal government as its first parishoner. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by QuietCrusader on January 31, 2001 at 10:22:36 PT: I'm Moving to a FREE Nation!!! This is going too far. I am getting some computer certs so that I can go live in a free country like Holland!!! I do not need treatment for smoking pot! I need to be left alone! The November Coalition [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2001 at 10:12:46 PT: Bless you, my son! But I'm sorry, I'm fresh out of Pieces of the True Cross, today. (Guaranteed to keep you out of Purgatory for 10,000 years!) I'm bound to get a shipment next week, though.Seriously, Senor L, I realize how this is looking. One of my favorite authors as a child was Robert Heinlein; in a part of his Future History series, he posited a future America taken over by the ballot box - in seeming prescience, at *exactly* this point in time, the early 21st Century - by Fundamentalist Religious Right extremists in cahoots with major corporations, producing a corporately-controlled theocracy kept in power by a high-tech Inquisition combined with good 'ol fashioned subliminal manipulation. Once in power, they suspended all democratic processes, intimidated and eventually began killing the opposition in a frenzy of religious ferver, and ran things a la Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin all rolled into one. But their theocracy was eventually overthrown in a bloody civil war. The rebel forces were composed of the 'outcast', ostracized, marginalized groups of society: Jews (who were herded into low-tech ghettos), Mormons (burned down on the steps of the SLC Temple), Catholics, libertarians, socialists, labor leaders, renegade priests and just plain folks fed up with being pushed around by lying, hypocritical, - and murderous - Bible-thumpers. The more I think of it, I think Heinlein must have been psychic.But things aren't that bad...yet. We still have a chance. Yes, Georgie Too thinks he's sitting in the catbird seat, but not for long, the Dems have been waiting for issues that they can sink their equally rotten teeth into, and this is it. Just because he issues an Executive Order doesn't make it automatic law; Klinton found that out with EO 13083:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37fe69037ded.htmGeorgie Too will soon find that his attempt to Klintonize the government via fiat declarations will not sit well with moderates of both parties, aswell as Indies - who might eventually get sick enough of this dreck to tell him to reign in the Bible-thumpers.Either way, Georgie is not going to have a 'honeymoon', the Dems, bless their pointy little plebian heads, are spoiling for a fight. And this was, if not the first shot across the bow (the first was ashcroft's nomination), then it may be the most significant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Lehder on January 31, 2001 at 07:57:43 PT working for a hard god kaptinemo said>>Yes, the more intelligent of the antis, the more cunning ones, know the jig is up. So they are changing their tune. Now, they try to croon with words of 'sweet reason' attempting to sound 'compassionate' by offering 'treatment' for all illicit drug use.Incisive as usual, kaptin. But there's another part to the "treatment" sham in the news that I think should be of the utmost concern to us. That is Bush's unconstitutional low blow of enlisting the nation's churches in the war on drugs as dispensers of "treatment". Earlier this week, as I am sure everyone knows, Bush decided that the government would allow churches to compete for federal grants funding "treatment". In his words, this does not violate the principle of church-state separation; he only wishes not to "discriminate" against churches in awarding public funds. He claims that separation will be maintained because the money will be available only under the rule "No Proselytizing". I have to hand it to Bush's controllers: this is a brilliant and powerful stroke for the antis and we had better recognize and deal with it.First of all, he has enlisted a huge number of allies overnight, millions of them, and they'll all be grubbing for money and the officious self-importance that comes with it. The nation's churches are about to become arms of government and law enforcement. What will the money do besides provide "treatment"? First of all, it will create new bureaucracies within the churches. We are considering billions here, individual awards could be of several millions. Church officials, sitting and newly hired, will be needed to manage and distribute money within the church programs. Individuals dispensing and managing church treatments and their families will be rendered dependent on government handouts. Once dependent on the annual award of government funds, the new church bureaucracies, like all institutions corrupted by money, will go to any length and meet any government demand to keep that money rolling in. Certainly government will have "standards" ( remember, Bush favors "high standards") that must be met to protect the public treasure. I don't know what those standards are - I have not read the legislation - but I will assure you that churches submitting proposals that incorporate expressions like "scourge of drugs", "enslavement of mind" and "destruction of soul" will fare better in Washington's evaluations than, say, Dr. Russo's might. The churches' promises will be high and their overhead low, being able to draw on millions of unpaid volunteers to assist in the "treatments". And the more treatments the churches can dispense, the more money they will receive. They'll be on the streets like press gangs to grab as many lost souls as they can - for the money and a bigger contract next year.I could say a lot more if I felt like thinking through the repercussions of this new program. It's not hard to anticipate the nightmarish aspects of government funding churches to carry out god's work, the war on drugs. And it's not hard to figure out how it will all work - the program will work the same as any bureaucracy with lots of lying hypocrites bending and twisting every way they can to gain power within the churches' newly-enriched management teams. "Treatment", soup lines, warm beds and Jesus Himself will take second billing to the struggles for individual power and more public funding. Etc. Powers which churches have not enjoyed since the Dark Age will be restored to fight the scourge of drugs. Police, Government, Church - all the lines will be blurred. More discussion is needed here.I admire your insight, kaptinemo, and although I am usually cheered by your optimism, I'm not ready to celebrate with you this time. So, please, dispense with my pessimism or else sell me an indulgence. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on January 31, 2001 at 04:46:35 PT: Golden Parachutes for antis This is but more proof that the antis are starting to feel a lot less confident about the continuation of the DrugWar gravy train; they're starting to think 'pension plan'.They know now that money for interdiction is increasingly coming under fire; that with majestic slowness the pendulium that has swung their way for so long is starting to swing back. They know that the old "lock 'em all up and the problem goes away!" formula is increasingly coming under critical scrutiny by the public; the movie "Traffic", flawed as some might see it, has forced the issue from the shadows, and onto the public's radar screen.Exactly where the antis DID NOT WANT IT TO. They knew that so long as the public heard only of 'wars and rumors of wars', they would sit back and let the antis do what they want. Even the murder of innocents - like Alberto Sepulveda - didn't stir much public interest, except locally and in places like this. But things are changing; the public is stirring from it's mental hibernation, goaded by movies like "Traffic" which spell out - if only on a surface level - the awesome, sweeping failure of the DrugWar. Like having an ammonia capsule held under its' nose, the public acts like it has been startled awake, and wants to know the 'who, what, when, where, how, and why' of it, when previously they couldn't be bothered. And lucky for us, *we* have the answers. Answers the antis would rather we not provide...hence their pathetic attempts to silence this media of ours via the Anti-Meth Bill.Yes, the more intelligent of the antis, the more cunning ones, know the jig is up. So they are changing their tune. Now, they try to croon with words of 'sweet reason' attempting to sound 'compassionate' by offering 'treatment' for all illicit drug use.But all the while, they are looking at where they always have: the bottom line...the profit margin.Golden Parachutes are what CEOs of major corporations give themselves when they depart their corporate offices; obscenely huge bonuses, often at the expense of the corporations' health and welfare. The antis are doing exactly the same thing: trying to maintain the gravy train they've ridden for so long at the expense of the American taxpayer. And now that the 'law 'n order' approach is eventually being phased out, they are trying to squeeze even more from us using a different tack.They should know the old adage about leopards not being able to change their spots, but they certainly will try. There's simply too much lovely money to be made by the American public's seemingly boundless gullibility. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Dan B on January 31, 2001 at 03:51:58 PT: You are right, Chris . . . . . . but treatment for "marijuana addiction" would be a waste of money no matter how much is spent on it because, frankly, there is no such thing (barring obsessive-compulsive behavior that some people tend to have toward anything pleasurable). Because cannabis is non-physically-addictive, there is no need for detox. While that "stoned" feeling abates quickly, along with all of the short-term effects associated with being stoned, metabolites associated with cannabis leave the system much more slowly. I believe that this system is largely responsible for the fact that virtually nobody has an adverse reaction to coming down off a cannabis high. Notice that opiates, for example, have a much greater incidence of adverse physical effects when one comes down from highs associated with those substances. I think that may be largely due to the relatively rapid elimination of those substances and their metabolites from the body. Anyway, what it boils down to is this: if one wants therapy to help control obsessive-compulsive tendencies, so be it. But it is both illogical and a terrible waste of money to force treatment on the majority of cannabis smokers who use the substance responsibly. I hope this clears up why many of us have a problem with forced treatment for those who use cannabis.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Chris on January 30, 2001 at 21:39:45 PT: Treatment vs. Jail Treatman cost a fraction of what it cost to jail an inmate for just one year not to mention a 20 year sentance cost 20 X more! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Occassional Pot User on January 30, 2001 at 21:21:01 PT hehe Imagine the treatment center full of stoners all chillin and havin a good time together.. LOL [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by soundinoff on January 30, 2001 at 11:12:47 PT Marijuana plants have feelings too Well ...what if I do not want treatment.period.I love marijuana The way it looks, smells, taste and the way it makes me feel. The extent we go to to preserve every form of life on earth from exticnction why are you killing marijuana plants. Lets see you try that with some whales or another almost extinct form of life. Why don't you attack someother form of addiction like jerks who sit in front of a football game drinkin beer all day.Aleast a person on marijuana can still function without being a threat to society. STOP KILLING MARIJUANA SAVE THE POT FOUNDATION WE NEED YOU !! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 30, 2001 at 10:28:29 PT: Observer Tells It As It Is One of the primary problems with USA drug law is that it places no emphasis on actual impairment by drugs, rather than mere blood traces of metabolites. Unless impairment or danger to others can be proven, as in the case of DWI and blood alcohol levels, it should be a medical, and not legal issue. In medicine, we have the tools to examine whether a patient has measurable impairment, and whether their use of any drug represents a risk to them or those around them. If so, treatment recommendations can be advanced. The rehabilitation value of incarceration is less than zero for most drug users. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on January 30, 2001 at 10:21:30 PT forced 'treatment' "small-time marijuana users," but instead, he argues, they "should be placed in treatment." Here's what the US government has already agreed to, in 1961. Keep in mind that "narcotics" here refers to any illegal drug, inclusing and especially marijuana: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONSChapter I Treatment of drug addictsArticle 42, concerning the treatment of drug addicts, is based on the recommendations of article 38 of the Convention. Art. 42. 1. Known users of drugs and persons charged with an offence under this Law may be committed by the examining magistrate to a nursing home for a course of detoxication treatment of a type regulated by the Ministers of Justice and Public Health.The same regulations shall specify how the cost of equipping such nursing-homes and of accommodating and treating the inmates shall be met.Rules shall also be laid down for the treatment in such nursing-homes of unconvicted drug addicts and dangerous alcoholics.Persons evading their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article shall be liable to imprisonment for a period of from six days to two months. The said penalty shall not run concurrently with the penalties specified in article 45. . . (The United Nations’ "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 10 March 1961, A model law for the application of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics, 21:1-12 (April-June), 1961 [UNDCP])http://www.undcp.org/bulletin/bulletin_1969-01-01_2_page002.html Of course, UN treaties are typically weak, unenforcable, and driven by US politics and can be ignored or changed as easily as any other law may be. Still, there are many vested interests salivating at the thought of government money flowing into their accounts, for providing the "service" of forced-treatment for marijuana "addicts" (i.e. anyone detained by any law enforcement agency for any reason, who has a positive drug for cannabis). As for the so-called addict, he is the target of a major "war on addiction," fought by powerful troops on many fronts. In New York State, a new antiaddiction law, enacted in 1967, authorizes the incarceration, for up to five years, not only of proven addicts, but also of persons "in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon narcotics."3 This far-reaching repression of the addict is again justified on the grounds that addicts are "physically and emotionally sick ... [and] must be treated as if they were the victims of a contagious and virulent disease."4 There is a fundamental similarity between the persecution of individuals who engage in consenting homosexual activity in private, or who ingest, inject, or smoke various substances that affect their feelings and thoughts -- and the traditional persecution of men for their religion, as Jews, or for their skin-color, as Negroes. What all of these persecutions have in common is that the victims are harassed by the majority not because they engage in overtly aggressive or destructive acts, like theft or murder, but because their conduct or appearance offends a group intolerant to and threatened by human differences.Thomas SzaszThe Manufacture of Madness, 1970, pp.208-209http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0815604610/ Always remember: to a prohibitionist, "treatment not jail" is a big bait-n-switch: drug warriors want you to think, "hard core heroin addicts", but they really mean, "forced treatment for all who test positive for marijuana." [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Scott on January 30, 2001 at 08:50:11 PT: Yeah... Treatment for potheads, great idea. What's even better is that it will make treatment for heroin/meth/coke users harder to obtain because the beds will be filled with potheads that are in there because they were forced. Amazing how with a $20 billion federal drug control budget it's *still* easier to score dope then score a place in rehab _unless_ you get arrested. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: