Last year, I came upon some political web sites with areas where people can comment on the articles on the site. Being new to this type of interaction, I found it to be quite amazing. There was now a spot where people with differing political views could come and share their ideas and debate the issues. In theory it is a great idea. In practice, however, it leaves a lot to be desired.
There are several different types of posters that post comments on these sites:
The “trolls.” Those are the people that come on and will post something incendiary or provocative in an attempt to disrupt the thread. A troll never responds to the replies that his or her posts generates and the comment is usually quite brief; one or two sentences at most.
The “argumentative regulars.” These are the posters that come onto the site on a regular basis. They are the ones that seem to be on the site the most. They are also what I would consider to be the alpha posters. The argumentative regulars can be divided into two camps: the ones that agree with the bias of the site, whether it is liberal or conservative, and those that oppose that bias. These two different factions know each other and come onto the site for the express purpose of antagonizing the other side. They will get into running arguments that are always off-topic and eat up a lot of thread space. This makes it difficult for anyone else to post comments and replies to comments. These people are actually more disruptive than the trolls, though I don’t think they would see it that way. They have all been banned multiple times, only to show up later with a different moniker, sometimes within minutes, and get back into the fray.
The “regulars.” These are the people that come on to the site on a regular basis to voice their opinions and have discussions and debates about the topics of the day. These people rarely engage either the trolls or the argumentative regulars, but instead will mostly engage the other regulars there. Most of what they post is on topic, and generally educational.
The “community regulars.” These are the people that come onto the site almost expressly for the online community of the place. Their posts are mostly off-topic and directed at the other community regulars on the site. They are there mostly just for the conversation, trying to turn the thread into their own little chat room.
The “reply regulars.” These are the people that come on the site, and mostly only reply to other comments, rarely offering anything new or substantial to the conversation. They are the ones that want to be part of the community though they don’t have anything to say really.
Not all posters fit into only one category. Most of the posters are in different categories at different times. Though their strongest tendencies tend to be in one category or the other.
The interactions between these different posters create some interesting dynamics on the threads. The argumentative regulars are driven by ego and the need to be right. They like to dominate the conversation, no matter what it is. They always seem to have a wealth of information at their fingertips that they can bring to bear at any time. The information they provide, however, is almost always “cherry-picked” information slanted towards their particular view.
One of the most cherry-picked bits of information is poll numbers. When the polls are in their favor, they will cite them while the other side will say that polls don’t matter and vice versa. This is a never-ending game with these posters.
Another one of the interesting dynamics is the mob mentality. When one of the argumentative posters, (the alphas), attacks someone for whatever reason, a lot of the others will join in on that attack whether they know the reason for the original attack or not.
I have seen these attacks take place a lot and always figured that there was a reason for those attacks. The attackers must know the ones being attacked and their personalities. I have come to realize though, that that is not always the case.
After witnessing these attacks take place over a period of several months I discovered something disturbing. I was posting on another thread and one of the posters that seemed to get attacked a lot was posting there as well. He/she made a comment that I deemed to be misinformed and so replied to it with some more information showing how their original post was incorrect. This commenting and replying went back and forth for quite awhile. His/her arguments were well reasoned and seemed to be well thought out. They just didn’t have all of the information to make an informed decision. After I had this experience with several different posters, I surmised that maybe the reason they were getting attacked on the other threads was simply because they had a difference of opinion.
To test my theory that these posters were being attacked because they expressed a different opinion, I created several different monikers and went on these blogs and expressed a different opinion from that of the regular posters. My opinion wasn’t inflammatory, or designed to disrupt the thread, it was just a difference of opinion.
As soon as the comment posted, the regulars pounced. I was called different names like troll, right-winger, dumb ass to name just a few. And when one regular poster would attack, several others would join in on the attack. These posters exhibited all of the signs of mob mentality.
As I tried to defend myself, (keep in mind here, I was purposely remaining non-confrontational throughout the exchanges), more and more posters joined in, all the while getting more and more rude. They kept it up until I was literally run off of the thread. Every time I came onto the board with a different moniker and posted a differing opinion, I was met with the same behavior.
To make sure that it wasn’t just me that was having this problem, I enlisted the help of a couple of other long-time posters and asked them to replicate the experiment. They did and they had the same outcome as I.
I think there are a couple of different things happening here. The posters get into a certain frame of mind, a persona if you will. Everything they see posted will be filtered through this framework. They are so used to being attacked, or seeing others attacked they perceive any difference of opinion as a personal attack upon themselves and so respond accordingly. The other thing that might be happening is a certain sense of superiority. The posters see the thread as their “private domain” and the resent anyone that comes in to disrupt their little kingdom.
Some of these types of behavior are running off people who might otherwise be posting on these sites. It is a problem common to most blogs where I have posted. I don’t know what can be done to stop this, or even if anything can. So I decided to write this article in hopes that some might see it and realize what they are doing to others by their actions. Maybe they should stop and think before posting something and realize that they really don’t know who is on the other side of the computer screen.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Will You Join Me?
When Bush was anointed
I screamed and yelled
No one would listen
When Bush invaded a sovereign nation
I took to the streets
I was called a traitor
When Bush stole the next election
I joined a progressive group
Now I had a voice
When Barack joined the race
I volunteered for him
Many were there to help me
When Barack was nominated
I screamed in excitement
Millions joined me
When Barack won the election
I wept with joy
The world wept with me
Now that Barack is president
I will not give up the fight
Will you join me?
I screamed and yelled
No one would listen
When Bush invaded a sovereign nation
I took to the streets
I was called a traitor
When Bush stole the next election
I joined a progressive group
Now I had a voice
When Barack joined the race
I volunteered for him
Many were there to help me
When Barack was nominated
I screamed in excitement
Millions joined me
When Barack won the election
I wept with joy
The world wept with me
Now that Barack is president
I will not give up the fight
Will you join me?
I Am A Person Without A Home
This is a poem that I wrote while I was living under a freeway overpass. I think that it catches the essence of being homeless.
I am a person without a home,
Living under a bridge, just like a gnome.
Mostly I am just ignored,
Unless the police become too bored.
Then it’s as if I have no rights,
Being kicked awake in the middle of the night.
Made to move my harmless camp,
Walking the streets in the cold and damp.
Always trying to keep out of sight,
Hugging the shadows, avoiding the light.
As I walk the streets alone,
I am a person without a home.
I am a person without a home,
Living under a bridge, just like a gnome.
Mostly I am just ignored,
Unless the police become too bored.
Then it’s as if I have no rights,
Being kicked awake in the middle of the night.
Made to move my harmless camp,
Walking the streets in the cold and damp.
Always trying to keep out of sight,
Hugging the shadows, avoiding the light.
As I walk the streets alone,
I am a person without a home.
Why Do We Drug Test?
Why Do We Drug Test?
(referenced reports included at the end of this article)
You are working at your dream job when you are selected for a random, mandatory, drug test. You readily give a urine sample since you do not use illicit drugs. Two days later your supervisor calls you into his office and informs you that you failed the drug test and you are no longer employed there. This scenario plays out across the country more often than you would think. Most people are under the mistaken belief that drug tests are infallible. Nothing could be farther from the truth
On September 15, 1986 Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564 establishing the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program. Then came the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. These edicts made drug testing mandatory for Federal employees and contractors. Since then drug testing has become quite prevalent in state and local governments and the private sector from pre-employment screening to random and for-cause testing. This is disturbing for several reasons. Drug testing is an unproven technology even though the government and the companies that make the drug-test kits would like you to believe otherwise. Studies have shown that they don’t work, don’t deter drug use, can be quite costly, and are easy to beat.
Proponents of drug testing say that it is a reliable way to improve safety and worker productivity in the workplace, “yet the fact is that urinalysis has been imposed on millions of American workers involuntarily without so much as a single scientifically controlled study to show that it is a safe or effective means of promoting workplace safety” (Gieringer 2). These drug tests also can’t tell when or how much a person has ingested or whether they are impaired at work. Most of the estimated 40 million users in this country are defined as casual users. These are people who use only occasionally and don’t allow their use to interfere with their work as shown by, “a Postal Service study . . . showed that drug using workers were largely reliable: drug users had a 93.4% attendance record versus 95.8% for others, and 85% of users kept their jobs, versus 89.5% of non-users” (Gieringer 3). As shown by this study, drug use does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform his or her job.
Our high school and middle school children are even being tested randomly now. The most common reason being cited is that illicit drug use needs to be stopped in its infancy before our kids get hooked. In reality, random drug tests do not stop school kids from using drugs. In fact, the only federally commissioned study had some surprising results after studying the correlation between drug use in our schools and random drug testing for four years. The study revealed that, “Marijuana prevalence was 4.7 percentage points lower in the schools with such random testing; but the use of other illicit drugs was 3.3 percentage points higher” (Yamaguchi 12). Since marijuana stays in your system longer than other drugs, and people are going to get high whether it is legal or not (see prohibition) people are going to switch to drugs that leave your system quicker, thereby being harder to detect. In other words, if you want your kids to switch from pot to meth then institute random drug testing in your school.
Paying for drug tests that don’t actually stop drug use doesn’t make a lot of sense either. It is not an intelligent use of public money. Randomly testing an entire school system can be quite costly. One school district in Dublin, Ohio canceled its $35,000 per year drug testing program. Out of the 1473 students tested, only 11 tested positive. That means they spent approximately $3200 per student who tested positive, not a real cost effective way to spend their money.
For those who wish to continue using drugs and are subjected to random drug tests at work there are other options. There are four categories of products that guarantee that they will help a person pass a drug test: “1) dilution substances that are added to a urine specimen at the time that it is collected or are ingested before an individual submits a urine specimen; 2) cleansing substances that detoxify or cleanse the urine and are ingested prior to the time that an individual submits a urine specimen; 3) adulterants that are used to destroy or alter the chemical make-up of drugs and are added to a urine specimen at the time that it is provided for testing and; 4) synthetic or drug-free urine that is substituted in place of an individual’s specimen and provided for testing” (Cramer 1) If you go onto the Internet and do a web search for drug tests there are literally thousands of sites that will sell you products that you can use to defeat a drug test. For example, “According to SAMHSA: (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), approximately 400 different products are available to adulterate urine samples.” (Cramer 5). Anyone that can access the Internet can now beat a drug test regardless of what kind it is or how it is administered.
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, I think that it is time for us to quit obsessing over drug tests and use that money to educate people so that they will not want to use drugs in the first place.
Works Cited
Cramer, Robert J. “Products to Defraud Drug Tests Are Widely Available.” 17 May 2005. pp. 1, 5. 22 November 2006. United States Government Accountability Office.
Gieringer, Dale H Ph. D. “The Untold Costs of Drug Testing Abuse.” 1992. pp 2,3.17 November 2006. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O’Malley. “Drug Testing in Schools: Policies, Practices, and Association With Student Drug Use.” 2003. p. 12. 21 November 2006. American Civil Liberties Union.
(referenced reports included at the end of this article)
You are working at your dream job when you are selected for a random, mandatory, drug test. You readily give a urine sample since you do not use illicit drugs. Two days later your supervisor calls you into his office and informs you that you failed the drug test and you are no longer employed there. This scenario plays out across the country more often than you would think. Most people are under the mistaken belief that drug tests are infallible. Nothing could be farther from the truth
On September 15, 1986 Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564 establishing the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program. Then came the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. These edicts made drug testing mandatory for Federal employees and contractors. Since then drug testing has become quite prevalent in state and local governments and the private sector from pre-employment screening to random and for-cause testing. This is disturbing for several reasons. Drug testing is an unproven technology even though the government and the companies that make the drug-test kits would like you to believe otherwise. Studies have shown that they don’t work, don’t deter drug use, can be quite costly, and are easy to beat.
Proponents of drug testing say that it is a reliable way to improve safety and worker productivity in the workplace, “yet the fact is that urinalysis has been imposed on millions of American workers involuntarily without so much as a single scientifically controlled study to show that it is a safe or effective means of promoting workplace safety” (Gieringer 2). These drug tests also can’t tell when or how much a person has ingested or whether they are impaired at work. Most of the estimated 40 million users in this country are defined as casual users. These are people who use only occasionally and don’t allow their use to interfere with their work as shown by, “a Postal Service study . . . showed that drug using workers were largely reliable: drug users had a 93.4% attendance record versus 95.8% for others, and 85% of users kept their jobs, versus 89.5% of non-users” (Gieringer 3). As shown by this study, drug use does not interfere with a person’s ability to perform his or her job.
Our high school and middle school children are even being tested randomly now. The most common reason being cited is that illicit drug use needs to be stopped in its infancy before our kids get hooked. In reality, random drug tests do not stop school kids from using drugs. In fact, the only federally commissioned study had some surprising results after studying the correlation between drug use in our schools and random drug testing for four years. The study revealed that, “Marijuana prevalence was 4.7 percentage points lower in the schools with such random testing; but the use of other illicit drugs was 3.3 percentage points higher” (Yamaguchi 12). Since marijuana stays in your system longer than other drugs, and people are going to get high whether it is legal or not (see prohibition) people are going to switch to drugs that leave your system quicker, thereby being harder to detect. In other words, if you want your kids to switch from pot to meth then institute random drug testing in your school.
Paying for drug tests that don’t actually stop drug use doesn’t make a lot of sense either. It is not an intelligent use of public money. Randomly testing an entire school system can be quite costly. One school district in Dublin, Ohio canceled its $35,000 per year drug testing program. Out of the 1473 students tested, only 11 tested positive. That means they spent approximately $3200 per student who tested positive, not a real cost effective way to spend their money.
For those who wish to continue using drugs and are subjected to random drug tests at work there are other options. There are four categories of products that guarantee that they will help a person pass a drug test: “1) dilution substances that are added to a urine specimen at the time that it is collected or are ingested before an individual submits a urine specimen; 2) cleansing substances that detoxify or cleanse the urine and are ingested prior to the time that an individual submits a urine specimen; 3) adulterants that are used to destroy or alter the chemical make-up of drugs and are added to a urine specimen at the time that it is provided for testing and; 4) synthetic or drug-free urine that is substituted in place of an individual’s specimen and provided for testing” (Cramer 1) If you go onto the Internet and do a web search for drug tests there are literally thousands of sites that will sell you products that you can use to defeat a drug test. For example, “According to SAMHSA: (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), approximately 400 different products are available to adulterate urine samples.” (Cramer 5). Anyone that can access the Internet can now beat a drug test regardless of what kind it is or how it is administered.
In the face of this overwhelming evidence, I think that it is time for us to quit obsessing over drug tests and use that money to educate people so that they will not want to use drugs in the first place.
Works Cited
Cramer, Robert J. “Products to Defraud Drug Tests Are Widely Available.” 17 May 2005. pp. 1, 5. 22 November 2006. United States Government Accountability Office.
Gieringer, Dale H Ph. D. “The Untold Costs of Drug Testing Abuse.” 1992. pp 2,3.17 November 2006. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O’Malley. “Drug Testing in Schools: Policies, Practices, and Association With Student Drug Use.” 2003. p. 12. 21 November 2006. American Civil Liberties Union.
The Case for the Legalization of Marijuana
In 1937 the Marijuana Tax Act was passed, making marijuana taxable and therefore controllable by the government. The penalties for marijuana possession and use have gotten more stringent over time with the passage of the Boggs Act and the Narcotic Control Act during the fifties. The Boggs Act established uniform penalties and mandatory minimum sentencing and the Narcotics Control Act increased the penalties and fines for the possession and sale of illegal narcotics, (including marijuana). In 1970, the Controlled Substance Act classified marijuana and by association, hemp, as a Schedule I drug, (along with heroin and LSD) “Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision“ (DEA para 3). Although the United States government paints marijuana as an evil, insidious, gateway drug that is undermining the very fabric of our society, if people were to know the truth about the lies that started the drug wars, the health benefits of marijuana, the costs associated with the eradication of this innocuous weed, and the versatility of marijuana’s cousin, hemp, they would put an end to this so-called War on Drugs.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 labeled marijuana a drug of maximum danger and no redeeming value. This classification was immediately challenged by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, (NORML), but the government simply refused to discuss it. In 1986 the DEA finally decided to hold the public hearings that the U.S. Court of Appeals had ordered seven years earlier, and the resulting parade of doctors, patients, professors, and lawmen left a two-year court record that is the most thorough review of the evidence in our time. In 1988, twelve years after the case first hit the docket, the DEA’s administrative judge stunned the agency by ruling for the plaintiffs: “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. . . . One must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be arbitrary, and capricious” (Baum 85). The DEA chose to just ignore this ruling and continue on, business as usual.
One way that the government attempts to control marijuana in this country is by being the only source for research marijuana. To obtain marijuana for research you have to apply to the National Institute for Drug Abuse to get some from their plot in Mississippi. That way they can make sure that the only people that get marijuana legally are the ones that are doing a study to reinforce the government’s position.
The most prevalent method that is used against marijuana is the scare tactic. Scare tactics have been used quite successfully throughout history to get the general public on board with someone’s agenda. Fear is a great motivator for people. The very act of making marijuana illegal was based on scare tactics that held very little if any truth to them. When Harry Anslinger, the man who is considered to be this country’s first drug czar, wanted to create a national drug policy, he made up facts to support his position “Take all the good from Dr Jekyll, and all the bad from Mr. Hyde – the result is opium. Marihuana may be considered more harmful . . . it is Mr. Hyde alone” (Gray 77). The same tactics are still being used today to demonize this plant. MTV in Canada even reported that smoking marijuana causes homosexual incest.
During the 1937 hearings before Congress on the proposed Marijuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger told them ‘. . . a story about a twenty-one-year-old boy from Florida who slaughtered his whole family with an ax. “The evidence showed that he had smoked marijuana,” said Anslinger. He didn’t bother to mention that Victor Licata had been diagnosed as mentally unstable . . .’ (Gray 79). If marijuana were the scourge that our government wants us to believe then why do they need to employ scare tactics to make and keep it illegal?
The studies that show that marijuana is bad for you hit the papers and people see this and believe it to be true. When the studies are debated in the halls of academe and found to have no scientific value, the damage has already been done as far as the public is concerned, and the general public never sees the reports that repudiate the original reports.
In 1972 President Nixon appointed a former Pennsylvania governor, Ray Shafer, to head a commission on marijuana. His purpose was to create a scientific foundation for the administration’s stance on marijuana. Their findings however, were opposite of public policy “marijuana use, in and of itself, is neither causative of, nor directly associated with crime . . . They found no basis for the gateway theory. Alcohol, they said, was probably a greater danger, and they concluded that personal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime. Nixon buried the reports . . .” (Gray 97). This is another case of a government report not jibing with the administrations stand on drugs and getting buried.
In the 1980’s, during the Reagan White House, marijuana again came into the spotlight on June 24, 1982, when Reagan stood in the Rose Garden and declared his War on Drugs. Only one drug, though got mentioned specifically “The country must mobilize to let kids know the truth, to erase the false glamour that surrounds drugs, and to brand drugs such as marijuana exactly for what they are – dangerous, and particularly to school-age youth” (Baum 166). Marijuana was singled out because it was the drug that affected the greatest number of people. If marijuana were to be made legal, there would be only about 2 million illegal drug users left in this country. Certainly not enough people to warrant the big budgets the War on Drugs generates.
One way to make sure that your story makes the front page is to come up with test results that prove that marijuana use will lead to harder drugs – the “gateway” theory. “In 1994, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University made the shocking announcement that marijuana smokers were eighty-five times more likely to go onto cocaine than nonsmokers” (Gray 177). They arrived at this conclusion by taking the estimated number of cocaine users that had smoked reefer first, and dividing it by the estimated number who hadn’t (almost nobody). Using the same semi-scientific procedure you can prove that almost any substance is a precursor to drug use.
The gateway theory started with a University of Kentucky study “proving” that marijuana is a cause of heroin use that was published in the Science News and later picked up by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. When asked about the study “the Kentucky researcher quoted in the Science News conceded it is the act of criminalizing pot smokers, rather than the pharmacological properties of the drug itself, that is the real gateway to harder drugs” (Baum 153). It is flawed research such as this that has permeated the government’s position since the beginning of the assault on this plant.
The gateway theory has been proven wrong in several scientific journals and papers and yet, because of skilled management of the media, the theory persists, at least in the minds of the public. In 2006 an extensive report was compiled about whether or not marijuana was a gateway drug, “(Golub and Johnson) reported that 1%-4% of hard drug users skipped both the alcohol/tobacco and marijuana stages. Mackesy-Amiti et al. reported that 39% of their sample started using marijuana after they had used hard drugs. Blaze-Temple and Lo reported that 29% of their sample began using marijuana after having used heroin, stimulants, or LSD (Tarter para 4). These figures tell us that there are other factors that can, and do contribute to the use of harder drugs, rather than the using of marijuana leading to harder drug use.
In the United Kingdom, marijuana was reclassified from a Class A drug, (the same as our Schedule I classification), to a Class C, which is basically a traffic ticket for possession for personal use. Then there were reports that there was “skunk bud in rural England contributing to youths suffering from schizophrenia, “In September 2006, police forces in 17 English counties launched operation Keymer: a national crackdown on 'skunk' producing cannabis farms. The operation succeeded in dislocating supply networks across large parts of the country and creating a temporary drought. This is in itself an impressive achievement” (Klein para 6). The same report also notes the outcome of these efforts, “One of the ironic results of the single most significant law enforcement drug control operations in terms of market impact, was to drive a Class C substance from the scene, and frustrated punters into the arms of suppliers well-stocked up with a range of Class A alternatives” (Klein para 3). This is actually how the gateway theory works: Since there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to use mind altering substances, whether they are legal or not, if you take away the cannabis, those people are going to go onto other, harder drugs.
In recent years there has been emerging evidence of the health benefits of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of some diseases and slow down or even stop the development of other diseases. There are some studies that suggest that marijuana might possibly be a cure for certain types of cancer. Scientists today are exploring the potential role of cannabinoids to alter disease progression. Of particular interest, scientists are investigating cannabinoids' capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as their role in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease.)” (NORML, 3) The report goes on to say “Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels)” (NORML, 4). Because of the United States firm stand against any use of cannabis, most of the modern research into the possible health benefits of marijuana is taking place outside of the United States and therefore not widely reported here in this country.
Even though individual states have experimented with deregulation of marijuana, the federal government stands firm. In the sixties and seventies almost all states passed laws to lessen the penalties for marijuana use. By the end of 1971, only three states maintained mandatory minimum felony penalties for possession. By 1978, thirteen states, with more than a third of the U.S. population combined, had decriminalized marijuana possession. Since the states are subject to federal law, however, the U.S. government steps in when a state refuses to prosecute and prosecutes the defendant under federal drug laws. When several states passed medical-use marijuana laws, the federal government threatened to sanction the physicians that recommended or prescribed the marijuana.
Our marijuana laws make no exceptions for the medical use of marijuana even though clinical and anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that marijuana can alleviate symptoms like the nausea caused from chemotherapy. By continuing our current marijuana policies we are essentially denying people the care they need and deserve.
The most often stated reason for not allowing the use of medical marijuana is that attitudes towards marijuana in general will relax and therefore more people will start smoking it. In a paper entitled “Sending the wrong message”: Did medical marijuana legalization in California change the attitudes about and the use of marijuana? The authors found: ". . . that while perceptions of harm from marijuana use have decreased over time in California and in other states, marijuana and other drug use has remained stable. Though support for medical use and general legalization of marijuana has increased over time in other states, personal approval for recreational use has decreased and use has not changed” (Khatapoush)
The drug policies in this country are so puritan that they will not even allow an indigenous plant to be used to eliminate someone’s distress.
There are many studies that are beginning to show that marijuana doesn’t impair an individual as much as was previously thought. One study found that “Experienced marijuana users perform tasks as accurately after having smoked cannabis as they do sober” (Norml 1). Another study suggested that “US drivers involved in fatal crashes who had trace levels of cannabis in their blood or urine are less likely to have engaged in risky driving behavior than drivers who test positive for low levels of alcohol” (Norml 1). These two studies suggest that there isn’t as significant an impairment from smoking marijuana, as some would have you believe.
In April of 2004 the National Drug Intelligence released a National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004. It said in part, “marijuana will remain widely available and used in the United States . . . current high levels of demand for the drug will not soon diminish” (DOJ para 4). The report goes on to say “ . . . the transportation of marijuana from foreign and domestic sources and the subsequent distribution and sale of marijuana in U.S. markets are likely to continue with great regularity, fueled by both high demand and steady supplies” (DOJ para 5). Even though the government’s own agencies are saying that the attempt to eradicate marijuana is a failed policy, the War on Drugs continues. It is almost as if the war has gained a life of its own and no one is really in control of it anymore.
The costs associated with the prohibition of marijuana are monies that would be better spent elsewhere. Even though there are no exact numbers for the costs of marijuana prohibition, it is possible to estimate the costs. The annual cost of the War on Drugs for the federal government averages $15.7 billion. State and local governments spent another $16 billion. In 1995 almost 600,000 of the 1.5 million total drug arrests were for marijuana offenses. Given those numbers you could reasonably assume that 40 percent of the $31.7 billion is for marijuana prohibition. That means that it is costing the American taxpayers around $12 billion a year for marijuana law enforcement alone. And this is after 34 states to date have either decriminalized the possession of marijuana or enacted laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. And still the federal government keeps insisting on prosecuting a war that is failing and unpopular with the majority of the citizens of this country.
In a report compiled by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws of over a dozen government funded studies on the effects of marijuana “overwhelmingly, the conclusions of these expert panels have been the same: marijuana prohibition causes more social damage than marijuana use, and the possession of marijuana for personal use should no longer be a criminal offense” (Norml 1). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the United States government keeps insisting that marijuana is a drug that has no medical or social redeeming qualities. They have concealed the truth, and outright lied to propagate this myth that marijuana is the evil, insidious, gateway drug that they make it out to be. Making marijuana illegal in the first place made absolutely no sense and keeping it illegal now makes even less sense. It is time to quit listening to the half-truths and outright lies that our government has been feeding us for over seventy years and have some honest, unbiased research done on the true properties of marijuana and the possible medical applications for the drug.
And it is not just the prohibition on marijuana that is flawed, but rather it is our entire drug policy in this country that is flawed. Just as the case to outlaw marijuana was based on misleading information, half-truths, and outright lies, so too, was the case to start and continue on with the failed, destructive policy known in this country as the War on Drugs.
A by-product of these efforts to eradicate marijuana and its use is that we, as American citizens, do not have easy access to hemp. “Although it grows wild across much of America and presents no public health or safety threat, hemp is nevertheless routinely uprooted and destroyed by law enforcement. Each year, approximately 98% of all the marijuana eliminated by the DEA's “Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program” is actually hemp” (NORML, 4). Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L that has less than 1% of its psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Hemp is an extremely versatile plant, parts of which can be used in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, and others products. Because of the policies against marijuana in this country we do not have a cheap, sustainable, product that it a natural alternative to synthetics and that is grown in thirty other countries including Canada, Japan and the European Union.
During World War II, 400,000 acres of hemp were grown in this country to support the war effort. Rope was made from it since nylon was in short supply at that time. After the war, it was no longer economically viable to grow hemp in this country so the production of industrial hemp stopped. When the Substances Control Act was passed in 1971, there were no longer any hemp farmers left to protest the grouping of hemp along with marijuana.
The arguments for this stance on hemp also come from fear. One of the fears that people state is that people will be able to get high by smoking hemp. In a report entitled Hemp and Marijuana Myths and Realities Dr. David P. West states “The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high” (West 2). Another myth put forth by the pro drug war people is that people will use hemp fields to hide marijuana plants “Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Moreover, it is harvested at a different time than marijuana. Finally, cross-pollination between hemp plants and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plant. (West 3). These are only two of the “facts’ that the pro drug war proponents put forth as fact that can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
On August 2 1977, the fortieth anniversary of the marijuana prohibition, President Jimmy Carter stood before Congress and said: “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging than the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use” (Gray 98). Now, more than ever we need to heed these words and stop making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The government’s stance on marijuana, the laws that make it illegal, and the mounting evidence that they are wrong about it, seems to be; My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts. It is time that America and Americans took another look at drugs and our drug policies, this time using facts instead of government propaganda. It is time that people found out the truth about cannabis. Cannabis is not the gateway drug that our government says it is and it has proven medicinal properties, and it’s cousin, hemp, is a source of a natural cheap alternative to some synthetic products.
Works Cited
Baum, Dan. Smoke and Mirrors. New York; Little, Brown and Company, 1996.
“Cannabis Poses Less on-Road Risk Than Alcohol, US Crash Data Says.” 22 Feb. 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 24 May 2007.
Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 May 2007.
Gray, Mike. Drug Crazy. New York; Routlege, 1998
Khatapoush, Shereen, and Denise Halifors. “ ‘Sending the Wrong Message’: Did Medical Marijuana Legalization in California Change Attitudes About and Use of Marijuana Journal of Drug Issues. Tallahassee: Fall 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 4. ProQuest. 23 May 2007.
924500051&Fmt=4&clientid=1848&RQT=309&VName=PQD>
Klein, Axel, Dan Doctors. Drugs and Alcohol Today. Brighton: Dec 2006. Vol. 6, Iss. 4. “Lessons of the UK cannabis drought.” ProQuest. 25 May 2007.
1848&RQT=309&VName =PQD>
“Marijuana Intoxication Does Not Adversely Impact Decision Making, Study Says” 24 May 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 26 May 2007.
“National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004.” April 2004. United States Department of Justice. 26 May 2007.
Tarter, Ralph E, Michael Vanyukov, Levent Kirisci, Maureen Reynolds, Duncan B Clark. “Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. Washington: Dec 2006. Vol. 163, Iss. 12. ProQuest.
West, David P. Ph.D. “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths and Realities.” North American Industrial hemp Council. 27 May 2007.
hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html>
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 labeled marijuana a drug of maximum danger and no redeeming value. This classification was immediately challenged by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, (NORML), but the government simply refused to discuss it. In 1986 the DEA finally decided to hold the public hearings that the U.S. Court of Appeals had ordered seven years earlier, and the resulting parade of doctors, patients, professors, and lawmen left a two-year court record that is the most thorough review of the evidence in our time. In 1988, twelve years after the case first hit the docket, the DEA’s administrative judge stunned the agency by ruling for the plaintiffs: “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. . . . One must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision. To conclude otherwise, on the record, would be arbitrary, and capricious” (Baum 85). The DEA chose to just ignore this ruling and continue on, business as usual.
One way that the government attempts to control marijuana in this country is by being the only source for research marijuana. To obtain marijuana for research you have to apply to the National Institute for Drug Abuse to get some from their plot in Mississippi. That way they can make sure that the only people that get marijuana legally are the ones that are doing a study to reinforce the government’s position.
The most prevalent method that is used against marijuana is the scare tactic. Scare tactics have been used quite successfully throughout history to get the general public on board with someone’s agenda. Fear is a great motivator for people. The very act of making marijuana illegal was based on scare tactics that held very little if any truth to them. When Harry Anslinger, the man who is considered to be this country’s first drug czar, wanted to create a national drug policy, he made up facts to support his position “Take all the good from Dr Jekyll, and all the bad from Mr. Hyde – the result is opium. Marihuana may be considered more harmful . . . it is Mr. Hyde alone” (Gray 77). The same tactics are still being used today to demonize this plant. MTV in Canada even reported that smoking marijuana causes homosexual incest.
During the 1937 hearings before Congress on the proposed Marijuana Tax Act, Harry Anslinger told them ‘. . . a story about a twenty-one-year-old boy from Florida who slaughtered his whole family with an ax. “The evidence showed that he had smoked marijuana,” said Anslinger. He didn’t bother to mention that Victor Licata had been diagnosed as mentally unstable . . .’ (Gray 79). If marijuana were the scourge that our government wants us to believe then why do they need to employ scare tactics to make and keep it illegal?
The studies that show that marijuana is bad for you hit the papers and people see this and believe it to be true. When the studies are debated in the halls of academe and found to have no scientific value, the damage has already been done as far as the public is concerned, and the general public never sees the reports that repudiate the original reports.
In 1972 President Nixon appointed a former Pennsylvania governor, Ray Shafer, to head a commission on marijuana. His purpose was to create a scientific foundation for the administration’s stance on marijuana. Their findings however, were opposite of public policy “marijuana use, in and of itself, is neither causative of, nor directly associated with crime . . . They found no basis for the gateway theory. Alcohol, they said, was probably a greater danger, and they concluded that personal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime. Nixon buried the reports . . .” (Gray 97). This is another case of a government report not jibing with the administrations stand on drugs and getting buried.
In the 1980’s, during the Reagan White House, marijuana again came into the spotlight on June 24, 1982, when Reagan stood in the Rose Garden and declared his War on Drugs. Only one drug, though got mentioned specifically “The country must mobilize to let kids know the truth, to erase the false glamour that surrounds drugs, and to brand drugs such as marijuana exactly for what they are – dangerous, and particularly to school-age youth” (Baum 166). Marijuana was singled out because it was the drug that affected the greatest number of people. If marijuana were to be made legal, there would be only about 2 million illegal drug users left in this country. Certainly not enough people to warrant the big budgets the War on Drugs generates.
One way to make sure that your story makes the front page is to come up with test results that prove that marijuana use will lead to harder drugs – the “gateway” theory. “In 1994, the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University made the shocking announcement that marijuana smokers were eighty-five times more likely to go onto cocaine than nonsmokers” (Gray 177). They arrived at this conclusion by taking the estimated number of cocaine users that had smoked reefer first, and dividing it by the estimated number who hadn’t (almost nobody). Using the same semi-scientific procedure you can prove that almost any substance is a precursor to drug use.
The gateway theory started with a University of Kentucky study “proving” that marijuana is a cause of heroin use that was published in the Science News and later picked up by the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. When asked about the study “the Kentucky researcher quoted in the Science News conceded it is the act of criminalizing pot smokers, rather than the pharmacological properties of the drug itself, that is the real gateway to harder drugs” (Baum 153). It is flawed research such as this that has permeated the government’s position since the beginning of the assault on this plant.
The gateway theory has been proven wrong in several scientific journals and papers and yet, because of skilled management of the media, the theory persists, at least in the minds of the public. In 2006 an extensive report was compiled about whether or not marijuana was a gateway drug, “(Golub and Johnson) reported that 1%-4% of hard drug users skipped both the alcohol/tobacco and marijuana stages. Mackesy-Amiti et al. reported that 39% of their sample started using marijuana after they had used hard drugs. Blaze-Temple and Lo reported that 29% of their sample began using marijuana after having used heroin, stimulants, or LSD (Tarter para 4). These figures tell us that there are other factors that can, and do contribute to the use of harder drugs, rather than the using of marijuana leading to harder drug use.
In the United Kingdom, marijuana was reclassified from a Class A drug, (the same as our Schedule I classification), to a Class C, which is basically a traffic ticket for possession for personal use. Then there were reports that there was “skunk bud in rural England contributing to youths suffering from schizophrenia, “In September 2006, police forces in 17 English counties launched operation Keymer: a national crackdown on 'skunk' producing cannabis farms. The operation succeeded in dislocating supply networks across large parts of the country and creating a temporary drought. This is in itself an impressive achievement” (Klein para 6). The same report also notes the outcome of these efforts, “One of the ironic results of the single most significant law enforcement drug control operations in terms of market impact, was to drive a Class C substance from the scene, and frustrated punters into the arms of suppliers well-stocked up with a range of Class A alternatives” (Klein para 3). This is actually how the gateway theory works: Since there is a certain percentage of the population that is going to use mind altering substances, whether they are legal or not, if you take away the cannabis, those people are going to go onto other, harder drugs.
In recent years there has been emerging evidence of the health benefits of marijuana to alleviate the symptoms of some diseases and slow down or even stop the development of other diseases. There are some studies that suggest that marijuana might possibly be a cure for certain types of cancer. Scientists today are exploring the potential role of cannabinoids to alter disease progression. Of particular interest, scientists are investigating cannabinoids' capacity to moderate autoimmune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as their role in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (a.k.a. Lou Gehrig's disease.)” (NORML, 3) The report goes on to say “Investigators are also studying the anti-cancer activities of cannabis, as a growing body of preclinical and clinical data concludes that cannabinoids can reduce the spread of specific cancer cells via apoptosis (programmed cell death) and by the inhibition of angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels)” (NORML, 4). Because of the United States firm stand against any use of cannabis, most of the modern research into the possible health benefits of marijuana is taking place outside of the United States and therefore not widely reported here in this country.
Even though individual states have experimented with deregulation of marijuana, the federal government stands firm. In the sixties and seventies almost all states passed laws to lessen the penalties for marijuana use. By the end of 1971, only three states maintained mandatory minimum felony penalties for possession. By 1978, thirteen states, with more than a third of the U.S. population combined, had decriminalized marijuana possession. Since the states are subject to federal law, however, the U.S. government steps in when a state refuses to prosecute and prosecutes the defendant under federal drug laws. When several states passed medical-use marijuana laws, the federal government threatened to sanction the physicians that recommended or prescribed the marijuana.
Our marijuana laws make no exceptions for the medical use of marijuana even though clinical and anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that marijuana can alleviate symptoms like the nausea caused from chemotherapy. By continuing our current marijuana policies we are essentially denying people the care they need and deserve.
The most often stated reason for not allowing the use of medical marijuana is that attitudes towards marijuana in general will relax and therefore more people will start smoking it. In a paper entitled “Sending the wrong message”: Did medical marijuana legalization in California change the attitudes about and the use of marijuana? The authors found: ". . . that while perceptions of harm from marijuana use have decreased over time in California and in other states, marijuana and other drug use has remained stable. Though support for medical use and general legalization of marijuana has increased over time in other states, personal approval for recreational use has decreased and use has not changed” (Khatapoush)
The drug policies in this country are so puritan that they will not even allow an indigenous plant to be used to eliminate someone’s distress.
There are many studies that are beginning to show that marijuana doesn’t impair an individual as much as was previously thought. One study found that “Experienced marijuana users perform tasks as accurately after having smoked cannabis as they do sober” (Norml 1). Another study suggested that “US drivers involved in fatal crashes who had trace levels of cannabis in their blood or urine are less likely to have engaged in risky driving behavior than drivers who test positive for low levels of alcohol” (Norml 1). These two studies suggest that there isn’t as significant an impairment from smoking marijuana, as some would have you believe.
In April of 2004 the National Drug Intelligence released a National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004. It said in part, “marijuana will remain widely available and used in the United States . . . current high levels of demand for the drug will not soon diminish” (DOJ para 4). The report goes on to say “ . . . the transportation of marijuana from foreign and domestic sources and the subsequent distribution and sale of marijuana in U.S. markets are likely to continue with great regularity, fueled by both high demand and steady supplies” (DOJ para 5). Even though the government’s own agencies are saying that the attempt to eradicate marijuana is a failed policy, the War on Drugs continues. It is almost as if the war has gained a life of its own and no one is really in control of it anymore.
The costs associated with the prohibition of marijuana are monies that would be better spent elsewhere. Even though there are no exact numbers for the costs of marijuana prohibition, it is possible to estimate the costs. The annual cost of the War on Drugs for the federal government averages $15.7 billion. State and local governments spent another $16 billion. In 1995 almost 600,000 of the 1.5 million total drug arrests were for marijuana offenses. Given those numbers you could reasonably assume that 40 percent of the $31.7 billion is for marijuana prohibition. That means that it is costing the American taxpayers around $12 billion a year for marijuana law enforcement alone. And this is after 34 states to date have either decriminalized the possession of marijuana or enacted laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. And still the federal government keeps insisting on prosecuting a war that is failing and unpopular with the majority of the citizens of this country.
In a report compiled by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws of over a dozen government funded studies on the effects of marijuana “overwhelmingly, the conclusions of these expert panels have been the same: marijuana prohibition causes more social damage than marijuana use, and the possession of marijuana for personal use should no longer be a criminal offense” (Norml 1). Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the United States government keeps insisting that marijuana is a drug that has no medical or social redeeming qualities. They have concealed the truth, and outright lied to propagate this myth that marijuana is the evil, insidious, gateway drug that they make it out to be. Making marijuana illegal in the first place made absolutely no sense and keeping it illegal now makes even less sense. It is time to quit listening to the half-truths and outright lies that our government has been feeding us for over seventy years and have some honest, unbiased research done on the true properties of marijuana and the possible medical applications for the drug.
And it is not just the prohibition on marijuana that is flawed, but rather it is our entire drug policy in this country that is flawed. Just as the case to outlaw marijuana was based on misleading information, half-truths, and outright lies, so too, was the case to start and continue on with the failed, destructive policy known in this country as the War on Drugs.
A by-product of these efforts to eradicate marijuana and its use is that we, as American citizens, do not have easy access to hemp. “Although it grows wild across much of America and presents no public health or safety threat, hemp is nevertheless routinely uprooted and destroyed by law enforcement. Each year, approximately 98% of all the marijuana eliminated by the DEA's “Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program” is actually hemp” (NORML, 4). Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L that has less than 1% of its psychoactive component, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Hemp is an extremely versatile plant, parts of which can be used in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, and others products. Because of the policies against marijuana in this country we do not have a cheap, sustainable, product that it a natural alternative to synthetics and that is grown in thirty other countries including Canada, Japan and the European Union.
During World War II, 400,000 acres of hemp were grown in this country to support the war effort. Rope was made from it since nylon was in short supply at that time. After the war, it was no longer economically viable to grow hemp in this country so the production of industrial hemp stopped. When the Substances Control Act was passed in 1971, there were no longer any hemp farmers left to protest the grouping of hemp along with marijuana.
The arguments for this stance on hemp also come from fear. One of the fears that people state is that people will be able to get high by smoking hemp. In a report entitled Hemp and Marijuana Myths and Realities Dr. David P. West states “The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high” (West 2). Another myth put forth by the pro drug war people is that people will use hemp fields to hide marijuana plants “Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Moreover, it is harvested at a different time than marijuana. Finally, cross-pollination between hemp plants and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plant. (West 3). These are only two of the “facts’ that the pro drug war proponents put forth as fact that can’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
On August 2 1977, the fortieth anniversary of the marijuana prohibition, President Jimmy Carter stood before Congress and said: “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging than the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use” (Gray 98). Now, more than ever we need to heed these words and stop making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The government’s stance on marijuana, the laws that make it illegal, and the mounting evidence that they are wrong about it, seems to be; My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts. It is time that America and Americans took another look at drugs and our drug policies, this time using facts instead of government propaganda. It is time that people found out the truth about cannabis. Cannabis is not the gateway drug that our government says it is and it has proven medicinal properties, and it’s cousin, hemp, is a source of a natural cheap alternative to some synthetic products.
Works Cited
Baum, Dan. Smoke and Mirrors. New York; Little, Brown and Company, 1996.
“Cannabis Poses Less on-Road Risk Than Alcohol, US Crash Data Says.” 22 Feb. 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 24 May 2007.
Drug Enforcement Administration. 21 May 2007.
Gray, Mike. Drug Crazy. New York; Routlege, 1998
Khatapoush, Shereen, and Denise Halifors. “ ‘Sending the Wrong Message’: Did Medical Marijuana Legalization in California Change Attitudes About and Use of Marijuana Journal of Drug Issues. Tallahassee: Fall 2004. Vol. 34, Iss. 4. ProQuest. 23 May 2007.
924500051&Fmt=4&clientid=1848&RQT=309&VName=PQD>
Klein, Axel, Dan Doctors. Drugs and Alcohol Today. Brighton: Dec 2006. Vol. 6, Iss. 4. “Lessons of the UK cannabis drought.” ProQuest. 25 May 2007.
1848&RQT=309&VName =PQD>
“Marijuana Intoxication Does Not Adversely Impact Decision Making, Study Says” 24 May 2007. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. 26 May 2007.
“National Drug Threat Assessment: Marijuana 2004.” April 2004. United States Department of Justice. 26 May 2007.
Tarter, Ralph E, Michael Vanyukov, Levent Kirisci, Maureen Reynolds, Duncan B Clark. “Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis.” The American Journal of Psychiatry. Washington: Dec 2006. Vol. 163, Iss. 12. ProQuest.
West, David P. Ph.D. “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths and Realities.” North American Industrial hemp Council. 27 May 2007.
hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
