Edd
Well-known member
Why not? It's entirely pertinent, utterly connected. To ignore it would be gross intellectual dishonesty.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Vermont Senate Passes Ski Area Bailout
- Thread starter Abominable
- Start date
Why not? It's entirely pertinent, utterly connected. To ignore it would be gross intellectual dishonesty.
steamboat1
New member
There's a reason they call it dope.
Any adult who thinks that legalizing marijuana is an important issue needs to grow up. The world is crumbling around us and you're spending time passionately fighting for your right to get stoned? Absolutely pathetic. I don't care if it's legal and I don't care if it's illegal. It's not important either way.
Edd
Well-known member
Please elaborate, as I presume you're completely sober?
Edd
Well-known member
I'm glad you think the issue is unimportant. Presumably, you think jailing poor people for possession is unimportant. Thanks for weighing in.
steamboat1
New member
Possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in most states. Just a fine, no jail time.
If a person is in possession of something that is illegal, that is their choice. There are about 3 million better ways to help poor people if that's what you're really concerned about.
I can't believe the right to get stoned has been become a major political issue. It's just another symptom of American decadence. We were a great nation once...
steamboat1
New member
Like WOW man
Edd
Well-known member
I guess it's over now. Bummer. Oh, pot.
Edd
Well-known member
Thanks for the correction. Good news, I assume we'd agree.
Edd
Well-known member
Oh, you're choosing to be dense. I understand. To explain, the right to get stoned isn't the issue. What IS the issue, is the right to not have charges pressed against you for something so harmless. What's unfortunate for the poor, is that they can't afford lawyers like perhaps you or I can. The entire exercise benefits zero people and costs us tax dollars.
steamboat1
New member
Just a fine, same as an open container of alcohol. Talk about dense.
I'm choosing to be dense? What? Edit: It's my opinion that this is all about the right to get to stoned. I understand that you would not characterize the issue that way.
As for poor people, THAT is a strawman. I didn't read every single post of this 10 page thread, but I don't recall seeing anything about poor people until you responded to my post on page 9.
And I couldn't afford a lawyer if my life depended on it. So go fuck yourself for presuming you know anything about me.
Last edited:
Edd
Well-known member
I don't recall seeing anything about American decadence until post #87, when you sadly referred to it. Poor people aren't a straw man, in this discussion. They're the point. Using pot illegality as an excuse, they get fined and jailed much quicker than folks with means. To sum up, again, it's pointless because it does so little harm, relatively speaking.
Forgive me for assuming you could afford a lawyer? It was your lack of sympathy that led me to believe that. My bad.
ScottySkis
Well-known member
day, 21 October 2015
Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics
UPDATE 23rd Oct: Home Affairs Select Committee Findings just published: HERE
I wonder if the Government will read, listen and respond!
Besides the fact that Psychoactive Substances Bill is one of the worst pieces of attempted legislation since the Misuse of Drugs Act in 1971 as currently;
Psychoactive is not defined in a way which will satisfy the scientists or the courts
No one is exactly sure which things are legal and which things are not
No one has a clue how police are going to detect or enforce this
The second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the House of Commons was an eye opening demonstration of how our Government carefully select and accept evidence in support of their actions (or inactions) whilst omitting, ignoring or dismissing evidence that challenges them. Policy driven evidence over evidence driven policy.
NB: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) (An Expert body who advise the government on drug misuse) strongly recommended the word "novel" be used so as to help with the definition of psychoactive. As they have with most of the ACMD's advice, the Government have chosen to ignore it.
There are 2 main pieces of data acting as drivers for and underpinning this bill:
129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014
Republic of Ireland Implementation is a success as hospital admissions have reduced
Let's have a closer look at this data:
129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014
In the opening words the owner of this Bill, Mike Penning MP, The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice stated; "Last year 129 people lost their lives in this country because of what they thought was a legal, safe high”
This figure has been taken from the following two documents:
Office Of National Statistics Deaths drug poisoning in Eng and Wales - 69 Deaths
National Records of Scotland - Drug Related Deaths - 60 deaths
Looking more closely at how these figures were reached tells a rather different story:
"Deaths were included where the underlying cause was drug related and one or more new psychoactive substances were mentioned on the death certificate."
So if a person dies with cocaine, alcohol AND a "legal high" in their system, this will be counted. It is merely an association. It is neither a cause, nor a reason.
Then if we look at how "new psychoactive substance" is defined:
"Some of the more common NPS include synthetic cannabinoids (Eg: "spice"), GHB and its precursor GBL, piperazines, cathinones (Eg: mephedrone, benzofurans), and more recently, prescription-type drugs (Eg: benzodiazepine analogues)
Most of these substances are now controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)."
This Bill seeks to ban all currently legal and harmful new psychoactive substances and as such should not count substances that are currently controlled, whether that be through regulation (Prescription medications, Tobacco, Caffeine and Alcohol) or through the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) (Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, and those recently added above). No further legislation is required for these.
In fact, only 18 of the 129 deaths in England Scotland and Wales involved substances not already controlled within the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). Of those 18, there was only a single incident where a "legal high" was the only drug mentioned on the death certificate and as there is no autopsy information we do not know if there were any underlying conditions which could have played a part in that death.
So in terms of the headline figure for deaths in England, Scotland and Wales in 2014 that can be reasonably attributed to legal highs is a qualified 1 and not 129 that is being used to justify the need to act quickly. Many organisations, including the ACMD have tried to highlight this to the government on several occasions without success.
Republic of Ireland Implementation is working
"There were 102 head shops in Ireland at the time [of implementation], according to the Irish police force, and they have now “virtually disappeared”. The number of clients attending drug treatment services had declined: 368 people received treatment for problems in 2011 and that number fell to 220 in 2012"
Ok, Headshops have certainly disappeared, the drugs, however, have not. The treatment figures have been provided by the NPS Expert Panel Review. No one quite understands why the government chose not to engage with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide this expertise on the misuse of some new drugs and instead set up a special hand-picked new panel of other "experts", on whose findings this bill was drawn up.
However, according to the The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); The EMCDDA exists to provide the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support the drugs debate. Today it offers policymakers the data they need for drawing up informed drug laws and strategies. Its data is used frequently and is quoted in government briefings and the NPS Expert Panel Review documents
"Use of NPS amongst young people (aged 16-24) in Ireland is today the highest in the EU , and has increased since the 2010 ban, from reported lifetime use of 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2014, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE
"In Poland where a similar blanket ban was implemented there was initially a rapid decrease in the number of reported ‘legal-high related poisonings’. However, three years after the ban the number of poisonings reports had increased above pre-ban levels, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE
To use the "success" of Republic of Ireland as a reason to support this bill is at the very best, irresponsible and rather stupid and at worst, dishonest, which will result in the deaths of many more young people in this country as it has in others.
The Reading of The Bill
So both pieces of data underpinning this bill are fundamentally inaccurate. One might reasonably expect that our Parliamentary process would highlight and address these concerns before the bill could pass - Surely that is what our representatives and commons readings and debates are for, yes?
Well, Monday's Reading of the bill was all the evidence you will ever need to work out the answer to that question:
After Government spokesman, Mike Penning MP completely ignored the initial attempt by Caroline Lucas to raise such concerns, Norman Lamb was the next to try; “Does he not have any concern that if the effect of the legislation is to hand the entire industry over to organised crime, we may end up with unintended consequences?”
Mike Penning's answer was as short as it was utterly wrong; “It has not happened elsewhere; it did not happen in the Republic of Ireland”
Caroline then tries again;“Why has the lifetime prevalence of the use of novel psychoactive substances among young people there increased from 16% to 22% in the past three years and would it not have been sensible to have done an impact assessment of the situation in Ireland before pressing ahead with the Bill?”
Mike's response is disrespectful, dismissive and irresponsible. He shows no interest whatsoever in the evidence that the bill might do more harm; “The answer is no, because I do not want any more deaths, which will happen if we hold back now and wait for more studies, for more this and for more that.”
Especially on the basis on 1 questionable death per year if you are not going to accept the evidence of increase in use and harm being presented to you, then taking a little more time to properly understand and confirm the true impact of this bill on the Republic of Ireland before implementing in the UK would surely be the prudent and intelligent path. It might just save some lives.
When Caroline pressed the point once again, Mike, once again refused to answer or even discuss the data being presented and resorted to a personal insult; “She has a piece of paper in front of her that says that we are all wrong and that she is right....as usual, I am afraid that she is wrong.”
No Mike, she has brought pertinent and compelling evidence to the house which says that this Bill might cause more harm and damage people’s lives and health, and you are dismissing it without any consideration.
Somewhat ironically, he adds; “At the end of the day, what are we sent to this House to do? It is to protect people, and that is what we will do this evening!”
Long serving Paul Flynn (LAB) asked him about the “ban on khat?”,adding “ The reports are that its use continues, but it has gone underground and become more expensive."
Mike, once again, completely ignored that and all other questions and continued quoting his own unestablished facts and a few anecdotes of harm. He made the point that he knows best as he has been to the Republic of Ireland and "spoken to police and chemists" He appears to be implying that anecdotal conversations are worth more than evidence. Obviously if the opposition to the bill were to produce anecdotal evidence, it would be laughed out of the House.
Lyn Brown (LAB) took the floor in support of the Bill and re-quoted the same figures as the government had, a number of similar questions were asked trying the other side of the House for a response;
When Paul Flynn repeated the EMCDDA data Lyn did concede that; “it is too early to make a long-term judgement on the success of the Irish model” which is rather odd, being that this bill she is supporting actually makes exactly that judgement.
Norman Lamb asked her; “In Poland, where the same approach is being applied, the number of poisonings has gone up dramatically since the ban came in from 562 cases in 2010 to 1,600 in the first 10 months of 2014. Does that not give her cause to pause in supporting the Bill?
It obviously didn't as she dismissed it as being incomparable to the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
When Norman Lamb repeated the evidence from the EMCDDA on the Republic of Ireland added in the Polish Official Report and added a reference to the Home Office's own International Comparators Report then asked;“Does that not cause the Government to stop and think about the implications of passing the Bill?”, John Mann MP jumped up to intervene, and whilst completely ignoring the other quoted sources, attempted to discredit the EMCDDA and its data. Whilst he was literally yelling about the lack of credibility of the evidence being presented, Norman added; “The Government have not carried out any risk analysis of what happened in Ireland since it introduced a ban, but surely that is exactly what they ought to have done.”
John didn't have an answer to that and so sat down for a while before it was his speech during which he belittled and insulted all those opposing the bill and stated that Norman Lamb had “struggled to evidence his case tonight because the evidence is not there” stating that only "academic" sources were valid, then goes on to describe a number of anecdotes from his local constituency to evidence his own points and justifying the last 45 years of drug policy.
Our government have shown utter contempt for evidence based policy, have shown absolutely no compassion or intelligence and have shown that no matter how compelling evidence is, if it is against their policy they will dismiss or ignore it, no matter how many people might be harmed as a result.
Whilst many people maybe rather unmoved by this particular subject matter, I would suggest that if the government are prepared to misguide the public with inaccurate statistics and will use policy to drive the evidence in this manner on this subject, imagine how far they might go on something you find really important?
Jeremy Hunt 'misrepresented weekend deaths data'
Jon Liebling – Political Director of United Patients Alliance
Join us/Follow Us/Like Us/Help Us.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Website
Jon
Lies, Damn Lies and Government Statistics
UPDATE 23rd Oct: Home Affairs Select Committee Findings just published: HERE
I wonder if the Government will read, listen and respond!
Besides the fact that Psychoactive Substances Bill is one of the worst pieces of attempted legislation since the Misuse of Drugs Act in 1971 as currently;
Psychoactive is not defined in a way which will satisfy the scientists or the courts
No one is exactly sure which things are legal and which things are not
No one has a clue how police are going to detect or enforce this
The second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill in the House of Commons was an eye opening demonstration of how our Government carefully select and accept evidence in support of their actions (or inactions) whilst omitting, ignoring or dismissing evidence that challenges them. Policy driven evidence over evidence driven policy.
NB: The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) (An Expert body who advise the government on drug misuse) strongly recommended the word "novel" be used so as to help with the definition of psychoactive. As they have with most of the ACMD's advice, the Government have chosen to ignore it.
There are 2 main pieces of data acting as drivers for and underpinning this bill:
129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014
Republic of Ireland Implementation is a success as hospital admissions have reduced
Let's have a closer look at this data:
129 People Lost their lives to a legal high in 2014
In the opening words the owner of this Bill, Mike Penning MP, The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice stated; "Last year 129 people lost their lives in this country because of what they thought was a legal, safe high”
This figure has been taken from the following two documents:
Office Of National Statistics Deaths drug poisoning in Eng and Wales - 69 Deaths
National Records of Scotland - Drug Related Deaths - 60 deaths
Looking more closely at how these figures were reached tells a rather different story:
"Deaths were included where the underlying cause was drug related and one or more new psychoactive substances were mentioned on the death certificate."
So if a person dies with cocaine, alcohol AND a "legal high" in their system, this will be counted. It is merely an association. It is neither a cause, nor a reason.
Then if we look at how "new psychoactive substance" is defined:
"Some of the more common NPS include synthetic cannabinoids (Eg: "spice"), GHB and its precursor GBL, piperazines, cathinones (Eg: mephedrone, benzofurans), and more recently, prescription-type drugs (Eg: benzodiazepine analogues)
Most of these substances are now controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)."
This Bill seeks to ban all currently legal and harmful new psychoactive substances and as such should not count substances that are currently controlled, whether that be through regulation (Prescription medications, Tobacco, Caffeine and Alcohol) or through the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) (Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, and those recently added above). No further legislation is required for these.
In fact, only 18 of the 129 deaths in England Scotland and Wales involved substances not already controlled within the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971). Of those 18, there was only a single incident where a "legal high" was the only drug mentioned on the death certificate and as there is no autopsy information we do not know if there were any underlying conditions which could have played a part in that death.
So in terms of the headline figure for deaths in England, Scotland and Wales in 2014 that can be reasonably attributed to legal highs is a qualified 1 and not 129 that is being used to justify the need to act quickly. Many organisations, including the ACMD have tried to highlight this to the government on several occasions without success.
Republic of Ireland Implementation is working
"There were 102 head shops in Ireland at the time [of implementation], according to the Irish police force, and they have now “virtually disappeared”. The number of clients attending drug treatment services had declined: 368 people received treatment for problems in 2011 and that number fell to 220 in 2012"
Ok, Headshops have certainly disappeared, the drugs, however, have not. The treatment figures have been provided by the NPS Expert Panel Review. No one quite understands why the government chose not to engage with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to provide this expertise on the misuse of some new drugs and instead set up a special hand-picked new panel of other "experts", on whose findings this bill was drawn up.
However, according to the The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); The EMCDDA exists to provide the EU and its Member States with a factual overview of European drug problems and a solid evidence base to support the drugs debate. Today it offers policymakers the data they need for drawing up informed drug laws and strategies. Its data is used frequently and is quoted in government briefings and the NPS Expert Panel Review documents
"Use of NPS amongst young people (aged 16-24) in Ireland is today the highest in the EU , and has increased since the 2010 ban, from reported lifetime use of 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2014, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE
"In Poland where a similar blanket ban was implemented there was initially a rapid decrease in the number of reported ‘legal-high related poisonings’. However, three years after the ban the number of poisonings reports had increased above pre-ban levels, with reports of a shift to street and online markets" - Source Data HERE
To use the "success" of Republic of Ireland as a reason to support this bill is at the very best, irresponsible and rather stupid and at worst, dishonest, which will result in the deaths of many more young people in this country as it has in others.
The Reading of The Bill
So both pieces of data underpinning this bill are fundamentally inaccurate. One might reasonably expect that our Parliamentary process would highlight and address these concerns before the bill could pass - Surely that is what our representatives and commons readings and debates are for, yes?
Well, Monday's Reading of the bill was all the evidence you will ever need to work out the answer to that question:
After Government spokesman, Mike Penning MP completely ignored the initial attempt by Caroline Lucas to raise such concerns, Norman Lamb was the next to try; “Does he not have any concern that if the effect of the legislation is to hand the entire industry over to organised crime, we may end up with unintended consequences?”
Mike Penning's answer was as short as it was utterly wrong; “It has not happened elsewhere; it did not happen in the Republic of Ireland”
Caroline then tries again;“Why has the lifetime prevalence of the use of novel psychoactive substances among young people there increased from 16% to 22% in the past three years and would it not have been sensible to have done an impact assessment of the situation in Ireland before pressing ahead with the Bill?”
Mike's response is disrespectful, dismissive and irresponsible. He shows no interest whatsoever in the evidence that the bill might do more harm; “The answer is no, because I do not want any more deaths, which will happen if we hold back now and wait for more studies, for more this and for more that.”
Especially on the basis on 1 questionable death per year if you are not going to accept the evidence of increase in use and harm being presented to you, then taking a little more time to properly understand and confirm the true impact of this bill on the Republic of Ireland before implementing in the UK would surely be the prudent and intelligent path. It might just save some lives.
When Caroline pressed the point once again, Mike, once again refused to answer or even discuss the data being presented and resorted to a personal insult; “She has a piece of paper in front of her that says that we are all wrong and that she is right....as usual, I am afraid that she is wrong.”
No Mike, she has brought pertinent and compelling evidence to the house which says that this Bill might cause more harm and damage people’s lives and health, and you are dismissing it without any consideration.
Somewhat ironically, he adds; “At the end of the day, what are we sent to this House to do? It is to protect people, and that is what we will do this evening!”
Long serving Paul Flynn (LAB) asked him about the “ban on khat?”,adding “ The reports are that its use continues, but it has gone underground and become more expensive."
Mike, once again, completely ignored that and all other questions and continued quoting his own unestablished facts and a few anecdotes of harm. He made the point that he knows best as he has been to the Republic of Ireland and "spoken to police and chemists" He appears to be implying that anecdotal conversations are worth more than evidence. Obviously if the opposition to the bill were to produce anecdotal evidence, it would be laughed out of the House.
Lyn Brown (LAB) took the floor in support of the Bill and re-quoted the same figures as the government had, a number of similar questions were asked trying the other side of the House for a response;
When Paul Flynn repeated the EMCDDA data Lyn did concede that; “it is too early to make a long-term judgement on the success of the Irish model” which is rather odd, being that this bill she is supporting actually makes exactly that judgement.
Norman Lamb asked her; “In Poland, where the same approach is being applied, the number of poisonings has gone up dramatically since the ban came in from 562 cases in 2010 to 1,600 in the first 10 months of 2014. Does that not give her cause to pause in supporting the Bill?
It obviously didn't as she dismissed it as being incomparable to the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
When Norman Lamb repeated the evidence from the EMCDDA on the Republic of Ireland added in the Polish Official Report and added a reference to the Home Office's own International Comparators Report then asked;“Does that not cause the Government to stop and think about the implications of passing the Bill?”, John Mann MP jumped up to intervene, and whilst completely ignoring the other quoted sources, attempted to discredit the EMCDDA and its data. Whilst he was literally yelling about the lack of credibility of the evidence being presented, Norman added; “The Government have not carried out any risk analysis of what happened in Ireland since it introduced a ban, but surely that is exactly what they ought to have done.”
John didn't have an answer to that and so sat down for a while before it was his speech during which he belittled and insulted all those opposing the bill and stated that Norman Lamb had “struggled to evidence his case tonight because the evidence is not there” stating that only "academic" sources were valid, then goes on to describe a number of anecdotes from his local constituency to evidence his own points and justifying the last 45 years of drug policy.
Our government have shown utter contempt for evidence based policy, have shown absolutely no compassion or intelligence and have shown that no matter how compelling evidence is, if it is against their policy they will dismiss or ignore it, no matter how many people might be harmed as a result.
Whilst many people maybe rather unmoved by this particular subject matter, I would suggest that if the government are prepared to misguide the public with inaccurate statistics and will use policy to drive the evidence in this manner on this subject, imagine how far they might go on something you find really important?
Jeremy Hunt 'misrepresented weekend deaths data'
Jon Liebling – Political Director of United Patients Alliance
Join us/Follow Us/Like Us/Help Us.
Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Website
Jon
steamboat1
New member
Not true, you'll get fined or jailed just as quickly for possession of drugs or DWI just as quickly no matter your means.
For the record, that may be your point, but you didn't bring it up until page 9 and I don't believe anyone else focused on it.
I'm done. It doesn't matter anyway. It will soon be legal in all 50 states. At least then I won't have to hear self righteous bullshit about needing to legalize marijuana in order to help poor people.
steamboat1
New member
ScottySkis
Well-known member
http://norml.org/library/truth-report
The NORML Truth Report
Get the PDF Version of this Document
NORML's response to the ONDCP (updated)
ONDCP's open letter (PDF)
Email Congress
Write the Drug Czar
Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana - An Updated Refutation of the Drug Czar's "Open Letter to America's Prosecutors"
Introduction
In 2003, NORML published a comprehensive report entitled, "Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana: A Refutation Of The Drug Czar's 'Open Letter To America's Prosecutors.'"
NORML's report publicly addresses an ‘open letter' to America's prosecutors (dated November 1, 2002) from the White House's Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In the letter, Burns insisted, "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana," and urged law enforcement officials to "aggressively prosecute" marijuana violators. The ONDCP's letter, filled with half-truths and outright lies regarding marijuana's alleged dangers, purposely misrepresented the available research in an attempt to justify federal and state policies that result in the arrest of more than 650,000 Americans annually on minor marijuana possession charges.
Since then, the White House's anti-marijuana propaganda campaign has continued to take on an increasingly alarmist and extremist tone, arguably crossing over any reasonable line of probity. The Bush Administration's latest rhetoric does not qualify as mere exaggeration; they are flat-out lying to the American public about marijuana.
As a result, NORML has updated and greatly expanded our 2003 report. Like our initial paper, the "2005 NORML Truth Report" relies on the federal government's own science, data, and statistics to rebut the Drug Czar's lies and propaganda.
NORML believes there is nothing to be gained by exaggerating claims of marijuana's harms. On the contrary, by overstating marijuana's potential risk, America's policy-makers and law enforcement community undermine their credibility and ability to effectively educate the public of the legitimate harms associated with more dangerous drugs. In addition, exaggerating the dangers associated with the responsible use of marijuana results in the needless arrest of hundreds of thousands of good, productive citizens each year in this country. We cannot remain silent and permit this taxpayer-funded propaganda to occur without a challenge, and we encourage all concerned citizens to refer to this report for the truth and science regarding marijuana and marijuana policy.
It's time to begin an honest public education campaign about the minimal risks presented by marijuana. Let's allow science, not rhetoric, to dictate America's public policy regarding marijuana. As you will see, the facts speak for themselves.
ALLEGATION #1 - "There is a serious drug problem in this country."
ALLEGATION #2 - "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana."
ALLEGATION #3 - "60 percent of teenagers in treatment have a primary marijuana diagnosis. This means that the addiction to marijuana by our youth exceeds their addiction rates for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all other drugs combined."
ALLEGATION #4 - "We may never rid this country of every crack pipe or marijuana plant. However, research proves that we have made substantial success in reducing drug use in this country."
ALLEGATION #5 - "The truth is that marijuana is not harmless."
ALLEGATION #6 - "As a factor in emergency room visits, marijuana has risen 176 percent since 1994, and now surpasses heroin."
ALLEGATION #7 - "Smoked marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by the use of cocaine and heroin."
ALLEGATION #8 - "One recent study involving a roadside check of reckless drivers (not impaired by alcohol) showed that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana."
ALLEGATION #9 - "The truth is that marijuana is addictive. … Marijuana users have an addiction rate of about 10%, and of the 5.6 million drug users who are suffering from illegal drug dependence or abuse, 62 percent are dependent on or abusing marijuana."
ALLEGATION #10 - "Average THC levels rose from less than 1% in the late 1970s to more than 7% in 2001, and sinsemilla potency increased from 6% to 13%, and now reach as high as 33%"
ALLEGATION #11 - "The truth is that marijuana and violence are linked."
ALLEGATION #12 - "The truth is that we aren't imprisoning individuals for just ‘smoking a joint.' … Nationwide, the percentage of those in prison for marijuana possession as their most serious offense is less than half of one percent (0.46%), and those generally involved exceptional circumstances."
ALLEGATION #13 - "The truth is that marijuana is a gateway drug. … People who used marijuana are 8 times more likely to have used cocaine, 15 times more likely to have used heroin, and 5 times more likely to develop a need for treatment of abuse or dependence on ANY drug."
ALLEGATION #14 - "The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America. After Dutch coffee shops started selling marijuana in small quantities, use of the drug nearly tripled … between 1984 and 1996. While our nation's cocaine consumption has decreased by 80 percent over the past 15 years, Europe's has increased … and the Dutch government has started to reconsider its policy."
ALLEGATION #15 - "The truth is that marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggest that it is."
Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
July 21, 2005
director@norml.org
This updated report is written, once again, by NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano with research provided by NORML Intern Paul Varnado (Duke University).
Important and timely reports such as this are only made possible when concerned citizens become inv
The NORML Truth Report
Get the PDF Version of this Document
NORML's response to the ONDCP (updated)
ONDCP's open letter (PDF)
Email Congress
Write the Drug Czar
Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana - An Updated Refutation of the Drug Czar's "Open Letter to America's Prosecutors"
Introduction
In 2003, NORML published a comprehensive report entitled, "Your Government Is Lying To You (Again) About Marijuana: A Refutation Of The Drug Czar's 'Open Letter To America's Prosecutors.'"
NORML's report publicly addresses an ‘open letter' to America's prosecutors (dated November 1, 2002) from the White House's Scott Burns, Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). In the letter, Burns insisted, "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana," and urged law enforcement officials to "aggressively prosecute" marijuana violators. The ONDCP's letter, filled with half-truths and outright lies regarding marijuana's alleged dangers, purposely misrepresented the available research in an attempt to justify federal and state policies that result in the arrest of more than 650,000 Americans annually on minor marijuana possession charges.
Since then, the White House's anti-marijuana propaganda campaign has continued to take on an increasingly alarmist and extremist tone, arguably crossing over any reasonable line of probity. The Bush Administration's latest rhetoric does not qualify as mere exaggeration; they are flat-out lying to the American public about marijuana.
As a result, NORML has updated and greatly expanded our 2003 report. Like our initial paper, the "2005 NORML Truth Report" relies on the federal government's own science, data, and statistics to rebut the Drug Czar's lies and propaganda.
NORML believes there is nothing to be gained by exaggerating claims of marijuana's harms. On the contrary, by overstating marijuana's potential risk, America's policy-makers and law enforcement community undermine their credibility and ability to effectively educate the public of the legitimate harms associated with more dangerous drugs. In addition, exaggerating the dangers associated with the responsible use of marijuana results in the needless arrest of hundreds of thousands of good, productive citizens each year in this country. We cannot remain silent and permit this taxpayer-funded propaganda to occur without a challenge, and we encourage all concerned citizens to refer to this report for the truth and science regarding marijuana and marijuana policy.
It's time to begin an honest public education campaign about the minimal risks presented by marijuana. Let's allow science, not rhetoric, to dictate America's public policy regarding marijuana. As you will see, the facts speak for themselves.
ALLEGATION #1 - "There is a serious drug problem in this country."
ALLEGATION #2 - "Nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana."
ALLEGATION #3 - "60 percent of teenagers in treatment have a primary marijuana diagnosis. This means that the addiction to marijuana by our youth exceeds their addiction rates for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, ecstasy and all other drugs combined."
ALLEGATION #4 - "We may never rid this country of every crack pipe or marijuana plant. However, research proves that we have made substantial success in reducing drug use in this country."
ALLEGATION #5 - "The truth is that marijuana is not harmless."
ALLEGATION #6 - "As a factor in emergency room visits, marijuana has risen 176 percent since 1994, and now surpasses heroin."
ALLEGATION #7 - "Smoked marijuana leads to changes in the brain similar to those caused by the use of cocaine and heroin."
ALLEGATION #8 - "One recent study involving a roadside check of reckless drivers (not impaired by alcohol) showed that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana."
ALLEGATION #9 - "The truth is that marijuana is addictive. … Marijuana users have an addiction rate of about 10%, and of the 5.6 million drug users who are suffering from illegal drug dependence or abuse, 62 percent are dependent on or abusing marijuana."
ALLEGATION #10 - "Average THC levels rose from less than 1% in the late 1970s to more than 7% in 2001, and sinsemilla potency increased from 6% to 13%, and now reach as high as 33%"
ALLEGATION #11 - "The truth is that marijuana and violence are linked."
ALLEGATION #12 - "The truth is that we aren't imprisoning individuals for just ‘smoking a joint.' … Nationwide, the percentage of those in prison for marijuana possession as their most serious offense is less than half of one percent (0.46%), and those generally involved exceptional circumstances."
ALLEGATION #13 - "The truth is that marijuana is a gateway drug. … People who used marijuana are 8 times more likely to have used cocaine, 15 times more likely to have used heroin, and 5 times more likely to develop a need for treatment of abuse or dependence on ANY drug."
ALLEGATION #14 - "The truth is that marijuana legalization would be a nightmare in America. After Dutch coffee shops started selling marijuana in small quantities, use of the drug nearly tripled … between 1984 and 1996. While our nation's cocaine consumption has decreased by 80 percent over the past 15 years, Europe's has increased … and the Dutch government has started to reconsider its policy."
ALLEGATION #15 - "The truth is that marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggest that it is."
Allen St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
July 21, 2005
director@norml.org
This updated report is written, once again, by NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano with research provided by NORML Intern Paul Varnado (Duke University).
Important and timely reports such as this are only made possible when concerned citizens become inv
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
