United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Major Study Destroys Drug War Fear Propaganda – As States Legalize Marijuana, Teen Use Plummets
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/06 ... rijuana-teen-use-plummets.html
Published: Jun 2, 2016
Author: Justin Gardner
Post Date: 2016-06-02 08:12:05 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 10445
Comments: 54
A curious thing is happening as the war on weed crumbles before knowledge and reason. The propaganda campaign orchestrated during the 20th century by the State and its corporate allies is unraveling, exposing the absurdity of prohibition. Since the gates have been pried open–to an extent–for medical cannabis research, we are discovering amazing benefits of this plant for a variety of ailments. Yet it is still classified by federal government as a Schedule 1 drug with “no medicinal value and high potential for addiction.” Meanwhile, alcohol and cigarettes—other psychoactive drugs that actually do kill people—have no medicinal value and are highly addictive, yet are not subject to Controlled Substances classification. Now, one more false tenet of Reefer Madness believers is being dispelled. A major study from Washington University School of Medicine, to be published in June, found that teen use of cannabis has significantly decreased as states legalize cannabis. A survey of more than 216,000 adolescents from all 50 states indicates the number of teens with marijuana-related problems is declining. Similarly, the rates of marijuana use by young people are falling despite the fact more U.S. states are legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana use and the number of adults using the drug has increased. Researchers examined 12 years of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Instances of cannabis use fell by 10 percent, while “the number of adolescents who had problems related to marijuana — such as becoming dependent on the drug or having trouble in school and in relationships — declined by 24 percent…” This raised an important point. While responsible adult cannabis use is far less harmful than “legal drug” use, the abuse of any drug—including cannabis—is detrimental to one’s health, especially on the developing adolescent brain. Cannabis has legitimate therapeutic benefits, but like any drug can exacerbate problems that kids have in dealing with school or troubling facets of their life. “We were surprised to see substantial declines in marijuana use and abuse,” said study author Richard A. Grucza. “We don’t know how legalization is affecting young marijuana users, but it could be that many kids with behavioral problems are more likely to get treatment earlier in childhood, making them less likely to turn to pot during adolescence. But whatever is happening with these behavioral issues, it seems to be outweighing any effects of marijuana decriminalization.” While this study cannot show a causal connection between the decline in cannabis use in adolescents and state legalization, the fear-mongering of prohibitionists that hordes of kids are going to start smoking weed has been proven wrong. The results of this study suggest another intriguing reality—as the taboo of something is removed, it can become less appealing or less ripe for abuse. Since kids can get real information on cannabis instead of lies and disinformation, they can make better choices. If this is true, as well as teen cannabis use declining in part due of legalization, it follows that government is once again promoting sustained harm on the well-being of the populace. By keeping cannabis illegal, while stifling real information and pushing propaganda, the State may have increased abuse and behavioral problems among our nation’s youth. All in all, kids seem to be taking a turn for the better. “Adolescent crime rates have been declining for about 20 years,” Grucza told Forbes. “Teenage pregnancy rates are at an all time low. Binge drinking among high school students is dropping. (Though you wouldn’t know any of this from news coverage).” Grucza went on to say: It is likely that more states will continue to legalize, and no matter how well it is regulated, it will make it easier for kids to get access to marijuana, and some portion of these kids will develop problems. However, I think our results suggest that overall, kids are becoming less susceptible to getting hooked. My bet is that this will outweigh the effects of legalization. 
(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-13) not displayed.
.
.
.
#14. To: Deckard (#12)
“We submit there was great tension in the household, over money, tension between each other over Buckley's habits, and claims about other women. The chicken or the egg" dilemma. I go for the chicken, in this case ... meaning the drugs.
Wait, it is. PCP is illegal. PCP is a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act. But if libertarians have their way, everyone will be able to pick up some at the local convenience store. Good post. There was also a case in Colorado where a guy ate some sort of pot candy, went berserk and killed his wife. And now he's trying to use pot for a Twinkies defense. Libertarians make a lot of noise about personal responsibility, but in this case you see how they try to evade personal responsibility. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Oh no ... not this same old shit again! --- It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ... eh? ---- Gatlin Gatlin will deny it, but that's been exactly the style of agit-prop he's been pushing for years now.. He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...
Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'. I haven't checked that thread this morning, -- was your Kanary Klan application accepted?
Explain why. You haven't done that. Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not. Is it because some things are evil? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need a rationale for determining what things should be outlawed and what things shouldn't. The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.
You could say that if he had reached the conclusion that electric guitars should be outlawed, but he had the exact opposite conclusion. And he employed the electric guitar as an analogy to guns. His argument was well reasoned. Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'. Here was his reasoning after Deckard (#5): (not his drug use) This is NOT well reasoned argument, it is gun bashing bull.
Nope, not any damn thing. Just what the laws
Gatlin will deny it, but that's been exactly the style of agit- prop he's been pushing for years now.. He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing... You didn't complete your reply, -- run out of bull? And in any case, it's just what the Constitution allows, not what opinions about our Constitutional laws allow. There is NO 'power to prohibit' mentioned in our Constitution.
There is no power to prohibit pedophiles in the constitution. Do you support pedophile rights? Or it is the same power to prohibit drugsthat is the same power to prohibit pedophiles. You going to dodge this or tell me the power granted in the constitution to prohibit pedophiles?
I certainly don’t believe that electric guitars should be outlawed.
Wrong. I am convinced that governments have the power to enforce lawsthey enact -- All damn laws they enact...
Okay, let's go there ... The Constitution Does Not Prohibit Gender Discrimination. Not allowing men in ladies restrooms and locker rooms ... is that prohibiting? Do you believe men should be allow to go there.
Gatlin is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing... Our gov'ts are restrained by our Constitution, which you insist gives them the power to prohibit. Good point, one that argues against having secrecy laws, -- except that they're obviously necessary in a military sense. So maybe we should restrict them to military/wartime usages?
There is NO 'power to prohibit' mentioned in our Constitution. Nope, it's, a reasonable regulation based on the fact that there are a lot of sexual weirdos running around in canary clan land. No, and I don't like women in the men's room at football games, either... --- But if you gotta go----
And you think the natural plant cannabis falls into the same category as nuclear weapons? But you just said some things ARE evil.
Don't be a wuss, answer 22.
You did not ask that question, you asked: I answered your question Yes, I did.
Does marijuana "cause" people to commit crimes? Does alcohol? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If “cause” is to mean that the "use of drugs and alcohol" are implicated in approximately 80% of the arrests and incarcerations, then the answer is probably … yes. I will add that it should be important to note that an estimated 60% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drug use.
What percentage of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for alcohol? And it's no less important to note that an estimated 100% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for O2 and H2O. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If there were such a tests ...
I believe oxygen concentration in the blood is often monitored.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And water? Edit: Maybe, maybe not ... on the O2.
Make that, "And it's no less important to note that an estimated 100% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes would test positive for O2 and H2O if they were tested."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Okay.
"Alcohol, more than any illegal drug, was found to be closely associated with violent crimes, including murder, rape, assault, child and spousal abuse. About 3 million violent crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking and statistics related to alcohol use by violent offenders generally show that about half of all homicides and assaults are committed when the offender, victim, or both have been drinking. Among violent crimes, with the exception of robberies, the offender is far more likely to have been drinking than under the influence of other drugs." - https://www.ncadd.org/about-addiction/alcohol-drugs-and-crime
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Your point, please.
Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-06-03 15:48:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #41. To: ConservingFreedom (#40) Your point, please. Gatlin posted on 2016-06-03 19:08:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #42. To: Gatlin (#41) Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed. Alcohol cannot be prohibited again, not only because it's unconstitutional, -- but because gatlin uses it, just as most of us do. Naturally the canary leader will not admit this, but it's true. Poor retard prohibitionists, -- hoisted on their own petard.
That’s one view point. Another would be that if alcohol is legal and causes the majority of crimes, then if currently outlawed drugs were made legal …would that crime rate increase to the level of alcohol with more drugs easily accessible? I am aware of what has happened in Portugal with the decriminalized all drugs 16 years agi and many drug advocates for decriminalizing or legalizing illicit drugs have gloried in Portugal's success. They said it works. Buy some social scientists have other factors were involved in the decrease of overdoses, disease and usage.
Nope. I don't touch alcohol. I drink Gerstel. You really stop making assumptions and unproven accusations. No tobacco or illegal drugs either.
vaccines so paranoid keep love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Alcohol cannot be prohibited again, not only because it's unconstitutional, -- but because gatlin uses it, just as most of us do. Naturally the canary leader will not admit this, but it's true. Poor retard prohibitionists, -- hoisted on their own petard. I've seen your crazy cocktail hour posts in the past, so you'll have to pardon my doubt. -- But if you've taken the pledge, on the wagon, congrats, it's about time you sobered up.
That’s one view point. Another would be that if alcohol is legal and causes the majority of crimes, then if currently outlawed drugs were made legal …would that crime rate increase to the level of alcohol with more drugs easily accessible? If that were true (and it's an empirical hypothesis for which there's no evidence currently on the table) it wouldn't contradict what I said. Do you hold that currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations? If so, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations, as I have shown, do you hold that it also ought to be outlawed? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I hold that the bastards who want to overindulge and overdose and kill themselves should be freely allowed to do that … and the sooner the better for society. During one year in the recent past, there were 80,000 drug and alcohol overdose deaths … good riddance. I do have grave concern for those innocent folks who are killed or maimed in accidents and criminal activities caused by those under the influence of drugs and alcohol. I do not hold that alcohol should be outlawed, that was tried and did not work. I anticipate that the reported number of 9.9 million Americans who drove during one recent year while under the influence of illicit drugs will grow in number with legalizing cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs … and this will result in an increase in accidents and deaths. I can foresee that perhaps the legalization of drugs will increase the use in the general population and lead to the use of more drugs by young folks. I can see the possibility this will exacerbate the existing deleterious effects that drug use already has on our society. I am aware that with drug legalization will come more government subsidization of the addicts and this would be a drag on our economy … why should I have to pay for that?
Teenage pregnancy rates, or is it really "teenage birth rates"? The easier access to abortion has artificially lowered that number, methinks. ***If we really want to be great again, go ask Uncle Sam to get back on our side of the border, get out of our wallets, get out of our papers and property, get out of our bodies, and get out of our way.*** “Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality.” ― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Hear, hear! And those who want to use to a moderate degree should be freely allowed to do that. It's not clear that outlawing other drugs is working for anyone but the cartels and criminals who reap the profits inflated by the law-created oligopoly. Doesn't add up - people who didn't do drugs when they were illegal will continue to not drive under the influence, which will remain illegal. The available evidence points the other way: young people for years have reported that they can get illegal-for-all marijuana more easily than legal- for-adults-only beer or cigarettes. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Abortion rates have also been dropping for many years. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I have seen different "studies" and "reports" that allege this. During my 82 years on God's earth, I have learned there are parties on both sides of an issue who will falsify data to support their agenda and attempt to sway people to their cause. Unfortunately, it is often times effective. I understand that happens, but it will not preclude me from keeping on with my reading. In doing so, I just keep on learning. I am skeptical by nature, and by professional training. I read those reports and while I will not dispute them, I have no way of validating them to my satisfaction. It should be noted that the skepticism in my posts are not noticed and it is mistaken as either approval or disapproval. I continue to chuckle when one LF member consistently posts what I am thinking without ever asking me to explain my thoughts. These last comments really do not fit into the discussion, it is merely a thought that reoccurred to me as I was composing this post and I just felt like including it, since I was thinking it. Thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.
During my 82 years on God's earth, I have learned there are parties on both sides of an issue who will falsify data to support their agenda and attempt to sway people to their cause. I trust you don't think that this makes it a valid argument to reject data solely on the basis of who provides it - that's the millenia-old fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, however you dress it up. In the case of the data currently under discussion, that fallacy is unavailable - the data is from www.casacolumbia.o rg/download/file/fid/640, provided by an organization whose mission statement is, "CASAColumbia informs Americans of the economic and social costs of addiction and risky substance use and its impact on their lives; assesses what works in prevention, treatment and disease management; and encourages every individual and institution to take responsibility to reduce these health problems." - www.casacolumbia.org/about A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And none of this was a factor?
#15. To: Gatlin (#13)
I certainly don’t believe that electric guitars should be outlawed. I believe that PCP should be outlawed.
#16. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL, gatlin is a prohibitionist (#9)
Deckard (#5) --- The death was caused by Buckley (not his drug use)
Of course anything and everything that might be used to kill someone else should be outlawed. ----- Is that correct, Gatlin? ---- pingunite
#17. To: nativist nationalist (#15)
There was also a case in Colorado where a guy ate some sort of pot candy, went berserk and killed his wife. And now he's trying to use pot for a Twinkies defense. Libertarians make a lot of noise about personal responsibility, but in this case you see how they try to evade personal responsibility.
#18. To: Gatlin (#13)
I certainly don’t believe that electric guitars should be outlawed.
#19. To: tpaine (#17)
Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'.
#20. To: nativist nationalist (#19)
You could say that if he had reached the conclusion that electric guitars should be outlawed, but he had the exact opposite conclusion. And he employed the electric guitar as an analogy to guns. His argument was well reasoned.
--- The death was caused by Buckley
Oh no ... not this same old shit again! --- It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ... eh? - --- Gatlin
#21. To: tpaine (#16)
He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
Nope, not any damn thing. Just what the laws
#23. To: tpaine (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: Pinguinite (#18)
Explain why. You haven't done that.
Then permit me to do so now. Electric guitars do not cause people to commit crimes, at least I am not aware one ever has. Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not.
Because some things like biological weapons, chemical weapons, fission bombs, fusion bombs, boosted fission weapons, neutron bomb, napalm bomb, pure fusion bombs, radiological weapons and toxicological weapons are just too inherently dangerous for ownership by private citizens while other things are not. Is it because some things are evil?
Yes. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need a rationale for determining what things should be outlawed and what things shouldn't.
Absolutely, I am in total agreement with you. I could not overemphasize the importance of having and being prepared with solid rationale. The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.
It doesn’t work for me either.
#25. To: tpaine (#22)
He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...
#26. To: tpaine (#22)
(Edited)
There is NO 'power to prohibit' mentioned in our Constitution.
#27. To: Gatlin (#26)
Wrong. --- I am convinced that governments have the power to enforce lawsthey enact -- All damn laws they enact...
Okay, let's go there ... The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.
#28. To: Gatlin (#26)
Okay, let's go there ... --- Not allowing men in ladies restrooms and locker rooms ... is that prohibiting?
Do you believe men should be allow to go there.
#29. To: Gatlin (#24)
Because some things like biological weapons, chemical weapons, fission bombs, fusion bombs, boosted fission weapons, neutron bomb, napalm bomb, pure fusion bombs, radiological weapons and toxicological weapons are just too inherently dangerous for ownership by private citizens while other things are not.
Is it because some things are evil?
Yes.
The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.
It doesn’t work for me either.
#30. To: tpaine (#27)
#31. To: Pinguinite (#29)
And you think the natural plant cannabis falls into the same category as nuclear weapons?
Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not.
But you just said some things ARE evil.
#32. To: Gatlin (#24)
Electric guitars do not cause people to commit crimes
#33. To: ConservingFreedom (#32)
Does marijuana "cause" people to commit crimes? Does alcohol?
#34. To: Gatlin (#33)
it should be important to note that an estimated 60% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drug use.
#35. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
And it's no less important to note that an estimated 100% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for O2 and H2O.
#36. To: Gatlin (#35)
#37. To: ConservingFreedom (#36)
(Edited)
The internationally accepted standard for such testing is a GC-MS (gas chromatography, mass spectrophotometry) device. This piece of equipment is capable of isolating and identifying a wide range of drugs, including prescription drugs and illegal (contraband) drugs. It does this by matching the digitally produced peaks appearing on a graph-like sheet of computer paper. The computer tracks the time of the introduction of the sample and the exit of the sample from the device and then identifies the substance based on the retention time (how long it took the substance to pass through a column packed with inert material).
#38. To: Gatlin (#35)
#39. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
#40. To: Gatlin (#33)
#41. To: ConservingFreedom (#40)
#42. To: Gatlin (#41)
#43. To: ConservingFreedom, y'all (#42)
Among violent crimes, with the exception of robberies, the offender is far more likely to have been drinking than under the influence of other drugs." - https://www.ncadd.org/about-addiction/alcohol-drugs-and-crime
#44. To: ConservingFreedom (#42)
Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed.
#45. To: tpaine (#43)
(Edited)
Alcohol -- but because gatlin uses it, just as most of us do.
#46. To: Deckard (#0)
causes
autism
does
marijuana
schizoidmania
too
America
sane
great
again
boris
#47. To: Gatlin (#45)
Nope. I don't touch alcohol. I drink Gerstel.
#48. To: Gatlin (#44)
"Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed."
#49. To: ConservingFreedom (#48)
Do you hold that currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations? If so, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations, as I have shown, do you hold that it also ought to be outlawed?
#50. To: Deckard (#0)
Teenage pregnancy rates are at an all time low
#51. To: Gatlin (#49)
I hold that the bastards who want to overindulge and overdose and kill themselves should be freely allowed to do that
I do not hold that alcohol should be outlawed, that was tried and did not work.
I anticipate that the reported number of 9.9 million Americans who drove during one recent year while under the influence of illicit drugs will grow in number with legalizing cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs
I can foresee that perhaps the legalization of drugs will increase the use in the general population and lead to the use of more drugs by young folks.
#52. To: TheFireBert, Deckard (#50)
The easier access to abortion has artificially lowered that number, methinks.
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#51)
(Edited)
The available evidence points the other way ...
#54. To: Gatlin (#53)
I have seen different "studies" and "reports" that allege this [that young people for years have reported that they can get illegal-for-all marijuana more easily than legal- for-adults-only beer or cigarettes].
Thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.
We all need to vent now and again.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]