|
|||||||||||||
|
By Parents: The Anti-Drug Critique by Punkerslut
Link: http://www.theantidrug.com/SchoolsOut/case_against.asp If Your Kid Says... Marijuana is not addictive. You Say... "Sixty percent of teens currently in drug treatment are dependent on Marijuana. More youth enter drug treatment with a primary diagnosis of marijuana dependence than for all other illicit drugs combined."The National Institute on Drug Abuse has reported similar statistics. The NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana publication states: "The latest treatment data indicate that, in 2002, marijuana was the primary drug of abuse in about 15 percent (289,532) of all admissions to treatment facilities in the United States. Marijuana admissions were primarily male (75 percent), White (55 percent), and young (40 percent were in the 15-–19 age range)." This is no surprise to me for one simple fact: those in the age group 15 to 19 have been deprived of their fourth amendment constitutional rights. As citizens, they are not secure in their possessions, their property, or their home. No laws would ever hint of prohibiting the search and seizure of parents with their children. Their use is much more easy to detect than older individuals who, being much more economically sufficient, are capable of using their civil rights to protect their privacy. And naturally, the courts are unlikely to give stiff sentences to minors caught with simple possession of Marijuana. The majority of those incarcerated in these treatment centers are there because of a court-order or parental interference. Overall, the stat is just an example of the powers that our government allows parents to have over their children. Little more can be gleaned from it. Furthermore, Marijuana doesn't hold the potential as a gateway drug. "Researchers led by Ralph E. Tarter, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Pharmacy, who conducted a 12-year has found that nearly a quarter of the young men they studied used marijuana before they began drinking or smoking cigarettes....The researchers conclude that if it's easier for a teen to get his hands on marijuana than beer, then he'll be more likely to smoke pot." ["Marijuana’s "gateway hypothesis" debunked," ZeeNews, http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?rep=2&aid=340246&ssid=364&sid=ENV]
Apparently, all of the dangers from Marijuana use are artificial, reinforcement barriers from authoritarian figures to submissive, unquestioning subjects. The same dangers that you have today from smoking Marijuana are identical to the problems of being non-white in the fifties; there's nothing scientifically demonstrable about your culture being inferior and criminal, but regardless, the established, long-standing members of the state and social elites will assume it.
I'm glad the bottom line isn't about the facts or the evidence. Why even write a list of questions and how to respond? If it's not about the evidence, and if the only point Parents: The Anti-Drug is trying to make, is that "I don't want you using," then what's the point with this charade? The bottom line is, "I am your parent and hold legal servitude of you; do what I say, because of the legal consequences of my position." Why even debate? Why even argue? Should the accused be allowed to bring evidence to defend himself? Well, seeing as this really isn't about exchanging information and communication, but about enforcing some draconian and inhumane method of parenting, let's not bother. It doesn't matter that the government asserts that, (a) everyone who uses marijuana is going to use heroin, and (b) almost everyone in America has smoked marijuana, but few from everyone has used heroin. Let's not kid ourselves. This isn't a debate; it's an inquisition. We're not asking for defenses, we're asking for confessions. Why even practice a debate with your child when you're not even going to be able to listen to what they have to say?
The reason why students who smoke Marijuana score so low on tests may be due more to the reprogramming effects of the psychoactive ingredient THC; in short, they realize that filling out busy work is an enormous waste of anyone's time or effort. Albert Einstein, Percy Shelley, and Charles Darwin were the most unremarkable students, often hounded, or even expelled, by school authorities. John Dewey, the philosopher of the new school, was forced to resign over conflict with his university administration. I'm not advocating the theory that these individuals were under the influence of THC, though that may very well have been. Their cases demonstrate that degrading school credentials could just be the precursor to greatness. What these "research studies" fail to investigate is the effect of use in regards to mental functioning, based on frequency and amount. The National Institute of Drug Abuse is supported in its findings by the Parents the Anti-Drug website; to quote them, "The information found on our site comes from a variety of reputable studies and sources, such as the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)." In a research study that was quoted by NIDA, the researchers came to the result, "Impairments depended on the frequency of chronic marijuana use, i.e., 'light' and 'intermediate' marijuana use (defined by use one to four and five to six times weekly, respectively) were not associated with deficits. Intermediate use was associated with superior performance in one condition ('fuzzy' concepts) of a Concept Formation test." [Block RI, Ghoneim MM. Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1–2):219–228, 1993.] Would a child score lower on a school's tests if they smoke Marijuana? Yes, but do they score lower on the mental functioning tests performed by scientists in an experiment? No. Is that an indictment against Marijuana, or an indictment against mandatory schooling and a vindication of Marijuana? This research was cited by National Institute on Drug Abuse in the publication "NIDA InfoFacts: Marijuana," but still, it's completely ignored by Parents: The Anti-Drug. These actions certainly demonstrate that their editors are thinking less about publishing scientifically valid information and thinking more about molding an anti-marijuana sentiment into the heart of America's youth.
This is particularly interesting. One of the so-called "Marijuana pills," Sativex, is already related to one death in extremely minute doses. In thousands of years of recreational marijuana smoking, there is not one factual death report, but people are already dying from this "alternative" the government is handing out. [ Medindia.net, "Coroner Says Sativex Is Responsible For Death Of Patient," 17 Dec 2005, http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=6382 ] And yet Parents: The Anti-Drug go so far as to say that Marijuana is not a medicine! There are reports verifying the use of cannabinoid extracts from Marijuana as a medicine, but the DEA and FDA will not call it a medicine, even if it means costing the lives of the public. If there are reports that Marijuana can have some medicinal effect, then let's make a pill for it, and separate it from the illicit drug. That has been their reasoning, and I can't begin to fathom the amount of patients who have become victimized by this war on drugs, which to them can only translate to a War on Medicine. Marijuana's effects have been demonstrated to treat a plethora of emotional and mental conditionings, to significantly inhibit the growth of cancers and tumors, to improve the functioning of the digestive system, and, it also functions as an extremely potent, topical anti-biotic, to which some bacteria are not showing any sign of developing a resistance. Does Marijuana have the potential to be a valuable means of therapy? Absolutely, and the resistance that is applied by groups like Parents: The Anti-Drug, is only going to prevent these sick and dying people from getting the drugs they need. Punkerslut,
|
