More in U.S. get treatment for marijuana
By Kevin Freking
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Treatment rates for marijuana nearly tripled between 1992 and 2002, the government says, attributing the increase to greater use and potency.
"This report is a wake-up call for parents that marijuana is not a soft drug," said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "It's a much bigger part of the addiction problem than is generally understood."
Advocates of legalizing marijuana disagreed, saying the trend largely was due to an increase in marijuana arrests and had almost nothing to do with more people seeking treatment because they thought their health was at risk.
"They have the option of going into treatment for marijuana or going to jail," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Treatment rates for marijuana nearly tripled between 1992 and 2002, the government says, attributing the increase to greater use and potency.
"This report is a wake-up call for parents that marijuana is not a soft drug," said Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "It's a much bigger part of the addiction problem than is generally understood."
Advocates of legalizing marijuana disagreed, saying the trend largely was due to an increase in marijuana arrests and had almost nothing to do with more people seeking treatment because they thought their health was at risk.
"They have the option of going into treatment for marijuana or going to jail," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
posted by Loretta Nall at
3:57 AM
10 Comments:
You know, Loretta, denial is a symptom of the disease of addiction. Maybe you should get yourself checked out?
By
Anonymous, at 7:21 AM
As a schoolchild during the cold war, I very clearly remember being told how the evil Communists would put the poor dissidents into psychiatric "treatment" for thinking on their own and speaking out.
The Anti-Communist dissidents were able to avoid jail if they got "cured" of their "disease" in "treatment".
(Back then, we didn't have D.A.R.E programs in our schools. We had anti-communist and anti-socialist indoctrination which included a side by side comparison of Good America Vs Evil Soviet Union. As a part of this indoctrination, we were taught that the "drug culture" and the "hippie culture" were both covertly sponsored by the Soviet KGB in order to bring down the United States. So if you lit up a joint, you might as well be a Commie!!)
We were taught that America was "better" because we were "free".
Today, the use or possession of "some drugs" by "some Americans" is considered a form of "dissent" that must be "treated" or punished because it is viewed as a threat to the power structure.
Addiction is just not the main reason for the drug laws in this country.
If addiction were the main reason for outlawing drugs, then low addiction potential pot would still be legal and high addiction potential alcohol would still be prohibited.
Zen
zen4usa@yahoo.com
http://profiles.yahoo.com/zen4usa
P.S.
I hope that "James", the other blog reader who commented above, knows Loretta intimately well enough to have total knowledge of her personal habits and her private behavior so that he could make a truly objective determination in his assessment of her supposed "addiction" and her supposed "denial".
By
Anonymous, at 1:32 AM
Actually, "Zen," what I consider to be un-American is promoting the idea that making drugs- addictive and dangerous substances - more available is good for our nation. Allowing people to become addicted to drugs, is that American?
I consider the money that Loretta, you and others spend on marijuana and other drugs to be blood money - because it goes to drug dealers and criminals involved with creating violence. That, my friend is un-American.
You know what else is un-American? Accusing someone, such as myself, who posts his views on the web to be somehow against "freedom."
I also would point out that as an "American," I should be able to raise my children with objective facts about drugs and not the propaganda spread by you and others. I want to keep drugs away from my children, and you, sir, are making it easier for them.
By
Anonymous, at 9:22 AM
James,
How has prohibition kept drugs away from kids?
How do you expect prohibition to keep drugs away from your kids?
Can you answer either of those questions?
Loretta
By
Loretta Nall, at 10:32 AM
James-
You obviously need "help".
You could also use some "reading comprehension" training.
Start your "road to recovery" by going to Loretta's earlier Blog post "King County Bar Association".
Get Well Soon,
Teetotaler
By
Anonymous, at 2:28 AM
It seems to me if you want to keep the money out of criminals hands - the best method is to legalize (especially federally - since it should be controlled by the state – why do so many people say they advocate the Constitution but when it comes to the 10th decide it is ok to have federal intervention of what should be a state controlled issue) and let according to the states method of control it be sold by legal merchants similar to alcohol and tobacco (with users accepting the risk). Black markets do not care who they sell to, they do not check to make sure the person if old enough, and they are likely to be criminals in many ways other than just selling drugs.
By
Anonymous, at 6:51 AM
Well anyway, james is a troll, and a bit misinformed. He is definitely entitled to his opinions, however. The funny thing to me is how he chooses to express them. First of all, he assumes that Loretta's cutting and pasting is her own personal commentary (which, by the way james, if you ever come back, is always in BOLD) and that she even uses any illicit drugs herself, which is just a failure to pay attention long enough to understand the issues at hand.
Secondly, many psychologists who study addiction responses exclusively outright reject the "disease model" of addiction. Furthermore, prohibition of a substance is more likely to cause many of the "warning signs" (they're not even called "symptoms") of addiction than actual problems with the substance (like "run-ins with the law"), which makes any prohibitionist discussion of addiction a little goofy. Add to that the absurdity of the thinking that denial of something could be a symptom of whatever that something is, and therefore prove that you are indeed that something, and hilarity ensues!
James is confusing a treatment regimen based upon Alcoholics Anonymous (which while it helps many people is very similar to a cult in the manner in which it operates) which describes "steps" of treatment, not symptoms of addiction. What I find not so funny is that the term "Un-American" still gets play. Restricting my ability to live, be free, and pursue happiness is what you're advocating james, and since that is decidedly unconstitutional, you are the one who is "Un-American." Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm anti-American, so pardon my American but fuck you.
I am not a pink elephant. I emphatically deny that I am or have ever been a pink elephant! Oh no! I must be a pink elephant!!!
-lorax
By
Anonymous, at 12:51 AM
Well anyway, james is a troll, and a bit misinformed. He is definitely entitled to his opinions, however. The funny thing to me is how he chooses to express them. First of all, he assumes that Loretta's cutting and pasting is her own personal commentary (which, by the way james, if you ever come back, is always in BOLD) and that she even uses any illicit drugs herself, which is just a failure to pay attention long enough to understand the issues at hand.
Secondly, many psychologists who study addiction responses exclusively outright reject the "disease model" of addiction. Furthermore, prohibition of a substance is more likely to cause many of the "warning signs" (they're not even called "symptoms") of addiction than actual problems with the substance (like "run-ins with the law"), which makes any prohibitionist discussion of addiction a little goofy. Add to that the absurdity of the thinking that denial of something could be a symptom of whatever that something is, and therefore proves that you are indeed that something, and hilarity ensues!
James is confusing a treatment regimen based upon Alcoholics Anonymous (which while it helps many people is very similar to a cult in the manner in which it operates) which describes "stages" of treatment, not symptoms of addiction. What I find not so funny is that the term "Un-American" still gets play. Restricting my ability to live, be free, and pursue happiness is what you're advocating james, and since that is decidedly unconstitutional, you are the one who is "Un-American." Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I'm anti-American, so pardon my American but fuck you.
I am not a pink elephant. I emphatically deny that I am or have ever been a pink elephant! Oh no! I must be a pink elephant!!!
-lorax
By
Anonymous, at 12:53 AM
Looks like James is all hat and no cattle because he hasn't answered my question of how prohibition has kept drugs away from kids.
I'll answer it.....IT HASN'T!
I guess James is of the mindset that it is the governments responsibility to rear his children and teach them to stay away from things deemed bad by said government.
I call that being an irresponsible and lazy parent James.
By
Loretta Nall, at 2:32 AM
I wonder if this is the same "James" who posted at TalkLeft and admitted that he ran a 'treatment' center? Sure reads like it.
Can you say, 'conflict of interest', James-me-lad? I'm suuuuure you can!
Go to TalkLeft: Report - More Seeking Treatment for Marijuana Use for that "James"'s admission, and the following comments.
By
Anonymous, at 6:45 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home