![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 9 to 33 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
In reply to Motivation for Legalization-DEA Forum, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:38:06
I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse. I saw them go to jail, the VA and other mental health hospitals, and the graveyard at the end. This is what happens to many with harmful drugs-I know from personal experience. I have suffered the effects of harmful chemicals, too, and to the present day. I have not smoked or drank or abused drugs now for over 14 years. I am the only one of my circle of friends left. I cry a lot (from so many losses) but have my life to be grateful for. :-) I also am well read and a researcher among other things. All I can say to those who use harmful addictive drugs is learn from these words, please.
Sincerely,
Pat
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:02:53
In reply to Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
To Those Who Seek To Be A Part of the Solution
KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO BEFORE SPEAKING AGAINST LEGALIZATION
Legalization can be a very complicated subject to discuss and it would be almost impossible for any individual to be completely prepared, current and credible on all the aspects of the legalization issue. Also, it's one thing to make your presentation effectively when you're the only speaker of the evening, quite another when equal time goes to someone speaking in favor of legalization, especially if that person is adept at public debate.No matter what the setting, we recommend couching your message in affirmative terms because legalization is about drugs and drugs are as controversial a topic as any facing the American people. Many times, even those listeners who have no sympathy for the idea of legalization might say, for instance, "Can't we do better somehow than we're doing now about our drug problems?" The answer is clearly yes. This question, by the way, provides an opportunity for you to remind the audience that they must help deal with the problem. It is your chance to ask them: Do you know about the demand reduction and prevention solutions at work in your community, in your neighborhood, in the schools, in job training and workplace settings, in jails and in treatment and prevention centers? What do you do now, and what are you willing to do? How much are you prepared to spend to make it better?
The discussion can and usually will touch on several areas of scholarship: medical science, the behavioral and social sciences, law and criminal justice, economics, international matters, and historical and cross-cultural analysis. While it is not necessary to be a specialist in all the disciplines, it is wise to be knowledgeable and comfortable with some essential questions and answers.
Arguments in favor of legalization, as mentioned earlier, often draw overly broad conclusions from limited data or research, rely on hypothetical arguments and lean heavily on research that is outdated, discredited, or "uncredited," meaning that it hasn't been subjected to rigorous review by the researcher's colleagues prior to publication.
Not all discussions of legalization issues take place in formal or structured settings. Frequently, questions are raised in the course of presentations on other subjects, often in the context of discussions such as "Can we really stop the flow of drugs in the United States?" The answers you provide to these inquiries may be even more important and persuasive than your views offered in a debate setting because they are specific and direct, and may occur in one-on-one situations
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:10:08
In reply to Speaking Against Legalization, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:02:53
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL RESOURCES
DEA is actively involved in education efforts designed to reduce the demand for drugs throughout our nation. These efforts are coordinated through DEA's Demand Reduction Section. DEA's Demand Reduction Section seeks to provide current, accurate, and persuasive information to a myriad of audiences in an effort to build support for effective drug enforcement, while educating the public about the disastrous effects of drugs.The DEA differentiates itself from other federal entities, in that it neither conducts research nor disburses grants. DEA's unique approach is to provide assistance to grassroots organizations. In many cases, what state and local officials, as well as private organizations, need most is a plan of action. This is where DEA's Demand Reduction Coordinators prove to be invaluable assets to communities. In each of DEA's 22 domestic offices, a Special Agent (S/A) is assigned the role of Demand Reduction Coordinator (DRC). As S/As and DRCs, these men and women bring a unique perspective to the drug prevention arena. They possess a clear understanding of the overall drug situation, and a broad range of experience in working with other law enforcement agencies. A Demand Reduction Coordinator may be contacted by consulting the following list:
ATLANTA FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, & Tennessee)
Drug Enforcement Administration
75 Spring Street, S.W., Room 740
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 730-3198CARIBBEAN FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Barbados
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica,
Trinidad, Tobago, & Curacao)
Drug Enforcement Administration
P.O. Box 2167
San Juan, PR 00922-2167
(787) 775-1727CHICAGO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Northern and Central Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, & North Dakota)
Drug Enforcement Administration
575 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 226-7977DALLAS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Northern Texas, & Oklahoma)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1880 Regal Row
Dallas, TX 75235
(214) 640-0820DETROIT FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Michigan, Ohio, & Kentucky)
Drug Enforcement Administration
431 Howard Street
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 234-4310EL PASO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: El Paso, TX, New Mexico)
Drug Enforcement Administration
660 N. Mesa Hills, Suite 2000
El Paso, TX 79912
(915) 832-6095HOUSTON FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Southern Texas)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1433 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77027-9506
(713) 693-3152KANSAS CITY RESIDENT OFFICE
(Serving Missouri)
Midwest HIDTA
10220 Executive Hills Boulevard, Suite 620
Kansas City, MO 64153
(816) 746-4911LOS ANGELES FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Central California, Nevada, & Hawaii)
Drug Enforcement Administration
255 East Temple Street, 20th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5632MIAMI FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Florida)
Drug Enforcement Administration
8400 N.W. 53rd Street
Miami, FL 33166
(305) 590-4604NEWARK FIELD DIVISION
(Serving New Jersey)
Drug Enforcement Administration
80 Mulberry Street
Newark, NJ 07102
(973) 273-5095NEW ENGLAND FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Maine, & New Hampshire)
Drug Enforcement Administration
1441 Main Street, 10th Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
(413) 785-0284NEW ORLEANS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, & Mississippi)
Drug Enforcement Administration
3838 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1800
Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 840-1032NEW YORK FIELD DIVISION
(Serving New York)
Drug Enforcement Administration
99 Tenth Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
(212) 337-2906PHILADELPHIA FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Pennsylvania & Delaware)
Drug Enforcement Administration
600 Arch Street, Suite 10224
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 861-3288PHOENIX FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Arizona)
Drug Enforcement Administration
3010 North Second Street, Suite 301
Phoenix, AZ 85012
(602) 664-5630ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Colorado, Utah, & Wyoming)
Drug Enforcement Administration
115 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, CO 80112-5116
(303) 705-7353SAN DIEGO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Southern California)
Drug Enforcement Administration
4560 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 616-4374SAN FRANCISCO FIELD DIVISION
(Serving Northern California)
Drug Enforcement Administration
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Room 12215
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 436-7883SEATTLE FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska)
Drug Enforcement Administration
400 2nd Avenue West
Seattle, WA 98119
(206) 553-1318ST. LOUIS FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: Missouri, Southern Illinois, Iowa, Kansas Nebraska, & South Dakota)
Drug Enforcement Administration
7911 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
St. Louis, MO 63105
(314) 538-4752WASHINGTON FIELD DIVISION
(Serving: District of Columbia, Virginia, Maryland, & West Virginia)
Drug Enforcement Administration
801 I Street N.W., Room 514
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 305-8639Assistance may also be obtained by contacting:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Demand Reduction Section
Washington, D.C. 20537
(202) 307-7936Additional Resources
Ms. Sue Rusche, Executive Director
National Drug Information Center of Families in Action
Century Plaza II
2957 Clairmont Road, N.E., Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 248-9676Ms. Susan L. Dalterio, Ph. D.
University of Texas at San Antonio
6900 West Loop 1604
San Antonio, TX 78249
(210) 458-5924Mr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D.
President, Phoenix House
164 W. 74th Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 595-5810Mr. Robert L. Dupont, M.D.
President, Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc.
6191 Executive Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20852
(301) 231-9010
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:13:35
In reply to DEA Resources , posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:10:08
U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
Demand Reduction Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:Benjamin, Daniel K. "Undoing Drugs: Beyond Legalization." Basic Books, 1991.
Bugliosi, Vincent. "Drugs in America: the Case for Victory." Knightsbridge, 1991.
Gorman, Thomas J. "The Myths of Legalization." California Narcotic Officers' Association in cooperation with the California Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, 1994.
Krauss, Melvyn and Lazear, Edward P., editors. "Searching for Alternatives: Drug Control Policy in the United States." Hoover Institution Press, 1991.
Inciardi, James A., editor. "The Drug Legalization Debate." Sage Publications, 1991.
Szasz, Thomas Stephen. "Our Right to Drugs: the Case for a Free Market." Praeger, 1992.
Zimring, Franklin E. "The Search For Rational Drug Control." Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Newspapers and Newsletters:
Auletta, Ken. "Six Doses of Reality Are Injected in the Argument for Legal Drugs." New York Daily News, December 17, 1989.
Bennett, Sandra. "Therapeutic Marijuana: Fact or Fiction." Drug Watch, July 1992.
Bennett, William. "Mopping up after the Legalizers: What the 'Intellectual' Chorus Fails To Tell You." Washington Times, December 15, 1989.
Bent, Daniel. "An Eye Opener for Judges on the Health Effects of Marijuana." Drug Watch, March 1992.
Buckley, William F., Jr. "The Weed of Crime Bears Bitter Fruit." New York Daily News, June 10, 1993.
Cohen, Roger. "Amid Growing Crime, Zurich Closes a Park It Reserved for Drug Addicts." New York Times, February 11, 1992.
Collins, Christopher and Collins, Susan. "What Savings?" Baltimore Sun, March 20, 1990.
Corcoran, David. "Legalizing Drugs: Failures Spur Debate." New York Times, November 27, 1989.
DuPont, Robert L. and Goldfarb, Ronald L. "Drug Legalization: Asking for Trouble." Washington Post, January 26, 1990.
Kerr, Peter. "The Unspeakable Is Debated: Should Drugs Be Legalized?" New York Times, May 15, 1988.
Kilpatrick, James J. "Drug War: Good News, Bad News." The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, September 13, 1990.
Krauthammer, Charles. "Legalize? No. Deglamorize." Washington Post, May 20, 1988.
Labaton, Stephen. "Reno Questions Drug Policy's Stress on Smuggling." New York Times, May 8, 1993.
LaFranchi, Howard. "Heavy Legal Drug Use in Spain Prompts Calls for Tougher Laws." Christian Science Monitor, November 7, 1991.
Lapey, Janet D. "Marijuana as Medicine Refuted by NIH Scientists." Drug Watch, August 1992.
Mann, Peggy. "Reasons To Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.
Meckler, Laura. "Seven in 10 Drug Users Are Full-Time Workers." Associated Press, September 8, 1999.
Moore, Mark H. "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success." New York Times, October 17, 1989.
Ostrow, Ronald J. "Study Finds Acceptance of Marijuana for Therapy." The Oregonian, May 1, 1991.
Peterson, Robert E. "Stop Legalization of Illegal Drugs." Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, July 1988.
Pike, Otis. "Drug War Needs New Direction." Chicago Sun-Times, May 13, 1993.
Radonich, Timothy. "Controlling Drugs through Legalization." Northwest Libertarian (newsletter), September 1990.
Raspberry, William. "Legalize Drugs? No." Washington Post, May 14, 1988.
Regional Drug Initiative of Portland, Oregon. "Position Paper in Opposition to the Legalization of Drugs," September 1990.
Rosenthal, A.M. "Dismantling the War." New York Times, May 18, 1993.
Sander, Tom. " 'Weedotherapy' Works: Government Should Legalize Marijuana as Medicine." Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, March 6, 1993.
Schmoke, Kurt. "Decriminalizing Drugs: It Just Might Work-And Nothing Else Does." Washington Post, May 15,1988.
Schuchard, Marsha Keith. "Marijuana: An Environmental Pollutant." Parents' Resource Institute for Drugs (PRIDE).
Schuckit, Marc A. "Should We Legalize Cocaine?" Drug Abuse and Alcoholism Newsletter, June 1990.
Skolnick, Jerome H. "Drugs: More or Fewer Controls?" Los Angeles Times, June 22, 1988.
Thomas, Kathy. "On Legalizing Marijuana: Let the FDA Do Its Job!" Drug Awareness Information Newsletter, September 1988.
U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys. "Prisoner Survey Provides Look at Violent Crime." Violent Crime NET, May 1993.
Zucchino, David. "A Push to Make Drugs Legal." Philadelphia Inquirer, July 5, 1992.
(Authors of following articles were not identified.)
"Business Tax Incentives Can Help Win Drug War," Washington Times, December 15, 1989.
"The Case for Slavery." New York Times, September 26, 1989.
"Drug report: Drop in Teen and Casual Use," U.S.A. Today, September 6, 1990.
"EURAD Examines Harm Reduction." EURAD Newsletter, Spring 1991.
"How Much is a Baby Worth?" New York Times, December 15, 1989.
"Making Drugs Legal Won't Win the War." USA Today, December 15, 1989.
"Mistakes of the Legalizers," The Washington Post, April 13, 1989.
"Needle Exchange Is an Approval of Drug Use in the Most Destructive Way." Drug Watch, March 1992.
"Poll Finds 90% Favor Keeping Drugs Illicit." New York Times, September 15, 1988.
"Student Exercise for Marijuana Activist Group Given National Media Attention To Influence Court Case." Drug Prevention Newsletter, June 1991.
"There are Better Ways than Legalization To Fight the Country's Drug Problems."
Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, April 17, 1993.
Periodicals:
Bennett, Georgette. "Legalization: Would It Work?" National Law Journal, September 26, 1988.
Courtwright, David T. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. No." (See also entry for Nadelmann, Ethan A.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.
Current, William F. "Arguments Against Legalization of Illicit Drugs," Employee Assistance Quarterly, Vol. 6, 1990.
Currie, Elliott. "Towards a Policy on Drugs." Dissent, Winter 1993.
Dennis, Richard J. "The Economics of Legalizing Drugs." The Atlantic, November 1990.
Farley, Christopher John. "Hello Again, Mary Jane." Time, April 19, 1993.
France, Steve. "Should We Fight Or Switch?" American Bar Association Journal, February 1990.
Kleiman, Mark A.R. "Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized? Legalization: A Simplistic Solution to a Complex Problem." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.
Kleber, Herbert, M.D. "Our Current Approach to Drug Abuse-Progress, Problems, Proposals." New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, Vol. 330, No. 5.
Kondracke, Morton M. "Don't Legalize Drugs." The New Republic, June 27,1988.
Linn, Lawrence S. and Yager, Joel. "Physician Drug Legalization Fraught With Danger, Uncertainty." Narcotics Control Digest, June 22, 1988.
Lipman, Arthur G. "The Argument against Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.
Montagne, Michael. "The Argument for Therapeutic Use of Heroin in Pain Management." American Journal of Hospital Pharmacists, May 1993.
Nadelmann, Ethan A. "Should We Legalize Drugs? History Answers. Yes." (See also entry for Courtright, David T.) American Heritage, February/March 1993.
Sweezy, Martha. "Why Heroin Should Be Legalized." Smith College Studies in Social Work, Vol. 61, #2, 1991.
Teasley, David L. "Drug Legalization and the 'Lessons' of Prohibition." Contemporary Drug Problems, Spring 1992.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary." Drugs & Crime Data, November 1992.
Weisheit, Ralph A. and Johnson, Katherine. "Exploring the Dimensions of Support for Decriminalizing Drugs." Journal of Drug Issues, Winter 1992.
Wilson, James Q. "Against the Legalization of Drugs." Commentary, February 1990.
"Arguments Against Legalizing Drugs." Drug Abuse Update, September 1988.
"Physicians' Attitudes Toward the Legalization of Marijuana Use." Western Journal of Medicine, June 1989.
"Should Some Illegal Drugs Be Legalized: Legalization is the Answer." Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 1990.
Other Sources:
Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. "Marijuana Scheduling Petition, Denial of Petition, Remand. 21 CFR Part 1308 [Docket No. 86-22]" (Administrative Law hearing).
"Drug Legalization: Getting to No." Dr. William Olson, 1994.
"National Drug Control Strategy: Reclaiming Our Communities from Drugs and Violence," The White House, February 1994.
"Panacea or Chaos? The Legalization of Drugs in America." Mitchell S. Rosenthal, M.D., presented in Distinguished Lecturer in Substance Abuse lecture series, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, NY, January 15, 1993.
Russell, John S. and McNicoll, Andre. "The British Experience with Narcotic Dependency," Alcohol and Drug Commission, Ministry of Health, Province of British Columbia.
"Report of the International Control Board for 1992." International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations.
"State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities." Office of National Drug Control Policy, October 1993.
"Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box." Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Colombia University, September 1995.
Surveys/Studies:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, August, 1999.
University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1998, December, 1998.
University of Michigan. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1997, December, 1997.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1999 CASA Back to School Teen Survey, August, 1999.
Partnership for a Drug Free America. 1998 Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey, April, 1999.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Worker Drug Use and Workplace Policies and Programs: Results from the 1994 & 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, September, 1999.
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. 1997 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse Annual Report, 1997.
Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, March, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:25:35
In reply to DEA Bibliography, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:13:35
You may not mean to but the usage of illegal harmful drugs supports the following domestic drug traffickers:
DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING GANGS
Colombia- and Mexicobased traffickers in the United States are focused primarily on the wholesale drug market. They are significantly less involved in drug trafficking at the street, or "retail" level. The same is largely true of the traffickers from the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Nigeria. This insulates them, to some degree, from detection by law enforcement.Throughout the United States, lowerlevel dealing in drugs is being increasingly handled by violent and highly organized criminal gangs. There are three major types of gangs involved in street sales of drugs: prison gangs, traditional street gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Prison Gangs
Since prison gangs operate in a detached environment, the DEA is limited in its ability to target them. But the DEA will often target associates who assist in the drug trafficking process and are not currently incarcerated.Prison gangs are organized generally along racial lines. They were originally formed by prisoners to protect themselves from other inmates. For example, the Mexican Mafia was established in 1957 at the Deuel Vocational Center in Tracy, California, by Hispanic inmates to counter pressure from African-American inmates. Today, through an elaborate network of distributors and dealers, it controls part of the drug trade in Southern California.
The Black Guerilla Family had its origins in the black power movement of the 1960s. It was organized at California's San Quentin State Penitentiary in 1966. Today the Black Guerillas distribute heroin and cocaine to the California street gangs under its influence. Another San Quentin gang later became known as the Aryan Brotherhood and adopted an ideology of white supremacy. Currently, its primary interest is distributing drugs.
Two prison factions developed in the Illinois penal system: the People Nation and the Folks Nation. Two gangs under the rubric of the People Nation, the Vice Lords and the Latin Kings, are dedicated to the preservation of Latin heritage and distribute drugs in their respective neighborhoods. Prominent among the Folks Nation are the Black Gangster Disciples, a gang that has been a target of the DEA in recent years. Theories on what "Folks" is an acronym for vary. Some members interpret the name as "Follow and Obey all Laws of Kings," others call themselves "Followers of Lord King Satan."
Street Gangs
Many street gangs confine their drug trafficking activities to their own neighborhoods. However, several gangs have gone national. Such "supergangs" are hard to distinguish from major organized crime groups. For example, two supergangs, the Crips and the Bloods, have their origin in Los Angeles in the late 1960s. At first, their activities were limited to large urban areas. But these two gangs now have more than 1,000 affiliates in more than 100 cities. Many of the affiliates are "cultural" rather than "structural," meaning they take a gang's recognizable name but are not necessarily associated with other chapters. Almost half of these cities with Crips and Bloods associates are small to midsize, with populations of less than 100,000. Because drugs often yield much higher profits in small cities and in rural areas than they do in big cities, members of both gangs have moved to smaller cities and set up distribution networks that reach back to their counterparts in the large cities and sometimes to the major international trafficking groups. Street gangs frequently have ties to prison gangs. Leaders are often former prisoners and take their orders from fellow gang members still in prison.Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs
Outlaw motorcycle gangs emerged following World War II. At first, they focused on riding motorcycles and throwing wild parties, but they increasingly turned to violence. In 1947, a group of outlaw bikers attending a motorcycle rally destroyed the town of Hollister, California, when one of its members was arrested. The biker gangs gradually moved into criminal pursuits, often working closely with the traditional mafia. Today the four major biker gangs are the Hells Angels, the Outlaws, the Bandidos, and the Pagans. A significant source of income for most biker gangs is drug trafficking, especially the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine.Gang Activities
Although there is considerable debate over what constitutes a gang, there are several characteristics that seem to be common to the criminal gangs mentioned above. Many of these modern gangs are highly organized, they exhibit a willingness to use violence to accomplish their objectives, and they rely heavily on drug trafficking for their major source of income.Gangs like the Gangster Disciples, the Latin Kings, and Hells Angels are far more organized than the term "gang" might suggest. Many gangs have a structured hierarchy, complete with presidents, vice presidents, and secretary treasurers. But they are not as dependent upon their leadership as traditional organized crime families. Quite often a gang will continue to function even after its leaders have been convicted and imprisoned. New members are carefully screened to determine whether they meet the personality traits needed for the violent, secretive world of gang life. Prospective Hells Angels often take polygraph tests and are required to commit a witnessed felony in order to prove their loyalty, thus making it extremely difficult for undercover law enforcement officers to infiltrate the organization.
The nature of their criminal enterprises forces them to create relationships with other criminal organizations, particularly those who distribute the illegal drugs. They frequently meet with other gangs to carve up markets, arrange for the sharing of drug shipments, pool money for buying large shipments of drugs, and negotiate disputes. Some of the larger street gangs have international connections with suppliers in Colombia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, and other countries. The secretive nature of their operations forces them to develop a tight "command and control" structure. The profits they make from the drug trade enable them to invest in highly sophisticated technology, such as encryption devices to conceal their communications and a variety of telecommunications equipment to keep them in constant contact with their suppliers and with each other.
Gangs also use weapons to protect their turf and their drug operations from one another. There was a time when gang members relied on switchblade knives and homemade zip guns. Today, the huge profits from drug trafficking have given gangs access to wellstocked arsenals of sophisticated arms, including semiautomatic military assault weapons, .50 caliber machine guns, and a variety of explosives. Along with the sophisticated weapons comes a willingness to use them. In fact, it is impossible to join or get ahead in many gangs without committing a certifiable crime, sometimes including homicide. La Nuestra Familia, a gang of MexicanAmerican convicts, even keeps their own "Ten Most Wanted List." One can become a "captain" or a "general" in the organization by murdering someone on the list.
Gangs who, in effect, take over towns and neighborhoods are often able to maintain their drug distribution networks by demonstrating their superior firepower and their commitment to use violence to achieve their ends. Gangs have been noted for using violence against witnesses, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors. A Hells Angels motto, for example, sums up that organization's cavalier attitude about violence: "Three people can keep a secret, if two are dead."
Many of the criminal gangs involved in drug trafficking have followed a similar pattern: what starts as a loosely organized outlet for school dropouts and social misfits becomes a tightly organized criminal enterprise. Among their many criminal activities are murderforhire, auto theft, extortion, prostitution, and insurance fraud.
But no activity is more profitable than drug trafficking. Because they have every incentive to spend most of their time and energies on the most profitable part of their business, modern street gangs have become, to a great extent, smaller versions of the large, international drug groups with whom they do business. The huge amounts of money that pour in from the drug trade corrupt the communities in which the gangs live. Ten-year olds have been known to make several hundred dollars a week just for being lookouts for crack cocaine houses. The enormous profits raise the stakes in the drug trade, leading to violent battles over turf. The profits also finance the purchase of sophisticated weaponry and communications technology, often overwhelming law enforcement agencies in smaller jurisdictions.
Posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:32:07
In reply to Domestic Trafficking, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 18:25:35
Whether one thinks that illegal drugs should be legal or should not be legal, one needs to take the fact into consideration that he or she is supporting this type of activity indirectly when he or she uses illegal drugs:
OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
Background: For decades, the trafficking of drugs within the United States was principally controlled by traditional organized crime groups that lived and operated inside the country. According to the 1986 President's Commission on Law Enforcement, from the 1950s to the 1970s, La Cosa Nostra "controlled an estimated 95 percent of all the heroin entering New York City, as well as most of the heroin distributed throughout the United States."In a drug trafficking network that became known as the French Connection, New York City-based crime families purchased heroin from Corsican sources, who worked with French sailors operating from Marseilles, to transship the drug directly to the United States. Ultimately, the heroin was distributed throughout the United States by domestic organized crime families to street-level dealers working in low-income, minority communities. However, in 1972, the French Connection was effectively dismantled by French and U.S. drug agents, ending the domestic mafia's monopoly on heroin distribution in the United States.
The demise of the French Connection, coupled with the subsequent emergence of criminal syndicates based in Colombia, marked significant evolution in the international drug trade. These new traffickers introduced cocaine into the United States on a massive scale, launching unparalleled waves of drug crimes and violence. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the international crime syndicates continued to increase their wealth and dominance over the U.S. drug trade, overshadowing the domestic crime families.
Today, the traffic in illegal drugs, from manufacture to final street-level sale, is controlled by international organized crime syndicates from Colombia, Mexico, and other countries. From their headquarters overseas, foreign drug lords produce and distribute unprecedented volumes of cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana throughout the United States.
These traffickers model their operations after international terrorist groups. They maintain tight control of their workers through highly compartmentalized cell structures that separate production, shipment, distribution, money laundering, communications, security, and recruitment. Traffickers have at their disposal the most technologically advanced airplanes, boats, vehicles, radar, communications equipment, and weapons that money can buy. They have also established vast counterintelligence capabilities and transportation networks.
Today's international criminal organizations pose a greater challenge to law enforcement than any pervious criminal group in our history. While there are numerous characteristics that these international groups have in common with traditional organized crime -- their penchant for violence and their reliance on corruption and intimidation as tools of their business -- their sheer power, influence, and sophistication put them in a category by themselves. Whereas traditional mafia families would corrupt officers and judges, today's international drug organizations corrupt entire institutions of government.
The DEA continually demonstrates its ability and willingness to fight corruption and terrorism by international drug traffickers. For example, the DEA worked openly with the Colombian National Police (CNP) to capture Pablo Escobar, a leader of the infamous Medellin cartel, who was responsible for waging a campaign of terror and bribery. These efforts ultimately led to the death of Escobar during a shoot-out with the CNP.
Despite significant law enforcement successes in dismantling several major international trafficking organizations, international criminal groups continue to pose a significant threat to the welfare of the American people. The DEA, in cooperation with foreign, state, local, and federal counterparts, is taking aggressive action, both internationally and domestically, to combat these organizations and repair the damage they have inflicted on citizens and communities in the United States.
Posted by dennis on January 28, 2001, at 20:44:50
In reply to Re: Dangers of Marijuana (DEA-med.myths.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:19:40
Well, if your trying to convince me that cannabis is harmful and should be illegal then you have failed. As I said before I personally believe cannabis is one of the most valuable medicinal drugs there is, and always has been for thousands even millions of years, and I believe that I as a human being living on this planet have rights, I have the right to be free and live my life however I so choose, no matter how harmful you think cannabis may be, you have no right to stop me from useing it, the government has no right to punish anyone for useing anything on this earth as long as there not hurting anybody else, I believe cannabis will be at least decriminalized in the future, and I look forward to that day. The netherlands is a example of a good drug policy, they recognize that the harmful effects of prohibition are many times greater than the effects of cannabis itself, they understand that they cannot make cannabis go away just by outlawing it and makeing harsh penalties for its use, and what are the negative results of the netherlands policy towards cannabis, there are no negative results. Drug use has not gone up, and law enforcement resources are not wasted, peoples personal lives are not harmed by harsh fines and prison time, you can talk about its harmful effects all you want, but lets face it, almost everything is harmful, I think the real issue is society is afraid of cannabis, and will look for anything, will go to great lengths to prove it is harmful enough to keep its illegal classification.
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 22:26:13
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Pat, maybe you missed my point, maybe not. I 've read these studies, in general I am a well read person on many subjects. The common thread of all the studies you mention is that they are gov. funded, therefor are biased. the gov is not going to fund a study by a researcher who might turn up positive results. The outcome has to fit
the gov stance so this is clearly not the genisis
of a true unbiased study with good methodology. garbage in, garbage out. To me, all of this proves nothing, as the studies are biased. Junk science.James
Posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 23:08:22
In reply to Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 17:54:36
> I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse
james here.....
Am I know people who have led normal lives, with
no negative outcomes, using illicits.James
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 0:02:58
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
I have seen 3 pdocs in 16 years, the first I chose, the last 2 were assigned by HMO. All 3 have had no problems with my regular pot use. All
3 stated (for me) that the only negative problems they were conserned about was the legal issues.james
Posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by stjames on January 28, 2001, at 23:08:22
> > I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse
>
> james here.....
>
> Am I know people who have led normal lives, with
> no negative outcomes, using illicits.
>
######> I lost both my Mom and Dad to heavy drug usage.
My Ex- husband is in the throes of meth addiction, he claims that it makes him feel better.His Meth addiction has progressed to Heroin abuse and needle usage
I'm a recovering alcoholic and in the last 6 years have also seen friends auffer grave consequences from drug abuse.
From personal experience, I know that a drug addict will go to any lenght to justify his/ her addiction.
FACT-- PEOPLE DIE FROM DRUG ABUSE.just my personal opinion, i do not want to offend anybody but at the same time i take this issue very seriously.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 0:59:23
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
> FACT-- PEOPLE DIE FROM DRUG ABUSE.
james here.....Where did you get the idea that anyone is saying
that some people don't die of drug abuse ?j
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 2:33:57
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Haworth Press is pleased to announce that the charter issue, volume 1,
#1 of
Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics: Studies in Endogenous, Herbal &
Synthetic
Cannabinoids is now available. This is the first academic scientific
journal
devoted to the study of clinical cannabis, endocannabinoids and
synthetic
cannabinoids.Contents of the charter issue include a seminal review of medical
marijuana
by Leo Hollister, a review of long-suppressed results of state
sponsored
trials of cannabis as an anti-emetic in cancer chemotherapy by Rik
Musty and
Rita Rossi, a review of endocannabinoid chemistry and therapeutic
opportunities by Vincenzo di Marzo, a history of cannabis usage in
Arabic
medicine by Indalecio Lozano, molecular pharmacology of cannabis and
eicosanoids by John McPartland, a biography and translation (by Ethan
Russo)
of a case report by Jacques-Joseph Moreau on cannabis usage in
treatment of
a mental condition in 1857, an analysis of cannabis and the US
Controlled
Substances Act by Jon Gettmann, and book reviews of Hashish! by Rob
Clarke,
and The Science of Marijuana by Leslie Iversen.Issue 2 of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics (April) will contain
articles on
cannabis in medieval Azerbaijan, a translation of a selection on
cannabis
from the Byzantine Greek, Simeon Seth, a discussion of marijuana and
music,
and an exhaustive review article on cannabis and headache treatment.Issues 3 and 4 (December) will appear in a double-theme issue
pertaining to
issues of Cannabis, HIV/AIDS and Harm Reduction.The publisher of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics has generously
offered to
provide a free copy of the charter issue to anyone requesting one, by
writing, preferably on a professional letterhead, to:Print Journal Division-Sample Copies
Haworth Press
10 Alice Street
Binghamton, NY 13904Copies are also being sent to the justices of the US Supreme Court to
aid
them in their deliberations on the constitutionality of cannabis
buyers'
clubs.Annual subscriptions for this quarterly (2 single plus 1 double-theme
issue
per year) are:$43.20 for individuals
$58.50 for institutions
$85.50 for librariesAdditional discounts are available for multiple year subscriptions.
These
may also be ordered online:http://12.3.146.3/store/product.asp?sku=J175
or
http://www.haworthpressinc.com
The editor of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics is:Ethan Russo, MD
Missoula Neurobehavioral Specialists
900 North Orange Street
Missoula, MT 59802
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:23:39
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana is a Dangerous Drug
Any discussion of marijuana should begin with the fact that there have been numerous official reports and studies, every one of which has concluded that marijuana poses no great risk to society and should not be criminalized. These include: the National Academy of Sciences’ “Analysis of Marijuana Policy”(1982); the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (the Shafer Report) (1973); the Canadian Government’s Commission of Inquiry (Le Dain Report) (1970); the British Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency (Wooton Report) (1968); the La Guardia Report (1944); the Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (1916-29); and Britain’s monumental Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (1893-4).
It is sometimes claimed that there is “new evidence” showing marijuana is more harmful than was thought in the sixties. In fact, the most recent studies have tended to confirm marijuana’s safety, refuting claims that it causes birth defects, brain damage, reduced testosterone, or increased drug abuse problems.
The current consensus is well stated in the 20th annual report of the California Research Advisory Panel (1990), which recommended that personal use and cultivation of marijuana be legalized: “An objective consideration of marijuana shows that it is responsible for less damage to society and the individual than are alcohol and cigarettes.”
References: The National Academy of Sciences report, “Marijuana and Health” (National Academy Press, 1982), remains the most useful overview of the health effects of marijuana, its major conclusions remaining largely unaffected by the last 10 years of research. Lovinger and Jones, The Marihuana Question (Dodd, Mead & Co., NY 1985), is the most exhaustive and fair-handed summary of the evidence against marijuana. Good, positive perspectives may be found in Lester Grinspoon’s Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine (Yale Press, 1993) and Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard U. Press 1971), which debunks many of the older anti-pot myths. See also Leo Hollister, “Health Aspects of Cannabis,” Pharmacological Reviews 38:1-20 (1986).
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:24:38
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana is Harmless
Just as most experts agree that occasional or moderate use of marijuana is innocuous, they also agree that excessive use can be harmful. Research shows that the two major risks of excessive marijuana use are: (1) respiratory disease due to smoking and (2) accidental injuries due to impairment.
Marijuana and Smoking:
A recent survey by the Kaiser Permanente Center found that daily marijuana-only smokers have a 19% higher rate of respiratory complaints than non-smokers.1 These findings were not unexpected, since it has long been known that, aside from its psychoactive ingredients, marijuana smoke contains virtually the same toxic gases and carcinogenic tars as tobacco. Human studies have found that pot smokers suffer similar kinds of respiratory damage as tobacco smokers, putting them at greater risk of bronchitis, sore throat, respiratory inflammation and infections.2Although there has not been enough epidemiological work to settle the matter definitively, it is widely suspected that marijuana smoking causes cancer. Studies have found apparently pre-cancerous cell changes in pot smokers.3 Some cancer specialists have reported a higher-than-expected incidence of throat, neck and tongue cancer in younger, marijuana-only smokers.4 A couple of cases have been fatal. While it has not been conclusively proven that marijuana smoking causes lung cancer, the evidence is highly suggestive. According to Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, the leading expert on marijuana smoking:5
“Although more information is certainly needed, sufficient data have already been accumulated concerning the health effects of marijuana to warrant counseling by physicians against the smoking of marijuana as an important hazard to health.”
Fortunately, the hazards of marijuana smoking can be reduced by various strategies: (1) use of higher-potency cannabis, which can be smoked in smaller quantities, (2) use of waterpipes and other smoke reduction technologies,6 and (3) ingesting pot orally instead of smoking it.
Footnotes
1. Michael R. Polen et al. “Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco,” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 596-601 (June 1993).
2. Donald Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health?” Western Journal of Medicine 158 #6: 635-7 (June 1993).
3. D. Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” in Research Findings on Smoking of Abused Substances, NIDA Research Monograph 99 (1990).
4. Paul Donald, “Advanced malignancy in the young marijuana smoker,” Adv Exp Med Biol 288:33-56 (1991); FM Taylor, “Marijuana as a potential respiratory tract carcinogen,” South Med Journal 81:1213-6 (1988).
5. D. Tashkin, “Is Frequent Marijuana Smoking Hazardous To Health,?” op. cit.
6. Nicholas Cozzi, “Effects of Water Filtration on Marijuana Smoke: A Literature Review,” MAPS (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies) newsletter, Vol. IV #2 (1993) (Reprints available from MAPS and Cal. NORML).
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:26:04
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: One Joint Equals One Pack (or 16, or maybe just 4) Cigarettes
Some critics exaggerate the dangers of marijuana smoking by fallaciously citing a study by Dr. Tashkin which found that daily pot smokers experienced a “mild but significant” increase in airflow resistance in the large airways greater than that seen in persons smoking 16 cigarettes per day.1 What they ignore is that the same study examined other, more important aspects of lung health, in which marijuana smokers did much better than tobacco smokers. Dr. Tashkin himself disavows the notion that one joint equals 16 cigarettes.
A more widely accepted estimate is that marijuana smokers consume four times as much carcinogenic tar as cigarettes smokers per weight smoked.2 This does not necessarily mean that one joint equals four cigarettes, since joints usually weigh less. In fact, the average joint has been estimated to contain 0.4 grams of pot, a bit less than one-half the weight of a cigarette, making one joint equal to two cigarettes (actually, joint sizes range from cigar-sized spliffs smoked by Rastas, to very fine sinsemilla joints weighing as little as 0.2 grams). It should be noted that there is no exact equivalency between tobacco and marijuana smoking, because they affect different parts of the respiratory tract differently: whereas tobacco tends to penetrate to the smaller, peripheral passageways of the lungs, pot tends to concentrate on the larger, central passageways.3 One consequence of this is that pot, unlike tobacco, does not appear to cause emphysema.
Footnotes
1. D. Tashkin, “Respiratory Status of 74 Habitual Marijuana Smokers,” Chest 78 #5: 699-706 (Nov. 1980).
2. T-C. Wu, D. Tashkin, B. Djahed and J.E. Rose, “Pulmonary hazards of smoking marijuana as compared with tobacco,” New England Journal of Medicine 318: 347-51 (1988).
3. Donald Tashkin et al, “Effects of Habitual Use of Marijuana and/or Cocaine on the Lung,” loc.cit.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:28:50
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana Causes Sterility and Lowers Testosterone
Government experts also concede that pot has no permanent effect on the male or female reproductive systems.1 A few studies have suggested that heavy marijuana use may have a reversible, suppressive effect on male testicular function.2 A recent study by Dr. Robert Block has refuted earlier research suggesting that pot lowers testosterone or other sex hormones in men or women.3 In contrast, heavy alcohol drinking is known to lower testosterone levels and cause impotence. A couple of lab studies indicated that very heavy marijuana smoking might lower sperm counts. However, surveys of chronic smokers have turned up no indication of infertility or other abnormalities.
Less is known about the effects of cannabis on human females. Some animal studies suggest that pot might temporarily lower fertility or increase the risk of fetal loss, but this evidence is of dubious relevance to humans.4 One human study suggested that pot may mildly disrupt ovulation. It is possible that adolescents are peculiarly vulnerable to hormonal disruptions from pot. However, not a single case of impaired fertility has ever been observed in humans of either sex.
Footnotes
1. Dr. Christine Hartel, loc. cit.
2. NAS Report, pp. 94-9.
3. Dr. Robert Block in Drug and Alcohol Dependence 28: 121-8 (1991).
4. NAS Report, p. 97-8.
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:30:56
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs
There is no scientific evidence for the theory that marijuana is a “gateway” drug. The cannabis-using cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America show no propensity for other drugs. The gateway theory took hold in the sixties, when marijuana became the leading new recreational drug. It was refuted by events in the eighties, when cocaine abuse exploded at the same time marijuana use declined.
As we have seen, there is evidence that cannabis may substitute for alcohol and other “hard” drugs. A recent survey by Dr. Patricia Morgan of the University of California at Berekeley found that a significant number of pot smokers and dealers switched to methamphetamine “ice” when Hawaii’s marijuana eradication program created a shortage of pot.1 Dr. Morgan noted a similar phenomenon in California, where cocaine use soared in the wake of the CAMP helicopter eradication campaign.
The one way in which marijuana does lead to other drugs is through its illegality: persons who deal in marijuana are likely to deal in other illicit drugs as well.
Footnote
1. “Survey: Hawaii war on pot pushed users to ‘ice,’“ Honolulu Advertiser, April 1, 1994 p. 1.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 29, 2001, at 8:31:31
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
Yup, People die from drug abuse. But not from marajuana "abuse". natg - you say your husband uses Meth and Heroin... both are addictive dangerous drugs. But neither are marajuana are they??
Nope!!!
I habve been smoking weed for 10+ years, and I am not addicted to any other drug. I have never used heroin or crack, and lead a nice enough life thanks.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 29, 2001, at 8:33:53
In reply to Myth: Marijuana Leads to Harder Drugs, posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 3:30:56
Well saqid on all those points james.
I too ahve spoken to a number of docs and pdocs regarding marajuana use, and all say that it is fine. One expressed he would ahve concern if I were to be smoking, say, 2 ounces a week, but I don't!!
I like the way in a discussion on the use of marajuana people are jumping in with "well, xxx is dying of using meth". Fine, meth is a highly dangerous drung, but it aint marajuana.
If I were to start a thread on the dirnking of coffee and is it safe, would people jump in saying "But xxx died from drinking whisky"?? I doubt it!
Hmmmph!
Posted by PatJ. on January 29, 2001, at 10:15:37
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
To Whom It May Concern,
I guess some of us can agree to disagree on the subject but there is overwhelming proof in my posts. As you go on living your life your experiences will tell how you fare and I hope you fare well but if you must use harmful chemicals I fear for you. My experiences are reality and backed up by a mountain of evidence and I believe the researchers are all ethical and objective and not biased. As I mentioned before a person will justify his or her use of something that is harmful and protect it because he or she is addicted or just has to have it and it is called denial. I, too, was in denial for years! :)Denial is a smoke screen that hides the truth from the person who is in it. It is natural and often very strong-it is a blinder. Often he or she is afraid to quit because he or she does not know what else to do or thinks life will not be as good without it-well, I have good news-it will be 100% better. :) I have also seen the horrors of harmful drug abuse first hand. Been there, done that and all I can say is no thank you to that crap. When you have to have a harmful substance you are not free and it is controlling you. Would you eat rat poison if you got high on it and say it was a good buzz? Well, you are doing the same thing with the harmful drugs but it kills slower. I have posted educational things that are highly substantiated. There are many more reports that are not govt. funded but funded through charitable foundations. A few of my studies here are not govt. but the govt. is doing a good job, I must say. I see nothing wrong with the govt.and see that are working their tails off to save people. Look at the bibliography and see the hard facts in all of the research done-it does not lie and is not biased. If just one person who uses pot or other harmful substances will realize it is time to visit their local Narcotics Anonymous or AA or another chemical dependency treatment program or CD counselor it would be the best thing he or she has done for him/herself and the start of a much much much much improved life-guaranteed. You still will have problems, though, but you will know better how to handle them. My life has improved a whole lot. I got a good education and have direction in life now. These posts are meant to help and those who disbelieve or criticize may need to seek treatment one day for their addictions-and I wish them well. None of what I have posted is a myth because there is overwhelming evidence of all I assert. Feel free to complain all you want-it won't change your life or the facts. To those who justify use of these harmful drugs and promote it through your posts here, you ought to think twice what you are doing because if you strive to be a good example to others you will not promote these harmful illegal drugs. As for the psychiatrist who said pot was okay-really can't you try and think for yourself and face the facts. The doctor did not tell you to use it and did not tell you of it's harmfulness either. Just agreed with you and maybe thought later-why did I do that? Treatment will help, I assure you, I have had it and enjoyed it. The past 14 years without the "shit" have been 100% better. Best wishes to all for a better quality life. Care about yourself, care about others, live and learn. I care and am concerned about your welfare. Peace and love to you. :-) Sincerely, Pat
Posted by judy1 on January 29, 2001, at 14:17:58
In reply to For me my pdoc(s) say pot is OK, posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 0:02:58
Didn't read the thread but your message stood out- actually my pdoc told me he smokes pot. Take care, judy
Posted by stjames on January 29, 2001, at 16:31:17
In reply to Reply and there are no myths posted by ME...:-), posted by PatJ. on January 29, 2001, at 10:15:37
As for the psychiatrist who said pot was okay-really can't you try and think for yourself and face the facts.
James here....
I am facing facts. The psychotheripist also did not have a problems with my pot use. As they know me well and are professionals I agree with their advise.
James
Posted by PatJ. on January 29, 2001, at 17:41:50
In reply to Re: Personal Note on Harmful Chemical Use, posted by Natg on January 29, 2001, at 0:42:21
> > > I am a person who was addicted to alcohol, cigarettes and other chemicals for 16 years. I saw ALL(yes ALL-10) of my friends die from alchohol, cigarette, and harmful drug abuse
> >
> > james here.....
> >
> > Am I know people who have led normal lives, with
> > no negative outcomes, using illicits.
> >
> ######
>
> > I lost both my Mom and Dad to heavy drug usage.
> My Ex- husband is in the throes of meth addiction, he claims that it makes him feel better.His Meth addiction has progressed to Heroin abuse and needle usage
> I'm a recovering alcoholic and in the last 6 years have also seen friends auffer grave consequences from drug abuse.
> From personal experience, I know that a drug addict will go to any lenght to justify his/ her addiction.
> FACT-- PEOPLE DIE FROM DRUG ABUSE.
>
> just my personal opinion, i do not want to offend anybody but at the same time i take this issue very seriously.Natg,
I know you take it seriously and so do I. I'm sorry you lost your your parents and your husband to it. I lost 2 husbands to the use of heavy smoking and half of it was pot. It is a life and death thing. We know denial inside out don't we? They say the last person to know they have a drug problem is the user. I'm glad you came to your senses in time like I did. It's hard to tell people about this and CD Counselor's have a very hard job. It's hard for those using still, too, and they are often hypersensitve to any comments regarding their illegal and harmful drug of choice as you can see by the protecting of their "fix." But it doesn't fix as we well know. Feel free to email me if you want, Nat.
Posted by vince on February 1, 2001, at 0:46:01
In reply to Dangers of Marijuana (how it effects mental ill.), posted by PatJ. on January 28, 2001, at 16:21:26
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html
>
> Health_Concerns: WHAT ARE THE MEDICAL DANGERS OF MARIJUANA USE?
> ...
>
>
> MENTAL HEALTH, BRAIN FUNCTION, AND MEMORY
>
> It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.
>
> In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder.
>
> In addition, marijuana use has many indirect effects on health. Its effect on coordination, perception, and judgment means that it causes a number of accidents, vehicular and otherwise.
>
> For further information, you may find the following sites helpful:
>
> www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/reality/updatejl.html, for information on links between marijuana use and mental health risks.
> www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/mrr/21.96.10.html, for more information on the indirect effects of marijuana on health
> http://www.adf.org.au/drughit, the Australian Drug Foundation’s website
> http://marijuananews.com/a_safe_ high_.htm, a reprint of New Science magazine’s "Marijuana Special Report: A Safe High?" with commentary
> http://marijuananews.com/claim_four.htm, an article about the similarity of long-term marijuana use’s effect on the brain to that of "hard" drugs, with commentary
> www.drugs.indiana.edu/publications/iprc/misc/smokescreen.html, for general information on the health risks of marijuana.
> http://www.health.org, the homepage of the National Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, for general information on marijuana.
>
I suffered my first episode of depression in my early twenties after I had been using marijuana for only two months. My quality of life has never been equal to what I had prior to my first experience with major depression. I have never at any time since fully recovered and I continue to go into long periods of very severe periods of illness. I know that those here who would argue against the strictest degree of scientific evidence in defence of pot, are not going to accept my single case of antidotal evidence that pot had something to do with my depression, but I am personally convinced that it changed me, in a very short time from a very happy person who was able to enjoy life to its fullest extent to a person who was only able to struggle from one day to the next in an effort to withstand a degree of suffering that I couldn't even have imagined before.Vince
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.