Author: admin

“Drug taking has moved from being outlawed behaviour, seen only on the fringes of society, to a widely accepted activity, even when illegal. In Britain, for all the talk of a “war on drugs,” no one ever tried to wage one. Instead, drug taking has become more and more legally and socially acceptable. We frame drug-taking as either a harmless diversion or, when taken to excess in the form of addiction, as an illness that needs to be cured. Regardless of the impact on physical and mental health, the hard truth is that self-stupefaction of any kind is morally wrong. Drug taking is pure self-indulgence. It prioritises personal pleasure and instant gratification in a way that wreaks havoc with any kind of ethical framework. If we don’t want to succumb to a culture of violence, greed, and selfishness, we should make sure that the moral argument about drugs is not pushed aside. Not even the most rabid advocate of legalisation would argue that more drug taking would be a good thing, so let’s have the courage to deter it by clearly saying: “it’s wrong.””

Peter Hitchens is an English journalist and author. His latest book isThe War We Never Fought: The British Establishment’s Surrender to Drugs.

http://fodi.sydneyoperahouse.com/there-is-no-war-on-drugs/

Taking cocaine can change the structure of the brain within hours – we’ll so was the opening line in this recent article on the impact of Cocaine on brain neuro-physiology

The article went on disclose that “Experts described it as the brain “learning addiction””.

Based on this emerging evidence, it becomes even more clear why dealers continue to push ‘Coke’ as the new ‘red wine’ of the pseudo socio-sophisticates. It’s the A.T.S that not only gives you a so called ‘pick me up’, or conveniently  ‘masks’ the impact of depressants, but most importantly for the trafficker of the Non-communicable Disease (NCD) known as ‘drug dependency’, it teaches the user’s brain to ‘pursue’ the NCD. It’s the ‘gift that just keeps on giving’, but to who?  Certainly it is no ‘gift’ for the hapless user. In this case the old axiom rings very true; ‘The user ALWAYS pays’ – and sadly with more than, money as the following clip humorously, yet very cleverly reveals…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLd9MZYQwy0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23811712 25th August 2013 By James Gallagher, Health and Science Reporter, BBC News

This is the first report and foundational for future reports. It is divided into six sections with each providing data on the impact of legalization prior to and during the creation of the medical marijuana industry in Colorado. Generally, except for diversion of Colorado marijuana, there is limited data for 2012 and 2013.

Legalization of MJ in Colorado The Impact

DRUG FREE AMERICA FOUNDATION, INC.’S RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL HOLDER’S ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT CHANGING MANDATORY MINIMUM GUIDELINES

August 13, 2013

While improvements to drug policy and the criminal justice system are certainly needed, we, as a nation, need to remember that both violent crime and drug use in America have declined significantly over the past 3 decades.  One must conclude then that we have obviously done some things right.

Until legalization advocates initiated well-financed campaigns to normalize and legalize drugs in the early 1990’s, with an emphasis on the legalization of marijuana under the guise of medicine, we had made tremendous progress in pushing back against drugs, actually reducing overall drug use in America by greater than 50%.

Our nation’s drug epidemic peaked when in 1978, according to the Monitoring the Future report, 10.7% of 12^th graders reported smoking marijuana daily.  By 1992, those rates dipped to a low of 1.9%, an astounding 80% decline.  Since the launch of those pro-drug campaigns, we have slowly been slipping back to the old mindset of “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out.” In 1997, following the passage of Proposition 215 which legalized marijuana as a so-called medicine in 1996, daily use of marijuana by 12^th graders jumped to 5.8% and in 2012, it rose again to 6.5%.

Attorney General Holder could do much to help us move in the direction of further reduction of drug use if he would respect the duties of his job and enforce our federal marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington where so-called recreational use of pot is now allowed.  He also could take decisive action to stop the legalization of marijuana under the guise of medicine that is spreading across the country.  Drug prevention and treatment groups and law enforcement officials have repeatedly and directly asked for his help on this issue now for almost a year, and he continues to ignore our pleas while lives are damaged every single day from the abuses of marijuana.

Some of AG Holder’s recent comments about revamping the mandatory minimum guidelines are rather confusing because, in reality, people rarely get charged in federal court for simple possession charges (a misdemeanor). And if they do, it is usually because of other related charges like firearms, immigration, or a serious criminal history, and the drug charge has very little to do with the ultimate sentence.  Less than 1% of offenders are in prison for simple possession and these have typically pled down from much more serious crimes.

Mandatory minimum guidelines were instituted as a result of a bi-partisan commission and involved both congressional and judicial input to, among other things, address inequities in sentencing and provide national uniformity. They have also been a tremendous leveraging tool to find and prosecute the “Big Fish” while allowing the small-time drug peddlers to be diverted to alternative programs.

Eliminating mandatory minimums could actually resurrect the problems that they were intended to fix in the first place. The fact that violent crime and drug use in America have been declining should seriously be considered before we reverse the directions and policies that may be contributing to these declines.

Regarding Holder’s comments on rehabilitation and releases, we need a full spectrum approach that includes a working recovery system and a direct linkage to a job for those in recovery or being released. Just releasing prisoners is not going to improve anything and can be argued to be a form of political grandstanding. It may appear to reduce incarceration costs but the real costs to society will likely go up if we are releasing prisoners that are going to be back into our neighborhoods to sell drugs and commit crimes to support their habits or to compensate for their lack of real life ability and skills to cope with life on the outside.

We need more clarity from Mr. Holder about what his total plan includes. The devil is always in the details and details are rarely, if ever, contained in speeches. There is reason for all Americans to be concerned without a more in-depth policy description.

Drug Free America Foundation urges AG Holder to support drug courts and other diversion programs that hold drug users accountable while requiring them to stop using drugs, to support programs to help those incarcerated return to productive lives free of drugs, and to continue to exact swift and significant penalties upon drug traffickers that target and endanger our children.  We further call upon Mr. Holder to uphold his duty to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington and bring our nation back into compliance with our international treaty obligations!

Contact information:  Lana Beck, Communications Director  Telephone: 727-828-0211, ext 102 or 727-403-7571 Email: [email protected] Website: www.dfaf.org

Agenda: Argument against legalising drugs

Ian Oliver – Tuesday 16 July 2013

Increasingly the assertion is made that international drug control policies have failed and the best solution would be to legalise drugs so that they would be controlled and distributed safely through Government authorised outlets, thus denying the trade to criminal traffickers.

Regrettably, these assertions are often made by self-appointed groups with grand sounding titles which have their own reasons for supporting legalisation. Frequently high-profile people claim legalisation is the best way of addressing a major social problem without cogent supporting evidence. The data used and distributed is inaccurate but presented to impress people who believe it must be true because it is published by such impressive sounding organisations and respected “celebrities”.

The flawed argument is that all prohibition monies have been wasted and would be better spent for the benefit of the community; it is claimed taxation on legally supplied drugs could be used to offset problems arising from drug use.

The truth is that all drugs are potentially dangerous including prescription and over-the-counter medicines unless taken under medical guidance and supervision. International organised crime has capitalised on drug trafficking to the point where the money generated often exceeds the GDP of many countries. Traffickers spread false information aimed at convincing gullible people that drugs are safe “recreational” and fun; it has to be remembered it is the demand for drugs that has made trafficking so profitable. Accurate information has been submerged by an abundance of deliberately false statements about all drug users being treated as criminals and drug control is an abuse of human rights which should allow all people freedom of choice.

Elementary research will reveal the problem with uncontrolled drugs just 100 years ago was vast and there were many people addicted to hard drugs marketed in various forms and widely used and abused. The international drug control system was born out of a real humanitarian crisis, a catastrophe that happened only because of a lack of global norms and standards. The UN Conventions were developed because it was universally agreed control was necessary to protect the health and welfare of mankind and most countries became signatories to agreements that are reviewed and approved every decade. The main Convention of 1961 is flexible in its approach and, far from being all about arrests and imprisonment, it emphasises the need that drugs should be used only for legitimate medical and research purposes; it stresses health and requires that all drug users are treated with respect and not marginalised or discriminated against. Conventions encourage evidence-based therapy for those who become dependent as well as education, rehabilitation and social re-integration. Criminality also has to be addressed.

There is another important UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, designed to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and to prevent the use of children in illicit production and trafficking. This is important as the human brain does not stop developing until well into the 20s and substances such as cannabis are proven to damage the brain permanently.

The purpose of any effective drug policy should be to lessen the harm that illegal drugs do to society. Lowering or eliminating current legal and social restrictions that limit the availability and acceptance of drug use would have the opposite effect.

Any Government policy must be motivated by the consideration that it must first do no harm. There is an obligation to protect citizens and the compassionate and sensible method must be to do everything possible to reduce dependency and misuse, not encourage or facilitate it. Criminals will not stop their crimes, change course and become honest tax-paying citizens if drugs were legalised. Although there may be freedom of choice to use dangerous substances there can be no freedom from the consequences. International drug control is working; fewer than 6% of people globally use drugs regularly and legalisation is not the answer.

Dr Oliver was a police officer for 37 years and is an independent consultant for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. He is the author of Drug Affliction, published by The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/agenda-argument-against-legalising-drugs.21614050

A study in the July 2013 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings warns that marijuana use for pain may interfere with normal development (released June 24, 2013). “The consequences may be very, very severe, particularly for adolescents who may get rid of their pain – or not – at the expense of the rest of their life,” said co-author J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist.

Despite regular marijuana use, patients reported worsening of their pain and impaired functioning. None attended school full time and found it difficult to be more socially active with their friends.

http://www.examiner.com/article/marijuana-does-not-stop-chronic-pain-teens-says-study

http://www.amazon.com/Weed-Family-Guide-Marijuana-Myths/dp/0983688222

We’ve had a number of pro-drug lobbyists spew out the rapidly growing mantra declaring ‘you’re crazy if you think by legalizing drugs all of a sudden non users will start using!” We’ll the evidence is mounting, and it is so because of the pro-drug lobby propaganda. – it’s circular ‘push’ and conveniently self-promoting ‘advertisement’ by the peddlers of dysfunction, is gaining traction.

You see, ‘education’ does work!  When demand reduction strategies around cannabis were in full swing in the US, prior to the concerted ‘push’ of the  medical marijuana ‘Trojan Horse Con’, Dope use amongst community and even the young was dropping. However, when the outrageously manipulative con of ‘medical marijuana’ was pushed, the message started coming through, that ‘hey, it’s medicine, it can’t be that bad, can it?’

In Australia, the tobacco smoking rates have plummeted with the relentless ‘QUIT’ campaign and the extraordinary lengths government and health sectors have gone to mercilessly denigrate tobacco use. At NO point and in NO place is tobacco given the slightest bit of ‘good press’ to the point where most young people think that smoking cigarettes is more harmful than using cannabis!  NO mixed message, this legal drug is costing us billions and the healthcare system is struggling under the weight of the self-inflicted harms of the tobacco user.

But, apparently all this damage won’t happen with Cannabis use, if you believe the hype of the pro-drug lobby!

The mention of any burden on the already stressed healthcare system is actively avoided by the pro-drug lobbyist. The conversation around reduced productivity resulting from drug use is glaringly obvious by its omission from the conversation. The dysfunction and duress on families and communities and the mounting cost to taxpayers, by the purveyors and consumers of illicit drugs is never raised! That’s what turns ‘education’ into propaganda, the culling of all data contrary to the position being promoted.

So, of course,  ‘education’ can work both ways, and the reverse can be true… bang the ‘drugs are harmless, drugs are good, drugs are my human right’ drum long enough and loud enough, using spurious titles and specious data… and wolah! Marijuana (and other drugs) is not only not ‘bad for you’, but it’s actually beneficial!  Contrary to the evidence!

Only this week we see another example of how this ‘education’ has been working

SEATTLE (AP) – Washington high school students who participated in a statewide survey say they are twice as likely to smoke marijuana as cigarettes, and the state’s top health official. Mary Selecky,  Washington Health Secretary said Thursday “she’s worried that a new marijuana law may make prevention efforts more difficult…As the perception of harm goes down, use goes up,”  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/wash-students-pot-more-popular-cigarettes

The latest crazy idea being pushed in Washington is that federal enforcement of marihuana laws be shifted from DEA and FBI to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). This is a relatively small law enforcement agency in the Justice Department whose major area of expertise and jurisdiction these days is working with other federal and state agencies on cases involving explosives. Alcohol and tobacco responsibilities are relatively small under federal jurisdiction and the firearms jurisdiction, while important, is complicated and controversial (e.g., Fast & Furious gun running operations, etc.).

As crazy as this idea is, I can understand why the pot lobby would be pushing it. For one thing, DEA and BATF are both agencies of the Justice Department and so the Attorney General has the call as to which agency should enforce which provisions of statutes (like the Controlled Substances Act) assigned by Congress to the Justice Department. Because of this, it might not take an Act of Congress to authorize such a shift shift, assuming the AG would go for it.

Moreover, the basis for even considering something like this would be to tax cannabis like alcohol and tobacco are currently taxed under federal law. This, of course, would be a back-door way of legalizing marihuana if only for the purpose of taxing it. Lord Elgin did the same thing in China in 1858 when he persuaded the Chinese in the Treaty of Tianjin to accept the de facto legalization of imported opium so it could be taxed. That opened the door to expanding domestic production of opium that was sold on the black market for far less than the taxed British imports. By the end of the 19^th century, the Times of London had reported that 70 percent of adult males in China were opium users.

More recently, in 1937, the US Congress enacted the Marihuana Tax Act to regulate the commerce in the medical use of cannabis. A very small tax was imposed on licensed medical providers, while a far more onerous tax was levied on anyone caught in possession of untaxed marihuana. In 1969, in a case titled Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, the Supreme Court tossed a provision pertaining to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act. In doing so, the Court noted that in its more than 30 year history, the Act raised very little revenue, which had been its legal basis. The Court took notice of the large increase in the illicit commerce and use of marihuana during the same period.

What’s that old aphorism about the first repeat of history is a tragedy, the second is farce. The NORML folks, in my view, are into their farcical period.

John Coleman

Review of Research Leads to Stand Against Marijuana Legalization of the use of Smoked Marijuana as “Medicine”

Every dangerous and addictive drug was once believed to be safe and medicinal.  Cocaine, heroin and nicotine were once advertised as being good for you, or at least not harmful.  In every instance, we learned otherwise — the hard way.  Marijuana is the newest “safe” and “medicinal” drug to reenact this tragic drama.  Just as scientific research is documenting the unequivocal public-health and public-safety dangers of marijuana, states are moving rapidly towards legalization or decriminalization.

Drug Courts serve seriously addicted individuals with long criminal records who have alienated nearly everyone they love.  In every case, they tell us it began with marijuana.  Convinced that marijuana was safe, they learned it is, in fact, addictive, causes serious cardiovascular and respiratory disease, triggers mental illness and addiction to more serious drugs, and alienates friends, family and coworkers.

NADCP has long been committed to guiding the Drug Court field and the broader criminal justice and treatment communities with science, not ideology.  After thoroughly reviewing the research regarding the safety of recreational marijuana use and the efficacy of “medical” marijuana, NADCP unequivocally stands against the legalization of marijuana and the use of smoked marijuana as “medicine.”  Our reasons for doing so are thoroughly explained and cited in the attached Position Statement.

Unfortunately, the public discourse concerning drug policy in the U.S. has degenerated into a false-choice between incarceration and legalization.  Both of these extreme positions are dangerous, costly and ineffective.  But research proves there is a middle ground.  It is possible to reduce the devastating consequences of addiction and treat those already affected without overreacting and wasting public tax dollars.

Pick up any current issue of a scientific journal in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, counseling or criminology, and you will find studies documenting a new danger of marijuana.  But that same journal will also contain studies documenting the curative effects of Drug Courts and dozens of other treatment programs.  We can and must do better.  Science, not ideology, must be our guide to rational and informed public policy.

My best,
West
West Huddleston
CEO
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
– National Center for DWI Courts
– National Drug Court Institute
– Justice for Vets