T
The420Guy
Guest
Poll numbers in support of softer drug laws are trending up, according to
this week's Time cover story.
While only 34 percent of voters favor the complete legalization of
marijuana, increasing majorities would support reducing penalties for
possession and permitting the use of pot for medicinal purposes. That's the
result of a relentless campaign to legalize drugs, funded by billionaire
George Soros and others.
What Time does not report, however, are other numbers on the rise: the
number of young people who currently use marijuana, the number of young
marijuana initiates, the number seeking treatment for marijuana abuse, and
the potency of today's marijuana.
This fall we learned from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse that
one out of every ten young people (10.8 percent) age 12-17 was a current
drug user in 2001, a 1.1 percent increase since 2000. Of these, 74 percent
were reporting current marijuana use. The percentage of 16- to 17-year-olds
reporting current marijuana use rose from 13.7 percent in 2000 to 14.9
percent in 2001. Among those age 18-25, current marijuana users increased
from 13.6 percent in 2000 to 16.0 percent in 2001.
More young people are initiating marijuana use at an earlier age. In the
1960s, most new users were between 18 and 25, but that changed after 1972.
In 1990, the number of first-time marijuana users age 12-17 was 800,000; by
1996, that number had risen to 1.6 million, where it remains today.
The number of young people seeking treatment for marijuana abuse is rising
as well. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of adolescent marijuana
treatment admissions rose 260 percent, according to the federal agency
tracking drug abuse treatment statistics.
While marijuana is more prevalent, it is also more potent. The content of
the active ingredient, THC, has increased from an average of less than one
percent in 1974 to an average of seven percent today, and in some varieties
ranging as high as 14 to 30 percent. This dramatic increase creates
tolerance for lower doses, causing users to need higher doses to get the
same effect. With greater potency, addiction is easier to form but harder
to break.
Drug legalization proponents have distracted the public from these hard
facts about illicit drugs. They have exploited public sympathy for those
suffering from debilitating illnesses by proposing medical marijuana usage
- - itself a dubious proposition. But this fall, their tactics reveal more
about their true agenda. On three states' ballots this November, the push
is to decrease penalties for possession of marijuana unrelated to any
medical condition.
In Arizona, Proposition 203 would decriminalize possession of up to two
ounces of marijuana, eliminate mandatory minimum sentences and require
parole for those convicted of personal possession of a controlled
substance. Even worse, it would give the patina of official endorsement of
marijuana use by requiring the Department of Public Safety to be the
distributor of marijuana from seized stashes. As Arizona attorney general
and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Janet Napolitano said, "Requiring
(the Department of Public Safety) to distribute marijuana is nuts." Police,
rather than seizing an illegal substance, would be distributing it.
In Nevada, Question 9 would decriminalize possession of up to three ounces
of marijuana and set up a state-regulated system for growing and selling
marijuana. In Ohio, voters are being offered a false choice between
incarceration and treatment. Ohio's Issue 1 would mandate substance abuse
treatment for non-violent offenders but would stipulate no provision for
testing people sentenced to treatment for compliance with the program.
The numbers are not on the side of the drug legalization movement in Nevada
and Ohio, where the pro-drug initiatives are falling behind in the polls.
The drug legalizers' efforts look strongest in Arizona - oddly, where the
proposal is most absurd. This calls attention to the need to be clear about
the political agenda behind their efforts. Equivocations about drug
legalization have clouded the public's thinking.
We should not capitulate in our war on drugs any more than we should
surrender in our war on terrorism. Indeed, our ability to meet the
long-term demands of the war on terrorism depends in part on our vigilance
in combating drug trafficking and drug use among youth. The post-9/11 world
demands clear thinking and moral resolve among adults and a commitment to
teach that moral clarity to our children.
Back-pedaling on drug laws would be one of the worst examples we could give
our children at this crucial moment in American history. On November 5,
voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio should say no to the drug legalization
movement's advance on their home fronts. None of us should embrace the
distracting and peripheral call to legitimize more drug traffic. Our
country, our communities, and our children deserve better.
Pubdate: Fri, 01 Nov 2002
Source: Scripps Howard News Service (US Wire)
Copyright: 2002 Scripps Howard
Author: William J. Bennett
Note: William J. Bennett was the first director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and a former U.S. Secretary of Education. His most
recent book is "Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism."
this week's Time cover story.
While only 34 percent of voters favor the complete legalization of
marijuana, increasing majorities would support reducing penalties for
possession and permitting the use of pot for medicinal purposes. That's the
result of a relentless campaign to legalize drugs, funded by billionaire
George Soros and others.
What Time does not report, however, are other numbers on the rise: the
number of young people who currently use marijuana, the number of young
marijuana initiates, the number seeking treatment for marijuana abuse, and
the potency of today's marijuana.
This fall we learned from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse that
one out of every ten young people (10.8 percent) age 12-17 was a current
drug user in 2001, a 1.1 percent increase since 2000. Of these, 74 percent
were reporting current marijuana use. The percentage of 16- to 17-year-olds
reporting current marijuana use rose from 13.7 percent in 2000 to 14.9
percent in 2001. Among those age 18-25, current marijuana users increased
from 13.6 percent in 2000 to 16.0 percent in 2001.
More young people are initiating marijuana use at an earlier age. In the
1960s, most new users were between 18 and 25, but that changed after 1972.
In 1990, the number of first-time marijuana users age 12-17 was 800,000; by
1996, that number had risen to 1.6 million, where it remains today.
The number of young people seeking treatment for marijuana abuse is rising
as well. Between 1992 and 1999, the number of adolescent marijuana
treatment admissions rose 260 percent, according to the federal agency
tracking drug abuse treatment statistics.
While marijuana is more prevalent, it is also more potent. The content of
the active ingredient, THC, has increased from an average of less than one
percent in 1974 to an average of seven percent today, and in some varieties
ranging as high as 14 to 30 percent. This dramatic increase creates
tolerance for lower doses, causing users to need higher doses to get the
same effect. With greater potency, addiction is easier to form but harder
to break.
Drug legalization proponents have distracted the public from these hard
facts about illicit drugs. They have exploited public sympathy for those
suffering from debilitating illnesses by proposing medical marijuana usage
- - itself a dubious proposition. But this fall, their tactics reveal more
about their true agenda. On three states' ballots this November, the push
is to decrease penalties for possession of marijuana unrelated to any
medical condition.
In Arizona, Proposition 203 would decriminalize possession of up to two
ounces of marijuana, eliminate mandatory minimum sentences and require
parole for those convicted of personal possession of a controlled
substance. Even worse, it would give the patina of official endorsement of
marijuana use by requiring the Department of Public Safety to be the
distributor of marijuana from seized stashes. As Arizona attorney general
and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Janet Napolitano said, "Requiring
(the Department of Public Safety) to distribute marijuana is nuts." Police,
rather than seizing an illegal substance, would be distributing it.
In Nevada, Question 9 would decriminalize possession of up to three ounces
of marijuana and set up a state-regulated system for growing and selling
marijuana. In Ohio, voters are being offered a false choice between
incarceration and treatment. Ohio's Issue 1 would mandate substance abuse
treatment for non-violent offenders but would stipulate no provision for
testing people sentenced to treatment for compliance with the program.
The numbers are not on the side of the drug legalization movement in Nevada
and Ohio, where the pro-drug initiatives are falling behind in the polls.
The drug legalizers' efforts look strongest in Arizona - oddly, where the
proposal is most absurd. This calls attention to the need to be clear about
the political agenda behind their efforts. Equivocations about drug
legalization have clouded the public's thinking.
We should not capitulate in our war on drugs any more than we should
surrender in our war on terrorism. Indeed, our ability to meet the
long-term demands of the war on terrorism depends in part on our vigilance
in combating drug trafficking and drug use among youth. The post-9/11 world
demands clear thinking and moral resolve among adults and a commitment to
teach that moral clarity to our children.
Back-pedaling on drug laws would be one of the worst examples we could give
our children at this crucial moment in American history. On November 5,
voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio should say no to the drug legalization
movement's advance on their home fronts. None of us should embrace the
distracting and peripheral call to legitimize more drug traffic. Our
country, our communities, and our children deserve better.
Pubdate: Fri, 01 Nov 2002
Source: Scripps Howard News Service (US Wire)
Copyright: 2002 Scripps Howard
Author: William J. Bennett
Note: William J. Bennett was the first director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and a former U.S. Secretary of Education. His most
recent book is "Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism."
