The drug war folks say that's it's not getting as much traction any longer because the issue has moved from status-anxiety among the middle class who feared for Johnny's/Johanna's chances to get an education and job to the issue of medical uses - including some children - Gupta made the case for this clear to all Americans.
But here's some guesses about the causes of change -
One likely answer is they have less incentive to protest: Fewer high-school kids smoke regularly. In 1978, nearly two in five high-school seniors (37.1 percent) said they had used marijuana in the previous 30 days, according to the University of Michigans annual Monitoring the Future survey. Last year, barely more than one in five (22.7) said they had. This figure has changed little since the mid-'90s.
Another likely answer for the decline of the parents movement is the success of medical marijuana. Talk with anti-pot leaders, and to a person they say the advent of medical pot in the mid-'90s reoriented the debate. Sue Rusche, co-founder of National Families in Action, said the tide turned after three billionaires stepped forwardGeorge Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperlingand funded so-called medical marijuana. Like Lowe and Cohen, Rusche suggested that medical marijuana changed the national conversation over weed from a behavioral issue involving teenagers to a quality-of-life one involving mostly adults.
Scholars agree. As Jonathan P. Caulkins, a former co-director of Rands Drug Policy Research Center, wrote in Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, The big change in marijuana consumption over the last half dozen years does not pertain to youth. Rather, it is the very substantial increase in the number of adults who use marijuana daily or near daily. The share of adults who use pot regularly has risen to 8 percent from 7 percent in 2006. Also, the share of adults who have tried pot has risen to 38 percent from 24 percent in 1977.
The increase in the share of adults who have used pot has also made Americans more accepting of the drug. As William Galston and E.J. Dionne Jr. pointed out in a Brookings study last May, demographic change and widespread public experience using marijuana imply that opposition to legalization will never again return to the levels seen in the 1980s.
Legislation to Add PTSD As Qualifying Condition for Medical Marijuana Rejected By Colorado Legislature
On average a veteran commits suicide every hour in the United States and medical marijuana has been proven to reduce suicide. But, Colorado veterans who use marijuana to manage their symptoms of PTSD risk losing their Veterans Administration (VA) benefits. VA policy permits veterans in compliance with their state medical marijuana law to continue to receive all their benefits and remain eligible for care in the VA medical system.
Its insane that in a state with legal marijuana veterans dont have the same right as anyone else over 21 especially considering how many lives are at stake, said Art Way, senior Colorado policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. No veteran should have to risk benefits or feel stigmatized when they use medical marijuana.
Iraq war Veteran Sean Azzariti of Denver, a Marine who testified in support of the legislation yesterday, said "It saved my life and I truly believe that every veteran should have that choice of medication."
Presently 10 medical marijuana states include PTSD as a qualifying condition for eligibility -- including 4 states that have added PTSD to their programs in the last 6 months alone. And a survey published last month in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs reports that people with PTSD in New Mexicos medical marijuana program show a greater than 75% reduction in severity of their symptoms when patients were using cannabis compared to when they were not.
The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn, with the help of American researchers such as Daniel I. Rees of the University of Colorado's Department of Economics, recently published their findings in a paper called High on Life? Medical Marijuana Laws and Suicide (PDF):
Our results suggest that the passage of a medical marijuana law is associated with an almost 5 percent reduction in the total suicide rate, an 11 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 20- through 29-year-old males, and a 9 percent reduction in the suicide rate of 30- through 39-year-old males.
Twenty-two veterans a day are killing themselves, said Sue Sisley, the University of Arizona psychiatry professor leading the PTSD study who specializes in treating veterans. Theyre not benefiting from conventional medicine. And while many are using marijuana to help them with this debilitating disorder, they want it to be legitimized. They want data. They want to know what doses to take. They want to be able to discuss this with their doctors.
The first time I used it, I wanted to cry. Because it took away my anxiety. Because it did everything for me that the Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants the VA prescribed me for three years did not do, said Edwards, 26, a resident of Davenport, Iowa. His symptoms - an unrelenting hyper-vigilance, insomnia and nightmares - emerged the moment we walked off the plane in 2008.
I can function completely fine all day just by using cannabis. Im back in school. My attendance is good. My grades are good. My relationships have healed, added the former Marine. It allowed me to get my life back.
In a March 12 letter, federal health officials approved a long-delayed study to explore if pot relieves PTSD. But doctors employed by the VA are banned from prescribing medical marijuana and from completing forms that allow veterans to enroll in medical-marijuana programs. While medical weed is legal in 20 states, only eight states recognize PTSD as a qualifying condition for which physicians can write cannabis prescriptions.
Around seven in ten Democrats and a majority of independents say that they support the law and that legalizing marijuana was good for the state, with more than six in ten Republicans disagreeing. Younger voters say they back the measure and that legalizing pot was good for Colorado, with older voters opposing the law and saying it was a bad move for the state.
"Colorado voters are generally good to go on grass, across the spectrum, from personal freedom to its taxpayer benefits to its positive impact on the criminal justice system," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll.
Those divisions match the national polls regarding marijuana, as well. Republicans and the elderly (who generally have less experience with marijuana now or in the past) are the only real oppositional blocks to legalization.
A Quinnipiac University poll, released April 28th, found that, three months into legal sale of marijuana in the state, the majority of residents have a positive view of legalization.
Voters support the law legalizing marijuana 54 - 43 percent;
49 percent of voters admit they've tried marijuana, but only 15 percent admit using it since it became legal January 1;
Driving has not become more dangerous because of legalized marijuana, voters say 54 - 39 percent;
Legalized marijuana will save the state and taxpayers a significant amount of money, voters say 53 - 41 percent;
Legalized marijuana will have a positive impact on the state's criminal justice system, voters say 50 - 40 percent;
Legalized marijuana "increases personal freedoms in a positive way," voters say 53 - 44 percent;
Legalized marijuana has not "eroded the moral fiber" of people in Colorado, voters say 67 - 30 percent.
Nevertheless, two highly publicized deaths that have been linked to marijuana edibles have caused regulators to look at serving sizes for edibles to reduce the amount of THC in edibles or to make smaller serving sizes possible from one edible purchase (which may contain 10 servings of THC in one product - to limit THC to 10 mg. per edible or section of edible.
The study of almost 33,000 students compared trends in teenage marijuana use in Rhode Island and Massachusetts from 1997 to 2009, HealthDay reports. The researchers found between 26 and 34 percent of teenagers in both states used marijuana during that period, but there was no significant difference in marijuana use between the states in any year. They concluded Rhode Islands law did not lead to increased marijuana use.
Medical cannabis is a contentious issue in the United States, with many fearing that introduction of state laws will increase use among the general population. The present study examined whether the introduction of such laws affects the level of cannabis use among arrestees and emergency department patients. Using the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring system, data from adult arrestees for the period 1995-2002 were examined in three cities in California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose), one city in Colorado (Denver), and one city in Oregon (Portland). Data were also analysed for juvenile arrestees in two of the California cities and Portland. Data on emergency department patients from the Drug Abuse Warning Network for the period 1994-2002 were examined in three metropolitan areas in California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco), one in Colorado (Denver), and one in Washington State (Seattle). The analysis followed an interrupted time-series design. No statistically significant pre-law versus post-law differences were found in any of the ADAM or DAWN sites. Thus, consistent with other studies of the liberalization of cannabis laws, medical cannabis laws do not appear to increase use of the drug. One reason for this might be that relatively few individuals are registered medical cannabis patients or caregivers. In addition, use of the drug by those already sick might "de-glamorise" it and thereby do little to encourage use among others.
To replicate a prior study that found greater adolescent marijuana use in states that have passed medical marijuana laws (MMLs), and extend this analysis by accounting for confounding by unmeasured state characteristics and measurement error.
We obtained state-level estimates of marijuana use from the 2002 through 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We used 2-sample t-tests and random-effects regression to replicate previous results. We used difference-in-differences regression models to estimate the causal effect of MMLs on marijuana use, and simulations to account for measurement error.
We replicated previously published results showing higher marijuana use in states with MMLs. Difference-in-differences estimates suggested that passing MMLs decreased past-month use among adolescents by 0.53 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-1.02) and had no discernible effect on the perceived riskiness of monthly use. Models incorporating measurement error in the state estimates of marijuana use yielded little evidence that passing MMLs affects marijuana use.
Accounting for confounding by unmeasured state characteristics and measurement error had an important effect on estimates of the impact of MMLs on marijuana use. We find limited evidence of causal effects of MMLs on measures of reported marijuana use.
Medical marijuana laws (MMLs) have been suggested as a possible cause of increases in marijuana use among adolescents in the United States. We evaluated the effects of MMLs on adolescent marijuana use from 2003 through 2011.
We used data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and a difference-in-differences design to evaluate the effects of passage of state MMLs on adolescent marijuana use. The states examined (Montana, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Delaware) had passed MMLs at different times over a period of 8 years, ensuring that contemporaneous history was not a design confound.
In 40 planned comparisons of adolescents exposed and not exposed to MMLs across states and over time, only 2 significant effects were found, an outcome expected according to chance alone. Further examination of the (nonsignificant) estimates revealed no discernible pattern suggesting an effect on either self-reported prevalence or frequency of marijuana use.
Our results suggest that, in the states assessed here, MMLs have not measurably affected adolescent marijuana use in the first few years after their enactment. Longer-term results, after MMLs are more fully implemented, might be different.
From the Journal of Adolescent Health, published online 15 April 2014
The state-level legalization of medical marijuana has raised concerns about increased accessibility and appeal of the drug to youth. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of medical marijuana legalization across the United States by comparing trends in adolescent marijuana use between states with and without legalization of medical marijuana.
The study utilized data from the Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance Survey between 1991 and 2011. States with a medical marijuana law for which at least two cycles of Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance data were available before and after the implementation of the law were selected for analysis. Each of these states was paired with a state in geographic proximity that had not implemented the law. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare characteristics between states with and without medical marijuana use policies. A difference-in-difference regression was performed to control for time-invariant factors relating to drug use in each state, isolating the policy effect, and then calculated the marginal probabilities of policy change on the binary dependent variable.
The estimation sample was 11,703,100 students. Across years and states, past-month marijuana use was common (20.9%, 95% confidence interval 20.321.4). There were no statistically significant differences in marijuana use before and after policy change for any state pairing. In the regression analysis, we did not find an overall increased probability of marijuana use related to the policy change (marginal probability .007, 95% confidence interval ?.007, .02).
This study did not find increases in adolescent marijuana use related to legalization of medical marijuana.
(video from the Economic Policy Institute)
Piketty writes as if a tax on wealth might sometime soon have political viability in Europe, where there is already some experience with capital levies. I have no opinion about that. On this side of the Atlantic, there would seem to be no serious prospect of such an outcome. We are politically unable to preserve even an estate tax with real bite. If we could, that would be a reasonable place to start, not to mention a more steeply progressive income tax that did not favor income from capital as the current system does. But the built-in tendency for the top to outpace everyone else will not yield to minor patches.
And this is, perhaps, the most significant point. Piketty has identified the mechanism by which inequality accelerates over time (Solow calls it, simply, the rich-get-richer dynamic" . But the consequences of that distribution are not merely economic but political: A concentration of wealth leads to a concentration of power, which in turn protects the concentration of power. That our political system is incapable of tempering Piketty's dynamic is not a bizarre coincidence but a direct result.
"Wouldnt it be interesting," Solow asks in his TNR review, "if the United States were to become the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the last refuge of increasing inequality at the top (and perhaps also at the bottom)? Would that work for you?"
And this leads to less compassion (which Gladwell talks about when talking to the wealthy about wealth.) We cannot expect the .01&, much less the 1% to agree to wealth distribution through taxes (and, I would hope, a basic minimum income.) They will have to be forced to accept laws that benefit the 99% - unless they prefer a stable society more than ostentatious, obscene, really, in the face of suffering, wealth.
A related set of studies published by Keltner and his colleagues last year looked at how social class influences feelings of compassion towards people who are suffering. In one study, they found that less affluent individuals are more likely to report feeling compassion towards others on a regular basis. For example, they are more likely to agree with statements such as, I often notice people who need help, and Its important to take care of people who are vulnerable. This was true even after controlling for other factors that we know affect compassionate feelings, such as gender, ethnicity, and spiritual beliefs.
In a second study, participants were asked to watch two videos while having their heart rate monitored. One video showed somebody explaining how to build a patio. The other showed children who were suffering from cancer. After watching the videos, participants indicated how much compassion they felt while watching either video. Social class was measured by asking participants questions about their familys level of income and education. The results of the study showed that participants on the lower end of the spectrum, with less income and education, were more likely to report feeling compassion while watching the video of the cancer patients. In addition, their heart rates slowed down while watching the cancer videoa response that is associated with paying greater attention to the feelings and motivations of others.
These findings build upon previous research showing how upper class individuals are worse at recognizing the emotions of others and less likely to pay attention to people they are interacting with (e.g. by checking their cell phones or doodling).
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 28,784
- 2014 (210)
- 2013 (109)
- 2012 (136)
- 2011 (46)
- December (46)