Media flipped key findings of (Pot) legalization poll-Actually Shows Majority Support For Reforms

[kpete]

Source: Raw Story

Widely publicized 4/20 pot poll actually shows majority support for reforms

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, April 22nd, 2010 -- 9:06 pm

.................

However, a more nuanced probing of the issue, carried out by the polling firm but entirely unmentioned in the media on April 20th, found that when stacked next to alcohol, often a more debilitating and addictive substance, statistical support for drug law reforms skyrocketed.

............

Appearing on page four of the 22-page document, https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/AP-Pot-Poll.pdf
poll workers asked respondents whether or not the U.S. should treat marijuana and alcohol similarly. While 43 percent wanted rules more strict than those applied to alcohol, 44 percent wanted the two handled equally. Another 12 percent wanted less strict rules for pot over alcohol.

"... Meaning that a full 56 percent support the policy change -- perhaps the highest number ever recorded in favor of legalization," Huffington Post's Ryan Grim noted.



Read more: http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0422/widely-publicized-420-pot-poll-showed-majority-support-reforms/

[wildbilln864]

1. k&r! nt

[Mike K]

53. If you support legalization -

- please go to http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/93871-latest-polls-find-majority-of-west-coast-voters-californians-back-marijuana-legalization#thecomments-form-message and leave a brief comment to that effect.

The Congress does pay attention to the opinions gathered there. The above link will take you directly to the comment page.

[wildbilln864]

69. will do and thanks. nt

[cory777]

2. That explains it.

[Proletariatprincess]

3. It is hard to believe that it is really going to happen at long last.

And yet, it appears that it will...and very soon. Just as the republic is failing, the economy is failing, all the institutions in the country have failed, now..at long last...there is strong possibility of a end to the Drug war. Or at least a diminution of it.
That makes me think of how FDR ended prohibition and how I hoped that Obama would do the same. Well..it seems that California is on the right track anyway.

[happygoluckytoyou]

45. 30000$ per year or similar keeping mj smokers in prison---

not to mention taking them out of the work force, ruining families, expanding a prison culture, ruining lives with prison records....

BUT ALL HAIL THE SOCCER MOMS... WE DID IT FOR ... THE CHILDREN ! ! !

sad story, the soccer mom whose kid ended up in prison for smoking a joint or carrying a bag...

[defendandprotect]

65. Nixon was involved in the racist War on Drugs -- --

and John Ehrlichman made that clear --

It began with Nixon's statement, as recorded in the diary of his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in 1969 (cf. Dan Baum's book "Smoke and Mirrors"'): "You have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."' In 1971 Nixon declared his war on drugs, destined to replace and nationalize the states' Jim Crow laws trashed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

John Ehrlichman got a slightly different explanation for the purpose of this "White House Theater." Jeffrey Donfeld stated in an April 3 memorandum, "The government has a difficult time changing the attitudes of people.... Television, however, is a subliminal stimulus." In other words, viewers would receive a hidden, or subliminal, message, which they would not be conscious of receiving but which would all the same stimulate their fear of heroin addicts. "If indeed television is a subliminal stimulus," Donfeld suggested to Ehrlichman, "you are urging the producers to focus their creative genius to effect changes in people's attitudes about drugs ... to guide them in presenting efficacious programs." The talking points Donfeld prepared for Ehrlichman included such instructions as: "Program content should be carefully designed for the audience that is likely to be tuned in at a given time"; "It would not be accurate to portray the drug problem as a ghetto problem .... It i,, a problem which touches all economic, social and racial strata,, of' America"; "You will receive a drug information kit.... Included in that kit will be a telephone contact list so that you or your script writers can call government officials for clarification and additional information"; "Television subtly and inexorably helps to mold the attitudes, thinking and motivations of a vast number of Americans." See article below









And this from an article by Jay Epstein . . .

The extraordinary measures that the White House planned to undertake in its war against crime depended heavily for their success on the organization of public fears. If Americans could be persuaded that their lives and the lives of their children were being threatened by a rampant epidemic of narcotics addiction, Nixon's advisors presumed they would not object to decisive government actions, such as no-knock warrants, pretrial detention, wiretaps, and unorthodox strike forces-even if the emergency measures had to cross or circumvent the traditional rights of a suspect. To achieve this state of fear required transforming a relatively small heroin addiction problem-which even according to the most exaggerated estimates directly affected only a minute fraction of the population in 1971-into -a plague that threatened all. This in turn required the artful use of the media to propagate a simple but terrifying set of stereotypes about drug addiction: the addict-dealer would be depicted as a modern-day version of the medieval vampire, ineluctably driven to commit crimes and infect others by his insatiable and incurable need for heroin. The victims would be shown as innocent youth, totally vulnerable to the vampire-addict. And the federal law-enforcement officer would be shown as the only effective instrument for stopping the vampire-addicts from contaminating the rest of society. The most obvious medium available for projecting these stereotypes on the popular imagination was television.

The plan to mobilize the media developed in March, 1970. President Nixon had instructed his chief domestic advisor, John Ehrllchman, to "further utilize television as a too] in the fight against drug abuse." Ehrlichman then turned the project over to Egli Krogh, his assistant, and Jeb Stuart Magruder, the deputy director of the Office of Communications in the White House. Magruder, a thirty six-year-old former advertising salesman and merchandise manager for a department store, found initially that officials in the various federal agencies resisted his plans for a publicity hype of the drug issue. He recalled in his autobiography, "The first meeting we called was hilarious-I couldn't believe those people were working on the same problem.... We encountered the usual hostility the White House people meet in the bureaucratic world." But eventually "everyone agreed that television was the single most effective means to reach young people and alert them to the hazards of drugs." On March I I the White House held a press conference, and the memorandum by Magruder summing up the "feedback" noted that the media interest sparked by the press conference had been favorable.... We have been getting calls from all over the Country ... ranging from network television to rural weeklies to professional journals.... A pod many of those calling indicated enthusiastic support for the Administration programs and inferred
The White House strategists, however, were more interested in primetime television. On March 18, 1970, Jeffrey Donfeld, the enterprising assistant to Krogh, sent a memorandum to the White House proposing that since "the President expressed his desire to have more anti-drug themes on television," the president should personally attend a meeting of television producers that Donfeld was arranging for April 9, 1970, at the White House. Among those being invited, Donfeld noted, were:

1. The vice-presidents in charge of programming of the three networks.

2. The vice-presidents in charge of continuity acceptance of the networks.

3. The heads of production of the six major television production companies.

4. The producers of select programs which can accommodate narcotics themes ... this group will represent at least 90 percent of prime-time shows.

5. Television programming vice-presidents of the three major advertising agencies.

Donfeld explained that the day-long program would be held in the White House theater and that the purpose of the meeting would be to stimulate these producers to include in their fall programming antidrug themes." In a March 19 memorandum John Ehrlichman recommended personally that the president meet the television executives in his office for a "photo opportunity." On April 2 a detailed scenario was drawn up for the meeting of the following week. "To expedite the meeting and give It a little novelty," it recommended:


More . . .
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/aof/aof20.html

[NikRik]

90. Canabis to the rescue !

It would be odd that after all these years of being demonized to the public that pot will be what actually saves our country from another depression ,there go the saying the country is going to pot !
Oh Happy Day,NikRik

[Delphinus]

4. Well,

that sounds much more likely. I remember saying to myself, "that's just not right" when reading most were against legalization.

[Grassy Knoll]

5. .

[harry_pothead]

6. K&R

Cannabis rights are coming.

[Ramulux]

7. Its gona be legal in California

I guarantee it will pass in November, its just too popular especially out here. What I am most looking forward to is like 2 years from now when the state begins to fully understand how much money they are going to be making from this. I also guarantee that however much money they estimate they will make of taxing it is nowhere near how much they will actually make. Its going to save California's economy and the politicians aren't going to be able to pretend its not.

[dotymed]

22. Just think though,

How many drug testing labs will be put out of business. It was hard to believe when employers everywhere were allowed to test their employees for drug use. What people do on their own time, is their business. However, civil rights didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was the massive profits the owners of these labs would make. I would not be surprised to learn that many congresspeople own shares in these labs. After all, they are excluded from testing as are all of the highest paying jobs in America. Even though a surgeon must have extraordinary reflexes and concentration, and many lives are in his hands daily, he doesn't have to "test." Our congress who supposedly must have great analytical minds just as our judges...yet no test for any of them. Just another way to keep the rabble in line. I used to party alto. I smoked with law officers, lawyers, doctors, professors...you name it. Only they didn't have to worry about passing a random drug test, so they really partook.

[iris27]

31. I imagine those will stay in business testing for harder drugs.

The industries that are really anal about it won't stop testing just because one substance is now legal.

[AlbertCat]

34. Perhaps they can start testing for the 3 martini lunch. Start on Wall Street....

[Mike K]

55. They will when they get hit with a couple of lawsuits -

- for privacy invasion and discrimination for not testing for beverage alcohol use, which is more destructive in every way than marijuana.

Piss testing is acceptable now because pot is illegal. But discriminating against an individual's use if it is legal is comparable to discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

[pundaint]

39. It will be interesting to see if companies can test for a legal substance and base

employment considerations on the results. I think little will change in that regard.

[Vermontgrown]

58. Well put.

Guess they'll have to resort to a factory of illegals.

[teknomanzer]

66. Can anybody say "cannibis tourism"?

Cali is set to be the American Netherlands...

[Ramulux]

84. Totally

I dont think people realize how true this is. If California is the only state where its legal, I just cannot begin to fathom how much money they are going to be bringing in.

[underpants]

82. The economic influence of Cali means real change

with cars-California emmissions and what could have been with electric cars


Texas buys so many textbooks (to offset Cali's population) that they get to decide textbooks for the whole country.

Good for Cali. Pot is better than beer for the society, plus you tend to drive slower...or at least I have been told that

[DesertDiamond]

8. Yeah, I thought so.

[Matariki]

9. Do you suppose the study was conducted on 4/20 to be funny?

[gtar100]

10. The word got out big when it was /against/ legalization;

Let's hear how loud the MSM will speak with the correction.

~chirp~ ~chirp~ ~chirp~

Damage done. Time to move on. The MSM doesn't do corrections.

[truedelphi]

13. What the MSM always is good at, is supporting those forces that have

Heavy advertising revenue streams into their coffers.

Once Acapulco gold is legal, branded and running a thirty second commerical every ten minutes, the media will be totally behind it.

[loudsue]

64. Bubba Kush....

Now, THAT is the ad. It's one of the types that medicinal marijuana usuers have the option of buying in California. O8) Heavenly.

[martymar64]

74. No Stems no seeds that you don't need

Acapulco Gold is Badass Weed!

[Supersedeas]

71. Corporate Journalism at its finest

[Socal31]

11. I will be out to vote for pot legalization in Nov, just like I voted against Prop 8.

My gut tells me either it wont pass, or it will trigger a federal backfire. Dont let my gut discourage the rest of you Californians from voting though, as it has seen it's fair share of Agave booze. ;)

[slay]

12. You could tell from the comments on Yahoo's page about the story

that LOTS of people supported legalization - at least the internet crowd. Even many of the "conservatives" were sayin stuff like "keep the government away from my marijuana!" You know, the more I think about it the more likely that was just someone mocking the t-party peeps lol. But still - pot has the power to unite the country! woo-hoo! :woohoo: :smoke: :evilgrin:

[PinkFloyd]

14. Something I'm curious about is how will federal law enforcement will treat it?

We know they ignore medical marijuana dispensaries as Obama's instructed, and they should. The real question will be how the feds handle a state that actually legalized it? It will be interesting to watch because they can't police the whole state of CA. Also it makes me wonder if other states may try to follow if things work out as expected?

Good luck and I hope it passes!

[Mike K]

59. It would be in Obama's interest -

- to instruct the DEA to lay off California unless there are conspicuously negative consequences to marijuana becoming legalized.

He already has demonstrated his ability to direct the actions of his Attorney General in relation to medical marijuana, so he couldn't get away with any "my hands are tied" bullshit.

[Toucano]

15. That's so unlike the media to do something like that.

It usually makes their legion of pharmaceutical advertisers very happy when they report people's opposition to the criminalization of marijuana.

So weird.

[Politicalboi]

16. Were they

STONED when they did the study?

[Hubert Flottz]

17. That's the same crew that sold us the war in Iraq.

[SteveM]

18. The 3 issues MSM treats in a propagandistic manner:

(1) U.S. military intervention before and during invasion;
(2) War on Guns;
(3) War on Drugs.

Been going on for decades.

[AlbertCat]

35. (2) War on Guns;

Hahahaha That's funny.


No it's war WITH guns..... "with"....

[SteveM]

47. You should read MSM more closely...

They have a long and proud history of giving one side in the gun-control debate: prohibition.

Would you like some sources?

[YOY]

46. "The War on Guns"...this begs the question...

What are you smoking?

[SteveM]

48. Well, if you ever visit Austin, I'll show you...

The MSM has a long and proud history of propagandizing in favor of gun-control/prohibition. This history is readily available.

Would you like some sources?

[YOY]

49. And just as many propogandizing the opposite.

Source away. I am hardly anti-second Amendment...but I find the comparison to the "War on Drugs" laughable. Calling it a "war on anything" is propogandizing it itself.

I think you don't know what "prohibition" means. It means YOU CANNOT HAVE ANY.

[SteveM]

52. Clearly, you do not want to engage...

"Source away."

You can laugh all you want, but the efforts by MSM to push their gun-control/prohibition agenda have been unrelenting and documented. And most of the newspapers, T.V. networks, main news mags, etc. were in on it. There have NOT been "just as many propogandizing the opposite." It only appears as such because of the breakdown of MSM and the rise of the Internet.

Respectfully, you need to review the roll of mainstream media in some of this country's problems. They do a poor job of covering U.S. foreign policy when this nation is contemplating an invasion, and during the invasion; only later does it wring its hands in mea culpa. MSM has been stalwart in supporting the War on Drugs, allowing only for "trimming around the edges" of sentencing guidlines, "drug courts," powdered-vs.-rock cocaine, and such. But it is the War on Guns where MSM really shines, becoming in fact, the chief (and now ONLY) viable propagandizing force on the side of the gun-control/prohibitionist movement.

For your amusement!

"The July 7 (1989) cover story (supporting gun-control/prohibition) is the most recent in a growing number of attempts on the part ot Time editors to keep the gun-availability issue resolutely in view. such an editorial closing of ranks represents the exception rather than the rule in the history of the magazine, which has always endeavored to provide a variety of opinions and comment, in addition to straightfoward news reporting, as a way of engaging readers in interpreting the significance of issues and events as they arise. But the time for opinions on the dangers of gun availability is long since gone, replaced by overwhelming evidence that it represents a growin threat to public safety."

This from the EDITORS of Time to a reader who objected to a Time gun story. SEE: The Great American Gun Debate, Kates and Kleck, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, SF, 1997.

There's more. Wanna hear it?

[YOY]

57. No, I don't want to engage anyone who calls it "the War on Guns"

Because it implies that such efforts have made some kind of inroads.

And they haven't...and they won't. There is just too much money in the lobbying against such activities. Money talks, bullshit walks. The firearm industry makes money.

The only reason why I think they could legalize pot is due to taxation. Money talks, bullshit walks. There is money to be made.

And if someone in the press starts whining they won't do a damn thing unless it means they can figure out a way to make money off of it.

And there have indeed been quite a few propogandizing the opposite. Take anyone who actually calls it "the war on guns" for example.

[SteveM]

75. There have been few inroads, true...

but it is still a war to the controllers/prohibitionists, even if they lose. You are right, they will. But wars have collateral damage: the loss to the GOP of scores of legislative and Congressional seats, as well as a presidency (if Bill Clinton is to be believed). I think that is far more important than your economic determinism.

Thanks (I think) if you think I am part of MSM and "propagandizing the opposite."

Here's one from Newsweek, October 14, 1985: The cover headline is "MACHINE GUN U.S.A.;" with sub headline of "Nearly 500,000 Automatic Weapons Are Now in the Hands of Collectors -- and Criminals." Rather Gothic, no?

And this from Pete ("machine gun") Shields, then Chair of Handgun Control: "I would be remiss if I failed to mention the support that the handgun control movement has received from the editorial pages of papers across the nation. Some of these papers have supported the movement for its entire life. AS A GROUP, American editorial writers have done a great deal to keep THE CAUSE OF HANDGUN CONTROL before the American public." (My emphasis.)

I think Mr. Shields knows the score better than you. The only reason there have been "quite a few propagandizing the opposite" has been the collapse of MSM, and the somewhat concomitant (and recent) rise of Internet news/information/and yes, propaganda outlets. About time.

[YOY]

86. Well if it's a "war" you should relax. You won.

Really...in all seriousness...just because it's your pet issue...doesn't give you the right to call it a war.

[SteveM]

91. Don't be so sure...

I'm not sure what you mean by "pet" issue. When you join in public demonstrations against the War on Drugs, demonstrate on behalf of AIDS funding, and participate in various environmental actions -- and yes, post on DU about the Second Amendment -- then you too will acquire a household full of pets that need feeding.

I have the right to call something a "war" if I want to, unless you can show me some law preventing such.

You miss the point. A lot of folks like to think we have "won." But the terms of victory are not stopping prohibitionist legislation, or even passing more liberal Second Amendment laws. The terms for Democrats is to rid the Party of this rather modern version of gun-control/prohibition (the older being Jim Crow legislation) which TO THIS VERY DAY remains a bulwark within the Democratic Party's platform; check it out. As long as calls for prohibition/bans remain in the Party platform, the battle goes on. Frankly, that is the core reason why there are so many well-informed folks which defend the Second in the Guns Forum. They know the stakes, and have seen too many Democrats go down to defeat because of this CONTINUING front in the culture wars.

Do you have any proposals? Like erasing the calls for another expanded so-called "assault weapons ban" from the platform?

[mortfrom]

62. If that's your best,

then, no, thanks. Your citation, probably your best, else why that one, is from a thirteen year old book claiming a twenty-one year old letter from the editors of Time that suggests they would admit that they have completely overturned the entire editorial history of the magazine? Cited by Kleck, whose data are suspect, and whose statistics are completely wrong? That's your best? To prove an unrelenting effort by the MSM to prohibit guns? Do you ever read what you write?

[SteveM]

73. There's plenty more. But you do not wish to engage...

"...then, no, thanks."

Often, those arguing in these threads will say something like you have as an excuse not to engage. How 'bout this?

From "The Guns in America" by Lee Kennett and James LaVerne Anderson:

(1) "large urban dailies with mass circulation -- The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Christian Science Monitor -- issued continual calls for new and tougher laws. With few exceptions the popular magazines followed suit."

(2) "The Washington Post pro-control editorials on the gun issue for 77 consecutive days"

According to Adweek for June 26, 1989: Newsweek, Time, Christian Science Monitor, NBC, CBS and even the Reader's Digest refused to accept paid advertisements from the NRA.

There's plenty more.

The fact Kates and Kleck's book is 13 years old does not detract from the authenticity of what the editors of Time said: it's a quote. This and the flip comment "whose data are suspect, and whose statistics are completely wrong?", without anything to back it up, is a crass cop-out. I think you know that, too.

Actually, MSM has made an "unrelenting effort to prohibit/ (and control) guns." But they have failed.

Perhaps YOU should read more.

[SteveM]

54. Correction of your correction...

Prohibition isn't necessarily absolutist, that should be common sense. When D.C. had its PROHIBITIONIST gun control laws overturned, they actually argued that the were not prohibitionist since one could have a gun in his/her house. If it was unloaded. If it was disassembled so as to be unusable for immediate action. If it was not in a room you would normally occupy.

During Southern Jim Crow-era laws, many states had protections for those who wanted guns. As long as you applied to a local sheriff and got his permission. Guess who wasn't allowed to have guns? But that's not prohibition, is it? There were also "melting point laws" designed to make a firearm so expensive (due to high metal quality), the poor (wink-wink, you know who I mean) could not afford the firearm. But that's not prohibition, is it?

BTW, you could drink and possess alcohol during "Prohibition." You just couldn't sell it. And that ain't prohibition, is it?

Prohibition under color of law is "subterfuge," a term used a lot during Jim Crow days.

[Mike K]

60. The two issues; guns and recreational drugs, -

- are much too disparate to base a comparison on.

[SteveM]

76. The issues vary a lot, but the same prohibitionist stance is there...

In fact, there is significantly greater diversity of opinion in MSM recently with regards drugs when compared with guns. The main different with regards the behavior of MSM now is that they shy away from taking a stand on most anything, especially if it causes even greater drops in readership and ad revenue. And they know gun-control/prohibition is a loser; so they are much quieter, now.

[orbitalman]

19. PROOF of media manipulation...

of country events and direction, even, in general.

[Zephie]

20. William Randolph Hearst's ghost lives on...

Hey America... It's just a plant!

[Omar4Dems]

21. A pot poll? Wasn't that in Cambodia in the 70's?

:shrug:

[Technodaoist]

23. ooooh... I see what you did there.... n/t

[dotymed]

24. Good one..Pol Pot..

Honestly though, I find it strange (nothing surprises me anymore) that before we invaded and occupied Afghanistan, they had nearly eradicated their opium production. Now, under U.S. "control", they're are the largest suppliers of opium in the world. Our CIA couldn't be involved in this could they?

[lonestarnot]

25. Why I oughta...

:spank: :spank: :spank: :evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

26. They lie. That whole crowd, about everything.

The entire status quo, anti equality, anti justice set lies like others breath. They look at the truth and become ill, comfortable only with slanders and mendacity. They look at facts and shout about faith.

[fascisthunter]

27. you mean the AP was wrong?

I love it....

[NikRik]

28. why did it take soooo long ?

With most people who where at least teenagers in the late sixties yearly twenties ,now controlling our country ,why did this take so long . They knew pot was harmless ,much more then drinking or smoking cigs ! Yet instead of standing up to the status quo many from this generation fell inline with locking people up on charges mnany times stupid waste of tax payers money sting operations. You cant give a person back years of their lives lost sitting in a prison cell ,shame on all of you that could have made a differance a long time ago !

[vincenzoesq]

83. See if you can get a look at an MRI or PET scan of a pothead.

Brain damage is hardly "harmless."

[NikRik]

87. Show me a link on pot/brain damage ?

I always conside myself to be open minded . So you provide me a link to a valid scientific investigation to long term pot use and permanant brain damage and I will gladly change my wording that pot is a harmless weed ! My google search returned mostly this response on a marriuana/brain damage >Long-term and even daily marijuana use doesn't appear to cause permanent brain damage, adding to evidence that it can be a safe and effective treatment for a wide range of diseases, say researchers.
.<<<<< Now what would be interesting is the same search on heavy drinking and bain damage ?
Take Care NikRik

[wildbilln864]

92. quite the opposite in fact!

linky :hi:

"...A synthetic chemical similar to the active ingredient in marijuana makes new cells grow in rat brains. What is more, in rats this cell growth appears to be linked with reducing anxiety and depression. The results suggest that marijuana, or its derivatives, could actually be good for the brain."

[vincenzoesq]

93. Here is a link

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg13-14.html

[vincenzoesq]

94. Marijuana long term effects on the brain

Actually, there is no longer any question that there are long term effects. An addictions treatment provider said in a lecture I attended that she considered it more devestating than any other drug, because by the time symptoms are evident, the damage to the organs and brain is done. Here is more:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/129/5/1096

http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=84473

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T3M-4T0NT8S-8W&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1310105938&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d4c422712cfb1e8f25fe82a305ab2e45

http://www.empoweredhospital.com/marijuana-brain-study


People who use marijuana for a long time can develop abnormalities in their brains, Australian researchers report.
Although growing literature suggests long-term marijuana use is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences, many people believe it is relatively harmless and should be legalised, the researchers noted. "However, this study shows long-term, heavy cannabis use causes significant brain injury, memory loss, difficulties learning new information and psychotic symptoms, such as delusions of persecution , delusions of mind-reading, and bizarre social behaviours in even non-vulnerable users," said lead researcher Murat Yucel, from the ORYGEN Research Centre and the Neuropsychiatry Centre at the University of Melbourne.
This new evidence plays an important role in further understanding the effects of marijuana and its impact on brain functioning, Yucel said. "The study is the first to show that long-term cannabis use can adversely affect all users, not just those in the high-risk categories such as the young, or those susceptible to mental illness, as previously thought," he said. The report was published in the June issue of the Archives of General Psychiatry.
In the study, Yucel's team did high-resolution MRIs on 15 men who smoked more than five joints a day for more than 10 years. They compared those with scans of 16 men who did not use marijuana. In addition, all the men took verbal memory tests and were examined for symptoms of psychiatric disorders. "The more marijuana used, the more these individuals were likely to show reduced brain volumes in the hippocampus and amygdala, as well as being more likely to develop symptoms of psychotic disorders and to have significant memory impairment," Yucel said.
In fact, the hippocampus of marijuana users was 12% smaller, and the amygdala was 7.1% smaller than among non-users. In addition, men who used marijuana also had symptoms of psychiatric disorders, Yucel's group found. The hippocampus is associated with the regulation of emotion and memory, while the amygdala controls fear and aggression.
"There is ongoing controversy concerning the long-term effects of cannabis on the brain," Yucel said. "These findings challenge the widespread perception of cannabis as having limited or no harmful effects on brain and behaviour. Although modest use may not lead to significant neurotoxic effects, these results suggest that heavy daily use might indeed be toxic to human brain tissue."
One expert agrees that heavy marijuana use can have negative effects on the brain.
"These findings are not surprising," said Dr Adam Bisaga, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and an addiction psychiatrist at New York State Psychiatric Institute. "Chronic use of large amounts of any substance that is affecting neural transmission will most likely invoke adaptive changes and lead to the reorganisation of neural networks, and possibly affect brain structures."
"Heavy users of marijuana probably represent only a very small proportion of users," Bisaga said. "It is not clear if any clinically significant changes can be seen in recreational, infrequent marijuana users, who were not studied here. These findings suggest that public health education, as well as screening, early recognition, and treatment of cannabis dependence, may prevent the progression of the disease and the loss of brain function and related psychiatric complications."

[JNelson6563]

29. K&R

No surprise here. I know so many who don't smoke but think it should be legal.

Julie

[Richard Steele]

30. K&R

[Gold Metal Flake]

32. Just more of that famous liberal media bias.

[Blue Owl]

33. Nice work, ABCNNBCBS

You fucking lying sacks of shit.

Whatever "credibility" you had left just got flushed into oblivion.

[Uncle Joe]

36. Is the AP good for anything?

:shrug:

Enough with the manipulative, propaganda bullshit, quit trying to brain wash the American People!

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[SteveM]

50. Yes, for pushing gun-control/prohibition, like they have drug-prohibiton, for years.

[tiny elvis]

72. as well as the war on goat fucking

please join forces with the free gunners and goat fuckers
we're all in the same fight

[SteveM]

77. Wow! Are the cops coming for you? Can't keep 'em down on the farm...nt

[tiny elvis]

78. pot smoking=gun toting=goat fucking

because all of us are oppressed
be assured that the goat fuckers stand with the free gunners on this

[SteveM]

79. I see your point, but I'd rather start out a little higher on the hog...

Eeyore's Birthday is on for Saturday in Austin, TX. Bunch of damned hippies (12-14,000), blowing a hole through the O-zone. And I'll be there to bear witness!

[tridim]

37. I think we should get a bonus 10% boost just for the propaganda attempt.

Drug warriors and the MSM, you lose.

[femrap]

38. I'm still waiting for the

Reality Show displaying two houses with 6 dudes in each. One house has all the liquor it wants and the other house all the pot it wants.

Let the Show begin!

Oh, I forgot....we can't have that. The booze industry spends too much $$$$ on advertising. And we certainly don't want Grandpa to learn that pot just makes dudes want to order pizza and listen to music and laugh.

[asdjrocky]

44. What an unbelievably good idea.

Only a pot smoker could have an idea that good.

[femrap]

70. I haven't had any in years.....

:cry:

[asdjrocky]

88. Dude, I'm in Cali, just call.

Or click on my link;-).

[CHelms]

40. The "liberal media" strikes again.

I can't believe those sandal wearing, granola munching hippies at General Electric and Time Warner would mislead the American public about something like people's opinion on marijuana legalization.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. Somebody's gotta say it, dammmit!

The dirty fucken hippies were right.

[Puppyjive]

42. Hypocrits and conservatives

Oregon is collecting signatures for a petition to get the legalization of marijuana on the ballot. I know some very conservative pot smokers who do not want marijuana legalized because it would be 'bad for the country' yet they feel they should be able to use it.

http://www.cannabistaxact.org/

[asdjrocky]

43. Imagine that, the meadia spreading lies for their corporate masters.

[BobbyBoring]

51. No Suprise Here!

I will donate my body to medical science so they see the effects of smoking weed for 40+ years. I'm still in pretty fair health and on a good day can put together 2 or 3 sentences in a row that make sense (at least to me).

OTOH, I have several friends that need or have had liver transplants from drinking and one friend who is "Wet Brained" which I always thought was just a derogatory expression until I started studying it. I don't know ANY pot smokers who are that demented.

All this survey shows is the MSM is controlled by social conservatives. end of story~

[Vermontgrown]

56. Smoke a doobie

Get locked in jail with Madoff. That's law inforcement. If they legalize mary jane what will all those rich jail owners do than. I see a something as bad coming down, afterall we can't have empty jails in this country can we?
The rich jail owners will go bankrupt and have to resort to welfare for the rich.

[Mike K]

61. You've brought up a very valid concern:

There is a great deal of corporate money behind marijuana prohibition and it's not only coming from the law enforcement and prison industries. There are quite a few major corporations whose bottom lines will be negatively affected if marijuana (therefore hemp) is made legal. High on the list are the booze, pharmaceutical, cotton and timber producers.

Legal marijuana will kick their asses -- along with a lot of others.

[defendandprotect]

63. What's the point in corporate/MIC control of media if you can't "flip" the info . . .??

[colsohlibgal]

67. So Obvious...To Some Of Us

The non sheep that is. Corporate America controls our main media these days and they do no real in depth truthful reporting at all anymore. People who dig and ask hard questions not needed, Greg Palast is a pariah here so he works for the BBC, who will do some real reporting at times.

The corporate media honchos do their research and know a certain amount of people will not question the status quo or will challenge the wrong things like the wacky tea baggers.

Germany in the 30s, US in 2010, not a whole lot of difference and it's chilling - as in what's going on in Arizona right now.

[happyslug]

68. They is still a sizable percentage of the Population who LIKED PROHIBITION

Thus this may NOT be 44% for easier laws on Marijuana, it can be 44% of the population want STRICTER LAWS ON ALCOHOL. Now given the nature of the question the real answer is somewhere between, but you have people like me who want to make it illegal to advertise alcohol. You have people like me who want to give people who are seen using alcohol in public jail time (if they want to use it in the privy of their home, good for them, I just do NOT want to see it nor do I want children to see it, and I am talking about ALCOHOL in addition to Marijuana). If ask about making Marijuana law the same as Alcohol, many people will say YES and NOT mean easing Marijuana law, but to make Alcohol law harsher.

Just pointing out the error Huffington Post is making is this question, it is including those people who want stricter laws on Alcohol as wanting easier laws on marijuana. That is not true, The Women's Christian Temperature Union (WCTU) is still active and still calls alcohol the worse drug in America and thus would gladly treat Alcohol the same as Marijuana, making both of them illegal.

Just a comment that HOW the question was asked included not only those people who want to reduce the punishment for Marijuana to the same level as Alcohol, but also those who want to make Alcohol use the same crime as the use of Marijuana.

People forget the Prohibition Party is alive and well in the US:
http://www.prohibitionists.org/

As is the Women's Christian Temperance Union Web Site:
http://www.wctu.org/

To quote from their site:

ALCOHOL #1 DRUG PROBLEM

Action taken by American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates, December 3-6, 1989.

Resolution 97-- Alcohol Abuse and the ``War on Drugs"
``Resolved, That the AMA reaffirm the concept that alcohol is an addictive drug and its abuse is one of the nation's leading drug problems;"

``Alcohol is closely linked with virtually every negative aspect of society; suicide, violent crime, birth defects, industrial accidents, domestic and sexual abuse, homelessness, death, and disease. It is the No.1 drug problem for people from all walks of life. It is No. 1 among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics, and it's No. 1 among poor people and rich people, men and women, and young and old people alike." Hazelden News

Alcohol is currently used by more Americans than any other drug. About 350 die daily from alcohol-related problems while about 15 to 30 die daily from health effects of illegal drug use.

Alcohol is the top drug of abuse among today's teens. Underage drinkers account for 25 percent of all the alcohol consumed in this country. Thirty-one percent of high schoolers report binge drinking at least once a month. The gender gap in alcohol consumption has disappeared as male and female ninth graders are just as likely to drink (40 percent) and binge drink (22 percent). (2002 report from The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University)

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES

The following statistics should be interpreted as indicators of the economic loss which follows the use of alcohol. For every $1 collected in revenue from the alcohol industry, $8 is spent on alcohol-related problems.

The 1998 estimate of the overall economic cost of alcohol abuse was $185 billion. More than 70 percent of this was attributed to lost productivity, $134.2 billion (which included illness, $87.6 billion; premature death, $36.5 billion; and crime, $10.1 billion). Other costs included health care expenditures, $26.3 billion ($7.5 billion for treatment for abuse and $18.9 billion for treatment of adverse medical consequences). Remaining expenses were property and administrative costs of vehicle crashes, $15.7 billion and criminal justice system, $6.3 billion. This economic cost is equal to about $683 yearly for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES

Alcohol affects every organ of the body.

``Alcohol affects immune, endocrine, and reproductive functions. Various cancers associated with drinking include cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, tongue, lung, pancreas, and liver. Other diseases include chronic gastritis, hepatitis, hypertension, and coronary heart disease . . . More of our current college students will die of cirrhosis of the liver than will get doctorates in Business Management, and Communications combined." --Dr. Antonio Novello, Former U. S. Surgeon General

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) is the leading known cause of birth defects with accompanying mental retardation. FAS diagnosis is based on the recognition of a cluster of specific characteristics: growth deficiency, facial abnormalities, and central nervous system effects. FAS prevalence in the general population is estimated to be between 0.5 and 2 per 1,000 live births and the frequency of FAS and Alcohol-Related Birth Defects (ARBD) combined is likely to be at least 10 per 1,000 or 1 percent of all births. These defects are entirely preventable when pregnant women do not drink. It has been calculated that over the lifetime of the FAS individual, care will amount to $1.4 million.

The ``French Paradox" of a decade ago attributed a low rate of heart disease to daily wine consumption. This has now been denied. More recent research has suggested that lowering of coronary heart disease risk may result from the effects of beverage ingredients other than the alcohol itself. There is no consensus to say that alcohol consumption in moderation is protective.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES

Alcoholism is the third leading cause of death in this country after heart disease and cancer.

Alcoholism may be defined as occurring when an individual's drinking frequently interferes with work, social life, family life, or health. There are an estimated 11.2 million adults who exhibit signs of alcoholism and an additional 7.2 million who abuse alcohol, which means roughly one out of ten adults are affected. The heaviest drinking is done by 5 to 10 percent of the adult population, who consume an overage of 4 or more drinks daily. These drinkers account for almost 50 percent of the total alcohol consumption in our country. Women account for over one-third of the membership of Alcoholics Anonymous. There are 4.7 million teen alcoholics.

Chemical dependency among older adults is a growing problem. A government report stated that up to 17 percent of adults, 60 or older, have a problem with alcohol abuse. Over one-third of these developed the problem after reaching the age of 60. Factors involved include: grief over the loss of a spouse or friend, loss of a job through retirement, loss of one's home, or dislocation of the family.

Four in ten Americans have been affected by drinking in the family. One in every three families is affected by alcohol. A government report states that 76 million are affected by alcohol abuse, having been married to an alcoholic or problem drinker or having grown up with one. Over seven million children under the age of 18 have at least one alcoholic parent. Children of alcoholics are affected adversely by the dysfunctional family in which they are reared. Health care costs for children of alcoholics are 32 percent greater than for children of non-alcoholics.

In 1999, 30 percent of traffic crash deaths and about 50 percent of crash injuries were alcohol-related. Alcohol consumption, even at low levels, has a negative impact on driving skills so the AMA is calling for 0.04 blood alcohol level as the illegal level for driving.

Unintentional deaths per year (30,000) are attributed to alcohol. In addition, 50 percent of homicides and 25 to 33 percent of suicides involve alcohol. For both nonfatal unintentional injuries and non-fatal intentional injuries including assault, spouse abuse, child molestation, sexual assault, rape, and attempted suicide, 25 to 50 percent of the incidents are alcohol-related.

CONCLUSION

``The alcohol industry is the number one parasite in the United States. It does nothing beneficial for mankind but its very existence depends upon the corruption, tribulations, disasters, and ruination of its victims. It eats away at the physical, moral, economic, and spiritual lifeblood of our nation to gain its selfish objective--money." --Mrs. Rachel B. Kelly, Former President of the National Woman's Christian Temperance Union

The 2000 National Household Survey indicated that 54 percent of Americans age 12 and older do not drink. After weighing the facts, total abstinence is the wise choice.

[vincenzoesq]

81. Thanks for your post

I agree and can't imagine why we would want to encourage anything else that is so destructive.

[vincenzoesq]

80. Oh right,

we've done such a great job with alcohol, let's do the same with mj. Check this site: http://www.learn-about-alcoholism.com/statistics-on-alcoholics.html

[JonLP24]

85. You can't really compare them

Alcohol impairs much more than cannabis and I'm sure they have fewer statistics in terms of drug related crimes. Much more domestic violence, disorderly conduct, etc. with alcohol. Also more overdoses and more alcoholics treated for addiction than cannabis users.

Also re-legalization of alcohol brought the business out of crime and forced organized crime organizations to look for other means of profit. The same would happen here with cannabis legalization, plus in some ways it will be harder for minors to obtain because when I was a teen it was much easier to obtain drugs including cocaine and meth than it was to find a willing adult to purchase a 12-pack for me.

[NikRik]

89. Push

Comparing alcohol and Cannabis is like comparig fat free milk to ice cream !