Danielle
Baldwin shows off strains of medical marijuana at Puffs Smoke Shop in
Ashland, Ore., which is seeking a license as a medical marijuana
dispensary.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
By Elizabeth Behrman
Do you think medical pot legalization would lead to legalized pot?
TAMPA — Recent survey
results show that Floridians seemed to have been paying attention when
residents in Colorado and Washington voted to approve the medicinal and,
later, the recreational use of marijuana.
Sixty-six percent of those who responded to the annual Sunshine State Survey,
conducted by the University of South Florida, said they believe that
passing a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana would
soon lead to voters' approval of all marijuana use.
“Some people are happy that it might lead to legalization and
some are opposed to it,” said Susan MacManus, a USF political scientist
and the survey's director. “But people are aware of the potential first-step nature of the medical marijuana amendment, if it passes.”
The fifth of six portions of the annual survey
was released Tuesday, and included the sections that focused on health,
race relations, the upcoming elections and transportation.
Most of the people surveyed
who said they think medical marijuana will lead to the legalization of
recreational marijuana were between the ages of 18 and 34, according to
the data. Seventy-three percent of them are employed full-time and about
75 percent of them live in the Miami and Palm Beach media markets.
Twenty-nine percent of the people who took the survey said
they didn't think legalizing medical marijuana would lead to the
acceptance of recreational marijuana. Five percent of responders said
they weren't sure or refused to answer.
Of the people who answered no, 52 percent were employed part-time and 43 percent lived in the Naples-area media market, the data shows.
MacManus
said she doesn't know why two-thirds of the people surveyed feel that
way about legalizing medical marijuana. It could be that they know that
was the series of events in Washington and Colorado, MacManus said. The
rise of pill mills across the state could also have led them to believe
that recreational use will grow out of the medicinal.
“We don't know why they think like they do,” MacManus said. “We
didn't ask that question. All we know is that these people are more
inclined to think that it will lead to that next step.”
What she found most interesting about this year's Sunshine
State Survey results was that 55 percent of the responders — a 7 percent
increase over last year — said they feel like they don't get enough
information about constitutional amendments before they vote on them,
MacManus said. This year there will be three amendments on the ballot,
including Amendment 2, which would legalize medical marijuana.
Groups and individuals that oppose passing Amendment 2 have
long argued that legalizing medical marijuana would lead to more use of
pot overall.
Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America
Foundation in St. Petersburg, said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that
Amendment 2 is a “defacto legalization” of all marijuana.
“If Amendment 2 were to pass, we have no doubt that it would
be widely abused to allow pretty much anyone to use it,” she said. “We
also have no doubt that the drug legalization advocates would be right
back pushing the envelope for full blown legalization just as they have
done in other states that have fallen for the scam of legalizing pot
under the guise of medicine.”
But Ben Pollara, executive director of United for Care
Campaign and a supporter of legalized medical marijuana, said he thinks
the survey results would be more informative if the responders were
asked more specific questions about the issue in addition to that one.
“It's interesting,” he said. “But it's not terribly relevant.”
And the fact that mostly young people think it would lead to
the legalization of recreational marijuana may show some “wishful
thinking” on their part, Pollara said.
“I don't think there's really much you can read from it,” he said.
What do Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, Justin Bieber, Maya
Angelou and well over 100 million Americans all have in common? They’ve
all smoked pot. Throughout its history, marijuana has attracted plenty
of unexpected users and proponents. And much of the history of greenery
is now familiar to us—thanks to History Channel specials, the burgeoning
legalization movement and the popularity of anti-pot propaganda films like Reefer Madness. But even if you’re intimately familiar with the plant in all its forms, we’re willing to wager that some of these facts will surprise you.
1. The first known potheads lived in ancient China, circa 2,727 BC. Emperor Shen Nung helpfully compiled an encyclopedic list
of drugs and their uses, which includes “ma,” or cannabis. But ancient
Chinese weed consumption is indicated by more than just written records:
Six years ago, archaeologists on a dig in the Gobi Desert found the world’s oldest pot stash
in the grave of a shaman of the Gushi tribe. The purpose of the
cannabis was easily identified because the male plant parts, which are
less psychoactive, had been removed.
The Chinese certainly weren’t the only ancient culture to enjoy
toking. The Greeks and Romans used marijuana, as did the citizens of the
Islamic empires. In 1545, Spanish conquistadors introduced it to the New World when they began planting cannabis seed in Chile to be used for fiber.
2. You probably heard that a bunch of the Founding Fathers grew weed, but did you know the details?
Technically, you can’t really classify them as pot farmers because they
were growing hemp, which is not the same cannabis variety that you’ll
find in a joint. Hemp and pot are the same species— cannabis sativa—but the hemp variety has a lower THC content and was useful instead as a source of fiber for those distinguished dudes’ duds.
But debate continues about whether the Founding Fathers actually smoked cannabis in addition to growing it. While many traditional sources say there’s no evidence of it, other, less buttoned-down ones—including, predictably, High Times—contend that there is.
One factor that muddies the water and the Internet is an
oft-repeated Thomas Jefferson “quote” that experts agree is not legit.
Although he was a hemp farmer, Thomas Jefferson never said: “Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.”
Admittedly, that’s a pretty difficult image to forget.
3. Hashish, which is a compressed or purified form of pot resin, became faddish in the mid-1800s, as a result of its prominence in popular novels of the era, including two classics: The Count of Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights, an early English translation of One Thousand and One Nights.
In one scene fit to make any DARE instructor shudder, the
Count of Monte Cristo virtually coerces another character into a
mind-bending hashish adventure, urging, “Taste the hashish, guest, taste
the hashish!”
Arabian Nights meanwhile contains multiple references to hashish, including the story “The Tale of the Hashish Eater.” Both Monte Cristo and Arabian Nights
found wide audiences due to their exotic settings, foreign cultures and
adventure plots that heightened the allure of the drug described on the
pages. Contemporary readers who would never had the opportunity to to
Persia could at least cop a little bit of Persia off seafaring vessels
from foreign ports.
4. Pot’s reputation began to go south when the first English-language newspaper started in Mexico in the 1890s.
Sensationalized stories of marijuana-induced violence gave the drug a
bad rap, although pot didn’t really hit the US until after the Mexican
Revolution in 1910, when a flood of Mexican immigrants moved north,
bringing their favorite weed.
85 per cent of more than 50,000 Australians said that they support the legalisation of marijuana
Cannabis
researcher and psychologist Dr. Matthew Large, said there is no good
reason for the drug not to be approved for medical use
He
said legalising cannabis for recreational use could mean users would be
better informed of the health side-effects due to government regulation
Former police officer Damon Adams has been using cannabis for pain relief after a knee operation which left him with no cartilage at the joint
Mr Adams said that the pain limited his daily life
By
Lillian Radulova for Daily Mail Australia
More than 85 per cent of the 50,000 Australians surveyed in a recent poll, believe that marijuana should be legalised across the country.
Conducted
by SBS's Insight team, the poll reflects the current ongoing public
debate which has seen federal politicians consider a medical trial.
As
public opinion tips in favour of legalising the drug, a variety of
voices have come forward to have their say on the positives of cannabis
use, from mothers and former policemen to psychologists.
+5
A national poll of over 50,000 people
conducted by SBS has found that over 85 per cent of Australians believe
marijuana should be legalised
Cannabis
researcher, Dr. Matthew Large from the University of New South Wales
School of Psychiatry, told Daily Mail Australia that despite research
showing the ill effects of the drug, he supports the movement to
legalise it.
'My view is, with respect to medical cannabis, that there are no strong arguments against it,' Dr Large said.
'We
have other drugs that are illegal that can be prescribed including
opiate drugs, the illegal version of which is heroin and legal version
morphine. There are also stimulant drugs that we use in the treatment of
ADHD and sleep disorders that are illegal and so I can't see that
there's a particular issue with cannabis.
'There
are several not particularly common conditions for which cannabis is a
good second line treatment for when the first line doesn't work:
muscular spasticity in multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain disorders
and conditions in relation to people who have terminal conditions or
difficulty eating.'
However, the Sydney psychiatrist noted that 'there is no doubt that cannabis is a dangerous drug'.
+5
Cannabis researcher and psychologist
Matthew Large supports the legalisation of medical marijuana as well as
for recreational purposes as long as there is strong government
regulation in place
+5
Dr Large also acknowledged the health
risks the drug presents for people with a predisposition for mental
illness as well as teenagers, but said he believes government regulation
will lead to a better educated public who are well informed enough to
make decisions
Dr
Large said that studies have shown that cannabis smokers who develop
schizophrenia, do so about three years earlier than people with
schizophrenia who don't use the drug. It also leads to a 'severer and
more irreversible' form of the illness.
Furthermore,
he revealed that the drug is particularly harmful for people under the
age of 16 who have a higher chance of educational failure and, in the
long term, are more likely to suffer cognitive impairment and have a
significant loss of IQ by the age of 50 if they use cannabis.
'What
I would personally support would be if marijuana was legalised and
carefully regulated in much the same way as tobacco, but not in the same
way as alcohol,' Dr Large said.
'We
have a drug that is illegal but widely used and about which the general
populace has little information about and no way of making informed
decisions about.
+5
Former police officer Damon Adams has
been using cannabis for pain relief after a knee operation which left
him with no cartilage at the joint. He was originally prescribed opiates
but swapped to marijuana due to the severe side affects
'In
Australia at the moment, 14-year-olds are more likely to smoke cannabis
than tobacco and that's because we have been putting out all these
health warnings and information campaigns.'
Former
South Australian police officer, Damon Adams, has been using cannabis
as a form of pain relief following a knee operation which left him with
no cartilage at the joint.
Mr
Adams was first prescribed with opiates after the surgery, but the
former Australian Navy member told Daily Mail Australia that 'opiates
and my body weren't a good combination'.
He
soon found himself taking a number of anti-histamines to counter the
side effects of the opiates, which included night sweats and constant
itching.
+5
The final results of the national poll
conducted by SBS Insight, which prompted voters with an interactive
billboard in Sydney and Melbourne's CBD, will be revealed on Tuesday
night at 8:30pm
'It
was instant relief,' Mr Adams said of the first time he resorted to
cannabis instead of opiates. 'The pain was always there but cannabis
gave me the ability to be able to move on and keep doing things. I had
better sleep and wasn't sweating anymore – I was just healthier.'
Like
Dr Large, Mr Adams would like to see marijuana legalised for
recreational use, as long as the government puts forward effective
regulation.
The
final results of the national poll conducted by SBS Insight, which
prompted voters through an interactive billboard placed in Sydney and
Melbourne's CBD, will be revealed on Tuesday night at 8:30pm when Insight explores the use of medical marijuana.
The billboard featured synthetic marijuana plants that 'grew' or 'died' depending on the results, according to SBS.
You can vote on whether you think marijuana should be legalised at.
By Sandy Mazza,
People who went to the hospital with traumatic brain injuries were more likely to survive if they had marijuana in their system, according to a new published report by Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute.
The study, published in the October edition of The American Surgeon,
was drawn from the records of trauma patients admitted to County
Harbor-UCLA Medical Center near Torrance from 2012 through Jan. 1, 2010
through 2012. LA BioMed, as it’s commonly called, is an independent
research institute on the campus of the hospital.
“Previous studies in animals showed that giving tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), the active compound in marijuana, would improve survival after a
traumatic brain injury,”
said David Plurad, an LA BioMed researcher, Harbor-UCLA critical care
physician and co-author of the report, titled “Effect of Marijuana Use
on Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury.” “We’ve known that in humans this may also be the case.”
Plurad
and a team of fellow doctors and medical students reviewed 446 records
of patients who sustained a brain contusion or other traumatic brain injury and were also screened for illicit drugs, which is a test done on many trauma patients so doctors can properly treat them.
Patients with marijuana in their system constituted 18.4 percent
of the total study group. Both groups suffered similar levels of injury,
but the group that tested positive for THC mostly consisted of men in
their 20s to 40s. The other group was older, on average by about 20
years.
Only 2.4 percent of those who tested THC-positive died in the hospital as a result of their injuries while 11.5 percent of the patients who did not have THC in their system died.
Previous studies have linked marijuana use to reductions in pain and anxiety, increased appetite, reduced ocular pressure and decreased muscle spasms, among other health benefits. But no one has previously been able to measure the effects of natural forms of marijuana in the system at the time of a traumatic brain injury.
“This study was one of the first in a clinical setting to specifically associate THC use as an independent predictor of survival after traumatic brain injury,”
Plurad said. “It’s illegal to give THC in its natural form for research
purposes so this is really the best you can do in a natural
environment. There’s a big difference between synthetic forms of THC and
the natural form.”
Though researchers don’t have answers on a cellular level
for why marijuana seems to have neuro-protective qualities, Plurad said
THC seems to reduce inflammation and swelling processes that the body
undergoes after a trauma.
Intracranial pressure is one of the biggest
challenges surgeons face when dealing with brain injuries, and marijuana’s potential to reduce brain swelling could bring medical advances, he said.
If marijuana is decriminalized, researchers would have an easier
time studying the federally controlled plant, and Plurad said he looks
forward to that because he believes it could improve they way physicians
treat and understand pain.
“It’s important to treat pain and
anxiety right away, especially in brain injury,” Plurad said.
“Appropriate pain control and sedation should be used early. This study
shows that it may be the pain-control effect of the THC that’s
preventing inflammation.”
More than 15 million Britons, nearly one in three of the adult
population, have taken illegal drugs and the proportion of the nation
who have ever taken drugs is increasing over time; when the Observer
last conducted research into national drug usage and attitudes in 2008,
27% of the population had taken illegal drugs. That figure has now
increased to 31%. Last time round we noted that, while men were more
likely than women to take drugs, the gender gap appeared to be closing,
based on a comparison between 2008 and 2002 data.
That process is now
complete, with both sexes equally likely to have taken drugs. Thirty-one
per cent of those currently aged 16-24 have taken drugs but 35-
44-year-olds have been the biggest users of drugs with nearly half (47%)
of this age group having taken them. Regionally, rates of drug taking
peak in Scotland, where 35% have taken drugs.
Among those who have ever taken drugs, it is a minority (21%) who continue to do so, approximately 3 million people. The profile
of those currently taking drugs is weighted towards younger Britons,
with half of active users aged 16-34.
In contrast to the stereotype of
the drug user, many active drug takers are in the higher echelons of
society, with 40% being in social grades AB.
Drug taking is widespread and on the rise but, for the majority, it
does not constitute a problem; 87% of those who have taken drugs do not
believe they have ever had a problem with them. However, 13% of drug
users believe they have had a problem, the equivalent of approximately 2
million people.
Nearly half of those have subsequently managed to break
the habit and no longer use, but there are approximately 1 million
Britons who have had a problem with drugs (31% of current users) and
still use them. Male drug users are twice as likely as women to develop a
problem at some stage (18% and 9% respectively). While drug taking is
most common in Scotland, it is users in London and the south-east who
are most likely to develop a problem (21%). Younger users are also more
likely to believe they have had a problem; 15% of 16-24s and 25% of
25-34s.
Approximately 750,000 Britons (23% of active drug takers) take drugs
every day. However, the majority of active drug users (55%) are
infrequent users, taking them at an average frequency of less than once a
month. Despite this relatively low frequency of use suggesting that
consumption is linked to special occasions, drug taking is actually more
likely to be associated with the home environment than a big night out;
84% of current drug users say they are more likely to take drugs at
home or in a friend’s home, while only 16% say they are more likely to
take them in a club/pub/bar environment.
Young drug users aged 16-24 are
the most likely to take drugs in an out-of-home, social environment
(38%) but even among this group, drugs are more likely to be consumed
at home. While both sexes are more likely to consume at home, women
(25%) are four times more likely than men (6%) to take drugs in an
out-of-home environment.
Since 2008, the proportion more likely to use drugs in a pub/club/bar
environment has declined significantly, from 35% to 16%.
The reasons
for this are not immediately clear. The ban on smoking in pubs, clubs
and bars may have reduced the opportunity to surreptitiously smoke marijuana
in public places, but this was introduced in 2007, a year before our
previous survey. Was there a behavioural lag following the introduction
of these new laws, or has the introduction of the smoking ban
kick-started a wider societal shift?
Drug users have their first experience of illegal drugs aged 19, on
average. They then continue to dabble for an average of seven years
before giving up at the age of 26. The results of the poll suggest that
the earlier the age at which drug experimentation starts, the longer the
relationship with drugs; those who still take drugs had their first
experience at a younger age (16 on average) than those who have tried
them but subsequently given up (20). Women tend to move through their
drug phase quicker than men; while both sexes start using drugs at an
average age of 19, women quit a year earlier than men, on average.
Marijuana is, by far, the most popular illegal drug among Britons;
93% of drug users (more than 14 million people) have used marijuana. It
is often depicted as a gateway drug, and it is certainly true that it is
the drug that most drug users use first; marijuana was the first
illegal drug used by 82% of drug users. However, there is no clear
evidence from this research to suggest that usage of marijuana
necessarily leads to usage of other, harder, drugs. Indeed, half of
marijuana users have never taken any other drug.
The proportion of drug users who have used marijuana has increased
since 2008, when 87% had used it. There has also been an increase in the
number who have taken cheap amphetamines such as speed, which is now
the second most widely used drug (31% had taken it in 2008, 34% in
2014). Cocaine is the third most widely used illegal drug (29% of
British drug users have ever used it) followed by ecstasy (25%).
The average drug user has tried just under 2.5 different illegal
drugs, with men trying a greater number than women. In particular, men
are significantly more likely than women to have tried hallucinogens
such as LSD and magic mushrooms, as well as harder drugs such as crack.
Curiosity is the most common reason for starting to take drugs. More
than two out of three who have taken drugs cite curiosity as the primary
reason for starting. Wanting to fit in with friends and peer pressure
are also important factors, with one in four attributing their usage of
drugs to one or the other. There is an interesting gender distinction
with men more likely than women to succumb to peer pressure (13% and 8%
respectively), while women are more likely than men to take drugs in
order to fit in with their friends (16% and 11% respectively).
It is
possible that the willingness to fit in with friends is a more important
factor than these results would suggest, as older drug takers are more
willing to admit that this was the spur to their usage. It is also true
that those who no longer take drugs are far more likely to admit that
they wanted to fit in with friends than those who continue to take them
(17% and 4% respectively).
In total, 13% of Britons would consider taking drugs in the future.
This figure includes both current users and those who have taken them in
the past, a majority of whom (65%) are unwilling to do so again.
However, 4% of Britons who have never previously tried drugs would
consider doing so in future. If drugs were decriminalised that
consideration figure would increase fourfold (to 16%), demonstrating the
deterrent effect of their current legal status, particularly among
younger people; 30% of 16-24s who have never previously taken drugs
would at least consider doing so if they were decriminalised.
Any change
to the legal status of drugs would also potentially drive usage rates
among those at the top of the social hierarchy, who possibly have too
much to lose to risk being caught taking drugs at present; 47% of
non-users in social grade A would consider taking drugs if they were
decriminalised.
Unsurprisingly, marijuana is the drug that people are most likely to
consider taking in the future (81% of considerers would do so) followed
by cocaine (28%), ecstasy (28%), magic mushrooms (22%) and speed (20%).
Buying & selling drugs
The vast majority of drug users buy their drugs from people they
know; only one in 10 buys drugs from strangers. In most cases (65%) the
user doesn’t have any direct contact with the dealer, leaving the
transaction to a friend who buys on their behalf. Women are particularly
keen to avoid direct contact with a dealer, with 73% asking friends to
buy them instead (compared with 57% of male drug users).
An even more impersonal way of buying drugs is via anonymous online
marketplaces such as Silk Road.
Despite a clear desire for impersonal
transactions, only 2% of those who have ever taken drugs have bought
from the internet. However, among those who currently take drugs this
figure jumps to 16%, suggesting it is becoming a more common method of
acquiring drugs. These internet purchases may be purely for personal
use, but our data suggests that a significant proportion are for resale
purposes; 45% of those who have sold drugs for profit have purchased
drugs from the internet. Rates of internet usage for the purpose of
procuring illegal drugs peaks in the 25-34 age group (8%) and those
living in the south-east or London (6%).
One in 10 drug users has sold drugs in order to make a profit.
However, as we have seen, most people do not buy their drugs from a
dealer, but from friends who purchase on their behalf. Therefore, it’s
unsurprising that more than double that number (21%) have supplied them
to friends without making any profit from the transaction. At present,
the law does not differentiate between those who supply drugs for profit
and those who supply to friends without profiting.
However, a
significant minority of Britons (39%) believe that the law should make a
distinction and the number supporting this legal distinction has
increased, from 30%, in 2008.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, attitudes diverge based on drug consumption
history: among those who have ever taken drugs (many of whom will have
taken advantage of friends purchasing on their behalf) 62% believe the
law should make a distinction between drug suppliers.
Among those who
have never taken drugs, this number falls to 29%. The vast majority
(86%) of those who have supplied drugs to friends without making a
profit believe the law should differentiate, although it is interesting
to speculate on the reasoning of the 14% within this group who feel the
law should treat all drug dealers the same. Those who advocate blanket
treatment of drug dealers may want to consider that it is young Britons
who are most likely to have supplied drugs to friends for no profit; 16%
of all Britons aged 25-34 say they have done so.
Expenditure
The average British adult spends £32.05 per month on alcohol, £18.19
per month on tobacco products and £8.24 per month on illegal drugs.
However, these figures are based on all adults, irrespective of whether
they drink, smoke or take drugs. If we remove those who spend nothing on
each of the categories in an average month, the figures change
significantly. The average smoker spends £76.73 on tobacco and the
average drinker spends £54.58 per month on alcohol.
In terms of active
drug users, 39% say they do not spend anything on drugs in an average
month, which helps to reduce the overall monthly expenditure of this
group to £45.31. If we just consider those drug users who do spend money
on drugs in an average month, average expenditure increases to £74.36.
In addition to the money they spend on drugs, active drug users also
spend significantly more than the national average on alcohol (£66.62
per month) and tobacco products (£53.68 per month).
Men spend more than women on each of the three categories and the
25-34 age group are also the highest spenders in each category. Perhaps
it’s simply a function of higher prices in the capital, but those living
in London and the south-east are also the highest spenders in each of
the three categories.
Legality
Britons are generally unconvinced about the prospect of the “war on
drugs” ever being fought to a successful conclusion; it is only 16% who
believe it can be won. Those who have first-hand experience of drugs are
even more doubtful, with only 12% predicting a successful outcome of
the “war on drugs”. Possibly as a direct result of this pessimism we
have seen a sharp rise in the proportion of Britons who believe that
certain drugs should either be legalised or decriminalised (27% in 2008,
39% in 2014). Men (45%) are more likely than women (34%) to feel that
some drugs should be legalised or decriminalised, and almost half of
Britons aged 25-34 (48%) and 35-44 (46%) advocate legalisation.
Among
those who used to take drugs, but no longer do, 57% support some
legalisation/decriminalisation, and among those who currently take
drugs, this figure increases to 86%.
The vast majority of those advocating a change to the legal status of
drugs do not advocate a blanket treatment of all drugs; only 3% believe
that all of them should be either legalised or decriminalised.
Indeed,
for many people the issue appears to be primarily focused on the
legality of marijuana, which 88% of those advocating change believe
should be legalised or decriminalised. In total, 52% of all Britons
believe we should follow the example of Colorado and Washington and
legalise the sale and possession of marijuana for both medical and
non-medical use. Those aged 25-34 are most likely to support this (60%)
but it is significant that 45% of those aged 65 or older (who tend to be
the most conservative in their attitudes to drugs-related issues)
concur.
It is also interesting that 43% of people who have never taken
drugs believe marijuana should be legalised (this rises to 73% among
drug users). Support for a change in law peaks in London and the
south-east (57%) and men are more likely than women to support change
(58% and 45% respectively).
Strong support for a change in the legal status of marijuana seems to
be linked to a perception that it poses relatively little harm to the
health of the user. Asked to rate a selection of both legal and illegal
drugs based on the health risk they pose, our survey placed marijuana at
the very bottom of the risk hierarchy, below both alcohol and tobacco.
Britons aged 35-44 are most likely to consider marijuana relatively
benign, but this view is shared across the age spectrum. The drugs that
Britons believe pose the greatest health risks are hard drugs such as
heroin and crack, and it appears that most make a clear distinction
between marijuana and drugs of this type.
Despite widespread support for a change in legal status for
marijuana, it is still a minority (27%) who feel that the drug laws in
this country are not liberal enough. However, this figure has increased,
from 18% in 2008, and the proportion who feel the drug laws are too
liberal has decreased over the same period (32% in 2008, 27% in 2014).
We expect that attitudes towards this issue will continue to shift as
attitudes correlate directly with age; among the youngest (16-24) only
14% believe the laws are too liberal, while 33% say they are not liberal
enough.
In contrast, among the oldest (65+) 40% believe the current
drug laws are too liberal and only 19% not liberal enough. The results
for this question also provide more evidence that men tend to be more
liberal in their attitudes to drugs than women.
Nearly half of Britons (47%) would support a scheme whereby certain
illegal drugs were available on prescription to registered drug addicts.
Support for a scheme of this type has increased slightly, from 44% in
2008, with levels of support highest in London and the south-east, where
more than half (53%) of the population would support the scheme.
Support may be related to the belief that a high level of street
crime is either directly or indirectly linked to drugs and that
decriminalisation of hard drugs would lead to a reduction in street
crime.
Britons estimate that 50% of all street crime is linked to drugs,
with the estimate peaking in the north (54%). There is a direct
correlation with social grade in that those in the lower social grades
attribute a much higher proportion of street crime to drugs than those
who are higher up the social ladder.
We have actually recorded a consistent drop in estimates of the link
between drugs and street crime (66% in 2002, 56% in 2008 and 50% in
2014) but the link between drugs and crime is clearly established and
46% of Britons feel that levels of street crime would reduce if hard
drugs were decriminalised (up slightly from 44% in 2008).
Those who
currently take drugs are most likely to feel that decriminalisation
would reduce street crime (72% do so) but 43% of those who have never
taken drugs agree. Britons aged 16-24 are most likely to believe that
street crime would reduce if hard drugs were decriminalised (64%).
Despite the high levels of crime associated with drugs, the vast
majority (95%) of drug users have never committed a criminal act in
order to fund their purchase of drugs. That is a reflection of the fact
that most drug users do not believe they have ever had a problem with
drugs, and those who commit criminal acts to fund drug purchases
invariably have a problem: among those who admit to a drug problem, 67%
say they have committed criminal acts to feed their habit.
Men are more
likely to develop drug problems, and they are also more likely to commit
crime to feed their habit (9% of male drug users have done so compared
with 1% of female drug users). Drug users in London and the south-east
are most likely to have resorted to crime to fund drug purchases (10%
have done so).
Legal highs
One in 10 Britons has taken legal highs, ie drugs not currently
covered by misuse of drugs laws (also known as new psychoactive
substances (NPS). Usage of legal highs is most common among young
Britons; 16% of 16-24s and 19% of 25-34s have taken them. Regionally,
use is highest in London and the south-east, where 16% have taken them.
While legal highs are most likely to be taken by people who also take
illegal drugs (44% of current drug users have taken legal highs), 4% of
those who have never taken an illegal drug have taken legal highs.
The NHS Choices website warns that, despite their current legal
status, “legal highs can carry serious health risks”. While this message
has clearly been absorbed by the majority of those who take them (72%
of this group believe legal highs are more dangerous or pose the same
level of danger as illegal drugs) there are still 29% of legal high
users who believe they are less hazardous to health than illegal drugs.
The youngest users of legal highs (ie 16-24s) are twice as likely to
believe they are less harmful than illegal drugs (30%) than believe they
are more harmful than illegal drugs (15%).
Usage of synthetic drugs such as spice, which mimic the effects of
cannabis and are often sold as natural highs, is lower than usage of
legal highs; only 4% have tried synthetic drugs. Of those who currently
take illegal drugs, 18% have tried synthetic drugs. Usage is greatest in
London and the south-east (8%) and among 16-34s (9%).
Nearly half of all Britons (49%) consider themselves either “very” or
“quite” knowledgeable about drugs. Knowledge levels correlate directly
with age, with the youngest most likely to consider themselves
knowledgeable (71% of 16-24s are “very” or “quite” knowledgeable) and
each successive age group gradually less likely to consider itself
knowledgeable.
Predictably, knowledge also correlates with usage; 88% of current
users are knowledgeable and while knowledge levels are significantly
lower among non-users (42%) they remain fairly high. One reason for
these high knowledge levels among non-users is because many of us have
known someone we believe has a serious problem with drugs; 38% of
Britons do so, up from 32% in 2008.
Only 13% of those who have taken drugs themselves believe they have
had a problem. Among those who have had a problem themselves, 89% know
others in the same situation. Scotland is the region where the highest
proportion (50%) currently know someone, or have known someone, with a
serious drug problem and it also happens to be the region where drug
knowledge levels are highest (68% consider themselves knowledgeable).
Children & drugs
Do you have a child aged between 12 and 35 years?
Yes = 37%
No = 63%
Among those who participated in our poll, 37% have children aged
between 12 and 35 years old. In a sign that parenthood does not
necessarily curtail drug usage, 39% of current drug users have a child
in that age range.
Among
parents there is a high level of realism regarding the drug usage of
their children; just under one in five (19%) are certain that their
children have taken drugs, while a further 27% concede that they
probably have. In total, 46% of parents of children aged 12 to 35 say
their children have either certainly or probably taken drugs.
Mothers are more likely than fathers to say their children have
certainly taken drugs (23% and 16% respectively) and parents in London
and the south-east are most likely to say their children have either
certainly or probably taken drugs (56% in total). Parents who have taken
drugs themselves are more likely than those who haven’t to say their
children have certainly tried them (34% and 12% respectively). Parents
who are currently married are less likely to believe their children have
taken drugs (61% don’t believe they have) than parents who are divorced
(45%) or single (41%).
Among those parents who do not currently know or suspect that their
children have previously taken illegal drugs, only 4% believe their
children would be likely to take drugs in future.
Prescription drugs
Usage of prescription drugs for recreational purposes is not common,
but is growing in popularity. In 2008, 4% of Britons said they had used
prescription drugs recreationally. That figure has now increased to 6%
and is particularly prevalent in the south-west and Wales (9%) and
London and the south-east (9%). Prescription drugs are particularly
popular among higher social grades; 20% of the social grade A group have
taken prescription drugs recreationally.
One in three of those who currently take illegal drugs has taken
prescription drugs to get high, but the practice is not limited to users
of illegal drugs; 3% of Britons who have never taken illegal drugs have
used prescription drugs recreationally. The most popular prescription
drugs, when used recreationally by those we spoke to, include Valium,
temazepam, diazepam, Co-codamol and tramadol.
Nearly one in four people (23%) have suffered side-effects or
withdrawal symptoms from drugs prescribed to them by their doctor, and a
significant minority (30%) do not believe that drugs prescribed by
their doctor have been fully investigated for possible side-effects.
Key workers
There are high levels of public support for the routine drug testing
of a wide variety of key worker groups. Support for routine testing is
highest for groups whose ability to perform to the optimum has a very
direct impact on our safety, such as pilots, train driver, police, and
doctors/nurses.
The same direct link between performance and public safety is not
true of other key worker groups and support for testing is consequently
lower.
However, as a clear indication that we feel these groups should
be held to the highest possible standard, a large proportion also
support the introduction of routine drug testing for teachers (61%),
politicians (55%) and lawyers (45%). Generally women are more likely
than men to believe each of these key workers should undergo drugs
tests. Support for routine drug testing also increases with age.
Sex & drugs
Nine per cent of the population have, at some point, taken drugs in
order to improve their sex life. There is no clear evidence that the
drugs they have taken for this are illegal, as opposed to legally
available drugs such as Viagra. However, it is noticeable that illegal
drug users are significantly more likely than those who have never taken
illegal drugs to have used some form of drug in order to improve their
sex life (16% and 6% respectively).
Men (15%) are significantly more likely than women (4%) to have taken
drugs to improve their sex life. In terms of age, the 25-34 age group
is most likely to do so (14%) followed by the 65+ age group (10%). It
may be reasonable to assume that the older group are more likely to be
using legally available drugs for this purpose.
Methodology
A sample of 1,080 UK adults was interviewed by Opinium Research
between 8 and 14 July 2014 via an online questionnaire, ensuring
absolute anonymity. Interviews were conducted with respondents across
the country and the results have been weighted to reflect the profile of
all UK adults. Not all percentages add up to 100 due to rounding.
September 30 was a red-letter day for ganja growers in Jamaica
TUESDAY, September 30 was a red-letter day for ganja growers in Jamaica.
They have been waiting a long time for the fundamental changes which
are now being made to the Dangerous Drugs Act. Justice Minister Senator
Mark Golding was the one who brought the good news for them as he
announced Cabinet's approval of provisions including permits to
cultivate, possess, import, trade, and distribute ganja for medical and
scientific purposes under licence.
But the amendments do not stop there. The visitors' lobby cheered as
drastic adjustments were announced to remove smoking and possession of
two ounces or less as a criminal offence. Further, the courts are to
erase the records of those convicted for possession of ganja weighing
two ounces or less. Possession of such quantities will be non-arrestable
-- attracting only a ticket and a monetary penalty.
Parliamentarians left Gordon House smiling as, no doubt, they saw a win-win situation for either camp. The JLP can claim "the greening of Jamaica", while the PNP side can chalk up another big item on their achievements list.
On the surface, these adjustments are quite in keeping with liberal
trends, the advancement of human rights, and plain common sense. And, as
Golding himself admits, there is little that is new in the thought
process that has gone into the liberalisation of ganja.
In fact, ganja has been fighting to gain respectability for a long time,
ever since its introduction to Jamaica over 100 years ago when it was
brought in by the first wave of indentured Indian labourers. They
regarded the plant as sacred to their religion and customs, and defended
their right to smoke it. However, the property
owners were quick to discover the effects of the hemp on productivity
and were instrumental in getting successive governments to outlaw its
use. Thus, it's interesting to note that the pioneer legislation which
made ganja an outcast was not designed out of moral or religious
considerations, but was done to remove any impediment to production and
consequent profit.
Ganja was thereafter viewed with suspicion and became inextricably
linked to the Rastafarian movement which adopted it as a sacrament. They
instituted it from the belief that it was grown on King Solomon's grave
(Psalm 104: 14). The so-called Rasta riots in Coral Gardens of 1963,
which saw battle lines drawn between the police (State) and the
movement, led to a tightening of the ganja laws with mandatory prison
sentencing introduced in 1964 for growing the weed. That sentence was
removed in 1972. Then in 1977, while some of our present members of
parliament were still wearing short pants, a joint parliamentary
committee on ganja recommended that personal use be decriminalised and
up to two ounces be permitted on premises without punishment.
Fast-forward to 2014, where great
care has been taken in the drafting of a comprehensive Bill to cover
possession of small quantities, smoking in private places, and its use
for medical purposes. But I am, by culture and from my faith, strongly
opposed to ganja smoking, and have suffered from the negative effects
observed on persons and on families. So I am very wary about any mixed
messages being sent, and I find the lack of sufficient information and communication deafening. In fact, this new law contradicts reasoned arguments raised by the medical profession that decriminalising ganja will encourage more Jamaicans
to smoke and cause negative behaviours.
And, explain to me, for example, how a police officer will differentiate
between a two-ounce spliff and a three-ounce-or-more spliff. And how
many two-ounce spliffs can you consume per day without detection, or for
that matter carry around with you for trade or for use at different
times during a single day?
Note that Golding, who is now unofficially our minister of ganja, has
crafted into the announcement that "save for the specific reforms that
we have announced, the criminal sanctions for illicit activities
involving ganja remain as currently set out in the Dangerous Drugs Act".
But somebody had better tell that to the good folks who were lighting
up on Duke Street on Tuesday evening.
While I have my reservations about the general Bill, I congratulate the
lawmakers on the proposed action to remove all the roadblocks to
allowing Jamaica to benefit from medical marijuana and industrial hemp.
The intention is to legalise the commercial bonanza expected from a
proper scientific approach under licence. The Government needs to steer
us around the potholes of wrong perception and the 'free-up-the-weed'
mentality which some have taken to mean grow it, buy it, and smoke it
wherever you like.
"We need now to flesh out the specifics of the
licence and framework to go hand in hand once the amendments have been
approved," said the minister.
The local growers' associations welcome this approach as they have been
going about cultivating the weed in a productive and serious, even if
illegal manner for years. Some might think ganja grows just like an
ordinary weed, but not so. The good farmer sows the seeds first of all
in a nursery, then transplants to the field when the stalks are one-foot
high.
The plants reach maturity after five months, during which they
have been carefully fertilised and watered constantly. The plots are
weeded to prevent grass from choking the plants, and sprayed with
insecticides.
So there is much work invested in the process of growing. When it's
harvest time the branches and leaves are carefully cut and laid out to
dry on tarpaulins, and then packed in stout crocus bags. The farm
labourers then jump and stamp on the bags with their feet in order to
compact and store the leaves. Seeds are saved for replanting or for sale
to other farmers.
Our parliamentarians who now have the ganja industry in the palm of
their hands should also inform themselves of the different varieties
that will be legal or illegal. Sinsemilla is the generic term for the
strongest variety and that includes Burr, Cotton and Lamb's Bread.
McConey is mild, Goat's Horn is less popular but equally mild, while
Bush, Collie and Mad are the regular popularly grown varieties.
Across
Jamaica there are several regions known for lush ganja farming, in
particular St Ann and Westmoreland. In the 1970s, when the trade was
running and the planes were practically dropping from the sky, I landed
in one such area and was fascinated by the everyday stories and
real-life adventures of the growers, the workers, and the buyers whom I
occasionally met.
One legendary farmer had large acres under cultivation and employed
nearly 100 workers. He built storerooms in hideaway places and carried
out his sales at night in the bushes with the 'white men' who came with
wads of the money (US$) packed in boxes, raw cash, in their car trunks.
In those days money flowed like Sweet Afton and I remember visiting a
primary school and being shocked as the students flashed out piles of
'red money' $20 notes -- the maximum Jamaica currency denomination in
those days -- one of which I barely had in my wallet.
I saw for myself where planes landed regularly, night or day on a nearby
airstrip, and nearly got into trouble for my curiousity and sense of
adventure.
It happened like this. Going home after work, a friend of mine suggested
we divert to our neighbouring airstrip to watch a plane that was just
landing. As we entered the little compound we were nearly run over by a
local businessman who was driving hurriedly away from the area.
As we
approached the plane on the ground we saw the pilot, a blonde young man,
hastily getting back into the cockpit and taking off in those few,
swift seconds without any cargo. We later learnt that he had landed at
the wrong strip, the businessman had remonstrated with him and sent him
to another strip nearby where, as luck would have it, he crashed and
spoilt the party.
That was not the end of the story. As we looked around I suddenly
realised that I was the centre of attraction for the onlookers who had
gathered for their usual spectator sport of ganja loading.
They were staring in amazement, obviously surmising -- wrongly, of course --
that I was to have been the pickup man. What else could I have been
doing there? To say that I hightailed it out of the compound is putting
it mildly. It took some time before I was able to shed my hero image at
the local bars and regain
my innocence.
A few years later the planes stopped coming as the Reagan Administration
in America escalated its drug-enforcement laws and the steady stream of
ganja income slowed down in Jamaica.
Today, we are being told that the
outlawed ganja is going to be the saviour of Jamaica's economy. Well,
one of, as it will have to contend with the humble Goat Islands and
other pipeline projects for that title.
There is one more test to come. United Nations conventions limit the use
of marijuana for anything except medicinal purposes. We will have to
fight that battle on the grounds of our sovereign rights. We will be
supported and applauded by those powerful interests who are behind the
gay rights movement as well as the pro-ganja cause. We will know who our
friends are. But are they in the right places?
I have often wondered if the path to eternal bliss and personal inner peace would simply mean for me to stop paying attention
to the world around me. In particular, the political world. I’ve tried
to imagine a day, a month, without Blitzer, Maher, O’Reilly, Williams
and anyone appearing on MSNBC. Oh, how much stress I would save myself.
But I can’t. I’m addicted. So I will continue to pay attention, no matter what the latest headline reads or what catastrophe develops.
This
leads me to a recent article I came across published by the Washington
Examiner. Written by “journalist” Paul Betard, it addressed how
Democrats could increase the odds of their keeping control of the U.S.
Senate in the upcoming November elections by pushing marijuana onto
young people.
OK, I don’t literally mean selling $20 baggies full of bud to college students on unlit street corners, although after years of watching Harry Reid I’m not sure I’d completely rule out the possibility.
The
article puts the spotlight on John Hudak of the Brookings Institution,
who is described as an “expert,” although it really didn’t describe what
his expertise was in. I only later learned that he was a fellow in
governance studies. He is also the author of a book titled “Presidential
Pork.”
But more to the point, Hudak wrote a report titled “Harry Reid Should Love Marijuana: How Legalization could Help Keep the Senate Blue.”
Hudak
points out that “People turn out for elections when they feel passion
about a candidate or a race, but ballot initiatives can also generate
interest.”
So, when considering that the Democratic Party draws much of its support
from younger Americans, why shouldn’t they campaign on an issue that
has done so much to dumb down an already indifferent and shallow
generation?
I’m reminded of a segment I watched on Fox News
channel’s “ O’Reilly Report,” when reporter Jesse Watters visited a
gathering of “Stoners” in Denver after Colorado legalized marijuana.
When Watters asked a young female what she did when she first woke up
that morning, in a giddy reply she slurred, “I smoked a bong!”
“What did you do after that?” Watters then asked.
“I took a nap!”
“And after you took a nap?”
“I smoked another bong,” she answered, laughing almost hysterically.
And to think I was worrying about whose capable hands America’s future would be passed on to.
The
first presidential election I voted in was in 1972. Being stoned was
considered recreation, not an issue of immense concern. Considering that
18-year-olds had just been granted the right to vote, more immediate
concerns were given to the Vietnam War, the Cold War, segregation and
equal rights.
Although today’s issues (global terrorism, the
immigration crisis and the level of Nixionian deceptions coming from the
current administration) was as monumental as those faced by the
previous younger generations, there were unfortunately those who see a
political silver lining in our cultural demise.
In fact Hudek
looks ahead to the future. He writes, “Legalization supporters would be
wise to wait until 2016 and capitalize on a duel effect.
A presidential
election year will bring out voters more sympathetic to legalization,
and legalization will bring out even more young, liberal voters than
normal.”
I certainly don’t believe that the majority of our young
voters should be judged by a bunch of potheads munching on Skittles and
reading nothing but High Times and pretty neon signs.
But Hudek is
suggesting that Senate majority leaders take a page from the book of
any drug dealer in learning how to manipulate our young people. That’s
just wrong.
But hey, look at it this way, if Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, then her husband can finally inhale.
