REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[AFK]

It pays to bear in mind that Drug Laws were introduced, primarily to protect people from exposure to the pernicious and debilitating dangers of drugs.

So why are we all passively supporting "War on Drugs" Laws that are only ever implemented against the very people they were set up to protect in the first place?

They have consistently failed to deliver any protection at all. Monumentally. And rather than change a such a costly and drastically counter productive policy mistake, they'd much rather just continue punishing the victims. It's loads easier than having to admit they fucked up.

Anyway, the most important thing is that people see the process of punishment happening. It has to happen to bad guys, or it's pointless. So those people are bad. By default of being punished.

A policy worthy of any despot, from Caligula,to Pol Pot.  Ivan 1st, to Robert Mugabe.

Okay, putting Godwin Lite aside,

I agree that there are plenty of areas of reform when it comes to the penalities and sentences associated with drug use.  I've long advocated for changes in the sentencing guidelines that put a huge disparity between those who are caught with similar amounts of cocain and crack.  The disparity used to be something like 18 to 1.  The Obama administration has taken a step in the right direction though I think it is a step that is far too small.  They should be equal, period.  Closer to equal isn't good enough. 

As I've said before, more courts in more states need to be more progressive and adopt diversion programs to keep non-violent offenders out of the jails and priosns.  That's how we do it in Maine, the rest of the country needs to adopt these drug courts and other diversion program. And the legislators in Maine need to stop fucking around with the funding that helps pay for these courts. 

Where I obviously part ways is on the disucssion of legalization of drugs for reasons that we've all discussed ad nauseum.  But I do agree that there are reforms that can be made to make sure that a life isn't completely ruined and derailed because of a decision to do drugs.  Everyone deserves a second chance and our society and our judicial system should work towards that goal. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I think the fundamental difference here is that you're the only one that thinks that drug use is something that needs to be dealt with by our legal system in any fashion.

I mean, when someone goes out and robs a liquor store because they couldn't pay rent that month, we don't charge them with robbery AND being too poor to pay rent. So all of the behaviors that can possibly arise as a result of being a drug addict are already criminalized. Hell, even with alcohol it's not illegal to BE drunk, it's just illegal to DRIVE drunk. Deciding that some substances are worthy of being criminalized in and of themselves is fucking stupid, makes no sense, wastes a whole metric fuckton of time, energy, and money that could be better spent elsewhere, and paints us as a nation of hypocrites. The reality is that even the most addictive of common recreational drugs (heroin) isn't anywhere NEAR as addictive as nicotine, which we sell in the stores and which serves NO legitimate medical or social purpose. So there's no argument that anyone can make in favor of criminalizing drug use which isn't either nonsensical, hypocritical, factually erroneous, or all of the above.

[AFK]

I think the fundamental difference here is that you're the only one that thinks that drug use is something that needs to be dealt with by our legal system in any fashion.

What I think is that, whether you accept it or not, lifting the legal barriers to substances will increase use overall.  It just will.  There will be increased social access for minors and social access is a huge contributing factor to the overall usage rate amongst youth.  Now with adults, I don't give a fuck.  When it comes to youth, I do give a fuck, obviously.  So I think it's a bad, bad idea to legalize marijuana and other drugs.  Now, I would also add that the issue of substance abuse shouldn't only be addressed by the legal system.  It should, and is, also dealt with by people like me who work in prevention.  But prevention alone can't cover everything.  You still need intervention, treatment, and aftercare.  You need the whole spectrum to appropriately deal with the issue.  Law enforcement and the judicial system are a part of intervention.  Could things be done differently and more equitably?  Absolutely. 

I mean, when someone goes out and robs a liquor store because they couldn't pay rent that month, we don't charge them with robbery AND being too poor to pay rent. So all of the behaviors that can possibly arise as a result of being a drug addict are already criminalized.

Yes but the laws aren't just for the end user they are also for the dealer, and important to me, the dealers that supply drugs to children. 

Hell, even with alcohol it's not illegal to BE drunk, it's just illegal to DRIVE drunk.

At home, yes, it is illegal, at least in Maine, to be drunk in public.  Though, I think the police usually only enforce that particular law if you are actually being a public nuisance and actually bothering other people in public. 

Deciding that some substances are worthy of being criminalized in and of themselves is fucking stupid, makes no sense, wastes a whole metric fuckton of time, energy, and money that could be better spent elsewhere, and paints us as a nation of hypocrites. The reality is that even the most addictive of common recreational drugs (heroin) isn't anywhere NEAR as addictive as nicotine, which we sell in the stores and which serves NO legitimate medical or social purpose. So there's no argument that anyone can make in favor of criminalizing drug use which isn't either nonsensical, hypocritical, factually erroneous, or all of the above.

In your opinion.  In my opinion not wanting to increase youth access to drugs is a very sensical, straightforward, and factually supported argument.  I humbly submit this document published in the journal of Pediatrics to the court of opinion:  http://www.preventionworksinseattle.org/uploads/Pediatrics%20-%20potential%20impact%20on%20youth.pdf

I would also recommend perusing some of the work of Hawkins and Catalano who have done a lot of research on the risk and protective factors that influence substance abuse and other anti-social behaviors.  They also lay down, IMO, considerable evidence as to why decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would be more harmful to our youth than most may consider. 


[/quote]

[East Coast Hustle]

Listen, I'm not saying you're right or wrong about whether or not a few more kids would try pot if it were legal. We'll probably get to find that out in 2013 in WA anyway and hopefully lend some finality to that argument. I'm saying that the single most basic premise in the concept of "America" is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that right is ultimate. It trumps all other rights. This is why we criminalize behavior that directly infringes on another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So very simply, to criminalize something because of its potential requires VAST and incontrovertible evidence that the behavior is a primary and immediate threat to other peoples' ability to enjoy that right. Driving under the influence would be a good example of that. And the effect of the current legal framework surrounding recreational drugs is so hysterically disproportionate to the actual effect of the drugs themselves on society that I don't see how anybody who approaches the subject with an open and rational mind could possibly come to any other conclusion but that the drug laws and the law enforcement policies built around enforcing those laws are completely contrary to the basic idea of what "America" means.

And before you go on about the children some more, allow me to point out that, y'know, everyone's rights are supposed to weigh equally. This means that children aren't more important than you or me. I don't even HAVE kids, so how the fuck are you (or anybody else) gonna tell me that I should be FORCED to subvert my own inalienable rights based on the potential that my exercising of those rights could in some way negatively impact some hypothetical child's life? If you support making it illegal to use recreational drugs in the presence of minors, sure thing. Keep it out of school zones? OK. But seriously, fuck the fuck out of you or anyone else who tells me what I can or can't do in my own space on my own time.

I honestly applaud you for limiting your kids' exposure to TV as much as you do. My parents did the same for me and I feel they did me a great service by doing so. But hey, they might sneak into your room when you're not looking and watch a couple episodes of Gossip Girl so we're gonna have to go ahead and make it illegal for you to have a TV at all and if we catch you watching episodes of 30 Rock on your iPhone when nobody else is around we're going to brand you a criminal for life and make it virtually impossible for you to advance your education unless you're already wealthy.

[AFK]

I understand where you are coming from but it is something that can never and will never exist how you want it to exist.  That's just simply the way it is.  Despite what is in the Constitution, we don't have the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want.  We have freedom...within limits.  There are plenty of behaviors that are verboten or restricted in the interest of the safety and security of our country and the communities within our country.  You will never have unfettered freedom to engage in any behavior you see fit, including behaviors that in theory one can do without harming another person, but in practicality have caused health and security risks to other Americans. 

So, given that reality, the question I would throw out then is why is recreational drug use so important?  Why is this fight so important to you?  I mean, I hear people say it is about freedom but there are lots of freedoms that are curbed or restricted in America.  I mean, I suppose if you say you want complete and unfettered freedom from Government, Anarchy, then I guess I can't really argue with that, but I can say that it will never happen.  So if it isn't complete and unfettered freedom you want, why do you pick this fight?  I'm not saying or suggesting you shouldn't, I just want to understand why this one is so important to you.  I'm curious. 

[Doktor Howl]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

[East Coast Hustle]

Read back a page or two. It's only important to me in an academic sense, as I personally am gonna do what I want regardless of the law. It's just so rare that I find an interesting and engaging argument to be had with someone who actually disagrees with me on the most fundamental level of the argument AND is willing to actually put as much thought and effort into the argument as I am.

I ain't mad atcha and nothing ITT affects my opinion of you as a person one way or the other. I just appreciate the opportunity to keep my skills sharp.

Now, back to countering your argument:

I understand where you are coming from but it is something that can never and will never exist how you want it to exist.  That's just simply the way it is.  Despite what is in the Constitution, we don't have the freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, wherever we want.  We have freedom...within limits.  There are plenty of behaviors that are verboten or restricted in the interest of the safety and security of our country and the communities within our country.  You will never have unfettered freedom to engage in any behavior you see fit, including behaviors that in theory one can do without harming another person, but in practicality have caused health and security risks to other Americans.  

Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of. That argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy. This tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.

[Adios]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.

[Doktor Howl]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.

No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.

[Adios]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.

No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.

Ah...PILLZ HERE.

[AFK]

Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of.

Ah...but you can't drive it as fast as you want.  You can't drive it in Maine without having it registered and inspected.  If you are driving with your headlights on you must have your wipers on.  You can't have studded tires on your car after the start of Spring. 

That argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy.

Not true.  Gun laws do.  Regulations for driving motor vehicles do, as I just illustrated above.  It simply isn't true that drug laws are the only laws that limit behavior for public safety and public health. 

This tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.

You premise being flawed aside, can you explain and provide evidence of how the application of the drug laws are "fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest"?  And I mean evidence that shows it to be pervasive. 

[AFK]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.

No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.

Well, if it helps, this topic is also currently a hot topic over at Political Panic.  But I'm kind of staying out of it over there this time around seeing how someone else seems to be making my arguments for me. 

[Adios]

I blame this thread for Wizard Joseph and the new stoner dude in the intros thread.

If I had my way, all of you people would be put in sacks and get thumped against a wall until you're mushy.

Legalize all drugs, damn gene pool needs cleaning out again. Fukin tea baggers.

No, I meant that this thread's activity probably led people here on search engines.

Well, if it helps, this topic is also currently a hot topic over at Political Panic.  But I'm kind of staying out of it over there this time around seeing how someone else seems to be making my arguments for me. 

I still stand by what I said.

[East Coast Hustle]

Au contraire. I am free to drive my hydrocarbon-burning car around all day every day provided I can afford the gas that's refined from the oil that causes more health and security risks to other Americans than anything else I can think of.

Ah...but you can't drive it as fast as you want.  You can't drive it in Maine without having it registered and inspected.  If you are driving with your headlights on you must have your wipers on.  You can't have studded tires on your car after the start of Spring. 

That argument holds no water because in reality, while I understand your line of thinking (though I don't agree), drug law is the ONLY aspect of our society where such thinking provides the baseline for policy.

Not true.  Gun laws do.  Regulations for driving motor vehicles do, as I just illustrated above.  It simply isn't true that drug laws are the only laws that limit behavior for public safety and public health. 

This tells me that though your intentions and those of the other people in your field and at your level in related fields are most likely honorable, the basic reasons for the pinpoint application of this sort of policy by those in power is fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest.

You premise being flawed aside, can you explain and provide evidence of how the application of the drug laws are "fraught with hypocrisy and self-interest"?  And I mean evidence that shows it to be pervasive. 

Are you trying to say that the limitations placed on how and where you drive your car are analogous to COMPLETE federal prohibition of marijuana?

Because I'm trying to say the limits placed on things like owning guns and driving cars SHOULD be analogous to how we treat marijuana.

[Telarus]

I think one of the most objectionable unspoken memes in this thread is that all 'use' is 'abuse' &/or 'dependence'.

While not specific to the US, I found the following take on how the Western nations approach Cannabis prohibition very interesting, as it exposes some of the hypocrisy mentioned up-thread. Granted, it's being presented by an MMJ activist website, but the quoted selections from the email correspondence provide a valid point can be viewed without the bias of the article's narrative.

http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201106291495/green/eco-news/lithium-cannabis-treatment-violates-first-law-of-medicine-grinspoon.html
----------
Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR-UK) has expressed concerns over the safety of a proposed treatment used on those who claim, or are told, they are suffering cannabis withdrawal. A treatment which one of the worlds foremost psychiatrists claims, breaks the first law of medicine - primum non nocere, which roughly translated means Do No Harm.

l though cannabis is generally recognized as being not physically addictive, the treatment in question uses Lithium to quash the cravings which can accompany sudden withdrawal in a tiny fraction of those who use cannabis.

   To clarify these are not physical cold-turkey withdrawals, although for the cannabis user who has underlying mental health issues it can certainly seem so.

CLEAR-UK's Jason Reed was so concerned he wrote to a man who he figured, should have the answers he was seeking.

Dr Lester Grinspoon (Grinspoon on Wikipedia )

Dr. Lester Grinspoon is Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Suffice to say his qualifications mean Dr Grinspoon gets listened to in the United States, when talking about psychiatry and mental health issues.

Dr Grinspoon is also on record as the first american physician to prescribe Lithium Carbonate for polar disorder so its fair to say he knows what he is talking about.

so Jason Reed voiced his concerns thus;

Whenever the message of cannabis reform hits the headlines, it is invariably met with some degree of opposition.

   On the 23rd June 2011, the Australian publication, Echo News, put out a story that appealed for applicants to partake in a cannabis withdrawal study.  The University of Sydney are appealing for participants to take part in a trial using lithium to treat the symptoms of cannabis withdrawal.

....

Ron Paul, U.S Republican Congressman, has introduced a bill to legislate, and draft a federal law on marijuana; emphasis being to decriminalise all persons in the U.S.  Once more, this meets the consensus that prohibition has failed.  This move coincides with ex-president Jimmy Carter's public view that reform is indeed necessary.

So the thought of offering people a toxic substance like Lithium to treat a 'drug' which is being considered for outright legalisation in other countries, sounds a little ..dramatic and more than a little dangerous, even in the short-term.

Dr Grinspoon agree's and he replied to Jason Reed shortly afterwards, saying;

Thank you for sending me news of this absurd study.
First of all, there is considerable question as to whether cannabis can lead to an addiction.

Most authorities believe that marijuana does not cause an addiction and those who claim that it does can only point to nebulous "withdrawal symptoms".

An interesting point.

There are also those who claim cannabis addiction as part of a judicial defense, on instruction from legal council looking to minimise sentencing with promises to treat the defendants drug 'addiction' in return for a non-custodial sentence.

Are we going to start pumping citizens full of Lithium at the behest of a judge, a solicitor or the Home Secretary? And if so surely we are reaching into the realms of human rights abuses?

Dr Grinspoon continues;

To consider "treating" people who have this putative addiction with lithium is, in my opinion, the height of folly.

It would not only be a worthless and wasteful enterprise, but it is also a treatment which is very uncomfortable and generally causes patients to increase weight.

Even more importantly it violates the first law of medicine -
Primum non Nocere (do no harm).

Lithium is toxic and it can damage some organs of the body. Indeed its toxicity is such that it's blood level has to be frequently monitored.

However, I am reassured by the fact that the study will never succeed, as it will be impossible to prove that one has successfully treated a phantom disorder.

Dr Lester Grinspoon - Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry - Harvard Medical School

----------



Lester wrote a chapter in Substance Abuse, a Comprehensive Textbook (2004), published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. It can be found on the web here:

http://www.rxmarijuana.com/lowinson.htm

It's pretty chunky, cites tons of scientific and historical research, and I don't want to quote the whole thing. Here's an interesting bit tho:

In the LaGuardia study in New York City, an examination of chronic users who had averaged about seven marihuana cigarettes a day (a comparatively high dosage) over a long period (the mean was eight years) showed that they had suffered no demonstrable mental or physical decline as a result of their use of the drug (33). The 1972 report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (34), although it did much to demythologize cannabis, cautioned that, of people in the United States who used marihuana, 2% became heavy users and that these abusers were at risk, but it did not make clear exactly what risk was involved. Furthermore, since the publication of this report, several controlled studies of chronic heavy use have been completed that have failed to establish any pharmacologically induced harmfulness, including personality deterioration or the development of the so-called amotivational syndrome (21-26, 35-37).    The most recent government sponsored review of cannabis, Marijuana and Medicine, conducted by the Institute of Medicine, while cautious in its summary statement, found little documentation for most of the alleged harmfulness of this substance (28).

.....

Most recent research on the health hazards of marihuana concerns its long-term effects on the body. The main physiological effects of cannabis are increased appetite, a faster heartbeat, and slight reddening of the conjunctiva. Although the increased heart rate could be a problem for people with cardiovascular disease, dangerous physical reactions to marihuana are almost unknown. No human being is known to have died of an overdose. By extrapolation from animal experiments, the ratio of lethal to effective (intoxicating) dose is estimated to be on the order of thousands to one.

           Studies have examined the brain, the immune system, the reproductive system, and the lungs. Suggestions of long-term damage come almost exclusively from animal experiments and other laboratory work. Observations of marihuana users and the Caribbean, Greek, and other studies reveal little disease or organic pathology associated with the drug (21, 22, 27, 53).

           For example, there are several reports of damaged brain cells and changes in brain-wave readings in monkeys smoking marihuana, but neurological and neuropsychological tests in Greece, Jamaica, and Costa Rica found no evidence of functional brain damage. A recent study of enrolled patients in the Compassionate Use Investigational New Drug Program in the USA also demonstrated no significant EEG or P300 changes (54).  Damage to white blood cells has also been observed in the laboratory, but again, its practical importance is unclear. Whatever temporary changes marihuana may produce in the immune system, they have not been found to increase the danger of infectious disease or cancer. If there were significant damage, we might expect to find a higher rate of these diseases among young people beginning in the 1960s, when marihuana first became popular. There is no evidence of that. Recent studies in HIV (55)  and in the Missoula Chronic Use Study (54) also failed to demonstrate deleterious effects on white blood cell or CD4 counts.

           The effects of marihuana on the reproductive system are a more complicated issue. In men, a single dose of THC lowers sperm count and the level of testosterone and other hormones. Tolerance to this effect apparently develops; in the Costa Rican study, marihuana smokers and controls had the same testosterone levels. Although the smokers in that study began using marihuana at an average age of 15, it had not affected their masculine development. There is no evidence that the changes in sperm count and testosterone produced by marihuana affect sexual performance or fertility.

           In animal experiments THC has also been reported to lower levels of female hormones and disturb the menstrual cycle. When monkeys, rats, and mice are exposed during pregnancy to amounts of THC equivalent to a heavy human smoker's dose, stillbirths and decreased birth weight are sometimes reported in their offspring. There are also reports of low birth weight, prematurity, and even a condition resembling the fetal alcohol syndrome in some children of women who smoke marihuana heavily during pregnancy. The significance of these reports is unclear because controls are lacking and other circumstances make it hard to attribute causes.  No endocrine changes were observed in the Missoula Chronic Use Study (54). To be safe, pregnant and nursing women should follow the standard conservative recommendation to avoid all drugs, including cannabis, that are not absolutely necessary. Nonetheless, evidence from a well controlled study of cannabis-only smokers in Jamaica are supportive of low risk to their children (56).

           A well-confirmed danger of long-term, heavy marihuana use is its effect on the lungs. Smoking narrows and inflames air passages and reduces breathing capacity; damage to bronchial cells has been observed in hashish smokers. The possible side effects include bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. Interestingly, one study failed to demonstrate emphysematous degeneration in cannabis smokers over time (57). Marihuana smoke contains the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, usually in somewhat higher concentrations, at least in cannabis supplied by NIDA. THC may actually interfere with a key biochemical step in carcinogenesis (58).  Marihuana is also inhaled more deeply and held in the lungs longer, which increases the danger (59, 60). On the other hand, almost no one smokes 20 marihuana cigarettes a day. Marihuana of higher potency may reduce the danger of respiratory damage, because less smoking is required for the desired effect. There is now some experimental evidence demonstrating that high-potency THC cigarettes are smoked less vigorously than those of low potency; the user takes smaller and shorter puffs, inhaling less with each puff (61). Vaporization technology may also reduce risks (62).

           It is hard to generalize about abuse or define specific treatments, because the problems associated with marihuana are so vague, and cause and effect so hard to determine. Marihuana smokers may be using the drug as a facet of adolescent exploration, to demonstrate rebelliousness, cope with anxiety, medicate themselves for early symptoms of mental illness, or most commonly, simply for pleasure.

           The complexity of the problem is illustrated by a most important long-term study by two Berkeley psychologists (63). Shedler and Block followed the progress of 101 San Francisco children of both sexes from ages 5 to 18, and gave them personality tests at 7, 11, and 18 years of age. By the end of the study, 68% had used marihuana and 39% had used it once a week or more; large minorities had also used cocaine, hallucinogens, and prescription stimulants and sedatives. Three main groups could be distinguished: 29 "abstainers" who had used no illicit drugs; 36 "experimenters" who had used marihuana no more than once a month and had tried at most one other drug; and 20 "frequent users" who had smoked marihuana at least once a week and had used at least one other drug. The other 16 fit into none of these categories and were not included in the study.

           Striking personality differences among the three groups appeared in childhood, long before any drug use. The frequent users, as early as age 7, got along poorly with other children and had few friends. They found it difficult to think ahead and lacked confidence in themselves. They were untrustworthy and seemingly indifferent to moral questions. At age 11 they were described as inattentive, uncooperative, and vulnerable to stress. At 18, they were insecure, alienated, impulsive, undependable, self-indulgent, inconsiderate, and unpredictable in their moods and behavior; they overreacted to frustration; they felt personally inadequate and also victimized and cheated. They had lower high school grades than adolescents in the other two groups.

           Abstainers, at age 7, were described as inhibited, conventional, obedient, and lacking in creativity. At age 11 they were shy, neat and orderly, eager to please, but lacking in humor, liveliness, and expressiveness. The terms that best described them at 18 were tense, overcontrolled, moralistic, anxious, and lacking in social ease or personal charm. Their high school grades were average.

           The happy mean, statistically, was found in the "experimenters." They were more likely to be warm, responsive, curious, open, active, and cheerful from the age of 7 on. In the three broad categories of personal happiness, relations with others, and rational self-control, frequent users were doing worst and experimental users best. The authors pointed out that studies comparing moderate drinkers with alcoholics and abstainers have found similar personality differences.

           To find some sources of these differences, the authors examined experiments conducted when the children were only 5 years old. Their parents' behavior was observed as they worked with the child on a laboratory task involving blocks and mazes. Mothers of both frequent users and abstainers tended to be cold and unresponsive. They gave their children little encouragement but insisted that they perform well; and the experience seemed unpleasant for both mother and child. Fathers of frequent users did not differ from fathers of experimenters, but abstainers' fathers were impatient, hypercritical, and domineering.

           According to the authors, frequent drug users believe that they have nothing to look forward to and are therefore drawn to the immediate gratification provided by drugs. Their alienation and impulsiveness might have roots in their relationship with their mothers. The problems of abstainers are also serious, but they attract less attention, because they are less troublesome for society. Abstainers suppress their impulses to avoid feeling vulnerable, perhaps because they have internalized the attitudes of harsh, authoritarian fathers. Experimental users are the largest and most typical group. At least in the San Francisco area in the 1980s, reasonably inquisitive, open, and independent adolescents experimented with marihuana as part of growing up.

           The inverted U-shaped relationship between the degree of drug use and psychological health suggests that the need for therapy would also describe such a curve. The fact that among the abstainers are to be found many individuals who could profit from psychotherapy is not relevant to this discussion of marihuana. The important question concerns the indications for therapy for those who comprise the other two arms of the curve. Given the current prevalence of drug use in our society, the developmentally appropriate propensity of adolescents to explore and experiment, and the relatively benign sequelae of such experimentation with cannabis, it is obvious that therapy is not properly indicated for young people who fit the description of the "experimenter."

           It is appropriate to consider psychotherapy for the frequent adolescent users of marihuana. The picture that emerges is "one of a troubled adolescent who is interpersonally alienated, emotionally withdrawn, and manifestly unhappy, and who expresses his or her maladjustment through undercontrolled, overtly antisocial behavior" (63). They are described as being "overreactive to minor frustrations, likely to think and associate to ideas in unusual ways, having brittle ego-defense systems, self-defeating, concerned about the adequacy of their bodily functioning, concerned about their adequacy as persons, prone to project their feelings and motives onto others, feeling cheated and victimized by life, and having fluctuating moods."

           Obviously, psychotherapy is not inappropriate for individuals who exemplify this description. But it should be emphasized that this is not psychotherapy for marihuana abuse; it is therapy for the underlying psychopathology, one of whose symptoms is the abuse of cannabis. It is no more appropriate to see marihuana as the cause of the problem here than it is to see repetitive hand-washing as the cause of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The individual may be brought to psychiatric attention because of the hand-washing, but the therapy will address the underlying disorder. Becoming attached to cannabis is not so much a function of any inherent psychopharmacological property of the drug as it is emotionally driven by the underlying psychopathology. Success in curtailing cannabis use requires dealing with that pathology.

RWHN, I'm going to go back through the thread to look at the references you posted, but do you have anything on-hand which shows any more 'Harm' than what Dr Grinspoon is talking about, or any new information on the specifics effects of adolescent use?