+
Cannabis Culture Forums > The Political Forum >
Cannabis Current News and Events
Thread > Teens easily addicted to marijuana: expert
Topic > Re: Teens easily addicted to marijuana
.
Greetings. Taking Dana's advice to heart, I decided to forego
my misgivings and grab the bull by the horns. Here is a copy
of a letter which I recently sent to the local newspaper (whether
they'll print it or not is entirely out of my hands (of course)):
.
Re: "Marijuana messes up kids minds: expert,"
The Edmonton Journal, Nov.24, p.A5I was both amused and saddened to read this latest example
of anti-pot propaganda. According to Ms Szirtes, the alleged
youth substance abuse expert, pot is not only "harmful to a
lot of people" (just as harmful as "any other hard drug", she
says), but wrecks relationships, damages memory, causes sleep
disorders and behavior changes (e.g. mood swings), and is also
"very addictive both psychologically and physiologically." And if
all that isn't enough to scare you half to death, she points out
that it's even worse for kids (i.e. teenagers). Young people
become easily addicted, she claims, because the "teen brain
really isn't done growing."The saddest thing about all this is that it shows a profound
lack of understanding about the true nature of addiction,
which has very little to do with the substance, and a great
deal to do with the personality of the dependent persons,
and the quality of their emotional and social lives.As if in recognition of this not-very obvious fact of life, Ms
Szirtes reluctantly admits that "a lot of it is psychological."
Apparently, this expert is not aware that the implications
of this admission seriously undermines the force of her
proposals, and even damages her credibility (such as it is).I also heard that some teens attending the forum were seen
walking away from Ms Szirtes' tirade, and laughing at the
nonsense they heard. It's good to know that the kids, at least,
are not buying into this kind of desperate, and even slightly
hysterical, anti-pot propaganda and all its required misinformation.
x
+
Topic > What's Wrong with Kids Today
.
> On 24Nov06 Alison Myrden (Speaker for LEAP) wrote: ... Why do children
> have consistent, easy access to these and other more deadly intoxicants
> and average law abiding people like myself, do not? ... [snip] ... My guess
> would be that prohibition has once again reared it's ugly head similar to
> alcohol prohibition in the 1930's and has enticed the youth of our Nation
>to partake by keeping drugs from those who would be responsible and of
> a safe and stable age and giving open access to criminals and our children
> to run the illegal market.
.
tx say: That is exactly right, Alison. I have always found it to be perfectly
obvious that it is the anti-drug laws themselves (and the self-serving, self-
righteous anti-drug attitudes behind them) that puts dope straight into the
hands of our youth. It is really a very simple case of cause and effect: the
laws deny access to adults, and so it goes directly into the hands of our kids.
.
The saddest thing about all this is that the squareheads justify their anti-
drug policies and attitudes by claiming that they're doing all this for the
sake of the children, to protect the kids from these evil drugs that they so
passionately hate. They do everything in their power to create this situation
wherein meth can flourish, and then gleefully point to the wrecked lives and
damaged kids (that *they* are responsible for) just so they can then say:
.
[insert copious levels of shrieking hysteria here -->] "See that? See?! I told
you so. All drugs are the same. All drugs are bad. Increase the penalties for
dealing dope. Increase the penalties for doing dope. Just keep on saying
'just say no'. We are right. We are good. Dealers are evil. Drugs are evil!"
.
Yes, the blindness of these anti-drug crusaders is truly amazing. But I
love to see the confusion that grips these squarehead fascists whenever
they wonder why their 'just say no' anti-drugs propaganda doesn't seem
to be getting through to the kids. They do everything in their power to make
sure that only the kids have easy and direct access to illegal drugs, and
then scratch their heads in astonishment at what they have accomplished:
"What's wrong with these kids today?", they ask, utterly bemused.
.
Well, it's certainly no mystery to me. The answer can be summed up very
nicely in one word: alienation. Yes, and it's very easy to prove that this is
exactly what's going on. The kids are not stupid; and unlike the square-
heads, who are dazzled by their own lies and propaganda, they're not blind
either. They can see very clearly that our consumer-oriented and money-
driven culture of unrestrained greed and selfishness is shabby, egotistical,
ugly, hypocritical, and (above all) spiritually annihilating. Moreover, consider
this: rap-music clearly springs directly out of the womb of alienation; for it
obviously does not come from any love of good music. heh heh
.
- the almost alienated one - textman ;>>
.
P.S. BTW: I have a great deal of respect for LEAP, Alison. I know things
can't be easy for your organization. It takes a lot of courage for your
people to take the anti-prohibition position. Keep up the good work!
x
+
Topic > Re: Teens easily addicted to marijuana
.
>> tx previously wrote: Taking Dana's adivice to heart, I decided to
>> forego my misgivings and grab the bull by the horns.
.
> On 26Nov Dana replied: Hey right on. I'm glad to see you're writing
> more letters. Thanks!
.
tx say: no problemo.
.
> One piece of advice, if you want your letter to run unedited, and to have
> better odds of it being printed, you must keep it short.
.
Here's what the Journal says about that: "A maximum of 275 words is
preferred." Since the word count for the above letter is 262 I figure I did
pretty good to keep it within the preferred limit.
.
> Try to find the one pithy comment, the one clever remark, and just use
> that. The best letter is 4-8 sentences and points out a hypocrisy or
> another point of view.
.
4-8 sentences? HA! Not gonna happen, dude. I know, I know; my biggest
vice is an almost unacceptable wordiness in everything I write. But hey,
like Popeye says, "I yam what I yam!"
.
> Longer letters almost always get edited down and often that
> ruins your point.
.
Here's what the Journal says about that: "All letters are subject to
editing." I take that to mean: *ALL* friggin letters are subject to
extreme and irrational chopping!
.
> Also, consider writing one short, grabby letter, and then sending it out,
> in separate emails, to a variety of newspapers and outlets in the
> region. [snip remainder]
.
Here's what the Journal says about that: "We don't publish letters
addressed to others or sent to other publications."
.
The swine!
.
- the excessively put upon one - textmaan ;>
x
