Hempyreumenglish’s Weblog


Aging With a Drug Habit
October 1, 2008, 4:40 pm
Filed under: Hemp&Law, HempTherapy, hemp in general | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USA — It has been four decades since the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, but aging baby boomers haven’t stopped turning on.

The federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health, released earlier in September, finds that as boomers move into their 50s in large numbers, drug use among older adults in the United States has hit its highest point ever.

In the government’s latest report — reflecting drug use in 2007 — 1 in 20 Americans ages 50 to 59 told researchers they had used illicit drugs in the last month. More than one-half of these older users still like their street drugs, including marijuana and cocaine.

But as older users contend with the aches and pains of aging, they are adding prescription drugs to their mix, according to the report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

By contrast, the new, younger generation of drug users isn’t waiting to reach middle age to add prescription drugs to its portfolio of abuse, the report says.

Among teenagers and young adults ages 12 to 25, one-third of those who use illicit drugs say they recently have abused prescription drugs — including painkillers, tranquilizers and stimulants.

Among kids 12 to 17, 3.3 percent had abused prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the last month. And among 17- to 25-year-olds, 6 percent had abused prescription drugs in the same period.

These generational trends are driving a significant change in the landscape of American drug abuse. After years of declining use of street drugs — cocaine, hallucinogens and marijuana — prescription medications have begun moving front and center as the nation’s drug of choice.

The result, according to the latest federal drug-use survey: Last year, Americans who began abusing prescription drugs outnumbered those who took up smoking marijuana.

Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute on Drug Abuse, says the report underscores a “paradigm shift” in drug abuse and, hence, in its treatment.

Though addiction to prescription drugs is not new, the current generation of teenagers and young adults has grown up around widespread medical use of prescription drugs, Volkow says, and is inclined to view them as “safe” because they are prescribed by doctors.

“That comfort level,” Volkow says, “facilitates the abuse” of these medications.

Because of the high from such drugs as narcotic pain relievers, she adds, young users are at high risk of becoming addicted.

Peter S., 26, a recovering addict from New Jersey, says the ubiquity of prescription drugs in American homes is reassuring to kids eager to take a controlled risk or dull the emotional challenges of being a teenager.

“You don’t have to go to the drug dealer or even leave the house,” says Peter, who spoke on condition that his last name not be used. “You can just go upstairs to mom’s medicine chest and boom! You’re locked and loaded … People feel like, ‘Wow, how bad could it be? It came from our doctor. And I’m not doing street drugs — cocaine or mushrooms. I’m doing what mom has in her medicine cabinet.’”

Many parents, whose images of drug abuse may be dominated by street drugs, “just don’t realize,” Peter says, that the leftover pain pills from mom’s back spasm or the unused anti-anxiety pills prescribed for dad during a rough patch at work may furnish a kid’s first chance to experiment with drugs.

Parents “take one and feel better and put the rest up there in the medicine chest,” Peter says. “They just don’t know.”

Volkow adds that a shift toward prescription drug abuse also may make it harder for the new generation’s drug users to “age out” of their habit, as many baby boomers have done. Users of street drugs, Volkow says, frequently quit as they find that unpleasant side effects become more pronounced with age and prolonged use.

But users of prescription medicationstend to build tolerance to the effects over time, prompting them to use more, not less, and more often, Volkow says.

Researchers with the federal substance abuse agency said they remain uncertain if boomer drug users continued to do drugs into adulthood or, rather, returned to a youthful habit as they aged.

John P. Walters, the nation’s drug czar, expressed surprise that young Americans are turning away from cocaine and methamphetamine, but use of such street drugs continues among their elders.

Jim Steinhagen, executive director of the Hazelden Center for Youth and Families in suburban St. Paul, Minn., says that for young people, experimentation with prescription drugs only appears “safer” than their parents’ drug forays.

“We’re seeing kids coming to the treatment center more acutely addicted than we ever have before, so the degree of detox we need is more extensive and takes a longer period of time,” says Steinhagen, 32, a practitioner of addiction treatment.

“The kind of substance use that goes on today is like extreme sports for this generation — quicker, faster, a more dangerous thrill-seeking experience.”

The recent government report comes on the heels of a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University showing that 19 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds believe prescription drugs are easier to get than cigarettes, alcohol and street drugs.

The new report also underscores the ease with which abusers of prescription drugs can get controlled substances. More than one-half of those who reported they had recently taken prescription drugs for nonmedical uses said they got the drugs from a friend or relative for free, and almost 20 percent got them from a physician. About 1 in 10 who took prescription pain relievers said they bought or stole them from a friend or relative.

Drug-enforcement officials have long known that teenagers and young adults widely trade, sell and steal stimulant medications, heavily prescribed among student populations to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Fewer than 5 percent told interviewers that they had turned to a drug-dealing stranger to acquire prescription drugs, or logged on to an Internet site selling prescription drugs.

Peter S. says his initiation to prescription drugs came from the medicine chests of his — and a friend’s — parents.

“I had found Vicodin and Percocet and had heard about them and Xanax and Valium — the benzodiazepams — and took a couple,” Peter says. “I reached up in that medicine chest and took a couple and thought, ‘Oh this is fun.’ It made me feel floaty … It was fun in the beginning.”

The government report, which also tallies Americans’ mental-health status, makes clear that illicit drug use is frequently a form of self-medication.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, roughly 2 million had experienced a major depressive episode in 2007 — about 8.2 percent of that age group’s population. Illicit drug use was roughly twice as high — 35 percent — among youths who had experienced depression than among those who had not.

Note: Kids prefer prescription drugs to their parents’ street drugs.

Source: Daily Press



Some weekly news by Norml

Survey: One In Five High Schools Drug Test Students

September 25, 2008 – Washington, DC

Washington, DC: An estimated one in five high schools and one in ten middle schools engage in some form of student drug testing – including random testing, according to survey data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and published in the fall issue of Strategies for Success, a newsletter of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

“Findings indicate that the number of schools conducting … drug testing may be [approximately] 4,000 – more than double the highest estimates cited previously,” the ONDCP reported.

In all, 14.6 percent of all public and private middle schools and high schools now conduct some type of student drug testing, the CDC’s School Health Policies and Programs study found. Slightly more than 50 percent of these schools reported conducted random drug testing among specific groups of students.

Of the schools that drug test, 84 percent utilize urinalysis – a method that detects the presence of inactive drug metabolites, but does not have the ability to determine recent drug use or impairment. Fifteen percent of schools employ hair follicle testing, the study reported. Eight percent use saliva testing, and three percent use sweat patch testing technology.

Of the drugs screened for, 86 percent of schools test for the presence of marijuana. By contrast, 75 percent of school drug testing programs screen for cocaine, 50 percent screen for alcohol, and fewer than 20 percent test for nicotine.

Last year the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Council on School Health resolved, “There is little evidence of the effectiveness of school-based drug testing,” and warned that students subjected to random testing programs may experience “an increase in known risk factors for drug use.” The Academy also warned that school-based drug testing programs could decrease student involvement in extracurricular activities and undermine trust between pupils and educators.

A 2003 cross-sectional study of national student drug testing programs previously reported, “Drug testing, as practiced in recent years in American secondary schools, does not prevent or inhibit student drug use.”

A 2007 prospective randomized clinical trial also reported that students who underwent random drug testing did not differ in their self-reported drug use compared to students at neighboring schools who were not enrolled in drug testing programs.

For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director.

DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7709


Text Messaging Impacts Psychomotor Skills Far More Than Cannabis, Study Says

September 25, 2008 – London, United Kingdom

London, United Kingdom: Sending text messages from one’s mobile phone impairs motorists’ ability to drive a car to a far greater degree than does smoking cannabis, according to the findings of a study published this week by Britain’s Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and reported by Reuters news wire.

Seventeen volunteers age 18 to 24 years old participated in the driving simulator study.

“The reaction times of people texting as they drove fell by 35 percent, while those who had consumed the legal limit of alcohol, or taken cannabis, fell by 21 percent and 12 percent respectively,” Reuters reported.

The study also found that drivers’ ability to maintain lane position and headway with the vehicle in front of them was more adversely impacted by texting than by the influence of marijuana.

Currently, five US states have enacted laws prohibiting text messaging while driving. By contrast, fifteen states have enacted laws criminally prohibiting drivers from operating a vehicle with trace levels of cannabis or inactive cannabis metabolites in their blood or urine.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention reported that in terms of overall driving performance, subjects under the influence of cannabis performed in a manner comparable to motorists with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 percent.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director. NORML’s white paper, “Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review,” — http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459

DL: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7710



Marijuana Could Be a Gusher of Cash
September 13, 2008, 1:21 am
Filed under: Hemp&Law, hemp in general | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

USA — If marijuana were legal but taxed like alcohol and tobacco, how much money could it bring in to cash-strapped state governments?

One 2006 study called cannabis the top cash crop in the nation, worth more than corn and wheat combined. It was the leading crop in 12 states, outstripping grapes in California and tobacco in North Carolina, and one of the top three in 18 others, coming in just behind apples in Washington and cotton in Georgia. So with states facing massive deficits, could reefer revenues help?

The answer is unclear, but it could be lucrative for governments, especially when combined with the savings from ending prohibition. As the U.S. marijuana market is illegal, there are no sales figures. Estimates of its size range from $10.5 billion a year to $113 billion. But three studies done by economists and policy analysts say ganja taxes could bring in anywhere from $2.4 billion to $31.1 billion in revenue, depending on how big the sales really are. About one-third of that would go to the states.

“There’s not enough really good data on it, so it’s probably best to look at it in ballpark figures,” says Jon Gettman, a Virginia policy analyst who has worked with the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project. “But there’s a consensus that there’s an awful lot of marijuana out there and that it’s very valuable.”

“The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition,” a 2005 study by Harvard economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron, makes the most conservative projections of the three studies. It calculates possible pot tax revenues at $2.4 billion. That’s assuming that prices would drop about 25 percent under legalization, that pot-related economic activities were taxed at the national average of 30 percent, and that the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy’s estimate that the domestic cannabis market is worth $10.5 billion is accurate. If herb were taxed more heavily, as alcohol and cigarettes are, that could bring in as much as $9.5 billion — although excessive “sin taxes” could cause pot smokers to cut down or grow their own, diminishing revenues.

States with higher rates of marijuana use, such as California and New York, would collect a somewhat higher proportion of taxes than states with lower rates, such as Pennsylvania and Texas. Miron estimates that California would take in $105 million at ordinary levels of taxation.

However, others in the field believe that the government’s $10.5 billion figure is absurdly low. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman from Northern California’s sinsemilla belt, says the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors estimates bud production in that county alone at between $1 billion and $1.5 billion, worth far more than timber and grapes. California’s medical marijuana dispensary owners claim they pay $100 million a year in state sales taxes.

The methods used to estimate the size of the marijuana market involve a great deal of speculation. Determining the supply involves taking the amount of domestic and imported marijuana seized by law enforcement, guessing what percentage of the total amount of homegrown and smuggled weed that represents, and extrapolating from there. Additional variables include how much a single plant can yield — anywhere from less than an ounce to more than a pound — and the retail price, which can be loosely sensed from the reader-contributed snippets in High Times magazine’s monthly market quotations (“Chicago, Purple Kush, $450/oz”) and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s STRIDE index, which narcotics agents use to figure out how much to pay for the drugs they try to buy. Demand can be estimated from government and academic household surveys of drug use — but these are far from specific, especially when you use the limited data on frequency of use to try to figure out how much people spend on pot.

“It’s hard to match the supply-and-demand data,” says Gettman. “Sometimes you don’t know what it is, but you know what it’s not.” He estimates the value of the U.S. weed market at $113 billion, based on a supply of more than 14 million kilos, an average retail price of about $220 an ounce, and between 25 million and 40 million pot smokers.

That number seems high. It would require 40 million people to spend an average of $55 a week on weed. But Gettman cites United Nations data that has estimated U.S. cannabis cultivation at 10 million to 14 million kilos for the past several years. The federal government has reduced its estimate of domestic production from 10 million kilos in 2002 to between 2.8 million and 6.6 million kilos in 2006, but those figures, he says, are “complete politics.” They’re based on the assumption that law enforcement eradicates 30 to 50 percent of all the pot plants grown in the United States, and that plants average a pound each.

As for demand, “there is a small amount of people who go through an incredible amount of pot.” On the other hand, many of the heaviest ganja users are growers and dealers who go into the business in part so they can essentially get free pot and don’t have to pay retail prices for the amounts they smoke.

Gettman’s 2006 study “Marijuana Production in the United States” estimated the domestic crop at 10 million kilos, worth a total of $35.8 billion.

California NORML’s estimates are in that ballpark. In 2003, the group figured that if 600,000 to 700,000 people in the state smoke two cigarette-size joints every day and 1 million smoke one joint every 10 days, then the total market in the state would be $3 billion to $5 billion under legalization — at the lower end if prices dropped to the Dutch average of about $170 an ounce, at the higher end if consumption increased. State sales taxes would generate $240 million to $400 million, and a $56-an-ounce excise tax could bring in another $1 billion. If pot were taxed at the same 50 percent rate as cigarettes, total revenues would be $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion. Nationally, California NORML claims, a $56-an-ounce tax would bring in $6 billion to $13 billion.

Miron dislikes the concept of such “sin taxes,” saying it’s a bad idea to tax what’s “politically unpopular.” But he says they’re generally effective if consistent throughout a federal system, where people can’t go to a state with lower costs. If the tax is too high, however, people might try to evade it by growing their own. Miron thinks that won’t be significant. “Some people are going to buy tomatoes in a supermarket, and some are going to grow their own,” he says. “Most people will opt for convenience.”

On the other hand, given that home growing has become widespread and well-entrenched in the last 30 years, potheads fetishize strains like White Widow and Bubbleberry, and herb costs significantly more than tomatoes, it’s likely that many people would do their own gardening if the danger of prison and forfeiture were lifted.

Legislators active on cannabis issues have not investigated the revenue possibilities much. “I don’t think I could even begin to put a number on it, because there are so many variables,” says a staffer for New York State Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, who has sponsored several unsuccessful medical marijuana bills recently. Instead, they focus on the money that would be saved by not prosecuting marijuana users or that could be gained by farming industrial hemp.

Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen, sponsor of a bill to reduce the penalty for possession of less than an ounce to a $250 fine, calls trying to project pot tax revenues “speculative,” but she says decriminalization would save the state $24 million a year.

Miron’s study estimates that “legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government enforcement of prohibition,” with $2.4 billion of that going to the states. Gettman’s 2007 report says “marijuana arrests cost taxpayers $10.7 billion annually.”

Northern California’s Humboldt and Mendocino counties, where marijuana is a crucial part of the economy, have been frustrated in their efforts to get direct revenues from it, according to Hamburg. Schemes proposed in Mendocino included having the county sell permits for $25 a plant and setting up a growers’ cooperative that would inspect, certify and market medical herb crops as organically and locally grown. But “anything we came up with along those lines, our lawyers said was impossible.”

Miron says potential tax income is “the least important reason to legalize” cannabis when compared with the “horrific” precedents prohibition sets for government power and the damage criminalization does to users. And even at the highest estimates, reefer revenues would not be enough to cover budget deficits the size of California’s estimated $15 billion, New York’s $6.4 billion, Florida’s $1.5 billion, or Massachusetts’ $1.3 billion. Still, the combination of reducing expenditures on enforcement and collecting taxes on legal sales could help save the states from having to lay off workers or cut health care payments.

NORML head Allen St. Pierre says that when he was lobbying in Texas last year for a bill that would let local governments decriminalize marijuana possession, one legislator told him that prohibition “is no longer a luxury we can afford.” The Austinist, noting that marijuana possession accounts for about 7 percent of arrests in the state at a cost of $2,000 each, called the bill “a money-saving effort more than anything else.”

Steven Wishnia is a New York-based journalist and musician. The author of Exit 25 Utopia and The Cannabis Companion, he has won two New York City Independent Press Association awards for his coverage of housing issues. He is looking for a job.

Source: AlterNet



Henry Ford and hemp fuel..
May 6, 2008, 12:28 pm
Filed under: Hemp&Fuel, history | Tags: , , ,

“There’s enough alcohol in one year’s yeild of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for one hundred years.” – Henry Ford

Pioneering automotive engineer Henry Ford held many patents on automotive mechanisms, but is best remembered for helping devise the factory assembly approach to production that revolutionized the auto industry by greatly reducing the time required to assemble a car.

Born in Wayne County, Michigan, Ford showed an early interest in mechanics, constructing his first steam engine at the age of 15. In 1893 he built his first internal combustion engine, a small one-cylinder gasoline model, and in 1896 he built his first automobile.

In June 1903 Ford helped establish Ford Motor Company. He served as president of the company from 1906 to 1919 and from 1943 to 1945.

In addition to earning numerous patents on auto mechanisms, Ford served as a vice president of the Society of Automotive Engineers when it was founded in 1905 to standardize U.S. automotive parts.

Ignominy

Shamefully, Ford was an anti-Semitic and Nazi sympathizer. Comparable to Thomas Jefferson having slaves; it is paradoxical that Henry Ford (considered to be one of America’s greatest minds) should also be preoccupied with racism.

Fuel of the Future

When Henry Ford told a New York Times reporter that ethyl alcohol was “the fuel of the future” in 1925, he was expressing an opinion that was widely shared in the automotive industry. “The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust — almost anything,” he said. “There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There’s enough alcohol in one year’s yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years.”

Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated.

Ford’s optimistic appraisal of cellulose and crop based ethyl alcohol fuel can be read in several ways. First, it can be seen as an oblique jab at a competitor. General Motors had come to considerable grief that summer of 1925 over another octane boosting fuel called tetra-ethyl lead, and government officials had been quietly in touch with Ford engineers about alternatives to leaded gasoline additives. Secondly, by 1925 the American farms that Ford loved were facing an economic crisis that would later intensify with the depression. Although the causes of the crisis were complex, one possible solution was seen in creating new markets for farm products. With Ford’s financial and political backing, the idea of opening up industrial markets for farmers would be translated into a broad movement for scientific research in agriculture that would be labelled “Farm Chemurgy.”

Why Henry’s plans were delayed for more than a half century:

Ethanol has been known as a fuel for many decades. Indeed, when Henry Ford designed the Model T, it was his expectation that ethanol, made from renewable biological materials, would be a major automobile fuel. However, gasoline emerged as the dominant transportation fuel in the early twentieth century because of the ease of operation of gasoline engines with the materials then available for engine construction, a growing supply of cheaper petroleum from oil field discoveries, and intense lobbying by petroleum companies for the federal government to maintain steep alcohol taxes. Many bills proposing a National energy program that made use of Americas vast agricultural resources (for fuel production) were killed by smear campaigns launched by vested petroleum interests. One noteworthy claim put forth by petrol companies was that the U.S. government’s plans “robbed taxpayers to make farmers rich”.

Gasoline had many disadvantages as an automotive resource. The “new” fuel had a lower octane rating than ethanol, was much more toxic (particularly when blended with tetra-ethyl lead and other compounds to enhance octane), generally more dangerous, and contained threatening air pollutants. Petroleum was more likely to explode and burn accidentally, gum would form on storage surfaces and carbon deposits would form in combustion chambers of engines. Pipelines were needed for distribution from “area found” to “area needed”. Petroleum was much more physically and chemically diverse than ethanol, necessitating complex refining procedures to ensure the manufacture of a consistent “gasoline” product.

However, despite these environmental flaws, fuels made from petroleum have dominated automobile transportation for the past three-quarters of a century. There are two key reasons: First, cost per kilometer of travel has been virtually the sole selection criteria. Second, the large investments made by the oil and auto industries in physical capital, human skills and technology make the entry of a new cost-competitive industry difficult.

Until very recently, environmental concerns have been largely ignored. All of that is finally changing as consumers demand fuels such as ethanol, which are much better for the environment and human health.

References

  • The National Inventors Hall of Fame
  • Global Hemp
  • Green Fuels