When I looked up the topic of marijuana legalization on several indexes of editorials online, I found many interesting sources, including: “Arresting the Drug Laws”, by David Silverberg (2005, p.33), “Limited victory for medical cannabis”, by Andy Coghlan (2003, p.13), and “What Do Student Drug Use Surveys Really Mean?”, by Mike A. Males (2005, pp.31-33).
In, “Arresting the Drug Laws”, David Silverberg (2005, p.33) talks about an organization called LEAP, or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. He starts off by mentioning that the group was established three years ago by two ex-cops, and has since grown to over 2,000 members. He also informs the reader that LEAP only consists of ...view middle of the document...
Coghlan first explains how the study was conducted. He says that a group of 630 people was split up equally into three categories: one-third was given delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one-third was given a marijuana extract, and one-third was given a placebo. He informs readers that the study was mainly performed to establish the effects of marijuana on spasticity associated with Multiple Sclerosis (p.13).
The author goes on to elaborate on the reason why his article reflects only a “limited victory” for marijuana’s medicinal legislation. He states that even though more patients that actually received active marijuana ingredients in their pills claimed relief from their symptoms, there was still a fairly high percentage that claimed relief from the placebo (p.13).
He concludes with a statement made by Alan Thompson, from the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London: “The major problem with smoking is making sure you know how much active component is in the blood, and the second problem is the cancer risk.” This is why, Coghlan says, that scientists advise against the actual smoking of marijuana, but rather the use of drugs made from the active ingredients inside it (p.13).
Conversely, Mike A. Males (2005, pp.31-33) talks about one particular aspect that current drug policies are based on. He discusses the use and misuse of surveys given to high school students and young adults by two government sponsored organizations: Monitoring the Future (MTF) and Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE).
He explains that anti-drug campaigns for our children are often based on the results from these two surveys. He says that if the outcome of these surveys shows an increase in drug use, that it could put an end the current drug education program, on the other hand if there is a decrease, then accomplishment of the program is acknowledged (p.31).
The author goes on to explain that further analysis of results illustrate that drug use is not always related to problems in the individuals’ lives; in fact, MTF studies have shown that the behaviors of casual marijuana users is strikingly akin to students who do not use any drugs at all (p.31).
Males later talks about the details of how these surveys are conducted. He says that the surveys ask more about the students’ lives aside from their current and past drug use; they also ask questions regarding how happy they are with their present situation, social lives, safety, what they see themselves doing in the future, misbehavior, and if they are being harassed by others. He explains that the organizations also follow up and give surveys to young adults ages 18-29 to see where people from each generation have ended up (pp.31-32).
Next, Males talks about the results of MTF’s and PRIDE’s surveys. He explains that the outcomes are extremely mixed and unexpected. They actually show correlation between generations...