 [23] Drugs, policy (1:375/48)  WORLD.DRUG.POLICY 
 Msg  : #3921 [68]                          Loc                                 
 From : Michael Hess                        1:375/48        Thu 21 Jul 94 21:52 
 To   : All                                                                     
 Subj : Damn books, was Damn book!                                              

=============================================================================
* Forwarded by Michael Hess (1:375/48)
* Area : ALT.HEMP (Drugs, hemp)
* From : Michael Hess, 1:375/48 (Thursday July 21 1994 17:39)
* To   : Mr.G
* Subj : Damn books, was Damn book!
=============================================================================
Greetings Mr.G!
Tuesday July 19 1994, Mr.G writes to All:

 MG> From: mrg@netaxs.com (Mr.G)
 MG> Organization: Netaxs BBS and shell accounts!

 MG>   I now consider myself well educated on the subject of hemp.  I have
 MG> read enough studies from various locations to be able to make fairly
 MG> accurate statements about hemp.  Therefore when I was in the library
 MG> yesterday and saw one of those books entitled "Drugs: What You Should
 MG> Know" (not the exact title, but you get the idea) I was interested in what
 MG> it would have to say and hardly any negative aspects of pot have been
 MG> proven. To my surprise, the book stated bluntly "Marijuana dulls your mind
 MG> by killing brain cells".  From my research, this is plain bull; This
 MG> statement has never been proven, nor do I think it true.  Isn't this
 MG> almost illegal? It bothered me to no end to see such a blunt yet untrue
 MG> statement as this one in a probably widely published library book.

When I started the database project I noticed much the same thing. When my
eleven year old daughter checked some childrens books about marijuana from the
local library it be became clearer that many many books that are in daily use
simply do not reflect research about marijuana. I noticed much the same in
reference books like alamanacs (*'s denote italics):

In the CBS News Almanac from 1978 marijuana got a one line entry on p. 239:

Marijuana is a schedule I drug, a hallucinogen with no medical use, no physical
dependance, taken smoked or orally and is available legally only for research.

The 1979 Reader's Digest Almanac and Yearbook has the exact exerpt that I quote
below from the '86 edition, even on the same page:

-begin-

Reader's Digest 1986 p. 453

Marijuana

What are the effects of smoking a marijuana cigarette?

The psychological effects include illusions and distortions of hearing, vision,
and the sense of time. The feeling from smoking marijuana often is one of
passive euphoria, or "high," and sometimes the person may tend to withdraw into
himself.

How long do the effects of marijuana last?

A few inhalations of strong marijuana can intoxicate a person for several hours.

Does the heavy use of marijuana affect a young person's personality development?

Heavy, chronic marijuana use has been associated with the *amotivational
syndrome*, a loss of desire to work and compete.

Is marijuana an addicting drug?

Chronic users become psychologically dependant upon the drug, according to
researchers.

Is there anything in marijuana that leads to other drugs?

Marijuana users are more likely to experiment with other types of drugs than
those who have never used it. However, nothing in marijuana itself produces a
need to use of other drugs.

-end-

A much scarier definition is found in U.S. News and World Report World Almanac
and Book of Facts 1984 on p. 83 and the text may make the source, NIDA, readily
apparent:

-begin-

Marijuana ("grass", "pot", "weed")

What is it?: A common plant (*Cannabis sativa*), it's chief psychoactive
ingredient is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.  The amount of THC in the
marijuana cigarette (joint) primarily determines its psychoactive potential.

Effects: Most users experience an increase in heart rate, reddening of the eyes,
and dryness in the mouth and throat.  Studies indicate the drug temporarily
impairs short-term memory, alters sense of time, and reduces the ability to
perform tasks requiring concemtration, swift reactions, and co-ordination.  Many
feel that their hearing, vision, and skin sensitivity are enhanced by the drug,
but these reports have not been objectivly confirmed by research.  Feelings of
euphoria, relaxation, altered sense of body image, and bouts of exaggerated
laughter are also commonly reported.

Dangers: Scientists believe marjuana can be particularly harmful to lungs
because users typically inhale the filtered smoke deeply and hold it in their
lungs for prolonged periods of time.  Marajuana smoke has been found to have
more cancer-causing agents than are found to have more cancer-causing agents
than are found in cigarette smoke (see above.)  Because marjuana use increases
heart rate as much as 50% and brings on chest pain in people who have a poor
blood supply to the heart (and more rapidly than tobacco smoke does), doctors
believe people with heart comditions or who are at high risk for heart ailments,
should not use marijuana.  Findings also suggest that regular use may reduce
fertility in women and that men with marginal fertility or endocrine functioning
should avoid marijuana use and that it is especially harmful during adolescence,
a period of rapid physical and sexual development.

Risks during pregnancy: Research is limited, but scientists believe marijuana
which crosses the placential barrier, may have a toxic effect on embroyos and
fetuses.

Dependence: Tolerance to marijuana, the need to take more and more of the drug
over time to get the original effect, has been proven in humans and animals.
Phyical dependence has been demonstrated in research subjects who ingested an
amount equal to smoking 10 to 20 joints a day.  When the drug was discontinued,
subjects experienced withdrawal sumptoms-irritability, sleep disturbances, loss
of appetite and weight, sweating,and stomach upset.
Bad reactions: Most commonly reported immediate adverse reaction to marjuana use
is the "acute panic anxiety reaction," usually described as an exaggeration of
normal marijuana effects in which intense fears of losing control and foing
crazy accompany serve anxiety.  The symptoms often disappear in a few hours when
the acute drug effects have worn off.

-end-

An interesting note is the World Almanac and Book of Facts that was published by
the same company, Newspaper Enterprise Association Inc, and offered on the cover
as 'published for The Alabama Journal - The Advertiser' quotes the same article
on page 127. As I recall this is a rather common practice in much of the
country, some of you may be able to confirm this.

These were the only examples I had on hand when I read your post but instead of
facts actually becoming more available as years go by in "books of fact" it
seems that the lean at least for "drugs" to be more propaganda oriented based on
dis-credited studies.

Our children are writing book reports with these kinds of "facts". What they are
writing about is not borne out in real life. (re: teenage marijuana use on
the rise and the upswing in "drug" oriented clothing and ornamentation).

After all is said and done the truth has existed for some time, a lot of us have
pointed out the truth as we know it to many others including mass media (re: the
NBC letters from everyone). It doesn't seem to do any good because the most
basic forms of information contain glaring omissions, mis-representations and
outright lies.

Unless there is a war, and it looks like the Clinton administration is gearing
up for one, the media really only has one big draw and that is the "drug war".

I noticed the other day while writing an article on an un-related subject, state
and federal officials I talked to always seem to use "drug" analogies or
scenarios to describe other behavior. It seems that everything the [American]
public [at least] does and *wants to watch*, always seems to be tied to "drugs"
or "drug related."

Is there a clear answer? Would the mass media rather step over the bodies
instead of reporting the facts about the war on drugs? I don't have any evidence
that there is some kind of organized movement to keep the war on drugs alive in
the media, but after all these years and the governments own studies time after
time dis-proving their "drugs are bad, period" message, why won't the media
expose the government for what it is doing? By not reporting the
facts, it is my view that the media is very much responsible for the hysteria
and violence and deaths that exists today.

Some inroads are being made of course. The Rolling Stone series of articles were
wonderful and a favorable Time magazine article is helpful and the Atlantic
Monthly issue coming out (or now out I have not seen it yet) is supposed to be
favorable towards marijuana.

But what seems to be selling the most are "true life cop" stories. You know the
type, a mom and dad, broke no job selling some kind of dope, busted and their
kid(s) taken from 'em.

The arm chair drug warriors scream "yeah yeah!". The folks who got busted?

Their lives change for the worse or stay the same. Americans seem so insatiable
in their desire to see more and more "busts" that they give no thought that the
war is *causing* the problems for many families, not the drugs.

I have been working on a project to try and get some of the main facts and news
stories about the "big picture" packed into a relatively small bibliographical
reference to be titled POLITICAL DRUG POLICY AWARENESS ver. 1.0. An evolving
reference to be updated at least yearly to be provided electronically to all who
want it, with widest possible dispersion, so folks can print it out and put it
in the hands of their local state and national politicians to let them know WE
KNOW THE TRUTH.

Unfortunately it seems that some usenet folk consider guys like me who run a bbs
system connected to FidoNet and only having a partial newsfeed as some kind of
lower life form.

Since the project came out in May 21st, 1994 The Activist and since I announced
it in a press release at the end of June 1994 in several newsgroups the response
has been extremely lean. Three people in fact have sent any items to be added to
the database which currently contains 334 files about the drug war.
I have answered every email that comes to me, these cost me individually between
14 and 56 cents apiece to send.

The effort has not gone un-noticed in the amateur nets however, from these
folks, many of whom have not even a partial Internet connection the response has
been great. Many have contributed and many more are starved for information.

I feel with a combined effort of faqs, figures and more facts, put personally in
the hands of politicians, over and over again until they get the picture will be
the only way to effect change. There are ripples of change in various parts of
the country.

If you can please contribute factual information to the database, I don't charge
a dime, I am doing this totally on my own funds, I will gratefully accept any
points to useful cites, anecdotal information, news stories with a bearing on
the drug war and very imporatantly international news about harm reduction
policies sweeping other parts of the world.

I apologize for the length of this message but I share your concern at what
appears to be a total blanket of mis-information billed as facts fed to the
general public and children in particular. The PDFA seems to have brought back
in my area at least the crack baby scene rehashed, the amotivational syndrome ad
and a couple of other scare tactic propaganda. I am trying to do my little part
to help change this.

 MG> Owell
 MG> mrg@netaxs.com

     michael.hess@f48.n375.z1.fidonet.org

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
        -- Will Rogers

  :: SHAD Database & POLITICAL DRUG POLICY AWARENESS v.1.0 projects: ::
  :: Michael Hess, The BBS News BBS, 123 Holiday Dr. Titus, AL 36080 ::
  :: Data BBS: 205-567-9310, 16.8 bps, 23 hours. Voice: 205-567-9051 ::

=============================================================================

Hi All!

Does anyone want to add anything to this?

   michael.hess@f48.n375.z1.fidonet.org

 == Actions speak louder than coaches.

--- Golded 2.42 1635US1 via D'Bridge 003179 ---
 * Origin: BBSNEWS * Lake Jordan, Alabama * USR 16.8 205-567-9310 (1:375/48)

