WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The marijuana being sold across the United States is stronger than ever, which could explain a growing number of medical emergencies that involve the drug, government drug experts on Wednesday.
Analysis of seized samples of marijuana and hashish showed that more of the cannabis on the market is of the strongest grade, the White House and National Institute for Drug Abuse said.
They cited data from the University of Mississippi's Marijuana Potency Project showing the average levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in the products rose from 7 percent in 2003 to 8.5 percent in 2006.
The level had risen steadily from 3.5 percent in 1988.
Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, fears the problem is not being taken seriously because many adults remember the marijuana of their youth as harmless.
"It's really not the same type of marijuana," Volkow said in a telephone interview.
"This could explain why there has been an increase in the number of medical emergencies involving marijuana."
The pharmacy department at Mississippi has compiled data on 59,369 samples of cannabis, 1,225 hashish samples, and 443 hash oil samples confiscated since 1975. "The highest concentration of (THC) found in a cannabis (marijuana) sample is 33.12 percent from Oregon State Police," the report reads.
'This is pot 2.0'
Hashish and hash oil concentrations are far higher, as they consist of processed plant product.
"Researchers and treatment experts have argued for some time that today's more powerful marijuana has more harmful effects on users. This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s -- this is Pot 2.0," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement.
Volkow said demand has driven growers to cultivate the stronger stuff. "It is the market," she said. "Like in the market you favor the best tomatoes. When people buy marijuana, they don't want a weak cigarette."
Volkow's institute has been studying the effects of cannabis, whose active ingredients are very similar to important brain chemicals called endogenous cannabinoids.
"It clearly is addictive," she said.
If children and adolescents use marijuana, it could affect their still-developing brains, she said.
The report said more than 60 percent of teens receiving treatment for drug abuse or dependence report marijuana as their primary drug of abuse.
"Although the overall number of young people using marijuana has declined in recent years, there is still reason for great concern, particularly since roughly 60 percent of first-time marijuana users are under 18 years old," Volkow said.
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 4.1 million Americans, or 1.7 percent of the population, report they use marijuana.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Friday, April 20, 2007
Vermont Senate calls for impeachment of Bush
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionality."
The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -- all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it. The resolution was the latest, symbolic, effort in the state to impeach Bush. In March, 40 towns in the state known for its liberal leaning voted in favor of similar, non-binding resolutions at their annual meetings. State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have also pushed for similar resolutions.
The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."
"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq in another non-binding resolution.
Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important.
In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up the measure.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/bush.impeachment.ap/index.html
The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate -- all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it. The resolution was the latest, symbolic, effort in the state to impeach Bush. In March, 40 towns in the state known for its liberal leaning voted in favor of similar, non-binding resolutions at their annual meetings. State lawmakers in Wisconsin and Washington have also pushed for similar resolutions.
The resolution says Bush and Cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust."
"I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect, a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.
Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq in another non-binding resolution.
Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important.
In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up the measure.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/20/bush.impeachment.ap/index.html
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Our rights as women are jeopardized again
(From Hillary Rodham Clinton's mailing list for her campaign.)
We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.
The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.
The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."
There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.
And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.
I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.
The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.
The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."
There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.
And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.
I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Friday, April 06, 2007
What would Jesus really do?
By Roland MartinCNN Contributor
Editor's note: Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and talk-show host on WVON-AM in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith."
NEW YORK (CNN) -- When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant only caring about two issues, abortion and homosexuality?
Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.
Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.
The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith. And those on the left who believe they have a "get out of sin free" card must not be allowed to justify their actions.
Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- the silent war -- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.
As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?
As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.
In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.
A couple of years ago I took exception to an e-mail blast from the Concerned Women for America. The group was angry that Democrats were blocking certain judges put up for the federal bench by President Bush. It called on Americans to fight Democrats who wanted to keep Christians off the bench.
So I called and sent an e-mail asking, "So, where were you when President Clinton appointed Christian judges to the bench? Were they truly behind Christian judges, or Republican Christian judges?
Surprise, surprise. There was never a response.
An African-American pastor I know in the Midwest was asked by a group of mostly white clergy to march in an anti-abortion rally. He was fine with that, but then asked the clergy if they would work with him to fight crack houses in predominantly black neighborhoods.
"That's really your problem," he was told.
They saw abortion as a moral imperative, but not a community ravaged by crack.
If abortion and gay marriage are part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.
I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, " Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.
If they all say they love and worship one God, one Jesus, let's see them rally their members behind one agenda.
I stand here today not as a Republican or a liberal. And don't bother calling me a Democrat or a conservative. I am a man, an African-American man who has professed that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's to whom I bow down.
If you concur, it's time to stop allowing a chosen few to speak for the masses. Quit letting them define the agenda.
So put on the full armor of God because we have work to do.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html
Editor's note: Roland Martin is a CNN contributor and talk-show host on WVON-AM in Chicago, Illinois. He is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith."
NEW YORK (CNN) -- When did it come to the point that being a Christian meant only caring about two issues, abortion and homosexuality?
Ask the nonreligious what being a Christian today means, and based on what we see and read, it's a good bet they will say that followers of Jesus Christ are preoccupied with those two points.
Poverty? Whatever. Homelessness? An afterthought. A widening gap between the have and have-nots? Immaterial. Divorce? The divorce rate of Christians mirrors the national average, so that's no big deal.
The point is that being a Christian should be about more than abortion and homosexuality, and it's high time that those not considered a part of the religious right expose the hypocrisy of our brothers and sisters in Christianity and take back the faith. And those on the left who believe they have a "get out of sin free" card must not be allowed to justify their actions.
Many people believe we are engaged in a holy war. And we are. But it's not with Muslims. The real war -- the silent war -- is being engaged among Christians, and that's what we must set our sights on.
As we celebrate Holy Week, our focus is on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But aren't we also to recommit ourselves to live more like Jesus? Did Jesus spend his time focusing on all that he didn't like, or did Jesus raise the consciousness of the people to understand love, compassion and teach them about following the will of God?
As a layman studying to receive a master's in Christian communications, and the husband of an ordained minister, it's troubling to listen to "Christian radio" and hear the kind of hate spewing out of the mouths of my brothers and sisters in the faith.
In fact, I've grown tired of people who pimp God. That's right; we have a litany of individuals today who are holy, holy, holy, sing hallelujah, talk about how they love the Lord, but when it's time to walk the walk, somehow the spirit evaporates.
A couple of years ago I took exception to an e-mail blast from the Concerned Women for America. The group was angry that Democrats were blocking certain judges put up for the federal bench by President Bush. It called on Americans to fight Democrats who wanted to keep Christians off the bench.
So I called and sent an e-mail asking, "So, where were you when President Clinton appointed Christian judges to the bench? Were they truly behind Christian judges, or Republican Christian judges?
Surprise, surprise. There was never a response.
An African-American pastor I know in the Midwest was asked by a group of mostly white clergy to march in an anti-abortion rally. He was fine with that, but then asked the clergy if they would work with him to fight crack houses in predominantly black neighborhoods.
"That's really your problem," he was told.
They saw abortion as a moral imperative, but not a community ravaged by crack.
If abortion and gay marriage are part of the Christian agenda, I have no issue with that. Those are moral issues that should be of importance to people of the faith, but the agenda should be much, much broader.
I'm looking for the day when Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Joyce Meyer, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, James Kennedy, Rod Parsley, " Patriot Pastors" and Rick Warren will sit at the same table as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia Hale, Eddie L. Long, James Meek, Fred Price, Emmanuel Cleaver and Floyd Flake to establish a call to arms on racism, AIDS, police brutality, a national health care policy, our sorry education system.
If they all say they love and worship one God, one Jesus, let's see them rally their members behind one agenda.
I stand here today not as a Republican or a liberal. And don't bother calling me a Democrat or a conservative. I am a man, an African-American man who has professed that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that's to whom I bow down.
If you concur, it's time to stop allowing a chosen few to speak for the masses. Quit letting them define the agenda.
So put on the full armor of God because we have work to do.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/04/martin.jesus/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
