Hospital patient taken from Canadian hospital to face U.S. marijuana charge

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- An Army veteran who fled to Canada to avoid prosecution for growing marijuana to treat his chronic pain was taken from a hospital, driven to the border with a catheter still attached, and turned over to U.S. officials, his lawyer said.

Steven W. Tuck then went five days with no medical treatment and only ibuprofen for the pain, the attorney said.

Tuck, 38, was still fitted with the urinary catheter when he shuffled into federal court Wednesday for a detention hearing Wednesday.

"This is totally inhumane. He's been tortured for days for no reason," Hiatt said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue ordered Tuck temporarily released so he could be taken to a hospital for treatment. But by the time Donohoe issued his order, King County Jail officials had received a detainment request from Humboldt County, California, so Tuck was not released Wednesday, Hiatt said.

"I can't believe we've run into another snag here," the lawyer said.

Tuck suffered debilitating injuries in the 1980s when his parachute failed to open during a jump. Those injuries were exacerbated by a car crash in 1990, Hiatt said, and Tuck was using marijuana for chronic pain.

In 2001, while Tuck was living in McKinleyville, California, his marijuana operation was raided for the second time. He fled to British Columbia to avoid prosecution but asylum was denied.

Tuck checked last Friday into a Vancouver hospital for prostate problems and was arrested there by Canadian authorities.

Richard Cowan, a friend, said he was with Tuck at the hospital when authorities arrested him.

"I would not believe it unless I had seen it," Cowan said. "They sent people in to arrest him while he was on a gurney. They took him out of the hospital in handcuffs, put him in an SUV, and drove him to the border."

Tuck was turned over to Whatcom County Jail officials, who called federal marshals. The marshals took him to the King County Jail in Seattle.

Although Tuck has taken morphine -- as prescribed by doctors -- for about 16 years to help with his pain, he was given no painkiller or treatment at the jail other than ibuprofen, Hiatt said.

Tuck appeared emaciated in court, and Hiatt said he had been sick from morphine withdrawal.

King County Jail officials did not return a call seeking comment, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had no comment.

Tuck is charged federally with unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. Donohue agreed to release him on the condition that he face the charge in the Northern District of California upon his release from the hospital.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, even in states like California that have laws permitting medical marijuana use.



This is such bullshit, we have so many other problems out there, the fact they we put actual manpower behind this screams waste of resouces. Plus they never go after the big growers its always the little guy that takes the fall. Also the methods taken to capture the man are despicable
 
[quote name='docvinh']They really should decriminalize marijuana, this is getting out of hand.[/QUOTE]

No way man. Marijuana is too dangerous to be legalized, what with all the marijuana peddlers on the streets shooting each other and all those marijuana addicts sucking each other off in dark corners for money so they can have their next fix.

If they need pain relief, thye should just start enjoying an true blue American drug! Beer!

:roll:
 
I'm on the fence about this. Yes, marijuana is not a hard drug, and yes, it's a total waste of resources going after cases like this. However, I've lived by some big cities (camden, philly, and baltimore) to see that it can be a slippery slope to harder drugs. I blame the problems of all those cities squarely on the introduction of drugs.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I'm on the fence about this. Yes, marijuana is not a hard drug, and yes, it's a total waste of resources going after cases like this. However, I've lived by some big cities (camden, philly, and baltimore) to see that it can be a slippery slope to harder drugs. I blame the problems of all those cities squarely on the introduction of drugs.[/QUOTE]

Could be your friends?

Besides, if they legalized it then anyone who regularly drinks would probably give it a try. It doesn't necessarily lead to that hard-core stuff.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I'm on the fence about this. Yes, marijuana is not a hard drug, and yes, it's a total waste of resources going after cases like this. However, I've lived by some big cities (camden, philly, and baltimore) to see that it can be a slippery slope to harder drugs. I blame the problems of all those cities squarely on the introduction of drugs.[/QUOTE]
I would say it's possible it's a gateway drug. However, by my totally nonscientific observation of my friends, I would say it's maybe 10-20 percent tops that do other drugs. On the other hand, everyone I know who smokes weed drinks beer, so maybe alcohol is a gateway drug for marijuana.:)
 
[quote name='docvinh']I would say it's possible it's a gateway drug. However, by my totally nonscientific observation of my friends, I would say it's maybe 10-20 percent tops that do other drugs. On the other hand, everyone I know who smokes weed drinks beer, so maybe alcohol is a gateway drug for marijuana.:)[/QUOTE]

Or a gateway drug for idiocy.
 
Gotta hand it to our executive branch. They can't find Osama and other mass murdering terrorists, but they can take the time and expense to track down sick American veterans in foreign hospitals for old marijuana charges.

Glad to know that my tax dollars are fighting sick old stoner veterans in canada rather then mass-murdering religious fundamentalists who want to kill me.
 
Quite a bit of support for a guy who was busted twice for illegally growing, and then fled the country. He was arrested four years after fleeing, so there couldn't have been that many resources used.

Plus, keep in mind the dude has been prescribed Morphine for 16 years. You can't tell me pot is a better painkiller than Morphine. So basically we have someone growing and recreationally using an illegal drug, then fleeing the jurisdiction rather than face punishment.

Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Quite a bit of support for a guy who was busted twice for illegally growing, and then fled the country. He was arrested four years after fleeing, so there couldn't have been that many resources used.

Plus, keep in mind the dude has been prescribed Morphine for 16 years. You can't tell me pot is a better painkiller than Morphine. So basically we have someone growing and recreationally using an illegal drug, then fleeing the jurisdiction rather than face punishment.

Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it.[/QUOTE]

One of the problems with medicine today is that there is too little focus on reducing the patient's pain.

I would suppose that marijuana has less negative side effects then morphine.

Either way - I don't enjoy paying tax dollars so that law enforcement can focus their attention on searching for and arresting drivers who have had one drink, porn that christian groups find offensive, and veteran ex-pats who enjoy growing their own. It's a waste of my tax money - focus on the real criminals and pass the rest of the savings to a government agency that needs it.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I would say it's possible it's a gateway drug. However, by my totally nonscientific observation of my friends, I would say it's maybe 10-20 percent tops that do other drugs. On the other hand, everyone I know who smokes weed drinks beer, so maybe alcohol is a gateway drug for marijuana.:)[/QUOTE]

There isn't any real evidence that it's a gateway drug, it's just that it's the basic drug. Anyone who's done drugs has done marijuana.
 
Does pot make people dumber? Because a lot of people at Berkeley smoke pot and they're still getting A's in clases (grrrrrr!)
 
Actually, the latest studies indicate that marijuana may improve memory.

Many studies have been done on the 'marijuana as a gateway drug' thing, and so far, there have only been 2 outcomes: 1) No correlation as a 'gateway drug', or 2) a 'gateway drug' only in the sense that its illegal, so to buy it you need to deal with criminals who probably have other illegal substances for sale.

Its really pretty of ridiculous that a drug with significant medical properties for pain and nausea (and without the negative side-effects common in man-made alternatives) is illegal even for medical use.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Its really pretty of ridiculous that a drug with significant medical properties for pain and nausea (and without the negative side-effects common in man-made alternatives) is illegal even for medical use.[/QUOTE]

Well, you know, the US government will continue to ban marijuana until there are more progressives in office. The marijuana ban, to me, is the US government trying to save face. One can draw parallels to the way we still have massive trade restrictions and embargos on Cuba. There isn't exactly a huge communist threat anymore. Why maintain massive embargos? To save face until Castro dies, at which point, we'll probably tear the embargos down...or plant a new government. One or the other.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']There isn't any real evidence that it's a gateway drug, it's just that it's the basic drug. Anyone who's done drugs has done marijuana.[/QUOTE]
I agree, some people twist it around so it looks like a gateway drug, but really it isn't any worse then alcohol in my opinion.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I agree, some people twist it around so it looks like a gateway drug, but really it isn't any worse then alcohol in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Alcohol seems to be more detrimental. More alcohol related accidents in terms of:

A) Auto accidents
B) Overdosing (alcohol poisoning)
C) Fights
D) Domestic abuse
E) Cancer
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Alcohol seems to be more detrimental. More alcohol related accidents in terms of:

A) Auto accidents
B) Overdosing (alcohol poisoning)
C) Fights
D) Domestic abuse
E) Cancer[/QUOTE]
True enough. To be honest, I haven't seen too many long-term studies of the effects of marijuana though. Anyone have anything on it?
 
[quote name='docvinh']True enough. To be honest, I haven't seen too many long-term studies of the effects of marijuana though. Anyone have anything on it?[/QUOTE]

I'll check infotrac.
 
Minimal Long-Term Efects of Marijuana Use Found in Central Nervous System by UC San Diego Researchers.

Byline: University of California, San Diego LA JOLLA, Calif., June 27 (AScribe Newswire) -- An analysis of research studies with long-term, recreational users of marijuana has failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users. According to researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the only deleterious side effect found was a minimal malfunction in the domains of learning and forgetting.

The findings were particularly significant considering the movement by several states to make cannabis (marijuana) available as a medicinal drug, and questions regarding its potential toxicity over long-term usage.

Published in the July issue of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, the study involved a quantitative synthesis of 15 previously published research studies on the non-acute (residual) effects of cannabis on the neurocognitive performance of adult human subjects.

The studies included 704 long-term cannabis users and 484 non-users. The neurocognitive performance measurements included simple reaction time, attention, verbal/language, abstraction/executive functioning, perceptual/motor skills, motor skills, learning and forgetting.

"Surprisingly, we saw very little evidence of deleterious effects. The only exception was a very small effect in learning new information," said Igor Grant, M.D., the study's senior author, a UCSD professor of psychiatry, and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR), a collaborative, state-supported program between UCSD and UC San Francisco, that oversees 11 studies of the safety and efficacy of medicinal cannabis to treat certain diseases.

In describing the negative effects in the study, the research team said the problems observed in learning and forgetting suggest that chronic long-term cannabis use results in selective memory defects. They added that "while the results are compatible with this conclusion, the effected size for both domains was of a very small magnitude."

Grant added that the minimal side effects seen "raised the question of practical significance. If we barely find this tiny effect in long-term heavy users of cannabis, then we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting."

In addition, Grant said that heavy marijuana users often abuse other drugs, such as alcohol and amphetamines, which also might have long-term neurological effects. This raises the question of the extent to which the other drugs contributed to the minimal problems found in learning and forgetting in the marijuana users.

The paper's authors also noted that many of the research studies examined had significant limitations, either with small numbers of subjects or insufficient information about potential confounding factors, such as exposure to other drugs or presence of neuropsychiatric factors such as depression or personality disorders.

They noted that only studies that begin with the examination of children and young adolescents before they enter the period of risk to cannabis exposure, can sufficiently reduce the influence of these additional factors.

In addition to Grant, the paper's authors included doctoral students Raul Gonzalez, M.S., and Catherine L. Carey, M.S. and Loki Natarajan, Ph.D., UCSD HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center (HNRC) and UCSD Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, and Tanya Wolfson, M.A., UCSD HNRC.

The study was supported by the CMRC.


AScribe Medicine News Service, June 27, 2003 pNA


THe only other source I found was from 1982 saying long term usage was unclear. It was only an abstract, and had no text.
 
well alcohol is one of the few drugs you can die from withdrawl. I see that as a sign of being a serious drug. Also many drug statistics are false for the fact that marijuana since fat soluble can last in your body over 30 days. So any stats they use about people on pot in specific instances are dubius at best.
 
I was curious to see if there were any studies showing health effects, I remember hearing a while back that marijuana has a higher tar level then cigarettes.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I was curious to see if there were any studies showing health effects, I remember hearing a while back that marijuana has a higher tar level then cigarettes.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that most people in the US smoke filtered cigarettes so less of the tar gets into your lungs, if legalized we could do the same thing with marijuana.
 
A quick google search reveals that the topic is rather complicated. Marijuana has more tar in it than tobacco, but apparently its a different type of tar (or something) that's somewhat less toxic. In addition, tobacco has a lot of other chemicals in it that are also cancer-causing, which marijuana has less of. So the answer is probably somewhere around "roughly as bad, with regards to cancer, as tobacco". You probably shouldn't be smoking either one if you want to live a long, healthy life. Whether or not that qualifies as a reason for keeping it illegal, though...
 
Psh i always say this when it comes to drugs in my life:
People use them, I dont care as long as they don't bug me.

When I'm old enough I don't want to drink, I wouldn't be able to bear seeing my self drunk and acting all weird on someone's video camera.
 
[quote name='cyrix`']Psh i always say this when it comes to drugs in my life:
People use them, I dont care as long as they don't bug me.

When I'm old enough I don't want to drink, I wouldn't be able to bear seeing my self drunk and acting all weird on someone's video camera.[/QUOTE]

You may change your mind when you're old enough to drink.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']You may change your mind when you're old enough to drink.[/QUOTE]

See, I drink, but I've never been drunk. Most kids don't understand that you can drink withing drinking to get drunk. The problem is, if those kids ever get into a bar or a drinking atmosphere, they're less likely to actually understand how to drink responsibly. Then again, my mother has bought me alcohol since I was 13 (I remember because I asked for sake on my birthday) whenever I wanted it, so it wasn't like a world of forbidden pleasure finally opened its doors to me.

When I have kids I'm going to make sure they understand how to drink. I see way to many friends who routinely go out just to get smashed, and they drive home like that. The few kids I know who've been exposed to alcohol since they were younger don't seem to have that problem.
 
[quote name='cyrix`']When I'm old enough I don't want to drink, I wouldn't be able to bear seeing my self drunk and acting all weird on someone's video camera.[/QUOTE]

It would be awesome to save this quote and then put it on a photo of this guy when he's 22 and partying in Cancun.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']When I have kids I'm going to make sure they understand how to drink. I see way to many friends who routinely go out just to get smashed, and they drive home like that. The few kids I know who've been exposed to alcohol since they were younger don't seem to have that problem.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, the kids I've known who were exposed to alcohol early are probably the worst drinkers I know.

Also, I think the people that have the biggest alcohol problems in school are the ones that need the attention the most, or crave the peer admiration the most. It's like reciprocating peer pressure. This just turns into an orgy of drunks and people yelling "woo" all freaking night.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']On the contrary, the kids I've known who were exposed to alcohol early are probably the worst drinkers I know.[/QUOTE]

Ditto
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']On the contrary, the kids I've known who were exposed to alcohol early are probably the worst drinkers I know.

Also, I think the people that have the biggest alcohol problems in school are the ones that need the attention the most, or crave the peer admiration the most. It's like reciprocating peer pressure. This just turns into an orgy of drunks and people yelling "woo" all freaking night.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure if we're referring to the same thing. How were they exposed to alcohol? In controlled family environments, or with other kids? The benefits of growing up with alcohol would be nonexistent if it wasn't in the proper environment.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure if we're referring to the same thing. How were they exposed to alcohol? In controlled family environments, or with other kids?[/QUOTE]

Beats me. However, many have used past drinking experiment as bragging rights. However, a bar/club is most definitely not a controlling environment, and once you hit a rather free environment like that, it's hard to control yourself.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Beats me. However, many have used past drinking experiment as bragging rights. However, a bar/club is most definitely not a controlling environment, and once you hit a rather free environment like that, it's hard to control yourself.[/QUOTE]

That makes a big difference. My point was learning how to control drinking, a part is obviously not the environment for that. Many europeans grow up drinking, and learn how to drink moderately. Obviously it's not a definite, but there is a connection, from the information I've seen and experiences I've had, with early, controlled, moderate drinking and that continuing into adult life. But, in the u.s., most kids who start drinking when they're young don't do it at home from my experience.

But if people walk into a bar with experience in controlling their drinking, then they are less likely to do so in that environment. A person who has been drinking moderately for 6 or 8 years would stand a better chance of continuing that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That makes a big difference. My point was learning how to control drinking, a part is obviously not the environment for that. Many europeans grow up drinking, and learn how to drink moderately. Obviously it's not a definite, but there seems to be a connection, from the information I've seen and experiences I've had, with early, controlled, moderate drinking and that continuing into adult life. But, in the u.s., most kids who start drinking when they're young don't do it at home from my experience.

But if people walk into a bar with experience in controlling their drinking, then they are less likely to do so in that environment. A person who has been drinking moderately for 6 or 8 years would stand a better chance of continuing that.[/QUOTE]

I believe it's all environmental. A european bar is going to have lots of drunk dunderheads and european campustown bars are going to be full of drunk kids looking to score. Even with sporting events, they have their Soccer Hooligans (and a very funny SNL skit).

In the same vein, I doubt kids will little drinking experience are going to go crazy on wine or beer at a restaurant.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I believe it's all environmental. A european bar is going to have lots of drunk dunderheads and european campustown bars are going to be full of drunk kids looking to score. Even with sporting events, they have their Soccer Hooligans (and a very funny SNL skit).

In the same vein, I doubt kids will little drinking experience are going to go crazy on wine or beer at a restaurant.[/QUOTE]

The whole argument is degrees. Sure, every society has their responsible drinkers and their drunks. But, the societies that teach responsible drinking to children, that incorporate it into every life and meals as they would other drinks, seem to lack the same level of alchohol abuse that our society has. I've seen almost nothing, either in personal experience or in articles I've read, to dispute that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']The whole argument is degrees. Sure, every society has their responsible drinkers and their drunks. But, the societies that teach responsible drinking to children, that incorporate it into every life and meals as they would other drinks, seem to lack the same level of alchohol abuse that our society has. I've seen almost nothing, either in personal experience or in articles I've read, to dispute that.[/QUOTE]

Well, I am not denying that alcohol is the culprit in many of the American social ills. However, I was under the assumption that we were talking about stupid kids drinking like fish. Not alcoholic fathers who drink compulsively and addictively.
 
yet another reason i hate the current fascist u.s. government administration...invading other countries to capture a hardened criminal. making the world safer, one dangerous pothead at a time. right here in vancouver at that...they don't give a crap if you smoke here.
 
Heres the the thing, its a proven FACT that corporate tobacco contain high levels of lead, arsenic, and at least thousands of chemicals, not to mention cheap pesticides used in commercial tobacco agriculture. You really can't compare the tobacco industrys product to a sweet homegrown bud, thats like comparing burger king to iron chef...
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Well, I am not denying that alcohol is the culprit in many of the American social ills. However, I was under the assumption that we were talking about stupid kids drinking like fish. Not alcoholic fathers who drink compulsively and addictively.[/QUOTE]

Where did that come from?

Though I don't understand the confusion, seeing as how in my initial post I said they should know how to drink properly, and complained about kids just going out to get smashed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Where did that come from?

Though I don't understand the confusion, seeing as how in my initial post I said they should know how to drink properly, and complained about kids just going out to get smashed.[/QUOTE]

Well, kids going out to get smashed every friday and saturday hardly counts as "alcohol abuse". Alcohol abuse is the father that drinks every day of his life and beats his spouse.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Well, kids going out to get smashed every friday and saturday hardly counts as "alcohol abuse". Alcohol abuse is the father that drinks every day of his life and beats his spouse.[/QUOTE]

It's not desirable drinking behavior, and binge drinking is a more dangerous form of drinking, compared to drinking a glass of wine at dinner every day (countries, such as italy, that do this tend to have much lower abuse rates). It can also be dangerous since they often drive home. But the alcholic father part is where you lost me. We seem to have more alcohol abuse here though than countries where children are taught appropriate drinking habits.
 
Here's an alchol socialization article I found that supports my point:

Stanton Peele
Morristown, NJ

Archie Brodsky

Program in Psychiatry and the Law
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA

Cross-cultural research (medical as well as behavioral) shows that a no-misuse message about alcohol has sustained advantages over a no-use (abstinence) message. Cultures that accept responsible social drinking as a normal part of life have less alcohol abuse than cultures that fear and condemn alcohol. Moreover, moderate-drinking cultures benefit more from the well-documented cardioprotective effects of alcohol. Positive socialization of children begins with parental models of responsible drinking, but such modeling is often undermined by prohibitionist messages in school. Indeed, alcohol phobia in the US is so extreme that physicians are afraid to advise patients about safe levels of drinking........

Some in the public-health and alcoholism fields worry that replacing the current "no-use" (abstinence-oriented) message with a "no-misuse" (moderation-oriented) message would lead to increased alcohol abuse. Yet worldwide experience shows that the adoption of the "sensible drinking" outlook would reduce alcohol abuse and its damaging effects on our health and well-being........


Percent wine
temperence nations- 17.7%
non temperence nations- 43.7%

Percent spirits (hard liquor)
temperence nations-29.2
non temperence nations- 15.9

coronary mortalityd (50-64 males)
temperence nations- 472 per 100,000
non-temperence nations- 272 per 100,000.............

Temperance countries drink less per capita than non-temperance countries. It is not a high overall level of consumption that creates anti-alcohol movements.
Temperance countries drink more distilled spirits; nontemperance countries drink more wine. Wine lends itself to mild, regular consumption with meals, whereas "hard liquor" is often consumed more intensively, drunk on weekends and in bars.......

Ethnic groups in the U.S. The same divergent drinking patterns found in Europe—the countries in which people collectively drink more have fewer people who drink uncontrollably—also appear for different ethnic groups in this country (11). Berkeley's Alcohol Research Group has thoroughly explored the demographics of alcohol problems in the U.S. (6,7). One unique finding was that in conservative Protestant regions and dry regions of the country, which have high abstinence rates and low overall alcohol consumption, binge drinking and related problems are common. ...........

Meanwhile, ethnic groups such as Jewish and Italian-Americans have very low abstinence rates (under 10 percent compared with a third of Americans at large) and also little serious problem drinking

http://www.peele.net/lib/antidote.html
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's not desirable drinking behavior, and binge drinking is a more dangerous form of drinking, compared to drinking a glass of wine at dinner every day (countries, such as italy, that do this tend to have much lower abuse rates). It can also be dangerous since they often drive home. But the alcholic father part is where you lost me. We seem to have more alcohol abuse here though than countries where children are taught appropriate drinking habits.[/QUOTE]

However, studies have shown that most kids grow out of their binge drinking...Or, at least, I hope it was a study. I think I read it in the newspaper a year back, or so.

However, when you mention "alcohol abuse", I immediately thought of a drinking addiction. Not a desire to be wild and crazy with alcohol. That being said, I'm sure all countries have a high prevelance of kids going out and getting smashed (where the luxury is available), however not all countries have as high of numbers of alcohol abuse and addiction.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']However, studies have shown that most kids grow out of their binge drinking...Or, at least, I hope it was a study. I think I read it in the newspaper a year back, or so.

However, when you mention "alcohol abuse", I immediately thought of a drinking addiction. Not a desire to be wild and crazy with alcohol. That being said, I'm sure all countries have a high prevelance of kids going out and getting smashed (where the luxury is available), however not all countries have as high of numbers of alcohol abuse and addiction.[/QUOTE]

Alcohol abuse would be all ranges, both the abusive father and the binge drinker. I don't think you understand the dangers of binge drinking, it is not just a harmless activity, it can cause serious health problems. And whether most kids grow out of it is not the point, the point is those who engage in it have a higher rate of later dependency and/or abuse, and there are ways to lower the amount of kids participating in that to begin with.

In countries where drinking is part of everyday family life, there is a much lower level of children drinking to get drunk:

Britain may be at or near the top of the European leagues for drinking, smoking and drug abuse, but how do other countries fare?

There is distinct split in Europe when it comes to alcohol abuse among the young.
While there are exceptions, more Mediterranean facing countries such as Italy, France and Portugal have far fewer teenagers who get drunk frequently.


Europe's young: Drinking (% teenagers drunk 20 times or more)

Denmark 41%
U.K. 29 %
Finland 28%
Ireland 25%
Portugal 4%
France 4%
Italy 2%
...............

Research has suggested that the differing culture surrounding alcohol means that what consumption there is, is spread over the entire week rather than simply concentrated into binges on Friday and Saturday nights.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1180379.stm
 
Marijuana is illegal beacuse the giant phamacutical corporations cannot make any money on anything that could be grown by peons such as ourselves. Simple as that.
 
[quote name='IkilledLassic']Marijuana is illegal beacuse the giant phamacutical corporations cannot make any money on anything that could be grown by peons such as ourselves. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's why there's no large tobacco companies. And certainly nobody buys such easy-to-grow crops as tomatoes, green beans, peppers, etc, which is why they're impossible to buy in supermarkets.
 
Marijuanas touted as a miracle drugs, is it any wonder why its illegal? Its obvious pharmeceutical companys would rather poison & make money over anything else.
 
Actually people do grow their own tomatoes, beans, cucumbers etc to consistently eat....Eating well doesnt mean your treating a uncurable disorder thats affecting you. Also, tobacco is infinitly harder to grow then marijuana. And if I not mistaken, pharmcecutical companies do not own tobacco companies. AND, you can roll your own spliffs, bypassing the whole filter, nicotine, fiberglass schtick.
 
Of course you CAN - but 99% of the American public doesn't, and wouldn't. Especially if we're talking about medical marijana, since I'm rather doubting a cancer patient is going to want to mess around gardening, and then have to wait X months before the crop comes in.
 
bread's done
Back
Top