Jacob Sullum | March 27, 2008
NORML's Paul Armentano notes that, according to the government's own data, one-third of the people admitted to treatment for marijuana "dependency" in the U.S. have not smoked pot in the previous month. How is that possible? See if you can guess.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Without looking at the link, it's almost certainly because the
courts require people to check into rehab if they're convicted of
possession, because possession of marijuana is regarded as de facto
evidence of "a drug problem".
So even if you smoked pot once a month, you'd still be declared an
abuser by the system, because that's the way prohibitionist scum
thinks.
Hmm, I'm starting to think our drug laws might be slightly short of perfect and effective.
Show them we won't take it anymore.
Attend the Floridians Advocating Medical Marijuana Education
(FLAMME) benefit, that
my band is playing.
Additional info Here and Here.
Personally I've been to treatment twice, but only once was it
court ordered.
The other time I went on my own... but it was on advice from my
lawyer... to try to get a reduced sentence.
Oh BTW, it is safe to say that neither time did I get cured of drug problem.
Alkali,
The programs were not specific to the drugs involved. Basically
there were 3 types of people there. Ones with real drug problems
who voluntarily went (mostly meth addicts where I live),
court-ordered pot heads who had to pretend to have problems so they
could be "cured" so their consolers would send the appropriate
report to their judge/PO, and the court ordered fucking loonies who
were so far beyond help that there is no way the program would do
any good.
I think at least some of the consolers knew the score with the pot
heads, so as long as you played along a little and didn't disrupt
group therapy, they played too and pretty much left you
alone.
Basically like our drug laws in general, it was a farce.
The treatment industry will be even tougher than law enforcement when it come to legalizing drugs. It isn't just money to these guys, it's a freaking mission.
When I was doing social work for the state a group of us were
sent to a seminar on drug abuse and treatment. The clinic we went
to got a lot of business from court mandated cases. After brief
introductions we split into groups and the first counselor we met
with told us that anyone who is underage and drinks has a problem.
We thought we heard him wrong.
"What if the underage person only has one drink a week?"
"That's a problem drinker because it's against the law."
"What if the underage drinker is 20 years old and moves to
Europe?"
"I guess that would be okay then."
"So if anyone ever smokes marajuana they're an abuser cause it's
illegal?"
"Yes."
Everyone in our group tuned out after that and watched the clock
till lunch break.
I'm guessing it's because pot makes you forgetful, and those poor weed-addled addicts just forgot to smoke for a month.
Come on folks ... pot is addictive. Just like any other substance known to man, it can be habit-forming and can be dangerous. All of you should be glad for reasonable treatment programs instead of the "harsh" sentencing that is railed against on H&R every day.
"Rather, most of these individuals are arrested for possessing
minor amounts of pot and are referred to drug treatment by the
courts as either an alternative to jail or as a requirement of
their probation."
I expect to see referrals as an alternative to increase. I think
they call it reform.
The treatment industry will be even tougher than law
enforcement when it come to legalizing drugs. It isn't just money
to these guys, it's a freaking mission.
Actually, I think it would be a great boon for the industry. First
of all, if drugs were legalized I have a feeling that the treatment
lobby could get their hands on quite a bit of the money now used
for the war on drugs.
Secondly, when you look at the influence of anti-drunk driving
groups, I think it's very likely that the treatment industry would
gain significantly in public prominence and stature.
Thirdly, without a portion of their paying customers going to jail
for non-violent crimes they could spend much more time and earn way
more money re-educating them.
"All of you should be glad for reasonable treatment programs
instead of the "harsh" sentencing that is railed against on H&R
every day."
If someone really thinks they have a problem that treatment would
help with, more power to them. But the assumption on the part of
the courts is that any marijuana use is by definition a drug
problem that requires treatment. Many of us know from experience
that this position is asinine. You wouldn't force someone into
alcohol rehab for having a sixpack in their trunk.
And yeah, I concede that pot like anything pleasurable can be habit
forming. But as bad habits go, it's pretty benign. Short-term
memory loss, a little weight gain, and a general lack of ambition
won't make you a great success in life but it's not going to kill
you either.
The treatment industry is just another special interest that
supports the War on Drugs Sanity. It's 70% of their
business. Wal Mart would go belly up if 70% of their customers went
away. I've been discounting the counseling experts input on the
debate for some time, but it'll be nice to have that 70% figure
when arguing discussing the issue with others.
Has anyone else noticed that a hell of a lot of people in the
treatment industry are ex-junkies who have taken a six-week course
and are now certified "drug counsellors".
For some reason they can't imagine that the guy who's there because
he was court ordered for his first DUI is not just like they were,
knocking over liquor stores or selling their car for just enough
cash for a fix.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245