Teen Experts: A Joint is Better Than Alcohol

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:32:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Newsweek examines teen drinking this week. Experts say pot is better for them than alcohol:

Even if they don't become alcoholics, teens who drink too much may suffer impaired memory and other learning problems, says Aaron White of Duke University Medical Center, who studies adolescent alcohol use. He says parents should think twice about offering alcohol to teens because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to damage than adult brains.

"If you're going to do that, I suggest you teach them to roll joints, too," he says, "because the science is clear that alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana."

The DEA of course sends a contrary message. Just last week, Mark R. Trouville, chief of the DEA's Miami office, announced at an indoor marijuana grow bust:

"This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana," Trouville said. "This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you."

< GOP Primary Fever | No Bond for Genarlow Wilson >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Teen Experts: A Joint is Better Than Alcohol | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Damn, I forgot what I was gonna... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by desertswine on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:30:40 PM EST

The grow house bust went well, but (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by scribe on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:26:49 PM EST

Agent Trouville was still worried. As was his wont, seeing the media had finally arrived and set up the cameras he went into his hyper-cop authoritarian mode, the one he'd practiced. The camera's lights came on and he began speaking:

"More importantly," Agent Trouville thought, "if there's ever legalization I'm out of a job."

: and then some joker drove by outside, (none / 0) (#19)
by scribe on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:57:34 PM EST

his stereo blasting the first track, "Light Up", from this album, the song you never hear any more because radio stations had banned it.

teen experts (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by chemoelectric on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:27:56 PM EST

Who are teen experts, is that Doogie Howser? :)

An observation (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:49:47 PM EST

"This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana," Trouville said.

Funny. As far as I can tell, all the people I knew who were stoners back in the day are rich now.

Most of the drinkers are dead, or look like they are.

In the sixties, we smoked sh!t. Now what we smoke is THE sh!t.

And this is why DrugWarriors always sound like (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by SeeEmDee on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:54:53 AM EST

a scratched CD; they are severely limited to the kinds of lies they can tell.

Themes in Chemical Prohibition by William L. White from: Drugs in Perspective, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979

Essentially, there's only 8 kinds of lies they can tell; everything they come up with are nothing but variations of these basic themes:

1. The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy.

The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity.

The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug.

The concept of "controlled" usage is destroyed and replaced by a "domino theory" of chemical progression.

The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption.

Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered "contagious."

Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access.

Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated. (Emphasis mine; a few years back the prohibitionists in Congress tried to muzzle anti-prohibition groups with the Anti-Meth bill and were soundly berated for their attempt at stifling First Amendment rights, but they'll try again, just you watch.)

Sound familiar?

A bit out of context... (none / 0) (#1)
by lawstudent on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:45:56 PM EST

I think you're misconstruing the comments of that article a bit. Now if this posting's only point is that, scientifically, pot is not as bad for you as alcohol, fine. I believe that is correct (and apparently scientists do as well).

But to allude that the article is saying pot use is okay/not so bad/however you want to characterize it, is entirely off the mark. One of the article's main points is the susceptibility to damage of a teen's body/mind. Aaron White is saying: if you're going to destroy their mind with alcohol, do it with pot, too, because alcohol is not only just as bad--it's worse.

Again, not that I don't agree that pot use is less damaging than alcohol use--I do--it's just that I don't think the article gave any sort of endorsement to smoking pot, particularly among teens, and isn't really inconsistent with the DEA's statements.

Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:07:46 PM EST

Newsweek examines teen drinking this week. Experts say pot is better for them than alcohol.

And jumping off the roof of a house is better for them than driving a car at 100mph into a bridge abutment.

Jeralyn, come on.


: what is your problem? (none / 0) (#12)
by Sailor on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:37:19 PM EST

pot is better for them than alcohol. That was the statement, there was no encouragement of either.
The DEA is continuing to lie about pot, they imply that it is worse than alcohol.

"This will kill you." (none / 0) (#2)
by SeeEmDee on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:51:37 PM EST

Okay, then; where are the millions of dead bodies of people who've used cannabis recently that by Agent Trouville's assertion should be spilling out of every morgue in America? According to him, we'd have to rent space in meat lockers and portable refrigeration trucks to hold all the casualties. By his lights, the number of death certificates could be stacked several stories high. Where are they? In Flatland or some other dimension? They sure aren't anywhere to be seen...

In just about every social paradigm shift I've ever read about, when a society begins to change, the die-hard defenders of the status quo start talking crazy. Their histrionics just get sillier and more shrill. Here's a perfect example of that in operation.

: "This will kill you...." (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:59:20 PM EST

LOL...I should be on my eighth life by now if Touville were correct. What gets my goat the most is we pay the liar's salary. Infuriating.

: Sillier and shriller, not. (none / 0) (#20)
by dkmich on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 05:01:41 PM EST

They've been saying this tired ol' garbage for 30 years that I know of. What is really dangerous is lying to the kids cause they aren't stupid. Once Office DARE loses credibility on "killer" pot, he loses credibility on "killer" crack, heroine, etc. The worse thing about pot is the people users have to associate with so they can buy it. No, this is a bogey man under the bed and nobody buys it. It needs to be legalized, and I'll take my kid high on pot instead of alcohol anyday. In fact, world would be a much better place if they banned alcohol and legalized pot.

Can't really accept its a good idea to (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:58:11 PM EST

facilitate a teenager's smoking anything.

I think the point was... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:04:02 PM EST

if a parent insists on giving their teenager a buzz...reefer is the least harmful option.

I don't think the writer is encouraging teen reefer use, just saying it's less dangerous than alcohol. Nothing new to those in the know.


Understood. Just don't agree, as smoking (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:06:52 PM EST

anything that becomes a habit is not so great for the lungs. Just listen to my daugher cough.


Contrary to Popular Belief (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:22:11 PM EST

Smoking weed does not cause lung cancer. And has other health benefits.


"Wreaks havoc" w/bronchial tissues but (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:32:47 PM EST

doesn't cause lung cancer. Take your choice.


My Advice (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:04:01 PM EST

Get highest quality MJ so smoke intake is minimal.
Get a vaporizer.

That should minimalize, or mitigate future bronchial damage.

: Eat it! (none / 0) (#26)
by roger on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 09:03:47 AM EST

...Brownies

Chill Out (none / 0) (#4)
by squeaky on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:58:59 PM EST

Sounds like Agent Trouville needs to toke up and relax. The frenzied talk about death will give him a heart attack especially in Miami where it is so hot.

More deaths have been prevented by MJ as it has been shown to be an anti cancer agent among other things. Not one death has ever been attributed to MJ use.

...and grandpa drank himself to death (none / 0) (#13)
by roy on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:44:58 PM EST

Statements like that might have a ring of credibility if they hadn't been making over-the-top claims since at least my father's time. Shorter DEA: "No, really, this time for sure."

And as for "this will kill you", death by overdosing on pot seems to be vanishingly rare. Maybe literally vanishingly, because I can't find a single solid instance of it (with two minutes of casual research). Only a few maybes.

Google marijuana overdose death.

Now Google alcohol overdose death.

And no, this isn't another silly "see how many articles come up" exercise. Read a bit. We're not even comparing apples and oranges here, we comparing apples and a faint smell of oranges that might just be a trick of your mind because you saw a basketball from a distance this morning and thought it might have been an orange.

: Well said roy.... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:56:47 PM EST

The bit about your dad's and granddad's marijuana does have some truth to it. My dad told me himself after partaking with me...his exact words "we didn't have sh*t like this when I was your age." We both agreed the advances in cultivation were a good thing, not a negative.
I never had the pleasure with grandpa...the old timers on the Lebanese side of the family preferred hashish anyway.

Lessons of History (none / 0) (#18)
by Cheesehead on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 03:55:03 PM EST

At some point the government of this country needs to understand that the current drug policy destabilizes the government of Mexico and greatly contributes to organized crime. One only needs to look at Prohibition for a model of whats happening now. The Purple Gang (an ethnic Jewish gang from Detroit) controlled alcohol imports across the Detroit River, and even Al Capone (Mr. St. Valentine's Day Massacre) couldn't displace them. Now we have ethnic Mexican gangs controlling the drug trade across the US-Mexico border. Legalize marijuana, and tax it. Take out the profit margin. Require licensed American grown weed. Buy the excess coca in Columbia, Peru and Bolivia before it becomes cocaine. (It's cheaper than paying the DEA operations, which destabilize those countries) Fight like hell against meth, which has destroyed so many lives in middle America.

legalized marijuana and alcohol (none / 0) (#21)
by diogenes on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:31:23 PM EST

Excess use of alcohol is worse for teens than excess use of marijuana, certainly. Whether having one drink three times a week or smoking one joint three times is worse is a more open question, and there is little evidence that having one drink three times a week harms anyone's growing brain.

This is ridiculous (none / 0) (#22)
by eric on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:45:46 PM EST

This is ridiculous. The "Teen Experts" didn't say, "A Joint is Better Than Alcohol".

This fellow, Aaron White of Duke University Medical Center, picked a very vivid metaphor, one that he thought would conjure up some real negative reaction from parents. By comparing the providing of alcohol to teens with "teaching them how to roll joints," he was attempting to find a comparison that would really get parents attention - one that would make them think, "I would NEVER want to do that!"

It is absolutlely silly to read these comments and take from it some sort of implication that he endorses one over the other. In his mind, he may as well as said, "you might as well teach your child to inject heroin." He wasn't making any kind of substantive statement about a comparison between alcohol and joints, he was just trying to use a comparison that would horrify parents.

If my teenager was going to (none / 0) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 04:44:35 AM EST

do one or the other I would prefer them to get stoned. Something about being drunk and a teen always seemed to get us in trouble and sometimes even hospitalized but the few times I was stoned the only thing I could hurt was a bag of Doritos.

Why is this news? (none / 0) (#25)
by rundrugsoutoftownrun on Thu Jun 28, 2007 at 07:10:48 AM EST

Thirty five years ago Richard Nixon had a Presidential Commission on Marijuana which concluded that marijuana was less harmful than alcohol and should be dealt with accordingly. Nixon's response was "poppycock" and thus began his War on Drugs.

Anyone who has sampled both will give you the same conclusion and anyone who has grown up will tell you that the War on Drugs should be aimed at changing attitudes about drug use and teaching kids to be responsible for their choices rather than blaming inanimate objects like the drugs.

I have known too many people who have died from drugs. Some overdosed on hard drugs others by huffing but the majority have been victims of alcohol and tobacco. I have yet to see or even hear of someone dying from pot not even the supposedly stonger stuff today. The worst effects I have seen are lethargy and apathy and those are reasons enough to keep kids off the stuff.