Drug Legalization Advocate Ignores Connection to Child Abuse
Tuesday, 22 June, 2010 - 05:31 PM
Drug Legalization Advocate Ignores Connection to Child Abuse
In a recent appearance on the O'Reilly show, a representative from a drug legalization organization refused to acknowledge that drug use by parents and caregivers can result in child abuse and neglect, despite the host's citing statistics proving otherwise. His insistence that alcohol was to blame for the fact that over seventy percent of child abuse and neglect is related to substance abuse flies in the face of the many stories of children who have suffered at the hands of drug-addicted parents. Such stories speak for themselves legalizing drugs at the expense of children damaged for life by intoxicated caregivers does not constitute sound drug policy and never will.
Comments
My name is Lee, and I dislike you.
For what it's worth -
"... 70 percent of all AARP members polled want to see medical marijuana become legal in the United States." - AARP
Would you deny a dying man his wish? Consider that many in the AARP are war veterans or have at least served in the armed forces and you're really just hurting those who have fought so hard to protect you.
PS Why is it putting my subject heading in all caps? Seems a bit unnecessary...
My name is Joe, and I Dislike Half Truths!
For what it's worth - Statistics direct from the AARP survey.
Those 70 and older who believe marijuana has medical benefits 34%
Those age 50-69 who believe marijuana has medical benefits 59%
The true group that wants to legalize aren't Senior citizens...
Those age 45-49 who believe marijuana has medical benefits 70%
Now the other half of the story
Total who believe marijuana is addictive 74% - please note higher than percent that wants it legalized
Those age 70 and older who believe marijuana is addictive 83%
(They didn't publish the results from 50-69 year olds)
Those age 45-49 who believe marijuana is addictive 61%
Could it be the addicts are the ones who want it legalized?
And one more thing
Those age 70 and older who have smoked marijuana 08%
Those age 60-69 who have smoked marijuana 15%
Those age 50-59 who have smoked marijuana 37%
Those age 45-49 who have smoked marijuana 58%
Again that group who are not senior citizens...
So if the AARP took out the whole "not senior citizen" group the numbers would be a whole lot different. Oh, and the poll was not of AARP members but a street poll of individuals 45 and older. AARP has no political stance on the Marijuana issue.
Since you are so concerned
Since you are so concerned with the health and welfare of America, chew on this:
ATLANTA, June 25 (UPI) -- U.S. adults consume more than twice the current recommended sodium limit for most Americans, federal health officials said.
Fewer than 10 percent of U.S. adults restrict their daily salt consumption to the recommended levels -- less than 2,300 milligrams of sodium per day, the Centers for the Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report reported.
However, lead author Janelle Peralez Gunn, a public health analyst with CDC's division for heart disease and stroke prevention, said most people -- nearly 70 percent of the U.S. adult population, which includes those with high blood pressure, all middle-age and older adults and all African-Americans -- should limit sodium intake to 1,500 mg per day.
The study is based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, that included 24-hour dietary recall data.
One in three U.S. adults has high blood pressure and it is estimated 90 percent of U.S. adults will develop high blood pressure in their lifetime, the report said.
An estimated 77 percent of salt comes from processed and restaurant foods, but many of these products like breads and cookies, may not even taste salty.
"Sodium has become so pervasive in our food supply that it's difficult for the vast majority of Americans to stay within recommended limits," Gunn said in a statement.
.....waiting to hear about the formation of the SFAF: Salt Free America Foundation, Inc.
Conflation in this nation
Hmmm, let's see. O'Reilly cites some statistics from CASA, a known prohibitionist outfit, and refuses to discuss what percent of abuse is due to alcohol (a drug know to promote violence). Nadelmann, who you didn't have the courtesy to name, points this out as well as the fact that different drugs have different effects on users (e.g. alcohol makes users more violent, on average, than pot). And now at the end you bolster your argument about statistics with... anecdotes? Sad, pathetic, attempt at argumentation.