Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


Marijuana.jpg
The Drug Enforcement Administration eradicated over 10.3 million marijuana plants in fiscal year 2009 and 10.3 million in fiscal year 2010, according to a new report. (AP file photo)

New DEA report says marijuana legalization promotes drug use

January 23, 2013 @ 4:37 pm (Updated: 6:01 pm - 1/23/13 )

The more available marijuana is in Washington, the more users and abusers we'll have.

That's what the nation's top drug enforcement agency says, as our state figures out how to implement the voter-approved initiative legalizing marijuana.

In a 100-page financial audit,the Drug Enforcement Administration says, "Keeping marijuana illegal reduces its availability and lessens willingness to use it."

Conversely, "Legalizing marijuana would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of drug use."

The statement appears in a section about challenges that might prevent the DEA from meeting its 2013 goals.

The DEA eradicated over 10.3 million marijuana plants in fiscal year 2009 and 10.3 million in fiscal year 2010, according to DEA data.

This report comes one day after Governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson met with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Washington, D.C. Federal law banning marijuana conflicts with Washington's new Initiative 502, which makes possession of an ounce of pot legal for those 21 and older.

While President Obama has said the federal government has "bigger fish to fry" than to go after marijuana users in Washington state, Holder has not said whether he intends to look the other way with our law or enforce the existing national policy which considers marijuana to be an illegal drug.

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (27)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    I can't find the end of the article, it ends in mid sentence.
    January 23, 2013 4:28 pm
    Must be me. Where do I need to look for the remainder?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Chuck
    January 23, 2013 5:03 pm
    Not sure what happened.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • PhilDeBowl wrote...
    DEA Not the only Dummies in DC.
    January 23, 2013 4:36 pm
    The DEA was sued in federal court to justify their placing cannabis in schedule one of the CSA,in light of the changes that have occured over the last few years. And yet yesterday the three judge panel sided with the DEA, saying that the DEA did Not act capriciously or arbitrarily when they rejected over 200 peer reviewed medical studies supporting the medicinal utilty of MJ because the studies did not meet "Their Standard". If that ain't capricious and arbitrary I don't know what is.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Leagalze a drug and it's use increases????
    January 23, 2013 5:02 pm
    Gee I wish I would have said this before the government decriminalized it.

    How about it? Now let's try for Heroin. Why not. What could possibly go wrong?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bowtiesarecool wrote...
    Explain
    January 23, 2013 11:43 pm
    So what you are saying is that since 1937, when marijuana was first made illegal, the amount of users has decreased? You're calling our government liars, then. In 1937, the FBN stated there were 55,000 users in the US. The ONDCP now says that in 2011, there were 55 million regular users. While our population increased by 250%, marijuana use increased 100,000%. Do you call that reduced use? Maybe you can explain the Netherlands, which hasn't enforced marijuana use laws in generations, having use levels a fraction of our? How about Spain, who 11 years ago decriminalized the use of all drugs, and have seen use fall, again well below that which we experience. What is it about people who believe that by making something extremely profitable to sell the result will be fewer people selling it? The evidence all points to exactly the opposite. Unless you can provide an example of a successful prohibition, of any substance, in any country, in the history of civilization? We had no drug laws for the first 140 years of this country's existence. Are you trying to tell us things are better now? Pssh.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ted Bundi wrote...
    @bowtiesarecool
    January 24, 2013 2:14 am
    Easy answer... follow the money. The gov wants their share. Now that pot is legal, all I've been reading is how the state is going to collect the tax on it. Sheesh, they are spending my money in committee meetings to what they need to name the new "Liquor Control Board".... Note: they have no liquor to control anymore...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • knowa wrote...
    Patrick Henry
    January 23, 2013 5:04 pm
    Where are the millions of marijuana victims with the exception of prohibition scars there have never have been any
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    author...
    January 23, 2013 5:05 pm
    Is the author of the DEA report named Captain Obvious?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    What else was a report
    January 23, 2013 5:38 pm

    From the Drug Enforcement Agency suppose to say.

    The requested Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Drug Control Budget demonstrates commitment to these goals, requesting $25.6 billion to reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States. This represents an increase of $415.3 million (1.6%) over the FY 2012 enacted level of $25.2 billion.

    Come on, why are yall falling for the banana in the tail pipe trick, this is a JOBS program for the Justice system. If they decriminalize it, they would not need that $25 BILLION dollars annually, they need the dope dealers and the cartels, they need it to be illegal so they can keep there jobs.

    All these fake a55 constitutional rights conservatives who want to control another persons usage of whatever they choose to put into there bodies,lol. One thing I can't stand is a bible thumping jackbooted conservative HYPROCRITE.

    Alcohol use to be illegal and we all saw the blood shed over alcohol, look at it now that it's legalize, NO MORE AL CAPONES? I can't believe the general public is so naive.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    One thing I can't stand is a bible thumping jackbooted conservative HYPROCRITE
    January 23, 2013 8:10 pm
    Uhhh! Just in case you missed the memo, toots, MJ is now Legal.

    I am certain that the long term ramifications of this stupid act will be obvious someday as more and more drugs will be come decriminalized. And as for people here expressing their DIS sanctification with this passage, well it is freedom of speech. Either debate it or get over it. Either way, It is here to stay!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    It's me! Ha ha!
    January 23, 2013 8:34 pm

    That's not the point Ha,ha, You, yes you and a few other posters are on another thread from Linda Thomas preaching RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS and how the government keeps taking away your rights and then the same culprits are here complaining why rights are being given back to the people that never should have been taken in the first place!!!

    We have history with this with alcohol, when it was legal, it gave rise to the gangs and mafia and there was bloodshed worst than it is today with drugs, they decriminalized it and usage has picked up and there is absolutely no criminal element to it.

    You can't go on one thread and talk about individual rights and 5 seconds later hit another thread and want to take away the same rights you were just whining about.

    That's hyprocrisy at it's finest.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Correction mister DEA grumpy-pants
    January 23, 2013 9:47 pm
    It promotes "Washington State legalized drug use!" It also cuts off funtion to the right side of the brain and confuses the left side into believing, no matter how ridiculous, that it is right. And thats why it will grow lots of new liberal parasites voters for taxpayers to have to host now. Rome fell too.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    So what
    January 23, 2013 10:31 pm
    What does alcohol do to the brain? What does cigarettes do to the brain? Just another freakin hyprocrit trying to justify there hyprocrisy. When it falls, it won't be because of marijuana I bet you that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bowtiesarecool wrote...
    Science
    January 23, 2013 11:52 pm
    Why the failure to cite some peer reviewed evidence of your claims? Because it doesn't exist. People are stupid enough to buy your stuff any longer. Do you think if it was true, the DEA would pass up the opportunity to scream it from the highest mountaintops? Yet, they don't. Why do you know more than the DEA about drugs? I suggest a quick internet search. DEA Administrative Judge Francis Young, "marijuana is the least toxic substance known". Safer than aspirin, according to a DEA judge, right there for you to read for yourself. You can choose to be ignorant, you can have a wrong opinion. But you don't get to make up false facts. Cite it if it exists. Take it as a challenge.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • malcolmkyle wrote...
    And more science
    January 24, 2013 12:07 am
    Here are just some of the many studies the Federal government commissioned and now ignores: 01) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002. 02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE: Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept. 1997 03) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE: Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504. 04) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK: The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193. 05) PROHIBITION MAY CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p 836-842. 06) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 1): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602. 07) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART 2): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997. 08) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 3): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728. 09) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART 4): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006. 10) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE GREAT MEDICAL VALUE: In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." The report also added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ted Bundi wrote...
    @bowtiesarecool
    January 24, 2013 2:26 am
    " I suggest a quick internet search." Carefull, Darpa search can bring any info up to you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ted Bundi wrote...
    Yeap, right
    January 24, 2013 2:03 am
    Where do I summit my report?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    You can't go on one thread and talk about individual rights and 5 seconds later hit another thread and want to take away the same rights you were just whining about.
    January 24, 2013 5:11 am
    What????? You care to show me where I am about taking away anyone's rights? In case you cannot figure it our I am not a Liberal, I will fight tooth and nail to preserve our Constitutional rights.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }