Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Why must I pay to watch lies? I'm just trying to watch a little TV. A ball game, a movie... And recently it seems that every night I end up seeing the same commercial at least once. It's propaganda. Worse, it's a lie. And I helped pay for it. Tax dollars fund the Drug Czar's Media Campaign, which includes a number of offensive ads, including this one: A boy walks across the street. He stoops down to add a snapshot to a collection of flowers, photos, and candles by the roadside. Superimposed Text: His kid brother was killed... by a driver under the influence... of marijuana... He was the driver. Voice Over: In a roadside study, one in three reckless drivers who were tested for drugs, tested positive for marijuana. It's more harmful than we all thought. If you haven't seen this commercial (which would probably only be because you've been serving in Iraq, or have been living without a TV), you can watch it at Media Campaign (select "Super Bowl Memorial"). I know I've talked about this particular issue several times, but not nearly as much as the Drug Czar has lied about it. If you do a little research through the Drug Czar's sites, you will discover that their entire support for this claim is based on the following study: Brookoff, D.; Cook, C.S.; Williams, C.; and Mann, CS. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. New England Journal of Medicine 331:518-522, 1994. This "study" basically followed a number of traffic stops in an area one summer. All those who appeared to be drunk were eliminated from the study (and no record was kept of how many were first screened out). Then the rest were tested for marijuana and cocaine (nothing else) with no testing for other drugs, fatigue, etc. There are so many problems here... But why listen to me? According to the editors of the National Drug Strategy Network: [This study has many fundamental methodological flaws. First, the basic data collection technique is flawed by eliminating an unknown number of suspected alcohol intoxicated subjects. Second, 28% of the 175 in the non-alcohol group were tested for alcohol and were positive for recent alcohol use at levels up to 0.21 mg/d l, a level far above legal intoxication. The authors point out that other studies have shown that up to one-third of subjects with blood alcohol levels in the intoxicated range have no appreciable odor of alcohol. Thus some of the intoxicated "drug" cases were certainly intoxicated by alcohol and probably not by use of cocaine or marijuana. The authors fail to correlate any of the alcohol intoxication data they had with either the drug use data or the degree of intoxication. Third, the authors fail to quantify or define "under the influence" and imply that it means testing positive for the drug metabolite in urine at any level of concentration. This indicates nothing about the level of impairment the person is experiencing. Nor does it tell us what drug is responsible for the impairment. In fact, the study states that some of those that were at first classified as not under the influence of alcohol but intoxicated later were found to have blood alcohol levels establishing legal intoxication and that some who tested positive for marijuana did not appear intoxicated. Fourth, the drivers could also have been under the influence of any number of prescription or over-the-counter drugs, for which the researchers did not test. While they tested positive for marijuana or cocaine or both, many other drugs (legal or illegal) could have been responsible for their impairment. This study falls prey to the fallacy that correlation equals causation. Not knowing the total number stopped for reckless driving makes it impossible to support the authors' conclusion that the use of marijuana and cocaine is a major cause of reckless driving. -- Editors] On the other hand, as I have detailed in an earlier post, a number of serious scientific studies have detailed the minimal dangers from marijuana and driving. Again, a reminder... I do not recommend driving while on marijuana (or on a cell phone). However, it pisses me off to continually hear the Drug Czar's lies at my expense. 9:56:25 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Chicago Sun-Times has it right In today's editorial "U.S.  on the Wrong Side of Medical Marijuana Battle" There are so many reasons to decry the federal government's policy on medical marijuana that one hardly knows where to begin.  First is medical science, which shows that marijuana provides unique comfort for those suffering from glaucoma, the effects of chemotherapy, and other ailments.  On this alone, stubborn federal resistance to permitting limited use of marijuana would seem irrational, even cruel. But that is only the beginning.  Nine states, from conservative Arizona to liberal Alaska, have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana with a doctor's prescription, and another 35 states approved of legislation acknowledging marijuana's medical value.  Thus to have the federal government so vigorously fighting to undermine the states in an area -- the oversight of medical practice -- that is otherwise left to local discretion, seems an inexplicable encroachment of Washington into the rights of states. And now, as if more support were necessary, the U.S.  Supreme Court has turned down a Bush administration request that the federal government be able to harass doctors merely for describing the benefits of medical marijuana to their patients.  This was perhaps the most invidious government intrusion of all, since it went beyond the expected control of illicit substances into the control of ideas, of speech.  Unable to counteract the evidence that proves the value of medical marijuana, the administration cravenly sought to control the communication of that evidence... Go ahead. Read it. 9:08:29 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

An Excellent Article SAY GOODBYE TO "JUST SAY NO" - The Drug Laws Have Been Ineffective And Counterproductive.  So Change Them. by Simon Potter, President of the Canadian Bar Association, in the upcoming issue of Time Magazine (Canada). Our current laws have not stopped people from using marijuana.  What these laws have done is greatly expand the profits of criminal and even terrorist organizations, promote a violent black-market trade and waste the time and limited resources of police, prosecutors and the justice system.  They have made the drug use that does occur more dangerous.  Governments have relied on simplistic "just say no" messages to deal with the complex nature of drug use in our society.  They have distracted us from the central issue--why some individuals use drugs in a way that causes harm to them and to the communities around them.  In short, the existing approach has been unnecessary, expensive, ineffectual and counterproductive.  Criminal law is a blunt instrument, inappropriate for dealing with many of the subtleties of a complex society.  The Canadian government's own statement of criminal-justice policy recognizes this.  The Criminal Law in Canadian Society, released in 1982 when Jean Chretien was Minister of Justice, stressed that the criminal law was an instrument of last resort, to be used only when other means of social control were inadequate or inappropriate.  Yet successive federal governments have chosen to ignore this policy when it came to drugs... We need more of this kind of truth and reason reported in the media. 12:00:15 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []