Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Gateway Via The Drug Update, I see that someone's trying to drag out the old gateway theory again. The gateway theory really only holds true in one respect -- that people who buy marijuana have to do so from criminals who also sell other drugs, so they may be convinced to buy those as well (an argument against prohibition). Yet people continue to try to promote or "prove" the biological effect, or "stepping stone" version of the gateway theory. The latest is at Nature.com under the fancy title: Adolescent Cannabis Exposure Alters Opiate Intake and Opioid Limbic Neuronal Populations in Adult Rats Here's what they claim to have discovered: THC-pretreated rats showed an upward shift throughout the heroin self-administration acquisition... phase, whereas control animals maintained the same pattern once stable intake was obtained. In other words, if you happen to be a THC-pretreated rat (and I'm sure there are some of you out there reading this), and you decide to use heroin, you may have the desire to increase your heroin use. If, however, you are not a THC-pretreated rat, but rather an ordinary rat, then your heroin use will probably be stable. Their conclusion: The current findings support the gateway hypothesis demonstrating that adolescence cannabis exposure has an enduring impact on hedonic processing resulting in enhanced opiate intake, possibly as a consequence of alterations in limbic opioid neuronal populations. Actually, no. The gateway hypothesis (as it is popularly used by the media and politicians) has to do with an increased predilection for both the use and abuse of the latest horror drug-du-jour, ie., "marijuana will lead you to heroin addiction," not "marijuana use when you're young will, if you use heroin when you're older, make it harder to quit" (if you're a rat). The use of the word gateway in the abstract of this study is a blatant attempt to get publicity for their study, likely with the full knowledge that their data will be misused. Pretty poor science, considering they really don't have much of a clue what it is that they've learned. There's one very clear rebuttal to the gateway theory. If marijuana use is dangerous because it leads to heroin addiction (as the popular theory goes), then all we need do is look at those who have tried marijuana (96.8 million Americans) and then see how many are currently addicted to heroin (No reliable figures exist for this, so using the same data standards (White House drug facts), we'll simply go with reported past month use: 166,000. Of course, there's no way of knowing how many of these are actually addicted, but we'll use it anyway.) This means that at least 99.83 percent of those who have tried marijuana have not gone on to become heroin addicts today. Peculiar sort of gateway, where less than 2/10ths of one percent manage to find their way through it. Update: Maia Szalavitz also finds it to be agenda-based science reporting. 11:42:31 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Delusionary History Several people have passed on this bizarre specious drivel attempting to pass itself off as historical analysis by John C. Burnham. The United States has won the war against illegal drugs. That was the conclusion of a unique gathering on June 17, which marked the 35th anniversary of the war's beginning in 1971 with the appointment of Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, a psychiatrist, as the first White House drug czar. [...] Wow! Reminds me of this old Doonesbury strip. The main conclusion -- that we won the war on drugs -- was the biggest surprise, because advocates of illegal drugs have in recent years filled the media with rhetoric about "the failed war on drugs." The czars' straightforward conclusion may come as a shock, but, as they outlined what the war was about, what they had to say made a lot of sense. [...] Except, of course, that he fails to then follow that with a single statement that makes any sense. Go ahead and read it. Vietnam veterans, cocaine, young kids fried on marijuana, Congress and treatment. There's not a coherent thought that supports a single argument that he makes. And then, Burnham destroys any sense that he has an education, let alone a license to teach at Ohio State University (prospective students take note), with this revisionist tripe: For historians like me, the collective experience of the former czars provides two lessons. The first is unwelcome to extremists of the right and left and their shady commercial allies: Prohibitory laws can work. Historians have established that the 1920s experiment in alcohol prohibition was successful and was repealed in 1933 only because of a massive, well-financed propaganda campaign. There is one rather amusing moment in his piece where he talks about the fact that czars, ironically, had little power. However, they were sometimes able to get things done: When new substances of abuse came along, often the czar was able to get officials and private businesses, especially pharmaceutical companies, to get one substance or another restricted before it became a major problem. Oh, yeah. Those pharmaceutical companies are real allies in prohibition. Wonder why? (But I bet they aren't too happy to have that particular truth presented.) Fortunately, Maia Szalavitz was on the scene quickly with Who's Smoking What? Drug Czars, UN Proclaim Victory in Drug War After a casual blasting of both the UN and the Drug Czars (their arguments are hardly worthy of any real fisking), Maia concludes: If drug warriors want to declare victory and go home, however, I'm all for it. But claim that you've won and maintain the same policy that spends billions and locks up millions and has virtually no effect on either drug use rates, drug-related harm or addiction rates? What have you been smoking? 10:08:10 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

What's up with the Data Quality Act appeal response? Anybody know if there's anything new on the Americans for Safe Access efforts to get Health and Human Services to respond on medical marijuana using the Data Quality Act? As a re-cap... again... Oh, just read this. Anyway, the last letter from HHS granting themselves a 60 day extension was on April 12. And that's well over 60 days ago. And ASA said if they didn't get a real response in 60 days, they'd file suit in federal court to force the issue. So... 9:47:31 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Demonizing drugs Paul Campos has a fascinating OpEd out that is getting some visibility... The standard story is that Prohibition was a bad idea because it couldn't "work." It's said the attempt to make America dry was doomed to failure because our legal system lacked the resources to stamp out alcohol use, at least at an acceptable price. The problem with this story is it assumes that, if it were possible to eliminate alcohol use in America at an "acceptable" cost, then this would be a desirable thing. And that is a seriously wrongheaded belief. We've talked a lot about the degree to which prohibition doesn't work. But sometimes we are hesitant to talk about the actual positive side of alcohol and drugs. ... to make America a completely sober nation, even if it were possible, would be a terrible thing. And this point applies to many other mind-altering substances as well, to greater and lesser extents. In particular, the socially harmful effects of marijuana are almost wholly a product of the fact that its use is prosecuted as a crime, while the drug's beneficial effects may well be comparable to those of its far more dangerous legal cousin, alcohol. It's not even clear that it would be desirable to completely eliminate heroin and cocaine use, assuming such a thing could be done, which of course it can't (one of the dirty little secrets of the drug war is that many people use these drugs recreationally for years on end with little or no adverse effect). All drugs have both good and bad effects. ... This will be a tough one for some middle-of-the-road reformers to swallow. But it's an important point. 9:35:13 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []