|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, July 8, 2006 |
Other stuff that happened this week
 Lynn Zimmer, co-author of the outstanding Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts: A Review Of The Scientific Evidence , died on Sunday at the age of 59.
Drug policy reformer and political candidate Ben Masel was pepper-sprayed and arrested by University of Wisconsin-Madison police as he collected signatures for his senatorial campaign. He plans to sue. (He's already suing police in Kansas City for a different case.) Go get 'em, Ben!
Also from the Drug War Chronicle, Australian Democrat MP Sandra Kanck attended a rave and said she felt safer there than at a hotel bar.
"These people using ecstasy and whatever they're using, they are not aggressive, they're not shouting, they're not fighting, you don't get people puking all over the place, it's a far, far better environment," Ms Kanck told ABC local radio.
"If I had a choice between being at a rave party and a hotel bar, I'd go to the rave party every time."
DEA raids medical marijuana dispensaries in California, and also targets doctors. Now this was a joint effort with state and local, and the DA says that they were not targeting the sick, but only those who were abusing the medical marijuana system. The problem, though, by bringing in the feds, they have forfeited any ability to make the raids appear legitimate (whether they were or not), because the feds don't care about medical use. It's additionally, suspect coming so soon after the Hinchey amendment vote in Congress.
Within the current system in California, there will always be some controversy over whether medical marijuana dispensaries are "getting around" the medical marijuana rules, or whether doctors are prescribing too easily. But there's an easy solution. Legalize marijuana.
12:05:36 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, July 7, 2006 |
A Scanner Darkly
I've been waiting for this for quite some time.
I rarely go to the theatre, generally preferring to wait for DVD, but this one -- I was ready. It opened tonight... but not in my area. Damn.
Embedded in the visionary headtrip of A Scanner Darkly is a hotly political call to arms.
- Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
Slipped into the summer movie season like acid in your happy meal, Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly is a blockbuster of counterprogramming. [...] Linklater's return to Waking Life's surreally pulsing world of rotoscope animation -- and his flashback to Philip K. Dick's like-titled drug dystopia of the late '70s -- is a prefab cult flick pitched to a drastically underserved group of filmgoers: stoners, depressives, bookworms, conspiracy theorists, movie critics, and various other head-scratching freaks for whom the promise of Hollywood action sounds more like a threat. What a breath of fresh air this stifling, claustrophobic, boldly uningratiating vision of an American subculture's last gasp imparts to its contrarian core audience.
- Rob Nelson, SF Weekly
This movie definitely isn't for everyone, and from what I've heard, is a very bleak look at a drug war world that Philip K. Dick pessimistically predicted, without giving any answers, but it seems relevant to today. I'm a big fan of both Philip K. Dick and Linklater's work.
Use this thread to discuss the movie (and assume that there may be spoilers).
10:48:04 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
Understanding the Gateway Theory
Here's what we know for sure regarding the gateway theory:
- Over 99% of those who never try marijuana will not become addicted to heroin.
- Over 99% of those who do try marijuana will not become addicted to heroin.
1:11:47 AM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, July 6, 2006 |
Dishonest Science meets Irresponsible Journalism
One of the things that really worried me about the ridiculous gateway assertions in the rat study below was how some of the more gullible (or outright corrupt) media outlets would play the story.
And I was right to worry. Take a look at these headlines:
Remember that the study found, at most, that rats pre-treated with THC are prone to self-administer heroin more frequently than control rats after both they and the control groups are forcibly addicted to heroin by the scientists. There was no indication that the THC-pretreated group was more likely to "use" hard drugs.
Yet these media morons manage headlines like "Dope Smokers More Likely To Use Hard Drugs."
Interestingly, it's possible that the study may not even show what the scientists claim. Drug WarRant commenter J speculates...
First of all, as Pete pointed out, the experimenters found no evidence that rats exposed to THC in adolescence became addicted to heroin more easily than controls ["vehicle"]. They did show that THC exposure did cause the rats to use more heroin. They also showed that when the lever used for self administering heroin was disconnected, the controls pushed the lever more than the THC exposed.
This may mean that the controls were "more addicted" and did not as easily give up on getting their fix as did the THC exposed.
So why would one group use more heroin, but give up more easily when they can no longer self administer? It seems to me that being less sensitive to heroin would explain both of these. The THC exposed need to use higher doses of heroin to get the same effect as the controls, but have an easier time giving up since the heroin isn't as potent to them. This is exactly the opposite of the conclusion of the authors:
Heightened opiate sensitivity in THC animals was also evidenced by higher heroin consumption during the maintenance phase (30 and 60 mug/kg/infusion) and greater responding for moderate-low heroin doses (dose-response curve: 7.5, 15, 30, 60, and 100 mug/kg/injection).
It doesn't make sense to me that heightened sensitivity would lead to more use, it should lead to less use. Tolerance leads to more use.
So this may actually be evidence of a counter-gateway theory. Either way, one thing is clear: rats that do heroin get decapitated.
Interesting points.
Anyone else care to chime in on this one?
... and that last point is a good one. Regardless of whether I had cannabis as a juvenile, if I was a rat in a cage being subjected to scientific experiments that end with my decapitation, I'd be pressing that heroin lever like crazy.
9:07:40 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 4, 2006 |
My letter gets published
Link
On June 28, Rep. Jerry Weller voted to continue wasting our tax dollars on harassing sick people in other states who are following their doctors' instructions and state law.
Eleven states have made it legal for patients with cancer, AIDS or other serious diseases to use medical marijuana under a doctor's supervision if it works for them. And we have plenty of things on which to spend tax money that are much more important than sending federal agents to those 11 states to lock up grandma in her wheelchair.
Citizens Against Government Waste called the practice a waste of federal resources and said that it "proves that the government is incapable of exercising any kind of fiscal restraint."
Additionally, the Presbyterian Church recently joined the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention and the Unitarian Universalist Association in actively supporting the use of medical marijuana in these situations. Not a single denomination has opposed it.
Most recent polls have shown that over 70 percent of Americans support the right of seriously ill people to use medical marijuana.
Does Jerry Weller realize that it's our money he's throwing away?
If he wants to go to some other state and interfere with a doctor and patient following their state law, he's welcome to do it on his own, but he shouldn't be spending our tax dollars.
His vote does not represent American values, moral values or even traditional "Republican" values, and does nothing for the people of Illinois.
By the way, kudos are due to Rep. Tim Johnson for voting to end this reprehensible practice. Too bad he couldn't count on his colleagues.
Pete Guither
Bloomington
If you got a letter published, let us know.
9:18:18 PM | drug policy | Links | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
