Thursday, May 15, 2008

Obama, the GOP, and the Constitution Daniel writes me with this link saying: "those repubs are insane." And I've got to agree. One of the most bizarre things I've read in the silly season of politics. The GOP seems to be claiming that Obama's suggestion -- that he'd focus federal efforts on something other than interfering with state medical marijuana laws -- is somehow a violation of the oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama's pledge to stop Executive agencies from implementing laws passed by Congress raises serious doubts about his understanding of what the job of the President of the United States actually is. His refusal to enforce the law reveals that Barack Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job of President, or that he fundamentally lacks the judgment to carry out the most basic functions of the Executive Branch. What other laws would Barack Obama direct federal agents not to enforce?" This makes my head explode on so many levels. After 7 1/2 years of rubber-stamping the Bush Presidency, someone in the GOP apparently found a copy of the Constitution... and then failed to read it. The Bush administration has quite possibly been the greatest danger to the Constitution in history, and the GOP (as well as the Democrats for the most part) have sat idly by and cheered. Even when the administration has not been openly subverting the Constitution, the President has simply decided that he can interpret the Constitution his own way and ignore any laws that he wishes (remember signing statements?) So now the GOP has decided that anything less than full-on federal harassment of law-abiding medical marijuana patients is a violation of the Constitution (when in fact, any proper reading of the Constitution would make the federal government's actions illegal). Wow. 7:59:40 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Marijuana and driving, take 327 Yet another driving study that confirms what we already know. This one specifically compared THC intoxication and alcohol intoxication. THC primarily caused elevation in physical effort and physical discomfort during the drive while alcohol tended to affect sleepiness level. After THC administration, subjects drove significantly slower than in the control condition, while after alcohol ingestion, subjects drove significantly faster than in the control condition. No THC effects were observed after 24h on any of the measures. No, it's not good to drive while impaired in any way, including being tired, or talking on a cell phone, or under the effect of prescription drugs. But there is a dramatically different danger of driving drunk compared to driving under the influence of marijuana. Those on marijuana, as a rule, drive more cautiously because they are aware of their impairment, while those on alcohol drive more recklessly. This is why the boogieman of roads full of drugged drivers from marijuana legalization is such nonsense. 6:55:47 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Cognitive Distortion There's one problem often faced by those of us well versed in the facts of the drug war. We know the history and the science. We're able to clearly distinguish the difference between negative consequences of drugs and negative consequences of prohibition. Our factual knowledge base is, quite frankly, overwhelming, and all of it points clearly, unmistakably, and inexorably to reform. We're even open to carefully considering opposing arguments (which fail the test of reason time after time), thus strengthening our confidence in the comprehensive nature of our information. This didn't happen overnight in most cases. It was the result of a lot of research, observation, and critical thinking. So when we come across someone who opposes reform, we assume one of two things: They are profiting from the drug war (politically, financially, or sadomoralistically) and thus are uninterested in the truth. They simply don't have the facts yet. Once we're relatively sure that the person is not category 1, then all we have to do is educate them. Right? And yet, sometimes we find ourselves baffled by the reaction. There are individuals for whom you could prove conclusively that: Legalization would result in less crime Legalization would result in reduced use of drugs by children Legalization would result in reduced drug abuse Legalization would result in enormous financial savings Legalization would result in dismantling of dangerous criminal organizations ... and they would still look at you like you were a crazy person bent on destruction of civilization as we know it for even suggesting consideration of legalization, even in controlled, regulated and limited situations. These people are suffering from a form of cognitive distortion. [The term is most often used in relation to cognitive therapy to deal with things like depression, but I think it's also appropriate to this situation.] The cause? An authority figure need combined with a lifetime of propaganda. This combination sets the information down in pathways that cannot be disrupted by mere facts. (The conflict between factual information and established pathways can even cause unpleasant cognitive dissonance, resulting in lashing out against the person with the facts.) Now I'm probably generalizing way too much in this post, but I'm guessing that a weak and/or fearful mind is much more susceptible to this kind of thing. On the other hand... if, as a child, you found yourself on occasion saying to yourself "Hey, my teacher got that one wrong," -- and it was because of your own knowledge and not blind adherence to some other authority figure (church/parents) -- then I'm guessing you're probably less susceptible to propaganda and this form of cognitive distortion. How do you deal with those with cognitive distortion? (Other than years of therapy.) It's not easy. Those with only mildly set propaganda pathways may be dislodged through gentle yet persistent repetition of facts. It also helps, of course, to eliminate the propaganda reinforcement (we've got to do something about the ONDCP). Maybe, once we've legalized drugs, we can use some of those hundreds of thousands of empty prison cells and convert them to mental health facilities to help the cognitively disabled. We wouldn't want them to suffer. .... thus ends today's two-bit psychoanalysis. 9:32:35 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []