Clowns on C-Span 11/9/03 Friday, on C-Span, our beloved Minister of Drug Policy Disinformation, a.k.a. the Drug Czar, was given the opportunity to repeat some of his favorite exaggerations, misleading data, and inoperative statements (a.k.a. lies). He also took phone calls. It was an opportunity to see the Czar in action. He's got the pitch down pretty smooth, although you could tell he's not used to speaking in more than sound bites. After the first speech, he started repeating himself, rambling a bit, and interconnecting everything (although that's an additional part of his bag of tricks). There were about 4 phone calls divided between republicans and democrats. All of them opposed the current drug policy and John Walters. My favorite caller line: "Mr. Walters, I think you're a terrible hypocrite." I felt sorry for the callers. With all the crap that they've heard from the Drug Czar in so many areas, they finally had the opportunity to face him. The trouble: each caller seemed to try to address everything from medical marijuana to recreational legalization to drug war policies, to industrial hemp in one rambling question. This gave Walters the opportunity to answer any part he wanted and ignore the rest. Again, I understand -- I'd probably do the same thing (I'm itching to debate him!). However, for future reference, if you get the opportuity to call in, pick one specific aspect. Make the question pointed. Write it down so you don't end up rambling. Here are a few questions I'd ask: You continually state that 60% of those needing treatment are for marijuana, and yet scientists have shown marijuana dependency to be equal to caffeine. Most of that 60% have been required to take treatment because they were caught using pot, while people addicted to harder drugs are left without treatment. Are you using these numbers to scare people into believing that marijuana is dangerous, or do you just not care about proper treatment opportunities for harder drugs? There has never been a fatal overdose from marijuana and it has been shown beneficial for a wide range of illnesses. How can you justify locking up terminally ill people while telling them to wait for an extract of the same drug which will be profitable for drug companies? Which has a worse impact on a family: a family member who occassionaly smokes pot, or a family member in jail for smoking pot? You can view the entire video of Walters' appearance on C-Span here, but I thought I'd also provide partial transcripts in this post, to give you a taste of the program. [Note: These transcripts are my own typing from the video, and not official transcripts. However, I believe them to be completely accurate. Walters' words are in blue - my responses in italics] After the initial introductions, Walters started with his standard screed: Fact of the matter, marijuana has been seen as something that is peripheral to substance abuse. It's been referred to as a soft drug. [Rightly so.] But when we now look at the current state of marijuana it is the single biggest area of ignorance. People are living in the past. [Here he begins to set up his argument that marijuana is different today, in order to counter the fact that over 40% of Americans have used marijuana with no ill effects.] Today, of the 7 million people we have to treat for drug abuse, 60% are dependent on marijuana, and yet people, baby boomers on down, somehow believe that marijuana doesn't produce the same kind of dependency. It's not toxic like heroin or cocaine, but that doesn't mean it doesn't produce dependency. It's the single largest cause of treatment need in the country by a factor of 2. The second most significant cause is cocaine... [His favorite statement. What he always avoids is the fact that most people in treatment for marijuana are referred by criminal justice (and some by schools and parents) or as a result of a positive drug test in order to keep their jobs. They do not need treatment - they are merely taking it. This figure has absolutely nothing to do with any dangerous aspect of marijuana.] Of those needing treatment, 23% are teenagers. More teenagers seeking treatment for marijuana than all other drugs combined, and last year for the first time, more teens seeking treatment for marijuana than alcohol dependency... [Since teenagers are often coerced into treatment regardless of actual need, it's obvious that marijuana would be the largest area of treatment, since it's the most used drug by teenagers. Again, nothing to do with the relative dangers of drugs. What's startling is the final statement (but not in the way Walters suggests). This appears to mean that alcohol dependency in teens (alcohol has a much greater dependency factor) is being neglected in favor of pushing marijuana users into treatment.] The fact is, we know why this is happening. Marijuana potency, the THC the psychoactive ingredient has gone from 1% in 1980 to an average of 7% nationally, and we now have varieties that go up to 20-30%... [This is part of the "this is not the marijuana you used in college" argument. It's only partially true. The 1% figure for 1980 is misleading - testing standards have changed and it's unlikely that people would have been satisfied with 1% THC pot in 1980. Plus, pot with high levels of THC were always available. The average is higher today because of the drug war -- higher potency means smaller mass to achieve the same effect, which is easier to smuggle (just as in alcohol prohibition, beer was replaced by higher proof alcohol). It doesn't make it more dangerous, though, because marijuana smokers self-regulate. The effect is quickly apparent, so the smoker is able to stop when the desired effect is achieved (maybe you smoke two joints of lower potency pot, but just a couple of hits of higher potency pot). This does not make the marijuana any more dangerous.] We have to correct that ignorance... [What Walters wants to do is feed ignorance.] Next some figures about marijuana use were displayed on the screen, including the stat that 56% of young adults have tried marijuana. The interviewer asked whether an argument might be made that since a majority have used marijuana, couldn't that be considered a form of popular mandate? We don't have restrictions on marijuana because of social bias, as some people sometimes think. [Yes, we do. The first laws were passed on racial bias (Mexicans bringing in the drug, and black jazz musicians using it), then the war increased over use of drugs by young anti-establishment types in the 60's, and Walters himself has called reform initiatives "immoral."] We have restrictions on illegal drugs because they're dangerous and addictive. [note the sudden shift from "marijuana" to "drugs"] We have to treat 7 million people for dependence on illegal drugs. 60% of that dependence is tied to marijuana. [Here we go again] The movement from individuals experimenting to dependence for some of these substances, especially as they become more potent as marijuana has, has become quite great. [No evidence for this. Just his stuff about higher potency marijuana again] The fact that people may dabble in behavior that's risky doesn't mean that we don't have to try to address that, especially when it comes to our children. [Overeating is risky, especially for children. Does that mean we should jail people for it?] No civilized society is going, for any period of time, to remain that, if it allows the poisoning of its children and the selling of slavery to its young adults. [WTF??? OK, this is just outrageous. Poisoning and selling of slavery?] Walters then talked about the fact of the large numbers of people who use alcohol and tobacco, but that there are only 19 million current drug users with 7 million needing treatment. He claimed that: Those numbers show we have contained some of the most dangerous addictive substances. They're still too big... What kind of country would it be if you had 50 million or 100 million drug users? [We have 100 million people who have used marijuana. If it's legal, there might be more regular users (probably in exchange with alcohol use), but no evidence that we'd have any more abusers. This containment argument is used by drug warriors regardless of the levels of drug use. If drug use is down, it's "containment is working." If drug use is up, it's "thank God for containment because it would be much worse without it - we just need to do more." Never is the concept of another strategy even allowed consideration.] Then there was a phone call which talked about violent behavior of those using alcohol compared to those using marijuana. Walters ducked the question completely by agreeing that alcohol contributes to violence and that we need to do more about it, and it just indicates the importance of stopping all addictive substances. The next question was from a medical marijuana user (AIDS patient) and focused on medical marijuana (along with other things). Walters responded with the standard stuff about Marinol being an efficacious derivative that can be used, and claimed that they continue to do research on other components of marijuana, but that scientists do not feel that smoked marijuan is the method that it will be applied. He then went on the attack: The real issue I think is two-fold here and I think we ought to be candid. [Yeah, right.] We have the finest medical institutions in the history of human-kind. They're based on science. They're based on medical efficacy and measures of safety and effectiveness, and we allow a variety of drugs we know can be abused (derivatives of cocaine, opiates, barbituates and amphetamines) for purposes, and we try to control them, and there is some abuse, but the fact of the matter is abuse doesn't prohibit us from using them. [OK, this is actually part of the argument for allowing marijuana use] And the government is probably the biggest funder of research about applications of marijuana. [Generally, the government funds projects that are attempting to find problems with marijuana, not benefits, and they tightly control/prevent other research.] But smoked marijuana is primitive -- as if we said we needed to smoke opium to get the benefits of morphine, or opiate drugs and it's unlikely from the research to show that smoked product is going to be the application of medicine. [Here he tries to equate marijuana with opium, and ignores alternate delivery mechanisms for marijuana that already exist, because the only objection that scientists have had to marijuana is smoking. And even this is a patently silly objection when dealing with terminally ill patients.] And I think the other factor here is that the suffering of people here has been used to try to legalize the smoking of marijuana, on the grounds that we're somehow being cruel. I think that's outrageous, frankly, to use the suffering of people. [I hear this from Walters all the time. It's a bizarre argument. Yes, there are drug policy reform organizations (and I'm included) that feel that both medical marijuana and recreational marijuana should be allowed, and realize that legalizing medical marijuana can be a good first step. That doesn't mean that we're "using" the sick. We legitimately want them to have the medicine they need. Which approach is outrageous? 1. Reformers: "We want marijuana legal, and at the very least, we want sick people to be able to use medicine that helps them." or 2. Drug Warriors: "We want marijuana illegal, and to insure that, we will deny sick people from getting the medicine that keeps them alive."] And there's no question, some people who are sick, and smoke marijuana feel better. They would feel better if they took crack. They would feel better if they had a hit of heroin. [Once again, deflect marijuana by talking about other drugs. The analogy is ridiculous. "Taking aspirin will make your headache feel better. So will crack or heroin." Stupid.] The issue is not "feeling" it's one of efficacy and safety. [And marijuana is efficacious and safe (even more so than aspirin) - see my point later.] And also I think the issue is this is being used as a "we need to change the legal status of marijuana for the sake of those who are ill" really by people who are of the organizations that want to legalize marijuana. [See my earlier point.] If you look at the facts, marijuana is illegal for good reasons, [which ones?] and that doesn't mean we can't find, as we have already, the extracts of substances related to marijuana that can have efficacious medical use. [Yep, we already have. It's called marijuana.] Next caller: "Mr. Walters, I think you're a terrible hypocrite." He then went on to talk about medical marijuana, alcohol prohibition not working, most people not abusing drugs, recreational marijuana, revenues from legal marijuana, lack of physical addiction, and the economic values of hemp. Walters chose to respond about alcohol and more on medical marijuana. We have had a history with alcohol (if that is the model) and it's been difficult, and we decided to allow it, now allow it, and allow it again. [A bit of a simplistic view of alcohol prohibition...] That compromise is one of the single greatest causes of dependency, addiction, and also accidents, violence, and we're trying to contain that, and that produces -- to use that as a parallel for drugs, again the number of people who are drinking alcohol is many times the number of people who are using drugs. [Here he seems to actually regret the repeal of alcohol prohibition!!!] The medical argument has been used by organizations -- not the AMA, not the scientists, not the pharmaceutical industry, [Of course not the pharmaceutical industry! They can't make money from a drug you can grow in your living room] but by groups who want to legalize drugs and individuals who fund those groups, like George Soros, who want to legalize drugs, so, this is a fraud. [Again, he tries to dispute medical marijuana by attacking the organizations and now even a personal attack on George Soros.] We can provide efficacious medicines and some people believe things help them, but modern science is not based on believing things help you. It's scientific evidence, efficacy and safety, and when we find components of marijuana and I will repeat the federal government is the largest funder of programs to try to do that, I believe, in the United States, we will have them available, but until then, I think it is a fraud to suggest as some people do, that this is kind of safe, it's going to solve everybody's problems for health. It confuses young people when we say perhaps this is a healthy subject and that it has all of these kind of alleged economic advantages out there in the current economy, so again, I don't doubt that people are sincere, I don't doubt that sick people sometimes when they smoke marijuana, I want to be clear, that they feel better, but a lot of things make people feel better, they're not safe and efficacious medicine. [Here he just starts rambling and jumbling all of his previous points together in a fancy sounding diatribe that says nothing.] Note that Walters really likes to use the words "safe" and "efficacious" (or variations of them). Efficacious means "producing or capable of producing a desired effect." Now lets take a look at that in regards to marijuana. Marijuana is safe. There has never been a fatal overdose. Side effects include dry mouth, increased appetite, and mild psychoactive effects. (Some of these are desired for medical purposes, and none are as bad as the side effects of most legal drugs.) The desired effect of medical marijuana is easing pain and nausea, and increasing appetite, and marijuana does these things remarkably well. Therefore it is efficacious. Marijuana: Safe and Efficacious. The next caller talked about the crime caused by prohibition -- gangs and violence, etc., as opposed to actual crime caused by drugs. Walters' response: There seems to be an underlying issue in this area about prohibition that is kind of "laws against crime create crime." That's got it backwards. [Actually, he's got it backwards. The argument is that creating criminal prohibition regarding drugs, causes other kinds of crime.] The reason we have laws against crime is because crime is detrimental to society and harms people and we try to control or contain or reduce it. The fact that laws don't work perfectly is, although we try to make them work better, is not proof that the laws are a waste of time or they're not beneficial. Some laws may not be beneficial, I'm not saying that we haven't made changes for the better over time, but I think it's kind of silly to argue that, well, the reason that there is crime, including drug crime is because there's a law against it. [Here he twists it all around, ignoring the real issues of the argument.] The fact is, the drug problem is too large today. Every indication we have is it would be much larger if you didn't have the laws and the efforts. [Actually, there is no evidence at all of that statement.] Now I think you can have an argument about what's the cost-benefit of individual policies and regimes, but when you look at the cost to the United States and our cities among our communities, aside from overdose deaths and others the crime that's not - most of the crime that's associated with drugs as well, is not crime by people who are selling drugs for the sake of the sales. Most of the crime are people under the influence of drugs as you see with alcohol, that are more violent, their judgement is impaired, they may be paranoid, they may be less capable to control their impulses for violence. [First of all, I believe he is wrong. Most drug crime is a result of prohibition, not use. But notice how he lumps all drugs and alcohol abuse problems into his argument, even though alcohol is not illegal.] So the biggest single source of crime here is also the catalytic effect of drugs, and including alcohol, on people's behavior who may already be inclined, as well as the loss in learning and other aspects of, I mean the argument that this is kind of a victimless activity I think 30 years of experience most Americans I deal with they've had family experience, they know it's not just victimless, it destroys families. It destroys communities. Many neighborhoods in our communities, especially large metropolitan areas, but even now in rural areas have been devastated by, not only the traditional drugs, but by new drugs like methamphetamine. I don't think you can make the argument that the effort to control and to help people stay healthy, especially when this starts with young people isn't worth the effort and isn't cost effective. [More of the same, mixing drugs and alcohol, and using scare-tactic generalities to avoid the question.] The next caller was a criminal justice major from Lockport who talked about needing to change the laws, particularly given the $17 billion a year spent by the DEA and locking so many people up. Walters was a bit condescending... Time to do a little more homework at college there. One, the entire Federal spending for drug control is 11.5 billion dollars, not 17 billion for the DEA and 47% goes to demand reduction, 53% to supply control. The reason is we believe this is a balanced phenomenon. We already have too many people - we've talked about this - using marijuana, it's been accelerating. [Walters chides the student about her numbers, while using numbers that the government has manipulated to make their efforts look better. Last year, the government changed it's budget reporting procedures to not include any trial or incarceration costs in drug policy costs. They also added alcohol treatment in the demand reduction side in order to get the "balanced" look at spending. In actuality, the government spends over twice as much on supply control as they do on demand reduction. See Revising the Federal Drug Control Budget Report: Changing Methodology to Hide the Cost of the Drug War (pdf) Comments