Drug WarRant

Vanity Fair has a pleasant piece by Micah Nathan: A Nice Bowl of Weed

When I think about my experiences with cannabis, I find no fewer than 10 outstanding rules for enjoying the perfect bowl of weed. Orwell had 11 rules for his cup of tea, and he claimed at least four were controversial; I have no comparison. Controversy, as one would expect among marijuana enthusiasts, is soon lost in a warm, smoky haze. Or vapor, if I’m being literal.

The guidelines seem quite appropriate, to me. You may have differing opinions…

Interesting approach…

Remember the NHTSA study from last week that showed no significant increase in crash risk from using marijuana? It didn’t fit their narrative, so, while they had to release it, they did it on a Friday afternoon (in government terms, that’s called “putting it out with the trash”) in the hopes of getting decreased coverage, and then they used such weasel-wording in the release, that useful idiots like Ashley Halsey III managed to completely screw it up.

Contrast that with this tweet from Kevin Sabet today:

There will be a BIG study released from embargo tomorrow about marijuana. Stay tuned!

Whatever it is, it’s likely to be something negative about marijuana (even if it’s a bad study of the kind that has been regularly debunked before). They already know what the study says, but are waiting until Monday to release it, in order to get as much publicity mileage on it as possible.

Whatever you call this, it’s certainly not science.

Update: Yawn….

It turns out it’s more of the same psychosis nonsense, acting like links are the same as causation. The pure truth of the matter is that they keep coming up with this kind of “data” without knowing enough about psychosis to have a clue as to what caused it in any individual.

Update 2: Good analysis by Suzi Gage at the Guardian: So smoking skunk causes psychosis, but milder cannabis doesn’t?. She makes the point that this research could be useful if it wasn’t getting manipulated, exaggerated, and misstated by prohibitionists to be some kind of smoking gun against the normalization of cannabis use.

And, as Transform and others have noted, if anything this study may give more reasons for having regulated and legal cannabis, rather than having the black market control the structure of cannabis products.

Stolen from Twitter…

Roses are crispy,
Violets play hockey.
I’m thinking those mushrooms
Were not shiitake.

OK, so I’ve been spending a lot of time trying to refine various aspects of the site to adapt to changes in WordPress and the Atuahalpa Theme.

In order to adapt to interests of readers, I’ve added a few new throw pillows on the couch and cleaned a couple of the old ones.

1. The two buttons on the upper right of the screen are for subscribing to RSS feeds (usually using a news reader — I use Feeddler on my iPhone and iPad, and Vienna on my Mac). This allows you to see the posts and the comments within your newsreader without even coming to the website. There do seem to be problems with these buttons in some browsers. If you want to subscribe and are unable, let me know. The subscription addresses are: https://www.drugwarrant.com/feed/ (for posts) and https://www.drugwarrant.com/comments/feed/ for comments.

2. Some readers have been using those to see a list of recent posts or recent comments, without using a reader. I can’t guarantee that those buttons can work that way anymore.

I have, however, added a widget on the right side (just below the Google Ad) that shows the beginning of the 10 most recent comments regardless of post (clicking on them takes you to that comment), and links to the 7 most recent posts.

I can adjust the number of comments/posts shown, or the number of characters of the comment shown, so let me know if this is useful for you, and if you’d like any adjustments.

Tom Angell is unstoppable in his dogged determination to ask pointed questions of the powerful. Over at Marijuana.com, he discusses the Facebook chat conducted by NIDA’s Nora Volkow, where he got her to admit that there are barriers to research on marijuana.

This is why most people supporting the prohibition regime don’t like to get into public discussions. It’s very hard to maintain the lies under determined knowledgeable questioning.

Go to Tom’s article for more.

Richard Branson: Abolishing the death penalty

One area of particular concern to death penalty opponents like me is the so-called war on drugs. At least 32 countries still prescribe the death penalty for various drug offences. […]

One of these countries is Iran, which has in recent years seen a dramatic increase in drug-related death sentences and may execute more drug offenders than any other country in the world – over 300 people in 2014 alone. Most recently, Indonesia executed six drug offenders and plans to execute more – including the Australian leaders of the group known as the “Bali Nine” – in the coming weeks.

Both countries claim that executions are an important and effective deterrent. Nothing could be further from the truth. Drug use is a daily reality in Iran and Indonesia, with a dramatic increase in the illicit drug market observable especially in Indonesia. Tough law enforcement and draconian sentences, including executions, have failed entirely to change this status quo. Overall, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on those using and trafficking drugs.

Like Branson, I am opposed to the death penalty in general, for a variety of practical and moral reasons. And to use it as a tool of prohibition seems somehow even more heinous, given the destruction caused by prohibition.

It’s an additional reason to push for legal regulation of drugs, and in the meantime, at the very least, we need to stop incentivizing it — which is what happens when we provide financial assistance to these countries for their drug war.

Back in 2009, Ashley Halsey III, a factually lazy reporter at the Washington Post, was completely taken by the drug czar’s report about the voluntarily testing of drivers and made statements in his article like “11 percent of motorists are high” when the study had specifically stated that it only tested for presence in the blood, not whether they were high. (see How the drug czar uses lazy reporters).

When I brought this undeniable fact to Halsey’s attention, complete with direct quotes from the NHTSA study, he responded to me with this simple nonsensical insult: “Your arrogance and ignorance are impressive.”

Well, he’s at it again.

Fewer people driving drunk,but drug use on the road is rising

There are fewer drunk drivers on the road, but their place has been taken by people high on marijuana and prescription drugs, according to two reports from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

No. Once again, the NHTSA tested for the “presence” of drugs and specifically noted that marijuana is a problem in this regard because it can stay in the blood for so long, and that it doesn’t indicate whether the driver is “high” or “impaired.”

NHTSA conducted a second study to determine whether smoking marijuana increased the risk of crashes. They found that it did but, adding a caveat, said that pot smoking is most common among a group already at high risk for crashes: young men.

No. The second study did not find that smoking marijuana increased the risk of crashes. They found that, when adjusted for other demographics, marijuana did not result in any statistically significant increase in crash risk.

Lazy and ignorant (willful or not) journalism.

Jacob Sullum also found this article to be an example of bad journalism.

Interestingly, elsewhere in this same paper, that second study is discussed in a way which really reveals how big a story it really is.

Stoned drivers are a lot safer than drunk ones, new federal data show

This is the key point. The demonstration that alcohol and driving mix in a way that is radically different than other drugs.

You shouldn’t drive impaired by anything. But as a society, we shouldn’t get distracted by scare stories about roads full of dangerously stoned drivers.

New Jersey prohibitionists clearly don’t have a clue about advertising.

Story at Weedist.

Here’s a great way of looking at how facts get distorted by government and the media.

Remember, on Friday afternoon (putting it out with the trash), NHTSA released their report showing no evidence that marijuana use is statistically significant in increasing crashes.

The report showed that overall those who smoked marijuana were more likely to get in crashes, but only because of the overlap with certain higher-crash-likely demographics (like young males). When you accounted for those factors, it turned out that there was no significant difference in crashes between marijuana users and those who didn’t use.

That’s a powerfully strong outcome of a comprehensive study.

However, the NHTSA not only released that info on a Friday afternoon, but also in conjunction with a separate study that showed that there was a reduction of those getting behind the wheel with alcohol in their system, but an increase in those getting behind the wheel with marijuana or other drugs (other than alcohol) in their system. This is a completely unrelated study that has nothing to do with crashes.

By combining the two studies in one release, and using a lot of weasel-worded statements downplaying the clear results of the crash study, they hoped for this stunningly ridiculous kind of headline:

USA Today Study finds new driving threat from dopers, druggies

The war against drunk driving appears to be making progress, but more motorists are instead using marijuana or prescription drugs then getting behind the wheel, a government study shows.

Another study, also released Friday, showed that marijuana users are more likely to be involved in crashes. But it also points out that marijuana is smoked mostly by young men, the group with the highest propensity for accidents anyway. […]

“The rising prevalence of marijuana and other drugs is a challenge to everyone who is dedicated to saving lives and reducing crashes,” says NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind.

Fortunately, there were a number of media sources who saw through this and realized that the buried story was the real story here.