Drug WarRant

A lot of sources (in fact, from a quick search of Google, just about all of them) have been reporting a new ABC/Wall Street Journal poll and have been saying things like “Americans rank marijuana less dangerous than sugar.”

Yes, it’s probably true, and Americans may believe that, but that’s not really what the poll showed.

Here are the question and results from the survey of 1000 adults:

Q25 Which of the following substances would you say is the MOST harmful to a person’s overall health (RANDOMIZE) (IF ALL, THEN ASK:) Now, if you had to choose just one, which substance would you say is the MOST harmful?

Tobacco...................................... 49
Alcohol ..................................... 24
Sugar........................................ 15
Marijuana..................................... 8

   All (VOL) ................................. 3
   None are harmful (VOL) .................... -
   Not sure................................... 1

The poll specifically asked people what one substance was the most harmful of these four specific substances. It did not ask people to rank them. So the actual correct point that we get from this survey is that more Americans think that sugar is the most harmful of these four substances than those who think marijuana is the most harmful of these substances (which, of course, makes for a lousy headline).

Theoretically (though unlikely), most could think that marijuana was the second-most harmful substance (and just very few think that it was the most harmful) and these results could still be true.

I don’t like it when the other side misuses data. I don’t want to be part of the misuse of data on this side.

Maybe we can ask them to actually rank them next time.

I saw a play in New York where two of the characters had Harriman Leavey Syndrome – a fictional illness where they would tend to make statements that were completely absurd, like some kind of long-form Tourettes. It made much of the play disjointed and nonsensical.

That’s how I felt reading this transcript of an O’Reilly show:

Consequences of marijuana legalization

With the clear difference that the lines in The Realistic Joneses were actually witty.

Had a great week in New York, and the students had a fantastic time. Sorry for the lack of posts here. Some outstanding things I’ve learned by reading the comments here – you guys have been busy (although I did have to clean up a bit of a mess left around the couch).

A couple of things, in case you missed them…

I don’t usually get excited about petitions, but this seems like a fairly good one, put together by LEAP: Amend UN Treaties to End Drug Prohibition

We, the People of the World, petition the United Nations and the Signatory nations of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and two corollary UN drug prohibition treaties, to Amend the Treaties, ending the war on drugs and providing for a health-, harm-reduction and human rights- oriented convention much like that proposed by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. See http://www.tiny.cc/leap_treaty

The House of Representatives passed a bizarre and stupid bill that was clearly only a symbolic statement in opposition to the President: House Republicans Want to Sue the President For Not Arresting People For Marijuana. It’s not going anywhere, but it does show just how completely out of touch so many are in Washington.

University of Colorado stuck in the dark ages. Marijuana symposium features university health and public policy experts

The researchers quickly dismissed notions that marijuana was harmless, presenting studies showing links to cancer, lung disease, lower IQs and potential impacts on fetal health. […]

Bowles said marijuana smoke can induce precancerous changes in the respiratory mucosa of rats. He also cited a study of Swedish military conscripts, showing that those who smoked the highest quantities of marijuana had a 2.1 percent increase in lung cancer. […]

“Babies are full of fat so they are essentially storage chambers for marijuana,” said Borgelt.

Medical Cannabis in Washington survives a legislative scare.

Still keeping extremely busy in New York, trying to keep up with 16 college students, but having a good time. So far, we’ve seen “All the Way,” “Pippin,” “Sleep No More,” “Gentlemen’s Guide to Love and Murder,” and I’ve given walking tours of Midtown, Wall Street/World Trade/Battery Park, Chinatown, Little Italy, Central Park, High Line, Meatpacking District, Village, East Village, Soho, Chelsea, Roosevelt Island.

Check the previous thread for good discussions about Dr. Gupta’s new special that aired last night, as well as action to take regarding medical marijuana in Washington.

Random Drug Testing for All? The Chilling Proposal That Could Eradicate Your Privacy by Paul Armentano.

The practice of random drug testing has become popularized in both the workplace and in public schools. But according to a recently released paper by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM), the controversial practice is, at present, “underutilized” and ought to be expanded to include people of all ages in virtually all aspects of daily life.

The white paper, authored by former United States National Institute on Drug Abuse Director (and present-day drug testing consultant and profiteer) Robert Dupont (along with input from staffers at various drug testing labs and corporations) argues: “The major need today is the wider and smarter use of the currently available drug testing technologies and practices. … This White Paper encourages wider and ‘smarter’ use of drug testing within the practice of medicine and, beyond that, broadly within American society. Smarter drug testing means increased use of random testing rather than the more common scheduled testing, and it means testing not only urine but also other matrices such as blood, oral fluid (saliva), hair, nails, sweat and breath.”

Somebody apparently let Robert DuPont write something. Oh, and Andrea Barthwell helped.

Not getting the message… Governor LePage wants to ramp up the war on drugs

I’m in New York all this week. I’ve got 16 students with me for a week of walking tours and Broadway shows. It’s pretty much a non-stop schedule, so I won’t be able to post much. Not even sure I’ll have time to read much in the news, so let me know what’s going on that’s important in comments (you always do, anyway!)

I’ll say “Hi” to CJ if I run into him.

Paul Armentano catches this incredible performance by the Director of the National Institutes of Health: Health Czar Shows Amazing Ignorance About Marijuana

“We don’t know a lot about the things we wish we did,” with respect to the herb, Collins said, seemingly unaware that a keyword search of the agency’s own sponsored website would yield thousands of scientific papers specific to marijuana and its behavioral and health effects. “I’ve been asked repeatedly, does regular marijuana smoking, because you inhale deeply, increase your risk of lung cancer? We don’t know. Nobody’s done that study.”

Nobody’s done that study?

Wow.

That seems to be the message that’s coming here: US softens –
Hints at ways Ja could avoid punitive measures for ganja

Instead of belching fire and brimstone, the Obama Administration yesterday appeared to be treading softly on Jamaica’s plans to decriminalise ganja.

A key US narcotic agency also hinted at ways the island could avoid punitive measures under US federal law that remain on the books, as the administration turns a blind eye to the quickly growing number of US states that have been decriminalising or legalising marijuana.

In separate statements responding to Jamaica Observer queries, both the State Department and the Department of Justice sidestepped direct comment on how the US would react to decriminalisation of the weed.

“The US respects that different nations have varying approaches on the matter; it is the duty of each nation to determine drug policies that meet its specific needs within the framework of International Laws,” the State Department said in its response.

Not a full-throated approval, of course. But merely to be that… respectful… in this area is a huge shift.

Interesting. The INCB must be throwing a fit right now.

California cities, police chiefs support pot regulation for the first time

Yep. After years of actively and criminally resisting the will of the voters, these groups are asking for a seat at the table of regulating marijuana. Because they’ve finally seen the light? No, because they’re afraid of becoming irrelevant.

California cities and police were long considered obstructionists to regulatory legislation they said would legitimize marijuana businesses. But now they are jumping into the marijuana-regulation effort out of fear that the state is inevitably moving toward a sanctioned cannabis industry with or without their input. […]

“Our two organizations independently came to realize that although we remain strongly opposed to marijuana use, it is increasingly likely that in the near future some statewide regulatory structure for medical marijuana could be enacted,” Chris McKenzie, executive director of the League of California Cities, and Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, president of the chiefs association, declared in a recent joint letter.

“We also realized that without our proactive intervention, it could take a form that was severely damaging to our interests.”

No, they haven’t really changed. But it’s nice to know we’ve come so far that our opponents have to try to infiltrate reform in order to get what they want.

Update:

For more of the sense historically how these organizations have opposed working in a reasonable manner and how they have really not been interested in being a real part of the solution, check out this article from January: California police have no interest in setting pot rules

In 2010, as Colorado lawmakers were creating America’s first state-licensed and regulated medical marijuana industry, fellow police officers at a Colorado Drug Investigators Association conference jeered a state law enforcement official assigned to draft the legislation.

Some of the sharpest barbs came from visiting narcotics officers from California. […]

Training seminars offered for police by the California Narcotic Officers’ Association suggest there is no such thing as medical marijuana and that state voters were hoodwinked into approving its use so people could legally get stoned.

“The general feeling in the law enforcement community is that California’s medical marijuana law is a giant con job,” said John Lovell, a lobbyist for narcotics officers, police chiefs and correctional supervisors. Lovell has led opposition to medical marijuana regulations, saying existing dispensaries in California are “a corrosive presence in the community” and authorities are unwilling to legitimize “free-standing pot shops” that he says attract crime and expand neighborhood availability of marijuana.[…]

But instructional materials for a certified police officer training program offered by the California Narcotic Officers’ Association declare that “this ‘medical marijuana thing’ ” is “an epidemic that is infecting our society.” […]

[Chief Raney] charges that cannabis advocates are unwilling to consider law enforcement’s concerns.

“I have not found those people credible to sit and talk with,” he said. [emphasis added]

I had a nice one-on-one interview with a High School student (set up by his teacher) who is doing a project on drug policy reform for a sociology class. It was really great to see his passion and enthusiasm for learning more about the subject.

He was light years ahead of what I knew at his age.

When I was in High School there was hardly the possibility of having access to information on drug policy, let alone writing about reform. So while it still may be taboo to some to talk about legalization in High School (as my interviewer mentioned), we’ve come a long way.

As long as there are young people who want to know more, we’ll be there to help give them the facts.

(Oh, and when you finish with that project, if you want to stop by and let us know how it went, we’d love to hear.)

Gupta: ‘I am doubling down’ on medical marijuana

I am more convinced than ever that it is irresponsible to not provide the best care we can, care that often may involve marijuana.

I am not backing down on medical marijuana; I am doubling down. […]

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, defined as “the most dangerous” drugs “with no currently accepted medical use.”

Neither of those statements has ever been factual. […]

Terms matter, too.

We are talking about a medicine, known scientifically as cannabis. In order for people to start thinking of this substance as a medicine, perhaps we should start calling it by its medical name, something that was suggested to me by medical marijuana advocates pretty much everywhere I went this year.

I’ve tried to pull together these latest developments in our new documentary, “Cannabis Madness.” […]

I know the discussion around this topic will no doubt get heated. I have felt that heat. But I feel a greater responsibility than ever to make sure those heated discussions are also well-informed by science.

And, with that: I hope you get a chance to watch on March 11 at 10 p.m. Eastern.

Nice.