Victory! ONDCP Information Quality Petition

I received this letter in my mailbox today in response to my petition:

Washington, DC

April 15, 2010

Mr. Peter Guither
909 W. Market Street
Bloomington, IL 61701

Dear Mr. Guither:

This letter is in response to the petition for correction that you emailed to the Office of the National Drug Control Policy on March 16, 2010. The sentence on the ONDCP website regarding the Department of Transportation study has been reworded to state “that 16 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for a licit or illicit drug.” This should fully address the specific point raised in your correspondence.

Pursuant to Section III of ONDCP’s information Quality Guidelines, you have a right to request reconsideration if you believe appropriate corrective action has not been taken. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of notification of ONDCP’s response to your original request.


Timothy J. Quinn
Chief of Staff

It may not be a huge victory in the overall scheme of things — the change of a few words in an archived document — but it shows that an ordinary individual can “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” and succeed. One person can make a difference.

You can make a difference.

Sure, I would have liked further promises not to misuse the spirit of the data from the NHTSA study, but we’re already seeing, possibly as a result of my petition, the ONDCP at least being more cautious about misusing the data.

And that’s going to make it harder to ram through an unsupported drugged driving agenda.

One little step toward holding our government responsible for telling the truth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Victory! ONDCP Information Quality Petition

  1. joc says:


  2. Cannabis says:

    Nicely done, Pete!

  3. Steve Heath says:

    It’s encouraging, but still a dishonestly worded statement.

    It could at most be, “16% of drivers WHO WERE SUBJECTED TO A URINE TEST, BLOOD TEST OR BREATHALYZER tested postive for a licit or illicit drug.”

    (please excuse the all caps…only way I could add emphasis)

    The current wording in place implies that ALL drivers within the cited time period were subjected to one or all of the above “tests” and that 16% tested positive.

    In fact, it requires a specific court order to blood or urine test even DUI-arrestees, with the exception of some jurisdictions which may compel a driver on criminal probation or parole to immediately consent to a urine test.

    Three cents (plus a nickel) from Clearwater…Cheers to all on this sunny 4/20


    • Pete says:

      Of course it’s still dishonest, Steve, but it’s dishonest in that they’re using the study at all in conjunction with speculation about drugged driving. But as far as that specific wording goes, it at least comports with statements made within the study. So changing that would require going to a different agency.

  4. Craig says:

    Thank you, Pete. I’m inspired and writing my first letter to the editor of my local paper. Wish me luck.

  5. nice one pete! and hell yes, it does matter.

    we have all the ammo we need to force the focus in favor of truth.

  6. Just me says:

    Excellent Pete! We have to demand honesty from government or they will do as they please… any child.

  7. Hope says:

    That’s wonderful, Pete. I’m very impressed. Congratulations.

  8. Stephen Young says:

    Pete, Nice work. You should forward a copy to Ashley III Halsey at the Washington Post.

  9. allan420 says:

    Rock on Pete!


    … listen for it…


    The sound of another brick falling…

  10. ezrydn says:

    Yep. That one small voice, “from the back of the bus” still retains the power to be heard. I say that, over and over. If one can do it, all can do it.

    You stood before Goliath and he “blinked.” Might want to get a copy of that letter to Dennis and his committee, since he’s going to be talking to Gil soon.

    This is good news to wake up to. A heart-felt congratulations!

  11. Chris says:

    I was wondering about that clause the last time I was looking at the first amendment and thought “how is this even used now?”

  12. Pingback: DrugWarRant gets ONDCP to clarify its innuendo « DrugSense FutureMAP Blog

  13. Steve says:

    Congrats Pete!!

  14. denmark says:

    Thank you Pete.
    One way or another the absolute lies, on all fronts surrounding Prohibition, will be defeated and fall away simply due to its own corrupt weight.

  15. Bailey says:

    Well done Pete!

    The only thing to ask for is that ONDCP’s previously blank wall of changes be updated to include their mistake. You earned it.

  16. Pingback: Drugged driving, even when it’s not - Drug WarRant

  17. kaptinemo says:

    A sign of something more important in the wings, perhaps?

    That the ONDCP is responding at all is saying something: they’re getting worried. They’re beginning to realize the nature of what they are up against now, and the old ways of fobbing off reformers isn’t going to work anymore. Not when support for said reform has been demonstrated in committee in Congress.

    And Gil’s (frankly, lackluster) performance has put the prohibs on notice, too. No more cakewalks. No more waving the bloody shirts to elicit the usual Pavlovian reactions of immediate, unquestioning taxpayer’s fiscal support. From now on, testimony includes oath-taking…and penalties for perjury. And since 98% of what they speak at any given time are lies, well…they’ll have to be very nimble, indeed, to avoid that perjury.

Comments are closed.