Drug WarRant

Those who have been with me for a long time, may have fond memories of the Data Quality Act posts. The Data Quality Act is legislation that allowed individuals and groups to challenge federal agencies on the accuracy of their data, and the agency was required to respond within 60 days. Cool, huh?
So Americans for Safe Access challenged Health and Human Services for their statements on medical marijuana and demanded changes to what the government was claiming (since the government position was unsupportable). Of course, the government agencies had an out — they could grant themselves an extension (or two, or three, or…) Naturally, HHS took advantage of every delaying tactic they could invent, and that 60 day response time started 870 days ago. But they’ve finally run out of hoops, and now ASA can sue them in court (part of the problem often is that courts won’t accept a challenge unless you’ve gone through the agency appeals process, which is how the agencies are able to stall).
The timing actually is pretty good, with new studies practically every day, and the recent DEA judge ruling in favor of growing marijuana for medical research.
Congrats to ASA for their ability to stick with the mind-numbing process.
Background posts on the Data Quality Act are here, here, and here.

Look, everybody knows that Dobbs has a few screws loose, and I should probably ignore him when he spout a combination of lies and junk science and pretends that it’s knowledge, but it’s hard to resist. Here are a few tidbits from the transcript

DOBBS: And our special report, “The War Within,” the detrimental effects, the dangerous effects of marijuana. Researchers now say marijuana may cause long-term brain damage and cancer. That special report and an interview upcoming. […]
STEVEN STEINER, AMERICANS FOR DRUG FREE YOUTH: You’ve got to remember something. This whole legalization movement isn’t just about marijuana. These people want to legalize heroin, meth, cocaine for recreational use. Make no mistake about it. […]
STEPHEN DEWEY, BROOKHAVEN NAT’L. LABORATORY: Not only does it alter the structure, the brain’s chemistry, but you run the risk that the alterations that you produce today will manifest themselves in ten years or 20 years. […]
TUCKER: Impaired memory and feelings of anxiety are more than just jokes. They are reality. So, too, are frequent respiratory infections and there is concern that the cancer risk of marijuana users is higher, which is why the American Cancer Society does not endorse, smoke marijuana, nor its legalization. […]
DOBBS: Well, marijuana, thought to be harmless by many, particularly baby boomers, who have been associated with drug for decades. It’s now known to be a dangerously addictive drug and it’s long-term effects are still being studied. […]
DOBBS: The idea that this could cause cancer, is that a result of the qualities of marijuana, or of the inhalation of the smoke? Or can you tell?
DEWEY: You know, that’s a good question. I believe it’s more related to the inhalation of what’s in the marijuana itself, as opposed to the THC, the psychoactive component. […]
DOBBS: I mean, what do have — my God, this is a substance that’s been in broad use now for 30 or 40 years in this country. We should know what we’re talking about.
DEWEY: I think there are actually two things here that speak directly to your question. One is it’s very difficult to find people who just use marijuana. You know, you have to tease apart marijuana use with alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD. You have situations where it’s not straight forward looking at just a marijuana user because they’re poly-drug-abusers.

Several thoughts:
One. Steve Steiner? The incredibly sick and twisted pervert that’s getting paid off by the drug companies to use his dead son (who was killed by prescription drugs) to try to harm patients who are using medical marijuana? Right, Lou. [And Steve, I know you’ll be reading this. I phrased it this way on purpose to make a point — because somebody needs to remind you in plain English what it is that you’re doing.]
Two. Notice Dewey’s polydrug statement at the end. Sounds remarkably like the talking point that Souder was using on Tucker Carlson’s show. Looks like somebody’s getting the puppets to sing this tune. I can’t believe they’re actually trying it, given how transparent the lie is (as Tucker immediately pointed out).
Three. Notice the “cancer” dance? Talk about avoiding the facts!
I’ve sent a note to Dewey asking if he was speaking as an official government representative. I’ll let you know if he responds
[Update] — Dewey was nice enough to respond to my email. He says that he is not a government employee (despite the .gov email address). He also defends his marijuana and cancer non-answer by citing a number of earlier studies related to head and neck cancer and states:

I agree that the data are not clear and that some authors may have changed their original position on whether there is an increased risk of cancers associated with marijuana use but I also think it would be negligent given the uncertainty at this point to suggest that there is no increased risk of cancers from marijuana use.

Going out of town again today, so fill me in on what I’m missing.
“bullet” Here’s a fascinating recap of what appeared to be a pretty good discussion on legalization in Polk County, Florida, featuring Peter Christ of LEAP, along with Brad Copley from the office of the state attorney, 10th Judicial Circuit, and Marion Moorman, public defender.
“bullet” Sigh. What can you say when an article titled GOP lawmakers look for advice on drug war starts off with “We need to build more jail cells…Š?

OK, here’s a quiz to test whether you are a member of the human race:

What would be better for children?

1. Being raised by their family and living at home along with parents and a plant
2. Having their parents kidnapped and put in a dungeon for 15 years while the children are sent to foster homes

If you are a functioning human being, unless the plant is Audrey II, your answer is A.
So what does that make Nevada State Senator Joe Heck?

Nevada parents who grow a single marijuana plant in their home where children live could be subject to a prison term of up to 15 years, according to a bill that was debated Monday at the Nevada Legislature.
Senate Bill 5, sponsored by state Sen. Joe Heck, R-Las Vegas, would subject parents who grow or sell marijuana in the presence of children to the same penalties as adults who operate methamphetamine labs in front of children.

It’s not as creative as “Reefer Madness” though. Here’s the segment from last night on Lou Dobbs (unless youtube yanks it).

Really over-the-top scare-mongering. I loved the way they start out with the “It’s Just a Plant” book to imply that the marijuana legalization movement is trying to get pot for kids. More to come tonight when they reveal who is getting all this “pro-pot” money!

This is a little old, but I found it to be an interesting read and thought you might as well.
Steve Olson: Why I am No Longer a Republican (and never was a Democrat)

This event pushed me over the edgeá

My bright and promising 19-year-old nephew was a college Sophomore in 2005. In October of 2005, the local police arrested him for possession of psilocybin mushrooms.

When I first heard the news I thought, ‘shrooms — no big deal — he‰ll pay a fine — maybe do a few weeks in county jail — he‰ll learn a life lesson — it might even be good for him.

What I discovered over the next few months horrified me.

I’m so upset I missed Lou Dobbs’ attack on marijuana legalizers. I’ll just have to wait for the transcripts. We’ve had some updates in the comments on the open thread below. Add any more here.
The Quick Vote is up at Lou’s site — if you haven’t voted yet, go ahead and add to it.

QUICKVOTE
Do you believe marijuana should be legalized in this country?
___ Yes ____ No

It’s currently running at 79% yes.

I’m on the road today.
“bullet” Check out this week’s Drug War Roundup by thehim.

In recent years, I’ve been doing a lot more thinking about the concept of authoritarianism, its dangers to our society, and the kind of people who are taken in by it.
I’ve just discovered the work of Bob Altemeyer, an Associate Professor of Psychology who has researched authoritarianism pretty much his entire life, and whose work provided much of the support for John Dean’s book Conservatives Without Conscience.
Altemeyer has been writing an easy-to-read (but not dumbed-down) book on his methods and how authoritarianism manifests in its followers. And he’s providing it free on the internet — The Authoritarians — in a series of chapters released every two weeks or so (the first five chapters are already up and the last one will come out on Monday.
In chapter one, he sets up his RWA scale (Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale — a different meaning of right-wing than most people assume, which isn’t necessarily attuned to liberal or conservative in U.S. politics). He provides a test that you can take to determine your own RWA score on a scale of 20 to 180 (I scored a 28, and I’m betting that most readers here will score below 90).
Turns out this scale can fairly accurately predict a variety of specific authoritarian behaviors including the tendency to ignore facts and reason and mindlessly support what they are told by authority figures if it agrees with their world-view.
For example, he gave tests to two large groups of students:

In both studies high RWAs went down in flames
more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or
deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:

All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea.
Therefore, sharks are fish.

The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the
reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they
would likely tell you, ‹Because sharks are fish.Š In other words, they thought the
reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,
they don‰t ‹get itŠ that the reasoning matters–especially on a reasoning test.

This is, of course, extremely dangerous, as Altemeyer says “because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant.” He is careful to note that this is not an absolute, and that lots of people have problems with syllogisms, but it is a measurable factor. And this can go beyond the inability to accept syllogisms and continue on to complete rejection of logic, science, reason, education, and more.
[Note, for simplicity in communication, even though the psychology is different, I am using the term authoritarian for both those who are authoritarian followers, and those opportunistic leaders who often manipulate the followers in order to increase power.]
Let’s take a real-world drug policy example. Some of our good friends here at Drug WarRant have been having some excellent discussions on the Sean Hannity messageboard. One of the pro-prohibition (and clearly authoritarian) posters had brought up, in opposition to marijuana, an early study by Dr. Tashkin that showed potential for precancerous links to marijuana. Our folks countered with Tashkin’s later comprehensive study that conclusively showed no link between even heavy marijuana use and lung cancer. How did the authoritarian respond? Carefully analyze the evidence? Look for more studies? No. Here was his reaction:

This is exactly why all funding for research should be stopped immediately. The Universities and Colleges of America are the enemy in the war on drugs. They harbor druggies, they employ druggies and they are the epitome of the drug culture. […]
Marijuana should not be studied. There’s been too much study. It’s just time to condemn the Demon Weed for all eternity as well as all who partook of the Demon Weed. To HELL WITH THEM ALL. I hate them, I hate their misdeeds, I hate all they stand for and I don’t want them studied, I want them prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and made to pay for their crimes.

These are the soldiers being actively recruited and egged on by the drug warriors.
Those of us in drug policy reform have been aware of the dangers of authoritarianism for some time — probably before much of the rest of the country even realized the degree of prevalence of the trait in this country.
I think Altemeyer is really on to something, and it helps to explain why some of our opponents seem so resistant to fact and reason. It’s also good to understand the psychological connection between drug war authoritarianism and the current political authoritarianism that has manifested in the practical alliance between the neocons and the religious extremists.
What I don’t know is whether this information helps provide any kind of strategy for us. Altemeyer notes that RWA scores have a natural tendency to increase with fear and in times of crisis (which is why authoritarian leaders pull the fear card so often). Theoretically then, if we could ease people’s fears, we could reduce their RWA score and make them more open to facts and reason. But how do we do that?
I’m just thinking out loud, here. What do you think?

“bullet”

“bullet” Drug Sense Weekly