Hashishi

Crazy 'pot will make you sell your children' warning from otherwise sane senator
Iowa constituent writes to Sen. Tom Harkin asking why medical pot is illegal, constituent gets off-the-wall fearmongering reply.
3-12-`07 | AlterNet.org | by Ron Fisher, NORML

Here at NORML we are used to seeing some hysterical, unfounded claims made about the ills of cannabis. However, even we were shocked when a supporter from Iowa sent us Senator Tom Harkin’s (D, IA) raging, reefer madness-esque reply to his note asking him to justify why medicinal cannabis is still illegal after the second largest medical association in the country, the American College of Physicians, publicly backed rescheduling of cannabis and the protection of patients who use it for medicinal purposes. Here’s the highlights of the reply he received:

Dear XXXX:

Thank you for contacting me. I am always glad to hear from you.

Marijuana is often the drug singled out for legalization. However, marijuana is not the recreational drug that many believe it to be. In a study completed by the Drug Abuse Warning Network, the number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences.

I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana. As the father of two daughters, it greatly disturbs me that children are exposed to drugs at such a young age. I am concerned that legalization of this drug will only increase the number of children who gain access to its harmful effects.

The victims of the drug war are many -- the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix; the police officer’s family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry. These are the people I think of when I say that drugs pose a significant threat to the security of this nation.

Legalizing drugs is equivalent to declaring surrender in the war on drugs. However we may differ in tactics, I am hopeful that we can work together to fight drugs in our communities and to make Iowa drug free.

Again, thanks for sharing your views with me. Please don’t hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin

United States Senator

Okay, so setting aside the fact that Senator Harkin’s response pertains to legalization of marijuana, and not medical cannabis as the constituent asked about, let’s deconstruct some of the myths propagated in this letter.

1. “The number of marijuana related emergencies has nearly reached the level of cocaine related emergencies. As this statistic indicates, marijuana use often has fatal consequences.”

This is an untruth propagated by the drug czar’s minions. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) collects its data on ‘marijuana related emergencies’ by noting every single time someone tells their doctor that they use marijuana. So if I were to accidentally break my leg and go to the ER, and my doctor asked if I use any drugs and I say I occasionally smoke marijuana (as I should, as we should all be honest with our physicians), then this would be a ‘marijuana related emergency,’ even if I hadn’t smoked in weeks.

And fatal? Please! As Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School Lester Grinspoon wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “There is no known case of a lethal overdose; on the basis of animal models, the ratio of lethal to effective dose is estimated as 40,000 to 1. By comparision, the ratio is…between 4 and 10 to 1 for ethanol (alcohol).” Additionally, a 1994 report by the Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre found that “There are no recorded cases of fatalities attributable to cannabis, and the extrapolated lethal dose from animal studies cannot be achieved by recreational users."

2. “I was deeply troubled when I learned of another recent study which found that nearly one-third of all eighth graders had tried marijuana.”

I do not doubt that marijuana is easier to obtain for minors than alcohol, which troubles NORML as well. But this problem is precisely why prohibition is a terrible policy-there is no incentive at all for suppliers to keep their product out of the hands of children. This is in stark contrast to alcohol, whose vendors must protect their valuable liquor licenses (often costing around $100,000) by ensuring they do not sell to minors. You didn’t think they did it out of the kindness of their own heart, did you? In a regulated market, government can incentivize suppliers in this way. On the black market, we leave kids out in the cold-and the prohibitionists point to us and say, “What about the children?” Which brings us to…

3. “The victims of the drug war are many - the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix; the police officer’s family which must now learn to cope with the loss of their loved one as a result of a violent drug bust gone awry.”

Classic drug war rhetoric-let’s avoid serious policy discussion and instead flee to hyperbolic appeals to emotion, without serious examination of how these nightmare scenarios are facilitated by current policy. First, marijuana is less addictive than current legal drugs, according to the Institute of Medicine, let alone illicit drugs one might associate with the type of dependency described above.

While marijuana generally is not associated with the same level of violence that other illicit drugs are, there is no doubt that there have been fatal incidents (some involving law enforcement) involving marijuana. The tragic aspect of this fact is that given marijuana’s proven relative safety and lower addiction rates compared with legal drugs, the prohibitionist policy towards it-sustained by the same kind of rhetoric that Senator Harkin uses-has contributed more to the violence than any other factor. Indeed, when one looks at the alcohol industry today, there is no violent crime in the production and shipment of their goods; yet were one to see the same industry in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition, one might have seen other Senators making the same empty arguments about alcohol.

__________________

chadwick

...someone has seen reefer madness a few to many times

BillieBudd

I think that one of Buzzby's refutations is in order to the Good Senator..
I figure he is either extremely naive or on the take (maybe the Corn Lobby)..and that disappoints me a bit...He ain't my legislator, but he is a figure of note in the Democratic Party...

0pt1m1st1c

he is mine. =[

i like iowa just a little less now.

Majorguns420

I wrote him a letter, telling him how uninformed he was, I keep it short and to the point, doubt he reads it, cause if he actually gave a chit, he'd already know.

troublemaker_42

Another prime example of a closed-minded, brainwashed politican who refuses to believe anything other than the "drugs are evil" mantra thats been beaten into his head since day one. How do such closed-minded people keep getting elected? Can't the public see that they usually ahve their minds made up well before entering office? It seems as many politicans are out for self-gain rather than representing the people who elected them. When people simply refuse to believe that an issue can have merits on both sides, their usefulness, IMO, is expired. If you can't be open to new ideas and changing the status quo, you have no business representing anyone.

__________________
Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."


If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

Buzzby

Probably because they cater to the lowest common denominator. "What can I do and say that will get me the most votes?"

Of course. They call it "consistency", "reliability", and "staying the course". "You can rely on me. I have not and never will vote for a law making it easier for your children to obtain illegal drugs."

I beg to differ. If the majority aren't open to new ideas and approve of the status quo, such a person would be a perfect representative for them.

__________________

troublemaker_42

I see that point. If the majority are fine with the status quo as it now stands, however, I think our country is in bigger trouble than I thought. The status quo seems to be a constant repitition of ideas and plans that do not work. The Drug War is a prime example. We spend 50 billion a year (According to the American Drg War special you posted about) on the WoD. What has been the result? More drugs, of greater purity, available at lower prices. Looks like we got a hell of a bargin for that 50 billion, doesn't it? Yet we continue on the same course. I was told the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting different results. If thats true, our govt is most certainly insane

SacredJellybean

Great post as always, Hashishi. Unfortunately, aside from the impressive level of hyperbole used by this wise man that the Iowans elected, the myths he perpetuates are all the same. Those of us with reason and level heads on our side will tell them time and time again that the War on Drugs wastes billions of dollars and drives even more billions of dollars into the hands of criminals, fueling drug crime. Ironically, as red in the face that these ignorant fools get when they scream and shout and wave their hands about how drugs are bad because they cause crime, they fail to realize and admit that the only way to eliminate drug crime is to make drugs legal. The best damage control method of taking our drugs away from our children is to make the drugs available only by certain regulated sources. The War on Drugs is a black hole they keep tossing more of our hard-earned money into, and it's the source behind almost every problem we have that involves drugs in our society.

But rationality isn't needed. Only an accord with safe, popular opinion. That's just the way it goes. It sucks, but it could be worse.

__________________
"Every age has its peculiar folly and if Charles Mackay, the author of the 19th century classic, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds were alive today he would surely see 'cannabinophobia' as a popular delusion along with the 'tulipmania' and 'witch hunts' of earlier ages. ... I also believe that future historians will look at this epoch and recognize it as another instance of the 'madness of crowds.'"
~Dr. Lester Grinspoon

reggie_the_dog

"Legalizing drugs is equivalent to declaring surrender in the war on drugs. However we may differ in tactics, I am hopeful that we can work together to fight drugs in our communities and to make Iowa drug free."

To have a drug free Iowa you need to eliminate the drugs which are currently illegal but still exist, plus you must make tobacco and alcohol illegal and rid the state of them, plus you need to make all medecine illegal and get rid of it. That means no more over the counter medecine or pharmacies. In a drug free world you cannot treat pain or even get antibiotics. Why in the hell would someone want to live in a world like that???? This guy is from Iowa. He see the results of people using poorly made meth, were it legal people would be buying pills of speed instead of "speed" made from cold medecine and household cleaners that is full of impurities which ravage the users worse than it would in a pure pill form. If cocaine were legal less people would use meth, known as the poor mans coke.......surrender should be an option for a war which causes more harm than good.