cannabisnews.com: Jane Chastain is Dead Wrong About Legalizing Drugs





Jane Chastain is Dead Wrong About Legalizing Drugs
Posted by CN Staff on June 14, 2002 at 08:29:39 PT
By Joel Miller
Source: WorldNetDaily
In her Thursday column, fellow WND pundit, Jane Chastain, came out swinging against growing grass-roots opposition to the drug war and increasing support for legalization. She kicked off the piece by targeting medical marijuana efforts as stealth legalization and responded with evidence that cannabis is dangerous stuff. "Marijuana is not safe," says Chastain. "Scientists have found that a marijuana cigarette contains 50 percent more carcinogens than a tobacco cigarette and involves twice or triple the tar and carbon monoxide." Ratcheting up the fear factor, she writes, "Presently, 50 percent of all regular smokers will die or become disabled as a result of smoking. 
Do we really want to compound the health problems in this country by legalizing marijuana?" "Regular smokers" is a nebulous term, but I'm betting that we're talking about pack-a-day people here, at least. Marijuana is, however, not used like tobacco. A heavy pot smoker might light up as many as three or four joints a day. The important thing to note is that, even though he holds smoke longer in his lungs (to achieve the desired high), he's still getting dramatically less smoke compared to a "regular" tobacco smoker. After years of comparative testing between nonsmokers and smokers of tobacco and pot, UCLA researchers concluded in 1997 that "in contrast to the accelerated annual rate of decline in lung function that occurs in regular tobacco smokers of comparable age … findings in the present study do not support an association between even heavy, regular marijuana smoking and the development of chronic obstructive lung disease." In their book, "Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts," Drs. Lynn Zimmer and John P. Morgan point to a 1997 Australian study that backs the UCLA findings. "After smoking cannabis on a daily or weekly basis for an average of 19 years, the cannabis users had a lower prevalence of emphysema and asthma than the general population" (my emphasis). Beyond the lung problems, Chastain says that "In 1999, over 87,000 patients were treated in our hospital emergency rooms because of marijuana." This is, no offense to Jane, wrong. The stat she's referring to is generated by the Drug Abuse Warning Network, or DAWN, which tests ER patients for whatever substances might be in their systems when they're admitted. As I pointed out last year when Don Feder fumbled this very same statistic, all the data shows is that a trace of the drug can be detected in the patient's system when he's checked in; it doesn't give any license to postulate about the drug's relation to the patient's condition. From the test alone, causation becomes pure guesswork, not science. Why? As Chastain herself acknowledges, traces of marijuana can linger in a person's system for a very long while; so, a patient who smoked a joint three weeks before falling off a ladder while painting his eaves suddenly becomes part of the scary statistic. This is why pot smokers will often abstain for more than a month before a job interview – if there's testing involved, they might be sober as Judge Bork and still ding positive for cannabis. Chastain also peddles some bad numbers about the drug war's effectiveness. Citing National Household Survey on Drug Abuse statistics, Chastain says that "with only 6 percent of the overall population over the age of 12 currently using drugs, it is difficult to say that drug-reduction efforts have failed. …" If the government called you up and said, "Do you use illegal drugs?" would you answer honestly? That's what the National Household Survey asks of respondents. But, as anyone with an ounce of common sense or a year of college stat knows, you can't ask questions about illegal or unfavorable practices and expect good answers. The National Household Survey may have some things going for it, but reliability isn't one of them. Conversely, the market never lies. According to the U.N. report, "Global Illicit Drug Trends 2001," in 1987 a gram of heroin would cost you more than $275 (using 1999 dollars). A little more than a decade later, in 1999, the price of the same gram plummeted to less than $50. While less dramatic, cocaine price drops are just as clear in the data – all this while the report shows that authorities are also making ever-bigger drug busts. Econ quiz: If prices are falling in spite of greater seizures, what does that tell you about overall supply? Answer: It's way, way up. Contra Chastain, it is not difficult to say drug-reduction efforts have failed. What is difficult to say is that they have worked. With years of heavy prosecution of the drug war, narcotics are more available now than ever before. Perhaps worst of all – and it's the perennial problem with conservatives on this issue – Chastain laments that states are end-running the federal war on drugs by passing initiatives that legalize marijuana for medical purposes in their own jurisdictions. "One-fifth of our states have passed ballot initiatives that are chipping away at the nation's drug laws," she writes. "Some 24 states permit voters to participate in the initiative process and this is where the drug legalization battle is being waged." Yes, naturally. That's how – and check your Constitution on this – it's supposed to work. The federal government has no constitutional warrant for a war on drugs. Minting money, running the post office, raising an army – yes, yes and yes. Banning drugs – no. Drugs are a states rights issue, not a federal issue. Conservatives who howl and moan about big government exceeding constitutional bounds never seem to mind when Leviathan is lunging after drugs. Despite all the Bill Bennettesque rhetoric about saving the society, it boils down to nothing but hypocrisy. Americans may be overwhelmingly against outright legalization, as Chastain says, but trying to reinforce that position with overwhelmingly misinformed punditry is bad news. Special offer: Americans have been told for 200 years that drinking alcohol is sinful – but is it? "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth Gentry argues from Scripture that alcohol is a blessing from God and should be delighted in and enjoyed. Order the book today at http://www.GodGaveWine.comJoel Miller is the book editor for WorldNetDaily. Additionally, his own publishing company, Oakdown, recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Joel MillerPublished: Friday, June 14, 2002Copyright: 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/Related Article & Web Site:Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Factshttp://www.marijuanafacts.org/Legalizing Drugs is Dead Wrong http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13117.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Joel Millerhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=Joel+Miller
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by FoM on June 14, 2002 at 13:53:44 PT
Thank You Joel Miller
If you still read C News I just want to thank you! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by BGreen on June 14, 2002 at 13:50:33 PT
Reading between the lines
I get the feeling Mr. Miller would have liked to walk down the hall and slap Ms. Chastain across the face, saying 'are you freakin' stupid or just insane?'Sometimes we have to do our slapping with words.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by krutch on June 14, 2002 at 10:04:22 PT:
Thanks to Joel Miller
For injecting some sense into this argument. See how he cites actual conclusions from scientific research, rather than trying to draw his own half baked conclusions. Also note how he critically looks at data from surveys and expounds on how it might be flawed. Amazing. If only some of the anti's knew how to do this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 14, 2002 at 09:22:01 PT
VitaminT
Here is the link to PI's Trancripts. The program last night isn't posted yet but this is where it will appear when they get it up. Because there was so much talk over I don't know how the transcripts will read. I'll try to post the transcripts then.http://abc.abcnews.go.com/primetime/politicallyincorrect/episodes/2001-02/1.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on June 14, 2002 at 09:18:58 PT
Nice, bongathon
One more point.  Miller asks how you would answer if the government called you and asked "do you use illegal drugs?". Actually, his question should be - "if someone from the government came in your house and asked you to enter information on your personal drug use into a laptop, how would you answer"? Because that's how the surveys are done.Also, Chastain says the drug war is a success because not many people use drugs. Is that the criteria for success? I guess the number of people locked in jail (on our nickel), jobs lost, kids in foster homes, students kicked out of school, none of that enters the picture I guess.Bill should do a show where all the guests are people that just got out of jail on drug offenses.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by VitaminT on June 14, 2002 at 09:15:54 PT
Is there a transcript for PI
I don't think our local affiliate ran Politically Incorrect last night. Any chance it will be posted here?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by bongathon on June 14, 2002 at 09:03:02 PT:
waah, waah
that PI last night was great, especially Gene Simmons showing the world what an empty headed moron he is, KISS this, Mr."King of the World". Chastain just likes to hear her own voice echoing in her mothers ears. if it was up to her, everything would be illegal except yogurt and breast feeding. her idea of friday night is doubling her Prozac.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Robbie on June 14, 2002 at 08:48:33 PT
not misinformed punditry
...lying, prohibitionist punditry.Jane Chastain has set it into her girdle that "drugs are bad, mm'kay?" This is all she wants...for people to know she's against drugs.And, having seen her on PI last night, it's obvious that she has all the DEA talking points down pat. She even had an answer for Gary Johnson about Switzerland's heroin maintenance program, and I'll bet you she didn't know squat about it yet felt she had to comment with the pre-approved governmental disdain of anything positive relating to drugs. (well, unless their the Pfizer/Merck/Lilly/PM brands of drugs)Jane Chastain isn't misinformed...she knows exactly what she's doing.
Undernews
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on June 14, 2002 at 08:43:50 PT:
Well, FoM, here's your answer :)
You had asked me where Mr. Miller was. Sitting atop his ammo dump, loading stripper clips for his journalistic rifle's 'basic load', apparently.  And he's just as accurate in hitting his target as ever. (Though I believe that he's being very gingerly cautious in stomping on Ms. Chastain's shameful publicly displayed ignorance; I would be far less reserved. Ms. Chastain represents WND as much as Mr. Miller does. What she writes is read by more than the regular readership of WND. And unlike 'true believers', people who think on these issues will take a jaundiced eye towards sloppy inaccuracies as she promulgated in her article. And let her know...as I did in a letter to her. That this dreck showed up in a respected daily like WND only goes to prove my theory about mental 'throwbacks' in the best of families.)
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment