We reported in March on Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin’s reefer madness, where he believes that using marijuana will harm “the small child whose parents are so addicted to illegal drugs that they sell everything including perhaps their own children to obtain a fix.” Well, there must be some special hallucinogen in the water because Iowa’s other senator, Chuck Grassley, has a severe case of reefer madness, too, as evidenced by this letter received from Grassley by a fan of the Stash:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on marijuana. I always enjoy hearing from people back home.
I must, however, disagree with your views on this topic. You see, marijuana is illegal because it is dangerous. When you smoke marijuana, or use any other drug, it changes your brain. It changes the way you think, your ability to learn, and how well you can remember. Making marijuana a legal drug will not change any of this.
Oh, so now we criminalize dangerous intoxicants that affect your brain? When we ended alcohol prohibition, did that change how it makes you think, learn, and remember when you’re drunk?
What Grassley is alluding to is the notion that marijuana smoking permanently changes your brain, which isn’t true at all. Marijuana doesn’t kill brain cells, affect your intelligence, or alter your long-term or short-term memory. (Yes, you get short-term memory loss while you’re high, but once you’re sober again, your memory is fine.)
Some drug users believe that their drug use only affects themselves and that they pose no threat to society. This belief is misguided. People who use drugs do so to alter their perceptions of reality. When someone is high, they cannot be as alert to dangers that are always around us, dangers such as a boiling pot on the stove, a burning candle, or even something as simple as an open window.
Watch out! Smoke that reefer and you’ll burn yourself and fall out a window! Again, you have to wonder if Senator Grassley realizes that there are thousands of Iowans “altering their perceptions of reality” with a six-pack, getting drunk (high) and failing to notice boiling pots, burning candles, and open windows.
We know that drug-using workers are 3 to 4 times as likely to have on-the-job accidents, 4 to 6 time more likely to have off-the-job accidents, 2 to 3 times more likely to file medical claims, 5 times more likely to file workman’s compensation, and 25 percent to 35 percent less productive on the job. To claim that drug use affects only the user is to deny the reality that whatever we do effects those around us.
It’s always fun to debunk someone who throws out statistics with no citation. My first thought is, “Hmm, wonder what those stats are for alcohol-using workers?” My second thought is, “You wanna talk medical claims and productivity; let’s go talk to the tobacco smokers huddled outside for their fourth fifteen minute smoke break of the day.” My third thought is, “Drug-using workers – including meth, coke, smack? – or just potheads?” My fourth thought is, “Any stat you can find for lost productivity, accidents, workman’s comp, and medical claims are trumped in those categories by workers who drink, smoke, are too tired, are injured, or are on certain prescription medications.”
When someone throws out these workplace stats, they are playing fast and loose with the numbers. For example, one of these studies often cited says that “marijuana users are 30% less productive”. They get that number by taking the incomes of marijuana smokers and finding their incomes to be 28% less when compared to the incomes of non-marijuana smokers (1982 NIDA survey of 3,700 households around the country analyzed by North Carolina’s Research Triangle Institute).
Can you see the problem with that kind of “analysis”? Again, it’s the causality problem. Does smoking pot make you poor… or do poorer people smoke more pot? Or could it be that drug testing keeps pot smokers out of higher paying jobs? Or could it be that non-smoking white collar workers are more likely to have a scotch after work, while the staff at the restaurant prefers smoking a joint after a fourteen-hour shift? If we found FOX viewers to have 28% less income than PBS viewers, does that mean FOX hurts workplace productivity?
Society retains a right, and in many cases an obligation, to sustain programs that reduce–but may not be able to eliminate–the problems they are designed to resolve. Despite our wishes to the contrary, we do not live in a perfect world. This is true with respect to pollution, violent crime, child abuse, and countless other areas where there is no true hope of ultimate success in ending the abuse. In the case of drug control, absolute success isn’t necessary to justify prohibition, nor is an unpleasant side-effect necessarily sufficient cause to end it. We do not demand 100 percent success as a justification for other abuses that society attempts to place upon its fellow members. We only ask that we strive towards perfection, that we reach for ideals.
Yeah, but the problem is that even by your own metrics, your attempts to control drugs through prohibition have exacerbated the problems you’re claiming to solve. After seven decades of prohibition, you now have more drugs, cheaper drugs, more powerful drugs, more drug users, more drug overdoses, more drug prisoners.
Using prohibition to control drugs is like using water to put out a grease fire. You know water puts out other fires, just like harsh laws work against other crimes. But prohibition is the abdication of the control over a market; supply and demand work regardless.
Illegal drug use causes social ills because of the illegal part, not so much because of the drugs part. In 1900, all drugs were completely legal. You could buy opium, cocaine, and cannabis and do with them what you please. At that time, about 1.3% of the population were considered drug addicts.
Today, all drugs are tightly prohibited. This has led to the “unpleasant side effects” of well-funded violent criminal gangs, law enforcement corruption, the US as the world’s biggest jailer, and the steady erosion of our civil liberties. And at this time, about 1.3% of the population are considered drug addicts.
After several thousand years, civilized societies have failed to eliminate murder, rape, or child abuse. Nor have they eliminated organized crime, the manufacture of counterfeit money, or genocide. But no one seriously sees these failures as justification for surrender. Illegal drug use costs society at least as much as any of these social ills. Yet we do not hear any calls to legalize these abuses. Why then should we give up? Should we surrender to the criminals, and legalize marijuana? No. Instead, we should do whatever we can to prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand, do what needs to be done to give our families, our friends, and our neighbors a safe and secure place to live.
You’ve slipped into full-blown reefer madness (dementia sativa) when you can seriously compare genocide, murder, rape, and child abuse with smoking a doobie.
But if you don’t have the time for this much discussion, when the drug warrior uses this line of reasoning that we just “never surrender” even if we can’t achieve “100% success” in the war on drugs, ask them why we surrendered against alcohol, which causes far more social ills than cannabis?
(I know why two Iowa senators have a whole lot of reefer madness… Iowa has a big stake in corn ethanol production… can’t have that far better biomass crop competing with Iowa corn…)
[...] amendment to your own Senator. Read past collections of Sen. Grassley’s dementia sativa here and [...]
Thank you Richard for speaking truth to power. Your words will be used against them on Judgement Day when they have to answer to God. Now Grassy has no excuse and can burn in Hell with the other 90 percent of Congress for Taking our freedom away!!!
Please Run This Story and send Senator Chuck Grassley a copy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19285265
I feel people dont get it still. Its great if your in this fight for personnal or medicinal uses,but this is a matter of constitutional right to choose what you do with YOUR body. Marijuana is so interwoven with our constitution.Gun rights are also in danger due to prohibition of marijuana…How you ask? Look at whats going on at the mexico border, some law makers see it as an opportunity to reduce or remove gun rights. Whats happening at the border is 60%marijuana , 40% other drugs.Keep your eye on the ball people. It doesnt matter if it good for you or not,Its our right to choose.
Think hard I’m sure you can find other ways prohibition goes against the constitution and our rights. Step up or step down senators, legalization will happen with or without you.
WILL OUR CIVIL RIGHTS BE SOLD OUT?
email for documents 155k
March 29, 2009 Certified Mail 7103 7975 6410 3203 5540
Senator Harry Reid
333 Las Vegas Blvd., South # 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Dear Senator Reid:
As a respected elected official and concern for the public interest the enclosed a matter of bribery and influence peddling in the Executive Branch, Department of Justice. The correspondence or evidence is seen to prevent an investigation of a federal criminal statute, title 18 sec. 1510. Casework, or review, is provided in the enclosed Integrity Committee letter dated February 13, 2009.
To directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise anything of value to influence an act or to prevent an act can be construed as bribery.
The Integrity Committee letter states the Inspector General EEOC has discretion to open an investigation of a violation of law, title 18. This is patently untrue. To forward a matter of apparent violation of title 18 to a criminal investigator is a 15-minute task. No mention of EEOC ethics official that is required by 28 U.S. Code sec. 535 to report any information relating to violation of any criminal statute, title 18. Assistant Legal Counsel APR 2006 letter has an opposite story to direct a matter of alteration of records, title 18 sec. 1001, to the United States Attorney’s Office. No mention in the OLC letter the IG discretion to open an investigation. What is EEOC hiding not to comply with laws, rules and regulations of the United States? How many other hard working Americans may have been denied fair and impartial treatment?
The Inspector General apparently was promised or given something of value to have duped, misled, or possibly lied to a federal investigative agent to make a false writing of a review in a civil rights claim. Public service is public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens. This is a force, sense of duty an obligation of public service to comply with the law, rules, and regulations of the United States. Clearly EEOC Washington, DC, field offices, Nevada, California, Arizona, North Carolina and others have a double standard of the obligation of public service and do not share the concept of equal treatment under the law.
As an elected official and Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and equal treatment under the law that your office promptly forward the entire correspondence to the Attorney General for comment. It is the obligation, an Oath of Office the Attorney General to defend the Constitution and defend equal treatment under the law. Not to do so would only embolden others in public service to perpetuate bribery and influence peddling for private gain. This would add the perception there are those that choose not to have a responsibility to the United States and its citizens may not be fit for public service.
I feel confident your office and colleagues would like to hear the comment and proposed action by the Attorney General of the United States in a civil rights matter.
Sincerely,
CERTIFIED MAIL
Richard J. Davidson
5122 Cedros Ave.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker
EEOC & others
[...] Congressman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) really, really doesn’t like the idea of patients using medical cannabis — even [...]
What you are looking for, w/ sources, is here:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5515
Sir, I wish that public opinion was not as skewed as yours is. You made a statement that was published in the associated press, “The first rule of medicine, first do no harm, is being violated by the attorney general by his decision,” and this could not be more ridiculous. Most medicines cause all sorts of side effects that most consider much worse than those produced by using cannabis. Furthermore, the effects of marijuana are much less debilitating that those of alcohol, and the long term health risks are far less than those of tobacco. The great state of Iowa could stand to make some extra tax dollars on the taxation of this nearly harmless plant, and it would take a much needed lift off of the shoulders of law enforcement officers so they can focus on more important crimes. Educate yourself Senator, there are countless university studies that show little to no health risks involved in the use of cannabis and there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who use cannabis to fight off the pain and suffering that they endure due to terminal illness. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thanks Russ. That is a great start, but can we start adding footnotes to that list with primary sources that support our cause? If there are legitimate sources of data that support statements in the FAQ, I think it will only substantiate our cause if we list them (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). I am willing to help and am very serious about constructive dialogue and efforts.
We sure have: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3418 is a place to start…
Russ, Has normal considered building a paper of primary sources to debunk most of the misinformation spread by people like Grassley? I am a scientist, and a true scientist bases his arguments on unbiased research that are supported by data that don’t leave a lot of gray area. I think this could be very constructive. I think the “Emperor” book does some of this.
Honestly, if this Senator would take the time to read up on nearly any medicine nowadays, he may find that alot of medicines cause harm that are legal…Most over the counter medicines come with either a few or many side effects that can even be fatal to some people. Yet tons of these “Medicines” are legal, because their Healing Properties generally outweigh the side effects. He may want to do a little research into this, compare it to this issue at hand and then rethink what hes doing.
Thank You
[...] Congressman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) really, really doesn’t like the idea of patients using medical cannabis — even [...]
[...] Congressman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) really, really doesn’t like the idea of patients using medical cannabis — even [...]
I’m sorry, Rick. I made the mistake of relying on the research of experts and peer-reviewed scientific journals, instead of basing my opinion on your personal experience.
My personal experience is that while using cannabis daily, I’ve managed to learn two or three new software programming languages, master the basics of audio and video production, win a nationwide talk radio talent search, and still solve New York Times crossword puzzles with a pen.
Now, if you’re stoned all of the time (maybe you were), then yes, it would be hard to form any new long-term memories, as your short-term is impaired when stoned. But many of us take lengthy breaks between highs and we go to school, go to work, read books, and learn things all the time.
From my personal experience, there Is such a thing as “long term loss of short term memory”. And, for me, it lasted at least 5 years after I stopped smoking. I admit I was a heavy smoker…and I loved it.
Functioning short term memory is required to make long term memories. You may not forget the stuff you already know, but it becomes damned hard to get new stuff to stick.
You can argue over amounts smoked or individual responses, but your blanket statement “…once you’re sober again, your memory is fine” is Wrong.
say Iowan (fellow Iowan here)send Grassless and all other Iowa politicians your support for
HR 5842 and HR 5843…….
hey im an Iowan and i love my government taxes at work….im here helping my city cleaning up after the worst flood in our history… all while working with many pot smokers! no one gets hurt