Margaret Wente at The Globe and Mail writes:
The UK made marijuana possession semi-legal a few years ago, but experienced an explosion of pot use among minors, as well as a sharp rise in harmful effects attributed to more potent strains of weed.She's just factually wrong. Here's what the Guardian says in an Oct. 2007 article entitled Fewer young people using cannabis after reclassification:
Cannabis use among young people has fallen significantly since its controversial reclassification in 2004, according to the latest British Crime Survey figures published today.Similarly, her claim that there's been "a sharp rise in harmful effects attributed to more potent strains of weed" is utterly false. There has been research suggesting that marijuana may increase the risk of certain mental illnesses, but there has been no increase in people actually developing those conditions. The idea that marijuana potency is a factor here is also purely theoretical and unproven. Here's what the Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has to say:
The Home Office figures showed the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who had used cannabis in the past year fell from 25% when the change in the law was introduced to 21% in 2006/07 - still about 1.3 million users.
"The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak. The council does not advise the reclassification of cannabis products to Class B; it recommends they remain within Class C. [Telegraph]There simply was no "explosion of pot use among minors" and no "sharp rise in harmful effects". Those things never happened, can't be cited, and don't belong in print. The article's flaws don't stop there either, but I want to focus on these points because they demonstrate reckless and presumably willful disregard for basic facts, rather than simple manipulation or selectivity. There's a difference in terms of journalistic ethics, and I think Margaret Wente forgot that.
********
Let's let The Globe and Mail know about these clear factual errors. It's easy:Letters to the Editor - The editor of The Globe and Mail welcomes letters on any subject but reserves the right to condense and edit them. Brevity counts. All letters should be less than 200 words, and must include the name, mailing address and daytime phone number of the writer. The copyright becomes the property of The Globe and Mail if they are accepted for publication. You may also reach us by fax at 416-585-5085.I know, I know, it feels like you're banging your head against a wall, but enough letters can provoke a response. Do it right now so you wonât forget.
A crazy woman, Dr. Ada M. Fisher, was authorized to speak to the press on behalf of the McCain campaign at the NAACP convention. She took that opportunity to make some of the most unfortunate and incoherent remarks about drug use in recent memory:
On second thought, I give up. I just cannot compete with this. It never even occurred to me before that if we elect an admitted drug user to be president, we'll have to let druggies work in our nuclear facilities. Drug policy reform was a fun hobby, but I've been outclassed. See ya in hell, hippies.
AF: "â¦Obama in his book about his father talked about his use of drugs. And I think itâs disingenuous of people to vote for somebody for President when you wonât allow a drug user in any secure or nuclear facility. Yet we as a nation, are willing to consider making somebody President of the United States I think that speaks very poorlyâ¦Bill Clinton said he smoked but he didnât inhaleâ¦But he didnât come out and flagrantly say he used drugsâ¦and if thatâs going to be our standard God helps us in nuclear facilities and secure facilities who have this kind of history..and this nation must be very careful when it lowers the bar on who and what it will accept.
â¦
AF: See, if you admit it, it should disqualify you. Otherwise, weâll have to let all those people who â¦applied for jobs in these facilitiesâ¦There is a reason that those rules are there. I was a detox director for 16 counties in North Carolina , so I have a great understanding about what drugs and what they do to people. And I know that in moments of weakness, people tend to revert those things that theyâve used in the past. I donât think itâs disingenuous, I donât think its fair. If I ran for President of the U.S. and I had that history, I would expect people to look at that very carefully. We cannot have a nation high on drugs and have the President⦠as an example. Iâm sorry I disagree with that. [Wonkette]
Note: Pete Guither has more at DrugWarRant, observing among other things that no one seems to have a problem putting recovering alcoholics in the White House.
(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)