DRUGGED THINKING?

The Proliferation of Uninformed Opinions About Drugs

It's common fantasy to think that if only we could rid ourselves of a
particular group of people, we'd find Utopia just around the corner. This
remains, of course, nothing but a fantasy, even though many people continue
to believe it.

I was reminded of this while reading about two different drugs in New
Times' Nov. 19 issue. A letter to the editor from Shannon Bond ("Don't
Settle with Big Tobacco") depressed me, while an article by Steven Jones
about the opium poppy still has me cackling every time I consider it ("The
Poppy Paradox").

Ever since my arrival on the Central Coast, I've enjoyed New Times. There's
usually something that manages to change my normal humor to morbidity or
raise it to hilarity. But it is rare for one issue to do both. Last week's
certainly did. When the men in white coats come to take me away, it will be
due to my gross mood swings brought on by my rereading Ms. Bond and then
Mr. Jones.

The letter from Ms. Bond, who signed herself as the chairperson of the SLO
County Tobacco Control Coalition, started me going. One might guess from
the title of her organization that the coalition does not really want to
"control" tobacco in the manner of a monopolist hoping to get stinking
rich. Instead, it wishes to ban it. And in such a crusade, truth is all too
often the victim, as the years of Prohibition in this country will
certainly remind us.

It is a sad aspect of reality that there are any number of people who will
always appoint themselves to stop us from doing what we wish. And once they
have fixed their gaze upon the evil that must be exorcised, they are too
ready to trample over facts, disregard science, and leap to erroneous
conclusions, convincing themselves that the just end of the cause allows -
nay, forces - them to this.

As for Ms. Bond and tobacco, she argues that the state's settlement with
the tobacco companies should not take place; rather that the issue should
go to trial and thus "Big Tobacco will be held accountable for its lies,
fraud, and harrassment of local health advocates."

Unfortunately, her fanaticism has blinded Ms. Bond to the truth - which is
that Attorney General Dan Lungren should get on with signing that
settlement with the tobacco companies as soon as possible. Beccause it's
his only hope of getting money out of them this side of Armageddon. If the
case went to trial, tobacco companies would most likely win, for there are
a few facts that anti-smokers don't really publicize.

In the first place, smokers don't cost the government money; they save it
money. Harvard professor of economics Kip Viscusi points out that every
study ever done shows that because smokers die earlier than nonsmokers,
they don't collect big pensions or need lots of expensive nursing care.

So suing the tobacco companies for Medicare costs is ludicrous - in terms
of actual cash, smoking saves the system money. A trial would bring this
out. Plus, of course, smokers pay more in taxes - much more than they cost.

Also, the dangers of passive smoking are a mirage, no matter what the radio
ads and the fuss over smoking have been telling you. The Congressional
Research Service found in 1995 that out of 34 studies done, seven reported
that there were small negative effects from passive smoke and the rest that
there were no measurable effects at all. One even concluded that there were
positive health benefits from exposure to secondhand smoke!

That's seven studies in favor and 27 studies against the porposition that
passive smoke is harmful. Hell, you wouldn't support a high school football
team on that record, even if your son were the starting quarterback.

The World Health Organization released a report a few months ago about the
effects of passive smoking on lung cancer. (You can read it on their
website.) These are serious people, part of the United Nations, and the
people who wiped smallpox off the planet. They found no evidence of a
statistically significant link between passive smoking and lung cancer.
They found only one such significant result - that children of smokers have
_lower_ than normal rates of lung cancer.

So according to the largest governmental health organization in the world,
we should all be blowing smoke at our broods of snotty anklebitters in
order to protect them in later life.

That many people do not know these things about smoking is not surprising;
there is too much in this life for any of us to know it all. But that
someone like Ms. Bond - who claims to be educated on the issue - does not
is appalling.

Fortunately for my spirits, Steven Jones wrote in the same issue about
another drug - the opium poppy - and the coming prosecution of two SLO
County residents for its possession.

It seems that possession of poppies and knowledge of their opium-producing
capabilities is enough to send one away for 20 years. Mr. Jones points out
in his article that a packet of seeds from Vons and a wait for spring is
all one needs for the felonious poppies to appear.

Hmmm. Who, other than readers of New Times, knows this?

No doubt the FBI, the police, ATF, and DARE members, for they always
profess to know their subject. And judges and prosecutors, too, must know
about this for the same reason. And federal legislators must also know the
facts of poppy possession, for surely none of them would admit to passing
any laws about drugs without knowing what they were doing.

All of them must know, for they are always assuring us that they know
exactly what they're doing. So they must have the knowledge. This means, of
course, that it would be very easy to change American society.

One would no longer need bombs, guns, Montana ranches, or urban terrorist
cells. All one would need is a few trips to the supermarket. Then just toss
a handful of seeds over the garden fences of all the above and wait for the
flowering. We can all sit back and watch the entire legislative, police,
and judicial system feed upon itself as they send themselves to jail for
drug growing.

All their homes and property would go to the feds (Lower taxes! Hooray!),
lawsuits would fall away (Yay!), and we would then be treated to a parade
of convicts as our lords and masters march up the road to CMC. All of us
are equal before the law, and as SLO County District Attorney Gerry Shea
says, possession and knowledge are all that is necessary for a conviction
and a 20-year sentence. Intent is not mentioned as a component of the crime.

As with all interesting fantasies, this will never come to pass, of course.
But the cause of my amusement is now laid bare - D.A. Shea and all others
would be hoisted on their own petard, sand-bagged by their own rigid
imposition of a ridiculous law.

Thank you, Steven, for a moment of amusement.

Checked-by: Pat Dolan