JUNK SCIENCE

By Scott Henson Scott Henson is a Texas based political consultant. One of
his clients is ACLU of Texas, for whom he advocates for criminal justice
reform. Check out his blog, Grits for Breakfast, where this first item
appeared, at http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

It's a shame when politics corrupts science, because the public continues
to distrust the scientists for politicizing their findings long after their
transient policy goals are a distant memory. That's what's happening, in my
view, to the National Institutes on Health's Institute on Drug Abuse.

A new study (see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6975 )
purports to show us that marijuana use is especially dangerous, but I think
it shows the opposite. The study found that pot smoking may cause slight
narrowing of blood vessels hindering blood flow to the brain, which the
researchers hypothesized may explain examples of memory loss. But the
study also found higher blood flow levels to the brain overall among pot
smokers, which seems contradictory. Whatever the case, here's the kicker:

"After a month without cannabis - during which the volunteers agreed to
remain in a clinic, with no access to marijuana - Cadet repeated the
sonography. The resistance to blood flow of light and moderate users - who
usually smoked an average of 11 and 44 joints per week, respectively - was
starting to return to normal."

So for those smoking an average of 44 joints per week (!), the discovered
ill effects wear off in a month once you quit. They wear off over a longer
period for heavier smokers who quit. Either way, the vast majority of
marijuana smokers are consuming a lot less than 44 joints per week, if only
restricting their intake from pure economic motivations. A "joint" is a
pretty imprecise measuring stick, but it sounds like folks who smoked up to
a couple of ounces per week get over the described ill effects through
abstinence in the short term. That says to me most people aren't at
serious risk -- that's a helluva lot of pot smoking!

This junk science reminds me a lot of the problems with Texas' forensic
labs
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/01/accuracy-optional-in-forensic-science.html

Part of the reason the work of forensic scientists helped convict innocent
people in Texas is that scientists only answer questions prosecutors ask
them, and prosecutors only ask questions where they think the answer will
prove their case. That's a problem, because which questions scientists ask
dictates, to a large extent, what answers they'll find.

So sure, when they study the fellow who smokes 50 JOINTS PER DAY, they find
significant health concerns, but I wonder how bad they are compared to
someone who, say, drinks a fifth of whiskey every day, which might be an
equivalent level of substance abuse. In fact, I'll bet the 50-joint-per-day
smoker has a lot of other problems, too -- where did they even find
somebody who smokes that much pot, and how is it even remotely possible?
I'll bet even Tommy Chong in his heyday never strung together too many 50
joint days in a row -- how in the world can this be considered indicative
of what happens with "heavy use"? I'd have considered 44 joints per week
pretty heavy use, but I'm no expert. Then, it would appear that at the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, the experts aren't so very expert,
either, just well-credentialed shills for the drug war.

Scott Henson is a Texas based political consultant. One of his clients is
ACLU of Texas, for whom he advocates for criminal justice reform. Check
out his blog, Grits for Breakfast, where this first item appeared, at
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/