How Gil Kerlikowske Lies - Drugged Driving

[Jim Finnel]

We all know that the Drug Czar is required by law to lie. But does he really need to enjoy it so much?

This week points out once again how he does it. And it’s all about drugged driving.

Now the drug czar would like to make a big deal about the dangers of drugged driving, partly because if he can get states to pass “per se” laws (where even the presence of residual metabolites from marijuana, for example count as drugged driving despite the lack of impairment), then it puts a complication into efforts to legalize.

Here’s his problem. There are no reliable studies that demonstrate that drugged-non-drunk driving (particularly marijuana drugged driving) is a real problem. Individual cases, sure, but no clear statistics like you have with drunk driving.

This year, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted a study where they asked drivers in one location to pull over and voluntarily submit to a drug test.

Based on oral fluid tests, 11% of daytime drivers tested positive for the presence of a combination of illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs (not including alcohol). 14.4% of nighttime drivers tested positive. At nighttime, they also tested some drivers with blood tests. Using a combination of oral fluid and blood tests, 16.3% of nighttime drivers tested positive. Marijuana was the substance detected most (nighttime: marijuana 8.6%, ******* 3.9%, meth 1.3%).

Now, as you read this, you immediately realize that it means very little. It’s the first year that this study has been conducted. Now, if you run it for a number of years, fluctuations might tell you something interesting. But a baseline set of numbers here says nothing at all about impairment on the highways.

For example, if 8.6% of the population uses marijuana on a regular basis, but every one of them always, without fail, wait until they are sober before driving, these results would show that 8.6% of drivers test positive for illegal drugs. It says nothing about impairment.

The study authors knew this well. They specifically stated:

“The reader is cautioned that drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment. For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. For example, traces of marijuana can be detected in blood samples several weeks after chronic users stop ingestion. Also, whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol is well understood, little evidence is available to link concentrations of other drug types to driver performance. “

and

“Caution should be exercised in assuming that drug presence implies driver impairment. Drug tests do not necessarily indicate current impairment. Drug presence can be measured for a period of days or weeks after ingestion in many cases. This latency of drug presence may partially explain the consistency between daytime and nighttime drug findings.”

That didn’t stop the Drug Czar. Desperately needing some kind of authoritative backing for his drugged driving campaign, he latched onto the NHTSA report despite the fact that it specifically denied what he was trying to claim.

He knew that. So he needed to find a way to sneak it in.

He couldn’t just come out and put a statement on the ONDCP website stating that 16% of all evening drivers are high. That could be subject to review. So he tends to be more careful with official statements. In his statement for the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs this week, he said:

In addition, we hope to foster productive discussions this week about the emerging public safety threat of drugged driving, which adversely effects judgment, reaction time, motor skills, and memory. In our Nation, we are increasingly seeing the terrible consequences of drug use in the form of automobile accidents. Far too many people are using drugs and then getting behind the wheel, with deadly results. According to a study conducted by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 12 percent of weekend nighttime drivers tested positive for illicit drugs.

See the trick? Three sentences of hyperbolic opinion, followed by one sentence of unrelated fact (technically true, because he said “tested,” not that they were impaired), intentionally giving the impression that the last sentence acts as proof or evidence to support the first three.

It is a lie. No question about it. The paragraph is intentionally deceitful, which makes it a lie. But it’s effectively unchallengeable. How could I, for example, challenge that statement through the Information Quality Act? Statements like “far too many people” are so vague as to be meaningless, and the final sentence is technically correct, even though irrelevant.

But that’s only the first step of the lie. Kerlikowske knows that the press can be manipulated (and that his quotes in the press are un-reviewable), so when he talks to them, he goes further, knowing they won’t bother to check on his statements.

Washington Post, reported by Ashley III Halsey:

About 11 percent of motorists are high on the weekend, and the number creeps up past 16 percent once night falls on Friday and Saturday, according to federal drug czar Gil Kerlikowske and a national roadside survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [emphasis added]

Reuters, reported by Sylvia Westall and Matthew Jones:

“If you think about driving on an American road on a Friday or Saturday evening about 16 percent of the vehicles – one in six of the cars – (the driver) will be under the influence of an illicit or licit drug,” Gil Kerlikowske, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said. [emphasis added]

NY Daily News, reported by Issie Lapowsky:

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, told members of the United Nations that on the average weekend in America, one in six drivers “will be under the influence of an illicit or licit drug.” [emphasis added]

Now the lie is clear and specific, but it’s being disseminated by the press, not specifically by the ONDCP.

Masterful lying by Gil Kerlikowske. Almost too good. Makes me wonder who might be helping him… I understand that Kevin Sabet has been seen at his side quite a bit. Kevin’s a real cagey player and has shown an interest in pushing the marijuana and drugged driving meme for some time.

Care to comment on that, Kevin? I’d be happy to open up a discussion on drugged driving with you here at any time.


NewsHawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: drugwarrant.com
Copyright: 2010 Drug WarRant
Contact: Drug WarRant
Website: How Gil Kerlikowske lies – drugged driving - Drug WarRant

 

[Jim Finnel]

Originally posted Oct 28, 2008:

The Drug Czar Is Required By Law To Lie

Most people know that the "drug czar" -- the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) -- is an advocate for the government position regarding the drug war. But not everyone knows that he and his office are mandated to tell lies as part of their Congressional authorization.

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:

Responsibilities. --The Director-- [...]

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--
is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Now, let's take as a simple example, the issue of medical marijuana. If the government finds that marijuana Has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" or "accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision," then by law, marijuana cannot remain in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act, which would immediately legalize it for medical purposes.

But by law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form).

Therefore, despite the fact that there is extensive evidence of medical marijuana's safety and effectiveness (including the fact that even the federal government supplies it to patients), and clearly the drug czar would know about all this information, he is required by law to lie about it.

The job description also means that since he must oppose any attempt to legalize, he has no choice but declare that the drug war is working, that legalization would fail, etc., regardless of any... facts.

On April 2, 2003, Congressman Ron Paul wrote a letter to the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) asking for an investigation into ONDCP lobbying activities and their dissemination of "misleading information" (a polite euphemism for "lying")

The GAO responded (pdf):

Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. [...]

ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana --- a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail.

Translation: Since lying is in the job description of the ONDCP, there's no point in bothering to see whether they're telling the truth.

Keep in mind that this requirement to avoid the truth if it interferes with the mission of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy is not limited to the current drug czar, John Walters.

The next drug czar, even if appointed by a President who tepidly supports certain reform measures, will be constrained by the same job description defined by Congress.

(One may also wonder, of course, if the nature of the job attracts the type of person who perversely enjoys the power of lying to the country.)

Turning this travesty around requires more than the right person for the job. The offending phrases must be struck from the authorizing language (or perhaps a future President will simply not bother to appoint a new czar).

Given the frequency that the drug czar is quoted in the press, either much of the media is not aware that he and his staff are required to lie, or they simply feel obligated to print what they say despite the falsehoods.

After all, don't all politicians lie some of the time? Yes, but who else is actually required to do so by law?


Lie (verb)
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
: to create a false or misleading impression


The ONDCP staff lies all the time (and specific examples abound all over the web), but not all lies are mere simple statements. One of the most noxious lies (and a common type of lie used by drug warriors) is the intent to deceive through the use of conjoined statements. Here's an example of the drug czar lying to me in an Ask the White House session.

Actually Pete, you've got the question exactly backwards. Marijuana is a much bigger part of the American addiction problem than most people [^] teens or adults [^] realize. There are now more teens going into treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined.

Note the combination of the two sentences. Marijuana is a bigger addition problem than we realize -- there are more teens going into treatment... This is a specific intent to deceive, since the drug czar knows that the increase of teens in treatment for marijuana has nothing to do with addiction, and everything to do with an increase in governmental referrals. But by placing the two statements together, he attempts to convince me of the lie.

Here's another example of the conjoined statement lie:
But marijuana is far from "harmless" -- it is pernicious. Parents are often unaware that today's marijuana is different from that of a generation ago, with potency levels 10 to 20 times stronger than the marijuana with which they were familiar.

Here's another common ONDCP example:
"Quite a few people think that smoking pot is less likely to cause cancer than a regular cigarette," reads the ad. "You may even have heard some parents say they'd rather their kid smoked a little pot than get hooked on cigarettes. Wrong, and wrong again," it continues. "One joint can deliver four times as much cancer-causing tar as one cigarette." According to ONDCP drug czar John Walters, the idea behind the ads is to "give parents some hard facts that they can use to have informed conversations with their kids about the negative consequences of marijuana. ..."
Sometimes they'll talk about "carcinogens." Same idea. The intent is to deceive -- to convince people that marijuana causes cancer -- something they know is not true, so they fall back on the deception. The lie.

Source: the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie - Drug WarRant

 

[free2blaze]

require by law to lie, I just cant grasp it, it makes me laugh with confusion, I believe it and see it everyday, especially when HObama is on TV, but just the idea of being required by law to lie, when will America stand up and put an end to this?

 

[michaelkaer]

Something tells me if people can get rid of the office it's self, legalization would happen even quicker.

 

[Weed420]

And so Reefer Madness continues even to this day. I'm still surprised at people that believe any government studies no matter which entity they come from. You can believe none of it because it is all biased and bigotted.

 

[MedicalNeed]

Yup, The Gov. lies about Cannabis and When the kids try harder drugs they wonder why?

ITS BECAUSE OF THE CANNABIS LIES , they have to find out for themselves,