Blogger Forces Drug Czar's Office to Correct False Information

[Ganjarden]

We talked here a while back about the drug czar's misleading use of drug testing data to suggest that shocking numbers of weekend drivers are high on drugs. Well, Pete Guither actually went and did something about it, creating a petition for correction to the drug czar's misleading propaganda. And the best part is that it actually worked:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Washington, DC

April 15, 2010

Mr. Peter Guither
909 W. Market Street
Bloomington, IL 61701

Dear Mr. Guither:

This letter is in response to the petition for correction that you emailed to the Office of the National Drug Control Policy on March 16, 2010. The sentence on the ONDCP website regarding the Department of Transportation study has been reworded to state "that 16 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for a licit or illicit drug." This should fully address the specific point raised in your correspondence.

Pursuant to Section III of ONDCP's information Quality Guidelines, you have a right to request reconsideration if you believe appropriate corrective action has not been taken. Such a request must be filed within 30 days of notification of ONDCP's response to your original request.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Quinn
Chief of Staff

It may seem like a small victory at first glance, but the very notion of the drug czar's office actually accepting a correction from a reformer is pretty remarkable. Almost everything that office does is built on a foundation of deception, and if we're able to hold them accountable to the truth on any level, it begins to even the playing field as we make the case for reform. Pete may only have succeeded in correcting one specific lie, but in doing so, he may have prevented any number of similar lies from being told in the future. Awesome job.


NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: StoptheDrugWar.org
Author: Scott Morgan
Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org
Copyright: 2010 StoptheDrugWar.org
Website: Blogger Forces Drug Czar's Office to Correct False Information

 

[flank]

Thankyou Peter Guither!! This may be a small victory, but enough of these small victories will eventually lead to legalization and freedom.

I wonder what's going to happen to the position of dug czar when marijuana is legal everywhere? I hope to god this position doesn't become the person who regulates the legal laws.

The government IS accountable, and most importantly, to the PEOPLE!

 

[LEDlover]

What was the original text on the Drug Czar's website? Did it just say "illicit" without mentioning licit?

 

[Ganjarden]

Feds: Watch out for drivers high on drugs

"As you idled at that busy intersection Saturday night, there's a pretty good chance another driver waiting for the light to change was high on illegal drugs.

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."

The problem is, that's simply not what the drug czar or the survey said. The data reported on percentages of drivers who tested positive for having drugs in their system, which does not mean they were impaired behind the wheel.

 

[TorturedSoul]

We talked here a while back about the drug czar's misleading use of drug testing data to suggest that shocking numbers of weekend drivers are high on drugs. Well, Pete Guither actually went and did something about it, creating a petition for correction to the drug czar's misleading propaganda. And the best part is that it actually worked:

{SNIP}

The sentence on the ONDCP website regarding the Department of Transportation study has been reworded to state “that 16 percent of nighttime weekend drivers tested positive for a licit or illicit drug.” This should fully address the specific point raised in your correspondence.

{SNIP}

Almost everything that office does is built on a foundation of deception

And that's still the case; choosing one's words in order to give false impressions, not stating "the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth," these things have the mark of a lie and I believe that this is the case here.

The person that reworded the statement in question knows this - and he also knows that such a statement still leaves the public with a false impression.

What is the strongest cannabis that you've ever smoked? 20%? 22%? Even 28% (you lucky...)? How long did the affects last? A couple of hours? Three? Ok, so you grew the finest kind, you cooked with it, and you ate some killer brownies or drank the best bhang ever. Even in that case, you were zoned off your plane of existence for... About eight hours (and in all likelihood, NOT on the streets driving around, but instead you were someplace safe enjoying your high).

And then you came down. And then you got tested. And <BAM!> you were one of the 16% of the nighttime and/or weekend drivers that tested positive for...

Cannabis stays in the system longer than almost- now you see, he's got ME doing it! The signature of cannabis stays in the system longer than almost any other testable drug or drug-signature.

Ever smoke a joint and get nailed by your wife, husband, or significant other because they could smell it on your breath? It's like sneaking outside, smoking a cigarette, going back in, taking a shower and brushing your teeth, and you still get "busted" when she kisses you. (Smoked) cannabis leaves a residue in the lungs that can be detected for longer (in most cases) than the effects of the cannabis lasts - but it is still far less disparate than any other means of detection vs. length of its effects.

I say that the government (and by "the," I mean all of them) have a responsibility, a burden of proof (should that be a burden of truth?) in this... If governments and businesses feel that they MUST test for such substances, they MUST develop (and use) a testing method that will give an honest answer to the question, "Is the testing subject high?"

For in far greater than 90% of any conceivable situations where testing is (or may be) applied, this is the only question that even counts.

And this question is not being (properly) asked or answered (at all)!

Furthermore... Substances like c0ke (to name one example) are metabolized out of the body quite quickly. Someone can stay up binging from 4pm Friday until 7am Monday morning, then climb into that school bus that they drive for a living, get the 24-hour warning on Wednesday, and be completely worry-free on Thursday because they know that they will pee clean.

I feel that I'm qualified to say this because I have used most of the substances that are tested for (relax folks, it was a period of my life that occurred a long, LONG time ago!): I would feel MUCH safer knowing that my little Johnny and Jill were being driven to school by someone that consumes cannabis every night than someone who enjoyed the "occasional" c0ke binge.

And then there's alcohol. Assume for the moment that the driver is a practicing alcoholic instead of either of the two other substances. Many such people will spike their coffee with enough alcohol so that when their work day is done it takes very few drinks to place them into an inebriated state (although they in fact rarely stop at "very few").

Hoping for the sake of argument (and for little Johnny and Jill) that the bus driver in question is actually not still intoxicated from the night before (it happens - and a lot more often than the average person thinks) or already intoxicated from his/her Irish coffee... Have you ever closely observed a long-term drunk who happens to be sober? The shaking hands are a clue to his impaired physical ability. A short conversation and/or cognitive test would be enough to show that his/her mental ability is also affected (the phrase "in the crapper" comes to mind). And riding along with such a driver in a bus filled with an average group of children would plainly show that he/she cannot function at 100% in a distraction-filled environment.

But catch Alcoholic Alfred when he is actually sober - or more likely, somewhat below his state's legal limit - and he would NOT "test positive for a licit or illicit drug."

But he's still a national news story (and a tragedy!) just waiting to happen.

Therefore, the current drug-testing methods are flawed - fatally flawed - and must be discarded in the name of the very same justice that people such as the writer of that letter claim to serve!