« Is There a Lesser Evil? (Personal) | Main | The Iraq-Credit Crunch Connection »
October 02, 2008
Pernicious NIDA “Science”
One doesn’t have to be a genius to understand why Science is supposed to be unbiased. It's also easier to preserve the required objectivity in some areas than in others, which is one reason federal meteorologists are better at predicting hurricanes than the DEA is at shutting down illegal markets. That’s also why, after learning more about drug policy, I’d been increasingly distressed by the craven deference routinely exhibited towards the drug war by scientists and other members of Academia. For those not in policy-related disciplines,support could be passive; however, those in the Behavioral Sciences are expected to display a politically correct response to any suggestion that a “drug of abuse” might be useful. All are considered “bad” for the health of the user, as well as immoral. Also, any use at all is thought to risk addiction, for which the only acceptable treatment is abstinence, coerced when necessary.In other words, based only on what I already knew about drug policy failures from 45 years of surgical practical, I knew most drug war propaganda was nonsense; but was unprepared for just how egregiously mistaken our cannabis policy had been. At first I was hopeful that its huge logical flaws would place the policy in an indefensible position.
Then I discovered the extent to which reformers nominally opposed to the drug war harbor several different opinions on the key issue of “medical” use; with some almost as strict as the feds. in fact that reformer penchant for disagreement may be one reason the punitive thinking of the generally more cohesive Republican minority continues to dominate drug policy issues despite its obvious intellectual shortcomings. In essence, somewhere between Nixon and Reagan, reform seems to have unwittingly conceded the moral high ground to the completely illogical policy of their political opponents.
That's very similar to the recent response of Congress in voting down what they saw as a feckless bail out of Wall Street. What they still may not understand is that no one knows for sure what would happen if the global economy grinds to a halt in today’s world of nearly seven billion. It definitely won’t be pretty; there could be enormous pain, and the duration would be anyone’s guess.
I’d rather not find out.
Doctor Tom
Posted by tjeffo at October 2, 2008 08:40 PM