Christine Flowers Is, as Usual, an Idiot.
One of the most tiresome things about blogging is that you continually have to respond to the same cast of hackneyed, boring, wrong-headed, disingenuous, and just plain stupid writers over and over and over again. case in point: Christine Flowers’ typically hackneyed, boring, wrong-headed, disingenuous, and just plain stupid column on marijuana legalization today. I mean honestly, Daily News: if this is the best you can do, then you really DO deserve to go under.
Over recent days, some savvy people have exploited both the weakened economy and the deadly violence on our Mexican border to yet again push for the legalization of narcotics.
The argument goes like this:
It’s the illegal nature of the drug trade that causes the carnage. Thus, if we treat controlled substances just like any other commodity and regulate them in accordance with existing laws of commerce, we’ll eliminate the extreme profit motive. And, presumably, the mayhem.
One Ivy type has even opined that legalizing drugs is the patriotic thing to do. Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard, writes that “it is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition.”
So we can solve the drug problem if we “just say no” to wholesale restrictions on their production, use and transfer. By eliminating the black market, we can let people exercise their constitutional right to get stoned, all the while benefiting from increased tax revenues and removing the social stigma of addiction.
#1: the deadly violence on our Mexican border is affecting Americans. Phoenix Arizona has become ground zero for kidnappings by mexico’s drug cartels. It’s not opportunistic to suggest that legalizing marijuana, which is the largest source of revenue for the cartels and which they are ALREADY GROWING IN US NATIONAL FORESTS, would take the profit out of that black market and put it into the hands of the US economy, generating desperately needed revenue.
#2: marijuana is one small part of the “drug problem” No one is suggesting we get rid of “wholesale restrictions on their production, use and transfer” of drugs, or even marijuana. What honest people are suggesting is legalize it, regulate it, and tax it like alcohol. see that word “regulate”? That means “restrictions on their production, use and transfer” of marijuana, just like alcohol. And of course Flowers knows this because it’s the fourth paragraph in her article.
#3: Despite Christine’s silly appeals to class war, “legalizing drugs is the patriotic thing to do”, for several reasons: preventing Americans from being murdered and kidnapped in Phoenix is de facto patriotism; preventing the needless arrest of otherwise productive citizens, thus robbing the greater society of their revenue and buying power, is patriotic.
Pay attention to that last part. Because once we legalize drugs, I guarantee we’ll substantially increase the probability that casual users, or those who never smoked a blunt or tapped a vein in their lives, will take that first step on the journey to a life in chaos. I think most readers have some personal knowledge among their own friends and families about that.
“Drugs” refers to a LOT of substances: cocaine; heroin; meth; LSD; magic mushrooms. No one is talking about legalizing “drugs” en masse. people are talking about legalizing marijuana and marijuana alone. This is a typically dishonest argument from the typically dishonest Christine Flowers.
I can hear the derisive comments, see the rolled eyes, anticipate the oh-so-rational arguments from those who advocate an end to what they call “prohibition.”
Heaven forfend that anyone look at a controversial issue with anything other than wild-eyed hysteria.
It’s usually the weekend pot smokers and once-a-month Ecstasy consumers who have the most to say on the topic. Listen, they argue, marijuana has few harmful physical effects. (On that, they may have a point, although it’s quite clearly a way into the drug culture.)
Again, no one’s talking about legalizing ecstasy, and Christine (in her typical snide and dishonest fashion) is pretending that marijuana smokers are no different from people who use hard drugs. Who are these once-a-month ecstasy consumers? Did Christine Flowers interview any? They’re not quoted, so given Flowers’ history of just making shit up, let’s assume that she made this up as well. That’s what hysterics do after all…
Christine Flowers’ research on marijuana.
They also argue that moderate use has been known to help glaucoma and cancer sufferers. This is the humanitarian slant, the one that gains the most traction with average Americans who may be squeamish about legalizing all drugs but who don’t think pot is such a big deal. State Rep. Mark Cohen has tapped into the sentiment with a bill that would allow the medical use of marijuana in Pennsylvania.
With all due respect to Rep. Cohen, this is a red herring.
The active chemicals in cannabis are just as effective when administered in pill form as they are when inhaled. It’s just that you can’t get high from that little pill. You connect the dots.
Actually, Flowers’ claim is a flat-out LIE:
New Mexico… The study concluded that marijuana was not only an effective antiemetic but also far superior to the best available conventional drug, Compazine, and clearly superior to synthetic THC pill.” The study found that [m]ore than [90] percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting.” The study found no major adverse side effects. Only three patients reported adverse reactions, none of these reactions involved marijuana alone. The 1984 report concluded . . . the data accumulated over all five years of the program’s operation do show that marijuana smoked resulted in a higher percentage of success than does THC ingested.”
California… The study protocol preferred THC pills by making it much easier for patients to enter that portion of the study. Patients who received marijuana had to be over 15 years of age (the THC pill patients had to be over 5 years of age); had to be marijuana experienced, use the drug on an in-patient basis (patients could only use marijuana in the hospital and not take the medicine home) and had to be receiving rarely used and severe forms of chemotherapy. Thus, the design of the study did not favor marijuana.
Even with this built in bias against marijuana, the study consistently found marijuana to be an effective antiemetic. In 1981 the California Research Advisory Panel reported: “Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the program have reported that marijuana is more effective in relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have tried.” In 1982, a 78.9 percent effectiveness rate was found for smoked marijuana.
Michigan… The Michigan study reported 71.1 percent of the patients who received marijuana reported no emesis to moderate nausea. Ninety percent of the patients receiving marijuana elected to remain on marijuana. Only 8 of 83 patients randomized to marijuana chose to alter their mode of antiemetic therapy. This was almost the inverse of patients randomized to Torecan, there more than 90 percent – 22 out of 23 patients – elected to discontinue use of Torecan and switched to marijuana.
Tennessee… This study involved an evaluation of 27 patients. The patients had all failed on other forms of antiemetic therapy including oral THC. The study found an overall success rate of 90.4 percent for marijuana inhalation therapy. In comparison it found a 66.7 percent success rate for THC capsules. In the under 40 age group, the study found a 100 percent success rate for marijuana inhalation therapy.
…and on and on. Christine Flowers is a LIAR: this information took me all of 2 seconds to retrieve on google. And it’s not just one site. more here. And Over a million results here. So no, not a red herring at all.
Actually, the whole issue of medical marijuana is a red herring. The real reason we need to keep drugs illegal – and stigmatized – is that this is one of the few effective ways of preventing a tsunami of abuse from sweeping this nation.
If you think the drug problem is bad now, and if you think the decades-long war has been ineffective, imagine what would happen if we dismantled one of the only barriers between potential users and their lethal desires: the law.
Again, Christine Flowers dishonestly conflates marijuana with all drugs. Marijuana is not cocaine or crack. It’s not even as dangerous as tobacco and alcohol. Despite Christine’s hysterical fears, marijuana re-legalization will not lead to a tsunami of abuse anymore than the re-legalization of alcohol led to a tsunami of drunks. marijuana is not “lethal” as Flowers claims: in fact, no one has EVER died of a marijuana overdose EVER. You would have to smoke literally 1500 pounds all at one sitting to overdose on weed.
So lets do some basic math. Using the current price of $60.00 for 1/8th of an ounce of high-potency kind buds we get $480 for an ounce. At 16 ounces in a pound, we’re talking $7680.00. So 1500 pounds is $11,520,000. So it’s financially impossible as well as physically impossible. And while legalizing weed would certainly bring the price down, it doesn’t cancel out that you have to ingest an amount of pot equal to one half of my Subaru Legacy wagon.
On a side note, Christine Flowers’ concern for “the law” is precious, considering that in previous columns, she’s written such gems as:
So what’s the next step? Do we extend to the attackers the same type of mercy they showed their victim? Do we lay them out on the ground and beat the life out of them like they did to Sean Patrick Conroy?
NO, WE’D TRIP OVER the Eighth Amendment.…
…so when it comes to using marijuana, which harms no one, the law is all-important. When it comes to vigilante justice, the law is an object of scorn and dismissal. This woman, by the way, is a lawyer, but I digress.
The federal Controlled Substances Act and related state laws may not be perfect, but at the very least they make it much more difficult for people to start using. Call it fear of the consequences, call it inconvenience, call it the shame factor, but the fact that some drugs are illegal is an undeniably powerful deterrent to those who would otherwise indulge their curiosity. So why make it easier for them?
If that’s true, why does the US have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world, most if it attributable to drug arrests? “Difficult to start using”? That’s a joke. Anyone who believes that our drug laws actually prevent people from using drugs is ignorant, and almost certainly willfully so. I don’t even have to pull a citation for that one, all I have to do is look out my window.
And then, you have that whole messy morality thing. Our intrepid Harvard economist may believe that our basic rights are being violated when the state prevents us from medicating at will, but there are a lot of things we might want to do that don’t qualify for constitutional protection, like having sex with an allegedly consenting minor. Or selling our bodies for profit is another.
For someone who throws around the word “red herring”, Christine doesn’t really seem to notice when she starts hurling fish herself. There’s no comparing marijuana use, which hurts no one, to sex with a minor (which can cause psychological problems later) or prostitution (which, unregulated, spreads disease and breeds abuse, and which is actually legal and regulated in Nevada, demolishing Flowers’ “argument”).
The Daily News should be ashamed of itself for publishing this dishonest, junk science tripe.
And speaking of the Daily News, which is facing bankruptcy, I can think of one money-saving action: fire Christine Flowers!
March 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
[...] the original post:? Christine Flowers Is, as Usual, an Idiot. Share and [...]
March 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
one more stupid thing – she says thc pills don’t get you high. totally not true and if she wasn’t such an idiot and realized that thc is the main high-inducing chemical maybe her point would have a sliver of validity. i personally think that the other compounds contribute to the effectiveness as medicine, so using the whole plant is vastly preferable to an isolated compound.
oh and christine…when i was in high school way back in the ’70’s and the drinking age was still 18, it was easier to get illegal drugs than alcohol. regulation actually makes it harder for children to get substances, not easier you fucking moron.
March 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The Daily News has a purpose other than spelling ‘bludgeon’ correctly and running ads?
Newspapers are obsolete. If they did journalism, they don’t anymore. For everything else they were useful for, I can read press releases and Craigslist.
April 4th, 2009 at 3:39 am
I also sent the Daily News an email critical of Christine Flowers, but they didn’t print it:
Though she has no proof, columnist Christine Flowers writes that drug legalization will cause a tsunami of abuse to sweep the nation. But the opposite might occur: If street drugs were legal, the taboo against doing them would disappear. Without that mystique, there may be less incentive to experiment. If she wants to prevent society from unraveling (and appear consistent with her beliefs), she should advocate criminalizing the two obviously worst (and legal) drugs: there’s tobacco, a major contributor to heart disease, cancer and lung disease. It yearly incurs $193 billion in health care expenses and lost time from work; then there’s alcohol which fuels aggression, domestic abuse and deaths from drunk drivers. Shouldn’t these drugs also be considered for prohibition?
Being that she’s proclaimed herself a devout free market capitalist, your columnist’s anti-legalization ideology is likewise benefited by prohibition which results in more prisoners, which requires building more penitentiaries, therefore creating more jobs (an unintended consequence of her position puts her politics in alignment with a west coast labor organization: the pro “lock’em up!” California prison guards’ union).
An enormous amount of Americans are legally prescribed anti-depressants, amphetamines and pain-killers. They’d risk imprisonment if they were forced to buy these same drugs on the street. Is that fair? Ms. Flowers says “Getting high, legally or not” is a desire we should limit. Does she endorse busting the millions of prescription junkies for not-so-secretly getting high in defiance of right wing moralists?
The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. So are we then the most evil nation? The answer’s “yes” according to “let’s blame America first” conservatives.