ch. 1- demonization
~PREFACE~
scholars argue that intoxication is a basic human drive
very few instances where society DOESNT use psychoactive substances
issues with drug use and policy (in the US) have paradoxes
people take antidepressant drugs without any consequences but around 450k individuals are in prison for trafficking conscious-altering drugs
stricter drug laws was one of the factors associated with unprecedented levels of incarceration
Legal or illegal it’s still a massive business
there are debates between what is the distinction between legal and illegal drugs
-misinformation and distortion-
the book uses a lot of sources (more than other authors writing on the same topic) because there is a lot of misinformation on the topic
reporters misinterpret scientific information
misleads public
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), Drug Police Alliance (DPA) and Common Sense for Drug Policy have been critical of US drug policies
a lot of government organizations are misleading or blatantly wrong
drug czars present the misinformation
McCaffery (under Clinton) claimed that Netherlands’ open use policy led to more homicide (17.58 per 100k vs 8.22)
combined actual murder and attempted murder. the number was actually around 1.8 per 100k or less.
John Walters (under Bush) claimed drug prevention efforts were successful
marijuana use increased by 30% in 12 graders, 128% in 10th, and 188% for 8th grade
trump told Duterte (philippines president) he was doing a great job despite tens of thousands dying from his war of drugs
trump claimed most of the drug smuggling came from unprotected portions of the US border
most drugs are through the Southwest border through points of entry according to the DEA
—chapter 1 overview—
addresses widespread use of psychoactive substances across time and societies
legal and illegal all provide some risk
how they are similar and different
strategies such as blaming illegal substances for crime heightens the danger of illegal drugs
socially constructed drug epidemics exaggerate the drug problems
4 IDEAS:
it’s important to understand that not all information about drugs are true, and a lot of it may be biased
there are a lot of paradoxes with legal and illegal drugs and it’s beneficial to understand and acknowledge it
find out information about drug use from a reputable science source to avoid false information
it’s crucial to have an open mind when discussing drug policies
~CHAPTER 1~
-Introduction-
US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) did a survey revealing how prevalent drugs, alcohol, and cigarrettes are in US Society
check statistics on pg. 1 (pg 7 on the pdf)
It’s a greater amount worldwide in terms of usage and trade
Some think that intoxication isn’t natural- that being fully sober is
Andrew Weil (1986) suggests that being intoxicated must be a form of basic human appetite
drugs are both useful and harmful
millions die per year under tobacco, tens of thousands die from prescription opioids, and almost 500k from alcohol
all legal
more die from legal than illegal substances
4 IDEAS:
How can someone truly classify what is illegal vs legal drugs?
Drugs are an important aspect of society regardless of connotation
Drugs aren’t necessarily harmful, nor good. It depends how it is used
The paradox of legal vs. illegal is supported by the statistics
-Demonizing (illegal) drugs: the social construction of drug “epidemics”-
the need for psychoactive drugs is prevalent given the statistics of trade and use for legal and illegal substances
the need further extends to government, criminal justice system officials, and the media
government need the drug wars to make heroes and villains and boost the economy
criminal justice officials use drugs as an incentive to get funding for organizations
media need it to sell out newspapers and advertising time
that’s why the government villainize CERTAIN drugs
strategies:
(without empirical data) claim that these drugs lead to a multitude of significant problems and crimes in society
nixon: heroin addicts cost up to 2 billion in property crime (total amount was 1.3 billion)
give illegal drugs the power to make a person commit bizarre acts while influenced
claims that illegal substances are taken by minorities and trafficked by criminals
trump claims US’s opioid crisis on mexico and that majority of drugs come from there
demonize drugs through results of death and harm to children
misrepresent/suppress scientific studies
misapplication of the term “epidemic": less than 10% have used cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and methamphetamine (actual statistics on page 9)
opioid epidemic is an actual epidemic tho
4 IDEAS:
drugs are prevalent in society because of their usefulness
it’s important to see the strategies played out to villainize drugs
both legal and illegal drugs have opinionated connotations that aren’t necessarily true
scientific research and terms often get misinterpreted
—EPIDEMICS—
-glue-sniffing-
the term glue sniffing grew exponentially once media brought attention to the practice
130 arrested in a two year period in Denver
788 arrested within 5 months in NYC
media sources began to recall bizarre acts/behaviors that allegedly came from glue sniffing
police and federal government backed it up
claimed it made them act in homo and heterosexual behaviors
6-7 of nine deaths were caused by asphyxiation and one had an ailment, and another wasn’t caught sniffing glue before death
glue sniffing “epidemic” was caused by media and government
the danger inadvertently caused more use in youths
4 IDEAS:
Media can exponentially affect the connotations surrounding drugs
Federal government uses misinformation to justify arrests
the blow up from media and the government led to the youth partaking in glue sniffing more
Media and the government are direct influences for the drug wars
-marijuana-
one of the most benign of substances —> portrayal of causing violence, aberrant sexual behaviors, etc caused more fear around it
a long history with society from 470 BC to a century BC in the east for psychoactive properties
US presidents such as GW and TJ used it for medicinal use or fiber
early reports acknowledged its medicinal and benign use (benign especially with alcohol)
a journal noted it was less likely to make men commit violence than alcohol
US fed gov. decided to create legislation around marijuana in 1930’s and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) put out an antimarijuana campaign
not really scientifically backed up
used the strategy of using underrepresented groups to demonize it
between 1935-39, articles began suggesting that cannabis was essentially the worst thing on Earth
used crime, murder, sexual immorality, etc
a lot of movies also pushed the antimarijuana propaganda
1940’s research says that marijuana actually gave relaxations and possible therapeutic appliances
FBN basically replied with “someone addicted will use this information to fuel it” (this is in my own words, not quoted)
to combat the scientific journals, the FBN and media turned to another position- marijuana was a gateway drug to deadlier ones
Anslinger (FBN Commissioner) originally mentioned that people who smoke marijuana don’t go to deadlier drugs, but quickly changed his positions for the plot
4 IDEAS:
marijuana has had a long (and successful) history with society
it was originally seen as a good thing- proving that society influences the thoughts surrounding drugs
a lot of strategies are put into place to fearmonger and push people away from drugs
scientific evidence is often at odds with the media and government
—portrayal of marijuana: 1960-80’s—
mari. had not been socially accepted by the 80’s
misinformation: Journal of the American Medical Association
psychiatrists studied 38 individuals who smoked marijuana and claimed that they showed poor social judgement, concentration, confusion, depression, etc
asserted that it led to aberrant sexual behaviors (page 12 in pdf)
the patients are volunteered and may have had other psychological problems
bad definitions of sexual promiscuity
widely cited
1960’s to current period- the effect that marijuana leads to indolence (amotivational syndrome) is still prevalent
some scientists like Weil and Rosen (1998) claim that this statement is questionable scientific validity
marijuana isn’t the causation of amotivational syndrome
11 states had a general relaxation of the penalties, but others kinda went haywire and arrested hundreds of thousands (and some were only possessing the substance)
—portrayal of marijuana: 1980-2010’s—
john walters (drug czar under Bush) justified the drug war on marijuana and the hundreds of thousands arrested
themes were emphasized in Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
marijuana leads to violence (unclear bc NYC doesn’t keep a statistic on marijuana-related violence)
science says otherwise (No increase in aggression or antisocial behavior)
violence comes from individuals/organizations competing for dominance in illegal markets
claimed that teenagers addicted to marijuana exceeded addiction to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and all other drugs combined
drug treatment came from criminal and juvenile justice systems
ONDCP referred to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and claimed that marijuana in emergency room admissions increased by 176% since 1994
misleading because it implies that marijuana is a causal factor
hospital staff can list up to 5 drugs that aren’t necessarily the reason for visit
claimed THC was higher (30x previous potency)
average size of marijuana cigarettes decreased overtime (the more potent=the less consumed)
theoretical logic for the gateway drug hypothesis is based on 3 interrelated propositions
“sequencing” notion- implies there’s a fixed relationship between drugs
“association” notion- implies that one drug increases the likelihood of the use of the second drug
“causation” notion- implies using one substance directly causes the use of the second substance
1994 report by Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse was one of the first to support the gateway hypothesis
statistics on pg. 15 on PDF
analogy for those who tried cocaine did marijuana:
those who rode bikes (common) are more likely to ride motorcycles (rare) than those who haven’t
illogical to claim bicycle riding CAUSES motorcycle riding; illogical to claim marijuana leads to cocaine
more explanations for associations in different studies:
early experiences with marijuana leads to psychoactive effects which may encourage more usage
experiences that don’t lead to short term harm leads the user to undermine the effects of deadlier drugs
getting marijuana increases the exposure to other drugs by having more access to dealers
marijuana is more available—> more likely to use
no pharmacological basis for the theory, but there may be a relationship between marijuana use and other drugs because marijuana has to be purchased in illicit markets
netherlands successfully severed this
83 million who tried marijuana in US never tried heroin
majority see it as a terminus than a gateway
4 IDEAS:
As science starts to prevail these misconceptions, the government and media immediately use another strategy to fearmonger
marijuana is a relatively benign drug and more readily accessible, meaning that it is easier to manipulate how the public view it
there are a lot of societal and alternative factors to explain against the gateway hypothesis
what the media and government say about drugs can’t easily be erased and are sometimes double down upon
3 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
Given that more people die from legal drugs than illegal drugs, but the government and media continue to portray illegal drugs as the greater danger, do you think that the distinction between legal and illegal distinction is more about health risks or more about social control?
Given all of the misinformation given by the media, government, and even science papers, how can the public effectively evaluate information about drug use?
The glue sniffing scenario encouraged more youth to try it inadvertently due to media attention, so what does this suggest about the risks of covering drug cases? Should it be avoided, or is the actual issue in how the media portray drugs?
(pg. 18 cont.) (what would be handy to know about the reading)
more people went to jail for possessing marijuana than other and more deadlier drugs
Cali’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” —> more people went to jail over marijuana than violent crimes combined
-”Tell Your Children” (On Second Thought, Don’t)-
(pg 18) there is a bit of aggressive tone with the author talking about lack of space to thoroughly deconstruct antimarijuana themes in Berenson’s book
Berenson’s book “Tell Your Children” (2019 new york times journalist) two most prominent themes” marijuana causes mental health issues and results of violent acts
many more articles referenced the book and it became popular
proves that rhetoric of the past oly evolves, never dies
the book had a lot of self righteous claims such as..?
claimed everything said was true
a lot of grisly anecdotes to prove marijuana is deadly
says that scientists claim a lot of anecdotes aren’t data, claims his book is all medicine and science, then proceeds to list a lot of anecdotes
used celebrities such as Kanye West and Pete Davidson and a study from over 3 decades ago which says people were more likely to gain schizophrenia from using cannabis
a lot of questions about the methodology- perhaps people used cannabis as a self treatment for schizophrenia and those who used cannabis were more likely to use other drugs
NASEM- “dose-response” relationship
might be an association, but not an actual CAUSATION
conveniently not quoted
possibilities:
substance use in general may be a risk factor for mental illnesses (not just marijuana)
mental illness may be a risk factor for substance use
A lot of strong words to add onto the ridiculing tone on Berenson (pg. 21)
U.S. has a very high rate of mari. usage but lower rates of schizo. and related psychotic disorders than global average
Used anecdotes to prove that mari. and violence were correlated
aggregate level data and anecdotes from forensic psychiatrist wife
claims outrageous things such as corpse mutilation is frequent, used public/political figures as proof
Author uses scientific studies that claim there’s no support to the fact that marijuana increases murder rates and people with schizophrenia aren’t usually the ones that commit murder
Berenson used Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington as an example that they had an increase in aggressive assaults and murder when they legalized mari. (pg. 23 for statistics)
author emphasizes that Berenson doesn’t give any consideration to other potential causes
gave studies that say more mari. but less murder
used Netherlands as an example that if murder and cannabis were related, it’d be a more dangerous place but it is relatively safe
author really tries to emphasize that there is no direct CAUSATION between mari. and murder by giving a whole lot of sources and keep yapping about it
4 IDEAS:
Be aware of bias in texts when gathering information
Analyze data correctly and understand that association is not causation
fact checking sources is crucial to make sure false information isn’t spread
the media often follow trends (aka referencing Berenson’s book) to blow things out of proportion
-Alex Berenson’s Stance on Marijuana Laws and the Implications of His Arguments"-
again the author is using very interesting words to portray to the reader Berenson is a derp
claims his stance that people shouldn’t be incarcerated for marijuana is “curious”
5% of total arrests are marijuana based
harms future (education, jobs, etc)
Berenson states that police arrest more black people than white (despite similar consumption rates) is that marijuana makes black people more psychotic and hence more violent
biochemical justification for racism
scholars called his book alarmism that is meant to stir public fear
75 academics in a group urged the public to rely on scientific evidence
author agrees that prohibition makes dealing drugs more unpredictable
WHO says that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and/or tobacco
4 IDEAS:
Public fear can be stirred from just one outlandish take
The media has a firm grip on public fear
despite 75 scholars saying otherwise, the fear is still prevalent
it’s important to see where there is exaggeration and misinformation and check other viable sources
-crack cocaine-
“epidemic” constructed in mid-late 80’s (proof on pg 20 PDF)
claimed crack cocaine led to violent crimes and more addictive than cocaine administered nasally
lots have noticed no difference in addiction
claimed it was used by african americans and therefore demonized it to white people
not actually statistically significant
legislators blamed social problems on cocaine (high unemployment and crime)
author is less.. emotional?
4 IDEAS:
the misuse of the word “epidemic” shows how language can contribute to panic
a big strategy of demonizing crack is racialized, so it’s important to look at statistics
statistics loses their power when politics enters- lawmakers promoted false statistics and everyone believed them
emotions have more say than science
-ecstasy (MDMA)-
invented by german psychiatrists in 2012
“truth drug” by US CIA in 1940’s
facilitate psychotherapy
considered a cutting edge
increased use in raves —> government wanted to inform people of dangers
tried to use seizures of ecstasy increased substantially according to US Customs Service to provide evidence of the explosion
author makes it seem like they’re fabricating it and doesn’t believe it
casual relationship between death and ecstasy aren’t well established
Used jews/israel (ew) to demonize drugs
most prominent theme is that it causes brain damage
author makes it very clear that some scientific studies covering this is a bunch of baloney
ex: Ricaurte et. al (2002)’s experiment made people call for stricter laws on ecstasy
they have accidentally been injected methamphetamine. oops.
despite receding the papers, the damage had been done. works cited them and may continue to do so
anyway there were methodological problems to begin with
Ricaurte’s lab received millions and produced more studies that ecstasy was bad
apparently fed gov agencies discontinued funding if results don’t support continuation of drug war
author reconvenes with that ecstasy is bad for the brain because it makes the brain deplete serotonin supply
pills also have other adulterants (other drugs like DXM - hallucinations in concentration)
Molly contained no MDMA and was just a bunch of drugs (caffeine, ketamine, meth, PCP, cocaine, heroin, pesticides, chlorine, etc)
4 IDEAS:
government and media can permanently shape public perception on fabricated evidence even if errors are revealed
science is often undermined by political agendas
public panic often look over the nuance- potential in therapy.
once fear enters the narrative, they persist everywhere. there is no coming back
-Methamphetamine-
one of the most prominent in the 90’s
gov said it could replace cocaine as the primary drug threat
Some doofus (rep. Tom Osborne of Nebraska) said it was the biggest threat to the US, over Al Qaeda
author asks the reader to look over the statistics from the DUF with skepticism
a lot of anecdotes with statistics, but not a lot of attributions to back it up
an actual test shows 25.4% of arrestees testing positive for meth, which is less htan 85% cited by law and gov. officials
science generally confirms an association between illegal drugs and property crimes
the way the author wrote this was interesting. Listed 25.4% (a lot) then made it seem insignificant to 85% listed previously. then used that to guide in the rhetorical question (pg. 25 PDF)
even the anecdotes given show text emphasis (pg. 25 PDF)
1. first sentence is normal. second is a plot twist
2. formatted the question with an obvious answer
3. shock factor- comparing people of meth to animals
compares the whole “meth killing animals” out of country- sydney, australia
common themes in drug demonizing: drugs threatening children, anecdotes with no science to back it up, etc
author again emphasizes that CAUSE is not association
4 IDEAS:
the exaggerated statistics show how fear is amplified drastically through numbers
lawmakers and officials lean on shock value to further demonize
there’s a repetition of demonization themes which suggests that drug panics follow a similar pattern
the author is constantly reminding readers that association with crime doesn’t mean that the drugs are the main cause
—DRUG “EPIDEMICS” OF THE 2000S AND 2010S—
a lot of several “epidemics” focusing on youth and using readily made substances for those highs
-Spice/K2-
known as synthetic cannabis
active ingredients: synthetic cannabinoids
human made, mind altering, sprayed/dried to be vaporized/smoked in e-cigs
might affect brain much more than marijuana
strategy to demonize: present data on events connected to the substance use
anecdotes of people killing themselves out of character
2012- schedule I classification
bans have little effect because manufacturers make slight changes to chemical formula
some argue the criminalization of cannabis led to K2/Spice popularity
some call it weaponized marijuana
a lot of deaths and hospitalizations have been emerging in the 2010’s because of the K2 overdoses
4 IDEAS:
the demonization heavily relied on anecdotes- a known strategy
criminalizing safer substances (cannabis) made people seek out more cheaper and dangerous alternatives
prohibition struggles to maintain drugs because manufacturers make variants (often more dangerous)
framing Spice as weaponized marijuana further shows how fear overshadow the actual risks
-bath salts and flakka-
bath salt: active ingredient is (bear with me) methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV)
many cute names (cloud 9, ivory snow, red dove, vanilla sky, etc)
snorted, but can also be injected, smoked, eaten.
media: out blew it again from being fed stories from law enforcement officials
more anecdotes
made it rated as the worst drug ever
proves a common pattern: authorities ban a drug, a more dangerous variant takes its place
flakka (alpha- PVP)
synthetic cathinone
eaten, injected, vaporized, snorted, etc
vaporization—> absorbed in bloodstream quicker —> easier to overdose
mimics effects of cocaine and meth
slowly died down
4 IDEAS:
moral panic that started by media hype- shows how much of an influence they have
banning one synthetic drug risks the production of a deadlier one
there is a clear cycle of prohibition and substitution
because flakka rose and fell so quickly, this means that once media isn’t interested, drug panic quickly dies
-the opioid epidemic-
an actually serious epidemic
combo of social and economic factors
graph (pg 28 PDF)
overdoses are slowly increasing with other narcotics (mainly fentanyl) skyrocketing
over 72k overdosed on drugs with 68% from opioids
majority of that 68% was fentanyl
leading cause of death in Americans under 50 yrs
people die so much from opiods the life expectancy decreased
also costed 1 trillion in economic costs
only 2 mg
synthetic opioid- carfentanil- used to sedate ELEPHANTS- 10k more potent than morphine, 100x more potent than fent.
increase in opioid death in US and Europe
Humphreys (2018) says that the reason why the opioid epidemic is actually real is because there are less rigorous regulations like other developed countries
4 IDEAS:
This being an actual epidemic is downplayed by officials calling every drug an “epidemic”
the weak regulation allowed opioids to actually spread unchecked for a long time
the changes of the scale of risk heightens the severity
the economic and social costs of the opioid crisis further prove that this is an actual epidemic to be concerned about
—IN FOCUS 1.1 EARLIER OPIOID CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES—
historical context: civil war veterans had become addicted to opioids in 1900 from war-related injuries
Americans could purchase Bayer heroin for $1.50
Harrison Narcotics Act- first one to prohibit prescribing opioids to the addicted
interpreted as such by SCOTUS
-demonization of fentanyl-
scapegoat of opioid crisis
overdramatic anecdotes with misinformation
police from all over the US were sharing stories of them getting exposed to fent by touching it
symptoms were more aligned to a panic attack
nocebo effect: people believe they’ve been exposed to a toxic substance and start to experience the expected symptoms
because of these stories people worry first responders and emergency medicine workers might be worried to aid them
parallel with AIDS epidemic
debunked that fentanyl needs to only be touched to get exposure
more demonization of marijuana- marijuana + fent
doesn’t make sense though because it’d make marijuana more expensive and reduce profit
fent hasn’t been seen yet in seized marijuana
4 IDEAS:
america’s struggles with opioids aren’t new. they follow a pattern
Harrison Narcotics Act criminalized addiction rather than seeing it as a medical condition
more examples of fear and misinformation shape public perception more than facts and science
scare narratives show how drug crises are heavily exaggerated through false associations
-Conclusion-
chapter addressed over the past 100 years, government, media, and criminal justice officials demonize drugs to an extent that it exaggerates and distorts the actual drug problem
drugs are a crucial part of society (both illegal and legal)
some believe that being absolutely sober isn’t natural
despite legal drugs killing more, psychoactive drugs are the “bad” ones
3 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
How does the repeated exaggeration of the drug epidemics affect public trust in both government and science when real epidemics emerge (aka opioids)?
What does the strategies that are often used to demonize drugs reveal about underlying issues such as race, class, and power?
Why is it important to understand association is not causation? What happens if that line is blurred?