Propaganda by Generals, Researchers, and Psychologists

Five observations on the recent efforts by the government to combat the Arizona and California medical marijuana initiatives. These observations concern (a) the failure of professionals to adopt sensible guidelines for use of marijuana for patients who can benefit from it, (b) use of offensive and/or irrational propaganda imagery by these professionals to counteract a recognition of (a).

1. Lloyd Johnston, a University of Michigan social psychologist (this is where I got my Ph.D.) who tracks drug usage by teens, has expanded his role to policy pronouncements. At the press conference and in interviews based on the 1996 high school drug survey (portentously titled, "Monitoring the Future"), Lloyd now says that everyone in the U.S. must unite in condemning drug use, and that those who back initiatives such as medical marijuana are encouraging teens to take marijuana lightly -- making them more likely to take the drug. The not-so-subtle implication here is that discussion of drug policy reform should be suppressed.
2. General Barry McCaffrey referred both to "writer's cramp" and to "writer's block" as examples of conditions for which marijuana could/would be prescribed. I'm not sure whether he meant to indicate both or whether he got them confused, and where he got these examples, but of course this is a propaganda technique to avoid dealing seriously with the idea of marijuana for terminal AIDS and cancer patients, for which it has already frequently been recommended by physicians.
3. Herb Kleber, at least, acknowledged a legitimate medical purpose for marijuana for patients such as these (in his debate with Ethan Nadelmann on CNN). The problem, he indicates, is making sure marijuana prescriptions are limited for these purposes. Of course, the question is, what have he and his ilk done to make sure that such patients have had access to the drug previously? The failure to do so, like Gov. Wilson's veto of a bill passed by the California legislature to make marijuana medically available, left a humanitarian vacuum for the initiative to fill.
4. McCaffrey and others also claim that transportation workers, particularly pilots, will be receiving prescription marijuana and driving/flying while intoxicated. Obviously, there are many drugs now prescribed which should not be taken by drivers and others operating heavy machinery. Doctors and patients know this, and we expect them to act appropriately. Of course, this is a propaganda technique designed to replace the issue of effective clinical practice with the specter of drugged/intoxicated people flying airplanes.

5. The "drunken pilot" argument is familiar to those of us who work in the alcohol field as well. In light of a recent suggestion (by Mark Goldman) that Peter Nathan, former director of the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies, be nominated for president of the American Psychological Association, I quote an article by him and Barbara McCrady (currently clinical director at the Rutgers Center), attacking controlled-drinking treatment for alcoholism:

   "There are other alcoholics whose occupations or professions make continued drinking, even in moderation, problematic. Airline pilots, truck drivers, physicians and surgeons, many others who work with their hands, heads, or both could not work effectively if they were intoxicated and shouldn't work if they are recovering from intoxication."

   Nathan and McCrady are arguing here with that large group of therapists who recommend alcohol to flying pilots who cannot control their drinking, just as McCaffrey wants to keep marijuana out of the hands of wasting patients because doctors will instead be prescribing it to pilots who will smoke before flying.

Shame!