There were many reasons for me to relish an opportunity to comment on
Mark Kleiman's criticism
of Ryan King's methamphetamine
study; so many, in fact, that deciding where to begin,
and what point of view to emphasize became problems. King's study is
typical of a genre which is fast becoming pervasive: a researched
meta-analysis of a specific drug-war topic published on the internet
and/or as a press release. What is unusal is the laundry list of
complaints it provoked from Kleiman; their length, prompt appearance,
rambling nature, and tone are ample evidence of the annoyance
which inspired them.
From King's point of view, Klieman's fit of pique was probably welcome;
precisely because it focuses more attention on his study. As one who
has done similar advocacy, I know most such papers are written to
influence public opinion; also that access to peer reviewed literature
can be almost impossible for an author perceived as even mildly
critical of US drug policy. The Sentencing Project has done excellent
work, but most of it either has to be reported by, or referenced in,
the popular press to reach the public.
In that connection, Kleiman once co-authored a paper in a
peer-reviewed medical journal which played an significant role in
advancing 'medical marijuana' as a political issue. I also know
he still complains about the fall-out that effort had on the
delicate balancing act all prominent academic drug policy analysts must
engage in.
The truth about both King's paper and Kleiman's comments is that both
contain kernels of truth sorrounded by large areas of uncertainty woven
together by strands of outright falsehood- and neither can be certain
of what's which. That particular reality has far less to do with their
diligence, scholarship and intelligence than it does with the fear,
disinformation, and confusion produced by almost forty years of drug
war propaganda superimposed upon over fifty years of never-acknowledged
drug prohibition, the origins of which are still shrouded in
considerable secrecy. Before one can lie, one must first know the truth;
the great success of the drug war is that it has blocked unbiased human
research so successfully that no one, especially the policy makers
themselves, has ever been able to learn the truth about human drug use.
Instead, the most compliant 'researchers' all dutifully parrot the
prevailing myth about each illegal agent ('drug of abuse') and then
support it with repetitive, limited studies of similar
populations with similar results.
My credentials for criticising both authors are based on the fact that,
for the last four years, I have been engaged in a unique, ongoing study of
Californians seeking to use cannabis medically. Since all had been
paricipants in the illegal pot market for a variable interval and many
had sampled other illegal drugs aggressively-- and I have routinely
collected a lot of other data from them as part of their required
evaluations-- one couild describe what I've been doing as market
research of the very sort both King and Kleiman, albeit with quite
different emphasis, have agreed is so difficult and uncertain. What I
have learned is simply amazing. It's also very much at odds with the
prevailing pot myth (large chunks of which I'd also believed), yet it's
quite convincing and sheds enough light on key aspects of drug war
history to show just how various elements of the myth have developed.
A collateral reason for ambient drug war uncertainty is the fear it
inspires. The evidence behind that statement is as overwhelming as it
is pervasive; yet the fear itself is never openly discussed. In many
respects, the drug war may be seen as two metaphorical
elephants; the one in the national living room that no one can
discuss honestly, and the other at the center of the Indian
fable which the blind men struggle to describe, A major difference
is that the Indian elephant has six features over which six
analysts disagree. The drug war elephant has an almost unlimited number
of features over which an almost unlimited number analysts may argue--
and a host of reasons their opinions aren't honestly stated.
