An interesting example of government distortions is the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Web site on the harm and dangers of
drugs. NIDA uses such common tactics as confounding correlation with
causality, confusing effects of the illegality with effects of the
drugs, and cherry-picking the data.
For example, here is what NIDA states about the dangers of heroin:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/heroin.html
"Heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including
fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and, particularly
in users who inject the drug, infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS
and hepatitis.
.... Mental functioning becomes clouded due to the depression of the
central nervous system. Long-term effects of heroin appear after
repeated use for some period of time. Chronic users may develop
collapsed veins, infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses,
cellulitis, and liver disease. Pulmonary complications, including
various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of
the abuser, as well as from heroin's depressing effects on respiration."
Let's look closely at their claims. Heroin has nothing to do with
"collapsed veins," "infection of the heart lining and valves, abscesses,
cellulitis, and liver disease," or infection with HIV or the hepatitis
virus. Infections and abscesses are ENTIRELY due to the use of
contaminated needles. And these are entirely a result of the
illegality, not the drug. "Collapsed veins" result from too frequent
intravenous injections or improper technique. Again, this is largely
due to the illegality. People on legal prescribed medications inject
drugs into themselves for many years without getting infections or other
serious problems. It is unnecessary to inject narcotics intravenously
or even at all. They can be taken orally--You just need a higher dose
to allow for the lower efficiency or oral administration. Again,
patients routinely take legal narcotics for years without developing
such problems.
Note the vague "Mental functioning becomes clouded" as an effect, which
implies that heroin damages the intellect. In fact, use of narcotics in
itself, even long term, has no effect on mental function. If you're not
used to them, they may indeed make you drowsy and "cloud" your mental
function. So do antihistamines. But this is a temporary effect, does
not damage the nervous system, and occurs mainly in those not used to
the drug.
"Organic deterioration is regularly produced by alcohol in sufficient
amount but is unknown with opiates."(Henry Brill, chairman of the
American Medical Association's narcotics committee, Misapprehensions
about drug addiction: some opiates and repercussions. Comprehensive
Psychiatry. 4:155, June 1963.)
"Individuals may take morphine or some other opiate for twenty years or
more without showing intellectual or moral deterioration."
"Organic deterioration...is unknown with opiates."
_Licit and Illicit Drugs_. EM Brecher and the Editors of Consumer
Reports. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union (Chap. 4)
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
"Morphine addiction is not characterized by physical deterioration or
impairment of physical fitness...When it is considered that these
subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as
long as twenty years, these negative observations are highly significant."
--Arthur B. Light and Edward G. Torrance, _Opium Addiction_ (Chicago:
American Medical Association).
Next look at NIDA's claim that "Heroin abuse during pregnancy and its
many associated environmental factors (e.g., lack of prenatal care) have
been associated with adverse consequences."
Note that they confound heroin *abuse* with "many associated
environmental factors (e.g., lack of prenatal care)." The fact is that
the "adverse consequences" are almost entirely due to the poor
environmental conditions of most drug abusers. It has never been
established that narcotics cause any harm to the fetus, and, even if
there were dangers in pregnancy, it would simply mean that narcotics
should not be taken during pregnancy, along with many other legal drugs
(including some over-the-counter drugs).
What about "fatal overdose"? It takes something like 50 times the
typical dose for a fatal overdose of a narcotic like heroin. [In
comparison, 15 grams of acetaminophen (Tylenol), which is about 20 times
the typical dose, can destroy the liver and result in a fatal overdose
(Physicians Desk Reference). Chronic long-term ingestion of even
standard doses of acetaminophen results in kidney or liver damage in
some patients.] Addicts develop a tolerance and need much more of a
narcotic to get an effect, but they also develop an equal tolerance to
overdose. What are reported as heroin overdose deaths are almost always
the result of combinations with alcohol or other drugs, contaminants,
uncertainties in the dose of street drugs, and/or intermittent users
misjudging their tolerance. All of these are entirely or largely due to
the illegality, or at least the danger is greatly exacerbated by the
illegality.
Lastly, consider NIDA's statement "Pulmonary complications, including
various types of pneumonia, may result from the poor health condition of
the abuser, as well as from heroin's depressing effects on respiration."
Again, they are deliberately confounding the "poor health condition of
the abuser," which results from other factors (and is often largely due
to the illegality) with heroin's effects. Narcotics do cause a decrease
in the rate of respiration (breathing), but this is not harmful in
itself and does not cause problems in an otherwise healthy person.
Patients taking legal narcotics or other medications that decrease the
respiratory rate often do so for years without developing complications.
The poor health of drug addicts is in fact often caused by their poor
socioeconomic status and by the legal penalties that they have endured
over many years.
One could go on like this with NIDA distortions of other drugs. Their
propaganda has become more sophisticated since the days when the
government issued warnings that the "killer weed" marijuana caused
insanity, murder, and death. They fall into the general categories:
* Effects of the illegality are presented as if they were effects of the
drug itself.
* Effects of abuse (eg, long-term, heavy use) are presented as if they
were basic effects of the drug.
* The many harmful effects of the illegality are ignored (eg, the
enormous amount of crime, which is almost entirely due to the
illegality; the spread of HIV and hepatitis virus; the deaths due to
contaminated street drugs)
* Statistical correlations are used to imply a causal relationship.
* Unproved effects are presented as if they were established.
* Only selected data and studies are reported. Studies showing minimal
or no harmful effects are ignored.
See also:
"Indeed, throughout much of history, in countries where crude opioids,
such as opium, were inexpensive, socially acceptable, and were either
smoked or taken by mouth, there was little relationship between opioid
use and criminal behavior. The association between opioid use and crime
emerges primarily in countries, such as the United States, that have
tried to restrict the used of opioids to legitimate medical indications
but have been unable to eliminate illicit opioid traffic."
--Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed.
William & Wilkins; 1985:p994.
"There is thus general agreement throughout the medical and psychiatric
literature that the overall effects of opium, morphine, and heroin on
the addict's mind and body under conditions of low price and ready
availability are on the whole amazingly bland."
(Licit and Illicit Drugs, Chap. 4)
Street heroin containing the contaminant
1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP) has induced numerous
cases of nerve degeneration, Parkinson's disease, and eventual death
(Langston JW et al: Evidence of active nerve cell degeneration in the
substantia nigra of humans years after
1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine exposure. Annals of
Neurology. 46:598-605, 1999).
"Dr. George B. Wallace summed up both studies [in Philadelphia and
Bellevue Hospital in New York City]:
'It was shown that continued taking of opium or any of its derivatives
resulted in no measurable organic damage. The addict when not deprived
of his opium showed no abnormal behavior which distinguished him from a
non-addict.'
'Since these studies appeared,' Dr. Harris Isbell, director of the
Public Health Service's Addiction Research Center in Lexington, pointed
out in 1958, 'it has not been possible to maintain that addiction to
morphine causes marked physical deterioration per se.'"
--George B. Wallace, "The Rehabilitation of the Drug Addict," Journal of
Educational Sociology, 4 (1931): 347, quoted in Daniel M. Wilner and
Gene G. Kassebaum, eds., Narcotics (New York: Blakiston Div.,
McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. xix-xx.
--Harris Isbell, in Narcotic Drug Addiction Problems (Bethesda, Md.:
National Institute of Mental Health, 1958), U.S. Public Health Service
Publication No. 1050.
Dr. Walter G. Karr, a University of Pennsylvania biochemist:
"The addict under his normal tolerance of morphine is medically a well
man."
Dr. Nathan B. Eddy, after reviewing the world literature on morphine,
concluded similarly:
"Given an addict who is receiving [adequate] morphine ... the deviations
from normal physiological behavior are minor [and] for the most part
within the range of normal variations."
--In: Opiate Addiction. Evanston, IL: Principia Press.
"The study shows that morphine addiction is not characterized by
physical deterioration or impairment of physical fitness...There is no
evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal, or endocrine
functions. When it is considered that these subjects had been addicted
for at least five years, some of them for as long as twenty years, these
negative observations are highly significant."
--Arthur B. Light and Edward G. Torrance, Opium Addiction (Chicago:
American Medical Association).
--Dr. Arthur B. Light and Edward G. Torrance, in A.M.A. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 44:876.
.
|
