Pubdate: Thu, 16 Jan 2014
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Copyright: 2014 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Leland Rucker

CANNABIS AND THE MEDIA: BACK TO THE BOOGIEMAN

Somewhere, Dick Nixon is smiling.

What is up with the media and marijuana? Recreational cannabis went 
on sale in Colorado on Jan. 1, support for decriminalization is 
crescendoing, and the mainstream, especially on the right, has gone 
totally batshit crazy. The commentators, such as they are, sound like 
my parents' generation back in the 1960s, or worse, a leftover DARE 
program from the Reagan years.

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote one that, honestly, I 
thought was from the Onion or Daily Currant until I noticed the 
source. Brooks' logic seemed to be that he tried it when he was 
young, had fun until he got too high once before teaching a class, 
and has decided that since he quit, the government has a moral 
obligation to keep cannabis illegal and should encourage people to go 
to museums instead. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus chimed in 
that it should remain illegal, but said if she's in Colorado, she'll 
be buying some kush.

On TV, it's even worse.

Nancy Grace told an interviewer she's read all the studies and 
weighed carefully the pros and cons of cannabis. Her professional 
opinion after an obviously exhaustive study? "It makes you fat and 
lazy." Joe Scarborough was even more succinct in his expert 
appraisal: "It makes you dumb." Dr. Oz worries over its addictive 
qualities by using gigantic charts and diagrams.

Bill O'Reilly said that using cannabis was literally "playing Russian 
roulette," and tried to explain how having a couple of glasses of 
wine was different than smoking a joint before dinner. People drink 
to have fun, he said, but cannabis users only use it to "leave 
reality." (Even Juan Williams was caught on-camera rolling his eyes 
at that one.)

Another one you'll hear often is that "not enough research has been 
done on cannabis." This is the pure hokum. It is true that any 
legitimate medical cannabis studies will not be sanctioned by the 
federal government, which only studies drug abuse, not use. But more 
than 20,000 studies have been done anyway, thousands more than on any 
prescription drug currently in circulation. Does it deserve more 
study? Of course, but is there a lack of research? If you're curious, 
go to PubMed and type in "cannabis."

Here's another favorite that every mainstream newspaper is obligated 
to use. "Legalization advocates claim that it's safer than alcohol."

I'm not big on cannabis-vs.-alcohol comparisons because each acts on 
people in vastly different ways. But that it's safer than alcohol 
really isn't a "claim." Except to prohibitionists, the federal 
government and editors seeking "fairness," there's no real dispute. 
For teenagers or anyone else, alcohol is the more dangerous drug. End of story.

So why are all the hoary arguments being trotted out again? Much of 
it is simply the Right being the Right, stigmatizing cannabis because 
it's still illegal at a federal level and making claims that make 
most of us laugh. The Justice Department still "claims" cannabis has 
no medical benefits, so they can say that, too. We expect Nancy Grace 
to spout nonsense. And really, a lot of it is just laziness and a 
contemporary reliance on old cliches about cannabis and "pot" and 
"stoners" and "the munchies."

But nowhere is the hypocrisy thicker than with those in the media who 
insist that more teenagers are going to become hooked on cannabis 
because it's legal.

A recent Denver Post article allowed psychiatric professionals to 
explain how to talk about marijuana with your kids. "An ongoing study 
of the behaviors and attitudes of teens and young adults has found 
that while teens aren't necessarily reporting higher use of 
marijuana, they're less likely to consider it 'risky,'" the article states.

In other words, teens aren't reporting using more cannabis, but more 
are reporting that they believe it's less risky than alcohol. The 
same "professionals" then warn parents to tell their kids that 
marijuana is as dangerous as heroin or cocaine, and causes lung 
cancer (despite much evidence to the contrary) and psychosis. 
Further, they suggest that parents be less than honest or candid, 
especially when talking about their own past or present drug use.

I'm against teenagers using cannabis. Like anything else, using 
cannabis involves risks. Still, the idea that it shouldn't be 
legalized because teenagers might not think of it as being as 
"dangerous" as alcohol or tobacco stretches the limits of credibility.

And the sad truth is that most kids aren't getting it from medical 
patients or unscrupulous street dealers. They're getting marijuana 
from their parents, in their own homes. Might more kids get access to 
cannabis as a result of legalization? That's certainly possible, 
since more adults might purchase it and bring it into their homes. 
And here's where real responsibility begins.

But interestingly, while I see lots of calls for government 
responsibility to enact teen-education programs (which are mandated 
by Amendment 64), what I don't see, either in state materials or in 
anti-marijuana organizations like Smart Colorado, are calls for 
education of parents - well, beyond experts telling reporters to lie 
to their kids in newspaper stories.

Whether or not regular use of cannabis as a teenager shaves off IQ 
points in later life, which one study has suggested, teenagers 
shouldn't be using it. The state can rightly close businesses and 
arrest dealers for selling to minors, but it can't come into a 
private home and tell parents what to do. Once that door closes, it's 
up to parents to be responsible. Legalization doesn't change that.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom