cannabisnews.com: Casual Drug Use Does Not Affect Employment










  Casual Drug Use Does Not Affect Employment

Posted by FoM on October 17, 2001 at 09:50:27 PT
By David Veazey 
Source: Reuters 

A controversial new study finds that casual illicit drug use has no effect on employment status and suggests that employer-based treatment programs should focus on chronic ``problem'' drug users rather than all users.The study, based on data from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, concludes that casual users--who say they have used drugs no more than once a week over the past year--are as likely to look for work or hold a job as those who say they use no drugs at all.
Chronic drug abuse, similar to chronic alcohol abuse, was confirmed to reduce the likelihood of holding a job, according to the report published in the October issue of the Southern Economic Journal.The findings may help employers develop more effective employee drug abuse assistance and drug testing programs, according to researchers led by Dr. Michael T. French of the University of Miami, Florida.Some have expressed doubt that a distinction between casual and chronic drug use in the workplace is helpful.``I don't think any parent would want their child's school bus driver to use drugs whether it was casually or chronically,'' Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told Reuters Health.According to a recent analysis of workplace injuries quoted by Lemaitre, one sixth of workers involved in fatal accidents tested positive for alcohol, cocaine or marijuana. ``It would be impossible to tell if these were casual or chronic drug users.``In terms of workplace accidents, it does not matter if the drug user is hard core or casual. The damage has already been done,'' he continued. ``People who use drugs miss work, have lower productivity and have accidents. Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job.''The authors of the study suggest that employers designing drug abuse assistance strategies focus on problem drug users in the same way they focus on problem drinkers.The results also suggest that women who are chronic drug users are just as likely to seek work as those who use drugs casually or not at all. The investigators speculate that, when compared with men, there may be other factors specific to women that overshadow drug use when deciding to look for work.The Substance Abuse Policy Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the study.Chronic users of illicit drugs accounted for 4% of those surveyed while non-chronic, or casual, users comprised 8% from a national sample of 4,000 men and 5,700 women between the ages of 25 and 59.Source: Southern Economic Journal 2001 October. Source: ReutersAuthor: David VeazeyPublished: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Reuters HealthRelated Articles:It's Time to Give Up the War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10882.shtmlA Debatable War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10725.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #31 posted by dddd on October 18, 2001 at 21:31:26 PT
Excellent comments RevOx
...dont stop..........dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by Rev0x on October 18, 2001 at 21:22:21 PT:
Argument against this study is flawed, guys!
--
``I don't think any parent would want their child's school bus driver to use drugs whether it was casually or chronically,'' Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told Reuters Health.--Man there's a major problem with this right here. This is the main argument against this study that is supposed to make it "controversial" but it's a really big slip up. The topic is about "casual drug use" not "casual drug use on the job". How could someone let that slip? The entire argument against this article is FLAWED which means WE WIN.No one can argue at all that casual drug use, in the privacy of your own home, has an affect on what you do at work so long as you don't show up stoned.Now I know some people will argue they can work perfectly stoned but let's not go there just yet. Some of you probably can but the MAJORITY of people cannot, and you become too tired, lazy and hungry to want to work efficiently.But in any case, it's the same exact argument for booze. While casual drinking does not affect your performance at work, being a total alcoholic definitely will. Because, god dangit, BUS DRIVERS CAN DRINK BOOZE TOO!!! Just not while they're driving those poor kids around. Capiche?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Rev0x on October 18, 2001 at 21:16:32 PT:
Buy something, hm?
Screw capitalism, I'm supporting the black market.*sparks up a J*...that was a joke, by the way, so all of you "anti-pot" people please don't get a hissy fit. :D
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on October 18, 2001 at 08:56:57 PT
They want us to buy something
I can think of stuff I'd not mind buying but they wouldn't approve! LOL!Sucky sucky days, I agree!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by dddd on October 18, 2001 at 08:49:45 PT
Lehder
....It makes me happy to know that you are fully recovered from your Traficant misconception....
...and ,,,,you're right...life sucks today,,,,,life's gonna probably even suck more in the future,,,and I'm sure we all can find plenty of thing that really sucked in the past........but,,,, my basic formula for maintaining a slightly pleasant demeanor,is something like this;.......................................................
,,,as you know,I think anything one can do to get a good laugh,is very healthy,,,,, .......secondly,,,I have developed this strange sort of defense mechanism,to avoid getting too stressed,or angry,,or freaking out......and what I do,is sortof look forward to the next spectacular event,or outrage in the news,and instead of getting upset,or depressed,,or pissed,,,I try to see these events as "facinating",,, ,"Astounding!"  ,,"Stupendous!"...."Astonishing!"...... .I know this all sounds strange,but somehow,if I get into an observer mode,and convince myself that things that are happening,would happen if I was here,or not, ,,it makes things easier to take........(that was a lousy explanation)....
...
..the other thing I do,,,is I think about how it's actually good to be alive!,,even with health problems,,or going through bad times,,,being alive is way better than being dead,(of course,I'm assuming this,because I've never been dead yet),,,anyway,,,,,, life is limited,,,and days are numbered,,,,and time spent wallowing in depression about the way things are,,,or over obsessing over the strange and disturbing times,,,,one can easily become habitually negative,,,and it becomes easy to forget that there are still a whole bunch of good things left in life...I have some good friends who are handicapped...one of them was a quadrapalegic.He wiped out on a motorcycle at the age of 21..he was 46 when he died in an auto accident last year,but when I think about him,and how he kept on keepin' on for 26 years,without the use of his arms or legs,It always improves my perspective,and reminds me of what I do have,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then,,I combine all this with my "happiness through pessimism" theory,in which I expect things to be f*cked,,and when they are,I get to say,"yup,I knew things would be fucked",,,"just as I expected,and predicted",,,,or,,, when things turn out to be less than f*cked,,,I can be pleasantly suprized.Of course,,this is all much easier said than done,,,,,furthermore,,it's off topic babbling,,and it sounds like the ramblings of a spaced out motivational Hippie,,,like that Tony Robbins guy on acid or something.... ...
..Maybe I should start giving seminars,and have info-mercials for my new uplifting motivational program,,,, that I will call;;...."Things Could Be Way More Fuckedddd",,,,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Lehder on October 18, 2001 at 07:01:17 PT
junk mail
hey, how about a moratorium on junk mail. it would make the postal employees' jobs a lot easier, reducing their load by 50% i bet. they're getting really uptight and no on can blame them. no more publishers clearinghouse for a while.does anybody understand why bush is going to china? what's this all about?also it's sickening to see so much propaganda about colombia. obviously bush is stamping his feet, getting red around the neck and working himself and us up to fighting terrorism there next. the colombian parliament has been debating total legalization for a while now as a means to end the violence. if they rushed this through maybe it would work, maybe it would keep the u.s. out of there. well, that would be interesting.just my random thoughts this morning. life sucks today.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Lehder on October 18, 2001 at 06:43:48 PT
rethinking the louisiana purchase
you made me laugh right off qqqq with your 1st 2 lines. i needed a chuckle, thinking about nuclear explosions etc. reminds me - more or less - Many people turn queasy when the conversation turns to "certain death" and "total failure" and the idea of a "doomed generation." But not me. I am comfortable with these themes. --Hunter Thompson 
But you focused directly on the heart ofthe problem qqqq: "arrogant lunacy". That's why we're hated.By the way, James Traficant has closed his *local* office now - fear of attacks and anthrax. I guess myletter will go unanswered for sure now. The newspapers are beginning to refuse letters to the editor. So we'll only have the stories to read now, like the one in the Plain Dealer yesterday that reported how Ohio drug busters were stealing personal valuables and - get this - pornography from their victims. Makes me wonder what qualifies the officials to tell me to live normally.about the louisiana purchase - well, we musta gone wrong somewhere, who knows.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by qqqq on October 18, 2001 at 06:27:01 PT
well said Lehder
...."wuduya wanna do today?"..........."I dunno,,,,,why dont we go shopping."The more I think about the arrogant lunacy of the bush regime since 9/11...the more I get really f*cking PISSED!........  It's the twelfth day of bombing the shit out of Afghanistan....
..Isn't anyone beginning to wonder what the F*CK is going on yet?....consider the billions of dollars in high tech,state of the art,weapons being deployed,,,then,consider the country of Afghanistan....Six days ago,the news said that they were running out of targets,and even that is more than enough time to decimate a country,,if not,we should return some of them hi-tech weapons to the manufacturers for a refund....... .This bombing is pure EVIL...The scumbags who are continuing to do it are WAR CRIMINALS,,and they are the godfathers of terror.. they make bin Laden look wimpy..........it's kinda like the military industrial corporate empire,,is over there playing with all their super trick war toys,and franticly using up as many expensive bombs as possibe ,,so the can get the country "shopping" again,,,shopping for more bombs and weapons in the lairs of the same corporations,whose collusive relationship with the government is driving this insanity.......things don't look very good,,,,nope,,,,,,not good inqeeqqqq
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Lehder on October 18, 2001 at 05:53:17 PT
go about your lives normally, buy somethin'
Go about your lives normally, they tell us. Meanwhile, the House and Senate office buildings have been evacuated for fear of anthrax, Bush is heading to China, no one knows where Cheney is, 31 Congressional staffers test positive for anthrax exposure, we're promised a war of at least two years, half the government has run to underground bunkers in Virginia and Pennsylvania, other bureaucrats are speeding around the country in secret 18-wheelers disguised as normal trucks.The market tumbled yesterday and is opening lower today. If the mail system is crippled the economy will be crippled, business cannot be conducted without the postal service, goods cannot be paid for or shipped. And the government after days of emergency investigation hasn't a clue where the spores are originating. A nuclear blast or a couple of conventional explosions in any major city will bring uncontrollable panic to every city in the country, and that may be what's next. Tens of millions will rush to the suburbs, cities will be evacuated.But don't worry. Go about your lives as normal, just be alert. It's normal that totalitarian movements end in the political and economic collapse of their host countries. It's happened before. This is a perfectly natural process and should not be feared. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on October 18, 2001 at 04:42:23 PT
Zombienotes
Here agin we have a masterpiece of lies, damn lies, and statistics, all cooked up into a fine peice of drugwar propaganda.All but the first sentence, that is. I agree: casual drug use-especialy at home in our off hours - has no impact on the job. It doesn't affect my job.1: "illicit drug use" - that means anything we dont like for people to choose of their own free will. This includes cannabis, of course, and is largely meaning cannabis, since thats about all that shows up in most "whiz quizzes".2: 1997 report on "druug use" is dubious (no pun intended) at best and worthless in general - unless you are attempting to garner some kind of special favor from the Federal Government...(like a grant). How in the hell do you survey people about illegal behavior? Why not do a similar survey and ask about shoplifting, bank robbery, embezzelment, mugging, rape, murder? These are activities dumbass politicians bring up when people talk about
legalization of cannabis? better get a survey done NOW!~3: Chronic use = more than 1 time per week = joblessness.
That is SOOOO stupid! I wish I could have a job where I could get away with such slack and useless assertions. If I could get paid JUST to make stuff up, Id be doin good. Instead, I just work in a professional psychiatric clinic with children and families who are ravaged by trauma and mental illness. I am one of the best they have and easily the biggest pothead, though few have any idea (they are SOO ignorant). I was laid off once - while the First Bush was presiding. Other than that, I have worked since I was 17. When I started smoking pot, my work ethic emerged.why I dont know, but it's the truth. I'll work.4: And whats that smell?? Cant ya smell that smell? the ONDCP all around you? Here we see the main value of the press - to allow the Prohibitionist fee space to muddy the water with the emotionalized argument about "schoolbus drivers". Nobody anywhere in the world - not even the Taliban want schoolbus drivers stoned on weed drivin kids around. Thats just irresponsible. But the numerous driving tests showing cannabis doesnt interfere with driving aside, its FAIR to expect people to NOT use drugs while driving. Its not an infringement. It make good sense.It does NOT make any sense to penalize ME for an errant busdriver who does use some sort of druuuug. Nor is it acceptable to blow $20 BILLION a year to keep ME from smoking so that irresponsible busdrivers won't either. It also make no rational sense at all. Its a witchhunt.5: Speaking of dishonesty: the ONDCP mouthpiece here references a study that is not listed in the article so that we can go look and dismantle its flawed conclusions. The stats he quotes are completely unverifiable. Anybody remeber the Georgia Power Study from the early 1990's?They studied the people fired for positive drug tests to find that the people fired for cannabis use in their private time (becuase thats what this amounts to) used far fewer medical benifits and less sick time. Its been squelched, of course.KUDOS to the authors for pointing out the need to move away from the current testing focus - which is just part of the nationwide harrassment of pot smokers , not an effort to improve anything for anybody. And to prop up the drug testing industry.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Lehder on October 18, 2001 at 04:11:41 PT
statistic
I have recently written eight (8) letters critical of the drug war to politicians. I have received zero (0) replies. Politicians are cowards who hate freedom.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by dddd on October 18, 2001 at 01:19:45 PT
..."statistics" & "polls"...
....Statistics and polls,,are the hammer,and saw in the construction of media propaganda,,,... ..Mutiple choice questionaire:Statistics and polls,are to propaganda...as toilets are to:(choose one)...A)hamsters...B)golf clubs....C)Hank Williams....D)butts and shit...When your average person reads a newspaper article,or sees a report on TV,,and "statistics",or "polls",are used to back up the story,,,,no one seems to question who was polled,or who produced the statistics....Most Sheeple have been effectivly conditioned to assume that a "poll",or "statistic",is proof of the veracity, accuracy,truth,and significance of a "report".......but the tragic reality is,that even though the source of the Poll,or statistics are usually included,(and to make them seem fair,they usually give a + or - X percent of error),,,a poll or statistic can be tweaked to say dam near anything.....and it makes a big difference who you poll...for example,Allen Greenspan,(the strange czar of the federal reserve,and guru/dictator of interest rates),Mr Greenspan was seen and heard in the national media yesterday,,in a "report" of some kind,and the media all played the same clip of him saying that he recommends capital gains taxes should be cut,(again). .I'll bet that at least 90% of the country/Sheeple have no idea what capital gains taxes are...I would be a simple matter to produce a "Poll",that said;"88 % of people polled favored a cut in the capital gains tax". ...When Joe Sheeple see this,,do you think he will ever question WHO the people are that were polled?...
.
.Another good example is the "approval ratings"of the shrub,,his war,,public support of the war,,etc... all are huge piles of raw steaming CRAP!!!!!!No taxation without representation!.....Eat the rich,,out of the castle,and into the ditch!dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by E_Johnson on October 18, 2001 at 00:07:33 PT
No, it's a darker smellier place
they pull statistics out of the air...Start at their heads and then go down their backs about two feet or so. That's the big drug war data center where they pull these statistics from.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #18 posted by FoM on October 17, 2001 at 19:18:10 PT

aocp 
That's right! You think you can when your're drunk and you really, really can't and with Cannabis it is just the opposite. That's it! Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by aocp on October 17, 2001 at 19:12:53 PT

Re: FoM
Great point! I always found the following to be true, in a similar vein:(a) if drunk and wandering down a sidewalk, one feels as tho they are walking as if sober, when this is not generally the case(b) if on a cannabis high and wandering down a sidewalk, one feels as if they are stumbling all over the place, when in fact are actually walking as if on a sober stroll ... i experienced this personally as a college freshman oh, so many years ago...aocp out
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by lookinside on October 17, 2001 at 18:24:07 PT:

i'm always baffled...
by these articles...they pull statistics out of the air... "Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job.''i'm betting that line comes out of a drug testing company's brochure...they NEVER mention similar statistics related to alcohol or tobacco...probably because they would destroy their limited credibility altogether...
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 17, 2001 at 16:55:46 PT

How about Prozac Weekly?
Simply LiveIf you've been treated for depression, you probably know what a difference the right treatment can make. Treating depression isn't only about getting better, it's about staying better. And Prozac® Weekly™ (fluoxetine HCl) may help.http://www.prozac.com/ProzacWeekly.jsp

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 17, 2001 at 16:50:51 PT

Coffee
Anybody ever drink two beers and try to carry and not spill a full cup of coffee? It's just about impossible. Cannabis doesn't do that. You can stay very steady. Which one really is a risk to workers? 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by E_Johnson on October 17, 2001 at 16:48:10 PT

What about Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil?
There are tons of legal medications that carry warnings against operating heavy equipment etc on their labels.I (don't) find it surprising that we aren't being bombarded with scary statistics regarding legal drug use on the job. Someone who has to take Prozac every day is going to be on drugs on the job.But this number $14 billion they use is a loose fuzzy extrapolation that has no sound scientific or economic basis whatsoever, and that issue has been attacked more than once by the National Academies of Science.Hey people I urge everyone to visit the NAS web site http://www.nas.edu/ and look around, because they have done a LOT of great studies that have been inadequately publicized, to say the least, by our national Drug Free Media (TM)Like this one: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072735/html/
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by Dave in Florida on October 17, 2001 at 16:44:02 PT

Another Study
is needed to rebuff this statment`In terms of workplace accidents, it does not matter if the drug user is hard core or casual. The damage has already been done,'' he continued. ``People who use drugs miss work, have lower productivity and have accidents. Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job.'' Where is the study that says that Mr. Lemaitre? I for one, don't think that is true. 
 I think they should do a study that looks at someone who test positve for pot only and go back in their job history for being absent, tardy, sick days, etc and compare that with people who test positive for alcohol, or people who may not have anything in there system after an accident.
 I bet that the pot smoker would be the most reliable person out of the three groups.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by aocp on October 17, 2001 at 15:50:09 PT

wordplay
Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job.Sounds like they should fire their managers. I mean, these guys must be completely incompetent if they can't spot somebody at their desk shooting/smoking/snorting/ingesting/licking up whatever it is that is their vice, yes? Do their scapegoat bus drivers have a pipe hanging out of their mouths while they tell Jenny to stop roughhousing or what?And if we're not in fact talking about drug use on the job, as y'all have so astutely pointed out, what the hell is the problem?Oh, and props to Sudaca ... that was funny!!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by Sudaca on October 17, 2001 at 13:28:16 PT

this version
is funny"According to a recent analysis of workplace injuries quoted by Lemaitre, one sixth of workers involved in fatal accidents tested positive for alcohol, cocaine or marijuana. ``It would be impossible to tell if these were casual or chronic drug users."so you mean that five out of six workers involved in fatal accidents were teetotalers?geez. I better toke up then, before I have an accident caused by soberness.hmmm. maybe this could mean that 1/6 workers is atually a casual/serious drug user.. giving the lie to the claim that drug users don't work.. ``I don't think ..'' Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told Reuters Health.Yes, we know that already.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by bruce42 on October 17, 2001 at 12:22:37 PT

not
at all an illogical suggestion. How would we define a drug as being less harmful than alcohol? By the relative danger of the side effects? That would seem to make sense to me. In that case, marijuana could quite possibly be less hazardous than aspirin- wouldn't that be something? "Take aspirin every day to reduce your risk of heart attack, and take our cannabis supplements to reduce your risk of brain damage during a stroke."- I wonder which drug company would be the first to jump on that. Wishful thinking I guess.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by Doug on October 17, 2001 at 12:14:51 PT

"Chronic" Use
It interesting to compare these definitions of chronic use with those used for alcohol. Many, many studies (see peele.net) have been made showing the positive effects of "moderate" alcohol use, versus the health problems associated with "chronic" alcohol use. Moderate use is on the order of, depending on the study, 3 to 5 drinks per DAY. I would think this definition of moderate use should also apply to drugs that are less harmful than alcohol.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by bruce42 on October 17, 2001 at 12:01:56 PT

once again
consistency in arguemnet is lacking.``In terms of workplace accidents, it does not matter if the drug user is hard core or casual. The damage has already been done,'' he continued. ``People who use drugs miss work, have lower productivity and have accidents. Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job.''Well then. I hope he has the the balls to tell my dad's foundry coworkers that they can't have a beer after work. E_Johnson is very right- on-the-job is NOT the same as-off-the job. Unless an employee's off-the-job drug use affects his on-the-job performance- why should the employer care??These hard core antis are blending very important distinctions. When they say drugs, they mean the illegal ones. That is NOT right. I would hazard a guess that alcohol leads to many times more ON-the-job performance issues or accidents than any illegal drug.We need consistent, real definitions of drugs, their potency, and their side effects. We need real world medical data and is we insist on categorizing drugs based on "strengh" or "danger" we need to do so based on that data. As long as people simply define or categorize drugs based on opinion, no progress for drug law reform, decriminalization, or medicalization can be made. Sadly, we have the data and the ability to understand and apropriately categorize drugs, but the drug war has blinded many to fact and reason. But, as long as the antis insist on flaunting opinion instead of fact, those in favor of legalization, decriminalization, or medicalization have the advantage. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 17, 2001 at 11:27:52 PT

It's the whiz quiz, stupid!
  Of course people who only use once a week are more likely to get a job than those who use every day. Those who use less often are more able to pass a urinalysis!! By default, they're more likely to get a job in DEA-land, where employers aren't allowed to discriminate against job applicants for any OTHER reason! If you use too often, then your choices of job are limited to those that aren't going to test you, and there's a lot less of those!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on October 17, 2001 at 11:25:39 PT

Well at least the phrase is back in play!
We can argue about the line between casual and chronic, but at least it is once again being admitted in the press that such a line exists.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 17, 2001 at 11:19:12 PT

Tilt - O Meter
Maybe they need to create a Tilt-O-Meter. So they can figure out what we have never been able to figure out and that is when someone is one toke over the line.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by Duzt on October 17, 2001 at 11:12:12 PT

More than once a week is chronic???
So if I have a beer on Tuesday and a couple on Saturday am I a chronic alcoholic? Never understood how they come up with this BS. They never explain how they come to these definitions of what is "abuse" or what is "chronic". They just sound bad.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on October 17, 2001 at 10:43:32 PT

Writing and rewriting all the time
So how long has it been since the phrase "casual drug user" has been used in the press?The study, based on data from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, concludes that casual users--who say they have used drugs no more than once a week over the past year--are as likely to look for work or hold a job as those who say they use no drugs at all. That was the whole reason why Reagan first proposed employee drug testing! It was well known during that period that casual drug users were holding down well paid and respectable jobs all over America. The actual literal goal of employee urine testing as first stated to America by Reagan was to deliberately make economic war on casual drug users. We have rewritten history so much during this so-called war that a lot of real information has completely disappeared from so-called journalisttic accounts of Reality (TM).This is the most disgusting aspect of drug war journalism as it is malpracticed in this country -- the complete willingness of journalists to participate in this loss of information.I'm surprised to even read the phrase "casual drug user" because during the nineties, this phrase [pretty much disappeared, and ALL drug users were referred to in the so-called press as drug abusers and spoken of as if they were addicts who would benefit from treatment.In fact, during the entire Prop 36 campaign in California, not ONE SINGLE JOURNALIST broached the idea that casual drug use exists. It was assumed by the entire so-called press in this nation that everyone arrested for drugs was an addict who needed and would benefit from drug treatment.It's only against the law to POSSESS drugs -- it's not against the law to be addicted to them. Nobody is ever arrested for being an addict. Why was that so hard to understand during the Prop 36 campaign?"People who use drugs miss work, have lower productivity and have accidents. Fourteen billion dollars are lost annually in the United States because of drug use on the job."First, we have a verbal slippage here. Drug use on the job is different from drug user on the job. When are people are not at work, they are not on the job. So he should tell us which numbers refer to drug users on the job, and which refer to actual drug use on the job. And the reporter should care, too. One job of the reporter is to catch these slippages and make the person clarify what was said.And second, the reporter never heard of the National Academy of Sciences? I think that before the Internet age, the lack of outside research in articles like this was excusable. But today it's not excusable. If we're going to believe a study on drug use and the workplace, are we going to believe in one that is done by an agency whose future funding depends on the scariness of the outcome of that study?Or are we going to believe a study done by a organization of the top scientists in the country, whose mission statement values objective science, and whose future funding in no way depends upon the outcome of the study?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by TroutMask on October 17, 2001 at 10:08:57 PT

Really?
No sh!t, Sherlock.-TM
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment