From: [philsm t h] at [teleport.com] (Phil Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.drugs.cannabis,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Misrepresentations in 'The Oregonian'
Date: 30 Oct 1995 01:17:50 GMT

Below is a "letter to the editor" I've sent to 'The Oregonian' 
about misrepresentations in its Sunday Living story, "Out 
to save humanity." If you can find a copy, I recommend you
read it and respond (politely) with your own thoughts (but 
feel free to borrow mine). You can find an email 
address for 'The Oregonian' on the internet media list at
http://www.webcom.com/~leavitt/medialist.html

A mailing address can be found in the media list of InterPortland's
web pages at 
http://www.eek.com/eek/portland/print.html


Phil Smith
[philsm t h] at [teleport.com]


Oct. 29, 1995
To: 'The Oregonian' (Portland)

To the Editor,

Nancy Mayer's one-sided story portraying Oregon State Office for Services 
to Children and Families worker Mary Baker ("Out to save humanity," 
Living cover, Oct. 29, 1995) ignores the truth and distorts the facts in 
order to put a happy face on Oregon's ruinously expensive and morally 
inexcusable practice of kidnapping the children of cannabis consumers.

Mayer goes on and on about how Baker is rescuing children in "danger," 
but she never cites the state's own figures which show that 40 percent 
to 60 percent of all children "rescued" by the state become the victims 
of physical and/or sexual abuse in their new homes.

Throughout the story, and particularly in the section, "A pot-smoking 
mother of twins," Mayer does not cite a single iota of peer-reviewed 
scientific research showing that mothers' smoking pot is harmful to their 
fetuses or children - because there is no such accepted evidence. As 
described by Mayer, the woman's real problem seems to be poverty. Does 
Mayer believe the woman's cannabis use caused her poverty? 

The story could have simply cited the supreme authority from the "bible 
of pharmacologists," the latest (1992) update in the authoritative 'Merck 
Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy.' It states that "Although many dangers 
of marijuana are frequently cited, there is still little evidence of 
biologic damage, even among relatively heavy users. This is true even in 
the areas intensively investigated, such as immunologic and reproductive 
function" (16th edition, p. 1562).

When Donna Shalala and the same government that once endorsed thalidomide 
for pregnant moms with nausea announced "new research results" in July 
that supported such claims, it turns out they were referring to an 
unpublished study by Dr. Peter Fried of Carleton University in Ottawa. 
What were actually "preliminary" results found "subtle" deficiencies in 
the "executive function" of  9- to 12-year-olds whose moms had smoked 
pot during pregnancy. The media didn't mention that no effects were found 
on IQ or that Dr. Fried had invented the concept of "executive function" 
or even that the Canadian mothers in the study also consumed tobacco, 
alcohol and possibly cocaine. [San Jose Mercury News, July 20, 1995] 
Shalala and HHS in fact grossly misrepresented this unpublished research, 
which had additional fatal methodological flaws. (California NORML, 
2215-R Market St. #278, SF CA 94114 (415-563-5858) 
[CANOR M L] at [igc.apc.org]). Shalala's announcement and NIDA's conference 
were covered by California NORML's Dale Gieringer, a Ph.D. expert who 
was able to learn about some of Dr. Fried's hopelessly flawed 
methodology.)

American women who smoke marijuana usually quit smoking when pregnant, 
but cannabis has long been used in many cultures to combat the nausea 
associated with pregnancy. "Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal 
Outcomes in Jamaica," sponsored by the March of Dimes and published in 
the February 1994 peer-reviewed Pediatrics (Vol. 93, No. 2, pp. 254-260), 
used much superior methodology and found that ganja-smoking moms produced 
developmentally superior babies. [fax copies available from Phil Smith on 
request.]

At one month, the children of marijuana-using mothers scored markedly 
higher on autonomic stability, reflexes, and general irritability. Babies 
born to the heaviest smokers, those who smoked every day, at least 21 
joints weekly, scored significantly higher in 10 of the 14 characteristics 
measured, including  quality of alertness, robustness, regulatory 
capacity, and orientation. The exposed infants were also "more socially 
responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days  than [were] 
their matched [non-exposed] counterparts."

Similar studies showing that marijuana is not harmful have been 
documented in 'Neurotoxicology and Teratology' (1992) and in the 1982 
'National Academy of Sciences Report,' which specifically stated that, 
"Although there is widespread use of marijuana in young women of 
reproductive age, there is no evidence ... of any ... effects ... 
associate[ed] with the drug."

Instead of explaining the historical validity of the mother's use of pot 
to quell her nausea, or pointing out the fact that most mothers who 
consume cannabis are middle- and upper-class and of above-average 
intelligence, Mayer humiliates the mother early in the story with an 
unsubstantiated indication that the mother's behavior caused her twins 
to be born 10  weeks early. Later, Mayer notes in the story that the 
woman "lights a [tobacco] cigarette." Did Mayer interview the woman's 
physician to find out his or her opinion about why the twins were born 
prematurely? Why wasn't it pointed out that the scientific evidence is 
much stronger showing that tobacco cigarettes cause low-birthweight 
children? Is it because the tobacco interests regularly buy advertising 
in 'The Oregonian' or merely because the state does not generally steal 
the babies of cigarette smokers, even though their addiction causes much 
more harm than nonaddictive, nontoxic cannabis? Or is it because 'The 
Oregonian' is only interested in reinforcing its own pernicious 
prejudices? Why didn't Mayer explain whether the state takes away the 
babies of mothers who consume alcohol, even "just two times," as in the 
case of the cannabis consumer? How many times is enough to produce 
a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome?

Although Mayer covers up the state's lack of justification for stealing 
pot smokers' kids, she did not ask many obvious questions which 
would have cast further doubt on Oregon's policy. Since the best 
evidence suggests that about 10 percent of all Americans consume 
illicit drugs - and even more among young-adult age groups -  where 
does 'The Oregonian' propose to find the foster families and money to 
pay for relocating more than 10 percent of Oregon children? How many 
children suffering from real abuse "fall through the cracks" because our 
resources are dedicated to stealing the children of people who smoke 
dried flowers? What percentage of children are removed from their 
families just for this "reason"? What was the cost in 1994? This is a 
blank-check policy that would bankrupt the state and cause ruinous 
harm if Oregon could really carry it out. In fact, it can't, but the 
story ignores that. 

And now that illicit-drug consuming mothers know the state will test 
them for drugs against their will and take away their children if it can, 
it is incumbent on 'The Oregonian' to estimate how much our policy 
has actually increased the harm to children and society as these mothers 
avoid prenatal and other medical care.

It used to be that newspapers made their reputations as purveyors of 
reason, comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Now 
'The Oregonian' seems more concerned with covering up scandal 
than exposing it.

Phil Smith
Northeast Portland