This past Friday, January 27, 2012, I attended the National and State Marijuana Reform Symposium hosted by Wayne State University's (Detroit) School of Law. Predictably, and not surprisingly, in my estimation all of the presenters (with one exception) and most of the attendees (200 plus) were in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. Without going into detail, a couple of the speakers mocked former first lady Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" advice to those who try to avoid using drugs. A number of the speakers blamed "cops, prosecutors, and judges" for our country's drug problem. One speaker, a pharmacy professor AND lawyer, actually told the audience to "Just say Yes to drugs." Nonetheless, there was one speaker who had a contrary (refreshing?) point of view. That speaker was Kevin Sabet, Ph.D. Kevin Sabet is a drug policy consultant. He served as a senior adviser to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009 to 2011. He currently is a professor at the University of Florida's School of Medicine. I had the good fortune to introduce myself and to chat with Dr. Sabet. He was aware and supportive of the DRE approach to drugged-driving.
Here are a few of the points that Dr. Sabet made during his presentation. As an aside, many of Dr. Sabet's comments were met with derisive catcalls and comments from the other speakers and the audience. I clapped!
No modern nation has legalized marijuana. Pointed out that legalization is an extreme solution to the drug problem. Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Sabet said that it's very rare for people to be imprisoned for simple marijuana possession.
Dr. Sabet said that Alcohol and tobacco are in fact frightening examples of what can happen with legalization.
Legalization will increase use of marijuana. For many, the fact that marijuana is illegal helps to discourage (and prevent in some cases) use.
Legalization wouldn't eliminate the black market. Raising taxes will increase the likelihood of a black market.
Increased revenue from taxing marijuana wouldn't be offset by the increase in social and economic costs. In fact, Dr. Sabet pointed out that so-called "Vice taxes" rarely offset cost. Again, Dr. Sabet used the costs associated with legalized alcohol as a "frightening" example.
Dr. Sabet said that there are many ways to reduce incarceration rates (and associated costs) without legalizing drugs. He used the example of drug (and sobriety) courts, and other programs that focus on both compassion AND accountability as alternatives to legalization.
Finally, Dr. Sabet said that that although marijuana isn't as dangerous as smoking cocaine or heroin, it still is a harmful substance. (In my opinion, the costs to our society are greater with marijuana, simply because of its prevalence.)
Monday, January 30, 2012
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Penn State and Jerry Sandusky: flashback to Hollywood Blvd.
As I watched the Bob Costas' interview of Jerry Sandusky (Penn State) , I had a flashback to an arrest I made in about 83 or 84 in Hollywood. I was walking a foot beat (most fun I've ever had in my life!) on Hollywood Blvd. when a young boy of about 10 pointed to a guy in an arcade and told me that the guy had touched his genitals. My partner and I went into the arcade, and after a brief struggle arrested the guy. Back at the station I interviewed our arrestee at length. He said, "You know what they do to people like me in prison." Of course, I pursued that line of thought - as in "What kind of person are you?" But the arrestee clammed up and refused to talk.
When I reported to work the next day, I was met by the legendary LAPD Lt. Higbie and his OIS team. It seems my pervert-arrestee hung himself - successfully - in the Hollywood Jail. (Investigators later found the typical stash of photos of little boys in the decedent's hotel room.)
Jerry Sandusky sounded just like my arrestee. Flat affect, little emotion, monotone, not fully admitting, but not fully denying either. If Sandusky were in jail, and I were the Watch Commander, I'd definitely make sure he was on suicide watch.
When I reported to work the next day, I was met by the legendary LAPD Lt. Higbie and his OIS team. It seems my pervert-arrestee hung himself - successfully - in the Hollywood Jail. (Investigators later found the typical stash of photos of little boys in the decedent's hotel room.)
Jerry Sandusky sounded just like my arrestee. Flat affect, little emotion, monotone, not fully admitting, but not fully denying either. If Sandusky were in jail, and I were the Watch Commander, I'd definitely make sure he was on suicide watch.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Legalize Marijuana article: My response
The November 2, 2011 edition of Detroit's Metro Times contained an article by Larry Gabriel titled "Top Cop Changes his Mind." (http://metrotimes.com/mmj/top-cop-changes-his-mind-1.1226308) In the article, former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon was quoted as saying marijuana should be legalized. In response to this article, I emailed the following letter to the Metro Times.
Dear Editor:
Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon said "I can't think of anybody who has died from marijuana." I also can't think of a case where somebody died from an overdose of LSD. The problem with marijuana, and LSD for that matter, is its effect on thinking and behavior. And it's this behavioral toxicity, such as impaired ability to pay attention while driving, that's the real problem with marijuana. The only reason marijuana is used in the first place is because it has a primary effect on the brain, the central nervous system. After all, people don't use marijuana because they like to have bloodshot eyes. The CNS effects include impaired attention, impaired depth perception, amotivation, and more. Knowing these effects, I certainly do not want my doctor, dentist, police officer, child-care worker or professor to use marijuana.
And frankly, to suggest that almost all the "problems and violence" associated with drug use result from the laws is indicative of pharmacological ignorance. Stimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine mimic the body's activation of the Sympathetic nervous system. It's this system that's responsible for the body's fight or flight response. In fact, they are correctly termed "sympathomimetics." These drugs cause the user to feel that they are in danger. But the user is responding to the drug, and not the environment. And people who feel threatened, feel paranoid, are dangerous and often violent. PCP ("angel dust") has similar effects.
Like Ike McKinnon, I also am a retired police officer. I also know and respect Dr. Michael Whitty. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mike Whitty was one of my U of D professors many years ago.) But when it comes to drug legalization, including that of marijuana, Professors McKinnon and Whitty are wrong.
Thomas E. Page, M.A.
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Dear Editor:
Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon said "I can't think of anybody who has died from marijuana." I also can't think of a case where somebody died from an overdose of LSD. The problem with marijuana, and LSD for that matter, is its effect on thinking and behavior. And it's this behavioral toxicity, such as impaired ability to pay attention while driving, that's the real problem with marijuana. The only reason marijuana is used in the first place is because it has a primary effect on the brain, the central nervous system. After all, people don't use marijuana because they like to have bloodshot eyes. The CNS effects include impaired attention, impaired depth perception, amotivation, and more. Knowing these effects, I certainly do not want my doctor, dentist, police officer, child-care worker or professor to use marijuana.
And frankly, to suggest that almost all the "problems and violence" associated with drug use result from the laws is indicative of pharmacological ignorance. Stimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine mimic the body's activation of the Sympathetic nervous system. It's this system that's responsible for the body's fight or flight response. In fact, they are correctly termed "sympathomimetics." These drugs cause the user to feel that they are in danger. But the user is responding to the drug, and not the environment. And people who feel threatened, feel paranoid, are dangerous and often violent. PCP ("angel dust") has similar effects.
Like Ike McKinnon, I also am a retired police officer. I also know and respect Dr. Michael Whitty. (In the interest of full disclosure, Mike Whitty was one of my U of D professors many years ago.) But when it comes to drug legalization, including that of marijuana, Professors McKinnon and Whitty are wrong.
Thomas E. Page, M.A.
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Guard against Anchoring and Confirmation Biases
I just came across two interesting articles that deal with bias in forming opinions and beliefs. It's a basic tenet of DRE training that an opinion should not be reached until the evaluation has been completed. Further, the DRE's opinion must be based on the totality of the the evaluation (and of the entire investigation for that matter).
The October 15, 2011 issue of Bottom Line/Personal contained a front page article about misdiagnoses in medicine. It struck me that DRE's face many of the same issues and challenges that medical doctors do in reaching opinions. According to the article, "Doctors routinely take a mental shortcut known as 'anchoring.' They quickly latch onto an idea about what's causing your symptoms." "Anchoring" is definitely something that DRE's have to guard against. For example, anchoring may be caused by what the arrestee says he/she has taken (true or not), what the arresting officer believes the person is under the influence of, or the substances and paraphernalia that were in the arrestee's possession. Guard against "anchoring" by asking yourself whether something else, including a medical condition, may be causing the signs and symptoms. Continually challenge yourself by asking yourself if there are alternative explanations. (As an aside, the article says that in US autopsy studies, "doctors misdiagnosed illnesses between 20% and 40% of the time.")
The July issue of Scientific American contained a column by Michael Shermer titled "The Believing Brain." Shermer wrote that "anchoring bias" occurs when one relies too heavily on one piece of information to make a decision. A DRE who decides that a person is under the influence of, say cannabis, because the person had bloodshot eyes, is an example of "anchoring bias." Shermer also writes about another type of relevant bias called "confirmation bias," in which one seeks and finds "confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence." Sort of like reaching an opinion first, and then gathering evidence to support the opinion.
The best defense against bias in your DRE opinions is to continually remind yourself that there could be alternative explanations for each sign and symptom, and to not reach a final opinion until the entire evaluation has been completed.
The October 15, 2011 issue of Bottom Line/Personal contained a front page article about misdiagnoses in medicine. It struck me that DRE's face many of the same issues and challenges that medical doctors do in reaching opinions. According to the article, "Doctors routinely take a mental shortcut known as 'anchoring.' They quickly latch onto an idea about what's causing your symptoms." "Anchoring" is definitely something that DRE's have to guard against. For example, anchoring may be caused by what the arrestee says he/she has taken (true or not), what the arresting officer believes the person is under the influence of, or the substances and paraphernalia that were in the arrestee's possession. Guard against "anchoring" by asking yourself whether something else, including a medical condition, may be causing the signs and symptoms. Continually challenge yourself by asking yourself if there are alternative explanations. (As an aside, the article says that in US autopsy studies, "doctors misdiagnosed illnesses between 20% and 40% of the time.")
The July issue of Scientific American contained a column by Michael Shermer titled "The Believing Brain." Shermer wrote that "anchoring bias" occurs when one relies too heavily on one piece of information to make a decision. A DRE who decides that a person is under the influence of, say cannabis, because the person had bloodshot eyes, is an example of "anchoring bias." Shermer also writes about another type of relevant bias called "confirmation bias," in which one seeks and finds "confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence." Sort of like reaching an opinion first, and then gathering evidence to support the opinion.
The best defense against bias in your DRE opinions is to continually remind yourself that there could be alternative explanations for each sign and symptom, and to not reach a final opinion until the entire evaluation has been completed.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph on DRE, 1989
In cleaning out some file cabinets, I stumbled across a U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph titled "Drug Recognition Program," dated April 1989.
On the cover page, Charles P. Smith, the Director of the BJA, wrote in part:
"The Drug Recognition Process is a non-intrusive, standardized and systematic method of examining a person suspected of impairment due to alcohol and/or other drug abuse. Because of its promise for local law enforcement, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has supported the efforts of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate pilot site demonstrations of this new technology."
The twenty-four page document provides a nice history of the development of the DRE program. It points out that the results of the Johns Hopkins Study (1984) and the LA Field Validation Study (1985) prompted NHTSA to work with the LAPD to develop a standardized curriculum for DRE training. It identifies the four pilot sites that were selected to establish DRE programs based on the LAPD program: metropolitan Phoenix, Denver and Boulder, Colorado, Nassau County, New York, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Three additional pilot sites were selected in 1988: Indiana, Utah, and an expansion of the Los Angeles program to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and agencies in Yolo County. "The California site is an expansion of the original Los Angeles program..." Thus, this Federal Monograph clearly recognizes the fact that the Los Angeles DRE program was recognized by the Federal Government as a useful tool in 1987. "The Drug Recognition Program will prove useful in many jurisdictions. It is an effective means of dealing with drivers who imperil others by getting behind the wheel while incapacitated by drugs."
As of the publication of this document, April, 1989, the program was called the "Drug Recognition Program." In subsequent years the program became known as the "DECP."
On the cover page, Charles P. Smith, the Director of the BJA, wrote in part:
"The Drug Recognition Process is a non-intrusive, standardized and systematic method of examining a person suspected of impairment due to alcohol and/or other drug abuse. Because of its promise for local law enforcement, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) has supported the efforts of the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to accelerate pilot site demonstrations of this new technology."
The twenty-four page document provides a nice history of the development of the DRE program. It points out that the results of the Johns Hopkins Study (1984) and the LA Field Validation Study (1985) prompted NHTSA to work with the LAPD to develop a standardized curriculum for DRE training. It identifies the four pilot sites that were selected to establish DRE programs based on the LAPD program: metropolitan Phoenix, Denver and Boulder, Colorado, Nassau County, New York, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Three additional pilot sites were selected in 1988: Indiana, Utah, and an expansion of the Los Angeles program to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, the Long Beach Police Department, and agencies in Yolo County. "The California site is an expansion of the original Los Angeles program..." Thus, this Federal Monograph clearly recognizes the fact that the Los Angeles DRE program was recognized by the Federal Government as a useful tool in 1987. "The Drug Recognition Program will prove useful in many jurisdictions. It is an effective means of dealing with drivers who imperil others by getting behind the wheel while incapacitated by drugs."
As of the publication of this document, April, 1989, the program was called the "Drug Recognition Program." In subsequent years the program became known as the "DECP."
Monday, July 25, 2011
Support for tough sentencing of "first-time DUI offenders"
On July 24 and 25, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published a two-part series on DUI-sentencing disparities in the Detroit, Michigan area. The July 25th article highlighted the tough sentencing practices of an Oakland County (just north of Detroit) judge. Here is a link to that article.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/NEWS06/107250334/Part-2-Judge-among-toughest-nation-1st-time-DUI-offenders?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
I support tough sentencing for even so-called "first time" offenders. As law enforcement officers know, rarely is a DUI driver caught the first time they drive while under the influence. Here is the letter I sent to the Detroit Free Press editor in support of the Judge's tough sentencing practices:
Dear Editor:
I applaud 48th District Court Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called "first-time DUI offenders." If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable. That if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned. That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive," to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive." Defense attorney Hall damns Judge Small with faint praise when he says "It's so she can say she's tough on crime." Unfortunately, Hall's statement suggest that DUI isn't a "real crime." I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Rd., will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, Detroit
On July 31, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published the following edited letter:
I applaud 48th District Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called first-time DUI offenders. If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable -- that if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned.
That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive" to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive."
I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Road, will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, Detroit
http://www.freep.com/article/20110725/NEWS06/107250334/Part-2-Judge-among-toughest-nation-1st-time-DUI-offenders?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
I support tough sentencing for even so-called "first time" offenders. As law enforcement officers know, rarely is a DUI driver caught the first time they drive while under the influence. Here is the letter I sent to the Detroit Free Press editor in support of the Judge's tough sentencing practices:
Dear Editor:
I applaud 48th District Court Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called "first-time DUI offenders." If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable. That if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned. That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive," to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive." Defense attorney Hall damns Judge Small with faint praise when he says "It's so she can say she's tough on crime." Unfortunately, Hall's statement suggest that DUI isn't a "real crime." I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Rd., will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, Detroit
On July 31, 2011, the Detroit Free Press published the following edited letter:
I applaud 48th District Judge Kimberly Small's practice of jailing most so-called first-time DUI offenders. If every judge had a similar practice, those who drink or do drugs and drive would get the message that DUI is simply not acceptable -- that if you drink or do drugs and drive you will be severely sanctioned.
That changes the message from "try not to drink too much and drive" to "you will go to jail if you drink and drive."
I hope that other judges, including those south of 8 Mile Road, will realize, as Judge Small has, that one doesn't have a right to endanger innocent citizens by drinking and driving.
Thomas E. Page, retired from the Los Angeles Police Department, Detroit
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Neudexta (Avanir): newly approved drug contains DXM
For over 20 years, I have subscribed to The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics. This nonprofit publication does not accept advertising. Its subscriber base is primarily medical doctors. Occasionally, I'll cite a Medical Letter article (www.medicalletter.org) on new drugs.
The June 13, 2011 issue has an overview of newly FDA- approved Nuedexta / Avanir. This new drug contains dextromethorphan and quinidine sulfate, and is indicated for the oral treatment of pseudobulbar affect in patients with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and multiple sclerosis. "Pseudobulbar affect, also known as pathological laughter and crying or emotional lability, is common in ALS and MS." Some of the side effects noted in The Medical Letter of this drug combination are nausea, headache, diarrhea, fatigue and dizziness.
Remember to interview your suspect/arrestee about medical conditions, and the treatment they are receiving for the condition (s). Better to learn during the investigation phase, rather than be surprised in court!
The June 13, 2011 issue has an overview of newly FDA- approved Nuedexta / Avanir. This new drug contains dextromethorphan and quinidine sulfate, and is indicated for the oral treatment of pseudobulbar affect in patients with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and multiple sclerosis. "Pseudobulbar affect, also known as pathological laughter and crying or emotional lability, is common in ALS and MS." Some of the side effects noted in The Medical Letter of this drug combination are nausea, headache, diarrhea, fatigue and dizziness.
Remember to interview your suspect/arrestee about medical conditions, and the treatment they are receiving for the condition (s). Better to learn during the investigation phase, rather than be surprised in court!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
