Lies and the Lazy Reporters Who Repeat Them

On May 5, newspapers and news broadcasts around the country carried alarming stories about a new study of marijuana published in that day's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Stronger marijuana makes more addicted," screamed the Los Angeles Daily News. "Abuse and dependence rise as pot becomes more potent," headlined the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Rising marijuana potency, the stories claimed, was leading more Americans to become addicted to the devil weed.

Small problem: The theory that pot that is more potent is getting people hooked is almost certainly wrong. But none of the newspaper stories gave the slightest hint that might be the case.

The government-funded study on which the stories were based, "Prevalence of Marijuana Use Disorders in the United States," was conducted by scientists from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. It compared survey data from 1991-92 to 2001-02, indicating an increase in marijuana "abuse" or "dependence," as defined by the DSM-IV, the American Psychiatric Association's official diagnostic manual for mental disorders. The study's authors hypothesized that the most likely cause for this increase is "increased marijuana potency." As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, picked up by the Daily News, put it, "It's not your parents' marijuana." Wire stories used by most other papers took roughly the same line, though in less shrill language.

None of these stories chose to mention a salient fact: The "potent pot" hypothesis is pure speculation. As Mitch Earleywine, University of Southern California associate professor of psychology and author of "Understanding Marijuana" (Oxford University Press, 2002) notes, there is no scientific evidence that marijuana that is more potent leads to greater levels of dependence. Indeed the JAMA article makes no claim that any such evidence exists.

Second, as the JAMA article notes, under DSM-IV criteria, people can be classified as marijuana "abusers" if they experience "legal problems related to marijuana use." The FBI Uniform Crime Reports arrest tabulations show that marijuana arrests skyrocketed from about 300,000 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2001. What may be simply the results of shifting law enforcement priorities were presented in both the study and in news reports as the dire effects of "potent pot." Strikingly, the JAMA article fails to identify which abuse/dependence criteria increased, and by how much.

That alone should have led an inquisitive reporter or two to ask if there might be an alternative explanation to the "potent pot" theory. But the journalists covering the story failed to ask this most basic question even though the study contained a giant red flag: The increased "abuse" occurred almost entirely among young blacks and Hispanics. There was no similar increase among whites in the same age group.

Young blacks and Hispanics have no special access to high-potency marijuana, and there is no evidence that THC affects black and Hispanic brains differently than those of whites. But people of color are well documented to be at disproportionate risk for arrest for drug crimes.

None of this was discussed in the Journal-Constitution story, or in the AP, Reuters and Scripps-Howard wire stories that were reprinted across the country. Indeed, what is striking about all of these stories is their similarity to the National Institute on Drug Abuse's press release. None of these esteemed newspapers or wire services chose to quote even a single expert or advocate skeptical of the government line. None of them seems to have considered the possibility that our government might spin the data in order to match its Drug War policies.

For shame.

Bruce Mirken is a recovering journalist who, after years of covering health issues for Men's Health, AIDS Treatment News and the San Francisco Examiner, now serves as Communications Director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.