From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: LSD and TV complaint rejected
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:31:31 GMT

civl097@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
: 
: "The drug (LSD) is extremely potent. The synthetic preparation is ten 
: thousand times more active (weight for weight) than mescaline.

So? The dosage of mescaline is also much larger.

: The Committee felt that this expert opinion indicated that Crimewatch did not 
: unreasonably exaggerate the hazards of LSD - which clearly are considerable. 

If they had show the same thing under the influence of alcohol, during the
same show, then I would agree. There are hazards involved with the consumption
of any drug, for some people these hazards are indeed considerable. But, to
single out lsd for special emphasis is misleading and dishonest.

: However, the Committee wa$ told that because the potency of each dose of LSD 
: varies tab to tab, its use can be likened to Russian roulette. Death or mental 
: damage is a possibility every time the drug is used. 

So the dosage varies? I am sure the commitee is aware that it is just about
impossible to take a toxic dose of lsd. It certainly is impossible with tabs.

Death or mental damage can occur any time you go to bed, or drive a car, or
eat a meal in a restaurant. Either the "Committee" is a bunch of unreasoning
morons, or they are strongly anti-drug and do not care what the truth might
be.

: The Committee noted that the script clearly stated that when a bad trip occurs,
: it often goes very wrong indeed. This is not to suggest that every trip goes 
: wrong - but that there is a considerable danger in those that are described as
:  "bad". 

The same is true for alcohol. Why did the script also make a crusade against
alcohol. 

: The Committee felt that Crimewatch was fulfilling its pro-social role by 
: alerting viewers to the risks involved. 

Pah! If they had had a balanced program pointing out the possible risks of
all the major drugs, then they would have been fulfilling the pro-social
role. As it is, all they generated was a bunch of anti-social hysteria over
one particular drug.

: Turning to your dissatisfaction with the dramatised scene in which a man on an 
: LSD trip is seen to jump from a cliff, the Committee sought information on why 
: that sequence was included. 
: 
: It was told that it was partially based on a real incident that occurred 
: earlier this year when a young man under the influence of LSD died after 
: falling from a cliff in the South Island. Like most material contained in Crime
: watch it was an incident drawn from police files. 

Right. So it is justified to dramatize the incident so the accidental death
becomes a person jumping off the cliff. What did I see about "truthful" and
"not misleading" in the guidelines? Or did I just imagine that they were
there? 

: The Committee was told that the Police believe LSD was also involved in a 
: similar incident this year in which a fisherman was drowned. 

Right. Who told the "Committee"? The script writers? Hardly a reliable source,
judging from some if the stuff that was in the show.

Even so, what does an accidental drowning have to do with using lsd? Did the
person intentionally jump in the water? Would such an incident have been
mentioned if the person had been intoxicated on alcohol? 

I am starting to wonder if the "Committee" has even the intelligence of the
script writers. They certainly did not look at the script with a critical eye.

: The Committee found no evidence that Crimewatch portrayed this as the typical 
: outcome of using LSD. It did portray it as a possible outcome - and that, the 
: Committee felt, was fair. 

I bet there was no mention that such occurances were rare, either. From what
I have read above, I am not surprised that the committee felt such distortion
was fair and justified.

: Again the Committee referred to Black's Medical Dictionary in an effort to 
: discover whether the cliff-jumping might have been an extreme case, or whether
: equally horrifying examples of LSD use are on record. These examples from the 
: Medical Dictionary convinced the Committee that Crimewatch was justified in 
: drawing attention to the potentially disastrous consequences of using the drug

Certainly such examples exist. Some of them may even be true, many are urban
legend. Have such thing happened to people under the influence of alcohol?
If so, then why was lsd singled out with the intent of making a major issue
over a rare occurrance?

I think, once again, the political correct thinking (if it can be called that)
of the committee is showing rather plainly.

: 'I...a youth of 20 who leapt from the roof of a chapel after taking LSD 
: thinking he could fly; a youngster who, in a state of agitation after taking 
: a derivative of LSD, drove his car at 100 miles an hour into a house at 
: the foot of a hill; a man allegedly under the influence of LSD who raped 
: the 9-year-old daughter of his mistress in the belief that the child was his 
: mistress....~'.

Much more meaningful would be percentages - not isolated incidents. People
have done the exact same things, without being under the influence of any
drug.

: You questioned whether Crimewatch would make a similar attack on alcohol in 
: similar circumstances. 

I expect that Crimewatch would refuse to do so.

: Leaving aside the fact the LSD is a Class A Controlled drug, while alcohol is 
: perfectly legal in New Zealand, the Committee noted that Crimewatch in 
: particular - and Television New Zealand generally - has not flinched from 
: blaming alcohol when reporting crashes, accidents or acts of crime in which 
: alcohol is thought to have been involved . 

The point is, a person is no more likely to commit any of the acts shown in
the fictional stories when under the influence of lsd than they would be to
commit the same acts under the influence of alcohol. Maybe even more likely
with the alcohol, since it removes inhibitions. If this had been pointed out
in the show, then there would be a case for calling it truthful and
objective. All it can honestly be called now is sensationalistic, biased
and untruthful.

: Your statement that a person is no more likely to set him or herself on fire 
: while using  LSD than while not using it seemed to the Committee to be 
: contradicted by the Dictionary information quoted above in which it refers to 
: the feeling of "omnipotence". 

Just because a rare person may feel omnipotent has little to do with the
matter. What they do with this feeling is what is important. I submit that,
in almost all cases, they do nothing except "groove" on this feeling.

If this feeling occurs in 1 of 50000 uses, then is it even worth being
considered? Just because a symptom/effect has been observed to occur does
not mean that it is significant in frequency.

: The Committee was told of a New Zealand police investigation in which a person 
: using LSD climbed into a bath of nearly boilingwater apparently in the belief 
: that he would not be harmed. 

Right. Once again, who told the committee? Did they get documentation of the
police investigation? I am willing to bet a sizeable sum of money that the
answer is "No". 

: The Committee did not regard the sequence as "nonsense". 

Not surprising. The committee does not seem to consider logic or reasoning
to be of much import either. How can they judge a sequence as nonsense or
otherwise when they know nothing about the subject.

: Your reference to the interview with the former LSD user contained some 
: inaccurate quotes which, in the Committee's view, largely nullified your 
: complaint. 

Right. I suppose it was too much to look beyond the quotes and look at the
testimony of the "former LSD user" instead. Or might this point out to the
committee that the person had problem other than lsd use which would nullify
that person's testimony - which was so convenient to the agenda of the
committee.

: For instance, you say that the user stated that LSD was like Crystal-meth, 
: except more powerful. 
: 
: What he actually said was: 
: 
: "There was a lot of acid around at that time. There was a lot of 
: benzedrine, and crystal methadrine which is like an LSD - it's not so 
: powerful".

Well, the statement is rather ambiguous, but I don't see how that is a
misquote. It appears that is what the user stated.

: Your suggestion that the man had not tried LSD is contradicted by studying his 
: background. This person was recommended to Crimewatch by professionals working 
: in the field of drug rehabilitation. They knew the man's history, had 
: counselled him, and could verify his drug use. 

Or, did the person simply tell the professionals that he took lsd, at one
time. How can you verify such a thing, unless you directly observe the
person using the substance?

: The Committee was at a loss to understand where you got the information that 
: hallucinations have necessarily to be part of the LSD experience. Medical 
: opinion suggests that hallucinations are often part of the experience, but 
: not always. 

That I don't understand either. Here is one place where I agree with the
commitee.

: There was a "trigger" question to turn the former user's attention from the 
: effects of the drug to what consequences it had for his life. 

Of course, there is no documentation for this, except the statements of the
user. 

: You also dismiss a link between LSD and crime. The former user states in the 
: programme that in his case there was - and the police officer on the programme
: also outlined some of the crimes the drug can induce. 

In the former case, it was not the drug that was causing the crime. It was
the person's desire to purchase the drug that caused the crime. The same occurs
for many who desire alcohol or food or boom-box and cannot afford them.

As for the police officer - not too surprising that the person blames the drug
and not the person. If the drug could induce such criminal behavior, then why
do we not have tens of thousands of lds induced drug criminals?

: With respect, the Committee also noted that the unauthorised use of LSD is in 
: itself a crime. 

What does that have to do with the truth or bias of the reporting. It is a
"straw man" observation.

... deleted ...

: Noting your remark that the artificially high prices of drugs are caused by 
: the fact that they are illegal, rather than costly to make, the Committee 
: observed that whether that is true or not it is hardly the role of a programme
: like Crimewatch to campaign along those lines. The fact remains that LSD is a
: drug of such profound and unpredictable effects that it is almost universally 
: banned around the world and is a Class A Controlled drug in New Zealand. 

It can have profound affects on a person, true. It is not truly unpredictable
in behaviour. That may be true for a novice user, but such is not true for am
experienced user. 

It is also doubtful that, even if it were true, that that is why the drug is
mostly banned. You cannot make such a statement about marijuana, yet it is
also banned in most places in the world. The fact is that the US government,
for one reason or another, decided to ban certain drugs. Most of the rest
of the world followed along  like placid little sheep.

: Your reference to "flashbacks" suggested to the Committee that you were 
: equating dissimilar experiences. 

: The term "flashback" is used in the film world to describe the replaying of a 
: scene that has occurred earlier. In a visual way it simulates the way people 
: remember past events. As viewers have become used to this film technique, the 
: word "flashback" has been used increasingly to describe memory generally, and 
: brief painful recollections in particular. 
: 
: The Committee is of the view that you are confusing this experience (where 
: subjects remain in reasonable control of themselves) with the more clinical 
: use of the term "flashback" by health workers to describe the terrifying and 
: total re-experience of a mind-changing trip. 

It would be nice to get some documentation of such occurances. I do not know
of any - lots of urban legends, yes.

: Although the Committee itself could claim no expert medical knowledge, the 
: information put before it suggests that the two experiences cannot be equated. 
This is pretty obvious. More accurate to state would be that the commitee had
no knowledge whatever.

: In your summary, you claim that Crimewatch was vague in its facts, and 
: presented a distorted view of LSD. 
: The Committee holds a different view. It believes the programme was clear and 
: honest in the facts it presented. It defined the drug, put in historical 
: context, indicated its dangers, talked about its current revival, its various 
: forms and its legal standing. 

Right. And turns what was apparently an accidental fall of a cliff into a jump
by the person, under the influence of lsd. Apparently, the committee has a
different definition of "truth" and "honest" than the rest of the world.

: Finally, the Committee felt that you did not fully appreciate the nature of the 
: Crimewatch programme. 
: 
: As its name implies it is a service programme, indicating to viewers matters 
: which are of concern to law enforcement authorities in this country. 

Does that justify lies and distortions? The commitee tends to imply that this
is the case, if the lies etc support the politically correct stance.

: can result in substantial jail sentences. The criminal justice system take a 
: very serious view of it. In its role of a go-between linl<ing the police and 
: the viewing public, the Committee believed Crimewatch acted responsibly in 
: addressing the problem. 
: 
: Taking everything into consideration, the Committee found no breaches of the 
: rules. 

Ignoring truth and fair reporting - I suppose it would be possible to come
to that conclusion.

: Accordingly your complaint was not upheld. 

No shit.

... deleted ...

Bill