From: hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Paul Hager)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs
Subject: WoD: Frontlines Report -- 12-Apr-92
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:48:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr13.124835.11790
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University


		Frontlines Report -- 12-Apr-92

	If I may be permitted to invert Clausewitz's famous dictum,
politics is war pursued by other means.  Yesterday I had a unique
opportunity to fight against the drug war by engaging in
political discourse at, of all places, a dinner party.

	Some friends in the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU)
invited me and my wife (and our 6-month-old daughter, Liana) to
their house for a dinner party/political gathering for Michael
Hoff, a local attorney who is running for district judge.  It was
billed as a casual affair so I brought my football -- just in
case.

	We arrived about 15 minutes past the designated start time
carrying all of the appurtenances of pre-toddler parenthood: baby
bag with diapers, wipes, changing pad, assorted clothes, toys,
and, of course, car seat with baby.  I walked into the kitchen
holding the car seat and was surprised to find 8th District U.S.
Representative Frank McCloskey talking with a couple of other
people.  This was definitely unexpected.

	We eventually got settled in the living room where everyone
else was located.  It transpired that only a small number of
people showed up for the dinner party so it was actually what one
might call an intimate gathering -- 11 adults, 3 three-year-olds,
and Liana.  (I found out later that about 30 people had been
invited but most apparently decided that meeting a politician was
too high a price to pay for a free meal.)

	Permit me a short digression on one of the big advantages of
parenthood.  I told my wife while she was still pregnant that
when we had a kid it would be like having a super golden
retriever.  The connection is this: kids and dogs (especially
retrievers) are intensely social creatures in that they elicit
nurturing and indulgent feelings in adults with whom they come in
contact.  My experiences as the owner of a retriever were that it
was very easy to meet people, chiefly because the dog became the
neighborhood "character" -- everyone knew Willie; even little
kids came over to ask if Willie could come out and play. 
Obviously, an infant hooks into the social matrix in much more
profound (and perhaps primal) ways than does a dog.  An infant is
also the ultimate conversation piece.  The net result of this is
that it is easy to "break the ice" in many social encounters by
virtue of having an infant in tow.  This proved true on this
occasion.  People came over and we would get acquainted as we
talked about babies in general and Liana in particular.

	Frank McCloskey and I have a mutual friend.  The friend was
instrumental in getting McCloskey elected to his second term in
what was one of the closest, if not THE closest, Congressional
races in U.S. history.  McCloskey faced MacIntire in what was
billed as the "MacRace".  Without going into the details (which
would take a couple of 100 kilobytes to explain), suffice thatafter a couple of recounts, McCloskey was declared the winner by
4 votes.  He wasn't seated until March.  During all of the
recount shenanagins, the friend was there fighting over every
contested vote.  His tenacity payed off.

	Anyway, McCloskey and I talked about our friend and then I
gave him a little background on me.  I told McCloskey about my
political activities through the ICLU and told him a little about
the TCI Affair.  He thought that we might have a cause of action
but he wasn't sure.  We also talked about more general political
issues.  I'm working on the AN/UYS-2 project for the Naval
Research Lab and we talked about BSY-2 and the Seawolf as well as
the V-22 Osprey, the VTOL plane that Congress wants but Cheney
wants to kill.  (I believe that McCloskey is tied in with the
Armed Services Committee.)  We also talked about the Presidential
race.  I told McCloskey that in the past few days I'd had a
conversion of sorts -- not a Damascus road blinding revelation
perhaps but still a major event.  I told him that I had decided
to support Bill Clinton.  (This may shock some of my friends on
the net who know that I've talked for months about supporting
Marrou.  I'll be happy to discuss this over e-mail -- might even
post about it.)  I told him I wasn't happy with any of the
candidates but that for a whole host of reasons I had decided to
hold my nose and vote for Clinton.  McCloskey asked what
candidate I would have preferred.  I instantly replied, Kurt
Schmoke.  McCloskey nodded -- he knew about Schmoke but thought
it would be a while before he became a national contender.

	Conversations ebbed and flowed.  Chairs and sofas were
arranged in a circle.  Somewhere in there I fed Liana some pureed
bananas.

	When people began eating desert someone mentioned the poppy
seed cake and talked about cross-reactions with opiates on drug
tests.  The perfect entre!  In short order I was able to start a
general conversation on drug testing.  Michael Hoff, the would-be
judge, brought up the usual concern with pilots and transit
employees.  I presented the arguments for impairment testing.  It
was a good group in which to have the discussion: well-educated,
articulate people who appreciate good arguments.  One question
had to do with accuracy of impairment tests versus a blood test. 
I responded with the phenomenological dimension of drug testing:
how was the ED50 for, say, alcohol determined in the first place? 
There had to be a first objective measure before we could
ascertain with any degree of accuracy what BAC correlated with
impaired psychomotor performance.  McCloskey clearly had never
heard any of this before and although he didn't ask very many
questions he appeared quite interested.

	I was able to turn the discussion to the more general issue
of the drug war by suggesting that it was not clear that moderate
cocaine use posed any kind of hazard for workers in safety-
critical jobs.  This quickly led to a discussion about cocaine
legalization.  The concerns about "crack babies" were raised andI talked about the meta-survey that cast doubt on whether or not
the phenomenon actually existed.  One of the people on hand was a
population biologist and she and I engaged in a sidebar on
experimental methodology which everyone listened to attentively. 
In essence, she was saying that there were often such differences
in methodology across studies that a meta-survey might not show
what it was purporting to show.  I acknowledged this but
countered that the original studies were so flawed by their
having not isolated variables that one could not draw a useful
conclusion from them.  Certainly, I said, it was not
SCIENTIFICALLY valid to claim 100-and-some thousand crack babies
and then justify public policy on this claim.  She agree with
this but then wondered if my "libertarian" orientation made me
inclined to view cocaine as acceptible irrespective of whatever
hazards it turned out to have.  I said, no, that I thought there
should be a balancing test which would determine if there was a
compelling interest for the state to become involved and that my
opinion on this followed the data.  I said that this could be
determined on a drug-by-drug basis.  But, I said, it made no
sense for public policy to be made on the basis of hysteria.

	We talked about crime and cocaine and I likened it to the
marijuana hysteria of the 30s.  At this point, Hoff said that
there was no comparison because in the 30s there was propaganda
coming out from the federal government -- chiefly from Harry
Anslinger -- and that wasn't true of cocaine.  I didn't heavily
defend the point (I could have) but what was of interest was that
Hoff knew the Anslinger story.  I think Hoff is basically on our
side.

	Eventually, the drug policy discussion petered out.  But I
think it went very well -- particularly the discussion about drug
testing.  I hope that I planted a seed with McCloskey that will
lead him to do a little research when drug testing issues arise
in the House again.  So, that's now 2 Congressional Reps I've had
a chance to talk to about testing and both seemed to have been
impressed by what I had to say.

	Thus ends the latest installment in reports from the front
line of the War on Drugs.  Next Saturday I'll be speaking to the
faithful at something called Collins Fest.  I'm also tentatively
scheduled to speak to a big gathering of folks on 10 June on the
topic of drug testing.  But tonight we have our community
relations foray -- i.e., the Quiz Bowl.  Wish us luck.
-- 
paul hager		hagerp@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_