Beware of Scary Flowers!

It's been awhile since we had a good fearmongering article in the Sentinel. You know, something about scary loud noises caused by kids exploding soda bottles, or about unlit streetlamps coming to life and killing everyone. Those are great articles, and I've been missing them.

Luckily, today we get this article, ripped from the pages of the Lowell Sun (which has the same parent company and is just as terrible a newspaper as the S&E).

It's about the horrors of Morning Glory abuse, and how "teens" are looking to get high on them. Oh no!

Let's see what our intrepid mountain-of-a-molehill reporter has to say:

Groups of young teenagers would ride their bikes to the garden store to buy packets of morning glory seeds.

Their specific interest in the small black seeds wasn't for gardening, but rather a hallucinogenic high similar to taking LSD.

Teenagers eating legal plant seeds so they can convince themselves they're high? This is trouble!

This is also a topic that pops up every couple of years, when some heroic reporter realizes that yes, some people stupidly try to get high off morning glory seeds. Said reporter then tries to draw public attention to this huge problem and writes a dumb newspaper piece about it.

The chemical is Lysergic Acid Amide (LSA), the same chemical used to make Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, commonly known as LSD.

LSA is derived from ergot, a type of fungus that grows on grains, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Well, if the National Institute on Drug Abuse talks about it, then this must mean it's a dangerous drug, right?

I would have just checked Wikipedia myself, but that's why I'm not a newspaper reporter. Of course, I'd have found out that each seed contains about 10 µg of ergine/LSA, which is sort of interesting.

Anyway, it's well-known that Morning Glory seeds are a source of LSA, and that stupid kids try to use this property to get high (whether they are successful or not is a different story). So why should we, as a society that freaks out about drugs, care? What's the danger?

While LSD has been widely studied and documented, information about LSA isn't listed on the National Institute on Drug Abuse or U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Web sites.

However, because LSA mimics the hallucinogenic effects of LSD, doctors say it could be dangerous.

Know what else "could" be dangerous? Jumping to idiotic conclusions that aren't supported by facts.

LSA is not LSD, just like Ethylene glycol (antifreeze, basically) is not Polyethylene glycol (used in a bunch of stuff, including toothpaste and eyedrops). Little differences matter quite a bit when you're dealing with chemicals.

Furthermore, there are plenty of things that produce hallucinogenic effects, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're dangerous. Unless you think hallucinations themselves are dangerous, which I suppose they are in some situations. Luckily, most of those situations are not ones in which a Morning Glory junkie is going to find himself in.

So, "doctors," care to elaborate?

"LSD is a potent hallucinogenic; not only is there an acute effect, but people get all sorts of flashbacks and psychological damage," said Dr. Wayne Pasanen, vice president of Medical Affairs at Lowell General Hospital and medical director for Habit Management in Lowell.

So far, Pasanen has not seen any cases involving LSA, but Mike Miles, a Dracut School Committee member and Lowell police patrolman, has counseled two teens who have used morning glory seeds to get high.

Okay, so LSD is potentially bad news, because of the highly-scientific dangers of "all sorts of flashbacks" and other vague stuff. I can't argue with those facts!

LSA, which is what we're actually talking about, apparently isn't a huge deal. Dr. Pasanen hasn't seen any cases involving it, though this School Committee cop guy claims that he's known two (2) dumbasses who used it "to get high."

How'd that go?

Miles, a licensed clinical social worker who specializes in child and family therapy and drug and alcohol counseling, said both teens said they became sick to their stomach.

Oh, so those two didn't actually get high. They got sick. From eating a bunch of seeds. It's a drug epidemic!

Maybe someone else can provide better scares?

Other local law enforcement officials in communities surrounding Dracut say they haven't seen any incidents involving morning glory seeds, but are aware that it can be used as a drug.

"It's definitely on our radar," said Chelmsford Deputy Police Chief Scott Ubele.

So, even though they've never seen a case, and even though there's nothing illegal about Morning Glory seeds, the Chelmsford police are aware that some people might use them to try to get high. Hey, so am I! So is everyone reading this blog post. So what?

Maybe another cop will have more information?

In Billerica, Sgt. Roy Frost hasn't seen any cases, but is familiar with the ways morning glory seeds can be manipulated.

"These kids can smoke it (morning glory seeds), they can chew it, or cook with it just like traditional marijuana," Frost said. "With a lot of these drugs, kids unfortunately think it's OK because it hasn't been criminalized."

Again, no cases. Why was this article printed, exactly?

Still, at least Frost knows that this drug, which is nothing like marijuana, is "just like traditional marijuana." He also thinks you can smoke it and cook with it. Since LSA breaks down at high temperatures, either of these techniques will just leave you with seeds that are worthless both for getting high and for growing flowers.

In other words, Frost is totally talking out of his ass. Just like everyone else in this pathetic article.

One more cop!

However, the legality of LSA in morning glory seeds remains murky, said Richardson.

The use of morning glory seeds as an illicit drug is not listed under state law, only under federal law, [Dracut Police Chief Kevin] Richardson said. Local officers do not have the authority to enforce federal statutes, Richardson said.

Allow me to clear up the legality of Morning Glory seeds for this police chief.

They're legal.

There, that wasn't so hard. LSA is indeed a Schedule III controlled substance, but LSA is not the same thing as Morning Glory seeds. The seeds aren't rendered illegal just because eating several hundred of them might get you high. Opium is made from poppies, but that doesn't make poppy-seed bagels illegal.

Okay, enough of this fact-free article full of totally clueless cops. If this is the best they can do to drum up scary outrage about seeds, that's pretty sad. Hell, they didn't even mention that some of the seeds might have been treated with antifungals, which could make you feel lousy if you eat them! Lame.

As for the actual subject of using Morning Glory seeds to get high, it's idiotic. If some dumbass tries it they're not going to die, they pretty much can't overdose, they most likely won't even get high, and they stand a decent chance of ending up with some pretty unpleasant diarrhea.

It's also not the kind of thing anyone's going to do very often, because it's a giant pain for very little reward. Plus, anyone with half a brain is going to make fun of them for doing it in the first place, because it's incredibly lame.

In the end, this is a non-story about something that doesn't seem to be happening very often (two kids with tummy aches does not really support a whole article). It's full of logical fallacies and outright falsehoods, and it lacks any firm grounding in the real world. It also interviewed way too many cops, who are apparently all idiots.

In other words, it's almost a perfect Sentinel Lowell Sun article.

Way to go, MediaNews Group! I eagerly await your expose on the danger of smoking banana peels.

Pointless Anti-Marijuana Laws

As one of the many people who support drug legalization--particularly of marijuana--I was of course pleased last November when the voters in Massachusetts decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Sure, I would have rather seen pot legalized (and taxed), but it was a good first step.

Of course, not everyone agrees. As this AP article from 4/20 (coincidence?) points out, there are a number of local cities and towns that have passed anti-marijuana laws since that time.

Voters in November decriminalized possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, and replaced the maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $500 fine with a $100 civil fine and forfeiture of the drug. The new law does not require a suspected offender to provide identification.

Since then, seven communities — Duxbury, Lynn, Medway, Methuen, Milford, Salem and Springfield — have passed bylaws regulating or prohibiting marijuana use in public. Others are considering similar measures.

This is just baffling to me.

Question 2 didn't legalize marijuana, it decriminalized possession of an ounce or less. That's a pretty major difference. Marijuana possession is still illegal, you just face a fine and confiscation of the drug instead of potentially going to jail.

It's a bit baffling that law enforcement officials don't seem to understand this fact. Of course, it's probable that they do understand it, and are simply using it as a red herring for their power-grab.

“If I’m driving down Main Street in Springfield, and I see a guy drinking a can of Budweiser and a guy smoking a joint, the only guy I can lock up is the beer drinker,” Springfield Police Sgt. John Delaney said. “It seemed only natural to pass a law to keep people from smoking marijuana in public.”

Perhaps that's all technically true. You can't "lock up" a guy for smoking a joint on the street. You can fine them $100 and seize their pot, which seems like a pretty effective way to get them to stop smoking it, in public and elsewhere.

I also question the wisdom of locking up somebody for drinking a beer in public. Make them stop, sure, but why the hell would you even want to put them in jail for it? If they're drunk and being a public nuisance, that's one thing, but just drinking a beer in public seems like a pretty stupid reason to lock someone up.

Unless you're locking them up for drinking Budweiser specifically. I can almost endorse that.

Here are some of the details about what these cities are doing:

In Springfield, first-time offenders face a $100 fine; second-time offenders, $200; third-time and subsequent offenders, $300. In Salem, police reserve the right to subpoena into court people smoking marijuana in public. Offenders are required to identify themselves and face a fine of up to $300. The city also can fine an offender up to $300. In Lynn, offenders who smoke in public also face a $300 fine. In each community, the local penalties are in addition to the state fine.

What's with everyone wanting $300?

It's already illegal to smoke pot, not just in public, but anywhere. These local laws are--at best--attempts to solve a problem that already has a solution. More realistically, they're attempts to subvert the decriminalization of marijuana by adding more hassles and fines to something that's already illegal.

Surely they have a good reason for doing this, right?

For Police Chief Robert M. St. Pierre, Halloween in Salem — when thousands visit the city because of its spooky history — is enough reason to pass bylaws for possession of marijuana in public.

“When you have 60,000 people crowded in a small downtown, you can’t allow public drinking or public marijuana use. You have to have some laws with teeth to protect Salem, especially at that time of year.”

That makes perfect sense! People come to town for Halloween, therefore unnecessary marijuana laws must be put into place year-round!

Come to think of it, I've noticed that there's an awful lot of jaywalking that takes place on Halloween too. Jaywalking is already illegal, but I think we need stronger laws to make it even more illegal. Somebody needs to get on that right away!

Can this whole thing become stupider? Easily.

State Sen. James Timilty, a Walpole Democrat, has introduced a bill that he says clarifies some confusion. Timilty’s bill would allow police to arrest anyone who fails to produce identification. Police Chief St. Pierre said that amendment would help him deal with thousands of Halloween revelers in full costume.

“It’s very hard if someone is bent on trying to commit a criminal act and they have masks or face paint or a costume,” he said.

This man is allowed to enforce laws?

First, we're not dealing with "a criminal act." Remember that fancy "decriminalization" word? It means that marijuana possession is now a civil offense, not a criminal one. This seriously shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Second, do the Salem police somehow have pictures of everyone who goes there for Halloween? Is the one thing stopping them from identifying these foreign ne'er-do-wells on sight the fact that they're wearing costumes? Seriously, what the hell?

Also, are police really so easily foiled by people wearing costumes and/or masks?

If so, I'm going to head over to that costume shop by the strip club, buy a naughty nurse outfit or something (since 90% of their stock is "slutty something-or-other" costumes and I'm in a rush), don it, and rob all the banks in town. The police will be helpless to stop me as long as I don't carelessly remove my mask. It's a perfect crime!

The amendment in question appears to be this one, by the way (thanks for not citing anything yet again, "journalism"). It appears to do what they say, amending the current law to add the ability to arrest people who don't give correct identification when suspected of a marijuana offense.

It also does some other things that look worrisome, but that I don't have the time to cross-reference right now to find out for sure. If you want to check how the amendment changes the current law in other ways, feel free. The current law is here.

There is a fatal flaw in Timilty's amendment, though. Nowhere does it say that people have to take off their ridiculous costumes. Salem's dumbest will never manage to get around the masks and face-paintings without a law explicitly stating they have to be removed!

The reality behind all these utterly insane rationalizations should be easy enough to see. City governments want to appear "tough on drugs," so they make up pointless laws to solve non-problems.

Never mind that there's little indication that public pot smoking is any sort of significant problem. Politicians want to be seen as doing something, even if they're not actually accomplishing a damn thing.

That's why you get so many pointless (and sometimes counterproductive) laws about sex offenders, and it's why you get pointless laws about smoking pot. The people being targeted probably aren't going to put up much of a fight, so they're easy pickings for unimaginative city councilors.

It's totally legal for them to do so, since the state law allows for it. It's straight from the ballot question itself, which allowed for it for reasons I can't fathom. They're no doubt political in nature.

But just because they can make these silly laws doesn't mean they should make them. They're unnecessary, redundant, and even if they fit the letter of the ballot question, they certainly don't fit the spirit of it.

Question 2. Yes!

Dammit.

I was all set to write about this plan to shut off streetlights. I was going to debunk the idea that it would lead to more crime, which is very popular among the big piles of stupid who frequent the S&E's message boards.

But I figure the paper itself will probably do an editorial about it within the next week or so, and I can deal with it then. The S&E isn't representative of the community by any means, but they do a great job of promoting the ideas of the cranks who hang out on their message boards.

So instead, I'll deal with their current stupid editorial. As you've probably already figured out, it's about Question 2, and in a totally-not-shocking move is called Vote no on Question 2.

It's also laughably inept. Full of strawmen, non sequiturs, and just plain nonsense. It deserves a thorough fisking. Which will commence right now.

It actually starts off perfectly fine. Just the facts:

Question 2 proposes to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

It would not, however, legalize possession. Civil penalties would be enforced, and crimes such as driving under the influence of marijuana or intent to sell marijuana would remain the same.

Civil penalties for those age 18 or older would include forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100.

Those under 18 would be subject to the same penalties, if they complete a drug-awareness program within one year of the offense.

The program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the abuse of marijuana and other drugs.

If the program is not completed, the youth's fine could be increased to as much as $1,000. The offender could also face delinquency proceedings.

The main purpose is to prevent a one-time youthful offense from becoming a lifetime criminal record, which can make it difficult to gain employment, rent an apartment and secure student loans.

That is all correct. Sadly, that's the last we'll see of the facts for awhile. Wave goodbye if you like!

Here's where it starts to go terribly wrong:

We understand the intent. However, if this question is approved, what kind of message will it send to kids?

That breaking the law a little is OK? That if laws are broken often enough eventually we'll soften those laws?

I've lost count of the number of times I've read editorials in the S&E bitching about "sending the wrong message" to kids. It's one of their favorite arguments, perhaps because it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a thought-terminating cliche, so they can just sit back after using it and look smug. No followup required!

They do follow it up, though. With some nonsense about "breaking the law a little" being OK. Huh?

Possession of marijuana would still be illegal. It would just be a civil instead of a criminal offense. There's punishment if you do it, it's just that the punishment is more in line with the level of the offense. "Breaking the law a little" doesn't even make sense, and certainly isn't relevant here.

And yeah, if laws are broken enough, maybe they should be softened! What's wrong with that? We all break the old "blue laws" all the time (need I bring up fornication again?). Times change, laws change with them. If a law is so ridiculous that most people feel fine about breaking it, then maybe it needs to change. Has the S&E forgotten that this is a democracy?

On we go!

Massachusetts laws already require judges to dismiss charges and seal the records of first-time offenders.

Most first-time offenders are now required to participate in substance-abuse education and community-service work.

Okay, I was wrong up above. There were a couple more facts that snuck in. Unfortunately it appears they're attempting to be used to suggest that the criminalization of marijuana possession is fine because first-time offenders can have charges dismissed. This happens after a period of probation, which the editorialist neglected to mention.

Regardless of how these facts were meant to be used, we can just say "yep, that's true" and move on. It's not like the editorialist actually used them to make a coherent argument.

Back to crazy!

It is important to know that the marijuana available today is much stronger than it was 30 years ago.

Actually, no. It's not at all important to note that. Even if it's true, it's totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Question 2 deals with decriminalization of up to an ounce of marijuana, not the potency of the pot. Could we stay on topic, please?

It typically contains nine times the amount of mind-altering THC and is twice as carcinogenic as tobacco.

Dammit, what did I just say?

Still, nine times the THC? What wondrous times we live in to get such good pot! Sadly, it's not true. The pot today is pretty much the same as the pot 30 years ago.

Also, it's good to know that smoking pot is equivalent to smoking two cigarettes. If someone smokes ten joints that's like smoking a pack of cigarettes, cancer-wise! And if they do that every single day for multiple years it could be a problem!

But nobody smokes 10 joints a day, every day, for years and years. That would be insane. Studies have shown no connection between marijuana use and cancer. So why even bring up the carcinogens?

Oh, scare tactic. Right.

They don't really care about the health risks of smoking pot. It's not a health issue to them at all, really. It's a criminal issue. This talk of health risks is just meant to make marijuana seem more dangerous than it actually is.

We're starting to approach the end of the editorial. Time for the writer to bring out his big guns!

Making possession of one ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense would serve to embolden drug dealers and prompt teens to think it's acceptable to use the drug.

Seriously? You're sticking with the lame "sending kids the wrong message" non-argument? I'm pretty sure "teens" don't base their judgment on the acceptability of using marijuana on whether it's a civil or criminal offense. Has the editorialist even ever met a teenager?

Also, "embolden drug dealers"? What the fuck? Question 2 has nothing at all to do with drug dealers. No laws about dealing are changing. It's about possession, not selling. Drug dealers will be no more or less bold if this question passes than they were before.

But hey Mr. Editor, you're on a roll. You've provided not one valid argument against Question 2. Could you maybe vomit out some more irrelevant and/or discredited talking points? Please?

Plus, marijuana often serves as a gateway to stronger and more addictive substances that destroy lives and families.

Thanks, that's perfect!

First, this is of course irrelevant to the issue of Question 2. Question 2 is not "is pot good or bad?", it's about how to properly deal with people who illegally possess it. Do we fuck up their lives permanently for a little pot, or use a lesser punishment?

This "gateway drug" nonsense has been around forever. You'd think people would stop using it, because it's such a ridiculously easy argument to debunk.

Here's how it generally goes. The anti-pot brigade brings out some scary junkie. Someone who's done every drug they could find, and committed any number of crimes to finance their drug habits. They then point out that this person started with marijuana.

Kapow! Marijuana leads to heroin junkiedom!

But it doesn't. You can't work backwards. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in this country. So chances are that if you're someone who does less popular illegal drugs (like heroin, crack, etc) at some point you've probably also used marijuana. You're even more likely to have used the terrible gateway drug of alcohol, which of course should also be banned!

Of course most people who use marijuana don't go on to use anything else. Just like most people who drink alcohol don't go on to use other stuff. There's no causative link at all.

Hey, remember back when this editorial was dealing with facts? I miss those days.

Oh well, one more sentence to go. What's their coup de grace?

Decriminalizing marijuana amounts to an endorsement of substance abuse, and we do not support it.

That's not even an argument. It's just a lie. Well, the bit about endorsement is. They're probably not lying about not supporting it.

First off, nobody endorses substance abuse, you fucking moron. Even beer commercials--which explicitly endorse substance use--don't endorse substance abuse. Learn the difference.

Second, making marijuana possession a civil rather than a criminal offense doesn't even endorse substance use. It changes the penalties for something that remains illegal.

Let's say that somehow mail fraud had picked up the death penalty as its usual punishment. If you mail fireworks, you get executed. If they then change the law so that the penalty for mail fraud is a steep fine, that doesn't mean anybody endorses mail fraud. It just means that the original punishment was unnecessarily harsh.

It also doesn't mean people (or "teens" or whatever) are going to suddenly go out and commit mail fraud because the penalties aren't as bad anymore.

Question 2 is about changing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana from being something that can ruin your entire life to something that will be a pain, but not ruin your life. That's it.

It won't increase drug use, it won't bring society to its knees. It'll stop some of the harm that's done to people in the name of the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which is truly just a war on the American people.

The gobshites at the Sentinel won't recognize this, of course. But they're clearly not operating in the real world. For those of us who are, voting YES ON 2 is a good idea.

The Idiotic Drug War And The Idiots Who Cheer For It

It's a damn holiday. I wanted to do some quick little post about nothing of importance. Maybe snicker at something stupid someone said accidentally or whatever it is I try to pass off as humor around here.

Sadly, this was not to be.

You see, the Fitchburg Police Department has decided that instead of doing something valuable with their time they should devote a whole lot of effort to busting low-level drug dealers.

So some people are probably having a slightly more difficult time getting pot than they did a week ago. Don't you feel safer already?

To make matters worse, they're talking about all this asset forfeiture bullshit. If you're not familiar with it, asset forfeiture laws basically allow the cops to steal the stuff of anyone in any way related to a drug offense. It's abused basically as a matter of policy.

So yeah, I'm not behind this current pointless law enforcement theater. But as anyone familiar with them should already know, the editors of the S&E love it.

Their editorial is entitled New approach against drug crimes will make a difference, which is both unsupported by the facts and laughably naive. Shocking, isn't it?

Let's look at some idiocy:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating drug offenses like the serious crimes they are, and stop coddling drug addicts, who by definition are criminals.

Oh fuck you, editorialist! This "drug addicts are by definition criminals" argument is the oldest and stupidest argument in the prohibitionist's arsenal.

Fornication is illegal in Massachusetts. If you have sex before marriage, you are by definition a criminal. So we could just as easily change the above to say:

For literally years now, we have been saying that police and prosecutors, along with city officials and judges, need to start treating fornication like the serious crime it is, and stop coddling fornicators, who by definition are criminals.

Shit, they probably actually do think that.

The point is, just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Apparently the big-government Republican assholes behind this editorial like having the government legislate their morality, but the rest of us can do just fine without the help, thanks.

Also, hey assholes, drug addicts are NOT criminal by definition. The vast majority of people with a drug problem use only legal drugs (alcohol, mostly). So let's stop with the bullshit argument already.

Whatever. Moving on:

DeMoura said that any property where a drug dealer has been arrested will receive a letter addressed to the landlord or listed owner warning them to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity.

DeMoura said if no action is taken by the landlord then the owner can be fined between $100 and $1,000, imprisoned for between three months and one year, or the house can be seized.

There's our friend asset forfeiture again.

Don't misunderstand what's going on here. The landlord is being told to evict or eject any tenants that are committing illegal activity. If they don't do this, they face fines, imprisonment, or even the seizure of the house. Even though they had nothing at all to do with the alleged crime, the landlord could suffer serious repercussions.

Why do they do this?

Well, courts have a funny way of considering you innocent until you're proven guilty. I'm sure the S&E doesn't back that either, but that's the way it is. Landlords, on the other hand, aren't bound by that (though they may be bound by the lease).

An arrest took place on their property. That's not a conviction, that's an arrest. It could all be a big mistake. The landlord still has to do the eviction thing, apparently. And they have to evict anyone who's "committing illegal activity." Man, I hope nobody has any speeding tickets!

How, pray tell, is the landlord supposed to know if someone's committing illegal activity? Most people make an effort to keep their illegal activities pretty quiet. But hey, the police don't care about your fancy "rights" and other liberal claptrap. They care about intimidating your landlord into kicking you out of your home, even if there's no basis. Better yet, if your landlord is the principled sort who doesn't want to go along with it, they can fuck up his/her life seriously. Hooray for our great protectors!

But if you ask the S&E, those great protectors aren't worth a damn unless they also punish, punish, PUNISH the already-presumed-guilty!

As important as the actions taken this week are, it's just as important that judges set high bails in these drug cases, and then implement strict sentences when a defendant is found guilty.

Likewise, city officials, working with our Statehouse delegation, should do everything they can to rid the city of Fitchburg, and particularly Main Street and the downtown -- of non-profits that cater to drug addicts.

Oh yeah, and that's who the real guilty party is! It's non-profit organizations that make an effort to help people with substance abuse problems! Those fucking assholes, with all their compassion and their "helping your fellow man"!

It's long past time to get serious about fighting drugs and to throw these failed treating the criminal like a victim or client policies out the window.

There's your final sentence of the editorial. It's a garbled sentence, but the message is clear.

Do you have a substance abuse problem?

Well then, according to the Sentinel you don't have a medical problem, you are a problem. You're not sick, you're a criminal. The system isn't corrupt, you are. And they'll do everything they can to influence asshole cops and spineless lawmakers into ruining your entire life.

We need to take this power away from the cops and the lawmakers (the editorialists are already impotent, they can whine all they like). For now, make sure you vote for Question 2, and help move us in the right direction.

This stupid war on drugs helps nobody. It's just the way that moralizing nitwits like the S&E's editorialist get their rocks off. They clap and giggle when people's lives are ruined. And for what? Because some people like to put things in their body that the government doesn't like.

That's it. That's what people go to jail for.

Time for the government and the police to face reality. Understand that people have always taken mood-altering substances. Get over it. Decriminalize it. And let's start helping those who suffer instead of making everything worse.

Once again, irrational fear hurts everyone...

There are a lot of things wrong with this country's prohibitionist "War on Drugs." Too many to go into here, really. Prisons full of nonviolent pot smokers, the creation of a highly lucrative black market, and a system that does far more harm than good to the very people it claims to be protecting are just a few examples.

A far more insidious problem, though, is the reframing of drug use/addiction as a criminal act instead of the health issue it actually is. And guess what? We have some of that right here in Fitchburg!

The Sentinel just ran an oddly-titled article called Treating local addicts? that addresses the way some city councilors are "concerned" about the possibility of a medical practice specializing in addiction treatment opening on Summer Street.

The medical practice in question is described by its founder, Dr. Punyamurtula S. Kishore, like so:

"We are an enhanced primary care facility," Kishore said. "Everything is integrated, from people who have diabetes, to patients that need a check up and others who are addicted to alcohol, we help everyone."

Wow, scary stuff! And indeed, looking over the website for his group sure is terrifying!

I mean, they offer creepy programs like "Weight control and smoking cessation programs," "Physical exams and health assessments," and a "Home Detox Program." Someone quick, hide the children!

Speaking of which:

[S]ome City Councilors are concerned about the location of the facility, being blocks away from St. Bernard's High and Elementary Schools.

"It's right next to a school," said Councilor at-large Annie DeMartino. "I'm shocked they want to put one in there."

Umm, yeah. Because a doctor's office is totally a threat to schoolchildren who may be in the general vicinity. People seeking medical care certainly can't be allowed anywhere near children!

Oh, but this isn't about people seeking medical care, is it? No, it's about "addicts."

The word "addict" (as used by the Sentinel headline) conjures the image of a junkie shooting up in an abandoned building, so they're scary. And scary people should be kept away from children, right?

You see, in this country we don't talk about people with addictions as being people with a health problem. No, they're dangerous criminals! Never mind that the vast majority of people with addictions (which is probably about 95% of the country, to one thing or another) are no danger to anyone. Never mind that "addiction" usually doesn't involve anything illegal. Never mind that the people who'd be coming to this doctor's office are people seeking help. Let's just be ignorant and freak out about all the scary addicts!

Thomas Conry goes along with DeMartino's illogical fears and expresses concern at the location, but takes it one particularly ill-informed step farther:

Thomas Conry, an at-large councilor, said he has "very serious concerns" about the facility.

"I believe that people have to be treated, however I feel Fitchburg has enough of those types of practices now," he said.

Apparently Thomas Conry is in no way familiar with the medical landscape of this area.

This is a primary care facility with a specialization in addiction medicine we're talking about. Fitchburg has a serious dearth of primary care providers (as does most of the country).

In fact, the state is currently sending questionnaires to local doctors in an attempt to assess whether Fitchburg should be categorized as a "Low Income Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA)." Generally such assessments aren't undertaken unless the people involved are pretty confident they're going to qualify. Having seen the dearth of new providers coming into the area, I'd be shocked if we don't.

Additionally, the low income population of Fitchburg (and several surrounding towns) has been categorized as a "Medically Underserved Population" since 1996. (This information is easily found at http://muafind.hrsa.gov/, though I can't link to it directly.)

Now, those classifications are specific to "low income" populations, but don't read that to mean those of us with a bit more money have a good situation. While it's definitely more difficult for a low-income person to find a provider, that problem is made worse by there not being enough doctors to go around.

Low-income patients mean low reimbursement for the doctors who care for them, so many doctors try to limit their numbers. The poor also tend to have more medical problems than wealthier people, which means they take up more time and resources. Yet the reimbursement (especially from Masshealth/Medicaid) is extremely low compared to people who can actually afford reasonable insurance. So from a doctor's business perspective it's unwise to let the percentage of low-income/crap insurance patients in your practice get too high.

Without enough primary care providers in the area, the low-income people get hurt first, because it's not in the doctor's best interest to see too many of them. With the ridiculously ill-conceived Massachusetts "universal" health care sham now in effect, that's going to get even worse. And unless more doctors come into the area, it's going to move up the chain until nobody can find a doctor (it's already a tough thing to do around here).

Anyway, back to the Councilors.

DeMartino seems to harbor an irrational fear. Conry shares it and heaps on a big pile of ignorance. Now we get Norman Boisvert to take it to the next level of dumb:

Ward 2 Councilor Norman Boisvert said he doesn't know the specifics of the plan, but said he doesn't think Fitchburg should be attracting addicts to the city.

"There are ample places for the addicts to go," he said. "If we bring another center in, that's more addicts into our city, what we should be doing is running them out of town."

Hey, guess what Norm? There are already plenty of people with addictions living in this area! They fucking need treatment to help them get over these addictions! We wouldn't be attracting busloads of those scary meth-heads you picture, we'd be helping people in the community to deal with their addictions without having to drive to Worcester to do so. So they'd, you know, get better!

But apparently instead of helping people in town to get better, Boisvert thinks the right thing to do is to "run them out of town." Congratulations, Norm! You're a giant idiotic asshole!

You know, Hillcrest Nursing Home is right in the same part of town. Some of the patients there suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, and could at times be classified as a danger to themselves or others. Let's run them out of town too! And certainly let's not let them stay near the school, what if an old person gets out and does something crazy?

It seems like the only City Councilor on the record as having any understanding of medical care is Jody Joseph:

Ward 6 Councilor Jody Joseph, whose ward the facility would be located in, defended the practice.

"It's a doctor's office, that's all it is," Joseph said. "One of the things he does is treat addictions, but it's not going to be a methadone clinic."

Joseph said people are rushing to judgment on the practice.

"People have made it into a horror show, when he's really just a general practitioner for people that don't want to go to a detox center," Joseph said. "It's for the average person."

Right on, Jody!

Joseph is quite right. People have gotten this false idea of what an "addict" is from television and the Drug War propaganda campaigns. But most people with an addiction are very much "the average person."

Smoke cigarettes? Drink too much? Eat too much? Too many lottery tickets? Four cups of coffee a day? Get stuck on painkillers after an operation? Take a medication that's addictive at its normal dosage? Or yes, even have a problem with illegal drugs?

Congratulations, you have an addiction. Norman Boisvert wants to run you out of town, and others on the city council fear you.

Meanwhile, intelligent and well-respected people like Dr. Kishore want to help you improve your life. Which would improve the lives of those around you. Which would improve the city.

And of course having a new business and some more primary care providers in a city that desperately needs both wouldn't be so bad either.

Hopefully the city council will figure out at some point that their constituents are not their enemy, that they don't need to be afraid of everything, and that helping people with problems actually helps all of us.

But don't hold your breath.


[Update: January 9th]
The suckass newspaper ran an editorial opposing the practice opening. Conry, DeMartino, and Marcus DiNatale spoke against it at the ZBA hearing. And the fools at the ZBA turned down the zoning change required to open it. So it's dead.

So we've lost an opportunity for a business to open (while simultaneously costing that business $100k), lost the chance to bring some much-needed primary care doctors into the area, and showed everyone that we're an ignorant little shithole town*.

Way to go.


*In fact, Fitchburg is not an ignorant little shithole town. But is it any surprise that we get characterized that way when this is how we present ourselves?