Medical Marijuana and Cerebral Palsy
Jacqueline Patterson was born with cerebral palsy, a congenital disorder that affects her motor functions. As a result of her condition, she suffers from a severe stutter and major pain and weakness on her right side. This video showcases the amazing effect of cannabis on her condition.
I will never understand those who use their religious beliefs to fulminate against marijuana use. Forget the hypocrisy with regards to not only “allowing” alcohol, a far more addictive and dangerous substance related to millions of deaths per year, but actually partaking in it as part of religious services. The bigger cognitive dissonance to me is how they can feign to be agents of their God’s love, grace, and compassion when they deny those who suffer from finding relief in a completely natural plant. Do they believe that their God would prefer that they imprison the sick who use marijuana instead of showing a bit of sympathy and tolerance with regards to the non-violent consumption of a natural herb?
The Huffington Post's Ryan Reilly notes that President Obama “has pardoned almost as many turkeys as drug offenders,” which is pretty appalling but actually understates how bad Obama’s clemency record is. All of the 11 drug offenders pardoned by Obama had completed their sentences years before, while the 10 turkeys he has pardoned (counting the two today) escaped their “sentences” entirely. Obama has not done anything comparable for any human beings, and he has shortened the sentence of exactly one drug offender, even though he and his attorney general concede that thousands are serving unfairly long prison terms.
If we limit the analysis to offenders whose punishments have been reduced by Obama, his ratio is 10 turkeys to one person. Another enlightening comparison: Attorney General Eric Holder’s recently announced change in charging practices, if fully implemented by federal prosecutors, could result in shorter sentences for about 500 drug offenders each year. That’s just 2 percent of all the federal drug offenders who are sentenced each year, but it is still 2,500 times as impressive as Obama’ commutation record.
Reilly also gives the president too much credit when he says “Obama has granted the fewest pardons of any modern president.” The truth is the Obama has pretty much the worst clemency record ever. He granted fewer pardons and commutations in his first term than any other president, except for George Washington (who probably did not have a lot of applications during the first few years of the nation’s existence) and two presidents, William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who died shortly after taking office. This year he issued 17 additional pardons. But judging from numbers compiled by P.S. Ruckman Jr., a professor of political science at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois, that did not improve Obama’s standing. Compared to other presidents who served two terms, he is still doing abysmally bad. He makes Richard Nixon look like a softie.
Cops in New Mexico repeatedly sprayed a woman’s vagina with mace after she was arrested for drugs. They allegedly did this to “punish” her.
God damn the state of New Mexico. It has really gone to hell after Governor Johnson left office.
This is the same New Mexico police recently in the news for anally probing men and women against their will.
When an organization claims a monopoly on force, grants itself the “authority” to harass innocents for even the most minor victimless offenses, and - through the unholy partnership of unions and government - mostly inoculate the members of that organization from retribution for their misdeeds, then it follows that said organization would be attractive to the kind of sick bullies who would enjoy such power.
Prohibitionists typically deny the very possibility of responsible or voluntary use of currently illegal substances. They argue that drugs such as coke, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamine and even marijuana are verboten precisely because they simply can’t be used casually. Any use either already constitutes abuse or quickly leads to it. “Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal,” former drug czar William Bennett and former Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano wrote in a 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “they are illegal because they are dangerous.”
Nearly 50% of people have tried an illegal drug at least once, yet most don’t repeat the experience. With cocaine, most who have tried it not only don’t go on to became addicts under even the most expansive possible definition of the term, they don’t even go on to become regular users.
According to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 14.5% of Americans ages 12 and older have tried cocaine at least once, but just 1.8% report using the drug recreationally in the past year. And just 0.6% have used it in the past 30 days, which would seem to be the minimal definition of a casual user.
The same pattern is true for heroin, which is typically talked about as magically addictive. Fear of the drug is surely one of the reasons why just 1.8% of Americans have ever tried it at all. But only 0.3% report using it in the past year and just 0.1% in the past month. That pattern simply shouldn’t be possible if these drugs were as addictive as commonly thought.
In the early 1970s, researcher Lee N. Robins led a study commissioned by the Department of Defense that followed tens of thousands of Vietnam War veterans as they returned to the U.S. Use of narcotics and heroin was rampant among soldiers stationed in Southeast Asia, with as many 20% showing signs of addiction. Yet during the first year back, “only 5% of those who had been addicted in Vietnam were addicted in the U.S.” and “at three years, only 12% of those addicted in Vietnam had been addicted at any time in the three years since return, and for those readdicted, the addiction had usually been very brief.” It wasn’t for lack of access to junk, either: half of the returning addicts said they’d tried heroin at least once since arriving back home.
As my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum has documented, such take-it-or-leave-it findings are common in drug research. In his 2004 book Saying Yes and other places, he’s detailed work in which researchers find a surprising range among heroin users, including a study that concluded, “It seems possible for young people from a number of different backgrounds, family patterns and educational abilities to use heroin occasionally without becoming addicted.”
It’s also true that regular drug users can often function quite well. Sigmund Freud used cocaine habitually for years, and his first major scientific publication was about the wonders of the drug (he eventually forsook it). Another pioneering late 19th and early 20th century man of medicine, William Halsted, was dependent on cocaine and morphine during an illustrious career that revolutionized and modernized surgical techniques.
None of this is a brief for snorting cocaine, shooting heroin or smoking marijuana (a substance that 58% of Americans think should be legal for recreational use) any more than it is a plea for drinking single-malt whiskey or pinot noir.
But in an age in which we are expected to use legal drugs (like beer) and prescription medications (Adderall) responsibly, it’s time to extend that same notion to currently illegal substances whose effects and properties are widely misunderstood. Indeed, the effects of coke, heroin and the rest are a mystery partly because their outlaw status makes it difficult both to research them and have honest discussions about them.
Report: Thousands of Nonviolent Americans Sentenced to Life in Prison Due to War on Drugs and Mandatory Minimums →
The ACLU released a new report this week examining the growing trend of judges sentencing nonviolent offenders to life in prison without parole. The ACLU found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the War on Drugs, mandatory minimums, and “tough-on-crime” policies are to blame.
The report, A Living Death: A Life Without Parole for Nonviolent Offenders, profiles 110 of the 3,278 inmates currently serving their life sentences for nonviolent crimes. Most of the offenders were charged with crimes like possession of small amounts of drugs or petty theft. …
In addition to the inmate profiles—which are a horribly depressing, but worthwhile read—the report discovered several interesting facts about life without parole (LWOP) in the US.
The Number of LWOP Sentences Has Been Growing For Decades
Offenders serving life without parole, whether violent or not, has been one of the most rapidly growing populations in the prison system. According to the report: “The number of people sentenced to LWOP quadrupled nationwide between 1992 and 2012, from 12,453 to 49,081.”
LWOP Is Due to the War on Drugs, Mandatory Minimums, and Other “Tough on Crime” Policies
Nearly 80 percent of non-violent LWOP offenses are for drug crimes. Among the cases the ACLU surveyed, 83 percent of offenders were placed there because of mandatory minimums or three-strike laws—in other words, the judges had no choice. As the ACLU said:
The prevalence of LWOP sentences for nonviolent offenses is a symptom of the relentless onslaught of more than four decades of the War on Drugs and “tough-on crime” policies, which drove the passage of unnecessarily harsh sentencing laws, including three-strikes provisions…and mandatory minimum sentences.
There Are Racial Disparities
Like most aspects of the criminal justice system, there are stark racial disparities in life without parole sentences. Sixty-five percent of LWOP inmates are black, while in some states the disparity is even higher. In Louisiana, 91 percent are black. In the federal system, blacks are 20 times more likely to be sentenced to LWOP than whites.
This Is A Uniquely American Problem
The US is part of the mere 20 percent of countries that even offer LWOP sentences. And of those countries, the vast majority “place stringent restrictions on where they can be issued and limit their use to crimes of murder.” As a result, the US’s LWOP prison population dwarfs that of other countries’. According to the University of San Francisco’s report on U.S. Sentencing Practices in a Global Context, the US’s LWOP population is 51 times greater than Australia’s and 173 times greater than England’s.
Seventeen years after California legalized medical marijuana, the critics’ concerns about unleashing uncontrollable drug use and accidents and violence have not materialized.
In one respect, the opponents were right: The program is so lenient that getting medical marijuana is easy for anyone claiming a medical need, from chronic pain to insomnia to anxiety. A CNN reporter said it took him 20 minutes to get the required card and recommendation from a doctor, with no physical exam. Some physicians advertise their willingness to certify patients for cannabis.
So the effect is pretty close to legalizing pot for all adults who want it. But the apparent consequences of this outwardly drastic change amount to a non-event.
As The New York Times reported Sunday, “Warnings voiced against partial legalization — of civic disorder, increased lawlessness and a drastic rise in other drug use — have proved unfounded.” By now, there’s a stack of research indicating that allowing therapeutic use of cannabis has had no notable ill effects.
One fear was that the law would encourage kids to smoke weed by suggesting it’s not dangerous. But a study of California and other states by D. Mark Anderson of Montana State University, Benjamin Hansen of the University of Oregon and Daniel Rees of the University of Colorado Denver reached the conclusion that “the legalization of medical marijuana was not accompanied by increases in the use of marijuana or other substances such as alcohol and cocaine among high school students. Interestingly, several of our estimates suggest that marijuana use actually declined.”
Another risk was that the state would be overrun with stoned motorists weaving randomly down the highways, wreaking death and destruction. But the same scholars, in a separate investigation of medical marijuana states, detected just the opposite effect: a reduction in overall traffic fatalities of at least 8 percent in the first year.
They suspect that some people switch from alcohol to cannabis — and that pot smokers are either less likely to drive while impaired or, if they do drive, are less likely to crash.
The epidemic of crime that cops expected failed to materialize. The state’s crime rate has fallen by nearly 40 percent since 1996, and violent crime has been cut in half.
I recently posted a video news story (see here) about a slightly built man with Down’s Syndrome who had his colostomy bag ripped from his body (and suffered a beat-down by police) because they believed the bulge that was his colostomy bag contained “illegal drugs.” A couple weeks ago, a man in New Mexico was subjected to multiple forced anal probes, enemas and a colonoscopy (see here) because cops believed he was harboring “illegal drugs” in his clenched butt cheeks.
Such atrocities could perhaps be dismissed if they were aberrations – the actions of isolated, crazed cops in some cracker backwater. But they are terrifying because they’re becoming routine – because crazed – and unrestrained – policing is now the norm.
The origins of the American Police State can be traced back … to the odious “drug war.”
The war on some drugs is actually a war on reason as well as ethics – with the inevitable casualties being human beings, not the “drugs” allegedly being warred upon.
It is based on the twisted notion that some people (government people, whether they are politicians or bureaucrats or their paid enforcers) are entitled to arbitrarily decree that some “drugs” (but not others, the ones they happen to approve of) are – presto! – “illegal” and that mere possession/use/sale/manufacturer (all peaceful activities as such that entail no victim, hence no crime) is sufficient warrant to eviscerate not merely the Bill of Rights but human rights. This demented crusade justifies random rousting of anyone, at almost any time, anywhere, if a cop (or a got-damned dog) believes that person might have the arbitrarily illegal item in his possession. …
It requires a blank-out – the suspension of one’s critical thinking capacity – to take the position that, on the one hand, the meth-maker is a dirty drug pusher who is responsible for the negligent or criminal actions of his customers … but the wine maker is a respectable member of the community and not responsible for the negligent or criminal actions of his customers.
Of course, neither of them “pushed” anything.
They each made an intoxicating substance and offered it for sale. Neither forced anyone to purchase or consume the intoxicants. People freely chose to do so. And their subsequent actions – their free will choices – are not the responsibility of the persons who made the intoxicants any more than GM is responsible for what I do with the 200 MPH-capable Corvette they sent me to review. …
This is why we have forced anal probing – and thugs in costumes ripping the colostomy bags from the side of mentally handicapped people. Because of the unwritten coda that people who partake of socially unacceptable, arbitrarily illegal “drugs” are an open-season class of subhumanity.
The headline of the latest Gallup Poll on the subject says it all: “For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana.” Fully 58 percent of respondents agreed that “the use of marijuana should be made legal.” Not decriminalized, medicalized, or any other weasel-worded synonym to keep the squares and the cops and the addiction-industry lobbyists from getting the vapors and reaching for a legal chill pill. Legalized. This year’s figure represents a massive, 10-point bounce from last year and an even longer, stranger trip from 1969, the first year Gallup popped the question, when just 12 percent said pot ought to be sold like beer, wine, and alcohol.
The only voters by age that still just say no are folks 65 years and older, and no matter how regularly they vote, they’re facing the harshest buzz kill of all, the one imposed by the conqueror worm. They will be replaced over time by cohorts of pot-friendly citizens. Despite the continuing presence of ardent drug warriors such as Joe Biden, who effectively created the drug czar’s office, Gallup finds fully 65 percent of Democrats say yes to legal pot. So do 62 percent of independents, the single-largest bloc of voters in the U.S. A shamefully low 35 percent of Republicans are in favor of ending marijuana prohibition, but they will either change their tune on this issue or fade away into obscurity …
All it took was annually arresting as many as thee-quarters of a million Americans for simple possession of weed and conducting 50,000 SWAT raids a year by poorly trained, armed-to-the-teeth cops who seem more likely to shoot your dog or bust into the wrong house as nab your friendly neighborhood drug kingpin. And an economic downturn that suddenly made the $50 billion we spend a year on direct costs for the drug war finally seem too steep a price (never mind the incalculable and disproportional toll paid by minority families and communities). Depressions and recessions—not to mention ballooning budget deficits and mounting national debt—really help make the case for limited government.
It helped, too, that California voters first passed a medical marijuana law in 1996 and the idea—approved by about 80 percent of Americans—has since spread to 19 more states and the District of Columbia. No real trouble has ensued (unless you are a chronic pain patient living in a non-medical marijuana state) and use rates among kids or anyone else haven’t jacked up. And it’s helped that 48 percent of Americans ages 12 and older have tried an “illicit drug” (the government’s preferred term) at least once in their lifetime, overwhelmingly without becoming addicted or even using the substance again. Then there’s the last three presidents of these United States, all of whom are known drug users. Indeed, Sen. Barack Obama even yukked it up publicly about how inhaling “was the point,” not long before setting a record for busting medical marijuana dispensaries as president.
For all these reasons and many more, the war on pot is over. A large majority of Americans favor legalizing it and that’s not going to change. No politician is going to ever again gain votes or win an election by talking tough about pot.
And make no mistake: There is no war on drugs without the war on pot, which is the only illegal drug that anyone uses with any frequency. According to the government’sown stats, 7.2 percent of Americans cop to having smoked pot in the past 30 days, an imperfect but rough measure of regular use. The 30-day-use figures for other illegal—sorry, illicit—drugs are almost too small to measure: 0.1 percent for heroin, 0.2 percent for crack, 0.2 percent for methamphetamine, 0.1 percent for LSD, 0.2 percent for ecstasy. The only other substances that even top one percent are “nonmedical use of psychotherapeutics,” a category that includes prescription painkillers such as Oxycontin and Vicodin and anti-anxiety drugs such as Xanax. Even when bundled together, just 2.6 percent of Americans misuse prescription drugs in a given month.
Who supports keeping the drug-war gulag open to punish the 0.1 percent of acid eaters left in America, or even the 2.6 percent of sad-sack pill addicts? Lord knows we are slow to wisdom, but we’ve finally realized that prohibition exacerbates all the ills it’s supposed to prevent and only makes substance abusers less likely to seek treatment (who wants to admit to being a criminal on top of a junky?). The only question left—and it’s not a small one, for sure—is the one Secretary of State John Kerry asked as a Vietnam protester: Who’s going to be the last man to die for this mistake?
As in so many other urgent situations, Barack Obama’s widely praised ability to whip up sweet-and-sticky word-clouds of rhetorical cotton candy has abandoned him. In late August, nearly a year after Colorado and Washington state voters overwhelmingly rejected federal marijuana prohibition and legalize cannabis at the state level, the Obama Justice Department finally issued vague guidelines that kinda-sorta said that the feds wouldn’t prosecute producers and consumers of medical and recreational pot in states that had legalized such activities.
Unless, that is, the feds felt they should. As Tom Angell, the head of Marijuana Majority, told my Reason colleague Jacob Sullum, “My optimism is tempered by the fact that despite the Justice Department’s 2009 announcement that it shouldn’t be a priority to bust medical marijuana providers operating in accordance with state law, this administration went on to close down more state-legal marijuana businesses in one term than the Bush administration did in two terms.”
But who knows? As he struggles in his second term to fashion an unambiguous, unambivalent legacy, perhaps Obama will embrace the end of the drug war as his signature achievement, one that will surely outlive any political accomplishment of the 21st century so far.
Last week, news wires, blogs and pundits lit up with the horrifying story of David Eckert, a New Mexico man who last January was subjected to a series of invasive and degrading drug search procedures after a traffic stop. The procedures, which included x-rays, digital anal penetration, enemas and a colonoscopy, were all performed without Eckert’s consent.
Eckert was pulled over by Deming, New Mexico Officer Bobby Orosco for making a rolling stop at a stop sign as he was leaving a Walmart parking lot. According to a subsequent search warrant, Orosco thought Eckert appeared nervous. A drug dog was called in, which alerted the officer to Eckert’s seat. The officer then claims he received a tip from another, unnamed officer that Eckert had previously hidden drugs in his anus. (Eckert apparently has a prior record.) Based on all of this, the police officers were able to get both Deputy District Attorney Daniel Dougherty and a local judge to sign off on all the humiliation that followed. (According to the original report, the hospital then sent him a bill for the “services,” and has since threatened to send a collection agency after him).
Days later, a second resident of New Mexico came forward with similar allegations. Timothy Young says that after a traffic stop in October 2012, he too was subjected to x-rays and a digital anal exam without his consent. New Mexico news station KBO-TV was first to report both incidents, which were performed by physicians at the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, New Mexico. In both cases, doctors and police failed to find any illegal drugs.
A third alleged victim has since come forward, although this woman says her anal and vaginal searches, x-rays and CAT scans came courtesy of federal border patrol agents, and without a warrant.
These incidents raise troubling questions about how the criminal justice system and medical establishment could allow for such extreme and invasive measures based on such little suspicion for nonviolent drug offenses. Oddly, according to constitutional scholars and medical ethicists I’ve consulted, the indignities imposed upon Eckert and Young were both illegal and unethical. And yet it also may be that (a) none of the law enforcement officials or medical personnel responsible for the violations are likely to be held accountable in any way, and (b) they could probably do it all again tomorrow, and still wouldn’t likely be held accountable. …
Some courts have determined that these were violations of rights — and perhaps more, or even the Supreme Court, will follow. But the bubble of infallibility we’ve built around the public officials we entrust to respect and protect our rights means that our rights can be horribly, egregiously and illegally violated … but the illegal part only really matters on paper. At worst, taxpayers will compensate the victims, but the violators will survive to violate another day. …
Take a few steps back, and it’s rather astonishing that we’re even discussing this. These men were sexually assaulted, and not really even under the color of law. If we’re actually discussing whether government actors can or should be held accountable for digitally penetrating a suspect’s anus, then subjecting him to multiple enemas, then forcibly sedating him and shoving a camera up his rectum, whether they should be able to legally require medical personnel to assist them, and all in pursuit of evidence of a nonviolent, consensual crime — we’re already far, far removed from a system that takes justice or constitutional rights very seriously.
Police subject man to forced anal cavity search, enema, & public defecation — all because he was suspiciously "clenching his buttocks." →
This is real life.
A New Mexico man named David Eckert was pulled over by police after he rolled through a stop sign while leaving Wal-Mart. Apparently, during the traffic stop, the police determined Eckert was — and this is completely serious — holding his butt in a weird way. A local judge agreed that clenching one’s buttocks is grounds for a search warrant, and off they went to the hospital for a cavity search.
The first hospital visited is apparently still interested in that whole “do no harm” part of being a doctor and refused to perform the invasive procedure. Eckert had no such luck at the second establishment. Here’s what happened next, step by indecent step:
1. Eckert’s abdominal area was x-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2. Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3. Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6. Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7. Doctors then x-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8. Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found.
Throughout this ordeal, Eckert protested and never gave doctors at the Gila Regional Medical Center consent to perform any of these medical procedures.
Needless to say, Eckert is suing the pants off — no pun intended — of everyone and anyone in connection to the police department in question, which has only commented to maintain that its officers “follow the law in every aspect.”
Cavity searches are a favorite boogeyman raised by us anti-government types. It seems the boogeyman has come to life.
Another incident of the war on drugs empowering cops to fulfill the tyrannical fantasies that made many of them want to join the force in the first place.
In their 2012 book Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know, Jonathan Caulkins and three other drug policy scholars identify the impact of repealing pot prohibition on alcohol consumption as the most important thing no one knows. Are cannabis and alcohol complements, so that drinking can be expected to increase along with pot smoking? Or are they substitutes, implying that more pot smoking will mean less drinking? For analysts attempting to calculate the costs and benefits of legalizing marijuana, the question matters a lot, because alcohol is considerably more dangerous than marijuana by most measures. If the two products are complements, states that legalize marijuana can expect to see more consumption of both, exacerbating existing health and safety problems. But if the two products are substitutes, legalizing marijuana can alleviate those problems by reducing alcohol consumption.
Reviewing the evidence in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Montana State University economist D. Mark Anderson and University of Colorado economist Daniel Rees find that “studies based on clearly defined natural experiments generally support the hypothesis that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.” Increasing the drinking age seems to result in more marijuana consumption, for instance, and pot smoking drops off sharply at age 21, “suggesting that young adults treat alcohol and marijuana as substitutes.” Another study found that legalizing marijuana for medical use is associated with a drop in beer sales and a decrease in heavy drinking. These results, Anderson and Rees say, “suggest that, as marijuana becomes more available, young adults in Colorado and Washington will respond by drinking less, not more.”
That conclusion is consistent with earlier research in which Anderson and Rees found that enacting medical marijuana laws is associated with a 13 percent drop in traffic fatalities. That effect could be due to the fact that marijuana impairs driving ability much less dramatically than alcohol does, although the fact that alcohol is more likely to be consumed outside the home (resulting in more driving under its influence) may play a role as well.
We all know how routine it is for cops to kill dogs. Not this time…
….because it was [the cop’s] dog conducting a bizarre and pointless fifth grade exercise in educating/scaring them on “how cops find drugs on you.”
Officers intended to demonstrate that drug-sniffing dogs can detect even the smallest amounts of an illegal substance on an individual. They assembled a row of students, planting a small amount of illegal drugs on one boy.
Brazil Police Chief Clint McQueen told the Times that the dog, Max, and his handler, Ray Walters, have conducted these types of demonstrations uneventfully before.
“It was an unfortunate accident,” McQueen said. “Wish it hadn’t happened like that but it did. We are trying to evaluate (the incident) to make sure nothing like this happens again.”
The classroom demonstration was carried out ostensibly to educate the group of fifth graders “on drug awareness.”
As the dog approached the group of students, one boy abruptly flinched away from the dog, causing it to lunge and bite him on the leg.
Note the apologetics in that last statement. What “caused” the dog to lunge and bite the boy? Not the violent training it received. Not the so-called “war on drugs” that criminalizes peaceful behavior and empowers the violent. Not the boneheaded demonstration on children coordinated between the cops and the school. It was the boy, who naturally flinched when an aggressive animal with sharp teeth charged him, who “caused” the attack.
Because, of course.
More Americans want to legalize marijuana than think President Obama is doing a good job (44%), want to keep or expand Obamacare (38%), favored attacking Syria (36%), support a 20-cent gas tax increase to pay for infrastructure (29%), or like the Republican Party (28%). And legal marijuana has more than five times as many supporters as Congress does (11%).
… the researchers “used immunohistochemistry to measure the expression of a protein called c-Fos, a marker of neuronal activation, in the nucleus accumbens, or the brain’s ‘pleasure center,’” they found that “the Oreos activated significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine.”
Note: the effect on addictiveness from dunking said Oreos in milk or separating the cookie from the “creme” were not studied.