« Jeff Lipshaw: Things You Ought To Know If You Teach Contracts | Main | The Huge, Obvious Problem with the Law »
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A Different Kind of K-2 High
I saw an interesting article out of Ft. Wayne, Indiana today about K-2, a synthetic herb that is sold for aromatherapy purposes and as incense but is also "marketed" to teens as a way to get high (supposedly it has marijuana-like side effects--but see below--and has a much more powerful high than THC, marijuana's active ingredient). K-2 was originally created in 1995 by a chemistry professor named John Huffman, for the potential treatment of nausea and glaucoma and as an appetite stimulant. The recipe for Huffman's compoud was allegedly published in a scientific journal, where manufacturers in Korea and China adapted it and turned it into a liquid that is sprayed onto a herbal blend. The creator of the active ingredient used in K2 warns that side effects can include hallucinations and delusions, elevated blood pressure, vomiting and even seizures. These side effects are not typical for marijuana users.
K-2 is banned in most of Europe. Some states such as Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Kentucky have banned the substance. Legislation is pending in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee, and Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York are considering bills to outlaw K-2. It is still legal in other states, including Indiana. Ft. Wayne is considering a bill to ban the sale and use of this substance; it is currently sold in several local gas stations and is sold as incense. Stores in Texas and Oklahoma, however, only sell to patrons over 18.
Opponents are saying that K-2 is a safe alternative to alcohol. Last month, however, someone crashed his car into a private home after smoking K-2 and said that he saw a "3-D cartoonish character" before the accident.
It seems a "no-brainer" to me that if marijuana is illegal, then synthetic substitutes for it should be as well. It's strange to look at these issues from a parent's perspective--I'm glad my kids are all under the age of 3 (one of the few contexts in which I can say that!).
Posted by Jody Madeira on July 28, 2010 at 01:39 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0133f2a36d40970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Different Kind of K-2 High:
Comments
Thanks for the helpful link, James. I do agree with you that we are only now starting to unravel the agendas of fear and claims-making behind the "war on drugs"--but it is proving difficult to unravel them completely because, as you say, they are intertwined with racial and socioeconomic biases (the crack scare comes to mind). They are now part of popular culture.
I certainly didn't intend those sorts of connections through my anecdote of the guy getting into the accident--I meant it a comment that perhaps the K-2/alcohol analogy is more complex than many K-2 proponents have asserted. As you point out, using them to begin with might be inviting somewhat of a slippery slope. I think, however, that the larger problem is how one argues against them. I've been looking at other types of coverage on K-2, and it's interesting that news articles most often report by pitting anecdotes against one another--one guy say hallucinations, while another merely got hungry. It sort of devolves into a "did not...did so" type of banter. And yet, we keep indulging in it.
It will be interesting to see whether states critically evaluate the harmful potential of K-2 or simply criminalize it on the basis of its similarities to marijuana. I'm betting on the latter, because of the hold that the "war on drugs" still has upon our politicians, who see it as a part of their "tough on crime" stance. That's part of what I meant by "no-brainer." The other part was most certainly my personal reaction that some sort of action needs to be taken on it. I personally think K-2 sounds more troublesome than marijuana; it seems that there are many "imposter" substances out there, and those forms could have worse side effects than normal.
Posted by: Jody | Jul 31, 2010 1:38:22 AM
"So perhaps many stories consist of "bullshit"--but what exactly are "real facts" or "evidence"? Objectivity itself is a social construction. "Real facts" or "evidence" are concepts that need to be interrogated and evaluated in the same critical manner as we evaluate anecdotes and determine whether they are credible or not."
...Okay then... I guess no one can really argue with that...
Evaluating our stories, sense-making, or whatever you want to call it is fine. I've certainly been critical of your postings. But for what it's worth, this is a serious issue on which there has been serious discussion and even some scholarship. As I mentioned earlier, a casualty of the War on Drugs is that such discussion and scholarship is chilled at best and censored at worst.
I am coming down a bit hard on anecdotes, I'll admit that. But there's a reason for that. You mentioned that you were "curious as to whether or why there's been groundswells in some areas but not in others." This reminded me of a post on EconLog by David Henderson (link: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/some_simple_ana.html). It was about Joe McNamara, a former police chief in Kansas City and San Jose. McNamara was also a student of sociology who did his dissertation on the origins of the drug war.
His conclusion, according to Henderson, "was that there was not some major outbreak of drug problems that led to illegalization." That's because we're not making these decisions based on sound facts and arguments. We're making them based on anecdotes, and we have been for the last 80 years. The use of anecdotal evidence allows for all types of distortions, inaccuracies, and biases. For one, racial biases -- many sociological interpretations of the beginnings of the drug war pin "why it caught on in some places but not in others" to the varying degrees of racial hatred and oppression in those areas.
From your original post:
"Some states such as Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Kentucky have banned the substance. Legislation is pending in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee, and Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York are considering bills to outlaw K-2."
Seems like most of these states are in the Deep South. Hmmmmm.
Posted by: James | Jul 28, 2010 6:18:56 PM
I agree there are certainly better methods of proof than anecdotes, but this does not stop us from using them freely and frequently througout each day. Swapping stories with one another is one of our primary means of sense-making. So perhaps many stories consist of "bullshit"--but what exactly are "real facts" or "evidence"? Objectivity itself is a social construction. "Real facts" or "evidence" are concepts that need to be interrogated and evaluated in the same critical manner as we evaluate anecdotes and determine whether they are credible or not.
I do agree that the analogies between K-2 and marijuana or alcohol may be helpful, but the anecdote about the guy who smoked K-2 and hallucinated before his accident is actually very relevant to the analogy between K-2 and alcohol. It helps shed light on whether the side effects of the two substances are similar. Incidentally, nearly all of the information on K-2's side effects begin as anecdotal evidence; the difference is that people report them to doctors compiling lists of symptoms and not the media reporting a story.
There was absolutely a normative bent to the article as well...I'm glad that I don't have to worry about teenagers purchasing "incense." Whether or not these substances are regulated, criminalized or simply left alone, their use--particularly by children--does merit concern.
Posted by: Jody | Jul 28, 2010 5:55:04 PM
"Anecdotes have always been traditional methods of proof and sense-making; in the absence of studies on K-2's effects, anecdotes are particularly compelling."
Anecdotes have always been traditional methods of bullshitting, in the absence of real facts or evidence.
I guess you'll have to forgive me for interpreting a normative bent to the article. "I'm glad my kids are under 3" sounds a lot like "Won't anyone think of the children!?"
As for why K-2 is analogized to marijuana or alcohol, I'd say that such analogies are a better form of "proof and sense-making" than anecdotal evidence. Analogies allow us, by isolating similarities and differences of this substance to other less controversial substances, to isolate the issues at stake. Sort of similar to legal reasoning, really...
Posted by: James | Jul 28, 2010 5:28:36 PM
Ah--but I did not intend my post to open up the debate on criminalizing marijuana, or K-2, or any such substance; merely to question why it had not already been criminalized. Thanks to the "war on drugs" culture, lawmakers tend to react very quickly to respond to constituent concerns on these types of issues. I'm curious as to whether or why there's been groundswells in some areas but not in others.
I think that there is little doubt that K-2 is harmful--it certainly does not sound that good for you. Then again, alcohol, cigarettes and other legal substances are harmful in many senses but they are still legalized. The difference between K-2 and alcohol/cigarettes is that the media is analogizing it to "marijuana", implicitly labelling it as belonging in the "illegal substance" category. I'm always curious why substances such as K-2 have to be analogized to either marijuana or alcohol. Why can't it be its own thing?
Following up on this point, the anecdote about the car crash underscores the fact that K-2 does not appear to be a particularly safe alternative to alcohol. Anecdotes have always been traditional methods of proof and sense-making; in the absence of studies on K-2's effects, anecdotes are particularly compelling.
Posted by: Jody | Jul 28, 2010 5:07:03 PM
"It seems a "no-brainer" to me that if marijuana is illegal, then synthetic substitutes for it should be as well."
This type of thinking is a good example of another incidental cost of the War on Drugs. Instead of having a rational debate on criminalizing the substance, we unthinkingly ban it in order to be consistent with prior declarations. Never mind that the policies we are trying to be consistent with are totally wrong-headed. Never mind that we don't really know if the substance really is all that harmful (or if it is, whether or not it could be regulated instead of criminalized). These options (even these discussions) are off the table, because "if marijuana is illegal, this must be illegal."
"Last month, however, someone crashed his car into a private home after smoking K-2 and said that he saw a "3-D cartoonish character" before the accident."
I understand that this is the Internet, but if you're just going to spout anecdotes, why even bother to waste your time writing on a blog?
Posted by: James | Jul 28, 2010 4:29:13 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.