COM 0193.044 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Can you comment on the issue of crack babies? I have tended to be vary skeptical of crack baby findings. 1 have studied cocaine use in Jamaica, and have studied children exposed to crack pre-natally who are doing fine. 1 think the problem with crack is what happens after birth. The babies are often abused by mothers or others in the home; cocaine is just part of a terrible environment. Ironically, Rastas are the only group who refuse to participate in the cocaine trade. They think it's poison. Women use ganja to kick cocaine withdrawal; they use ganja during cessation to get enough of a comfortable anti-depressant feeling so that they don't have to use crack. Some start using what they call a seasoned spliff, which is a marijuana cigarette seasoned with crack. Having the pot in there seems to relieve the precipitous drop from the crack high to a paranoia which would otherwise force them to smoke crack immediately again. They are high enough on the pot and the crack drop doesn't make them crazy like it would if they were using crack by itself. The American government's approach to cocaine and ganja in Jamaica has been very counterproductive. The DRA finds it easy to see and go after ganja fields, but almost nothing is being done to stop cocaine, which is ravaging the country. It's very sad. I heard that political pressure influenced your subsequent research grants and the academic journal that you were going to publish your findings in. It did take us a while to get published. We had to do revisions that t thought were unnecessary. It would be hard to classify the request for us to do revisions as politically motivated. 1 just thought that these people who wanted the changes made haven't got a clue about Jamaica or ethnographic research. They went on vacation once to Jamaica and drew some incomplete conclusions. felt that the revisions suggested were often based on ignorance of Jamaican culture and prejudice against ganja. The same problems were evident in letters that the journal received after publication. The letters contained unfounded criticisms, and I had to explain that I was doing anthropological research that nobody else was doing. I wasn't measuring physiology with test tubes. I was measuring behavior, reporting how these women and their children acted. These babies are doing great. It wasn't necessarily due to marijuana, but pot-smoking mothers were apparently good mothers and the marijuana didn't appear to be hurting the babies. I have said repeatedly that I am not recommending that you smoke pot to have a healthy baby, but I am saying let's not castigate women who use a mild substance during pregnancy. After doing research in Jamaica funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) from 1988 to 1991, 1 submitted two follow-up proposals in 1993 and 1994 and got news that never ever do they want to see those proposals again. They had done one of the worst reviews of a proposals that I had ever seen. Really weak. o; 1 thought 1 should call NIDA and tell them this shows a lack of understanding of any type of unbiased research on the issues involved and what we're trying [o do. It was a damning review, misguided and misinformed. I have to think that this was due to a political consideration, not an honest review of my work. t I'm 55, in my 15th year as dean, 1 testified in a trial and the prosecution brought out that I was once on the board ofNORML, and involved with a group called POT (Patients Out of Time) and wrote an article for a 6