Drug Czar's Office Explains Why It Omitted Alcohol Data From Drug and Crime Report

U.S. Embassy of AfghanistanU.S. Embassy of AfghanistanIn response to two blog posts and several Tweets asking why a recent report on the "link" between crime and drugs omitted data regarding alcohol consumption, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy tonight explained its decision to withhold said data, why it feels the data wasn't significant enough to include, and where interested parties can find said data in the raw (short answer: at the moment, they actually can't).

Background: I first queried ONDCP Communications Director Rafael Lemaitre on Friday after I noticed that a report the ONDCP released on Thursday--the 2012 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Annual Report--included a question about alcohol use, but no data reflecting the answers. Answers to questions about illicit drug consumption, meanwhile, were dutifully reflected in tables. Lemaitre responded by accusing me of peddling a conspiracy theory. In response, I sent him a screenshot from the methodology section of the report with the germane question about alcohol circled in red. He then tried to tell me that the data wasn't relevant, and when I insisted on seeing it regardless, he ignored me. That was Friday. Today, I wrote a follow-up. Tonight, Lemaitre published a response on the ONDCP blog:

Last week, we released the 2012 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Annual Report (ADAM II), a long running study that reveals the percentage of arrestees in certain U.S. cities/counties testing positive for at least one illegal drug at the time of arrest....Typically, however, the annual ADAM report does not include findings about alcohol use. Why? Here are three reasons:

1. Simply put, the nexus between alcohol use and crime is already well documented....Moreover, there are already many other surveys that compare rates of legal drug use to illegal drug use....What’s harder to investigate, however, are emerging trends in illegal drug use – which fluctuate and shift more widely compared to alcohol - at the local level, and among a highly transient, often homeless criminal justice population.

2. The ADAM II study doesn’t test arrestees for alcohol in the first place. One of the primary characteristics that make the ADAM II survey unique is that it collects bioassay data (urinalysis) from arrestees within 48 hours of arrest (as opposed to larger surveys such as NSDUH that rely solely on a questionnaire). Since ADAM II only tests for certain illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines/methamphetamine, Darvon, PCP, benzodiazepines, methadone, and barbiturates), there are no data on positive alcohol results to report in the study.

As part of the data collection process, some questions are asked about alcohol use, but since the focus of the annual report is on the drug test results, the findings from the alcohol questions are not included in the report. However, in keeping with the scientific principles of transparency and accessibility and Administration policy, ONDCP makes the complete ADAM II raw data file available to researchers so they can conduct their own analyses. These raw data are available for previous years of ADAM data collection through the University of Michigan’s Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), a data warehouse used by many Federal agencies to make their data available to the research community. (Users must first register with the ICPSR and sign a user’s agreement, and more recent years data will be available there soon).

3. The primary focus of ONDCP is to reduce illegal drug use and its consequences. A component of the Executive Office of the President, ONDCP was created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (you can read our Congressional authorization here). Accordingly, ONDCP’s primary mission has focused on efforts to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.

Lemaitre continues to insist that because researchers did not test arrestee urine for alcohol, the number of arrestees who had five drinks or more in a sitting in the previous three, seven, and 30 days, as well as the last 12 months, is irrelevant. If that's the case, why did the firm the ONDCP contract with ask that question? 

The truth is that despite its narrow mandate, the ONDCP talks about alcohol quite a bit. On the same ONDCP blog where Lemaitre responded to my questions, there's a post instructing people to provide non-alcoholic drinks to guests at their Christmas parties; meanwhile, searching the White House site for alcohol and the ONDCP returns more than 16,000 results.

The ONDCP is more than happy to talk about booze when it's talking about recovery and treatment; but including data about alcohol consumption--data the ONDCP requested--in a report linking illicit drug use to crime would have been counter-productive.

And don't get me started on the fact that to get said data, you have to go to a third party, where you can only download raw data from as recently as 2010.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • juris imprudent||

    Alcohol isn't a drug, mm'kay. Alcohol is legal and therefore not so bad, but drugs are illegal and bad, mm'kay. You kids got that?

  • Paul.||

    Solution: Treat alcohol like all the other bad drugs.

  • WTF||

    Yeah, treat all drugs like alcohol.

  • Warrren||

    are you trying to convince me that government types lie and or are incompetent?

    Well, shame on you sir! Shame on you!

  • General Butt Naked||

    You know who thinks alcohol is a-okay?

    Gil. That's who.

    Look at that nose, that's the nose of a devoted gin fan.

  • playa manhattan||

    Nice work, Riggs!

  • Tman||

    ^^^ This.

    Kudos big time. Worth my admittedly measly donation anyways.

    "including data about alcohol consumption--data the ONDCP requested--in a report linking illicit drug use to crime would have been counter-productive."

    YOU MUST SUBMIT THE CORRECT Form, Mr. Riggs.

  • Mark22||

    The real problem here is that these people are using raw correlations to draw conclusions about causation and intervention. Nobody knows how drug use, alcohol use, and crime are linked. Actually, it seems far more likely that some common factor predisposes people for crime, drug use, and alcohol use. In that case, prohibiting drug use is going to be ineffective and may even increase crime.

    Unfortunately, a lot of "progressive" policies are based on such a misuse of data and correlations: gun control, crime prevention, environmental policies, climate policies, and worst of all, economic policies. Many of these interventions have really high overall societal costs, and we are paying the price for this lack of scientific rigor.

  • UnCivilServant||

    "prohibiting drug use is going to be ineffective and may even will increase crime."

    Even if only by virtue of the fact that you have created new crimes for possession and use.

  • sarcasmic||

    Laws that are not worthy of respect breed disrespect for the law in general.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Conspiracy theory? I am forever in awe that certain types are able to find work as spokespersons. This guy is someone's communications director.

  • WomSom||

    Sometimes dude, you jsut have to roll with it.

    www.GetYourAnon.tk

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    They forgot the most important one.

    4: It ruins the narrative.

  • Duncan20903||

    I think that this study conclusively proves that people who get arrested are willing to break the law.

  • RPF||

    ONDCP is not a credible.organization. The GAO has given them permission to lie:

    http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0312-06.htm

    WASHINGTON - March 11 - Responding to a request by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, yesterday gave the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy unfettered permission to mislead the public in the name of opposing "drug legalization."

    (...)

    In its March 10 response to Paul, the GAO declared, in essence, that the truth or falsity of ONDCP's statements is irrelevant. "ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for `taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use' of certain controlled substances such as marijuana," wrote GAO General Counsel Anthony Gamboa. "Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail." GAO's response: http://www.mpp.org/pdf/GAO_response_0304.pdf

    "Amazingly, the GAO has ruled that the truth simply doesn't matter in the so-called `War on Drugs,'" said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. "This is even more shocking than the simultaneous GAO ruling on the administration's Medicare ads. In that case they suggested the ads were perhaps in a gray zone, but here they are saying that accuracy is irrelevant and lying is not a problem. We believe the American public expects better from their government."

  • Paul Pot||

    But surprisingly no mention here of the other legal drugs also linked with violent crime.
    Anti-depressants have been linked to many school shootings yet there is no national discussion on the subject.
    And like the black-out on alcohol related crime stats there is also no correlating info between prescription drugs and violent crime.
    Having experienced clonazepam withdrawal I have no doubt at all that anti-depressants are responsible for many spree killings.
    Anti-depressants now what scares you.

  • niobiumstudio||

    WTF are they doing testing for Darvon (Darvocet) and Methadone? Darvon isn't even on the market in the US anymore and is weaker than Codeine. Moreover, it isn't really a recreational drug (of course anything COULD be used recreationally) and is a prescription drug. It is utter BS they are saying "this is for illegal drugs only" when they test for mostly legal drugs in the first place - most of them stupidly. While methadone CAN be a recreational drug, it is also prescription and very, very heavily monitored. All but the smallest doses have to be taken directly in front of a doctor or nurse so diversion is difficult or impossible in some locations. You also have to be actively in a treatment program to get methadone...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement