Sleep deprivation has been a watchword in health discussions in recent years, but a new analysis overturns the idea that we're all zombies.

Americans get about 8 hours of sleep a night, possibly more in recent years, according to the University of Maryland study, which counters annual polls conducted by the non-profit National Sleep Foundation that show we get only 7 hours nightly or less. The foundation, however, is funded in part by drug companies that make sleep aids.

The new study, based on telephone surveys and time-use diaries collected jointly the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, as well as time-use diaries collected by UM researchers, also finds Americans average as much sleep nowadays as they did 40 years ago.

"Lots of people might feel like they're on a 24/7 treadmill," said study leader John P. Robinson, a UM sociologist. "But the picture of the typical American as sleep-starved is not consistent with what they report in their time diaries."

The average amount of sleeping time for adults increased about 3 hours per week in the past decade, up from 56 hours (8 hours/night) to 59 hours (8.4 hour/night), said Robinson, whose UM colleague Steven Martin noted he is cautious about that increase and is waiting to see if it holds up in the long-run.

The researchers also warned that the results should not be used to minimize the problems faced by people with insomnia or truncated sleep.

The study, "Not So Deprived: Sleep in America, 1965-2005," was announced last week. The latest version is unpublished. An earlier version was presented at the International Association of Time Use Researchers meeting in October 2007 and detailed the same month in an online magazine Public Opinion Pros. (The magazine posted its final issue in December.)

Different approaches
The UM study and the Sleep Foundation's latest report agree that our jobs are the main reason we get less sleep than we might hope, but the research methods for each study differ.

The UM study's federal data — telephone surveys conducted annual between 2003 and 2005 of more than 37,000 adults ages 18 to 64 who described their activities the previous day, hour-by hour — were compared with data from time diary research collected by Robinson between 1965 and 2001 at roughly 10-year intervals. The number of people studied at each interval ranged from 1,200 to 10,000.

In contrast, the latest figures from the Sleep Foundation are based on telephone interviews conducted between September 2007 and November 2007 with a targeted random sample of 1,000 Americans at least 18 years old and working 30 hours a week or more for pay. That study found subjects got an average of 6 hours and 40 minutes of sleep per night on weeknights.

The Sleep Foundation's subjects were employed whereas Robinson's study included employed and unemployed subjects. "That may cut the difference down a few hours, but I don't think it's going to make all the difference," Robinson said.

The Foundation has no historical data across the decades, as Robinson does, but Sleep Foundation board member Christopher Drake questioned the time-use methodology used by the UM team.

"The time estimates that [Robinson] gets for sleep are probably somewhat of an overestimation because of the fact that in those estimations of sleep, they include things like insomnia, tossing and turning, lying awake, counting sheep, I could go on," said Drake, a clinical psychologist and sleep researcher at the Henry Ford Hospital Sleep Disorders and Research Center, in Detroit, Mich.

Robinson stood by his estimate. "The hours are there," he told LiveScience. "It still could be that people are not sleeping well, maybe getting up in the middle of the night and not reporting it, but I don't think it's likely to make much of a difference."

 

By Melissa Schorr

She has color-coded folders to organize her take-out menus and bills. Clear containers to stash her toddler’s toys. A fridge with condiments neatly in a row.

Welcome to the world of a compulsive neat freak.

“I do drive myself crazy,” confides Donna Sullivan, a mother of two and a part-time accountant in Scituate, Mass. “Sometimes I wish I wasn’t like this. But when I come in and everything is clean, I feel calmer. I think that’s why I do it.”

Call them neat freaks or clutter-phobes — the types who lament their house is a total mess if one coffee table book is slightly out of place. Experts say the desire for neatness runs along a spectrum, from finicky Felix Unger-types with a need for control to those with a truly life-hampering disorder, such as TV’s Adrian Monk, the obsessive-compulsive detective.

“It’s who I am,” says Perri Kersh, owner of Neat Freak Professional Organizing in Chapel Hill, N.C., who was dubbed “neatest” by her high school classmates and, at age 4, carried around an imaginary device for organizing ties. “I don’t think anyone who knew me would be surprised to know what I do for a living.”

Our attitude toward neatness is likely shaped during childhood, from parents who frown on messy rooms to picture books like “The Cat in the Hat,” with its implicit message against trashing the house.

Those who take it to the extreme as adults often have taken that message too far, associating neatness with a quality required to be a good person, says Amie Ragan, a clinical psychologist in Birmingham, Ala., who runs the blog Psychology of Clutter.

Clutter-phobia may also be programmed into certain people’s genes, since extreme cleanliness likely once conferred a survival advantage by warding off germs, disease and death.

"Anxiety has evolutionary value — it keeps us alert and vigilant,” says psychotherapist Tom Corboy, director of the OCD Center of Los Angeles. “The problem is people can develop this over-the-top anxiety to things that don’t deserve it, like knickknacks on a shelf.”

When it crosses the line into pathology, psychologists say, is when it begins to negatively affect your life. “It’s a problem when your need for constant order causes you extreme distress or problems in your relationship,” says Ragan.

Kersh says she hasn’t gone that far.

“I don’t think I’ve moved into the pathological side,” she laughs. “I’m not an obsessive hand-washer.” Instead, she sees hanging onto too many possessions as the true hang-up. “It’s just stuff, it’s not our memories, it’s not who we are. You’ve got to let go or you’ll be living in a storage unit.”

'It's not just putting up cool shelving'
In her quest for complete clutter control, Kersh and her family even underwent a “six-month experiment in buying nothing.” (Necessities excluded.) “We were so used to saying, `I want it, I’m going to go get it.’ Now, we’re very conscious of what we consume.”

Kersh believes anyone can rid their lives of clutter, but it requires commitment. “It’s not just putting up cool shelving,” she says. “It takes work.”

Erin Doland, editor-in-chief of the blog Unclutterer and a contributor to RealSimple.com, was once an amateur hoarder, saving everything from college T-shirts to ticket stubs, until her husband laid down the law. “I started purging, and it felt so good I kept going,” she recalls. “I went from one extreme to the other. Everything went.”

Today, she stacks her shoes in plastic tubs, has a firm re-gifting policy, and snaps digital pictures of sentimental items before tossing them in the trash.

Before her transformation, Doland says her clutter weighed on her. “I always felt like there was a cloud hanging over me,” she says. “Now, I can say, if something doesn’t have a purpose, why is it in my home? And I think that’s healthy.”

As she and her husband prepare to adopt a baby from China, they have already sat down the grandparents for a stern chat about limiting the influx of toys.  “The kid’s not going to grow up in some minimalist bubble,” she says, “but we want to limit the insanity.”

After being on the receiving end of too many gifts that weren’t being used, Doland entered an agreement with her in-laws to re-gift any unwanted items with no hard feelings. “We started by talking about clothes that didn't fit and moved into other gifts that didn't necessarily ’fit’ either,” she says.

Kersh believes in taking a firm line against becoming a storage facility for your relatives’ castaways. That means not feeling obligated to inherit your grandmother’s set of china when you already have one. “You could host a dinner party for 60! Who’s going to do that?”

But when neat freaks and slobs must live under one roof, compromise is key. Kersh has inspired her once-messy husband to organize his dress shirts by color, while he has forced her to let the dirty dishes wait until after their Saturday morning stroll. “He’s helped me relax,” she admits.

Closer to God?
Still, conventional wisdom holds that neatness is the “morally superior” choice.

“Neat people are generally conscientious — they pay attention to order, think before they act. These are the people you want in the air traffic control tower,” explains Sam Gosling, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Texas in Austin and author of the upcoming book “Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You.”

But while most of us tend to think well of someone who is tidy, assuming that they are more considerate than their peers, that’s not necessarily the case. Gosling, who dubs this misperception the “Mr. Rogers factor,” did research that found neat people are no more likely to be kind or sympathetic than their messier counterparts.

David H. Freedman, co-author of the book, “A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder,” argues that extreme neatness does have some drawbacks.

One, he says, is the loss of creativity. “If you make your environment very neat, you’re making everything predictable,” he says. “You will lock out bad things — you’re less likely to be late, things are less likely to spill or break — but you’re also locking out luck.” That messy desk or kitchen is more conducive to making the random connection that could lead to a scientific breakthrough or a new recipe.

Another, surprisingly, is time. True, messy people waste time rummaging for their keys. But, Freedman says, neat people spend all their time constantly putting things away throughout the day, while those who let things pile up and tackle them in one chunk save precious minutes in the long run.

“I’ve had hundreds of people tell me about neat freak habits, and not a single one has denied suspecting there is something a little wrong with them,” Freedman says. “People who are neat are helpless to be otherwise — they’re prisoners of it.”

Even the clutter-phobes admit their strategy can backfire. “I have one regret,” Kersh says. “Getting rid of this awesome pair of brown elk skin cowgirl boots.”

Melissa Schorr is a Boston-based freelancer who has written for the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe Magazine, Reuters Health, Working Mother, Self, GQ and People. She is the author of the young adult novel "Goy Crazy."

 

NEW YORK - Athletes who take human growth hormone may not be getting the boost they expected.

While growth hormone adds some muscle, it doesn’t appear to improve strength or exercise capacity, according to a review of studies that tested the hormone in mostly athletic young men.

“It doesn’t look like it helps and there’s a hint of evidence it may worsen athletic performance,” said Dr. Hau Liu, of Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., who was lead author of the review.

Growth hormone, or HGH, is among the performance enhancers baseball stars Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte were accused of taking in the blockbuster Mitchell Report. Clemens denies using the hormone, while Pettitte admits using it.

But the new research has some limitations and sheds no light on long-term use of HGH. The scientists note their analysis included few studies that measured performance. The tests also probably don’t reflect the dose and frequency practiced by athletes illegally using the hormone. Experiments like that aren’t likely to be conducted.

“It’s dangerous, unethical and it’s never going to be done,” said Dr. Gary I. Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a spokesman for the American College of Sports Medicine.

Consequently, those in the field have to depend on such reviews or “what we hear on the ground,” he added.

Human growth hormone is made by the pituitary gland and promotes growth. A synthetic version has been available since the 1980s and its use is restricted for certain conditions in children and adults, including short stature, growth hormone deficiency and wasting from AIDS.

Although banned for other uses, growth hormone has been used by a variety of athletes and was cited along with steroids as one of the performance-enhancing drugs abused by baseball players in the report in December by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell. Several athletes, including Pettitte, have said they used HGH while recovering from an injury, an issue not covered in the review.

“There are a lot of claims that it’s this wonder drug,” said Liu.

Wadler said one of the appeals of growth hormone for athletes is that it can’t be detected in a urine test. A blood test will be available soon, and another is in development, he said.

“They think they are getting a free ride — they aren’t getting a drug test,” he said. “They believe they are stronger and bigger.”

Liu and his colleagues at Stanford University sought to find out if growth hormone really could improve performance. They looked for the best published tests, those comparing participants who got the hormone to those who didn’t get the treatment.

They analyzed 27 studies involving 440 participants. The results were released Monday by the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Researchers found that those who got the hormone put on about 5 pounds more of muscle, and lost about 2 pounds more of fat, although the fat loss wasn’t statistically different. The researchers said some of the extra body mass could just be fluid buildup.

There was no difference found in strength or exercise stamina between the two groups, but there were only two strength studies and eight that measured exercise. Those who got the hormone had more side effects including swelling and fatigue.

The review couldn’t consider long-term effects, since the longest study was three months, and most were much shorter.

The researchers also said the doses used in the research may be lower than those used by athletes, who may be combining growth hormone with other performance-enhancing drugs.

Dr. Alan Rogol of the University of Virginia and the Indiana University School of Medicine, said the work was a good review but had to rely on inadequate research.

“There are just tons of things we don’t know,” said Rogol.

The California researchers had support from Stanford, government agencies and Genentech Inc., which makes growth hormone; none of the groups had a role in the study. Two researchers also have been consultants or received grants from Genentech and other drugmakers.

 

LONDON - Inhaling diesel exhaust triggers a stress response in the brain that may have damaging long-term effects on brain function, Dutch researchers said on Tuesday.

Previous studies have found very small particles of soot, or nanoparticles, are able to travel from the nose and lodge in the brain. But this is the first time researchers have demonstrated a change in brain activity.

“We can only speculate what these effects may mean for the chronic exposure to air pollution encountered in busy cities where the levels of such soot particles can be very high,” said lead researcher Paul Borm from Zuyd University.

“It is conceivable that the long-term effects of exposure to traffic nanoparticles may interfere with normal brain function and information processing.”

Borm and his team put 10 volunteers in a room filled with exhaust from a diesel engine for one hour and monitored their brain waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG). The level of fumes was similar to that found on a busy road or in a garage.

After about 30 minutes, brain wave patterns displayed a stress response, suggesting changes in information processing in the brain cortex.

Further research is needed to determine the clinical effect of this stress and whether it has any long-term impact on verbal and non-verbal intelligence or memory abilities.

Still, the result appears to be another black mark for nanoparticles found in traffic fumes, which have already been linked with increased rates of respiratory and cardiovascular disease.

The study was published in the journal Particle and Fibre Toxicology and is available online at http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com.

 

I GRADUATED from the Dickinson School of Law of Pennsylvania State University in 1999. Then I got a clerkship, which should have been the first step in a great law career.

But I was addicted to Vicodin, a prescription medication for pain relief, and was taking up to 50 pills a day. In feeding my habit I broke the law and went to jail and had my law license suspended. For the last three years, I’ve been working my way back, thanks to two law partners who have given me a chance. I hope to have my license to practice law in Pennsylvania reinstated one day.

I think I had addictive tendencies even as a child. When I would get codeine pills for tooth pain, I’d save a few for a rainy day. I even asked my dentist for laughing gas for a cleaning. A month before I was to graduate from law school, I found some Vicodin at the house of a friend whose father was in the medical field and took a few sample packs. No one even noticed they were missing.

I was preparing for the July bar exam, and I found I could study for hours with the pills. I started ordering them over the Internet from a doctor affiliated with a pharmacy in Texas.

Soon I was taking 30 pills a day and using cocaine once in a while. I remember thinking, “At least I’m not hooked on coke; then I’d be a real addict.” The only time I thought I might have a problem was when I went to Europe after graduation. I called the pharmacy from a pay phone in Spain to make sure I had pills waiting for me when I got home. That made me wonder — for about a second.

After passing the bar, I was a clerk for the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Then the doctor who prescribed my pills was indicted and I was desperate. By then I was taking 40 pills a day.

I got a drug manual and learned what I needed to know to impersonate a doctor and call orders into pharmacies. I completed a second clerkship, but by then my addiction consumed all my time. The first time I was arrested for prescription fraud, in 2002, I spent 48 hours in jail. I entered a rehab program at my family’s urging, but I went in with drugs, I left with drugs, and I took drugs the whole time.

In 2003, I was arrested again on the same charge and was ordered to undergo rehab. It didn’t work that time, either. When I got into trouble yet again, the judge got fed up and gave me a sentence in county jail. I’d rather not dwell on the negative. What’s important is that I have turned my life around.

I mark Jan. 29, 2004, my first day in jail that time, as my first day of sobriety. J. David Farrell, from Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, a nonprofit organization that assists lawyers, visited me that day. My family had given up on me, but he convinced them and me that treatment could help. He stuck with me the whole time I was in jail.

When I was released, I went to Caron, a drug and alcohol treatment center in Wernersville, Pa. That program changed my life. For five years, I hadn’t functioned one day without pills. I learned how to live without drugs. Then Dave found me this job.

The partners here are extremely supportive. They trust me because Dave believes in me. Every year on the anniversary of my “clean” date, we have a cake. I can’t work directly with clients while my license is suspended, but under the partners’ supervision I can help on cases. I can also use what I’ve learned about addiction to help others.

I tell clients who have been in motor-vehicle accidents and are taking pain pills to be careful because they could become addicted. One client said he was depressed and drinking a lot, so I took him to a self-help meeting. I’ve never had a drinking problem, but I go to support group meetings for both drugs and alcohol. To me, a drug is a drug.

I heard one of the partners telling this man that the two of them would have to go out for drinks sometime. Later I took the partner aside and said, “You have to be careful who you say that to.” He was grateful.

That I’m helping people now amazes me. One couple was about to be evicted from their apartment after the woman had a bad fall. She couldn’t work, and they fell behind in their rent. I helped with their settlement. They stopped in to see me afterward and said I had no idea what a difference I had made in their lives. Another man sent me flowers and found me at my gym to thank me personally. He had tears in his eyes.

I also volunteer with Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. I got a call the other day to contact two lawyers in trouble because of drugs. If anyone had told me five years ago, in the middle of my addiction, that I’d be doing what I am today, I wouldn’t have believed him. I’m lucky to be alive after my drug use, and I’m living proof that there is life after felonies.

As an addict, I can’t predict tomorrow. But for today, I am not putting those pills in my mouth. Nothing tastes as great as freedom.

As told to Patricia R. Olsen.

 

'Charlie Bartlett' prescribes the right pharmaceuticals for the right symptoms but gets a drug reaction that's off.
March 24, 2008

"Charlie Bartlett"; MGM Pictures and Sidney Kimmel Entertainment; release date Feb. 22.

The premise: Charlie Bartlett (played by Anton Yelchin) has been kicked out of several private schools before he enrolls in a public high school. He sets himself up as the resident "psychiatrist," dispensing advice and prescription drugs from a stall in the boy's bathroom. Charlie obtains these medicines (which include the antidepressant Zoloft, the antianxiety pill Xanax and the stimulant Ritalin) by first reading up on psychiatric diagnoses and then feigning the classic symptoms on visits to a psychiatrist, who prescribes them. Charlie treats his fellow students for conditions that include depression and panic attacks and, at one point, dispenses Ritalin at a party, causing his fellow students to become excited and uninhibited (the girls remove their blouses). But fellow student Kip Crombwell (Mark Rendall) overdoses on Charlie's sedatives and has to have his stomach pumped (vomiting is induced and charcoal administered to absorb the drugs) in the ER. Soon afterward, Charlie reforms his behavior.

The medical questions: How common is prescription drug abuse among teens? Where do most kids get the drugs? Does Ritalin, a stimulant, remove inhibitions? Do most teens who abuse or misuse prescription drugs grow out of it or is this behavior predictive of drug dependency for adults?

The reality: The growing abuse of prescription drugs among America's youth has been well-documented. About 2.1 million teens abused prescription drugs in 2005, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. One out of five high school seniors used prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons over the last year, according to Partnership for a Drug-Free America. And the number of teens going into treatment for prescription drug abuse of pain medication has increased by more than 300% during the last 10 years, says the federal Drug and Alcohol Services Information System.

Rachel Gonzales, an addiction researcher at UCLA, says many teens obtain the pills by feigning symptoms for physicians. Others get them through the Internet, by filching from other members of their family or from their peers.

The effects of antidepressants and antianxiety medications are described accurately in the film. Charlie's friends appear to be depressed and anxious, suffering from social anxiety, rejections and peer pressure. But without a physician's guidance, overdoses such as Kip's can happen easily.

Ritalin does make people hyper-alert, as the film suggests, but it does not generally remove inhibitions. If a group of teens took the drug at the same time, their actions would probably become accelerated and even grandiose, but they probably would not remove their clothes. Gonzales says that "pharm parties, where several different kinds of drugs are mixed together," are increasingly common, as the film shows.

As for the outlook for kids who abuse such drugs, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health has found that those who use prescription drugs nonmedically before age 16 are far more likely to develop a substance abuse dependence disorder later in life.

"Treatment for adolescent prescription drug abuse has not been proven to be effective," says Rick Rawson, professor of psychiatry and co-director of the Integrated Substance Abuse Programs at UCLA. "The film plays fast and loose, but this is a serious public health problem."

Dr. Marc Siegel is an internist and an associate professor of medicine at New York University's School of Medicine. He is also the author of "False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear." In The Unreal World, he explains the medical facts behind the media fiction. He can be reached at marc@doctorsiegel.com.

 

Internet addiction is a serious public health problem and should be officially recognised as a clinical disorder, a psychiatrist claims.

Dr Jerald Block says there are four main telltale symptoms which include: Losing all track of time or neglecting basics such as eating or sleeping; cravings and feelings of withdrawal, including anger, tension or depression, when a computer cannot be accessed; an increased need for better computer equipment and software; and negative effects such as arguments, lying, fatigue, social isolation and poor achievement.

Dr Block, of Oregon Health & Science University, makes his claims in an editorial for the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Dr Block claims too many hours spent online gaming, viewing porn or emailing can cause a compulsive-impulsive disorder.

He said: "Estimates of the prevalence of the disorder are lacking. Attempts to measure the phenomenon are clouded by shame, denial, and minimization.

"Unfortunately, internet addiction is resistant to treatment, entails significant risks and has high relapse rates."

He said of addicts: "The relationship is with the computer. It becomes a significant other to them.

"They exhaust emotions that they could experience in the real world on the computer through any number of mechanisms: emailing, gaming, porn.

"Computer use occupies a tremendous amount of time in their life. Then if you try to cut the cord in a very abrupt fashion, they've lost essentially their best friend.

"That can take the form of depression or rage."

British psychiatrists have previously reported in the journal Advances in Psychiatric Treatment that a "significant minority" - some estimate between five and 10 per cent of online users - are internet addicts.

While early research suggested that most are highly educated, introverted men, more recent studies suggest the main problem is among middle-aged women on home computers.

Dr Block referred to research on internet addiction in South Korea, which has the highest broadband use worldwide.

Ten people died from blood clots from staying seated for too long in internet cafes.

A 24-year-old man died after playing an online video game for 86 hours straight and another was murdered in a row over an online game.

The government there now considers internet addiction one of its most serious public health issues.

It estimates that 210,000 children are affected and need treatment, of whom 80 per cent might need drugs targeting the brain and a quarter could need to be hospitalised.

The average South Korean high school student spends about 23 hours per week gaming. Another 1.2 million are believed to be at risk of addiction and in need of counseling.

There has been alarm over the soaring numbers of pupils dropping out of school or quitting their jobs to spend more time on computers.

Similarly, in China 13.7 per cent of teenagers - around 10 million - are reported to be internet addicts.

 

Prohibition didn't work then; it isn't working now
By Jacob Sullum

The main disadvantage of "drug legalization" is the implication that the natural course of things, the default position, is for the government to dictate which substances people may put into their bodies. In 1933, when Americans were once again free to manufacture, buy and sell alcoholic beverages, people did not say that alcohol had been "legalized"; they said that Prohibition, an invasive, disastrous attempt to get between people and their intoxicants, had been repealed.

Americans understood the problems associated with alcohol abuse, but they also understood the problems associated with Prohibition, which included violence, organized crime, official corruption, the erosion of civil liberties, disrespect for the law, and injuries and deaths caused by tainted black-market booze. They decided that these unintended side effects far outweighed whatever harm Prohibition prevented by discouraging drinking. The same sort of analysis today would show that the harm caused by drug prohibition far outweighs the harm it prevents, even without taking into account the value to each individual of being sovereign over his own body and mind.

The problem is that our current prohibition has been in place for so long -- more than 90 years, compared with the 13 that the national alcohol ban lasted -- that people have trouble distinguishing between the costs of drug use and the costs of drug prohibition. Hence, they talk about "drug-related violence" when they should be talking about "prohibition-related violence"; they treat deaths caused by the unpredictable purity of black-market intoxicants as an inevitable consequence of drug use; they do not pause to consider why heroin addicts steal to support their habits much more often than alcoholics do; and they speak of drug users subsidizing terrorism, when in fact it's the government that subsidizes terrorism through the price-support program known as the war on drugs.

"Decriminalization" does not address any of these problems. As it's generally understood in this country, decriminalization amounts to treating users leniently while continuing to arrest, prosecute and imprison producers and sellers. In the states that have "decriminalized" marijuana, for example, possession of small quantities for personal use is generally a citable offense punishable by a modest fine. That policy is certainly an improvement over arresting pot smokers and putting them in jail, but it leaves the black market, with all its attendant problems, in place. What we call decriminalization is not even as tolerant a policy as the U.S. had during alcohol prohibition, when mere possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages, as opposed to manufacture and distribution, were not subject to punishment at all.

I also have a problem with the moral justification for decriminalizing drug use while continuing to imprison people for drug sales. If drug use is the evil the government is trying to prevent, why go easy on those who commit the offense but throw the book at those who merely assist them? Isn't that like punishing someone who sells a gun to a murderer more severely than the murderer himself? This inconsistency in the treatment of sellers versus buyers, which is widely practiced and supported by drug warriors, is a clue to the fact that the government is trying to prohibit something it has no business prohibiting.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist, is the author of "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use."