You've been warned that marijuana could turn you into a dickhead, but you didn’t listen. Now MTV Canada has raised the stakes with the frightening news that marijuana might cause brothers to make out with each other.

The video must be seen to be believed.

Now I know what you're thinking. This is just another outlandish scare tactic, so far removed from human experience that it will serve only to amuse its target audience. Well make jokes while you can, hippies, because it won't be funny anymore when there are pictures of you all over Myspace making out with your brother.

Besides, now that they're lacing the marijuana with even stronger marijuana, you could be hooking up with your mom right now and not even know it. So don't tell me these ads are unrealistic. You're being unrealistic if you think you can smoke pot recreationally without supporting terrorists, eating your own hand, losing your girlfriend to an alien, turning into a dickhead, and getting it on with your family.

The editors at USA Today attempt to tackle student drug testing on the Opinion page, only to become hopelessly confused and fail to form an opinion:

Advocates of testing say it gives students a powerful reason to say no to peer pressure…

Critics are just as passionate, arguing that the tests are invasive and expensive, and that studies show testing doesn't deter drug use. In truth, data conflict, and both sides can point to studies that back their position.

What's missing is definitive research that would allow schools to make confident decisions balancing costs against benefits.

In truth, the debate over drug testing research is utterly fake and contrived. When the largest study ever on student drug testing -- funded by NIDA -- found that it didn’t work, drug testing proponents/profiteers (they're often the same) fired back, criticizing the methodology. Under attack from the very people who hired them, the authors responded with further research and achieved the same result.

USA Today's arbitrary dismissal of authoritative data is frustrating, but they're equally skeptical of smaller studies cited by drug testing proponents. One wonders, then, why they're calling for more research when they're already overwhelmed by the data.

Moreover, the practice of collecting urine from students on a massive scale is itself so objectionable that great weight should be given to any indication that the program's value is dubious. To place the burden of proof on those who oppose visually-monitored urination is absurd.

Update: After writing this but before posting it, I noticed this excellent piece by Marsha Rosenbaum, which ran in the same edition. If USA Today's editorial can be understood as an attempt to debate her, they've certainly done so without much conviction.