I hope we don't go backwards too far. Not at all would be nice.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
War On Drugs
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Morality and Non-Medical Drug Use
Morality and non-medical drug use | The BMJ
So long as others are not harmed, there are no moral grounds for restricting use of cannabis or heroin any more than alcohol or caffeine, argues A C Grayling.
Conservative moral attitudes are fruitful in causing social problems. The question of the use of drugs such as cannabis and heroin is a prime illustration of this fact. Arguably, neither the use nor the misuse of mind altering substances is a moral problem, though both, and especially misuse, can cause practical problems. But if in addition their use is criminalised, those problems are exacerbated and the cost to society balloons.
By “drugs” in what follows I mean opium and its derivatives, cocaine, various forms of cannabis, LSD, “ecstasy,” amphetamines, solvents, tranquillisers, and anything else people use to alter their states of consciousness and emotion, whether or not they become addicted to them.
Moral inconsistency
The list should also therefore include alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, but it usually does not. There are yet other substances in what we eat and drink that have narcotic, stimulant, or hallucinogenic effects—sugar, for example, in the stimulant class—but usually with milder immediate consequences (though perhaps with as great or greater longer term effects on health—again, as with sugar). But these too we do not outlaw.
The fact that only some drug use is regarded as morally opprobrious is a problem. Is it immoral to drink a glass of wine or put a lump of sugar in your tea? Hardly anyone would think so. If not, why is it immoral to put cannabis in your cake mix? Parity of reasoning says it is not.
…
A life of dependency on drugs—whether alcohol, heroin, or tobacco—is not such a life, and it seems a feeble and, in my view, disagreeable way to live. But, that one does not like drugs, or the thought of people living in dependence on them, is no ground for judging their use immoral, still less for criminalising them. It is only a ground for persuading, educating, and making your own different ethical choices.
Morality and non-medical drug use | The BMJ
So long as others are not harmed, there are no moral grounds for restricting use of cannabis or heroin any more than alcohol or caffeine, argues A C Grayling.
Conservative moral attitudes are fruitful in causing social problems. The question of the use of drugs such as cannabis and heroin is a prime illustration of this fact. Arguably, neither the use nor the misuse of mind altering substances is a moral problem, though both, and especially misuse, can cause practical problems. But if in addition their use is criminalised, those problems are exacerbated and the cost to society balloons.
By “drugs” in what follows I mean opium and its derivatives, cocaine, various forms of cannabis, LSD, “ecstasy,” amphetamines, solvents, tranquillisers, and anything else people use to alter their states of consciousness and emotion, whether or not they become addicted to them.
Moral inconsistency
The list should also therefore include alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine, but it usually does not. There are yet other substances in what we eat and drink that have narcotic, stimulant, or hallucinogenic effects—sugar, for example, in the stimulant class—but usually with milder immediate consequences (though perhaps with as great or greater longer term effects on health—again, as with sugar). But these too we do not outlaw.
The fact that only some drug use is regarded as morally opprobrious is a problem. Is it immoral to drink a glass of wine or put a lump of sugar in your tea? Hardly anyone would think so. If not, why is it immoral to put cannabis in your cake mix? Parity of reasoning says it is not.
…
A life of dependency on drugs—whether alcohol, heroin, or tobacco—is not such a life, and it seems a feeble and, in my view, disagreeable way to live. But, that one does not like drugs, or the thought of people living in dependence on them, is no ground for judging their use immoral, still less for criminalising them. It is only a ground for persuading, educating, and making your own different ethical choices.
ddp7
Banned
From my humble point of view we should remove the law terms(like "drugs") bc those terms dont allow a clean debate( My a priori position is no conservative but not full liberty).
Then debate( or sociological debate) could be about the implicit ideas,social behaviours and emotions that usually are argue for the differents political positions.
In this sense Humberto Maturana(Phd like you) said: The basis of our reasons is emotion and emotion is defined as a behavior that allow me do somethings and no others things at the same time.Its behavior formula.( sorry for the translate and paraphrasis).
And you know what? My goal would be write another version of Anabolics,but in a sociological way.Yea,this will be great man.
Most illegal drugs have very harmful side affects. Many drugs are very addictive and many people's commit crimes, sometimes violent or serious crimes, to feed their addiction. And then you have many liberals who want to ban certain foods or sizes of sodas yet at the same time demonizing the war on drugs. If I can't have a 32oz soda why is it fair that someone may have a 20 rock of crack? My personal take on the situation is, like my take on immigration, it's a very tricky subject and most of people's stance in the political arena is nothing, but political games. My take is if you want to do whatever you want to your body then d9 it as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or interfere with my life. But try legalizing heroine and it not infringing. Not gonna happen.
ddp7
Banned
All drugs should be stay estatally controlled but not medically.I mean a mixed social state.From the Law point of view,the War on Drug issue is a social problem regard the security of people ( in simply words the security of the neighbors). Furthermore,the problem is more complex than the mass media commonly seems to say. There are an value adjudication regard the drug itself then the penalty law judges to the criminals in relation to the norm infringed but this is a legalistic logical,where all beggining and end in the law but this a big mistake.So,the only way for create an liberty space with consciousness of that you taking are not a problem for the neightbors is very hard when the law is externalized in an object but objects have not life!. We are who take decisions,dont forget it(well this part is very interesting about the gain and doses concept in bodybuilding,to me). The book called "the sacred place of beer in the history" is a perfect example of a society with a control of their drugs.Very interesting book. The "Beer society" shows that the need of the tradition to avoid the individualism and the born of artificial hard drugs.Yes,this is a society problem and seems to be that there are a proportion between powerfull drug and the social structure.
But in the currently law the problem is with the drugs itself. I mean that basically the law is not a legalistic logical in their origin(this part isnt contradictory with their conservative political origin).The law in his origin is a utilitary tool for happiness( wait dont laugh yet).But of course,you know, happiness of the little group.But this is the real origin in critical history terms. So the big mistake is the legality logical is a destructive logical because the law goal,then,does not meaningless. The anarchy kingdom.
The paradox if the estatal control over drugs would be the rule over the drugs is that the addiction wouldnt be exist either the hard drugs. Hard drugs is a problem of modern society because our society is basically individualistic.
By the way, dont think would right thinking beer in the same boat than the hard drugs(for a extremely example) .The same difference between hard roids and light roids. What is the real justification for one or another?.
There are moral inconsistently.Of course.The society structure,for me,is key.In this line that I comment ( and this is my thinking for several years),this year,some chilean law scientists said the pharmacological stuff and biological body control associated is the a way to fight against the imperant power in the society.But the hard drugs for me,in this currently society,must be prohibited because the violence will be ad eternum.
Towards a genealogy of pharmacological practice. - PubMed - NCBI
But in the currently law the problem is with the drugs itself. I mean that basically the law is not a legalistic logical in their origin(this part isnt contradictory with their conservative political origin).The law in his origin is a utilitary tool for happiness( wait dont laugh yet).But of course,you know, happiness of the little group.But this is the real origin in critical history terms. So the big mistake is the legality logical is a destructive logical because the law goal,then,does not meaningless. The anarchy kingdom.
The paradox if the estatal control over drugs would be the rule over the drugs is that the addiction wouldnt be exist either the hard drugs. Hard drugs is a problem of modern society because our society is basically individualistic.
By the way, dont think would right thinking beer in the same boat than the hard drugs(for a extremely example) .The same difference between hard roids and light roids. What is the real justification for one or another?.
There are moral inconsistently.Of course.The society structure,for me,is key.In this line that I comment ( and this is my thinking for several years),this year,some chilean law scientists said the pharmacological stuff and biological body control associated is the a way to fight against the imperant power in the society.But the hard drugs for me,in this currently society,must be prohibited because the violence will be ad eternum.
Towards a genealogy of pharmacological practice. - PubMed - NCBI
rodrigo dutertes most contentious quotations
nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/30/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-quotes-hitler-whore-philippines.html?_r=0
"hitler massacred three million jews. now, there is three million drug addicts. id be happy to slaughter them."
I wonder if hes aware of hitlers methamphetamine use, one of the drug hes trying to eradicate along with its users.
hes probably also unaware that the drugs are not the real problem.
Last edited:
hallucinogenic drug psilocybin eases existential anxiety in people with life threatening cancer
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161201094448.htm
"a substantial majority of people suffering cancer related anxiety or depression found considerable relief for up to six months from a single large dose of psilocybin...."
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161201094448.htm
"a substantial majority of people suffering cancer related anxiety or depression found considerable relief for up to six months from a single large dose of psilocybin...."
Whats the real problem?
The way drug addicts are treated is the problem.
Not sure how drug addicts are treated everywhere, but in California, drug addicts are given the opportunity to get treatment rather than serve time. They use it as a way to get out of going to jail or prison. They are given many, many opportunities. I know this first hand. Problem is drug addicts often don't get up every morning, go to work and support their own habits. They Rob or steal or do other crimes. Like most topics It's not a cut and dry. It's not something you can post a few paragraphs on a message board and solve the riddle.
The initial post you quoted was quoting Dutertes who murders drug users. I know it's different in the US but this is a worldwide epidemic. Drug court is also not treatment if that's what they're offering in Cali. In CT and NY drug court is simply a means to further fuck over the user.
Sure many rob and steal to support the habit. Do you think prohibition on drugs helps make it any less of a violent or criminal thing?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/what-the-drug-war-could-look-like-under-president-trump-w457192
By Tessa Stuart
"We've been working for years or decades on all these reforms. And we're finally feeling, especially these last two or three years of the Obama administration, that oh my God, things are actually moving forward," says Ethan Nadelmann, who founded the Drug Policy Alliance in 2000 and one of the foremost experts on drug policy efforts underway around the country.
The one major curveball of the evening was, of course, Donald Trump winning the presidency. "Hillary looked like she was going to be a continuation of the Obama policies on the stuff that we work on," Nadelmann tells Rolling Stone. So what will happen to the movement with Trump and his administration in power?
Just how devastating President Trump will be for the drug policy reform community was a subject of some debate in the days immediately following his surprise win. On the rare occasion Trump has addressed the issue, he's expressed support for medical marijuana and, on the issue of legalization more broadly, he's said he thinks "we should leave it up to the states."
"Twenty-odd years ago, when he was asked what he thought, he said we should legalize all drugs," Nadelmann says. "We know that, personally, he appears to be a teetotaler. He doesn't even drink, and may never have even used marijuana. On the other hand, he's obviously operated in New York, or he's been in the entertainment world to some extent, so he has to be comfortable around people who have used drugs recreationally. He does have a personal experience, as Bill Clinton did, with a sibling who has struggled with drug addiction."
But the people Trump almost immediately started installing around himself inspire far less optimism.
A "Drug War Dinosaur" at the Justice Department
First there was Trump's inauguration committee, which included two names familiar to legalization advocates: Sheldon Adelson and Mel Sembler, two of the biggest donors to campaigns to block medical marijuana and marijuana legalization, according to Nadelmann.
The news that Trump intended to nominate Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general broke a few day later. "Sessions' nomination has definitely put a scare into both the marijuana reform community and the marijuana industry – at least the small percentage who are politically conscious and aware," Nadelmann says. Arguably only Rudy Giuliani would be a worse choice from the perspective of groups working to advance sensible drug policy, which in addition to DPA include the Marijuana Policy Project and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
[...]
"If you're appointing a whole lot of highly aggressive right-wing prosecutors as U.S. attorneys, that means you're significantly increasing the possibility that these guys are going to be much more aggressive," Nadelmann says. "It also means that Sessions can reject the Cole Memorandum – the August 2013 memorandum which gave Colorado and Washington a qualified green light to proceed. Or they could even keep the memorandum in place, but begin to interpret it very, very strictly."
Rolling Back Progress in Congress
On November 8th, Republicans also managed to hang on to their control over the Senate. Coupled with a Sessions Justice Department, that majority will probably thwart incremental progress in Congress on legislation like the CARERS Act (which would resolve issues preventing legal marijuana businesses from filing taxes and using the banking system), the Rohrabacher Amendment (which prohibits the Justice Department from spending any money to go after medical marijuana in the states where it is legal), and the McClintock Bill (which would do the same, but for any states that have passed legalization).
The CARERS Act is already stalled in Congress, and though the McClintock Bill got surprisingly close to passing, Nadelmann says the outlook is not good for it or the Rohrabacher Amendment. "If that's not renewed, that's going to put a real scare into the marijuana policy reform community," he says.
"With Trump in the White House and Sessions in the Justice Department, I think it's hard to be optimistic," Nadelmann says. "The chances of positive marijuana reform legislation coming out and becoming law has diminished at this point."
[...]
Questions About the Cabinet
The prospect of Tom Price heading the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, is troubling because he's voted against virtually every drug policy reform bill out there, including medical marijuana provisions supported by other Republicans, says Nadelmann. HHS has oversight of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration – "the ones who have ultimately some say over funding of research in this area."
For drug czar, several dispiriting names have been put forward, including Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who dropped an investigation into Trump University after she accepted a $25,000 campaign donation from Trump. "That would be pretty bad, given the position she's taken [and] the role she's played as AG in Florida," says Nadelmann. "Some of the other names who've been bandied about have also looked pretty bad."
The contrast will be stark when Trump's selection is compared with the current czar, Michael Botticelli, who, Nadelmann says, "in the last couple years has been dramatically better than any of his predecessors on a whole range of issues, including being openly supportive of harm reduction, needle exchange, overdose prevention, holding drug courts accountable to public health standards, a range of his rhetoric.
"But we now have the possibility that Trump could go back to the old days of having a Drug War rhetoritician in that job," he says.
[...]
One glimmer of hope for legalization advocates comes straight from Trump's inner circle: Some hope Peter Thiel, Trump's outspoken ally in Silicon Valley, could influence the incoming president's thinking in a positive way. Thiel’s Founders Fund has invested millions in Privateer, one of the biggest players in the legal marijuana market. And, according to Nadelmann, Thiel isn't the only one who has both Trump's ear and an interest in protecting the legal marijuana market.
"When I look around the country and see the number of people investing in the marijuana industry who have high-level Republican connections ... it means that even though marijuana reform has been disproportionately advanced and pushed by Democrats, and even though Democrats are much more likely to vote in favor than Republicans, the fact of the matter is that you have a significant and growing minority of Republicans who are supportive of marijuana legalization," Nadelman says. "And also quite a growing number of individuals who are invested in the industry."
"We've been working for years or decades on all these reforms. And we're finally feeling, especially these last two or three years of the Obama administration, that oh my God, things are actually moving forward," says Ethan Nadelmann, who founded the Drug Policy Alliance in 2000 and one of the foremost experts on drug policy efforts underway around the country.
The one major curveball of the evening was, of course, Donald Trump winning the presidency. "Hillary looked like she was going to be a continuation of the Obama policies on the stuff that we work on," Nadelmann tells Rolling Stone. So what will happen to the movement with Trump and his administration in power?
Just how devastating President Trump will be for the drug policy reform community was a subject of some debate in the days immediately following his surprise win. On the rare occasion Trump has addressed the issue, he's expressed support for medical marijuana and, on the issue of legalization more broadly, he's said he thinks "we should leave it up to the states."
"Twenty-odd years ago, when he was asked what he thought, he said we should legalize all drugs," Nadelmann says. "We know that, personally, he appears to be a teetotaler. He doesn't even drink, and may never have even used marijuana. On the other hand, he's obviously operated in New York, or he's been in the entertainment world to some extent, so he has to be comfortable around people who have used drugs recreationally. He does have a personal experience, as Bill Clinton did, with a sibling who has struggled with drug addiction."
But the people Trump almost immediately started installing around himself inspire far less optimism.
A "Drug War Dinosaur" at the Justice Department
First there was Trump's inauguration committee, which included two names familiar to legalization advocates: Sheldon Adelson and Mel Sembler, two of the biggest donors to campaigns to block medical marijuana and marijuana legalization, according to Nadelmann.
The news that Trump intended to nominate Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general broke a few day later. "Sessions' nomination has definitely put a scare into both the marijuana reform community and the marijuana industry – at least the small percentage who are politically conscious and aware," Nadelmann says. Arguably only Rudy Giuliani would be a worse choice from the perspective of groups working to advance sensible drug policy, which in addition to DPA include the Marijuana Policy Project and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
[...]
"If you're appointing a whole lot of highly aggressive right-wing prosecutors as U.S. attorneys, that means you're significantly increasing the possibility that these guys are going to be much more aggressive," Nadelmann says. "It also means that Sessions can reject the Cole Memorandum – the August 2013 memorandum which gave Colorado and Washington a qualified green light to proceed. Or they could even keep the memorandum in place, but begin to interpret it very, very strictly."
Rolling Back Progress in Congress
On November 8th, Republicans also managed to hang on to their control over the Senate. Coupled with a Sessions Justice Department, that majority will probably thwart incremental progress in Congress on legislation like the CARERS Act (which would resolve issues preventing legal marijuana businesses from filing taxes and using the banking system), the Rohrabacher Amendment (which prohibits the Justice Department from spending any money to go after medical marijuana in the states where it is legal), and the McClintock Bill (which would do the same, but for any states that have passed legalization).
The CARERS Act is already stalled in Congress, and though the McClintock Bill got surprisingly close to passing, Nadelmann says the outlook is not good for it or the Rohrabacher Amendment. "If that's not renewed, that's going to put a real scare into the marijuana policy reform community," he says.
"With Trump in the White House and Sessions in the Justice Department, I think it's hard to be optimistic," Nadelmann says. "The chances of positive marijuana reform legislation coming out and becoming law has diminished at this point."
[...]
Questions About the Cabinet
The prospect of Tom Price heading the Department of Health and Human Services, for instance, is troubling because he's voted against virtually every drug policy reform bill out there, including medical marijuana provisions supported by other Republicans, says Nadelmann. HHS has oversight of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration – "the ones who have ultimately some say over funding of research in this area."
For drug czar, several dispiriting names have been put forward, including Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who dropped an investigation into Trump University after she accepted a $25,000 campaign donation from Trump. "That would be pretty bad, given the position she's taken [and] the role she's played as AG in Florida," says Nadelmann. "Some of the other names who've been bandied about have also looked pretty bad."
The contrast will be stark when Trump's selection is compared with the current czar, Michael Botticelli, who, Nadelmann says, "in the last couple years has been dramatically better than any of his predecessors on a whole range of issues, including being openly supportive of harm reduction, needle exchange, overdose prevention, holding drug courts accountable to public health standards, a range of his rhetoric.
"But we now have the possibility that Trump could go back to the old days of having a Drug War rhetoritician in that job," he says.
[...]
One glimmer of hope for legalization advocates comes straight from Trump's inner circle: Some hope Peter Thiel, Trump's outspoken ally in Silicon Valley, could influence the incoming president's thinking in a positive way. Thiel’s Founders Fund has invested millions in Privateer, one of the biggest players in the legal marijuana market. And, according to Nadelmann, Thiel isn't the only one who has both Trump's ear and an interest in protecting the legal marijuana market.
"When I look around the country and see the number of people investing in the marijuana industry who have high-level Republican connections ... it means that even though marijuana reform has been disproportionately advanced and pushed by Democrats, and even though Democrats are much more likely to vote in favor than Republicans, the fact of the matter is that you have a significant and growing minority of Republicans who are supportive of marijuana legalization," Nadelman says. "And also quite a growing number of individuals who are invested in the industry."
It is surprising just how many do/did not recognize the march backwards.
Browsed through the article and from what I did see was that the clintons were to blame for a large portion of the war on drugs and crime which they were indicating was racially biased. That combined with the fact that the actual war on drugs was started by the Democrats. Trump hasn't even taken office yet so I'm wondering how this is a big step backwards over the alternative which has been, in their eyes, "proven" to be against their agenda.
In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.” He dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. A Brief History of the Drug War | Drug Policy Alliance
Posted earlier, but worth a repost ...
Jeff Sessions Provides More Evidence That He Plans a Marijuana Crackdown
The attorney general ties legalization to violence, interstate smuggling, underage consumption, and health hazards.
By Jacob Sullum|Feb. 28, 2017
In comments to reporters yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided more reason to worry that a crackdown on state-licensed marijuana businesses is in the offing. "I'm definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana," said Sessions, an old-fashioned drug warrior who thinks "good people don't smoke marijuana." While states "can pass the laws they choose," he added, "I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not."
The attorney general ties legalization to violence, interstate smuggling, underage consumption, and health hazards.
By Jacob Sullum|Feb. 28, 2017
In comments to reporters yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions provided more reason to worry that a crackdown on state-licensed marijuana businesses is in the offing. "I'm definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana," said Sessions, an old-fashioned drug warrior who thinks "good people don't smoke marijuana." While states "can pass the laws they choose," he added, "I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not."
Sessions pushes tougher line on marijuana
By JOSH GERSTEIN 02/27/17
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, long an outspoken opponent of drug legalization, is signaling he will continue to toe a tough line against marijuana as the nation's top lawman even though a growing number of states are moving to legalize or decriminalize pot.
"Most of you probably know I don’t think America is going to be a better place when more people of all ages and particularly young people start smoking pot," Sessions said during an exchange with reporters at the Justice Department. "I believe it's an unhealthy practice and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago."
"We're seeing real violence around that," Sessions said. "Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved."
..
"I'm definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana," he said. "States they can pass the laws they choose. I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not."
By JOSH GERSTEIN 02/27/17
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, long an outspoken opponent of drug legalization, is signaling he will continue to toe a tough line against marijuana as the nation's top lawman even though a growing number of states are moving to legalize or decriminalize pot.
"Most of you probably know I don’t think America is going to be a better place when more people of all ages and particularly young people start smoking pot," Sessions said during an exchange with reporters at the Justice Department. "I believe it's an unhealthy practice and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago."
"We're seeing real violence around that," Sessions said. "Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved."
..
"I'm definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana," he said. "States they can pass the laws they choose. I would just say it does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States, whether a state legalizes it or not."
Eman
Master
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/24/sean-spicer-seemed-to-tie-marijuana-use-to-opioids-the-evidence-isnt-on-his-side/?utm_term=.00b9613bb6b3 (Analysis | Sean Spicer seemed to tie marijuana use to opioids. The evidence isn’t on his side.)
But White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Thursday appeared to link the surge in opioid abuse to another factor: recreational marijuana use.
During a news conference, Spicer said that he expects states to face “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana under the Trump administration, even in places where it has been decriminalized, as The Washington Post reported. As a rationale, he cited the rise in illicit drug use.
“When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country,” Spicer said, “the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There’s a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”
It was an extraordinary statement for two reasons. First, marijuana has nowhere near the same addictive or potentially lethal properties that opioids do. Second, Spicer seemed to imply that recreational marijuana use could lead people to try more dangerous drugs — a controversial claim commonly called the “gateway drug” theory.
Spicer’s remarks drew rebukes from a chorus of outraged marijuana advocates. The press secretary “contradicted known science and medical research by tacitly pinning the blame for the country’s heroin problem on marijuana,” the pro-pot magazine High Times wrote. The National Cannabis Industry Association had a similar take. “Science has discredited the idea that marijuana serves as any kind of gateway drug,” executive director Aaron Smith said, “and the addiction and death rates associated with opioids simply do not occur in any way with cannabis.”
But White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Thursday appeared to link the surge in opioid abuse to another factor: recreational marijuana use.
During a news conference, Spicer said that he expects states to face “greater enforcement” of federal laws against marijuana under the Trump administration, even in places where it has been decriminalized, as The Washington Post reported. As a rationale, he cited the rise in illicit drug use.
“When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country,” Spicer said, “the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people. There’s a federal law that we need to abide by when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.”
It was an extraordinary statement for two reasons. First, marijuana has nowhere near the same addictive or potentially lethal properties that opioids do. Second, Spicer seemed to imply that recreational marijuana use could lead people to try more dangerous drugs — a controversial claim commonly called the “gateway drug” theory.
Spicer’s remarks drew rebukes from a chorus of outraged marijuana advocates. The press secretary “contradicted known science and medical research by tacitly pinning the blame for the country’s heroin problem on marijuana,” the pro-pot magazine High Times wrote. The National Cannabis Industry Association had a similar take. “Science has discredited the idea that marijuana serves as any kind of gateway drug,” executive director Aaron Smith said, “and the addiction and death rates associated with opioids simply do not occur in any way with cannabis.”
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic- Latest: Qingdao Sigma Chemicals
-
-