Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Jeff Sessions Can't Handle the Truth About Marijuana
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/ ... ons-cant-handle-the-truth-abou
Published: Mar 1, 2017
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2017-03-01 11:20:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 5112
Comments: 36
Last week White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer suggested that marijuana legalization contributes to opioid abuse. "When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country," he said, "the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people" by allowing recreational use of marijuana. As critics such as NORML's Paul Armentano and Washington Post drug policy blogger Christopher Ingraham pointed out, Spicer had things backward: The evidence suggests that loosening marijuana prohibition results in less consumption of opioids. No way, says Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who seems to be planning a crackdown on state-licensed marijuana businesses. During a speech to the National Association of Attorneys General yesterday, Sessions mocked the notion that "marijuana is a cure for opiate abuse": Give me a break. This is the kind of argument that has been made out there. It's just almost a desperate attempt to defend the harmlessness of marijuana or even its benefits. I doubt that's true. Maybe science will prove I'm wrong. But at this point in time, you and I have a responsibility to use our best judgment, that which we've learned over a period of years, and speak truth as best we can. While the evidence that marijuana works as a treatment for opioid abuse is inconclusive, several studies have found an association between medical marijuana laws and reductions in opiod prescriptions, opioid-related deaths, and fatally injured drivers testing positive for opiods. These results make sense to the extent that marijuana can be substituted for narcotics as a way of relieving physical or emotional pain, a switch than can be expected to reduce serious side effects because marijuana is safer. Although Sessions claims he is open to refutation by science, he clearly has not bothered to look at the research. Such incuriosity is consistent with the former Alabama senator's history as a diehard drug warrior who knows lots of things that aren't so. Consider his outrage a few years ago when President Obama publicly conceded that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. Although there is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion, it did not jibe with Sessions' anti-pot prejudices, so he could not accept it: I have to tell you, I'm heartbroken to see what the president said just a few days ago. It's stunning to me. I find it beyond comprehension….This is just difficult for me to conceive how the president of the United States could make such a statement as that....Did the president conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined contrary to the positions of attorneys general and presidents universally prior to that? Sessions tried to rebut Obama's statement about the relative hazards of marijuana and alcohol by declaring that "Lady Gaga says she's addicted to [marijuana] and it is not harmless." Putting aside the merits of treating Lady Gaga as an expert on the effects of marijuana, or of extrapolating from this sample of one to the experiences of cannabis consumers generally, Sessions did not seem to understand that Substance A can be less dangerous than Substance B without being harmless. To say that marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol by several important measures (including impairment of driving ability, the risk of a fatal overdose, and the long-term damage caused by heavy use) is not the same as saying that marijuana is 100 percent safe. Either Sessions does not grasp that basic point, or he is so determined to justify marijuana prohibition that he deliberately obscures it. Is this what he means by "speak[ing] truth as best we can"? Sessions claims supporters of legalization are "desperate" to "defend the harmlessness of marijuana." But it's Sessions who is grasping at straws to defend a policy built on a mountain of lies. Poster Comment: If Jeff Sessions tries to shut down state-licensed cannabusinesses, he will betray his own principles. The attorney general claims he is willing to be refuted by science. His history suggests otherwise.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Marijuana is the analgesic equivalent of Tylenol. If you must have narcotics to treat your pain, marijuana is useless. If marijuana does treat your pain, narcotics never should have been prescribed.
Certainly, the evidence shows that marijuana is far less harmful than the other Schedule I drugs and far less harmful than alcohol. The issue of marijuana should be sent back to the states to deal with. It has never merited a Schedule I classification. Marijuana is not like meth and crack and cocaine and heroin and fetanyl and oxycontin and peyote and psilocybin and LSD and the other Schedule I drugs. It just isn't. No one who has seen the effects of narcotics use and the use of hallucinogenics can seriously compare their obvious harms to those of marijuana.
What the studies suggest is that there are significant numbers of people who will just use marijuana and never progress to narcotics if allowed that choice. You realize that you give narcotics something of a free ride legally when you keep marijuana a Schedule I drug. People who are self-medicating are faced with one fact: the legal penalties for using heroin or oxycontin or LSD or meth or molly are no greater than for using marijuana, in general terms. So they may as well party hearty with narcotics if they're going to take the chance on using a Schedule I drug. Don't we always say that the market responds to incentives? It does. I also think if we made alcohol a Schedule I drug, we would see vastly increased narcotic abuse as a direct result. And for the same reasons.
No betrayal at all. Even Federalism recognizes that federal law trumps state law. One may argue that the federal government shouldn't regulate marijuana. But don't for a minute think that means the federal government can't regulate marijuana.
Neither can Deckard et al.
I was talking about medical use. You're talking about recreational use. That's a whole different subject.
He is enforcing the laws already on the books. This is his job. Change the law quit whining about enforcement.
Or tobacco. And is much more pleasant. A definition of a Puritan - a guy who cannot suffer that someone has fun.
What is wrong with recreation?
Yeah, you do get that killjoy vibe off of many drug warrior types. And for some reason, it is always pot they are on about. Crack, heroin, prescription overdoses, none of those ever seem to excite or interest them much. But let one dirty hippie light up a joint and they're like fanatical Crusaders. A bunch of Carrie Nation types.
I don't use the stuff, so really do not care. But tell me, where in the US Constitution is the provision which authorizes the Fed Govt to be involved in that regulation. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Just an fyi: I disagree. I'm not a marijuana user. My daughter was in her 2nd year of med school-wanted to be a neurologist. She came down with severe migraines in her second year. The school actually gave her a 2 yr. period to keep her place in school because she was a very promising Neurologist. (Usual limit is 1 year.) Her professors went to bat for her. She got to see the foremost neurologists via their influence. Nothing worked. She had to live in a blackened room. They tried every available drug, combinations thereof, diet change. She tried botox, accupuncture, different diets. Nothing worked. They finally put her on medical marijuana. It has transformed her life! Yes, it is a great pain killer. She no longer has to live in a black room! Unfortunately, she was in her 3rd year, so her position at med school was lost. She still can't handle a lot of sunshine, but other than that, she is pain free. Nevada has medical marijuana and this last election voted in legal marijuana. I suffer from sciatica and am now on pain killers and Tamazipan for sleep issues. I tried a tiny piece of her cookie and my pain went away. I cannot wait to purchase it! I'm told that it takes about a year to be up and running because of red tape. It worked and it worked beautifully! I tried another piece and it helped my insomnia! Most people do not realize that you can purchase Cannabis without the buzz, the THC is removed but the medical benefits are there! No need to smoke it. I can't wait to get off my prescriptions! They are toxic. Cannabis is a natural product-no side effects. Watching what it did for my daughter and observing it myself with just a tiny, tiny piece of her cookie made me a total believer. Most people don't know this. I've experienced it first hand.
Thats not true. It works well but not near the level of opium which is highly addictive and has high side affects issues. Marijuana is perfectly suited for medium chronic pain with very little side affects comparative. Most the people object to marijuana for political reason not medical reasons but claim its medical issue. If you do not believe me all you have to do is look at Willie Nelson at the age of 83 still singing all over the country. Thats impressive!
Interesting anecdotes. I have some doubts that you could replicate those results in a big double-blind lab study. However, for some people, marijuana seems to be able to address their issues with pain, appetite, neurological conditions, sleep, and other disorders. But it isn't everyone who benefits, IMO. If it works for you, then by all means use it and stop with the expensive pharma drugs with their side effects. But we have to consider that it doesn't work for everyone as well as it has for you. I'll share an anecdote too. I know a someone who has suffered psoriasis for years, not too severe but naturally very unpleasant for him. It's a small town and he has a lot of cops and clergymen as customers. There is a medical marijuana salve he heard of, non-psychoactive, that he finally got a small jar of salve from someone in a legalized state and he tried it and it helped him quite a bit with symptoms just in brief use of a few weeks until he used up the jar. So now he's considering getting a supply but our state hasn't legalized even medical pot. Since he is a devout Catholic and has a clientele that is a little uptight, he is still agonizing over whether to become a lawbreaker just to get some relief for his chronic skin condition. Is stopping this guy from getting his salve worth it? Not to me. It will make zero difference in overall drug use.
Good for you and I wish you luck! Now, I hope you're not saying that marijuana should be legal for everyone who has migraines, are you? I mean, just based on the experience of two people?
Hah! Offer him all the marijuana he wants in exchange for all his pharma drugs and see what he says.
Does our legal system allow us to make an exception to the law for those with psoriasis? If we can, then I expect a massive increase in the number of cases. Adding a million new "patients" would make a difference, don't you a agree?
Studebakers, for one.
He's never smoked it. He's always been very antidrug. I'm not sure if he even drinks. Very moral guy, very Catholic. People with chronic conditions will go to some lengths to get relief, even against their usual character habits. A couple from Texas with an 18yo daughter with severe autism were very concerned with her self-harming. They tried everything and finally tried one of the Charlottes Web medicinals and they say it calms her right down and she stops self-harming. These are not dirty old hippy types, they just want their daughter better off. The girl was on about 8 other meds as well so she had serious problems. Even so, they were willing to take a chance on arrest by going public in a non-med state because they thought it was so important for parents in similar situations. There are a lot of parents who have taken such risks, trying to improve their children's lives.
Depends on the state. It was over-the-counter salve in the state where it was sold.
No. I was referring to your comment to the other poster ("If it works for you, then by all means use it ..."). "People with chronic conditions will go to some lengths to get relief, even against their usual character habits." I completely understand that. I would, too. Especially if it was for my child. What I object to is these people suggesting that we legalize their cure for everyone simply because it worked for them. And that's assuming we believe them to begin with.
And it was the marijuana (not the other ingredients) in the salve that helped him? Nothing else worked?
Well, it is all anonymous. You have to decide if it is worthwhile for people to spend a lot of time lying to you online. Even if true, you have to decide whether it is anecdotal or a placebo effect or whatnot. Maybe you just never met anyone who does believe one of these products helped them with some condition. But there are a lot of people in this country who do know someone who is convinced they were helped by these products. And so they don't care much if some hippy also gets high, at least not the way you Carrie Nation bluenoses do.
He said he'd tried all the medicines his dermatologist would give him for many years. And I'm not even sure if his salve was a true marijuana product or if it was just a (ditchweed) hemp product. As you know, even hemp is illegal to the feds. This is why we have to import all of our hemp fiber though we still had a strong hemp industry in this country through the end of WW II. Anyway, he said he wasn't getting high from it. I suppose you'll say he was a sneaky dirty hippie, trying to take me in. But I see no payoff in it for him.
Like Deckard?
Even IF I believed them my objection still stands -- that they're in no position to conclude that what worked for them will work for everyone and therefore it should be legal. It worked for you? Great! Now sit down and shut up.
I think he's sincere enough.
Oh, he's sincere all right.
Nevertheless, they do want it to be legal for them. Admittedly, the chances of getting prosecuted for any step fines or hard time is dropping rapidly across the country. Cops are just a lot less interested. So are the feds. They have much bigger fish to fry with legal and illegal opioids, crack, coke, meth, moly, K, hallucinogenics, etc.
Oh, don't we all want that.
Just a matter of writing to your congressman. : )
Our Lord Jesus was changing water into wine, not the other way!
Most of prescription drugs work for some and not for the others. The key difference is whether Big Pharma or prison industry can have profit or not.
"Ernest, the rich are different from us." Hemingway: "Yes. They have more money." (Compliments of the Linux Fortune program.) POINT Hemingway...MUD "Devolve Power Outta the Federal Leviathan and Back to the States, I wish I could say you are wrong about that.
I wish I could say you are wrong about that. Me too. It is hard to reconcile with the fact that in this world selfish interests trump what is right. The main homage being paid to virtue is hypocrisy of painting vice in righteous colors.
"These results make sense to the extent that marijuana can be substituted for narcotics as a way of relieving physical or emotional pain"
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
While the evidence that marijuana works as a treatment for opioid abuse is inconclusive, several studies have found an association between medical marijuana laws and reductions in opiod prescriptions, opioid-related deaths, and fatally injured drivers testing positive for opiods. These results make sense to the extent that marijuana can be substituted for narcotics as a way of relieving physical or emotional pain, a switch than can be expected to reduce serious side effects because marijuana is safer.
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
If you must have narcotics to treat your pain, marijuana is useless. If marijuana does treat your pain, narcotics never should have been prescribed.
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
"If Jeff Sessions tries to shut down state-licensed cannabusinesses, he will betray his own principles."
#5. To: Deckard (#0)
Jeff Sessions Can't Handle the Truth About Marijuana
#6. To: Tooconservative (#3)
What the studies suggest is that there are significant numbers of people who will just use marijuana and never progress to narcotics if allowed that choice.
#7. To: Deckard (#0)
Jeff Sessions Can't Handle the Truth About Marijuana
#8. To: Tooconservative (#2)
Certainly, the evidence shows that marijuana is far less harmful than the other Schedule I drugs and far less harmful than alcohol.
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
I was talking about medical use. You're talking about recreational use.
#10. To: A Pole (#8)
A definition of a Puritan - a guy who cannot suffer that someone has fun.
#11. To: misterwhite (#4)
" But don't for a minute think that means the federal government can't regulate marijuana. "
#12. To: misterwhite (#1)
If you must have narcotics to treat your pain, marijuana is useless.
#13. To: misterwhite (#1)
If you must have narcotics to treat your pain, marijuana is useless.
#14. To: borntoweardiamonds, misterwhite (#12)
Watching what it did for my daughter and observing it myself with just a tiny, tiny piece of her cookie made me a total believer.
#15. To: borntoweardiamonds (#12)
"Watching what it did for my daughter and observing it myself with just a tiny, tiny piece of her cookie made me a total believer."
#16. To: Tooconservative (#14)
"then by all means use it and stop with the expensive pharma drugs"
#17. To: Tooconservative (#14)
(Edited)
"Is stopping this guy from getting his salve worth it? Not to me me. It will make zero difference in overall drug use."
#18. To: A Pole (#9)
"What is wrong with recreation?"
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
Hah! Offer him all the marijuana he wants in exchange for all his pharma drugs and see what he says.
#20. To: misterwhite (#17)
Does our legal system allow us to make an exception to the law for those with pso pso psoriasis?
#21. To: Tooconservative (#19)
"He's never smoked it. He's always been very antidrug. I'm not sure if he even drinks."
#22. To: Tooconservative (#20)
"It was over-the-counter salve in the state where it was sold."
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
What I object to is these people suggesting that we legalize their cure for everyone simply because it worked for them. And that's assuming we believe them to begin with.
What I object to is these people suggesting that we legalize their cure for everyone simply because it worked for them. And that's assuming we believe them to begin with.
#24. To: misterwhite (#22)
(Edited)
And it was the marijuana (not the other ingredients) in the salve that helped him? Nothing else worked?
#25. To: Tooconservative (#23)
"You have to decide if it is worthwhile for people to spend a lot of time lying to you online."
#26. To: Tooconservative (#23)
"Maybe you just never met anyone who does believe one of these products helped them with some condition."
#27. To: misterwhite (#25)
Like Deckard?
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
"I think he's sincere enough."
#29. To: misterwhite (#26)
Even IF I believed them my objection still stands -- that they're in no position to conclude that what worked for them will work for everyone and therefore it should be legal.
#30. To: Tooconservative (#29)
"Nevertheless, they do want it to be legal for them."
#31. To: misterwhite (#30)
#32. To: Tooconservative (#19)
I'm not sure if he even drinks. Very moral guy, very Catholic.
#33. To: Tooconservative (#14)
But it isn't everyone who benefits, IMO.
#34. To: A Pole (#33)
Localities, and Individuals as Prescribed in the US Constitution."
#35. To: A Pole (#33)
The key difference is whether Big Pharma or prison industry can have profit or not.
#36. To: Tooconservative (#35)
"The key difference is whether Big Pharma or prison industry can have profit or not."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]