Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent.
Speaker 3: Coverage that is possible.
Speaker 2: If you like what we're all about, it just means
Speaker 2: the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 3: But enough with that, let's get to the show. People
Speaker 3: should know that the researchers get being clear and clear
Speaker 3: every day. One in three people who used there at
Speaker 3: Wan in the last year will be a bigtive. We
Speaker 3: are unwittingly or unwittingly creating these massive companies, big tobacco's
Speaker 3: investment billions. We have no history of regulating these items
Speaker 3: as well. I think we're going to have to learn
Speaker 3: a hard way like we did tobacco in It may
Speaker 3: not be illegal again, but there's going to be a
Speaker 3: cultural renaissance at some point.
Speaker 4: It works for chronic pain and it works for PTSD.
Speaker 4: Should we just tell those people you don't have access
Speaker 4: to the most effective medicine. It's way better than benzos
Speaker 4: and opiates, which is currently what the VA is prescribing.
Speaker 4: Both of those are far more addictive than cannabis. Withdrawal
Speaker 4: from Benzo's can actually, if not done in a medical environment,
Speaker 4: can actually kill you. If it's medicine, which I do
Speaker 4: believe it is, it should be treated as such.
Speaker 3: This is a very strong industry who relies on profit
Speaker 3: and heavy use. That's how they make their money. They
Speaker 3: don't want to acknowledge the word you do, and I'd
Speaker 3: love you for it, but they know and they're sadly
Speaker 3: holding the key to this. I have lots of problems
Speaker 3: with lots of industry.
Speaker 4: It doesn't mean I think their product should be banned.
Speaker 1: Welcome to counterpoints. So last week, the administration made another
Speaker 1: move towards rescheduling marijuana from Schedule one, which is the
Speaker 1: most restrictive place you can have a drug, which means
Speaker 1: it has no medical value, high abuse of potential, down
Speaker 1: to Schedule three, which made a lot of people happy,
Speaker 1: a lot of people upset, and then a lot of
Speaker 1: people upset from both directions. And it opens up interesting
Speaker 1: questions about ongoing marijuana policy and also drug policy more general.
Speaker 1: So that you know that's what we're going to be
Speaker 1: talking about today. With a couple of our couple of
Speaker 1: our guests, just curious before we start, where do you
Speaker 1: where do you? Where do you come down on the whole,
Speaker 1: Just so people understand as we're moderating, where you come
Speaker 1: down on like the drug policy in marijuana policy debate.
Speaker 5: You know, Actually, one of the reasons that I'm excited
Speaker 5: for this debate is because I'm sort of have always
Speaker 5: been very agnostic about well maybe ambivalent is a better word.
Speaker 5: I'm genuinely persuaded by arguments that I hear from the
Speaker 5: Sager side shout out to anti weedsar of breaking points
Speaker 5: Sager and Jetty, but then also very persuaded by the
Speaker 5: like legalization arguments, especially you know, immigration is an area
Speaker 5: that I care about a lot, and cartel violence and
Speaker 5: all of that. So I'm excited to hash some of
Speaker 5: these conversations out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and none of this is easy, but we're lucky
Speaker 1: today we have two of the leading figures in this
Speaker 1: in this field who are on opposite sides that we
Speaker 1: might might find out they agree on a little bit
Speaker 1: more than we think. Let's let's bring them in now
Speaker 1: so on the kind of I guess anti side, and
Speaker 1: we'll get each to kind of define where they are
Speaker 1: on the spectrum would be Kevin Sabot, who is the
Speaker 1: author of the twenty twenty one book Smoke Screen What
Speaker 1: the Marijuana Industry Doesn't Want You to Know. He's also
Speaker 1: the co founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana WHI, which
Speaker 1: he founded with Patrick Kennedy and also David from former
Speaker 1: Obama administration official. I think I've been interacting with Kevin
Speaker 1: since the Obama administration. We're going going way back here, John,
Speaker 1: and then we're also joined here by John lu Becky,
Speaker 1: who many of you may know as a veteran who
Speaker 1: has been at the forefront of lobbying around drug policy
Speaker 1: and in particular psychedelic policy as it relates to PTSD
Speaker 1: for veterans. Becky, John, what's what's the name of your
Speaker 1: strategic consulting firm, John Lubecky Strategies. I believe it is.
Speaker 3: Lou Becky's strategic direction, the Becky Strategic Directions.
Speaker 1: And so what I meant by UH to define where
Speaker 1: we are on the spectrum, you could you could if
Speaker 1: if if you think of the spectrum as, on the
Speaker 1: one hand, prohibition, complete and total prohibition of all you know,
Speaker 1: recreational substances. UH, including prohibition for their medical purposes. That's
Speaker 1: one end of the spectrum. Then the other would be
Speaker 1: no laws whatsoever. That it's just just be complete, you know,
Speaker 1: libertarian fever dream. Where would you guys position yourself on
Speaker 1: those spectrums that as the viewers kind of hear the
Speaker 1: arguments that you're making, will understand kind of where where
Speaker 1: you're coming from. And Kevin, you can if you want
Speaker 1: to go.
Speaker 3: First, sure, sure, thanks for having me. I'm excited to
Speaker 3: have this conversation to meet you too. Em really wonderful. Uh,
Speaker 3: you know where I come out is probably somewhere in
Speaker 3: the middle of that spectrum. Look, I don't think people
Speaker 3: should go to prison or be given criminal records for
Speaker 3: you know, possessing or using marijuana. Who we're adults. I
Speaker 3: also think we're greatly underestimating both the harm of today's
Speaker 3: hypoe in marijuana and I'll be probably a broken record
Speaker 3: about that today, but also underestimating the harms of American
Speaker 3: style legalization. We have never legalized something in for the
Speaker 3: force of public health or public good in a way
Speaker 3: that is regulated in any kind of way that advances
Speaker 3: public health over private profit. And what we see it
Speaker 3: right now with legalization is the unveiling of really a
Speaker 3: new big tobacco something that you know, if you're under
Speaker 3: thirty five, you probably don't even know what that is.
Speaker 3: But what it is is was one hundred years of
Speaker 3: lies and deceit by the most powerful industry in the
Speaker 3: country that owned every politician on both sides of the aisle.
Speaker 3: Every A list actor was in every movie pushing this
Speaker 3: idea that tobacco was relatively harmless, that it was medicinal,
Speaker 3: and also they also said it was medical and that
Speaker 3: your it was about adults right to use, and we're
Speaker 3: seeing those same arguments. So I don't want to see
Speaker 3: people in prison, but I don't think we should be
Speaker 3: normalizing commercial You want to grow a little bit on
Speaker 3: your own, you know, find you want to use it,
Speaker 3: not in an issue, although at least you should be
Speaker 3: educated on what it could do to you at the
Speaker 3: very least. But that is your choice. But it stops
Speaker 3: being your choice the minute you walk out of your
Speaker 3: house and get into your car, take care of your kids,
Speaker 3: teach my kids, become a doctor, a pilot, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Those things, of course and affect others. So I think
Speaker 3: it's somewhere in the middle. But I do think that
Speaker 3: our current kind of societal shift towards acceptance is a mistake,
Speaker 3: and I think it's one will come to regret, just
Speaker 3: like we do how we felt about tobacco in nineteen
Speaker 3: fifty five.
Speaker 1: And so, John, where would you put yourself on that spectrum?
Speaker 4: Well, interestingly enough is I'm most known for working on psychaelics.
Speaker 4: I actually started working on medical cannabis in South Carolina
Speaker 4: in twenty thirteen because I had used cannabis to abate
Speaker 4: suicidal ideation for about five years and then couldn't because
Speaker 4: I moved to a state where it was illegal. So
Speaker 4: I've been working on cannabis for well over a decade.
Speaker 4: Now I am in the middle. My primary issue is
Speaker 4: the government is the one that messes up by preventing
Speaker 4: research and actual medical uses in a medical setting through
Speaker 4: a medical context, like we do any other prescription drug.
Speaker 3: And I think one of the biggest problems.
Speaker 4: Is you have people who object to legalization objecting to
Speaker 4: medical use and conflating those two, and the people who
Speaker 4: want to legalize also conflate those two, and they're actually
Speaker 4: very different arguments. You know, whether somebody needs this for
Speaker 4: a genuine and proven medical need versus Hey, I want
Speaker 4: to go to a Phish concert and smoke a joint
Speaker 4: are two very very different things that.
Speaker 5: Felt very very specific to who I was actually just
Speaker 5: going to ask. So Ryan wrote a book called This
Speaker 5: is Your Country on Drugs? Ryan, Now that everyone else
Speaker 5: has sort of put themselves on the spectrum, where would
Speaker 5: you describe yourself?
Speaker 1: And I write in the book towards the end of
Speaker 1: it that if you don't take regulation seriously, and if
Speaker 1: it's just a complete, uh, free for all, that the
Speaker 1: history of American drug policy shows that it is not
Speaker 1: a one directional thing, that it's a pendulum that swings
Speaker 1: back and forth, and that if, if, if drug policy
Speaker 1: reform advocates are not careful, the pendulum will swing right
Speaker 1: back and you'll get a reaction and a blowback. And
Speaker 1: so in the pursuit of that, I think people have
Speaker 1: to be more careful. And we talked on the show
Speaker 1: Wednesday about Portland, and Portland just had its progressive DA
Speaker 1: thrown out in this election. We can we can talk
Speaker 1: about that later in the election, but I mean later
Speaker 1: in this show. But let let's start with the the rescheduling.
Speaker 1: I would actually argue that schedule that Schedule three, which
Speaker 1: it was moved to, is still too restrictive for marijuana.
Speaker 1: But let's Kevin, let's let's start with you. So the
Speaker 1: DAH and you actually, I think had a scoop on
Speaker 1: this that the head of the DEA did not actually
Speaker 1: sign off on moving marijuana from Schedule one down to
Speaker 1: Schedule three. That the Department of Justice and the administration
Speaker 1: did it without her signature, which is their prerogative. They
Speaker 1: can do it, but it's suggestive of a schism within
Speaker 1: the administration over this question. So tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about what you know about how that unfolded, and
Speaker 1: also where you stand on this move from Schedule one
Speaker 1: to Schedule three and what does that mean? What does
Speaker 1: that mean to people who don't follow the details here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, like you said, it's never been done before.
Speaker 3: So we're definitely that this is going to kind of
Speaker 3: be a wild ride when we learn really the details
Speaker 3: of this. But yeah, I know to back up, and
Speaker 3: I think a lot of what Jonathan said I agree with,
Speaker 3: by the way, about the conflation of the issues and
Speaker 3: medical recreational dgrim all those that have been conflated, I
Speaker 3: think in a way that's not productive. But to get
Speaker 3: to your question about scheduling, I think there's a lot
Speaker 3: of misconception about what scheduling is. Scheduling is basically, it's
Speaker 3: five categories that Congress in nineteen seventy came up with
Speaker 3: that you know, does not equate drugs, And if you're
Speaker 3: in the same category, it doesn't mean you think they're
Speaker 3: the same thing. And that's where the Vice President in
Speaker 3: her discussion was just completely off about what it really means.
Speaker 3: I think of the scheduling kind of like a snack
Speaker 3: ayle of the grocery store. You might have Aisle three
Speaker 3: might be called snacks, but you might have banana chips,
Speaker 3: you know, beef jerky, oreos, and fruit slices. They're all snacks, right,
Speaker 3: they fall under the criteria of snacks, but they're not
Speaker 3: the same. So we don't treat bananas like we do
Speaker 3: you know, ruffles, potato chips. And that's what's often said.
Speaker 3: Heroin is schedule one and marijuana is two. That means
Speaker 3: that we're thinking of the same. We don't treat them
Speaker 3: the same. Actually, marijuana is different by statute, even regardless
Speaker 3: of schedule, which very few people need even know. It
Speaker 3: has nothing to do with penalties, So it's not that
Speaker 3: we schedule one drugs or more penalized and scheduled two.
Speaker 3: In fact, cocaine, which is a Schedule two drugs because
Speaker 3: it has some very limited medicinal use in surgery by doctors.
Speaker 3: You can't go home with it, obviously, but it's a
Speaker 3: very limited use, that's Schedule two. But the penalties are
Speaker 3: far greater than marijuana, which is Schedule one. So first
Speaker 3: of all, there's a total misconception about what scheduling is
Speaker 3: the reason marijuana deserves to stay in the current Schedule one.
Speaker 3: And we can have a discussion. In fact, Jonathan and
Speaker 3: I might agree that the scheduling system should be changed
Speaker 3: in certain ways. We might actually come up with a
Speaker 3: better scheduling system than they did fifty years ago. But
Speaker 3: the way that it is currently now it means that
Speaker 3: there's no accepted medical use, which traditionally meant there isn't
Speaker 3: an FDA approved medication that we say is called marijuana.
Speaker 3: Now there are several medications based on marijuana. This is
Speaker 3: where it gets complicated that are not Schedule one, and
Speaker 3: I'm fully in favor of that research non smoked marijuana
Speaker 3: components and no you know that, no problem with that,
Speaker 3: and there are already drugs in three five that are
Speaker 3: not Schedule one, no problem with it. But to say
Speaker 3: marijuana as a whole, which means thousands of known products,
Speaker 3: the edibles, the ninety nine percent concentrates that are really
Speaker 3: messing with people's minds, the vapes that are out there,
Speaker 3: the flavors. I mean to say that all of that
Speaker 3: has accepted medically use, accorded to the FDA, because basically
Speaker 3: a lot of people use them, it has implications wavyond marijuana.
Speaker 3: We're essentially saying to the pharma of the industry, forget
Speaker 3: about doing your research. If you run a ballid initiative
Speaker 3: in enough states and make your wonder drug popular, you
Speaker 3: all of a sudden have accepted medical use and you
Speaker 3: don't have to be Scheduled one. It really doesn't make sense.
Speaker 3: The other criteria Schedule one is abuse potential. We can
Speaker 3: argue about abuse potential that is more subjective. Although people
Speaker 3: should know that the research is getting clearer and clear.
Speaker 3: Every day. One in three people who used marijuana in
Speaker 3: the last year will be addicted. There's a lot of repit.
Speaker 3: But we can have an argument. Jonathan and I can
Speaker 3: go back and forth on abuse potential as it worth.
Speaker 3: But the medicinal part of this, which is one of
Speaker 3: the two criteria, it just doesn't meet anything other than
Speaker 3: Schedule one. So this was done, I should say, I
Speaker 3: hate to say this, but it was done pop for
Speaker 3: a political purpose. This was done to try and get
Speaker 3: young voters. And it was clear in the discussion of
Speaker 3: the Press secretary about how this was a campaign promise.
Speaker 3: This was discussed. This is not supposed to be a
Speaker 3: campaign issue. This is not supposed to be a political issue.
Speaker 3: This is supposed to be an issue that scientists and
Speaker 3: the government, who by the way, rejected rescheduling in the
Speaker 3: Obama administration in twenty sixteen when it would have been
Speaker 3: very easy to do it on his way out the door.
Speaker 3: This is something that's left for scientists. It's not meant
Speaker 3: to be pole politicized. So, yeah, the DEA not happy,
Speaker 3: not a fan. They went completely out of president. They've
Speaker 3: been absent from this sort of celebratory you know, hhs
Speaker 3: sort of kind of tone of we're rescheduling this. That's
Speaker 3: because this is a political issue to get young voters.
Speaker 3: Will it work? That's another issue. I actually don't think
Speaker 3: it Will, I don't think people really paying attention to
Speaker 3: this issue. I think when you rate issues among young people,
Speaker 3: marijuana is not even in the top ten. Didn't even
Speaker 3: appear in the Harvard Io People, which I know you'd
Speaker 3: all have talked about. So I just I think this
Speaker 3: was wrong on so many reasons. It doesn't mean I
Speaker 3: want to put people in prison, it doesn't mean I
Speaker 3: want to think it's like heroin, just on technical purposes.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So I was going to ask John, I think
Speaker 5: it's really important that we do get to the debate
Speaker 5: that you mentioned on abuse potential. It's a huge component
Speaker 5: of this and it's a great sort of area of contrast.
Speaker 5: But John, before we get to that, zeroing in on
Speaker 5: that point about whether it's overly broad to just use marijuana,
Speaker 5: which then would sweep in vaped and all of these
Speaker 5: other marijuana products that are sort of across the board
Speaker 5: at this point is do you agree with that? Do
Speaker 5: you think that it's overly broad or are you more
Speaker 5: with Ryan that this didn't even go far enough.
Speaker 4: Well, first, you know, as Kevin said, there's not a
Speaker 4: lot of research on this, in part because FDA and
Speaker 4: the US government blocked that research. You know, part of
Speaker 4: the reason why, for example, MDMA and psilocybin will likely
Speaker 4: be FDA approved far before cannabis is because they were
Speaker 4: allowed to actually do the research, and when the government's
Speaker 4: the one blocking the research a lot of the route.
Speaker 4: There has been an extensive amount of research done a
Speaker 4: at state universities and within states that do show a
Speaker 4: lot of safety, that do show efficacy for certain things.
Speaker 4: I don't agree that cannabis is some cure all that
Speaker 4: that cures everything from cancer to the common coal. But
Speaker 4: and I also agree if we're talking medicine, smoking is
Speaker 4: off the table. You don't smoke medicine, plain and simple.
Speaker 4: As far as edibles and bapes and things like that,
Speaker 4: I actually think there should be a lot of different
Speaker 4: delivery methods. One of the biggest problems that that dcrim
Speaker 4: and legalization has brought is a complete lack of quality control.
Speaker 4: And if somebody is using this as medicine, it needs,
Speaker 4: you know, each gummy, for example, needs to have the
Speaker 4: same dosage which is on the label and on bottle,
Speaker 4: especially if we're talking medicine, and if we're talking scheduling,
Speaker 4: Schedule three is still a medicine, and you know, there
Speaker 4: have been FDA trials that showed safety, it did not
Speaker 4: show efficacy, in part because it was night have provided cannabis.
Speaker 4: I do think we should look at efficacy using different things.
Speaker 4: There's lots of people who have a problem with vaping
Speaker 4: because they have lung issues, in which case a gummy
Speaker 4: might be easier.
Speaker 1: Kevin, can you respond? Can you respond to that one?
Speaker 1: The one point there that there isn't a lot of research,
Speaker 1: So you know, you have argued for policies over your
Speaker 1: career that have prevented that research from happening. So it
Speaker 1: seems unfair to then say, well, we don't have enough
Speaker 1: research at this point, so we can't move. It feels
Speaker 1: like it's just prohibition kind of covered in a more
Speaker 1: sympathetic glass, given that the population is now so much
Speaker 1: more supportive of marijuana reform.
Speaker 3: But I think there's a few big myths in this,
Speaker 3: in this overall discussion on marijuana in the country. One
Speaker 3: of them is that they are people in prison for
Speaker 3: low level marijuana use and that our prisons are full
Speaker 3: of them. That's probably the biggest one. The other one
Speaker 3: is that you know, we'll get rid of the cartels
Speaker 3: and the underground market if we legalize that clearly has
Speaker 3: not been probably another but the other myth I would
Speaker 3: say is that we don't that research, that we don't
Speaker 3: have the research on marijuana. That is a huge myth.
Speaker 3: We have over twenty thousand to thirty thousand peer reviewed
Speaker 3: studies over the last twenty or thirty years, way more
Speaker 3: than psilocybin and MDMA. By the way, the reason psilocybin
Speaker 3: and MDM aray may get FDA approvals soon. And by
Speaker 3: the way, I don't oppose that because they've gone through
Speaker 3: the normal method of medication development with by the way,
Speaker 3: far fewer research, but they've done it in a very
Speaker 3: controlled way. You could argue, you know, there's still some
Speaker 3: issues there, and that's for another debate maybe, but they've
Speaker 3: at least followed that plan. Although some states have voted
Speaker 3: on it. We shouldn't be voting on any medicine. I
Speaker 3: don't care what it is, and I don't and I
Speaker 3: don't really buy the argument that we have to do
Speaker 3: that because the government won't do research. There always could
Speaker 3: be more research, and actually, Ryan I have We've said
Speaker 3: eight or ten years ago we had a plan in Congress.
Speaker 3: Some of it's already been passed believe it or not.
Speaker 3: To increase research. I want more research. I have a
Speaker 3: PhD in this. We don't have enough research when it
Speaker 3: comes to concentrates, the ninety nine concentrates that are causing
Speaker 3: you know, five fold increases in psychosis, we don't have
Speaker 3: enough research on that. We love more research. We have
Speaker 3: research on fifteen PERCENTHD. We need ninety percent. There's a
Speaker 3: lot more we should do research on. But this idea
Speaker 3: that it sort of hasn't been research because it's illegal.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just isn't wrong. I mean we've we
Speaker 3: inherent one is illegal. We have a lot of research
Speaker 3: on it. LSD, you know, Schedule one. We have research
Speaker 3: on it. We researched it. Can we research it better?
Speaker 3: Are there easier, less, less burthen the research that's being blocked, Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 3: Here's the thing.
Speaker 4: The research that's being blocked that you've supported blocking, that's
Speaker 4: the party one any research. The research that is being
Speaker 4: blocked is the gold standard placebo controlled clinical research trials.
Speaker 3: I don't want to block that approval. Oh let me
Speaker 3: tell you. I'm telling you right now, I will not
Speaker 3: block up the hard thing about placebo. Of course, what
Speaker 3: the government did usually know you're high. Well again you
Speaker 3: look at the National Academy of Science. It's again people
Speaker 3: should just you don't take anybody to work for it.
Speaker 3: You can decide what research is for yourself. Maybe we
Speaker 3: have different definitions. But look at the National Academy of
Speaker 3: Sciences twenty seventeen. They're redoing it right now, will be
Speaker 3: out probably in the next year or two. But that
Speaker 3: that has like twenty thousand irre reviewed studies. Some of
Speaker 3: them do have the Placino's.
Speaker 4: Harder dr thing because how many of those studies zero
Speaker 4: controlled human clinical trials.
Speaker 3: There are some that are in there, and they were
Speaker 3: they didn't do well.
Speaker 4: I mean you he was saying twenty one thousand, there
Speaker 4: has only been one placebo control clinical trial ever approved
Speaker 4: by the FDA.
Speaker 1: And was that done? With the dirt weed they grow
Speaker 1: down in Mississippi, the govern that the government grows correct,
Speaker 1: and here's people John explain, explain that for people who
Speaker 1: are surprised the government grows weeds.
Speaker 3: Well, so this actually did change a few years ago.
Speaker 4: The government finally ended the night of monopoly and started
Speaker 4: issuing licenses to grow.
Speaker 3: Actually argue for that change. By the way, we wanted
Speaker 3: that change we're with you on that. Yeah good, that's
Speaker 3: not me like we're together on that bad.
Speaker 4: And actually, contrary to what's been reported pretty much everywhere,
Speaker 4: I was actually contracted with maps to end the night
Speaker 4: of monopoly. So that's primarily what I focused on because
Speaker 4: I do believe in placebo control trials. But you can't say, hey,
Speaker 4: the government funded twenty one thousand trials with an end
Speaker 4: state goal of proving that weed was bad. Is you
Speaker 4: know when you're looking at placebo could the gold standard
Speaker 4: placebo controls human clinical trials for specific condition is what's needed,
Speaker 4: And there's only been one in the whole United States
Speaker 4: because they have done it in places like Israel and
Speaker 4: other places that have shown that have shown efficacy, but
Speaker 4: those aren't accepted in the US, and the NIA monopoly
Speaker 4: specifically prevented anybody from using any sort of decent cannabis.
Speaker 4: It is actually so horrible that there were people on
Speaker 4: the place ebo who thought they were getting the actual thing.
Speaker 4: So the idea that well, you just you know you're
Speaker 4: high actually is disproven by the only phase.
Speaker 3: Two placebo controlled trial.
Speaker 4: And when you block those things, but you have lots
Speaker 4: of foudal evidence, like no I don't think veterans should
Speaker 4: be smoking weed, but I do think and you and
Speaker 4: I both know that veterans were used to approve medical
Speaker 4: in the States and improve legalization, and they still don't
Speaker 4: have access to it at the VA because currently the
Speaker 4: FDA is blocking three VA facilities from doing cannabis research.
Speaker 5: This time, well, I was saying, John, can I before
Speaker 5: we move on, can we just get you to zero
Speaker 5: in on the Schedule three decision? Do you what is
Speaker 5: your Do you support.
Speaker 1: That or not?
Speaker 3: Oh? No, I absolutely do.
Speaker 5: You don't worry about bringing all the other products in.
Speaker 4: No, not at all, Because Schedule three specifically doesn't legalize
Speaker 4: anything sold in the States. It only permits FDA proved drugs.
Speaker 4: What it does do is remove a whole long list
Speaker 4: of barriers to be able to conduct the research that
Speaker 4: are in place for Schedule one. Because so in order
Speaker 4: to research Schedule one you have to get a special
Speaker 4: license from Schedule one, which is very difficult and very
Speaker 4: expensive to get. You can get a Schedule two license,
Speaker 4: which is a little less, and then getting a license
Speaker 4: to do research with a Schedule three compound you file
Speaker 4: with the DNA. It's fairly easy. It's not as expensive.
Speaker 4: So this should allow all these different things. You want
Speaker 4: your gummy to be FDA approved, you want your your
Speaker 4: ninety percent, you know, a wax or whatever approved, amazing,
Speaker 4: put it through FDA trials, have it FDA approved. And
Speaker 4: the move to Schedule three makes that a lot easier because,
Speaker 4: as Kevin said.
Speaker 3: There is a ton of research.
Speaker 4: We know all all the hazards, we know some of
Speaker 4: the benefits, so we can we don't need to do
Speaker 4: a phase one trial to see if Peter will die
Speaker 4: if they smoke marijuana.
Speaker 3: Let me just comment on that real quick. I would
Speaker 3: love nothing more than one of the things from Schedule
Speaker 3: three to happen. By the way, it's not a foregone conclusion.
Speaker 3: It will be scheduled three. There's going to be low
Speaker 3: so that's agree it's happening. But whatever, Yeah, let's just
Speaker 3: say it is. I would like nothing more than Jonathan
Speaker 3: to be right on the research side, and I have
Speaker 3: research for friends that are totally anti cannabis from the
Speaker 3: legalization perspective who want to do more research and are like,
Speaker 3: maybe this will help. I'm very skeptical actually, and I
Speaker 3: will time will tell that this is going to be
Speaker 3: something that ushers in some new era of Maririjuana research,
Speaker 3: mainly because the major barrier for marijuana research is money.
Speaker 3: It's funding, and interestingly, pharma has been only somewhat interested.
Speaker 3: They don't really see marijuana as a profitable kind of medication.
Speaker 3: Some have, but they've boy I mean GW Pharma, Jazz Pharma,
Speaker 3: I know Jonathan knows a lot about them. I mean they,
Speaker 3: I mean, God knows how much money they've spent for
Speaker 3: almost for nothing. That they have a preparation of proven
Speaker 3: fifty countries, they cannot get it approoved here called satavex,
Speaker 3: half CBD, have THHC for certain pain. It's gone nowhere here.
Speaker 3: It's a very difficult road, but it's going to be
Speaker 3: funding more than these barriers. What we do know definitely
Speaker 3: will happen, which I should have mentioned at first with
Speaker 3: Schedule three, is that marijuana companies get tax breaks that
Speaker 3: they didn't get before. And that is something that really
Speaker 3: repulses me. The fact that you have these big marijuana
Speaker 3: companies who can now write off advertising expenses as if
Speaker 3: they need more good advertising, they could write off other
Speaker 3: ordinary business expenses in their tax returns. Many people might
Speaker 3: not know are still what do you they're not the right. No, no, no,
Speaker 3: but no, no, this isn't This isn't a part of hold on,
Speaker 3: hold on, let me fish. This isn't a dispute. I mean,
Speaker 3: I disagree with people like who disagree with me on
Speaker 3: this on every other issue, but they acknowledge this, which
Speaker 3: is the two ade tax exception means that if you're
Speaker 3: a company dealing with a Schedule one or two drug,
Speaker 3: you cannot write off ordinary tax ordinary business expenses on
Speaker 3: their taxes because you are now scheduled three. This is
Speaker 3: not a like, this isn't really something the debate about.
Speaker 3: If this is, if it's Schedule three, they can, they
Speaker 3: can write off expenses. And for me, that that worries
Speaker 3: me because I don't want pod companies to be more
Speaker 3: the big ones to be more profitable than they already are.
Speaker 3: That really worries me.
Speaker 4: You are correct, however, they and they can if they
Speaker 4: are manufacturing it according to federal law, and you can't
Speaker 4: just make you can't make ketamine in your basement sell
Speaker 4: it on the street. And of course because yeah, so
Speaker 4: if they're not selling FDA drugs, so you're right, they're.
Speaker 3: No, well they need the law, they won't Yeah, I
Speaker 3: wish they would. And I went up to DA to
Speaker 3: enforce the law to marijuana. It's been illegal and still illegal,
Speaker 3: and they're not enforcing any law when it comes to it.
Speaker 3: So I would love for them to enforce the law.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's going to happen. This is going
Speaker 3: to usher in even bigger companies. You're right. The guy
Speaker 3: that grows a little weed and gets into his neighbors,
Speaker 3: he's not going to deduct ex expenses. I'm talking about
Speaker 3: the you know, huge guys that are that are competing
Speaker 3: in these states.
Speaker 1: I mean, Kevin, shouldn't shouldn't a business be able to
Speaker 1: write off expenses? I mean, these are these are like,
Speaker 1: these are now businesses. They've got storefronts, they've got employees.
Speaker 3: They're totally illegal. Legalize them first, go through Congress and
Speaker 3: legalize them. But they can't. And so and you just
Speaker 3: destroyed your own point. You can't.
Speaker 4: Illegal companies cannot write off on their their expenses on
Speaker 4: on their taxes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, their businesses that do a legal business.
Speaker 4: Insaye, for example, California to a state that doesn't mean
Speaker 4: that their business is federally legal. You you traditional, Yeah,
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, you're right.
Speaker 3: Jonathan, I commend your integrity here to to make that distinction,
Speaker 3: which very few people do. I'm serious, I'm not facetious.
Speaker 3: But I can tell you these companies who are totally,
Speaker 3: as you're saying, and I'm saying, are illegal companies because
Speaker 3: they're felons. I mean they're felons. They're they're literally felons
Speaker 3: because they're selling any under and a controlled substance. It
Speaker 3: doesn't matter what schedule. They're selling an illegal, illegal drug.
Speaker 3: But they have already said that they are cheering this
Speaker 3: so they can deduct expenses and become more profitable. That's
Speaker 3: why the stock exchange, which is there's a little stock symbol,
Speaker 3: has skyrocketed since this discussion of rescheduling, and people on
Speaker 3: these petty stocks are making actually a decent amount of
Speaker 3: money right now because there's this thought that this will
Speaker 3: be able to happen. I hope to god you're right
Speaker 3: about both research and I hope you're right about they're
Speaker 3: not going to be deducting spensis. That's absolutely the scenario.
Speaker 3: But I absolutely believe.
Speaker 4: That companies will will try to deduct things they are
Speaker 4: legually not permitted to. I mean, every company in the
Speaker 4: United States does that. That doesn't mean that the ir
Speaker 4: res can't go.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: Honestly, it's far easier in this case than in a
Speaker 4: case of regular corporations selling widgets that's writing off you know,
Speaker 4: an apartment they can't or something like that.
Speaker 5: I think the crux of this dispute is a dispute
Speaker 5: over optimism, or about whether this optimism is well placed,
Speaker 5: or you know, maybe it should be taken down a
Speaker 5: couple of notches about the potential of marijuana. And on that, John,
Speaker 5: I wanted to ask you if you share Kevin's concern
Speaker 5: about big marijuana becoming the new big tobacco, because when
Speaker 5: we're talking about writing off expenses which helps them sort
Speaker 5: of grow now illegal businesses into behemoths. I think I
Speaker 5: won't put words in Kevin's mouth because I'll give him
Speaker 5: a chance to talk about this too. But you can
Speaker 5: create predatory industries, obviously when you're dealing with something like this.
Speaker 5: So do you share the concern that this rapid sort
Speaker 5: of growth is going to create predatory behemoths in the
Speaker 5: way that we saw happen with big tobacco.
Speaker 4: Oh, I absolutely think it can. I also think that
Speaker 4: there are ways to very much mitigate that. Quality control
Speaker 4: is one of the biggest ones. But also again, Schedule
Speaker 4: three isn't necessarily about legalizations.
Speaker 3: Schedule three is about.
Speaker 4: Medical benefit and one of my primary concerns is ensuring
Speaker 4: that the veterans who have been fighting for this and
Speaker 4: need this for paying PTSD and other issues where there's
Speaker 4: extensive evidence have access to it through the VA, which
Speaker 4: everyone seems to be ignoring.
Speaker 5: And can you tell us more about your experience working
Speaker 5: with veterans in how mariwa It has been something that
Speaker 5: in your experience you've watched them respond to it positively?
Speaker 3: Oh? Absolutely.
Speaker 4: I can't tell you how many veterans that were actively
Speaker 4: suicidal who I have sat with, who smoked to joint
Speaker 4: and calmed down and we were able.
Speaker 3: To get them the help that they needed.
Speaker 4: I actually also think it's it's probably not good for
Speaker 4: long term, but also it's way better than benzos and opiates,
Speaker 4: which is currently what the VA is prescribing.
Speaker 3: And so you know both and actually both of those
Speaker 3: are far more.
Speaker 4: Addictive than cannabis, and the withdrawal withdrawal from benzo's can actually,
Speaker 4: if not done in a medical environment, can actually kill you.
Speaker 4: That is not the case with cannabis. And again, I
Speaker 4: don't think anybody should smoke it as a medicine. For me,
Speaker 4: that is completely off the table. You know, veterans have
Speaker 4: enough lung damage from burn pits. They don't need to
Speaker 4: be smoking wheed. But also, you know, if this was
Speaker 4: treated as actual medicine and it wasn't about the culture,
Speaker 4: and it wasn't about legalization, it wasn't about all of this,
Speaker 4: it would have already been approved if the government had
Speaker 4: in a block. And now we're in a position where
Speaker 4: we're at where we're at, and we need to deal
Speaker 4: with it d prim letting you know, if you think
Speaker 4: the guy who's who's growing in his basement, you know,
Speaker 4: and giving it to his neighbors, isn't going to sell it,
Speaker 4: you're wrong.
Speaker 3: He is. And so do you think that person should
Speaker 3: go to jail? No?
Speaker 4: But you you know this is where I would rather
Speaker 4: because here's the thing.
Speaker 3: I'll be completely honest. I kill rosemary plants.
Speaker 4: I tried to grow herbs and everything, and I have
Speaker 4: a complete black thump. I could not grow marijuana if
Speaker 4: my life depended on it. So I'm going to find
Speaker 4: it from someone else. So you know, if if it's medicine,
Speaker 4: which I do believe it is. It should be treated
Speaker 4: as such. We can have a further conversation with legalization.
Speaker 4: But one of the things that the bacco industry had
Speaker 4: that Big Cannabis doesn't is twenty one thousand peer reviewed
Speaker 4: studies that Kevin had brought up earlier, you know, showing
Speaker 4: what some of those dangers are. You know, one of
Speaker 4: the biggest mistakes I think in cannabis, and this is
Speaker 4: something me and Kevin will be one thousand percent in
Speaker 4: agreement on.
Speaker 3: I don't think anybody should get.
Speaker 4: Behind the wheel of a vehicle under the influence of
Speaker 4: any substance marijuana, alcohol, benzos, opiates. And insistence on we
Speaker 4: can do what we want, we can smoke cannabis where
Speaker 4: we want, we can do anything is.
Speaker 3: Part of the problem.
Speaker 4: The concept that medical was originally pitched and implemented as
Speaker 4: here's a card. You can now smoke as much as
Speaker 4: you want, wherever you want, whenever you want. That's not medicine,
Speaker 4: and me and Kevin will likely very much agree on that,
Speaker 4: But that doesn't mean it can't be just because you know,
Speaker 4: you know, fentanyl is highly dangerous, but it can be
Speaker 4: safely used in a medical environment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go ahead, Kevin.
Speaker 1: I wanted to respond to something.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I mean there's a couple of things. There
Speaker 3: are one thing. Actually, I am struck again, I really
Speaker 3: in a good way, John, that you're you know, acknowledging
Speaker 3: that probably marijuana on the long term is not the
Speaker 3: best thing for a veteran or somebody with PTSD to
Speaker 3: smoke smoke marijuana in a long term. In fact, the
Speaker 3: studies that we have, and as you know, the review
Speaker 3: out of Yale and many others, show that when it
Speaker 3: comes to PTSD symptoms, I mean, marijuana, because of its
Speaker 3: ability to connection with psychosis, it'sophrenia, depression, anxiety, it exacerbates
Speaker 3: these symptoms in the medium to long term. It doesn't
Speaker 3: mean that in the short term someone might not feel
Speaker 3: better at that time while they're high, at that moment
Speaker 3: that you're sitting down with them smoking a joint. But
Speaker 3: in terms of a long term kind of solution for
Speaker 3: these big, big issues that we're dealing with with our veterans,
Speaker 3: it sounded like you somewhat acknowledge actually what I was
Speaker 3: going to say there, which is I would really exercise
Speaker 3: a lot of caution. I think we can do much
Speaker 3: better than Benzo's and I agree with you on that too,
Speaker 3: and these other very harmful drugs. It speaks to, really, frankly,
Speaker 3: the lack of care we've given two veterans four or
Speaker 3: their issues, the lack of mental health awareness that these
Speaker 3: are much bigger than drug policy, the lack of you know,
Speaker 3: sort of opportunities. There's so many very very big issues there.
Speaker 3: And I really do I actually commend you for not
Speaker 3: because you know, most of the time when I'm doing
Speaker 3: these debates, these discussions, the marijuana enthusiasts, I mean, they
Speaker 3: are bringing every kind of sympathetic person as their spokesperson
Speaker 3: to say, this is why this is the wonder drug
Speaker 3: of the world, and we need this, whether it's someone
Speaker 3: with cancer for its stage, whether it's a veteran, whether whatever,
Speaker 3: and not acknowledging any of these downsides when the science,
Speaker 3: at least the science we have right now is actually
Speaker 3: pretty clear, especially with mental health probably the worst area
Speaker 3: that marijuana is touching. So I actually we have some
Speaker 3: agreement there that I think is important well, and I
Speaker 3: debate those people too as well, but I appreciate that.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, before you go to the next one, So
Speaker 1: let's let's say all of us do acknowledge that there
Speaker 1: are some there are some downside there, and that we
Speaker 1: as a society need to figure out the best public
Speaker 1: health approach in that direction. What I would argue is
Speaker 1: that the anti legalization kind of movement of which you're
Speaker 1: one of the chief spokespeople, is kind of being dragged,
Speaker 1: kicking and screaming into this new kind of paradigm, this
Speaker 1: new approach that we have toward marijuana policy and hopefully
Speaker 1: eventually drug policy more generally. But the kicking and screaming
Speaker 1: that you're doing along the way is preventing us from
Speaker 1: creating a rational policy, but it's not preventing marijuana from
Speaker 1: getting everywhere. Like the charts now show that there are
Speaker 1: more people actively using marijuana, whether through gummies or something else,
Speaker 1: than there are using alcohol. Like it has now surpassed out.
Speaker 1: It's now surpassed alcohol.
Speaker 3: Heavy. Yes, yet we're not heavy.
Speaker 1: Right yet, we're not a right exactly. Yet we're not
Speaker 1: able to then have a rational where Congress gets involved
Speaker 1: and where the states can then legislate policy because you've
Speaker 1: got you've got all of these kind of choke points,
Speaker 1: and you guys kind of have your hands around those
Speaker 1: choke points, so wouldn't letting those go? And then just
Speaker 1: like saying, look, okay, we surrender, we give up, Like
Speaker 1: this is where it's heading. Now, let's figure out how
Speaker 1: to handle this from a public health perspective. Wouldn't that
Speaker 1: be a better way to handle it?
Speaker 3: And you're channeling the late Great you know, our friend
Speaker 3: and mentor Mark climate in that, which is basically which
Speaker 3: we have in a lot of discussions on where he
Speaker 3: you know, basically said listen, I don't like that this
Speaker 3: is happening. It's becoming big, big marijuana, but you know
Speaker 3: it is, and so we got to get at the
Speaker 3: table and prevent this from being a lot worse. I
Speaker 3: think you can walk and shot gum at the same time.
Speaker 3: I think, on the one hand, we can, and we've
Speaker 3: been successful in preventing federal legalization, which I think has
Speaker 3: stopped the growth. This business is not a very profitable
Speaker 3: business right now unless you're one of the bigger guys.
Speaker 3: But it really is actually become it's a total failure business. Generally.
Speaker 3: We look at the New York State, there's so many problems.
Speaker 3: The underground market, which we haven't talked about, is thriving.
Speaker 3: I mean, the drug selling is thriving illegal marijuana sales.
Speaker 3: So on the one hand, I think we've been successful
Speaker 3: in that. I think that anything to delay that actually
Speaker 3: I do think saves lives. I do think that's a
Speaker 3: good thing. On the other hand, your point is well
Speaker 3: taken that, you know, if we're just like not effective,
Speaker 3: and we're kicking and screaming and being dragged to the
Speaker 3: other side that we don't like, then we're just so
Speaker 3: weak when we get to the other side, we're not
Speaker 3: able to even get up instead at the table, we're
Speaker 3: just basically limp and dead. And so we're not going
Speaker 3: to influence some of these regulations. I will tell you
Speaker 3: this is something we will be publicize a lot. But
Speaker 3: we have worked very hard in states that have legalized marijuana,
Speaker 3: knowing they're not going to repeal it tomorrow, that to
Speaker 3: try and get these regulars to say, all right, let's
Speaker 3: sit at the table, let's have a regulation on the gummies,
Speaker 3: let's have a regulation on kid friendly products. Let's look
Speaker 3: at advertising. I mean, you know, unfortunately, the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: has said commercial speech is free speech, so difficult to
Speaker 3: prevent advertising. But maybe there's some things we can do.
Speaker 3: Let's look at THG limits. Do we really need seventy
Speaker 3: percent shatter like? Is that really something that we need?
Speaker 3: Or can we limit it? All of these things, and
Speaker 3: it has been almost come to basically nothing because of
Speaker 3: how powerful this industry already is. And I don't think
Speaker 3: if we got there in the on day one, which
Speaker 3: many people were on Day one in Colorado, a lot
Speaker 3: of our colleagues were sitting at the table with Igolberg,
Speaker 3: who was against legalization at the time, trying to craft
Speaker 3: something new. They they're completely outspent and outgunned by this industry.
Speaker 3: So I think it's going to take a national reckoning
Speaker 3: like we had with tobacco. It took us eighty years
Speaker 3: to get there. Unfortunately a lot of dead, lots of
Speaker 3: people and destroyed families. But I do think that we
Speaker 3: have things are gonna get worse before they get better,
Speaker 3: and we just because it might be practical, because you
Speaker 3: might be able to get a regulation in if you
Speaker 3: if you sort of give up on all these other things,
Speaker 3: I think it's better to stick with principle and the
Speaker 3: truth and the science and trying to help as many
Speaker 3: people who can now and the country. I think is
Speaker 3: going to come around on this. I'm not saying they're
Speaker 3: going to say we should lock people up. I don't
Speaker 3: think we should. But I think they're going to come
Speaker 3: around on this, like super over enthusiasm that more people
Speaker 3: smoking weed and being high all day is good for
Speaker 3: our society. I don't think that's gonna last forever. So
Speaker 3: that's I think it's very different. But let's get to that.
Speaker 4: That's a bit disingenuous because this concept that if you
Speaker 4: use cannabis you're a stoner who's high all day.
Speaker 3: I'm yeah, I'm not saying everybody yeah.
Speaker 4: And there's also people who are drunk all day. I
Speaker 4: actually use tobacco. I'm a smoker, and you know, one,
Speaker 4: you could still legally buy cigarettes.
Speaker 3: One.
Speaker 4: I completely agree there should. There should be, you know,
Speaker 4: age restrictions and things like this, and targeting children is
Speaker 4: bad for whether it's alcohol, tobacco, cannabis. You know, nobody's
Speaker 4: saying ban the tobacco and you can smoke cigarettes if
Speaker 4: you can grow it in your backyard.
Speaker 3: You know, in everybody.
Speaker 5: Kevin, would you have been tobacco?
Speaker 3: Well, look, I'll take that deal any day, John, But
Speaker 3: that deal means that society has to treat marijuana and
Speaker 3: think about marijuana like they do tobacco, which would be
Speaker 3: a one hundred and eighty degree turn. So if we
Speaker 3: can press a button and you want to buy a
Speaker 3: marijuana cigarette back, but everyone knows marijuana's harmful, deadly, not
Speaker 3: good for you, kids don't like it. It's people knows
Speaker 3: the smells that you can't do it in most places.
Speaker 3: I'll take the reality is that's not where we are.
Speaker 3: But I wouldn't ban tobacco. Well, tobacco, actually tobacco. Let
Speaker 3: me answer the question tobacco banning. I actually look at
Speaker 3: New Zealand and other countries that sorted to just phase
Speaker 3: out of tobacco over time. I think something like that
Speaker 3: actually does make sense. In terms of alcohol, I wouldn't
Speaker 3: ban alcohol. And you're saying, well, wait a minute, that
Speaker 3: is like you are totally contradictory. No, I'm not the
Speaker 3: reason you can't ban alcohol. I would turn off alcohol
Speaker 3: if you had a switch, absolutely, because it's the most
Speaker 3: damaging drug. It's the number one reason people in the
Speaker 3: guards rated it's the number one reason for domestic violence.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you could turn a flip a switch
Speaker 3: and reverse four thousand years of history. I would do that,
Speaker 3: and I'm a kill joy, I guess, but I would
Speaker 3: do that. But I'm not in favorite of alcohol prohibition
Speaker 3: right now. Why because way too many people are using
Speaker 3: it on a regular basis and it is totally ingrained
Speaker 3: in our culture in terms of widespread accepted use for
Speaker 3: the last four thousand years. Yes, marijuana has been used
Speaker 3: for thousands of years, but not by the vast majority
Speaker 3: of Western civilization. It is nowhere near the cultural importance
Speaker 3: of alcohol. And you cannot argue about that at all.
Speaker 3: There are also some physiological differences with alcohol and THD
Speaker 3: alcohol in and out of your system in twenty four hours,
Speaker 3: you know that kind of thing. There's some I don't
Speaker 3: want to debate that right now. But this is a
Speaker 3: cultural reason you can't ban alcohol. It's not just alcohol's
Speaker 3: good for you. It's because alcohol is sadly totally here,
Speaker 3: and it's been here for four thousand years in every
Speaker 3: household almost in America. And let's get to cannabis.
Speaker 4: Has it work because everybody keeps smoking it?
Speaker 3: Culture whether we like it or not. It's part of
Speaker 3: a culture, John, But it's there's a reason it's counter culture.
Speaker 3: There's a reason you know, I went to bird Stream.
Speaker 3: It's definitely for sure.
Speaker 4: Mainstream, lots of Republicans, tons of people. It's the counter
Speaker 4: culture is the one that makes their whole life about weed.
Speaker 4: And that's kind of the difference because that's the people.
Speaker 3: I don't care if you're an adult smoking and joint
Speaker 3: the prophisey of your own home and it's not your
Speaker 3: complete identity and you don't think everyone should be high
Speaker 3: all the time or whatever. That's not my beef. My
Speaker 3: thief is the fact that we are unwittingly or unwittingly
Speaker 3: creating these massive companies that tobacco's invested billions. We are
Speaker 3: we have no history of regulating these items as well.
Speaker 3: The only reason we do tobacco well now is because
Speaker 3: we were dragged, kicking and screaming for almost a century
Speaker 3: to acknowledge the harms. We, by the way, knew about
Speaker 3: tobacco's arms in the twenties. In Germany and Europe, they
Speaker 3: knew about it. So the issue is it's like do
Speaker 3: we I guess we're going to have to learn the
Speaker 3: hard way. I think we're gonna have to learn the
Speaker 3: hard way like we did tobacco, and then it may
Speaker 3: not be illegal again. But there's going to be a
Speaker 3: cultural renaissance at some point.
Speaker 5: So what I'm hearing from both those no John, go ahead,
Speaker 5: quick response and.
Speaker 3: And and and you know.
Speaker 4: You, I do commend you for calling attention to the harms,
Speaker 4: like you know, driving while while I'm talking. You know,
Speaker 4: under the influence of cannabis. You know one damage concentric
Speaker 4: that is good. I agree with you. Now cigarettes everybody
Speaker 4: knows they're bad for you. Lots of people still smoke.
Speaker 3: Sure see if.
Speaker 4: Everybody, how did everybody go from oh my god, cigarettes
Speaker 4: are amazing too wild?
Speaker 3: These are really bad.
Speaker 4: It's it's using fats and pr campaigns and people are
Speaker 4: like you talking about it. So if you want to
Speaker 4: change the culture and have it people have access, but
Speaker 4: also understand the harms. I mean, keep doing what you're doing,
Speaker 4: you should be. I think, like I don't have a
Speaker 4: problem if you if this stuff sold with warnings like
Speaker 4: like tobacco.
Speaker 3: We need warning labels that the industry has fought warning
Speaker 3: labels and ever say we've introduced it. And that's what
Speaker 3: gets The practical reality is this is a very strong
Speaker 3: industry who relies on profit and heavy use. That's how
Speaker 3: they make their money. They don't want to acknowledge the
Speaker 3: word you do, and I'd love you for it, but
Speaker 3: they don't, and they're sadly holding the key to this
Speaker 3: no offense. So let me industry, Let me jump in.
Speaker 5: Ye, let me jump in, because what you're really disagreeing
Speaker 5: on here, from what I'm hearing, is, you know, on
Speaker 5: Kevin's side, he wants to slow down, and delay is
Speaker 5: a word that we've been used because fundamentally he doesn't think.
Speaker 5: He thinks that the existing research is proving that marijuana
Speaker 5: is very negative can have very negative consequences for users. John,
Speaker 5: you believe that there isn't enough research. Therefore, some of
Speaker 5: these accelerating steps Schedule three for example, are necessary in
Speaker 5: order to get more information about whether or not Kevin's
Speaker 5: premise is accurate. So, on that note, Kevin, I'm going
Speaker 5: to ask you to maybe walk us through some of
Speaker 5: the evidence that is important from your perspective, suggesting marijuana
Speaker 5: is much more dangerous than perhaps people like John and
Speaker 5: Ryan want to believe.
Speaker 3: Sure. I mean, the number one thing I'd say is
Speaker 3: there's not one drug that we know of that increases
Speaker 3: your risk of psychosis bifold and psychosis is a very
Speaker 3: scary thing. And I think it's changing the nature of
Speaker 3: marijuana because marijuana used to be the again your kind
Speaker 3: of college roommate, joking, stoner or falling asleep at night,
Speaker 3: you know, sort of you know, be mediocre student. And
Speaker 3: it's changing this into a drug that actually is very linked.
Speaker 3: Now the studies are showing with aggressive behavior and even violence,
Speaker 3: which is not something I even talked about ten years ago.
Speaker 3: But the research, again don't believe American research. A lot
Speaker 3: of those research is coming out from the UK, Australia,
Speaker 3: other parts of Europe as well showing this. And that
Speaker 3: is for me number one. The mental health and specifically
Speaker 3: psychosis and schizophrenia, something very hard to come back from,
Speaker 3: I think is extremely damaging. Then you look at things
Speaker 3: like cardiovatskillar and you see that marijuana has more secondhands
Speaker 3: smoke harms in terms of hydrocarbons and carcinogens and even tobacco.
Speaker 3: I worry about that. I worry about the driving. Of course,
Speaker 3: fifty percent of kids today I think it's okay to
Speaker 3: drive while stone. One hundred percent of kids don't think
Speaker 3: it's okay to drink while you know, drive while drinking.
Speaker 3: The drug, but fifty percent it's okay by lose stone.
Speaker 3: So huge issue that I think we need to draw
Speaker 3: attention to. But I I just think that these these
Speaker 3: are harms that are acknowledged in the halls of academic
Speaker 3: you know, health associations all over the world, but they're
Speaker 3: you know, they're completely negated by the power of popular culture,
Speaker 3: the power of you know, Listen, I understand there are
Speaker 3: plenty of people who use marijuana and they're fine, But
Speaker 3: I would liken them to the people that drive over
Speaker 3: the speed limit and they're fine. I mean, there's a
Speaker 3: lot of people to drive over the speed limit that
Speaker 3: have never had a cent crash. Does that mean that
Speaker 3: driving over the speed limit doesn't increase the risk of
Speaker 3: a car crash. No, it does increase the risk, But
Speaker 3: a lot of people do it anyway, and they're fine.
Speaker 3: A lot of people spoke and they're fine. My next
Speaker 3: door neighbors spoke for seventy five years to the cigarettes tobacco,
Speaker 3: and he died of old age at ninety eight years old.
Speaker 3: That doesn't negate the fact that there are four hundred
Speaker 3: thousand people a year dead from tobacco related illness today.
Speaker 3: So you can believe both things. But I think we've
Speaker 3: just taken anecdote a lot of what the baby boomer's
Speaker 3: experience was marijuana that was three percent THHD, nothing that
Speaker 3: happened to them. So they're trans thing their own, uh
Speaker 3: sort of experiences, and they're they're generalizing that. I think
Speaker 3: that's a huge hurdle to overcome because I don't think
Speaker 3: it's that's the case anymore responsible. So yeah, two two
Speaker 3: out of the three one.
Speaker 4: I you know, no, kids shouldn't think that driving while
Speaker 4: stone stone is good. And this is where harm reduction
Speaker 4: instead of just prohibition in education is helpful.
Speaker 3: They should be told.
Speaker 4: The harms of driving well under the influence of anything.
Speaker 4: And as far as smoking, yeah, you're right, smoking is
Speaker 4: horrible for your lungs. And if they wanted to ban
Speaker 4: smoked cannabis for that reason, I really don't have an
Speaker 4: issue with it.
Speaker 1: You know then what No, I agree that that for
Speaker 1: your lungs. But you know.
Speaker 4: What I'm more saying is if we want to prohibit
Speaker 4: the big corporations from selling it because it is bad
Speaker 4: for the lungs, that's a discussion we can have. I
Speaker 4: think the psychosis. You're right, people with schizophrenias should not
Speaker 4: use drugs various compounds without supervision. But we also prescribe
Speaker 4: adderall which is called cause extensive psychosis and psychotic drinks.
Speaker 4: And this is where, you know, part of the issue
Speaker 4: we have is, you know, this concept of good drugs
Speaker 4: and bad drugs brought us the opiate epidemic, you know,
Speaker 4: and frankly, psychedelics help save my life by going through
Speaker 4: a four month protocol. I think we need to look
Speaker 4: at contexts. Nobody bats an eye at fentanyl being used
Speaker 4: as anesthesia as part of a surgery.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean people should be doing it.
Speaker 4: Behind seven to eleven in this idea that that anything
Speaker 4: and everything's okay. When it comes to cannabis, you're right
Speaker 4: that that's wrong. We should be talking about not driving.
Speaker 4: I actually think more people who are pro cannabis should
Speaker 4: be talking about driving while stone and how horrible it is.
Speaker 4: But also a lot of the studies they don't isolate cannabis,
Speaker 4: you know, on the violence. How many other compounds were.
Speaker 3: Involved, Like like I was reading a people the other day.
Speaker 4: Where the whole thing was about this person did a
Speaker 4: psychedelic and went crazy, and if you actually look, they
Speaker 4: were on alcohol, they were on cannabis, they were on
Speaker 4: four different types of psychedelics and opiates at the time.
Speaker 3: I'm talking one of those budies. I'm talking about the
Speaker 3: Pew Double, these peer reviewed studies and like the highest
Speaker 3: impact academic journals where you have to control these other factors. So,
Speaker 3: of course, like the world is not black and white,
Speaker 3: so are there always other factors? Very hard to control for, Yes,
Speaker 3: But when you look at this sort of years, kind
Speaker 3: of threshold and standard of evidence, I'm just saying it's
Speaker 3: a lot more alarming than people think. But Ryan, you
Speaker 3: said something that I think is important to call out.
Speaker 3: We're not talking about prison, and I think that's also
Speaker 3: a false dichotomy that the legalization movement has used very
Speaker 3: well to say that we either have to legalize it
Speaker 3: or we have to throw people in prison. But what
Speaker 3: are you going to do? No, Actually, I mean again,
Speaker 3: you could discourage that you smoke cigarettes. You could discourage
Speaker 3: the use of marijuana cigarettes. You could say that there
Speaker 3: are reasons why this is you at lea shouldn't make
Speaker 3: an informed decision. We're also not going to let this
Speaker 3: industry sell as many as they want to whomever they
Speaker 3: want and label it completely mislabeled it, which is what
Speaker 3: they are these legal states. I mean, the idea that
Speaker 3: this is actually regulated in places like Colorado is laughable.
Speaker 3: When you test the actual stuff you're buying from these dispensaries,
Speaker 3: it's not. Most of the time, it's not even what
Speaker 3: you think it is. So the point is, I think
Speaker 3: we all agree more education campaigns. I don't know one's
Speaker 3: saying we need to put people in prison. We don't
Speaker 3: want to go back to nineteen fifty on us. I'm
Speaker 3: not arguing that at all.
Speaker 4: And I as federal government gets you involved with legalization
Speaker 4: and regulation, they can enforce most address most of what
Speaker 4: you were discussing.
Speaker 3: They would do that. If they would do that. It's
Speaker 3: an interesting topic because you could argue, you know, you
Speaker 3: could argue, the industry has it good. Now there's sort
Speaker 3: of there's sort of in a gray area. It's illegal,
Speaker 3: but they're doing it anyway, and they're there's no enforcement,
Speaker 3: so that means there's no there's no rules. If you say,
Speaker 3: you know what, no FDA is going to be in
Speaker 3: charge and they're actually not going to be free of
Speaker 3: industry influence and they're actually going to enforce public health
Speaker 3: as they do tobacco. Maybe that's a deal will take
Speaker 3: one day, but I don't think the FDA is there yet.
Speaker 3: I don't think.
Speaker 4: Every piece of legislation that's been introduced that I've read
Speaker 4: has basically have it full under a standard of like
Speaker 4: nutritional supplements, where what's on the bottle in the bottle
Speaker 4: has to be on the label and things like that.
Speaker 3: I would never want to repeat the nutritional supplement thing
Speaker 3: for marijuana. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking
Speaker 3: about like the Center for Tobacco Control or something in
Speaker 3: a way that you actually could enforce advertising, the standards,
Speaker 3: warning labels, things like that. But again, I think this
Speaker 3: whole thing right now is political, just like the Men
Speaker 3: Fall band issue, and I think it's about getting votes.
Speaker 3: But I don't think that's actually I mean, I think
Speaker 3: if Biden's gonna win, he's gonna win. It's gonna lose,
Speaker 3: it's gonna lose. It's not gonna because of marijuana being
Speaker 3: rescheduled from one to three and people even knowing what
Speaker 3: that is and basing their boat on that. I just
Speaker 3: that I don't see happening at all.
Speaker 1: I do think it's fair to acknowledge that the that
Speaker 1: advocates exaggerated the number of people who were in prison
Speaker 1: for low level uh marijuana fences, and I think there
Speaker 1: was some uh it backfired in the sense that you know,
Speaker 1: when they when when they finally started doing criminal justice reform,
Speaker 1: they would use those stories of like, oh, we're gonna
Speaker 1: pardon or we're going to release the people who were
Speaker 1: only you know, serving long sentences for a dimebag of weed.
Speaker 1: And then they open up the prison doors and like
Speaker 1: three people were able to walk out. Yeah, because a
Speaker 1: lot of people were in from multiple things. On the
Speaker 1: other hand, once you're in the criminal justice system, now
Speaker 1: you know, uh, failing a drug test or or getting
Speaker 1: caught at that point then triggers you sometimes to go
Speaker 1: back for very long prison sentences for let's say, you know,
Speaker 1: boosting a car or something, but force proves people out
Speaker 1: of labor force. But the actual thing that you're in
Speaker 1: jail for is for failing that marijuana test. But it
Speaker 1: goes to the question of you're saying there's no no
Speaker 1: prison involved here, but you're talking about coercion by the state,
Speaker 1: so the state has to do something. So if you're
Speaker 1: saying X should be illegal, but you're saying, well, we
Speaker 1: don't want to have prison. What do you just just
Speaker 1: finding every.
Speaker 3: What do we do? Well, what do we do if
Speaker 3: you're if you're driving over the speed limit, you go
Speaker 3: to a class about why that's bad, You pay a fine,
Speaker 3: you have a record. What do you do if you're
Speaker 3: you know, I don't know. There's some like jaywalking, loitering.
Speaker 3: There's certain things where basically the point is you want
Speaker 3: to figure it. I think you want to figure out
Speaker 3: a way to discourage the activity, which I know a
Speaker 3: lot of people don't want to do. They don't think
Speaker 3: we should do it. Why would we do that? But
Speaker 3: I always say, I want to discourage the activity without
Speaker 3: you know, at all going overboard on the penalty of that,
Speaker 3: because you're right, we obviously don't want to keep someone
Speaker 3: out of a labor force, or out of housing or
Speaker 3: getting healthcare or an education or a student loan. If
Speaker 3: they made a really dumb decision ten years ago and
Speaker 3: decided to whatever, like smoke weed in front of a
Speaker 3: cop because they were mad at the police or something,
Speaker 3: and then you know, now their life is destroyed because
Speaker 3: by the time their brain was developed and they realized
Speaker 3: that was a really dumb idea now they can't get
Speaker 3: their life back on track. That those kinds of things
Speaker 3: absolutely we need to fix and we need to we
Speaker 3: need to do so. I think we have to just
Speaker 3: figure out how to strike that balance. Right now though,
Speaker 3: we're just in an environment where it's like ninety five
Speaker 3: percent good. It's just everywhere you look, this is a
Speaker 3: good thing. It's on point, it's in the moment, this
Speaker 3: is like who like, unless you're totally like nuts, why
Speaker 3: would you think this is bad? Like we're going and
Speaker 3: I just think that we have got that that pendulum
Speaker 3: we talking about a pendul lem We talked about that earlier.
Speaker 1: That's eventually too yes, sort of repeating myself, But then
Speaker 1: why not just get out of the way, legalize it
Speaker 1: and then fight on the public health front.
Speaker 3: We've never done that successfully and the only way we've
Speaker 3: done that is with cigarettes. But that took one hundred
Speaker 3: years to actually do that. It wasn't like all of
Speaker 3: a sudden when we have the data, everyone came to
Speaker 3: their senses and read it and agreed with it. It
Speaker 3: took so many unnecessary lives to get to the point
Speaker 3: we're at with tobacco where there's still some freedom, like
Speaker 3: John can still you know, use the tobacco if you wants.
Speaker 3: But overall there's a societal kind of disapproval that took
Speaker 3: way too long, and so why do we need to
Speaker 3: repeat that again when we can just say, all right,
Speaker 3: if you really want to smoke weed, like do it,
Speaker 3: but don't make it like it's not We're not going
Speaker 3: to like turn around society to encourage it, but like, yes,
Speaker 3: it's going to be here. Of course, it's always been here.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that when it was prohibited, no one
Speaker 3: used it. It wasn't like legalization introduced marijuana to the country.
Speaker 3: It did introduce marijuana products we've never seen before, like
Speaker 3: shatter and things we no drug dealer had ever sold
Speaker 3: ninety nine percent shatters. So it did introduce some things,
Speaker 3: but it didn't introduce this idea. And so it's kind
Speaker 3: of like it's it's actually what Pat Mark climate he's
Speaker 3: talked about grudging toleration, like you can sort of like
Speaker 3: not love it, but all right, you really want to
Speaker 3: do it because you just think it's a good thing
Speaker 3: for you. Right now, you at least should understand the
Speaker 3: dangerous but you know, all right, as long as you're
Speaker 3: not driving or whatever. Go for it. But it's very
Speaker 3: different than like the billboards on the five Freeway in
Speaker 3: LA or a governor of New York saying please come
Speaker 3: to our marijuana shops so we can make tax revenue.
Speaker 3: By the way, the tax revenue has been pennies in
Speaker 3: every state. But it's like we're encouraging this either by
Speaker 3: the state or by on you know, private industry, and
Speaker 3: I just don't think that ever ends well from a
Speaker 3: public health perspective. All all right, well, let me ask
Speaker 3: you that.
Speaker 4: Go ahead, let me ask you this because you mentioned
Speaker 4: it should be treated like speeding, where you go to
Speaker 4: a clash and you pay a fine and your insurance.
Speaker 4: So what happens to the people who can't afford those things?
Speaker 4: What do they go to jail?
Speaker 3: Those are well, those are larger issues with us. Thankfully,
Speaker 3: marijuana is not the only area where we would find people,
Speaker 3: and those are issues that absolutely we need to look at. Me. No,
Speaker 3: I don't think they would go to jail. What would
Speaker 3: they do? I don't know what we'd have to think about.
Speaker 3: I don't have those answers right now, but I don't
Speaker 3: think that's necessarily an answer that I don't think that's
Speaker 3: the exclusive to marijuana. There's an issue of finds and
Speaker 3: things for a lot of a lot of other things
Speaker 3: that we do. So we'd have to look at best
Speaker 3: practices and try it. And if you don't pay the fines,
Speaker 3: you go to jail.
Speaker 4: So that's what you're saying is if you have, if
Speaker 4: you have the money to be able to do it,
Speaker 4: you can and if you don't, you go to jail.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not saying that, So I'm not saying you
Speaker 3: go to jail. So maybe that happens in some other instances.
Speaker 3: That's not my proposal. I think there are may be
Speaker 3: other things you could do to discourage that happens in
Speaker 3: the example that you actually use. But with speeding, if
Speaker 3: you're parking tickets, it sometimes does. But I'm saying that's
Speaker 3: it's I'm not saying that should be the exact blueprint
Speaker 3: that I'm saying, as a general principle, discourage speeding with
Speaker 3: speed limits. We don't usually put people in prison for
Speaker 3: that offense. You're saying, if they don't, you know, do
Speaker 3: the first two things you want them to do, then
Speaker 3: they end up going to prison. Maybe we can think
Speaker 3: of something better. I think it would be preferable. Then again,
Speaker 3: the what we're having now, which is open you know,
Speaker 3: promotion and the advertising of an activity that is inherently
Speaker 3: well and on advertising tobacco.
Speaker 4: Tobacco is very limited on advertising, and so is hard liquor.
Speaker 3: And I don't have a problem.
Speaker 4: With with with cannabis be being placed in that same
Speaker 4: realm where you can't advertise in you know, teen Vogue,
Speaker 4: your your gummies. You know, I completely agree with that,
Speaker 4: But that doesn't I would like they can advertise, you know,
Speaker 4: advertising is well, yeah, the industry does. I have lots
Speaker 4: of problems with lots of industries. That doesn't mean I
Speaker 4: think their products should be banned.
Speaker 5: Well, what we all want here is a path to
Speaker 5: safer use or safe use period. Safe use period. Whether
Speaker 5: that means very very very limited use or whether that
Speaker 5: means more widespread normalized use is a question. But I'm
Speaker 5: going to read from mother Jones right here, John, just
Speaker 5: a little bit. They were writing an article on Alex
Speaker 5: Bearnson's book on weed at the time, and they wrote
Speaker 5: In twenty seventeen, the National Academies of Sciences Engineering in
Speaker 5: Medicine issued a report nearly five hundred pages long in
Speaker 5: the health effects of cannabis and concluded that marijuana use
Speaker 5: is strongly associated with the development of psychosis and schizophrenia.
Speaker 5: The researchers also noted that there's decent evidence linking pot
Speaker 5: consumption to worsening symptoms of bipolar disorder into a heightened
Speaker 5: risk of suicide, depression, and social anxiety disorders. Quote. The
Speaker 5: higher they use, the greater the risk, and psychosis, as
Speaker 5: Kevin mentioned, has emerged as or the potential for psychosis
Speaker 5: has emerged as really that fertile ground for where people
Speaker 5: are starting. Some people are actually changing their minds on
Speaker 5: weed legalization as they look at this research. Nobody could
Speaker 5: ever accuse you, John, of not having enough concern for
Speaker 5: the mental health of people in the United States. You've
Speaker 5: seen so much of this up close. Why does this
Speaker 5: research with which some people see as an emergent area,
Speaker 5: understudied area, and underappreciated era area, why does that not
Speaker 5: convince you to pause instead of sort of, you know,
Speaker 5: break down barriers towards normalization.
Speaker 4: Well, one, if we're talking about medical use, going back
Speaker 4: to the original thing, a Schedule three FDA approved drug
Speaker 4: for medically use, prescribed by a physician, they can ensure
Speaker 4: there aren't co morbidities like schizophrenia, like bipolar, which have
Speaker 4: a genetic link. And I have the utmost empathy for
Speaker 4: people with those conditions. They shouldn't use this. They shouldn't
Speaker 4: use alcohol either. Tobacco and nicotine really doesn't have an
Speaker 4: effect on schizophrenia, bipolar, Alcohol absolutely does. Compounds like adderall
Speaker 4: and riddling absolutely, do you know, believe it or not,
Speaker 4: caffeine can have an impact. Now, people with bipolar and schizophrenia,
Speaker 4: or who have a family history of it shouldn't, just
Speaker 4: like people who have a history of alcoholism shouldn't drink.
Speaker 4: And I agree there needs to be a lot more education.
Speaker 4: But the idea that a small percentage of people who
Speaker 4: have these disorders shouldn't do it means no one should,
Speaker 4: and that it should be blocked from medical access and
Speaker 4: shouldn't be, for example, prescribed by the VA. Because one
Speaker 4: of the bigger issues with cannabis is it does work.
Speaker 4: You know, it works for chronic pain, and it works
Speaker 4: for PTSD as long as you continue to use it.
Speaker 4: And so should we just tell those people you don't
Speaker 4: have access to the most effective medicine you know?
Speaker 3: Because to me, this is what everybody.
Speaker 4: Every you know, as a veteran, I see how every
Speaker 4: industry uses veterans to say.
Speaker 3: We have to do this.
Speaker 4: Well, the VA issued exactly zero prescriptions for any for
Speaker 4: cannabis last year.
Speaker 3: And I would much rather put it, issue a prescription
Speaker 3: that is not prescribable drug. What would you wanted them
Speaker 3: to do? Genuine question, You can't. No one can prescribe cannabis,
Speaker 3: not VA or not correct I mean marit all or
Speaker 3: do you mean recommendations?
Speaker 4: No, What I mean is FDA approved cannabis products that
Speaker 4: could be prescribed because there are uses for this that
Speaker 4: are medical. And what this means for the people who
Speaker 4: genuinely need it is if their job prohibits it, they
Speaker 4: don't get the medicine they need. You know, imagine imagine
Speaker 4: if you know anybody was told, hey, we know you
Speaker 4: broke your leg, but you can't take opiate's because we
Speaker 4: don't like those, even if it's you're not on the job,
Speaker 4: I don't.
Speaker 3: I know, we're going to go sort of get another direction.
Speaker 3: But it's not that we don't like those, John, it's
Speaker 3: that we don't have an f day for medication. You
Speaker 3: would argue we don't because there's too many barriers. I'd argue,
Speaker 3: we don't because it just failed that what needs to
Speaker 3: happen to become a medication. That's why advocates have had
Speaker 3: to go to the state, the state route and vote
Speaker 3: on medicine, which is.
Speaker 4: A well because NIA wouldn't provide the compound to do
Speaker 4: the research.
Speaker 1: Yeah right, and that's where yeah, yeah, going back to
Speaker 1: my point earlier, the the opponents have stood in the
Speaker 1: way of reform at every different level, whether it's you know, federal, state,
Speaker 1: or local. But then to complain that, oh well, you
Speaker 1: couldn't get you couldn't move on the federal level, so
Speaker 1: you move down to the state level, and you relied
Speaker 1: on voters because it is something that voters wanted. Is
Speaker 1: is to me disingenuous because they were forced to go
Speaker 1: to the state level. I think advocates of reform would
Speaker 1: just be delighted to you know, work collaboratively with Congress
Speaker 1: and introduce, you know, rational legislation that took into account
Speaker 1: public health concerns. But that that is blocked and it's
Speaker 1: also blocked by a very politicized DEA. And we got
Speaker 1: to wrap soon. But I'll just tell one story that
Speaker 1: people might know. I was back in two thousand and
Speaker 1: four and five. I was a state level lobbyist for
Speaker 1: this organization called Marijuana Policy Project, and one of the
Speaker 1: states that where I was responsible for was Illinois and
Speaker 1: we were pushing a medical marijuana legislation. Is my job
Speaker 1: to kind of push this bill through the legislature. We
Speaker 1: get a hearing in the either in the House or
Speaker 1: the Senate, State House, state Senate. I will remember, I
Speaker 1: think it was the Senate, and we've got our you know,
Speaker 1: you have the cancer patients lined up, you got the
Speaker 1: experts lined up. There's some cop is going to show
Speaker 1: up and you know they're going to they're going to
Speaker 1: argue it out before these legislators. And then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the guy who's on the ground for us
Speaker 1: is like, there is a convoy on its way here.
Speaker 1: They're shutting down the streets, and the drug himself was
Speaker 1: like coming in, you know, from the Bush administration as
Speaker 1: a surprise guest to then who then whipped up this
Speaker 1: lobbying campaign against it. So on the one hand, complaining
Speaker 1: that the medicine is being politicized, on the other hand,
Speaker 1: we've constructed this entire federal bureaucracy, which then does active
Speaker 1: lobbying of the government, like the government lobbying itself, the
Speaker 1: government lobbying other governments to me, felt extremely undemocratic. So
Speaker 1: then to look at that and say, well, we don't
Speaker 1: like the approach because then you have to go to referenda.
Speaker 1: You put it on the ballot, and you go directly
Speaker 1: to the voters, and you tell the drugs are well, okay,
Speaker 1: you can go ahead and campaign against it, but you're
Speaker 1: not gonna be able to break arms in Springfield to
Speaker 1: stop this bill from moving through Illinois. Now it's going
Speaker 1: to go to the voters. So and then to say, well,
Speaker 1: it's not fair that we're making this a popular issue
Speaker 1: rather than letting scientists deal with it, that the science
Speaker 1: were not taking the lead in the past.
Speaker 3: Either, Well, a couple of things. Number one that that
Speaker 3: doesn't happen anymore. That was the relict of two thousand
Speaker 3: and four. We haven't had a drugs are involved in
Speaker 3: this in a very long are.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration was like an ally of in this
Speaker 1: fight of on the drug policy.
Speaker 3: For yes, it depends which depends which one? I mean,
Speaker 3: I worked for the first one. And he said that
Speaker 3: legalization is not in the president's vocabulary. I gues President
Speaker 3: Obama was not in favor of legalization, yeah, back in
Speaker 3: but he did one thing. I just think it's important
Speaker 3: for people to remember that. It was President Obama talked
Speaker 3: about big industry he went to Jamaica. When he went
Speaker 3: to that trip, someone asked him about what about marijuana
Speaker 3: in Jamaica, and he talked about be careful of big industry.
Speaker 3: He and sat down interview said, you know what's next
Speaker 3: to marijuana? First? What about other drugs if you think
Speaker 3: it's better to regulate them? What about crap? What about heroin?
Speaker 3: I mean, those are very good points. We kind of
Speaker 3: forget those were made. But I will say, you know,
Speaker 3: the DEA, in terms of the current THEA and what
Speaker 3: they're doing, they're simply going the FDA. They created an
Speaker 3: entirely new test to determine marijuana should be scheduled three.
Speaker 3: This was hit a box job from the beginning. They
Speaker 3: were trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Speaker 3: They had to do something on reform. They had clear
Speaker 3: direction from the White House to do this, and I
Speaker 3: think they had that direction not because Biden is pro marijuana,
Speaker 3: but probably because advisors said, listen, we know you're never
Speaker 3: going to come out for legalization fully by mister president,
Speaker 3: but let's have this compromise where basically we can kind
Speaker 3: of in some ways people can be sort of tricked
Speaker 3: into thinking it's sort of a legalization type think even
Speaker 3: though it really isn't. And that way was sort of
Speaker 3: covering both basis. I actually think in doing that, they're
Speaker 3: pissing everybody off, and except for maybe this industry, but
Speaker 3: they pissed off the legalizers who said, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: this is not even anything close to legalization, and they
Speaker 3: pissed off people like me. You're saying, wait a minute,
Speaker 3: you're giving tax breaks to the industry. You're sending a
Speaker 3: message just as okay, and you're using shoddy research and
Speaker 3: a test you've never used before, totally out of president,
Speaker 3: which will be likely challenged core to try and fit
Speaker 3: your narrative. So in doing so, it was not a
Speaker 3: sort of neat thing to do, and they I think
Speaker 3: they thought they were being very clever, but it's going
Speaker 3: to backfire. It already is.
Speaker 1: Ast him.
Speaker 3: What's that bright?
Speaker 1: I was just saying, Biden has a unique ability to
Speaker 1: unite everybody against him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So anyway, it'll be interesting to see. I would
Speaker 3: the only the thing I would I think we had
Speaker 3: a lot of agreements that think I would challenge on.
Speaker 3: Is this idea that we haven't done the research that
Speaker 3: there hasn't been global research of If this has been
Speaker 3: so great in the United States that's come into it,
Speaker 3: why don't we have a lot of marijuana based medications
Speaker 3: approved in every other country in the world, including Europe
Speaker 3: where they do tons of research. I mean we don't.
Speaker 3: I mean they have a proof Satavax, which I have
Speaker 3: no problem with, but it's failed on FGA trials, it
Speaker 3: did not do well on pain for advocacy, it just
Speaker 3: was not that efficacious. In the US, we have a
Speaker 3: very high standard. It's passed in England and some other countries.
Speaker 3: I have no problem with that. But I don't think
Speaker 3: this is some sort of unique conspiracy among American sort
Speaker 3: of FDA and DEA regulators to not have marijuana based
Speaker 3: medicaid at least currently maybe in nineteen eighty, but not
Speaker 3: right now, to not have marijuana based medications be researched.
Speaker 3: I think that research has failed, and so yeah, they
Speaker 3: had to go to the ballot box because we're not
Speaker 3: having any left for the normal scientific channels. So John
Speaker 3: at the policy.
Speaker 5: John, this will be okay. We'll give you the last word,
Speaker 5: final thoughts, closing statement, whatever you want to call it
Speaker 5: before we wrap here.
Speaker 3: Well, you know you're right.
Speaker 4: There hasn't been a lot of moves internationally, in part
Speaker 4: because the United States wields unprecedented authority through the UN
Speaker 4: Commission on Narcotic Drugs and assigned treaties that countries basically
Speaker 4: want US funding and don't want to fight us on
Speaker 4: on the weed issue. I also find it interesting that,
Speaker 4: you know, if we had done the research, the human
Speaker 4: clan trials and actually allowed it instead of blocking it
Speaker 4: until a few years ago, we would have had FDA
Speaker 4: approved drugs and we wouldn't have had to go through
Speaker 4: the States continuing to say that this shouldn't be used
Speaker 4: as a medicine in a regulated environment.
Speaker 3: Is just go through. Just go through the process, and
Speaker 3: I'll have no issue. I'm not fighting the n DM
Speaker 3: A likely MDMA approval that's happening in a few months
Speaker 3: because it went through the FBS. So if you're saying
Speaker 3: you now have everything you need, right and let's do
Speaker 3: it and see it in NBA has been, and the
Speaker 3: US federal government allowed.
Speaker 4: Maps as well as a compass for psilocybin and others
Speaker 4: to procure the actual compounds needed for double blind, placebo
Speaker 4: controlled trials. The first time that was ever allowed with
Speaker 4: cannabis for drug development was only a few years ago.
Speaker 3: In the United States. But let's let's go ahead and
Speaker 3: see what's going to happen. So if it's going to
Speaker 3: be allowed, it's been a few years ago, they have
Speaker 3: a running start. I think we can.
Speaker 4: We can is currently blocking human clinical trials on cannabis
Speaker 4: currently right now, there's multiple protocols that they keep kicking.
Speaker 3: Back, maybe because still passing the safety standards. But anyway,
Speaker 3: let's go through the standard. That's my point. Let's and
Speaker 3: if it's blocking it because it's not passing those those standards,
Speaker 3: then maybe it's something that, you know, maybe it's something
Speaker 3: with an issue with marijuana, with the fact that this
Speaker 3: is not that people are not handling a well, I don't.
Speaker 5: Know, we have to see final thoughts.
Speaker 4: John. The biggest honestly, yeah, honestly, the biggest issue is
Speaker 4: the fact that it's a plant and from plant to
Speaker 4: plant and bud to bud, you don't have imogineity, which
Speaker 4: does cause a problem in going through FDA trials. Those
Speaker 4: can also be rectified or they can be used to
Speaker 4: block trials.
Speaker 1: Sure, we'll have to leave it there, all right, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: thanks guys, I think we settled this. Yeah, we're going
Speaker 1: to get piece of cake.
Speaker 5: But it actually was really helpful, So thank you both.
Speaker 3: Have you just had Do you have a decision yet
Speaker 3: on where you stand? Or you're still weighing the pros
Speaker 3: and cons I don't. I don't.
Speaker 5: I'm still weighing the pros and kinds of a psychosis
Speaker 5: stuff does actually have me rather concerned. I won't get
Speaker 5: into why, but anyway, Oh.
Speaker 3: There was a woman there was that you heard about
Speaker 3: that woman who stabbed her? Was it her boyfriend or husband?
Speaker 3: Like that? Bro? Like fifty times in the last year
Speaker 3: for me and just and got off is running is
Speaker 3: now out free because the judge let her defense use
Speaker 3: marijuana as the reason why she did it. And that's
Speaker 3: cost a lot of waves.
Speaker 5: Boy, sometimes Ryan says things and then he uses marijuana
Speaker 5: as an excuse for why he did it.
Speaker 1: I don't even smoke.
Speaker 3: No, he's a responsible dad. Now he's grown out of it.
Speaker 3: It's true.
Speaker 1: True.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you both so much.
Speaker 1: John Kevin Sabbage. Kevin Sabbage is the author of Smoke
Speaker 1: Screen with the marijuana industry doesn't want, you know, John
Speaker 1: Leve Becky not yet an author, but I bet we'll
Speaker 1: get a book from you one day.
Speaker 3: Is that right, Sue?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, excellent, looking forward to it. Well, thanks so much.
Speaker 3: Guys.
Speaker 1: All right, now that they left, you can be honest,
Speaker 1: what did you think?
Speaker 5: I'm still completely undecided. And you know, it's not like
Speaker 5: I think we've all seen people struggle with marijuana, some
Speaker 5: people more than others, and that's you know, some people
Speaker 5: struggle with caffeine more than others. I don't think some
Speaker 5: people struggle with alcohol more than others. So I don't
Speaker 5: think that definitively answers the question. I am really interested
Speaker 5: in some of the new research linking high concentration, high
Speaker 5: cont high potency THHC with psychosis. I just have I
Speaker 5: feel like I've personally seen cases of people who I
Speaker 5: wonder if really heavy we'd use when they were kids,
Speaker 5: before the age of eighteen. You just when you're a
Speaker 5: teenager in your brain is developing. There's still so much
Speaker 5: we don't know about the human brain. That does concern
Speaker 5: me very much because I feel like I've seen things
Speaker 5: that make me question it just personally, and there is
Speaker 5: some research in it, but I don't disagree that there
Speaker 5: needs to be more.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we could have had a much more libertarian
Speaker 1: leaning kind of propod person like John. He's much more moderate,
Speaker 1: which I wanted because it would kind of push it
Speaker 1: would push Kevin a little bit more, because Kevin very
Speaker 1: good debater, and like I've known him almost twenty years now,
Speaker 1: and he has I think his rhetoric has changed over
Speaker 1: over time. As you know, when I started working in
Speaker 1: this issue, it was a minority well in the minority issue.
Speaker 1: Like now maybe people can't even believe that, but like
Speaker 1: that we would be where we are now when I
Speaker 1: start working on this. This is almost unthinkable, although I
Speaker 1: did predict it in the books.
Speaker 5: I was going to say not quite.
Speaker 1: Unthinkable, unthinkable to most people. You could you could see,
Speaker 1: you could see where it was headed if you looked close,
Speaker 1: if you ap peered closely enough. But he has adopted
Speaker 1: as rhetoric to kind of fit with the mood a
Speaker 1: little bit, but yet but he still really wants it
Speaker 1: banned you and John called him out on that the
Speaker 1: most part.
Speaker 5: If you're blocking the research, you've supported blocking the research, right, So.
Speaker 1: But I yeah, I think if he really wants a
Speaker 1: better outcome with fewer tears than getting the boot off
Speaker 1: the neck of the regulatory and legislative apparatus would allow
Speaker 1: then for a public health approach to blossom and give
Speaker 1: that a shot, like we were talking about earlier in Portland,
Speaker 1: Like you know, they tried to go forward with some
Speaker 1: type of de grim but then didn't put in place
Speaker 1: anything to take its place, so it was just chaos.
Speaker 1: And now the voters are like, I forget that.
Speaker 5: You know, That's increasingly where I'm landing on this is that.
Speaker 5: And they both kind of were openly concerned as I'm
Speaker 5: sure you are too about industry predatory industry, which our
Speaker 5: country is so oligarchical now that cronyism rampant, and it
Speaker 5: makes it actually hard to know to sort of peace
Speaker 5: factorm fiction because there's so much lobbying in different spaces.
Speaker 5: So the FDA saying one thing might actually not mean much,
Speaker 5: and I mean it just actually we live in a
Speaker 5: country right now where it's so hard to get to
Speaker 5: the bottom of some of these questions because there's so
Speaker 5: much money influencing it. There's so much money influencing the
Speaker 5: way certain policies are then implemented. So even if you're
Speaker 5: experimenting in the great laboratories of democracy, you end up
Speaker 5: with results that's like, I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 5: what to take from this, genuinely don't know what to
Speaker 5: take from this, because implementing it was there were hurdles
Speaker 5: along the way because of the system, you know, mucking
Speaker 5: it up with cronyism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and a rational drug policy. It feels impossible. One
Speaker 1: reason it's impossible, you've got these opponents who are like,
Speaker 1: like I said, I have to be dried kicking and
Speaker 1: screaming to it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Anyway, interesting conversation.
Speaker 5: It was a really interesting conversation. And I feel like
Speaker 5: marijuana doesn't get enough attention in the media proportionate to
Speaker 5: how much it affects the daily lives of people around
Speaker 5: the country. And maybe in some ways it's like symptomatic
Speaker 5: of other things that are affecting the daily lives of
Speaker 5: people around the country, like the labor force stuff. I
Speaker 5: think is how many times do you hear people can't
Speaker 5: hire workers in their community because the workers are failing
Speaker 5: drug tests because they smoked a little bit of weed.
Speaker 5: It's a serious problem for a lot of businesses and
Speaker 5: a lot of people who are having a hard time
Speaker 5: finding work and places where weed hasn't been legalized. So
Speaker 5: it's a really really big issue, and I don't think
Speaker 5: it gets enough attention. I don't think there are enough
Speaker 5: debates like them.
Speaker 1: Kevin's point that the kids don't really care because it's
Speaker 1: basically legal anyway is one that he should also absorb.
Speaker 1: If that's the case, then relax and let it go
Speaker 1: and move forward on thinking about this in a more
Speaker 1: rational way.
Speaker 5: Yeah. And if that's the case, then you end up
Speaker 5: with what was happening during prohibition. And obviously we could
Speaker 5: have had a whole debate about a whole debate about
Speaker 5: these shadow industry and what that is if that's actually
Speaker 5: even beneficial to Kevin's goal of keeping it out of
Speaker 5: most people's hands.
Speaker 1: So all right, Well that does it for Counterpoints. If
Speaker 1: you watch this on regular YouTube with like eight different
Speaker 1: ad breaks, that's because you're not a previeum subscriber. You
Speaker 1: should go to Breakingpoints dot com. Get it there. You'll
Speaker 1: then get every show every morning emailed to you. This
Speaker 1: one comes out Thursday evening or Friday morning for non subscribers.
Speaker 5: That's right, Breakingpoints dot Com. We'll see you back here
Speaker 5: next Wednesday and next Friday. Having a lot of fun
Speaker 5: with these shows. Hope everyone has a great weekend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a good weekend. See you later.