The jist is: measuring opioid usage in people after a fatal car crash, states with medical marijuana had much lower rates of opioid usage. I haven't read the study, and while that measurement may be a bit dubious (pun?) I think the conclusion is probably correct.
A lot of people don't do illegal drugs, but will gladly and happily do legal ones. Opioids are legally prescribed and incredibly addictive, making them ripe for abuse by people who wouldn't normally be "drug addicts." With marijuana being legal it provides a non-addictive means of pain relief that's a much more pleasant and safe alternative to opioids. Hell even acetaminophen is vastly more dangerous than marijuana (and a cause of liver failure).
I think what Spicer said in the article is insane. I can only hope states fight back tooth and nail if the federal government attempts to "crack down." Marijuana is one of the few drugs we can do that's nearly harmless... Well, relative to any other drug we can do (alcohol or tobacco).
Edit: updates for grammar and clarity (damn you autocorrect!).
There is a benefit to legal marijuana that it might be chosen instead of harder drugs, perhaps, but I don't think it should be mixed up with painkillers, which are their own issue.
This does not mesh with reality in states like West Virginia, where drug companies sent 9 million pills in two years to a town with less than 400 people - 780 million pills in six years to a state with 1.8 million people.
As the "crackdown" revved up in these states, more people have died as they've turned to replace their prescription habit with heroin, and street heroin is increasingly being laced with fentanyl analogs which cause nearly instant overdoses.
Not pinning this on the drug companies or doctors that are handing out these drugs like candy to anyone willing to write a check is putting the blame way downstream of where it belongs. The DEA sure can crackdown on marijuana and molly but Rx drug abuse? Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.
I'm not saying opioids are always inappropriate but I think a lot of situations could do without them if marijuana was available as an alternative.
Patients were given $3 bottles of Oxy with a street value of $10k in areas targeted by the drug companies because of high unemployment.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/sam_quinones_on.htm...
Capitalism cuts both ways.
I decided to just bear through the searing pain than risk permanent organ damage.
"Based on his review of the scientific literature, between 10 to 30% of regular users will develop dependency. Only about 9% will have a serious addiction"
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012...
- The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
- There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control use of the substance.
- A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects.
- Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use the substance.
- Recurrent use of the substance resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home.
- Continued use of the substance despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of its use.
- Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of use of the substance.
- Recurrent use of the substance in situations in which it is physically hazardous.
- Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.
- Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
- A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
- A markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
- Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
- The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for that substance (as specified in the DSM- 5 for each substance).
- The substance (or a closely related substance) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid...
[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.3...
Pretty mind-numbing to see people still peddling gateway theory. Is there any real link between recreational pot and opioid addiction in any meaningful, causative way?
> "As for connecting marijuana to the legal opioid crisis, Spicer has it exactly backwards. Greater access to marijuana has actually led to declines in opioid use, overdoses and other problems."
Where it breaks down is when you draw the correlation as "most hard drug users have tried pot, so most of the people who tried pot become hardcore drug users". OF course we know that not to be the case.
However if you only use the first part of the definition (as many anti marijuana advocates do) then you must acknowledge the amount of hard drug users who smoke cigarettes ( a lot ) therefore cigarettes are also a gateway drug. Still legal.
I too am surprised this theory is still being peddled.
Personal/anecdotal:
I worked near addicts in treatment for a few years, (no I am not an expert or counselor it was a tech role) and I noticed many of them smoked cigarettes. Many of them still smoked weed too for medical purposes and it simply didn't have the adverse affects on their life that the "other" drugs did (heroin, meth, etc). It's simply not in the same class.
I'm not a pot smoker and never have been, but I strongly agree with legalization based on what I've seen.
i.e. nothing at all to do with cannabis
The war on drugs was instituted as a racist policy [3]. It's quite likely that the main motivation here is using drug laws to punish people of color.
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_less...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting...
[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...
If the federal govt. has to enforce federal law in a state, that needs to happen, and the state needs to cooperate to the extent laid out by statute & legal precedent. No more, no less.
The right answer is to have legislation that squares the federal & state policies at the top. "States Rights" never extended to nullification of Federal law, there was a substantial dispute over this in the 1860s.
100 years ago, we thought a constitutional amendment was necessary to ban a substance within a state.
It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich (2005). And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.
This may leave the Feds needing to say, "We can't prohibit it. That's outside the powers given to the Federal government. But we can tax it, and tax it highly enough that nobody can afford it..."
If the founding fathers had intended for an unrestricted commerce clause, they wouldn't have bothered with the 10th amendment or enumerating the other powers. The constitution is a whitelist.
> It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.
I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Bad precedent needn't necessarily stand, after all.
Ah, somebody already mentioned Wickard.
The Supreme Court ruling on that case was a huge blow to both marijuana legalization efforts and gun rights.
"Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States."
[...]
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
[...]
If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
[...]
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]"
Raich was 6-3, Gorsuch voting with Thomas rather than the way Scalia did gets you to losing 5-4.
His lapdog Chris Christie even called it months ago when he said "enjoy it while you can..."
I think in a way, Republican rhetoric ("states' rights", "activist judges", "small government") is simply lagging behind their actual positions and values, rather than it being a totally cynical and hypocritical mask. These are slogans which still sound good and make sense situationally. It's easy to agree with them without really thinking it through.
He spoke at length about it[1] in his recent state of the state address in New Jersey. He made it a key part of his failed presidential campaign[2]. He is reportedly a long time opponent of recreational marijuana[3].
[1] http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_s...
[2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-c...
[3] http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijua...
I don't think the same can be said for cannabis smokers
"They're bringing drugs..."
> Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition
Legalizing marijuana would probably mean more domestic growers, maybe even blowing up like craft beer did.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cann...
[2] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320
They are fighting a losing battle and most politicians will not go against that type of landslide polling.
Good luck, 2.4 billion in Colorado, 20,000 new jobs and personal freedoms will not go away lightly[2].
They could legalize and end prohibition and throw the other side a bone, but if they pick this fight it will be a huge mistake and an attack on logical/smart people [3] and public opinion [1].
Prohibition makes the punishment on a non-violent personal action into a crime, wasting billions (20-50 billion)[4] of tax dollars and funding cartels, to the tune of 25-50+ billion [5], while harming decent people.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as...
[2] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-...
[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drink...
[4] https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-proh...
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...
So I really would really not count my chickens before they hatch here, and would not underestimate my opponents or the gullibility and intolerance of the general public.
The fact is that illegal drug users are a minority in the United States, and a widely despised minority at that. The United States has not had a very rosy history in regards to the treatment of widely despised minorities. That history could very easily be repeated.
E.g. Republican's have become significantly more pro-Russian recently:
> Back in July 2014 just 10 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Putin, according to a poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov. By September of 2016, that number rose to 24 percent. And it's even higher today: 37 percent of Republicans view Putin favorably, the poll found in December.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/gop-russia-putin-suppo...
Hear me out, I don't think I am crazy. I don't believe this, I just see it as more and more plausible every news story that comes out of the white house.
What if several of the world's richest, perhaps Gates, Buffet and a few other like minded kind souls got together. What if they did everything in their power, legal and illegal, to elect the most preposterous candidate possible. All the shouting about the election being rigged has people looking for fake democrats, not trump supporters.
Then they have this candidate do everything the wrong way, and obviously the wrong way. This is intentional, is should mobilize and unify all the people against a bunch of idiocy. By the time this is done we will either have destroy the coastline or we will all understand what CO2 can do.
Instead of trying to shroud BS arguments in a veil of reason-ability like typical a GOP politician Trump comes out and does the dumbest thing he can for "his" side of the argument. There are GOP hardliners that back him, but it seems to taper off as the crazyness continues. Eventually everyone just towing the line will be unelectable or at least powerless for a brief time and we do a bunch of objectively smart things like end the war on terror, end the war on drugs, pass more laws protecting church and state, make sure future presidents can read, strengthen our healthcare, etc....
But that is just not as simple the other explanation: Americans, my fellow countrymen, elected someone just as dumb as them.
"Never attribute to a shadowy cabal of illuminati, what can be more easily explained by incompetence"
But, you know, tastes vary, and apparently the laws reflect a different aesthetic to mine.
It gets really old, really fast.
You can't make it illegal to oppose the president, but you can make half the people opposing the president criminals for smoking.
Precisely.
(edit: ...is Trump's view, not mine)
All snark aside, traditional Republicans are more in favor of societal stability. And this is achieved, in their mind, via social institutions and a thriving economy. Thus, their values that align with moral institutions, corporations (economic and potential societal homogeneity), and a strong military (both defense and because it shares it's values of a highly connected, dependent structure of individuals striving for a bigger cause).
I'd recommend reading up on the Moral Foundations Theory, especially the work looking at the differences between Liberals and Conservatives in light of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory http://www.moralfoundations.org/
It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.
I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too, but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone else might want it to.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...
But that gives the government all the tools it needs to make life a living hell for people who irritate the mandarins in Washinton. I'd be curious to know just how many people in federal prison for possessing less than an ounce of pot are really there for possessing less than an ounce of pot.
If the United States have no power over marijuana, then the several states, or the people thereof, retain it.
Yes, the Supreme Court really did rule that way.
Spicer noted that Trump supports medical marijuana and understands that patients are in pain and facing terminal illness and have a right to medical marijuana. He also noted the Congressional rider – commonly known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment – was in force and prevents DOJ from intervening in medical marijuana states.
So uh... where's the action on opiate addiction?
The current situation where it's legal at the state level and illegal but "hands off" at the federal is totally ridiculous. Even worse than having marijuana be illegal is having laws applied randomly and with a sizeable portion of the population able to be arrested at someone's whim.
I think legalizing at the state level was probably a good strategy to get the momentum going, but at some point we have to stop it being illegal at the federal level (individual states can outlaw, that's fine). Hopefully this will be the impetus to get that done.
Reason for rolling back state legalization / decriminalization laws: ...
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-m...
The police unions strongly backed Trump and probably helped carry swing states.
This is patronage.
Truth is the mortal enemy of the state.
For this reason Ganja is and will always be illegal.
They live. We sleep.