October 15, 2024 • 15 mins
Is federal marijuana legalization truly a win for Black men, or are there hidden pitfalls? Join us as we take a hard look at Vice President Kamala Harris's proposal, focusing on its goal to dismantle systemic barriers and whether it achieves this when it poses new public health risks. With insightful commentary from Will Jones of SAM, we unravel the intricate dynamics between promising business opportunities and the risks of corporate exploitation in the marijuana industry. By drawing parallels with historical public health challenges like the tobacco industry's impact, we critically question whether this federal move could inadvertently harm the communities it seeks to empower.
Follow the work of SAM and FDPS below:
https://learnaboutsam.org/
https://gooddrugpolicy.org/
https://thedrugreport.org/
On X:
https://twitter.com/learnaboutsam
https://twitter.com/GoodDrugPolicy
https://twitter.com/KevinSabet
https://twitter.com/LukeNiforatos
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/learnaboutsam
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yes or no?
Do you believe nicotine is notaddictive?
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I believe nicotine is not addictive yes, congressman,
cigarettes and nicotine clearlydo not meet the classic
definitions of addiction.
I don't believe that nicotinefor our products are addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hello everyone, this is Luke Neferatos.
I am your host of the DrugReport podcast.
Thank you for joining us foranother wonderful show brought
to you by SAM, the SmartApproaches to Marijuana, as well
as FDPS, the Foundation forDrug Policy Solutions, and if
you aren't getting ourtwice-weekly newsletters of all
the drug policy news analysisthat you need, please go to
thedrugreportorg.
(00:38):
Well, today I'm thrilledbecause my friend, also the
longest-serving employee at SAMwho's back from a health hiatus,
will Jones, is on the show.
Will, thanks for joining us.
Great to have you.
So let's dive in.
I want to talk about the VicePresident Kamala Harris's
(00:59):
opportunity plan for Black men.
Particularly is how this isbeing kind of played out in the
media, and so her plan foropportunity for black men is
cryptocurrency, some forgivableloans and, yes, now the federal
legalization of marijuana.
So here's a few quotes from theCNBC story on this.
(01:22):
So Harris says quote she willbreak down unjust legal barriers
that hold black men and otherAmericans back by legalizing
marijuana nationally, workingwith Congress to ensure that the
safe cultivation, distributionand possession of recreational
marijuana is the law of the land.
Quote she will also fight toensure that, as the national
cannabis industry takes shape,black men who have for years
(01:43):
been over police for marijuanause are able to access wealth
and jobs in this new market.
And her final kind of quote onthis is just that this is
something that's going to makeright the wrongs of
incarceration related tomarijuana.
So that's her plan.
She thinks federal marijuanalegalization means opportunity
(02:05):
for black men in America.
Will?
I'd love to get your thoughtson that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Yeah.
So there's a couple immediatethings that come to mind as I
was reading over that andlooking at the details.
The first thing is just talkingabout the legalization issue
and I want to touch on that andthen go into the opportunities
within the industry as a cause.
I see there's just two separatethings.
You know she said she wants toremove, I think, like unjust,
(02:36):
you know, legal issues andthings like that that have been
holding black Americans andothers back One.
So the stated goal of that andI'm sure you would agree with
this is good in the sense of wedon't want anyone to be
suffering unjustly, we don'twant to have anyone have the law
applied to them in an unfair,unjust manner, and I think we
could all agree that you knowthe extent to which we can have
(03:00):
the law applied, you know,evenly to all people, that is
the goal of the high school ofgovernment.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
That's where we're all aiming.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Right.
I think where I'm getting offthe ship is that and I know you
agree here is that somehow thatlegalization is the necessary
step or the best step, or thestep in best interest of public
policy, public health and evenif we want to get as specific as
this plan for Black men, thatthat is going to be a helpful
(03:34):
step.
And I think that we can look atthat one just in terms of other
.
You know we can.
You know the tobacco industry,for example, when we see the
impact of recreational drug usethat has negative health impacts
to it and again, not sayingthat everyone's going to have a
(03:54):
terrible negative health impact,right, but when you look at it
on the whole for example,smoking cigarettes on the whole
lots of people have negativehealth impacts from that.
So the immediate question thatwe ask is and I think that we
need to really talk about, whichobviously isn't being talked
about enough is the healthimpacts and the public health
(04:15):
costs of having more peopleusing marijuana.
Because if it's legalized atthe federal level, without a
doubt more people will startusing.
That's the nature of it.
That's why you know the secondpart of the talk about the
business aspect of it, and wealso know that there's big
conglomerations that would lovefor it to be legalized at the
national, at the federal level,like big tobacco companies that
(04:37):
have already have a stated goalthat you know they want it
legalized at the federal leveland you know they would
immediately hop in the businessif that takes place.
And so when we look at theimpact of smoking, we see that
there's a disproportionateimpact on minority communities.
And I think anything when,because of disparities that
(05:00):
continue to exist in 2024 in theUS, when there are things with
negative public health impacts,it is minorities that are going
to get the suffer the worst fromthat, get the brunt end of that
, and so, you know, will therebe, you know, if it's legalized
at the federal level and a lotmore people start smoking.
Yes, there's some people thatwill, you know, probably use it
and have no ill effects onthemselves, right, but on the
(05:21):
whole, you know, and we all knowpeople that say, yeah, you know
, I've smoked cigarettes, I'm 80years old and I'm in good
health.
So not to say that there won'tbe those exceptions, but on the
whole, we will see a lot more ofthe things that we're already
seeing in legalized states, withchildren suffering from
secondhand smoke and the impactthat's having on their schooling
.
What we're seeing in terms ofmental health issues from people
(05:43):
, especially from thehigh-potency THC products.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
I think something to add on to that is point about
these, the harms being feltdisproportionately by black and
other minority communities.
Just look at what and you bringup the cigarette example, and
it's a good one.
Just look at what we tried todo with cigarettes.
Just as recently as this year,the we, public health groups,
(06:06):
the NAACP, everyone was askingfor a menthol ban, which they
estimate could save countlessblack lives, specifically a
menthol ban for cigarettes, andthe industry was able to shut
that down.
The Biden administration tabledthat rule that would have been
for the public health ofspecifically.
This was about the fact thatthe black community is targeted
(06:28):
with these products.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Which makes it ironic with this.
It's like we see that theindustry we are still unable to
effectively regulate theindustry when it comes to these
types of things.
We see, you know, as youmentioned menthol, cigarettes
and how the companies and youknow it's in their documents
specifically target minoritycommunities and you know there's
there's also a you know it'sgood business for them in the
(06:54):
sense of if you're in acommunity I don't, you know,
from this aspect I don't thinkit has to do with race but if
you're in a disadvantagedcommunity that has less
resources to combat addiction,then if your company profits off
of addiction, then you're goingto have more, you know, bang
for your buck and have morevalue in a community that
doesn't have the resources tocombat addiction to your product
.
We can look at this withalcohol too.
(07:16):
If, when drinking becomesproblematic for someone we've
mentioned smoking and thingslike that it is the people with
less resources in disadvantagedcommunities which, yes, in the
US, it is black communities thatdon't have the resources to
combat that, and so for somebodythat is, you know, has a
(07:36):
problem drinking, it's going tobe a lot harder for them to, you
know, if they need to get in atreatment program or something
like that.
Well, you don't have theresources to stop that.
But from the alcohol companies,you know that make 75% of the
revenue from people that drink,on average, 10 drinks a day.
Well, again, the person thatcan't get help is going to be
bringing in more revenue, moreprofit for the company, and so
(07:56):
that's from a public healthperspective.
That was my immediate reactionto reading that and hearing that
is that it's going to beminority communities that suffer
the most from the legalizationof marijuana, because it's
something that does havenegative public health impacts.
It does.
We're looking at this at stateby states.
We are seeing the impact thatit's having on mental health, on
(08:17):
youth, particularly youth is ahuge concern, and so I think
that's something that is, youknow, we, I think we can
acknowledge that we see theintention behind it, but I, you
know, I would, as I've alwayssaid, we should focus on where
the law is being applied in anunjust manner.
We should focus on that.
We can explore avenues wherethings along the lines of
(08:39):
decriminalization, where peopleare not saddled with a criminal
record for possession or use ofmarijuana, but that doesn't
necessitate creating amulti-billion dollar industry.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
The big tobacco companies have already said it
wouldn't be good to you.
Look at these big tobaccocompanies and big alcohol boards
.
There's no people of color onthese boards.
I mean, there's barely anywomen on these boards.
So the idea that this is goingto create any kind of equity, as
she's alluding to here in theplan, is ridiculous.
And now let's just look at themarijuana industry.
Where Will I know?
You're aware, less than 5% ofthe entire national marijuana
(09:12):
industry is owned by Blackpeople and it's very low across
the board, across alldemographics.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, yeah, and that leads to the second point.
So I think the first point isjust the health perspective of
legalization.
California, other places, theysaid we're going to have
entrepreneurs of color be thefirst at the table, they're
(09:53):
going to be the ones to getlicenses, et cetera.
And we just haven't seen ithappen anywhere.
Organizations, minorityorganizations for that are in
favor of, you know, legalizationand getting people of color
into the industry flat out say,hey, this isn't work, this, you
(10:13):
know, it's been, it's been lies,it's been, you know, things
like that.
And so we really have noevidence from what's happened in
any state so far that thatwould be a success at the
national level.
And I think even deeper thanthat.
You know, to tie it back tothat health issue, even if you
(10:34):
know, theoretically right, evenif there were a few individuals
that were, you know, people ofcolor that were able to, you
know, have a successful businessfrom this, my question is
always going to be what is theimpact of that business in your
community?
So it comes back to that healthissue that even and I've said
this before in debates I don'tcare if you're purple, if you're
(10:57):
an alien or whatever, if yourbusiness isn't one that is going
to be helping members ofsociety.
If your business isn't onethat's going to be helping the
community, your color, you knowit becomes secondary at that
point.
So that's the other thing thateven if the goal of having
equity in this were to berealized somehow which again
hasn't been anywhere you stillhave to have this analysis of
(11:20):
you know.
To take it in my example, whereI started working on this issue,
in DC, closest store in myhouse, any directions, a liquor
store.
I've said that a lot of times,quite frankly, I don't care the
color of the person that ownsthat liquor store.
You see the impact that theliquor store is having on the
community and you're like thisis not something you know.
Having that store in everyother corner is not something
(11:41):
that's beneficial for thecommunity or the health of the
community.
So it brings it back to that aswell.
And the last component of that,as I know you're aware of, if
it were to be legalized at thefederal level, the people making
significant, life-changingmoney would really just be a few
individuals at the top of theseconglomerates, this idea that
(12:02):
there's going to be, you know,on a community level, change of,
you know, multiple peoplehaving these small businesses.
That hasn't panned out anywhere, and we see that big companies
are pushing for it, for this,because they're the ones that's
right.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Well, and I think you know, just to kind of give the
other side of the coin, here youhave another Democratic black
woman who's running for officein Angela, also Brooks, in
Maryland.
Now, her recent comments in thedebate she did ultimately say
she would vote for legalization,but she couched it in terms
that I think were much morebalanced in terms of she said
(12:39):
she was concerned about theimpact on children, the idea
that children would get intothese products.
She had concerns about thehealth aspect of this policy and
she was just overall a veryskeptical eye when it comes to
federal legalization.
And so I think what also Brooksdid, I think laid much more of
(12:59):
an angle, if you're going tosupport it, couching it, at
least acknowledging the problems, which Angela did, which I
think was fantastic.
So I think that, provided youknow, really kind of, in my
opinion, really shamed Kamala'srollout of this, in my opinion,
because this rollout doesn'teven acknowledge the potential
harms that you're talking aboutfor these communities.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Right, and you would think that when we're talking
about something that has youknow known health effects and
things like that, that part ofthe conversation would be the
harms of it.
We're not talking aboutsomething that has you know like
you know, cryptocurrency issomething you know something
different, right, that's not ahealth issue.
Right, we're talking aboutsomething that is you know, a
(13:44):
drug that has you know as we'rehearing more and more parents
come out across the country withhow it's impacted their youth,
their kids, some of them losingtheir kids to suicide from the
mental health impacts of this.
And then we also know you knowthings like that.
(14:11):
The complete absence of anyawareness or discussion or
incorporating any concern aboutthe impacts of having another
drug legalized at the federallevel and how that could impact
public health is really theresponse.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I agree.
Well, will, thank you for youranalysis of this.
I think this is a key newsstory.
Obviously, Kamala is the firstpresidential candidate, I think,
to introduce a federallegalization plan like this, so
obviously this is going to be atopic we'll continue to discuss,
regardless of what ends uphappening on election day, and
we are thankful that there arepeople that are in her circle
(14:40):
that are not quite as gung-hoabout legalization.
So I think, you know,thankfully, there are going to
be opportunities, I think, forus to have discussions, no
matter who is in office, aboutthese issues.
So more to come, thanks to ourlisteners.
Thank you, will, for joining us.
Please leave us a review Fivestars, we appreciate that, and a
written review is always greattoo and have a wonderful rest of
(15:01):
your week.
Yes or no?
Do you believe nicotine is notaddictive?
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I believe nicotine is not addictive yes, congressman,
cigarettes and nicotine clearlydo not meet the classic
definitions of addiction.
I don't believe that nicotinefor our products are addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
Hello everyone, this is Luke Neferatos.
I am your host of the DrugReport podcast.
Thank you for joining us foranother wonderful show brought
to you by SAM, the SmartApproaches to Marijuana, as well
as FDPS, the Foundation forDrug Policy Solutions, and if
you aren't getting ourtwice-weekly newsletters of all
the drug policy news analysisthat you need, please go to
thedrugreportorg.
(00:38):
Well, today I'm thrilledbecause my friend, also the
longest-serving employee at SAMwho's back from a health hiatus,
will Jones, is on the show.
Will, thanks for joining us.
Great to have you.
So let's dive in.
I want to talk about the VicePresident Kamala Harris's
(00:59):
opportunity plan for Black men.
Particularly is how this isbeing kind of played out in the
media, and so her plan foropportunity for black men is
cryptocurrency, some forgivableloans and, yes, now the federal
legalization of marijuana.
So here's a few quotes from theCNBC story on this.
(01:22):
So Harris says quote she willbreak down unjust legal barriers
that hold black men and otherAmericans back by legalizing
marijuana nationally, workingwith Congress to ensure that the
safe cultivation, distributionand possession of recreational
marijuana is the law of the land.
Quote she will also fight toensure that, as the national
cannabis industry takes shape,black men who have for years
(01:43):
been over police for marijuanause are able to access wealth
and jobs in this new market.
And her final kind of quote onthis is just that this is
something that's going to makeright the wrongs of
incarceration related tomarijuana.
So that's her plan.
She thinks federal marijuanalegalization means opportunity
(02:05):
for black men in America.
Will?
I'd love to get your thoughtson that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
Yeah.
So there's a couple immediatethings that come to mind as I
was reading over that andlooking at the details.
The first thing is just talkingabout the legalization issue
and I want to touch on that andthen go into the opportunities
within the industry as a cause.
I see there's just two separatethings.
You know she said she wants toremove, I think, like unjust,
(02:36):
you know, legal issues andthings like that that have been
holding black Americans andothers back One.
So the stated goal of that andI'm sure you would agree with
this is good in the sense of wedon't want anyone to be
suffering unjustly, we don'twant to have anyone have the law
applied to them in an unfair,unjust manner, and I think we
could all agree that you knowthe extent to which we can have
(03:00):
the law applied, you know,evenly to all people, that is
the goal of the high school ofgovernment.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
That's where we're all aiming.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Right.
I think where I'm getting offthe ship is that and I know you
agree here is that somehow thatlegalization is the necessary
step or the best step, or thestep in best interest of public
policy, public health and evenif we want to get as specific as
this plan for Black men, thatthat is going to be a helpful
(03:34):
step.
And I think that we can look atthat one just in terms of other
.
You know we can.
You know the tobacco industry,for example, when we see the
impact of recreational drug usethat has negative health impacts
to it and again, not sayingthat everyone's going to have a
(03:54):
terrible negative health impact,right, but when you look at it
on the whole for example,smoking cigarettes on the whole
lots of people have negativehealth impacts from that.
So the immediate question thatwe ask is and I think that we
need to really talk about, whichobviously isn't being talked
about enough is the healthimpacts and the public health
(04:15):
costs of having more peopleusing marijuana.
Because if it's legalized atthe federal level, without a
doubt more people will startusing.
That's the nature of it.
That's why you know the secondpart of the talk about the
business aspect of it, and wealso know that there's big
conglomerations that would lovefor it to be legalized at the
national, at the federal level,like big tobacco companies that
(04:37):
have already have a stated goalthat you know they want it
legalized at the federal leveland you know they would
immediately hop in the businessif that takes place.
And so when we look at theimpact of smoking, we see that
there's a disproportionateimpact on minority communities.
And I think anything when,because of disparities that
(05:00):
continue to exist in 2024 in theUS, when there are things with
negative public health impacts,it is minorities that are going
to get the suffer the worst fromthat, get the brunt end of that
, and so, you know, will therebe, you know, if it's legalized
at the federal level and a lotmore people start smoking.
Yes, there's some people thatwill, you know, probably use it
and have no ill effects onthemselves, right, but on the
(05:21):
whole, you know, and we all knowpeople that say, yeah, you know
, I've smoked cigarettes, I'm 80years old and I'm in good
health.
So not to say that there won'tbe those exceptions, but on the
whole, we will see a lot more ofthe things that we're already
seeing in legalized states, withchildren suffering from
secondhand smoke and the impactthat's having on their schooling
.
What we're seeing in terms ofmental health issues from people
(05:43):
, especially from thehigh-potency THC products.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
I think something to add on to that is point about
these, the harms being feltdisproportionately by black and
other minority communities.
Just look at what and you bringup the cigarette example, and
it's a good one.
Just look at what we tried todo with cigarettes.
Just as recently as this year,the we, public health groups,
(06:06):
the NAACP, everyone was askingfor a menthol ban, which they
estimate could save countlessblack lives, specifically a
menthol ban for cigarettes, andthe industry was able to shut
that down.
The Biden administration tabledthat rule that would have been
for the public health ofspecifically.
This was about the fact thatthe black community is targeted
(06:28):
with these products.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Which makes it ironic with this.
It's like we see that theindustry we are still unable to
effectively regulate theindustry when it comes to these
types of things.
We see, you know, as youmentioned menthol, cigarettes
and how the companies and youknow it's in their documents
specifically target minoritycommunities and you know there's
there's also a you know it'sgood business for them in the
(06:54):
sense of if you're in acommunity I don't, you know,
from this aspect I don't thinkit has to do with race but if
you're in a disadvantagedcommunity that has less
resources to combat addiction,then if your company profits off
of addiction, then you're goingto have more, you know, bang
for your buck and have morevalue in a community that
doesn't have the resources tocombat addiction to your product
.
We can look at this withalcohol too.
(07:16):
If, when drinking becomesproblematic for someone we've
mentioned smoking and thingslike that it is the people with
less resources in disadvantagedcommunities which, yes, in the
US, it is black communities thatdon't have the resources to
combat that, and so for somebodythat is, you know, has a
(07:36):
problem drinking, it's going tobe a lot harder for them to, you
know, if they need to get in atreatment program or something
like that.
Well, you don't have theresources to stop that.
But from the alcohol companies,you know that make 75% of the
revenue from people that drink,on average, 10 drinks a day.
Well, again, the person thatcan't get help is going to be
bringing in more revenue, moreprofit for the company, and so
(07:56):
that's from a public healthperspective.
That was my immediate reactionto reading that and hearing that
is that it's going to beminority communities that suffer
the most from the legalizationof marijuana, because it's
something that does havenegative public health impacts.
It does.
We're looking at this at stateby states.
We are seeing the impact thatit's having on mental health, on
(08:17):
youth, particularly youth is ahuge concern, and so I think
that's something that is, youknow, we, I think we can
acknowledge that we see theintention behind it, but I, you
know, I would, as I've alwayssaid, we should focus on where
the law is being applied in anunjust manner.
We should focus on that.
We can explore avenues wherethings along the lines of
(08:39):
decriminalization, where peopleare not saddled with a criminal
record for possession or use ofmarijuana, but that doesn't
necessitate creating amulti-billion dollar industry.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
The big tobacco companies have already said it
wouldn't be good to you.
Look at these big tobaccocompanies and big alcohol boards
.
There's no people of color onthese boards.
I mean, there's barely anywomen on these boards.
So the idea that this is goingto create any kind of equity, as
she's alluding to here in theplan, is ridiculous.
And now let's just look at themarijuana industry.
Where Will I know?
You're aware, less than 5% ofthe entire national marijuana
(09:12):
industry is owned by Blackpeople and it's very low across
the board, across alldemographics.
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Yeah, yeah, and that leads to the second point.
So I think the first point isjust the health perspective of
legalization.
California, other places, theysaid we're going to have
entrepreneurs of color be thefirst at the table, they're
(09:53):
going to be the ones to getlicenses, et cetera.
And we just haven't seen ithappen anywhere.
Organizations, minorityorganizations for that are in
favor of, you know, legalizationand getting people of color
into the industry flat out say,hey, this isn't work, this, you
(10:13):
know, it's been, it's been lies,it's been, you know, things
like that.
And so we really have noevidence from what's happened in
any state so far that thatwould be a success at the
national level.
And I think even deeper thanthat.
You know, to tie it back tothat health issue, even if you
(10:34):
know, theoretically right, evenif there were a few individuals
that were, you know, people ofcolor that were able to, you
know, have a successful businessfrom this, my question is
always going to be what is theimpact of that business in your
community?
So it comes back to that healthissue that even and I've said
this before in debates I don'tcare if you're purple, if you're
(10:57):
an alien or whatever, if yourbusiness isn't one that is going
to be helping members ofsociety.
If your business isn't onethat's going to be helping the
community, your color, you knowit becomes secondary at that
point.
So that's the other thing thateven if the goal of having
equity in this were to berealized somehow which again
hasn't been anywhere you stillhave to have this analysis of
(11:20):
you know.
To take it in my example, whereI started working on this issue,
in DC, closest store in myhouse, any directions, a liquor
store.
I've said that a lot of times,quite frankly, I don't care the
color of the person that ownsthat liquor store.
You see the impact that theliquor store is having on the
community and you're like thisis not something you know.
Having that store in everyother corner is not something
(11:41):
that's beneficial for thecommunity or the health of the
community.
So it brings it back to that aswell.
And the last component of that,as I know you're aware of, if
it were to be legalized at thefederal level, the people making
significant, life-changingmoney would really just be a few
individuals at the top of theseconglomerates, this idea that
(12:02):
there's going to be, you know,on a community level, change of,
you know, multiple peoplehaving these small businesses.
That hasn't panned out anywhere, and we see that big companies
are pushing for it, for this,because they're the ones that's
right.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Well, and I think you know, just to kind of give the
other side of the coin, here youhave another Democratic black
woman who's running for officein Angela, also Brooks, in
Maryland.
Now, her recent comments in thedebate she did ultimately say
she would vote for legalization,but she couched it in terms
that I think were much morebalanced in terms of she said
(12:39):
she was concerned about theimpact on children, the idea
that children would get intothese products.
She had concerns about thehealth aspect of this policy and
she was just overall a veryskeptical eye when it comes to
federal legalization.
And so I think what also Brooksdid, I think laid much more of
(12:59):
an angle, if you're going tosupport it, couching it, at
least acknowledging the problems, which Angela did, which I
think was fantastic.
So I think that, provided youknow, really kind of, in my
opinion, really shamed Kamala'srollout of this, in my opinion,
because this rollout doesn'teven acknowledge the potential
harms that you're talking aboutfor these communities.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Right, and you would think that when we're talking
about something that has youknow known health effects and
things like that, that part ofthe conversation would be the
harms of it.
We're not talking aboutsomething that has you know like
you know, cryptocurrency issomething you know something
different, right, that's not ahealth issue.
Right, we're talking aboutsomething that is you know, a
(13:44):
drug that has you know as we'rehearing more and more parents
come out across the country withhow it's impacted their youth,
their kids, some of them losingtheir kids to suicide from the
mental health impacts of this.
And then we also know you knowthings like that.
(14:11):
The complete absence of anyawareness or discussion or
incorporating any concern aboutthe impacts of having another
drug legalized at the federallevel and how that could impact
public health is really theresponse.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I agree.
Well, will, thank you for youranalysis of this.
I think this is a key newsstory.
Obviously, Kamala is the firstpresidential candidate, I think,
to introduce a federallegalization plan like this, so
obviously this is going to be atopic we'll continue to discuss,
regardless of what ends uphappening on election day, and
we are thankful that there arepeople that are in her circle
(14:40):
that are not quite as gung-hoabout legalization.
So I think, you know,thankfully, there are going to
be opportunities, I think, forus to have discussions, no
matter who is in office, aboutthese issues.
So more to come, thanks to ourlisteners.
Thank you, will, for joining us.
Please leave us a review Fivestars, we appreciate that, and a
written review is always greattoo and have a wonderful rest of
(15:01):
your week.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.