September 16, 2024 • 14 mins
Can the FDA really pull THC-infused edibles off the shelves? We'll take you inside a gripping congressional hearing where FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, James Jones, found himself in the hot seat, interrogated by Congresswoman Kathy McMorris-Rogers. Unravel the complexities of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and understand the real-world implications of the Blumenauer Amendment, which ties the FDA's hands when it comes to medical marijuana dispensaries that also sell recreational products.
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, cigarettesand nicotine clearly do not meet
the classic definitions ofaddiction.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I don't believe that nicotine for our products are
addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Hey everyone.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
this is Luke Neferatos.
I am your host of the DrugReport Podcast.
Thank you for joining us foranother week and sharing your
time with us.
Before I get started, I want tothank our co-sponsoring
organizations, sam and FDPS,leading the country and really
the world in drug policy, frommarijuana policy onto opioids
and everything else.
Check out learnaboutsamorg, aswell as gooddrugpolicyorg, and
(00:41):
then you can sign up for ourtwice-weekly newsletter of all
the stories you need to hearfrom the drug policy research
and science world atthedrugreportorg.
Well, I have Jordan Davidsonback, our head of federal
affairs, to join us and talkabout a really interesting
development that happened lastTuesday.
There was a hearing in Congresswhere members of the FDA were
(01:02):
being questioned and we learnedsome interesting news related to
marijuana policy.
So I want to bring Jordan in,who flagged this, to kind of
break it down.
So, jordan, thanks for joiningus.
Thanks for having me on LukeGreat, so tell us what happened
last Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Yeah.
So last Tuesday, in front of theEnergy and Commerce Committee
in the House of Representatives,which is one of the most
powerful committees in Congress,they put forth the FDA Deputy
Commissioner for Human Foods,james Jones, and he was being
questioned by members ofCongress on that committee.
Now the chairwoman of thatcommittee, who again is one of
(01:39):
the most powerful members ofCongress, is Kathy
McMorris-Rogers from the stateof Washington, where they have
legal marijuana, and she'sactually been a little bit more
active than I've ever seenbefore on the marijuana issue,
having sent a letter, you know,really concerned about marijuana
rescheduling just, I believe, acouple of months ago.
But then on Tuesday she wasasking this deputy FDA
(02:00):
commissioner about THC and kindof what the FDA's power is.
She was concerned aboutstudents in schools that she was
seeing eating THC-infusededibles in her district and she
asked him what the FDA's poweris here and what happens when an
FDA inspector goes into aconvenience store and sees THC.
(02:23):
And the deputy commissionersaid what we at Sam have known
for a very long time but haven'treally been publicly discussed
within the FDA.
He said quote we can certainlyremove those products from the
market.
And so you know, wait, hang on.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
So that is a big deal .
Let's stop right there, becauseso this is something that, for
anyone who's been following Samor knows Kevin or myself over
the last nearly a decade now, wehave been saying for a very
long time that we don't needlet's say this again, we do not
need to legalize marijuana inregulate it.
(03:02):
In order to get that done, theFDA has powers today to deal
with these nefarious actors.
In whether it's state legal ornot state legal, they can deal
with these products and thesehorrible companies that are
targeting kids and theirterrible products that are
clearly appealing to them, andwe've been saying that for a
long time.
It's time for the FDA to stepinto its role and deal with
(03:24):
these companies and theseproducts.
And people always say, well,the FDA doesn't have
jurisdiction, they can't do it.
We have to legalize it for themto do it.
No, we don't.
Okay, continue Jordan.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Yeah, so you know they, you know specifically
right, they have the FD&C Act,the Federal Food, drug and
Cosmetics Act, and, like THC isan unapproved, quote, unquote,
adulterant right so they canremove these products from the
market, they can pull theseproducts from the shelves.
(03:56):
The kind of flip side, the otherside of the coin on this is
that the FDA did say I'm reading, quote like verbatim here,
quote we do not have evenremotely the same presence in
communities as local lawenforcement do.
These products, theseingredients used in food make
(04:18):
the food adulterated.
We have opportunityperiodically to take them off
the market, but again, we're notgoing to have the same presence
.
Basically, and he was sayingbasically kicking the can down
the road, kicking it over tolocal law enforcement, saying
that we can't do anything or wewon't do anything even though we
can.
But he did say that there'squote, definitely joint
(04:40):
jurisdiction and we would workwith our federal law enforcement
colleagues.
Now I think there's kind ofanother interesting layer to
this where the, because of anappropriations rider that's been
in every appropriations billfor almost the last decade the
FDA or, sorry, department ofJustice, doj cannot go into
(05:02):
specifically medical marijuanadispensaries and disrupt those
operations.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And just for those of you who don't follow Congress,
a rider is basically says nofunds from this bill can go
towards whatever's beenspecified.
So in this case it wasBlumenauer right.
Who did this rider?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, the Blumenauer amendment.
Yeah, so in this case it wasBlumenauer right, who did this
rider?
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, the Blumenauer Amendment.
Yeah, so this rider was put inplace many years ago to say no
funds, that fund the Departmentof Justice may be used to
enforce laws against medicalmarijuana.
So, in other words, it kind of,in a very awful and
anti-democratic and not a greatgovernment way, legalized
medical marijuana in terms ofrestricting enforcement.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Anyway, and they've tried to do that and yeah, and
they've tried to do this withrecreational as well, and that
has, you know, like, passed theHouse in certain cases to expand
that.
But the key is the reason thatthis matters is that for a lot
of these dispensaries sellingthese products and a lot of them
, by the way, are jointoperations Some of these medical
(06:04):
facilities also sellrecreational, so that's a great
area.
Most of them do so.
Most of them do the DOJ.
They're kind of hamstrung bycongressional appropriations to
be able to kind of execute theirjob.
Local law enforcement isoverwhelmed by a lot of
different things and so the FDAis kind of unique because
they're not under the DOJ and sothe FDA has this power that's
been established here andthey're able to use it and they
(06:26):
don't have the same federalrestrictions because of this
rider that the DOJ has.
And so hopefully, what we'regoing to be doing and we're
already working to do this is towork with this committee
chairwoman and with thatcommittee and see what kind of
oversight we can have over theFDA, see what we can do to push
and encourage them to take moreaction than they've ever taken
(06:48):
before To actually getparticularly these kid-friendly,
really dangerous high-potencygummies and chocolates and sodas
and things like that off themarket and things like that off
the market, yeah, so I thinkit's really interesting because
what it seems to me like itrequires is something that we
have been asking for, which isthat, whoever is in power, our
(07:08):
current administration shouldmake this a priority, should
direct the FDA to do its job.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I think the FDA treats the biggest fire that's
raging, the squeakiest wheel isgoing to get the grease, and
that's really how it works ingovernment, and so there needs
to be a lot more outcry, I think, from people to say look, this
needs to be a priority.
Yes, fda has a strapped budget,needs to prioritize things.
This needs to be a prioritybecause these companies are,
which are federally illegal, aredoing this all over the place.
(07:35):
They're doing this all acrossthe country, and if the FDA took
its role more seriously in thismatter and knew that this is
something that was anadministrative priority, they
would start taking some of theseactions, and so I think that's
a good takeaway point rightthere.
The other thing is knowing thatDOJ, as you mentioned, is
defunded by this rider.
Fda is not limited by that.
(07:55):
Fda's funding does not comethrough that funding, so they
have funding that isunrestricted and they can use
their role to hold thesecompanies accountable.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah, absolutely.
And it's almost a little bitsad because they've taken some
action, but it's so weak thatit's almost not even worth it.
They've only focused.
By the way, it's actually kindof funny if you look at it.
They've sent warning lettersright to some dispensaries, but
they focus those warning letterson the intoxicating hemp
(08:30):
products, the places that areselling the Delta-8.
And look, hey, we tackleDelta-8.
We want Delta-8 off the shelves.
I'm not trying to say better orworse, it's all bad.
But it's almost funny how theseproducts, which are technically
federally legal and, yes, we'retrying to change that, fda is
focused on that but productsthat like squarely illegal, with
(08:50):
no ifs, ands or buts at thefederal level they have clear
jurisdiction to do this theydon't even try and touch.
So it's just quite weird.
And so the only enforcementaction they've taken is saying
hey, can you please stop this ina letter when they can do a lot
more.
And I'll say the kind of lastthing I'll add from a direct
quote here is you know, whenthis deputy commissioner was
(09:13):
asked straight up, thechairwoman said when the FDA is
inspecting convenience stores orworking with states to do so,
if an inspector sees foodmarketed that contains THC, what
is the inspector instructed todo?
And he said quote that he wouldwell have to check with the
field office, but quote I expectthat they would ultimately
issue a report that would thenbe followed by a compliance
(09:36):
action.
So I don't think we've seen anycompliance action.
I don't know what reportsthey're filing, but I think this
opens the door, this kind ofcommittee questioning, for us,
along with kind of allies inCongress, to do a little bit
more, to say, okay, let's seewhat compliance actions you've
taken, let's see you know ifyou've taken any.
(09:56):
How can we expand that?
What can we do to work togetherto make that happen?
I have a feeling that theywon't be able to produce that
many compliance action reports.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
But maybe we can introduce some more Right,
exactly that we can RightExactly.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That's the takeaway here.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So this is just an interesting kind of tidbit and
also, when you have somebodylike Morris Rogers, you know
who's got so much power and sheis starting to ask these
questions.
I think that's showing thatthere's some appetite in
Congress to try to make this apriority and let FDA know that
this should be a priority, and Ithink that's pretty exciting.
Yep, very exciting, yep, veryexciting.
So before we let folks go,there was a little bit of news
(10:33):
over the weekend on PresidentNixon, some remarks he made.
He basically said in a he was,I think, that what was this?
A recording, or this was likean audio clip or something.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
It was a recording that was discovered.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
So he essentially said that you know, marijuana
was not that he.
He basically acknowledged thatmarijuana was not that dangerous
and so that they were makingsome hay of that online.
Jordan, I don't know if youwant to add anything else to
that, but that was essentiallythe gist of the story.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Yeah, it was, you know.
It was just interesting becausea lot of the, as you said, hay
that was made was about himsaying that marijuana was not
that dangerous.
Of course, we say this all thetime.
When President Nixon was inoffice, it was that Woodstock
weed, which, of course, had itsharms, but it isn't even close
to what's being sold on themarket today.
(11:26):
When you think about publichealth and public safety harms,
well, what I think is funnyabout it.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
One thing I'll just add real quick.
What I think is funny about itis everyone, you know all the
legalizers say well, you know,the only reason marijuana was
prohibited was because of reefermadness.
You know everyone thought itwas just this horrible, horrible
, you know the devil's weed andwhatever.
And it's just so funny howthere was clearly a more
(11:55):
reasonable intent behind this.
It wasn't the intention behindprohibiting marijuana and other
drugs wasn't because marijuanais the worst drug ever and we
think that it's just ruiningsociety and therefore we need to
make it illegal.
It was never something soridiculous as that, clearly.
But it's funny because theevidence that there was more
reason to the decision they'resaying oh, we'll see this proves
that he never wanted it, itshouldn't have been illegal, it
had nothing to do with it.
(12:15):
Anyway, continue.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, I mean I guess my thoughts on this are just
right.
I think that the two thingsthat stuck out most to me
actually weren't even about howdangerous marijuana is, even or
not dangerous, that was kind ofthe headline.
But he was talking aboutcriminal penalties, right.
He said you know, I've heard ofsome cases in which people got
a long prison sentence orwhatever happened for marijuana
(12:38):
and he thought that that wasextreme and so he actually
favored in this privaterecording that was unearthed,
you know, altering some of thosecriminal penalties, which is
what Sam supports, right, likethat's kind of the position
we've taken and I think it justshows that there was more nuance
in a lot of these circles andspaces to these issues.
(12:58):
Obviously, you know all sidesof all issues try and make
things black and white,sometimes right, that just comes
with the territory of policy,but it wasn't the case.
And also I think here that wasinteresting which we've talked
about for a while, was at thattime and era and within the
Nixon administration.
You know there were good thingsor bad things, but you know his
emphasis on getting people totreat and that was one of one of
(13:20):
his advisors that was quotedhere there was a lot more
emphasis on treatment back thenactually than people understand
today.
So I think of course you know,I think we all recognize that
there were certainly missteps,misguided actions, you know
rhetoric that was extreme andkind of flared up on all sides
of this issue.
But there are lessons learnedthat we can take from all these
(13:42):
different areas and for me thelesson learned is okay, we can
do kind of decreasing penaltieswithout legalizing marijuana,
commercializing it, and we needto make an even bigger effort
today, as people favored evenback then, to get more people
into treatment.
And I think that's somethingimportant and just shed some
more nuance and light on thisissue.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, and, like you said, maybe there's a little
more science and reason to theselaws after all.
Maybe it's not all justhysteria or whatever, whatever
other hyperbole legalizers wantto throw out there.
So very interesting stuff,jordan.
Thank you, as always, forjoining us.
To all of our listeners, thankyou for joining us.
Please leave us a five-starrating that helps immensely, and
a written review if you havetime.
Always appreciate it.
(14:21):
Have a wonderful rest of yourweek.
Yes or no?
Do you believe nicotine is notaddictive?
Speaker 2 (00:02):
I believe nicotine is not addictive.
Yes, Congressman, cigarettesand nicotine clearly do not meet
the classic definitions ofaddiction.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
I don't believe that nicotine for our products are
addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Hey everyone.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
this is Luke Neferatos.
I am your host of the DrugReport Podcast.
Thank you for joining us foranother week and sharing your
time with us.
Before I get started, I want tothank our co-sponsoring
organizations, sam and FDPS,leading the country and really
the world in drug policy, frommarijuana policy onto opioids
and everything else.
Check out learnaboutsamorg, aswell as gooddrugpolicyorg, and
(00:41):
then you can sign up for ourtwice-weekly newsletter of all
the stories you need to hearfrom the drug policy research
and science world atthedrugreportorg.
Well, I have Jordan Davidsonback, our head of federal
affairs, to join us and talkabout a really interesting
development that happened lastTuesday.
There was a hearing in Congresswhere members of the FDA were
(01:02):
being questioned and we learnedsome interesting news related to
marijuana policy.
So I want to bring Jordan in,who flagged this, to kind of
break it down.
So, jordan, thanks for joiningus.
Thanks for having me on LukeGreat, so tell us what happened
last Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (01:17):
Yeah.
So last Tuesday, in front of theEnergy and Commerce Committee
in the House of Representatives,which is one of the most
powerful committees in Congress,they put forth the FDA Deputy
Commissioner for Human Foods,james Jones, and he was being
questioned by members ofCongress on that committee.
Now the chairwoman of thatcommittee, who again is one of
(01:39):
the most powerful members ofCongress, is Kathy
McMorris-Rogers from the stateof Washington, where they have
legal marijuana, and she'sactually been a little bit more
active than I've ever seenbefore on the marijuana issue,
having sent a letter, you know,really concerned about marijuana
rescheduling just, I believe, acouple of months ago.
But then on Tuesday she wasasking this deputy FDA
(02:00):
commissioner about THC and kindof what the FDA's power is.
She was concerned aboutstudents in schools that she was
seeing eating THC-infusededibles in her district and she
asked him what the FDA's poweris here and what happens when an
FDA inspector goes into aconvenience store and sees THC.
(02:23):
And the deputy commissionersaid what we at Sam have known
for a very long time but haven'treally been publicly discussed
within the FDA.
He said quote we can certainlyremove those products from the
market.
And so you know, wait, hang on.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
So that is a big deal .
Let's stop right there, becauseso this is something that, for
anyone who's been following Samor knows Kevin or myself over
the last nearly a decade now, wehave been saying for a very
long time that we don't needlet's say this again, we do not
need to legalize marijuana inregulate it.
(03:02):
In order to get that done, theFDA has powers today to deal
with these nefarious actors.
In whether it's state legal ornot state legal, they can deal
with these products and thesehorrible companies that are
targeting kids and theirterrible products that are
clearly appealing to them, andwe've been saying that for a
long time.
It's time for the FDA to stepinto its role and deal with
(03:24):
these companies and theseproducts.
And people always say, well,the FDA doesn't have
jurisdiction, they can't do it.
We have to legalize it for themto do it.
No, we don't.
Okay, continue Jordan.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Yeah, so you know they, you know specifically
right, they have the FD&C Act,the Federal Food, drug and
Cosmetics Act, and, like THC isan unapproved, quote, unquote,
adulterant right so they canremove these products from the
market, they can pull theseproducts from the shelves.
(03:56):
The kind of flip side, the otherside of the coin on this is
that the FDA did say I'm reading, quote like verbatim here,
quote we do not have evenremotely the same presence in
communities as local lawenforcement do.
These products, theseingredients used in food make
(04:18):
the food adulterated.
We have opportunityperiodically to take them off
the market, but again, we're notgoing to have the same presence
.
Basically, and he was sayingbasically kicking the can down
the road, kicking it over tolocal law enforcement, saying
that we can't do anything or wewon't do anything even though we
can.
But he did say that there'squote, definitely joint
(04:40):
jurisdiction and we would workwith our federal law enforcement
colleagues.
Now I think there's kind ofanother interesting layer to
this where the, because of anappropriations rider that's been
in every appropriations billfor almost the last decade the
FDA or, sorry, department ofJustice, doj cannot go into
(05:02):
specifically medical marijuanadispensaries and disrupt those
operations.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And just for those of you who don't follow Congress,
a rider is basically says nofunds from this bill can go
towards whatever's beenspecified.
So in this case it wasBlumenauer right.
Who did this rider?
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, the Blumenauer amendment.
Yeah, so in this case it wasBlumenauer right, who did this
rider?
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Yeah, the Blumenauer Amendment.
Yeah, so this rider was put inplace many years ago to say no
funds, that fund the Departmentof Justice may be used to
enforce laws against medicalmarijuana.
So, in other words, it kind of,in a very awful and
anti-democratic and not a greatgovernment way, legalized
medical marijuana in terms ofrestricting enforcement.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Anyway, and they've tried to do that and yeah, and
they've tried to do this withrecreational as well, and that
has, you know, like, passed theHouse in certain cases to expand
that.
But the key is the reason thatthis matters is that for a lot
of these dispensaries sellingthese products and a lot of them
, by the way, are jointoperations Some of these medical
(06:04):
facilities also sellrecreational, so that's a great
area.
Most of them do so.
Most of them do the DOJ.
They're kind of hamstrung bycongressional appropriations to
be able to kind of execute theirjob.
Local law enforcement isoverwhelmed by a lot of
different things and so the FDAis kind of unique because
they're not under the DOJ and sothe FDA has this power that's
been established here andthey're able to use it and they
(06:26):
don't have the same federalrestrictions because of this
rider that the DOJ has.
And so hopefully, what we'regoing to be doing and we're
already working to do this is towork with this committee
chairwoman and with thatcommittee and see what kind of
oversight we can have over theFDA, see what we can do to push
and encourage them to take moreaction than they've ever taken
(06:48):
before To actually getparticularly these kid-friendly,
really dangerous high-potencygummies and chocolates and sodas
and things like that off themarket and things like that off
the market, yeah, so I thinkit's really interesting because
what it seems to me like itrequires is something that we
have been asking for, which isthat, whoever is in power, our
(07:08):
current administration shouldmake this a priority, should
direct the FDA to do its job.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
I think the FDA treats the biggest fire that's
raging, the squeakiest wheel isgoing to get the grease, and
that's really how it works ingovernment, and so there needs
to be a lot more outcry, I think, from people to say look, this
needs to be a priority.
Yes, fda has a strapped budget,needs to prioritize things.
This needs to be a prioritybecause these companies are,
which are federally illegal, aredoing this all over the place.
(07:35):
They're doing this all acrossthe country, and if the FDA took
its role more seriously in thismatter and knew that this is
something that was anadministrative priority, they
would start taking some of theseactions, and so I think that's
a good takeaway point rightthere.
The other thing is knowing thatDOJ, as you mentioned, is
defunded by this rider.
Fda is not limited by that.
(07:55):
Fda's funding does not comethrough that funding, so they
have funding that isunrestricted and they can use
their role to hold thesecompanies accountable.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Yeah, absolutely.
And it's almost a little bitsad because they've taken some
action, but it's so weak thatit's almost not even worth it.
They've only focused.
By the way, it's actually kindof funny if you look at it.
They've sent warning lettersright to some dispensaries, but
they focus those warning letterson the intoxicating hemp
(08:30):
products, the places that areselling the Delta-8.
And look, hey, we tackleDelta-8.
We want Delta-8 off the shelves.
I'm not trying to say better orworse, it's all bad.
But it's almost funny how theseproducts, which are technically
federally legal and, yes, we'retrying to change that, fda is
focused on that but productsthat like squarely illegal, with
(08:50):
no ifs, ands or buts at thefederal level they have clear
jurisdiction to do this theydon't even try and touch.
So it's just quite weird.
And so the only enforcementaction they've taken is saying
hey, can you please stop this ina letter when they can do a lot
more.
And I'll say the kind of lastthing I'll add from a direct
quote here is you know, whenthis deputy commissioner was
(09:13):
asked straight up, thechairwoman said when the FDA is
inspecting convenience stores orworking with states to do so,
if an inspector sees foodmarketed that contains THC, what
is the inspector instructed todo?
And he said quote that he wouldwell have to check with the
field office, but quote I expectthat they would ultimately
issue a report that would thenbe followed by a compliance
(09:36):
action.
So I don't think we've seen anycompliance action.
I don't know what reportsthey're filing, but I think this
opens the door, this kind ofcommittee questioning, for us,
along with kind of allies inCongress, to do a little bit
more, to say, okay, let's seewhat compliance actions you've
taken, let's see you know ifyou've taken any.
(09:56):
How can we expand that?
What can we do to work togetherto make that happen?
I have a feeling that theywon't be able to produce that
many compliance action reports.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
But maybe we can introduce some more Right,
exactly that we can RightExactly.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
That's the takeaway here.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
So this is just an interesting kind of tidbit and
also, when you have somebodylike Morris Rogers, you know
who's got so much power and sheis starting to ask these
questions.
I think that's showing thatthere's some appetite in
Congress to try to make this apriority and let FDA know that
this should be a priority, and Ithink that's pretty exciting.
Yep, very exciting, yep, veryexciting.
So before we let folks go,there was a little bit of news
(10:33):
over the weekend on PresidentNixon, some remarks he made.
He basically said in a he was,I think, that what was this?
A recording, or this was likean audio clip or something.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
It was a recording that was discovered.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
So he essentially said that you know, marijuana
was not that he.
He basically acknowledged thatmarijuana was not that dangerous
and so that they were makingsome hay of that online.
Jordan, I don't know if youwant to add anything else to
that, but that was essentiallythe gist of the story.
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Yeah, it was, you know.
It was just interesting becausea lot of the, as you said, hay
that was made was about himsaying that marijuana was not
that dangerous.
Of course, we say this all thetime.
When President Nixon was inoffice, it was that Woodstock
weed, which, of course, had itsharms, but it isn't even close
to what's being sold on themarket today.
(11:26):
When you think about publichealth and public safety harms,
well, what I think is funnyabout it.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
One thing I'll just add real quick.
What I think is funny about itis everyone, you know all the
legalizers say well, you know,the only reason marijuana was
prohibited was because of reefermadness.
You know everyone thought itwas just this horrible, horrible
, you know the devil's weed andwhatever.
And it's just so funny howthere was clearly a more
(11:55):
reasonable intent behind this.
It wasn't the intention behindprohibiting marijuana and other
drugs wasn't because marijuanais the worst drug ever and we
think that it's just ruiningsociety and therefore we need to
make it illegal.
It was never something soridiculous as that, clearly.
But it's funny because theevidence that there was more
reason to the decision they'resaying oh, we'll see this proves
that he never wanted it, itshouldn't have been illegal, it
had nothing to do with it.
(12:15):
Anyway, continue.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yeah, I mean I guess my thoughts on this are just
right.
I think that the two thingsthat stuck out most to me
actually weren't even about howdangerous marijuana is, even or
not dangerous, that was kind ofthe headline.
But he was talking aboutcriminal penalties, right.
He said you know, I've heard ofsome cases in which people got
a long prison sentence orwhatever happened for marijuana
(12:38):
and he thought that that wasextreme and so he actually
favored in this privaterecording that was unearthed,
you know, altering some of thosecriminal penalties, which is
what Sam supports, right, likethat's kind of the position
we've taken and I think it justshows that there was more nuance
in a lot of these circles andspaces to these issues.
(12:58):
Obviously, you know all sidesof all issues try and make
things black and white,sometimes right, that just comes
with the territory of policy,but it wasn't the case.
And also I think here that wasinteresting which we've talked
about for a while, was at thattime and era and within the
Nixon administration.
You know there were good thingsor bad things, but you know his
emphasis on getting people totreat and that was one of one of
(13:20):
his advisors that was quotedhere there was a lot more
emphasis on treatment back thenactually than people understand
today.
So I think of course you know,I think we all recognize that
there were certainly missteps,misguided actions, you know
rhetoric that was extreme andkind of flared up on all sides
of this issue.
But there are lessons learnedthat we can take from all these
(13:42):
different areas and for me thelesson learned is okay, we can
do kind of decreasing penaltieswithout legalizing marijuana,
commercializing it, and we needto make an even bigger effort
today, as people favored evenback then, to get more people
into treatment.
And I think that's somethingimportant and just shed some
more nuance and light on thisissue.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
Yeah, and, like you said, maybe there's a little
more science and reason to theselaws after all.
Maybe it's not all justhysteria or whatever, whatever
other hyperbole legalizers wantto throw out there.
So very interesting stuff,jordan.
Thank you, as always, forjoining us.
To all of our listeners, thankyou for joining us.
Please leave us a five-starrating that helps immensely, and
a written review if you havetime.
Always appreciate it.
(14:21):
Have a wonderful rest of yourweek.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!