Bill Barr Says Legalization Was a Mistake Because ‘Marijuana Is Dangerous’

Published

1 year ago

March 18, 2024

admin

It will surprise no one to learn that William Barr, who made it clear when Donald Trump picked him to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general that he favored strict and uniform application of federal pot prohibition, and John Walters, who ran the Office of National Drug Control Policy during George W. Bush’s administration, think “legalizing recreational marijuana” has been “nothing short of a disaster.” Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward already has ably rebutted their recentFree Press piece making that case. I’d like to add a few points about their approach to the subject, which combines valid concerns with strawman arguments, cherry picking, illogical inferences, reliance on dubious estimates, and tendentious interpretations of contested research.

Barr and Walters complain that marijuana legalization has “created the false perception that the drug is ‘safe.'” They think refuting that false perception is enough to justify a return to prohibition. Because “marijuana is dangerous,” they say, “legalizing it was a mistake.” But the question is not whether marijuana is “safe”; it is whether marijuana’s hazards justify the use of force to stop people from consuming it. Barr and Walters fail to seriously grapple with that question even in utilitarian terms, and they completely ignore moral objections to criminalizing conduct that violates no one’s rights.

It easy enough to show that marijuana, like every other drug, has risks as well as benefits. But that banal observation is not enough to clinch the case for prohibition even if, like Barr and Walters, you ignore the claim that adults have a right to weigh those risks and benefits for themselves.

Alcohol, after all, is assuredly not “safe.” By several important measures, it is substantially more dangerous than cannabis. A lethal dose of alcohol is roughly 10 times the effective dose. Given the dearth of fatal reactions to cannabis among humans, that ratio is difficult to calculate for marijuana. But based on research with laboratory animals, it is more than 1,000 to 1. Alcohol abuse results in potentially lethal organ damage of a kind that is not seen even in the heaviest cannabis consumers. Alcohol is more strongly associated with violence than cannabis, and it has a much more striking impact on driving ability.

Alcohol is nevertheless a legal drug, which reflects a judgment that the costs of prohibiting it outweigh the benefits. It is not clear whether Barr and Walters disagree with that judgment, since they do not mention alcohol at all. In fact, they seem keen to avoid any interdrug comparisons that might undermine the premise that marijuana should be banned because it is especially dangerous.

Barr and Walters warn that “THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, produces a high by altering brain chemistry and interfering with the nervous system’s normal functioning.” The same could be said of any psychoactive substance. That description tells us nothing about marijuana’s relative hazards.

Back in 1988, Francis Young, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief administrative law judge, deemed such comparisons relevant in assessing how marijuana should be classified under the Controlled Substances Act. “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man,” he observed. “There are simply no credible medical reports to suggest that consuming marijuana has caused a single death.”

By contrast, it was well-established that both over-the-counter and prescription drugs could kill people when consumed in large doses. For aspirin, Young noted, the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose was about 20 to 1, while the ratio for many prescription drugs, such as Valium, was 10 to 1 or even lower. With marijuana, he said, that ratio “is impossible to quantify because it is so high.”

Barr and Walters would have us believe that Young’s assessment is outdated because today’s “hyperpotent marijuana” is radically different from the drug that had been studied at the time. Yet the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently echoed Young’s basic point.

Explaining its rationale for rescheduling marijuana, HHS noted that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse,” such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), benzodiazepines like Valium and Xanax (Schedule IV), and alcohol (unscheduled). Although “abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of harmful consequences, including substance use disorder,” it said, they are “less common and less harmful” than the negative consequences associated with other drugs. It concluded that “the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others.”

This does not mean increased potency poses no challenges. As anyone who was accustomed to smoking an entire joint or bowlful of crappy pot in college could testify, the high-THC strains and concentrates available in state-licensed pot stores require more caution. For occasional consumers, a few puffs is generally enough. But in a legal market, consumers can make that adjustment based on readily available information as well as personal experience. It is not different in kind from the dosing decisions that millions of Americans make when they consume alcoholic beverages that vary widely in potency.

Instead of considering the typical behavior of cannabis consumers, as HHS did, Barr and Walters focus on problem users. “It’s conservatively estimated that one in three people who use marijuana become addicted,” they aver, linking to a page of information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “One study estimated that approximately 3 in 10 people who use marijuana have marijuana use disorder,” the CDC says.

The CDC is referring to a 2015JAMA Psychiatry study based on data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The researchers compared survey results from 20122013 to survey results from 20012002. Inconveniently for Walters and Barr, who argue that legalization has led to an explosion in problematic use, the analysis found that “the prevalence of marijuana use disorder among marijuana users decreased significantly” during that period, from 35.6 percent to 30.6 percent. Although the first state-licensed recreational dispensaries did not open until 2014, 17 states and the District of Columbia had legalized medical use by 2013, and some of those laws (such as California’s) were permissive enough that pretty much anyone could obtain the requisite doctor’s recommendation.

Barr and Walters equate the survey-based definition of “marijuana use disorder” with addiction. But the former term encompasses a wide range of problematic behavior, including “abuse” as well as “dependence.”

The JAMA Psychiatry study defined “abuse” as meeting one or more of four criteria: 1) “recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home”; 2) “recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous”; 3) “recurrent substance-related legal problems”; and 4) “continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance.”

These are all problems, but they are problems of different kinds, and they do not necessarily signify addiction as that term is generally understood. If someone swam, drove, or hiked a mountain trail while high a couple of times, for example, that could be enough to qualify for the “abuse” label under the second criterion.

The study defined “dependence” as meeting three or more of six criteria: 1) tolerance, 2) taking the substance “in larger amounts or over a longer period than intended,” 3) “a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use,” 4) spending “a great deal of time” on “activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects,” 5) forgoing or reducing “important social, occupational, or recreational activities&helli;because of substance use,” and 6) continuing use “despite knowledge of having a persistent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.”

Now we are getting closer to the conventional understanding of addiction. But equating any three of these criteria with addiction is still questionable. If a regular marijuana user found that he needed a larger dose to achieve the same effect, sometimes went one toke over the line, and decided to get high instead of going out with friends, for example, he could be deemed “dependent” under this test. More generally, critics of applying psychiatric diagnoses based on survey responses have noted that such data may result in overestimates because they neglect “clinical significance.”

Despite these limitations, Barr and Walters conflate dependence/addiction with a much broader category of marijuana-related problems, and they deem the resulting estimate “conservative.” That one-in-three past-year estimate is much higher than the lifetime dependence risk that a 1994 study calculated based on the National Comorbidity Survey: 9 percent for cannabis, compared to 32 percent for tobacco, 23 percent for heroin, 17 percent for cocaine, and 15 percent for alcohol. It is also at odds with a detailed 2010 analysis inThe Lancet, which found that the dependence risks for marijuana and alcohol were similar while rating the overall harm attributable to alcohol more than three times as high.

I have just devoted half a dozen paragraphs to one dubious claim out of many in the Barr and Walters piece. As Mangu-Ward notes, they also gloss over the vigorous debate about the nature of the connection between marijuana and psychosis, ignore countervailing evidence regarding the alleged impact of marijuana on IQ, and erroneously equate any level of THC in a driver’s blood with impairment.

Barr and Walters cite the persistence of black-market marijuana in states such as California as evidence that legalization cannot work when it is actually evidence that high taxes and burdensome regulations make it hard for licensed businesses to compete with unauthorized dealers. They likewise blame burglaries and robberies of dispensaries on legalization when the actual problem is the barriers to financial services created by continued federal prohibition, which force those businesses to rely heavily on cash.

Barr and Walters note that marijuana smoke contains “many of the same toxic and carcinogenic chemicals” as tobacco smoke, falsely implying that it is equally carcinogenic. In addition to differences in the composition of marijuana and tobacco smoke, the dose has to be considered: Given typical patterns of use (say, an occasional joint vs. a pack a day), cigarette smokers are exposed to much higher amounts of toxins and carcinogens than marijuana smokers. And Barr and Walters do not even acknowledge smoke-free alternatives such as vaping and edibles.

Barr and Walters cite increases in “marijuana-related ER visits” without considering how legalization might affect people’s willingness to seek treatment or to identify themselves as cannabis consumers. They mention increases in “adolescent cannabis abuse” during “the past two decades” without acknowledging the lack of evidence that legalization has increased underage consumption.

Taking a stab at cost-benefit analysis, Barr and Walters cite a laughably bad Centennial Institute analysis that supposedly showed “every dollar of cannabis-related tax revenue [in Colorado] has been offset by $4.50 in costs due to marijuana-related traffic fatalities, hospital care, and lost productivity.” In assessing the costs of marijuana use, such as health care expenses stemming from “physical inactivity” and lost productivity related to dropping out of high school, that report conflated correlation with causation. It counted tax revenue as the only benefit of legalization, ignoring the expansion of liberty and the boost in consumer satisfaction as well as the criminal justice and law enforcement benefits. Most egregiously, the study did not even attempt to measure how legalization had affected the negative outcomes it tallied.

Barr and Walters likewise see only costs from legalization, which they systematically exaggerate. “Greater marijuana use has contributed to the steady erosion of the civic responsibility, self-discipline, and sobriety required of citizens to sustain our system of limited government and broad personal liberty,” they write. “A doped-up country is a nation in decline.”

As Barr and Walters see it, “broad personal liberty” requires the state to dictate which psychoactive substances people may consume, asserting the authority to control their brains by controlling the drugs they use. That is a counterintuitive view, to put it mildly. Barr and Walters never even broach an issue that is central to this debate: When and why is it moral to deploy the threat and use of violence against peaceful individuals because you disapprove of how they get high?

Entertainment

Kim Kardashian feared she was going to die during Paris heist – and tells robber she forgives him

Published

2 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

Kim Kardashian feared she was going to die during Paris heist - and tells robber she forgives him

Kim Kardashian has told a court she feared she would be raped and killed during an armed robbery in Paris nearly 10 years ago.

The 44-year-old was tearful as she told the judge: “I was certain he was going to rape me.”

“I absolutely did think I was going to die,” she added.

“I said a prayer for my family, and for my sister who would walk in [and find me] and that they would have an OK life after what they saw.”

Kardashian told the court how one of the robbers pulled her across the bed, exposing her naked body under her hotel robe as he tied her up.

In a bizarre turn of events in the courtroom, three of the defendants offered messages to Kardashian – two in person and one via a written note. Kardashian had no knowledge of the letter until it was read in court and she tearfully said she forgave one of the robbers.

The men are accused of robbing her at gunpoint in a hotel in October 2016.

Kardashian arrived at court to confront the alleged robbers earlier in the day.

Wearing a black skirt suit, sunglasses, and with her hair pulled back into a chignon, Kardashian walked up the steps accompanied by her mother Kris and a large entourage.

She began by telling the court of her love for Paris, calling it a “magical place,” before becoming tearful when describing the robbery, and talking of her “confusion” when two men entered her room dressed as police officers, accompanied by the handcuffed concierge.

“I had fallen asleep naked with a robe on, I was flustered,” she told the court.

‘From fatherly to aggressive’

Describing the man who tied her up, who she says was “smaller and stockier” than the second man with the gun, Kardashian said: “I feel like because the guy who tied me up could see how frantic I was, at that moment he felt like a father… It felt like he wanted me to know that I’d be OK if I just shut up.”

She tells the court: “I kept telling them I have babies and I need to get home to my babies.”

But, after the men began arguing in French, the previously “fatherly” man went from saying she’d be OK, “to aggressively grabbing my naked body”.

Asked by the judge if she was hit at any point, Kardashian said: “No, I was not hit. I was picked up and dragged and dropped on the hard floor, but I was not hit.” She later confirms she was dragged by her arms, with both her ankles and wrists bound together, and with a gun held towards her neck.

Police say the men escaped on bicycles, with around $9m of jewellery, including a $4m engagement ring from Kardashian’s then-husband Kanye West. Most of the jewellery was never recovered.

‘Your forgiveness is the sun – I’ll be forever grateful’

During her evidence, the judge read a statement to Kardashian written by one of the defendants, Aomar Ait Khedache, 68, nicknamed “Old Omar” – in which he said he “regretted” his actions and had been touched by his conscience. He has so far communicated in court only via handwritten notes, saying he’s too unwell to talk.

He’s previously admitted to participating in the heist but denies the prosecution’s accusation that he was the ringleader.

When asked by the judge if she had a response, Kardashian said: “I’m obviously emotional about it, this experience changed my life and it changed my family’s life”.

Currently in training to be a lawyer, and a vocal criminal justice reform advocate, she said: “I have always believed in second chances… I try to have empathy always.”

She went on: “I do appreciate the letter, I forgive you for what has taken place, but it doesn’t change the emotion and the feelings and the trauma the way my life is forever changed.” She thanked him for his letter.

Ait Khedache’s lawyer shared his response to Kardashian’s words, saying: “This forgiveness is a sun that comes to illuminate me, thank you.” He added, I’ll be grateful to you forever”.

The judge then spoke to two defendants in the courtroom, starting with Yunice Abbas, 71, who has previously admitted his part in the heist.

Abbas stood and spoke directly to Kardashian, his right hand shaking from Parkinson’s as he talked, asking for “forgiveness” and saying he too had “regret” for what he did.

In 2021, Abbas wrote a book titled I Kidnapped Kim Kardashian, but the court has ruled he would not financially benefit from its sale.

A third defendant, Didier Dubreucq, 69, dubbed “blue eyes” by French press, also briefly spoke and offered a few contrite words, saying, “I am very sorry about what happened to you”, adding, ” I empathise with your pain”.

‘A sound I had never heard – terror’

Earlier on Tuesday, in Paris’s central criminal court, Kardashian’s stylist Simone Harouche described the moment she was woken by the US star’s screams of terror and feared she had been “raped or violated”.

Ms Harouche, 45, who says she has worked for Kardashian for many years and has been friends with her since she was 12, told the court she was woken by “a sound I had never heard from Kim… It was terror”.

Sleeping in a separate apartment, on the next floor down from Kardashian’s, she went on: “What I heard specifically was [Kim saying], ‘I have babies and I need to live – that is what she kept saying… Take everything. I need to live'”.

She told the judge: “When I realised something terrible was going on upstairs and I realised it was not friends [in Kim’s room], I started looking for my telephone and I started looking for something to help save mine and Kim’s life.”

She went on to lock herself in her bathroom and hide in her shower, where she called Kardashian’s sister Kourtney and texted her security guard, Pascal Duvier, telling them, “Something is very wrong… Kim is upstairs with men and we need help.”

She says minutes later, Kardashian “hopped” into her room, explaining: “To see my friend with her feet taped and a very light robe with nothing under, and all messed up and pulled, I thought she could have been raped or very violated.”

She said she removed the tape from Kardashian’s feet, and her friend was “beside herself”, adding, “I’ve never seen her like that before. She was screaming, ‘We need to get out, what do we do if they come back? We need to jump from the first floor, we need to get out'”.

Later, when questioned by the lawyer of one of the defendants on why she did not come out of the bathroom, she said: “I’m the kind of person to hide, [Kardashian’s] the kind of person to take care of other people.”

‘Just because a woman wears jewellery, doesn’t make her a target’

When asked by the judge whether she or Kardashian had believed at the time that wearing and sharing images of such expensive jewellery would be a risk, Ms Harouche says: “Just because a woman wears jewellery doesn’t make her a target. That’s like saying because a woman wears a short skirt she deserves to be raped”.

She went on to say: “I think that that moment changed [Kardashian’s] life forever… In terms of security, she doesn’t go alone to places anymore.”

Following the robbery, Ms Harouche says she quit her job as a stylist as the experience “made me fearful of all the things that could happen to celebrities, and being around them”.

Asking for ‘forgiveness’

At the end of her time in the witness stand, the judge attempted to play a video message from one of the defendants, Yunice Abbas.

A tech issue meant the message would not play, so instead, the judge read out the statement from Mr Abbas, asking for “forgiveness” for his actions. When asked by the judge if she had a reaction to the apology, Ms Harouche answered, “No”.

The trial, which is being held in front of three judges and six jury members, is due to conclude at the end of this week.

Entertainment

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: What we know about the 12 members of the jury

Published

2 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial: What we know about the 12 members of the jury

The outcome of the Sean “Diddy” Combs sex trafficking trial is in the hands of the 12 individuals who have been selected as jurors.

On Monday, the group of jurors – made up of eight men and four women – listened to opening statements from the prosecution and defence as the trial got underway in Manhattan, New York.

The 55-year-old hip-hop mogul has strenuously denied the allegations against him and pleaded not guilty to five charges.

They are: One count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Members of the jury range in age from 30 to 74, coming from different neighbourhoods across New York, and from a wide range of professions.

Here is everything we know about the group tasked with deciding the outcome of the high-profile case.

How were jurors selected?

The 12 individuals were whittled down from a pool of 45 prospective jurors last week.

During the selection process, each individual was questioned by Judge Arun Subramanian in a legal process known as “voir dire” – translated from French as “to speak the truth”.

The process aims to find a panel of 12 main jurors and six alternates who can be fair and impartial.

That has been a particularly sensitive issue in this trial, given Combs’ celebrity status as an entrepreneur and rap mogul and the worldwide coverage of the case so far.

Jurors were quizzed about their hobbies and musical tastes, with some of the younger jurors in their 30s and 40s saying they listen to hip-hop and R&B music – genres that are closely associated with Combs.

They were also asked if they had any views on the prosecution or the defence, if they or someone close to them had been a victim of crime, and their beliefs on hiring sex workers, the use of illegal drugs, hip-hop artists and law enforcement.

Judge Subramanian then asked jurors whether they had heard of names included on a list of individuals, including celebrities, who may be mentioned during the trial. The list is long, the court heard, with the judge saying it reminded him of Lord Of The Rings.

As jury selection unfolded, Combs sat in court wearing a white shirt with a black crew-neck sweater, grey trousers and glasses. He appeared to express his approval or disapproval at each individual, either with a nod or by shaking his head no, to his attorneys.

Read more about how jury selection unfolded in court here.

What to know about those selected

The individuals selected to sit on the jury include an investment analyst, a healthcare worker, a massage therapist and a deli worker, according to Sky News’ US partner network, NBC News.

When called for jury duty, potential jurors are allocated a number, which allows the court to keep track of the individuals and ensures a random selection process.

Here is everything we know about those selected for Combs’s trial:

• Juror no 2: A 69-year-old male from Manhattan who works as an actor and massage therapist. He listens to classical, jazz and rock music, and his hobbies include music, theatre, cycling and hiking.

• Juror no 5: A 31-year-old male from Manhattan who works as an investment analyst. He enjoys playing sports and video games.

• Juror no 25: A 51-year-old male from Manhattan who has a PhD in molecular biology and neuroscience. He listens to classical music and opera, and his hobbies include art, science, cooking and the outdoors.

• Juror no 28: A 30-year-old female from the New York state of the Bronx, who works in a deli. She listens to hip-hop and reggaeton and enjoys reading and playing video games.

• Juror no 55: A 42-year-old female from Manhattan who is an aide in a nursing home. She likes to cook and paint, and watch Harry Potter and Disney films.

• Juror no 58: A 41-year-old male from the Bronx who works in communications at a US prison. He listens to reggaeton and ’90s hip-hop, and his hobbies include sports and fantasy football.

• Juror no 75: A 68-year-old male from Westchester County, just north of New York City, who is a retired bank worker. He listens to Indian music and plays cricket and volleyball.

• Juror no 116: A 68-year-old male from Westchester County who is retired and used to work at a telecommunications company. He listens to rock music, and likes to bowl and play golf.

• Juror no 160: A 43-year-old female from Westchester County who works as a healthcare worker. She listens to R&B and hip-hop, and likes dancing.

• Juror no 184: A 39-year-old male from the Bronx who is a social worker. He listens to R&B and popular music from West Africa, and enjoys watching sports.

• Juror no 201: A 67-year-old male from Westchester County who works as a logistics analyst. His hobbies include woodworking and cycling.

• Juror no 217: A 74-year-old female from Manhattan who works as a treatment coordinator. She listens to classical music and likes to travel.

The six alternate jurors chosen include four men and two women, ranging in age from 24 to 71. Those individuals will hear the entire case but will only participate in the decision-making if one of the 12 main jurors cannot continue.

The trial is expected to last around eight weeks.

Entertainment

French actor Gerard Depardieu found guilty of sexually assaulting two women

Published

2 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

French actor Gerard Depardieu found guilty of sexually assaulting two women

French actor Gerard Depardieu has been found guilty of sexually assaulting two women – and handed an 18-month suspended sentence.

Depardieu, 76, was convicted by a court in Paris of groping the women during the filming of the 2021 movie Les Volets Verts (The Green Shutters).

Both victims had been working on the film in behind-the-scenes roles.

Following his convictions, Depardieu was fined €29,040 (about £24,000) and the court requested that he is registered in the national sex offender database.

His lawyer Jeremie Assous said the star, who denied assault and did not attend Tuesday’s hearing, will appeal against the verdict.

The two victims said they were scared to speak out at the time and were intimidated by Depardieu. “I was petrified”, said one of the women, a set designer named Amelie.

She told the court that Depardieu had trapped her between his legs as she tried to get past him in a corridor, and had then run his hands over her body. “He terrified me – he looked like a madman,” she said.

Depardieu had denied the allegations, and had received support from many actors, directors and even at one point, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who had previously described the actor as “the pride of France”.

However, his victims said that he attacked them – first using obscene, vulgar and explicit language towards the women before sexually assaulting them.

The court heard that the actor first used vulgar language to abuse them and then grabbed them and ran his hands over their bodies, making crude sexual advances towards them.

‘The end of impunity’

Depardieu, who has appeared in more than 200 movies, claimed that he did not even know what sexual assault was.

But judge Thierry Donard said Depardieu’s explanation of events had been unconvincing and, at times, contradictory.

Carine Durrieu-Diebolt, the lawyer representing victim Amelie, told the court that Depardieu had specifically targeted women who did not enjoy a high profile, saying he would never treat a famous actor the way he behaved towards his two victims.

“He is strong with the weak, and weak with the strong,” she said.

Following the verdict, she told reporters: “It is the victory of two women, but it is the victory of all the women beyond this trial.

“Today we hope to see the end of impunity for an artist in the world of cinema.

“I think that with this decision, we can no longer say that he is not a sexual abuser. And today, as the Cannes Film Festival opens, I’d like the film world to spare a thought for Gerard Depardieu’s victims.”

‘Women were put in danger’

During cross-examination, Depardieu admitted he had first denied ever touching Amelie, then said he grasped her hips to stop himself from falling over, and then claimed he had grabbed her to get her attention.

Amelie described his account as “obviously completely false” and said she had been mentally scarred by the encounter.

Away from the court, Ms Diebolt told Sky News that, after years of being tolerated due to his fame, Depardieu was finally being held accountable for his actions.

“These women were put in danger,” she said. “This is about a line of offences that he committed over many years that were tolerated by the world of cinema because it was Gerard Depardieu.

“Because the financial benefits he brings to the industry are so substantial. He did make some excellent films, but all men are equal before the law.

“Nobody warned Amelie about Depardieu’s behaviour, so his words and actions came as a terrible surprise for her. She still has traumatic flashbacks.”

Rape allegation

Depardieu’s reputation is now in tatters, and there may be more allegations to come.

Ms Diebolt told Sky News that around 20 other women have said that they were attacked by the actor.

And we already know that Depardieu will stand trial again later this year, this time charged with raping the actress Charlotte Arnould.

Ms Arnould has accused Depardieu, a friend of her parents, of raping her at his mansion in Paris.

When she returned to the house to confront him, she alleges that he raped her once again. Depardieu denies both allegations. If he were to be found guilty, he would face a substantial prison sentence.

Depardieu’s sexual assault conviction is being seen as an important step forward for France’s growing MeToo movement, which he described as “a terror” during the proceedings.

After a letter of support Depardieu received prior to the trial from prominent actors and directors, a separate group of around 600 artists wrote their own, condemning the culture of “impunity” and calling for the actor to be fully investigated.

‘Wall of silence’

Emmanuelle Dancourt, president of MeToo Media, told me: “Depardieu is a man with a lot of money around him.

“Everybody could see Depardieu talking badly to women, putting his hand in the wrong place on a woman’s body and saying things that are wrong.

“But Gerard Depardieu’s best friend is silence. In France, you have a wall of silence, and this means impunity. If you are a man with a lot of power and a lot of money, you can do whatever you want.”

Depardieu’s popularity has declined as more and more claims emerged about his conduct.

A recent documentary about him featured footage, filmed in North Korea, of the actor making lewd comments as a young girl rode past on a horse.

When Mr Macron offered his support to Depardieu, denouncing what he called “a manhunt” against the star, another French actor, James Bond star Lea Seydoux, said the president’s words had given a “bad image” of France.

Depardieu was given Russian citizenship as a gift by Vladimir Putin.