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

Cassie tells court ‘freak offs’ became like a job as she alleges years of abuse by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2025

admin

Cassie tells court 'freak offs' became like a job as she alleges years of abuse by Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Sean “Diddy” Combs’s former girlfriend Cassie has told his sex-trafficking trial that “freak offs” with male escorts became like a job, as the music mogul allegedly abused and sexually exploited her for years.

The musician and model, whose full name is Casandra Ventura, did not look at Combs as she took to the witness stand in court in Manhattan, New York.

Over about six hours, the 38-year-old, who is eight months pregnant with her third child with husband Alex Fine, at times became emotional as she alleged she was degraded by her former partner during their 10-year on-off relationship.

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: Day 2 – As it happened

Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty and strenuously denied allegations of sexual abuse. His lawyers argue that although he could be violent, he never veered into sex trafficking and racketeering, and that all sexual encounters were consensual.

Ms Ventura, who is the central witness in the prosecutors’ case, began by telling the jury how Combs was violent to her over the course of their relationship, giving her black eyes and bruises.

The hip-hop star became increasingly controlling, she said, and was allegedly abusive over the smallest perceived slights. “You make the wrong face, and the next thing I knew I was getting hit in the face,” she said.

Ms Ventura was 19 when she signed to his label, Bad Boy, she said, and 22 when, during the first year of their relationship, Combs first proposed a “freak off” – a sexual encounter with a third party. Her “stomach churned”, she said, and she was “confused, nervous, but also loved him very much” and wanted to please him. She described him as “charming” but “polarising”.

‘There was no space to do anything else’

Throughout her time on the stand, she gave graphic details of these drug and drink-fuelled encounters with male escorts, saying Combs would watch and masturbate, and often record the encounters and watch the videos back.

They could last for hours or even days, she said – telling the court the longest went on for four days. They ended up becoming weekly events and took priority over her music career, jurors heard. While she had hits with singles Me & U and Long Way 2 Go in 2006, and signed a 10-album deal with Bad Boy, jurors heard she only released one album.

“Freak-offs became a job where there was no space to do anything else but to recover and just try to feel normal again,” Ms Ventura said. Each time, she added, she had to recuperate from lack of sleep, alcohol, drugs “and other substances”, and “having sex with a stranger for days”.

Alleged violence detailed in court

Ms Ventura told the court she began feeling as if she could not say no to Combs’s demands because “there were blackmail materials to make me feel like if I didn’t do it, it would be held over my head in that way or these things would become public”.

She was also worried about potential violence, she told the court. When asked in court how frequently Combs became violent with her, Ms Ventura responded: “Too frequently.”

The rapper “would mash me in the head, knock me over, drag me, kick me”, she said. “Stomp me in the head if I was down”.

Ms Ventura also told the court that Combs kept cash, jewellery, guns and “sometimes tapes from cameras” in safes at several properties in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and Alpine, New Jersey.

“The guns came out here and there. I always felt it was a little bit of a scare tactic,” she told the court.

Towards the end of her first day of evidence, a surveillance video made public last year, which showed Combs allegedly beating Ms Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016, was played to jurors in court for a second time.

“How many times has he thrown you like that before?” prosecutor Emily Johnson asked her.

“Too many to count,” Ms Ventura replied.

On Monday, prosecutors in their opening statement told the court that while Combs’s public persona was that of a “charismatic” hip-hop mogul, behind the scenes he was violent and abusive.

His defence lawyers argued that the case is really about nothing more than the rapper’s sexual preferences, which they said should remain private, and do not make him a sex trafficker.

The trial is to last about eight weeks.

Ms Ventura is set to continue giving evidence on Wednesday.

Sports

What to know about MLB lifting ban on Pete Rose, ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2025

admin

What to know about MLB lifting ban on Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson

David SchoenfieldMay 13, 2025, 06:30 PM ET
Close
- Covers MLB for ESPN.com
- Former deputy editor of Page 2
- Been with ESPN.com since 1995

Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, seven other members of the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox”, six other former players, one coach and one former owner are now eligible to be voted on for the Hall of Fame after commissioner Rob Manfred removed them from Major League Baseball’s permanently ineligible list.

Hall of Fame chairwoman Jane Forbes Clark said in a statement: “The National Baseball Hall of Fame has always maintained that anyone removed from Baseball’s permanently ineligible list will become eligible for Hall of Fame consideration. Major League Baseball’s decision to remove deceased individuals from the permanently ineligible list will allow for the Hall of Fame candidacy of such individuals to now be considered.”

Due to Hall of Fame voting procedures, Rose and Jackson won’t be eligible to be voted on until the Classic Era Baseball committee, which votes on individuals who made their biggest impact prior to 1980, meets in December of 2027.

Let’s dig into what all this means.

Why were these players banned?

All individuals on the banned list who were reinstated had been permanently ineligible due to accusations related to gambling related to baseball — either throwing games, accepting bribes, or like Rose, betting on baseball games.

Most of the banned players, including Jackson and his seven Chicago White Sox teammates who threw the 1919 World Series, played in the 1910s, when gambling in baseball was widespread. As historian Bill James once wrote, “Few simplifications of memory are as bizarre as the notion that the Black Sox scandal hit baseball out of the blue. … In fact, of course, the Black Sox scandal was merely the largest wart of a disease that had infested baseball at least a dozen years earlier and had grown, unchecked, to ravage the features of a generation.”

The most famous player, of course, was Jackson, one of baseball’s biggest stars alongside Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker in the 1910s. While many have tried to exonerate Jackson through the years, pointing out that he hit .375 in the 1919 World Series, baseball historians agree that Jackson was a willing participant in throwing the World Series and accepted money from the gambling ring that paid off the White Sox players.

While the White Sox players were acquitted in a criminal trial in 1921, commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis banned the eight players in a statement that began with the words “Regardless of the verdict of juries …”

If there was an innocent member in the group, it was third baseman Buck Weaver, not Jackson. Weaver had participated in meetings where the fixing of the World Series was discussed, and Landis banned him for life for guilty knowledge.

As for Rose, he was banned in 1989 by commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti for betting on games while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds, including those involving his own team. While Rose denied the accusations for years, he eventually confessed. He died last September at age 83.

Who else is impacted?

Phillies owner William Cox was banned in 1943 and forced to sell the team for betting on games. Cox had just purchased the team earlier that season. None of the other non-White Sox players are of major significance, although Benny Kauff was the big star of the Federal League in 1914-15, winning the batting title both seasons. The Federal League was a breakoff league that attempted to challenge the National and American leagues.

When is the soonest Rose and Jackson could go into the Hall of Fame?

The Hall of Fame voting process for players not considered by the Baseball Writers’ Association of America — such as Rose and Jackson, who never appeared on the ballot due to their banned status — includes two eras: the Contemporary Baseball Era (1980 to present) and the Classic Baseball Era (pre-1980). The voting periods are already set:

December 2025: Player ballot for the Contemporary Era.

December 2026: Contemporary Era ballot for managers, executives and umpires.

December 2027: Classic Era ballot for players, managers, executives and umpires.

Each committee has an initial screening to place eight candidates on the ballot, so Rose and Jackson will first have to make the ballot. While it’s unclear how a future screening committee will proceed, it’s possible that both will make the ballot. While comparisons to players with PED allegations aren’t exactly apples to apples — since they were never placed on the ineligible list — it’s worth noting that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro were included on the eight-player Contemporary Era ballot in 2023.

Once the ballot is determined — a 16-person committee consisting of Hall of Fame players, longtime executives and media members or historians — convenes and votes. A candidate must receive 12 votes to get selected. In the most recent election in December, Dave Parker and Dick Allen were on the Classic Era ballot.

Which players have the best HOF cases?

Obviously, Rose would have been a slam-dunk Hall of Famer had he never bet on baseball and had he appeared on the BBWAA ballot after his career ended. The all-time MLB leader with 4,256 hits, Rose won three batting titles and was the 1973 NL MVP. And while he’s overrated in a sense — his 79.6 career WAR is more in line with the likes of Jeff Bagwell, Brooks Robinson and Robin Yount than all-time elite superstars — and hung on well past his prime to break Ty Cobb’s hits record, his popularity and fame would have made him an inner-circle Hall of Famer.

Whether he’ll get support now is complicated. Bonds and Clemens both received fewer than four votes in 2023. The committee usually consists of eight former players, and they may not support Rose given the one hard and fast rule that every player knows: You can’t bet on the game.

Jackson, meanwhile, was a star of the deadball era, hitting .408 in 1911 and .356 in his career, an average that ranks fourth all time behind only Cobb, Negro Leagues star Oscar Charleston and Rogers Hornsby. He finished with 62.2 WAR and 1,772 hits in a career that ended at age 32 due to the ban. Those figures would be low for a Hall of Fame selection, although the era committees did recently elect Allen and Tony Oliva, both of whom finished with fewer than 2,000 hits. And again, it is hard to say how the committee will view Jackson’s connection to gambling on the sport.

The only other reinstated player with a semblance of a chance to get on a ballot is pitcher Eddie Cicotte, who won 209 games and finished with 59.7 WAR. While his final season came at 36, the knuckleballer was still going strong, having won 29 games for the White Sox in 1919 and 21 in 1920 before Landis banned him.

For what it’s worth, the top position players in career WAR who made their mark prior to 1980 and aren’t in the Hall of Fame are Rose, Bill Dahlen (75.3), Bobby Grich (71.0), Graig Nettles (67.6), Reggie Smith (64.6), Ken Boyer (62.8), Jackson and Sal Bando (61.5).

Pitching candidates would include Luis Tiant (65.7), Tommy John (61.6) and Wes Ferrell (60.1). John was on the recent ballot and received seven votes. Others on that ballot included Steve Garvey, Boyer, Negro Leagues pitcher John Donaldson, Negro Leagues manager Vic Harris and Tiant.

Other potential pre-1980 candidates could include Thurman Munson, Bert Campaneris, Dave Concepcion and Stan Hack.

Politics

Civil service relocation and AI officials at heart of government cost cutting measures

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2025

admin

Civil service relocation and AI officials at heart of government cost cutting measures

AI civil servants and sending human workers out of London are at the heart of the government’s plans to cut costs and reduce the size of the state bureaucracy.

Shrinking the civil service has been a target of both the current Labour and recent Conservative governments – especially following the growth in the organisation during the pandemic.

From a low in 2016 of 384,000 full time workers, in 2024 there were 513,000 civil servants.

Politics latest: Your views on PM’s migration speech

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is claiming a new swathe of tools to help sift information submitted to public consultations could save “75,000 days of manual analysis every year” – roughly the work of 333 civil servants.

However, the time saved is expected to free up existing civil servants to do other work.

The suite of AI tools are known as “Humphrey”, after Humphrey Appleby, the fictional civil servant in the TV comedy Yes, Prime Minister.

The government has previously said the introduction of AI would help reduce the civil service headcount – with hopes it could save as much as £45bn.

Speaking today, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle appeared to take aim at expensive outsourcing contracts, saying: “No one should be wasting time on something AI can do quicker and better, let alone wasting millions of taxpayer pounds on outsourcing such work to contractors.”

Move outside of London

Other money-saving plans announced today include moving 12,000 civil servants out of London and into regional hubs – with the government hoping it can save almost £100m by 2032 by not having to pay for expensive leases of prime office space in the capital.

Currently, 95,000 full time civil servants work in London.

Tens of millions of pounds a year are expected to be saved by the closure of 102 Petty France, which overlooks St James’s Park, and 39 Victoria Street, which is near the previous location of New Scotland Yard.

In total, 11 London offices are slated for closure, with workers being relocated to the likes of Aberdeen, Belfast, Darlington, Bristol, Manchester and Cardiff.

The reforms of the civil service are being led by Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden – one of Sir Keir Starmer’s most influential ministers.

Mr McFadden said: “To deliver our plan for change, we are taking more decision-making out of Whitehall and moving it closer to communities all across the UK.

“By relocating thousands of civil service roles we will not only save taxpayers money, we will make this government one that better reflects the country it serves. We will also be making sure that government jobs support economic growth throughout the country.

“As we radically reform the state, we are going to make it much easier for talented people everywhere to join the civil service and help us rebuild Britain.”

The government says it wants senior civil servants out of the capital too – with the aim being that half of UK-based senior officials work in regional offices by the end of the decade.

The government claims the relocations and growth of regional hubs could add as much as £729m to local economies by 2030.

Union welcome – cautiously

Unions appear to cautiously welcome the changes being proposed.

All of Prospect, the PCS and the FDA say it is positive to see better opportunities outside of the capital.

However, they have asked for clarity around whether roles may be lost and what will be offered to people transferring.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Fran Heathcote, the general secretary of the PCS union, said: “If these government proposals are to be successful however, it’s important they do the right thing by workers currently based in London.

“That must include guarantees of no compulsory redundancies, no compulsory relocations and access to more flexible working arrangements to enable them to continue their careers should they wish to do so.”