Cannabis News

Drugs are Bad, Mmmkay? – The Subjective Morality around Cannabis and Other Drugs

Published

8 months ago

May 22, 2024

admin

morality of drugs

The Subjective Morality of Drugs

The question of whether drugs are inherently good or bad has been a topic of debate for centuries.

Society often labels certain substances as “bad drugs” while accepting others as “good.” But how do we measure the morality of a drug? Is it based on its legal status, cultural acceptance, or perceived health risks?

Assessing the “goodness” or “badness” of a drug is a complex task, as it involves considering various factors such as individual health, social impact, and potential for abuse. However, even these factors are subject to cultural and personal biases. What one society deems acceptable, another may view as a moral failing.

This raises the question: Can we truly use morality as a filter to determine whether a drug is good or bad? Moreover, who is the arbiter of this morality? Is it the government, religious institutions, or public opinion?

Interestingly, most people are active drug users, often without realizing it. The world’s most widely consumed psychoactive drug, caffeine, is found in coffee, tea, and various other beverages and foods. Yet, we rarely question the morality of consuming this socially accepted substance.

In this article, we will explore the subjective morality surrounding drugs, challenging the notion that they can be neatly categorized as either good or bad. By examining the hypocrisy in our attitudes towards different substances, we aim to shed light on the complex relationship between humans and the psychoactive compounds we consume.

A drug, in its broadest sense, is any chemical substance that, when consumed, has a physiological effect on the body. This definition encompasses a wide range of substances, from prescription medications to recreational drugs, and even includes everyday substances like caffeine and sugar.

If we accept this expansive definition, it becomes clear that the majority of the world’s population are, in fact, regular drug users.

Substances like caffeine, alcohol, and sugar are consumed daily by billions of people worldwide, often without a second thought.

Let’s take coffee as an example. According to the National Coffee Association, approximately 62% of Americans drink coffee every day, with an average consumption of three cups per day. Globally, over 2.25 billion cups of coffee are consumed each day, making it one of the most popular beverages in the world. Coffee contains caffeine, a stimulant that affects the central nervous system, improving alertness and reducing fatigue.

Similarly, sugar is added to countless food products and is consumed in vast quantities. The World Health Organization reports that the average person consumes around 24 kilograms of sugar per year. Sugar has been shown to have addictive properties and can lead to various health problems when consumed in excess, such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Despite their widespread use and potential for harm, substances like coffee and sugar are rarely subjected to the same moral scrutiny as illegal drugs like cannabis, cocaine, or heroin. This discrepancy raises questions about the consistency and validity of our moral judgments regarding drug use.

One reason for this inconsistency may be the legal status and cultural acceptance of certain substances. Alcohol, for example, is legal in most countries and is often associated with social gatherings and celebrations. In contrast, drugs like cannabis and cocaine are illegal in many jurisdictions and are often stigmatized as dangerous and morally corrupt.

However, the legal status and cultural acceptance of a substance do not necessarily reflect its potential for harm or addiction. Alcohol, for instance, is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide each year and can lead to severe health problems and addiction.

In light of these considerations, it becomes clear that our moral judgments about drugs are often inconsistent and influenced by factors beyond the inherent properties of the substances themselves.

By recognizing the widespread use of drugs in our society and the arbitrary nature of our moral distinctions, we can begin to have a more honest and nuanced conversation about drug use and its consequences.

We can move away from the “morality of drugs” and enter into the realm of the “science of drugs.”

Throughout history, various movements have used morality as a tool to push for the prohibition of certain drugs. These campaigns often relied on fear-mongering, racism, and sexual stigmatization to advance their agendas.

One notable example is the temperance movement of the early 20th century, which sought to ban alcohol in the United States. Proponents of the movement argued that alcohol consumption was a moral failing that led to poverty, domestic violence, and societal decay. Interestingly, they also used sexual purity as a motivator, suggesting that alcohol use led to promiscuity and the erosion of traditional family values.

This moralistic rhetoric ultimately contributed to the passage of the 18th Amendment, which ushered in the era of Prohibition.

Similarly, the prohibition of marijuana in the United States has its roots in racism and moral panic. In the early 1900s, cannabis was associated with Mexican immigrants, who were blamed for various social problems. The media fueled this narrative with sensationalized stories, such as the infamous “Reefer Madness” film, which depicted marijuana use as a gateway to violence, sexual deviancy, and insanity.

By portraying cannabis as a threat to moral society, proponents of prohibition were able to pass the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, effectively criminalizing the drug.

The story of opium prohibition also has a dark history of racism and moral judgment. In the late 1800s, Chinese immigrants were instrumental in building America’s railroads. Many of these workers used opium, which was legal at the time, to cope with the harsh working conditions and loneliness.

However, as anti-Chinese sentiment grew, opium use became a target for moral crusaders. They portrayed Chinese immigrants as morally depraved and a threat to white society, using this rhetoric to push for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and, eventually, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, which restricted opium use.

Looking back at the history of prohibition, it becomes clear that these policies were often rooted in prejudice, fear, and a misguided sense of morality.

The consequences of these actions have been devastating, leading to the criminalization of large segments of the population, the rise of organized crime, and the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.

Today, we continue to grapple with the stigma and moral judgments that our predecessors attached to drug use. The War on Drugs, launched in the 1970s, has disproportionately targeted communities of color and has led to mass incarceration, while doing little to address the root causes of addiction and drug abuse.

In light of this history, it is important to recognize that prohibition itself, not the drugs it aims to suppress, is often the true source of immorality.

By perpetuating harmful stereotypes, fueling racial discrimination, and criminalizing individuals who need help, prohibition has caused immense harm to society.

As we move forward, it is crucial that we reexamine our moral assumptions about drug use and work towards policies that prioritize public health, compassion, and evidence-based approaches to addiction and substance abuse. Only by confronting the misguided morality of prohibition can we hope to build a more just and equitable society.

As we’ve explored throughout this article, the question of whether drugs are inherently good or bad is a complex one, deeply entangled with historical, cultural, and moral perceptions.

We are left with the realization that morality may have little bearing on the objective effects of drugs, as individual beliefs and societal norms often shape what is considered acceptable or deviant.

If we accept that drugs are amoral—that is, void of intrinsic moral classifications—then our approach to drug policy should be guided by scientific evidence and empirical data, rather than subjective moral judgments.

Under this lens, we might find that alcohol, a substance responsible for countless deaths and social ills, would be classified as a Schedule I drug, while substances like sugar and caffeine, which also have addictive properties and potential health risks, would face greater regulation.

Yet, despite the evidence, we find ourselves grappling with the morals of a bygone era, which continue to dictate our relationship with the substances we consume.

The War on Drugs, born out of fear, racism, and moral panic, has led to devastating consequences, from mass incarceration to the stigmatization of addiction, while failing to address the complex social and economic factors that contribute to substance abuse.

It is time for us to break free from the shackles of outdated moral perceptions and embrace a new approach to drug policy—one that prioritizes harm reduction, public health, and individual liberty.

By dismantling the Controlled Substance Act and reevaluating our entire framework for regulating drugs, we can begin to address the root causes of addiction and provide support for those who need it most.

As we move forward, let us not allow the moral judgments of the past to dictate the policies of the future. Instead, let us chart a new course, guided by compassion, reason, and a commitment to evidence-based solutions.

Only then can we hope to build a society that truly promotes the well-being of all its members, regardless of their relationship with drugs.

Source link

Cannabis News

Colorado Could Become a Global Hub for Marijuana Genetics

Published

12 hours ago

January 23, 2025

admin

Ability to source marijuana genetic material from outside Colorado

Senate Bill 23-271, which went into effect in early 2024, aims to enhance Colorado’s marijuana industry. A key provision allows licensed marijuana cultivators to source “genetic material” from approved entities in other jurisdictions. Genetic material is defined as material used to propagate cannabis plants, including:

Immature plants and small plant fragments with ≤0.3% D9 THC on a dry weight basis;
Cannabis seeds, which grow into marijuana; and
Tissue cultures.

This law significantly expands sourcing options for Colorado cultivators, including opportunities, both domestic and international. Colorado cultivators can now bring in popular OG strains from around the world.

The anticipated marketing frenzy, however, hasn’t fully materialized. The answer lies in the complexity of transporting genetics across state and international lines.

That’s where we come in. With years of experience advising clients on compliant cross-border transportation, we understand the nuances in the law. Below is a high-level overview of the challenges involved. If you or your clients are ready to make an impact in Colorado’s market, please reach out to me or my team— we’d be happy to assist.

Marijuana genetics: are they hemp or marijuana?

This question – the Schrödinger’s Cat of the cannabis industry – is both simple and complex. In short, under federal law, marijuana genetics appear to be hemp. However, they are neither strictly hemp nor marijuana until a state makes that determination. In fact, in some states they may be both marijuana and hemp.

“Marihuana” (referred to in this blog post as “marijuana”) is defined in the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”
Marijuana does not include “hemp” as defined in the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”).
Hemp is defined as the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 THC concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.

In January 2022, the DEA issued a letter stating that cannabis seeds and other genetic material with ≤0.3% D9 THC meet the definition of hemp and aren’t controlled substances. Importantly, the DEA further clarified in a December 2022 letter that if the cannabis seed germinates into material exceeding 0.3% THC, then “that material” falls within CSA control. DEA’s use of “that material” rather than specifying the seed used to grow “that material” further supports that DEA, at least for now, does not view marijuana genetics (testing at ≤0.3% THC on a dry weight basis) as marijuana.

While these DEA letters aren’t legally binding, they suggest that marijuana genetics, when testing at ≤0.3% D9 THC, are considered hemp under federal law.

State complexities with marijuana and hemp genetics

Since marijuana genetics are currently treated as hemp under federal law, they can move across U.S. state and international lines. However, the 2018 Farm Bill allows states to impose stricter laws.

Some states, like neighboring Arizona, define marijuana genetics as material that will only grow into hemp. Others, like Arkansas, do not expressly exempt “hemp” form the definition of “marijuana,” creating a situation where the genetics are both hemp and marijuana. And States like Mississippi and Minnesota prohibit the sale of cannabis sativa seeds all together.

Understanding both federal and state laws is critical to ensuring a compliant transfer into Colorado. If the exporting state defines the genetics as hemp and permits exports, cultivators can likely import them into Colorado. If the exporting state does not define marijuana genetics as hemp, then selling or transporting marijuana genetics could lead to criminal violations under a state’s marijuana laws.

International considerations

An international import of marijuana genetics must comply with both state, federal, and international laws. As long as the export meets USDA and Customs requirements, federal law typically won’t pose an issue. However, it’s essential to consider the laws of the exporting country, and importing US state, ensuring that the genetics are classified as hemp by both governments. Otherwise, the transport may not only violate a US state’s laws, but also international law.

Conclusion

Licensed Colorado cultivators seeking unique marijuana strains from outside the state—whether from California, Oregon, or countries like Colombia and Jamaica—must navigate both federal and state laws. Harris Sliwoski has extensive experience helping operators transfer cannabis genetics. With our new Denver office, we are ready to assist Colorado cultivators with global genetics imports. A “Tour de Cannabis” anyone?

Source link

Cannabis News

America’s Constitutional Conundrum: Guns and Ganja

Published

3 days ago

January 21, 2025

admin

gun rights and medical marijuana

Of Guns and Ganja: America’s Constitutional Conundrum

If there’s one thing America is famous for, it’s guns – and lots of ’em! In the land of the free and home of the brave, firearms aren’t just a right, they’re practically a national pastime. With over 400 million firearms floating around a nation of 330 million people, it’s safe to say that guns are as American as apple pie and baseball.

But you know what else Americans love? Drugs. The US remains the world’s largest drug market, with an particularly passionate affair with cannabis. Mary Jane has come a long way since the “Just Say No” propaganda of the D.A.R.E. days. Now, millions of Americans legally light up in their home states, transforming from “criminals” to “consumers” faster than you can say “tax revenue.”

Here’s where things get sticky though. Despite the Biden administration’s vague promises of reform, cannabis remains stubbornly classified as a Schedule I substance at the federal level. This creates a peculiar predicament for freedom-loving Americans who appreciate both their Second Amendment rights and their evening toke.

You see, there’s this obscure interpretation of federal law that says if you consume cannabis – even legally in your state – you’re technically not allowed to own firearms. Let that sink in for a moment: in a country with more guns than people, where cannabis is legally sold in most states, you’re forced to choose between your constitutional right to bear arms and your state-sanctioned right to consume a plant.

As you might imagine, telling Americans they can’t have their guns AND their ganja isn’t exactly going over well. It’s a uniquely American saga that pits state rights against federal law, personal freedom against bureaucratic overreach, and common sense against, well… whatever you’d call this situation.

Let’s dive into this bizarre legal battleground where constitutional rights and cannabis collide.

As America’s cannabis landscape evolves, we’re witnessing a fascinating legal tug-of-war between state sovereignty and federal authority. The latest battleground? The constitutional rights of cannabis consumers to bear arms.

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that banning occasional marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional. The case, known as U.S. v. Daniels, centers around a man who was sentenced to four years in prison after police found trace amounts of cannabis and firearms during a routine traffic stop. Talk about wrong place, wrong time!

The federal government, particularly under the Biden administration, has been performing some impressive mental gymnastics to justify their position. Their argument? Cannabis users with guns “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide,” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.” They’ve even argued that cannabis consumers are “unlikely to store their weapons properly.” I guess they never met my ex-military uncle who meticulously organizes his gun safe while enjoying his evening edible.

But here’s where it gets really interesting. The Department of Justice claims the restriction is perfectly constitutional because it aligns with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals. They’re essentially putting cannabis users in the same category as folks with domestic violence restraining orders. As someone who’s spent considerable time around both cannabis users and domestic abusers (professionally, of course), I can tell you there’s a slight difference in temperament.

The courts, however, aren’t buying it. As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, the government failed to prove that Daniels was “presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest.” They noted that even if the government had proven frequent intoxication, they offered “no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens ‘even if their intoxication was routine.'”

The ruling doesn’t completely invalidate the federal statute (known as § 922(g)(3)), but it does expose its shaky constitutional foundation. As the court stated, “This is not a windfall for defendants charged under § 922(g)(3),” but rather a recognition that the government’s enforcement approach is fundamentally flawed.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (NRA) – not exactly known for their progressive stance on substances – acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. They point out that “marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons.” When even the NRA is suggesting your gun control measure might be a bit extreme, you know something’s amiss.

The result of all this legal wrangling? A patchwork of confusion where state-legal cannabis users must choose between their Second Amendment rights and their medicine or recreational preference. It’s a prime example of how federal prohibition creates more problems than it solves, forcing otherwise law-abiding citizens to become unwitting criminals simply for exercising multiple legal rights simultaneously.

Welcome to America, folks, where you can have your guns or your ganja, but apparently not both – at least until the courts finish sorting out this constitutional cannabis conundrum.

Let me be blunt – we’re caught in a classic American political pretzel. The Biden administration dangles the carrot of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, making vague promises that sound good on the campaign trail but do little to address the fundamental issues plaguing cannabis consumers, including their right to bear arms.

While some celebrate these baby steps toward reform, I’ve been around this block enough times to know that rescheduling is like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It might stop some bleeding, but it doesn’t address the underlying trauma. The gun rights issue is just one of many complications that arise from cannabis’s continued inclusion in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: there’s only one real solution, and it runs straight through the halls of Congress. The same body that created this mess with the CSA in 1971 is the only one with the power to truly fix it. Congress needs to completely remove cannabis from the CSA – not reschedule it, not modify its status, but fully deschedule it.

Think about it. Rescheduling to Schedule III would still leave cannabis in a weird legal limbo. Sure, it might make research easier and give Big Pharma more room to play, but what about the millions of Americans who use cannabis medicinally or recreationally in their state-legal markets? They’d still be federal criminals, still banned from purchasing firearms, still caught in the crossfire between state and federal law.

The only path forward is complete removal from the CSA, coupled with a federal framework that respects state markets while establishing basic national standards. This would resolve the gun rights issue overnight – no more choosing between your Second Amendment rights and your medicine or recreational preference.

Would I love to see Congress completely overhaul the CSA? Absolutely. The entire scheduling system is based on outdated science and political theater rather than actual harm reduction principles. But let’s be realistic – that’s about as likely as finding bipartisan agreement on… well, anything these days.

Instead, we need to focus on what’s achievable: complete cannabis descheduling. This isn’t just about guns and ganja – it’s about fixing a broken system that’s created countless legal paradoxes and unnecessary criminal penalties. It’s about acknowledging that the emperor has no clothes, that cannabis prohibition has failed, and that it’s time to move forward with a sensible federal policy.

Until Congress acts, we’ll continue to see these legal battles play out in courts across the country, watching judges try to reconcile constitutional rights with outdated federal drug laws. It’s a waste of judicial resources, taxpayer money, and most importantly, it’s a waste of Americans’ time and freedom.

The solution is clear. The only question is: how many more Americans need to get caught in this legal crossfire before Congress finally does its job?

Inspiration:

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-court-reaffirms-that-ban-

on-gun-ownership-for-people-who-occasionally-use-marijuana-is-unconstitutional/

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/nra-says-federal-ban-on-

marijuana-amid-state-level-legalization-has-created-confusing-legal-landscape-for-gun-owners/

CANNABIS AND GUN RIGHTS, READ ON…

WHY CAN’T MMJ PATIENTS OWN GUNS, AGAIN? READ THIS!

Source link

Cannabis News

MLK Day 2025: Cannabis and Civil Rights

Published

3 days ago

January 20, 2025

admin

It’s MLK Day once again.

I’ve been writing an MLK Day post on this blog for eight consecutive years. The theme of my posts is that cannabis is a civil rights issue, and that Dr. King would have advocated for ending prohibition based on that fact.

Each year, I have demonstrated with facts (upon facts upon facts) that the War on Drugs continues in insidious ways. In, 2023, which is the most recent year that FBI data is available, law enforcement officials made over 200,000 arrests for marijuana-related convictions. Those 200,000 arrests constitute roughly 25% of all drug-related arrests.

Sadly, arrests of black people constituted 29% of all drug arrests in 2023, although only 13.6% of Americans are black.

Heading into MLK Day weekend, President Biden announced that he is commuting the sentences of nearly 2,500 people convicted of non-violent drug offenses. The focus was predominantly on individuals “who received lengthy sentences based on discredited distinctions between crack and powder cocaine…”, as opposed to cannabis-related crimes. According to the Last Prisoner Project, “the total number of those incarcerated for cannabis who received commutations is not knows, but nine LPP constituents will be free.”

For all that Biden promised as to cannabis, it’s the least we could have asked. Under the new Trump administration, attention will quickly return to the frustrating marijuana rescheduling process. If cannabis ends up on Schedule III, criminal penalties for traffickers may soften, but make no mistake: possessing and distributing cannabis will still be a federal crime.

At the state level, where most arrest occur, progress has slowed in the last few years. Out here where I live in Oregon, with our 800 cannabis stores, it’s astonishing to think of 200,000 annual cannabis arrests– most for simple possession, no less.

There is a lot of work to do. Here are a short list of organizations if you’d like to get involved:

For prior posts in this series:

Source link