Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Guy Who Made Marijuana Illegal in 1971 Said Weed Really Isn’t That Bad on Secret Tape Recordings

Published

on


Nixon on marijuana not being that bad

Secret Tapes Reveal that the Father of the Drug War didn’t think that weed was that bad

Richard Nixon, often regarded as the “Father of the Drug War,” left an indelible mark on American drug policy that continues to shape our society today. In 1971, Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law, setting in motion a series of events that would dramatically alter the landscape of drug regulation and enforcement in the United States. This pivotal piece of legislation not only granted pharmaceutical companies a virtual monopoly over drug production and distribution but also weaponized the justice system against non-violent individuals who chose to consume substances deemed illegal by the government.

Nixon’s public stance on drugs, particularly marijuana, was uncompromising and harsh. He championed a zero-tolerance approach, famously declaring drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and calling for an “all-out offensive” against it. This rhetoric laid the groundwork for decades of aggressive anti-drug policies that have led to the incarceration of countless individuals for non-violent drug offenses.

However, recently uncovered secret recordings paint a starkly different picture of Nixon’s private views on marijuana. These tapes, captured in the intimate chambers of his staff meetings, reveal a man whose personal opinions on cannabis were far more nuanced and less severe than his public pronouncements suggested. The disconnect between Nixon’s public policy and private thoughts raises troubling questions about the foundations of the War on Drugs and its lasting impact on American society.

Today, we’ll take a deep dive into Nixon’s recorded statements, analyzing them in the context of a nation where hundreds of thousands of people continue to face legal consequences for cannabis-related offenses. As we examine these private conversations, we’ll confront the unsettling reality that the architect of America’s drug war may have been fully aware of the disconnect between marijuana’s actual risks and the draconian measures he publicly supported to combat its use.

The public persona of Richard Nixon was that of a staunch anti-drug crusader, a man who viewed drug abuse as an existential threat to American society. In June 1971, Nixon famously declared drug abuse as “public enemy number one” and called for a “new, all-out offensive” to combat it. This declaration effectively launched the War on Drugs, a campaign that would reshape American criminal justice policy for decades to come.

Nixon’s public actions matched his rhetoric. He signed the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, which established the scheduling system for drugs that remains in place today. Under this system, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like heroin, deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” This classification flew in the face of scientific evidence even then, but it aligned with Nixon’s public stance on cannabis.

The case of Timothy Leary, the LSD researcher and counterculture icon, exemplifies Nixon’s public approach to drug enforcement. In March 1970, Leary received a draconian sentence of up to 10 years in prison for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Rather than viewing this as an excessive punishment, Nixon doubled down. As he told his Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman in May 1970, “I want a goddamn strong statement on marijuana. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss.”

Nixon’s public rhetoric often took on racist overtones, particularly when discussing drug use among minority communities. He frequently associated drug use with African Americans and other minorities, using coded language to appeal to white voters’ fears and prejudices. This racialized approach to drug policy was later confirmed by Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, who admitted in a 1994 interview that the War on Drugs was designed to target “the antiwar left and black people.”

However, behind closed doors, a different Nixon emerged. Recently uncovered audio recordings reveal a man who privately held much more nuanced views on marijuana. In a March 1973 recording, Nixon candidly admitted, “I know nothing about marijuana. I know that it’s not particularly dangerous; I know most of the kids are for legalizing it.”

This private acknowledgment stands in stark contrast to his public actions and statements. Nixon even expressed misgivings about harsh marijuana penalties, telling John Ehrlichman, “The penalties are ridiculous. I have no problem with the fact that there should be, there should be an evaluation of penalties on it, and there should not be penalties that, you know, like in Texas where people get 10 years for marijuana. That’s wrong.”

In another recording from September 1972, Nixon admitted to being in favor of “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, but noted that he didn’t “talk about it anymore.” This suggests a calculated political decision to maintain a tough public stance on drugs, even while privately harboring doubts about the wisdom of such policies.

The disconnect between Nixon’s public and private personas on drug policy is striking and deeply troubling. While publicly championing a war that would lead to the arrest and incarceration of millions of Americans, particularly from minority communities, Nixon privately acknowledged the relative safety of marijuana and the excessive nature of drug penalties. This dichotomy raises serious questions about the true motivations behind the War on Drugs and the lasting impact of Nixon’s public policies on American society.

The ramifications of Nixon’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA) continue to reverberate through American society, more than half a century after its inception. This legislation has fundamentally altered the fabric of the United States, creating criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens for non-violent offenses. Perhaps even more insidiously, it has provided law enforcement with broad powers to seize assets from individuals suspected of drug crimes, often without due process or even a conviction.

One of the most troubling aspects of this policy is civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement to confiscate property they believe is connected to criminal activity. This practice has led to numerous abuses, with innocent people having their possessions seized simply because of proximity to alleged drug activity. A stark example of this overreach occurred recently when a Sheriff’s department seized cash trucks from legal cannabis dispensaries. While the company eventually recovered their funds, this incident highlights the ongoing tension between state-level cannabis legalization and federal prohibition.

The human cost of these policies is staggering. Tens of thousands of individuals remain incarcerated for cannabis-related offenses, their lives derailed by laws rooted in Nixon’s public stance on drugs. These are not just statistics; they represent shattered families, lost opportunities, and communities disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs.

So why should we care about the disparity between Nixon’s private beliefs and public actions? This disconnect exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underpinning the entire War on Drugs. If even the architect of these policies privately acknowledged that marijuana was “not particularly dangerous” and that the penalties were “ridiculous,” it calls into question the entire rationale behind cannabis prohibition.

Nixon’s private admission that he favored “modification of penalties in many areas” related to drug offenses, while publicly championing harsh measures, is particularly damning. It suggests that the severe approach to drug policy was not based on a genuine belief in its necessity or efficacy, but rather on political expediency. This revelation should prompt us to critically re-examine the foundations of our current drug policies.

If the “Father of Prohibition” himself didn’t believe we should be so harsh in our punishments, it’s high time we rethink our entire strategy. The disconnect between Nixon’s private views and public policies underscores the need for a fact-based, compassionate approach to drug policy that prioritizes public health over punitive measures.

Moreover, this discrepancy between private beliefs and public actions is deeply troubling in a leader of a nation. It erodes public trust and undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions. We cannot afford to have leaders who advocate one thing publicly while holding contradictory views privately, especially on issues that have such profound impacts on citizens’ lives and liberties.

The revelations about Nixon’s private views on cannabis should serve as a catalyst for change. They provide compelling evidence that our current approach to drug policy is not just ineffective, but was built on a foundation of political manipulation rather than genuine concern for public welfare. As we grapple with the ongoing consequences of the War on Drugs, including mass incarceration, racial disparities in enforcement, and the erosion of civil liberties, we must use this knowledge to push for meaningful reform.

It’s time to align our drug policies with scientific evidence and principles of justice, rather than political expediency. The hypocrisy revealed in Nixon’s private statements should embolden us to challenge the status quo and work towards a more rational, humane approach to drug policy – one that doesn’t criminalize personal choices and destroy lives over a substance that even the architect of prohibition privately admitted was “not particularly dangerous.”

 

NIXON ON CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, READ ON…

END THE CONROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT

IS IT TIME TO END THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ACT?



Source link

Cannabis News

ADR’s Vital Role in Cannabis Industry Disputes

Published

on

By


As a mediator specializing in cannabis-related conflicts, I’ve witnessed firsthand the increasing need for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in this rapidly evolving industry. With three-quarters of Americans now living in states where recreational or medical marijuana use is legal, the landscape of potential disputes has expanded dramatically. Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, while 14 states permit its use for medicinal purposes. Yet cannabis with more than .3 percent THC by dry weight remains illegal under federal law. This has created a complex legal environment, ripe for controversy.

Participants in the cannabis industry deal with a wide array of legal disputes. These include conflicts over intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, and the ownership and management of cannabis farms, processing and distribution companies, and dispensaries. We’re seeing an increase in employee claims, personal injury cases, water rights disagreements, and land use and environmental regulation violations. Violations of the ADA and federal safety laws, local code enforcement targeting landlords, and conflicts between neighboring farmers over odors and pollen drift are all part of the growing list of legal issues in this sector.

The cannabis industry faces unique challenges when it comes to resolving disputes through traditional legal channels. Federal courts are generally unavailable due to cannabis’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. State laws are often evolving and conflicting. Lingering stigma can affect litigation outcomes with state court judges and juries. And the cost and outcome of litigation can destroy cannabis companies, which typically have tight cash flow, limited assets, and a lot of debt.

Recent high-profile cases among competitors highlight these challenges. We’ve seen lawsuits accusing state-licensed labs of providing false, favorable test certifications to attract business. Disputes over dispensary licensing processes have emerged, often halting the entire procedure for all applicants.

Given these circumstances, ADR has become not just an option, but a necessity for the cannabis industry. ADR typically costs less than traditional litigation, offering a more economical path to resolution. Unlike public court proceedings, ADR provides a degree of confidentiality that appeals to cannabis investors wary of public scrutiny. As regulations and market dynamics evolve, mediation’s adaptability allows it to address novel disputes effectively. Neutrals with specific expertise with cannabis industry can help parties develop solutions that address the needs of all involved, often preserving business relationships and even laying the groundwork for future collaboration. Even in competitive situations, dispute resolution can help stabilize market and regulatory issues, benefiting all industry participants.

The best mediators for cannabis disputes are neutrals who truly know the business, its products and customers, the regulatory and financial milieu, and the plant itself. As I write this, we are seeing growing tension between those in the highly regulated and taxed state marijuana markets and those in the federally legal hemp market. Many disputes involve subjective judgments, such as the rejection of cannabis flower or oil based on quality, while others stem from objective testing and cannabinoid profiles. Having to educate a neutral about the subject matter during mediation is inefficient and dramatically reduces the prospect of settlement.

Experienced neutrals can guide parties toward innovative resolutions that may not involve monetary settlements. These creative solutions can potentially avoid insolvency or unsatisfiable judgments that might result from years of litigation. This approach is particularly valuable in an industry where traditional financial remedies may be exceedingly complicated or completely unavailable because of the law or the difficulty enforcing contracts.

As we move forward, several factors may impact dispute resolution in the cannabis industry. The potential rescheduling of cannabis containing significant quantities of THC to Schedule III by the federal government could improve the financial situation for cannabis businesses by allowing them to write off most business costs. However, this would not fully align state recreational cannabis laws with federal regulations. The evolving landscape of hemp-based products with chemically derived psychotropic properties may lead to unfair business practices claims between the licensed high-THC cannabis industry and the hemp industry.

In conclusion, as the cannabis industry continues to grow and face complex legal challenges, ADR stands out as an indispensable tool for resolving disputes efficiently, creatively, and with an eye toward the unique needs of this dynamic sector. Its flexibility and ability to provide tailored solutions make it particularly well-suited to navigate the complex and rapidly changing landscape of cannabis law and business. Those who effectively utilize alternative dispute resolution methods will be better positioned to address legal challenges efficiently and successfully. For cannabis entrepreneurs, investors, and legal professionals, understanding and leveraging ADR may well be the key to successfully navigating the complex legal terrain of this burgeoning industry.

Note: This post was first published October 17, 2024 on the Alger ADR Blog.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Is Pam Bondi as Attorney General Just Jeff Sessions Part 2 for the Cannabis Industry?

Published

on

By


Pam Bondi on marijuana

Who is Pam Bondi and what does her being AG mean for cannabis?

 

Well folks, just when we thought we had Matt Gaetz lined up as the next Attorney General of the United States, the political winds shifted faster than smoke in a hurricane. Within hours of Gaetz withdrawing his name from consideration, Donald Trump announced his new pick: Pam Bondi, Florida’s former Attorney General.

I’ll be honest with you – while my knowledge of Gaetz was limited (though his pro-cannabis stance was well documented), I knew even less about Pam Bondi. As someone who keeps a close eye on cannabis policy and the characters who shape it, this knowledge gap needed filling. After all, the Attorney General holds significant sway over federal drug policy, and with cannabis reform hanging in the balance, understanding Bondi’s stance on our favorite plant becomes crucial.

So I did what any curious cannabis journalist would do – I dove deep into the digital archives, combed through news reports, and analyzed her track record in Florida. What I found was… well, let’s just say it’s complicated. Unlike Gaetz, who wore his pro-cannabis credentials on his sleeve, Bondi’s history with marijuana reform is more nuanced, and at times, concerning for those of us who care about cannabis freedom.

For those who don’t know who Pam Bondi is (and I suspect that’s quite a few of you), buckle up. We’re about to take a journey through her career, her stance on cannabis, and what her potential appointment might mean for the future of marijuana reform in America. From her time as Florida’s top prosecutor to her role in Trump’s first term, there’s quite a bit to unpack here.

So pack a bowl, get comfortable, and let’s dive into who Pam Bondi really is – and what her nomination could mean for the cannabis community.

Let’s start with the basics – Pam Bondi served as Florida’s first female Attorney General from 2011 to 2019, making her mark as a tough-on-crime prosecutor with nearly two decades of experience. During her tenure, she gained recognition for her aggressive stance against prescription drug abuse and her efforts to combat the opioid crisis. Trump even tapped her to serve on his Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis during his first term.

When it comes to cannabis, however, Bondi’s record is about as clear as bong water. Back in 2014, she opposed Florida’s medical cannabis amendment, arguing it would make the Sunshine State “one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states.” She even tried to keep the measure off the ballot entirely, though that effort failed. Fast forward to 2018, and we find her defending Florida’s ban on smokable medical cannabis, claiming smoking was “antithetical to good medicine.”

But here’s where things get interesting. Despite her previous opposition, Bondi remained notably quiet during Florida’s successful 2016 medical cannabis amendment, which passed with a whopping 71% of the vote. This suggests she might be more pragmatic than ideological when it comes to cannabis policy.

Her work fighting the fentanyl crisis could actually bode well for the cannabis community. Unlike some hardline drug warriors, Bondi seems to understand the importance of regulated markets in reducing harm. As Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers (who knows a thing or two about Florida cannabis politics) pointed out, Bondi’s experience shutting down pill mills and advocating for safe, regulated markets could translate into a more nuanced approach to cannabis policy.

Under a Trump presidency, Bondi could potentially align with his recently stated support for cannabis banking reform and federal rescheduling. Trump has signaled his intention to work with Congress on “common-sense” cannabis laws, and having an AG who understands regulated markets could help advance these goals.

However, there’s also reason for concern. Bondi’s previous opposition to medical cannabis and her involvement with Trump’s opioid commission (which expressed concerns about marijuana legalization) suggest she might not be the strongest advocate for reform. Unlike Matt Gaetz, who had a clear pro-cannabis record, Bondi’s position remains something of a mystery.

The reality is, Bondi isn’t going to be another Matt Gaetz when it comes to cannabis policy. While Gaetz was an outspoken supporter of legalization, voting twice for Democratic-led cannabis reform bills, Bondi’s approach is likely to be more measured and less predictable.

What we’re really looking at here is someone who seems to follow the political winds rather than charging ahead with a fixed ideology. If Trump maintains his current cannabis-friendly stance, Bondi might well fall in line. But if the winds shift… well, let’s just say we’ll need to keep a close eye on which way this smoke blows.

You know what keeps me up at night these days? The increasingly real possibility that the Republican Party might just pull off the biggest plot twist in cannabis history by becoming the party of legalization. While there’s no smoking gun evidence of this happening yet, the political tea leaves are starting to form an interesting pattern.

Let’s consider the pieces on this chess board. Trump has already promised to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of Health and Human Services – a move that could significantly impact cannabis policy. Kennedy, despite his controversial positions on other matters, has consistently supported cannabis reform and understands its medical benefits. That’s one interesting piece in play.

Then there’s Trump himself, who’s been making surprisingly cannabis-friendly noises on the campaign trail. He’s talking about “common sense” cannabis laws, banking reform, and respecting states’ rights. That’s a far cry from the “Just Say No” era of Republican drug policy.

Here’s what really keeps me wondering – what if the Republicans are playing the long game here? Democrats have been trying to legalize cannabis for years, with mixed success at best. They’ve introduced bills, made promises, and yet federal prohibition remains firmly in place. What if Republicans, seeing an opportunity to make history (and win some votes), decide to sweep in with a comprehensive legalization plan that addresses all the concerns that have held up previous efforts?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – if someone comes forward with a well-crafted, thorough approach to legalization that addresses everything from banking to interstate commerce to social equity, Republicans might just get on board. They’ve shown they can be pragmatic when it suits their interests, and the political benefits of being the party that ended federal prohibition could be substantial.

Of course, we’re still dealing with a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” here. The appointment of Pam Bondi as AG adds another layer of uncertainty to this equation. But here’s what we do know – Trump’s administration isn’t showing signs of wanting to crack down on cannabis. In fact, they’re talking about expanding access to banking services and implementing reasonable regulations. That’s something the industry can work with.

For now, it seems the cannabis industry isn’t facing an existential threat from a second Trump term. If anything, we might see some significant progress, particularly on the banking front. And who knows? Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans will decide to make history and become the unlikely champions of federal legalization.

Strange things have happened in politics, folks. And while I’m not betting my last gram on it happening, I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if the GOP decides to snatch this victory from the Democrats’ hands. After all, politics makes for strange smoking buddies sometimes.

Well folks, if there’s one silver lining in all of this, it’s that we’re not getting another Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. Remember him? The guy who thought “good people don’t smoke marijuana”? Yeah, those were some nerve-wracking times for the cannabis industry.

Instead, we’re getting Pam Bondi – someone who, while not exactly a champion of cannabis reform, at least seems to understand the importance of regulated markets. The cannabis industry should remain relatively stable under her watch, and I’ve got a sneaking suspicion we might see some significant reforms in the coming years.

Now, how extensive these reforms will be is anyone’s guess. The Biden administration’s push for Schedule III rescheduling? That’s probably dead in the water. Despite some Democrats urging Biden to flex his executive order muscles in these final months, I doubt we’ll see any last-minute cannabis reform miracles. Let’s be real – the Democrats took a beating in this election, and they’ll need to do some serious soul-searching before 2028 if they want another shot at the White House.

As for Bondi herself, she remains something of an enigma when it comes to cannabis policy. Like a political weathervane, she seems to shift with the prevailing winds. If Trump maintains his “common sense” approach to cannabis reform, she’ll likely follow suit. If he changes course… well, that’s a different story.

What we’re looking at here is a period of uncertainty, but also opportunity. The cannabis industry has survived and thrived through far worse than a Bondi Justice Department. With Republicans potentially eyeing cannabis reform as their next big move and Trump talking about banking reform, we might just see some interesting developments in the next four years.

For now, though, we’ll have to wait and see which way the political winds blow. As always in the cannabis world, we’ll keep rolling with the changes and hope for the best. Stay tuned, folks – this ride’s far from over.

 

Sources:

https://natlawreview.com/article/gaetz-out-possible-attorney

-general-pam-bondi-new-nominee-discussion-still-limited

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trumps-new-attorney-genera

l-pick-opposed-legalizing-medical-marijuana-in-florida/

 

TRUMP MARIJUANA REFORM? READ ON…

WILL TRUMP LEGALIZE WEED

WHAT CAN WE EXPECT WITH A TRUMP 2.0 PRESIDENCY?

 



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

FDA Approves Landmark Clinical Trial for Veterans with PTSD and Smoking Cannabis

Published

on

By


veterans with PTSD and marijuana

For decades, veterans and civilians alike have turned to cannabis to manage their PTSD symptoms, often finding relief where traditional pharmaceuticals fell short. Walk into any VA hospital, and you’ll likely find patients being prescribed a cocktail of medications – SSRIs like sertraline and paroxetine, anti-anxiety drugs like alprazolam, sleep aids like zolpidem, and sometimes even antipsychotics. Yet many vets report these medications leave them feeling like zombies, trading one set of problems for another.

As someone who’s been following cannabis policy for years, I’ve watched countless researchers bang their heads against the wall trying to study this plant’s potential for PTSD treatment. The roadblocks have been numerous and, frankly, ridiculous. Despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence and desperate pleas from the veteran community, getting approval for clinical trials involving smokable cannabis has been about as easy as teaching a cat to swim – theoretically possible, but practically impossible.

That’s why the FDA’s recent approval of a landmark clinical trial has caught my attention. After three years of back-and-forth negotiations, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) finally got the green light to conduct a Phase 2 study examining smoked cannabis for PTSD in veterans. This isn’t just another sterile laboratory experiment – it’s designed to reflect real-world usage patterns, something we’ve desperately needed in cannabis research.

In this article, we’ll dive deep into what this study means for veterans, the cannabis community, and the future of federal legalization. We’ll explore why this research is groundbreaking, how it might reshape our understanding of cannabis as medicine, and what it could mean for the millions of Americans living with PTSD.

Let’s dive into what makes this study so groundbreaking. MAPS isn’t just dipping their toes in the water – they’re diving in headfirst with a comprehensive Phase 2 clinical trial involving 320 veterans suffering from moderate to severe PTSD. What makes this study particularly fascinating is its focus on “real-world” cannabis use, allowing participants to self-titrate their dosage of high-THC flower within certain limits.

Now, for those who aren’t familiar with the FDA’s clinical trial phases, let me break it down. Phase 1 typically focuses on safety and involves a small group of people. Phase 2 – where this study sits – is where things get interesting. It’s designed to test both effectiveness and side effects, involving a larger group of participants. If successful, Phase 3 would follow with an even larger group, and finally, Phase 4 would monitor long-term safety after FDA approval.

The fact that this study reached Phase 2 is a big deal, folks. It means we’ve cleared the initial safety hurdles and are moving into territory that could actually influence medical policy. But what really sets this research apart is its focus on smokable flower. This wasn’t an easy win – MAPS had to fight through five partial clinical hold letters from the FDA just to get here.

Why does the smoking aspect matter so much? Well, think about it – most FDA-approved medications come in neat little pills or carefully measured doses. Smoking cannabis? That’s been a major sticking point for regulatory agencies. By including smoking as a delivery method, this study acknowledges how most veterans actually use cannabis in the real world. No fancy pharmaceutical extracts or synthetic compounds – just the plant in its most basic, smokable form.

The implications here are huge. If this study demonstrates positive results, it could fundamentally change how we approach cannabis as medicine. It might force regulatory bodies to reconsider their stance on smokable cannabis, potentially opening doors for more research and eventual federal approval of whole-plant medicine. This could be particularly significant for veterans, who often prefer smoking or vaping cannabis for its rapid onset and ease of dose control.

But perhaps most importantly, this study could provide the hard scientific evidence we’ve been missing. While thousands of veterans have testified about cannabis helping their PTSD, the lack of controlled clinical trials has been a major roadblock in changing federal policy. A successful outcome here could be the wedge we need to finally crack open the door to federal legalization.

Of course, we shouldn’t count our chickens before they hatch. Clinical trials are complex beasts, and there’s still a long road ahead. But for the first time in a long while, I’m feeling optimistic about the direction we’re heading. This study could be the game-changer we’ve been waiting for in the fight for cannabis legitimacy.

Let’s talk about PTSD – a condition that affects roughly 12 million American adults annually. That’s more people than the entire population of New York City, folks. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder isn’t just about being scared or anxious; it’s a complex psychological condition where traumatic experiences get stuck in an endless replay loop, like a scratched record that keeps skipping back to the same devastating track.

But here’s where cannabis enters the picture, and it’s fascinating how it works. Our endocannabinoid system plays a crucial role in how we process and store memories, particularly emotional ones. When someone consumes cannabis, it can help disrupt those stubborn neural pathways that keep trauma loops running. Think of it like hitting the pause button on a horror movie that’s been playing on repeat in someone’s head.

However – and this is crucial – cannabis isn’t a magic eraser for trauma. I’ve spoken with countless veterans who use cannabis, and they’re the first to tell you: the plant helps manage symptoms, but it doesn’t “cure” PTSD. Real healing requires doing the hard work of processing and integrating traumatic experiences. Cannabis is more like a helpful companion on that journey rather than the destination itself.

What makes cannabis particularly interesting in PTSD treatment is its ability to increase neuroplasticity – the brain’s ability to form new neural connections and reorganize existing ones. This is where the real magic happens. When someone’s brain becomes more “plastic,” they’re better equipped to process traumatic memories and potentially create new, healthier neural pathways.

Speaking of neuroplasticity, we can’t ignore the elephant in the room – psilocybin. Recent studies have shown remarkable promise in treating PTSD with psilocybin-assisted therapy, often producing profound and lasting changes in just a few sessions. The fact that both cannabis and psilocybin increase neuroplasticity while offering different therapeutic approaches suggests we might be onto something big in trauma treatment.

What drives me crazy is how long it’s taken to get here. We’ve known about cannabis’s potential benefits for PTSD for decades. Veterans have been telling us. Trauma survivors have been telling us. Heck, even some forward-thinking psychiatrists have been telling us. Yet we’re only now getting around to serious clinical research? It’s a testament to how prohibition hasn’t just restricted access to cannabis – it’s actively delayed our understanding of this plant’s therapeutic potential.

But hey, better late than never, right? As we move forward with studies like the MAPS trial, we’re finally starting to piece together the scientific puzzle that veterans and other PTSD survivors have known about all along. Cannabis isn’t just helping them sleep better or feel calmer – it’s potentially giving them the neurological flexibility they need to process and integrate their trauma in a healthy way.

Like most things in the cannabis reform movement, progress moves at a snail’s pace. But as frustrating as it might be, we’re undeniably moving forward. The FDA’s approval of this MAPS study, focusing on smokable cannabis no less, marks a significant shift in how our regulatory bodies view cannabis research.

The beauty of this study lies in its real-world approach. No artificial laboratory settings or synthetic cannabinoids – just veterans using cannabis the way they already do. This authenticity could provide invaluable data about how cannabis actually functions as a medicine in everyday life, not just in theory.

Let’s be real though – regardless of what this study finds, veterans and others suffering from PTSD who’ve found relief with cannabis aren’t going to stop using it. The plant has been their lifeline when traditional pharmaceuticals failed them. But positive findings could open doors for countless others who might benefit from cannabis but have been hesitant due to its federal status or lack of clinical validation.

This is particularly crucial for our veteran community. With veteran suicide rates remaining tragically high – averaging around 17 deaths per day – we desperately need more treatment options. It’s no coincidence that veteran groups have been among the loudest voices calling for cannabis research and reform. They’ve seen firsthand how this plant can offer hope where traditional treatments have fallen short.

As we await the results of this groundbreaking study, I remain cautiously optimistic. Sure, progress is slower than we’d like, but each step forward brings us closer to a future where veterans and others with PTSD can access the medicine they need without stigma or legal barriers. And for the countless individuals struggling with PTSD, that future can’t come soon enough.

Source:

www.marijuanamoment.net/fda-approves-long-awaited-clinical-trial-of-smoked-marijuana-to-treat-ptsd-in-veterans/

 

ARE PSYCHEDELICS JUST WEED 2.0? READ ON…

PSYCHEDELICS SHOW BENZINGA

ARE MAGIC MUSHROOMS THE NEW WEED 2.0? WE ASKED THE EXPERTS!

 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media