Connect with us

Cannabis News

The People Have Smoken! – New Gallup Poll Shows Most Americans Feel the War on Drugs Is a Failure

Published

on


war on drugs is a failure

The People have Smoken – The Drug War is a Lost Cause!

 

When Richard Nixon officially launched the “War on Drugs” in 1971, the policy enjoyed broad public support. Fears of crime, addiction and social disorder in the tumultuous 60s and 70s made Nixon’s “tough on crime” stance resonate.

 

In the 1980s and 90s, the drug war’s aggressive policing, harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and “Just Say No” abstinence messaging hit fever pitch. DARE programs proliferated in schools, demonizing drugs as public enemy number one.

 

Few mainstream voices challenged the harsh prohibitionist consensus in those decades. But quietly, evidence mounted showing the immense collateral damage of militarized enforcement, mass incarceration, and unregulated underground drug markets.

 

By the early 2000s, cracks formed in the drug war’s armor. States began legalizing medical marijuana in defiance of federal prohibition. Psychedelic research resumed after decades of censorship. Harm reduction gained recognition internationally.

 

A tipping point came when the Obama administration took a hands-off approach to state cannabis reform. By the 2010s, the cultural zeitgeist finally abandoned the hysterical anti-drug frenzy of the 80s and 90s.

 

Today, this momentum accelerates rapidly. A recent Gallup poll reveals a dramatic 22-point increase since 2019 in Americans saying the country has “lost ground” against illegal drugs. Even Republicans are losing faith in the tired strategies.

 

When the bedrock law-and-order party acknowledges prohibition’s failure, the paradigm shift is real. The people have spoken through 50 years of hard-learned experience. Criminalization does not temper human nature – it only amplifies risks and suffering.

 

Parsing the Public’s Growing Disillusionment

 

Gallup’s latest polling reveals a dramatic downturn in public confidence that the War on Drugs is achieving its stated aims.

 

Compared to just four years ago, belief that America is “losing ground” against illegal drugs has jumped 22 percentage points to a majority 52%. Meanwhile, the share feeling progress is being made plunged from 41% to 24% – a minority for the first time.

 

This signals a macro shift from the decades when Nixon’s crackdown enjoyed widespread support. In the emotional aftermath of 60s upheaval, the drug war’s simplistic moralizing won hearts. Troubling means were justified by promised ends.

 

But the passing decades yielded little beyond bloated prisons, decimated communities, and ever more dangerous, plentiful drugs. As evidence mounted of prohibition’s failure, attitudes began changing.

 

Cannabis legalization’s advance exposed cracks in absolutist anti-drug rhetoric. Psychedelic research revealed therapeutic potential beneath the hysteria. Harm reduction became the humane alternative to hopeless abstinence-only policies.

 

Gradually the monolithic drug war consensus eroded. Today it collapses entirely under the weight of its endless unfulfilled promises and glaring hypocrisies. Americans see through the charade.

 

The opioid crisis likely catalyzed this tipping point by showcasing prohibition’s deadly ironies. As the War on Drugs escalated, pharmaceutical corporations hooked millions on painkillers. When the prescriptions ended, many turned to the thriving black market to meet their addictions.

 

The resulting mass fentanyl poisoning tears at the heart of drug war logic. More enforcement evidently worsens outcomes. Criminalization offers no solutions to addiction and despair.

 

This painful awakening explains the public’s growing discontent captured by Gallup. When even law-and-order conservatives acknowledge losing ground, the paradigm has irreversibly shifted.

 

Because ultimately, prohibition’s costs outweigh any perceived benefits. Trillions spent militarizing police, incarcerating generations, and empowering cartels could have better served education, healthcare, and economic opportunity in marginalized communities.

 

Prohibition tries controlling humanity’s uncontrollable shadow, always missing the darkness within itself. But the light dawning in hearts intuitively recognizes policies should help people, not demonize and punish them.

 

That 75% of Americans view the national drug problem as serious compared to just 35% locally shows perceptions are shaped more by media narratives than reality. The propaganda rings hollower every year.

 

Why This Poll Means Little for Actual Reform

 

While on the surface Gallup’s findings seem an exciting milestone, placing too much stock in public opinion overlooks how policy actually gets shaped in America. The people’s will has little sway over entrenched special interests driving prohibition for profit.

 

For decades, polls have consistently shown majorities supporting cannabis legalization, even among Republicans today. Yet federal law remains untouched, with minor piecemeal changes only at the impassioned behest of industries wishing to profit from the emerging market.

 

The interests of voters barely register compared to the coordinated lobbying of those who fund campaigns and control the revolving door between regulators and the regulated. The game is rigged to selectively serve concentrated wealth over dispersed general welfare.

 

So even 75% viewing drugs as a serious national issue means little when pharma giants reaping billions from the status quo direct strategy behind the scenes. The public may grow wise, but power never concedes anything without pressure.

 

In truth, we are less citizens with representation than consumers with spending potential to be mined by corporations. Our “vote” exists only in dollars spent, not integrity or wellbeing nurtured. We are the flock, government agencies our obedient sheepdogs answering to the owners.

 

While this seems cynical, civics education paints a fantasy. Congress defies majority public support on issue after issue with no recourse. The model is orderly plutocracy, not responsive democracy – no matter the propaganda fed in classrooms.

 

So until seismic financial interests get disrupted enough to flip sides and back reform, or public outrage threatens major disruption, expect little change in policy regardless of polling. Talk is cheap, and politicians expend only necessary action for self-preservation, not service.

 

Even the GOP’s movement on the issue stems more from reading the writing on the wall around cannabis than genuinely responding to social justice- even though you have my opinions on “social justice”. Most still oppose legalization of other drugs absent profit potential. Only a true public health framework stands a chance.

 

In sum, this poll makes for inspiring headlines but lackluster policy indicators. Power squelches public will until the status quo grows so unstable that change offers more advantage than hindrance. We’ve a ways to go before that tipping point against prohibition despite the optics.

 

This is the cynical nature of maintaining mass exploitation that serves entrenched hierarchies. Positive polling simply gets spun for PR cover as the machine churns on. Real change takes protest and economic threat – not faith in corrupt institutions.

 

How to do your part!

 

While lobbying and legislation may ignore public opinion, individuals still possess power through how they spend money and choose to comply with unjust laws. Small acts of protest summed can disrupt even the most entrenched system.

 

The simplest impact comes by boycotting companies upholding prohibition. Seek out anti-reform PAC recipients and major donors to prohibitionist lobbying groups, then avoid patronizing those corporations.

 

Even if one customer means nothing, multiplying non-compliance saps revenue streams supporting the drug war machine. And companies fear anything dampening shareholder profits and souring their image. Unite with like-minded friends to expand the boycott’s reach.

 

Divesting from banks tied to predatory private prisons could also pressure the incarceration business model. Transfer your assets to regional credit unions and small local banks not profiting off human suffering.

 

Additionally, don’t support media outlets and journalists actively demonizing reform efforts and spreading reefer madness propaganda. Cancel subscriptions and block their advertisers. Fight misinformation by choking off its funding.

 

While no single boycott drops Amazon, each empowers citizens to withhold complicity and pool economic leverage for justice. Help broader society wake up by discussing your reasons for abstaining. Consumer education and peer pressure add up.

 

Another avenue is progressive civil disobedience against draconian prohibition laws. As precedents like Gandhi and King show, unjust rules lose legitimacy when facing nonviolent mass resistance.

 

Start by asserting cognitive liberty with entheogens that don’t harm others but open minds. Or support harm reduction tactics like testing illicit drugs for safety. Putting community wellbeing over bad policy erodes the veneer of authority.

 

While risks exist, compare them to the immense harm enabled by silent complicity to oppression. Help negate unjust laws by refusing to abide them, especially around victimless choices. What moral duty overrides that?

 

Of course, use wisdom weighing potential consequences like arrest. But mass non-compliance eventually forces oppressive systems to make concessions when puffed-up authority gets exposed as largely imaginary. Staying on the right side of history matters most.

 

The sticky truth remains – prohibition cannot end without public demand overwhelming its financial beneficiaries. But such pressure starts with millions of tiny acts of courageous disobedience. The revolution lives first in our hearts before exploding into policy.

 

So vote for reform with dollars, actions, and voice. Support grassroots alternatives building a compassionate society from the roots. The war has already lost moral legitimacy – now it loses revenue and compliance. All we need persist and grow.

 

THE WAR ON DRUGS IS OVER, THAT IS GOOD, READ ON…

WAR ON DRUGS IS OVER BENEFITS

ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS COULD ADD $100 BILLION TO US ECONOMY



Source link

Cannabis News

How Legal is CBD, Really?

Published

on

By



The legality of CBD remains a subject of considerable debate. Despite the fact that many CBD companies[1]  have now existed for more than a decade, the legal context surrounding this non-intoxicating cannabinoid remains muddy for the average shopper. In this guide, we’ll explore the legality of CBD in detail, examining the implications along the way.

History of CBD Laws

Extracts of Cannabis sativa have been widely prepared and sold for centuries beyond count. It’s unclear exactly when human beings and cannabis intersected, but it’s believed cannabis has been a part of daily life at least as long as apples and potatoes.

 

It’s only recently that laws have turned discriminatory toward cannabis. Starting in Europe in the 19th century, this anti-cannabis fervor eventually reached the United States, spurring the “Reefer Madness” craze that ultimately led to cannabis being illegalized with the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.

 

In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act sealed the deal, and hemp was not grown in considerable acreage until academic pilot programs began resurfacing in the early 2000s. By the early 2010s, legal loopholes were identified at the federal level that allowed CBD commerce to emerge online.

 

In 2014 and 2018, the United States Congress gave CBD the nod with Farm Bills that facilitated hemp cultivation and commerce. Not much has changed in the ensuing years, however, leading to a hemp economy that has begun to stagnate in some sectors.

Recent Developments in CBD Legislation

Cannabis-related measures continue to be proposed at both the state and federal level. Few of them focus specifically on CBD, however, which remains in a gray area loosely delineated by the 2018 Farm Bill and subsequent clarifications from the FDA, DEA, and USDA.

 

It appears the situation with CBD will remain unclear federally for the foreseeable future. There seems to be an “unwritten rule” that upstanding CBD companies will not run afoul of federal agencies as long as their conduct meets a certain unofficial threshold.

 

The FDA continues to issue warning letters to CBD companies that violate the dictates of the 2018 Farm Bill, but enforcement is rare and usually amounts to relatively small fines. At the state level, legislators continue to evolve their stances on CBD and related products, mainly in an effort to siphon tax revenue.

Potential Future CBD Regulations

Over time, the slew of largely unrelated hemp and cannabis laws continuously being produced by Congress may begin to amount to a comprehensive federal stance on cannabinoids. At this current juncture, however, cannabinoid regulations ever more commonly have less to do with the shopper’s interests and more to do with securing government revenue.

 

The ideal solution that hemp proponents have expounded for years, namely that CBD be judged an over-the-counter substance, appears further and further away as time goes by. At present, it seems the de facto approach is to not address the underlying legality of cannabinoids but to instead determine how best they should be taxed.

 

It might not be an ideal situation, but for the average CBD producer, this is still good news. There was a time in the not-so-distant past when it seemed the federal government was on the verge of attempting to ban CBD products outright. Though the current circumstances may remain muddy, at least there’s no longer any indication that the federal government is antithetical to hemp and CBD overall.

CBD Legality: The Bottom Line

As we finish up, it’s important to carefully address a few final points:

CBD regulations vary by state

For most intents and purposes, CBD can be considered federally legal. Each state has its own laws and regulations pertaining to CBD and other cannabinoids, however, some of which are more restrictive than others. CBD laws can be restrictive both in states that are firmly anti-cannabis and in those that have newer adult-use cannabis industries that suffer from direct competition with online CBD vendors.

No medical claims

CBD is certainly not legal when it is advertised as offering medical benefits. It’s fine to reference evidence that CBD might be useful for a particular ailment. To outright say that CBD treats or cures a medical condition, is tantamount to asking for the scrutiny of the federal government.

Professionalism first

The CBD companies that are currently succeeding are those that go above and beyond. Clean products, transparent communication, impeccable certification: these are the hallmarks of the future’s top CBD brands. Focusing on quality will make it less likely to flub regulations.

Respect CBD

CBD is a powerful compound, and it comes from a plant that has an amazing power to heal. Put CBD’s benefits first and foremost, and you’ll find that your company naturally begins to fit the parameters that both shoppers and regulators approve of most.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

California Cities: Prohibition Doesn’t Work

Published

on

By


California has a population of nearly 40 million, six years of cannabis licensing, but only has about 1,200 licensed dispensaries. These stores are mostly spread out in highly populated areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and so on. The problem is that many California cities still prohibit cannabis licensing, even in places where a majority of the locals approved the state’s recreational cannabis program in 2016. This is a massive problem and is one of the key reasons the illegal market thrives. Let’s look at why that is the case and what these cities can do to change it.

Why prohibition doesn’t work

When the government prohibits something, there is an existing market for that thing, and a fear on the part of the government (justifiable or otherwise) that failure to prohibit it would lead to some kind of societal harm. Because there is an existing market for the thing, there is necessarily some kind of demand for it. If the government bans the thing, some people will realize that the potential cost (prison, fines, stigma, etc.) outweighs the benefit, and demand will go down.

But others will find that the benefit outweighs the potential cost, no matter how high it is — which is why people still roll the dice in countries like Singapore that will execute drug traffickers. So while prohibition may decrease demand, it won’t end it. And so long as there is some demand, again, some people will roll the dice.

This is exactly what has happened in the decades since cannabis was prohibited. If prohibition were an effective deterrent, then you would expect there not to be a high level of use or incarceration. But we’ve seen the opposite. There have been millions of people arrested and incarcerated for violating the Controlled Substances Act and state-law counterparts. It’s pretty clear then that these laws don’t have their intended effects, which brings me to the next point.

What problems are California cities creating?

When California voters passed the state’s flagship recreational licensing law in 2016, California cities were given an immense amount of control over the new industry. Perhaps realizing the initiative would face strong opposition if it took power away from cities, the drafters included provisions that allowed California cities to completely ban cannabis activities within their limits. These provisions led to local bans in vast swathes of the state.

While cities have slowly “come online” over the years, there are still vast swathes of the state without legal access to cannabis. In fact, many cities even sued the state when it tried to officially sanction statewide delivery rules. What this means is that there are still many California cities that prohibit cannabis.

If those cities are trying to eliminate local cannabis markets, I’ve got a bridge to sell them. Prohibition didn’t work before the state legalized cannabis, and it certainly won’t work when the state won’t lift a finger on enforcement. California cities that keep their bans alive are only bolstering their illegal markets and making it more difficult for the legal market to survive.

What California cities should be doing to combat the illegal market

I recently corresponded with Hirsh Jain of Ananda Strategy, who believes that the state needs 4,000 to 5,000 dispensaries to carry the legal market. And those dispensaries shouldn’t just be in Los Angeles or San Diego. They’d need to be dispersed across the state so that people have access and the legal dispensaries could compete with the illegal ones (and ideally put them out of business). If more California cities don’t end prohibition, illegal dispensaries and delivery services will continue to operate whether they like it or not.

That said, there are other things that California cities can do to combat the illegal market without allowing brick-and-mortar sales. One big one would be to allow outside delivery services to deliver into their borders. While the state did pass a law attempting to expand statewide access to medical cannabis deliveries, that fails to include the much larger recreational market. It also likely excludes potential medical cannabis purchasers who don’t want to or don’t have the resources to obtain a physician’s recommendation or medical marijuana ID card (MMIC).

Expanding retail deliveries would be a win-win for the legal market and cities alike. Yet for some reason, California cities fought it tooth and nail. While those cities may have thought they won, the real victory belonged to the illegal market, which continues to grow and grow.


If the legal market is to survive, California cities are going to have to make compromises when it comes to cannabis prohibition. After all, cannabis is still being sold within their borders. For some of my thoughts on California’s problematic illegal market, check out these posts:





Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

The Good ‘Dirty Little Secret’ about Weed

Published

on

By


cannabis marijuana secrets

 

You may remember that Justin Timberlake once said, “Some people are just better on weed”. Well, if he was referring to people with ADHD or ADD, he may be right.  While many studies on marijuana for ADD or ADHD show great results to help people with “scatter” brain start to focus, UFC Sean O’Malley is the latest person to preach the plants’ benefits for focus.

Bantamweight champion Sean O’Malley breaks the stereotype associated with marijuana users. At 29, he incorporates marijuana into his training regimen to achieve a state of intense focus, which appears to yield positive results.

 

In an interview with Demetrious Johnson, O’Malley clarified misconceptions about his marijuana use: “Contrary to popular belief, I don’t consume as much as people assume.” Asserting his professionalism as an athlete, he claims to excel in managing his recovery compared to others in the UFC, attributing it to his disciplined habits and routines.

 

Recognizing the potential drawbacks of smoking on lung health and conditioning, O’Malley adopts measures to safeguard his fitness standards. He opts for vaporizing marijuana, particularly during training camps, using a high-quality vaporizer once daily instead of traditional methods like joints, bongs, pipes, or dabbing.

 

O’Malley reveals that during specific training sessions, such as longer, lower-intensity workouts lasting up to 60 minutes, he trains while under the influence, leveraging marijuana to enhance his focus. However, he acknowledges the importance of using it as a tool responsibly, cautioning against falling into unproductive habits like aimlessly watching YouTube while high.

 

The upcoming UFC 299 main event on March 9 sees O’Malley defending his 135-pound championship title for the first time against his rival, Marlon “Chito” Vera. Seeking redemption for his only career loss, which Vera inflicted upon him at UFC 252 in August 2020, O’Malley is determined to emerge victorious.

 

The Science Behind O’Malley’s Approach

 

Sean O’Malley’s use of cannabis to increase concentration during training begs interesting concerns concerning the relationship between marijuana use and athletics. Cannabis includes chemicals like THC and CBD that interact with the brain’s endocannabinoid system to influence a variety of physiological activities, despite being frequently linked to relaxation and altered perception.

 

Studies suggest that low to moderate doses of THC may improve focus, creativity, and cognitive performance in some individuals, potentially explaining O’Malley’s reported ability to “hyper-focus” during workouts. Additionally, CBD, another prominent compound in cannabis, has been linked to reduced anxiety and improved recovery, which could complement O’Malley’s training regimen.

 

However, the effects of cannabis on athletic performance remain complex and multifaceted. While some athletes may experience benefits in terms of concentration and relaxation, others may encounter impairments in coordination, reaction time, and cardiovascular function. Furthermore, individual responses to cannabis can vary widely based on factors such as dosage, method of consumption, and personal tolerance levels.

 

Experts caution that while cannabis may have its place as a performance-enhancing tool for certain athletes, careful consideration must be given to its potential drawbacks, including the risk of dependence, negative effects on lung health, and legal implications, particularly in professional sports settings.

 

O’Malley’s method offers as an engaging case study for negotiating the complex link between cannabis use and sports performance as researchers continue to investigate the physiological and psychological impacts of cannabis. O’Malley starts a wider discussion about the place of cannabis in contemporary sports training and competition by illuminating the science underlying his unorthodox training techniques.

 

Managing Marijuana Use in Professional Athletics

 

Navigating the use of marijuana in professional athletics involves a delicate balance between personal choice, regulatory compliance, and performance optimization. Despite evolving attitudes toward cannabis, organizations like the UFC maintain stringent anti-doping policies, prohibiting its use above specified thresholds during competition periods. Athletes such as Sean O’Malley must therefore carefully manage their marijuana consumption to ensure adherence to these guidelines while still leveraging its potential benefits for training and recovery.

 

For O’Malley and others incorporating cannabis into their routines, managing marijuana use requires strategic planning and adherence to regulatory standards. This involves selecting consumption methods and timing consumption to minimize the risk of exceeding allowable THC thresholds during testing. O’Malley’s transparency about his usage patterns and advocacy for responsible consumption practices set a precedent for athletes navigating the complex landscape of drug policy in professional sports.

 

Professional sports may see more changes in policies and attitudes as talks about decriminalizing and legalizing cannabis continue. Athletes who are willing to share their personal stories and advocate for more nuanced approaches to drug policy, such as O’Malley, are vital in influencing this conversation. Going forward, managing the changing link between cannabis usage and sports performance will need constant communication and cooperation between players, coaches, and regulating authorities.

 

O’Malley’s Training Rituals: Balancing Intensity and Recovery

 

Gain insight into Sean O’Malley’s methodical strategy to integrating cannabis into his routine while striking a balance between intensity and recuperation by learning about his training rituals. To maximize effectiveness in the octagon, O’Malley’s training regimen combines focused rest times with intense sessions in a calculated manner.

 

The understanding that efficient recuperation is equally as important as intense exercise is at the heart of O’Malley’s training philosophy. O’Malley makes sure that his body can adjust and get stronger in response to the demands of his training routine by using restorative habits like healthy eating, drinking enough of water, and getting enough sleep. When utilized responsibly, cannabis is another weapon in O’Malley’s toolbox that he can employ to improve concentrate during longer, lower-intensity sessions without jeopardizing his recuperation.

 

O’Malley is a perfect example of the value of an all-encompassing approach to sports training as he strikes a balance between effort and recuperation. O’Malley reduces the chance of injury and fatigue while simultaneously optimizing his performance capacity by placing equal emphasis on restorative techniques and physical activity. O’Malley’s training regimens are always being improved, and his techniques are proof of the need of smart, individualized approaches to physical preparation for success in the UFC and other competitions.

 

Bottom Line

 

Sean O’Malley’s pioneering approach to incorporating cannabis into his training regimen challenges stereotypes and opens up discussions about its potential benefits and drawbacks in professional athletics. His transparency and advocacy for responsible usage set a precedent for athletes navigating complex drug policies while seeking performance optimization. As attitudes toward cannabis continue to evolve, ongoing dialogue and collaboration among athletes, coaches, and governing bodies will be crucial in shaping policies that balance regulatory compliance with individual health and performance goals. O’Malley’s dedication to balancing intensity and recovery underscores the importance of personalized, holistic approaches to training, serving as a blueprint for athletes striving for success in high-level competitions like the UFC.

 

CANNABIS AND ADD/ADHD, READ ON…

CANNABIS USER HAVE ADHD

50% OF CANNABIS USERS SUFFER FROM ADD OR ADHD? WHAT?



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media