Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/24/24: ‘LET ME FINISH’: Heated Debate On Marijuana Legalization | CounterPoints Debates

Episode Date: May 23, 2024

Ryan and Emily host a debate on Marijuana legalization between author of "Smokescreen" Kevin A. Sabet and Jonathan Lubecky a 12-year retiree of the U.S. Armed Forces. Jonathan Lubecky: https://www.lubeckysd.com/ Kevin A. Sabet: https://smokescreenbook.com/ To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus.

So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? and subscribe today. his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. I'm also the girl behind Boy Sober, the movement that exploded in 2024.

You might hear that term and think it's about celibacy, but to me, Boy Sober is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it.

Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 is here and we here at Breaking Points are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election. We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support. But enough with that. Let's get to the show.

People should know that the research is getting clearer and clearer every day. One in three people who used marijuana in the last year will be addictive. We are unwittingly or unwittingly creating these massive companies, Big Tobacco's invested billions. We have no history of regulating these items as well. I think we're going to have to learn the hard way like we did tobacco. It may not be legal again, but there's going to be a cultural renaissance at some point. It works for chronic pain and it works for PTSD. Should we just tell those people you don't have access to the most effective medicine? It's way better than benzos and opiates, which is currently what the VA is prescribing. Both of those are far more addictive than cannabis. Withdrawal from benzos can actually, if not done in a medical environment, can actually kill you. If it's

medicine, which I do believe it is, it should be treated as such. This is a very strong industry who relies on profit and heavy use. That's how they make their money. They don't want to acknowledge the war. You do, and I love you for it, but they don't. And they're sadly holding the key to this. I have lots of problems with lots of industry. That doesn't mean I think their products should be banned. Welcome to CounterPoints. So last week, the administration made another move towards rescheduling marijuana from Schedule 1, which is the most restrictive place you can have a drug, which means it has no medical value, high abuse of potential, down to Schedule 3, which made a lot of people happy, a lot of people upset, and then a lot of people upset from both directions. And it opens up interesting questions about ongoing marijuana policy and also drug policy more general. So that's what we're going to be talking about today with a couple of our guests.

Just curious, before we start, where do you come down on the whole, just so people understand as we're moderating, where you come down on the drug policy and marijuana policy debate? Actually, one of the reasons that I'm excited for this debate is because I'm sort of have always been very agnostic about maybe ambivalent is a better word. I'm genuinely persuaded by arguments that I hear from the Sagar side. Shout out to anti-weed czar of Breaking Point Saga and Jetty. But then also very persuaded by the legalization arguments, especially immigration is an area that I care about a lot and cartel violence and all of that. So I'm excited to hash some of these conversations out. today, we have two of the leading figures in this field who are on opposite sides, though we might find out they agree on a little bit more than we think. Let's bring them in now. So on the kind of, I guess, anti-side, and we'll get each to kind of define where they are on the spectrum, would be Kevin Sabat, who is the author of the 2021 book, Smokescreen, What the Marijuana Industry Doesn't Want You to

Know. He's also the co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which he founded with Patrick Kennedy, and also David Frum, former Obama administration official. I think I've been interacting with Kevin since the Obama administration. We're going way back here. And then we're also joined here by John Lubecki, who many of you may know as a veteran who has been at the forefront of lobbying around drug policy, and in particular, psychedelic policy, as it relates to PTSD for veterans. John, what's the name of your strategic consulting firm? John Lubecki Strategies, I believe it is. Lubecki Strategic Directions. Lubecki Strategic Directions. And so what I meant by define where we are on the spectrum,

if you think of the spectrum as, on the one hand, prohibition, complete and total prohibition of all recreational substances, including prohibition for their medical purposes. That's one end of the spectrum. Then the other would be no laws whatsoever. It should just be complete libertarian fever dream. Where would you guys position yourselves on the spectrum so that as the viewers kind of hear the arguments that you're making, they'll understand kind of where where you're coming from. And Kevin, you too, Emily. Wonderful. You know, where I come out is probably somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. Look, I don't think people should go to prison or be given criminal records for possessing or using marijuana when we're adults. I also think we're greatly underestimating both the harm of today's high-potent marijuana, and I'll be probably a broken record about that today, but also underestimating the

harms of American-style legalization. We have never legalized something for the force of public health or public good in a way that is regulated in any kind of way that advances public health over private profit. And what we see right now with legalization is the unveiling of really a new big tobacco, something that, you know, if you're under 35, you probably don't even know what that is. But what it is is was a hundred years of lies and deceit by the most powerful industry in the country that owned every politician on both sides of the aisle. Every A-list actor was in every movie pushing this idea that tobacco was relatively harmless, that it was medicinal, and also they also said it was medical, and that it was about adults' right to use. And we're seeing those same arguments. So I don't want to see people in prison, but I don't think we should be normalizing and commercializing it. You want to grow a little bit on your own, fine. You want

to use it, not an issue, although at least you should be educated on what it could do to you, at the very least. But that is your choice. But it stops being your choice the minute you walk out of your house and get in your car, take care of your kids, teach my kids, become a doctor, a pilot, etc. Those things, of course, affect others. So I think it's somewhere in the middle. But I do think that our current kind of societal shift towards acceptance is a mistake. And I think it's one we'll come to regret, just like we do how we felt about tobacco in 1955. And so, John, where would you put yourself on that spectrum? Well, interestingly enough, I'm most known for working on psychedelics. I actually started working on medical cannabis in South Carolina in 2013 because I had used cannabis to abate suicidal ideation

for about five years and then couldn't because I moved to a state where it was illegal. So I've been working on cannabis for well over a decade now. I am in the middle. My primary issue is the government is the one that messes up by preventing research and actual medical uses in a medical setting through a medical context like we do any other prescription drug. And I think one of the biggest problems is you have people who object to legalization objecting to medical use and conflating those two. And the people who want to legalize also conflate those two. And they're actually very different arguments. You know, whether somebody needs this for a genuine and proven medical need versus, hey, I want to go

to a fish concert and smoke a joint are two very, very different things. That felt very, very specific to Ryan Graham, who I was actually just going to ask. So Ryan wrote a book called This Is Your Country on Drugs. Ryan, now that everyone else has sort of put themselves on the spectrum, where would you describe yourself? I mean, and I write in the book toward the end of it that if you don't take regulation seriously, and if it's just a complete free-for-all, that the history of American drug policy shows that it is not a one-directional thing, that it's a pendulum that swings back and forth. And that if drug policy reform advocates are not careful, the pendulum will

swing right back and you'll get a reaction and a blowback. And so in the pursuit of that, I think people have to be more careful. And we talked on the show Wednesday about Portland, and Portland just had its progressive DA thrown out in this election. We can talk about that later in the election, I mean, later in this show. But let's start with the rescheduling. I would actually argue that Schedule 3, which it was moved to, is still too restrictive for marijuana. But Kevin, let's start with you. So the DEA, and you actually, I think, had a scoop on this, that the head of the DEA did not actually sign off on moving marijuana from schedule one down to schedule three, that the Department of Justice and the administration did it without her signature, which is their prerogative. They can do it,

but it's suggestive of a schism within the administration over this question. So tell us a little bit about what you know about how that unfolded and also where you stand on this move from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. And what does that mean to people who don't follow the details here? Yeah, well, like you said, it's never been done before, so we're definitely, this is going to kind of be a wild ride when we learn really the details of this. But yeah, I know to back up, and I think a lot of what Jonathan said, I agree with, by the way, about the conflation of issues, medical, recreational, decrim, all those have been

conflated, I think, in a way that's not productive. But to get to your question about scheduling, I think there's a lot of misconception about what scheduling is. Scheduling is basically it's five categories that Congress in 1970 came up with that, you know, does not equate drugs. And if you're in the same category, it doesn't mean you think they're the same thing. And that's where the vice president in her discussion was just completely off about what it really means. I think of scheduling kind of like a snack aisle of the grocery store. You might have aisle three might be called snacks, but you might have banana chips, beef jerky, Oreos, and fruit slices. They're all snacks, right? They fall under the criteria of snacks, but they're not the same. So we don't treat bananas like we do, you know, Ruffles potato chips. And that's what's often said, oh, heroin is schedule one and marijuana is two. That means that we're thinking of the same thing. We don't treat them the same. Actually, marijuana is different by statute, even regardless of schedule, which very few people even know. It has nothing to do with penalties. So it's not that we

schedule one drugs are more penalized than schedule two. In fact, cocaine, which is a schedule two drug, because it has some very limited medicinal use in surgery by doctors, you can't go home with it, obviously, but it's a very limited use. That's schedule two, but the penalties are far greater than marijuana, which is Schedule 1. So first of all, there's a total misconception about what scheduling is. The reason marijuana deserves to stay in the current Schedule 1, and we can have a discussion. In fact, Jonathan and I might agree that the scheduling system should be changed in certain ways. We might actually come up with a better scheduling system than they did 50 years ago. But the way that it is currently now, it means that there's no accepted medical use, which

traditionally meant there isn't an FDA-approved medication that we say is called marijuana. Now, there are several medications based on marijuana. This is where it gets complicated, that are not Schedule I. And I'm fully in favor of that research, non-smoked marijuana components, no problem with that. And there are already drugs in 3, 5 that are not Schedule 1, no problem with it. But to say marijuana as a whole, which means thousands of unknown products, the edibles, the 99% concentrates that are really messing with people's minds, the vapes that are out there, the flavors. I mean, to say that all of that has accepted medical use according to the FDA because basically a lot of people use them, it has implications way beyond marijuana. We're essentially saying to the pharma industry, forget about doing your research. If you run a valid initiative in enough states and make your wonder drug popular,

you all of a sudden have accepted medical use and you don't have to be Schedule 1. It really doesn't make sense. The other criteria of Schedule 1 is abuse potential. We can argue about abuse potential. That is more subjective, although people should know that the research is getting clearer and clearer every day. One in three people who used marijuana in the last year will be addicted. There's a lot of rub it, but we can have an argument. Jonathan and I can go back and forth on abuse potential as a word, but the medicinal part of this, which is one of the two criteria, it just doesn't meet anything other than schedule one. So this was done, I should say, I hate to say this, but it was done both for a political purpose. This was done to try and get young voters. And it was clear in the discussion of the press secretary about how

this was a campaign promise. This was discussed. This is not supposed to be a campaign issue. This is not supposed to be a political issue. This is supposed to be an issue that scientists in the government, who, by the way, rejected rescheduling in the Obama administration in 2016, when it would have been very easy to do it on his way out the door. This is something that's left for scientists. It's not meant to be politicized. So yeah, the DEA, not happy, not a fan. They went completely out of precedent. They've been absent from this sort of celebratory, you know, HHS sort of kind of tone of we're rescheduling this. That's because this is a political issue to get young voters. Will it work? That's another issue. I actually don't think it will. I don't think people are really paying attention to this issue.

I think when you rate issues among young people, marijuana is not even in the top 10, didn't even appear in the Harvard IOP poll, which I know you all have talked about. So I just, I think this was wrong on so many reasons. It doesn't mean I want to put people in prison. It doesn't mean I want to think it's like heroin. But just on technical purposes, yeah. So I was going to ask John, I think it's really important that we do get to the debate that you mentioned on abuse potential. It's a huge component of this, and it's a broad to just use marijuana, which would then would sweep in vapes and all of these other marijuana products that are sort of across the board at this point. Do you agree with that? Do you think that it's overly broad? Or are you more with Ryan that

this didn't even go far enough? Well, first, as Kevin said, there's not a lot of research on this, in part because FDA and the U.S. government blocked that research. Part of the reason why, for example, MDMA and psilocybin will likely be FDA approved far before cannabis is because they were allowed to actually do the research. And when the government's the one blocking the research, a lot of the, there has been an extensive amount of research done at state universities and within states that do show a lot of safety, that do show efficacy for certain things. I don't agree that cannabis is some cure-all that cures everything from cancer to the common cold. But, and I also agree, if we're talking medicine, smoking is off the table. You don't smoke medicine, plain and simple. As far as edibles and vapes and things like that, I actually think there should be a lot of different delivery methods.

One of the biggest problems that decrim and legalization has brought is a complete lack of quality control. And if somebody is using this as medicine, it needs, you know, each gummy, for example, needs to have the same dosage, which is on the label and on the bottle, especially if we're talking medicine. And if we're talking scheduling, Schedule 3 is still a medicine. And, you know, there have been FDA trials that showed safety. It did not show efficacy in part because it was not a provided cannabis.

I do think we should look at efficacy using different things. There's lots of people who have a problem with vaping because they have lung issues, in which case a gummy might be easier. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye.

Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and reexamining the culture of fatphobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance.

Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what

are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a it's societal, and at times,

it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family.

I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Kevin, can you respond to that one point there that there isn't a lot of research. So, you know, you have argued for policies over your career that have prevented that research from happening. So it seems unfair to then say, well, we don't have enough research at this point, so we can't move. It feels like it's just

prohibition kind of covered in a more sympathetic gloss, given that the population is now so much more supportive of marijuana reform? I think there's a few big myths in this overall discussion on marijuana in the country. One of them is that there are people in prison for low-level marijuana use and that our prisons are full of them. That's probably the biggest one. The other one is that we'll get rid of the cartels and the underground market if we legalize that.

Clearly, that been probably another but the other myth i would say is that we don't that that research that we don't have the research on marijuana that is a huge myth we have over 20 000 to 30 000 peer-reviewed studies over the last 20 or 30 years way more than psilocybin and mdma by the way the reason psilocybin and mdma may get f soon. And by the way, I don't oppose that because they've gone through the normal method of medication development with, by the way, far fewer research. But they've done it in a very controlled way. You could argue there's still some issues there and that's for another debate maybe. But they've at least followed that plan. Although some states have voted on it, we shouldn't be voting on any medicine. I don't care what it is. And I don't really buy the argument that we have to do that because the government

won't do research. There always could be more research. And actually, Ryan, we've said eight or 10 years ago, we had a plan in Congress, some of it's already been passed, believe it or not, to increase research. I want more research. I have a PhD in this. We don't have enough research when it comes to concentrates, the 99% concentrates that are causing five-fold increases in psychosis. We don't have enough research on that. We'd love more research. We have research on 15% THC. We need 90% THC. There's a lot more we should do research on. But this idea that it hasn't been researched because it's illegal i mean it's just it's wrong i mean we've we heroin is illegal we have a lot of research on it um lsd you know is schedule one we have research on it we researched it can we research it better are there easier less um less burden the research that's being blocked yes absolutely here's the thing the research

that's being blocked that you've supported blocking um the research that is being blocked it is the gold standard placebo controlled clinical research trials i don't want to get approval oh let me tell you i'm telling you right now i will not block that the hard thing about placebo of course the government did usually know you're high well right again you look at the National Academy of Sciences. Again, people should just you don't take anybody's word for it. You decide what research is for yourself. Maybe we have different definitions.

But look at National Academy of Sciences 2017. They're redoing it right now. It'll be out probably in the next year or two. But that has like 20,000 peer-reviewed studies. Some of them do have the placebos harder, Jonathan. How many of those studies were placebo-controlled human clinical trials? There are some that are in there, and they didn't do well. I mean- You keep saying 21,000. There's only been one placebo-controlled clinical trial

ever approved by the FDA. And was that done with the dirtweed they grow down in Mississippi that the government grows? Correct. And actually, here with the dirt weed they grow down in Mississippi that the government grows? Correct. And actually, here's the thing. John, explain that for people who are surprised the government grows weeds. Well, so this actually did change a few years ago. The government finally ended the night of Monopoly and started issuing licenses to grow actual cannabis. We argued for that change, by the way.

We wanted that change. So did I. We're with you on that. Yeah, good. That's what I mean. Like, we're together on that. Go ahead. And actually, contrary to what's been reported pretty much everywhere, I was actually contracted funded 21,000 trials with an end-state goal of proving that weed was bad. When you're looking, the gold standard,

placebo-controlled human clinical trials for a specific condition is what's needed. And there's only been one in the whole United States because they have done it in places like Israel and other places that have shown efficacy. But those aren't accepted in the U.S. And the NIDA monopoly specifically prevented anybody from using any sort of decent cannabis. It is actually so horrible that there were people on the placebo who thought they were getting the actual thing. So the idea that, well, you know you're high actually is disproven

by the only phase two placebo controlled trial. And when you block those things, but you have lots of anecdotal evidence, like, no, I don't think veterans should be smoking weed, but I do think, and you and I both know that veterans were used to approve medical in the states and approve legalization, and they still don't have access to it at the VA because currently the FDA is blocking threeVA facilities from doing cannabis research. So, John, before we move on, can we just get you to zero in on the Schedule 3 decision? Do you support that or not? Oh, no, I absolutely do. You don't worry about bringing all the other products in?

No, not at all, because Schedule 3 specifically doesn't legalize anything sold in the States. It only permits FDA-approved drugs. What it does do is remove a whole long list of barriers to be able to conduct the research that are in place for Schedule 1. So in order to research Schedule 1, you have to get a special license from Schedule 1, which is very difficult and very expensive to get. You can get a Schedule 2 license, which is a little less, and then getting a license to do research with a Schedule 3 compound, you file with the DEA, it's fairly easy, it's not as expensive. So this should allow all these different things. You want your gummy to be FDA approved? You want your 90% wax or whatever approved? Amazing. Put it through FDA trials, have it FDA approved. And the move to Schedule 3 makes that a lot easier because, as Kevin said, there is a ton of research. We know all the hazards. We know some of the benefits. So we don't need to do a phase one trial to see if people will

die if they smoke marijuana. Let me just comment on that real quick. I would love nothing more than one of the things from schedule three to happen. By the way, it's not a foregone conclusion. It will be schedule three. There's going to be lawsuits happening, but whatever. Yeah. Let's just say it is. I would like nothing more than Jonathan to be right on the research side. And I have research for friends that are totally anti-cannabis from a legalization perspective who want to do more research and are like, maybe this will help. I'm very skeptical actually. And I will, time will tell that this is going to be something that ushers in some new era of marijuana research, mainly because the major barrier for marijuana research is money. It's funding. And interestingly, pharma has been only somewhat interested. They don't really see

marijuana as a profitable kind of medication. Some have, but they've, boy, I mean, GW Pharma, Jazz Pharma, I know Jonathan knows a lot about them. I mean, they, I mean, God knows how much money they've spent for almost for nothing. They have a preparation approved in 50 countries. They cannot get it approved here called Sativex. It's half CBD, half THC for certain pain. It's gone nowhere here. It's a very difficult road, but it's going to be funding more than these barriers. What we do know definitely will happen, which I should have mentioned at first with Schedule 3, is that marijuana companies get tax breaks that they didn't get before. And that is something that really repulses me.

The fact that you have these big marijuana companies who can now write off advertising expenses as if they need more good advertising. They can write off other ordinary business expenses in their tax returns. Many people might not know. Not if they're still taxed. They're not allowed to write anything off. No, no, no.

This isn't a part of – hold on, hold on. Let me finish. This isn't a dispute. I mean, I disagree with people who disagree with me on this on every other issue, but they acknowledge this, which is the 280e tax exception means that if you're a company dealing with a Schedule 1 or 2 drug, you cannot write off ordinary business expenses on your taxes. Because you are now Schedule 3, this isn't really something to debate about. If it's Schedule 3, they can write off expenses. And for me, that worries me because I don't want pod companies to be more,

the big ones, to be more profitable than they already are. That really worries me. You are correct. However, and they can, if they are manufacturing it according to federal law, and you can't just make ketamine, you can't make ketamine in your basement and then sell it on the street and deduct it. No, no, of course. So if they're not selling FDA drugs, so you're right. Oh, they're going to do it anyway. GW Pharma. No.

Well, then it's up to the IRS to enforce the law. They won't. Yeah, I wish they would. It's up to DEA to enforce the law, too. Marijuana has been illegal and still illegal, and they're not enforcing any law when it comes to it. So I would love for them to enforce the law. I don't think it's going to happen this is going to usher in even bigger companies you're right the guy that grows a little weed and gives it to his neighbors he's not going to deduct x expenses i'm talking about the you know huge guys that are that are

competing in these states um i mean kevin shouldn't shouldn't a business be able to write off expenses i mean these are these are like these now businesses. They've got storefronts. They've got employees. They're totally illegal. Legalize them first. Go through Congress and legalize them. But they can't. And you just destroyed your own point.

Illegal companies cannot write off on their expenses on their taxes. Yeah, they're businesses that do a legal business in, say, for example, California to pick a state. That doesn't mean that their business is federally legal. Traditional pharmaceutical companies, I mean, yeah, you're right. They're not interested in your law because you make too much off opiates. Jonathan, I commend your integrity here to make that distinction, which very few people do. I'm serious. I'm not facetious, but I can tell you these companies who are totally, as you're saying, and I'm saying,

are illegal companies because they're felons. I mean, they're felons. They're literally felons because they're selling a controlled substance. It doesn't matter what the schedule. They're selling an illegal drug, but they have already said that they are cheering this so they can deduct expenses and become more profitable. That's why the stock exchange, which is there's a little stock symbol, has skyrocketed since this discussion of rescheduling. And people on these penny stocks are making actually a decent amount of money right now because there's this thought that this will be able to happen. I hope to God you're right about both research and I hope to God you're right about they're not going to be deducting expenses.

That's absolutely the scenario. I absolutely believe that companies will try to deduct things that they're legally not permitted to. I mean, every company in the United States does that. That doesn't mean that the IRS can't go in and shut it down. And honestly, it's far easier in this case than in a case of regular corporations selling widgets that's writing off, you know, an apartment they can't or something like that. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results.

Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fat phobia that

enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your Not the Father Week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, My father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son,

even though it was promised to us. Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the

millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret? Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships.

I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I think the crux of this dispute is a dispute over optimism or about whether this optimism is well-placed or maybe should be taken down a couple of notches about the potential of marijuana. And on that, John, I wanted to ask you if you share Kevin's concern about big marijuana becoming the new big tobacco, because when we're talking about writing off expenses, which helps them sort of grow now illegal businesses into behemoths, I think I won't put words in Kevin's mouth because I'll give him a chance to talk about this too, but you can create predatory industries, obviously, when you're dealing with something like this. So do you share the concern that this rapid sort of growth is going to create predatory behemoths in the way that we saw happen

with big tobacco? Oh, I absolutely think it can. I also think that there are ways to very much mitigate that. Quality control is one of the biggest ones. But also, again, Schedule 3 isn't necessarily about legalization. Schedule 3 is about medical benefit. And one of my primary concerns is ensuring that the veterans who have been fighting for this and need this for pain, PTSD, and other issues where there's extensive evidence, have access to it through the VA, which everyone seems to be ignoring. And can you tell us more about your experience working with veterans and how marijuana has been something that, in your experience, you've watched them

respond to it positively? Oh, absolutely. I can't tell you how many veterans that were actively suicidal who I have sat with who smoked a joint and calmed down and we were able to get them the help that they needed. I actually also think it's probably not good for long-term, but also it's way better than benzos and opiates, which is currently what the VA is prescribing. And actually both of those are far more addictive than cannabis. And the withdrawal from benzos can actually, if not done in a medical environment, can actually kill you.

That is not the case with cannabis. And again, I don't think anybody should smoke it as a medicine. For me, that is completely off the table. Veterans have enough lung damage from burn pits. They don't need to be smoking weed. But also, if this was treated as actual medicine and it wasn't about the culture and it wasn't about legalization and it wasn't about all of this, it would have already been approved if the government hadn't blocked it. And now we're in a position where we're at, where we're at, and we need to deal with it. Decrim, if you think the guy who's growing in his basement and giving it to his neighbors isn't going to sell it, you're wrong.

He is. And so do you think that person should go to jail? No. You know, this is where I would rather, because here's the thing. I'll be completely honest. I kill rosemary plants. I've tried to grow herbs and everything, and I have a complete black thumb. I could not grow marijuana if my life depended on it.

So I'm going to find it from someone else. So, you know, if it's medicine, which I do believe it is, it should be treated as such. We can have a further conversation with legalization. But one of the things the tobacco industry had that big cannabis doesn't is 21,000 peer-reviewed studies that Kevin had brought up earlier showing what some of those dangers are. One of the biggest mistakes, I think, in cannabis, and this is something me and Kevin will be 1,000% in agreement on, I don't think anybody should get behind the wheel of a vehicle under the influence of any substance. Marijuana, alcohol, benzos, opiates,

and insistence on we can do what we want, we can smoke cannabis where we want we can do anything is part of the problem the concept that medical was was originally pitched and implemented as here's a card you can now smoke as much as you want wherever you want whenever you want that's not medicine and me and kevin will likely very much agree on that. But that doesn't mean it can't be. Just because fentanyl is highly dangerous, but it can be safely used in a medical environment. Go ahead, Kevin. I see you wanted to respond to something.

Yeah, no, I mean, there's a couple of things there. One thing, actually, I'm struck, again, I really, in a good way, John, that you're acknowledging that probably marijuana on the long term is not the best thing for a veteran or somebody with PTSD to smoke marijuana in the long term. In fact, the studies that we have, and as you know, the review out of Yale and many others show that when it comes to PTSD symptoms, I mean, marijuana, because of its ability to

its connection with psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, it exacerbates these symptoms in the medium to long term. It doesn't mean that in the short term, someone might not feel better at that time while they're high at that moment that you're sitting down with them smoking a joint. But in terms of a long-term kind of solution for these big, big issues that we're dealing with, with our veterans, it sounded like you somewhat acknowledged actually what I was going to say there, which is I would really exercise a lot of caution. I think we can do much better than benzos. And I agree with you on that, too.

And these other very harmful drugs. It speaks to really, frankly, the lack of care we've given to veterans for their issues, the lack of mental health awareness. These are much bigger than drug policy. The lack of, you know, sort of opportunities. There's so many very, very big issues there. And I really do, I actually commend you for not, because, you know, most of the time when I'm doing these debates, these discussions,

the marijuana enthusiasts, I mean, they are bringing every kind of sympathetic person as their spokesperson to say, this is why this is the wonder drug of the world. And we need this, whether it's someone with cancer, fourth stage, whether it's a veteran, whether whatever, and not acknowledging any of these downsides when the science, at least the science we have right now is actually pretty clear, especially with mental health, probably the worst area that marijuana is touching. So I actually, we have some agreement there that I think is important.

And I debate those people too as well. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. And Kevin, before you go to the next one, so let's say all of us do acknowledge that there are some downsides there and that we as a society need to figure out the best public health approach in that direction. What I would argue is that the anti-legalization kind of movement of which you're one of the chief spokespeople is kind of being dragged, kicking and screaming into this new kind of paradigm, this new approach that we have toward marijuana policy and hopefully eventually drug policy more generally. But the kicking and screaming that you're doing along the way is preventing us from creating a rational policy, but it's not preventing marijuana from getting everywhere. The charts now show that there are

more people actively using marijuana, whether through gummies or something else, then there are using alcohol. Like it has now surpassed alcohol. Heavy. Right. Yet we're not able to then have a rational policy where Congress gets involved and where the states can then legislate policy because you've got all you've got all of these kind of choke points and you guys kind of have your hands around those choke points so wouldn't letting those go and then just like saying okay we surrender we give up like this is where it's heading now let's figure out how to handle this from a public health perspective wouldn't that be a better way to handle it and you're channeling the late great you, you know, our friend and mentor Mark Kleinman in that, which is basically, which we had a lot of discussions on, where he basically said, listen, I don't like that this is happening. It's becoming big marijuana, but, you know, it is.

And so we got to get at the table and prevent this from being a lot worse. I think you can walk and chew gum at the same time. I think on the one hand, we've been successful in preventing federal legalization, which I think has stopped the growth. This business is not a very profitable business right now, unless you're one of the bigger guys. But it really is actually becoming, it's a total failure as a business generally. I mean, look at New York State. There's so many problems. The underground market, which we haven't talked about, is thriving. I mean, the drug selling is thriving, illegal marijuana sales. So on the one hand, I think we've been successful in that. I think that anything to delay that, actually, I do think saves lives.

I do think that's a good thing. On the other hand, your point is well taken that, you know, if we're just like not effective and we're kicking and screaming and being dragged to the other side that we don't like, then we're just so weak when we dragged to the other side that we don't like, then we're just so weak when we get to the other side. We're not able to even get up and sit at the table. We're just basically limp and dead. And so we're not going to influence some of these regulations. I will tell you, this isn't something we publicize a lot, but we have worked very hard and stayed sort of legalized marijuana, knowing they're not going to repeal it tomorrow, that to try and get these regulators to say, all right, let's sit at the table. Let's have a regulation on the gummies. Let's have a

regulation on kid-friendly products. Let's look at advertising. I mean, you know, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has said commercial speech is free speech. So very difficult to prevent advertising, but maybe there's some things we can do. Let's look at THC limits. Do we really need 70% shatter? Is that really something that we need or can we limit it? All of these things. And it has been almost come to basically nothing because of how powerful this industry already is. And I don't think if we got there on day one, which many people were on day one in Colorado, a lot of our colleagues were sitting at the table with Iga Lutberg, who was against legalization at the time, trying to craft something new.

They were, they're completely outspent and outgunned by this industry. So I think it's going to take a national reckoning like we had with tobacco. It took us 80 years to get there. Unfortunately, a lot of dead, a lot of people and destroyed families. But I do think that we have, things are going to get worse before they get better. And just because it might be practical, because you might be able to get a regulation in if you sort of give up on all these other things, I think it's better to stick with principle and the truth and the science and try and help as many people as you can now.

And the country, I think, is going to come around on this. I'm not saying they're going to say we should lock people up i don't think we should but i think they're going to come around on this like super over enthusiasm that more people smoking weed and being high all day is good for our society i don't think that's going to last forever so that's i think it's very different but also let's get to that that's a bit disingenuous because this concept that if you use cannabis, you're a stoner who's high all day. I'm not saying everybody is. Yeah, I'm not saying everybody is. Yeah, and there's also people who are drunk all day.

I actually use tobacco. I'm a smoker. And, you know, one, you can still legally buy cigarettes. One, I completely agree. There should be age restrictions and things like this. And targeting children is bad, whether it's alcohol, tobacco, cannabis. Nobody's saying ban tobacco and you can smoke cigarettes if you can grow it in your backyard. Kevin, would you ban tobacco?

Well, look, I'll take that deal any day, John. But that deal means that society has to treat marijuana and think about marijuana like they do tobacco, which would be a 180 degree turn. So if we can press a button and you want to buy a marijuana cigarette pack, but everyone knows marijuana is harmful, deadly, not good for you. Kids don't like it. It's people knows it smells bad. You can't do it in most places. I'll take that. The reality is that's not where we are, but I wouldn't ban tobacco. Well, tobacco actually is something that I do. Tobacco, let me answer the question. Tobacco banning. I actually look at New Zealand and other countries that sort of do this phase out of tobacco over time. I think something like that actually does

make sense. In terms of alcohol, I wouldn't ban alcohol. And you're saying, well, wait a minute, that is like, you are totally contradictory. No, I'm not. The reason you can't ban alcohol, I would turn off alcohol if you had a switch. Absolutely. Because it's the most damaging drug. It's the number one reason people are incarcerated. It's the number one reason for domestic violence. I mean, if you could flip a switch and reverse 4,000 years of history, I would do that. And I'm a killjoy, I guess, but I would do that. But I'm not in favor of alcohol prohibition right now. Why? Because way too many people are using it on a regular basis. And it is totally ingrained in our culture in terms of widespread accepted use for the last 4,000 years. Yes, marijuana has been used for thousands of years, but not by the vast majority of Western civilization. It is nowhere near the cultural importance of alcohol. You cannot argue about that at all. There are also some physiological differences with alcohol and THC, alcohol in and out of your system in 24 hours. It's that kind of thing. I don't want to debate that right now, but there's a cultural reason

you can't ban alcohol. It's not because alcohol is good for you. It's because alcohol is sadly totally here and it's been here for 4,000 years in every household almost in America. And let's get to this. And cannabis hasn't worked because everybody keeps smoking it. It's part of our culture whether we like it or not. It's part of a culture, John, but there's a reason it's

counterculture. There's a reason, you know, I went to Berkeley. I'm not sure it's counterculture anymore. I don't know if it is counterculture anymore. It's definitely more mainstream for sure. I'm going to tell you. Yeah. Mainstream, lots of Republicans, tons of people smoke weed. Obviously, it's more mainstream.

The counterculture is the one that makes their whole life about weed. And that's kind of the difference because that's the people that everybody sees next. The difference between your Ryan Grimm. I don't care if you're an adult smoking and joining the privacy of your own home and it's not your complete identity and you don't think everyone should be high all the time or whatever. That's not my beef. My beef is the fact that we are unwittingly or unwittingly creating these massive companies, Big Tobacco's and Best of Billions. We have no history of regulating these items well. The only reason we do tobacco well now is because we were dragged kicking and screaming for almost a century to acknowledge the harms.

We, by the way, knew about tobacco's harms in the 20s in Germany and Europe. They knew about it. So the issue is, it's like, do we, I guess we're going to have to learn the hard way. I think we're going to have to learn the hard way like we did tobacco. It may not be legal again, but there's going to be a cultural renaissance at some point. So what I'm hearing from both of you— And I will say— No, John, go ahead. Quick response.

And, you know, I do commend you for calling attention to the harms, like, you know, driving while intoxicated, you know, under the influence of cannabis, lung damage, et cetera. That is good. I agree with you. Now, cigarettes, everybody knows they're bad for you. Lots of people still smoke. Sure. How did everybody go from, oh, my God, cigarettes are amazing, to, wow, these are really bad?

It's using facts and PR campaigns and people like you talking about it. So if you want to change the culture and have it, people have access but also understand the harms. I mean, keep doing what you're doing. You should be. I don't have a problem if this stuff's sold

with warnings like tobacco and other things. Yeah, we need warning labels. The industry has fought warning labels in every state we've introduced it. And that's what gets the practical reality is this is a very strong industry who relies on profit and heavy use. That's how they make their money. They don't want to acknowledge the war. You do, and I love you for it, but they don't. And they're sadly holding the key to this, no offense. So let me jump in. Let me jump in because what you're really disagreeing on here from what I'm hearing is, you know, on Kevin's side, he wants to slow down and delay is a word that we've been used because fundamentally he doesn't think the, he thinks the existing research

is proving that marijuana is very negative, can have very negative consequences for users. John, you believe that there isn't enough research, therefore some of these accelerating steps, Schedule 3, for example, are necessary in order to get more information about whether or not Kevin's premise is accurate. So on that note, Kevin, I'm going to ask you to maybe walk us through some of the evidence that is important from your perspective, suggesting marijuana is much more dangerous than perhaps people like John and Ryan want to believe. Sure. I mean, the number one thing I'd say is there's not one drug that we know of that increases your risk of psychosis by a fold. And psychosis is a very scary thing. And I think it's

changing the nature of marijuana because marijuana used to be the, again, your kind of college roommate, joking, stoner, falling asleep at night, sort of mediocre student. And it's changing this into a drug that actually is very linked now. The studies are showing with aggressive behavior and even violence, which is not something I even talked about 10 years ago, but the research, again, don't believe American research. A lot of this research is coming out from the UK, Australia, other parts of Europe as well, showing this. And that is for me, number one, the mental health and specifically psychosis and schizophrenia is something very hard to come back from. I think is extremely damaging.

Then you look at things like cardiovascular and you see that marijuana has more second hand smoke harms in terms of hydrocarbons and carcinogens and even tobacco. I worry about that. I worry about the driving, of course. 50% of kids today think it's okay to drive while stoned. 100% of kids don't think it's okay to drink while, you know, drive while drinking drunk, but 50% it's okay by stoned. So huge issue that I think we need to draw attention to. But I just think that these are harms that are acknowledged in the halls of academic, you know, health associations all over the world, but they're,

you know, they're completely negated by the power of popular culture, by the power of... Listen, I understand there are plenty of people who use marijuana and they're fine, but I would liken them to the people that drive over the speed limit and they're fine. I mean, there's a lot of people that drive over the speed limit that have never had a car crash. Does that mean that driving over the speed limit doesn't increase the risk of a car crash? No, it does increase the risk, but a lot of people do it anyway and they're fine. A lot of people smoke and they're fine. My next door neighbor smoked for 75 years, cigarettes, tobacco, and he died of old age at 98 years old. That doesn't

negate the fact that there are 400,000 people a year dead from tobacco-related illness today. So you can believe both things, but I think we've just taken anecdote. A lot of what the baby boomers experienced was marijuana that was 3%, THC, nothing bad happened to them. So they're transferring their own sort of experiences and they're generalizing that. I think that's a huge hurdle to overcome because I don't think it's like the case anymore. John, what do you think? So yeah, two, two out of the three, one, um, I, you know, no kids shouldn't think that driving along stone stone is,

is good. And this is where harm reduction instead of just prohibition in education, um, is good. And this is where harm reduction instead of just prohibition in education is helpful. They should be told the harms of driving while under the influence of anything. And as far as smoking, yeah, you're right. Smoking is horrible for your lungs. And if they wanted to ban smoked cannabis for that reason, I really don't have an issue with it. Now, hold on a second. Then what? You lock people up for it? No.

I agree that smoking is bad for your lungs, but so is prison pretty bad too. No, no. What I'm more saying is if we want to prohibit the big corporations from selling it because it is bad for the lungs, that's a discussion we can have. I think the psychosis, you're right. People with schizophrenia should not use drugs and various compounds without supervision. But we also prescribe Adderall, which has caused extensive psychosis and psychotic drugs. And this is where part of the issue we have is this concept of good drugs and bad drugs

brought us the opiate epidemic. And frankly, psychedelics helped save my life by going through a four-month protocol i think we need to look at contexts nobody bats an eye at fentanyl being used as anesthesia as part of a surgery that doesn't mean people should be doing it behind 7-eleven and in this idea that that anything and everything's okay when it comes to cannabis you're right that that's wrong we should be talking about not driving i actually think more people who are pro-cannabis should be be talking about driving while stoned and how horrible it is but also a lot of the studies they don't isolate cannabis you know on the violence how many other compounds were involved. Like I was reading an article the other day

where the whole thing was about this person did a psychedelic and went crazy. And if you actually look, they were on alcohol, they were on cannabis, they were on four different types of psychedelics and opiates at the time. So which one of those- Well, I'm talking about the peer-reviewed studies and the highest impact academic journals where you have to control these other factors. So

of course, the world is not black and white. So are there always other factors very hard to control for? Yes. But when you look at your threshold and standard of evidence, I'm just saying it's a lot more alarming than people think. But Ryan, you said something that I think is important to call out. We're not talking about prison. And I think that's also a false dichotomy that the legalization movement has used very well to say that we either have to legalize it or we have to throw people in prison. But what are you going to do? No, actually, I mean, again, you could discourage that you smoke cigarettes. You could discourage the use of marijuana cigarettes. You could say that there are reasons why this is, you at least should make an informed decision. We're also not going to let this industry, you know, sell as many as they want to whomever they want and label it

completely mislabeled, which is what they are in these legal States. I mean, the idea that this is actually regulated in places like Colorado is laughable. When you test the actual stuff you're buying from these dispensaries, it's not most of the time, it's not even what you think it is. So the point is, I think we all agree more education campaigns. I don't know. I'm saying we need to put people in prison. We don't want to go back to 1950. I'm not arguing that at all.

And if the federal government gets involved with legalization and regulation, they can enforce most address most of what you were discussing they can do if they would do that if they would do that it's an interesting topic because you could argue you know you could argue the industry has a good now they're sort of they're sort of in a gray area it's illegal but they're doing it anyway and there's no enforcement so that means there's no there's no rules if you say you know what no fda is going to be in charge and they're actually not going to be free of industry influence. And they're actually going to enforce public health as they do tobacco. Maybe that's a deal we'll take one day, but I don't think the FDA is there yet. I don't think every piece of legislation that's been introduced that I've read has basically have it fall under a standard of like nutritional supplements where what's on the bottle in the

bottle has to be on the label and things like that i would never want to repeat the nutritional supplement thing for marijuana that's not what i'm talking about i'm talking about like the the center for tobacco control or something in a way that you actually could enforce advertising standards warning labels um things like that but again i think this whole thing right now is political just like the this menthol ban issue and um I think it's about getting votes, but I don't think it's actually, I mean, I think if Biden's going to win, he's going to win, he's going to lose, he's going to lose. It's not going to be because of marijuana being rescheduled for one to three and people even knowing what that is and basing their vote on that. I just, that I don't see

happening at all. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually

like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fat phobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago.

Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret?

Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the okay. Storytime podcast on the I heart ready web, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm hope Woodard,

a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind VoiceOver, the movement that exploded in 2024. VoiceOver is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover,

to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear

it. Listen to Boy Sober on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I do think it's fair to acknowledge that advocates exaggerated the number of people who were in prison for low-level marijuana offenses. And I think there was some, it backfired in the sense that, you know, when they finally started doing criminal justice reform, they would use those stories of like, oh, we're going to pardon or we're going to release the people who were, you know, serving long sentences for a dime bag of weed. And then they opened up the prison doors and like three people were able to walk out because a lot of people were in for, for multiple things. On the other hand, once you're

in the criminal justice system now, you know, uh, failing a drug test, uh, or get, or getting caught at that point, then triggers you sometimes to go back for very long prison sentences for, let's say, you say, boosting a car or something. Or it keeps people out of the labor force. It keeps people out of the labor force. But the actual thing that you're in jail for is for failing that marijuana test. But it goes to the question of, you're saying there's no prison involved here, but you're talking about coercion by the state. So the state has to do something. So if you're saying x should be illegal but you're saying well we don't want to have prison what do you it just we're just fining everybody what do

we do well what do we do if you're if you're riding over the speed limit you go to a class about why that's bad you pay a fine you have a record um what do you do if you're you know i don't know there's some like jaywalking loitering there's certain things where basically the point is you want to figure i think you want to figure out, I think, you want to figure out a way to discourage the activity, which I know a lot of people don't want to do. They don't think we should do it. Why would we do that?

But I would say we want to discourage the activity without at all going overboard on the penalty of that. Because you're right. We obviously don't want to keep someone out of the labor force or out of housing or getting health care or an education or a student loan if they made a really dumb decision 10 years ago and decided to whatever, like smoke weed in front of a cop because they were mad at the police or something. And then, you know, now their life is destroyed because by the time their brain was developed and they realized that was a really dumb idea, now they can't get their life back on track. Those kinds

of things, absolutely, we need to fix and we need to do. So I think we have to just figure out how to strike that balance. Right now, though, we're just in an environment where it's like 95% good. It's just everywhere you look, this is a good thing. It's on point. It's in the moment. This is like who, like, unless you're totally like nuts, why would you think this is bad? Like, we're quite, and I just think that we have got that pendulum you're about a pendulum you talked about that earlier that's one way too

far i guess sort of repeating myself but then why not just get out of the way legalize it and then fight on the public health front we've never done that successfully and the only way we've done that is with cigarettes but that took a hundred years to actually do that it wasn't like all of a sudden when we had the data, everyone came to their senses and read it and agreed with it. It took so many unnecessary lives to get to the point we're at with tobacco, where there's still some freedom. John can still buy tobacco if he wants. But overall, there's a societal kind of disapproval that took way too long.

And so why do we need to repeat that again when we can just say, all right, if you really want to smoke weed, do it. But don't make it like it's not... We're not going to turn around society to encourage it. But yes, it's going to be here. Of course, it's always been here. I'm not saying that when it was prohibited, no one used it. It wasn't like legalization introduced marijuana to the country.

It did introduce marijuana products we've never seen before, like shatter and things. No drug dealer had ever sold 99% shatter. So it did introduce some things, but it didn't introduce this idea. And so it's kind of like, it's actually what we're getting to Mark Kleinman. He's talking about grudging toleration.

Like you can sort of like not love it, but all right, you really want to do it because you just think it's a good thing for you right now. You at least should understand the dangers. But, you know, all right, as long as you're not driving or whatever, go for it. But it's very different than like the billboards on the five freeway in L.A. or a governor of New York saying, please come to our marijuana shops so we can make tax revenue. By the way, the tax revenue has been pennies in every state. But it's like, we're encouraging this either by the state or by private industry. And I just don't think that ever ends well from a public health perspective.

I want to- Well, let me ask you this. Yeah, go ahead. Let me ask you this, because you mentioned it should be treated like speeding, where you go to a class and you pay a fine and your insurance goes up. So what happens to the people who can't afford those things? Do they go to jail? Well, those are larger issues. Thankfully, marijuana is not the only area where we would find people. And those are issues that absolutely we need to look at.

I mean, no, I don't think they would go to jail. What would they do? I don't know. We'd have to think about it. I don't have those answers right now, but I don't think that's necessarily an answer. I don't think that's exclusive to marijuana. There's an issue of fines and things for a lot of other things that we do. So we have to look at best practices and try to- And if you don't pay the fines, you go to jail. So what you're saying is if you have the money to be able to do it, you can, And if you don't, you go to jail. No, I'm not saying that. So I'm not saying you go to jail. So maybe that happens in some other instances.

That's not my proposal. I think there are maybe other things you could do to discourage. That happens in the example that you actually use. But with speeding, if you're parking tickets, it sometimes does. But I'm saying that's it's I'm not saying that that should be the exact blueprint. I'm saying as a general principle, we discourage speeding with speed limits. We don't usually put people in prison for that offense. You're saying if they don't do the first two things you want them to do, then they end up going to prison.

Maybe we can think of something better. I think it would be preferable than, again, what're having now which is open you know promotion and advertising of an activity that is inherently well and on advertising tobacco tobacco is very limited on advertising and and so is hard liquor and and i don't have a problem with with cannabis being placed in that same realm where you can't advertise in, you know, teen vogue, uh, your, your gummies. Um, you know, I, I completely agree with that, but that doesn't, I would say, Hey, they can advertise, you know, advertising is, is, well, yeah, the industry does. I have lots of problems with lots of industries. It doesn't mean I think their products should be banned.

What we, what we all want here is a path to safer use or safe use, period. Safe use, period. Whether that means very, very, very limited use or whether that means more widespread normalized use is a question. But I'm going to read from Mother Jones right here, John, just a little bit. They were writing an article in Alex Berenson's book on weed at the time, and they wrote, in 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report nearly 500 pages long on the health effects of cannabis and concluded that marijuana use is strongly associated with the development of psychosis and schizophrenia. The researchers also noted that there's decent evidence linking pot consumption to worsening symptoms of bipolar

disorder and to a heightened risk of suicide, depression, and social anxiety disorders. Quote, the higher they use, the greater the risk. And psychosis, as Kevin mentioned, has emerged as, or the potential for psychosis has emerged as really that fertile ground for where people are starting. Some people are actually changing their minds on weed legalization as they look at this research. Nobody could ever accuse you, John, of not having enough concern for the mental health of people in the United States. You've seen so much of this up close. Why does this research, which some people see as an emergent area, an understudied area, an underappreciated area, why does that not convince you to pause instead of sort of,

you know, break down barriers towards normalization? Well, one, if we're talking about medical use, going back to the original thing, a Schedule III FDA-approved drug for medical use prescribed by a physician, they can ensure there aren't comorbidities like schizophrenia, like bipolar, which have a genetic link. And I have the utmost empathy for people with those conditions. They shouldn't use this. They shouldn't use alcohol either. Tobacco and nicotine really doesn't have an effect on schizophrenia or bipolar. Alcohol absolutely does. Compounds like Adderall and Ritalin absolutely do. You know, believe it or not, caffeine can have an impact. Now, people with bipolar and

schizophrenia or who have a family history of it shouldn't, just like people who have a history of alcoholism shouldn't drink. And I agree, there needs to be a lot more education. But the idea that a small percentage of people who have these disorders shouldn't do it means no one should and that it should be blocked from medical access and shouldn't be, for example, prescribed by the VA. Because one of the bigger issues with cannabis is it does work. You know, it works for chronic pain and it works for PTSD as long as you continue to use it. So should we just tell those people you don't have access to the most effective medicine? You know, Kevin, because to me, this is what everybody, you know, as a veteran, I see how every industry uses veterans to say, we have to do this.

Well, the VA issued exactly zero prescriptions for cannabis last year. And I would much rather see... How could an issue of prescription, it's not a prescribable drug, what would you want them to do? Genuine question. No one can prescribe cannabis, va or not correct i mean naranal or do you mean recommendations no what i mean is fda approved cannabis products that can be prescribed because there there are uses for this that are medical and and what this means for the people who genuinely need it is if their job prohibits it, they don't get the medicine they need. Imagine if anybody was told, hey, we know you broke your leg, but you can't take opiates because we don't like those, even if it's when you're not on the job.

I know we're going to go in another direction, but it's not that we don't like those, John. It's when you're not on the job. I know we're going to go in another direction, but it's not that we don't like those, John. It's that we don't have an FDA-approved medication. You would argue we don't because there's too many barriers. I'd argue we don't because it just failed what needs to happen to become a medication. That's why advocates have had to go the state route and vote on medicine. Because NIDA wouldn't provide the compound to do the research. That was the issue. Right.

And that's where, yeah, yeah. Going back to my point earlier, the opponents have stood in the way of reform at every different level, whether it's, you know, oh, well, you couldn't move on the federal level, so you moved down to the state level and you relied on voters because it is something that voters wanted is, to me, disingenuous because they were forced to go to the state level. work collaboratively with Congress and introduce rational legislation that took into account public health concerns, but that is blocked. And it's also blocked by a very politicized DEA. And I know we got to wrap soon, but I'll just tell one story. People might know, back in 2004 and 2005, I was a state-level lobbyist for this organization called Marijuana Policy Project. And one of the states where I was responsible for was Illinois. And we were pushing a medical marijuana legislation. It was my job to kind of push this bill through the legislature. We get a hearing either in the House or the Senate, State House, State Senate. I don't

remember. I think it was the Senate. And we've got our, you know, you have the cancer patients lined up, you got the experts lined up. There's some cop is going to show up and, you know, they're going to argue it out before these legislators. And then all of a sudden,

the guy who's on the ground for us is like, there's a convoy on its way here. They're shutting down the streets. And the drug czar himself was like, there's a convoy on its way here. They're shutting down the streets. And the drug czar himself was coming in from the Bush administration as a surprise guest, who then whipped up this lobbying campaign against us. So on the one hand, complaining that medicine is being politicized. On the other hand, we've constructed this entire federal bureaucracy, which then does active lobbying of the government, like the government lobbying itself, the government lobbying other governments, to me felt extremely undemocratic. So then to look at that and say, well, we don't like the approach, because then you have to go to this referenda. You put it on the ballot and you go directly to the voters and you tell the drugs are well, OK, you can go ahead and campaign against it.

But you're not going to be able to break arms in Springfield to stop this bill from moving through Illinois. Now it's going to go to the voters. So and then to say, well, it's not fair that we're making this a popular issue rather than letting scientists deal with it, that the scientists were not taking the lead in the past either. Well, a couple of things. Number one, that doesn't happen anymore. That was a relic of 2004. We haven't had a drug czar involved in this in a very long time. That's true. The drug czar of the Obama administration was like an in this fight of on the drug policy reform. Yes. Depends which depends which one. I mean, I worked for this one and he said that legalization is not in the president's vocabulary. I guess President Obama who talked about big industry. He went to Jamaica. When he went to that trip, someone asked him about, well, what about marijuana in Jamaica? And he talked about, be careful of big industry. He, in a sit-down interview, said,

you know, what's next? Marijuana first. What about other drugs? If you think it's better to regulate them, what about crack? What about heroin? I mean, those are very good points. We kind of forget those were made. But I will say, you know, the DEA, in terms of the current DEA and what they're doing, they're simply going. The FDA created an entirely new test to determine marijuana should be Schedule 3. This was a botched job from the beginning. They were trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. They had to do something on reform. They had clear direction from the White House to do this. And I think they had that direction, not because Biden is pro-marijuana, but probably because

advisors said, listen, we know you're never going to come out for legalization fully, Mr. President, but let's have this compromise where basically we can kind of, in some ways, people can be sort of tricked into thinking it's sort of a legalization type thing, even though it really isn't. And that way we're sort of covering both bases. I actually think in doing that, they're pissing everybody off and stuff, except for maybe this industry, but they pissed off the legalizers who said, wait a minute, this is not even anything close to legalization. And they pissed off people like me who are saying, wait a minute, you're giving tax breaks to the industry. You're sending a message, this is okay. And you're using shoddy research and a test you've

never used before, totally out of precedent precedent which will be likely challenged in court um to try and fit your narrative so i in doing so was not a sort of neat thing to do and they i think they thought they were being very clever but it's going to backfire it already is when you know when you annoy everybody to unite the country against him yeah what's that b Brian? I was just saying Biden has a unique ability to unite everybody against him. So anyway, it'll be interesting to see. I think we had a lot of agreements. The thing I would challenge on is this idea

that we haven't done the research, that there hasn't been global research. If this has been so great and it's the United States that's come into it, why don't we have a lot of marijuana-based medications approved in every other country in the world including europe where they do tons of research i mean we don't i mean they have approved sativex which i have no problem with but it's failed on fda trials it did not do well on pain for efficacy it just was not that efficacious in the u.s we have a very high standard it's passed in england and some other

countries i have no problem with that but i don't think this is some sort of unique conspiracy among American sort of FDA and DEA regulators to not have marijuana-based medication, at least currently, maybe in 1980, but not right now, to not have marijuana-based medications be researched. I think that research has failed. And so, yeah, they had to go to the ballot box because we're not having any luck through the normal scientific channels. So, John, a lot of the policy. John, this will be we'll give you the last word, final thoughts, closing statement, whatever you want to call it before we wrap here.

Well, you know, you're right. There hasn't been a lot of moves internationally, in part because the United States wields unprecedented authority through the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and has signed treaties that countries basically want U.S. funding and don't want to fight us on the weed issue. that if we had done the research, the human clinical trials, and actually allowed it instead of blocking it until a few years ago, we would have had FDA approved drugs and we wouldn't have had to go through the states.

Continuing to say that this shouldn't be used as a medicine in a regulated environment is sentencing people to suffering. Just go through the process and I'll have no issue. I'm not fighting the MDMA, likely MDMA approval that's happening in a few months because it went through

the FDA. So if you're saying you now have everything you need, let's do it and see. And MDMA has been allowed, and the U S federal government allowed maps as well as a compass for Psilocybin and others to procure the actual compounds needed for double-blind placebo-controlled trials. The first time that was ever allowed with cannabis for drug development was only a few years ago. In the United States. But let's go ahead and see what's going to happen. So if it's going to be allowed, it's been a few years ago, they have a running start. I think we can...

The FDA is currently blocking human clinical trials on cannabis. Currently, right now, there's multiple protocols that they keep kicking back. No, maybe because it's not passing the safety standards. But anyway, let's go through the standard. That's my point. And if it's blocking it because it's not passing those standards, then maybe it's something with an issue with marijuana, with the fact that people are not handling it well. I don't know. We have to see. Final thoughts, John? Honestly, the biggest issue is the fact that it's a plant.

And from plant to plant and bud to bud, you don't have homogeneity, which does cause a problem in going through FDA trials. Those can also be rectified or they can be used to block trials. Sure. We'll have to leave it there. All right. Well, yeah. Thanks guys. I think we settled this. Yeah, we're going to go. Piece of cake. Excellent. But it actually was really helpful. Thank you. So thank you both.

Emily, do you have a decision yet on where you stand or you're still weighing the pros and cons? I don't. I don't or you're still weighing the pros and cons? I don't. I don't. I'm still weighing the pros and cons. This psychosis stuff does actually have me rather concerned. I won't get into why, but anyway. You heard about that woman who stabbed her boyfriend or husband like 50 times in last year's meeting and got off. It's now out free because the judge let her defense use marijuana as the reason why she did it.

That's cost a lot of waves. Oh boy. Sometimes Ryan says things and then he uses marijuana as an excuse for why he did it. I don't even smoke much weed. He's a responsible dad now. He's grown out of it. It's true.

It's genuinely true. Well, thank you both so much. Thank you guys. John Lubecki, Kevin Sabat. Kevin Sabat is the author of Smokescreen with the Marijuana Industry Doesn't Want You to Know. John Lubecki, not yet an author, but I bet we'll get a book from you one day. Is that right? Soon.

Oh, yeah. Excellent. Looking forward to it. Well, thanks so much, yeah. Excellent. Looking forward to it. Well, thanks so much, guys. Camp Shane, one of America's longest running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. Campers who began the summer in heavy bodies were often unrecognizable when they left. In a society obsessed with being thin, it seemed like a miracle solution. But behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children was a dark underworld of sinister secrets. Kids were being pushed to

their physical and emotional limits as the family that owned Shane turned a blind eye. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. In this eight-episode series, we're unpacking and investigating stories of mistreatment and re-examining the culture of fat phobia that enabled a flawed system to continue for so long. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait.

Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. DNA test proves he is not the father. Now I'm taking the inheritance. Wait a minute, John. Who's not the father? Well, Sam, luckily it's your not the father week on the OK Storytime podcast. So we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us.

Now I find out he's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead. But I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going's trying to give it to his irresponsible son instead, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. So what are they going to do to get those millions back? That's so unfair. Well, the author writes that her husband found out the truth from a DNA test they were gifted two years ago. Scandalous. But the kids kept their mom's secret that whole time. Oh my God. And the real kicker, the author wants to reveal this terrible secret, even if that means destroying her husband's family in the process. So do they get the millions of dollars back or does she keep the family's terrible secret?

Well, to hear the explosive finale, listen to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever thought about going voiceover? I'm Hope Woodard, a comedian, creator, and seeker of male validation. To most people, I'm the girl behind voiceover, the movement that exploded in 2024. Voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's more than personal. It's political, it's societal, and at times, it's far from what I originally intended it to be. These days, I'm interested in expanding what it means to be voiceover, to make it customizable for anyone who feels the need

to explore their relationship to relationships. I'm talking to a lot of people who will help us think about how we love each other. It's a very, very normal experience to have times where a relationship is prioritizing other parts of that relationship that aren't being naked together. How we love our family. I've spent a lifetime trying to get my mother to love me, but the price is too high. And how we love ourselves. Singleness is not a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now.

Let me hear it. Listen to VoiceOver on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, now that they left, you can be honest. What did you think? I'm still completely undecided. And I, you know, it's not like, I think we've all seen people struggle with marijuana, some people more than others. And that's, you know, some people struggle with caffeine more than others, I don't think. Some people struggle with alcohol more than others.

So I don't think that definitively answers the question. I am really interested in some of the new research linking high concentration, high potency THC with psychosis. I just have, I feel like I've personally seen cases of people who I wonder if really heavy weed use when they were kids, before the age of 18, you're just, when you're a teenager and your brain is developing, there's still so much we don't know about the human brain. That does concern me very much because I feel like I've seen things that make me question it just personally. And there is some research in it, but I don't disagree that there needs to be more. Yeah. And we could have had a much more libertarian leaning kind of pro-pot person.

Someone like John actually is pretty- He's much more moderate, which I wanted because it would kind of push, it would push Kevin a little bit more because Kevin is a very good debater. I've known him almost 20 years now. And his rhetoric has changed over time as when I started working on this issue, it was a minority issue. Maybe people can't even believe that. But like that we would be where we are now when I started working on this is almost unthinkable. Although I did predict it in the books. I was going to say, not quite unthinkable.

Unthinkable to most people. You could see where it was headed if you looked close, if you peered closely enough. But he has adopted his rhetoric to kind of fit with the mood a little bit. But yet, but he still really wants it banned. You and John called him out on that too. For the most part. You're blocking the research. You've supported blocking the research. Right.

So, but I, yeah, I think if he really wants a better outcome with fewer tears, then getting the boot off the neck of the regulatory and legislative apparatus would allow then for a public health approach to blossom and give that a shot. Like we were talking about earlier in Portland, like they, you know, they tried to go forward with some type of decrim, but then didn't put in place anything to take its place. So it was just chaos. And now the voters are like, ah, forget that. That's increasingly where I'm landing on this. And they both kind of were openly concerned, as I'm sure you are too, about industry, predatory industry, which our country is so oligarchical now that cronyism, rampant, and it makes it actually hard to know, to sort of piece back from fiction, because there's so much lobbying in different spaces. So the FDA saying one thing might

actually not mean much. And I mean, it just actually, we live in a country right now where it's so hard to get to the bottom of some of these questions, because there's so much money influencing it. There's so much money influencing the way certain policies are then implemented. So even if you're experimenting in the great laboratories of democracy, you end up with results that's like, I don't know. I don't know what to take from this. Genuinely don't know what to take from this because implementing it was, there were hurdles along the way because of the system, you know, mucking it up with cronyism. Yeah. And a rational drug policy feels impossible. One reason it's impossible is that you've got these opponents who are like, like I said,

have to be dried kicking and screaming to it. Anyway, interesting conversation. It was a really interesting conversation. And, you know, I feel like marijuana doesn't get enough attention in the media proportionate to how much it affects the daily lives of people around the country. And maybe in some ways it's symptomatic failing drug tests because they smoked a little bit of weed. It's a serious problem for a lot of businesses and a lot of people who are having a hard time finding work in places where weed hasn't been legalized. So it's a really, really big issue and I don't think it gets enough attention. I don't think there are enough debates like that. Kevin's point that the kids don't really care because it's basically legal anyway is one

that he should also absorb. If that's the case, then relax and let it go and move forward on thinking about this in a more rational way. Yeah. And if that's the case, then you end up with what was happening during prohibition. And obviously, we could have had a whole debate about the shadow industry and if that's actually even beneficial to Kevin's goal of keeping it out of most people's hands. All right. Well, that does it for CounterPoints. If you watch this on regular YouTube with eight different ad breaks, that's because

you're not a pre-published subscriber. You should go to breakingpoints.com. Get it there. You'll then get every show every morning emailed to you. This one comes out Thursday evening or Friday morning for non-subscribers. That's right, breakingpoints.com. We'll see you back here next Wednesday and next Friday. Having a lot of fun with these shows. Hope everyone has a great weekend. Yeah, have a good weekend. See you later. Camp Shane, one of America's longest-running weight loss camps for kids, promised extraordinary results. But there were some dark truths behind Camp Shane's facade of happy, transformed children. Nothing about that camp was right. It was really actually like a horror movie. Enter Camp Shame, an eight-part series examining the rise and fall of Camp Shane and the culture

that fueled its decades-long success. You can listen to all episodes of Camp Shame one week early and totally ad-free on iHeart True Crime Plus. So don't wait. Head to Apple Podcasts and subscribe today. week on the OK Storytime podcast, so we'll find out soon. This author writes, my father-in-law is trying to steal the family fortune worth millions from my son, even though it was promised to us. He's trying to give it to his irresponsible son, but I have DNA proof that could get the money back. Hold up. They could lose their family and millions of dollars? Yep. Find out how it ends by listening to the OK Storytime podcast on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. about celibacy, but to me, voiceover is about understanding yourself outside of sex and relationships. It's flexible, it's customizable, and it's a personal process. Singleness is not

a waiting room. You are actually at the party right now. Let me hear it. Listen to voiceover on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.