In Case You Haven't Heard…

Abstract

Last month — although it could have been any time over the past few decades because her view has been consistent — Maia Szalavitz wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times recommending a revamping of “our entire drug policy,” but focusing on marijuana and scheduling it as a legal drug instead of keeping it on Schedule I, where it is now. ADAW obtained and is printing the response from Smart Approaches to Marijuana that President and CEO Kevin Sabet, Ph.D. wrote as a letter to the editor, but the Times did not print. “Ms. Szalavitz is misguided in her understanding of drug scheduling and her downplaying of the harms of today's marijuana, which greatly increases the risk for psychosis, schizophrenia, IQ loss, and other consequences. Drug scheduling is not a harm index. Though heroin causes more overdose deaths than marijuana, their shared Schedule 1 status is not incongruent. Schedule 1 drugs are defined as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical benefit, a position the Obama administration upheld for marijuana in 2015. It does not mean heroin and marijuana are equally dangerous. Her column rightly expresses concern about the consolidation of the marijuana industry by the pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco industries –– they have already invested billions in marijuana. Yet, rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule VI drug, as she suggested, would result in a similar outcome at the state level. Today's marijuana is much more harmful, and legalizing allows mass commercialization. No matter how marijuana is scheduled, well‐funded interests will work to consolidate their market share and grow profits. Society should discourage use, not downplay dangers.”