4 ms·

Senator McConnell is not known for his support of medical or recreational marijuana legalization but I view this as a step in the right direction. Take that, Du

Senator McConnell is not known for his support of medical or recreational marijuana legalization but I view this as a step in the right direction. Take that, DuPont!

mc32 8y ago
I'm glad that mr "say not to anything drugs at all costs" Sessions was fired. We need more sensible drugs laws. Not saying make everything legal, but all things in moderation and commensurate, including punishment.
- smhenderson 8y ago
  I agree but I don't think it will be much better if William Barr takes over. He was a big part of the War on Drugs when he served under G.H.W. Bush. It's been a long time since then and people can change but I am not very optimistic for now.
- yboris 8y ago
  What's wrong with decriminalizing every drug? I highly recommend the book Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...
  - faoijef984jfj 8y ago
    I agree with you 100% Monopolization of the healthcare system and drug criminalization are two sides of the same coin. With headlines about opioid abuse epidemics, and looking back at how ridiculous the war on drugs is, and how ridiculous it is to have cannabis as a Class I substance, it's difficult to argue that the medical system is somehow functioning well when it comes to drug regulation. Take acyclovir, which is an important antiviral medication. Research has shown that it's safe for over the counter use, which review panels have acknowledged, but those panels have still recommended against OTR availability because they're afraid of "setting a precedent" with regard to OTR availability. Drug regulation really has not increased safety at all; it only increases the power of monopolies, legal or illegal.
    - smaddox 8y ago
      I can't agree that drug regulation hasn't increased safety. Safety incidents are still quite common with unregulated "supplements". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam and https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 . That being said, clearly the current system has flaws. Perhaps the FDA could alter their requirements for sale to approximate "does not cause harm", with additional classes for "provides more benefit than harm", etc. The problem is, how do you get drug companies to pay for effectiveness studies if they don't have to? This would actually disincentivize such studies.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        That already exists but for desperate subsets. Some chemotherapy drugs are themselves ironically carcinogenic - sometimes for the same area they are meant to treat. If they work better than the standard of care they get approved. Since if you already have cancer "might give you cancer in a decade" is an improvement over cancer now - especially since relapses are already a risk. I think the real issue with FDA regulations are monopolism related more than approval - not that they haven't made the occasional boneheaded move like being reluctant to approve superior sunscreens. Allowing reimportarion and government bulk purchase negotiations would cut margins and offer good safeguards against monopoly exploitation since if it is cheaper to ship something circularly you are getting ripped off.
barrow-rider 8y ago
Senator McConnell is not known for his support of anything that doesn't benefit him, his donors, or his party. If he's swinging this way it's because he's got an agenda and he's horse-trading, in the same way that Bismark was alright with reforms like public education since it quieted down the radicals and kids who knew Trig could make better artillery officers. Hell, McConnell's official memoir is titled "The Long Game." I'm reminded of a Vox analysis of McConnell behavior[1]: “The cardinal rule of McConnell is he will do anything to acquire more power, or to achieve an outcome he thinks achieves his political interest,” says Adam Jentleson, a former aide to ex-Democratic leader Harry Reid. “I don’t think he’s a conservative; I think he’s a transactionalist. I think he wants to keep the title of majority leader,” says Jason Pye of the conservative activist group Freedomworks. “His vested interest is taking power.” [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15970034/mitch-mcconnell-senate-health-bill https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15970034/m...
- kennxfl 8y ago
  At that age,he is still trying to get more money and power. Comical
- s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
  For a Republican that article is a praise. Your article is not about how he's corrupt, it's how he can whip votes and control the senate. He's majority whip, it's his jobs to get votes, most of the time you have to make deals.
- ataturk 8y ago
  Yeah, I mean totally unlike every other US Senator. I mean, compared to say Chuck Schumer? You really think McConnell is the biggest POS?

Senator McConnell is not known for his support of medical or recreational marijuana legalization but I view this as a step in the right direction. Take that, DuPont!

mc32 8y ago

I'm glad that mr "say not to anything drugs at all costs" Sessions was fired. We need more sensible drugs laws. Not saying make everything legal, but all things in moderation and commensurate, including punishment.

smhenderson 8y ago
I agree but I don't think it will be much better if William Barr takes over. He was a big part of the War on Drugs when he served under G.H.W. Bush. It's been a long time since then and people can change but I am not very optimistic for now.
yboris 8y ago
What's wrong with decriminalizing every drug? I highly recommend the book Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...
- faoijef984jfj 8y ago
  I agree with you 100% Monopolization of the healthcare system and drug criminalization are two sides of the same coin. With headlines about opioid abuse epidemics, and looking back at how ridiculous the war on drugs is, and how ridiculous it is to have cannabis as a Class I substance, it's difficult to argue that the medical system is somehow functioning well when it comes to drug regulation. Take acyclovir, which is an important antiviral medication. Research has shown that it's safe for over the counter use, which review panels have acknowledged, but those panels have still recommended against OTR availability because they're afraid of "setting a precedent" with regard to OTR availability. Drug regulation really has not increased safety at all; it only increases the power of monopolies, legal or illegal.
  - smaddox 8y ago
    I can't agree that drug regulation hasn't increased safety. Safety incidents are still quite common with unregulated "supplements". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zicam and https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 https://www.nature.com/articles/ajg2014131 . That being said, clearly the current system has flaws. Perhaps the FDA could alter their requirements for sale to approximate "does not cause harm", with additional classes for "provides more benefit than harm", etc. The problem is, how do you get drug companies to pay for effectiveness studies if they don't have to? This would actually disincentivize such studies.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      That already exists but for desperate subsets. Some chemotherapy drugs are themselves ironically carcinogenic - sometimes for the same area they are meant to treat. If they work better than the standard of care they get approved. Since if you already have cancer "might give you cancer in a decade" is an improvement over cancer now - especially since relapses are already a risk. I think the real issue with FDA regulations are monopolism related more than approval - not that they haven't made the occasional boneheaded move like being reluctant to approve superior sunscreens. Allowing reimportarion and government bulk purchase negotiations would cut margins and offer good safeguards against monopoly exploitation since if it is cheaper to ship something circularly you are getting ripped off.

barrow-rider 8y ago

Senator McConnell is not known for his support of anything that doesn't benefit him, his donors, or his party. If he's swinging this way it's because he's got an agenda and he's horse-trading, in the same way that Bismark was alright with reforms like public education since it quieted down the radicals and kids who knew Trig could make better artillery officers. Hell, McConnell's official memoir is titled "The Long Game." I'm reminded of a Vox analysis of McConnell behavior[1]: “The cardinal rule of McConnell is he will do anything to acquire more power, or to achieve an outcome he thinks achieves his political interest,” says Adam Jentleson, a former aide to ex-Democratic leader Harry Reid. “I don’t think he’s a conservative; I think he’s a transactionalist. I think he wants to keep the title of majority leader,” says Jason Pye of the conservative activist group Freedomworks. “His vested interest is taking power.” [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15970034/mitch-mcconnell-senate-health-bill https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15970034/m...

kennxfl 8y ago
At that age,he is still trying to get more money and power. Comical
s_y_n_t_a_x 8y ago
For a Republican that article is a praise. Your article is not about how he's corrupt, it's how he can whip votes and control the senate. He's majority whip, it's his jobs to get votes, most of the time you have to make deals.
ataturk 8y ago
Yeah, I mean totally unlike every other US Senator. I mean, compared to say Chuck Schumer? You really think McConnell is the biggest POS?