Congressional Committee Admits Cannabis Stance Lacks Credibility

Congressional Committee Admits Cannabis Stance Lacks Credibility

Mr. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Gowdy questioned Richard Baum who is Trump’s appointed Acting Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the outcome was very telling. I think many people, many, many people, have waited a long time to hear this position from our elected officials. Interestingly, it seemingly was imposed by the will of the people working for change at the State level.

Directing his inquiry to Richard Baum, Gowdy questions the Schedule 1 categorization of Cannabis, questioning specifically if it is truly a substance that is inherently dangerous and has no medicinal value. Apparently arguing against the current Schedule 1 categorization of cannabis, Gowdy points out that meth, cocaine, and cocaine base are Schedule II, which is less strict categorization that potentially carries less severe sentences. Gowdy proceeds to suggest that Baum work with the Administration to “at least explore whether it is scheduled correctly,” pointing out that he is not advocating for legalization.

Mr. Connolly, who serves on the Oversight and Reform Committee, addressed Baum himself, stating “if the government, on this subject of marijuana and how dangerous it is, has no credibility because of the lack of serious empirical work, it threatens our whole drug policy’s credibility. And you’re seeing this happen with marijuana in the States….There are over 25 States that have liberalized their laws for medical reasons all the way to recreational reasons. I think you would have to confess, to the chairman’s [Gowdy’s] point, there was no empirical evidence to justify putting marijuana 50 years ago as a Schedule 1 drug. Who did that empirical evidence?”

Mr. Connolly, after voicing support for the need to gather empirical evidence, states “But here’s the problem…Only one Federal entity, NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) controls marijuana for legal purposes for experimentation, testing, and the like — research. And NIDA’s mission is all about proving the harm of something. They have a priori determined the outcome of research. Nobody thinks NIDA is an objective, neutral place to go to look at the good, the bad, and the indifferent about Marijuana. It doesn’t have that credibility….We need to have a different entity with credibility where we are looking at objective evidence and science.”

View Video: