Search This Blog

Saturday, October 15, 2022

More Foods Will Be Gene-Edited Than You Think

 by Camille Su via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Gene editing has long been primarily used for research, treatment, and disease prevention. Currently, this technology is increasingly being applied to modify agricultural products to create more “perfect” species. More and more genetically edited foods are appearing on the market, including high-nutrient tomatoes and zero-trans-fat soybean oil.

Some argue that gene-edited foods are safer than genetically modified (GM) foods (pdf). The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) specified in 2018 that most genetically edited foods do not need to be regulated. However, are these foods, which will increasingly appear on the table, really risk-free?

Gene Modification 2.0: Gene-Edited Foods May Become More Available

In September 2021, the first gene-edited food—Sicilian Rouge tomatoes—made with CRISPR-Cas9 technology were officially on sale.

This gene-edited tomato contains high levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which helps lower blood pressure and aids relaxation.

Japanese researchers remove a gene from the genome of the common tomato. After the gene is removed, the activity of an enzyme in tomatoes increases, promoting the production of GABA. The GABA content in this tomato is four to five times higher than that of a regular tomato.

Warren H. J. Kuo, an emeritus professor of the Department of Agronomy at National Taiwan University, explains that both gene editing and transgenic organisms are genetic modification, also known as genetic engineering.

The earliest technique was genetic modification, that is, transgenic—in which a plant or animal is being inserted a gene from another species, such as a specific bacterial gene. The purpose of artificially modifying plants and animals is to improve their resistance against diseases and droughts, promote growth rates, increase yields, or improve nutrient content. However, the finished product will exhibit the foreign species’ genes.

Kuo says that transgenic modification is “genetic modification 1.0,” while gene editing is “genetic modification 2.0.” Gene editing is directly modifies the genes of the organism itself, so most of them do not exhibit foreign genes. However, the most common gene editing technique, CRISPR-Cas9, introduces foreign genes as the editing tool, and then removes the transplanted foreign genes.

While gene-edited tomatoes were on the market, Japan also approved two types of fish genetically edited with CRISPR—tiger pufferfish and red seabream. These fish are genetically edited to accelerate muscle growth. Among them, the gene-edited tiger pufferfish weighs nearly twice that of the ordinary species.

Back in 2019, the United States had used another earlier gene-editing technique to create soybean oil with zero trans fat and introduced it into the market.

Gene-edited foods which have also been approved for sale worldwide by now include soybeans, corn, mushrooms, canola, and rice.

The number of genetically edited foods on the market is likely to increase. Patent applications relating to CRISPR-edited commercial agricultural products have skyrocketed since the 2014/2015 period.

Gene-Edited Foods May Pose 2 Major Risks

Proponents of genetic modification believe this is a method to perfect agricultural produce and solve problems such as pests, droughts, and nutritional deficiencies. But the technology is still a double-edged sword.

Genetic engineering indeed has its benefits in the short term, but it may bring long-term pitfalls,” said Joe Wang, molecular biologist. Wang is currently a columnist with The Epoch Times.

Hornless cattle were once the celebrity of the animal kingdom, appearing in news stories one after another.

Many breeds of dairy cattle have horns, but they are dehorned to prevent them from harming humans and other animals, and to save more feeding trough space. To solve the “problem” of horns, the gene editing company Recombinetics successfully produced hornless cattle with gene-editing techniques many years ago.

The company simply added a few letters of DNA to the genome of ordinary cattle and their offspring didn’t grow horns, either.

However, a few years later, an accident happened.

The FDA found that a modified genetic sequence of a bull contained a stretch of bacterial DNA including a gene conferring antibiotic resistance, which has been one of the global health crises in recent years. Scientists aren’t clear whether this gene in gene-edited cattle will pose a greater risk than expected or not, and the FDA has stressed that it’s hazard-free. However, John Heritage, a retired microbiologist from Leeds University, told MIT Technology Review that the antibiotic resistance gene could be absorbed by gut bacteria in cattle and could create unpredictable opportunities for its spread.

In fact, this is one of the currently perceived risks of genetically edited foods.

Genetic Accidents, New Toxins?

The problem with unexpected accidents in the genetic modification process occurs in GM foods because transgenic techniques cannot control where the foreign gene is embedded in the chromosome.

Kuo used the example of a study that compared the protein of transgenic soybeans and non-transgenic soybeans. These transgenic soybeans were initially embedded with one foreign gene, and should have had only one protein that didn’t exist before. However, the comparison showed that there was a difference of about 40 proteins between the two: Half of the proteins were originally present, but disappeared after transgenic modification; the other half were not present but were added after the transgenic modification.

In contrast, emerging gene editing techniques allow for more precise modification of specific genes (pdf). It’s like a tailor modifying a section of a zipper by cutting off a specific segment and replacing it with a new one. However, there may be mistakes and unexpected changes in the process of cutting and repairing, and another similar section of the zipper may also be cut off.

Kuo says that this process may have unforeseen side effects; for example, if during this, new allergy-causing proteins or new toxins are produced.

“The genetic engineering procedure, and this includes gene editing, has the potential to damage DNA,” said molecular geneticist Dr. Michael Antoniou, head of the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London, in an interview in April 2022. “If you alter gene function, you automatically alter the biochemistry of the plant …  included within that altered biochemistry can be the production of novel toxins and allergens … that is my main concern.”

More Herbicide Use?

Another major concern with GM foods is herbicide residue.

Most crops, whether genetically edited or genetically modified, have herbicide-resistant genes incorporated into them. This is done so that when herbicides are applied to crops for weed control, the crops themselves won’t be harmed.

When planting herbicide-resistant crops, farmers can use herbicides rather liberally. But, long term, the weeds the farmers are targeting become increasingly herbicide-resistant as well, resulting in a cycle of increased herbicide use and resistance.

Since the introduction of herbicide-resistant GM crops in 1996, herbicides have experienced a significant growth in application every year. The herbicides residue in the crops grown are increasing as well.

One of the most widely used herbicides is glyphosate under the trade name Roundup. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen that is probably carcinogenic to humans.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Stephanie Seneff and scientific consultant Anthony Samsel said in their study that 80 percent of GM crops, especially corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugar beets, and alfalfa, are specifically introduced with glyphosate resistance genes.

In addition to carcinogenic concerns, glyphosate may have more harmful effects. They have collected and reviewed 286 studies and indicated that glyphosate inhibits the activity of an enzyme in the mitochondria of liver cells—cytochrome P450—which has the ability to detoxify and decompose foreign toxic substances. Moreover, glyphosate also has adverse effects on the gut microbiota.

These effects are not immediately apparent, but in the long run may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis, cancer, infertility, and developmental abnormalities.

An animal study published in Environmental Health shows that long-term exposure to ultra-low doses of glyphosate still causes liver and kidney diseases in rats.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/more-foods-will-be-gene-edited-you-think

Walgreens thinks healthcare division will achieve profitability by 2024

 

  • Walgreens expects its U.S. Healthcare division, which includes primary care chain VillageMD, specialty pharmacy company Shields Health Solutions and at-home care provider CareCentrix, to reach profitability in 2024, CEO Roz Brewer told investors on a Thursday call for Walgreens’ fourth-quarter results.
  • Walgreens is also increasing its long-term sales outlook for the new division to between $11 billion and $12 billion in sales by 2025, with VillageMD being the largest contributor. In the 2022 fiscal year, U.S. Healthcare brought in $1.8 billion in sales.
  • Despite a net loss in the fourth quarter, the Deerfield, Illinois-based pharmacy chain beat analyst expectations for both earnings and revenue.
In a release, Brewer said the coming fiscal year will be one of “accelerating core growth and rapidly scaling our U.S. Healthcare business.”

Walgreens has invested heavily in other areas of healthcare beyond its drugstore foundation, inking majority investments in VillageMD and Shields. Earlier this week, Walgreens announced it would shell out $392 million to acquire the remaining shares in CareCentrix, following the drugstore’s previous majority investment in the company for $330 million.

In the fourth quarter, U.S. Healthcare reported revenue of $622 million, up 34% in the quarter.

Shields grew its sales by 48% due to contract wins and expanding partnerships, while VillageMD’s sales grew 31%. The division posted a net loss of $9 million, as investments in VillageMD “more than offset” a profit from Shields, CFO John Kehoe told investors.

“2022 was a peak investment year,” Kehoe said. “VillageMD, Shields and CareCentrix will drive increasingly high contributions as the businesses mature.”

Walgreens plans to cut back on M&A in order to tie together existing assets, the CFO said. Brewer added that Walgreens will continue to explore deals to bolster its healthcare portfolio — especially its tech capabilities — and is not planning any additional investment in VillageMD at this time.

Walgreens has been building out its clinics with VillageMD, and reiterated Thursday that it is on track to open 200 locations next to its drugstores by the end of this year. At the end of the fourth quarter, Walgreens had 152 co-located clinics, bringing VillageMD’s total footprint to 342 locations.

It also has 70 stores with Health Corners, locations with registered nurses or pharmacists performing patient screenings and other services. Walgreens plans to have 100 Health Corners open by the end of 2022.

The company expects Walgreens Health, a care delivery business leveraging Walgreens’ disparate healthcare assets, to scale rapidly and focus on moving its covered lives into value-based and delegated risk arrangements, said John Driscoll, ex-CareCentrix CEO and new head of U.S Healthcare.

Walgreens Health currently covers more than 2 million lives and contracts with three health plan partners. “Over time, you will see us work more closely with those plans on shifting to risk,” Driscoll said. According to Defoe, Walgreens Health could take on delegated risk in the next six to 12 months.

COVID-19 vaccinations, a key driver of business for Walgreens’ sales and foot traffic during the pandemic, fell off significantly in the fourth quarter. The chain administered 2.9 million vaccinations, down from the 4.7 million administered in the third quarter.

Walgreens reported a net loss of $415 million in the quarter, compared to a profit of $627 million the year prior. The company chalked the loss up to a non-cash impairment charge on its Boots UK business and its cost management program.

Walgreens noted in its release that future business growth will face difficult year-over-year comparisons due to waning demand for COVID-19 vaccines and the strength of the U.S. dollar.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/walgreens-us-healthcare-profitability-fourth-quarter-earnings/633924/

GoodRx launching platform for providers

 GoodRx  the consumer-facing, digital drug discount startup  is launching a new version of its platform that is tailored for providers.

Doctors, medical office staff and other healthcare workers have already been using the consumer-facing version to help patients find discounts and programs to help them afford prescribed medications, GoodRx Executive Medical Director Preeti Parikh, said.

Targeting providers directly is a pivot from GoodRx’s traditional consumer focus, but the company found it necessary and sees an opportunity to capture more pharmaceutical advertising revenue in the process, she said.

Provider mode works similarly to GoodRx’s traditional version but adds several new tools intended to reduce administrative burden. It keeps track of frequently prescribed medications and allows providers to text, email or print the coupon to the patient during a visit.

Some upcoming developments the start-up plans to implement include a feature allowing providers to communicate directly with pharma representatives and ask questions about new therapies and patient assistance programs, dubbed RxVantage.

It will also roll out a new feature allowing providers to compare medication prices across pharmacies while including options through a patient’s insurance coverage.

“We saw this opportunity that we needed to really address providers’ needs, and when we saw how many were using it, they really are the gateway to help their patients get the medications they need,” Parikh said.

Alongside the provider mode launch, GoodRx announced a new collaboration with Biogen to streamline the process of getting patients on new speciality therapies affordably.

As part of the initial launch, clinicians using provider mode will be able to fill out and submit enrollment forms for patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis who have been prescribed Vumerity.

The move should help boost GoodRx’s pharma manufacturing solutions business, which drugmakers use to advertise through the platform and which is a key revenue driver for the company.

In its second-quarter earnings this year, the company reported that pharma manufacturer solutions revenue shot up 102% year over year to $26.5 million, up from $13 million a year ago.

Revenue overall was up 9% year over year at $192 million in Q2, though the company saw a net loss of $1.4 million compared to a gain of $31 million in net income a year prior.

GoodRx also makes money through subscriptions for its monthly gold membership program that offers steeper discounts for those who sign up. The new provider mode will be a free version, though, Parikh said.

GoodRx isn’t a pharmacy benefits manager. Instead it gets referral fees paid by PBMs when a prescription is filled with a GoodRx code.

The startup was founded in 2011, and raised $1.1 billion in its September 2020 initial public offering.

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/goodrx-provider-mode-platform-Preeti-Parikh-biogen-Vumerity/634027/

40 new biochem labs that handle dangerous viruses being built around worldwide after Covid 15 in Russia,

 The Coronavirus pandemic has prompted a global surge in laboratories that handle dangerous viruses — despite concerns Covid may have been the result of the risky experiments.

More than 40 facilities certified as biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) or BSL-4 have either been built or have gone into construction since 2020, predominantly across Asia.

Many countries believe they were caught flat-footed by Covid and want to get ahead of the next devastating outbreak by studying pathogens that pose a threat to humans.

Experiments at these labs often involve tinkering with animal viruses to advance treatments and vaccines that could be used in a future outbreak.

But there are widespread concerns that these experiments might actually raise the risk of pandemics — something some experts believe was the case with Covid.

The virus first began spreading from a wet market in Wuhan, about eight miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a high security biolab that worked with dangerous bat coronaviruses.

Scientists there worked on some of Covid's closest relatives. They were also found to have wiped crucial databases and stifled independent investigations into the laboratory's links to the pandemic.

Professor Paul Hunter, an expert in infection diseases at the University of East Anglia in England, told DailyMail.com he was concerned about what all the new labs would be used for.

'The issue is what you’re going to be using [the labs] for,' he told this website. 'If they’re for diagnostic purposes, then you need them. But I don’t think every country needs a BSL-4.’

He added: ‘If they start having a dual purpose for research that has offensive military implications, that is the concern.’

Russia has set out its proposals for 15 of the maximum security labs and India is aiming for 18 BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs in total. The US is also adding a further highest level biosecurity lab to its existing 12.

There are currently 63 BSL-4 labs, the highest level of security, across the globe. This is up from the 59 which were in operation or planned last year. Three-quarters are in urban areas. South America and Africa are some of the places lacking access to the labs

There are currently 63 BSL-4 labs, the highest level of security, across the globe. This is up from the 59 which were in operation or planned last year. Three-quarters are in urban areas. South America and Africa are some of the places lacking access to the labs

The question of whether the global outbreak began with a spillover from wildlife sold at the market or leaked out of the Wuhan lab just eight miles across the Yangtze River has given rise to fierce debate about how to prevent the next pandemic. New studies point to a natural spillover at the Huanan wildlife market. Positive swab samples of floors, cages and counters also track the virus back to stalls in the southwestern corner of the market (bottom left), where animals with the potential to harbor Covid were sold for meat or fur at the time (bottom right)


Work on the live virus that causes Covid must be carried out at a BSL-3 or BSL-4 lab.

In BSL-3 labs, researchers do all experiments in a ‘biosafety cabinet’ — an enclosed, ventilated workspace for handling materials contaminated with pathogens.

The labs also have self-closing doors, sealed windows, floors and walls, and filtered ventilation systems.

In a BSL-4 lab, full-body, air-supplied pressure suits are worn and workers must change their clothing before entering and shower before leaving.

The lab is situated in a separate section of the building and has its own dedicated air supply.

India is currently constructing five BSL-3 facilities and proposes at least nine more. Four institutions are planning to build BSL-4 labs with the highest level of security.

At the moment, India has three BSL-4 labs but only one is operational.

Plus India’s Government has agreed to set up four new national institutes of virology, two of which will handle BSL-4 pathogens in future.

Also in Asia, Kazakhstan, the Philippines and Singapore intend to build their first BSL-4 facilities. The US is due to add another BSL-4 lab to its existing group of 12 maximum-biosafety level facilities.

Russia also announced last year that it will build 15 BSL-4 labs, but gave little to no details.

More top level security biochemical labs means that more high-risk research can be carried out, including gain-of-function studies, where pathogens are altered, potentially making them more deadly.

At the moment, there are 63 BSL-4 labs in the world.

Professor Paul Hunter, an expert in infection diseases at the University of East Anglia in England, told DailyMail.com the worry is not that the higher level security labs are popping up across the world, but what they will be used for.

He said that compared to BSL-3 labs, BSL-4’s are ‘a whole level up’, adding ‘they’re very rare’.

In terms of human pathogens, ‘really nasty’ things like Ebola and Lassa fever would be handled in the BSL-4 labs.

This is because ‘many of the pathogens that you would handle in category four labs are known bioterrorism and biowarfare agents in the wrong hands’, he said.

The theory that Covid escaped from the Wuhan BSL-4 lab has been largely dispelled, but it is possible for viruses to leak from research settings.

Professor Hunter said: ‘The whole thing about a BSL-4 lab is that it substantially reduces the risk of viral escape, although it doesn’t always guarantee it.’

He added: ‘There are quite a few laboratory acquired infections by lab workers picking things up. Most of them are relatively minor, but it is always a concern.’

‘We have had and we still do have lab escape problems around the world,’ he added.

But he said that in theory, the category 4 labs are the safest places to deal with the risky pathogens.

And to some extent, the high level biosecurity labs are needed.

Professor Hunter said: ‘You’ve got to do some work on them, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to deal with an outbreak of Ebola. You’ve got to have these and they’ve got to be reasonably readily available.’

He said that ‘there are some things people do that could cause substantial harm if they get released’, adding, ‘the nervousness is that if you’ve got such facilities, whether then you start doing inappropriate research or development that ultimately will have more sinister outcomes’.

Professor Hunter said ultimately he wasn’t concerned about the new labs springing up, as ‘there are perfectly good, perfectly necessary reasons why you might want them.’

He said: ‘If I was responsible for stuff in India and I knew we’d had problems managing the early stages of the Covid outbreak because we didn't have access to appropriate category 4 level labs, I would be damn well sure I wanted to build category level 4 labs to make sure that if we had that problem again, I’d be able to better serve the population.

‘But would I be concerned if people started using these labs for research that could ultimately be harmful? Then yes.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11302897/Have-learned-40-new-labs-dangerous-viruses-built-Covid-pandemic.html

PR firm that represents Pfizer and Moderna also sits on CDC vaccine division

 A PR company that represents Pfizer and Moderna has staff 'embedded' in the CDC's vaccine division, it has emerged.

New York-based firm Weber Shandwick has been responsible for elevating Pfizer's profile since at least 2006. It partnered with Moderna in June this year, after the small biotech firm became a household name following its vaccine success.

Yet questions are being raised about a possible conflict of interest as it emerged the company was hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the pandemic to boost its 'health communication'.

It was involved in PR campaigns that encouraged Americans to get vaccinated against Covid. 

But a spokesperson for Weber Shandwick told DailyMail.com it had a 'thorough vetting and mitigation process to avoid conflicts'. 

Vaccine makers made more than $34billion in profits last year from the Covid jabs alone — equivalent to $1,000 a second, according to estimates.

They are expected to make billions more from the bivalent booster jabs being rolled out this winter — with the US having bought 171million doses.

Today the updated shots — which tackle Omicron variants — got the green light for children as young as five years old. They are currently recommended for all over-12s.

Weber Shandwick works for the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD).

The potential conflict of interest was brought to attention in a LinkedIn post by an employee of the PR firm last year. 

They wrote on the social media site: 'So excited to be starting a new role today! I'm joining Weber Shandwick as an Account Director supporting a contract I know well, at the CDC's NCIRD!'

Another employee replied: 'Welcome back to the team!'

In 2020 Weber Shandwick also won an up to $50million contract from the US Government to promote flu vaccines to the public.

Its responsibilities included distributing social media posts and articles promoting vaccines, and sending press releases to the media.

It was also involved in 'paid media placement', a common euphemism for advertising. 

The firm was employed by Moderna in June this year alongside two other PR firms to promote its mRNA vaccine - despite being a direct rival to Pfizer.

Weber Shandwick is also a long-time client of Pfizer's, having been brought on back in 2003 to assist with marketing around Viagra pills and other treatments.

Responding to DailyMail.com today, a spokesperson for Weber Shandwick said: 'We are proud of the important work we do to advance public health.

'When we work for organizations in the same sector, we have a thorough vetting and mitigation process to avoid conflicts, including legal review, separate and distinct teams and strong confidentiality protocols.'

DailyMail.com has approached the CDC for comment.

Craig Holman, a lobbyist on Capitol Hill for Public Citizen, blasted the CDC today for the conflict of interest.

'This is irresponsible of CDC to issue a PR contract to Weber Shandwick,' he told the site DisInformation. 'Knowing that the firm also works for Moderna and Pfizer'.

Pfizer and Moderna's jabs have formed the cornerstone of America's vaccine roll out, with more than 800million doses ordered at a cost of more than $10billion.

The two companies were also the only ones to sell updated bivalent booster shots to America this year — which target Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5.

More than 42million doses of these have been delivered so far, at a cost that is yet to be revealed.

But the bivalent jab rollout has got off to a slow start despite calls from the White House for everyone to get doses.

Just six per cent of all over-12s have come forward. 

Meanwhile, today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed it was expanding eligibility of the new vaccine to young children.

It gave the green-light for Moderna's updated shot to be given to six year olds, and Pfizer's to those as young as five.

This will still need to be signed off by the CDC, but suggests that the beleaguered program will be expanded to more age groups.

The beleaguered CDC saw public trust in the agency erode during the Covid pandemic after a litany of errors.

It was slow to recommend face masks in the early days, or to warn that Covid was likely spreading through the air.  

Later in the pandemic it has also signed off on Covid vaccines for children as young as six months old.

The move has faced criticism from many experts because of the vanishingly small risk very young children face of death or serious disease from the virus.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11303017/PR-firm-represents-Pfizer-Moderna-sits-CDC-vaccine-advisory-committee.html

Still never had Covid? Thank your genes

 The US has the highest number of confirmed cases of any country in the world at 179million, the equivalent of more than half of the entire population.

This is likely an underestimate, however, because testing was patchy at the start of the outbreak and some people never take a test.

Yet, anecdotally there are many stories of people whose entire families come down with the virus and they avoid an infection – even after sharing a bed with someone who is sick.

This group of people have been dubbed ‘never Covid’ and scientists have never quite worked out how they managed it.

Lead researcher Dr Alexander Mentzer said: ‘We have seen a wide variation in how quickly people test positive for Covid after vaccination.

‘Our findings suggest that our genetic code may influence how likely this is to happen over time.’

The scientists examined blood samples from people in five different trials, which looked at 1,600 adults who received the Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine as their initial shot.

Individuals with the gene had more antibodies – proteins that protect against foreign invaders – in their blood compared to those without the quirk.

They also looked at a collection of people who took Covid tests every week for over a year since their first shot.

People with the HLA-DQB1*06 gene were more unlikely to suffer a ‘breakthrough infection’ over the 12 months — where people came down with mild Covid symptoms post-shot.

Co-lead researcher Professor Julian Knight added: ‘From this study we have evidence that our genetic make-up is one of the reasons why we may differ from each other in our immune response following Covid vaccination.’

The findings were published in the journal Nature Medicine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11316831/Still-never-Covid-Thank-genes-Three-10-people-gene-blocks-infection.html

I advocated full legalization; I was wrong

 On Thursday, Oct. 6, President Biden — in perhaps the most sweeping presidential pardon issued since President Jimmy Carter pardoned those Americans who had evaded military service in Vietnam  announced that he would be pardoning all American citizens convicted of federal marijuana possession charges. Immediately, this pardon impacted the estimated 6,500 individuals previously federally convicted across the United States and, crucially, in the District of Columbia. However, more fundamentally, this action, with the president’s encouragement, is inviting further conversation aimed at legalizing marijuana nationwide or, at the very least, downgrading it from a Schedule I substance “under the Controlled Substances Act.”

Interestingly enough, just days before, the Republican Study Committee — as part of its “Family Policy Agenda” — announced its strong opposition to efforts to legalize marijuana at the federal level. This memorandum, though arguably overstating the dangers of recreational marijuana, rightly focuses primarily on the drug’s impact on children. But before the Republican Study Committee, to which nearly three-fourths of House Republicans belong, is unduly accused of stodginess, being retrograde, or being “out of step with the times,” there is reason even for more dispassionate observers of the war on drugs to be circumspect about this ascendant push for full-scale marijuana legalization.

The issue of drug liberalization, along with that of capital punishment, is one where I have, in part, changed my mind as I now turn away from the full-throated defense of legalization I offered in The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2013. Viewing it now through a different lens than the purely libertarian perspective that it is not the business of government to restrict what an autonomous individual might choose to put into his body, it has become increasingly clear to me that this seemingly private choice has outward, social manifestations. And drug liberalization has been associated with more young people using marijuana.

Colorado, serving as a “laboratory of democracy,” offers mixed results on its marijuana experiment; though the number of people seeking treatment for marijuana use declined by 34 percent after legalization in 2012, marijuana use in Colorado youth was “74 percent higher than the national average compared to 39 percent higher prior to legalization,” and “62 percent of all drug expulsions and suspensions [in schools] were for marijuana violations,” thus validating the Republican Study Committee’s concerns about legalization’s impact on minors.

Furthermore, legalization was associated with increased traffic deaths in Colorado, and, unlike alcohol, it is more difficult for police officers to determine when someone is driving under the influence of that substance.

And though the cannabis industry is a growing one, legal weed is not always purely good news for business.

In 2018, CBS News reported on the prevalence of Colorado restaurant workers who reported that they regularly used marijuana, including during periods of time when they were employed, evidence very much confirmed by my own experiences dining in that state not long after the state’s drug laws were relaxed. Perhaps, most notably, the survey indicated that 30 percent of restaurant workers between the ages of 18 and 25 admitted to using the drug. Also of great importance is that marijuana use has been associated with job loss, as well as early career reduced earnings and less ideal employment experiences, particularly for young men. At a time when many Americans are increasingly concerned about the various ills affecting young men, dismissing out of hand legitimate concerns about marijuana’s effects is not likely to ease that trend.

Although it has been common to state reflexively that marijuana is rather benign, its use, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other literature, is associated with a number of suboptimal health outcomes, from brain health to respiration. Even Johann Hari, the author of the largely polemical (though quite worth reading) book Chasing the Scream, which is enormously critical of drug prohibition, concedes near the end that he would rather his own teenage nephews drink beer than use marijuana, departing from those who consistently claim that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.

As common as it has been to hear that it’s “impossible to legislate morality,” from speed limits to prohibitions on violent crimes, that is what law, in practice, does. And to the extent that we wish to discourage marijuana use, which seems a worthy societal objective, we can use law to do so. While I agree that no one should face anything resembling a lengthy incarceration for simple marijuana possession (the view that guided that spirited 2013 Philadelphia Inquirer piece), my position now is that states like Ohio chart a reasonable course, where possession of marijuana (except in municipalities that have depenalized the drug) is a finable offense, and possessing larger but not excessive quantities can result in a 30-day jail sentence.

Critics of the drug war have been correct to point out how overzealously some drug offenders have been punished, but we ought not let the pendulum swing now so far in the other direction that we ignore the health risks associated with the substance and the anti-social element that can accompany its habitual use.

Erich J. Prince co-founded and runs Merion West (@merionwest), a Philadelphia-based group promoting civil discourse in the age of polarization; he also writes a weekly column at MediaVillage on how the news media covers politics. He previously served as a communications strategist for former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3689883-i-advocated-full-legalization-i-was-wrong/