The Washington Post - USA (2020-11-22)

C4 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22 , 2020

BY RICHARD B. KAREL

D

espite the deep and bitter partisan

divisions that four years of a Trump

administration and the election have

laid bare, there was one area in which

Americans across party lines and geographic

divides joined hands: the need for the nation to

take a more compassionate, less punitive ap-

proach to drug policy. In every state in which

there was a drug policy reform referendum —

from Mississippi to New Jersey and from coast

to coast — the initiatives passed, in most cases

by larger margins than predicted.

The red and blue embrace of such reforms

has been given a variety of meanings, but

beyond dispute is that fatigue with decades of a

failed drug war that has affected people every-

where led voters across party lines and ideol-

ogies to embrace a new approach. Though the

victorious initiatives represented a major leap

in some states and more modest steps in

others, Maryland, an otherwise progressive

state on issues such as reproductive rights and

gun control, has moved at a glacial pace in

taking the step from allowing medical use of

marijuana to recreational legalization, and it

has taken only modest steps toward treating

drug addiction as mainly a medical and psy-

chological issue rather than a criminal issue.

D.C. voters approved a referendum that

would make the enforcement of laws against

entheogens — naturally occurring hallucino-

genic substances derived from plants, fungi

and amphibians and used for religious or

spiritual purposes, among the lowest law en-

forcement priorities. Although the law refers

broadly to entheogens, the primary focus ap-

pears to have been so called magic mushrooms,

whose primary active constituent is psilocybin.

In neighboring Virginia, Gov. Ralph Northam

(D) recently said the commonwealth would

“move forward with legalizing marijuana.”

The legalization of medical marijuana and

decriminalization of possession of small

amounts of the drug have eased the burden on

Maryland’s criminal justice system, but the

failure to move to full legalization means that

the state is losing access to millions, p otentially

billions, of dollars in tax revenue. Considering

the huge cost of pandemic-related closures and

programs, the state needs this revenue now

more than ever. Though many other businesses

have suffered badly during the pandemic,

business at medical marijuana dispensaries

has been booming.

Because of the conflict between federal and

state law (marijuana is still a Schedule I drug —

the most restrictive category and the same as

that for heroin and cocaine), legal marijuana

dispensaries have to deal with cash because of

their inability to work within the legal banking

system. Despite this obstacle, marijuana busi-

nesses are providing a major tax benefit to

states and localities.

Since recreational marijuana was legalized

in Colorado in 2014, tax revenue from marijua-

na sales have reached more than $1 billion,

according to the Colorado Department of Rev-

enue. In Washington state, 2019 marijuana tax

revenue totaled $395.5 million, $172 million

more than that from liquor.

Moving beyond the de-escalation of the war

against weed, Oregon, which legalized mari-

juana in 2014, approved the decriminalization

of personal use quantities of drugs such as

cocaine and heroin and legalized therapeutic

use of psilocybin.

It is particularly ironic that Maryland, home

to the world’s leading center on psychedelic

research — the Johns Hopkins Center for

Psychedelic & Consciousness Research,

launched in 2019 — still treats psilocybin as a

Schedule I drug without therapeutic use. The

center’s director, psychologist Roland R. Grif-

fiths, began conducting research on the thera-

peutic potential of psilocybin 20 years ago. He

has conducted a series of carefully controlled

studies with promising results in areas ranging

from helping terminally ill cancer patients deal

with the existential challenge of confronting

death to treating severe depression, as well as

psilocybin use as an aid to facilitate people

dealing with addiction to alcohol and other

drugs.

The day after the election, the Hopkins team

published a small but groundbreaking study in

JAMA Psychiatry that found that “psilocybin-

assisted therapy was efficacious in producing

large, rapid, and sustained antidepressant ef-

fects in patients with major depressive disor-

der.”

Those in the state legislature who have

taken a go-slow approach on moving to legaliz-

ing marijuana for recreational use have argued

that such a move would entail risks. Yes, there

are always risks — but they must be balanced

against the risk of the status quo and the

potential benefits, not only of tax revenue but

also the freeing of police resources and the

broadening of individual freedom that this

would achieve.

Regarding the therapeutic use of psilocybin

by trained facilitators, the argument against

legalization is even weaker. Such therapeutic

legalization would not create tax revenue. It

would, however, provide a critical tool for

therapists who now have their hands tied in

helping their fellow human beings deal with

some of mankind’s most persistent and vexing

challenges.

It is way past time for Maryland to legalize

recreational use of marijuana and the thera-

peutic use of psilocybin. The socioeconomic

and cultural imperatives of this time make it

clear that 2021 should be the year that our state

legislature wakes up to the incontrovertible

reality that the war on drugs has been an abject

failure, causing collateral damage across our

state and our nation.

Richard Karel is a writer who lives in Baltimore.

Maryland has a drug problem

BY STEPHEN NASH

B

eyond our viral and electoral

maelstrom, Virginia faces

happier challenges. “Wash-

ington Redwolves,” for exam-

ple? It polls well. Fine idea for the

NFL roster if you ask me, and the

actual animal behind the name is

nearly extinct, so maybe an affiliation

with the football-team-formerly-

known-as-Redskins would help.

The last few of the planet’s wild red

wolves, among the most critically

endangered on the planet, hang on in

coastal North Carolina’s Alligator

River region. You can also see them at

Roanoke’s Mill Mountain Zoo, part of

a national network of captive breed-

ing facilities where red wolves await

hoped-for release into the wild. The

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, their

legal custodian, is looking for new

places to reintroduce them. Virginia

qualifies.

Red wolves once ranged from

northern Florida to southern New

York, and west to the Mississippi. Last

year, the Center for Biological Diver-

sity spotlighted Virginia as a fine

possibility for reintroduction and

pointed to research studies suggest-

ing the nearly 3,000 square miles of

national forests in the western coun-

ties.

Wolf researcher Joseph Hinton of

the State University of New York, who

has worked off and on with the red

wolf rescue program for 20 years, has

a different take. The many wildlife

refuges, farms and forestlands of the

Eastern Shore are “the best option for

Virginia,” he told me. The Chinco-

teague National Wildlife Refuge

alone includes more than 20 square

miles of beach, dunes, marsh and

maritime forest.

Virginia’s state political leader-

ship, avowed supporters of the envi-

ronment and of sound science,

should move quickly to bring this

critically endangered species back to

our public lands, where they would

provide natural controls on popula-

tions of small mammals and deer, for

a healthier ecosystem.

Red wolves are smaller than west-

ern gray wolves, larger than coyotes

and shy of humans. Since their first

release in North Carolina, they’ve

been extraordinarily nonaggressive.

Only six incidents of their preying on

chickens or pets have been confirmed

there in more than 30 years. By con-

trast, Virginia sees more than 10,000

attacks on humans each year by an-

other canine — pet dogs — according

to state public health records.

Biologically speaking, it wouldn’t

take much to start a program in

Virginia, but it won’t happen without

a high-voltage spark of initiative from

the upper levels of the Northam ad-

ministration and its natural resourc-

es secretariat. But the state’s former

Department of Game and Inland

Fisheries, newly rebranded as the

Department of Wildlife Resources

(DWR), has always been hunter-cen-

tric, its new name notwithstanding.

Ninety percent of its budget is funded

through the sale of hunting licenses.

While some hunters welcome the

prospect of richly diverse and healthy

natural systems, others may see un-

welcome competition. But did some-

one say there’s a shortage of deer? A

2016 Virginia Department of Trans-

portation study counted 61,000 deer-

vehicle collisions in a single year, and

they accounted for 1 in 6 vehicle

insurance claims. The damages aver-

age a formidable half-billion dollars

each year. We could use some preda-

tors.

A DWR wildlife biologist has raised

other credible though surmountable

objections. “I believe that there is no

area in Virginia that would be suit-

able for the reintroduction of red

wolves,” Mike Fies has written. “Such

an experiment would be expensive,

unpopular with local residents, and

have very little chance of success.”

He notes correctly that red wolves

sometimes interbreed with coyotes.

But wildlife biologists have worked

out amply documented, highly suc-

cessful strategies at Alligator River

that nearly eliminated the coyote

problem. Another objection is that

Virginia’s wild landscapes may not

supply enough small prey for wolves

to thrive. That can be assessed.

More than 100,000 people wrote

the Fish and Wildlife Service to ex-

press support for the red wolf pro-

gram — only 1 in 1,000 dissented. It’s

easy to find out how many Virginians

agree.

But a measure of local resistance is

a given, at least initially. Gunshot

mortality is now the leading cause of

death among the North Carolina red-

wolf population, partly because they

are often mistaken for coyotes, and

mostly because their derelict federal

custodians, deeply compromised by

political considerations, have failed

to protect the wolves for the past five

years. In North Carolina, a majority of

landowners welcomed or were indif-

ferent to the presence of wolves, ac-

cording to survey research. Most co-

operated in allowing wildlife manag-

ers onto their land. Nearly 100 private

landowners signed a petition in sup-

port of the project.

Reps. A. Donald McEachin and

Don Beyer, both Virginia Democrats,

co-authored an October letter to the

Department of the Interior and the

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to

urge salvaging the all-but-abandoned

red wolf program, signed by 22 other

House members. It advocates “addi-

tional, new sites for red wolf reintro-

ductions” and “expanded engage-

ment with local communities.”

Virginia’s state leadership can con-

sider the example of North Carolina

Gov. Roy Cooper (D) and his resourc-

es secretary, who have warned Interi-

or Secretary David Bernhardt that

“The continued decline of this criti-

cally endangered species is unaccept-

able... it is critical that the FWS take

action to increase the existing wild

red wolf population.”

Virginia can help pull red wolves

and other endangered species back

from a ledge we have nearly pushed

them off. But, Hinton told me, “you

will need resource agencies that are

committed to defending their project.

The wolves will be fine.... It’s just a

matter of getting people to stop

shooting them.”

Stephen Nash, a visiting senior research

scholar at the University of Richmond, is

the author of “Virginia Climate Fever: How

Global Warming Will Transform Our Cities,

Shorelines and Forests.”

Bring red wolves to Virginia

SALWAN GEORGES/THE WASHINGTON POST

A red wolf yawns at the North Carolina Museum of Life + Science in 2017, in Durham, N.C.

Local Opinions

WASHINGTONPOST.COM/LOCALOPINIONS. [email protected]

JAHI CHIKWENDIU/THE WASHINGTON POST

Workers separate cannabis flowers from the plant stalks at Maryland’s first legal outdoor

marijuana harvest in October 2019, in Cambridge.

BY LISA K. FITZPATRICK

I

n the United States today,

where you live often deter-

mines how long you live. Our

Zip codes are more reliable

predictors of our health outcomes

than our genetic codes.

The disproportionate impact of

the novel coronavirus on under-

served communities has shed

light on this reality. In poor coun-

ties with high minority popula-

tions, the coronavirus death rate

is more than nine times greater

than predominantly White and

wealthy areas. But even before the

pandemic, these health dispari-

ties were well known. More than

40 percent of Black Americans

suffer from hypertension, com-

pared with 28 percent of Whites.

Diabetes is 60 percent more com-

mon among Black Americans

than White Americans. Almost 80

percent of Hispanic women are

overweight or obese.

Poor nutrition is a primary

driver of these conditions.

Moving to a disadvantaged

neighborhood in Southeast D.C.

helped me better appreciate this

association. It also helped me un-

derstand how policymakers have

made mistakes in addressing

these disparities — and how, by

fixing those mistakes, we can im-

prove health outcomes for under-

served Americans.

My own neighborhood is a food

desert. Corner stores and carry-

outs are more common than gro-

cery stores and farmers markets.

Health literacy is low, and some o f

my neighbors lack the proper

kitchenware to even prepare a

meal at home.

I’ve spoken to people in my

community who have a strong

interest in healthy eating, but

they don’t know how to start.

Some of them are food stamp

recipients who receive food

through government programs

but don’t receive comprehensive

nutrition resources to help them

make better choices.

Living in an environment with

scarce resources takes a serious

toll on their health — and their

experiences are hardly unique.

Culture, lifestyle and other so-

cial drivers of health play a role in

Americans’ eating habits, of

course, but so do government nu-

trition policies. For years, policy-

makers have attempted to make

communities such as mine

healthier. But most of their efforts

have failed.

Consider soda taxes, which are

levied in several U.S. cities.

They’re supposed to reduce Amer-

icans’ consumption of sugary bev-

erages, yet studies indicate that

they have little impact on con-

sumption rates and caloric intake.

Requiring restaurants to publi-

cize nutrition information hasn’t

worked either. As a study in

Health Affairs concluded, posting

calorie counts caused “no statisti-

cally significant changes over

time in levels of calories or other

nutrients purchased.”

Or consider the Dietary Guide-

lines for Americans, which the

federal government updates and

reissues every five years. The DGA

is quite influential: It shapes

school lunch programs, military

rations, public nutrition pro-

grams and even educational cur-

riculums.

The DGA supposedly offers “ev-

idence-based nutrition informa-

tion” to help Americans make

healthy choices about food and

beverages. But, in reality, the rec-

ommendations are based on in-

complete science and ignore key

populations. They’re entirely

geared toward healthy Americans

— even though 60 percent of U.S.

adults have a chronic illness.

There’s also evidence that the

DGA’s review process routinely

ignores the latest scientific re-

search. Consider how the guide-

lines recommend six servings of

grains daily, despite the fact that

rigorous clinical trials indicate

that those with chronic diseases

such as diabetes would benefit

from limiting their consumption

of carbohydrates. In many cases,

low-carbohydrate diets have re-

versed Type 2 diabetes, reduced

blood pressure, promoted weight

loss and improved heart disease

risk factors — yet the guidelines

haven’t taken those findings into

account.

Such gaps in the government’s

recommendations harm minority

and underserved Americans.

These groups experience higher

rates of diet-related chronic dis-

eases and disproportionately rely

on food assistance programs. It’s

puzzling that the DGA doesn’t

consider the health conditions of

the communities where its rec-

ommendations have the most im-

pact.

Amid the coronavirus pandem-

ic, the consequences of these dis-

appointing nutrition policies are

now tragically obvious. Ameri-

cans’ health has clearly worsened

since the creation of the DGA. By

distributing flawed nutritional

guidance, the government now

bears partial responsibility for the

high rates of chronic diseases in

underserved minority communi-

ties — who’ve also been hit hard-

est by the coronavirus.

I witness these inequities every

day — and even experience them

myself. Though I’m a medical doc-

tor and have all the tools to make

healthy choices, my health has

suffered since my move. I’ve

struggled to maintain a healthy

weight, and my blood pressure is

higher than it should be.

Fortunately, the scientific com-

munity has taken notice of the

disparities that impact communi-

ties such as mine. Recently, the

National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine as-

serted the DGA needed to expand

its methodological approaches to

“include broader groups of people

with a range of physiological

needs, metabolic health, and

chronic disease states.”

Now is the time for policymak-

ers to heed such recommenda-

tions. Only by developing

straightforward, reliable and sci-

ence-based recommendations

can we change course — and make

sure that a person’s Zip code isn’t

her destiny.

The writer is founder and chief

executive of Grapevine Health and a

Health Innovators Fellow at the Aspen

Institute.

My Southeast D.C. Zip code shouldn’t be my health destiny

MICHAEL S. WILLIAMSON/THE WASHINGTON POST

Shoppers at a G iant store, the only full-service grocer in Ward 8.