The setting Baltimore Sun.
See the article below, which is my response to the outrageous article in The Baltimore Sun by my former colleague, professor emeritus of speech and communication at Towson University (Maryland), and former Szaszian, Rick Vatz, and Mike Gimbel, some kind of former Maryland drug czar, aka dope, dated January 15, 2026. What is newsworthy is who Vatz is or better, who he has pretended to be, and the arguments he has allegedly defended and stood for. Gimbel has always been a jackass. Rick unfortunately has put on an act as if he agreed with Tom and me for years. In my opinion, Vatz is a spectacular liar.
The opinion editor of the Baltimore Sun, Philip Coldwell, refused to publish my response to Gimbel and Vatz. This is undoubtedly because the owner of The Baltimore Sun, Armstrong Williams, ordered him not to publish it. I now realize Coldwell is simply a lackey for Williams.
As soon as Williams and Sinclair bought The Baltimore Sun, in Summer 2024, they fired the terrific independent editorial cartoonist, “KAL”. Williams and Sinclair have now ruined the Baltimore Sun. I have subscribed and contributed to The Sun since the 1980s. I am sad to see it go down the sewer. It used to be a good and important newspaper.
Richard Vatz was a co-author and friend, fellow Szaszian, who has gone in the opposite direction from everything we not only wrote together but also from what Rick learned from Tom Szasz about psychiatry. In this piece that I am responding to, Vatz and Gimbel are arguing that marijuana prohibition should be reinstated in Maryland.
Vatz also voted for Donald Trump and continues to support Trump’s policies. It is unbelievable to me and I can hear Tom rolling over in his grave.
Schaler response to Gimbel and Vatz is immediately below the reproduction of their article. See also New York Times reverses on marijuana, admits legalization brought worse outcomes, Feb 13, 2026. Apparently using marijuana is worse than throwing people in jail, what was done prior to repeal. I doubt prohibition will be reinstated. Keep track of those who want it prohibited again.
JAS
Why Trump’s marijuana reclassification is a mistake | GUEST COMMENTARY
By Mike Gimbel and Richard E. Vatz
PUBLISHED: January 15, 2026 at 1:58 PM EST
President Donald Trump last month ordered that marijuana be reclassified as a less dangerous drug under federal law. As Aaron E. Carroll put it in the New York Times, “The move would make it easier to conduct medical research on the drug, though it would stop short of federal legalization.”
No one had doubted that legalization is exactly where the country’s stance on marijuana usage has been headed for years now. The president claims his newfound support for the medical use of marijuana is based on science. New studies, however, clearly show that medical marijuana is not nearly as effective as the pro-marijuana lobby heralds.
And how does the president justify attacking drug-running boats to reduce drug supply and then making marijuana more acceptable? The majority of hardcore addicts began with marijuana. All Trump did was to make today’s stronger marijuana more easily available to kids and adults. This was a big mistake and will hurt more people than it helps.
An important effect of reclassification is that it will allow pot dispensaries to be able to access banks, credit card companies and not have to take only cash. This may be a major reason why Trump made the move, making the legal sellers more money and making it easier for users to shop at dispensaries (which are not doing that well, partly since many states, including Maryland, will let you grow your own).
It’s more of a message that marijuana is not that dangerous, thus reinforcing what our teens already believe.
There is no compelling evidence of general medical benefits resulting from the use of marijuana, save the self-fulfilling prophecy of self-reports of users. “There are some legitimate purposes for these compounds,” JAMA’s Dr. Kevin Hill, who directs the Division of Addiction Psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, told the New York Times. “And there’s a whole other group of people who are saying they’re using it medically, but they’re really not. They’re just rationalizing their recreational use.”
Let’s look at some of the major components of the fallacious arguments in favor of legalization:
1. Marijuana has only minor and temporary medical effects. The marijuana of today is so much stronger than ever before, making it dangerous to drive or perform other significant tasks while under the influence.
2. Marijuana is not a gateway drug. Pro-legalization forces point out some people they know who use marijuana and never advance to stronger drugs. There are such people, but if you ask a hardcore addict their first illegal drug of choice, he or she will almost invariably answer “pot!” True, you can argue that is not always the case, but one can’t discount that seeking marijuana puts people in the drug sociology wherein “What’s next?” is not seen as a radical question, and those around the new user can help that person climb to more serious drugs. And for one of us who used to be in that sociology, if you like getting high, you usually want to get higher.
3. Marijuana offers significant health benefits. The pro-legalization lobby has been too successful in convincing the public and now Trump that the medical use of marijuana has medical advantages and should be easier to obtain. The newest studies are saying that medical use is not as helpful as previously promoted, but the legal proponents got what they always wanted: legalization. In addition, Alex Berenson, a former writer for the New York Times and longtime opponent of the legalization of marijuana, points out that since legalization in several states, such as Colorado, there has been a major increase in fatal accidents, heart attacks and strokes, as well as profound effects on cognitive ability, including schizophrenia, especially in teenagers, and particularly with cannabis’ increase in potency.
We’ll concede one point to the liberal objectors: Life may be tougher now than it has been in past decades. Even at our advanced age, we recall the difficulties young Americans experience. But there is no reason to make everything more difficult through the easy and legal acquisition and use of a dangerous, more potent drug linked to criminal and irresponsible behavior such as marijuana.
Mike Gimbel (mmgimbel@comcast.net) is the former drug czar for Baltimore County and has been the host of “Straight Talk,” an educational program about addiction and recovery. Richard E. Vatz (rvatz@towson.edu) is professor emeritus at Towson University and author of “The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion: The Agenda-Spin Model.” See my review of Vatz’s book in Current Psychology I will try to find and post it.
--------------------------------------------
The response to Gimbel and Vatz by Schaler that the Baltimore Sun refuses to publish:
Gimbel and Vatz wrote one of the most uninformed pieces on marijuana I have ever read!, (“Why Trump’s marijuana reclassification is a mistake,” January 15.
They assert that “the majority of hardcore addicts began with marijuana.” Well, they also likely started with mother’s milk. Does that mean we should outlaw breast feeding?
Then they assert that “all Trump did was to make today’s stronger marijuana more easily available to kids and adults.” Why shouldn’t stronger marijuana be more easily available to anyone who wants it? If that is what people want, who are Gimbel and Vatz to decide they are not entitled?
People use marijuana for the same reason people believe in God, and engage in diverse religious practices. However, religious belief and practices have contributed to far more harm to self and others than any form of drug use or abuse, legal and illegal.
As my late close friend and colleague professor emeritus of psychiatry Thomas Szasz wrote in his books entitled Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and Pushers, Revised Edition (2003); Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market (1992); and Pharmacracy (2001), all published by Syracuse University Press, works praised for their crystal clear thinking and humanitarian approach to drug policy; and my own book entitled Addiction is a Choice (2000) also praised throughout the world for exposing and destroying popular myths about addiction, for example, that addiction is a treatable “disease,” have all changed the way people think about drugs, the meaning of addiction and drug policy forever in the future. In fact, Vatz praised my book years ago!
Gimbel and Vatz apparently want to take us back into the past, to prehistoric times. They want more doctors depriving more people of freedom and responsibility in the name of protecting them from themselves. That is the hallmark of a paternalistic therapeutic state, where medicine and government are entangled in much the same way church and state once were, a theocratic state.
Who benefits from increased prohibition? As Szasz was fond of saying, cui bono? Prison builders! Law enforcement! Treatment providers!
We do not need paternalists such as Gimbel and Vatz to dictate who is entitled to which drugs and for what reason. If history has shown us anything, it is that prohibition, since the days of alcohol prohibition, causes far more harm to citizens than repeal.
Jeffrey A. Schaler, a psychologist, was appointed to the Montgomery County Drug Abuse Advisory Council to represent the mental health profession from 1982 to 1988. As elected chairman of that council, he proposed the repeal of drug prohibition in 1988. His doctoral work at the University of Maryland College Park was focused on addiction and social policy. Schaler created the Addiction Belief Scale in 1988. It is currently used by experts on drug policy throughout the world, most recently in communist China and Sweden. His work with the late Thomas Szasz on humanitarian psychiatry is now used with soldiers in Ukraine, struggling with depression and PTSD. Schaler currently lives in Pompton Plains, NJ, where he gives talks via the Internet on psychiatry, psychology, law and public policy. He can be reached via his substack at www.Drjeffreyaschaler.substack.net
FYI: The Opinion Editor of the Baltimore Sun, Mr. Philip Caldwell, refused to publish my response to an opinion piece he published, shown above, after leading me on with teasers. Coldwell’s odd behavior is undoubtedly due to two factors: the dictatorial influence of the paper’s current owners, Armstrong Williams and Sinclair Broadcasting, both supporters of Trump. This is happening all over the country. The second is Coldwell’s spinelessness. He is 29 years old and deficient in courage. What is more important to me is how people like Sinclair and Williams are influencing freedom of speech around the country.
Trump, as we all know by now, is a chronic liar. Coldwell allowed the paper to get rid of a world-renowned and respected political cartoonist, Kevin “KAL” Kallaugher.
I have no sympathy for anyone who supports Trump. Trump now protects pedophiles in addition to cold-blooded murderers, and of course he is a convicted felon. If you search Armstrong Williams at the Baltimore Sun, and review his writings, you will see the crap he has written. res ipsa loquitur . The facts speech for themselves. The Sun, unfortunately, is now Williams’ and he makes sure there is no such thing as freedom of expression. No opposition to anything Trump might want. Good writing and diversity of expression is now gone. As a result, the Baltimore Sun, which used to be a great newspaper, is ruined.
Kevin “KAL” Kallaugher, long a liberal/politically independent cartoonist and economist, was fired immediately by Williams when ownership changed hands in 2024. He now publishes in the Guardian.
(https://share.google/r3Q1mEoCMozLDQpez
JAS