It's a good point to raise - at the same time, I think it's generally accepted that THC is on the safer side of the "problematic drug" spectrum, while opioids are on the riskier side?
I agree that opiods are definitely on the riskier side of the spectrum, while THC definitely seem on the safer side - at least for adults. But we know that: that's why opioids are mainly sold after a prescription by a doctor and in a pharmacy. At least we are trying to limit access to opioids.
On the other hand THC is currently almost advertised as being "good for you" (see all the papers/studies around it), and a socially acceptable/fun thing to do. While I don't really see anyone posting on social media a picture of themselves crushing some oxy pills. Overall we can expect the number of people negatively impacted by a THC addiction to be significantly higher in the next few years than for opioids. Even if at the individual level, the effects are lower.
At the macro level this makes THC widespread use worrying - just like the opioids use is worrying. The really interesting thing is the difference in narrative. We know want to lock down one as much as possible, while we want to open the other as much as possible.
PR wise, it's incredible. The arguments used in this article against opioids (it was a great business making lots of money !), are exactly the argument used in favour of THC (it is going a great business making lots of [tax] money !).
The reason THC is even an issue is because the law has insistently been an ass for over half a century. The DEA has a complete tautology of Schedule 1 classification when its effects are far less dangerous. Yet it is federally more controlled than cocaine.
The consequences make a huge difference. So a plan to make a million dollars selling sandwiches vs killing people on the street to rifle through their pockets should be treated very differently.
The reason why THC is an issue is...because it's bad for you. At least for 90% of the population.
If THC has benefits in a narrow range of situation, doctors should absolutely be able to experiment with it. And the DEA classification should be reviewed under that light.
But there is a whooooole range of possible options that sit between "it's the worst substance ever. Anyone consuming it should be put in jail after 3 strikes. No one can even dream of making medical trials with it" and "Meh, it looks relatively harmless and fun, let's distribute that like candies with close to no control"
