The original version of this article appeared in exxpress.
At the MCC Budapest Summit on the global drug epidemic, exxpress spoke with Kevin Sabet. He is the president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a long-time advisor to several U.S. presidential administrations and one of the most well-known experts in drug policy. Immediately after his keynote—in which he described the global situation as a “new era of high-risk substances”—we asked him why marijuana today is more dangerous than ever and which political actors are enabling this shift.
Marijuana today is a genetically modified industrial crop.
Sabet makes it clear from the outset that the idea of a natural, mild marijuana product is long gone. He says directly: “With the THC products on the market, nobody has any idea what they do or don’t do. They are genetically modified and commercialized.”
This development is not accidental, he explains, but the result of massive industrialization. In his keynote, he showed a slide summarizing the impacts of legalization: stronger products, more addiction, more mental illness.
A historical comparison with the tobacco sector is central to his argument: “For 100 years, cigarettes have been deadly because the tobacco industry commercialized them. The same thing is happening now with marijuana.” The plant is being bred for maximum potency. Capital interests systematically override concerns about the long-term effects on society and public health.
Legalization strengthens the market, not safety.
From his perspective, legalization does not solve a single structural problem. “Capitalism made it possible for potency to skyrocket. The mafia is bigger than ever. For them, legalization is ideal because the market becomes official.”
In his slide on the “spectrum of harm reduction,” he also stresses that many state programs are not reducing harm—they are increasing it.
He criticizes Europe sharply: “In Europe the bar is being lowered. Everything is justified with ‘safer use.’”
A dangerous mistake, he says, because in his view there is no longer such a thing as safety with these substances.
For him, harm-reduction strategies must aim to actually reduce drug-related risks, not stabilize or prolong long-term consumption. Current programs, he argues, often do the opposite. “Meet people where they are—but don’t leave them there.” Programs that accompany consumption instead of promoting exit are counterproductive. He sees European models that recommend consumption groups as particularly harmful, as they make initiating use easier.
Sabet explains that political alliances and foundations have for years been actively pushing a global liberalization strategy:
“Politicians receive a lot of money to sit on global commissions that appear to the public as expert bodies, even though their policies are not effective.”
He names Soros as a central supporter of the movements pushing legalization worldwide. According to Sabet, these networks are instrumental in enabling extreme liberalization measures in countries like Germany, Canada, and parts of the U.S., despite data suggesting otherwise.
He points to the Netherlands as an example. For decades, the country relied on a liberalized model with the expectation that it would provide control and reduce crime. The opposite occurred. He cites statements from Dutch authorities who now call their approach a “disaster.”
And he asks the key question: “If this model worked so well, why don’t the surrounding countries adopt it?” For him, the lack of imitation shows that the political narratives do not match reality.
Addiction is so much more than a disease.
It is frequently emphasized that drug addiction is a serious illness and must be treated like other diseases. But Sabet argues that this perspective is incomplete. Unlike many chronic medical conditions, addiction has a realistic chance of full recovery — as long as behavior, environment, and motivation are fundamentally changed.
This, he says, is the critical difference from medical diseases that require lifelong management.
“Addiction is so much more than a disease — it has a strong behavioral component,” he explains. His argument is: if behavior is a core part of the illness, then behavioral change must be a core part of recovery.
This leads him to a controversial proposal: he believes individuals who are both criminally offending and addicted should face a clear choice — either a prison sentence or withdrawal treatment with real therapeutic support.