Kellyanne Conway Pushes Debunked Myth About Fentanyl-Laced Weed

And no, teens aren't popping random pills at "Skittles parties" either.


Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) today, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway pushed a debunked myth about marijuana laced with fentanyl.

"Fentanyl is an instant killer, and a tiny little grain of it can wipe us out," Conway said during a panel discussion with Fox News contributor Sara Carter. "And it's being laced into marijuana, heroin, meth, cocaine, and street drugs."

Of course it's possible to lace marijuana with fentanyl, just as it's possible to, say, mix dog food with chocolate. And on rare occasions it happens: Police say dozens of people overdosed on fentanyl-laced pot at a park near Yale University in August. But that was an isolated and unusual incident; there's no sign it happens with any sort of frequency.

People talk about it happening much more often. Several inaccurate stories about weed-laced fentanyl went viral in 2017, according to Snopes, as police departments across the company issued warnings about a "fentanyl-pot craze." In March of that year, Sen. Rob Portman (R–Ohio) claimed Ohio police had told him drug dealers were putting fentanyl in marijuana. The police later said this wasn't true. But that didn't stop Portman from making an almost identical claim almost a year later.

In June 2017, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman told the Cincinnati Enquirer he hadn't heard of any cases where marijuana had been mixed with fentanyl. That's partly why in September of that year, Snopes rated the claim that fentanyl-laced marijuana is "a real and growing concern in the United States" as "false." Meanwhile, the American Addiction Centers has said that weed is "probably less likely to be intentionally laced with other psychoactive substances than many other illicit drugs."

But the scaremongering didn't stop. In March 2018, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar tried to convince young people at a White House event that weed is part of the opioid crisis. "These are very sophisticated operators, and they are lacing other illegal drugs with fentanyl to get you hooked on opioids and bring you into their system," he said. "Marijuana laced with fentanyl, all kinds of other products laced with fentanyl."

As Salon noted at the time, one reason this myth is promulgated is that coroners find traces of both marijuana and fentanyl in the bodies of people who have died of drug overdoses. They later discover that the substances were consumed separately, and that the fentanyl, not the weed, was the cause of death.

This wasn't the only, or even the worst, moment of scaremongering during the panel discussion. At one point Carter claimed that young people are having "'Skittles parties,' where they bring pills and put them into bowls and everybody picks a pill that they want and takes them. I mean, it's kind of shocking when I heard about this, randomly taking pills."

Sound ridiculous? That's probably because it is.

NEXT: Cory Booker Makes Federal Marijuana Legalization a Central Campaign Push

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And even if these things were true, both would make a stronger argument for full legalization.

    1. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On Tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $36259 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringing in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here.

  2. Umm, that picture seems to be sucking my soul out. Is that intended?

    1. You failed the KAC challenge

      1. I am making easily persistently $15k to $20k simply by doing direct work at home. Multi month again i have made $45890 from this movement. amazing and smooth to do work and standard pay from this is bewildering. i have propose each final one of you to join this progress right directly as low protection and get than full time salary through take after this association.

        Just Visit Now…… http://www.SalaryHD.Com

  3. “Skittles parties”

    I’m so old I remember the drug scare films ( actually film strips!) had the “kids” calling it a “fruit salad”. We ate healthier back then.

    1. Or “pharm parties” was one that some “journalist” came up with what for scaring soccer moms and such.

  4. Man, 3 weed articles. Fascinating stuff. Really.

    1. Well, chemjeff pretty much killed their ability to write open borders articles today, what with his revealing conviction that child rape shouldn’t disqualify an individual from being granted asylum if that individual belongs to a class that is sufficiently oppressed – because any member of that class, regardless of their individual acts, deserves to live in the US.

      Don’t think Reason wants that exposure on the open borders side again.

  5. Kellyanne Conway is an idiot, but even she wouldn’t import child rapists.

    1. So why are you here then?

      1. Because he was oppressed in his home country so we had to grant him amnesty?

        1. I’m thinking Tulpa was the oppressor in that case.

          And you all are completely misrepresenting my argument.

          I never argued in favor of affirmatively “importing” anyone.

          I never argued that a claim of oppression alone created a mandate to admit everyone.

          Go back and read what I actually wrote.

          1. It’s funny that you assumed I was talking about you. Defensive much?

            That said, you probably should be defensive since you plan to import child rapists.

            1. Fuck off, troll.

              1. I’ll take troll over “guy who wants to import child rapists” all day long.

                1. No one here wants to import child rapists.
                  You’re a vile piece of shit.
                  Fuck off troll.

                  1. You do. We all saw it.

                    So stop pretending you don’t want to import child rapists when you want to import child rapists.

                    1. You’re a vile piece of shit.
                      Fuck off troll.

                    2. Not as vile as a guy who wants to import child rapists like you do.

                    3. I’ve been reading this exchange with great interest. So, to be clear, what you are saying is that Jeff wants to import child rapists?

                      Jeff what are your thoughts on flooding the market with import child rapists? Do you think this would significantly affect the price of domestically produced child rapists?

          2. The sad thing is you say to read what you wrote, but then you double down again on the same flawed reasoning and pretend it means something other than what it says.

            1. “flawed reasoning” = “doesn’t agree with the fake high minded pretentions of BYODB”

              Got it

              1. Just because you don’t understand logical consequences doesn’t mean we are all similarly handicapped.

                1. Okay. What is the ‘logical consequence’ that I supposedly don’t understand?

                  “You want to import child rapists into prisons!” I did not say that nor do I advocate that nor does that necessarily follow from ANYTHING I WROTE. That is YOUR projection because you cannot think outside of your narrow field of vision. Because you have your head so far up your ass that you cannot even pretend to see the point of view of others.

                  1. I’m not Tulpa so I can’t speak to his or her insane trolling, but for someone who talks about reading comprehension it seems you can’t quote what people actually say. The United States policy of not accepting people for amnesty when they commit felonies in the United States seems centrist, but you say there is a moral case in disregarding any other consideration outside of oppression by the state in amnesty. You’re trying to revise yourself today, but we can still read what you wrote yesterday genius.

                    1. “Do we want them here” and “Do they deserve asylum” are two separate questions.

                      It is absolutely possible for the answer to the first question to be “no”, but the answer to the second question be “yes”.

                      Nardz|2.28.19 @ 10:39AM|#

                      No it’s not.
                      Nobody “deserves” asylum

                      reply to this report spam
                      chemjeff radical individualist|2.28.19 @ 10:42AM|#

                      Sure they do, at least in some moral sense.


                      Anything else, genius?

                    2. So, still quoting things I never said and pretending I agree. Cool story kiddo.

                    3. What you wrote:

                      You’re trying to revise yourself today

                      is not accurate.

                    4. My only point is that the question of whether or not someone deserves asylum is a separate question from whether or not someone is a good person.

                      The logical implication is that someone can be a ‘bad person’ (re: child rapist) and still deserve asylum.

        2. And, ONCE AGAIN.

          If your position is “no asylum for Bad People”, then you are giving a green light for all foreign governments to engage in oppression, as long as the Bad People are the ones being oppressed.

          If your position is “asylum for everyone”, then you are arguing that everyone should come here even under flimsy pretexts where there is no real oppression.

          There is a difficult moral choice to be made in the middle. But oh no, you all had to have fun instead demagoging the issue and turning it into “lol chemjeff loves child rapists”. It’s banal highschool trolling. I expect Tulpa to do that of course because that’s all he is. But the rest of you, I am more disappointed in.

          1. The difficult moral choice you made was to import child rapists.

            1. Fuck off, troll.

              1. This is what you get when you challenge his plan to import child rapists. He’s also salty that I pointed out he just assumed I was talking about him.

                1. You’re a vile piece of shit.
                  Fuck off troll.

                  1. And you want to import child rapists.

                    1. You’re a vile piece of shit.
                      Fuck off troll.

                    2. And AGAIN, you want to import child rapists.

                    3. You’re a vile piece of shit.
                      Fuck off troll.

                    4. It won’t change. You will always be the guy who wanted to import child rapists.

                    5. You’re a troll, a loathsome liar.
                      You make the Internet a worse place.
                      Eat shit and die.

                    6. Which still makes me better than you, a guy who wants to import child rapists.

                    7. If I wanted to import child rapists you might have a point. But I don’t, you know that, because you lie and get your rocks off by being an attention whoring lying troll. Go play in traffic.

                    8. Except you DO want to import child rapists. We all saw it.

                    9. Chemjeff didn’t say that he wanted us to let child rapists into the United States. He said there is a human right for child rapists to gain access to U.S. prisons. Not quite the same thing.

                    10. He wants to import child rapists.

                    11. No. I said that there is a MORAL CASE to be made to consider asylum applications of individuals being oppressed by foreign governments, EVEN IF those individuals are “Bad People” by some measure.

                      YOU ALL turned that into “chemjeff loves child rape”.

                      So fuck you all.

                    12. Nothing you say will change the fact that you wanted to import child rapists.

            2. How about you both fuck off, or get a room or something?

              1. No one is making you read it bitch.

                1. You don’t know that.

          2. False dichotomy and strawman much?

            1. False dichotomy

              I explicitly did not present a dichotomy. I presented two of MANY options. “There’s a difficult moral choice to be made in the middle”. Did you not read that? Learn to read.

              1. You’re presenting a strawman false dichotomy as the position of people who disagree with you. The status quo is already centrist for the most part.

                1. You’re presenting a strawman false dichotomy as the position of people who disagree with you.

                  And that is your bad-faith projection onto me. I did not attribute those positions to any specific person. Maybe no one holds those precise positions. I present them as illustrative hypothetical examples, to illustrate the continuum of choices and the moral hazards associated with either end of the continuum. But it sure makes you feel smug to shout “false dichotomy” all the time.

                  1. You are a pretty insufferable child, it’s true. You couldn’t admit pedophilia was a valid reason to deny amnesty yesterday, and it seems that you’re unable to do so today either. You have to argue the abstract because the literal case in question didn’t conform to your utopian ideals.

                    If your position is “no asylum for Bad People”, then you are giving a green light for all foreign governments to engage in oppression, as long as the Bad People are the ones being oppressed.

                    If your position is “asylum for everyone”, then you are arguing that everyone should come here even under flimsy pretexts where there is no real oppression.

                    There is a difficult moral choice to be made in the middle.

                    This is specifically not where you started out yesterday, and it amounts to yelling at clouds since neither of those things are the law. You are arguing with voices in your own head, and your ‘hard moral choice’ is called the status quo.

    2. LOL
      Well said, Tulpa.

      For anyone who missed it:

      1. Damn, should’ve kept reading before posting.

        For the record: my personal position on the matter is that child rape disqualifies an individual for consideration for asylum no matter the oppression that individual may be subject to in his/her own country.
        Oppression does not confer sainthood, nor justify certain actions – especially if those actions were taken by the individual while on US soil awaiting hearing on their petition for asylum.
        Oppression does not grant an individual the right to asylum in the US – they may, in some circumstances, have the right to request asylum but do not have the right to be given asylum.
        The level of oppression faced by the oppressed person is irrelevant to the determination that child rape disqualifies that oppressed person from receiving asylum in the US.

        I think this is a moderate and sensible position for a US citizen to take, but feel free to continue arguing otherwise, jeff.

  6. Fentanyl poisoning happens quit often but then you’d have to look beyond your window to see that

    1. Thanks, prohibition!

  7. Meh. Drug Warriors.

  8. “Marijuana laced with fentanyl, all kinds of other products laced with fentanyl.”

    “Ice cream, Mandrake. Children’s ice cream!”

  9. Fentanyl-laced pot? We used to do that all the time. We called it Momo. It’d make you hallucinate some weird shit, like you’d imagine some creature popping up in a video game telling you to eat Tide pods.

  10. Jesus. Is this the same old tulpa? Cuz the old one was an insufferable prick. This one is, too, I just don’t recall if the tone is the same.

    Man, this place has gone downhill.

    1. No it is not. I stole his name and try to make him look as bad as possible. People think I’m serious which makes it better.

      1. Hmm. Try more getting angry at people who give food to the homeless in parks. And arguing for mandatory gun safety inspections. That’s classic Tulpa.

        1. Nobody at Reason gives a shit about that stuff anymore.

  11. “weed-laced fentanyl”
    Did you mean fentanyl-laced weed? Because that would make more sense

  12. As drug dealers are out to make money, it is doubtful they would lace pot with fentanyl, or anything else, for nothing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.