Praising Marijuana Prohibition

The view from the White House.

As regular readers of Addiction Inbox will know, I am on record as favoring some form of decriminalization for marijuana. But I also write regularly about the difficulties of marijuana addiction and withdrawal. And I have been critical of the operational strategies employed by the medical marijuana movement in the several states in which it now operates. What I have not done, to date, is offer up the official view of a drug policy analyst from the Obama administration who straightforwardly favors a continuation of the legal prohibition against marijuana. 

One of the architects of the current federal resistance to marijuana legalization is Kevin Sabet, an assistant professor and the director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida College of Medicine. Sabet served from 2009 to 2011 in the Obama Administration as Senior Advisor for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) under Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, and was influential in shaping federal marijuana policy. Sabet consults with governments and NGOs on a wide range of drug policy prevention issues, and recently debated legalization advocate Ethan Nadelmann on CNN. He is also a regular columnist for thefix.com  and Huffington Post. He agreed to participate in a frank and lengthy 5-question interview with Addiction Inbox. (Be sure to check out the comments below).

1. In his new book, Too High to Fail, journalist Doug Fine argues that "the Drug War is as unconscionably wrong for America as segregation or DDT." Would you comment on this sweeping condemnation?

First, I think it is interesting to note that only people who want to condemn all of our current drug policies use the term "drug war." No one in serious policy circles uses that term anymore, and that is because it is woefully inadequate and vague as a way to describe a whole slew of policies designed to both reduce drug prevalence and drug consequences. I think his comparison is clumsy and unfair. Do some drug policies hurt disadvantaged groups? Of course they do. Is it a moral imperative to fix those policies, learn from our past mistakes and make our policies better? Of course it is. There's no reason to think that those policies can't be changed—in the White House in 2009, for example, we drastically reduced the penalty for crack cocaine. But what makes Mr. Fine's comparison even more wrong-headed and backwards is that we know that if we scale-up—not eliminate, as he would—the policies we know do work in reducing drug use and its consequences, all communities in America would benefit. A handful include:

(a) community-based prevention that not only focuses on stopping drug use among school kids, but in changing bad local laws and ordinances that promote underage drinking, smoking, and marijuana use (so-called "environmental policies");

(b) early intervention and detection of drug use in health settings;

(c) evidence-based treatment, including methadone and buprenorphine, as well as 12-step programs;

(d) recovery-based policies that don't penalize people for past drug use and instead facilitate recovery;

(e) law enforcement based on credible threats and modest sanctions.

2. The Drug War is an industry—the DEA alone has a budget of 2 1/2 billion and employs almost 10,000 people. If we add in profits from the private prison industry, and the money-laundering banks, the money is staggering. Wouldn't it make sense to recoup those historical costs by legalizing and taxing marijuana?

That phrase assumes two things: (a) criminal justice and regulation costs would be drastically reduced, or eliminated, with marijuana legalization; and (b) the underground market would be eliminated with marijuana legalization. Both of those assumptions are huge leaps that don't stand up to our experience with our already two legal drugs—alcohol and tobacco.

First, we know that legalization means more consumption. More consumption means more regulation. Today we have liquor laws, laws against drinking and driving, laws against public drunkenness, etc. With regards to legal alcohol, we make 2.6 million arrests every year for the violation of those laws. Meanwhile, we arrest a million fewer times for illegal drugs (1.6 million/year). Legal alcohol costs us money with regards to crime and regulation. I think that is a big consideration in this whole debate that we rarely hear about. So that means we'd have to have more prisons, more police, and more regulation costs under legalization—especially since few people are in prison or jail solely for marijuana use.

And I'm not so sure the underground market would be eliminated with marijuana legalization. Especially if it is taxed heavily, the incentive for the underground market—having been painstakingly established for decades by multinational corporate structures (cartels)—is very little. We'll still need a black market for underage marijuana, for marijuana to be sold to repeat offenders, etc. I just don't see the cartels throwing up their hands and saying "OK, it's legalized. We're out of the game now. Let's get into the ice cream business."

3. A "Pax Cannabis" would require rescheduling marijuana at the federal level, with an overt recognition that marijuana has some redeeming medical value. What's the argument for maintaining cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug along with heroin, a drug with which it has almost nothing in common? Could you comment on the upcoming U.S. Appeals Court consideration of medical marijuana?

Rescheduling marijuana is one of the biggest red herrings I can think of in this debate. If rescheduled tomorrow, it would do nothing to allow marijuana to be sold legally. Rather, it would be a huge symbolic victory for marijuana advocates -- but it would be wholly wrong on the science. Placing a drug in schedule 1 simply means the drug has no medical use and a high potential for abuse. It has nothing to do with the other drugs in that category (e.g. heroin). If it were a drug, a telephone would also need to be in Schedule 1 - I'm addicted to my cell phone and I know it has no medical use. That doesn't mean a phone is as dangerous as a syringe of heroin.  Today, cocaine is Schedule 2 because it has some very limited hospital use. Can a 21-year-old kid with no medical knowledge sell cocaine from a "dispensary" called "Happy Clinic" legally? Of course not, though that is what is happening [with marijuana] in California.

In order to be used for medical use, a specific product needs to be approved by FDA. Marijuana's specific product, so far, is Marinol, a Schedule 3 drug which has been approved by FDA and is used by people throughout the world. Crude, raw marijuana is not a specific product. The best way I can put it is this: We don't smoke opium to get the effects of morphine, so why do we think we need to smoke marijuana to get its potential medical effects? We have non-inhaled medications that are approved and we have others on the way. For a lot more on this, you can check out an article I wrote for Join Together. I think the District court opinion will rest on the science and agree with the Department of Health and Human Services that raw, crude marijuana is not medicine.

4. Alaska decriminalized marijuana in 1975, and only recriminalized after lengthy pressure from the Reagan administration. Isn't cultivation of this flowering weed for personal use the most obvious and straightforward solution?

The Reagan Administration could have cared less about Alaska, frankly. Alaska recriminalized because voters there wanted that to happen. They didn't like the effect of decriminalization on their state. That said, I don't think many people are in favor—and I am not—of locking up people smoking small amounts of marijuana. That isn't happening anywhere. One notable exception is New York City where they impose 24-hour detentions for public use and selling as part of their broken windows approach to crime control.

Indeed, in the 1970s, twelve states formally decriminalized marijuana. This meant that persons found to have a small amount of marijuana were not subject to jail time, but rather they would receive a civil penalty, such as a fine. The discussion in the United States is highly complex because even in jurisdictions without a formal decriminalization law, persons are rarely jailed for possessing small amounts of cannabis. A rigorous government analyses of who is in jail or prison for marijuana found that less than 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only (with many of them pleading down from more serious crimes).[1] Other independent research has shown that the risk of arrest for each “joint,” or cannabis cigarette, smoked is about 1 arrest for every 12,000 joints.[2] This probably explains the fact that the literature on early decriminalization effects on use has been mixed. Some studies found no increase in use in the so-called “depenalization” states, whereas others found a positive relationship between greater use and formal changes in the law.[3]

The more recent discussion about state-level legalization may provide more insights. Two RAND Corporation reports concluded that legalization would result in lower cannabis prices, and thus increases in use (though by how much is highly uncertain), and that “legalizing cannabis in California would not dramatically reduce the drug revenues collected by Mexican drug trafficking organizations from sales to the United States.”[4]

5. Marijuana advocates don't like to hear it, but pot is addictive for some users. Where do you stand on this controversial issue?

Science tells us that marijuana is addictive—about 1 in 11 people who ever smoke marijuana are addicted; but if you start in adolescence that number climbs to 1 in 6. That's not anyone's opinion but rather the result of rigorous scientific research done by the National Institutes of Health and confirmed by other international scientific bodies. Is marijuana as addictive as tobacco cigarettes? No. The addiction rate for tobacco is about 1 in 3; for heroin it is lower, about 1 in 4. Users who try to quit experience withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, insomnia, appetite disturbance, and depression.

A United States study that dissected the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (conducted from 1991 to 1992 with 42,862 participants) and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (conducted from 2001 through 2002 with more than 43,000 participants) found that the number of cannabis users stayed the same while the number dependent on the drug rose 20 percent ­ from 2.2 million to 3 million.[5]Authors speculated that higher potency marijuana may have been to blame for this increase. As I've heard said many times by experienced tokers, "this isn't your Grandfather's Woodstock Weed."

[1] “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997.” BJS Special Report, January 1999, NCJ 172871. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/satsfp97.pdf

[2] Beau Kilmer, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Robert J. MacCoun, Peter H. Reuter, Altered State? Assessing How Cannabis Legalization in California Could Influence Cannabis Consumption and Public Budgets, RAND, 2010.

[3] For a discussion see MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Reuter, P., Chriqui, J., Harris, K. (2009). Do citizens know whether they live in a decriminalization state? State cannabis laws and perceptions. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 347-371.

[4] Beau Kilmer, Jonathan P. Caulkins, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Robert J. MacCoun, Peter H. Reuter, Altered State? Assessing How Cannabis Legalization in California Could Influence Cannabis Consumption and Public Budgets, RAND, 2010. And see Kilmer, Beau , Jonathan P. Caulkins, Brittany M. Bond and Peter H. Reuter. Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico: Would Legalizing Cannabis in California Help?.Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2010. http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP325. Also available in print form.

[5] ]Compton, W., Grant, B., Colliver, J., Glantz, M., Stinson, F. Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002Journal of the American Medical Association.. 291:2114-2121.

Photo Credit:http://article.wn.com/

Feds Go “Passive-Aggressive” in Fight Against Medical Marijuana

Sending in the IRS instead of knocking down doors.

It’s official: The Obama administration has thrown off the gloves, repudiating Attorney General Eric Holder’s vow of two years ago that the federal government was not interested in prosecuting “state-legal” cannabis activity. Instead, a flurry of action is underway, intended to signal that the DOE and DEA are out to put a stake through the heart of the medical marijuana industry as a whole. Marijuana, however it is used, remains wholly illegal under federal statutes, and federal law enforcement officials insist such laws trump any state laws aimed at allowing the sale and use of cannabis.

During the last 30 days:

-- The DEA raided medical marijuana clinics in Tempe, Arizona.

--The Rhode Island governor reneged on an earlier pledge to okay medical marijuana in his state, saying that any such activity would make the state a target for federal prosecution. 

-- Federal prosecutors seized the bank accounts of medical marijuana shops in Sacramento, claiming a series of “irregular deposits.”

--The IRS decreed that the biggest marijuana dispensary in California cannot deduct ordinary business expenses on its taxes.

--A study of marijuana for posttraumatic stress disordered descended into “regulatory limbo,” as Brian Vastag reported for the Washington Post, after the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the only legal source of cannabis for researchers, refused to hand over government marijuana to the study authors because of “a number of concerns” about research protocol.

--A California Appellate Court ruled that the statute allowing  marijuana dispensaries in Long Beach is in violation of federal law, which will force a long and arduous rewrite of the permitting laws for that city, and presumably other cities as well.

 The irony is that California’s medical marijuana industry, the first in the nation, may have survived the SWAT team attacks of the Bush years, only to fall victim to renewed regulatory fervor under President Obama’s watch. And, as I reported earlier at The Fix: “Britain’s giant GW Pharmaceuticals received U.S. patent approval for the use of Sativex, its nasal spray for treatment of advanced cancer pain composed of—yes, that’s right—a combination of the two primary chemicals found in cannabis. Since then, Sativex has made it all the way to Phase III clinical testing in a bid for FDA approval. At the moment, the company’s chances of producing a cannabis based pill are looking very good.” Meanwhile, so-called “whole-plant” marijuana research is getting squeezed out.

And now comes word that federal prosecutors are following up with a giant crackdown on all California dispensaries. Associated Press reports that U.S. attorneys sent letters this week to at least 16 pot dispensaries, “warning the stores they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state’s 15-year-old medical-marijuana law.”

Sources say that cease-and-desist letters from U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in California had been received by some dispensaries, stating the “violations of the federal law referenced…. is a federal crime,” and further stipulating that the penalties could include property forfeitures and 40 years of prison time, reports Chris Roberts at SF Weekly.

And the Associated Press obtained copies of letters sent to San Diego dispensaries, in which federal prosecutors claim that marijuana shops are illegal and subject to criminal prosecution and civil enforcement actions. “Real and personal property involved in such operations are subject to seizure by and forfeiture to the United States… regardless of the purported purpose of the dispensary.”

The action follows warning letters that were sent to dispensary owners and state officials by federal prosecutors in June, which strongly hinted that state employees might be liable for prosecution as well. A California attorney told SF Weekly that the feds were now embarking on a more effective “passive-aggressive” approach to shutting down the medical marijuana industry. “They’ve systematically changed their approach,” said the attorney. “Probably after talking to a PR professional.”

Graphics Credit:  http://www.shouselaw.com/

Marijuana Q & A

My interview with AllTreatment Blog.

Denny Chapin, Managing Editor of AllTreatment.com, was recently invited to participate in an extended debate over marijuana withdrawal at the Drug WarRant blog site. I followed that debate with interest, due to the unusually high volume of responses to my own post on that subject.

Now Denny has kindly provided me the opportunity to offer my own views on a set of questions about cannabis use and cannabis dependency. The complete interview can be read at the AllTreatment site HERE.

Photo credit: http://www.medicalmarijuana.co.cc

Time for a Sales Tax on Sinsemilla?

Will states let marijuana revenue go up in smoke?

As California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano put it: “What if California could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue to preserve vital state services without any tax increase?”

That question is likely to hook any state legislature’s attention these days. When times are tough, you go with your strengths. In California, one of those strengths is the nation’s most robust homegrown marijuana industry—virtually all of it off the books at present.

Reeling from a $42 billion budget deficit, the California government has been slashing deeply into state spending. The marijuana industry, variously estimated at anywhere between $4 and $14 billion per year, is the state’s largest cash crop.

Is this any time to be turning down a couple of billion dollars a year in potential state revenue? The question of marijuana decriminalization may begin to be seen under a different light, as cash-strapped states look in every corner for ways to add revenue.

The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act, introduced in the California legislature last week, would legalize the possession and sale of marijuana for people over 21—with a hefty sales tax similar to the taxes imposed on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes. The bill would prohibit open street sales or sales near schools. Marijuana wholesalers would be charged several thousand dollars up front to distribute the crop, and an individual sales fee of $50 per ounce at the retail level would be applied.

Proponents of the bill claimed it would generate more than $1 billion annually, according to a report by Stu Woo in the Wall Street Journal. The California chapter of NORML estimates that the take for the Golden State could be as high as $2.5 billion a year, when excise taxes, savings in law enforcement expenditures, and spinoff industries like coffee houses are taken into account.

Ammiano, the Democrat from San Francisco who introduced the bill, told Salon: “I do have support from a lot of colleagues, who say, ‘Oh my God, I think this is great, but I don’t think I can vote for it.’” In an opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle, Ammiano wrote that his reason for introducing the bill was to begin “a rational public policy discussion about how best to regulate the state’s largest cash crop, estimated to be worth roughly $14 billion annually. Placing marijuana under the same regulatory system that now applies to alcohol represents the natural evolution...” In addition, Ammiano suggests, “Regulation allows common-sense controls and takes the marijuana industry out of the hands of unregulated criminals.”

A lobbyist for California police groups told the Wall Street Journal that the bill was “based on a fallacious assumption that if we could only legalize marijuana, that we will have fiscal and social Shangri-La.”

Nonetheless, more than a dozen states have signaled a willingness to move toward more liberal marijuana enforcement policies recently. All of these efforts eventually collide with competing federal statutes, making the possession and sale of marijuana potentially a federal crime. As with the issue of gay marriage, it is possible that states will continue to push back, resisting federal efforts to nullify state changes in marijuana enforcement policy.

Photo Credit: Forest Service Drug Control Program

addictiondrugsmedical marijuana