Who Smokes Marijuana Where?

The full article is available here: http://www.bendsource.com/

State Marijuana Legalization: The Opposing Voices

Repeating Our Alcohol Mistakes?

A recent article in the always insightful Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, edited by Alison Knopf, concerns itself with the voices speaking out against Attorney General Holder’s announcement that federal authorities would not interfere with state efforts to legalize marijuana. It’s no secret that we here at Addiction Inbox have been longtime advocates for decriminalization along Dutch lines. So it’s high time we heard from some prominent dissenters on this issue.

Kevin A. Sabet, Ph.D., director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) and former White House advisor on marijuana policy: “It’s the same thing with alcohol:  The marijuana industry is giving lip service, saying that they don’t want kids to use.”

Sue Thau, public policy consultant for Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA): “This is the start of Big Marijuana the way we have Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco…. Anyone who cares about addiction has to care about this.”

Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy: “We know that marijuana use, particularly long-term, chronic use that began at a young age, can lead to dependence and addiction. Marijuana is not a benign drug, and we continue to oppose marijuana legalization because it runs counter to a public health approach to drug policy.”

Gen. Arthur T. Dean, CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA): "This decision sends a message to our citizens, youth, communities, states, and the international community at large that the enforcement of federal law related to marijuana is not a priority."

The article is entitled “Advocates dismayed as legalization moves forward.”

Here are a few I have come across recently from other sources:

Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana (CALM): "After decades of study the FDA continues to reaffirm that there is no medical benefit provided by the use of smoked marijuana and that, in fact, considerable harm can be caused by such use. We affirm the 2006 FDA finding and vast scientific evidence that marijuana causes harm. The normalization, expanded use, and increased availability of marijuana in our communities are detrimental to our youth, to public health, and to the safety of our society."

Office of National Drug Control Policy: "The Office of National Drug Control Policy is working to reduce the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs through development of strategies that fully integrate the principles of prevention, treatment, recovery, and effective supply reduction efforts. Proposals such as legalization that would promote marijuana use are inconsistent with this public health and safety approach.... Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects."

CNBC: "Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current balanced, restrictive, and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and they have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation.... The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent. In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent. This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not a failure."


Photo Credit: LARRY MAYER/Billings Gazette Staff

Seven Questions About Marijuana Legalization

RAND researcher nails it neatly.

I’ve been meaning to offer up the key points from an excellent column on marijuana legalization that appeared in April in USA Today. Beau Kilmer, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, lists the “new and tricky issues” that Colorado and Washington forgot to consider in depth before passing broad legalization statutes.

Both states are works in progress. What they have passed so far will undoubtedly be revisited. Without further ado, here are Kilmer’s “Seven Ps,” as I call them:

Production. Who gets to grow it, where do they get to grow it, and how much do they get to grow? Will the business model be Starbucks, Jack Daniels, or your local organic family farm? Will it be legal on large commercial operations, indoor growing rooms, backyard gardens? All of this matters economically, since it’s likely that legalization will force down the price of marijuana, as growers will be able to operate in the open, and middlemen won’t have to worry about arrest. Implicit in this category are things like product testing and product safety.

Profit. If the history of cigarette and alcohol regulation have any bearing on the matter (and they do), it’s likely that marijuana marketers will want to concentrate promotional efforts on the heaviest smokers. States might decide to limit production to mom-and-pop home producers—or try to, at least. Or they could throw the door open to marijuana in the free market, and attempt to regulate the for-profit corporations that flock to the new opportunity. Monopolistic practices, collusion, price-fixing, bribes, payoffs to government officials—the whole panoply of corporate malpractice would be available to Big Pot if things go that way.

Promotion. The California medical marijuana movement got itself in hot water straightaway by hiring sign pointers to stand on Los Angeles street corners and advertise the cheapest Ozs in the neighborhood. Not smart. States that legalize will likely need to pursue some form of restriction on advertising for institutions or storefronts selling marijuana. However, as the cigarette industry has shown in its successful effort to block mandatory graphic warnings on packaging, companies are availing themselves of 1st Amendment defenses as a way of demolishing attempts to restrict advertising and promotional activities. Since corporations are now officially people, it looks, so far, like a winning strategy in court.

Prevention. States will obviously enact some age restrictions, which haven’t been terribly effect with cigarettes and alcohol. In addition, the decades-old message to America’s schoolchildren about staying “chemical-free,” starting with the evil weed, will have to be revisited and revised. The pioneering states have expended much time and verbiage on the subject of how much to tax marijuana sales, and a good deal less time on whether any of that tax money will go for prevention efforts, or for addiction treatment. Yes, pot is addictive for some people, and pot smokers who are lucky enough not to have this problem cannot seem to summon much sympathy for those who do. This will have to change, as marijuana addiction and withdrawal enter the public sphere with legalization.

Potency. If you count butane hash oil, or “dabbing,” the potency of modern seedless marijuana ranges from about 15 per cent to as high as 90 per cent THC. Yes, that’s quite a bit higher than the shoebox full of Mexican from the good old days. Arguments rage in the research community over the effect of strong pot, and whether it increases cognitive deficits, general anxiety, panic attacks, and even mental illnesses. Beer, wine and alcohol have mandated strength levels, printed right there on the bottle. Something similar will likely have to be crafted for marijuana.

Price. How elastic is the price of pot? Could heavy taxation push the whole game back underground? What’s a fair market price for a quarter of Train Wreck? “Retail prices will largely be a function of consumer demand, production costs and tax rates,” writes Kilmer. “The way taxes are set will also have an effect on what’s purchased and consumed—that is, whether pot is taxed by value, total weight, THC content, or other chemical properties.”

Permanency. With legalization, we are likely to see a pioneer penalty: “The first jurisdictions to legalize pot will probably suffer growing pains and want to make changes later on,” Kilmer believes. He envisions a powerful lobbying organization putting the arm on legislators on behalf of a newly legal and seriously profitable line of business. It would be best if legislation comes with maximum flexibility to make future changes, so states can adapt their operations as the thing plays out on the ground for the first time.


I personally understand and sympathize with the drive for legalization. I also think that Colorado and Washington have jumped first, and plan to think later, sorting it all out in freefall. That seems like a possible recipe for disasters large and small. Moving a popular drug across the legal/illegal line is a bit like getting molecules through the blood-brain barrier: It can be done, but it had better be done with sufficient care and forethought.

Graphics Credit: http://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/