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/

Drug Czar Kerlikowske Interviewed in Foreign Policy Magazine

Drug War goes international in a big way.

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--a.k.a. the Drug Czar--finds himself in a curious position. Kerlikowske can be forgiven for feeling a little like J. Edgar Hoover, when the FBI director found that domestic security at home seemed to require some rather active investigations into Cubans and other Communists abroad. Kerlikowske is now riding a horse he never had much say in buying. The U.S. is in the midst of launching a new international drug strategy consisting of “interlocking plans” in Central and South America aimed at “transnational criminal groups.”

AFP reporter Jordi Zamora wrote that “the strategy will merge a handful of existing programs, including Plan Colombia, which has received more than $6 billion in U.S. aid since it was launched in 2000, and the Merida Initiative for Mexico, for which Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion since 2008.” Kerlikowske said that the global nature of the drug threat “requires a strategic response that is also global in scope.” With various crackdowns and battles over smuggling routes, the drug trade in the region has led to thousands of deaths, and has created “complex and evolving threats” from crime syndicates,” according to Assistant Secretary of State William Brownfield.  However, “progress in Central America will only push drug traffickers elsewhere if we do not support strong institutions throughout the hemisphere,” he said.  It seems like the Office of National Drug Control Policy continues to be internationalist in scope.

With all that as background, Foreign Policy magazine spoke with Kerlikowske in search of more detail, and got some--including a strange paean to America’s ability to produce and distribute its own illegal drugs, with no help from Mexico, thank you very much. Kerlikowske seems almost to be bragging. And if he’s right, what are all those border killings about, anyway?

FP: What's your big-picture sense of the drug situation in Latin America?

GK: It used to be fairly easy to categorize countries as production countries, transit countries, or consumer countries. I think those lines have been--if not completely obliterated--generally blurred. The amount of drug use in Mexico is significant. It's also clear from my most recent trip to visit drug treatment centers in Colombia that they're concerned as well. 

FP: U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual was forced to leave his position in Mexico two weeks ago because of comments he made in WikiLeaks cables about the perception that the drug war in Mexico is failing and about pervasive corruption in Mexican law enforcement. Are those concerns you share?

GK: As a police officer, I can say that cynicism just comes with the territory, and it's pretty easy to adapt that kind of attitude to Mexico. I'm not overly optimistic, but I think there has been some progress and we have an administration that's courageously taking on these criminal organizations, who are now involved in so many other kinds of crimes.

FP: It does seem that there have been a number of recent scandals involving U.S.-Mexico drug partnership: the Pascual resignation, the reports of the ATF allowing cross-border gunrunning, the controversial use of drones over Mexican territory. Has that relationship become more difficult lately?

GK: In my two years of dealing with this on a closer level, I'd say these last two months are more strained than during the rest of the time I've been here, but I don't see it as a significant bump in the road or a glitch that's going to stop things.

FP: What do you say to those in Latin America who say that it’s useless to crack down on the drug trade as long as the demand persists from the United States?

GK: For one thing, we've become much better at producing drugs in the United States: hydroponic marijuana with a very high THC content -- public lands produce a lot of marijuana. And we don't get any prescription drugs smuggled in to any great extent--which, right now, are our No. 1 growing drug problem in the United States, and also methamphetamine. We're getting much better at making our own, albeit in small amounts.

FP: How do you respond to the growing number of former Latin American leaders--former Mexican President Vicente Fox, most recently--who have come out in favor of legalization or at least a radical overhaul of the current policy?

GK: Isn't it funny how people who no longer have responsibility for anyone's safety or security suddenly see the light? I think it's not a lot different from what we've heard in recent years in the United States, which is: We've had a war on drugs for 40 years and we don't see success. If we have a kid in high school, they can still get drugs or there's drugs on the street corner. So legalization must be an answer…. Heaven knows, we're not very successful with alcohol. We don't collect much in tax money to cover the costs. We certainly can't keep it out of the hands of teenagers or people who get behind the wheel. Why in heaven’s name do we think that if we legalize marijuana, we'd have a system where we could collect enough tax revenue to cover the increased health-care costs? I haven't seen that grand plan. “

Photo Credit: www.fs.fed.us

Drug Czar “Deeply Concerned” About Synthetic Stimulants

“Bath salts” come under federal scrutiny.

The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy issued a warning about the new synthetic stimulants now being clandestinely marketed as bath salts or insecticide.  Admitting that “we lack sufficient data to understand exactly how prevalent the use of these stimulants are,” Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske nonetheless announced that the marketing of such drugs as mephedrone and MDPV was “both unacceptable and dangerous.”

A growing list of states, now including Michigan, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, and, recently, Florida, have introduced measures to ban the designer drugs, currently being sold under names like “Ivory Wave” or “Purple Wave.” The United Kingdom has already put mephedrone and related drugs under a blanket ban. The drugs are considered addictive, primarily because they are chemically similar to amphetamine and ephedrine. But users often refer to effects more commonly associated with Ecstasy (MDMA), both the good (euphoria, empathy, talkativeness) and the bad (blood pressure spikes, delusions, drastic changes in body temperature).

“I am deeply concerned  about the distribution, sale, and use of synthetic stimulants—especially those that are marketed as legal substances,” Kerlikowske said. “I ask that parents and other adult influences act immediately to discuss with young people the severe harm that can be caused” by such drugs.

Kerlikowske, who will convene a panel of experts on the subject,  said he was acting in response to recent data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, which showed that poison control units have received 251 calls related to “bath salts” so far this year, compared to a total of 236 calls in all of calendar year 2010.

An earlier post of mine on mephedrone can be found HERE. Some of the best coverage has come from the anonymous NIH researcher who blogs on science topics as DrugMonkey.  See also coverage of alleged mephedrone deaths by David Kroll HERE.


Photo Credit: http://www.astantin.com/

Deputy Drug Czar Goes His Own Way

Doctors are part of the problem, says McLellan.

In a March 15 cover story titled “The American Way,” Drink and Drugs News  of the UK ran an insightful interview with America’s “deputy” Drug Czar, Thomas McLellan. Professor McLellan, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is not a cop, like his boss Gil Kerlikowske, or a retired Army general, like former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. McLellan is a rare breed, a treatment specialist, and brings an entirely different viewpoint to an office that has traditionally been strongly oriented toward law enforcement.

“In the US we’ve been thinking about addiction as just a lot of drug use,” McLellan told a group of addiction specialists and policy professionals at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. “And as a result we’ve been purchasing [treatment] stupidly. We can’t decide if addiction is a crime or a disease so we’ve compromised and given them treatments that aren’t any good.”

McLellan singled out doctors for special attention: “Most physicians are not trained in how to treat substance abuse. They don’t see it as a disease and don’t see why they should look for it.”

Treating addiction like any other medical condition is still a goal rather than a reality. “You may know that the relapse rates for diabetes, hypertension and asthma are almost identical to the relapse rates for any addictive disorder…. And no one puts their hands on their hips when a diabetic comes back and says, ‘I ate half a bucket of fried chicken and I forgot to take my insulin, and now I’m back here.’ They just treat them.”

If there are doctors who don’t believe in the disease model of addiction, we can’t be surprised if members of the general public—and addicts themselves--often feel the same way.  McLellan said that less than 3 % of all referrals for addiction treatment and specialty care originate with doctors. Moreover, roughly half of 12,000 smaller treatment programs in the U.S. have no doctor, nurse, or psychologist on staff. And counselors, who make up the majority of treatment staff, suffer from a 50 % turnover rate.

In addition, McLellan took on the traditional British aversion to methadone treatment for heroin addicts: “That this has been a battle, that you are either on methadone or you are on the path of truth, beauty and light, is artificial and unfortunate…. I’m now officially wagging my finger and saying not just to Britain, but to the whole damn field; get past this, this is an artificial contrivance. People ought to have the opportunity to get the medications and other services they need.”

McLellan also had choice words for politicians and policy makers who see incarceration as the only acceptable response to drugs and drug-related crime.  He referenced studies that “suggest very clearly that in a prison situation, when you release somebody with a drug problem, they are back and you’re going to do it all over again. It’s a bad business deal.”

Ongoing care—after prison, or after treatment—is essential to success. “I think residential care is important and necessary, but not sufficient,” McLellan maintained. “It is like having a very good junior high school education.”

Photo Credit: http://www.csam-asam.org/

If You’ve Seen One Drug Czar....

The language of drug politics.

In a May 29 post on his Salon blog, Drug WarRant, Peter Guither deftly deconstructs the language of drug czarism, and its corrosive effect on rational dialog over drug policy:

--So far, there has been little or no discussion of marijuana from the newest drug czar, Obama’s man Gil Kerlikowske, now director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. “I've got to admit that it's a nice change from the reefer madness reign of Walters,” Guither writes. “Maybe Kerlikowske is following my mother's age-old advice... If you can't say something nice (and he can't by law), then don't say anything at all.”

--Prescription drugs are “the new crack.” To his credit, Guither worries about this new emphasis, and where it is likely to lead: “The prescription drug "epidemic" will be an excuse to further crack down on diversion, which will end up continuing the focus on pain doctors who prescribe large amounts of pain medication, with DEA agents deciding they know more than doctors. The result will be even more people suffering, unable to get the pain medication that actually makes life possible for thousands of people.”

--Drugs cause crime. As proof, Kerlikowske cites the statistic that half the men arrested in ten major U.S. cities tested positive for some sort of illegal drug, as reported by USA Today. From this data, Kerlikowske concludes that there is “a clear link between drugs and crime.” Guither notes that “There's a lot of reasons that people who have been arrested would tend to test positive for illicit drug use than the general population..... A very large percentage of arrests are for drug crimes, which naturally skews the population. Then there are socio-economic factors and a lot more.”

However, what the new drug czar is implying, writes Guither, is that drugs cause crime. “But implying that drugs cause crime is a lie. And that's what drug czars do.”

Kerlikowske has also come out in favor of greater use of drug courts as an alternative to prison sentences. Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance Network, told USA Today he agreed that drug use should be seen as a public health issue, but that “people shouldn't have to get arrested to get treatment."

Photo Credit: Lifehype Magazine

addiction drugs medical marijuana

Obama Set to Name New Drug Czar

Seattle police chief gets the nod.

Drug reformers, hoping for the appointment of a public health official, expressed initial dismay at the news that President Barack Obama will nominate Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the nation’s new “drug czar.”

As the president’s evident choice to head up the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Kerlikowske is not known for highlighting drug issues in national law enforcement circles, notes the Drug War Chronicle. “While we’re disappointed that President Obama seems poised to nominate a police chief instead of a major public heath advocate as drug czar,” said Drug Policy Alliance’s Ethan Nadelmann, “we’re cautiously optimistic that Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske will support Obama’s drug policy reform agenda.”

According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “He’s likely to be the best drug czar we’ve seen, but that’s not saying much,” Nadelmann said. “At least we know that when talk about needle exchanges and decriminalizing marijuana arrests, it’s not going to be the first time he’s heard about them.”

For those worried about a radical change in the nation’s drug policy, Seattle City Councilman Nick Licata sought to assure citizens that Kerlikowske is “not on a platform arguing for decriminalization of drugs or radical drug reform measures.”

A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told the Post-Intelligencer: “I would imagine that being a chief law-enforcement officer makes it very difficult for someone to speak out in favor of more progressive drug laws and drug policies.” However, former Seattle Police Chief and drug reform advocate Norm Stamper insisted that Kerlikowske was more inclined to support “research-driven and evidence-based conclusions about public policy.”

In “Advice for the New Drug Czar,” an article for the online edition of The American Prospect, drug policy experts Mark Kleiman of UCLA and Harold Pollack of the University of Chicago laid out their recommendations for Kerlikowske. Here is an example of their thinking:

--“You’ll be told that we have a national strategy resting on three legs: enforcement, prevention, and treatment. Don’t believe it. There is no coherent strategy. Enforcement, prevention and treatment are the names of three quarrelling constituency groups whose pressures you will sometimes need to resist....”

--“There are some real ‘drug wars’ raging: in Afghanistan, in Columbia, and in northern Mexico. Those wars matter terribly to the countries involved, but no outcome of those wars is likely to make the drug situation in the United States noticeably better or worse.”

--“Treatment needs to be more accessible and more accountable. Good news: even lousy treatment has benefits greater than its costs. Bad news: much of the treatment actually delivered is, in fact, pretty lousy. Demand to see results, and insist on rigorous evaluations. Focus resources on effective programs. It’s an outrage to have addicts dying of overdoses while on waiting lists for methadone treatment.”

--“Most primary care providers never perform highly cost-effective screening and brief intervention, because they’re neither trained for it nor paid for it. Many don’t think that dealing with drug abuse is in their job description; it needs to be.”

--“’Drug Czar’ is a silly title.”


Photo Credit: www.pbs.org

medical marijuana

A Dubious Choice for Drug Czar

Obama should just say no to Congressman Ramstad.

At the Huffington Post, Maia Szalavitz deconstructs the exaggerated outcome data being used by Minnesota Teen Challenge (MNTC) to document the supposed effectiveness of their addiction treatment program. Plenty of treatment programs inflate their success numbers, knowingly or unknowingly, by using flawed statistics to support their arguments. Often--as in this case--there is no control group, thereby making firm statements about the “success” of a treatment all but impossible to prove.

So why bother pointing out such obvious problems in the case of Minnesota Teen Challenge? Primarily, Szalavitz writes, because “the sole sponsor of an earmark providing $235,000 to Minnesota Teen Challenge, a branch of a national anti-addiction group which believes that recruiting people into the Assemblies of God ministry will cure their addiction,” was none other than Jim Ramstad (R-Minnesota) a populist conservative Obama is considering as the nation’s new “Drug Czar.”

(Earlier this year, Congressman Ramstad came out in opposition to plans for the crescent-shaped Flight 93 Memorial Project, arguing that the design had “Islamic features.”)

NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, gives Ramstad a grade of 30, indicating a “hard-on-drugs” stance. Ramstad, an alcoholic in recovery, backs expanded drug testing for federal employees, and beefed-up military patrols along the Mexican border in order to battle “drugs and terrorism.”

Unfortunately for the country’s hard drug addicts, Ramstad is also adamantly opposed to such things as needle exchange programs and medical marijuana.

No word yet from Ramstad on sentencing issues or the matter of addiction treatment rather than incarceration.

medical marijuana