Marijuana: Where Things Stand

Results of the 2016 election.

Source: Governing.com

Marijuana Statistics vs. Perception

Who smokes cannabis, and how much?

(First published 12/27/2013)

Most statistical surveys of marijuana focus on a single quantitative measurement: How many people are using? But there’s a problem: More marijuana use does not necessarily translate into more marijuana users. And that’s because a clear majority of the consumption, and black market dollars, come from the heaviest smokers.

Drug policy researchers at the RAND corporation decided that frequency of use and amount of consumption were valuable parameters gone missing in most policy discussions. So they put the focus not just on use, but also on “use-days,” and pulled a number of buried tidbits from a very big data pile. If you zero in on consumption, and not just consumers, they insist, you will find a wholly different set of inferences.

For example: “Although daily/near-daily users represented less than one-quarter of past-month cannabis users in 2002 and roughly one-third of past-month users in 2011, they account for the vast majority of use-days and are thus presumably responsible for the majority of consumption,” write Rachel M. Burns and her RAND colleagues in Frontiers of Psychiatry. As with alcohol, the majority of cannabis consumption can be accounted for by a minority of users. The heaviest users, the upper 20 percent, consume 88 percent of the U.S. marijuana supply, say the RAND researchers. “Furthermore, if over time there were no change in the number of cannabis users, but the ratio of light vs. heavy users switched from 80/20 to 20/80, then consumption would increase by 250% even though there was no change whatsoever in the number of users.”

The RAND group used two data sets on cannabis consumption—the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) in the U.S., and the EU Drugs Markets II (EUMII) in Europe. Data included figures for past-year and past-month use, past-month use days, and past-month purchases.

Other intriguing figures come to light when you study cannabis use, as opposed to cannabis users. The researchers declared that “only 14% of past-year cannabis users [primarily males] meet the criteria for cannabis abuse or dependence, but they account for 26% of past-month days of use and 37% of past-month purchases.”

Happen to smoke blunts? That turns out to be very telling, according to the RAND study. “Perhaps the most striking contrast concerns blunts. Only 27% of past-year cannabis users report using a blunt within the last month, but those individuals account for 73% of cannabis purchases.” Casual users, it seems, don’t do blunts.

Clearly, it takes a lot of casual users to smoke as much marijuana as one heavy user. But exactly how many? The RAND researchers ran the numbers and concluded that, in terms of grams consumed per month, it would take more than 40 casual smokers to equal the intake of a single heavy user. The share of the market represented by daily/near-daily users is clearly the motive force in their analysis.

The study in Frontiers in Psychiatry also found patterns of interest on the buy side. General use took an upswing beginning in 2007. While the probability of arrest per marijuana smoking episode hovers somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 3,000, everything changes if you are purchasing cannabis. RAND reported that young people collectively make more purchases per day of reported use than do older users. Therefore, “statistics indicating that the burden of arrest falls disproportionately on youth relative to their share of all users may not be prima facie evidence of discrimination if making more purchases per day of use increases the risk of arrests per year of use.” Once again, those aging Baby Boomer potheads get the best deal. They have more money with which to buy bigger amounts less often, thereby greatly lessening their chances of arrest and prosecution.

This also applies to minority arrests for marijuana offenses. “Non-Hispanic blacks represent 13% of past-year cannabis users vs. 23% of drug arrests reported by those users, but they report making 24% of the buys. Thus, some of their higher arrest rate may be a consequence of purchase patterns… African-Americans may not only make more buys but also make riskier buys (e.g., more likely to buy outdoors).”

The researchers were able to draw some conclusions about the growth in marijuana usage from 2002 through 2011, based on the NSDUH data. Their main conclusion, after exploring the demographics of this 10-year record of use, is that “consumption grew primarily because of an increase in the average frequency of use, not just because of an increase in the overall number of users.”  The driver of consumption turns out to be… greater consumption. And that increased consumption is coming from… older adults. Those older adults, it turns out, are smoking more weed.

The shift is dramatic: “In 2002, there were more than three times as many youth as older adults using cannabis on a daily/near-daily basis; in 2011 there were 2.5 times more older adults than youth using on a daily/near-daily basis.” The record of alcohol and cigarette use over the same period showed no such inversion of use patterns.  And the tweeners? “In 2002, 12-17-year-olds represented 13% of daily/near-daily users; in 2011, that had dwindled to 7%.” These trends are not just the obvious result of an increase in the proportion of older adults in the population at large. Increases in the proportion of older heavy cannabis users were much greater than the general population drift.

Among the questions raised by the RAND analysis:

— Are older marijuana smokers primarily recreational, or medicinal?

—Do increased use days among older, college-educated marijuana smokers indicate greater social acceptance, or something else?

—Are younger people replacing traditional cannabis use with other substances?

—Why did Hispanic use increase more over the study period than other ethnic groups?

Burns R.M., Caulkins J.P., Everingham S.S. & Kilmer B. (2013). Statistics on Cannabis Users Skew Perceptions of Cannabis Use, Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4   DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00138

The Chemistry of Modern Marijuana

Is low-grade pot better for you than sinsemilla?

First published September 3, 2013.

Australia has one of the highest rates of marijuana use in the world, but until recently, nobody could say for certain what, exactly, Australians were smoking. Researchers at the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales  analyzed hundreds of cannabis samples seized by Australian police, and put together comprehensive data on street-level marijuana potency across the country. They sampled police seizures and plants from crop eradication operations. The mean THC content of the samples was 14.88%, while absolute levels varied from less than 1% THC to almost 40%.  Writing in PLoS ONE, Wendy Swift and colleagues found that roughly ¾ of the samples contained at least 10% total THC. Half the samples contained levels of 15% or higher—“the level recommended by the Garretsen Commission as warranting classification of cannabis as a ‘hard’ drug in the Netherlands.”

In the U.S., recent studies have shown that THC levels in cannabis from 1993 averaged 3.4%, and then soared to THC levels in 2008 of almost 9%. THC loads more than doubled in 15 years, but that is still a far cry from news reports erroneously referring to organic THC increases of 10 times or more.

CBD, or cannabidiol, another constituent of cannabis, has garnered considerable attention in the research community as well as the medical marijuana constituency due to its anti-emetic properties. Like many other cannabinoids, CBD is non-psychoactive, and acts as a muscle relaxant as well. CBD levels in the U.S. have remained consistently low over the past 20 years, at 0.3-0.4%. In the Australian study, about 90% of cannabis samples contained less than 0.1% total CBD, based on chromatographic analysis, although some of the samples had levels as high as 6%.

The Australian samples also showed relatively high amounts of CBG, another common cannabinoid. CBG, known as cannabigerol, has been investigated for its pharmacological properties by biotech labs. It is non-psychoactive but useful for inducing sleep and lowering intra-ocular pressure in cases of glaucoma.

CBC, yet another cannabinoid, also acts as a sedative, and is reported to relieve pain, while also moderating the effects of THC. The Australian investigators believe that, as with CBD, “the trend for maximizing THC production may have led to marginalization of CBC as historically, CBC has sometimes been reported to be the second or third most abundant cannabinoid.”

Is today’s potent, very high-THC marijuana a different drug entirely, compared to the marijuana consumed up until the 21st Century? And does super-grass have an adverse effect on the mental health of users? The most obvious answer is, probably not. Recent attempts to link strong pot to the emergence of psychosis have not been definitive, or even terribly convincing. (However, the evidence for adverse cognitive effects in smokers who start young is more convincing).

It’s not terribly difficult to track how ordinary marijuana evolved into sinsemilla. Think Luther Burbank and global chemistry geeks. It is the historical result of several trends: 1) Selective breeding of cannabis strains with high THC/low CBD profiles, 2) near-universal preference for female plants (sinsemilla), 3) the rise of controlled-environment indoor cultivation, and 4) global availability of high-end hybrid seeds for commercial growing operations. And in the Australian sample, much of the marijuana came from areas like Byron Bay, Lismore, and Tweed Heads, where the concentration of specialist cultivators is similar to that of Humboldt County, California.

The investigators admit that “there is little research systematically addressing the public health impacts of use of different strengths and types of cannabis,” such as increases in cannabis addiction and mental health problems. The strongest evidence consistent with lab research is that “CBD may prevent or inhibit the psychotogenic and memory-impairing effects of THC. While the evidence for the ameliorating effects of CBD is not universal, it is thought that consumption of high THC/low CBD cannabis may predispose users towards adverse psychiatric effects….”

The THC rates in Australia are in line with or slightly higher than average values in several other countries. Can an increase in THC potency and corresponding reduction in other key cannabinoids be the reason for a concomitant increase in users seeking treatment for marijuana dependency? Not necessarily, say the investigators. Drug courts, coupled with greater treatment opportunities, might account for the rise. And schizophrenia? “Modelling research does not indicate increases in levels of schizophrenia commensurate with increases in cannabis use.”

One significant problem with surveys of this nature is the matter of determining marijuana’s effective potency—the amount of THC actually ingested by smokers. This may vary considerably, depending upon such factors as “natural variations in the cannabinoid content of plants, the part of the plant consumed, route of administration, and user titration of dose to compensate for differing levels of THC in different smoked material.”

Wendy Swift and her coworkers call for more research on cannabis users’ preferences, “which might shed light on whether cannabis containing a more balanced mix of THC and CBD would have value in the market, as well as potentially conferring reduced risks to mental wellbeing.”

Graphics Credit: http://www.ironlabsllc.co/view/learn.php

Swift W., Wong A., Li K.M., Arnold J.C. & McGregor I.S. (2013). Analysis of Cannabis Seizures in NSW, Australia: Cannabis Potency and Cannabinoid Profile., PloS one, PMID: 23894589

Congress and the Civil War Over Marijuana

Two lawmakers take a stab at ending federal prohibition of pot.

Two new bills designed to end federal marijuana prohibition and let states set their own policies were introduced today in the U.S. Congress by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem-OR) and Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). Legislation introduced by Rep. Polis would formally end federal prohibition of pot, while establishing a state regulatory permitting process similar to frameworks used to regulate alcohol. Rep. Blumenauer’s bill would set up mechanisms for taxing marijuana at the federal level.

While President Obama has said that his administration has “bigger fish to fry” when asked about state marijuana crackdowns, the two U.S. congressmen contend that “too many United States Attorneys and drug enforcement personnel are still ‘frying those little fish.’ Only Congress has the power to unravel this mess.”

Rep. Polis’ legislation would also remove marijuana oversight from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and hand it over to a newly repositioned Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Firearms. Under the Polis bill, it would remain unlawful to move marijuana from states where it is legal to states where it is not. Meanwhile, Blumenauer’s piece of legislation would give the feds a healthy chunk of income in the form of a 50% excise tax on “first sales” between a grower and a processor/retailer, in addition to possible state sales taxes on a per ounce basis.

The congressional representatives also released a report in which they note that after “decades of failed policies and tremors of varying intensity, the tectonic plates of marijuana regulation abruptly shifted November 2012 as the citizens of Washington and Colorado voted to legalize the drug for personal, recreational use…. These developments have played out against a backdrop of the least effective, and arguably, most questionable front in America’s ‘War on Drugs.’”

Despite recent efforts to reclassify marijuana, pot remains a Schedule I Controlled Substance, along with heroin and LSD, meaning it is considered a drug with high abuse potential and no accepted medical applications. The report notes that more than 660,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana possession in 2011, despite the rapid adoption of medical marijuana laws in 18 states. “This situation has created a gray area,” the report notes, “where medical marijuana enterprises are operating in a patchwork of conflicting state, local, and federal regulations. Common sense suggests that these enterprises have the potential for abuse and other criminal activity.”

Using figures from the 2010 U.S. census, the report contends that more than 100 million people now live in jurisdictions where some aspect of marijuana use is now legally permitted under state regulations. The result? “Confusion, uncertainty, and conflicting government action.”

The congressmen conclude by warning that “no one should minimize the potential harmful effects of marijuana,” and challenged legislators, in their efforts to protect the health and safety of Americans, to “acknowledge when existing mechanisms don’t work, go too far, or cause more harm than good.”

Neither of the bills is likely to pass, although Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that he plans to hold a hearing on conflicting state and federal pot laws. The Justice Department remains mum on its strategy for dealing with state marijuana rebellions. Former White House drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet, a member of Project SAM, for “smart approaches to marijuana,” told Associated Press that he considered the bills to be “really extreme solutions to the marijuana problem we have in this country. The marijuana problem we have is a problem of addiction among kids, and stigma of people who have a criminal record for marijuana crimes. There are a lot more people in Congress who think that marijuana should be illegal but treated as a public health problem, than think it should be legal.”

The Bong Water Case Revisited

Minnesota v. Peck.

Astute readers will recall the Great Bong Water Decision of 2009, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court determined, 4-3, that water used in a water pipe can be considered a “drug mixture.” Twenty five grams or more of this water, the court ruled, qualified the possessor for a first-degree criminal conviction and up to 30 years in prison.

The decision made the Minnesota Court the punch line in a worldwide joke, but things didn’t turn out so funny for defendant Sara Peck, who was sentenced to a year in jail, with six months suspended, after she pleaded guilty to Controlled Substance violations.  The quirk in the case was that the drug dissolved in the bong water wasn’t marijuana, but methamphetamine--a strange circumstance to say the least.

Nonetheless, Minneapolis criminal attorney Thomas Gallagher thinks that the ruling basically meant that, under the new interpretation, water could enhance the severity of a drug crime: “If trace amounts of criminalized drugs in bong water could be a crime based upon the weight of the water ‘mixture,’ then would not trace amounts of illegal drugs in our drinking water also be a crime to possess?”

It follows logically that “every citizen of Minnesota [is] a drug criminal” if they use tap water, since trace amounts of dozens of prescription drugs are routinely present in tap water (I live in Minnesota, but, as the fates would have it, draw my water from a well, which should protect me from prosecution).

A bill introduced in the Minnesota House is designed to correct the situation. The bill would have the state determine the volume of illegal drugs in an arrest by “weighing the residue of a controlled substance” rather than the entire weight of the compound or mixture the drugs might be a part of.  (I can already envision a legal argument regarding the possession of unsmokable, discardable marijuana plant stems, by far the majority component of high-volume pot busts.)

The problem is obvious: “The Minnesota Bong Water case has helped undermine what public confidence there was in criminal drug laws and their enforcement,” writes Gallagher, citing a portion of the written dissent in the original court ruling in the Peck case:

“The majority’s decision to permit bong water to be used to support a first-degree felony controlled-substance charge runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd.”

Photo Credit: http://www.pigginempire.co.uk

The Dutch Smoke Less Pot

One of those inconvenient truths.

Government drug policy experts don’t like the numbers, which is one of the reasons why you probably haven’t seen them. Among the nations of Europe, the Netherlands is famous, or infamous, for its lenient policy toward cannabis use—so it may come as a surprise to discover that Dutch adults smoke considerably less cannabis, on average, than citizens of almost any other European country.

A recent report by Reed Stevenson for Reuters highlights figures from the annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which shows the Dutch to be at the low end for marijuana usage, compared to their European counterparts. The report pegs adult marijuana usage in the Netherlands at 5.4 %. Also at the low end of the scale, along with the Netherlands, were Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria.

Leading the pack was Italy, at 14.6 %, followed closely by Spain, the Czech Republic, and France.

While cannabis use rose steady in Europe throughout the 1990s, the survey this year says that the data “point to a stabilising or even decreasing situation.” The study by the European Monitoring Centre did not include figures for countries outside Europe.

According to the Dutch government, Amsterdam is scheduled to close almost 20 per cent of its existing coffee shops—roughly 50 outlets--because of their proximity to schools. However, some local coffee shop proprietors maintain that far fewer shops, perhaps no more than 10 or 20, will actually be required to close.

What are the Dutch doing right? Are coffee shops the answer? It may be prove to be the case that cannabis coffee shops can’t be made to work everywhere—that the Dutch approach is, well, Dutch. However, the fact that it works reasonably well, if not perfectly, in the Netherlands is strong testimony on behalf of the idea of harm reduction.
Here are some excerpts from a flyer given out at some Dutch coffee shops by a group of owners known as the BCD, or Union of Cannabis Shop Owners:

--Do not smoke cannabis every day.
--There are different kinds of cannabis with different strengths, so be well informed.
--The action of alcohol and cannabis can amplify each other, so be careful when smoking and drinking at the same time.
--Do not use cannabis during pregnancy!
--Consult your doctor before using cannabis in combination with any medications you may be taking.
--Note that smoking is bad for your health anyway.
--Do not buy your drugs on the street, just look for a coffeeshop.

Customers must be over the age of 18, and in most coffee shops, as in bars and restaurants in the Netherlands and elsewhere, cigarette smoking is no longer allowed.

Photo Credit: www.us.holland.com

addiction drugs

2008 Marijuana Sourcebook

Feds back gateway theory, say no to medical marijuana.



Attention marijuana users: The President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy thinks it has a pretty good idea of where you live. Last month, the office released its 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook (PDF), which includes the map to the right. (Dark green equals low use, yellow equals moderate use, and red stands for high use.)

Prime marijuana territory, according to the estimates, includes Northern California, upstate New York and New England, Alaska, Northern Florida, Northern Arizona, and Western Montana. Areas showing little interest in pot include Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, and Utah.

The Marijuana Sourcebook also features the controversial gateway hypothesis: “For younger users, the risk of marijuana abuse or dependency exceeds that for alcohol or tobacco. Recent research supports the ‘gateway’ dimension of marijuana — that its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.”

Many addiction researchers consider the gateway hypothesis to be outmoded at best. In a 2006 article in the America Journal of Psychiatry, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School could find no evidence that teenage marijuana use is predictive of drug and alcohol abuse in later life. According to Ralph E. Tarter, professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and lead author of the study, “the reverse pattern is just as accurate for predicting who might be at risk for developing a drug dependence disorder.”

The Sourcebook also concludes that “smoked marijuana is not medicine,” and reminds readers that the FDA has not approved the use of cannabis for anything, at any time. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has always held that the medical marijuana movement is nothing but a front for increased drug trafficking. The report puts the case in terms nobody is likely to misconstrue: “The FDA, along with the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, do not support the use of smoked marijuana for medical purposes.”

Even our friendly neighbors to the North come in for a bashing. “Canada is a consumer as well as a producer of marijuana,” the Sourcebook says, claiming that Canadian use has doubled since 1994.

In addition, under the heading, “Marijuana Growers Present Environmental Hazards,” the Sourcebook estimates that one marijuana garden can generate “up to 53 30-gallon garbage bags of trash.”

Meth to the West, Cocaine to the East, Pot in the Middle

The geography of drug use.

To paraphrase an old tune by Gerry Rafferty, we got meth to the left of us, cocaine to the right, and here we are, stuck in the middle with pot.

The National Drug Threat Survey of 2007, a product of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) at the Department of Justice, illustrates the stark nature of regional variation when it comes to illegal drugs of choice in the United States. The map at the right represents the responses of state and local law enforcement agencies to the question: "What drug poses the greatest threat to your area?" Blue indicates cocaine, red indicates methamphetamine, and green stands for marijuana. (Click map for larger image.)

According to the Oregonian in Portland, reporting on similar numbers from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: "The politics of methamphetamine have been shaped by geography. Lawmakers from the East, Midwest and South focused on cocaine--the most heavily abused drug by far in their home states. By contrast, more than 90 percent of people treated for meth abuse live west of the Mississippi River."

The NDIC's stated mission is "to provide strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health, law enforcement, and intelligence communities of the United States...." NDIC obtains its data through direct surveys of federal, state and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as well as information from court documents, news sources, and public health agencies.

The NDIC has produced a National Drug Threat Survey annually since 2000, and began deriving state-level estimates in 2003. Federal, state and local government agencies use the statistical estimates as guidelines for promulgating drug legislation and enforcement strategies.

Graphics Credit: National Drug Intelligence Center