Corey Booker's Statement on Marijuana Legalization

Sen. Booker's petition would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances.

 "For decades, the failed War on Drugs has locked up millions of nonviolent drug offenders, especially for marijuana-related offenses. This has wasted human potential, torn apart families and communities, and squandered massive sums of taxpayer dollars.

"That's why I introduced the Marijuana Justice Act on Tuesday to call for the legalization of marijuana at the federal level. Will you sign my petition and call on your senators to join me in moving this critical legislation forward?

"If passed into law, this would have an immediate impact on our criminal justice system, on policing, on our communities, and even on the economy. This legislation would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, making it legal at the federal level.

"The bill would also incentivize states to change their marijuana laws if those laws are shown to disproportionately affect low-income individuals and/or people of color. The Marijuana Justice Act would be applied retroactively for those already serving time for marijuana-related offenses, providing for a judge's review of marijuana sentences. That means we could reduce our prison population, a goal that Democrats and Republicans alike have claimed to support.

"States have, so far, led the way in reforming our failed drug policy and in beginning to fix our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, the federal government isn't doing its share—and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, among his many offenses, is working actively to undermine the progress in this area. We can't let Sessions roll back our progress, criminalize more Americans, and terrorize our communities by doubling down on failed policy."

Marijuana: Where Things Stand

Results of the 2016 election.

Source: Governing.com

Marijuana Deconstructed

What's In Your Weed?

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 recently 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 climbed to THC levels in 2008 of almost 9%. By 2015, marijuana with THC levels of 20% were for sale in Colorado and Washington.

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 ditch weed evolved into sinsemilla. 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.”


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

(First published at Addiction Inbox Sept. 3 2013)

Graphics Credit: https://budgenius.com/marijuana-testing.html

Marijuana Dependence and Legalization

Making best guesses about pot.

One essential question about state marijuana legalization continues to dog the debate:  Namely, as marijuana becomes gradually legal, how do we estimate how many people will become dependent? How can we estimate the number of cannabis users who will become addicted under legalization, and who otherwise would not have succumbed?

Back in 2011, neuroscientist Michael Taffe of the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, writing on the blog TL neuro, referenced this common question, noting that “the specific estimate of dependence rate will quite likely vary depending on what is used as the population of interest… Obviously, changing the size of the underlying population is going to change the estimated rate….”

But change it how, and by how much? The truth is, we don’t know. We can’t know in advance. There are sound arguments for both positions: Legal marijuana will lead to increased rates of cannabis addiction because of lower price and greater availability. On the other hand, almost everybody likely to become addicted to marijuana has probably already been exposed to it, including teens.

What we can start attempting to find out with greater rigor, however, is this: How many chronically addicted marijuana users are out there right now?

In The Pathophysiology of Addiction  by George Koob, Denise Kandel, and Nora Volkow (2008), the base rate of cannabis dependence was estimated to be 10.3% for male users and 8.7% for female users. Their data came from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, and the rate is similar to common estimates for prescription stimulant addiction. The dependence rate for cigarettes is at least three times as high. However, an overall dependence rate of 9.7%, when men and women smokers are combined, is the origin of the highly contested figure of 10%.

Since then, other databases have been tapped for estimates of existing cannabis dependence. In October of 2013, using the Global Burden of Disease database maintained by the World Bank, British and Australian researchers, along with collaborators at the University of Washington in the U.S., published revised estimates in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, based on numbers from 2010.  The scientists culled and pooled a series of epidemiological estimates and concluded that roughly 11 million cases of cannabis dependence existed worldwide in 1990, compared to 13 million cases in 2010. This boost can be accounted for in part by population increases.

Are these dependent users distributed evenly across the globe? They are not. The PLOS ONE paper demonstrates that marijuana use is markedly more prevalent in certain regions: “Levels of cannabis dependence were significantly higher in a number of high income countries including Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, and a number of Western European countries including the United Kingdom.” High income equals high marijuana usage and dependence—“Cannabis dependence in Australasia was about 8 times higher than prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa West.” But there may be major holes in the epidemiological database: “This is particularly the case for low income countries, where there is typically limited information on use occurring, even less on levels of use, and usually no data on prevalence of dependence.”

In conclusion, the researchers found an age and sex-standardized cannabis addiction prevalence of 0.2%. “Prevalence was not estimated to have changed significantly from 1990, although increased population size produced an increase in the number of cases of cannabis dependence over the period.”

In another 2008 study, this one published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, scientists at Columbia University and the New York State Psychiatric Institute looked at a set of 2,613 frequent cannabis users, using the development of significant withdrawal symptoms as the leading indicator. About 44% of regular dope smokers experienced two or more cannabis withdrawal symptoms, while about 35% reported three or more symptoms. The most prevalent symptoms in this study were fatigue, weakness, anxiety, and depressed mood. “Over two-thirds smoked more than 1 joint/day on days they smoked during their period of heaviest use; mean joints smoked/day was 3.9. About one-fifth had primary major depression….”

Age of onset was not predictive of withdrawal symptoms in this large study. The investigators suggest that “irritability and anxiety may receive great clinical consensus as regular features of cannabis withdrawal because they are subjectively and clinically striking compared to fatigue and related symptoms.” The researchers also speculate that somatic symptoms of weakness and fatigue might be attributed to varying levels of THC, compared to the presence of other cannabinoids such as CBD. The study is further evidence supporting an “association of primary panic disorder or major depression with cannabis depression/anxiety withdrawal symptoms,” suggesting a “possible common vulnerability, meriting further investigation.”

One of the reasons this matters is because of the very tight relationship between marijuana addiction and major depressive disorder. A 2008 study of young adults in the journal Addictive Behaviors  found that participants with comorbid cannabis dependence and major depressive disorder, the most commonly dependence symptom was withdrawal, reported by more than 90% of the subjects in the study. 73% of the subjects experienced four symptoms or more. After that, the most common symptoms were irritability (an underreported but significant behavioral problem), restlessness, anxiety, and a variety of somatic symptoms, including gastrointestinal problems, loss of appetite, and sleep disturbances, including night sweats and vivid dreaming. The authors, affiliated with University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, concur with the conclusion of earlier researchers:  “Given the weight of evidence now supporting the clinical significance of a cannabis withdrawal syndrome, the burden of proof must rest with those who would exclude the syndrome….”

Clearly, cannabis does not contribute to the world disease burden in the same way that alcohol, nicotine, and opiods do. However, it’s fair to say that for a minority of users, cannabis dependence causes disabilities and liabilities that are not always trivial.

Mark A. R. Kleiman, a Professor of Public Policy at UCLA and a consultant to the state of Washington on marijuana legalization, told PBS:

The couple of million who stay stoned all day, every day, account for the vast bulk of the total marijuana consumed, and thus the total revenues of the illicit marijuana industry. That's typical. The money in any drug, including alcohol, is in the addicts, not the casual users. There was a big fuss during the 80s about how much casual middle-class drug use there was and how respectable folks were supporting the markets. It's certainly true that most people who are illicit drug users are employed, stable respectable citizens. But it doesn't follow that if we could get the employed, stable respectable citizens to stop using illicit drugs, the problem would mostly go away.

Who Smokes Dope, And How Much?

Marijuana stats skew perceptions of use.

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

Photo Credit: http://www.sho.com/sho/weeds/home

What Mark Kleiman Wants You To Know About Drugs

The public policy guru guiding state legalization efforts.

Mark A. R. Kleiman is the Professor of Public Policy at UCLA, editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis, author of many books, and generally regarded as one of the nation’s premier voices on drug policy and criminal justice issues. Mr. Kleiman provides advice to local, state, and national governments on crime control and drug policy. When the state of Washington needed an adviser on the many policy questions they left unanswered with the passage of I-502, which legalized marijuana in that state, they turned to Kleiman.

In the past two years, Kleiman has co-authored to Q and A-style books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (2011) with Jonathan P. Caulkins and Angela Hawken; and Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know (2012) with Hawken, Caulkins, and Beau Kilmer.

Here, excerpted from the two books, is a brief sampling of Kleiman and his colleagues on a variety of drug and alcohol issues.

Is marijuana really the nation’s leading cash crop?

“Alas, the facts say otherwise. Analyses purporting to support the claim must contort the numbers, citing the retail price of marijuana but the farmgate price of other products, or pretending that all marijuana consumed in the United States is sinsemilla, or ignoring the fact that most marijuana used in the United States is imported, or simply starting with implausible estimates of U.S. production…. marijuana [is] in the top fifteen, but not the top five, cash crops, ranking somewhere between almonds and hay, and perhaps closest to potatoes and grapes.”

How much drug-related crime, violence, and corruption would marijuana legalization eliminate?

“Not much…. Eighty-nine percent of survey respondents report obtaining marijuana most recently from a friend or relative, and more than half (58 percent) say the obtained it for free. That stands in marked contrast to low-level distribution of heroin and crack which often occurs in violent, place-based markets controlled by armed gangs.”

How much would legal marijuana cost to produce?

“The punch line is that full legalization at the national level—as opposed to only legalizing possession and retail sale—could cut production costs to just 1 percent of current wholesale prices…. This would make legal marijuana far and away the cheapest intoxicant on a per-hour basis.”

How would legalization affect me if I’m a marijuana grower?

“It would almost certainly put you out of business. At first glance, legalization might seem like a great opportunity for you…. But legalization will completely upend your industry, and the skills that made you successful at cultivating illegal crops will not have much value. A few dozen professional farmers could produce enough marijuana to meet U.S. consumption at prices small-scale producers couldn’t possibly match. Hand cultivators would be relegated to niche markets for organic or specialty strains.”

Would marijuana regulations and taxes in practice approach the public health ideal?

“If there is a licit, for-profit marijuana industry, one should expect its product design, pricing, and marketing actions to be designed to promote as much frequent use and addiction as possible. Efforts to tax and regulate in ways that promote public health would have to contend with an industry mobilizing its employees, shareholders, and consumers against any effective restriction. Since the industry profits from problem users, we should expect that lobbying effort to be devoted to blocking policies that would effectively control addiction. The alcohol and tobacco industries provide good examples.”

Can we persuade children not to use drugs?

"Even the best prevention programs have only modest effects on actual behavior, and may programs have no effect at all on drug use…. Anesthesiologists know far more about drugs and drug abuse than could possibly be taught in middle-school prevention programs; nonetheless, they have high rates of substance abuse, in part because they have such easy access.”

Why is there a shortage of drug treatment?

“Some specific categories—especially those in need of residential care, and more especially mothers with children in need of residential care—face chronic shortages. But if we had enough capacity for all those who need treatment, many of those slots would be empty because not all the people who ought to fill them want treatment.”

How much money is involved?

“Most of the numbers about drug abuse and drug trafficking that officials peddle to credulous journalists are little better than fiction. Estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars per year in international drug trade—which would make it comparable to food, oil, and arms—do not have a basis in the real world. The most recent serious estimate of the total retail illicit drug market in the United States—by all accounts the country whose residents spend the most on illicit drugs—puts the figure at about $65 billion.”

When it comes to drugs, why can’t we think calmly and play nice?

“American political analysts talk about ‘wine-track (college-educated) and ‘beer track’ (working-class) voters…. So the politics of drug policy is never very far from identity politics…. The notion that illicit drug taking is largely responsible for the plight of minorities (and of poor people generally) and that income-support programs have the perverse consequence of maintaining drug habits has been a staple of a certain form of American political rhetoric at least since Ronald Reagan.”

Are we stuck with our current alcohol problem?

"By no means…. tripling the tax would raise the price of a drink by 20 percent and reduce the volume of drinking in about the same proportion. Most of the reduced drinking would come from heavy drinkers, both because they dominate the market in volume terms and because their consumption is more price-sensitive…."

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/

The Pot President

Hendrik Hertzberg on the hypocrisy of the hip.

In a blog post at the New Yorker last week, Hendrik Hertzberg spotlighted a recent joke made by the President of the United States at the White House Correspondents dinner. In reference to the rapidly changing media landscape, Obama said: “You can’t keep up with it. I mean, I remember when BuzzFeed was just something I did in college around two A.M. (Laughter.) It’s true! (Laughter.)”

The days of expressing a cringing contrition for your “youthful experimentation,” or claiming that you didn’t inhale, or clearly over.

But of course, the president’s joke wasn’t really that funny. Hertzberg cites statistics from Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, suggesting that “from fifty to a hundred thousand Americans are behind bars for pot, and only pot, on any given night.” The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) disputes those figures, but the point is not so much whose numbers are closer to the truth, but rather the simple fact that while the president made his joke, too many people are locked up in federal and state prisons for an offense that a growing number of states are backing away from enforcing.

As Hertzberg put it, the subtext of the president’s pot joke was that it “allowed the tuxedoed, evening-gowned, middle-aged audience at the Washington Hilton to feel, for a precious moment, hip. The subtext was that smoking pot, whether a lot or a little, is just a normal part of growing up…. Nor has it done much to blight the lives of the other people in the Hilton ballroom, most of whom, like the rest of the media, political, and Hollywood elites, have smoked pot, too.”

Obama, they say, was a champ stoner in school. He was, writes David Maraniss in his biography of Obama, skilled at “interceptions”—sneaking an extra hit off the joint when it hadn’t gotten all the way around yet.  Obama, writes Hertzberg, really ought to feel “a smidgen of shame that the government he heads treats people who do exactly what he used to do, and now casually jokes about, as criminals.”

We haven’t heard much lately about the Boomer hypocrisy inherent in such roomfuls of high achievers who used to get high. (Some of them still do.) Jobs and reputations and bank loans are not endangered by these sly references and knowing winks. What hurts jobs and reputations is a stretch in federal prison—the unwilling route taken by many less fortunate Americans.

Hertzberg is wrong when he says that “marijuana-associated suffering enters the picture only when prohibition does.” Like most pro-legalization commentators, he does not mention addiction liability, or lasting cognitive effects on younger smokers.  But it is true that a disproportionate amount of suffering is caused by marijuana prohibition laws. The farthest corners of the debate are staked out, but decriminalization—the missing middle ground—still offers society a more balanced starting point than full-tilt legalization. Merriam-Webster says that to decriminalize is “to repeal a strict ban on, while keeping under some form of regulation.” State policy makers, although they don’t use the term very often, are pursuing what amounts to decriminalization. Nobody other than world-peace-through-weed zealots is arguing for a repeat of the track record with cigarettes (a drug in the process of being re-criminalized). And the regulation of alcohol does not offer a compelling model for marijuana’s future as a semi-legal drug. Happily, marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol or nicotine, so that helps.

It might surprise some readers to know that a majority of the Dutch aren’t interested in legalizing marijuana. They are concerned about keeping it out of the hands of minors. They’re not very happy with the trend towards higher and higher levels of THC. This is expressed in the fact that marijuana is, and likely will remain, illegal in The Netherlands. The narrow coffee shop exception is misleading in this regard. It was not designed to make marijuana more acceptable, but to deal creatively with the problem of street sales. You almost never see a drug deal going down on the streets of Amsterdam. That’s because a) It’s stupid, you can just waltz into a coffee shop if you’re over 21. b) Dealers have a hard time beating coffee shop prices. c) Dutch police come down heavily on street dealers.  Why? See a) above. The Dutch are no freer to wander their canal-lined streets with a joint in hand than Americans are free to wander Capitol Mall Boulevard with an open bottle of Jack.

Now that’s decriminalization. And an unfair comparison, of course, since the Dutch nation is so much smaller and more homogenous than the U.S. But lately, the talk has been about states, not the country at large. And at the state level, some of the Dutch lessons may apply.

What should our president do about all of this? Hertzberg has three proposals:

—Tell the Justice Department to “end the absurd classification of marijuana as a supremely dangerous Schedule I drug, like heroin.” Alcohol, let us recall, does not have a drug classification because it is not a scheduled substance at all. This American ambivalence is reflected by the names of the country’s premier drug research groups, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the Monty Pythonesque National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

—Promise to “avoid making life unnecessarily difficult” for the states that have made provisions for medical marijuana or legalization.

—Change the name of the Drug Czar’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to something like the “Office of National Harm Reduction Drug Policy.”

Adopting any or all of these changes would be a useful step toward a decriminalized future for marijuana. Here’s the essential point: We have to make a space for marijuana use in American culture. I mean above the ground, and unassociated with jail time. While still murky from a medical point of view, there is just no doubting that millions of Americans prefer pot to alcohol as a recreational drug. Given alcohol’s role in the American death toll, and the lack of any such grim trail of the dead in marijuana’s case, there’s no shame in that decision, from my point of view.

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

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.”

Dutch Voters Leave Fate of “Weed Pass” Hanging

Clock Continues Ticking For Pot Tourists in The Netherlands.

AMSTERDAM—Voters in The Netherlands may have lost their final chance to block the nationwide imposition of the wietpas, or so-called "weed pass," as the law of the land in The Netherlands next year. On Wednesday, a crucial election in Holland determined the outline of a new coalition government under the narrowest of leads for the anti-immigration, anti-marijuana PVV party of Prime Minister Mark Rutte. The election featured a virtual tie with the center-left Labour Party (PvdA) upstart Diederik Samsom, who opposed the idea of closing marijuana shops to foreigners. 

 

But with 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament, experts say at least six parties will be involved in building a new coalition government. Cannabis advocates were hoping for a clear victory by the Labour Party and strong showings by other liberal parties.

Under legislation that came into effect in the south of the country in May, coffee shops effectively became private clubs, selling cannabis only to registered members, who must be Dutch, and able to prove it. The conservative government maintained that foreign drug criminals were replenishing inventory through the border shops, leading to violence and arrests.

As AP reported last week: “The center-left Labor Party [PvdA], which is surging in pre-election polls thanks to strong performances by its leader Diederik Samsom in televised debates, also advocates scrapping the pass and replacing it with legislation that would further enshrine tolerance of marijuana in Dutch law and regulate not only coffee shops but also growers. However, the coffee shops still have a fight on their hands – the conservative VVD party of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte is topping polls and looks set to become the biggest single party.”

And that, more or less, is how it turned out. With a one-seat margin in various exit polls late Wednesday night in The Netherlands, the sitting VVD Prime Minister will want to stay the course and take marijuana out of the hands of foreigners, starting in January, 2013.

Dutch poll watchers had predicted a tight race between the conservative VVD and the liberal PvdA, with an additional dozen parties likely to land seats in a new coalition government. The VVD's election manifesto specifically supported the weed pass, as did other right-leaning parties in The Netherlands. 

"I don't want to apply for a pass because then everybody could see your personal information," one coffee shop owner told AP. "You don't have to do it in a bar to get alcohol, so why in a coffee shop?"

The only silver lining for pot tourists is a possible scenario in which a VVD-led coalition, having originally introduced the concept of the weed pass, winds up negotiating a centrist mashup in which all parties might be likely to barter away the weed pass in return for other policy favors. Moreover, the far-right PVV party led by Geert Wilders suffered heavy losses.

 

The Financieele Dagblad writes that in any case, voters will not be happy, "because any coalition is going to cause pain. The jigsaw that is a new cabinet will consist of many pieces. The results will be complex, just as in 2010."

Photo Credit: http://www.rnw.nl

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

Drugs on the Ballot

States to vote on drug policy proposals.

The Drug War Chronicle has done an excellent job of rounding up the various drug policy initiatives that will appear on state ballots in November. The majority of these initiatives concern marijuana decriminalization, medical marijuana, and prison sentencing reform. The Drug War Chronicle reports in its October 3 issue that the pace of drug policy initiatives has slowed, compared to the beginning of the decade, when medical marijuana initiatives were on the ballot in dozens of states.

While California voters will be asked to strengthen their support of medical marijuana and lessen penalties for possession, voters in Michigan and Massachusetts will have the opportunity to follow California’s lead with marijuana decriminalization initiatives of their own. Michigan’s Proposition 1 would legalize the use of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation, and would also allow a medical necessity defense when marijuana cases are being prosecuted. According to the Chronicle, a recent poll showed that 66 per cent of Michigan voters favored the proposal. In Massachusetts, Question 2 on the ballot would legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana.

California’s Proposition 5 builds on the original work Proposition 36, the 2002 initiative that kicked off the medical marijuana movement in that state. Proposition 5 would divert drug offenders into treatment rather than prison, expand prison rehab programs, and decriminalize possession of an ounce or less.

In Oregon, a medical marijuana initiative is slated for the 2010 election. This year, Ballot Measures 61 and 57 attempt to move things in the opposite direction by imposing stiff mandatory minimum prison sentences for a variety of drug offenses.

There are also some municipal policy initiatives up for a vote this year, including Measure JJ in Berkeley, California. The measure seeks to “broaden and regularize medical marijuana access” through additional dispensaries and uniform operating rules. Fayetteville, Arkansas has a grassroots initiative that would mandate adult marijuana possession as “the lowest law enforcement priority.”

Finally, voters on the Big Island of Hawaii will confront Ballot Question 1, which in essence prohibits law enforcement from spending any money to enforce laws against adult marijuana possession. The Drug War Chronicle says that the initiative was the product of “Project Peaceful Sky, a local grassroots organization whose name alludes to the disruption of tranquility caused by law enforcement helicopters searching for marijuana.”

medical marijuana

[Guest Post] Conspiracy Theories on the Legalization of Marijuana

A humorous look at the pot wars.

From "WebPreneur" Sarah Scrafford comes this list of reasons not to legalize pot. As Scrafford writes, "this isn’t intended as a serious policy article (so no hate mail please!). Rather, its intended to be a chance for everyone to take a step back and laugh at some of the truly nuttiest conspiracy theories put forth from both sides of the aisle.... It is my hope that this regaining of perspective will allow people on both sides of the debate to recognize the extremes often taken and find a middle ground that in the end will serve all parties better."

The complete post can be found at Web Designs School Guide:

-- The legalization of Mary Jane will turn America’s youth into useless consumer hippies: Forget for a moment that the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey found that about two out of five seniors in high school have tried marijuana and still managed to get into Harvard and Rice. These suburbia dwellers want their three children protected from the other two.

--Legalization is just another way to quail the masses: Like the LSD and AIDS conspiracies of yesteryear, card carrying members of this covert plot think that legalizing Mary Jane would solely benefit the government. With everyone listening to reggae, there would be no time to exercise the first amendment.

--Legalization will help the terrorists win: If cannabis were made legal, the terror alert in America would rise to code ‘impending doom green’ according to these theorists. Islamic extremists have been pushing Mary Jane on otherwise responsible citizens in an effort to fund terrorist plots to take over free society. Keep in mind that these extremists have a diverse portfolio, and are also using oil, the media, and Google to supplement their incomes.

The legalization movement is an elaborate plot by pharmaceutical companies to get people addicted to drugs: The overall substance is classified by the government as a gateway drug, and may encourage people to use drugs to cure what ails them. Big companies like Pfizer and Merck & Co could benefit greatly from a society trained to use drugs to feel better.

Marijuana causes schizophrenia, and if legalized will render the masses mentally unstable: Hefty pdf documents coming from researchers in England and Australia have initially found that there might be a slight correlation between the use of marijuana and hearing voices. Experts cite that childhood use can be traced to as much as 14 per cent of psychotic episodes later in life, and suggests the legalization of marijuana would severely affect the health of generations to come. In the same articles though, stress is equally seen as a cause of schizophrenia. Commentators have largely written off these findings as anything from shoddy research to funding holes for lobbyist organizations.

Society as we know it will collapse, and anarchistic potheads will rule the world: The logic here is that once marijuana is legalized, it is only a matter of time before everything else becomes legal. Soon people will be knee deep in a plethora of mind-altering substances, and society will suffer. With everyone on an assumed perpetual high, things like traffic flow and social moirés will cease to have meaning. This classic slippery slope argument can be applied to anything, all with the eventual downfall of human society. Picture the ending scene from Planet of the Apes.

Photo Credit: blameitonthevoices.blogspot.com

Bill to Legalize Marijuana Offered in U.S. House

Rep. Frank seeks to end Fed war on pot.

Nobody expects it to pass except its most ardent enthusiasts, but H.R. 5843, a bill "To Eliminate Most Federal Penalties for Possession of Marijuana for Personal Use, and for Other Purposes," sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 17. It is not the first such attempt, nor is it likely to be the last.

The bill would remove federal penalties for personal possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana, or roughly 3 1/2 ounces. Not-for-profit transfers of up to an ounce of pot would also be legal under the statutes. A civil penalty of $100 would be levied for public use of marijuana.

The bill would not affect federal laws prohibiting major drug dealing, nor would it interfere with or hinder federal agencies prosecuting the cultivation and export of cannabis. In addition, the bill does not seek to alter the legal status of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

The bill is an a rational attempt to break through the confusion surrounding the various laws passed in at least twelve states that allow people to use marijuana for certain medical purposes. The confusion reached a peak last year when several medical marijuana dispensaries--operating legally under California statutes--were raided and their owners arrested by Federal drug enforcement authorities. The message from the hard-line Feds was: Even if it's legal in your state, it's not legal to us.

Rep. Frank has taken on this issue before. In 1970, he filed a bill to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts. He has also argued before NORML--the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws--that such issues rightly belong to the states.

In a letter to the Providence Journal, Frank also vowed to introduce a new version of his "State's Right to Medical Marijuana Act," which he has offered as legislation "every year since 1997."

"If the laws I am proposing pass," Frank explains at Daily Kos, "states will still be free to treat marijuana as they wish. But I do not believe that the federal government should treat adults who choose to smoke marijuana as criminals. Federal law enforcement is a serious business, and we should be concentrating our efforts in this regard on measures that truly protect the public."

Rep. Frank said on "Real Time with Bill Maher" that the new bill could be called the "Make Room for the Serious Criminals" act.

In a prepared statement, Rep. Frank said: "I think it is poor law enforcement to keep on the books legislation that establishes as a crime something which in fact society does not seriously wish to prosecute." The Massachusetts congressman added that "having federal law enforcement agents engaged in the prosecution of people who are personally using marijuana is a waste of scarce resources better used for serious crimes."

Sarah Rubenstein of The Wall Street Journal reports that groups such as the Massachusetts branch of D.A.R.E. and the Drug Enforcement Administration continue to oppose the legalization of marijuana because it would signal to children that the drug is benign.

Frank also noted in his letter to the Providence Journal that "bipartisan amendments have been introduced by my colleagues, Representatives Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) every year since 2003 to preclude the use of federal funding to prosecute medical-marijuana patients by the Department of Justice. Each time the amendment has been voted on, it has failed in the House."

Photo Credit: Medical Marijuana Blog

medical marijuana