Cannabis Law Prof Blog

Is "High Grade" Marijuana Actually Getting Recreational Users Higher?

Required package labeling on recreational marijuana may not be as helpful and accurate as it appears.  Looking at the scene in Alaska, Lauren Andrews of the Anchorage Daily News reports that recreational consumers' love for "Top Shelf" marijuana (strains that boast a higher THC content than cheaper strains) spurred questions about the legitimacy of the package labeling Alaskan marijuana.

There is relatively little regulation of labels in the state.  Andrews explains that although the Alcohol and Marijuana Control Board director concluded in January that the only two testing labs in the state were coming up with different results on the same strains, "the public's interest in marijuana with 20 percent THC shows no sign of slowing down."

This is especially shocking, says Andrews, considering that the price difference between proposed "high" and "low" grade marijuana can be as much as $8 per gram, according to executive vice president of Great Northern Cannabis, Jordan Huss. 

The article goes on to explains the ramifications of this "Top Shelf" phenomenon may include bankruptcy for suppliers that cannot afford to keep up with the large companies that create these purportedly extra-potent strains. "It's real nonsense, but it's driving the cost, and it's going to drive people out of business" according to Jessica Alexander, lab director at The New Frontier Research. 

 --Kylee Debler

 

Preventing youth access to weed: Canada's approach

Canada's policy of allowing marijuana to be delivered legally has brought up several tough questions. According to Perrin Grauer, writing for The Star, the questions are mainly about how the government will prevent the drug from getting into the hands of minors.

The B.C. Liquor Distribution Board (BCLDB) says that a valid ID will still be required for verification purposes at the point of delivery before the cannabis is released into the customer's possession. 

The packages are also being sealed in odor-proof containers, with nondescript external packaging. The goal of these policies is to prevent recreational cannabis use from causing undue harm to children. Michael Bramwell, a Vancouver father working in law enforcement, suggested that legalization may ultimately make children safer in relation to cannabis use.

“If you’re restrictive, (kids) are gonna go behind your back,” Bramwell said in an interview in August. “Kids are still getting drunk at bush parties. Or when they do hit (legal) age, they’re going to go buck wild, and go too crazy.”

Bramwell emphasized that he does not feel as if there’s nothing to worry about. Rather, he hopes legalization will take some of the glamour of taboo out of cannabis use, and make safe, educated engagement with drugs an easier topic for families to broach.

“(The) prohibitive mindset is not the best way to handle parenting,” Bramwell said. “With anything. Including marijuana.”

Other countries considering legalization of marijuana and allowing its legal delivery may be able to look to Canada to determine whether they should use similar methods as well. 

--Alex Bennett

One border, two approaches

The traditional picture of the US-Mexico marijuana trade involves drug cartels bringing Mexican weed into the US.  But according to a piece from San Diego's KPBS, Mexico’s Demand For Potent California Marijuana Creates Southbound Smuggling, the flow increasingly is going the other way.

California’s cultivation of marijuana has created an unprecedented phenomenon: southbound smuggling of the drug across the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

Mexico’s demand for potent California strains is on the rise as Mexican drug cartels have mostly failed to make a competitive homegrown product.

 

“If you’re in Mexico, and you want the best marijuana out there, there’s only one place to get it,” said Matthew Shapiro, a San Diego-based attorney who specializes in marijuana. “There’s no such thing as high-quality Mexican weed.”

 

California’s initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use could further boost southbound smuggling, experts on both sides of the border told KPBS. It would make it easier for Tijuana residents with visas or dual citizenship to access California’s more potent strains — and bring it back to Mexico.

 

It’s illegal to move marijuana from the U.S. to Mexico, just as it’s illegal to move the drug from Mexico into the U.S. But it’s easier to smuggle southbound. At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, drivers can cross the border into Tijuana without ever stopping to speak with a Mexican official.

This shift in perception has become a motivating factor in the recent changes to Mexico's own drug laws, including a suggestion by a Mexican government official back in February that Mexico may consider legalization:

"Colorado, California and the other states that have legalized marijuana have in some ways put the U.S. in a really awkward position," said David Shirk, a Mexico security analyst and professor at the University of San Diego. "On one hand, we are telling our friends like Mexico we want you have to have a zero tolerance policy on illicit drugs while at the same time we have let the camel's nose under the tent when it comes to marijuana."

 

The U.S. and Mexico, both signatories of United Nations counternarcotics treaties, have cooperated in drug busts and marijuana eradication efforts for decades.

 

"There is a significant contradiction in current U.S. policy that Mexico and other countries will begin to use as a basis for modifying their own drug policies," Shirk said.

 --Loren D. Elkins

Federally Approved Marijuana Research Lacking Despite Apparent Support from Attorney General Sessions

Despite apparent support of federally approved medical marijuana research from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Wall Street Journal reports that none of the  26 applications for approval to grow marijuana for research has moved towards approval in the two years since the Justice Department began accepting the applications.   

Currently the only federally approved marijuana grow operation for research lies with the University of Mississippi which has been conducting research on marijuana since 1968.

According to the Journal, both Democrats and Republicans have penned letters urging Sessions to begin moving the applications through approval, but to no avail.  The Justice Department's failure to take any action on the 26 applications, it reports, has left both applicants and those hoping to benefit from research on the drug in a realm of uncertainty.  "'The federal government allows for multiple entities to produce controlled substances for scientific research all the time. Why should marijuana be any different?' said George Hodgin, a former Navy SEAL who started his own business, Biopharmaceutical Research Company, to conduct such research."

For now, researchers will have to wait patiently while the politics are sorted out. 

--Andrew Goodwyn

Possible Safe Harbor for U.S. Military Veterans Who Need Medical Cannabis

A bill filed in Congress would allow veterans to get medical marijuana from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  While a growing number of military veterans use medical marijuana for the treatment of PTSD, chronic pain, and other mental and physical war wounds, however, federal law prohibits VA doctors from prescribing it.  That might change.

Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) recently filed the Medical Marijuana for Veterans Safe Harbor Act that would legalize medical marijuana for veterans and empower physicians in the VA to issue medical marijuana recommendations in accordance with the laws of "the State in which the use, possession, or transport occurs." Despite the fact that state laws that legalize the use of medical marijuana are preempted by federal laws which prohibit such use, this bill effectively harmonizes federal law governing the VA with state law in states where medical marijuana is legal.

According to Tom Angell of Forbes, who reports on the story, Senators Nelson and Schatz are addressing long-term goals such as cannabis research and reduction of opioid use among veterans. The bill allocates $15 million for research on "the effects of medical marijuana on veterans in pain" and "the relationship between treatment programs involving medical marijuana that are approved by States, the access of veterans to such programs, and a reduction in opioid abuse."

Some form of medical marijuana is permitted in 31 states and this legislation would grant veterans the same access to legitimately prescribed medication as other patients in those 31 states would have. Justin Strekal, political director for NORML, says that "Historically, veteran and military communities have long been at the forefront of American social change, catalyzing widespread acceptance of evolving cultural norms and perceptions surrounding racial, gender, and sexual equality. The therapeutic use of cannabis by veterans follows this trend and members of Congress should follow their lead and pass the Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act."

--Kindal Wetuski

Advertising for Addiction: Cannabis Advertising in need of Regulation?

The marijuana legalization train is full steam ahead as more than half of the states have passed legislation legalizing marijuana for medical use and more than a handful allowing recreational use among adults. In states that have allowed recreational adult use, dispensary advertisements are relentlessly marketing the product to all parts of the adult population.

The Atlantic recently published an article by Annie Lowrey, America's Invisible Pot Addicts, describing the often mocked or ignored position that marijuana addiction is real, is prominent, and needs to be addressed.

For Keith Humphreys, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University, the most compelling evidence of the deleterious effects comes from users themselves. “In large national surveys, about one in 10 people who smoke it say they have a lot of problems. They say things like, ‘I have trouble quitting. I think a lot about quitting and I can’t do it. I smoked more than I intended to. I neglect responsibilities.’ There are plenty of people who have problems with it, in terms of things like concentration, short-term memory, and motivation,” he said. “People will say, ‘Oh, that’s just you fuddy-duddy doctors.’ Actually, no. It’s millions of people who use the drug who say that it causes problems.”

Users or former users I spoke with described lost jobs, lost marriages, lost houses, lost money, lost time. Foreclosures and divorces. Weight gain and mental-health problems. And one other thing: the problem of convincing other people that what they were experiencing was real. A few mentioned jokes about Doritos, and comments implying that the real issue was that they were lazy stoners. Others mentioned the common belief that you can be “psychologically” addicted to pot, but not “physically” or “really” addicted. The condition remains misunderstood, discounted, and strangely invisible, even as legalization and white-marketization pitches ahead.

Despite medical professionals’ concerns and actual users’ testimony that marijuana addiction is real and has the potential to seriously damage the lives of addicts, advertisements continue to tout marijuana’s many uses and proclaim that it is safe. 

Advertisements for delivery, advertisements promoting the substance for relaxation, for fun, for health. “Shop. It’s legal.” “Hello marijuana, goodbye hangover.”

Sellers are targeting broad swaths of the consumer market—soccer moms, recent retirees, folks looking to replace their nightly glass of chardonnay with a precisely dosed, low-calorie, and hangover-free mint. Many have consciously played up cannabis as a lifestyle product, a gift to give yourself, like a nice crystal or an antioxidant face cream.

Lowrey addresses many other concerns about the growing support for marijuana legalization at the state level without federal involvement including: lack of food and drug testing and regulation, medical advice being issued by growers and retailers that are not medically trained, the ever-increasing potency of different strains of cannabis, and the potential consumer abuse that arises from business goals of maximizing profit regardless of whether heavy use by certain customers is actually safe.  She does not suggest that prohibition is a viable alternative. The strain on government budgets created by marijuana-related enforcement is not necessarily proportionate to the potential harm legalized marijuana use presents.

Billions of dollars are spent on the war on drugs and millions of individuals are prosecuted for petty marijuana offenses on the government’s dime while local, state, and the federal government bodies stand to generate billions of tax dollars in legalization. The savings in marijuana-related expenditures and potential tax gains means a great deal of revenue is at stake. But Lowrey suggests there should be limits imposed on advertising to prevent mass addiction that could prove detrimental to the welfare of consumers in the long run.

The tobacco industry has been down this road and its tale may be telling with regard to what the marijuana industry can expect in the future. Mandates to restrict advertisement activities, requirements for payments into compensation funds for injured consumers, and demands for FDA testing on products may be on the horizon if and when the federal government decides to step in and regulate the exploding cannabis industry.

- Ashley Goldman

US marijuana industry’s economic impact could hit $80 billion by 2022

The U.S cannabis industry could pump nearly $80 billion on an annual basis into the nation’s economy by 2022, according to the newly released Marijuana Business Factbook.  

MJB is selling the Factbook, but it's probably a great purchase for those interested in the industry.  The data is particularly valuable to marijuana businesses looking to show the benefits of legalization to legislators and policymakers.

That’s because it can help them understand the importance of the cannabis industry to the larger U.S. economy – and how much more important it will become.  Some of the interesting parts:

Estimates published in the newly released  show the total economic impact of legal marijuana sales increasing from $20 billion-$23 billion in 2017 to $63 billion-$77 billion by 2022 – a 223% increase.

By comparison, the $77 billion figure is similar to the 2017 gross domestic product of New Hampshire, which stands at $81 billion, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The estimates reflect the marijuana industry’s rapid transition out of the black market and into a mainstream economic juggernaut, generating thousands of new jobs, providing business opportunities and creating significant ripple effects across the country.

Based on sales of medical and recreational marijuana at the retail level – including flower, infused products and concentrates – the estimates use an economic multiplier of 3.5 to quantify the industry’s overall contribution to the economy, showing how revenue generated by cannabis businesses permeates through communities, cities, states and the nation.

In other words, for every $1 consumers/patients spend at dispensaries and rec stores, an additional $2.50 of economic value will be injected into the economy – much of it at the local level.

The book goes on to note some of the ways that marijuana businesses affect the economy:

• Tourists visit rec states to purchase and consume cannabis, while marijuana business professionals travel for meetings, conferences and market research – infusing tourism dollars into a state.
• The creation of cultivation sites, dispensaries/rec shops and infused product companies spurs real estate and construction activity. Many grows, for instance, occupy warehouse space that was previously vacant, while a fair share of retailers took over and renovated dilapidated storefronts.
• Marijuana businesses collectively pay hundreds of millions of dollars in state and local taxes, which fund projects including roads and rural hospitals and government programs such as education.

 -Fernando Lira Gomez

Critics question new Canadian marijuana saliva test

-- 

The Canadian government has approved a new saliva test for drugged driving.  Not everyone seems to be happy with it, especially because it doesn't seem to really work well below about 40 degrees F.  I understand there are parts of Canada where it sometimes gets colder than that . . . .

--Frank Snyder

 

Marijuana Legalization Could Be on the Horizon in the Garden State

A vote to legalize marijuana in New Jersey could be approaching in the upcoming month. New Jersey Senate President, Stephen Sweeney recently expressed confidence that there will be enough votes to pass a recreational bill as early as this Fall. However, the vote may face delay as there have been changes in budget proposals, and currently, a pair of new bills regarding recreational legalization and medical expansion are awaiting finalization. 

Governor Phil Murphy has built a reputation as being a champion for legalization in the name of social justice. While Murphy's promise of legalizing recreational marijuana within his first 100 days in office did not come to fruition, he has been able to make strides in expanding the state's medical marijuana program by including more qualifying conditions. 

Although Murphy wants the legalization efforts to materialize, budgetary obstacles are proving challenging to get around. Reports stated that Murphy intended to include $60 million in revenue of a state budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year, with many legalization supporters hoping the revenue would go toward an expungement program. More detail can be found in an article in Rolling Stone:

Advocates want this expungement to be automatic, where the state takes on the process of expunging records rather than the person charged. However Kate Bell, legislative council for the Marijuana Policy Project, says that the phrase “automatic” is very misleading.

“People have this idea that the government can still press a button and magically expunge all these past convictions, but that’s not necessarily correct,” Bell says.

Record expungement is affecting marijuana policies across the nation, as a California expunction bill has just passed the Senate and is awaiting the Governor's signature. On the opposite coast, Senate Bill S-2702 was introduced in early June by NJ Senator Nicholas Scutari and would legalize marijuana for adults 21 and over, and included a provision about expungement; however, expungements would still require an application.

Although there is no concrete time frame for New Jersey to pass legislation, an increase in cannabis-related arrests and racial disparities in said arrests has yielded a newfound urgency for legislative action. 

-- Gianna Redeemer

Oklahoma Begins Accepting Medical Marijuana Patient Licenses

Medical marijuana is coming to Oklahoma, and the state began accepting and approving patient applications on the 25th. In June, Oklahoma voters approved the legalization of medical marijuana via a statewide ballot measure, and it is clear that decision will have major economic ramifications on the state. ABCnews.com has the story:

More than 1,600 people and businesses applied for Oklahoma medical marijuana licenses on the first day that applications were made available.

 

 The online application system went live at 10 a.m. Saturday at www.OMMA.ok.gov for all potential medical marijuana patients, growers, dispensaries, processors and caregivers. Oklahoma State Department of Health spokesman Tony Sellars said that by Saturday evening, the agency had received 1,054 patient, 634 business and three caregiver applications.

 

 Officials awarded 23 licenses to patients Saturday to test the approval process and will resume approving applications Monday, Sellars said.

 

 Sellars added that the state collected $1.5 million in application fees on Saturday.

For those who have followed the saga of legalization in Colorado this is not a huge surprise. In 2017, total marijuana sales in the state reached $1.5 billion, with roughly $416 million of that total coming from medical-use sales. The state collected $247 million in taxes on marijuana that year. Based on these early numbers from Oklahoma, it seems as though the state can look forward to a similar boom in revenues resulting from the introduction of medical marijuana into their economy.

A pro-marijuana group in Oklahoma called Green The Vote has begun collecting signatures to qualify recreational marijuana legalization for a similar statewide ballot initiative, but as of this writing they did not have enough signatures to do so. Perhaps as the effects of medical marijuana legalization ripple throughout the state, Oklahoma voters will embrace the concept of full legalization. 

 -John Robinson

Cannabis legalization and healthcare costs: Public policy options

With the Great White North bracing for greatly increased cannabis availability,  Canada's Policy Options magazine has a thoughtful new article on how to minimize the potential health risks, Pulling levers to mitigate health costs of cannabis.  The authors are Rebecca Jesseman and Matthew Young from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.  From the article:

Legalization of cannabis in Canada has potential benefits — lower criminal justice costs, new government and private revenue sources — but we must also recognize the public health costs of cannabis use. It’s vital to ensure that governments at all levels use the available policy levers to reduce these costs.

A very helpful graph notes the various "levers" that policy-makers can use to help change consumer behaviors.  The authors continue:

Canada has the chance to provide international leadership for a public health approach to cannabis. Realizing that opportunity means applying the available policy levers based on the evidence we currently have and calibrating them according to the evidence we gather after legalization. It means prioritizing public health over revenue generation something we have not done well with alcohol. It means providing Canadians the information they need to make responsible, educated decisions about cannabis use by scaling up prevention and education initiatives and promoting guidelines for lower-risk cannabis use. It means equipping our health system to support those who encounter problems with use by addressing existing gaps in tools and information for primary care providers. It means improving and increasing specialized services for youth, Indigenous people and those who live in rural or remote communities. Protecting public health also involves protecting public safety, which includes improving education and enforcement capacity to reduce cannabis-impaired driving.

Cannabis has been the most commonly used illegal drug in Canada and internationally for many years. Legalization provides an opportunity to reduce the many costs of a criminal justice approach. It also comes with the risk of increasing public health costs if we fail to make good use of the policy levers available at all levels of government by investing in effective prevention, education and treatment programs. Many countries are looking to Canada to inform their own decisions about cannabis regulation. We have an opportunity to demonstrate that legalization does not have to lead to commercialization. What’s more, it can be an opportunity to reduce public health costs by opening the door to a better understanding of the risks and benefits of use, and to honest dialogue with youth and other consumers about reducing those risks.

--Frank Snyder

Cannabis Law Institute program set for September in DC

The National Cannabis Bar Association's "Cannabis Law Institute" is just two weeks off.  The two-day event features more than 70 speakers from the legal, business ,and political worlds, and looks to have some terrific programming.  Check out the conference web site for schedules, registration, and other information.

I'll be seeing you there!

--Frank Snyder

UK MMJ Update

Good Morning Britain: Medical marijuana is making a move in the United Kingdom.  Here's the video.

 

 

Guns N’ Ganja: How Federalism Criminalizes the Lawful Use of Marijuana

That's the title of a thoughtful new article in the UC Davis Law Review by Professor Ira Robbins (American U.)  Here's the abstract:

Federalism is a vital tenet of our Republic. Although federal law is the supreme law of the land, our Constitution recognizes the integral role that state law plays in the national scheme. Like any pharmaceutical drug that withstands rounds of clinical testing, state law functions as a laboratory in which Congress can evaluate and potentially adopt novel policies on a nation-wide basis. Most of the time, federal and state law exist harmoniously, complementing one another; other times, however, the two systems clash, striking a dissonant chord.

In the United States, state marijuana laws are currently on a crash course with federal marijuana law, exemplifying the discordant consequences our dual-system of laws sometimes generates. Eight states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana use, yet under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) marijuana remains illegal in the eyes of federal law. Mere confusion concerning the legality of marijuana is not the only consequence, however. One notable casualty ensuing from the battle of the mutually exclusive federal and state marijuana laws is the deprivation of rights belonging to the unsuspecting, average citizen.

The CSA establishes a schedule of drugs, and various federal regimes — such as entitlement programs and welfare benefits — impose compliance with the CSA as a necessary antecedent for conferral of those benefits. For example, although possessing a firearm is a fundamental right under the Second Amendment, citizens who wish to lawfully smoke marijuana can no longer avail themselves of this fundamental ri--Frank Snyderght. Section 922(g)(3) of the Gun Control Act prevents users of Schedule I drugs pursuant to the CSA — irrespective of state law — from possessing or owning a firearm. Marijuana, despite its lack of potential for addiction, plethora of medical benefits, and disconnect from violence, has always been a Schedule I drug — essentially deemed more addictive and dangerous than methamphetamine, a Schedule II drug. Unknowing, ordinary citizens are consequently caught in this legal black hole, contemplating how conduct can be both lawful and unlawful.

This Article proposes a simple solution to a complex problem: deschedule marijuana. The Article first surveys the past, observing that the Nixon Administration’s placement of marijuana in Schedule I rang of racial undertones, and then examines the present, noting the majority of states that have legalized medicinal marijuana and the numerous anecdotal reports of its alleviating properties. Further, enforcing § 922(g)(3) against individuals who consume marijuana lawfully pursuant to state law simultaneously overreaches and under-reaches, failing to target the violent criminals that Congress initially sought to apprehend. Thus, the federal government’s insistence on maintaining marijuana in Schedule I undermines principles of federalism and prevents law-abiding citizens from fully exercising their constitutional right to own a firearm.

Mikos on STATES Act

There are about a dozen cannabis-related bills floating around Congress at the moment.  The one that's probably getting the most attention is the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment by Entrusting States ("STATES") Act, introduced by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).  Over at Marijuana Law, Policy, and Authority blog, Professor Rob Mikos  (Vanderbilt) offers his take on the good and bad.  The bill would substantially increase protections for marijuana businesses, but he notes at least three significant problems:

[T]he STATES Act effectively bars legal claims that might be asserted by a host of other parties, including other federal agencies (think of the Federal Reserve’s disapproval of marijuana banks), state officials (think of preemption claims filed by states), and private parties (think of Civil RICO suits brought by private landowners against marijuana suppliers). The STATES Act would do this by making marijuana legal, at least when a state chooses to do so.

To be sure, the STATES Act is less bold than some other proposals that have been floated in Congress . . .  But the latest bill’s more cautious approach should make it more politically viable.

[1]  The protection afforded by the STATES Act hinges upon marijuana suppliers (and users) staying in “compliance with State law.” . . .  But . . . this approach could leave state licensed marijuana suppliers (and users) exposed to harsh federal criminals sanctions for committing seemingly minor violations of state law. Imagine, for example, that a supplier is licensed by her state to cultivate 1,000 plants, but she actually keeps 1,001 plants in her warehouse. The state might treat this as a minor violation, perhaps subjecting the supplier to a warning or small fine. But if the STATES Act is interpreted literally, she would now be criminally liable under federal law (after all, she is no longer in “compliance” with state law).  And she might face a 10 year mandatory sentence under the CSA . . . .

[2]  The STATES Act proposes to tie the federal government to the mast of 50 ships being sailed by the states. Indeed, the very title of the bill declares that the federal government “entrusts” the states with responsibility for this important policy domain. But this raises problems for both prohibitionists and reformers alike.

On the one hand, marijuana prohibitionists might worry that states will authorize objectionable marijuana activities–in the process, forcing Congress to do so as well. . . .

On the other hand, supporters of legalization might find the proposed bill somewhat hollow. In the press conference announcing the bill (watch here), Senator Warren gave an impassioned plea for legalization of marijuana. . . .  But if prohibition is really so problematic, why not legalize marijuana throughout the nation? The STATES Act doesn’t really do that. . . . 

[3]  Here are just some of the questions raised but not answered by the bill:

--Would military personnel be allowed to use marijuana, medically or otherwise?

--Would employers or landlords have to accommodate medical use of marijuana under the Americans With Disabilities Act?

--Could states continue to ban commercial marijuana advertising, given that the constitutionality of such bans has arguably hinged on federal marijuana prohibition (see book pages 501-504)?

--Would the Food and Drug Administration continue to bar marijuana suppliers from making medical claims regarding the health benefits of their products?

-- Frank Snyder

A conversation with a Dallas Police Department Sergeant

Lary Nichols is currently a Sergeant of the Dallas Police Department. Nichols, like his father and grandfather before him, was born and has lived his entire life in Dallas, Texas. He attended Lake Highland high school and had a part-time job selling cars at his father’s used car lot.

After high school, he headed to boot camp to join the Marine Corps. Because his goal had always been to become a Dallas police officer, Nichols joined the Marine’s military police to gain the necessary experience. After four years of service, Nichols left the Marines to pursue his dream. But unlike today’s standards—where recruits need to either have earned a minimum of 45 hours of college credit or have 3 years of military experience—DPD strictly required the minimum college credit then. Thus, Nichols took the requisite courses at El Centro, Dallas’s County Community College, before being admitted into Dallas’s police academy in 1992.

Upon graduation, Nichols worked full-time patrolling Southeast Dallas, until he was promoted to Senior Corporal in 1997. There, he worked with Dallas’s K-9 Unit for three years until he returned back to patrol. After four years, Nichols was promoted to Sergeant in 2004. As Sergeant, Nichols was placed in charge of one Dallas SWAT unit and has played a pivotal role in organizing the city’s security measures for large events such as marathons and protests. Currently, DPD is considering promoting Sergeant Nichols again, this time to Lieutenant.

Sergeant Nichols has been married since 1988, and has two children. His son recently graduated from Dallas’s police academy this year, following in his father’s footsteps; his daughter graduated from Texas A&M and is currently attending nursing school in Dallas.   

Q: What training regarding marijuana detection and how to handle situations involving marijuana have you experienced?

A: In 1992, when I was in the academy, they had a narcotics officer come in and teach various things about the drugs we should expect to confront on the street. This included street names, what to look for; they also did something called a “controlled burn,” which is where they burned DEA-grade marijuana, so we could recognize the smell and be better equipped to testify about it in court if we made a traffic stop and we smelt marijuana. But I think that practice ended because now everyone knows what it smells like; plus, your trainer will say “Hey, that’s marijuana” while on the street. This was followed by update-training every few years. I’ve had some outside narcotics training, which consisted of either eight or forty-hour courses to improve narcotic detection and intervention. But most of my experience has come from making arrests and testifying in court.

Q: Do you believe that the methods currently used to detect whether someone is high on marijuana are effective?

A: I don’t think enough. Although there’s a lot of training to detect people high on marijuana, there probably isn’t enough to be adequate.

Q: Would you be open to police departments adopting a marijuana breathalyzer that would measure a person’s current level of THC?

A: Yes, I would. I think that would be a great tool. Especially as we move towards more states legalizing marijuana, law enforcement needs an effective method, similar to a BAC breathalyzer, to detect whether someone is operating a vehicle under the influence.

Q: What problems do you personally perceive regarding people using marijuana?

A: I actually think the use of marijuana is less problematic than alcohol. People don’t smoke weed and go beat their wives, but they do that with alcohol. But some problems associated with marijuana are long-term. The health effects are probably worse for you than smoking cigarettes; obviously there are cancer concerns. Also, marijuana tends to dull people’s initiative and motivation. From my high school experience, there were those stoner friends who smoked a lot of weed; they weren’t go-getters. Especially if people smoke too much. Overall, I believe the health effects and dulling of people’s initiative and ambition are the biggest problems. Also, people think they can smoke and then drive, but they can’t. Their reaction times are slow; their judgement is impaired. So that’s another large issue.

Q: Do you believe marijuana is a “gateway drug?”

A: I do; especially for younger people. It’s a way for them to start using illegal drugs. They feel like “Oh, I can smoke marijuana and go to school and then wake up the next day and feel fine? Well, maybe I can do this cocaine and pills too.” Adults though have a little more maturity. Similar to having a drinking age of 21, once people are more mature they realize “Yeah, I can smoke weed, but I’m not going to jump to heroin.” But I do believe it is a gateway drug for the more vulnerable population and younger people to lead them to more addictive drugs.

Q: Do you believe marijuana should be legal in any form? Explain.

A: We spend a lot of resources and a lot of money in the criminal justice system and law enforcement on enforcing marijuana laws. But I think that money could be spent better elsewhere. I think alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. So personally, I’m not opposed to legalizing it. But the problem I have is kids getting a hold of it. I know that’s a big problem in states that have already done so. Similar to getting older people to buy you beer here. I think marijuana is extremely detrimental to the young population. I’ve seen studies where it affects their mental and physical development. So, if it is legalized, it needs to be strictly controlled. I’m not opposed to it, and I think it will be legalized eventually because it doesn’t make sense all the time, effort, and money being spent putting people in jail. We are slowly reducing the penalties and enforcement of it. We should stop beating around the bush and just legalize, regulate, and tax it. We always talk about personal freedoms, well people should be free to do what they want. You can have an abortion and kill a baby, but you can’t smoke a joint in your own house. I think it’s kind of hypocritical; it’s similar to prohibition in the 1920s, which didn’t work at all.

Q: Do you believe your job would be easier if marijuana was legal for adults 21 and older?

A: There’s a catch 22 about that. Law enforcement would spend less time bringing people to jail for marijuana offenses, but there would be more people under the influence causing problems, so I don’t know if it would make our job that much easier. We would still have people driving impaired and stealing to get more marijuana. Especially initially after legalization, I believe there would be a lot more people using it, because believe it or not, there are people who refrain from smoking because it is illegal.

Q: In a given week, how many of your on-duty calls had some relation to marijuana?

A: I’m not in patrol right now, but back in the 1990s in Southeast Dallas, I would say probably 60-70% of what I did there involved some aspect of marijuana. Whether it was present, they were using it, or they were under the influence. So, it was consistently prevalent throughout my time patrolling.

Q: Do you believe marijuana enforcement has disproportionately impacted African Americans?

A: It probably does in a way, but ultimately, I believe it disproportionately impacts lower socioeconomic groups. Poorer people don’t tend to have private places to smoke, so they drive around or smoke in public place like the streets or in parks. This leaves them more vulnerable to getting caught by us. Whereas, someone with means and wealth will have a house or other place they can smoke where law enforcement won’t be able to catch them. Unfortunately, this is true for law enforcement in a lot of regards, not just marijuana.

Q: Which do you believe is more dangerous: marijuana or alcohol consumption?

A: In my experience, it’s clearly alcohol. If you look at traffic accidents, domestic violence, or other violent crimes, a lot of them involve alcohol abuse. Alcohol, especially in the short term, is worse. I don’t know if we have sufficiently studied the health effects of marijuana for the long term. I’ve heard there are things in marijuana that cause cancer, worse than in cigarettes.

Q: How do you think your job will be affected if marijuana is nationally legalized?

A: I think it will be a mixed bag. There will be some things that will be easier, some harder. Obviously, we will have more people using it, initially at least. But hopefully there will be more people using it responsibly. I think it will be a learning curve; I’m interested to learn from law enforcement in the legalized states on how they are dealing with these issues.

'Halloweed' Candy: scare tactic or real danger?

Since marijuana was legalized in 2012, a running joke depicting strangers slipping marijuana-infused candy to young trick-or-treaters continues to be told. But proponents of legalization are expressing their frustration with such myths. They insist that there has been zero evidence of this ever happening and argue that opponents of legalization use this as a scare tactic to prevent legalizing marijuana. The Associated Press for Snopes reports: 

Advocates say marijuana candy has seemingly become the new “razor blades in the apples” Halloween urban myth, with police around the country sharing the message despite the lack of any known cases.

 

Sharon Lauchaire, a spokeswoman for the [New Jersey] attorney general, said there have been “several instances” in the state and elsewhere of children becoming ill after eating edible marijuana. She declined to respond to follow-up questions to cite specific cases and evidence of anyone doing this on Halloween.

Although politicians and law enforcement officials are unable to cite instances of strangers preying on innocent children, they maintain that such warnings are still necessary. Al Della Fave, a spokesman for the prosecutor’s office in Ocean County, New Jersey, admitted that the likelihood of a stranger giving a trick-or-treater marijuana-infused candy is "very slim." But he insists that the official warning to "check your kids' candy[.] If something's not in a manufacturer's wrapper...throw it out" remains warranted.

Such concerns are exacerbated by the extreme similarities between marijuana edibles and regular candy. Bill Brothers, owner of the Encanto Greens Dispensary in Arizona, admits that he probably could not tell the difference between marijuana gummy bears and regular ones if they were side by side. Brothers also believes that these 'Halloweed' fears could be relieved if the marijuana industry improved the labeling of its edibles. For example, the industry could increase the size of any marijuana-related words on the packaging and stop designing the wrapping like candy wrappers. 

Finally, anti-legalization activists cite hundreds of childhood marijuana exposures each year. German Lopez of Vox reports on why opponents of legalization insist on such warnings:

[Children being exposed to marijuana-infused candy is] an ongoing concern no matter what day of the year it is. Halloween is the unofficial candy holiday, so people should take extra precautions even if the October 31sts of the past haven’t shown up anything yet.

If parents of young trick-or-treaters are still worried about strangers using their expensive edibles to poison children, they should take solace in the fact that there has never been a confirmed case of someone dying from an overdose of marijuana. Further, the only known case of a child dying from poisoned candy occurred in 1974 when the culprit was none other than the child's own father.

 

--Zachary Ford

 

Marijuana breathalyzers may soon revolutionize how law enforcement detects impaired drivers

Proponents for legalizing marijuana often argue that marijuana is safer than alcohol, and thus should be similarly regulated. But opponents have maintained a strong rebuttal: law enforcement is unable to detect with certainty whether people are impaired enough that they cannot safely operate a vehicle. But a company called Hound Labs is currently developing a solution to this problem: a marijuana breathalyzer. Lauren Silverman of Marketplace reports: 

The Hound device is a small, black breathalyzer that has a tube sticking out of it — you blow through it a few times, and... it’s able to analyze and detect the amount of THC in someone’s breath in minutes.

If Hound Labs is successful, this will revolutionize law enforcement's strategy for cracking down on impaired drivers, regardless of whether the state has legalized marijuana in some form. Currently, standard breathalyzers cannot detect marijuana, and urine and blood tests are not sophisticated enough to show whether someone consumed marijuana minutes or weeks ago. Further, results of such tests can take days or weeks to confirm through lab tests.

This current time delay is problematic because law enforcement officers want to prevent actually-stoned people from operating vehicles, not those who may have consumed the drug weeks ago. The Hound product solves this problem by recording the person's current level of THC within minutes. The company explains the effectiveness of this method through research showing "the level of THC in someone's breath rises right after smoking, and then trails off after a few hours."

Although police officers have shown an interest in such a marijuana breathalyzer, some are still concerned because they measure an amount, not a behavior. Sergeant Marc Vincent, a Drug Recognition Expert in Texas, voiced his concerns:

“Just because there’s marijuana [in their breath] — I need to be able to show, prove impairment that they can’t safely operate a vehicle[.]” 

While some legalized states like Colorado and Montana have determined the limit for marijuana impairment as five nanograms of THC in blood, scientists still disagree on what amount indicates someone is too impaired to safely operate a vehicle. This causes a problem for companies like Hound Labs because law enforcement departments are unlikely to purchase marijuana breathalyzers until a reliable measuring-system standard is in place. 

 --Zachary Ford

 

New Yorkers seek to legalize marijuana through a state constitutional convention

Some New York citizens are attempting to hold a state referendum to convene a state constitutional convention. They hope to accomplish state-goals like dismantling campaign finance laws, enacting term limits, and ending gerrymandering. But other supporters are seeking a state constitutional convention for a very different reason: the legalization of adult-use marijuana. Tom Precious of The Buffalo News reports:

Stymied in their efforts to get the Legislature and Gov. Andrew Cuomo to go along with their idea, these advocates see a convention of delegates brought together to consider changes to the constitution as a means to loosen marijuana laws.

It's not an easy sell. Nowhere on the statewide ballot is there any guarantee that any issue, whether it’s marijuana or anti-corruption ideas, would even be considered in a convention…. Recent polls reveal that 49 percent of New Yorkers support adult-use legalization of marijuana, compared to the 47 percent who remain opposed.

This referendum, known as Proposal 1, is seeking support from left-leaning citizens like proponents of Senator Bernie Sanders and Black Lives Matter. Such support is crucial because of the appeal that a constitutional convention could lead to sweeping changes in the law which would create more equal opportunities and treatment for the state's citizens.

Surprisingly, this effort is not inducing the support of pro-legalization groups like the Washington, DC-based Marijuana Policy Project. These groups are hesitant to support Proposal 1 because of their alliances on broader policy agendas with various groups that actively oppose the referendum.

Opponents of Proposal 1 fear the uncertain outcomes that could result from a constitutional convention—the United States last held one in 1787, and it led to the creation of an entirely new constitution. And while voters in New York consider whether to hold a state convention every twenty-years, the last one actually held was in 1968 and produced no changes to the state's constitution. 

Another problem facing proponents of a state constitutional convention involves being badly outspent by their opponents:

[T]he one anti-Proposal 1 group, funded almost exclusively by an array of labor unions, has raised $1.5 million for its campaign to stop the convention. Four main groups backing the convention question have brought in under $400,000.

Meanwhile, pro-legalization supporters have raised less than $150,000 and spent just $9,700 in campaign expenditures since July. Raising money has proven difficult for supporters due to the overwhelming union opposition and the difficulty in convincing potential donors that the marijuana issue would even be decided if a convention was held. 

Labor unions maintain a firm opposition to Proposal 1 because of the possibility that it would strip away hard-won rights, like collective bargaining. Nick Reisman of Spectrum Local News asked New York's AFL-CIO President Mario Cliento his take on Proposal 1:

“With those strong labor protections comes a way of life. We want to be able to protect what we have for ourselves and our families well into the future and that's why the labor movement in this state is so adamantly opposed to a constitutional convention[.]”

While every state that has legalized adult-use marijuana has done so through legislation, some citizens in New York have grown impatient with their state's legislature and thus are pursuing legalization through a different avenue. But this road to legalization contains many uncertainties— the most prevalent being whether the marijuana issue will even be raised if a convention is held.

--Zachary Ford

 

Atlanta Unanimously Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana Possession

Atlanta has joined a host of cities and states throughout the country which have drastically reduced the penalties for marijuana possession that the federal government established decades ago. Atlanta's unanimous decision to decriminalize marijuana possession has inspired legalization advocates nationwide due to its breaking away from both the federal government and the state its located in. Carl Willis of WSB-TV reports the impact of Atlanta's new law:

The current law allows for a penalty of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail for anyone caught in possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana. The new legislation would lower that to just a $75 ticket and no jail time.

Councilman Kwanza Hall proposed this legislation during his current run for Atlanta's mayor. State Senator Vincent Fort, another candidate for mayor, also supported Hall's decriminalization efforts. They have both stated their motivation behind their efforts involves how the former law unfairly punished African-Americans.

Citing studies that show whites and blacks use marijuana at virtually the same rate, they reveal that 92 percent of Atlanta's arrests for marijuana possession under an ounce are African-American. 

Stanley Atkins, an Atlanta citizen, supports the new law because a marijuana arrest as a teenager caused him to lose his employment. Atkins explains how the former law ruined lives:

"I have associates who have completely lost jobs. They've lost careers. I know students that have lost scholarships," Atkins said. "That cancels an internship, which later on cancels a potential job opening."

Opponents of the ordinance fear that removing jail time from marijuana possession offenses will be a disservice to young people because "it could encourage them to take more risks with marijuana, which some consider to be a gateway to harder drugs."

Another worry stems from increased driving fatalities. Police believe this law will "contribute to an increased possibility of folks driving under the influence of marijuana."

While this may be a big step towards Georgia pursuing similar laws statewide, the new city ordinance does not supersede state law. Thus, Georgia could withhold funding or send in state police to compel Atlanta to adhere to its state's law, if it so chooses.

Alternatively, Atlanta's Chief of Police could ignore the ordinance and continue making marijuana possession arrests. However, State Senator Hall believes this is an unlikely outcome due to police desiring stronger community relations. And when a community unanimously passes such legislation, Atlanta's police may find itself reluctant to go against the public's wishes.

 

--Zachary Ford