Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

Editor: Douglas A. Berman
Moritz College of Law

Thursday, January 23, 2020

Should the public health community applaud shifts from alcohol to marijuana (and support cannabis beverages)?

960x0The question in the title of this post is prompted by this interesting recent Forbes piece headlined "Cannabis Taking A Larger Share Of Alcohol Industry Amid Concern Over Calories And Hangovers." Here are excerpts:

The growing concern over calories and hangovers is driving more millennials to replace alcohol with cannabis in their social life — a trend that pushes investors to increasingly eye the infused beverage industry as an opportunity.

A recent Monitoring the Future research found US millennials drink far less alcohol than previous generations: The percentage of college students who drink alcohol daily declined from 6.5% in 1980 to 2.2% in 2017.  By contrast, there was a significant increase in daily marijuana use among young US adults, especially during 2019, the research further revealed, resonating with the gradual legalization of medical and recreational marijuana across the country....

Financial services company Cowen predicts the sales of recreational cannabis in the US will increase more than 700% from $6 billion in 2016 to $50 billion in 2026, prompting beverage companies of all sizes, such as Ceria, to tap into the space to grow their profits.  Keith Villa, the creator of Blue Moon Brewing Company, launched Ceria in 2018 – a company produces a cannabis-infused and non-alcoholic craft beer brand Grainwave.  Breweries that manufactures similar products include Colorado-based New Belgium Brewing and Dad & Dude’s Breweria, as well as SweetWater Brewing Co. of Georgia.  Several mainstream CPG heavyweights, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Mondelēz, also reportedly consider launching infused food products, but nothing so far has materialized.

These existing infused beverages in the market, however, do not appeal widely to consumers who are already frequent cannabis users, at least according to Jake Bullock, co-founder of cannabis-infused social tonic startup Cann.  Cann produces cannabis-infused beverage products that are low in calories.  “As a result, the mainstream consumer is not entering the market as quickly,” he wrote me via email, stressing the cannabis industry has lagged the growth projections many analysts and companies have made.  “It is clear that cannabis is here to stay and will only continue to penetrate existing markets and new states over time,” Bullock added....

The other element that prevents more people from exploring THC-added food is their confusion with CBD products.  The other co-founder of Cann, Luke Anderson, notes many consumers who are curious about cannabis turn to CBD to explore the plant, but often time, they don’t know the difference between the cannabinoids.  “This has created a lot of confusion in the market, with people thinking they would 'feel something' after trying a CBD-only product and not being able to tell what was physiologically happening versus a placebo effect,” he said.

“This experience may have discouraged people from exploring micro doses of THC, which are quite safe but give you a very palpable buzz.  While CBD products play in a crowded health and wellness segment of grocery aisles.”

Anderson said his company has aimed to reshape the alcohol industry with a small amount of THC in each can since it was first launched about a year ago.  Cann prides itself in balancing 2 mg of sativa-dominant hybrid THC and 4mg of CBD to provide a “sessionable experience” without high calories and the hangover.

When the modern marijuana reform movement got started, I was often in the habit of saying that it would likely be a "public health win" if a lot of alcohol use was replaced by marijuana use. This article suggest this is already happening, and I presume a growing cannabis beverage market would enhance the number of folks who might substitute cannabis for alcohol. But, as the question in this post title reveals, I am not knowledgeable enough about the public health literature to say for sure that these trends ought to be applauded.

January 23, 2020 in Food and Drink, History of Alcohol Prohibition and Temperance Movements, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical community perspectives | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 20, 2020

Highlighting another troublesome spot at the intersection of marijuana reform and criminal justice systems

Regular readers know that, because of my work in the criminal justice arena, I often come to marijuana reform stories with an extra focus on how marijuana law and policy impact criminal justice system.  Though I am particularly interested in topics covered in my Federal Sentencing Reporter article, "Leveraging Marijuana Reform to Enhance Expungement Practices," regarding how marijuana reform efforts may be impacting criminal record expungement efforts, there are so many other interesting (and troublesome) spots where marijuana reform intersects with criminal law and practice.

This recent Marshall Project piece looks at one of these spots in a piece headlined "People on Probation and Parole Are Being Denied Perfectly Legal Medical Weed: Despite statewide legalization, some counties ban probationers and parolees from using medical marijuana. So the chronically ill turn to less effective and more addictive prescription drugs."  Here are excerpts:

Following years of research demonstrating that marijuana can be a life-changing treatment for people with cancer, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, PTSD, eating disorders, nausea and epilepsy, and that it is neither physically addictive nor an evident danger to public safety, the drug has been legalized for medical use in 33 states and for adults over 21 to smoke recreationally in 11.  Yet for most people on probation or parole — even in precisely these same states — drug testing remains the rule, and jail time the potential punishment.

The argument that many parole and probation authorities make for this seeming contradiction is that regardless of whether marijuana has been legalized in their state, it remains illegal at the federal level, and that if you’re under government supervision for committing a crime, you should at the very least have to follow all state and federal laws.  Some parole and probation officials also point out that they drug-test their own officers, so the people they oversee should be held to at least the same standard.

“I don’t know of any paroling authorities who are casual about marijuana — it’s part of their institutional culture, and old habits are hard to break,” said Edward E. Rhine, a former corrections official in multiple states and an expert on parole at the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice at the University of Minnesota Law School.  “Obviously most people couldn’t conceive of marijuana being allowed inside a prison, even if that prison is in a state where it has been legalized.”

A handful of states where marijuana is now legal, though, have taken action to make it available to people on probation or parole.  Arizona’s supreme court ruled in 2015 that medical marijuana patients cannot be arrested or jailed for taking their medication, even if they are under court supervision.  An Oregon appeals court in 2018 issued a similar decision.  Within Pennsylvania, where there isn’t yet any such ruling statewide, different counties have different policies....  In other states where there haven’t been major court cases, county courts and even individual probation officers are often responsible for deciding whether to drug-test — and possibly jail — those under their control. Some do so only when marijuana or drugs were related to someone’s underlying crime.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania [is] challenging the court rule in Lebanon County that prohibits parolees and probationers who have a prescription for medical marijuana from using it....   The ACLU’s position is that these counties’ rules contradict the letter and intent of Pennsylvania’s 2016 medical marijuana law, which protected medical marijuana patients from any criminal sanction.  The legislation expressly prohibited people in prison from possessing pot, but did not expressly exclude those on parole or probation. The lawyers also point out that people under court supervision can still use opioids with a prescription — which is far more of a public health concern in this day and age, especially in Pennsylvania....

In Colorado, where anyone can smoke a joint freely, a parolee named Mark Paulsen is still being tested for marijuana — even though he is about to die.  In 2009, Paulsen, a former mechanic who is an alcoholic, blacked out while drinking and attacked two acquaintances with a knife (neither was killed).  He was sentenced to prison for a decade, records show.  There, his hepatitis of the liver worsened, becoming end-stage cirrhosis by the time he was released last year.

Paulsen, 64, is now on parole outside Denver.  He is visibly ill, jaundiced and constantly bleeding.  He has peach-sized tumors in his abdomen, which he says make walking around feel like jumping up and down with heavy, jagged rocks in his belly.  And his nausea is so severe that he has at times gone weeks without eating solid food. “The always-there-ness” of the stomach pain, he said, “is what gets you.”

As he waits to die, there have been all the challenges familiar to people on parole.  He got out of prison with no money or health insurance, and has to go to the emergency room instead of to a specialist because he’s in such immediate pain, he says.  There, he has racked up insurmountable medical debt.

The only things that would ease his symptoms are opioids or medical marijuana, but the former is something that doctors have been wary to prescribe, amid a nationwide epidemic.  The latter, Paulsen believes, would seem the solution. (He also has been sober ever since his crime and is not “drug-seeking,” he emphasizes.)  Yet every morning, he has to call his parole office, he says.  If he is randomly selected that day, he must ride the bus an hour and a half, those sharp rocks in his stomach jostling, to take a drug test.  And if he fails one, he could be sent back to prison for whatever time he has left before dying.

A spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections said that if a parolee has a prescription for medical marijuana, the agency in most instances is willing to “work with” that person to avoid being sanctioned for using it.  She later added, “Our parole team is going to reach out directly to Mr. Paulsen to see what assistance they can provide.”

January 20, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Taking stock of 2020 marijuana reform prospects in various states (and noting some significant omissions)

US-legalization-prospects-2020Jeff Smith over at MJBizDaily has this helpful article (with a helpful graphic) under the headline "Several states could legalize cannabis sales in 2020 as marijuana industry eyes lucrative East Coast market."  The article maps out the ten or so states that might move forward with adult-use legalization regimes in 2020 and also reviews the handful of states in which medical marijuana legalization might move forward this year.  Here is a snippet from the start of the piece:

Up to a dozen states could legalize adult-use or medical marijuana in 2020 through their legislatures or ballot measures, although only about a handful will likely do so.

Much of the cannabis industry’s focus will home in on a possible recreational marijuana domino effect along the East Coast, which could create billions of dollars in business opportunities.  Adult-use legalization efforts in New York and New Jersey stalled in 2019, but optimism has rekindled this year.

Potential legalization activity runs from the Southwest to the Dakotas to the Deep South. Mississippi in particular has a business-friendly medical cannabis initiative that has qualified for the 2020 ballot.

If even a handful of these state marijuana reforms move forward this year, it becomes that much more likely that some form of federal reform will have to follow. That reality is one of the theme of this lengthy new Politico article which also provides an accounting of potential state reforms under the full headline "Marijuana legalization may hit 40 states. Now what?: Changes in state laws could usher in even more confusion for law enforcement and escalate the pressure on Congress to act." Here is an excerpt:

More than 40 U.S. states could allow some form of legal marijuana by the end of 2020, including deep red Mississippi and South Dakota — and they’re doing it with the help of some conservatives.  State lawmakers are teeing up their bills as legislative sessions kick off around the country, and advocates pushing ballot measures are racing to collect and certify signatures to meet deadlines for getting their questions to voters.

Should they succeed, every state could have marijuana laws on the books that deviate from federal law, but people could still be prosecuted if they drive across state lines with their weed, because the total federal ban on marijuana isn’t expected to budge any time soon.  The changes could usher in even more confusion for law enforcement and escalate the pressure on Congress to act.  Federal bills are crawling through Congress, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell firmly against legalization....

“We’re cautiously optimistic that we can win more marijuana reform ballot initiatives on one Election Day than on any previous Election Day,” said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of the Marijuana Policy Project.  Schweich cited growing public support for the issue among both liberals and conservatives.  The measures that make the ballot could drive voter turnout at the polls and by extension affect the presidential election.

Liberal states that allow ballot petitions have largely voted to legalize marijuana, including California, Oregon and Massachusetts.  “Now, we’re venturing into new, redder territory and what we’re finding is voters are ready to approve these laws in those states,” said Schweich, who, along with leading legalization campaigns in Maine, Massachusetts and Michigan, served as the co-director of the medical marijuana legalization campaign in Utah.  “If we can pass medical marijuana in Utah, we can pass it anywhere.”

National organizations like his are eschewing swing states like Florida and Ohio, where the costs of running a ballot campaign are high during a presidential election. They are intentionally targeting states with smaller populations.  For advocates, running successful campaigns in six less-populous states means potentially 12 more senators representing legal marijuana states.  “The cost of an Ohio campaign could cover the costs of [four to six] other ballot initiative campaigns. Our first goal is to pass laws in as many places as we can,” Schweich said.

They can’t take anything for granted, however.  In Florida, where polling says two-thirds of voters want to legalize pot, one effort to gather enough signatures for a 2020 ballot measure collapsed last year, and a second gave up on Tuesday, saying there’s not enough time to vet 700,000 signatures.  Organizers are looking to 2022.  And many legislative efforts to legalize marijuana came up short in 2019, including in New York and New Jersey.  Those efforts were derailed in part over concerns about how to help people disproportionately harmed by criminal marijuana prosecutions, despite broad support from Democratic-controlled legislatures and the governors.

I fully understand the strategic and economic reasons why MPP and other national marijuana reform activist groups have chosen not to focus on big purple states like Florida and Ohio for full legalization campaigns. But these two states have unique long-standing and well-earned reputations as national swing states. Only if (when?) these kinds of big (reddish-purple) states go the route of full legalization will I think federal reform becomes unavoidable.

January 20, 2020 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 16, 2020

"From Reefer Madness to Hemp Utopia: CBD, Hemp and the Evolving Regulation of Commoditized Cannabis"

Jan-24-Cannabis-Roundtable_for-email-600x400The title of this post is the title of this exciting event taking place next week put on by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University.  Here are all the essential details and some background from this page where you can also find a registration link: 

When: Friday, January 24 from 7:30-9:30 a.m.
Where: 2nd Floor Rotunda, Mason Hall, 250 W Woodruff Avenue, Columbus Ohio

Join the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center and the Center for Innovation Strategies for From Reefer Madness to Hemp Utopia: CBD, Hemp and the Evolving Regulation of Commoditized Cannabis.  The latest Cannabiz Roundtable discussion will feature a panel of experts as they discuss the challenges of regulating the unusual agricultural commodity that is hemp and the myriad products infused with one of its derivatives, CBD.

With the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, the world of the cannabis plant has undergone a seismic shift allowing for its legal cultivation as long as its THC content remains below 0.3%.  A year later, the federal and state governments, including the state of Ohio, are in the process of creating regulations that would allow the agricultural sector to take advantage of this new crop while at the same time addressing numerous concerns about public health and law enforcement.

 

Speakers

Benton Bodamer, DEPC Adjunct Faculty, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Columbus


Donnie Burton, Owner and CEO, The Harvest Foundation


David E. Miran, Jr. Esq., Executive Director, Hemp Program, Ohio Department of Agriculture


Anthony Seegers
, Director of State Policy, Ohio Farm Bureau


Patricia Zettler, DEPC Assistant Professor of Law, Moritz College of Law

 

Moderator: Douglas Berman, Executive Director, DEPC


Schedule

7:30 – 8:00 a.m. | registration
8:00 – 9:00 a.m. | panel
9:00 – 9:30 a.m. | follow up conversation and networking

January 16, 2020 in Business laws and regulatory issues, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

New research suggest early, heavy marijuana users may have persistent driving impairment

This new CNN article covers some interesting new driving research, although like lots of media this CNN piece -- and especially its headline ("Weed impairs driving skills long after the high is gone") -- obscures some nuances of the research.   I always recommend checking out the original research, which here appears in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.  The research article is headlined "Recreational cannabis use impairs driving performance in the absence of acute intoxication," and here is its abstract:

Background

Across the nation, growing numbers of individuals are exploring the use of cannabis for medical or recreational purposes, and the proportion of cannabis-positive drivers involved in fatal crashes increased from 8 percent in 2013 to 17 percent in 2014, raising concerns about the impact of cannabis use on driving. Previous studies have demonstrated that cannabis use is associated with impaired driving performance, but thus far, research has primarily focused on the effects of acute intoxication.

Methods

The current study assessed the potential impact of cannabis use on driving performance using a customized driving simulator in non-intoxicated, heavy, recreational cannabis users and healthy controls (HCs) without a history of cannabis use.

Results

Overall, cannabis users demonstrated impaired driving relative to HC participants with increased accidents, speed, and lateral movement, and reduced rule-following. Interestingly, however, when cannabis users were divided into groups based on age of onset of regular cannabis use, significant driving impairment was detected and completely localized to those with early onset (onset before age 16) relative to the late onset group (onset ≥16 years old). Further, covariate analyses suggest that impulsivity had a significant impact on performance differences.

Conclusions

Chronic, heavy, recreational cannabis use was associated with worse driving performance in non-intoxicated drivers, and earlier onset of use was associated with greater impairment. These results may be related to other factors associated with early exposure such as increased impulsivity.

January 16, 2020 in Recreational Marijuana Data and Research | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Intriguing little survey on Ohioians views on marijuana a year after its medical program began

Download (7)The group Interact for Health recently released this report detailed the results of a survey focused on "Ohio adults’ knowledge of marijuana use and perception of its harm." Here are excerpts:

The Ohio Health Issues Poll (OHIP) is conducted every year to learn more about the health opinions, behaviors and status of Ohio adults. In 2016 Ohio legalized medical marijuana. It became available in early 2019....

OHIP in 2019 asked Ohio adults about their knowledge of marijuana use among friends and family members, their perception of harm and their participation in the medical marijuana program....

OHIP asked “Do you have a friend or family member who regularly uses marijuana?” About half of Ohio adults said yes (46%).

OHIP also asked, “How much do you think people risk harming themselves by regularly using marijuana?” About half of Ohio adults (47%) said they think regularly using marijuana is a great deal or somewhat harmful.

Responses varied the person knows someone who regularly uses marijuana. Three in 10 Ohio adults (30%) who have a friend or family member who regularly uses marijuana perceive marijuana as harmful. That compares with 6 in 10 Ohio adults (61%) who do not know someone who regularly uses marijuana.

OHIP asked several questions to learn how many Ohioans had explored the new medical marijuana options. OHIP asked, “Have you ever sought information about whether you have a medical condition that can be treated with medical marijuana in the state of Ohio?” About 8 in 10 Ohio adults (83%) have not sought medical marijuana information. Ohio adults who do not perceive marijuana as harmful are more likely (26%) than those who perceive marijuana as harmful (8%) to seek information.

OHIP then asked, “Has your doctor written you a recommendation for the use of medical marijuana?” Very few Ohio adults (2%) reported this. Among those who did, OHIP asked “Have you completed your registration with the Ohio Medical Marijuana Patient and Caregiver Registry?” Very few Ohio adults did.

January 15, 2020 in Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, January 13, 2020

US House Subcommittee to hold hearing on Jan 15, 2020 on "Cannabis Policies for the New Decade"

Ccc_SQUAREAs detailed on this US House committee webpage, the "Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a legislative hearing on Wednesday, January 15, 2020, at 10 a.m. in the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing is entitled, 'Cannabis Policies for the New Decade'."  Interestingly, the hearing page provides a list and links to six House bills with varying approaches to marijuana reform as well as the names and titled of the three government officials now scheduled to testify:

Legislation

H.R. 171, the "Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marihuana Act" or the "LUMMA"

H.R. 601, the "Medical Cannabis Research Act of 2019"

H.R. 1151, the "Veterans Medical Marijuana Safe Harbor Act"

H.R. 2843, the "Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act"

H.R. 3797, the "Medical Marijuana Research Act of 2019"

H.R. 3884, the "Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2019" or the "MORE Act of 2019"

 

Witnesses

Matthew J. Strait
Senior Policy Advisor, Diversion Control Division
Drug Enforcement Administration

Douglas Throckmorton, M.D.
Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration

Nora D. Volkow, M.D.
Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse
National Institutes of Health

 

Also listed on the website is a "Key Document" in the form of a "Memorandum from Chairman Pallone to the Subcommittee on Health."  This memo runs six pages and provides a nice primer on the basics of federal cannabis law as well as a very brief accounting of the six bills listed above.

January 13, 2020 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, January 10, 2020

Is 2020 really going to be "a defining year for the cannabis industry"?

Us-1231-1364894-frontThe question in the title of this post is promoted by this CNN Business piece which asserts in its headline "2020 could be a defining year for the cannabis industry."   I find myself a bit skeptical because it seems someone says every January that this year is going to be a defining one for marijuana reform.  But I do think there are reasons to see 2020 as an especially big year in this space, and here is part of the article:

2019 was a momentous year for the cannabis industry: Hemp-derived CBD had a heyday, Illinois made history, California got sticky, vapes were flung into flux, and North American cannabis companies received some harsh wake-up calls.

2020 is gearing up to be an even more critical year. There's a well-worn saying in the cannabis business that the emerging industry is so fast-moving that it lives in dog years. 2020 is barely a week old, and cannabis is already making headlines after Illinois kicked off the new year with recreational sales. Other states are inching closer to legalization this year -- with several mulling how best to ensure social equity. Also in 2020, there's the FDA could chill the CBD craze, and a move from Congress could change the game entirely....

Illinois will remain in focus, after it made history last year with the first legislatively-enacted recreational cannabis program. Critical aspects of its program include social equity and social justice measures created to help people and communities most harmed by the War on Drugs. "Underserved groups are holding the industry accountable," said Gia Morón, president for Women Grow, a company founded to further the presence of women in the cannabis industry. "And our legislators are recognizing that [social, gender and minority concerns] are a part of this now."

New York and New Jersey have been flirting with legalization but have held off to navigate some logistics related to aspects that include social equity. The governors of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania convened this past fall for a summit on coordinating cannabis and vaping policies. New Jersey is putting a recreational cannabis measure before voters in November, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo vowed Wednesday that New York would legalize cannabis this year....

CBD products have been all the rage, but they may be on shaky ground. CBD oils, creams, foods and beverages have seen an explosion in availability following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp but left plenty of discretion to the US Food and Drug Administration, which regulates pharmaceutical drugs, most food items, additives and dietary supplements.

The FDA is reviewing CBD and has yet to issue formal guidance, although the agency has issued warning letters to CBD makers that make unsubstantiated health claims. Class action lawsuits have been filed against several CBD companies, including two of the largest, Charlotte's Web and CV Sciences, alleging they engaged in misleading or deceptive marketing practices, Stat News reported.

Cannabis insiders are closely awaiting the fate of industry-friendly bills such as the STATES Act, which would recognize cannabis programs at the state level, and the SAFE Banking Act, which would allow for banks to more easily serve cannabis companies. Those and other bills likely won't pass in full...

In addition to the promise of new markets, the evolution of established cannabis programs could also play a significant role in the cannabis business landscape. In California, the world's largest cannabis industry has developed in fits and starts. Regulators are taking aim at an entrenched illicit market as businesses decry tax increases and local control measures that limit distribution....

Canada's "Cannabis 2.0" roll-out of derivative products -- such as edibles, vapes and beverages -- is in its beginning stages. The Canadian publicly traded licensed producers that have been beset by missed and slow market development have bet heavily on these new product forms....

The capital constraints are expected to continue into the first leg of 2020 as some initial bets don't pan out for some companies, said Andrew Freedman, Colorado's former cannabis czar who now runs Freedman & Koski, a firm that consults with municipalities and states navigating legalization. Some companies' low points could create opportunities for other firms and investors that waited out the first cycle, Freedman said. "In 2020, I see that everybody will understand the economics of cannabis a little bit better," he said.

I am with Andrew Freedman in thinking that the realities of marijuana reform and the industry will, at best, become just "a little bit" clearer during 2020. In the end, I think what will matter most is who wins the White House and control of Congress in this big election year. If the status quo holds after the votes are counted, I do not expect to see federal reform anytime soon. But if new leadership takes over the White House or the Senate, then 2021 will become real interesting.

January 10, 2020 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

Is rooting for Bengals or Browns a sign of insanity or really just a medical marijuana qualifying condition?

2ad18363-5937-4414-bf02-94d0d218ba6d-large16x9_OhiotoconsiderifbeingaBrownsorBengalsfanqualifiesformedicalmarijuanamgnI moved to central Ohio from the east coast in 1997.   I had my reasons to start following the Cincinnati Bengals upon first arriving in the Buckeye state (I grew up in Maryland in the 1980s and formed a connection with Boomer Esiason).  And I could not help but also be keen on the Cleveland Browns when the team returned to action in 1999.  But, fast forward 23 years, and I have not seen either of Ohio's professional football teams even manage to win a single playoff game over this very long period.  (Do not feel too bad for me, the OSU Buckeyes have given me plenty of victories to savor.)

Why do I tell this familiar tale of sporting woe in this space.  Well, this amusing Cincinnati Enquirer article, headlined "Bengals, Browns seasons got you down? Medical marijuana proposed as treatment," reports on why it is relevant to the work of marijuana reform in the Buckeye state:

Long-suffering Bengals and Browns fans know the pain of defeat — over and over again. At least one person thinks they should be able to treat that misery with medical marijuana.

A petition to make "Bengals/Browns Fans" an official medical marijuana condition was submitted last month to the State Medical Board of Ohio.

Don't get your hopes up: It probably won't go anywhere. The board requires information from experts who specialize in studying the condition, relevant medical or scientific evidence and letters of support from doctors.

The board could not provide more information Monday about the petition, including who submitted it and their argument for why the board should add the "condition."

Last year, more than 100 petitions for new conditions were submitted. Those were winnowed to five: anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, depression, insomnia and opioid use disorder. All five were rejected by the board.

This time around, the board received 28 petitions. The latest batch includes conditions already approved in Ohio, such as chronic pain and PTSD. Petitions were again submitted for the conditions rejected last year. Repeat petitions must include new "scientific information" to be considered again.

Rob Ryan, who heads pro-cannabis coalition Ohio Patient Network, re-submitted a petition for opioid use disorder but he doesn't expect a different outcome. Ryan, who lives in Blue Ash and sometimes roots for the Bengals, didn't have a strong opinion of the football fan condition idea. "Maybe they should sell marijuana as well as beer at the stadium," Ryan said, chuckling. "It might calm the crowd down."  But he hopes his proposal has a better shot.

Medical board attorneys will review the petitions to determine whether they meet the minimum requirements, such as including letters from supporting physicians.  A medical board committee plans to decide in February which conditions will be reviewed by experts and voted on by the board later this year.

January 8, 2020 in Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Sports, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

"Marijuana policies: A call to shift from a criminal justice approach to a public health approach"

The title of this post is the title of this Hill commentary authored by Elizabeth Long and Diana Fishbein.  Here are excerpts:

Despite the billions of dollars, marijuana prohibition has cost society; this strategy has failed to protect communities. Instead, it has caused great harm, particularly for marginalized populations. These adverse outcomes are rooted in policies enacted to tackle this public health problem that has little to do with public health. Marijuana possession continues to be treated as a criminal matter, even though, historically, there are no examples of criminal law solving a public health matter....

While decriminalization of marijuana is projected to have many economic and social benefits, legislation must balance decriminalization with the need to prevent teenage use. Teenage marijuana use can alter the course of brain development and increase risk for dependence and possibly addiction. Heavy use in adolescence has been associated with several developmental delays. Importantly, when teenagers believe using a drug is not harmful, they are more likely to use it....

A substantial body of research justifies reallocating resources from criminal justice to public health policies. A public health approach focuses on the implementation and enforcement of regulations to manage health risks through policy changes, such as taxation, regulation of advertising, and age limits. Several policy recommendations are offered here for consideration:

  1. Support a detailed, comprehensive, scientific evaluation of the impacts from current laws surrounding both medical marijuana and adult-use to guide future legislation.
  2. Re-categorize marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III or IV to be more consistent with its known pharmacological properties and effects.
  3. Update the regulatory structure by applying uniform standards to the types of products that can be sold or marketed to the public.
  4. Invest prevention resources in delaying the age of initiation of marijuana use past the period when the brain is still developing (around age 25) to reduce the impact on neurodevelopment.
  5. Support screening, early detection, and intervention. Focus both on at-risk youth who have not yet initiated to avert pathways to use in adolescence and youth who have already begun using marijuana to avoid negative consequences. 

January 7, 2020 in Medical community perspectives, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Hemp legalization leads to huge decline of misdemeanor marijuana charges in Texas

This lengthy local article, headlined "Marijuana prosecutions in Texas have dropped by more than half since lawmakers legalized hemp," reports on a remarkable new reality for Texas marijuana prosecutions. Here are some excerpts:

It’s been more than six months since Texas lawmakers legalized hemp and unintentionally disrupted marijuana prosecution across the state.  Since then, the number of low-level pot cases filed by prosecutors has plummeted. Some law enforcement agencies that still pursue charges are spending significantly more money at private labs to ensure that substances they suspect are illegal marijuana aren't actually hemp.

The Texas Department of Public Safety and local government crime labs expect to roll out a long-awaited testing method to distinguish between the two in the next month or so.  But that's only for seized plant material.  There's still no timeline for when they will be able to tell if vape pen liquid or edible products contain marijuana or hemp.  And DPS said even when its testing is ready, it doesn’t have the resources to analyze substances in the tens of thousands of misdemeanor marijuana arrests made each year — testing it didn’t have to do before hemp was legalized....

In June, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a widely supported bill to legalize hemp in Texas.  The bill focused on agriculture practices and regulations, but it also narrowed the state’s definition of marijuana from cannabis to cannabis that contains more than 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the ingredient in marijuana that gets you high.  Anything with less THC is hemp.

Lawmakers were warned the measure could bring marijuana prosecution to a halt without more resources because public labs could only determine whether THC was present in a substance, not how much was present.  Still, the legislation sailed into law with no crime lab funding attached.  State leaders and the bill authors have since reaffirmed that the law did not in any way decriminalize marijuana.

Soon after its passage, however, district and county prosecutors across the state, in counties that lean both Republican and Democratic, began dropping hundreds of low-level pot cases.  Some began requiring law enforcement agencies to submit lab results proving the suspected drugs had more than 0.3% THC before they accepted cases for prosecution.  The Texas District and County Attorneys Association advised its members that such testing likely is needed to prove in court that a substance is illegal....

In 2018, Texas prosecutors filed about 5,900 new misdemeanor marijuana possession cases a month, according to data from the Texas Office of Court Administration.  The first five months of 2019 saw an average of more than 5,600 new cases filed a month.  But since June, when the hemp law was enacted, the number of cases has been slashed by more than half.  In November, less than 2,000 new cases were filed, according to the court data.

For those who support marijuana legalization, that change is welcome, adding to an already growing effort in some of the state’s most populated counties to divert pot smokers from criminal prosecution or not arrest them at all.  “It means that there are fewer Texans that are getting slapped with a criminal record for marijuana possession, something that is already legal in other states,” said Katharine Harris, a drug policy fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

January 5, 2020 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, January 2, 2020

"Trends in college students’ alcohol, nicotine, prescription opioid and other drug use after recreational marijuana legalization: 2008–2018"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new research to be pubished in the journal Addictive Behaviors.  Here is its abstract:

Background

Young adult college students may be particularly sensitive to recreational marijuana legalization (RML).  Although evidence indicates the prevalence of marijuana use among college students increased after states instituted RML, there have been few national studies investigating changes in college students’ other substance use post-RML.

Method

The cross-sectional National College Health Assessment-II survey was administered twice yearly from 2008 to 2018 at four-year colleges and universities. Participants were 18–26 year old undergraduates attending college in states that did (n = 243,160) or did not (n = 624,342) implement RML by 2018.  Outcome variables were self-reported nicotine use, binge drinking, illicit drug use, and misuse of prescription stimulants, sedatives, and opioids.  Other variables included individual and contextual covariates, and institution-reported institutional and community covariates.  Publicly available information was used to code state RML status at each survey administration.

Results

Accounting for state differences and time trends, RML was associated with decreased binge drinking prevalence among college students age 21 and older [OR (95% CI) = 0.91 (0.87 − 0.95), p < .0001] and increased sedative misuse among minors [OR (95% CI) = 1.20 (1.09 − 1.32), p = .0003].  RML did not disrupt secular trends in other substance use.

Conclusions

In the context of related research showing national increases in college students’ marijuana use prevalence and relative increases following state RML, we observed decreases in binge drinking and increases in sedative use that both depended on age.  Findings support some specificity in RML-related changes in substance use trends and the importance of individual factors. 

January 2, 2020 in Recreational Marijuana Data and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Illinois Gov pardons more than 11,000 people convicted of low-level marijuana crimes

Images (2)As reported in this local article, "On the day before recreational cannabis becomes legal in Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker announced he was pardoning more than 11,000 people who had been convicted of low-level marijuana crimes." Here is more:

“When Illinois’ first adult use cannabis shops open their doors tomorrow, we must all remember that the purpose of this legislation is not to immediately make cannabis widely available or to maximize product on the shelves, that’s not the main purpose, that will come with time,” Pritzker said to a crowd at Trinity United Church of Christ on the Far South Side. “But instead the defining purpose of legalization is to maximize equity for generations to come.”

Pritzker, who has touted the social equity elements of the recreational pot law he signed this summer, was joined Tuesday by state, county and local leaders including Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who has already begun the process of clearing the records of those with low-level marijuana convictions in her jurisdiction.

The 11,017 people pardoned by Pritzker will receive notification about their cases, all of which are from outside Cook County, by mail. The pardon means convictions involving less than 30 grams of marijuana will be automatically expunged.

Pritzker and other elected officials said they believe Illinois is the first state to include a process for those previously convicted of marijuana offenses to seek relief upon legalization of cannabis. “This is justice,” said Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. “And this is what equity is all about, righting wrongs and leveling the playing field.”...

Officials estimate there are hundreds of thousands of people with marijuana-related convictions in Illinois who could be eligible for relief. Those with criminal convictions can get a copy of their criminal record and start the process, though many of the cases will be automatically expunged by the state in the next couple of years.

The Illinois State Police are searching criminal records to identify eligible cases, which are then sent to the state’s Prisoner Review Board. After the board reviews the cases, the names of those eligible for relief are sent to the governor’s office to be considered for pardon. After Pritzker issues the pardon, the attorney general’s office automatically files petitions on the person’s behalf to expunge the records.

State’s attorney offices across the state are also being notified of eligible cases, which can then be vacated by a local judge. In Cook County, prosecutors are working with California-based Code for America to search for convictions involving less than 30 grams of cannabis. Those cases have resulted in both misdemeanor and Class 4 felony convictions....

Individuals with cases involving 30 to 500 grams of cannabis can also be eligible for relief, but the process won’t be automatic, instead requiring the person to file motions to vacate the conviction, according to the governor’s office.

While a pardon forgives a conviction, an expungement erases it from the public record. When a judge vacates a conviction, it overturns it as if it never happened. When a case is expunged, the case is hidden from public view, but it could be viewed by law enforcement if they obtained a court order.

Many of the elected officials noted that enforcement of marijuana-related offenses have disproportionately affected minorities. The Rev. Michael Pfleger, of St. Sabina Church on the South Side, said the elected officials on the stage had done their job, but it would be up to business leaders in the new industry to provide financial mobility for those individuals. “Employ these individuals," Pfleger said to the crowd. “Give them a job.”

Ald. Walter Burnett Jr., of the 27th Ward, noted that a pardon for an armed robbery conviction decades ago changed his life and allowed him to serve in public office. He invoked Martin Luther King Jr.'s words to describe how he felt when his record was expunged and how others might feel when they hear news of the pardons. “Free at last,” Burnett said. “Free at last. Thank God almighty, they are free at last.”

December 31, 2019 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Race, Gender and Class Issues, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, December 30, 2019

Reviewing the year that was 2019 with a round-up of reviews of the year (and decade) in marijuana reform

2019-marijuana-snowflake-ldThis holiday season has brought not only the usual "year in review" pieces, but also a number of "decade in review" accountings of big changes since the start of 2010.  Interestingly, I have not seen too many "decade in review" pieces focused on marijuana reform developments even though so much has happened in this space since 2010.  This new NBC News piece by Zachary Siegel, headlined "Opioids, pot and criminal justice reform helped undermine this decade's War on Drugs," covers some of this ground in a broader context.  Here is an excerpt:

If shame was a potent force in fighting against the company that oversold opioids, it was the shedding of stigmas that characterized the massive shift in public opinion toward marijuana in the past decade — which transformed more than that on just about any other policy across the American landscape.  In 2000, 63 percent of Americans said the use of marijuana should be illegal, according to polling from Pew Research Center.  By 2010, that number had dropped to 52 percent, and for the last 10 years it continued to plunge, shifting the balance in favor of marijuana. In 2019, a full two-thirds of Americans believed cannabis should be legal.

There is no way to characterize this but as a loss for the so-called War on Drugs.  Marijuana not only continued to be consumed — with nearly 55 million people who indulge, it’s one of the most widely used drugs — but now, thanks to the legalization drive, there’s a chance to right wrongs of the past.  For instance, once legalization goes into effect in Illinois on Jan 1, 2020, the city of Evanston will use tax revenue on cannabis to fund reparations for black residents....

So how did 80-year-old cannabis laws finally begin to crumble this past decade?  Though very different in properties and ill effects, marijuana’s image shifted for some of the same reasons that opioids changed the drug conversation in America: White people being criminalized, the medical industry having a role in how to calibrate use of the drug, and a feeling among both liberals and conservatives that filling up jails with users was a waste of lives and money.

Cannabis laws didn’t change all by themselves, and it’s important to recognize the role that grass-roots advocacy played.  “The remarkable progress of marijuana legalization over the past decade was driven not by for-profit interests but by people and organizations who care first and foremost about freedom, justice, compassion and human rights,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and former director of the Drug Policy Alliance, the nonprofit that helped get cannabis on the ballot in numerous states.

There is, of course, so much more to say about the past decade in marijuana reform, way too much to say in a single book, let alone a single blog post.  Rather than try to cover all that ground, I will be content here to just link to a number of 2019 "year in review" pieces about marijuana reform:

From the National Law Review, "Puff, Puff, Passed: 2019 Marijuana Laws in Review and 2020 Projections"

From MG Magazine, "The Evolving Cannabis Industry: a 2019 Year-End Review"

From The Hill, "2019 was a historic year for marijuana law reform — here's why"

From JD Supra, "The Year in Weed: 2019 Edition"

From NORML, "2019 Year in Review: NORML's Top Ten Events in Marijuana Policy"

And from the Dayton Daily News, "Ohio medical marijuana: What happened in the first year"

December 30, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Alabama Medical Cannabis Study Commission recommends legislation to create medical marijuana program for Yellowhammer State

Alabama-cannabis-and-hemp-reform-act-of-2013As reported in this local article, "Friday, the Alabama Medical Cannabis Study Commission voted to recommend legislation that would legalize marijuana for persons with diagnosed medical conditions."  Here is more:

The commission voted twelve in favor and three against. Three members abstained. State Health Office Scott Harris voted against the bill.

The proposed bill would allow farmers to grow marijuana, doctors to prescribe marijuana for certain listed conditions, transporters to transport the product, dispensaries to sell the product, and would designate a state testing lab to perform the tests on the product sold on the state.

A new state agency, the Alabama Medical Cannabis agency would regulate cannabis in Alabama.  The commission would strictly regulate the product from planting to sell so that all product would be accounted for and limited to grown and produced within the state of Alabama.... The draft did not allow for a smokable products or for edible products such as marijuana gummies and brownies.  There is no provision for the legalization of home gardeners to grow marijuana for their own use....

The Commission is chaired by State Senator Tim Melson, R-Florence.  Melson is a physician who introduced medical marijuana legislation during the last legislative session. That bill passed the state Senate; but ran into fierce opposition in committee in the Alabama House of Representatives.  Senator Melson will introduce this bill, which was recommended by the Commission, in the 2020 Alabama legislative session.

Some marijuana advocates are arguing for a much broader legalization of cannabis in Alabama, including the legalization of recreational marijuana.  They have also criticized the ban on edible marijuana products and smokable product as well as the ban on the sell of marijuana plant material.  They have also questioned the legality of the ban on importing marijuana products into the state.

During the commission meetings, Melson said that he would join with Senators skeptical of his bill in fighting to defeat any effort to pass recreational marijuana.  Some opponents of medical marijuana have told the Alabama Political Reporter that they oppose passage of medical marijuana; because it is an incremental step towards the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Whether or not the state passes a medical marijuana bill will be decided in the Alabama legislature next year.

The full report is available at this link; it is short and reader-friendly.

December 24, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (1)

"How High? Adjusting California's Cannabis Taxes"

Taxes051816The title of this post is the clever title of this interesting new report from California's Legislative Analyst's Office released last week.  (Hat top: Crime & Consequences.)  Here is part of the report's "Executive Summary":

Proposition 64 (2016) directed our office to submit a report to the Legislature by January 1, 2020, with recommendations for adjustments to the state’s cannabis tax rate to achieve three goals: (1) undercutting illicit market prices, (2) ensuring sufficient revenues are generated to fund the types of programs designated by the measure, and (3) discouraging youth use.  This report responds to this statutory requirement and discusses other potential changes to the state’s cannabis taxes.  While this report focuses on cannabis taxes, nontax policy changes also could affect these goals.

Proposition 64 established two state excise taxes on cannabis.  The first is a 15 percent retail excise tax, effectively a wholesale tax under current law.  The second is a tax based on the weight of harvested plants, often called a cultivation tax.  (The measure authorizes the Legislature to amend its tax provisions without voter approval, but the scope of this authorization is unclear.)...

We analyze four types of taxes: basic ad valorem (set as a percentage of price, such as the current retail excise tax), weight-based (such as the current cultivation tax), potency-based (for example, based on tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), and tiered ad valorem (set as a percentage of price with different rates based on potency and/or product type).  Our analysis focuses primarily on three main criteria: (1) effectiveness at reducing harmful use, (2) revenue stability, and (3) ease of administration and compliance.  No individual type of tax performs best on all criteria.  For example, tiered ad valorem and potency-based likely are best for reducing harmful use, but basic ad valorem is easiest to administer.  Given these trade-offs, the Legislature’s choice depends heavily on the relative importance it places on each criterion.  That said, the weight-based tax is generally weakest, performing similarly to or worse than the potency-based tax on the three main criteria....

Any tax rate change would help the state meet certain goals while likely making it harder to achieve others.  On one hand, for example, reducing the tax rate would expand the legal market and reduce the size of the illicit market.  On the other hand, such a tax cut would reduce revenue in the short term, potentially to the extent that revenue could be insufficient.  Furthermore, lower tax rates could lead to higher rates of youth cannabis use.  With a thriving illicit market, however, much of the cannabis used by youth could avoid taxation.  Where possible, this report provides quantitative estimates of the short-term effects of rate changes....

We view reducing harmful use as the most compelling reason to levy an excise tax.  Accordingly, we recommend that the Legislature replace the existing retail excise tax and cultivation tax with a potency-based or tiered ad valorem tax, as these taxes could reduce harmful use more effectively.  If policymakers value ease of administration and compliance more highly than reducing harmful use, however, the Legislature might prefer to keep the existing retail excise tax.  In contrast, we see little reason for the Legislature to retain the weight-based cultivation tax....

If the Legislature decides not to adopt a potency-based or tiered ad valorem cannabis tax, we nevertheless recommend that the Legislature eliminate the cultivation tax. In this case, we recommend that the Legislature set the retail excise tax rate somewhere in the range of 15 percent to 20 percent depending on its policy preferences.

December 24, 2019 in Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Taxation information and issues , Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, December 20, 2019

New Jersey and South Dakota are first two states (of many to come?) with marijuana reform officially on the 2020 ballot

Though we are still 11 months away from Election Day 2020, this past week two state already made official that its voters will have a marijuana reform proposal to consider.  Here are the basics via press reports:

From New Jersey: "Legal weed is now up to N.J. voters as lawmakers vote to put it on 2020 ballot"

New Jersey residents will decide whether to legalize marijuana in the Garden State, after both houses of the state Legislature voted Monday to put the question on the 2020 ballot.  The measure passed the state Senate in a 24-16 vote at the Statehouse in Trenton on Monday afternoon, while the state Assembly voted 49-24 with one abstention....

Gov. Phil Murphy made legalizing marijuana for those over 21 one of his campaign promises. In the nearly two years since he took office, the initiative has seen several setbacks.  State Senate President Stephen Sweeney announced in late November he would not take the bill to the floor, and would instead seek to put it to the ballot for voters to decide.

From South Dakota: "Medical Marijuana Measure Makes SD Ballot"

Petitions submitted for an initiated measure on legalizing marijuana for medical use have been validated and the measure will appear on South Dakota’s 2020 general election ballot.  According to a press release by Secretary of State Steve Barnett, the petitions were officially validated Thursday.  It will be titled Initiated Measure 26. An initiated measure currently requires 16,961 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot.

My understanding is that there could be as many as a half-dozen additional states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska and North Dakota, that could end up having marijuana ballot measures for voters in 2020.

December 20, 2019 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Initiative reforms in states, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

"Differences in Opinions About Marijuana Use and Prevalence of Use by State Legalization Status"

The title of this post is the title of this article by multiple authors forthcoming in the Journal of Addiction Medicine.  Here is its abstract:

Objective:  Beliefs about marijuana use and prevalence of use may be associated with the legalization status of the state of residence.  We examined differences in views and rates of use of marijuana among residents in recreationally legal, medically legal, and nonlegal states.

Methods:  We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of US adults (N¼ 16,280) and stratified results by marijuana legalization status of states.  We compared views of residents of recreational states on benefits and risks of marijuana use to residents in other states.

Results:  The response rate was 56.3% (n ¼ 9003). Residents in recreationally legal states were more likely to believe marijuana could be beneficial for pain management (73% in recreationally legal states, 67% in medically legal states, 63% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001), provide relief from stress, anxiety or depression (52% in recreationally legal states, 47% in medically legal states, 46% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.01), and improve appetite (39% in recreationally legal states, 36% in medically legal states, 33% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.009). In addition, residents in recreational states were significantly more likely to believe that smoking 1 marijuana joint a day is somewhat or much safer than smoking 1 cigarette a day (40.8% in recreationally legal states, 39.1% in medically legal states, and 36.1% in nonlegal states; P value: <0.0001).  Residents of recreationally and medically legal states were more likely to believe second-hand marijuana smoke was somewhat or much safer than second-hand tobacco smoke (38.3% in recreationally legal states, 38.3% in medically legal states, and 35.7% in nonlegal states; P value: 0.003).  Past-year marijuana use in any form (20% in recreational, 14.1% in medical, 12% in nonlegal) and past-year marijuana use of multiple forms (11.1% in recreational, 6.1% in medical, 4.9% in nonlegal) were highest among residents of recreationally legal states.  Overall, prevalence of past-year use of any form of marijuana use was more common among residents of recreationally legal states compared with other states (20.3%, confidence interval [CI] 19.5, 21.1 in recreationally legal states; 15.4%, CI 14.7, 16.2 in medically legal states; 11.9%, CI 11.2, 12.6 in nonlegal states).

Conclusions: Residents in recreationally legal states were most likely to believe marijuana has benefits, marijuana smoke is safer than tobacco smoke, and have the highest rate of marijuana use.  This is cause for concern, given the tide of commercialization, growing number of high-potency cannabis products, and favorable media coverage promoting use for health problems.

December 17, 2019 in Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research | Permalink | Comments (2)

Friday, December 13, 2019

Eight Senators (all Dems) write to federal agencies inquiring about efforts to advance medical marijuana research

This webpage with the heading "Senators Request Update from Federal Agencies on Progress Towards Issuing Long-Delayed Licensing of Marijuana Manufacturing for Research Purposes" reports on a notable new letter from some federal lawmakers.  Here are the basics:

United States Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), requesting an update on the progress of the federal government's efforts to facilitate research on medical marijuana by issuing needed manufacturing licenses.  The senators seek guidance on how the DEA will make these licenses available to qualified researchers in a timely manner given that the federal government has a unique responsibility to coordinate medical marijuana research efforts -- and has delayed issuing these licenses in the past.

"With millions of American adults having access to recreational marijuana and a growing number seeking the drug for medicinal purposes, the federal government is not providing the necessary leadership and tools in this developing field," wrote the lawmakers.  "Evidence-based public policy is crucial to ensuring our marijuana laws best serve patients and health care providers."

The lawmakers have requested responses no later than January 10, 2020, to better understand both the DEA's decision-making, and its work with HHS and ONDCP to expand medical marijuana research.  "This research is crucial to developing a thorough understanding of medical marijuana and would be invaluable to doctors, patients, and lawmakers across the nation," wrote the lawmakers.

The full letter is available at this link, and it starts this way:

We write to inquire about your respective agencies' ongoing efforts with regard to scientific research on the potential health and therapeutic benefits of marijuana when used for medical purposes ("medical marijuana"). In light of the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) most recent announcement that it will issue additional marijuana manufacturing licenses for research purposes — an announcement that comes three years after a similar yet unfulfilled DEA commitment — we are also requesting written guidance on how the DEA will make these licenses available to qualified researchers in a timely manner.

December 13, 2019 in Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

National Cannabis Roundtable launches new "Corporate Social Responsibility program"

Logo (2)As reported in this press release, yesterday the National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR) "pledged its commitment to fostering social justice, equity, and diversity in the cannabis industry [through] the launch of NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility program."  Here is more from the release: 

Looking to do their part to reduce the negative impact of the War on Drugs, specifically in those communities disproportionately affected by it, NCR members will commit time, talent and financial resources to pursue social justice measures, equity in business and diversity and inclusion within member companies.  More information about NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pledge can be found here.

“We are not just having a conversation about how the cannabis industry can benefit those most impacted by decades of discriminatory drug policy, we are taking action,” said Dr. Chanda Macias, MBA, Ph.D., Owner of NHHC, and First Vice Chair of NCR.  “It is critically important to the future success of cannabis in America that we build justice and equity into the very fabric of this burgeoning industry.”

Some states with legal cannabis, including Massachusetts, California, and most recently Illinois, have developed social equity programs through their license structure, but no state has pushed businesses to take a reflective look at their own operations.  NCR’s Corporate Social Responsibility program is our members’ effort to address that void and to ensure real outcomes with regard to justice, equity and diversity and inclusion.

NCR Executive Director Saphira Galoob said that members will begin 2020 assessing their internal practices – providing a baseline look at where they are today through the goals and activities outlined in the social responsibility pledge while developing targets for greater impact within their own operations.  “Our members are passionate about promoting social responsibility in this fast-growing industry,” said Saphira Galoob, NCR Executive Director.  “NCR is proud to bring cannabis into the mainstream and harness its potential to benefit our communities.”

NCR will engage subject matter experts from minority, adversely impacted, and designated beneficiary communities to advise the organization on the effectiveness and impact of CSR.  These subject matter experts will work with NCR members and staff to ensure the integrity of the program and to measure performance and accountability.

The full five-page NCR Corporate Social Responsibility Pledge can be viewed at this link here, and it makes for an interesting read.  The document sets forth three "Core Values" labeled as "Social Justice" and "Social Equity" and "Diversity and Inclusion in Business."  The document then sets out four "pillars of equal importance ... meant to provide a baseline for all participants in NCR." These pillars are "1) Criminal Justice; 2) Equity in Business Opportunity; 3) Jobs & Employment; 4) Health Education and Health Disparities."

December 11, 2019 in Business laws and regulatory issues, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)