Tuesday, January 31, 2017
A couple of marijuana reform supporters already have a couple of commentaries flagging some decisions of new SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch concerning marijuana:
From Tom Angell here, "Trump's Supreme Court Pick On Marijuana"
From Heavy.com here, "Neil Gorsuch & Marijuana: What Are His Views on Legalization?"
I am not sure there is a whole lot here to get assess, but I surmise from other opinions dealing with other issues that Judge Gorsuch is a fan of federalism and limits on federal powers. That philosophy should generally bode well for marijuana reformers at this moment in time, and I do think it likely that some marijuana law and reform issues are likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the decades to come.
The objective of the present research was to examine the association between lifetime cannabis use disorder (CUD), current suicidal ideation, and lifetime history of suicide attempts in a large and diverse sample of Iraq/Afghanistan-era veterans (N = 3233) using a battery of well-validated instruments. As expected, CUD was associated with both current suicidal ideation (OR = 1.683, p = 0.008) and lifetime suicide attempts (OR = 2.306, p < 0.0001), even after accounting for the effects of sex, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, alcohol use disorder, non-cannabis drug use disorder, history of childhood sexual abuse, and combat exposure. Thus, the findings from the present study suggest that CUD may be a unique predictor of suicide attempts among Iraq/Afghanistan-era veterans; however, a significant limitation of the present study was its cross-sectional design. Prospective research aimed at understanding the complex relationship between CUD, mental health problems, and suicidal behavior among veterans is clearly needed at the present time.
Monday, January 30, 2017
This new AP article, headlined "Minnesota's Medical Marijuana Program Needs More Money," provides an interesting report on the state of the medical marijuana program in the Gopher State. Here are the particulars:
Minnesota's medical marijuana program needs extra state funding to cover the costs of its patient database and inspections of drug manufacturers, just a few of the regulations that make it one of the most restrictive such laws in the country. It's the latest reminder of the financial constraints on the program borne from the heavy restrictions on Minnesota's 2014 law.
The plant form of marijuana remains banned under the law, requiring the state's two medical manufacturers to concoct marijuana oils, pills and vapors with routine state inspections and secondary lab testing. Just 10 severe conditions such as cancer and epilepsy qualify for the program, a number that has grown in recent years with a few additions.
The state's manufacturers combined to lose more than $5 million in the first year of legal medical marijuana sales in 2015. And patient count hasn't met projections, exacerbating high prescription costs for patients that the two companies who cultivate and sell medication have only recently begun to address with modest price decreases.
The Office of Medical Cannabis' request for more than $500,000 over the next two years is just a fraction of the $40 billion-plus budget Minnesota's Legislature will assemble this year. But state regulators say that money is critical to cover the higher-than-expected costs for maintenance of their around-the-clock patient registry and the costs of performing 120 inspections or more each year....
The state already provides about $1.4 million a year to help cover operating costs, and regulators can cover their oversight costs by charging manufacturers, LeafLine Labs and Minnesota Medical Solutions, an annual registration fee. But after increasing the manufacturers' annual fee from $94,000 to $146,000 last year, Gov. Mark Dayton's budget proposal says additional state funding is essential to help avoid an "increase the cost of medical cannabis to program participants."
Those costs range from software licensing and fixing bugs on their patient registry — where the state tracks each patient's progress with the new medications — to the travel bills that come from visiting every distribution site, from Rochester in southern Minnesota to Moorhead, near its northwestern corner. "I don't think anyone thought about us having eight cannabis centers statewide," said Michelle Larson, the director of the state program. "Our annual cost is a little bit more than folks thought it would be."
Garofalo also has a different approach: He's proposing legislation that would allow manufacturers to write off business expenses on their Minnesota tax filings. That's impossible at the federal level while it's still considered a Schedule I drug, subjecting marijuana-related businesses to some of the highest effective tax rates.
LeafLine Labs chief executive Andrew Bachman said his company will likely lose money again in 2017, and he wasn't sure whether the tax break would help it break even. But by treating the business just as any other Minnesota company, he said it would help cement medical marijuana as just another type of medicine. "It's about normalization. Cannabis is medicine is thousands for Minnesotans now," Bachman said.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
The question in the title of this post is one that I wonder about a lot as more and more communities struggle for responses to the opioid epidemic. The question is also the title of this new local article from New Hampshire, which discusses a legislative hearing about addiction and other conditions being added to the state's list of qualifying conditions for medical marijuana. Here are excerpts:
In the midst of a heroin and fentanyl crisis, New Hampshire lawmakers are considering a bill that would add opioid addiction to the list of qualifying conditions for the state’s therapeutic cannabis program.
That bill was one of five that could add chronic pain, opioid addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, fibromyalgia and myelitis disorder to the list of conditions that qualify someone to use therapeutic cannabis in the state. New Hampshire lawmakers heard testimony on the bills Wednesday morning.
A number of patients testified in favor of the bills, but one doctor told legislators to proceed with caution on the bill that would allow doctors to treat drug addiction with marijuana.
Dr. Molly Rossignol, a family physician and addiction doctor at Concord Hospital, said there is not enough research to suggest cannabis is an effective treatment for addiction. “We’re going down a dark and potentially dangerous road,” Rossignol said. “In the past year, I’ve evaluated over 100 patients in our capital region. It is clear cannabis is not helping them stop or reduce their use of opioids.”
While medical marijuana is widely used in other states to treat chronic pain and other medical conditions, no state so far has approved therapeutic cannabis to treat addiction. However, at least one study showed a correlation between overdose deaths and medical marijuana laws. A 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found opioid overdose deaths went down 25 percent in states that had medical marijuana laws.
State health officials in Maine considered the question of whether to add addiction as a qualifying condition last year, but ultimately their Department of Health and Human Services concluded there was not enough research or evidence to show it would be effective.
“Given the lack of rigorous human studies on the use of marijuana for the treatment of opioid addiction (only one clinical trial has been completed) and the lack of any safety or efficacy data, the Committee can not conclude that the use of medical marijuana for treatment of opioid addiction is safe,” wrote Dr. Siiri Bennett, the Maine state epidemiologist, and Dr. Christopher Pezzullo, the state health officer.
Rossignol said the issue of marijuana being used to treat addiction needed more time. “This has to be vetted, it has to be scientifically studied,” she said.
Rossignol said her experience with addicted patients has so far indicated marijuana is not helpful with addiction. She treats her addicted patients with Suboxone, a drug taken daily to keep cravings and withdrawal symptoms at bay. Suboxone, methadone and naltrexone are the three drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat addiction – Rossignol said when used with evidence-based therapies, many studies show they help with addiction.
She said she believed marijuana could do the opposite. “It is something that I see every day reducing their chances of getting into longterm recovery,” she said. “I think it is a very slippery slope.”
Several patients traveled to the State House to testify in favor of the five cannabis bills, including ones to add chronic pain and PTSD to the list of qualifying conditions. Stephen Boulter of North Conway told lawmakers that therapeutic cannabis had dramatically decreased his pain and increased his quality of life.
Boulter was able to qualify for medical marijuana due to a vertebrae injury. He said pain from that injury became debilitating. “It’s with you 24 hours a day, you always have pain,” he said. “The only thing that mitigated the pain were opiates, which I detested.”
When Boulter qualified for medical marijuana, he found it got rid of his pain and didn’t make him loopy. “It made a tremendous difference, it allows me to go to bed at night and go to sleep,” he said. “I firmly believe that anyone suffering with severe chronic pain working with a qualified provider can restore a normal, high quality standard of living.”
Former state Rep. Joe LaChance of Manchester, a disabled veteran, encouraged lawmakers to add PTSD to the list of qualifying conditions. “This is so important to us,” LaChance said. “This is near and dear to my heart.” LaChance briefly described his struggles with drugs and alcohol, crediting therapeutic cannabis with his recovery. “Cannabis saved my life,” he said. “The VA got me addicted to opioids. Add a bottle of Jack Daniels to that, I’m lucky to be here.”
Some prior related posts:
- Given latest opioid death data, should Ohio officials be fast-tracking access to medical marijuana?
- "The Case for Pot in the Age of Opioids: Legalizing medical marijuana could save lives that may otherwise be lost to opioid addiction."
- "Elizabeth Warren Urges CDC To Consider Cannabis To Solve Opioid Epidemic"
- Yet another study suggests link between medical marijuana availability and decreased opioid use
- "Could medical marijuana solve Ohio's opioid problem?"
- "Legalize marijuana and reduce deaths from drug abuse"
- "Obama’s Opioid Offensive Again Ignores the Cannabis Solution"
January 25, 2017 in Medical community perspectives, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
A (sexist?) look into challenges facing "pot moms" ... aka women working in the medical marijuana industry
CBS News has this notable (and sexist?) new segment about some women working in the medical marijuana industry. The piece is given the headlined "'Pot moms' share passions and anxieties about their profession," and here are excerpt from the coverage:
Marijuana is now legal in some form in more than half of all states, and more women are legally getting into the pot industry -- many of them are moms. At a medical marijuana cultivation center in Washington, CBS News correspondent Chip Reid spoke to a group of so-called “pot moms” who fight the stigma of their job.
“PTSD, depression, insomnia, eczema – is there anything that marijuana does not help with?” Reid asked one mom. “I don’t know yet,” Chanda Macias said, laughing. Macias calls herself a pharmacist. But the medical marijuana she is licensed to distribute, while legal in D.C., is illegal under federal law.
“When you see our patients come in every day and they say that, ‘I can have a quality of life,’ to me, that’s my purpose,” Macias said. The former cell biologist has a PhD and an MBA. But first and foremost, she’s a mother to four children.
“So your seven-year-old, MJ, has he ever seen this room?” Reid asked. “Oh no, he hasn’t seen this room,” she said.... “It’s okay for people to judge me based upon what I’ve chosen to do, but it’s very hurtful for them to judge my son where he’s innocent in this,” Macias said. That’s why she needs help.
“What do you call this group by the way, do you just say the group?” Reid asked a group of women in the industry, including Macias. “Support group,” Macias said. “Canna-moms,” Shawnta Hopkins-Greene said. “My buds!” Leah Heise said.
All of these buds participate in this budding industry, and all of them are moms. “I didn’t have any problem with the sex talk,” said Jennifer Culpepper, a mom of two. “And I think it was ‘cause I had a book to go with.”
The inside jokes these mothers tell here deal with the stigma surrounding their jobs. “I don’t want my kids to have their friends’ parents say, ‘Oh, you’re not allowed to go to their house,’” Culpepper said.
“When I first decided to come into the industry, I had a lot of concerns because I was a licensed attorney. So I had to decide and I chose that I was going to go outside the box, and I was going to risk my license to do this,” said Heise, a mother of two teenage girls.
Only Macias actually dispenses the drug. The others are involved in other aspects of the industry. Leah Heise is an attorney and president of a company that recently earned a license to dispense medical marijuana in Maryland. “Some of the biggest anxieties that we all share, regardless of whether we touch the plant or not, is this concept that our businesses are at risk,” Heise said. “So our incomes are at risk. And that is an issue that comes up with my kids a lot.”
Hopkins-Greene guides medical marijuana patients through the regulatory red tape. She has a 10-year-old. “For me, the challenge is just every time I answer a question, it leads to more questions with my son. But I have that relationship with him where I will answer it. I try to answer it in an age-appropriate way,” Hopkins-Greene said. “But he can ask me anything and he does.”
Culpepper’s company does brand strategy and graphic design for the marijuana industry. “I do feel like I have a timeline because my nine-year-old has one more year in elementary school and I think that she cannot enter middle school without having this conversation,” Culpepper said.
“As moms, are you all a little nervous about going this public about what you do?” Reid asked. “No, I’m not. I’m wide out there,” Heise said. The other women also shook their heads.
“So all of you with young children are going to let your children watch this story on TV?” Reid asked. “I might screen it first,” Culpepper said, laughing.
When I first saw the headline of this segment, I assumed (wrongly) that the piece was about mothers who work on being able to give forms of cannabis to their kids for medical reasons. But upon realizing the CBS News piece is only about women working in the marijuana industry who have children, the segment struck me as a bit sexist because presumably men with children working in this industry face similar types of issues.
I am fully aware of and interested in hearing more about how the stigma surrounding marijuana impacts the industry and the families of those working in the industry. But I wonder if we undermine commitments to gender equality here and elsewhere when we suggest that there is a unique set of problems for "moms" in the industry rather than just "parents."
That said, I am fully aware of the fact that women and mothers are judged by society in ways that are often quite distinct from how men and fathers are judged. Thus, I want to be clear that I can see the value and virtues of taking a gendered look at the issue of "pot parents." Nevertheless, I would be very eager to hear from readers (especially those in the industry) about whether they this this CBS News segment does more good than harm or more harm than good.
As reported in this new Washington Post piece, the "[l]eaders of the NFL Players Association are preparing a proposal that would amend the sport’s drug policies to take a 'less punitive' approach to dealing with recreational marijuana use by players, according to the union’s executive director, DeMaurice Smith." Here is more:
The proposal will be presented to union’s board of player representatives, Smith said Tuesday. If it is approved by those players, Smith said, the proposal will be made to the league. The NFL would have to agree to any changes to the drug policy, which is negotiated and jointly administered by the league and players’ union.
The proposal to modify the manner in which the league deals with recreational marijuana use would, if it is delivered, come as the NFLPA’s recently formed pain management committee separately studies the issue of marijuana use by players as a pain management tool and whether that should be permissible under the drug policies.
“I do think that issues of addressing it more in a treatment and less punitive measure is appropriate,” Smith said in a meeting with Washington Post reporters and editors. “I think it’s important to look at whether there are addiction issues. And I think it’s important to not simply assume recreation is the reason it’s being used.”
Marijuana use currently is banned by the NFL and positive or missed tests can result in fines and suspensions for players. Smith said the sport’s leaders must keep in mind that there might be underlying reasons for what is called recreational marijuana use by players. “We have to do a better job of knowing if our players are suffering from other potentially dangerous psychological issues like depression, right?” Smith said. “So if I look at this myopically as just a recreational use of marijuana and miss the fact that we might have players suffering from depression, what have I fixed? Worse yet, you may have solved an issue that gets the steady drumbeat in a newspaper but miss an issue like chronic depression . . . where a person theoretically might be able to smoke more weed because it makes them feel better but it’s not curing their depression.
“So to me, as we’re looking at that front end — and it’s been a long process — the reason why I think it’s more complicated than just making a quick decision about recreational use is we look at these things as a macro-issue. And what we try to do is what a union’s supposed to do: improve the health and safety of our players in a business that sometimes can seriously exacerbate existing physical and mental issues.”
The league and union agreed in 2014 to modifications of the drug policy regarding marijuana. The threshold for what constitutes a positive test for marijuana was relaxed. A level of 15 nanograms of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) per milliliter of urine or blood was counted as a positive, the most stringent standard in professional sports, prior to 2014. Under the revision, 35 nanograms per milliliter counts as a positive; a nanogram is one-billionth of a gram.
It takes four missed or positive tests to trigger a four-game suspension without pay. An initial violation results in referral to the substance abuse program. A second violation is a fine equivalent to two game checks for the player and a third violation is a fine equivalent to four game checks. A fifth violation results in a 10-game suspension and a sixth violation results in a one-year banishment from the sport.
Smith did not provide specifics as to how the union might seek to reduce the penalties for marijuana use and said he did not know if the league would be receptive to such a proposal. “I don’t spend time thinking about what the league thinks,” Smith said. “I mean, it’s a waste of time. . . . We will sit down and we will present a proposal to our board. . . . If our board approves the proposal, we’ll sit down with the league and we will make the proposal to them. If we think that this is medically, scientifically and therapeutically the right position, then we tell the league, ‘Therapeutically, medically and scientifically, this is the right position.’
The league consistently has said in the past that it would consider revising its stance on marijuana only if advised to do so by medical experts. “This isn’t just the NFL’s policy,” a league spokesman said in a written statement in November. “This is a collectively bargained policy with the NFL Players Association. The program is administered by jointly appointed independent medical advisors to the league and the NFLPA who are constantly reviewing and relying on the most current research and scientific data. We continue to follow the advice of leading experts on treatment, pain management and other symptoms associated with concussions and other injuries. However, medical experts have not recommended making a change or revisiting our collectively-bargained policy and approach related to marijuana, and our position on its use remains consistent with federal law and workplace policies across the country. If these medical experts change their view, then this is an area that we would explore.”
Smith said Tuesday that the issue is complex. “I think that one of the things that we have looked at over the last 18 months is whether we should be making changes in the way in which marijuana is treated under the current system,” he said. “And I am convinced that we should be looking at it a little bit more of the way that we looked at it in 2014. We tried to move more towards a treatment, addiction-eradication focus rather than punitive. I think that we are gonna take that to another level. . . . But it’s also complicated."...
The union’s pain management committee actually is a subcommittee of its Mackey-White traumatic brain injury committee. The committee’s study of players’ use of marijuana as a pain management tool is to continue at least through the spring. “When it comes to the issue of medical marijuana… we made the decision a few months ago to form a pain management committee. . . . We’ve now asked that Mackey-White group to create a subcommittee just dealing with the issue of pain and treating pain as its own separate, identifiable ailment, as opposed to it being a consequence of some other injury,” Smith said.
“And we will be looking at the issue of the efficacy of using marijuana, along with looking at opioid use and all of the ways in which our players are treated by physicians and sometimes not treated well by physicians and, being blunt, the ways in which they self-treat. . . . The hope is that pain committee will be making a presentation to the full Mackey-White committee sometime in May.”
Some of many prior related posts on NFL players and marijuana use:
- ESPN highlights NFL players, past and present, eager to use medical marijuana rather than opioids for pain relief
Monday, January 23, 2017
Terrific UC Davis Law Review Symposium papers on "Disjointed Regulation: State Efforts to Legalize Marijuana"
I just realized all the great articles from the UC Davis Law Review's Symposium on "Disjointed Regulation: State Efforts to Legalize Marijuana" are now in print (and now available at this link) in the December 2016 issue of the UC Davis Law Review: Here is the great set of article with links to the pieces:
Keynote Speech — The Surprising Collapse of Marijuana Prohibition: What Now? by Richard J. Bonnie
Marijuana Legalization and Horizontal Federalism by Brianne J. Gorod
Legal Cannabis in the U.S.: Not Whether but How? by Sam Kamin
Tax Benefits of Government-Owned Marijuana Stores by Benjamin M. Leff
The Colors of Cannabis: Race and Marijuana by Steven W. Bender
The Economics of Workplace Drug Testing by Jeremy Kidd
Marijuana Legalization and Pretextual Stops by Alex Kreit
Legalizing Marijuana and Abating Environmental Harm: An Overblown Promise? by Michael Vitiello
Drug War and Peace by Erik Luna
January 23, 2017 in Business laws and regulatory issues, Criminal justice developments and reforms, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Two notable new pieces from two notable marijuana reform states (co-authored by two notable former students who took my OSU College of Law marijuana seminar)
One of many reasons I have been bullish on teaching marijuana reform at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law is because I view the new marijuana reform universe to be a particularly exciting potential "growth industry" for junior lawyers. For that reason (and others), I was so very pleased to see this week the publication of these two (very different) pieces discussing marijuana reform developments in two (very different) states that were both co-authored by students who took my marijuana reform class. Here are links to the pieces and their starting paragraphs:
From California here, "Reclassifying Marijuana Convictions on Your Criminal Record Under California's New Proposition 64," a piece co-authored by Cat Packer, who is now a policy coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance based in California.
On November 8, 2016, Californians took a major step towards ending the war on drugs and repairing some of the damage inflicted on people’s lives by marijuana prohibition, by passing Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Although, the most serious marijuana-related crimes such as providing marijuana to minors, or attempting to smuggle marijuana across state lines remain felonies, under Prop. 64, most marijuana-related misdemeanors and felonies have been reduced or altogether eliminated. These sweeping reductions in criminal penalties are retroactive, meaning past convictions for marijuana offenses reduced or eliminated under Prop. 64 can be reclassified on a criminal record with the courts for free.
From Pennsylvania here, "Medical Marijuana Comes to Pennsylvania: What to Expect As the Keystone State Rolls Out its New Medical Marijuana Program," a piece co-authored by Kelly M. Flanigan, an Associate at K&L Gates
A lack of consensus regarding both medical and recreational marijuana has sparked intense debate across the country. Combined with federal law prohibitions, the state-by-state mosaic creates a dynamic legal landscape. Marijuana remains illegal federally and retains its classification as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. However, 26 states and the District of Columbia have enacted state laws legalizing marijuana in some form. On April 17, 2016, Pennsylvania joined other states that have recognized some medical use for marijuana when Governor Tom Wolf signed the Medical Marijuana Act (“Act 16”) into law.
The Pennsylvania Department of Health (“DOH”) is charged with implementing Act 16, and it promptly developed the medical marijuana program. The DOH has been rolling out temporary regulations (three sets so far) and it anticipates that medical marijuana will become available in Pennsylvania in early 2018. The first critical date for those interested in becoming a medical marijuana organization is January 17, 2017, when the DOH releases its applications for grower/processors and dispensaries through its website.
January 19, 2017 in Criminal justice developments and reforms, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Medical Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms | Permalink | Comments (0)
The Obama administration has largely taken a hands-off approach, releasing a 2013 Department of Justice memo indicating that federal prosecutors and law enforcement agents should not use scarce resources to shut down state-legal operations in places that have “implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems.” To the Obama administration’s credit, the president did recently note marijuana legalization is “a debate that is now ripe” and the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse called for more research to determine which “policy structures — beyond simply prohibition or free market — are most likely to keep harms to a minimum.”
No one knows what the Trump administration will do about marijuana, and Sen. Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing for attorney general didn’t provide much insight. Will it follow Obama’s lead? Trudeau’s? Do something entirely different? The new administration will have at least six options.
Shut it down. The administration could crack down on marijuana businesses in states that have legalized for nonmedical purposes. It would be easy for DOJ to send out “cease and desist” letters to these companies and their landlords. However, there could be serious political costs with states arguing these federal actions would put people out of jobs, increase income for criminals and take tax dollars away from good causes.
Shape the markets. The DOJ could use its discretion to shape what the market looks like in the legalization states. Want to stop stores from selling and promoting high-potency products for nonmedical purposes? A letter could probably do the trick here, too. If not, seizing the products in a store or two could have a chilling effect.
Maintain the status quo. Doing nothing—and sticking with Obama’s approach—is always an option. This would likely lead more states to follow Colorado and Washington and grant licenses to marijuana companies incentivized to maximize profits instead of protecting public health.
Reclassify marijuana. The new administration could support rescheduling marijuana. Currently, marijuana is a Schedule I drug—the most restrictive category—because the Food and Drug Administration remains unconvinced that the whole plant material has an accepted medical use. Rescheduling would make it easier to research the health consequences—benefits and harms—and could have implications for marijuana businesses.
Address federal-state conflicts. The new administration could maintain federal prohibition while supporting legislation or other solutions to address problems caused by the federal-state conflict. For example, banks that accept money from state-legal marijuana businesses are committing federal offenses. The inability to bank like other entities creates challenges for thousands of companies. The administration could also support the creation of a policy waiver system that would make it easier and less risky for states to legally experiment with alternatives to the profit-maximization model, such as the state monopoly approach. (That said, the risk of federal interference hasn’t stopped tiny North Bonneville in southern Washington state from creating a government-owned and -operated store).
Legalize it. The administration could support legislation to legalize and regulate marijuana at the federal level. This would address the federal-state conflicts and allow the feds to impose a national tax or minimum price. It would also be a blatant violation of the international drug conventions that the United States has signed along with almost every other nation on earth (including Canada).
These six options are not all mutually exclusive and each comes with tradeoffs. Importantly, they are all compatible with a federal approach that encourages and supports discussions about marijuana prohibition and its alternatives. But if the feds don’t act, it is possible the United States could end up with a much looser and more commercial marijuana model than if the federal government legalized or created a waiver system.
January 19, 2017 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, January 13, 2017
This new press article, headlined "Study Links Medical Marijuana to Fewer Traffic Fatalities: The health and public safety concerns that kept marijuana illegal for generations are proving unfounded where it is now legal," reports on more good news emerging from public health research in medical marijuana states. Here are the details (with links from the original):
A new study from Columbia University found that traffic fatalities have fallen in seven states where medicinal cannabis is legal and that, overall, states where medical marijuana is legal have lower traffic fatality rates than states were medical marijuna remains illegal.
The study found that “medical marijuana laws were associated with immediate reductions in traffic fatalities in those aged 15 to 24 and 25 to 44 years, and with additional yearly gradual reductions in those aged 25 to 44 years.” Medical marijuana is now legal in 28 states.
Seven researchers from Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health worked on the study, with two more researchers from the University of California at Davis and Boston University. They published the study in the American Journal of Public Health.
The researchers used traffic accident data from 1985 to 2014, about 1.2 million accidents. They focused on the relationship between medical marijuana laws and the number of fatal traffic accidents, examining each state with legalized medical marijuana separately.
They also looked at the relationship between the existence of medical marijuana dispensaries and traffic accidents, finding a reduction in the number of fatal accidents among those ages 25 to 44 in areas where dispensaries were open.
The researchers concluded that both medical marijuana legalization and dispensaries were, on average, associated with a reduction in traffic fatalities, particularly among drivers 25 to 44-years-old.
They suggested a few possibilities for this conclusion.
- Those under the influence of marijuana are more aware of their impaired condition than those under the influence of alcohol and may more often make the choice not to drive.
- More people have replaced going out to drink in bars with partaking of marijuana at home, reducing the number of impaired drivers on the road.
- An increased police presence in areas where medical marijuana is legal could have led to fewer people attempting to drive while under the influence of marijuana.
“Instead of seeing an increase in fatalities, we saw a reduction, which was totally unexpected,” Julian Santaella-Tenorio, the lead researcher on the study, told Reuters.
The title of this post is the headline of this lengthy new article from The Hill. Here are excerpts:
Legislators in more than a dozen states have introduced measures to loosen laws restricting access to or criminalizing marijuana, a rush of legislative activity that supporters hope reflects a newfound willingness by public officials to embrace a trend toward legalization.
The gamut covered by measures introduced in the early days of legislative sessions underscores the patchwork approach to marijuana by states across the country — and the possibility that the different ways states treat marijuana could come to a head at the federal Justice Department, where President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general is a staunch opponent of legal pot.
Some states are taking early steps toward decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. In his State of the State address this week, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said he will push legislation to remove criminal penalties for non-violent offenders caught with marijuana. “The illegal sale of marijuana cannot and will not be tolerated in New York State, but data consistently show that recreational users of marijuana pose little to no threat to public safety,” Cuomo’s office wrote to legislators. “The unnecessary arrest of these individuals can have devastating economic and social effects on their lives.”
New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) said during his campaign he would support decriminalizing marijuana. Legislation has passed the Republican-led state House in recent years, though it died when Sununu’s predecessor, now-Sen. Maggie Hassan (D), said she did not support the move.
Several states are considering allowing marijuana for medical use. Twenty-eight states already have widespread medical marijuana schemes, and this year legislators in Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah have introduced bills to create their own versions. Republicans in control of state legislatures in most of those states are behind the push.
Legislators in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Delaware, New Mexico and New Jersey will consider recently introduced measures to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
There is little consensus on just how to approach legalization: Three different bills have been introduced in Connecticut’s legislature. Two have been introduced in New Mexico, and three measures to allow medical pot have been filed in Missouri.
In 2016, voters in four states — Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada and California — joined Washington, Oregon, Alaska and Colorado in passing ballot measures legalizing pot for recreational purposes. Those efforts, marijuana reform advocates say, have lifted the stigma legislators might have felt. “Now that voters in a growing number of states have proven that this is a mainstream issue, many more lawmakers feel emboldened to champion marijuana reform, whereas historically this issue was often looked at as a marginalized or third-rail issue,” said Tom Angell, chairman of the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority.
Just because measures get introduced does not mean they will advance. In many cases, Angell said, it is governors — Democrats and Republicans alike — who stand in the way. Though Democrats control the Connecticut legislature, Gov. Dan Malloy (D) has made clear he is no supporter of legalized pot. Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) has not said he would veto a legalization bill, though he is far less friendly to the idea than his predecessor, Democrat Peter Shumlin.
In New Mexico, Gov. Susana Martinez (R) has called decriminalizing marijuana a “horrible, horrible idea.” Democratic legislators are considering a plan to put legal marijuana to voters, by proposing an amendment to the state constitution. If New Jersey legislators advance a legalization law, they would run into an almost certain veto from Gov. Chris Christie (R).
While 14 state legislatures have legalized marijuana for medical use, no state legislature has passed a measure legalizing pot for recreational use. “Every year, we’ve seen legalizers throw everything at the wall to see what might stick,” said Kevin Sabet, who heads the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. “I’m not surprised by any means. I don’t think there’s much appetite to legalize through the legislature.”...
In Washington, the incoming Trump administration has sent signals that encourage, and worry, both supporters and opponents of looser pot rules. The Obama Justice Department issued a memorandum to U.S. attorneys downplaying the importance of prosecuting crimes relating to marijuana in states where it is legal.
Trump’s nominee to head the next Justice Department, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), has been sharply critical of states that have legalized marijuana. In his confirmation hearings this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions said current guidelines, known as the Cole memo, are “truly valuable.”
Marijuana industry advocates seized on those comments in hopes of locking Sessions into maintaining the status quo. “The current federal policy, as outlined by the Cole memo, has respected carefully designed state regulatory programs while maintaining the Justice Department’s commitment to pursuing criminals and prosecuting bad actors,” said Aaron Smith, executive director of the National Cannabis Industry Association.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine releases massive new report on "Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids"
I am very pleased to see that today, just in time for a long weekend, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has produced this massive new report titled "The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research." The nearly 400-page report is available for download from this website, and here its the website's brief account of the report's coverage:
In one of the most comprehensive studies of recent research on the health effects of recreational and therapeutic cannabis use, a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers a rigorous review of relevant scientific research published since 1999. This report summarizes the current state of evidence regarding what is known about the health impacts of cannabis and cannabis-derived products, including effects related to therapeutic uses of cannabis and potential health risks related to certain cancers, diseases, mental health disorders, and injuries. Areas in need of additional research and current barriers to conducting cannabis research are also covered in this comprehensive report.
Helpfully, this new Business Insider article provides some of the substantive highlights of this important new report under the headline "11 key findings from one of the most comprehensive reports ever on the health effects of marijuana." Here are excerpts from this press account:
A massive report released today by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine gives one of the most comprehensive looks — and certainly the most up-to-date — at exactly what we know about the science of cannabis. The committee behind the report, representing top universities around the country, considered more than 10,000 studies for its analysis, from which it was able to draw nearly 100 conclusions.
In large part, the report reveals how much we still have to learn, but it's still surprising to see how much we know about certain health effects of cannabis. This summation was sorely needed, as is more research on the topic.... Before we dive into the findings, there are two quick things to keep in mind.
First, the language in the report is designed to say exactly how much we know — and don't know — about a certain effect. Terms like "conclusive evidence" mean we have enough data to make a firm conclusion; terms like "limited evidence" mean there's still significant uncertainty, even if there are good studies supporting an idea; and different degrees of certainty fall between these levels. For many things, there's still insufficient data to really say anything positive or negative about cannabis.
Second, context is important. Many of these findings are meant as summations of fact, not endorsements or condemnations. For example, the report found evidence that driving while high increased the risk of an accident. But the report also notes that certain studies have found lower crash rates after the introduction of medical cannabis to an area. It's possible that cannabis makes driving more dangerous and that the number of crashes could decrease after introduction if people take proper precautions.
We'll work on providing context to these findings over the next few days but wanted to share some of the initial findings first. With that in mind, here are some of the most striking findings from the report:
• There was conclusive or substantial evidence (the most definitive levels) that cannabis or cannabinoids, found in the marijuana plant, can be an effective treatment for chronic pain, according to the report, which is "by far the most common" reason people request medical marijuana. With similar certainty, they found that cannabis can help treat muscle spasms related to multiple sclerosis and can help prevent or treat nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy.
• The authors found evidence that suggested that marijuana increased the risk of a driving crash.
• They also found evidence that in states with legal access to marijuana, children were more likely to accidentally consume cannabis.
We've looked at these numbers before and seen that the overall increases in risk are small — one study found that the rate of overall accidental ingestion among children went from 1.2 per 100,000 two years before legalization to 2.3 per 100,000 two years after legalization. There's still a far higher chance parents call poison control because of kids eating crayons or diaper cream, but it's still important to know that some increased risk could exist.
• Perhaps surprisingly, the authors found moderate evidence (a pretty decent level of certainty and an indication that good data exists) that cannabis was not connected to any increased risk of the lung cancers or head and neck cancers associated with smoking. However, they did find some limited evidence suggesting that chronic or frequent users may have higher rates of a certain type of testicular cancer.
• Connections to heart conditions were less clear. There's insufficient evidence to support or refute the idea that cannabis might increase the risk of a heart attack, though there was some limited evidence that smoking cannabis might be a trigger for a heart attack.
• There was substantial evidence that regular marijuana smokers are more likely to experience chronic bronchitis and that stopping smoking was likely to improve these conditions. There's not enough evidence to say that that cannabis does or doesn't increase the risk for respiratory conditions like asthma.
• There was limited evidence that smoking marijuana could have some anti-inflammatory effects.
• Substantial evidence suggests a link between prenatal cannabis exposure (when a pregnant woman uses marijuana) and lower birth weight, and there was limited evidence suggesting that this use could increase pregnancy complications and increase the risk that a baby would have to spend time in the neonatal intensive care unit.
• In terms of mental health, substantial evidence shows an increased risk of developing schizophrenia among frequent users, something that studies have shown is a particular concern for people at risk for schizophrenia in the first place. There was also moderate evidence that cannabis use is connected to a small increased risk for depression and an increased risk for social anxiety disorder.
• Limited evidence showed a connection between cannabis use and impaired academic achievement, something that has been shown to be especially true for people who begin smoking regularly during adolescence (which has also been shown to increase the risk for problematic use).
• One of the most interesting and perhaps most important conclusions of the report is that far more research on cannabis is needed. Importantly, in most cases, saying cannabis was connected to an increased risk doesn't mean marijuana use caused that risk.
And it's hard to conduct research on marijuana right now. The report says that's largely because of regulatory barriers, including marijuana's Schedule I classification by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the fact that researchers often can't access the same sorts of marijuana that people actually use. Even in states where it's legal to buy marijuana, federal regulations prevent researchers from using that same product.
Without the research, it's hard to say how policymakers should best support legalization efforts — to say how educational programs or mental health institutions should adapt to support any changes, for example. "If I had one wish, it would be that the policymakers really sat down with scientists and mental health practitioners" as they enact any of these new policies, Krista Lisdahl, an associate professor of psychology and director of the Brain Imaging and Neuropsychology Lab at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, told Business Insider in an interview shortly before we could review this report.
It's important to know what works, what doesn't, and what needs to be studied more. This report does a lot to show what we've learned in recent years, but it also shows just how much more we need to learn.
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
New survey data on police perspectives indicates strong majority oppose blanket marijuana prohibition
Today the fine folks at the Pew Research Center released the results of a huge national survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform (basics here, full report here). The survey covered a lot of ground, including police views on marijuana, and Christopher Ingraham has this Wonkblog posting on this topic under the headline "Survey: Two-thirds of cops say marijuana laws should be relaxed." Here are the details there reported:
A Pew Research Center survey of nearly 8,000 police officers finds that more than two-thirds of them say that marijuana use should be legal for either personal or medical use.
The nationally representative survey of law enforcement, one of the largest of its kind, found that 32 percent of police officers said marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, while 37 percent said it should be legal for medical use only. An additional 30 percent said that marijuana should not be legal at all.
Police are more conservative than the general public on the issue. Among all Americans, Pew found that 49 percent supported recreational marijuana, 35 percent supported medical marijuana only, and 15 percent said the drug should not be legal.
Pew also found a generational divide among cops on the marijuana issue, although not as large as the one that exists among the general public. Officers under age 35 were more likely to support recreational marijuana (37 percent) than those between the ages of 50 and 60 (27 percent). Among the general public, those numbers stand at 67 percent and 45 percent, respectively.
Law enforcement groups have often been among the staunchest opponents of marijuana legalization measures. In 2016, such groups made small but significant contributions to oppose legalization measures in California and Arizona, citing concerns over issues such as underage use and intoxicated driving. “You hear people say it’s not as bad as alcohol,” George Hofstetter, president of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, told the Orange County Register last year. “But if you smoke marijuana and drive, it does impair you.”
But as the Pew survey indicates, there's considerable variation in views on marijuana use among the rank-and-file. The group LEAP — Law Enforcement Against Prohibition — was founded in 2002 for active-duty and retired police officers to speak out “about the failures of our existing drug policies.” The group has been particularly active in campaigns to legalize recreational marijuana in Colorado, Washington and elsewhere.
Diane Goldstein, a retired Lieutenant Commander for the Redondo Beach Police Department and LEAP board member, said she's not surprised to see that police officers have more conservative attitudes than the public on marijuana legalization. “Law enforcement continues to represent an outlier view on this issue because police are trained with outdated, unscientific, drug-war-oriented materials.” But she added that “the poll reflects a positive attitude shift when you see that it’s only 1 in 3 police officers who believe marijuana should remain illegal.”
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
AG-nominee Jeff Sessions deftly avoids saying too much about aggressively enforcing federal marijuana laws
As expected, during today's confirmation hearing for the position of US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions was asked a few questions about whether and how he would enforce federal marijuana prohibitions. These three press reports on the exchange provide slightly different spins on what Senators Sessions said and did not say:
From The Huffington Post here, "Jeff Sessions Offers No Straight Answers On How He’ll Handle Legal Marijuana"
From Reason here, "Sessions Offers Unclear, Useless Answers on Marijuana During Confirmation Hearing"
From the Washington Post here, "Sessions on enforcing federal marijuana laws: ‘It won’t be an easy decision’"
Though I suspect some marijuana reform activists were hoping to hear Sessions say he would fully respect and order DOJ officials to always defer to state marijuana reforms, such a statement would be in some ways tantamount to saying he would not fully respect federal marijuana prohibition (which is still the law of the land). Consequently, I was not surprised and in many ways encouraged by how Senator Sessions handled these issues. These passages from the HuffPo piece spotlight what I consider the biggest highlight, along with one marijuana advocate's takeaway:
“I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law,” said Sessions, responding to a question about whether he’d use federal resources to prosecute people using marijuana in accordance with their state laws. “But absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government.”
Sessions went on to say that federal guidelines on marijuana enforcement crafted under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch had been “truly valuable” in determining how to navigate inconsistencies between federal law ― under which marijuana is illegal ― and state laws that have loosened restrictions on the plant. Sessions also noted that if Congress wanted to clear up this confusion, it could pass a law adjusting the legal status of marijuana. Until then, however, he vowed to do his job “in a just and fair way” while judging how to approach marijuana going forward.
“It is not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce,” Sessions said. “We should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we are able.”
Marijuana advocates met Sessions’ stance with guarded optimism, though they cautioned that he had not ruled out the possibility of more aggressive action against legal marijuana states and users. “It’s a good sign that Sen. Sessions seemed open to keeping the Obama guidelines, if maybe with a little stricter enforcement of their restrictions,” said Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, a drug policy reform group. “The truth is, his answer was skillfully evasive, and I hope other senators continue to press for more clarity on how he would approach the growing numbers of states enacting new marijuana laws.”
January 10, 2017 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Criminal justice developments and reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, January 8, 2017
This local article, headlined "Judge: Insurance company must pay for medical marijuana for injured N.J. worker," reports on what would seem to be a significant ruling from an administrative law judge in New Jersey. Here are the details from the press report:
In what could be a precedent-setting decision, a New Jersey administrative law judge has ordered an insurance company to pay for medical marijuana for an injured worker who suffers from lingering neuropathic pain in his left hand after an accident while using a power saw at an 84 Lumber outlet in 2008.
Judge Ingrid L. French took testimony from the worker, a 39-year-old Egg Harbor Township man, and a Cherry Hill psychiatrist/neurologist who said the marijuana treatment was appropriate because it would allow the patient to reduce his prescription opiate use and lower the risk of serious side effects.
Andrew Watson was seeking reimbursement for marijuana he had purchased at a dispensary in his Atlantic County township over three months in 2014 after enrolling in the state's program. He also sought a ruling that would allow him to be covered for the treatment in the future.
French issued her opinion last month, saying "the evidence presented in these proceedings show that the petitioner's 'trial' use of medicinal marijuana has been successful. While the court is sensitive to the controversy surrounding the medicinal use of marijuana, whether or not it should be prescribed for a patient in a state where it is legal to prescribe it is a medical decision that is within the boundaries of the laws in the state."
The opinion did not state the reimbursement owed Watson, although his attorney said the marijuana itself cost less than $1,000 because it was only three ounces.
John Gearney, a Mount Laurel lawyer who writes a weekly blog on workers' compensation cases, says the written ruling may be the first in New Jersey to address whether an insurer should pay for marijuana. "It's not binding, but it's really an important decision. There are about 50 workers' compensation judges in the state, and they will read it and see what the judge thought when a case like it comes before them," he said.
Gearney, of the Capehart Scatchard firm, said the only other court ruling he had heard of involving medical marijuana and workers' compensation came when a New Mexico appeals court decided a few years ago that an injured worker was entitled to marijuana treatment. In that case, the court ruled that marijuana was "reasonable and necessary" for an injured worker who had reported that traditional treatments had not alleviated his pain.
John Carvelli, a Mount Laurel lawyer who represented Gallagher Bassett Services, a third-party administrator for 84 Lumber's insurance company, said in an email Thursday: "With respect to the recent decision, we respect the court's decision. . . . At this juncture there is no plan to appeal."...
Philip Faccenda, a Cherry Hill lawyer who represented Watson, said the decision might benefit insurance companies, too. "We believe this will offer very powerful cost savings with respect to the entire workers' compensation industry in New Jersey. . . . More costly pharmaceuticals can be reduced and medical marijuana would be a less expensive treatment modality," he said.
Faccenda said that his client stopped using marijuana in 2014 because he could not afford to continue paying for it. The insurance carrier continued to pay for his use of opiates to treat his pain. The decision means Watson can resume using marijuana, he said.
French wrote in her eight-page decision that Watson's testimony was credible. "He testified that the effects of the marijuana, in many ways, is not as debilitating as the effects of the Percocet (which is how he refers to his prescriptions for Endocet or Oxycodone). . . . Ultimately, the petitioner was able to reduce his use of oral narcotic medication. . . . The court found the petitioner's approach to his pain management needs has been cautious, mature, and overall, he is exceptionally conscientious in managing his pain."
French also wrote that Watson's expert witness, Cherry Hill psychiatrist Edward H. Tobe, described the benefits Watson can obtain by using marijuana and also described the risks of taking opiates. "Opiates can shut down breathing (whereas) marijuana cannabinoids won't . . . Marijuana does not affect the mid-brain. The mid-brain is critical in controlling respiration, heart rate, many of the life-preserving elements," he said, according to an excerpt of his testimony that was included in the judge's opinion.
Tobe said using marijuana, combined with less opiate use, would likely benefit Watson and help him "achieve better function." French said the evidence convinced her that Watson was entitled to participate in the marijuana program and that doing so was "reasonable and necessary" to relieve his continuing pain.
I cannot find the ruling discussed here on line, but more about the ruling can be gleaned from this posting at the NJ Workers' Comp Blog.
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
The title of this post is the headline of this notable new article that reports that the "DC Cannabis Coalition says it plans to hand out thousands of joints of marijuana on Inauguration Day — for free — to urge federal legalization of pot." Here is more:
The group plans to start handing out joints at 8 a.m. Jan. 20 on the west side of Dupont Circle in the nation's capital, where recreational marijuana is legal. Then, marchers will walk to the National Mall where the real protest will begin.
"The main message is it’s time to legalize cannabis at the federal level," said Adam Eidinger, the founder of DCMJ, a group of D.C. residents who introduced and helped get Initiative 71 passed in the District. Initiative 71 made it legal to possess 2 ounces or less or marijuana, to grow it, and to give it away, but it is not legal to sell it.
Eidinger is worried, though, that all this progress will be lost with the incoming administration, specifically, with President-elect Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions. "We are looking at a guy who as recently as April said that they are going to enforce federal law on marijuana all over the country. He said marijuana is dangerous," Eidinger said.
The great marijuana giveaway is legal, as long as it's done on D.C. land. "We don't want any money exchanged whatsoever. This is really a gift for people who come to Washington, D.C.," he said.
There will 4,200 gifts, to be exact. Then, at 4 minutes and 20 seconds into Trump's speech (420 is the internationally known code for weed), protesters are encouraged to light up. That part, is most definitely illegal. "We are going to tell them that if they smoke on federal property, they are risking arrest. But, that's a form of civil disobedience," said Eidinger. "I think it's a good protest. If someone wants to do it, they are risking arrest, but it's a protest and you know what, the National Mall is a place for protest."
Eidinger said this is not an anti-Trump event, or even an attempt at disrupting the ceremony. Everyone is welcome.... Eidinger said the DC Cannabis Coalition is hopeful the new administration will not be a problem, but they are preparing for the worst.
January 4, 2017 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Federal Marijuana Laws, Policies and Practices, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana State Laws and Reforms, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Legal marijuana sales in 2016 in North America over $6.5 billion after another year of remakable growth
As reported in this new Forbes article, "North American marijuana sales grew by an unprecedented 30% in 2016 to $6.7 billion as the legal market expands in the U.S. and Canada, according to a new report by Arcview Market Research." Here is more reporting on a new report on the legal marijuana marketplace:
North American sales are projected to top $20.2 billion by 2021 assuming a compound annual growth rate of 25%. The report includes Canada for the first time as it moves towards implementing legal adult use marijuana.
To put this in perspective, this industry growth is larger and faster than even the dot-com era. During that time, GDP grew at a blistering pace of 22%. Thirty percent is an astounding number especially when you consider that the industry is in early stages. Arcview's new editor-in-chief Tom Adams said, "The only consumer industry categories I've seen reach $5 billion in annual spending and then post anything like 25% compound annual growth in the next five years are cable television (19%) in the 1990's and the broadband internet (29%) in the 2000's."
ArcView's analysis uses data provided by BDS Analytics that has access to millions of individual consumer transactions from dispensary partners. “One of the biggest stories was the alternative forms of ingestion,” said ArcView Chief Executive Officer Troy Dayton. “Concentrates and edibles are becoming customer favorites versus traditional smoking.”
Even though the market is putting up huge sales numbers, there is still a great deal of uncertainty that comes with the new administration's approach towards legalization. Dayton believes that President-elect Donald Trump has been consistently in favor of states rights when it comes to legalization. “It's one of the few things he has been consistent on,” he said. Dayton also believes that even if Trump backed away from adult use, he would still favor medical marijuana.
The proposed attorney general Jeff Sessions is a confirmed critic of legalization, but Dayton believes that marijuana will be a low priority for the new administration. In any event, the group is reviewing and preparing for a more aggressive stance toward marijuana from the federal government should that happen. Even with this cloud of uncertainty, Dayton is bullish for the market. He said investment dollars are pouring into California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. “Twenty-one percent of the total U.S. population now live in legal adult use markets,” said Dayton. He also noted that Colorado, Washington and Oregon saw their sales jump 62% through September of 2016 over 2015.
Investors are predominantly interested in investing in new technology within the industry like testing technologies and new growing technologies. Retail also remains attractive as new brands vie to win market share. Dayton also said there is a great deal of interest in Canada. That country's market is smaller than the U.S., but without the overhang of government conflict, it is a good indicator for which businesses could be replicated and thrive in the U.S.
January 3, 2017 in Business laws and regulatory issues, History of Marijuana Laws in the United States, Medical Marijuana Data and Research, Recreational Marijuana Data and Research | Permalink | Comments (0)
It seems unlikely that any year will end up rivaling 2016 when it comes to state-level marijuana reform. In addition to the eight marijuana reform ballot initiatives that passed in November (four involving recreational reform, four involving medical reform), two big rust-belt states enacted significant medical marijuana reforms as well (Ohio and Pennsylvania). How these new reforms get implemented throughout 2017 arguably is a more important story for marijuana reforms to follow than what might happen (or not happen) in a bunch of new states.
These 2016 realities not withstanding, this new Weed News article does a very effective job spotlighting the states and issues within that seem likely to keep state-level marijuana stories quite dynamic in the year to come. The article if headlined "7 States To Watch In 2017 For Marijuana Legalization," and here are excerpts meant to provide a mini-summary:
The recreational legalization of cannabis is expected to be discussed by the state’s officials in early 2017. Sen. Margaret Rose Henry, during a Medical Marijuana Act Oversight Committee meeting in October 2016, said: “It’s time to certainly look at it.” The state lawmaker has pledged to introduce a bill legalizing the adult use of cannabis, and a recent University of Delaware poll shows that 61 percent of residents surveyed support legalization, according to recent reports from the Delaware State News and The Wilmington News Journal....
After neighboring state Massachusetts fully legalized cannabis for adults over 21, Rhode Island is expecting cannabis legalization in 2017. “We’re looking at it,” said Rhode Island Gov. Raimondo, Providence Journal reported on Oct. 29. “If I could get myself comfortable that we, the state, could legalize in a way that keeps people safe, keeps children safe, folks aren’t getting sick, then I would be in favor.”...
Despite Gov. Chris Christie being opposed to cannabis legalization, lawmakers are ready to explore the possibility. Bills to tax and regulate marijuana were introduced in the New Jersey Assembly by both Democrat (Reed Gusciora) and Republican (Michael Patrick Carroll) lawmakers in 2016. In addition, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have travelled to Colorado to learn more about legalization there and were excited by what they learned. Stephen Sweeney, the Senate President, said: “I am absolutely sold that this industry can be regulated. It’s safe, it’s well managed.” He also declared that lawmakers “intend to move quickly” to pass a bill as soon as Gov. Chris Christie leaves office; his promised veto seems to be the only remaining impediment to progress in New Jersey....
Texas is making decriminalization a priority on its 2017 lawmaking agenda. State officials will consider reducing charges for possession by adopting a model that fines people $250 without giving them a criminal record. Five cannabis related items are on the table for the 85th Session. State Senator José Rodríguez and state Representatives Moody, Dutton and White have all sponsored legislation this session making it easier to use cannabis and lessen penalties if a person is caught.
Last year, Texas passed the Compassionate Use Act, which was intended to allow access to low-THC cannabis for those with intractable epilepsy. This year for 2017, Senator Menéndez (D-San Antonio) pre-filed SB 269, a comprehensive medical cannabis bill. Sen. Menéndez’s bill will make several improvements, including fixing a fatal flaw in the bill, allowing cannabis with any amount of THC, and expanding the law to include other qualifying conditions. As Senator Menéndez says, “Compassion should not be exclusive. Twenty-eight states have recognized the medical benefit of cannabis, including conservative states like Arkansas, Montana, and North Dakota … It is time Texas steps up to the plate on behalf of our sickest patients.”
“The time of laughing and snickering about marijuana and marijuana cigarettes is over. We’ve got serious businessmen who have approached me on this now and say they are taking it to the governor,” Sen. Perry Clark told The Courier-Journal last year. Almost one year after filing the Cannabis Freedom Act, Kentucky State Senator Perry Clark has pre-filed a bill for the 2017 legislative season that pertains to legalizing cannabis in the state. Filed in December 2016 for the January, 2017, legislative season, the new bill is called the Cannabis Compassion Act and is filed as BR 409. Nevertheless, little has changed between the wording of the proposed laws of 2015, 2016, and the new 2017 Cannabis Freedom Act....
Rep. Bill McCamley has suggested the state could use cannabis legalization as a way to resolve New Mexico’s $600 million deficit and, according to a poll conducted by the Albuquerque Journal in October, 61 percent of New Mexico’s voters would support the recreational use of cannabis. With the newly-elected Democratic majority in both the New Mexico House and Senate, proponents of recreational cannabis predict several proposed bills will be discussed on the floor in the legislature at the next general session in early 2017....
Bernie Sanders home state of Vermont almost passed adult-use legalization in 2016 and is expected to take up the issue again in 2017. In February 2016, the Vermont Senate voted 17-12 to pass S.B. 241, which would have allowed adults ages 21 and older to use cannabis and regulated a tax system for cannabis-based products. The measure failed in the House, but according to the Marijuana Policy Project, Vermont will reconsider legislation in 2017, encouraged by neighboring states that are just a short drive away, such as Massachusetts and Maine passing cannabis legalization measures in 2016. This could convince new Republican governor Phil Scott to support legalization this year, as researchers found the state could potentially rake in up to $75 million annually in taxes by regulating cannabis. Vermont’s next legislative session is scheduled to open in January 2017, there will be a new House speaker and a new Senate leader.
Two lawmakers in Missouri have filed proposals for the upcoming 2017 legislation to legalize medical cannabis and create a comprehensive statewide medical cannabis program.The two bills, Senate Bill 56, sponsored by Jason Holsman (D), and Senate Bill 153, sponsored by Rob Schaaf (R), were pre-filed earlier in December 2016. With Republicans holding a super-majority in the state Senate, SB 153 could have the upper hand, however. Passage of either of these bills could finally bring a true medical cannabis program to Missouri. In 2014, Missouri lawmakers passed a limited medical cannabis bill to allow some patients with intractable epilepsy access to products containing marijuana extracts with THC amounts below 0.3%.
Voters in Missouri narrowly missed out on a chance to vote on a comprehensive medical cannabis bill in the November elections when thousands of signatures collected by proponents were invalidated in court, leaving the measure off the ballot. Polling results released in June found that 62% of Missouri voters supported the referendum, with only 27% opposed, making it highly likely that it would have been approved by voters had they gotten the chance to do so. Senate Bill 56 is very similar to the proposal that would have appeared on the November ballot.
January 3, 2017 in Campaigns, elections and public officials concerning reforms, Medical Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Recreational Marijuana Commentary and Debate, Who decides | Permalink | Comments (0)
I was at first disinclined to blog about the New Year's Day prank reported in this CNN piece, headlined "Hollywood sign vandalized to read 'Hollyweed'." But I have obviously now reconsidered, due in part to the fact that the prank makes for a great picture to add to the blog and in part because the prank can be seen as a kind of dramatic foreshadowing for what is sure to be a fascinating and dynamic 2017 in the arena of marijuana reform. So, first, more about the prank with a little context via CNN:
The Hollywood sign got a little green over New Year's. A prankster managed to change the iconic sign overlooking Los Angeles early Sunday to read "Hollyweed," said L.A. Police Officer Christopher Garcia, who works in the agency's security service division.
The vandal -- who police think is probably a man -- used tarps to change the O's in the sign to E's, he said. The vandal was caught on security-camera footage between midnight and 2 a.m. local time, but police can't tell his race or height because it was dark and raining, Garcia said.
The "Hollyweed" sign remained up until around 11 a.m., when authorities took down the tarps used to change the lettering. Estevan Montemayor, a spokesman for Los Angeles City Councilman David Ryu, whose district includes the Hollywood sign, had earlier promised the iconic sign would be restored to its normal state. "We don't know who did it but park rangers are going up there very soon to take down the draping that was put on top of the 'O' to alter the sign," Montemayor said Sunday morning....
Betsy Isroelit with the Hollywood Sign Trust told CNN that the last time the sign was vandalized to read "Hollyweed" was in 1976. Vandals have altered the sign several times over the years.
Californians voted in November to make recreational use of marijuana legal statewide for those 21 and over.
As for the foreshadowing, the future of marijuana legalization in Hollywood and in the rest of the nation will be a topic (among so many) that will be in play starting next week when Senate hearings are scheduled for consideration of Prez-Elect Donald Trump's pick of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the next Attorney General. In addition, just how California political and industry players will respond to the full legalization vote could well define many of the state-specific parameters for continued discussions of marijuana reform in other states.
So, to use some Hollywood vernacular, the sign prank was in a sense an appropriate teaser trailer for the year to come.
Sunday, January 1, 2017
A recent study reveals that Washington teens' view of the harmfulness of marijuana has decreased since the state legalized the drug for recreational use by adults in 2012. They're also reportedly using it more. According to this Reuters article:
For the new study, the researchers used data from a national survey of 253,902 teens in grades eight, 10 and 12. The survey, conducted between 2010 and 2015, included questions about how harmful adolescents perceived marijuana to be and whether they had used it within the past month.
In Washington state, eighth graders' perception of marijuana's harmfulness fell by about 14 percent from before legalization (2010 to 2012) to afterward (2013 to 2015). Similarly, among 10th graders, the perception of harmfulness decreased about 16 percent.
Additionally, the proportion of kids reporting marijuana use in the previous month rose 2 percent among eighth graders and about 4 percent among 10th graders over that same period.
Those changes were significant when the researchers compared them to states that hadn't legalized recreational marijuana, where teens' perception of harm fell by 5 to 7 percent and their use of the drug only increased about 1 percent.
There were no significant changes in perceived marijuana harmfulness or use among 12th graders in Washington, however. The researchers speculate that older students may already have a fully formed opinion of marijuana.
Additionally, the researchers didn't see any significant before-and-after-legalization differences among students in Colorado. Possibly, they say, this might be because adolescents there were exposed to a robust medical marijuana industry before its recreational use was legalized.
The findings on teen usage are particularly interesting given the recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health numbers showing a substantial decrease in marijuana use by Colorado teens since that state began selling legal weed in 2014. As The Washington Post's Christopher Ingraham reported:
The state-level data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that 18.35 percent of Coloradans ages 12 to 17 had used marijuana in the past year in 2014 or 2015, down sharply from 20.81 percent in 2013/2014. (In this survey, years are paired for state-level data to provide larger sample sizes). That works out to roughly a 12 percent drop in marijuana use, year-over-year.
Year-over-year teen marijuana use fell in most states during that time period, including in Washington, the other state to open recreational marijuana markets in 2014. But that drop wasn't statistically significant...
This federal data released this week is the first clear evidence of a drop in teen marijuana use in Colorado following legalization. Legalization supporters have long argued that the best way to prevent underage marijuana use is to legalize and regulate the drug.