Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

"Helping Settle the Marijuana and Alcohol Debate: Evidence from Scanner Data"

The title of this post is the title of this intriguing new empirical article authored by Michele Baggio, Alberto Chong and Sungoh Kwon now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract (with the key finding emphasized):

We use data on purchases of alcoholic beverages in grocery, convenience, drug, or mass distribution stores in US counties for 2006-2015 to study the link between medical marijuana laws and alcohol consumption and focus on settling the debate between the substitutability or complementarity between marijuana and alcohol. To do this we exploit the differences in the timing of the of marijuana laws among states and find that these two substances are substitutes. Counties located in MML states reduced monthly alcohol sales by 15 percent. Our findings are robust to border counties analysis, a placebo effective dates for MMLs in the treated states, and falsification tests using sales of pens and pencils.

"Constitutional Clause Aggregation and the Marijuana Crimes"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article authored by Scott Howe now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:

An important question for our time concerns whether the Constitution could establish a right to engage in certain marijuana-related activities.  Several states have now legalized cannabis, within strict limits, for recreational purposes, and that number will grow.   Yet, some states will not promptly legalize but, instead, continue to criminalize, or only “decriminalize” in minor ways, and the federal criminalization statutes also will likely survive for a time.   There currently is no recognized right under the Constitution to possess, use, cultivate or distribute cannabis for recreational purposes, even in small amounts, and traditional, single-clause arguments for such a right are weak.   Neither the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause nor the Equal Protection Clause can justify such a protection, and that would remain true even when most states have legalized.  But, could another theory justify this constitutional right?

A second important and topical legal question concerns when two or more rights-based clauses in the Constitution can combine to invalidate government action that none of the clauses could disallow on their own.  The Supreme Court generally has declined to recognize multiple-clause rights.  But, in the past, it occasionally seemed to endorse the approach. And, recently, in Obergefell v Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), it gave new impetus to the idea by declaring the existence of a “synergy” between the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses that it asserted had helped explain its acknowledgment of certain rights previously and that purportedly helped lead, in the case at hand, to its acknowledgment of a right to same-sex marriage.  In consequence, enthusiasm has again intensified over the notion that rights-based clause aggregation can expand constitutional protections.  But, is clause aggregation only rhetoric offered to justify something the Court would have done anyway under a single clause or can it sometimes really matter?   And, if so, when?

This Article puts both problems in play by asking this question: After a super-majority of states legalize, could multiple clauses together reveal a constitutional right to engage in certain recreational, marijuana activities?  The Article answers with cautious affirmance: Clause aggregation could help justify such a constitutional right, in tightly limited circumstances.  But, the Article also notes that many of the contours remain undeveloped in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on rights-based clause aggregation, complicating any effort to predict whether and how the Justices would apply it in the future to recreational marijuana.

Lots of headlines (and prior posts) about veterans having access to medical marijuana ... but work remains in Trump era

Regular readers know I have, since starting this blog more than four years ago, regularly blogged about a range of issues relating to veterans and their access to marijuana (a dozen of my more recent posts on this topic are linked below).  I feel a genuine and deep debt to anyone and everyone who serves this nation through the armed forces, and I feel  strongly that veterans should be able to have safe and legal access to any and every form of medicine that they and their doctors reasonably believe could help them with any ailments or conditions.

Notably, this White House release from a few days ago touts "President Donald J. Trump is Putting Our Veterans First," and it quotes Prez Trump sating that "we will not rest until all of America’s great veterans can receive the care they so richly deserve."  But current federal law essentially puts veterans last, not first, when it comes to access to medical marijuana because doctors with the Veterans Administration are legally barred from providing the recommendations that patients needs to obtain medical marijuana under state laws.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, on this Veterans Day 2017, issues relating to veterans and their access to marijuana are getting ever more attention.  Here are a few recent press pieces that caught my eye on this topic, followed by a lot of prior posts:

• What some veterans want this Veterans Day: medical marijuana

• More Than 20 Percent of Military Veterans Use Medical Marijuana

• Veterans caught in crosshairs of medical marijuana laws

• Cuomo signs off on medical marijuana use for PTSD to mark Veterans Day

• Mother of veteran killed in standoff wants medical marijuana legal to 'give our vets another choice'

• How Veterans Are Leading the Fight for Cannabis Reform

Some recent prior related posts:

• New American Legion survey documents strong support among veteran households for medical marijuana
• "As Trump wages war on legal marijuana, military veterans side with pot"
• "More and More US Veterans are Smoking Weed to Treat Their PTSD"
• Examining pot's potential for treatment of veterans' PTSD problems
• Will Prez-Elect Donald Trump make it legal and easier for veterans to have access to medical marijuana?
• American Legion urges federal government to reschedule marijuana
• Veterans group gets attention when urging Trump team to seek to reschedule marijuana
• American Legion, the largest US vets' organization, pressing Trump Administration on medical marijuana reform
• "Study: Can marijuana improve PTSD symptoms for veterans?"
• "Make Pot Legal for Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury"
• Interesting look at veterans getting involved in the marijuana industry
• Head of Veterans Affairs acknowledges marijuana may be "helpful" to veterans

"Colorado girl suing U.S. attorney general to legalize medical marijuana nationwide"

The title of this post is the headline of this local report on a notable new lawsuit seeking to ensure legal access to medical marijuana. (This lawsuit, filed in federal district court in New York, was first discussed in this post in July 2017.) Here are excerpts from the press piece:

Alexis Bortell is hardly the first child whose family moved to Colorado for access to medical marijuana. But the 12-year-old is the first Colorado kid to sue U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions over the nation's official marijuana policy.

"As the seizures got worse, we had to move to Colorado to get cannabis because it's illegal in Texas," said Bortell, who was diagnosed with epilepsy as a young child.

The sixth-grader said traditional medicine wasn't helping her seizures and doctors in her home state were recommending invasive brain surgery. But a pediatrician did mention an out-of-state option: Medical marijuana.

Shortly after moving to Larkspur, Bortell's family began using a strain of cannabis oil called Haleigh's Hope. A drop of liquid THC in the morning and at night has kept her seizure-free for 2 1/2 years. "I'd say it`s a lot better than brain surgery," Bortell said.

But Bortell said the federal prohibition on marijuana prevents her from returning to Texas. "I would like to be able to visit my grandparents without risking being taken to a foster home," Bortell said on why she's joined a lawsuit that seeks to legalize medical marijuana on the federal level....

Alexis' dad Dean Bortell ... showed his backyard fields, where he grows five acres of marijuana plants used to derive the medicine that helps his daughter and patients he's never met. "When you look at it from a distance and you see it saving their lives, me as a father and an American, I go, what are we doing? How could you possibly look at someone who`s benefiting from this as a medicine and threaten to take it away?" Bortell said....

Alexis' New York attorney Michael Hiller argues it should be legal nationwide. "As it pertains to cannabis, the (Controlled Substances Act) is irrational and thus unconstitutional," said Heller, who added the U.S. government "made a representation that cannabis has medical application for the treatments of Parkinson`s Disease, HIV-induced dementia and Alzheimer's disease and yet at the same time the United States government maintains that there is absolutely no medical benefit for the use of cannabis. That is of course absurd."

Denver attorney Adam Foster represents marijuana businesses. He said he thought the lawsuit was clever but admitted its success might be a long shot. "Whenever you sue the government, the deck is really stacked against you," Foster said.

But he added the federal government might have a hard time arguing medical marijuana has no known medical benefits. "We now live in an era where 62 percent of Americans live in a state where the medical use of cannabis is legal at the state level," he said.

Alexis Bortell said she hopes her lawsuit will normalize medical marijuana but also legalize it. "We'll be able to be treated like what you call 'normal' families," she said.

Bortell is joined in the lawsuit by another child, a military veteran, a marijuana advocacy group and former Broncos player Marvin Washington, who played on the 1998 Super Bowl-winning team. The federal government has already lost its first motion to have the case dismissed.

Prior related post:

• Latest effort to take down federal marijuana prohibition via constitutional litigation filed in SDNY

A deep dive into the costs of raiding marijuana facilities

As mentioned repeatedly in recent posts, students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar are making presentations on marijuana-related topics of their choosing. One of the planned student presentations for this week will be exploring the "costs of raids" with "examples from states including Utah, California, and Colorado."  Here is an impressive array of materials/links that the student working on this topic has provided for class consideration:

"The High Cost of Shutting Down One Medical Marijuana Operation"

"Drug cops raid an 81-year-old woman’s garden to take out a single marijuana plant"

"DEA warns of stoned rabbits if Utah passes medical marijuana"

"Marijuana Law Enforcement Cost States An Estimated $3.6 Billion In 2010: ACLU"

"Wednesday's DEA Medical Marijuana Raids May Have Cost Taxpayers $12.3 Million"

"Weed dispensaries find legalization leaves them vulnerable to raids and harassment"

"Obama's War on Pot: In a shocking about-face, the administration has launched a government-wide crackdown on medical marijuana"

"Photos: DEA Raids Downtown Medical Marijuana Dispensary"

"Pot dispensary defenders say Toronto police raids were a 'disproportionate' and costly mistake"

"Canada's marijuana stocks on fire as dispensaries raids continue"

"Feds Spend $1 Million to Shut Down Single Marijuana Dispensary"

"New Report: Marijuana Raids Cost Lives, Cannabis Doesn’t"

"Feds Have Lost to the States on Marijuana: Denver Raids Add Proof"

"What's The Co$t?: The Federal War on Patients"

"The Price of Cannabis: An analysis of how decriminalization and Federal enforcement affect the price of marijuana"

With election of new Gov, might New Jersey legalize marijuana by May Day 2018?

The question in the title of this post is prompted by this  local article headlined "With Phil Murphy's win, it's 'full steam ahead' for legal marijuana." Here is how it gets started:

Democrat Phil Murphy's victory in the governor's race Tuesday night drives New Jersey "full-steam ahead" toward legalizing marijuana and cultivating an estimated $1.3 billion industry, the sponsor of the legislation said.

Throughout the campaign, Murphy has embraced the idea of making marijuana available for recreational use for people 21 and older. Early on, he made his support well-known that he would sign a legalization bill when it arrived on his desk.

State Senate President Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, who controls which bills the 40-member Senate debate and vote on, said his goal was to get the measure passed within 100 days of the Murphy administration.

Murphy has said he is also counting on the sales tax from legal cannabis -- an estimated $300 million -- as a key revenue source to help fund education programs and the public worker pensions.

A look at marketing and advertising in the marijuana industry

A pair of students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar are this coming week to be discussing marketing and advertising in the marijuana industry. In preparation for the discussion, they suggested review of Leafy's "State-by-State Guide to Cannabis Advertising Regulations," which gets started this way:

As the cannabis industry continues to grow at a rapid pace, it can feel overwhelming to keep up-to-date with the constantly-changing federal and state regulations.  Advertising regulations are especially strict, as many marketing platforms restrict or outright ban cannabis advertisements due to the substance’s federal status.

We put together a state-by-state guide to cannabis advertising regulations that should help cannabis businesses adhere to the guidelines set forth by both the state they’re operating in as well as any states in which they want to advertise.  

Considering the pros and cons of starting a cannabis-related businesses

As mentioned repeatedly in recent posts, students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar are every week delivering presentations on a marijuana-related topic of their choosing. I am professorially giddy about the large number of presentations planned for the next few weeks, and the first student presentation planned for this coming week aspires to "give insight into the pros and cons of starting a cannabis-related business." And here are links the student provided as background for the discussion:

"US Patent Office Issuing Cannabis Patents To A Growing Market"

"Here Are The Top 5 Financial Leaders In The Cannabis Industry"

"Colorado marijuana shops make $28,000 each on the FIRST DAY of legalized pot"

Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program information on dispensaries

SAM promotes new campaigns and efforts to push back on marijuana reform movements

Today via email I receive three alerts from SAM Action, the political action off-shoot of the leading advocacy group opposing marijuana reform, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).  Each email announces a notable new campaign or effort concerning marijuana policy, and here are the headlines and essentials as described in each announcement (I would link to a press release, but I cannot find one on-line):

1.  "Dallas-Area Families and Leading National Marijuana Policy Group Team Up to Support Congressman Pete Sessions' Stance Against Predatory Marijuana Industry"

A coalition of Texas families and doctors, alongside leading national marijuana policy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action), came out in support of Congressman Pete Sessions' stance against drug legalization. SAM Action is the 501(c)(4) sister organization of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a non-profit co-founded by former Congressman Patrick Kennedy and Dr. Kevin A. Sabet, policy advisor to three U.S. administrations.

The campaign features a digital billboard that supports Congressman Sessions' fight to protect his constituents against the predatory tactics of the marijuana industry. The sign, located near his district office on U.S. Highway 75 and paid for by SAM Action, features a local Dallas-area mother expressing her thanks for Sessions' standing up to the marijuana industry.

2.  "New Group Formed, Marijuana Accountability Coalition, To Push Back on Recreational Marijuana Industry"

A new group, the Marijuana Accountability Coalition (MAC), formed today to push back against the marijuana industry in Colorado. MAC, which will be based in Denver but have satellites across the state, came together from discussions of recovery advocates, parents, doctors, and other concerned citizens who do not think Colorado is better off after five years of legalization, despite industry claims.

"While the marijuana moguls are celebrating their financial success at the posh Ritz-Carlton Hotel, we're here standing with our friends and neighbors who have been hurt, whose families have been hurt by commercialized, legal pot," said Justin Luke Riley, MAC's founder. "Colorado continues the pay the price for marijuana's rapid spread into our communities, our schools and our families."

"For too long, pot lobbyists in Colorado have gotten away with too much," said Kevin A. Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor and President of SAM Action. "We applaud the Marijuana Accountability Coalition for dedicating themselves to keeping the industry on their toes."

3. "Public safety advocates urge drugged driving protections as marijuana is permitted in states as drugged driving crashes spike"

With the recent legalization of marijuana, its impact on driving under the influence of marijuana and driving safety is a major concern of public health and safety advocates. Current laws governing driving under the influence of marijuana are either not based on science, absent altogether, or too difficult to enforce. Public safety advocates call for laws to keep us safer on our roads and bring marijuana drugged driving laws in line with alcohol driving laws.

Parents and loved ones who have lost family and friends to drivers impaired by marijuana (e.g. THC), public safety advocates, and other concerned citizens. SAM will be there to launch a national campaign: HIGH means DUI. The campaign's goals are to raise awareness about drugged driving and dangers of driving under the influence of THC and to advocate for sensible marijuana driving laws that promote road safety.

An extraordinary accounting of Ohio's recent marijuana reform history

I have said to my students at various times that a book or two or three or four could and should be written about the history of marijuana reform in the great state of Ohio.  This weekend I discovered that Angela Bacca, a freelance journalist, has provided nearly book-length treatment of some of the recent political stories of reform in the state via a four-part series of Huffington Post article.

The subtitle of each part of the series is "Inside Ohio’s Corrupt Medical Marijuana Rollout," and this reporting of recent Ohio history seems especially eager to play up the theme of greed.  But that reporting choice might well be justified, and the tales told in these articles involve more intricate and comprehensive reporting than I have seen anywhere else:

• Part 1: The Grassroots Goes Down

• Part 2: ResponsibleOhio Storms the Ballot

• Part 3: Changing Marijuana Policy, One State at a Time

• Part 4: As Goes Ohio, So Goes the Nation

"Can Los Angeles repair the damage done by the war on marijuana?"

The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Los Angeles Times editorial.  Here are excerpts:

Make no mistake, the war on marijuana has not been colorblind. Despite national surveys showing that white people and black people use marijuana at approximately the same rates, blacks have over the years been nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites.

That disparity is as true in Los Angeles as it is elsewhere in the country. African Americans comprise less than 10% of the population in L.A. Yet between 2000 and 2017, blacks represented 40% of marijuana-related arrests.  Latinos made up 44% of arrests.  Whites made up only 16% of arrests, according to a city consultant’s analysis of Los Angeles Police Department data.  And even as Los Angeles and other cities allowed the growth of a quasi-legal, hugely profitable medical marijuana industry run mostly by white entrepreneurs, police arrests for marijuana possession and sales continued to target African Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly.

A drug arrest — especially if followed by a conviction — can have terrible consequences.  Even after a person has completed his or her sentence, it remains harder to get a job, get into college, rent an apartment or get a loan.  A drug conviction is a barrier to economic opportunity.

Now that California has voted to legalize marijuana for adults, a crucial question is whether there a way to repair the damage created by decades of unequal enforcement practices.  The answer being considered by the Los Angeles City Council is to make it easier for people who were arrested or otherwise affected by the disparate enforcement of marijuana laws to get in on the ground floor of the emerging multibillion-dollar cannabis industry.

The idea behind the proposed “social equity” program is that the people most affected should now be helped to partake in the profits and benefits of legalization.  The challenges of opening a marijuana business are so great — there are huge upfront costs, serious impediments to getting bank loans and extremely intricate regulations — that many would-be entrepreneurs would be locked out without government assistance.

Without question, Los Angeles ought to use a portion of future marijuana tax revenue to help communities that have been disproportionately targeted for marijuana enforcement. Tax money could fund drug education and treatment, legal clinics to help people expunge their marijuana conviction records, and reentry programs for individuals leaving prison.

The city could also help encourage entrepreneurs from communities that have had disproportionate numbers of marijuana arrests to enter the business by offering training, compliance assistance and priority licensing. Priority licensing is important because, due to zoning restrictions, only a limited number of applicants will ultimately be granted the right to host a marijuana business.  The first batch of licenses will be offered to medical marijuana shops that have operated since 2013 in L.A. with limited immunity under Proposition D.  Under the city’s proposed rules, the second batch of licenses would be divided equally between general applicants and social equity applicants — giving the latter a better shot at snapping up those opportunities. The third batch of licenses would be open to all applicants.

But here’s where the social equity program raises concern: The current proposal gives special advantages, waives fees and offers the most assistance to low-income people who themselves have marijuana-related convictions.  It’s one thing to target assistance broadly to communities that have felt the impacts of unequal enforcement. It’s another thing to reward people who broke the law and got caught by giving them priority over people who did not break the law.  That doesn’t seem fair.  Nor does it seem like a great idea to incentivize people with convictions for selling or possessing marijuana to return to the drug trade — why not help them enter other businesses instead?

To be sure, people with nonviolent drug convictions shouldn’t be barred from owning marijuana businesses or from working in them.  But they shouldn’t be pushed to the front of the line either.

Maine Gov vetoes bill designed to establish structure for voter-approved recreational marijuana industry

As reported in this NBC News piece, "Maine Gov. Paul Lepage’s decision to veto a bill on Friday that would have built a recreational marijuana retail market is a major buzzkill for those in the state who voted to legalize the drug last year." Here is more on the decision and its impact:

In his veto letter, LePage urged the Maine legislature to “sustain this veto” because he did not believe that the bill was satisfactory.  The bill passed with enough votes to overturn a veto in the state Senate, but not the statehouse.

LePage said his greatest grievance is that he did not know how the Trump administration intended to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that legalized recreational marijuana.  “If we are adopting a law that will legalize and establish a new industry and impose a new regulatory infrastructure that requires significant private and public investment, we need assurances that a change in policy or administration at the federal level will not nullify those investments,” LePage wrote....

In his letter, LePage also expanded on his grievance that the bill conflicted with Maine’s existing medical marijuana laws, which he claims are being exploited by his constituents, and created “unrealistic deadlines” to craft regulation at the executive level....

In the letter, LePage said that he “sought guidance” from Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, who has had to oversee his state’s recreational marijuana market since Colorado legalized the drug in 2012.  LePage said that Hickenlooper “urged” him to “not rush just to get something in place” and connected Colorado’s crime rates and traffic deaths to recreational marijuana use.

The full statement by Gov LePage is available at this link, and here are its concluding paragraphs:

When I sought guidance from my counterpart in Colorado, he was adamant that Maine should learn from the mistakes made by his state and others that have pursued legalization efforts.  He urged that we take the time necessary to get our law right from the start and not rush just to get something in place.  There have been serious negative effects of legalization in other states — effects that should not be repeated in Maine.  In Colorado, marijuana-related traffic deaths more than doubled since recreational marijuana was legalized.  The Institute for Highway Safety reached similar findings, noting that automobile collisions increased by three percent in states that have legalized marijuana.  Alarmingly, the violent crime rate in Colorado increased nearly 19 percent since legalization, more than double the national rate.  If Maine is going to legalize and regulate marijuana, it is imperative that we do it right.

Outside specific concerns about this bill, I continue to be concerned about expanded legalization of marijuana in Maine.  The dangers of legalizing marijuana and normalizing its use in our society cannot be understated.  Maine is now battling a horrific drug epidemic that claims more than one life a day due to overdoses caused by deadly opiates.  Sending a message, especially to our young people, that some drugs that are still illegal under federal law are now sanctioned by the state may have unintended and grave consequences.

For these reasons, I return LD 1650 unsigned and vetoed. I strongly urge the Legislature to sustain it and continue to work to get this important law right.

New American Legion survey documents strong support among veteran households for medical marijuana

This new posting from The American Legion, the nation’s largest wartime veterans service organization, reports on a notable new survey showing notable support for marijuana reform from a notable population.  The posting is headed "Survey shows veteran households support research of medical cannabis," and here is how is starts (with links from the original):

An independent public opinion research company conducted a nationwide survey about the opinions of veterans, their family members and caregivers on the issue of medical cannabis. See the survey results here.Learn more about The American Legion's push for research into medical cannabis here.

The results are significant and reinforce The American Legion’s continued efforts, under Resolution 11, to urge Congress to amend legislation to remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and reclassify it, at a minimum, as a drug with potential medical value.

According to the survey – which included more than 1,300 respondents and achieved a +/- 3.5 percent margin of error at a 95 percent confidence level – 92 percent of veteran households support research into the efficacy of medical cannabis for mental and physical conditions.

Eighty-three percent of veteran households surveyed indicated that they believe the federal government should legalize medical cannabis nationwide, and 82 percent indicated that they would want to have medical cannabis as a federally-legal treatment option, the survey says.

In January 2017, the National Academy of medicine released a review of more than 10,000 scientific abstracts and found substantial evidence to support the idea that cannabis was effective in treating chronic pain, reducing spasticity in Multiple Sclerosis patients, and reducing symptoms of chemotherapy-induced nausea. The American Legion calls on the federal government to confirm or deny the validity of these studies.

In August during the Legion’s national convention in Reno, Nev., Resolution 28 was passed, which calls on the federal government to allow medical providers within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to discuss medical cannabis as a treatment option in states where medical marijuana is legal.

VA officials report that about 60 percent of veterans returning from combat deployments and 50 percent of older veterans suffer from chronic pain compared to 30 percent of Americans nationwide.

Many veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain – especially those of the Iraq and Afghanistan generation – have told The American Legion that they have achieved improved health care outcomes by foregoing VA-prescribed opioids in favor of medical cannabis. While the stories of these wartime veterans are compelling, more research must be done in order to enable lawmakers to have a fact-based debate on future drug policy.

The survey also showed that 22 percent of veterans are currently using cannabis to treat a medical condition.

The opioid crisis in America is having a disproportionate impact on our veterans, according to a 2011 study of the VA system, as they contend with the facts that poorly-treated chronic pain increases suicide risk, and veterans are twice as likely to succumb to accidental opioid overdoses. Traumatic brain injury and PTSD remain leading causes of death and disability within the veteran community, according to Lou Celli, director of the Legion's Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division.

Here are some highlights from the survey:

• 92 percent of all veterans support research into medical cannabis.

• 83 percent of all veteran households support legalizing medical cannabis.

• Support for medical cannabis research is consistent nationwide, across ages, gender, political affiliation and geography.

• 60 percent of respondents do not live in states where medical cannabis is currently legal.

• 79 percent of respondents aged 60+ supported federally legalized medical cannabis.

• 22 percent of veterans stated they are currently using cannabis to treat a medical condition.

• 40 percent of caregivers stated they know a veteran who is using medical cannabis to alleviate a medical condition.

Diving into the marijuana reform story in Ohio and at Ohio State

As I mentioned in recent posts, students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar are now gearing up for and delivering presentations on a marijuana-related topic of their choosing. The second student presentations planned for this this coming week, as described here, is taking a localized look at marijuana reform issues with "background on the marijuana process in Ohio and progress at The Ohio State University [emphasizing] Ohio State’s role specifically."  In addition, this student is bringing a guest speaker, Mr. Thomas Rosenberger, who currently serves as the Executive Director of the National Cannabis Industry Association of Ohio.  And here are links the student provided as background for the discussion:

 2015 Ohio Issue 3 Tax Estimations

"Risk of losing federal funding reason why medical marijuana research won’t happen"

H.B. 523 PDF (as enacted)

Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Board - Program Rules

"National Cannabis Industry Association of Ohio”

"FDA warns companies marketing unproven products, derived from marijuana, that claim to treat or cure cancer"

The title of this post is the heading of this press release from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Here is how the release begins:

As part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from health fraud, the agency today issued warning letters to four companies illegally selling products online that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer without evidence to support these outcomes.  Selling these unapproved products with unsubstantiated therapeutic claims is not only a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but also can put patients at risk as these products have not been proven to be safe or effective. The deceptive marketing of unproven treatments may keep some patients from accessing appropriate, recognized therapies to treat serious and even fatal diseases.

The FDA has grown increasingly concerned at the proliferation of products claiming to treat or cure serious diseases like cancer. In this case, the illegally sold products allegedly contain cannabidiol (CBD), a component of the marijuana plant that is not FDA approved in any drug product for any indication.  CBD is marketed in a variety of product types, such as oil drops, capsules, syrups, teas, and topical lotions and creams. The companies receiving warning letters distributed the products with unsubstantiated claims regarding preventing, reversing or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anti-cancer claims. Some of the products were also marketed as an alternative or additional treatment for Alzheimer’s and other serious diseases.

“Substances that contain components of marijuana will be treated like any other products that make unproven claims to shrink cancer tumors. We don’t let companies market products that deliberately prey on sick people with baseless claims that their substance can shrink or cure cancer and we’re not going to look the other way on enforcing these principles when it comes to marijuana-containing products,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. “There are a growing number of effective therapies for many cancers. When people are allowed to illegally market agents that deliver no established benefit they may steer patients away from products that have proven, anti-tumor effects that could extend lives.”

The FDA issued warning letters to four companies – Greenroads Health, Natural Alchemist, That’s Natural! Marketing and Consulting, and Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises LLC – citing unsubstantiated claims related to more than 25 different products spanning multiple product webpages, online stores and social media websites. The companies used these online platforms to make unfounded claims about their products' ability to limit, treat or cure cancer and other serious diseases.

In letter to Prez Trump, Gov Christie throws cold water on idea of marijuana as part of solution to opioid crisis

Prez Trump's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis issued this big final report today, and marijuana only gets some minor mentions throughout the document.  The heart of the report's themes and recommendations are usefully summarized in this extended letter to Prez Trump penned by Commission Chair Chris Christie, and that letter include this notable final substantive  paragraph speaking directly to the notion that marijuana reform should be part of the response to the opioid crisis: 

The Commission acknowledges that there is an active movement to promote the use of marijuana as an alternative medication for chronic pain and as a treatment for opioid addiction. Recent research out of the NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse found that marijuana use led to a 2½ times greater chance that the marijuana user would become an opioid user and abuser. The Commission found this very disturbing. There is a lack of sophisticated outcome data on dose, potency, and abuse potential for marijuana. This mirrors the lack of data in the 1990’s and early 2000’s when opioid prescribing multiplied across health care settings and led to the current epidemic of abuse, misuse and addiction. The Commission urges that the same mistake is not made with the uninformed rush to put another drug legally on the market in the midst of an overdose epidemic.

For the record, I agree with the notion that we do not want to make mistakes in marijuana law and policy as a result of an "uninformed rush" to do anything. But marijuana's continued status as a Schedule 1 drug play a huge role in keeping us "uninformed" about so many aspects of the drug's potential benefits and harms, and only by moving marijuana off that Schedule do we really have any real chance in the coming years to start to get more of the needed "sophisticated outcome data on dose, potency, and abuse potential for marijuana."

"New developments in cannabis regulation"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction authored by authored by Beau Kilmer. Here is the paper's introduction:

For decades, those seeking insights into alternatives to prohibiting cannabis supply have turned to Europe.  For nearly 40 years, the Netherlands has tolerated small retail sales, and in February 2017 the Dutch Parliament narrowly passed a bill to regulate the supply of cannabis to coffee shops.  Spain’s cannabis social clubs (CSCs), which are supposed to produce cannabis for non-profit distribution to club members, have proliferated throughout the country despite some of them being forced to shut down.  Similar CSCs are now appearing in other parts of Europe (Decorte, 2015; Belackova et al., 2016; EMCDDA, 2016).

For the past five years, however, many of those searching for new developments in cannabis regulation have turned their attention to the Western Hemisphere.  In 2012, voters in the US states of Colorado and Washington passed ballot initiatives to remove the prohibition on cannabis and to license profit-maximising firms to produce and sell it.  In late 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalise cannabis, although its approach is much more restrictive than that being adopted in the United States.  Since 2016, four more US states have approved commercial models for cannabis — including California, the world’s sixth largest economy — and a bill to allow for-profit companies to produce cannabis for non-medical purposes has been introduced in Canada.

Recently, politicians in at least six European countries (in addition to the Netherlands) have introduced legislation to reform cannabis supply laws, with many proposing sales through licensed outlets (Hughes et al., 2017).  While most of these proposals have already been rejected (Hughes et al. 2017), conversations about cannabis regulation are expected to become more frequent and more detailed in Europe.  With this in mind, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) has requested a brief report to address the following three questions:

• What new models of cannabis regulation are emerging worldwide and in Europe?

• What is the evidence about the impact of these reforms?

• What are the implications for drug policy and practice in Europe?

Very excited for (not-so) new endeavor at OSU Moritz College of Law with creation of new Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC)

Regular readers know that I often write about a range of drug enforcement and policy issues in this space and elsewhere, so I doubt anyone will be too surprised to read about this exciting new chapter for my work in this arena via this Ohio State University press release:

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law announced today that it will establish the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) with funding provided by a $4.5 million gift from the Charles Koch Foundation.

The DEPC will support and promote interdisciplinary research, scholarship, education, community outreach and public engagement on the societal impacts surrounding legal reforms that prohibit or regulate the use and distribution of traditionally illicit drugs. Robert J. Watkins/Procter & Gamble Professor of Law Douglas A. Berman will lead the center, which will draw on institutional expertise from the Moritz College of Law, John Glenn College of Public Affairs, College of Social Work and across the university to examine the impact of modern drug laws, policies and enforcement on personal freedoms.

“The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center will serve as an objective, reputable voice in the national conversation relating to drug laws and enforcement,” said Moritz College of Law Dean Alan C. Michaels. “Doug is the perfect person to lead this interdisciplinary endeavor as we build on our strengths at the law school -- and comprehensively across Ohio State -- with research and outreach activities that will provide critical evidence to help inform policy decisions at the local, state and national levels.”

The DEPC will foster collaboration among Ohio State’s nationally recognized faculty in the areas of criminal law, public affairs, legislative reform, community well-being, economic development and social justice to explore how the “war on drugs” and other drug enforcement policies have affected Americans over the past half-century and possibilities for reform and improvement. It will also serve as an independent and reliable source for researchers, policymakers, the media and others interested in objective information about drug enforcement and reform, including rigorous examination of ongoing efforts by many states to replace blanket marijuana prohibition with various legalization and regulatory systems and rules.

“I am honored to serve as the first executive director of the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center as we begin important work across a breadth of critical topics at a time when leaders of all political beliefs are looking for reliable and objective evidence concerning the impact of modern drug policies and practices,” Berman said.

Cross-posted at Sentencing Law & Policy