Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform

"Cannabis use among military veterans: A great deal to gain or lose?"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new meta-analysis of research on marijuana use by veterans just published in the Clinical Psychology Review and authored by Jasmine Turna and James MacKillop. (I found this preprint version of the paper here for those with paywall barriers.)  Here is the paper's abstract:

Policy changes have resulted in dramatic increases in access to cannabis for medical purposes.  Veterans are disproportionately affected by conditions for which medical cannabis is often pursued, making an evidence-based perspective on risks versus benefits of high priority.  The current review sought to examine the state of the evidence on consequences and correlates of cannabis use among veterans.  Using a comprehensive search strategy, 501 articles were identified and 86 studies met criteria for inclusion. The literature was predominated by cross-sectional studies (67%) of male veterans (71.4%–100% male) from the United States (93.0%). 

Three overarching themes emerged, comprising cannabis associations with other substance use, mental health, and physical health outcomes.  The balance of the evidence associated cannabis use with negative health outcomes, with consistent positive associations with other substance use, psychiatric disorders, and self-harm/suicidality.  Few studies examined the therapeutic effects of cannabis, thus limiting the potential to evaluate evidence of efficacy. 

Priority areas for future research are studies using designs that can examine the directionality of links between cannabis and health in veterans more conclusively, and studies directly examining therapeutic efficacy of cannabis-based therapies in veterans.  Methodologically rigorous design will be essential to inform clinical recommendations and practices guidelines in an era of burgeoning access to cannabis.

Because I have always been eager to support giving veterans safe and healthy access to whatever resources they might need, I am pleased to see added focus on this important issue and a call for further research. And I think it notable that many of the studies examined in this meta-analysis pre-date the modern marijuana reform movement, which leads me to wonder whether some of the negative associations with marijuana use might be linked to its prohibited status rather than the drug itself.

Highlighting again DEPC call for proposals for new Marijuana Research Grants Program

As I have mentioned before, I am going to keep highlighting the program first flagged in this prior post, namely the new research grant program from the Ohio State Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC).  DEPC's goal is to fund certain types of new work specifically in the marijuana research/policy space.  Here is the basic overview of the call for proposals:

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) invites researchers from universities and independent research centers in the United States to submit proposals for funded research focused on implementation and policy impacts of marijuana legalization.  We are specifically interested in research addressing questions related to public health, criminal justice and public safety, as well as their various intersections.  In selection for funding, we are likely to prioritize shorter-term research projects that can help inform the work of lawmakers, regulators and advocates eager to promote evidence-based best practices and policies in future reforms efforts.

In general, grant requests should not exceed $50,000. However, projects exceeding this amount are still encouraged to apply as additional funding could be appropriated.  The deadline for first-round submissions is January 11, 2021; a second round of funding may be announced in February 2021 after the first-round awards are announced.

The full call for proposals can be found here, and this document provides these additional details on topics of interest in this grant program:

Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Impacts on law enforcement including resource allocation, changes to existing arrest/charging practices, use of fines and fees for enforcement, and broader effects on crime and community relations.
• Impacts on the criminal justice system including arrests/incarceration rates, outcomes achieved by changes in criminal penalties with cannabis legalization and/or decriminalization, impacts on the juvenile justice system.
• How federal law currently impacts state-level marijuana reforms and practices across a range of areas (e.g., banking, employment, housing, medical practice and research, tax), and what federal reforms might most effectively and efficiently improve state practices.
• Changes in rates of diagnosis for cannabis-related substance use disorders; need, availability and efficacy of treatment programs and other counseling services for problematic cannabis use.
• Impacts and attitudes toward cannabis reform in specific neighborhoods/communities defined both by geography, social-economic status, and demographics.
• Cost-benefit analyses of marijuana legalization/decriminalization policies and the various budgetary impacts resulting from reforms such as law enforcement savings versus treatment costs.

Via bipartisan voice vote, US House passes bill to expand research on marijuana

As reported in this Politico piece, the "House on Wednesday passed a bill that would make it easier for scientists to conduct marijuana research in states where the drug is legal.  The bill passed on a voice vote with strong bipartisan support."  Here is more:

What’s the context?  Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agree that more research into the health effects of marijuana is needed.  The bill is co-sponsored by two lawmakers who stand at opposite ends of the spectrum on marijuana legalization: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) is the unofficial cannabis czar on Capitol Hill, while Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) is known for his work on an appropriations rider that restricts Washington D.C. from taxing and regulating a marijuana market.

Marijuana research legislation also has strong support in the Senate, where lawmakers from both parties, including Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), have proposed marijuana research legislation.  This bill, however, does not have a Senate equivalent.

What does this bill do?  Marijuana research now is limited to being based on a few variations grown by the University of Mississippi, the only entity that can legally grow marijuana under federal law for research.  Scientists have complained for years that what is grown for research doesn’t resemble the marijuana used in the real world.

The DEA has never licensed other research cultivators. In 2016, the agency said it would authorize other growers to help facilitate research.  It has received 37 applications, and said in August 2019 that it would move forward with processing those applications.  But no other growers have been greenlighted, and the lack of action on those applications has prompted lawsuits from two applicants....

The bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act to remove limitations on researching marijuana and create a new research structure for the drug.  The bill directs HHS and DOJ to create a program that would license additional producers and manufacturers of research marijuana. Researchers with federal licenses could use that marijuana for FDA-approved research.  The legislation also would speed up the wait times for research marijuana cultivation applications and reduce some of the cumbersome regulations that researchers face when trying to get approval to study marijuana....

What’s next? The Senate is unlikely to bring the bill up for a vote in the final days of this Congress, but its passage sets a marker for the next session.

Because this was passed through a voice vote, we do not get any accounting of how many House members actually supported or opposed this legislation. And it will be quite interesting to see if this modest marijuana reform bill becomes a priority in the next COngress or if instead reform advocates push only for more ambitious reforms.

Highlighting again DEPC call for proposals for new Marijuana Research Grants Program

I am going to make a habit of highlighting the program first flagged in this prior post, namely the Ohio State's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) new research grant program.  DEPC's goal is to fund certain types of new work specifically in the marijuana research/policy space.  Here is the basic overview of the call for proposals:

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) invites researchers from universities and independent research centers in the United States to submit proposals for funded research focused on implementation and policy impacts of marijuana legalization.  We are specifically interested in research addressing questions related to public health, criminal justice and public safety, as well as their various intersections.  In selection for funding, we are likely to prioritize shorter-term research projects that can help inform the work of lawmakers, regulators and advocates eager to promote evidence-based best practices and policies in future reforms efforts.

In general, grant requests should not exceed $50,000. However, projects exceeding this amount are still encouraged to apply as additional funding could be appropriated.  The deadline for first-round submissions is January 11, 2021; a second round of funding may be announced in February 2021 after the first-round awards are announced.

The full call for proposals can be found here, and this document provides these additional details on topics of interest in this grant program:

Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Impacts on law enforcement including resource allocation, changes to existing arrest/charging practices, use of fines and fees for enforcement, and broader effects on crime and community relations.
• Impacts on the criminal justice system including arrests/incarceration rates, outcomes achieved by changes in criminal penalties with cannabis legalization and/or decriminalization, impacts on the juvenile justice system.
• How federal law currently impacts state-level marijuana reforms and practices across a range of areas (e.g., banking, employment, housing, medical practice and research, tax), and what federal reforms might most effectively and efficiently improve state practices.
• Changes in rates of diagnosis for cannabis-related substance use disorders; need, availability and efficacy of treatment programs and other counseling services for problematic cannabis use.
• Impacts and attitudes toward cannabis reform in specific neighborhoods/communities defined both by geography, social-economic status, and demographics.
• Cost-benefit analyses of marijuana legalization/decriminalization policies and the various budgetary impacts resulting from reforms such as law enforcement savings versus treatment costs.

DEPC call for proposals for new Marijuana Research Grants Program

I am very excited that Ohio State's Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) is starting a new research grant program to fund work specifically in the marijuana research/policy space.  Here is the basic overview of the call for proposals:

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center (DEPC) invites researchers from universities and independent research centers in the United States to submit proposals for funded research focused on implementation and policy impacts of marijuana legalization.  We are specifically interested in research addressing questions related to public health, criminal justice and public safety, as well as their various intersections.  In selection for funding, we are likely to prioritize shorter-term research projects that can help inform the work of lawmakers, regulators and advocates eager to promote evidence-based best practices and policies in future reforms efforts.

In general, grant requests should not exceed $50,000. However, projects exceeding this amount are still encouraged to apply as additional funding could be appropriated.  The deadline for first-round submissions is January 11, 2021; a second round of funding may be announced in February 2021 after the first-round awards are announced.

The full call can be found here, and this document provides these additional details on topics of interest in this grant program:

Topics may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Impacts on law enforcement including resource allocation, changes to existing arrest/charging practices, use of fines and fees for enforcement, and broader effects on crime and community relations.
• Impacts on the criminal justice system including arrests/incarceration rates, outcomes achieved by changes in criminal penalties with cannabis legalization and/or decriminalization, impacts on the juvenile justice system.
• How federal law currently impacts state-level marijuana reforms and practices across a range of areas (e.g., banking, employment, housing, medical practice and research, tax), and what federal reforms might most effectively and efficiently improve state practices.
• Changes in rates of diagnosis for cannabis-related substance use disorders; need, availability and efficacy of treatment programs and other counseling services for problematic cannabis use.
• Impacts and attitudes toward cannabis reform in specific neighborhoods/communities defined both by geography, social-economic status, and demographics.
• Cost-benefit analyses of marijuana legalization/decriminalization policies and the various budgetary impacts resulting from reforms such as law enforcement savings versus treatment costs.

"Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program at Two Years: Evaluating Satisfaction and Perception"

The title of this post is the title of this great new report, available via SSRN, authored by colleagues of mine at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, Jana Hrdinova, Stephen J. Post and Dexter Ridgway.  Here is its abstract:

Medical marijuana became legal in Ohio on September 8, 2016 when House Bill 523 (HB 523) became effective. This bill created the framework for the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (OMMCP), and the architects of HB 523 promised the program would be “fully operational” within two years.  But as of July 15th, 2020, the OMMCP was still not fully operational, creating concerns around persistent delays and the overall functionality of the program.

After a year and a half of partially operating, the OMMCP continues its slow rollout.  With possible future marijuana reforms on the horizon, the perceived effectiveness and success of the current system among Ohioans may shape the long-term future of the program.  To our knowledge, the Harm Reduction Ohio (HRO) report1 released in September 2019 was the first concerted effort to survey patients and potential patients to evaluate their experiences and satisfaction with the OMMCP to date.  This report looks at how people potentially impacted by the OMMCP perceive its performance and whether there have been changes in their satisfaction levels as compared to last year’s survey data.  Our updated survey allows for a new examination into the efficacy of the structure of Ohio’s Medical Marijuana Control Program and how this state’s initial experience with marijuana reform can inform the larger national conversations currently underway.

Interesting accounting of Ohio medical marijuana program circa summer 2020

The Dayton Daily News has this interesting new piece on Ohio's medical marijuana program under the headline "$133M of medical pot sold in 1st year as pandemic legitimized industry."  Here are excerpts:

The coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on the state’s economy, but those in the medical marijuana industry say the virus legitimized the fledgling program in Ohio. The medical marijuana program, which is run by the Ohio Board of Pharmacy and the Commerce Department, was fully functional in April 2019. Sales have significantly increased over the past year.

In May of last year, about $2.2 million and about 300 pounds of medical marijuana product was sold in the state of product has been sold, according to data from the Ohio Department of Commerce. Medical marijuana sales in Ohio then jumped from $7.7 million this past February to $12.9 million in March — more than 1,500 pounds, according to the Ohio Department of Commerce. About $10.9 million of medical marijuana product was sold in April.

As of June 14, the most recent data available, a total of $133.9 million and 16,225 pounds of medical marijuana product has been sold since the program started.

The state has collected about $3.8 million in sales tax on the medical marijuana program from July 2019 to March 2020, according to the Ohio Department of Taxation. The state of Ohio’s fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.Permissive sales tax collected statewide in that time was $942,673, the Department of Taxation said. Permissive sales tax is collected by local entities, like the county and regional transit authority. The state wouldn’t release county-by-county sales tax data. Larry Pegram is the president of Pure Ohio Wellness.... Dispensaries were deemed essential during the statewide coronavirus shut down issued in March and lasting through May. That was huge for the medical marijuana industry, Pegram said.“That legitimized the whole program,” Pegram said. “This has become more acceptable, people are now seeing it more as an alternative medicine. ”Medical marijuana sales have increased every month the dispensaries have been open, Pegram said. There are now 51 dispensaries operating in Ohio. Six more dispensaries have provisional licenses and are working toward opening in the state.

When the pandemic first started, Pegram said people rushed to get product. But when dispensaries were deemed essential, sales settled down a bit. “It was scary at first, I think for everyone,” Pegram said. “But we realized we needed to stay open for our patients. For some of them, we are their lifeline.”...

More than 109,000 Ohioans are registered medical marijuana patients as of May 31, the most recent data available. In May of last year, 35,162 Ohioans were registered patients. About 7% of those patients are veterans. More than 600 of Ohio’s medical marijuana patients have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Many Pure Ohio Wellness patients are seniors who use medical marijuana for pain management, Pegram said.

Licensed dispensaries reported about 81,200 unique patients who purchased medical marijuana as of May 31, according to the Ohio Automated Rx Reporting System. In May 2019, about 20,000 unique patients purchased medical marijuana.Ohioans can get a doctor’s order to use medical marijuana if they have one of the qualifying conditions, including chronic pain, Alzheimer’s, cancer, epilepsy, fibromyalgia or HIV/AIDS.Gould said he believes the Ohio Medical Board should add anxiety, autism and opioid withdrawl to the approved list of conditions.

Student presentation on "CBD and its efficacy as a sleep aid"

The last of a big group of student presentations in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar will focus on "CBD and its efficacy as a sleep aid." Here some background readings he has provided:

CBD Sources

1. "CBD & Parkinson's Disease"
2. "Is CBD legal? Here’s what you need to know, according to science"
3. "Cannabidiol can improve complex sleep‐related behaviours associated with rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder in Parkinson's disease patients: a case series"
4. "Is CBD legal in your state? Check this chart to find out"
5. "Cannabidiol (CBD) — what we know and what we don’t
6. "Every Question You Have About CBD—Answered" 

Sleep Sources

1. "The State of Sleep"
2. "What to know about sleep deprivation"
3. "Prescription sleeping pills: What's right for you?"
4.  "Are Sleeping Pills Safe?"
5.  "1 in 3 adults don’t get enough sleep"

FDA Approved MJ derived medicine

 "FDA Approves First Drug Comprised of an Active Ingredient Derived from Marijuana to Treat Rare, Severe Forms of Epilepsy"

Parkinson’s Source

"Parkinson's Disease"

Student presentation on "Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, or 'High Driving'"

As I mentioned in this recent post, students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar are now "taking over" my class by making presentations on research topics of their choice. Though the COVID-19 crisis means my resilient students are doing their presenting to the class online, going online has been going pretty well so far.   

As regular readers know, students provide in this space a little background on their topic and links to some relevant materials before they present.  Our first presentation planned for this week will focus on marijuana-influenced driving, and here is how my student has described his topic along with background readings he has provided for classmates (and the rest of us):

Marijuana legalization proponents quite often compare marijuana use to that of alcohol, claiming that alcohol consumption is far more dangerous, especially when a vehicle is involved.  Legalization dissenters, on the other hand, often make the argument that legalization would lead to rampant use and, inevitably, increases in traffic fatalities and damages as the result of people driving while stoned.  The aim of my class presentation and paper is to explore three topics related to Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana, or, as I like to call it, "High Driving": (1) Marijuana’s effect on driving ability, (2) The different state approaches to testing and prosecuting High Driving, and (3) what research shows about the relationship between the different legal marijuana regimes, the prevalence of High Driving, and the resulting consequences.

For background on these three interrelated topics, please reference the resources below:

"It’s High Time: A Common Sense Approach To Marijuana-Impaired Driving"

"Crash Fatality Rates After Recreational Marijuana Legalization in Washington and Colorado"

"The effects of medical marijuana laws on cannabis-involved driving"

"Drug Impaired Driving/Marijuana Drug-Impaired Driving Laws" (slightly out of date)

"Marijuana Use and Highway Safety"

Drug Enforcement and Policy Center conducting new survey on COVID-19 impacts on cannabis industry

The Drug Enforcement and Policy Center has just created a short new survey intended to help explore how COVID-19 is impacting the cannabis industry.  The survey link is here, and this is the basic set up:

As the COVID-19 pandemic surges across the United States, the crisis continues to affect every aspect of the economy.  In response to the pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act to provide relief to small businesses across the country.

However, the cannabis industry is ineligible for the act’s benefits due to federal prohibition.  In addition, the particular challenges that small and minority-owned cannabis businesses face were not addressed in the early discussions about the industry’s ability to persevere throughout the crisis.

We want to hear from you.

In an effort to learn more about the issues cannabis businesses and consumers are experiencing during the pandemic, and how government entities could best address these issues, DEPC has created a 3-minute survey.

Please complete and share our survey with your networks.

Take the survey

"Medical marijuana and workers' compensation claiming"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new paper authored by Keshar Ghimire and Johanna Catherine Maclean appearing in the journal Health Economics.  Because I was just today talking with students about metrics for measuring the efficacy of medical marijuana programs, this new piece caught my eye.  Here is its abstract:

We study the effect of state medical marijuana laws (MMLs) on workers' compensation (WC) claiming among adults.  Medical marijuana is plausibly related to WC claiming by allowing improved symptom management, and thus reduced need for the benefit, among injured or ill workers.  We use data on claiming drawn from the Annual Social and Economic supplement to the Current Population Survey over the period 1989 to 2012, coupled with a differences‐in‐differences design to provide the first evidence on this relationship.  Our estimates show that, post MML, WC claiming declines, both the propensity to claim and the level of income from WC.  These findings suggest that medical marijuana can allow workers to better manage symptoms associated with workplace injuries and illnesses and, in turn, reduce need for WC.  However, the reductions in WC claiming post MML are very modest in size. 

Spitballing metrics that might be important when evaluating medical marijuana programs

As noted in prior posts here and here, this week I have asked students in my marijuana reform seminar to reflect on how policymakers should assess the efficacy of medical marijuana programs.  Potentially important to this inquiry is figuring out just what basic metrics should matter — metrics related both to  the operation of medical marijuana programs and to the program's potential impact on individual and community well-being. 

Reflecting on these questions always lead me back to a range of challenging (and useful) policy questions about what fundamental values are of greatest importance as we consider and operationalize any form of marijuana reform.  Of course, there are always going to be plenty of basic medical research questions (and uncertainty) about whether and for whom marijuana might provide health benefits (after all, this article suggests medical science cannot conclusively answer whether adults should be drinking milk).  But beyond (or intertwined with) uncertainty about the medical use of marijuana, how should policy makers approach these (or many other) potentially important metrics:

-- Is the raw number of patients in medical marijuana programs, or the number of a particular type of patients, fundamental to judging the success of medical marijuana programs?

-- Should self-reports or health-care worker reports of patient satisfaction or the cost of this form of health care relative to others be central to assessing efficacy?

-- Should reductions (or increases) in opioid overdoses or other salient community health problems be a central consideration? 

-- How about potential health care cost savings (or cost increases) for the state?

-- How about other possible public health and safety concerns ranging from increased marijuana use by teens, or more reports of substance use disorders, or more accidents involving impaired drivers or even increased crimes around dispensaries?

-- How about tax revenues or number of jobs created as an important metric for medical marijuana programs (since we see this often discussed for recreational programs)?

-- How should social equity and social justice concerns impact these issues: e.g., should we worry if only privileged people have access to and profit from medical marijuana and/or if arrest rates for low-level marijuana possession go up after a state implements a medical marijuana program?

I am sure I am leaving out lots of other important issues in this spitballing of metrics that might be important when evaluating medical marijuana programs. I eagerly welcome feedback and suggestions on this front from all readers.

A few recent related posts:

• How should policymakers assess the efficacy of medical marijuana programs? What are key metrics?"
• Does official public data about Ohio's Medical Marijuana Control Program show its efficacy? Its ineffectiveness?

Does official public data about Ohio's Medical Marijuana Control Program show its efficacy? Its ineffectiveness?

In a post from few days ago, I asked "How should policymakers assess the efficacy of medical marijuana programs? What are key metrics?".   I have asked students in my marijuana reform seminar to reflect on these questions, and I am wondering if official data on Ohio's "Medical Marijuana Control Program" can help answer these question in the Buckeye State. 

Specifically, here is link to a graphic that compares some data on Ohio's medical marijuana program from January 2019 and January 2020.  Because the 2019 data is from the "first day of sales," we see great growth in listed number over the course of a year (e.g., registered patients grew from 12,721 to 73,967).  Is this a mark of success for a program that became law in mid 2016?  Or does this show how slowly (or poorly) the program got launched?

Or consider this page of cumulative data as of Feb 7, 2020 

Cultivators

• 19 Level I provisional licenses
  • 10 Provisional licensees have received Certificates of Operatio
• 13 Level II provisional licenses
  • 10 Provisional licensees have received Certificates of Operation

Dispensaries

• 57 Provisional licenses
  • 49 Provisional licensees have received a Certificate of Operation

Patients & Caregivers (as of 12/31/2019)

• 83,857 Recommendations
• 78,376 Registered patients
  • 5,617 Patients with Veteran Status
  • 4,398 Patients with Indigent Status
  • 449 Patients with a Terminal Diagnosis
• 55,617 Unique patients who purchased medical marijuana (as reported to OARRS by licensed dispensaries)
• 8,259 Registered Caregivers

Physicians

• 590 Certificates to Recommend

Processors

• 43 provisional licenses
  • 16 Provisional licensees have received Certificates of Operation

Sales Figures (as of 2/3/2020)

• 8,174 lbs. of plant material
• 393,726 units of manufactured product
• 68.1 million in product sales
• 534,913 total receipts
• Historical Sales Data

Are any of these numbers especially important in judging the success of Ohio's medical marijuana program? What other metrics would be important to judging the success of Ohio's medical marijuana program?

How should policymakers assess the efficacy of medical marijuana programs? What are key metrics?

The question in the title of this post are questions I have asked students in my marijuana reform seminar to be considering this week.  I am not sure I have good answers to these questions, so I am hoping my students can help answer them.

Notably, the group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) produces an annual report that gives letter grades to all states based on various criteria relating to medical marijuana programs.  (The 2019 version of  this lengthy and informative report  is summarized in this ASA blog post.)  But ASA is a medical marijuana advocacy group that grades states based primarily on how accessible marijuana is to individuals who want access -- i.e., ASA is focused on whether programs "ensure that all patients have access to the medicine they need" -- and it is not a given that all policymakers would be keen to adopt the ASA's grading criteria. (Tellingly, in these ASA reports, states with recreational marijuana programs consistently get the highest grades).

The Drug Enforcement & Policy Center last Fall released this survey report that "revealed immense dissatisfaction with the Ohio medical marijuana system" among likely medical marijuana consumers.  But again, the views of likely consumers may not be the best metric for assessing the efficacy of a medical marijuana program.  In some coming posts, I will focus on some existing data related to Ohio's and (some other states') medical marijuana program to further explore just what metrics ought to be key to assessing the virtues (and vices?) of these programs.

Leafly report claims "legal cannabis now supports 243,700 full-time American jobs"

This story at Leafly, headlined "Cannabis Jobs Report: Legal cannabis now supports 243,700 full-time American jobs," reports on Leafly's effort to account for job creation in the legal marijuana industry.  Here are excerpts:

How many jobs are there in the legal marijuana industry?  Leafly’s annual Cannabis Jobs Report found 243,700 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs supported by legal cannabis as of January 2020.

Even in a down year, the marijuana industry added 33,700 jobs.  That’s a 15% year-over-year increase. Over the past 12 months the expanding industry has created 33,700 new jobs nationwide, making legal marijuana the fastest-growing industry in America.

This year’s jobs count found Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Illinois leading the employment expansion. As its adult-use market passed its one-year anniversary, Massachusetts added 10,226 jobs. Meanwhile, Oklahoma’s robust medical marijuana industry added more than 7,300 jobs in the past year.

Florida also saw amazing growth in 2019. With more than 300,000 registered medical marijuana patients, Florida now has the most medical patients of any state. That growth in the patient base, along with the start of smokeable flower sales, boosted Florida to a 93% increase in total sales....

California remains America’s biggest legal cannabis employer. But Colorado may be the nation’s biggest per-capita marijuana job market, with one job per 165 residents. California, by contrast, offers one job per 980 residents.

Colorado also continues to outpace Washington state. Both states legalized cannabis for all adults in 2012, but Colorado’s industry boasts nearly 10,000 more jobs than Washington, even though Washington boasts nearly two million more residents.

Both Colorado and Washington posted strong 8% growth six years after their retail stores opened, indicating that legal stores are still drawing customers away from illicit sellers, and steadily attracting more adult consumers from non-traditional demographics.

Leafly’s full report, which includes includes a state-by-state analysis of all medical and adult-use states, is available at this link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rounding up some recent notable marijuana social science research

Busy times over the last couple weeks has kept me from finding time to blog about a lot of notable recently-published marijuana research.  Making up for the silence, here is a review of the pieces that recently caught my attention:

"Using recreational cannabis to treat insomnia: Evidence from over-the-counter sleep aid sales in Colorado" by authored by Jacqueline Doremus, Sarah Stith and Jacob Vigil published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine

"What Have Been the Public Health Impacts of Cannabis Legalisation in the USA? A Review of Evidence on Adverse and Beneficial Effects" authored by Janni Leung et al. published in Current Addiction Reports

"Are Marijuana and Alcohol Substitutes? Evidence from Neighboring Jurisdictions" authored by Benjamin Hansen as a working paper

"Frequency of cannabis and illicit opioid use among people who use drugs and report chronic pain: A longitudinal analysis" authored by Stephanie Lake et al. published in PLOS Medicine

"Trends in college students’ alcohol, nicotine, prescription opioid and other drug use after recreational marijuana legalization: 2008-2018" authored by Zoe Alley, David Kerr and Harold Bae published in Addictive Behaviors

"Postmaterialism and referenda voting to legalize marijuana" authored by John Frendreis and Raymond Tatalovich published in the International Journal of Drug Policy

"Psychotic disorders hospitalizations associated with cannabis abuse or dependence: A nationwide big data analysis" authored by Manuel Gonçalves‐Pinho, Miguel Bragança and Alberto Freitas published in International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

"The Complicated Relationship Between Marijuana Use and Parenting"

The title of this post is the title of this new paper recently posted to SSRN and authored by Kathryn Foust, a recent graduate The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.  This paper is the sixteenth paper in an on-going series of student papers supported by the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center.  (The fifteen prior papers in this series are linked below.)    Here is this latest paper's abstract:

The intersection between marijuana and parenting is both highly controversial and largely unexplored.  Despite the trend of legalization (medicinal and recreational) across the country, there is a widening discrepancy between criminal laws and child welfare policies.  Even in states where marijuana is recreationally legal, a parent might still be charged with child abuse or neglect as a result of his or her marijuana use.  Although second-hand marijuana smoke has proven to be a relatively low risk of harm to children, other areas of concern have not been adequately studied, such as the effects of marijuana use during pregnancy and/or breastfeeding.  Despite the lack of reliable scientific studies on the impact of ingestion by children, some initial studies have shown a marked increase in frequency of accidental ingestions and resulting hospital treatment in states that have legalized marijuana.  The palatability and attractiveness of “edibles” is likely the cause of this measurable and dramatic increase. Overall, parental marijuana use has been inadequately studied by science, but some reliable data is available which could be used overhaul existing children’s services policies.

Prior student papers in this series:

• "The Canna(business) of Higher Education"
• "Marijuana Banking in New York and Around the US: 'Swim at Your Own Risk'"
• "Intellectual Property Survey: Cannabis Plant Types, Methods of Extraction, IP Protection, and One Patent That Could Ruin It All"
• "Marijuana in the Workplace: Distinguishing Between On-Duty and Off-Duty Consumption"
• "An Argument Against Regulating Cannabis Like Alcohol"
• "The State of Marijuana in The Buckeye State and Fiscal Policy Considerations of Legalized Recreational Marijuana"
• "Race Based Statutes at Play with Cannabis: Cultivating a Process for Weeding Out the Competition"
• "Tribal Cannabis: Balancing Tribal Sovereignty and Cooperative Enforcement"
• "Land of the Free, Home of the (Disgruntled) Brave: The Case for Allowing Veterans Access to Medical Marijuana"
• "Cannabidiol (CBD) in the Therapeutics Industry"
• "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Why IRC § 280E Is Not the Industry Killer It Is Portrayed to Be"
• "Achieving Diversity in the Marijuana Industry: Should States Implement Social Equity into Their Regimes?"
• "Cannabis Legalization: Dealing with the Black Market"
• "Pop Culture's Influence on Recreational Marijuana Use & Legislation: A Case Study on Snoop Dogg"
• "Going Green in American Professional Sports: Why Marijuana Usage Should Be Allowed and What Policy Changes Should Ensue"

"The Impact of Medical Marijuana Laws and Dispensaries on Self-Reported Health"

The title of this post is the title of this notable new article authored by Elena Andreyeva and Benjamin Ukert published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy. Here is its abstract:

Growing evidence suggests that medical marijuana laws have harm reduction effects across a variety of outcomes related to risky health behaviors.  This study investigates the impact of medical marijuana laws on self-reported health using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1993 to 2013.  In our analyses we separately identify the effect of a medical marijuana law and the impact of subsequent active and legally protected dispensaries.

Our main results show surprisingly limited improvements in self-reported health after the legalization of medical marijuana and legally protected dispensaries.  Subsample analyses reveal strong improvements in health among non-white individuals, those reporting chronic pain, and those with a high school degree, driven predominately by whether or not the state had active and legally protected dispensaries.  We also complement the analysis by evaluating the impact on risky health behaviors and find that the aforementioned demographic groups experience large reductions in alcohol consumption after the implementation of a medical marijuana law.