Overview National Strategy & Prevention A Short History of Drugs and Drug Laws Prop 215/ LA Dispensaries/ Pot Docs Countries w/ Permissive Drug Policies

Overview National Strategy & Prevention A Short History of Drugs and Drug Laws Prop 215/ LA Dispensaries/ Pot Docs Countries w/ Permissive Drug Policies Prop 19 The Drug War: A Success or Failure Prohibition Marijuana & Drug Trafficking Is Marijuana Harmful Is Marijuana Addictive Is Marijuana Medicine Effects on use Rates Public Safety Incarceration Employment and the Economy

The National Strategy

Interdiction and Enforcement…Stopping the supply of drugs

Treatment…Helping people who are already addicted

Prevention…Stopping the demand for drugs

Three National Programs

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)

The National Media Campaign The Drug Free Communities Program (DFC)

DDR Initiative Goals

Goal 1: Develop and strengthen collaboration between communities and law enforcement organizations, and among agencies and federal, state, local and tribal governments to support the efforts of community coalitions to prevent and reduce substance abuse among youth.

Goal 2: Reduce substance abuse among youth and, over time, among adults by addressing the factors that increase the risk of substance abuse and promoting the protective factors in a community.

Drug Demand Reduction Program

Prevention Strategy:Community Norm Change

1. Information Dissemination2. Training and Education3. Alternative Activities4. Early Intervention 20% 5. Access to Services 80%6. Systems Change7. Policy Change

Why is Community Norm Change so Important?

Because AttitudesDrive Behavior

Legalization of Marijuana: Independent Polls 2009

0 50 100

40%

46%

14%

Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen Reports

?

CBS

SUPPORT

RR

Zogby

C

CBS

Z

Zogby

41%

44%

7%

4%

52%

52%

Compilation of All Past Legalization Polls

Gallop, Rasmussen, CBS, Zogby, etc.1969 - 2009

Marijuana Usage Rates By Age

SAMHSA 2007

Trends in Acceptance: U.S. Population

•13 states have some form of decriminalization on the books

• 14 states permit medical use of marijuana

A Short History of Drugsand Why We Have Laws to Control Them

Short History of Drugs

Humans have used drugs of one sort or another for thousands of years.

Wine was used at least from the time of the early Egyptians; narcotics from 4000 B.C.


Chinese scholar-emperor Shen Nung, who lived in 2735 BC compiled a book about herbs, a forerunner of the medieval pharmacopoeias that listed all the then-known medications.

From this book we know that medicinal use of marijuana has been dated to 2737 BC in China.


A reversal of the traditional search for botanical drugs occurred in Greece in the fourth century BC, when Hippocrates (estimated dates, 460-377 BC), the "Father of Medicine," became interested in inorganic salts as medications.


Pre-Columbian Mexicans used many substances, from tobacco to mind-expanding (hallucinogenic) plants, in their medicinal collections.

The most fascinating of these substances are sacred mushrooms, used in religious ceremonies to induce altered states of mind, not simply drunkenness.


But not until the 19th cent. A.D. were the active substances in drugs extracted.

There followed a time when some of these newly discovered substances morphine, laudanum, cocaine were completely unregulated and prescribed freely by physicians for a wide variety of ailments.

Opium Wars1839–42 and 1856–60, two wars between China and Western countries. 1839–42 and 1856–60, two wars between China and Western countries.

These wars were the climax of disputes over trade and diplomatic relations These wars were the climax of disputes over trade and diplomatic relations between China under the and the British Empire. between China under the and the British Empire.

After the inauguration of the After the inauguration of the Canton System in 1756, which Canton System in 1756, which restricted trade to one port and restricted trade to one port and did not allow foreign entrance to did not allow foreign entrance to China, the British East India China, the British East India Company faced a trade imbalance Company faced a trade imbalance in favor of China and so invested in favor of China and so invested heavily in opium production to heavily in opium production to redress the balance.redress the balance.

1st Opium WarBritish merchants began smuggling opium into China from Bengal in order to balance British merchants began smuggling opium into China from Bengal in order to balance their purchases of tea for export to Britain. their purchases of tea for export to Britain.

In 1839, China enforced its prohibitions on the importation of opium by destroying at In 1839, China enforced its prohibitions on the importation of opium by destroying at Guangzhou (Canton) a large quantity of opium confiscated from British merchants. Guangzhou (Canton) a large quantity of opium confiscated from British merchants.

Great Britain, which had been looking to end China's restrictions on foreign trade, Great Britain, which had been looking to end China's restrictions on foreign trade, responded by sendingresponded by sendinggunboats to attack severalgunboats to attack severalChinese coastal cities. Chinese coastal cities.

1st Opium War cont.

China, unable to withstand modern China, unable to withstand modern arms, was defeated and forced to sign arms, was defeated and forced to sign the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the British Supplementary Treaty of the British Supplementary Treaty of the Bogue (1843). Bogue (1843).

These provided that the ports of These provided that the ports of Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai should be open to British and Shanghai should be open to British trade and residence; in addition Hong trade and residence; in addition Hong Kong was ceded to the British.Kong was ceded to the British.

2nd Opium War

A second war broke out following an allegedly illegal Chinese search of a British-registered ship, the Arrow, in Guangzhou.

British and French troops took Guangzhou and Tianjin and compelled the Chinese to accept the treaties of Tianjin (1858), to which France, Russia, and the United States were also party.

China agreed to open 11 more ports, permit foreign legations in Beijing, sanction Christian missionary activity, and legalize the import of opium.

2nd Opium War cont.

China's subsequent attempt to block the entry of diplomats into Beijing as well as Britain's determination to enforce the new treaty terms led to a renewal of the war in 1859.

This time the British and French occupied Beijing and burned the imperial summer palace (Yuan ming yuan).

This resulted in the Beijing conventions of 1860, by which China was forced to reaffirm the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin and make additional concessions, which concluded the hostilities.

The International Opium Convention

Signed at The Hague on January 23, 1912 during the , was the first international drug control treaty .

It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on January 23, 1922. The United States convened a 13-nation conference of the International Opium Commission in 1909 in Shanghai, China in response to increasing criticism of the opium trade.

The treaty was signed by Germany, the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Russia, and Siam.

Chinese ImmigrationLarge-scale immigration began in the mid 1800's due to the California Gold Rush.

"I work on four-mou land [less than one acre, a larger than average holding] year in and year out, from dawn to dusk, but after taxes and providing for your own needs, I make $20 a year. You make that much in one day. No matter how much it cost to get there, or how hard the work is, America is still better than this."-A Chinese farmer


The problems of addiction were recognized gradually.


Legal measures against drug abuse in the United States were first established in 1875, when opium dens were outlawed in San Francisco.

Opium in AmericaThe Medicine Shows

In late nineteenth-century America, physicians were scarce and poorly educated.

1883: J. B. Mattison (American doctor) suggested 30%-40% of American doctors were addicted

Many people placed their faith in patent medicines, pitched by traveling salesmen who never failed to entertain the crowds before offering cure-alls.

offering entertainment in order to attract customers for the patent medicines or purported cures proffered for sale. Use medicine show in a SentenceSee images of medicine showSearch medicine show on the Web

http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+medicine%20show+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993



http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=medicine%20show&o=102285

http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=medicine%20show&o=102285

http://ask.reference.com/web?q=medicine%20show&o=102284



Medicine Shows

Medicine shows flourished in the late 19th century, particularly in the Midwestern United States and the rural South. They had their origin in the patent medicine vendors who set up booths at local fairs

These shows featured music, comedy, juggling, and overblown rhetoric mixed with testimonials and stunts to demonstrate cures. Admission was free, with the performers making a living from the sale of cure-alls.

Medicine Shows

The magical tonics contained mostly alcohol with opium or cocaine added and an assortment of other ingredients.

The drugs ensured a quick feeling of wellness for customers buying the elixir for the first time, and provided the seller with possible customers who became addicted to the medicine. In essence, these were the first drug dealers.

A good comparison, however, the sellers probably had little knowledge or understanding of the addictive nature of the products they sold.

United States Historical Overview

Circa 1900

Between 2% and 5% of adults are addicted to drugs.

Morphine is the number one drug of addition


1906Do to a Nationwide Drug Problem

Congress Passesthe Pure Food and Drug Act

Creates the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)Stipulates certain drugs to be sold by prescription

Requires labeling of any medication containing opiates, cannabis or cocaine


1914Harrison Act

The first federal law to criminalize non-medical use of drugs

Applied to narcotic substances-not marijuana


1913-1927States begin passing marijuana prohibition laws

1913 California1915 Utah1915 Wyoming1919 Texas1923 Nevada1923 Oregon1923 Washington1923 Arkansas1927 Nebraska

Marijuana Tax Act

1937Federal Governments 1st attempt to specifically regulate

marijuana

Did not outlaw sales or possession outrightImposed registration and reporting requirements

Imposed the payment of taxes


Lifetime Use Rates1967: 5% of college students1969: 22% of adult and high school seniors1970: 43% of college students1971; 51% of college students reported lifetime use

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(Adopted 1961)

Is a United Nations international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under license for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research.

Earlier treaties had only controlled opium, coca, and derivatives such as morphine, heroin and cocaine. The Single Convention, adopted in 1961, consolidated those treaties and broadened their scope to include cannabis and drugs whose effects are similar to those of the drugs specified. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the World Health Organization were empowered to add, remove, and transfer drugs among the treaty's four Schedules of controlled substances.

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(continued)

Possession for personal use

It is unclear whether or not the treaty requires criminalization of drug possession for personal use. The treaty's language is ambiguous, and a ruling by the International Court of Justice would probably be required to settle the matter decisively. The Canadian Le

The Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Canada,1972 )report cites circumstantial evidence suggesting that states must prohibit possession for personal use.

It has generally been assumed that "possession" in Article 36 includes possession for use as well as possession for the purpose of trafficking. This is a reasonable inference from the terms of Article4, which obliges the parties "to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.“


1970Passage of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Act (CSA)

For the purpose of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute and fulfilling the 1961 UN Drug Convention.Created a closed regulatory system

Unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance unless authorized by

CSACreated a system of scheduling drugs Prohibited therapeutic use of marijuana as a medicine


1979Marijuana use peaked in 1979

30 million Americans smoked marijuana as compared to just a few hundred thousand users in the early 1960’s

U.S. Takes Action

President Carter appointed Lee Dogoloff as new drug policy advisorJoined by parents and others alarmed at the levels of drug use they took action

Strengthening anti-drug policiesHelps form National Federation of Parents for a Drug Free

YouthEducated policy makers and the community

Result: Past 30 day use ages 18 to 25 dropped from 36 % in Result: Past 30 day use ages 18 to 25 dropped from 36 % in 1979 to 11% in 19921979 to 11% in 1992

Supplementary Treaties

The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic SubstancesControls LSD, Ecstasy, and other psycoactive drugs

The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Adds additional enforcement mechanisms for fighting drug traffickers

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

In 1989, world leaders decided that children needed a special convention just for them because people under 18 years old often need special care and protection that adults do not.

The leaders also wanted to make sure that the world recognized that children have human rights too.

Article 3 of the CRC states that "in all actions concerning children… the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." Thus, policies affecting children at all levels of society and government should have the child's best interest as the primary concern.

Article 33 protects children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.

Prop 215, Marijuana Dispensariesand the Pot Docs

Dennis Peron, Activist / Oakland Cannabis Club / Co-Author of Prop 215

Source: Medical Marijuana: A Smoke Screen, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.

“Essentially, you are only going to get these people to agree about marijuana as medicine. (Yes.) But

if you think about marijuana and how do

we use it, why we use it, it is a medicinal reason.”

“Build a coalition of senior citizens, housewives and

professionals and doctors and lawyers and nurses. (Ummm Hmm?)

You know politics is illusions.

(Right, shadows on the walls.).”

“Its pictures, its photos, it a A.P. wire. (Right) and uhh. So I have c… not created an illusion, but

I’ve articulated what marijuana… I’ve

changed the face from a long-haired hippie, to Hazel Rogers. (Uh,

huh.)”

“Kind of like a… kind of like a fantasy story that I can do something during

the war on drugs like that. Do it for three and a half years, and uhhh,

get away with it.” (LAUGHTER)

Ed Rosenthal, Convicted, 01/29/2003 Drug Trafficking

Source: Medical Marijuana: A Smoke Screen, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.

“You know uhh, this talk about medical marijuana.

I have to tell you that I also use marijuana medically.”

“I have a latent glaucoma, which has never been diagnosed. And the

reason…

the reason it has never been diagnosed is that I have been treating it.”

“I have to be honest, there is another reason why umm I do use marijuana, only in foreign countries, outside the three mile limit and all that, but there is a reason

why uhh I do use it….”

“And that is because…

I LIKE TO GET HIGH!”

Medical Marijuana StatutesMedical Marijuana Statutes

Compassionate Use Compassionate Use Act of 1996Act of 1996

AKA- Proposition AKA- Proposition 215215

Voter enactedVoter enacted

Codified in Codified in H.S. § 11362.5H.S. § 11362.5

Hereinafter the Hereinafter the ““CUACUA””

Medical Marijuana Medical Marijuana Program of 2003Program of 2003

AKA - SB 420AKA - SB 420

Enacted by the Enacted by the California LegislatureCalifornia Legislature

Codified in Codified in H.S. § H.S. § 11362.7 et seq.11362.7 et seq.

Hereinafter, the Hereinafter, the ““MMPMMP””

PURPOSE OF CUA/MMP

• Help Seriously Ill

• Decriminalized Activity:– Cultivation (Individual / Group)– Use (Individual)– Furnishing (Primary Care Giver Only)

• Accessible

Purpose of MMP

MMP ID Card ProgramMMP ID Card Program– Issued by County Health DepartmentsIssued by County Health Departments– Quantity LimitsQuantity Limits

MMP ID Cardholder MMP ID Cardholder ArrestArrest Immunity Immunity

Individual Affirmative DefensesIndividual Affirmative Defenses

Group Cultivation Affirmative Group Cultivation Affirmative DefenseDefense– Combine Resources to CultivateCombine Resources to Cultivate

WALL STREET JOURNAL

• 100 Dispensaries

– 20 mile stretch of Ventura Boulevard

– 1 dispensary every ¼ mile!

Wall Street Journal: September 2009

L.A. City Council:

• "This is not about creating the Starbucks of marijuana sales. It's about creating access for people who really need it…”

– Ed Reyes, Councilman, City of Los Angeles

National Law Journal, Nov. 2009

STARBUCKS IN L.A. COUNTY (2009)

-840

POT SHOPS IN L.A. COUNTY (2009)

-966Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2009

1996

MARIJUANA DISPENSARYTIMELINE

2003

California Voters Pass

Compassionate Use Act (CUA)

California Legislature Passes

Medical Marijuana Program (MMP)

No Known Dispensaries

2004


2008

People v. UrziceanuSuggests CooperativesCan Be Reimbursed

July:City of

Los Angeles Declares a Moratorium w/ Loophole

4 Known Dispensaries

2005 2006 2007

August:CA Attorney

GeneralGuidelines

Issued



February 25, 2009


June 24, 2009

United StatesAttorney General

Implies DEAWill Not Pursue

Dispensaries

City of Los Angeles

Closes Loophole

481

New Dispensary Applications

January 2010


June 7, 2010

City Of Los Angeles Adopted

Ordinance No. 181069 ToRegulate Dispensaries

Ordinance BecameActive

187 Max

Dispensaries Allowed

Between 200To 350

ILLEGAL

DISPENSARIES IN CALIFORNIA ARE:

Sales of Marijuana are NOT Authorized under California Law

Legal Question

• Can Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Collectives or Cooperatives):

– SELL marijuana over the counter?

CUA• Section 11362.5 (d) provides:

– limited affirmative defenses – to marijuana patients and their primary caregivers

– who “Possess or Cultivate” marijuana.

Prop. 215 Ballot Pamphlet

• PROPONENTS OF 215 SAID:

– The proposition “only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient’s personal use.”

– “Police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.”

CA Attorney General MMJ Guidelines

• Pg C. 1.Storefront Dispensaries: Although medical

marijuana “dispensaries” have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not recognized under the law.

Agreements

• CUA drafters• Attorney General’s Office• Proponents of medical marijuana• Law Enforcement

– The CUA does not authorize sales.

Why So Many?

• Confusion at Inception

• Complacent during Growth

• Fearful when Scrutinizing

PRACTICAL vs. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Dispensary Operators

• Prior illegal selling (veiled legitimacy)• Links to other dispensaries• Links to criminal street gangs• Links to organized crime• Migration to California

SQUARE PEG IN ROUND HOLE

•PRIMARY CARE GIVER•Form Used PRIOR to Mentch Decision

•COLLECTIVE•Form Used AFTER Mentch Decision

•DEFINITION OF CULTIVATE•Means MORE than Cultivation: Sales

Dispensary Patrons

• 98% to 98.5%: – Soft Tissue

• 70%:– Under age of 40

• Fridays at 2:00 PM – Sundays at noon:– Primary foot traffic

Dispensary Operations

• Commercial Enterprise

• Cash Business and Tax Evasion

• Marketing• Black Market Prices

INDICAS G 1/ 8 1/ 4 1/ 2 SATIVAS G 1/ 8 1/ 4 1/ 2A.C.C. OG 20 65 130 n/ a SKYWALKER 20 65 130 n/ aJ uicy Fruit 20 60 120 230 Sour D 20 55 110 210

Hindu Ku$h 20 60 120 230 Maui Wowie 20 55 110 210Sour OG 20 60 120 230 GOO 20 55 110 210

Chem Dawg 20 60 120 230 Hawaiian Haze 20 55 110 210Platinum Bubba 20 60 120 230 Headband 20 55 110 210

Purple Erkle 20 60 120 230 Snow Wreck 20 55 110 210Butter OG 20 60 120 230 Train Wreck 20 55 110 210

Bananna Kush 20 55 110 210 Super Snow Cap 20 55 110 210G.D.P. 20 55 110 220 White Haze 18 50 100 190

Afgoo 20 55 110 210 Day Train 18 50 100 190Grape 20 55 110 210 Green Peace 15 45 90 170

Purple Kush 20 55 110 210 Orange Crush 15 45 90 170Grape Ape 18 50 100 190 Northern Lights 15 45 90 170

Afgani 18 50 100 190 TNT 15 45 90 170L.A. Confidential 18 50 100 190 L.A. Outdoor 15 40 80 150

Ogre O.G. 18 50 100 190

Shiskaberry 15 45 90 170 CONCENTRATES G G 1/ 2HYBRIDS Hash Oil 30Blue Cheese 20 60 120 230 Honey Bud 30Blue Dream 20 60 120 230 G.D.P. F.M. 30Rainbow Ku$h 20 55 110 210 Super Sour F.M. 30Lambread 20 55 110 210 Maui Wowie F.M. 30Mango 20 55 110 210 AOTA Hash 30Strawberry Cough 20 55 110 210 Master Kush Bubble Hash 30

AK-47 20 55 110 210 Marble Hash 28Lion Wreck 20 55 110 210 Moroccan Hash 20

Sugar Shack 18 50 100 190 Amberglass 20Purple Diesel 18 50 100 190 Crushed Honey Bud 30Purple Maui 18 50 100 190 GD Pre Loaded Pipe 20

Holiday Gift Box $55

RED VELVET CUPCAKES 10

Set conists of 7(.5grams)

Skywalker, S.F.V Ku$h, Ogre OG, Chem DogGreen Peace, and Green Crack

Community

• Crime Rates• Locations:

– Next to libraries, day cares, half-way houses, schools, places of worship

• Advertising: – Flyers, Freebies, Minors

• Proliferation

Courtroom

• Indifference– Judges and Jurors

• Failure– Seriously Ill– Courtroom Losses

• Confusion– Judges, Prosecutors, Defense, Public

• Inconsistent Results

DOCTORS

• Cottage Industry

• Money Making Machines

• Irresponsible

• No Oversight

• Immunity!

DAY DATE NO. COST TOTAL

TUE 10/05/04 39 $150 $5,850

WED 10/06/04 29 $150 $4,350

THU 10/07/04 43 $150 $6,450

FRI 10/08/04 55 $150 $8,250

SAT 10/09/04 56 $150 $8,400

SUN 10/10/04 22 $150 $3,300

MON 10/11/04 49 $150 $7,350

7 days

293 $43,950

$175,000 per month$175,000 per month

$2.1 million per year$2.1 million per year

Number of Patients a “Pot Doctor” Can See

RECENT TRENDS

Pot

Delivery

Services

EDIBLE MANUFACTURING

• No FDA Oversight

• No State or Local Heath Dept. Oversight

• No Quality Controls:• How it was made• Where it was made• Who it was made by• What it was made with

The Result

Countries with Permissive Drug Policies

Gray Debate - Portugal

Crime would be greatly reduced if we legalized marijuana. For this, please focus upon the results in Portugal, where they decriminalized the use of all drugs back in 2001. Mr. Glenn Greenwald of the CATO Institute published a report about the results just a few months ago, and he reported that when this occurred, overall drug usage became slightly lower, but problem drug usage was reduced by about half!


The reason behind this was twofold. First, under the prior criminal system, drug addicted people legitimately feared their own government, so they were highly unlikely to bring their problems to the government. But now that people would only receive an administrative citation for the use or possession of drugs, which would require them to appear before a medical staff to discuss their drug usage (and this staff was not at all connected to the criminal justice system), the drug addicted people were now willing to enter treatment programs is much, much greater numbers.


Second, now that the government was no longer spending such large amounts of money on the investigation, prosecution, and incarceration of drug-addicted people, they had much more money to use for drug treatment. So those treatment programs were funded. This is seen as a truly effective program, and is one we should not only study, we should emulate.

Decriminalization of Drugs

Portugal

Portugal…

•July 2001: law takes effect that decriminalizes every single drug, provided that it is for personal use only.

•Persons will never be criminally charged for any of it, unless they possess quantity exceeding an estimated 10 day supply.

Portugal…

Cato Institute - Washington think-tank committed to libertarianism that has been a long-time advocate of drug legalization sent Mr. Glenn Greenwald an American lawyer and writer, fluent in Portuguese, to come to Portugal

Mission: develop a study concerning the results of the Portuguese drug decriminalization policy.

Portugal…

A lesson to the world. A model worth being replicated.

Reported by: TIME Magazine which had a record number of viewing hits that day. Also reported by The Moderate Voice, The Kansas City Star, the Pittsburgh Tribune-

Review, The Examiner and Scientific American,

Glenn Greenwald’s Conclusion

–“–“The total number of The total number of drug-related drug-related deathsdeaths has actually has actually decreased decreased from from the pre-decriminalization year of 1999 (when the total was close to 400) to the pre-decriminalization year of 1999 (when the total was close to 400) to 2006 (when the total was 290)”.2006 (when the total was 290)”.

And regarding And regarding consumptionconsumption, it gives the general notion of decreasing , it gives the general notion of decreasing tendencies affirming that:tendencies affirming that:

-“-“Prevalence ratesPrevalence rates for the 15 to 19 age group for the 15 to 19 age group have actually have actually decreaseddecreased in absolute terms since decriminalization.” in absolute terms since decriminalization.”

-“Most significantly, the number of newly reported -“Most significantly, the number of newly reported cases of cases of HIV HIV and AIDSand AIDS among drug addicts has declined among drug addicts has declined substantially every year since substantially every year since 2001.”2001.”

Portugal…

The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not decrease levels of consumption.

•Consumption of drugs in Portugal increased 4.2%

Portugal…

The percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008).

Portugal…

Cocaine Consumption: “the latest data (surveys from 2005-2007) confirms the increasing trend during the last year in France, Ireland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal” (EMCDDA 2008).

Portugal…

While rates of use of cocaine and amphetamine doubled in Portugal, seizures of cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, the sixth highest in the world (WDR-World Drug Report, 2009).

Portugal…Report mainly focus on an age span population comprised between 13 and Report mainly focus on an age span population comprised between 13 and 19 years old.19 years old.

Only a brief reference is made to the adjacent 20 to 24 age group, that Only a brief reference is made to the adjacent 20 to 24 age group, that already doesn’t show any mild decrease, but rather a boosted 50% increase.already doesn’t show any mild decrease, but rather a boosted 50% increase.

+50%

+50%+50%

Portugal…

•In Portugal, since decriminalization has been implemented, the number of homicides related to drugs has increased 40%.

•“It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006″ (WDR, 2009).

Portugal…

So much for Portugal

Gray Debate - Holland

And if we followed the experience of Holland, where all drugs were decriminalized several decades ago, after 6 to 12 to maybe 18 months, probably usage would decrease as well.

The Minister of Health of Holland held a news conference numbers of years ago and said that their country, where anyone 16 years of age or older can go to a coffee house and get marijuana, they only have half the marijuana usage per capita as we do in the United States -- even for teenagers!! And then he went on to explain why by saying that "We have succeeded in making pot boring." Of course, we glamorize it in our country by having it illegal, and by having an incredible profit margin to sell it to us, our neighbors and our children.

We must learn from Holland's experience. This is more fully discussed in my book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed." Holland does have one problem, however, that they do not know what to do about, and that problem is that a full third of the people who use and abuse drugs in their country are foreigners. I have no suggestions, but obviously since we are so much larger, we wouldn't be as likely to have the problem.


The Netherlands

Dutch Drug Policy

19761976The Dutch government made a big decision in changing their Opiumwet (Druglaws), by separating drugs in two major classes, hard drugs and soft drugs.

Heroin, Cocaine, XTC and Amphetamines, chemical drugs with unacceptable hazards for national health, were and are considered "Hard drugs".

Cannabis products like hash and marihuana, natural products, without chemical addition, were and are considered "Soft drugs".

Coffee Shops

In the Netherlands, the selling of cannabis is "illegal, but not punishable", so the law is not enforced in establishments following these nationwide rules:

• no advertising • no hard drug sales on the premises • no sales to anyone under the age of 18 • no sales transactions exceeding 5 grams • no public disturbances • no sales to anyone under 18 years of age

Are the Dutch More Likely to Use Cannabis?

Three features of the rankings are noteworthy• US rate exceeds the Dutch rate, but they are fairly close• Both the US and the Netherlands rank high relative to most other nations • Many European countries have rates of student marijuana use that either match or exceed the Dutch rate

Are Dutch youth more likely to try cannabis

Dutch students do indeed rank higher for lifetime prevalence of cannabis thanfor tobacco use, getting drunk, or use of other illicit drugs.

Are the Dutch More Likely to Escalate Their Cannabis Use?

Netherlands European Average USAFrequency of lifetime use of cannabis

10-19 occasions 4 2 320-39 occasions 2 1 340+ occasions 7 3 8

The Dutch youth are somewhat more likely to have used frequently, and they are somewhat more likely to start using early (before age 13), compared to their European neighbors

THE COMMERCIALIZATION HYPOTHESIS

In the 1984 to 1996 period, which we characterize as a progression fromdepenalization to de facto legalization, these surveys reveal that the lifetimeprevalence of cannabis in Holland has increased consistently and sharply.

For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15% in 1984 to 44% in 1996; past month prevalence for the same group rose from 8.5% to 18.5%...

Coffee Shop Reality

Enforcement of these rules didn't have real teeth until 1997, when officials began closing coffee shops for non-compliance.

Between 1997 and 2007, the number of retail cannabis outlets dropped 40 percent, from 1,179 to 702

Dutch Policy Change

A March 19, 2005 article in the Observer noted that the number of Dutch cannabis coffee shops had dropped from 1,500 to 750 over the previous five years.

The "no-growth" policies of many Dutch cities affect new licensing. This policy slowly reduces the number of coffee shops, since no one can open a new one after a closure.


The United Kingdom

Cannabis classification in the United Kingdom

Between 1928 and 2004 it was classified as a Between 1928 and 2004 it was classified as a class B drug.class B drug.

In Jan 2004 cannabis was transferred from class B of the Act to class C, removing the threat of arrest for possession.

On 26 January 2009, cannabis was reclassified as a class B drug

The Independent Sunday, 18 march 2007

Cannabis: An Apology

In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today…only we had known then what we can reveal today…

Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunksmoking skunk

More the 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction – and More the 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction – and almost half of those affected were under 18almost half of those affected were under 18

With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychsis for thousands of teenager,

The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.

Proposition 19

Prop 19 The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis act of

2010.

It is important to know that prop 19 would have done none of

what it’s title claimed. It was a very poorly written initiative pushing a very bad concept.

Who wrote Prop 19

Richard LeeOwner: Oaksterdam University,

The Bulldog Coffee Shop

Prop 19would not do what it’s title claimed

•Would not regulate marijuana: did not establish a CA FDA•Would not establish a Marijuana Control Board•Would not provide any mechanism for the State to tax marijuana

Prop 19What it Would Not Do

•Would not solve the gang or cartel problem•Would not control marijuana and keep it out of the hands of youth

Prop 19What it Would Do

•Legalize one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption

•Allow each of the 478 cities and 58 counties to regulate and tax the sale transportation and growing of Marijuana (Actually deregulate)

•Increase Youth Use

Richard Lee’s investment

$1.6 million dollars

Prop 19What it Would Do

•Would have increased youth use•Would have put business in jeopardy with drug free workplace •Could have cost the state billions of dollars (Federal contracts and education monies)•Would have put a burden on the public health system•Would have put the state in direct conflict with federal law

Conflict with Federal Law

Supremacy ClauseU.S. Constitution

Article VI, Section 1,Clause 2Asserts and establishes federal laws made

in pursuance of the Constitution and treaties made by the United States with

foreign nations shall be the “Supreme Law of the Land”

Supremacy Clause

Everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law.

A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute

Federal Statements

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. stated, “We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state Law”.

U.S. Dir. of ONDCP Gil Kerlikowske stated, “all options are open to the federal government”.

Conflict with Federal LawThe Options

Take California to CourtWithhold Federal DollarsUse the Powers of Arrest

Proposition 19 ResultsDefeated

Vote tally: (as of November 16, 2010)No votes: 5,061,119Yes votes: 4,366,381 Difference: 694,738 (No votes)

Public Opinion Towards Marijuana Legalization:

History and Current State

Heinz College Policy Modeling Class presentation prepared for Professor Jon Caulkins by: Ngiste Abebe, Carolyn Coulson, Juli Digate, Rebecca Erwin, Christina Farber, Nick

Shahverdi, Inyoung Song, Joe Vesely, and Greg Zavacky – edited by Jon Caulkins and Kevin Sabet

122

Outline

• History and trends in legalization support• Proposition 19• Could a vote for legalization pass?

123

Trends in support of legalization correlate with perceived risk of use

124

Trends in legalization also mirror trends in marijuana-related arrests

125

Percentage Favoring Legalization

Prop 19 is not the only ballot initiative to receive more than 39% support

Perc

enta

ge F

avor

ing

Lega

lizati

on

126

Reasons why people oppose legalization from op-eds

127

Reasons why people support legalization from op-eds

128

Rationales for and against Prop 19

129

Yes on Proposition 19 by demographic

130

Yes on Proposition 19 by age

131

Yes on Proposition 19 by gender

132

Yes on Proposition 19 by income

133

Yes on Proposition 19 by party and political ideology

134

1 in 11 of those who voted ‘No’ agree that MJ should be legalized but did

not like the specifics of Prop 19

135

Dynamics for future legalization efforts

• Quality of legislation • Marijuana testing capabilities• Federal policy• State vs. national trends• Voter demographics

136

Has the War on Drugs Failed or Are We Better Off?

Has the War on Drugs Failed or Are We Better Off?

• We are better off• - 1978 was the peak of drug use – we

have since then reduced drug use by 50% - we cut consumption in half.

• - From a Public Health standpoint, no other disease has been reduced by 50% in the last 20 years: diabetes, cancer, obesity, HIV.

Illicit Drug Use Trends 1974-1998

Sweden

• We need to look at Sweden’s balanced approach to drug use issues:

• - they invest in their youth through prevention programs

• - they provide support for the addicted through treatment and recovery services

• - they take their law enforcement of drug use and dealing seriously

• This is a model we should strive to achieve rather than throw the baby out with the bath water and go to full legalization.

Sweden

In February 2007 the UN Office on Drugs and Crime released a study entitled: Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence. [FN1] The Swedish drug control policy has been guided by the goal of achieving a drug-free society and the unequivocal rejection of drugs and their trafficking. The report noted that: "The clear association between a restrictive drug policy and low levels of drug use is striking."

In 1969, the Government of Sweden approved a ten-point program for increasing public efforts against the drug problem. The ten-point program was heavy on law enforcement measures but also covers demand reduction issues, in particular, the provision of treatment services to addicts and the prevention of drug abuse.

Sweden has the lowest drug use rate in Europe.

Prohibition

Prohibition

THE CLAIM• Ending Drug Prohibition will:• Eliminate drug cartels, DTO’s as it eliminated

organized crime• Eliminate drug profits as it did when we

ended Alcohol Prohibition.• Reduce Drug Use• Eliminate the black market• Give Citizens the opportunity to have a safer

recreational alternative to Alcohol

Alcohol Use Trends 1850-1997

Prohibition HistoryLast Call

America had been awash in drink from the start – wading in it, swimming in it, at times drowning in it

In 1839 an English traveler Frederik Marryat marveled at the role liquor played in American life and wrote in A Diary in America:


I am sure the Americans can fix nothing without a drink. If you meet, you drink; if you part, you drink; if you make acquaintance, you drink: if you close a bargain, you drink; they quarrel in their drink and they make it up with a drink.


They drink because it is hot; they drink because it is cold. If successful in elections, they drink and rejoice; if not, they drink and swear; they begin to drink early in the morning, they leave off late at night; they commence it early in life, and they continue it, until they soon drop into the grave.


Benjamin Franklin first compiled a list of terms for “Drunk,” in 1722 and came up with 228 examples including

• Juicy• Thawed• Had a thump over the head with

Sampson’s jawbone


By 1810 the number of distilleries in our young nation had increased fivefold to more than 14,000


By 1830 American adults were guzzling, per capita, a staggering seven gallons of per alcohol a year

1.7 bottles of a standard 80-proof liquor per person per week

Nearly 90 bottles a year for every adult in the nation


By 1830 Harvard literature professor George Ticknor told Thomas Jefferson that if the consumption of liquor continued at its current rat, “we will be hardly better than a nation of Sots.”


1840Six habitual drinkers pledged their commitment

to total abstinence starting the Washingtonian movement

They asked other habitual drinkers to sign a pledge of abstinence.


By 1840 one of the most devoted adherents to the work was Phineas Taylor Barnum

They had changed many lives, through their mission of peach and love. We also saw that large numbers who were saved by these means fell back again to a lower position than ever, because the tempter was permitted to live and throw out his seductive toils Our watch word now was, Prohibition!

Prohibition

THE REALITYLegalization will not eliminate drug profits. It will simply shift them out of the pockets of traffickers and into the hands of legitimate businesses. Once this happens then it will be in the economic interest of businesses to promote their products and to package them in attractive ways.

People may claim that the government can regulate this but how well has that worked with alcohol and tobacco? Once drugs are "legal" then drug sellers can hire lawyers and lobbyists and make donations to political campaigns to further their cause. They will pursue their marketing opportunities and will seek to reduce government regulation.

Prohibition

THE CLAIMThe claims are that the US experiment with alcohol prohibition proves that problems result when a government attempts to make a popular substance illegal. The legalizers claim that there were increases in organized criminal organizations who sold alcohol illegally. The legalizers claim that it is better to legalize, tax and regulate drugs than to make them illegal.

A look at the history of Prohibition shows that this argument is deeply flawed for two reasons:

1. The circumstances surrounding Prohibition are so different than those of today that it is not helpful in analyzing present-day policy;

2. Prohibition was successful and did not create all the negative consequences that the legalizers claim it did.

David Teasley, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service of the US Library of Congress, did an in-depth analysis entitled, "Drug legalization and the Lessons of Prohibition." Teasley concluded that:

Prohibition

A comprehensive analogy between Prohibition and the modern drug problem is problematic in at least two major ways. First between the two eras there are significant differences that tend to undermine the pro-legalization analogy. Second, many arguments of the pro-legalizers are weakened by their reliance upon a widely held set of popular beliefs about Prohibition rather than upon historical evidence. Such attempts to create this analogy based upon these popular beliefs about Prohibition serve only to confuse the debate over legalization of illicit drugs.What differences exist between the time of Prohibition and now?

Prohibition

(1) During prohibition the government sought to restrict the consumption of alcohol although lacking the consensus of the nation. Even during Prohibition most people had experience with and accepted alcohol. That is not the same today for illicit drugs. Prohibition went against the national consensus whereas the current drug policies do not.

Prohibition

(2) Prohibition laws were different than illicit drugs laws today. During Prohibition it was only illegal to sell alcohol and not to drink it. Today, it is both illegal to sell and to possess and use illicit drugs. Today’s laws can be used to target the users while those of Prohibition could not.

Prohibition

(3) Criminal penalties for illicit drug use are more severe today than in the 1920's so there is a more potent deterrent effect.

Prohibition

(4) During Prohibition the US was "dry" while the international community was "wet" and thus the US was at odds with the international community (much alcohol was imported from Canada). However, today the international community is resolute when it comes to drug policy as witnessed by three U.N. conventions on the use of illegal drugs.

Prohibition

(5) During Prohibition the structure of the government agencies designed to carry out the Prohibition laws was unstable, narrow and filled with political appointees. Today the U.S. national drug strategy involves over a dozen federal agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The government bodies that enforce our drug policies are much larger, with better resources, and are much more professional than their Prohibition counterparts.

Prohibition

We cannot analogize the history of Prohibition with today’s drug policies because there is not that much in common. Prohibition was on balance a successful policy for the following reasons:

There is no doubt that prohibition curbed alcohol abuse as its use declined by over 50 percent. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Suicide rates decreased 50 percent and the incidence of alcohol-related arrests also declined 50 percent.

We cannot legitimately compare Prohibition with our current efforts to control drugs because there are too many differences in the laws, the political establishment, the moral consensus, and the international community.

Marijuana and Drug Trafficking

Prop 19 & Drug TraffickingRAND Study

• Mexican DTOs’ gross revenues from moving marijuana across the border into the United States and selling it to wholesalers is likely less than $2 billion, and our preferred estimate is closer to $1.5 billion.

• California accounts for about one-seventh of U.S. marijuana consumption

• If California were to legalize marijuana affecting revenues from supplying marijuana to California, DTO export revenue losses would be very small, on the order of 2–4 percent

Prop 19 & Drug TraffickingRAND Study cont.

• There is no quick, politically feasible fix to reducing the DTO violence in Mexico. As a number of other researchers have noted, there are fundamental issues related to the justice system that need to be addressed before anyone can expect significant improvements in the security situation in Mexico

Is Marijuana Harmful?

Acute Effects of Marijuana – During Intoxication (1)

• Euphoria • Calmness• Appetite stimulation• Altered perception of time• Impairs coordination and balance• Acute psychosis; Panic (anxiety)• Increases heart rate: 20 - 100%

– Some evidence for increased risk of heart attack, may be exacerbated in vulnerable individuals (e.g., baby boomers)

• Impaired Driving– Increased risk of accidents– Increased culpability

1. Hall W & Degenhard L (2009). Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet, 374:1383-1391.

Acute Effects of Marijuana – During Intoxication

• Cognitive Dysfunction (1)– Impaired short-term memory

• Difficulty with complex tasks• Difficulty learning

– Impaired decision-making• Increased risky sexual behavior – HIV

• Increased Risk of Injuries (2)– 30% higher according to one Kaiser study – Increased risk of hospitalized injury from all causes: self-inflicted, motor

vehicle, assaults– Individuals admitted into hospitals with marijuana abuse/dependence as

their primary diagnosis have median lengths of stay that are twice to three times longer than those experienced by patients admitted for alcohol, cocaine or heroin and therefore result in higher average charges

1. NIDA, Research Report Series: Cannabis Abuse, 2010 & Hall W & Degenhard L (2009). Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet, 374:1383-1391..

2. Polen, M.R; Sidney, S.; Tekawa, I.S.; Sadler. M.; and Friedman, G.D. Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158:596-601, 1993.

Pacula RL, Ringel J, Dobkins C, and K Truong, "The Incremental Health Services Cost Associated with Marijuana Use," Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 92:248-257, 2008.

Emergency Department Marijuana Mentions

In 2008, there were >370,000 ED visits with Marijuana mentions

Source: SAMHSA, Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2008.

Long-Term Effects of Marijuana

•Cognitive Impairment (1)– Deficits in learning, memory, attention, executive function– Greater impulsivity, less cognitive flexibility– Reversible with prolonged abstinence

•Negative Impact on Educational Outcomes (2)– Greater drop out rates– General dissatisfaction with life achievement, mental health, social

relationships

1. Solowij, N., et al. (2002). Cognitive functioning of long-term heavy cannabis users seeking treatment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1123-1131. and Schweinsburg AD, Brown, SA, & Tapert, SF (2008). The influence of cannabis use on neurocognitive functioning in adolescents. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 1:99-111.

2. Macleod, J.; Oakes, R.; Copello, A.; Crome, I.; Egger, M.; Hickman, M.; Oppenkowski, T.; Stokes-Lampard, H.; and Davey Smith, G. Psychological and social sequelae of cannabis and other illicit drug use by young people: A systematic review of longitudinal, general population studies. Lancet 363(9421):1579-1588, 2004.

Long-Term Effects of Marijuana• Brain Effects (1)

– Structural abnormalities have not been consistently identified. – But chronic users show consistent alterations in brain activation of

higher cognitive networks. – Emerging preliminary evidence suggests that heavy cannabis use

during adolescence may affect normal brain development.

• Respiratory system (2)– Increases cough, phlegm production, and wheezing. – Increased bronchitis, worsening of asthma symptoms or cystic fibrosis

symptoms– No increase in emphysema– Conflicting evidence for lung/upper airway cancer

1. Giedd. J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences, 1021, 77-85. and Hall W & Degenhard L (2009). Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet, 374:1383-1391.

2. Tetrault, J.M., et al. Effects of cannabis smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 167, 221-228 (2007).

Tashkin, DP (2005). Smoked cannabis as a cause of lung injury. Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease, 63(2):93-100. NIDA, Research Report Series: Cannabis Abuse, 2010. Hall W & Degenhard L (2009). Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet, 374:1383-1391.

Long-Term Effects of Marijuana• Mental illness

– Population studies have found evidence of an association between cannabis use and increased risk of schizophrenia (and/or psychotic symptoms), and to a lesser extent, depression, anxiety, and suicidal behavior/ideation. (1)

1. McGrath, et al. (2010). Association between cannabis use and psychosis-related outcomes using sibling pair analysis in a cohort of young adults. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(5):440-447.

Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S. and Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Large, M., Sharma S, Compton M., Slade, T. & O., N. (2011). Cannabis use and earlier onset of psychosis: a systematic meta-analysis. Archives of General Psychiatry. 68. Also see Arseneault L, et al. (2002). Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study. British Medical Journal. 325, 1212-1213.

Long Term Effects of MarijuanaAddiction: About 9% of users may become dependent, 1 in 6

who start use in adolescence, 25-50% of daily users

32

15

9

17

118

5

23

05

101520253035

Source: Wagner, F.A. & Anthony, J.C. From first drug use to drug dependence; developmental periods of risk for dependence upon cannabis, cocaine, and alcohol. Neuropsychopharmacology 26, 479-488 (2002).

Estimated Prevalence of Dependence Among Users

* *

Dependence on or Abuse of Specific Illicit Drugs in the Past Year Among Persons 12 or Older, 2008

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2009). Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS): 2009 Discharges from Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS.

Increased Marijuana Treatment Admissions 1993 and 2007

Source: Treatment Episode Data Set, US Health and Human Services, 1993 & 2007.

Treatment Admissions by Drug, 2007

Source: Treatment Episode Data Set, US Health and Human Services, 1993 & 2007.

Average Potency: Increased THC Content in Seized Marijuana, 1983-2009

Potency Range: 4% to 27%

Sources: The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project

Year

What Does Increased Potency Mean?

• Potential for greater exposure, more adverse health effects, higher rates of addiction

• ER visits involving marijuana have been going up

Dependence rates increased between 1992-2002 in specific subgroups (1)

1. Compton, W., Grant, B., Colliver, J., Glantz, M., Stinson, F. Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorders in the United States: 1991-1992 and 2001-2002 Journal of the American Medical Association.. 291:2114-2121.

Is Marijuana Medicine?

Is Marijuana Medicine?

• Whole plant is not medicine• Some constituents, and their synthetics, are:

– Never smoked– Dronabinol (Marinol ®) is synthetic THC delivered

by pill (Schedule III)– Nabilone (Cesamet ®) mimics synthetic THC, also

delivered by pill (Schedule II)

• Other medications in development currently– Today, over 100 DEA-licensed researchers to

research marijuana and its constituents

Bypassing the FDA Process

Before FDA approves a drug as medicine, testing is done to:

Determine the benefits and risks of the drug Determine how it may interact with other

drugs Assure standardization of the drug Determine the appropriate dosage levels Identify and monitor side effects Identify the safe means of administering the

drug

“Medical” Marijuana

The IOM Report (ONDCP commissioned in 1999)• Constituents of the marijuana plant show

promise for treating pain, nausea, wasting

• It is justified to conduct research into marijuana’s active ingredients for conditions or diseases such as pain and nausea, as well as on non-smoked delivery systems

• “..(t)here is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.”

Cannabinoid-based FDA Approved Drugs

• Sativex is in the process of being studied • Approved in Canada and throughout Europe • Administered via an oral spray

Research on the efficacy of cannabinioids is not focused on raw/crude marijuana, but in the individual components that may have medical use

Effects on Use Rates

Consequences of Legalizing Marijuana

• 8 out of 10 states with the highest percentage of those aged 12-25 who used Marijuana in the past 30 days were in states that allowed the cultivation and the sale of marijuana for “medicinal” purposes.

• Such states are also the majority of states in the top ten for first time marijuana use rates.

• Decreases of perception of harm.

Changes in Attitude Lead to Changes in Use

Marijuana Use and Perceived Risk among 12th Graders, 1975 to 2009

Source: The Monitoring the Future study, the University of Michigan

Consequences of Legalizing Marijuana

•The younger youth begin to use marijuana, the more likely they are to be addicted to marijuana or other substances later in life.

•Increased crime in states with “medicinal” marijuana laws, especially in states with dispensaries.

• Increases in drugged driving rates.

Public Safety

Are There Public Safety Issues with Marijuana

• Marijuana is directly linked to impaired driving.• Drivers who test positive for marijuana or self-report

using marijuana are more than twice as likely as other drivers to be involved in motor vehicle crashes.

• Three decades of education on drunk driving and tough laws have had the direct effect of reducing alcohol-related car crashes dramatically in the last thirty years.

Public Safety Continued

• A recent survey by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that 1 in 12 tested positive for marijuana.

• Published research finds that marijuana impairs motor coordination, reaction time, attentiveness, and perception of time and speed.

Public Safety Continued

• In a study of seriously injured drivers admitted to a Level-1 shock trauma center, more than a quarter of all drivers tested positive for marijuana.

• New Zealand found that habitual marijuana users were 9.5 times more likely to be involved in crashes

Incarceration

Do our Drug Laws Incarcerate People Needlessly?

People are not in prison or jail on the state or federal level for simply smoking marijuana.

• For Federal prisoners, who represent 13 percent of the total prison population, about half (51 percent) had a drug offense as the most serious offense in 2009.

• Federal data show that the vast majority (99.8 percent) of Federal prisoners sentenced for drug offenses were incarcerated for drug trafficking.

Incarceration Continued

• There are very few people in state or Federal prison for marijuana-related crimes.

• A rigorous government analyses of who is in jail or prison for marijuana found that less than 0.7% of all state inmates were behind bars for marijuana possession only

Incarceration Continued

• Among sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction in 2008, 18% were sentenced for drug offenses.

• In total, one tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of state prisoners were marijuana possession offenders with no prior sentences.

Employment and the Economy

Will legalizing Marijuana Effect Employment and the Economy?

• The Federal Government is against legalization and have stated that they will use their powers to fine industries and pull Federal Contracts worth billions of dollars from States to “vigorously enforce the Controlled Substance Act”

Employment and the Economy cont.

• People who smoke marijuana reduce their choices of employment, and because of that we will lose industries because the Federal Government makes it mandatory to have Drug-Free Work Place Policies, which means you can’t employ or keep marijuana users (the drug stays in the system for up to 30 days, which means employee will fail drug tests, and lose productivity and ability to perform certain tasks).


• To test the idea of taxing marijuana to solve state budget issues, we only need to look at drugs that have been legalized.

• In 2005, the State of California spent $19.9 billion dollars on substance abuse and addiction or $545.09 per capita on alcohol and tobacco.

• The State of California only collected $1.4 billion dollars in tax revenue or $38.69 per capita on the sale of alcohol and tobacco. Thus, the taxes collected on these substances DO NOT EXCEED the social and healthcare costs related to their widespread use. If we legalize marijuana, it is likely we will follow this same path.


• The costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be imposed. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost $180 billion a year in healthcare, lost productivity, crime, and other expenditures. That number would only increase under legalization because the use of marijuana would increase.

A Thought

Many years ago, the philosopher Thucydides was asked “When will

justice come to Athens?” The philosopher replied “Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured become as indignant as

those who are injured.”

Thank You

Documents

Overview National Strategy & Prevention A Short History of Drugs and Drug Laws Prop 215/ LA Dispensaries/ Pot Docs Countries w/ Permissive Drug Policies