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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Information Dissemination
Training and Education
Alternative Activities
Early Intervention
20%
Access to Services
80%
Systems Change
Policy Change
Why is Community Norm
Change so Important?
Because Attitudes
Drive Behavior
Legalization of Marijuana: Independent Polls 2009
Rasmussen Reports
CBS
41%
SUPPORT
Zogby
RR
?
C
Z
44%
14%
7%
4%
Rasmussen Reports
0
40%
46%
CBS
52%
Zogby
52%
50
100
Trends in Acceptance: U.S. Population
Compilation of All Past Legalization Polls
Marijuana Usage Rates By Age
Gallop, Rasmussen, CBS, Zogby, etc.1969 - 2009
SAMHSA 2007
•13 states have some form of decriminalization on the books
• 14 states permit medical use of marijuana
A Short History of Drugs
and 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.
Short History of Drugs
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.
Short History of Drugs
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.
Short History of Drugs
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.
Short History of Drugs
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 Wars
1839–42 and 1856–60, two wars between China and Western countries.
These wars were the climax of disputes over trade and diplomatic relations
between China under the and the British Empire.
After the inauguration of the
Canton System in 1756, which
restricted trade to one port and
did not allow foreign entrance to
China, the British East India
Company faced a trade imbalance
in favor of China and so invested
heavily in opium production to
redress the balance.
1st Opium War
British merchants began smuggling opium into China from Bengal in order to balance
their purchases of tea for export to Britain.
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.
Great Britain, which had been looking to end China's restrictions on foreign trade,
responded by sending
gunboats to attack several
Chinese coastal cities.
1st Opium War cont.
China, unable to withstand modern
arms, was defeated and forced to sign
the Treaty of Nanjing (1842) and the
British Supplementary Treaty of the
Bogue (1843).
These provided that the ports of
Guangzhou, Jinmen, Fuzhou, Ningbo,
and Shanghai should be open to British
trade and residence; in addition Hong
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 Immigration
Large-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
Short History of Drugs
The problems of addiction were recognized
gradually.
Short History of Drugs
Legal measures against drug abuse in the United States were first
established in 1875, when opium dens were outlawed in San
Francisco.
Opium in America
The 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 curealls.
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
United States Historical Overview
1906
Do to a Nationwide Drug Problem
Congress Passes
the 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
United States Historical Overview
1914
Harrison Act
The first federal law to criminalize non-medical
use of drugs
Applied to narcotic substances-not marijuana
United States Historical Overview
1913-1927
States begin passing marijuana prohibition laws
1913 California
1915 Utah
1915 Wyoming
1919 Texas
1923 Nevada
1923 Oregon
1923 Washington
1923 Arkansas
1927 Nebraska
Marijuana Tax Act
1937
Federal Governments 1st attempt to specifically regulate
marijuana
Did not outlaw sales or possession outright
Imposed registration and reporting requirements
Imposed the payment of taxes
United States Historical Overview
Lifetime Use Rates
1967: 5% of college students
1969: 22% of adult and high school seniors
1970: 43% of college students
1971; 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.“
United States Historical Overview
1970
Passage 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
CSA
Created a system of scheduling drugs
Prohibited therapeutic use of marijuana as a medicine
United States Historical Overview
1979
Marijuana 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
advisor
Joined by parents and others alarmed at the levels of drug
use they took action
Strengthening anti-drug policies
Helps form National Federation of Parents for a Drug Free
Youth
Educated policy makers and the community
Result: Past 30 day use ages 18 to 25 dropped from 36 % in
1979 to 11% in 1992
Supplementary Treaties
The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances
Controls 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 Dispensaries
and the Pot Docs
Dennis Peron, Activist / Oakland
Cannabis Club / Co-Author of Prop 215
“Its pictures, its photos, it
“Essentially, you are only
a“Kind
A.P.
“Build
of
wire.
like
a coalition
(Right)
a… kind
of
and
of
going to get these
like
uhh.asenior
fantasy
So I have
citizens,
story
c…that
notI
people to agree about
can
created
do
housewives
something
an illusion,
and
during
but
marijuana as medicine.
the
I’ve
professionals
war
articulated
on drugs
and
what
like
(Yes.) But if you think
doctors
that.marijuana…
Doand
it for
lawyers
three
I’veand
and
about marijuana and
changed
nurses.
a half years,
(Ummm
the face
andHmm?)
from
uhhh,a
how do we use it, why
long-haired
You
getknow
awaypolitics
with
hippie,
it.”isto
we use it, it is a
Hazel
(LAUGHTER)
illusions.
Rogers. (Uh,
medicinal reason.”
(Right, shadows
huh.)” on the
walls.).”
Source: Medical Marijuana: A Smoke Screen, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.
Ed Rosenthal, Convicted, 01/29/2003 Drug
Trafficking
“I have to
a latent
be honest,
glaucoma,
there
is “You
another
which
know
has
reason
uhh,
neverwhy
this
been
talk
umm
Iabout
do
“And
diagnosed.
use
medical
that
marijuana,
is because…
marijuana.
And only
the in
foreign countries,
reason… outside
Ithe
have
three
toI tell
LIKE
mile
you
limit
TO
that
and
I also
all
that,
use
themarijuana
but
reason
GET
there
HIGH!”
it has
is
medically.”
a never
reason
been
why uhh
diagnosed
I do use
is it….”
that I
have been treating it.”
Source: Medical Marijuana: A Smoke Screen, Drug Free America Foundation, In
Medical Marijuana Statutes
Compassionate Use
Act of 1996
Medical Marijuana
Program of 2003

AKA- Proposition 215

AKA - SB 420

Voter enacted

Enacted by the
California Legislature

Codified in

Codified in H.S. §

Hereinafter, the “MMP”

H.S. § 11362.5
Hereinafter the “CUA”
11362.7 et seq.
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 Program
– Issued by County Health Departments
– Quantity Limits



MMP ID Cardholder Arrest Immunity
Individual Affirmative Defenses
Group Cultivation Affirmative Defense
– Combine 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:
•STARBUCKS
"This is notIN
about
creating
the
L.A. COUNTY (2009)
Starbucks of marijuana sales. It's about
creating
-840 access for people who really
need it…”
POT SHOPS IN L.A. COUNTY (2009)
– Ed Reyes, Councilman, City of Los Angeles
-966
National Law Journal, Nov. 2009
Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2009
MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
TIMELINE
No Known Dispensaries
1996
California Voters
Pass
Compassionate Use Act (CUA)
2003
California Legislature
Passes
Medical Marijuana Program (MMP)
MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
TIMELINE
187 Known
98 Known
2004
4 Known
Dispensaries
Dispensaries
2005
2006
People v. Urziceanu
Suggests Cooperatives
Can Be Reimbursed
Dispensaries
2007
July:
City of
Los Angeles
Declares a
Moratorium
w/ Loophole
2008
August:
CA Attorney
General
Guidelines
Issued
MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
TIMELINE
481
New Dispensary Applications
February 25, 2009
United States
Attorney General
Implies DEA
Will Not Pursue
Dispensaries
June 24, 2009
City of
Los Angeles
Closes
Loophole
MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
TIMELINE
187 Max
Dispensaries Allowed
January 2010
City Of Los Angeles
Adopted
Ordinance No. 181069 To
Regulate Dispensaries
June 7, 2010
Ordinance Became
Active
Between 200
To 350
DISPENSARIES
IN CALIFORNIA ARE:
ILLEGAL
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
– who “Possess
caregivers
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
G
INDICAS
A.C.C. OG
1/8 1/4
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
18
65
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
55
55
55
55
55
50
50
50
50
15
Blue Cheese
Blue Dream
Rainbow Ku$h
Lambread
Mango
Strawberry Cough
AK-47
Lion W reck
Sugar Shack
Purple Diesel
Purple Maui
Holiday Gift Box
Juicy Fruit
Hindu Ku$h
Sour OG
Chem Dawg
Platinum Bubba
Purple Erkle
Butter OG
Bananna Kush
G.D.P.
Afgoo
Grape
Purple Kush
Grape Ape
Afgani
L.A. Confidential
Ogre O.G.
Shiskaberry
HYBRIDS
1/2 SATIVAS
130
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
110
110
110
110
110
100
100
100
100
n/a
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
210
220
210
210
210
190
190
190
190
45
90
170
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
18
60
60
55
55
55
55
55
55
50
50
50
120
120
110
110
110
110
110
110
100
100
100
230
230
210
210
210
210
210
210
190
190
190
$55
Set conists of 7(.5grams)
SKYW ALKER
Sour D
Maui W owie
GOO
Hawaiian Haze
Headband
Snow W reck
Train W reck
Super Snow Cap
W hite Haze
Day Train
Green Peace
Orange Crush
Northern Lights
TNT
L.A. Outdoor
1/8
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
65
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
50
50
45
45
45
45
40
1/4
130
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
100
100
90
90
90
90
80
Dispensary Operations
• Commercial
Enterprise
• Cash BusinessCONCENTRATES
and
Tax Evasion
• Marketing
• Black Market Prices
Skywalker, S.F.V Ku$h, Ogre OG, Chem Dog
Green Peace, and Green Crack
RED VELVET CUPCAKES
G
10
Hash Oil
Honey Bud
G.D.P. F.M.
Super Sour F.M.
Maui W owie F.M.
AOTA Hash
Master Kush Bubble Hash
Marble Hash
Moroccan Hash
Amberglass
Crushed Honey Bud
GD Pre Loaded Pipe
G
G 1/2
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
28
20
20
30
20
1/2
n/a
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
190
190
170
170
170
170
150
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!
Number of Patients a “Pot Doctor” Can See
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
SUN
10/10/04
22
$150
$3,300
MON
10/11/04
49
$150
$7,350
days
3
SAT 10/09/04
56per
$150 month
$8,400
$175,000
$2.1 7million
per year
29
$43,950
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!
Gray Debate - Portugal
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.
Gray Debate - Portugal
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 TribuneReview, The Examiner and Scientific American,
Glenn Greenwald’s Conclusion
–“The total number of drug-related deaths has actually decreased from
the pre-decriminalization year of 1999 (when the total was close to 400) to
2006 (when the total was 290)”.
And regarding consumption, it gives the general notion of decreasing
tendencies affirming that:
-“Prevalence rates for the 15 to 19 age group have actually
decreased in absolute terms since decriminalization.”
-“Most significantly, the number of newly reported cases of HIV
and AIDS among drug addicts has declined substantially every year since
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
19 years old.
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.
+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.
Decriminalization of Drugs
The Netherlands
Dutch Drug Policy
1976
The 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 than
for tobacco use, getting drunk, or use of other illicit drugs.
Are the Dutch More Likely to Escalate
Their Cannabis Use?
Netherlands
European Average
USA
Frequency of lifetime
use of cannabis
10-19 occasions
20-39 occasions
40+ occasions
4
2
7
2
1
3
3
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 from
depenalization to de facto legalization, these surveys reveal that the lifetime
prevalence 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.
Decriminalization of Drugs
The United Kingdom
Cannabis classification in the United
Kingdom
Between 1928 and 2004 it was classified as a
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
only we had known then what we can reveal today…
Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of
smoking skunk
More the 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction – and
almost 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 Lee
Owner: Oaksterdam University,
The Bulldog Coffee Shop
Prop 19
would 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 19
What 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 19
What 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 19
What 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 Clause
U.S. Constitution
Article VI, Section 1,Clause 2
Asserts 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 Law
The Options
Take California to Court
Withhold Federal Dollars
Use the Powers of Arrest
Proposition 19 Results
Defeated
Vote tally: (as of November 16, 2010)
No votes: 5,061,119
Yes 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
Percentage of People Agreeing
Trends in support of legalization
correlate with perceived risk of use
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
No or Slight Risk
1997
1999
2001
2003
Favor Legalization
2005
2007
2009
124
1,000,000
50%
900,000
45%
800,000
40%
700,000
35%
600,000
30%
500,000
25%
400,000
20%
300,000
15%
200,000
10%
100,000
5%
0
0%
#MJ Arrests
Favor Legalization, GSS
Percentage Favoring Legalization
No. of Marijuana – Related Arrests
Trends in legalization also mirror
trends in marijuana-related arrests
Favor Legalization, Gallup
125
Percentage Favoring Legalization
Prop 19 is not the only ballot initiative
to receive more than 39% support
Marijuana Legalization Ballot Initiatives Since 2000
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
44%
44%
46%
41%
40%
39%
Alaska
Nevada
Alaska
Nevada
Colorado
California
2000
2002
2004
2006
2006
2010
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
126
Reasons why people oppose
legalization from op-eds
100%
90%
80%
Other
70%
Increased Crime
60%
Adverse Health
Effects
Increased Hard Drug
Use
Increased Use by
Youth
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
60's
70's
80's
Decade
90's
00's
127
Reasons why people support
legalization from op-eds
100%
90%
Other
80%
70%
Economic
60%
Decreased Violence
50%
Ineffectiveness of
Drug Control
40%
30%
Treat Like Alcohol
20%
10%
0%
60's
70's
80's
Decade
90's
00's
128
Support
Opposition
Rationales for and against Prop 19
Reason
Groups
Measure will only change dynamic of marijuana crime
Law enforcement
Inability to prosecute for driving under influence
Law enforcement
Inability to fire someone for working under influence
Education, business
Ineligibility for federal grants/contracts
Legal approval of drug detrimental to individuals and
society
Marijuana growers (legal and not) lose revenue
Education, business
Medical MJ users/dispensaries unclear of future status
CA Cannabis Association
Allows law enforcement to focus on more violent
crimes
Regulation of existent marijuana industry
Reduction of violent crimes related to
trafficking/dealing
Potential tax revenue for keeping local jobs
Various
Marijuana growers
Law enforcement
Law enforcement
Law enforcement
Labor groups
Increase in civil liberties and public safety
Civil rights groups
Lessens systematic racism in law enforcement
Civil rights groups
129
Percentage Voting For Prop 19
80%
Yes on Proposition 19 by
demographic
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
130
Percentage Voting For Prop 19
Yes on Proposition 19 by age
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
131
Yes on Proposition 19 by gender
Percentage Voting For Prop 19
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
132
Percentage Voting For Prop 19
Yes on Proposition 19 by income
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
133
Yes on Proposition 19 by party and
political ideology
Percentage Voting For Prop 19
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
134
1 in 11 of those who voted ‘No’ agree
that MJ should be legalized but did
not like the specifics of Prop 19
Yes
Yes on
on
PropProp
19: 46%
19:
46%
No on
Prop 19: 54%
No on
Prop
19: 9%
Yes on
Prop 19:
46%
No on
Legalization:
49%
No on
Prop 19:
5%
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 History
Last 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:
Prohibition History
Last Call
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.
Prohibition History
Last Call
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.
Prohibition History
Last Call
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
Prohibition History
Last Call
By 1810 the number of distilleries in our young
nation had increased fivefold to more than
14,000
Prohibition History
Last Call
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
Prohibition History
Last Call
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.”
Prohibition History
Last Call
1840
Six habitual drinkers pledged their commitment
to total abstinence starting the Washingtonian
movement
They asked other habitual drinkers to sign a
pledge of abstinence.
Prohibition History
Last Call
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 REALITY
Legalization 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 CLAIM
The 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 Trafficking
RAND 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 Trafficking
RAND 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
140,000
Number of ER Visits
120,000
100,000
18 to 24
80,000
35 and older
60,000
25 to 34
12 to 17
40,000
20,000
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: SAMHSA, Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2008.
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 metaanalysis. 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 Marijuana
Addiction: About 9% of users may become dependent, 1 in 6
who start use in adolescence, 25-50% of daily users
*
*
Estimated Prevalence of Dependence Among Users
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).
Dependence on or Abuse of
Specific Illicit Drugs in the Past Year
Among Persons 12 or Older, 2008
Sedatives
126
Inhalants
175
Heroin
282
Stimulants
351
Hallucinogens
358
Tranquilizers
451
Cocaine
1,411
Pain Relievers
1,716
Marijuana
4,199
0
500
1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500
Number in Thousands
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
Percent of Admissions
60
1993
50
2007
40
30
20
10
0
Alcohol
Cocaine
Heroin
Source: Treatment Episode Data Set, US Health and Human Services, 1993 & 2007.
Marijuana
Treatment Admissions
by Drug, 2007
25
Percent
20
15
10
22.3
18
15.8
13.6
9.2
7.9
5
5
3.7
0.5
0
Source: Treatment Episode Data Set, US Health and Human Services, 1993 & 2007.
Average Potency: Increased THC Content in Seized Marijuana,
1983-2009
Percent THC
Potency Range: 4% to 27%
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Year
Sources: The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project
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 19922002 in specific subgroups (1)
1.
Compton, W., Grant, B., Colliver, J., Glantz, M., Stinson, F. Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorders in the United States: 19911992 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
Past Year Use
Perceived Risk
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
75
78
81
84
87
90
93
96
99
02
Year
Source: The Monitoring the Future study, the University of Michigan
05
08
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).
Employment and the Economy cont.
• 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.
Employment and the Economy cont.
• 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