Further ponderings: legalisation of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington

One of my posts from a few days ago was in relation to the recent passing of two key amendments in Colorado and Washington, in relation to recreational marijuana use. At the time, I noted that I was curious to see the implications of the passing of these amendments, and the potential problem this may pose to Federal authorities in the United States. 

The reason that this may be problematic for Federal authorities is that since marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, it is illegal to possess, use, buy, sell, and/or cultivate marijuana. This stance, combined with failed attempts at rescheduling marijuana, does put Washington and Colorado at odds with the Federal government, and puts lawmakers in these two states into a tricky situation until the ramifications of these votes develop.

Map of current United States cannabis laws
Light Green: State with legal medical cannabis
Olive Green: State with decriminalized cannabis possession laws
Dark Green: State with both medical and decriminalization laws
Purple: State with legalized cannabis
(Map courtesy of Wikipedia)

It was brought to my attention that in March of 2009, Eric H. Holder Jr, current Attorney General of the United States, indicated that the Justice Department has no intentions to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries in California and other states. In this regard, use of medical marijuana may seem to be on a sure footing in Colorado, Washington, and in any other states that have passed laws pertaining to this matter. What is not sure sure is whether this "tolerance" of the Justice Department and U.S. Government will extent to recent attempts to legalise the recreational use of cannabis. 

Indeed, this concept was the focus of an article by professor and former Federal prosecutor Mark Olser, published on the CNN website. Professor Olser expresses his view in a rather succinct, and perhaps even poetic, manner: 

"The residents of Colorado and Washington state have voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and all hell is about to break loose -- at least ideologically"

Without delving into the conflict between State's rights and appeals from ethics and morality within an ideologically diverse nation such as the United States, it will be curious to see the broader implications of this vote. Already, four leaders from Latin American countries (Mexico, Belize, Honduras and Costa Rica) have claimed that the votes in Washington and Colorado state will have significant implications for current attempts to halt drug smuggling. Indeed, these votes may also even affect the stance of these nations with regards to the current War on Drugs.

Perhaps one of the more concerning news stories to come out in the days following the Colorado and Washington votes, and in relation to the Federal stance on possession and cultivation of marijuana, is the case against Chris Williams. Following the move by the state of Montana to legalise medical marijuana, Williams opened a marijuana grow-house. Due to Federal laws surrounding the cultivation of marijuana, as set out by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Williams faces a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 80 years. 

Though I would generally not desire to second-guess the Justice Department of the United States, this seems to be outrageously draconian. Though it is true that Williams turned down various plea bargains offered by the Justice Department, to me it seems that the application of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 seems outdated, doubly so when contrasted with two states explicitly legalising cannabis for recreational purposes. Perhaps it is time the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other parties consider whether this act represents a legal anachronism in light of recent events and the comments of Attorney General Holder back in 2009.

As an aside, the issues of medical and recreational marijuana use in relation to the United States reminds me of one of my lecturers from undergraduate days. During our discussion of drug law in relation to the seeming aversion some countries and jurisdictions have towards harm minimisation, he vehemently declared that the current stance is "schizophrenic". No doubt that these are strong words, though perhaps not surprising when one reads of draconian sentences for actions that are ostensibly legal from an individual's position within a State's legislature. 

Until next time,
Nathan

Drugs Policy - Ecstasy

Though drugs policy is certainly a contentious issue, it is something worth commenting on. Walking through Sydney the other day, I happened across a poster regarding the production of ecstasy, and the nasty chemicals that are involved in its production.

This gave me pause. Certainly, harm minimisation and decreasing the incidence of recreational drug use (especially in teens) is ostensibly a worthy cause. However, this poster concerned me, not due to its portrayal of a clandestine laboratory, but the text associated with it:

"Made using drain cleaner, battery acid or even hair bleach. Then popped in your mouth"

Granted, a number of people would not necessarily understand the implications of this poster if it said:

"Made using sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid or even hydrogen peroxide. 

Then popped in your mouth"

That being said, I feel that this poster is disingenuous, if only because it attempts to provoke fear, in particular, fear of chemicals. As mentioned in an earlier post, chemophobia is a tricky issue in modern society, where awareness of the health implications of exposure to toxic compounds is increasing. This awareness, however, has become associated with an irrational fear or distrust of, dare I say it, chemicals!

So, back to the poster. A wide range of synthetic routes are available for the production of MDMA from its precursors. The poster in question appears to reference a specific synthetic route, starting with isomerisation of safrole to isosafrole. Indeed, this method does involve the use of sulfuric acid, hydrogen peroxide and a strong base, as well as various other chemicals. In this regard, the poster is accurate, in that a clandestine laboratory may indeed use this particular scheme. 

At this point, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of including the named chemicals in the above poster? It isn't to provide a cheat sheet a person on the street can use to start up their own little clandestine laboratory in suburbia. Again, it comes back to the use of scientific and chemistry-related terms to invoke fear, so as to scare off any would-be first time users of ecstasy, because hey, it contains chemicals.

To be blunt, and not to condone the production of recreational drugs, but one would imagine that a drug manufacturer would try not to actively poison their clientele. Of course, the use of adulterants and cutting agents to increase the bulk of a drug, or to alter its psychoactive effects are nothing new, and have been reported on. It is also unfortunately true that there have been reported fatalities due to ecstasy, whether due to overdose, adulteration and/or  polydrug abuse.

Back to the underlying element of chemophobia though. The three named chemicals in the above poster are sulfuric acid, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide. Though I dare say I don't often encounter sulfuric acid in everyday life, I do come into contact with hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide. Regularly, in fact. Worse still, despite the warning of the poster, I put them in my mouth! Fear not, I don't swallow them. There is hydrogen peroxide in my mouthwash, and sodium hydroxide in various toothpastes. As for sulfuric acid, it is vital for a number of chemical reactions that produce a wide range of compounds, in particular those that are involve nitration in their synthesis.

Hmm... Perhaps this will make an interesting experiment for myself, and something I can report back on. I will endeavour to look at some everyday objects I encounter, and look at the chemicals that are present in them. 

Until next time, thanks for reading,

Nathan