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

Voters back legalisation of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington

In the days since the recent election in the United States, some interesting news has come out of the states of Colorado and Washington. Both states, in a historic vote, have gained voter approval to legalise the recreational use, and small-scale possession of marijuana (or cannabis, if you prefer). Specifically, these amendments, I-502 in Washington, and Amendment 64 in Colorado, allow individuals over the age of 21 to legally posses up to one ounce of marijuana, and to grow up to six plants in their homes.

People celebrating the passing of Amendment 64 in Colorado
(Photo courtesy of Huffington Post)

These amendments may very well signify a significant and considerable challenge to the current War on Drugs, and current laws that allow for the incarceration of people convicted of possession of marijuana. In addition, this outcome will no doubt have the potential to be an issue for Federal authorities, in particular the Drug Enforcement Administraiton (DEA). Indeed, both states are holding off on plans to regulate and tax marijuana, pending a response from the United States Justice Department.

Indeed, medicinal use of marijuana is still illegal under Federal law, though the Obama administration has generally not pushed the application of this law. Currently, activists and supporters of this recent move to legalise marijuana are awaiting the response of a Federal appeals court, regarding whether marijuana's status as a Schedule 1 drug in the Controlled Substances Act will be altered. If successful, marijuana would lose its status as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use.

Dried flower of the Cannabis Sativa plant, or marijuana, if you prefer.
(Photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

What alternate classification it would receive would be interesting. Schedule 2 drugs are substances regarded as having a high potential for abuse, accepted medical uses in the United States, and having a risk of causing severe psychological or physical dependence if abused.

Alternately, Schedule 3 drugs are regarded as having a lower potential of abuse than substances classified as being in Schedule 1 and/or Schedule 2. In addition, Schedule 3 substances are classified for acceptable medical use in the United States, and may potentially able to cause moderate psychological or physical dependence if abused.

There are two more schedules in the Controlled Substances Act, though in my opinion marijuana would most likely end up classified in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3.

Moving away from the Controlled Substances Act, it is of note that prosecutors in King and Pierce Counties, Washington, have moved to dismiss more than 220 misdemeanor marijuana cases in response to this vote. To quote King County prosecutor Dan Satterburg,

"Although the effective date of I-502 (the vote to legalise recreational marijuana use) is not until December 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month."

This move to retroactively apply this recent vote to current cases is, in my opinion, sensible. It will be curious to see, however, to what degree this retroactive stance will be applied. It should also be noted that possession of large amounts of more than one ounce of marijuana is considered a felony, though King County allows defendants to plead to a misdemeanor offence.

It was also curious to note a response by Kansas law enforcement officials regarding the legalisation of marjuana in Colorado and Washington. Specifically, citizens of Kansas venturing into Colorado to enjoy this relaxation of drug laws are warned to not attempt to bring marijuana back into Kansas. As reported by The Wichita Eagle, and quoting Josh Kellerman of the Kansas Highway Patrol:

“It’s still illegal in the state of Kansas... It is an arrestable offense. You can be taken to jail if you’re in possession of it.”

One potentially major impact of legalisation will be the effect on the local economies. Aside from Kansas warning its residence about bringing marijuana purchased in Colorado back into the state, the Huffington Post has reported that legalisation may result in a significant drop in the price of marijuana. This is expected to be a result of decreased costs associated with growing the drug in a now-legal environment. Further variations in price may occur in the near future as both states consider how to tax marijuana, and as fluctuations in demand occur.

In addition, this change in policy may prove to be a boon for the Washington and Colorado economies. The prospect of "Marijuana Tourism" may cause an increase in visitors to these states, and perhaps see an infusion of cash into their economies.

A view of the Seattle Hempfest, in the state of Washington
(Photo courtesy of gadling.com)

Not everyone is convinced that legalisation of marijuana will have a considerable effect on tourism and the local economy. Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper, who opposed the push in Colorado to legalise recreational use of marijuana, is quoted as saying in response to the passing of Amendment 64:

"They're going to flock here to buy marijuana as if they're going to take it back? On an airplane? That seems unlikely to me.''

There have also been a few interesting articles regarding whether the passing of Amendments I-502 and Amendment 64 will have an effect on Mexico's drug war. Legalisation of marijuana would quite potentially have an adverse impact on the income and power of Mexico's drug cartels, which have been responsible for a recent wave of violence, intimidation and murders in the region.

At any rate, it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out in the coming weeks, months and years. In particular, I will be curious to see the response of the US Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration regarding application of Federal law.

Until next time,
Nathan

The War on Drugs - Medicinal Marijuana

Though I tend to only enter into political debates with my closest friends, I cannot help but comment on a clip that I found on YouTube. In short, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is answering a question from an audience member regarding medicinal marijauna.

The clip:

And the quote:

"...And you know you know you hear that story, people who are sick needing medicinal marijuana, but marijuana is the entry drug for people trying to get kids hooked on drugs. I don't want medicinal marijuana, there are... synthetic forms of marijuana that are available for people that need it on prescription. Don't open the doorway to medicinal marijuana"

To begin with, marijuana has been used for medicinal purposes for a number of reasons. Primarily, marijuana (and select cannabinoids present in marijuana) have been shown to decrease the incidence and strength of nausea, and to stimulate hunger. These effects benefit those on chemotherapy or who are afflicted with AIDS, and has also been shown to have positive effects on patients with glaucoma. 

That marijuana has been used for medical purposes is of no surprise. Records from as far back as 4000 BCE have shown that marijuana has been used for medicinal purposes by the Chinese, during the Neolithic period. Even in relatively modern times, tinctures and extracts of marijuana have been used to treat pain and headaches, to aid in sleep, and so on.

Perhaps what irritates me most with Romney's comment on medicinal marijuana is that he refers to the spurious notion that marijuana is a gateway drug. For those unfamiliar, the Gateway Drug Theory proposes that the use of "softer" recreational drugs, like marijuana, alcohol and tobacco, leads to a dramatically increased risk of a user moving on to "harder" drugs like heroin, cocaine and so on. It is also posited that as a user moves on to "harder" drugs, that they will also move on to a life of crime in order to fund their drug habit. There are variations of the Gateway Drug Theory, but for now we will deal with Romney's concern, that marijuana (and other "soft" drugs) are used to hook children on "harder" drugs.

I won't deny that research into the Gateway Drug Theory is still ongoing, and that for every article criticising this theory, another article comes out shortly thereafter criticising the criticism, and so on. That being said, there are some fairly big holes in this theory. Namely, the theory itself relies on the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. In the context of the Gateway Drug Theory: 

An individual tried a "soft" drug like marijuana. They then moved on to use a "hard" drug. Therefore, use of the "soft" drug caused them to use a "hard" drug at a later date. 

To put it another way, in this case correlation does not explicitly imply causation.

The main criticisms of the Gateway Drug Theory are detailed on the wikipedia page linked above. In summary, the more salient criticisms are:

• Due to curiosity and/or the pleasure-seeking behaviour of humans, some people will actively seek out and experiment with drugs. So-called "gateway" drugs are simply those that are more readily available;
• In the event that an individual seeks out recreational drugs that are illegal, they will be exposed to the black market for drugs. In this case, they will be exposed to readily available "harder" drugs. Therefore, the availability of different recreational substances on the black market is a possible cause for moving on to harder drugs, rather than use of a "soft" drug leading directly to the use of a "hard" drug, regardless of circumstance;
• Hyperbole and misinformation surrounding the nature of gateway recreational drugs causes teenagers and adults alike to distrust all anti-drug messages, thereby resulting in the individuals trying other, "harder" drugs at a later point;
• Drug dealers that have access to "harder" drugs will, due to the nature of their wares, be unwilling to engage in sales with those unfamiliar with gateway drugs. Therefore, those that buy from these dealers will already be acquainted with the "harder" drugs.

Another aspect of Romney's argument is that marijuana is addictive. Now, this is a tricky thing to deal with, as two separate forms of addiction exist. One is physical addiction/dependence, whereby continued use of a drug results in a physical need to continue usage, and has neurobiologic underpinnings. The other is psychological addiction/dependence, in which there is a strong behavioural aspect to the addiction.

The dependence potential of marijuana is interesting, in that it is reported as being less addictive than alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocaine and select other recreational drugs. Nutt et. al (2007) provide an interesting comparison between various licit and illicit recreational drugs, with the following graph a concise summary of their findings:

In addition, a fascinating study by Coffey et. al.(2002) reveals that the symptomatology of marijuana dependence is poorly defined. Overall, marijuana dependence is a known phenomenon (recognised in the DSM-IV, section 304.30), and involves both physical and psychological dependence on the drug in question. 

In short, the argument that Romney uses is poorly constructed. It relies on the fact that marijuana is a gateway drug, which is still under debate. In addition, it posits that marijuana is addictive (which it is). What is not recognised is that a large number of recreational drugs (including legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol) have a higher dependence potential than marijuana.

I will cede, however, that the development of synthetic preparations of cannabinoids is a good thing. This allows dosage to be controlled, thereby ensuring that an adequate dose is provided to the patient. Furthermore, in patients that may require medicinal marijuana but do not want to experience the psychoactive effects of marijuana, well, the synthetic preparations of the cannabinoids present in marijuana provides a good middle ground.

In the end, contentious issues like the War On Drugs and medical marijuana will continue to be debated. Indeed, this is an area that I will come back to in the future. And as for Mr. Romney, well, he personifies my gripe with the aversion that many politicians have towards evidence-based policies, and those politicians that happily invoke populism and puritanism in order to win votes. Unfortunately, this is a phenomenon that is not limited to the United States of America, and seems to creep into politics, whether in Australia or abroad.

Thanks for reading,

Nathan