LewRockwell &#187; Paul Armentano

Want Freedom? Repeal Pot Prohibition

Paul Armentano — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:00:00 +0000

Recently by Paul Armentano: Only Marijuana Legalization Will End Shocking Police Raids Like the One in Columbia, Missouri

Here are two little-known fact about Proposition 19, the California marijuana legalization initiative on this November’s ballot. This isn’t the first time California voters have had the opportunity to repeal their state prohibition laws, nor is it the first time a state has shifted an enforcement burden unto the federal government.

In 1920, commerce in alcohol was outlawed nationally by the 18th Amendment and the federal Volstead Act, and by the laws of most states. Yet in 1932 Californians voted 3 to 1 to repeal the ban on alcohol prohibition, leaving production, distribution and sale of alcohol unregulated under state law. Voters decided: If the federal government believes so strongly in prohibition, then let them — and them alone — be responsible for enforcing it.

Californians weren’t alone in their rejection of federal prohibition. In total, eleven U.S. states eventually elected to opt out of this failing and ultimately doomed federal policy. In New York, Gov. Al Smith signed legislation repealing the state’s prohibitions on booze nearly ten years earlier, in 1923. New Yorkers were horrified with the rising level of prohibition-related crime taking place in their state among suppliers and distributors, as well as with the bilious brew that was being produced on the black market. The Governor declared that his signature produced no conflict with federal law, and explained how the cause of prohibition enforcement — and thus temperance itself — would be strengthened, not weakened, by the measure.

"The mere omission to maintain a state statute in no way abrogates a federal statute," he instructed. "Repeal … will not make legal a single act which was [previously] illegal."

Besides, he added, state repeal would protect prohibition violators from "double jeopardy" — prosecution by both federal and state authorities. Now, "prosecution must be where it belongs — in the Federal Court." Citizens proposing to violate the law would apprehend greater consequence — indeed, the entire weight of the federal government — than the hand of local law enforcement.

For the remaining ten years of Prohibition speakeasies existed largely without incident in New York, but New York City was spared the level of crime and violence that plagued other large cities like Chicago and Detroit.

After the stock market collapsed in 1929, the election of 1932 offered a way out of the so-called "Noble Experiment." The incumbent, Herbert Hoover, defended prohibition; his challenger, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, unambiguously supported repeal. Roosevelt won by a landslide.

If voters approve Prop. 19 next week, the federal government will have a choice among three visible options. It can (1) raid farms and shops and prosecute non-medical cannabis cultivators, distributors and users in federal court, (2) exercise prosecutorial restraint, as it has for the most part with medical marijuana since 1996, or (3) get out of the way. This would be accomplished by the president requesting that Congress send him a simple bill respecting the right of states to regulate and tax the cannabis industry. It’s not complicated.

Proposition 19 will create some inconsistencies between state and federal law, just as there were in New York from 1923 and in California for the remaining year of Prohibition. And, there will be consternation, as always, among those who prefer the status quo. But the sky didn’t fall then, and it won’t now.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation. He is also the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009). Richard Evans, Esq. is an attorney from Northampton, Massachusetts, and he maintains the website, http://www.cantaxreg.com.

Only Marijuana Legalization Will End Shocking Police Raids Like the One in Columbia, Missouri

Paul Armentano — Thu, 13 May 2010 05:00:00 +0000

Judge
Andrew Napolitano, host of Fox News.com’s Freedom
Watch, has long been on the right
side of the war on drugs, and his scathing critique of the deplorable
police actions in Columbia, Missouri is no exception.

(To recap for those who have not yet seen the video: under the cover of darkness, a team of militarized SWAT agents enter a family home and immediately engage in gunfire — killing one of two family dogs and wounding the other — and likely inflicting lifelong trauma to the family’s seven-year-old son. Police ultimately seized a small amount of marijuana residue and associated paraphernalia, which resulted in a misdemeanor charge and a $300 fine.)

In fact, Napolitano’s very first question to befuddled Columbia Mayor Bob McDavid is: “When are the cops who did this going to be arrested and put in jail where they belong?” It’s a valid question that, not surprisingly, leaves the new mayor speechless.

In less than a week nearly one-million people have watched the graphic and sickening footage from Columbia. It has, quite understandably, inspired public outrage and, apparently, some welcome changes in police procedure.

Yet as NORML Outreach Coordinator Russ Belville astutely points out on today’s edition of the NORML Stash blog, none of these minor amendments to protocol in any way gets to the heart of the problem, and that is this: Police and politicians still “accept the premise that this level of force is appropriate to keep people from using marijuana.” Ultimately, this societal mentality must change.

That is why, while on the one hand NORML (obviously) supports cannabis medicalization and decriminalization efforts, we also recognize that these efforts fall woefully short for many Americans. In short, the only way to fully protect all our citizens from these kinds of abhorrent events is through the legalization and regulation of marijuana for all adults. Help us make this a reality.

Stop the violence. Join NORML.

All Hail the American West

Paul Armentano — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:00:00 +0000

A majority of west coast voters, and Californians specifically, believe that the adult use of marijuana should be legal, according to the results of a pair of polls conducted on behalf of CBS News.

Fifty-six percent of Californians believe that "the state of California (should) legalize the use of marijuana," according to a SurveyUSA poll of 500 adults conducted for CBS. The survey results come less than a month after state election officials certified the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 for the November ballot.

The measure would allow adults 21 years or older to possess, share or transport up to one ounce of cannabis for personal consumption, and/or cultivate the plant in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence. It would also permit local governments the option to authorize the retail sale of marijuana and/or commercial cultivation of cannabis to adults and to impose taxes on such sales. Personal marijuana cultivation or not-for-profit sales of marijuana would not be taxed under the measure, nor would it amend any aspect of the California Health and Safety code pertaining to the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Among poll respondents, support for the proposal was strongest among males (65 percent), "liberals" (77 percent), and those between the ages of 18 and 34 (74 percent). Support was weakest among self-identified "conservatives" (39 percent) and those 65 years of age or older (39 percent).

In a separate national CBS poll of 858 adults, 55 percent of respondents residing in the west coast said that they back legalization, and only 41 percent oppose the idea.

Nationwide, the poll reported that 44 percent of Americans favor legalizing the use of cannabis, and 51 percent oppose it. Among respondents in the northeast, 44 percent said that they back legalization, versus 40 percent in the south and only 36 percent in the Midwest.

A majority of those Americans under age 35 said that they support legalization. Those respondents over age 65 expressed the strongest opposition to legalization (61 percent).

A previous poll by Zogby International reported that 58 percent of west coast voters believe that cannabis should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol and cigarettes."

In December, a national poll of 1,004 likely voters by Angus Reid reported for the first time that just over half of all Americans endorse marijuana legalization.

By contrast, a separate poll published this week by the Associated Press and CNBC reported that 55 percent of Americans opposed the "complete legalization of the use of marijuana for any purpose." However, 56 percent of respondents also stated that they believed that “the regulations on marijuana (should) be the same … or less strict … (than) those for alcohol.”

Anti-Pot Propaganda

Paul Armentano — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:00:00 +0000

Once again members of the mainstream media are running wild with the notion that marijuana use causes schizophrenia and psychosis.

To add insult to injury, this latest dose of reefer rhetoric comes only days after investigators in the United Kingdom reported in the prestigious scientific journal Addiction that the available evidence in support of this theory is “neither very new, nor by normal criteria, particularly compelling.” (Predictably, the conclusions of that study went all together unnoticed by the mainstream press.)

Yet today’s latest alarmist report, like those studies touting similar claims before it, fails to account for the following: If, as the authors of this latest study suggest, cannabis use is a cause of mental illness (and schizophrenia in particular), then why have diagnosed incidences of schizophrenia not paralleled rising trends in cannabis use over time?

In fact, it was only in September when investigators at the Keele University Medical School in Britain smashed the pot = schizophrenia theory to smithereens. Writing in the journal Schizophrenia Research, the team compared trends in marijuana use and incidences of schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005. Researchers reported that the “incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” during this period, even though the use of cannabis among the general population was rising.

That said, none of this is to suggest that there may not be some association between marijuana use and certain psychiatric ailments, if for no other reason than symptoms of mental illness often strike early in life — at a time, statistically, when the largest percentage of the population is likely to be already experimenting with cannabis.

In truth, marijuana use can correlate with mental illness for many reasons. People often turn to cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of distress. One study performed in Germany showed that cannabis offsets certain cognitive declines in a subset of schizophrenic patients. Another study demonstrated that psychotic symptoms predict later use of cannabis, suggesting that people might turn to the plant for help rather than become ill after use.

Of course, even if one takes the MSM’s latest u201Csky is fallingu201D scenario at face value, health risks connected with pot use — when scientifically documented — should not be seen as legitimate reasons for criminal prohibition, but instead, as reasons for the plant’s legal regulation.

For instance, as I told AOL News: “We don’t outlaw peanuts because a small percentage of people have allergic reactions. We educate the community, we regulate where and when peanuts can be exchanged. That seems like it ought to apply to marijuana, too.”

To draw another real world comparison, millions of Americans safely use ibuprofen as an effective pain reliever. However, among a minority of the population who suffer from liver and kidney problems, ibuprofen presents a legitimate and substantial health risk. However, this fact no more calls for the criminalization of ibuprofen among adults than do these latest anti-pot allegations, even if true, call for the current prohibition of cannabis.

Placed in this context, today’s warnings do little to advance the government’s position in favor of tightening prohibition, and provide ample ammunition to wage for its repeal.

Reprinted from Alternet.

The Feds Are Addicted to Pot

Paul Armentano — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Marijuana’s addiction potential may be no big deal, but it’s certainly big business.

According to a widely publicized 1999 Institute of Medicine report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of “drug dependence” (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, 32 percent of tobacco users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for “drug dependence.”

Nevertheless, it is pot — not booze or cigarettes — that has the federal government seeing red and clinical investigators seeing green. As I reported for Alternet last year, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) — which overseas more than 85 percent of the world’s research on controlled substances — recently appropriated some $4 million in taxpayers’ dollars to establish the nation’s first-ever “Center on Cannabis Addiction.” It’s mission: to “develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction.”

Of course, what good is a research center if it isn’t conducting clinical research? To this end, the U.S. National Institutes of Health recently made millions of dollars in grant funding available “to support research studies that focus on the identification, and preclinical and clinical evaluation, of medications that can be safe and effective for the treatment of cannabis-use and -induced disorders.”

According to NIH’s request for applications: “Cannabis-related disorders (CRDs), including cannabis abuse or dependence and cannabis induced disorders (e.g., intoxication, delirium, psychotic disorder, and anxiety disorder), are a major public health issue. … Nearly one million people are seeking treatment for marijuana dependence every year and sufficient research has been carried out to confirm that the use of cannabis can produce serious physical and psychological consequences.

“Currently, there are no medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CRDs. Given the extent of the use of cannabis in the general population, and the medical and psychological consequences of its use, … there is a great public health need to develop safe and effective therapeutic interventions. The need to develop treatments targeting adolescents and young adults is particularly relevant in view of their disproportionate use patterns.”

Sounds dire, huh? It’s meant to. But as usual, the Devil is in the details.

First, there’s the issue of the so-called “one million people seeking treatment for marijuana dependence.” Or not. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the actual number of persons seeking drug treatment for marijuana “as a primary substance at admission” in 2007 (the most recent year for which data is available) was 287,933. Still a large total to be sure, but even this tally is highly misleading. Think these folks are seeking treatment for pot “dependence?” Think again.

According to SAMHSA, over 37 percent of the estimated 288,000 thousand people who entered drug treatment for marijuana in 2007 hadn’t used weed in the 30 days previous to their admission. Another 16 percent of those admitted said that they’d only used cannabis three times or fewer in the month prior to their admission. Do these individuals sound like they meet the clinical standard of dependence (defined as “the state of being psychologically and physiologically dependent on a drug”)? Hardly. In truth, the only reason these people are in ‘treatment’ at all is because they were arrested with a small quantity of pot and were ordered to treatment in lieu of jail.

According to the August 13, 2009 issue of The TEDS Report, published by SAMHSA, nearly six out of ten individuals enrolled in drug treatment for marijuana are referred there by the criminal justice system. Stated the report: “In 2007, the criminal justice system was the largest single source of referrals to the substance abuse treatment system. [T]he majority of these referrals were from parole and probation offices.”

In other words, it is not marijuana use per se that is driving treatment admission rates; it is cannabis prohibition and the increased emphasis on pot arrests that are primarily responsible. Yet you’d never know this by listening to NIDA. And that’s just the way the agency wants it.

As for the Feds’ claim that today’s pot “can produce serious physical and psychological consequences,” it’s apparent that the potential adverse effects of cannabis use are relatively minor when compared to those of legal drugs such as opiates (which are both physically habit forming and capable of lethal overdose), alcohol (ditto), and tobacco. As for the potential physical and psychological consequences of kicking the pot habit, a newly published clinical trial in the scientific journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence raises some serious doubts about this fear as well.

Investigators at four separate German universities assessed the self-reported withdrawal symptoms of 73 subjects diagnosed with “cannabis dependence” who resided in an inpatient facility. Overall, investigators determined that less than 50 percent of the trial subjects reported experiencing physical or psychological withdrawal symptoms of any clinical significance, even though all of the patients had a diagnosis of cannabis dependence according to DSM-IV criteria. Further, among the minority who did report such symptoms, “The intensity of most self-reported symptoms peaked on day one and decreased subsequently.”

And just what were the most commonly reported symptoms? Authors concluded: “The most frequently mentioned physical symptoms of strong or very strong intensity on the first day were sleeping problems (21 percent), sweating (28 percent), hot flashes (21 percent), and decreased appetite (15 percent). … Other often highly rated psychological symptoms included restlessness (20 percent), nervousness (20 percent), and sadness (19 percent).” In short, marijuana’s withdrawal symptoms, when documented at all, are mild and subtle compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol or heroin use, which can be fatal, or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior. This explains why most marijuana smokers voluntarily cease their cannabis use by age 30 with little physical or psychological difficulty.

Finally, what about NIDA’s claim that “therapeutic interventions” for marijuana dependence are necessary for adolescents and young adults “given the extent of the use of cannabis in the general population.” Ironically, NIDA’s warnings come at a time marijuana use rates among young people are falling — and have been for some time. According to the Feds’ annual Monitoring the Future study on adolescent drug use, roughly 42 percent of 12th graders admitted having tried pot in 2008, down from 50 percent in 1999, and a whopping 60 percent in 1979. Yet back then the federal government was mum regarding the need for medications to treat so-called cannabis dependence.

Not anymore. On November 3, the Kentucky-based pharmaceutical company All Tranz Inc. announced that it had been awarded a $4 million NIDA research grant to promote a “transdermal tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) patch” for the treatment of marijuana dependence and withdrawal. (THC is the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.) “NIDA is interested in exploring the role of transdermal THC delivery as an innovative way to treat marijuana withdrawal symptoms and dependence,” explained the agency’s Director Nora Volkow. “This is especially relevant to our efforts to fill a critical gap in available treatments for the many Americans struggling with marijuana-related disorders and their detrimental medical and social consequences.”

Never mind that THC permeates the skin, at best, slowly and inefficiently (because of the compounds’ fat solubility) or that the symptoms of marijuana dependence and withdrawal are infrequent, short-lived, and relatively insignificant. After all, NIDA has a research center to staff, tax dollars to spend, and a myth to perpetuate. And the Feds aren’t about to let the facts get in the way.

How the Feds Got Into the Pot Prohibition Business

Paul Armentano — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:00:00 +0000

This is excerpted from Chapter 4 of the new book, Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? by Paul Armentano, Steve Fox, and Mason Tvert (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009).

By 1937, Congress — which had resisted efforts to clamp down on the drug some two decades earlier — was poised to act, and act quickly, to enact blanket federal prohibition. Ironically, by this time virtually every state had already ratified laws against cannabis possession. Nonetheless, local authorities argued that the marijuana threat was so great that federal intervention was also necessary.

On April 14, 1937, Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina introduced House Bill 6385, which sought to stamp out the recreational use of marijuana by imposing a prohibitive tax on the drug. The measure was the brainchild of the U.S. Treasury Department, and mandated a $100 per ounce tax on the transfer of cannabis to members of the general public. Ironically, a separate anti-marijuana measure introduced that same year sought to directly outlaw possession and use of the drug. However this proposal was assumed at that time to have been beyond the constitutional authority of Congress.

Members of Congress held only two hearings to debate the merits of Rep. Doughton’s bill. The federal government’s chief witness, Harry Anslinger, told members of the House Ways and Means Committee that "traffic in marijuana is increasing to such an extent that it has come to be the cause for the greatest national concern. … This drug is entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured." Other witnesses included a pair of veterinarians who testified that dogs were particularly susceptible to marijuana’s effects. "Over a period of six months or a year (of exposure to marijuana), … the animal must be discarded because it is no longer serviceable," one doctor testified. This would be the extent of "scientific" testimony presented to the Committee.

The American Medical Association (AMA) represented the most vocal opposition against the bill. Speaking before Congress, the AMA’s Legislative Counsel Dr. William C. Woodward challenged the legitimacy of the alleged "Demon Weed."

"We are told that the use of marijuana causes crime. But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marijuana habit. An informal inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marijuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit among children. Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and no nothing particularly of it.

… Moreover, there is the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service. … Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have no record of any marijuana or cannabis addicts."

Woodward further argued that the proposed legislation would severely hamper physicians’ ability to utilize marijuana’s therapeutic potential. While acknowledging that the drug’s popularity as a prescription medicine had declined, Woodward nonetheless warned that the Marihuana Tax Act "loses sight of the fact that future investigations may show that there are substantial medical uses for cannabis."

Woodward’s criticisms of the bill’s intent — as well as his questions regarding whether such legislation was objectively justifiable — drew a stern rebuke from the Chairman of the Committee. "If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the federal government is trying to do," the AMA’s counsel was told. "Is not the fact that you were not consulted your real objection to this bill?"

Despite the AMA’s protests, the House Ways and Means Committee approved House Bill 6385. House members even went so far as to elevate the Anslinger’s propaganda to Congressional findings of fact, stating:

"Under the influence of this drug the will is destroyed and all power directing and controlling thought is lost. … [M]any violent crimes have been and are being committed by persons under the influence of this drug. … [S]chool children … have been driven to crime and insanity through the use of this drug. Its continued use results many times in impotency and insanity."

Anslinger made similar horrific pronouncements before members of the Senate, which spent even less time debating than the measure than had the House. By June, less than three months after the bill’s introduction, the House of Representatives voted affirmatively to pass the proposal, which was described by one congressman as having "something to do with something that is called marijuana. I believe it is a narcotic of some kind."

Weeks later, after the Senate had approved their version of the bill, the House was asked to vote once again on the measure. Prior to the House’s final vote, one representative asked whether the American Medical Association had endorsed the proposal, to which a member of the Ways and Means Committee replied, “Their Dr. Wharton (sic) gave this measure his full support.” Following this brief exchange of inaccurate information, Congress gave its final approval of the Marihuana Tax Act without a recorded vote.

President Franklin Roosevelt promptly signed the legislation into law. The Marihuana Tax Act officially took effect on October 1, 1937 — thus setting in motion the federal government’s foray into the criminal enforcement of marijuana laws that continues unabated today.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation. He is also the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009). NORML’s 38th national conference takes place from September 24—26 in San Francisco.

Pot Is Far Safer Than Alcohol

Paul Armentano — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 05:00:00 +0000

For 35 years the federal government has been well aware — yet publicly denied — that cannabis possesses potent anti-cancer and anti-tumor properties. Even under the Obama administration, which promised to "base [their] public policies on the soundest of science," the myth that pot promotes cancer persists. In fact, the White House’s website, whitehousedrugpolicy.gov, presently warns, "Marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract."

Or not.

In a clinical abstract published online on journal of Cancer Prevention Research website in July, a team of U.S. investigators reported — with absolutely no mainstream media fanfare — that lifetime marijuana use is associated with a "significantly reduced risk" of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Investigators at Rhode Island’s Brown University, along with researchers at Boston University, Louisiana State University, and the University of Minnesota assessed the lifetime marijuana use habits of 434 cases (patients diagnosed with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma from nine medical facilities) compared to 547 matched controls.

Authors reported, "After adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNDCC).”

Perhaps even more notably, subjects who smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol and tobacco (two known high-risk factors for head and neck cancers) also experienced a reduced risk of cancer, the study found.

"Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC," investigators concluded. "This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use). … Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers."

Of course, this isn’t the first time that U.S. investigators have documented an inverse association between pot use and cancer. A separate 2006 population case-control study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, also reported that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls.

Predictably, the federal government’s goal when green-lighting the UCLA study was to conclusively establish just the opposite result, as explained recently by its lead researcher Dr. Donald Tashkin.

In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain in June, Tashkin admitted that he expected his study would find that pot was associated with "increased health effects." Instead, he summarized, "What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Perhaps that explains why Tashkin’s study, the largest trial of its kind, is inexplicably absent from the White House’s website.

Tashkin added, "[A]t this point, I’d be in favor of (marijuana) legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than marijuana)."

Indeed it does. In fact, according to the findings of a study published online August 3 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, even moderate alcohol consumption (defined as six drinks or less per week) is positively associated with an elevated risk of various cancers — including stomach cancer, rectal cancer, and bladder cancer. The study is the second to be published this year indicating that those who consume even minor amounts of booze are at increased risk for cancer. In February, a British study of some 1.3 million women age 50 to 64 reported that imbibing in as little as one alcoholic beverage per day significantly elevated females’ risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer.

For those of us who have closely studied the physiological effects of pot and alcohol the two substances contrasting association with cancer isn’t surprising. Ethanol, the psychoactive ingredient in booze, is converted by the body to acetaldehyde, a known carcinogen. By contrast, the active components in marijuana — known as cannabinoids — are relatively non-toxic and actually mimic chemicals naturally produced by the body (so-called endocannabinoids) that are necessary for maintaining one’s proper health.

Of course, that’s hardly where the differences between marijuana and alcohol end. As I write in my new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009), alcohol consumption is toxic to cells and healthy organs, can depress the central nervous system (inducing unconsciousness, coma, and death), and is strongly associated with increased risks of injury and acts of violence. The use of marijuana, on the other hand, is incapable of causing fatal overdose — cannabinoids do not act upon the brain stem — and its use is inversely associated with aggression and injury.

Naturally, none of these differences should imply that America should return to the days of alcohol prohibition. Rather, they should spark a long-overdue dialogue in this country asking why our laws target and prosecute those adults who choose to make the rational choice to relax with a substance that is objectively safer, both to the user and to society as a whole, than alcohol. Perhaps when the President finishes his beer, he can provide an answer.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation. He is also the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2009). NORML’s 38th national conference takes place from September 24—26 in San Francisco.

Congressman Proposes 25 Years in Prison for Pot

Paul Armentano — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:00:00 +0000

They say that every action spurs an opposite reaction. Well, that certainly seems to be the case in Congress.

Just days after Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, along with 13 cosponsors, reintroduced HR 2835, the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009 in Congress, Republican Rep. Mark Kirk (Illinois) has called for federal legislation to sentence certain first-time marijuana offenders to up to 25 years in prison.

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk to push tougher sentences for more-potent marijuana
via The Chicago Tribune

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk will call for legislation Monday that would toughen drug-trafficking laws regarding a highly potent form of marijuana, with penalties of up to 25 years in prison for a first-time offense.

The law would target offenders who sell or distribute marijuana that has a THC content exceeding 15 percent.

… Drug dealers are increasingly cross-breeding plants to produce high-potency variants of marijuana, which are called “kush” in street slang when they have 20 percent THC, Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran said. “When you amplify the strength of it, you are increasing the harm to the system,” said Curran, who supports the legislation, which would amend a federal law. “They are more dangerous behind the wheel of a vehicle. It’s not a good idea to have people that messed up.”

… The Republican North Shore lawmaker said he plans to release more information during a news conference in Chicago on Monday, where he will be joined by representatives from the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, the Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group and Waukegan Police Department.

Okay, where to begin? Well, we can start with U.S. Representative Mark Kirk. According to the Congressman’s website, Rep. Kirk is “pro-personal liberty.” Unless, of course, we’re talking about the personal liberties of adults (or patients) who wish to relax (or medicate) in the privacy of their own home with a substance that is objectively safer than alcohol (or most prescription pharmaceuticals). Then, naturally, all bets are off.

Representative Kirk’s website also alleges that the five-time-elected Congressman is “pro-science.” Unless, of course, we’re talking about cannabis — in which case he is actually “pro-ideology” and “anti-science.” After all, if Rep. Kirk was truly interested in the science of cannabis he would already know that:

1) According to a 2008 review (see page 12) of marijuana potency by the University of Mississippi, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana — which comprises the bulk of the U.S. market — is less than five percent, a figure that’s remained unchanged for nearly a decade.

2) THC — regardless of potency — is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC, and curiously, nobody among Rep. Kirk’s staff or at the Lake County Sheriff’s office seems to be overly concerned about its potential health effects.

3) Survey data gleaned from cannabis consumers in the Netherlands — where users may legally purchase pot of known quality — indicates that most cannabis consumers prefer less potent pot, just as the majority of those who drink alcohol prefer beer or wine rather than 190 proof Everclear or Bacardi 151. When consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.

Of course, if Rep. Kirk (write him here!) was really concerned about potential risks posed by supposedly stronger marijuana, he would support regulating the sale of the drug (as opposed to jailing first-time pot sellers for a quarter of a century) so that its potency would be consistent and this information would be publicly displayed to the consumer. This same advice applies to the members of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department and the Waukegan Police Department — who claim “we don’t make the laws; we just enforce them” — yet seem to have no problem whatsoever lobbying for increased federal pot penalties while on company time.

Fortunately, the likelihood is that Rep. Kirk’s proposed legislation will be all bark and no bite. One, I suspect that few if any of Rep. Kirk’s colleagues in Congress will even consider supporting such an asinine measure. Two, even if such legislation were to become law (and it won’t) — who would test each and every seized marijuana sample for THC potency and who would pay for it? Currently, only the University of Mississippi engages in such potency testing, which is highly expensive and requires the use of a gas chromatography mass spectrometer device. In short, it appears that the misguided Congressman from Illinois is simply trying to make headlines.

One can’t blame him for trying. After all, across the pond, unsubstantiated claims regarding the dangers of often-talked-about-but-never-actually-defined supposedly “lethal” ‘skunk’ weed caused a national frenzy and resulted in Parliament hastily deciding to reclassify pot possession offenses from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail. Never mind that, under Britain’s short-lived experiment with decriminalization, marijuana potency actually fell — as did the number of adolescents using the drug.

Of course, as the latest actions of the so-called “pro-science, pro-personal liberty” Congressman show, facts play virtually no role in political drug policy debate, and ignorance hardly disqualifies someone from holding elected office.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the deputy director of NORML and the NORML Foundation. He is also the co-author of the forthcoming book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink?, to be published in 2009 by Chelsea Green.

Why Condemn Michael Phelps?

Paul Armentano — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Add decorated Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps to the growing list of successful Americans who happens to indulge in marijuana during his down time. The tabloid news story is making international headlines, though it’s difficult to understand why.

After all, Mr. Phelps is hardly alone in his herbal inclinations. According to national and federal surveys, nearly one out of two Americans have tried weed, and among those age 18 to 25 — Phelps is 23 — pot smoking is especially popular.

Contrary to the messages promoted by the federal government, marijuana consumers include people from all walks of life, ethnic classes, and socio-economic backgrounds. America’s current President said that he smoked marijuana regularly as a young man. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Vice President Al Gore, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and legendary astronomer Carl Sagan all have admitted using marijuana at different times during their lives.

According to the U.S. government, most current marijuana users are gainfully employed. Statistically, most marijuana users are successful academically and financially. A National Bureau of Economic Research study even reported that marijuana use is associated with earning higher wages. Some former and current users, like Virgin tycoon Sir Richard Branson, Progressive Auto Insurance founder Peter Lewis, and New York State Mayor Michael Bloomberg are even multi-millionaires.

Perhaps the public’s fascination with this story is because Phelps is recognized as one of the most talented and successful athletes in the entire world. (He holds the record for the most gold medals won by any athlete in history.) But Phelps isn’t an anomaly in this regard either. Many top athletes use cannabis off the field — noting that it helps them to relax after the excitement of sports competition and alleviate the pain from nagging injuries. It also won’t leave them with a hangover or adversely impact their performance the next day.

A 1997 New York Times investigation estimated that up to 70 percent of pro-basketball players occasionally indulge in the use of pot, and many high-profile football players — most notably Miami Dolphins star running-back Ricky Williams, former Dallas Cowboys all-star Mark Stepnoski, and even Super Bowl XLIII MVP Santonio Holmes — have spoken candidly about their off-field marijuana use. In fact, Phelps isn’t even the first gold medalist to admit to smoking cannabis. That honor belongs to Canadian snowboarder and 1998 Winter Olympics gold medal winner Ross Rebagliati, who tested positive for having used cannabis in the days prior to his history-making performance.

Sure, there will be some who will say that this latest chapter in Phelp’s life is deserving of criticism because the 14-time gold medalist is sending a poor message to young children. And what message would that be? That you can occasionally smoke marijuana and still be successful in life. Well sorry if the truth hurts.

Fact is, most Americans who use pot do so for the same reasons — and in the same manner — as do those who drink alcohol. According to a recent University of Alberta study, the majority of adults who use cannabis do so recreationally to “enhance relaxation.” Researchers concluded: “[M]ost adult marijuana users regulate use to their recreational time and do not use compulsively. Rather, their use is purposively intended to enhance their leisure activities and manage the challenges and demands of living in contemporary modern society. Generally, participants reported using marijuana because it enhanced relaxation and concentration, making a broad range of leisure activities more enjoyable and pleasurable.”

No doubt Michael Phelps indulged in the use of marijuana for these very same reasons. He ought not to be condemned for it nor branded a criminal for his actions.

For that matter, neither should anyone else.

Coke or Pepsi

Paul Armentano — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. One could readily say the same thing about participating in presidential elections.

Every four years approximately half of all eligible voters (they other half has the good sense to stay home) head to the polls to engage in what amounts to little more than the political version of the “Taste Test Challenge.” Their choices: Coke or Pepsi, and like ubiquitous soft-drinks, the Republicans’ and the Democrats’ primary goal is to gain as many loyal consumers as possible. Many voters have been chugging their brand of choice for decades; others may have just started, and a few may have even switched brands along the way.

Of course, as with any established product, there are times — oh, about every four years or so — when the public begins to grow dissatisfied. They discover that New Coke doesn’t taste as good as the old version, and that Pepsi One doesn’t quite measure up as advertised. Fortunately, there’s always a slightly revised version — Pepsi Jazz or Coca-Cola Zero — fresh off the corporate assembly line designed to excite and entice the masses once again. Well at least for four more years — or until the public realizes that despite all the glitter, slogans, and hype surrounding the latest drink du jour, they’re still consuming nothing more than carbonated water and corn syrup.

Is there a more appropriate analogy for what our federal electoral system has become?

We no longer have independent candidates representing the views of the electorate; rather, we have two corporate brands fighting for market share — the only tangible difference between the two is the advertising (campaign promises). Obama (Pepsi) promises to be the “choice of a new generation,” while McCain (Coca-Cola Classic) declares that he’s “the real thing.” But while the two products may taste slightly different, they both consist of the same basic ingredients.

We have a Congress with the lowest public approval ratings in history; yet both presidential candidates (and one vice presidential candidate) are, in fact, members of Congress. (Apparently voters are far more forgiving of individual congressional representatives than they are of the lawmaking body as a whole, as if that makes any logical sense.) Even more discouraging, much of the “changes” offered by the two leading candidates are no more than cynical promises to undo the very messes they and their colleagues created.

For example, both Sens. Obama and McCain spent ample television time during the debates pledging to end “corporate welfare” as we know it. Sounds great, but only if voters ignore that both candidates (as well as VP nominee Joe Biden) just voted to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars to bail out giant corporations like AIG, General Motors and Chrysler.

Both the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates also favor America’s ongoing war-mongering and imperialism overseas. McCain thinks that a multi-decade occupation of a sovereign country (Iraq) is perfectly acceptable for a nation that prides itself as a “beacon of freedom,” while Obama thinks nothing of threatening military actions against Pakistan and Iran for so much as daring to engage in domestic activities that conflict with America’s global interests.

Of course, it’s not as if Sens. McCain or Obama are the problem per se; more accurately, they are the products of a system that is broken beyond repair — a corrupt federal Leviathan that pretends that duopoly is choice and that an oligarchy is representative government. Yet every few years, millions of Americans continue to give some semblance of legitimacy to this Orwellian standard of democracy by participating (voting) and perpetuating its existence. They elect to put a fresh coat of paint and new shutters on a home that’s very foundation is collapsing, and afterward they wonder why their house remains uninhabitable.

So this November my choice for the presidency will be “Not in my name.” Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about many of the issues the candidates are talking about; it’s just I’ve not yet grown cynical enough to believe that selecting Pepsi over Coke is a viable option for addressing the multitude of challenges our nation faces.

This article originally appeared in the Vallejo Times Herald (California).

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is a frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com.

The Pot Police State

Paul Armentano — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:00:00 +0000

If denial is the first sign of addiction, then Drug Czar John Walters is hooked to the gills. He’s addicted to targeting and arresting marijuana consumers, and he’ll do and say anything to keep this irrational and punitive policy in place.

Speaking earlier this month on C-Span, the reigning Czar stretched his usual deceit to outrageous new heights. Responding to a question from the Marijuana Policy Project’s Dan Bernath, Walters flatly denied the charge that over 800,000 Americans are arrested annually for violating pot laws.

“We didn’t arrest 800,000 marijuana users,” Walters proclaimed. “That’s [a] lie.”

If only it were.

According to data released yesterday in the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, police in 2007 arrested over 872,000 US citizens — that’s nearly one out of every two Americans busted for illicit drugs — for weed. (The raw data is available from the US Federal Bureau of Investigation here and here.)

That figure is a five percent increase over the total number of Americans busted in 2006. It’s more than three times the number of citizens charged with pot violations sixteen years ago.

Of those arrested in 2007, 89 percent — some 775,000 Americans — were charged with simple pot possession, not trafficking, cultivation, or sale. (By comparison, 27 percent of those arrested for heroin and cocaine offenses were charged with sales.) Three out of four were under age 30; one in four were 18-years-old or younger.

The FBI’s tally is the highest marijuana arrest total ever-reported in law enforcement history. If this pace continues, annual arrests for pot will surpass one million per year by 2010.

But to hear America’s top drug cop tell it few, if any, citizens are ever arrested for pot possession, and absolutely no one goes to jail for breaking marijuana laws.

“The fact is today, people don’t go to jail for the possession of marijuana,” Walters alleged on C-Span. “Finding somebody in jail or prison for possession of marijuana is like finding a unicorn. It doesn’t exist.”

Not true says the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which reported last year in black and white — perhaps the Drug Czar is reading impaired — that 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug abuse violations are serving time for marijuana offenses. Combining these percentages with separate U.S. Department of Justice statistics on the total number of state and federal drug prisoners suggests that, at a minimum, there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for marijuana offenses.

(The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county or local jails for pot-related offenses, nor did it take into account the number of inmates serving time for violating the terms of their marijuana-related probation, such as those who submitted a "dirty" urine to their parole officer.)

No matter how one slices it, that’s a lot of unicorns.

It also begs the question: Why does the Drug Czar feel the need to go to such absurd lengths to hide this overt outgrowth of American drug policy? After all, the US Drug Enforcement Administration and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy typically issue chest-thumping press releases when they achieve record busts for offenses involving cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Why then do they shy away from making similar proclamations for pot?

Perhaps it’s because, deep down, even the Drug Czar knows that the use of cannabis does not pose anywhere near the health and safety threat as does the use of other intoxicants, including alcohol, and that most Americans — rightly — would be outraged to learn that our nation’s so-called war on drugs is really just an assault on young adults caught with small bags of weed.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is the senior policy analyst for NORML and the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. He is the author of "Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature" (2007, NORML Foundation).

Change, From Inside the Beltway?

Paul Armentano — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Call me cynical, but I’ve had just about enough of the empty platitudes this presidential election season — particularly the candidates’ emotional appeals for "hope" and "change."
Change? From inside the Beltway? You can’t be serious, can you?

Washington is a multi-billion dollar, monolithic entity — composed of hundreds of career lawmakers, as well as thousands of agencies, corporate lobbyists, and lifelong bureaucrats. Aside from the 535 members of Congress, many of whom are faceless even among their own constituents, this Leviathan operates in a manner that is entirely unaccountable to the voting public.

In short, Washington is a bureaucracy — arguably the biggest, most bloated bureaucracy on this planet — and bureaucracies, by their very nature, are designed to stifle, not stimulate, change.

That said, even if Washington was an environment capable of responding to such idealistic expectations, neither the Democrat or Republican ticket is offering anything other than business as usual.

For all of Sen. Obama’s talk of change, there’s been little accompanying action. As a senator, what reform-minded legislation did Obama shepherd through Congress? Seems to me that the first-term senator has spent the bulk of his limited time in office campaigning for the White House rather than representing the needs of his constituents or championing for "change" from within.

Obama’s VP pick, the senior senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, is an anathema to change. Biden, who won his senate seat in 1972 at age 30, has spent more than half of his total time on Earth as a Washington insider. Of course, having lorded over American taxpayers so long, Biden can — unlike his running mate — take responsibility for numerous pieces of legislation. For example, during the mid-1980s, Biden was the chief senate architect of the federal anti-drug laws that re-established mandatory minimum sanctions for various drug possession crimes, and established the racially based 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crimes involving the possession of crack versus powder cocaine. Many academics have credited Biden’s law as one of the primary reasons why America now possesses the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, and why approximately one out of every nine young African-American males are now in prison. (Ironically, had Biden’s running mate and former admitted cocaine user Obama been convicted under federal law, his future political aspirations would have been limited to Barry the janitor, not President of the United States.)

Like all good politicians, Biden recently issued a verbal mea culpa for his role in disproportionately expanding the U.S. prison population (does saying "I’m sorry" count as "change"?), stating: "Our intentions were good, but much of our information was bad." Seems to me I heard the same thing from the GOP as it pertained to invading Iraq.

Of course, Republican presidential nominee John McCain is no better. The senior senator from Arizona has held his seat since 1982 — back when gas cost $1.28 a gallon, a new car cost under eight grand, and you could buy a new home for about $80,000. By my count, McCain has had 26 years in Washington to deliver the sort of "changes" he’s promising now. Has he?

On the flip-side, Alaska I’ve-yet-to-serve-one-full-term Gov. Sarah Palin is the antithesis of a Washington crony. That said, the greatest "change" she brings to Capitol Hill is being nominated for the second most powerful seat in the nation while possessing virtually no credentials, aside from arguably her gender, to have earned it.

Don’t get me wrong. Despite my jaded tone, I’m a strong believer in "change." But I look for it within my community, and more often than not, within myself. True "hope" and true "change" come from within one’s soul; they don’t emerge out of shallow platitudes uttered by career politicians residing 3,000 miles away in Washington.

This article originally appeared in the Vallejo Times Herald.

Paul Armentano [send him mail] is a frequent contributor to LewRockwell.com.

Pot vs. the Superbug

Paul Armentano — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:00:00 +0000

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, colloquially known as MRSA or “the superbug,” is now responsible for more annual US deaths than AIDS. Yet despite this sobering statistic, it’s unlikely that either JAMA or anyone in the mainstream US media will report on the findings of a forthcoming Italian study — you didn’t actually think I was going to say that this took place in America did you? — demonstrating that compounds in cannabis possess “exceptional antibacterial activity” against multi-drug resistant pathogens, including MRSA.

“Although the use of cannabinoids as systemic antibacterial agents awaits rigorous clinical trials, … their topical application to reduce skin colonization by MRSA seems promising,” the study’s authors write. “Cannabis sativa … represents an interesting source of antibacterial agents to address the problem of multidrug resistance in MRSA and other pathogenic bacteria.”

(You can read the full text ahead of publication here.)

Ironically, the study notes that preparations from cannabis were “investigated extensively in the 1950s as highly active topical antiseptic agents.” Predictably — in yet another “victory” for prohibition — authors declare that little, if any, research into this potential clinical application has taken place since.

Several years ago, when I first began writing the booklet Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids, I mused about what sort of advancements in the treatment of disease may have been achieved over the past 70+ years had U.S. government chosen to advance — rather than stifle — clinical research into the therapeutic effects of cannabis.

Now, more than ever, this is a question that our elected officials must be forced to answer.

NORML to the Drug Czar’s Office: ‘Now Do We Have Your Attention?’

Paul Armentano — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 05:00:00 +0000

More than 100 readers have posted comments in support of NORML’s recent guest editorial, “Criminalization of Marijuana Must End,” which appeared in The Hill’s influential “Congressional Blog.” Editors at The Hill inform NORML that it’s the highest volume of readers’ response they’ve ever received on any commentary on any topic!

So it’s hardly surprising that the Drug Czar’s office has grudgingly and belatedly offered their two-cents worth in a factually bereft editorial entitled “Marijuana Decriminalization Bill Ignores the Facts.” It’s an unintentionally amusing essay — though judging by the comments it appears that few people, if anyone, have actually bothered to read it — topped off by this half-baked claim, “[L]egalizing marijuana [is] a topic more often heard in college dorms at 2 o’clock in the morning than in the hallowed halls of our Congress.”

Excuse me, but if debating the merits of America’s failed cannabis policy is, in the Drug Czar’s opinion, a topic only appropriate for midnight musings, then why is the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy straining their already diminished intellectual capacities responding to this discussion in The Hill (which, last time I checked, was not a publication frequently read by college students in their dorm rooms at 2 am)??!!

Of course, I suppose The Hill should thank their lucky stars that the Drug Czar responded at all, given that no representatives from the ONDCP, CADCA, or other “pro-prohibition” groups will ever agree to engage with NORML in a face-to-face debate in a public forum. I mean, it wasn’t all that long ago that federal officials were distributing a guidebook, “How to Hold Your Own in a Drug Legalization Debate,” that recommended that prohibition advocates decline invitations to publicly debate drug policy issues.

My how times have changed!

Another Federal Cop Fraud

Paul Armentano — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Who among us doesn’t like to brag after a job well done? It’s human nature, right?

I mean, even the DEA enjoys boasting about their so-called "accomplishments." They even have their own (taxpayer funded) museum.

Given this fact, it’s both curious and notable that the DEA has suddenly ceased publicizing data regarding how many millions of feral hemp plants (aka "ditchweed") law enforcement eradicate each year.

In previous years, upwards of 98 percent of all the pot seized by law enforcement was categorized as "ditchweed" — a term the DEA uses to define “wild, scattered marijuana plants [with] no evidence of planting, fertilizing, or tending.”

For instance, in 2005 the DEA reported that cops destroyed some 219 million feral hemp plants versus only four million cultivated marijuana plants. DEA data for the year 2004 tells a similar story. Of the estimated 265 million marijuana plants destroyed by law enforcement that year, more than 262 million (roughly 99 percent) were classified as "ditchweed."

So, how much ditchweed did police confiscate in 2007? That would be anyone’s guess.

Upon referencing Table 4.38 (Number of marijuana plants eradicated and seized, arrests made, weapons seized, and value of assets seized under the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, by State, 2007) in the latest version of the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, visitors will discover that the column that previously reported on "ditchweed" seizures (in prior years’ tables, it was seventh column from the left) is now conspicuously missing.

So why would the DEA abruptly want to cease taking credit for destroying hundreds of millions of pounds of marijuana each year? Perhaps it’s because unlike cultivated marijuana, feral hemp contains virtually no detectable levels of THC — the primary psychoactive component in cannabis — and does not contribute to the black market marijuana trade.

Or perhaps it’s because the public was finally beginning to smarten up to the fact that they’ve been paying their police millions of dollars each year to do nothing more than pull a few weeds.

Twenty Years for Pot Possession?

Paul Armentano — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:00:00 +0000

According to an investigative report by the New Orleans City Business newspaper, Orleans Parish District Attorney Keva Landrum-Johnson is routinely seeking five-to-20 year sentences for minor pot possession offenders.

Smoke Screen
District attorney boosts felony convictions with marijuana cases
via neworleanscitybusiness.com

Shortly after Keva Landrum-Johnson took over as district attorney following Eddie Jordan’s resignation Oct. 30, hundreds of new felony cases flooded the public defenders office, overwhelming the 29 defense attorneys.

… The flood of new felony charges didn’t target murderers, rapists or armed robbers — they targeted small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threatened them with lengthy prison sentences.

The resulting impact has clogged the courts with non-violent, petty offenses, drained the resources of the criminal justice system and damaged low-income African-American communities.

… Landrum-Johnson’s decision to accept felony charges on people arrested for second and third marijuana possession offenses is a dramatic break from the tactics of former DAs Jordan and Harry Connick.

A first-time marijuana possession charge in Louisiana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison but typically results in a small fine. A second offense is a felony that can carry up to five years in jail and a third offense up to 20 years.

Under Jordan and Connick, however, second and third offenses were routinely reduced to misdemeanors that typically did not require a trial. This freed up public resources to be spent on violent crimes as opposed to minor, victimless offenses.

Question: Who’s the real "bad guy" here?

The obvious answer is DA Landrum-Johnson, who is throwing the book at minor pot offenders in a cynical effort to appear "tough on crime" and bolster her campaign for Criminal Court Judge.

But the blame should not end with the DA. The true culprits responsible for this mess are the Louisiana lawmakers who, apparently, believe it’s quite alright for minor pot offenders to face up to 20 years in prison and a felony record.

It’s not the responsibility of each individual DA to try and make rational sense out of what is clearly an irrational law. In fact, in an ironic twist, DA Landrum-Johnson’s actions may actually hasten statewide reforms in Louisiana by once and for all exposing the state’s dirty little secret: Louisiana possesses some of the most malevolent pot penalties in the country!

Well, it’s time that we call them on it. Write or call your Louisiana state legislators and ask them if they believe that minor marijuana offenders should face five-to-20 years in prison. And if they don’t, then tell them to sponsor legislation in 2009 to make Louisiana’s absurd pot penalties a thing of the past.

The Death of Rachel Hoffman

Paul Armentano — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Rachel Hoffman is dead.

Rachel Hoffman, like many young adults, occasionally smoked marijuana.

But Rachel Hoffman is not dead as a result of smoking marijuana; she is dead as a result of marijuana prohibition.

Under prohibition, Rachel faced up to five years in prison for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Under prohibition, the police in Rachel’s community viewed her as nothing more than a common “criminal,” and threatened her with years in jail unless she cooperated with them as an untrained, unsupervised confidential informant.

Under prohibition, the law enforcement officers responsible for placing Rachel in the very situation that resulted in her murder have failed to publicly express any remorse — because, after all, under prohibition Rachel Hoffman was no longer a human being deserving of such sympathies.

Tonight, ABC’s 20/20 will shed a national spotlight on the tragedy surrounding Rachel Hoffman’s untimely death — and the tragedy that is marijuana prohibition.

Are pot users criminals? The tragic case of Rachel Hoffman
via ABC News

After being caught twice with a “baggie” of marijuana, 23-year old Rachel Hoffman was reportedly told by police in Tallahassee, Florida that she would go to prison for four years unless she became an undercover informant.

The young woman, a recent graduate of Florida State University, was murdered during a botched sting operation two months ago.

Her case will be profiled Friday on 20/20.

“The idea of waging a war on drugs is to protect people and here it seems like we’re putting people in harm’s way,” said Lance Block, a lawyer hired by Rachel’s parents.

The Florida Attorney General’s office says it is reviewing the procedures and protocol of the Tallahassee police. Rachel’s case also has raised new questions about state and federal laws related to marijuana possession.

“I’m calling her a criminal,” Tallahassee police chief Dennis Jones told 20/20, who maintains that both drug dealers and drug users are considered criminals to his department.

Under Florida law, possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony.

Rachel was also found in possession of two ecstasy pills, a felony under Florida law no matter the quantity because it “has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

The Tallahassee police chief says Rachel was suspected of selling drugs and she was rightly treated as a criminal.

Rats Are Smarter Than Politicians

Paul Armentano — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:00:00 +0000

You can learn a lot from a rat — especially if the subject is medical cannabis.

According to a just-published study from the University of Milan — you didn’t actually think medicinal marijuana research took place in this country, did you? — the administration of whole-plant cannabis extracts provides superior pain relief compared to the administration of the plant’s isolated components (such as THC) in an animal model of neuropathic pain.

"[T]he use of a standardized extract of Cannabis sativa … evoked a total relief of thermal hyperalgesia, in an experimental model of neuropathic pain, … ameliorating the effect of single cannabinoids," investigators reported. "Collectively, these findings strongly support the idea that the combination of cannabinoid and non-cannabinoid compounds, as present in [plant-derived] extracts, provide significant [therapeutic] advantages … compared with pure cannabinoids alone."

Ironically, US lawmakers and bureaucrats have long argued just the opposite — maintaining that the therapeutic use of the plant should remain illegal, but that its "active ingredients … could be isolated and developed into a variety of pharmaceuticals, such as Marinol."

So if rats can deduce that whole cannabis works better as a medicine than a single synthesized molecule, what’s stopping our politicians from reaching this same conclusion?

So What If Pot Can Cure Cancer

Paul Armentano — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Now this really is a mixed blessing.

On the one hand, I’m thrilled to see that a study documenting the anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids is finally receiving some mainstream media attention.

On the other hand, I’m disappointed that its coverage is limited to a British tabloid that is better known for running anti-pot propaganda like this:

Cannabis killer knifed neighbour 100 times via Metro.co.uk

A mentally ill man driven to violent frenzies by cannabis was sentenced to life yesterday for stabbing a man 100 times.

… Kashmiri, 50, of Tooting, south London, sexually assaulted the woman at her south London home in June, 2006, and returned five nights later to attack her.

… Kashmiri, whose violent episodes are triggered by cannabis, denied murder but admitted manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

Of course, I’m accustomed to reading “Reefer Madness” in the British press.

But I’m less accustomed to reading “Reefer Madness” when it comes from the mouth of an established medi-pot researcher like Dr. Wai Man Liu.

Cannabis may help the war on cancer via Metro.co.uk

Cannabis could be used to treat many forms of cancer, new research suggests.

The drug contains an ingredient which slows tumour growth and prevents the reproduction of cancer cells, doctors say.

Its effects are seen in all cancers but particularly in those of the lung and brain, and leukaemia, it is claimed.

But scientists warned against smoking the drug, saying the only safe version was that created in the lab.

Researcher Dr Wai Man Liu said: ‘I’m in no way encouraging people to take up smoking the ganja — there would be more harm than good.’

Previous research has shown cannabis-based medicines can help cancer patients as a painkiller, appetite stimulant and in reducing nausea.

The drug has also long been used by multiple sclerosis and arthritis sufferers to reduce pain.

Its medicinal benefits come from the main active ingredient, THC. The latest research, by St George’s University of London, shows that THC can weaken cancer cells to make traditional chemotherapy more effective.

Dr Liu said: ‘It’s another weapon against the armour of cancer. We are quite close but need to jump through certain hoops. I believe it could be used in two to three years.’

Dr Joanna Owens, from Cancer Research UK, said the latest studies were encouraging but needed to be followed up with more trials. She added: ‘Making cancer cells more vulnerable to chemotherapy or radiotherapy is a great concept but it is still early days.’

Having recently lost friends and family members to cancer, including one to leukemia, I can inform Dr. Liu that such a diagnosis — even when treated with standard radiation and chemotherapy — is a death sentence. For Dr. Liu to advise, with a straight face no less, that these patients would do “more harm than good” by smoking cannabis is a disgrace. Not only can cannabis alleviate cancer patients’ nausea and pain, elevate their mood, and increase their appetite, but also — as Dr. Liu’s own data demonstrates — it may help to alleviate the very disease that’s ravaging their bodies. Nevertheless, I suppose that Dr. Liu would rather have these patients shut up and die than expose the political hypocrisy surrounding criminalizing a plant.

Finally, as for Dr. Liu’s idyllic estimate that his pharmaceutically-approved pot-based anti-cancer drugs will be available in “two to three years,” don’t hold your breath (or, if you already have cancer, try not to die in the interim). I’m sure that these investigators made similar proclamations when they documented pot’s anti-cancer properties — in 1975!

Yet here we are 33 years later and the only u201Cprogressu201D we’ve made on this issue is in the wrong direction — having moved from investigating the plant’s anti-cancer potential in animals to cells in vitro in a petri dish! Thank you Dr. Liu; now kindly get out of my sight.

What the Government Knows About Cancer and Cannabis

Paul Armentano — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Senator Ted Kennedy is putting forward a brave face following his recent surgery but the sad reality remains. Even with successful surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy treatment, gliomas — a highly aggressive form of brain cancer that strikes approximately 10,000 Americans annually — tragically claim the lives of 75 percent of its victims within two years and virtually all within five years.

But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells intact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?

Sadly, the questions posed above are not entirely hypothetical. Let me explain.

In 2007, I reviewed over 150 published preclinical and clinical studies assessing the therapeutic potential of marijuana and several of its active compounds, known as cannabinoids. I summarized these numerous studies in a book, now in its third edition, entitled Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Scientific Literature. (NORML Foundation, 2008) One chapter in this book, which summarized the findings of more than 30 separate trials and literature reviews, was dedicated to the use of cannabinoids as potential anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.

Not familiar with this scientific research? Your government is.

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot’s potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s primary psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar — though secret — preclinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, the U.S. government shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked to the medical journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to authorize a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. (Federal permission is necessary in order to conduct clinical research on marijuana because of its illegal status as a schedule I controlled substance.)

Fortunately, in the past 10 years scientists overseas have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can halt the spread of numerous cancer cells — including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and brain cancer. (An excellent paper summarizing much of this research, “Cannabinoids for Cancer Treatment: Progress and Promise,” appears in the January 2008 edition of the journal Cancer Research.) A 2006 patient trial published in the British Journal of Cancer even reported that the intracranial administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in humans with advanced glioblastoma.

Writing earlier this year in the scientific journal Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated, “(C)annabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth. (They) appear to be selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells without affecting the viability of nontransformed counterparts.” Not one mainstream media outlet reported their findings. Perhaps now they’ll pay better attention.

What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had U.S. government officials chosen to advance — rather than suppress — clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It’s a shame we have to speculate; it’s even more tragic that the families of Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer while we do.

A Victim of Pot Prohibition?

Paul Armentano — Thu, 22 May 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Forgive me if the headline above sounds slightly exploitive. My intention is not to piggyback on a personal tragedy, but I did want to get your attention.

In the fourteen years I’ve worked in marijuana law reform, few events have struck me as so needlessly tragic as the federal government’s consistent and deliberate stifling of medical cannabis research. Nowhere is the Feds’ refusal to allow this science more overt and inhumane than as it pertains to the investigation of cannabinoids as anti-cancer agents, particularly in the treatment of gliomas.

As noted in today’s wire stories regarding Senator Edward Kennedy’s diagnosis, glioma is an aggressive form of cancer that affects an estimated 10,000 Americans annually. Standard treatments for the cancer include radiation and chemotherapy, though neither procedure has proven particularly effective — with the disease killing approximately half its victims within one year and all within three years.

But what if there was an alternative treatment for gliomas that could selectively target the cancer while leaving healthy cells in tact? And what if federal bureaucrats were aware of this treatment, but deliberately withheld this information from the public?

Sadly, the above questions are not hypothetical. As I originally wrote in 2004 essay for Alternet.org, entitled “Pot Shows Promise as a Cancer Cure.”

In fact, the first experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S. government officials banished the study, and refused to fund any follow-up research until conducting a similar — though secret — clinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers shelved the results, which only became public after a draft copy of its findings were leaked in 1997 to a medical journal which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

In the years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund a single additional study examining the drug’s potential anti-cancer properties. Is this a case of federal bureaucrats putting politics over the health and safety of patients? You be the judge.

Fortunately, in the past ten years scientists overseas have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off, reporting that cannabinoids can halt the spread of numerous cancer cells — including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and in one human clinical trial, brain cancer.

Writing earlier this year in the journal Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, Italian researchers reiterated, “[C]annabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth either in vitro or in animal experimental models. … [They] appear to be selective antitumoral agents as they kill glioma cells without affecting the viability of nontransformed counterparts.” Not one mainstream media outlet reported their findings. Perhaps now they’ll pay better attention.

What possible advancements in the treatment of cancer may have been achieved over the past 34 years had US government officials chosen to advance — rather than suppress — clinical research into the anti-cancer effects of cannabis? It’s a shame we have to speculate; it’s even more tragic that the families of Senator Kennedy and thousands of others must suffer while we do.

Flipped-Out Pols

Paul Armentano — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Lest anyone think that science or reason guide modern cannabis policy, I present to you today’s announcement from British Home Secretary (and former pot smoker) Jacqui Smith calling on Parliament to increase pot penalties from a verbal warning — the current policy — to up to five years in jail.

Smith’s expected announcement (Watch the video here.) comes just days after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown — who has been afflicted with a severe case of “Reefer Madness" since taking office last June — raved that consuming cannabis can be fatal, and that strict penalties on pot are necessary in order to “send a message” to young people that marijuana smoking is “unacceptable.”

Ironically, the Home Secretary’s formal announcement contradicts the official recommendations of Britain’s Advisory Panel on the Misuse of Drugs, which released its own report today finding that pot lacks the potential health risks of most other illicit drugs, and that its use is unlikely to trigger mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.

It is the third time in six years that the Panel has demanded that legislators classify cannabis as a Class C "soft" drug, with minor, if any, criminal penalties. Unlike Smith or Brown, the Advisory Panel consists of experts commissioned to evaluate and determine British drug policies — hence it’s hardly surprising that their findings would be totally disregarded by British bureaucrats.

For those readers who have not closely followed Britain’s ongoing pot policy debate, here’s a brief history lesson:

In January 2004, Parliament downgraded the legal classification of cannabis from a Class B drug (such as amphetamines or barbiturates) to a Class C drug (such as anabolic steroids) — thus allowing police to issue verbal warnings to minor pot offenders in lieu of arresting them. Since then, the following events have occurred:

One-third fewer Britons have been arrested for pot offenses;

Marijuana use by those age 16 to 20 years of age has fallen by 20 percent;

Fewer than ten percent of Britons now report using cannabis — the lowest percentage ever recorded.

In fact, the current policy has worked so well that the British Association of Chief Police Officers has announced that they will refuse to waste their time and resources arresting minor pot offenders — regardless of what Parliament decides.

So let’s review, shall we? Gordon Brown wants to jail pot users to keep them from dying at the hands of weed — a stance so absurd that even the cops won’t go along with it. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith wants to jail pot users to keep them from losing their minds even though she herself smoked pot and is now one of the most powerful women in British politics. (Whether she is of sound mind remains debatable, I suppose.) The British Advisory Panel on the Misuse of Drugs thinks that Brown and Smith’s calls for reclassification are based on tabloid headlines in the Daily Mail rather than actual science, so they are dismissed as “know-nothings" by the very same people who, quite literally, know nothing.

And that, my friends, is how we decide cannabis policy in 2008.

Any questions?

How Can You Tell the Drug Czar Is Lying?

Paul Armentano — Wed, 14 May 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Feds: Teen use of pot can lead to mental illness
via The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Depression, teens and marijuana are a dangerous mix that can lead to dependency, mental illness or suicidal thoughts, according to a White House report released Friday. A teen who has been depressed at some point in the past year is more than twice as likely to have used marijuana as teens who have not reported being depressed — 25 percent compared with 12 percent, said the report by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

“Marijuana is a more consequential substance of abuse than our culture has treated it in the last 20 years,” said John Walters, director of the office. “This is not just youthful experimentation that they’ll get over as we used to think in the past.”

“It’s not something you look the other way about when your teen starts appearing careless about their grooming, withdrawing from the family, losing interest in daily activities,” Walters said. “Find out what’s wrong.”

Gotta love Walters’ remark about hygiene — which he appears to have taken almost verbatim from Above The Influence’s hateful propaganda film, Stoners In The Mist.

Seriously though, it goes without saying that this so-called White House "report" (I use the term euphemistically here, given that said "report" is under five pages and consists mostly of bar charts rather than text) is much ado about nothing. In fact, the only newsworthy aspect of this supposed "study" is that the lapdog mainstream media gave it any coverage at all.

In short, there’s nothing to the Drug Czar’s marijuana and mental health claims that NORML Advisory Board member Dr. Mitch Earleywine and I haven’t previously addressed in our essay here:

Pot Smoking Won’t Make You Crazy, But Dealing With The Lies About It Will
via Alternet

Perhaps the most impressive evidence against the cause-and-effect relationship concerns the unvarying rate of psychoses across different eras and different countries. People are no more likely to be psychotic in Canada or the United States (two nations where large percentages of citizens use cannabis) than they are in Sweden or Japan (where self-reported marijuana use is extremely low). Even after the enormous popularity of cannabis in the 1960s and 1970s, rates of psychotic disorders haven’t increased.

Ironically, just two days prior to the Drug Czar’s much ballyhooed press conference, Britain’s Advisory Panel on the Misuse of Drugs refuted the notion that pot use causes mental illness, stating, “The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak.”

A 2006 review by the same commission previously concluded, “The current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by one percent.” And more recently, a highly touted meta-analysis in the British medical journal, The Lancet, reported that there is a dearth of scientific evidence indicating that cannabis use causes psychotic behavior, noting, “Projected trends for schizophrenia incidence have not paralleled trends in cannabis use over time.”

Of course, none of this dismisses the possibility that pot use may exacerbate certain mental health problems in a handful of individuals. As NORML notes in a recent white paper, “Cannabis, Mental Health and Context:”

There is limited data suggesting an association, albeit a minor one, between chronic cannabis (primarily among adolescents and/or those predisposed to mental illness) and increased symptoms of depression, psychotic symptoms, and/or schizophrenia. However, interpretation of this data is troublesome and, to date, this observation association is not well understood. Identified as well as unidentified confounding factors (such as poverty, family history, polydrug use, etc.) make it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to adequately determine whether any cause-and-effect relationship exists between cannabis use and mental illness. Also, many experts point out that this association may be due to patients’ self-medicating with cannabis, as survey data and anecdotal reports of individuals finding therapeutic relief from both clinical depression and schizotypal behavior are common within medical lore, and clinical testing on the use of cannabinoids to treat certain symptoms of mental illness has been recommended.

That said, however, the most practical public policy to address these concerns is not criminal prohibition, but regulation.

If there does exist a minority population of citizens who may be genetically prone to potential harms from cannabis (such as, possibly, those predisposed to schizophrenia), then a regulated system would best identify and educate this sub-population to pot’s potential risks so that they may refrain from its use, if they so choose.

To draw a real world comparison, millions of Americans safely use ibuprofen as an effective pain reliever. However, among a minority of the population who suffer from liver and kidney problems, ibuprofen presents a legitimate and substantial health risk. However, this fact no more calls for the criminalization of ibuprofen among adults than do these latest allegations, even if true, call for the current prohibition of cannabis.

You can read the full report here.

Marijuana and Addiction

Paul Armentano — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:00:00 +0000

The U.S. government believes that America is going to pot — literally.

Earlier this month, the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse announced plans to spend $4 million to establish the nation’s first-ever “Center on Cannabis Addiction,” which will be based in La Jolla, Calif. The goal of the center, according to NIDA’s press release, is to “develop novel approaches to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of marijuana addiction.”

Not familiar with the notion of “marijuana addiction”? You’re not alone. In fact, aside from the handful of researchers who have discovered that there are gobs of federal grant money to be had hunting for the government’s latest pot boogeyman, there’s little consensus that such a syndrome is clinically relevant — if it even exists at all.

But don’t try telling that to the mainstream press — which recently published headlines worldwide alleging, “Marijuana withdrawal rivals that of nicotine.” The alleged “study” behind the headlines involved all of 12 participants, each of whom were longtime users of pot and tobacco, and assessed the self-reported moods of folks after they were randomly chosen to abstain from both substances. Big surprise: they weren’t happy.

And don’t try telling Big Pharma — which hopes to cash in on the much-hyped “pot and addiction” craze by touting psychoactive prescription drugs like Lithium to help hardcore smokers kick the marijuana habit.

And certainly don’t try telling the drug “treatment” industry, whose spokespeople are quick to warn that marijuana “treatment” admissions have risen dramatically in recent years, but neglect to explain that this increase is due entirely to the advent of drug courts sentencing minor pot offenders to rehab in lieu of jail. According to state and national statistics, up to 70 percent of all individuals in drug treatment for marijuana are placed there by the criminal justice system. Of those in treatment, some 36 percent had not even used marijuana in the 30 days prior to their admission. These are the “addicts”?

Indeed, the concept of pot addiction is big business — even if the evidence in support of the pseudosyndrome is flimsy at best.

And what does the science say? Well, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine — which published a multiyear, million-dollar federal study assessing marijuana and health in 1999 — “millions of Americans have tried marijuana, but most are not regular users [and] few marijuana users become dependent on it.” The investigator added, “[A]though [some] marijuana users develop dependence, they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”

Just how less likely? According to the Institute of Medicine’s 267-page report, fewer than 10 percent of those who try cannabis ever meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of “drug dependence” (based on DSM-III-R criteria). By contrast, the IOM reported that 32 percent of tobacco users, 23 percent of heroin users, 17 percent of cocaine users and 15 percent of alcohol users meet the criteria for “drug dependence.”

In short, it’s the legal drugs that have Americans hooked — not pot.

But what about the claims that ceasing marijuana smoking can trigger withdrawal symptoms similar to those associated with quitting tobacco? Once again, it’s a matter of degree. According to the Institute of Medicine, pot’s withdrawal symptoms, when identified, are “mild and subtle” compared with the profound physical syndromes associated with ceasing chronic alcohol use — which can be fatal — or those abstinence symptoms associated with daily tobacco use, which are typically severe enough to persuade individuals to reinitiate their drug-taking behavior.

The IOM report further explained, “[U]nder normal cannabis use, the long half-life and slow elimination from the body of THC prevent[s] substantial abstinence symptoms” from occurring. As a result, cannabis’ withdrawal symptoms are typically limited to feelings of mild anxiety, irritability, agitation and insomnia.

Most importantly, unlike the withdrawal symptoms associated with the cessation of most other intoxicants, pot’s mild after-effects do not appear to be either severe or long-lasting enough to perpetuate marijuana use in individuals who have decided to quit. This is why most marijuana smokers report voluntarily ceasing their cannabis use by age 30 with little physical or psychological difficulty. By comparison, many cigarette smokers who pick up the habit early in life continue to smoke for the rest of their lives, despite making numerous efforts to quit.

So let’s review.

Marijuana is widely accepted by the National Academy of Sciences, the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and others to lack the severe physical and psychological dependence liability associated with most other intoxicants, including alcohol and tobacco. Further, pot lacks the profound abstinence symptoms associated with most legal intoxicants, including caffeine.

That’s not to say that some marijuana smokers don’t find quitting difficult. Naturally, a handful of folks do, though this subpopulation is hardly large enough to warrant pot’s legal classification (along with heroin) as an illicit substance with a “high potential for abuse.” Nor does this fact justify the continued arrest of more than 800,000 Americans annually for pot violations any more than such concerns would warrant the criminalization of booze or nicotine.

Now if I can only get NIDA to fork me over that $4 million check.

Pot Makes You Lose Your Mind

Paul Armentano — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 05:00:00 +0000

Following Tuesday’s surprise House vote in New Hampshire in favor of legislation decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of pot, many of the Granite State’s political leaders and pundits have come down with severe cases of "Reefer Madness."

Among the afflicted: Democrat Governor John Lynch who, immediately following Tuesday’s vote, threatened to veto any plan that would reduce criminal penalties for small-time pot offenders. “[This bill] sends absolutely the wrong message to New Hampshire’s young people,” the governor stated through his spokesperson. “If the bill were to reach the governor’s desk, … he would veto it.”

Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta also appears to have contracted the disease. Yesterday, the mayor demanded state Rep. David Scannell, one of the 193 elected officials who voted in favor of HB 1623, to resign from his full-time job as spokesman for the Manchester school district. In a letter from the mayor to the first-term representative, Guinta charged that Scannell’s House vote “permanently and irrevocably harms” Scannell’s ability to serve Manchester’s schools. The mayor further argued Scannell’s resignation is necessary to “help restore the integrity” of district anti-drug policies.

Wow! Somebody please notify the mayor that marijuana possession — even minor offenses — would still be illegal under HB 1623, and that in a democracy we don’t threaten legislators’ ability to earn a living when we disagree with their political viewpoints.

Not even the editorial staff writers at New Hampshire’s largest newspaper are immune from the outbreak, judging by Wednesday’s editorial in the Union Leader, libelously titled “Promoting Pot.” Among the myths printed as fact: “Marijuana is addictive”; “It is a gateway drug to more seriously dangerous narcotics”; and “The bill would likely lead to more drug use and more drug dealing.”

Fortunately, the editorial board of at least one New Hampshire newspaper hasn’t lost its mind. Kudos to the Concord Monitor for maintaining their "reefer sanity" amidst this statewide pandemic.

House right to reduce marijuana penalties
via The Concord Monitor

The consequences of an arrest for even a minute amount of marijuana are serious and can have repercussions for decades. People convicted of possessing marijuana face a year in jail and a lifetime criminal record that could make it difficult to get some jobs. They also lose their eligibility for federal financial aid, a ban that could make attending college difficult and more costly. The punishment, particularly when it is so often given to young people whose judgment is not yet fully formed, is greatly out of proportion with the crime.

The bill makes possession of a quarter ounce of marijuana or less a violation punishable by a $200 fine and confiscation of the drug. It does not legalize marijuana or change the penalties for larger quantities, manufacturing or sale.

At least 11 states have decriminalized the possession of a small amount of marijuana, generally one ounce or less. Oregon did so in 1973. Studies in those states suggest that marijuana usage increases only slightly or not at all. In Great Britain, in fact, after marijuana was decriminalized in 2004, usage went down — the theory being that the drug lost some of its allure for rebellious youth because of its new status.

It makes no sense to make criminals of young people prone to experiment with a drug most experts consider much safer than alcohol. That’s no argument for legalizing marijuana, but it is cause to rethink the state’s criminal penalties. … It takes courage for politicians to vote for a bill that gives their opponents an easy target — even a bill that could remove an obstacle between some teens and college. It’s no surprise that Lynch raced to stop this debate before it got much further.

Read the full editorial here.

Anti-Pot Lies

Paul Armentano — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:00:00 +0000