Video from California Assembly hearings on legalization of marijuana [update]

Part I: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/798

Part II: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/799

Part III: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/800

NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano has sent a follow-up letter to Assemblyman Ammiano that challenges the more egregious allegations from our opponents (like Scott Kirkland’s “18% to 24%” THC average claim) with all the hyperlinky academic study goodness we have come to expect from Paul.

Thank you so much for holding yesterday’s hearing, “Examining the Fiscal and Legal Implication of the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana.” This is just the sort of comprehensive, civil, and intellectual debate that is needed if we are to move marijuana policy forward in California.

Over the course of yesterday’s nearly three hours of testimony there were several questions and allegations raised by both witnesses and members of the Committee. I have noted several of them below and have tried my best to provide accurate responses to them. Please note that I’d be happy to make background materials re: all of these issues available to your office upon request. More comprehensive replies to several of these issues are also available in my book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009) — a copy of which was handed to you at the conclusion of the hearing.

1) RE: federal surveys on marijuana use: Assemblyman Ammiano asked how these surveys are conducted:

The National Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted annually by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, is “the primary source of statistical information on the use of illegal drugs by the U.S. population. Conducted by the Federal Government since 1971, the survey collects data by administering questionnaires to a representative sample of the population through face-to-face interviews at the respondent’s place of residence.”

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#1.1

Critics of this survey methodology note that respondents in such settings have historically under reported their usage of alcohol and tobacco by as much as 30 to 50 percent, and arguably under report their use of illicit substances by an even greater margin.

2) Assemblyman Hill asked about other regional marijuana policy regulatory systems and whether these systems have impacted use rates:

I’ve recent drafted a paper reviewing some 30 studies in scientific journals assessing the potential impact of cannabis liberalization and use rates.  I’ve summarized the consensus of the data as follows:

• Strict government legalization/regulation of marijuana is unlikely to increase the public’s use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
• Decriminalization is unlikely to increase the public’s use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
• Free market legalization of marijuana without strict government restrictions on commercialization and marketing is likely to increase marijuana use among the public; however, given that the United States already has the highest per capita marijuana use rates in the world, this increase is likely to be marginal relative to other nation’s experiences.

Here is how the World Health Organization summarized the data in PLOS last year:

Degenhardt et al. 2008. Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: findings from the WHO world mental health surveys. PLOS Medicine 5: 1053-1067.

“Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly, and is simply not related to drug policy. … The U.S. … stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies.  The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the U.S., has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in national rates of illegal drug use.”

Notably, there are significant variations in cannabis regulatory regimes even within U.S. states — where possession is treated as either a felony, criminal misdemeanor, minor misdemeanor, or civil infraction — dependent on the state. Interestingly, a recent SAMHSA report illustrates that several states with the most lenient laws on marijuana possession offenses (e.g., possession is treated as a civil infraction) have some of the lowest comparative use rates (e.g., Nebraska, Mississippi). See: Figure 2.5 Marijuana Use in Past Year among Persons Age 12 or Older. U.S.
Office of Applied Studies, 2009. http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7State/Ch2.htm#Fig2-5

3) Assemblyman Hagman questioned whether taxes may be collected on an act that is considered to be illegal federally:

Two answers: One, the BOE is already collecting taxes statewide on marijuana sales. Two: many states have enacted drug tax laws, which assess taxes on drug possession and sale activities, and sanction defendants who have not paid a tax preemptively on such endeavors to the state. In fact, the initial federal law outlawing cannabis possession was a Tax Stamp Act.

4) Assemblyman Hagman alleged that marijuana was one of the few products Americans consume that isn’t FDA approved:

Not true; in fact 40 percent of all prescriptions drugs — including all drugs prescribed to minors — are not FDA approved for that specific purpose for that particular population. Further, all clinical trials — including those on medical marijuana, such as those conducted at the California Universities — proceeded with FDA approval.

5) Witness John Standish alleged that taxing marijuana would cost society far more money than it would ever bring in, citing the societal costs of alcohol and tobacco:

The social costs of alcohol and tobacco far outweigh the social costs of marijuana, as the consumption of both substances have a more adverse impact on both the body and on behavior than does marijuana. By contrast, marijuana’s actual “total burden on society” — when quantified — is minimal. A good example of this is the 2007 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study  The Burden of Disease and Injury in Australia. It noted:

“Alcohol harm was responsible for 3.2 percent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia. By contrast, marijuana use was responsible for 0.2 percent.

6) Witness John Standish implied that marijuana use among Britons increased when Parliament downgraded its regulatory classification in 2004:

This allegation is false. Just the opposite result happened.

The Guardian. “Fewer young people using cannabis after reclassification.” October 25, 2007.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/25/drugsandalcohol.immigrationpolicy

“Cannabis use among young people has fallen significantly since its controversial reclassification in 2004, according to the latest British Crime Survey figures published today. The Home Office figures showed the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who had used cannabis in the past year fell from 25% when the change in the law was introduced to 21% in 2006/07″

7) Witness Sara Simpson alleged that there would be an increased demand for high potency marijuana if cannabis was regulated:

False.

Reinarman et al. 2009. Cannabis policies and user practices: market separation, price, potency, and accessibility in Amsterdam and San Francisco. International Journal of Drug Policy 20: 28-37.

“Decriminalization was associated with a preference for milder cannabis.”

8) Witness Scott Kirkland stated that today’s marijuana averages “18 to 24 percent THC.”

False, and blatantly so. According to the federal government’s own potency data, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana — which comprises the bulk of the US market — is less than five percent, a figure that’s remained unchanged for nearly a decade.

See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12

Second, 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.

Third, when consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2560548?dopt=Abstract Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol content on marijuana smoking behavior, subjective reports, and performance.

9) Witness Kirkland also raised concerns about incidences of DUI cannabis:

I have reviewed this subject extensively, and even was a consultant on this issue for the Canadian Public Health Association’s “Pot and Driving” Media campaign to discourage such irresponsible behavior. Please see my review of the literature and policy suggestions re: this important issue here:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review

Thank you again for your efforts on this issue. I look forward to future debates on marijuana policy and am here to offer my expertise on this issue in any way that helps supports your efforts toward enacting sensible marijuana regulations.

Milkshake: drank!