Yakima Rotary listens to both sides of the marijuana legalization debate

The Yakima Downtown Rotary Club recently hosted two guest speakers who provided information about Initiative 502 and marijuana legalization.  The meeting was broadcast on KYVE 47, Yakima's public television station, and may be viewed at: http://kcts9.org/yakima-downtown-rotary-meetings/meeting-august-23-2012.

Despite ease of access, teenagers use legal and regulated drugs at higher rates than illegal drugs

Results from the annual survey on teen substance abuse conducted by CASA Columbia provide an interesting look at youth access to and use of marijuana.  

Marijuana is the primary drug sold by students.  According to this national survey, 44% of high school students know of a student who sells drugs.  Overwhelmingly, the drug being sold by fellow students is marijuana.  

Though marijuana is sold by peers, alcohol is used more. What's interesting is that of the students who can identify a classmate who sells drugs, 55% use alcohol and 35% use marijuana.

In schools where drugs are easy to get, alcohol is the drug of choice.  Of students who report that drugs are used, kept, or sold on school grounds (drug-infected schools), 40% report using alcohol and 24% use marijuana.

Legal drugs are easier to get than illegal drugs.  Students in "drug-infected schools" report that within an hour they can get alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs more easily than marijuana.

Previous studies have indicated that the majority of teenagers who do not use marijuana report that they don't because it is illegal.  (Johnston, L. D., et al,. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 2010. Volume I: Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.)

This data adds to the evidence that treating marijuana like alcohol by making it legal and regulated would increase youth access to and use of it.  

But what about the children?

Over at the But What About the Children? Campaign website, an interesting online discussion recently ensued between proponents of I-502 and the campaign staff.

By Roger A. Roffman, August 1, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

In the state of Washington, I-502, an initiative to regulate and tax marijuana, qualified for the November 2012 ballot. It deserves a close look (New Approach Washington) by those who believe any policy reform must be in the best interest of children and families, public safety, and public health. I’ve been an addiction researcher for most of my professional life, focusing specifically on interventions tailored for adults and adolescents with marijuana use disorders. Because I-502 offers a powerful and accountable public health alternative to today’s far too unsuccessful criminalization approach, I chose to be an initiative sponsor.

Roger Roffman, DSW

Professor Emeritus

University of Washington

By National Families in Action, August 3, 2012 @ 6:57 am

To Professor Roffman:

I-502 has a long way to go to prevent a marijuana industry from targeting children and teenagers as customers like the alcohol and tobacco industries do. Your initiative is based on regulating marijuana like alcohol. Currently, twice as many young people in your state use alcohol as use marijuana. If the drug is legalized, marijuana use is likely to increase dramatically among the young under I-502 provisions that are far weaker than marketing constraints currently being brought against the tobacco industry, constraints that are having a major impact on reducing underage smoking. Without similar provisions, I-502, if passed, will result in more marijuana use, more marijuana-related health and safety problems, and more, not less, addiction.

The Editors

By Alison Holcomb, August 4, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

To NFIA:

It is inaccurate to state that Initiative 502′s marketing constraints are weaker than those in place for the tobacco industry. In fact, they are stronger:

- Legal age of 21 rather than 18

- Marijuana sold only in standalone, marijuana-only stores that may not permit people under 21 on premises; no sales in grocery stores, convenience stores or gas stations

- Stores may not display marijuana in a manner that allows it to be viewed by passersby

- Store signage restricted to one sign no larger than 1,600 square inches identifying the retail outlet by the licensee’s business or trade name; no window displays advertising marijuana products

- No advertising within 1,000 feet of places frequented by children like schools, playgrounds, etc.

- No advertising on public property, including transit buses and bus stops

- Additional time, place, manner advertising restrictions designed to minimize exposure to people under 21 to be adopted during one-year rule-making process before first licenses issue

- Prohibition on public display of marijuana generally

- Labeling that includes medically and scientifically accurate information about the health and safety risks posed by marijuana use

Moreover, Initiative 502 dedicates a large portion of the new marijuana excise tax to evidence-based prevention programs, monitoring, and robust cost-benefit evaluation of the impacts of implementation of the measure so that informed modifications may be made as necessary.

Finally, it is worth noting that Washington’s state Department of Health has already published a fiscal note describing how it intends to use its portion of the dedicated funds to implement a comprehensive marijuana education and public health program based, specifically, on the lessons learned from its successful Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, and guidance and best practices from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Alison Holcomb

Campaign Director

New Approach Washington

By National Families in Action, August 21, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

To Alison Holcomb:

It is clear that a minimum age of 21 for marijuana sales is better than a minimum age of 18 for tobacco sales. All of the other provisions you cite sound terrific—until one reads the initiative’s language rather than your description of that language.

Nowhere is this clearer than Section 28 (5) (b): “Ten percent to the department of health for the creation, implementation, operation, and management of a marijuana education and public health program that contains the following: (i) A marijuana use public health hotline that provides referrals to substance abuse treatment providers, utilizes evidence-based or research-based public health approaches to minimizing the harms associated with marijuana use, and does not solely advocate an abstinence-only approach. . .”

The universal goal of tobacco education campaigns rests solely on an “abstinence-only approach”: to persuade adolescents not to start smoking and to help smokers quit. That I-502 would dictate to the public health department an approach that defies evidence-based, research-based public health education programs is deeply troubling.

We are fascinated that both you and Professor Roffman ignore the question we raise in our response to him, above. If Washington is going to regulate marijuana like alcohol–the spin you’ve given I-502–Washington parents can expect to see marijuana use surge among 12-17 year olds and 18-25 year olds to their levels of alcohol use, which is double that among adolescents (13.94 percent alcohol vs. 7.73 percent marijuana) and more than triple that among young adults (60.77 percent alcohol vs. 17.08 marijuana).

The Editors

Funding for substance abuse prevention: the devil is in the details

Towards the end of today's "live chat" on the Seattle Times website, proponents of I-502 called for youth substance abuse prevention programs and pointed to the dedicated funds for prevention that are included in the initiative.  While I agree that substance abuse prevention funding is very much needed in Washington, the initiative would not provide prevention funding for everyone.

First of all, the fiscal impact statement for I-502 states that some marijuana tax revenue would go towards funding prevention programs through the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery (DBHR).  DBHR in turn reports that the majority of the funding would go towards youth substance abuse treatment and the remaining would go towards funding Prevention Redesign Initiative (PRI) communities.  PRI funding is for the formation of coalitions, an evidence-based model for substance abuse prevention.  Coalitions could use those funds for prevention programming and prevention-interventions specialists in schools.  However, nowhere near all Washington communities are part of PRI.  For instance, in Seattle only two communities are part of the PRI.  While many more communities may be added to the PRI, not all communities in this state will, leaving big gaps in prevention and intervention services.

Secondly, the dedicated funds for youth substance abuse prevention could be diverted to the state's general fund within two years.  A good example of this is what happened with tobacco dedicated funds.  Our state used to put a lot of money into tobacco prevention.  A few years ago the legislature decided the tobacco dedicated fund should go to fill a state budget shortfall and now state tobacco prevention funding is gone.

But what about marijuana tax revenue in the general fund that would provide more money for education?  Prevention-intervention services (drug/alcohol counseling) is not part of the state's definition of basic education.  Because of that, it is highly unlikely that any tax revenue that goes to the general fund for education will ever make its way to fund substance abuse prevention-intervention services in schools.

Seattle Times "live chat" about marijuana legalization, Monday at noon

Join representatives from both sides of the marijuana legalization debate next Monday, August 20, at noon, to talk about the pros and cons of Initiative 502, moderated by The Seattle Times political team.


The Seattle Times is collecting questions in advance.  They may be emailed to jmartin@seattletimes.com or jbalter@seattletimes.com.

Study: "Cannabis is harmful to the developing brain"

According to a press release from the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute:

Long term, heavy cannabis use is harmful to the developing brain, according to new research conducted at the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute.

The study, which was published in the leading neurology journal, Brain, found individuals who were heavy cannabis users, who had used for a long period of time, had significant changes in their brains - specifically the areas of brain which connected regions involved in memory function.

Importantly, it also found that the age at which regular cannabis use first began was a key factor in determining the severity of any deterioration in the brain.  This study showed the younger you were when you started, the worse the outcome.  Those who started in early adolescence suffered the greatest abnormalities, and experienced greatest cognitive impairment.  

Lead researcher, Doctor Marc Seal, from Murdoch Childrens, said their findings indicate that that there are critical periods of brain development and ages at which the brain is more vulnerable to damage from regular cannabis use. 

"Our results suggest that long-term cannabis use is hazardous to white matter in the developing brain.  This was especially true for those who had started in adolescence, as we know the brain is still developing during this time."

These findings are significant as we continue the debate about marijuana legalization.  Legalization proponents often say that marijuana is not a harmful drug.  As research on youth use shows, this is simply not true.  Legalization proponents also say that selling marijuana through stores would ensure less access among youth.  This, too, is simply not true.  

If we regulate marijuana like alcohol, access to and use of marijuana among teenagers would increase.  The primary ways teenagers access alcohol are through friends, adults who buy it for them, and at home with or without parental permission.  If marijuana were sold like alcohol, kids would get it the same way.  Easier access among adults means easier access among youth.  

Though teenagers currently say that marijuana is as easy to get as alcohol, fewer use marijuana than use alcohol.  The majority of teenagers who do not use marijuana say they don't because it is illegal.  

Marijuana policy needs to take into account youth access, use, and abuse.  So far, all legalization initiatives have fallen short.  

Fiscal Impact Statement: I-502 costs, savings, and revenue are "indeterminate"

On Friday, the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM) released a Fiscal Impact Statement for Initiative 502.

One of the documents included in the background information posted on their website is a letter from United States Attorney General Eric Holder that says:

"Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19 (the failed 2010 California initiative to legalize marijuana).  If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens . . . the Department of Justice remains firmly committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") in all states . . . Accordingly, we will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture, or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law."

This letter made it impossible for the OFM to predict with confidence how much revenue I-502 would create and how much I-502 would end up costing the state.  All of their estimates are "non-zero but indeterminate" for revenue, costs and/or savings.  Any news article that states that I-502 will bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue and does not report that the revenue could be zero since marijuana would still be illegal under federal law, isn't telling the whole story.  Any news article that does not take into account the unknown costs of I-502, isn't telling the whole story.

Regulating marijuana is complicated, continued

Yesterday's post provided examples of the importance of regulations when it comes to drug policy.  The recently published paperback, "Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know", includes a section entitled, "What special regulations could apply to legal marijuana?"  It brings up many questions that have yet to be part of any discussion about marijuana legalization.

If I-502 is approved by Washington voters in November, the Liquor Control Board will have one year to develop a regulatory system for commercial marijuana growing, production, and sale.  Just a few examples of what would need to be considered are:

-- The potency and mix of psychoactive ingredients in marijuana.  The Liquor Control Board limits the potency of alcohol.  Would they put similar limits on the potency of marijuana?

-- The form in which marijuana can be sold.  The Liquor Control Board limits the sale of "alcopops" that appeal to youth.  Would they put similar limits on marijuana brownies that appeal to youth?  How about beverages containing THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana)?

-- Requirements for testing and accurate labeling of marijuana products.

Other state agencies would need to make rules about how to enforce new laws, such as a ban on individuals growing their own marijuana.  Not to mention public smoking laws -- would smoking marijuana in public be restricted like tobacco smoking?

Taking into account how difficult it has been for the Washington legislature to agree on how to best regulate medical marijuana, and the process involved with the Liquor Control Board creating regulations for the private distribution and sale of liquor under I-1183, the implementation of I-502 would be a long and contentious process.  Is this how Washingtonians want to spend the next few years, arguing over new laws and regulations instead of focusing on the pressing issues already before us?

Regulating marijuana is complicated

Are teenagers who use marijuana getting it from medical marijuana dispensaries?  Studies conducted in Colorado, a state that has medical marijuana dispensaries like Seattle, are starting to show that they do.

According to a recent study about how many teenagers in substance abuse treatment in the Denver metropolitan area used somebody else's (diverted) marijuana, "Approximately 74% of the adolescents had used someone else's medical marijuana, and they reported using diverted medical marijuana a median of 50 times. After adjusting for gender and race/ethnicity, adolescents who used medical marijuana had an earlier age of regular marijuana use, more marijuana abuse and dependence symptoms, and more conduct disorder symptoms compared with those who did not use medical marijuana."  

As an article in The Atlantic states, "Regulating marijuana isn't as simple as you thought!"

". . . the fact that it's reaching any population of adolescents in such numbers -- and that, as the study suggests, it appears to be affecting them negatively -- does bring to light the unspoken philosophy of the present state of medical marijuana. It is, for many, pseudo-legalization. The lax regulation (relative to that of traditional prescription medications) feels like a wink and a nod."

The same would be true with fully legalized marijuana.  Without strong and enforced regulations youth access to marijuana would increase.  Here are two examples:

-- Alcohol is easy for teens to get because regulations that would prohibit older friends and siblings from buying it for them are not enforced.  The top 3 ways teenagers get alcohol is from a friend, at a party or by giving someone money to buy it for them.  I-502 does not include regulations that would stop teenagers from getting marijuana the same way they get alcohol.

-- Like alcohol, youth would get marijuana at home -- the same would be true with marijuana.  Washington teenagers are more likely to get alcohol from home with or without parent's permission than from buying it from a store.  With the demise of legal sanctions against use, some parents may choose to begin using marijuana, acting as a new source for their children.  I-502 does not contain a law that would hold parents responsible for supplying their kids with marijuana.

Another medical association concerned about the effect of marijuana on youth

While the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's recent statement is about medical marijuana, not marijuana legalization, some of the information it contains can inform the legalization debate.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) is concerned about the negative impact of medical marijuana on youth.  Adolescents are especially vulnerable to the many adverse developmental, cognitive, medical, psychiatric, and addictive effects of marijuana.  Of particular concern to our field, adolescent marijuana users are more likely than adult users to develop marijuana dependence, and their heavy use is associated with increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders.  Furthermore, marijuana's deleterious effects on cognition and brain development during adolescence may have lasting implications.

The "medicalization" of smoked marijuana has distorted the perception of the known risks and purported benefits of this drug. Since certain states began permitting dispensing of medical marijuana, adolescents' perceptions of the harmful effects of marijuana have decreased and marijuana use has increased significantly.  There is also emerging evidence that adolescents are accessing medical marijuana for recreational use.  Therefore AACAP urges more scientific evaluation and a risk:benefit analysis by interdisciplinary experts to determine whether there is any medical indication for marijuana dispensing given the potential harm to adolescents.

In summary:

• Adolescents are especially vulnerable to adverse consequences of marijuana use.
• Medical marijuana dispensing is associated with reduced perception of marijuana-related risks and increased rates of marijuana use among adolescents.
• AACAP thus opposes medical marijuana dispensing to adolescents. 

Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Should Know

Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know is a paperback book recently released by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, a non-partisan research center dedicated to providing objective analysis and research to decision-makers.

Two of the book's authors were interviewed on WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show.  What becomes clear during the interview is that the issue of marijuana legalization is more complicated than is apparent when people listen to the current public/media debate.  They also make clear that there are a lot of unknown consequences associated with marijuana legalization and that any proposal to legalize marijuana should include the ability to repeal the law if things don't turn out well.  Listen to the full interview here:



In July, the authors briefed congressional staff about what they learned during their research for the book.  The briefing may be viewed here:


I urge everyone to read the text of I-502 and compare it to findings and recommendations made by these non-partisan researchers.  Know what you are voting for or against and avoid the buyer's remorse that Washingtonians have felt about other recently approved initiatives.

Portugal did not legalize marijuana production and possession

Over the past few days, I have posted information about marijuana policy in the Netherlands from the American Society of Addiction Medicine's White Paper opposing state marijuana legalization initiatives.  Now on to Portugal, another country that marijuana legalization proponents often refer to.  However, when all of the facts about Portugal's drug policy are examined, it becomes readily apparent that what happens in that country is nothing like what legalization proponents are proposing in the United States, including Washington.

From the White Paper:


Portugal has decriminalized the use and possession of a 10-day supply of any illicit drug, including marijuana, changing it from a criminal offense to an administrative one.  Like the Netherlands, all drug sales and manufacturing -- including marijuana -- remain illegal in Portugal and are met with criminal sanctions.  The implementation of decriminalization for drug possession changed the way in which drug users are handled in Portugal.  Rather than being subject to arrest, drug users are summoned by the police to their local district's Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Abuse (CDT), three-member groups in charge of evaluating and ruling on the drug possession offense.  CDT's dispense administrative punishments for most drug users, some of which are suspended if treatment is obtained, though there is no monitoring mechanism to ensure treatment participation or completion.  The large majority of CDT cases involve only marijuana.  There is limited evidence to identify the effects of Portugal's drug policy changes, and particularly to separate the effects of decriminalization from other changes recently made and the relevance of these changes for any other country, including the United States. 

Comparing the Portuguese experience with the decriminalization of marijuana possession with what is contained in I-502, the following things stick out.  I-502: 

-- does not just decriminalize marijuana possession but legalizes the growth, production, sale, and possession of marijuana creating a new free-market marijuana industry.

-- does not provide funding for the enforcement of the new regulatory system or laws.  Portuguese police issue citations to people they see possessing drugs and refer them to CDT's.

-- does not set aside additional money for publicly-funded substance abuse treatment.  Portugal has increased funding for substance abuse treatment.

Dutch government says their tolerant marijuana laws create nuisances and crime

To follow up with yesterday's post about marijuana laws in the Netherlands, below is more from the American Society of Addiction Medicine's White Paper opposing state marijuana initiatives.

The potency (i.e. concentrations of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) of marijuana and hashish sold in coffee shops [in the Netherlands] has significantly increased over time.  As a result of increases in international drug tourism and drug trade, commercialization of the marijuana industry, and stronger links to organized crime, the drug policy of the Netherlands is now changing.  The Dutch government states that in order "to combat the nuisance and crime associated with coffee shops and the trade in drugs," "coffee shops must become smaller and easier to control."  De facto decriminalization has and will remain intact for all "soft" drugs, including marijuana and hashish in the Netherlands; however, marijuana with THC content of 15% or more is now considered a "hard" drug and is banned from sale.  Coffee shops are no longer public; they are private clubs with limited membership for persons 18 and older who can prove they are residents of the Netherlands and they must be located at a distance from schools.  These and related changes are currently underway and will all be in place by January 1, 2013.  


Comparing the Dutch experience with tolerant marijuana laws with what is contained in Initiative 502, on which Washingtonians will vote in November, the following things stick out.  I-502:

• does not contain any provisions that would ensure our state does not become the next destination for international drug tourism.  
• does not contain any regulations regarding the THC content of marijuana.  
• does not contain money for the increased need for law enforcement that may be needed to deal with a possible increase in organized crime.
• does not ban mass media marketing and advertising of marijuana, part of what it means to have a commercialized marijuana industry.  

Addiction experts statement: In the Netherlands marijuana is tolerated, not legal

Yesterday's post included a statement released by the American Society of Addiction Medicine opposing state marijuana legalization initiatives.  The statement is part of a White Paper released by the organization that provides a comprehensive overview of the marijuana-related issues that they took into consideration when developing it.  Section V of the White Paper provides international context.  Here is an excerpt:

Those in favor of legalizing marijuana in the United States sometimes turn to the experience of other nations with less restrictive approaches to drug policy, particularly the Netherlands and Portugal, to inform their cause.  As noted, no country has legalized marijuana use and sale.  In the Netherlands, the use, possession, and sale of marijuana all remain illegal.  The laws which would typically ban marijuana "coffee shops" (where marijuana is sold) and marijuana users within these shops are not enforced is a policy of "toleration."  Historically, Dutch coffee shops have been permitted to sell marijuana under simple, but strict conditions such as without advertisement, in limited amounts (5 grams) per person each day, only to adults age 18 and older, and without "cause of nuisance."  The marijuana sold in these shops has been and continues to be illegally grown and/or imported.

In other words, what is being proposed by marijuana legalization proponents in the United States, including Washington, is not at all similar to what is allowed in the Netherlands.