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.

Addiction medicine physicians oppose state marijuana initiatives

Yesterday, the American Society for Addiction Medicine, the country's foremost association of physicians who diagnose and treat substance abuse addiction, released a statement opposing all of the state ballots that propose to legalize marijuana. 

From their statement:

ASAM asserts that the significant public health problems and costs related to marijuana legalization are not well-understood by the public or policymakers. ASAM's conclusion that marijuana legalization would threaten public health is based on the following:

·         Marijuana use is neither safe nor harmless. Marijuana contains psychoactive cannabinoids which can produce a sense of discomfort and even paranoid thoughts in some users. Cannabinoids interact with brain circuits in comparable ways to opioids, cocaine and other addictive drugs. Marijuana use is associated with damage to specific organs and tissues and impairments to behavioral and brain functioning.

·         Of greatest concern is marijuana use during adolescence—a time of ongoing brain development and heightened vulnerability to addiction. Research shows that heavy marijuana use decreases neurocognitive performance, with worse neurocognitive effects seen among those who begin marijuana use early.

·         Marijuana is addictive. Repeated marijuana use is reinforcing because the drug increases activation of reward circuitry in the brain. Approximately 9% of people who try marijuana become dependent. For those who begin using the drug in their teens, approximately 17% become dependent. These figures are similar to alcohol dependence.

·        Legalization would promote the public perception that marijuana is harmless at the same time that availability of the drug would grow exponentially. The rate of marijuana use and marijuana-related substance use disorders, including addiction, would increase.

·         Increased marijuana addiction would heighten demand for substance use disorder treatment services, which already are inadequate for current needs.

·         Marijuana use is associated with increased rates, and worsening symptoms, of psychosis. Increased marijuana use caused by legalization and increased access to high-potency marijuana could result in rising rates of psychotic illnesses.

·         Marijuana-related crashes are major traffic safety threats; marijuana use doubles the risk of a crash. Research inWashington State showed that 12% of drivers killed in car crashes were positive for marijuana. Legalization would increase drugged driving. 

      Marijuana legalization will increase its availability to young people, who are the most at risk from this drug. Research shows that marijuana leads to a host of significant health, social, learning and behavioral problems in young users.

Youth access to marijuana would increase if legalized

A pro-marijuana legalization billboard in Colorado shows a boy with his father who is saying, “Please check my son’s ID”.  The message is that if marijuana is sold in stores youth access to it will decrease because stores won’t sell to minors.  While in theory this sounds great, it’s just not true.  If we treat marijuana like alcohol, youth access will increase.  Most kids who drink do not get alcohol by buying it at a store and the same would be true for marijuana.  

Alcohol is easy for teens to get because older friends and siblings can buy it for them legally.  The top three ways teenagers get alcohol is from friends, at a party, or by giving someone money to buy it for them (Washington State Healthy Youth Survey -- HYS). If marijuana is treated like alcohol, teens will just as easily get marijuana as they get alcohol from older friends and siblings.  Though teenagers currently say that marijuana is as easy to get as alcohol, they use legal and regulated alcohol at much higher rates than they use marijuana (HYS).

Like alcohol, youth will get marijuana at home.  Washington tenth graders report that they are more likely to get alcohol from home with or without parents’ permission than from buying it from store (HYS). With the demise of legal sanctions against use, some parents may choose to begin using marijuana, acting as an important new source of exposure for their adolescents.  Parental use of marijuana in the last year is associated with their adolescent’s use during the same period (Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth, American Academy of Pediatrics).

Find out more at WASAVP's Marijuana Education Toolkit.

Marijuana legalization & marketing to teenagers

Proponents of marijuana legalization in Washington say that their initiative will protect kids by restricting marijuana advertising.  However, if you read the text of I-502, you will soon realize that their restrictions are minimal and similar to alcohol advertising regulations.  As we know, alcohol ads are pervasive and have a negative impact on youth in our communities.

I-502 does not restrict advertising in broadcast media, print media, or the Internet.  Recently, alcohol marketing through digital media has exploded.  Marijuana marketing would be no different.

I-502 does not ban marijuana ads that appeal to youth.  Alcohol and tobacco companies continue to market their products to young people even when disavowing any efforts to do so.  Despite regulations, alcohol advertisements continue to associate drinking with being sexy, popular, and fun -- portrayals that are extremely enticing to teenagers.  If legalized, distributors would quickly recognize the profitability of portraying marijuana in the same manner. 

Find out more at WASAVP's Marijuana Education Toolkit.

Medical associations against marijuana legalization

What do medical organizations think about marijuana legalization?  Read the statements below . . .


The American Medical Association’s Policy Statement on Cannabis
Our AMA believes that (1) cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern; (2) sale and posesession of marijuana should not be legalized.

The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Marijuana Legalization

The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes the legalization of marijuana. 

Substance abuse by adolescents is an ongoing concern of pediatricians.  Marijuana is the illicit substance most commonly abused by adolescents.  Any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if limited to adults, could affect the prevalence of use among adolescents.  For example, tobacco and alcohol products, both legal for adults 18 and 21 years of age, respectively, are the psychoactive substances most widely abused by adolescents. 

The American Society of Addiction Medicine Marijuana Policy Position

Since 1994, the American Society of Addiction Medicine has held as policy that we oppose any changes in law and regulation that would lead to a sudden significant increase in the availablity of any dependence-producing drug.  This policy includes marijuana, a mood-altering drug capable of producing dependence as well as serious negative mental, emotional, behavioral and physical consequences.  

Learn more by visiting WASAVP's Marijuana Education Toolkit! 

Would legalizing marijuana rid WA of drug trafficking organizations?

As our state continues debating the legal status of marijuana, one of the issues for consideration is how to eliminate the drug trafficking organizations that bring marijuana into our state.  Will changing the legal status of marijuana get rid of illegal drug organizations in Washington?

A recent edition of the New York Times Magazine features an article about drug trafficking.  The article mostly focuses on a Mexican drug cartel that "is responsible for as much as half of the illegal narcotics imported into the United States from Mexico each year."  Most of the article is about their cocaine trade but includes this about marijuana:

"Moving cocaine is a capital-intensive business, but the cartel subsidizes these investments with a ready source of easy income: marijuana. Cannabis is often described as the “cash crop” of Mexican cartels because it grows abundantly in the Sierras and requires no processing. But it’s bulkier than cocaine, and smellier, which makes it difficult to conceal."

These large organizations don't only deal with cocaine and marijuana:

"Heroin is easier to smuggle but difficult to produce, and as detailed in court documents, Chapo (the head of the cartel) is particularly proud of his organization’s work with the drug. He personally negotiates shipments to the United States and stands by its quality, which is normally 94 percent pure. “The value-to-weight ratio of heroin is better than any other drug,” says Alejandro Hope, who until recently was a senior officer at Cisen, Mexico’s equivalent to the C.I.A. 


But the future of the business may be methamphetamine. During the 1990s, when the market for meth exploded in the United States, new regulations made it more difficult to manufacture large quantities of the drug in this country. This presented an opportunity that the Sinaloa (cartel) quickly exploited. According to Anabel Hernández, author of “Los Señores del Narco,” a book about the cartel, it was one of Chapo’s deputies, a trafficker named Ignacio (Nacho) Coronel, who first spotted the massive potential of methamphetamine. “Nacho was like Steve Jobs,” Hernández told me. “He saw the future.” 


Here was a drug that was ragingly addictive and could be produced cheaply and smuggled with relative ease. When they first started manufacturing meth, the Sinaloa would provide free samples to their existing wholesale clients in the Midwest. “They’d send five hundred pounds of marijuana, and secreted in that would be two kilos of meth,” Jack Riley, the D.E.A.’s special agent in charge of the Chicago office, told me. “They’d give it away for free. They wanted the market.” 

Rainier adopts state's second social host law

Earlier this week, the City Council in Rainier, a city southeast of Olympia, passed the state's second social host law.  The goal of the new ordinance is to curb underage drinking.

If an underage gathering involves alcohol, the ordinance will hold responsible the person who owns, rents, leases or controls the property where the party happened.  Those held liable will face civil repercussions including fines. 

Social host laws are one tool that communities can use to reduce underage alcohol use.  The ordinance encourages parents and property owners to work together to prevent underage drinking.  "This isn't just about enforcement, it's about educating our community that there is never a safe time for minors to consume alcohol," said Rainier Mayor Randy Schleis. 

Mercer Island was the first Washington community to pass a social host ordinance.  The first citation was given and the fine was paid earlier this year.

Free webcast: Understanding Your Influence

"Understanding Your Influence" 

  

Thursday, June 28th, 2012   

10:00-11:00 a.m.

Influence: the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others.

Coalitions and the dedicated people who work with them have far-reaching influence in their communities. Working to change laws, regulations, ordinances, and policies is frequently involved.

Policy change is often the fastest way to see population-level impacts and enhance drug-free environments for youth and families. You can make a difference at the local, state and national level.

During the hour-long webcast "Understanding Your Influence", learn how to find your inner advocate and how coalitions can use the power they have to create positive change in their communities. Find out what coalitions can and can't do as far as advocacy and lobbying are concerned. See how changes to laws and policies can improve enforcement, reduce access and availability of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, and increase social disapproval of drug use.

Key Concepts: 

-       Understand the difference between lobbying and advocating

-       Learn what coalitions can and can't do with their funds

-       See how statewide and local coalitions change laws and policies

-       Gain new insight and communications tools to be an effective 

Liquor Control Board seeking input about I-1183 rules

The Washington State Liquor Control Board would like your input on proposed rules to implement Initiative 1183 which privatized liquor sales in Washington. The following chapters in WAC 314 will be addressed in this rule making:

• WAC 314-05  Special Occasion Licenses
• WAC 314-11  General requirements for licensees
• WAC 314-13  Retail licensees purchasing beer, wine, and spirits
• WAC 314-24  Domestic wineries and domestic wine distributors
• WAC 314-27  Interstate Commercial Common Passenger Carriers
• WAC 314-30  Manufacturers
• WAC 314-36  Importers, Public Storage Warehouses and Importation of Liquor
• WAC 314-37  Non-state liquor stores
• WAC 314-38  Permits
• WAC 314-42  Liquor Control Board operations
• WAC 314-44  Licensed Agents
• WAC 314-45  Serving and donating liquor by suppliers at trade conventions of licensees
• WAC 314-52 Advertising
• WAC 314-64  Liquor samples
• WAC 314-76  Special orders

Public Comment

Please forward you initial comments to the Liquor Control Board by June 27, 2012.

Public Hearing

June 27, 2012, 10:00 a.m.

Washington State Liquor Control Board – Board Room

3000 Pacific Avenue SE, Olympia, WA

If you have any questions, please contact the Liquor Control Board at rules@liq.wa.gov.

Speaking out against marijuana legalization

WASAVP Board member Steve Freng recently appeared on KBCT's Northwest Now speaking out against marijuana legalization. 

Watch Up In Smoke: Legalizing marijuana in Washington State on PBS. See more from Northwest Now.

Marijuana legalization: many points of view

Want to learn about both sides of the marijuana legalization issues . . . and then some?  Check out CNBC's Marijuana & Money Special Report.  

Some highlights from the prevention point of view:

Using Marijuana Will Remain A Bad Career Move
"Despite the national momentum toward softening cannabis laws . . . there is little reason to believe these developments will alter the way employers view the issue . . . According to a senior HR executive . . . 'For us, the issue isn't of strict legality; it's a business issue, and drug use - including marijuana - correlates with absenteeism and performance.  Not to mention potential liabilities.  So in that sense, the legal status of marijuana is not going to affect our policies."

Marijuana Is Addictive, Destructive And Dangerous
"Since 1982, I have treated literally several thousand individuals suffering from all varieties of addiction, including marijuana dependency and abuse.  From this clinical experience, I have taken away a strong conviction that marijuana is dangerous . . . It cannot be considered as anything but an abusable and addictive drug."

Why Sports Teams Worry About Marijuana Use
"But marijuana really doesn't have any athletic enhancing benefits.  By many accounts, it inhibits performance.  It impairs memory, hurts coordination and could affect heart rates . . . NFL talent evaluators are concerned about the draft class for next week's draft because of 'the increased number of prospects who have a history of marijuana use in their background."

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana
"Contrary to the beliefs of those who advocate the legalization of marijuana, the current, balanced, restrictive and bipartisan drug policies of the United States are working reasonably well and have contributed to reductions in the rate of marijuana use in our nation."

"The rate of current, past 30-day use of marijuana by Americans aged 12 and older in 1979 was 13.2 percent.  In 2008 that figure stood at 6.1 percent.  This 54-percent reduction in marijuana use over that 29-year period is a major public health triumph, not failure."

Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth The Cost
"Certainly some states are in dire economic straits; however, we cannot allow social and law enforcement policy to be determined simply by revenue needs.  Put plainly, marijuana was made illegal because it is harmful; citing revenue gain as a reason to legalize the drug emphasizes money over health and ignores the significant cost burden that will inevitably arise as a result."

Liquor Control Board public hearing about I-1183 Responsible Vendor Program

The Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB) is asking for public comment regarding soon-to-expire emergency rules regarding the Responsible Vendor Program (RVP) at an April 25 public hearing.

I-1183 mandates the creation of a RVP and the LCB created one under an emergency rule which is now set to expire on May 25. So, the LCB is holding a public hearing to get input on creating permanent rules for a RVP in Washington.

This is an important opportunity to let your prevention voice be heard and weigh-in on aspects of retail alcohol sales rules that have a direct impact on preventing youth access to alcohol and other public health and safety issues in communities across Washington.

Click here for the LCB announcement. Comments can be emailed to the LCB until April 25 at rules@liq.wa.gov.

Youth substance abuse prevention advocates may ask the LCB to strengthen the RVP by:

-- banning the display of alcohol products in areas that contain products likely to be purchased by youth such as sodas, snack foods and energy drinks;

-- banning the display of youth-oriented advertising for alcohol products;

-- banning spirits sampling in stores;

-- banning self check-out of all alcohol products to preventing youth from avoiding identification checks;

-- requiring alcohol products to be placed away from doors to prevent shoplifting;

-- requiring that only employees 21 years and older be able to sell alcohol.

CDC experts advocate for strong alcohol regulations

This powerful presentation by experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explores the public health impact of excessive alcohol use (binge drinking) and evidence-based strategies to prevent it, with specific attention to the role public policies play in addressing this important public health problem.

Washington State is specifically mentioned during the Q & A session at the end of the presentation.  Experts note that with the passage of I-1183, it is estimated that there will be a 43% increase in per capita consumption of liquor.  The privatization of liquor sales is expected to increase binge drinking and associated harms, such as crime and DUI, in our state.

WASAVP letter to LCB about I-1183 rules

The WASAVP Board recently submitted a letter to the Liquor Control Board regarding the establishment of rules to meet the requirements of Initiative 1183.  In the letter, WASAVP requested that the Liquor Control Board implement policies that will mitigate harm related to increased access to liquor among youth and adults.

As you know, I-1183 eliminates state-run liquor stores and allows private businesses to apply for licenses to sell spirits.  State-run liquor stores protect the health and safety of communities by preventing excessive liquor consumption, including underage drinking.  Among the ways that state-run stores accomplish this is through a limit on hours of sale.  WASAVP requested that hours of liquor sales continue to be limited to what they currently are at state-run stores.

Another way the state-run stores protect minors is through limits on liquor advertising.  Since youth regularly visit grocery and drug stores, big box stores, and other retail establishments that will now be selling spirits, it is essential to maintain the Liquor Control Board’s policy of preventing advertising and marketing at these locations that target youth.  Specifically, WASAVP requested that new rules include:

• a ban on the display of alcohol products in areas that contain products likely to be purchased by youth such as sodas, snack foods or energy drinks.
• a ban on displays of youth-oriented advertising for alcohol products.  Such advertisements and marketing strategies include those that contain animal characters and young celebrities, glamorize alcohol use, or characterize alcohol use as an essential element in achieving popularity, social success or a fulfilling life.  
• a ban on liquor advertising that is visible on the outside of retail establishments.  
• a ban on spirits sampling in stores.

To better ensure that minors do not have access to liquor, WASAVP further recommended that rules be established that ban self check-out of all alcohol products and require that alcohol products not be placed near doors, making it more difficult for youth to avoid identification checks and to steal alcohol.

Finally, WASAVP requested that WAC 314-02-107, Section 1 (b) (ii) regarding employee training and supervision be strengthened to state that only employees over the age of 21 be able to sell alcohol.  If a vendor does not have a clerk over the age of 21 working at any given time, the check-out clerk must be well supervised, within the line-of-sight of his or her supervisor who is not a minor.

Marijuana legalization resources with a prevention perspective

Below are links to a few resources about marijuana policy from a youth substance abuse prevention perspective.

Marijuana: Science-based information for the public

Legalization of marijuana: Potential impact on youth

Marijuana Facts and Washington State

Marijuana Legalization: A Bad Idea

RAND Drug Policy Research Center Hot Topic: Marijuana Legalization

Kevin Sabet: Clear thinking about drug policy

National Association of Drug Court Professionals: Position against California's Prop 19

But What About the Children? Campaign

I-502 revenue projections don't take into consideration increased need for enforcement and services needed to mitigate harm

WASAVP's Jim Cooper appeared on q13FOX yesterday as part of a discussion about projected tax revenue that may be generated if Initiative 502 passes.  When thinking about marijuana legalization and potential tax revenue, following are a few things to consider from a prevention perspective.

No money set aside to mitigate harm.  What is not discussed when estimating revenue is that legalizing marijuana will create more harm with increased use among youth (and associated school failure), crime, DUI and dependence.  There will be an increased need for intervention services in schools, local and state police, and treatment.  No funding is set aside in I-502 for any of these things.  Yes, there is money that will go into the general fund that could possibly fund these and a variety of public health and safety-related services but, in today's state fiscal climate, it is unlikely the amount would meet increased needs when these services are struggling to meet current needs. 

No money set aside to meet increased enforcement needs.  I-502 does not set aside money for an increase in Liquor Control Board enforcement activities.  While there is money set aside of LCB "administration" there is no extra money to enforce regulations of this new drug market.  What good are regulations if they are not enforced?  As it is, LCB enforcement is not funded at levels that enable them to handle strict enforcement of liquor laws.

Initiative supporters make the assumption in their fiscal projections that persons who are not LCB licensed marijuana producers, processors, and retailers will continue to be subject to criminal prosecution under current law. Who will enforce these new laws around producing, processing, sales and possession?  Who is going to do enforcement around home grow operations?  Who is going to meet the need of increased enforcement around the new DUI law I-502 creates?  Nowhere in the initiative or related fiscal documents is this issue considered. 

Consumption estimates are likely too low.  Initiative proponents are conservative in their estimates of how many people will start using marijuana if legalized. They base it on how many people are currently using it illegally.  They do not take into account how many people currently do not use marijuana solely because it is illegal.  They do not take into account how many youth do not use marijuana right now because it is illegal.  While a significant increase in consumption may be good for revenue, it certainly is not good for public health and safety.  Just like alcohol, increased consumption equals increased public health and safety harms. 

Costs may outweigh benefits.  I-502 includes funding for a cost-benefits analysis to be done by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy because they don’t know what costs will be associated with increased access and related harm. Multiple studies on alcohol have shown that increased access means increased harm. As a state, we already can’t handle all of the harms done by legalized alcohol. 

Re-inventing a system voters disapprove of.  The fiscal assumptions for I-502 are made using the old, state-run liquor control model.  After I-1183 is fully implemented, there will be no state-run stores to sell marijuana.  The old system will need to be re-invented.  Which begs the question: If voters didn’t think the state should be in the business of selling alcohol, why should the state be in the business of selling marijuana?

Minimal criminal justice savings.  Interestingly, the fiscal assumptions for I-502 also don't bring up criminal justice savings if marijuana is legalized.  Why is this?  Because their claim that legalizing marijuana would save money by reducing the number of people in jail is just not true.  People who are in jail for drug-related offenses are not there for simple marijuana possession. They are there for other crimes that may include marijuana possession.

No guarantee of sustained funding for prevention.  Though I-502 contains provisions that funnel revenue to pay for substance abuse prevention programs, there is no guarantee that this will create sustained funding for prevention.  Let's remember what history has taught us.  Tobacco sales revenue that was dedicated to tobacco prevention is now going into the general fund. Tobacco prevention programs are vanishing.  Alcohol sales revenue that was dedicated to prevention now goes to the general fund.  Don’t believe it when legalization proponents promise funding for prevention. It won’t be long before the legislature diverts these funds to the general fund.

WASAVP on TV

Last month, WASAVP's Jim Cooper appeared on the Seattle Channel to discuss why marijuana legalization is a bad idea.

Liquor Control Board hearings: extended alcohol service hours

An invitation from the Washington State Liquor Control Board:

The Liquor Control Board is holding public hearings regarding a petition to open rulemaking for extended hours of alcohol service. This petition, submitted by the City of Seattle, proposes that individual cities would have the ability to seek an exemption from the 2:00 a.m. deadline for alcohol sales at on-premises locations. 　Cities would be able to set their own hours, including allowing alcohol sales around-the-clock. 　

Prior to making a determination of whether to pursue rulemaking, the Board is interested in hearing from community members and leaders across the state, law enforcement at the local, county and state level, neighborhood and community groups and other interested parties. For more background information on this petition for extended hours, please see the LCB website:

www.liq.wa.gov/rules/extended-hours-rule-making.　  

April 3, 2012, 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

Vancouver City Hall　

415 West 6^th Street　

Vancouver, WA 98660　

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

April 11, 2012, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Kennewick Police Department

211 West 6^th Avenue　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 Kennewick, WA 99336

April 16^th

Spokane City Hall
808 W Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201

Notes From the Liquor Control Board Health & Safety Forum

On Tuesday, March 13, the Liquor Control Board hosted a Public Health & Safety Forum about the implementation of I-1183, the initiative that privatizes the sale of liquor and further deregulates marketing wine and liquor in Washington. The forum was well attended not only by public health and safety advocates but by representatives of the businesses that will benefit from I-1183 including Costco, Target and the Grocers Association.

Following are some notes from the hearing.

Trade Area
The initiative states that stores selling liquor must be 10,000 square feet or larger. Exceptions will be made if such a store does not exist in a "trade area". Trade area is not defined. The Liquor Control Board (LCB) will look at defining trade area after June 1, 2012. Previously, the LCB determined if a new liquor store should be opened if (1) there was significant population growth in an area, (2) if travel time for customers was more than 15 minutes, and (3) customer satisfaction surveys indicated that people were unhappy about how far they had to travel to get to a store.

It is estimated that the number of stores selling liquor in Washington will increase from 340 to about 1300-1400 once I-1183 is implemented.

Hours of Sale 
Currently, most liquor stores close at 10:00 p.m. I-1183 does not contain a provision limiting the hours of sale of liquor -- grocery and other large stores may sell liquor as long as they are open for business.

Responsible Vendor Program 
The LCB is instituting a Responsible Vendor Program that encourages liquor licensees to put in place store policies meant to prevent the sale of liquor to minors. The program is free, voluntary and self-monitoring. The LCB will only check compliance with the program if they receive complaints about the business. Of the more than 1,000 businesses that have applied for liquor licenses around the state as of the beginning of the month, only about 30 have applied to be a part of the Responsible Vendor Program.

Enforcement
No additional funds have been allocated to the Liquor Control Board to provide increased enforcement. Currently, there are 300 liquor licensees per LCB officer. They will focus their efforts on licensees near schools and colleges and those about which they receive complaints.

I-1183 Stakeholders Forum March 13

Prevention advocates are invited to a:

Public Health and Safety Stakeholder Forum on the implementation of 1183
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
10am to 12noon
WSLCB Headquarters, 3000 Pacific Ave. SE, Olympia, WA.

It is important that WASAVP and prevention advocates "pack the room" and help the conversation focus on mitigating the harm 1183 is poised to inflict on our kids and communities. Below is cut from the invitation email:

"In the next few months you will see many changes in how spirits (hard alcohol) are distributed and sold in the State of Washington as a result of the passage of Initiative 1183. There will also be changes in licensing and regulation. 

We realize there are many questions regarding what this all means for your communities in terms of public health and safety. For instance, how might the changes impact underage drinking, access to alcohol, enforcement of liquor laws, etc.? 

Senior staff will be available to answer questions. We hope you will take this opportunity to become better informed."

The invitation is from Sharon Foster, LCB and Michael Langer, DBHR--a big "thank you" to them for this opportunity for public dialogue.

ACTION NEEDED:

1. Let's mobilize and "pack the room" at LCB with prevention advocates.

2. Send questions in advance to Samantha Trotter at st@liq.wa.gov. (Please also cc: your questions to the WASAVP Board at action@wasavp.org as we are working to coordinate questions to insure all pertinent issues and concerns are submitted.)

3. If you would like to take advantage of a call-in option, please e-mail Trotter at st@liq.wa.gov, and you will receive instructions with a call-in number.

A message for our legislators

Clean up the alcohol privatization mess and allocate funding to prevent substance abuse and support youth!

Alcohol privatization is creating more harm than expected: I-1183, the initiative that privatized the sale of hard alcohol, may have sounded simple, but the actual initiative is 60 pages long and mandates sweeping changes to liquor sales, wine sales, regulatory enforcement and advertising. I-1183 makes Washington the most deregulated state in the nation and implementing it is turning out to be quite costly.

Prevention funding has been cut: Meanwhile, since 2005, funding for substance abuse prevention was reduced by more than 70% -- community-based prevention services (Community Mobilization) by 73% and school-based prevention/intervention services (Student Assistance Program) by78%! 

Stop the harm BEFORE more is created! To restore both programs to 2005 levels of funding, $15Million per year is needed. Funding for substance abuse prevention is necessary BEFORE alcohol and other drugs become more accessible to our children and youth…

• BEFORE more bills are passed that normalize the use of alcohol in everyday life;

• BEFORE alcohol is fully privatized;

• BEFORE marijuana is legalized.

This can be done! An I-1183 clean up bill should:

• Designate alcohol revenue for a balanced approach to prevention, treatment, and enforcement by the Liquor Control Board.

• Add a standard sales tax on top of liquor taxes to generate revenue for cities.

• Establish a statewide cap on alcohol outlet density, as numerous studies across the nation have shown that an increase in outlet density – how many stores are in a certain area -- can lead to increased alcohol-related public health problems.

• Raise licensing fees by 30%, generating $6M for Community Mobilization and prevention and intervention services in schools. A 30% increase would result in a typical grocery store paying $195 per year.

• Increase the long-stagnant beer tax rate.

Enough is enough! It’s time to stop the erosion of a system that protects our children and youth and provides communities and schools the resources they need!

Liquor Control Board seeks comments on responsible vendor program

From the Washington State Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking: 

Last fall Washington voters passed Initiative 1183. Among other things, it privatizes Washington’s hard liquor distribution and sales system. Currently the WA State Liquor Control Board is developing new guidelines and procedures which will help govern implementation of I-1183. Here are responses to key questions.

Will we have more outlets selling spirits (hard liquor)?
It’s very likely there will be a significant increase in stores selling hard liquor. Your local Walmart, Safeway, or any other large outlet (over 10,000 sq. ft.) can apply for a retail spirits license. If there are no stores that large in your area, smaller stores may apply for a license to sell hard liquor.

Will it be easier for young people to get alcohol in stores?
Currently there is no requirement about training clerks to check ID. More than 95% of Washington’s state liquor stores passed liquor sales compliance checks. The rate in non-state stores was less than 80%.

Will there be more Liquor Control Officers enforcing liquor laws?
No, the Initiative does not require the addition of enforcement officers to deal with the increased number of sales outlets. Your local city or county will receive additional funds for public safety but they are not required to use those funds for enforcement of liquor laws and regulations.

Will the hours for selling alcohol be increased?
We don’t know. The Initiative requires the Liquor Control Board to develop a Responsible Vendor Program. That program can include standardized sale hours and require training of all employees. The LCB is soliciting comment now.

How can I provide my input to the Liquor Control Board about the Responsible Vendor Program?
The Liquor Control is taking comment on the new rules now. To comment, send an email with your recommendations about training criteria, standardized store hours, location of spirits products, and other concerns to rules@liq.wa.gov. Make sure to type Responsible Vendor Program in the subject line of your email.

Medicine retun bill awaiting full Senate vote

Senate Bill 5234 update: Yesterday, Senator Kline "pulled" the secure medicine take-back bill from the "white sheet" out to the Senate floor. A voice vote was held and the Aye's had it, against loud Nay's.  The bill is now listed as "on 2nd reading" which means it is on the Senate floor awaiting a vote.  It is not clear when a floor vote may occur.

As expected, pharmaceutical companies are lobbying hard against it.  State senators need to hear from local advocates for a statewide medicine return program now! 

UPDATE: Alcohol promotion bills

Unfortunately, no less than five alcohol promotion measures have advanced to the Senate Rules Committee:

• SB 6076 (Creating a senior center license);

• SSB 6060 (Allowing day spas to offer or supply without charge wine or beer by the individual glass to a customer for consumption on the premises);

• SB 5650 (Allowing craft distilleries to sell their own spirits at qualifying farmers markets);

• SB 6475 (Changing the criteria for the beer and wine tasting endorsement for grocery stores); and

• SB 6477 (Concerning spirits sampling in former contract liquor stores).

Since WASAVP is the only organization speaking out against these bills, a lot of grassroots activity is needed to stop these.  Please begin by asking anyone you have on Senate Rules to help keep these measures off the floor!

Normally, only one bill should be addressed per email, letter or call to a given legislator. But in this instance that would multiply the communications 5-fold and one point to be stressed is the cumulative effect of such legislation (rather than just taking each proposal in isolation from the others). Advocates are encouraged to contest all five at once.

One argument against these bills is that while the literal law enforcement message is “don’t drink and drive” these bills send a dangerous mixed messages to kids (especially) and even adults that drinking “a little bit” and driving is okay.  Also, people in recovery should be able to visit day spas, grocery stores and farmers markets without being offered a drink. Legislators could be asked, rhetorically, where -- if ever -- the line is going to be drawn on permitting alcohol sales and promotion in atypical locations!

Three bills further normalize casual alcohol use in public places

The Washington State Senate's Labor, Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee will be voting on the following three bills tomorrow morning.

1) SB 5650 - Allowing craft distilleries to sell their own spirits at qualifying farmers markets. 

2) SB 6475 - Changing the criteria for the beer and wine tasting endorsement for grocery stores. 

3) SB 6477 - Concerning spirits sampling in former contract liquor stores. 

All three of these bills further deregulate alcohol by increasing the number of places where it can be sold or sampled. Not to mention that I-1183 establishes that spirits should only be sold in stores that are 10,000 square feet or larger -- how large are farmers markets? 

This legislation is part of a growing trend of bills that normalize the casual use of alcohol in places such as grocery stores and farmers markets -- places frequented by children.

Considering that most people drive to grocery stores and farmers markets, such bills also dilute the directive "don't drink and drive" to "it is okay to drink a little and drive".

Bill update

WASAVP supports the following bills currently being considered by the state legislature.

o   HB 2014 Concerning liquor licensing fees.

o   HB 6166 - Concerning cigarette tax revenue for tobacco prevention and treatment programs.  

WASAVP is not in favor of the following bills currently being considered in the state legislature.

o SB 6060 - Allowing day spas to offer or supply without charge wine or beer by the individual glass to a customer for consumption on the premises

o HB 2573 - Transferring Programs to the office of the Attorney General

Following is a list of bills that are under review by the WASAVP Board.

o HB 2179 - Concerning objections to liquor licenses by local governments

o HB 2426 - Prohibiting the issuance of spirits retail licenses to certain membership organizations

o HB 2558 - Establishing a theater license to sell beer, including strong beer, or wine, or both, at retail for consumption on theater premises

o HB 2454 - Protecting qualifying patients of medical marijuana from prosecution for impaired driving when there is no actual impairment

o SB 6007 - Placing certain synthetic cannabimimetics and certain substituted cathinones into schedule I of the uniform controlled substances act

o SB 6265 - Addressing the medical use of cannabis

o SJR 8218 - Amending the state Constitution to limit certain initiatives placed on the ballot

Secure medicine return legislation would reduce youth prescription drug abuse

During the current state legislative session, two bills are being considered that would establish a statewide system for the secure return of leftover prescription and over-the-counter medicines. Following is a brief summary of SSB 5234 and HB 1370:
• Help stop the epidemic of abuse and poisonings, and protect our water quality.

• Requires no state funds; budget-neutral to the state. Primarily financed by all drug producers selling medicines in Washington, as part of doing business. Removes financial burden from Sheriffs, police, and local governments.

• Not a government-run program. Establishes the non-profit WA Medicine Return Association that will be managed and financed by drug producers so they can control their own funds and operate the program efficiently.

• Total annual costs of the program to drug producers collectively cannot exceed $2.5 million – or about 1 penny for every $16 in sales of medicines annually in Washington.

• Sheriffs, police, local govt’s, and pharmacies in 17 counties are operating take-back programs at limited locations, but are struggling for funding. Most WA communities cannot afford to start a take-back program.

• The federal Drug Enforcement Agency is coordinating some one-day take-back events; however these rely on local resources and will end in 2012 when the DEA finalizes new regulations for take-back of controlled drugs such as narcotics without involvement of law enforcement.

During the 2011 legislative session, the Senate bill was one vote short of being passed out of committee. Although many legislators support these bills, the powerful pharmaceutical lobby was successful in thwarting them. More information about the proposed legislation may be found on the Take Back Your Meds website.

Register today for Prevention Policy Day 2012

At this yearly event, youth and professionals gather together to rally at the Capitol in Olympia and meet with individual lawmakers in support of prevention policy. It is an opportunity to share views on future priorities relating to the health and safety of youth. In addition, youth leadership groups can talk about what is happening in local communities around the state.

Registration is very important.  Register you or your group today at TOGETHER!'s website. Additional information and driving directions are available during registration.

Date: Presidents Day, Monday, Feb. 20, 2012

Time: 9:00am-5:00pm

Location: Governor Hotel, 621 South Capitol Way, Olympia, WA

*****

Agenda:

9:00am: Welcome and Event Kick-Off

12:00pm: Rally in the Capitol Rotunda

1:15pm - 2:30pm: Lunch (Networking and Youth Presentations)

2:30pm - 5:00pm: More Policy Maker Meetings

*****

All participants are strongly encouraged to set appointments with their policymakers at any point possible throughout the day. Ideal times for appointments are between 10:00am and 11:30am or 2:45pm and later. We encourage you taking appointments as they are available.

Prevention Policy Day is brought to you by WASAVP, Voicing Our Ideas Challenging Everyone (VOICE), TOGETHER!, SAFE St., Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council (GSSAC), and the Snohomish County Federated Health and Safety Network.

New state legislative session off to a busy start

There are many important hearings set for this week in Olympia where the voice of prevention needs to be heard. The following links to bill information include scheduled hearing date and location/committee.  Bill information may be viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/. 

Public Hearings:

1. HB 2443 - Increasing accountability of persons who drive impaired.

2. HB 2176 - Extending the time to enforce civil judgments for damages caused by impaired drivers.

3. HB 2301 - Concerning boxing, martial arts, and wrestling.

4. HB 2302 - Concerning being under the influence with a child in the vehicle.

5. HB 2405 - Ordering offenders convicted of vehicular homicide due to alcohol or drugs to pay child support for the victims' minor children.

6. HB 2432 - Promoting local intervention and prevention programs for reducing gang violence.

7. HB 2454 - Protecting qualifying patients of medical marijuana from prosecution for impaired driving when there is no actual impairment.

8. HB 2216 - Increasing penalties for vehicular homicide and vehicular assault.

9. SB 5789 - Addressing workplace bullying by making it an unfair practice to subject an employee to an abusive work environment.

10. S-3377 (Draft) - Addressing the medical use of cannabis.

Medicine take-back bills still alive

Both medicine return bills that were considered by the Washington State Legislature last year, SSB 5234 and HB 1370, will be re-introduced in the 2012 session.  A summary of the bills may be viewed on the Take Back Your Meds campaign website.

During the 2011 session, the Senate bill was supported by 24 Senators at the “cut-off” deadline.  Support from at least one more Senator is needed to pass the bill during the 2012 session. 

The Senate bill will start in Rules Committee. This means there will not be a hearing.  Instead, advocates need to communicate directly with Senators about the problem of prescription drug abuse and the role medicine return programs can play in preventing prescription drug abuse.  While it is important to communicate with House members, the first priority is educating Senators.

Legislators are hearing a lot from the pharmaceutical industry -- they do not want to be responsible for funding a medicine return program in our state.  It is likely that the Legislature won’t act to approve the bills unless they hear from the many advocates of medicine return programs.  

Bill to provide funds for prevention-intervention and community mobilization

Last year, WASAVP was behind HB 2014 concerning liquor licensing fees.  The bill would have increased liquor licensing fees and allocated some of the revenue to replace some of the funding that has been cut for prevention-intervention services in schools and the statewide community mobilization program.

The bill did not make it out of the House Ways & Means Committee but may still be alive for the upcoming legislative session.  WASAVP is now asking prevention advocates to contact their state legislators and tell them about the bill.  Advocates do not need to say that they are for or against the bill.  Advocates may inform their Representatives of the bill's status and educate them about the importance of prevention-intervention services in schools and community mobilization in communities. 

With the legislature and the Liquor Control Board re-vamping the liquor system in response to I-1183, this is an especially opportune time to advocate for changes to licensing fees. 

Hearing to be held about expanding the list of qualifying conditions for medical marijuana

The Washington State Department of Health has announced that a committee of the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery will hold a hearing next month to consider adding Attention Deficit Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder to the list of qualifying conditions.  The hearing will take place:

January 11, 2012
7:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn Seattle-Renton
One South Grady Way
Renton, WA

I-1183 lawsuit moves forward

Yesterday, Judge Stephen Warning rejected WASAVP's request for a temporary halt to the implementation of Initiative 1183.  Below is an excerpt from The Daily News story about the hearing:

The Washington Association for Substance and Violence Prevention, the initiative's primary opponent, on Dec. 7 filed for a temporary injunction to stop implementation of privatization, which is set to take effect June 1, 2012. A second plaintiff, Dave Grumbois of Longview, joined the suit because he owns the building that houses the state-run liquor store on Ocean Beach Highway. Grumbois said he fears he will lose a steady tenant.

Also joining the suit are two Red Apple grocery stores in Kitsap County. Store owners say liquor privatization will cause them to lose business to big retailers like Costco.

The group's attorney, Michael Subit of Seattle, filed a similar suit in King County earlier this month. He argues that I-1183 violates the state constitution because it addresses more than one subject in one measure. In this case, Subit said I-1183 forced the state out of the hard liquor business, changed distribution and price controls for wine and imposed fees for public safety.

A hearing is scheduled for March 5, 2012 regarding the merits of the lawsuit. 

2012 legislative priorities

WASAVP's 2012 legislative priorities were posted earlier this month.  Below is more information about these priorities. 

1) Prevent liquor privatization and further deregulation. 
Evidence from multiple studies indicates that the more stringent the regulations in a community, particularly the ones affecting availability and marketing, the lower the prevalence and frequency of adolescent alcohol consumption and the higher the age of first use.

While Washington State voters recently approved Initiative 1183 to privatize the sale of liquor and to remove important price regulations, there are still ways that the Liquor Control Board (LCB) can regulate alcohol to reduce access among adolescents. WASAVP will work with the LCB and the state legislature to ensure that regulations are instituted to protect public safety, especially the safety of the children in our state. 

2) Support designation of all ATOD (alcohol, tobacco and other drugs) fees and taxes going towards enforcement, prevention and treatment in communities, not into the general fund. 
Evidence-based prevention, treatment, and enforcement of drug laws have proven to reduce underage drinking and drug use in communities. However, largely due to recent government budget reductions, many of these evidence-based practices have been eliminated.

At the same time, major changes to our state's drug and alcohol policies, which are proven methods for preventing substance abuse, have been eliminated or significantly changed. These changes have created an environment where youth may have more access to drugs and alcohol, resulting in harms such as increased driving under the influence, assaults, and barriers to learning.

WASAVP supports the designation of ATOD fees and taxes going towards enforcement, prevention and treatment as a way to mitigate the harms created by dismantling these systems and to reinstate funding for successful prevention activities.

3) Reclassify medical marijuana so that it may be regulated and sold in pharmacies like other prescription medications.
In 1998, Washington State voters approved the use of marijuana for certain medicinal purposes. While many prevention advocates do not agree with this legislation, it is law in Washington and WASAVP is committed to working towards preventing youth access to marijuana.

Currently, the regulation of medicinal marijuana is inadequate. Different communities have different laws and regulations concerning medicinal marijuana. In the communities where dispensaries are allowed to operate as businesses, there is little, if any, regulation of them. Like alcohol and prescription drugs, medicinal marijuana needs to be highly regulated to prevent youth access.

WASAVP supports the reclassification of marijuana so that it will be regulated like any other prescription medication and allowed to only be sold in pharmacies. Doing so will create a barrier to youth access.

4) Oppose state and federal budget cuts to community and school-based prevention programs.
Over the past few years, communities and schools have been hit hard by reductions in funding for evidence-based youth substance abuse and violence prevention programs. Evidence-based prevention programs are an important component of creating and sustaining safe and healthy communities. WASAVP opposes further cuts to prevention programs that reach all students and that support healthy youth development in communities.

Monitoring: WASAVP members identified the following issues to monitor during the 2012 legislative session.

• Healthy Youth Survey sustainability

• Prescription drug take-back program funded by pharmaceutical companies

• Marijuana legalization

• Social and emotional performance measures on the K-12 school report card

• School safety policy and funding

• School dropout prevention, intervention and re-engagement policy and funding

• Bullying prevention policy and funding

• Suicide prevention policy and funding

• Funding for school-based prevention-intervention specialists

• Statewide social host law

WASAVP plaintiff in I-1183 lawsuit

On December 7, a lawsuit was filed in Cowlitz County against the State of Washington to prevent the implementation of Initiative 1183.  WASAVP is one of three plaintiffs in this lawsuit.  A similar lawsuit was filed in King County by unions.

The lawsuit charges that I-1183 violates provisions of the Washington State Constitution because it addresses more than one issue.  I-1183 not only mandates the privatization of the sale and distribution of spirits/liquor by closing state stores and selling off the state's related assets, but it also drastically changes the laws regarding the distribution and sale of wine and alters the ability of the Liquor Control Board to regulate alcohol advertising.  Among the many changes to be brought about are:

• I-1183 orders the LCB to close all state liquor stores by June 1, 2012;
• I-1183 acts to deregulate the wholesale and retail sale of wine and liquor;
• I-1183 eliminates existing restrictions on liquor price advertising.

WASAVP identifies legislative priorities

After surveying WASAVP members, the WASAVP Board of Directors identified the following issues as top priorities for their work during the 2012 state legislative session.
1. Prevent liquor privatization and further deregulation.

2. Support designation of all ATOD fees and taxes to go toward enforcement, prevention and treatment in communities, not the general fund.

3. Reclassify medical marijuana so that it may be regulated and sold in pharmacies like other prescription medications.

4. Oppose state and federal budget cuts to community and school-based prevention programs.

The Board also identified issues that will be monitored. 

Liquor Privatization: Different Year, Same Bad Idea

Protect Our Communities, a group of business, labor, community members and substance abuse prevention advocates, announced today that it will oppose an initiative to dramatically expand state liquor sales.

Backers of Initiative 1183 funded a paid-signature drive and turned in petitions today. I-1183 is similar to two measures to privatize state liquor sales that failed last November. I-1105 was rejected by 63 percent of voters; I-1100 was tossed out by 53 percent.

“There is no grassroots groundswell for liquor privatization in the state,” said Jim Cooper, president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention. “What part of ‘No!’ doesn’t Costco understand? The fundamentals haven’t changed.”

In urban areas, I-1183 would allow liquor sales in retail establishments over 10,000 square-feet, hurting smaller neighborhood grocery stores. In rural and suburban areas, convenience stores and mini-marts would be allowed to sell liquor.

In February, the federal Centers for Disease Control’s Task Force on Community Preventive Services recommended against further privatization of alcohol sales “based on strong evidence that privatization results in increased per capita alcohol consumption, a well-established proxy for excessive consumption.”

"Privatization may be associated with increased alcohol advertising, increases in the number of brands sold, and more lax enforcement of sales regulations, including enforcement of the minimum legal drinking age. In contrast, privatization also has generally been associated with an increase in the price of privatized beverages, which may be expected to lead to a decrease in consumption."

Need for prevention increases with easing of alcohol-related regulations

The cumulative effects of recent legislation regarding alcohol promotion and advertising (see list below), coupled with the pre-existing pervasiveness of such marketing, must be considered from a youngster’s perspective. Many of these enactments permit a casual approach to alcohol use (just before driving a car and running errands, e.g.), others contribute to the overall normalization of alcohol use, and some allow promotions that will have an intended or unintended impact on youth.

Past and presumably future legislative trends in this regard are clear. WASAVP asks that the legislature help balance this situation by replacing some of the cuts to community and school based prevention services that have been simultaneously imposed over this same time period, due to revenue shortfalls.  Enactment of HB 2014 is one way to begin achieving this balance.

2011

SHB 1172, Creates a pilot project for beer and wine tasting at farmers markets.

SSB 5788,
• Allows spirits, beer, and wine restaurants and hotels to sell beer in a sanitary container brought to the premises by the purchaser or furnished by the restaurant/hotel and filled at the tap at the time of sale (e.g., growlers).

• Allows special occasion licensees to pay for beer and wine immediately following the end of an event and allows wineries and breweries to pay reasonable special occasion table fees.

• Allows branded promotional items to include the logo of a professional sports team.

• Removes the 40 per year limit on nonclub, member-sponsored events by private club licensees.

SHB 1202, Creates a pilot project for spirits sampling in state and contract liquor stores.

SSB 5156, Creates a liquor license allowing VIP airport lounge operators to serve spirits, beer, and wine for on premises consumption.

HB 1244, Allows a spirits, beer, and wine restaurant to sell beer in a sanitary container brought to the premises by the purchaser or furnished by the restaurant and filled at the tap by the restaurant at the time of sale (e.g., growlers).

2009-2010

SSB 6329, A grocery store licensed to sell beer and/or wine may obtain an endorsement to offer beer and wine tasting.

ESHB 5110, Wedding boutiques and art galleries may offer one glass of wine or beer without charge to customers at least 21 years of age for on-premise consumption

EHB 2040,
• Permits financial interests between liquor manufacturers, distributors, and retailers under certain conditions.

• Allows liquor manufacturers and distributors to provide branded promotional items to retailers.

• Eliminates the mandatory 10 percent minimum mark-up for beer and wine manufacturers to charge distributors and for distributors to charge retailers.

SHB 1415, Allows the Legislative Gift Center to sell wine produced in Washington to persons 21 years of age or older for off-premises consumption.

2007-2008

SHB 1047, Allows grocery stores licensed by the Liquor Control Board that have a snack bar license to sell confections with up to 10 percent alcohol to persons 21 or older.

SSB 5721, Allows a liquor manufacturer, importer, or distributor to enter into an arrangement with a sports/entertainment facility licensee or an affiliated business for brand advertising at the licensed facility or promoting events held at the facility.

WASAVP president quoted in national press

WASAVP's Jim Cooper is quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek's article about alcohol tastings at farmers markets:

Opponents worry allowing tastings at farmers markets will foster drinking and make it easier for minors to get access to alcohol.  "Our bigger concern is the example it sets for kids, when drinking is happening in really public places," said Jim Cooper, president of the Washington Association for Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention.

Secure medicine take-back bill fails in WA Senate

On March 7, the Washington State Senate failed to vote on and pass Substitute Senate Bill 5234, the Secure Medicine Take-Back Bill. The proposed legislation would have required drug manufacturers selling medicines in Washington state to provide and finance a secure take-back and disposal program for left-over or expired medicines from residents. Over 140 organizations statewide supported the proposed legislation, including sheriffs, public health leaders, substance abuse professionals, and water quality experts.


“While many Senators were strongly in favor of this bill, pressure from the pharmaceutical industry managed to derail a good piece of legislation that would help protect our families and the environment from left-over medicines. It’s unfortunate that common sense and innovation were left on the sidelines in favor of backroom politics. Washington desperately needs a secure system to safely dispose of leftover medicines from homes without hurting the environment. It’s time to put our families first, not the pharmaceutical companies,” said Karen Bowman, RN, Washington State Nurses Association.

Gearing up for next year . . . Secure medicine return bills are NOT dead for all time. The Legislature works in two-year cycles - this is year one of the 2011-2012 biennium. Every bill introduced this year is automatically re-introduced next year.

At the start of the 2012 session, SSB 5234 will start in the Senate Rules committee. If we can encourage more Senators to support the bill between now and then, SSB 5234 could be pulled straight out for a floor vote.

HB 1370 will also be reintroduced in the House.

WASAVP supports medicine return legislation

As the Secure Medicine Take-back Bill (SSB 5234) awaits a vote in the Rules Committee -- it needs to be passed by the Senate before the cut-off deadline of March 7 to keep moving forward this session -- it has received a good deal of media coverage.  WASAVP President Jim Cooper recently wrote an opinion piece that appeared in The Olympian. 

Medicine return legislation needs support

Senate Bill 5234 currently is being considered in the Washington State Senate -- it would create a secure medicine return program in our state. This bill could have a significant impact on youth substance abuse prevention.  It is currently being considered by the Senate Rules Committee.

Nationwide, we've heard reports about youth abuse of prescription medications on the rise. Prevention science confirms that reducing access to harmful substances is a proven method for preventing youth substance abuse. For the legislation to move forward, the Senate Rules Committee will need to vote on it by March 7. Pharmaceutical companies who oppose the bill are working hard to ensure that the bill does not get a full Senate vote.

For more information about this issue, visit the Take Back Your Meds campaign website.