With just hours before polling places open for Election Day, advocates for the legalization of marijuana in Colorado got some good news from Public Policy Polling about the popularity of Amendment 64, a ballot measure which seeks to regulate marijuana like alcohol, on Monday.

According to PPP, 52 percent of voters support Amendment 64 while only 44 percent are opposed to the measure leaving the state “set to legalize marijuana tomorrow,” PPP’s Tom Jensen writes about the results of their latest survey.

PPP also found that of the 1,096 likely Colorado voters, 56 percent favored the legalization of marijuana in general, while only 39 percent said the drug should remain illegal.

This is the highest percentage of support that PPP has found since they began surveying the issue of marijuana legalization. Back in September, PPP found 47 percent in favor of A64 and 38 percent against with 49 percent in favor of marijuana being legal, in general.

The highest support ever polled was from a June Rasmussen survey of 500 likely Colorado voters which showed 61 percent were in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

Voters in Colorado, Oregon and Washington are all considering measures that would effectively end marijuana prohibition in their respective states. Marijuana legalization has become an issue that defies the stereotypes of party lines, garnering the support of key progressives and conservatives in Colorado, Washington and Oregon. And although all three states have pot initiatives on their ballots, Colorado and Washington’s pot ballot measures appear to be quite popular with voters, according to recent polling.

If marijuana is legalized in Colorado under Amendment 64 it would be taxed and regulated similar to alcohol and tobacco. It would give state and local governments the ability to control and tax the sale of small amounts of marijuana to adults age 21 and older. According to the Associated Press, analysts project that that tax revenue could generate somewhere between $5 million and $22 million a year in the state. An economist whose study was funded by a pro-pot group projects as much as a $60 million boost by 2017.

However, the big unknown still is if the federal government would allow a regulated marijuana market to take shape. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California’s legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana prohibition, has continued to remain silent on the issue this year.

In September, Holder was urged by by nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take a stand against marijuana legalization again. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.

Earlier this month those same DEA drug warriors joined by former directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on a teleconference call to put additional pressure on Holder to speak out against Colorado’s marijuana measure as well as similar initiatives on the ballot in Washington state and Oregon.

The drug warriors say that states that legalize marijuana for recreational use will trigger a “Constitutional showdown” with the federal government.

In a report published Sunday by NBC News, President Obama’s former senior drug policy advisor said that if the marijuana initiatives pass, a war will be incited between the federal government and the states that pass them. “Once these sates actually try to implement these laws, we will sen an effort by the feds to shut it down,” Sabet said.

But proponents of the legislation say they don’t foresee federal agents interfering in states that have legalized cannabis, citing the federal government’s silence on the issue this election cycle.

With Election Day less than 24 hours away, the DOJ has yet to formally announce its enforcement intentions regarding the ballot measures that, if passed, could end marijuana prohibition in each state. The clearest statement from the DOJ came from Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who said his office’s stance on the issue would be “the same as it’s always been.” During a recent appearance on “60 Minutes” Cole elaborated, “We’re going to take a look at whether or not there are dangers to the community from the sale of marijuana and we’re going to go after those dangers,” Reuters reported.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: November 5, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: scoop@huffingtonpost.com
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

The re-election of President Barack Obama Tuesday represents the
least bad outcome for the medical marijuana and overall
decriminalization movement, given the President’s track record, and his
rival’s statements about the issue.

GOP candidate Mitt Romney promised to fight medical marijuana "tooth
and nail" if he was elected. Barack Obama’s administration has cracked
down on the medical marijuana industry in the last year, while stating
that it respects state medical marijuana laws.

We expect elements of the crackdown to continue in the next four
years, if only because there’s too much bureaucratic inertia to stop the
70 year-long federal war on the plant. But many activists hope the
President will tackle drug law reform, now that he doesn’t have to win
another election.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has said Congress needs to address the medical
marijuana issue, and the administration has floated trial balloons about
pot law reform in the election’s run-up. The apparent legalization of
marijuana in Colorado and Washington will test the re-elected President,
of course. Law and order types within and outside the Democratic party
will demand swift retribution on the states. States rights advocates on
the right, as well as progressives on the left will demand the
Administration stay out.

Kris Hermes, spokesperson for medical marijuana lobby Americans for Safe Access agreed President Obama was the least bad option.

"That pretty much hits the nail on the head," he said. "At least it’s
a familiar face now. We don’t expect necessarily a change in stance
from President Obama, but we’re certainly still willing to work with him
to develop a sensible public heath policy with regard to medical
marijuana. Failing that we have an ongoing lawsuit against his
administration that we will pursue until marijuana is reclassified."

Update: 11:03 p.m.
Amendment 64 and its opponent, Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper agree: Colorado has legalized pot for adults 21 and over.

Reuters and the Associated Press is also calling Washington
Initiative 502 as a win. The state of Washington becomes the second
state in the same night to legalize pot, after about 75 years of
national prohibition.

It’s poetic pot legalization is beginning in the Western states,
given that Colorado was the first state in the Union to pass anti-pot
legislation in the early 20th century. Other Western states followed
suit, and led a movement to urge the federal government for a national
ban. The feds initially didn’t want the job.

Seventy-five years later, Morgan Fox, with the Marijuana Policy
Project in D.C. says "Americans have been sick of the war on marijuana
for quite some time. Coloradoans and Washingtonians decided to take it
into their own hands."

Polls predicted accurately I-502 as a winner, and A64 as a
nail-biter. "Our opponents came out in force in the last few weeks and
tried to spread a lot of misinformation," he said.

Now, Colorado and Washington have the opportunity to show the country
how to regulate and control the drug, Fox said. He thinks the states
will succeed and doesn’t see the feds interfering.

"I think we’re probably going to see some level of federal
enforcement," he said, but the Administration lacks the political will
to shut the state systems down if they’re implemented safely.

"Personally I’m looking at this as the beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition."

Voters in six states will be weighing in on the issue of
decriminalizing medical marijuana, which has come under stepped-up
prosecution on the federal level in recent years. Here’s the latest
science on the pros and cons of its use for a variety of health
indications.

"The basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same
purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by
doctors, I think that’s entirely appropriate."
Barack Obama, 2008

At a time when six states are holding referendums on marijuana,* it
seems important to get a clearer understanding of what Barack Obama
meant by "the same controls." Truthout spoke with Steph Sherer,
executive director of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the nation’s
largest organization of scientists, physicians and patients who advocate
for the decriminalization of medical marijuana. This is just a taste of
what Barack apparently meant:

• During the 31/2 years of the Obama administration, the Drug
  Enforcement Administration (DEA), an arm of the Department of Justice
  (DOJ), conducted more raids on state-licensed dispensaries than the Bush
  administration did in eight years. The DEA hit more than 200
  dispensaries, confiscated the marijuana and left a trail of wreckage in
  their wake. A dozen proprietors are in prison and nearly 100 more are
  awaiting prosecution;
• The most effective method the DEA employs, is to write a menacing
  letter to the landlord who owns the building where the dispensary
  operates, threatening him with closure even though the building is up to
  code: This has resulted in a further 400 closures at least;
• The DEA also has been obstructing scientific research into
  marijuana. Brad Burge, an executive officer with the Multidisciplinary
  Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), told me how. For the past 11
  years, MAPS, in collaboration with botanist/soil scientist Lyle Craker,
  PhD, of the University of Massachusetts, has sought to obtain a permit
  from the DEA to grow marijuana for research purposes: The DEA has
  consistently turned down their application with one excuse or another.
  Finally MAPS got fed up and is seeking relief in the First Circuit Court
  of Appeals. It’s worth a mention that MAPS is not an aging-hippie
  commune, but rather a major foundation that bankrolls medical and
  psychiatric research, here and abroad, by top scientists with an
  interest in hallucinogenic drugs and marijuana;
•   Had he wished to do so, Obama could have deftly reined in the DEA,
  for the term of its Bush-appointed administrator, Michelle Leonhart,
  was slated to expire around the time of his inauguration. Instead of
  replacing her, Obama appointed her to another full term in office;
•  The IRS has gotten into the act by harassing dispensary owners on
  the basis that they did not pay enough income tax, even though in almost
  every instance the proprietors did in fact pay the requisite amount of
  tax;
• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, though not an arm of the
  White House, is governed by the President and by Congress. It has
  squeezed Citigroup, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, along with credit
  card companies, to deny services to medical marijuana businesses that
  are legal under state law. According to ASA, no large bank in Colorado
  will service legal medical marijuana businesses;
• The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has begun obstructing
  research by denying marijuana to scientists. Thus, Sue Sisley, MD, a
  psychiatrist and internist at the University of Arizona, sought to
  conduct a trial of marijuana for treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
  (PTSD), a condition that is severely refractory to currently-used
  medications. Her PTSD study was approved by the US Food and Drug
  Administration (FDA); all she needed was the weed, which NIDA grows from
  11-year-old crops. NIDA declined her request and sent her a ten-page
  trashing of the very protocol the drug experts at the FDA had approved;
  at this writing her important study is in limbo.

To Steph Sherer, the most outrageous maneuver by the DOJ is the "Cole Memo."
This document was sent to all US Attorneys across the country,
threatening governors as well as state and local officials with
punishment under federal law, which bans marijuana, if they signed a
medical marijuana decriminalization bill into law.

Whatever the outcome of the election for the president, 2012 is
likely to be a red-letter year for marijuana activists. Five states –
Arkansas, Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington – are holding
referendums that would, to some degree, legalize marijuana. The latest polls show that the referendums in Colorado,
Massachusetts, and Washington State are likely to succeed. Montana’s
Referendum 124, which seeks to tighten controls on marijuana, is likely
to go down in flames. Arkansas’
legalization seems dicey, while Oregon’s proposition trails narrowly,
but the remarkable fact about the polling data is that it cuts across
the red/blue divide.

With the US public in general favors decriminalizing marijuana,
and propositions to that effect on state ballots, could it be that
marijuana is more dangerous than we had heretofore thought, and the Feds
are protecting our health?

No. The single best source on the indications and side effects of
medical marijuana was published in 2010 by Health Canada, the equivalent
of our FDA (Information for Health Care Professionals:
Marijuana). Since that date, new indications have come under study, but
nothing gruesome has emerged to warrant Obama’s war on marijuana. As in
any hot field of science, some indications will hold up, while others
will turn out to be false leads. New side effects may emerge, but
marijuana has been around for so many centuries that it probably holds
few unwelcome surprises for us. But there was a surprise of an opposite
nature from a team at Yale,
which found alcohol’s "gateway" effect – its proclivity to lead to
addiction to some other drug – to opiates is much greater than
marijuana; if you abuse alcohol you are much more likely subsequently to
abuse opiates. This is one more data point that belies the myth that
"reefer madness" leads to opiate addiction.

Marijuana has been tried for many indications, among them pain,
anorexia nervosa, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and bladder
dysfunction. Three indications that are acceptably well-studied, solid
and frequent – for which there exists an adequate body of data to draw
inferences, bearing in mind that subsequent clinical trials could knock
this preliminary work right out of the water – are described below.

Preliminary Considerations

I use the word "marijuana" where some authors prefer "cannabis": In
plain English, a joint of dried leaves. When I use the term "THC," I
mean a capsule containing a measured amount of only one chemical,
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. The chemicals comprising the
pharmacologically interesting components of the leaf are called
cannabinoids, and with the exception of THC are identified as CBC, CBD,
CBG and so forth.

There are two major ways of delivering cannabinoids. Naturalistic
experiments seek to replicate the real-life use of marijuana as closely
as possible, in which case the subjects or patients puff on a joint. The
advantage of this method is that the subject gets the full dose of
cannabinoids across the lung alveoli and into the bloodstream. The
disadvantage is that the investigator does not know for sure which
cannabinoid or combination is responsible for the pharmacological
effect, although he can be reasonably sure that it is predominantly THC.
Standardized cigarettes are available with a fixed amount of THC, but
smokers can circumvent this to a certain extent by the depth and
frequency of inhalations. THC capsules solve this problem, but raise
another: The full amount of THC is not absorbed from the gut. Both
complications can be gotten around by measuring plasma levels.

A matter of concern is that the smoked marijuana leaf contains many
of the same carcinogens as ordinary cigarettes. Of course, this is not
an issue in research studies, but until the matter of carcinogenicity is
settled, users of marijuana would do better to ingest it in tea or
brownies.

Nausea and Vomiting

The most widely known indication for marijuana is the control of
nausea and vomiting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or
radiation.

Anti-cancer drugs work by killing off rapidly-dividing cells, which
include, but are not confined to, cancer cells; the cells of the
gastrointestinal tract "turn over" very rapidly, making them unwanted
targets of chemotherapeutic agents. Radiation also rakes the gut raw,
causing nausea and vomiting. Drugs that suppress nausea and vomiting are
called anti-emetics, and there are a number of such drugs on the
market, of which Compazine may be the most familiar, though not the most
effective. Over the years, however, mounting anecdotal accounts attest
to the effectiveness of smoking of marijuana for suppressing nausea and
vomiting. This indication for marijuana is so well known that we need
not belabor the point, though today marijuana is usually administered in
capsules containing THC – the principal active ingredient, in a dose
range of 5 mg to 20 mg daily in divided doses.

Less familiar are the uses of marijuana to ameliorate the wasting
syndrome and loss of appetite in AIDS and cancer patients. Anorexia –
loss of appetite – is one of the more difficult-to-manage complications
of cancer, because many cancer patients simply do not want to eat. Some
patients do benefit, in doses of 2.5 mg to 5 mg of THC three times a
day, but a comparative trial of THC versus megestrol acetate [Mantovani G
et al: Oncologist 2010;15:200-211] found the latter drug to be superior
in both appetite stimulation and weight gain. The picture is somewhat
brighter for anorexia and weight loss in AIDS patients: Oral THC
(Marinol) is approved for AIDS-related weight loss in Canada, and
several studies, including one large one [1], have found it effective in anorexia.

Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder which has been little studied
for marijuana’s efficacy either in the smoked or THC form. The available
evidence is disappointing; one would expect that a drug which causes
the "munchies" would benefit patients with anorexia nervosa, but such is
not the case. Possibly anorexia from cancer and AIDS on the one hand,
and anorexia nervosa on the other, are driven by different
neuropsychological mechanisms. Anorexia nervosa is marked by a
misperception of body image; the patient thinks she is too fat even when
she is wasting away. AIDS and cancer patients do not evince such a
misperception.

Cancer Pain

In Canada, Sativex (a compound of cannabinoids), is approved as an
adjunct to opiate analgesics for adults with moderate to severe,
advanced cancer pain in clinical situations where even the highest
tolerated dose of opiates is inadequate. Is THC alone adequate for
cancer pain?

One placebo-controlled study found that 15mg and 20mg, but not 5mg
and10mg, of THC delivered significant relief from moderate to severe
pain from advanced cancer. However, the patients could not tolerate the
higher dose owing to over-sedation and confusion. One wonders, however,
if the attending physicians might not welcome over-sedation if it were
they who were dying of cancer.

Controlled studies compared THC with opiates. In one study, the
opiate was 60 mg to 120 mg of codeine against 10 mg and 20 mg of THC.
Aside from over-sedation – difficulty walking and blurred vision – 20 mg
THC caused severe anxiety. Though the higher dose of THC was comparable
to codeine for analgesia, it was not deemed useful owing to its side
effects.

THC clearly has a place in the management of cancer pain, but on the
basis of limited data, opiates are probably superior analgesics. It is
probably useful as an adjunctive agent. Marijuana has been found to
augment the analgesic effects of morphine and oxycodone without altering
opiate plasma levels; the implication is that opiates might be given in
lower doses, with fewer side effects, but the same degree of analgesia.
This hypothesis remains to be tested. In the meantime, patients in pain
should not be deprived of therapeutically adequate doses of opiates;
pain is not a moral issue.

Non-Cancer Pain

Two types of common non-cancer pain for which the evidence is either
adequate, compelling or promising are described below. Other types of
pain, i.e., post-operative, had to be left out because of inadequate or
inconclusive studies.

Arthritis

Rheumatologists (specialists in joint diseases) recognize three types of arthritis:

• Osteoarthritis, a degenerative disease caused by the breakdown of
  the "padding" cartilage between bones. It is the most common form of
  arthritis; the rubbing of bone against bone causes pain and
  inflammation. Marijuana has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory
  effects, so it is not surprising that it is reported to be effective for
  symptomatic relief of osteoarthritis
• Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), less common than osteoarthritis, is an
  autoimmune disease (the organism produces antibodies that attack its own
  tissues). A good controlled trial using Sativex, led the authors of
  Health Canada to conclude that "the results indicated a therapeutic
  potential for cannabinoids in RA and further research was suggested."
•  Juvenile Arthritis. Few physicians would be likely to advocate the
  use of marijuana in children at the present time because scientists do
  not know the effects of the drug on development, However, older teens
  could probably use the drug safely.

Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis
(MS) is one of the most heartening indications for marijuana. The
disease, which is irreversible, is marked by the patchy degeneration of
the myelin sheath that surrounds nerve fibers. Myelin serves the purpose
of an insulator that ensures the orderly dispersion of electrical
signals in the brain. When the sheath begins to deteriorate, the
electrical activity is no longer confined to discrete pathways; it goes
wild and the patient starts to experience neurological and psychiatric
symptoms, among them painful spasticity, muscle weakness, visual
disturbances and depression. As the disease progresses, the patient
becomes increasingly disabled and may end up in a wheelchair. People
with MS have about the same life expectancy as the general population,
but the quality of life can be ghastly. In other cases, however, the
disease is mild and sufferers can hope to lead a reasonably normal life

Fortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has developed powerful new
drugs to treat the symptoms and arrest the progression of MS.
Corticosteroids are effective for treating acute flare-ups of the
illness. Interferons slow the course of the disease. Copaxone injections
block the immune system’s assault on the myelin sheath, thereby
preventing further degeneration. Other effective, specific drugs have
hit the market in the past few years. And older drugs are available for
treating specific symptoms such as bladder incontinence and depression.

Yet two recent Canadian surveys [2]
 found that, depending on the province, a third to nearly a half of MS
sufferers had either experimented with marijuana or used it regularly
for relief of pain and spasms. MS may be an instance where the patients
are ahead of the scientists: Two large clinical trials [3]
sought to assess the efficacy of smoked marijuana for pain and spasms.
Outcome was measured by patient reports and by a rating scale called the
Ashworth Scale. In both studies, the patients reported significant
relief that could not be measured on the neurologists’ Ashworth Scale;
it is now believed that the Scale may be defective and that the patients
just might be correct. While the scientists dither over this one, MS
continues to be one of the major uses for marijuana. It would not be
surprising if marijuana turned out to exert anti-inflammatory properties
in MS sufferers, as it does in patients with arthritis.

Other Conditions

Candidate Obama was correct: Marijuana is no different from any other
drug, only older, centuries older. But thanks to the hysteria embodied
in movies like "Reefer Madness," little serious research was conducted
until after World War II. As far as the pharmacological community was
concerned, marijuana was a "new" drug (history repeats itself) and like
any new drug with a broad spectrum of action (analgesic,
anti-inflammatory, anti-emetic), marijuana was tried against a plethora
of indications. These include neuropathic pain (that is, pain caused by
damage to the nerve, as in AIDS neuropathy, as distinguished from
pressure on the body’s pain receptors, as caused by malignant tumors), and glaucoma,
for both of which the available evidence is pretty solid.There are
theoretical reasons, namely the presence of receptors for marijuana
alkaloids in muscle tissue, why marijuana might be effective in movement
disorders like Parkinson’s disease. Preliminary studies of various
movement disorders are encouraging but small in scale.
THC dilates the bronchial tubes and decreases bronchospasm, so it has
been tried with some success in asthma, but this indication would not
seem to be a matter of great urgency because there are a number of
excellent anti-asthma drugs on the market. There are also a number of
drugs for treating migraine and cluster headaches, both of which are
often excruciating and refractory to conventional treatments. Curiously,
most of the same drugs are used for migraine and cluster headaches, and
a few case reports or small trials suggest that marijuana is also
effective for both; this would seem to be an area that merits a faster
pace of research.

The foregoing considerations do not exhaust the afflictions against
which marijuana has been tested. Notably absent are psychiatric
indications. Clinical trials for anxiety and depression are
contradictory: Some patients get better, others get worse. Of greater
concern are a number of studies that suggest a link between marijuana
and psychotic ideation and suicidal thoughts or attempts. To confound
matters even further there are data reporting that marijuana has
antipsychotic activity.

One publication of great interest – assuming it can be supported –
found that an evening dose of THC calms the restlessness and mental
agitation of demented, elderly patients. [4]
If supported, it would be a major breakthrough because there is as yet
no safe and effective medication for this patient population. Marijuana
has also been tried with promising results in Alzheimer’s dementia, but
again, the studies are small and require replication before marijuana
can be advocated for these indications, bearing in mind the fragility of
the data in the field of psychiatry.

Side Effects

The most conspicuous side effects of marijuana are related to the
central nervous system (CNS). Although the occasional recreational use
of marijuana is probably harmless, heavy usage – usually smoking – is
associated with disorientation, confusion, depersonalization, and
paranoia. According to the Health Canada paper cited earlier, persons with schizophrenia are at much greater risk to these side effects.

Marijuana exerts a significant effect on thought processes
(cognition). It disrupts memory, attention, concentration and scores on
psychological tests designed to measure cognitive processes. There is no
doubt about the deleterious side effects of marijuana on short-term
cognition, but its long-term effects are more controversial. Further
research on the long-term effects of marijuana is required, but it is
difficult to see how this can be accomplished in the present climate of
re-criminalization by the Obama administration; users of marijuana are
unlikely to come forward for study.

Non-CNS side effects are generally dose-related; moderate
recreational use is unlikely to produce worrisome deleterious effects.
Clinicians are concerned about the use of marijuana by AIDS patients,
because marijuana may suppress the immune system, although the data are
conflicting. More convincingly, studies show that initial use of
marijuana increases the heart rate, but after 8 to10 days the heart rate
fell below normal. Since marijuana exerts numerous effects on the
cardiovascular system, there is some concern that heavy use may
predispose to angina pectoris and heart attacks.

Three studies spanning 20 years and summarized in the Health Canada paper
concur that smoking of marijuana by the mother while pregnant causes
cognitive deficits (attention span, visual analysis, hypothesis testing)
in the adult offspring. Effects on the newborn, on the other hand, are
contradictory.

Marijuana clearly has multiple effects on human sperm, such as a decrease in sperm count. [5] However, infertility has not been demonstrated yet.

A number of studies have demonstrated that the liver is a major
target organ for damage from heavy marijuana usage. Daily smoking of
marijuana for protracted periods of time has been linked to fatty liver
and to fibrosis – the replacement of functional liver tissue by inert
fibrous tissue. Oddly, studies on the effect of marijuana on the course
of Hepatitis C are conflicting, a significant issue which is
counterintuitive to the known damage that marijuana causes to liver
tissue. [6]

Conclusion

There is good evidence for the efficacy of marijuana in cancer and
non-cancer chronic pain, nausea and vomiting from chemotherapeutic
drugs, radiation and multiple sclerosis, as well as promising evidence
for a number of other illnesses. Like every other drug, marijuana has
side effects, but they are comparatively few and confined to heavy
users. Barack Obama was correct in likening marijuana to other
pharmaceutical products, right in promising to end W’s marijuana witch
hunt, and deceitfully wrong in escalating that witch hunt beyond Bush’s
wildest dreams. It is to be hoped that the referendums legalizing
marijuana for medical use pass and the federal persecution of those
using, studying or providing the drug for medical purposes cease.

* The six states holding referendums concerning marijuana include:
Arkansas – Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act of 2012 – Legalizes marijuana for medical indications
Colorado – Amendment 64 – Legalizes possession and growing of small quantities of marijuana
Massachusetts – Question 3 – Legalizes marijuana for medical indications
Montana – Referendum 124 – seeks to restrict availability of marijuana
Oregon – Measure 80 – Would license production and sale of marijuana
Washington State – Initiative 502 – Decriminalizes up to 1 oz for personal use

1.
Beal JE et al: J Pain Symptom. Manage. (1995) 10:89-97

2.
Page SA et al. (2003) Canadian Journal of Neurological Science 30:201-205 and Clark A.J. et al.(2004)neurology.62:2098-2100

3.
Zajicek J et al.: Lancet (2003) 362:1517-1526 and Wade D.T. et al. (2004):Multiple Sclerosis 10:434-441

4.
Walther S et al Psychopharmacology (Berl)2009; 185:524-528

5.
Whan L B et al:(2006) Fertility and Sterility 85:653-660

6.
Fernandez-Rodriguez C M et al.(2004) Liver International 24:477-483

Tuesday, November 6. Election Day. If you’re anything like us, you’ll be watching the news, reading about exit polls, and trying to figure out the results before the major networks make the call. But how are you going to keep track of all the marijuana-related issues on the ballot? That’s where we come in!

We’re going to be providing coverage of the various marijuana-related measures on the ballot on Facebook and Twitter, providing updates and results as they come in. So, if you haven’t already, please use the links below to ‘like’ our Facebook page and ‘follow’ us on Twitter. Please share these accounts with anyone you know who wants to be kept up to date on the latest results!

We’re just days away from making history! There’s still time to make a difference – please use this online phone bank tool from the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol to call Colorado voters and ask them to vote Yes on 64!

Also, if you’re looking for a simple summary of Colorado’s Amendment 64, as well as the latest polling data, be sure to check this out!

Only four days before the election, Imperial Beach Councilman Brian Pat Bilbray has endorsed Proposition S, which aims to legalize medical marijuana dispensaries in Imperial Beach.

You’ve read pundits on the impact of the tight presidential race on
the budget, on taxes, even on the weather. One important issue that
could be decided by Tuesday’s election is medical marijuana. With
federal and state policy in conflict and in flux, medical marijuana is
one of America’s highest-profile unresolved issues. After this election,
resolution may be a step closer.

My organization, Americans for Safe Access,
has been leading the fight for medical marijuana patients for ten
years, and we were not going to sit back during this important election
just because Obama says he’s friendlier to our cause than his opponents.
There have been more DEA raids against medical marijuana facilities in
the four years of the Obama administration than there were in eight
years of Bush, but President Obama was the first president to publicly
express sympathy for suffering patients who can be helped by medical
cannabis. Rather than attacking Obama’s poor record on the issue and
siding with another candidate, we helped rally patients and supporters
to ask him to back off the raids, by launching CampWakeUpObama.com and staging rallies and actions across the nation.

Did we wake up Obama? Only time will tell — if he earns another term
— but certainly the issue of medical marijuana was in the spotlight as
Governor Romney and Representative Ryan were forced to answer questions
about it. More often than not, it seemed, their somewhat sympathetic
statements about cannabis had to be retracted by their campaigns. If the Republicans win the presidency, along with ever-increasing numbers of Republican Congressmen supporting the cause, patients will continue to press for friendlier federal laws.

We will press on no matter who wins the federal election because
state laws are continuing their trend toward greater access to marijuana
for patients and researchers. Right now, about a third of the country
lives in a state with a medical cannabis law. Cities and states are confronting
federal law enforcement in court over medical cannabis facilities and
regulations. Medical marijuana is in need of a resolution at the federal
level.

The president and Congress each have the power to end the
federal-state divide over medical marijuana policy. In the next weeks or
months, the judiciary may prod the policymakers to act by ruling on the
patients’ lawsuit heard by Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on October 16th. Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Administration,
as the lawsuit is named, argues that the rejection of marijuana’s
medical value by federal policy is not based on a reasonable
understanding of the available science, and does not conform to the
letter or spirit of the Controlled Substances Act. A similar argument is
being advanced by noted physicist Dr. John Schwarz,
the father of Superstring Theory, who has authored an op-ed urging
President Obama to uphold his promise to put science before politics,
and base marijuana policy on its demonstrated medical value. Meanwhile,
patients can take matters into their own hands, by using tools like VoteMedicalMarijuana.org to inform themselves on their Representative’s record before casting a ballot.

Beyond your vote, you can help the three medical marijuana campaigns
with a donation or with your time. There are active, closely-fought
initiatives for medical marijuana access that could use help, in Arkansas, Massachusetts and Montana
— click on the state for a link to the campaign. I traveled to
Arkansas this week, and I’m making signs and distributing them to
activists around the state to help get out the vote. Your help will make
a difference as well.

With states voting on whether to adopt medical access to marijuana
next week, and many bills pending in state legislatures, the tension
between state and federal positions on marijuana will only rise. The
president, congressmen and state and local officials that we elect next
week will be empowered to settle this issue once and for all — if they
choose to.

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, and our failed experiment with alcohol prohibition was put to rest. Americans grew tired of the ever-worsening violence associated with the rise of the criminal alcohol market that developed in the absence of a legally recognized and properly regulated industry. As a society, we came to realize that the dangerous and unavoidable collateral markets created by prohibition were in fact more detrimental to society than alcohol itself. On November 6, 2012, some 79 years later, many Americans will have the opportunity to strike the very important first blows against another failed prohibition: marijuana’s.

The upcoming General Election will allow millions of Americans to bypass the legislative process and decide for themselves whether prohibitive marijuana policies should stand. Three states – Colorado, Washington, and Oregon – will be voting on measures to end the state prohibition on adult marijuana possession and use. Two states – Arkansas and Massachusetts – will be voting on whether exemptions should be carved out of their state criminal codes to allow possession and use for the seriously ill. One state – Montana – will vote on a referendum to repeal a law that gutted their previously enacted medical marijuana law. Finally, a host of cities and towns across the country will be voting on measures that either reform city codes or send symbolic messages that greater reform is needed.

State measures to end marijuana prohibition

Three states will be voting on measures to tax and regulate marijuana, and odds are at least one will pass. There has been steady majority or plurality support for both Colorado’s and Washington’s initiatives, and Oregon’s question has seen a recent uptick in the polls as well. If any of the three do pass, it would represent a sea change in American marijuana policy.

While the minutia of all three measures differ – and I highly encourage voters in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon to read their measures – they are born of common goals. The idea is to devise a system where marijuana sales are brought out of the criminal market and instead subjected to careful regulation and taxation. With tight controls, marijuana would be legally grown and sold by law-abiding, tax-paying businesses, as opposed to the criminal enterprises that currently hold a monopoly over the lucrative marijuana market. Creating a legal and regulated market ensures safety and transparency with regard to potency by allowing cultivators to legally test their product. Strict age limits on sales will create barriers to underage consumption by imposing penalties on businesses that sell to minors (when was the last time a drug dealer asked for ID?). A taxed and regulated market also means that states will see added revenue that can help with funding education projects, medical research, etc. The current system ensures that states capture no revue on marijuana sales.

So what will the effect of passage be and what will the feds do? The first question is pretty easy: if one, two, or all three of these pass, millions of Americans 21 and older will no longer be subject to arrest for the possession or private use of a plant proven safer than alcohol. It is clear that states can, and do, create their own criminal laws. In addition, 99% of all marijuana arrests are made under state law. So if states remove their criminal penalties against marijuana possession and private use, we can expect to see a significant drop in marijuana-related arrests.

The second question – how the feds will react – is difficult to predict. The feds can choose to allow the states to proceed with implementation of the regulatory structure without interference. This would be what I like to call the ‘laboratory of democracy’ approach. We already know the results of the marijuana prohibition experiment: control in the hands of criminals, laced product, exposure to all kinds of other illicit drugs, violence, and no decrease in use or abuse. It’s high time a state tests a different approach. Although taxation and regulation may not lead to a decrease in use or abuse, it will certainly eliminate or greatly reduce the negative collateral consequences that are inherent in marijuana prohibition.

The feds could also sue to enjoin the implementation of the new regulatory schemes. At first blush, this may seem scary, but as Dominic Holden recently stated, this too represents a major opportunity for change. A suit against Colorado, Washington, or Oregon would force us to have a national dialogue about our current marijuana policies. With 50% of the population – not to mention an ever-growing list of opinion makers – arguing for the end of marijuana prohibition, it’s a conversation that needs to happen. Look at the increase in support for gay marriage after the first lawsuit was filed challenging California’s Prop 8. If we can have an open and honest conversation, we can expedite policy reform.

Either way, we’re not going to know until a state votes to change their marijuana policies. If you live in Colorado, please vote “yes” on Amendment 64. If you’re in Washington, you’re voting “yes” on I-502. For those of you in Oregon, please vote “yes” on Measure 80. To all of you, I’m envious of your ballot.

State medical marijuana questions

In addition to the three states voting on measures to regulate and tax the adult sales of marijuana, two states have initiatives on the ballot that will create medical marijuana programs. Arkansas and Massachusetts, if passed, will become the 18th and 19th medical marijuana states. They will join the District of Columbia and 17 other states that currently recognize the legitimate medical use of marijuana.

The number of medical marijuana states continues to grow despite obstruction and interference from the federal level, and for the most part, the previously enacted laws continue to thrive. Passage of one or two more laws come November 6 will not only protect citizens of Arkansas and Massachusetts from arrest and prosecution for using a medicine recommended by their physicians, but it will further the momentum and send a loud message to federal policy makers: reform your punitive and unscientific marijuana laws.

Unfortunately, the federal government’s attempt to undermine state medical marijuana laws worked in at least one state, Montana. This past legislative session, Montana lawmakers debated a series of bills that proposed severe restrictions and even outright repeal of the voter-approved medical marijuana law. The amendments the legislature settled on are onerous enough that many took to calling it “repeal in disguise.” After passage, enough signatures were gathered to put the new restrictive law to the voters as an up or down referendum. By rejecting the ‘repeal in disguise’ law, voters in Montana can once again affirm their desire to see sensible marijuana policies.

Reform on the local ballots

Reform comes not just from the state level, but from the local level as well. Municipalities across the country will have marijuana policy related questions – some binding, others not – on their ballots.

Five municipalities in Michigan will be voting on marijuana policy measures. Kalamazoo will be voting on whether to allow three medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within city limits. Residents of Detroit and Flint will decide if their city codes should be amended to remove criminal penalties for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana on private property. Grand Rapids will ask its residents if the code should be amended to replace the possibility of arrest for marijuana possession with a nominal civil fine. Finally, Ypsilanti voters will decide on a measure to make the use and/or consumption of one ounce or less of marijuana by adults 21 years or older the lowest priority for law enforcement personnel.

In addition to voting on medical marijuana, voters in certain districts in Massachusetts will also vote on non-binding public policy questions that direct elected officials to support taxing and regulating marijuana. While they do not have the effect of law, passage of the questions would send a strong message to the representatives of those districts that their constituents support taxing and regulating marijuana. Further north, voters in Burlington, Vermont will be asked if the city should “support the legalization, regulation, and taxation of all cannabis and hemp products?”

Finally, many cities and localities across California will be voting on measures to allow or ban medical marijuana dispensaries from operating in their municipality. Unlike most laws with regulated distribution, California’s medical marijuana law allows localities to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries as opposed to the state.

High-level political support for marijuana policy reform

It is worth pointing out that marijuana policy reform is not just relegated to a ballot issue. There are many top-level politicians who are starting to either speak up, or speak louder, on the need to reform our marijuana policies. For instance, Gov. Pete Shumlin in Vermont has long supported decriminalizing the possession of marijuana. The Democratic Attorney General and candidate for Governor in Montana, Steve Bullock, opposes the recent assault on patients rights’ and will vote against IR-124. More impressive is the fact that the entire political delegation representing Seattle, Washington, including Mayor Mike McGinn, supports taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol.

The beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition

We very well may remember Wednesday, November 7 as the morning we woke up to discover marijuana’s been legalized. If not, then we most certainly will have seen the most support for a regulation and taxation measure to date. Regardless of the outcomes of the various questions, we will have advanced the conversation in a major way. Marijuana policy reform is not about letting a bunch of people get high. It’s about adequately addressing the harms that are associated with marijuana use while stamping out the atrocities that were born from marijuana prohibition. The ballot measures in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon would do just that, while the medical questions being asked of the citizens in Montana, Massachusetts, and Arkansas and the various municipal questions would impact the marijuana policy conversation as well. As a nation, we are moving ever closer to acceptance of a taxed and regulated marijuana marketplace; it’s now just a matter of time.

Nuanced Measure Sparks Debates Over Law-Enforcement Resources, Cartels

Locals from law enforcement to elected officials to marijuana business owners say they don’t know how to feel about a ballot measure asking voters to legalize limited amounts of cannabis and regulate the drug “like alcohol.”

The statewide question would amend the Colorado Constitution to allow people over the age of 21 to consume and possess marijuana and provide for the licensing of cultivation and manufacturing facilities as well as retail stores.  The measure also directs state lawmakers to levy a tax on the sale of marijuana, directing the first $40 million in revenue generated annually to be directed to the public school capital construction assistance fund.

But the nuanced proposal has wide-reaching implications ranging from law-enforcement issues to education impacts, and many local officials and business owners say they can see many sides of the issue.

“Keeping it criminal at this point is probably a waste of time,” Summit County Sheriff John Minor said.  “I have mixed feelings on this thing all the way around.”

As do local medical marijuana dispensary owners, who say they don’t know how the ballot measure could impact their businesses.

“My answer, up until ( recently ) was, I don’t know what to wish for,” said Charlie Williams, owner of Alpenglow Botanicals in Breckenridge.  “I know I can live with what I’m doing and work in this framework.  If I have to change radically, I don’t know what it’s going to cost.”

Williams said he plans to vote against Amendment 64.

Jerry Olson, owner Medical Marijuana of the Rockies in Frisco, expressed similar uncertainty about how the measure would impact existing marijuana businesses, but said he supports the amendment.

“I don’t know if it will be good or bad for my business and I really don’t care,” he said.  “We’re going to quit wasting our resources on cannabis and instead we’re going to make cannabis a resource.”

Proponents of the amendment say legalizing and regulating marijuana would weaken a strong black market for the drug that feeds millions of dollars to drug cartels, eliminate a senseless drain on law-enforcement resources and limit young people’s access to marijuana, while creating a new tax revenue source.

“Marijuana prohibition has failed,” said Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Yes on 64 campaign.  “It’s been ineffective, wasteful and it’s caused way more problems than it’s solved.  It’s time for a new, more sensible approach.”

Amendment 64 is projected to save approximately $12 million in criminal justice costs in its first year, according to an analysis from the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.  More than 10,000 people were arrested for marijuana possession in 2010, according to an October report from the Marijuana Arrest Research Project.

But opponents of the legalization amendment say the measure would increase youth access to the drug and has no place in the state’s constitution.

“It effectively establishes Colorado as the marijuana capital of the United States,” Vote No campaign spokeswoman Laura Chapin said.  “There’s an inherent conflict with federal law …  it could drag us into a very long and expensive series of court battles that, at least at this point, we probably wouldn’t win.”

Law-enforcement officials are concerned that, rather than keeping Colorado dollars out of the hands of cartels, the measure might attract the cartels to Colorado.

“Put yourself in their shoes,” Minor said.  “Would you want to keep smuggling tons of stuff across the border or would you want to just go across the border ( yourself )?”

Opponents have also indicated in the possible logistical problems of keeping the drug inside Colorado’s borders and regulating an industry the banking sector won’t back due to federal law.

As an amendment to the Colorado constitution, it would take another constitutional amendment to revise 64 to address unexpected problems or to repeal it all together.

Amendment 64 is one of three constitutional amendment proposals voters will find on their ballots this year.

Source: Summit Daily News (CO)
Copyright: 2012 Summit Daily News
Contact: http://apps.summitdaily.com/forms/letter/index.php
Website: http://www.summitdaily.com/home.php
Author: Caddie Nath

---

The incoming Dutch government has rejected a proposal for a “wietpas” or “weed pass,” a compulsory registration for anyone using the country’s famous marijuana cafes. The proposal would have limited access to the cafes to Dutch residents. The mayors of the Dutch cities of Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht expressed opposition to the proposal, citing a probable increase in black-market street dealing if the measure were implemented. Instead, the coalition government produced an agreement, which, although lacking a registration system, would still ostensibly allow only Dutch residents access to the cafes.

The weed pass proposal was apparently connected with complaints of “drug tourism” in the Netherlands. Tourists from neighboring countries such as Germany, Belgium, and France are a daily sight and apparently a major source of revenue for the Dutch “coffee shops.” Use of the drug by Dutch citizens is actually relatively rare, even in comparison with residents of other European countries, with less than 6% of adults having used it in the past year. Ard van der Steur, a member of parliament for the right-wing People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, described the current situation as “an incredible criminal industry that we need to get rid of,” and complained that “we now function as a supplier of drugs for the rest of Europe.” Tahira Limon, a spokeswoman for the city of Amsterdam, stated however that marijuana is not a serious problem for the country. “The problems we have with substance abuse are almost always related to alcohol,” she said.

How much, or even if, this new revised restriction will be enforced is still in question. The coalition’s new policy agreement states that it will be “if necessary phased in,” and that details of enforcement will be determined “in discussion with the local councils concerned.” Some cafe owners say that they do not expect an actual change in policy, while others complain that the policy is still unclear.

Marijuana is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, as the country is a signatory to treaties such as the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, requiring the prohibition of cannabis along with several other drugs. In practice, however, small-scale marijuana distribution and possession is tolerated in licensed cafes in several cities, including Amsterdam. This policy has been in place since 1972, when it was recommended by a government commission.

Are you aware that passing Initiative 502 is one of the best ways to reduce international gang violence? Like the violent cartels gripping Mexico, British Columbia is affected by the organized-crime groups which control its huge marijuana industry. These gangs produce and export BC Bud to American consumers, including the 6.8 million residents of Washington state.

British Columbian gangs are competing for the revenue they generate from the marijuana-export industry. Economists have estimated the local market to be worth up to $7 billion annually. The fight for these riches explains why Seattle’s former top federal prosecutor, John McKay, has said, “British Columbia-based gangs smuggling high-grade pot are the dominant organized crime in the Northwest.”

In our roles as a public-health physician and a police officer, we have spent most of our careers at the forefront of anti-drug efforts in British Columbia. We have witnessed the bloody aftermath of shootings, stabbings and other violent confrontations that are common in British Columbia’s marijuana industry.

The level of violence that is now accepted as the new normal in British Columbia is staggering. In 2009 alone, there were no fewer than 276 incidents of drive-by shootings in the province. Local police described these shootings as often occurring “without regard for public safety.”

While Canadian laws allow for the use of medical marijuana, possession of the drug for recreational use, even in small amounts, remains illegal. We do not condone illicit-drug use, but our experiences providing medical treatment in hospital-emergency rooms and investigating gang activity have galvanized our interest in reducing violence connected to the illegal-marijuana trade.

By every measure, marijuana prohibition has failed to achieve its stated objectives. For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health concluded that over the last 30 years of marijuana prohibition the drug has remained “almost universally available to American 12th-graders,” with between 80 percent and 90 percent consistently saying the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain.

U.S. government data also shows that, since 1990, the potency of marijuana has increased by 145 percent and the price has decreased by 58 percent, suggesting that the market for marijuana has become oversaturated. In short, marijuana has become more accessible to young people today than alcohol and tobacco.

Action is long overdue, but Canadian lawmakers have been slow to consider cannabis-policy reform, citing the possibility of retribution from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the White House. In this context, Canadians have taken a great interest in Initiative 502 and the real likelihood that Washington state will vote to tax and regulate the adult use of marijuana.

From a public-health and community-safety perspective, since marijuana remains illegal in Canada, Initiative 502 has the potential to take away local organized crime’s biggest cash cow.

Starving the local marijuana-industry gangs could have the same impact as ending Prohibition had on Al Capone and others.

In the face of corruption, violence and widespread disrespect for the law, British Columbia voted to repeal alcohol prohibition in 1920. This set an example for Washington state, which followed suit in 1932. With respect to the harms of anti-cannabis laws, Washington state voters could set an example for Canada, while also ending a system where demand for cannabis directly contributes to organized crime and gang violence.

We are hesitant to intrude on the affairs of another nation, yet so many lives are at stake. Initiative 502 is a rare opportunity for the citizens of Washington state to demonstrate international leadership in the field of justice reform. Your northern neighbor, and indeed the entire world, awaits your historic decision.

Dr. Evan Wood is a professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia and founder of Stop the Violence BC. David Bratzer is a Canadian police officer who serves on the board of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. His personal views do not represent those of his employer.

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Evan Wood and David Bratzer, Special to The Seattle Times
Published: October 30, 2012
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/