What it means: legalized marijuana

Taylor Pettaway

The new marijuana laws, passed with Question 2 will introduwce a host of challenges and changes for the Carson City District Attorney and Sheriff’s Office.

Question 2 was approved by Nevada voters, legalizing recreational marijuana for residents 21 years and older beginning Jan. 1. 

It’s legal for those 21 and over to buy and possess less than one ounce of marijuana or 1/8 of an ounce of concentrated cannibals such as hash oil. Residents also are able to grow up to six plants for personal use and 12 plants for households with two or more people, according to the Carson City District Attorney’s Office. However, once the retail marijuana shops open, residents within a 25-mile radius will not be able to grow their own marijuana for personal use. 

Several regulations will be in place for users to follow, creating some challenges for law enforcement and the community. 

“There will be immediate and long term impacts to look at,” said District Attorney Jason Woodbury. 

The immediate change will be the legalization of the drug, however it could take a year or more for the city government to determine the best course of action for certain aspects, including if and where to build retail marijuana establishments. 

“For those under 21, the current law remains in effect,” Woodbury said. “In the next year the Department of Taxation will come up with regulations for marijuana establishments, the businesses that will grow, distribute and sell directly to people.”

Currently those regulations aren’t in existence in state law. Earlier this month, the Carson City Planning Commission recommended to the Board of Supervisors an ordinance to put an 180-day moratorium on applications for construction of marijuana establishments. The Board of Supervisors will take up the moratorium at the Jan. 5 meeting.

The measure calls for retail shops to sell the substance by 2018, and state officials are already hashing out details including procedures for determining who gets a license.

“The department is already working to develop temporary regulations,” said Deonne Contine, executive director of the Nevada Department of Taxation, which will regulate recreational weed. 

“We intend to hold a public workshop very early in 2017 and then have our temporary regulations adopted so we can begin issuing licenses.”

Though this law creates difficulties for law enforcement, Woodbury said they’ve been preparing for this since the question was first introduced.

“We will have to deal with certain issues as we go along, but we have been working closely with the Sheriff’s Office to be as prepared as we can for these new sets of challenges,” Woodbury said. “But it isn’t like we didn’t know it was coming, we have been preparing since the question was put on the ballot. We will just have to deal with it best we can.”

Sheriff Ken Furlong said there isn’t a substantial change for them for enforcement purposes. Furlong said they don’t anticipate the new laws greatly impacting how their K9 deputies conduct their investigations.

“The impact of change at this point, other than enforcement actions for less than once ounce by adults, there isn’t a dramatic shift,” Furlong said. “We still want to make sure we are keeping the drugs out of our schools, out of the reach of juveniles and out of our cars.”

Furlong said it will be frustrating for the department for several months while everyone becomes used to the new laws, but they’ll make sure they’re looking for and taking enforcement action with those under the influence while driving.

Users aren’t allowed to smoke in any public place, including their vehicle, and enforcement will be the same if anyone is under the influence of marijuana while in control of a vehicle. 

“We care about your use of marijuana once you get behind the wheel and drive,” said Nevada Highway Patrol Trooper Duncan Dauber. “Those using marijuana cannot judge their own level of impairment and need to understand that any amount of consumption puts individuals at a greater risk of an impaired crash, injury and even death when behind the wheel.”

“Just like alcohol, if your plans involve marijuana, make sure you plan a safe and sober ride home. Never risk your life, or the lives of others, by driving impaired.”

Furlong said they will have zero tolerance for those driving while under the influence of any substance, including marijuana.

Jurisdictions across the state have been focusing on cracking down on impaired driving during their Joining Forces events throughout December and January. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found marijuana users were 25 percent more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers with no evidence of marijuana use.

It’s 2016, yet the DEA still refers to cannabis as ‘marihuana.’ Why is that?

You can see the evolution of all three terms — "cannabis," "marijuana" and "marihuana" — in Google's corpus of English language books between the 1860s and early 2000s

By Christopher Ingraham

The Drug Enforcement Administration recently published a rule in the Federal Register clarifying that certain marijuana extracts — notably cannabidiol, or CBD — are indeed Schedule I controlled substances and just as illegal under federal law as whole-plant marijuana itself.

DEA spokesman Russell Baer says it is an administrative measure to help with record-keeping, but the rule drew attention for its use of the archaic spelling of “marihuana” — with an “H” instead of a “J.” The rule is entitled “Establishment of a New Code for Marihuana Extract,” and uses the H spelling throughout.


Some marijuana legalization advocates speculated that this spelling was used to be sneaky, “so the article wouldn’t pop up under any searches for changes in marijuana policy.” Others asked “when the DEA will step into the 21st century and stop using the archaic version of the word ‘marihuana.'”

The spelling is freighted with historical significance. Traditionally, the plant and the drugs derived from it had been called “cannabis,” the scientific word for the genus of the plant itself. “‘Cannabis’ is the botanical term for the plant, and the term for the drug in most of the world,” explained drug policy expert Mark Kleiman of NYU in an email.

In the early 20th century “marijuana” or “marihuana” were primarily colloquial terms borrowed from Mexican Spanish, as the Brookings Institution’s John Hudak explains in his book Marijuana: A Short History.

“During and especially after the Spanish-American War,” Hudak writes, “American resentment toward Mexicans and Mexican immigrants exploded.” Authorities who wanted to prohibit use of the drug soon discovered that associating it with Mexican immigrants was an effective propaganda tool.

The word marijuana – with both “H” and “J” variants – was “popularized in the United States during the 1930s by advocates of prohibition who sought to exploit prejudice against despised minority groups, especially Mexican immigrants,” explained journalist and medical marijuana advocate Martin Lee in his book “Smoke Signals.”

NYU’s Kleiman said that “if the drug could be made to sound Mexican it would seem more dangerous.”

The “h” variant is what eventually made its way into the Marihuana Tax Act of the 1930s, the federal government’s first crack at regulating the drug. That spelling was again used in the Controlled Substances Act, passed in 1970.

Starting in the 1960s “marijuana” began to be adopted as the preferred spelling in popular usage. “Marihuana” declined precipitously in the 1970s shortly after the passage of the Controlled Substances Act.

You can see the evolution of all three terms – “cannabis,” “marijuana” and “marihuana” — in Google’s corpus of English language books between the 1860s and early 2000s. In the late 19th and early 20th century, “cannabis” was the dominant term. Starting in the 1930s both “marijuana” and “marihuana” gained popularity. The use of all terms exploded in the 1960s, particularly “marijuana.”

The cause for the switch between the “h” and the “j” isn’t clear. Kleiman attributes it to “people learning how to pronounce Spanish words,” but stresses he doesn’t know for certain. The ’70s were a time of increasing marijuana use nationwide, and many of those new users appear to have adopted the spelling with the “j.”

Today, “marihuana” is rarely used and “cannabis” is making a comeback. Many in the drug reform community advocate doing away with “marijuana” altogether due to the term’s racial baggage.

A number of researchers prefer using “cannabis” as well, as a simple matter of precision.

As for the DEA, spokesman Russell Baer told me they use “marijuana” and “marihuana” interchangeably. He said “there’s no clear dividing line” between the two. The spelling used in any given document usually comes down to the preference of whoever’s writing it, he said.

Indeed, a perusal of the DEA’s federal register notices turns up numerous results for both “marijuana” and “marihuana.”

Asked how the DEA would respond to advocates arguing for dumping the word “marijuana” completely, Baer declined to comment.

After states legalized medical marijuana, traffic deaths fell

Reuters

Legalization of medical marijuana is not linked with increased traffic fatalities, a new study finds. In some states, in fact, the number of people killed in traffic accidents dropped after medical marijuana laws were enacted.

"Instead of seeing an increase in fatalities, we saw a reduction, which was totally unexpected," said Julian Santaella-Tenorio, the study's lead author and a doctoral student at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

Since 1996, 28 states have legalized marijuana for medical use.

Deaths dropped 11 percent on average in states that legalized medical marijuana, researchers discovered after analyzing 1.2 million traffic fatalities nationwide from 1985 through 2014.

The decrease in traffic fatalities was particularly striking - 12 percent - in 25- to 44-year-olds, an age group with a large percentage of registered medical marijuana users, the authors report in the American Journal of Public Health.

Though Santaella-Tenorio was surprised by the drop in traffic deaths, the results mirror the findings of another study of data from 19 states published in 2013 in The Journal of Law and Economics. It showed an 8 to 11 percent decrease in traffic fatalities during the first full year after legalization of medical marijuana.

"Public safety doesn't decrease with increased access to marijuana, rather it improves," Benjamin Hansen, one of the authors of the previous study, said in an email. Hansen, an economics professor at the University of Oregon in Eugene, was not involved in the current study.

He cautioned that both marijuana and alcohol are drugs that can impair driving.

It's not clear why traffic deaths might drop when medical marijuana becomes legal, and the study can only show an association; it can't prove cause and effect.

The authors of both studies suggest that marijuana users might be more aware of their impairment as a result of the drug than drinkers. It's also possible, they say, that patients with access to medical marijuana have substituted weed at home for booze in bars and have stayed off the roads.

Or, they suggest, the drop in traffic fatalities could stem from other factors, such as an increased police presence following enactment of medical marijuana laws.

Law-enforcement authorities have yet to devise a way to test drivers for marijuana intoxication, and have raised concerns about drivers high on cannabis.

Though traffic deaths dropped following legalization of medical marijuana laws in seven states, fatality rates rose in Rhode Island and Connecticut, the study found.

California immediately cut traffic deaths by 16 percent following medical marijuana legalization and then saw a gradual increase, the study found. Researchers saw a similar trend in New Mexico, with an immediate reduction of more than 17 percent followed by an increase.

The findings highlight differences in various states' medical marijuana laws and indicate the need for research on the particularities of how localities have implemented them, Santaella-Tenorio said.

Voters in Denver, Colorado approved a November ballot measure to allow public consumption of marijuana, Hansen noted. But, he said, "We don't know the public health consequences of those types of policy changes yet."

Pot may restrict blood flow to brain: study

by Dennis Thompson,

(HealthDay)—Marijuana appears to hamper blood flow to the brain, which theoretically could affect your memory and ability to reason, a new study suggests. 

Brain scans of nearly 1,000 past and present marijuana users revealed abnormally low blood flow throughout their brains, compared with a smaller control group of 92 people who'd never used pot.

"The differences were astonishing," said lead researcher Dr. Daniel Amen, a psychiatrist and founder of the U.S.-based Amen Clinics. "Virtually every area of the brain we measured was lower in blood flow and activity in the marijuana smokers than in the healthy group."

Blood flow was lowest in the hippocampus of marijuana users, which Amen found most troubling.

"The hippocampus is the gateway to memory, to get memories into long-term storage," Amen said. 

 

"That area distinguished healthy people from pot smokers better than any other area of the brain."

For this study, Amen and his colleagues evaluated brain scan data collected at nine outpatient neuropsychiatric clinics across the United States. The patients had sought treatment of complex psychological or neurological problems.

The brain scans relied on a technology called single-photon emission computed tomography, or SPECT, which can be used to track blood flow throughout the body.

The researchers found 982 patients in the database who had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder. People with this diagnosis have used marijuana so heavily that it has affected their health, their work or their family life.

The researchers found they could reliably distinguish the brains of marijuana users by checking blood flow to the hippocampus. Marijuana use is believed to interfere with memory formation by inhibiting activity in the hippocampus, which is the brain's key memory and learning center.

"The growing lore in our country is that marijuana is innocuous, it's good medicine and it should be legalized," Amen said. "This research directly challenges that notion."

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia now have laws legalizing marijuana in some form, primarily for medical purposes.

Although smoking is bad for the brain, Amen said blood flow was reduced even in marijuana users who ingest the drug rather than smoke it.
 

 "We've also seen it with people who don't smoke, who get marijuana in cookies or ingest it in other ways," he said.

While the study doesn't establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship, the researchers concluded that doctors should think twice before recommending marijuana in the treatment of someone with Alzheimer's disease.

The findings "raise important questions about the impact of marijuana use on normal function in areas of the brain important to memory and thinking," said Maria Carrillo, chief science officer for the Alzheimer's Association.

"Sustained inadequate blood flow can damage and eventually kill cells anywhere in the body," Carrillo said. "Since the brain has one of the body's richest networks of blood vessels, it is especially vulnerable. These vessels deliver nutrients to the brain and carry away waste, which is vital for normal cognitive function."

However, Carrillo added, "we cannot tell from this study whether marijuana use increases a person's risk for cognitive decline or Alzheimer's."

Other experts raised concerns that the marijuana users who underwent the brain scans had been seeking treatment for psychiatric problems. They said this could skew the results.

For example, the study reports that 62 percent of the marijuana group had attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, 47 percent had traumatic brain injury, and 35 percent had major depressive disorder.

"It looks as if the cannabis users were all referred to the clinic for some problem while the healthy controls were not," said Mitch Earleywine, an advisory board member for NORML, which advocates for marijuana legalization. He's also a professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany.

Neurologist Dr. Terry Fife of Phoenix, Ariz., agreed with Earleywine.

"You really want to know that the only thing different between the two groups is the use of marijuana, and we can't tell that here," said Fife, a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology.

Fife added that the study does not show the extent of the participants' marijuana use, outside of their diagnosis for cannabis use disorder. "It's unclear how much of a user these users were," he said.

Fife concluded that the possible link between marijuana and Alzheimer's disease will need further research.

"I wouldn't say it's a risk factor, but it could be an aggravator of the disorder," Fife said. "If it's true that it reduces the function of the hippocampus, it could in theory make the memory a little worse, but Alzheimer's is much more complicated than just memory."

Canadians not told about banned pesticide found in medical pot supply

Grant Robertson

A controversial pesticide banned in Canada has been discovered in products sold by a federally licensed medical marijuana producer, The Globe and Mail has learned, but neither the company nor Health Canada have informed the public.

Myclobutanil, a chemical that is also prohibited for use on legal cannabis in Colorado, Washington and Oregon because of health concerns, was found in product recently recalled by Mettrum Ltd., a Toronto-based medical marijuana company.

The pesticide is not approved for use on plants that are combusted, such as tobacco or cannabis, and is known to emit hydrogen cyanide when heated. Lawmakers in the three U.S. states moved quickly to ban myclobutanil, in some cases enacting emergency legislation when they discovered growers using it.

But the lack of public disclosure by Health Canada raises new questions about what controls are in place to ensure the product is free of contaminants and chemicals, particularly as the government prepares to introduce legislation to legalize the drug next year.

A Globe investigation this summer called into question the department’s ability to detect potentially dangerous contaminants, and revealed that Health Canada standards at the time did not require testing for myclobutanil and other banned chemicals.

The Mettrum discovery was made recently, when a random screening of the company’s products by Health Canada turned up the unauthorized use of pyrethrin, a pesticide derived from the chrysanthemum plant that is also not approved for medical cannabis.

Mettrum issued a voluntary recall of the affected products on Nov. 1 and said the pyrethrin was used by mistake, because it was not listed on the ingredients of a spray the company was using.

But when Health Canada performed further tests on the samples, it also discovered they contained myclobutanil, which all producers know is a banned substance. However, for reasons that are not immediately clear, neither Health Canada nor Mettrum announced the findings to the public.

Instead, on Dec. 1, Mettrum issued a vague press release saying that “as a result of further testing and working with the full co-operation of Health Canada,” the company was adding “a small number of additional product lots” to its previous voluntary recall. The company made no mention of myclobutanil.

It was only after The Globe was informed of automated phone messages Mettrum left with some of its customers, which made passing reference to myclobutanil during a lengthy recording, that a reporter called the company’s customer service line to inquire.

A Mettrum employee said the recall was due to a “nutrient spray” that mistakenly contained pyrethrin. “We just want to be transparent,” he said.

However, it was only after the employee was asked specifically if the recall also involved myclobutanil that he acknowledged the more controversial chemical had been found. “Yes, that was also included as well,” the Mettrum employee said.

When Mettrum was later asked why the company hasn’t acknowledged the discovery of the banned pesticide in a press release, the company said in a statement to The Globe that its plan to communicate only with customers was approved by Health Canada. The company said only “trace levels of myclobutanil” were found.

When asked why Health Canada did not provide disclosure to the broader public, the department said it determined that “exposure to the affected cannabis products would not likely cause any adverse health consequences,” so no wider warning was necessary.

Health Canada did not explain how it determined there was no health risk, since microbiologists and lawmakers in the United States consider there to be no acceptable level of myclobutanil in cannabis.

Sold under the name Eagle 20 or Nova 40, the chemical is used to control a pest known as powdery mildew in crops such as grapes and berries, but is also known to be employed as a shortcut by illegal cannabis grow-operations when a crop is threatened by an infestation.

Myclobutanil is permitted in small doses on certain crops that are eaten, since the chemical compounds are metabolized by the digestive system and rendered non-toxic. It is also approved for crops that don’t retain high levels of pesticide residue as they grow.

However, cannabis is much different. Like tobacco, it is usually smoked, not eaten, so any chemicals used on the plant are often inhaled directly into the lungs, and make their way directly into the bloodstream without being metabolized, or broken down, by the digestive system. As well, cannabis, due to its unique makeup, is known to retain more pesticide residue than many edible plants.

Policy makers in the United States acted quickly to clamp down on myclobutanil use when it was discovered a few years ago. Washington state enacted emergency legislation. In Colorado, the government ordered mass recalls, raided production facilities and threatened companies with large fines. Colorado also went public with the names of producers caught using the chemical.

“Myclobutanil cleaves off hydrogen cyanide,” Andrew Freedman, director of marijuana co-ordination for the Colorado state government told The Globe this summer. “So yeah, we were concerned.”

“For us it was a pretty easy answer … If you can’t prove it’s safe, then we shouldn’t allow it to go out for human consumption,” Mr. Freedman said.

When Health Canada was asked by The Globe in September what the government would do if a banned pesticide such as myclobutanil was found in product grown by one of the country’s 37 licensed medical marijuana producers, the department said it had a zero-tolerance policy.

“If the Department had reason to believe that a licensed producer was using unauthorized pesticides or other chemicals, it would take immediate enforcement action,” Health Canada said at the time.

Such steps “could include detention of product, recalls or potentially revoking the producer’s licence,” Health Canada said, referencing two banned pesticides: myclobutanil and dodemorph.

A Globe investigation in September revealed that several unregulated cannabis dispensaries in Vancouver had sold products containing dodemorph, which is not approved “for any human use” and that Health Canada was told of the problem. However, Health Canada did not act, or warn the public, because it considers store-front dispensaries to be illegal, though the government does not prevent them from operating.

Mettrum did not say how the myclobutanil ended up in its product.

The use of potentially harmful chemicals in medical marijuana can be hazardous since the product is considered medicine and is sometimes used by patients with compromised immune systems. In Canada, there are only 13 pesticides approved for use on medical cannabis.

Health Canada said in a statement that it is “looking at ways to make all cannabis product recalls, regardless of the level of risk, publicly available.” The department did not say why such concerns aren’t made public now.

Much is unclear about recreational marijuana use

By Peggy Aulisio

FAIRHAVEN - Voters approved the recreational use of marijuana in a ballot question Nov. 8, but that doesn't mean everything is clear cut, town officials told selectmen on Dec. 19.

Police Chief Michael Myers said anyone age 21 and older can possess up to 10 ounces in the home and can cultivate up to six plants in a household per individual or 12 by household. But other aspects will have to be resolved "down the road," the chief said, like who can sell marijuana. He said the state legislature is still ironing out some aspects of the new law and that the state is expected to issue clarifications by next fall.

In answer to a question, the police chief said it's not going to be easy for police to deal with people whose driving may be impaired because they have smoked marijuana because there is "now no way to test for it." He said tests are being developed, however.

Selectman Daniel Freitas said, "It's a quagmire that's been handed us," as far as determining if someone's driving is impaired by smoking marijuana and for police having to count marijuana plants in someone's home. Freitas said there are problems now with heroin use in the community.

"There are a lot of concerns out there," Chief Myers said. He said marijuana in edibles "can be dangerous" because of the percentage that's pure.

Town Planner William Roth said a medical marijuana facility, such as is being planned in Fairhaven, will be allowed to sell marijuana for recreational use, but other places will need a retail license to sell it. He said the town could limit sales to the overlay district that was established as part of the permit process allowing the medical marijuana facility to operate in town.

Roth said the changes on marijuana sales that come under the Planning Board's jurisdiction will be on its Jan. 10 agenda. He said at that meeting, the board will be discussing a moratorium on marijuana sales at retail establishments. Any moratorium would have to be approved at Town Meeting, Roth said. He said the purpose would be to have a moratorium until the state issues its guidelines.

Board of Health member Peter DeTerra said the new marijuana rules will be discussed at that board's next meeting; he said the health board plans to do community outreach.

As far as other aspects, Roth said the town could institute a local tax on marijuana saies. Town Administrator Mark Rees joked, in that case, "I guess I'll be changing my revenue projections."

Audience members had questions, including whether someone could smoke in public, such as at a beach near children. Chief Myers said smoking marijuana will not be permitted in public places, only in one's home or in someone else's home.

As far as smoking outdoors on private property, Chief Myers said it is permitted but that the police can "decide if it's a disturbance to a neighbor."

Select Board Chairman Charles Murphy said the whole issue of recreational marijuana use is going to be "an ongoing learning" experience.

The global experiment of marijuana legalization

By Meera Senthilingam,

Story highlights

• More than 20 countries worldwide have laws in place to legalize marijuana use in some form
• Marijuana is the most widely cultivated, produced and consumed drug worldwide

(CNN)In 2016, more countries legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal or recreational purposes.

Marijuana, or cannabis, is "the most widely cultivated, produced, trafficked and consumed drug worldwide," according to the World Drug Report, but its legality has long been a topic of debate worldwide.

In the US, Maine recently confirmed legalized recreational marijuana use, joining seven other states and the District of Columbia. Medical marijuana is now legal in more than half of US states.

This mirrors a global trend. Canada approved both legalization and regulation of the drug in 2016, joining Uruguay as the only other country to do so. Ireland, Australia, Jamaica and Germany approved measures for its medicinal use this year. Decisions are still pending in South Africa.

Australia granted permission for businesses to apply for licenses to manufacture or cultivate marijuana products for medicinal purposes and to conduct related research.

They join more than 20 countries worldwide trialing legislation regarding access to marijuana and exploring possible benefits. But as with the drug itself, the laws vary, as does the potency of control, and the world is waiting to learn what will work best.

"We need a lot more data to inform the policies that are happening," said Ryan Vandrey, associate professor of behavioral pharmacology at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. He has no stance on whether marijuana is "good or bad," he said, but wishes policies around the drug had the data typically required when approving a new therapy.

"There are a number of things that can happen when these policies change," he said, adding that social and cultural norms will ultimately define the real-life effect of these changes. "You can have vastly different impacts from the same change in policy," he said.

Hard to knock medicinal benefits

Portugal is a pioneer when it comes to drug reform laws, as the nation decriminalized the possession of all drugs -- not just cannabis -- for personal use in 2001. As a result, the country holds the greatest body of evidence about the impact such a change can have on policy.

"We were a social laboratory," said João Castel-Branco Goulão, director-general of the General-Directorate for Intervention on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies in Lisbon. But filtering out the specific impact in terms of cannabis is difficult.

"Experiments are now taking place in other parts of the world," he said.

Having trialed drug reform for more than a decade, Goulão believes that when it comes to defining what's needed for cannabis, there must be a clear distinction between discussions for medicinal and recreational use to "avoid confusion."

"People mix medicinal and recreational use," he said. However, he acknowledges that the basis for medicinal benefits from marijuana is strong, with a range of experts, including himself, recognizing its use to alleviate chronic pain, muscle spasms, anxiety, and nausea and vomiting -- most of which are linked to a variety of disorders, including multiple sclerosis and cancer treatment.

"I have no problems with medicinal marijuana," Goulão said. "There are conditions I believe can benefit from cannabis use."

The benefits are attributed to two main components of cannabis: the psychoactive component THC or the plant's extract, CBD oil. The latter is linked to improving anxiety as well as epileptic seizures, proving to be life-saving for children with a severe form of epilepsy.

"CBD can stop the fits. It's quite remarkable," said Dr. Mike Barnes, professor of neurological rehabilitation at the University of Newcastle in the UK.

Barnes recently wrote a report highlighting the medicinal value of marijuana for the All Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform in the UK. The drug is categorized as schedule I, defined as having no medicinal value.

"Clearly, that is wrong," said Barnes, whose research investigates the benefits to patients with brain injuries and multiple sclerosis. "It ought to be legalized for medicinal use," he said -- a thought most experts echo, as long as it's adequately informed and regulated.

"If they're going to do it, do it right," said Vandrey, who wants laws to ensure that the best evidence is analyzed and that manufacture, potency and labeling are also regulated, as with any drug.

"It's not medicine if you're just buying it from a street dealer," he said. "We don't have any other medicines where concentration differs every time we buy it. ... It needs to be treated as a medicine."

Vandrey cites Canada and Uruguay as countries setting this example. Their new laws provide government-controlled sources of marijuana for anyone, not just those who need it for medical use.

These two countries "are the only ones that have nationally approved cannabis," he said. "They provide a government-sourced product."

The jury is out on recreational use

All three experts believe the argument to legalize marijuana for recreational use isn't as straightforward as the case for medicinal use.

They believe the intermittent step of medicinal legalization provides insight into how the drug will penetrate the population when access is made easier.

"This gets into the realm of social law," said Barnes, who thinks marijuana should be made available medicinally first. "I would support allowing people to grow it in their backyard, like in the US, but then you don't get the control."

Multiple countries have decriminalized personal possession of marijuana, including the Netherlands, Mexico, Czech Republic, Costa Rica and Portugal, in an attempt to address societal problems associated with its use, according to Barnes.

The research emerging is still young and eagerly awaited, but Goulão has already seen changes among the Portuguese population: namely, a drop in stigma associated with drug use.

"This is the most positive outcome," he said, highlighting that having an open dialogue about drugs, including marijuana, in family, school and workplace settings means people more readily seek help if they become addicted.

Evidence also shows that removing penalties for drug use hasn't led to an increase in drug use in Portugal, as many voices in the opposition would argue. Instead, it reinforces the fact that criminal drug laws do little to deter people from using them, according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Despite these benefits, Goulão believes that leaping straight into full legalization, rather than decriminalization, is not a wise move.

"They are jumping a step," he said, referring to countries such as Uruguay, Canada and some US states. They should instead "decriminalize and watch carefully," he said. "I think we still don't have evidence that (legalization) is positive."

'Too young'

Vandrey believes that the field as a whole is "too young to see evidence of the benefits," adding that the world now needs to wait and learn from the wide range of experiments currently underway in different countries.

But he agrees with Goulão that leaping forward may not be the right decision.

Join the conversation

"People need to recognize the risks and benefits of cannabis for any purpose," he said, highlighting that although the majority of people may not experience side effects, others will find it harmful, such as those with any family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, or adolescents whose brain development may be impaired if they consume the drug too early in life.

"There's huge variability to how people will respond to it," Vandrey said. But information coming in might make clear the best way to regulate the drug in coming years.

"It's going to take five to 10 years to really understand the impact these changes in law will have," he said, again stressing the key role cultures will play in defining this.

Goulão added, "It's not going to be easy to change the paradigm in some countries."

But one thing is clear: The wheels are in motion, and the marijuana movement is firmly underway.

"It's going to be very interesting to see what happens," Vandrey said.

10 Scientific Studies From 2016 Showing Marijuana Is Safe and Effective

The year has seen another mountain of marijuana research, and there's a lot of good news.

By Paul Armentano

While no psychoactive substance is completely harmless, modern science continues to prove that cannabis is one of the safer and more effective therapeutic agents available. Here’s a look back at some of the most significant marijuana-centric studies published over the past year.

1. Pot Use Doesn’t Adversely Impact IQ

The cumulative use of cannabis by adolescents has no ill effect on intelligence, according to longitudinal data published in January in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Investigators evaluated intellectual performance in two longitudinal cohorts of adolescent twins. 

Participants were assessed for intelligence at ages 9 to 12, prior to any marijuana exposure, and again at ages 17 to 20. They concluded: "In the largest longitudinal examination of marijuana use and IQ change, ... we find little evidence to suggest that adolescent marijuana use has a direct effect on intellectual decline.”

2. Cannabis Consumption Is Correlated With Lower BMI

Those who use marijuana, on average, possess a lower body mass index (BMI) than those who abstain from the herb. So reported researchers at the University of Miami this past July in The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. Investigators assessed the relationships between marijuana use and body mass index over time in a nationally representative sampling of American adolescents. They concluded: "[D]aily female marijuana users have a BMI that is approximately 3.1 percent lower than that of non-users, whereas daily male users have a BMI that is approximately 2.7 percent lower than that of non-users." Lower BMI is associated with less risk of heart disease and other potential adverse health issues. 

3. Fewer Traffic Fatalities Occur In Medical Cannabis States

The passage of medical marijuana legalization is associated with reduced traffic fatalities among younger drivers, according to data published this month in the American Journal of Public Health. 

Investigators from Columbia University assessed the relationship between medical cannabis access and motor vehicle accidents over a nearly three-decade period (1985 to 2014). They reported: “[O]n average, MMLs (medical marijuana laws) states had lower traffic fatality rates than non-MML states.

 .... MMLs are associated with reductions in traffic fatalities, particularly pronounced among those aged 25 to 44 years. ... It is possible that this is related to lower alcohol-impaired driving behavior in MML-states.”

4. Pot Patients Spend Less On Prescription Drugs

Patients who reside states where medical cannabis is legal spend less money overall on conventional medications. So determined University of Georgia scientists in July. Researchers assessed the relationship between medical marijuana legalization laws and physicians' prescribing patterns in 17 states over a three-year period (2010 to 2013). Specifically, researchers assessed patients' consumption of and spending on prescription drugs approved under Medicare Part D in nine domains: anxiety, depression, glaucoma, nausea, pain, psychosis, seizures, sleep disorders, and spasticity. Authors reported that prescription drug use fell significantly in seven of the nine domains assessed, and they estimated that nationwide legalization would result in a savings of more than $468 million in annual drug spending. 

5. Pot Users No More Likely Than Abstainers to Access Health Care Services

Cannabis consumers are not a drain on the health care system. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin assessed the relationship between marijuana use and health care utilization in a nationally representative sample of US adults aged 18 to 59 years old. Their findings appeared in October in the European Journal of Internal Medicine. They determined that pot users, including habitual consumers, were no more likely than non-users to be admitted to the hospital or to access outpatient health care services. Researchers concluded, "[C]ontrary to popular belief, ... marijuana use is not associated with increased healthcare utilization, [and] there [is] also no association between health care utilization and frequency of marijuana use."

6. Marijuana Use History Associated With Better In-Hospital Survival Rates

Patients who test positive for cannabis are less likely to die while hospitalized, according to data published online in November in the journal Cancer Medicine. A team of researchers from the University of Northern Colorado, Colorado State University, and the University of Alabama assessed the relationship between marijuana use and health outcomes among a nationwide sample of 3.9 million hospitalized patients. Researchers reported a correlation between a patient’s history of cannabis use and survival rates, particularly among those admitted for cancer treatment. 

They concluded, "Odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly reduced among marijuana users compared with non-users in all hospitalized patients as well as cancer patients."

7. More Seniors Are Turning to Cannabis

More seniors are becoming stoners. According to population data published in November in the journal Addiction, marijuana use by those age 50 and older has spiked significantly since 2006. 

Specifically, authors reported that the prevalence of past-year cannabis has risen approximately 60 percent for those age 50 to 64, and increased 250 percent for those over 65 years of age. 

It’s understandable why. Older Americans are well aware of the multitude of the severe side effects often associated with conventional medication whereas cannabis is recognized as to possess no risk of fatal overdose and is associated with far fewer significant adverse events.

8. Maternal Marijuana Use Risks Likely Have Been Overstated

The moderate use of cannabis during pregnancy is not an independent risk factor for adverse neonatal outcomes such as low birth weight, according to a literature review published in October in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology. Investigators at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis reviewed outcomes from more than two-dozen relevant case-control studies published between 1982 and 2015. 

They reported that the maternal use of tobacco, not marijuana, is likely responsible for adverse events such as pre-term births or children born at a weight below normal for their gestational age. 

Researchers concluded: "[T]he results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the increased risk for adverse neonatal outcomes reported in women using marijuana in pregnancy is likely the result of coexisting use of tobacco and other cofounding factors and not attributable to marijuana use itself. Although these data do not imply that marijuana use during pregnancy should be encouraged or condoned, the lack of a significant association with adverse neonatal outcomes suggests that attention should be focused on aiding pregnant women with cessation of substances known to have adverse effects on the pregnancy such as tobacco."

9. Unlike Drinking Booze, Smoking Pot Decreases Aggression

It’s long been presumed that consuming alcohol increases user’s feelings of aggression while cannabis exposure does just the opposite. Data published in July in journal Psychopharmacology confirms it. Investigators from Maastricht University in the Netherlands and Frankfurt University in Germany evaluated subjects' response to aggressive stimuli following exposure to alcohol, cannabis, or placebo. Predictably, researchers reported that alcohol and cannabis intoxication resulted in disparate responses among participants. They concluded, "The results in the present study support the hypothesis that acute alcohol intoxication increases feelings of aggression and that acute cannabis intoxication reduces feelings of aggression following aggression exposure."

10. Fewer Teens Are Abusing Pot In the Era of Legalization

Fewer adolescents are consuming cannabis; among those who do, fewer are engaging in problematic use of the plant, according to data published in July in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Investigators at Washington University's School of Medicine in St. Louis evaluated government survey data regarding adolescents' drug use habits during the years 2002 to 2013. 

Researchers reported that the percentage of respondents who said that they had used cannabis over the past year fell by ten percent during the study period. The number of adolescents reporting marijuana-related problems, such as engaging in habitual use of the plant, declined by 24 percent from 2002 to 2013. The study's findings are consistent with previous evaluations reporting decreased marijuana use and abuse by young people over the past decade and a half – a period of time during which numerous states have liberalized their cannabis policies.

California bill aims to ban marijuana use while driving

By Taryn Luna

While pot may be legal, two California legislators want to outlaw the “country cruise.”

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Assemblyman Evan Low, D-Campbell, introduced legislation Thursday outlawing smoking marijuana while operating a vehicle.

The legislators say Senate Bill 65 will close a loophole in Proposition 64, the November ballot measure that legalized recreational marijuana use in California. The law says it’s illegal to have an open container of pot in a car, but didn’t address using marijuana while driving, according to Hill and Low.

Cracking down on drunk driving has been a priority for Hill, who passed a law last year requiring temporary breathalyzers in the cars of some DUI offenders in order to receive their driver’s licenses back. Known as an “ignition interlock device,” the breathalyzer prevents a car from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol content is above the legal limit.

“I have a real passion for solving our impaired driving in California from substance abuse,” Hill said. “I don’t want to go in a positive direction on one end and open up the door for deaths on the other end.”

Current law bans driving while under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or other drugs. But unlike a breathalyzer test for alcohol, there’s no standard method to determine marijuana impairment.

Urine samples, which are often used in drug-free workplaces, are unable to determine whether someone is under the influence or marijuana at the time of the test or if the drug remained in their system from prior use. Proposition 64 required the California Highway Patrol and UC researchers to develop “protocols and best practices” for detecting those impaired from drug use.

If the bill passes, driving while using marijuana may result in an infraction or misdemeanor charge as well as possible drug or alcohol education and counseling classes.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article123633454.html#storylink=cpy

Syndrome Linked To Smoking Weed Spikes In States With Legalized Marijuana

Robert Glatter, MD

On a recent shift in the ER, after multiple rounds of medicine to control his nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, a patient explained to me that he had been smoking marijuana daily over the past 5-10 years. He also stated that he would often take hot showers and baths to help control his symptoms.

At this point--after describing how hot showers relieved his symptoms--it was clear to me that he was suffering from a poorly understood condition that some long term heavy pot smokers experience, now known as cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome or CHS.

A recent CBS piece by Dr. Jon LaPook also shed light on this poorly understood condition in which patients develop patterns of cyclical vomiting and abdominal pain, often using hot baths and showers to control symptoms.

A man smoking marijuana  (CHRIS ROUSSAKIS/AFP/Getty Images)

But an interesting sidenote to this story is the increased prevalence of this syndrome in one state that  recently legalized the use of marijuana.

In his segment, he interviewed Dr. Kennon Heard who described his 2015 study from the Annals of Emergency Medicine which noted that, after medical marijuana was legalized in 2009, the prevalence of cyclical vomiting associated with cannabis doubled in two Colorado hospitals.  Colorado made recreational marijuana legal in 2012.

In states where marijuana is not legal, some healthcare providers may not be familiar with the presenting symptoms of CHS and associated use of marijuana. And rightfully so, some providers may neglect to ask if patients are using cannabis, with many patients unwilling to admit they are using an illegal substance.

The study also shows that with the doubling of the incidence of CHS, the propensity to self-report also increased significantly, better allowing healthcare providers identify such patients who may have repeated ER visits. The fear of reporting marijuana use by patients before legalization is certainly a limitation of the study, and may have led to overestimation of the increase seen in CHS visits.

Although CHS was first described in 2004 in Australia, there is little data on its incidence and prevalence. Since 2004, 31 cases were reported in the medial literature by Sullivan and colleagues in a 2010 report in the Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology.  With prolonged vomiting, there is risk for dehydration and ensuing kidney failure , unless intravenous fluids and antiemetics are administered. Most people who are treated with intravenous fluids do well, and the vomiting resolves within a few days.

A large percentage of patients who present to the ER with patterns of cyclical vomiting often undergo advanced imaging including abdominal ultrasounds and CT scans to rule out important pathology such as appendicitis, bowel obstructions, or inflammatory bowel diseases. MRI imaging to evaluate for central nervous system pathology is also common in this setting. The medical workup often is tailored to exclude metabolic and endocrine causes after a careful history and physical examination.

Another similar entity known as cyclical vomiting syndrome or CVS, is seen among patients with depression and migraine headaches, and should be part of the differential diagnosis. But when a patient reveals that they compulsively take hot showers in the setting of long term use of cannabinoids, CHS is the likely culprit.

While previous research has suggested that the anti-nausea effect of cannabis is achieved by its principal psychoactive ingredient, delta-9-THC, research has yet to undercover the rationale of how this compound can then paradoxically lead to its exact opposite effect— intense vomiting.

One theory proposes that a buildup of cannabis’ toxic metabolites in the brain leads to down regulation of the CB1 receptor, which then results in paradoxical enhancement of the compound’s intended effect.

A newer and more popular theory is that it's the concentration of cannabidiol in marijuana--as opposed to the psychoactive component delta-9-THC--that explains the proemetic effect in CHS. Animal models have demonstrated that cannbidiol is antiemetic in low doses but leads to vomiting at higher doses.

That said, the exact mechanism behind CHS is still not completely understood , but research so far has demonstrated that chronic marijuana use stimulates cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) in the brain which results in reduced contraction of smooth muscle in the wall of the intestines. Researchers believe that because CB1 is situated closer to the so-called thermoregulatory center in the hypothalamus, the continuous hypothalamic stimulation of CB1 might be relieved by showering with hot water. 

Another theory involves the concept known as “cutaneous steal syndrome” in which hot showers help ease symptoms by drawing blood flow away from the gut, since chronic cannabinoid use results in CB1 induced vasodilation.

Nevada accidentally leaks thousands of medical marijuana dispensary applications

The data includes their dates of birth, home addresses, citizenship, and driving license and social security numbers of the applicants.

By Zack Whittaker

Nevada's state government website has leaked the personal data on over 11,700 applicants for dispensing medical marijuana in the state.

Each application includes the person's full name, home address, citizenship, and even their weight and height, race, and eye and hair color. The applications also include the applicant's citizenship, their driving license number (where applicable), and social security number.

But it's not immediately clear how many years the applications date back.

Security researcher Justin Shafer found the bug in the state's website portal, allowing anyone with the right web address to access and enumerate the thousands of applications.

Though the medical marijuana portal can be found with a crafted Google search query, we're not publishing the web address out of caution until the bug is fixed.

Each application, eight pages in length, are still accessible via the web address as of Wednesday morning.

Nevada was one of the first states to legalize medical uses of marijuana during the 2000 election, but uses were limited to patients with cancer, HIV and AIDS, as well as chronic conditions, such as glaucoma and severe pain, and had a valid doctor's note.

The state most recently voted to legalize recreational use of the drug.

We left a number of voicemails of applicants prior to publication but did not hear back at the time of writing.


A spokesperson for the Nevada Dept. Health and Human Services, which runs the medical marijuana application program, did not return an email on Wednesday.

Cannabis Wellness And Hormone Levels

Jason Barker

As 2016 draws to a close, this past year we have furthered the advancement of cannabis for adult use and for cannabis-based medicines, showing they will once again have a prominent place in the American culture and pharmacopoeia. There are approximately 200 known medical conditions reported to be improved by treatment with cannabis.  In addition to these well known medical benefits, cannabis and its therapeutic impact on overall wellness for all cannabis enthusiasts is poised to be another key tool in advancing favorable cannabis policy in the US.

Many cannabis connoisseurs have noticed how cannabis helps them socially, in relationships, enhances behavior or creativity, and expands their sense of awareness. A study from Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities found ties into these observable phenomenons between the sexes: the difference in how cannabinoids affect men and women, specifically in relation to hormone and neurotransmitter functions. These cannabinoids are targeting receptors in the brain linked to all dimensional aspects of human wellness; physical, emotional, intellectual, social, spiritual, environmental, and occupational dimensions. These dimensions of wellness have been noted by Bruce Lee as a path for optimization of life in all aspects.

Cannabis work so efficiently because of the endocannabinoid system, present in all humans and many animals as well. This system consists of a series of receptors that are configured only to accept cannabinoids, especially tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). This system is an integral part of our physiologies and discovered in the mid-1990s by Israeli researcher Dr. Ralph Mechoulam, who also identified THC as the main active ingredient in cannabis in the early 1960s.

The human body’s endocrine system consists of glands throughout the body which regulate everything from energy levels to metabolism to sex drive. CB1 receptors can be found throughout this system and influence the release of many hormones.  The fact that there is a system in our body that produces cannabinoids, and is specifically designed to accept just them, should be overwhelming proof of cannabis’ efficacy as a medicine.

Dopamine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Endorphins are the brains quartet responsible for your happiness. Many situations can trigger these neurotransmitters, but instead of being in the passenger seat, there are ways you can intentionally cause them to flow with cannabis.

One reason cannabis benefits the brain is because of the neuro-protective role cannabinoids play in the body. In part because of the presence of the phytoestrogen apigenin, cannabis helps to mediate the growth of new brain cells and the connections that are formed between them. Research, such as that of a 2011 study conducted by the University of Newcastle in England, makes the direct correlation between endocannabinoid system dysfunction and mood-related conditions as well as how cannabis can help.

“Anandamide, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) variously combine antidepressant, antipsychotic, anxiolytic, analgesic, anticonvulsant actions, suggesting a therapeutic potential in mood and related disorders,” the researchers said.

Dr. Sachin Patel at Vanderbilt University released news of a study linking cannabis directly to the area of the brain that regulates the fight-or-flight response. This response is part of the body’s overall process of reacting to factors of threat or stress. Low levels the hormone serotonin makes the person feel as if they are in constant “fight-or-flight” mode, and unable to reduce stressful psychological or physical arousal, Dr. Patel notes, “the discovery may help explain why cannabis users say they take the drug mainly to reduce anxiety.” Indeed, cannabis has received significant interest as a potential treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) — a severe type of anxiety disorder.

The Vanderbilt research also points out that how regular cannabis use can desensitize the brain’s cannabinoid receptors over time. Perhaps this could explain why novice cannabis users are more prone to paranoid side effects than experienced users.

Creativity is simply a brain operation that can be altered with the use of cannabis. The neurons in your brain process information through those neurotransmitters to the rest of the brain. Unlike other intoxicants, cannabis has those cannabinoids, which are naturally produced in the brain.

After a neuron fires, there is a break in the transmission of thought to not overwhelm the mind and keep you calm and controlled. However, cannabis disrupts these breaks and allows the user to amplify their ideas and imagination. These new thought patterns lead to creative thinking and an escape from the ordinary.

The book “Creativity & Beyond” by Robert Weiner states that a cannabis-induced state of mind may lead to breaking free from everyday thinking and associations, which increases the chances of generating new ideas and associations. Additionally cannabis has been scientifically proven to help produce new ideas, help break free of the constraints of current realities and to help us stimulate creativity.

For thousands of years, people have been using cannabis as an herbal aphrodisiac. It was a central component of the ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine system, in which one use of the herb was to increase libido. The practiced called for use of a drink, a “spiced marijuana milkshake“, called bhang and in modern times anecdotal evidence suggests that the practice of cannabis use is associated with higher levels of intimacy.

Women have a particularly interesting reaction to cannabis due to estrogen levels. A Washington State University research team found that women experience the most effects from THC when estrogen has peaked and is beginning to fall. Estrogen levels play a role in how receptive your brain is to external cannabinoids, as researchers propose that estrogen receptors are along the pathway for THC intake. The highest levels of the body’s natural endocannabinoids tend to be during ovulation, and there is evidence that endocannabinoid action can assist fertility in women.

The Washington State research also found something interesting about pain. The interaction between estrogen and THC makes women more sensitive to the compound in general, which gave the cannabis greater pain-relieving effects for females providing 30% more pain relief than men with THC treatment.

Men tend to consume cannabis in greater amounts and at higher rates than women do which creates higher rates of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC) in their bloodstream. Women tend to experience more dizziness when using cannabis. Females also report using cannabis mainly when feeling anxious, and also may experience weaker effects due to a difference in body weight distribution.

For some men, smoking and vaporizing cannabis can decrease sexual appetite and sperm production. As weird as it is, some studies have shown that cannabis does not lower testosterone levels, despite the fact that a pile of studies has already shown that it does. Albeit, these studies do contain research which shows cannabis to suppress testosterone, the abstracts still cleverly state that “chronic marijuana use showed no significant effect on hormone concentrations in men”.

In a small 2010 study, women reported more severe cannabis withdrawal symptoms than their male counterparts. These withdrawal symptoms were mostly physical. Women tend to experience more sleep disruption, lack of appetite, and irritability.

Just as the universe acts by it’s own rules so does mother nature. For many years now we have spent too much money and effort to replicate elements from the universe and components from plants in nature before we have even reached a full understanding of them. Even when it comes to taking vitamins and minerals, we’d rather take a pill made in lab with synthetic compounds versus consuming the natural form from mother nature.  These scientific studies revealing the effects of THC and properties of CBD on all the dimensional aspects of human wellness, shows we have just scratched the surface of a world of possibilities.

Removing the DEA-mandated NIDA monopoly on production of cannabis for research, issuing agency guidance, expanding the compassionate use programs, and reforming license and registration requirements would all go a long way to improve the scientific community’s capacity and ability to study cannabis for all its  uses. It’s time to stop letting outdated policy prevent the scientific community from advancing knowledge of cannabis. People are waking up to healTHCare benefits of cannabis and cannabis based medicines, as more research shows the infinite possibilities contained in this seemingly simple plant.

Group of Calistoga residents in favor of outdoor cannabis growth and dispensaries

Anne Ward Ernst 

Supporters of marijuana use and outdoor growing of cannabis made their opinions heard at last week’s community forum where they found themselves surrounded by like-minded people.

The group of about 15 people, joined by a handful of city staff and public officials, attended the community forum to express their opinions on potential changes to local law following the November passage of Proposition 64, which legalized recreational marijuana.

Some residents voiced their disappointment in Calistoga’s decision made earlier in 2016 to ban medical marijuana cultivation, but Mayor Chris Canning repeated that the decision was a stop-gap measure so that the city could maintain control over taxation and land use rights.

“The only reason we took that position in that moment in time was the state of California had backed all the municipalities kind of into a corner with the regulations,” Canning said. “So what you do is you take the most strict action, then you dial it back from there. We are a complaint-driven community” so the strategy is to err “on the conservative side, so we can dial back” once all the legalities and intricacies of the law, and its enforcement, are worked out.

The state law says up to six plants can be grown per household, but allows municipalities to set lower limits. Canning and Councilmember Jim Barnes both said they are in favor of recreational marijuana and open to outdoor growing, and are seeking the public’s input on the choices municipalities have as a result of Prop. 64, such as whether to allow growing cannabis outdoors, the number of plants, and whether to have a dispensary on a main street in town.

“I have no problem with revisiting this entire thing,” Barnes said. “I’ve never had a problem with marijuana. I’ve always thought that a plant that grows wild in nature should not be forbidden to somebody that wants to have it. That has been my position since I first toked up in Vietnam in 1965. So, now I’m on the record that I did inhale.”

The overall consensus of the residents at the meeting was that they are in favor of medical and recreational marijuana, the option of growing cannabis outdoors -- Prop. 64 allows for outdoor growing of cannabis so long as the plants can’t be seen by neighbors -- and dispensaries.

City Manager Dylan Feik said the city has received some complaints by residents not at the meeting that the plants have a skunk-like odor when the plants are blooming, and they have heard of other concerns such as potential theft of plants, water consumption, and in the case of indoor growing the hazards and high energy use associated with equipment needed to grow the plants.

“The objections and concerns that we are sharing with you are things we really hear from your neighbors, people who live here who also have to be taken into consideration,” Canning said.

Calistoga is in an agricultural community already, said Elizabeth Tangney, winemaker and vineyard manager of St. Helena Winery, and any objections to odors lodged by opponents of outdoor growing – of which there were none at the meeting – can be contested by the current use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers and other agricultural practices that are odorous and used in the wine grape growing industry throughout Calistoga and the Napa Valley.

“I’d like to grow (cannabis) in my garden. Don’t take that right away. Our town passed this ordinance by 63 percent. Don’t take away my right to garden,” she said.

Paul Knoblich and his wife have been residents of Calistoga for 10 years, both saying they have no problem with dispensaries or outdoor growing of cannabis so long as it didn’t interfere with their health or lifestyle.

“We live about as close to the main street, Lincoln Avenue, as anyone could. I would have just no objection whatsoever if there were dispensaries on Main Street,” Knoblich said.

Tom Sherman said he is in favor of dispensaries and spoke about Harborside, an Oakland-based dispensary, and the many offerings it has other than marijuana.

It’s a medical center, a health center, he said, and it offers programs to its patients such as substance abuse and misuse counseling, acupuncture, yoga, women’s support group, senior citizens support group, Reiki, and nutrition workshops.

“You’re going to be able to control who opens a dispensary here. To have it be congruent with the mud baths, the whole spa scene here, it only makes sense,” Sherman said.

A couple at the forum talked about the benefits medical marijuana provides for their 18-year-old son who suffers from cystic fibrosis, and encouraged officials to lean toward approving outdoor growth of up to six plants, and to take advantage of the new laws and capitalize on the positives the law offers, such as potential revenue for the city.

The tax benefits the city may receive are unclear at this point, Canning said, and the state hasn’t determined yet how any revenue, or grants, may or may not be distributed.

“There are so many different categories of groups and organizations that are ahead of a municipality in terms of who gets a grant before we would. There are some potential grants for police for enforcement, for fire, for education, for medical,” Canning said. “All that’s out there, but again,” all that is still unclear.

Canning said the city may have another community forum on the subject, and hopes to hear from more community members on how they feel about dispensaries and outdoor growth of cannabis so that the council can make an informed decision based on what the community says.

Colorado Experiment Failing Badly

David W. Murray, Brian Blake and John P. Walters

Americans worried about the rush to legalize marijuana have been told to wait for the results of the “Colorado experiment” before passing judgment. Last week, more such results arrived. The federal government released state-level drug-use data and the findings are frightening.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) state-level data were quietly posted on Dec. 19 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) without a press conference. Perhaps that is because the report clearly reveals the catastrophic effects of marijuana legalization on the drug usage patterns of Colorado’s citizens, including the state’s children and young adults.

By making the highest-potency marijuana the U.S. has ever seen widely and commercially available, the state of Colorado is experiencing what may be the worst self-inflicted wound in that state’s proud history.

Colorado greatly expanded medical marijuana access in 2009, and then permitted commercial marijuana production and sales at the beginning of 2014. Now nearly one-in-every-two (45 percent) Colorado young adults aged 18-25 have used marijuana in the past year. For those in this cohort aged 18-20, their marijuana use is illegal, under Colorado law allowing commercial sales to those over 21.

The implications for Colorado’s future are deeply troubling. The 18-25 year-old age group captures youth just entering the work force, starting college, and those of prime age for entering military service — and they are regularly stoned.

What family will move to Colorado with that future risk for their children? What business will choose to move to Colorado with a drug-saturated workforce awaiting them there? What serious Colorado businesses that have the ability to move will choose to stay? Given the well-established association between heavy marijuana use and health risks such as psychotic events, what will be the impact on state budgets for such things as mental health services, or welfare services?

For any marijuana use measure but one, Colorado is at the top of the state heap. (That exception is Vermont, another medical marijuana state that managed to post 48 percent of its 18-25 year olds using.) Moreover, other legalizing states and jurisdictions such as Oregon and the District of Columbia, have rates that are beginning to approach those of Colorado, lest there be any doubt as to what is     In addition to capturing those who have used marijuana in the past year, NSDUH also captures those that have used marijuana in the “past month,” or current users. Not surprisingly,

Colorado also leads the nation in past month use for youth 12-17 years old, with the state’s rate of use for this age group fully 55 percent higher than the national average for all states (11.13 percent vs. 7.20 percent).

Beyond public health and public safety concerns, the social and educational impact of these high rates are deeply concerning.

The final sobering realization is that during this last election cycle, while many were blandly reassuring voters that the Colorado “experiment” was not only working, it was benign, we have seen yet further states follow Colorado’s lead, accepting commercial, legalized marijuana markets, including our nation’s largest economic and cultural engine, California.

Instead of contemplating marijuana legalization’s expansion, it’s time to begin reversing the damage. Responsible public health professionals, politicians, employers, educators, and parents can now see that the “experiment” has failed profoundly.

The harm continues to grow, however, and, for many, the damage may last a lifetime.

Clearing the air for marijuana research

Andrew Selsky



A couple of recent news stories regarding marijuana use in the United States make the case for continued academic research into the drug — and suggest that educational campaigns aimed at teenagers are having a useful effect.

First, you might recall the half-joking warnings making the rounds as Oregon got set to legalize recreational marijuana: Older adults, who perhaps hadn't tried pot since their youthful days in the 1970s and 1980s, needed to be careful about trying today's weed, because it's so much more potent now.

Those warnings haven't done much to scare away some adults: Surveys show a small but growing number of older adults are using marijuana. That finding surely doesn't come as a surprise to anyone watching as state after state legalizes recreational pot use.

Researchers reviewing data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health found a big increase in adults over 50 reporting they had used pot in the past year: A decade ago, only about 2.8 percent of those surveyed said they had used pot. By 2013, the rate had jumped to 4.8 percent. Our guess is that the number would be even higher today.

Here's a problem with that: Researchers don't know very much about how marijuana use affects older brains.

Researchers at New York University recently reported that pot could pose health challenges to older users ranging from memory loss to risk of falling.

But doctors don't have enough information to offer guidelines to their pot-using older patients. Noted one doctor quoted in an Associated Press story: "When it comes to, for instance, alcohol, there have been a lot of studies about effects on older populations, guidelines on how much older people should be consuming. But when it comes to marijuana, we have nothing."

Part of the reason why that's the case is that much of the recent research into marijuana has focused, and properly so, on how the drug might affect developing brains.

But legitimate academic and research institutions still have too hard a time tackling needed research on marijuana. And that gets us back to the fact that the federal government still lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the designation reserved for drugs with no recognized medical application and which have a high potential for abuse.

The federal government has resisted calls to remove the Schedule I designation from marijuana, and such a move seems unlikely from the Trump administration.

But the designation often serves as a barrier for institutions which might otherwise be working now to fill in the blank spots regarding marijuana use. An institution that relies on federal grant money, such as a university, might well be reluctant to green-light marijuana research if even a slight possibility exists that it might run afoul of federal rules.

The logical step would be to remove the Schedule I designation.

In the meantime, another recent study caught our eye: Despite worries that legalization would lead to a surge in pot use by minors, that doesn't appear to be happening: A study from the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse reports a drop among eighth-graders who reported using marijuana in the last month, down from 6.5 percent in 2015 to 5 percent this year. But older teens continue to use marijuana at about the same rate, the survey found, with 22.5 percent of high school seniors reporting pot use in the last month.

Those numbers, of course, still are too high, especially considering new information about marijuana use and developing brains.

So we need to continue outreach efforts to teenagers regarding pot. You know what could help with that? More and better research. (mm)

Inside DEA Ban on Marijuana Extracts

Cannabis businesses across the country scramble after feds announce extracts illegal – and some worry it foreshadows actions under President Trump

Marijuana is legal in 28 states, but the DEA clarified this month that all extracts from the plant – not just THC – are illegal under federal law. Jamie Forde/ZUMA

By Brenna Ehrlich

Chris and Trish Thomas' Good Body Products table was a hotspot at the Cotton Mill Holiday Craft Fair in Brattleboro, Vermont, early this December – they managed to sell out of products both days of fair, hawking all-natural salves, body butters and scents to shoppers eager for stocking stuffers and office party gifts. The most popular items on their table? The Green Power Salve and Whipped Wonder Butter, two products that include hemp-derived cannabidiol, or CBD – a substance that the DEA has just clarified falls under Schedule I drug classification. Yes, this organic, mom-and-pop operation could arguably be breaking the law.

Related

 

"With Trump in the White House and Sessions in the Justice Department ... it's hard to be optimistic," says Drug Policy Alliance head

On December 14th, the Drug Enforcement Administration sent businesses like Good Body Products into a tizzy when they filed a notice titled "Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marihuana Extract" in the Federal Register, assigning a code to "marihuana extracts" for the purpose, they say, of tracking scientific studies of these compounds separately from marijuana. This will also help the DEA better comply with international drug control treaties.

Unfortunately for people like the Thomas family, however, the fact that extracts have a specific drug code means that "[they] will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances," the notice reads. This includes CBD, which doesn’t get the user high and could potentially have myriad medical attributes, including curbing the effects of epilepsy. In short, the Thomas' Whipped Wonder Butter could basically be treated like heroin come January 13th, when this code goes into effect. That doesn't mean that the DEA will necessarily enforce it as such, but the potential for loss of business is huge.
Those in the hemp and marijuana community are questioning the new code, the DEA's power and, perhaps most importantly, the very definition of marijuana extract itself.
"Immediately our reaction was panic," Chris Thomas says of the notice. "We literally had just launched these new topicals. We had been working on them for quite some time."
The duo started working with natural products in earnest in 2010 after the birth of their daughter. Worried that most topical products for issues like diaper rash were packed with chemicals and preservatives, Trish decided to take it upon herself to study with local herbalists to find more natural solutions, including salves boasting hemp-derived CBD. Four years later, they launched their business.
"[Now] they're saying there's a possibility – by us selling a topical CBD oil-infused hemp extract – that we are the equivalent of heroin or LSD [dealers]," he says. "That is insane. What is this nation coming to?"

This concentrate of marijuana extract for medical use produced by Dixie Elixirs in Denver, Colorado, contains THC – but even those without the psychoactive elements are considered highly illegal by the DEA. Didier Ruef/Cosmos/Redux

Jake Browne, cannabis reviewer for The Denver Post and co-owner of hemp subscription service HempBox, also sold CBD-infused products until about a week ago. "When the story broke we had more interest than ever," he says. "We’re having to turn away business now because of it."

 

Browne started his business in 2014, shipping monthly selections of hemp-based household goods and consumer products like soaps, shampoos and energy bars – and the majority of those products include CBD. Given the news from the DEA, several participants have pulled their products, and the service has had to indefinitely suspend subscriptions.

"Whenever I hear anything like this it's disappointing, because the DEA has not been a friend of cannabis and has really stood in the way of an earnest conversation about where cannabis products belong in the scheduling in general," Browne says.

There's a lot of discussion in the community, however, about what exactly this new code is really changing – if it's changing anything at all. According to Robert Capecchi, Director of Federal Policies at Marijuana Policy Project, people like Browne and the Thomas family have arguably been breaking the law all along.

"A lot of the storylines that I've seen – or at least the initial reaction to this final rule – makes it seem as if these CBD oils and extracts are being more restricted than they currently were, and that's just not true," Capecchi says. "[The DEA] says that they've always considered marijuana extract, regardless of whether it’s CBD or THC or other cannabinoid, to be a Schedule I substance.”

Capecchi believes that the DEA has decided to make this clarification now for the reason that it stated in their recent notice: they are simply updating their list of specifically coded items to better comply with treaty obligations.

Melvin Patterson, a spokesperson for the DEA, confirmed: "It basically helps the DEA, as well as other people that are doing research on marijuana extracts, from a coding standpoint," he says. Currently, if the DEA wants to know who is doing research on CBD, for example, they'd have to comb through all authorized marijuana research in total. This code, Patterson says, helps them access this information more efficiently.

Patterson also confirms that the DEA has always considered marijuana extracts to be under the Schedule I umbrella. "This is only really an internal kind of housekeeping coding issue," he says.

Robert Hoban, managing partner at cannabis law firm Hoban Law Group and an adjunct professor of cannabis policy at The University of Denver, has a different take on whether the DEA has always viewed CBD as a Schedule I substance. He points out that the Controlled Substances Act – legislation passed by Congress in 1970 – authorizes the DEA to create rules and regulations that flow from the Schedules set forth in the Act itself. Yet, as Hoban emphasizes, "nowhere in the Controlled Substances Act statue does it identify CBD, or the term cannabinoids. The only relevant items that the Controlled Substances Act statute identifies are THC and marijuana, and the CSA defines that to exclude large portions of the cannabis plant."

May 20, 2015: Oil containing CBD from agricultural hemp is displayed at the Marijuana Business Conference & Expo in Chicago. Carla K. Johnson/AP

"As an attorney, I've become tremendously frustrated by people who say that CBD is a controlled substance, because it’s simply not a controlled substance per se," he says. "The definition of marijuana – laid out in the CSA – excludes certain parts of the cannabis plant, so if CBD is extracted from those exempt parts, it would not, in fact, be classified as marijuana. Moreover, CBD, or any cannabinoids, derived from domestically produced industrial hemp under the Farm Bill are expressly excepted from the CSA."

 

Patterson and the DEA differ on the definition of marijuana, however. "We define [marijuana] as the plant and all of its constituent parts," he says. Those different interpretations are the heart of the matter – a difference that separates a salesperson from a criminal.

Given Hoban's analysis, the lawyer challenges the notion that CBD is a Schedule I drug, seeing as how Congress would have to be involved in order to add a substance aside from marijuana to the Schedule I grouping. As he sees it, marijuana extracts were simply given a four-digit code number, which allows the DEA to track those substances when they're used by entities registered with the DEA – like pharmaceutical industry operators and educational facilities. And a code in and of itself doesn’t necessarily make something illegal. "There's more specificity in the law than the DEA is giving it credit for," Hoban says. "And the practical implications of this coding action are far greater than the technical impact of the new rule."

According to Hoban, while the code doesn’t count as scheduling, many government agencies use the code to determine whether or not something is a controlled substance. Translation: You can’t take that CBD-laced body butter overs the international border without facing the wrath of customs and border control.

"We have a client who makes a hemp beer – it was recently approved by the federal government as an approved formula, and this was reversed within weeks," Hoban says. "They said, 'Well, it has CBD in it and CBD has a DEA drug code number, so therefore it must be illegal.'" And that's not the only client of Hoban’s that’s suffering.

"We're seeing online and retail stores that sell these products saying, 'These things have to be off the shelves by January 14th,'" he says. "That’s interrupting commerce."

Hoban and his clients won't be throwing up their hands and throwing away their wares any time soon, though. He plans to challenge whether the DEA even has the authority to exceed the Controlled Substances Act, as well as circulate a letter to Congress.

Capecchi agrees that petitioning Congress is the best recourse in this case. "I would argue that the easiest thing to do is to write your members of Congress on a weekly basis and tell them to take marijuana out of the controlled substances act all together," he says.

Keeping an eye on the government might be prudent for those in the CBD community in the coming months. While the DEA asserts that this code is a simple housekeeping matter, people like Browne and the Thomas family think this move has more to do with the incoming presidential administration than anything else.

"I think that the DEA is attempting to make a move with the new administration to say, 'Hey, we want the cannabis issue to be a hot topic,'" Chris Thomas says. "Because this definitely catapults it to the forefront now and it will, I think, reveal some of the administration’s stance on the whole thing."

"With the administration changing over, this could very well be the first in a series of movements,"

Browne agrees. "You have a president right now who has a month left in office and perhaps doesn't want to expend any political capital he has left on cannabis when there's so much else going on."

Capecchi, however, is a bit more positive. "One of the issues where Trump has not been contradictory – in his personal rhetoric, anyway – is on marijuana policy," he says. "He's been pretty consistent that he thinks it should be a decision largely up the states to make whether or not they want to keep marijuana prohibited for all uses."

So, like many factors in the United States at the moment, it seems that this issue remains somewhat muddy. "We're treading cautiously," Chris Thomas says. "I think there’s still a giant question mark now in terms of what the new administration's stance is going to be, and as much as we hemp industry folks want to sooth ourselves, the reality is: this does arm the feds with grounds for going after someone like us."