Legal trends: employment & labour

Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP 

 

Canada

ONE | FOCUS ON HUMA​N RIGHTS IN THE WORKPLACE
In the past year, the media and governments across Canada have paid greater attention to workplace discrimination and harassment. In Ontario, for example, the government introduced Bill 132, Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act, which, among other things, ensures that employers are legally obligated under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and to respond to sexual harassment complaints. Also, effective January 1, 2016, employers with more than 50 employees in Ontario must comply with the employment accessibility standards set forth in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.

Under this legislation, employers will have to consider their recruitment, performance management, career development and other human resources policies and practices to ensure consideration of the accessibility and accommodation needs of job applicants and employees with disabilities. Employers will also be required to create and maintain a written process for addressing employee accommodation requests and using individual accommodation plans for employees with disabilities and those returning to work after a disability-related leave.
 
TWO | GOOD HIRING PRACTICES
Recent case law indicates a willingness of the courts to examine the hiring process. As a result, employers should audit their recruitment and hiring practices to minimize the risk of legal disputes and ensure they hire the best candidates.

Job descriptions should influence the content of ads used to attract applicants and guide the candidate evaluation process, including what an employer may ask during a job interview. Information gathering must be approached with consideration given to legal limitations under human rights and other statutes. Working from a carefully developed, detailed job description focuses the interview on testing the candidate against the employer’s requirements and helps prevent mishaps.

Background screening and social media searches may also be fraught with pitfalls. Employers are likely to collect information about characteristics that may be protected by human rights legislation. Over-collecting information may also breach the applicant’s privacy interests if it goes beyond what is necessary for the hiring process.

Finally, with the upward trend toward negligent misrepresentation cases and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew, requiring good faith in the performance of contracts prudent, employers will want to take care not to mislead the candidate about the nature of the position, the potential compensation or the prospect of future advancement. Of course, a well-written and enforceable employment agreement is a key good hiring practice and can save employers time and money if things go wrong following hire.

THREE | REASONABLE NOTICE AND THE ECONOMY
According to recent case law, the economy can impact an employee's reasonable notice entitlements. However, the case law is mixed regarding what impact it should have on notice.

Some Canadian courts have indicated that the state of the economy should not be considered in the notice analysis, while others have found that a waning economy justifies a longer notice period. However, inGristey v. Emke Schaab Climatecare Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that where an employee was terminated following a steady decline in the company’s business, economic factors were such that the employer was entitled to provide less pay in lieu of notice to the employee.

The conflicting case law makes it difficult to predict how economic conditions will impact an employee's reasonable notice period. One way to reduce uncertainty regarding employee entitlements on termination is to use a well-drafted employment contract containing an enforceable termination provision.

FOUR | IMPACT OF LEGALIZATION OF MEDICAL CANNABIS ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL POLICIES
The recently elected federal government has pledged to legalize recreational marijuana use, and some recent court decisions have taken a permissive approach regarding medical use of marijuana. These developments will affect employer efforts to ensure a safe workplace.

The new government’s promise to “legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana” means marijuana consumption and incidental possession will no longer be crimes under Canada’s Criminal Code. A regulatory scheme of taxation and supply will be established, with harsh penalties for those selling marijuana outside the law’s bounds. Assuming the government follows through with its promise, recreational marijuana use will soon be legal but regulated across Canada.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the importance of employee privacy interests in relation to drug- and alcohol-testing policies in Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 v. Irving Pulp & Paper, Ltd. In 2015, the court in R. v. Smith confirmed that whether Canadians smoke, eat or imbibe medicinal marijuana, they have a constitutional right to its use. Employers must balance their interest in mandatory drug and alcohol testing to produce a safe workplace with employee privacy interests.

Only when necessity outweighs privacy interests can an employer impose drug and alcohol rules with disciplinary consequences. As a result, mandatory workplace drug testing is impermissible absent an established substance abuse problem, even if the workplace is one with heightened safety concerns. The legalization and regulation of marijuana could further tilt the scales against restrictive drug and alcohol policies in the workplace.

Similar legal issues have arisen at the state level in American jurisdictions where marijuana is alreadylegal — namely, Washington, Oregon, Colorado and Alaska. For example, in Coats v. Dish Network, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the employer’s right to discipline or terminate employees for marijuana use, even though marijuana is now permitted under state law. The court held marijuana is not a “lawful off-duty activity” pursuant to Coloradoan employment law; therefore, termination for its use is permissible. This is because marijuana remains illegal under American federal law.

The trend toward protecting employee privacy rights and new developments regarding marijuana legalization are expected to raise myriad employment issues in the near future. We anticipate that balancing lawful marijuana use with the need for a safe workplace will be subject to further legal challenges. Given the importance the Supreme Court of Canada currently places on employee privacy, predicting the outcome of litigation is difficult. Challenges regarding an employer’s duty to accommodate employees with disabilities involving medical marijuana use are also anticipated.​​​

 

New marijuana strain provides help without any intoxicating effects

Minnesota Medical Solutions CEO Dr. Kyle Kingsley with a Katelyn Faith strain marijuana plant at MinnMed’s Otsego greenhouse and laboratory on Dec. 16. FORUM NEWS SERVICE /Robb Jeffries

 

By Robb Jeffries

A new strain of marijuana plant could slash costs for medical cannabis users in Minnesota.

Minnesota Medical Solutions, one of two medical cannabis operators in the state, announced the creation of a new strain with a higher cannabidiol (CBD) content than any cannabis plant known.

The new strain, named the Katelyn Faith strain, was cultivated through months of germination research, MinnMed CEO Dr. Kyle Kingsley said at the company’s Otsego greenhouse and laboratory.

“This is likely the most CBD-rich strain in the world, though it’s difficult to know for sure because testing is not as rigorous and transparent as it should be,” he said.

The two primary medical components in a cannabis plant, CBD and tetrahyrdocannabinol (THC) are sometimes used to treat different ailments. THC is used in cancer treatment, while CBD helps patients with seizure conditions.

What makes Katelyn Faith special is its CBD to THC ratio. Most medical cannabis has a 1-to-1 ratio.
Katelyn Faith has a ratio of 34-to-1, according to third-party lab testing.

Such a high ratio is “highly unusual,” Kingsley said. America’s most famous medical cannabis strain, called Charlotte’s Web, has only about a 20-to-1 ratio.

Katelyn Faith was named after Katelyn Faith Pauling, an 8-year-old girl from Montevideo, Minn., who died in March due to complications from Batten disease, which causes seizures. She often accompanied her parents, who are medical cannabis advocates who fought to bring the treatment to Minnesota.

“We named this special plant after a special little girl,” Kingsley said. “It would not have helped cure her disease, but it likely would have made a positive effect on her quality of life at the end.”

Users of Katelyn Faith will not experience an intoxicating high associated with illicit marijuana use, Kingsley said.

THC is the chemical in cannabis that causes intoxication, and even 1-to-1 CBD ratio cannabis causes very little impairment.

“If you brought Katelyn Faith to a Grateful Dead concert, you won’t make many friends,” Kingsley said. “Charlotte’s Web was commonly known as ‘Hippies’ Disappointment’ before its medical use; Katelyn Faith would probably be ‘Hippies’ Despair.’

“There wouldn’t be enough THC in this entire plant to cause intoxication,” he said, gesturing to a 2½-feet-tall Katelyn Faith plant that was a few weeks old.

Kingsley said MinnMed currently has a roughly 50-50 split of those using CBD and THC, although many have a combination of the two. He said those with conditions such as epilepsy and Batten disease stand to benefit the most from Katelyn Faith.

“The big winner of all of this is the patients,” Kingsley said.

Availablility

Charlotte’s Web caused an influx of patients to flock to Colorado in 2013 when it became available for medical use. Kingsley said Katelyn Faith could cause a similar “medical refugee” rush to Minnesota like Colorado experienced, as federal law does not allow the transportation of cannabis across state lines, even in seed form.

“It could happen,” Kingsley said of patients moving to Minnesota from out of state. “We look forward to providing medicine to any patients who qualify.”

To be eligible for medical cannabis in Minnesota, patients must be a resident of the state and have one of the following qualifying conditions:
Cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Tourette syndrome, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), seizures, severe muscle spasms, Crohn’s disease or a terminal illness with a life expectancy of less than a year.

Those experiencing intractable pain -- or pain that has not responded to other treatments or has an indeterminate source -- are eligible starting Aug. 1, 2016.

Development

The development of Katelyn Faith began about 10 months ago, as thousands of seeds were developed by MinnMed horticulturalists -- through natural methods, not artificial genetic modification, Kingsley said.

Kingsley said the strain will help vastly improve MinnMed’s production efficiency, and he anticipates it to drive a drop in medical cannabis costs for patients.

He said current patients can spend anywhere from $100 to $1,000 per month for medicine, but most fall between $200 and $400. Kingsley wasn’t able to definitively say how much patients stand to save through the development and use of Katelyn Faith, saying it depended on enrollment numbers.

Attempts to reach Leafline Labs, the other medical cannabis operator in Minnesota, for comment went unreturned.

Though Pot May Be Legal, You Can Still Get Fired

By Rebecca Greenfield

With marijuana legalization spreading state- by-state across America and the U.S. government backing away from aggressive enforcement of federal laws, employers in the Weed Belt have begun to reconsider their substance abuse policies. They’re making them tougher.

In a first-of-its-kind survey, the Society of Human Resource Management asked 623 HR managers in states where marijuana is legal about their drug policies. Unsurprisingly, getting stoned at work is largely frowned upon, SHRM found, regardless of legality. But it turns out a large chunk of workplaces also won’t hire employees who smoke on their own time.

Marijuana is legal for recreational use in the nation’s capital and four states. In almost 20 others, it’s allowed for medicinal purposes. More than half of the HR managers surveyed by SHRM said they have policies, or plan to implement them, restricting employment of marijuana users. Some 38 percent said they will flat-out reject users even if they claim medical reasons. Six percent said their policy will exclude only those who partake for fun.

“There is what I consider to be a significant number of employers that are saying they wouldn’t hire an employee that uses marijuana,” said Evren Esen, director of survey programs at the SHRM.

Companies can maintain stricter policies in states where pot is legal because federal law, which governs most workplace rules, still considers marijuana a controlled substance. Over the summer, the Colorado Supreme Court said it was legal to fire an employee for legally smoking medicinal marijuana while not at work.

That said, what HR managers proclaim and what they do doesn’t always match up. Fewer employers are drug testing now than five years ago, SHRM numbers show. A 2011 survey of 632 HR professionals found that 55 percent were testing all potential employees.

A little less than half of those surveyed in the new study said their organization does pre-employment drug testing for all candidates, which just about matches testing practices nationwide. And in Colorado, Denver-based Mountain States Employers Council reported that only one in five companies planned to make drug-testing more stringent after weed was legalized there last year.

Employers are most likely to test current employees if there’s an accident or a reason to believe they’re coming to work high, the survey found.

“Some companies have stated more clearly that they reserve the right to test, letting employees know that it’s not okay to come to work under the influence,” said Lara J. Makinen, an HR coordinator at the Denver-based Atkins, a design and engineering consulting firm. In states where weed is legal for recreational use, 39 percent of those surveyed have policies that single out marijuana use.

Employers might make more drastic changes if pot use were to start interfering with work life. So far, apart from one local news story, there haven’t been reports of hordes coming to work stoned. That jibes with SHRM’s findings. Only 21 percent of employers reported more than three incidents of employees violating policy regarding marijuana use over the last year. “It doesn’t appear to be a really major problem,” said Esen. “It doesn’t seem like employees are going out there and rampantly using marijuana in greater numbers than before.”

Congress Did Not Legalize Medical Marijuana

Jacob Sullum ,
Contrary to what you may have read or heard, Congress did not quietly lift the federal ban on medical marijuana. Nor did it lift the ban loudly. It did not lift the ban at all. Here is what actually happened.

A year ago, Congress approved an omnibus spending bill that included a rider prohibiting the Justice Department (which includes the Drug Enforcement Administration) from using funds appropriated by that bill to “prevent” states from “implementing” their medical marijuana laws. The same rider, sponsored by Reps.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), was included in the omnibus spending bill approved by Congress this month. That means it will remain in force for another fiscal year.

Dana Rohrabacher (Image: C-SPAN)

On both occasions, various news outlets exaggerated the impact of the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, leading many medical marijuana supporters to mistakenly believe Congress had legalized it. Los Angeles Times reporter Evan Halper led the way last year with a story headlined “Congress Quietly Ends Federal Government’s Ban on Medical Marijuana.”

Halper reported that the rider “effectively ends the federal government’s prohibition on medical marijuana” and “brings almost to a close two decades of tension between the states and Washington over medical use of marijuana.” He said states that allow medical use of marijuana “no longer need to worry about federal drug agents raiding retail operations,” because “agents would be prohibited from doing so.” As I pointed out at the time, that was, at best, an overoptimistic take.

Halper was not alone in overselling the rider. “The War on Medical Marijuana Is Over,” a Medical Daily headline proclaimed. “Congress Ends Federal Government’s Ban.” In the article below the headline, reporter Lecia Bushak said the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment “will effectively end the federal government’s ban on selling or using pot for health reasons in states where it’s legalized.”

After this month’s vote renewing the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, several websites, including Lost Coast Outpost, Daily Kos, and Inquisitr, cited Halper’s 2014 article as if it were new, recycling enthusiastic quotes from politicians and activists that he used then. “Federal Ban Lifted on Medical Marijuana,” said the Inquisitr headline.

“Congress Quietly Ends Federal Ban on Medical Marijuana,” the National Pain Report announced. eNews Forest Park reported that the amendment “effectively ended the federal ban on medical marijuana.”

Halper himself is taking a more cautious view of the rider now that it has been passed a second time. “A year after Congress voted to end war on medical pot,” says the headline over a story he posted this week, “raids continue in California.” Although Halper still claims “Congress effectively lifted the federal ban on medical marijuana a year ago,” he concedes that “marijuana legalization advocates are conflicted over how big a victory the congressional vote, which was repeated this month, has turned out to be.”

He notes that “federal prosecutors continue to pursue cases” against medical marijuana providers, which makes it sound as if the federal ban that supposedly was lifted actually remains in place.

One reason the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment did not work as advertised is that the Justice Department refuses to interpret it the way Rohrabacher and Farr do. It is clear from the debate that preceded the House vote on the amendment in May 2014 that supporters and opponents of the rider both thought it would bar prosecution of people who grow, possess, or distribute medical marijuana in compliance with state law.

But as I predicted last year, the Justice Department argues that prosecuting medical marijuana suppliers or seizing their property does not “prevent” states from “implementing” their laws.

Before the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment was approved, the Justice Department warned that it would undermine marijuana prosecutions throughout the country. After the rider was enacted, the DOJ suddenly decided the provision had no impact at all on cases against private individuals or businesses, although it might prevent the department from challenging state medical marijuana laws in federal court or prosecuting state officials who regulate growers and retailers.

Sam Farr (Image: Office of Sam Farr)

Rohrabacher and Farr have repeatedly complained that the Justice Department’s position violates the clear intent of Congress. Last October, in a forfeiture case involving the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM), a federal judge in California agreed.

“It defies language and logic for the government to argue that it does not prevent California from implementing its medical marijuana laws by shutting down these…heavily regulated medical marijuana dispensaries,” said U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer. He ruled that “the plain reading of the text of Section 538 [the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment] forbids the Department of Justice from enforcing this injunction against MAMM to the extent that MAMM operates in compliance with California law.”

Breyer’s ruling, which the Justice Department is appealing, at this point applies only to MAMM. Even if the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agrees with Breyer, it might still leave room for federal prosecutors to target medical marijuana suppliers, because whether a dispensary complies with state law may be a matter of dispute.

That is especially true in states like California, which does not explicitly authorize the sale of medical marijuana. (Under legislation that takes effect in 2018, the state will start licensing and regulating dispensaries, a function that so far has been left to local governments.) Although you might think that “implementing” a medical marijuana law entails deciding who complies with it, U.S. attorneys prefer to make that call themselves.

Assuming the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment does ultimately affect enforcement of the federal ban on marijuana in states that allow medical use, that is not the same as eliminating the ban. The rider has no impact in the 27 states that do not have medical marijuana laws, and it applies only to the Justice Department, so it has no effect on actions by the IRS or the Treasury Department that make it difficult for medical marijuana suppliers to pay their taxes and obtain banking services.

More fundamentally, the amendment, which has to be renewed every fiscal year, does not change the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no legal uses. Because marijuana is still prohibited by federal law, people who grow and sell it, no matter the purpose and regardless of their status under state law, commit multiple felonies every day. If no one is trying to put them in prison right now, that is only thanks to prosecutorial forbearance that may prove temporary.

Anyone who provides services to marijuana businesses is implicated in their lawbreaking. This week a Colorado credit union that wants to specialize in serving state-licensed marijuana businesses tried to persuade a federal judge that it is legally entitled to participate in the Federal Reserve’s payment system, without which it cannot operate.

The judge did not seem inclined to agree, saying, “I would be forcing the reserve bank to give a master account to a credit union that serves illegal businesses.” The U.S. Postal Service recently announced that periodicals containing marijuana ads are “nonmailable,” citing a CSA provision that makes it a felony to place ads promoting the purchase of illegal drugs.

Problems like these cannot be solved without changing marijuana’s status under federal law. The Rohrbacher-Farr amendment does not do that, no matter how many hopeful headlines it generates.

The terrifying side effects legal marijuana wreaks on young people

Marijuana can also be addictive, with one in six adolescent users developing dependence over time, despite the perceptions to the contrary.

By Mary Rezac, 
Denver, Colo. (CNA) - A child psychiatrist and medical director of one of Colorado's largest youth substance abuse treatment clinics, he has seen firsthand marijuana's detrimental effect on young people.

In addition, in the past two, post-legalization years, he has noticed some concerning spikes: in number of patients, in levels of marijuana in their systems, and in marijuana addiction among his young patients.

"It's made things much more difficult," Dr. Thurstone told CNA. "Treatment is much more difficult than it used to be, just because the attitudes are more relaxed about marijuana use, and it's so much more prevalent and easy to get."

Currently, recreational marijuana is only available for purchase in three other states - Washington, Alaska and Oregon - and in Washington, D.C. However, with the 2016 elections on the horizon, both medical and recreational marijuana bills will be showing up on ballots in states across the country, most of who are looking to places like Colorado to determine best practices.

While the legalization of marijuana brings with it some economic benefits, many professionals who work with young people are concerned the increasing acceptance of marijuana and the minimizing of the risks and negative side effects of the drug.

The shifting perceptions of pot

As the social acceptance of marijuana increases, the laws change to reflect those attitudes, and vice versa. The legalization of marijuana is both a reflection of and a catalyst for more accepting attitudes toward marijuana.

As the perceived harmfulness of marijuana falls among teens, use goes up - or, at the very least, remains stable. A recent survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that for the first time ever, daily marijuana use has surpassed daily cigarette use among high school seniors.

In an interview with The Atlantic, the NIDA director Nora Volkow said that on the one hand, the findings prove the success of anti-tobacco campaigns that target adolescents.

On the other hand, the growing acceptance of pot among adolescents is concerning, especially given its impact on the developing brain, she said.

Dr. Thurstone has also found that teens today are more accepting of pot - a shift that began with the legalization of medical marijuana and was further solidified by the green light on recreational marijuana.

"Pre-legalization about 54 percent of 12-17 year-olds in Colorado reported great harm with regular marijuana use, and now post-legalization that's dropped to about 34 percent," he said.

"We're clearly seeing a significant decrease in the perceived harmfulness of marijuana, especially among young people."

In addition, the data seems to match what he's seen among the real live teens in his clinic as well.

"We're seeing teenagers who are telling me, 'Why would I stop using marijuana? I don't believe it's addictive, I don't believe it has any bad effects, in fact it's my medicine for my anger, depression, anxiety or ADHD.'"

This year, Denver Public Schools (DPS) created a position for substance prevention. Michel Holien, the new supervisor, said that while DPS hasn't necessarily seen a sharp increase in marijuana use, they have noticed the shifting perceptions towards more accepting attitudes, and are working to combat them as early as the middle school level.

In the notoriously more-hippie-than-Denver city of Boulder, Colo., marijuana has long been entrenched in the culture, even before its legalization.

Father Peter Mussett, who serves as pastor at the Catholic Church on the campus of CU Boulder, said that even before legalization, 40 percent of incoming freshman were reporting use of marijuana on at least a monthly basis. 

Moreover, while legalization has opened up more opportunities for conversations about marijuana, Fr. Mussett said it's also sparked more curiosity about the drug in more people than when it was still illegal.

"The curiosity is something that I find is one of the most poisonous parts of the legalization of marijuana because I think ultimately it's a toxic experience," he said. 

"(Legalization) just encourages the culture to say getting high is a great thing, and getting high is not a great thing. Getting high is destructive, and you can come in with all the best intentions and on the other side of it, it always ruins people's lives, continuously. It makes them dependent in worldly ways, and it does not actually encourage a good spiritual life surrendered to God."

Health risks of marijuana

The biggest health concern for young people using marijuana is its harmful effect on the brain, which continues its development well into a person's 20s, Dr. Thurstone said.

The main active ingredient in marijuana, THC, binds to receptors in the brain and can cause a significant decrease in IQ over time. A 2012 study published in the National Academy of Sciences found that adolescent exposure to marijuana could lead to an eight-point drop in IQ, on par with the drop seen in children exposed to lead.

Another concerning impact is the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and schizophrenia. A study repeated by multiple research groups has found that adolescent marijuana use can quadruple a teen's risk of developing schizophrenia, Dr. Thurstone said. 

Marijuana can also be addictive, with one in six adolescent users developing dependence over time, despite the perceptions to the contrary.

"In the scientific and medical community there's not debate about that anymore," he said. "Marijuana is not just psychologically addictive but physically addictive."

A secondary health risk of marijuana use in adolescents is car accidents. The leading cause of death of 15-20 year-olds is automobile accidents, and the number traffic fatalities in which adolescents testing positive for marijuana spiked in Colo. after the surge of medical marijuana in the state after 2009.

Part of the problem, Dr. Thurstone said, is that people don't understand how marijuana influences driving differently than alcohol. Marijuana is fat soluble, and its effects on the body last much longer than water-soluble alcohol. 

"That's a myth, which it's safe to drive under the influence of marijuana, we have to get good information out there around that," he said.

Adolescent marijuana use is also associated with a lack of success in school, a major determining factor in quality of life over time.

"Everybody pretty much agrees it's not a healthy thing in adolescents," he said.

Motivating young people to avoid marijuana

The best way to talk to students about marijuana is to get personal, Holien said.

In her work with five Denver area middle schools on prevention tactics, she said she's found the messaging that most resonates with students is how marijuana use could affect their various goals.

"It's really understanding for each individual youth . what is really important to them," she said.

"Is it getting into college? Is it staying on the team? Is it making sure their academics are up to par? But just understanding that marijuana, or really any substance use can get in the way of those goals, especially when you think about the ways that it does impact the brain."

When Fr. Mussett talks to his students about marijuana, he says he always approaches it from the traditional moral lens - which looks at the intention, object of choice, and circumstances of use. As for motivating students to not use marijuana, he's found that most helpful conversation is to focus especially on an individual's intentionality behind their use.

Marijuana is unfortunately a synthetic spiritual life. It doesn't actually help people get in touch with God and to contemplate the world and be in touch with the real.

"People don't want to feel pain, people want to have a contemplative act, they want to be in touch, they want to be one with the universe, they want a transcendent experience, they want to have communion with others, which are all good things," he said.

"So when I'm talking to people, I'm always walking them through 'OK, how does marijuana accomplish that? Is that's something that's a sustainable, valuable reality? Or is it an artificial simulation of that?'"

He said he then tries to help students find ways to accomplish those things without the use of marijuana or drugs - especially if it's a true spiritual life they're looking for.

"Marijuana is unfortunately a synthetic spiritual life. It doesn't actually help people get in touch with God and to contemplate the world and be in touch with the real," he said.

"And so the only counteraction to it I really see is to live an authentic spiritual life, and to seek whole ways rather than synthetic ways to experience communion, to understand your pain, to contemplate the real. I really think a life in Christ is the best solution for those people who are looking for these things."

Marijuana use will be a burning issue in 2016

Doctors call it an important drug, lawmakers see it raising tax revenue and voters are likely to make it legal.

By Kevin P. O'Connor

FALL RIVER — Marijuana will be king in 2016.

It is all coming together for pot in the coming year. Doctors call it an important drug, lawmakers see it raising tax revenue and voters are likely to make it legal.

Marijuana growers are also promising a few hundred well-paid jobs locally if they get their way. There are currently four separate proposals to build grow houses in the area.

Fall River and Freetown have both put out the welcome mat to companies that want to build and operate facilities to grow pharmaceutical-grade marijuana.

Westport is considering two proposals in town.

“The whole state is on a learning curve right now,” said Sen. Michael Rodrigues, D-Westport. “Right now, we are trying to look at the whole industry and try to learn from our peers in Colorado and other states.”

Medical marijuana is legal in Massachusetts. In November, voters will decide if the state will follow the lead of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington state to make recreational marijuana legal.

Currently in Massachusetts, possession of small amounts of marijuana is a civil violation that results in a $39 fine.

“I hear from people all the time that we should legalize marijuana and tax it,” Rodriguez said. “Realistically, when you do that, you help the black market thrive.

“We’ll be going to Colorado to see what we can learn from their experience.”

Rodrigues is part of a state delegation that will spend four days in Denver in January, learning about the problems that have cropped up since marijuana became legal in that state.

There are plenty just from the business side.

Marijuana is taxed and sold through licensed dispensaries. But because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, banks won’t deal with those dispensaries and credit card companies won’t accept their business.

The result: Credit unions are being formed in Colorado that are outside the Federal Reserve system to serve marijuana businesses. Dispensaries are also vulnerable to robbery because of the piles of cash they have on hand.

Medical marijuana is another story. It is legal, its proceeds can be banked and its benefits are becoming more obvious by the day.

Cannatech of Attleboro wants to build a 50,000-square-foot cultivation facility in the Southcoast Life Science and Technology Park that will allow it to grow and process medical marijuana in a controlled environment, producing baked goods, lotions, lozenges, oils and other products containing cannabis.

AmeriCann proposed a similar facility on Campanelli Drive off Route 24 in Freetown.

Xiphias Wellness Inc. and Hope Heal Health have both approached the Board of Selectmen in Westport, requesting a letter of non-opposition to facilities in that town. Those requests have been tabled.

There is still statewide opposition even to medical marijuana, said Will Flanagan, the former Fall River mayor who is the lawyer for Hope Heal Health.

“But we are also seeing the patient population continuing to grow,” he said. “Right now, there are 35,000 card-carrying medical marijuana patients in Massachusetts. I think that will grow to 50,000 in 2016.

“You will see more competition and you will see more creativity with the products offered.”

Marijuana was used medically in the United States until the 1930s, when it was outlawed. Some doctors are going back to the substance as medicine, especially as it becomes clear that the use of opioids for pain management has been a big factor in the current national epidemic of heroin addiction.

Medical research has been underway for almost a generation in Israel, France, England and several other countries to determine the reach of marijuana as medicine.

Cannabis sativa, the strain normally grown for pot, can be used to treat depression and anxiety. Indica is used for pain relief, generally applied as a lotion or an oil. Ruderalis has been shown to reduce seizures and act as an anti-inflammatory.

Dr. Henry Crowley, an anesthesiologist and director of pain therapy at Same Day SurgiCenter, 272 Stanley St., is the president of Cannatech. He has followed cannabis research for years.

“Medical marijuana has been around for hundreds of years,” he said. “Everything I’ve seen indicates it is a good tool to be in our bag of tricks when it is administered to the right patient.”

In addition to published research, Crowley said he has also heard from patients over the years, those in treatment for cancer or chronic pain, who have illegally used marijuana and found it brought relief.

“When I look at it as medicinal cannabis, I’ve seen what it can do for patients,” Crowley said. “I can see using it in my practice with the proper patients.”

For many patients, cannabis-based medicines will provide greater pain relief than medicines based on opioids, Crowley said. And cannabis is not physically addictive.

“If you look at the problems with have with opiates, it is clear we need to start looking at alternatives.”

He envisions a facility in Fall River that will be operated with the same strict controls as a lab run by Pfizer or Bristol Myers Squibb: A sterile, highly controlled environment suitable for scientific research.

“My vision would be to establish a facility that would also do research and develop genetic alterations we could use in medicine,” he said.

In Israel, cannabis-based medicine have helped thousands of patients, Crowley said.

“I don’t know if it is right to hold that back from people,” he added.

 That is just one of the arguments that will be made this year in what promises to be a long debate about marijuana in Massachusetts, Rodrigues predicted.

“Marijuana will definitely be a big topic of discussion this year,” Rodrigues said. “We have a lot to learn.”

Does legal pot entice users to drink more?

"We were hoping to have more clear-cut answers at the end of our research," says Katarína Guttmannová. "But you know what? This is the science of human behavior, and it's messy, and that's OK." (Credit: Sarah Ross/Flickr)

Posted by Deborah Bach-UW

Does legal marijuana tempt pot users to consume more alcohol? A new study highlights the difficulties of gauging the impact of a formerly illicit drug as it moves into the mainstream.

Recreational marijuana use is now legal in four states and medical marijuana in 23 states. Research on legalization policies has focused largely on how they impact marijuana access and use, but researchers wanted to know how legalization affects the use of alcohol, by far the nation’s most popular drug.

The majority of adults in the US drink to varying degrees. Alcohol abuse is the third leading preventable cause of death nationwide—and drinking accounts for almost one-third of driving fatalities annually.

Excessive alcohol use cost $223.5 billion in 2006 alone.

“We chose to focus on alcohol because even relatively small changes in alcohol consumption could have profound implications for public health, safety, and related costs,” says lead author Katarína Guttmannová, a researcher in the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington.

The researchers sought to determine whether legalizing marijuana led to it becoming a substitute for alcohol or tended to increase consumption of both substances. If it was the former, that could greatly reduce the costs of healthcare, traffic accidents, and lower workplace productivity related to excessive drinking.

But if legalized marijuana resulted in increased use of both drugs, costs to society could increase dramatically, particularly since those who use both substances tend to use them at the same time. Those who use both substances simultaneously are twice as likely to drive drunk and face social troubles such as drunken brawls and relationship problems.

Drawing on previous studies, the researchers hypothesized that legalization of marijuana could result in either substitution or complementary effects. Marijuana and alcohol both provide users with similar “reward and sedation” effects, which could prompt users to substitute one for the other. But blood levels of THC, the chemical responsible for most of marijuana’s pleasurable psychological effects, increase with simultaneous alcohol use—so the quest for a better high might lead people to use both substances.

A mix of findings

For the study, published in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, researchers reviewed more than 750 studies on marijuana and alcohol use and focused on 15 that specifically addressed the links between marijuana policies and drinking. They looked at how decriminalized marijuana, medical marijuana, and recreational marijuana affected alcohol use.

The findings of those studies fluctuated widely, depending on the demographic and the type and frequency of alcohol and marijuana use. One study, for example, found that states where marijuana is decriminalized had more emergency room visits related to marijuana and fewer visits linked to alcohol and other drugs. Some studies found that high school seniors in states where pot was decriminalized tended to drink less, while other research found that college students who used pot also drank more.

Findings around medical marijuana also varied. One study reported that states with medical marijuana dispensaries had higher rates of both marijuana and alcohol use, as well as higher admissions into alcohol treatment facilities. But while states with medical marijuana had fewer alcohol-related fatalities overall, those with dispensaries saw more of those deaths.

Other research found that while legalized medical marijuana wasn’t associated with any increases in underage drinking, it was linked with more binge drinking and simultaneous use of pot and alcohol among adults.

A complicated issue

The researchers conclude there’s evidence of marijuana and alcohol being both substitutes and complements. Given the rapidly evolving landscape of marijuana policy, they say further study will be important to understand how changes in marijuana laws impact the use of alcohol and other drugs.

In particular, future studies should address specific dimensions of marijuana policies, timing of policy change and implementation, and different aspects of marijuana and alcohol use, such as age of users and whether they are episodic or regular consumers, Guttmannová says.

“This is a complicated issue and requires a nuanced approach. We were hoping to have more clear-cut answers at the end of our research. But you know what? This is the science of human behavior, and it’s messy, and that’s OK.”

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the work.

Medical marijuana use problematic even where legal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: Mark / CC BY 2.0

Insurance issues and bureaucracy can create roadblocks

By The Independent 

Medical marijuana is now legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, but that doesn’t mean it’s always clear sailing for patients who want or need to make use of the plant’s medicinal properties.

At times it’s a puzzle, because what’s allowed in one state isn’t in another, and the federal government hasn’t budged on legalization. That creates barriers for patients.

“The fact that each state and the federal government have very different laws on marijuana makes things confusing,” says Dr. James W. Forsythe, an oncologist and author of the book “Stoned: The Truth About Medical Marijuana and Hemp Oil.”

Forsythe believes it’s important to cut through that confusion so that those who need medical marijuana can better understand its uses as well as its drawbacks.

Photo: Neon Tommy / CC BY-SA 2.0

He says that when used properly under a trained physician’s careful guidance, medical marijuana works wonders. But he also says there’s no doubt that some people fake their ailments because they want to enjoy the euphoric sensations marijuana makes possible.

“Using marijuana is generally safe for the vast majority of adults when used at moderate levels,” Forsythe says. “With this understood, consumers also need to realize that many people claim scientists still lack a full understanding of marijuana’s long-term effects.”

Pain is one of the conditions medical marijuana is most often used to treat. But it also can be prescribed for other ailments, such as muscle spasms caused by multiple sclerosis; nausea from cancer chemotherapy; poor appetite and weight loss caused by chronic illness, such as HIV; seizure disorders; and Crohn’s disease.

Forsythe says that, beyond dealing with the ailments themselves, patients who could benefit from medical marijuana face a number of issues.

Lack of insurance coverage

Insurance companies refuse to pay for drugs that have not been officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration for distribution in prescription form. That can create significant financial issues medical marijuana patients, Forsythe says.

Important research remains stalled

American scientists have expressed frustration that their research is hampered by the fact that cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under federal law.

“Fear of prosecution prevents formal, wide-scale and necessary studies on the apparent effectiveness of marijuana in treating specific diseases,” Forsythe says. The Brookings Institution released a research report in October that made just that point and recommended a more comprehensive set of policy reforms that would liberate the medical community in its pursuit of medical marijuana research.

Bureaucracy hinders or blocks vital treatment

Photo: Dank Depot / CC BY 2.0

A variety of bureaucratic road bumps and roadblocks have caused countless people to be denied urgent medical marijuana treatments that might help them, Forsythe says.

“As a society, we have essentially allowed government to fail the ailing people among us,” he says. “They endure needless suffering.”

One additional factor for some, Forsythe says, is that even though marijuana laws have been loosened in some states, many people still have a negative view of the plant.

“Ultimately, the possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes often becomes a personal decision,” he says. “Just as no one should ever be forced to consume alcohol, society should never require people to use marijuana. That said, consumers and patients everywhere should have a right to learn and to benefit from the many proven medical benefits marijuana provides.”

Mexican marijuana farmers see profits tumble as U.S. loosens laws

This farmer in western Mexico says he began growing marijuana when he was a teenager. He says this will be his last crop. (Deborah Bonello / For The Times)

 

Deborah Bonello

He started growing marijuana as a teenager and for four decades earned a modest living from his tiny plot tucked at the base of these rugged mountains of western Mexico.

He proudly shows off his illegal plants, waist-high and fragrant, strategically hidden from view by rows of corn and nearly ready to be harvested.

"I've always liked this business, producing marijuana," the 50-year-old farmer said wistfully. He had decided that this season's crop would be his last.

The reason: free-market economics.

The loosening of marijuana laws across much of the United States has increased competition from growers north of the border, apparently enough to drive down prices paid to Mexican farmers. Small-scale growers here in the state of Sinaloa, one of the country's biggest production areas, said that over the last four years the amount they receive per kilogram has fallen from $100 to $30.

The price decline appears to have led to reduced marijuana production in Mexico and a drop in trafficking to the U.S., according to officials on both sides of the border and available data.

People don't want to abandon their illicit crops, but more and more they are realizing that it is no longer good business. - Juan Guerra, the state's agriculture secretary.

 

"People don't want to abandon their illicit crops, but more and more they are realizing that it is no longer good business," said Juan Guerra, the state's agriculture secretary.

For decades, the U.S. and Mexican governments looked for ways to reduce marijuana cultivation. They paid farmers to grow legal crops or periodically sent Mexican soldiers to seek out and eradicate drug fields.
But those efforts failed, because marijuana was still more profitable than the alternatives.

As recently as 2008, Mexico was providing as much as two-thirds of the marijuana consumed in the U.S. each year, said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the Rand Corp. think tank.

U.S. growers, however, have been spurred on by the increasing number of states that have lifted restrictions on the drug.

In 1996, California, the nation's biggest producer, became the first state to legalize it for medical purposes. Twenty-two states have followed suit over the last two decades. Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington have also allowed cultivation and sale for recreational use.

Though federal law still criminalizes production and possession, the U.S. Justice Department has backed off its enforcement efforts when they clash with state law.

The relaxed legal environment has upended the old business model.

"Changes on the other side of the border are making marijuana less profitable for organizations like the Cartel de Sinaloa," said Antonio Mazzitelli, the representative in Mexico for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Although Mexico remains a major supplier of marijuana to the U.S., its market share is thought to have declined significantly. Alejandro Hope, a security and drug analyst in Mexico City, estimated that Mexican marijuana now accounts for less than a third of the total consumed in the U.S.

Mexico ruling on personal marijuana use for 4 hailed by legalization backers

There is little reliable data on marijuana production in Mexico. But two key measures — how much is destroyed in the fields and how much is intercepted at the U.S. border — strongly suggest it has been in decline.

The Mexican government is on pace to eradicate about 12,000 acres this year, down from more than 44,000 in 2010, according to the Mexican attorney general's office.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized about 1,085 tons of marijuana at the border in 2014. In the previous four years, that figure hovered around 1,500 tons. Seizures are thought to represent a tiny fraction of the amount that gets successfully imported.

In addition, the number of U.S. arrests by federal agents involving foreign-grown marijuana dropped from 4,519 in 2010 to 2,367 in 2014, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The number involving domestically produced marijuana held relatively steady over that time with an average of 1,536 arrests per year.

U.S. and Mexican growers compete not only on price but also on quality. Legalization has expanded the market for more expensive specialty strains, which are more powerful than standard Mexican product because of a higher concentration of THC, the ingredient that delivers the high.

"Mexican marijuana is deemed lowest on the totem pole and very few people who consider themselves aficionados or connoisseurs would admit to smoking it," said Daniel Vinkovetsky, who writes under the name Danny Danko for High Times magazine. "It's typically brown, pressed tightly together for transport, and full of seeds."

"Access to better quality American cannabis has led many to turn their backs on imports from Mexico and beyond," he said.

Ethan Nadelmann, who runs Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit based in New York that promotes decriminalization of drugs, said he expects that Mexican exports of marijuana will continue to fall as legal cannabis proliferates. "More and more, the U.S. is going to grow marijuana here," he said.

From 2013 to 2014, the legal market grew from $1.5 billion to $2.7 billion, according to a report this year from the ArcView Group, a cannabis industry investment and research firm based in Oakland. Illegal sales are thought to be many times that.

The shifting market has forced small-scale marijuana farmers in Mexico to look for ways to supplement their incomes.

In remote Sinaloa, a 47-year-old farmer named Emilio tends four marijuana plots with his sons. He inherited the business from his father. Their municipality, Badiraguato, is famous for being the birthplace of Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, the world's most-wanted drug lord and head of the powerful Sinaloa cartel.

But there is little sign of the cartel's wealth in their village, official population 1,000, a two-hour drive from the main town square on a crumbling mountain road. Emilio never finished primary school and doesn't know how to read or write. His house has dirt floors. Like the other farmers interviewed for this story, he spoke on condition that his full name not be published.

 

One of his neighbors, 55-year-old Efrain, said he stopped cultivating marijuana a few years ago and now supports his family as a day laborer. The middlemen who used to purchase his crop barely come around anymore.

"If someone comes to buy it here, they want it really cheap," he said.

But Emilio said he can't afford to give up on marijuana.

"Even though it's not really considered good business anymore here, there's nothing else to do," he said.
His wife and daughter work occasional shifts at a greenhouse where tomatoes are grown for commercial sale — part of a government project to give families a chance to leave the drug business. The work, sporadic and seasonal, pays about $12 a day.

Guerra, the Sinaloa agriculture secretary, said the government has a responsibility to provide more as legalization sweeps the U.S.

The Mexican drug cartels are already adapting.

For one, they are moving to compete in the high-end marijuana market, according to the 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment produced by the DEA. "Law enforcement reporting indicates that Mexican cartels are attempting to produce higher-quality marijuana to keep up with U.S. demand for high-quality marijuana," it said.

In one of the more telling signs of how legalization has transformed the industry, the DEA has found instances of high-grade marijuana being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico, an agency official said.

"I don't really have a sense of the amount or scale, but we have seen instances of it occurring," said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the subject.

More significant, experts said, the cartels are likely to shift resources away from marijuana toward other drugs that are illegal in the U.S., including heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine. A 2010 Rand study estimated that marijuana accounted for 15% to 26% of cartel revenues.

Emilio already farms a few patches of poppies used to produce heroin.

They are a more labor-intensive crop than marijuana and require more water and a bigger investment upfront. "Poppy takes longer," he said. "And if you neglect it, the crop is useless."

But it may be a safer bet than marijuana: High demand for heroin in the U.S. has been driving up prices, and there is little chance it will be legal any time soon.

Why the war on drugs should take cues from our battle against smoking

A cigarette butt. (istockphoto)

 

By Danielle Allen 

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. In January 1964, the Beatles first broke onto the Billboard chart with “I Want to Hold Your Hand”; by June, Ringo Starr had collapsed from tonsillitis and pharyngitis. 

In January , the surgeon general announced that scientists had found conclusive evidence linking smoking to cancer and thus launched our highly successful 50-year public- health fight against tobacco. In August, the North Vietnamese fired on a U.S. naval ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, which led to the Gulf of Tonkin R esolution and the public phase of the Vietnam War. Alongside an accelerating deployment of conventional troops would come their widespread use of marijuana and heroin.

By 1971, cigarette ads had been banned from radio and television, the surgeon general had called for regulation of tobacco, and cigarette smoking had begun its long decline. T he impact of drug use among troops and returning veterans provoked President Richard M. Nixon to declare a war on drugs.

This was followed, of course, by the 1973 passage of the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York. These set the model for criminalization and increasing penalties for the country as a whole, especially regarding drugs.

In the contrast between what has happened since 1964 with tobacco, on the one hand, and marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other banned substances, on the other, we have an instructive lesson in the comparative effects of choosing a public-health or a criminalization paradigm for dealing with addictive substances.

The approach to tobacco has worked. Between 1964 and 2014, smoking rates declined by half; between 1996 and 2013, the number of eighth-graders who had smoked within the past 30 days fell from 21 percent to 4.5 percent. The progress against smoking has been steady and impressive.

It’s an altogether different tale with banned substances. While levels of illegal drug use have risen and fallen since 1971, current levels are equivalent to those we had in the mid-1970s. According to the Monitoring the Future r eport, daily use of marijuana by 12th- graders was at 6 percent in 1975; in 2014, it was 5.8 percent. The picture with heroin has shown similar stability. In 1975, 1 percent of 12th-graders had used heroin within the year. In 2000 that figure was 1.5 percent. In 2014 it was down to 0.6 percent, but it may be climbing again.

And for every year of the past decade, Americans have spent $100 billion to buy banned substances.

There is an even starker contrast in how perceptions of the risks of smoking and of illegal drugs have changed. In 1975, 51.3 percent of 12th-graders thought that smoking one or more packs of cigarettes a day posed great risk; by 1991 that number was 69.4 percent, by 2014 it was 78 percent. With illegal drugs, arrows move the opposite direction or stay essentially flat. In 1975, 43.3 percent of 12th-graders thought smoking marijuana regularly involved great risk; by 2014 , that number had declined to 36.1 percent. In 1975, 60.1 percent of 12th-graders thought trying heroin once or twice posed great risk; in 2014, 62.8 percent did.

In other words, for all the money spent and lives ruined through violence and criminalization, we have made zero headway against illegal drugs.

So what did we do about smoking? Tobacco control has focused on prevention and cessation.

Beginning in 1964, public- health campaigns worked toward the “denormalization” of smoking, in the words of the 2014 Report of the Surgeon General, “The Health Consequences of Smoking — 50 Years of Progress.” Although 800 private lawsuits were brought against tobacco companies without success between 1950 and 1984, in 1977 Berkeley, Calif., banned smoking in public places, and by the end of 1985, 89 cities and counties had followed suit. 

In 1986, Congress doubled the excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, and by 1988, about 400 municipalities had passed ordinances restricting public smoking. The tobacco industry began to lose lawsuits in 1995, and in 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states entered into the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement with the largest tobacco companies in the country. 

By 2014, states had received $99.5 billion in payments from those companies, and some of these resources had funded the highly effective American Legacy Foundation, now known as the Truth Initiative, which maintains ongoing anti-smoking campaigns directed to youth and young adults. In addition, the requirement to pay out these resources forced tobacco companies to raise prices, leading to additional reductions in youth smoking.

What we have done with marijuana and the other illegal drugs is, of course, invest heavily in criminal justice.
According to a 2011 Justice Department report, addressing illegal drugs cost the nation $193 billion in 2007. The crime-related portion was $113 billion. This expenditure can lead to high-profile drug busts, as with the splashy recent raid on the Tijuana-San Diego drug-running train tunnel. But this criminalization means a massive overload on the judicial system.

According to federal judicial caseload statistics, in U.S. district courts, in 2013, 32 percent of all defendant filings were for drug-related cases, making this the biggest category of filings.

We ought to admit that we got tobacco right but drugs wrong.

As with tobacco, there are real public health risks associated with drugs, not only heroin and opiates but even marijuana. We lack good research on the long-term effects of marijuana use, but some are clear.

According to the Monitoring the Future r eport, “Frequent marijuana use predicts a lower likelihood of post-secondary educational attainment.” Early marijuana use seems to increase the risk of schizophrenia for those who are at risk for that disease for genetic reasons, and experts estimate that roughly 9 percent of marijuana users are likely to become addicted to it.

Rather than using the FBI to bust up fancy tunnel networks, we should legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs, and then tax and sue drug producers to generate revenue to support public health campaigns against their products, agencies to regulate them and treatment for those who suffer from addiction.

Legalizing and decriminalizing drugs doesn’t mean giving up on the fight against them, and we have the lesson about what works right in front of our eyes.

How Does Marijuana Affect the Brain and Behavior? Here's What Recent Studies Say

By Jessica Eggert 

Stoners have a reputation for being exceptionally mellow, but a recent study of the effects of marijuana use on daily behavior may suggest otherwise. According to researchers from Yale University of Medicine and the Pennsylvania State University, the study found a positive short-term correlation between marijuana use and hostile and impulsive behavior. 

"Marijuana use is associated with changes in impulse control and hostility in daily life," according to the study, published in March. Researchers found that participants were more aggressive on days they used marijuana, and the following day, than on days they didn't get high. 

Source: ALFREDO ESTRELLA/Getty Images

The study analyzed 43 participants' marijuana, alcohol, tobacco use and hostile and impulsive behavior daily for 14 days using random effects models. Scientists found that marijuana use alone, without the alcohol and tobacco combination, increased impulsive and hostile behavior on the day participants used the drug and the day after. 

The study was brief, but due to the results and increased recreational marijuana use, researchers believe the topic warrants further research.

Source: Richard Lautens/Getty Images

A 2012 study in Biological Psychiatry found that weed can cause anxiety for regular users during periods of withdrawal and puts those with genetic tendencies at risk for developing schizophrenia, Cosmopolitan reported. Some of the alleged negative side effects of marijuana can be reduced if it's legal, regulated and tested by health officials, according to marijuana advocates. 

"People are used to buying weed on the black market with no idea about quality,"  deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Paul Armentano told Cosmopolitan. "As consumers get more sophisticated, they'll demand higher quality and better testing." 

Another study on the effects of marijuana use published in the Psychology of Addictive Behaviors in September showed that the drug had an indirect negative relationship with grades among a cohort of college students. The study showed students who smoked more went to class less and therefore received relatively lower grade point averages than those who didn't engage in marijuana use.

In November, a survey of police officers across the United States conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration showed that 6% of the 1,000 officers surveyed reported marijuana use as the biggest drug threat. However, as of 2014, no one had died from marijuana use alone.

While Deaths From Prescription Drugs Are On The Rise, Fatalities From Marijuana Hold Steady

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has good news and bad news. The bad news: based on data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the death rate from overdoses of prescription drugs as well as many illicit narcotics continues to rise at an alarming rate.

The good news: the number of deaths from marijuana has remained steady. Annual figures due to prescription and illicit drugs have nearly tripled since 2001, from just under 10,000 to over 27,000. On the other hand, the number of fatalities directly attributed to marijuana overdose remains at – zero.  Zilch. Nada. Bupkes.

The marijuana death rate has not changed since four states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, nor in the twenty-two states in which doctors are allowed to prescribe cannabis for numerous ailments.

Lobbyists and advocates who want to see stiffer marijuana laws and penalties are fighting a losing battle. States where recreational marijuana has been made legal have seen crime rates fall and are enjoying a lucrative new source of tax revenue.

Many law enforcement agencies in those states are relieved that they have one less criminal issue to deal with.  And so far, except for a few cases of driving under the influence of pot (which carries even stiffer penalties than cases involving alcohol in some places), there has been virtually no harm done.

Like the Volstead Act, the eighty-year prohibition against marijuana as been a dismal failure. Lawmakers and law enforcers at all levels have finally realized the truth of it. Even a few pharmaceutical firms, seeing the proverbial handwriting on wall, are engaged in the research and development of cannabis-based medications.

The facts are now clear to see: marijuana, used responsibly by adults, does virtually no harm, and has numerous benefits (not the least of which depriving drug lords of a major source of income).

Let the opponents rant and rave about “Reefer Madness” all they like. They may as well be trying to hold back the ocean tide.

As legal marijuana expands, states struggle with drugged driving

Written By Sarah Breitenbach

 

Washington State Patrol Sgt. Mark Crandall half-jokingly says he can tell a driver is under the influence of marijuana during a traffic stop when the motorist becomes overly familiar and is calling him “dude.”

The truth in the joke, Crandall says, is that attitude and speech patterns can be effective markers for drugged driving. And, according to legalization advocates and some in law enforcement, they can be more reliable than blood tests that measure THC — the psychoactive compound in marijuana.

When it comes time to go to court, the testimony of an officer trained as a drug recognition expert is often more valuable than a THC test because of disparities in how the drug impacts driving ability, Crandall said.

“Here’s the really bad driving that I saw, here’s the magnified impairment that I saw on the side of the road,” he said. “It’s telling a good story and making sure that it’s backed up with facts, and evidence, and proof, and the ability of the officer to articulate it well.”

As more states make medical and recreational marijuana use legal, they increasingly are grappling with what constitutes DUID, or driving under the influence of drugs, and how to detect and prosecute it. And they’re finding it is more difficult than identifying and convicting drunken drivers.

While marijuana is the substance, other than alcohol, most frequently found in drivers involved in car accidents, the rate at which it actually causes crashes is unclear.

At least 17 states, including Washington, have “per se” laws, which make it illegal to have certain levels of THC in one’s body while operating a vehicle, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). Under these laws, no additional evidence is required to prove a driver is impaired.

Of those states, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington allow for some amount of THC to be found in a driver’s blood, ranging from 1 to 5 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Other states leave no wiggle room and consider any amount of THC to be impairing and grounds for being charged with DUID.

In Colorado, where recreational marijuana became legal in 2012, drivers are assumed to be under the influence of marijuana if they have THC levels of 5 ng/ml or higher, but the law also lets defendants produce evidence that they were not impaired.

Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Oregon and Washington allow adult recreational use of marijuana, and another 18 states permit its use for medical purposes. More states are expected to permit recreational marijuana use as advocates push to put legalization initiatives on state ballots in 2016.

At an August 2015 NCSL meeting in Seattle, nearly all policymakers who attended a session on legalizing marijuana said they expected their states would soon have to debate legalization, if they haven’t already. A study by the Pew Research Center released in April found that 53 percent of adults supported the legal use of marijuana. (Pew also funds Stateline).

How THC Works

State lawmakers, conditioned by the universal system of rating blood alcohol content to determine intoxication, have long wanted similar measurements to gauge a driver’s impairment under the influence of THC. But that has proven elusive.

Unlike alcohol consumption, which creates impairments that are measurable by blood alcohol content, the consumption of marijuana creates physical effects that vary from person to person and THC levels can depend on how cannabis is ingested and whether the person is a long-term marijuana user, said Rebecca Hartman, a researcher with the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

People’s THC levels peak quickly as they inhale marijuana smoke and then decrease rapidly in the first 30 minutes to an hour after smoking. Even though the THC levels are decreasing, users can still be impaired, Hartman said.
 
How the human body processes marijuana varies so much from person to person that even on different days a user might metabolize the drug at different rates, she said.

“We’ve shown that cannabis increases lane weaving and some studies have shown one of the big things that cannabis is known to impair is driver attention,” Hartman said.

A June study on drugged driving conducted by Hartman and others suggested that people driving with THC levels of 13.1 ng/ml had a tendency to weave within lanes, similar to those who had a 0.08 blood alcohol content, the point at which drivers can be prosecuted in all states.

George Bianchi, a criminal defense attorney in Seattle, said the rule in his state (5 ng/ml) is not appropriate because studies of driver impairment vary so much. He said he thinks Hartman’s study opens the door to using 13 ng/ml as a national standard for marijuana impairment.

“I think you should try to quantify it somehow,” he said. “And this recent study seems to do that.”

Controlling Drugged Driving

Some states see creating DUID laws as part of the marijuana legalization process, said Morgan Fox, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Several states considered adding or modifying per se DUID limits in 2015. Legislation that would have elevated the Illinois per se standard from zero tolerance to 5 ng/ml, as amended (down from 15 ng/ml) by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, died without final approval from the General Assembly. And a bill that would create a per se standard in New Jersey is before that Legislature. Alabama, Maine and New Mexico also reviewed bills adding per se DUID limits ranging from 2 ng/ml to 5 ng/ml, though none passed.

“Considering most states already have them in place, and they are already being enforced, we don’t see the need to add them,” Fox said. “But we’re not going to scuttle a bill that would legalize [marijuana] because of per se [laws].”

Because of the variation in users’ impairment levels, critics of blood testing like Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, say the tests are not an appropriate measure of how well a person was driving at the time of a traffic stop or crash.

“Where is the need to go in this [direction] with cannabis when there is a consensus among experts in the field that the presence of THC in the blood in a single sample is not an accurate predictor of recent use nor is it a predictor of performance?” Armentano said.

He cites a February 2015 drug and alcohol crash risk study from the Department of Transportation that points to contradictions between previous studies about the relationship between marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes. The analysis, which looked at marijuana and other drugs, found that, when adjusted for age, gender and alcohol use, there was no significant increase in the level of crash risk associated with the use of THC.

Inappropriate Arrests

Legalization advocates said they worry that per se standards will lead to DUID convictions of people who were not impaired by marijuana when they were pulled over for a traffic violation, but might test positive for THC because they are frequent recreational users or use marijuana as medicine.

“These laws could lead to significant unintended consequences and the most significant of those is that the law prosecutes and convicts individuals of violating traffic safety laws for simply having engaged in behavior in the privacy of their own home that at no point rose to a legitimate traffic safety threat,” Armentano said.

In 2014 the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that allowed for the prosecution of drivers under the per se law, even if there was no evidence of impairment. The previous year, the Michigan high court ruled that police must prove driver impairment to pursue DUID charges.

States began adopting THC-specific standards in the early 1990s as a consequence of highly publicized crashes and other accidents, Armentano said, contending that the laws are largely unnecessary given established protocols for determining if a driver is under the influence of a drug.

“The officer is collecting evidence from the minute he flashes his lights,” he said. “Based on evidence observed at the scene, he or she is going to start making some judgment about whether [the driver] might be under the influence.”