BY Fernanda Alonso,
WASHINGTON -- A month ago, rumors spread that
the DEA was about to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule
II drug in the Controlled Substances Act.
Even though this rescheduling
would not have many impacts in terms of legalization, it would allow
derivatives of cannabis to be made available through medical
prescription, if approved by the FDA.
Even more importantly, the
rescheduling would allow medical and scientific research under more
relaxed conditions.
While those rumors have collectively been
considered a false alert, there was reason to think things were finally
starting to move at the federal level. In late 2015, the FDA apparently forwarded a recommendation
on a potential rescheduling of cannabis to the DEA, the content of
which remains unknown.
The DEA, which would effectively be in charge of
conducting a rescheduling, has yet to take any action. In a letter to
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and seven other Democratic senators, the DEA had
stated that a decision would be made within the first half of 2016. One
week into the second half of 2016, however, the decision-making process
appears to be more controversial than initially thought.
In the
meantime, lack of federal action leaves the states as the powerhouse for
cannabis legalization and its effects.
It has been almost four
years since Colorado passed Amendment 64, legalizing cannabis for
personal use, and 2 and a half years since the first shops opened. We
are no longer completely in the dark about the effects that legalization
has had and should start using this state’s example when thinking about
further legalization efforts.
One of the major arguments used by the
opponents of cannabis legalization is that widespread availability will –
almost naturally – trigger increased use among the population,
especially amongst youth. Looking at available data from Colorado, it
would appear this is not the case.
The 2015 Healthy Kids Colorado Survey
indicates that use among teenagers has hardly changed since the first
retail store for recreational cannabis opened in Colorado in January
2014. This is in line with the findings of a previous study conducted
shortly after legalization occurred in Colorado.
The Healthy Kids
Colorado Survey of 2015 has found that 21.2% of teens have used cannabis
in the past month. While this marks a minor increase compared to the data published in 2013,
when 19.7% of teens had been using cannabis in the past month, the data
shows a clear decrease from 24.8% in 2009, before legalization of
non-medical cannabis took place.
The survey further indicates that, in 2015, youth use in Colorado was even below the national average (see bar graph).
From
a public health perspective, the biggest concern – the increase in
youth consumption – has apparently remained stable. So, can we say that
legalization, two and a half years into the project, has been a success
in other areas as well? From a financial perspective, it seems so.
Colorado imposes a 2.9% sales tax on medical and recreational cannabis
as well as an additional 10% sales tax as well as a 15% excise tax on
recreational cannabis.
According to the latest figures published by the Colorado Department of Revenue:
-In
April 2016 alone, the revenue from cannabis taxation, licensing and
fees amounted to USD 17,183.162 (of which only USD 1,145.069 was
retrieved from the sales of medical cannabis), compared to USD
10,617.311 in April 2015.
-Between April 2015 and April 2016, the
state earned USD 142.218,370, compared to USD 91,068,724 during the
previous year. This marks an increase of 56.2%.
Legalization has also visibly impacted the crime statistics in Colorado. According to recent statistics, the overall amount of cannabis-related arrests has dropped by 95% since 2010. Additionally, data from the Colorado Court system
in 2014, cannabis possession arrests have dropped 84% since 2010 and
arrests for cultivating and distributing cannabis have also dropped by
more than 90%.
All this said and done, challenges do still remain;
the regulation of edibles, the labelling and testing of cannabis
products as well as driving under the influence are still issues that
have certain glitches.
The fear of an increase of driving under
(cannabis) influence (DUI) has been major argument of legalization
opponents. Colorado State Patrol
reported that the number of citations issued for impaired driving from
cannabis has fallen slightly since the agency started tracking the
numbers two years ago.
In 2015, troopers handed out 4,546 citations for
driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, with 665 including
cannabis and 347 of them – or 7.6%- involving only this drug. These
numbers decreased 1.3% from 2014, where 5,546 citations were given, 647
involving cannabis.
More concerning is that through the “Drive High, Get a DUI”
campaign, the Colorado Department of Transportation reported that 51%
of cannabis ere not aware that driving under the influence of cannabis
was prohibited. This survey also showed that about 55% of users drove a
vehicle within 2 hours of consuming marijuana.
The current legal
limit (both in Colorado and Washington) for THC is 5 nanograms or less
per milliliter – which depends very much on the individual. It remains a
challenge, however, to determine a valid threshold for cannabis-induced
DUI, as apparently, blood tests to determine the THC-level appear to be
unreliable, as no direct connection between THC-blood-levels and
driving impairment has yet to be scientifically proven.
Oregon and
Alaska, in contrast to Washington and Colorado, therefore rely on the
expertise of trained drug experts and an evaluation of the individual
suspected of DUI. Either way, a safe bet is to abstain from cannabis
consumption entirely before deciding to drive.
Labeling and dosing
of THC-containing products and the regulation of edibles remains
another issue that regulators are trying to cope with. By December 2014,
edibles made up 45% of Colorado’s cannabis market based on units sold,
making any issues with these products a widespread problem. Similarly to
the medical cannabis markets in other states, there have been some
problems with dosing for edible non-medical cannabis products.
In March
2014 and April 2015, the Denver Post
conducted studies on some of the largest producers of cannabis-infused
edibles in Colorado to analyze whether their product labeling matched
the actual THC content. In 2014, they found that none of the products
labeled at 100 milligrams of THC actually contained that level, with the
majority of products ranging anywhere between 17 and 146 milligrams
(and one brand containing less than half a milligram).
In 2015, potency
claims on the packaging were more accurate, but with differences between
17-30% of the labeled amount.
The improvement could be due to the
stricter regulations introduced by the Colorado government regarding
edibles in February of 2015. A similar study in JAMA
in California and Washington showed similar results. A review of dozens
of products from marijuana dispensaries in these two states found that
23% of products contained more active chemicals than their labels
suggested, while 60% fell short on what was promised.
What’s to come?
Colorado
and Washington have been the country’s guinea pigs in terms of cannabis
legalization. It has been up to them to identify all the problems,
quirks and concerns. Oregon and Alaska have already used these two
states’ experiences in designing their own markets and in a couple of
years we will have a couple of models to pick and choose from when
considering legalization.
Alaska for example, is still in the early
stages of implementation. The first dispensaries are set to open only at
the end of 2016. According to latest news, California will be the next
step to folllow through a ballot initiative on the legalization oin
November. Arizona seems to be pushing a similar timeline.
It has
yet to be seen whether the developments observed in Colorado may prove
to be a global phenomenon or if they will only be copied in the US. On
an international level, despite the fact that Uruguay de facto legalized
cannabis for non-medical purposes in December 2013, we still have very
little data. Their model, which varies significantly from the Colorado
and Washington one could eventually prove to be another option.
However,
cannabis sales, which, under the law, are only permitted through
pharmacies through a government monopoly, still remain unavailable. The
government has recently announced that full implementation of the law
shall take place later in 2016.
For the time being though, it appears
that, besides home-grown cannabis, the illicit market remains the
predominant source of cannabis supply for Uruguayans. Apart from
Uruguay, Canada might be the next country to legalize recreational
cannabis, potentially in 2017.
However, until any of this happens, the
four states in the US will continue to be at the forefront of this
development. The developments here will be decisive for how governments
will treat cannabis around the globe in years to come – and despite some
shortcomings, it looks like they’ve had a pretty good start.
No comments:
Post a Comment