Marijuana users and growers usually try to stay out of federal
courts, which strictly enforce the nationwide laws against the drug and
have rebuffed challenges to the government’s classification of pot as
one of the most dangerous narcotics.
But that could change this
week when a federal judge in Sacramento, in a criminal case against
seven men charged with growing marijuana on national forest land in
Trinity and Tehama counties, hears what she has described as “new
scientific and medical information” that raises questions about the
validity of the federal ban.
The Drug Enforcement Administration
classifies marijuana, along with such drugs as heroin, LSD and ecstasy,
in Schedule One — substances that have a high potential for abuse, have
no currently accepted medical use, and can be dangerous even under a
doctor’s supervision. The classification amounts to a nationwide
prohibition on the possession, use or cultivation of the drug. The DEA
reaffirmed marijuana’s status in 2011, and a federal appeals court in
Washington, D.C., upheld it last year.
But the hearing that
starts Monday may be the first of its kind in a criminal case since the
early 1970s, shortly after Congress put marijuana in Schedule One under
the DEA’s supervision, said Zenia Gilg, the San Francisco criminal defense lawyer who filed the current challenge.
“At
that point, not a lot was known about the medicinal benefits of
marijuana,” said Gilg, a member of the legal committee of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “It’s about time somebody looked at the new evidence.”
That will be U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller,
who granted the hearing, scheduled for three days, over prosecutors’
objections. In an April 22 order, she said lawyers for the defendants
had presented expert declarations “showing there is new scientific and
medical information raising contested issues of fact regarding whether
the continued inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule One controlled
substance ... passes constitutional muster.”
She issued the order
in a case that, based on the evidence so far, has little to do with
medical marijuana — the defendants are charged with growing a large
tract of pot plants on forest land, and there’s been no indication that
it was for medical use. But Gilg said that’s irrelevant if they were
charged under an unconstitutional law.
As Gilg acknowledges, it
will not be an easy case to win. She and her colleagues must prove not
merely that the federal law is misguided, based on current research, but
that it is entirely irrational. An initial ruling would apply only to
the current defendants, but the impact would be broader if higher courts
weighed in.
Support for defense
The
witness list includes doctors and researchers who laud marijuana’s
medical benefits and say it is much less hazardous than tobacco, alcohol
and some everyday medications, and a former FBI analyst who says the
federal ban has been socially destructive. Defense lawyers say they also
are drawing support from an unlikely source — President Obama’s Justice
Department, which, while defending the federal ban in court, has
advised federal prosecutors not to charge people who are complying with
their state’s marijuana laws.
California, 20 other states and
Washington, D.C., allow the medical use of marijuana, and two of those
states, Colorado and Washington, have also legalized personal use.
“If marijuana is actually such a dangerous drug, the rational response by the Department of Justice
would be to increase, not decrease, prosecution in those states,” Gilg
said in court papers. She also argued that the government’s
state-by-state enforcement policy is discriminatory.
The government’s expert witness is Bertha Madras, a Harvard professor of psychobiology and a former official in the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush.
In a court declaration, she said marijuana “has a high potential for
abuse” and is properly classified among the most dangerous drugs.
Medical uses debated
Contrary
to popular notions, Madras said, marijuana is addictive for frequent
users, interferes with concentration and motivation, and can cause brain
damage. Marijuana smoke contains “significant amounts of toxic
chemicals,” she said. And despite “anecdotal evidence” that it helps
some patients feel better, she said, there are no valid long-term
studies that support its use as medicine — in fact, although some of the
plant’s ingredients may be beneficial, “there is no such thing as
medical marijuana.”
Nonsense, said Dr. Philip Denney, a defense expert witness and a founding member of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians.
Despite government restrictions on the supply of marijuana for
research, he said in a declaration, new studies have shown “remarkable
promise” in using marijuana to relieve pain and treat numerous
illnesses, including forms of hepatitis, gastrointestinal and sleep
disorders, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Marijuana, Denney said, is a
“nontoxic, nonlethal substance” with little potential for abuse and no
recorded cases of fatalities, in contrast with the deaths caused by
alcohol and tobacco. He said its side effects pale in comparison with
the serious illnesses that can be caused by heavy doses of pain
relievers like Tylenol and Advil and the hallucinatory effects of the
main ingredient in NyQuil and Robitussin cough syrups.
Another defense expert, James Nolan, a chief of crime analysis and research for the FBI during President Bill Clinton’s
administration, said the main harm caused by marijuana is “its status
as an illegal substance,” which has relegated much of its distribution
to criminals and cartels and ruined the lives of many of its users.
Mueller,
who will weigh the conflicting testimony, is a former Sacramento city
councilwoman and federal magistrate who was appointed to the bench by
Obama in 2010. She is the first female judge in the Eastern District,
which includes Sacramento and Fresno.
Last November, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Like many others
in similar circumstances, I've tackled much of it with humor and a
positive attitude and loads of pharmaceuticals with varying unpleasant
side effects. It has been an epic battle involving a double mastectomy,
radiation therapy, breast reconstruction
(a process which left me miserably uncomfortable every single minute),
and chemotherapy -- endless needles pumping foreign liquids into my body
leaving me weak and nauseous and horribly depressed for days afterward.
At
one point, many months into my treatment, I was ready to quit. There
are no words to adequately describe the discomfort and despair I was
feeling. It was at that time a friend of mine offered to get me some
medical marijuana from Colorado. I said yes. I was willing to try
anything, willing to break the law, for some relief.
Before you
jump to any conclusions, I'm in my '50s and work in the medical field
and am not a recreational pot smoker (or anything else for that matter.)
Still, the chemotherapy combined with the prescription medications left
me so miserable and incapacitated, I was desperate.
I ate it --
didn't smoke it -- I don't want to smoke anything. And it worked.
Marijuana took away my nausea, so I could eat healthy. It took away the
severe restlessness and anxiety, so I could relax. It allowed me to eat,
sleep and be up and active when I was awake -- all of which are
critical to recovery. It didn't get me "high;" it made me feel halfway
normal (as opposed to the prescriptions, which left me feeling drugged
and weak). It gave me the strength to continue with chemotherapy when I
had reached a point where I really couldn't tolerate it anymore.
For
me, the medical marijuana was a miracle drug, a life-saver. I wished I
had used it from the beginning because it was so helpful. And according
to our current law, I should go to jail for it.
The fact that
people in Florida can legally smoke cigarettes (which are known to cause
cancer), but cannot legally relieve their cancer treatment
symptoms with medical marijuana is completely ridiculous. Medical
marijuana is safe, is already legal in 23 states and the District of
Columbia, and is supported by the American College of Physicians,
American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association and many
other organizations.
Yet, here in Florida politicians have decided to
take it upon themselves to decide what's best for health care when
medical decisions should be made by doctors and their patients, not
politicians.
Amendment 2 would fix that flaw by legalizing medical
marijuana and making it available for people with debilitating
conditions and diseases like cancer, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis
and Parkinson's.
These people deserve compassion, not threats of
imprisonment or stigmatization for using a drug scientifically proven to
help alleviate their misery. Doctors should be allowed to recommend
medical marijuana to patients who need it and provide them a better
quality of life. It seems cruel to withhold any solutions we have at our
disposal.
Legalizing and regulating medical marijuana isn't only
the compassionate thing to do, it's also the responsible thing to do to
ensure safety.
I shared my experience with marijuana with women on a
breast cancer internet forum to help empower them to take control. Out
of desperation, one woman bought pot from a "street dealer" (since it's
not legal), and it only made her misery worse because it wasn't the type
of marijuana appropriate for her needs. Regulating marijuana means
patients could get prescriptions for exactly what they need.
I
have a friend who's dying from ALS who texted (because he can no longer
speak) me asking if I have any marijuana. I gave him everything I had
left. It breaks my heart that he and countless other suffering
individuals don't have access to this simple, safe solution. I urge
everyone in Florida to vote "yes" on Amendment 2 this fall. Individuals
who are sick and suffering should not go to jail for medical marijuana,
and neither should their doctors.
Smoking cannabis
does not worsen liver disease in people with HIV and hepatitis C virus (HCV)
co-infection, Canadian research published in the online edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases shows.
“We found no
evidence that cannabis smoking increases the risk of progression to significant
liver fibrosis or cirrhosis,” write the authors. Results also showed that
cannabis was widely used for pain relief by co-infected people.
Up to 30% of
people with HIV in resource-rich countries are co-infected with HCV. Liver
disease caused by HCV is a leading cause of serious illness and death in these
co-infected individuals.
Cannabis
(marijuana) is believed to be widely used by people with HIV. In a study conducted in
Ontario, Canada, 43% of participants reported use of cannabis in the previous year,
29% saying they had self-medicated with the drug.
Previous research
examining the effects of cannabis consumption on liver disease outcomes has produced
conflicting results. Three cross-sectional – or 'snapshot' – studies involving
people with chronic HCV infection found an association between cannabis use
and liver cirrhosis. In contrast, a small study involving 58 people with HIV
showed no association between cannabis use and significant changes in liver
enzyme levels over one year.
Given this
uncertainty, investigators in Canada designed a prospective study involving 690
HIV-positive people with chronic HCV co-infection and no significant fibrosis
at baseline enrolled in the Canadian Coinfection Cohort study. Every six months,
participants were asked if they had used cannabis. Users of the drug were asked how
often they smoked cannabis and the number of joints they consumed on the days
they smoked.
The investigators
then examined the association between cannabis use and progression to
significant fibrosis, cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease. Significant
fibrosis was defined as an AST platelet ratio index (APRI) score of 1.5 or above. An APRI score of 2.0 was
used to diagnose cirrhosis and the authors also looked at the relationship
between cannabis use and progression to a clinical cirrhosis diagnosis.
The investigators
were concerned that participants might start to consume cannabis – or
intensify their use of the drug – to alleviate symptoms related to
advancing
liver disease. By collecting concurrent data on exposure to cannabis and
disease outcomes it could appear that cannabis caused liver disease when
in
fact this was present before the participant changed their drug-use
behaviour. The
investigators therefore repeated their analyses looking at cannabis use
in the six
to twelve month period before liver disease assessments. They called
this
method of analysis “lagging”.
The participants were
followed for a median of 2.7 years and contributed a total of 1875 person-years
of follow-up. The majority of participants were male and the median age at baseline
was 44 years. Most of the participants had an undetectable HIV viral load and the
median CD4 cell count at the start of the study was 400 cells/mm3.
Injecting drug use was reported by 38% of participants and 15% had alcohol abuse
issues.
Over half (53%) of
participants reported use of cannabis at baseline with similar proportion of
individuals using the drug through follow-up. On entry to the study, approximately
40% of participants who used cannabis said they did so for symptom relief, and this
proportion increased to over 50% during follow-up. Turning to frequency of use,
the investigators found that 40% of cannabis smokers consumed the drug on a
daily basis.
During follow-up,
19% of participants developed significant fibrosis, 15% cirrhosis (diagnosed by
APRI score), 1% received a clinical diagnosis of cirrhosis and 2% progressed to
end-stage liver disease.
The incidence rate
of progression to APRI 1.5 or above was 39.2 per 1000 person-visits; incidence
of progression to APRI 2.0 or above was 29.2 per 1000 person-visits; incidence
of progression to a clinical cirrhosis diagnosis was 2.1 per 1000
person-visits; and incidence of progression to end-stage liver disease was 2.9
per 1000 person-visits. There were no differences in these incidence rates
between users and non-users of cannabis.
The
investigators’ initial analysis appeared to show that smoking cannabis
accelerated progression to a clinical diagnosis of cirrhosis (HR = 1.33; 95%
CI, 1.09-1.62 per ten joints/week). However, after lagging this association
ceased to be significant. Smoking cannabis was also initially associated with a
combined outcome of clinically diagnosed cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease
(HR = 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28). But once again this association ceased to be significant
when the researchers looked at cannabis consumption in the six to twelve months
before the clinical outcomes were diagnosed.
“Reported use for
symptom relief was very prevalent suggesting that the association of daily
cannabis use and more advanced fibrosis may, in fact, be related to an
increased use for symptoms management of the disease,” the authors suggest.
“Previous cross-sectional studies reporting an association between marijuana
smoking and liver fibrosis may be biased by reverse causation due to
self-medication with marijuana for relief of symptoms related to significant
liver fibrosis.”
They conclude, “We
could not demonstrate any important effect of marijuana on liver disease
outcomes.”
Most college students like weed. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of our professors liked weed, as well. Despite being classified as a Schedule I drug by the federal government—along with heroin and LSD in the category of drugs that have “no medical use” and are most likely to be abused—smoking weed has never seemed to be a deviant activity. Hell, when I was growing up, underage drinking seemed to be more immoral than smoking weed.
However, I differ from my peers in the fact that my endorsement of marijuana isn’t just because I like to be high.
I suffer from a rare, inherited degenerative tissue disorder called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome Type III that affects merely 1 in 15,000 people worldwide. At the age of 19-years-old, I already have osteoarthritis, and experience frequent joint dislocations, a proclivity to skin lacerations, horrible scarring, and constant, severe fatigue and pain.
Currently, there is no cure for EDS, and medical treatment is focused on pain management—meaning I have enough pill bottles of prescription painkillers and muscle relaxers to decorate a Christmas tree.
Although painkillers can help make basic, every day tasks—like walking to class or going to the grocery store—more bearable, it’s no secret that they’re incredibly addictive. Last year, NYU Local reported that the resurgence of heroin use may be tied to prescription opiates. The threat of opiate addiction is very real and so very scary, which is exactly why I attempt to avoid taking my Vicodin if I can.
This is where weed comes into play. Researchers at Johns Hopkins have recently found that, in states in which medical marijuana is legal and available, the incidence of prescription opiate-related overdoses decreased by 25%. The study emphasizes that medical marijuana users aren’t using prescription opiates at all, but rather that they may be choosing weed over pills more often.
Despite being one of the most progressive states in the country, New York’s medical marijuana bill—passed this summer, making it the 23rd state to embrace the legalization of marijuana as medicine—is stringent. Unlike my native state of California, medical marijuana prescribed in New York state cannot be smoked, and can only be prescribed to people suffering with serious conditions like cancer, multiple sclerosis, and ALS.
When the bill is fully implemented within the next year, there will only be twenty dispensaries statewide. And although the New York Compassionate Care Act was supported by Governor Cuomo and Staten Island state senator Diane Savino–the latter of whom hopes to bring a dispensary to Staten Island–the medical marijuana movement is being stymied by both the federal government and the old-school legislators who remain steadfast in their belief that marijuana has no medical use and is incredibly dangerous.
It’s so incredibly difficult to enjoy life as a 19-year-old should when you’re plagued by throbbing, swollen joints and consistent exhaustion. But, for me, marijuana makes it a little bit easier. The science is there: marijuana can and does ameliorate chronic pain. In my home state, I am eligible for a medical marijuana prescription; however, it’s questionable whether I’d be eligible in New York to legally receive medical marijuana for medicinal use.
And that leads to the biggest question on my mind: why? As the daughter of a heroin addict who died by overdose six years ago, it blows my mind that heroin and marijuana are considered by the DEA as being equally dangerous and addictive. Perhaps the DEA’s classification is inspired by the idea that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce some sort of moral code upon the electorate; however, to me, it’s just unfathomable that a substance that can help so many people cope with their severe medical conditions is demonized as some sort of potentially fatal and morally reprehensible drug.
Change comes with time, and I’m hoping that, sometime before I die, the stigmatization of marijuana will disappear, and maybe the number of people choosing marijuana over potentially fatal doses of opiates will decrease even further. But, until then, I’ll manage my pain as best as I can, and will continue to advocate for broader availability of medical marijuana.
1. Prohibition has failed – marijuana use is mainstream and widespread.
When the federal government first effectively prohibited marijuana in 1937, relatively few Americans had even heard of it. Today, according to 2010 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services data, 106 million Americans admit to having tried it (17.4 million in the last month), and every year, the Monitoring the Future survey finds that over 80% of high school seniors say marijuana is easy to obtain.
2. Prohibition is an immense waste of public resources, while marijuana taxation would bring in much-needed revenue.
According to 2010 estimates by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron, replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation would yield $17.4 billion government savings and increased tax revenues.
3. Arresting and prosecuting marijuana offenders prevent police from focusing on real crime.
In Chicago alone, the police superintendent estimated officers spent 45,000 police hours on arrests for 10 grams or less of marijuana in a year. Meanwhile, FBI data shows that less than half of violent crimes and only 18% of property crimes were cleared nationwide in 2010.
4. Prohibition sends an incredible number of Americans through the criminal justice system, ruining countless lives.
According to the FBI, since 1995, there have been more than 12 million U.S. marijuana arrests, with 853,838 in 2010 – significantly more than for all violent crimes combined. Eighty-eight percent of these arrests are for possession – not manufacture or distribution.
5. Marijuana laws are enforced unevenly.
According to Jon Gettman, Ph.D., blacks are three times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites, despite the fact that use rates among African Americans are proportional to use rates among whites. While marijuana users who were not convicted have gone on the be president or Supreme Court justice, a criminal conviction can stand in the way of securing a job; getting housing; or receiving a professional license, student loans, food assistance, a driver’s license, a firearms permit, or the right to vote.
6. There is no evidence that imposing criminal penalties on marijuana use reduces its use.
The National Research Council found that “perceived legal risks explains very little in the variance of individual drug use”. In 2008, the World Health Organization found that in the Netherlands, where adults are allowed to purchase and possess small amounts of marijuana, both teen and adult use significantly lower than in U.S., where marijuana is illegal.
7. Prohibition makes control impossible.
Producers and sellers of marijuana are completely unregulated. Unlike licensed businesses that sell liquor or tobacco, marijuana sellers operate virtually anywhere and have no incentive not to sell to minors. Prohibition guarantees that marijuana cannot undergo quality control inspectors for purity and potency, creating possible health hazards as a result of contamination by pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, molds, fungi, or bacteria, as well as the lacing of marijuana with other drugs or formaldehyde. Under taxation and regulation, producers and sellers would be licensed and zoned accordingly.
8. Marijuana prohibition breeds violence.
Currently, the only sellers of marijuana are criminals. As in 1920’s Chicago, since disputes cannot be solved lawfully, violence is inevitable. According to the Atlantic, since 2006, more than 50,000 people have been killed in Mexican drug cartel-related violence. Those purchasing marijuana illegally also may face muggings and other violence.
9. Prohibition is bad for the environment.
Because marijuana cultivation is illegal, unlicensed, and carries felony charges, it often takes place in environmentally damaging locations such as national parks and wilderness areas. Under taxation and regulation, marijuana sales would be relegated to regulated, licensed businesses, which would cultivate in legally zoned areas.
10. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.
Unlike legal substances such as water, alcohol, Tylenol, and prescription opiates, marijuana has never caused a single medically documented overdose death in recorded history. Alcohol causes hundreds of overdose deaths each year, and in 2009 (the latest year for which data is available), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 24,518 “alcohol-induced death”. The British government’s official scientific body on drug policy concluded that {legally regulated drugs} alcohol and tobacco are “significantly more harmful than marijuana”. American law treats alcohol as if it were safer than marijuana, encouraging people to drink.
TAMPA -- Recent survey
results show that Floridians seemed to have been paying attention when
residents in Colorado and Washington voted to approve the medicinal and,
later, the recreational use of marijuana.
Sixty-six percent of those who responded to the annual Sunshine State Survey,
conducted by the University of South Florida, said they believe that
passing a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana would
soon lead to voters' approval of all marijuana use.
"Some
people are happy that it might lead to legalization and some are
opposed to it," said Susan MacManus, a USF political scientist and the survey's director. "But people are aware of the potential first-step nature of the medical marijuana amendment, if it passes."
The fifth of six portions of the annual survey was released Tuesday, and included the sections that focused on health, race relations, the upcoming elections and transportation.
Most
of the people surveyed who said they think medical marijuana will lead
to the legalization of recreational marijuana were between the ages of
18 and 34, according to the data. Seventy-three percent of them are
employed full-time and about 75 percent of them live in the Miami and
Palm Beach media markets. Twenty-nine
percent of the people who took the survey said they didn't think
legalizing medical marijuana would lead to the acceptance of
recreational marijuana. Five percent of responders said they weren't
sure or refused to answer.
Of the people who answered no, 52 percent were employed part-time and 43 percent lived in the Naples-area media market, the data shows.
MacManus
said she doesn't know why two-thirds of the people surveyed feel that
way about legalizing medical marijuana. It could be that they know that
was the series of events
in Washington and Colorado, MacManus said. The rise of pill mills
across the state could also have led them to believe that recreational
use will grow out of the medicinal.
"We don't know why they think
like they do," MacManus said. "We didn't ask that question. All we know
is that these people are more inclined to think that it will lead to
that next step."
What she found most interesting about this year's
Sunshine State Survey results was that 55 percent of the responders -- a
7 percent increase over last year -- said they feel like they don't get
enough information about constitutional amendments before they vote on
them, MacManus said. This year there will be three amendments on the
ballot, including Amendment 2, which would legalize medical marijuana.
Groups
and individuals that oppose passing Amendment 2 have long argued that
legalizing medical marijuana would lead to more use of pot overall.
Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free
America Foundation in St. Petersburg, said in a statement Tuesday
afternoon that Amendment 2 is a "defacto legalization" of all marijuana.
"If
Amendment 2 were to pass, we have no doubt that it would be widely
abused to allow pretty much anyone to use it," she said.
"We also have
no doubt that the drug legalization advocates would be right back
pushing the envelope for full blown legalization just as they have done
in other states that have fallen for the scam of legalizing pot under
the guise of medicine."
But Ben Pollara, executive director of United for Care Campaign and a supporter of legalized medical
marijuana, said he thinks the survey results would be more informative
if the responders were asked more specific questions about the issue in
addition to that one.
"It's interesting," he said. "But it's not terribly relevant."
And
the fact that mostly young people think it would lead to the
legalization of recreational marijuana may show some "wishful thinking"
on their part, Pollara said.
"I don't think there's really much you can read from it," he said.
One
of America's best-known travel writers and guides is lending his
support to marijuana legalization as voters in Oregon, Alaska and
Washington, D.C., consider dropping penalties for using pot.
Travel
guru Rick Steves has been a longtime supporter of marijuana
legalization, but has recently stepped more forcefully into public view.
He was an early backer of Washington state's legalization effort, and
is now making his case with a series of highly publicized speaking events and fundraisers across Oregon.
"I
figured, this is good citizenship. I'm not pro-marijuana, but I'm
anti-prohibition," Steves said from the Oregon governor's mansion while
visiting and talking pot taxes with Gov. John Kitzhaber. "Nobody needs
to vote for me, nobody can fire me."
Adults in Alaska and Oregon
could buy legal marijuana — and pay taxes on it — under plans being
considered in the fall election, and voters in Washington, D.C., are
considering a similar measure repealing all criminal and civil possession penalties.
Marijuana legal but often scarce in Washington state
All three already permit medical marijuana use and possession, and backers of the plans, which include the New York Times,
say legalization and taxation acknowledges that America's pot
prohibition is a failure. Twenty-three states and the nation's capital
permit medical marijuana, and Colorado and Washington state have
legalized recreational use and sales.
"Voters
are recognizing that marijuana is not as nearly harmful as they've been
led to believe," said Mason Tvert of the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project. "Once someone understands that fact, it's very easy to arrive at the conclusion that we need to start treating it that way."
Legalization
backers say acknowledging that marijuana is a widely used substance
across the country means adults can have an honest conversation about
taxes and regulation, setting aside the old "reefer madness" hysteria
often raised.
Steves said his travels have shown him this country's approach is mistaken, especially when taking into account what he said is enforcement that has historically targeted the poor and minorities.
He
said legalization means fewer arrests and more taxes — according to
state Department of Revenue reports, Colorado this year has collected
$21.6 million in marijuana taxes and fees.
"One thing I'm very careful to say is that I'm not pro-marijuana. It's a drug," Steves said. "I think this is smart policy."
Colorado
Gov. John Hickenlooper on Monday made headlines when he disagreed that
legalization is smart policy. During a debate with his Republican
challenger, Hickenlooper called Colorado's voters "reckless" for
approving marijuana legalization while it remains federally illegal. The
governor, however, has repeatedly said he respects the will of the
voters, and later backtracked by calling the vote "risky."
Hickenlooper
has repeatedly referred to Colorado's legalization as an experiment
with unknown results, and has urged caution for elected officials in
other states.
USA TODAY
Colorado's legal marijuana harvest is underway
In Alaska, legalization opponents use examples
from Colorado to make their case to voters. That move reflects the
proposal itself: The Alaska legalization effort is virtually identical
to Colorado's recreational marijuana law, while the Oregon proposal, Measure 91, is similar to Washington state's.
"With
the legalization of marijuana comes mass marketing, advertising, and
storefront properties. Such a vastly different, commercial landscape
will significantly change the social norms and perceptions of our
communities," the group Big Marijuana, Big Mistake said in a statement about Alaska's Ballot Measure 2.
"Big
Marijuana won't be about homegrown local businesses. Rather, it will be
led by outside companies seeking to make a profit off Alaskans. This
initiative is being funded by big-dollar interests from the Lower 48,
who see Alaska as a domino in their quest to legalize marijuana
nationwide." The
Marijuana Policy Project has made no effort to hide its approach to
legalizing marijuana, first by persuading voters to approve medical
marijuana in multiple states, and then pushing recreational legalization
a few years later. The project also is helping organize efforts to pass
the D.C. legalization effort, which lacks the tax-and-sale component of
Oregon and Colorado because voters in the district cannot levy taxes
via the ballot initiative process.
