News reports out of Vermont indicate that a major political shift has just occurred that well positions the state legislature to become the first in the nation to end cannabis prohibition and replace with tax-n-regulate policies.
The four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington) that have chucked cannabis prohibition have done so by popular vote on binding ballot initiatives passed by citizens, not legislators. Historically, circa 1996, most all substantive cannabis law reforms at the state level have happened because of ballot initiatives, not legislation.
With national surveys and the vote totals in favor of legalizing cannabis in the four vanguard states equaling similar levels of support–54%–some elected officials have finally ‘got it’ about the need to end cannabis prohibition, if only because it is no longer politically popular.
A state legislature voting in the majority for cannabis legalization, with a supportive governor awaiting passed legislation to sign, has yet to happen in America. Arguably, once a state legislature passes cannabis legalization legislation, this action more so than voter initiatives placed on the ballot by stakeholders in reform (be them civil justice groups or business interests) will likely spark a ‘reefer revolution’ among states that want the revenue and public policy controls that the long-failed federal prohibition does not provide them.
With a largely supportive and anti-prohibtion legislature and governor (in Democrat Peter Shumlin) already in place in the Green Mountain state, the only political impediment was the Speaker of the House Shap Smith, who, in his run up to try to become the state’s next governor, has reversed his public stance on cannabis legalization from undecided to publicly endorsing Vermont legalizing cannabis:
“It’s clear to me in my discussions with Vermonters that in general, the people in this state probably favor legalization. And I certainly believe that we can legalize marijuana if we do it right.” – House Speaker Shap Smith
Will the Vermont legislature be the first one to officially legalize cannabis?
Yesterday’s policy reversal from Speaker Smith almost certainly places Vermont in the lead to do so.
NORML is pleased to present the latest expanded/updated edition of the publication Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids — a comprehensive review of the latest peer-reviewed science specific to the safety and therapeutic efficacy of whole-plant cannabis and/or its components.
The 2015 updated edition includes two additional disease profiles (Parkinson’s disease and PTS) and includes summaries of an additional 50+ relevant clinical and/or preclinical trials specific to cannabinoids’ therapeutic utility. Several existing sections, such as Chronic Pain, Diabetes, and Epilepsy, have been significantly expanded since the last edition (January 2013). Also updated is the Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System (authored by Dustin Sulak, DO) and Why I Recommend Medical Cannabis (authored by Estelle Goldstein, MD).
With summaries and citations of well over 250 recent peer-reviewed studies, this updated publication is one of the most thorough and up-to-date source-books available specific to documenting the established therapeutic qualities of cannabis. The updated publication is available online here.
Individual sections of this publication may be accessed at the links below:
Introduction to the Endocannabinoid System
Why I Recommend Medical Cannabis
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA)
Strains of cannabis sativa and cannabis indica possess relatively few significant genetic differences and are often mislabeled by breeders, according to an evaluation of marijuana taxonomy published online last week in the journal PLOS ONE.
Investigators from the University of Manitoba, the University of British Columbia, and Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia evaluated the genetic structure of a diverse range of commonly cultivated marijuana and industrial hemp samples.
Researchers reported, “We find a moderate correlation between the genetic structure of marijuana strains and their reported C. sativa and C. indica ancestry and show that marijuana strain names often do not reflect a meaningful genetic identity.” They added, “This observation suggests that C. sativa and C. indica may represent distinguishable pools of genetic diversity, but that breeding has resulted in considerable admixture between the two. … Our results suggest that the reported ancestry of some of the most common marijuana strains only partially captures their true ancestry.”
By contrast, authors determined, “[M]arijuana and hemp are significantly differentiated at a genome-wide level, demonstrating that the distinction between these populations is not limited to genes underlying THC production. … [This] difference between marijuana and hemp plants has considerable legal implications in many countries.”
In the United States, federal law makes no legal distinction between hemp and cannabis.
Authors concluded: “Achieving a practical, accurate and reliable classification system for cannabis, including a variety registration system for marijuana-type plants, will require significant scientific investment and a legal framework that accepts both licit and illicit forms of this plant. Such a system is essential in order to realize the enormous potential of Cannabis as a multi-use crop (hemp) and as a medicinal plant (marijuana).”
Full text of the study, “The genetic structure of marijuana and hemp,” appears online here.
Many of us who try to stay current with legalization efforts around the country were amazed this past week when ResponsibleOhio, the group that recently qualified a full legalization initiative for the November 2015 Ohio ballot, managed to offend almost everyone, regardless of their views on marijuana legalization, with their ham-fisted attempt to be cute.
As part of their bus tour to college campuses around the state, called the “Green Rush Bus Tour” (a questionable name for a group of investors who hope to get rich off of legal marijuana in Ohio, but that’s a different question for a different day), to try to familiarize college students with the legalization proposal and build excitement among the millennials, the campaign introduced the world to “Buddie”, a life-sized, super-hero, caped-crusader pot mascot, with a muscular green and white body and a green pot bud as a head, and a large B across his chest.
A cartoon character to help advance the legalization of marijuana. Now that is an advertising approach that seems to have a familiar ring to it.
Ever Hear of ‘Joe Camel’?
Apparently no one on ResponsibleOhio’s staff or working for their ad agency is old enough to remember “Joe Camel,” the infamous cartoon mascot utilized by R.J. Reynolds to advertise their Camel cigarette brand from 1987 until 1997, to attract young cigarette smokers to the practice, and habit, of smoking cigarettes, and to their brand. Following years of pressure from the American Medical Association, Congress and several public-interest organizations, and a pending civil suit brought against the company, Reynolds finally ended the decade long Joe Camel campaign.
But to a large degree, the damage had been done. During the decade of the Joe Camel campaigns in magazines, billboards and other print media, teen Camel brand sales had increased from less than $6 million a year to more than $500 million.
Internal documents obtained during the civil suit, and by Congress, made it clear that the tobacco companies were intentionally targeting youth as young as 14, referred to as “tomorrow’s cigarette business,” to protect their future profits, even as the true dangers from smoking tobacco were becoming clear and anti-smoking campaigns were being funded with public dollars.
Americans were willing to permit the continued sale and adult use of tobacco, despite its many health dangers, but they would not permit the sellers of cigarettes to target our nation’s youth.
And neither will they permit those who will profit from legal marijuana to target our nation’s youth. The introduction of Buddie was a tactical blunder that should never have happened, and it caused the focus of the public debate in Ohio to move, at least for the moment, from the merits of legalizing marijuana for adults, to the perceived dangers presented by adolescent marijuana smoking. And we brought this trouble on ourselves.
Our Opponents Jump At This Distraction
Not surprisingly, it took only hours for the usual opponents to marijuana legalization to make the connection with Joe Camel, and to make the claim that the campaign in Ohio was adopting the tactics of “big tobacco,” trying to entice America’s youth to smoke marijuana. “Tobacco had Joe Camel. Marijuana has Buddie,” tweeted Kevin Sabet, who has largely stopped trying to defend prohibition, and now focuses his anti-legalization efforts on warning of the pending dangers of “big marijuana.”
“This is at best, irresponsible. The superhero theme clearly appeals to a younger crowd. A shameless attempt to entice young people,” said Ohioans Against Marijuana Monopolies spokeswoman Jen Detwiler.
ResponsibleOhio Attempts to Defend the Campaign
In response to the widespread criticism of the use of the mascot, ResponsibleOhio made an effort to justify the program, and denied any attempt to target youthful smokers. Spokewoman Faith Oltman said the group is “being very careful about where Buddie’s going and who he’s talking to,” telling reporters that the bus and mascot will be making more than 150 campaign stops in all 88 Ohio counties.
ResponsibleOhio’s executive director Ian James further explained that “Buddie is a fictitious character that has a ‘21 and Up Club’. Buddie works on the college campuses to reach the millennial voters and talks to them, helps them with voter registration, both by mail and social media. It’s all geared to the folks who are 21 and up.”
But that will not, of course, silence the critics, not will it get the debate in Ohio back on the merits of legalization for adults, and away from the issue of youthful marijuana smoking.
Only putting Buddie into quick retirement can accomplish that, and the sooner the better. No amount of explaining what was not intended by the program will overcome the unnecessary political baggage that has now been introduced into the Ohio legalization campaign. ResponsibleOhio should immediately acknowledge the mistake, apologize, and move forward to legalize marijuana in Ohio. We are all opposed to juvenile marijuana smoking, and it should not be an issue in Ohio.
What Comes Next in Ohio?
The fact that such a silly, and potentially politically harmful public educational initiative would have been launched raises serious questions about how professional this sponsoring group of investors really are.
When the group of investors sponsoring this rather unique, investor-driven legalization initiative held a press conference in June of this year, they were described in the Columbus Dispatch as a group with lots of talent and campaign experience, and the ability and willingness to spend up to $20 million on the effort.
“Leading up to a November ballot-box showdown over marijuana legalization, ResponsibleOhio is suited up, on the field, and has lots of strength on the bench. … If nothing else, the marijuana-legalization debate shows that ResponsbileOhio is no fly-by-night organization of potheads. It’s a diverse, business-oriented team that includes veteran Republican strategist Neil Clark and 270 Strategies, a group which helped run President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.”
Those of us who support the legalization of marijuana in Ohio will be watching closely in the coming weeks to see if this debacle was just an isolated stumble, reflecting a lack of sensitivity to the special concerns that apply to drug use and drug policy; or if it is a symptom of a group with more money than common sense.
Let’s hope for the former.
This column was originally published on Marijuana.com.
Two new studies published online today in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Psychiatry provide little support for previous claims that cannabis exposure is significantly harmful to the developing brain.
The first study, which assessed the effects of cannabis exposure on brain volume in exposed and unexposed sibling pairs, reported that any identifiable differences “were attributable to common predispositional factors, genetic or environmental in origin.” By contrast, authors found “no evidence for the causal influence of cannabis exposure” on brain morphology.
The trial is “the largest study to date examining the association between cannabis exposure (ever versus never used) and brain volumes.”
The study is one of two recent clinical trials to be published in recent months rebutting the claims of a widely publicized 2014 paper which alleged that even casual marijuana exposure may be linked to brain abnormalities, particularly in the region of the brain known as the amygdala. In January, researchers writing in The Journal of Neuroscience reported “no statistically significant differences … between daily [marijuana] users and nonusers on [brain] volume or shape in the regions of interest” after researchers controlled for participants’ use of alcohol. Similarly, today’s JAMA study “casts considerable doubt on hypotheses that cannabis use … causes reductions in amygdala volumes.”
A second study appearing today in the journal assessed whether cannabis use during adolescence is associated with brain changes that may be linked to an increased risk of schizophrenia. While researchers reported finding an association among male subjects who possessed a high genetic predisposition toward schizophrenia, authors reported that no such association existed among male subjects who were at low risk for the disease, or among females in either the high risk or low risk categories. The finding is consistent with the theory that early onset cannabis use may potentially exacerbate symptoms in a minority of subjects predisposed to the disease, but it contradicts claims that marijuana exposure is a likely cause of schizophrenia, particularly among those who are not already vulnerable to the disease.
Abstracts of both new studies appear online in JAMA Psychiatry here and here.