Winning the War on Drugs Petro

Winning the War on Drugs: A Policy Recommendation Report

By: Eric Petro In consultation with: Associate Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy Stacia Cosner and Peer Reviewer Nia Holt

POL 306 Public Policy Analysis Dr. Joshua Ambrosius April 26, 2013

Page |0

Winning the War on Drugs Petro

Executive Summary
The prohibition of medical marijuana is failing on a grand scale because of its inability to curb drug use, its economic inefficiencies, inefficiencies it brings upon law enforcement and prisons, and its empowerment of criminals. The time to initiate action on drug reform is now. The political climate is ideal with states passing historic drug reform measures of their own, a large majority of citizens who view medicinal use favorably, and a precedent setting, socially liberal, term-limited president currently in office. Experiments in states such as California and Colorado have yielded very positive results and are expected to succeed even more so with the test of time. It is crucial that the President of the United States act with executive authority to re-categorize marijuana as a Class-III Controlled Substance, initiating the end to prohibition of medical marijuana and the beginning to victory in the War on Drugs.

Economics and the Dangers of Inefficiency To begin with, drug use has not been shown to have been directly affected by federal prohibition (Pacula, et al 2002). In fact, it could be argued that prohibition has actually empowered drug cartels and other black market dealers by making it impossible for law-abiding citizens, who are more likely to conduct business in safe and well-regulated manner, to enter into business. Many individuals seeking medicinal forms of drugs considered illegal by the federal government are forced to deal with dangerous criminals at the risk of extortion, imprisonment, or even worse, serious bodily harm or death by the hands of powerful drug cartels. This is not to say that federal agencies and police have been inactive in the Drug War; the equally harmful opposite is true. Prison populations have grown significantly since the War started, with proportions of non-violent offenders rising and violent criminals declining (Duke 2010). The federal government is prioritizing the jailing of non-violent medicinal and recreational drug users, which can only lead to higher costs as prisons are forced to expand their capacity. Not only is this jailing economically harmful, it is psychologically harmful to the imprisoned; addicts are being sent to prisons instead of being given the care they require to

Page |1

Winning the War on Drugs Petro overcome their afflictions. With prisons full of non-violent offenders, there is often little or no room left to jail the violent offenders who have actually committed crimes which harm others. Not that there are as many violent offenders being investigated and detained as there was before the Drug War started; police and prison efficiency has been sacrificed at the expense of chasing drug offenders, many of which are in complete compliance with state laws and are using medicinal marijuana as physician-prescribed treatment (Miron 2008). Not only are we losing money to the War on Drugs, but we are also missing out on a plethora of potential revenue from taxation. Through regulating and taxing legalized marijuana transactions, state and federal governments could bring in a large amount of potential revenue, an option that should seem particularly enticing in todays economic climate (Miron 2010). In addition to saving money, encouraging efficiency, and improving peoples lives, we could even GAIN wealth through taxation. The federal government would have that much more funding to improve infrastructure, social policies, and ease the burden of national defense on the GDP. The Human Element The simple fact is that chronically ill patients have been being prescribed and taking medicinal marijuana for ages (Grotenhermen & Russo, 2002). Despite federal prohibition, doctors and their patients to this day continue to deal with medicinal marijuana treatments. This fact is most clearly seen in several states taking action in recent years towards legalizing medicinal (and in some cases recreational) marijuana. I will get to the states policies later; for now it is important to understand the effect federal prohibition has on doctors and their patients. Imagine the typical licensed physician who has dedicated a vast amount of her time and money into acquiring a medical license and private practice. For bureaucrats in Washington

Page |2

Winning the War on Drugs Petro to tell her what medicine she can and cant prescribe would be bad enough. However, the federal government doesnt stop just at naming certain treatments illegal. The government , specifically under the Clinton administration, has regularly coerced physicians into not prescribing their recommended treatment with the threat of revoking their license to practice medicine (Newbern 2000). The medicinal marijuana treatments these physicians are recommending are not as dangerous as is suggested by the Controlled Substances Act1. When compared to the legal substances of alcohol and tobacco, marijuana has been shown to be nowhere near as dangerous (Meyer 2012). In fact, medicinal marijuana is widely understood as having important medicinal benefits2. The biggest harms that have resulted from the War on Drugs are not use of the drugs themselves, but the enforcement and encouragement of gangs that enforcement includes. Homicide rates have actually risen in proportion to federal spending on drug enforcement (Duke 2010). States: The Front-Lines of the Drug War Californias Proposition 215 legalizes the use of medicinal marijuana as prescribed to a patient by a physician. The proposition, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, adds a section to the Health and Safety Code of California. The act effectively protects patients as well as caregivers in the following manner (Compassionate Use Act of 1996):

1

to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician. no primary caregivers are subject to criminal prosecution or sanction no physician shall be punished for having recommended marijuana to a patient

Marijuana is listed as Category I, the Acts most dangerous and restrictive category. This categorization places cannabis on the same level as heroin and LSD, and certainly prohibits its legality as a form of medicine (21 USC). 2 Some examples of illnesses marijuana has been used to treat include: cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, and migraines. (Grotenhermen & Russo 2002) (Clark 2000)

Page |3

Winning the War on Drugs Petro

previous laws regarding the cultivation and use of marijuana no longer apply to patients or their primary caregivers

Several arguments in favor of prohibition have been refuted by data from California. In studies taken from samples of patients in cannabis buyers clubs3, the common claim that medicinal marijuana decriminalization would lead to widespread youth drug abuse is refuted: .marijuana use by twelve- to seventeen-year-olds in California has held steady at around 6.8 to 7.4 percent over the past several years, and is somewhat less than the national average of 8.3 percent (Grotenhermen & Russo 2002). Another claim is that marijuana is a gateway drug which will lead more dangerous substance abuse; however, subsequent efforts to establish a definitive causal link between marijuana and harder drugs have been largely unsuccessful (OConnell & Bou-Matar 2007). For Californias case of decriminalizing medicinal marijuana, the biggest economic impact has been positive for the criminal justice system. The following three factors are attributed to saving money: a reduction in police resources because of the reduced number of arrests; a reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources because of the reduced number of criminal applications, pre-trial hearings, and trials; and a reduction in correctional resources because of the reduced number of prisoners (Miron 2008). Another example of drug reform is Colorados Amendment 64, a very recent amendment which goes much farther than Californias proposition. This amendment legalizes the limited recreational use of marijuana, and provides for taxation and regulation of the industry to come. The following is a brief list of what the amendment specifically accomplishes (Amendment 64):

These clubs are not-for-profit, third-party marijuana distributors who work with local law enforcement and physicians to supply medical patients with their prescribed marijuana.

Page |4

Winning the War on Drugs Petro

legalized personal possession of marijuana up to an ounce at a time by a person 21 years and older possessing up to six marijuana plants in an enclosed, locked, private space consumption of marijuana in a private manner which does not endanger others several other provisions allowing for the Colorado government to license the production of marijuana, and for the sale of marijuana to be taxed in similar ways as alcohol is the first $40 million in revenue raised annually be used for a public school fund

The most important takeaway from the Colorado case is its economic advantages. Although the amendment has just been adopted in 2012, studies can still be proactively applied to the future to predict results. In a study conducted with 2010 figures, it is estimated that Colorado stands to collect $34.81 million in tax revenue (Miron 2010). This tax revenue combined with the amount of money Colorado would save from not enforcing the federal prohibition4 would approach $148 million. This amount should be taken as a conservative figure, in part because the study doesnt account for the business Colorado is sure to attract from all across the nation as being one of only two states with legalized marijuana laws. The Stars of Political Feasibility Have Aligned These state-level changes have much more closely mirrored public opinion of marijuana than has the federal governments refusal to budge on the issue. Although a powerful historical inertia has built from federal precedence of prohibition, mounting scientific evidence as well as changes in societal attitudes are beginning to lessen the effect of this inertia (Sherer 2013). Popular opinion is at an all-time high for medicinal marijuana approval, with recent polls showing approximately 73% saying they favor their state allowing the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes (Pew 2010). Colorado has recently legalized recreational use of marijuana,

In 2010 it was estimated that Colorado spent roughly $145,243,000 on marijuana prohibition (Miron 2010).

Page |5

Winning the War on Drugs Petro the most dramatic drug policy reform to date, which shows us in a focusing event that marijuana policy is a very salient political issue. We have a president in power that has admitted to smoking marijuana on several occasions (Seelye 2006) and has made several remarks which indicate his (lower-case l) liberal tendencies towards its use. Moreover, the President (being term-limited as he is) doesnt have to worry as much about upsetting any special interests which might often influence chances for reelection (S. Cosner, March 7, 2013). Unfortunately, he has not yet taken the initiative through executive action to re-categorize marijuana to win the War on Drugs. As his second term draws to a close, the President must realize that Congress will not make the decisions necessary to recategorize and end this War. Doing What Needs to be Done Several states have experimented in drug policy reform, with much success. I recommend that we apply a version of Californias model to the federal government, legalizing medicinal marijuana in a regulated and taxed environment. This can be achieved at the federal level by the President of the United States re-categorizing marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Restrictions should still exist to curb any potential abuse, including strict regulations of industrial farmers/suppliers, physicians prescription methods, storage, use, and sale of the medicine, and on the exchange of the substance (especially between states). Some plausible restrictions might include an age limit of 21, production quantity limits, mandatory registration with a universal registrar, and FDA-enforced quality controls (S. Cosner, March 7, 2013).

Page |6

Winning the War on Drugs Petro The federal government will reap substantial benefits from legalization of medicinal marijuana, including: enforcement money saved, tax revenue accumulated, the weakening of influence from drug cartels and black markets, the regulation of marijuana in general5, greater freedom for physicians and medical patients, and consistency between public opinion and public policy. Of course, applying a state measure on the federal scale would necessitate several important adjustments which should not be decided hastily. More studies need to be done concerning the methods the federal government should take in regulation and taxation. These will surely be initiated by Congress in preparation for legislation concerning medicinal marijuana use, which will follow re-categorization by this administration (S. Cosner, March 7, 2013). To get the ball rolling, however, the President must begin with re-categorizing marijuana as a Category III substance under the Controlled Substances Act6. The president is in the best position currently to make this change in the CSA and should do so as soon as possible. This will be the first step on the road to legalizing medicinal marijuana, and incidentally declaring victory in this much drawn-out War on Drugs. Conclusion Now is the time to make the changes necessary to win the War on Drugs. The War will not be won over-night, but actions must be taken immediately to ensure that victory will be declared. The American public overwhelmingly supports medicinal marijuana legalization, and

5 6

Regulation will ensure safer quality, accurate circulation figures, and greater control over use or potential abuse. A Category III drug has a potential for abuse less than the drugs in schedules I and II, has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse of the drug may only lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. To be removed from Category I of the CSA, marijuana must be proven to: have a medical purpose, have a lower risk of abuse, and be able to be used in a medically safe manner (21 USC). Medicinal marijuana clearly applies to each of these characteristics as reported in this document.

Page |7

Winning the War on Drugs Petro state governments are beginning to respond to their citizens on this issue. It is clear that legalizing medical marijuana holds benefits to governments, individuals, caregivers, and physicians, and doesnt necessarily lead to abuse or harder drug use as is commonly argued. The Executive Branch is the most likely source of this solution, and the current administration in this particular term is at the optimum state to accomplish substantial implementation. I strongly recommend the President of the United States to re-categorize marijuana as a Category III drug, which will allow physicians to prescribe it as medicine and the government to regulate it as a controlled substance.

Page |8

Winning the War on Drugs Petro

Works Cited California. Department of Public Health. Proposition 215: Text of Proposed Law. Retrieved from http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/CompassionateUseact.aspx Clark, P. (2000). The Ethics of Medical Marijuana: Government Restrictions vs. Medical Necessity. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21, 40-60. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. Colorado. Legislature. Amendment 64 Use and Regulation of Marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.leg.state.co.us Cosner, S. (2013, March 7). Personal Communication with Associate Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Duke, S. (2010, January 1). Mass Imprisonment, Crime Rates, and the Drug War: A Penological and Humanitarian Disgrace. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1828&context=fss_papers Drug Policy Reform. (n.d.). "The battle for freedom never ends." - Gov. Gary Johnson. Retrieved from http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/drug-policy-reform Garvey, T. (2012, March 6). Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay between State and Federal Laws. Washington, D.C. : Library of Congress) Grotenhermen, F., & Russo, E. (2002). Cannabis and cannabinoids: pharmacology, toxicology, and therapeutic potential. New York: Haworth Integrative Healing Press. Keel, R. (2007, November 12). Drug Law Timeline: Significant Events in the History of our Drug Laws. Retrieved from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/drug_law_timeline.htm Koch, W. (2005, June 7). Court's pot ruling won't apply to patients in federal program. USA TODAY: Latest World and US News. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-07pot-program_x.htm Meyer, R. (2004, April 1). Potential Merits of Cannabinoids for Medical Uses. U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page. Retrieved from ttp://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114741.htm Kreit, A. (2003). The Future of Medical Marijuana: Should the States Grow Their Own?. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1787-1826. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. Miron, Jeffrey A. (2010) The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition. Rep. The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, Feb. 2010

Page |9

Winning the War on Drugs Petro

Miron, Jeffrey A. (2008) The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments, With a Discussion of Decriminalizations Effect on Marijuana Use. Rep. New England Policy Advocates, Oct. 2008. Morris, C. (2012, April 19). Risky Business, Even in Pot-Friendly States. Stock Market News, Business News, Financial, Earnings, World Markets - CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/47086763 Newbern, Alistair E. (2000). Good Cop, Bad Cop: Federal Prosecution of State-Legalized Medical Marijuana Use after United States v. Lopez. California Law Review, Inc. 88.5, 1575-634. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. O'Connell, T., & Bou-Matar, C. (2007). Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (20012007). Harm Reduction Journal, 4. Retrieved from http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/4/1/16 Office of National Drug Policy. (n.d.). Marijuana Resource Center: State Laws Related to Marijuana. The White House. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/state-laws-related-to-marijuana Pacula, R., Chriqui, J., Reichmann, D., & Terry-McElrath, Y. (2002). State Medical Marijuana Laws: Understanding the Laws and Their Limitations. Journal of Public Health Policy, 23, 413-439. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. Pew Research. Public Support For Legalizing Medical Marijuana (2010, April 1). Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2010/04/01/public-support-for-legalizing-medical-marijuana/ Pickerill, M., & Chen, P. (2008). Medical Marijuana Policy and the Virtues of Federalism. Publius, 38, 2255. Retrieved from the Jstor database. Seelye, K. Q. (2006, October 24). Barack Obama, asked about drug history, admits he inhaled. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html?_r=0 Sherer, S. (2013, March 1). Another Reminder of Why Changes in Medical Marijuana Policy Can't Wait. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steph-sherer/florida-marijuanaraid_b_2784022.html?utm_hp_ref=politics Sidney, S., Quesenberry, C., Friendman, G., & Tekawa, I. (1997). Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 8, 722-728. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. Stein, J. (2002, October 8). The New Politics Of Pot. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Retrieved from http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/timep.politics.pot.tm/index.html T, B. (2012, September 30). The Health Effects of Marijuana. The Alcoholism Home Page. Retrieved from http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm 21 USC Codes. (n.d.). DEA Diversion Control Program. Retrieved from http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/index.html

P a g e | 10