The Office of National Drug Control Policy released an email invitation this past Friday for the first White House Drug Policy Reform Conference in history. The email contained a graphic with a quote from U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske that read, Drug policy reform should be rooted in NEUROSCIENCE – NOT POLITICAL SCIENCE. Now, MPP is asking the office to explain the meaning behind their contradictory statement, since actual neuroscience has shown that marijuana harms the human brain far less than alcohol does.

For example, in 2005, Researchers at Harvard University reported in the American Journal on Addictions that marijuana use was not associated with structural changes within the brain.

When compared to control subjects, [marijuana] smokers displayed no significant adjusted differences in volumes of gray matter, white matter, cerebrospinal fluid, or left and right hippocampus. ... These findings are consistent with recent literature suggesting that cannabis use is not associated with structural changes within the brain as a whole or the hippocampus in particular.

Furthermore, according to a 2004 report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism:

Heavy drinking may have extensive and far–reaching effects on the brain, ranging from simple ‘slips’ in memory to permanent and debilitating conditions that require lifetime custodial care.

Studies that compare the effects of marijuana and alcohol side by side also find that alcohol is more damaging than marijuana. A 2009 study published in the journal Clinical EEG and Neuroscience found:

Abnormalities have been seen in brain structure volume, white matter quality, and activation to cognitive tasks, even in youth with as little as 1–2 years of heavy drinking and consumption levels of 20 drinks per month, especially if  >4–5 drinks are consumed on a single occasion. Heavy marijuana users show some subtle anomalies too, but generally not the same degree of divergence from demographically similar non-using adolescents.

Mason Tvert, MPP’s Communications Director and coauthor of Marijuana is Safer: So why are we driving people to drink? outlines the Drug Czar’s hypocrisy:

 Every objective study on marijuana has concluded that it poses far less harm to the brain than alcohol, The ONDCP has long championed laws that steer adults toward using alcohol and away from making the safer choice to use marijuana. If the drug czar is truly committed to prioritizing neuroscience over political science, he should support efforts to make marijuana a legal alternative to alcohol for adults.

To read more about scientific studies of marijuana and its effects on the human body, visit our Science, Studies, and Research page.

A city ordinance in Portland, Maine went into effect last Friday, December 6^th that will allow those individuals who are 21 and over to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana. The government passed the ordinance in November, while similar ordinances passed in three cities in Michigan. While residents are still subject to state and federal laws regarding marijuana possession, they sent local law enforcement a clear message about their priorities: voters in Portland do not want penalties associated with marijuana possession. Unfortunately, the Portland Police Department has not listened.

[caption id="attachment_7127" align="alignright" width="122"] Portland Police Chief Michael Sauschuck[/caption]

There were only 54 marijuana citations given out last year in Portland. While Mayor Brennan expects the number to decrease this year, Police Chief Michael Sauschuck wants his officers to continue to use their own discretion when deciding whether or not to issue marijuana citations pursuant to state laws, just as they have always done. Even though the police have handed out a modest number of citations in the past, their refusal to change their policies disregards the will of the voters. Furthermore, studies show that police officers arrest minorities at disproportionately high rates for marijuana possession, an inequality that citizens and legislators can combat by actually removing penalties associated with possession.

Although some resistance to implementation of the city ordinance in Portland exists, State Representative Diane Russell is optimistic about the future of Maine’s marijuana policy.

She said it’s inevitable that others will follow Portland’s lead. Already, possession of marijuana is legal in Colorado and Washington state.

‘‘It sends a message to people across the country that Maine is going to be leading the way developing a more rational policy than prohibition,’’ she said.

President Jose Mujica has been busy defending his bill to regulate the marijuana market in Uruguay. First he asked the world to help him end marijuana prohibition, and now he is asking his country’s own politicians to understand the bill. As the bill approaches its final vote, which will be held in the full Uruguayan Senate, conservative opposition is calling for a referendum if the bill passes. Gerardo Amarilla, a member of the National Party and a conservative Member of Parliament has voiced his concern in interviews with media, stating that public opinion shows the bill is the wrong solution to the country’s drug problem. President Mujica has responded by explaining that the bill does not condone drug use, but seeks to monitor the market and protect Uruguayans.

We are not legalising cannabis,

…

We are regulating a market that already exists. We didn't invent this market, it already exists, today, here. We are trying to regulate and intervene in this market because trafficking is worse than drugs.

President Mujica’s Deputy Secretary, Diego Canepa, has made similar remarks explaining the policy.

We are convinced that to achieve our objectives, which is to fight addictions, the regulated marijuana market will give us help and logic that we are bringing to several issues. Does it mean that by creating a regulated market for marijuana, we are liberalising something? On the contrary, international experience suggests that a regulated market that is made visible has greater controls than prohibition. [MPP emphasis added]

The proposed bill is expected to pass the vote easily in the full Senate. Although some conservative leaders have called for a referendum after the bill’s passage, the chances of a successful referendum are small.    

December 5^th of this year marks the 80^th anniversary of the end of alcohol prohibition in the United States. Prohibition lasted 13 years, between January 19, 1920 and December 5, 1933. Prohibition contributed to a failing economy, directly bolstered organized crime, and remains one of the biggest public policy failures in US history.

The restaurant and entertainment industries suffered under prohibition, while thousands of workers lost jobs as barrel makers, truckers, waiters, and every other job associated with the businesses of brewing and distilling.  Prohibition also cost the federal government $300 million to enforce and lost $11 billion in tax revenue. The problems weren’t just economic; the laws that enforced prohibition were also filled with loopholes. One law allowed pharmacists to prescribe whiskey to patients, which resulted in a huge surge of pharmacy registrations. Another resulted in a surge of church and synagogue attendance, not because of any religious epiphanies but because wine was still allowed in religious services.

Crime surged under prohibition, with newly organized crime syndicates protecting and facilitating the new illicit market. Law enforcement officials were corrupted with bribes, and those that weren’t corrupt filled courtrooms and jails with prohibition offenders. The US started spending more money on the prison system and incarcerated citizens under a law that would be repealed after less than 15 years.

80 years later, we can see that the prohibition of alcohol was an enormous mistake. Americans actually drank more under prohibition than they did before it, and the illicit market for alcohol prompted a new era of organized crime. On this anniversary, let us reflect on current prohibition in the United States. How many tax dollars does the US forfeit in the name of marijuana prohibition? How many of its citizens’ tax dollars does the government waste by arresting non-violent offenders of that prohibition? How has this policy fostered the growth of organized crime and cartels in the United States and abroad? When will the end of marijuana prohibition have its anniversary?

In November, voters in Jackson, Michigan voted to pass a city ordinance that decriminalized possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. The ordinance applies to those 21 and older on private property. Now, Jackson police are determining how to enforce that law and what the law means by “private property. “

Jackson Police Chief Matthew Heins said the city police department has advised its officers to follow the new law.

"First and foremost, it was my objective to enforce what voters voted on," Heins said. "We struggled with some details in the law, but it's the law."

Some of the subjects in the law Heins and others debated were what constitutes private property.

"Target is private property, for example," Heins said. "But we don't think it was the public's intention to allow a 21-year-old to possess marijuana at your local Target."

While the ordinance has removed criminal penalties for possession of marijuana, it is still unclear to what extent state and federal law will be enforced. As in Portland, Maine, the city has changed its laws, but state and federal laws remain the same. The Jackson County Prosecutor’s office has stated that it will continue to prosecute cases pursuant to those laws, and Chief Heins admits that there will always be extenuating circumstances that could lead to an arrest despite the new ordinance.

However, despite any extenuating circumstances and confusion regarding the parameters of the law, it seems clear that the Jackson Police will respect the public’s voice and permit marijuana possession on (most) private property.

[caption id="attachment_7115" align="alignright" width="108"] Pres. Jose Mujica[/caption]

Just one Senate vote stands between President Mujica and ending marijuana prohibition in Uruguay.  In July the bill passed the house, last week it passed a Senate committee, and soon it is expected to pass a vote in the full Uruguayan Senate.  Now, President Mujica is turning his attention outside of his country, and is asking the rest of the world to help him make the law reality.

“We ask the world to help us create this experience,” Mujica told A Folha de São Paulo during an interview at his farm outside Montevideo. “It will allow us to adopt a socio-political experiment to address the serious problem of drug trafficking…the effect of the drug traffic is worse than the drug.”

Uruguay has faced resistance and criticism for its plan to end marijuana prohibition, particularly from Brazil and the United States, who have the two largest illicit drug markets in the hemisphere. The US State Department has said that Uruguay would be violating the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 by allowing marijuana use, possession, and distribution.

Sound familiar? It should, because it is the same convention that the UN accused the US of violating when Washington and Colorado passed laws to regulate adult marijuana use. Attorney General Eric Holder held that individual states were not bound by the international agreement, and allowed Washington and Colorado to proceed with their laws. Now the US is using the same convention to pressure Uruguay to maintain its marijuana prohibition. But, luckily for Uruguay, President Mujica is not easily discouraged.

“There’s always going to be pressure,” Mujica said. “There’s an apparatus in the world that lives by repressing, and it costs a lot of money.”

Himself famous for his austere lifestyle, Mujica said he didn’t care for marijuana, describing the soft drug as a “vice.” But he added that his intention is to regulate an illicit market that already exists. “The repressive path has failed,” Mujica said.

The US has been the major proponent for the international war on drugs, yet Eric Holder resisted pressure from the UN to sue Washington and Colorado over regulating marijuana last March. Now, a rough draft of a document detailing the United Nation’s future plans for combating illicit drug use has been leaked and reported by the Guardian.

The document, still a rough draft, is meant to ultimately form the UN’s statement on drug policy to be released in the Spring. The draft shows some difference of opinion, particularly among South American countries.  According to the document, many countries are ready to end the United States-led plan of prohibition and focus on rehabilitation and treatment for drug users. Columbia, Guatemala, and Mexico have argued that prohibition allows the market to be controlled by dangerous cartels, while Venezuela is calling for a discussion of the economic implications of current drug policy. The European Union also indicated that the final document should include treatment as an alternative to incarceration for drug dependent offenders.

Support for a policy shift from incarceration to treatment has been growing steadily over the years according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, which cites statements from international leaders and a 2002 committee for the European Parliament, among other indicators. Apparently, the now clear difference in opinion is anything but new.

"The idea that there is a global consensus on drugs policy is fake," said Damon Barrett, deputy director of the charity Harm Reduction International. "The differences have been there for a long time, but you rarely get to see them. It all gets whittled down to the lowest common denominator, when all you see is agreement. But it's interesting to see now what they are arguing about."

Click here to read more about international marijuana policies.

A new poll by Quinnipiac University reveals that 82% of Florida voters support medical marijuana. Florida advocates are currently pushing for legislation that would allow seriously ill residents to use marijuana with a recommendation from their doctors.

Support for the proposed constitutional amendment is high among voters of every political stripe, age and income level, with independents lending the most support: 88 percent, the poll shows.

The overall 82-16 percent support for medical marijuana is the biggest to date. The previous high-point for Florida approval was about 70 percent in a poll taken earlier this year by the medical marijuana advocacy group, People United for Medical Marijuana.

…

Nearly half of Florida voters favor [legalization] -- 48 percent -- while 46 percent oppose pot legalization for personal use. That's within the margin of error, but it's a leading indicator of a shift in public opinion. Support for legalization is again strongest among independents (57-37 percent), and then Democrats (55-39 percent).

But Republicans are opposed 30-64 percent. Contrast that with GOP voter support for medical marijuana is solid: 70-26 percent.

Medical marijuana is a contentious subject in Florida, where seniors and patients have been working diligently to educate voters and gather support. The political establishment has noticed, and the placement of medical marijuana on the November 2014 ballot could influence the gubernatorial race.

[caption id="attachment_7103" align="alignright" width="160"] Del. Heather Mizeur[/caption]

This week, Maryland gubernatorial candidate Heather Mizeur (D) released a plan to regulate marijuana like alcohol. "Marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco," she told the Baltimore Sun. "It has been a failed policy for us as a nation to criminalize the use of this substance."

Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown (D) — who is leading in the polls — has not said he supports legalization. However, he appears to understand that law enforcement should focus on more violent crimes and he "welcomes a continued discussion and analysis" of decriminalizing negligible amounts of marijuana.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Doug Gansler (D)’s spokesman said, “There does not appear to be a groundswell toward full-scale legalization here in Maryland nor does the attorney general feel that unrestrained legalization would be appropriate."

On the Republican side, current Harford County executive David Craig opposes legalizing marijuana. Del. Ron George of Anne Arundel County was also opposed, though he appeared more open to reform. “I just don’t think you’d be able to control it, so I’m not for the version that [Mizeur] has spoken of,” George said, noting he isn’t necessarily opposed to the concept of allowing adults to use marijuana.

A third Republican candidate, Charles County business executive Charles Lollar, said he is undecided.

Central City, the original site of the 1859 Colorado gold rush, is now the first city in Colorado to have a store licensed to sell marijuana to adults! The store, called Annie’s, is a medical marijuana dispensary that will begin selling marijuana to adults on January 1^st, pursuant to Amendment 64. Annie’s is the first store to receive a license, but it won’t be alone for long. The state is considering hundreds of other applications and is expected to issue many more licenses in the coming weeks and months.

The state is scheduled to allow retail marijuana sales to begin on January 1, 2014.

"Colorado is moving forward and leaving marijuana prohibition behind. For the first time in history, those who sell marijuana are receiving licenses from the state instead of rap sheets,” said MPP’s Mason Tvert. “Marijuana will be sold to adults by legitimate, taxpaying businesses instead of drug cartels in the underground market. [...] Colorado is proving to the rest of the world that marijuana can be regulated like alcohol. It will not be long before voters and lawmakers in other states decide to adopt similar policies. Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol, and it is finally starting to be treated that way."