California's medical marijuana laws just received their latest legal vindication today - this time at the nation's highest court. The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will not be hearing a case lodged by the counties of San Diego and San Bernardino aimed at gutting California's medical marijuana law. The two counties claimed that the federal law banning all marijuana trumped the state's medical marijuana law.

The challenge was initially filed in 2006 at the San Diego County superior court after the counties had refused to implement the state-mandated medical marijuana identification card program. The superior court judge sided with patients and state law and strongly denied the counties' claim. Last year, a state appeals court also ruled against the counties, and the state Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal.

The protracted legal battle has been a popular excuse among California officials trying to shirk their legal obligation to uphold the state's medical marijuana laws. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided against hearing the case, officials in San Diego, San Bernardino, and seven other counties not following the law have nowhere to go but to obey the will of the voters who overwhelmingly support medical marijuana laws.

Beyond California, the message should now be clear that hiding behind federal law is no longer a legitimate position to take when considering state-level medical marijuana laws.

Read more

On Thursday night's edition of "Anderson Cooper 360," former drug czar John Walters and I were interviewed separately about a new government report claiming an increase in average potency of marijuana seized by law enforcement (we'll have a video link posted soon). I pointed out an obvious fact: When the marijuana is more potent, users smoke less, just as people typically drink a much smaller quantity of bourbon than of beer. Thus, higher-potency marijuana doesn't necessarily mean users take in more THC. And, given that the most significant health issue connected to marijuana is the respiratory harm from smoke, smoking less to get the same effect is clearly healthier.

Asked about this, Walters said flatly, "There is no evidence of that."

He lied. I know this won't be a huge shock to faithful readers of this blog, but I think it's worth putting the facts on the record.

In a study titled "Vaporization as a Smokeless Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot Study," published in May 2007 by the journal Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of California researchers looked at smoking and vaporization using marijuana of 1.7%, 3.4% and 6.8% THC. Because the idea of the study was to compare smoking and vaporization, participants were guided through a standardized puff procedure.

Although the high-strength marijuana was four times as potent as the weakest, it produced a peak plasma THC level only about 20% higher, smoked or vaporized. This, the researchers wrote, suggests that either less is absorbed at the higher potency levels or  there is "self-titration of THC intake," meaning that "smokers adapt their smoking behavior to obtain desired levels of THC." Among the evidence for self-titration, researchers found that their subjects tended "to take more puffs at lower THC concentrations" -- despite having been given a fairly regimented smoking procedure to follow. Similarly, the subjective "high" reported by participants was only modestly more intense at 6.8% THC than at 1.7%.

Prohibitionists are entitled to their own opinions. They aren't entitled to invent their own facts.

One final note: I was disappointed that perhaps the most important thing I said to the interviewer didn't get on the air. If potency is a concern, there is an obvious solution: Regulate marijuana as we do alcoholic beverages, and require the cannabinoid levels to be listed on the label. If consumers know what they're getting -- as they do now with beer, wine, or Bacardi 151 -- they can adjust their behavior to avoid unpleasant surprises.

Read more

MPP's Bruce Mirken responds to claims that the marijuana available today is far stronger than it has ever been, asserting that these claims are made to promote needless fear and are not harmful even if true. Also featured is John Walters, prohibitionist and ex-Drug Czar under G.W. Bush. 05/14/2009

Read more

MPP's Bruce Mirken will appear on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" tonight to add a little rationality to the latest pronouncement regarding rising THC levels in marijuana from the National Institute on Drug Abuse-funded Marijuana Potency Project.

Drug warriors love to exaggerate small increases in marijuana potency over time and make vague proclamations linking those increases to increases in marijuana's potential danger, even though no credible research supports such a connection. Of course, if they were truly concerned about the potential danger of higher potency marijuana, then they should favor regulating the drug and requiring manufacturers to label the product's potency, just as we do with alcohol.

The show is scheduled to air tonight at 10 p.m. EST, but the hysteria surrounding one of the drug warriors' favorite imaginary fears is sure to last much longer.

Read more

In his first interview as White House drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske signaled a huge shift – at least rhetorically – in federal drug policy.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he told the Wall Street Journal. "We're not at war with people in this country."

Yes, the fallacy of pursuing U.S. citizens who use illegal drugs as though they were enemy combatants was obvious the minute President Nixon made it official policy – against his own experts' advice – 35 years ago. And no, Kerlikowske isn't calling for an end to the policies that fuel that failed war. Marijuana prohibition, for example, isn't going anywhere, according to the new drug czar.

Still, Kerlikowske's rejection of drug war ideology is a dramatic – and possibly significant – departure from his drug crusading predecessors.

Of course, if you really want to end the war on drugs, then maybe it's time to end marijuana prohibition. Let your representative know with a phone call or an e-mail.

Read more

A 1999 study showed a modestly increased risk of certain types of head and neck cancer among marijuana smokers. Due to methodological limitations, the researchers warned that their "results need to be interpreted with some caution in drawing causal inferences." But warnings about this alleged risk have shown up from time to time in materials put out by prohibitionist types, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A new study, just published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, & Prevention, suggests this may have been a false alarm.

Researchers pooled data from five studies, totaling over 9,000 participants (nearly 30 times the number in the 1999 study) and found that the risk of head and neck cancer "was not elevated" among those who had ever smoked marijuana compared to those who hadn't. Notably, "there was no increasing risk associated with increasing frequency, duration, or cumulative consumption of marijuana ..."

The researchers note that, due to the small number of long-term, very heavy marijuana users in the studies, they can't rule out increased risk from such very heavy use. But it is striking that the overall cancer risk among marijuana smokers was slightly lower than nonsmokers, though not enough to be statistically significant. That was also the case in a major lung cancer study a few years ago. In the new study, there were some subcategories in which the lowered risk among marijuana smokers came close to statistical significance.

But don't expect mere data to put an end to hysterical claims that marijuana is more carcinogenic than tobacco.

Read more

Last November, I mentioned here that I'd undergone treatment for prostate cancer  -- implantation of 85 tiny, radioactive seeds designed to zap the tumor before it zaps me. I'm happy to report that, six months later, it seems to have worked, according to the latest lab tests. Though the risk of recurrence never goes away entirely, I'm as close as one can be to being an official cancer survivor.

Endless thanks to all who sent kind thoughts. And since someone is bound to ask: No, I didn't ever need medical marijuana. My treatment was happily quite low-impact: no chemo, no nausea, no hair loss, etc. I almost feel like I should refer to it as Cancer Lite, it was so comparatively easy. 

But the point I made last November still remains. If I had needed medical marijuana, that decision should have been between me and my doctor. Cops and politicians have no place in medical treatment decisions.

Read more

Former drug czar John Walters may be out of government, but that doesn't stop him from taking his anti-marijuana zealotry to the masses.

Yesterday, he appeared on CNN to debate Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron on the merits of ending marijuana prohibition. Dr. Miron had little trouble tearing apart Walters' arguments, but one statement of Walters caught my attention.

At 6:53 in the clip below, Walters begins a tirade about medical marijuana in California, saying "it has been reported in the news" that there are more medical marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco than there are Starbucks coffee shops.

What Walters says is technically true -- that lie has indeed been reported in the news. What he fails to mention is that the source was none other than John Walters. And those news reports were widely dismissive of Walters' fib. Both Starbucks and the San Francisco Department of Health refuted it.

But by cleverly distancing himself from his own lie and attributing it to "the news," Walters is free to repeat it as much as he wants without ever being held accountable.

It's as if I were to assert in this post that John Walters was the inspiration for the movie "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," and some other blogger picked it up and posted it. That way, I could go on and on about Walters' reported retarded sexual development and just conveniently fail to mention that I was the one who first reported it.

But of course, that's ridiculous. John Walters' offense isn't sexual immaturity. It's that he's a liar.

Read more

Yesterday marked the first time in history that a nationwide poll showed majority support for taxing and regulating marijuana (at 52%).  The poll, conducted by Zogby International at the end of April, was also one of the largest sample sizes of any national polls on the subject, with almost 4,000 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 1.6%.

This poll, in combination with recent trends, is further evidence that Americans are quickly realizing the value of taxing and regulating marijuana. Congress, however,  is often slow to keep up. If you want to push Congress to act, visit mpp.org/federal-action, where MPP's online system makes it fast and easy to ask your member of Congress to end 70 years of failed marijuana prohibition.

Looking beyond the top-line level of majority support to the cross tabulations, where support and opposition are shown among numerous variables, we can build a helpful profile of marijuana legalization supporters:

Age: Taxing and regulating marijuana enjoys majority support across every age group except for the over-65 crowd, which registers 44% support.

Region: Voters in the East (52%) and West (60%) are more likely than voters in the South (48%) or the Midwest (48%) to support taxing and regulating marijuana.

Culture: Those who never shop at Wal-Mart (72%) are more than twice as likely to support marijuana legalization than regular Wal-Mart shoppers (35%).  NASCAR fans (38%) are significantly less likely to support it than non-fans (54%).

Religion: Jewish voters (76%) were more likely than Catholics (47%) or Protestants (45%) to support legalizing marijuana.  Voters who consider themselves “born again” (33%) are far less likely to support it than voters who are not “born again” (55%).

Party affiliation: Democratic Party members are the most likely to support legalizing marijuana (68%), with Independents showing strong majority support (54%).  Liberals (79%) are the most likely to support it, with moderates (58%) trailing by 21 points and conservatives (25%) trailing fully 54 points behind liberals.

Presidential election: Those who voted for President Obama (69%) were much more likely to support legalizing marijuana than McCain voters (30%).

Read more

In yet another sign of the growing acceptance for marijuana policy reform, MPP's Rob Kampia appeared on MSNBC and CNBC yesterday to discuss California Gov. Arnold Schwarzegger's recent statement supporting an open discussion about ending marijuana prohibition.

You can see his MSNBC appearance here and the CNBC one in which he debates former drug czar official and lifelong drug warrior Kevin Sabet here. (Just to prove it's really live TV, you'll notice Rob's audio feed cuts out at one point, causing him to talk over Sabet for a bit. Aw, shucks.)

By the way, here's a shot of Rob during his MSNBC appearance that we kind of got a chuckle out of. I mean, drug warriors love accusing marijuana policy reformers of supporting terrorism, but actually being a terrorist? Now that's playing hardball.

Read more