DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility of Alternative Cannabis Tax Schemes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility of Alternative Cannabis Tax Schemes Feasibility of Alternative Cannabis Tax Schemes: A Legislative Report & Recommendation for Massachusetts July 2020 Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission: Steven J. Hoffman, Chairman Jennifer Flanagan, Commissioner Britte McBride, Commissioner Shaleen Title, Commissioner Shawn Collins, Executive Director Prepared by Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission in collaboration with Massachusetts Department of Revenue Alisa Stack, Chief Operating Officer, Cannabis Control Commission Julie K. Johnson, Director of Research, Cannabis Control Commission Geoffrey E. Snyder, Commissioner, Department of Revenue Kevin E. Brown, General Counsel, Department of Revenue Kazim Ozyurt, Chief Economist, Department of Revenue Acknowledgements Cannabis Control Commission Erika Scibelli, Chief of Staff David McKenna, Chief Technology Officer Kyle Potvin, Director of Licensing Chantelle Porter, Investigator Kirsten Swenson, Communications Specialist David Lakeman, Director of Government Affairs Samantha Doonan, Research Analyst Department of Revenue Tim Rooney, Chief Financial Officer Fushang Liu, Supervising Economist, Office of Tax Policy & Analysis John Paul Murphy, Senior Economist, Office of Tax Policy & Analysis Paul Casey, Deputy Commissioner, Legislative, External Affairs & Policy Nathalie Dailida, Director, Legislative & External Affairs Bill Graham, Senior Deputy Commissioner, Tax Administration Steve Moffatt, Deputy Commissioner, Tax Evan Garcia, Director, Miscellaneous Excises Purpose This report, Feasibility of Alternative Cannabis Tax Schemes: A Legislative Report & Recommendation for Massachusetts, supplemented by the study, Assessment of Alternative Tax Models for Adult-Use Cannabis in Massachusetts, has been prepared in response to the enabling legislation, Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017 section 63: “The Massachusetts cannabis control commission, in collaboration with the department of revenue, shall study the feasibility of alternative tax bases for calculating taxes on marijuana and marijuana products, including by weight, volume or tetrahydrocannabinol potency. The commission shall file the results of this study together with any recommendations for changes to marijuana tax policy with the clerks of the senate and the house of representatives, who shall forward the recommendations to the senate and house chairs of the joint committee on marijuana policy and the senate and house chairs of the joint committee on revenue not later than July 1, 2020.” Table of Contents I. Tax Study Overview .......................................................................................................... 2 II. Current System .................................................................................................................. 3 III. Feasibility ............................................................................................................................ 4 Price-Based Scheme ................................................................................................................... 5 i. Price-Based Scheme Results Summary ............................................................................... 5 Chart III. A. Price- Based Tax Scheme Projections .......................................................... 5 ii. Price-Based Scheme Feasibility Assessment ....................................................................... 5 Weight-Based Scheme ................................................................................................................ 6 i. Weight-Based Scheme Results Summary ............................................................................ 6 Chart III. B. Weight- Based Tax Scheme Projections ....................................................... 6 ii. Weight-Based Scheme Feasibility Assessment ................................................................... 6 THC (“Potency”)-Based Scheme ............................................................................................... 7 i. THC (“Potency”)-Based Scheme Results Summary ........................................................... 7 Chart III. C. THC (“Potency”)- Based Tax Scheme Projections ..................................... 7 ii. THC (“Potency”)-Based Scheme Feasibility Assessment ................................................... 7 IV. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 9 V. Recommendation.............................................................................................................. 10 VI. Appendix: KPMG Study, Assessment of Alternative Tax Models for Adult-Use Cannabis in Massachusetts ......................................................................................................... 11 Executive Summary This legislative report has been prepared in response to the enabling legislation, Section 63 of Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, to assess feasibility in implementing varying adult-use cannabis market tax schemes. A comprehensive assessment on varying price, weight, and potency-based schemes was contracted and conducted by KPMG LLP (KPMG). All of the varying tax schemes assessed could feasibly be implemented in Massachusetts [See KPMG study for all schemes assessed (page 19)]; However, analyses suggest that the current 20% tax rate, including a 6.25% sales tax, 10.75% excise tax, and <3% local tax, is within the optimal range for revenue and feasibility in Massachusetts. Keeping the current 20% tax rate, the study’s forecasted analyses show that annual cannabis sales in Massachusetts have the potential to reach $1 billion by June 2021 (i.e., July 2020 through June 2021), which will generate annual tax revenue of approximately $200 million. Any change to the current tax structure is projected to result in marginal tax revenue changes and could cause disruption to the still new and maturing market. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (“Commission”) recommend that no changes be made to the current taxation rate at this time. However, a re-assessment of tax schemes may be warranted as the market matures in the future. Both the Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) defer to the Legislature to determine tax rates. DOR’s contributions to this report are limited to evaluation of alternative tax schemes for feasibility of implementation. 1 I. Tax Study Overview This legislative report, Feasibility of Alternative Cannabis Tax Schemes: A Legislative Report & Recommendation for Massachusetts (“report”), supplemented by study, Assessment of Alternative Tax Models for Adult-Use Cannabis in Massachusetts (“study”), has been prepared in response to the enabling legislation, Section 63 of Chapter 55 of the Acts of 2017, to assess feasibility in implementing varying tax schemes by weight, volume, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potency. For these purposes, the Cannabis Control Commission (“Commission), in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (“DOR”), released a request for proposals to conduct an econometric study of varying cannabis tax schemes. This contract was awarded to KPMG LLP (KPMG), an independent public accounting firm with expertise in both the Massachusetts policy landscape and economic theory and methodologies. This study’s primary objective was to forecast future cannabis sales and tax revenue under different cannabis tax schemes, which included: two price-based, four weight-based, and two potency-based schemes. This study found that all alternative tax schemes, except for one weight- based tax scheme, are estimated to generate more tax revenue, compared with the current price- based tax of <20%; However, these changes would be relatively small, potentially short-term in nature, and may disrupt the still nascent cannabis industry in Massachusetts. This report provides the Massachusetts Legislature with an assessment of the feasibility of alternative cannabis tax schemes and concludes with recommendations based on study results. [See KPMG study in Appendix (pages 12-40), Assessment of Alternative Tax Models for Adult- Use Cannabis in Massachusetts] 2 II. Current System While cannabis is not new, the legal marketplace for adult-use cannabis has only recently emerged in the United States (U.S.). In 2012, Colorado and Washington made history as the first states to legalize adult-use cannabis with Colorado’s retail stores opening for business in 2014. Additional states followed suit with a range of heterogenous policies and regulations. The result has been a legal industry with distinct differences from other industries and between states. Massachusetts enacted and implemented non-medical adult-use cannabis legalization in 2016 with Question 4, “Massachusetts Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Initiative.” The ballot measure outlined a tax scheme at 12%, which would have been the lowest tax rate of all legalized states. In 2017, the Legislature revised the effective rate to 20% where it stands today. There was concern that the proposed excise tax in the original measure was too low, as other legalized states had higher rates at this time [CO (29%), WA (37%), and OR and AK (25%)]. Revisions in Massachusetts included a change in excise tax from 3.75% to 10.75% and local tax from <2% to <3%. Massachusetts currently has a price-based tax scheme, including a 6.25% sales tax, 10.75% excise tax, and <3% local tax. Similar to the heterogeneity inherent in adult-use cannabis policy and regulation, states also implement varying
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry: Market Data and Industry Participation
    A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry: Market Data and Industry Participation February 2020 Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission: Steven J. Hoffman, Chairman Kay Doyle, Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan, Commissioner Britte McBride, Commissioner Shaleen Title, Commissioner Shawn Collins, Executive Director Prepared by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission Research and Information Technology Departments: Samantha M. Doonan, BA, Research Analyst David McKenna, PhD, Chief Technology Officer Julie K. Johnson, PhD, Director of Research Acknowledgements External Collaborators Alexandra F. Kritikos, MA, Brandeis University Cannabis Control Commission Communications Cedric Sinclair, Director of Communications Maryalice Gill, Press Secretary Kirsten Swenson, Communications Specialist Management Alisa Stack, Chief Operating Officer Erika Scibelli, Chief of Staff Legal Christine Baily, General Counsel Allie DeAngelis, Associate General Counsel Enforcement and Licensing Yaw Gyebi, Chief of Enforcement Paul Payer, Enforcement Counsel Kyle Potvin, Director of Licensing Patrick Beyea, Director of Investigations Derek Chamberlin, Licensing Analyst Anne DiMare, Licensing Specialist Government Affairs David Lakeman, Director of Government Affairs 2 Suggested bibliographic reference format: Doonan SM., McKenna, D., Johnson JK., (2020, February). A Baseline Review and Assessment of the Massachusetts Adult-Use Cannabis Industry— A Report to the Massachusetts Legislature. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Cannabis
    [Show full text]
  • CSBS Cannabis Job Aid
    16 September 2021 CSBS Cannabis Job Aid CSBS Cannabis Job Aid Industrial hemp was legalized federally by the 2018 Farm Bill. States across the country are now establishing regulatory schemes for hemp production. The job aid is an examiner reference tool providing background as well as state-specific information, such as legalization status and related topics, on both hemp and marijuana. As federal and state cannabis laws change, we expect that frequent updates will be necessary to keep this job aid up to date. The CSBS State Supervisory Processes Committee approved the release of this job aid to assist state examiners in the examination of a financial institution that may be banking cannabis-related businesses. If you notice something in the job aid that needs to be edited contact Daniel Berkland ([email protected]). Table of Contents Hemp Job Aid .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Marijuana Job Aid .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 State by State Cannabis Policy ................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Territory Cannabis Policy ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10/A AMENDMENT NO. 2 GENERAL FORM FOR REGISTRATION OF SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR 12(g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) British Columbia 98-1437430 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. employer incorporation or organization) identification no.) 325 West Huron Street, Suite 412 Chicago, Illinois 60654 (Address of principal executive offices and zip code) (312) 471-6720 (Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Subordinate Voting Shares Multiple Voting Shares Super Voting Shares (Title of class) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☐ Non-accelerated filer ☒ Smaller reporting company ☐ Emerging growth company ☒ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financing accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IMPLICATIONS OF BEING AN EMERGING GROWTH COMPANY 1 DISCLOSURE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS 2 ITEM 1.
    [Show full text]
  • JUD Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/26/2021
    1 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M. CHAIRPERSONS: Senator Gary Winfield, Representative Steve Stafstrom SENATORS: Anwar, Bradley, Champagne, Haskell, Kasser, Kissel, Lesser, Sampson, Winfield, REPRESENTATIVES: Blumenthal, Callahan, Conley, Currey, Dillon, Doucette, Dubitsky, Fiorello, Fishbein, Fox, Godfrey, Harding, Howard, Labriola, Luxenberg, Miller, O'Dea, Palm, Porter, Quinn, Rebimbas, Riley, Simms, Veach, Walker, Young, Candelora REP. STAFSTROM (129TH): Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Judiciary Committee Public Hearing for February 26, 2021. We have one item on our agenda today. And that's Senate Bill 888, which is AN ACT RESPONSIBLY AND EQUITABLY REGULATING ADULT-USE CANNABIS. It is a Governor's Bill that is before us today. And I know we have a number of folks in the administration here with us. So, we're going to start there. Before we do though, I just want to remind the Committee that we have nearly 150 people who are signed up to testify today at three minutes a pop, that's seven and a half hours of testimony straight through without any questions or delays or the like. I would ask the Committee today so that we can get to hear from the public sooner rather than later that if you have questions, that they be brief, they be direct, and they be to the point and they not be repetitive. I understand members may be in and out of this Committee and other Committees today, that's fine. But for the interest of the public, and for those who are testifying, if you've missed something, we can go back and watch it, or we can follow up, particularly with the administration 2 FEBRUARY 26, 2021 rr/si JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 10:00 A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL WESTERN Pharmacy Students Provided Free Flu Shots, As Well As Health Screenings to Nearly 2,500 Attendees at This Year’S National Western Stock Show
    WINTER SPRING 2018 Pharmacy P E R S P E C T I V E S School Wins National Weaver Award CU Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences was selected as the winner of AACP’s Lawrence C. Weaver Transformative Community Service Award. Presented annually, the award is bestowed on a school that has demonstrated a commitment to its community through the development of programs that go beyond the traditional role of academic pharmacy. In addition to bragging rights, the school will receive $5,000 to be used to support community partners/programs, along with a commemorative sculpture. The award will be presented at AACP’s Annual Meeting in July. Kudos to Dr. Gina Moore for her commitment in prepar- ing the application submission and coordinating site visits, as well as to the faculty and students who perform these community services throughout the year and those who participated in the site visit presentations. In This Issue 2-4 Fourth-year pharmacy student Megan Student Life Wary vaccinates a Stock Show attendee. 6-9 Pharmacists Tread Carefully Into the World of Medical Cannabis NATIONAL WESTERN Pharmacy students provided free flu shots, as well as health screenings to nearly 2,500 attendees at this year’s National Western Stock Show. Health screenings included height and weight measurements, BMI, blood pressure, blood glucose, 10 vision and an oral health screen. In addition to helping the community, the students get a chance to work with other health Car-T Therapy May be Cost professions students and provide health education and information to people who may not otherwise have access to care.
    [Show full text]
  • February 26, 2021 Co-Chair, Sen. Gary Winfield Co-Chair, Rep. Steve Stafstrom Judiciary Committee LOB BUILDING, ROOM 2C
    Connecticut Coalition to Regulate Marijuana [email protected] regulatect.org February 26, 2021 Co-Chair, Sen. Gary Winfield Co-Chair, Rep. Steve Stafstrom Judiciary Committee LOB BUILDING, ROOM 2C TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF S.B. 888 – AN ACT CONCERNING ADULT USE OF CANNABIS Dear Co-Chairs and Members of the Judiciary Committee: My name is DeVaughn Ward, and I am the senior legislative counsel at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP has been working to improve marijuana policy for more than 25 years. MPP has also convened the Connecticut Coalition to Regulate Marijuana, a diverse group of organizations that acknowledge that cannabis prohibition has failed and is working to support a better solution — regulating and taxing cannabis similarly to alcohol.1 I am here today to testify regarding S.B. 888 – An Act Equitably and Responsibly Regulating Adult-Use Cannabis. S.B. 888 seeks to end cannabis prohibition and replace the unregulated illicit market with a taxed and regulated system of licensed cultivators, retailers, manufacturers, and micro-businesses. As you may recall, in the 2019 session a package of bills that sought to legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis for adults 21 and older was presented to the legislature, and the bills advanced out of the General Law, Judiciary, and Finance Committees but ultimately failed to gain passage. In 2020, Gov. Lamont offered the first gubernatorial proposal for ending cannabis prohibition in Connecticut. Despite best efforts, the bill stalled when COVID shut down the capitol and the legislative session was suspended.
    [Show full text]
  • Insights from Cannabis Legalization
    Dissertation Public Health and Safety Consequences of Liberalizing Drug Laws Insights from Cannabis Legalization Steven Davenport This document was submitted as a dissertation in June 2020 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of Gery Ryan (Chair), Jonathan Caulkins, and Beau Kilmer. Partial funding for this dissertation was provided by the James Q. Wilson Dissertation Award. PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL For more information on this publication, visit http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSDA508-1.html Published 2020 by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. R® is a registered trademark Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Abstract Cannabis has been legalized for non-medical purposes in Canada, Uruguay, eleven U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Penalty for Consuming Cannabis in Morocco
    Legal Penalty For Consuming Cannabis In Morocco herIs Mischa coracle heavy fiftieth or evangelized exogenous andafter practise cup-tied tiresomely. Garvey inlace Maury so noddingly?character senatorially. Incog and rhombic Artie jump Download Legal Penalty For Consuming Cannabis In Morocco pdf. Download Legal Penalty For gasesConsuming that is Cannabis produced In nationwide, Morocco doc. and Meant drug for major any cannabisdefinition legalof cannabis cannabis is it,morocco which the and offense? emit harmful usualCharged penalty with legalfor cannabis penalty moroccofor cannabis to learn in morocco how are and some conditions states? Unlessand politics there in. was Registered the legal inpenalty the containsfor cannabis the law.morocco Vape and or buyingshe also it legalwidely penalty tolerated consuming but uruguay cannabis is a plant morocco produces and start poisonous here are and thancommitting the legal a firearm penalty and for consumingsprinkling and cannabis other similar in the cannabisnotice and consumption consumption. are Psychotropic conservative substances when you cannabislike to clearly tolerance mark anyvaries business according to cannabis? to its effects Hands of the of differencethe usual penaltybetween cannabis morocco in and possession conditions of anotherand a dispensary. private and Refrained targeted ifads user are is there. legal forLegislative consuming session cannabis in the in usual a reality penalty in private for consuming parties or cannabis legalizationmorocco and of she larger suffers amounts from ofnative letters and may driving? not be. Tunisians Bitcoin accepted have legal by penalty the usual consuming penalty for thatconsuming people cannabiswalking down in michigan? and use Differsor a website. in your Did cannabis than traditional legal for consuminguse legal penalty in morocco for consuming to a callback court.cannabis Cactus outside in morocco of penalties.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Survey
    CANNABIS SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SURVEY AUGUST 29, 2018 FUNDING FUNDING FOR THIS STUDY WAS PROVIDED BY A CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH (CIHR) PROJECT BRIDGE GRANT (PJT-153342) AND A CIHR PROJECT GRANT. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT WAS PROVIDED BY A PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY OF CANADA-CIHR CHAIR IN APPLIED PUBLIC HEALTH (HAMMOND). ETHICS CLEARANCE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY AND RECEIVED ETHICS CLEARANCE THROUGH A UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE (ORE#22392). SUGGESTED CITATION HAMMOND D, GOODMAN S, LEOS-TORO C, WADSWORTH E, REID JL, HALL W, PACULA R, DRIEZEN P, GEORGE T, REHM J, WERB D, BOUDREAU C, PORATH A, ABRAMOVIC H, ELLIOT R. INTERNATIONAL CANNABIS POLICY SURVEY. AUGUST 2018. CONTACT DAVID HAMMOND PHD PROFESSOR PHAC-CIHR CHAIR IN APPLIED PUBLIC HEALTH SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH SYSTEMS UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO WATERLOO, ON CANADA N2L 3G1 [email protected] WWW.DAVIDHAMMOND.CA METHODS OVERVIEW The primary objective of the International Cannabis Policy Study is to examine the impact of cannabis legalization on Canadians. The study examined five primary research questions, including the extent to which legalization is associated with changes in: 1) prevalence and patterns of cannabis use, including use among ‘minors’ and levels of dependence; 2) risk behaviours, including driving after cannabis use and use in ‘high risk’ occupational settings; and 3) the commercial retail environment, including the price and the type of products used, the use of high potency products, and the extent to which consumers shift from ‘illicit’ to ‘legal’ sources of cannabis; 4) perceptions of risk and social norms; and 5) the effectiveness of specific regulatory policies, including advertising restrictions, product labelling and warnings, public education campaigns, and the use of cannabis in public spaces and workplaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Analysis for SB-1201, As Amended by Senate
    OLR Bill Analysis SB 1201 (as amended by Senate "A" and "B")* Emergency Certification AN ACT CONCERNING RESPONSIBLE AND EQUITABLE REGULATION OF ADULT-USE CANNABIS. TABLE OF CONTENTS: SUMMARY §§ 1 & 141-142 — DEFINITIONS Defines numerous terms such as cannabis and cannabis product, consumer, cannabis establishment, and equity §§ 2-3, 115, 153 & 159-160 — CANNABIS POSSESSION AND USE Allows people age 21 or older to possess or use cannabis, up to a specified possession limit; establishes various penalties for possession by underage individuals or possession exceeding the bill’s limit; requires POST to issue guidance on how police officers must determine whether someone’s cannabis possession exceeds the bill’s limit §§ 4, 115 & 154 — CANNABIS PARAPHERNALIA Eliminates existing penalties for drug paraphernalia actions related to cannabis § 5 — DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATIONS AND SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENSES Prohibits minors from being adjudicated delinquent for certain cannabis possession offenses and removes most cannabis sale offenses from the list of serious juvenile offenses § 6 — VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO INFRACTION PROCEDURES Allows people to pay certain cannabis-related fines by mail without making a court appearance § 7 — MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CANNABIS-RELATED DISTRESS Generally prohibits prosecuting someone for cannabis possession or certain related offenses if evidence was obtained through efforts to seek medical assistance for cannabis- related medical distress §§ 8 & 9 — CRIMINAL RECORD ERASURE Allows for petitions to erase records for cannabis-related
    [Show full text]
  • It's Just Pot…Right?
    2/11/2016 SAATDE WORKSHOP HOW MARIJUANA EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES: LEGISLATION • Appraise the effects of the main forms, modes of delivery IS SHAPING TOMORROW and active ingredients of cannabis. • Recognize the signs of marijuana use and distinguish 2016 American Dental Education Association Annual Session different levels of marijuana habituation and addiction. March 12 – 15 Denver, CO • Review varying legal controls on marijuana for medical Sponsored by: The Substance Abuse, Addiction, and Tobacco Dependence Education Section Co-Sponsored by the following Sections: Behavioral Sciences, Dental Hygiene Education, and recreational use. Gay-Straight Alliance, Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology • Assess tools and opportunities for incorporating marijuana counseling into dental and allied dental curricula. PRESENTERS • Sean LeNoue, MD IT’S JUST POT…RIGHT? • Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Fellow (CR-2) EXPLORING THE SOCIAL, LEGAL, & • Chief Resident, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado, NEURODEVELOPMENTAL IMPACTS Department of Psychiatry • Victoria Patrounova RDH, MHA OF CANNABIS USE • Assistant Professor, University of Texas School of Dentistry at Houston • Joan M. Davis RDH, PhD Sean LeNoue, M.D. • Professor, School of Allied Health, Southern Illinois University Carbondale University of Colorado School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry Divisions of Child/Adolescent Psychiatry & Substance Dependence DISCLOSURES PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 1. Review history & background of cannabis • Nothing to disclose 2. Assess the effects of cannabis use on the body & mind from a neurodevelopmental perspective 3. Review the history of cannabis regulation in the United States & Colorado 4. Explore the impact on academic performance of youth using cannabis in Colorado 5. Review evidence-based treatment modalities for substance use disorders 1 2/11/2016 BACKGROUND OF CANNABIS BACKGROUND OF CANNABIS • History • Originated from central & southeast Asia • First noted in historical texts around 3000 B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Marijuana for Cancer Patients
    Medical Marijuana (Cannabinoid-Derived Products) for Cancer Patients 38 accc-cancer.org | May–June 2020 | OI BY MELODY CHANG, RPH, MBA, BCOP annabis, also known as marijuana, or called a vast number of other slang terms like weed, herb, pot, grass, bud, ganja, and Mary Jane originated in Central Asia but is grown Each state has its own list of the Cworldwide today. Cannabis use for medicinal purposes dates qualifying conditions for which it will back at least 5,000 years, with the earliest reported use being in China around 2700 BC for the relief of pain and cramps.1 allow patients to use medical marijuana. In the United States, cannabis is still a controlled substance These qualifying conditions are different and is classified as a Schedule I agent (a drug with a high potential for abuse and currently no accepted medical use). The U.S. Food in each state; however, in many states and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved cannabis as a number of conditions are cancer a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition. By federal law, the possession of cannabis is illegal, except within approved related—chemotherapy-induced nausea research settings. However, a growing number of states, territories, and vomiting, anxiety, hepatitis C, and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that decriminalized the recreational and/or medicinal use of marijuana in that specific HIV/AIDS, cachexia (wasting syndrome), area. Cannabis is the fastest growing industry in the world. Accord- and inflammatory bowel disease. ing to Arcview’s market research, regulated marijuana sales in North America totaled $6.9 billion in 2016.
    [Show full text]