ACLU OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 1 MARIJUANA

It’s Time for a Conversation MARIJUANA It’s Time for a Conversation

A Guide to Understanding Our Marijuana Laws and Th eir Impacts

Written by Alison Holcomb Drug Policy Director

ACLU of Washington Foundation 901 Fifth Avenue #630 Seattle, WA 98164 Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director

For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaConversation.org.

American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation, 2008 Fourth edition, updated September 2010

. Table of Contents

I. It’s Time for a Conversation ...... 1

II. Washington State Laws ...... 2 A. Direct consequences ...... 2 Th is guide is a companion to the half-hour television program Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation. It provides additional B. Additional consequences ...... 3 information about state and federal marijuana laws in the United III. Th e History of Marijuana Prohibition ...... 4 States, their origins, and the multi-billion dollar impact they are having today on hundreds of thousands of Americans. We encourage A. Th e Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ...... 4 you to discuss the information in this booklet with others and to B. Th e LaGuardia Report ...... 6 consider whether these laws are working for society’s benefi t. C. Th e Shafer Commission ...... 6 D. State laws ...... 8 Th is guide is not meant to provide legal advice – individuals seeking legal advice on how marijuana laws apply or do not apply to them IV. Marijuana as Medicine ...... 9 personally should speak with their own attorneys. A. How many states have medical marijuana laws? ...... 9 B. Washington’s medical marijuana law ...... 9 C. Medical marijuana and federal law ...... 14

V. Use of Public Safety Resources ...... 17

VI. Consequences for Communities and Personal Freedom ...... 19 A. Consequences of the “” ...... 19 B. Home searches ...... 22 C. Loss of property ...... 23 D. Drug testing ...... 23

VII. Frequently Asked Questions ...... 25 Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 1

I. It’s Time for a Conversation

In 2008, state and local law enforcement made 847,863 marijuana- related arrests nationwide. Th is number represented fully half of all drug arrestst combined, and 89% were for simply possessing marijuana, not for growing or selling it.1 Such arrests cost Americans billions of tax dollars every year, stress our courts and jails, and divert public safety resources away from violent crime and property crime.

Th e majority of Americans believe the “War on Drugs” has been a failure,2 yet we continue to wage the war at a cost of several billion dollars each year.

It’s time for Americans to have an open and informed conversation. We need to rethink whether our marijuana laws are working for us or creating a new set of problems. If we conclude the current laws are misdirected, then we can begin to talk about creating more eff ective and just policies. We hope the information in this booklet will provide a starting point for that discussion.

. 2 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 3

II. Washington State Laws

A. Direct consequences B. Additional consequences

In Washington state, possessing any amount of marijuana is a crime. Th e Marijuana convictions result in criminal records. Criminal records are possession of 40 grams (roughly equivalent to two packs of cigarettes) or public information made available to anyone who seeks it,12 including less is a misdemeanor crime and carries a mandatory minimum sentence employers, landlords, loan offi cers and law enforcement. In addition of a day in jail plus a $250 fi ne for the fi rst off ense.3 Sentences can go up to the embarrassing stigma and possible discrimination, the following to 90 days in jail plus a $1,000 fi ne.4 can result from a single marijuana conviction or even the suspicion of marijuana use: Possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana is a felony.5 If convicted, a person faces up to 5 years in prison and a fi ne as large as $10,000.6 Loss of employment 13 Loss of housing 14 Growing any amount of marijuana, even a single plant, is a felony that carries the same penalties.7 Th is is also true for the “delivery” of Loss of voting rights 15 marijuana, a term that includes sharing any amount of the plant, with or Loss of federal fi nancial aid for college 16 without the exchange of money.8 Seizure and forfeiture of property 17 Th ese sentences can be doubled for second off enses, or any subsequent Termination of child visitation rights 18 off enses following a conviction.9 Deportation, even of legal permanent residents19 Th e use or delivery of marijuana paraphernalia (pipes, rolling papers, etc.) is a separate misdemeanor that carries a mandatory sentence of a day in jail and a $250 fi ne, and can go up to 90 days in jail with a $1,000 fi ne.10

In addition to jail time and fi nes, marijuana convictions frequently result in probation, additional court costs, and a mandatory substance abuse evaluation at the individual’s personal expense. Th ese evaluations often lead to additional expenses for classes and/or drug treatment, plus random drug testing.11 4 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 5

III. The History of Marijuana “the insidious and insanity producing marihuana has become among thethat worst of the narcotic banes, invading even the school houses of the Prohibition country . . .”25

In colonial times, marijuana was cultivated for rope, canvas, paper, soap, Against this backdrop of growing hysteria, Harry J. Anslinger, a federal oil, and other goods. Until the early 20th century, marijuana was known alcohol prohibition offi cial, was appointed commissioner of the new in the either as “hemp,” the English term describing this Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) created in 1930.26 Anslinger lobbied fi brous plant, 20 or “,” its botanical name. It was included in state legislatures to adopt both the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act and the U.S. pharmacopoeia in 1870, prescribed by American doctors, and an optional provision making marijuana illegal. He initially had little dispensed by American pharmacies.21 “Mariguana” or “marihuana” was success with local lawmakers, who did not want to assume the expense the Mexican slang name for the plant, one that American journalists and of enforcing a new state criminal law.27 So, in late 1934, Anslinger and politicians began using in the early 1900s when they wanted to denigrate the FBN jumped on the “marijuana menace” bandwagon,28 harnessing the use of the plant by Mexican immigrants.22 and contributing to the media’s anti-marijuana propaganda and tales of “reefer madness.” By 1937 the FBN had succeeded in convincing A. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 half the states to adopt the version of the act that included marijuana prohibition.29 Th e fi rst anti-marijuana laws passed in the United States were enacted between 1915 and 1933 in the western states, where prejudice against Ironically, Anslinger’s anti-marijuana campaign may have worked Mexican newcomers was common. As authors Richard Bonnie and too well for his comfort. He was hesitant about introducing federal Charles Whitebread noted, legislation that would ban marijuana outright due to concerns about its constitutionality.30 But his campaign against marijuana had taken on a Whether motivated by outright ethnic prejudice or by simple life of its own. In 1935, members of Congress introduced a pair of bills discriminatory lack of interest, the proceedings before each proposing a federal prohibition on the shipment and transportation of legislature resembled those in Texas and New Mexico in cannabis in interstate or foreign commerce and requested the Treasury 1923. Th ere was little if any public attention and no debate. Department’s position.31 Responding to the pressure for federal action, Pointed references were made to the drug’s Mexican origins, the Treasury announced no objection to such legislation.32 Th e bills did and sometimes to the criminal conduct which inevitably not pass in that session, but the stage was set for a national law. followed when Mexicans used the “killer weed.”23 In 1937, the Treasury Department itself proposed H.R. 6385 – the During these years, newspapers throughout the country began printing Marihuana Tax Act. Rather than directly prohibit marijuana as a infl ammatory and often racist accounts of marijuana’s eff ect on its users. criminal matter, the Act created a “prohibitive tax”: all manufacturers, For example, the Rocky Mountain News in Denver reported that marijuana importers, dealers and practitioners were required to register and pay was “used almost exclusively . . . by the Mexican population employed in the a special occupational tax that, theoretically, would allow them to beet fi elds,”24 and several Hearst newspapers published an editorial claiming distribute marijuana to users. However, these transfers were subject to 6 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 7

a massive $100 per ounce tax, making any legal exchange fi nancially possession of all drugs to a misdemeanor under federal law and created impossible.33 the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. One of the commission’s assignments was to conduct a yearlong, authoritative study At the hearings on H.R. 6385, the lone dissenting voice was the of marijuana.39 American Medical Association. Th e AMA opposed the bill on the grounds that there was no scientifi c basis for a federal ban, and the Th e commission was commonly referred to as the Shafer Commission in ultimate eff ect would be to inhibit any research into the medical uses honor of its chair, former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer. It was of marijuana.34 Th e association’s position was ignored. In June 1937 – a bipartisan body with 13 members, nine appointed by President Nixon without evidence-based reason – Congress passed the Marihuana Tax and four by Congress. Advocates for marijuana law reform sharply criticized Act, establishing the nationwide prohibition of marijuana that still exists Nixon’s appointees for being “out of touch,” politically predisposed to today. the status quo, and unlikely to have an open mind on the issue.40

B. The LaGuardia Report Moreover, President Nixon had no qualms about attempting to infl uence the commission’s deliberations. At a press conference six weeks after it Th e following year, concerned by the widespread propaganda about began its work, he made the following statement to a reporter: the dangers of marijuana, New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia requested the advice of the New York Academy of Medicine.35 At the As you know, there is a Commission that is supposed to academy’s recommendation, Mayor LaGuardia appointed a committee make recommendations to me about this subject, and in of 31 scientists to conduct a thorough study of the eff ects of marijuana this instance, however, I have such strong views that I will use.36 express them. I am against legalizing marihuana. Even if the Commission does recommend that it be legalized, I will not Six years later, the results were released in the LaGuardia Report. Th e follow that recommendation.41 committee had found that marijuana was “not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes” and that “juvenile delinquency [was] Despite Nixon’s apparent stacking of the deck, when the commission not associated with the practice of smoking marijuana.”37 issued its report, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, in March 1972, it made some unexpected fi ndings. Th e commission Anslinger was furious and used his media connections and political recommended that marijuana be decriminalized at both the state and ties to discredit the report and its authors.38 Marijuana prohibition federal level: continued. Possession of marihuana in private for personal use C. The Shafer Commission would no longer be an off ense; and Distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no Another challenge to the laws arose after Anslinger’s retirement. In 1970, remuneration, or insignifi cant remuneration not Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which reduced simple involving profi t would no longer be an off ense.42 8 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 9

President Nixon was not pleased. Just as Harry J. Anslinger had buried IV. Marijuana as Medicine the LaGuardia Report, Nixon consigned the Shafer Commission’s report to the library bookshelves. Neither he nor Congress took any action to Marijuana has been found eff ective in treating pain, nausea and implement its recommendations. vomiting, and wasting syndrome.47 Nearly three-fourths of Americans aged 45 and older support legalizing marijuana for medical use.48 In D. State laws Washington, 82% of registered voters polled support the medical use of marijuana when recommended by a doctor.49 Although the Nixon Administration ignored the Shafer Commission recommendations, 12 states decriminalized marijuana possession in the A. How many states have medical marijuana laws? 1970s: Fourteen states and the District of Columbia, representing 27% of Alaska (1975) Minnesota (1976) North Carolina (1977) our national population, have passed laws that provide some level California (1975) Mississippi (1977) Ohio (1976) of protection from arrest and prosecution to patients whose doctors Colorado (1975) Nebraska (1978) Oregon (1973) recommend the medical use of marijuana: Maine (1975) New York (1977) South Dakota* (1977) California (1996) Colorado (2000) Rhode Island (2006) * South Dakota subsequently re-criminalized the possession of marijuana. Alaska (1998) Nevada (2000) New Mexico (2007) Oregon (1998) Hawaii (2000) Michigan (2008) Nevada decriminalized marijuana possession in 2001, and Massachusetts Washington (1998) Montana (2004) New Jersey (2010) decriminalized in 2008. According to the most recent population Maine (1999) Vermont (2004) District of Columbia estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau,43 states where marijuana is decriminalized represent 35% of our nation’s population. Th ese states (2010) have substantially reduced the social costs associated with the enforcement of marijuana prohibition, while experiencing little or no impact on rates B. Washington’s medical marijuana law of use by their residents, according to research by Eric Single of the Washington state voters passed the Medical Use of Marijuana Act50 in University of Toronto’s Department of Public Health Sciences.44 In other 1998 as a ballot initiative (I-692), and the Washington state legislature words, decriminalization has benefi ted the individuals and communities in those states, without any accompanying negative impacts. amended the act in 2007 and 2010.

In 2006, 74% of registered Washington voters supported either making marijuana possession legal for adults or making marijuana possession a non-criminal off ense that carries a fi ne.45 In 2010, 54% thought it “would be a good idea” to “allow state-run liquor stores to sell and tax marijuana.”46 10 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 11

What does the Medical Use of Marijuana Act do? Who is a protected “qualifying patient”? Washington state’s medical marijuana law gives qualifying patients and their designated providers the legal right to grow and possess a “sixty- Washington’s law protects patients suff ering from specifi ed terminal or day supply” of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Th e law also says that debilitating medical conditions. Th e patient must be diagnosed and doctors may discuss medical marijuana as a treatment option with their given written authorization by a licensed Washington state physician, patients and authorize its use without penalty. osteopathic physician, physician’s assistant, osteopathic physician’s assistant, naturopath, or advanced registered nurse practicioner. He or Th e Medical Use of Marijuana Act applies only to the medical conditions she must be a Washington state resident at the time of diagnosis, and the listed in the statute (see below) and others that may be approved by the practicioner must advise her or him (1) about the “risks and benefi ts” of Washington State Medical Quality Assurance Commission and Board of medical marijuana and (2) that he or she “may benefi t from the medical Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery. All other uses of marijuana remain illegal. use of marijuana.” Th e authorization must be printed on tamper- resistant paper. A standard form is available at the following Web page: How much is a “sixty-day supply” of medical marijuana? http://www.aclu-wa.org/news/guide-washingtons-medical- On October 2, 2008, the Washington Department of Health clarifi ed marijuana-law the law by adopting a rule defi ning a “sixty-day supply” of medical marijuana.51 It specifi es that a qualifying patient or designated provider Currently, the Medical Use of Marijuana Act covers these conditions: “may possess a total of no more than twenty-four ounces of useable 52 marijuana, and no more than fi fteen plants.” (1) Cancer, human immunodefi ciency virus (HIV), multiple sclerosis, epilepsy or other seizure disorder, or spasticity Useable marijuana is defi ned as “the dried leaves and fl owers of the disorders; Cannabis plant family Moraceae” and does not include “stems, stalks, seeds and roots.”53 A plant is defi ned as “any marijuana plant in any (2) Intractable pain, that is, pain unrelieved by standard medical stage of growth.”54 treatments and medications;

Qualifying patients who need a larger supply of medical marijuana than the (3) Glaucoma; limits set in this rule may present evidence in court to justify their need.56 Th e rule does not say what kind of evidence may be used to establish a (4) Crohn’s disease; qualifying patient’s need. Patients who require more than twenty-four ounces (5) Hepatitis C; and of useable marijuana or fi fteen plants should consult with an attorney. (6) Diseases, including anorexia, which result in nausea, More information about the Department of Health’s rulemaking process vomiting, wasting, appetite loss, cramping, seizures, muscle may be found at the following Web site: spasms, or spasticity.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/ 12 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 13

Anyone may petition the Medical Quality Assurance Commission and Practicioners and their licenses to prescribe controlled drugs are also the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery to add other terminal or protected under federal law. In 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of debilitating conditions to the list. Appeals ruled that the federal government may not revoke a physician’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) registration or initiate an Qualifying patients must carry “valid documentation” whenever investigation based solely on the recommendation of medical marijuana they possess or use medical marijuana. Valid documentation consists to a patient.56 Th e court found this a violation of the First Amendment of two items: (1) their practicioner’s authorization, and (2) proof of right of doctors to give advice to patients. Practicioners still cannot their identity, such as a Washington state driver’s license or identicard. provide marijuana to their patients – only patients and their designated A qualifying patient must present both of these items to any law providers may possess marijuana for the patient’s medical use. enforcement offi cer who questions the patient regarding his or her medical use of marijuana. What else should I know about Washington’s medical marijuana law? Who is a protected “designated provider”? Someone who is not a patient or designated provider cannot be Some qualifying patients need help growing, obtaining and/or using punished merely for being in the presence of medical marijuana medical marijuana. For this reason, the law allows them to appoint or its use. a “designated provider” who is also protected under the Medical Use of Marijuana Act. Th e patient must designate the provider in writing No health insurer can be required to pay for the medical use of before the provider assumes any responsibility for the patient’s marijuana. medical marijuana. Practicioners are not required to authorize the medical use of How does the medical marijuana law protect practicioners? marijuana for a patient.

Washington law states that licensed practicioners “shall not be penalized Places of employment, school buses, school grounds, in any manner, or denied any right or privilege” for: youth centers and correctional facilities are not required to accommodate the on-site use of medical marijuana. (1) Advising patients about the risks and benefi ts of medical marijuana; or Patients are not allowed to smoke medical marijuana in any public place in which smoking of any kind is prohibited under (2) Providing a qualifying patient with valid documentation that the Washington Clean Indoor Air Act. the medical use of marijuana may benefi t that patient. 14 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 15

C. Medical marijuana and federal law In September 1988, Judge Young recommended that the DEA transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II,68 noting, 1. Th e federal government provides medical marijuana to some patients. Based upon the facts established in this record and set out above one must reasonably conclude that there is accepted In 1978, Robert Randall successfully sued the federal government over safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision. To access to medical marijuana for treatment of his glaucoma.57 Th e result conclude otherwise, on this record, would be unreasonable, was a federal program, commonly referred to as the “compassionate use arbitrary and capricious.69 program,”58 in which the government began providing certain patients, including Randall, a monthly supply of medical marijuana.59 However, the DEA rejected this recommendation and ordered that marijuana remain a Schedule I substance.70 Th is is where marijuana Th e program continued for nearly 15 years. But in 1991, Assistant remains today, which is why practicioners may authorize or recommend Secretary for Health James O. Mason announced that the federal the medical use of marijuana but not prescribe it. government would, for “humanitarian reasons,” continue supplying medical marijuana to those patients already admitted to the program In 2001, Lyle Craker, Professor of Plant and Soil Sciences at the but would not provide it to any new applicants.60 Today, the federal University of Massachusetts-Amherst, applied to the DEA for a permit government continues to supply medical marijuana to four surviving that would allow him to grow marijuana for medical research approved patients.61 However, federal law still does not recognize the medical use by the Food and Drug Administration.71 Administrative Law Judge Mary of marijuana, and until recently, even those who were protected by laws Ellen Bittner received witness testimony and documentary evidence over passed in their own states were threatened.62 9 days of hearings.72 In February 2007, Judge Bittner issued her ruling, in which she stated: 2. Th e DEA ignores rulings by its own administrative law judges. . . . [T]here is currently an inadequate supply of marijuana In 1972, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana available for research purposes, . . . competition in the Laws (NORML) and two other organizations petitioned the Bureau of provision of marijuana for such purposes is inadequate, Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (predecessor to the DEA63) to remove and . . . Respondent has complied with applicable laws . . . marijuana from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, I therefore fi nd that Respondent’s registration to cultivate which had been in eff ect for just over a year.64 Marijuana’s placement on marijuana would be in the public interest.73 Schedule I meant that, as a matter of law, marijuana had no legitimate medical use.65 DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young received Th e judge went on to recommend that Professor Craker’s application testimony over 15 days of hearings held in three cities 66 as to whether be granted.74 Two years later, DEA Deputy Administrator Michele marijuana should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule II, so that M. Leonhart denied the application.75 A motion for reconsideration is physicians could prescribe it for medical purposes.67 pending. 16 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 17

3. Medical marijuana is gaining acceptance within the federal V. Use of Public Safety Resources government. American taxpayers spend at least $7.5 billion each year enforcing In October 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice advised its U.S. marijuana prohibition through criminal punishment.78 Washington state Attorneys serving in states with medical marijuana laws not to expend spends at least $23 million annually.79 federal resources on the investigation or prosecution of “individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing One out of eight drug off enders in our states’ prisons have been locked 76 state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” And in July up for a marijuana off ense.80 Current forecasts indicate that Washington 2010, the U.S. Department of Veterans Aff airs advised its patient care state will need two new prisons by 2020, costing taxpayers $250 million service providers that “VHA policy does not prohibit veterans who to construct and $45 million per year to operate.81 use medical marijuana from participating in VHA substance abuse programs, pain control programs, or other clinical programs,” and that What kind of return are we getting on our investment? “patients participating in state medical marijuana programs must not be 77 denied VHA services.” Th e use of our public safety resources to enforce marijuana prohibition has diminished neither the supply of, nor the demand for, marijuana in Although these directives are only policy declarations and do not the United States.82 Rising marijuana arrest rates have not led to falling change federal law, they represent signifi cant departures from previous marijuana use rates: administrations’ “zero tolerance” approaches to marijuana law enforcement. Th ey also evidence a recognition of the important role From 1991 to 2008, marijuana arrests nationwide have states play as laboratories for reexamining and reshaping drug policy. tripled from 287,900 to 847,860.83 Yet between 1991 and 1996, annual marijuana use tripled among 8th graders and rose signifi cantly among 10th and 12th graders beginning in 1992.84 Both fi rst-time marijuana use and current (past-month) marijuana use by Americans 18 and older – those subject to criminal conviction – have remained steady since 2002 despite skyrocketing arrest rates.85 18 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 19

Marijuana is more available than ever on the black market, making VI. Consequences for Communities millionaires out of the criminals who control it. Today, the domestic market alone generates $35.8 billion per year, making marijuana our and Personal Freedom country’s #1 cash crop – unregulated and untaxed.86 More arrests are made for marijuana than for any other drug. In 2008, More than half of the violent crimes committed each year go unsolved87 1,702,537 drug-related arrests were made nationwide. Of those, 847,863 while we spend billions of tax dollars enforcing marijuana laws that have no – a record 50% – were made for marijuana-related off enses. And of eff ect on usage. Could our precious public safety resources be put to better those marijuana arrests, 89% were made for possession alone.88 Th e use? shifting focus of the “War on Drugs” to a “War on Marijuana” has been occurring since the 1990s:

Drug Arrests 1991 Drug Arrests 2008

29% 50% 71% 50%

Total Marijuana Arrests Total Marijuana Arrests All Other Drug Arrests All Other Drug Arrests Combined Combined Source: F.B.I., Crime in the United States, annually

A. Consequences of the “War on Drugs”

In the “War on Drugs,” marijuana use is combated through criminal punishment. Much less eff ort has gone into providing factually accurate and eff ective public education, or making treatment available for those who need and want it. Th is approach has had tremendous consequences, both for the individuals who are arrested and for civil liberties and racial equality in our communities. As early as 1968, Stanford University 20 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 21 law professor Herbert L. Packer off ered observations that still ring true (8) Research on the causes, eff ects, and cures of drug use has today: been stultifi ed. (9) Th e medical profession has been intimidated into For over 50 years the United States has been committed to neglecting its accustomed role of relieving this form of a policy of suppressing the “abuse” of narcotic and other human misery. “dangerous” drugs. Th e primary instrument in carrying out this policy has been the criminal sanction. Th e results of this reliance (10) A large and well-entrenched enforcement bureaucracy on the criminal sanction have included the following: has developed a vested interest in the status quo, and has eff ectively thwarted all but the most marginal reforms. (1) Several hundred thousand people, the overwhelming majority of whom have been primarily users rather (11) Legislative invocations of the criminal sanction have than traffi ckers, have been subjected to severe criminal automatically and unthinkingly been extended from punishment. narcotics to marijuana to the fl ood of new mind- altering drugs that have appeared in recent years, thereby (2) An immensely profi table illegal traffi c in narcotic and other compounding the preexisting problem. forbidden drugs has developed. A clearer case of misapplication of the criminal sanction would (3) Th is illegal traffi c has contributed signifi cantly to the be diffi cult to imagine.89 growth and prosperity of organized criminal groups. (4) A substantial number of all acquisitive crimes – burglary, Marijuana prohibition aff ects us all. Our public safety resources robbery, auto theft, other forms of larceny – have been have been taken away from violent crimes and property crimes. committed by drug users in order to get the wherewithal An increasing number of otherwise law-abiding citizens have been to pay the artifi cially high prices charged for drugs on the turned into “criminals,” resulting in a multitude of lost rights and illegal market. opportunites, not only for them but for their families. Th e damage is multiplied in communities of color, where marijuana laws are enforced (5) Billions of dollars and a signifi cant proportion of total law disporportionately on groups that have historically had to fi ght for equal enforcement resources have been expended in all stages of treatment. 90 the criminal process. (6) A disturbingly large number of undesirable police practices Further, our policies have resulted in a lack of scientifi c knowledge about – unconstitutional searches and seizures, entrapment, the marijuana plant and erected obstacles to candid discussions between electronic surveillance – have become habitual because of patients and their health care providers. As the American Medical the great diffi culty that attends the detection of narcotics Association predicted in 1937, the laws have thwarted research that off enses. could benefi t the seriously ill and dying. And the stigma of criminality discourages patients from disclosing and discussing their non-medical (7) Th e burden of enforcement has fallen primarily on the use of marijuana honestly with their health care providers. urban poor, especially Negroes and Mexican-Americans. 22 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 23

Finally, marijuana prohibition has created an enormously profi table C. Loss of property black market that enriches criminal enterprises and deprives us of billions in potential tax revenues from the nation’s leading cash crop. Homes, vehicles, and personal property can be seized from individuals And for the millions of people who use the plant every year, there is no suspected of marijuana-related off enses and forfeited to the government regulation to ensure it is free of contaminants. – even without a criminal conviction, and even if no criminal charges are ever fi led.94 While federal law provides for the appointment of counsel B. Home searches to individuals trying to recover their property in federal forfeiture proceedings,95 Washington state law does not. A property owner trying Our legal system traditionally has revered the right of individuals to to defend against a state forfeiture action must either hire a lawyer be left alone in the privacy of their own homes, so long as they are not at his or her own expense or represent himself or herself. Forfeiture harming others. As a federal court ruling put it in 1951, proceedings are complex and subject to strict time deadlines. Failure to comply with the deadlines can result in the property being forfeited A man can still control a small part of his environment, his without the owner ever getting to have a hearing.96 house; he can retreat thence from outsiders, secure in the knowledge that they cannot get at him without disobeying D. Drug testing the Constitution. Th at is still a sizable hunk of liberty – worth protecting from encroachment. A sane, decent, To many people, being required to provide one’s urine to an employer is civilized society must provide some such oasis, some shelter embarrassing and invasive. Urine samples can reveal much more about from public scrutiny, some insulated enclosure, some enclave, your private life than drug use, including whether you are being treated some inviolate place which is a man’s castle.91 for a heart condition, depression, epilepsy or diabetes. Urine tests can also reveal pregnancy. Two-thirds of Washington voters agree with the statement, “Adults ought to have the right to decide for themselves whether they want Surveys conducted in 2002-2004 revealed that almost half of full-time to use marijuana in the privacy of their own home.”92 But both the workers aged 18 to 64 reported their employer tested them for drug use, federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Washington State either during the hiring process, on a random basis, or both.97 According Supreme Court have held that a police offi cer may obtain a warrant to to a federal agency, “[w]orkplace drug testing was implemented as an enter a private home based on the simple claim that he or she smelled eff ort to deter substance abuse and its eff ects on productivity, health, and marijuana.93 safety in the Nation’s workforce,” but “there is limited evidence about the eff ectiveness of this deterrent eff ect. . . . Th us, it is not possible to draw Th e invasion of privacy is not limited to the search of one’s home. conclusions about the causal direction of the relationship between testing Because the exchange of marijuana takes place between consenting and substance use.”98 individuals, the off ense is rarely reported. Th is has resulted in law enforcement offi cials resorting to wiretapping private telephones, using paid informants, and other invasive investigation procedures. 24 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 25

Marijuana urinalysis does not indicate whether or not someone is intoxicated, and it doesn’t measure job performance or an employee’s VII. Frequently Asked Questions ability to function safely in the workplace. Marijuana urinalysis simply detects the presence of metabolites – chemicals that have been broken “Is marijuana addictive?” down by the body. What this means is that a positive test only indicates that a person may have ingested marijuana sometime in the past. With Marijuana is less addictive than the legal drugs nicotine, alcohol and marijuana, those metabolites can be present in an employee’s urine for even caff eine, but some individuals do develop a dependence that can days after its use.99 Occasional weekend use can show up in a drug test cause mild, short-lived symptoms upon cessation of use. Th is chart ranks administered on a Wednesday, long after the individual was aff ected. On various legal and illegal drugs on a range of characteristics associated the other hand, an employee impaired by sleep deprivation might pass a with addictiveness: drug test only to injure herself or someone else on the job. Ranking of Addiction Criteria for Popular Drugs Random testing of employees who are not even suspected of using drugs 1= Least Serious 6= Most Serious is degrading and violates a fundamental right of privacy. Employers with NicotineHeroin Cocaine Alcohol Caffeine Marijuana public safety concerns, like those in the transportation and construction 6 6 6 6 6 industries, have eff ective means to detect actual impairment available to them, such as computer-aided performance testing.100 Th ese methods 5 5 5 5 5 not only respect the privacy of their employees but also detect other 4 4 4 4 4 safety concerns such as lack of adequate rest or unreported injuries. 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Withdrawal Intoxication Intoxication Intoxication Intoxication Intoxication Intoxication Dependence Dependence Dependence Dependence Dependence Dependence Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement Reinforcement

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms. Reinforcement: A measure of the substance’s ability to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances. Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached. 26 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 27

Dependence: How diffi cult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating “Does using marijuana lead one to use harder, users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which more dangerous drugs? Is there a biological or social the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm. cause-and-effect relationship?” Intoxication: Th ough not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and No. Th ere is no reliable evidence that marijuana use causes a biological, increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.101 chemical or physical reaction that makes the user want to use other illicit substances.104 Th ese scientifi c fi ndings are consistent with the observation Th is comparison of addictiveness factors is consistent with information that while 100 million Americans report having used marijuana at some showing the percentage of people who have ever tried a particular drug point in their lifetimes, only 36 million have tried cocaine, 13 million 105 and the percentage who have become dependent on that drug: have tried methamphetamine, and 4 million have ever tried heroin.

Logically, people who are willing to try cocaine, methamphetamine or Prevalence of Drug Use and Dependence in heroin probably also tried marijuana at some point. While that might the General Population 102 say something about these individuals as risk-takers, it says nothing about whether or not marijuana itself physiologically infl uences other Proportion Proportion of Users drug use. Drug Category That Have Ever That Ever Become Used (%) Dependent (%) However, the status of marijuana as a prohibited substance does force Tobacco 76 32 its users into the illegal drug market, where they may be exposed to Alcohol 92 15 other illicit substances or pressured to experiment. As stated in a report Marijuana 46 9 commissioned by the Offi ce of National Drug Control Policy: (including hashish) Whereas the stepping stone hypothesis presumes a Anxiolytics 13 9 (including sedatives predominantly physiological component of drug progression, and hypnotic drugs) the gateway theory is a social theory. Th e latter does not Cocaine 16 17 suggest that the pharmacological qualities of marijuana make it a risk factor for progression to other drug use. Instead, the Heroin 2 23 legal status of marijuana makes it a gateway drug.106

In summary, although few marijuana users develop dependence, In other words, if marijuana is a potential gateway drug, that is because some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other of its status as an illegal drug. Ending the criminal prohibition on drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence marijuana, taking it out of the hands of criminal profi teers, and placing appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.103 it in a regulated market would reduce that risk. 28 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 29

“What are the health risks associated with “If we remove criminal penalties for adults who use marijuana use?” marijuana, aren’t we sending the message to our kids that it’s okay for them to use marijuana, too?” Th is question has been subject to intense debate and disagreement for more than 70 years now. We do know that smoking anything is not a No. If we provide honest, evidence-based education and regulate healthy activity,109 heavy use of any intoxicant is risky, and children are at marijuana as we do other substances like alcohol and tobacco, we can a higher risk of compromising their physical and emotional development send a much clearer message to our children. Th ere are innumerable through the use of intoxicants than adults are. activities that adults are permitted to do that minors are not. We have no problem justifying age restrictions on driver’s licenses, tobacco and But we must ask another question: what impact does the criminalization alcohol consumption, and the voting booth. We could just as easily of marijuana have on our ability to address this public health issue explain why marijuana is not okay for children. In fact, by continuing eff ectively? Encouraging the reconsideration of our policies does not to treat adult marijuana use as a crime and refusing to acknowledge mean advocating the use of marijuana. Th e question is simply whether that 40% of Americans have committed this “off ense,” we might be the serious problems that result from prohibition call for us to look at undermining our credibility and making it more diffi cult to distinguish alternative approaches. adult and juvenile use. “Why bother changing state marijuana laws if Th e experience of the 11 states that decriminalized the possession of marijuana will still be prohibited by federal law?” marijuana in the ’70s is encouraging. Th e fact that usage rates have not increased in these states suggests that marijuana laws can be reformed While marijuana is prohibited under both state and federal law, most without endangering children.107 enforcement is done by state and local authorities. Of the 872,720 marijuana arrests made in 2007, federal authorities made only 5,700, Th ere are more eff ective and cost-effi cient ways to deter our youth or less than 1% – the other 99+% were made by state and local law from using marijuana. For example, the “truth” antismoking campaign enforcement offi cers.110 As with alcohol Prohibition, reform of our initiated in 2000 costs a fraction of the marijuana prohibition budget, marijuana laws may need to begin at the state level. As United States and it has already been associated with substantial declines in youth Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Brandeis noted, “It is one of the happy smoking.108 It wasn’t necessary to criminalize the adult use of tobacco to incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its accomplish this. citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”111 30 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 31

Endnotes

1 Federal Bureau of 13 In re Orr, Empl. Sec. Comm’r Are current marijuana laws working? Investigation, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Dec.2d 795 (1987). Uniform Crime Reports, available at 14 R.C.W. 59.18.075, 59.18.130; 42 We know they are extremely costly in terms of tax dollars, they divert http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm. U.S.C. §1437f(d)(1)(B)(iii). public safety resources from other priorities, and they have very real 2 See, e.g., Zogby International, 15 R.C.W. 29A.08.520. Zogby/Inter-American Dialogue 16 20 U.S.C. §1091(r). consequences to individuals, their families, and their communities. interactive survey, released October 2, 2008, accessed Aug. 31, 2010, 17 R.C.W. 69.50.505; 21 U.S.C. Talk to your friends, family and policymakers about this issue. Is there a at http://www.zogby.com/News/ §881. better way for us to handle the use of marijuana? Let the conversations ReadNews.cfm?ID=1568 (76% of 18 State on Behalf of Hendrix v. voters believe the U.S. war on drugs Waters, 89 Wn. App. 921, 951 P.2d 317 begin. is failing); public opinion research (1998). conducted in May 2005 by Princeton 19 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Survey Research Associates and 20 Richard J. Bonnie & Charles sponsored by Pew Research Center; H. Whitebread, II, The Marijuana and public opinion research conducted Conviction 2-3 (1999). in September 2006 by Public Agenda and sponsored by Foreign Aff airs and 21 Id. at 4, 48-49. the Ford Foundation, accessed Aug. 31, 22 Id. at 32-40. 2010, at http://www.publicagenda.org/ 23 Id. at 39. articles/illegal-drugs; see also George Horace Gallup, The Gallup Poll: 24 Id. at 39. Public Opinion 372 (2003). 25 Id. at 100-01. 3 Sections 69.50.4014, -.425 of the 26 Id. at 65-66. Revised Code of Washington (R.C.W.). 27 Id. at 79-97. 4 R.C.W. 9A.20.021(3). 28 Id. at 97-117. 5 R.C.W. 69.50.4013. 29 Id. at 115. 6 R.C.W. 9A.20.021(1)(c). 30 Id. at 120-21. 7 R.C.W. 69.50.401(1)(c), 31 Id at 119. 9A.20.021(1)(c). 32 Id. at 119-20. 8 Id. 33 Id. at 124-26. 9 R.C.W. 69.50.408. 34 Id. at 164-73. 10 R.C.W. 69.50.412, -.425, 35 Id. at 200. 9A.20.021(3). 36 Id. 11 R.C.W. 9.92.060, 9.95.210, 10.01.160, 10.04.110 and 7.68.035. 37 Id. at 201. 12 R.C.W. 10.97.050(1). 38 Id. at 201-02. 32 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 33

39 Id. at 244. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing Authorities, Memorandum dated June 69 Id. at 66. 40 Id. at 255-56. the Science Base 137-91 (1999), and 21, 1991, from Assistant Secretary for 70 Marijuana Scheduling Petition, articles cited therein; D. I. Abrams, Health James O. Mason to Secretary 41 Id. at 256. Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53767- C. A. Jay, S. B. Shade, H. Vizoso, of Health & Human Services Louis 02 (DEA 1989). 42 National Commission H. Reda, S. Press, M. E. Kelly, M. W. Sullivan Re: “Th erapeutic Use of 71 Opinion and Recommended on Marihuana and Drug C. Rowbotham and K. L. Petersen, Marijuana – INFORMATION” Ex. 7 Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Cannabis in painful HIV-associated at 4, Kuromiya (No. 98-3439). of Law, and Decision of the Misunderstanding 152, 154 (1972). sensory neuropathy: A randomized 61 See, e.g., http://www. Administrative Law Judge at 3-5, In the 43 As of July 1, 2009. Available at placebo-controlled trial, 68 Neurology medicalcannabis.com/patients- Matter of Lyle E. Craker, Ph.D., DEA http://www.census.gov/popest/states/ 515 (2007). caregivers/federal-ind-patients, accessed Docket No. 05-16 (Feb. 12, 2007). NST-ann-est.html. 48 AARP Poll Shows Most Sept. 4, 2010. 72 Id. at 7. 44 Eric W. Single, Th e Impact of Support Legalizing Medicinal 62 See, e.g., Medical Marijuana: Drug 73 Id. at 87. Marijuana Decriminalization: An Marijuana, N.Y. Times, Dec. 19, Bust Sparks Questions Over Law, Man in Update, 10 J. Pub. Health Pol’y 2004 (accessed online at http:// Wheelchair Faces Possible Federal Drug 74 Id. 456, 457-58 (1989) (describing www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/ Charges After Raid, Santa Fe New 75 Lyle E. Craker, Denial of reductions in “the fi nancial costs of national/19marijuana.html?oref=login). Mexican, Aug. 29, 2007; California: Application, 74 Fed. Reg. 2101-03 law enforcement, encroachment on 49 Public opinion research Raids on Marijuana Clinics, N.Y. (DEA 2009). individual rights and freedoms in conducted by Belden Russonello & Times, July 26, 2007; New Challenges 76 Memorandum from David W. order to facilitate drug enforcement, Stewart on behalf of the American Civil for Medical Marijuana: Th e Drug Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, to the adverse eff ects of a criminal record Liberties Union in January 2006. Enforcement Administration Goes After Selected United States Attorneys (Oct. for the large numbers of convicted 50 R.C.W. 69.51A. Landlords Who Rent to Dispensaries, 19, 2009), available at http://www. off enders, and the impacts of the L.A. Times, July 19, 2007; Conant v. justice.gov/opa/documents/medical- penalties (fi nes and imprisonment) on 51 W.A.C. 246-75-010. th Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9 Cir. 2002), marijuana.pdf. the users”). 52 W.A.C. 246-75-010 3(a). cert. denied, 540 U.S. 946 (2003). 77 Department of Veterans Aff airs, 45 Public opinion research 53 W.A.C. 246-75-010 2(d). 63 DEA became the successor agency Directive 2010-035, “Medical conducted by Belden Russonello & 54 W.A.C. 246-75-010 2(b). in a reorganization carried out pursuant Marijuana” (July 22, 2010), available at Stewart on behalf of the American 55 W.A.C. 246-75-010 3(c). to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, http://www1.va.gov/vhapublications/ Civil Liberties Union in January 2006. eff . July 1, 1973. 38 Fed. Reg. 15932 56 Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2276. Respondents were asked to choose (1973). one of three options (the third being (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 78 National Organization for 64 Opinion and Recommended “continue to send adults to jail for 946 (2003). the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions marijuana possession,” which 22% 57 See Kuromiya v. United States, 78 Marijuana Prohibition 1937-1997 of Law and Decision of Administrative selected), so there is no duplication F. Supp. 2d 367, 368 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (1997) (comparing data from Office Law Judge at 1-2, In the Matter of among the polled voters who stated (Kuromiya II); Kuromiya v. United of National Drug Control Policy Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, DEA they would make possession legal and States, 37 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (E.D. (ONDCP), National Drug Control Docket No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1988). those who would make it a fi nable non- Pa. 1999) (Kuromiya I). Strategy (1997); ONDCP, State 65 21 U.S.C. §812(b)(1). and Local Spending on Drug criminal off ense. 58 Kuromiya I, 37 F. Supp. at 720 Control Activities, Report from 46 SurveyUSA News Poll #16194, n.2. 66 Opinion and Recommended the National Survey on State and sponsored by KING-TV Seattle, Ruling, supra note 64, at 6. 59 Kuromiya II, 78 F. Supp. at 368. Local Governments (1993); and conducted Jan. 13, 2010. 67 Id. at 2-6. 60 Def. Mem. of Points and F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports, 47 See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, 68 Id. at 67-68. 34 www.MarijuanaConversation.org Marijuana: It’s Time for a Conversation 35

Crime in the United States, 1995 87 F.B.I., supra note 1. 100 See., e.g., Debra R. Comer, Ph.D., 107 Single, supra note 44, at 459-61; (1996)). 88 Id. Employees’ Attitudes Toward Fitness-For- see also, The Beckley Foundation, Duty Testing, 12 J. Managerial Issues Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond 79 Data compiled from fi scal note 89 Herbert L. Packer, The Limits 61 (1996). Stalemate 125-149 (2008). prepared by the Washington State of the Criminal Sanction 332-33 Offi ce of Financial Management for (1968). 101 Dr. Jack E. Henningfi eld, Chief of 108 Matthew C. Farrelly, Ph.D., Kevin House Bill 2401 (2010). Clinical Pharmacology at the Addiction C. Davis, M.A., M. Lyndon Haviland, 90 Ryan S. King & Marc Mauer, Research Center of the National Dr.P.H.., Peter Messeri, Ph.D., and 80 Bureau of Justice Statistics, The Sentencing Project, The War Institute on Drug Abuse, as reported by Cheryl G. Healton, Dr.P.H., Evidence U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Drug Use and on Marijuana: The Transformation Philip J. Hilts, Is Nicotine Addictive? It of a Dose–Response Relationship Between Dependence, State and Federal of the War on Drugs in the 1990s 9 Depends on Whose Criteria You Use, N.Y. “truth” Antismoking Ads and Youth Prisoners, 2004 (2006). (2005). Times (Aug. 2, 1994). Th e National Smoking Prevalence, 95 Amer. J. Pub. 81 Steve Aos et al., Washington 91 United States v. On Lee, 193 F.2d Institute on Drug Abuse is part of the Health 425 (2005). State Institute for Public Policy, 306, 315-16 (2nd Cir. 1951) (Frank, National Institutes of Health, which is 109 Medical marijuana patients Evidence-Based Public Policy J., dissenting) (quoted with approval a division of the U.S. Department of should consider use of vaporizers Options to Reduce Future Prison in Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. Health & Human Services. as an alternative to smoking. See, Construction, Criminal Justice 505, 512 n.4 (1961)). Costs, and Crime Rates 1, 4 (2006). 102 Institute of Medicine, supra e.g., Donald I. Abrams, Hector P. 92 Public opinion research conducted note 47, at 95 (citing as source Table Vizoso, Stanley B. Shade, Cheryl 82 Katherine Beckett and Steve by Belden Russonello & Stewart on 2 in Anthony JC, Warner LA, Kessler Jay, Mary Ellen Kelly, and Neal Herbert, Th e Consequences and Costs behalf of the American Civil Liberties RC. 1994. Comparative epidemiology Benowitz, Vaporization as a Smokeless of Marijuana Prohibition (2008), Union in January 2006. of dependence on tobacco, alcohol, Cannabis Delivery System: A Pilot report commissioned by the ACLU 93 United States v. Kerr, 876 F.2d controlled substances, and inhalants: Study, 82 Clinical Pharmacology of Washington, available at http:// 1440, 1445 (9th Cir. 1989); State v. Basic fi ndings from the National & Therapeutics 572 (Nov. 2007). www.aclu-wa.org/library_fi les/ Cole, 128 Wn.2d 262, 289, 906 P.2d Comorbidity Survey. Experimental and Tinctures or other methods of BeckettandHerbert.pdf. 925, 941 (1995). Clinical Psychopharmacology 2:244- preparation and ingestion, rather than 83 F.B.I., supra note 1. 94 R.C.W. 69.50.505; 21 U.S.C. 268). medical marijuana cigarettes, are also 84 Office of Applied Studies, U.S. §881. 103 Id. at 98. options for some patients. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 95 18 U.S.C. §983(b). 104 Id. at 98-101. 110 F.B.I., supra note 1; National Substance Abuse and Mental Drug Intelligence Center, U.S. 96 R.C.W. 69.50.505(4). 105 SAMHSA, National Survey on Health Services Administration Dep’t of Justice, National Drug Drug Use & Health, supra note 85. (SAMHSA), Initiation of Marijuana 97 SAMHSA, Worker Substance Th reat Assessment 2009, Appendix B, Use: Trends, Patterns, and Use and Workplace Policies and 106 Institute of Medicine, supra Table B1 (2008). Implications 4 (2002). Programs, Figure 5.1 (2007). note 47, at 99 (citation omitted, 111 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann 285 emphasis supplied). 85 SAMHSA, National Survey On 98 Id. at 45. U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., Drug Use & Health, available at https:// 99 Paul L. Cary, M.S., National dissenting). nsduhweb.rti.org/. Comparisons with Drug Court Institute, The earlier data cannot be made due to changes Marijuana Detection Window: in the survey methodology. Id. at 10. Determining the Length of 86 Jon Gettman, Marijuana Time Cannabinoids Will Remain Production in the United States (2006), Detectable in Urine Following 2 Bulletin of Cannabis Reform Smoking (2006). (2006). . . Th e American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation is the legal, research, and educational arm of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, a nonprofi t, nonpartisan membership organization devoted to protecting the civil liberties of all people in Washington and extending rights to groups that historically have been denied equal treatment.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 FIFTH AVENUE #630, SEATTLE, WA 98164 WWW.ACLU–WA.ORG 9/2010