DOCSLIB.ORG

Insights from Cannabis Legalization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. states and Washington DC, with others likely to follow. The world’s first large corporate cannabis producers and retailers are operating in Canada and the United States – with the potential for continued expansions in scale and efficiency in the case of national legalization in the United States. This accelerated rate of policy change prompts novel topics of cannabis policy research, including evaluating past policy changes and identifying feasible policy responses for contemporary or anticipated issues. This dissertation includes four papers. Three concern issues related to cannabis, with the last investigating a related issue (intoxicated driving) manifesting in alcohol policy. The first chapter identifies U.S. national-level patterns of cannabis acquisition and use and from 2002 to 2013, roughly the decade of policy liberalization that preceded the first non-medical cannabis regimes. The second chapter investigates a surprising fifteen-year trend in self-report of cannabis use disorder symptoms among daily/near-daily cannabis users, who disproportionately bear many of the consequences of cannabis use. The third chapter analyzes Washington State’s recreational cannabis traceability dataset (July 2014-October 2017), documenting emerging trends, e.g. declining prices, cannabinoid profiles, and product forms. The final chapter evaluates an intervention relating to reducing alcohol-involved crashes, some lessons of which can be carried over to analogous questions with cannabis-involved crashes. That study evaluated Uruguay’s zero blood-alcohol-concentration (BAC) law, exploiting a novel synthetic controls method to estimate reductions in severe and fatal injury crashes, using Chile as a control. A central theme is the potential for a rising public health risk among adult cannabis users, and which may or may not meet clinical diagnoses for cannabis use disorder. There remain puzzles to solve. As the political-economic landscape regarding cannabis continues to evolve, public health-oriented policymakers would be wise to invest time and research in monitoring use trends in detail, and refining definitions and measurements of problematic cannabis use. It is the hope of this dissertation to support that line of inquiry. iii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................................ iiii Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................. vii Tables .................................................................................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................................... xi Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Cannabis Policy Around the World ............................................................................................................................... 5 U.S. Federal Policy ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 U.S. State Policy ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter One. Evolution of the United States Marijuana Market in the Decade of Liberalization Before Full Legalization ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Data .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Results .................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Chapter Two. Falling rates of marijuana dependence among heavy users ....................................... 30 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Results .................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter Three. Price and Product Variation in Washington’s Recreational Cannabis Market 36 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Analyses ................................................................................................................................................................................. 42 Results .................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Chapter Four. Associations Between a Zero Tolerance BAC Law and Traffic Crashes and Fatalities: Insights from a Novel Synthetic Control Method ..................................................................... 51 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Data & Methods .................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Results .................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................. 60 v Chapter 4 Appendix .........................................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Green Regulatory Arbitrage

    The Green Regulatory Arbitrage

    Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 II. PROHIBITION - HOW CANNABIS BECAME ILLEGAL ..................................................... 4 III. THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................... 7 A. Federal Law And Its Impact On The Cannabis Industry ..................................................... 7 1. Cannabis Is A Schedule 1 Substance ............................................................................ 7 2. Access To Capital Markets Restricted ......................................................................... 9 3. Banking Services Limited .......................................................................................... 10 4. Tax Burdens .............................................................................................................. 11 5. Interstate And International Commerce Restrictions ................................................. 11 6. Insurance Options Limited ........................................................................................ 12 7. Medical Research And Clinical Trials Stymied .......................................................... 12 8. Professional Services Harder To Find ........................................................................ 13 9. Real Estate Challenges .............................................................................................. 13 B. The States
  • Virginia Board of Pharmacy INFORMATION REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS in VIRGINIA

    Virginia Board of Pharmacy INFORMATION REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS in VIRGINIA

    Virginia Board of Pharmacy INFORMATION REGARDING MEDICAL CANNABIS IN VIRGINIA Legislative Timeline 2015: provided an affirmative defense for the possession of CBD oil or THC-A oil, initially to alleviate intractable epilepsy. 2016 and 2017: authorized the establishment of the 5 pharmaceutical processors to produce and dispense these oils. 2018: expanded the use of these oils to any diagnosed condition or disease, upon recommendation from any physician. 2019: expanded authority to issue written certifications to nurse practitioners and physician assistants, created “registered agent” registration category, and authorized wholesale distribution of oils between pharmaceutical processors 2020: removed the definitions of cannabidiol oil and THC-A oil and replaced them with a definition of cannabis oil, allows for the use of telemedicine for patient care, in compliance with federal requirements for prescribing drugs in Schedules II-V, allows for up to 5 cannabis dispensing facilities per health service area that are owned, at least in part, by the pharmaceutical processor permitted for that health service area, and access to cannabis oils for individuals that temporarily reside in Virginia. 2021-allowance for the dispensing of botanical cannabis products. 4 ounces of botanical cannabis may be dispensed in a 30 day period. The amount of botanical cannabis dispensed is included in the total amount of medical cannabis products allowed to be dispensed within a 90 day period. Pharmaceutical Processors In December 2018 the Board of Pharmacy awarded conditional approval to five pharmaceutical processors for the purpose of cultivating Cannabis plants for the production of CBD oil and/or THC-A oil, and to dispense these oils to patients registered by the Board of Pharmacy.
  • Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties

    Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties

    Legalization of Marijuana and the Conflict with International Drug Control Treaties Biju Panicker* Independent Study Spring 2015 Professor Jalila Jefferson-Bullock Abstract The present system of worldwide drug control is based upon three international conventions: the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the 1971 Convention on Pyschotropic Substances, and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. These treaties require participating nations to limit and even criminalize the possession, use, trade, and distribution of drugs outside of medical and scientific purposes, and work together to stop international drug trafficking. This paper argues that the recent move toward legalization of use, possession, and sales of marijuana in the United States (U.S.) and other foreign nations is in conflict with international treaty obligations. While each state in the U.S. has its own drug laws and controlled substances acts, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution places international treaties on the same legal footing as federal law. Under this argument, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., as well as Uruguay and The Netherlands’ legalization of marijuana for recreational use, allowance of possession and sales, is in contravention of U.S. federal law and international treaties. Finally, this paper will also look at Portugal’s 2001 decision to decriminalize all drug use to answer the question as to whether the international drug treaties place a “firm limitation” on the legal, “non-medical” sale of schedule drug or truly obligate countries to penalize drug use. Keywords: Marijuana Legalization, International Conventio * © Biju Panicker, J.D.
  • HOUSE BILL No. 2303

    HOUSE BILL No. 2303

    Session of 2019 HOUSE BILL No. 2303 By Representatives Finney, Alcala, Ballard, Benson, Carlin, Carmichael, Clayton, Henderson, Highberger, Holscher, Horn, Moore, Ohaebosim, Ousley, Parker, Probst, S. Ruiz, Sawyer, Stogsdill, Victors, Warfield, Winn, Woodard and Xu 2-13 1 AN ACT enacting the Kansas safe access act; providing for the safe, legal, 2 humanitarian and therapeutic use of cannabis for medical conditions; 3 providing for the registration and functions of compassion centers; 4 authorizing the issuance of identification cards; establishing the 5 compassion board; providing for administration of the act by the 6 department of health and environment. 7 8 WHEREAS, Cannabis has been used as a medicine for at least 5,000 9 years and can be effective for serious medical conditions for which 10 conventional medications fail to provide relief; and 11 WHEREAS, Modern medical research has shown that cannabis can 12 slow the progression of such serious diseases as Alzheimer's and 13 Parkinson's, stop HIV and cancer cells from spreading; has both anti- 14 inflammatory and pain-relieving properties; can alleviate the symptoms of 15 epilepsy, post traumatic stress disorder and multiple sclerosis; is useful in 16 the treatment of depression, anxiety and other mental disorders; and can 17 help reverse neurological damage from brain injuries and stroke; and 18 WHEREAS, The world health organization has acknowledged the 19 therapeutic effects of cannabinoids, the primary active compounds found 20 in cannabis, including as an anti-depressant, appetite
  • A Survey of Cannabis Consumption and Implications of an Experimental Policy Manipulation Among Young Adults

    A Survey of Cannabis Consumption and Implications of an Experimental Policy Manipulation Among Young Adults

    Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2018 A SURVEY OF CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND IMPLICATIONS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL POLICY MANIPULATION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS Alyssa K. Rudy Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd © The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/5297 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A SURVEY OF CANNABIS CONSUMPTION AND IMPLICATIONS OF AN EXPERIMENTAL POLICY MANIPULATION AMONG YOUNG ADULTS A thesis proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University. by Alyssa Rudy B.S., University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, 2014 Director: Dr. Caroline Cobb Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia January, 2018 ii Acknowledgement I would like to first acknowledge Dr. Caroline Cobb for your guidance and support on this project. Thank you for allowing me to explore my passions. I am thankful for your willingness to jump into an unfamiliar area of research with me, and thank you for constantly pushing me to be a better writer, researcher, and person. I would also like to acknowledge the other members of my thesis committee, Drs. Eric Benotsch and Andrew Barnes for their support and expertise on this project. I would also like to thank my family for always supporting my desire to pursue my educational and personal goals.
  • Unconstitutional Qualification of the Right to Bear Arms by the Federal Government Against Law-Abiding Medical Marijuana Patients

    Unconstitutional Qualification of the Right to Bear Arms by the Federal Government Against Law-Abiding Medical Marijuana Patients

    A STICKY SITUATION: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST LAW-ABIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS LUKE C. WATERS* INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 116 I. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS ................................................................ 120 A. Comprehensive Medical Marijuana Programs ....................... 121 B. Federal Laws & Policies ........................................................ 129 1. The Ogden Memo ............................................................. 134 2. The Cole Memo ................................................................ 135 3. The Cole Recreational Memo ........................................... 137 4. The Sessions Enforcement Memo .................................... 137 5. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment .................................. 138 II. SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ............................................................ 142 A. An Awkward Landmark Decision ......................................... 143 B. The Post-Heller Two-Step Qualification Analysis ................ 144 1. Individuals Adjudicated as Mentally-Ill ........................... 149 2. Users of Illegal Drugs ....................................................... 151 IV. UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION ................................................... 152 A. Modest Collateral Burdens: Wilson v. Lynch ......................... 153 B. Applying the Two-Step Test to Qualified Patients Appropriately
  • What Do You Like Most About Medical Cannabis?” (N = 2,475) Were Analyzed with QSR Nvivo10

    What Do You Like Most About Medical Cannabis?” (N = 2,475) Were Analyzed with QSR Nvivo10

    Supplementary Table 1. Responses to “What do you like most about medical cannabis?” (N = 2,475) were analyzed with QSR NVivo10. Categories are in bold followed by subcategories. Number of responses is in parentheses and sample responses are listed. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1– health benefits (892) a – pain relief/inflammation/tension (333) “The serious reduction of pain.” “Takes edge off when in pain.” “Makes pain tolerable.” “I can get relief from my pain.” “I like that it subsides my pain.” “Incredible pain relief” b – sleep/insomnia/nightmares (154) “I am able to sleep much better.” “Getting a good night’s sleep.” “It helps me sleep without crazy dreams.” c – anxiety/calm nerves/hypervigilance/panic attacks/fear (70) “It makes me less anxious.” “Help with the day to day anxiety.” “I can curb a panic attack.” d – many ailments/conditions/symptoms/issues/only one substance (63) “It helps so much with my medical issues” “The fact that it covers so many medical problems” “Relieves the current conditions” “It works for almost every ailment I have.” e – vomit/nausea/stomach/gut/constipation/Chrohns (39) “It effectively treats my nausea/vomiting” “Takes away break through intestinal pain, calms my stomach” “My Chrohn’s is in remission” f – eat/appetite/increase metabolism/weight gain (36) “Gaining back my appetite” “Weight gain” “To enjoy eating” g – improve mood/calm emotions/emotional mental symptoms/mood swings/psychoactive effects/mood stable (30) “Improves my mood” “The temporary uplift
  • Religious Use of Marijuana Cases

    Religious Use of Marijuana Cases

    Summaries of Religious Use of Marijuana Cases Alabama regulate was conceivable, only that none had Rheuark v. State (1992) 601 So.2d 135 been proposed. Statutes prohibiting possession of marijuana and controlled substances did not violate freedom of California: religion rights of defendant claiming that he People v. Mullins (1975) 50 Cal. App 3d 61 worshipped plants as gods and used marijuana Facts: A deputy sheriff had gone to defendant's and psilocybin as religious practice. premises at night at the invitation of a man who Court compared Defendant’s argument to a past lived in a teepee on the property and who had told ruling on polygamy and quoting the cases the officer there were marijuana plants growing Reynolds v. United State 98 U.S. 145 and there. The officer took two plants as samples to Cleveland v. United States 329 U.S. 14 which in be tested and, three days later, went back to the sum says that morality is defined by statute and property with a search warrant. Defendant's Congress and not the individual’s perceptions of property is not enclosed or surrounded by a morality. Therefore because the possession of fence. From Ten Mile Creek Road there is a marijuana is unlawful, it doesn’t matter that the driveway that leads onto defendant's property. Defendant used it for religious use. There is no gate at the entrance to the property. At the entrance there is a sign reading “Universal Arizona: Life Church of Christ Light.” Defendant's wife People v. Hardesty (2009) 214 P.3d 1004 testified that on and prior to May 30, 1972, there FACTS: Hardesty was driving his van at night was a “no trespassing” sign at the entrance to the when an officer stopped him because one property; that a church known as “Universal Life headlight was out.
  • Article 11 1 Relating to Adult Use Marijuana 2 Section 1

    Article 11 1 Relating to Adult Use Marijuana 2 Section 1

    1 ARTICLE 11 2 RELATING TO ADULT USE MARIJUANA 3 SECTION 1. Section 2-26-5 of the General Laws in Chapter 2-26 entitled “Hemp Growth 4 Act” is hereby amended as follows: 5 2-26-5. Authority over licensing and sales. 6 (a) The department shall prescribe rules and regulations for the licensing and regulation of 7 hemp growers, handlers, licensed CBD distributors, and licensed CBD retailers and persons 8 employed by the applicant not inconsistent with law, to carry into effect the provision of this chapter 9 and shall be responsible for the enforcement of the licensing. 10 (b) All growers, handlers, licensed CBD distributors, and licensed CBD retailers must have 11 a hemp license issued by the department. All production, distribution, and retail sale of hemp- 12 derived consumable CBD products must be consistent with any applicable state or local food 13 processing and safety regulations, and the applicant shall be responsible to ensure its compliance 14 with the regulations and any applicable food safety licensing requirements, including, but not 15 limited to, those promulgated by the department on health. 16 (c) The application for a hemp license shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 17 (1) (i) The name and address of the applicant who will supervise, manage, or direct the 18 growing and handling of hemp and the names and addresses of any person or entity partnering or 19 providing consulting services regarding the growing or handling of hemp; and 20 (ii) The name and address of the applicant who will supervise, manage, or direct the 21 distribution or sale of hemp-derived consumable CBD products, and names and addresses of any 22 person or entity partnering or providing consulting services regarding the distribution or sale of 23 hemp-derived CBD products.
  • Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy by Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018

    Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy by Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018

    Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy By Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018 For decades, the failed war on drugs has devastated communities across the United States, contributing to unprecedented rates of incarceration. The United States has nearly 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population despite comprising less than 5 percent of the world’s total population.1 This phenomenon gained momentum in the 1970s when President Richard Nixon first declared a war on drugs and policy- makers at all levels of government added harsh criminal penalties for drug offenses, leading to explosive incarceration rates. Since then, the nation’s incarcerated popula- tion has increased sevenfold—from 300,000 people to 2.2 million people today—and 1 out of 5 people incarcerated are serving time for a drug offense.2 People of color have disproportionately felt the damaging and unnecessary consequences of these outdated tough-on-crime policies. Members of these communities have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment as well as lifetimes of poverty and economic insecurity.3 According to the Drug Policy Alliance, drug enforcement in the United States is rooted in racial discrimination, as the first anti-drug laws were established around the turn of the 20th century and targeted Chinese immigrants, black Americans, and Mexican migrants.4 Today, between 40 percent and 50 percent of all drug arrests are for mari- juana.5 Discriminatory enforcement of marijuana laws is one reason that black and Latino Americans make up two-thirds of the U.S. prison population despite only comprising 12 percent and 17 percent of the U.S.
  • The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition the History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform

    The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition the History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options for Reform

    TRANSNATIONAL I N S T I T U T E THE RISE AND DECLINE OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS IN THE UN DruG CONTROL SYSTEM AND OPTIONS FOR REFORM 3 The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition Authors Dave Bewley-Taylor Tom Blickman Martin Jelsma Copy editor David Aronson Design Guido Jelsma www.guidojelsma.nl Photo credits Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, Amsterdam/ Barcelona Floris Leeuwenberg Pien Metaal UNOG Library/League of Nations Archives UN Photo Printing Jubels, Amsterdam Contact Transnational Institute (TNI) De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK Amsterdam Netherlands Tel: +31-(0)20-6626608 Fax: +31-(0)20-6757176 [email protected] www.tni.org/drugs www.undrugcontrol.info www.druglawreform.info Global Drug Policy Observatory (GDPO) Research Institute for Arts and Humanities Rooms 201-202 James Callaghan Building Swansea University Financial contributions Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP Tel: +44-(0)1792-604293 This report has been produced with the financial www.swansea.ac.uk/gdpo assistance of the Hash Marihuana & Hemp Museum, twitter: @gdpo_swan Amsterdam/Barcelona, the Open Society Foundations and the Drug Prevention and Information Programme This is an Open Access publication distributed under (DPIP) of the European Union. the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which of TNI and GDPO and can under no circumstances be permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction regarded as reflecting the position of the donors. in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. TNI would appreciate receiving a copy of the text in which this document is used or cited.
  • Hemp Enterprises in the Czech Republic

    Hemp Enterprises in the Czech Republic

    Masaryk University Faculty of Social Studies Department of Environmental Studies Diploma Work Šárka Roušavá, B.A.A. Towards Environmental Sustainability: Hemp Enterprises in the Czech Republic Study Advisor: Benjamin Vail, Ph.D. Brno 2011 Thanks I would like to express my gratitude to Benjamin Vail, Věra Horáková, Michal Ruman, Jiří Vyhlídal, Nadia Johanisová, Dairel Pérez Santana, Helena Švédová, Vít Šindlář, Kateřina Sedláčková for all their inspiration, feedback and technical help. Thanks also to all the respondents for participating and to Hana Gabrielová for providing hemp paper, which this diploma work has been printed on. Declaration I declare that I worked on this diploma work independently and with the use of the listed literature. Brno, 20 May 2011 Šárka Roušavá, B.A.A. 2 Annotation A partial solution to some of the wide-ranging environmental problems of our time could be provided through the cultivation of hemp, one of the most resilient and diverse plants, and its implementation in the economy. Cannabis sativa is environmentally beneficial in its actual cultivation, contributing to soil health and climate change mitigation. Furthermore, hemp can be made into thousands of useful, non-toxic and easily recyclable or biodegradable products in the food, pharmaceutical, textile, paper, building, energy and other industries thereby offering environmentally-friendly alternatives to polluting materials and processes that are currently being used by petroleum- and synthetics-based economies. In addition to a description of the plant and some of its many uses, aspects of its historical and global context are described. On the premise that hemp use can have a positive impact on environmental sustainability, the main objective is to explore the state of hemp culture in the Czech Republic – to discover who have been some of the players in the Czech hemp industry, to determine what obstacles they face and what factors have made it possible for some of them to flourish.