DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency Wednesday, April 18, 2001 Part II Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency Denial of Petition; Notice VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:06 Apr 17, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\18APN2.SGM pfrm08 PsN: 18APN2 20038 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2001 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Congress may be amended by the Attorney DEA.2 Also attached is a document prepared General in rulemaking proceedings by DEA that specifies other data relevant to Drug Enforcement Administration prescribed by the Administrative Procedure your petition that DEA considered. Act. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The Attorney General C. Basis for Denial of Your Petition: The Notice of Denial of Petition has delegated this authority to the Evidence Demonstrates That Marijuana Does Administrator of DEA. 28 CFR 0.100. Have A High Potential For Abuse By letter dated March 20, 2001, the As you have done, any interested party Your petition rests on your contention that Drug Enforcement Administration may petition the Administrator to initiate marijuana does not have a ‘‘high potential for rulemaking proceedings to reschedule a (DEA) denied a petition to initiate abuse’’ commensurate with schedule I or II rulemaking proceedings to reschedule controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. 811(a); 21 of the CSA. The Assistant Secretary has marijuana. Because DEA believes that CFR 1308.43(a). Before initiating such concluded, based on current scientific and this matter is of particular interest to proceedings, the Administrator must gather medical evidence, that marijuana does have members of the public, the agency is the necessary data and request from the a high potential for abuse commensurate publishing below the letter sent to the Secretary of HHS a scientific and medical with schedule I. The additional data gathered evaluation and recommendation as to by DEA likewise reveals that marijuana has petitioner (denying the petition), along whether the controlled substance should be with the supporting documentation that a high potential for abuse. Indeed, when the rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 HHS evaluation is viewed in combination was attached to the letter. U.S.C. 811(b); 21 CFR 1308.43(d). The with the additional data gathered by DEA, Dated: March 28, 2001. Secretary has delegated this function to the the evidence overwhelmingly leads to the 1 Donnie R. Marshall, Assistant Secretary for Health. conclusion that marijuana has a high The recommendations of the Assistant Administrator. potential for abuse. Secretary are binding on the Administrator Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for U.S. Department of Justice, with respect to scientific and medical DEA to grant your petition to initiate Drug Enforcement Administration, matters. Id. If the Administrator determines rulemaking proceedings to reschedule Washington, D.C. 20537 that the evaluations and recommendations of marijuana. For this reason alone, your the Assistant Secretary and ‘‘all other petition must be denied. March 20, 2001. relevant data’’ constitute substantial evidence D. A Schedule I Drug With a High Potential Jon Gettman: that the drug that is the subject of the petition For Abuse and No Currently Accepted Dear Mr. Gettman: On July 10, 1995, you should be subject to lesser control or Medical Use or Safety for Use Must Remain petitioned the Drug Enforcement removed entirely from the schedules, he shall Classified In Schedule I Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking initiate rulemaking proceedings to proceedings under the rescheduling reschedule the drug or remove it from the DEA’s denial of your petition is based provisions of the Controlled Substances Act schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. exclusively on the scientific and medical (CSA). Specifically, you petitioned DEA to 811(b); 21 CFR 1308.43(e). In making such a findings of HHS, with which DEA concurs, propose rules, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), determination, the Administrator must that lead to the conclusion that marijuana has that would amend the schedules of consider eight factors: a high potential for abuse. Nonetheless, controlled substances with respect to the (1) The drug’s actual or relative potential independent of this scientific and medical following controlled substances: marijuana; for abuse; basis for denying your petition, there is a tetrahydrocannabinols; dronabinol; and (2) Scientific evidence of its logical flaw in your proposal that should be nabilone. Although you grouped these pharmacological effect, if known; noted. substances together in your petition, the (3) The state of current scientific You do not assert in your petition that scheduling analysis differs for each. To avoid knowledge regarding the drug; marijuana has a currently accepted medical confusion, DEA is providing you with a (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse; use in treatment in the United States or that separate response for each of the controlled (5) The scope, duration, and significance of marijuana has an accepted safety for use substances that you proposed be abuse; under medical supervision. Indeed, the HHS rescheduled. This letter responds to your (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public scientific and medical evaluation reaffirms petition to reschedule marijuana. health; expressly that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the Summary (7) The drug’s psychic or physiological dependence liability; and United States and a lack of accepted safety You requested that DEA remove marijuana (8) Whether the drug is an immediate for use under medical supervision. from schedule I based on your assertion that precursor of a substance already controlled Nor do you dispute that marijuana is a drug of abuse. That is, you do not contend ‘‘there is no scientific evidence that [it has] under the CSA. sufficient abuse potential to warrant schedule that marijuana has no potential for abuse I or II status under the [CSA].’’ In accordance 21 USC 811(c). such that it should be removed entirely from with the CSA rescheduling provisions, DEA In this case, you submitted your petition by the CSA schedules. Rather, your contention gathered the necessary data and forwarded letter dated March 10, 1995. After gathering is that marijuana has less than a ‘‘high that information and your petition to the the necessary data, DEA referred the petition potential for abuse’’ commensurate with Department of Health and Human Services to HHS on December 17, 1997, and requested schedules I and II and, therefore, it cannot be (HHS) for a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation classified in either of these two schedules. and scheduling recommendation. HHS and scheduling recommendation. HHS Congress established only one schedule— concluded that marijuana does have a high forwarded its scientific and medical schedule I—for drugs of abuse with ‘‘no potential for abuse and therefore evaluation and scheduling recommendation currently accepted medical use in treatment recommended that marijuana remain in to DEA on January 17, 2001. in the United States’’ and ‘‘lack of accepted schedule I. Based on the HHS evaluation and B. HHS Scientific and Medical Evaluation safety for use * * * under medical all other relevant data, DEA has concluded and Other Relevant Data Considered by DEA supervision.’’ 21 USC 812(b). To be classified that there is no substantial evidence that in schedules II through V, a drug of abuse Attached to this letter is the scientific and marijuana should be removed from schedule medical evaluation and scheduling I. Accordingly, your petition to initiate 2 recommendation that HHS submitted to To avoid confusion, those parts of the HHS rulemaking proceedings to reschedule document that are not relevant to your petition with marijuana is hereby denied. respect to marijuana (i.e., those parts that are 1 As set for in a memorandum of understanding relevant only to the scheduling of Detailed Explanation entered in to by HHS, the Food and Drug tetrahydrocannabinols, dronabinol, or nabilone) A. Statutory Requirements and Procedural Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on have been redacted from the attachment. The HHS History Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency evaluation of these other substances will be within HHS in carrying out the Secretary’s addressed when DEA responds (in separate letters) The CSA provides that the schedules of scheduling responsibilities under the CAS, with the to your petitions with respect to these other controlled substances established by concurrence of NIDA. 50 FR 9518 (1985). substances. VerDate 11<MAY>2000 11:15 Apr 17, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18APN2.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 18APN2 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2001 / Notices 20039 must have a ‘‘currently accepted medical use placement in schedules III through V since it CSA. In December 1997, the DEA in treatment in the United States.’’ 3 Id. This has no currently accepted medical use in Administrator requested that the is why the CSA allows practitioners to treatment in the United States—a Department of Health and Human prescribe only those controlled substances determination that is reaffirmed by HHS in that are listed in schedules II through V. 21 the attached medical and scientific Services (DHHS) develop scientific and USC 829. Drugs listed in schedule I, by evaluation. medical evaluations and contrast, may not be prescribed for patient For the foregoing reasons, your petition to recommendations as to the proper use; they may only be dispensed by reschedule marijuana cannot be granted scheduling of the substances at issue, practitioners who are conducting FDA- under the CSA and is, therefore, denied. pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b). approved research and have obtained a Sincerely, schedule I research registration from DEA. 21 This document responds to the USC 823(f); 21 CFR 5.10(a)(9), 1301.18, Donnie R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: the California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How It Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities
    Just a Little Bit of History Repeating: The California Model of Marijuana Legalization and How it Might Affect Racial and Ethnic Minorities ∗ Thomas J. Moran Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................... 557 I. When Marijuana Was Marihuana, the "Killer Weed" .................. 561 II. The Whitening of Marijuana ........................................................ 566 III. The Present Day Costs of Marijuana Prohibition ......................... 570 A. Generally, Marijuana Prohibition Has Not Worked .............. 570 B. The Cost of Prohibition on Minorities .................................. 573 IV. Is Legislation such as California’s Marijuana Control Act the Answer for Minority Communities? ...................................... 576 A. Productivity Concerns ........................................................... 578 B. What About Potency Regulation? ......................................... 579 C. The Money Drain from Minority Communities .................... 581 D. Federal Collateral Sanctions Would Still Exist with State Legalization .......................................................... 583 E. Will Legalization Predispose Minority Youth for Future Use? ........................................................................... 586 V. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 589 Introduction In January 2010, a California Assembly Committee passed Assembly Bill 390, entitled the Marijuana Control,
    [Show full text]
  • Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana from Schedule I
    UP IN SMOKE (DO NOT DELETE) 4/9/2018 12:38 PM UP IN SMOKE: REMOVING MARIJUANA FROM SCHEDULE I DAVID R. KATNER* I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 167 II. DESCRIPTION OF MARIJUANA AND PUBLIC OPINION .......................... 170 III. HISTORY OF MARIJUANA USES AND LAWS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD ......................................................................................... 174 IV. CREATION OF SCHEDULES OF DRUGS ................................................ 177 V. EVOLUTION OF MEDICINAL APPLICATIONS OF MARIJUANA ............... 178 VI. ADDICTIVE? ........................................................................................ 181 VII. DISSEMINATED PROPAGANDA ABOUT MARIJUANA, AND LEGAL ARBITRARINESS .............................................................................. 184 VIII. RESCHEDULING MARIJUANA TO SCHEDULE II ................................ 190 IX. REMOVING MARIJUANA ALTOGETHER FROM FEDERAL REGULATION .................................................................................. 195 X. CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Billions of dollars are spent each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating Americans convicted of possession of cannabis or marijuana.1 During the 1970’s, annual marijuana arrests ranged between 420,000 and 500,000 people each year.2 By 1995, there were roughly 600,000 marijuana arrests nationwide, with more Americans being imprisoned
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
    Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws by Jon Gettman, Ph.D. The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform www.drugscience.org September 5, 2007 Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws Executive Summary Government reports indicate that the nation's marijuana laws cost taxpayers $41.8 billion annually. This calculation is based on (a) a reconciliation of estimates of the annual supply of marijuana in the United States and estimates of its overall value and (b) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data on the share of the Gross Domestic Product diverted by regulatory taxes to US Government budgets. Government reports from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Library of Congress, and other sources indicate that the supply of marijuana in the United States is 14,349 metric tons, or 31.1 million pounds. Various price indexes from public and private sources produce a retail price of $7.87/gr or $3,570/lb, setting the overall retail value of the illicit marijuana market at $113 billion. The Office of Management and Budget reports that local, state, and the federal government receipts represent 28.7% of the gross domestic product as tax revenue. The diversion of $113 billion from the taxable economy into the illicit economy deprives taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, marijuana arrests consist of 5.54% of all arrests. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that total criminal justice expenditures in the United States in 2004, for example, were $193 billion.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Amount of Tax Revenue Generated by Legalization
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS IS THE GRASS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LAW?: THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA MICHELLE EVERT Spring 2010 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Economics and Spanish with honors in Economics Reviewed and approved* by the following: David Shapiro Professor of Economics and Co-Director of Undergraduate Studies Thesis Supervisor and Honors Adviser Bee Yan Roberts Professor of Economics and Asian Studies Faculty Reader * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. Abstract This thesis will discuss a variety of economic implications that could result from the legalization of marijuana. It will provide background information on marijuana laws and drug policy, including arguments for and against legalization. Next, the thesis will discuss the estimated tax revenue that can be obtained if marijuana were legalized, drawing on reports by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, Dr. Jon Gettman, and Max Chaiken. The following section presents a cost- savings analysis as argued by Dr. Jeffrey Miron. The thesis will then examine other economic issues affected by legalization and determines that there is the possibility for a successful hemp industry in the United States as well as positive economic implications for Mexico. Finally, the thesis concludes with a libertarian perspective on the issue to demonstrate the way a good number of economists view drug policy an alternative view of legalization outside of the mainstream Democratic and Republican perspectives. i. Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. Background Information ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Arguments For and Against Marijuana Legalization .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Popular Culture and the Legal Treatment of Marijuana
    The Chronic 2013: The Evolution of Popular Culture and the Legal Treatment of Marijuana November 12, 2013 Owen M. Panner Inn of Court 1906 - Pure Food and Drugs Act Requires Labeling of Medicine, Including Cannabis Label for Piso's Cure, a cannabis-based medicine, after the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act Source: antiquecannabisbook.com (accessed Dec. 12, 2011) "[O]n 30 June 1906 President Roosevelt signed the Food and Drugs Act, known simply as the Wiley Act... The basis of the law rested on the regulation of product labeling rather than pre-market approval." US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "FDA History - Part I," FDA website (accessed Dec. 28, 2011) "An Act for preventing the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes... That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded... if the package fail to bear a statement on the label of the quantity or proportion of any alcohol, morphine, opium, cocaine, heroin, alpha or beta eucaine, chloroform, cannabis indica, chloral hydrate, or acetanilide, or any derivative or preparation of any such substances contained therein." Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) , National Center for Biotechnology Information website, June 30, 1906 Source: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000026 1911 - Massachusetts Becomes First State to Outlaw Cannabis "Bolstered by Progressive Era faith in big government, the 1910s marked a high tide of prohibitionist sentiment in America. In 1914 and 1916, alcohol prohibition initiatives would make the state ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • Synthetic Cannabis: What Doctors Need to Know
    MOJ Addiction Medicine & Therapy Research Article Open Access Synthetic cannabis: what doctors need to know Abstract Volume 2 Issue 2 - 2016 The use of synthetic cannabinoids (SC) is a serious and ongoing public health problem Panagiota Korenis, Sabina Fink, Ronak Patel, in the United States. It appeals to a younger population as well as people with mental illness. It is inexpensive in comparison to natural marijuana and readily available Raminder Cheema, Houssam Raai, Luisa in the community. Here we explore the psychiatric and medical sequela of SC as Gonzalez well as the ongoing public health concern of this harmful substance and the role for Department of Psychiatry, Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, USA psychiatrists. Correspondence: Panagiota Korenis, Program Director, Residency Training, Department of Psychiatry, Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, USA, Email [email protected] Received: September 25, 2016 | Published: November 02, 2016 Introduction various brain regions impacting mood, appetite, pain and immunity (Table 1). Currently, there are over 700 researched cannabinoid (CB) Synthetic cannabis (SC) use has become a widespread epidemic receptors identified with CB1 and CB2 playing the most significant in various parts of the United States. Illicit use of this devastating role resulting in psychoactive effects. CB1 receptors are mainly drug is manifested in both psychiatric and medical sequelae, resulting located in the hypothalamus, cerebellum and hippocampus. It has in various clinical presentations and posing a major challenge to an impact on mood, appetite, pain and memory. In addition, SC also clinicians regarding the identification of potential symptoms and has some effect on CB2 which can affect the immune system.2 While subsequent treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana) Per 21 CFR §1308.44(B)
    Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana) per 21 CFR §1308.44(b) Filed with the Drug Enforcment Administration by The Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis www.drugscience.org October 9, 2002 PETITION TO RESCHEDULE CANNABIS (MARIJUANA) Exhibit A. Statement of the proposed rule .........................................................................................................3 Exhibit B. Statement of grounds..........................................................................................................................4 Part I – Introduction of argument.........................................................................................................................4 Part II -- Description of new relevant information............................................................................................10 I. Accepted medical use in the United States ...........................................................................................10 State laws.................................................................................................................................................10 Medical professionals ..............................................................................................................................10 Patients' experience and their confirmation by early studies...................................................................10 Reviews of earlier clinical studies ...........................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • The DEA: Four Decades of Impeding and Rejecting Science
    The DEA: Four Decades of Impeding And Rejecting Science Prepared By: Drug Policy Alliance www.drugpolicy.org MAPS www.maps.org Executive Summary Overruling DEA Administrative Law Judges. A DEA Administrative Law Judge is a government The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is official charged with evaluating the evidence on charged with enforcing federal drug laws. Under the rescheduling and other matters before the DEA and Controlled Substances Act of 1970, its powers include making recommendations based on that evidence to the the authority to schedule drugs (alongside other federal DEA Administrator. In three of the five cases – the first agencies) and to license facilities for the production and marijuana rescheduling petition, the decision to classify use of scheduled drugs in federally-approved research. MDMA as Schedule I, and the case of the researcher Those powers are circumscribed by a statute that seeking an independent marijuana supply – agency requires the agency to make its determinations based on administrators overruled their Administrative Law scientific data. Judges' recommendations. In the cases of the scheduling of marijuana and MDMA, the judges determined that The case studies compiled in this report illustrate a that they should be placed in Schedule II instead of decades-long pattern of behavior that demonstrates the Schedule I, where they would be regulated by the Food agency's inability to exercise its responsibilities in a fair and Drug Administration (FDA) as prescription and impartial manner or to act in accord with the medicines, but still retain criminal sanctions for non- scientific evidence – often as determined by its medical uses. Administrative Law Judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Consequences of Decriminalizing Marijuana
    Rethinking the Consequences of Decriminalizing Marijuana By James Austin, Ph.D. The JFA Institute 5 Walter Houp Court, NE Washington, DC 20002 1 The Decriminalization Movement The past three decades have witnessed a stormy and controversial debate about the possible merits to society that might be brought about by decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana. Beginning in 1973 with Oregon, another 11 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio) have in some manner altered their existing laws to reduce the penalties for marijuana possession.i A number of local cities have also modified their local ordinances and criminal justice practices to either decriminalize pot (Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco, California, Breckenridge, Colorado, Amherst, Massachusetts, Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Urbana and Carbondale, Illinois, and Colombia, Missouri). There are three central arguments supportive of the decriminalization movement which have been advanced in these and other jurisdictions. Perhaps the most powerful and appealing argument for marijuana decriminalization (and the decriminalization of other illegal drug laws) is that it would save a huge amount of government money now being spent on the enforcement of such laws. The basic tenets of the cost saving argument can be summarized as follows: 1. The criminal justice system, ranging from police to corrections, now allocates a significant portion of its budgets arresting, prosecuting, sentencing and incarcerating marijuana users, dealers and others involved in the illegal drug infrastructure (e.g., transporters, manufacturers of drug paraphernalia, etc.). 2. If these behaviors would no longer be labeled as criminal, criminal justice agencies would reduce the enforcement and processing tasks now associated with such crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Marijuana Legalization, Racial Disparity, and the Hope for Reform
    LCB_23_3_Article_1_Vitiello (Do Not Delete) 7/27/2019 3:08 PM MARIJUANA SYMPOSIUM MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, RACIAL DISPARITY, AND THE HOPE FOR REFORM by Michael Vitiello * The criminalization of marijuana is rooted in a deeply racist history and has devastated minority communities. Studies show that usage of the drug is con- sistent across racial groups, but arrests of minorities are nevertheless higher than arrests of white offenders. Indeed, those kinds of disparities have per- suaded some voters and policy makers to support legalization of marijuana. California’s initiative, Proposition 64, passed in November 2016 and is now being implemented statewide. Drafters of Proposition 64 were aware of the racial disparity in enforcement of marijuana laws and attempted to offer a remedy. This Article asks whether Proposition 64 can achieve the goal of abat- ing the disproportionate impact of marijuana laws on minority communities. The author is agnostic about whether California will achieve its goal of ad- dressing inequity, certainly not without major changes in current regulations and costs of entry to the business. I. Introduction ......................................................................................... 790 II. From Medicinal Marijuana to Evil Weed .............................................. 791 III. Dog Whistles ........................................................................................ 800 IV. Proposition 64 ...................................................................................... 810 V. Unfulfillable
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Cannabis in the United States
    MEDICAL CANNABIS IN THE UNITED STATES Daniel Francis Scott B.S., San Francisco State University, 2001 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SUMMER 2011 © 2011 Daniel Francis Scott ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii MEDICAL CANNABIS IN THE UNITED STATES A Thesis by Daniel Francis Scott Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Edward (Ted) L. Lascher, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Mary Kirlin, D.P.A. ____________________________ Date iii Student: Daniel Francis Scott I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Department Chair ___________________ Robert W. Wassmer, Ph.D. Date Department of Public Policy and Administration iv Abstract of MEDICAL CANNABIS IN THE UNITED STATES by Daniel Francis Scott In 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) outlawed cannabis in the United States. Since then, advocates have petitioned to have cannabis rescheduled in a less restrictive manner and sixteen states have decriminalized cannabis for approved medical use. This thesis seeks to explain why certain federal organizations have oppositional policy positions on medical cannabis. It questions the common opinion that the conflict over medical cannabis is either a disagreement over scientific facts or a clash between political motivated actors. Instead, it examines motivations of the federal executive organizations tasked with oversight of the CSA in an attempt to understand their policy position on cannabis. More specifically, this thesis focuses on the policy position on medical cannabis of three organizations: The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), The National Institutes of v Health (NIH) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
    [Show full text]
  • Marijuana Production in the United States (2006)
    Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) By Jon Gettman, Ph.D. Published in The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform, December 2006 http://www.drugscience.org/bcr/index.html © 2006 by Jon Gettman Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) Table of Contents Table of Contents pg 1 List of Tables 2 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Estimation Procedures 7 Domestic Marijuana Production 11 Comparison with Other Cash Crops 13 Policy Analysis and Recommendations 15 Appendix 19 Notes 25 About the Author 28 Page 1 Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) List of Tables Table 1. Retail Price Indices Derived from the National Survey on Drug Use pg 9 and Health Table 2. Additional Price Indices Derived from the National Survey on Drug 10 Use and Health Table 3. The Top Ten Outdoor Marijuana Producing States 11 Table 4. The Top Ten Indoor Marijuana Producing States 11 Table 5. The Top Ten Marijuana Producing States 11 Table 6. Marijuana Exporting States, Where Market Share is Greater than 12 Share of Annual Use Table 7. Top Cash Crops in the United States (Average Value 2003 – 2005) 13 Table 8. Thirty States Where Marijuana is One of the Top Three Cash Crops 14 Table 9. Cultivated Marijuana Plants Eradicated (1982 – 2005) 15 Appendix 1. Outdoor Marijuana Production by State 19 Appendix 2. Indoor Marijuana Production by State 21 Appendix 3. Total Marijuana Production by State 23 Page 2 Marijuana Production in the United States (2006) Executive Summary 1) Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States, more valuable than corn and wheat combined.
    [Show full text]