Why I Advocate 100% Marijuana Legalization

Let there be NO MISTAKE: Based upon a preponderance of scientific evidence, logic, reason, and numerous substantiating rationales, I openly advocate for, and am a proponent of the 100% full and total legalization of marijuana (aka cannabis) for adult recreational, and medical use.

And as a triple-degree, BSN-prepared Registered Nurse, Nationally Certified EMT, State Certified Volunteer Firefighter, and First Responder, I am a long-time Licensed Healthcare Professional, and presently possess, and have possessed unblemished active licenses to practice in numerous states, and internationally.

While I have “worn other hats” in Nursing, the bulk of my professional healthcare career has been in Critical Care. Working in Critical Care is the type of stressful job in which one keeps the Grim Reaper at bay by the hour. And I have been fortunate to have worked at some of the nation’s, and world’s premiere, and leading healthcare research institutions. It is research that drives much of such care, to ensure the best possible outcomes for the individuals for whom we care. Thus, keeping abreast of current research findings on many topics within, and without Critical Care, healthcare, and public policy related to healthcare in general, is a special interest and forté of mine.

As well, I am also a United States Army Veteran, and volunteered for service in our Armed Services, to, and for our nation some years ago, and as part of that commitment, swore an oath which in part was to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Later, as a civilian, I did so again, adding that “that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.”

So now that you know a wee bit more about me, let’s get to the matter at hand, which is that governmental entity should legalize, tax, and regulate cannabis.

Note to the Reader: What you’re about to read will contain scientifically validated research findings, facts, figures, statistics, from reputably reliable resources, reason, logic, and to a much lesser degree, some opinion. It is my hope that the items cited herein will spark your thinking, and hopefully, with a preponderance of the data presented herein, encourage a change in thinking which opposes the legalization, taxation, and regulation of cannabis (aka marijuana). Rationally, if one takes a position or stance upon some matter, or issue, they should be fully informed with as many of the facts – pro, and con – for the position they take.

As an objective professional, I am not, and cannot be oblivious to the risks marijuana legalization and use poses, but when compared with other legal substances such as beverage alcohol, or tobacco, there is a withering lack of evidence to support continued cannabis prohibition, whereas with beverage alcohol, and tobacco, there is overwhelmingly abundant longitudinal, global evidence which strongly suggests beverage alcohol and tobacco should be even more strictly regulated, and limited… if not prohibited outright.

However, as agents of free will, we also live in a free society in which we are able to, and willingly accept risks, even given full knowledge of likely adverse outcomes. There will always be risks with freedom, and as responsible members of society we not only establish the rules, regulations and guidelines by which we will govern ourselves, but we also establish penalties for disobedience – willful, or not – to the same.

More to the point, specifically, based upon the numerous volumes of objective, scientific research, and other valid findings, it is my considered professional opinion that our United States government should change marijuana from it’s current listing as a Schedule I drug/substance (“with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse”), to something significantly lower, such as Schedule V, or completely un-schedule it altogether

Many states are already legalizing, taxing, and regulating cannabis under the States’ Rights doctrine ensconced in the Tenth Amendment of United States Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

NOTE: To date, as of the publishing of this entry, 30 states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form, while 9 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the most expansive laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use (AK, CA, CO, MA, ME, NV, OR, VT, WA), several have broadly legalized it for medicinal use (AR, CT, DE, FL, IL, LA, MD, MI, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, VT, WV) and a number of states have decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Notably, Vermont’s legislature legalized marijuana, and the governor quickly signed the bill into law January 22, 2018 and is the only state which legislature has done so.

Following are some reasons why I am convinced marijuana should be declassified as a Federal Schedule I substance.

• Health – Individual, and Public

The most recent, and to date, most comprehensive research data on marijuana continues to be the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine research findings published in 2017, which is entitled, “The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research.” The summary of their findings and conclusions was published on this blog February 6, 2018 in an entry entitled “National Academies #Marijuana Findings @theNASEM.”

It should be borne in mind also, that while largely innocuous, as with anything, marijuana can be abused. Even excess consumption of water can be lethal. Abuse is a symptom of human behavior, not of one inherent in, compelling, or causative in the substance consumed.

The NASEM report is systematically categorized in hierarchical order, and made four recommendations, and stated in part that, “This is a pivotal time in the world of cannabis policy and research. Shifting public sentiment, conflicting and impeded scientific research, and legislative battles have fueled the debate about what, if any, harms or benefits can be attributed to the use of cannabis or its derivatives. The committee has put forth a substantial number of research conclusions on the health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids. Based on their research conclusions, the committee members formulated four recommendations to address research gaps, improve research quality, improve surveillance capacity, and address research barriers.”

The NASEM recommendations are to:
Address Research Gaps
Recommendation 1: To develop a comprehensive evidence base on the short- and long-term health effects of cannabis use (both bene cial and harmful effects), public agencies,4 philanthropic and professional organizations, private companies, and clinical and public health research groups should provide funding and support for a national cannabis research agenda that addresses key gaps in the evidence base.

Improve Research Quality
Recommendation 2: To promote the development of conclusive evidence on the short- and long-term health effects of cannabis use (both beneficial and harmful effects), agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, should jointly fund a workshop to develop a set of research standards and benchmarks to guide and ensure the production of high-quality cannabis research.

Improve Surveillance Capacity
Recommendation 3: To ensure that sufficient data are available to inform research on the short- and long-term health effects of cannabis use (both bene cial and harmful effects), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of County and City Health Officials, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and state and local public health departments should fund and support improvements to federal public health surveillance systems and state-based public health surveillance efforts.

Address Research Barriers
Recommendation 4: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, industry groups, and nongovernmental organizations should fund the convening of a committee of experts tasked to produce an objective and evidence-based report that fully characterizes the impacts of regulatory barriers to cannabis research and that proposes strategies for supporting development of the resources and infrastructure necessary to conduct a comprehensive cannabis research agenda.

Regarding their findings, the NASEM established categories of Health Topics and Prioritized Health Endpoints as follows:
Therapeutic effects
• Chronic pain; cancer, chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting; anorexia and weight loss; irritable bowel syndrome; epilepsy; spasticity related to multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury; Tourette syndrome; amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; Huntington’s disease; Parkinson’s disease; dystonia; dementia; glaucoma; traumatic brain injury; addiction; anxiety; depression; sleep disorders; post-traumatic stress disorder; schizophrenia and other psychoses

Cancer
• Lung cancer; head and neck cancer; testicular cancer; esophageal cancer; other cancer

Cardiometabolic risk
• Acute myocardial infarction; stroke; metabolic dysregulation, metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, and diabetes mellitus

Respiratory disease
• Pulmonary function; chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder; respiratory symptoms (including chronic bronchitis); asthma

Immunity
• Immune function; infectious disease

Injury and death
• All-cause mortality; occupational injury; motor vehicle crash; overdose injury and death

Prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal exposure to cannabis
• Pregnancy complications for the mother; fetal growth and development; neonatal conditions; later outcomes for the infant

Psychosocial
• Cognition (learning, memory, attention, intelligence); academic achievement and educational outcomes; employment and income; social relationships and other social roles

Mental health
• Schizophrenia and other psychoses; bipolar disorders, depression; suicide; anxiety; post-traumatic stress disorder

Problem cannabis use
• Cannabis use disorder

Cannabis use and abuse of other substances
• Abuse of other substances

The NASEM report also established five Weight-of-Evidence Categories and placed them in hierarchical order, from high, to low, as follows:
CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE
For therapeutic effects: There is strong evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the conclusion that cannabis or cannabinoids are an effective or ineffective treatment for the health endpoint of interest.

For other health effects: There is strong evidence from randomized controlled trials to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and the health endpoint of interest.

For this level of evidence, there are many supportive findings from good-quality studies with no credible opposing findings. A firm conclusion can be made, and the limitations to the evidence, including chance, bias, and confounding factors, can be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
For therapeutic effects: There is strong evidence to support the conclusion that cannabis or cannabinoids are an effective or ineffective treatment for the health endpoint of interest.

For other health effects: There is strong evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and the health endpoint of interest.

For this level of evidence, there are several supportive findings from good- quality studies with very few or no credible opposing findings. A firm conclusion can be made, but minor limitations, including chance, bias, and confounding factors, cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

MODERATE EVIDENCE
For therapeutic effects: There is some evidence to support the conclusion that cannabis or cannabinoids are an effective or ineffective treatment for the health endpoint of interest.

For other health effects: There is some evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and the health endpoint of interest.

For this level of evidence, there are several supportive findings from good- to fair-quality studies with very few or no credible opposing findings. A general conclusion can be made, but limitations, including chance, bias, and confounding factors, cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

LIMITED EVIDENCE
For therapeutic effects: There is weak evidence to support the conclusion that cannabis or cannabinoids are an effective or ineffective treatment for the health endpoint of interest.

For other health effects: There is weak evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and the health endpoint of interest.

For this level of evidence, there are supportive findings from fair-quality studies or mixed findings with most favoring one conclusion. A conclusion can be made, but there is significant uncertainty due to chance, bias, and confounding factors.

NO OR INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ASSOCIATION
For therapeutic effects: There is no or insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that cannabis or cannabinoids are an effective or ineffective treatment for the health endpoint of interest.

For other health effects: There is no or insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis or cannabinoid use and the health endpoint of interest.

For this level of evidence, there are mixed findings, a single poor study, or health endpoint has not been studied at all. No conclusion can be made because of substantial uncertainty due to chance, bias, and confounding factors.

The following conclusions in the above-referenced Health Topics and Prioritized Health Endpoints are as follows:

Conclusions—Therapeutic Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids
There is conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective:
• For the treatment of chronic pain in adults (cannabis) (4-1)
• As antiemetics in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced
nausea and vomiting (oral cannabinoids) (4-3)
• For improving patient-reported multiple sclerosis spasticity 
symptoms (oral cannabinoids) (4-7a)

There is moderate evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
• Improving short-term sleep outcomes in individuals with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis (cannabinoids, primarily nabiximols) (4-19)

There is moderate evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective for:
• Improving short-term sleep outcomes in individuals with sleep disturbance associated with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis (cannabinoids, primarily nabiximols) (4-19)

Conclusions—Cancer
There is moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Incidence of lung cancer (cannabis smoking) (5-1)
• Incidence of head and neck cancers (5-2)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:
• Non-seminoma-type testicular germ cell tumors (current, frequent, or chronic cannabis smoking) (5-3)

There is no or insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Incidence of esophageal cancer (cannabis smoking) (5-4)
• Incidence of prostate cancer, cervical cancer, malignant gliomas, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, penile cancer, anal cancer, Kaposi’s sarcoma, or bladder cancer (5-5)
• Subsequent risk of developing acute myeloid leukemia/ acute non-lymphoblastic leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, rhabdomyosarcoma, astrocytoma, or neuroblastoma in offspring (parental cannabis use) (5-6)

Conclusions—Cardiometabolic Risk
There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The triggering of acute myocardial infarction (cannabis smoking) (6-1a)
• Ischemic stroke or subarachnoid hemorrhage (6-2)
• Decreased risk of metabolic syndrome and diabetes (6-3a)
• Increased risk of prediabetes (6-3b)

There is no evidence to support or refute a statistical association between chronic effects of cannabis use and:
• The increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (6-1b)

Conclusions—Respiratory Disease
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:
• Worse respiratory symptoms and more frequent chronic bronchitis episodes (long-term cannabis smoking) (7-3a)

There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:
• Improved airway dynamics with acute use, but not with chronic use (7-1a)
• Higher forced vital capacity (FVC) (7-1b)

There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between the cessation of cannabis smoking and:
• Improvements in respiratory symptoms (7-3b)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:
• An increased risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when controlled for tobacco use (occasional cannabis smoking) (7-2a)

There is no or insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis smoking and:
• Hospital admissions for COPD (7-2b)
• Asthma development or asthma exacerbation (7-4)

NOTE: The reader should understand that SMOKING cannabis and INGESTING it through edibles are 100% DIFFERENT, though they are both cannabis use.

Conclusions—Immunity
There is no or insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Other adverse immune cell responses in healthy individuals (cannabis smoking) (8-1b)
• Adverse effects on immune status in individuals with HIV (cannabis or dronabinol use) (8-2)
• Increased incidence of oral human papilloma virus (HPV) (regular cannabis use) (8-4)

Conclusions—Injury and Death
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Increased risk of motor vehicle crashes (9-3)

There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Increased risk of overdose injuries, including respiratory distress, among pediatric populations in U.S. states where cannabis is legal (9-4b)

There is no or insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• All-cause mortality (self-reported cannabis use) (9-1)
• Occupational accidents or injuries (general, nonmedical cannabis use) (9-2)
• Death due to cannabis overdose (9-4a)

Conclusions—Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Exposure
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and:
• Lower birth weight of the offspring (10-2)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between
maternal cannabis smoking and:
• Pregnancy complications for the mother (10-1)
• Admission of the infant to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (10-3)

NOTE: Pregnant women should NOT be smoking anything, nor consuming beverage alcohol.

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute a statistical association between maternal cannabis smoking and:
• Later outcomes in the offspring (e.g., sudden infant death syndrome, cognition/academic achievement, and later sub- stance use) (10-4)

Conclusions—Psychosocial
There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The impairment in the cognitive domains of learning, memory, and attention (acute cannabis use) (11-1a)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Impaired academic achievement and education outcomes (11-2)
• Increased rates of unemployment and/or low income (11-3)
• Impaired social functioning or engagement in developmentally appropriate social roles (11-4)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between sustained abstinence from cannabis use and:
• Impairments in the cognitive domains of learning, memory, and attention (11-1b)

Conclusions—Mental Health
There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, with the highest risk among the most frequent users (12-1)

There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Better cognitive performance among individuals with psychotic disorders and a history of cannabis use (12-2a)
• Increased symptoms of mania and hypomania in individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorders (regular cannabis use) (12-4)
• A small increased risk for the development of depressive disorders (12-5)
• Increased incidence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts with a higher incidence among heavier users (12-7a)
• Increased incidence of suicide completion (12-7b)
• Increased incidence of social anxiety disorder (regular cannabis use) (12-8b)

There is moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Worsening of negative symptoms of schizophrenia (e.g., blunted affect) among individuals with psychotic disorders (12-2c)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• An increase in positive symptoms of schizophrenia (e.g., hallucinations) among individuals with psychotic disorders (12-2b)
• The likelihood of developing bipolar disorder, particularly among regular or daily users (12-3)
• The development of any type of anxiety disorder, except social anxiety disorder (12-8a)
• Increased symptoms of anxiety (near daily cannabis use) (12-9)
• Increased severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (12-11)

There is no evidence to support or refute a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• Changes in the course or symptoms of depressive disorders (12-6)
• The development of post-traumatic stress disorder (12-10)

Conclusions—Problem Cannabis Use
There is substantial evidence that:
• Stimulant treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during adolescence is not a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2e)
• Being male and smoking cigarettes are risk factors for the progression of cannabis use to problem cannabis use (13-2i)
• Initiating cannabis use at an earlier age is a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2j)

There is substantial evidence of a statistical association between:
• Increases in cannabis use frequency and the progression to developing problem cannabis use (13-1)
• Being male and the severity of problem cannabis use, but the recurrence of problem cannabis use does not differ between males and females (13-3b)

There is moderate evidence that:
• Anxiety, personality disorders, and bipolar disorders are not risk factors for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2b)
• Major depressive disorder is a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2c)
• Adolescent ADHD is not a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2d)
• Being male is a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2f)
• Exposure to the combined use of abused drugs is a risk factor for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2g)
• Neither alcohol nor nicotine dependence alone are risk factors for the progression from cannabis use to problem cannabis use (13-2h)
• During adolescence the frequency of cannabis use, oppositional behaviors, a younger age of first alcohol use, nicotine use, parental substance use, poor school performance, anti- social behaviors, and childhood sexual abuse are risk factors for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2k)

There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between:
• A persistence of problem cannabis use and a history of psychiatric treatment (13-3a)
• Problem cannabis use and increased severity of posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (13-3c)

There is limited evidence that:
• Childhood anxiety and childhood depression are risk factors for the development of problem cannabis use (13-2a)

Conclusions—Cannabis Use and the Abuse of Other Substances
There is moderate evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The development of substance dependence and/or a substance abuse disorder for substances, including alcohol, tobacco, and other illicit drugs (14-3)

There is limited evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and:
• The initiation of tobacco use (14-1)
• Changes in the rates and use patterns of other licit and illicit substances (14-2)

Conclusions—Challenges and Barriers in Conducting Cannabis Research
There are several challenges and barriers in conducting cannabis and cannabinoid research, including:
• There are specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, that impede the advancement of cannabis and cannabinoid research (15-1)
• It is often difficult for researchers to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions on the health effects of cannabis use (15-2)
• A diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research that explores the beneficial and harmful health effects of cannabis use (15-3)
• To develop conclusive evidence for the effects of cannabis use on short- and long-term health outcomes, improvements and standardization in research methodology (including those used in controlled trials and observational studies) are needed (15-4)

• Costs – Fiscal, and Social

Regarding social implications and fiscal costs associated with the same, consider arrest statistics associated with marijuana. The corollary to costs of arrest and law enforcement, of course, are costs associated with prosecution and court trial, incarceration and penalty, including probation and parole.

And then, following conviction, there’s the loss of men and women from their families, jobs, and other social and civic commitments and obligations, including loss of entrepreneurial opportunities, and taxes.

And if that weren’t enough, we know also that it’s not uncommon for Blacks to be arrested for marijuana offenses at least TWICE the rate of Whites… even though research has continuously demonstrated that Blacks -and- Whites consume marijuana at the same rate.

For example, in 2016, according to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA), 641 White Males (Adult/Juvenile) were arrested for Marijuana Possession, but 1320 Black Males (Adult/Juvenile) were arrested for Marijuana Possession. That’s not uncommon, and in some states, the disparity is even higher, with Blacks having over 8 times more arrests than Whites for the same offense.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) examined data, and published research based upon their findings in a June 2013 report entitled “The War on Marijuana in Black and White.” The data which they compiled and examined, was the “first to examine marijuana possession arrest rates by race for all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) and their respective counties from 2001 to 2010.

“The report relied on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the United States Census’ annual county population estimates to document arrest rates by race per 100,000 for marijuana possession.”

Their findings were, and remain enlightening, if not shocking.

Among other items, they learned that “between 2001 and 2010, there were over 8 million marijuana arrests in the United States, 88% of which were for possession.

“Marijuana arrests have increased between 2001 and 2010 and now account for over half (52%) of all drug arrests in the United States, and marijuana possession arrests account for nearly half (46%) of all drug arrests.”

They found also that states’ enforcement of anti-marijuana laws (cannabis prohibition) is costly, and stated that “in 2010, there was one marijuana arrest every 37 seconds, and states spent combined over $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws.”

In Pennsylvania, between 2010 and 2016, there were nearly 178,000 marijuana-related arrests, nearly 80% of which were for possession, while in 2016 alone, marijuana possession accounted for about 48% of Pennsylvania’s overall adult drug possession arrests.

Alabama’s illegal drug arrest records also bear out, and validate that same finding.

ALEA stated that from 1998-2016, there were 261,956 illegal Drug Arrests in Alabama, of which Marijuana accounted for 146,350, or 55.18% – Adult/Juvenile, Sale/Possession.

Marijuana Prohibition Is Costly

In Pennsylvania, more than $225.3 million was spent statewide on marijuana arrests between 2010 and 2016. Marijuana enforcement drains state resources by requiring hours of work for each arrest by numerous agencies and branches of government. It starts with the investigative work for each stop, extends to the booking process for each defendant, and can include the costs of incarceration for pretrial detainees. The expenses don’t stop there. Judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court staff, and others take part in the process, along with any expert witnesses or officers that might need to testify. When a charge leads to a conviction, the costs are compounded by more jail time, or the staffing costs of a probation officer. And that is all for just one arrest.

Taking all of that into account, the RAND Corporation estimated in its 2015 report, “Considering Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions,” that the marginal cost of one criminal marijuana offense was $1,266. According to Pennsylvania’s Unified Crime Reporting System, law enforcement performed 177,975 total marijuana arrests — including juveniles and adults, and including both possession and manufacturing arrests, in all 67 counties — between 2010 and 2016. All totaled, Pennsylvanians have spent over $225.3 million in tax dollars on marijuana-related offenses over the last six years.

Washington State Marijuana Costs 2000-2010

The Washington state American Civil Liberties Union analyzed the cost of cannabis prohibition to that state’s taxpayers from 2000-2010, and using data from official sources including the Administrative Office of the Courts, Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, Washington State Department of Commerce’s Local Government Fiscal Note Program, Washington State Institute for Public Policy, found that enforcement of cannabis prohibition for that period cost taxpayers $211,451,996.

Breakdown of the costs were:
Arrest Costs – $73,735,663
Court Costs – $23,838,912
Prosecution Costs – $45,608,474
Defense Costs – $47,263,954
Jail Costs – $8,858,322
Supervision Costs – $12,146,671

Arrest, Prosecution, and Defense Costs comprise the three most costly categories, and comprise 78.79% of all costs associated with enforcing marijuana prohibition laws. When Court Costs are added, fully 90% of all costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition laws in that state fully accounted for 90% of all expenses associated with marijuana arrests.

• Opportunities – Entrepreneurship, Jobs, State and Local Tax Revenues

When reading research or other items pertinent to any matter, or issue, it’s critically important to understand where a reporting entity or agency stands upon the particular upon which they’re reporting, and why. Is there a “hidden agenda,” or historical track record of opposition to, or advocacy for issues not based upon objective, scientific findings? Or, are positions changed once risks are reevaluated?

And then, there’s the entrepreneurial and tax revenue benefit statuses accompanying cannabis legalization.

Colorado may be the most well-known or most-cited example of the fiscal benefits associated with the legalization, taxation, and regulation of marijuana. According to the Colorado Department of Revenue, that state had the following total taxes, licensing and fees from the initiation of legal adult recreational marijuana sale:
Calendar Year–Total Revenue
2014 – $67,594,323
2015 – $130,411,173
2016 – $193,604,810
2017 – $247,368,473
2018 (Jan) $21,681,438

Since inception of legal adult recreational marijuana sales in February 2014, to date, the Colorado Department of Revenue has reported the state has realized $660,660,217 in taxes, licensing and fees from cannabis legalization.

But Tax Revenues are not the only part of economic opportunity. According to a report entitled The Economic Impact of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado, research by the Marijuana Policy Group, (MPG), a consortium of academics and consultants from Colorado, published findings in October 2016, in Colorado, that legal marijuana activities generated $2.39 Billion in state output, and created 18,005 new Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in 2015. And every dollar spent on marijuana in Colorado generates $6.87 of economic value – 3x more than Federal Spending.

State-level control of cannabis creates a highly-localized industry. Almost all spending on marijuana flows to workers and businesses within the state. As a result, the marijuana industry generates more local output and employment per dollar spent than almost any other Colorado sector.

Alaska places a tax of $50 an ounce of marijuana bud and flower. The remainder of the plant is taxed at $15 an ounce. In 2014, Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the act to tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana, was passed on November 4, 2014. Pursuant to the ballot measure, Alaska levies a tax on the marijuana sold in Alaska. And in 2016, the Alaska state Legislature passed Senate Bill 91, a comprehensive criminal reform bill, which included a provision that diverted half of the state’s marijuana excise taxes to programs aimed at reducing repeat criminal offenders, under a newly created Recidivism Reduction Fund.

The Oregon Department of Revenue Research in a December 20, 2017 report stated that in Fiscal (July-June) Year 2016, $20,652,983 in state tax revenue was received, while in Fiscal Year 2017, $70,263,897 was received. Local Tax Revenue on Marijuana sales in Oregon began to be collected concurrently with State Sales Tax, and from inception February 2017, was $682,601 and rose consistently to November 2017 with $1,065,975. Oregon Marijuana State Tax Receipts have risen consistently from over $2,000,000 in February 2016, to over  $7,000,000 October 2017.

Washington state found that:
• Total sales generated in the recreational marijuana market from June 2014 to July 2015 totaled $307,560,066

• Total state excise taxes generated in the recreational marijuana market from June 2014 to July 2015 totaled $76,621,302

• Total taxable retail sales reported by the medical marijuana market for FY 2015 totaled $109,239,149

• Total state retail sales, business and occupation, and local retail sales taxes due from the medical marijuana market for FY 2015 totaled $11,031,511

• By July 2015: 1,164 licenses issued – 533 producer, 460 processor, 171 retailer licenses representing 735 individual businesses

• 59,394 pounds (950,304 ounces) were produced during one year of recreational commercialization

• 68% of the marijuana-infused products in the state fall within the baked goods or desserts category

• The average potency of marijuana flower for one Seattle based retailer during the month of July 2015 was 21.24% – for marijuana concentrates the average potency was 72.76%

Thirteen years after the legalization of medical marijuana in Washington State, the examination process between the healthcare provider and the patient was formalized. Senate Bill 5073 stated that an examination of the patient was needed to verify the medical condition before the authorization for marijuana use was to be issued. Also, the bill stated that “collective gardens” were now an option for patients. These gardens were allowed a maximum of forty-five plants and seventy-two ounces of useable marijuana. Up to ten patients or providers were allowed to be members of the garden at any given time.

The legalization of recreational marijuana was passed by the voters in November of 2012. Initiative 502 (I-502) passed with 55.7% of Washington State voters approving legalization. Out of the thirty-nine counties, twenty voted for the initiative and nineteen voted against.

Individuals twenty-one years of age and older were now able to consume, possess, and buy marijuana legally. The initiative also marked the start of a new commercial industry.

Residents had the ability to become licensed business owners in the recreational market. These licenses allow an applicant to be a producer, processor, or retailer of marijuana.

House Bill 2304 added additional parameters to the original legalization language, addressing concentrated products, possession amounts, and licenses.
The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (formerly the Washington State Liquor Control Board) is the legal authority over the recreational marijuana market for Washington State.

The Board has the power to adopt or amend rules as they see fit for the businesses, set regulations on products for consumers, and organize all recreational licenses within the state. Responsibilities also include establishing rules for all production, testing requirements, packaging and labeling, and marijuana products.

With the legalization of marijuana in the state of Washington, a possession limit for those twenty-one years of age and older was set:

• 1 ounce (28.3 grams) of useable marijuana
• 7 grams of marijuana concentrate
• 16 ounces of marijuana-infused product (edibles)
• 72 ounces of marijuana-infused product (liquid)

Under the Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) 314-55-0951, serving sizes and transaction limits are defined. A single transaction is not allowed to go over the set possession limits.

A single serving size for a marijuana-infused product (solid or liquid) cannot exceed ten milligrams of active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or Delta 9 – the compound in marijuana that creates the psychoactive effects. The maximum number of servings in an infused product is ten servings or 100 milligrams of active THC or Delta 9.

Applications to become a licensed business in the recreational marijuana market were accepted during a thirty day period in December of 2013. All applications were sent to the WSLCB which began issuing licenses at the beginning of 20143. The WSLCB established three license categories for which applicants could apply:

• Producer
• Responsibilities: harvesting marijuana and selling marijuana, marijuana
plants, seeds, and plant tissue cultures to licensed processors in the state at a
wholesale price;

• Processor
• Responsibilities: processing, packaging and labeling useable marijuana and marijuana-infused products (liquid and solids) to sell to licensed retailers in the state at a wholesale price;
• Restrictions: no infused products that require refrigeration, freezing or hot holding environments;

• Retailer
• Responsibilities: selling useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and
marijuana paraphernalia to persons twenty-one years of age or older;
• Restrictions: no selling of butane, extraction tubes, and/or blenders for home
extractions; no allowing anyone under the age of twenty-one to be on the licensed premise; no open consumption or open containers on the licensed premise.

—//—

NOTE: This is the first of a series of entries on the subject of legalizing cannabis for adult recreational and medicinal use.