Cannabis Info:
Interesting Marijuana Facts and Statistics
Medical Marijuana
(Washington state)
Drug Tests
FACTS AND STATISTICS
1. In 2000, 46.5 percent of the 1,579,566
total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total
of 734,497. Of those, 646,042 people were arrested for possession
alone. This is an increase over 1999, when a total of 704,812
Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 620,541 were
for possession alone.
Sources: Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 2000
(Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), pp. 215-216,
Tables 29 and 4.1; Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1999
(Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000), pp. 211-212;
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United
States 1998, 1995, 1990, 1980
2. According to the UN's estimate, 141 million
people around the world use marijuana. This represents about 2.5
percent of the world population.
Source: United Nations Office for
Drug Control and Crime Prevention, Global Illicit Drug Trends 1999
(New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999), p. 91.
3. Marijuana was first federally prohibited in
1937. Today, more than 83 million Americans admit to having tried it.
Sources: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937;
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Summary of
Findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 2002), Table
H.1, from the web at http:://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/2k1NHSDA/vol2/appendixh_1.htm,
last accessed Sept. 16, 2002.
4. "Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug.
Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of
up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent
to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times
more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread
illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people
dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics
listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer
examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of
vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of
Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used
recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD,
FRS, "The Science of Marijuana" (London, England: Oxford University
Press, 2000), p. 178, citing House of Lords, Select Committee on
Science and Technology, "Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical
Evidence" (London, England: The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
5. A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999,
examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a
15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in
cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of
cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive
decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to
provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect
of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.
Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos,
Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999).
"Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age,"
American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.
6. "Current marijuana use had a negative effect
on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per
week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had
previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We
conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on
global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana
effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such
as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara
Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former
marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects
on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2,
2002, 166(7), p. 887.
7. "Although the heavy current users experienced
a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the
young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen
IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally.
Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact
of current heavy use become apparent."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara
Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former
marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects
on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2,
2002, 166(7), p. 890.
8. In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine
issued a report on various aspects of marijuana, including the
so-called Gateway Theory (the theory that using marijuana leads people
to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin). The IOM stated, "There
is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are
causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J.
Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral
Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999).
9. The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on
marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for a gateway
drug in the past because "Patterns in progression of drug use from
adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the
most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first
illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of
other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug
users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana, usually before
they are of legal age."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J.
Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral
Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999).
10. A 1999 federal report conducted by the
Institute of Medicine found that, "For most people, the primary
adverse effect of acute marijuana use is diminished psychomotor
performance. It is, therefore, inadvisable to operate any vehicle or
potentially dangerous equipment while under the influence of
marijuana, THC, or any cannabinoid drug with comparable effects."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J.
Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine:
Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral
Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy
Press, 1999).
11. The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis
Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than
many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes
can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically
impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its
natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances
known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be
safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:
Source: US Department of Justice,
Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling
Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
12. Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that
"Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of
individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a
social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it.
This judgment is based on prevalent use patterns, on behavior
exhibited by the vast majority of users and on our interpretations of
existing medical and scientific data. This position also is consistent
with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that the elimination of
use is unattainable."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al,
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. V, (Washington DC:
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
13. When examining the relationship between
marijuana use and violent crime, the National Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing violent or aggressive
behavior through its purported effects of lowering inhibitions,
weakening impulse control and heightening aggressive tendencies,
marihuana was usually found to inhibit the expression of aggressive
impulses by pacifying the user, interfering with muscular
coordination, reducing psychomotor activities and generally producing
states of drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al,
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC:
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972).
14. When examining the medical affects of
marijuana use, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
concluded, "A careful search of the literature and testimony of the
nation's health officials has not revealed a single human fatality in
the United States proven to have resulted solely from ingestion of
marihuana. Experiments with the drug in monkeys demonstrated that the
dose required for overdose death was enormous and for all practical
purposes unachievable by humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked
contrast to other substances in common use, most notably alcohol and
barbiturate sleeping pills. The WHO reached the same conclusion in
1995.
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al,
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III, (Washington DC:
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972); Hall, W.,
Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis
Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28,
1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
15. The World Health Organization released a
study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying
that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare
to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many
people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy,
S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative
Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol,
Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in
original version, but deleted from official version) (Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
16. The authors of a 1998 World Health
Organization report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates
quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is no
evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious
effect on the normal cardiovascular system."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy,
S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative
Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol,
Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
17. Some claim that cannabis use leads to "adult
amotivation." The World Health Organization report addresses the issue
and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis use produces a well defined
amotivational syndrome." The report also notes that the value of
studies which support the "adult amotivation" theory are "limited by
their small sample sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural
groups.
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy,
S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative
Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol,
Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995 (Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organization, March 1998).
18. Australian researchers found that regions
giving on-the-spot fines to marijuana users rather than harsher
criminal penalties did not cause marijuana use to increase.
Source: Ali, Robert, et al., The
Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South
Australia: Summary Report (Canberra, Australia: Department of Health
and Aged Care, 1999), p. 44.
19. Since 1969, government-appointed commissions
in the United States, Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands
concluded, after reviewing the scientific evidence, that marijuana's
dangers had previously been greatly exaggerated, and urged lawmakers
to drastically reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana possession.
Source: Advisory Committee on Drug
Dependence, Cannabis (London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1969); Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry, The
Non-Medical Use of Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1970);
The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A
Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report) (Washington, DC:
USGPO, 1972); Werkgroep Verdovende Middelen, Background and Risks of
Drug Use (The Hague, The Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij, 1972); Senate
Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia-An
Intoxicated Society (Canberra, Australia: Australian Government
Publishing Service, 1977); Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs,
"The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971"
(London, England, UK: Home Office, March 2002), available on the web
from http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/HO_drugsadvice.pdf
; House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Third Report, "The
Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?" (London, England, UK:
Parliament, May 9, 2002), from the web at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
and "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," report of
the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs (Ottawa,
Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002).
20. The Canadian Senate's Special Committee on
Illegal Drugs recommended in its 2002 final report on cannabis policy
that "the Government of Canada amend the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act to create a criminal exemption scheme. This legislation
should stipulate the conditions for obtaining licenses as well as for
producing and selling cannabis; criminal penalties for illegal
trafficking and export; and the preservation of criminal penalties for
all activities falling outside the scope of the exemption scheme."
Source: "Cannabis: Our Position for
a Canadian Public Policy," report of the Canadian Senate Special
Committee on Illegal Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada,
September 2002), p. 46.
21. UK Home Secretary David Blunkett announced
in July 2002 that "We must concentrate our efforts on the drugs that
cause the most harm, while sending a credible message to young people.
I will therefore ask Parliament to reclassify cannabis from Class B to
Class C. I have considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs
Committee, and the advice given me by the ACMD medical experts that
the current classification of cannabis is disproportionate in relation
to the harm that it causes."
Source: "'All Controlled Drugs
Harmful, All Will Remain Illegal' - Home Secretary," News Release,
Office of the Home Secretary, Government of the United Kingdom, July
10, 2002, from the web at http://213.219.10.30/n_story.asp?item_id=143
last accessed July 31, 2002.
22. In May of 1998, the Canadian Centre on
Substance Abuse, National Working Group on Addictions Policy released
policy a discussion document which recommended, "The severity of
punishment for a cannabis possession charge should be reduced.
Specifically, cannabis possession should be converted to a civil
violation under the Contraventions Act." The paper further noted that,
"The available evidence indicates that removal of jail as a sentencing
option would lead to considerable cost savings without leading to
increases in rates of cannabis use."
Source: Single, Eric, Cannabis
Control in Canada: Options Regarding Possession (Ottawa, Canada:
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, May 1998).
23. "Our conclusion is that the present law on
cannabis produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of
the time and resources of the criminal justice system and especially
of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily on young people in the
streets of inner cities, who are also more likely to be from minority
ethnic communities, and as such is inimical to police-community
relations. It criminalizes large numbers of otherwise law-abiding,
mainly young, people to the detriment of their futures. It has become
a proxy for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate
education about the relative risks of different drugs including the
risks of cannabis itself."
Source: Police Foundation of the
United Kingdom, "Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry
into the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971", April 4, 2000. The Police
Foundation, based in London, England, is a nonprofit organization
presided over by Charles, Crown Prince of Wales, which promotes
research, debate and publication to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of policing in the UK.
24. According to the federal Potency Monitoring
Project, the average potency of marijuana has increased very little
since the 1980s. The Project reports that in 1985, the average THC
content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for
high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of
commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of
sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana
averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged
9.03%.
Source: Quarterly Report #76, Nov.
9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8, University of Mississippi Potency
Monitoring Project (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of
Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences,
2002), Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD, Director, NIDA Marijuana Project (NIDA
Contract #N01DA-0-7707).
MEDICAL
MARIJUANA INFO:
| |
|
Q. |
What does Washington's medical marijuana law do? |
|
A. |
Washington’s medical marijuana law (Chapter
69.51A RCW) was enacted by voters in 1998 as an initiative.
It allows doctors to legally
recommend medical marijuana to patients for some medical
conditions. Under state law, patients may possess a 60-day
supply of medical marijuana if it is based on a doctor’s written
recommendation. However, a 60-day supply has not yet been
defined in law or rule.
|
|
Q. |
Why is the law being changed? |
|
A. |
Lawmakers made changes to medical marijuana laws through
Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6032.
Their goal was to make clearer
that patients should not be prevented from lawfully using
medical marijuana and that doctors should use their best
judgment in recommending it to their patients. The bill also
described how designated providers can aid patients and gave
better direction to law enforcement about medical marijuana use.
|
|
Q. |
What are the key changes to Washington's medical marijuana
law? |
|
A. |
Lawmakers made the following major
changes: |
|
|
- “Primary caregivers” were renamed “designated providers”
and were defined as people:
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
The Medical
Quality Assurance Commission (MQAC) added several conditions
that lawmakers rolled into the law, including Crohn’s disease,
Hepatitis C, and diseases that include nausea and vomiting,
like anorexia, when standard care is not effective.
-
MQAC will now
consult with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine and Surgery to
decide if new conditions should be approved for the use of
medical marijuana.
-
The language in
the written documentation that physicians issue to patients
was changed to state that the patient “may benefit from the
medical use of marijuana.”
-
If a local or
state law enforcement officer stops a person who lawfully
possesses medical marijuana, the officer can document the
amount and take a sample for testing, but he or she cannot
seize the marijuana. In this situation, the officer cannot be
held civilly liable for not seizing the marijuana.
|
|
Q. |
Specifically, what did lawmakers ask the Department of Health
to do? |
|
A. |
The Department received two assignments from lawmakers: |
|
|
-
Write rules to
better define what is a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
-
Report to the legislature by July 1, 2008
on different ways patients could gain access to adequate and
safe sources of medical marijuana.
The report is to be based on research, expert advice and
public input, and the best practices of other states.
|
|
Q. |
How will the 60-day supply rules be made? |
|
A. |
Rules are written requirements called Washington Administrative
Codes (WACs). To adopt a rule an agency must have legislative
authority and must follow the state law called the
Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter
34.05 RCW). There are three steps in the process: |
|
|
-
The first is
the Preproposal Statement of Inquiry (or
CR-101). This is the notice that an agency intends to make
a rule. There is no draft language at this point. After
paperwork is filed with the Code Reviser’s Office, one or more
stakeholder meetings are held to gather stakeholder input.
-
The second is
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (or CR-102). This is when
official DRAFT language is filed with the Code Reviser’s
Office. Formal rule hearings are conducted on the proposed
rules.
-
The third is
the Rulemaking Order (or CR-103), where a rule is adopted.
Rule language is finalized and filed with the Code Reviser’s
Office.
|
|
Q. |
Who are the interested parties on the rules and study?
|
|
A. |
The Department wants to receive input from everyone who is
interested in the study and the rules. This includes patients
using medical marijuana, advocacy groups, doctors who recommend
medical marijuana, law enforcement agencies, and other state
agencies.
|
|
Q. |
When are the rules and the study to be completed? |
|
A. |
Lawmakers designated that both must be completed by July 1,
2008.
|
|
Q. |
How can we access the study, once it is completed? |
|
A. |
Once the final report has been sent to the legislature, we will
post it on our website. We will send an e-mail to the interested
parties list with directions on how they can view the study.
|
|
Q. |
Isn't the use of medical marijuana still illegal at the
federal level? |
|
A. |
Yes. While the recent law changes add protections for patients
and clarification for providers and state & local law
enforcement, it does not change the fact that the federal
government still considers marijuana an illegal drug for any
purpose. This creates challenges for all of us – patients,
doctors, law enforcement, and state agencies.
|
| |
| |
|