tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33569607737614412742024-03-05T15:19:58.450-08:00MARIJUANA BLOGS & RESEARCHI Have started this blog to give people another resource on finding good information about Marijuana. I will be posting some of my own thoughts, some articles that I have read and enjoyed, And please feel free to leave your own thoughts and opinion.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-39935812233172535732010-03-20T21:21:00.000-07:002010-03-20T21:23:06.166-07:00Totally Baked! Pot-umantaryTotally Baked is the hilarious, totally offbeat, cannabis comedy in the tradition of Half-Baked, guaranteed to give you the munchies. Totally Baked spoofs the legalization of Marijuana with an uproariously funny tone guaranteed to please audiences.<br />
<br />
<object height="250" width="250"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/71-DUjiVOmfxuGHebECN_A"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/71-DUjiVOmfxuGHebECN_A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="250" height="250"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-44032940691084685512009-11-11T16:28:00.000-08:002009-11-11T16:28:45.358-08:00Should smoking marijuana be a medical option?<h3 class="nrcTxt_headline">Should smoking marijuana be a medical option?</h3><br />
<br />
<div class="nrcBlk_pubdate" id="nrcBlk_Pubdate">2009 <br />
</div><div id="nrcBlk_Update"></div><br />
<div class="nrcBlk_byline" id="nrcBlk_Byline"><span class="nrc_sep">By</span> <span class="nrc_val"><br />
Lex Alexander <br />
<br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span class="nrcTxt_source">Staff Writer</span> <br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="nrc_fotoWide" id="nrcBlk_ContentBody" nri:imgcnt="1"></div><div class="nrc_fotoStub nrc_fotoStubWide"></div><div class="nrcMod_fboxStub"></div><br />
<div class="nrcMod_fboxStub"></div><br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Rocky Hoveland of Greensboro suffers pain from spine, neck and back injuries.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">For a long time, he took prescription painkillers. But the drugs often left him dazed, if not null and void.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Then about 10 years ago, he began using marijuana to treat the pain. He found that it didn't eradicate the pain, but it made it more manageable.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">"It keeps me from being in that haze of wanting to sleep all day or feeling hung over all day," he said. The prescription medications "were making me lay down, and I ain't one to lay around."<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnkOTGONuMddNcLU42lbJJ5pGBP6nDdf7-PstT6kjOlcNotUvtNlkTgvz_Bn5NyIq_KUPh7N_lis8EnJaeq0CFSioz_Vyo1WEzwHga3KTnFAB9l4a6yJ7dObsJiM-gnH1MYkYSpikXsZaw/s1600-h/marijuanacigarette.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" sr="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnkOTGONuMddNcLU42lbJJ5pGBP6nDdf7-PstT6kjOlcNotUvtNlkTgvz_Bn5NyIq_KUPh7N_lis8EnJaeq0CFSioz_Vyo1WEzwHga3KTnFAB9l4a6yJ7dObsJiM-gnH1MYkYSpikXsZaw/s320/marijuanacigarette.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Hoveland and others like him are pushing for North Carolina to legalize cannabis for medical purposes. And they have become part of a national trend.<br />
</div>In November, Michigan became the 13th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. <br />
That popular-vote referendum was just the most recent decision in a long-running debate: whether it should be legal for people to use, grow and sell marijuana for medicinal purposes.<br />
On one side: sick, suffering patients, many of<br />
whom are dying. For at least some of them, cannabis eases symptoms of illness or side effects of treatment.<br />
On the other: a federal government that believes marijuana's benefits are too few and its side effects too risky for the drug to be legalized, even to the highly restricted level of cocaine.<br />
Billy, a Davidson County man who didn't want his full name used , once took the prescription painkiller Dilaudid every day after lingering neck and wrist injuries, experiencing some of the same side effects as Hoveland.<br />
Dilaudid "didn't do much" for the pain, he said. "And I got hateful. My family didn't want to be around me."<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Marijuana has helped him, too, he said. "Now I'm up and around, hiking and fishing," he said. "Marijuana focuses my mind away from the pain. I'm still hurting, but it's not that important anymore."<br />
</div>Proponents of legalization in North Carolina are ramping up their efforts.<br />
Representatives of the nonprofit N.C. Cannabis Patient Network have toured the state this winter, meeting with politicians, clergy and medical professionals and airing programs on local public-access TV stations.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">On May 2, proponents are scheduled to march in Raleigh on behalf of legalization as part of a global one-day protest called the Million Marijuana March.<br />
</div>"We're looking forward to this becoming legal in this state so people can quit living in fear," said Jean Marlowe, the network's executive director. "We're returning dignity to these patients."<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Marlowe, who lives in Polk County, has used marijuana since 1991 to treat muscular dystrophy, rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disk disease, muscle spasticity and fibromyalgia. She says the authorities leave her alone because she has a letter from her doctor saying she needs medical cannabis.<br />
</div>Before using marijuana, she said, the side effects of her various medications left her practically disabled.<br />
"I spent my time throwing up, dizzy," she said. "I couldn't cognize. I couldn't balance my checkbook. I spent my life in a chair, in the corner, with a trash can."<br />
State Rep. Earl Jones, D-Guilford, introduced a bill in the 2008 legislative session to create a study commission to look at legalizing marijuana for medical purposes in North Carolina. Jones plans to reintroduce his bill this year .<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">"I think the legislature will do the right thing once they see it will benefit the public and they have been educated," Jones said.<br />
</div>But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration remains adamantly opposed to legalizing cannabis even for medical purposes. It continues to prosecute under federal law in some other states for growing and distributing the plants.<br />
l l l<br />
The most comprehensive review of the possible medical benefits of marijuana remains a book-length report, "Marijuana and Medicine," published in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine . The institute is part of the National Academies, agencies that advise the government on medicine and other sciences.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">That report, co-authored by a researcher at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, examined marijuana use with respect to five areas:<br />
</div><ul><li>Pain, particularly nerve pain experienced by patients with AIDS and other diseases.</li>
<li>Nausea and vomiting, often experienced by chemotherapy patients.</li>
<li style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Wasting syndrome and loss of appetite, often experienced by AIDS and cancer patients.</li>
<li>Neurological symptoms, including muscle spasticity and multiple sclerosis.</li>
<li>Glaucoma, excessive pressure in the fluid inside the eye. The condition can cause blindness.</li>
</ul>In general, the report found that marijuana, though not a panacea, could help relieve some of these symptoms in at least some patients. In some cases, the report found, marijuana worked as well as or better than accepted treatments.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">It also found that smoking treats symptoms such as pain and nausea more quickly and effectively than taking the medicine by mouth.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The report raised concerns about the long-term health effects of smoking marijuana, which, like tobacco, is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Such long-term risks probably don't matter for patients who already are dying, the report noted.<br />
</div>A synthetic form of marijuana's most active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription under the trade name Marinol. But it takes longer to work than inhaled marijuana smoke.<br />
Also, taking cannabis by mouth can get patients "higher" than smoked cannabis - which many patients don't want. When THC is eaten, the liver, which smoking bypasses, breaks the psychoactive elements down into even more potent chemicals. <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Another problem with synthetic oral cannabis is that it contains only a few active ingredients, while smoked marijuana contains more than 60.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">The combination of those ingredients, not just one, may provide the most medical benefit, says Dr. Wilkie Wilson, director of the DukeLEARN neurological-research program at Duke University, who notes that drug companies are researching that question.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">"What you need is something, maybe like an aspirator or an inhaler, that can deliver the drug better than a pill would," said Dr. Steven R. Childers, a professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University's Bowman Gray School of Medicine. Childers co-wrote the 1999 Institute of Medicine report.<br />
</div>Wilson, co-author of "Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ecstasy," says some patients prefer smoking because it gives them greater control over their dosage - they can choose to stop, or continue, at any time depending on how much relief they're getting.<br />
***<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Childers says the 1999 report's general conclusions remain accurate. Researchers have made some incremental advances, particularly in whether cannabis can ease some symptoms of multiple sclerosis. The nonprofit National Multiple Sclerosis Society is paying for a 10-year study, which began in March. <br />
</div>Also, Swiss researchers found in 2006 that cannabis taken orally can ease muscle spasticity in people with spinal-cord injuries. And after promising findings in rats and mice, Israeli researchers plan human trials to determine whether cannabis may slow or halt memory loss in people with Alzheimer's disease. <br />
But U.S. government-sponsored studies since 1999 have been few and far between. The government grows little marijuana for research and tightly restricts its use. Currently, of 768 drug-related studies sponsored by the National Institute for Drug Abuse and registered at <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/" title="www.ClinicalTrials.gov">http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/</a>, two pertain to medicinal marijuana. <br />
Besides the possible direct benefits to patients, what are the arguments for legalizing medicinal cannabis?<br />
For one thing, it may help patients for whom other drugs are ineffective or cause intolerable side effects. Its own side effects are relatively minor, the long-term cancer risk aside.<br />
Cannabis is safer than many drugs now on the market. There has never been a documented death attributable to marijuana overdose, Wilson says.<br />
And legalization would bring about standardized dosages and quality, aiding both treatment and research.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Critics argue that the drug is psychologically habit-forming. It can be, but it is less so than alcohol, tobacco and such drugs as heroin, the institute report found. <br />
</div>Some research subjects have reported unpleasant feelings or sensations after taking the drug. And some do not like the "high" that comes with taking the drug. That condition also can make it dangerous to drive or perform other skilled tasks and can hurt judgment and short-term memory.<br />
Wilson points out that these ill effects are particularly dangerous in young people, whose growing brains must absorb not only academic knowledge but also social skills.<br />
There is some evidence the drug can hamper the immune system in some patients.<br />
And marijuana is considered a "gateway" drug - one that could lead to use of more potent and dangerous illegal drugs. The 1999 report found little evidence to support that claim on a pharmacological basis. It also observed that alcohol and tobacco are more widely used gateway drugs, particularly among younger people. <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">For those reasons and others, federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restricted type. Such drugs are defined as having no currently accepted medical use in the U.S., a high potential for abuse, and no accepted safe approaches for use even under medical supervision.<br />
</div>Another Schedule I drug is LSD.<br />
Proponents of medicinal marijuana want it reclassified at least as a Schedule II drug, the most restrictive category for addictive drugs with recognized medical uses. Examples include codeine, the active ingredient in many cough medicines, and the painkiller Dilaudid. <br />
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration maintains that marijuana's risks are too great, and its medical benefits too few, to legalize it. Even in some of the 13 states that have legalized medicinal marijuana, DEA agents still arrest people on federal drug charges.<br />
And the government can prosecute doctors who prescribe marijuana. To avoid arrest, doctors often give their patients letters stating that the patient needs marijuana, rather than a prescription.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Proponents of medicinal marijuana also argue that regulating the drug should be a state and local matter, not a federal one. <br />
</div>In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government had the right to regulate marijuana even within a single state, as opposed to in interstate commerce.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">But a more recent Supreme Court decision suggests that the days of such overarching federal regulation might be numbered.<br />
</div>On Dec. 1, the court refused to hear an appeal from the city of Garden Grove, Calif. That city was defying a state court's order to return marijuana it had seized from a man who had won dismissal of drug charges after he provided a statement from his doctor that he needed marijuana.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Proponents hope that these incremental steps will lead to a day on which no one need fear legal punishment for using medicinal cannabis.<br />
</div>"I'd like us to be united in compassion," Marlowe said. "Living in fear of the government is not what we want for people who are sick and dying."<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Wilson says marijuana should be legally distributed through pharmacies just as other drugs are.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">"We control amphetamines - my God, we give them to kids for attention-deficit disorder," Wilson said. "Just treat (marijuana) like any other regulated pharmaceutical. I don't see any reason not to do that. I just don't see the reason."<br />
</div>After her tour of the state, Marlowe said she is more hopeful than ever about legal medical marijuana.<br />
"I can smell the finish line," she said. "I'm not going to be a criminal much longer."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-31034308325177799822009-11-01T18:29:00.000-08:002009-11-01T18:29:09.165-08:00Medical Marijuana: Yes, There's an App for That<p>Apple has approved the imaginatively named <a href=
"http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Cannabis-iPhone-App-Medical,news-4262.html"><br />
Cannabis</a>, a new $1.99 iPhone/iPod touch application by Los<br />
Angeles-based Activists Justifying the Natural Agriculture of Ganja<br />
(AJNAG), which operates the <a href="http://ajnag.com/">AJNAG.com</a><br />
website and <a href=
"http://imedicalcannabis.org/">iMedicalCannabis.org</a> database.</p><p>Cannabis is designed to help legal marijuana users quickly<br />
locate the nearest medical <i>Cannabis</i> collectives, cooperatives,<br />
doctors, clinics, attorneys, organizations, and other patient services<br />
in the thirteen states that have passed <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana">medical marijuana</a><br />
(<i>Cannabis</i>) legislation: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii,<br />
Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode<br />
Island, Vermont, and Washington. (California, Colorado, New Mexico, and<br />
Rhode Island are currently the only states authorizing "dispensaries"<br />
to sell medical <i>Cannabis</i>.)</p><p>Seven other US states - Illinois, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New<br />
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina - are currently<br />
considering medical marijuana bills in their state legislatures, and<br />
South Dakota is reviewing several petitions in interest of medical<br />
marijuana legalization.</p><p><a href="http://www.cannabisapps.com/cannabis">Cannabis the iPhone<br />
app</a> has a map-style interface that displays medical marijuana<br />
resources where legal as well as "coffee shops" in places outside the<br />
US, such as Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where <i>Cannabis</i> can be<br />
legally used.</p><p>For every "Cannabis" purchase, AJNAG.com will donate 50¢ to a<br />
non-profit <i>Cannabis</i> reform fund, which will be set up once the<br />
application reaches 1000 subscriptions. The non-profit organization<br />
will unite with the many <i>Cannabis</i> organizations to raise money<br />
for grassroots media campaigning. The company's mission is to put the<br />
power of <i>Cannabis</i> change in your pocket while you enjoy "the<br />
most sticky and potent iPhone application available."</p><h4>Cannabis Features</h4><ul><li>Locate Medical <i>Cannabis</i> Collectives and Cooperatives</li>
<li>Locate Doctors and Clinics</li>
<li>Locate Attorneys and Organizations</li>
<li>Search by City</li>
<li>Search by Zip</li>
<li>Bookmark Listings</li>
<li>Add Listings to Contacts</li>
<li>Lookup Addresses, Phone Numbers, and websites for a 1000+<br />
listings</li>
<li>Directory is Tended by Patient ID Center</li>
</ul><p>Cannabis is compatible with both iPhone and iPod touch, and requires<br />
iPhone OS 3.0 or later.</p><p>Another medical marijuana app available from the App Store is Onaga<br />
Design's<a href=
"http://www.appstorehq.com/californiaherbalcaregivers-iphone-38981/app">Californian<br />
Herbal Caregivers</a> (CHC) app, which sells for 99¢ and lists<br />
more than 700 medical marijuana sources in California.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-37021943782987920302009-11-01T17:47:00.000-08:002009-11-01T17:47:32.411-08:00Research Findings on Medical Marijuana<h1 align="center"><font size="5">Research Findings on </font></h1><br />
<h2 align="center"><font size="2">Medicinal Properties of<br />
Marijuana<br><br />
</font></h2><br />
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Palatino"><b>by Kevin B.<br />
Zeese, Esq.</b></font> </p><br />
<p align="center"><font size="4" face="Palatino"><b>President,<br />
Common Sense for Drug Policy<br><br />
<br><br />
</b></font></p><br />
<h1><font size="4">I. Background to the Medical Marijuana Debate<br><br />
</font></h1><br />
<p><font size="2">With the passage of initiatives in California<br />
and Arizona the debate about the medical utility of marijuana is<br />
in the spotlight once again. On December 30, 1996, the federal<br />
government announced that it intends to use their authority to<br />
stop doctors from recommending or prescribing marijuana to their<br />
patients and is planning a public relations campaign to<br />
demonstrate marijuana has no medical value. </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">The memorandum describing their policy stated<br />
that: a practitioner's action of recommending or prescribing<br />
Schedule I substances is not consistent with the public interest'<br />
(as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act)<br />
and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement<br />
Administration to revoke the practitioner's registration."<br />
Further if a physician does not have a <i>bona fide</i> doctor<br />
patient relationship when recommending or prescribing marijuana<br />
they will face criminal prosecution.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">In addition to threatening doctors for giving<br />
medical advice to their patients the Clinton Administration is<br />
undertaking a public-relations offensive" which will include<br />
a campaign to discredit the notion that smoking marijuana has<br />
medicinal benefits." In their December 30 memorandum, the<br />
Administration described a public relations effort with medical<br />
associations and the public reenforcing the </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">messagethat marijuana has no medical value. On<br />
December 29, 1996 retired General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's<br />
drug czar, claimed in a column syndicated by the Scripps-Howard<br />
News Service that No clinical evidence demonstrates that smoked<br />
marijuana is good medicine." He has consistently described<br />
medical marijuana as Cheech and Chong medicine."</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The purpose of this compilation is to provide<br />
policy makers, health professionals and the public with the<br />
published literature and reports filed with the Food and Drug<br />
Administration that demonstrates that doctors have a basis for<br />
recommending marijuana as a medicine to their patients. </font></p><br />
<h1>II. The Long History of Marijuana as Medicine<br><br />
</h1><br />
<p><font size="2">Marijuana has long been recognized as having<br />
medical properties. Indeed its medical use predates recorded<br />
history. The earliest written reference is to be found in the<br />
fifteenth century B.C., Chinese Pharmacopeia, the Ry-Ya. Between<br />
1840 and 1900, more than 100 articles on the therapeutic use of<br />
cannabis were published in medical journals. The federal<br />
government in its 1974 report <u>Marihuana and Health</u> states:<br />
</font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">The modern phase of therapeutic use of cannabis<br />
began about 140 years ago when O'Shaughnessy reported on its<br />
effectiveness as an analgesic and anticonvulsant. At about the<br />
same time Moreau de Tours described its use in melancholia and<br />
other psychiatric illnesses. Those who saw favorable results<br />
observed that cannabis produced sleep, enhanced appetite and did<br />
not cause physical addiction.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The 1975 report of the federal government began<br />
its discussion of medical marijuana by stating Cannabis is one of<br />
the most ancient healing drugs." The report further noted:<br />
One should not, however, summarily dismiss the possibility of<br />
therapeutic usefulness simply because the plant is the subject of<br />
current sociopolitical controversy."</font> </p><br />
<h2>The list of medical uses of cannabis from historical<br />
references includes:</h2><br />
<p><font size="2" face="Arial">Anorexia Asthma Nausea</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2" face="Arial">Pain Peptic Ulcer Alcoholism</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2" face="Arial">Glaucoma Epilepsy Depression</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2" face="Arial">Migraine Anxiety Inflammation</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2" face="Arial">Hypertension Insomnia Cancer<br><br />
</font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Interestingly, relief of many of the symptoms<br />
marijuana was used for in these illnesses are many of the same<br />
symptoms that have been proven in modern research. This should<br />
not be surprising unless we want to assume that all of the<br />
experience of thousands of years did not have some factual basis.</font><br />
</p><br />
<h1>III. Modern Research Findings on Medical Marijuana<br><br />
</h1><br />
<p><font size="2">As can see from this compilation there has been<br />
a tidal wave of published research demonstrating marijuana's<br />
medical usefulness. Indeed, it is stated in the research studies<br />
conducted by various states under FDA protocol that the research<br />
being conducted was in the final phase of approval by the FDA.<br />
When the federal government stopped research on the medical use<br />
of marijuana in 1992 the drug had nearly completed the<br />
requirements for new drug approval.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's assertion in his<br />
Scripps-Howard News Service column that No clinical evidence<br />
demonstrates that smoked marijuana is good medicine" is<br />
inconsistent with the facts. Whether this is an intentional<br />
deception, as part of the federal government's stated public<br />
relations offensive against medical marijuana, or whether it is<br />
based on ignorance does not matter. The reality is General<br />
McCaffrey's statements are not consistent with the facts.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The research reprinted in this compilation<br />
includes randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies,<br />
research using a variety of objective and subjective measurements<br />
and a range of research protocols. Doctors have a sound basis on<br />
which to recommend marijuana for use by their patients. Indeed,<br />
physicians are well aware of the medical value of marijuana. One<br />
study, a scientific survey of oncologists found that almost one<br />
half (48 percent) of the cancer specialists responding would<br />
prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal.<br />
In fact, over 44 percent reported having recommended the illegal<br />
use of marijuana for the control of nausea and vomiting.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">This publication addresses research that has<br />
been published in three areas: cancer, glaucoma and muscle<br />
spasticity. All of the materials herein were published after<br />
1970. The materials enclosed are either published in peer review<br />
journals, government publications or are reports submitted to the<br />
federal government by state agencies.<br><br />
<br><br />
</font></p><br />
<h2>A. Published Research Studies<br><br />
</h2><br />
<p><font size="2">There have been several studies which have been<br />
published which focus on the medical value of smoked marijuana<br />
and cancer therapy. These include:</font> </p><br />
<ul> <li><font size="2">Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana<br />
as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," <i>The<br />
New York State Journal of Medicine</i>, pgs., 525-527,<br />
October 1988 involved 56 patients who had no improvement<br />
with standard antiemetics. When treated with marijuana 78<br />
percent demonstrated a positive response. No serious<br />
negative side effects were seen.</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Chang et al., Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol<br />
as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High Dose<br />
Methotrexate," <i>Annals of Internal Medicine</i>,<br />
Volume 91, Number 6, pg. 819-824, December 1979 is a<br />
randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of THC<br />
and smoked marijuana which found a 72 percent reduction<br />
in nausea and vomiting. The research found that smoked<br />
THC (marijuana) was more reliable than oral THC.</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Foltin, R.W., Brady, J.V. and Fischman,<br />
M.W. 1986. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on<br />
food intake in humans.<i> Pharmacology, Biochemistry and<br />
Behavior</i>. 25: 577-582 and Foltin, R.W. et al., 1988<br />
Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body<br />
Weight of Humans Living in a Residential<br />
Laboratory," <i>Appetite </i>11:1-14; Greenberg, et<br />
al. 1976 Effects of Marijuana use on Body Weight and<br />
Caloric Intake in Humans," <i>Psychopharmacology</i><br />
49: 79-84. All demonstrate that marijuana increases<br />
appetite and food intake.</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Doblin et al., Marijuana as Antiemetic<br />
Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and<br />
Attitudes," <i>Journal of Clinical Oncology</i>,<br />
Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1991. A random survey of clinical<br />
oncologists found that 44 percent of respondents report<br />
recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the<br />
control of emesis and 48 percent would prescribe<br />
marijuana to some patients if it were legal.</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E. and Frei, D.,<br />
Antiemetic Effect of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in<br />
Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy," <i>New<br />
England Journal of Medicine</i>, 293(16): 795-797 (1975).<br />
The researchers conducting this study of THC noticed that<br />
some patients were dropping out of the research and<br />
choosing to use marijuana from the street instead. They<br />
followed up on these patients. In their conclusion they<br />
reported on the marijuana patients and stated that<br />
natural marijuana was more successful than synthetic THC<br />
for some patients.</font> </li>
</ul><br />
<p><font size="2">The cancer research is relevant to marijuana as<br />
a useful therapy for AIDS patients. The same symptoms are needed<br />
to be controlled among AIDS patients: appetite, nausea and<br />
vomiting. There have been recent reports of AIDS and marijuana in<br />
the literature. A study with THC found relief of nausea and<br />
significant weight gain in 70 percent of patients. However,<br />
one-fifth of the patients did not like the psychoactive effective<br />
of synthetic THC, indicating marijuana is likely to be preferred<br />
by AIDS patients. This is consistent with a survey of people with<br />
AIDS conducted by a researcher in Hawaii in 1996. The survey<br />
found that 98.4 percent of AIDS patients were aware of the<br />
medical value of marijuana and 36.9 percent had used it as a<br />
antiemetic. Of those that had used is 80 percent preferred it<br />
over prescription drugs including synthetic THC. A study being<br />
conducted in Australia of HIV patients found that those who use<br />
marijuana had a better quality of life. In particular, those that<br />
were HIV positive for over ten years found marijuana to be<br />
critical. One patient told the researcher that he considered<br />
marijuana to his savior."</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Regarding glaucoma, there have been published<br />
studies which consistently show that marijuana is effective in<br />
lowering intraocular eye pressure. Heightened intraocular eye<br />
pressure is the cause of glaucoma. Thus published evidence<br />
indicates marijuana preserves the vision of people with glaucoma.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Finally, regarding the control of muscle spasm<br />
there is published literature demonstrating marijuana to be<br />
effective in controlling convulsions. The control of muscle spasm<br />
is important to patients with multiple sclerosis, epilepsy,<br />
spinal cord injury, paraplegia and quadriplegia. </font></p><br />
<h2>B. State Health Department Studies<br><br />
</h2><br />
<p><font size="2">In addition to the published research there<br />
have been a series of six studies conducted by state health<br />
departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food<br />
and Drug Administration.The focus of these studies, conducted by<br />
six state health agencies was the use of marijuana as an<br />
anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in<br />
California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and<br />
Tennessee, compared marijuana to antiemetics available by<br />
prescription, including the synthetic THC pill, Marinol.<br />
Marijuana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in<br />
each of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many<br />
patients.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>New Mexico:</b> This study involved 250<br />
patients.The study compared marijuana to THC capsules. The<br />
research protocol was approved by the FDA in 1978. In order to<br />
participate in the research the patient had to be referred by a<br />
physician and had to have failed on at least three other<br />
antiemetics. Patients were permitted to choose marijuana or the<br />
THC pill. Both objective (<i>e.g.</i>, frequency of vomiting,<br />
amount of vomiting, muscle biofeedback, blood samples and patient<br />
observation) and subjective measures were made to determine the<br />
effectiveness of the drug. </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">The study concluded that marijuana was not only<br />
an effective antiemetic but also far superior to the best<br />
available conventional drug, Compazine, and clearly superior to<br />
synthetic THC pill." The study found that [m]ore than ninety<br />
percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported<br />
significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting." The<br />
study found no major adverse side effects. Only three patients<br />
reported adverse reactions, none of these reactions involved<br />
marijuana alone. The 1984 report concluded . . . the data<br />
accumulated over all five years of the program's operation do<br />
show that marijuana smoked resulted in a higher percentage of<br />
success than does THC ingested."</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Michigan</b>: The Michigan research compared<br />
marijuana to Torecan. It involved 165 patients. Upon admission to<br />
the program patients were randomized into control groups with<br />
some randomized on the conventional antiemetic Torecan and the<br />
remainder randomized to marijuana. When failure on the initial<br />
randomized drug occurred, patients could elect to crossover to<br />
the alternate therapy. This procedure allowed the Michigan<br />
Department of Health to evaluate how well patients responded to<br />
both drugs and allowed patients to register their preference.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">The Michigan study reported 71.1 percent of the<br />
patients who received marijuana reported no emesis to moderate<br />
nausea. Ninety percent of the patients receiving marijuana<br />
elected to remain on marijuana. Only 8 of 83 patients randomized<br />
to marijuana chose to alter their mode of antiemetic therapy.<br />
This was almost the inverse of patients randomized to Torecan,<br />
there more than 90 percent - 22 out of 23 patients - elected to<br />
discontinue use of Torecan and switched to marijuana. </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Very few serious side effects were found<br />
related to marijuana use. The most common side effect was<br />
increased appetite - reported by 32.3 percent of patients - this<br />
was a positive effect. The most common negative effects were<br />
sleepiness, reported by 21 patients and sore throat, reported by<br />
13 patients.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Tennessee</b>: This study involved an<br />
evaluation of 27 patients. The patients had all failed on other<br />
forms of antiemetic therapy including oral THC. The study found<br />
an overall success rate of 90.4 percent for marijuana inhalation<br />
therapy. In comparison it found a 66.7 percent success rate for<br />
THC capsules. In the under 40 age group, the study found a 100<br />
percent success rate for marijuana inhalation therapy.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The report concludes:</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">We found both marijuana smoking and THC<br />
capsules to be effective anti-emetics. We found an approximate 23<br />
percent higher success rate among those patients administered THC<br />
capsules. We found no significant differences in success rates by<br />
age group. We found that the major reason for smoking failure was<br />
smoking intolerance; while the major reason for THC capsule<br />
failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that patient could not<br />
retain the capsule.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>New York</b>: In describing the purpose of<br />
the marijuana research program the New York Department of Health<br />
stated: [t]he program is a large-scale (Phase III) cooperative<br />
clinical trial . . . ." The central question addressed is<br />
[h]ow effective is inhalation marijuana in preventing nausea and<br />
vomiting due to chemotherapy in patients . . . who have failed to<br />
respond to previous antiemetic therapy?"</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">By 1985, the New York program had extended<br />
marijuana therapy to 208 patients through 55 practitioners. Of<br />
that, 199 patients were evaluated. These patients had received a<br />
total of 6,044 NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes which were<br />
provided to patients during 514 treatment episodes.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">In percentage terms the results were stunning:</font><br />
</p><br />
<ul> <li><font size="2">North Shore Hospital reported marijuana<br />
was effective at reducing emesis 92.9 percent of the<br />
time;</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Columbia Memorial Hospital reported<br />
efficacy of 89.7 percent;</font> </li>
<li><font size="2">Upstate Medical Center, St. Joseph's<br />
Hospital and Jamestown General Hospital reported 100<br />
percent of the patients smoking marijuana gained<br />
significant benefit.</font> </li>
</ul><br />
<p><font size="2">The report concludes: Patient evaluations have<br />
indicated that approximately ninety-three (93) percent of<br />
marijuana inhalation treatment episodes are reported to be<br />
effective' or highly effective' when compared to other<br />
antiemetics." The New York study reports no serious adverse<br />
side effects. No patient receiving marijuana required<br />
hospitalization or any other form of medical intervention. <i>See</i>,<br />
Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties of Inhalation Marijuana<br />
in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment," New<br />
York Department of Health, Office of Public Health (Annual<br />
Reports).</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Georgia</b>: The Georgia program evaluated<br />
119 patients. It compared THC to standardized smoking of<br />
marijuana and with patient-controlled smoking. To enter the<br />
program a patient had to have failed on other antiemetics.<br />
Patients were randomized to either patient-controlled smoking of<br />
marijuana, standardized smoking of marijuana or THC pills.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">The report found that both THC and marijuana<br />
were effective in providing antiemetic relief for patients who<br />
were previously unresponsive to antiemetics. The rate of success<br />
was 73.1 percent. Patient controlled smoking of marijuana was<br />
successful in 72.2 percent, standardized smoking was successful<br />
in 65.4 percent and THC was effective in 76 percent of the cases.<br />
In comparing the reasons for failure between marijuana and THC<br />
the report found:</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The primary reasons for failure of THC capsules<br />
were due to either adverse reaction (6 out of 18) or failure to<br />
improve nausea and vomiting (9 out of 18). The primary reason for<br />
failure of smoking marijuana were due to smoking intolerance (6<br />
out of 14) or failure to improve the nausea and vomiting (3 out<br />
of 14).</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>California</b>: California conducted a<br />
series of studies from 1981 through 1989. Annual reports were<br />
submitted to the FDA, state legislature and Governor. Each year<br />
approximately 90 to 100 patients received marijuana. The<br />
California research was described as a Phase III trial."</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">The study protocol preferred THC pills by<br />
making it much easier for patients to enter that portion of the<br />
study. Patients who received marijuana had to be over 15 years of<br />
age (the THC pill patients had to be over 5 years of age); had to<br />
be marijuana experienced, use the drug on an in-patient basis<br />
(patients could only use marijuana in the hospital and not take<br />
the medicine home) and had to be receiving rarely used and severe<br />
forms of chemotherapy. Thus, the design of the study did not<br />
favor marijuana.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Even with this built in bias against marijuana,<br />
the study consistently found marijuana to be an effective<br />
antiemetic. In 1981 the California Research Advisory Panel<br />
reported: Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the<br />
program have reported that marijuana is more effective in<br />
relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have<br />
tried." In 1982, a 78.9 percent effectiveness rate was found<br />
for smoked marijuana. By 1983 the report was conclusory in its<br />
findings stating:</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The California Program also has met its<br />
research objectives. Marijuana has been shown to be effective for<br />
many cancer chemotherapy patients, safe dosage levels have been<br />
established and a dosage regimen which minimizes undesirable side<br />
effects has been devised and tested.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The California Research Advisory Panel<br />
continued to review data on marijuana until 1989 with similar<br />
results.</font> </p><br />
<h2>C. Studies of Marijuana Constituents<br><br />
</h2><br />
<p><font size="2">In addition to research on smoked marijuana<br />
there has been a host of research on constituents of marijuana.<br />
This research is relevant in measuring the effectiveness of<br />
marijuana.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The drug for which there has been the most<br />
research is the THC pill. This pill contains pure<br />
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in sesame seed oil. This substance<br />
is now scheduled in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.<br />
When the drug was rescheduled the Food and Drug Administration<br />
acknowledged: The effects of pure THC are essentially similar to<br />
those of cannabis containing THC in equivalent amounts."<br />
Thus, the federal government has acknowledged that THC, which is<br />
available as a medicine, adequately emulates the effectiveness to<br />
marijuana. In fact, the research described above shows that<br />
marijuana is in fact a more effective medicine than the THC pill.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">The research which compares marijuana to the<br />
THC pill found that patients preferred marijuana to THC and that<br />
marijuana was more effective at treating symptoms. State studies<br />
in Michigan and New Mexico found that most patients who tried THC<br />
chose to use marijuana instead. The most common reasons for this<br />
choice was because THC was more psychoactive, erratic and<br />
unpredictable. Patients found they had more control and a quicker<br />
response with smoked marijuana than with oral THC. Patients found<br />
it difficult to swallow the pill when they were nauseous.<br />
Patients were also able to limit their use of marijuana to only<br />
the amount needed when it was smoked. For many cancer and AIDS<br />
patients this can involve smoking a very small quantity of the<br />
drug. With the THC pill the patient must ingest the whole pill<br />
and therefore cannot control the dose.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The Chang study published in <i>The Annals of<br />
Internal Medicine </i>found that marijuana was more consistent<br />
than the oral THC pill. As they note this was consistent with the<br />
observations of Sallan and his colleagues in their study<br />
published in <i>The New England Journal of Medicine</i>, Alfred<br />
Chang et al. stated:</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Sallan and his co-workers considered inadequate<br />
drug absorption as a possible contributing factor to the lack of<br />
antiemetic response seen in some patients. We concur, since THC<br />
plasma concentrations appeared to be causally related to an<br />
antiemetic response in our study. To avoid this problem, we<br />
switched patients to the inhalation route of drug administration<br />
when vomiting occurred. Inhaled marijuana results in the same<br />
psychological effects as orally administered THC. In our patient<br />
populations, smoked THC was more reliable than oral THC in<br />
achieving therapeutic blood concentrations.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">A final reason why marijuana cigarettes are<br />
superior to the THC pill is because it is not only delta-9-THC<br />
which provides positive medical effects. The bibliography<br />
includes research involving other components of marijuana,<br />
including various cannabinoids and delta-8-THC. This research<br />
indicates that it is not only delta-9-THC which has beneficial<br />
medical effects but other components of marijuana. Smoking<br />
marijuana provides the patient with the benefits of the<br />
combination of marijuana's active ingredients as opposed to the<br />
effects of only THC.</font> </p><br />
<h1>IV. State Laws Provide an Avenue to Resolve The Medical<br />
Marijuana Problem<br><br />
</h1><br />
<p><font size="2">There is strong scientific evidence that<br />
marijuana is a safe and effective medicine. The voters in<br />
California and Arizona have recognized this at the ballot box. It<br />
is time for the federal government to help resolve this problem<br />
rather than threaten doctors with sanctions for providing medical<br />
advice to their patients and denying seriously ill patients<br />
access to a much needed medicine.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The California and Arizona initiatives, as well<br />
as state laws in two dozen states, provide an opportunity to<br />
resolve the medical marijuana problem. Research on the safety and<br />
effectiveness of marijuana is in its final phase. All that is<br />
needed is late-Phase III research. These are broad-based research<br />
studies which result in large numbers of patients receiving<br />
marijuana. </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">The federal government, in its policy<br />
announcement of December 30, stated that it wanted to ensure the<br />
integrity of the drug approval process. Part of their plan to do<br />
so includes reviewing the research and seeking to fill gaps in<br />
research with new research.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Combining the Food and Drug Administration's<br />
need for late-Phase III research before they approve marijuana as<br />
a medicine, with the decision of voters in California and Arizona<br />
to make marijuana medically available, will satisfy two needs. It<br />
can make marijuana available to large numbers of people under a<br />
research umbrella. (In the early 1980s nearly 1,000 patients a<br />
year were using marijuana medically under federally approved<br />
research programs. In fact, one year California requested one<br />
million medical marijuana cigarettes from the FDA.) In addition,<br />
it could finally resolve the medical marijuana problem and make<br />
marijuana available as a medicine by prescription.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The Food and Drug Administration should contact<br />
the health departments of Arizona, California and other states<br />
which have expressed interest in medical marijuana and ask them<br />
to participate in the final Phase III studies needed to complete<br />
the new drug application process. Getting results from this<br />
research should take less than one year. If they are consistent<br />
with previous research it should result in marijuana becoming a<br />
prescription drug under Schedule II of the Controlled Substances<br />
Act. Such a process will restore the integrity of the medical<br />
scientific process of drug approval which has been undermined by<br />
the use of medical marijuana as a political tool by those<br />
favoring expanded drug war policies.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">By taking a constructive approach, rather than<br />
a confrontational one, the federal government avoids conflict<br />
with state law, does not intrude on the doctor-patient<br />
relationship and ensures that, in the end, marijuana is only made<br />
available as a prescription medicine to the seriously ill.<br />
Arizona and California have presented an opportunity to resolve<br />
an issue that is long overdue for resolution.<br><br />
</font></p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Bibliography<br><br />
</b></font></p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Overviews of Marijuana's Safety and<br />
Effectiveness</b></font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Beaconsfield, D., Ginsburg, J., and Rainsbury,<br />
R. (1973). <u>Therapeutic potential of marihuana</u>. New Eng. J.<br />
Medicine 289, 1315.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Therapeutic Aspects. 1974. <u>Marijuana and<br />
Health, Fourth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress</u>, Nat'l<br />
Institute on Drug Abuse, 134-143.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. <u>Marijuana and<br />
Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress</u>, Nat'l<br />
Institute on Drug Abuse, 117-132.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Bhargave, H. (1978). Potential therapeutic<br />
application of naturally occurring and synthetic cannabinoids. <u>Gen.<br />
Pharmac.</u>, 9, 195-213.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ungerleider, J. (1979). Marijuana as a good<br />
medicine: Its uses against disease. Lecture delivered to UCLA<br />
Center for the Health Sciences, August 21, 1979.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Zinberg, N. (1979). On cannabis and health.<u><br />
J. Psychedelic Drugs</u>, 11, 135-144.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">AMA Council on Scientific Affairs. (1980).<br />
Marihuana reexamined: Pulmonary risks and therapeutic potentials.<br />
<u>Conn. Medicine</u>, 44, 521-523. Cohen, S. (1980). Therapeutic<br />
aspects. <u>Nat'l Inst. Drug Abuse. Res. Mono. Ser.</u>, No. 31,<br />
199-216.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Council on Scientific Affairs. (1981).<br />
Marijuana: Its health hazards and therapeutic potentials.<u> JAMA</u>,<br />
246, 1823-1827.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">DuQuesne, J. (1981). Cannabis and the Rule of<br />
Law. <u>Lancet</u>, Sept. 12, 1981, 581.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Rose, M. (1981). Cannabis and the rule of law. <u>Lancet</u>,<br />
July 18, 1981.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Therapeutic potential and medical uses of<br />
marijuana. (1982). <u>In Marijuana and Health</u>, Inst. of<br />
Medicine, 139-155.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Schurr, A. (1985). Marijuana: Much ado about<br />
THC. <u>Comp. Biochem. Physiol.</u>, 80 C, 1-7.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ungerleider, J. and Andrysiak, T. (1985).<br />
Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC., <u>Int'l J. Addictions</u>,<br />
20, 691-699.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J., (1995).<br />
Marihuana as Medicine, A Plea for Reconsideration, <u>JAMA</u>,<br />
273: 1875-1876. <br><br />
</font></p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Medical Marijuana and Nausea, Vomiting and<br />
Appetite </b></font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hollister, L (1970) Hunger and appetite after<br />
single doses of marihuana, alcohol and dextroamphetamine. <u>Clin.<br />
Pharmacol. and Therapeutics</u>, 12, 44-49.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E., Ferei, E., III,<br />
(1975), Antiemetic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in<br />
patients receiving cancer chemotherapy.<u> N. Eng. J.Med</u>.,<br />
293, 795-797.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Greenberg, I., Kuehnle, J., Mendelson,J.H. and<br />
Bernstein, J.G. 1976. Effects of marihuana use on body weight and<br />
caloric intake in human. <u>Journal of Psychopharmacology</u><br />
(Berlin) 49: 79-84.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Harris, L. (1976). Analgesic and antitumor<br />
potential of the cannabinoids. <u>In Therapeutic Potential of<br />
Marijuana</u>. (Cohen and Stillman, eds., 299-309.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Harris, L. Munson, A. and Carchman, R. (1976).<br />
Antitumor properties of</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">cannabinoids. In <u>The Pharmacology of<br />
Marihuana</u> (Braude and Szara, eds.), 749-762.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Chang, A. et al. (1979).<br />
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients<br />
receiving high-dose methotrexate. <u>Annals of Internal Medicine</u>,<br />
91, 819-824.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Sallan, S.E., Cronin, C. Zelen, M., Zinberg,<br />
N.E. (1980). Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for<br />
cancer. A randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol<br />
and prochlorperazine. <u>N. Engl. J. Med</u>., 302: 135-8.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">California State Reports, Therapeutic Cannabis<br />
Program, <u>Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature</u>,<br />
California Research Advisory Panel (1980-1986).</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Bateman, D.C., Rawlins, M. (1982). Therapeutic<br />
potential of cannabinoids. <u>Br. Med. J.</u>, 284, 1211-1212.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Cannabinoids for nausea, (1981). <u>Lancet</u>,<br />
Jan. 31, 1981, 255-256.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Frytek, S., Moertel, C.G., (1981), Management<br />
of nausea and vomiting in the cancer patient, <u>JAMA</u>, 245,<br />
394-396.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Neidhart, J., Gagen, M., Wilson, H. and Young,<br />
D. (1981). Comparative trial of the antiemetic effects of THC and<br />
haloperidol. <u>J. Clin. Pharmacol.</u>, 21, 385-425.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Michigan Department of Public Health Marijuana<br />
Therapeutic Research Project, </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Trial A 1980-81," Department of Social<br />
Oncology, Evaluation Unit, Michigan Cancer Foundation (March 18,<br />
1982).</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ungerleider, J., Andrysiak, T., Fairbanks, L.,<br />
Goodnight, J., Sama, G. and Jamison, K. (1982). Cancer<br />
chemotherapy and marijuana.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ungerleider, J., Andrysiak, T., Fairbanks, L.,<br />
Goodnight, J., Sama, G. and Jamison, K. (1982). Cannabis and<br />
cancer chemotherapy: A comparison of oral delta-9-THC and<br />
prochlorperazine. <u>Cancer</u>, 50, 636-645.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Sensky, T., Baldwin, A., and Pettingale, K.<br />
(1983). Cannabinoids as antiemetics. <u>Br. Med. J.</u> , 286,<br />
802.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Kutner, Michael H., Evaluation of the Use of<br />
Both Marijuana and THC in Cancer Patients for the Relief of<br />
Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy After<br />
Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and<br />
Toxicity" as prepared for the Composite State Board of<br />
Medical Examiners, Georgia Department of Health, by physicians<br />
and researchers at Emory University, Atlanta, (January 20, 1983).</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and<br />
Tetrahydrocannabinol in the Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting<br />
Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional<br />
Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity," Board of<br />
Pharmacy, State of Tennessee, July 1983.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research<br />
Program," the Behavioral Health Sciences Division, Health<br />
and Environment Department, March 1983 and 1984.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Foltin, R.W., Brady, J.V. and Fischman, M.W.<br />
1986. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in<br />
humans. <u>Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior</u>. 25:<br />
577-582.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Foltin, R.W. et al., 1988 Effects of Smoked<br />
Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans Living in a<br />
Residential Laboratory," <u>Appetite</u> 11:1-14</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Vinciguerra, V., Moore, T., Brennab, E.,<br />
Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy,<br />
(Oct. 1988) <u>N.Y. State J. Medicine</u>, 525-527.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">T.F. Plasse, R.W. Gorter, S.H. Krasnow, et al.,<br />
1991. Recent clinical experience with dronabinol. <u>Pharmacology,<br />
Bichemistry and Behavior</u> 40: 695-700.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Doblin, R., Kleiman, M., Marijuana as<br />
antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and<br />
attitudes, (1991), <u>J. Clin. Oncology</u>, 9:7, 1314-1319.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Abrams, D. 1995, Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting<br />
Syndrome, and the U.S. Government (Response to Letter)<u> New<br />
England Journal of Medicine</u>, Vol. 333 (10): 670-671.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Grinspoon, L, J, and Doblin, R. 1995.<br />
Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting Syndrome, and the U.S. Government<br />
(Letter to ed.)<u> New England Journal of Medicine</u>, Vol.<br />
333(10): 670-671.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Wesner, B. 1996. The Medical Marijuana Issue<br />
Among PWAs: Reports of Therapeutic Use and Attitudes Toward Legal<br />
Reform. Drug Research Unit, Social Science Research Institute,<br />
University of Hawaii at Manoa.<br><br />
</font></p><br />
<p><font size="2"><b>Medical Marijuana and Glaucoma </b></font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hepler, R. and Frank, I., (1971). Marijuana<br />
smoking and intraocular pressure. <u>JAMA</u>, 217, 1932.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hepler, R., Frank, I. and Ungerleider, J.<br />
(1972). Pupillary constriction after marijuana smoking. <u>Am. J.<br />
Ophthalmol.</u>, 74, 1185-1190.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Shapiro, D. (1974). The ocular manifestations<br />
of the cannabinoids. <u>Opthalmologica</u>, 168, 366-369.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hepler, R. and Petrus, R. (1976). Experiences<br />
with administration of marijuana to glaucoma. In <u>The<br />
Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana</u>. (Cohen and Stillman,<br />
eds.), 63-75.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Perez-Reyes, M., Wagner, D., Wall, M. and<br />
Davis, K. (1976). Intravenous administration of cannabinoids and<br />
intraocular pressure. In <u>The Pharmacology of Marihuana</u><br />
(Braude and Szara, eds.), 829-832.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Goldberg, I., Kass, M. and Becker, B.<br />
(1978-1979). Marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. <u>Sightsaving<br />
Review</u>, Winter issue, 147-154.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Crawford, W., and Merritt, J. (1979). Effects<br />
of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial and intraocular hypertension.<br />
<u>Int'l J. Clin. Pharmacol. and Biopharm</u>. 17, 191-196. </font></p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., Crawford, W., Alexander, P.,<br />
Anduze, A. and Gelbart, S. (1980). Effect of marihuana on<br />
intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma.<u>Ophthalmology</u>,<br />
87, 222-228.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., McKinnon, S., Armstrong, J.,<br />
Hatem, G. and Reid, L. (1980). Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol<br />
in heterogenous glaucomas. <u>Annals of Ophthalmology</u>, 12,<br />
No. 8.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Zimmerman, T. (1980). Efficacy in glaucoma<br />
treatment-the potential of marijuana. <u>Annals of Ophthalmology</u>,<br />
449-450.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Green, L., (1984) Marijuana effects on<br />
intraocular pressure, <u>Applied, Pharmacology in the Medical<br />
Treatment of Glaucomas</u>, (S.M. Drance, ed.), 507-526.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., et al. (1981). Effects of topical<br />
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in dogs. <u>Glaucoma</u>,<br />
Jan./Feb., 13-16.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., Perry, D., Russell, D. and Jones,<br />
B. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous<br />
dynamics in glaucoma. <u>J. Clin. Pharmacol.</u>, 21, 467S-471S.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., Olsen J., Armstrong, J. and<br />
McKinnon, S. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in<br />
hypertensive glaucomas. <u>J. Phar. Pharmacol.</u>, 33, 40-41.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J. (1982). Glaucoma, hypertension, and<br />
marijuana. <u>J. Nat'l Med. Ass'n.</u>, 74, 715-716.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., Cook, C. and Davis, K. (1982).<br />
Orthostatic hypotension after delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol<br />
marihuana inhalation. <u>Ophthalmic Res.</u>, 14, 124-128.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J. et al. (1982). Topical<br />
delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol as a potential glaucoma agent. <u>Glaucoma</u>,<br />
4 253-255.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J. (1984). Outpatient cannabinoid<br />
therapy for heterogenous glaucomas: Guidelines for institution<br />
and maintenance of therapy. <u>Marijuana 84: Proceedings of the<br />
Oxford Symposium on Cannabis</u>, 681-683.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Merritt, J., Shrewsbury, R., Locklear F.,<br />
Demby, K. and Wittle, G. (1986), Effects of<br />
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and vehicle constituents on<br />
intraocular pressure in normotensive dogs. <u>Research<br />
Communication in Substances of Abuse</u>, 7, 29-35.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Medical Marijuana, Muscle Spasm and Convulsion</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Carlini, E., Leite, J., Tannhauser, M. and<br />
Berardi, A. (1973). Cannabidiol and cannabis sativa extract<br />
protect mice and rats against convulsive agents. <u>J. Pharm.<br />
Pharmac.</u>, 25, 664-665.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Karler, R., Cely, W., and Turkanis, S. (1973).<br />
The anticonvulsant activity of cannabidiol and cannabinol. <u>Life<br />
Sciences</u>, 13, 1527-1531.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Dunn, M. and Davis, R., (1974). The perceived<br />
effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males, <u>Paraplegia</u>,<br />
12, 175.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Turkanis, S., Cely, W., Olsen, D. and Karler,<br />
R. (1974). Anticonvulsant properties of cannabinol. <u>Res. Comm.<br />
Chem. Path. Pharmacol.</u>, 8, 231-246.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Consroe, P., Wood, G., and Buchsbaum, H.<br />
(1975). Anticonvulsant nature of marijuana smoking. <u>JAMA</u>,<br />
234, 306-307.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Karler, R. and Turkanis, S. 1976. The<br />
antiepileptic potential of the cannabinoids. <u>In The<br />
Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana</u>, (Cohen and Stillman,<br />
eds.), 383-396.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Feeney, D.M., Marihuana and epilepsy:<br />
paradoxical anticonvulsant and convulsant effects, <u>Marijuana<br />
Biological Effects: Analysis, Metabolism, Cellular Responses,<br />
Reproduction and the Brain</u>, (Nahas, GG., Paxton, M., Bruade,<br />
J.C., Hardillier, and Harvey, D.J. eds.) Pergamon Press, Oxford,<br />
England, 643-657.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Petro, D., (1980), Marihuana as a therapeutic<br />
agent for muscle spasm of spasticity, <u>Psychosomatics</u>, 21:<br />
81, 85.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Cunha, J., et al. (1980). Chronic<br />
administration of cannabidiol to health volunteers and epileptic<br />
patients. <u>Pharmacology</u>, 21, 175-185.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Petro, D., Ellenberger, C., Jr., (1981).<br />
Treatment of human spasticity with delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol,<br />
<u>J. Clin. Pharmacol.</u>, 21:413S-416S.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Clifford, D.B.. 1983. Tetrahydrocannabinol for<br />
tremor in multiple sclerosis. <u>Annals of Neurology. </u>13:<br />
669-671.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Sandyk, R., Consroe, P., Stern, L., Snider, S.,<br />
(1986). Effects of cannabidiol in Huntington's Disease, <u>Neurology,</u><br />
36:331.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hanigan, W.C., Destree,R. and Truong, X.T.,<br />
(Feb., 1986), The effect of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol on<br />
human spasticity, <u>Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.</u>, 198. Truong,<br />
X.T.,</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Hanigan, W.C., (Feb. 1986). Effect of<br />
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on EMG measurements in human<br />
spasticity. <u>Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.</u>, 232.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Cannabis, (1986) <u>Therapeutic Claims in<br />
Multiple Sclerosis</u>, Int'l Federation of Multiple Sclerosis<br />
Societies, 226.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ames, F. and Cridland, S. (1986).<br />
Anticonvulsant effects of cannabidiol. <u>S. Afr. Med. J.</u>,<br />
69, 14.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Ungerleider, T. 1987.Delta 9 THC in treatment<br />
of spasticity associated with marijuana. <u>Advances in Alcohol<br />
and Substance Abuse</u>, 7: 39-51.</font> </p><br />
<p><font size="2">Meinck, H.M., Schonle, P.W., Conrad, B. 1989.<br />
Effect of Cannabinoids on Spasticity and Ataxia in multiple<br />
sclerosis.<i> </i><u>Journal of Neurology </u>236: 120-122.</font><br />
</p><br />
<p><font size="2">Maurer, M., Henn, V., Dittrich A., Hoffamn, A.,<br />
1990. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and<br />
analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial. <u>European<br />
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience </u>240: 1-4. </font></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-92094509256354352052009-10-25T07:21:00.000-07:002009-10-25T07:21:25.714-07:00Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis<div> <p class="topstuff"><a href="MironReport.pdf">Download the complete report by Jeffrey A. Miron</a> <span class="subtext">(requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank">Adobe® Reader®</a>)</span> • <a href="javascript:window.print()">Print the report</a></p> <center> <p class="reporttitle">The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition</p> <p class="reportdate">June 2005 </p> <p class="reportauthor">Jeffrey A. Miron<br /><br />
Visiting Professor of Economics<br /><br />
Harvard University<br /><br />
Cambridge, MA 02138<br /><br />
781-856-0086<br /><br />
<a href="mailto:miron@fas.harvard.edu">miron@fas.harvard.edu</a></p></center><br />
<p class="funding">The Marijuana Policy Project provided funding for the research discussed in this report. Daniel Egan provided excellent research assistance.</p> <h1 class="summary">Executive Summary</h1> <ul type="disc"> <li>Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate.<strong></strong></li>
</ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.</li>
</ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>This<strong> </strong>report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana – taxing and regulating it like other goods – in all fifty states and at the federal level.<strong></strong></li>
</ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.<strong></strong></li>
</ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.</li>
</ul> <ul> <li>Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.</li>
</ul> <h1>I. Introduction</h1> <p>Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate. Advocates believe prohibition reduces marijuana trafficking and use, thereby discouraging crime, improving productivity and increasing health. Critics believe prohibition has only modest effects on trafficking and use while causing many problems typically attributed to marijuana itself.</p> <p>One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs, and prohibition prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale. If marijuana were legal, enforcement costs would be negligible and governments could levy taxes on the production and sale of marijuana. Thus, government expenditure would decline and tax revenue would increase.</p> <p>This report estimates the savings in government expenditure and the gains in tax revenue that would result from replacing marijuana prohibition with a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. The report is not an overall evaluation of marijuana prohibition; the magnitude of any budgetary impact does not by itself determine the wisdom of prohibition. But the costs required to enforce prohibition, and the transfers that occur because income in a prohibited sector is not taxed, are relevant to rational discussion of this policy.</p> <p>The policy change considered in this report, marijuana legalization, is more substantial than marijuana decriminalization, which means repealing criminal penalties against possession but retaining them against trafficking. The budgetary implications of legalization exceed those of decriminalization for three reasons.<a title="" name="_ftnref1" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn1')">[1]</a> First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession. Second, legalization saves prosecutorial, judicial, and incarceration expenses; these savings are minimal in the case of decriminalization. Third, legalization allows taxation of marijuana production and sale.</p> <p>This report concludes that marijuana legalization would reduce government expenditure by $7.7 billion annually. Marijuana legalization would also generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. These budgetary impacts rely on a range of assumptions, but these probably bias the estimated expenditure reductions and tax revenues downward.</p> <p>The remainder of the report proceeds as follows. Section II estimates state and local expenditure on marijuana prohibition. Section III estimates federal expenditure on marijuana prohibition. Section IV estimates the tax revenue that would accrue from legalized marijuana. Section V discusses caveats and implications.</p> <h1>II. State and Local Expenditure for Drug Prohibition Enforcement</h1> <p>The savings in state and local government expenditure that would result from marijuana legalization consists of three main components: the reduction in police resources from elimination of marijuana arrests; the reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources from elimination of marijuana prosecutions; and the reduction in correctional resources from elimination of marijuana incarcerations.<a title="" name="_ftnref2" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn2')">[2]</a> There are other possible savings in government expenditure from legalization, but these are minor or difficult to estimate with existing data.<a title="" name="_ftnref3" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn3')">[3]</a> The omission of these items biases the estimated savings downward.</p> <p>To estimate the state savings in criminal justice resources, this report uses the following procedure. It estimates the percentage of arrests in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for police. It estimates the percentage of prosecutions in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for prosecutors and judges. It estimates the percentage of incarcerations in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for prisons. It then sums these components to estimate the overall reduction in government expenditure. Under plausible assumptions, this procedure yields a reasonable estimate of the cost savings from marijuana legalization.<a title="" name="_ftnref4" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn4')">[4]</a></p> <h2>The Police Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition</h2> <p>The first cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of state police budgets devoted to marijuana arrests.</p> <p>Table 1 calculates the fraction of arrests in each state due to marijuana prohibition. Column 1 gives the total number of arrests for the year 2000.<a title="" name="_ftnref5" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn5')">[5]</a> Column 2 gives the number of arrests for marijuana possession violations. Column 3 gives the number of arrests for marijuana sale/manufacturing violations. Columns 4 and 5 give the ratio of Column 2 to Column 1 and Column 3 to Column 1, respectively; these are the percentages of arrests for possession and sale/manufacture of marijuana, respectively.</p> <p>The information in Columns 4 and 5 is what is required in the subsequent calculations, subject to one modification. Some arrests for marijuana violations, especially those for possession, occur because the arrestee is under suspicion for a non-drug crime but possesses marijuana that is discovered by police during a routine search. This means an arrest for marijuana possession is recorded, along with, or instead of, an arrest on the other charge. If marijuana possession were not a criminal offense, the suspects in such cases would still be arrested on the charge that led to the search, and police resources would be used to approximately the same extent as when marijuana possession is criminal.<a title="" name="_ftnref6" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn6')">[6]</a></p> <p>In determining which arrests represents a cost of marijuana prohibition, therefore, it is appropriate to count only those that are “stand-alone,” meaning those in which a marijuana violation rather than some other charge is the reason for the arrest. This issue arises mainly for possession rather than for trafficking. There are few hard data on the fraction of “stand-alone” possession arrests, but the information in Miron (2002) and Reuter, Hirschfield and Davies (2001) suggests it is between 33% and 85%.<a title="" name="_ftnref7" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn7')">[7]</a> To err on the conservative side, this report assumes that 50% of possession arrests are due solely to marijuana possession rather than being incidental to some other crime. Thus, the resources utilized in making these arrests would be available for other purposes if marijuana possession were legal. Column 6 of Table 1 therefore indicates the fraction of possession arrests attributable to marijuana prohibition, taking this adjustment into account.<a title="" name="_ftnref8" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn8')">[8]</a></p> <p>The first portion of Table 2 uses this information to calculate the police budget due to marijuana prohibition in each state. Column 1 gives the total expenditure in 2000 on police, by state. Column 2 gives the product of Column 1 with the sum of Columns 5 and 6 from Table 1. This is the amount spent on arrests for marijuana violations. For 2000, the amount is $1.71 billion.</p> <h2>The Judicial and Legal Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition</h2> <p>The second main cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of the prosecutorial and judicial budget devoted to marijuana prosecutions. A reasonable indicator of this percentage is the fraction of felony convictions in state courts for marijuana offenses. Data on this percentage are not available on a state-by-state basis, so this report uses the national percentage. Data on the percentage of possession convictions attributable to marijuana are also not available, so this report assumes it equals the percentage for trafficking convictions.</p> <p>In 2000 the percent of felony convictions in state courts due to any type of trafficking violation was 22.0%.<a title="" name="_ftnref9" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn9')">[9]</a> Of this total, 2.7% was due to marijuana, 5.9% was due to other drugs, and 13.4% was unspecified. This report assumes that the fraction of marijuana convictions in the unspecified category equals the fraction for those in which a specific drug is given, or 31.4% [=2.7%/(2.7%+5.9%)]. The report also assumes that the percentage of possession convictions due to marijuana equals this same fraction. These assumptions jointly imply that the percentage of felony convictions due to marijuana equals the fraction of felony convictions due to any drug offense (34.6%) multiplied by the percentage of trafficking violations due to marijuana (31.4%). This yields 10.9% (=34.6%*31.4%).<a title="" name="_ftnref10" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn10')">[10]</a></p> <p>The second portion of Table 2 uses this information to calculate the judicial and legal budget due to marijuana prohibition. Column 3 gives the judicial and legal budget, by state. Column 4 gives the product of Column 3 and 10.9%, the percentage of felony convictions due to marijuana violations. This is the judicial and legal budget due to marijuana prosecutions. For 2000, the amount is $2.94 billion.</p> <h2>The Corrections Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition</h2> <p>The third main cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of the corrections budget devoted to incarcerating marijuana prisoners. A reasonable indicator of this portion is the fraction of prisoners incarcerated for marijuana offenses.</p> <p>As with the percentage of prosecutions due to marijuana, state-by-state information on the percentage of prisoners incarcerated for marijuana offenses is not available. Appropriate data do exist for a few states, however, and this percentage is likely to be similar across states. This report therefore computes a population-weighted average based on the few states for which data exist; it then imposes this percentage on all states. This percentage is 1.0%, as documented in Appendix A.</p> <p>The third portion of Table 2 calculates the corrections budget due to marijuana prohibition.<a title="" name="_ftnref11" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn11')">[11]</a> Column 5 gives the overall corrections budget, by state. Column 6 gives the product of Column 5 and 1.0%, the estimated fraction of prisoners incarcerated on marijuana charges. This is the corrections budget devoted to marijuana prisoners. For 2000, the amount is $484 million.</p> <h2>Overall State and Local Expenditure for Enforcement of Marijuana Prohibition</h2> <p>As shown at the bottom of Table 2, total state and local government expenditure for enforcement of marijuana prohibition was $5.1 billion for 2000. This is an overstatement of the savings in government expenditure that would result from legalization, however, for two reasons. First, under prohibition the police sometimes seize assets from those arrested for marijuana violations (financial accounts, cars, boats, land, houses, and the like), with the proceeds used to fund police and prosecutors.<a title="" name="_ftnref12" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn12')">[12]</a> Second, under prohibition some marijuana offenders pay fines, which partially offsets the expenditure required to arrest, convict and incarcerate these offenders. The calculations in Appendix B, however, show that this offsetting revenue has been at most $100 million per year in recent years at the state and local level. This implies a net savings of criminal justice resources from marijuana legalization of $5.0 billion in 2000. Adjusting for inflation implies savings of $5.3 billion in 2003.<a title="" name="_ftnref13" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn13')">[13]</a> <a title="" name="_ftnref14" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn14')">[14]</a><em> </em><a title="" name="_ftnref15" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn15')">[15]</a></p> <h1>III. Federal Expenditure for Marijuana Prohibition Enforcement</h1> <p>This section estimates federal expenditure on marijuana prohibition enforcement. There are no data available on expenditure for marijuana interdiction <em>per se;</em> existing data report expenditure on interdiction of all drugs, without separately identifying expenditure aimed at marijuana versus other drugs. It is nevertheless possible to estimate the portion due to marijuana prohibition using the following procedure:</p> <ol> <li>Estimate federal expenditure for all drug interdiction;</li>
<li>Estimate the fraction of this expenditure due to marijuana interdiction based on the fraction of federal prosecutions for marijuana;</li>
<li>Multiply the first estimate by the second estimate.</li>
</ol> <p>This provides a reasonable estimate of federal expenditure for marijuana interdiction so long as this expenditure is roughly proportional to the variable being used to determine the fraction of total interdiction devoted to marijuana.<a title="" name="_ftnref16" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn16')">[16]</a></p> <p>Table 3 displays federal expenditure for drug interdiction. This was $13.6 billion in 2002 (Miron 2003b), and it is the figure that applies for all drugs.<a title="" name="_ftnref17" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn17">[17]</a> <a title="" name="_ftnref18" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn18')">[18]</a> <a title="" name="_ftnref19" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn19')">[19]</a> <sup></sup>To determine expenditure for marijuana interdiction, it is necessary to adjust for the fraction of federal expenditure devoted to marijuana as opposed to other drugs.</p> <p>Table 3 next shows possible indicators of the relative magnitude of marijuana interdiction as compared to other-drug interdiction. These indicators include use rates, arrest rates, and felony convictions for marijuana versus other drugs. For the purposes here, the most appropriate indicator is the percentage of DEA arrests or convictions for marijuana as opposed to other drugs.<a title="" name="_ftnref20" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn20')">[20]</a></p> <p>The data therefore indicate that $2.6 billion is a reasonable estimate of the federal government expenditure to enforce marijuana prohibition in 2002.</p> <p>As with state and local revenue, this figure must be adjusted downward by the revenue from seizures and fines. Appendix B indicates that this amount has been at most $214.2 million in recent years, implying a net savings of about $2.39 million. Adjusting for inflation implies federal expenditure for enforcement of marijuana prohibition of $2.4 billion in 2003.<a title="" name="_ftnref21" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn21')">[21]</a></p> <h1>IV. The Tax Revenue from Legalized Marijuana</h1> <p>In addition to reducing government expenditure, marijuana legalization would produce tax revenue from the legal production and sale of marijuana. To estimate this revenue, this report employs the following procedure. First, it estimates current expenditure on marijuana at the national level. Second, it estimates the expenditure likely to occur under legalization. Third, it estimates the tax revenue that would result from this expenditure based on assumptions about the kinds of taxes that would apply to legalized marijuana. Fourth, it provides illustrative calculations of the portion of the revenue that would accrue to each state.</p> <h2>Expenditure on Marijuana under Current Prohibition</h2> <p>The first step in determining the tax revenue under legalization is to estimate current expenditure on marijuana. ONDCP (2001a, Table 1, p.3) estimates that in 2000 U.S. residents spent $10.5 billion on marijuana. This estimate relies on a range of assumptions about the marijuana market, and modification of these assumptions might produce a higher or lower estimate. There is no obvious reason, however, why alternative assumptions would imply a dramatically different estimate of current expenditure on marijuana. This report therefore uses the $10.5 billion figure as the starting point for the revenue estimates presented below.</p> <p></p> <p><em>Expenditure on Marijuana under Legalization</em></p> <p>The second step in estimating the tax revenue that would occur under legalization is to determine how expenditure on marijuana would change as the result of legalization. A simple framework in which to consider various assumptions is the standard supply and demand model. To use this model to assess legalization’s impact on marijuana expenditure, it is necessary to state what effect legalization would have on the demand and supply curves for marijuana.</p> <p>This report assumes there would be no change in the demand for marijuana.<a title="" name="_ftnref22" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn22')">[22]</a> This assumption likely errs in the direction of understating the tax revenue from legalized marijuana, since the penalties for possession potentially deter some persons from consuming. But any increase in demand from legalization would plausibly come from casual users, whose marijuana use would likely be modest. Any increase in use might also come from decreased consumption of alcohol, tobacco or other goods, so increased tax revenue from legal marijuana would be partially offset by decreased tax revenue from other goods. And there might be a forbidden fruit effect from prohibition that tends to offset the demand decreasing effects of penalties for possession. Thus, the assumption of no change in demand is plausible, and it likely biases the estimated tax revenue downward.</p> <p>Under the assumption that demand does not shift due to legalization, any change in the quantity and price would result from changes in supply conditions. There are two main effects that would operate (Miron 2003a). On the one hand, marijuana suppliers in a legal market would not incur the costs imposed by prohibition, such as the threat of arrest, incarceration, fines, asset seizure, and the like. This means, other things equal, that costs and therefore prices would be lower under legalization. On the other hand, marijuana suppliers in a legal market would bear the costs of tax and regulatory policies that apply to legal goods but that black market suppliers normally avoid.<a title="" name="_ftnref23" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn23')">[23]</a> This implies an offset to the cost reductions resulting from legalization. Further, changes in competition and advertising under legalization can potentially yield higher prices than under prohibition.</p> <p>It is thus an empirical question as to how prices under legalization would compare to prices under current prohibition. The best evidence available on this question comes from comparisons of marijuana prices between the U.S. and the Netherlands. Although marijuana is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, the degree of enforcement is substantially below that in the U.S., and the sale of marijuana in coffee shops is officially tolerated. The regime thus approximates <em>de facto</em> legalization. Existing data suggest that retail prices in the Netherlands are roughly 50-100 percent of U.S. prices.<a title="" name="_ftnref24" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn24')">[24]</a> <a title="" name="_ftnref25" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn25')">[25]</a></p> <p>The effect of any price decline that occurs due to legalization depends on the elasticity of demand for marijuana. Evidence on this elasticity is limited because appropriate data on marijuana price and consumption are not readily available. Existing estimates, however, suggest an elasticity of at least -0.5 and plausibly more than -1.0 (Nisbet and Vakil 1972).<a title="" name="_ftnref26" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn26')">[26]</a> <a title="" name="_ftnref27" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn27')">[27]</a></p> <p>If the price decline under legalization is minimal, then expenditure will not change regardless of the demand elasticity. If the price decline is noticeable but the demand elasticity is greater than or equal to 1.0 in absolute value, then expenditure will remain constant or increase. If the price decline is noticeable and the demand elasticity is less than one, then expenditure will decline. Since the decline in price is unlikely to exceed 50% and the demand elasticity is likely at least -0.5, the plausible decline in expenditure is approximately 25%. Given the estimate of $10.5 billion in expenditure on marijuana under current prohibition, this implies expenditure under legalization of about $7.9 billion.<a title="" name="_ftnref28" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn28')">[28]</a></p> <p><em>Tax Revenue from Legalized Marijuana </em></p> <p>To estimate the tax revenue that would result from marijuana legalization, it is necessary to assume a particular tax rate. This report considers two assumptions that plausibly bracket the range of reasonable possibilities.</p> <p>The first assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana identically to other goods. In that case tax revenue as a fraction of expenditure would be approximately 30%, implying tax revenue from legalized marijuana of $2.4 billion.<a title="" name="_ftnref29" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn29')">[29]</a> The amount of revenue would be lower if substantial home production occurred under legalization.<a title="" name="_ftnref30" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn30')">[30]</a> The evidence suggests, however, that the magnitude of such production would be minimal. In particular, alcohol production switched mostly from the black market to the licit market after repeal of Alcohol Prohibition in 1933.</p> <p>The second assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana similarly to alcohol or tobacco, imposing a “sin tax” in excess of any tax applicable to other goods.<a title="" name="_ftnref31" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn31')">[31]</a> Imposing a high sin tax can force a market underground, thereby reducing rather than increasing tax revenue. Existing evidence, however, suggests that relatively high rates of sin taxation are possible without generating a black market. For example, cigarette taxes in many European countries account for 75–85 percent of the price (US Department of Health and Human Services 2000).</p> <p>One benchmark, therefore, is to assume that an excise tax on legalized marijuana doubles the price. If general taxation accounts for 30% of the price, this additional tax would then make tax revenue account for 80% of the price. This doubling of the price, given an elasticity of -0.5, would cause roughly a 50% increase in expenditure, implying total expenditure on marijuana would be $11.85 billion (=$7.9 x 1.5). Tax revenue would equal 80% of this total, or $9.5 billion. This includes any standard taxation applied to marijuana income as well as the sin tax on marijuana sales.</p> <p>The $9.5 billion figure is not necessarily attainable given the characteristics of marijuana production, however. Small scale, efficient production is possible and occurs widely now, so the imposition of a substantial tax wedge might encourage a substantial fraction of the market to remain underground. The assumption of a constant demand elasticity in response to a price change of this magnitude is also debatable; more plausibly, the elasticity would increase as the price rose, implying a larger decline in consumption and thus less revenue from excise taxation. The $9.5 figure should therefore be considered an upper bound.</p> <p>These calculations nevertheless indicate the potential for substantial revenue from marijuana taxation. A more modest excise tax, such as one that raises the price 50%, would produce revenue on legalized marijuana of $6.2 billion per year.</p> <h2>Distribution of the Marijuana Tax Revenue</h2> <p>The estimates of tax revenue discussed so far indicate the total amount that could be collected summing over all levels of government. In practice this total would be divided between state and federal governments. It is therefore useful to estimate how much revenue would accrue to each state, and to state governments versus the federal government, under plausible assumptions.</p> <p>Table 4a indicates the tax revenue that would accrue to each state and to the federal government under the assumption that each state collected revenue equal to 10% of the income generated by legalized marijuana and the federal government collected income equal to 20%. This is approximately what occurs now for the economy overall, except that the ratio of tax revenues to income varies across states from the 10% figure assumed here. The table indicates that under these assumptions, the federal government would collect $1.6 billion in additional revenue while on average each state would collect $16 million in additional tax revenue.</p> <p>These calculations ignore the fact that marijuana use rates differ across states, so application of identical policies would yield different amounts of revenue per capita. Wright (2002, Table A.4, p.82), for example, indicates that the percent of those 12 and over reporting marijuana use in the past month ranged in 1999-2000 from a low of 2.79% in Iowa to a high of 9.03% in Massachusetts. Table 4b therefore shows the breakdown of revenue by state under the assumption that tax revenue is proportional to state marijuana use rates. A third possibility, which cannot easily be examined with existing data, is that revenue by state differs depending on the distribution of marijuana production.</p> <h1>V. Summary</h1> <p>This report has estimated the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana and taxing and regulating it like other goods. According to the calculations here, legalization would reduce government expenditure by $5.3 billion at the state and local level and by $2.4 billion at the federal level. In addition, marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.</p> <h1 class="summary">References</h1> <div id="references"> <p>Baicker, Katherine and Mireille Jacobson (2004), “Finders Keepers: Forfeiture Laws, Policing Incentives, and Local Budgets,” manuscript, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College.</p> <p>Bates, Scott W. (2004), “The Economic Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Alaska,” Report for <em>Alaskans For Rights & Revenues,</em> Fairbanks, Alaska.</p> <p>Caputo, Michael R. and Brian J. Ostrom (1994), “Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source,” <em>American Journal of Economics and Sociology</em>, <strong>53</strong>, 475-490.</p> <p>Clements, Kenneth W. and Mert Daryal (2001), “Marijuana Prices in Australia in 1990s,” manuscript, Economic Research Centre, Department of Economics, The University of Western Australia.</p> <p>Durose, Matthew and Patrick A. Langan (2003), <em>Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000</em>, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justices Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 198821.</p> <p>Easton, Stephen T. (2004), “Marijuana Growth in British Columbia,” <em>Public Policy Sources</em>, Fraser Institute Occasional Paper #74.</p> <p>European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2002), <em>Annual Report 2002</em>, available at (http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/pdfs/2002_0458_EN.pdf).</p> <p>Gettman, Jon B. and Stephen S. Fuller (2003), “Estimation of the Budgetary Costs of Marijuana Possession Arrests in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” Center for Regional Analysis, George Mason University.</p> <p>Harrison, Lana D., Michael Backenheimer, and James A. Inciardi (1995), “Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for Policy,” in Peter Cohen and Arjan Sas, eds., <em>Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en do Verenigde Staten</em>, Amerstdamn: Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdamn, 231-236.</p> <p>Lewis, Minchin (2004), <em>Report on the Syracuse Police Department Activity for the Year Ended June 30, 2002, </em>Department of Audit, City of Syracuse.</p> <p>MacCoun, Robert and Peter Reuter (1997), “Interpreting Dutch Cannabis Policy: Reasoning by Analogy in the Legalization Debate,” <em>Science</em>, <strong>278</strong>, 47-52.</p> <p>Miron, Jeffrey A. (2002), “The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments, With a Discussion of Decriminalization’s Effect on Marijuana Use,” <em>Report to the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts</em>, October.</p> <p>Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003a), “Do Prohibitions Raise Prices? Evidence from the Markets for Cocaine and Heroin,” <em>Review of Economics and Statistics</em>, <strong>85</strong>(3), 522-530.</p> <p>Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003b), “A Critique of Estimates of the Economic Costs of Drug Abuse,” <em>Report to the Drug Policy Alliance</em>, July.</p> <p>Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003c), “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Massachusetts,” <em>Report to Change the Climate</em>, August.</p> <p>Murphy, Patrick, Lynn E. Davis, Timothy Liston, David Thaler, and Kathi Webb (2000), <em>Improving Anti-Drug Budgeting</em>: Santa Monica, CA: Rand.</p> <p>Nisbet, Charles T. and Firouz Vakil (1972), “Some Estimates of Price and Expenditure Elasticites of Demand for Marijuana Among U.C.L.A. Students,” <em>Review of Economics and Statistics</em>, 54, 473-475.</p> <p>Office of National Drug Control Policy (1993), <em>State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities</em>, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP</p> <p>Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001a), <em>What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs</em>, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.</p> <p>Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001b), <em>The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through Second Quarter of 2000</em>, Washington, D.C: Abt Associates.</p> <p>Office of National Drug Control Policy (2002), <em>National Drug Control Strategy</em>, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP.</p> <p>Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Michael Grossman, Frank J. Chaloupka, Patrick M. O’Malley, Lloyd D. Johnston, and Matthew C. Farrelly (2000), “Marijuana and Youth,” NBER WP #7703.</p> <p>Reuter, Peter, Paul Hirschfield, and Curt Davies (2001), “Assessing the Crack-Down on Marijuana in Maryland,” manuscript, University of Maryland.</p> <p>Schwer, R. Keith, Mary Riddel, and Jason Henderson (2002), “Fiscal Impact of Question 9: Potential State-Revenue Implications,” Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.</p> <p>US Department of Health and Humans Services (2000), <em>Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General, Tobacco Taxation Fact Sheet.</em> Accessed at</p> <p>http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/factsheets/factsheets_taxation.htm.</p> <p>U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004), <em>Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2002</em>, Washington, D.C.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics.</p> <p>Wright, D. (2002), <em>State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I, Findings</em> (DHHS Publication No. SMA 02-3731, NHSDA Series H-15), Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics.</p> </div> <table width="449" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-bottom: 1px solid black"> <tr>
<td class="theadbot" colspan="7"><br />
<p><strong>Table 1: Percentage of Arrests Due to Marijuana Prohibition</strong></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>Total Arrests</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>MJ Possession</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>MJ Sale/Man.</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>Poss %</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>S/M %</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>Poss % /2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>1</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>2</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>3</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>4</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>5</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot"><br />
<p>6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Alabama</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>215587</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11501</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>258</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.053</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.001</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Alaska</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>40181</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1239</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>200</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.031</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.015</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Arizona</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>304142</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>16288</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1233</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Arkansas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>218521</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6846</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>928</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.031</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.016</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>California</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1428248</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>50149</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12338</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.035</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.018</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Colorado</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>282787</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12067</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>604</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.043</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.002</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.021</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Connecticut</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>146992</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6751</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>773</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.046</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.023</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Delaware</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>41515</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2151</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>131</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.052</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.026</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>D.C.*</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>32</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.008</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.000</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Florida*</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.043</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>.006</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.022</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Georgia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>429674</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>24321</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4093</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.057</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.010</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.028</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Hawaii</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>64463</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1110</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>167</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.017</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Idaho</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>76032</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2949</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>219</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.039</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.019</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Illinois*</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>319920</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.043</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.006</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.000</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Indiana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>270022</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14484</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1806</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.007</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Iowa</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>113394</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>551</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.053</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Kansas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>78285</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3277</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>594</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.042</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.008</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.021</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Kentucky*</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>160899</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10669</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1188</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.066</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.007</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.033</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Louisiana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>297098</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14941</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2526</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.050</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.025</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Maine</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>57203</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3294</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>554</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.058</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.010</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.029</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Maryland</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>318056</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>17113</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2711</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Massachusetts</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>160342</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8975</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1365</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.056</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.028</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Michigan</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>413174</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14629</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2050</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.035</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.018</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Minnesota</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>269010</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9325</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6782</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.035</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.025</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.017</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Mississippi</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>202007</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9925</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.049</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.025</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Missouri</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>322775</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13202</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1338</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.041</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.020</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Montana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>30396</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>384</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>35</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.013</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.001</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.006</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Nebraska</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>97324</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6787</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>326</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.070</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.035</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Nevada</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>148656</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3828</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>933</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.026</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.006</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.013</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>New Hampshire</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>50830</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3706</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>550</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.073</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.011</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.036</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>New Jersey</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>375049</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>20285</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3058</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.054</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.008</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.027</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>New Mexico</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>112829</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2966</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>325</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.026</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.013</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>New York</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1295374</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>101739</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11309</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.079</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.009</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.039</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>North Carolina</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>523920</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>21179</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2539</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.040</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.020</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>North Dakota</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27846</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>896</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>137</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.032</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.016</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Ohio</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>533364</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>25420</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1863</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.048</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.003</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.024</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Oklahoma</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>166004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11198</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1302</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.067</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.008</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.034</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Oregon</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>157748</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6336</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>283</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.040</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.002</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.020</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Pennsylvania</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>493339</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>16471</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5057</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.033</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.010</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.017</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Rhode Island</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>35733</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2200</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>293</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.062</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.008</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.031</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>South Carolina</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>216451</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14348</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2370</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.066</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.011</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.033</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>South Dakota</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>41615</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2449</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>153</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.059</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.029</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Tennessee</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>232486</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12869</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2586</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.055</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.011</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.028</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Texas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1074909</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>55509</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1926</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.052</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.002</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.026</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Utah</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>125553</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4192</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>311</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.033</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.002</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.017</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Vermont</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>17565</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>632</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>65</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.036</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.018</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Virginia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>303203</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13140</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1443</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.043</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.022</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Washington</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>298474</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13146</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1329</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.044</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.004</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.022</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>West Virginia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>51452</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2618</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>248</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.051</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.025</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Wisconsin</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>322877</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>45</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>16</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.000</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.000</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.000</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Wyoming</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>34243</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1633</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>164</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.048</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.005</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.024</p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <p>* Quoting <a href="http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/2000cb.pdf">http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/2000cb.pdf</a> : “(3) No arrest data were provided for Washington, DC, and Florida. Limited arrest data were available for Illinois and Kentucky.”</p> <p><em>Source</em>: FBI Uniform Crime Reports accessed at <a href="http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/">http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/</a>.</p> </div> <div> <table width="1" border="0" id="bigtable"> <tr>
<td class="thead" colspan="9"><br />
<p><strong>Table 2: Expenditures Attributable to Marijuana Prohibition </strong>($ in millions)</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td class="theadbot" colspan="2"><br />
<p>Police Budget</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot" colspan="2"><br />
<p>Judicial Budget</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot" colspan="2"><br />
<p>Corrections Budget</p> </td>
<td class="theadbot" colspan="2"><br />
<p>Total</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p><em>State</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>Total:</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>MJ Prohib:</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>Total</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>MJ Prohib:</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>Total</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>MJ Prohib.</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>Total</em></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p><em>MJ Prohib.</em></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Alabama</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>656</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>18.28</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>262</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>28.56</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>404</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.04</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,322</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>51</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Alaska</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>177</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.61</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>130</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14.17</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>175</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.75</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>482</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>20</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Arizona</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1096</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>33.79</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>611</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>66.60</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>955</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9.55</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,662</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>110</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Arkansas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>351</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.99</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>156</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>17.00</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>328</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.28</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>835</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>California</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8703</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>227.97</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6255</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>681.80</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7170</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>71.70</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>22,128</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>981</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Colorado</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>830</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.48</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>329</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>35.86</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>820</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.20</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,979</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>64</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Connecticut</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>682</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.25</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>430</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>46.87</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>554</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.54</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,666</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>72</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Delaware</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>166</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.82</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>90</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9.81</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>228</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.28</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>484</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>17</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Florida</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3738</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>103.19</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1396</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>152.16</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3272</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>32.72</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8,406</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>288</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Georgia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1279</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>48.38</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>525</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>57.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1375</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13.75</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3,179</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>119</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Hawaii</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>222</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.49</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>180</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.62</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>153</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.53</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>555</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>24</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Idaho</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>207</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.61</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>102</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.12</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>191</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.91</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>500</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>18</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Illinois</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3053</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>84.28</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>961</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>104.75</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1763</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>17.63</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5,777</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>207</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Indiana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>843</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>28.25</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>325</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>35.43</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>727</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.27</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,895</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>71</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Iowa</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>426</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13.44</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>253</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27.58</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>298</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.98</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>977</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>44</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Kansas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>430</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12.26</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>206</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>22.45</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>349</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.49</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>985</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>38</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Kentucky</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>488</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.78</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>290</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>31.61</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>610</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.10</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,388</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>57</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Louisiana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>829</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27.89</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>359</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>39.13</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>780</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.80</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,968</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>75</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Maine</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>164</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.31</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>69</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.52</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>123</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>356</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>15</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Maryland</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1120</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>39.68</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>489</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>53.30</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1104</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.04</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,713</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>104</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Massachusetts</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1479</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>53.98</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>628</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>68.45</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>795</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.95</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,902</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>130</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Michigan</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1792</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>40.62</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>905</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>98.65</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1853</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>18.53</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4,550</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>158</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Minnesotta</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>874</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>37.18</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>442</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>48.18</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>591</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.91</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,907</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>91</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Mississippi</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>404</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12.03</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>154</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>16.79</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>292</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.92</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>850</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>32</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Missouri</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>886</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>21.79</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>359</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>39.13</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>627</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.27</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,872</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>67</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Montana</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>136</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.02</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>66</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.19</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>125</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.25</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>327</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Nebraska</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>235</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.98</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>96</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.46</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>231</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.31</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>562</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>22</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Nevada</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>539</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.32</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>248</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27.03</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>471</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.71</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,258</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>42</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>New Hampshire</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>187</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.84</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>92</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.03</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>115</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.15</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>394</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>20</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>New Jersey</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2231</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>78.52</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>948</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>103.33</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1480</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>14.80</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4,659</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>197</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>New Mexico</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>382</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.12</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>167</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>18.20</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>315</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.15</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>864</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>27.47</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>New York</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5717</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>274.42</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2262</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>246.56</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4392</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>43.92</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12,371</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>564.90</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>North Carolina</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1318</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>33.03</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>470</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>51.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1159</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.59</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,947</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>95.85</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>North Dakota</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>68</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.43</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>55</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.00</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>40</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.40</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>163</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.82</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Ohio</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2124</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>58.03</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1158</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>126.22</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1937</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.37</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5,219</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>203.63</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Oklahoma</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>518</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>21.53</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>193</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>21.04</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>511</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.11</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,222</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>47.68</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Oregon</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>696</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>15.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>356</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>38.80</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>747</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.47</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,799</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>61.50</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Pennsylvania</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2220</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>59.82</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1067</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>116.30</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2221</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>22.21</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5,508</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>198.33</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Rhode Island</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>211</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>105</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.45</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>139</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.39</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>455</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>21.06</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>South Carolina</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>653</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>28.79</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>179</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>19.51</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>559</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.59</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,391</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>53.89</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>South Dakota</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>88</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.91</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>40</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.36</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>81</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.81</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>209</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.08</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Tennessee</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>940</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>36.47</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>399</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>43.49</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>604</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.04</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,943</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>86.00</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Texas</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3204</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>88.47</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1355</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>147.70</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3755</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>37.55</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8,314</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>273.71</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Utah</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>381</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.30</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>202</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>22.02</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>351</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.51</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>934</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>32.83</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Vermont</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>78</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.69</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>39</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.25</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>66</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.66</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>183</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.60</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Virginia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1176</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>31.08</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>513</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>55.92</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1246</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12.46</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,935</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>99.46</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Washington</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1007</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>26.66</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>470</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>51.23</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1053</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.53</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,530</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>88.42</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>West Virginia</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>171</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.17</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>108</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.77</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>184</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.84</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>463</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>18.79</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Wisconsin</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1124</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>0.13</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>440</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>47.96</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1030</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.30</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2,594</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>58.39</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Wyoming</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>99</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>2.83</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>50</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>5.45</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>98</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>0.98</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>247</p> </td>
<td class="rightbot"><br />
<p>9.26</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="bottom"></td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>56,398</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1,707.41</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>26,984</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2941.26</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>48447</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>484.47</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>131,829</p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5,133</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr height="0">
<td></td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <table width="600" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr>
<td valign="top"><br />
<p>Arrest Data: <a href="http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/">http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/</a></p> </td>
<td valign="top"><br />
<p>Judicial Percent: Pastore and Maguire (2003), Table 5.42, p.444</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><br />
<p>Budget Data: <a href="http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state00.html">http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state00.html</a></p> </td>
<td valign="top"><br />
<p>Incarceration Percent: Pastore and Maguire (2003), Table 6.30, p.499</p> </td>
</tr>
</table> </div> <br clear="ALL"/><br />
<div> <p><strong>Table 3: Federal Expenditure on Marijuana Prohibition, 2002 </strong></p> <table width="470" border="0"> <tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>1.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Prohibition Enforcement, All Drugs</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$13.6 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p> </p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>2.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Marijuana Use Rate, Past Year, 2002</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>11.0%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>3.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Any Illicit Drug Use Rate, Past Year, 2002</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>14.9%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>4.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Ratio</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>74%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>5.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Ratio × Line 1</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$10.0 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p> </p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>6.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Percent of All Drug Arrests for MJ, 2001</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>46.0%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>7.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Line 6 × Line 1</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$6.3 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p> </p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>8.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Percent of All Trafficking Arrests for MJ, 2001</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>26%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>9.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Line 8 × Line 1</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$3.6 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p> </p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>10.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Percent of DEA Drug Arrests for MJ, 2002</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>18.6%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>11.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Line 10 × Line 1</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$2.5 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p> </p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>12.</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>Percent of DEA Drug Convictions for MJ, 2002</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>19.9%</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="tright"><br />
<p>13.</p> </td>
<td class="tindent"><br />
<p>Line 12 × Line 1</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>$2.7 billion</p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <p><em>Sources</em>:</p> <p>Line 1: Miron (2003b, p.10).</p> <p>Lines 2-3: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Statistics, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/2k2nsduh/Results/apph.htm#tabh.2.</p> <p>Lines 6 and 8: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t429.pdf/</p> <p>Line 10: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t440.pdf/</p> <p>Line 12: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t538.pdf<br clear="ALL"/><br />
</p> </div> <div> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-bottom: 1px solid black"> <tr>
<td colspan="4" width="400"><br />
<p><strong><u>Table 4a: State Marijuana Tax Revenue – Population Method</u></strong><u></u></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p><em><u></u></em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="118"><br />
<p><em><u>Population</u></em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="63"><br />
<p><em><u>Proportion</u></em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="112"><br />
<p><em><u>Tax Revenue</u></em></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Alabama</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,447,100</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.016</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">12.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Alaska</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">626,932</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">1.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Arizona</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,130,632</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.018</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">14.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Arkansas</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">2,673,400</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.009</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">7.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>California</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">33,871,648</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.120</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">96.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Colorado</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,301,261</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.015</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">12.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Connecticut</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">3,405,565</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.012</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">9.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Delaware</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">783,600</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.003</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">2.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Dist. Columbia</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">572,059</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">1.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Florida</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">15,982,378</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.057</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">45.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Georgia</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">8,186,453</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.029</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">23.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Hawaii</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,211,537</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">3.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Idaho</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,293,953</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">3.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Illinois</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">12,419,293</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.044</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">35.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Indiana</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">6,080,485</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.022</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">17.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Iowa</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">2,926,324</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.010</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">8.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Kansas</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">2,688,418</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.010</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">7.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Kentucky</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,041,769</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.014</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">11.5</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Louisiana</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,468,976</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.016</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">12.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Maine</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,274,923</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">3.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Maryland</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,296,486</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.019</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">15.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Massachusetts</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">6,349,097</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.023</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">18.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Michigan</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">9,938,444</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.035</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">28.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Minnesota</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,919,479</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.017</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">14.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Mississippi</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">2,844,658</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.010</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">8.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Missouri</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,595,211</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.020</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">15.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Montana</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">902,195</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.003</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">2.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Nebraska</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,711,263</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">4.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Nevada</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,998,257</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.007</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">5.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Hampshire</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,235,786</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">3.5</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Jersey</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">8,414,350</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.030</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">23.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Mexico</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,819,046</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">5.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New York</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">18,976,457</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.067</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">53.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>North Carolina</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">8,049,313</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.029</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">22.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>North Dakota</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">642,200</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">1.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Ohio</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">11,353,140</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.040</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">32.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Oklahoma</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">3,450,654</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.012</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">9.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Oregon</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">3,421,399</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.012</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">9.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Pennsylvania</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">12,281,054</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.044</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">34.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Rhode Island</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,048,319</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">3.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>South Carolina</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">4,012,012</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.014</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">11.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>South Dakota</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">754,844</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.003</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">2.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Tennessee</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,689,283</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.020</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">16.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Texas</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">20,851,820</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.074</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">59.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Utah</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">2,233,169</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">6.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Vermont</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">608,827</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">1.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Virginia</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">7,078,515</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.025</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">20.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Washington</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,894,121</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.021</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">16.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>West Virginia</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">1,808,344</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">5.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Wisconsin</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">5,363,675</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.019</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">15.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Wyoming</p> </td>
<td width="118"><br />
<p align="right">493,782</p> </td>
<td width="63"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="112"><br />
<p align="right">1.4</p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <p>State Populations: <a href="http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-EST2003-ann-est.html">http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-EST2003-ann-est.html</a></p> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="border-bottom: 1px solid black"> <tr>
<td class="thead" colspan="5" width="414"><br />
<p><strong><u>Table 4b: State Marijuana Tax Revenue – Consumption Method</u></strong></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="90"><br />
<p><em></em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="64"><br />
<p><em>Use Rate†</em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="81"><br />
<p align="right"><em>User Population</em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="77"><br />
<p><em>Use Proportion</em></p> </td>
<td align="center" width="103"><br />
<p align="right"><em>Tax Revenue</em></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Alabama</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.044</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">193,449</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.011</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">8.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Alaska</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.098</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">61,251</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">2.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Arizona</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.055</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">284,237</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.016</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">13.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Arkansas</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.054</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">145,166</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">6.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>California</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.068</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">2,296,498</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.132</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">105.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Colorado</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.089</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">383,672</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.022</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">17.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Connecticut</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.063</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">213,529</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.012</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">9.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Delaware</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.068</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">53,206</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.003</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">2.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Dist. Columbia</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.108</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">61,897</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">2.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Florida</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.066</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">1,051,640</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.060</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">48.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Georgia</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.051</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">420,784</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.024</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">19.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Hawaii</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.072</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">87,110</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Idaho</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.056</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">72,461</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">3.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Illinois</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.056</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">689,271</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.040</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">31.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Indiana</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.064</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">388,543</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.022</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">17.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Iowa</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.046</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">135,489</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">6.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Kansas</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.053</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">143,024</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">6.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Kentucky</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.055</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">221,489</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.013</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">10.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Louisiana</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.064</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">284,227</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.016</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">13.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Maine</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.069</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">88,352</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Maryland</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.057</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">302,959</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.017</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">13.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Massachusetts</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.063</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">401,263</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.023</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">18.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Michigan</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.071</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">705,630</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.040</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">32.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Minnesota</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.063</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">311,403</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.018</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">14.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Mississippi</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.050</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">142,802</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">6.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Missouri</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.061</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">339,070</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.019</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">15.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Montana</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.087</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">78,581</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">3.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Nebraska</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.064</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">109,179</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">5.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Nevada</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.086</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">172,450</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.010</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">7.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Hampshire</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.099</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">121,725</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.007</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">5.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Jersey</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.050</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">420,718</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.024</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">19.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New Mexico</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.059</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">106,596</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>New York</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.075</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">1,427,030</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.082</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">65.5</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>North Carolina</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.056</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">448,347</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.026</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">20.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>North Dakota</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.056</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">35,771</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">1.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Ohio</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.067</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">759,525</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.044</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">34.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Oklahoma</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.052</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">180,469</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.010</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">8.3</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Oregon</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.090</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">306,557</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.018</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">14.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Pennsylvania</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.054</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">664,405</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.038</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">30.5</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Rhode Island</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.095</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">99,485</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>South Carolina</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.050</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">198,996</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.011</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">9.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>South Dakota</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.057</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">42,875</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">2.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Tennessee</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.047</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">266,827</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.015</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">12.2</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Texas</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.049</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">1,015,484</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.058</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">46.6</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Utah</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.046</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">102,502</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.7</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Vermont</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.100</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">61,126</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.004</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">2.8</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Virginia</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.064</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">455,149</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.026</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">20.9</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Washington</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.081</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">479,192</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.027</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">22.0</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>West Virginia</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.050</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">90,056</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">4.1</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Wisconsin</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.054</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">291,784</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.017</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">13.4</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="107"><br />
<p>Wyoming</p> </td>
<td width="64"><br />
<p align="right">0.052</p> </td>
<td width="81"><br />
<p align="right">25,578</p> </td>
<td width="77"><br />
<p align="right">0.001</p> </td>
<td width="103"><br />
<p align="right">1.2</p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <p>†Marijuana Use Rates: <a href="http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/appA.htm#taba.1">http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/appA.htm#taba.1</a></p> </div> <h1>Appendix A: Percentage of Corrections Population Incarcerated on Marijuana Charges</h1> <p></p> <p>State-by-state data on the fraction of prisoners incarcerated on marijuana charges are not available, but data for a few states provide reasonable estimates of this fraction. This appendix displays the available information.</p> <p class="reportauthor"><strong>Appendix Table A1</strong></p> <table width="402" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p>State</p> </td>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p>Year</p> </td>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">% Incarcerated for MJ Violation</p> </td>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">Population</p> </td>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">Pop %</p> </td>
<td class="bottom" valign="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">Weighted Share</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>California</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>2003</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.008</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">33,871,648</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.568</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.005</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Georgia</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>2000</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.014</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">8,186,453</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.137</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Massachusetts</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>2000</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.017</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">6,349,097</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.107</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.002</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Michigan</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p>2001</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.006</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">9,938,444</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.167</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.001</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p>New Hampshire</p> </td>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p>2002</p> </td>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">0.016</p> </td>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">1,235,786</p> </td>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">0.021</p> </td>
<td class="bottom"><br />
<p align="right">0.000</p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p>Total</p> </td>
<td></td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">0.061</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right">59,581,428</p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p><strong>Average: </strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong>0.012</strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong></strong></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />
<p><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong>Weighted Average</strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong></strong></p> </td>
<td><br />
<p align="right"><strong>0.010</strong></p> </td>
</tr>
</table> <p style="padding-top: 3em"><em>Sources: </em></p> <p>New Hampshire: <a href="http://www.state.nh.us/doc/population.html">http://www.state.nh.us/doc/population.html</a>.</p> <p>California: <a href="http://www.corr.ca.gov/OffenderInfoServices/Reports/Annual/CensusArchive.asp">http://www.corr.ca.gov/OffenderInfoServices/Reports/Annual/CensusArchive.asp</a>.</p> <p>Michigan: <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001Stat_79881_7.pdf">http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001Stat_79881_7.pdf</a></p> <p>Georgia: <a href="http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/inms03-12.pdf">http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/inms03-12.pdf</a></p> <p>Massachusetts: Miron (2002, pp.4-5).</p> <h1>Appendix B: Revenue Under Prohibition from Seizures and Fines</h1> <p>State-by-state data on fines and seizures are not available. There is sufficient information, however, to estimate an upper bound on the revenue from fines and seizures. There are also data on federal fines and seizures.</p> <p><u>Seizures:</u></p> <p>The two main sources of federal seizure revenue are the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Customs Service. In 2002, the DEA made seizures totaling $438 million.<a title="" name="_ftnref32" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn32')">[32]</a> In 2001, the U.S. Customs Service seized property valued at $592 million.<a title="" name="_ftnref33" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn33')">[33]</a> These figures overstate revenue since some defendants recovered their seized property. The Customs seizures overstate revenue related to drugs because the figure includes seizures for all reasons, such as violation of gun laws, intellectual property laws, and the like. There may also be double-counting between the DEA seizures and the U.S. Customs seizures.</p> <p>Summing together the two components yields $1,030 million (= $438+$592 million) as the seizure revenue that results from enforcement of drug laws. This figure must be adjusted downward, however, to separate out the portion due to violation of marijuana laws as opposed to other drug laws. As shown in Table 3, approximately 20% of the federal drug enforcement budget is attributable to marijuana, so it is reasonable to assume approximately 20% of the fines and seizures correspond to enforcement of marijuana laws.</p> <p>Thus, seizure revenue at the federal level due to marijuana prosecutions is roughly $206.0 million annually.</p> <p>State and local data on forfeiture revenue are not readily available for all states Baicker and Jacobson (2004), however, estimate using a sample of states that state forfeiture revenue per capita was roughly $1.14 during the 1994-2001 period. This implies aggregate state forfeiture revenue of $342 million. Deflating by 26%, the fraction of all drug trafficking arrests due to marijuana, implies that marijuana seizures yield $89 million to state governments.</p> <p><u>Fines:</u> In 2001, the total quantity of fines and restitutions ordered for drug offense cases in U.S. District Courts was just under $41 million.<a title="" name="_ftnref34" href="javascript:openFN('footnotes.html#_ftn34')">[34]</a> Adjusting this by the 20% figure implies $8.2 million from marijuana cases. Assuming the ratio of state/local to federal fine revenue is similar to ratio of state/local to federal seizure revenue implies that state and local fines/restitution from marijuana cases is about $3.5 million.</p><div id="footnotes"> <h1>Footnotes</h1> <p><a title="" name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See, for example, the estimates in Miron (2002) versus those in Miron (2003c).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> This report addresses only the criminal justice costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition; it does not address any possible changes in prevention, education, or treatment expenses that might accompany marijuana legalization. The narrower approach is appropriate because the decision to prohibit marijuana is separate from the decision to subsidize prevention, education and treatment activities. Marijuana legalization might nevertheless cause some reduction in government expenditure for demand-side policies. For example, legalization would likely mean reduced criminal justice referrals of marijuana offenders to treatment; this category accounted for 58.1% of marijuana treatment referrals in 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004, Table 4, p.15)). Thus, the approach adopted here implies a conservative estimate of the reduction in government expenditure from marijuana legalization.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> For example, under current rules regarding parole and probation, a positive urine test for marijuana can send a parolee or probationer to prison, regardless of the original offense. These rules might change under legalization, implying additional reductions in government expenditure.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> The key assumption is that the technology is constant-returns to scale, so that average costs equal marginal costs. This equivalence is not necessarily accurate in the short-run or for very small communities but is likely a good approximation overall.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> This part of the report relies on data for 2000 since that is the last year for which complete information on arrests is available. After estimating expenditure for 2000, the report adjusts for inflation between 2000 and 2003.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> To the extent it takes additional resources to process an arrestee on multiple charges rather than on a single charge, there is still a net utilization of police resources in such cases due to prohibition. In addition, there is typically a lab test to determine the precise content of any drugs seized when there is an arrest on drugs charges, implying utilization of additional resources due to prohibition. A different issue is that in some cases, police stops for non-drug charges that discover drugs and produce an arrest on drugs charges might not have led to any arrest in the absence of the drug charge (e.g., because of insufficient evidence).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> Lewis (2004) reports that the fraction of stand-alone arrests on all drug charges in the city of Syracuse, NY was 90.5% in 2002.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> Gettman and Fuller (2003) obtain a similar estimate to that reported here for Virginia in 2001.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> The data on felony convictions are from Durose and Langan (2003, Table 1, p.2).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a> The fraction of felony convictions for any type of drug is from Durose and Langan (2003, Table 1, p.2).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn11" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a> This report excludes the capital outlays portion of the corrections budget, since the available data do not indicate the average rate of such expenditures. This biases the estimates downward.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn12" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a> Most seized assets are ultimately forfeited.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn13" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a> Inflation rate data are for the CPI - All Urban Consumers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data">http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data</a>).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn14" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a> The figure here for Massachusetts exceeds that in Miron (2003c) because this report assumes 50% of possession arrests are due to marijuana prohibition while the earlier report assumed 33%. The 50% figure is more appropriate here because the analysis covers all states rather than just Massachusetts.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn15" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a> As a check, it is useful to compare the $5.1 billion figure provided here to that derived from an alternative methodology. ONDCP (1993) reports survey evidence on drug prohibition enforcement by state and local authorities for the years 1990/1991. Adjusting these data for inflation and the percent attributable to marijuana prohibition yields an estimate similar to that reported above.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn16" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a> The approach utilized here differs from that employed in the case of state and local expenditure because of differences in the kinds of data available. Utilizing an approach that is similar to the extent possible yields an estimate of federal marijuana enforcement expenditure that is similar to the estimate provided in the text.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn17" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a><em> </em>This consists of expenditure in the following categories: DC Court Services and Offender Supervision ($86.4 million); Department of Defense ($1,008.5 million); Intelligence Community Management Account ($42.8 million); The Judiciary ($819.7 million); Department of Justice ($8,140.1 million); ONDCP ($533.3 million); Department of State ($832.6 million); Department of Transportation ($591.4 million); and Department of Treasury ($1,546.8 million). See ONDCP (2002), p.29-31.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn18" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a> Murphy, Davis, Liston, Thaler and Webb (2000) examine the methods used by ONDCP to estimate this expenditure. They conclude that methodological problems render parts of the estimates biased, in some cases by substantial amounts. These issues do not imply major qualifications to the data considered here, however. Murphy et al. find that the anti-drug budgets of the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Prisons are accurate reflections of the resources expended while the reported expenditure of the Department of Defense probably underestimates its anti-drug budget. The overestimates that they identify occur for demand-side activities.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn19" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a> The 2003 <em>National Drug Control Strategy</em> adopts a new methodology for estimating the federal drug control budget. This new methodology implies a substantial reduction in supply side expenditure (ONDCP (2002, pp.33-34)). For the purposes of this report, the old methodology is more appropriate. For example, the new approach excludes expenditures on incarceration of persons imprisoned for drug crimes.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn20" href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a> The percentage of prisoners whose primary offense was a marijuana charge would also be relevant, but data are not readily available. Since most convictions at the federal level result in prison terms, incarceration data would imply a similar result to that provided above.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn21" href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a> Inflation rate data are for the CPI - All Urban Consumers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data">http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data</a>).</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn22" href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a> To be explicit, the assumption is that there is no shift in the demand curve. If the supply curve shifts, there will be a change in the quantity demanded.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn23" href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a> The underlying assumption is that the marginal costs of evading tax and regulatory costs is zero for black market suppliers who are already conducting their activities in secret.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn24" href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a> MacCoun and Reuter (1997) report gram prices of $2.50-$12.50 in the Netherlands and $1.50 - $15.00 in the U.S. They speculate that the surprisingly high prices in the Netherlands might reflect enforcement aimed at large-scale trafficking. Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi (1995) note that ONDCP data on drug prices in the U.S. are very similar to prices charged in Dutch coffeeshops. ONDCP (2001b) reports a price per gram for small-scale purchases of roughly $9 per gram in the second quarter of 2000, while EMCDDA (2002) suggests a price of 2-8 Euros per gram, which is roughly $6 on average. Various web sites that discuss the coffee shops in Amsterdam suggest prices of $5 - $11 per gram in recent years. These comparisons do not adjust for potency or other dimensions of quality.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn25" href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a> Clements and Daryal (2001) report marijuana prices for Australia that are similar to or higher than those in the United States. Since Australian marijuana policy is noticeably less strict than U.S. policy, this observation is consistent with the view that legalization would not produce a dramatic fall in price.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn26" href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a> The Nisbet and Vakil estimates that use survey data imply price elasticities of -0.365 or -0.51 in the log and linear specifications, respectively, while the purchase data imply price elasticities of -1.013 and -1.51. The estimates based on purchase data are plausibly more reliable. Moreover, as they note, these estimates are likely biased downward by standard simultaneous equations bias. Clemens and Daryal (1999) estimate a price elasticity of -0.5 for marijuana using Australian data. Estimates of the demand for “similar” goods (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or tobacco) suggest similar elasticities.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn27" href="#_ftnref27">[27]</a> Pacula, Grossman, Chaloupka, O’Malley, Johnston and Farrelly (2000) summarize the literature on the relation between marijuana use and factors that can affect use, such as legal penalties. They conclude the evidence is mixed but overall indicates a moderate response of marijuana consumption to “price.” The papers summarized do not provide measures of the price elasticity. The results reported by Pacula et al. suggest an elasticity of marijuana participation between 0.0 and -0.5; this understates the total elasticity, which includes any change in consumption conditional on participation. The literature since Nisbet and Vakil is thus consistent with the elasticity estimate assumed above.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn28" href="#_ftnref28">[28]</a> Given the uncertainties involved in calculating the tax revenue from marijuana legalization and the possibility that declines in marijuana prices have offset general inflation since 2000, this report omits any adjustment of the tax revenue for inflation. Such an adjustment would make only a small difference in any case.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn29" href="#_ftnref29">[29]</a> In 2001, total government receipts divided by GDP equaled 29.7%. See the <em>2003 Economic Report of the President</em> on-line, <a target="_blank" href="http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf">http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf</a>, Tables B-1 and B-92, pp. 276 and 373.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn30" href="#_ftnref30">[30]</a> Whether such production is illicit depends on the details of a legalization law. Plausibly, growing small amounts for personal use would not be subject to taxation or regulation, just as growing small amounts of vegetables or herbs is not subject to taxation or regulation.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn31" href="#_ftnref31">[31]</a> Schwer, Riddel and Henderson (2002) estimate the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Nevada assuming “sin taxation.” Their estimates are not readily comparable to those presented here because they consider the situation in which one state legalizes marijuana while other states and the federal government prohibit marijuana. The same comment applies to Bates (2004), who estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Alaska. Easton (2004) estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Canada under the assumption of sin taxation. His estimates are comparable but modestly higher than those presented here, adjusted for the different size of the U.S. and Canadian economies. Caputo and Ostrom (1994) provide estimates for the overall economy that are similar to those obtained here.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn32" href="#_ftnref32">[32]</a> See <a target="_blank" href="http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t442.pdf">http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t442.pdf</a>.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn33" href="#_ftnref33">[33]</a> See <a target="_blank" href="http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t444.pdf">http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t444.pdf</a>.</p> <p><a title="" name="_ftn34" href="#_ftnref34">[34]</a> See <a target="_blank" href="http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t531.pdf">http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t531.pdf</a>.</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-60498082184811292022009-10-25T07:04:00.000-07:002009-10-25T07:04:05.601-07:00Obama ends medical marijuana raids in 13 states<b>Huge news:</b> The Obama administration announced that federal agents won't arrest medical marijuana patients or providers who comply with state law. Leverage this momentum and write to Congress for further reform today!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-7373949264395466022009-10-09T12:31:00.000-07:002009-10-09T12:31:25.329-07:00GARLIC HERB MASHERS<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><b>INGREDIENTS</b><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>3-4 large Russet Potatoes, Washed, Peeled, and Cubed<br />
<br />
4 large Garlic Heads<br />
<br />
3 tablespoons Extra Virgin Olive Oil<br />
<br />
1 tablespoon Basil<br />
<br />
1 tablespoon Cracked Black Pepper<br />
<br />
1 tablespoon Kosher Salt<br />
<br />
1/4 pint Heavy Cream<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>4-6 ounces Ricotta Cheese<br />
<br />
4 tablespoons Sweet Butter<br />
<br />
4 tablespoons Cannabutter<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXQQD8r9RPN1-MQ7aa9M1RkgG1msPFS1r-zGvN4Ur1elSaRfljwWR1rtNjQIXPKTMxvqZE2nFSV7lqbhIAVUy1sIPTHemXWOdC4WqwHtVVF2BpMjLHlYqyGYatJjl6pvu7705HOkKxz8li/s1600-h/garlic-mashed-potatoes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXQQD8r9RPN1-MQ7aa9M1RkgG1msPFS1r-zGvN4Ur1elSaRfljwWR1rtNjQIXPKTMxvqZE2nFSV7lqbhIAVUy1sIPTHemXWOdC4WqwHtVVF2BpMjLHlYqyGYatJjl6pvu7705HOkKxz8li/s200/garlic-mashed-potatoes.jpg" /></a><b>INSTRUCTIONS</b><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Cut the top 1/2 inch off the garlic heads. Add olive oil to the cut heads and sprinkle with basil. Roast in 420-degree oven for 30-50 minutes. The garlic is done when tender to a fork. Boil the cubed potatoes in salted water until fork tender, drain, and mash lightly. Add butters to potatoes and continue to mash. Add pepper, salt, cream, and cheese and mash until smooth. Squeeze garlic into the mix and whip until smooth.<br />
</div><br />
<b>NOTES</b><br />
<br />
You can crumble bacon into your mashed potatoes for an extra crunch; or for a home-style taste, leave the skin on the potatoes.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-19714109684445627272009-10-08T15:35:00.000-07:002009-10-08T15:36:52.414-07:00WAKE-N-NO-BAKE COOKIES<strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
<br />
2 cup Sugar<br />
1/2 cup Cannabutter<br />
1/2 cup Milk<br />
3 tablespoons Cocoa<br />
3 cups Quick Oat<br />
1 teaspoon Salt<br />
1 teaspoon Vanilla<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjrJeNLDXDRk7AO9ZJFzfDSu2FDCa4IgklKntmrw8dYKjy0_ra7W_p4V-kPQ_kh36Bb6fzg-wXkpMJhsALbduIAsRFzIaEEZ1yL0h1RCpAb3fydvB0WWTcOqp2C6MAJ9KHA1udhR9zmkO8/s1600-h/cookies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjrJeNLDXDRk7AO9ZJFzfDSu2FDCa4IgklKntmrw8dYKjy0_ra7W_p4V-kPQ_kh36Bb6fzg-wXkpMJhsALbduIAsRFzIaEEZ1yL0h1RCpAb3fydvB0WWTcOqp2C6MAJ9KHA1udhR9zmkO8/s200/cookies.jpg" /></a><strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">In a large saucepan, add the sugar, butter, milk, and cocoa. Bring to a rapid boil, and continue to cook for 2 minutes. Remove from heat and add the oats, salt, and vanilla. Using a #20 ice cream scopper, drop onto wax paper and let cool.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>NOTES</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>I suppose you could even microwave this.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-55277389514208185782009-10-08T15:28:00.000-07:002009-10-08T15:28:48.611-07:00CANNAMELON<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
</div><br />
1 large Watermelon<br />
1/2 ounce Cannabis<br />
1/5 liter Vodka<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-MtLBcr405OZ204FPUl4kfA61NU4xToWBVKEIryf475lwqnY5jfS7YMlxMZZtegwP8fEk4ZxRdXw18sPjHBxElVXyDuwfGbqVHSUyUK59QfF0TbkPOxtoBZpb67ndgKzY_NLq4hUvs13n/s1600-h/cannamelon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-MtLBcr405OZ204FPUl4kfA61NU4xToWBVKEIryf475lwqnY5jfS7YMlxMZZtegwP8fEk4ZxRdXw18sPjHBxElVXyDuwfGbqVHSUyUK59QfF0TbkPOxtoBZpb67ndgKzY_NLq4hUvs13n/s400/cannamelon.jpg" /></a><strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Grind the cannabis to a fine powder. Put the cannabis in a bottle of Vodka, and cover the top of the bottle with cheesecloth and a rubber band. Cut a hole in the watermelon so you can insert the top of the bottle. Put the bottle in the hole and let sit in the refrigerator overnight.<br />
</div><br />
<strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<br />
This one is great for picnics!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-31941477233917171872009-10-07T15:08:00.000-07:002009-10-07T15:08:55.397-07:00HOT BUTTERED BHANG<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
</div><br />
1/8 pound Butter<br />
1/2 ounce Cannabis<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">8 ounces Vodka<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">1 tablespoon Honey<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGwOzl-LifiywUL_LvqB4tcUrh08cJ3LDG0NH3cQfQO-v9kqKJknsdy-CtJBYWl1QD6Hgnhj8w3F8-f0kB79Am0ZbUyCSqE9fRnaJwyYzzYk0uxjt1eaJ9Ls07ncg820fwWk8yz9euoFI6/s1600-h/cannabis+bhang.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGwOzl-LifiywUL_LvqB4tcUrh08cJ3LDG0NH3cQfQO-v9kqKJknsdy-CtJBYWl1QD6Hgnhj8w3F8-f0kB79Am0ZbUyCSqE9fRnaJwyYzzYk0uxjt1eaJ9Ls07ncg820fwWk8yz9euoFI6/s400/cannabis+bhang.jpg" /></a><strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">In a medium saucepan, melt 1/8 pound of butter over medium heat. Add the cannabis, which should be ground up into a fine powder. Add the Vodka and bring the mixture to a boil, stirring the entire time. Once boiling, reduce to medium-low heat and let sit for 10-30 minutes, or overnight. Strain the mixture and let cool to room temperature. Add honey to taste, and pour into a glass.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><br />
<strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<br />
You could always use a 1/4 ounce of cannabis if you are not up to the intense trip of a half ounce. Substitute Vodka with Everclear for a stronger kick.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-46970944231161295232009-10-07T14:52:00.000-07:002009-10-07T14:52:53.095-07:00MAGIC TINCTURE<strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
<br />
2-3 tablespoons Honey<br />
1/2 ounce Cannabis<br />
3 ounces Vodka<br />
1 teaspoon Ginger, Grated<br />
1 teaspoon Orange Zest<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6pmTngKyyB2WROgwVUfSR7MRBEuka7g6Xx3-XYE3xV85l_Von4vMkUX0-XIk7xZsKsvxRkY3x9pOZK9lYzfZiMOTCR7QTVYCsZU7C1BArDnh6WWXl_EJBE3D1mMgiwis1_nCiLeeRGtNB/s1600-h/cannabis+magic-tincture.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6pmTngKyyB2WROgwVUfSR7MRBEuka7g6Xx3-XYE3xV85l_Von4vMkUX0-XIk7xZsKsvxRkY3x9pOZK9lYzfZiMOTCR7QTVYCsZU7C1BArDnh6WWXl_EJBE3D1mMgiwis1_nCiLeeRGtNB/s320/cannabis+magic-tincture.gif" /></a><br />
</div><strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">In a small saucepan, heat honey over low heat. Do not let the honey foam over! Mix in the powdered Cannabis, and while stirring slowly add the Vodka so the texture stays in a liquid form, not a solid sticky mass. Continue to cook over low heat for 30 minutes. Pour into a jar and cover, let sit in the refrigerator until cool.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<br />
Take a teaspoon every 15 minutes until you figure out a “dose” that is good for you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-19207481505614610802009-10-07T14:17:00.000-07:002009-10-07T14:17:26.399-07:00CANNABIS ELIXIR<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY4qQB89A1UaleAiSKnAqJ34YPHbafAjUlrFLiMHqAW_eRei-ut_lQOfaOaFtVMZJC0Q4HqRNGb71SZ3aVGS-ZjJ0FHbgp_WGqmELdDy1O-jdKPpCu4DAyGWRCSYssQiqMLGUlXTlVph8X/s1600-h/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY4qQB89A1UaleAiSKnAqJ34YPHbafAjUlrFLiMHqAW_eRei-ut_lQOfaOaFtVMZJC0Q4HqRNGb71SZ3aVGS-ZjJ0FHbgp_WGqmELdDy1O-jdKPpCu4DAyGWRCSYssQiqMLGUlXTlVph8X/s400/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><br />
<strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
<br />
Cannabis Tincture<br />
Honey<br />
4-6 Vitamin E Capsules<br />
<br />
<strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
<br />
Place the tincture in a double boiler over an electric heat source. Reduce the solution by half. Once reduce, add 1/2 the remaining volume of tincture in honey along with the vitamin E capsules (e.g. if you have 2 quarts of tincture after reduction, you would add 1 quart honey). Continue to reduce the volume with constant stirring until you have nearly boiled it down to the original volume of syrup you began with. Let cool, and store in a lightproof glass in the refrigerator. <br />
<br />
<strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<br />
The dosage should be between a teaspoon and a couple tablespoons. You can customize your elixirs by adding different herbs, like adding syrup of Elderberry makes an effective treatment for influenza; or adding Kava can provide greater pain control and sedation. With a little study in herbal medicine, you can customize your blends for any ailment. For the flu, use cannabis tincture with Elderberry and Cat’s Claw.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-38223283205007001952009-10-07T14:12:00.000-07:002009-10-07T14:13:48.696-07:00CANNABIS TINCTURE (WARM METHOD)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBG8y1-zQDDRtIb4eib4f5v2uCDt1GpNejNBLckq0-eEEJt7_c31E2sPHfYD2pklesq6y68UtBhaOzeIertCWjyW8t7mcM6Qc79tSgolMBd_gIrdWbzMsWTtFweqfeDvBZGE8DeTnMj8rh/s1600-h/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBG8y1-zQDDRtIb4eib4f5v2uCDt1GpNejNBLckq0-eEEJt7_c31E2sPHfYD2pklesq6y68UtBhaOzeIertCWjyW8t7mcM6Qc79tSgolMBd_gIrdWbzMsWTtFweqfeDvBZGE8DeTnMj8rh/s400/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
<br />
1 ounce Cannabis, Roughly Chopped<br />
1 pint 95% Ethanol (190 Proof)<br />
<br />
<strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
<br />
Place the cannabis and ethanol in a large glass Mason jar. Shake at least once a day. Place the jar in a brown paper bag. Leave in a warm spot, like near the window, for 30-60 days. The mixture should turn a very dark green. Strain with a cheesecloth like in the cold method, making sure to squeeze any excess liquid. This tincture has a nasty taste, but it is very powerful. It may upset fragile stomachs. You should take the tincture orally in cranberry juice or coffee with sugar. Store your tincture in a light-blocking glass jar in a cool, dry place (like the refrigerator or freezer). You can keep the cheesecloth in the freezer as well and apply it over an area of the skin for a few minutes with gentle rubbing.<br />
<br />
<strong>NOTES</strong><br />
<br />
The main difference between this method and the cold method is the preparation of materials. Light must be avoided also.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-825192987026246222009-10-06T15:25:00.000-07:002009-10-06T15:25:32.107-07:00CANNABIS TINCTURE (COLD METHOD)<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3UX1n8kBpSN00Ys10ei5dsfI5DEC9Ehr57Op-7eWY4DlJSqdDzLcBY-3g1jMsawClCUiqtx9geKr7rru4tcFyTKa0se3m9-x8ofnXf8Rbehz5YwBRAix6b9RZPfvd_t3tAt8lASBcVQEM/s1600-h/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $r="true" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3UX1n8kBpSN00Ys10ei5dsfI5DEC9Ehr57Op-7eWY4DlJSqdDzLcBY-3g1jMsawClCUiqtx9geKr7rru4tcFyTKa0se3m9-x8ofnXf8Rbehz5YwBRAix6b9RZPfvd_t3tAt8lASBcVQEM/s320/cannabis+tinicture.jpg" /></a><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>1 ounce Cannabis<br />
1 pint 95% Ethanol (190 Proof)<br />
<br />
<strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">You will need 1 ounce of cannabis for every pint of ethanol. Some good spirits to use would be Everclear, 151 Rum, or White Lightning due to the high proof. You want an alcohol with 95% ethanol, or a 190-proof alcohol to obtain the best results. The night before you make this, leave your bud in the freezer, completely drying it out. It’s also a good idea to put the ethanol in the freezer as well. Once your bud has been in the freezer, grind it up to almost a powder and mix together with ethanol in a glass quart-mixing jar. Close the jar and shake for 5 minutes, then return to freezer. Continue to agitate the mixture every few hours with refreezing. Continue this process anywhere from 3 days to 9 weeks, however patient you are really. Remember, the longer the better. When you are done with that process, pour the liquid through cheesecloth. You can save the “ball” of cheesecloth for topical use, or run it through a coffee filter. Make sure to squeeze any remaining liquid out. You might want to wear gloves during this process, as the solution might be pretty strong. The color of your final product is dependent on what percent ethanol you used. If you used a 95% ethanol solution, your tincture should be pale green to golden. If you used 151 rum, it should be an amber color. If your tincture is a dark green that means excess plant material is present. This does not affect the potency though; it just means it won’t taste very good. It’s a good idea to add some flavor extracts, like vanilla or raspberry, to change the taste of your tincture.<br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><strong>NOTES</strong><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>Making a tincture via the cold method preserves the integrity of cannabinoids. Always use the best quality cannabis for the best results. Your cannabis should be completely dry and mold free.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-53208146239027035212009-10-04T14:17:00.000-07:002009-10-04T14:25:45.742-07:00How to Make Marijuana Butter!<span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>CANNABUTTER</strong> </span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"></span><br /><strong>INGREDIENTS</strong><br /><br />1 ounce Cannabis<br />1 pound Butter<br /><br /><strong>INSTRUCTIONS</strong><br /><br />Using a coffee grinder, or something similar, grind the cannabis into a fine powder. In a saucepan, melt the butter over medium-low heat. Stir in the cannabis powder with a wooden spoon. Once the mixture starts to come together, reduce the heat to low. Leave on heat for a minimum of 30 minutes, the longer the better, just don’t let the mixture burn! Once it has cooked, strain the mixture, making sure to squeeze all the butter out. You can use those plastic containers that margarine comes in if you have nothing to put your cannabutter in. Pour a little water over the butter once it has hardened and it will last longer.<br /><br /><strong>NOTES</strong><br /><br />The amount of cannabis you use will determine how weak or strong it will be. Some people add as little as 1/4 ounce, some more. You can also use margarine, lard, shortening, and any oil (sunflower, sesame, olive, peanut, vegetable, etc.) instead of butter. If you don’t want the house to smell like cannabis, just add 7-28 grams of whole cannabis into a jar with oil and let sit for at least a week, this is known as CannaOil. The same goes for flour, by mixing powdered cannabis into flour will leave you with a perfect flour substitute, CannaFlour. Just remember, any recipe that calls for butter, oil, or a fat can be substituted with the cannabis version.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-8957741793727691712009-10-03T20:17:00.000-07:002009-10-03T20:20:25.458-07:00The Truth About Medical Marijuana!<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Of6PCVk9qA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9Of6PCVk9qA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-43805472105119093392009-10-02T21:42:00.000-07:002009-10-02T21:51:23.884-07:00How to make a simple bong!<div><br /><strong>To make a simple bong you'll need:</strong><br /><br />- a plastic coke bottle<br />- a small piece of pipe, about 5-10cm lenght<br />- a socket from a socket set that will fit in the end of the pipe<br /><br /><strong>Instructions:</strong><br /><br />1. Make a hole for the pipe about 1/3 way up bottle and insert pipe so pipe is bending down into the bottle.<br /><br />2. Put the socket in the end of the pipe outside the bottle.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiICINXm_5N1vHBf7lNpZoF6_KdSr4-MDQzi5Ibty0eITjMuc8XRyMQyLpp7omKNeljpMY0v4xk3DY43GcexQJLNO5y1PXMYEi_c7iRDlu7xChpxY-65c8g6nL3keYaa9SXg1hNCvpw5VJL/s1600-h/how-to-make-a-bong.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388230551450866050" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 290px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiICINXm_5N1vHBf7lNpZoF6_KdSr4-MDQzi5Ibty0eITjMuc8XRyMQyLpp7omKNeljpMY0v4xk3DY43GcexQJLNO5y1PXMYEi_c7iRDlu7xChpxY-65c8g6nL3keYaa9SXg1hNCvpw5VJL/s320/how-to-make-a-bong.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />3. Make a smaller hole in the bottle above the first hole.<br /><br />4. Fill bottle with water so that pipe is in water, but water level does not reach the hole.<br /><br /><br />Ok. The socket is where you put your mix (tobacco and your crumbled solid) and the second hole acts as an air-hole.<br /><br />When you have filled the socket with your mix, you light the mix and suck through the bottle top while holding your finger over the air-hole.<br /><br />To clear the bottle, either suck all the smoke out or take your finger off the air-hole and blow the smoke out.<br /><br />So there you have it, a simple bong :) </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-87516234680334870312009-10-02T12:41:00.000-07:002009-10-02T12:51:28.078-07:00What If Cannabis Was Legal?<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/a6c_1254169180"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/a6c_1254169180" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-71425847535944312332009-10-02T09:01:00.000-07:002009-10-02T09:26:25.976-07:00A Brief Look At Marijuana Botany<div class="widget-content"> <p> <b>Plant Strains</b></p><p> Today, there are <em>countless</em> different strains of Cannabis, all of which have spawned from the two original types of this plant: <i>Sativa</i> and <i>Indica</i>. Sativa is typically the taller, more sparce plant with longer branches, fewer leaves along the branches and usually light in pallour. Indica is a shorter bushier strain of plant. This plant is a lot more stout and females bud much more.</p><p> Because of cross breeding, cloning, grafting, and other things, a strain of pure sativa or indica today is near impossible to find. Cross breeding can either occur natrually, or can be done purposefully by man. When this happens naturally it occurs most often by a sativa plant pollenating an indica plant, or vice versa.</p><p> Cloning and grafting are both done by man and this is usually done to attempt to grow a plant with the benefits of both sativa and the indica strains.</p><p> </p><p> From here, plant strains get somewhat more complicated with cross breeding, experemental growth and budding lamps, variable conditions of growth, and synthetic growth stimulants (Bud-Gro, Ph balance etc) thousands of different strains emerged, all cheifly searching for a mix of perhaps a smoother, more pleasant taste, along with a high THC content, and generally ideal effects when smoked. </p><p> Examples of some popular strains that are sought after today are: </p><ul><li>Northern Lights</li><li>Blueberry</li><li>White Widow</li><li>Dutch KB</li><p>All of the above strains are obviously a cross between sativa and indica, but it is posible to articulate which strain is dominant in each. </p><p> <b>Plant Genders</b></p><p> The cannabis plant has two genders, male and female. However, there can also be hermaphrodite plants, which are both male and female, although when growers come across these they are usually removed for the fact that they do more harm than good. Male plants do not bud, they create pollen, which when administered to a female bud, will create seeds. Because of this, when growing, there is a simple rule about plant genders, if you want seeds for next season, leave the males, if you want bud, then remove the males as soon as they can be identified.</p><p> If cannabis is being grown for the purpose of smoking, males are primarily useless because the only part that is smokeable is the leaf, which is hardly used today. </p><p> <b>Why Cannabis Produces THC</b></p><p> THC, or Tetrahydrocannabinol is the main reason that Marijuana is smoked. This is the active chemical that gets the user 'high.' THC does this by reacting on certain receptors on the users brain. Effectively it is pushing buttons on the brain which bring the user feelings of pleasure. THC is produced cardinally in the bud of the plant, althought it is also present in smaller amounts in the leaf. It is activated by heat at around 120 degrees farenheit and is destroyed at around 240 degrees, with its boiling point at 200 degrees. The THC in the cannabis plant is produced as a defense mecahnism to protect itself,and its spawn. This is the reason that THC is produced only when the plant reaches maturity. </p><p> <b>Where Cannabis Grows</b></p><p>Ideally, Cannabis is grown in an area of altitude where it gets around 8-12 hours of regular, hot sunshine per day. The plant is essentially a very hardy plant under its original conditions, but when it is grown out of it's native area problems arise.</p><p> Cannabis has grown since ancient times in places such as China, India, European countries and more. It is a diverse plant which will grow under many conditions it is not used to.</p><p> Today cannabis can be grown just about anywhere. If the conditions outside are too harsh, then cannabis can be grown hydroponically, with growth lamps, bud lamps, reflectors, exhast fans and other equipment which essentially synthetically emulates prime growing conditions for the plant.</p><p> <b>Plant Reproduction</b></p><p> Reproduction will happen naturally if there are many plants growing together, as the male will fertalise the female, and instead of her producing buds she will produce seeds, and this is why when plants are grown for budding males are removed early in the process. Many growers do not not like doing this to get new plants because it means a whole crop has been used just for seeds, but sometimes it is neccesary. There is another way to reproduce plants, and it is called cloning. To clone a plant the basic procedure is to wait until the plant is of a decent size, then the crowns of the stem are cut off, treated in a chemical, and then put in rockwool under a growth lamp so that they can take root. Once they have taken root they can be put under the normal hydroponic lamps.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimBPVbDj0rDcrR7oW3CbMdggWTDo2yICvQb2fCOrW762-97DzTuUlxFLiTfKYb0eFPmdKY0TO0CiKBl1Zqdu8oTudt8Cp9dhXzzvloA3aq0-jbvHHEI4EwWjGV708-QtQB73ZEqzEw3EMW/s1600-h/therapy_cannabis.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 255px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimBPVbDj0rDcrR7oW3CbMdggWTDo2yICvQb2fCOrW762-97DzTuUlxFLiTfKYb0eFPmdKY0TO0CiKBl1Zqdu8oTudt8Cp9dhXzzvloA3aq0-jbvHHEI4EwWjGV708-QtQB73ZEqzEw3EMW/s400/therapy_cannabis.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5388039555207516642" border="0" /></a></p></ul> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-43095493066851295952009-09-29T17:50:00.000-07:002009-09-29T17:52:55.907-07:00ALERT: Treating Swine and Avian Flu by Down-Regulating the Inflammatory Response<span style="font-size:78%;"><a href="http://www.cannabisscience.com/">by Robert Melamede, PhD, CSI Chief Science Officer</a></span><br /><br />The problem with current approaches to defeating Swine Flu, is we have not been able to beat the virus, because it's too good at mutating. Although it might be possible to use different antigenic targets to create a vaccine that would be more universal and effective in the future, we need something now to defend against Swine Flu. We believe the solution is to change how our bodies deal with the virus. Recent discoveries about the anti-inflammatory properties of cannabinoids can provide us with new medicines, which can modify how we respond to these viruses and provide us with effective, non-toxic therapies. This paper provides a theory, with peer reviewed references, that supports the use of cannabinoids to prevent deaths associated with avian flu infections. If the lethality caused by the current swine flu can also be attributed to ARDS, then our proposal can be extended to the current problem.<br /><br />1.0 Introduction: The Endocannabinoid System<br />Far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics as pioneered by Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine, provides a physical underpinning for all biological processes 1,2. An intrinsic characteristic that emerges, and permeates all organizational levels of life, is oscillations of opposing biochemical phenomena, often linked with inflammatory anti-inflammatory processes. In the same manner that temperature in a house varies around the set point determined by a thermostat, countless interacting reactions in human biochemistry oscillate around set points that turn up or down inflammatory responses and associated free radical production 3. Evolution has selected the endocannabinoid system as a critical modulator of inflammatory biochemical pathways 4.<br /><br />Essentially, inflammation-generated free radicals may be thought of as biochemical friction, and endocannabinoids as the oil of life 5 in that they reduce this friction. From this perspective, it is easy to understand why the endocannabinoids system has life promoting activities 6, and why phytocannabinoids (plant derived cannabinoids), by virtue of their ability to mimic endocannabinoids, have therapeutic benefits for such wide range of illnesses, including cardiovascular 7,8, neurological 9,10, immunological 11-14, skeletal 15,16, diseases and cancers 17-24. They in fact appear to function as anti-aging compounds as indicated by the increased lifespan observed when mice were treated with THC for extended periods of time 25. In contrast, knockout mice that lacked the CB1 receptor die prematurely and CB2 knockout mice appear to have a number of associated phenotypes relating to the immune system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, digestive system, and reproductive system 26-29. The bird flu is one of the most critical viral diseases to threaten mankind today. Influenza viruses have already killed millions of individuals around the world. The following sections on the bird flu are a logical synthesis of existing knowledge that dramatically shows how important cannabis-based research can be for mankind, and why we have chosen influenza as an early focus of our research efforts. We feel that the evidence below sufficiently supports the possibility that cannabinoids may save millions of lives that would otherwise be lost due to influenza and HIV infections, and it would be immoral and irresponsible not to determine if our hypothesis is correct.<br /><br />2.0 A Brief Introduction Into the Immune System<br />In order to appreciate the hypothesized life-saving possibilities offered by cannabinoids with respect to the bird flu and HIV, a limited understanding of how the immune system works is necessary. Upon infection, the infectious agent and damaged host tissue release chemical signals that serve as markers so that neutrophils, the foot soldiers of the immune system, can find their way to the invading pathogens. These specialized white blood cells bring with them a formidable array of biochemical weaponry including specialized receptors (TLRs), known as toll receptors that recognize molecular patterns on various pathogens. Bound TLRs activate neutrophils to produce highly inflammatory bacteriocidal chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide and sodium perchlorate. Additionally, neutrophils phagocytize the invaders. The neutrophils die young, lasting only a few days. The debris field is subsequently cleaned up by additional, late to arrive, phagocytic cells, monocytes and macrophage. The immune process thus far described is known as the innate immune system. We inherit it and are born with it functioning. The high levels of free radicals and other cytotoxic agents produced during the innate response create a lot of collateral damage. To overcome this damage problem, evolution has selected an additional more targeted, less inflammatory immune process known as the acquired response.<br /><br />The acquired immune response takes pieces of the phagocytized pathogens and presents them on the surface of phagocytic cells in order to generate a specific response via the collaborative action of T and B cells that ideally kill pathogens and pathogen infected cells with a more specific targeted, less inflammatory response directed by B and T cell receptors.<br /><br />2.1 Pathology associated with an Excessive Inflammatory Response<br />Today, most people in first world countries die from age-related illnesses 30. One hundred years ago, people in the same countries died predominantly of infectious diseases. The proinflammatory arm of the human immune system has evolved to play a critical role in fighting many infectious diseases. However, the inflammatory responses and associated free radical production appear to be at the heart of age-related illnesses including neurological disorders, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, and cancers 31.<br /><br />Man has changed the world in which we live in a manner that – for now – has greatly increased our lifespan. Improvements in public health, for example, have resulted in dramatic increases in the health of the human population. However, these changes have occurred too rapidly for the evolution of our immune system to keep pace with changing environmental demands. We live cleaner today, and in general appear to need lower levels of inflammation for control of most infections. Since the endocannabinoid system plays a critical role in up-regulating the anti-inflammatory arm of the immune system, phytocannabinoids can play a natural role in bringing man's immune system up-to-date by reducing the levels of immune generated inflammation, i.e. resetting the inflammatory thermostat.<br /><br />It is important to keep in mind that different infections elicit different types of immune responses. There is an ongoing evolutionary battle between our immune system and pathogens. While many illnesses are exacerbated by an excessive inflammatory immune response, this type of response is required to control infection of tuberculosis, Legionella pneumophila, and Leishmania. The use of cannabis for these types of infections could be lethal as indicated by animal models 32, because some types of infections actually require the pro-inflammatory response for their survival as most recent studies indicate is the case with HIV.<br /><br />2.2 Avian Influenza (Bird Flu)<br /><br />The Problem: The bird flu is one of the most dangerous viral diseases to threaten mankind today 33. The main source of fear is that mutated viruses will be acquire the capacity to transfer not only from wild birds to domestic birds and then to people, from man to man 34 and result in a worldwide pandemic. North Americans may be particularly vulnerable to this threat as a result of the migratory route over Canada taken by many wild birds 35.<br /><br />This danger is underscored by the recent outbreak of the avian flu on the Canadian turkey farms that resulted in the killing of thousands of birds 36. The Canadian press recently reported that Baxter International’s European facility in Austria mistakenly provided materials that were contaminated with the deadly avian H5N1 strain of influenza to a research company that subsequently sent samples to other European countries 37. When samples were injected into animals, the unexpected death that resulted led to investigations that identified the deadly strain as the problem.<br /><br />This error could easily have resulted in a pandemic that would have killed millions. The magnitude of the threat posed by the avian flu to humanity was recently further emphasized by studies showing an unexpected rise in resistance to currently used antiviral medications 33. The bird flu, should it mutate to efficiently infect humans, will kill many millions in one season.<br /><br />The Solution: The lethality associated with bird flu infections in humans is very high (63%) 38. Based on animal studies, it appears that the bird flu elicits a proinflammatory immune response that is many times greater than that which results from infections by other influenza strains both in the lungs 39 and the brain 40. The apparently excessive proinflammatory immune response results in the lethal development of adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ failure 41. We hypothesize that a life-saving down-regulation of the excessively high proinflammatory response to the bird flu may be accomplished by orally ingesting an appropriate dose of phytocannabinoids without impairing immune control of the virus (resetting the inflammatory thermostat). Smoking or vaporizing cannabis will not work, and in fact could make things worse since using the pulmonary route will promote an added degree of inflammation.<br /><br />There are typically two phases to any immune response. Initially, the innate arm of the immune system responds by initiating acute inflammation and free radical-induced cell killing. This general, non-specific response is then turned down as the more targeted acquired immune response kicks in. A successful immune response is characterized by the control of infection in a manner that minimizes harm to the infected organism. This goal is difficult and complex to accomplish. Both genetic and environmental factors, as well as chance, determine the outcome of a given infection.<br /><br />The immune-cell-driven functions of the innate immune system are very inflammation dependant, and as a consequence produce collateral damage to surrounding tissue. Neutrophils, monocytes and macrophage are migratory cells that travel to the site of infection and initiate an innate immune response. Ultimately, these same cell types are also responsible for the transition to the acquired response as a result of antigen uptake and presentation. Current thinking suggests that the monocytes release MCL-1 attractant protein that binds the chemokine receptor CCR2 on a novel dendritic cell subset that produces TNF and iNOS (Tip) 42, which during later stages of infection promote antigen specific T cell responses 43.<br /><br />There are numerous studies that demonstrate the capacity of cannabinoids to down regulate the cascade of pro-inflammatory immune responses. Neutrophil 44 and monocyte migration in inhibited by activating CB2 receptor 45 Similarly, cannabinoids reduce the response to pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokines 46 including TNF 47-49. Most relevant to our proposal, the effect of THC on influenza induced lung inflammation has been examined 50,51. These studies demonstrated that THC could prevent influenza induced lung epithelial cell death even though there was an increase in viral load.<br /><br />In order to appreciate the significance of these findings the thermostat model is helpful. The inflammatory thermostat of Homo sapiens was set over the past hundreds of thousands of years. Humans lived short dirty lives. A strong inflammatory response was essential. Under some circumstances, such as occurs with influenza infection in a cleaner modern world, the inflammatory thermostat may be set too high. As a result, rather than protecting us, our immune system is killing us. Biology is never simple. The influenza virus is itself cytolytic and therefore destructive of respiratory epithelial cells, and our defenses are complicated 52. The question therefore becomes what kills first the virus or the immune system? The probable, but complex answer is that the outcome will depend the idiosyncratic biochemical balances of an individual, past exposures, and their genetics.<br /><br /><br /><br />1 Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction (W.H. Freeman & Company, 1989).<br /><br />2 Melamede, R. J. Dissipative Structures and the Origins of Life. Interjournal Complex Systems 601 (2006).<br /><br />3 Melamede, R. Harm reduction--the cannabis paradox. Harm Reduct J 2, 17 (2005).<br /><br />4 Burstein, S. H. & Zurier, R. B. Cannabinoids, Endocannabinoids, and Related Analogs in Inflammation. AAPS J (2009).<br /><br />5 Melamede, R. J. Endocannabinoids: Multi-scaled, Global Homeostatic Regulators of Cells and Society. Interjournal Complex Systems 1669 (2006).<br /><br />6 Zimmer, A., Zimmer, A. M., Hohmann, A. G., Herkenham, M. & Bonner, T. I. Increased mortality, hypoactivity, and hypoalgesia in cannabinoid CB1 receptor knockout mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 96, 5780-5785 (1999).<br /><br />7 Mach, F. & Steffens, S. The role of the endocannabinoid system in atherosclerosis. J. Neuroendocrinol. 20 Suppl 1, 53-57 (2008).<br /><br />8 Pacher, P. & Hasko, G. Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors in ischaemia-reperfusion injury and preconditioning. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2008).<br /><br />9 Hosking, R. D. & Zajicek, J. P. Therapeutic potential of cannabis in pain medicine. Br J Anaesth (2008).<br /><br />10 Rog, D. J., Nurmikko, T. J. & Young, C. A. Oromucosal delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol for neuropathic pain associated with multiple sclerosis: an uncontrolled, open-label, 2-year extension trial. Clin Ther 29, 2068-2079 (2007).<br /><br />11 Cabral, G. A., Raborn, E. S., Griffin, L., Dennis, J. & Marciano-Cabral, F. CB(2) receptors in the brain: role in central immune function. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2007).<br /><br />12 Eisenstein, T. K., Meissler, J. J., Wilson, Q., Gaughan, J. P. & Adler, M. W. Anandamide and Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol directly inhibit cells of the immune system via CB(2) receptors. J. Neuroimmunol. (2007).<br /><br />13 Klein, T. W. & Cabral, G. A. Cannabinoid-induced immune suppression and modulation of antigen-presenting cells. J Neuroimmune Pharmacol 1, 50-64 (2006).<br /><br />14 Verhoeckx, K. C. et al. Unheated Cannabis sativa extracts and its major compound THC-acid have potential immuno-modulating properties not mediated by CB1 and CB2 receptor coupled pathways. Int Immunopharmacol 6, 656-665 (2006).<br /><br />15 Ofek, O. et al. Peripheral cannabinoid receptor, CB2, regulates bone mass. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 103, 696-701 (2006).<br /><br />16 Idris, A. I. et al. Regulation of bone mass, bone loss and osteoclast activity by cannabinoid receptors. Nat. Med. 11, 774-779 (2005).<br /><br />17 Blazquez, C. et al. Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Cancer Res. 68, 1945-1952 (2008).<br /><br />18 Widmer, M., Hanemann, O. & Zajicek, J. High concentrations of cannabinoids activate apoptosis in human U373MG glioma cells. J. Neurosci. Res. (2008).<br /><br />19 Ramer, R. & Hinz, B. Inhibition of cancer cell invasion by cannabinoids via increased expression of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 100, 59-69 (2008).<br /><br />20 Preet, A., Ganju, R. K. & Groopman, J. E. Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Oncogene (2007).<br /><br />21 Velasco, G. et al. Cannabinoids and gliomas. Mol. Neurobiol. 36, 60-67 (2007).<br /><br />22 Ligresti, A. et al. Antitumor activity of plant cannabinoids with emphasis on the effect of cannabidiol on human breast carcinoma. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 318, 1375-1387 (2006).<br /><br />23 Guzman, M. et al. A pilot clinical study of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Br. J. Cancer (2006).<br /><br />24 Caffarel, M. M., Sarrio, D., Palacios, J., Guzman, M. & Sanchez, C. Delta}9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Inhibits Cell Cycle Progression in Human Breast Cancer Cells through Cdc2 Regulation. Cancer Res. 66, 6615-6621 (2006).<br /><br />25 NIH. NTP Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of 1-Trans-Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (CAS No. 1972-08-3) in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Studies). Natl Toxicol Program Tech Rep Ser S 446, 1-317 (1996).<br /><br />26 Buckley, N. E. et al. Immunomodulation by cannabinoids is absent in mice deficient for the cannabinoid CB(2) receptor. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 396, 141-149 (2000).<br /><br />27 Kunos, G. & Batkai, S. Novel physiologic functions of endocannabinoids as revealed through the use of mutant mice. Neurochem Res 26, 1015-1021 (2001).<br /><br />28 Buckley, N. E. The Peripheral Cannabinoid Receptor Knockout Mice: an Update. Br. J. Pharmacol. 153, 309-318 (2008).<br /><br />29 Springs, A. E., Karmaus, P. W., Crawford, R. B., Kaplan, B. L. & Kaminski, N. E. Effects of targeted deletion of cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 on immune competence and sensitivity to immune modulation by {Delta}9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J. Leukoc. Biol. (2008).<br /><br />30 Walczak, J. S., Price, T. J. & Cervero, F. Cannabinoid CB(1) receptors are expressed in the mouse urinary bladder and their activation modulates afferent bladder activity. Neuroscience 159, 1154-1163 (2009).<br /><br />31 Balaban, R. S., Nemoto, S. & Finkel, T. Mitochondria, oxidants, and aging. Cell 120, 483-495 (2005).<br /><br />32 Newton, C. A., Klein, T. W. & Friedman, H. Secondary immunity to Legionella pneumophila and Th1 activity are suppressed by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol injection. Infect. Immun. 62, 4015-4020 (1994).<br /><br />33 Khanna, M., Kumar, P., Choudhary, K., Kumar, B. & Vijayan, V. K. Emerging influenza virus: a global threat. J Biosci 33, 475-482 (2008).<br /><br />34 Jeong, O. M. et al. Experimental infection of chickens, ducks and quails with the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus. J Vet Sci 10, 53-60 (2009).<br /><br />35 Anekonda, T. S. & Adamus, G. Resveratrol prevents antibody-induced apoptotic death of retinal cells through upregulation of Sirt1 and Ku70. BMC Res Notes 1, 122 (2008).<br /><br />36 Times, A. Two more farms under quarantine. (2009).<br /><br />37 D., Z. Vaccine maker's snafu sparks pandemic scare. World Net Daily (2009).<br /><br />38 Baskin, C. R. et al. Early and sustained innate immune response defines pathology and death in nonhuman primates infected by highly pathogenic influenza virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 106, 3455-3460 (2009).<br /><br />39 Chan, M. C. et al. Proinflammatory cytokine responses induced by influenza A (H5N1) viruses in primary human alveolar and bronchial epithelial cells. Respir Res 6, 135 (2005).<br /><br />40 Korteweg, C. & Gu, J. Pathology, molecular biology, and pathogenesis of avian influenza A (H5N1) infection in humans. Am. J. Pathol. 172, 1155-1170 (2008).<br /><br />41 To, K. F. et al. Pathology of fatal human infection associated with avian influenza A H5N1 virus. J. Med. Virol. 63, 242-246 (2001).<br /><br />42 Aldridge, J. R. J. et al. TNF/iNOS-producing dendritic cells are the necessary evil of lethal influenza virus infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 106, 5306-5311 (2009).<br /><br />43 Pamer, E. G. Tipping the balance in favor of protective immunity during influenza virus infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 106, 4961-4962 (2009).<br /><br />44 McHugh, D., Tanner, C., Mechoulam, R., Pertwee, R. G. & Ross, R. A. Inhibition of human neutrophil chemotaxis by endogenous cannabinoids and phytocannabinoids: evidence for a site distinct from CB1 and CB2. Mol. Pharmacol. 73, 441-450 (2008).<br /><br />45 Montecucco, F., Burger, F., Mach, F. & Steffens, S. The CB2 cannabinoid receptor agonist JWH-015 modulates human monocyte migration through defined intracellular signaling pathways. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2008).<br /><br />46 Di Filippo, C., Rossi, F., Rossi, S. & D'Amico, M. Cannabinoid CB2 receptor activation reduces mouse myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: involvement of cytokine/chemokines and PMN. J. Leukoc. Biol. 75, 453-459 (2004).<br /><br />47 Rajesh, M. et al. CB(2) cannabinoid receptor agonists attenuate TNF-alpha-induced human vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration. Br. J. Pharmacol. (2007).<br /><br />48 Rajesh, M. et al. Cannabinoid-2 receptor stimulation attenuates TNF{alpha}-induced human endothelial cell activation, transendothelial migration of monocytes, and monocyte-endothelial adhesion. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2007).<br /><br />49 Facchinetti, F., Del Giudice, E., Furegato, S., Passarotto, M. & Leon, A. Cannabinoids ablate release of TNFalpha in rat microglial cells stimulated with lypopolysaccharide. Glia 41, 161-168 (2003).<br /><br />50 Buchweitz, J. P., Karmaus, P. W., Williams, K. J., Harkema, J. R. & Kaminski, N. E. Targeted deletion of cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 produced enhanced inflammatory responses to influenza A/PR/8/34 in the absence and presence of {Delta}9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J. Leukoc. Biol. (2007).<br /><br />51 Buchweitz, J. P., Karmaus, P. W., Harkema, J. R., Williams, K. J. & Kaminski, N. E. Modulation Of Airway Responses To Influenza A/PR/8/34 By Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol In C57BL/6 Mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther (2007).<br /><br />52 Topham, D. J., Tripp, R. A. & Doherty, P. C. CD8+ T cells clear influenza virus by perforin or Fas-dependent processes. J. Immunol. 159, 5197-5200 (1997).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-27143765318670173732009-09-27T13:40:00.000-07:002009-09-27T13:45:32.311-07:00How to make wicked hash<span style="font-size:78%;">By Liza Scammel and Bianca Sind - Wednesday, May 22 2002 </span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;"><br /></span><br />Making hash is easier than you think!<br /><br />Nederhash: pressed from trichomes harvested in Holland.Making hash is an ancient art. The first proto-human who rubbed her fingers together after handling a mature cannabis bud was making hash in much the same way it is made today. Although the process of removing the resins from cannabis have become more refined, the essence has remained unchanged for millennia.<br /><br />Making hash is the process of extracting and preserving the psychoactive resins from the cannabis plant. These resins are found primarily on tiny glands called trichomes, which under a magnifying glass look like mushrooms ? a head on top of a stalk. These trichomes are part of what gives cannabis buds their "frosty" appearance.<br /><br />Trichomes are most heavily concentrated in the flowering buds of mature female cannabis, but smaller amounts can be found in the leaves and trim of both male and female plants. The leaves and trim are usually unpleasant to smoke and therefore discarded, but they contain upwards of 10% of the plant's total resin production, and throwing this away is a waste of potentially potent plant material.<br /><br />Home-made hash is becoming an increasingly popular way for ganja gardeners to maximize their harvest, and produce something a little different and special compared to the same old big bags of bud! This article outlines some of the most popular and easy ways to make hash. We have not included techniques that would require solvents like alcohol or isopropynol.<br /><br /><br />There are many ways to make hash. Flat screening and blender hash are relatively easy and inexpensive, but the final product will contain more contaminates than drum machine and bubble bag hash, which require some financial investment. No matter the method, hash makes great use of scraps.<br /><br />THC levels vary in different plant strains, but the most potent hash is one made entirely of gland heads. Most hash contains gland heads and stalk as well as contaminates. Contaminates, whether vegetable matter or otherwise, lower the potency.<br /><br />super Skuff<br /><br />The leaves, trim and other plant material that is often thrown away is called "skuff." Your finished product is only as good as the raw materials you start with, so take the time to inspect your skuff. Frost on your leaves is not proof enough that it contains THC, get a magnifying glass and look for that mushroom-like gland. If trichomes are not present, discard the leaf as it will only add contaminates to your hash.<br /><br />Don't alter your skuff in any way, if possible. Crushing or grinding it in advance will only damage the trichomes and increase contaminates. Generally skuff should be dry, but not too crumbly. The texture of the skuff is more important when using flat screen or drum machine methods.<br /><br />Flat Screening<br /><br />Flat screening removes the trichomes by rubbing the skuff over a fine steel or silk screen. This is a very simple process but the quality of hash is very dependent on the skill and patience of the maker. The principle behind this method is that the trichome heads are of a fairly consistent size, so that when applied to a mesh of the appropriate size, the trichome heads will pass through but other plant matter will be left behind.<br /><br />You'll need a flat screen. Screens can be bought from printing supply shops for $10 to $30, depending on size, or you can make your own. To make your own, fasten four pieces of wood together to form a frame, then glue screening to the bottom. Small hole screens are best, between 125-137 lines per inch.<br /><br />You'll also need a piece of glass or a mirror to collect trichomes, a credit card or something similar for pushing, and of course skuff.<br /><br />Skuff used for flat screening should be dry, but not too dry. If your skuff is really crumbly, too much vegetable matter will pass through the screen.<br /><br />Put the screen on top of the mirror or piece of glass and place the skuff on the screen. Using the card, gently push your skuff back and forth across the screen. Using minimal pressure on the skuff produces the best hash. The first layer of powder that comes through will be the most pure and potent.<br /><br />Because the skuff must be in contact with the screen to remove the glands, it is almost impossible to get a pure hash through flat screening. For this reason, some people choose to pass their skuff through an old pair of panty hose or a screen with slightly larger holes first. This produces a mixture of trichomes and small bits of plant material, which is then transferred onto the small holed screen. The screen then only needs to be tapped to let the glands fall through and be separated from the vegetation.<br /><br />Flat screen hash generally contains more contaminates than any other method. However, it is the simplest and cheapest way for the home gardener to make use of scraps.<br /><br />Drum machines<br /><br />A drum machine is cylindrical, like the inside of a clothes dryer, and is electrically powered. Inside the drum is a screen which the skuff is slowly tumbled against. It's much the same principal as flat screening, except the drum machine tumbles the skuff instead of rubbing it. Drum machines can be bought, or if you are handy, plans can be found to build your own.<br /><br />The most popular drum machine is the Pollinator, developed by Mila, a pioneer of Amsterdam's hashmaking community. She has developed machines in a variety of sizes to handle different quantities of product.<br /><br />The drum screen should be 125-137 lines per inch like the flat screen. Lightly fill the drum with dry skuff (remember not too dry) and turn machine on low. Let it run from a few minutes for up to one hour ? the shorter the time, the more likely you are to get only gland heads. You can collect the hash-powder and then run the machine again to produce a lower grade of hash. Depending on the quality and quantity of original material, you can do this a few times, with each grade containing more contaminates.<br /><br />If your skuff contains a lot of larger leaves, you may want to put a rubber ball into the drum after the first collection to help rub the surface against the screen.<br /><br />Blender<br /><br />Unlike the previous methods which use screens to filter the trichomes, the blender method uses the principle that the resin glands are heavier than water, while other plant material is not.<br />The blender method uses water, ice and agitation to dislodge the trichomes. Ice-water makes the trichomes brittle, causing the resin glands to solidify and become easy to snap off. The glands are heavier than water so they sink to the bottom when separated, while the plant material floats.<br /><br />To make hash this way you'll need a blender, ice cubes, a reusable metal coffee filter or silk screening, a large glass jar and paper coffee filters.<br /><br />Fill the blender about half-way with skuff, then cover with cold water and add a tray of ice cubes. Blend for 45 seconds to a minute ? the mixture will become green and frothy, like a smoothie. Pour this mix through the metal coffee filter into your glass jar. Run more water through the filter to make sure you haven't missed any trichomes.<br /><br />Once your jar is full, put it in the fridge to settle for a minimum of 30 minutes. You 0should be able to see a white or blonde coloured substance settling on the bottom of your container ? those are the trichomes. Carefully, so you do not disturb the trichomes, pour off or siphon off about two-thirds of the green water.<br /><br />If you have more skuff to process, do it now and filter into the container you just drained. Return to the fridge, allow to settle and siphon again. When you have processed all your skuff, add a few ice cubes to the container and let settle one last time.<br /><br />If you want to increase the purity of your product you can carefully put this settled mixture back into the blender for a final mix and separation. This may or may not be necessary depending on your preference.<br /><br />Pour the final mix of water and trichomes through a paper coffee filter. The water will pass through the paper but the glands will not. Drain well and allow to dry. You now have dried resin glands ready to be pressed into hash.<br /><br />Bubble hash<br /><br />The ice-water filtration technique has quickly become a very popular way to make hash. This method combines the best of the screen and blender methods, using ice-water to make the trichomes brittle and agitation to knock the heads off, then straining the mix through filters for increased purity.<br /><br />Hash made in this fashion is sometimes called "bubble hash" - because it is so pure that it bubbles when heated! Well-made bubble hash is a very potent product ? a tiny piece will produce enough billows of smoke to get a small crowd high.<br /><br />The two main commercial ice-water filtration systems available are "Bubble Bags" from Fresh Headies and the Ice-o-lator, another product developed by Mila. Both operate on the same principle of using cold water and filtering bags to isolate trichomes. You can also make your own kit by acquiring mesh of the appropriate sizes and carefully sowing it into bags of strong material.<br /><br />In order to make bubble hash you'll need a kit with filtering bags, two impeccably clean five gallon pails and a hand mixer. The exact method can vary depending on which system you're using, but the essentials are the same. The Ice-o-lator uses two filters to screen out contaminates, leaving the trichomes caught in the second filter. The bubble bag kits from Fresh Headies contain either three or six colour?coded bags, and allow you to simultaneously make different grades of hash.<br /><br />To start with a bubblebag kit, place your skuff into one of your five gallon buckets. Use up to 100 grams of dry skuff, or double that weight if it's fresh or wet.<br /><br />Because ice makes the trichomes brittle, add plenty - at least six ice cube trays. Then fill up the bucket with cold water. Leave a few inches at the top so you don't splash too much when mixing.<br /><br />Use the hand mixer to blend continuously for 15 minutes to one hour or more. Mixing longer will produce a higher yield that will be slightly less potent. The mixture will become green and frothy. You should take breaks every so often to let the mixture settle.<br /><br />When done mixing, allow the mixture to settle for at least 30 minutes. If the ice has melted, add more. If possible, put the pail in the freezer, or outside if you live in a cold climate ? you want that water to stay cold!<br /><br />Now put your "work bag" into your second bucket. This bag should have a screen size between 200 and 250 microns, the one from Fresh Headies is 220. Pour your frothy green mix into the work bag in the second bucket. Slowly lift out the bag and squeeze out the water. Set aside the work bag with the green matter for a second rinse.<br /><br />Now you have a bucket full of green water which contains many trichomes, as well as other contaminants. Everything that was smaller than 220 microns is in that water.<br /><br />Arrange the other bags inside of the now empty bucket. Put the bag with the finest mesh in the bucket first, then place the bags with larger screen sizes inside the first one. With the Fresh Headies three bag kit you put the 25 micron bag in first and the 73 micron bag inside of it. You'll get fine hash if you just use one bag with a screen size around 73 microns.<br /><br />Now you carefully pour the green water into the bucket with the bags. Then you slowly lift out each bag in succession, being sure to give them time to drain. If you're using a 25 micron bag it will drain very slowly ? be patient. Squeeze out the excess water from each bag after it is drained.<br /><br />You will now have a brownish sludge at the bottom of the bags. Remove it with a credit card or spoon to a plastic bag. Blot the sludge with a towel to remove excess moisture, and let it dry out for at least 12 hours. You might want to wait up to a week for it to fully dry and cure, if you are that patient! Be sure that your product is entirely dried so as to avoid mold problems later on.<br /><br />You'll get less product from the 25 micron bag, but it will have a unique and potent affect when consumed. Bubble bag creator "Bubble Man" speculates that these are the smaller trichome heads ? not immature, but simply the smaller heads associated with Sativa strains. He argues that Indica strains have larger trichome heads, and that Sativa strains have smaller heads on longer stalks. Crosses between these two types doesn't produce medium sized trichomes, but rather a mix of the large and small. This theory seems to be borne out by results, but much more research needs to be done.<br /><br />Now go back and give the green matter in the work bag a second rinse, to be sure that you get out every last trichome!<br /><br />The yield from 200 grams of skuff is around 6 to 20 grams, with an average yield around 10 grams. The quantity of hash produced depends in large part upon the quality of your original material.<br /><br />Pressing<br /><br />The previous four techniques leave you with a product that, once dried, resembles sand. This "sand" is actually a collection of trichome heads and stalks. In Holland, these heads are referred to as "pollen" or "polm," which can create confusion as the trichomes are clearly not a "pollen" as defined by the english use of the word. Because it is a powder and a potent cannabis extract, this raw product is also sometimes jokingly referred to as "hippy crack."<br /><br />The final step to making hash is to turn this powder into a solid mass. This can be as simple as rubbing small quantities between your hands to produce a ball of resin, as our ancestors did thousands of years ago. (Unlike our ancient ancestors, you should wash your hands first!)<br /><br />Another way is to press this powder into a bar or cake. The powder should be completely dry before pressing. If it stored damp it can become moldy, ruining your precious product. So be sure it is totally dry! If you put it into the freezer for a while the water inside will coagulate on the surface as ice and can then be blotted off.<br /><br />To press you'll need heavy plastic wrap, cardboard, newspaper, a frying pan, a heavy rolling pin and a tile or marble surface for rolling.<br /><br />Cut the cardboard to the size you would like your finished bar to be. Make a bag around the cardboard, then remove cardboard. Fill the bag with dry trichomes, seal and wrap in several layers of wet newspaper. Place bundle in frying pan on very low setting. Turn your bar often and unwrap to check if all the trichomes are melted. Don't let the newspapers dry out or catch on fire!<br /><br />Once melted, remove from frying pan, leave wrapped in newspaper, and transfer to the rolling surface. Using the rolling pin, press and roll from the center out. Continue doing this all the way around your bar for 30 to 45 minutes.<br /><br />Unwrap newspaper and allow to cool in freezer for at least one hour. Then unwrap from your plastic. You now have some awesome hash!<br /><br />Hash bash<br /><br />Hash can be smoked, eaten and even taken as a suppository if you are so inclined. If your pot products are intended for cross-border travel then turning your buds into hash is a smart way to maximize your smuggling efforts.<br /><br />By making fine hash you have become part of a tradition that dates back into pre-history. Take pride in your work, and you will be rewarded with the head-stash of the gods!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-6786273731993789752009-09-27T13:29:00.000-07:002009-09-27T13:32:40.281-07:00Timeline History of Cannabis/Hemp/Marijuana2737 BC: Cannabis referred to as a "superior" herb in the world's first medical text, or pharmacopoeia, Shen Nung's Pen Ts'ao, in China<br /><br />1500 BC : Cannabis-smoking Scythians sweep through Europe and Asia, settling and inventing the scythe.<br /><br />1400 BC : Cultural and religious use of ganga or cannabis, and charas or hashish (resin) recorded used by Hindus in India.<br /><br />c.600 BC : Zend-Avesta, Indian scripture, speaks of hemp's intoxicating resin.<br /><br />c.500 BC : Gautama Buddha said to have survived by eating hempseed. Cannabis used in Germany (Hochdorf Hallstatt D wagon burial site). First botanical drawings of cannabis in Constantinopolitaus.<br /><br />450 BC : Herodotus records Scythians and Thracians as consuming cannabis and making fine linens of hemp.<br /><br />300 BC : Carthage and Rome struggle for political and commercial power over hemp and spice trade routes in the Mediterranean.<br /><br />100 BC : Chinese make paper from hemp and mulberry.<br /><br />70 BC : Roman Emperor Nero's surgeon, Dioscorides, praises cannabis for making the stoutest cords and for its medicinal properties.<br /><br />c.30 AD : Jesus teaches: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man (Matthew 15:11). The Gospels refer to the New Wine and declare that it is best when the clusters are ripe.<br /><br />100 AD : Roman surgeon Dioscorides names the plant cannabis sativa and describes various medicinal uses. Pliny reported of industrial uses and wrote a manual on farming hemp.<br /><br />400 AD : Cannabis cultivated for the first time in the UK at Old Buckenham Mere <br /><br />500 AD : First botanical drawing of hemp in Constantinopolitanus<br /><br />600 AD : Germans, Franks, Vikings etc all use hemp fibre.<br /><br />800 AD : Mohammed allows cannabis but forbids the use of alcohol.<br /><br />1000 AD : The English word "hempe" first listed in a dictionary. Moslems produce hashish medicine and social use.<br /><br />1150 AD : Moslems use hemp to start Europe's first paper mill. Most of the paper is made from hemp for the next 750 years, including Bibles.<br /><br />1379 AD : Emir Soudon Sheikhouni of Joneima prohibits cannabis consumption amongst the poor, destroys the crops, and punishes offenders by pulling out their teeth.<br /><br />1484 AD : Inquisitor Pope Innocent VIII outlaws hashish.<br /><br />1494 AD : Hemp paper industry starts in England.<br /><br />1545 AD : Hemp agriculture arrives in China.<br /><br />1554 AD : The Spanish grow hemp in Peru.<br /><br />1563 AD : English Queen Elizabeth I decrees that land owners with more than 60 acres must grow hemp or be fined 5 pounds.<br /><br />1564 AD : King Philip of Spain orders hemp grown throughout his empire from modern Arhentina to Oregon.<br /><br />1600 AD : Dutch achieve the "Golden Age" through hemp commerce. Explorers find "wilde hempe" in North America.<br /><br />1606 AD : The British take cannabis to Canada for maritime uses.<br /><br />1611 AD : The British start growing cannabis in Virginia.<br /><br />1619 AD : Virginia colony makes hemp cultivation mandatory, followed by most other colonies. Europe pays hemp bounties.<br /><br />1621 AD : Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy claims cannabis is a treatment for depression.<br /><br />1631 AD : Hemp used as money throughout American colonies.<br /><br />1632 AD : The Pilgrims take cannabis to New England.<br /><br />1637 AD : The General Court at Hartford, Connecticut , orders that all families plant one teaspoon of cannabis seeds.<br /><br />1639 AD : Massachusetts Courts follow Hartford.<br /><br />1753 AD : Cannabis Sativa classified by Linneaus.<br /><br />1763 AD : New English Dictionary says cannabis root applied to skin eases inflammation.<br /><br />1776 AD : Declaration of Independence drafted on hemp paper.<br /><br />1791 AD : President Washington sets duties on hemp to encourage domestic industry. "Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed" ........President George Washington. (Library of USA Congress 1794 vol. 33 p.270). President Jefferson calls hemp a necessity and urges farmers to grow hemp instead of tobacco.<br /><br />1800 AD : Cotton gins make cheaper fibre than hemp. Napoleon prohibits his men in Egypt from using cannabis, but to little effect.<br /><br />1835 AD : The Club de Hashichines is founded.<br /><br />1839 AD : Homeopathy journal 'American Provers' Union' publishes first report on effects of cannabis.<br /><br />1840 AD : "Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded"...........Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)<br /><br />1841 AD : Dr. W.B.O'Shaughnessy, "On the Preparation of the Indian Hemp or Ganja" introduces cannabis to western science.<br /><br />1845 AD : Psychologist and inventor of modern psychopharmacology and psychotomimetric drug treatment, Jacques-Joseph Moreau de Tours documents physical and mental benefits of cannabis.<br /><br />1850 AD : Petrochemical age begins. Toxic sulphite and chlorine processes make paper from trees: steamships replace (hemp) sails; tropical fibres introduced.. USA census records 8327 hemp plantations of over 2000 acres each.<br /><br />1854 AD : Bayard Taylor essay Visions of Hashish.<br /><br />1857 AD : Fitz Hugh Ludlow publishes The Hasheesh Eater;<br /><br />1857 AD : Smith Brothers of Edinburgh market cannabis indica extracts.<br /><br />1860 AD : First governmental commission study of cannabis and hashish conducted by Ohio State Medical Society. It catalogues the conditions for which cannabis is beneficial: neuralgia, nervous rheumatism, mania, whooping cough, asthma, chronic bronchitis, muscular spasms, epilepsy, infantile convulsions, palsy, uterine haemorrhage, dysmenorrhea, hysteria, alcohol withdrawal and loss of appetite.<br /><br />1868 AD : The Emir of Egypt makes the possession of cannabis a capital offence.<br /><br />1869 AD : Tales of Hashish by A.C. Kimmens<br /><br />1870 AD : Cannabis listed in US Pharmacopoeia as a medicine.<br /><br />1870 AD : South Africa worried about cannabis use among Indian workers, passes a law forbidding the smoking, use or possession of hemp by Indians.<br /><br />1876 AD : Hashish served at American Centennial Exposition.<br /><br />1877 AD : The Sultan of Turkey makes cannabis illegal, to little effect.<br /><br />1894 AD : British Indian Hemp Drugs Commission studies social use of cannabis and comes out firmly against its prohibition.<br /><br />1895 AD : First known use of the name "marijuana" for smoking, by Pancho Villa's supporters in Sonora, Mexico.<br /><br />1909 AD : Shanghai Conference: first international meeting on drugs is held to discuss opium. The USA passes an act to prohibit the buying or selling of opium for non-medicinal purposes.<br /><br />1910 AD : African-American "reefer" use reported in Jazz Clubs in New Orleans, said to be influencing white people. Mexicans smoking marijuana in Texas. South Africa prohibits cannabis.<br /><br />1911 AD : Hindus reported to be using ganja in San Francisco.<br /><br />1911 AD : South Africa bans cannabis.<br /><br />1912 AD : "Essay on Hasheesh" by Victor Rolson. Possibilities of putting controls on cannabis use is first raised.<br /><br />1912 AD : Hague Conference; second international meeting on drugs. 46 nations discuss opium, morphine, cocaine, heroin and cannabis. The Hague Convention for the Suppression of Opium and Other Drugs, was drawn up, requiring parties to confine to medical and legitimate purposes the manufacture, sale and use of opium, heroin, morphine and cocaine; Cannabis was not included. (From Mandeson, D. From Mr Sin to Mr Big, A history of Australian Drug Laws, Oxford University Press Melbourne 1995)<br /><br />1912 AD : First suggestions that cannabis should be banned internationally, at the First Opium Conference.<br /><br />1915 AD : Utah State, then California and Texas outlaw cannabis. Cocaine banned in the USA.<br /><br />1916 AD : USDA Bulletin 404 calls for a new program of expansion of hemp to replace uses of timber by industry.<br /><br />1919 AD : Texas outlaws cannabis. Alcohol is prohibited throughout the USA. Cannabis is still legal in most States.<br /><br />1920 AD : DuPont experiments with petrochemicals. Gang war takes over the alcohol industry, homicides increase drastically.<br /><br />1923 AD : South African delegate at League of Nations calls for international controls on cannabis, claiming that it makes mine workers less active. Britain insists on further research.<br /><br />1923 AD : Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington outlaw cannabis.<br /><br />1924 AD : At the Second International Opiates conference Egyptian delegate claims serious problems are associated with hashish use and calls for immediate international controls. Sub-committee listens to Egypt and Turkey. Cannabis declared a narcotic. Cannabis Ruderalis identified by Lamarck.<br /><br />1927 AD : New York outlaws cannabis.<br /><br />1928 AD : UK Dangerous Drugs Act (September 28th) 1925 becomes law and makes cannabis illegal.<br /><br />1929 AD : The Panama Canal Zone Report concludes that there is no evidence that cannabis use is habit-forming or deleterious, recommending no action be taken against cannabis use or sale. <br /><br />1929 AD : South West states make cannabis illegal as part of a move to oust Mexican immigrants.<br /><br />1930 AD : Henry Ford makes his motor cars out of hemp with hemp paint and hemp fuel. New machines invented to break hemp, process the fibre and convert the pulp or hurds into paper, plastics etc. 1200 hash bars in New York City. Racist fears of Mexicans, Asians and African-Americans lead the cry for cannabis to be outlawed.<br /><br />1930's AD New mechanised hemp harvesting methods invented<br /><br />1930 AD : Louis Armstrong arrested in Los Angeles for possession of cannabis.<br /><br />1931 AD : Federal Bureau of Narcotics formed with Anslinger at the head. By now 29 US states have banned non-prescription cannabis<br /><br />1934 AD : Anslinger refers to "ginger-haired niggers" in FBI official circulars.<br /><br />1936 AD : South Western states call for FBI to ban cannabis.<br /><br />1937 AD : Marijuana Tax Act forbids hemp farming. The Act was based on the Machine Gun Transfer Act which made it illegal to pass on machine guns without a government stamp - there being no such stamps available. By applying this strategy to marijuana, Anslinger was able to effectively ban hemp without contravening constitutional rights.<br /><br />1937 AD : DuPont files patents for nylon, plastics and a new bleaching process for paper. Anslinger testifies to congress that Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug known to man. The objections of the American Medical Association are ignored. The Marijuana Transfer Tax Bill (14th April) introduced to US House, Ways and Means Committee, passed December, prohibits industrial and medical uses and calls flowering tops a narcotic. Violations attract 200 dollar fines. Birdseed, rope and cordage are exempted from tax.<br /><br />1937 AD : DuPont patents plastics, seizing the opportunity created by cannabis hemp prohibition<br /><br />1939 AD : LaGuardia Report started<br /><br />1941 AD : Cannabis dropped from USA Pharmacopoeia<br /><br />1941 AD : Henry Ford's car is made from and runs on cannabis.<br /><br />1943 AD : Hemp for Victory program urges farmers to grow hemp to help war effort.<br /><br />1943 AD : US Military Surgeon magazine declares that smoking cannabis is no more harmful than smoking tobacco.<br /><br />1944 AD : New York Academy of Medicine reports marijuana use does not cause violent behaviour, provoke insanity, lead to addiction or promote opiate usage. Anslinger describes the authors as dangerous and strange.<br /><br />1944 AD : New York Mayor's La Guardia Report "The Marijuana problem in the City of New York" concludes that smoking marijuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word, that juvenile delinquency is not associated with marijuana smoking and that the publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marijuana smoking in New York is unfounded.<br /><br />1944 AD : Anslinger threatens doctors who carry out cannabis research with imprisonment.<br /><br />1945 AD : USA 'Newsweek' reports over 100,000 Americans use cannabis.<br /><br />1948 AD : Anslinger now says cannabis users are peaceful and that cannabis could be used during a communist invasion, to weaken American will to fight.<br /><br />1948 AD : United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 AD : Hollywood star Robert Mitchum arrested for cannabis.<br /><br />1951 AD : UN Bulletin of Narcotic Drugs states over 200 million cannabis users in the world.<br /><br />1952 AD : First UK cannabis arrest at Number 11 Club, Soho, London.<br /><br />1955 AD : Hemp farming outlawed again.<br /><br />1960 AD : Hippies, Vietnam Veterans, pop fans adopt cannabis.<br /><br />1961 AD : UN Treaty 406 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs seeks to outlaw cannabis use and cannabis cultivation worldwide and eradicate cannabis smoking within 30 years (by 1991). USA representative is Anslinger.<br /><br />1962 AD : President Kennedy sacks Anslinger. Kennedy using cannabis as a pain relief.<br /><br />1963 AD : Kennedy assassinated.<br /><br />1964 AD : Thelin Brothers open first US 'Head Shop'.<br /><br />1964 AD : THC, tetrahydracannabinol, first isolated<br /><br />1966 AD : Donovan becomes first UK celebrity to be busted for cannabis.<br /><br />1967 AD : SOMA Times Petition in the UK urges legalisation of cannabis. The Beatles sign it. 3,000 people hold a 'smoke-in' in Hyde Park.. Keith Richards and Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones are arrested and imprisoned for cannabis. This prompts a Times editorial 'Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?'. The convictions are quashed on appeal.. In the UK 2,393 persons arrested for cannabis offences.. In the USA over 3,000 joints mailed to addresses at random by Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies.<br /><br />1968 AD : John Lennon arrested for cannabis possession.<br /><br />1968 AD : 1 November : UK Government Wootton Report recommends cannabis possession should not be an offence. "Having reviewed all the material available to us we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission appointed by the Government of India (1893-94) and the New York Mayor's Committee (1944 - LaGuardia) that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects."<br /><br />1968 AD : Campaign to stop US soldiers in Vietnam from taking cannabis - they switch to heroin.<br /><br />1969 AD : James Callaghan, UK Labour Prime Minister, rejects the findings of the Wootton Report.<br /><br />1969 AD : George Harrison arrested for cannabis.<br /><br />1970 AD : Social use of cannabis receives widespread acceptance despite illegality; policy of decriminalisation sweeps across USA and Britain.<br /><br />1970 AD : LeDain Report (Canada) recommended that serious consideration be given to the legalisation of personal possession of marijuana. It finds that cannabis use increases self-confidence, feelings of creativity and sensual awareness, facilitates concentration and self-acceptance, reduces tension, hostility and aggression and may produce psychological but not physical dependence. The report recommends that possession laws be repealed<br /><br />1970 AD : R. Keith Stroup founds NORML 'National Organisation for Reform of Marijuana Laws', in UDSA.<br /><br />1970 AD : USA Marijuana Transfer Tax declared unconstitutional.<br /><br />1971 AD : British Misuse of Drugs Act classifies cannabis as a Class B drug with stiff sentencing. This bans the medical use of cannabis, ignoring the Wootton Report.<br /><br />1971 AD : UN Convention on Psychotopic Substances<br /><br />1972 AD : US President Richard Nixon says 'I am against legalising marijuana'.<br /><br />1972 AD : Baan Commission presents report to Dutch Minister of Health and suggests that cannabis trade below a quarter of a kilo ought to be considered as a misdemeanour only.<br /><br />1973 AD : Oregon considering legalisation<br /><br />1973 AD : US Shafer Commission, appointed by Nixon, declares that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalised as should casual distribution of small amounts for no or insignificant renumeration<br /><br />1973 AD : UN Convention of Psychotropic Substances: cannabis is a narcotic.<br /><br />1974 AD : US Senate report on Marijuana-Hashish Epidemic and its Impact on US Security claims that cannabis use cause brain damage, a-motivation and genetic and reproductive defects<br /><br />1975 AD : Hundreds of US doctors call for more research on cannabis.<br /><br />1975 AD : Alaska legalises cannabis for personal use. Limit on amount is one ounce.<br /><br />1975 AD : After 3 years of campaigning to abolish penal sanctions for the consumption of drugs, Pannella forces the police to arrest him, by smoking a joint in public.<br /><br />1975 AD : Jamaica Studies reveal good health amongst prolific cannabis users. "No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory." <br /><br />1976 AD : Holland adopts tolerant attitude to cannabis and many coffee shops and youth centres allowed to sell cannabis.<br /><br />1976 AD : USA New York Times (Jan 5) declares 'Scientists find nothing really harmful about pot'.<br /><br />1976 AD : Ford administration bans medical research on cannabis. Research on synthetic cannabis analogues allowed to continue. Robert Randal is the first US citizen to receive cannabis from Federal supplies made under the Investigational New Drug (IND) Program.<br /><br />1976 AD : DuPont declares cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and calls for its decriminalisation.<br /><br />1976 AD : USA President Ford bans medical research on cannabis.<br /><br />1977 AD : President Carter thinks cannabis should be legalised.<br /><br />1977 AD : The Australian Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare (the Baume Committee) recommends treating drug use as a social / medical rather than legal problem. Also that criminal sanction of possession of cannabis be replaced by fines while retaining penalties for possession of hashish, oil and purified THC.<br /><br />1978 AD : New Mexico allows cannabis sale for medical use.<br /><br />1978 AD : The New South Wales Joint Parliamentary Committee upon Drugs recommends eliminating criminal sanctions for personal use of cannabis, implementing bond and probation penalties for first offenders and expunging records upon successful completion of these punishments. Also suggest retaining penalties for trafficking in cannabis.<br /><br />1980 AD : Paul McCartney arrested for cannabis and spends 10 days in prison in Japan.<br /><br />1980 AD : Costa Rica study reports good health in cannabis users.<br /><br />1980 AD : May 10 : Smokey Bears in Hyde Park<br /><br />1981 AD : The Coptic Study claims 'No harm to human brain or intelligence' through cannabis use. <br /><br />1982 AD : An Analysis of Marijuana Policy, National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, concludes that "a policy of prohibition of supply is preferable only to a policy of complete prohibition of supply and use"<br /><br />1983 AD : In the UK over 20,000 convictions for possession.<br /><br />1983 AD : The USA government (Reagan / Bush)orders American Universities to destroy all 1966-76 research work on cannabis.<br /><br />1985 AD : Winters and DiFranza reveal radioactive material in tobacco may account for half the lung cancer deaths; no radioactive material in cannabis.<br /><br />1986 AD : 8 July : UK Drug Trafficking Offences Act introduced to enable confiscation of assets from drug dealers<br /><br />1987 AD : The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy says: "Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. In many users the term dependence with its obvious connotations, probably is mis-applied... The chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not toxicologic, foundation".<br /><br />1988 AD : 6 September : DEA chief administrative judge, Judge Young, rules the US government should allow the medicinal use of cannabis. He says "Marijuana in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substance known to man". DEA rejects report.<br /><br />1988 AD : 20 December : UN Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic and psychotropic substances, Vienna, includes cannabis<br /><br />1988 AD : UK 23,229 people arrested for cannabis offences.<br /><br />1989 AD : Presidents Reagan and Bush declare war on cannabis; shops selling smoking apparatus outlawed. Urine testing introduced. Recriminalisation, asset and property seizure, armed forces, prison camps, 'Just Say No' campaign, PFDA, DARE, tobacco and nuclear subsidies. Price - per - ounce cannabis worth more than gold. Worldwide prohibition entices organised crime to take control of the cannabis market and make huge profits. Reagan declares victory in War on Drugs. Secretary of State James A Baker reports global war on narcotic production is 'clearly not being won'.<br /><br />1990 AD : Jack Herer, in his book 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes' offers $10,000 reward to anyone who can disprove his assertion that hemp can 'save the planet'.<br /><br />1990 AD : Alaska recriminalises cannabis possession<br /><br />1990's AD :USA voters pass regional measures to allow medicinal use of cannabis. Interest in this and other uses of hemp add new support to campaign for the legal right to social / recreational use of cannabis.<br /><br />1991 AD : THC receptors found in the brain.<br /><br />1991 AD : UK 40,000 people arrested for cannabis.<br /><br />1991 AD : 'Mr. Marijuana', Howard Marks, arrested, taken from Spain to USA, and given 25 years imprisonment for trafficking in cannabis.<br /><br />1991 AD : UK Judge Pickles advocates legalisation of drugs..<br /><br />1991 AD : UK MP Tony Banks (labour) advocates legalisation of cannabis.<br /><br />1991 AD : IND program dropped in USA.<br /><br />1992 AD : January 22 :California Research Advisory Panel reports that prohibition has a more harmful effect on society and the individual than illegal drugs themselves.<br /><br />1992 AD : February 19 : UK Government issue licenses to grow cannabis for industrial uses or scientific research<br /><br />1992 AD : "Medicines often produce side effects. Sometimes they are physically unpleasant. Cannabis too has discomforting side effects, but these are not physical they are political"... The Economist March 28th 1992<br /><br />1992 AD : USA over 340,000 arrests for cannabis.<br /><br />1992 AD : Australia licenses hemp farm. <br /><br />1992 AD : US Investigational New Drug (IND) Program dropped.<br /><br />1992 AD : USA President Clinton admits he smoked cannabis but did not inhale. Howard Marks admits that he smoked cannabis but never exhaled.<br /><br />1992 AD : 17 European Cities sign Frankfurt Charter agreeing to tolerate social use of cannabis.<br /><br />1992 AD : USA Jim Montgomery, a paraplegic who smoked cannabis to relieve muscle spasm, busted for two ounces of marijuana in Oklahoma, arrested and sentenced to life plus 16 years.<br /><br />1993 AD : Britain eases restrictions on hemp farming. Hempcore is first British company to get a license. Hemp clothes sold in High Street shops. February 19th.<br /><br />1993 AD : Commander John Grieve of the Metropolitan Police calls for decriminalisation of cannabis.<br /><br />1993 AD : Raymond Kendall, Head of Interpol, calls for decriminalisation of cannabis.<br /><br />1993 AD : British Law Lord, Lord Woolf calls for legalisation of cannabis<br /><br />1993 AD : 22 British MP's call for the establishment of a Royal Commission.<br /><br />1993 AD : 44 British MP's call for a Royal Commission.<br /><br />1993 AD : German High Court in Kruhe rules that cannabis prohibition is unconstitutional.<br /><br />1993 AD : 19 British MP's 'welcome' the German court ruling.<br /><br />1993 AD : 55 British MP's call for cannabis to be recognised and allowed for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis.<br /><br />1993 AD : British Home Secretary Michael Howard declares 'War on drugs' and increases maximum fine for possession of cannabis to £2,500.<br /><br />1993 AD : Over 72,000 UK citizens arrested for cannabis offences.<br /><br />1993 AD : Canada permits a hemp farm in Ontario province.<br /><br />1995 AD : Holland lowers the amount one can possess without prosecution to 5 grams (from 30) as a result of powerful international pressures from neighboring countries.<br /><br />1995 AD : UK Channel 4 Pot Night (March) and BBC Panorama's High Risk (April).<br /><br />1995 AD : UK Home secretary Michael Howard increases penalties for cannabis offenses.<br /><br />1995 AD : Clare Short MP (Labour) calls for a Royal Commission on Cannabis and is reprimanded by her party bosses. (October)<br /><br />1995 AD : European Cannabis Consumers' Union founded in Amsterdam.<br /><br />1995 AD : USA Dan Perron forms Cannabis Buyers Club to distribute cannabis to the sick.<br /><br />1995 AD : The European Council which defines political guidelines, orders a study of drug legislation and practice in the Union.<br /><br />1995 AD : September 16 : First CHIC (Cannabis Hemp Information Club) conference in London.<br /><br />1995 AD : Under the Clinton administration 1,450,751 people had been arrested for cannabis, 86% being for possession only<br /><br />1995 AD : November 11 : British journal of the medical profession, The Lancet, states that "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health".<br /><br />1995 AD : Dutch Policy in the Netherlands Studies<br /><br />1995 AD : Henrion Commission Report, the official French State Commission in charge of drug policy supports decriminalisation of cannabis and calls for a two-year trial period of regulated retail trade in cannabis. The French Government reject these proposals.<br /><br />1996 AD : Victoria (Australia) State Council urge decriminalisation of cannabis.<br /><br />1996 AD : May 17 : Sow the Seeds Day, London. 1996 AD : CLCIA announce parliamentary candidates in forthcoming General Election<br /><br />1996 AD : UK Liberal Democrats Party calls for a Royal Commission on cannabis.<br /><br />1996 AD ; Lord McCluskey calls for consideration of decriminalisation in UK. <br /><br />1996 AD : The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence - Drug Notes - Cannabis 1996, p.8 says:<br /><br />"All that can be said definitely is that 1) Cannabis use generally precedes the use of other illegal drugs. 2) Cannabis use does not necessarily (or even usually) lead to the use of other illicit drugs."<br /><br />1996 AD : UK Janet Paraskeno, magistrate and director of National Youth Agency calls for 'legalisation and not decriminalisation'.<br /><br />1996 AD : George Howarth MP (Labour) says his party do not want a Royal Commission because it might conclude that cannabis should be legalised which a Labour Government would not do anyway.<br /><br />1996 AD : The Parliament of Luxembourg passes a motion calling for a program 'of common measures for the liberalization of cannabis and its derivatives' along with Belgium and the Netherlands, and the harmonisation of drug laws in Benelux countries.<br /><br />1996 AD : UK Cannabis Awareness Month (September) on 68th anniversary of the law.<br /><br />1996 AD : Ireland announces their plans to use cannabis as fuel to replace the use of the dwindling supplies of peat<br /><br />1996 AD : Dutch town council at Delfzij decides to sell cannabis through their own coffee shop. They name the shop 'Paradox'. Profits used to provide information campaigns against 'soft drugs' in Dutch schools. Meanwhile the Dutch close many coffee shops, bowing to pressures from Germany and France.,br 1996 AD : The Canton of Zurich calls for legalisation of cannabis.<br /><br />1996 AD : UK Crown Prosecution Service dropping cases of possession and cultivation against some ill people (MS) as 'not in the public interest to proceed'.<br /><br />1996 AD : California and Arizona pass Propositions allowing the use of cannabis in the treatment of certain illnesses, Clinton is re-elected and the FBI threaten Doctors with prosecution.<br /><br />1996 AD : A Swiss man, Zimmermann, is given a life sentence in the Maldives, for importing three cannabis seeds, found in his luggage as he flew in from India.<br /><br />1996 AD : Legalise Ganja Jamaica formed.<br /><br />1996 AD : In the New Zealand general election the legalise cannabis candidate in Mittertond received 30% of the vote. Overall they received 1.4% of the votes, insufficient to gain a seat under proportional representation.<br /><br />1996 AD : 100 Italian MP's call for legalisation of cannabis in Italy.<br /><br />1996 AD : The Sunday Times, 1 Dec, says that out of 45 UK judges questioned 16 wanted to see cannabis legalised.<br /><br />1996 AD : CLCIA offices are destroyed by fire <br /><br />1996 AD : June : Scottish Nationalist conference votes to allow cultivation for personal use and research into medical uses of cannabis<br /><br />Sates "Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."<br /><br /><br />1997 AD : An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.<br /><br />Researchers said: "Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]"<br /><br />"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and non-smoking of marijuana."<br /><br />Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Clinical Care Medicine 1997<br /><br />1997 AD : January16 : A court in Texas, USA, sentences medical marijuana user, William J. Foster to 93 years imprisonment for cultivation of one plant.<br /><br />1997 AD : Two Swiss Cantons decide to legalise possession of cannabis in small amounts and ask the national Government to do the same.<br /><br />1997 AD : The German State of Schlewig-Holstein legalise possession of up to 5 grams of cannabis.<br /><br />1997 AD : After appeals for clemency from the Swiss Government and letters from CLCIA supporters, the Maldives releases Zimmermann, the man given life for three seeds.<br /><br />1997 AD : Norwich City Council ban the CLCIA from more stalls because seeds had been given out at previous stalls, the seed being fishing bait. After a letter campaign the council agree that CLCIA can have the stall provided they agree not to give out 'anything which can be used to grow or take an illegal substance'.<br /><br />1997 AD : In the USA a $2 million study to prove cannabis smoking can cause cancer fails and announces that it does not. The release of the report is delayed due to 'lack of supplies'.<br /><br />1997 AD : Paul Flynn MP introduces an early Day Motion calling on the Government to recognise the medicinal uses of cannabis and to make it available in tablet form, also congratulating the citizens of California and Arizona.<br /><br />1997 AD : February 11 : USA Federal Government Authorities, led by Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of National Drug Control Policy, resists the medical supply or cannabis in California and Arizona, threatening to prosecute Doctor's who prescribe or supply it.<br /><br />1997 AD : UK Legalise Cannabis Party, sponsored by the CLCIA, nominates Howard Marks as Parliamentary Candidate for Legalising Cannabis in the General Election. He receives an average 1.3% of the vote over the four constituencies where he stands.<br /><br />1997 AD : The UK elects a new Labour Government and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, says he will not legalise cannabis. <br /><br />1997 AD : Scottish Kirk (Church) comes out in favour of legalising cannabis <br /><br />1997 AD : Rob Christopher, founder of CHIC - the Cannabis Hemp Information Club - in London, changes his name to Free Rob Cannabis and invites arrest by distributing cannabis cookies on the steps of the Department of Heath in London. He is not arrested.<br /><br />1997 AD : USA marines use helicopters to destroy marijuana crops in Hawaii despite objections from the people.<br /><br />1997 AD : The Kaiser Permanente Study (USA) - "Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health concludes "Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."<br /><br />1997 AD : Researchers at the University of California (UCLA) School of Medicine announced the results of an 8 - year study into the effects of long-term cannabis smoking on the lungs. In Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Dr. D.P. Tashkin reported: "Findings from the present long-term, follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant risk factor for the development of [chronic lung disease. ..Neither the continuing nor the intermittent marijuana smokers exhibited any significantly different rates of decline in [lung function] " as compared with those individuals who never smoked marijuana. Researchers added: "No differences were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."<br /><br />1997 AD : June : A plaque placed on a park bench in Chapelfield Gardens in Norwich, commemorates Howard Marks stand as a Legalise Cannabis Candidate<br /><br />1997 AD : July: The British Medical Association (BMA) recommends the provision of medicinal cannabis in the UK.<br /><br />1997 AD : July: The Attorney General and Minister for Industrial Relations, Australia, JW Shaw QC MLC, announced the end of prison sentences for young cannabis offenders, saying that "I believe many parents would see the imprisonment of their son or daughter for using cannabis as particularly harmful."<br /><br />1997 AD : July: SYDNEY MORNING HERALD July 21 1997 p5 reports "A survey of a traditionally conservative NSW electorate has shown overwhelming community support for the decriminalisation of cannabis." New South Wales then decriminalises possession of cannabis - up to 5 plants, 30 grams of leaf, 3 grms of resin and 2 grams of oil.<br /><br />1997 AD : August: UK. After the shooting of a five-year old boy in Bolton in a drug-related attack, Labour MP Brian Iddon calls for a Royal Commission on drugs with a view to decriminalisation. The Sun conducts a poll that showed that over 40% of its readers are in favour of decriminalisation. Labour Home Office spokesman George Howarth says on Radio 4 News that cannabis causes harm and that Labour will never have dialogue on legalisation and that the only solution is to stamp it out.<br /><br />1997 AD : On September 19th, Marco Pannella is sentenced by the Rome Court to 4 months imprisonment commuted to 8 months on probation, for distributing hashish at the Porta Portese.<br /><br />1997 AD : September : Sir Paul McCartney, ex-Beatle, reconfirms his call to decriminalise cannabis.<br /><br />1997 AD : September 28th : UK newspaper The Independent on Sunday, starts their committed campaign to decriminalise cannabis backed by over 100 names of celebrities, doctors, academics etc.<br /><br />1997 AD : September 28th : A picnic in Chapelfield Gardens, Norwich, to commemorate the sad prohibition laws is attended by over 100 people and cannabis is openly smoked on film by TV cameras. On this the 69th anniversary of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Rob Christopher and some 300 others gather in Hyde Park, London, to distribute cannabis cakes free to medical users. Rob then unsuccessfully attempted to turn himself in to the police.<br /><br />1997 AD : October 8: Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the most senior judge in England and Wales backed calls for a public debate on the legalisation of cannabis. Just days after Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, ruled out moves to legalise cannabis<br /><br />1997 AD : November 5 : EU Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties suggests that soft drugs should be legalised<br /><br />1997 AD : December 3: The French secretary of State for Public Health, Bernard Kouchner, in favor of the supply of heroin to people suffering from severe heroin addiction. He also supports the medical application of cannabis, according to an interview with Dr Kouchner MD in the newspaper Liberation.<br /><br />1997 AD : December 11 : Independent on Sunday hold their "Should cannabis be decriminalised?" conference in Westminster, London. Although all the MPs have been invited only 5 turn up. The conference was overwhelmingly in favour of legalisation<br /><br />1997 AD : December 19th : DEA formally asked the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct "a scientific and medical evaluation of the available data and provide a scheduling recommendation" for marijuana and other cannabinoid drugs. This DEA request of HHS means that the DEA has for the first time made its own determination that sufficient grounds exist to remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Schedule I is supposed to be limited to hard drugs with addictive propensities and with no legitimate medical usage.<br /><br />1997 AD : December 20 : British Home Secretary, Jack Straw (Labour) is told by the Daily Mirror that his son, William, sold 10 pounds worth of cannabis to a reporter Dawn Alford. Straw immediately escorts his own son to a police station to turn himself in. The lad is cautioned several weeks later.<br /><br />1998 AD : March: Madrid - European and American scientists defended medical marihuana at an International Symposium on Cannabis and the Brain held at the Fundacion Ramon Areces. According to them, the plant is effective in treating people with cancer and multiple sclerosis, but is not addictive.<br /><br />1998 AD : Australia : March : Victoria's police commissioner, Mr Neil Comrie, has admitted the fight against drugs has failed and is set to introduce a radical statewide plan to keep drug users out of courts.<br /><br />1998 AD : Conservative MP David Prior becomes the third British MP to publicly admit having smoked cannabis. He is against legalisation.<br /><br />1998 AD : MORE than 100 French artists and intellectuals signed a petition admitting to taking soft drugs and offering themselves for prosecution.<br /><br />1998 AD : March 28: About 20,000 people marched from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square in the Decriminalise Cannabis March organised by the Independent on Sunday, CLCIA and others. Speakers in the Square included Howard Marks, Rosie Boycott, Paul Flynn MP and Caroline Coon. The new UK Anti-Drugs Coordinator, Keith Hallawell, arrogantly stated that the march was a Red Herring (irrelevant).<br /><br />1998 AD : UK : Times 24 March 1998 : A judge allowed a liver transplant patient to go free after he admitted growing and using cannabis to ease his pain. Sympathising with him, Judge John Hopkin said: "I accept that's why you were growing it; to relieve the considerable pain you must suffer. That is against the law as it stands at the present time, but there is very substantial mitigation in your case." Richard Gifford, 49, a father of 6 was given a two year conditional discharge at Nottingham crown court after pleading guilty to producing and possessing cannabis. The judge said "Whether this substance should be obtained by prescription is a matter for parliament, but it does seem from a number of cases that appear before me that it is benefit to a number of persons." Paddy Tipping, PPS to Jack Straw, the Home secretary said the government has no plans to decriminalise cannabis "People like Judge Hopkin say the acknowledge there is a valuable medical effect, but there has been no compelling research done to suggest that".<br /><br />1998 AD : April: Czech Republic - President Vaclav Havel vetoes a law banning possession of drugs for personal use and sent it back to Parliament, citing human rights concerns. "The President reached the opinion that the law would lead to the prosecution of victims rather than culprits," said spokesman Ladislav Spacek. Drug experts have warned that the legislation could lead to an increase in crime and drug prices and a decline in the willingness of addicts to be cured. - Reuters<br /><br />1998 AD : 4 April: A man accused of growing and giving cannabis to his wife, a multiple sclerosis sufferer, was cleared by a jury's majority verdict of cultivating, cultivating with intent to supply, and supplying cannabis. Cab driver Alan Blythe, 52, of Runcorn, Cheshire, had used the defence of duress of circumstances, which the jury at Warrington Crown Court accepted. He claimed he had grown the cannabis and supplied it to his wife Judith, 48, because he was afraid that without it the acute symptoms of MS could trigger her suicide. The jury ignored the judge's suggestion that Mr Blythe had failed to prove duress of circumstances for the charge of cultivation. But they followed this advice in relation to possession, for which Mr Blythe was fined £100.<br /><br />1998 AD : 21 April Belgium officially decriminalises cannabis after a decision by Minister de Clerck of Justice. That is you will not be prosecuted for possession for personal consumption. <br /><br />1998 AD : SAN FRANCISCO April 22, 1998 -- A San Francisco marijuana club reopened under another name just a day after a court order shut down its predecessor.<br /><br />1998 AD : Italy decriminalises possession of drugs and permits small scale cultivation of cannabis for own use.<br /><br />1998 AD : Danny Tungate polled 7.6% of the vote as a Legalise Cannabis Candidate in the UK local elections, Catton Grove ward, Norwich<br /><br />1998 AD : June 12: The UK Government has granted a license to grow and possess cannabis for the purposes of medical trials, to Dr Geoffrey Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals. The crop at a secret location in south-east England, is guarded by electrified razor-wire fences, security cameras and guard dogs.<br /><br />1998 AD : Whilst US Federal Authorities make threats and arrests of Californian doctors who recommend cannabis and force the closure of most medical marijuana clubs in the state, Oakland by-pass federal law by appointing medical marijuana suppliers as deputies thereby making them immune from arrest.<br /><br />1998 AD : Germany: A petition of 30 thousand signatures organised by the "Selbsthilfegruppe Cannabis als Medizin" in Berlin was handed in to the Senat of Berlin in March 1998. All governing parties (CDU, SPD, PDS and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen) discussed the issue and unanimously support it! <br /><br />The signaturess being collected currently, will be handed to the "Petitionsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages" together with the 30 thousand from Berlin.. ACM, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Cannabis als Medizin (Association for Cannabis as Medicine ) 1998 AD : June 5; Colin Davies acquitted of cultivation in the UK after informing the jury of his medical need and despite instructions from the judge that they had to rule on law and evidence alone. See Rights of Jurors.<br /><br />1998 AD : A group of Welsh Cannabis Smokers headed by Chris Rawley lays prosecution papers upon Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Lord Bingham, a Crown Court Judge and Tenby Magistrates, in the process of a public prosecution for crimes against humanity and peace, and crimes against children, for upholding an illegal prohibition of cannabis.<br /><br />1998 AD : September 5: Release and The Lindesmith Institute organise the symposium "Options for Control in the 21st Century", with experts from around the world gathering in London.<br /><br />1998 AD : October: CLCIA Chairman challenges local Judge on cannabis safety<br /><br />1998 AD : November 11: UK. The House of Lords rule that based upon the evidence presented for them the Government should make cannabis available to the sick without further delay, but that they are against legalisation for recreational use. Jack Straw, Home Secretary, immediately rejects the House of Lord's Report saying that cannabis will not be made available until a suitable pharmaceutical standard preparation has been thoroughly tested.<br /><br />1998 AD : November: "We.. say that on the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations.": The Lancet, vol 352, number 9140, November 14 1998<br /><br />1998 AD : December 24: Prince Charles tells a sufferer of Multiple Sclerosis that he has heard that cannabis can help.<br /><br />1999 AD : January 21 : USA: Medicinal Marijuana Advocate, Steve Kubby and Wife Busted<br /><br />1999 AD : February 23: UK: 55-year-old arthritis sufferer jailed for one year for using cannabis to relieve his pain<br /><br />1999 AD : March 4 : ALASKA: Medical Marijuana Law Starts<br /><br />1999 AD : March 15: USA: Federal Judge Gives OK to Pot Case<br /><br />1999 AD : March 21: USA: Government Study Labels Marijuana A Useful Medicine<br /><br />1999 AD : March 21: Only 8 People Can Legally Use Pot As MedicineA<br /><br />1999 AD : March 23: GERMANY: Health Minister Supports Medical Marihuana<br /><br />1999 AD : March 30: CANADA: Pot Users Take Fewer Road Risks Than Drunks Study Says<br /><br />1999 AD : April 1: USA: Farmers Lobby to Legalize the Growing of Hemp<br /><br />1999 AD : April 7: USA: Florida Supreme Court Hears Medical Marijuana Case<br /><br />1999 AD : March: The LEGALISE CANNABIS ALLIANCE becomes an official political party in the UK. 1999 AD : April 9: UK: Pro-Cannabis Lobby To Stand in Norwich<br /><br />1999 AD : April 23: SWITZERLAND: Legalising Cannabis<br /><br />1999 AD : May 1 : Many thousands march for legalisation around the world<br /><br />1999 AD : May 6 : UK: Local Election Results, May 6 1999: Legalise Cannabis Alliance candidates poll average 3.5%.<br /><br />1999 AD : May 10: USA: NV Assembly Bill Eases Marijuana Penalties <br /><br />1999 AD : May 20: UK Government objects to cannabis bill 95 MPs support MM bill. Eric Mann's parole revoked to silence him.<br /><br />1999 AD : June 9 : CANADA: Two Patients Get Federal Go-Ahead To Smoke Pot<br /><br />1999 AD : June 11: US Kentucky: Hemp Museum Opens Doors To History Of Versatile Plant<br /><br />1999 AD : June 11: NEW ZEALAND: Advice To Review Dope Law Repeated<br /><br />1999 AD : June 13: UK: Cannabis Inhalers In First Legal Health Test<br /><br />1999 AD : June 21: CANADA: Compassion Club To Grow Pot In Homes Of Members<br /><br />1999 AD : June 21: SCOTLAND: Doctors Back Legalising Cannabis:<br /><br />1999 AD : June 24: JAMAICA: Official Encourages Cultivation Of Hemp<br /><br />1999 AD : June 30: UK: Jails Chief Says Drug Test Regime Is Useless<br /><br />1999 AD: September 6: UK: MS Patients Recruited To Test Cannabis Pill 1999 AD : Oct. 14: Kingston, Jamaica: The Jamaican Senate has unanimously approved a resolution establishing a commission to explore the decriminalisation of marijuana.<br /><br />1999 AD : Nov 25: The Legalise Cannabis Alliance candidate in the Kensington and Chelsea By-election, Colin Paisley gained 141 votes, 8th out of 18 candidates.<br /><br />2000 AD : Jan 12: CANADA: Hepatitis C Patient Wins Right To Smoke Pot<br /><br />2000 AD : March 6: UK: First Conference Of The Legalise Cannabis Alliance<br /><br />2000 AD : March 25: UK: Inquiry Calls For Softer Line On Hard Drugs - But Blair Says No<br /><br />2000 AD : March 29: SWITZERLAND: Swiss Parliament Legalises Cannabis<br /><br />2000 AD : March 30: Malaysian Gets Life For Growing Cannabis Plant<br /><br />2000 AD: April 4: MALAWI: Minister Steps Up Campaign To Legalise Marijuana<br /><br />2000 AD: May 4: The Legalise Cannabis Alliance fields 5 candidates in Norwich local elections (Sarah Homes, Mick Pryce, Hugh Robertson, Trevor Smith, Tina Smith), one in Peterborough (Marcus Davies). Derrick Large receives over 400 votes in the Romsey by-election won by a Liberal Democrat.<br /><br />2000 AD: May 6: Hundreds of thousands of people march for the end of the War on Cannabis <br /><br />2000 AD: June 28: CANADA: Medical Pot Grower Cleared<br /><br />2000 AD: June 28: NETHERLANDS: Dutch cannabis vote irks cabinet<br /><br />2000 AD: July 17: USA CA: Federal Judge Clears Way for Oakland Club to Distribute Pot to Seriously Ill Patients<br /><br />2000 AD: July 31: CANADA: Pot Prohibition Unconstitutional, Rules Court Of Appeals<br /><br />2000 AD: August 1: UK: Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment From Cannabis<br /><br />2000 AD: August 15: USA CA: Appeals Court Approves Marijuana As Medicine<br /><br />2000 AD: September 6: EUROPE: Dutch, Swiss and German Governments To Act on Marijuana<br /><br />2000 AD: September 8: USA CA: Doctors' Rights Backed Under Pot Law<br /><br />2000 AD: September 9: GUAM: High Court Ruling Backs Rastafarian's Sacrament - Cannabis: <br /><br />2000 AD: September 14: USA CA: Feds Rule Doctors May Recommend Pot<br /><br />2000 AD: September 28: UK: MS Sufferer Cleared Of Cannabis Charge<br /><br />2000 AD: October: Canadian Government Will Legalize Medical Marijuana Use<br /><br />2000 AD: October 20: UK: Cannabis Less Harmful Than Aspirin, Says Scientist<br /><br />2000 AD: November 24: USA: CA: Study Of Pot's Benefits To AIDS Patients Gets DEA's Blessing<br /><br />2000 AD: December 22: CANADA: Legal Marijuana Operation Opens<br /><br />2001 AD: 4 January: CANADA: Firm Grows Medical Pot In Mine Shaft<br /><br />2001 AD: 19 January: BELGIUM: Seen Decriminalising Cannabis Use<br /><br />2001 AD: 10 March: SWITZERLAND: Move To Legalise Cannabis<br /><br />2001 AD: 21 March: MEXICO: Leader Backs Call To Legalize Drugs<br /><br />2001 AD: 22 March: UK: Lords Urge Legal Use Of Cannabis<br /><br />2001 AD: 7 April: CANADA: Gravely Ill To Get Medical Pot<br /><br />2001 AD: 26 April: USA: Legalize Marijuana, New Mexico Governor Urges<br /><br />2001 AD: 11 June: Pot Smokers Just As Healthy - Study<br /><br />2001 AD: 25 June: UK: Home Secretary Praises Cannabis Scheme<br /><br />2001 AD: 1 July: UK: Drug Czar Recants: Cannabis Use Does Not Lead To Heroin<br /><br />2001 AD: 4 July: CANADA: Legal-Marijuana Users To Get Photo Id Cards<br /><br />2001 AD: 5 July: UK: In One Part Of London, Police Turn Blind Eye To Marijuana To Target Harder Crime<br /><br />2001 AD: 19 August: FIJI: Marijuana a Fiji Election Issue: A Fijian high chief has said his people should be shot dead if found planting marijuana<br /><br />2001 AD: 13 September: FRANCE: Koucher Opposes Drugs Law<br /><br />2001 AD: 20 October: THE NETHERLANDS: Dutch Government Plans To Put Cannabis On Prescription<br /><br />2001 AD: 14 December: INDONESIA: Marijuana Trafficker Gets Death Sentence<br /><br />2001 AD: 16 December: UK: Study Finds No Cannabis Link To Hard Drugs<br /><br />2002 AD: 25 January: NORWAY: Commission Set To Call For Decriminalization<br /><br />2002 AD: 16 February: KENYA: Hashish Traffickers Jailed For 45 Years<br /><br />2002 AD: 9 March: UK: Lib Dems back radical drug reforms<br /><br />2002 AD: 12 March: CANADA: Doctors Want Marijuana Decriminalized<br /><br />2002 AD: 14 March: UK: Reclassify Cannabis, Says Official Report<br /><br />2002 AD: 1 June: MEXICO: Chihuahua Considers Legalizing Pot<br /><br />2002 AD: 29 June: PHILIPPINES: Death For Marijuana<br /><br />2002 AD: 10 July: David Blunkett's Announcement of reclassification of Cannabis, and Oliver Letwin's reply in Parliament<br /><br />2002 AD: July: Australian Police Close Cannabis Cafe.<br /><br />2002 AD: July: UK Drugs Tsar Halliwell Resigns Over Plans To Reclassify Cannabis Possession. <br /><br />2002 AD: July: Canadian Judge Says Medical Cannabis Is Not Illegal. <br /><br />2002 AD: August: Israeli Government Approves Use Of Cannabis By Terminally Ill. <br /><br />2002 AD: October: Colin Davies Who Opened The Dutch Experience Cannabis Cafe In Stockport, UK, Is Sentenced To Three Years In Prison For Cannabis Offences. <br /><br />2002 AD: November: Kenya Considers Legalising Bhang.<br /><br />2002 AD: November: UK Doctors Announce Cannabis Extracts Used In Trials On MS And Pain Patients Proving Effective. <br /><br />2002 AD: November: Czech Doctors Claim Cannabis Helps Sufferers Of Parkinson's Disease. <br /><br />2002 AD: December: US Study Defies Gateway Theory That Cannabis Use Leads To Use Of Hard Drugs. <br /><br />2002 AD: December: Canadian Judge Orders Police To Return Medical Cannabis. <br /><br />2002 AD: December UK: Oakland, US, City Authorities Deputise Medical Marijuana Club Founders. <br /><br />2003 AD: February: US Jurors Become Angry That Trial Judge Had Not Informed Them That Ed Rosenthal Was Deputised by City Authorities in Oakland, after they convicted him of cultivation. <br /><br />2003 AD: February: UN Narcotics Control Board Questions Canada's Policy On Use Of Marijuana<br /><br />2003 AD: February: US Police Arrest 55 Suppliers Of Cannabis Paraphernalia. <br /><br />2003 AD: March: Pharmacies in The Netherlands Sell Medical Cannabis Which Is More Expensive Than Many Coffeeshops.<br /><br />2003 AD: March: Danish Drug Dealers Go On Strike<br /><br />2003 AD: March: JAMAICA: Bill To Legalise Ganja For Private Use<br /><br />2003 AD: April: RUSSIA: Nostalgic Small Town Puts Cannabis On Its Flag<br /><br />2006 AD: April: "Marijuana is the equivalent of heroin and cocaine". FDA issues statement denying that marijuana has <br />any medical benefits at all <br /><br />2006 AD: May: Mexican Congress passes bill legalising all drugs for private personal use. The officially permitted quantities: up to five grams of marijuana; five grams of opium; 25 milligrams of heroin; 500 milligrams of cocaine; a few tabs of Ecstasy; small quantities of amphetamines and magic mushrooms; and up to a kilo of the sacred cactus peyote. Vicente Fox, Mexico’s president, pledges to sign the Bill - but capitulates to US government pressure 24 hours later. The bill is returned to Congress for revision. <br /><br />2006 AD: October: CNN reports that Canadian troops "...battle 10-foot Afghan marijuana plants". <br /><br />2006 AD: October: Medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal, "the guru of ganja",is indicted on new criminal charges. <br /><br />2006 AD: December: A UK court rules that chocolate bars laced with cannabis for multiple sclerosis sufferers are unlawful. The owners of “Canna-Biz” posted some 36,000 cannabis-laced chocolate bars to more than 1,800 multiple sclerosis victims <br /><br />2006 AD: December: official US statistics suggests that marijuana is America's leading cash crop <br /><br />2007 AD: April: Harvard university study shows that Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, cuts tumour growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread <br /><br />2008 AD: Medical marijuana vending machines take root in Los Angeles. The DEA is not amused. <br /><br />2008 AD: May : UK government announces cannabis will be upgraded from class C to Class B. Its scientific experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, recommend cannabis should remain class C. <br /><br /><br />2009 AD: May : Marijuana in California is now "available as a medical treatment in California to almost anyone who tells a willing physician he would feel better if he smoked." (Washington Post) <br /><br /><br />(to be continued.....)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-8336587989920002362009-09-27T13:07:00.000-07:002009-09-27T13:09:50.326-07:00Top 10 Cannabis Studies the Government Wished it Had Never Funded10) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:<br />A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.<br /><br />9) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:<br />Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.<br />1997<br /><br />8) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:<br />Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.<br /><br />7) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART I):<br />The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.<br /><br />6) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART II):<br />DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found no differences except one: Lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.<br /><br />5) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):<br />Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.<br /><br />4) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):<br />In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.<br /><br />3) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):<br />Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.<br /><br />2) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):<br />Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.<br /><br />1) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:<br />In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr.<br />21, 2006Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-31036481861878152332009-09-27T10:18:00.000-07:002009-09-27T10:23:30.457-07:00Teen Depression Worsened by Marijuana, Government Says<span style="font-size:78%;">Originally posted <a href="http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/brain-and-behavior/2008/05/09/teen-depression-worsened-by-marijuana-government-says.html">here</a></span><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">By Sarah Baldauf</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">Today the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy sent out a clear message on teen pot use and depression: They're a bad combination. Issuing a report that analyzes around a dozen studies about marijuana use and mental health, the policy office warned that teens who use marijuana to "self-medicate" may worsen their underlying depression or other mental health issues. The intention of the report, says John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is to "try to correct two misunderstandings: That teen depression is not a problem and that teen marijuana use is not a problem—marijuana use is not safe." He advises parents to talk to their kids' pediatrician if they see signs of depression and suspect drug use.<br /><br /><br />The report, entitled "Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression: An Analysis of Recent Data Shows 'Self-Medicating' Could Actually Make Thing Worse," cites statistics to support its warning message, but experts are quick to note that it should be interpreted with caution. For example, the report's statement, "One 16-year study showed that individuals who were not depressed and then used marijuana were four times more likely to be depressed at follow-up," suggests marijuana might cause depression. That data from a 2001 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry was only statistically meaningful after the researchers adjusted for variables including age, gender, and antisocial symptoms, suggesting a weaker relationship between depression and marijuana before adjustments were made.The study also showed that those who were not depressed when first surveyed and then used opioids were 228 times more likely to be depressed at follow-up—without any adjustments. That statistic was not mentioned in the Drug Control Policy's report today. "Adolescent marijuana use may be a factor that triggers psychosis, depression, and other mental illness," says Walters, acknowledging that "research about causality is still ongoing."<br /><br />Policy groups on the other side of the aisle believe the report is misleading. "We agree that kids shouldn't smoke marijuana, but we simply have to be honest to teens and parents. This report [is] deliberately confusing correlation with causation," says Bruce Mirken, director of communications at The Marijuana Project , a Washington-based group that aims to remove criminal penalties for marijuana use and make medical marijuana available to seriously ill patients with doctor's approval. "This very week the British government's official scientific advisors on illegal drugs issued a report saying they are 'unconvinced that there is a causal relationship between the use of cannabis and any affective disorder,' such as depression." Mirken takes issue with the lack of warning about alcohol's relationship to depression. "Data linking alcohol to depression is much stronger and alcohol use by teens is greater than marijuana use," he notes.<br /><br />To be sure, experts believe marijuana carries risk, especially in the subset of teens who are more susceptible to substance abuse and mental health problems due to genetic makeup or environmental factors. "Among treatment populations [in] youth with substance abuse, there's a pretty high rate of clinical depression," says Oscar Bukstein, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; "many kids get high not to stay low."<br /><br />Perhaps most important, those people with co-existing substance abuse and a mental health disorder have worse outcomes than those with either problem alone, he adds. For perspective, Bukstein notes that research has shown 1 in 10 kids who smoke marijuana go on to develop dependence, and about 1 in 10 kids who become dependent on marijuana have psychotic symptoms.<br /><br />The bottom line, says Bukstein, is that mental illness and substance abuse very often go hand-in-hand. Parents who spot signs of depression should have their child professionally assessed for mental health issues, he says, and also for substance abuse—and the reverse is also true. As part of their development, kids are curious (see our previous story on teens' questions about drugs, addiction, alcohol and the like). To lower the likelihood of experimentation with pot, he advises parents to:<br /><br />Always monitor and supervise. Know where your kids are going and with whom.<br /><br />Set limits. Be sure they're not hanging out in homes where no adults are present.<br /><br />Be consistent. Discipline works only when it's reinforced.<br /><br />Seek professional help. If you have a hunch something's wrong, you're probably right.<br /><br />Take care of your own problems. The biggest risk factor for substance abuse and mental health problems is family history.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3356960773761441274.post-66311833493675050882009-09-26T18:58:00.000-07:002009-09-26T19:02:33.358-07:00Production, Analysis, & Distribution of Cannabis & Marijuana Cigarettes!Solicitation Number: N01DA-10-7773<br />Agency: Department of Health and Human Services<br />Office: National Institutes of Health<br />Location: National Institute on Drug Abuse<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Opportunity History<br />Complete View<br />Original Synopsis<br />Aug 05, 2009<br />9:03 am<br />Changed<br />Aug 28, 2009<br />2:27 pm<br />Solicitation<br />Changed<br />Sep 17, 2009<br />4:01 pm<br />Solicitation Number:<br />N01DA-10-7773 Notice Type:<br />Presolicitation Synopsis:<br />Added: Aug 05, 2009 9:03 am<br /><br /></span><br />The National Institute on Drug Abuse is soliciting proposals from qualified organizations having the capability to (1) grow, harvest, analyze, store and distribute GMP grade cannabis (marijuana) on large and small scales; (2) extract cannabis to obtain purified phytocannabinoids including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), analyze, and store; (3) prepare marijuana cigarettes and related products; and (4) distribute marijuana, marijuana cigarettes and cannabinoids, and other related products for research and other Government programs upon NIDA authorization. Offeror must possess suitable and secure DEA approved outdoor and indoor growing facilities, research laboratory with appropriate analytical instruments, and experienced personnel to conduct the project tasks. Appropriate DEA approved secure facility for manufacturing of marijuana cigarettes, and their storage, and DEA Schedule I registration for marijuana and THC are essential. NIDA anticipates a 1-year with four 1 year options cost reimbursement type contract will be awarded. Additional quantity options for manufacturing cigarettes may also be required. In order to handle substances under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, it is mandatory that offerors possess a DEA Research Registration for Schedules II to V and demonstrate the capability to obtain a DEA registration for Schedule I controlled substances. All studies must be carried out under pertinent FDA regulations, such as current Good Clinical Practice (cGCP) and current Good Laboratory Practice (cGLP) regulations. The pertinent FDA's guidelines/guidance shall be followed. RFP No. N01DA-10-7773 will be available electronically on or about August 25, 2009. You can access the RFP through the FedBizOpps http://fbo.gov or through the NIDA website at the following address: http://www.nida.nih.gov/RFP/RFPList.html. The electronic RFP contains all information needed to submit a proposal. No printed version of the solicitation document or source list is available. NIDA will consider proposals submitted by any responsible offeror. Proposals will be due on or about October 9, 2009. This advertisement does not commit the Government to award a contract. Based upon market research, the Government is not using the policies contained in Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in its solicitation for the described supplies or services. However, interested persons may identify to the contracting officer their interest and capability to satisfy the Government's requirement with a commercial item within 15 days of this notice.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0