Hillary Clinton Proposes MJ Rescheduling

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in November that she wants to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.

Clinton’s remarks came at a rally in South Carolina Nov. 7. Her chief competitor for the nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has already gone on record calling for rescheduling and has authored legislation to make it happen.

Clinton spoke just days after Sanders announced his bill, and her comments were an apparent attempt to flank him on marijuana reform. But she didn’t go quite as far as his call for full legalization of cannabis; she still refuses to endorse that idea.

Even so, her support of rescheduling could pave the way for legal marijuana. The drug is currently listed in schedule 1 of the CSA, a law that categorizes drugs under the control of the DEA. Schedule 1 includes drugs the federal government considers especially dangerous, especially addictive, and medically useless, including heroin, LSD, and synthetic cannabis.

Schedule 1 listing limits research on medical marijuana

Inclusion on schedule 1 means a drug can’t be used by anyone for any purpose, including research. That greatly hampers science into marijuana’s benefits and makes full legalization a practical impossibility.

Activists have been pushing for many years to remove cannabis from schedule 1, an effort that was fruitless until this campaign season. Now that two major candidates support rescheduling, it’s becoming a distinct possibility.

Clinton said she wants to move marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 2, a category the government believes has “less abuse potential.” It includes cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP, all drugs that are tightly controlled yet have limited medicinal uses. Moving cannabis there would make it easier for scientists to study how it works as medicine.

We must learn more about marijuana

“What I do want is for us to support research into medical marijuana, because a lot more states have passed medical marijuana than have legalized marijuana, so we’ve got two different experiences or even experiments going on right now,” she said at a town hall gathering. “And the problem with medical marijuana is there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, but we haven’t done any research. Why? Because it’s considered what’s called a schedule 1 drug, and you can’t even do research in it.”

Clinton has said before that she opposes recreational legalization but strongly supports medical marijuana. A move to schedule 2 would lift the most restrictive rules on cannabis, rules that make it impossible for researchers to study the plant’s medical benefits.

“If we’re going to have a lot of states setting up marijuana dispensaries so that people who have some kind of medical need are getting marijuana, we need know what’s the quality of it, how much should you take, what should you avoid if you’re taking other medications,” she said.

A means to criminal justice reform

Despite her opposition to legal cannabis, Clinton has said she sees decriminalization as a key part of criminal justice reform. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have joined forces in an effort to end harsh sentencing laws and free inmates serving time for non-violent drug crimes.

“We have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana,” Clinton said during the October debate between Democratic candidates.

During the same debate, Sanders said he would vote “yes” on legalization if he had the chance to cast a ballot in Nevada next year. The state is considered a good bet to join Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Colorado, states where marijuana is now legal for recreational use.

Later, Sanders proposed a rescheduling and introduced the legislation to carry it out. Including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who holds a distant third place to Sanders and Clinton, every major Democratic candidate has come out in favor of moving cannabis from schedule 1.

Clinton’s plan reflects the input of groups that support medical marijuana research. Earlier this year, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics petitioned the DEA to reschedule the drug so it could be used in research.

Hillary Clinton Proposes MJ Rescheduling

Cops Rank MJ at Bottom of Threat List

Police officers in the United States overwhelmingly say they don’t see cannabis as a major threat to the communities they protect, according to a poll released in November.

The survey, part of the DEA’s “2015 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary,” asked more than 1,000 law enforcement agencies what their officers view as the biggest threats. Marijuana charted at the bottom of the list, with just 6 percent of respondents naming it as the worst.

That number has been dropping steadily over the last decade, even as more states adopted medical cannabis and four legalized recreational use. Other drugs, meanwhile, are increasingly seen as major threats.

Heroin and meth topped the list

At the top of the list are heroin and meth, with nearly 75 percent of police departments saying it’s the biggest threat in 2015. Working class communities across the Eastern United States are currently suffering through the worst and deadliest surge of opiate addiction in the nation’s history.

But officers are less worried about prescription drug abuse than they used to be. That problem surged up the list between 2007 and 2013, then began to recede in 2014 and 2015. This is troubling, as most heroin addictions now start with legitimate opiate prescriptions – painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin. This trend has snared countless innocent users who started with no inclination to abuse drugs and ended up losing everything, often including their lives.

It’s not surprising police don’t see marijuana as a big threat. The evidence is all around them: Meth users break the law to get more; cannabis users don’t. Alcoholics mow down pedestrians; stoners never make it to the driveway. Cocaine addicts scare people; tokers set a relaxing mood that tends to discourage violence.

The only surprise is that police agencies are willing to admit as much. These departments typically survive off the proceeds of their marijuana busts, and losing those busts could mean a significant financial hit. Some agencies might even go belly up should cannabis become legal.

Hopefully the poll will light a fire under the DEA, which adamantly opposes any and all use of marijuana, anywhere. But don’t hold your breath.

Poll found marijuana does not drive crime

The poll, which surveyed state and local police, found that they don’t believe cannabis is a significant factor behind crime trends. Six percent said the drug was the biggest driver of violent crime in 2015, while 5 percent said the same of property crime. Many top law enforcement officials insist marijuana really does drive up crime rates, but the study contradicts those statements.

None of this is likely to stop the onslaught of petty marijuana arrests. Police will continue to arrest low-level users in large numbers for the simple reason that they’re easy to catch. There are far more stoners than there are heroin or cocaine users, so the opportunities for arrest and conviction are greater.

Cops Rank MJ at Bottom of Threat List

Flakka Reaches New York, Brings Trouble

“Flakka” is not a household word, even in circles where exotic drug use is common. But that is starting to change, and observers say a nightmare is brewing.

Drug-related hysteria comes and goes, so it’s not clear yet how dangerous flakka really is, or even how it works, exactly. But scientists know it’s made in laboratories, evades drug tests, and causes bizarre, aggressive behavior, possibly even death. They also know its use is spreading.

The flakka scare started in Florida, as most drug trends do. But it has now leaped out of the state, landing in New York and points elsewhere. Officials in that state say they’re bracing for an onslaught.

Flakka is a synthetic drug, similar in some ways to Spice and other forms of synthetic cannabis. It’s made to produce a powerful high that can leave users disoriented, delusional, and potentially dangerous.

Cheap and widely available

At $5 a high, it costs next to nothing, and in places like Florida and New York, it is becoming increasingly easy to get. Like synthetic marijuana, flakka is most popular among youths and homeless people because it’s cheap and hard to detect. Children often have an easier time finding it than cannabis or other recreational drugs.

“This is poison,” said James Hunt, special agent in charge of the DEA’s New York field office. “No different than taking rat poison.”

The DEA is not known for its rational approach to drug problems, but doctors and other health experts say flakka is nothing to laugh at. Made almost exclusively in China, India, and Pakistan, it’s sold online and easily smuggled to users. It’s unclear whether drug dogs can sniff out flakka, but it’s a new drug, so it’s unlikely many K9s have been trained to detect it.

Highly addictive

Similar to so-called “bath salts,” flakka is designed to produce an intense euphoria. For that reason it can be highly addictive, according to police and health officials. But it also typically produces powerful negative effects.

“It’s an agitated state, causes heart attacks, paranoia,” Hunt said. No deaths have been reported, but experts say they fear it’s only a matter of time.

Flakka remains relatively rare as recreational chemicals go, but its spread has New York officials worried. Many users don’t realize what they’re buying, and may not even be getting the drug they’re paying for. Tainted samples can be deadly, and there’s no way to know what each hit really contains.

The DEA says the drug can now be found in Buffalo, Syracuse, and other parts of Upstate New York. There are few if any reports that it has reached New York City, but it’s likely on its way.

Reports of flakka use are increasing

Horror stories about flakka use are growing. In one case, an intoxicated man tried to break down the door of a Florida police station because he believed he was being chased by a deranged motorist; he was caught on camera, alone.

The drug causes “crazy strength,” Hunt said. “It would take four police officers to restrain you.”

It’s worth being skeptical of any claims that drugs trigger superhuman abilities – not even PCP does that. But there are other stories, equally troubling.

Another Florida man, for example, impaled himself on a fence while breaking into the same police station to escape hallucinations of violent pursuers. And earlier this year, a third man – also a Florida resident – stripped naked and tried to have sex with a tree while on flakka.

This scare comes amid an explosion of addiction and death stemming from heroin and synthetic drugs. New York City is already dealing with an epidemic of Spice use, itself potentially fatal, and the flakka trend appears close behind. The Bronx and East Harlem, both low-income areas, have been hit hardest, and roughly 150 patients are treated each week for overdose symptoms.

Flakka Reaches New York, Brings Trouble

Drug Warriors Give Sanders and Paul "D-"

In a move that will probably backfire, a group that opposes marijuana reform issued a report card of presidential candidates in October. Not surprisingly, the candidates who support new approaches to cannabis scored the worst grades.

Former Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Democrat

That would be former Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Paul, a Republican, and Sanders, a leading Democratic contender, both received grades of “D-” thanks to promises to reform the nation’s arcane drug laws.

Neither man is especially likely to be president, but the report card could serve as a handy election guide for Americans who support legalization and other reforms. Voting for the candidates with the poorest grades is probably the surest way for voters to ensure those changes happen.

The rankings come from Project SAM, an ominously named group that fights legalization across the country. SAM is led by two inveterate drug warriors, lobbyist Kevin Sabet and former U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Its members staunchly favor a punitive approach to drug use and insist marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol and other drugs.

Candidates from both parties were evaluated based on their “opposition to marijuana legalization for recreational purposes . . . support for prevention, intervention , and treatment of marijuana use,” and their promises to follow the “regulated, FDA-approved approach to the legitimate medical use of marijuana components.”

Sanders and Paul received the lowest grade given by SAM. Paul’s campaign is already on life support, and while Sanders has a strong following, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still considered the Democratic front-runner. Even if one of these men were elected, he probably wouldn’t be able to orchestrate seamless change, as any attempt at nationwide legalization is likely to hit strong political turbulence.

Sanders said during the Democratic Party debate in October that he would vote “yes” if asked to support legalization in Nevada, the site of the debate. Later that month, he announced his plans to reschedule cannabis, removing it from schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act so it could be legalized at the federal level. That schedule contains the most hazardous, the most addictive, and the least medically useful drugs, including heroin and LSD.

Paul, meanwhile, has said he would leave legalization to the states. That position fits with his strong libertarian leanings, though he didn’t go so far as to support federal legalization.

SAM didn’t treat other candidates so harshly. Three Republicans, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and surgeon Ben Carson, won A grades for vowing to stamp out legalization and, in Carson’s words, “intensify” the war on drugs.

GOP businesswoman Carly Fiorina, whose fortunes have see-sawed since the first Republican debate earlier this year, scored only a B, despite taking a firm stance against legal cannabis. Sabet and Kennedy docked her because she has acknowledged that marijuana might have medicinal value.

Finally, Clinton, who leads both the Democratic Party and the race for the general election, got a B-, mostly because she has said she’ll keep an open mind about legalizing cannabis for recreation. She has repeatedly said she favors medical marijuana but has refused to go any further until the country has had more time to see how legalization plays out at the state level.

Drug Warriors Give Sanders and Paul "D-"

Arizona Billboard Campaign Targets Fear of MJ

If the War on Drugs has a fuel, it is fear. From Harry Anslinger and Reefer Madness to mandatory minimums and the DEA, almost every key development in the century-old movement to banish marijuana was born of terror.

One of the nation’s largest pro-marijuana groups, the Marijuana Policy Project, is playing off that fact in a campaign to convince voters legalization is right for them. MPP’s message: The only reason to vote against legal cannabis is irrational fear.

The group has paid to put up a billboard in Phoenix, above Seventh and Lincoln streets. Arizona voters could decide to legalize marijuana for any use in the 2016 election, and MPP is trying to encourage support for the idea. Activists are gathering signatures to put the issue on next year’s ballot.

Cannabis is legal in the District of Columbia and four states: Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and Colorado. It is allowed for some degree of medical use in another 33 states, including Arizona.

Legalization likely in Arizona

Legalization is a fairly good bet in the state, if not in 2016 then within a few years of that. Neighboring California has one of the nation’s most liberal cannabis systems, and Arizona has a strong libertarian tilt that lends itself to cannabis reform.

But there is also a staunch law-and-order streak to the state’s politics. Maricopa County, for instance, is home to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, arguably the most controversial law enforcement official in the United States. And that means opponents of reform have a considerable platform.

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk serves as vice chairwoman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, an anti-marijuana group made up of police and prosecutors. She has launched an effort to defeat legalization even before it makes the ballot. As MPP notes, her crusade is based on thinly veiled fear mongering.

Mocking drug war scare tactics

And that’s where the billboard comes in. The idea behind the ad was to make fun of the drug war scare tactics and fight them with humor.

“Marijuana is illegal thanks to decades of anti-marijuana propaganda and fear mongering,” J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the billboard campaign, said in a press release. “Once people find out it is actually safer than alcohol, they tend to agree it should not be a crime for adults to use it responsibly.”

Anyone who has paid attention to the history of cannabis knows this undercurrent of fear has run strong for at least a century. Marijuana was banned in 1937 after an intense campaign to scare the daylights out of ill-informed Americans and turn them against the drug. It culminated with Reefer Madness, possibly the most offensively hysterical movie ever made.

Perceptions are shifting

But times are changing. Young voters in particular no longer see anything to fear in marijuana. They’ve used the drug, they’ve seen their friends use it, even their families, and they know it rarely hurts anyone. These are the voters MPP is reaching for, in part by playing off the lurid posters that once advertised the notorious film.

“Over the next 12 months, our opponents are going to do everything they can to scare Arizonans into keeping marijuana illegal,” Holyoak said. “We just want voters to remember that we’re talking about a substance that is proven to be less harmful than alcohol.”

Arizona Billboard Campaign Targets Fear of MJ

Who Will Legalize First, Canada or Mexico?

Four states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana, and that makes the United States the first country in the world to offer fully legal cannabis. But the club is about to get a lot bigger.

Each of our neighbors, to the north and to the south, is looking at possible legalization within a matter of months or a few years. But which is going to get there first, Canada or Mexico? And could the United States beat them to the punch?

First, as a practical matter, no, the American government will probably not legalize marijuana until long after the drug is allowed in Mexico and Canada. Those countries are poised to act soon; legalization in the United States is likely to continue state by state, and that could take a long time.

Canada’s new Liberal government offers hope for reform

Hope for reform is strongest north of the border, where Canadian voters recently swept a new government into power. Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau is the country’s new prime minister, and he promised during the campaign that he would push for full legalization.

It’s not clear when Trudeau plans to act on that promise, but expectations are high. Support for legal cannabis is strong, and medical marijuana is already widely popular. The switch to full legalization shouldn’t be a big leap for Canada, even though Conservative politicians have fought it for years.

The elections were seen as a blunt rejection of the Conservative Party and its leader, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The Conservatives were known for their American-style right-wing politics, including their opposition to MMJ and any other type of drug reform.

Does cannabis prohibition violate the Mexican national constitution?

At the other end of the continent, a legal case currently pending in the Mexican court system offers hope in that country. The Mexican Supreme Court is considering whether cannabis prohibition violates the national constitution, specifically a clause that protects the right to free development of the individual personality.

A determination by the court that cannabis is protected doesn’t necessarily mean the drug would be legalized, at least not right away. That would require an act of the Mexican Congress, though a judicial decision would increase the likelihood of such a law.

No one has cast solid odds on how that case will play out, but medical cannabis is already technically legal (if not easily obtained), and some districts have moved to decriminalize the drug, including Mexico City.

Mexico has suffered from the illegal drug trade

The motives for reform in Mexico are obvious. The country and its people have suffered more than any other from the violent side effects of the illegal drug trade. Massive criminal cartels are still common across the country, though violence along the U.S. border has declined rapidly in recent months.

Over the last eight years, since President Felipe Calderon kicked off a massive anti-drug campaign across Mexico, roughly 100,000 people have died and another 25,000 have disappeared, presumably killed by cartels.

Legalizing marijuana would remove the drug from cartels’ control. This alone could cripple much of the illegal drug flow in Mexico. And it would take a massive financial bounty from criminals and give it to the public and their government instead.

Who Will Legalize First, Canada or Mexico?

Clinton: End Sentencing Disparity for Crack vs. Cocaine

Powdered cocaine and crack are essentially the same drug. They come from the same plant, they contain the same chemical, and they work on the brain in similar ways.

Even so, the government has long taken a much more punitive approach to people who use crack than it does to people who use cocaine hydrochloride, the powdered form of the drug. At least one presidential candidate has promised to end that disparity, a lingering holdover of 1990s anti-drug laws.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a rally in October that she would stop imposing harsher prison sentences on crack users than on powdered cocaine users. The announcement came as Clinton unrolls an ambitious plan to reform the troubled criminal justice system.

Clinton is still widely considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination next year, though former Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has made it a competitive race. Both candidates have promised to change harsh sentences for marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs.

Clinton planned to outline her “extensive agenda” for criminal justice reform throughout the fall. Her proposals include changes to sentencing laws and a bill banning racial profiling by police. She announced her plan to reform cocaine sentences during a speech Oct. 30 in Atlanta, where she launched an “African Americans for Hillary” campaign.

Clinton used the event to unveil her criminal justice proposals, including changes to policing, incarceration, rehabilitation, and re-assimilation of released inmates into society. She had scheduled another speech on the subject in South Carolina in November, to be hosted by the local NAACP.

Her reform campaign is designed to end what she calls the “era of mass incarceration” in America, an era that has disproportionately affected African Americans. Part of the plan will include the push to end cocaine sentencing disparities, which also hit blacks harder than any other group. And she has called for legislation to prevent law enforcement from using race or ethnicity as grounds to launch routine investigations.

The disparity between crack sentences and sentences for powdered cocaine has existed since the Reagan era, when the United States experienced a supposed “epidemic” of crack addiction (an epidemic that was exaggerated by the media). Congress passed a law in 2010 that cut the disparity from a ratio of 100:1 to a ratio of 18:1, and Clinton said she plans to go further.

Still, the disparity continues to ruin lives across the country, usually the lives of low-level, non-violent offenders who neither make nor sell drugs.

Crack and powdered cocaine are both extracted from the leaves of the coca plant, which grows almost exclusively in South and Central America. Crack is a hard, rock-like cocaine paste also known as “base” or “freebase.” Smoked, it produces an incredibly intense euphoria sometimes described as a full-body orgasm.

Cocaine hydrochloride, on the other hand, is made by processing base further, turning it into a fine white powder that is usually snorted. Both forms of cocaine produce a powerful high, though crack is known to be stronger. In each case, intoxication fades rapidly, leading to a cycle of repeated use that can end in addiction.

During its heyday in the late 1980s and early 1990s, crack was especially popular in low-income neighborhoods and communities, in part because it is cheaper and in part because it is more potent. According to government data, almost 80 percent of Americans convicted of crack-related crimes in 2009 were black.

“Crack and powder cocaine are two forms of the same drug, and continuing to treat them differently disproportionately hurts black Americans,” Clinton’s campaign said in a background memo.

Clinton: End Sentencing Disparity for Crack vs. Cocaine