Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:09 pm
Time: 9:09 pm
Results for marijuana legalization
22 results foundAuthor: Police Executive Research Forum Title: New Challenges for Police: A Heroin Epidemic and Changing Attitudes Toward Marijuana Summary: Is the United States fundamentally shifting its approach to drugs? That's a question underlying this report. I think that in many ways, the nation still sees the harm that drugs cause to individual lives and to the fabric of our society. There is no question that drug abuse is a scourge and a tragedy. And the related issue of gang violence associated with drug trafficking is one of the biggest problems in many U.S. cities. Still, around the edges, changes are noticeable. This report details two of those changes. Surge in heroin abuse: First, we are experiencing a spreading epidemic of heroin abuse in many cities and towns across the nation. At the PERF Summit that is the center of this report, FBI Director James Comey told us he has been traveling the nation, and in every single FBI field office he has visited, people have been talking about heroin. Marijuana legalization: The other major topic of this report-the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington State this year-is another issue where there has been a shift in attitude. Public opinion about marijuana obviously has been changing for some time. Nearly half of the 50 states have legalized medical marijuana, going back as far as 1996. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2014. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series_2/a%20heroin%20epidemic%20and%20changing%20attitudes%20toward%20marijuana.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series_2/a%20heroin%20epidemic%20and%20changing%20attitudes%20toward%20marijuana.pdf Shelf Number: 133742 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug PolicyHeroinMarijuana (U.S.)Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Hudak, John Title: Colorado's Rollout of Legal Marijuana Is Succeeding Summary: In November 2012, Colorado voters decided to experiment with marijuana. Formally, they approved Amendment 64, modifying the state constitution. This move was historic and did something which, to that point, no other state or modern foreign government had ever done: legalize retail (recreational) marijuana. As part of the amendment, the state was required to construct legal, regulatory, and tax frameworks that would allow businesses to cultivate, process, and sell marijuana not simply to medical patients-as had been happening in Colorado for over a decade-but to anyone 21 and older. This change came despite existing federal prohibition of marijuana and opposition from the governor, state attorney general, many mayors, and the law enforcement community. At its heart, this report is about good government and takes no position on whether the legalization of retail marijuana was the correct decision. Instead, it takes for granted that Amendment 64 and its progeny are the law and should be implemented successfully, per voters' wishes. The report examines what the state has done well and what it has not. It delves into why, and how, regulatory and administrative changes were made. Finally, it offers an evaluation of how effective the implementation has been. Key findings include: - It's too early to judge the success of Colorado's policy, but it is not too early to say that the rollout-initial implementation-of legal retail marijuana has been largely successful. - The state has met challenging statutory and constitutional deadlines for the construction and launch of a legal, regulatory, and tax apparatus for its new policy. In doing so, it has made intelligent decisions about regulatory needs, the structure of distribution, prevention of illegal diversion, and other vital aspects of its new market. It has made those decisions in concert with a wide variety of stakeholders in the state. - Colorado's strong rollout is attributable to a number of elements. Those include: leadership by state officials; a cooperative, inclusive approach centering on task forces and working groups; substantial efforts to improve administrative communication; adaptive regulation that embraces regulatory lookback and process-oriented learning; reorganizing, rebuilding, and restaffing critical state regulatory institutions; and changes in culture in state and local government, among interest groups, and among the public. - Regulations address key concerns such as diversion, shirking, communication breakdowns, illegal activity, and the financial challenges facing the marijuana industry. However, some regulations were also intended to help regulators, as they endured rapid, on-the-job training in dealing with legal marijuana. - Despite real success, challenges involving edibles, homegrown marijuana, tax incentives, and marijuana tourism remain, and the state must address them in a more effective way. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Effective Public Management, Brookings Institution, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2014 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/07/colorado%20marijuana%20legalization%20succeeding/cepmmjcov2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/07/colorado%20marijuana%20legalization%20succeeding/cepmmjcov2.pdf Shelf Number: 134263 Keywords: Drug Policy (Colorado)Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Gettman, Jon B. Title: Marijuana Arrests in Colorado After the Passage of Amendment 64 Summary: Colorado's Amendment 64 was enacted in November 2012. The constitutional amendment allowed for the personal possession, cultivation and private use of marijuana in the state of Colorado for people over 21 years of age. The state was also mandated to establish a framework for taxation and regulation so adults could legally purchase non-medical marijuana from licensed cultivators and retailers. The new rights conferred to adults went into effect on December 10, 2012. The first retail stores opened on January 1, 2014. This report reviews changes in the number and characteristics of marijuana arrests in Colorado after the passage of Amendment 64. Not all arrests are equal in terms of consequences for the individual and the costs to the criminal justice system because an arrested individual may be charged with several criminal violations. Consequently this report refers to arrests in terms of the number of individual charges prosecuted in court. Data obtained from the Judicial Branch of Colorado was used to compare the number of cases and charges brought before the courts in the state prior to the passage of Amendment 64. Additional data from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation was used to review the racial characteristics of those arrested by law enforcement for marijuana law violations. This report reveals that marijuana-related charges statewide (not including Denver) decreased by 85% between 2010 and 2014. An overwhelming majority of this decrease in charges came in the aftermath of Amendment 64. Possession charges at all levels (not simply the level now legal or previously considered a petty offense) are the primary reason for the decline. Cultivation charges over the last two years were halved when compared to the previous two years before Amendment 64. In addition, all drug-related charges are down 23% since 2010. This underscores the central role of marijuana prohibition in the drug war, as well as marijuana legalization's implications for criminal justice reform more generally. This report also finds that racial disparities for marijuana offenses persist at similar levels as before Amendment 64. However, disparities for the charge of intent to distribute actually went down, easing fears of many racial justice advocates. While the overall decrease in marijuana-related offenses statewide has been enormously beneficial to communities of color, one troubling concern is the rise in disparities for the charge of public consumption, especially in Denver. It is also worth noting that, due to a lack of credible data, this report does not analyze Amendment 64's impact on the state's Latino population. The report also reveals a sharp decline in synthetic marijuana arrests since retail stores opened in 2014. According to judicial county court records, arrests for synthetic marijuana in 2014 have declined by 27% from the prior year. Given the health impacts of marijuana are more established and understood than those related to synthetic marijuana, advocates see this as yet another potential benefit of legalization. Details: New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Marijuana_Arrests_After_the_Passage_of_Amendment_64.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Marijuana_Arrests_After_the_Passage_of_Amendment_64.pdf Shelf Number: 135227 Keywords: ArrestsDecriminalizationDrug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug Policy (Colorado)Drug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Darnell, Adam Title: I-502 Evaluation Plan and Preliminary Report on Implementation Summary: In 2012, with the passage of Initiative 502, Washington voters legalized limited adult possession and private use of cannabis, as well as its licensed production and sale. The initiative also directed WSIPP to evaluate the effect of the law on Washington's population and economy. This first required report provides a research plan for the overall study. WSIPP's evaluation of I-502 will be divided into three components: 1)a descriptive study of how the law is being implemented; 2)an outcome study that will identify causal effects of the law; and 3)a benefit-cost study. This initial report describes the status of I-502 implementation through June 30, 2015. We present information on the number of licensed cannabis businesses, cannabis sales, and historical trends in adult and youth cannabis use. This report does not contain findings on whether I-502 has had any effects on outcomes. Effects of the law will not be detectable until several years after implementation. The next required report, due September 1, 2017, will include initial results of outcome analyses. Details: Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2015. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2015 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1616/Wsipp_I-502-Evaluation-Plan-and-Preliminary-Report-on-Implementation_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1616/Wsipp_I-502-Evaluation-Plan-and-Preliminary-Report-on-Implementation_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136746 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDrug PolicyMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse Title: Cannabis Regulation: Lessons Learned in Colorado and Washington State Summary: In November 2012, Colorado and Washington state became the first two US states to legalize the personal possession and retail sale of cannabis. The two states developed regulatory frameworks with many common features (e.g., minimum purchase age of 21, ban on public use), and some key differences. For example, Washington bans personal production, while Colorado permits up to five plants per household. The two states began with different contexts: Colorado had a well-established, regulated medical distribution system to build on, and Washington had no existing regulated supply. Retail sales began on January 1, 2014, in Colorado and on July 8, 2014, in Washington. To learn from evidence and experience about the legalization of cannabis for non-therapeutic use and its health, social, economic and public safety impacts, the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) led delegations to Colorado (February 2015) and Washington state (August 2015). The delegations consisted of partners from public health, treatment and enforcement sectors. The goal was to inform the ongoing dialogue about policy options for the regulation of cannabis in Canada and internationally by observing the effects of the various models and approaches in the two states. The aim was not to take a position on the question of legalization, but to collect the best available information to support evidence-informed policy advice. To this end, the delegation met with stakeholders from a range of perspectives, including public health, regulation, government, enforcement, prevention and the cannabis industry. The overarching lesson that emerged during discussions with stakeholders was that any jurisdiction considering policy change should identify a clear purpose to drive the overall approach. In other words, begin by defining the problem to be solved and the goals to be achieved. Colorado and Washington had to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework taking a substance from criminal prohibition to retail sales. Any new regulatory system for cannabis needs to address considerations across health, public health, enforcement, criminal justice, social and economic sectors. It must account for the administration, monitoring and enforcement of all processes, including production, processing, sales, advertising and taxation. The framework also has to coordinate federal, state, district and municipal orders of government, and their respective roles in such areas as enforcement, taxation and health care. The CCSA delegation learned the following key lessons about developing a regulatory framework from stakeholders: - Reconcile medical and retail markets to promote consistency in such areas as purchase quantities and administration, and to reduce the scope of the grey market, which is the market for products produced or distributed in ways that are unauthorized or unregulated, but not strictly illegal; - Be prepared to respond to the unexpected, such as the overconsumption of edibles in Colorado and an unmanageable volume of licensing applications within a limited time frame in Washington state; - Control product formats and concentrations to ensure there are no unanticipated consequences from unregulated formats and concentrations; - Prevent commercialization through taxation, rigorous state regulation and monitoring, and controls on advertising and promotion; and - Prevent use by youth by controlling access and investing in effective health promotion, prevention, awareness and education for both youth and parents. The need to invest in effective implementation was a common message of stakeholders in both Colorado and Washington. They highlighted the value of allocating a portion of funds generated through retail sales to education, prevention, treatment and research. They also emphasized the need to ensure proactive investment to build capacity before the new regulations are implemented and retail sales begin. These investments fall into several common themes: - Take the time required to develop an effective framework for implementation and to prepare for a successful launch; (Colorado stakeholders recommended taking longer than the one-year period provided in that state. There is also a need to give retailers time to develop capacity to meet consumer demand. Washington stakeholders encountered price escalation as retailers struggled to obtain or produce product within two months of receiving licenses.) - Develop the capacity to administer the regulatory framework, recognizing that a significant investment in staff and administration is required to process licenses, conductcomprehensive inspections and address violations; - Provide strong central leadership and promote collaboration to bring diverse partners to the table from the beginning and to promote open, consistent communication and collaborative problem-solving; - Invest proactively in a public health approach that builds capacity in prevention, education and treatment before implementation to minimize negative health and social impacts associated with cannabis use; - Develop a clear, comprehensive communication strategy to convey details of the regulations prior to implementation, so that the public and other stakeholders understand what is permitted, as well as the risks and harms associated with use, so that individuals can make informed choices; - Ensure consistent enforcement of regulations by investing in training and tools for those responsible for enforcement, particularly to prevent and address impaired driving and diversion to youth, and to control the black market; - Invest in research to establish the evidence base underlying the regulations, and to address gaps in knowledge, such as new and emerging trends and patterns of use; and - Conduct rigorous, ongoing data collection, including gathering baseline data, to monitor the impact of the regulatory framework and inform gradual change to best meet policy objectives and reduce negative impacts. In summary, the consistent message CCSA heard was that any jurisdiction considering regulatory changes to cannabis policy should take the time to set up the infrastructure and allocate the resources needed to get it right, assess impacts along the way and make incremental changes, as needed. Details: Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2016 at: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Cannabis-Regulation-Lessons-Learned-Report-2015-en.pdf Shelf Number: 138920 Keywords: CannabisDrug PolicyDrug UseMarijuanaMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Walsh, John Title: Uruguay's Drug Policy: Major Innovations, Major Challenges Summary: Key Findings - Uruguay, the first country to legalize and regulate every level of the market for cannabis, will be an important example globally for political leaders contemplating whether and how to liberalize drug policies. - Even before its return to democracy in 1985, Uruguay had traditionally adopted relatively liberal drug policies. - A combination of political leadership by President Jose "Pepe" Mujica and public unease over rising criminality led Uruguay to pursue drug reform. - Compared to similar cannabis laws in Washington and Colorado, the Uruguayan measure is more state-centered, with less emphasis on commercialization and greater restrictions on use. - Uruguayan public opinion has remained opposed to—or at least skeptical of - the law. - Uruguay will have to contend with international criticism and domestic political forces as it moves to implement enabling legislation in 2015. Policy Recommendations - We recommend that the government of Uruguay: Maintain flexibility regarding the cannabis law's key variables, such as market price and potency varieties available to consumers; Adjust the law based on thorough monitoring and evaluation, taking into account academic and civil society analysts; Articulate an enforcement and inspection strategy for the relevant officials; Implement a drug use prevention strategy aimed at youth that does not dissuade users and home-growers from registering with the government; and Better educate the public on the behind the law and what it aims to accomplish. Details: Washington, DC: Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 25, 2016 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Walsh--Uruguay-final.pdf?la=en Year: 2016 Country: Uruguay URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Walsh--Uruguay-final.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 139156 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Canada. Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Title: Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana - Discussion Paper Summary: In the 2015 Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada committed to legalizing, regulating, and restricting access to marijuana. The current approach to marijuana prohibition is not working: - Youth continue to use marijuana at rates among the highest in the world. - Thousands of Canadians end up with criminal records for non-violent drug offences each year. - Organized crime reaps billions of dollars in profits from its sale. - Most Canadians no longer believe that simple marijuana possession should be subject to harsh criminal sanctions, and support the Government's commitment to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana. The Government understands the complexity of this challenge and the need to take the time to get it right. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, supported by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Minister of Health, has created a Task Force on Marijuana Legalization and Regulation ("the Task Force"). The Task Force is mandated to engage with provincial, territorial and municipal governments, Indigenous governments and representative organizations, youth, and experts in relevant fields, including but not limited to: public health, substance abuse, criminal justice, law enforcement, economics, and industry and those groups with expertise in production, distribution and sales. The Task Force will provide advice on the design of a new framework. The Task Force will receive submissions from interested parties, including individual Canadians, consult widely, listen and learn, and commission any necessary focussed research to support its work. It is supported by a federal secretariat and will report back to the three Ministers on behalf of the Government in November 2016, on a date to be determined by the Ministers. This Discussion Paper is designed to support consultations led by the Task Force. Its goal is to support a focussed dialogue. Details: Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2016. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2016 at: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/consultations/legalization-marijuana-legalisation/alt/legalization-marijuana-legalisation-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 139718 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Reform PolicyMarijuanaMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Ramsey, Geoff Title: Getting Regulation Right: Assessing Uruguay's Historic Cannabis Initiative Summary: After close to three years, the final element of Uruguay's historic cannabis law is set to be implemented in early 2017, when commercial sales are expected to begin. While advancements have been slow and deliberate, Uruguay is not alone in taking such a cautious approach. The U.S. state of Maryland, for instance, approved a medical cannabis program in 2013, but a series of careful adjustments has also postponed sales until 2017. Now that the commercial sales element of the law is about be phased in, the government of President Tabaré Vázquez is facing a key moment of opportunity. With the basic structures created by the law soon to be up and running, the government should ensure a robust system of monitoring and evaluation is also in place, to assess whether the cannabis law is in fact achieving its goals, identify problems that may arise, and indicate where and how the new regime may need to be revised. This report, "Getting Regulation Right: Assessing Uruguay’s Historic Cannabis Initiative," lays out the progress that Uruguayan authorities have made in rolling out the law to date. It also examines current monitoring and evaluation efforts underway, as well as opportunities for Uruguay to respond to potential obstacles thus far. Uruguay's government makes no pretense that its law should be a model for others. But Uruguay's leaders also know that, as the first nation to legalize and regulate every level of the cannabis market, their new system will be coming under close scrutiny, at home and abroad. As citizens and leaders elsewhere ponder whether and how to legalize and regulate cannabis in their own countries, the lessons to be learned in Uruguay can help inform cannabis policy well beyond the country's own borders. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Getting-Regulation-Right-WOLA-Uruguay.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Uruguay URL: https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Getting-Regulation-Right-WOLA-Uruguay.pdf Shelf Number: 147301 Keywords: CannabisDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ReformMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Title: Lessons Learned After 4 Years of Marijuana Legalization Summary: In the wake of multimillion-dollar political campaigns funded with out-of-state money, Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana in November 2012. Though it would take more than a year to set up retail stores, personal use (in Colorado and Washington) and home cultivation (in Colorado, which includes giving away of up to six plants) were almost immediately legalized after the vote. Using marijuana in public, which remains illegal under these new laws, has increased conspicuously in both states. Also, a brand-new marijuana industry selling candies, cookies, waxes, sodas, and other marijuana items has exploded—and with it a powerful lobby to fight any sensible regulation. Though it is still early—the full effects on mental health and educational outcomes, for example, will take many more years to fully develop—these “experiments” in legalization and commercialization are not succeeding by any measure. Colorado now leads the country in past-month marijuana use by youth, with Washington not much further behind. Other states that have since legalized marijuana occupy 4th place (District of Columbia) and 5th place (Oregon). States with lax “medical marijuana” laws occupy 2nd and 3rd place (Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively). Additionally, as explained in greater detail below, the laws have had significant negative impacts on public health and safety, such as: • Rising rates of pot use by minors • Increasing arrest rates of minors, especially black and Hispanic children • Higher rates of traffic deaths from driving while high • More marijuana-related poisonings and hospitalizations • A persistent black market that may now involve increased Mexican cartel activity in Colorado The federal government, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), announced it would initially take a hands-off approach to state implementation of legalization, instead promising to track eight specific consequences—from youth marijuana use to use on public lands—and determine action later. So far, however, neither the federal nor state authorities have implemented a robust public tracking system for these criteria. This failure led the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to criticize DOJ in 2016 for not appropriately monitoring and documenting legalization outcomes. As of the date of this publication, there has been no word from the Department of Justice about state marijuana program compliance with any of the eight criteria it identified. Quietly, however, state agencies such as the Colorado Department of Public Safety, have released very negative updates on marijuana data and other indicators. In the meantime, the promises of tax revenue windfalls and decreased crime have not materialized. Pot tax revenue comprises a tiny fraction of the Colorado state budget— less than one percent—and after costs of enforcement are subtracted, the remaining revenue is very limited. Some Colorado school districts, such as Denver's, have not seen a single dollar of new funding from state pot taxes. And in Washington, half of the marijuana tax money legalization advocates promised for prevention and schools has been siphoned off into the state's general fund. Details: Alexandria, VA: SAM, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 13, 2017 at: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SAM-report-on-CO-and-WA-issued-31-Oct-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SAM-report-on-CO-and-WA-issued-31-Oct-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 145017 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse PolicyDrug LegalizationMarijuanaMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Boidi, Maria Fernanda Title: Marijuana Legalization in Uruguay and Beyond Summary: In 2013, Uruguay became the first country in the world to regulate the possession, growth, and distribution of cannabis. The initiative of marijuana regulation by President José Mujica, was passed by the Uruguayan Congress and signed into Law as 19172 by the president in December 20, 2013. The regulation of marijuana, however, has been met with important challenges. According to the AmericasBarometer 2014, over sixty percent of Uruguayan citizens have expressed disagreement with the law. Additionally, leaders within the International Narcotics Control Board have expressed opposition to legalization, characterizing the new law as being in direct defiance of the international drug control treaties. As a result, Uruguay faces both domestic and international opposition in pursuing its innovative marijuana regulation model. This report summarizes the preliminary results from the first systematic research project conducted on the process of marijuana regulation in Uruguay. It revolves around two surveys. First, a Respondent-Driven Sample survey conducted with marijuana consumers in the metropolitan area of Montevideo; and second, the 2014 AmericasBarometer survey in Uruguay conducted by the Latin American Public Opinion Project. The research has been conducted by the Latin American Marijuana Research Initiative (LAMRI), formed by the Latin American and Caribbean Center (LACC) at Florida International University and the Universidad Católica del Uruguay (UCU), with funds from the Open Society Foundations. Details: Miami: FIU Latin American and Caribbean Center, 2015. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2017 at: https://lacc.fiu.edu/events/2015/marijuana-legalization-in-uruguay-and-beyond/14561_sipa_marijuana-research_report2-1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Uruguay URL: https://lacc.fiu.edu/events/2015/marijuana-legalization-in-uruguay-and-beyond/14561_sipa_marijuana-research_report2-1.pdf Shelf Number: 144608 Keywords: Drug Legalization Drug Policy Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Cruz, Jose Miguel Title: Rethinking the Leaf? Support for Marijuana Legalization in Uruguay, the United States and El Salvador. Summary: What are the factors associated with approval for marijuana legalization? In the last three years, Uruguay and the states of Colorado and Washington in the U.S. have legalized the production, commercialization, and consumption of recreational marijuana. Such measures have opened a significant debate about legalization. Although the path of legalization and regulation have been different in Uruguay and the United States, these cases provide an excellent opportunity to explore the relationship between drug policy implementation and public opinion support for marijuana legalization in two very different contexts. Using data from the 2014 AmericasBarometer surveys conducted in Uruguay and the United States, this paper examines citizen views towards marijuana regulation and the political factors associated with the approval to legalization. It shows that although levels of public support on marijuana legalization are different in the United States and Uruguay, there are some similarities in the political variables related to approval of legalization of marijuana in both countries. Details: Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy (ISSDP). Ghent, Belgium. May 19-22, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2017 at: http://lamri.fiu.edu/research/rethinking-the-leaf/rethinking-the-leaf.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://lamri.fiu.edu/research/rethinking-the-leaf/rethinking-the-leaf.pdf Shelf Number: 144611 Keywords: Drug Legalization Drug Policy Drug Reform Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Homel, Peter Title: Marijuana legalisation in the United States: An Australian perspective Summary: More than 20 US states have legalised the medicinal use of marijuana; in the past three years, four have also legalised its recreational use. At the same time, marijuana remains illegal under US federal law. This paper reviews the US experience to identify any potential lessons or hazards likely to emerge. It outlines the regulatory requirements of different US states for managing medicinal and recreational marijuana use, and the costs and benefits of these measures. It also critically analyses the most common commercial for-profit production and distribution model and examines the implications of this approach in terms of individual, social and criminological outcomes. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2017. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Trends & issuesi n crime and criminal justice no, 535: Accessed August 30, 2017 at: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi535.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi535.pdf Shelf Number: 146944 Keywords: Drug Legalization Drug Policy Marijuana Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Drug Policy Alliance Title: From Prohibition to Progress: A Status Report on Marijuana Legalization. What We Know About Marijuana Legalization in Eight States and Washington, D.C. Summary: On November 6, 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first two states - and first two places in the world - to legalize marijuana for adult use. Two years later Alaska, Oregon and Washington, D.C. followed suit. In 2016 voters in four additional states - California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada - also approved ballot measures legalizing marijuana. In January 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize marijuana through a state legislature. More states are expected to legalize in the near future. Evidence shows that marijuana legalization is working so far. States are saving money and protecting the public by comprehensively regulating marijuana for adult use. This success has likely contributed to the historically high levels of public support for marijuana legalization in the U.S., which has steadily grown to an all-time high of 64%. The majority of Americans - including 51% of Republicans - now support marijuana legalization. Details: New York: Drug Policy Alliance, 2018. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 25, 2018 at: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/dpa_marijuana_legalization_report_v8_0.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/dpa_marijuana_legalization_report_v8_0.pdf Shelf Number: 148922 Keywords: Drug Legalization Drug Policy Marijuana Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) Title: Working Paper on Projected Costs of Marijuana Legalization in Illinois Summary: Potential revenue resulting from the legalization of marijuana is often discussed as a remedy for lagging state budgets. Indeed, 24/7 Wall St. reports "marijuana sales could add to state coffers an estimated $566 million in excise tax revenue per year," which is in the middle of the low ($350M) and high ($700M) projections estimated by pro-marijuana groups like the Marijuana Policy Project. This report finds that legalization in Illinois, however, would cost at least $670 million, outweighing the projected tax revenue. To justify legalization, proponents often cite high criminal justice costs, often not recognizing that in 2016 Illinois decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. Additionally, the issue of legalization is often confused with the matter of medical marijuana, claiming the drug is necessary to aid those in need of medication. Supporters of the commercialization of marijuana often fail to acknowledge the costs resulting from marijuana use, including, but not limited to, drugged driving crashes and increased workplace absenteeism. Catalyst members have partnered with SAM to create this study in an attempt to publish valuable data in regard to the costs of the commercialization of marijuana. While we believe that this study has viable financial information about the monetary costs related to Illinois, we also feel that there are experiences far more significant than quantitative cost data. It is crucial to examine this cost study as one element of a larger view on the issue of marijuana in Illinois - an issue that touches individuals, families, and communities. Much has been said about the revenues that marijuana legalization might bring to Illinois. Few, however, discuss the costs of such a policy. Omitting costs is a critical oversight: no policy or business plan would be complete without discussing both sides of the balance sheet. It is also important to note that this study uses similar methods as previous studies by SAM estimating costs in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Although a full cost accounting of marijuana legalization would be impossible at present, enough data exists to make rough-and-ready estimates of certain likely direct and short-term costs, such as: 1. Administrative and enforcement costs for regulators 2. Increased drugged driving fatalities 3. Increased serious injuries from drugged driving crashes 4. Increased Property Damage to Vehicles from Drugged Driving 5. Short-term health costs a. More emergency room visits for marijuana poisonings b. Injuries from marijuana concentrate extraction lab explosions/fires 6. Increased rates of homelessness 7. Workplace costs/costs to employers: a. Increased absenteeism b. More workplace accidents Initial approximations even of these few costs indicate that it is unlikely that revenues from legalization would ever exceed its costs. This report concludes that even conservative cost estimates of only the issues above would cost Illinois approximately $670.5 million in 2020. Details: Alexandria, VA: SAM, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: http://healthyillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ILLINOIS-REPORT_419.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://healthyillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ILLINOIS-REPORT_419.pdf Shelf Number: 149855 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Hansen, Benjamin Title: Early Evidence on Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Traffic Fatalities Summary: Over the last few years, marijuana has become legally available for recreational use to roughly a quarter of Americans. Policy makers have long expressed concerns about the substantial external costs of alcohol, and similar costs could come with the liberalization of marijuana policy. Indeed, the fraction of fatal accidents in which at least one driver tested positive for THC has increased nationwide by an average of 10 percent from 2013 to 2016. For Colorado and Washington, both of which legalized marijuana in 2014, these increases were 92 percent and 28 percent, respectively. However, identifying a causal effect is difficult due to the presence of significant confounding factors. We test for a causal effect of marijuana legalization on traffic fatalities in Colorado and Washington with a synthetic control approach using records on fatal traffic accidents from 2000-2016. We find the synthetic control groups saw similar changes in marijuana-related, alcohol-related and overall traffic fatality rates despite not legalizing recreational marijuana. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 24417: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24417 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24417 Shelf Number: 149954 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence Drugged Driving Marijuana LegalizationTraffic Offenses |
Author: Banta-Green, Caleb Title: Cannabis Use Among Drivers Suspected of Driving Under the Influence or Involved in Collisions: Analysis of Washington State Patrol Data Summary: The objectives of this study were to examine drivers involved in collisions and/or arrested for suspected driving under the influence (DUI), thereby documenting: the trends in THC involvement over time and in relation to the legalization of cannabis; the prevalence of THC alone and in combination with other potentially intoxicating drugs; the estimated time to blood draw under real world conditions; and the relationship between estimated time to blood draw and the level of THC detected. Background In November 2012 Washington voters passed Initiative-502 (I-502), legalizing retail cannabis sales and recreational cannabis use for adults 21 years and older. As with alcohol, the law provides two options for prosecuting suspected impaired drivers: demonstrating impairment through detailed observation notes, field test results, witness observations, or Drug Recognition Expert assessments; and determining the suspect’s blood level for the drug is above the legal “per se” limit I-502 established a per se level of 5ng/mL of active delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (hereafter THC) in blood for cannabis-impaired driving THC is a psychoactive compound in cannabis Objective The objectives of this study were to examine drivers involved in collisions and/or arrested for suspected driving under the influence (DUI), who were investigated by the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and for which blood evidence was collected in order to: describe the trends in THC involvement over time and in relation to the passage of I-502; to describe the prevalence of THC alone and in combination with alcohol and other potentially intoxicating drugs; and to describe the estimated time to blood draw under real world conditions, and examine the relationship between estimated time to blood draw and the level of THC detected Methods A variety of methods, including: semi-structured interviews with law enforcement, prosecutors, and toxicology laboratory staff; document review to determine DUI arrests, law enforcement staffing and training overtime; data linking from WSP’s toxicology laboratory, dispatch, and officer activity log; as well as longitudinal analyses conducted to examine trends from 2005-2014 for the presence and level of THC Key Findings Law enforcement staffing and training The overall number of WSP troopers assigned to traffic enforcement was relatively unchanged from 2009-2014, but there was an increase in the number of patrol officers with specialized training in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement Trends in THC-involved driving Between 2005 and 2014, the proportion of WSP DUI and collision cases tested by toxicology that were positive for THC, excluding those positive for alcohol, increased significantly, from 20 percent to 30 percent. Among these cases, the prevalence of THC continued to grow after passage of I-502 in 2012, but at a significantly slower pace The median blood level of THC increased significantly from 4.0ng/mL in 2005 to 5.6ng/mL in 2014 Prevalence of THC in collisions and suspected DUIs Among drivers for whom blood evidence was submitted following a collision, 11 percent were positive for THC in conjunction with another potentially impairing substance (alcohol or other drugs). An additional 4 percent were positive for THC only. The majority (53%) of collision involved drivers were under the influence of alcohol at a level of 0.08 g/dL or higher, and 7 percent met or exceeded the per se level of THC, 5ng/mL Among drivers arrested for suspected DUI in the absence of a collision, 11 percent were positive for THC in conjunction with another potentially impairing substance. An additional 26 percent tested positive for THC only. Non-collision-involved drivers arrested for DUI were most commonly under the influence of alcohol at 0.08 g/dL or above (30%). Among these drivers, 20 percent had a THC level of 5ng/mL or above Estimated time to blood draw The median estimated time to blood draw for THC-positive drivers (among collisions and noncollisions) was 139 minutes The proportion of those with an estimated time to blood draw of less than 2 hours who had a THC blood level greater than or equal to 5ng/mL was 26 percent compared to 10 percent for those with an estimated time to blood draw of 2 hours or more Conclusions These findings indicate that THC-involved driving is relatively common, appears to be increasing and is likely underestimated given the generally protracted time until a blood specimen is obtained. Evaluating the impact of protracted time until blood testing is complicated by the lack of available standardized law enforcement data on the time of testing Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2018 at: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CannabisUseAmongDriversInWashington.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CannabisUseAmongDriversInWashington.pdf Shelf Number: 149957 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence Drugged Driving Marijuana LegalizationTraffic Offenses |
Author: Oregon State Police. Drug Enforcement Section Title: A Baseline Evaluation of Cannabis Enforcement Priorities in Oregon Summary: Oregon has had a state-authorized medical cannabis system since 1998, and in November 2014, Oregon voters approved the Control, Regulation, and Taxation of Marijuana and Industrial Hemp Act, commonly known as Measure 91 to legally commercialize non-medical retail cannabis in the state. The Drug Enforcement Section at the Oregon State Police created this report to survey currently available data in an effort to evaluate state compliance with the federal guidance for enforcement priorities, issued by former Federal Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, on - Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors; Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels; Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some from to other states; Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs or other illegal activity; Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana; Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use; Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property. To this end, this report examines Oregon's compliance on mitigating these threats and analyzes areas of concern specifically related to these enforcement priorities. Details: Salem: Oregon State Police, 2017. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2018 at; https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/A-Baseline-Evaluation-of-Cannabis-Enforcement-Priorities-in-Oregon_.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/A-Baseline-Evaluation-of-Cannabis-Enforcement-Priorities-in-Oregon_.pdf Shelf Number: 149963 Keywords: Drug Enforcement PoliciesMarijuanaMarijuana Legalization |
Author: Miron, Jeffrey A. Title: The Budgetary Effects of Ending Drug Prohibition Summary: I n the past several years, the national movement to end drug prohibition has accelerated. Nine states and Washington, DC, have legalized recreational marijuana, with at least three more states (Connecticut, Michigan, and Ohio) likely to vote on legalization by the end of 2018. Dozens of others have decriminalized the substance or permitted it for medicinal use. Moreover, amid the nation's ongoing opioid crisis, some advocates and politicians are calling to decriminalize drugs more broadly and rethink our approach to drug enforcement. Drug legalization affects various social outcomes. In the debate over marijuana legalization, academics and the media tend to focus on how legalization affects public health and criminal justice outcomes. But policymakers and scholars should also consider the fiscal effects of drug liberalization. Legalization can reduce government spending, which saves resources for other uses, and it generates tax revenue that transfers income from drug producers and consumers to public coffers. Drawing on the most recent available data, this bulletin estimates the fiscal windfall that would be achieved through drug legalization. All told, drug legalization could generate up to $106.7 billion in annual budgetary gains for federal, state, and local governments. Those gains would come from two primary sources: decreases in drug enforcement spending and increases in tax revenue. This bulletin estimates that state and local governments spend $29 billion on drug prohibition annually, while the federal government spends an additional $18 billion. Meanwhile, full drug legalization would yield $19 billion in state and local tax revenue and $39 billion in federal tax revenue. In addition, this bulletin briefly examines the budgetary effects of state marijuana legalizations that have already taken place in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. This study finds that, so far, legalization in those states has generated more tax revenue than previously forecast but generated essentially no reductions in criminal justice expenditure. The bulletin offers possible explanations for those findings. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Tax & Budget Bulletin, No. 83: Accessed July 27, 2018 at: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-83.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbb-83.pdf Shelf Number: 150936 Keywords: Drug Legalization Economic Analysis Marijuana Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Title: Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2016 Summary: The state's Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee has released its second set of findings from the committee's review of the scientific literature currently available on the health effects of marijuana use. The report, "Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado: 2016," also provides survey data about marijuana use in Colorado and data from hospitals and the poison center on potential marijuana-related health effects. Senate Bill 13-283 requires the committee to monitor the emerging science and medical information about marijuana use and report its findings. "Just as with tobacco and alcohol, continued monitoring of marijuana use and potential health effects help guide our work to protect the health of Colorado's citizens," said Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. "We want to base policy decisions and educational campaigns on sound science." The report recommends continued monitoring of several trends, including: About 6 percent of pregnant women choose to use marijuana while pregnant. This percentage is higher among those with unintended pregnancies as well as younger mothers or those with less education. Using marijuana during pregnancy is associated with negative effects on exposed children, including decreased cognitive function and ability to maintain attention on task. Effects may not appear until adolescence. At least 14,000 children in Colorado are at risk of accidentally eating marijuana products that are not safely stored, and at least 16,000 are at risk of being exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke in the home. The committee found strong evidence such accidental exposures can lead to significant clinical effects that, in some cases, require hospitalization. More than 5 percent of high school students use marijuana daily or nearly daily. This has been the case since at least 2005. The report finds weekly marijuana use by adolescents is associated with impaired learning, memory, math and reading, for as long as 28 days after last use. Weekly use also is associated with failure to graduate from high school. In addition, adolescent marijuana users are more likely to develop cannabis use disorder or be addicted to alcohol, tobacco or illicit drugs in adulthood. In Colorado, one in four adults ages 18-25 reported past-month marijuana use and one in eight use daily or nearly daily. These numbers have been consistent since marijuana's legalization. There are indications that policy and education efforts about the potential health effects of marijuana are working. For example, marijuana exposure calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center have decreased since 2015. This includes calls about accidental exposures in children under 9 years old. In addition, the overall rate of marijuana-related emergency department visits dropped 27 percent from 2014 to 2015. (2016 data is not available yet.) The report also cited these trends: Past-month marijuana use among adults and adolescents has not changed since legalization either in terms of the number of people using or the frequency of use. Based on the most comprehensive data available, past-month marijuana use among Colorado adolescents is nearly identical to the national average. Daily or near-daily use of marijuana among adults in Colorado is much lower than daily or near-daily use of alcohol or tobacco. Based on its findings, the committee also recommends continuing to use survey, poison center and hospital data to monitor trends in marijuana use and health effects; state support of research to fill important gaps in public health knowledge; and continued public education about the potential risks of marijuana use. Details: Denver: The Department, 2017. 304p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2018 at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tmPQ67k3NVQlFnY3VzZGVmdFk/view Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0tmPQ67k3NVQlFnY3VzZGVmdFk/view Shelf Number: 153528 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug PolicyMarijuanaMarijuana LegalizationPublic Health |
Author: Weedmaps Title: Dispelling Myths: The Facts about Marijuana Regulation Summary: Opponents of medical and adult-use cannabis laws often make bold claims about the negative impact marijuana will have on individuals and communities. Examples of these claims include arguments that marijuana is a "gateway drug," that legalization will double traffic fatalities, or that cannabis use results in increased levels of drug abuse and addiction. Establishing effective marijuana laws and regulations is a complicated process, made more difficult when elected leaders and voters lack accurate information. The following paper addresses potential sources of misinformation using the growing body of research that has emerged since the passage of state-level cannabis laws. Through a review of government publications, academic articles, third party studies, and other resources, this paper examines the five most common arguments against marijuana legalization to separate MYTH from FACT. Details: Irvine, CA: Author, 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 14, 2019 at: https://wmpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11MJ-Myth-v-Fact.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://wmpolicy.com/white-papers/ Shelf Number: 154165 Keywords: Cannabis LawsCannabis RegulationDrug UseGateway DrugMarijuana LawsMarijuana LegalizationMedical Marijuana |
Author: New York City. Mayor's Task Force on Cannabis Legalization Title: A Fair Approach to Marijuana: Recommendations from the Mayor's Task Force on Cannabis Legalization Summary: New York State may be poised to legalize non-medical adult cannabis use in the coming year, joining ten other states and the District of Columbia. This crossroads presents New York City with unique challenges and opportunities. These challenges include working to see that the State legislation is best structured to protect New York City residents and visitors to avoid unwanted consequences from adult legalization. The legislation, and State and City regulations that follow, must do all they can to protect the health and safety of New Yorkers. At the same time, we have the responsibility to use this turning point to help redress the disproportionate harms that criminalization of cannabis use has caused the City's communities of color. Legalization also poses unique opportunities to build a new industry in ways that advance our City's commitment to promote economic opportunities for economically disadvantaged New Yorkers and small businesses. The State legislation should forge a path to opportunities not for big corporations but for New Yorkers who need them most. Ongoing federal criminalization of cannabis adds further complexity to these challenges, perpetuating potential ill-consequences particularly for disadvantaged communities while limiting access to financial, tax, and other services and benefits to support the burgeoning industry. To help chart the City's course for cannabis legalization, Mayor Bill de Blasio convened the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization with the charge of identifying the goals and challenges that should guide the City's preparations for potential legalization. The Task Force includes representatives of City agencies that engage in areas affected by cannabis legalization, including those concerned with public health, public safety, education, economic opportunity, and finance, among others. The Task Force reviewed the range of regulatory regimes in other jurisdictions that have legalized adult cannabis use and the practical experiences of those jurisdictions. It conducted interviews with public health and public safety officials throughout the nation and in Canada, and consulted with academic and other experts, New York City officials, and community organizations. Task Force members also attended community listening sessions in New York City to hear the views of New Yorkers on the issues posed by legalization. Based on this research, the Task Force developed the following guiding principles for cannabis legalization and the recommendations summarized in the Executive Summary and detailed in the report below. Details: New York City: Mayor's Task Force on Cannabis Legalization, 2018. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2019 at: http://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/A-Fair-Approach-to-Marijuana.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://criminaljustice.cityofnewyork.us/reports/mayors-task-force-on-cannabis-legalization/ Shelf Number: 155247 Keywords: Cannabis LegalizationDrug PolicyDrug ReformIllegal DrugsMarijuana LegalizationNew York CityPublic Health |
Author: DuPont, Robert L. Title: Drug Crisis over the Horizon Summary: Ending the modern drug epidemic may be impossible, but there are many good and practical ways to limit the damage caused by commercialized recreational drug use. The first crucial step is widespread recognition that recreational pharmacology - especially polydrug recreational pharmacology - is unhealthy and dangerous. A public health corollary is that national policy must aim to reduce the use of intensely brain-stimulating chemicals for personal pleasure. Recreational pharmacology, sadly, will claim many more victims, and its heightened commercialization must be avoided in the interests of the public health. This rapidly evolving drug epidemic will reshape our political decisions and test our nation's ability to deal successfully with commercialized recreational pharmacology for generations to come. Key Points - In the long term, marijuana legalization may prove to be a more enduring and consequential drug threat than overdose deaths. - The use of new psychoactive substances and illegal drugs more generally is a vast and destructive experiment by millions of people that no scientist or laboratory would ever conduct. - The single most important take-home message from the past half-century of the modern drug epidemic is that 90 percent of adults with substance use disorders, including opioid addiction, initiated their substance use in adolescence. - As we consider present and future drug crises, we can learn useful lessons both from expanding the focus beyond marijuana and opioids and from exploring the path that has led to the current drug epidemic. - Strategies that deal with prevention, treatment, and drug-impaired driving hold the promise of sharp reductions in the use of recreational drugs and the negative consequences of this drug use. Details: Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 2019. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Backgrounder No. 3400: Accessed May 16, 2019 at: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/BG3400.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/BG3400.pdf Shelf Number: 155883 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Epidemic Illegal Drugs Marijuana LegalizationOpioid Epidemic Public Health Approach |