Footnotes

The NORML Truth Report – Footnotes

1 Washington Post. “Marijuana Becomes Focus of Drug War.” May 3, 2005.

2 Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2004. Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2003. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, p. 269 Table 4.1 & p. 270 Table 29.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid. (Violent Index Crimes Total = 597,026)

5 J. Miron. June 2005. The Budgetary Impacts of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. (available online at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html)

6 J. Gettman. March 2005. Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in the United States. Washington, DC: The NORML Foundation. (available online at http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6411)

7 J. Miron. June 2005. Federal Marijuana Policy: A Preliminary Analysis. Washington, DC: Taxpayers for Common Sense. (available online at: http://www.taxpayer.net/drugreform/intro.htm)

8 R. King et al. May 2005. The War on Marijuana. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. (available online at www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/waronmarijuana.pdf)

9 US Census Bureau. July 2004. State Population Estimates. (available online at: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2004-01.pdf)

10 FBI, combined Uniform Crime Reports, 1991-2003.

11 Ibid.

12 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2005. Drugs and Crime Facts. Table: Number of Arrests by Drug Type, 1982-2003. US Department of Justice: Washington, DC.

13 National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Teen Pregnancy Rates in the United States, 1972-2000. (available online at: http://www.teenpregnancy.org); Mothers Against Drunk Driving, General Statistics. (available online at: http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html); Partnership for a Drug Free America, Partnership Attitudes Tracking Study (Teens), 2004, p.21.

14 L. Iverson. 2005. Long-term effects of exposure to cannabis. Current Opinion in Pharmacology 5:69-72. See specifically: Abstract: “Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for ‘recreational’ purposes, cannabis could be rated a relatively safe drug.”

15 Center for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics Report Vol. 53, 2005.

16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost — United States, 2005. (available online at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/health_consequences/mortali.htm); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1993, 42(33):645-8.

17 Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. 1994. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. See specifically: Chapter 9, Section 9.3.1 Acute Effects: “There are no recorded cases of fatalities attributable to cannabis, and the extrapolated lethal dose from animal studies cannot be achieved by recreational users.” See also: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press: Washington DC.

18 S. Sidney et al. 1997. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health 87: 1-4.

19 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 5.

20 D. Gieringer et al. 2004. Cannabis Vaporizer Combines Efficient Delivery of THC with Effective Suppression of Pyrolytic Compounds. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. 4: 7-27.

21 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 199.

22 D. Ford et al. 2001. Marijuana use is not associated with head, neck or lung cancer in adults younger than 55 years: Results of a case cohort study. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse (Eds) Workshop on Clinical Consequences of Marijuana: Program Book. National Institutes of Health: Rockville, MD: p. 10.

23 K. Rosenblat et al. 2004. Marijuana use and risk of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Research 64: 4049-4054.

24 Studies include but are not limited to: Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. 2002. Policy for the New Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada’s Drug Strategy. Ottawa; Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa; United Kingdom’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. 2002. The Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. London; British House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2002. Third Report. London; Jamaican National Commission on Ganja. 2001. A Report of the National Commission on Ganja. Kingston; Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. 1994. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use; First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. 1972. Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

25 House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. 2002. Third Report. See specifically: Note 118.

26 Editorial: “Deglamorising Cannabis.” The Lancet, Nov. 11, 1995. (346:8985).

27 Editorial: “Dangerous Habits.” The Lancet, Nov.14, 1998. (352:9140).

28 The DASIS (Drug and Alcohol Services Information System) Report. March 29, 2002. Treatment Referral Sources for Adolescent Marijuana Users. US Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Washington, DC.

29 74 percent of those arrested for marijuana possession in the United States are under 30 years of age. J. Gettman. March 2005. Crimes of Indescretion: Marijuana Arrests in the United States.

30 Ibid. Figure 1: Number of Adolescent Marijuana Admissions, by Referral Source: 1992-1999.

31 The DASIS (Drug and Alcohol Services Information System) Report. June 24, 2005. Differences in Marijuana Admissions Based on Source of Referral: 2002. Washington, DC: US Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (available online at http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5/MJreferrals/MJreferrals.htm).

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid

34 Associated Press. “Teens Say Buying Dope Is Easy.” August 19, 2002.

35 Monitoring the Future. 2004. Annual Data From In-School Surveys of 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students. Ann Arbor, Michigan. See specifically: Drug and Alcohol Press Release and Tables: Specific Drugs – Figure 2: Marijuana: Trends in Annual Use, Risk, Disapproval, and Availability for 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders. (available online at: monitoringthefuture.org/data/04data.html#2004data-drugs)

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid. p.74.

39 US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Washington: US Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. See table 4.1A: Trends in Initiation of Substance Use: Marijuana. (available online at: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/Sect4peTabs1to60.htm#tab4.1a)

40 Results from a Time Magazine/CNN telephone poll of 1,007 adult Americans age 18 or older, conducted October 23-24, 2002.

41 “Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use.” Presidential address to Congress by Jimmy Carter. August 2, 1977.

42 US Department of Health and Human Services, 2003 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Washington: US Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

43 Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. 2002. Policy for the New Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada’s Drug Strategy. p. 131.

44 John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. The Lindesmith Center: New York. p. 131.

45 C. Roberts. 1996. Data Quality of the Drug Abuse Warning Network. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 22: 389-401.

46 DAWN has recently implemented a new system of data collection and reporting. In future DAWN reports, only drugs related to the ED visit are recorded. Previously any drug use reported by the patient, regardless of relation to the visit, was recorded.

47 Drug Abuse Warning Network, Detailed Emergency Department Tables From the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2002, Washington: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005.

48 E. Russo et al. 2002. Chronic cannabis use in the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program: an examination of benefits and adverse effects of legal clinical cannabis. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics 2: 3-57. See Specifically: Previous Chronic Cannabis Use Studies.

49 C. Lyketsos et al. 1999. Cannabis use and cognitive decline in persons under 65 years of age. American Journal of Epidemiology 149: 794-800.

50 I. Grant et al. 2001. Long-Term neurocognitive consequences of marijuana: a meta-analytic study. In: National Institute on Drug Abuse (Eds) Workshop on Clinical Consequences of Marijuana: Program Book. National Institutes of Health: Rockville, MD. p. 12. See specifically: Abstract: “The 13 studies that met our criteria yielded no basis for concluding that long-term cannabis use is associated with generalized neurocognitive decline, with the possible exception of slight decrements in the area of learning new information.”

51 P. Fried et al. 2002. Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal 166: 887-891. See specifically: Abstract: “A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence.”

52 G. Tzilos et al. 2005. Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term cannabis users. American Journal of Addictions 14: 64-72

53 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 58.

54 Ibid. p. 91.

55 J. Walsh et al. June 2004. Developing Global Strategies for Identifying, Prosecuting, and Treating Drug-Impaired Drivers: Symposium Report, Bethesda, MD: Walsh Group. (available online at http://www.walshgroup.org/DevelopingGlobalStrategies.htm)

56 Reviews include: David Hadorn. A review of cannabis and driving skills. In: Guy et al (Eds) The Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids. London: Pharmaceutical Press. 2004: See specifically, “In conclusion, driving ability does not appear to be substantially impaired by cannabis.” See also: Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. 2002: See specifically Chapter 5: “Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis;” UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. 2000; Allison Smiley. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. 1999: 173-191.

57 Sexton et al. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000; UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. 2000; Allison Smiley. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies.

58 These findings are somewhat limited because only 4 percent of the drivers studied tested positive for THC in their blood. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Incidence and Role of Drugs in Fatally Injured Drivers: FINAL REPORT. October 1992.

59 Hindrick Robbe. Marijuana’s effects on actual driving performance. Institute for Human Psychopharmacology, University of Maastricht. 1993.

60 Chesher et al. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: Grotenhermen and Russo (Eds) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. 2002: 313-323.

61 Ramaekers et al. Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2004: 109-119.

62 These findings are somewhat limited because only 3 percent of the drug-positive drivers found to be responsible for their crash tested positive for THC in their blood. By comparison, 58 percent tested positive for alcohol. Drummer et al. The involvement of drugs in drivers killed in Australian road traffic crashes.

63 Grotenhermen et al. 2005. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis: Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel.

64 Ibid; See also Allison Smiley. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving Simulator Studies

65 Ibid; See also United Kingdom’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. 2002: See specifically: Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5: “Cannabis differs from alcohol; … it seems not to increase risk-taking behavior. This may explain why it appears to play a smaller role than alcohol in road traffic accidents.”

66 P. Armentano. April 2005. You Are Going Directly to Jail DUID Legislation: What It Means, Who’s Behind It, and Strategies to Prevent It. Washington, DC: NORML Foundation.

67 Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. p. 18.

68 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. pp. 92-96.

69 Ibid. p. 95, Table 3.4: Prevalence of Drug Use and Dependence in the General Population

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid. p. 57.

72 Ibid. p. 92. See also: Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. p. 16.

73 Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. 2002. Policy for the New Millennium: Working Together to Redefine Canada’s Drug Strategy. p. 17.

74 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 6.

75 Ibid. pp. 83-101.

76 J. Rawson. 2005. Hemp as An Agricultural Commodity: CRS Report for Congress. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress.

77 In 1985, the average THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and the average for high-grade sinsemilla was 7.17%. In 1995, the potency of commercial-grade marijuana averaged 3.73%, while the potency of sinsemilla in 1995 averaged 7.51%. In 2001, commercial-grade marijuana averaged 4.72% THC, and the potency of sinsemilla in 2001 averaged 9.03%. Source: University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring Project, Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002, Table 3, p. 8 (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2002)

78 Ibid. (n=379 of 4,603 above 15%, n=73 above 20%)

79 Editorial: “Cannabis potency in Europe.” Addiction. 2005 (100: 884-886).

80 Ibid.

81 John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. p. 139.

82 S. Heishman et al. 1989. Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol content on marijuana behavior, subjective reports, and performances. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 34: 173-179.

83 First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. 1972. Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. p. 75.

84 Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Discussion Paper on Cannabis.Ottawa. p.4.

85 United Kingdom’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. 2002. The Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. See specifically: Chapter 4, Section 4.3.6.

86 R. Blondell et al. 2005. Toxicology Screening Results: Injury Associations Among Hospitalized Trauma Patients. March 2005. Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 58: 561-70.

87 National Drug Intelligence Center/US Department of Justice. 2004. National Drug Threat Assessment, 2004. Johnstown, PA. p. 37

88 See footnote #3.

89 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2003 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004), Table 4.1: Arrest for Drug Abuse Violations.

90 Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment of State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. US Department of Justice: Washington, DC.

91 C. Thomas. 1999. Marijuana arrests and incarceration in the United States. FAS Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin 7.

92 R. King et al. May 2005. The War on Marijuana. (available online at www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/waronmarijuana.pdf)

93 Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. p. 15.

94 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 101.

95 Ibid. p. 6. “Because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, ‘gateway’ to illegal drug use.”

96 Federal Household data, as cited in John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer. 1997. Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. p. 36, Figure 4-2: Very Few Marijuana Users Become Regular Users of Cocaine.

97 United Kingdom’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. 2002. The Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. See specifically: Chapter 4, Section 4.6.2: “Even if the gateway theory is correct, it cannot be a particularly wide gate as the majority of cannabis users never move on to Class A [hard] drugs.”

98 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. 2002. European Legal database on Drugs: Country Profiles. (available online at: http://eldd.emcdda.eu.int/) See also: NORML. 2002. European Drug Policy: 2002 Legislative Update. Washington, DC.

99 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. 2001. 2001 Annual Report on the State of the Drugs Problem in the European Union. Lisbon. See also: New York Times. “Study Finds Teenage Drug Use Higher in US Than in Europe.” February 21, 2001.

100 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. 2001. Decriminalisation in Europe: Recent developments in legal approaches to drug use. Lisbon. See also: Washington Post. “Europe Moves Drug War From Prisons to Clinics.” May 2, 2002.

101 United Press International. “UK Govt Downgrades Cannabis.” July 10, 2002.

102 R. MacCoun and Peter Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry 178: 123-128.

103 NORML. 2001. Marijuana Decriminalization and Its Impact on Use: A Review of the Scientific Evidence. See also: National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 104; E. Single et al. 2000. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21: 157-186; E. Single. 1989. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health 10: 456-466; L. Johnson et al. 1981. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth 1975-1980. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor.

104 R. MacCoun and Peter Reuter. 2001. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry.

105 Reuters News Wire. “Physicians divided on medical marijuana.” April 23, 2001.

106 American Public Health Association Resolution #9513: “Access to Therapeutic Marijuana/Cannabis.” The resolution states, in part, that the APHA “encourages research of the therapeutic properties of various cannabinoids and combinations of cannabinoids, and … urges the Administration and Congress to move expeditiously to make cannabis available as a legal medicine.”

107 American Nurses Association June 2003 Resolution: “The ANA will… Support legislation to remove criminal penalties including arrest and imprisonment for bona fide patients and prescribers of therapeutic marijuana/cannabis.”

108 Editorial: “Federal Foolishness and Marijuana.” January 30, 1997. New England Journal of Medicine 336. See specifically: “Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana’s status from that of a Schedule I drug … to that of a Schedule II drug … and regulate it accordingly.”

109 The complete list of health organization endorsing legal access to medical marijuana is available online.

110 Studies include but are not limited to: Canadian Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy; Jamaican National Commission on Ganja. 2001. A Report of the National Commission on Ganja; National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base; House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. Cannabis: The Scientific and Medical Evidence; National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1982. Marijuana and Health. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

111 Ibid.

112 M. Guzman. 2003. Cannabinoids: Potential anticancer agents. Nature Reviews Cancer3: 745-755.

113 K. Mishima et al. 2005. Cannabidiol prevents cerebral infarction. Stroke 5: 1077-1082; C. Hamelink et al. 2005. Comparison of cannabinol, antioxidants, and diuretics in reversing binge ethanol-induced neurotoxicity. Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics; National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base.

114 House of Lords Press Office. “Lords Say, Legalise Cannabis for Medical Use.” November 11, 1998. London.

115 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine. 1999. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. p. 3.

116 Ibid. p. 8.

117 Ibid. p. 203.

118 Ibid. See specifically: Proposals for Implementing the Regulation of Cannabis for Therapeutic and Recreational Purposes, p. 51.

119 Canada News Wire. “Sativex: Novel cannabis derived treatment for MS pain now available in Canada by prescription.” June 20, 2005.