Marijuana Legalization Initiatives Will Be on the November 2012 Ballot in Three States
August 1, 2012–Voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington will decide whether to legalize the production, distribution, and retail sale of marijuana in November. If any state legalizes, for the first time in history a vast commercial marijuana business will emerge.
Researchers predict that, depending on the federal response, over time legal marijuana’s price could drop by as much as 80 percent. Users and dealers from other states would be likely to buy the cheaper pot, bringing a windfall of taxes to the legalization state and pressuring other states to legalize to retrieve their share of taxes.
True, if a state legalizes marijuana in November, marijuana will remain an illegal drug under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA). But Congress can change that and national polls now show that half the population supports legalizing marijuana. In fact, a bill with 20 co-sponsors has been introduced that would remove marijuana from the CSA so that states could move forward with legalization.
If legalization occurs, profit motives will quickly trump public health concerns. Like the tobacco and alcohol industries, a commercial marijuana industry will target society’s most vulnerable people, children, as potential life-time customers. Research is showing how to limit the tobacco and alcohol industries’ marketing efforts to children; can we prohibit similar efforts before a commercial marijuana industry emerges?
With the help of experts who work to prevent underage drinking and smoking, National Families in Action developed 12 provisions that states should include in regulations to govern a commercial marijuana industry. Our provisions address such questions as:
- Should that industry be allowed to sell marijuana edibles – marijuana infused chocolate chip cookies, fudge, and brownies – like medical marijuana dispensaries sell?
- Should marijuana retail shops be located near schools?
- Should use be allowed on the premises of marijuana retail outlets?
- Should the industry be allowed to advertise? On TV? At sports events? On the Internet? At points of purchase?
- Could an increase in use among youth automatically trigger legalization repeal?
- Should a marijuana industry, like the tobacco industry, contribute to a dedicated fund to treat addiction and other health problems marijuana causes?
National Families in Action calls upon responsible leaders to develop contingency plans for regulations that will prohibit a commercial marijuana industry from marketing its products to children if voters legalize the drug. We offer our provisions as a way to begin.
Uncategorized | National Families in Action August 1, 2012
7 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Roger A. Roffman, August 1, 2012 @ 7:08 pm
In the state of Washington, I-502, an initiative to regulate and tax marijuana, qualified for the November 2012 ballot. It deserves a close look (New Approach Washington) by those who believe any policy reform must be in the best interest of children and families, public safety, and public health. I’ve been an addiction researcher for most of my professional life, focusing specifically on interventions tailored for adults and adolescents with marijuana use disorders. Because I-502 offers a powerful and accountable public health alternative to today’s far too unsuccessful criminalization approach, I chose to be an initiative sponsor.
Roger Roffman, DSW
Professor Emeritus
University of Washington
By Chris, August 2, 2012 @ 2:12 am
If and when it is finally legalized we can start to take back what dealers now control. We apparently learned nothing from prohibition, which is sad considering we spent so much time in school being taught not to repeat our historical mistakes. At should be legalized, regulated and taken away from the criminals not to mention the Cartels. The only way to make it safe is to legalize it, the war has failed miserably.
By National Families in Action, August 3, 2012 @ 6:57 am
To Professor Roffman:
I-502 has a long way to go to prevent a marijuana industry from targeting children and teenagers as customers like the alcohol and tobacco industries do. Your initiative is based on regulating marijuana like alcohol. Currently, twice as many young people in your state use alcohol as use marijuana. If the drug is legalized, marijuana use is likely to increase dramatically among the young under I-502 provisions that are far weaker than marketing constraints currently being brought against the tobacco industry, constraints that are having a major impact on reducing underage smoking. Without similar provisions, I-502, if passed, will result in more marijuana use, more marijuana-related health and safety problems, and more, not less, addiction.
By Roger A. Roffman, August 3, 2012 @ 8:05 pm
To NFIA:
I believe we’ll see more positive outcomes, particularly with reference to availability, use, and abuse among youth, than you fear. The initiative includes key restrictions on advertising to minimize exposure to people under 21, licensing and enforcement responsibilities by a state agency, and substantial funding earmarked for science-based prevention, education, treatment, evaluation, and research. Finally, if the law is passed, I intend to assist in building a coalition of human services, education, law enforcement, and addiction professionals to identify goals for the implementation of this new policy and serve as advocates. As an aside, it’s encouraging to me, as someone who has been in the field since the 1970s, that there are now many more constructive conversations among those who’ve favored prohibition and those favoring reform.
By Alison Holcomb, August 4, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
To NFIA:
It is inaccurate to state that Initiative 502′s marketing constraints are weaker than those in place for the tobacco industry. In fact, they are stronger:
- Legal age of 21 rather than 18
- Marijuana sold only in standalone, marijuana-only stores that may not permit people under 21 on premises; no sales in grocery stores, convenience stores or gas stations
- Stores may not display marijuana in a manner that allows it to be viewed by passersby
- Store signage restricted to one sign no larger than 1,600 square inches identifying the retail outlet by the licensee’s business or trade name; no window displays advertising marijuana products
- No advertising within 1,000 feet of places frequented by children like schools, playgrounds, etc.
- No advertising on public property, including transit buses and bus stops
- Additional time, place, manner advertising restrictions designed to minimize exposure to people under 21 to be adopted during one-year rule-making process before first licenses issue
- Prohibition on public display of marijuana generally
- Labeling that includes medically and scientifically accurate information about the health and safety risks posed by marijuana use
Moreover, Initiative 502 dedicates a large portion of the new marijuana excise tax to evidence-based prevention programs, monitoring, and robust cost-benefit evaluation of the impacts of implementation of the measure so that informed modifications may be made as necessary.
Finally, it is worth noting that Washington’s state Department of Health has already published a fiscal note describing how it intends to use its portion of the dedicated funds to implement a comprehensive marijuana education and public health program based, specifically, on the lessons learned from its successful Tobacco Prevention and Control Program, and guidance and best practices from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
By National Families in Action, August 21, 2012 @ 4:46 pm
To Alison Holcomb:
It is clear that a minimum age of 21 for marijuana sales is better than a minimum age of 18 for tobacco sales. All of the other provisions you cite sound terrific—until one reads the initiative’s language rather than your description of that language.
Nowhere is this clearer than Section 28 (5) (b): “Ten percent to the department of health for the creation, implementation, operation, and management of a marijuana education and public health program that contains the following: (i) A marijuana use public health hotline that provides referrals to substance abuse treatment providers, utilizes evidence-based or research-based public health approaches to minimizing the harms associated with marijuana use, and does not solely advocate an abstinence-only approach. . .”
The universal goal of tobacco education campaigns rests solely on an “abstinence-only approach”: to persuade adolescents not to start smoking and to help smokers quit. That I-502 would dictate to the public health department an approach that defies evidence-based, research-based public health education programs is deeply troubling.
We are fascinated that both you and Professor Roffman ignore the question we raise in our response to him, above. If Washington is going to regulate marijuana like alcohol–the spin you’ve given I-502–Washington parents can expect to see marijuana use surge among 12-17 year olds and 18-25 year olds to their levels of alcohol use, which is double that among adolescents (13.94 percent alcohol vs. 7.73 percent marijuana) and more than triple that among young adults (60.77 percent alcohol vs. 17.08 marijuana).
The Editors
By brand activation and SEO, January 4, 2013 @ 6:01 pm
I enjoy what you guys are up too. This sort of clever work and reporting!
Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve added you guys to our blogroll.