The prohibitionists continue to dig through the latest data in the National Survey on Drug Use & Health, looking for the evidence on marijuana use trends that show ending the punishment of adults who use marijuana will turn the youth of our nation into pot zombies. (In my other articles, see how the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, Oregon’s Project SAM affiliate, and National Project SAM have already spun and outright misrepresented the data.)

Today the spin comes from the National Families In Action, where they’ve published a chart showing the increases from 2013 to 2014 in marijuana usage among teens (12-17), college age (18-25), and adults (26+), as well as the entire population aged 12 and older.

It’s not that the data are inaccurate. Indeed, past-month marijuana use did rise 12 percent from 2013 to 2014. In 2013, 7.5 percent had used marijuana, in 2014, 8.4 percent had used marijuana. Even the age-grouped data are accurately rounded – teen use increased 4.2 percent, college use increased 2.6 percent, and adult use increased 17.9 percent.

Where the misleading comes in is claiming that this change is “the first year of legalization in Washington and Colorado”. 2014 was the first year of legalized marijuana markets in Washington and Colorado. Marijuana possession and, in Colorado, cultivation, was legal throughout 2013. If we look at the changes for youth, college, and adult monthly marijuana use since 2012 (the full year before legal adult possession), the changes are increases of 2.8 percent, 4.8 percent, and 24.5 percent, respectively.

In other words, teen use went up by a statistically insignificant amount, college use increased, and adult use went way up.

Looking further back, prohibitionists back in 2011 told us that our efforts to legalize marijuana in 2012 would surely send the wrong message to the kids and greatly increase marijuana use. But when you check the rates of use since 2011, college use has increased 3.2 percent while adult use has skyrocketed by 37.5 percent. Teen use, however, is down 6.3 percent.

Looking back even further, the current release of the NSDUH lists monthly use data dating back to 2002. Back then, there were just eight medical marijuana states and legalization was about to lose elections in Nevada (2002), Alaska (2004), Nevada (2006), Colorado (2006), and California (2010). Fewer than one-third of the American public supported marijuana legalization. Prohibitionists then claimed throughout the decade that the spread of medical marijuana and the filing of legalization initiatives were sending the wrong message to the youth and would certainly lead to more teen use.

But as it has turned out, the twelve-year increase of over a third (35.5 percent) among those 12 and older who use marijuana once month or more is driven primarily by the increase of over one-eighth (13.3 percent) among those aged 18-25 and secondarily by the increase of almost two-thirds (65.0 percent) among adults 26 and older.

The teens? Their monthly use has decreased by almost a tenth (9.8 percent), from 8.2 percent who used monthly in 2002 to 7.4 percent who used monthly in 2014.

So, over the past dozen years, if there is any message the kids have received about marijuana, it is that they should wait until they are adults to use it.

I explained to everyone on Wednesday how the New Project SAM Oregon Affiliate Can’t Explain Teen Marijuana Use Declines. That’s because the latest data from 2014 in the National Survey on Drug Use & Health are out and despite the prohibitionists’ fevered predictions, teens haven’t rushed to become joint-puffing youth marijuana addicts.

So I was really surprised to see how badly the national Project SAM office botched their press release yesterday, trying to conjure some sort of scary stat to frighten parents, but actually making the case for legalization. It’s subtle and requires looking things up, but that’s why I’m here.

HHS FINDS HEAVY MARIJUANA USE SOARING AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE screams the all-caps headline of Project SAM’s press release authored by Will Jones. It explains (emphasis mine):

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services found that heavy marijuana use among monthly users – defined as 20 or more days of marijuana use per month – significantly increased among 12-to-17 year-olds in 2014 compared to 2013. Overall past month marijuana use among those 12 and older also jumped significantly.

“We should not be surprised that heavy marijuana use is on its way up,” remarked SAM President Kevin Sabet. “The marijuana industry is telling kids — indeed all Americans — that their product is safe and healthy. Now more than ever, we need a major public awareness effort launched in this country to counter the misinformation of Big Marijuana.”

The survey also found that the number of young people (aged 12-13 and 16-17) perceiving great harm in smoking marijuana at least once a week also fell significantly. Currently, only a quarter of 16 and 17 year olds find smoking marijuana at least once a week to be harmful.

Here’s the problem: the headline is precisely the opposite of what happened.

Here is the data – “Table 6.1B – Number of Days Used Marijuana in the Past Year among Past Year Users and the Number of Days Used Marijuana in the Past Month among Past Month Users, by Age Group: Percentages, 2013 and 2014″. Take a look for yourself:

That’s right, among the minors aged 12-17, the “heavy marijuana use among monthly users – defined as 20 or more days of marijuana use per month” actually declined from 25.6 percent to 21.8 percent, a relative decrease of 14.8 percent. Even looking among the annual teen users, their use of pot 1/3rd of the days or more (100+ days a year), there were declines.

Then the release tries to pivot that scary “heavy youth use increase” lie into the more general stat that “Overall past month marijuana use among those 12 and older also jumped significantly.” The problem there is that the increase from ages 12 and up is primarily due to the increase in adult marijuana use, according to the study’s authors:

Marijuana use is especially growing among those aged 26 and older – from 5.6 percent in 2013 to 6.6 percent in 2014. The percentage of teens who were current marijuana users in 2014 (7.4 percent) was similar to recent years.

Then the release closes with the statistic about declines in youth perception of risk in smoking marijuana once a week. So, inadvertently, Project SAM just told us that in the year since full retail legalization has transpired in Colorado and Washington:

1. Among the kids nationally who smoked pot in the past month, they’re doing it less often;
2. Overall, the rate of kids nationally smoking pot monthly hasn’t changed;
3. Even though those kids are more likely to think regular pot smoking isn’t harmful.

When opponents of marijuana legalization like Project SAM are making the case for us, you know they’re flustered.

UPDATE: I have some very astute readers. One who shall remain anonymous but is very well-educated on the intricacies of state governments critiqued my Terrible Precedent section. I’ve modified the text with italics for the inserts and strikethrough for the deletions.

It’s on the ballot now. ResponsibleOhio, the group that shocked the drug reform world, has qualified their constitutional amendment to end Ohio marijuana prohibiton for the 2015 ballot as Issue 3.

That means the conversations about which method of legalizing marijuana someone in Ohio may prefer are moot. On November 3, 2015, there are just three choices for the Ohio voter:

1. Vote YES on Issue 3 and end marijuana prohibition.
2. Vote NO on Issue 3 and continue marijuana prohibition.
3. Don’t vote on Issue 3 and be silent about marijuana prohibition.

As one of the few highly-visible marijuana reformers in full-throated support of ending marijuana prohibition in Ohio, I’ve been through Twitter and Facebook battles with numerous Ohioans who claim to want marijuana legalization but argue vehemently for continuing marijuana prohibition in Ohio, at least one more year.

Here are a few of their arguments, culled from various posts and paraphrased for continuity.

“Wait til next year!”

This is the argument that the birds in the bush are far better than the one in Ohio’s hands right now. They’ll tell you that there is OTEP – Ohioans to End Prohibition – waiting in the wings with a better initiative for 2016. Indeed, I like OTEP’s language better than Issue 3’s. (For that matter, I like the CCHI “Jack Herer” Initiative language in California better than all others proposed there.)

But what we like as reformers and what is politically realistic are two different animals. It doesn’t matter what language you write if you have no money and can’t raise any signatures. OTEP’s been at this for years, as well as other well-meaning groups, and none of them have ever raised one-third of the signatures they need to get on the ballot, for even medical marijuana, which enjoys far greater support. Also, none of these groups have any money to show in their campaign treasury; some are in the red.

I’ve heard rationalizations that next time, 2016, OTEP will be able to put together the money and signatures. But in 2016, California will be fighting to get on the ballot and it will attract much of the money donated to support legalization nationwide. Add in Nevada, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona, and maybe even Missouri for 2016, and that leaves a lot of competition for pro-legalization dollars. Could 2020 be the next realistic shot for Ohio if it loses in 2015? Ask California, where their 2010 loss wasn’t followed up until (hopefully) 2016.

“We’ve got decrim!”

This is the argument that since Ohio has the nation’s greatest decriminalization limit, there’s no need to pass a flawed legalization. An adult may possess up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) and face only a minor misdemeanor with a $150 fine and likely driver’s license loss for 6 months to 5 years.

But that still means that marijuana is a contraband substance. It means cops can detain and harass you over weed smell. It means cops can search your car and get warrants to search your home. And while the minor misdemeanor isn’t a criminal record, it is still a record that can haunt you in job, housing, and school searches for years.

It also still means you have to get your marijuana from criminal underground sources, overpriced due to risk, untested, uninspected, and with few choices. If this decrim is so great, why bother fighting for any legalization?

“Monopoly bad!”

This is the argument that since Issue 3 creates just ten commercial grow sites already owned by investors in the campaign, Ohio should reject legalized marijuana tax revenues, new jobs, and new businesses. Because ten growers will produce all commercial marijuana, Ohio should keep criminals in charge of all commercial marijuana.

First, it’s not a “monopoly” when there are ten separate competing interests. It may fairly be called an “oligopoly”, a domination of a market by the rich. But oligopolies exist everywhere – from how many providers can you get operating systems, airline flights, automobiles, eyeglasses, or cable television? For that matter, where were today’s Ohio monopoly-haters in 2009 when the casinos pioneered this type of amendment?

Second, oligopolistic domination of marijuana production has been the rule throughout most of the recent medical marijuana states, with even fewer than ten producers allowed in some states. Nobody seemed to raise much of a fuss when those oligopolies passed.

Now, I think oligopolistic control of marijuana production sucks, but it sucks far less than criminal control of marijuana production. Legalization of marijuana, even under Issue 3, is better for consumers and even for current marijuana producers than prohibition.

If you’re a consumer, you will be legal to possess weed and have great marijuana shops (over a thousand!) in which to purchase it. Or you can decide to grow your own marijuana.

If you’re a dealer, you will be legal to own and operate a marijuana shop.

If you’re a processor (making edibles, tinctures, extracts), you will be legal to own and operate your own processing facility.

If you’re a grower, selling currently on the black market, you could become an employee of one of the ten grow operations (you think Frostee Rucker, Oscar Robertson, and Nick Lachey will be tending those warehouse grows?) Or, if you decide to stay on the black market, there is far less chance of you getting caught now that drug dogs sniffing weed will be worthless and evidence of growing will no longer be a probable cause.

“Terrible precedent!”

This is the warning that if Ohio passes Issue 3, it will set the standard for how legalization unfolds in other states. I heard a similar prediction from the opponents of Washington’s Initiative 502 in 2012, that its per se DUID standard and prohibition on home grow would become the template for future legalization states.

Except Oregon and Alaska didn’t include those conditions, Nevada’s measure on the ballot doesn’t, and the proposed measures for California, Michigan, Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona, and Missouri don’t, either.

Furthermore, it would be difficult to export the Ohio investor model elsewhere. There are just 27 states with some form of initiative or referendum process. Of them, four have legalization already and one’s already on the ballot. Minus Ohio as well, and you’re left with 21 possibilities.

Then nine ten of those remaining states – Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Mississippi, and Kentucky – aren’t likely to either attract investors because of their small population or have a reasonable shot at passing anytime soon. So, now just 12 11 possibilities. (Kentucky has only legislature-referred referenda. Arkansas belongs in the small-state-unlikely-to-pass list, as it defeated medical marijuana in 2012. I plum forgot about Montana.)

California, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Maine, Missouri, and Massachusetts already have strong, well-funded reformer-driven campaigns that would provide serious competition to an oligopoly threat. And, aside from Missouri, they all have existing medical marijuana entities that would fight back. So, now just 5 4 possibilities.

New Mexico, Arkansas, and Delaware could be a candidate, but lack the major metro populations that would make this worthwhile to investors. And, aside from Arkansas, again that threat from existing medical marijuana entities.  Of the remaining four, New Mexico has only legislative-referred referenda and Delaware has only advisory question initiatives, neither of which support an Ohio-like proposal. So that leaves just Florida and Illinois where the Ohio investor initiative model could be exported.

However, Florida only allows constitutional amendments and those must gain 60 percent of the vote. With Florida already in the throes of a multi-million-dollar medical marijuana amendment campaign that may barely win, would investors sink millions to compete with it with a less-popular legalization?

So, maybe Illinois would follow the precedent. But there again is the threat of the existing medical marijuana infrastructure fighting oligopolistic control. And Illinois’ initiative process is so arduous and limited that practically speaking, it would be impossible to pass an oligopoly-led marijuana legalization initiative.

“It’s in the Constitution!”

This is the argument that placing oligopolistic control of commercial marijuana production in the state’s constitution installs it permanently. It’s an hypocritical argument, considering that changing the constitution is what brings up the argument.

If these other Ohio groups like OTEP have the power to get completely new marijuana legalization on the ballot in 2016 after a well-funded 2015 effort fails, why wouldn’t they have the power to amend 2015 legalization that passes? Wouldn’t it be easier to run an amendment that opens up commercial grows within Issue 3’s framework than to run an initiative or amendment to create an entirely new legalization framework?

“They’ll never get medical right!”

This is the argument that this oligopoly campaign is merely giving lip service to medical marijuana and patients will never get the care they deserve under their model. While the establishment of a medical marijuana program may be vaguely defined in Issue 3, the legalization for recreational use gives patients a far better deal than current law, anyway. No matter what condition you have, no matter if you’ve seen a doctor or not, a patient could grow four plants and possess eight ounces at home. How could you tell a cancer patient this deal isn’t good enough because too few growers will get rich? Are you willing to bet the cancer patient will still be alive in 2016 and someone will have raised the money and signatures by then?

“We can do better!”

Marijuana legalization advocates sometimes make the mistake of believing it is a choice among which legalization we want, rather than which legalization we can get. No matter how much the lousy cultivation plan sucks, every person who claims the mantle of marijuana legalizer should be voting yes on Issue 3 in Ohio.

Think big picture. First, do you want to have a high-profile state legalization loss just one year before we try to pass legalization in maybe six other states? The mainstream won’t understand that we love legalization and hate oligopolies; they’ll just see that the momentum of legalization wins has ended.

Second, consider that Ohio’s legalization won’t occur in a vacuum. If the oligopoly is as bad at marijuana growing as critics contend it will be, then they will be losing in competition with current illegal growers, who are then harder to bust because of home grow, and with illegal imports from legal states, which supposedly will be better quality than oligopoly weed and harder to bust, since people can legally possess marijuana and drug dogs will be retired from marijuana detection.

Third, other states nearby (Michigan) will legalize and open up that competition and eventually, the federal government will lift its prohibition and Ohio’s ten growers will have to compete with 10,000 growers from the West Coast and Colorado.

Either those oligopoly growers will successfully compete – in which case, Ohioans are getting West Coast-quality weed at reasonable prices – or they won’t and the whole commercial framework will have to be overhauled.

Too much of the opposition to this Ohio model comes from people who are just offended by the idea of rich guys who know nothing of marijuana swooping in and becoming richer, while people who have loved and cared for growing weed lose their opportunity to get rich. I understand taking that offense, but I cannot understand hatred of the rich convincing someone to remain a criminal and keep others criminal.

Vote Yes on Issue 3, then spend the time, money, and effort you would have exhausted on a brand new medical marijuana or legal marijuana campaign and fix what’s wrong with Issue 3.

A month before our 2014 election to legalize marijuana in Oregon, Kevin Sabet was brought in by county sheriffs, district attorneys, and rehab programs to tour the state. The alleged purpose of the tour was merely to provide citizens with scientific information about cannabis. But given that their headline speaker formed America’s most-visible anti-marijuana organization, Project SAM, and was dubbed by Rolling Stone the “quarterback of the anti-legalization movement”, Congressman Earl Blumenauer and other critics questioned whether taxpayer money was basically funding a campaign in opposition to the marijuana legalization ballot initiative.

Now, Phoenix New Times reports that similar shenanigans are afoot with taxpayer-funded Arizona anti-marijuana speakers as the state has two campaigns working to legalize marijuana statewide in 2016. A supposed educational event entitled “Marijuana: The Science and the Experiment” will take place from 9am to 4pm on Tuesday, September 22, at the Black Canyon Conference Center. New Times writes:

Hosted by the “Marijuana Harmless? Think Again!” campaign, an offshoot of the Yavapai County substance abuse program MATFORCE led by Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, the event is expected to bring in business and healthcare professionals, substance abuse specialists, law enforcement types, and “interested community members.”

Don’t expect a neutral presentation, though: The target is not necessarily truth, but achieving the political — and non-scientific — goal of thwarting legalization. The organizers and most of the speakers are staunch prohibitionists.

Indeed, the lineup features some of the most reefer mad prohibitionists in America, most of whom have strong financial incentive to maintain the status quo of prohibition. Here are two of the scheduled speakers who I’ve blogged about in the past and some of the “science” they have to offer:

Christian Thurstone, M.D. – The medical director for Denver’s Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Education & Prevention Program. Dr. Thurstone published a chart in 2013 showing the incredible rise in the levels of active THC found in the urine of adolescents admitted for rehab in Denver, from an average of 358ng/mL to 536ng/mL. Given that 1) it’s THC metabolites (THC-COOH, to be specific) you detect in urine, 2) active THC is detected through blood tests, and 3) the presumptive impairment limit for active THC in blood in Colorado is 5ng/mL, a commenter asked, “I’d be interested to know whether those urinalysis results were for actual THC or for THC metabolites like 11-hydroxy-THC?” Dr. Thurstone replied, “Thanks for writing. Good question. We were measuring THC.” Dr. Thurstone closed his post wondering “It is reasonable now to question how much longer it will be before we see injection use of THC — especially as marijuana is legalized.”

Dr. Thurstone also reacted to the appearances of Dr. Carl Hart and Dr. Julie Holland in Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s remarkable Weed documentary, by saying his colleague “Dr. Paula Riggs, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado, is a true expert — not a self-proclaimed expert — in the research and treatment of marijuana addiction. She has extensive experience in clinical practice and research and also peer-reviewed publications in the field — unlike some of the the sources Dr. Gupta and the CNN production team chose to feature at great length.” (You can judge Drs. Hart’s & Holland’s bona fides here.)

Christine Tatum – co-author of the book Clearing the Haze: Helping Families Face Teen Addiction, and the wife of Dr. Christian Thurstone. Tatum believes that marijuana may be to blame for some of the high profile domestic terrorism and mass shooting incidents in America. Upon the capture of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tatum wrote “We MUST start asking hard questions about marijuana use and these violent outbursts. In some people, marijuana use induces psychosis, paranoia, and aggression. The science is there. The connection is real.”

When called on that egregious outburst, Tatum doubled down, writing, “Look at the science. Inquire! Connect these dots if it’s appropriate.  [Congressperson Gabby Giffords’ assailant Jared] Loughner. [Aurora movie theater shooter James] Holmes. [Columbine school shooters Dylan] Klebold [and Eric] Harris. [Rudy] Eugene, the Miami face-eater. It is time for us to look long and hard at the THC levels in our prison population.”

In another incident, Tatum lamented the terrible customer service at a Denver-area Lowe’s Home Improvement warehouse. It turned out the store was understaffed because they can’t find enough workers who will take and pass a piss test, now that Colorado has recognized a constitutional right to marijuana. “Wonder of wonders,” Tatum writes, “Lowe’s doesn’t want people acutely or sub-acutely under the influence of marijuana operating forklifts, using circular saws, cutting ceramic tiles, driving company trucks — or cleaning its toilets.” That “sub-acutely” she refers to is a claim by prohibitionists that even when you’re not high on the active THC in your bloodstream, the presence of inactive marijuana metabolites in your system still means you’re impaired, apparently so impaired you can’t clean a toilet.

There now exists here in Oregon an affiliate of Kevin Sabet’s Project SAM, the ironically-named Smart Approaches to Marijuana, where the “smart approach” is to maintain adult marijuana prohibition but soften the penalties a little bit. I like to call it the “Kinder Gentler Drug War” approach.

The head of this new prohibition group in a legalized marijuana state is named Randy Philbrick. I found myself arguing with him on Twitter, via his @PDXRandyLee and @SAM_Oregon handles. At one point, he states that “the fact still stands that teen use [of marijuana] is up in colorado since 2012.”

This is a rhetorical ploy prohibitionists play with stats that I like to call the Island Maneuver. It’s a type of cherry picking where they’ll find a terribly scary statistic and present it all alone with no context. I called him on it and that’s when he responded with “yeah yeah yeah, I know. You’re going too throw up your Stat sheet showing La being the highest among prohibition states.”

So I did. Here are the full data sets from the National Survey on Drug Use & Health, comparing 2011-2012 state level data to 2012-2013.

Indeed, there was an increase in the rate of monthly marijuana use among 12-17-year-olds in Colorado from 2011-2012 when 10.47% used monthly to 2012-2013 when 11.16% did, a relative increase of 6.59%. And in Washington, teen monthly marijuana use increased 3.81%. So, according to SAM Oregon, we have the smoking guns that show legalization of marijuana leads to greater teen use!

Except that Florida had a relative monthly increase of 6.97%. Last I checked, marijuana is so illegal in Florida that mere possession of 21 grams of it is a felony. And Utah had an increase of 4.49%. Last I checked, Utah was a highly religious state that frowns on drug use. Tennessee and Louisiana, also none too friendly to marijuana users, had increases in monthly teen marijuana use.

Ah, says the prohibitionist, but monthly use rates in Florida and Utah are 7.52% and 5.35%, respectively, while rates in Colorado and Washington are 11.16% and 9.81%, respectively. See, legalization makes more kids use marijuana! In fact, all of the top twenty states for monthly teen use are either legalized or medical marijuana states!

Except that Colorado and Washington and the medical marijuana states in the top twenty always had greater use of marijuana by teens, even before their laws changed. It’s not that marijuana reform makes marijuana popular; it’s that where marijuana is popular, marijuana reform has more support.

If the prohibitionists want to fixate on the top twenty states for teen monthly marijuana use, maybe they should try to explain why in 12 of them, monthly teen marijuana use declined, including double-digit declines in California, Alaska, and Massachusetts.

Israel has been a world leader in medical marijuana, from the discovery of THC in 1964 by Israeli researcher Dr. Raphael Mechoulem to the over 22,000 medical marijuana patients in Israel today with a cannabis permit from the Health Ministry. But now pain clinics in Israel are under fire for not providing medical cannabis to patients that the clinics believe are faking their condition to acquire marijuana for recreational purposes.

The Association for Medical Cannabis Treatment in Israel is threatening to sue the clinics that refuse to offer medical cannabis. “I speak to patients all day,” says Karnit Yedid, head of the AMCT. “Their pain is unbearable and they have no way to get medical cannabis treatment.”

In order to get a cannabis permit from the Health Ministry for chronic pain, a patient in Israel must undergo treatment at a registered pain clinic for a year and exhaust all other methods of pain control, including use of addictive, hepatotoxic opioid painkillers and risky surgical procedures. Such appointments and treatment can cost well over the equivalent of $1,000 each year. There are 7,350 such chronic pain patients with cannabis permits today in Israel.

The clinics maintain that as the gatekeeper for legal cannabis access, many of the clients seeking their services are merely going through the motions in order to get cannabis for personal purposes. Some clinics are just refusing to see any pain patients who express an interest in medical cannabis, with large signs in their windows, telephone messages, and disclaimers on paperwork. The clinics contend they are already so overwhelmed with the current cannabis users renewing their prescriptions that a new patient seeking cannabis treatment can’t find the time to see their doctors.

Israel’s Health Ministry announced this summer that they would be increasing the number of physicians authorized to recommend medical cannabis without having to have the patient certified through the ministry’s medical cannabis unit. The Ministry also announced that medical cannabis access would soon be handled through pharmacies, rather than dispensed directly by a small group of authorized growers like Tikun Olam, one of the leading medical cannabis companies in the world.

“Today, pharmacies give all kinds of other drugs, like morphine; there’s order in that and we’ll make order in this, too,” announced Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman. “It will be standard, like a drug.”

Miki Ofer, of The Pharmaceutical Society of Israel, explained why her organization supports the pharmaceuticalization of cannabis. “There must be complete separation between the growers and the distribution network for cannabis. Nowhere in the world is a drug or medical device supplied to patients by the manufacturer. Accordingly, medical marijuana must be sold in authorized pharmacies, like any other drug. [Growers] don’t know what other drugs the patient is taking and what interactions there might be. When cannabis will be supplied by pharmacies, the pharmacists can explain the side effects and possible interactions to the patients.”

I spoke to a reporter from Rolling Stone who is doing a story on the division within the drug reform community over Ohio’s 2015 marijuana legalization amendment. Indeed, the proposal to create both medical marijuana and a taxed-and-regulated adult marijuana market has alienated many supporters of legalization with its assignment of just ten commercial cannabis cultivation sites to the ten investor groups who have funded the initiative campaign.

I was at the International Cannabis Business Conference in San Francisco when Drug Policy Alliance’s director Ethan Nadelmann weighed in on the Ohio initiative:

This thing sticks in my craw. Ten business interests are going to dominate this thing? How much longer do we all as activists have a chance to actually influence the shape of this thing?

What we’ve unleashed now is for-profit interests, big business interests, with no connection to this movement that are lining up to see what they are going to do about [marijuana reform].

People in government? They’re going to want the oligopoly, too. From their perspective, the fewer number of providers, growers, and distributors, the more big, above-ground, legally regulated interests you have, the easier it is to regulate.

I was at the Seattle Hempfest when I had a chance to ask NORML’s Founder and Legal Counsel, Keith Stroup, how NORML views the Ohio initiative:

At NORML, we honestly thought long and hard, since it’s not a perfect… I don’t like the idea that these rich people get a special advantage.

But when we analyzed it, we realized we are a single-issue organization. We are about legalizing marijuana and the two things we most care about is stop arresting smokers, which this proposal does; the second is we want to legally establish a regulated market where we can buy our marijuana from a safe and secure environment. This initiative provides that.

So we decided it is not our responsibility to get into a fight about who gets rich off of marijuana. Somebody’s getting rich off marijuana in every state where it’s legalized, even in those states where it is only legalized for medical use…

I’m not saying those fights aren’t important, but they shouldn’t get in the way of stopping the arrest of smokers. National NORML will almost certainly be endorsing the Ohio initiative.

UPDATE: The Board of Directors for National NORML has officially endorsed the Ohio Issue 3. In an email from Board Chair Dr. Mitch Earleywine, NORML says:

The board endorsed the Ohio initiative with reservation. We always want to do anything we can to help ensure access to medical cannabis for those who need it as well as the elimination of criminal penalties for anyone who owns a plant. That said, legal scholars on the board emphasized that other states have reached these goals without some of the drawbacks of the Ohio proposal. It’s not the bill we would have written.

The Ohio legalization initiative is all-but invisible on Marijuana Policy Project’s website. On their State Issues page for Ohio, they “encourage voters in Ohio to consider their options and decide for themselves which measure they wish to support” without mentioning any measures on the ballot or proposed for the ballot. MPP issued a post on their blog in August when Ohio’s legalization made the ballot, noting that it would be “the first state to [legalize] without first having a medical marijuana program” and “the first state east of the Mississippi to replace marijuana prohibition with regulation.”

Lately, the people behind Issue 3 (ResponsibleOhio) have further angered professionals in drug law reform by handing legalization opponents an easy target in “Buddie”, the anthropomorphic marijuana mascot with the head of a female flower and the body of a male superhero. “They just handed Kevin Sabet his ‘Joe Camel’ of marijuana on a silver platter,” one NORML board member recently remarked.

Tom Angell, head of the group Marijuana Majority, recently addressed the mascot in a Facebook post:

While I’ve previously been undecided on whether Responsible Ohio’s crazy monopoly model for the legal marijuana market is something our movement should tolerate in lieu of letting the state’s current marijuana laws stay in effect for another election cycle or two, their outrageous “Buddie” mascot pushed me over the edge and tipped me to a solid no on their effort.

If their cartel campaigns for legalization so irresponsibly and in a way that positions our side as easily vulnerable to attacks about appealing to kids, how can these people be trusted to manage the industry responsibly after legalization? I don’t believe they can.

I still can never support the status quo of marijuana prohibition. I must always support any initiative that takes away from police the contraband status of marijuana that leads to unjust searches, seizures, fines, punishments, arrests, and incarceration.

However, the number of tears I’d shed if Ohio’s Issue 3 should fail is growing smaller with every passing news cycle.

“Didja see that that cheater – Tom Shady – got out of his four game suspension for Deflategate?” asked the guy in the New York Jets jersey sitting alongside me at the bar.

“Tom Brady, yes,” I replied, “looks like he gets to play on opening night. That’s gotta make some Deflatriots fans happy.”

The guy tossed back some beer and harrumphed. “Patriots fans, heh, you know they got the fix in. While Tom Shady’s gonna be playing, the J-E-T-S defense has to go without Sheldon Richardson rushing the passer because the league caught him smoking pot!”

“Yeah, that really does suck,” I agreed.

“Smoking pot! Four games! While that cheater spying coach of theirs has the ballboy deflating balls for Tom Shady and he gets nothin’! In the playoffs! The guy was cheating in the playoffs!” The guy’s face was getting red.

I pulled out one of my Portland NORML business cards and offered it, saying, “Yes, I know, I work in marijuana legalization and I love football. Sheldon Richardson of the Jets, Martavis Bryant of the Steelers, they all are out for the first four games of the season. Free agents safety Jakar Hamilton, cornerback Loucheiz Purifoy, and wide receiver Ace Sanders are all out for ten games. All for substance abuse violations, most likely marijuana.”

“That’s such B.S., man.” The guy shook his head.

“That’s not the half of it. Cleveland’s wide receiver, Josh Gordon, had to sit out ten games of the 2014 season because of pot smoking, the year after he had led the league in receiving, despite only playing 14 of the 16 games that season. Arizona’s linebacker Daryl Washington was out all of the 2014 season for marijuana. Miami defensive end Dion Jordon is out for this entire season for diluting his drug test sample, after he’d already served a four game suspension for substance abuse, which was probably weed, because, c’mon, the guy played for the Oregon Ducks.”

“That’s so stupid! It’s not like these guys were hopped up on speed or bulked up on ‘roids,” the guy complained, “it’s weed! But a guy who is approving of cheating with the game balls… didja know that since the rule change that allowed each team to use their own balls, the Patriots have, by far, the lowest fumble rate in the league?”

“I don’t know about that,” I countered, “but not only is it unnecessary to be penalizing these players for smoking weed, it’s counterproductive to their health. Of all the conditions people use medical marijuana for, pain is the one we have some of the best science for. And emerging research shows that inhaled THC may be the best possible protective medicine for someone who has just suffered a concussion. But instead, we punish them for that and force them to use pain pills and alcohol instead.”

“No kidding,” said the guy. “Dang, if only the NFL had caught Tom Brady smoking weed, he’d be suspended right now.”

“Yeah,” I replied, “and if only Russell Wilson hands off to Beast Mode on 2^nd & Goal from the 1 with the Super Bowl on the line, Tom Brady is a three-in-a-row Super Bowl loser like John Elway and Fran Tarkenton, instead of joining Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana as the only quarterbacks to win four Super Bowls.”

Last week we reported on the petition with over 200,000 signatures calling on the government of the United Kingdom to address cannabis legalization. The official response from the conservative government was that “use of cannabis is a significant public health issue”, that legalization “would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade” and legalization would not fix “the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery that this can cause to families.” And like every good drug warrior, they predicted that legalization “would also send the wrong message to … young and vulnerable people”.

Though the petition surpassed the 100,000 signature threshold necessary to force a debate on legalization in the Parliament, since the committees reviewing the issue are dominated by conservatives, it is unlikely the debate before the full Parliament will ever take place. So, a reporter at the UK Independent took it upon himself to ask the Home Office (their government department that handles drug policy, among other duties) a simple question:

Given its view that cannabis causes ‘harm to individuals and society’, “do they believe then, that cannabis (class B) is a more harmful drug than alcohol (legal)?”

The response from the Home Office?

“We wouldn’t have anything to add to the government response.”

The non-response from the UK government recalls the response of our former DEA Administrator, Michele Leonhart, when she was questioned by Congress about the relative harms of drugs compared to marijuana:

“Is crack worse for a person than marijuana?” [US Rep. Jared] Polis asked Leonhart.

“I believe all illegal drugs are bad,” Leonhart answered.

Polis continued, asking whether methamphetamines and heroin were worse for a person’s health than marijuana.

“Again, all drugs, they’re illegal drugs,” Leonhart started, before being cut off by Polis.

“Yes, no, or I don’t know?” Polis said. “If you don’t know, you can look this up. You should know this as the chief administrator for the Drug Enforcement Agency. I’m asking a very straightforward question: Is heroin worse for someone’s health than marijuana?”

Leonhart ducked again, repeating, “All illegal drugs are bad.”

Leonhart was ousted in the wake of a scandal involving DEA agents’ solicitation of prostitutes, rather than her ill-informed views of drug dangers. Her successor, Chuck Rosenberg, has finally admitted that marijuana isn’t as bad as “all illegal drugs”.

“If you want me to say that marijuana’s not dangerous, I’m not going to say that because I think it is,” Rosenberg said. “Do I think it’s as dangerous as heroin? Probably not. I’m not an expert.”

He added: “Let me say it this way: I’d rather be in a car accident going 30 miles an hour than 60 miles an hour, but I’d prefer not to be in a car accident at all.”

Bad metaphors aside – a 30 mph car accident can still kill you, marijuana smoking cannot – why in the hell do we have a head of the Drug Enforcement Administration who is “not an expert” on the relative harms of drugs? Imagine asking the head of the Environmental Protection Agency if solar panels were as bad for the environment as burning coal, or asking the Secretary of State if France is as dangerous to travel to as Syria, and that person responding, “Probably not. I’m not an expert.”

Still, it’s nice to see that our DEA believes marijuana is safer than heroin and our president acknowledging that marijuana “is no worse than” alcohol. Especially that vaping now is starting to become mainstream, vaporizing weed by many is also very prone for smokers nowadays.

Maybe someday the officials in the US and the UK will recognize that marijuana’s relative harm compared to alcohol isn’t subject to opinion, it is a matter of fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol.

“Daily marijuana use among U.S. college students highest since 1980” reads the headline from the University of Michigan heralding the release of the latest data from the Monitoring the Future Survey (MTF). “Daily marijuana use among the nation’s college students is on the rise,” they tell us, “surpassing daily cigarette smoking for the first time in 2014.”

They state that as if it was a bad thing.

Whenever I read scary proclamations about data, I like to go straight to the source and see for myself. In this case, it is Volume II of their 2014 monograph that deals with college students and other adults. Volume I covers 8^th, 10^th, and 12^th graders.

Let’s start with the daily marijuana use vs. daily cigarette use. Yes, daily marijuana use among college students in their first four years past high school (MTF’s cohort) is at 5.9%, the largest rate since 1980’s rate of 7.2%. But the reason why more undergrads are toking pot than smoking cigarettes is because the daily smoking rate has declined 351% since 1980, from 18.3% then to just 5.2% today.

Since 2000, the daily rate of marijuana use among the undergrads has increased 28.3%. But also since 2000, the daily rate of cigarette use has declined 70.8%. Similarly, daily cigarette smoking among 12^th, 10^th, and 8^th graders has declined 67.5%, 77.1%, and 81.1%, respectively. Meanwhile, daily marijuana use among those grades has declined 3.3%, 10.5%, and 23.1%, respectively.

In other words, in the 21^st Century, as prohibitionists warn us about the terrible message we’re sending to kids through legalization of marijuana for medical or personal use, daily marijuana use has declined and daily cigarette use has plummeted. But among the undergraduate college kids within four years of high school graduation (that is, voting-age adults) daily marijuana use has increased while daily cigarette use has plummeted.

The kids are getting the message all right, and that message is “there’s a time and place for marijuana smoking, and that place is college!” Basically, the same message since their parents’ generation smoked pot and the generation before that.

This trend holds true for monthly (or occasional) use of marijuana and cigarettes. Since 2000, 12^th, 10^th, and 8^th grade monthly marijuana use is down 1.9%, 15.7%, and 28.6%, respectively. Undergrad monthly marijuana use is up 4%. But monthly cigarette smoking has plummeted across the board, down 56.7%, 69.9%, and 72.6% among 12^th, 10^th, & 8^th graders, respectively, and down 54.3% among college students.

You may recall that we didn’t ticket, fine, arrest, piss test, or rehab any adults who smoke cigarettes in an effort to reduce their cigarette smoking during that time. Also recall that four states legalized personal marijuana use and 18 states adopted medical marijuana laws in that time. More voting-age adults may be using marijuana, but fewer minor teenagers are using marijuana.

Alcohol use among young people has shown a similar trend. Daily drinking among 12^th, 10^th, & 8^th grades has fallen 34.5%, 55.6%, and 62.5%, respectively. Monthly drinking is down by 25.2%, 42.7%, and 59.8%, respectively. And the rate of kids who have ever tried alcohol is down 17.8%, 31%, and 48.2%, respectively. Even among the college kids, lifetime drinking rates are at 79.4%, down 8.3% since 2000, and monthly drinking is at 63.1%, down 6.4%, and those are the lowest rates ever measured.

The use of the most dangerous legal drugs – alcohol and tobacco – is plummeting among young adults and minor teenagers. Marijuana use remains steady or lower among minor teenagers, but up among young adults.

Yesterday, I tried to shred the framing around drinking alcohol that portrays it as somehow different and separate from “doing drugs”. Today, let’s think about the concept of “hard drugs” vs. “soft drugs” and understand where exactly alcohol fits in that dichotomy.

To most people, marijuana is considered a “soft drug”. This is a concept that arose in the Netherlands as they set up their famous “coffee shop model” for soft drug distribution. As the Dutch government puts it:

Soft drugs, such as marijuana and hash, are less damaging to health than hard drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine.

The Netherlands tolerates the sale of soft drugs in coffee shops and takes rigorous action to suppress the sale of hard drugs. By adopting this strategy, the government separates these two markets. Cannabis users are not obliged to buy their soft drugs from criminal dealers who might easily bring them into contact with hard drugs.

This is fairly well understood in America, too. Marijuana, caffeine, and perhaps magic mushrooms are considered “soft drugs” and heroin, meth, cocaine, PCP, LSD, ecstasy and others are considered “hard drugs”, because they are far more dangerous to one’s health. But how can we better define “danger to health” and how would those definitions place alcohol in the mix?

Death: If a drug can kill you immediately from its use, that should be an automatic qualifier for the “hard drugs” label. Yes, cigarettes will eventually kill you, but you can’t smoke enough nicotine at one time to actually have a fatal overdose from it, like you can ingesting heroin or cocaine.

There is a pharmacological way of measuring this danger; it’s called the Therapeutic Ratio. You figure out how much of a drug it takes to get 50% of your test animals high, then you figure out how much it takes to kill 50% of them. That makes a ratio, and the greater that ratio (e.g. 1:2 is greater than 1:20, like fractions), the more dangerous the drug.

So, when it comes to heroin, that ratio is about 1:6 – if one “dose” gets you high, six “doses” can kill you, whatever your size of “dose” works out to. Meth’s about a 1:10 and cocaine’s about a 1:15. Obviously, “hard drugs”. Magic mushrooms and, maybe surprisingly, LSD, come in at about 1:1000 – you might trip balls, but you won’t die. Marijuana comes in at about 1:20000. Obviously, “soft drugs”.

And alcohol? It’s a 1:10 therapeutic ratio. Like meth.

Addiction: A “hard drug” ought to also be one that is hard to kick, one that can kill you through its withdrawal phase if you’re not careful. Heroin, cocaine, and meth certainly fall within this category. Even if withdrawal can’t kill you, some drugs are still terribly addictive, like nicotine in tobacco cigarettes, and that addiction eventually kills you.

A 1994 study called “The Comparative Epidemiology of Drugs”, which is cited by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, tells us that about a third (31.9%) of the people who try tobacco become dependent on it. Almost a quarter (23.1%) of the people who try heroin become dependent – yes, cigarettes are more addictive than heroin!

Cocaine caused dependence for about one-sixth (16.7%) of the people who tried it. Stimulants, like meth, came in at about one-in-nine (11.2%), while marijuana was down at the bottom with caffeine, with only about one-eleventh (9.1%) becoming dependent on the herb.

And alcohol? It’s at 15.4% user dependence rate. Close to cocaine.

Health Effects: Everybody knows that the junkie is a pale derelict who will commit desperate acts to get a fix. The crackhead is twitchy and restless and ready to steal your bike. The speed freak is covered in sores with bad teeth. Of course heroin, cocaine, and meth are “hard drugs”.

In actuality, those stereotypes are the exception, not the rule. Remember the dependence rates we listed above? Well, if one-out-of-three people that try heroin become dependent, doesn’t that mean two-out-of-three do not? And for those who are addicted to these hard drugs, often the criminality of being a drug addict means unemployment and lack of health care that lead to desperate acts of crime. After all, Robert Downey Jr. was quite the addict back in the day, but he never ended up with a rotten mouth and terrible skin, homeless and begging for change, because he’s rich.

Alcohol is unique among all the drugs we’ve been talking about regarding how it affects the body. LSD can warp your mind. Cocaine can ruin your nose and explode your heart, as can meth. Heroin can stop your lungs from breathing. But only alcohol excess can harm every single organ of your body. It kills brain cells, causes mouth, throat, and larynx cancer, disrupts lung proteins that keep fluids out, increases heart rate and blood pressure, destroys the liver, causes excess stomach acid, interferes with kidney function, reduces pancreatic function, damages the small and large intestine, it even dehydrates the skin.

By every measure, alcohol is not only a drug, it belongs in the same class as the “hard drugs”.

It never ceases to amaze me the blind spot the public has in understanding that drinking alcohol is “doing drugs”.

Understandable, as our society frames it as something different than drugs. “Drugs and alcohol”, they say. “Clean and sober” if you’ve given up both. “High or drunk” if you have not. “Overdosed or hungover” if you used too much. “Addict or alcoholic” if you can’t handle it.

The anti-pot crusaders are the worst. They will with a straight face intone the dangers to the freeways, the workplace, and the children if marijuana is allowed, but are mute on those far greater dangers posed by alcohol.

They’ll divert that point, if you call them on it, by saying that alcohol has been accepted by culture for thousands of years, it’s too late now, and if we discovered alcohol today, of course we’d ban it.

Oh. So it is a culture war. And they admit they can’t beat the majority culture that kills thousands, so they pick on the minority culture they think they can control, even though it kills none.

I’m sitting on a train right now, doing drugs. There is a kid in the seat in front of me. Numerous passengers have walked through with open containers of drugs, even doing the drugs as they walk through the train.

When I get off the train, there will be at least three places where I can buy drugs and use them. One might even serve me drugs on an outdoor patio with children about.

Then, later, I might choose to drive to building whose only purpose is to serve drugs while people enjoy entertainment. In fact, the ones with comedy require that, at minimum, I take drugs twice while there.

I’m driving because these drug buildings have parking lots, and there is no valet there to take my keys and drug test me before he gives them back. I am trusted to go to this building to do drugs and not operate my car if I am too impaired by the drugs.

That said, there is a legal threshold of drug effect below which I am not presumed to be too high to drive the car.

Then, when I get home, there will be numerous TV ads for drugs featuring bikini models, rock music, and flashy graphics. And that’s not counting the ads for all the other drugs I can get if I “ask my doctor” if they are right for me.

Sports are rife with these drugs endorsements, to the point of even naming some of their stadiums after drugs.

The public places where I can do drugs is a long list – airports, airplanes, theaters, golf courses, parks, festivals, even places where children are rampant, so long as we mark off an area for using drugs with plastic tape and require everyone doing drugs to show ID to get a paper wristband.

This is why I get so bent when they ask, “why add add a third legal drug?” What, we decided we were going to be a culture that accepted drugs, but we set the number at two and only let the two most harmful ones in?

To me, I see a culture swimming in drugs, all too eager to promote drugs, that wants to discriminate against me because my drug isn’t as popular and doesn’t make profits for a drug company.

In an unexpected turn, last night the Portland City Council voted 3-1 to grant a permit for the Portland Hempstalk festival at downtown’s Waterfront Park. The vote overturns the Portland Parks Bureau’s denial of the permit, which they announced shortly after last November’s vote to legalize marijuana in Oregon.

The festival’s official website is announcing the weekend of September 27 & 28 as the festival dates. However, festival creator and owner Paul Stanford told The Oregonian, “If I had my preference, it would be the first weekend of October,” after marijuana sales to all adults becomes legal for Portland’s numerous medical marijuana dispensaries.

Both the Parks Bureau and the Portland Police Bureau were opposed to granting the permit. By their estimation, Hempstalk organizers not only turn a blind eye to “rampant drug use” at the event, but even encouraged marijuana consumption just outside the gates to the event.

But Hempstalk supporters argued that the city was holding them to a different standard than other popular alcohol-fueled events, such as the Waterfront Blues Festival that also takes place at the same location. Locals noted that marijuana smoking can be found at almost any large public gathering in Portland, and at least Hempstalk would have no problems with under-aged consumption or over-consumption of alcohol, since it would not be available at the event.

That argument seemed to convince the majority of the city council. Mayor Charlie Hales said, “It sounds like there were some people smoking marijuana there,” calling the event “imperfect”, but acknowledging that many events in Portland are also imperfect. Commissioner Dan Saltzman called the Park Bureau’s decision a “double standard”.

The council also took the Police Bureau and the Parks Bureau to task, asking if there had been any complaints from the public about the festival or if it led to an increase of drugged driving arrests, drug overdoses, or paramedic calls. Neither bureau could supply the council with any of the examples given, leaving the council with just the complaints of the Parks Bureau and Police Bureau against Hempstalk.

This Hempstalk will be the tenth incarnation of the event which began at Waterfront Park in 2006 and since has been held at Sellwood Riverfront Park and more recently at Kelley Point Park, both locations that are inhospitable for mass traffic and disabled access. Hempstalk returned to the waterfront last year after a contentious permitting process that started with a denial from the city council that was overturned on appeal.

Tax revenue data from Washington and Colorado continue to bring us nothing but good news. After about eighteen months of adult-use marijuana sales, the Centennial State has reeled in more than $117 million in tax revenue. After a year of sales in the Evergreen State, revenues have topped $83 million. Between the two states, over $200 million in marijuana taxes have been raised.

Which begs the question, where’s the $2 billion in social costs from legalized marijuana that were supposed to afflict Washington and Colorado, Kevin?

Kevin Sabet is the nation’s leading anti-marijuana crusader. Back in August of 2012, as the nation awaited legalization votes in three states, Sabet cautioned voters that any tax revenue promises made by the legalizers would easily be overwhelmed by the social costs of legalized marijuana from the “reduced productivity… increased health care costs… accidents… premature illness and death.”

As Sabet put it:

Research uniformly reveals that under legalization, the price of drugs would fall substantially, thereby increasing consumption. Any taxes gained on legal drugs would be quickly offset by the social costs resulting from this increased use: witness how today society receives about $1 in alcohol and tobacco tax revenue for every $10 lost on the social costs of those two legal drugs. Increased drug use means increased costs, including those borne by American businesses as they deal with a high workforce, greater absenteeism and less productivity.

This was not a one-time dire prediction. Sabet’s conjecture that “for every $1 in tax revenue, alcohol & tobacco bring $10 in costs” was a prime talking point of the anti-legalization campaign in 2012. As Sabet’s pal, Patrick Kennedy put it:

For every $1 we collect from state and federal taxes on alcohol and tobacco, we spend $10 to address problems stemming from their use. There is no reason to believe marijuana will pay for itself, either.

Here’s the official position of Project SAM, the group Kennedy and Sabet formed to fight legalization:

Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Combined, these amounts are less than 10 percent of the estimated $185 billion in alcohol-related costs to health care, criminal justice, and the workplace in lost productivity. Tobacco does not yield net revenue when taxed. Each year, Americans spend more than $200 billion on the social costs of smoking, but only about $25 billion is collected in taxes.

Here’s David Evans, Special Adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation:

The argument that we can tax and regulate marijuana and derive income from it is false. The increased use will increase the multitude of costs that come with marijuana use. The costs from health and mental wellness problems, accidents, and damage to our economic productivity will far out strip any tax obtained.

This isn’t a new scare. In 2009, well before legalization was heating up the national scene, Sabet was making this prediction:

What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use.

In 2010, as Prop 19 was gearing up to legalize California, CNBC posted this unsigned op-ed (I’ll bet it was Sabet):

The additional costs of drug education and rehabilitation combined with the increased social costs associated with increased marijuana use and sale are all greater than the potential revenue gained through legalization.

You’d think that once legalization passed and the sky did not fall in Washington and Colorado, they’d abandon this talking point. But no, here’s Bill O’Reilly, as he interviewed Patrick Kennedy in March 2013 after legalization passed:

I believe the amount of damage being done to Coloradoans in the form of addiction, driving problems, all these social ills will cost that state far more than it’s taking in.

And Dr. Stuart Gitlow, the president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine and a SAM board member in July 2014:

As a society, we will not make money — we will likely lose money, just as we do with tobacco and alcohol. Taxpayers will need to pay more in order to make up for the productivity and illness-related losses that marijuana taxes won’t come close to covering.

Even as recently as November 2014, educational psychologist Marty Nemko was writing in TIME:

When unable to counter the above arguments against legalization, pot activists often shift to arguing that legalization will increase tax revenues. But the aforementioned Obama Administration report states that the additional revenue would be far outweighed by the increased health care costs. For example, that report summarizes a Centers for Disease Control-funded study: “The cost to society of alcohol alone is estimated to be more than 15 times the revenue gained by their taxation.”

So where’s the $2 billion alcohol-and-tobacco-like costs from our $200 million in marijuana tax revenue, fellas? I’ll even accept someone showing a push – $200 million in social costs – and I won’t even factor in all the law enforcement, court, jail, probation, parole, and administrative savings from not ticketing or arresting tens of thousands now-legal cannabis consumers.

How much more money do we have to raise before this talking point is put out to pasture?

Remember “We the People”, the Obama Administration’s online petition site? It originally promised that any petition receiving greater than 25,000 signatures would receive an official government response.

Remember how shocked the media were when time after time, a marijuana legalization petition topped the lists, garnering 44,000, then 46,000, even 83,000 signatures? Remember how President Obama laughed off the “online audience” in response?

Well, our friends across the pond in the United Kingdom have outdone us. Their nation, with just one-fifth the population of ours, just dropped 205,336 signatures for their marijuana legalization petition, “Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal.” The UK government registered over 100,000 signatures within the petition’s first five days. Not only did they amass far more signatures, but what happens in response to those signatures is far more important.

In order to receive just a response from the UK government, a petition needed to reach 25,000 signatures, like the original petition threshold to get a response from the US government. Since 2013, the US raised the threshold for a White House response to 100,000 signatures. That’s the number of signatures needed in the UK to require a formal debate of the issue in Parliament. The US has no such equivalent to force a debate in Congress.

While the debate over cannabis legalization awaits in Parliament, the Tory-led (conservative) government has issued a response The Independent characterized as “damning”:

The latest evidence from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is that the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue

Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society. Legalisation of cannabis would not eliminate the crime committed by the illicit trade, nor would it address the harms associated with drug dependence and the misery that this can cause to families.

Legalisation would also send the wrong message to the vast majority of people who do not take drugs, especially young and vulnerable people, with the potential grave risk of increased misuse of drugs.

The response was considerably more anti-legalization than the US government’s tepid response to our marijuana legalization petitions, delivered by then-Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, which quoted President Obama’s interview with Barbara Walters, who asked “Do you think that marijuana should be legalized?”:

Well, I wouldn’t go that far.  But what I think is that, at this point, Washington and Colorado, you’ve seen the voters speak on this issue.  And as it is, the federal government has a lot to do when it comes to criminal prosecutions.  It does not make sense from a prioritization point of view for us to focus on recreational drug users in a state that has already said that under state law that’s legal. …

When you’re talking about drug kingpins, folks involved with violence, people are who are peddling hard drugs to our kids in our neighborhoods that are devastated, there is no doubt that we need to go after those folks hard… it makes sense for us to look at how we can make sure that our kids are discouraged from using drugs and engaging in substance abuse generally.  There is more work we can do on the public health side and the treatment side.

The only issue more popular than legalizing marijuana on the official UK government petition site is one calling for the firing of the UK Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, which got over 100,000 signatures on its first day. Apparently, he’s not so popular with the doctors and nurses working in their National Health Service (there you go, UK, outdoing the US once again), who have taken to social media to protest his policy proposals for longer working hours. Sec’y Hunt has even been pranked by UK television show that had him followed around town by a man playing a sousaphone.

While the cannabis legalization will be debated in Parliament, it’s not a fast track straight to the Commons chamber (full debate). First it will have to be discussed by an eleven-member Petitions Committee of Parliament. That committee is stocked with six Tories, so at least one would have to buck their party’s hardline response against legalization to form a majority to pass on the petition.

Then the petition would go to the Backbench Business Committee, and again, at least one Tory would have to support it for it to move on to the full Commons chamber for debate. This committee determines which of many issues need to go before the full Parliament, and legalization could be crowded out just because there are other, more pressing issues to consider.

Meanwhile, in the US, the only petition currently over 200,000 signatures is to extradite to Zimbabwe the dentist who shot Cecil the Lion. Recognizing the Ku Klux Klan as a domestic terror organization and preventing Medicare from denying access to prosthetic limbs for amputees are the only other petitions above 100,000. Maybe we’ve just recognized the best petition for legalization of marijuana happens at the state level.