|
|
US Arrests
|
| Year |
Total Arrests |
Total Drug Arrests |
Total Marijuana Arrests |
Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests |
Marijuana Possession Arrests |
Total Violent Crime Arrests |
Total Property Crime Arrests |
| 2005 |
14,094,186 |
1,846,351 |
786,545 |
90,471 |
696,074 |
603,503 |
1,609,327 |
| 2004 |
14,004,327 |
1,745,712 |
771,605 |
87,286 |
684,319 |
590,258 |
1,649,825 |
| 2003 |
13,639,479 |
1,678,192 |
755,186 |
92,300 |
662,886 |
597,026 |
1,605,127 |
| 2002 |
13,741,438 |
1,538,813 |
697,082 |
83,096 |
613,986 |
620,510 |
1,613,954 |
| 2001 |
13,699,254 |
1,586,902 |
723,628 |
82,519 |
641,109 |
627,132 |
1,618,465 |
| 2000 |
13,980,297 |
1,579,566 |
734,497 |
88,455 |
646,042 |
625,132 |
1,620,928 |
| 1999 |
14,355,600 |
1,532,200 |
704,812 |
84,271 |
620,541 |
644,770 |
1,676,100 |
| 1998 |
14,528,300 |
1,559,100 |
682,885 |
84,191 |
598,694 |
675,900 |
1,805,600 |
| 1997 |
15,284,300 |
1,583,600 |
695,201 |
88,682 |
606,519 |
717,750 |
2,015,600 |
| 1996 |
15,168,100 |
1,506,200 |
641,642 |
94,891 |
546,751 |
729,900 |
2,045,600 |
| 1995 |
15,119,800 |
1,476,100 |
588,964 |
85,614 |
503,350 |
796,250 |
2,128,600 |
| 1990 |
|
1,089,500 |
326,850 |
66,460 |
260,390 |
| 1980 |
|
580,900 |
401,982 |
63,318 |
338,664 |
Sources:
Crime in the United States: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2004
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2005),
p. 278, Table 4.1 & p. 280, Table 29;
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2003
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2004),
p.269, Table 4.1 & p. 270, Table 29;
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime
Reports 2002 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2003),
p. 234, Table 4.1 & and p. 234, Table 29;
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime
Reports 2001 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2002),
p. 232, Table 4.1 & and p. 233, Table 29;
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 2000
(Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001),
pp. 215-216, Tables 29 and 4.1;
Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1999
(Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2000),
pp. 211-212;
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Reports for the United States 1998
(Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1999),
pp. 209-210;
Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1997
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998),
p. 221, Table 4.1 & p. 222, Table 29;
Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 1996
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1997),
p. 213, Table 4.1 & p. 214, Table 29;
FBI, UCR for the US 1995 (Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1996), pp. 207-208;
FBI, UCR for the US 1990 (Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1991), pp. 173-174;
FBI, UCR for the US 1980 (Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1981), pp. 189-191.
According to the UN's estimate, 141 million
people around the world use marijuana. This represents about
2.5 percent of the world population.
Source: United Nations Office for Drug
Control and Crime Prevention, Global Illicit Drug
Trends 1999 (New York, NY: UNODCCP, 1999),
p. 91.
Marijuana was first federally prohibited in 1937.
Today, more than 83 million Americans admit to having tried it.
Sources: Marihuana Tax Act of 1937;
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Summary of Findings from the 2001 National Household Survey on
Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: Department of Health and
Human Services, 2002), Table H.1, from the web at
http:://www.samhsa.gov/oas/NHSDA/2k1NHSDA/vol2/appendixh_1.htm, last accessed Sept. 16, 2002.
"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals
(rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg
(milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg
person swallowing 70 grams of the drug -- about 5,000 times more
than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit
use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people
dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics
listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on
closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to
inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to
cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other
commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS,
"The Science of Marijuana"
(London, England: Oxford University Press, 2000),
p. 178, citing
House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology,
"Cannabis -- The Scientific and Medical Evidence"
(London, England:
The Stationery Office, Parliament, 1998).
"A review of the literature suggests that the majority of
cannabis users, who use the drug occasionally rather than
on a daily basis, will not suffer any lasting physical or
mental harm. Conversely, as with other �recreational� drugs,
there will be some who suffer adverse consequences from their
use of cannabis. Some individuals who have psychotic thought
tendencies might risk precipitating psychotic illness. Those who
consume large doses of the drug on a regular basis are likely to
have lower educational achievement and lower income, and may suffer
physical damage to the airways. They also run a significant risk of
becoming dependent upon continuing use of the drug. There is
little evidence, however, that these adverse effects persist after
drug use stops or that any direct cause and effect relationships
are involved."
Source: Iversen, Leslie L., PhD, FRS, "Long-Term Effects of
Exposure to Cannabis," Current Opinion in Pharmacology,
Feb. 2005, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 71.
According to research published in the journal Addiction,
"First, the use of cannabis and rates of psychotic symptoms
were related to each other, independently of observed/non-observed
fixed covariates and observed time dynamic factors (Table 2).
Secondly, the results of structural equation modelling suggest
that the direction of causation is that the use of cannabis
leads to increases in levels of psychotic symptoms rather than
psychotic symptoms increasing the use of cannabis. Indeed, there
is a suggestion from the model results that increases in psychotic
symptoms may inhibit the use of cannabis."
Source: Fergusson, David M., John Horwood & Elizabeth M. Ridder,
"Tests of Causal Linkages Between Cannabis Use and Psychotic
Symptoms," Addiction, Vol. 100, No. 3, March 2005, p. 363.
The Christchurch Press reported on March 22, 2005, that
"The lead researcher in the Christchurch study, Professor David
Fergusson, said the role of cannabis in psychosis was not
sufficient on its own to guide legislation. 'The result suggests
heavy use can result in adverse side-effects,' he said. 'That
can occur with ( heavy use of ) any substance. It can occur with
milk.' Fergusson's research, released this month, concluded that
heavy cannabis smokers were 1.5 times more likely to suffer symptoms
of psychosis that non-users. The study was the latest in several
reports based on a cohort of about 1000 people born in Christchurch
over a four-month period in 1977. An effective way to deal with
cannabis use would be to incrementally reduce penalties and carefully
evaluate its impact, Fergusson said. 'Reduce the penalty, like a
parking fine. You could then monitor ( the impact ) after five
or six years. If it did not change, you might want to take another
step.'
Source: Bleakley, Louise, "NZ Study Used in UK Drug Review,"
The Press (Christchurch, New Zealand: March 22, 2005), from the web at
http://www.mapinc.org/newscsdp/v05/n490/a08.html, last accessed
March 28, 2005.
"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a
substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis
consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users
who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive
ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals
for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped
zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size
could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions
were in the domains of learning and forgetting."
Source:
Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University
Press: July 2003), 9, p. 685.
"These results can be interpreted in several ways. A
statistically reliable negative effect was observed in the domain
of learning and forgetting, suggesting that chronic
long-term cannabis use results in a selective memory defect.
While the results are compatible with this conclusion,
the effect size for both domains was of a very small magnitude.
The "real life" impact of such a small and selective
effect is questionable. In addition, it is important to note
that most users across studies had histories of heavy longterm
cannabis consumption. Therefore, these findings are
not likely to generalize to more limited administration of
cannabis compounds, as would be seen in a medical setting."
Source:
Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University
Press: July 2003), 9, p. 686.
"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted
to address the question of longer term neurocognitive
disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has
failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental
effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance.
It was surprising to find such few and small effects
given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses
actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis
effect."
Source:
Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University
Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.
"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those
that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of
effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis
suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic
value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive
standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that
would likely obtain in a medical setting."
Source:
Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive
Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University
Press: July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.
A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999,
examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants
over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant
differences in cognitive decline between heavy users,
light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found
"no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation
to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong
evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of
cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.
Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos,
Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony.
(1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under
65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol.
149, No. 9.
"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ
score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week.
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. Whether the absence of
a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more
specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains
to be ascertained."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson,
Deborah James, and
Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary
findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young
adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002,
166(7), p. 887.
"Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in
IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young
adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen
IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally.
Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative
impact of current heavy use become apparent."
Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and
Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary
findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young
adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002,
166(7), p. 890.
In March 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a
report on various aspects of marijuana, including the so-called
Gateway Theory (the theory that using marijuana leads people to
use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin). The IOM stated,
"There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of
marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse
of other illicit drugs."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson,
Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing
the Science Base,"
Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research,
Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1999).
The Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on
marijuana explained that marijuana has been mistaken for
a gateway drug in the past because "Patterns in progression
of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly
regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit
drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most
people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other
illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most
drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana,
usually before they are of legal age."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson,
Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing
the Science Base,"
Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research,
Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1999).
A 1999 federal report conducted by the Institute
of Medicine found
that, "For most people, the primary adverse effect of acute
marijuana use is diminished psychomotor performance. It
is, therefore, inadvisable to operate any vehicle or
potentially dangerous equipment while under the influence of
marijuana, THC, or any cannabinoid drug with comparable
effects."
Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson,
Jr., and John A Benson, Jr.,
"Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing
the Science Base,"
Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research,
Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1999).
The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis
Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is
far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example,
eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response.
By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough
marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is
one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to
man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be
safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:
Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement
Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling
Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
Commissioned by President Nixon in 1972, the
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that
"Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast
majority of individual users and its actual impact on
society does not justify a social policy designed to seek
out and firmly punish those who use it. This judgment is based
on prevalent use patterns, on behavior exhibited by the
vast majority of users and on our interpretations of existing medical
and scientific data. This position also is consistent
with the estimate by law enforcement personnel that
the elimination of use is unattainable."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al, Marihuana:
A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. V, (Washington
DC: National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse,
1972).
When examining the relationship between marijuana
use and violent crime, the National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded, "Rather than inducing
violent or aggressive behavior through its purported effects
of lowering inhibitions, weakening impulse control and
heightening aggressive tendencies, marihuana was usually found
to inhibit the expression of aggressive impulses by pacifying
the user, interfering with muscular coordination, reducing
psychomotor activities and generally producing states of
drowsiness lethargy, timidity and passivity."
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et
al, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III,
(Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and
Drug Abuse, 1972).
When examining the medical affects of marijuana use,
the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
concluded, "A careful search of the literature and testimony
of the nation's health officials has not revealed a single human
fatality in the United States proven to have resulted solely
from ingestion of marihuana. Experiments with the drug in
monkeys demonstrated that the dose required for overdose death
was enormous and for all practical purposes unachievable by
humans smoking marihuana. This is in marked contrast to other
substances in common use, most notably alcohol and barbiturate
sleeping pills. The WHO reached the same conclusion in 1995.
Source: Shafer, Raymond P., et al,
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, Ch. III,
(Washington DC: National Commission on Marihuana and
Drug Abuse, 1972); Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO
Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A
Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences
of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28,
1995, (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, March
1998).
The World Health Organization released a
study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons
for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would
be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health
risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people
used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S.,
WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use:
A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate
Use, August 28, 1995, (contained in original version, but
deleted from official version) (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization, March 1998).
The authors of a 1998 World Health Organization
report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates
quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that
there is no evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a
permanently deleterious effect on the normal
cardiovascular system."
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S.,
WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use:
A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological
Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use,
August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization, March 1998).
Some claim that cannabis use leads to
"adult amotivation." The World Health Organization report
addresses the issue and states, "it is doubtful that cannabis
use produces a well defined amotivational syndrome." The
report also notes that the value of studies which support the
"adult amotivation" theory are "limited by their small sample
sizes" and lack of representative social/cultural groups.
Source: Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S.,
WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A
Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences
of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use,
August 28, 1995 (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization, March 1998).
Australian researchers found that regions giving
on-the-spot fines to marijuana users rather than harsher criminal
penalties did not cause marijuana use to increase.
Source: Ali, Robert, et al., The Social
Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in
South Australia: Summary Report (Canberra, Australia:
Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999), p. 44.
"Cannabis is only considered a risk factor for traffic accidents
if drivers operate vehicles after consuming the drug. Robbe (1994)
found that 30% to 90% of his participants were willing to drive after
consuming a typical dose of cannabis. This is consistent with a recent
Australian survey in which more than 50% of users drove after consuming
cannabis (Lenne, Fry, Dietze, & Rumbold, 2000). A self administered
questionnaire given to 508 students in grades 10 to 13 in Ontario,
Canada, found that 19.7% reported driving within an hour after using
cannabis (Adlaf, Mann, & Paglia, 2003)."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 974-5.
According to a literature review on the effects of cannabis on
driving, "Most of the research on cannabis use has been conducted
under laboratory conditions. The literature reviews by Robbe (1994),
Hall, Solowij, and Lemon (1994), Border and Norton (1996), and Solowij
(1998) agreed that the most extensive effect of cannabis is to impair
memory and attention. Additional deficits include problems with
temporal processing, (complex) reaction times, and dynamic tracking.
These conclusions are generally consistent with the
psychopharmacological effects of cannabis mentioned above, including problems with attention, memory, motor coordination, and alertness.
"A meta-analysis by Kr�ger and Berghaus (1995) profiled the effects
of cannabis and alcohol. They reviewed 197 published studies of
alcohol and 60 studies of cannabis. Their analysis showed that 50% of
the reported effects were significant at a BAC of 0.073 g/dl and a THC
level of 11 ng/ml. This implies that if the legal BAC threshold for
alcohol is 0.08 g/dl, the corresponding level of THC that would
impair the same percentage of tests would be approximately 11 ng/ml."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 975-6.
"Several studies have examined cannabis use in driving simulator
and on-road situations. The most comprehensive review was done by
Smiley in 1986 and then again in 1999. Several trends are evident
and can be described by three general performance characteristics:
"1. Cannabis increased variability of speed and headway as well as
lane position (Attwood, Williams, McBurney, & Frecker, 1981;
Ramaekers, Robbe, & O�Hanlon, 2000; Robbe, 1998; Sexton et al.,
2000; Smiley, Moskowitz, & Zeidman, 1981; Smiley, Noy, & Tostowaryk,
1987). This was more pronounced under high workload and unexpected
conditions, such as curves and wind gusts.
"2. Cannabis increased the time needed to overtake another vehicle
(Dott, 1972 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]) and delayed responses to
both secondary and tracking tasks (Casswell, 1977; Moskowitz,
Hulbert, & McGlothlin, 1976; Sexton et al., 2000; Smiley et al.,
1981).
"3. Cannabis resulted in fewer attempts to overtake another vehicle(Dott, 1972) and larger distances required to pass (Ellingstad et al.,
1973 [as cited in Smiley, 1986]). Evidence of increased caution
also included slower speeds (Casswell, 1977; Hansteen, Miller,
Lonero, Reid, & Jones, 1976; Krueger & Vollrath, 2000; Peck,
Biasotti, Boland, Mallory, & Reeve, 1986; Sexton et al., 2000;
Smiley et al., 1981; Stein, Allen, Cook, & Karl, 1983) and larger
headways (Robbe, 1998; Smiley et al., 1987)."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 977-8.
"Both simulator and road studies showed that relative to alcohol
use alone, participants who used cannabis alone or in combination
with alcohol were more aware of their intoxication. Robbe (1998)
found that participants who consumed 100 g/kg of cannabis rated
their performance worse and the amount of effort required greater
compared to those who consumed alcohol (0.05 BAC). Ramaekers et al.
(2000) showed that cannabis use alone and in combination with
alcohol consumption increased self-ratings of intoxication and
decreased self-ratings of performance. Lamers and Ramaekers (2001)
found that cannabis use alone (100 g/kg) and in combination with
alcohol consumption resulted in lower ratings of alertness, greater
perceptions of effort, and worse ratings of performance."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 978.
"Both Australian studies suggest cannabis may actually reduce
the responsibility rate and lower crash risk. Put another way,
cannabis consumption either increases driving ability or, more
likely, drivers who use cannabis make adjustments in driving style
to compensate for any loss of skill (Drummer, 1995). This is
consistent with simulator and road studies that show drivers who
consumed cannabis slowed down and drove more cautiously (see Ward
& Dye, 1999; Smiley, 1999. This compensation could help reduce the
probability of being at fault in a motor vehicle accident since
drivers have more time to respond and avoid a collision. However,
it must be noted that any behavioral compensation may not be
sufficient to cope with the reduced safety margin resulting from
the impairment of driver functioning and capacity."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980.
A literature review of the effects of cannabis on driving found,
"Another paradigm used to assess crash risk is to use cross-sectional
surveys of reported nonfatal accidents that can be related to the
presence of risk factors, such as alcohol and cannabis consumption.
Such a methodology was employed in a provocative dissertation by
Laixuthai (1994). This study used data from two large surveys that
were nationally representative of high school students in the United
States during 1982 and 1989. Results showed that cannabis use was
negatively correlated with nonfatal accidents, but these results can
be attributed to changes in the amount of alcohol consumed. More
specifically, the decriminalization of cannabis and the subsequent
reduction in penalty cost, as well as a reduced purchase price
of cannabis, made cannabis more appealing and affordable for young
consumers. This resulted in more cannabis use, which substituted
for alcohol consumption, leading to less frequent and less heavy
drinking. The reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed resulted
in fewer nonfatal accidents."
Source: Laberge, Jason C., Nicholas J. Ward, "Research Note:
Cannabis and Driving -- Research Needs and Issues for Transportation
Policy," Journal of Drug Issues, Dec. 2004, pp. 980-1.
Since 1969, government-appointed commissions in the
United States, Canada, England, Australia, and the Netherlands
concluded, after reviewing the scientific evidence, that
marijuana's dangers had previously been greatly exaggerated, and
urged lawmakers to drastically reduce or eliminate penalties
for marijuana possession.
Source: Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence,
Cannabis (London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1969);
Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry, The Non-Medical Use
of Drugs (Ottawa, Canada: Information Canada, 1970); The
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse,
Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, (Nixon-Shafer Report)
(Washington, DC: USGPO, 1972); Werkgroep Verdovende
Middelen, Background and Risks of Drug Use (The Hague,
The Netherlands: Staatsuigeverij, 1972); Senate Standing Committee
on Social Welfare, Drug Problems in Australia-An
Intoxicated Society (Canberra, Australia: Australian
Government Publishing Service, 1977);
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, "The
classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971"
(London, England, UK: Home Office, March 2002), available on the
web from
http://www.drugs.gov.uk/ReportsandPublications/Communities/1034155489/Classific_Cannabis_MisuseDrugsAct1971.pdf
;
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Third Report, "The
Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?" (London, England, UK:
Parliament, May 9, 2002), from the web at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
and "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy," report
of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs
(Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002).
The Canadian Senate's Special Committee on Illegal Drugs
recommended in its 2002 final report on cannabis policy that
"the Government of Canada amend the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act to create a criminal exemption scheme. This
legislation should stipulate the conditions for obtaining
licenses as well as for producing and selling cannabis; criminal
penalties for illegal trafficking and export; and the preservation
of criminal penalties for all activities falling outside the
scope of the exemption scheme."
Source: "Cannabis: Our Position for a
Canadian Public Policy," report
of the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs
(Ottawa, Canada: Senate of Canada, September 2002), p. 46.
The United Kingdom officially downgraded the classification
of cannabis from Class B to Class C effective Jan. 29, 2004.
The London Guardian reported that "Under the switch, cannabis
will be ranked alongside bodybuilding steroids and some
anti-depressants. Possession of cannabis will no longer be an
arrestable offence in most cases, although police will retain
the power to arrest users in certain aggravated situations - such
as when the drug is smoked outside schools. The home secretary,
David Blunkett, has said the change in the law is necessary to
enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such
as heroin and crack cocaine which cause the most harm and
trigger far more crime."
Source: Tempest, Matthew, "MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis," The
Guardian (London, England), Oct. 29, 2003.
UK Home Secretary David Blunkett announced in July 2002 that
"We must concentrate our efforts on the drugs that cause
the most harm, while sending a credible message to young people.
I will therefore ask Parliament to reclassify cannabis from Class B
to Class C. I have considered the recommendations of the Home
Affairs Committee, and the advice given me by the ACMD medical
experts that the current classification of cannabis is
disproportionate in relation to the harm that it causes."
Source: "'All Controlled Drugs Harmful, All Will Remain Illegal' -
Home Secretary," News Release, Office of the Home Secretary,
Government of the United Kingdom, July 10, 2002, from the web at
http://213.219.10.30/n_story.asp?item_id=143
last accessed July 31, 2002.
In May of 1998, the Canadian Centre on Substance
Abuse, National Working Group on Addictions Policy released
policy a discussion document which recommended, "The severity
of punishment for a cannabis possession charge should be
reduced. Specifically, cannabis possession should be converted
to a civil violation under the Contraventions Act."
The paper further noted that, "The available evidence indicates
that removal of jail as a sentencing option would lead to
considerable cost savings without leading to increases in rates
of cannabis use."
Source: Single, Eric, Cannabis Control
in Canada: Options Regarding Possession (Ottawa, Canada:
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, May 1998).
"Our conclusion is that the present law on cannabis
produces more harm than it prevents. It is very expensive of
the time and resources of the criminal justice system and
especially of the police. It inevitably bears more heavily
on young people in the streets of inner cities, who are also
more likely to be from minority ethnic communities, and as
such is inimical to police-community relations. It criminalizes
large numbers of otherwise law-abiding, mainly young, people
to the detriment of their futures. It has become a proxy
for the control of public order; and it inhibits accurate
education about the relative risks of different drugs including
the risks of cannabis itself."
Source: Police Foundation of the United
Kingdom, "Drugs and the Law: Report of the Independent Inquiry
into the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971", April 4, 2000.
The Police Foundation, based in London, England, is a
nonprofit organization presided over by Charles, Crown
Prince of Wales, which promotes research, debate and
publication to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
policing in the UK.
According to the federal Potency Monitoring Project, the
average potency of marijuana has increased very little since
the 1980s. The Project reports that in 1985, the average
THC content of commercial-grade marijuana was 2.84%, and
the average for high-grade sinsemilla in 1985 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: Quarterly Report #76, Nov. 9, 2001-Feb. 8, 2002,
Table 3, p. 8, University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring
Project (Oxford, MS: National Center for the Development of
Natural Products, Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences,
2002), Mahmoud A. ElSohly, PhD, Director, NIDA Marijuana Project
(NIDA Contract #N01DA-0-7707).
"Statements in the popular media that the potency of
cannabis has increased by ten times or more in recent decades
are not support by the data from either the USA or Europe. As
discussed in the body of this report, systematic data are not
available in Europe on long-term trends and analytical and
methodological issues complicate the interpretation of the
information that is available. Data are stronger for medium and
short-term trends where no major differences are apparent in
Europe, although some modest increases are found in some countries.
The greatest long-term changes in potency appear to have occurred
in the USA. It should be noted here that before 1980 herbal
cannabis potency in the USA was, according to the available
data, very low by European standards."
Source: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction,
"EMCDDA Insights - An Overview of Cannabis Potency in Europe
(Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities, 2004), p. 59.
"Although marijuana grown in the United States was once
considered inferior because of a low concentration of THC,
advancements in plant selection and cultivation have resulted in
higher THC-containing domestic marijuana. In 1974, the average
THC content of illicit marijuana was less than one percent. Today
most commercial grade marijuana from Mexico/Columbia and domestic
outdoor cultivated marijuana has an average THC content of about
4 to 6 percent. Between 1998 and 2002, NIDA-sponsored Marijuana
Potency Monitoring System (MPMP) analyzed 4,603 domestic samples.
Of those samples, 379 tested over 15 percent THC, 69 samples
tested between 20 and 25 percent THC and four samples tested
over 25 percent THC."
Source: US Drug Enforcement Administration, "Drugs of Abuse"
(Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 2005), from the web at
http://www.dea.gov/pubs/abuse/7-pot.htm
last accessed Jan. 27, 2007.
Addictive Properties of Drugs
Adolescents
/ Education & Prevention of Substance Abuse
Alcohol
Annual Causes of Death
Civil and Human Rights
Cocaine and Crack
Corruption
Crime
Diversion of Pharmaceuticals
Drug Courts
Drug Testing
Drug Use Estimates
Economics
Ecstasy
Environment
Families
Forfeiture
Gateway Theory
Hemp
Heroin
HIV/AIDS & Injection Drug Use
Interdiction
International
Mandatory Minimums
Marijuana
Medical Marijuana
Methadone
Methamphetamine
The Military
Overdose
Pain Management
Pregnancy and Substance Use
Prison
Race and HIV/AIDS
Race and Prison
Supervised Consumption Facilities & Safe Injection Facilities
Syringe/Needle Exchange Programs
The Netherlands
Treatment
Women
|
