The report, issued today, is a good first step, but should not be construed as an endorsement of marijuana legalization or policies outside United Nations drug control treaties, said two former top U.S. drug policy officials who served on the panel that produced the report. The OAS report was mandated by heads of state at the 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena.

Former Assistant Secretary of State, Ambassador David Johnson, who served on both the report and scenario team said:

“While the report is not yet published, it is clear the process that led to its crafting represents a significant effort to grapple with this very difficult subject, one that affects health and safety throughout the Americas. As OAS Member States look at the issues raised in the report, it is important that they consider measures fully consistent with their long-standing international treaty obligations. The OAS’s Inter-American Drug Control Commission’s recently-published strategy remains a very good basis on which to work.”

Former senior drug policy advisor for the Obama administration and SAM co-founder, Dr. Kevin A. Sabet, who served on the report team, said:

“Anyone looking for a magic bullet to solve the drug problem will not find it in this report. But the report does emphasize important, key themes that have been found in various, existing international documents, like President Obama’s recently released drug strategy calling for a balanced, 21st century public health policy. The report also emphasizes points that many intergovernmental bodies have been long calling for, such as increased institutional strengthening and real shared responsibility. Countries would do well to consider and take action on the report’s main findings, which carry with it a global consensus that more extreme policies like legalization do not. This report should not be construed as endorsing policies that would make drugs more available, like legalization. Such a characterization, which is now being made by pro-legalization advocates, is wrong and dangerous. In fact, the report expressly does not endorse legalization, but rather focuses other key themes.”

Mr. Carter spoke at a meeting that included state legislators and regulators from Colorado and Washington, and most of the states targeted for marijuana legalization in 2016. The meeting also was attended by the nation’s premier public health scientists, including former White House Deputy Drug Czar Thomas McLellan. Mr. Carter announced that he “opposed the legalization of marijuana” and predicted experiments with marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado would go badly. He also said that he doesn’t believe in imprisoning users of marijuana — and favors SAM’s approach to legal reforms that include arrests with treatment referral and health assessments.

Pro-marijuana lobbyists nationwide have falsely characterized Mr. Carter as supporting legalization. Today, he set the record straight:

“I do not favor legalization. We must do everything we can to discourage marijuana use, as we do now with tobacco and excessive drinking,” President Carter told the crowd. “We have to prevent making marijuana smoking from becoming attractive to young people, which is, I’m sure, what the producers of marijuana … are going to try and do.”

“I hope that Colorado and Washington, as you authorize the use of marijuana, will set up very strict experiments to ascertain how we can avoid the use of marijuana,” Mr. Carter said. “There should be no advertising for marijuana in any circumstances and no driving under the influence. We need to avoid the use of marijuana, particularly among young people.”

Mr. Carter endorsed the strict list of 12 regulations created by National Families in Action’s “But What About The Children?” campaign.

“I’m very proud of Patrick Kennedy and his Project SAM, Smart Approaches to Marijuana,” the former president said. “I wish him and Kevin Sabet every success in your independent project to make sure marijuana is handled responsibly.”

When asked about decriminalization of marijuana use by Washington state legislator, Mr. Carter remarked that he believes arrests for marijuana should be in place and result in a warning hearing, treatment and health screening. He opposed permanent records for marijuana use.

“I said this 35 years ago … that I didn’t want to make it so that a person could possess … or smoke marijuana with impunity, but that they could be chastised, offered treatment, etc.”

SAM Co-Founder and former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy commented:

“President Carter’s endorsement of Project SAM and rejection of legalization is completely in line with those of us who support mental health treatment and rehabilitation. His leadership on this issue is profound, and we are grateful for his support.”

SAM Director, former Obama administration advisor Kevin A. Sabet, said:

“We are overjoyed that President Carter endorsed Project SAM and our common-sense approach to marijuana use. Those of us who have watched for years as Big Tobacco has hooked our youth and denied the harms of smoking are now seeing this play all over again with regards to marijuana in our society. President Carter’s incredible leadership on this issue will help us set the record straight about a drug that is 5-6 times stronger than a generation ago.”

http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01221&video=151884

“We applaud the President for definitively expressing that legalization is not the answer to our drug problems. President Obama’s drug strategy emphasizes a comprehensive approach to drug policy based on reducing the demand and supply for drugs in the United States. The President’s comments were:

“I’ve been asked, and I honestly do not believe that legalizing drugs is the answer,” the president said. “But I do believe that a comprehensive approach, not just law enforcement, but education and prevention and treatment, that’s what we have to do. We’re going to have to stay at it, because of the lives of our children and the futures of our nations depend on it.” 

  – President Obama, May 3, 2013

Today, Kevin A. Sabet, Director of Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) released this statement on the California Supreme Court decision specifying that cities and towns can ban medical marijuana “dispensaries”:

“It is universally accepted that California’s medical marijuana system is a sad joke. This unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court underscores the importance of localities ensuring what is best for their residents’ safety. In many cases, medical marijuana “dispensaries” are, as one leader of the pro-marijuana movement put it once, ‘little more than dope dealers with store fronts.’ Though we all want the sick and dying access to medications to ease their suffering, research has found that the average California medical marijuana card holder is a 32-year-old white male with no history of debilitating illness. Peer-reviewed, published research has also found that less than 2% of California cardholders have HIV/AIDS, cancer, or glaucoma. The California Supreme Court should be applauded for allowing localities to ban these cash-only stores, which are often magnets for robbery, murder, and disorder. Real medical marijuana would focus on non-smoked applications of the drug dispensed by pharmacies under the supervision of physicians – not self-described ’pot docs’ that sell recommendations for ‘Super Silver Haze’ for $100 a pop to anyone with a headache.”

SAM, a marijuana policy initiative based on public health, promotes research on marijuana to obtain FDA-approved, pharmacy-dispensed, cannabis-based medications that are non-smoked. SAM also supports the development of a program to expedite such research and offer non-smoked marijuana extracts to the seriously ill without compromising our citizens’ health with the current medical marijuana industry.

To engage in public information campaigns focused on the scientific data, we need to be precise about what the research finds. While this is a tremendous breakthrough in the HIV/AIDS pandemic that may allow many HIV patients to live longer, these benefits were found in synthetic derivatives of THC, not in THC extracted from a marijuana plant directly, explained Servio H. Ramirez, a professor at the Temple University School of Medicine,

While we know marijuana has medicinal properties, which we must continue to invest in and research, we should not smoke the plant to derive those benefits — just as we do not smoke opium to get the benefits of morphine.

To read the Temple University Press Release visit: http://www.temple.edu/medicine/hiv_immune_cells.htm

STATEMENT TO THE PRESS BY:

Patrick J. Kennedy, on behalf of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (Project SAM)

Lead Sponsor of Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act (D)

Congressman Andy Harris, MD

Medical Doctor, U.S. Representative Andy Harris from Maryland’s 1st district (R)

(Washington, D.C.) – At a Congressional briefing held to capacity on April 26, 2012, former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) was presented with 40,000 signatures from around the world urging the U.S. government to support drug prevention efforts and oppose legalization. These signatures were presented to the Office of Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD).

Since November, when Colorado passed an initiative to legalize marijuana, state and federal officials have been in a standoff. Clearly, states may not legalize marijuana production, sales, and use without violating federal law. And most importantly, doing so would not only violate the law, it would threaten safety and public health, especially mental health. Supporting marijuana legalization is completely inconsistent with supporting a robust mental health system.

Congressman Andy Harris, MD (R-MD) questioned Attorney General Eric Holder on April 18, 2013 during a Committee on Appropriations hearing about the discrepancy which has arisen between the new Colorado and Washington laws vis-à-vis the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) regarding recreational usage of marijuana. Congressman Harris addressed the possibility of the CSA preempting both state laws and urged the Department of Justice to enforce the CSA which would send a clear message to America’s youth that this drug is not safe.

“As a physician I understand the importance of making therapeutic pharmaceutical agents available to those who could benefit,” said Congressman Harris. “Efforts to isolate and identify components of marijuana that have therapeutic usefulness should be done expeditiously – but that shouldn’t mean widespread use of marijuana itself outside of validated clinical trials.”

Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Drug Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske have just placed Colorado state officials on notice that it is state officials’ responsibility to uphold federal law. At a National Press Club luncheon address on April 17, 2013, National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said, “No state, no executive can nullify a statute that has been passed by Congress. . . . Let’s be clear: law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold federal law and they are going to continue to pursue drug traffickers and drug dealers.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/drug-czar-no-state-can-nullify-federal-marijuana-ban/ (emphasis added)

In the Appropriations Committee hearing on April 18, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “When it comes to these marijuana initiatives, I think among the kinds of things we will have to consider is the impact on children, along with factors such as violence connected to trafficking and organized crime.” And, he also said, “We are certainly going to enforce federal law.” http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2020807855_apusholdermarijuana.html (emphasis added)

In his January 21, 2012 editorial (titled, “Despite state constitution, medical marijuana violates federal law) published in the Colorado Springs Gazette, [Mr.] Colorado Attorney General John Suthers concluded, “In a dispute on whether federal laws trump state laws under the Supremacy Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say.” The “law of the land,” according to Mr. Suthers, is Gonzales v. Raich, in which “the Supreme Court held that even when marijuana is grown, distributed and consumed within a single state, it does affect interstate commerce and is therefore subject to federal regulation.” http://www.gazette.com/articles/federal-132103-state-gazette.html (emphasis added)

Forcing the federal government to take action against Colorado, at the expense of both federal and state taxpayers, seems a waste of resources when the conclusion is inevitable. Attorney General John Suthers already has acknowledged the federal government’s right to enforce federal drug laws against Colorado. And, as Mr. Suthers correctly noted in his editorial, he took an oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution as well as the Colorado Constitution. Federal officials have now reminded him of that oath.

Colorado Attorney General Suthers needs to step up and do the right thing in the name of not only the U.S. Constitution, but also the public safety and well being of Coloradans. For those same reasons and for the benefit of all Americans, Attorney General Holder needs to make good on his promise to enforce federal law.

“Science has revealed more about the link between mental illness and marijuana use in the last ten years, and it is important that the American people understand that as we make critical policy decisions in the coming years,” commented SAM co-founder Patrick J. Kennedy.

Kennedy was also joined by Dr. Christian Thurstone, medical director of one of Colorado’s largest youth substance-abuse-treatment clinics and an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado Denver. “Colorado is already seeing the deleterious effects of a very loose medical marijuana system,” he commented. “Now, with legalization, we are witnessing how ‘Big Marijuana’ – that is a new industry dedicated to profiting off legal marijuana use – is influencing youth behavior.”

Former White House drug advisor Dr. Kevin Sabet also discussed how the science of marijuana should lead policy makers to take a more nuanced view of policy moving forward. “We are on a 100 mile-per-hour freight train heading right towards legalization, and yet we have not, as a country, had a reasonable discussion about the possible negative consequences of such a policy. Such consequences will hit the most vulnerable first, like young people, communities of color, and those predisposed to mental illness. Don’t we at least owe it to ourselves to carefully weigh any gains of such a policy with the potential risks?”

Finally, treatment leader Carmen Fernandez, of Mexico, discussed how legalization would hurt the Mexican people. “Marijuana legalization in the US will destabilize our country,” she commented. “That is why nearly 40,000 people have signed a petition to the US Congress to not legalize marijuana but rather focus on reducing the insatiable demand for the drug.”

In a letter, dated April 8, 2013, and addressed to a city council committee charged with recommending local regulatory enforcement of the amendment, the mayor stated that he does not support:

• Public consumption of marijuana in our streets or our parks or anywhere else our population might be unwittingly exposed.
• The establishment of private clubs in Denver. “Amendment 64 does not support this, and neither should we,” he stated.

If Denver chooses to allow retail establishments, the mayor stated he supports:

• A phase-in period of at least two years during which only existing marijuana licensees can apply for licenses under the new law;
• Rigorous standards to protect neighborhoods;
• Meaningful public hearing process;
• Ensuring that any new retail marijuana stores are not allowed near schools or near other marijuana outlets; and
• A funding structure that pays for itself.

As he also notes:

As a parent, I worry about how the increased presence of marijuana in our city will affect our children and our grandchildren. Despite a few lessons learned from medical marijuana, the long-term implications of that industry and the potential for an expanded industry will not be known to us for perhaps a generation or more. There is no denying, however, the potential for a negative impact on our kids — on their home lives, their health, their education and their future. We already know the toll substance abuse takes on so many of our residents. Sadly, many of them are parents. The cost of substance abuse on our healthcare system, our jails and in our courts is substantial. I want more for all of our kids and for all Denverites.