Yearly Archives: 2015

Eleven countries studied, one inescapable conclusion – the drug laws don’t work

Posted on by
Reply

war-on-drugs

Eight month study shows legalisation policies do not result in wider use, and the US should be watched with interest

UK government’s drug laws survey was suppressed, Lib Dem minister says

By Alan Travis

Source: The Guardian

The UK government’s comparison of international drug laws, published on Wednesday, represents the first official recognition since the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act that there is no direct link between being “tough on drugs” and tackling the problem.

The report, which has been signed off by both the Conservative home secretary, Theresa May, and the Liberal Democrat crime prevention minister, Norman Baker, is based on an in-depth study of drug laws in 11 countries ranging from the zero-tolerance of Japan to the legalisation of Uruguay.

The key finding of the report, written by Home Office civil servants, lies in a comparison of Portugal and the Czech Republic, both countries where personal use is decriminalised.

“We did not in our fact-finding observe any obvious relationship between the toughness of a country’s enforcement against drug possession, and levels of drug use in that country,” it says. “The Czech Republic and Portugal have similar approaches to possession, where possession of small amounts of any drug does not lead to criminal proceedings, but while levels of drug use in Portugal appear to be relatively low, reported levels of cannabis use in the Czech Republic are among the highest in Europe.

“Indicators of levels of drug use in Sweden, which has one of the toughest approaches we saw, point to relatively low levels of use, but not markedly lower than countries with different approaches.”

Endless coalition wrangling over the contents of the report, which has taken more than eight months to be published, has ensured that it does not include any conclusions.

However, reading the evidence it provides, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Home Office civil servants who wrote it seem to have been impressed that a health-based rather than a criminal justice-based approach is where effective policies lie.

It also, rather remarkably, says that the experiments in legalisation now under way in the US states of Washington and Colorado, and in Uruguay, should be watched with interest. This is a world away from the “war on drugs” rhetoric that has formed the mainstay of the political debate on drugs in the past four decades.

The report, Drugs: International Comparators, documents in great detail the experience of Portugal, where personal use was decriminalised nearly 11 years ago and those arrested for drugs are given the choice of going before a health “dissuasion commission” or facing a criminal justice process.

“Trend data from Portugal shows how levels of drug use changed in the years following decriminalisation in 2001. Although levels of drug use rose between 2001 and 2007, use of drugs has since fallen to below 2001 levels. It is clear that there has not been a lasting and significant increase in drug use in Portugal since 2001,” the report says.

At the same time, it notes there have been significant reductions in the number of drug users diagnosed with HIV and Aids at a time when drug-related deaths have remained stable: “These outcomes cannot be attributed to decriminalisation alone, and are likely to have been influenced by increases in the use of treatment and harm reduction,” it says, stressing that it is difficult to disentangle the impact of decriminalisation from wider improvements in drug treatment and harm reduction over the same period.

Nevertheless, it firmly rejects claims that decriminalisation in Portugal has led to a spike in drug use. It goes on to contrast Portugal with the Czech Republic, where an evaluation found that there was no significant decline in the availability of drugs following an earlier implementation of stricter laws, prior to decriminalisation.

On the situation in Colorado, Washington and Uruguay, the Home Office says their experimental policies which legalise production, supply and recreational use of cannabis have the common aim of disrupting organised crime and exercising greater control over the use of cannabis.

“The American states have a market-driven approach, with lighter regulation than Uruguay and fewer limitations on consumption and use. Uruguay, which has growing concerns about organised crime, has a stronger role for the state, with limitations in size of the market, the strains and potency of cannabis, and the quantity that an individual can purchase in a month.”

Crucially, the report adds: “It is too early to know how these experiments will play out, but we will monitor the impacts of these new policies in the coming years.”

The report examines various harm reduction initiatives in 11 countries, including the use of drug consumption rooms, the prescription of heroin under medical supervision, and prison-based needle exchange programmes. In particular it found evidence that heroin prescribing, including in three limited trials in Britain, can be effective.

There is no overall conclusion to the report, but in its last paragraph the Home Office authors reflect that the lack of any clear correlation between “toughness” of approach and levels of drug use demonstrates the complexity of the issue: “Achieving better health outcomes for drug users cannot be shown to be a direct result of the enforcement approach.”

• This article was amended on 31 October 2014. An earlier version said incorrectly that, in the Czech Republic, “criminal penalties for possession [of drugs] were introduced as recently as 2010”, and later referred incorrectly to “the implementation of stricter laws in 2010”.

6 Things You Should Know When Buying and Consuming Legal Marijuana

Posted on by
Reply

IMG_5168

Whether you haven’t toked since the 70’s, or you’re entirely new to the experience — here’s the starting place.

By Jeremy Daw

Source: Alternet

I distinctly remember the first time I bought weed. Nervous out of my mind, I dialed the beeper (this was 2003 in New York City – every step required discretion). Two minutes later, someone called me back. I gave them my address, then waited two hours (I didn’t yet have the experience necessary to appreciate how fast that was). Then I answered the knock on the door and opened up my home to a complete stranger who never gave his name. He opened up a briefcase full of five different strains, ranging, he explained, from $50 to $80 per eighth. “What’s an eighth?” I asked. He rolled his eyes. Noob.

Determined that the God-knows-how-many curious tourists flocking to Colorado to purchase legal cannabis today should never suffer the same indignities as I did over a decade ago, I present here the sum total of my experience as a pot smoker, distilled into 6 easy maxims. You can thank me later.

1. Stay on the grass.

New tokers, or anyone who hasn’t lit up since the 70’s, will likely find the dizzying array of pot products for sale at the package store a little confusing. BHO (butane hash oil), ice water, something called ‘shatter’ – the wide selection of products on offer stand testament to just how far the industry has come in 40 years. If you have no tolerance built up already, take my advice and steer well clear of all of these. Just the grass – dried flowers – by itself will be plenty potent enough to get you high, believe me. The main exceptions to this principle, however, are the edibles. Today’s edible products have evolved far beyond mere brownies; many chocolate infusers mold their products to break off easily into precisely measured ‘doses’, so the newbie who doesn’t want to irritate her throat can break off a small square and feel a moderate effect. Just be careful – sugar can trick your brain into thinking it needs more sugar, so you must stalwartly resist the urge to take that extra bite until you’ve given the first dose time to work – up to 1.5 hours for most people.

2. Vaping is healthier.

Another development which has taken the cannabis industry by storm lately is the proliferation of portable vaporizers. While the reliable Volcano still remains the equipment of choice for the home-bound aficionado, new portable models have opened up possibilities to take one’s vape on the go. These handy devices can drastically reduce any potentially harmful chemicals in marijuana smoke and can avoid irritating the throat (they still will make you cough, however, because of the expectorant properties of cannabinoids). But make sure you pair the right vape with the right product. Some are designed to handle ‘shake’ (dried flowers, ground up), some only work with hashish and some only work with the highest-grade extracts. Perhaps the best choice for the new marijuana user is the O.pen or similar model, because they come with pre-mixed extracts in glycerin, providing an experience familiar to anyone who has tried an e-cigarette. In any case, remember to take just 1-2 puffs at first, then wait at least five minutes to measure the effects before vaping again. It’s easy to get too high on this stuff.

3. Train your brain.

As strange as this may sound, everyone has to learn how to get high before they can experience it; this is why many marijuana newbies report feeling no effects the first time they smoke pot. Marijuana intoxication is unlike any other feeling in the world, and until your brain knows what to expect it can be difficult to get there. If, after taking a couple hits, you don’t feel any different, try this meditation to deepen the experience. First, relax; close your eyes. Listen to the sounds to your left. Listen to the sounds to your right. Pay attention to how your body feels – is there tightness anywhere? If so, don’t judge – just breathe into the parts of your body which hold the tension, and allow your breath to exhale out. Let go of all judgmental thoughts, all questions of “am I doing it right?” Just float downstream instead.

After a few minutes of mindful breathing, don’t be surprised to suddenly feel noticeably different. Your body may feel lighter; colors may appear more fascinating. Music will open up with more depth than you have ever felt before. And pretty soon, you may start to feel pretty hungry.

4. Come down with CBD.

There are many wonderful reasons why marijuana intoxication is more pleasant than, say, alcohol (no hangover, for one). Even so, the experience isn’t enjoyable for everyone. If you find yourself feeling paranoid, anxious or nauseous – first of all, relax. Remind yourself that no one in history has ever had a fatal overdose of marijuana, and that everything will pass. Breathe deeply.

Just in case that isn’t enough, make sure to keep some special marijuana handy, called “high-CBD.” Such bud is so called because it contains unusually high levels of cannabidiol, or CBD for short, a non-psychoactive cannabinoid which has been shown to mitigate the effects of THC. Many first-time users who found they accidentally took too much have found relief by smoking (or vaping) a few hits of high-CBD bud; within minutes, the CBD will “bring them back down.” If you’re new to cannabis, or you haven’t ever had anything truly high-grade, asking your vendor for a gram of high-CBD bud can be a good idea, just in case.

5. Savor the flavors.

For everyone who has never tried it, or anyone who has relied on the same bud from the same dealer for years, the myriad diversity of scents and flavors on selection in Denver will be a revelation. Some taste like pine; others, mango; still others, lavender. Take the time to sample the scents on offer before making your selection.

When you’re ready to consume, use practices which preserve the flavor. Vape, if possible; the low-temp sublimation process preserves the maximum amount of terpenes – the organic chemicals which provide the pot’s flavors. If you’re smoking instead, use a hemp wick. These beeswax-coated twines are wound with hemp fiber, so they neither add to nor take away from the bud’s exotic flavors. Lighters cover up too much with the taste of butane.

6. Get a grinder.

Regardless of whether you’re rolling joints, packing bowls or loading vapes, a good grinder makes everything easier. Even many experienced tokers often forget to grind up their cannabis before consuming; stuffing whole nugs in pipes can lead to a frustrating experience. But when the bud is ground up ahead of time, it allows smooth airflow which in turn leads to smoother, more flavorful hits.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it will get you started. Apply these principles, and the new year will bring more than just new laws – it will also deliver a healthier way to recreationally relax.

 

Jeremy Daw is the editor of TheLeafOnline.com and Cannabis Now Magazine, and the author of Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit (2012).

5 Myths About Marijuana–Debunked

Posted on by
Reply

ReeferMadnessPoster

The more research is released, the more legalization makes sense.

By Owen Poindexter

Source: Alternet

Back in the 1930s, the arguments to criminalize cannabis were bizarre and openly racist. The anti-pot crusader Harry Anslinger made all sorts of over-the-top claims, such as, “Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters.”

Nowadays more than 100 million Americans say they’ve smoke pot, millions use cannabis regularly to treat illnesses and it is as legal as alcohol in two U.S. states. However, it remains illegal under federal law largely due to scare tactics ingrained in our society, which date back even prior to Anslinger.

Today, pot legalization opponents try a little harder to sound reasonable, but their claims don’t do much better than Anslinger’s under scrutiny. Recent studies have picked apart the justifications for criminalizing marijuana. Here are five of the most popular arguments against cannabis legalization that are easily undermined by objective data.

1. Pot leads to crime. If alcohol prohibition taught us anything it’s that prohibition itself leads to crime, not what is prohibited. While cannabis has shaken the psychotic Reefer Madness reputation over the years, the association between weed and crime is still alive and well in certain realms of the media, which are happy to present data without appropriate statistical caveats.

As for the studies that carefully and objectively examine their data, they find no association between cannabis and crime. A recent study in the journal PLOS One found that in states that legalized medical marijuana between 1990 and 2006 the crime rate either remained the same or decreased.

Another study looked at the Lambeth borough of London, which depenalized cannabis for 13 months in 2001-2002. The study found that this actually reduced other types of crime, because Lambeth police could focus their energy elsewhere.

These results fit with common sense. Cannabis has a range of effects on mood and behavior, but they don’t include violence, impulsivity or other traits that would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals.

2. The gateway theory. The gateway theory has long been the stock response of marijuana opponents to the notion that cannabis itself isn’t that bad for you. They falsely claim it leads to harder stuff, and insist that what starts with a joint ends with a heroin needle.

While it’s true that most users of hard drugs used marijuana and alcohol first, that doesn’t prove that cannabis use leads to harder drugs. Correlation does not equal causality—most heroin users have worn jeans at some point in their lives, but it’s unlikely that one leads to another.

But is it at least plausible that cannabis use creates a bridge to experimenting with more dangerous chemicals? The research says no.

A RAND Institute study using data collected from 1982-1994 found that drug use patterns in American youths can be explained without resorting to a gateway effect. People who are interested in mind-altering substances are likely to have tried pot, as it is the most popular and available illicit drug. This and other circumstantial factors related to drug availability and how old someone was when they first used cannabis were sufficient to explain drug use patterns. Since then, numerous peer-reviewed studies have been published, supporting RAND’s basic conclusions.

Holland provides a good natural experiment in the effects of cannabis use, as marijuana has been legal there for citizens since 1976. A RAND Corporation study from 2011, titled What Can We Learn From The Dutch Coffee Shop Experience? found no causal relationship between using cannabis and harder drugs. In fact, because legalization meant that people went to a coffee shop, not a dealer, to get high, RAND found that legal cannabis likely reduced rates of harder drug use.

3. Cannabis has no medicinal purpose. Even though it has been slain many times over at this point, this idea is worth mentioning because cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I substance by the U.S. government, which implies that the official federal stance is that it has no medical use and is “dangerous.” However, just the opposite is true according to the actual facts. Almost half the states in the U.S. already have some kind of medical marijuana law (20 plus Washington D.C.) and many more are likely to legalize medical marijuana in this year’s elections.

Cannabis has been shown to effectively treat a slew of conditions including seizure disorders ( often quite dramatically), glaucoma, and symptoms related to chemotherapy. There is even evidence it can reduce certain types of cancerous tumors.

This is all well known and well documented, and yet cannabis remains a Schedule I drug. While it’s hard to find anyone who will still defend this policy, it remains the law of the land, and a major stumbling block on the path to reform.

4. Marijuana is addictive. The addiction claim has been contained over time, but never fully eradicated. Cannabis faces some guilt by association. How could alcohol, tobacco, heroin and cocaine all be clearly addictive and yet weed somehow isn’t?

Furthermore, with words like stoner and pothead in the lexicon, our culture has a firm grasp of the weed-dependent stereotype. When we think of marijuana addiction, an image comes to mind. He (usually a he), smokes pot and eats all day, is smelly and unshaven, watches too much TV and/or plays too many video games, and has a crappy job if he has a job at all. And sure, a lot of people actually do know someone like that, but the research show that, that someone is probably choosing their lifestyle rather than trapped in it by an actual addiction.

Regardless of how the addiction myth has stuck around, it is just that: a myth. The most commonly cited study on cannabis dependence declared that 4% of Americans 15-54 are dependent on cannabis. That’s compared to 24% who are dependent on tobacco and 14% on alcohol. Among users, they found that 9% of cannabis users who try it get hooked, as compared to 32% for tobacco and 15% for alcohol.

So cannabis seems to show some propensity for dependence, but for every dependent user, there are 10 who don’t develop that sort of issue, and this rate is better than that of popular legal drugs.

Furthermore, even the 9% figure is likely inflated. A subject in the oft-cited study was deemed “dependent” if they answered yes to at least three of seven questions. The survey included questions that would take a very different meaning with legal drugs than illegal, such as if “a great deal of time was spent in activities necessary to get the substance, taking the substance, or recovering from its effects.”

This study was conducted in the 1990s, before any state had recognized the medical use of cannabis, and acquiring it regularly involved considerable effort. Because of this, it’s not hard to imagine that users would experience “important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of use,” which was another criterion for dependence. It is quite possible the survey mistook habitual use for dependence in some cases.

We can be sure that cannabis is significantly less habit-forming than alcohol, and especially tobacco, and the degree to which people become dependent is probably overstated.

5. Pot makes users lazy. This idea is the most persistent: we rarely question the cultural belief that getting high saps one’s motivation. If there is any truth to that, it has been difficult to find in studies. What seems to be going on instead is that about 5-6% of the population has “amotivational syndrome,” and there is no significant difference in this between cannabis users and everyone else. One study looked at daily pot smokers and compared them to people who never touch pot. This found no significant difference between the two groups. There was a small difference in “subjective well-being” (how happy the subject says he or she is) favoring non-smokers, but the study authors ascribed much of this to medical conditions some of the subjects were taking cannabis to mitigate.

More than anything, the idea that stoners are lazy seems to be confirmation bias. We shrug off the examples that contradict that notion as special cases and nod sagely when our suspicions are confirmed. Furthermore, we fail to group unmotivated non-users with unmotivated users.

***

As the stigma against cannabis research has disappeared and more good data has been made available, the arguments against legalization have fallen. If cannabis is a plant with legitimate medical uses, does not lead to crime or harder drugs, is not addictive and doesn’t make you lazy, what argument for prohibition remains?

If there are still legitimate reasons to keep cannabis criminalized, let’s talk about them, but if not, let’s cut out a major revenue stream of Mexico’s vicious drug cartels, grant easy access to medicine for people who need it, provide a major boost to our economy, and legalize already.

 

Owen Poindexter is a freelance writer. See his work at owenpoindexter.com and follow him @owenpoindexter.

The Surprising Reason That Empathising With Strangers Can Be Hard

Posted on by
Reply

bpd empathy

Source: Psyblog

Stress from the presence of strangers reduces people’s ability to empathise, a new study finds.

However, just 15 minutes of playing a video game together is enough to overcome this barrier and allow strangers to empathise with each other.

Professor Jeffrey Mogil, who led the study, said:

“President Barack Obama has described an ‘empathy deficit’ that fuels misunderstanding, divisions, and conflict.

This research identifies a reason for the empathy gap and answers the vital question of how do we create empathy between strangers.

In this case, creating empathy was as simple as spending 15 minutes together playing the video game Rock Band®.”

The study, published in the journal Current Biology, had people submerging their arm in ice-cold water either alone or with a stranger (Martin et al., 2015).

The presence or absence of a stranger also plunging their arm in to the water made no difference to how they rated the pain.

But, when they put their arms in the ice-cold water alongside a friend, their rating of the pain became much worse.

Professor Mogil explained:

“It would seem like more pain in the presence of a friend would be bad news, but it’s in fact a sign that there is strong empathy between individuals — they are indeed feeling each other’s pain.”

To demonstrate the link between stress and empathy, in another experiment people were given a drug called metyrapone, which blocks the hormonal stress reaction.

With this drug blocking their ‘fight-or-flight’ response, people putting their arm into the ice-cold water felt empathy for the stranger as well as their friend.

These results were replicated in mice: they also feel more pain when they are with a ‘cage mate’ than if it is just another mouse they don’t know.

But, with a drug blocking their stress response, like humans, mice empathise with friend and stranger alike.

Breaking the ice

In a third study, the researchers had people play the video game Rock Band® with a stranger for 15 minutes.

This was enough to reduce the stress response and allow people to experience empathy with a stranger when they plunged their arms into the cold water together.

Professor Mogil said:

“It turns out that even a shared experience that is as superficial as playing a video game together can move people from the ‘stranger zone’ to the ‘friend zone’ and generate meaningful levels of empathy.

This research demonstrates that basic strategies to reduce social stress could start to move us from an empathy deficit to a surplus.

These findings raise many fascinating questions because we know failures in empathy are central to various psychological disorders and even social conflicts at both the personal and societal level.

It’s also pretty surprising that empathy appears to work exactly the same way in mice and people.”

(Editor’s note: One should keep in mind that certain people such as psychopaths don’t have the same ability to feel empathy. This is not to demonize psychopaths, but by empathizing with them and attempting to understand their perspective we can better predict and influence their behavior, which can be important when dealing with psychopaths in positions of power.)

Saturday Matinee: Medianeras (aka Sidewalls)

Posted on by
Reply

medianeras-cartel

“Medianeras” (2011) depicts the quirky and serendipitous road to romance between Martin, an agoraphobic web designer, and Mariana, an aspiring architect who live in neighboring apartment buildings in Buenos Aires. Medianeras is the first feature film from writer/director Gustavo Taretto who creates a nice balance of quirkiness and realism in a story that has as much to say about the alienation and chaos of urban life as the humanistic potential of communications technology.

To view with English subtitles, click the “cc” button on the bottom left corner of the video window. Then click the “settings” button next to it, click “Spanish (automatic captions)”, click “translate captions”, scroll to “English” and click “ok”.

The Soft Drink That Conquered the World

Posted on by
Reply

coca_cola_coke_india

Environmental historian Bartow J. Elmore discusses the global consequences of ‘Coca-Cola capitalism.’

By Elaina Koros

Source: USnews.com

From its origins as a patent medicine formulated in a small southern pharmacy, Coca-Cola has grown into a multibillion-dollar company. Headquartered in Atlanta, it possesses one of the world’s most valuable brands. Yet despite its exponential growth over the decades, Coca-Cola has kept its operations streamlined by relying on partnerships with commercial titans like Monsanto and integrating its manufacturing plants with public water and recycling infrastructures, explains Bartow J. Elmore, an environmental historian at the University of Alabama. In his new book, “Citizen Coke: The Making of Coca-Cola Capitalism,” he argues that this business model, though widespread and successful, has global environmental consequences in the modern age. Elmore recently spoke with U.S. News about the sustainability and applicability of what he calls “Coca-Cola capitalism.” Excerpts:

What inspired you to write this book?

I grew up in Atlanta, born and raised on the syrupy Coke soft drink. Seeing this product that was from my hometown end up everywhere, I wondered how [something] that had started in the Jim Crow South in 1886 ended up all over the world. As someone who was interested in environmental history, I was particularly interested in answering that question from a materials standpoint. Beyond the advertising and marketing, how did the company acquire the natural resources it needed to put its product on retail shelves around the globe?

What is Coca-Cola’s business model?

I call the model Coca-Cola capitalism. I’d say what makes Coke great is not so much what Coke does, but what it doesn’t do. Coca-Cola embeds itself in systems of production and distribution that it doesn’t own. Coke didn’t own sugar plantations. It didn’t own caffeine processing plants. It didn’t own bottling businesses for most of its history. [Instead, it] relied on a host of independent businesses to supply its needs and to distribute its products.

How are Coke operations impacting the environment globally?

Coke is expanding into increasingly arid regions of the developing world, and that’s in part because Coke is going to places where there aren’t the same kinds of health concerns that there are in the United States. Unfortunately, that means they’re extracting water from places that don’t have a great deal of water to spare.

I think of the human body as part of the environment, and I end the book by explaining how the stomach has become a kind of silo, a storage unit for Coke’s excess. In a nation where more than 30 percent of people are obese today, this is a hot issue for Coca-Cola.

How has Coke’s expansion impacted other companies and the public?

One great example is Monsanto. You wouldn’t have a chemical company like Monsanto without Coke, because Coke in the early 20th century bought all of Monsanto’s main product, which was saccharin, an artificial sweetener. If you go to the Monsanto website, they say that in 1903 and 1905, without Coca-Cola’s massive purchases of their saccharin, they would not exist. I think that’s true of a lot of companies. It’s amazing how many businesses Coke has kept alive through its huge purchasing contracts.

When I say that Coca-Cola capitalism involves partnering with people, that often means the government. I think two good examples of this are public water supplies and recycling. Coke, throughout its history, depended on bottlers who tapped into the public water supply to access 80 percent of what they sold to consumers, which was water, 80 percent of the finished product. In the early 20th century, cities and even the federal government participated in building this infrastructure, spending billions of dollars to bring fresh, clean water to cities and increasingly to rural areas of the country. So, what made Coke expand so rapidly was that it was able to tap into that government infrastructure.

The other example would be recycling. If you look at the history, you see that Coca-Cola and its industry partners lobbied heavily in Congress to try and get curbside recycling to be the solution to the nation’s litter problem. Why not have you and I, the regular taxpayer, pay for that infrastructure and, in a way, conveniently bring the company’s packaging back to the company?

How would you curb some of the negative effects of Coke’s operations and products?

One thing is to make companies pay for the pollution they generate. If we don’t like litter, then we should force corporations to realize that by putting a price tag on it. I would say the same thing goes for obesity. If we think that these products contribute to really expensive health costs like obesity, then let’s make these corporations change. They’ll find ways to respond to the pressures that people put on them.

After Legalization, Why Can’t People’s Prior Pot Convictions Be Wiped Clean?

Posted on by
Reply

marijuana_legal_gavel_620x350

In states where marijuana is now legal, many people still have small-scale possession convictions on their records. Advocates for “expungement” face uphill battles, from Washington state to Washington, DC

By Jake Thomas

Source: Substance.com

Marijuana won in November’s midterm elections, with Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia joining Colorado and Washington in legalizing it. But it’s a bittersweet victory for people who have a prior cannabis conviction for doing something that is now legal in their state. For now, efforts to clear pot marks from people’s records in states that have legalized the drug are facing uphill battles.

“It’s pretty much ruined my life at this point,” Aaron Pickel (below), who was busted in Oregon for carrying two to three pounds of pot-infused edibles, told the Oregonian. “I’ve tried pretty hard to find work, and when you’re going against people who have nothing on their record and you do, you’re not going to get it.” Pickel’s California medical marijuana card didn’t get him out of the charges. Although he was slapped with only a $200 fine and no jail time, the 33-year-old now has a felony rap—and stays in his mother’s spare bedroom.

People who have been convicted of misdemeanor and lesser charges for possessing the drug often have a hard time securing housing, jobs and education. Proponents of “expungement”—wiping records clean—argue that the voters of these states made it clear that possessing small amounts of marijuana should not be illegal and therefore people who have prior convictions should get a second chance. Opponents argue that people should abide by laws until they are changed.

The expungement debate does not address the plight of people currently serving time for nonviolent cannabis crimes, however. The ballot measures that legalized pot allow people to carry only small amounts—in the case of Oregon’s Measure 91, up to an ounce. Before the passage of these measures, these amounts wouldn’t be cause to lock someone up in prison—in Oregon, it resulted in a violation and a fine. Someone would need to possess up to four ounces to be charged with a felony. Carrying four ounces is still illegal under Measure 91.

“I’ve tried pretty hard to find work, and when you’re going against people who have nothing on their record and you do, you’re not going to get it,” said Aaron Pickel, who was busted in Oregon for carrying several cookies and other pot-infused edibles.

There were 8 million marijuana-related arrests in the US between 2001 and 2010, according to a 2013 American Civil Liberties Union report. Nearly 36,000 people were arrested in 2010 alone in states and jurisdictions that have recently legalized pot. What’s worse, African-Americans, who already face discrimination in housing, employment and education, make up a disproportionate number of arrests. Nationally, they were 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though they used marijuana at similar rates.

“There are thousands of people in Washington state who have a misdemeanor marijuana conviction, and it hangs over their head when they apply for jobs or housing or education, and giving them a second chance will remove that obstacle,” says Washington state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, a Democrat, who introduced a bill in 2013 that would have cleared the records of people with misdemeanor marijuana convictions.

Fitzgibbon’s legislation ended up stuck in committee. He says that lawmakers apparently want to let the dust settle from pot becoming legal two years ago before further tinkering with marijuana laws. But he got pushback from the state prosecutors’ association, which opposes prior-conviction expungement.

A similar bill failed in the state legislature in Colorado, where pot was also legalized in 2012. But a ruling by the Colorado court of appeals in March could provide limited relief for people with pot convictions. The ruling stemmed from a 2010 court case that involved a woman who was charged with child abuse along with possessing methamphetamine and marijuana. Her lawyer, Brian Emeson, says that he was in the process of appealing her methamphetamine charge when the state legalized marijuana, so he appealed her pot charge as well. The court granted the appeal on the pot charge, removing it from her record.

“Thousands of people in Washington state have a misdemeanor marijuana conviction, and it hangs over their head when they apply for jobs or housing or education, and giving them a second chance will remove that obstacle,” said state Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon.

The ruling only affects people who have an active appeal for a pot possession charge, Emeson says. He estimates that number is anywhere from about a dozen to a hundred. He expects the Colorado supreme court to take up the issue next year and possibly reverse the appeals court ruling.

Emeson says that he was able to separate the marijuana charge from the others in his case, characterizing them as “relatively not that bad.” Emeson acknowledges that child abuse is a serious charge, but he says that courts often see much worse. “It’s impossible for people to ignore really, really bad facts in a case.”

Efforts to provide relief to people with prior pot convictions are likely to be complicated by other crimes on their records. “Most people convicted of marijuana are convicted of other things that are still illegal,” says Sam Kamin, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Denver and one of the nation’s leading experts in marijuana regulation. Their crimes, not surprisingly, often involve possession or trafficking of large amounts of pot or other drugs.

Oregon lawmakers will begin grappling with this problem when they meet in the new year to discuss the implementation of the state’s pot legalization measure, says state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat who chairs the senate’s judiciary committee. Prozanski says he does not expect any “blanket bills” that will provide automatic expungement.

People convicted of certain felonies and misdemeanors in Oregon can already petition to have their records expunged after a certain period of time has lapsed. Prozanski says that any effort to provide relief to people with pot convictions will rely on the state’s existing expungement process. Lawmakers may update the expungement process in response to marijuana becoming legal.

However, as in Colorado and Washington state, lawmakers will be mainly focused on implementing legal marijuana, Prozanski says. “[Expungement] is sort of secondary issue to the implementation of Measure 91.”

The situation for people with prior convictions is different in Washington, DC, says Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. In October, the city council passed a bill that would allow people convicted of all crimes and misdemeanors that have become legal to have their records sealed.

“It’s astonishing that some congressional members are so concerned about blocking DC from enacting [its legalization measure]. If cartels and gangs had lobbyists on the Hill, preventing marijuana regulation would be their top legislative priority,” said  the Marijuana Policy Project‘s Mason Tvert.

The District of Columbia had the highest overall marijuana possession arrest rate in the country in 2010. African-Americans are eight times more likely to be arrested for pot than their white counterparts, according to the ACLU.

However, both this bill and the measure that legalized marijuana require approval by the incoming Republican Congress, which has not been sympathetic to marijuana legalization or people convicted of pot crimes. Some have already said they will oppose DC’s legalization measure. “I will consider using all resources available to a member of Congress to stop this action,” Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican, told the Washington Post.

Making good on that threat, congressional Republicans and Democrats struck a deal on Tuesday to fund the federal government through September that includes provisions upending Initiative 71’s legalization of pot, according to the Washington Post. At press time, advocates were debating whether or not the language in the bill offers a loophole allowing the will of DC voters to go forward.

How this mess will ensnare efforts of people to expunge their prior pot convictions remains to be seen. “There’s some uncertainty surrounding the effect the provision will have on the measure. It could end up being a situation in which the courts will decide,” Tvert wrote in an email. “With all of the issues facing the country, it’s astonishing that some congressional members are so concerned about blocking DC from enacting a widely supported local policy. If cartels and gangs had lobbyists on the Hill, preventing marijuana regulation would be their top legislative priority.”

Pro-pot politicians in a few other states are already taking steps to expunge peoples’ old marijuana convictions should the drug be legalized. One Maryland lawmaker has proposed legislation that would erase any prior marijuana-related offense that becomes legal. A candidate in last year’s Democratic primary for Pennsylvania governor called for legalizing pot and expunging records of people convicted of possessing it.

But one of the biggest victories for advocates of expunging peoples’ past drug records came in the 2014 midterm election in a state where pot legalization wasn’t even on the ballot. California voters approved Measure 47, which automatically and retroactively downgraded some nonviolent felonies, many of them drug-related, to misdemeanors. Some 10,000 people are eligible for immediate release, including many who have been jailed for drug misdemeanors—and, once again, a disproportionate number are African-Americans.

Jake Thomas is a reporter in Spokane, Washington. He has written for the Portland Mercury, Street Roots and numerous other publications. His website is here. He tweets at @jakethomas2009. This is his first piece for Substance.com.