While not as emotionally satisfying, the incremental approach on gay rights from the Obama administration does seem to be working. That said, I can't see the same thing happening with pot. There is nothing to gain politically at the national level by supporting legalization and every reason to maintain the status quo. The change will have to come from the states, which is why I was disappointed to get this reply to my pro-1550 letter to Jamie Pedersen:

"Thanks for your message and for taking the time to write to me about HB 1550, which would regulate the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis. I am a co-sponsor of HB 1550 and would have been happy to vote for it if I had had an opportunity on the House floor. Unfortunately, the bill died in the House Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee. We will have to revisit this issue next session.

Best wishes, Jamie"

I thought it had been moved to the Ways and Means Committee (at least that is what an aide to Frank Chopp told me in reply to a letter I sent), but I got this last night, suggesting it is dead after all.

Anyone know what happened?

He was prolly talking about this study http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/7371… which basically says among a pool of kids with psychological problems, those who started using cannabis earlier had an earlier age at onset of psychiatric disorders. Correlation doesn't mean causality, but there's no such correlation for alcohol use.

@2, that sounds quite accurate according to my own anecdotal experience. But no one has ever said marijuana is completely harmless, even good for you, and everyone should smoke a pound of it a day; they're saying simply that the harms are hugely overshadowed by the harms of prohibition, which are exponentially worse, for the nation, the world, and even for those unfortunate psychotic youth. Jail time is not a recommended treatment for psychosis.

I just ousted Lindsay as the Mayor!

The Mayor of Sarku:

http://foursquare.com/venue/845865

http://twitpic.com/46m6w8

@1: Amnt: Representative Ross Hunter has agreed to hear HB 1550 (Mary Lou Dickerson's bill that would end cannabis prohibition in Washington State) in the House Ways and Means Committee. This was reported by multiple people who called in response to Dominic Holden's February 25 Slog post, "Please Pick Up the Phone and Call Frank …."

nobody's asking the government to get into the business of promoting drug use.

Well, technically, some people are asking the (state of WA) government to literally get in the business of promoting marijuana use, as the aforementioned HB 1550 would have the state selling it through the liquor stores (and I'm okay with that). And, of course, for liquor, the state is already in that business.

I'd rather the state stay out of the business of selling any retail goods to us, but anything's better than prohibition.

Kerlikowske may have declared the War on Drugs is over, but the DEA didn't hear him, or heard him and told him to go fuck himself.

@6: Mapdcap, it's a bit of a stretch to equate selling something with promoting its use. Do pharmacists who sell Plan B promote its use by way of facilitating the sale of it from one party to another? To a large degree, a retailer is just there to move stuff from producers and wholesalers to consumers. I don't take the fact that something is available for purchase to be a recommendation that I acquire and use that thing, only the offer to sell it if I want it. I'll admit that the "Liquor, beer, and wine" signs outside of the state-run liquor stores are slightly promotional, but it's not clear to me how we'd avoid that. "Washington State retail" signs, maybe?

I completely agree that having the state control sales of an item that an enormous number of citizens want, even if the offer to sell constituted promotion of use, is preferable to prohibition. I find prohibition to be so counterproductive that I wonder if anyone who favors it is aware of the damage it causes.

The argument isn't "marijuana is harmless let's give it to every 9 year old who burn cats" the argument is "the human cost of prohibition in lives is too much and prohibition empowers criminals for a substance that should be treated like alcohol".

Children who burn cats get marijuana in this system. Children who burn cats *CAN* get marijuana in any system because marijuana exists. However if the child who burns cats has a semi-responsible parent, the goal will be to make marijuana as hard to get as alcohol is for underage participants (if the child has no parents no law can't help them). Right now the special man down the road who I get my pot from doesn't have a license, and has an enormous positive incentive to sell marijuana to children, all of them. If you take that special man, and make him not so special anymore, and make him compete with all the other men (and women) who sell marijuana next to cameras that the state has access too this person has a much smaller inventive to sell marijuana to any child, which helps keep the marijuana away from the specific children who burn cats. Of course, some asshole may still walk into the store and buy marijuana he'll later give to children who burn cats, but then again some asshole might buy alcohol from the store and give it to children who burn cats as well. At what point are we going to give consenting adults who are bound by law not to give these drugs to minors the freedom to purchases their drugs from a legal venue?

It's so aggravating fighting them when all my friends have given up, and have taken the opposite stand. Legalization will mean less money for them and their friends, and you combine those voters with the people who oppose decriminalization because we're not thinking enough about children who burn cats and you get a winning coalition of status quo. It's such a shame when assholes in power want to claim we can't decriminalize "another drug" because of the children. As if the other thing stopping marijuana production in this country is our perfect government who's currently keeping marijuana out of the hand of every child. Only, they aren't, and they aren't even being called out on their massive failure to protect kids who get marijuana easier than alcohol. They're taken at their word that legalization will lead to increased use (you mean like prescription drugs?), when it's getting a shitty education that makes someone more likely to use. The argument remains that we shouldn't have an economy based on punishing the legal uses of a substance, ALCOHOL, even if many people decide to do fucked up, dangerous and child destroying things. We punish the person who participated in those crimes, and we try to find them help for their addiction, but we let the rest of the population enjoy the substance until they too break the law. Of course the taxes don't make up for the social costs of the drugs, but that speaks more to the low levels of taxation people think is sustainable. What's to stop them from adjusting the tax rate? Unless the goal is to simply take my freedom of choice away to preserve an archaic stance against any and all things than when given to children who burn cats make them more evil. Nothing this man says or does changes my consumption of marijuana, the only power he has is to tax me. I feel like it's time to join me friends. NO POT TAXES, NO POT TAXES, NO POT TAXES! I'd rather not support this government.

Excuse me, Mr. Drug Czar. Which of the "Marijuana will ruin your life" or "Marijuana is a gateway drug" arguments were you required to make here in little ol' Seatown? Because Barack must need someone to make them with a straight face.

THE GUY SURE HAS NO PROBLEM TO GO DO INTERVIEWS AND EMPTY HIS RTTEN BAG OF EMPTY RHETORIC ON THE LOCAL NEWS, YET SNEAKS IN THE BACK DOOR LIKE HE'S THE ONE SELLING DRUGS !!!!! ;)
HIS PARANOID AND INSINCERE BEHAVIOR IS PROOF THEYVE RUN OUTTA THEIR OWN KOOL AID!! THEY RAN AWAY AS DEFEATED CLOWNS!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT THE YELLOW BELLIED SHILLS ON THE RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AS HE SNUCK OUT,MADE A HASTY EXIT, I TOLD HIM TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AND DONT COME BACK!!!!!!!! THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD... ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

THE GUY SURE HAS NO PROBLEM TO GO DO INTERVIEWS AND EMPTY HIS RTTEN BAG OF EMPTY RHETORIC ON THE LOCAL NEWS, YET SNEAKS IN THE BACK DOOR LIKE HE'S THE ONE SELLING DRUGS !!!!! ;)
HIS PARANOID AND INSINCERE BEHAVIOR IS PROOF THEYVE RUN OUTTA THEIR OWN KOOL AID!! THEY RAN AWAY AS DEFEATED CLOWNS!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT THE YELLOW BELLIED SHILLS ON THE RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AS HE STUCK OUT,MADER A ASTYEXT, I FOR HIM TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AND DONT COME BACK, THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD... ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

THE GUY SURE HAS NO PROBLEM TO GO DO INTERVIEWS AND EMPTY HIS RTTEN BAG OF EMPTY RHETORIC ON THE LOCAL NEWS, YET SNEAKS IN THE BACK DOOR LIKE HE'S THE ONE SELLING DRUGS !!!!! ;)
HIS PARANOID AND INSINCERE BEHAVIOR IS PROOF THEYVE RUN OUTTA THEIR OWN KOOL AID!! THEY RAN AWAY AS DEFEATED CLOWNS!!!!!!! WE'VE GOT THE YELLOW BELLIED SHILLS ON THE RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AS GIL SNUCK OUT,MADE A HASTY EXIT, I YELLED AFTER FOR HIM TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON DC AND DONT COME BACK, THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD... ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

The fact that Kerlikowski is arguing based on science and reason rather than ideology and fear is, in my mind, an important step forward. That's the kind of argument that pro-legalization will ultimately win.

So, yes, in a strange way he is arguing for legalization.

"the age of onset for psychosis among marijuana users" comes "three years sooner."

Looks like he's doubling down as a contestant in the Insult Our Intelligence Olympics. Gawd, what an asshole.

I believe Gil was refering to a recent study regarding earlier onset of psychosis that was published this week online and inaccurately reported on WebMD this week. Here is a MD's response to the study.

> I read the BMJ article forwarded to me by a physician friend, but while it claims to support the contention that the arrow of causality favors cannabis use causing or contributing to psychosis rather than psychosis leading to cannabis use for symptom suppression, this hypothesis is still unsettled, by the authors' own admission.
> They note that Ferdinand, et al, found a bidirectional relationship; that is, some people without evidence of pre-psychotic symptomatology were more likely to progress to such symptoms if they used cannabis, but also that "the reverse was also true, in that psychotic symptoms predicted cannabis use in those who had not used cannabis before the symptoms' onset." They also mention that a "prospective population based cohort study also found evidence for a self medication effect." They conclude, on this topic, that "although the cannabis-psychosis link has been investigated in many studies, results on the temporal association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms remain conflicting."
>
> The magnitude of any causal effect of cannabis use on persistence of "psychotic experiences" which do not rise to the level of clinical psychosis does not seem to be large.
> For instance, the incidence rate of psychotic symptoms from baseline to T2 was 31% for users, and 20% for non-users. Elsewhere they state that the incidence of such symptoms has been estimated to be as high as 28% in the general population. (The authors note that adolescents often find these symptoms to be transient instead of persistent, and it is assumed that persistence of otherwise transitory symptoms could enhance the risk of progressing to frank psychosis at some future date. The authors state that such symptoms "might ... progress to clinical psychotic disorder if combined with exposure to environmental risks.") These percentages drop considerably from T2 to T3 - 14% and 8%, respectively. While the users' (decreased) T3 percentages are modestly higher than those seen in the control population, the striking thing is that incidence of persistence drops drastically with continued use; the longer one continues to use cannabis, the more the persistence of psychotic experiences decreases. This is odd. Based on the causal dose-related hypothesis, one would expect ongoing, longer-term cannabis use to produce cumulatively rising rates of symptom persistence, but instead these symptoms drastically decline with continued use, as they do in the general population. In other words, for 86% of longer-term cannabis users, the symptoms go away anyway!
> The overall magnitude of this symptom persistence therefore appears to be small, at least when compared to the incidence of serious adverse effects with many current meds. This would be consonant with the observation that the incidence and prevalence of psychosis has remained stable or declined in recent years, while cannabis use has continued to rise (except among youth in states which have legalized medicinal cannabis!).
>
> The study was heavily weighted toward the young - appropriately, in my opinion. Twice as many 14-15 y/olds were followed compared to the 16-21 y/o cohort, which was in turn twice as large as the 21-24 y/o cohort. This underscores my contention that there is a period of vulnerability to neurologic disruption during that time when immature neural pathways are still forming. I don't regard cannabis as a treatment of first (or third) choice in adolescents, though it could very well be a reasonable first choice for some adults whose maladies cannot safely or effectively be managed with current modalities.
> Given that the annual incidence of cases of end-stage renal disease due to routine Tylenol use - as little as 1 to 3 tablets a day - is estimated at >5000 in the US, and that Tylenol is a major contributor to liver failure necessitating transplant, we are entitled to maintain a perspective that neither ignores studies like this, nor assigns them undue importance.
>
> Jon Hauxwell, MD
>
(BTW.. since adult onset psychosis is virtually always permanent and adolescent onset is often transient is earlier onset so bad?) - BB

I believe Gil was refering to a recent study regarding earlier onset of psychosis that was published this week online and inaccurately reported on WebMD this week. Here is a MD's response to the study.

> I read the BMJ article forwarded to me by a physician friend, but while it claims to support the contention that the arrow of causality favors cannabis use causing or contributing to psychosis rather than psychosis leading to cannabis use for symptom suppression, this hypothesis is still unsettled, by the authors' own admission.
> They note that Ferdinand, et al, found a bidirectional relationship; that is, some people without evidence of pre-psychotic symptomatology were more likely to progress to such symptoms if they used cannabis, but also that "the reverse was also true, in that psychotic symptoms predicted cannabis use in those who had not used cannabis before the symptoms' onset." They also mention that a "prospective population based cohort study also found evidence for a self medication effect." They conclude, on this topic, that "although the cannabis-psychosis link has been investigated in many studies, results on the temporal association between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms remain conflicting."
>
> The magnitude of any causal effect of cannabis use on persistence of "psychotic experiences" which do not rise to the level of clinical psychosis does not seem to be large.
> For instance, the incidence rate of psychotic symptoms from baseline to T2 was 31% for users, and 20% for non-users. Elsewhere they state that the incidence of such symptoms has been estimated to be as high as 28% in the general population. (The authors note that adolescents often find these symptoms to be transient instead of persistent, and it is assumed that persistence of otherwise transitory symptoms could enhance the risk of progressing to frank psychosis at some future date. The authors state that such symptoms "might ... progress to clinical psychotic disorder if combined with exposure to environmental risks.") These percentages drop considerably from T2 to T3 - 14% and 8%, respectively. While the users' (decreased) T3 percentages are modestly higher than those seen in the control population, the striking thing is that incidence of persistence drops drastically with continued use; the longer one continues to use cannabis, the more the persistence of psychotic experiences decreases. This is odd. Based on the causal dose-related hypothesis, one would expect ongoing, longer-term cannabis use to produce cumulatively rising rates of symptom persistence, but instead these symptoms drastically decline with continued use, as they do in the general population. In other words, for 86% of longer-term cannabis users, the symptoms go away anyway!
> The overall magnitude of this symptom persistence therefore appears to be small, at least when compared to the incidence of serious adverse effects with many current meds. This would be consonant with the observation that the incidence and prevalence of psychosis has remained stable or declined in recent years, while cannabis use has continued to rise (except among youth in states which have legalized medicinal cannabis!).
>
> The study was heavily weighted toward the young - appropriately, in my opinion. Twice as many 14-15 y/olds were followed compared to the 16-21 y/o cohort, which was in turn twice as large as the 21-24 y/o cohort. This underscores my contention that there is a period of vulnerability to neurologic disruption during that time when immature neural pathways are still forming. I don't regard cannabis as a treatment of first (or third) choice in adolescents, though it could very well be a reasonable first choice for some adults whose maladies cannot safely or effectively be managed with current modalities.
> Given that the annual incidence of cases of end-stage renal disease due to routine Tylenol use - as little as 1 to 3 tablets a day - is estimated at >5000 in the US, and that Tylenol is a major contributor to liver failure necessitating transplant, we are entitled to maintain a perspective that neither ignores studies like this, nor assigns them undue importance.
>
> Jon Hauxwell, MD
>
(BTW.. since adult onset psychosis is virtually always permanent and adolescent onset is often transient is earlier onset so bad?) - BB

Please excuse the double post.... computer problm

But the White House's drug czar is making the case in such an empty and specious way, he might as well be arguing for legalization.

And who knows? Given Obama's canny tactics of caution and incrementalism in all things, maybe that's the strategy after all.

Called it!!! (@ comment #7)