Testimony before the IL Senate on Marijuana Legalization: Leslie Mendoza Temple, MD, ABOIM

grygielny Decriminalization, Drug Education, IL

January 22, 2018

Good morning, Senator Steans, Representative Davis and esteemed members of the General Assembly.

My name is Leslie Mendoza Temple. I am a board-certified Family and Integrative Medicine physician in Glenview, Illinois. I also served as the former Chair of the Medical Cannabis Advisory Board for the Illinois Department of Public Health.  It is important to note for the record that I am not speaking on behalf of any institution or my employer.  I am speaking from my personal viewpoints and experience as a clinician….and as the proud mother of 3 sons, ages 7, 9 and 11 years old.  I have no financial or other beneficial relationship with the medical cannabis industry.

My Integrative Medicine practice attracts patients with complex medical conditions- primarily cancer, chronic pain, neurologic, psychiatric, and digestive conditions.  Many of my patients seek my care as the last-ditch effort, referred by their physicians, they prefer to treat their conditions as naturally as possible and find their way to me. I have written certifications for over 400 patients, with over 200 patients returning so far for their follow up appointments, providing me feedback on their medical cannabis experience. I have studied this feedback.

An independent chart review of my certified patients showed that over 80 percent of them had  experienced relief of one or more symptoms from their chronic condition.  Medical cannabis plus or minus medications have reduced or completely relieved many of my patients’ insomnia, pain, seizures, and digestive problems. I have seen my patients reduce their benzodiazepines, their sleep medications, and most importantly, reduced or eliminated the opioids.\

Considering the opioid and heroin epidemic, medical cannabis is a crucial part of the solution to this crisis and needs more eligible conditions to be added to the program.  Anytime opioids have been prescribed for chronic pain from all sources, patients should have the option to use medical cannabis instead. Medical cannabis is not a perfect drug however, with 29% of my patients experiencing confusion about what to take, how to take it, and varying strain availability from the cultivators and dispensaries.

Despite these challenges, medical cannabis is without a doubt, one of the most important tools I have discovered in my practice, alongside good nutrition, exercise, sleep regulation, acupuncture, meditation, medications, and stress reduction strategies.

As I gain more experience with patients using cannabis in a medical, therapeutic way, I have learned more about this substance, far beyond what I was ever taught during medical school or residency training. I have struggled with how to approach the question about legalizing it for adult use.  After speaking with folks on both sides of the issue, both with passionate belief and strong conviction in their viewpoints, and without investment in the industry, and with the mother’s lens.  I have come to the following conclusions which I hope are helpful to this panel and the audience.

  1. I am in favor of regulating cannabis for adult use, over age 21. I am against its prohibition given that our current system of prohibition has failed on many levels. Regulating cannabis production and sale may help increase safety of untainted supply by going through vetted cultivators; taxation can create funding to improve drug addiction and education services; legalizing it has implications that can divert funding away from the criminal system and towards education and rehabilitation.
  2. Regarding the commercialization of legal recreational cannabis, I would say there is already a very large scale, for-profit industry surrounding current usage.  It is an illegal black market industry run by addiction profiteers who manage (with crime and violence) the supply and sale of billions of dollars annually to people of all ages. They are the gateway drug towards harder substances like heroin, crack, cocaine, and LSD. We are well aware of the public health costs of that “industry’s” 80+ yrs control of the market – and none of them are funneling money into drug education.  I’d like to try a different approach now, please.
  3. My editorial:  I do not condone its use, personally, for getting high – whether one is an adult or a child. I don’t condone alcohol or cigarettes either – for anyone. But, it is not my place to govern this aspect of life for others but rather, to guide my patients towards making healthy choices.
  4. If funds towards drug education and increased resources towards drug rehabilitation are NOT included in the legislation, then I will not support this bill.  If marketing is not controlled with strict limits on advertising targeted at youth, then I will oppose the bill.  On another note, I don’t want to see a cannabis leaf emblem marketed on every billboard going down the 294, nor do I want to see a cannabis dispensary on every street corner.  In a free market economy, I am not sure how this will all shake out if this passes. So, that’s what the hearing process is all about.  It’s a chance for our voices to be heard about how this legislation should go, if legalized adult cannabis is going to be a reality.
  5. Cannabis should be kept out of the hands of children (and their pregnant mothers) whose brains are at risk for cognitive harm. I believe that strong education can help youth make better decisions about the true potential risks of underage cannabis use, which is loss of one’s highest intellectual potential while the brain is still forming, among other risks.  There’s a recent publication on the Monitoring the Future study, a survey of 1.1 million 8th-12th graders.  In the journal, Addiction, researchers made an interesting observation.  The perception of cannabis’ harmfulness increased in 8th graders in medical cannabis states while their use of cannabis decreased by 33%.   

 

I see a huge opportunity here.  Education is an area I believe where we physicians, policymakers, schools, and the addiction healthcare community can shine in Illinois. If we take a stronger role in educating youth about the hazard of cannabis use at an early age on the brain, we could protect more kids from the potential damage they can sustain from early cannabis use.  Let’s learn from the mistakes and missed opportunities seen in early adopter recreational states – if Illinois is to legalize cannabis for adult use.

 


Keyes KM, et al. How does state marijuana policy affect US youth? Medical marijuana laws, marijuana use and perceived harmfulness: 1991-2014. Addiction . 2016 Dec;111(12):2187-2195.

Testimony Before Illinois General Assembly Committees on Marijuana Legalization: Rev. Alexander E. Sharp

grygielny Decriminalization, Drug Education, IL

January 22, 2018

Rev. Alexander E. Sharp

I am the Rev. Alexander Sharp, Executive Director, Clergy for a New Drug Policy.  We reach out to clergy nationally to end the War on Drugs and seek a health, not punishment response to drug policy.  Because we are based in Illinois, and I have been doing faith-based education and advocacy work for over 20 years, a substantial number of clergy and lay leaders in Illinois are aware of our work.

It might seem unusual for clergy to be advocating for marijuana legalization.  I am not advocating for marijuana use, although I don’t think it is wrong, any more than using alcohol, a far more dangerous drug, is wrong.

Many clergy support marijuana legalization because of our sense of how best to influence and even change behavior, especially of our youth.  What the failed War on Drugs has taught us over the past 45 years is that prohibition does not work.

Why?  Prohibition refuses to accept reality.   Drugs are a reality in our society.  Cigarettes, alcohol, and potentially addictive behaviors like gambling are with us.  The issue, therefore, becomes how to prevent not use but abuse.  I wish someone would make this point to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he appears to say that all drug use is bad.

Instead of prohibition, we need to focus on preventing abuse though regulation and education.  Cigarettes are legal, but smoking has gone down by 50% in the last 25 years.  Alcohol is legal, but that we have made progress here as well.  Marijuana is illegal, and use has not gone down.  What’s wrong with this picture is that with marijuana, we have persisted in mindless prohibition.

I stress to my clergy colleagues that “legalization” is the wrong word.  We seek the “regulation” of marijuana.  That means that marijuana now obtained in the illicit market will be clearly labeled and packaged. People will know what and how much they are using.  That is far from the case with back alley and school yard purchases.

I’ve used these policy arguments with clergy across the country, and they get it. But beyond these policy wonk arguments, at the end of the day, we must educate each other, especially of our young people.  We must communicate with them in a way that makes sense to them.  They need to trust us.  I don’t see how that is possible when we equate marijuana and prohibition.

Our youth didn’t believe us when we preached “Just Say No” in the 1980’s.  When it comes to marijuana, they do not believe us now. The DARE programs where a law enforcement officer stands in front of a classroom and says “this is your brain on drugs” didn’t work when they were first tried.  These programs have adjusted since the 1980’s but they are still not effective.

I have attended many conferences where medical experts have described in elaborate detail how marijuana if heavily used can be harmful to young, still developing brains.  It can affect motivation.  I believe them. The problem is not that these facts are wrong.  Our kids should hear and take to heart every one of them.  The problem is that it is very hard to communicate them in the context of a policy – namely prohibition – rooted in abstinence.

Further, the very concept of harm reduction is impossible if abstinence is the only response to drug use.  To deny the goal of harm reduction is immoral.  The best in our faith traditions tells us that persuasion, with compassion, mercy and forgiveness; rather than punishment – in the form of jail and incarceration – are the best paths to changing hearts and minds.

All of this gives us a response to one final question that is frequently asked:  We’ve got alcohol and cigarettes, but why marijuana?  Do we really need another legal drug? My response: if really believe regulation and education are the best way to shape individual moral behavior, we should legalize marijuana even if alcohol and cigarettes had never happened.

Marijuana legalization stands on its own merits.  That why I urge your support for SB 316.

Testimony before the IL General Assembly on Marijuana Legalization, Public Health and the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act (SB 316, HB 2353): David L. Nathan, MD, DFAPA

grygielny Decriminalization, Drug Education, IL

January 22, 2018

David L. Nathan, MD, DFAPA President, Board of Directors Doctors for Cannabis Regulation

Good morning, Senator Heather Steans, Representative William Davis and esteemed members of the General Assembly.

My name is David Nathan. Originally from the Philadelphia area, I graduated with high honors from Princeton University. I received my medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and completed my residency at McLean Hospital of Harvard Medical School.

I am a board-certified psychiatrist, and for the past twenty years I have maintained a private practice in Princeton, New Jersey, where I live with my wife and our two teenage children. I am the Director of Continuing Medical Education for Penn Medicine Princeton Health and the Director of Professional Education for Princeton House Behavioral Health. I am a Clinical Associate Professor at the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. On the topic of cannabis policy, I do not speak for the institutions with whom I have an affiliation. I am a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, which is the highest membership honor bestowed by the APA. I have published numerous articles in the national psychiatric and lay press about a variety of topics in history and science, one of which is the legal status of marijuana.

I am the founder and board president of Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (or DFCR). With a prestigious roster of physicians, including former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and integrative medicine pioneer Andrew Weil, DFCR is the first and only national medical association dedicated to the legalization, taxation and – above all – the effective regulation of marijuana in the United States. DFCR has members in nearly every state and US territory, including right here in Chicago.

DFCR does not promote cannabis use. Rather, we advocate for the legalization of cannabis for adults, because effective regulation requires a legalized environment. We therefore support a core set of common-sense measures – our “Platform of Regulations” – to control the marijuana industry and protect public health.

We believe that the government should oversee all cannabis production, testing, distribution, and sales. Cannabis products should be labeled with significant detail, including (but not limited to) THC and CBD levels, dosing information and ingredients. There should be restrictions on marketing and advertising of cannabis products. Cannabis packaging and advertising that targets or attracts underage users should be completely prohibited. All cannabis products should have child-resistant packaging. There should be harsh penalties for adults who enable diversion of cannabis to minors. Taxation of the cannabis trade should be used to fund research, education, and prevention, including public information for adults on the use and misuse of cannabis and youth programs that emphasize the risks of underage cannabis use.

And since cannabis prohibition has worsened the poverty of the impoverished – particularly in communities of color – DFCR believes that the government has an obligation to rebuild the communities disproportionately affected by the war on marijuana. There are many ways this can be done, but if nothing else, we must expunge the criminal records of individuals convicted of minor cannabis crimes and ensure diversity in the cannabis industry.

Esteemed members of the General Assembly: The time has come to end the failed and harmful prohibition of marijuana in the State of Illinois.

This historic and beloved city of Chicago knows all too well the destruction brought by well-intended but sadly misguided efforts by society to control addiction through prohibitions. From the violence in the streets under Alcohol Prohibition, to the violence in the streets we see today, Chicago has paid a heavy price for the heavy-handed criminal approach to addiction, which is fundamentally a health problem, not a moral one.

Alcohol Prohibition was repealed after just thirteen years because of unintended consequences: organized crime, increased use of hard alcohol, and government waste.

So, what have we gotten from our eighty-year experiment with marijuana prohibition? Organized crime, increased use of stronger marijuana, and government waste.

And yet, Alcohol Prohibition was a success compared to our war on marijuana. Alcohol consumption decreased during the 1920s, but marijuana use has increased drastically since its prohibition. Today, 22,000,000 Americans use cannabis each month, and even more partake on a less frequent basis.

Marijuana prohibition began in the 1930s – over the objections of the American Medical Association – based on scare tactics and fabricated evidence that suggested that the drug was highly addictive, made users violent, and was fatal in overdose. We now know that none of those assertions are true. Cannabis is less addictive than alcohol and tobacco. It doesn’t make users violent, and there are no documented cases of fatal cannabis overdose. In short, from the medical standpoint, marijuana should never have been illegal for consenting adults.

While Doctors for Cannabis Regulation firmly supports the legalization and regulation of marijuana for adult use, it emphatically opposes underage recreational use of marijuana. Evidence suggests that both marijuana and alcohol can adversely affect brain development in minors. Studies of underage users show that health effects are worse when kids start younger and consume more frequently.

But cannabis prohibition for adults does not prevent underage use. For decades, preventive education reduced the rates of alcohol and tobacco use by minors, while underage marijuana use rose steadily despite its prohibition for adults. The government’s own statistics show that 80-90% of eighteen-year-olds have consistently reported easy access to the drug since the 1970s.

Opponents of legalization like to say: “This isn’t your parents’ marijuana.” And they’re right. Cannabis cultivation has led to the development of more potent strains, to the extent that illegal marijuana today is typically about three to five times stronger than it was 30 years ago. In states where marijuana is legal, the government requires potency labeling. Adult users can make informed decisions about their intake based on potency, much as people do with alcohol – say, drinking a small amount of vodka compared with two beers. But in Illinois, where it’s illegal and uncontrolled, marijuana products aren’t labeled and users consume an unknown product of unknown potency. Thus, the opposition’s claim is a medically sound argument… to legalize and regulate marijuana so that products are properly labeled with potency, ingredients and serving sizes.

Opponents of legalization say – again without evidence – that marijuana legalization “sends the wrong message” to kids. In other words, they argue that if a drug or activity is legal for adults, then kids will think it’s safe for them.

If there is an association, it is the opposite of what opponents claim. When cannabis is against the law for everyone, the government is saying that marijuana is dangerous for everyone, and kids know that’s not true. If adults can’t be trusted to tell the truth about responsible adult use of marijuana, why should kids listen to us when we say it’s harmful for them? By making a legal distinction between marijuana use by adults and minors, we demonstrate a respect for scientific evidence – and the sanctity of the law – that we would want our children to emulate.

Whether in sex education or drug education, when kids know we’re being honest with them and trust the information we’re providing, they’re more likely to take that advice seriously. And we know that preventive drug education works—the rates of underage tobacco and alcohol use have been falling for many years, even though it remains legal for adults. During that same time, underage marijuana use – which until recently was illegal in all 50 states – has risen.

Today, teen use has remained level across the nation, including in legalized states. While we cannot predict the future, there are good reasons to believe legalization may actually decrease underage use.

Now I would like to address what may be the biggest misconception about marijuana – namely, that it is a “gateway” to the use of harder drugs. We hear this repeated over and over again, and always without supporting evidence.

A study by the Institute of Medicine, the health branch of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that marijuana “does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse.”

While it’s true that users of hard drugs often tried marijuana first, they’re even more likely to have tried alcohol and tobacco. And the vast majority of those who try marijuana, alcohol and tobacco don’t go on to use harder drugs. Simply put, the fact that some people who use hard drugs also used marijuana in no way implies that marijuana causes people to use hard drugs. The marijuana “gateway” hypothesis is an archaic, misleading and oversimplified explanation of substance misuse, and it trivializes the serious discussion of how to address one of the greatest public health crises in history: our nation’s deadly opioid epidemic.

Times are changing. In 2018, even physicians who oppose legalization generally believe that marijuana should be decriminalized, reducing penalties for users while keeping the drug illegal. Although decriminalization is certainly a step in the right direction, DFCR physicians believe it to be an inadequate substitute for legalization and regulation for a number of reasons.

First, decriminalization does not empower the government to regulate product labeling and purity, which leaves marijuana vulnerable to contamination and adulteration. This also renders consumers unable to judge the potency of marijuana, which is like drinking alcohol without knowing its strength. Moreover, where marijuana is merely decriminalized, the point-of-sale remains in the hands of drug dealers who will sell marijuana – as well as more dangerous drugs – to children.

Contrary to popular belief, decriminalization doesn’t actually end the arrests of marijuana users. Despite New York State decriminalizing marijuana in the 1970s, New York City makes tens of thousands of marijuana possession arrests every year, with continuing racial disparities in enforcement. Finally, under a decriminalized system the government continues to prosecute and constrict the supply chain. This drives up the price of marijuana, making the untaxed illegal market more lucrative, competitive, and violent.

When we describe the days of Al Capone, we call it “Alcohol Prohibition”, but it was actually more properly called “Alcohol Decriminalization”. It was perfectly legal to obtain and consume alcohol for medical purposes or religious rituals, or if you made it at home for your personal use. So, when opponents tout decriminalization as an answer to prohibition, ask them what they think will happen if we remove penalties for consumers while prosecuting growers and sellers, and how this could be expected to work when Alcohol Prohibition didn’t.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time and attention. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Respectfully submitted,
David L. Nathan, MD, DFAPA
dnathan@dfcr.org
609-688-0400 (phone)
609-688-0401 (fax)
601 Ewing Street, Suite C-10
Princeton, New Jersey 08540


Doctors for Cannabis Regulation. “Platform of Regulations.” Updated January 2018. https://dfcr.org/platform-of-regulations/

Legal Impact and Financial Implications: Attorney General Jeff Sessions Memo

Sanya Singh Marijuana Legalization, Medical Marijuana

Elizabeth Wittemyer, Attorney At Law

Prepared at the Request of the Marijuana Education Initiative

When U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions decided to issue a memorandum on January 4, 2018, rescinding the Cole Memorandum, it was clear that his long-time wish to demonize marijuana and criminalize activities around the legal state markets had come to pass. I am an attorney who represents the cannabis industry, and several worried clients and colleagues have wished to discuss the issue and the possible consequences with me. The interplay of state and federal law can be confusing, especially as we consider the effects the Sessions Memo will have on the cannabis industry.

Understanding the hierarchy of the U.S. Justice Department and its authority over the states is one way to view how this interplay works. The Justice Department is an executive-branch agency that deals with crimes at the federal level and that enforces federal law. The U.S. Attorney General is a cabinet member appointed by the president and is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer for federal law. U.S. attorneys are employees of the Justice Department and prosecute federal cases brought to them by federal law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The DEA investigates crimes involving cannabis. You might remember from the television show Law and Order, the DEA investigates crimes as law enforcement officers and the U.S. attorneys prosecute in federal courts the crimes brought to them by DEA officers. Marijuana is federally illegal and is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA is the lead law enforcement agency for the domestic enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.

The Cole Memorandum from 2013 established a new “prosecutorial discretion” regarding cannabis. It was a policy guidance to U.S. attorneys that made the cannabis industry a low prosecutorial priority in states that had legalized cannabis, as long as those states complied with the guidelines contained in the memo—namely, to protect youth and control diversion. What the Jeff Sessions Memo does is reestablish cannabis, regardless of legality within the states, as a prosecutorial priority along with all other federal crimes. In the memo, Sessions encourages the prosecution of other crimes that can be tied to cannabis, such as money laundering and violations of banking regulations. These types of prosecutions will almost certainly include asset forfeiture actions. The Sessions Memo highlights the “Department’s finite resources” and points to principles of prosecution set in 1980, taking us back to the old, failed policies of the war on drugs.

Though U.S. attorneys seem to have little appetite to initiate prosecutions against legal cannabis businesses, the same cannot be said of the DEA. In fact, the DEA has always had a Domestic Marijuana Eradication/Suppression Program aimed at completely eradicating cannabis in the United States. According to the Department of Justice Fiscal Year 2016 Budget submitted to Congress, the DEA spent millions of dollars on marijuana eradication efforts, including anti-legalization education programs. Although the cannabis industry blames the DEA for refusing to reschedule cannabis from its present Schedule I status, it is the Department of Health and Human Services that has the legal responsibility to make scientific and medical determinations regarding drug scheduling. The head of HHS Tom Price resigned in a cloud of scandal in September 2017. The president has nominated Alex Azar, a former pharmaceutical company executive, to fill the position, and Mr. Azar’s confirmation hearing began January 9, 2018. As cannabis is a competing product to pharmaceuticals, it is highly unlikely that a former representative of the pharmaceutical industry, which holds one of the most powerful lobbies in Congress, will consider rescheduling marijuana. With Azar as head of HHS, the pharmaceutical industry would have even more control over our federal agencies in their quest to demonize cannabis, with Jeff Sessions leading the charge.

The Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment (formerly the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment) is part of the federal budget established by Congress and has been included in every annual federal budget appropriations since 2014. The amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to supersede legal medical marijuana state laws. What many people do not realize is that the amendment primarily protects medical marijuana and not recreational marijuana. This year, Congress has been unable to agree on the budget and has limped along by making continuing resolutions to keep a government shutdown at bay. The last continuing resolution was on December 22, 2017, and it extended the previous budget to January 19, 2018. The Senate appropriations included the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment; the House version did not after Attorney General Jeff Sessions lobbied against its inclusion. It is unclear what will happen to the amendment amid the many other fights over the budget, including immigration, defense, and domestic programs. Even if the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment is included in the next appropriations bill, the rescission of the Cole Memo places the recreational marijuana industry at particular risk.

Federal law supersedes state law, “preempting” state laws that conflict with federal laws. With the Cole Memo, the Obama administration allowed states to experiment with legalization of cannabis, in essence, “promising” not to bring a preemption action in federal court that would shut down a state’s legalization of marijuana. Although many legal scholars argue that the states that have legalized have relied on this federal discretion to their detriment, and therefore there are now legal defenses to a preemption action, the legalized states’ courts are not friendly to cannabis. State law cannot legalize what is illegal under federal law. In several court cases, acts that are legal under state marijuana laws were not protected by the courts owing to the illegality of the act under federal law, and this has led to seizures of inventory and loss of jobs. Cannabis businesses must be very careful in seeking relief in the state courts and should instead opt to negotiate, mediate, or arbitrate disputes whenever possible. Although recreational cannabis stands in particular danger because of its relative lack of credibility compared to medical cannabis, the entire legal cannabis industry is at risk.

As we experience the devastating opioid crisis, with thousands of lives lost, the Jeff Sessions Memo begs reason and common sense. President Trump declared the opioid epidemic a national emergency; however, no new federal funds were allocated to address the crisis. Medicaid is under attack and will be cut back; by how much is the only question. States, facing budget shortfalls, have cut treatment programs throughout the nation. First responders dealing with opioid overdoses are vicariously traumatized by the horror they experience every day and their resources are stretched to the point of breaking. Our courts, overwhelmed with opioid-related crime cases, have few options to deal with the social ill of addiction through the criminal justice system. We are losing our family, friends, and neighbors every day to opioids. Yet, rather than spend federal money on prosecuting feel-good doctors, pill mills, and foreign actors to attempt to reduce the opioid epidemic, Jeff Sessions will devote the Department of Justice’s finite resources to prosecuting a drug that no one dies from. In fact, research shows the promise of cannabis as an effective treatment in reducing the need for opioids.

The question is, therefore, one of where to direct our government’s limited resources. Do we spend federal dollars prosecuting opioids or prosecuting cannabis? Do we spend federal dollars on anti-legalization education or on education that will help our youth make healthy choices around legalization? Education programs such as those of the Marijuana Education Initiative, which provides reality-based education for youth regarding marijuana, are the initiatives that our tax dollars should fund. Now is the time to press our elected representatives to set the nation’s priorities straight.

To learn more about the misinformation surrounding marijuana and the opioid epidemic check out our blogs The Truth and Marijuana and Opioids:   Sorting Through the Misinformation  

Attorney General Sessions Threatens States Over Marijuana Legalization

Rev. Alexander E. Sharp Marijuana Legalization, Medical Marijuana

via Flickr

We have long known that US Attorney General Jeff Sessions does not approve of marijuana, not to mention any drug. (His office refuses to answer the question of whether he drinks alcohol.)  He has famously said that “good people” don’t use marijuana.

On January 4, he implicitly threatened states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.  He rescinded an Obama-era memo, issued in 2013, which had signaled considerable leeway for states even though marijuana is illegal under federal law.

His timing was ironic.  He issued his memo the day before the Vermont House of Representatives was scheduled to vote to legalize marijuana through legislative action.  Indeed, they did so on January 5th, and the Vermont Senate did the same a week later. Apparently, as one of my advocacy colleagues said, “They did not get the memo.”

Other states where legalization has been recently approved by ballot initiative—most notably Massachusetts and Maineseem for the most part undeterred by the Sessions memo.

In Colorado, one of the first two such states (Washington was the other) to legalize marijuana in 2012, the response has verged upon anger.  US Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) feels betrayed.  During Mr. Sessions’ confirmation hearing as attorney general, Sen. Gardner asked for and received assurances that no such action would be taken.

There are two reasons why I think we should be not only bemused but angry at what the Attorney General has done.  The first is that we have long passed the point of wondering whether cannabis as medicine has value.  It clearly does.  It is now a reality in 29 states containing over 60% of the U.S. population.

Respected medical journals document that marijuana offers relief for patients with cancer and multiple sclerosis and severe chronic pain.  An article entitled, “Talking About Marijuana—In Church” in the January 3 issue of The Christian Century notes that marijuana is important to older folks because “it appears to be particularly helpful in coping with the myriad side effects of other drugs.”   Are these not “good people”?

It is not clear yet what the consequences of the Sessions memo will be, but it may make life more difficult for the providers of medical marijuana.  For this, he should be condemned.  (We provide the opportunity to TAKE ACTION.)

The second reason for anger starts with the fact that we are in the midst of a national opioid health crisis. Mr. Sessions should use the resources of his office to prosecute those in the medical community who have helped to create and continued to fuel this epidemic. When it comes to medical marijuana, he should recognize the promise of marijuana as reducing the need for opioids.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions by all accounts likes his job because it enables him to pursue “law and order” policies of the 1980s which he is now in a position to impose. When it comes to marijuana, he is wrong.