Answer Addiction

Tag: marijuana research

  • US To Spend $3 Million Researching Chemicals in Marijuana

    US To Spend $3 Million Researching Chemicals in Marijuana

    Current marijuana research lags behind the public’s marijuana usage.

    The United States government plans to spend $3 million studying whether marijuana has pain-relieving effects. 

    However, it will only be studying the parts of the plant that do not get users high. 

    Study Will Focus on Chronic Pain Relief

    According to NBC News, the money is coming from nine research grants that were announced on Thursday (Sept. 19). The grants will allow researchers to delve deeper into the pain-treating properties of CBD and other lesser-known chemicals in marijuana. The chemical THC, which is what users get high from, is not included in the research plans. 

    When it comes to pain management using the chemicals from marijuana, “The science is strongest for chronic pain, the most common reason people give when they enroll in state-approved medical marijuana programs,” NBC notes.

    Dr. David Shurtleff is the deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, which is funding the projects. He says THC has been studied “extensively” already and that the dangers of the chemical don’t make it a good option for treating pain. He adds that the hope is to catch up to the current use of other chemicals in marijuana. 

    “The science is lagging behind the public use and interest. We’re doing our best to catch up here,” he said. 

    According to Shurtleff, the grants come as a response to the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report which stated that there was a lack of research surrounding marijuana, making it a “public health risk.” 

    Responding To The Opioid Crisis

    Another motivator for the research on the pain-easing properties of marijuana is the opioid epidemic, which is rooted in the use of prescription painkillers. 

    Dr. Judith Hellman, a grant recipient from University of California San Francisco, is researching the ability of the body to create signaling molecules that are similar to the ingredients in marijuana. 

    Hellman says it’s vital for scientists to more deeply explore pain and its treatment. “It’s very exciting to have the opportunity to do that,” she said.

    According to NBC, only one of the grant projects involves human test subjects. University of Utah researcher Deborah Yurgelun-Todd plans to run brain scans of volunteers suffering from lower back pain. Her plan is to determine how CBD mixed with chocolate pudding can affect the pain-signaling pathways in the brain. 

    Many of the new projects will use lab-made versions of the chemicals, instead of extracting them from the plant itself, according to NBC.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Senior Marijuana Use Increases, But Where Is The Research?

    Senior Marijuana Use Increases, But Where Is The Research?

    Marijuana’s Schedule I status makes it very difficult for scientists to uncover its potential benefits. 

    An op-ed in Forbes looked at the possible health benefits of marijuana and psilocybin for seniors while also noting that research on these subjects remains deadlocked by marijuana’s status as a Schedule I narcotic.

    Senior contributor Howard Gleckman cited studies that found that while marijuana use among seniors increased over the past decade, and some studies have begun to look at the potential therapeutic benefits of both marijuana and psychedelics, hard data on both the positive and negative impact of both drugs remains elusive.

    Marijuana’s Impact

    Gleckman cited two recent studies on the subject—one, a $17 million research initiative by John Hopkins Medicine—believed to be the first in the United States and the largest of its kind in the world—to explore if psilocybin, the active chemical in psychedelic mushrooms, can be an effective form of treatment for opioid and alcohol addiction, Alzheimer’s disease, post-traumatic stress disorder and anorexia.

    The second was an issue of the Public Policy and Aging Report, published by the Gerentological Society of America and devoted to marijuana use among adults 65 and older. The topics covered in the issue included regulatory and clinical issues regarding marijuana use, potential benefits and dangers of use among the elderly, and the current state of research into the topic.

    Pros & Cons Of Marijuana Use For The Elderly

    As Gleckman noted, the Gerentological Society reached two conclusions in the issue: the pros and cons of marijuana for any age group remain unclear, and physicians, patients and researchers alike have been stymied by federal guidelines regarding marijuana use and research.

    Specific problems with researching marijuana and seniors, according to Gleckman, included one of the recurring issues with drug research, which is a tendency to ignore older adults as subjects. Understanding how specific drugs impact older individuals, who often respond differently to medication and substances—and in the case of marijuana, to recreational and medical variables—than younger adults, would be a key component in developing research for seniors. 

    Providing seniors with closely regulated marijuana for testing, and understanding that some medications given to that demographic may have negative interactions with marijuana, or may alter test results, would also provide more substantive data than what is currently available, as Gleckman concluded.

    “We are, it seems, running a giant, poorly-controlled national experiment in the use of marijuana,” he wrote. “It has important implications for seniors who face real-world choices without really knowing the costs and benefits of marijuana on their health and well-being.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • DEA Announces Plans To Expand Scientific Research For Marijuana

    DEA Announces Plans To Expand Scientific Research For Marijuana

    The agency also revealed plans to propose new regulations to evaluate these applications before reviewing and making possible approvals.

    Clinical studies involving marijuana moved a substantial step forward with an announcement by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to “facilitate and expand” applications for research into medical and scientific applications of cannabis.

    The agency intends to expand its review of applications from qualified growers who seek to cultivate marijuana for research. In doing so, the DEA noted that it will “increase the variety of marijuana available for these purposes.”

    However, the agency also stated that it plans to propose new regulations to evaluate these applications before reviewing and making possible approvals. For researchers whose work has been hampered by marijuana’s status as a federally illegal Schedule I drug, the news has prompted a response tempered with cautious optimism, given the DEA’s slow response to change on this topic in the past.

    A Monopoly on Marijuana for Research

    For the past half-century, a single facility at the University of Mississippi was legally approved by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to grow marijuana for scientific and medical research.

    As Think Progress noted, that scenario was a major roadblock to researchers; the facility produced only a handful of cannabis varieties and what was described as “low-grade” flower. 

    In 2016, the DEA announced its plans to expand research facilities, prompting numerous scientific and medical entities to apply for research grow licenses. However, as Think Progress noted, nothing came of the announcement.

    According to the DEA announcement, the number of applicants registered to conduct research has increased by 40% (from 384 in 2017 to 542 in 2019), while product quoted for federally approved research projects has doubled. The announcement of expanded review for these applications is a step in the right direction, according to researchers who have been waiting for years for approval—albeit a step that they suggest should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Proceed With Caution

    “DEA/DOJ can slow-roll this for many years to come, leaving progress of medical cannabis research in limbo indefinitely,” wrote Dr. Sue Sisley of the Scottsdale Research Institute in a statement.

    Sisley, who conducted a federally approved study on cannabis as treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, applied for a grow grant in 2016 based on the “sub-par” cannabis provided by the NIDA-approved facility. When she received no response for three years, she filed suit against the DEA. The agency’s announcement was delivered two days before a major deadline imposed by the suit.

    “At least [the] door is now theoretically kicked open,” Dr. Sisley wrote. “Now we just need to keep the DEA’s feet to the fire.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • DEA May Be Coming Around On Expanding Marijuana Research

    DEA May Be Coming Around On Expanding Marijuana Research

    The DEA will finally review potential growers of marijuana used in research, which is currently very limited in quantity and quality.

    After years of delaying progress that would expand the supply of marijuana for research, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced Monday that it will move forward with reviewing potential marijuana growers. 

    The agency issued a regulatory filing and held a press conference on Monday. 

    “I am pleased that DEA is moving forward with its review of applications for those who seek to grow marijuana legally to support research,” said Attorney General William Barr in a statement. 

    One Grow Facility

    Right now, scientists who want to study cannabis must use marijuana grown by one University of Mississippi facility, the only grower that has a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to legally grow cannabis. This limits the amount of marijuana research that can be done, as well as the quality of the product being studied.

    In 2016, the DEA announced that it would accept applications from other organizations seeking to grow cannabis for research, but it never approved any permits. 

    That prompted one scientist, Dr. Sue Sisley, director of Scottsdale Research Institute, to sue the agency, alleging that the current arrangement is a monopoly on marijuana growth. “The bottom line is scientists need access to options,” Sisley told NPR.

    Sisley’s lawsuit likely prompted the DEA’s action on Monday, Think Progress reported. 

    Shane Pennington, who is on Sisley’s legal team, said that although the announcement may have seemed dry, it was monumental. “Until today, no one could do anything. We were handcuffed, in limbo,” he said. “Now they’ve done something. It’s a huge, huge deal.”

    Still, he was a bit apprehensive, saying, “I have high hopes, but I’ll believe it when I see it.” 

    Matt Zorn, a lawyer for the Scottsdale Research Institute, said that he is “cautiously optimistic” following Monday’s announcement. “It’s a positive first step because we were stuck in a kind of administrative limbo,” he said. 

    Catch-22

    Zorn explained how marijuana’s Schedule I status creates a catch-22. 

    “On the one hand, you can’t do the research with good, high-quality cannabis because it’s a Schedule I drug. On the other, it’s a Schedule I because nobody can really do the research,” he said.

    Sisley pointed out that getting approval to grow cannabis for research is just the first step. Then, scientists will need to grow marijuana that is comparable to the high-quality pot that people obtain from dispensaries. 

    “We haven’t really won anything until scientists are finally utilizing real-world cannabis flower in their clinical trials,” she said.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Harvard, MIT Receive $9 Million Gift For Cannabis Research

    Harvard, MIT Receive $9 Million Gift For Cannabis Research

    The donation is the largest ever earmarked for marijuana research. 

    An investor who made millions investing in the medical cannabis market in Canada has donated $9 million to Harvard and MIT to find research on cannabis. The $9 million gift is the largest donation ever earmarked for marijuana research. 

    “Our desire is to fill the research void that currently exists in the science of cannabis,” Bob Broderick, a Harvard alumni, told the school. 

    Broderick hopes that the gift, which will be divided evenly between the two universities, will empower researchers to commit to studying cannabis, despite federal regulations and limitations on marijuana research. 

    “People take risks when they say, ‘I’m going to start doing cannabis work,’ ” Broderick told WBUR. “For a young researcher at MIT or Harvard to say, ‘I’m going to pivot my career and study the effects of cannabis,’ I don’t think that’s something that would have happened five years ago.”

    Broderick said that it’s important for everyone that more research be done on cannabis and its health effects. 

    “And that’s going to be good for all of us,” he said. “A majority of Americans live in a regulatory environment that has either medical or recreational cannabis.”

    Bruce Bean, a professor of neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, said that the gift will allow researchers to learn more about THC and CBD, but also begin studying the hundred other cannabinoid compounds in marijuana. 

    “Even for [THC and CBD], I have to say our knowledge is very, very sparse in terms of how they actually have their effects on the brain. But for many of the other hundred cannabinoids or so we know — we really know nothing,” Bean said. 

    MIT professor and researcher Myriam Heiman studies the effect of cannabis on symptoms of schizophrenia. Her lab will receive $1 million of Broderick’s gift. 

    “We were saying, ‘Wouldn’t it be great to study this?’” she said. “And then this gift comes along and really is enabling us to do everything we wanted to do.”

    John Gabrieli, another MIT professor who studies marijuana, will use $1 million to help fund research into the effects of cannabis for people with schizophrenia and autism. He said that marijuana use is already widespread among people with mental illness, so it’s important that research catch up with this current use and understand the health effects for this population. 

    “That’s why we need the science,” he said. “Because right now, it’s happening without the science, and it’s likely to happen all the more as marijuana becomes highly available legally in many states.”

    Broderick hopes that his donation will inspire other philanthropists to help fund cannabis research. 

    “My thought is that this is the largest gift to support cannabis research, but it’s not going to be the largest for long,” he said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • U.S. Reps Say Stop Classifying Marijuana as a Dangerous Drug

    U.S. Reps Say Stop Classifying Marijuana as a Dangerous Drug

    The federal government currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, impeding important research and new medical treatments.

    U.S. Representatives Earl L. Carter and Earl Blumenauer published a call for the government to remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs in NBC News’ opinion section Monday. They argue that marijuana’s current classification, which labels cannabis as dangerous and without any medical benefits, has prevented researchers from studying a substance that is being legalized on a medical and recreational basis across the country.

    Carter, a Georgia Republican, and Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat, believe that it’s past time to remove many of the hoops researchers must go through to even begin to study the effects and medical benefits of cannabis.

    “[R]esearchers seeking to conduct clinical research must jump through several hoops to submit an application to the FDA and get approval from the DEA before starting their work,” they wrote. “Furthermore, all research efforts must go through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the cannabis used must be sourced from their authorized facility. In 2016, the DEA announced that it would create a process to license additional manufacturers for research, but it has yet to approve a single application despite bipartisan congressional pressure.”

    The representatives support their argument by pointing out that over 90 percent of U.S. residents approve of legalizing cannabis for medical purposes and the FDA approved oral cannabidiol (CBD) solution for the treatment of two forms of epilepsy in 2018. They also express concern that not only could the current red tape prevent people from getting treatment that could help them, it could be preventing some from realizing that they “need to pursue a different treatment.”

    An increasing number of federal U.S. legislators have been getting on board in terms of cannabis decriminalization or full legalization. Recent business deals between large cannabis companies have caused speculation that legalization could be right around the corner in spite of the DEA’s continued refusal to take the drug off of the list of the most tightly-controlled substances.

    As more states legalize cannabis and more people try it for treatment of physical and psychological illnesses, there has been increasing concern that research has fallen too far behind. As the opioid epidemic has raised questions about what to do about the millions of people who need regular pain relief, U.S. researchers have been unable to quickly and effectively research how well cannabis could act as a full or partial replacement for drugs that are physically addictive and carry the risk of overdose.

    “The chemistry found only in cannabis plants can provide relief across an incredible array of adverse health states. It does this with minimal side effects and with the prospect of being eminently cost-effective in its use,” said ANANDA Scientific CEO Dr. Mark Rosenfeld.

    “The medicinal use of cannabis today has its roots in the 1960s, when Israeli scientists began studies on its unique chemistry. A government program for administering medical cannabis has been in place there for 12 years, and doctors do not hesitate to encourage its use as an effective pharmaceutical alternative. Meanwhile, the United States remains regrettably behind because of its draconian and antiquated anti-cannabis laws.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • NIDA Director Nora Volkow Talks Marijuana Research, Kratom

    NIDA Director Nora Volkow Talks Marijuana Research, Kratom

    Volkow testified before Congress about the difficulties of researching Schedule I drugs like marijuana.  

    Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said during congressional testimony this week that designating a drug with Schedule I status can inhibit much-needed research. 

    “Indeed, the moment that a drug gets a Schedule I, which is done in order to protect the public so that they don’t get exposed to it, it makes research much harder,” Nora Volkow said, according to Marijuana Moment. “This is because [researchers] actually have to through a registration process that is actually lengthy and cumbersome.”

    Schedule I status is reserved for drugs that have no accepted medical use and are highly addictive. It includes heroin, but also marijuana. Other dangerous drugs, like cocaine and methamphetamine, are placed in the less restrictive Schedule 2 status.

    Many people would like to see marijuana reclassified, or unclassified all together. 

    Although marijuana is accepted for medical use in the majority of the country, it is “very difficult” for researchers to study the drug, because of its Schedule I status. Even in states where cannabis is legal for medical or recreational purposes, researchers and institutions can risk losing their federal funding if they study it without going through the federal process.

    This leaves many questions about the safety of products from marijuana to CBD, Volkow said. 

    The federal research process for marijuana includes lengthy delays because the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) limits the number of permits allowed for studying marijuana, and the amount of cannabis that can be grown for research purposes. Despite promising to issue more permits, the DEA has not yet significantly increased the ability of researchers to study marijuana. 

    Volkow also spoke about whether the herb kratom should receive Schedule I status. She said that doing so would “make it very difficult for our researchers to get ahold of the pharmacological compound itself.”

    Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) suggested that the benefits of scheduling kratom (like restricting public use) might be outweighed by the negative consequence of limiting research.

    “There seems to be—all the problems we’re trying to untangle right now around cannabis, marijuana specifically, because of Schedule I, I’d hate to see us put another drug there and then have to try to work backwards,” he said. “If we’re not there already, it allows you to continue to do the research.”

    NIDA, the DEA and the FDA are all working on a process to streamline drug research, looking for a “path that will allow researchers to work with Schedule I drugs in a safe way, but without actually expediting that process,” according to Volkow.

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Does Marijuana Affect Sperm Count?

    Does Marijuana Affect Sperm Count?

    A new study suggests it does—but not in the way you might think. 

    Harvard researchers were surprised to find that men who have smoked marijuana had better sperm counts than their counterparts who had never used cannabis—but scientists are cautioning that the link does not mean there is a causal connection between smoking marijuana and increased fertility. 

    A study published this week in the journal Human Reproduction found that men who had smoked marijuana at some point in their lives had higher sperm counts, which is associated with increased fertility.

    Researchers examined 1,143 semen samples from 662 men, all of whom were undergoing fertility treatments with their partners at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center.

    “Men who had ever smoked marijuana had significantly higher sperm concentration than men who had never smoked marijuana,” study authors wrote. There was no difference in sperm count between current and previous marijuana smokers. 

    These findings came as a surprise, since previous research has indicted that smoking marijuana had a negative effect on fertility. A 2015 study found that men who smoked weekly had a lower sperm count than those that did not, and a study published in 2018 found that THC can change the structure of sperm.  

    Researchers said that it’s possible that low-level exposure to cannabis could aid fertility by stimulating the endocannabinoid system in the brain. However, they said that it’s just as likely that testosterone levels affect both the likelihood that a man uses cannabis (a risk-taking behavior) and his sperm production. 

    “Our findings could reflect the fact that men with higher testosterone levels are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behaviors, including smoking marijuana,” Dr Feiby Nassan, who was involved with the research, told Bloomberg. 

    Allan Pacey, professor of Andrology at the University of Sheffield in Britain, said that men who are trying to have a child should continue to avoid cannabis. 

    “As the authors point out, men with higher sperm concentrations are likely to have more testosterone in their bodies and thus may be more likely to smoke marijuana because simply they are willing to take more risks,” he said. “In conclusion, I am not convinced that this paper moves us any further forward in this debate. Moreover, nor does it give support to any apparent fertility benefits of smoking marijuana. In my opinion, this should be avoided at all costs in any couples trying to start a family.” 

    Lead author Dr. Jorge Chavarro said that the findings highlight the need for more research into the effects of cannabis on male fertility. 

    “These unexpected findings highlight how little we know about the reproductive health effects of marijuana, and in fact of the health effects of marijuana in general,” he said. “Our results need to be interpreted with caution and they highlight the need to further study the health effects of marijuana use.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Critics Respond To Malcolm Gladwell's Controversial Cannabis Article

    Critics Respond To Malcolm Gladwell's Controversial Cannabis Article

    In a recent New Yorker feature Gladwell makes the case that marijuana is not as “safe as we think.”

    Journalist Malcolm Gladwell’s recent feature in The New Yorker about the possible connections between marijuana use and paranoid/psychotic behavior has drawn fierce critical responses from both cannabis consumers and fellow writers alike.

    A new editorial in The Atlantic crystallizes the core issues that opponents have voiced about the story: In citing former Los Angeles Times reporter Alex Berenson’s book Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence, both Gladwell and Berenson appear to be making broad assumptions about the potential for marijuana use to incite paranoia, schizophrenia and violent behavior based on research and anecdotes that do not reach the conclusions that the authors state.

    As James Hamblin, who wrote the Atlantic piece, noted, Gladwell and Berenson’s assertions are the “public-intellectual equivalent of just sayin’.”

    In the New Yorker story, Gladwell sought to make the case that marijuana is not as safe a drug as proponents claim it to be. His primary source for this assertion is Berenson’s book, which cites statistics from the state of Washington, which at first blush, seem to indicate that murder and aggravated-assault rates rose by 40% between 2013 and 2017 — the period immediately before and after the state legalized recreational marijuana.

    Berenson also cited a 2017 report on the health effects of cannabis by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), which found “substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses.”

    But as Hamblin and others note, Gladwell appears to focus less on the wealth of inconclusive or conflicting results found in both sources, as well as the many other factors that contribute to mental illness and violent behavior.

    Gladwell writes, “We don’t know that an increase in cannabis use was responsible for that surge in violence” in Washington State. Nor do Gladwell or Berenson appear to mention that the NAM research also found statistical evidence of a link between “cannabis use and better cognitive performance among individuals with psychotic disorders,” as well as “moderate evidence of no statistical association between cannabis use and worsening of negative symptoms of schizophrenia.”

    As Hamblin and science writer Dave Levitan both noted, there are two issues at hand with Gladwell and Berenson’s assertions. One is a cherry-picking of data to prove a point: In regard to the statistics about Washington, Levitan noted that while the state did experience an increase in murders between 2013 and 2017, the rate actually fell between 2015 and 2016. Additionally, the murder rate from 2012 to 2017 actually only increased by 3%. So, as Levitan wrote, “Which murder rate do you use?”

    Both authors also noted that Gladwell and Berenson continually confuse correlation with causation. As Hamblin writes, “Berenson argues that if marijuana can cause psychotic breaks from reality, and psychotic people are more inclined to violence, marijuana is a cause of violence.” Levitan breaks it down even further: “Crime tends to spike in the summer; so does ice cream consumption. Did all that ice cream cause the crime?”

    Ultimately, what emerges from Gladwell and Berenson’s narratives is the undeniable fact that more research into cannabis is necessary. But linking its use to mental illness and violence will actually make such efforts more difficult. Hamblin cited Yasmin Hurd, director of the Addiction Institute at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, who said, “Many people who are making the decisions about funding going to the [National Institute of Health] and other organizations will now say that we should have a moratorium on a drug that increases murder. Why would we want to do that and put people’s lives at risk?”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Joe Kennedy III Advocates For Federal Marijuana Legalization

    Joe Kennedy III Advocates For Federal Marijuana Legalization

    Representative Joe Kennedy III detailed his support for federal marijuana legalization in a recent op-ed.

    Representative Joe Kennedy III voiced his support for removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing it at the national level.

    Kennedy, a Democrat and the US Representative for Massachusetts’ 4th congressional district, penned an op-ed for the health and life sciences magazine Stat in late November that outlined his advocacy for legalization, which he based on the growing number of states with legalization initiatives – including his own home state – and the health benefits attributed to marijuana.

    Due to the federal government’s apparent inability to reconcile these advancements with its stance on legality, Kennedy opined that it should “cede its responsibility – and authority – to thoughtfully regulate marijuana.”

    Kennedy’s position is an about-face from previous statements made on legalization, most notably on Jimmy Kimmel Live! where his support of cannabis prohibition put him at odds with the majority of his party.

    He addressed his reticence in the Stat piece, where he noted that his work with the mental health and addiction communities had made him “skeptical” of marijuana’s alleged benefits. “I’ve heard repeatedly from mental health advocates on the frontlines who have grave concerns about what access to marijuana might do for those prone to abuse,” he explained.

    But Kennedy said that he had also listened to those supporting cannabis legalization, primarily for health reasons, like “the parent whose epileptic child needs marijuana to calm her seizures, [or] the veteran whose trauma it eases [or] the black teen arrested for smoking a joint while his white friends did the same with impunity,” he wrote.

    Through research and conversations with individuals on both sides of the legalization argument, Kennedy said that he had reached the conclusion that “our federal policy on marijuana is badly broken, benefiting neither the elderly man suffering from cancer whom marijuana may help nor the young woman prone to substance abuse disorder whom it may harm.”

    He also noted the negative impact that prohibition has on the economy, citing marijuana businesses forced to implement cash-only transactions due to banks’ reluctance to work with them over federal regulation, and the loss of career and housing opportunities due to restrictions on jobs with and leasing to marijuana retailers.

    “Given the rapid pace of state-level legalization and liberation, I believe we must implement strong, clear and fair federal guidelines,” wrote Kennedy. “To do that requires us to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and legalize it at the federal level.”

    Though he has advocated for legalization, Kennedy also noted that his concerns about the public health issues associated with marijuana remain. But by making cannabis legal at the federal level, he said that health and addiction advocates will have their “best chance” to make sure that tax resources are directed towards consumer safety and treatment through federal regulation.

    “Legalization is not a cure-all,” he concluded. “But [it] would guide states choose to move forward with strong and cearly national standards meant to ensure that all Americans are protected fully and equally.”

    View the original article at thefix.com