SAM F.A.Q.

Alcohol is not legal because it is safe; it is legal because most of Western civilization has used the drug for thousands of years. By contrast, marijuana has always been used by a small minority of the population. Drug laws keep rates of use down, thereby lowering the negative consequences for communities. Alcohol and tobacco – two legally available drugs – provide a good example, since Americans use them far more frequently than illegal drugs.

Alcohol is in and out of your system within 24 hours; marijuana’s effects last much longer. Research has found that marijuana abusers self-report far worse outcomes than alcohol users, including more problems at home, work, or school and more mental health problems.

Evidence also finds that people often use alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco together. Rarely do users substitute alcohol for marijuana. In fact, rates of alcohol sales continue to rise in states that have legalized marijuana.

Science and evidence – not public opinion or ideology – should drive public health and policy in America.

While it is true an increasing number of Americans support legalizing marijuana, there is no evidence to assert that marijuana legalization is an issue most – or even a substantial number – of Americans care very strongly about. A recent Gallup poll found that the top issues Americans care most about are the economy, terrorism, and foreign policy. Marijuana legalization didn’t even register in the poll.

The surprise results of the most recent presidential election demonstrate that anything can happen, and when it comes to controversial issues, public opinion can swing back and forth. Moreover, in many places that voted for marijuana, we are now seeing evidence of “buyer’s remorse” after the proliferation of marijuana shops and advertising in communities. In Colorado, California, and Oregon, the majority of towns, when given a choice, have rejected pot shops at the polls.

Marijuana legalization is not a states’ rights issue because the effects of legalization quickly spread into neighboring, non-legal states. Since Colorado legalized, marijuana has poured into nearby states – it even got so bad that Nebraska and Oklahoma have sued Colorado for exacerbating their in-state marijuana trafficking operations.

Moreover, this issue has already been settled by the courts. In Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 case regarding federal enforcement of laws concerning marijuana plants in someone’s yard, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that federal law supersedes state law in enforcing drug statutes – even in states where marijuana is legal.

We do support laws that remove criminal sanctions for low-level marijuana use, but the overall objective of drug policy should be to discourage drug use. Any proposed laws removing criminal penalties must be paired with requisite investments in prevention, treatment, and drugged driving enforcement. Decriminalization is also a confusing term, often inadvertently or purposefully used to advance legalization.

Non-violent drug offenders – regardless of the drug – should not be saddled with criminal records that would imperil their recovery and reintegration into our communities. Still, we also know laws discouraging drug consumption work to keep rates of use down. That is why we support evidence-based reforms that discourage use while avoiding criminal penalties. There are a wide array of smart-on-crime alternatives that remove criminal penalties for smoking marijuana including drug courts, pre-trial diversion programs, and probation reform.  Communities are healthier and safer when these reforms are coupled with prevention and treatment programs.

We do support laws that remove criminal sanctions for low-level marijuana use, but the overall objective of drug policy should be to discourage drug use. Any proposed laws removing criminal penalties must be paired with requisite investments in prevention, treatment, and drugged driving enforcement. Decriminalization is also a confusing term, often inadvertently or purposefully used to advance legalization.

Non-violent drug offenders – regardless of the drug – should not be saddled with criminal records that would imperil their recovery and reintegration into our communities. Still, we also know laws discouraging drug consumption work to keep rates of use down. That is why we support evidence-based reforms that discourage use while avoiding criminal penalties. There are a wide array of smart-on-crime alternatives that remove criminal penalties for smoking marijuana including drug courts, pre-trial diversion programs, and probation reform.  Communities are healthier and safer when these reforms are coupled with prevention and treatment programs.

Yeah. We make annual disclosures regarding our funding sources every year.

America deserves to have a healthy, strong workforce ready compete in an increasingly competitive and global economy. Research demonstrates that workplaces with lower rates of drug use have employees that are more productive, have lower rates of absenteeism, fewer accidents, and are better prepared to meet the challenges of an increasingly globalized economy.

Drug testing is actually making hiring decisions less discriminatory. Studies have shown that in places where drug testing is more common, African-American employment rises. This is because there’s an often-subconscious perception among employers that African-American candidates use drugs at higher rates than whites, but when drug tests can firmly prove who is and isn’t using, hiring becomes more equitable.

Drug testing is a matter of public health and safety – we wouldn’t want our kid’s school bus driver high, or our pilot stoned. Everyone wants to come home with the same number of fingers and toes that they left with in the morning. The American workforce should be as effective and clear-minded as possible, especially in today’s competitive global market.

No – law enforcement is part of a balanced solution to the marijuana problem. In fact, smart law enforcement can reduce crime as well as direct people to treatment. Drug courts, mental health courts, and projects like Project HOPE all have law enforcement as a central component. SAM believes that prevention and treatment should receive more funding, but that is not to say that law enforcement isn’t part of the solution.

SAM wholeheartedly believes that we need to fast-track the FDA process to extract non-smoked medications from the cannabis plant. SAM also believes that in the meantime, before we have more cannabis-based FDA-approved medications, FDA and HHS should administer a program whereby the truly sick and dying can receive yet-to-be approved, non-psychoactive, non-smoked components of marijuana under a special research program. But rescheduling marijuana is neither necessary nor desirable for those actions to happen.

Rescheduling marijuana would do nothing to allow for more cannabis-based medicines. In fact, cocaine is Schedule II today and is not allowed in a widespread fashion. Rescheduling would simply be a symbolic victory for advocates who want to legalize marijuana.

Yes.  According to the nation’s largest and most comprehensive survey of drug use trends in the nation, past-month use of marijuana among 12-17 year olds in Colorado increased significantly – from 9.82% to 12.56% after marijuana retail sales began (Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012 and implemented legal marijuana stores in 2014). The same study notes that teens and adults in Colorado now use marijuana at a higher rate than the rest of the country.

Youth use is also increasing in Washington State.  According to a study published in The Journal of American Medical Association Pediatrics, the perceived harmfulness of marijuana in Washington declined 14.2% and 16.1% among eighth and 10th graders, respectively, while marijuana use increased 2.0% and 4.1% from 2010-2012 to 2013-2015.

Media reporting and statements from politicians noting stable or declining youth drug use rates in Colorado likely stem from a non-representative sample found in the state’s Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS), which excludes both the second most-populous and third-most populous counties in Colorado altogether (Jefferson and Douglas Counties). Also, the survey designers decided, without explanation, to set the threshold for statistical significance far higher in their survey, meaning that differences that would usually be statistically significant would not appear to be so under the new standard. (In response, a group of scientists recently wrote to Governor Hickenlooper urging him to stop saying drug use has not gone up in the state.)

An important 2017 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that illicit marijuana use increased significantly more in states that passed medical marijuana laws than in other states, as did the frequency of marijuana use disorders, compared to states without medical marijuana laws.  With respect to youth consumption specifically, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study of marijuana use in medical marijuana states vs. states without such laws found higher rates of teen marijuana use, lower perceived risk of harm from using the drug, greater perception of availability, and lower rates of disapproval of marijuana use in states with legal medical marijuana.

Additionally, as the graphic shows, states with medical (and recreational) marijuana lead the nation in youth consumption.  This could be because youth perception of the risks associated with drug use is perhaps the most important determinant of whether they will engage in illegal drug use. In other words, young people who perceive a high risk of harm are less likely to use drugs than young people who perceive a low risk of harm from that drug.Additional research from NIH demonstrates that “claims that marijuana has medicinal benefits create additional challenges for adolescent prevention efforts as they contrast with messages of its harmfulness.”

Of course, all medical marijuana programs are implemented differently. What we have seen is that in the states that have lax programs with marijuana stores, use rates rise faster than states with very limited programs. Also some states allow CBD only or are extremely limited. It is important to make these distinctions when discussing policy.