Pubdate: Sun, 26 Oct 2014
Source: Gainesville Sun, The (FL)
Copyright: 2014 The Gainesville Sun
Contact:  http://www.gainesville.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/163
Author: Dave Denslow
Dave Denslow is a local economist.

LET'S CHECK THE FACTS ON THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DEBATE

One of the splits between North and South is over the medical use of
marijuana. In New York, the House recently voted for legalizing
medical marijuana 117-30, followed by 49-10 in the Senate. In
Maryland, the House approved 125-11 and the Senate 44-2. Last year in
New Hampshire, the votes in favor were 284-66 in the House and 18-6 in
the Senate. Those three states joined 20 others where marijuana could
already be used medically. Every southern state, however, remains
among the 27 that still outlaw its medicinal use, even as evidence
accumulates that cannabinoids alleviate severe pain, nausea, weight
loss and muscle spasms with milder side effects than alternatives.
Medicinal use of marijuana is humane and reduces deaths from opioids.

What about Florida, a cultural blend of North and South? Until
recently, Amendment 2 legalizing marijuana, drafted by former House
speaker and UF law school dean Jon Mills, appeared sure to gain the
required 60 percent voter approval. Recently, however, a flood of
negative TV advertising has turned many voters against it.

Though much political advertising is fact-free, there are possibly
legitimate concerns about Amendment 2. First, it may make pot more
readily available and reduce its stigma, inducing young people to
smoke it, unfortunate because heavy use before age 21 can cause brain
damage and addiction. Second, greater availability may foster more
marijuana-related binge drinking by adults, resulting in more auto
accidents. Third, details of medical care may not belong in the state
Constitution.

Let's tackle those issues in turn. By the best evidence available,
letting doctors prescribe marijuana does not cause more young people
to smoke pot. Though more youths indulge in moderate recreational
smoking in states where medical use is legal, that also was true
before those states legalized it.

The way to uncover the genuine effect of legalization is a bit
complicated. Suppose state A legalizes and state B never does. You
measure recreational use in state A before and after it legalizes and
recreational use in state B before and after A legalizes and compare
the differences. Got that?

Actually, you compare before and after recreational use year by year
in multiple states that legalize it at varying times or never. That's
what Sarah Lynne-Landsman, Melvin Livingston and Alexander Wagenaar,
all at UF's College of Medicine, did. They found such laws had no
effect on "adolescent marijuana use in the first few years after their
enactment." (Their data did not allow them to study long-term
outcomes.) Their results have been confirmed by other analysts using
the same method but other data sets. Youths are not affected except
that, if anything, their recreational use of marijuana declines slightly.

For adults, the story differs. Still other analysts have found that
legalization of medical marijuana causes more recreational use by
those 21 and older. The social cost of that would be negligible,
compared to the benefits of medical use, except that it appears to
result in more binge drinking and auto accidents.

Even that, on closer examination, is not a reason to reject Amendment
2, as shown in an exhaustive study by RAND Corporation analysts
subtitled "The Devil Is in the Details." If a state makes marijuana
easily available to anyone - no registration for use, grow as much as
you want at home, unregulated distributors on every street - adults
use more. If a state regulates use carefully, however, they do not.

Having learned from other states, Mills wrote Amendment 2 so that in
Florida distribution and use would be carefully controlled.
Advertisements saying that is not so are surreal, if you have read the
text and know anything about the Florida Legislature.

Speaking of the Legislature, why not let our representatives and
senators handle this? Why seek to amend the Constitution? To ask that
question is to answer it. Gerrymandering, single-member districts,
term limits and the power structure of the House have wounded
representative democracy in Florida. How long the state will take to
recover is unknown, but until that time we have to deal with things as
they are. It's not that proponents of medical use prefer to change the
Constitution, though some of them are no doubt opportunistically
delighted to be handed a voter turnout issue to help Crist in the race
for governor. It's that the Legislature leaves them no choice.

Maybe proponents in the 11 states that legalized medical marijuana
through the ballot went directly to the voters for similar reasons.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard