Headlines, once not reported in our rush for the legalisation of the highly lauded (and to many advocates) panacea of most ills – cannabis – are now begrudgingly starting to emerge.

Doctors warn of significant increase in people hospitalised with psychosis after being prescribed medicinal cannabis (msn.com)

(North America reporting this more, Marijuana Overdoses on the Rise Among Elderly in Canada, Raising Concerns for the US – WRD News and Rising Rates of Cannabis-Related Disorders Seen in Older Adults – WRD News)

The evidence of this growing public health disaster has always been gathering just not reported in the mainstream media.  However, the pro-pot gag is starting to slip, and the many inescapable harms are now emerging more in the public square. It’s way past time that our community demands a better public health response to the ‘vote for medicine’ debacle that has facilitated much of this growing mess. 

Recent reports have highlighted a concerning trend: a significant increase in hospitalisations due to psychosis among patients prescribed ‘medicinal’ cannabis. Doctors have observed that some patients, particularly those with pre-existing psychotic conditions, are experiencing severe relapses after using medicinal cannabis. This rise in psychosis cases has been attributed to the proliferation of “single-issue” cannabis clinics, which often prescribe cannabis without thorough patient evaluations.

‘Medicinal’ Marijuana and Self-Medication Outcomes

The debate over medicinal marijuana continues to evolve, with recent discussions focusing on the outcomes of self-medication. A key point of contention is whether medicinal cannabis truly benefits patients or if it leads to unintended consequences like cannabis use disorder (CUD). Studies have shown that while some patients report relief from symptoms such as pain and insomnia, others develop dependency issues. This dichotomy underscores the need for more regulated and evidence-based approaches to prescribing medicinal cannabis.

A recent 9-month follow-up study on medical cannabis users has provided valuable insights into the long-term effects of cannabis use. The study found that frequent cannabis use did not significantly improve symptoms of pain, anxiety, or depression. However, it did lead to the development of cannabis use disorder in a notable minority of participants. This finding highlights the importance of monitoring and regulating cannabis use among patients to prevent dependency and other adverse effects.

We could go into the mounting evidence of harms during pregnancy, the growing cancer risk related to the use of cannabis, and the now confirmed multiple journal published evidence-based research on the Genotoxicity and Neurotoxicity of this ‘medicine’.

Even before this growing and alarming research was published and it was becoming clear that cannabis as ‘medicine’ was falling spectacularly short of its propaganda promises, and sometime after the vote for medicine protocol had unleashed this unwisely ‘medically’ validated substance, the Royal Australian College of General PractitionersRoyal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) released its primer on this new ‘medicinal’ offering.

It’s important to note that this 2021 publishing is now three years behind the new concerning evidence about the harms of this recreational substance, turned medicine. Not least the new research revealing that CBD (Cannabidiol) is not the benign substance it was touted to be, even in this publication. It is research emerging in the last three years that have raised serious alarms about the long-term harms of this cannabis component and other cannabinoids.

The primary sentiment behind this generalised classification of CBD is ‘harmless’ was that around the fact that it it’s unadulterated form it doesn’t get you ‘high’; but that outcome is only one side-effect of this psychotropic toxin.

RACGP - A primer on medicinal cannabis safety and potential adverse effects

Even back then the somewhat muted concerns of the RACGP were clear. On reading their publication it is important to also note that this peak medical body made the very clear distinction between fully trialled pharmaceutical prescribable medicines, and the new more ‘holistic’ offerings allowed by the TGA.

While medicinal cannabis offers very few benefits other than mere temporary relief of symptoms of a small number of medical conditions, it more concerningly poses significant risks, particularly in relation to mental health. The increase in psychosis cases and the development of cannabis use disorder among users alone, call for stricter regulations and more comprehensive patient evaluations.

The very few positive benefits associated with medicinal cannabis are outweighed by the growing number of short- and longer-term harms of this highly engineered and increasingly under-performing therapeutic and they can no longer be ignored or easily dismissed as outliers.

Manufacturing consensus – The Start of ‘Vote for Medicine’ Protocol

Where did this very concerning and inevitable public health issue begin?

I’ll start the journey here back in December 2014, the Victorian Law Reform Commission Consultation on ‘medicinal’ cannabis released its report. It drew from a miniscule 9 very poorly attended public hearings in Victoria and a mere 99 submissions, mostly from then illicit cannabis users.

This exceedingly small sampling of a community largely unaware, and arguably disinterested in, this issue was to become the basis for simply ‘rubber stamping’ (as we’ll see) a fait accompli of predetermined government decision. A being ‘seen to do the due diligence’ pantomime.

As mentioned, these ‘town halls’ drew very small numbers, with the major one in the city of Melbourne, having less than one hundred people attending, and all but a few clearly pro-cannabis delegates.

At this particular consultation, the Dalgarno Institute was represented by Drug Free Australia Research Fellow who was deeply concerned, but not surprised, by this small Melbourne consultation.  Prepared evidence-based research on the harms of cannabis was ready to be shared, but our representative was quickly marginalised and/or managed, by the facilitators when they noted his voice was a dissenting one.

Repeated attempts to have his well-prepared evidence tabled were no less than stifled. However, our affiliate in the room experienced, observed and noted the following,

Emotive tone seemed not merely permitted but set for meeting by facilitators.  The meeting was facilitated by representatives of the VLRC who appeared to have a bias toward the legalisation of ‘medical marijuana’ in manner that suited the self-medicating option, regardless of evidence-based science.

When attempts were made to present evidence contrary to the seemingly predetermined agenda of these facilitators, he was either quickly shut down (after daring to speak in the first place) or continually ignored; apparently, dissenting opinions were not welcome. Whilst at the same time, proponents for ‘self-medication’ use of cannabis were given complete and unfettered access to the floor, producing statements such as:

• “Many, many people have been cured – from just about anything and everything.”
• “What would you rather have – infertility or 35 seizures a day?”
• “Random workplace drug testing is wrong.”

Not only are these statements (now on record) outrageous, but they are also utterly unsubstantiated by any legitimate clinical research, as the overwhelming evidence from the last 10 years has utterly confirmed. This small contingent of pro-cannabis lobbyists was permitted to simply spruik anecdotes with no evidence-based presentation yet also had their evidenced-deprived opinions affirmed and validated by the consultants.

The facilitators inferred that the Government (of Victoria, at least) already has legislation in place with this current ‘consultation’ process simply in play to validate those changes and therefore it is in essence a forgone conclusion.

Beyond these confirmation-bias laden gatherings, there was also a strong indication that either the A.M.A. or T.G.A. recommendations or processes would be side-stepped and/or negated wherever possible by simple legislative changes.

So, to assist with framing these potential science negating changes, new language and concepts had to be introduced by these lawyers. The following ideas and terms were introduced to help leverage the consensus manufacturing process.

The idea of ’exceptionality’ and of ‘compassion as a basis for action’.

Not science, or best practice, but sentiment, anecdote and impassioned pleas, as we saw in our live snapshot of the community consultation shared above.

Cowboy Legislation in a Cowboy State?

Once this box-ticking ‘consultation’ was completed, it was then time to introduce the already drafted – Access to Medicinal Cannabis Bill 2015

The Victorian Labor Government had decided, against better practice national option  and instead to create its own Medicinal Cannabis industry, even after assurances from the Federal Health Minister at the time that a National Scheme under T.G.A. purview would be a better option. The Labor government, at the taxpayers’ expense, was setting up another bureaucracy and self-styled pharmaceutical practice/process that will, if not run parallel to T.G.A., most likely negate it. Dalgarno Institute raised many concerns directly with Health Minister and was systematically acknowledged and then ignored.

Dalgarno Institute was able to liaise with Opposition Health Minister and through several correspondences and evidence/concern exchange, she was able to be part of a group that saw seven hours of debate in the Senate resulting  in over 400 Government amendments (believed to be a new record according to  Clerk of Court) the revised bill was passed. One such amendment is that at no point or occasion will cannabis be prescribed for delivery via ‘smoking’.

According to the then Shadow Minister for Health, Mary Wooldridge, the bill also provides that if the T.G.A. down schedules Medicinal Cannabis from a Schedule 9 drug to Schedule 8 (which is proposed to happen) that it will not be down scheduled in Victoria.  The Victorian Government argues that they would rather regulate it via our State specific, purpose-built scheme than participate at a national level.  ‘I am concerned that the opportunity to ultimately be part of a national scheme will be missed if Victoria insists on going it alone’ the Shadow Minister stated.

However, launch their own trial they did and with great expense, and all but zero positive outcomes for the Victoria Taxpayer. The following newspaper article revealed just how fruitless this cowboy action proved to be.

• MORE than a third of children receiving medicinal cannabis from the Victorian Government have discontinued their taxpayer funded treatment after the drugs failed to work.
• It was revealed this week that 13 out of 34 children have left the Government's subsidised medicinal cannabis program since it began in March last year.
• The Opposition's health spokesperson, Mary Wooldridge, said the dropouts are proof the policy — which the Government says costs around $35,000 per child — has not delivered good value for Victorian taxpayers.

Herald Sun/The Age/SBS , 7^th June 2018

What highlights the cowboy culture even more, was that the fully clinically trialled pharmaceutical grade cannabis based medicine Epidiolex® epilepsy drug had been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in the very same month. This product went through a near 10-year full clinical investigation. This medicine had been thoroughly, double-blind, placebo accounted for trial giving it a full understanding of its capacity, limitations and its shortcomings.  They followed the complete quality of evidence research pyramid to the very top as outlined in the following graphic.

Western Australia was to soon follow suit in this new Vote for Medicine protocol, with the State government there, becoming the actual ‘pusher’ of this now untrialled substance.

In 2017, when freshly minted vote for medicine legislation let non-clinically trialled cannabis products off the leash as ‘medicine’, there was no clinical takers. Get this, it is important to note that not a single one of the 10,000 plus Doctors in W.A would prescribe cannabis, as revealed by the following news article…

• West Australian patients are finding it almost impossible to obtain medicinal cannabis more than eight months after it was legalised, advocates say.
• By May, no health professional had applied to prescribe the drug, despite it being made legal in November.
• The Department of Health confirmed this week it has granted permission to three doctors to prescribe cannabinoid-based drugs and is in the process of assessing two more applications.
• "The AMA is certainly not supportive of shortcuts, and instead of avoiding all the regulatory steps, we should be investigating cannabis-based products, how good they are, how safe they are, and once that's been done, they should available just like any other drug,"    AMA WA president Omar Khorshid

The then State Premier, Mark McGowan, was very vocal about this unacceptable scenario and effective became the government ‘pusher’ of this drug as they try to create an ‘industry’ from this now voted for medicine, despite clinicians serious concerns.

The New Vote for Medicine TGA Play Book

One of the further consequences of the ‘anecdata’ driven socio-political sentiment in medical legislation making, has seen our peak medicine approving body the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) fall in line with said sentiment. In this context, again, science and best-practice research are not the cornerstone of this new procedural approval system, but, as with the Victorian consultation it appears that compassion now becomes the preferred basis for action, regardless of any unforeseen side-effects.

So, for all intents and purposes, a loophole for ‘medicinal’ cannabis was created in this regulatory setting. A caveat that enables concoctions to be made and dispensed outside the long-held gold-standard of clinical pharmaceutical research process. This then enables side-stepping the need for full double-blind, placebo accounted for and exhaustive clinical trials, like the ones conducted by G.W. Pharmaceuticals on their Epidiolex® product.

The following is an excerpt from recent correspondence sent from the Prime Minister’s office to the Taskforce for Drug Prevention to clarify this new TGA cannabis protocol.

“The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) also administers several mechanisms to enable access to therapeutic goods which are not registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and are otherwise termed as ‘unapproved’ therapeutic goods.

These mechanisms include the Special Access Scheme (SAS), the Authorised Prescriber (AP) pathway, the Clinical Trial Notification (CTN) scheme and the Clinical Trial Approval (CTA) scheme. It is a condition of TGA approval or authorisation that the prescribing health practitioner (applicant) assumes responsibility for any adverse outcome associated with use of any ‘unapproved’ therapeutic good. Any Australian registered medical practitioner can make an application under these schemes.”

“Importantly, unapproved therapeutic goods accessed through these pathways have not been evaluated by the TGA for safety, quality and efficacy. As such health practitioners who engage in the prescribing of an unapproved therapeutic good are required to do so in accordance with Good Medical Practice and the code of conduct published by the Medical Board of Australia (MBA).

It is expected that prescribing health practitioners will have considered clinically appropriate treatment options that are included in the ARTG before applying to access unapproved therapeutic goods. These considerations apply to accessing any ‘unapproved’ product, not just medicinal cannabis.” 

(Prime Minister’s Office 18^th June 2024)

REMS – The Minimum Filter for Public Health Protection

Making plain here just some of the catastrophic medical flaws of this vote for medicine debacle is not difficult, nor is it the fix, if the political will isn’t there to conform with best-practice medicine.

For any substance to be properly considered for release as medicine in the public square, requires – well at least it SHOULD require – not only rigorous testing, but on review by public health watch dogs, should at the very least go through what is known as a REMS review Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies .

What is a REMS? A Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is a drug safety program implemented by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for specific medications with serious safety concerns. Essentially, REMS are designed to reduce the occurrence or severity of particular serious adverse events associated with these drugs.

REMS a Minimum Imperative: When a medication poses significant risks, the FDA may require a REMS to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its potential harms. These risks could include severe allergic reactions, dangerous side effects, or other safety concerns. REMS are particularly relevant for prescription drugs and biologics. Without a REMS, some medications might not be approved or would even be withdrawn from the market due to known or potential risks.

How Do REMS Work? REMS involve various interventions to support the safe use of a medication. Here are a couple of examples:

• Controlled Administration Settings: For drugs that can cause severe allergic reactions immediately after administration, a REMS might mandate that the drug be administered only in healthcare facilities with trained personnel who can manage such reactions. These facilities would have immediate access to necessary treatments and equipment.
• Lab Testing Requirements: Another scenario involves ensuring that specific lab tests are completed and their results checked before a medication prescription is refilled. This helps monitor patient safety and tailor treatment appropriately.

REMS as a Safeguard Involves:

• Healthcare Providers: They receive education and guidance on safe prescribing practices.
• Patients: They may receive educational materials about the risks and safe use of the medication.
• Pharmacists: They play a crucial role in dispensing medications according to REMS requirements.
• Healthcare SettingsHealthcare Settings: These settings must adhere to specific protocols for administering the drug safely.

In summary, Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies should be a minimum and vital part of ensuring that anything promoted as medicine or medications with serious risks are used safely or not at all. These protocols can bridge the gap between medical innovation and patient well-being, emphasizing the importance of balancing benefits and risks in the realm of public health. 

Epilogue – The Final Diagnosis?

These growing public-health predicaments (and arguably culpable failings) around this super-hyped substance are beyond concerning.  We have labelled this propagandized ‘medicinal’ promoting as the new Reefer Madness. All this was foreseen by anyone who refused to buy said cannabis culture and cannabis industry palaver – such as those medically trained and not in the pocket of big cannabis physicians of Western Australia some seven years ago.

What the average ‘Jo Public’ is unaware of, is that there has been a fifty plus year war for this drug. It was only the Trojan Horse strategy of the ‘Medicinal Marijuana’ campaign, introduced by such actors as NORML, in the early 1990’s that saw more people be drawn and this new tactic of ‘medicalising’ cannabis to shift momentum back in favour of the pro-cannabis recreational use lobby.

What is also essentially unknown by almost all, is that since around 1997 up until March 2024 there have been 11,420 studies11,420 studies conducted on Cannabis THC alone, (not including Cannabis CBD or other cannabinoids) at a cost of  $4.877 billion (USD) and the very best we can come up with from all this promised panacea of all ills is essentially the same therapeutics that were already available for prescription, with the exception of the newest pharmaceutical Epidiolex ®

In this brief expose, we have not spelunked the thousands of published research on the environmental, community and productivity harms of this psychotropic toxin, parading as medicine, but we do seriously encourage, no, goad you into looking at this issue and discover the unrobust nature of pro-cannabis literature and the short-cuts being taken to promote this addiction for profit enterprise – You, your family and your community deserve to know what is really happening and get the heads up you need for what ramifications this will mean for public and community health in the future.

Shane Varcoe - Executive Director, Dalgarno Institute.

Further Reading

• Cannabis as ‘Medicine’: Pot Propaganda, Emotive Anecdote, Marketing Manipulation and the Side-Stepping of Science’
• Big Tobacco 2.0 Playbook Spin (Video)
• Effects of Cannabis Abstinence on Cognition and Resting State Network Activity in People With MS | PracticeUpdate

Endnotes - Sources

• Medicinal cannabis access a challenge for WA patients despite legalisation last year - ABC News
• McGowan to discuss medicinal cannabis | SBS News
• Dalgarno Institute Website - Massive Population Studies Confirm Alarming Cannabis Harm
• Dalgarno Institute Website - Genotoxicity and Neurotoxicity of Cannabis: 66th CND – Vienna UN 2023
• RACGP - A primer on medicinal cannabis safety and potential adverse effects
• Dalgarno Institute Website - Toxicity Concerns on Cannabidiol (CBD)
• Development of cannabis use disorder in medical cannabis users: A 9-month follow-up of a randomized clinical trial testing effects of medical cannabis card ownership (frontiersin.org)
• https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/VLRC_Medicinal_Cannabis_Report_web.pdf
• https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/regulatory-experience-handling-risk-management-plans-rmps-medicinal-products-eu-expert-opinion-drug-safety_en.pdf
• https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/risk-evaluation-and-mitigation-strategies-rems

Senate report rejects proposed laws to legalise recreational cannabis use in Australia June 3, 2024

Australia won’t see any cannabis cafes selling brownies anytime soon, despite agreement that the use of marijuana should be prioritised as a health issue.

A push to legalise the recreational use of cannabis on a national scale has been knocked back after experts expressed concerns it would lead to more use of the drug among young people.

A Senate committee rejected a bill introduced by Greens senator David Shoebridge on Friday, which calls to allow for cannabis possession for personal use in Australia, as well as the establishment of a national agency to regulate the growing of plants.

After receiving over 200 submissions the committee noted evidence from peak medical bodies including the Australian Medical Association (AMA) that warned wider access could exacerbate health risks, particularly for adolescents.

“Ultimately, the committee is concerned that the legalisation of cannabis for adult recreational use would create as many, if not more, problems than the bill is attempting to resolve,” the report said.

“While endeavouring to do so, the bill does not address several significant concerns, for example, ensuring that children and young people cannot access cannabis (particularly home-grow), managing risky cannabis use, and effective oversight of THC content.”

Cannabis remains the most commonly used illicit drug in Australia, according to the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey, with more than 2.5 million people having used it recently.

In 2019, about 11.7 per cent of people aged 14 years reported having had used the drug at least once it in the past 12 months. The figure was higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, at 16 per cent.

Under the Greens model, adults in Australia could legally grow six cannabis plants but it would remain a crime to sell the drug to anyone under the age of 18.

The bill also proposes the creation of licensed Amsterdam-style ‘cannabis cafes’ that sell marijuana products, such as edibles.

He said despite the committee’s findings the Greens plan to introduce the bill into parliament this year.

“The majority report in this inquiry reasonably fairly covers the evidence we had in the inquiry, although it does not detail the hundreds of individual submissions to the inquiry that, almost unanimously, asked us to vote this into law and to finally legalise cannabis,” he added.

Medical cannabis was legalised in Australia in 2016 and last year around 700,000 people reported having used cannabis for medical purposes.

(D.I. Comment - The Dalgarno Institute not only made a successful submission to this inquiry but presented evidence to it in February this year. As we expected from out previous sojourn into this space back in 2018, we saw the cliché, gratuitous, and often erroneous memes presented as ‘data’ by pro-cannabis punters. Sadly, this often was largely unchallenged in the hearings. Cleverly couched claims were often presented along with anecdotes of legal hardships for the hapless weed user, as to present them as victims, not villains in the illegal consumption of a psychotropic toxin. Concerningly, one such anecdote had a retired magistrate, academic and now pro-cannabis lobbyist, speak of the need to legalise and regulate because it will be safer. However, we want you to note the confession he makes, recorded in Hansard…

“…for example, about eating cannabis. I'm sure we have all had the experience of seeing friends and people that we know who have eaten cannabis and gotten really, really affected, way more than they wanted to be. There are safety measures that can be put in place to ensure that any use is safer use…”

This law official emeritus speaks blithely about illegal recreational cannabis use in his presence as if it were not only normal, but the majority of Australians are okay with this, all in an attempt to garner support for this society unravelling addition. Such is the manifestation of the new #ReeferMadness.

This should give you a hint as to who is attempting to control drug policy interpretation and implementation.

However, the review of such claims, along with the evidence of inevitable harms saw sanity prevail, again.

This will not stop some State actors, like the ACT continuing their experimental march to ‘cannabis-ify’ their jurisdictions – health, safety and well-being of our families and communities be damned.)

For completes story

It turns out it’s complicated to tax a commodity that used to be illegal.

States looking to legalize recreational marijuana might believe they're going after easy money.

Think again. States that have legalized recreational cannabis are finding that it's not always the cash cow they envisioned. And there are plenty of other complicated issues to confront as they try to create and manage a legal market for a product long considered taboo.

Eleven states and the District of Columbia have given the green light to recreational cannabis, starting with Colorado and Washington state in 2012, with sales already underway in seven states. In those states, bringing marijuana into the legitimate economy was often sold to officials and the public as a way to raise new tax revenue from sales and production and funnel it into areas like education, mental health and law enforcement.

So what have those states experienced? Tax revenue that has largely fallen short of expectations and a growing recognition that taxing marijuana is pretty complicated.

It’s not just that states have struggled in projecting the size of a legal marijuana market and deciding how to best tax and regulate it. In a lot of ways, states are also grappling with their central goal of bringing cannabis out of the black market.

Advocates for legalization in California originally envisioned legalized pot raising $1 billion a year. As it turns out, the state raised not even a third of that in fiscal 2018-19, the first full year since recreational sales began. Massachusetts had projected it would bring in $63 million in revenue for its first year of recreational pot, which ended in June, and didn’t even get half of that.

Experts say that making those projections is getting easier, as state budget analysts lean more on hard data from states that have already legalized instead of on independent surveys of drug use for which respondents might not want to admit to breaking the law.

But at the same time, analysts warn that legalized marijuana is an inherently volatile market that will also change as consumer preferences evolve, neighboring states legalize and the federal government potentially considers changes to cannabis policy.

“Forecasts probably will become more reliable because they have extra data to work with,” said Alexandria Zhang of the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the authors of a recently released study on marijuana revenue. “But marijuana revenues are reliant on consumer behavior, so it’s really hard to say if consumer preferences would dramatically shift in the long term.”

Then there’s the problem of figuring out the right level of taxation, including how much to tax purchases and whether or how much to tax growers.

The backlash to California’s taxing regime was so severe that Democratic officials there, including the state treasurer, supported eventually unsuccessful legislation this year that would have temporarily cut taxes on the marijuana industry.

But other issues might be at play as well. Analysts who defend California’s high taxes on cannabis point out that Washington state’s legal market is thriving even with an aggressive taxing regime, and put more of the blame on the state’s licensing requirements.

“Why are you legalizing marijuana? Are you battling the black market? Are you dealing with equity issues within criminal justice? Are you trying to maximize revenues?” asks Richard Auxier of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is run by a senior Treasury official from the Obama administration. “Different priorities will lead you to different policies.”

“No matter how sophisticated the economic model, there are crucial inputs on which everyone is basically just guessing,” said Jared Walczak of the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation, who himself wondered how much marijuana use would grow as it faced less of a stigma and how much of a revenue boost early adopters have gotten from marijuana tourism.

For complete story

Also see

1. Legalizing cannabis will reduce crime and raise Tax revenue...
2. Cannabis and Tax Revenues! Still a Failed Promise – But the Cost of Harms Continues to Rise! (This is not an experiment we want in Oz)
3. Legalize cannabis and a veritable cornucopia will emerge.
4. Cannabis Industry Can't Compete with Continuing Illegal Markets
5. Cannabis Black Market Thrives Despite Legalization 
6. And Then There Were Three – Marijuana Markets
7. Will Cannabis Commercialization be Followed by Increased Psychosis - JAMA

Minors and Online Marijuana Accessibility—Navigating the Digital Backdoors

Access to Marijuana by Minors Via Online Dispensaries: Marijuana is a widely used substance derived from the Cannabis sativa plant that contains the psychoactive compound Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol. Its growing legalization in the US has expanded the marijuana market, potentially increasing its access by children. According to the National Institute of Health’s 2022 Monitoring the Future survey, 6.3% of 12th graders, 2.1% of 10th graders, and 0.7% of 8th graders reported daily marijuana use over the past 30 days.¹ Several studies have shown that underage consumers can buy alcohol, cigarettes, and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) online, highlighting the ineffective age verification procedures of online vendors.^2-5 We examined age verification procedures and potential youth access to online marijuana dispensaries. (Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2809613 )

To the Editor The above study by Terala et al¹ on minors’ access to marijuana through online dispensaries emphasizes the concerning ease with which minors are able to obtain marijuana online. Their research offers a detailed depiction of the burgeoning digital marijuana marketplace. It seamlessly connects the industry’s growth to the challenges of regulatory oversight, a problem evident in the expanding medical cannabis sector.² The authors’ exploration of this matter is commendable, unearthing pressing truths that need attention. The confluence of unregulated online marketplaces and the burgeoning demand for marijuana mirrors a pattern we have seen in other industries.

Much like how online platforms have enabled minors to access e-cigarettes and vaping devices,³ online marijuana dispensaries seem to be headed down a similar perilous trajectory. The statistic that almost 1 in 5 dispensaries use inadequate age-verification processes or require no formal age verification at any stage suggests that profits overshadow potential pitfalls and dangers to minors.

The adaptability of these dispensaries is strikingly evident. Their choice of packaging that attracts minors, such as edibles that resemble candy, and their willingness to accept cryptocurrencies indicate a targeting strategy for younger consumers. The effect is the potential endangerment of young people.

It is essential to note that dispensaries are not the only focus. Immersed in a digital realm, today’s youth present an asymmetric challenge for public health and policy leaders.⁴ On the one side, we have minors who are adept at navigating the digital world; on the other, an industry too willing to capitalize on this. Beyond system gaps, neurodevelopmental nuances play a role in adolescent behavior.⁵

Understanding the allure of marijuana for youth is as vital as addressing its accessibility and treatment options. Pinpointing their inclinations can pave the way for impactful prevention methods and policy guidelines. Factors like online accessibility and marketing complement well-understood risk factors, such as adverse experiences, peer pressure, and risk perception.⁵

In conclusion, this research serves as an alert for tighter regulations and a comprehensive understanding of youth tendencies. As our world becomes ever more digital, we confront both opportunities and obstacles. While advocating for stringent age checks is pivotal, we must also address the root causes that drive minors to these online dispensaries in the first place.

The onus is on us—researchers, policymakers, medical professionals, educators, and parents—to interpret and act on these findings. This extends beyond marijuana access; it delves into the wider context of youth engagement in our digital world.

By Kevin M. Simon, MD, MPH¹ JAMA Pediatr. Published online January 16, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5966 Navigating the Digital Backdoors | JAMA Pediatrics

There is no surprise that an addiction for profit sector, rabidly promoting it’s wildly variable ‘products’ in a mad cash grab to get consumers hooked on consumables, would see the following manifestations of corruption and dysfunction.

The other unsurprising outcome of the following revelations is yet another verification of a now utterly smashed promise of the pro-pot lobby – the promise that we’d no longer have to ‘police’ cannabis use and all the savings from that outcome would cover any negative downside to legalising this drug.

Well not only has traditional policing (investigation and prosecution) not stopped in having to manage the behavioural and criminal outcomes of increasing community cannabis use, but second tier ‘policing’ (monitoring and regulation enforcement) has skyrocketed, with new bureaucracies, regulations, testings and then the policing of the mismanagement of those bureaucracies, regulations and testings!

The absurdity of all this would be laughable if it weren’t for the ever-growing harms to our community – not least road toll, mental health harms and child poisonings.

Will governments continue to believe the pro-pot propaganda of fiscal benefits of an addiction for profit product that cannot compete with ongoing illicit market? Who will pay for the ever-increasing community costs being incurred by this sector?

Historically the answer to the above questions is almost invariably the tax-payer, and overwhelmingly the non-drug using tax-payer.

Research Team

Headlines…

Big recall ordered of pot products after Sacramento lab is caught faking tests: Sacramento-based Sequoia Analytical Lab was caught falsifying test results for pesticides… The laboratory closed down and surrendered its business license after state inspectors discovered on Nov. 27 that the director, identified as Marc Foster, had for four months been faking test results for 22 of the 66 pesticides he was required under California law to analyze. “The lab director... was secretly falsifying the results” between July 1 and Nov. 27…It means nearly 850 batches — tens of thousands of pounds of flower, edibles and marijuana products — will have to be returned and either destroyed or retested. The notice sent by the Bureau of Cannabis Control asked the 29 companies to request the return of all cannabis products that were tested at Sequoia. The recall and closure could cause major complications in the cannabis industry, where the 43 licensed cannabis testing labs in California have to add new testing guidelines for heavy metals next year

Marijuana lab suspected of doctoring THC, contaminants data faces license revocation:

• Routinely passing samples that had previously failed testing for pesticides, microtoxins, heavy metals and microbials, all regulated contaminants. Samples, which are supposed to be tested once, were sometimes tested up to five times before "passing." 
• Routinely inflating THC levels up to 5 percent higher than the actual THC levels. THC potency is known to drive higher retail prices. 
• Failing to properly dispose of more than 12,000 samples. 
• Failing to properly train lab employees, who were found to lack competency in not only conducting tests but analyzing data.  
• Failing to provide proper security and record keeping at lab facility. 

Former HEKA, Inc. employee expresses concerns on cannabis growing process: The Cannabis Control Commission has strict policies that local dispensaries are required to follow. This includes sending their plants in for testing, which the former employee said the company has found a way around that. “Out of a batch of maybe a thousand plants, you only have to send in a few grams, of that batch to be tested so those will be hand selected thoroughly to make sure that they are clean. Once those selected samples pass testing, the remainder of the batch then automatically gets passed for testing,” the former employee explained.

Marijuana Products Recalled In Arizona For Potential Bacteria, Fungus Contamination: Several Arizona marijuana establishments have initiated a voluntary recall of specific marijuana products due to possible contamination.
Products being recalled:
- Caps Frozen Lemon
- Twisted Lemonz
- Cherry Punch
- Ghost Train Haze

Downturn in California lab-tested marijuana batches adds to confusion over state’s supply chain: The number of marijuana product batches undergoing laboratory testing in California has dipped in recent months…the number of product batches tested has dropped by 20% between April and June. In April, the number of product batches tested hit a 2019 high of 5,113. But in June, that dropped to just 4,111, not far above last October’s total of 3,417 batches tested

California marijuana recall threatens state cannabis industry: Under California law, all consumable marijuana products for sale must be tested and analyzed for 66 known pesticides. Agents found Sequoia's lab director Marc Foster had been faking reports since July about testing for 22 of the pesticides and was fired… Berkeley's Steep Hill Labs was suspended for 10 weeks earlier this year after it failed to meet state testing protocols for two pesticides. Some industry insiders have said that they don't believe the laboratories are even capable of testing cannabis to the precision required by regulators.

Also see

• Cannabis Black Market Thrives Despite Legalization (Rutgers)
• Promised benefits of legalising cannabis are hot air – The Utterly Failed Promises of Cannabis Industry
• Huge surge in blackmarket cannabis trade and organised crime in California DESPITE drug being legalised, cops reveal in warning to UK
• California Cannabis Industry Sending SOS To State Leaders As Black Market Continues To Thrive
• Industry Can't Compete with Continuing Illegal Market
• Legalize cannabis and a veritable cornucopia will emerge.
• Cannabis and Tax Revenues! Still a Failed Promise – But the Cost of Harms Continues to Rise! (This is not an experiment we want in Oz)
• Then There were Three – Marijuana Markets paper