Could Failure to use Marijuana Responsibly for 5-6 Years as an Adult Pose the Same Mental and General Health Risks as Childhood Use or Even Failure to Exercise?

  Recent research has confirmed findings from the early 2000s which showed an increase in IQ among responsible adult users of marijuana in comparison to those who never used cannabis. While childhood use has been shown to be indicative of negative health consequences concurrent with reduced prolactin levels, looking into the effects of marijuana as a predictor or causal agent in positive health effects outside of the realm of cancer prevention has been relatively untilled ground. That builds on previous research which explored the possibility of using cannabis to reduce levels of dependence on other products with responsible adult use, even as childhood use has been proven to negatively impact the odds of responsible adult use. This paper will review some of the basic facts which longitudinal studies have demonstrated as an effect of responsible adult marijuana use, and how those effects can play out on a society while evaluating some very glaring inconsistencies or limiting factors which have presented.

  The impact of IQ on income and social class has been long established and is well publicized in today's highly technological global community. Less known are its predictive values for life expectancy and more severe mental health complications. Childhood IQ can predict mortality between groups with great discrepancies (Whalley). Lower childhood IQ has been associated with many mental health issues, though it has been shown to predict a lower rate of adult mania, an interesting anomaly which may merit some attention but does not disturb the nature of this trend (Koenen). While the impact of changes in IQ from adult or childhood use of marijuana, whether positive or negative, on life expectancy are minimal, paling in comparison to regular physical activity, which can add as much as a decade, or somewhat akin to tobacco use, shown to remove 1-2 years (Ferrucci), among a population these changes can demonstrate a viable advantage which should not be overlooked. 

  A horizontal shift in IQ can double the highly gifted and geniuses among a society with an average IQ of 98, such as the USA, and will continue to produce significant gains as IQ increases. Massive gains have been seen in the past (Flynn), with many factors that can be held responsible from removing environmental toxins such as lead to increased availability of educational factors which can play roles. The gains which are being described have yielded greater total and proportional numbers of college and high school graduates, which is yielding advantages to all spectrums of society (Moretti). There is no reason this trend should not remain the case.

  Responsible adult use of marijuana has been shown to increase IQ in a causal fashion (Fried) in a manner equivalent to the decline in IQ associated with childhood use. Heavy use is here substituted with childhood use because of later research which showed that the probability of becoming dependent on marijuana are around half of that of alcohol at age 18 and virtually zero by age 21 (Chen). Recent research has shown that the increase in IQ is a causal consequence of cannabis exposure, and not one of a predictive nature, a conclusion largely apparent from research (Filbey). That was research which also helped to investigate some of the mechanisms behind higher brain functioning. This would appear to now be a manner of basic deductive reasoning to see that this increase in IQ also will give a concrete benefit to society with responsible adult use encouraged by the spreading legalization of recreational marijuana.

  Some problems have presented, however, and many of the same issues which have negatively impacted attempts to prohibit cannabis now impede an honest recommendation of use for the purpose of mental health at least, though the anti-cancer properties appear to be solid in nature. Many mental health disorders are accompanied by self-inflicted harm, hard drug use, and other certain outcomes which leads to a negative stigma and a serious approach towards treatment. Early childhood use has been shown, commiserate with a declining IQ and mental functioning, to increase such negative outcomes along with other negative physical and mental effects including decreased mortality (Manrique). Interestingly, however, responsible adult use has "only" been found to result in equivalent outcomes among responsible adult users as those who had never used in all methods of evaluation including hard drug use and mortality from all causes (Andreasson). 

  The research outlined previously does not indicate any limiting factors which should be present in regards to mental health or life expectancy concerns: all countries involved in such research do have room for improvement which far outweighs any contribution from cannabis use of virtually any nature. It is unlikely that there is an organization responsible for the wholesale massacre of 1-2% of the marijuana using community, or slightly early termination of individual marijuana users that could explain the lost additional productivity, life expectancy, and mental health gains which are to be expected in any country, much less the developed countries where this research has taken place, so this particular confounding situation will have to stand as an anomaly or unexplained phenomenon. That statement may appear provocative and the latter precludes the former. Should the former be the case, the mental health gains would still be evident without a targeted shock among the mentally ill. There could also be an issue with multiple research studies, notably the work of Whalley, which would alter this conclusion should heightened IQ not causally impact greater life expectancies, or perhaps most likely, that the Swedish researchers led by Andreasson vastly overestimated the use of marijuana by the conscripts in their study, with heavy use occurring in childhood users but without the vast numbers of extraneous responsible adult users in excess of the childhood users which present in the USA, and naturally with a substance of the type. That is deemed as most likely due to the tendency of European cultures to expose younger children to age-restricted substances than in America, at least. The nature of a bell curve does indicate that the lower tail of IQ performance will demonstrate a limited effect on outliers with further horizontal shocks, so the failure to materialize significant declines in hard drug use or self-inflicted harm and other indicators of lower intellect are not outside of expectations and does not indicate confounding material or discrepancies in research.

  Finally, some issues have been noted with application of the positive and negative health benefits of cannabis to adults from a financial perspective, in terms of productivity gained. While there is no question that the general economy has fared more effectively in a large part due to intellectual progress and increasing regulations which have made American children and adults healthier, application of this theory has fallen apart when applied to responsible adult users of marijuana (Cerdá). As a group, according to research, the increase in IQ should be easily described as an economic shock, giving a great advantage in terms of productivity and social class. Both of these are frustratingly missing after economic research. Unlike the discrepancy in life expectancy, and perhaps exacerbating that conundrum, there are pieces of information which present to address this situation. Because childhood and responsible adult use are not distinctions made previously in research on health care costs, it must be assumed that the costs of childhood marijuana users tend to be much higher as a result of marijuana dependence and psychological or physical manifestations of this. Therefore, research showing that cannabis users as a population have the same per capita health care utilization as those who have never used could be interpreted to show significant gains among the responsible adult users (Fuster). As health care can make up hundreds of thousands of dollars over a life time, and is among the dominant expenses both for an individual and for the government, this may be communication of the gained productivity from cannabis use to healthier lifestyles or investments, if not more financially frugal decisions.

  The research is fascinating and demanding in nature. Seeing the demographic dispersion among groups of people after laboratory or controlled experiments which add a political or social aspect to the work is relatively rare. It can be concluded that responsible adult use of marijuana does indeed result in productivity gains associated with the increased IQ, and equal to the detrimental effects from childhood use. These gains in the current population of marijuana users, as a significant minority, are invested heavily into healthcare, though there is a low likelihood that this would continue with a regulated industry, while the trend may remain to some extent. In terms of life expectancy, the results are anything but clear, and this deserves further attention, investigation, or experimentation. While childhood users face increased mortality risks as expected, the responsible adult users live exactly the same lifespan as those who have never used. The 1-2% gap between expected and actual life expectancies is not explained by limits on health care returns: countries have greater life expectancies than the USA. It does not detract from the massive predicted and realized gains of responsible adult users of marijuana in terms of productivity and health care, or tarnish in anyway the great impact legalized recreational marijuana will have on the United States of America and the world in coming years.

References: 

Andreasson, S., and P. Allebeck. "Cannabis and mortality among young men A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts." Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 18.1 (1990): 9-15.

Cerdá, Magdalena, et al. "Persistent Cannabis Dependence and Alcohol Dependence Represent Risks for Midlife Economic and Social Problems A Longitudinal Cohort Study." Clinical Psychological Science (2016): 2167702616630958.

Chen, Chuan-Yu, Megan S. O’Brien, and James C. Anthony. "Who becomes cannabis dependent soon after onset of use? Epidemiological evidence from the United States: 2000–2001." Drug and alcohol dependence 79.1 (2005): 11-22.

Ferrucci, Luigi, et al. "Smoking, physical activity, and active life expectancy." American journal of epidemiology 149.7 (1999): 645-653.

Filbey, Francesca M., et al. "Preliminary findings demonstrating latent effects of early adolescent marijuana use onset on cortical architecture." Developmental cognitive neuroscience 16 (2015): 16-22.

Flynn, James R. "The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978." Psychological bulletin 95.1 (1984): 29.
Fried, Peter, et al. "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults." Canadian Medical Association Journal 166.7 (2002): 887-891.

Fuster, Daniel, et al. "No detectable association between frequency of marijuana use and health or healthcare utilization among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use." Journal of general internal medicine 29.1 (2014): 133-139.

Koenen, Karestan C., et al. "Childhood IQ and adult mental disorders: a test of the cognitive reserve hypothesis." American Journal of Psychiatry (2009).

Manrique-Garcia, Edison, et al. "Cannabis use and depression: a longitudinal study of a national cohort of Swedish conscripts." BMC psychiatry 12.1 (2012): 1.

Moretti, Enrico. "Estimating the social return to higher education: evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data." Journal of econometrics121.1 (2004): 175-212.

Scallet, Andrew C. "Neurotoxicology of cannabis and THC: a review of chronic exposure studies in animals." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 40.3 (1991): 671-676.
Whalley, Lawrence J., and Ian J. Deary. "Longitudinal cohort study of childhood IQ and survival up to age 76." Bmj 322.7290 (2001): 819.

The Recreational Marijuana Logic Tree:

Graphic obtained with permissions on Googleplus

Even a tiny bush like this has 1024 individual leaves, here is a logic tree which tries to break down some of the most important points on marijuana legalization:

Recreational Marijuana logic tree:

Marijuana and Crime:

   2 million of 4 million parolees have tried marijuana. 200 million of 350 million Americans have tried marijuana. 16% of prisoners are there solely for marijuana charges, which means that marijuana users commit significantly less crimes than those who do not make the life style choice. While data on intoxication from marijuana use and driving is not complete, the Federal Government has found that the likelihood of marijuana users to be involved in traffic fatalities is approximately the same as the non-using and non-drinking populations.

   Legalization of marijuana is estimated in the first year to have cost the South American Cartels nearly 4 billion dollars. Since 1970, when the majority of marijuana users also used other narcotics, the rate of co-dependence has fallen steadily, with the 50-50 point being reached in the 90’s. The vast majority of marijuana users now use marijuana exclusively. The rate of hard drug use in the nation has also dropped in a similar fashion from 10% to as low as .5%.
Marijuana and foreign policy:
   Unlike previous attempts to make marijuana illegal, when supporting foreign fighters in marijuana producing countries offered an incentive for the United States to encourage or foster an illegal trade in marijuana, and rigorously enforce prohibition, today foreign policy goals have changed and these rebels, whether in South American countries that during the cold war may have swung to communism, or in Afghanistan and the Middle East, now do not provide the same incentive to prohibit. In fact, as these organizations have struck against the United States in the past militarily or economically, continued prohibition may be a breach in national security by providing necessary means to acquire funding for enemies of the state. This is especially true in cases in which users are dependent on marijuana, either for medical purposes or as maintenance medication for co-occuring addictions. 

Marijuana and Education:

   Marijuana has been shown to increase IQ by a significant amount in current and former users with responsible adult use. This is exemplified by a lower crime rate, and after adjustment for marijuana-related legal or social sanctions, higher educational performance. This has also been causally proven with brain imaging work that shows marijuana increases functional connectivity.

Marijuana and public health:

   Marijuana has been shown to have a protective effect on the lungs and bronchial system. THC has been proven to attack cancer cells, and reduce both the prevalence and the exacerbation of cancer-related disease. While it is true that marijuana consumed as a child (the age the state of Vermont looks to set with legalization is 21, though further research here is being done) will negatively affect bone density in a manner similar to alcohol use over time, this effect is also matched by an increase in bone density with responsible adult use.

   Marijuana has medical benefits for those with terminal illness, which may extend lives significantly. Social discrimination or segregation may have a significant impact on these populations.

Marijuana and dependence or potential for abuse

   Research has shown that marijuana releases slightly less dopamine than a good meal, about half that of a sexual encounter or alcohol use and between 3 and 20 times less than other illegal or prescription narcotics available in the USA. Release of certain dopamine receptors initiated by marijuana use have been proven in adults to have a positive effect on various hormones, while not negatively affecting sperm count or other fertility measures, though in pregnant women some negative effects can be determined.

   It has also been proven that marijuana use acts as a result of the same receptors of the brain that coffee blocks, the adenosine receptors. While low doses of caffeine will reduce the amount of THC cravings, high doses will allow someone to take larger amounts of THC, and feel the need to do so. This is yet to be proven as effective treatment, but has the potential to provide a unique advantage to marijuana that drugs or alcohol do not.

The marijuana community and illegal or unconstitutional discrimination or attacks:

   Production of synthetic THC or spice, a schedule 1 substance, occurred in the United States legally for around 3 years. In 2010 alone over 11,000 Americans were hospitalized pursuant to consumption of the drug, which was classified by the White House as three times to 800 times more addictive than marijuana when they were added to the Controlled Substances Act with the Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. Dozens were killed. This is a direct result of job application urine screening and marijuana prohibition which resulted in use of the substance; many people did not even know this was not legitimate marijuana. 

   As noted before, marijuana use is not associated with fatal traffic accidents, but there are states such as Vermont, which have significant (a 5X increase from the national average) and consistently deviant marijuana traffic fatalities, suggesting social discrimination or prejudice in these areas. There are not corresponding states with abnormally low marijuana-related traffic fatalities, suggesting this is not the result of random distribution.

   RICO funds intended for legal prosecution of narcotics cases have been diverted to anti-marijuana lobby efforts. Organizations were found to divert money as well from pharmaceutical corporations to anti-marijuana efforts, in a massive breach of scientific ethics. This resulted in some pseudo-science arising in the anti-marijuana field, which was non-reproducible, something extremely rare in the world of academics and indicative of a massive economic investment in preventing the legalization and regulation of marijuana.

Legalizing Marijuana the Vermont Way - Recommendations for the Upcoming Marijuana Bill

The Vermont Senate Committee on Government Operations has made its recommendations for a bill to legalize marijuana. After meeting in November, these should be crafted into a bill for the Senate to look at shortly afterwards. More documents and information can be found on the Senate Committee on Government Operations page at the statehouse's website.
Link to recommendations here: Legalizing Marijuana the Vermont Way

Open letter to the chair of the Judicial Committee in the Vermont State Senate on relative incarceration rates and marijuana:

Hello,
Would it be possible to push this up to a matter of state security and constitutional crisis? I do not have access to Vermont's statistics on incarceration, but after adjustment for those incarcerated solely on the virtue of marijuana charges and then number of marijuana smokers per capita, all data readily available on a national scale, it became apparent that the amount of incarceration in the marijuana smoking community is less than that of the alcohol drinking community, and only slightly higher than those who consume no substances whatsoever, if at all. Both alcohol and marijuana using communities have 10X less incarceration than users of other hard narcotics for which statistics are collected for. Combined with the national study on road safety and marijuana use which shows that marijuana use fatalities are the same as those who do not drink or drug (it is known that Vermont does have a weird anomaly which has more marijuana related fatalities than federal statistics, though the trend remains steady in our state), the implication is that every year there are 10's of thousands of unnecessary automobile deaths, even with only a modest substitution factor in relation to marijuana use and alcohol or other drugs (which, given the trajectory since the 1970's when around 90% of users of marijuana also used other narcotics to today, with the 50-50 point being reached in the 1990's, today hard drug use among marijuana users is lower than the national hard drug use in the 1980's and low enough to show the logical fallacy in the gateway theory, can be assumed to be much greater than modest). Finally, I do not believe there are constitutional grounds for incarcerating a community of people who do not commit crimes in a greater amount than the general population (or at all, if there is no evidence of causality between the group identity, such as a gang, religion, or drug use, and the crime which could be economic, violent, or mischievous in nature). If sources are needed, I am happy to supply them. Furthermore, if there are Vermont specific statistics which either confirm, do not match (as happened with the traffic fatalities), or directly conflict with federal statistics, please inform me, this would be useful for my recreational marijuana community on googleplus.
Thank you,
Paul Fischer

Marijuana may not only protect against lung damage, but also help nicotine product users regulate or quit their product, and has the potential to aid with other chemical dependencies.

One of the most persistent reasons that people favor marijuana use, legalization, and regulation is due to the assertion that smoking marijuana does not do damage to the lungs, while tobacco smokers have a high certainty of dying from their habit. While the claims have been modulated to some extent, this assertion has held true in cohort studies of medical and recreational marijuana use in California, and attempts to determine causality actually found that the smoke from marijuana offers a protective effect to the lungs of users.

Something that has not been addressed as fully, is the impact of THC on the brain and fighting addiction. Nicotine is among the most addictive substances in the world when taken in amounts of 15-20 mg per day and greater for an extended period of time, the threshold for chemical dependence. It has also been shown to do damage to the dentate gyrus of the brain, which contains about 90% of the brain’s memories, at these levels of intake.

Marijuana smokers experience an increase in functional connectivity in the brain, which has been causally associated with an increase in IQ. The dentate gyrus is among the parts of the brain which experience elevated levels of neurogenesis as a result of exposure to an active compound in marijuana, THC. Recent research conducted at Duke University found that tobacco smokers who were able to quit experienced elevated levels of connectivity in the brain as well, while those who relapsed or became heavier smokers tended to lack this connectivity.

This research is of extreme importance as both nicotine products and other addictive substances or pharmaceuticals grip many users in this country. While it is important to make these activities less addictive, for example by limiting the amount of nicotine in a dose, ironically enough the opposite of what manufacturers of cigarettes did decades ago (though to be fair this may have been a simple reaction against hyperbolic at the least and malevolent or unfounded research at the worst targeted at tobacco), or educating people about what level of intake can be diagnosed as chemically dependent, and should be seen as a warning sign of addiction (as a good doctor will do with any prescription), it is also important to develop methods of ensuring successful recovery in the event of chemical dependence.

While marijuana has been prescribed before prohibition, and has a cultural connotation as a substituting product allowing people with chemical dependence to recover past withdrawal for centuries, the nature of its medical value is just starting to be explored now. Of particular interest is whether the factors affecting recovery for nicotine can contribute to recovery from other substances; research carried out suggests that the underlying genetic factors behind addiction are “highly correlated” at the least. Using brain scan technology to see this effect will be exciting at the least, and this particular vein of research is among the most enticing for public health.

Works Cited:

Abrous, Djoher Nora, et al. "Nicotine self-administration impairs hippocampal plasticity." The Journal of neuroscience 22.9 (2002): 3656-3662.

Addicott, Merideth A., et al. "Increased Functional Connectivity in an Insula-Based Network is Associated with Improved Smoking Cessation Outcomes." Neuropsychopharmacology (2015).

Filbey, Francesca M., et al. "Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain."Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.47 (2014): 16913-16918.

Fried, Peter et al. “Current and Former Marijuana Use: Preliminary Findings of a Longitudinal Study of Effects on IQ in Young Adults.” CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 166.7 (2002): 887–891.

Doweiko, Harold. Concepts of chemical dependency. Cengage Learning, 2011.

Hashibe, Mia, et al. "Marijuana use and the risk of lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers: results of a population-based case-control study." Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 15.10 (2006): 1829-1834.

Jiang, Wen, et al. "Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic-and antidepressant-like effects." Journal of Clinical Investigation 115.11 (2005): 3104.

Kempker, Jordan A., Eric G. Honig, and Greg S. Martin. "Effects of Marijuana Exposure on Expiratory Airflow: A Study of Adults who Participated in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Study." Annals of the American Thoracic Society ja (2014).

Kendler, Kenneth S., John Myers, and Carol A. Prescott. "Specificity of genetic and environmental risk factors for symptoms of cannabis, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine dependence." Archives of General Psychiatry 64.11 (2007): 1313-1320.

Ling, H. W., and CB Wynn Parry. "The amount of nicotine absorbed in smoking." British journal of pharmacology and chemotherapy 4.3 (1949): 313-314.

Neurogenesis Suppression in Dentate Gyrus Induced by Moderate to Heavy Nicotine Use Finally Shown to Have Negative Impact on Memory Functions?

There is a stereotype that marijuana smokers have hazy or weak memories as a result of their use. Tobacco smoke, on the other hand, is usually discussed in terms of the positive effect on cognition by virtue of the very mild stimulant effects delivered by nicotine. Over a decade ago, however, researchers in Nice, France showed in rats that administration of nicotine, without smoke, induced a suppression of new neuronal births in the dentate gyrus, the part of the brain that handles about 90% of a person or animal's memories. In the last decade as well, researchers from the Chinese Military, Canada, and Maryland have shown that marijuana actually encourages the birth of neurogenesis in the hippocampus (which is responsible for most remaining memories) by 40%, when a pure THC copycat chemical, named for Hebrew University where the compound was made, is administered to rats. Researchers at Princeton University and the Department of Nutrition in Brazil also showed that there was no effect from THC on the dentate gyrus of rats, even at levels producing "gross behavioural intoxication".

This provides a general understanding of the effect of THC on the brain, which should be reproducible in human or population studies which have been conducted. More recent brain scans have also shown this to be true as conducted with human populations, with negligible changes, positive or negative, found in most parts of the brain, though functional connectivity has also been shown to increase in a significant manner with marijuana use this last year.

Most recently, a study from Spain claimed that while virtually every mode of behavioural measurement was equal between marijuana smokers and control groups, a significant (though still within the realm of normal fluctuation) decrease in memory function was noted. This speaks in the face of research that has been conducted about THC or the marijuana that contains it. Even with patients using 10 times the responsible adult use in the sample, and the average number of marijuana cigarettes, or spliffs, smoked in a lifetime being around 42,000 (with one participant smoking over a massive 256,000 times) among those included in the study, the results do not match with rats who were administered high levels of THC; the results should have been positive and not negative.

There is a difference between the human and rat studies, though which is not addressed. In the Spanish study, noting a decrease in memory function, the research explicitly emphasizes that tobacco users were not omitted from the study, and about 75% of the participants were actively smoking tobacco when the study was conducted.

A little background, for the American marijuana user, is necessary. In Europe, people smoke spliffs generally made with hashish and tobacco. The unfiltered smoke doubles the nicotine intake (in some countries there are lower limits on nicotine levels, but in Spain this probably means quite similar to American cigarettes, as there has not been a strict concentration of absorbed nicotine enforced throughout the European Union yet), and this dominates the marijuana culture there. While more efficient, this also means that it is very difficult to smoke marijuana regularly without crossing the threshold of 5-10 mg of nicotine daily at which point positive effects are eclipsed by neurogenesis suppression, assuming the user is smoking on work breaks or at certain timepoints and not regularly throughout the day (the research indicates that doses of more than 3-5 mg of nicotine in the blood at a time is the crossover point from positive to negative effects).

The research in Nice, France, which originally shows the negative impact of moderate to heavy nicotine use on the dentate gyrus, emphasizes that further research is needed to confirm this neuronal difference actually translates to a cognitive change. Research from Riba et al. should be used in conjunction with other research done in this field to confirm this fact, as has been shown above. It is still worth investigating the impacts of age, obviously at certain ages nicotine has a positive effect, while it can be assumed that while a brain is developing such stunting of neurogenesis must induce extreme cognitive defects. For those concerned about absorbing too much nicotine, in the last 70 years absorbed nicotine in cigarettes has increased almost 3-fold in the USA (though in some parts of Europe the composition of a cigarette is much the same as in the early days of the tobacco industry) as companies and governments attempt to limit tar or air pollution intake (read previous research on cancer mortality and smoking for more), one viable option is to use pipe tobacco instead of cigarette tobacco. While the curing process for pipe tobacco means there is more nicotine per gram in the cigarette or bowl, the wide cut of the leaves lowers absorbed nicotine by around 13 times (or 2-4 times in comparison to low nicotine European cigarettes). Normal use of pipe tobacco is also associated with levels of cancer and smoking-related disease more similar to the general population than to the cigarette smokers.

Works Cited:

Abrous, Djoher Nora, et al. "Nicotine self-administration impairs hippocampal plasticity." The Journal of neuroscience 22.9 (2002): 3656-3662.

Filbey, Francesca M., et al. "Long-term effects of marijuana use on the brain."Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.47 (2014): 16913-16918.

Jiang, Wen, et al. "Cannabinoids promote embryonic and adult hippocampus neurogenesis and produce anxiolytic-and antidepressant-like effects." Journal of Clinical Investigation 115.11 (2005): 3104.

Kochman, Linda J., et al. "Despite strong behavioral disruption, Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol does not affect cell proliferation in the adult mouse dentate gyrus." Brain research 1113.1 (2006): 86-93.

Ling, H. W., and CB Wynn Parry. "The amount of nicotine absorbed in smoking." British journal of pharmacology and chemotherapy 4.3 (1949): 313-314.

Riba, J., et al. "Telling true from false: cannabis users show increased susceptibility to false memories." Molecular psychiatry (2015).

An open letter to the makers of The Other Side Of Cannabis: Negative Effects of Marijuana on Our Youth a Documentary

Foreward note: One thing I did not include in this letter, that will be included in later research, is the impact of marijuana on the dentae gyrus. This is the part of the brain responsible for memory. I did not realize that research had been done on this before, and the doctor from Paris provided excellent evidence. While he was attempting to show that heavy marijuana use decreases brain cell production in this area by 25%, he was not taking into consideration earlier research also done in Paris which shows more than 10-15 mg of nicotine daily reduces brain cell genesis in this part of the brain by 50%; under 5 mg of nicotine will produce no significant change and may be beneficial though with the exception of pipe tobacco smokers, this level of nicotine intake is virtually unheard of. French marijuana users almost exclusively use a mixture of 80% tobacco and 20% marijuana, making them this sort of heavy smokers (a mainstream American cigarette will give as much as 2.6 mg of nicotine, while the lowest nicotine cigarettes give .2-.4 mg, some nations such as Germany limit nicotine to .8 mg per cigarette).

Hello,
     I highly suspect we are on different sides of the debate on marijuana legalization. However, there are certain things which cannot be ignored as potential external costs of this industry. I have watched your film carefully and taken notes. My opinion is that you are discouraging people who are better off using marijuana from using it, and encouraging those who are at a vulnerable point in their life (usually childhood) to try it. I will support this in detail.
     Firstly some background. Marijuana is good for the brain and body when used in a responsible manner (5-10 grams per week). It increases functional connectivity as well as IQ, as proven in cohort studies as well as fMRI and SPECT scan imaging. It also helps bone health (which is connected to hair health and spine health) in adults. Psychosis is caused by child abuse and this has been proven conclusively.
     However, when consumed by children, especially in larger amounts, THC reduces bone density in a similar fashion to alcohol, and may negatively impact cognition, though research to my knowledge is not conclusive in this manner. Therefore, setting the use age at the same level as alcohol and enforcing it in this matter is of paramount importance.
     So how does an anti-marijuana film make kids like my little brother, sister or others use the drug? Well the research is badly done. The first doctor cited in this film, Dr. Eden Evins was recently cited in an expose by Vice in which she was shown to work for pharmaceutical companies that opposed marijuana, including projects with competing products in a major breach of scientific ethics. Her evidence in the documentary is unsubstantiated by causal data or evidence: in fact the euphoric dopamine releases of marijuana (THC) have been proven to be less than that of a good run or a good meal. There are no proven known withdrawal symptoms other than afterglow.
     The first testimony from a parent relies on accusations that marijuana is bad for mental health. This was true in a correlative manner decades ago, when homosexuality was part of the counterculture like marijuana and a diagnosable disease. Now, we have brain scans and hormonal proof which shows that the mental disorders ascribed to marijuana actually had their origins in other toxins or abusive relationships as children or adults. Social engineering will not fly with children.
     The argument that is proposed by a student after this is among the strongest reasons to use marijuana as an adult: smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol will kill you before the average life expectancy of 78 years, and the most aggressive anti-tobacco movement will claim as much as 10 years are lost due to smoking and lung cancer (though controlling for exercise drops this to two years). Users of marijuana enjoy a protective effect against alcohol induced brain damage and tobacco's damage to the lungs. For a kid to see and hear any of these arguments is unacceptable.
     If proven, highlighting the potential damage of marijuana to the brain in children which does not occur in adults, is important. I applaud this particular section of the film, though I believe the biggest change in high school or younger users is in cognitive function. Again, psychosis is caused by child abuse.
     Marijuana does make a user calmer, and this is reproducible evidence. Abused children suffer a permanent increase in cortisol release, a stress hormone. While a small increase is incurred by smoking marijuana in the short term (it is less than a beer, so if the victim can drink a beer without a panic attack, it is clear they faking if the claim this reaction from marijuana), long term use lowers baseline cortisol release levels, it is the only substance on earth which gives these abused children the chance to feel normal eventually as adults.
     Returning to addiction, which the dopamine release studies should cover fully, daily vs. weekly is a weak way of evaluating marijuana use. This should be done in amounts (in grams and %THC, as the IQ cohort studies from Canada which showed a causal increase in IQ from marijuana use did) and length of time used. Saying that marijuana is as dangerous as other drugs is an international crime.  Distribution of chemical weapons is illegal, and the makers of this film can be prosecuted for this, as hard drugs by definition qualify as chemical weapons (drug laws actually protect users and distributers of these substances in the USA, unfortunately, offering jail time instead of the death penalty or life sentences international law dictates). Remember that Goebbels would have swung at the Nuremberg trials, not to make light of a serious situation, but with 250,000 mortalities annually from hard or prescription drug overdose in the USA alone, this is quite serious.
     Furthermore, the gateway theory does not have any legitimate application. Such behaviour can be proven with any boycott or banned activity or good, in quite similar ratios. This is reproducible: the damage done when society not only ensures unsafe materials are not available but also makes safe substances available. For people who have medical necessity, this can be devastating.
      Unqualified claims that marijuana operates as an incremental repeating damage speaks in the face of known science and chemistry. Even with 10X moderate use levels, there have not been negative effects associated with THC one month after the last use, as shown by research conducted at Harvard University. The Federal Government released a report which shows that marijuana users have the same accident rate as sober individuals, twenty six times less than drinkers. Misinformation, especially in such a blatant manner and on such large subjects so well publicized will have a negative effect on the ability of this film to achieve any ethical or real success.
      The price of marijuana is too high. It should be the same price as tobacco, it is a plant, and less addictive with less external costs. Yet this industry is currently paying the external costs of abusive parents and bully school-mates, and paying it in jail time. It is now time to clear the air. Is it really true that non-marijuana users use more medication than marijuana users, or is this another claim which might drive young children (I assume this is the audience for this film) to use when they find out this is false? Perhaps the argument would be better phrased that marijuana users avoid medications, at least this would be true, if not honest (not to add fodder to this fire). The majority of Americans have used some sort of mood altering medication regularly, from alcohol (yes it was once considered only legal for medical purposes too) to more severe substances.
      The emergency room argument is among the best reasons for people propagating marijuana use as well. When people are in the hospital for other drugs or alcohol, it is a heart attack, it is an OD, it is a homicide case (half of handgun deaths are alcohol related, almost 40% involve hard drugs). Marijuana users who end up in the hospital are seeking to work through endemic problems in their childhood or life.
      Laced marijuana is poisoning, and this falls under federal poisoning acts. While marijuana is measured in a similar fashion to bad parking, requiring a single clean drug test and fine under the Controlled Substances' Act diversion program, poisoning marijuana behaviour is analogous to taking a baseball bat to someone's car parked in the wrong spot. It is improper procedure to even call the police in such a situation, and may be prosecuted for solicitation of a police officer (though the chances are about as unlikely as ending up in the federal diversion program).
      Brain scans on marijuana have a murky past, but the evidence is clear and compelling now. Marijuana users enjoy a causal increase in functional connectivity while suffering no significant changes to other parts of the brain. There were doctors and organizations fingered who accepted money from competing interests in a breach of scientific ethics, a slippery slope, as mentioned before. Their results were not reproducible (this also holds with much psychosis or schizophrenic research). Retrospective research has made the reality perfectly clear, and has been completed at 6 major universities, as well as by numerous individuals as the cost of brain scans has decreased significantly.
Furthermore, neurogenesis has been shown to increase in marijuana users, as well as blunted damage to the dentae gyrus, responsible for memories, suffered from nicotine intake (in European studies on the subject, where 80% or more tobacco is used in conjunction with marijuana cigarettes). Nicotine in low amounts may have a positive effect on the brain, but over 10 or 15 mg per day can decrease new brain cell birth by around 50%.
     While SPECT scan imaging has been rejected by the DEA due to inconsistencies in diagnostic procedure, along with breaches in multiple levels of scientific ethics (involuntary administration of radiation for example, the doctors who argue these patients are mentally unable to make decisions are also subjecting them to this procedure), it holds enormous promise. The image of a marijuana smoker's brain provided is neither the effect of long term heavy marijuana use nor even a social drinker, but most likely a moderate to heavy drinker in the early stages or a light to moderate drinker later in life. It may be accurate to those who consume marijuana as children, but this should be emphasized, especially as the topic of the film is the youth!
      While the information on anandamide is interesting and new, it is not conclusive. The stress hormone cortisol is the standard for measuring stress, and this is higher in people before they smoke marijuana than after long term use. This seems to contradict the hypothesis posed about anandamide, though it is important to remember that chemically very small changes in a molecule can yield very big changes in behaviour inside the body. Most people do not have or need to have the research on hand to disprove this nonsense, but luckily I have seen evidence to the effect that the dopamine release from eating a good meal is about 10% greater than that from a good marijuana high. Sexual activities are about double, though I would leave this out of a documentary aimed at children. Unfortunately America does not have the resources to allow adequate sexual activity, exercise and gourmet food as humans have had access to for millennia. We do have the resources to use marijuana and practice monogamy (currently the law) with occasional gourmet meals. This is reproducible research and publicly available making this section an instance of either a very serious breach in scientific ethics or very surprising ignorance on the behalf of a trained professional.
      Suicide rates are down in Colorado. It would be best to limit personal stories to stereotypes or claims which can be backed by science. That being said, there is a big difference between the breach in ethics (which may not even be intentional) and the intentionalism of many trained professionals who have clearly not thoroughly researched the topic at hand sufficiently to make these statements. Advertisement of a program which does not wish it can be dangerous, and the use of the twelve-step program, which specifically addresses this topic could create difficulty and hardship for those who are trying to recover by the book, in the way originally conceived (although at the time this seems to have indicated a substitution procedure with LSD, coffee, tobacco, adultery, which is advocated as an adequate punishment for relapse, or marijuana, at least according to biographies of the founder, Bill). This sort of solicitation can also break anonymity or lead to conversations which break anonymity for early or long-time users in recovery.
      Finally, CBD is interesting, but this research must be done thoroughly. Currently, it has been used on national television to encourage the administration of marijuana to children. This is unacceptable, THC at the least will induce damage to a child's bone structure, and it is possible that CBD may do the same, though admittedly there is not adequate research in this field.

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, we do need to regulate it.

Marijuana is legal under the 1938 amendments to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which remains the standard for prescription and non-prescription drugs (making in the case of marijuana, the controlled substances act out of line and unconstitutional and infringement of the duties and obligations of the FDA)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Food_and_Drug_Act

"Goods found in violation of the law were subject to seizure and destruction at the expense of the manufacturer. That, combined with a legal requirement that all convictions be published (Notices of Judgment), proved to be important tools in the enforcement of the statute and had a deterrent effect upon would-be violators. "

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214416.htm
"The enactment of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act tightened controls over drugs and food, included new consumer protection against unlawful cosmetics and medical devices, and enhanced the government’s ability to enforce the law. This law, as amended, is still in force today."
And of course, as we all know, the FDA has not made marijuana an FDA approved prescription in any state, mostly because it is available as a "dangerous" but legal drug, in the same wording as surrounds the alcohol industry.
We need better regulation  of these substances. The prohibition is ineffective and morally unjustifiable. 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/18383-house-votes-to-stop-feds-from-interfering-with-state-marijuana-laws
The house has already voted to end Department of Justice funding for marijuana prosecution.

The effect of potent unregulated or decriminalized marijuana and alcohol versus legalized and properly regulated marijuana and alcohol (with proper FDA regulations full brain blood-flow should be possible regardless of which substance is consumed, though it would appear to be quite low, .5% in the case of alcohol, over half a dozen strains of marijuana are already identified that are purported to be safe some that may even contain moderate amounts of THC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjZgj_eH4x0

In addition, while the Controlled Substances Act of 1976 (the version in 1970 was still diagnostic in effect) gave federal agencies jurisdiction to act in the case of many drugs, including marijuana, this was in spite of a decriminalization law passed in 1973, still legally and enforced in the state of North Carolina. It was not out of error that the legislation in North Carolina passed this bill, they simply were regulating a dangerous industry concluding indemnifying research that showed alcohol and tobacco to be far worse than cannabis, legally according to the FDA regulations on the product and in keeping with importation laws from nations where it was legal to possess or produce (at the time 1/2 ounce in North Carolina, the substance was legal in many parts of the world notably the Netherlands and Morocco, where multiple brutal civil wars have been fought over the legalization of the product and the monarchy's succession). Under the same legal logic that made the emancipation proclamation necessary before the constitution was amended to or acts passed to outlaw slavery, it is a de facto violation of states' rights to pass the Controlled Substances Act, at least as it applies to marijuana. These sorts of mistakes are not unheard of, and happen frequently in the budget, as federal and state governments overlap. The only legal option is to encourage or federally mandate amendment of state laws before changing federal law in this matter. In this case, it is clear that the federal government already has a department, the FDA, responsible for this product and stifling research into this promising if dangerous drug is paramount to extortion, incarceration under false pretenses, embezzlement, and treason on a massive scale. Denying this reality and failing to prosecute organizations responsible for the suppression of research and development of this industry as such, would so fundamentally change the mechanisms of this country that entire peoples could be thrown into chains, dispossessed, or in other ways robbed of their fundamental liberties that the government exists to protect under the veil of enhancing freedom and pursuing happiness.

As for constitutionality:
"The embattled Fourth Amendment[117]is probably the leading exam­ple of a “War on Drugs” casualty.[118] As has been erstwhile noted in an apropos reference to George Orwell’s, 1984, a date that we have passed in more than one sense, the “War on Drugs” has led to “[a] gradual but perceptive rise in Big Brotherism against the public at large in the form of eavesdropping, surveillance, monitor­ing, informing, and other intrusive enforcement methods.”[119] Among the inroads that have been sanctioned are those that have permitted intrusions into our homes by the use of aerial surveil­lance,[120] a practice that has led to the practical abandonment in other drug-related contexts of the privacy test announced in Katz v. United States.[121] These relaxations of the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment have allowed the expansion of police authority to carry out warrantless searches for drugs on individuals and automo­biles under circumstances beyond the original intention of Terry’s rationale,[122] which was based on police officer safety, not as a subterfuge, for a search for criminal evidence without meeting the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The creation of the so-called “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment require­ment of probable cause established in United States v. León,[123] which in practice we see stretched beyond “good faith,” is another example of the courts’ permissive attitude towards the government in drug cases. Equally troubling is the upholding of the validity of a warrant issued on the basis of a partially uncorroborated anony­mous tip,[124] leading to cases in which it was allowed to corroborate the anonymous tip by the post facto discovery of illegal evi­dence.[125]"

http://academiajurisprudenciapr.org/new/rethink-the-war-of-drugs/deja-vu-a-federal-judge-revisits-the-war-on-drugs/

PLEASE NOTE: Marijuana was re-legalized in the spending bill of 2014. This was seen as a national security issue and does activate the superiority clause in the Constitution, regardless of state laws. Marijuana is currently legally available for sale and manufacture across the USA on Native American reservations. It is highly probable that state or federal governments will take more responsible steps in the future towards regulating this substance. Also in September leading anti-marijuana academics were caught accepting money from corporate interests, which has changed the field of research in this field significantly.

In regards to state laws and international treaties: Does legal marijuana violate international treaties? The answer is no.
"Even if treaties could override federalism, the agreements that the INCB cites do not purport to do so. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs says compliance is subject to "constitutional limitations" and undertaken with "due regard to [signatories'] constitutional, legal and administrative systems." The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances contain similar provisions."
Representing these treaties in this manner as the INCB has done is criminal, it makes light of legitimate and extremely important resolutions and work the UN has done and made. Now that we can prove that marijuana provides a benefit to public health, we have the right to use and provide it.

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cannabis&searchid=1025853946146_44&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=cmaj

"Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6)."

So use of 5-10 grams (5 joints) of marijuana per week should increase the user's IQ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1177258/Are-wrecking-brain-Chilling-pictures-reveal-shocking-effects-alcohol-cigarettes-caffeine-mind.html

 Caffeine, recent:

Marijuana can be seen to have in normal doses, less of an effect on the bloodflow of the brain than caffeine.

Cannabis use, long term:

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/02/18/molecular-biologist-explains-how-thc-completely-kills-cancer-cells/

In studies, THC has been found to selectively target cancer cells while leaving healthy ones unharmed.

Most of the problem with marijuana today lies in the fact that it is not regulated. Parasites such as toxoplasmosis gondii end up present in the vast majority of users, and all people with negative side effects from marijuana. A legal industry would clear up the air. Also, unlike alcohol which is associated with a significant drop in national IQ, costing the United States almost 80% of its potential earnings, marijuana and THC is not associated with a decrease in mental functioning for healthy individuals. In Germany, where alcohol consumption dropped by 30% in the last 35 years, marijuana use increased 4 times over from 7% to almost 28% in 18-24 year olds from 1980 to 2015. In the same time period, the economy increased 5 times over from under a trillion dollars GDP to almost the same size as the US economy.

Kraus et al., 2013

Kraus, L., Pabst, A., Piontek, D., and Gomes de Matos, E. Substanzkonsum und substanzbezogene Störungen: Trends in Deutschland 1980–2012 (Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012) . Substance use and substance use disorders: Trends in Germany 1980–2012Sucht. 2013;59: 333–345

 The IRS is recommending that tax professionals who help state-recognized, legal marijuana businesses "not be considered unethical."

Habit-Forming Substances. The old Act required label disclosure of the quantity or proportion in any drug of twelve listed ingredients or their derivatives.' 99 The list comprised alcohol, several opiates and other narcotic drugs, and acetanilid, a heart depressant used in pain-killers. The Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act in effect supplanted the provision as to most of the listed drugs, but meanwhile public consumption of a number of coal-tar products, more accurately classified as hypnotics than narcotics, had grown to alarming proportions. There is a tendency for the use of these drugs to become habitual, and excessive use produces serious physiological effects. In S. 1944, therefore, the list was broadened, and, to avoid its obsolescence, power was given to the Secretary to add to it.200 Moreover, since the mere statement of the presence of the drug, although of value to the physician, seldom gave warning to the user, a requirement was added that products containing any of the listed ingredients be labeled "Warning-May be Habit-Forming."

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1937&context=lcp

Most of these substances include the possibility of an overdose, and so the FDA’s regulations on poison control apply to these substances. This is not the case with marijuana, however, and there are no mortalities associated with the substance. As such, this is a conflict in Federal Statutes which must be resolved in a Federal Court of Law, before prosecution can occur.

Poisonous or toxic materials shall be:

1.     (A) Used according to: 

1.     (1) Law and this Code,

2.     (2) Manufacturer's use directions included in labeling, and, for a pesticide, manufacturer's label instructions that state that use is allowed in a food establishment, ^P

3.     (3) The conditions of certification, if certification is required, for use of the pest control materials, ^P and

4.     (4) Additional conditions that may be established by the regulatory authority; and

2.     (B) Applied so that: 

1.     (1) A hazard to employees or other persons is not constituted, ^P and

2.     (2) Contamination including toxic residues due to drip, drain, fog, splash or spray on food, equipment,utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles is prevented, and for a restricted use pesticide, this is achieved by: ^P 

1.     (a) Removing the items, ^P

2.     (b) Covering the items with impermeable covers, ^P or

3.     (c) Taking other appropriate preventive actions, ^P and

4.     (d) Cleaning and sanitizing equipment and utensils after the application. ^P

3.     (C) A restricted use pesticide shall be applied only by an applicator certified as defined in 7 USC 136 Definitions, (e) Certified Applicator, of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or a personunder the direct supervision of a certified applicator. ^Pf

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/ucm188102.htm

For these materials used according to Law and this code, includes most drugs, however alcohol marijuana and tobacco cannot be prosecuted under later laws until FDA statutes are amended because they are neither poisonous or toxic, as defined by the US Federal Government. Cannabis is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in this law, and this remains on the books.

• “ • 4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as provided in section 844 of this title and section 3607 of title 18.

• (a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.”

“Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844. Penalties for simple possession

(a) Unlawful acts; penalties

It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess any list I chemical obtained pursuant to or under authority of a registration issued to that person under section 823 of this title or section 958 of this title if that registration has been revoked or suspended, if that registration has expired, or if the registrant has ceased to do business in the manner contemplated by his registration. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base in a scheduled listed chemical product, except that, of such 9 grams, not more than 7.5 grams may be imported by means of shipping through any private or commercial carrier or the Postal Service. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug, narcotic, or chemical offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding any penalty provided in this subsection, any person convicted under this subsection for the possession of flunitrazepam shall be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, shall be fined as otherwise provided in this section, or both. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.”

SUBCHAPTER I — CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Part D — Offenses And Penalties

§844a. Civil penalty for possession of small amounts of certain controlled substances

(a) In general

Any individual who knowingly possesses a controlled substance that is listed in section 841(b)(1)(A) of this title in violation of section 844 of this title in an amount that, as specified by regulation of the Attorney General, is a personal use amount shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each such violation.

(b) Income and net assets

The income and net assets of an individual shall not be relevant to the determination whether to assess a civil penalty under this section or to prosecute the individual criminally. However, in determining the amount of a penalty under this section, the income and net assets of an individual shall be considered.

(c) Prior conviction

A civil penalty may not be assessed under this section if the individual previously was convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance.

(d) Limitation on number of assessments

A civil penalty may not be assessed on an individual under this section on more than two separate occasions.

(e) Assessment

A civil penalty under this section may be assessed by the Attorney General only by an order made on the record after opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5. The Attorney General shall provide written notice to the individual who is the subject of the proposed order informing the individual of the opportunity to receive such a hearing with respect to the proposed order. The hearing may be held only if the individual makes a request for the hearing before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date such notice is issued.

(f) Compromise

The Attorney General may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty imposed under this section.

(g) Judicial review

If the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to subsection (e) of this section after a hearing described in such subsection, the individual who is the subject of the order may, before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date the order is issued, bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the law and the facts of the violation and the assessment of the civil penalty shall be determined de novo, and shall include the right of a trial by jury, the right to counsel, and the right to confront witnesses. The facts of the violation shall be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(h) Civil action

If an individual does not request a hearing pursuant to subsection (e) of this section and the Attorney General issues an order pursuant to such subsection, or if an individual does not under subsection (g) of this section seek judicial review of such an order, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States for the purpose of recovering the amount assessed and an amount representing interest at a rate computed in accordance with section 1961 of title 28. Such interest shall accrue from the expiration of the 30-day period described in subsection (g) of this section. In such an action, the decision of the Attorney General to issue the order, and the amount of the penalty assessed by the Attorney General, shall not be subject to review.

(i) Limitation

The Attorney General may not under this subsection \1\ commence proceeding against an individual after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the individual allegedly violated subsection (a) of this section.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ So in original. Probably should be "section".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Expungement procedures

The Attorney General shall dismiss the proceedings under this section against an individual upon application of such individual at any time after the expiration of 3 years if—

(1) the individual has not previously been assessed a civil penalty under this section;

(2) the individual has paid the assessment;

(3) the individual has complied with any conditions imposed by the Attorney General;

(4) the individual has not been convicted of a Federal or State offense relating to a controlled substance; and

(5) the individual agrees to submit to a drug test, and such test shows the individual to be drug free.

A nonpublic record of a disposition under this subsection shall be retained by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of determining in any subsequent proceeding whether the person qualified for a civil penalty or expungement under this section. If a record is expunged under this subsection, an individual concerning whom such an expungement has been made shall not be held thereafter under any provision of law to be guilty of perjury, false swearing, or making a false statement by reason of his failure to recite or acknowledge a proceeding under this section or the results thereof in response to an inquiry made of him for any purpose.

THIS MEANS THE Controlled Substances Act is literally screwing over big corporations and the IRS, a fine of $10,000 on 50 kg of marijuana is LESS than taxes in states where marijuana is "legal"

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

^^^^ Marijuana has been legal under UN protocols for research purposes, if a student is working with marijuana or any drug for research purposes, they are exempt according to the Controlled Substances Act, this is something that could perhaps be tightened up with academic procedures which in the case of marijuana are not difficult to acquire (previously necessitating a flight to Morocco or an "Indian" reservation, now only to Colorado or Washington, and a growing number of states), but currently this is status quo.