692
693

We are John Hudak and Phil Wallach, experts on marijuana legalization at the Brookings Institution. Ask us anything! (self.IAmA)

submitted by JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)

We're Fellows at the Brookings Institution who have studied how Colorado and Washington have implemented their new legal recreational marijuana systems, and who are now thinking about what lessons other legalizing states should learn from their experiences. This is especially important because on November 4, voters in Alaska, Oregon, and D.C. will vote on marijuana legalization during the 2014 midterm elections. We’re here to answer any and all questions about the present and future of marijuana policy today.

For state-specific questions, JHudakBrookings is the Colorado expert and philwallach is the Washington expert.

Proof here.

UPDATE: We planned to do this Reddit AMA for one hour, but your questions were so great, we hung around for two! Keep them coming, we will likely answer a few more by the end of the day. In the meantime, thank you all for your participation. We learned a lot about what the public pulse is like on this issue and we surely hope you learned a lot as well!

In the future, you can read all of our research on the topic--and many more topics--on Brookings' FixGov blog. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov

Cheers!

Phil & John

top 200 commentsshow all 243
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]ryandmo 32 points33 points  (9 children)

Good morning and thank you for taking the time to hold this AMA session. My question is in regards to the “domino” effect of states legalizing Marijuana. Obviously, should Oregon, Alaska and Washington D.C. become legal, or even two of the three, that will have a significant impact on further legalization but at what point do you believe the nation will reach a sort of critical mass and begin to put meaningful pressure on the Federal Government to reschedule Marijuana to schedule II or lower?

[–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 27 points28 points  (8 children)

I think every successful campaign does give a sense of momentum, potentially encouraging legalization advocates to press harder. That might mean they work harder to get more states voting on ballot initiatives in 2016, and it might mean we might see more lobbying for action in state legislatures (such as Vermont's).

I imagine that will create some political space for Congress to also act. If it seems like the politicians associated with marijuana legalization aren't paying any kind of political cost, members of Congress may be more likely to take the issue up.

The flip side, I suppose, is that the opposition is likely to become better organized at some point if they see a national wave forming. Right now the opposition has been fairly politically disorganized.

[–]ryandmo 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Thank you for the answer. To follow up: Currently, are there any nation wide groups specifically geared towards keeping Marijuana as a Schedule I drug or is it mainly a patch work of small, state organizations? Further, if there are national organizations or even well run state organizations, which do you believe will grow to be the largest opposing factor to rescheduling?

[–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 10 points11 points  (6 children)

Right now, the best organized opposition group is Project SAM, co-founded by former US Rep. Patrick Kennedy. I'm sure they'll mount opposition to any relaxation of federal laws, and they are fairly well positioned to be a kind of anti-legalization industry leader. Other local groups have also popped up in DC, OR, AK, and that will happen in other states, too, but as you say, that's a rather fragmented patchwork. I expect the national anti- presence to make itself better heard in 2016.

[–]lamedeafleper 8 points9 points  (4 children)

People actually take Patrick Kennedy seriously?

[–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 12 points13 points  (1 child)

It is very interesting that there no more prominent politicians have energetically taken up anti-legalization as a signature political issue, at least to this point. "Just say no" really has lost much of its potency over the years.

[–]ryandmo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do you believe that’s because prominent politicians are concerned with the long term with effects of being anti Marijuana?

[–]OhighOent 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Watched an interview with him where he talks about his struggle with alcohol. How he chooses to leave that one alone and focus on the legality of cannabis blows my mind.

[–]GM_crop_victim 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think so, and NORML's recent take-down of Kevin Sabet's silly tour of Oregon was pretty hilarious.

At the end of the day, Kennedy is an addict who couldn't handle his addiction and wants to nationalize something that worked for him personally. A very odious argument!

[–]TheLittleWinstonBaby 31 points32 points  (24 children)

Good morning gentlemen - as drug-testing prior to a formal job offer is the norm for many companies these days, can you fail the drugs test (and not get the job as a result) if you have just come back from, say, Colorado?

[–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 49 points50 points  (6 children)

So, this is an interesting question and one that is unfolding right now in Colorado. The state Court of Appeals has rules in a case involving Dish Network's decision to continue to enforce drug testing policies that Colorado businesses can set rules around drug testing in the workplace, even for marijuana.

The challenge is that you can test positive for cannabis (THC) and not be under the influence for a longer period than would be the case for say alcohol. However, the state is giving businesses the power to enforce workplace standards, regardless of rules regarding recreational behaviors out of the work place. For the worker--and future workers--dealing with this issue, there is little recourse in federal courts where marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act.

Ultimately, the Colorado Supreme Court will rule on this case and set the standard for the state. Keep a lookout for their ruling.

[–]boston_shua 5 points6 points  (4 children)

How does this affect prescription use?

[–]butterthemann 14 points15 points  (3 children)

You can't get a prescription for marijuana because it is still a Schedule 1 narcotic under federal law. In states where medicinal marijuana legal, you get a recommendation from a doctor instead of a prescription.

[–]U5efull 3 points4 points  (2 children)

But you can get a prescription for Marinol which also would make you test positive, so how would they know the difference?

[–]alcoholland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You either do or do not have a prescription to marinol. If HR called you in over a failed test you would only need to inform them of this.

load more comments (1 reply)

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]Uncle_Hippie 6 points7 points  (15 children)

      My question is close to this one. If it's legalized in your state can you still fail drug tests for marijuana? I thought I'd read somewhere you could still fail them despite its legal status.

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 20 points21 points  (0 children)

      Some of the states legalizing go out of their way to say that employers retain the right to do whatever kind of drug testing they want, meaning that there is no non-discrimination principle for marijuana user. E.g., see Sec. 17.38.120 of Alaska's Ballot Measure 2: http://regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/full-initiative-text/

      [–]CrazyTillItHurts 14 points15 points  (11 children)

      The hospital by where I live (recently bought by UPMC) has a strict no tobacco policy. Not only is there no smoking anywhere on their property, they will give you a test for nicotine. If you fail, you lose your job. Also, it doesn't matter if it came from smoking. Their stance is "It is up to you to avoid false positives like chewing nicotine gum, using the patch, or vaping"

      [–]mrizzerdly 6 points7 points  (1 child)

      Wtf. In Canada there is no testing unless there is a bonafide reason for it - safety concerns related to you specific job. That would be illegal here.

      Fight for your right to party.

      [–]rundgren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Same in Europe.

      [–]Uncle_Hippie 19 points20 points  (8 children)

      That's really harsh and kind of scary. Didn't Mark Twain say something along the lines of "God gave me this body and it should be up to me what I do to it, not the government."

      [–]the_red_scimitar 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      Tell that to Texas.

      [–]SoyBombs 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      Ah, yes. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Pittsburgh, TX.

      [–]TheStr8OmarLittle 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Could you elaborate? I am lost.

      [–]MultiBugOrganism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Pittsburgh, if I'm thinking of the correct one, is a city in Pennsylvania, not Texas.

      [–]SNATAttack 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      An employer has the right to hire and not hire who they choose...

      [–]OldHippie 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Not true at all. Look up "protected classes".

      [–]WalropsHunter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Buy this is a company's choice, and therefore it's your choice whether or not to work for the company

      [–]willoftheboss 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Those tests are done due to the companies who perform the test lobbying to make them mandatory so it's not like they're done for any actual safety reason. Of course they'll try to knock you for weed if they can.

      [–]YourCrappyBoss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I know in WA you can still be fired, even if your job has no safety risk associated with it.

      [–]FckReddit1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      My cousins went to christian school in Georgia. Their teachers were not allowed to ever drink alcohol. I don't think they would test them regularly but they would have been dismissed if they did drink. I think it is another example of nondiscriminatory private action.

      [–]mookie1234 25 points26 points  (5 children)

      If DC votes to legalize marijuana, do you think Congress will intervene?

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 31 points32 points  (1 child)

      Because it is such a slap in the face to the Controlled Substances Act to have legal recreational marijuana in the District, you'd think they would feel obligated to. But it's far from a sure thing. They didn't react to DC's legislative enactment of marijuana decriminalization last year, which made possession punishable by just a $25 ticket. And of course getting an action of any kind through Congress is always difficult these days.
      More generally, it will be really interesting to see whether there is enough bipartisan support in Congress to start enacting marijuana reform laws of any kind, or whether the federalism issues will just continue to fester.

      [–]pilto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But they DID hide/quash the vote help on medical so them stepping in on this issue wouldn't be a precedent.

      [–]Sonmi-452 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      With a collective bong hit.

      [–]necrambo 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      With any luck, it will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

      At worst, it will hopefully cause politicians to have a public record of where they stand on the issue.

      [–]wmeredith 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      This would be amazing to watch. DC citizens would lose their minds. The Washington DC license plate already says "Taxation Without Representation" on it.

      [–]ryandmo 10 points11 points  (4 children)

      Another, separate, question gentlemen: Should Oregon, Alaska and Washington D.C. become legal states, do you think banking and tax laws and regulations will change and if so, how? Thank you.

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Also, /u/ryandmo for mine and Phil's take on those ballot initiatives, check out our latest post on our FixGov blog http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/28-2014-midterms-marijuana-midterms-oregon-alaska-washington-hudak-wallach

      [–]ryandmo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Thank you for the link, I'll be sure to read the post this evening.

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      I agree with John that these questions will fall to Congress, but I'm not sure I agree it's clear that nothing will happen under the current configuration. On an issue like this where opinion has shifted so dramatically, it's not always easy to predict future legislative behavior. Being resolutely against any relaxation of drug laws doesn't seem to bring the same political rewards as it used to, and so I can imagine the current Congress taking some steps to remove the most problematic federal laws, or even throwing the issue to the states (21st Amendment-style).

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Regulations within the state will obviously change and state tax policy will change. That said, federal regulations regarding banking, taxes, and drug policy will almost certainly not change in response to legalization in any or all of OR, AK, DC. Changes would likely take a different composition in Congress, some changes in the those in positions of power in the Administration, changes in membership at the Federal Reserve, and more pressure--in the form of more legalizing states--for serious changes to happen at the federal level.

      [–]aTinyPanda 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      What is your opinion/suggested action regarding the lobbying interests of groups like private prisons, law enforcement, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, among others? These groups seem to be directly interfering with progress on a federal level. Isn't this a blatant conflict of interest?

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 11 points12 points  (2 children)

      You say conflict of interest, they say protecting the public from a serious public health menace. Deciding which groups are "special" interests deserving of scorn, and which are legitimately pursuing the public good, is always a fairly subjective matter.

      Obviously you are correct that these groups are going to have their say on the issue before all is said and done, overwhelmingly on the anti- side. Another one that you didn't mention: mandatory drug treatment programs.

      I'd say this is just democracy at work, for better and worse.

      [–]aTinyPanda 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      You make valid points, but I would argue that groups who clearly stand to benefit from continued prohibition (or inversely, stand to suffer greatly form repeal) are directly in conflict of interest when lobbying legislation regarding the matter. Especially in regards to groups like the alcohol lobby, the private prison lobby, the cigarette lobby, etc.. I guess this is where the line between politics and business gets blurry. Wish I was a billionaire so I could throw my hat into the ring as well!

      At any rate, thanks very much for your response!

      [–]phogna_bologna -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      Do you have a projection of what their arguments would be? Research has basically proven all of their arguments invalid, except the argument that Americans shouldn't partake in marijuana because it's illegal.

      [–]dimplejuice 16 points17 points  (3 children)

      What have been the direct economic effects of legalization in CO and WA so far? Any quantifiable data? Also, if neighboring states eventually legalize marijuana, how will that effect CO and WA sales? For example, here in the Northeast US, the legalization of casino gambling has really siphoned revenue from New Jersey. The pie is just being split in more slices rather than growing.

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 15 points16 points  (2 children)

      I don't have those data, as it is VERY early on in the process. Chris Ingraham @c_ingraham at Washington post has talked a bit about tax revenue in Colorado (see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/11/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenues-surge-as-recreational-sales-surpass-medical-for-the-first-time/)

      Additionally, the state of Colorado commissioned a study of demand for the state to try to get a grasp on how much Coloradans and visitors to the state will want (in terms of product) and that can be a basic understanding of economic impact (both sales and tax). See here (https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Market%20Size%20and%20Demand%20Study,%20July%209,%202014%5B1%5D.pdf)

      It is important to note as the market expands, which will happen now that new entrants to the market are allowed in, prices will drop and supply will increase. That can have economic effects as well.

      Finally, there is a working paper from Harvard/CATO being circulated right now that touches on some of these issues as well. I will not link to it because it remains a working paper, but you should be able to find it easily.

      [–]cingraham 26 points27 points  (1 child)

      John I am deeply offended you misplaced my underscore: @_cingraham. :D

      Here's a write-up of the latest revenue figures. Colorado had a bear of a time projecting total revenues, because nobody knew how large the legal market would be, or how quickly people would migrate to it from the black and medical markets.

      Overall, revenues have been slower to materialize than initially expected. But they've grown steadily and are now coming in considerably higher than the latest department of revenue projections.

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

      Thanks Chris! Apologies.

      [–]Stopman 8 points9 points  (5 children)

      What do you think the United States will look like with regards to marijuana ten years down the road?

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

      In 10 years, most states will allow residents access to medical marijuana. Many states already have, public opinion supporting medical is quite large and growing, and it is a harder argument to sustain in opposition.

      Recreational marijuana is a bit harder. However, I am certain many more states will allow recreational--in the vein we see in Washington and Colorado right now--barring some disaster in a legalizing state that drastically turns public opinion. Deep red, Bible belt states like Mississippi and South Carolina may be among the last to legalize, but I expect New England states, Mountain West states and Red states with deep libertarian streaks may well move forward. Hope this helps. THIS ALSO HELPS ANSWER /u/NC_Law 's question as well.

      [–]AlmostTheNewestDad 10 points11 points  (0 children)

      Civil disobedience in SC it is, then.

      [–]carl-llama 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      As a SC resident this makes me very sad and angry to see all of these people who are so afraid of change.

      [–]hardcorelegend43 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      don't most states already allow access to medical marihuana? Most meaning more than half

      [–]InnocuousUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Unlikely you don't know, but MS has at least decriminalized.

      [–]KillerBeeTX 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      What challenges do you see for a typically conservative, red state like Texas seeing legalization (or even decriminalization)? With our large connection with the border, would border crime be diminished in any way if legalization was achieved?

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      The politics seem likely to be pretty tough in Texas.

      The border issue you bring up is an important one. One thing we haven't discussed at all to this point is the international treaty issues. Brookings and WOLA recently had a great event working out some of the legal treaty problems that are created by state-level reform in terms: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2014/10/17-international-impacts-legal-marijuana

      Since the US has been one of the primary drivers of international interdiction efforts for many decades now, our treaty partners are not happy with the federal government turning their cheek to development of domestic markets even as they maintain a no-tolerance attitude to international trafficking. Eventually this could get into our trade treaties, too.

      [–]mhartmanMarketplace 11 points12 points  (5 children)

      I'm a business reporter--I'm wondering what we know about the role of black market/illegally produced-and-distributed marijuana in the new legal marijuana states? Prices are presumably higher in licensed stores than 'on the street'; that's partly taxes, partly overhead, partly quality/transparency of contents and qualities. And, the premium customers are willing to pay for a legal product. Is legal marijuana squeezing illegal growers, cartel and indie distributors/dealers, etc.?

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      Mitchell, thanks for the question. This is a challenge to get good data to assess the question because information about the black market is understandably a challenge to get in an valid and reliable way. That said, there are surely individuals who are accessing the legal market now and not the illegal market. At the same time, some outlets argue that there are serious social divides between who is access legal marijuana and who is remaining in the illegal market.

      Any time there is an influx of market actors, you can be certain that it will put a strain on existing producers--in this case black market producers and sellers.

      One other item, in Colorado in particular, that is a challenge for the black market involves Coloradans new constitutional right to grow marijuana at home. That allows individuals, particularly those in municipalities and counties that have opted out of marijuana, to have access to it--and for fairly cheap. That may actually present a bigger threat to the black market sellers, cartels, etc. than the legalized market.

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      It's a good question; people sometimes imagine that legalization means an end to enforcement, but actually if a state is determined to drive the black market out of existence it may require more enforcement, at least in the near-term.

      Just in the news today, CO police and the DEA are cooperating to crack down on illegal grows in Denver: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denver-police-federal-agents-conducting-large-scale-raids-on-suspected-illegal-marijuana-grows

      [–]AllGunsNoButter 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      i can say that as a person who may or may not have sold marijuana illegally that the black market will not be affected that much. Stores arent open 24-hours a day and the average smoker might not want to pay extra for their product. You might see a decrease in sells from people with higher income wanting a higher grade strain. Not every state will legalize rec use so for people who can not get a perscription will find ways to blaze lol. The only way to really hurt the black market is to legalize growing marijuana.

      [–]kippy3267 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Do the stores have better quality weed than black market? I imagine it being like walter white versus jessie's way of producing meth

      [–]AllGunsNoButter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Depends on your supplier but i imagine stores will find a better way to grow stronger breeds

      [–]aremesbob 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      What are the two present states doing about marijuana DUI definitions and measurements? Has anyone come up with a good, science-based solution for determining whether a person is driving while marijuana- impaired?

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Both CO and WA define a threshold of intoxication at 5 nanograms of THC per mL of whole blood, so that anyone testing above that level is automatically guilty. That's controversial--many people say that THC stays in the bloodstream longer than intoxication lasts. Other states now considering legalization aren't all defining a specific limit; instead, Oregon calls for further scientific research.

      [–]Warrus 5 points6 points  (10 children)

      What do you think about Florida's bill to legalize use of medical marijuana? How close is it to statewide recreational use being accepted?

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 6 points7 points  (7 children)

      I will add, medical marijuana in Florida is an interesting issue. In political and electoral terms Florida is a swing vote--moderate in nature--and initiatives like these are really a roll of the dice. At the same time, with an aging population and a destination of warm climate, particularly for people with serious medical issues, healthcare is a VERY important issue to the state. It is, of course, a big issue in every state, but Florida's population makes it even moreso. That means that a medical initiative in Florida can really tap into that issue, those concerns, and the public's opinion about access to products that may serve a therapeutic purpose.

      Right now, it looks like polling suggests that the vote is relatively close on medical marijuana. Given that medical marijuana tends to be more popular among publics than recreational marijuana, I think it is safe to say that recreational legalization is a bit down the road.

      [–]AlmostTheNewestDad 8 points9 points  (6 children)

      Why is medical care left to popular vote? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

      [–]DAL82 6 points7 points  (2 children)

      Have we voted to legalize crazy pills?

      [–]AlmostTheNewestDad 8 points9 points  (1 child)

      The only thing we have legalized are pills.

      [–]jpropaganda 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      crazy!

      [–]Voted_Quimby 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Legalizing medical marijuana in FL requires an amendment to the state constitution, which requires a vote.

      [–]AlmostTheNewestDad -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      Yes, I understand that is the case. I'm asking why is this the case for something that is so evidently medicine?

      Public opinion should be irrelevant here.

      [–]Voted_Quimby 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      1) You could delegate pretty much any policy to experts (environmental laws, abortion laws, tax laws, road safety laws etc) rather than public opinion, and there might be some value to that, but that's not how our system works. We are not ruled by intellectual elites (philosopher kings?). Our laws our supposed to be made by the public, however uninformed they may be. Ideally they'll vote with the opinions of experts in mind.

      2) Medical marijuana (or any of the previously mentioned issues) isn't just about one thing, in this case medicine. It also impacts tax revenue, business opportunities, the criminal justice system, tourism, state/inter-state/federal regulations, and a host of other things that are worthy of some consideration.

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      I'm not an expert on Florida's proposed amendment, but I can say that there really is a wide variety of enforcement regimes for medical marijuana. Some of them do become de facto legalization regimes for anyone willing to pay for a prescription, others are much more tightly regulated. One of the big questions is whether anyone is eligible for a prescription, or only people suffering from a set of legally specified medical conditions.

      [–]NDaveT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Some of them do become de facto legalization regimes for anyone willing to pay for a prescription

      My understanding is that in Florida, that's the regime now for opioid pain medication, making Florida a destination for people who abuse them. Do you think any of the opposition to medical marijuana in Florida comes from that industry? Does the Florida legislature seem inclined to tighten regulation of opioid pain medication?

      [–]TactfulFractal 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      How connected to efforts to reform the US prison system is the MJ legalization movement? Huge numbers of Americans are in the penal system for drug offenses, many non-violent.

      Does legalization (perhaps particularly in states with heavy levels of incarceration) have a broader social-welfare implication? Has your research revealed any novel or interesting correlations?

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      There are a lot of reasons advocates are giving for why marijuana should be legalized. Different arguments appeal to different groups. Particularly in minority communities/economically struggling communities, the arguments about civil rights/liberties and incarceration rates have real appeal to get traction in ways that may not have as much appeal in white communities or wealthier communities.

      The targeting and diversification of these arguments to specific demographic groups shows a real maturity in the pro-legalization movement to understand what the politics around this issue are. Very talented political and legal minds worked on this issue in Colorado and Washington. It flies in the face of the idea that supporters of the movement are a bunch of stoners. I talk about this concept in my report on implementation in Colorado. See it here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/07/colorado-marijuana-legalization-succeeding

      [–]kayneargand 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      Thank you for doing this AMA. My question is actually in regards to WHY the two of you are advocates of legislation? Also, how do you think legislation nationwide will affect the economy as a whole, and do you think the Controlled Substances Act will be amended to omit marijuana?

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      So, Phil and I are political scientists who write about the politics and policy surrounding marijuana legalization. Our work does not advocate on behalf of or against legalization. We simple research the issue and apply our training as social scientists to it. I will direct you to some of our work on the issue. A blog post from yesterday about the OR, DC, AK initiatives (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/28-2014-midterms-marijuana-midterms-oregon-alaska-washington-hudak-wallach) as well as our post-legalization studies on Washington (http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/08/25-washington-marijuana-legalization-knowledge-experiment-wallach) and Colorado (http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/07/colorado-marijuana-legalization-succeeding)

      You'll see the work is empirical and investigatory, rather than advocacy oriented.

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      As for the second part of your question. Amending the CSA to omit--or more likely reschedule--marijuana is going to take different membership in the House and Senate. It won't happen in the current Congress (not much happens in the current Congress) and it won't happen in the next one either (not much is going to happen in that one either). The CSA (w MJ as a Schedule I drug) is here to stay in the near future.

      [–]dyingisthirstywork 4 points5 points  (3 children)

      How badly will it slow down the legalization momentum after Alaska and Oregon fail to pass?

      Will the federal government ever remove cannabis from its schedule 1 classification?

      In your professional opinions what are the real reasons the government chooses to persecute people who use cannabis?

      [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      In reverse order:

      The "real reason" isn't obscure: people really do fear the harms that marijuana has in people's lives. I think it's important to emphasize that this fear is not at all irrational; sometimes pot really does screw people's lives up, and psychological dependency is a real thing. Clearly people are now reconsidering whether the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits, but I wouldn't question the sincerity of people's fears about marijuana.

      As for rescheduling, I'd say that the change seems likely to be consistent with the science, and so will probably happen at some point. But it's important to note that rescheduling wouldn't be at similar to legalization.

      Finally, if AK and OR were both voted down, I do think the narrative would shift a good deal. Instead of momentum for legalization, we'd start to think of WA and CO as isolated outliers, guinea pigs for other states to watch before taking any action of their own. That would be a very different dynamic.

      [–]dyingisthirstywork 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      The "real reason" isn't obscure: people really do fear the harms that marijuana has in people's lives. I think it's important to emphasize that this fear is not at all irrational; sometimes pot really does screw people's lives up, and psychological dependency is a real thing. Clearly people are now reconsidering whether the costs of prohibition outweigh the benefits, but I wouldn't question the sincerity of people's fears about marijuana.

      So basically "REEFER MADNESS!"?

      Cannabis has never screwed up anyone's life. They screwed up their own lives, the pot was just an accessory.

      So educated people really believe being labeled a criminal has less of a negative impact on someones life than casual cannabis use?

      Only a very small percentage of people who use cannabis go onto become heavy users. The vast majority of people who use cannabis do so casually.

      It is amazing and shocking that you would justify cannabis laws.

      Fact: In 1990, fewer than 1000 people were arrested for simple cannabis possession in NYC. In 2010, 50,000 people were arrested for simple cannabis possession in the same 'liberal' city.

      Its amazing you would justify this behavior especially when the vast majority of those arrested are either black men, latino men or poor people. This must be a coincidence then?

      Good thing we arrest all these minorities for simple cannabis possession we would not want them out on the street being reefer addicts listening to that crazy jazz music that seduces young white women....

      [–]SOMBREROOO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Told

      [–]newmanPlume 12 points13 points  (9 children)

      I would love to understand why there is this resistance to any change in marijuana laws on the federal level in the US. Can you explain some of that? It seems like our country has a had an unusual history with growing hemp in colonial days and then I think at some point growing hemp (not mj) became illegal because of some strong adversity to anything hemp or mj.

      I would think that if there is this ,"deadset against attitude" toward anything mj, then that might be a serious stumbling block with medical mj.

      [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 14 points15 points  (8 children)

      Thanks for your question /u/newmanPlume . For people who advocate for a side, it is often difficult to understand opposition. Opposition to legalization--at the individual level--can exist for many, legitimate reasons. People have experiences in their own lives and in their families with individuals who abused marijuana--like with alcohol, other drugs, nicotine, gambling, etc., and can see that use of vices without responsibility can lead to poor outcomes. That is true for MJ and it is true for a lot.

      In addition, many people fear the new and fear change. That is true on a variety of policies and in a multitude of contexts. For MJ it comes from a perception that if we legalize marijuana it will become widespread or a disaster or have serious social consequences. Those concerns will likely be illustrated or disproven depending on the experiences in the two states that have legalized and the next ones to come.

      Finally, there has been a sustained effort to combat drugs and drug use in the US and around the world for decades. Billions have been poured into an effect that here in the US is spearheaded by every President. That messaging easily takes root in the psyche of Americans and has an effect on public opinion as a result. Is that changing? In part yes. But the sustained reality for decades is something that is to be expected. Many policymakers see drugs, including marijuana, as a problem, and move forward with a goal of making sure the public shares that belief. Whether you think that is good policy or bad policy, it is a reality in American public policy.

      [–]crowshow 1 point2 points  (5 children)

      I'd just like to add another personal argument against legislation (from a medical patient): the possibility of "Big Pot." There is an idea that legalization would make the product more regulated and thereby "safer," (ie. controllable dosage, regulation of pesticide use, etc) but I don't believe that is what would happen. I worry that it would lead to large companies who have all the control, and who edge out smaller growing operations.

      [–]joephus420 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      That argument doesn't hold a lot of weight when we look at current real world parallels. While "Big Alcohol" has used lots of dirty tactics against smaller breweries, we are still experiencing an explosion in microbreweries on a national scale. I don't see anything to suggest it would be any different with pot. Also, "Big Pot" even if it were to come about and control the market, would be a much more preferential public policy when compared with the current incarceration policies in use today.

      [–]crowshow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Good points, thank you!

      [–]InnocuousUserName 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      How is that an argument against? Serious question

      [–]crowshow 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      It's an argument against legalization because legalization would put weed under the control of governmental regulatory agencies (who arguably don't have the individual's best interests in mind) and open the market up to large corporations, such as Phillip Morris (who arguably put bottom line way ahead of quality & customer service).

      My concern is that companies like Phillip Morris already have the resources to produce on a large scale, so they could corner the market and have a whole lot of control over content and price. Another commenter mentioned that we still see a proliferation of microbreweries despite Big Alcohol having pretty much cornered the market. Still, look at how Big Alcohol's beers are way more available, and cheaper, than whatever your local microbrew has to offer (if you're lucky enough to have some good ones nearby).

      While I agree that it's still a better option than rampant incarceration, I think we should think long and hard about the ramifications of involving the government and their darling corporations in another aspect of our leisure. On the whole, though, I'm still for it.

      [–]InnocuousUserName 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thanks for the further clarification. I, personally, would assume a government backed regulatory agency to have my best interest in mind more than I would an unregulated black market. But I see where you're coming from.

      I'm actually ok with giant corporations getting involved too, I think in this industry there's plenty of room to compete. To further the craft beer analogy, even locally distilled liquor sales are on the rise in Colorado. Quality and variety will keep local businesses competitive in my opinion.

      load more comments (1 reply)

        [–]iansteelworker 4 points5 points  (3 children)

        How long until I can legally smoke pot and work in West Virginia?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Also, note well, that would just be legal at the state level, such that local and state police would ignore marijuana (or at least licensed uses of it). At the federal level, the Controlled Substances Act will still make even small-scale possession a federal crime even if it isn't a state crime. That's not very likely to be enforced against small-time users, but people should keep it in mind nevertheless.

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        I wish I had the expertise to answer that. I do not. It requires a) WV to legalize marijuana, which is not on the immediate horizon, then b) either the initiative or legislation legalizing it would have to include the right to use marijuana at work (which is unlikely) or for courts to rule on it.

        I should note, for those who drive a school bus or are a coal miner or are a daycare worker, I would predict 'never'.

        [–]Dont____Panic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Or a steel worker, as his user name suggests.

        [–]1414141414 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        What is the likelihood Oregon will pass prop 91. Is it true growers have been against it?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        We're not privy to any non-public information, so I'd say it's quite close, as the polls indicate: http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/10/marijuana_legalization_poll_or.html.

        As in CO and WA before, some growers and retailers prospering under the previous system are against reform, since they are worried that the newly regulated system will be less lucrative for them. This is a classic example of what political scientists have called the "Bootleggers and Baptists" coalition, which described the alliance in favor of (alcohol) Prohibition. As always, politics makes strange bedfellows.

        [–]1414141414 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Thanks for your speedy answer keep up the great work.

        [–]awhite695 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        In states like CA where medical patients don't even need to necessarily register their cards with the government, do you think lawmakers realized that this would create a situation where pot is quasi legal for many who have or know people who have medical recommendations? What do you think their intention was? Thanks for doing this

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        I don't think it's very likely that California's medical marijuana system was put in place as a backdoor route to de facto legalization--the support would not have been there for that at the time. Rather, this is a case of unintended consequences playing out over time combined with a lack of political will to combat the new developments. Obviously the situation now makes a mockery of the law; medical becomes "medical," and one motivation for doing reform is simply to bring law and reality into some kind of alignment, however belatedly.

        [–]awhite695 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Thank you so much for the reply. This is a great answer to something I have always wondered. Much appreciated

        [–]homerule 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        Non-marijuana related... but what's it like working at a think tank?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 9 points10 points  (0 children)

        It's great. Lots of freedom to investigate the issues we think are important and interesting. The mental image of some eggheads sitting in a terrarium is (mostly) misleading.

        [–]josephtutora 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        Do you think Arizona is soon to be recreationally legal when and why? Thanks!

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        There are groups working in every state working on this issue. The ability of states to do this is complex. It depends on timing, fundraising, the electoral and political environments, and the paths to legalization (either legislative or ballot initiative/constitutional). I am unsure of the status of recreational legalization in Arizona, but as a political scientist, I will say this:

        Recreational legalization's success is difficult in deeply conservative, values voters states. Arizona is a red state that is becoming less red, and will likely be a swing state by 2020. That means there may be more voters likely to be in favor of recreational legalization in a state like Arizona, particularly in the years to come. Groups like NORML and MPP (marijuana policy project) are focusing on initiatives and they will be able to answer that question more precisely.

        [–]BEN_ANNA_FOSGALE 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        http://saferarizona.com/

        2014 initiative was pulled, but it should be on the ballot in 2016.

        [–]bmlecg 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        I know it's not your area of focus probably, but how likely do you see the United Kingdom following suit and legalising? What do you think the timeline will be?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I figured I would give an answer /u/bmlecg . I am not sure about UK legalization policy. I do know NORML has a presence in UK. You may want look into their work in the area. They'll have better information than I can give you.

        [–]GeneralFalcon 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        When do you think we will obtain full legalization in the US?

        What will it take - state by state, a supreme court case, a constitutional amendment, or something else?

        How do you feel about medical marijuana being used as a stop gap - how more or less anyone can get a MMJ card if they know where to look - for real legalization? Does it cheapen the public opinion of actual medical applications?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Remember, there are still dry towns in the US today--i.e., where alcohol is illegal. So I don't imagine there will ever be "full" legalization for marijuana without any possibility of state or local opt-out.

        As for predicting major reform of the federal laws, it is really hard to say. Possible that a window of opportunity will open fairly soon, and also possible that it will close without yielding major reforms. The status quo is always hard to dislodge.

        [–]joephus420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Minor correction, alcohol isn't illegal in dry counties. The sale of alcohol is, but the posession and consumption of alcohol is not.

        [–]BowflexMan 5 points6 points  (4 children)

        Do you and everyone on your team smoke weed?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        I have smoked pot in the past. I do not smoke it regularly. I cannot speak for my colleagues. But by outward appearances, I do not think everyone on my team smokes weed.

        [–]erranttv 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        Did you inhale?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

        Absolutely. I am not Clintonesque.

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        An interesting (less directly responsive) question is whether this should matter for thinking about the policy area. I'd argue that whether legalization is a good idea mostly comes down to empirical questions about its costs and benefits, and answering those shouldn't really have much to do with whether people have smoked or not.

        On the other hand, suspicions of biased research are ubiquitous in the current political scene, so we're hardly surprised by the question.

        [–]vanyadog1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        What do you make of the Federal court case in San Francisco that allows the Schedule I status of marijuana to be challenged? What are the possible outcomes of a reversal? Or a rescheduling in the judicial branch?

        http://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/schweder-marijuana-case/

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Getting a federal policy overturned because it fails the rational basis test is always extremely difficult--I'd say always unlikely. Apparently some people think that the case has a chance, but others doubt it--see some good posts over at the Cannabis Law Prof Blog: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/cannabis_law/2014/10/federal-marijuana-hearing-continues-today-with-second-defense-witness-.html

        [–]vanyadog1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        That's a good perspective and quite a clear-headed breakdown by the law professor - to follow up, you say a failed test for a rational basis is an extremely difficult way to overturn federal policy - is there a legitimate comparison here to certain points on the constitutionality of gay marriage being tested in the courts by savvy legal groups?

        [–]FatManPuffin 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        15 years ago canada was on the verge of decriminalizing marijuana, and was thought to be well ahead of the States regard marijuana legalization, and suddenly now The states is decriminalizing it in several states and looks to be well ahead of Canada on the subject. By any chance can you tell me why this is? how is it that Canada has all but gone backwards while the states have moved forward on this subject, especially when most people believe that canadian politicians(especially right wing) attempt to mirror their american counterparts?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 3 points4 points  (3 children)

        We are not very expert about Canada's politics, but my impression is that Canadian politics in general have shifted in a more conservative direction under PM Harper.

        [–]FatManPuffin 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        damn, well thank you for the attempt. Also i think you guys have the best job ever.

        Try another one then: do you believe that with Cannabis legalization/decriminalization, that other "harmful" drugs will see the same things being done to them? One day in the future do you see me being able to go into a store and buy magic mushrooms? or possibly even drugs such as cocaine going the way of decriminalization?

        [–]dat_pudding 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I can vouch for this. Canadian politics are at the moment extremely conservative. We are in a state where repression is gaining more ground and the laws are much more robust. Moving from a Liberal government to a Conservative one did have it's toll.

        [–]FatManPuffin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        thats what happens when you shoot yourself, and your party in the foot.I'm looking at you Paul Martin O.o

        [–]RetroTexan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        As the country becomes more and more tolerant from a social perspective, in your opinions, what will be the next few states to legalize for recreational use?

        [–]clayHarvest 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        As a everyday taker of Zoloft for anxiety, do you believe marijuana is a better alternative to the pills? Thanks!

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

        Well, let me start by saying that although Phil and I have "Dr." before our names, those are Ph.Ds., not M.Ds. So we're in no position to weigh the different medical or therapeutic effects of one substance over another. I do encourage you to talk to your physician about this issue.

        I do know that in some places, marijuana is used to treat anxiety. However, Zoloft has also endured FDA testing for its purposes. The same cannot be said of medical marijuana, and so comparing the two may be like apples and oranges. All that is to say, this is a better question posed to medical professionals and not eggheads like us.

        [–]pezzshnitsol 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Think tanks have a soft ball league right? What position do you play? Where do you bat in the batting order? Who are your think tank softball league rivals?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        Yes. 1B. 5th. Rivals? It's hard to distinguish them in the dust.

        [–]pezzshnitsol 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        shots fired

        [–]Geldtron 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        What happens to people currently on probation (for marijuana possession) when a state legalizes it?

        If nothing, in a sense they are continuing to be punished for a past crime that has now been declared a legal act. Which seems silly to me. Is there a general rule of thumb or is it done on an individual case by case basis and assessment of any other legal proceedings this person may have?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        That depends in part on how the state structures the reform, the language they use, and whether they choose to address it at all. Beyond that, courts can choose to engage the issue in an assertive way, and finally governors--in states that have pardon/commutation power--can intervene to address this issue.

        Each pathway comes with political benefits and political costs, which I think is the most important way to think about this. Choices in this area, like in many areas of public policy, often don't emerge because they are the ideal, but because the emerge from a political process. Understanding how the politics shake out on the issue, in a particular state, at a particular time, among a specific set of officials will have more to do with the outcome than what is believed to be right or just or sensible.

        [–]FloppyTunaFish 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        What is your favorite type of sandwich?

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 10 points11 points  (1 child)

        Tough one. A good pastrami is hard to beat. I also like things with cole slaw right in them.

        [–]Digiguy25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        You'd enjoy a Primanti's sandwich!

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

        Ham. I'm a plain guy.

        [–]jumpup 2 points3 points  (3 children)

        how many different strains are currently on the market, ?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        I can speak from Colorado's experience. There are a lot of strains on the market. I do not have a number. Cannabis business in the state is an impressive combination of agro-science and genetics, so that companies are producing new strains in ways that offer product diversification at market. Each strain is marketed as having unique effects from energy to relaxation to giggles to munchies and everything in between.

        Some argue--and I believe--that the product diversification will become much life craft beer or wines in ways that truly appeal to user tastes in unique ways.

        [–]Dunkh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        Leafly.com lists available strains. 500+

        [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Here's a view from a WA store: https://twitter.com/Col_Cannabis/status/515593276725141504. There's actually a boom in patenting of different strains right now--a product need not be legal to be eligible for (federal) patent protection.

        [–]iansteelworker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        Yes I'm aware. I want to quit drinking beer. I rather smoke a little pot. Would my work be able to say no to marijuana use outside of work?

        [–]lazyanachronist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        They've answered in other places but: so far, yes.

        [–]gorthan1984 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Do you also know the legislation outside the U.S.?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Uruguay recently passed legalization--the first country in the world to do so. There are also very important treaty implications surrounding this issue. This was recently discussed by my colleague Wells Bennett and WOLA's John Walsh. See here: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2014/10/17-international-impacts-legal-marijuana

        Latin American countries are interested in this issue and are starting to investigate the challenges, risks, rewards and implications of it, all while taking a wait and see approach with Uruguay. Uruguay is a very advanced Latin American country with stable, solid institutions. The expectation is that if Uruguay can't manage to implement legalization effectively, it would be all the harder for other Latin American countries with weaker institutions to pull it off.

        [–]gorthan1984 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Uruguay recently passed legalization

        Latin American countries

        What about E.U.? Since their laws are very different from country to country, what are the possibilities they all together try to have one only law?

        [–]General_Beauregard 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        How far behind do you think we Bible Belters are from legalization (or even decriminalization)?

        Do you think strongly conservative states (i.e. the Southeast) will get there on their own, or will they not make the change until federal legislation is passed?

        [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Bible Belt states are likely the last to legalize for a variety of reasons, strong Tea Party sentiment, values voting motivated by social conservatism, etc. That is just a reality. The path forward in these states for legalization supporters would likely to focus on libertarian streaks among conservatives in these states. That said, it is really difficult to see legalization passing any time soon. They may well have to wait for federal policy change.

        [–]AllGunsNoButter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        And i hate that some people think their reglious values should be enforced by laws. People dont understaned that this is a free country that can not prosecute anybody based off of religous reason. Its the same with gay marriage. Everybody i talk to about it says well gays shouldnt be allowed to marry because its in the bible. WELL HELLO ASSHOLE EVERYBODY DOESNT GO TO YOUR CHURCH OR WORSHIP YOUR GOD.

        [–]HemHaw 1 point2 points  (4 children)

        Hello and thanks for answering our questions!

        State-Licensed grow sites in WA apparently are banned from having any firearms on the premesis, either personally owned by employees or by the organization. How are these growers handling security, and why do you think they are banned from exercising their rights when enployees in other industries are not regulated in this way?

        [–]scornucopia 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Given recent Supreme Court rulings, it seems unlikely that it is constitutional to prohibit a business owner from having a firearm on his own premises. It would be hilarious to see someone prosecuted under this ban appeal the decision all the way up to the SCOTUS.

        load more comments (3 replies)

          [–]GO_RAVENS 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          The list of reasons is long, but what would you say is the number one thing standing in the way of legalization on a national stage? We know from polling that it isn't public opinion. What is the first domino that will cause them all to fall?

          [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Inertia--which is a powerful force in US politics. There is a huge bureaucracy devoted to treating marijuana as a criminal matter, and so changing directions quickly is difficult. In terms of retail legislative politics, there has long been a fear of looking soft on crime of any sort; and there is still plenty of parental fear of having marijuana or other drugs become more accessible to their children, so that means that supporting reform seems like a political risk. But, as I said elsewhere, it does seem like the political environment is changing.

          [–]thenewestoneever 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Retail legislative politics. What a wonderfully apt phrasing.

          [–]dallas417 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          How do you think things are looking for legalization in Missouri? We're a conservative state in the bible belt but we have a lot of small groups making progress towards decriminalization and legalization.

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I cannot speak directly to efforts in Missouri, but I will say that I think a lot of states are taking a wait and see approach to what happens in Colorado, Washington and other states, as well as experiences in states that have or are getting medical marijuana. Taking a minute to endure some policy learning and observation is always healthy. Seeing success or failure before moving forward with new policy is one way to avoid or at least limit the risks of policy failure. The divided electorate in states like Missouri and present challenges for passage, particularly when conservatives are values voters. Those present political obstacles for proponents and offer political benefits for opponents of legalization.

          [–]margarinized_people 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          My dream job is working on drug policy reform. Do you have any advice for someone trying to get into the field?

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          There are a variety of very well established groups that are working hard on this issue. They lobby, develop communications strategies, work with state, federal, and local elected officials and organize volunteer groups in states and localities. They are interest groups that have matured over time and become highly professionalized. They are numerous. The most highly visible ones include, but are not limited to, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, and NORML, as well as state and local groups as well. Look at their websites, see the work they are doing, and if it aligns with your perspective, that should answer your question. Also, look at other organizations related to those I mention above.

          [–]margarinized_people 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Thanks for your response. I've been in contact with people at MPP but so far no luck. I'll keep trying. Thanks again!

          [–]Wordsworthswarrior 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I have heard, anecdotally, that something like 35 state legislatures are discussing legalization of some form of marijuana use. Do you know how many states are currently in the discussion phase? I saw you mentioned Oregon, Alaska and DC as actually having ballot initiatives, but I'm curious what states are considering them. Thanks for doing the AMA.

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          So, this is a bit difficult to answer because the claim "legislatures are discussing legalization" can mean one rogue legislator filed a bill or a sizable majority of legislators are pursuing such legalization legislation--or ballot initiative readying legislation--in ways that make it a central part of the policy agenda for that state. There is everything in between, as well. So, I would guard against the idea that all "discussions" are created equal and be clear that they do not necessarily reflect a serious chance of legalization becoming policy. Here is out post about OR AK DC: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/28-2014-midterms-marijuana-midterms-oregon-alaska-washington-hudak-wallach

          [–]I_am_Bearstronaut 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          How does the outlook on marijuanna look in the state of South Dakota? In my eyes, I see it being one of the last states to possibly get it legalized in any form

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          South Dakota is an interesting case. While it tends to be a conservative state, for a multitude of reasons, there are demographic changes happening there based on movements of racial groups and the boom in energy exploration in the region. If those changes lead to an influx of residents and voters who have pro-legalization views, South Dakota may move faster toward legalization than you suspect. That said, it maybe a frontier state, but it is not really at the frontier of legalization policy.

          [–]I_am_Bearstronaut 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Thanks for the reply. Living in one of the biggest cities in the state, I definitely see a lot of diversity. But it'll still be a long time before anything is legal.

          [–]RichardRydur 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Do u believe police officers in legalized states should be drug tested for marijuana now that its legal?

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          I know police forces are very interested in testing their officers for marijuana. Police departments do not want their officers being on patrol, carrying and using a firearm, driving a police car, etc. while under the influence of any drug--alcohol, THC, prescription drugs, etc.

          At the same time, police departments have zero tolerance policies regarding numerous behaviors and surely THC will remain among those policies, regardless of changes to state and federal laws. My guess, too, is that the public is going to be perfectly content with ensuring their police officers are not risking being on duty while under the influence OF ANYTHING.

          [–]titanxbeard 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Greetings gentlemen, your time and information is greatly appreciated.

          I am aware that PA recently passed the restrictive marijuana use bill. This will limit the use to those in extreme and usually dire medical circumstances. In addition, Philedelphia has decriminalized possesion of small amounts. I feel like these are good first steps for towards its recreational legalization. Is there any movement towards that direction that you know of in PA? Did Colorado and Washington take these same steps before they adopted the new laws that allow recreational use?

          [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          CO had a pretty well-regulated medical system it was able to transition into recreational; WA had a rather chaotic legal situation for medical marijuana, without regulation, which still persists today. But I'd say it's very likely that states will take up various forms of decriminalization or medical marijuana before they take the larger step to legalize recreational marijuana.

          [–]lazyanachronist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          rather chaotic legal situation

          That's putting it mildly.

          [–]LeeRobbie 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          How has recreational legalization changed underage usage?

          [–]JHudakBrookingsJohn Hudak (Brookings Institute)[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          The best resource on this question, at least in Colorado can be found here: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/news/news-new-survey-documents-youth-marijuana-use-need-prevention

          [–]ThoughtRiot1776 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Do you think that medical marijuana has been productive in the legalization effort?

          Specifically, do you think that the ease of getting a doctor's recommendation has hurt the effort to have marijuana sold and treated as medication? I'm a Californian and from what I gather Washington and Colorado's systems were just as easy to game. I just paid $40 to a doctor who rubber stamped me.

          [–]particle409 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Can you tell us about your personal experiences with marijuana?

          [–]sotruebro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Does the Brookings institue drug test for marijuana?

          [–]PasteeyFan420LoL 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I've always wondered where the US would get its supply if marijuana was made legal nationwide. Surely small independent growers wouldn't be able to meet demand right? It's an important factor that I don't think I've ever seen addressed in any pro-legalization arguments and I'm genuinely curious about it even though I really don't care about the movement as a whole.

          [–]bongripsandfaketits 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          If Florida were to pass the CBD side of things like it seems the current vote is setup for will it make getting full on medical or recreational harder to come around?

          [–]entsworth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Which will happen first, Mars colony or national marijuana legalization?

          [–]Huge_Mass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          How much longer??

          [–]outof_cereal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          How long do you estimate it will be (if ever) for every state to legalize marijuana?

          [–]Timeologist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Hello, I was wondering if you think other states legalizing marijuana will effect the amount of taxes Colorado and Washington will collect? I talked to a dispensary and they informed me that about 80% of recreational users were from out of state. Seeing as the extra tax money is why most non smokers support legalization; do you think a decrease in Colorado or Washington's tax revenue will effect other states from legalizing? -Thanks!

          [–]long_wang_big_balls 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Can you see the UK becoming pot-friendly any time in the near future?

          [–]hazenjaqdx3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Hello, probaply a bit late but have you guys tried marijuana ?

          [–]PetworthDenizen 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          If marijuana becomes legal across the country, will other drugs follow? If so, what could be next?

          [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          I would say it's not all that likely (although it would surely seem far more likely than if marijuana legalization does NOT become universal). Public opinion about marijuana has shifted dramatically over the last couple decades, and most people today just don't think it's more harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol. I don't think that's true for any other illegal drugs. Perhaps if people see a public health approach to marijuana really succeeding, they might be open to applying it to other drugs even if they still believe them to be more harmful, but that is getting fairly speculative.

          [–]thenewestoneever 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          While I agree with you for the most part, I think the expanding research being done on MDMA and psilocybin for therapeutic purposes may help, eventually, bring those drugs (and others with minimal adverse health risks and quantifiable benefits) into a similar position as marijuana is now.

          [–]NC_Law 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Where do you see this going long term? Do you project that national legalization is a foregone conclusion? Or that this could be some sort of reverse-prohibition that last for 10 or so years, then becomes illegal again?

          [–]philwallachPhil Wallach (Brookings Institute) 3 points4 points  (0 children)

          The long-term success of legalization is far from a foregone conclusion. Back in the late 1970s, sweeping decriminalization laws at the state level seemed to be gaining a lot of momentum only to be reversed in the just-say-no 1980s as the country's fears about drugs escalated. That's certainly a real possibility now, although I'd say the mood about overcriminalization, mass incarceration, etc. seems to be going in the opposite direction for now.

          [–]saokku 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          While I believe marijuana legalization is an important step towards social justice and reducing systemic racism in our criminal justice system, I do have some concerns:

          1. Legalization will shut out a lot of underprivileged folks from their economic livelihood, and put the market in the hands of (stereotypically) rich white people. Have you thought about these consequences, and how we might alleviate this problem?

          2. Will legal marijuana open up a larger debate about drug policy, where it is no longer about a black box of "DRUGS = BAD", but a more nuanced approach to the costs/benefits of legalizing and regulating various widely used substances with wildly different properties? For example, hallucinogens like ayahuasca, LSD, and Psilocybin have negative effects but they are hardly addictive. Yet, they carry harsh penalties.

          edit for part 2: Or will legal marijuana slow down that debate?

          load more comments (38 replies)