# data[].attributes.headline
The Trump administration’s crackdown on marijuana legalization might end under Bill Barr (Vox)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Trump administration’s crackdown on marijuana legalization might end under Bill Barr (Vox)

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about William Barr, Trumps new nominee for attorney general. Barr states that he does not want to wage a war on the legalization of marijuana for now. He believes that legislation is the way to fight it, not, administrative guidance.
Vox doesn't seem to try and sway you either way or are doing very good at it, I can't find any bias nor can I find any persuasive devices, I'm gonna say it's mainstream. -Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump administration's war on marijuana legalization may soon end.

A year ago, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, made a move widely interpreted as a signal to federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to crack down on cannabis - and marijuana businesses - in states that had legalized pot: It rescinded guidance issued during Barack Obama's presidency that allowed states to legalize pot without the threat of federal interference even as marijuana remained illegal under federal law.

But Trump's nominee to replace Sessions as attorney general, William Barr, confirmed in written responses to questions from US senators that he won't be continuing that push to crack down on legal pot if he is confirmed by the Senate.

"As discussed at my hearing, I do not intend to go after parties who have complied with state law in reliance on the Cole Memorandum," Barr wrote, referring to one piece of the Obama-era guidance.

Barr clarified that he has "not closely considered or determined whether further administrative guidance would be appropriate." But at least for now, it doesn't look like he'll pursue a war on marijuana legalization, like Sessions did.

The nominee, who's opposed to marijuana legalization, also wrote that "the legislative process, rather than administrative guidance, is ultimately the right way to resolve whether and how to legalize marijuana."

To put it another way: If Congress wants to eliminate the risk of federal interference into states' marijuana laws, it should change federal law. (Barr has said that he opposes legalizing pot, so he doesn't want Congress to take such a move.)

Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal for all purposes, medical or not. So even in the states where marijuana has been made legal under state law, it remains illegal at the federal level.

The Obama-era Justice Department, however, enacted an uneasy truce between federal and state governments with its guidance: It acknowledged that marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, but as long as states met certain criteria (such as not letting legal pot fall into kids' hands or cross state lines), the federal government wouldn't crack down on state-legal cannabis businesses.

It's this truce Sessions attempted to break by rescinding the guidance, opening up state-legal businesses to the threat of federal law enforcement. But Barr is now moving away from that.

Ten states and Washington, DC, have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes, although Vermont and DC have not allowed sales.

Supporters of legalization argue that it eliminates the harms of marijuana prohibition: the hundreds of thousands of arrests around the US, the racial disparities behind those arrests, and the billions of dollars that flow from the black market for illicit marijuana to drug cartels that then use the money for violent operations around the world. All of this, legalization advocates say, will outweigh any of the potential downsides - such as increased cannabis use - that might come with legalization.

Opponents, meanwhile, claim that legalization will enable a huge marijuana industry that will market the drug irresponsibly. They point to America's experiences with the alcohol and tobacco industries, which have built their financial empires in large part on some of the heaviest consumers of their products. This could result in far more people using pot, even if it leads to negative health consequences.

For more on marijuana legalization, read Vox's explainer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Trump administration's crackdown on marijuana legalization might end under Bill Barr

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump administration's war on marijuana legalization may soon end. A year ago, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, made a move widely interpreted as a signal to federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to crack down on cannabis - and marijuana businesses - in states that had legalized pot: It rescinded guidance issued during Barack Obama's presidency that allowed states to legalize pot without the threat of federal interference even as marijuana remained illegal under federal law.

# data[].attributes.headline
NJ marijuana legalization: Stop feeding us negative articles about pot: Letter (app.com)

# data[].attributes.subject
NJ marijuana legalization: Stop feeding us negative articles about pot: Letter (app.com)

# data[].attributes.body
This article is like an open letter about a couple of individuals and what they've been talking about in their own articles. The article mainly mentions Randy Bergmann, the editorial page editor for app.com. The author complains that Bergmann and another have been attempting to feed false information in order to get people to be anti-marijuana. The author states that Bergmann cited a study/article and lied about the result.
Persuasive Device: Plain Folk, he clearly has an agenda that is pro-legalization.
While wrapping up the article the author states that "because of vietnam" he's had 22 operation, there's no doubt that's the cause for his stand point for marijuana. Giving a Liberal Bias.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Both APP Editorial Page Editor Randy Bergmann and Stephen Reid of NJRAMP have had plenty of negative articles about marijuana printed in this paper, and both of them only tell us the negative garbage they want us to hear.

I looked up the study Bergmann cited in his latest column " NJ marijuana legalization: Few good answers on health effects," and all it says is they don't know! They tell us there is no medical proof that marijuana has medical benefits.

Well that's a lie. Just go to YouTube, and type in marijuana and Parkinson's, epilepsy, PTSD, seizures, IBS, and actually listen to what the people with these diseases have to say. Watch a child with 20 or more seizures a day go to none after using marijuana.

Buy Photo

Veritas Fine Cannabis one of Colorado's top grow facilities that offers high quality cannabis to the industry. Marijuana plants in the early stage of growth. Denver, CO Wednesday, April 11, 2018 @dhoodhood (Photo: Doug Hood )

The New Yorker article cited by Bergmann gives us some B.S. about the potency of pot increasing since the 1980s. If you bought Mexican trash weed in 1980, you got low THC, if you bought Thi-stick or one of the better strains of marijuana, you got the 20 percent THC stuff. The seed companies still sell these strains.

As for what doctors say; I can find just as many doctors claiming it works as those who claim it doesn't. But the bottom line: Stop listening to spin doctors like Bergmann and Reid, and start listening to those with actual medical problems.

Because of Vietnam, I've had 22 operations, and a piece of my intestines removed in the past 50 years. Two years ago, I had two tumors removed from my spine, and now I'm really in a world of pain. And what do I get? Two people who didn't serve trying to make me take opioids instead of a milder drug. Shame on the liars.

Edward H, Decker

Manchester

Read or Share this story: https://www.app.com/story/opinion/readers/2019/01/29/nj-marijuana-legalization-negative-articles/2689839002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NJ marijuana legalization: Stop feeding us negative articles about pot: Letter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Both APP Editorial Page Editor Randy Bergmann and Stephen Reid of NJRAMP have had plenty of negative articles about marijuana printed in this paper, and both of them only tell us the negative garbage they want us to hear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Minnesota Introduces Bill for Marijuana Legalization (Rolling Stone)

# data[].attributes.subject
Minnesota Introduces Bill for Marijuana Legalization (Rolling Stone)

# data[].attributes.body
Minnesota lawmakers have introduced legislation that will legalize marijuana recreationally. Lawmakers see that by keeping marijuana illegal it pushes the production and distribution into an underground market. This, in combination with the people involved with this underground market, can cause harm to anyone involved. In addition by legalizing and regulating marijuana they can prevent the use of marijuana in teens without punishing responsible adult users. They provide this along with the new source of revenue for the state, as a cause for their stand point.
In this article the lawmakers use the defense of doing this as a way to save teens from using, can be considered emotional language.
Based on the topic, the popularity of the author, and the lack of bias in the article I'm gonna say this source in mainstream. - Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minnesota Introduces Bill for Marijuana Legalization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Minnesota lawmakers are introducing a bill that would end marijuana prohibition, creating a system of taxation and regulation for adult use.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal (The Nation)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Real Reason Pot Is Still Illegal (The Nation)

# data[].attributes.body
This article includes a lot of subjects surrounding marijuana and the fight to legalize or keep illegal. In the article however it expresses that using marijuana to help with mental health and drug abuse is counter-intuitive, it covers anti-legalization groups being funded by large alcohol and pharmaceutical companies, and finally it talks about the original law that made pot illegal. The use of anti-establishment name-calling as well as the use of transfer through relating legalization with other negatively viewed substances suggests a liberal bias.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, did several stints in rehab after crashing his car into a barricade on Capitol Hill in 2006, a headline-making event that revealed the then-US congressman for Rhode Island had been abusing prescription drugs, including the painkiller OxyContin. Kennedy went on to make mental health-including substance abuse-a cornerstone of his political agenda, and he is reportedly at work on a memoir about his struggles with addiction and mental illness. In 2013, he also helped found an advocacy group, Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), which has barnstormed the country opposing the growing state and federal efforts to legalize pot.

Taking the stage to rousing applause last February, Kennedy joined more than 2,000 opponents of marijuana legalization a few miles south of Washington, DC, at the annual convention of the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA), one of the largest such organizations in the country.

"Let me tell you, there is nothing more inconsistent with trying to improve mental health and reduce substance-abuse disorders in this country than to legalize a third drug," Kennedy boomed. The former congressman also praised his fellow speakers for standing up to the "extremist responses" from legalization advocates.

Given that CADCA is dedicated to protecting society from dangerous drugs, the event that day had a curious sponsor: Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of Oxy-Contin, the highly addictive painkiller that nearly ruined Kennedy's congressional career and has been linked to thousands of overdose deaths nationwide.

Prescription opioids, a line of pain-relieving medications derived from the opium poppy or produced synthetically, are the most dangerous drugs abused in America, with more than 16,000 deaths annually linked to opioid addiction and overdose. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that more Americans now die from painkillers than from heroin and cocaine combined. The recent uptick in heroin use around the country has been closely linked to the availability of prescription opioids, which give their users a similar high and can trigger a heroin craving in recovering addicts. (Notably, there are no known deaths related to marijuana, although there have been instances of impaired driving.)

People in the United States, a country in which painkillers are routinely overprescribed, now consume more than 84 percent of the entire worldwide supply of oxycodone and almost 100 percent of hydrocodone opioids. In Kentucky, to take just one example, about one in fourteen people is misusing prescription painkillers, and nearly 1,000 Kentucky residents are dying every year.

So it's more than a little odd that CADCA and the other groups leading the fight against relaxing marijuana laws, including the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids (formerly the Partnership for a Drug-Free America), derive a significant portion of their budget from opioid manufacturers and other pharmaceutical companies. According to critics, this funding has shaped the organization's policy goals: CADCA takes a softer approach toward prescription-drug abuse, limiting its advocacy to a call for more educational programs, and has failed to join the efforts to change prescription guidelines in order to curb abuse. In contrast, CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids have adopted a hard-line approach to marijuana, opposing even limited legalization and supporting increased police powers.

A close look at the broader political coalition lobbying against marijuana-law reform reveals many such conflicts of interest. In fact, the CADCA event was attended by representatives of a familiar confederation of anti-pot interests, many of whom have a financial stake in the status quo, including law enforcement agencies, pharmaceutical firms, and nonprofits funded by federal drug-prevention grants.

The anti-pot lobby's efforts run counter to a nationwide tide of liberalization when it comes to marijuana law. In 2012, voters legalized pot in Colorado and Washington State; this year, voters in Alaska appear poised to do likewise. Since 1996, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana or effectively decriminalized it, and a contentious ballot initiative in Florida may result in the South's first medical marijuana law. Meanwhile, legislatures across the country are debating a variety of bills that would continue to ease marijuana restrictions or penalties. On the federal level, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has challenged the Drug Enforcement Administration in testy hearings, and many have called for removing marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which puts it in the same class as heroin and LSD.

The opponents of marijuana-law reform argue that such measures pose significant dangers, from increased crime and juvenile delinquency to addiction and death. But legalization's biggest threat is to the bottom line of these same special interests, which reap significant monetary advantages from pot prohibition that are rarely acknowledged in the public debate.

* * *

The CADCA convention featured a roster of federal officials and members of Congress as well as a guest appearance by R&B singer Mario. The speakers talked with energy about the coming showdown over marijuana-law reform.

"We need to apply what Hank Aaron said about baseball to our movement today," asserted Sue Thau, a CADCA consultant. "We need to always keep swinging!"

Buses were scheduled to ferry the participants to Congress for meetings, and Thau coached the assembled activists to emphasize the potential risks for young people, something that "everybody on Capitol Hill can agree on." In addition to lobbying against marijuana-law reform, she encouraged everyone to preserve key federal funding streams, to "make sure all the programs that fund our field, every one of them," are protected in the appropriations process for the coming fiscal year.

Ironically, both CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids are heavily reliant on a combination of federal drug-prevention education grants and funding from pharmaceutical companies. Founded in 1992, CADCA has lobbied aggressively for a range of federal grants for groups dedicated to the "war on drugs." The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, a program directed by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, was created through CADCA's advocacy. That law now allocates over $90 million a year to community organizations dedicated to reducing drug abuse. Records show that CADCA has received more than $2.5 million in annual federal funding in recent years. The former Partnership for a Drug-Free America, founded in 1985 and best known for its dramatic "This is your brain on drugs" public service announcements, has received similarly hefty taxpayer support while advocating for increased anti-drug grant programs.

The Nation obtained a confidential financial disclosure from the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids showing that the group's largest donors include Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and Abbott Laboratories, maker of the opioid Vicodin. CADCA also counts Purdue Pharma as a major supporter, as well as Alkermes, the maker of a powerful and extremely controversial new painkiller called Zohydrol. The drug, which was released to the public in March, has sparked a nationwide protest, since Zohydrol is reportedly ten times stronger than OxyContin. Janssen Pharmaceutical, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that produces the painkiller Nucynta, and Pfizer, which manufactures several opioid products, are also CADCA sponsors. For corporate donors, CADCA offers a raft of partnership opportunities, including authorized use of the "CADCA logo for your company's marketing, website, and advertising materials, etc."

The groups' approach to marijuana contrasts sharply with their attitude toward prescription-drug abuse. In March of this year, the heads of CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and other government officials urging them to keep marijuana listed as Schedule I, a designation indicating that it has no recognized medical use and is among society's most dangerous drugs. "We are aware of a small chorus in the United States Congress (copied on this letter) who are calling for the rescheduling of marijuana," wrote Arthur Dean, a retired general and the president of CADCA, and Stephen Pasierb, head of the Partnership. "[O]ur groups agree with the most recent Health and Human Services (HHS) determination that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug."

* * *

CADCA's website makes it clear that the organization-dedicated to a "world of safe, healthy and drug-free communities"-has adopted marijuana as its primary concern. The group's stated policy priorities are to preserve and expand two federal drug-prevention grant programs and to oppose marijuana-law reform. CADCA has hosted training seminars to instruct community organizations in the best tactics for opposing efforts to legalize even medical marijuana. The group also offers template letters to the editor, sample opinion columns, talking points and other tips for pushing back against reform efforts.

Prescription drugs are another story. In this realm, both CADCA and the Partnership favor educational campaigns and limited pill-monitoring programs-measures that experts on painkiller addiction say are insufficient to deal with the burgeoning problem. CADCA's site mentions prescription-drug abuse primarily in the context of expanding outreach programs funded through the Drug-Free Communities Act.

In February, the same month that CADCA held its convention, forty-two leading drug-prevention groups sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration to protest the recent approval of Zohydro. Notably absent from the signatories: CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids. A policy paper posted by CADCA regarding prescription drugs doesn't call for a shift in how the FDA regulates painkillers, arguing instead that federal drug-prevention grant programs should be expanded.

Asked about CADCA's efforts to combat prescription-drug abuse, Thau replied that the group supports educational programs and drug-monitoring efforts, and also recently signed on to a bill-sponsored by Senator Ed Markey-that offers a civil-liability exemption to those who provide preventative medications to individuals experiencing an overdose. CADCA has also promoted voluntary drug "take-back" events that encourage people to bring their unused pharmaceuticals to a central location for disposal.

It's important to keep in mind, however, that industry groups haven't opposed any of these measures. But they do oppose those restrictions that could eat into the industry's profits. In 2012, for example, a group of doctors and drug-prevention advocates petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to change the prescription labeling of opioids so that they could be prescribed only for "severe pain," rather than the "moderate to severe pain" stipulated under the current guidelines. Purdue Pharma opposed the plan, calling on the FDA to "maintain that the current indications for long-acting opioids are appropriate." According to advocates who spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity, the Partnership refused to join the push for new prescription guidelines. CADCA didn't sign on either.

CADCA and the Partnership have also failed to call for action on current bills in Congress to crack down aggressively on painkillers, including the Stop Oxy Abuse Act, which would-in keeping with the suggestion of the doctors' advocates who petitioned the FDA-allow OxyContin to be prescribed only for severe pain. The two anti-drug groups have not signed on to support the Safe Prescribing Act, which would move hydrocodone products like Vicodin and Lortab from Schedule III to Schedule II, making the product more difficult to prescribe. Nor, for that matter, have they endorsed any of the bills introduced by Representative Hal Rogers or Senator Joe Manchin to block the approval of new, stronger pain-killer drugs such as Zohydro.

"I think it's hypocritical to remain silent with regard to the scheduling of hydrocodone products, while investing energy in maintaining marijuana as a Schedule I drug," says Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a New York psychiatrist who heads Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. Kolodny notes that there are legitimate concerns regarding marijuana legalization, particularly how the drug may be marketed and its effect on adolescents, so "I don't think it's inappropriate for them to be advocating on marijuana.

"But," he adds, "when we have a severe epidemic in America-one the CDC says is the worst drug epidemic in US history-it makes you wonder whether or not they've been influenced by their funding."

In some cases, both CADCA and the Partnership have directly promoted certain opioids. In 2010, Marcia Lee Taylor, the Partnership's chief lobbyist, signed on to a letter with Will Rowe of the American Pain Foundation asking the Office of National Drug Control Policy to continue Medicaid reimbursements for so-called "tamper-proof" opioids, which cannot be crushed or snorted but can still be abused to deadly effect. (The American Pain Foundation has since shut down, following an investigation by ProPublica showing that the group relied heavily on money from opioid manufacturers and played "down the risks associated with...painkillers while exaggerating the benefits.") In 2012, CADCA joined with Purdue Pharma and other opioid makers in signing a similar letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Prescription-drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, which made more than $27 billion in revenues from OxyContin alone since 1996, have faced ethical problems in the past. In 2007, Purdue Pharma and its top executives paid $634.5 million in fines for deceptive marketing that played down the addictive properties of OxyContin. Also that same year, the company agreed to pay $19.5 million to twenty-six states and the District of Columbia to settle claims that it illegally encouraged doctors to overprescribe the drug. But the company's influence over anti-drug advocacy is less known.

Erik Altieri, a spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, argues that marijuana can provide a "great alternative for treating chronic pain and other types of ailments." Pharmaceutical companies "don't want to see another vendor on the market."

In a written response to queries, retired general Arthur Dean, CADCA's chair and CEO, said: "The funding CADCA receives in no way impacts CADCA's policy efforts or strategic direction. Prescription drugs are legal medicines that serve a legitimate and often life-saving purpose in our society. CADCA has utilized some discretionary grants from industry sources, such as Purdue Pharma and several other companies, to develop programs and tools to help community coalitions prevent and reduce youth prescription drug abuse and the abuse of over-the-counter cough medicine." Asked about current proposals in Congress to rein in the way painkillers are prescribed, Dean replied: "CADCA has not taken a position on the proposed legislations."

The Partnership for Drug-Free Kids did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Purdue Pharma and other opioid makers, including Abbott Laboratories, Pfizer and Alkermes. A spokesperson with Janssen told The Nation that the company funds CADCA to support "educational programs about the safe and responsible use of pain medicines."

In May, CADCA sent out an action alert to its members, asking them to contact Congress and oppose an amendment in the House of Representatives that would block the DEA from targeting medical marijuana operations that are legal under state law. The measure passed later that month with bipartisan support.

* * *

Patrick Kennedy's Project Sam is arguably the most visible group opposing marijuana-law reform, with the former congressman making the rounds on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher and Comedy Central's The Colbert Report, among other cable and news programs. And yet this group, too, is rife with potential conflicts of interest.

Some legalization advocates have criticized Kennedy's crusade against pot. Though the former congressman received many second chances in his struggle with alcohol and prescription drugs, he has opposed any move toward marijuana decriminalization that would afford similar leniency to others. After Project SAM began organizing opposition to Alaska's legalization initiative this year, demonstrators in Anchorage paraded a giant check with the figure $9,015-the amount in campaign money that Kennedy received from the liquor and beer lobby while in office. Critics have also pointed out that Project SAM's board and partners represent many of the interest groups that stand to profit from marijuana's continued prohibition.

"Some of the folks active with Project SAM appear to have a financial interest in keeping marijuana illegal and promoting mandatory treatment for adult consumers," says Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Colorado. For example, Ben Cort, Project SAM's spokesman, leads a drug-treatment program in Aurora, Colorado.

Tvert points out that marijuana convictions often result in court-ordered rehab, which can provide an obvious incentive for treatment centers to oppose reform. In filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Geo Group-a company that manages several for-profit treatment and detention centers-states that "any changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them." In short, marijuana-law reform can cut into revenues.

Dr. Stuart Gitlow, president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, sits on Project SAM's board of directors and frequently speaks out against medical marijuana. In comments to USA Today in January, Gitlow disputed President Obama's comment that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. "There's no benefit to marijuana," he said. "It's simply that people want the freedom to be stoned. That's all it is. And there's a great deal of risk."

What the USA Today piece didn't mention-and what Gitlow hasn't disclosed during his appearances on HLN TV, Southern California Public Radio and other local media-is that he serves as the medical director for Orexo, a pharmaceutical company that recently produced a new drug called Zubsolv. The product is an opioid substitute along the lines of Suboxone that, while designed to treat opioid addiction, is often abused for recreational purposes. As The New York Times reported, Suboxone has been linked to more than 400 deaths in the United States since 2003.

Last December, Dr. Mark Willenbring, former director of treatment and recovery research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, raised concerns about Gitlow's leadership of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, given his relationship with Orexo. "My concern is with the increasing public perception, especially in psychiatry and addiction treatment, that financial interests taint and discredit professional opinions," Willenbring told the Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly.

Peter Bensinger, a former DEA administrator, and Robert DuPont, a former White House drug czar, now manage a consulting firm that specializes in workplace drug testing. The two work closely with Project SAM and have spoken at events with its leaders. Last year, for example, Bensinger and DuPont signed on to a Project SAM letter pressing the Justice Department to reconsider its decision to defer the enforcement of federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. For that stance, they've come under fire from marijuana-law reformers like Howard Wooldridge of Citizens Opposing Prohibition for promoting "policies that line their pocketbook."

* * *

Marijuana-law reform has created deep divisions within police agencies. A recent poll of officers found that nearly two-thirds believed marijuana laws should be reformed-with 36 percent agreeing that marijuana should be legalized, regulated and taxed; 14 percent supporting relaxed penalties; 11 percent supporting legalized medical marijuana; and 4 percent supporting decriminalization.

Yet strong institutional forces have kept nearly every law enforcement professional association opposed to reform. Starting with the Reagan administration, police departments were encouraged to seize and sell property associated with drug busts, which significantly augmented their revenue. Between 2002 and 2012, law enforcement agencies collected about $1 billion from marijuana arrests, according to Justice Department data.

It was also during the 1980s that federal grant programs requiring police to engage in drug enforcement were expanded, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Program, which funds multijurisdictional drug task forces. The Byrne grants, which cover a range of drug enforcement actions including marijuana, provided over $2.4 billion for law enforcement agencies this fiscal year.

"It's money," says retired Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Stephen Downing, when asked why so many police organizations are lobbying against marijuana-law reform. "In many states, the city government expects police to make seizures, and they expect these seizures to supplement their budgets." According to The Wall Street Journal, drug task forces in Washington State have predicted that asset-forfeiture revenues will decrease as a result of marijuana legalization.

Others dispute the notion. Bob Cooke, a former president of the California Narcotic Officers' Association, asserts that "losing money from asset forfeiture is not why we believe [pot] should be regulated." Instead, he argues, law enforcement agencies oppose legalizing marijuana because its use is inherently dangerous: "One try and it can ruin your life."

But the fiscal impact on law enforcement has become part of the debate. Earlier this year, when Minnesota State Representative Carly Melin proposed a medical marijuana bill, she faced a backlash from police lobbyists. "There was a concern about losing federal grants tied to drug enforcement laws," Melin says. "Asset forfeiture was briefly discussed as well." She adds that law enforcement agencies approached her bill with "absolute opposition" but changed their position after widespread public pressure. Melin's bill passed in May once patients and the parents of sick children began contacting lawmakers.

"It's not hard to figure out that there's a lot of money attached to enforcing marijuana laws," Melin says. "Marijuana arrests still account for over 60 percent of drug arrests in Minnesota, so it's still big business for law enforcement." Minnesota's numbers reflect the data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union, which show that marijuana arrests account for more than half of all drug arrests nationwide.

Similar dynamics have played out elsewhere. When Californians debated a legalization initiative in 2010-which was ultimately unsuccessful-the lead organizer of the opposition was John Lovell, a longtime police lobbyist in Sacramento. Lovell has made a career of channeling federal "drug war" grants to law enforcement agencies in the state-including millions of dollars for the California Marijuana Suppression Program, grants for overtime pay for police, and money for additional officers dedicated to marijuana eradication.

In Florida, the state sheriffs' association, led by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, has become the public face of opposition to a medical marijuana referendum on the ballot this fall. Judd has deployed a number of arguments against the referendum, from the dangers of driving while high to increased workers' compensation claims, to teenage addiction and increased respiratory illnesses.

But the annual strategic plan submitted to the Polk County Board of Commissioners by Judd's office suggests another major concern. In it, Judd says that his force is "doing more with fewer resources" and that he's had to cut seventeen deputy sheriff positions due to a lack of funds. Judd describes seizures from marijuana grow houses as a key revenue source for his department: seizing such property helps to "meet eligible equipment or other non-recurring needs that could not be met by local funding, thereby putting forfeited and unclaimed funds to work in crime prevention, for the taxpayer," according to the document. Plus a Florida law enforcement newsletter describes the state's marijuana eradication program-which brought in nearly $900,000 last year in forfeitures, and more than $1 million in previous years-as "an excellent return on investment."

Downing, the retired LAPD deputy chief, notes: "The only difference now compared to the times of alcohol prohibition is that, in the times of alcohol prohibition, law enforcement-the police and judges-got their money in brown paper bags. Today, they get their money through legitimate, systematic programs run by the federal government. That's why they're using their lobbying organizations to fight every reform."

Indeed, alcohol prohibition was ended partly through ethics reform. During Prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment was enforced through a law called the Volstead Act, which exempted federal liquor enforcement agents from Progressive-era civil service exams. Without these exams, the Prohibition Unit became a vehicle for awarding patronage jobs to political allies. Almost immediately, these 18,000 federal jobs were marked by scandal and corruption. According to one Treasury agent, the "most extraordinary collection of political hacks, hangers-on, and passing highwaymen got appointed as prohibition agents." They set up illegal roadblocks, killed innocent civilians, and extorted money from bootleggers rather than arresting them. The wet lobby successfully pushed to re-establish civil service exams for the Prohibition Unit in the late 1920s-a shift that embarrassed dry-lobby supporters, because nearly two-thirds of all agents couldn't pass the entrance exam. Further weakening support for Prohibition, the Supreme Court declared it illegal in 1927 for local judges to pay themselves with a share of the fines collected from Volstead Act cases.

While not a perfect analogy, some marijuana advocates see the fight against Prohibition as a guide, since so many interest groups working to maintain the status quo today are tied to cash flows-whether federal grants or forfeiture revenues-that depend on keeping the drug illegal.

Prohibition provides "an incentive for these interest groups to keep seeking federal money to continue the 'war on drugs' [and] their own salaries," says Representative Steve Cohen, one of the most outspoken proponents of legalization in Congress. Cohen adds that some of the most vociferous opponents of reform appear to be influenced by the money flowing from pot prohibition. "It's a vicious cycle."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, did several stints in rehab after crashing his car into a barricade on Capitol Hill in 2006, a headline-making event that revealed the then-US congressman for Rhode Island had been abusing prescription drugs, including the painkiller OxyContin.

# data[].attributes.headline
Opponents of legal marijuana in Illinois say it would amount to companies 'pimping' black, Hispanic customers (Chicago Tribune)

# data[].attributes.subject
Opponents of legal marijuana in Illinois say it would amount to companies 'pimping' black, Hispanic customers (Chicago Tribune)

# data[].attributes.body
This article expresses the concern of some opponents of legal marijuana for minorities. They claim that the future and recent companies that produce marijuana products will target minorities similar to the way tobacco and alcohol companies do. The article is entirely focused on the concern for the minority community which suggests a liberal bias.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anti-marijuana forces warned Wednesday that legalization will allow white corporate exploitation of minority customers, comparing its effects to those of alcohol and tobacco.

The Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston of New Hope Baptist Church said that legalization will amount to marijuana companies "pimping" blacks and Hispanics.

"Profit is the motive," he said. Livingston spoke in downtown Chicago with several other members of Healthy and Productive Illinois, a group that opposes legalization and is supported by Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a national anti-cannabis organization.

Illinois has already decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, which takes away much of the social justice argument in favor of legalization, said Livingston, who has been active in social justice issues in Chicago.
READ MORE: Illinois just elected a weed-friendly governor and Chicago pot companies are on the move "
Industrially grown marijuana has a higher concentration of THC, the component that gets users high, which will only attract more and heavier users in minority communities, while mostly white entrepreneurs will make the money, Livingston said.

The group hopes to persuade Gov.-elect J.B. Pritzker to change his mind and oppose the legalization of marijuana. Advocates plan to reintroduce legislation in January to legalize cannabis, arguing that it will reduce criminal arrests in minority communities, raise significant tax revenues and provide quality control to prevent toxins and other contaminants that can be found in the illegal market.

Opponents are raising their voices as advocates forge ahead with legalization efforts, with backers boasting of the possibility of enacting and rolling out recreational marijuana by the end of 2019 or early 2020, though it remains illegal under federal law.

But many details would need to be negotiated before any bill could pass, including how legal marijuana would be taxed and how those proceeds would be spent, what role existing medical marijuana companies might play in the new market, how it would be licensed and regulated, whether citizens who were previously convicted of possession would have those cases reversed and whether individuals would be allowed to grow the plant for personal use.

A crucial component of the pro-legalization argument has been that the war on drugs has disproportionately targeted minorities. Blacks traditionally have been almost four times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana, typically for simple possession, despite similar self-reported usage rates, according to a 2013 report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Cook County in particular had an even more disproportionate arrest rate as of 2010, according to the ACLU report. Such convictions can make it harder for minorities to get jobs, higher education and housing.

To address that issue, Chicago lawmakers in 2012 decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana, and Illinois lawmakers did so in 2016. Even after decriminalization, though arrests fell dramatically, opponents pointed out that arrest rates were still disproportionately higher for blacks.
READ MORE: With Pritzker win, pot legalization is now in legislators' hands, but not all are on board "
In Colorado, even after legalization, blacks and Hispanics continued to be more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites, according to the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

In Illinois, most medical marijuana companies are owned by wealthy white men who gathered millions of dollars to invest to meet the requirements under state law. Illinois initially banned felons with drug convictions from qualifying for medical marijuana, and the proposed federal bill to legalize hemp, which are cannabis plants with very low THC, would ban people with drug-related felonies, again shutting out minorities at a greater rate.

Livingston pointed out that Pritzker has a cousin, Joby Pritzker, who is an investor with Tao Capital Partners, which has financial interests in Juul, the electronic cigarette company, and Pax Labs, which sells vaporizers and pods of cannabis.

Livingston, who has also led anti-violence marches in Chicago, called the effort to take over a lucrative illegal market "a gangsta move worthy of Al Capone."

"Mr. Pritzker, for those of us who can see through the smoke, we can clearly see and smell the new money that your family and business cronies cannot wait to pocket," Livingston said of the governor-elect.

Pritzker's campaign spokesman Jordan Abudayyeh said that Pritzker has no financial stake in his cousin's companies, and they don't influence his policy.

Abudayyeh said J.B. Pritzker supports legalization to end racial disparities, adding, "J.B. will also prioritize inclusion as we move toward legalization by intentionally including black and brown entrepreneurs in the planning and licensing of new marijuana businesses, ensuring new jobs and businesses are created in the communities that have experienced the disinvestment in the past."

Sponsors of the legalization bill, state Sen. Heather Steans and Rep. Kelly Cassidy, have said that it would include funding for communities disproportionately hurt by the war on drugs, as well as funding for substance abuse prevention and counseling, though no specifics have been set.

Steans, a Democrat from Chicago, said she shared concerns about communities of color, since they bore the greatest brunt of the war on drugs. She acknowledged that the Illinois medical marijuana program is so highly regulated that there are very few minority and women-owned businesses.

To rectify that, she proposes a three pronged approach. First, expungement of criminal convictions for possession and low-level marijuana dealing; second, more licensing categories to allow for smaller businesses such as craft cultivators, transportation and processing; and third, funding for low-income and violent communities.

Separately, several Chicago mayoral candidates said that legalization could be regulated to make sure it benefits minorities and removes the stigma of its past.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle has said she backs legalizing marijuana as a way to focus on violent crime rather than the war on drugs.

Fellow mayoral candidate Gery Chico backs legalization to help address the city's financial crisis.

Lori Lightfoot, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted crack and cocaine dealers, said legalization is a chance to "right the wrongs" of the criminalization of cannabis.

"We can do it in a way that's thoughtful, that learns from the lessons in other states," she said. She suggested that requiring licenses for minority and women-owned businesses, and allowing partnerships or joint ventures, could help ensure that revenue from the industry goes back to communities of color, while regulation could easily prevent the concentration of businesses in any one area.

Amara Enyia, a candidate who gained attention in part through an endorsement by Chance the Rapper, said it's critical to make sure minorities are involved in the legal business. She cited the example of Oakland, Calif., where a nonprofit recruits and trains people of color to participate in all aspects of the business, including spinoffs like creating edibles or making deliveries.

At least four cities in California have created equity programs to do things like provide no-interest loans and technical training for people with lower incomes or who have a local marijuana conviction.

Being able to regulate the drug, Enyia said, will help prevent tragedies like the poisonings of so-called synthetic marijuana, an imitation product that caused internal bleeding in 164 people in Illinois this year.

Those who work in medical marijuana in Illinois say their customers skew older but come from all demographic groups. Matt Darin is the chief operating officer and chief financial officer of Grassroots Cannabis, which owns or operates eight dispensaries in Illinois, running from affluent north suburb Deerfield, to several sites in the south and southwest suburbs, to rural downstate.

"Cannabis is the great equalizer," he said. "It offers benefits that aren't specific to one race or ethnicity."

Retiring Chicago Ald. Danny Solis, who sponsored the city's decriminalization bill, and represents the largely Hispanic Lower West Side, said he was now leaning toward legalization as well, as a way to reduce penalties on minorities, reduce revenues for illegal drug dealers, and generate tax revenue.

"People use it across races and classes," he said. "I think you'll be evening out the field."
rmccoppin@chicagotribune.com Twitter @RobertMcCoppin MORE COVERAGE: Michigan voters bring legal recreational marijuana to the Midwest " New Chicago marijuana company raises $120 million, is expanding in Illinois " Column: The growing consensus for legal marijuana "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opponents of legal marijuana in Illinois say it would amount to companies 'pimping' black, Hispanic customers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-marijuana forces warned Wednesday that legalization will allow white corporate exploitation of minority customers, comparing its effects to those of alcohol and tobacco. The Rev. Gregory Seal Livingston of New Hope Baptist Church said that legalization will amount to marijuana companies "pimping" blacks and Hispanics. "Profit is the motive," he said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Legalizing marijuana is now one of Cuomo’s priorities. He’s been resisting it for years. (Washington Post)

# data[].attributes.subject
Legalizing marijuana is now one of Cuomo’s priorities. He’s been resisting it for years. (Washington Post)

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers multiple topics one of which being the legalization of recreational marijuana in New York State. In the past governor Cuomo has resisted the legalization, this time around he considers it an "administrative priority." Based on the lack of bias and attempts at persuasion I'm going to have to go with Mainstream on this source.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
December 18, 2018
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday announced his full support of statewide legalization of recreational marijuana, making it an administration priority for early 2019.

"Let's legalize the adult use of recreational marijuana once and for all," Cuomo (D) said during a speech in New York City to various constituency advocates outlining his agenda for the first 100 days of his new term.

The governor also vocalized the need to mitigate racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

"We have had two criminal justice systems: one for the wealthy and the well-off and one for everyone else. And that's going to end," he said, noting that African American and other minority communities have historically been unfairly targeted. "We must also end the needless and unjust criminal convictions and the debilitating criminal stigma."

Cuomo's Monday message was his strongest public endorsement of recreational marijuana to date. It marks a substantial shift from his prior opposition, as recently as last year when he called it a "gateway drug."

The change in policy stance also follows a bitter battle for the Democratic gubernatorial primary against Cynthia Nixon, who supported legalization.

Ten states, including New York's neighbor Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have legalized adult use of recreational marijuana, according to NORML, a group that advocates legalization and tracks pot-related legislation. New Jersey, another neighboring state, is also considering legalization.
[Use of legalized marijuana threatened as Sessions rescinds Obama-era directive that eased federal enforcement]
Recognizing surrounding developments, Cuomo directed the New York State Department of Health to analyze the risks and benefits of recreational marijuana in January - including the impacts on health, criminal justice and the economy that legalization would have in the state.

The study, which wrapped up in June, determined that "the positive effects of a regulated marijuana market in New York state outweigh the potential negative impacts." Regulation, it concluded, would enable the state to "better control licensing, ensure quality control and consumer protection, and set age and quantity restrictions."

The department's July report also recommended creating a group of subject-matter experts to collect feedback and offer suggestions for draft legislation. Cuomo subsequently announced a series of listening sessions in August.

The governor has not yet announced projections for revenue from marijuana sales or what the funds would be allocated toward. He will be sworn in on Jan. 1 at Ellis Island and deliver his budget address and State of the State address later in the month.

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer released a report estimating the potential state market at approximately $3.1 billion per year, with more than $1 billion coming from New York City. It also reported the state could receive $436 million in tax revenue.
[New York health officials recommend marijuana legalization in report to governor]
Cuomo's announcement follows a recent push by New York City law enforcement agencies to decriminalize low-level marijuana offenses, which historically have mostly affected minorities.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office led the charge in 2014 as the first local prosecutor's office to stop pursuing low-level marijuana cases. Earlier this year, it launched a program to vacate most marijuana possession convictions. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance also announced he would cease prosecuting marijuana smoking and possession cases and planned to seal low-level marijuana convictions.

The New York City Police Department, backed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, opted to stop making arrests for smoking in public. Since September, the department has issued tickets, known as criminal court summons, instead.

Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The Department of Justice, via former attorney general Jeff Sessions, promised a crackdown on enforcement.

Cuomo said Monday, "Let this agenda be New York's Declaration of Independence. We declare independence from this federal government's policies. We disconnect from the nationalism and the racism and the chaos and the xenophobia and the misogyny and the discrimination and the dissembling of this Washington administration."

With an incoming Democratic state Senate and Assembly, he said, the road is paved for legislative change: "Now is the time to stand up and lead and do what you've said you were going to do all those years and make a democratic vision a reality."
Read more: A close reading of the UPS Store's no good, very bad tweet about shredding letters to Santa Weekly Standard editors blast Rep. Steve King for celebrating magazine's demise An officer's sobering letter to a teen who topped 100 mph ACA ruling creates new anxieties for consumers and the health-care industry A man illegally razed his historic San Francisco home. Now he must build a replica.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legalizing marijuana is now one of Cuomo's priorities. He's been resisting it for years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
December 18, 2018 New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday announced his full support of statewide legalization of recreational marijuana, making it an administration priority for early 2019. "Let's legalize the adult use of recreational marijuana once and for all," Cuomo (D) said during a speech in New York City to various constituency advocates outlining his agenda for the first 100 days of his new term.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inside big pharma's fight to block recreational marijuana (The Guardian

# data[].attributes.subject
Inside big pharma's fight to block recreational marijuana (The Guardian

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how the support and progress of pro-legalization has threatened pharmacy and alcohol business. Due to this "big pharma" and co. are supplying funds to anti-legalization organizations and politicians. The anti-establishment Name-Calling through the use of "big pharma" shows a liberal bias.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside big pharma's fight to block recreational marijuana

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pharma and alcohol companies have been quietly bankrolling the opposition to legal marijuana, raising questions about threats to market share

# data[].attributes.headline
Does Marijuana use cause schizophrenia? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Does Marijuana use cause schizophrenia? 

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how since marijuana has become more prevalent that studies have shown that it causes schizophrenia. This is a case of bandwagon because it talks about how regular people that didn't partake in the consumption of marijuana have started to use it because it is now legal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the drug becomes more popular, concerns have been raised that its use can lead to psychotic disorders. Here's what scientists know for sure, and what they don't.

Image

Cannabis plants in a lab at Niagara College in Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario. As marijuana use becomes more widespread and varied, some people worry that its more potent versions can cause or exacerbate mental illness. Credit Credit Carlos Osorio/Reuters

Nearly a century after the film "Reefer Madness" alarmed the nation, some policymakers and doctors are again becoming concerned about the dangers of marijuana, although the reefers are long gone.

Experts now distinguish between the "new cannabis" - legal, highly potent, available in tabs, edibles and vapes - and the old version, a far milder weed passed around in joints. Levels of T.H.C., the chemical that produces marijuana's high, have been rising for at least three decades, and it's now possible in some states to buy vape cartridges containing little but the active ingredient.

The concern is focused largely on the link between heavy usage and psychosis in young people. Doctors first suspected a link some 70 years ago, and the evidence has only accumulated since then. In a forthcoming book, "Tell Your Children," Alex Berenson, a former Times reporter, argues that legalization is putting a generation at higher risk of schizophrenia and other psychotic syndromes. Critics, including leading researchers, have called the argument overblown, and unfaithful to the science.

Yes, but so can overuse of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, stimulants and hallucinogens. Psychosis is a symptom: a temporary disorientation that resembles a waking dream, with odd, imagined sights and sounds, often accompanied by paranoia or an ominous sensation. The vast majority of people who have this kind of psychotic experience do not go on to develop a persistent condition such as schizophrenia, which is characterized by episodes of psychosis that recur for years, as well as cognitive problems and social withdrawal.

That is the big question, and so far the evidence is not strong enough to answer one way or the other. Even top scientists who specialize in marijuana research are divided, drawing opposite conclusions from the same data.

"I've been doing this research for 25 years, and it's polarizing even among academics," said Margaret Haney, a professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Medical Center. "This is what the marijuana field is like."

The debate centers on the distinction between correlation and causation. People with psychotic problems often use cannabis regularly; this is a solid correlation, backed by numerous studies. But it is unclear which came first, the cannabis habit or the psychoses. Children who later develop schizophrenia often seem to retreat into their own world, stalked periodically by bizarre fears and fantasies well outside the range of usual childhood imagination, and well before they are exposed to cannabis. Those who go on to become regular marijuana users often use other substances as well, including alcohol and cigarettes, making it more difficult for researchers to untangle causation.
[Like the Science Times page on Facebook.| Sign up for the Science Times newsletter.]
Consider cigarettes, the least mind-altering of these substances. In a 2015 study, a team led by Dr. Kenneth S. Kendler of Virginia Commonwealth University analyzed medical data on nearly two million people in Sweden. The data followed the individuals over time, from young adulthood, when most schizophrenia diagnoses occur, to middle-age. Smoking was a predictor for later development of the disorder, and in what doctors call a dose-response relationship: the more a person smoked, the higher the risk.

Yet nicotine attracts nowhere near the concern that cannabis does, in part because the two drugs are so different in their everyday effects: mildly stimulated versus stoned. Indeed, some scientists have studied nicotine as a partial treatment for schizophrenia, to blunt the disorders effects on thinking and memory.

Yes. Brain scientists know very little about the underlying biology of psychotic conditions, other than that hundreds of common gene variants are likely involved. Schizophrenia, for instance, is not a uniform disorder but an umbrella term for an array of unexplained problems involving recurrent psychosis, and other common symptoms.

Even so, there is circumstantial evidence for a biological mechanism. Psychotic disorders tend to emerge in late adolescence or early adulthood, during or after a period of rapid brain development. In the teenage years, the brain strips away unneeded or redundant connections between brain cells, in a process called synaptic pruning. This editing is concentrated in the prefrontal cortex, the region behind the forehead where thinking and planning occur - and the region that is perturbed in psychotic conditions.

The region is rich with so-called CB1 receptors, which are involved in the pruning, and are engaged by cannabis use. And alterations to the pruning process may well increase schizophrenia risk, according to recent research at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard. In a 2016 analysis, scientists there found that people with the disorder often have a gene variant that appears to accelerate the pruning process.

Experts may debate whether cannabis use can lead to psychotic disorders, but they mostly agree on how to minimize one's risk.

Psychotic conditions tend to run in families, which suggests there is an inherited genetic vulnerability. Indeed, according to some studies, people prone to or at heightened risk of psychosis seem to experience the effects of cannabis differently than peers without such a history. The users experience a more vivid high, but they also are more likely to experience psychosis-like effects such as paranoia.

The evidence so far indicates that one's familial risk for psychotic disorders outweighs any added effect of cannabis use. In a 2014 study, a team led by Ashley C. Proal and Dr. Lynn E. DeLisi of Harvard Medical School recruited cannabis users with and without a family history of schizophrenia, as well as non-users with and without such a history. The researchers made sure the cannabis users did not use other drugs in addition, a factor that muddied earlier studies. The result: there was a heightened schizophrenia risk among people with a family history, regardless of cannabis use.

"My study clearly shows that cannabis does not cause schizophrenia by itself," said Dr. DeLisi. "Rather, a genetic predisposition is necessary. It is highly likely, based on the results of this study and others, that cannabis use during adolescence through to age 25, when the brain is maturing and at its peak of growth in a genetically vulnerable individual, can initiate the onset of schizophrenia."

Because marijuana has been illegal for so long, research that could settle the question has been sorely lacking, although that has begun to change. The National Institutes of Health have launched a $300 million project that will track thousands of children from the age of 9 or 10 through adolescence, and might help clarify causation.

For the near future, expert opinions likely will be mixed. "Usually it is the research types who are doing 'the sky is falling' bit, but here it is switched," said Dr. Jay Geidd, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego. "The researchers are wary of overselling the dangers, as was clearly done in the past. However, clinicians overwhelmingly endorse seeing many more adolescents with 'paranoia'" of some kind.

In short: Regularly using the new, high-potency cannabis may indeed be a risk for young people who are related to someone with a psychotic condition. On that warning, at least, most experts seem to agree.

Earlier reporting on marijuana use and its effects

Benedict Carey has been a science reporter for The Times since 2004. He has also written three books, "How We Learn" about the cognitive science of learning; "Poison Most Vial" and "Island of the Unknowns," science mysteries for middle schoolers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the drug becomes more popular, concerns have been raised that its use can lead to psychotic disorders. Here's what scientists know for sure, and what they don't. Nearly a century after the film "Reefer Madness" alarmed the nation, some policymakers and doctors are again becoming concerned about the dangers of marijuana, although the reefers are long gone.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Case Against Marijuana Legalization (Vox)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Case Against Marijuana Legalization (Vox)

# data[].attributes.body
This article covers the arguments most anti-legalization organizations and supporters have. Including, the "big marijuana" argument, the, "based on past events we may not handle it well" argument, and finally the, "Just not recreational" argument. Once again the anti-establishment name-calling shows a clear, liberal bias.
-Oliver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opponents of legalization worry that fully allowing recreational marijuana use would make pot far too accessible and, as a result, expand its use and misuse.

The major concern is that letting for-profit businesses - "Big Marijuana" - market and sell cannabis may lead them to market aggressively to heavy pot users, who may have a drug problem. This is similar to what's happened in the alcohol and tobacco industries, where companies make much of their profits from users with serious addiction issues. Among alcohol users, for instance, the top 10 percent of users consume, on average, more than 10 drinks each day.

Marijuana users exhibit similar patterns. In Colorado, one study of the state's legal pot market, conducted by the Marijuana Policy Group for the state's Department of Revenue, found the top 29.9 percent heaviest pot users in Colorado made up 87.1 percent of demand for the drug. For the marijuana industry, that makes the heaviest users the most lucrative customers.

Kevin Sabet, head of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the nation's leading anti-legalization group, explained: "If we were a country with a history of being able to promote moderation in our consumer use of products, or promote responsible corporate advertising or no advertising, or if we had a history of being able to take taxes gained from a vice and redirect them into some positive areas, I might be less concerned about what I see happening in this country. But I think we have a horrible history of dealing with these kinds of things."

Drug policy experts say there are alternatives to commercial legalization, like putting state governments in charge of marijuana production and sales, which could tame the for-profit incentive and give states more direct control over prices and who buys pot.

But legalization opponents worry that any move toward legalization will inevitably attract powerful for-profit forces, especially since the marijuana industry has already taken off in several states. "The reality is there are myriad other forces at work here," Sabet said. "Chief among them are the very powerful forces of greed and profit. When I look at how things are set up in states like Colorado, where the marijuana industry gets a seat at the table for every state decision on marijuana policy, it troubles me."

Given these concerns, opponents favor more limited reforms than legalization. Sabet, for example, said nonviolent marijuana users shouldn't be incarcerated for the drug. Other critics of legalization support legalizing marijuana for medical purposes but not recreational use.

It's rare that opponents of legalization argue for the full continuation of the current war on pot. SAM and its members, for instance, broadly agree that the current drug and criminal justice policies are far too punitive and costly, helping contribute to the mass incarceration of Americans. So while they may support some reforms, they feel that legalization simply goes too far - and could lead to worse consequences than the alternatives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opponents of legalization worry that fully allowing recreational marijuana use would make pot far too accessible and, as a result, expand its use and misuse. The major concern is that letting for-profit businesses - "Big Marijuana" - market and sell cannabis may lead them to market aggressively to heavy pot users, who may have a drug problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
Let states set own pot policies, Senator Warren says as she files bill to bar federal interference with state marijuana legalization

# data[].attributes.subject
Let states set own pot policies, Senator Warren says as she files bill to bar federal interference with state marijuana legalization

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how Senator Warren is pushing bills that lets states set there own laws on recreational marijuana. Senator Warren declares as a democrat.The persuasion element that is used is bandwagon because Warren thinks that since most states have made it legal that they should not fight her bill. -Jim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senator Warren pushes for federal clarity on marijuana | AllSides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Save" saves this article for you to read later, share on multiple news networks, or publish on your own news board for others to follow. Become your own publisher!

# data[].attributes.headline
San Francisco makes weed legalization retroactive, wiping out criminal records for thousands

# data[].attributes.subject
San Francisco makes weed legalization retroactive, wiping out criminal records for thousands

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how people with criminal records of marijuana involvement after the legalization in San Francisco have been wiped. Most of the time the records, would be "grandfathered" per say because they committed the crime when it was still illegal. Charges from up 40 years ago can be wiped. Other attorneys don't believe that it will happen.This is an example of plain folks because it is wiping the record of all people in San Fran of criminal records of weed. People with high end jobs can't have a crimes on there records so this is for the regular pay check to pay check workers. -Jim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
San Francisco makes weed legalization retroactive, wiping out criminal records for thousands | AllSides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Save" saves this article for you to read later, share on multiple news networks, or publish on your own news board for others to follow. Become your own publisher!

# data[].attributes.headline
Coke could make a move into cannabis-infused drinks

# data[].attributes.subject
Coke could make a move into cannabis-infused drinks

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how the company Coca-Cola is interested in making Cannabis Infused drinks. Though the idea floats around, no major decisions have been made. This article glorifies the pros for Coca-Cola to do this idea. This article is on CNN, which is predominantly democratic news. This is bandwagon because since all these other companies are using marijuana in their products, now Coca Cola is trying to do it because of how popular it has become.-Jim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coca-Cola is considering a move into the growing market for cannabis-infused drinks.

Coke said in a statement Monday that it is "closely watching" the growth of CBD, a non-psychoactive component in marijuana, as an ingredient in what it called functional wellness beverages.

"The space is evolving quickly," Coke said. "No decisions have been made at this time."

CBD, which does not produce a high for the user, has been used for medical purposes, including easing inflammation, pain and nausea.

Coke's interest was first reported by Bloomberg, which said the company was in talks with Aurora Cannabis, a Canadian cannabis company. Aurora has also expressed interest in cannabis drinks. Neither would comment on a possible deal.

"There is so much happening in this area right now and we think it has incredible potential," said Aurora spokesperson Heather MacGregor. "Stories like this are further validation of the massive global potential of the cannabis industry."

Constellation Brands , the maker of Corona beer, Svedka vodka and Casa Noble tequila, announced last month that it is investing an additional $4 billion in the Canadian cannabis company Canopy Growth .

And Lagunitas, a craft beer label of brewing giant Heineken , already has a drink infused with THC, marijuana's active ingredient, which does produce a high. It can be purchased at marijuana dispensaries in California.

In addition, a number of Canadian cannabis companies, including Cronos and MedMen Enterprises , now trade on US stock exchanges, and some American companies have taken stakes.

Both Coke and rival Pepsico have been trying to expand their businesses beyond traditional soft drinks as people drink less soda because of health concerns. Just last week, Coke announced a deal to buy Costa Coffee for $5 billion.

Canada is in the process of legalizing recreational use of marijuana. The drug is still illegal under US federal law, although some states have decriminalized it.

In June, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the epilepsy treatment Epidiolex, the first cannabis-based drug allowed in the United States. It includes CBD as well.

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 17, 2018: 10:17 AM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coke could make a move into cannabis-infused drinks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coke said in a statement Monday that it is "closely watching" the growth of CBD, a non-psychoactive component in marijuana, as an ingredient in what it called functional wellness beverages. "The space is evolving quickly," Coke said. "No decisions have been made at this time."

# data[].attributes.headline
Cannabis in Canada: How it went down on Legalization Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Cannabis in Canada: How it went down on Legalization Day

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about Canada being the first country to fully legalize recreational cannabis in North America. It talks about the majority of Canada being happy about it. Even saying that the Prime Minister stated that he once Smoked Cannabis 5 or 6 times. Once as a sitting member of Parliament.This is testimonial because it says that even the Prime Minister has smoked weed before. -Jim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cannabis in Canada: How it went down on Legalisation Day | AllSides

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Save" saves this article for you to read later, share on multiple news networks, or publish on your own news board for others to follow. Become your own publisher!