CENTURY OF LIES

OCTOBER 22, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: The failure of drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for for decriminalization, legalization, the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century Of Lies.

DOUG MCVAY: Hello, and welcome to Century Of Lies. Century Of Lies is a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

Nazlee Maghsoudi, International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, and Steve Rolles from Transform Drug Policy Foundation, you were just here doing a panel on models for marijuana regulation, which sadly I couldn't get a recording of because I didn't get here fast enough. So, could I ask you to briefly capsulize, what were hoping -- what are you hoping that people take away from your talk?

NAZLEE MAGHSOUDI: Yeah, I guess I wanted to shed light on the current situation in Canada, and the status of the process for legalization and regulation. So, Canada has been going through that process for a year or two years now, and there have been developments at the federal level in terms of Bill C45 being introduced and currently going through the House of Commons, and provinces are also steadily making their way toward developing their respective policies, and the ways that it will differ across the country.

I think the point that I wanted to make to this room was the fact that Canada is going to have a lot of differences when it comes to the different province and territories retail and distribution models, as well as things like age restrictions and different restrictions on public possession limits as well.

So, because of that, I think it's really, really important that within Canada we're not only developing a policy and then sticking to that, for each province, but rather having a really iterative process where we're recognizing the outcomes that are important to us, monitoring those outcomes, and then also learning from the best practices and lessons learned from other provinces as well and incorporating those, because we will have a lot of different experiments and a lot to learn from. So I think that was one of the crucial points I wanted to get across today.

DOUG MCVAY: Right on. Steve, what were you talking about?

STEVE ROLLES: Well, I wasn't talking specifically about any one jurisdiction, but trying to look at the bigger picture of all the different jurisdictions, and try and tease out some of the key things that are kind of defining the debate and the process of policy development as we move forward.

And I think one of the key things that came up is this tension between business interests and entrepreneurs and the interests of private profit and commerce, and the interests of, I guess, the more traditional interests of policy makers, which we would hope would be public health and community safety.

Now, not all policy makers are necessarily in that space, a lot of them are corrupt and only interested in votes and money, but at least when you have -- I guess one of the points that I was making that I hope came across is that the nature of the process by which a policy is initiated and then developed and implemented will have a defining impact on what the outcome actually looks like, because it depends who is leading it.

So contrasting the ballot initiatives with the US that were very much led by activists and industry, or have historically been, with some of the other processes around the world where it was less of a bottom up sort of process and more of a top down legislative process, when that's happened, it seems to have been that the public health authorities have been more in the driving seat, and that has been reflected in the outcomes which have tended to be more public health oriented, and therefore I think have taken on board the lessons of alcohol and tobacco historically, and the mistakes that have been made, and built them in ways to mitigate some of those problems, and as a result you've had more maybe restrictive models.

So I think this is coming out in the -- in what's happening in Canada, where Ontario's announced they're going to have a state monopoly on retail, and I think New Brunswick and Quebec are hinting that they're going to do that as well.

NAZLEE MAGHSOUDI: Quebec I think might be leaning towards nonprofit, and New Brunswick is still in the consultation phases, so really anything's on the table, I think.

STEVE ROLLES: Okeh. Okeh, but, there's -- so there's just an interesting dynamic which I think the -- when you look at the different policies that are emerging around the world, the way they're arrived at is absolutely critical to what the outcome is. And if there are certain outcomes that you would like, i.e. you want a more restrictive public health model, or you want to avoid some of the problems of an over-commercialized model, then as advocates, we should be advocating, you know, you can advocate for a process that will tend to come to the outcome that you want. So, I think that, you know, just, there's an historical analysis but there's also looking forward a potentially an advocacy angle as well.

DOUG MCVAY: Right on. Right on.

NAZLEE MAGHSOUDI: Yeah, I guess I would just add onto that, I totally agree with what you said. I think another aspect that is really relevant and really dictates perhaps the outcomes that we see when it comes to cannabis legalization is the stated goals from the outset. Right? So something unfortunately that we didn't get to talk about during this panel is the fact that Canada has been really adamant about two chief goals when it comes to why they're pursuing cannabis legalization, and that has been, one, to keep cannabis out of the hands of youth, young people and children, and two, to keep the profits out of the hands of organized crime.

So when you look at the types of policy decisions that are being made, for better or for worse, through that lens, I think it provides a lot of insight on why we're arriving at those types of consequences. And one example that I did get to give in this presentation was around the fact that the current federal legislation allows for a punishment of up to 14 years in prison for selling to a -- or providing cannabis to a minor. So what that actually means, right, is that if you're 18 years old, and you pass a joint to your friend who's 17, he's going to turn 18 in a month, you are subject potentially to 14 years in prison. Right?

So when you look at that, which is -- especially when we compare it to alcohol and tobacco, which are of course nothing as draconian as that, alcohol is up to one year in prison in Ontario, tobacco is fines between $200 and $1,000, or 90 days in jail. When you compare that, I mean, that provides some insight, but, looking at it through the lens of the goals that the government has, if their goal is to keep cannabis out of the hands of young people, it makes sense insofar as thinking about their thinking, that they arrived at okeh, well, 14 years in prison. But in the same breath, recognizing that prohibition and criminalization has been an abject failure, not justifiable at all to have that type of punishment for that type of crime.

However, I think it is exactly what Steve was saying, it's really interesting to look at kind of the process that led to the types of things that are being recommended, at the federal level and even at the provincial level.

DOUG MCVAY: Is there anything that you did not get a chance to talk about on the panel that you had hoped that you could bring forward?

STEVE ROLLES: Well, there was an interesting discussion about marketing of cannabis relative to marketing of alcohol, and one of the speakers was saying that he was very wary of having more restrictive controls on marketing of cannabis than we currently have on alcohol. And it's a very interesting point, because in, you know, looked at objectively, that was a sensible point, because you wouldn't want to preference the more dangerous drug by having more restrictive marketing controls on cannabis.

But it also presents from a sort of public health advocate point of view a bit of a dilemma, because what we would want is actually to have better controls on alcohol as well. So, it does suggest that we need to maybe not be quite so siloed, and this comes back to a thing Michelle Alexander was saying, that there's a bigger game here, that cannabis policy does not exist in isolation, actually it's very closely related to alcohol and tobacco policy, and we can advocate for better -- for legalization and responsible regulation of cannabis, but we should also be advocating at the same time for better and more appropriate regulation according to risk for alcohol and tobacco.

So, these things do not exist in isolation. They're all part of a whole. The goal is the same, which is the appropriate model of regulation for a particular drug according to its risk, but the starting points are very different, prohibition on the one hand and an over-commercialized alcohol and tobacco market on the other.

DOUG MCVAY: How much impact does tax policy have on alcohol consumption? That's a -- I mean, where I live in Oregon, the tax on beer, oh massive microbrewing, great, the tax on beer: one cent per pint. Which, you know, is a joke. We have a very high tax on distilled spirits in the state, equivalency kind of thing because there's state liquor control, we do, but we also have a growing distilled spirit, craft spirit industry, the tax rate hasn't stopped that innovation, hasn't stopped that entrepreneurism, it's just bringing in money to the state. Does tax policy have a real impact? And, yeah, could you contrast the twenty percent sales tax on weed with a one cent per pint on beer?

NAZLEE MAGHSOUDI: Doug, you are just touching on all the points that I wanted to make in this panel but wasn't able to make, so that's awesome. So, yeah, you're absolutely right. There was a recent announcement from our federal government around excise tax, and for those that don't know, the listeners, it was for under $10 purchases, one dollar flat rate of taxation, and for above $10, ten percent. And that's in addition to our HST, which is thirteen percent.

So we're looking at realistically close to 25 percent taxation for individuals who are purchasing more -- for individuals that are purchasing cannabis. Right? And that, to me, Doug is making a shocked face, absolutely, it is very, very high, but when we look at other jurisdictions, some people point to Colorado and Washington state and say, well, they had taxation within the thirty percentages, but of course that wasn't all passed along to the consumer, that was at different phases in the supply chain.

So I think taxation, discussing what is the best taxation rate, is a relevant conversation, but the most relevant conversation for me is what is the final price. Right? After taxation, what does it cost and how does it compare to the cost in the illegal market. Right? Because in Canada, it's actually quite different than the States, than Atlanta and anywhere in the States where we are now. It's much cheaper. It's ten dollars per gram, kind of off the bat, but if you buy in bulk quantities, which many people that are chronic and regular, frequent users do, you can get down to seven dollars, six dollars, even five dollars a gram.

So, I am not going to foresee that those types of prices are going to be available in the legal market, and if that's the case, the goal of the government, to take money out of the pockets of organized crime, you can't accomplish that if you're pricing your products much too high in comparison to the illegal market.

Oh, and there's also some early indications that the illegal market prices are even dropping as we speak. So I think that that is only going to become an even greater discrepancy, and something we need to be really vigilant about if we actually want to displace the illegal market with a legal one.

STEVE ROLLES: And, I think it's also worth pointing out that tax controls are not the -- taxation rates aren't the only way to impact a price. I mean, you can have, for example in some countries, they have minimum unit pricing on alcohol, so that's been brought in in Scotland. So, there is a lower threshold for where the price can be, so that you don't have undercutting, or discounting, that can encourage certain unhealthy behaviors in terms of binge drinking and street drinking.

And you can have more direct price controls as well, I mean, they may not be -- it may be an anathema in North America, to be doing direct price controls, but many countries do. You can -- this is the price. Or this is the upper and lower price. And I think those are, given the influence that price has both on levels of use and of legal and illegal market ratios, I think it's entirely appropriate for the government to be at least engaging in that discussion, of not just tax controls, but actually direct price controls.

DOUG MCVAY: Any closing thoughts, real quick?

NAZLEE MAGHSOUDI: Any closing thoughts? I guess something that came up on this panel that was, it had really run through a lot of different issues within cannabis policy, of course drug policy more broadly, is the issue of equity.

So, one point that I didn't get to make that I wanted to touch on was actually around Ontario's recent announcement, which indicated that only private residence consumption would be permitted. So public consumption would not be permitted, and that for me, in the context where we still do not know if vapor lounges or other establishments where cannabis can legally be consumed will be permitted, that for me is highly problematic, because we know that people that are unhoused, people that are street involved, homeless people, have been disproportionately affected by drug crimes and arrests, and all of that.

So, we don't want to keep perpetuating inequity within this new system, so we have to definitely be thinking about where those people can legally use within the context of legalization as well.

STEVE ROLLES: And I have nothing to add to that amazing point from Nazlee, except to say, Doug, thanks for your amazing work, and I look forward to speaking to you next time.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Nazlee Maghsoudi from the International Center for Science in Drug Policy, and Steve Rolles from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. You're listening to Century of Lies, a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

DOMINIC CORVA: I am Dominic Corva, I'm the Executive Director and founder of the Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, a nonprofit 501c3 research and education group based out of Seattle, Washington.

DOUG MCVAY: What is happening up in Washington these days?

DOMINIC CORVA: Well, the most recent opening, I guess, that connects both cannabis legalization and ending the war on drugs, has been the consideration of home grow in Washington state, because we're the only legal state that doesn't have home grow. And the reason we didn't have it in the first place was because in the initiative process, 502, way back when, and, attitudes were different then, it looked like the home grow might endanger the possibility that the initiative would in fact not pass.

Now, that didn't mean that home grow wasn't in the spirit of I-502, which was very recently clarified by Alison Holcomb as absolutely being in the spirit of I-502, and that the politics have changed and we should go ahead and do it. But our obstacles now are different, because the people in charge of the market and regulating it, they're not interested in ending the drug war. They're interested in raising money for the states and concentrating health in the hands of a few, you know, industry people.

So, what happened was, the LCB [WA State Liquor Control Board] was commissioned by the Legislature to do a feasibility for regulated home grow, feasibility study, which wasn't -- it's not a civil liberty home grow, which the other states have, but regulated home grow. And so they came out and they said, here's the options, either we could do it, and that would be really expensive and whatever else, or we could leave it up to local police authorities to have the permits and so forth, or we could stick with the status quo. Right?

And so the hearings for that were very interesting, because we did have an excellent, organized response to all three of those options, which none of them were acceptable, we want civil liberty home grow. But was what were interesting two things. The former deputy director of the LCB, Randy Simmons, got up there, and gave a moving testimony, that he began by saying that I am in support of home grow with as few regulations as possible.

And then he gave a story about his wife and her struggle with breast cancer. And, the -- within the testimony, he concluded by saying, it's not that home grow's going to heal my wife, but that home grow represents a step towards ending prohibition, which would allow this kind of research to happen, and so it's part of a bigger picture. And it was an incredible testimony, especially by the former deputy director of the LCB, which is the main bureaucracy standing in the way of home grow right now.

And, that is -- they have their reasons for it, and those are fairly explicit. One, they say they're afraid of the feds, if we get home grow maybe the feds will come and crack down on Washington state legal cannabis markets, which is kind of an absurd proposition given the other states have it, and also, you know, this has nothing to do with, you know, diversion.

And then the other one is protecting the state market, and protecting state revenues, because they feel like home grow would, you know, create an economy that -- the state wouldn't get their piece. Right? And what was interesting was, at this hearing, besides Randy's testimony, the other one that stood out was Salal Credit Union and Numerica, the two banking providers in Washington state, of very few -- let's say banking is an issue in Washington state -- came out and they said no. No home grow, if you even consider it, we are going to stop banking I-502 businesses, because it's going to put us at risk because we think the feds are going to come.

So, what's interesting is, one of those credit unions sits on the board of WACA, the Washington Cannabusiness Association, which has been the most regressive force for cannabis legalization in Washington state. They're the ones that are responsible for 5052, they're the ones who are responsible for a lot of really conservative stuff because they don't get it, they don't get that cannabis legalization was about ending prohibition, about ending the drug war. For them, it's about protecting their bottom line, and so this is a very clear and interesting early, like, warning sign, to me, that what we have to worry about now in the cannabis legalization movement is the emergence of market actors and states who are worried about their revenue, to basically hold those up and say, wait, we can't end the drug war, we need to protect our revenue.

And I think that this is a, you know -- it is not exclusive to Washington state, I think it's going to be more and more apparent as we go on. You'll have these cannabis business executives, like you did recently in California, saying we need to support crackdowns so that, you know -- and this is, this just gets us completely away from the whole point, you know, which is ending the drug war. And so that's what's going on in Washington state right now, Doug.

DOUG MCVAY: The obvious analogy with home brewing, not a lot of people do it, a few people do, it's a hobby, but so what? There's still a massive business doing this, and they make a lot of revenue from that.

DOMINIC CORVA: This is the fascinating part of it, is that the Liquor and Cannabis Board, which is supposed to regulate cannabis like alcohol, refuses to go there, and actually regulate it like alcohol. And I think this is a frame we need to mobilize. But so far it's been fairly unsuccessful, and primarily, what they respond with is, but the feds, Schedule One, we have to control it. And the fear of the feds in Washington state is really interesting because this is a state that's very rebellious against the federal government. We sue the federal government constantly on issues around immigration, and, but we don't have that courage around cannabis.

And that, I think, has to do with the particular flavor of the Democratic Party in Washington state, which is much more conservative. You know, it's much more kind of maybe left Libertarian, and more kind of business promotion oriented, and they'll hop on political issues that they can get political capital from without sacrificing any money, right? And for them though I think the issue is that, if they hopped on cannabis or were rebellious about that, they would be, you know, worried about really the contributions that might be coming in.

DOUG MCVAY: Wow. So, now, how did the legislators respond? I mean, I, you seem to have a few rational folks in there.

DOMINIC CORVA: Yeah. Sure. But, you know --

DOUG MCVAY: Okeh, maybe I'm giving them more credit than they deserve, but --

DOMINIC CORVA: We've had -- but we've had a Republican controlled senate for the last four or five years, which also coincides with when our marijuana policy went more conservative. And that may be about to change. Now, the question of whether Democrats retaining control means that maybe we, you know, things will change, that's up in the air because right now, those legislators, like, none of them really want to champion this. And one of them does, and it's a Republican who's been in charge, Ann Rivers, and the thing is, like, do the Democrats do what Ann Rivers did, when they get in charge, and replace her, basically, or do they kind of just let keep going with that because she's been going with that?

Because before that, Jeannie Kohl-Welles was the person leading the charge, you know, a Democrat in the senate. She's no longer in the senate, she was basically -- all of her bills that were in operation, when Ann Rivers became senate majority whip, they went away and were replaced by Ann Rivers' bills. So I think there may be a potential opening, but we're going to have to find and motivate Democratic leadership in the senate in particular for things to, I think, get back to normal in Washington. You know?

DOUG MCVAY: Give me some closing thoughts, and I'll ask you for a -- and of course your website, how people can keep up with all the stuff you're doing because you do a lot of good work.

DOMINIC CORVA: Yep, thank you. So, the website is www.cannabisandsocialpolicy.org. And we are covering the events that I've been talking about, and reviewing my participation in this conference and others, I'm going to Nova Scotia fairly soon for their policy conference. And, so, that's a good way to keep up with us.

But really, I think the bottom line, which, coming here really helps with the clarity in my head, because I deal with a lot of pragmatic stuff in Washington and it's hard to kind of like remember this, but, like, you know what? I want cannabis legalization to be about ending the drug war, and there is a lot more work to be done. We're not done when we legalize cannabis, we have to keep going, because the drug war isn't over. And every aspect of cannabis legalization that props up the drug war: new penalties, new felonies, and, you know, prohibition of home grow, you know, and so forth, that goes the opposite direction.

Like, we want a peace, we don't want more war, and I'm really going to take this kind of inspiration with me going forward, I think it's really helpful for my focus, and I think, you know, it just -- it brings me a little more strength of resolve, because I remember what it's all about. And it's about ending the drug war.

DOUG MCVAY: Right on. Doctor Dominic Corva, brother, thank you so much, it's just so good to see you.

DOMINIC CORVA: Thank you so much, Doug. Yeah, good to see you.

DOUG MCVAY: Cheers.

That was my interview with Dominic Corva, he's the executive director of the Center for Study of Cannabis and Social Policy. They're at CannabisAndSocialPolicy.org.

I also ran into my friend Maia Szalavitz, the award-winning journalist and author of the New York Times bestseller Unbroken Brain: A Revolutionary New Way Of Understanding Addiction. We're at the Drug Policy Alliance conference. Vivitrol. Talk to me about Vivitrol.

MAIA SZALAVITZ: Sure. So, the first thing I just want to say is that it may be useful for some people, but the way that it is being marketed, particularly coercively marketed, so that, like, people in the criminal justice system have no choice, if they want treatment that's all they can get, that is dangerous and should not be happening.

There's two things that you really need to know about medication for opioids. So there's two broad classes. There are agonists, which are drugs like heroin and also methadone, and also suboxone, which is also known as buprenorphine. So, those are called agonists, and then there are antagonists, one of which is naloxone, and the other of which is naltrexone, and that in a long acting form is called Vivitrol.

Now, antagonists, as you might predict, do the opposite things that agonists do. So what agonists do, when they get to an opioid receptor, is they activate it and it does its function. And in the case of an opioid receptor in the brain, this function is generally to relieve stress and pain, and to connect us with each other. And a lot of people with opioid addiction have issues with this system, even before they -- because, like, trauma and depression and all kind of things can cause problems with this.

So, they like the opioid experience because it gives them that feeling of safety and warmth and comfort and all that, and so with an agonist, that is replicated. But if you get a steady dose, they're not high, they're just okeh. And that's, you know, when methadone and buprenorphine, when somebody's stabilized on them, they are not high, not impaired, anything, whatever. They are still physically dependent in that they would have withdrawal if they stopped using, but physical dependence is not the same thing as addiction. Addiction is compulsive behavior despite negative consequences. Physical dependence is needing something to function, and if you can get it and it makes your life better, this is a good thing.

Now, Vivitrol does the exact opposite. So in some instances, basically, it blocks -- it's like pouring glue into a keyhole. So it blocks the receptor and it doesn't let your natural opioids, whatever of them you may have left, fit in. And so this means it might blunt pleasure from connecting with people, from music, from, you know, just things that are pleasurable and fun. So, for some people, this can create a sense of pleasurelessness, and even suicidal depression.

So, that said, you don't want to be forcing people to take a drug that you get a shot of it and it lasts a month, and you're stuck in this state, and that can be very dangerous. Now, again, some people thrive on this stuff, and I've talked to them, and they are real, and they exist, and as far as I can tell they were not paid off by the drug companies. So, you know, but I -- so I think it should be an option.

But there's another big problem with Vivitrol when used coercively, which is that in -- when you stop, when it wears off, you probably have the opposite of tolerance to opioids, which basically means that, like, just when you get abstinent, you lose your tolerance. But this has occupied these receptors without letting them be active, and then you take it away, you may have something called sensitization, and that means that you are super duper at high risk of dying of overdose at that point.

And so, it may, you know, in Australia, when they studied oral naltrexone, the overdose death rate following treatment was four to eight times greater than following methadone or suboxone, so you really -- for people who really, for whatever reason, cannot be on maintenance, or, you know, have bad side effects from methadone or suboxone, and just, you know, get worse on them, this could be an option if they are given informed consent.

And, if I were advising somebody who was about to try it, I would just say, take the pills for two or three days, of naltrexone, if you don't have horrible bad depression and horrible awful feelings, and disconnectedness, great. You're a good candidate, you can get the shot, you're not going to be messed up for a month. You're not going to be able to get high on opioids for a month, but this is presumably what you're aiming for anyway, and, you know, so all is good.

So, I mean, I think, you know, it's a complex issue, but the fundamental bottom line is that the criminal justice system should not be practicing medicine, and if we're going to argue that addiction's a medical problem, then you have to listen to the doctors, and if the doctors say methadone and suboxone cut the death rate fifty percent, we have fifty years of data about this, we have maybe a few years, a few small trials at best of Vivitrol, we don't know about the mortality but we do that there's this potential for sensitization that may make it worse, if I'm advising somebody, I'm going to give them that information, and then they should be able to make up their minds, and the judge should not be able to say, well, you can have this one but not that one because that is practicing medicine without a license.

DOUG MCVAY: This sounds like a no-brainer, and yet, Vivitrol is becoming a drug of choice in some drug courts, am I getting that wrong, or is that ...?

MAIA SZALAVITZ: Well, it's very popular with drug courts because, for two reasons. One, there's absolutely no way you can get high on it, and two, drug courts come out of the criminal justice system, which is punitive, and there's kind of a -- it's a feature, not a bug, to be like, hey, we can deprive them of pleasure entirely potentially.

You know, it can be punitive. Now, I think a lot of people are not consciously doing that, but, in a punitive system, the idea of, you know, just keeping -- just, well now you can't do this horrible thing that we hate you for doing, and we hope you feel bad, too, you know. So there is a bit of that element. It's also that the drug company is spending large sums of money pushing it to drug courts, and pushing the prejudice against the other medications, by saying, oh, they're just still addicted, and again, that's a confusion of addiction and dependence.

DOUG MCVAY: That again was my interview with Maia Szalavitz, the award-winning author and journalist.

For now, that's all the time we've got. Thank you for joining us. You have been listening to Century of Lies. We're a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I’ve been your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org. The executive producer of the Drug Truth Network is Dean Becker. Drug Truth Network programs are available via podcast, the URLs to subscribe are on the network home page at DrugTruth.net.

The Drug Truth Network is on Facebook, please give its page a like. Drug War Facts is on Facebook too, give its page a like and share it with friends. Remember: Knowledge is power. Follow me on Twitter, I'm @DougMcVay and of course also @DrugPolicyFacts.

We'll be back next week with thirty more minutes of news and information about the drug war and this century of lies. For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition: the century of lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.