Table of Contents
At a moment when concerns about high-potency marijuana are rising nationwide, Pennsylvania lawmakers are weighing an industry-backed proposal that would significantly change how the drug is regulated – and pose risks to public health and safety.
[…] A conglomerate of marijuana companies in Pennsylvania’s medical market has formed a coalition, including Trulieve, which spent over $140 million in Florida in a failed attempt to legalize recreational use.
In recent years, these marijuana companies have been set on pushing for full recreational legalization through proposals such as Senate Bill 120. That effort has thus far stalled in the PA Senate, thankfully.
As a result, these same companies are now supporting a narrower proposal – Senate Bill 49 – that incorporates structural elements of the broader legalization framework. These companies’ spokesperson claims SB49 will “build a safe, well-regulated cannabis market for the future.”
SB49 would remove regulatory authority over the medical use of marijuana from the Pennsylvania Department of Health and transfer it to a group of seven politically appointed members of a control board, with no requirements that members have any medical qualifications.
This 52-page bill, largely lifted from the 181-page Senate Bill 120 recreational legislation, would require board members to be at least 25 years old and Pennsylvania residents, yet it sets no medical qualification requirements for individuals who would have voting authority over the state’s medical marijuana program.
Except is having a medical qualification really that important? It doesn’t take a degree in rocket science to get that smoking weed can be harmful to your health. I would have thought that an understanding of the impact of changes to cannabis laws and how best to mitigate them would be far more important.
[…] SB49 is more than an administrative change. Moving oversight away from health officials represents a significant policy shift, from a medical framework to one resembling commercial recreational markets.
The old ‘drugs are a health issue’ myth. Actually, most instances of drug use don’t cause problems. In fact I would go out on a limb and say most instances of drug use are beneficial. Don’t believe me? Take alcohol for example. Compare the number of people who go the pub, have a few beers and socialise etc, to the number of people who get shit-faced drunk. I’d say that the former greatly outnumbers the latter despite what the anti-alcoholers say. That said, I’ll admit it also depends a lot on the particular drug.
There are individual doctors in Pennsylvania that are granting over 10,000 medical cards to patients annually. High-volume “card-mill” practices and the proliferation of high-potency products more closely resemble recreational use of marijuana than legitimate medicine, undermining medical integrity.
The solution should be doing more to enhance and strengthen medical oversight. Regulation on the medical use of marijuana should be voted on by licensed physicians and public health experts. As research continues to reveal marijuana’s negative health risks, stronger medical oversight – not weaker – should guide Pennsylvania’s program.
[..] The timing of Senate Bill 49 is terrible. Society is beginning to wake up to the fact that today’s marijuana is not the low-potency product of decades past. Marijuana’s THC potency levels, meaning the higher the potency, the stronger the psychoactive component, have risen dramatically, particularly in concentrates and vape products.
As the New York Times recently identified, commercialization has coincided in many states with increases in high-potency products and heavy addictive marijuana use. As the editors point out, daily use of marijuana has tripled since the first states started to experiment with recreational legalization.
Pennsylvania needs to recognize these real concerns. Temple University researchers have found that recreational legalization and commercialization is associated not only with increased youth access but “with risk factors for cannabis use disorder (CUD), including easier access to cannabis, stronger cannabis potency, greater variety of cannabis products, and exposure to cannabis advertising and sales.”
Health associations have cautioned Pennsylvania officials on recreational commercialization. Dr Sheryl Ryan, in testimony to the PA Senate on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ PA chapter, stated, “We can reasonably expect that, with its legalization, the prevalence of marijuana use among both adults and adolescents will increase in our state … heavy use results in higher rates of mental health conditions such as anxiety, and psychosis.”
States that have expanded marijuana use have reported increases in marijuana-related emergency room visits, mental health episodes, impaired driving incidents, and persistence with the illicit market.
Pennsylvania already faces serious problems related to addiction and behavioral health. Why should Pennsylvanians pay for more use of a drug causing addiction and health problems?
Well that’s a bit over the top. The solution is better regulation – finding the sweet spot between too much regulation and too little.
For instance Colorado has experienced very little increase in harm as a result of legalising weed while California has experienced significantly more harm. The difference? Better regulation.
Colorado basically runs a tight ship with clear rules, controlled rollout, and consistent enforcement from the start. California, on the other hand, is a mess, with high taxes and patchy local rules, which means that there, the black market is still going strong.
Lawmakers should reject SB49 and instead strengthen medical oversight, protect youth, and ensure that public health guides marijuana policy in Pennsylvania. We can strengthen public health safeguards without laying out the groundwork for broader commercialization.
Fair enough. But broader commercialisation doesn’t necessarily mean more harm. It all depends on how it’s done.
As a side note I thought the proposed legislation that would have made weed legal was retarded. You don’t start with full legalisation. You start with either allowing social use and or strict use control such as cannabis cafes. And then you move on from there using regular reviews.
I still voted yes, though, because even a retarded piece of legislation legalising cannabis is better than what we have.
