Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, there is a war raging in Ukraine, killing thousands and thousands of innocent people.

Gasoline, diesel, and grocery prices are through the roof.

For all practical purposes, we don't have a southern border anymore, so hundreds of thousands of immigrants continue to flood into the United States, and the situation there is about to get much worse.

Rampant inflation is making short work of the hard-earned money of all Americans, but the main priority for the Democrats this week isn't Ukraine, skyrocketing gasoline prices, 8 percent inflation, or the border crisis. No. Instead, it is marijuana.

It has been obvious for years that at some point, marijuana was going to be formally legalized. What is deeply and truly disturbing, however, about this bill is its failure to address the clear consequences of legalization--such as what this drug does to children, to drivers on our highways, to the mental health of up to 30 percent of those adults who choose to use marijuana, to communities inundated with hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign cartel-operated, unlicensed, and out-of- control marijuana growers, and finally, to those who actually try to produce cannabis, marijuana, legally.

Let's take a closer look at Oregon, my State, to see what really happens when marijuana is legalized without careful and necessary thought.

The picture behind me is a hoop house. It is about 100-feet long and 50-feet wide. At current retail, it will produce about $6 million worth of marijuana a year.

The next picture is a picture of a grow consisting of 30 to 40 hoop houses. By the way, these are all in my district in southern Oregon. And if each of these hoop houses is in full production, 40 hoop houses would generate $240 million, at retail, of marijuana each year.

To put this in perspective, there are currently 180 grows like this in Jackson County, Oregon, alone, many of which are illegal. Hundreds upon hundreds of hoop houses.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I will move on.

These operations are, in large part, unlicensed, uncontrolled, unregulated, operated on stolen water, ignoring building codes, ignoring land use laws, ignoring labor laws, and importing thousands upon thousands of immigrants to work in squalor and in fear.

Why? Because the Federal Government has refused to help the overwhelmed local law enforcement officers meet the huge challenge these cartels present.

In fact, months ago, I directly asked Attorney General Garland and again, several weeks ago, for his assistance in getting the FBI, Homeland Security, and the DEA to help us in southern Oregon, and I have heard nothing, absolutely nothing, back from him.

This is why it is essential that any bill dealing with legalization include significant money for law enforcement. We are certainly not getting any help from the Attorney General.

This picture behind me is what the living conditions are like for the immigrants working for the cartels.

We are experiencing one of the worst droughts in the history of the western United States. Water is gold in my district. Cartels are stealing water and using it to grow marijuana.

Water regulators in southern Oregon have been threatened with death by cartel members when they have tried to stop water theft. Here is a picture of some of the stolen water.

When the crop is harvested, hoop houses are abandoned, the migrant laborers disappear, and the mess is left for someone else to clean up. Here is what that looks like.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the Politico article labeled ``. . . Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black Market,'' dated January 14, 2022. ``Talk About Clusterf---': Why Legal Weed Didn't Kill Oregon's Black Market

Cave Junction, Ore.--The first unlicensed cannabis grow popped up near Gary Longnecker's remote Southern Oregon home seven years ago. Now there are six farms surrounding the densely-forested property. ``Last night I woke up at 12:30 with gunshots. [Then again] this morning, seven o'clock,'' Longnecker said as he and I walked his land in November. ``That's them intimidating all of us neighbors to keep out of their face.'' A Vietnam veteran and former firefighter, Longnecker retired to the woods of southern Oregon almost 30 years ago to get some peace and quiet, but that's not exactly what he's found. Historically a logging community, the residents of the Illinois Valley near Cave Junction are still drastically outnumbered by trees--and they prefer it that way. In most places, you could yell at the top of your lungs from your front door without another soul hearing. Many people in the county own a gun, and typically aim them at deer or bears--not their neighbors. But since the cannabis farmers moved in (none of whom appear to be licensed based on state records), Longnecker says he's had bullets whiz by his head when working outside, and regularly hears gunshots in the middle of the night. Trash and toilet paper are littered around the thin wire fence that separates his forested land from each cannabis farm. As Longnecker gave me a tour of his property, a few people could be seen moving around on the property through the scattered pine trees and partially- deconstructed hoop houses. Longnecker's partner called out to them in broken Spanish, since she believed most of the workers were Hispanic. No one answered. A few moments later, shots rang out. ``So that's called intimidation,'' Longnecker said as we hurried away. It's a word that I heard often when I spoke with residents about their marijuana-growing neighbors. Over the last two years, there's been such an influx of outlaw farmers that southern Oregon now rivals California's notorious Emerald Triangle as a national center of illegal weed cultivation. Even though marijuana cultivation has been legal in Oregon since 2014, Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says there could be up to 1,000 illegal operations in a region of more than 4,000 square miles. The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, which oversees the state's $1.2 billion legal cannabis industry, estimates the number of illicit operations is double that. Local law enforcement officials believe that people from every U.S. state and as many as 20 countries have purchased property in Jackson or Josephine counties. Cartels roll in and offer long-time residents as much as a million dollars in cash for their property, and hoop houses follow soon after the sale is complete. Residents have become accustomed to hearing Bulgarian, Chinese, Russian and even Hebrew spoken at the grocery store. ``Two weeks ago, we took down a Bulgarian operation and in the same week an Argentinian operation,'' said Josephine County Sheriff Dave Daniel, adding that they've also recently dealt with Chinese- and Mexican-run oufits. ``A lot of these organizations, before the legal market came into effect, would grow in the forest lands--they'd be up in the hills,'' explained Obie Strickler, a licensed cannabis grower in Josephine County. ``Now they're . . . right out in the open.'' What is happening in the woods of the southern Oregon represents one of the most confounding paradoxes of the legalized marijuana movement: States with some of the largest legal markets are also dealing with rampant illegal production--and the problem is getting worse. Oklahoma, where licenses to cultivate medical marijuana are some of the easiest to get in the nation, has conducted more than five dozen raids on illicit grows since last April. In California, meanwhile, most of the state continues to purchase cannabis from unlicensed sources--straining legal operators already struggling with the state's high taxes and fees. It wasn't supposed to be this way. One of the underlying promises for legalizing cannabis was that legalization would make the illegal drug trade, with all its attendant problems of violent crime and money laundering, disappear. But 25 years into the legalization movement, as 36 states have adopted some form of legalized marijuana, the black market is booming across the country. Legal states such as Oregon and California--which have been supplying the nation for nigh on 60 years--are still furnishing the majority of America's illegal weed.

Oregon's weed is some of the cheapest in the nation, and Oregonians predominantly purchase weed from licensed dispensaries. Economist Beau Whitney estimates that 80-85 percent of the state's demand is met by the legal market. But most of the illicit weed grown in southern Oregon is leaving the state, heading to places where legal weed is still not available for purchase `such as New York or Pennsylvania--or where the legal price is still very high, like Chicago and Los Angeles. In Illinois, which legalized medical marijuana in 2013, only about a third of the demand for cannabis is satisfied by legal dispensaries, according to Whitney. Differences in tax rate and regulations plays the major role in differences from state to state, Whitney explains. Unlicensed growers aren't paying any fees or taxes, and they can afford to keep their prices at least 20 percent lower than legal weed--the benchmark Whitney says is the difference in consumers purchasing legal versus illegal products.

``It all comes down to economics,'' said Whitney. ``If you reduce the price, then there's no, or little, or less, incentive [for consumers] to participate in [the] illicit market because you're getting the price that you want . . . that's the tipping point.'' The macro-economics of the marijuana market are small consolation to residents of Oregon, who say they are caught in a regulatory gap between state law, which fully legalized cannabis in 2014, and federal law, which still considers cannabis to be as illegal as heroin. The one exception in federal law is for hemp, a low-THC cannabis plant which looks virtually identical to the naked eye. Officials say that some of Oregon's illegal farms are masquerading as hemp producers to escape federal oversight. There are just more than 1,000 licensed marijuana and hemp farms in Jackson and Josephine counties, but a recent test of the region's hemp farms found that more than half were illegally growing marijuana--not the low-THC hemp. ``[They] easily danced into the hemp program and got administrative protection,'' said Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission Executive Director Steve Marks. ``They inundated that program.'' On top of that, there could be a thousand or more unlicensed grows that never bothered with a hemp license. The impact of the booming illegal trade is being felt by overburdened law enforcement that can't keep up with the illegal operations that seem to sprout with abandon, but it is also exhausting the patience of residents who were key to making Oregon one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana in the late 1990s. ``The danger of what's going on and the fear and worry folks in southern Oregon are feeling about their safety cannot be overstated,'' Sen. Ron Wyden (D- Ore.), the influential chairman of the Finance Committee, told POLITICO in December. ``And it's all the more reason why federal cannabis prohibition is just not working.'' Nicole Rensenbrink, a 62-year-old social worker, travels daily along a curving two-lane road that weaves between groves of tall trees and dozens of farms before finally passing the local high school. Along her seven-minute commute to work, she passes 14 marijuana cultivation or processing sites. She's not an expert, but she can tell that many of them are illegal by the lack of proper signs and the number of hoop houses that exceed the legal limits. But it's the unforeseen consequences--the damage to the environment, not to mention a general fear for her safety--that most troubles her. ``I and my husband both voted for cannabis legalization. I'm liberal, [an] old hippie type. I don't want people to go to jail for smoking pot or dealing a little weed.'' Rensenbrink said. ``But I regret it. At this point, I really regret it. People have grown marijuana illegally in southern Oregon for at least half a century. It was easy to conceal illicit activity in private woods and national forests when the nearest human could easily be a few miles away. But there's nothing hidden about what's going on now. The Red Mountain Golf Course, a 24-acre plot of land just outside Grants Pass, the county seat, sold for just over half a million dollars in June 2021. Three months later, Josephine County Sheriffs and Oregon State Troopers raided the former golf course and seized more than 4,000 marijuana plants and arrested two people on charges of felony marijuana manufacture. It wasn't an isolated incident. Around the same time, law enforcement seized 380 pounds of processed marijuana stuffed in a car abandoned at the scene of a crash. Cops also seized 7,600 marijuana and hemp plants, 5,000 pounds of processed marijuana and $210,000 in cash from two grow operations just outside Cave Junction. Two men were arrested and held for unlawful manufacture of a marijuana item and other charges. While these eyepopping figures draw headlines, the raids are just a cost of doing business for the cartels, according to law enforcement officials. Many buy or lease six or seven properties, knowing that some might get shut down by the police. Like any smart entrepreneurs, the cartels budget for those losses. ``They know that the resources for law enforcement and our ability to combat this issue [are such that] they can overwhelm us,'' Daniel said. The proliferation of unlicensed cannabis farms is scaring local residents and scarring the landscape. Personal wells have run dry and rivers have been illegally diverted. Piles of trash litter abandoned grow sites. Locals report having knives pulled on them, and growers showing up on their porches with guns to make demands about local water use. Multiple women say they've been followed long distances by strange vehicles. Locals regularly end conversations with an ominous warning: ``Be careful.'' Debbie, who retired from the Napa County Sheriff's Department in California, has little faith in Josephine County's law enforcement. Debbie, who requested her last name not be used for fear of reprisal from the drug dealers, says that officers didn't show up when ten gun shots whizzed past her husband's head while he was sitting on the porch, or when the neighbor's pit bulls chased her from the mailbox back up to her own home. When Debbie reported her neighbors to the sheriff's department, they asked her to photograph the license plates of the growers next door, but she was spotted taking pictures.

``[The growers] stalked me and chased me all the way down Placer Road,'' she said.

The problem has gotten so bad that residents and local officials have called for the Oregon National Guard to be called in. Democratic Gov. Kate Brown hasn't taken that step yet, but in December she called a special session in which lawmakers approved $25 million to address Oregon's illicit grows. $20 million of that funding is designated for law enforcement to increase staff and resources, while $5 million is dedicated for oversight of water use and water theft. Earlier in the year, the legislature passed a bill, sponsored by Republican state Rep. Lily Morgan, that increased penalties for growing cannabis illegally and gave state regulators the authority to investigate hemp growers. Jackson County Sheriff Nate Sickler says the tougher rules for hemp cultivation and the money lawmakers funneled to local enforcement efforts are an excellent start.

``If we're able to get our positions funded, I really think we can make a significant impact [on] illegal marijuana,'' said Sickler. ``Are they going to go away? It's probably never going to happen.'' The illicit market isn't just a law enforcement problem, however; it's actually having an effect on the environmental health of the region.

Chris Hall has spent months surveilling cannabis farms in Josephine County's Illinois River Valley from the air. The community organizer with the Illinois Valley Soil & Water Conservation District is compiling a map of illicit grows checked against state licensing information.

On a weekday afternoon in November, Hall explored the debris-filled Q Bar X Ranch site, taking photographs for his records. In August, it took about 250 law enforcement officers--called in from state and federal agencies--to raid the ranch. Officials seized 200,000 marijuana plants and found more than 130 workers at the site, according to the Josephine County Sheriff's department. At the main site, a new fence with ``no trespassing'' signs warned off curious visitors. Behind that fence were the ruins of a massive cannabis operation: multiple white hoop houses, now in tatters; ramshackle buildings where workers likely lived; PVC pipes, tarps, buckets, and empty containers of fertilizer and pesticides.

Down the road, the second site was in an even greater state of disarray. Huge gashes had been cut into the earth, and a crevice was filled with bottles of fertilizer and pesticides. The banks of a stream were laden with what seemed like the contents of an entire convenience store snack and soda section. ``You want to talk about clusterf---, here it is,'' Hall said, shaking his head as he saw that the creek bisecting the grow site was lined with plastic. ``The [creek] bed is the most sensitive natural habitat that we have,'' Hall said. ``To line it with plastic, particularly black plastic, is to kill everything underneath it.'' Hall was hired because the soil and water district was inundated with complaints from local residents about the negative impacts on their water sources. The $5 million that Morgan's bill recently allocated for water-resource issues is meant to address this problem.

Reclaiming land and waterways after illicit growing occurs, though, is an expensive and complex undertaking. A U.S. House member proposed allocating $25 million in last year's federal budget for shuttering and reclaiming grow sites on national forest land, though it was removed from the final bill. Even if that funding eventually gets approved, it could only be used to target a small sliver of the illicit grows in Josephine and Jackson counties, since most are on private property.

``If this was going on [closer to Eugene or Portland], you better believe the state of Oregon would stomp this out in a hot second,'' Hall said--but added that many of the region's residents are famously resistant to government intervention, especially from the state capitol four hours north. ``You know, sometimes you get what you asked for. . . . [Southern Oregonians] have been telling [the state government] to leave you alone, so we're gonna just leave you alone.''

There are as many suggested solutions to southern Oregon's weed problem as there are factors creating it. Some say tweaks to federal and state hemp regulations--and more money for law enforcement--will get the illicit grows under control. Others argue that only federal decriminalization will solve the problem, because it would reduce the market for illicit weed.

Anti-legalization advocates, meanwhile, point to Oregon's woes as proof that legalization doesn't live up to its promise of eliminating the illicit market.

``Legalization exacerbates the issue of illicit growing operations because it increases the demand for the product,'' Kevin Sabet told POLITICO. ``With more users emerging throughout the state, more sellers--both legal and illegal-- begin working to match the supply. The state has done little to curb demand because it has little incentive to do so.''

On the last point, John Hudak of the Brookings Institute says that the rampant illicit operations in Oregon aren't likely to be replicated in more densely-populated states like Connecticut or Rhode Island. ``I don't think there's a direct connection between legalization and this situation happening,'' said Hudak, an expert on cannabis policy who also volunteers as part of the Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education, and Regulation--a think tank funded in part by Molson Coors and Constellation Brands (which owns Corona). Constellation Brands has already entered the cannabis beverage market. ``There's sort of geographic aspects to why it thrives in certain states,'' Hudak added. ``This is more likely to happen on a large scale in larger states with rural spaces than it would be in smaller, urban states.'' Instead, Hudak argues that the illicit market will continue to thrive in legal states as long as cannabis remains federally illegal. It isn't clear when full legalization could happen, though--if ever. A federal decriminalization bill proposed in 2021 by Wyden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) has only been seen by the general public in draft form, and it isn't clear when it will be formally introduced in Congress. The draft version of that decriminalization bill would levy high taxes against the cannabis industry, which Whitney, the economist, argues would push prices higher and give illicit growers continued market access.

Cautionary tales like Oregon's won't move the federal needle, either, Hudak cautions. The lawmakers who understand the impact of the federal-state cannabis policy gap, he says, are the ones who already support legalization. Moreover, there have already been many other stories about the problems created by the policy gap--such as the impact siloed markets have on the environment or the inability of cannabis farmers and store owners to get reliable insurance to cover looters or forest fires--and federal policy has remained the same.

The problem, cannabis advocates say, is not that legalization has failed. Rather it's that the country hasn't legalized enough. Until many more states--and the federal government--decide to legalize cannabis, those advocates say, the illicit weed problem is going to continue, even in legal states. The patchwork of still-illegal states--including some of the country's most populous--creates tootempting a market for illicit growers.

``We don't have a [moonshine] business in the country . . . that is challenging Budweiser or Grey Goose,'' Hudak said. ``Alcohol is widespread legal. And until we get on that same page with cannabis, this is going to be a continuing problem.''

The OLCC's Marks, though, argues that blanket legalization won't solve all of the problems because hemp and marijuana will still be regulated separately at the federal level--hemp through the Department of Agriculture and marijuana through the FDA or the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

``Frankly, the federal government has plenty of responsibility and accountability for the regulation of legal hemp and THC,'' Marks said. ``Making regulators bifurcate the plan under an old federal definition of marijuana and a newer one of hemp is creating unaccountability, craziness and a bad market.'' Oregon tweaked its hemp rules this year to make THC testing more enforceable. Meanwhile, the 2023 farm bill is up for discussion in Washington, D.C. this year, but there has not been much chatter on Capitol Hill about making hemp oversight more stringent.

Economist Beau Whitney argues that focusing on hemp regulations is a misplaced solution because many cartels don't bother to hide behind hemp licenses.

``They're focusing in on small hemp farmers instead of the real problem, which is international cartels,'' Whitney said. ``Until there's some way in which to have a coordinated enforcement against the illicit cartels, this is going to perpetuate.''

While experts and lawmakers in Salem and Washington, D.C. go back and forth over the solutions, southern Oregonians will continue to live with the impact of divergent cannabis laws. ``The people in Salem and the people in Grants Pass don't understand that we're living under this intimidation,'' Gary Longnecker said, talking about the Oregon state capital and his county's seat of government. ``To sit here and be ignored by the people who are supposed to represent you, not even get a staff member to call you back, is so, so frustrating,'' he said. He's glad that Oregon's legislature adopted tougher rules for hemp growers, but doesn't think it's nearly enough to solve the problem. ``You can't just keep throwing a little bit of money out [here], because . . . it's like whack a mole. Take this one out, and four more pop up over here.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that any bill legalizing marijuana include significant funding for law enforcement which will be absolutely and predictably necessary to control the cartels that will flood into the farming areas such as southern Oregon.

Simply setting up a penalty, as this bill does, for failing to register will not work without the concurrent means of enforcement. Do not let the defunding-the-police thinking that currently is in this bill lead the Nation into the same ecological human and social disaster we now face in Oregon.

The bill fails to address impairment. It fails to address the ever- increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana could be legally used.

It fails to address the impact the bill's 5 percent and quickly rising to 8 percent gross receipts tax, when added to the State and local taxes, will have in driving the black market sources of marijuana. The Federal tax, when added in, will make legal marijuana almost 30 percent more expensive than that which is on the black market.

The bill fails to correctly clarify the differences between marijuana and hemp. This is essential if the hemp market is to be protected from the policies and regulations associated with marijuana.

This bill is the wrong approach.

We should be addressing the crises created by the Biden administration, not passing an incomplete, inadequate, and damaging to our children and communities stimulus marijuana bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that I have read the bill very carefully, and there is nothing in the bill allocating money to law enforcement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention that there is about $400 million that would have been raised last year under this bill had this tax been in place, and none of that money goes to public safety. It goes to rebuild community space but not public safety.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ.

In response to this bill helping farmers, I just want to say it does not. What it does is it puts a tax on top of their product. When added to the Oregon tax, it would be almost 30 percent. That does not encourage farmers to raise the crop because they can't compete against the black market. There has to be far more thought given to what will be an 8 percent additional cost.

By the way, it is a gross receipts tax. It is on top of the gross receipts, not that net profit that you are supposed to get.

Secondly, the bill, as written, fails to distinguish between hemp and marijuana. This must be done if the folks in each space are going to grow properly.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that it was noted that we never asked the people if they would support legalization of marijuana. That is not correct. North Dakota Measure 3 failed. Missouri Proposition C to legalize marijuana failed. Ohio Issue 3 failed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, to my friend and former law school classmate, Representative Blumenauer--he was a few years ahead of me--I just want to draw attention to the bill, page 15, where it calls out the expenditures. It says: The amounts in the trust fund shall be available, without further appropriation, only as follows. And then it reflects section 3052(a) part 00 of the Omnibus Crime Control Safe Streets Act of 1968, which I dug out and read through three times, looking unsuccessfully for an allocation of money to local law enforcement agencies, such as the ones in southern Oregon. It is not there. That money is going for very limited and very narrow purposes.

How much money? Well, if this 8 percent tax had been applied to the amount of marijuana sold last year in the United States, the total is $400 million. That is not the total sold; it is the total tax, $400 million, half of which would go to this narrow piece of work. I am not saying it is unimportant, but narrow.

There is 50 percent called out here, then 10 percent, then 25 percent, but none to police. What I am trying to say is, yes, you have taken this up--do it right. Get it right. And you have a whole bunch of work that needs to be done to get this bill right.

Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say again, I went down to southern Oregon and I asked the law enforcement folks what we needed to do to try to head off the cartels which are generating this huge sum of money for themselves. What could we do? And the answer was, law enforcement. If you don't have force, you can't control the cartels.

To get law enforcement it requires people and that requires money and this bill doesn't allocate any for that purpose. Since we know this bill is going to drive up the cost of legal marijuana, thus driving more people into the black market, why isn't there more money for law enforcement? Why isn't there any money for law enforcement?

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure everyone that the police in Oregon are not chasing those who are using marijuana. Oregon legalized marijuana. What we are having trouble with are the consequences of that legalization. That is what I am trying to bring to the attention of folks today that if we are going to legalize on a national scale then, for goodness' sake, don't make the mistakes we made in Oregon, get it right.

Put into the bill appropriate funding for law enforcement. By the way, we should put in a lot of other things that I previously mentioned. One of the things that absolutely has to be there is funding for local police because this bill is going to drive up the demand for marijuana and up the cartels across the United States. It is bad and local law enforcement can't take care of it.

The assertion that the FBI and Homeland Security and DEA are going to do so is incorrect. I know because I have asked. We have nothing from the Attorney General helping us in that space. So what I am saying is, if you are going to do this, get it right.

Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention in response to the assertion that once this bill passes, if it does, that suddenly the cartels will disappear. Sadly, that is not going to be true. That is because legal marijuana will be 30 percent more expensive than that which is raised on the black market. That is why one has to be aware when one puts this kind of additional cost into this bill, 8 percent on a gross basis, that people need to understand the difference between net profit and gross.

What is going to happen is the cartels will have a 30 percent benefit advantage over privately raised marijuana. What I am trying to say is: Get this bill right. This isn't my thinking. This is people who looked into this extremely carefully and those that are trying to do this legally. I am saying this bill is incorrectly crafted on that level and many others.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of multiple items:

First, a policy statement from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana Legalization.

Second, Facts for Families from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry on Marijuana and Teens.

Third, the Insurance Information Institute report on marijuana and impaired driving.

Fourth, an article from verywellhealth.com titled, ``Is Marijuana Addictive?'' by Ashley Olivine, Ph.D.

Fifth, an NBC News article titled, ``Legalized marijuana linked to a sharp rise in car crashes.''

Sixth, the Denver Post article titled, ``Are you high? The science of testing for marijuana impairment is hazy, and evolving.''

Seventh, a Bloomberg article titled, ``U.S. Grapples With How to Gauge Just How High Cannabis Users Are.'' [From the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry] Marijuana Legalization

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) advocates for careful consideration of potential immediate and downstream effects of marijuana policy changes on children and adolescents. Marijuana legalization, even if restricted to adults, may be associated with (a) decreased adolescent perception of marijuana's harmful effects, (b) increased marijuana use among parents and caretakers, and (c) increased adolescent access to marijuana, all of which reliably predict increased rates of adolescent marijuana use and associated problems. Marijuana use during pregnancy, occurring at increasing rates, raises additional concerns regarding future infant, child, and adolescent development.

AACAP is aware that, among hundreds of chemical constituents, marijuana contains select individual compounds that, if safely administered in reliable doses, may potentially convey therapeutic effects for specific conditions in specific populations. Advocacy regarding potential cannabinoid therapeutics, alongside social justice, public policy, and economic concerns, have contributed to marijuana policy changes. Amid these factors, AACAP remains focused on concerns regarding adolescent marijuana use.

Adolescents are especially vulnerable to marijuana's many known adverse effects. One in six adolescent marijuana users develops cannabis use disorder, a well characterized syndrome involving tolerance, withdrawal, and continued use despite significant associated impairments. Selective breeding has increased marijuana's addictive potency and potential harm to adolescents. Heavy use during adolescence is associated with increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders. Furthermore, marijuana's deleterious effects on adolescent cognition, behavior, and brain development may have immediate and long- term implications, including increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, sexual victimization, academic failure, lasting decline in intelligence measures, psychopathology, addiction, and psychosocial and occupational impairment.

Marijuana-related policy changes, including legalization, may have significant unintended consequences for children and adolescents. AACAP supports (a) initiatives to increase awareness of marijuana's harmful effects on adolescents, (b) improved access to evidence-based treatment for adolescents with marijuana-related problems, and (c) careful monitoring of the effects of marijuana-related policy changes on child and adolescent mental health. Finally, AACAP strongly advocates for the involvement of the medical and research community in these critical and highly impactful policy-related discussions. ____ Marijuana and Teens

Many teenagers try marijuana and some use it regularly. Teenage marijuana use is at its highest level in 30 years, and today's teens are more likely to use marijuana than tobacco. Many states allow recreational use of marijuana in adults ages 21 and over. Recreational marijuana use by children and teenagers is not legal in anywhere in the United States. Today's marijuana plants are grown differently than in the past and can contain two to three times more tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the ingredient that makes people high. The ingredient of the marijuana plant thought to have most medical benefits, cannabidiol (CBD), has not increased and remains at about 1 percent.

There are many ways people can use marijuana. This can make it harder for parents to watch for use in their child. These include:

Smoking the dried plant (buds and flowers) in a rolled cigarette (joint), pipe, or bong

Smoking liquid or wax marijuana in an electronic cigarette, also known as vaping

Eating ``edibles'' which are baked goods and candies containing marijuana products

Drinking beverages containing marijuana products

Using oils and tinctures that can be applied to the skin

Other names used to describe marijuana include weed, pot, spliffs, or the name of the strain of the plant. There are also synthetic (man-made) marijuana-like drugs such as ``K2'' and ``Spice.'' These drugs are different from marijuana and are more dangerous. Additionally, the products being sold in dispensaries currently are not subject to Food and Drug Administration standards and are not purely isolated cannabinoids; they are therefore not reliable in their potency/concentration of CBD or THC, or the inclusion of other ingredients. Parents and Prevention

Parents can help their children learn about the harmful effects of marijuana use. Talking to your children about marijuana at an early age can help them make better choices and may prevent them from developing a problem with marijuana use later. Begin talking with your child in an honest and open way when they are in late elementary and early middle school. Youth are less likely to try marijuana if they can ask parents for help and know exactly how their parents feel about drug use.

Tips on discussing marijuana with your child:

Ask what they have heard about using marijuana. Listen carefully, pay attention, and try not to interrupt. Avoid making negative or angry comments.

Offer your child facts about the risks and consequences of smoking marijuana.

Ask your child to give examples of the effects of marijuana. This will help you make sure that your child understands what you talked about.

If you choose to talk to your child about your own experiences with drugs, be honest about why you used and the pressures that contributed to your use. Be careful not to minimize the dangers of marijuana or other drugs, and be open about any negative experiences you may have had. Given how much stronger marijuana is today, its effect on your child would likely be much different than what you experienced.

Explain that research tells us that the brain continues to mature into the 20s. While it is developing, there is greater risk of harm from marijuana use.

Sometimes parents may suspect that their child is already using marijuana. The following are common signs of marijuana use:

Acting very silly and out of character for no reason

Using new words and phrases like ``sparking up,'' ``420,'' ``dabbing,'' and ``shatter''

Having increased irritability

Losing interest in and motivation to do usual activities

Spending time with peers that use marijuana

Having trouble remembering things that just happened

Carrying pipes, lighters, vape pens, or rolling papers

Coming home with red eyes and/or urges to eat outside of usual mealtimes

Stealing money or having money that cannot be accounted for Effects of Marijuana

Many teenagers believe that marijuana is safer than alcohol or other drugs. When talking about marijuana with your child, it is helpful to know the myths and the facts. For example, teenagers may say, ``it is harmless because it is natural,'' ``it is not addictive,'' or ``it does not affect my thinking or my grades.''

However, research shows that marijuana can cause serious problems with learning, feelings, and health.

Short-term use of marijuana can lead to:

School difficulties

Problems with memory and concentration

Increased aggression

Car accidents

Use of other drugs or alcohol

Risky sexual behaviors

Worsening of underlying mental health conditions including mood changes and suicidal thinking

Increased risk of psychosis

Interference with prescribed medication

Regular use of marijuana can lead to significant problems including Cannabis Use Disorder. Signs that your child has developed Cannabis Use Disorder include using marijuana more often than intended, having cravings, or when using interferes with other activities. If someone with Cannabis Use Disorder stops using suddenly, they may suffer withdrawal symptoms that, while not dangerous, can cause irritability, anxiety, and changes in mood, sleep, and appetite.

Long-term use of marijuana can lead to:

Cannabis Use Disorder

The same breathing problems as smoking cigarettes (coughing, wheezing, trouble with physical activity, and lung cancer)

Decreased motivation or interest which can lead to decline in academic or occupational performance

Lower intelligence

Mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, anger, irritability, moodiness, and risk of suicide Medical Marijuana

Some teens justify use of marijuana because it is used for medical purposes. Marijuana use with a prescription for a medical reason is called ``medical marijuana.'' Laws for medical marijuana are rapidly changing and are different from state to state. In some states, children of any age can get medical marijuana if they have a ``qualifying medical condition.'' There is very limited research supporting use of medical marijuana in children or teens for most conditions. In most states that allow medical marijuana, the marijuana is not regulated and therefore is not checked for ingredients, purity, strength or safety. There is no evidence that medical marijuana is any safer than other marijuana. Cannabidiol (CBD)

Many parents have questions about CBD and how it may be helpful for their child. There is ongoing research on the use of CBD-containing products for conditions such as epilepsy, PTSD, Tourette's disorder, pain, and other diagnoses. For now, the use of CBD is only FDA-approved in children for specific forms of epilepsy and in adults for chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. At this time, there is not enough evidence to recommend CBD for other uses, in children and adolescents including the treatment of autism and other developmental disorders. The approved CBD requires a prescription. Many stores sell CBD products. However, there are no safety and quality requirements for non-prescription CBD. They may have harmful additives or interfere with prescription medication. If you are considering using CBD for your child, please discuss this with their physician prior to starting to prevent harmful effects. Conclusion

Marijuana use in teens can lead to long-term consequences. Teens rarely think they will end up with problems related to marijuana use, so it is important to begin talking about the risks with your child early and continue this discussion over time. Talking with your child about marijuana can help delay the age of first use and help protect their brain. If your child is already using marijuana, try asking questions in an open and curious way as your teen will talk more freely if not feeling judged. If you have concerns about your child's drug use, talk with your child's pediatrician or a qualified mental health professional. ____

[From the Insurance Information Institute, June 24, 2021] Background On: Marijuana and Impaired Driving overview

More states are passing legislation permitting medical and/ or recreational marijuana use, which raises concerns about users driving under the influence of marijuana. This piece will discuss:

Marijuana consumption and characteristics of marijuana impairment; Marijuana legalization's impact on auto accidents; Difficulties related to measuring user impairment; and Insurance impacts. historical perspective

Marijuana is a type of hemp plant of the species Cannabis sativa L., part of the genus Cannabis L. Unlike industrial hemp, however, marijuana contains appreciable arnounts of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a psychoactive cannabinoid--it's the active chemical that induces user intoxication. The plant also contains several other, non- psychoactive cannabinoids such as ``cannabidiol'' (CBD).

There is evidence that cannabis has been consumed for thousands of years, often for medicinal purposes. The plant was used as a patent medicine in the U.S. since at least 1850, when the United States Pharmacopoeia described the plant for the first time. Cannabis was first regulated under federal law under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

Marijuana was subsequently subjected to countrywide prohibition under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), which established a schedule for substances regulated under federal law. Marijuana is currently a Schedule I drug under the CSA, which defines Schedule I drugs as substances that have ``no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse.'' Other substances under Schedule I include heroin, LSD, and peyote.

Despite the treatment of marijuana under federal law, in 1996 California became the first state in the U.S. to pass legislation permitting a medical marijuana program. By April 2021, 36 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation permitting so-called ``comprehensive'' medical marijuana programs, which typically allow qualifying patients to access marijuana and marijuana-related products.

Since 2012, 18 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation permitting anyone over the age of 21 to possess and use marijuana, subject to certain limitations. Most of those states also have or are developing regulations for a commercial market to support recreational marijuana sales. marijuana impairment

The THC in marijuana plants causes intoxication in a user. (THC levels in other hemp plants are typically so low that they cannot induce intoxication.)

Effects of marijuana consumption can vary. Marijuana can affect users differently, depending on a variety of factors, including user tolerance. Common experiences intoxicated include feelings of euphoria and relaxation; some may also experience heightened sensory perceptions and altered perceptions of time.

Marijuana cannot cause overdose, but can potentially cause temporary psychosis. There are no documented instances of an adult dying from an overdose of marijuana alone. However in rare instances a user may experience a psychotic reaction to the drug or high levels of anxiety--in some cases, these side effects could lead a user to seek medical treatment. Such negative effects are often experienced after consuming edible marijuana products, which are often more potent and take longer to induce intoxication.

Method of consumption alters impairment profile. Several factors influence intoxication onset, intensity, and duration, including method of consumption, type of marijuana product consumed, product potency, and user characteristics.

Marijuana and related products can be consumed in several ways, including inhalation (either by smoking or vaporizing) of dried plant matter or concentrates (such as hashish or kief), oral ingestion (edibles, capsules, infusible oils), sublingual ingestion (lozenges), or topical application (lotions, salves, oils).

Smoking often causes almost immediate intoxication, with impairment typically lasting 2 to 4 hours. Intoxication onset is more delayed for other methods, sometimes up to two hours for edibles--and impairment may last much longer.

Product potency is dependent on THC levels. Potency varies considerably across marijuana products and can influence the degree of impairment. Smokable marijuana plant matter can range anywhere from 8 percent to 30 percent THC, whereas high-quality hash oil up to 80 percent THC. There is evidence that marijuana products have become more potent over time.

User characteristics will also influence impairment. For example, chronic users may experience less acute impairment than non-chronic users. marijuana and impaired driving

Marijuana intoxication can cause impaired driving, thereby increasing the risks of accidents. Marijuana legalization is associated with an increase in impaired driving.

Marijuana impairment degrades cognition and motor skills. Marijuana alters a user's perception. As such, most studies agree that marijuana use results in impaired coordination, memory, associative learning, attention, cognitive flexibility, and reaction time. Driving ability is thereby degraded to some degree--but by how much remains a matter of study and is subject to several factors, including the level of impairment and user characteristics.

For example, there is some evidence that user impairment may also result in limited ``compensatory defensive'' driving, in which a user drives more carefully to compensate for a degradation in motor functioning--but this may only mitigate degradation for some skills and may not apply to non-chronic users.

Marijuana impairment increases the risk of accidents. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that acute impairment increases the risk of traffic accidents--though the magnitude of the increased risk is still a matter of study and can vary widely, depending on the study.

One literature review found evidence that 20 to 30 percent of crashes involving marijuana occurred because of the marijuana use. (This compares to roughly 85 percent of crashes involving alcohol that occurred because of alcohol use.) The review estimated that the crash risk increased 22 percent while under the influence of marijuana, controlling for concurrent alcohol use.

Another review found that someone driving under the influence of marijuana is 1.65 times more likely to be culpable in a fatal accident.

The greater the impairment, the worse the driving abilities. As noted above, level of impairment can influence the degree to which driving ability degrades. Indeed, there is evidence that the more impaired the driver, the worse their driving abilities.

Mixing marijuana and alcohol produces additive effects. There is evidence that mixing marijuana and alcohol increases impairment greater than the net effects of each individual substance. There also may exist the possibility for alcohol to increase THC levels. Potential compensatory defensive driving is nullified when a user mixes alcohol and marijuana.

The number of crash rates could increase after legalization. Researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) since 2014 have been examining how legalization has affected crash rates and insurance claims, and evidence is emerging that crash rates go up when states legalize recreational use and retail sales of marijuana. The most recent of these studies released in June 2021 by the IIHS, shows that injury and fatal crash rates in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington jumped in the months following relaxation of marijuana laws in each state. The five states experienced a 6 percent increase in injury crash rates and a 4 percent increase in fatal crash rates, compared with other Western states where recreational marijuana use was illegal during the study period.

However, only the increase in injury crash rates was statistically significant. These findings are consistent with a 2018 IIHS study of police-reported crashes, most of which did not involve injuries or fatalities. This study found that legalization of retail sales in Colorado, Oregon andWashington was associated with a 5 percent higher crash rate compared with the neighboring control states.

Fatal crashes involving drivers who tested positive for THC have increased. Some studies indicate that more people with ``detectible'' levels of THC in their bloodstreams were involved in fatal accidents after legalization. However, as discussed below, the mere presence of THC does not necessarily indicate marijuana impairment. Furthermore, regarding fatal crash rates overall, at least one study found no significant annual changes in crash fatality rates forColorado and Washington when compared to 8 control states.

A 2020 study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety shows that the percentage of drivers in Washington involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana increased 100 percent after the state made the drug legal for recreational use. The study considered the presence of detectable THC in the blood of fatal-crash-involved drIvers. In general, the presence of detectable THC in blood suggests, but does not conclusively prove, that a person has recently used cannabis.

Collision claim frequency appears to have increased. Insurance records show an increase in claims under collision coverage, which pays for damage to an at-fault, insured driver's own vehicle, according to HLDI's latest analysis, The legalization of retail sales in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington was associated with a 4 percent increase in collision claim frequency compared with the other Western states from 2012 to 2019. The 4 percent decline is down slightly from the 6 percent increase HLDI identified in a previous study, which covered 2012 to 2018.

Higher risk demographics also have higher rates of marijuana-impaired driving. Younger drivers are at greater risk of traffic accidents than older drivers. Younger male drivers are at high risk of traffic accidents. Early evidence suggests that younger male drivers are most likely to drive under the influence of marijuana.

Use of recreational marijuana impairs driving even when the driver is not high. A study published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence suggests that chronic, heavy use of recreational marijuana impairs driving skills even when the driver is not high. The researchers used a driving simulator to evaluate the potential impact of cannabis use on driving performance. The study concluded that driving impairment was significantly worse among the study participants who began using marijuana regularly before age 16. The study, by researchers at Harvard Medical School's McLean Hospital, found that cannabis users hit more pedestrians, exceeded the speed limit more often, and drove through more red lights compared with non-users. At the time of the study, the marijuana users had not used for at least 12 hours and were not intoxicated. Determining intoxication: ``THC persistence''

A key issue raised in many studies examining the effects of marijuana-impaired driving and its risks is ``THC persistence.'' Unlike alcohol, THC levels in a user's body may not be an accurate indication of impairment.

Compared with marijuana, determining alcohol intoxication is relatively straightforward. The human body processes alcohol at a rate that allows blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to closely correlate with intoxication, making it an effective and accurate benchmark for measuring impairment. ____ [Feb. 17, 2022] Is Marijuana Addictive? (By Ashley Olivine, Ph.D., MPH) (Medically reviewed by Isaac O. Opole, MD, PhD)

In light of the legalization of marijuana, many people have wondered about the substance, its safety, and whether it's addictive. Marijuana--also called weed, cannabis, and other names--is a species of plant that is used as a medical and recreational drug.

People can become addicted to marijuana. While it is possible to try and use the substance without becoming addicted, that is not the case for everyone. There are risks of use, even medicinally, and addiction is one of them.

Like any drug used medicinally, the potential risks of use are weighed against the potential benefits when deciding what should and should not be tried. Learn more about marijuana addiction, risk factors, effects on the brain, and more. Is marijuana addictive?

While some people can try and use marijuana without becoming addicted, it can also be addictive for some people. Marijuana use disorder, also known as cannabis use disorder, is when the use of marijuana negatively impacts a person's health or life but they continue to use it anyway.

Although the numbers are not entirely known, it is estimated that 6.3 percent of adults have experienced marijuana use disorder, and that percentage is increasing. As many as 30 percent of people who use marijuana may experience marijuana use disorder. Marijuana use can also be associated with addiction and dependency. Addiction vs. Dependency

Addiction and dependency are two terms that are often used interchangeably. There are differences between the two.

Addiction happens when a person uses a substance such as alcohol, marijuana, or another drug in excess. It is usually marked by a change in behavior, where the person becomes consistently focused on using that substance regardless of potential negative outcomes. Addiction can be physical, psychological, or both at the same time.

Substance dependence, also called chemical dependence, is when a person experiences physical dependence on a substance but is not addicted to it. One example is when a person who has taken a prescription medication for a long time stops taking that medication and experiences physical or mental withdrawal symptoms. Dependence symptoms can be cognitive, behavioral, and physical. Dependence presents as a pattern. A person first uses a substance such as marijuana repeatedly. After regular use over time, they build a tolerance, where the effects of the substance are not noticed as much or at all. The person experiences symptoms when they stop using the substance, which makes them feel the need to use it again. Symptoms of Cannabis Use Disorder

Cannabis use disorder, or marijuana use disorder, is when a person continues to use the substance even though they experience negative health or life effects from use. Symptoms include excessive focus on marijuana use; ignoring school, work, or relationships; other problems caused by marijuana use such as an inability to resist cravings; and more. These can range from mild to severe depending on the person. Symptoms may include

Changes in sleep, appetite, or mood.

Cravings to use marijuana.

Decreased control of marijuana use.

Decreased fulfillment of responsibilities.

Decline in school, work, or athletic performance.

Headache, abdominal pain, chills, or sweating when not using.

Needing to use more to get the same effect.

Negative feelings associated with use.

Overuse of marijuana and using more than intended.

Risk-taking behaviors.

Social withdrawal related to marijuana use. Risk Factors

One of the biggest risk factors of marijuana addiction may be age. People are up to seven times as likely to experience marijuana use disorder when they start using before the age of 18. Additionally, men are twice as likely as women to experience marijuana use disorder. Other risk factors include

Family history of substance use disorder.

Friends and peers who use marijuana.

Adverse childhood experiences such as sexual abuse.

Use of cigarettes.

Teenage Drug Addiction: A Complete Guide.

Effect on the Brain.

Marijuana use has a negative impact on the brain. THC, which stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, is the part of the cannabis plant that causes the mental effect. THC can cause changes to the brain that impact the structure and ability to function, including learning, memory, cognitive ability, and behavior--including future substance use. This is an increased concern for younger people exposed to THC, including babies during pregnancy.

The use of marijuana has also been found to be connected with lower IQ scores, compromised memory and cognitive ability, and decreased performance on tests. The negative effects of use appear to be more of an issue for those who use more often and over a longer period of time. However, research is limited and the details of the negative effects on the brain are not fully understood. Is recreational marijuana to blame?

The negative effects of marijuana are not limited to recreational marijuana. Medicinal marijuana use comes with risks too. Like other medicinal treatments for medical conditions, medicinal marijuana can have negative effects even though it is used to treat medical conditions.

Additionally, over 80 percent of people who use medicinal marijuana also use it recreationally. This can lead to more use and an increased risk of marijuana use disorder.

Medicinal Use of Marijuana.

Medicinal marijuana is used to treat and manage a variety of medical concerns, including physical and mental health challenges. Despite the risks, studies of medicinal marijuana use have shown effectiveness. Nearly 90 percent of people who use medicinal marijuana claim that it helps them to manage their disease and symptoms, and many find that they are able to decrease their use of other medications. The Debate Over the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Use

Conditions commonly treated with medical marijuana include:

Alzheimer's disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, (ALS), Anxiety, Cancer chemotherapy side effects, Crohn's disease, Depression, Glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, Inflammation, Multiple sclerosis muscle symptoms, Nausea and vomiting, Pain, Post- traumatic stress disorder or PTSD, Seizures and epilepsy, Marijuana Addiction Criteria.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) classifies the diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorder. Use of the substance must be associated with impairment or distress. Diagnosis of this condition requires at least two of the 11 criteria within one year. Cannabis Use Disorder DSM-5 Criteria

More use than intended.

Unable to decrease use despite desire or effort.

Excessive time spent on activities related to use, including getting access and recovering.

Urges or cravings.

Work, school, or home obligations not fulfilled due to use.

A problem of social or interpersonal problems associated with use and continued use.

Withdrawal from social, work, or recreational activities due to use despite importance.

Physically hazardous use.

Knowingly experiencing problems associated with use and continued use.

Tolerance, defined by either needing more to get the effect or decreased effect with the same amount.

Withdrawal, defined by either DSM-5 cannabis withdrawal symptoms or use of a substance to address symptoms of withdrawal. Help for Cannabis Use Disorder

Cannabis use disorder is treatable. This condition can be diagnosed by a healthcare professional such as a medical doctor or psychologist. Treatment methods include psychotherapy (talk therapy) and medications. More specifically, motivational interviewing, contingency management, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may be used. Medications to control cravings may be used alongside nonmedicinal interventions. Substance Use Helpline

If you or a loved one are struggling with substance use or addiction, contact the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) National Helpline for information on support and treatment facilities in your area.

For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database. ____ [From NBC News, Oct. 18, 2018]

Legalized Marijuana Linked to a Sharp Rise in Car Crashes (By Paul A. Eisenstein)

There has been an increase by up to 6 percent in the number of highway crashes in four of the states where the recreational use of marijuana has been legalized, according to a pair of new studies.

The new reports do not prove there's a direct risk caused by the use of marijuana among motorists, but they raise caution flags, especially since there is no easy way to test drivers to be sure if they are, in fact, under the influence of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, said David Harkey, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Highway Loss Data Institute.

``It's certainly early in the game,'' Harkey told NBC News. But, he warned, ``We're seeing a trend in the wrong direction.''

There are now 30 states that have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, with Oklahoma the most recent to join the list. Nine states and the District of Columbia now have legalized recreational use. With a Gallup poll showing 64 percent public support, more states are set to follow, including Michigan, where recreational use is on the November ballot.

Since the legalization wave began, safety and health experts have been trying to measure the potential influence on highway safety, though the results so far have been inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory.

But this is the second year in a row where the IIHS found a troubling trend. A year ago, the non-profit group looked at three states, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. This year, it added Nevada to the list. Harkey said the IIHS also looked at highway crash data in surrounding states to try to control for factors like weather and the economy.

The studies looked at police reports and insurance claims, finding crashes rose between 5.2 percent and 6 percent in states with legalized recreational marijuana compared to neighboring states where such use remained illegal.

The IIHS also conducted a street-side study of marijuana use and found something Harkey said he saw as particularly concerning. While those under the influence of alcohol tend to either be driving alone or with other adults, about 14 percent of those confirmed to be using pot had a child in their vehicle. That reflects the fact, he added, that marijuana use isn't confined to evenings and other times when adults are more likely to drink--and abuse--alcohol.

What is unclear is whether that reflects the increasing use of recreational pot or the consumption of medical marijuana to deal with issues like pain or glaucoma, something a patient may time to need.

Harkey cautioned there are limits to what the studies show. There is a ``correlation,'' reflecting the fact that crashes rose once pot became legal, but that is not the same as ``causation,'' he added, meaning other, unseen factors could be at work.

That could help explain why earlier studies have often conflicted over the effects of marijuana on highway safety. One, released by the University of Colorado in 2014, showed a surge in fatalities involving stoned drivers. But a study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Virginia a year later found no clear increase in risk.

Part of the problem is that it is difficult to accurately measure how pot impacts drivers. ``Many studies, using a variety of methods, have attempted to estimate the risk of driving after use of marijuana,'' a NHTSA report advised Congress last year. ``While useful in identifying how marijuana affects the performance of driving tasks, experimental and observational studies do not lend themselves to predicting real-world crash risk.''

Police have a particularly difficult challenge because of the way marijuana works in the body. Blood alcohol levels provide a direct correlation showing how much a motorist has had to drink, with those levels dropping rapidly as someone sobers up. But while THC levels spike after smoking weed or eating a consumable, the psychoactive ingredient remains in the body for weeks, long after it has stopped having any impact.

With so many more states set to permit the use of the drug, Harkey said regulators, law enforcement, and medical authorities need to address ``the challenge'' and come up with better ways of determining when a driver might be operating under the influence of marijuana. ____ [From the Denver Post, Aug. 25, 2017] Are You High? The Science of Testing for Marijuana Impairment Is Hazy, and Evolving. Lawmakers, Police, Prosecutors Grapple With How To Define Marijuana Impairment. (By David Migoya)

There was a time when marijuana was illegal everywhere and testing for it was as easy as could be.

It didn't matter the level of cannabinoids found in a person's body. If it was there, they were breaking the law.

It's different now.

The tests have changed from depositing a urine sample into a cup to drawing blood or offering oral fluids. Also different is the particular type of cannabinoid--the chemical compound that reacts in the brain--detected by any of those tests.

The evolving science of testing for marijuana, and the lack of consensus over how to measure impairment, is a defining feature of the drug. It separates marijuana from alcohol and creates challenges for lawmakers, police and prosecutors, not to mention users.

The issue is critical as the state moves forward in determining how to handle driving under the influence of pot. A Denver Post investigation found that the numbers of drivers in fatal crashes testing positive for marijuana--though not necessarily high--is rising sharply, and coroners are finding higher levels of potency in their tests.

The cannabinoid most widely tested for in the past--known as carboxy THC--is actually an inactive metabolite that only indicates prior marijuana use, sometimes as long as a month ago. In time, other metabolites of THC--short for tetrahydrocannabinal, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana--were found to be better indicators of recent use and, some say, impairment.

``Urine testing was established many years ago, and, at the time, a test was developed to look for carboxy THC since it's what's there in the highest amount,'' said Sarah Urfer, president and owner of ChemaTox, a Boulder lab that handles DUI screening for about three quarters of the law enforcement agencies in Colorado. ``Nobody thought it mattered what you were looking for . . . . Early on, scientists didn't know for sure which of the cannabinoids were responsible for impairment. They'd measure carboxy and try to correlate it to impairment.''

But THC is not the same as alcohol. It reacts differently in the body, it metabolizes differently and its impairing impact is different. Unlike the 0.08 blood-alcohol level that's widely accepted as indicative of drunken driving, establishing a credible level for THC has been elusive.

It is generally accepted that two standard drinks--about 1/ 2 ounce of alcohol--in an hour will raise someone's blood- alcohol level to 0.05, approaching the legal limit. One drink is a 12-ounce beer, a 1.5-ounce shot of distilled spirit, or a 6-ounce glass of wine.

For pot, the differences are striking since it depends on the manner ingested--smoked, edible, concentrate--and how much. A Johns Hopkins University study from 1995 found that four puffs of smokable marijuana with 1.75 percent THC content translates to 57 nanograms per milliliter, and 10 puffs as much as 99 ng/mL. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says levels of 100-200 ng/mL are ``routinely encountered'' after smoking but quickly dissipate. Concentrate levels for vapor ingestion are typically higher, as well as for edibles, although the rate of distribution into the blood varies considerably. feds question tests

NHTSA last month acknowledged these gray areas in a report to Congress that not only called into question the reliability of tests to find THC but also noted the problem with determining whether a driver is too stoned to be behind the wheel.

In fact, the NHTSA report notes that even though ``research has demonstrated the potential of marijuana to impair driving-related skills,'' it lays out a number of other studies that show pot might not be as bad as the better- understood effects of alcohol on driving.

``Many studies, using a variety of methods, have attempted to estimate the risk of driving after use of marijuana,'' the NHTSA report noted. ``While useful in identifying how marijuana affects the performance of driving tasks, experimental and observational studies do not lend themselves to predicting real-world crash risk.''

Finding THC isn't so difficult. Making any kind of universally accepted determination from the results, however, seems to freeze the legal world in its tracks.

``Testing for THC in whole blood isn't actually that hard,'' Urfer said. ``Where the issue comes is with interpretation and roadside testing.''

Some widely cited studies have offered differing information about the impact of marijuana on driving. And not all sides agree which studies are right and which are not.

In 2012, a medical study published in Clinical Chemistry journal found ``cannabis smoking increases lane weaving and impaired cognitive functions,'' and that certain THC concentration levels ``are associated with substantial driving impairment, particularly in occasional smokers.''

Then came a University of Colorado study--released in 2014, the year recreational sales of the drug were launched in the state--that found the proportion of drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana use had risen to 10 percent in 2011, up from 5.9 percent in 2009.

But in 2015, NHTSA released a study it conducted in Virginia that concluded marijuana users had the same chance of crashing as sober drivers. At nearly the same time, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission said it believed marijuana doubles the risk of being in a fatal crash.

Where experts say impairment becomes most noted and is most alarming to law enforcement because of its prevalence is the use of alcohol with marijuana, apparently heightening the effects of each.

In Colorado last year, nearly 36 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes who tested positive for marijuana use also had consumed alcohol, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

``We're in the infancy with this, and it's very much an unknown since we don't have the data.'' Greenwood Village Police Chief John Jackson said. ``We spent 25 or 30 years figuring out where we were are with alcohol, and finally got to breathalyzers. There is no field test for marijuana yet. You will not convince those who believe it's safer that it's not. It becomes so emotional to the point of irrational.'' differing approaches

Colorado has established that a THC level of 5 ng/mL is enough to charge someone with DUI. Unlike alcohol, where a reading of 0.08 is enough to convict someone of drunken driving--known as per se evidence that a driver is impaired-- THC levels are only considered as ``permissible inference'' of impairment.

That means that despite the level of Delta-9 THC found in a driver's blood, a Colorado jury or judge decides whether the driver was impaired or not.

Washington and Montana, unlike Colorado, treat the same 5 ng/mL level of THC as if it were alcohol, where no other proof of impairment is needed to convict a driver charged with DUI. However, 12 states--including Arizona and Utah-- have zero-tolerance policies, so any detectable amount of THC can lead to a conviction.

In its recent report to Congress, NHTSA questioned the THC levels states use to charge someone with impaired driving, calling them ``artificial.''

``A number of states have set a THC limit . . . indicating that if a suspect's THC concentration is above that level, . . . then the suspect is to be considered impaired,'' the agency said in its report. ``This per se limit appears to have been based on something other than scientific evidence.''

Urfer agreed.

``Permissible inference is a government-derived number that was part of the discussion around legalization.'' said Urfer, who spoke before the committees that prepared for Amendment 64, the voter initiative that legalized recreational marijuana use in Colorado. ``I've always said 5 (ng/mL) was a bad number.''

That's because of how THC works its way through a person's system, Urfer said, noting that if a single number had to be used, then using none at all makes the best sense ``since it's already illegal to drive when under the influence of a drug.''

``Impairment drops off over the next two to four hours,'' she said of marijuana use. ``The levels of THC drop off astronomically fast. But that drop-off in blood is distributing into the brain and the muscles of the body. And impairment comes from the brain.''

That means blood levels of THC are probably far lower at the time a test is done than at the time of a crash or other traffic infraction. Yet, the THC is still in the driver's system--just not in their blood. That's led lawyers and others to contend that someone isn't actually impaired if their THC level is below 5 ng/mL.

``The public is misinterpreting the statement that you can't tell if someone's high because of the THC level,'' Urfer said. ``You can't directly correlate a number to impairment. The blood level for THC does not represent the same as alcohol does.''

THC levels hit their peak nearly instantaneously at the time someone uses marijuana and dissipate very quickly. What's detected in the blood is typically much lower than it had been at the time of use, especially when a sample is taken long after a crash occurs.

``The level in the blood is dropping, but the level in the brain is not,'' Urfer said. ``The high is caused by the level in the brain, not in the blood. And no one has published a study that says it's safe to drive high.''

As expected, there has been strong push-back from the marijuana industry, which says the only thing understood about THC levels is that very little is understood.

``There needs to be better understanding about what constitutes impairment,'' said Kristi Kelly, executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group, a Colorado trade organization. ``The science on cannabis metabolism doesn't support the legal 5 ng/mL limit in Colorado, which can be present for days and weeks after consumption.''

Roadside testing could be improving, with the advent of a saliva test that could bring more immediate and reliable information about the level of active THC in a person's system. The Colorado State Patrol has been using it in preliminary tests to determine its reliability.

``The inference is that at or above 5 (ng/ml.), you're high, but there should be no inference that below 5 you're sober,'' Urfer said. ``But people genuinely believe they can use an impairing substance, feel high and still think they can be safe to drive. They rationalize: `Marijuana is legal. Why can't I drive on it?' They say it all the time. It's odd.'' ____ [From Bloomberg News, Jan. 24, 2022] U.S. Grapples With How To Gauge Just How High Cannabis Users Are (By Tiffany Kary) Impairment tests are becoming big business

``Walk a straight line'' isn't going to cut it anymore as police and employers grapple with growing use of marijuana.

Earlier this month, a study in a peer-reviewed journal became the latest sign that there's a paradigm shift going on in the nascent business of detecting impairment levels. The article, which appeared Neuropsychopharmacology, showed that an imaging technique can detect cannabis impairment with 76% accuracy. That's better than the 68% accuracy of field tests that employ traditional law enforcement protocols such as walking a straight line and examining a subject's pupils.

The technique, called functional near-infrared spectroscopy, measures changes in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. It shows that impaired brains look different than non-impaired brains in a way that doesn't necessarily correlate with the amount of THC in a person's system. THC detection in saliva or on the breath has so far been the main focus of tests. The study was carried out on 169 people at Massachusetts General Hospital, which is part of Harvard Medical School.

The study is a big deal for the cannabis industry, since the lack of a clear test to gauge intoxication has become a stumbling block for federal legalization. Though links between marijuana and accidents have been hard to draw due to factors such as the frequent mixing of alcohol with drugs, the study estimates that THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, at least doubles the risk of fatal motor vehicle crashes.

The research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice has acknowledged that field sobriety tests and THC levels are unreliable measures of marijuana intoxication. Methods like the ``one-leg stand'' and ``walk 11d turn'' weren't affected by marijuana highs, and some people had poor functions even when their THC levels were low. states' efforts

States have forged ahead nevertheless. According to New Frontier Data, at least five opted protocols that set a legal limit for driving based on the level of THC in the body. That has sparked a lot of interest in tests that can actually measure that level--a scientific challenge unto itself.

``Everybody wants a cannabis breathalyzer--something like what we have for alcohol where you breathe into a device and it tells a THC level and whether that means you're impaired or not,'' said Jodi Gilman, an associate professor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the imaging study. ``But that's not how it works for cannabis, we need a new paradigm.''

Companies have been trying to crack the stoned-test for a while. Hound Labs, which makes a marijuana breathalyzer, said in September it had raised $20 million to scale its product. Cannabix Technologies, Inc. recently reported it had made headway creating a more portable device, while Lifeloc Techtologies Inc. said it was finalizing the platform for a rapid marijuana breathalyzer that could be used for roadside testing.

There are concerns, however, that tests based on THC levels may be unfair to those their system but aren't actually impaired. This can be the case for some who consumed cannabis days ago, or with frequent users who've built up a tolerance--who may use it for medical reasons.

``You wouldn't want to penalize that person,'' Gilman told me. ``What this technology will do is differentiate impaired from not-impaired, which is different than distinguishing cannabis from no-cannabis.'' Impairment app

One company that uses a similar approach is Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Impairment Science, which has an app called Druid to measure response times and motor skills through a series of tests on a screen. The methods let the app gauge impairment, regardless of whether the cause was alcohol, marijuana, or something else. The company aims to raise as much as $1.2 million in seed funding, according to Chief Executive Officer Robert Schiller.

Druid is being pitched to construction companies, and Impairment Science recently struck a deal with Anheuser-Busch InBev SA's Grupo Modelo, which will promote the app in an effort to reduce drunk driving in the Mexican state of Zacatecas. Schiller said the company plans to announce more corporate partnerships in the near future.

Still, there are no easy solutions. Druid's app requires that people take the test more that once in order to gauge impairment compared to a baseline score. The company is researching a product where tests could be one-offs, which would appeal to law enforcement.

The method used by Gilman also has its limitations. It relies on an imaging device from NirX Medical Technologies, which still costs around $40,000.

For better or worse, the techniques used by Gilman's study and Druid's app will also pick up forms of impairment that arise from issues other than marijuana, such as fatigue, illness or chronic medical conditions. That could be a good thing for public safety--especially at a time where perception-altering drugs like psilocybin are on the rise, and other drugs like opiates also create risks in driving and high-risk industries--but it could create other problems.

It's not hard to envision a future where people could be taken aside and wired up for a quick scan that checks their brain for telltale signs of impairment. Then comes the real work: Employers, insurers and police will have to figure out what to do with the information. Number of the week

The number of U.S. states that have zero-tolerance laws prohibiting driving with any amount of THC or its metabolites in the body, according to New Frontier Data. Quote of the week

``Cannabis definitely impacts areas of the brain that affect decision making and impulse control. And that's very much what driving is,'' said Rebecca Siegel, a clinical psychiatrist and author of the book ``The Brain on Cannabis: What You Should Know About Recreational and Medical Marijuana.'' What you need to know

Eleusis, a health-care company focused on using psychedelic drugs as medicines, is going public through a merger with a blank-check firm.

Thailand plans to remove marijuana from its list of controlled substances, paving the way to decriminalization.

Mississippi could be the next state to put a cannabis law on the books.

A New Hampshire court found that a worker who was fired after he told his employer he started using cannabis when his doctor prescribed it for PTSD may have a viable claim under state disability bias law. ____

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I mentioned previously, fails to appropriately fund the police in all the States that will be facing the challenges that we face in Oregon.

This is not a question of money. The bill, as drawn, will be raising literally billions of dollars at 8 percent tax over the next how many years--billions. Somehow, some of that money has to make its way into law enforcement.

Without law enforcement, Mr. Speaker, you will see situations like we have in southern Oregon replicated across the Nation, regardless of the optimistic thought that somehow the cartels no longer have the monopoly and, therefore, will go away. That is not going to be the case as long as there is a higher price. In many cases, it is going to be a much higher price for legally produced marijuana.

The bill fails to address impairment. My friends, many of them in the law enforcement space, including my brother, a former county sheriff, have said this is a huge problem where we don't know when people are driving impaired. Studies are ongoing.

Why are we broadening this problem when we don't know how to charge those who are driving under the influence?

Of course, as we have heard, it fails to address the ever-increasing potency of the drug. It fails to address the age at which marijuana can be legally used.

What is that about? We know this drug adversely affects particularly young men's brain development all the way up to age 26, yet this bill says nothing about it.

It fails to address the differences between marijuana and hemp. Some would say, well, that is such a small issue. It is a huge issue. It is a huge issue, and it needs to be addressed.

This bill is the proper vehicle to address these issues. I see that there are some amendments being brought which perhaps will at least go partially in that direction. But the bill itself and the legalization are premature, given the nature of those amendments.

This is an untimely and incomplete bill. Its greatest failure is in not recognizing and addressing the damage the drug will do to our kids and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would authorize $10 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study on how certain technologies can help law enforcement officers detect whether a driver is impaired by marijuana.

Impaired driving is a serious issue that takes thousands of lives every year. Unfortunately, the Democrats only want to address this problem after they create it. Legalizing marijuana will undoubtedly lead to more drivers being impaired by marijuana.

Democrats want to legalize marijuana and then provide law enforcement with a study on how they might be able to detect drivers impaired by marijuana. Why wouldn't we start with giving law enforcement the resources they need?

This doesn't make any sense, and the lack of support for law enforcement from Democrats in this bill shouldn't surprise us. Nowhere in this bill is there any funding for law enforcement related to marijuana. Let's fix the existing problems before making more.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the proposed amendment.

This amendment is a great example of how Democrats legislate: Make a bunch of drastic changes and then consider the consequences.

The amendment calls for two studies to be conducted, after the enactment of the bill, to evaluate how State legislation on marijuana has impacted those States.

The first study will be conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on the impact of State legalization of recreational marijuana on the workplace. The second study will be conducted by the Department of Education on the impact of legalization to schools and school-aged children.

The amendment also requires the Department of Education to develop best practices for educators and administrators to protect children from negative impacts.

This amendment recognizes the fact that the majority is blindly leading us down the path of marijuana legalization. The information to be provided by these studies would better serve this body and the children of America if we had it before legalization.

Last year, the percentage of American employees testing positive for drugs hit a two-decade high. This jump was driven by an increase in positive marijuana tests.

This amendment is merely window dressing on a bad and incomplete bill. Rather than tackle the actual problem of marijuana abuse at the workplace, which could have disastrous consequences, Democrats simply want to study the issue.

This amendment is a tacit admission that they know this bill is flawed, and it is a ploy by the majority to say they addressed one of the flaws.

I fear the information that the studies will reveal may come too late for many if this bill were to become law.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I agree there has to be the proper determination of when you are impaired after you have used marijuana. I made that argument in my discussion of the bill.

The issue is one of timing. It is not just impairment. There are many other things in the bill that need to be addressed that aren't.

In this rush to legalize, what we have is a lot of assuming, as was just suggested, that everybody is already using it, so why bother? Well, a lot of people are. But after it becomes federally legalized, more will be using it. Thus, the danger level will increase.

We can't sit here and say there are no consequences of legalization. By that, I mean the same number of people using it. The questions become: When are we going to do this? Why wasn't it done earlier? Why wasn't it done yet? One of the reasons is that it is really hard to make this determination.

What I am saying is, it is a matter of timing. But it is not just this issue; there are many others.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is April Fools' Day, so maybe this is a joke.

This amendment would require Federal agencies to review every decision to rescind or deny a security clearance since 1971 to determine if it was based on marijuana usage. Then, the agency would have to track down every person who was denied a clearance due to marijuana use. The agency would then let them know that the decision will be reassessed unless the person objects.

This is crazy. It creates a huge burden on Federal agencies for what? Even if this bill were to become law, the denial of these security clearances was based on a person's willful violation of a law at the time.

When agencies are assessing whether these people should have access to national security sensitive information, the consideration isn't whether the person uses marijuana. It is whether the person is willing to undermine the rule of law.

If they can't follow this Nation's laws, then we can't expect them to follow the processes to protect our most sensitive information.

Further, this amendment reaches back more than 50 years. How many of these people still need, want, or are even eligible for security clearances?

No one gets a security clearance just because you want one. You can't just walk up off the street and apply for it. You need to be employed with the Federal Government or a government contractor, and your employer must need you to have access to the information.

Very few people who were denied a security clearance in 1980 are still employed in or even qualify for positions that would require security clearances. Some of the people we are talking about may be retirees in their eighties or nineties. Many of them may have representative payees who are their children or grandchildren. Why would we want to expose the fact that their father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother was a marijuana abuser?

The gentleman from Maryland wants the Federal Government to re-create the security clearance backlog that the Trump administration just cleared up for unneeded reviews and to resurface private information. This amendment makes little sense.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I just point out that I didn't concede anything that I recognize. If you thought I did, please rethink it.

I want to point out that the security clearance isn't just for Federal employees. It is for private contractors and people seeking security clearances. All I am saying is, one can refer to our ``bureaucrats'' as though they don't have other things to do. They do lots of very important things. I would suggest this falls pretty low on that list.

It is an interesting amendment, but I urge opposition.

Mr. Speaker,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source