Legalize Medical Marijuana in Minnesota

1.                    Introduction

            Gretel Botker is a seven year old Minnesotan living with an aggressive form of epilepsy; Gretel suffers from numerous seizures throughout the day, and no treatment plans have ever significantly reduced her episodes. Sadly, it seemed as if there was nothing that could be done for Greta’s condition. Then, the Botkers received some hope when they heard of a strain of marijuana called Charlotte’s Web, which has been known to lower seizure rates in kids like Greta. Last fall, Greta and her mother, Maria, moved out to Colorado to enroll Greta in a medical marijuana program, leaving Greta’s father and two sisters behind in Clinton, Minnesota. The Botkers are sad to be separated, but happy for Gretel’s improvement. Since beginning her medical marijuana regimen, Gretel has gone from fifteen seizures each day to four, and has been taken off of three of her five other prescriptions (Brooks, par., 1-3, 11). The legalization of medical marijuana in Minnesota would allow the Botkers to reunite on their family farm in Clinton, and allow for treatment of children like Greta as well as numerous other patients suffering from severe pain. The Minnesotan government could also make a substantial amount of money through fees from applicants. In 2008, Michigan legalized medical marijuana and although they spent $4 million to run the program, they collected over $10 million in applicant fees, and Minnesota could collect a similar amount of revenue (Brooks, par. 24-25).

            On the other hand, marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States. Use of marijuana has been increasing among adolescents since 2007, while the belief that marijuana use is harmful has been decreasing. Regardless of public opinion, marijuana causes changes in perception and mood, disrupts coordination, memory and learning, and increases the difficulty of problem solving. Repeated use of marijuana by adolescents negatively affects brain development and reduces cognitive abilities in adults who began smoking marijuana when they were teenagers. Marijuana negatively affects other parts of the body as well; regular users are nearly five times more likely to have a heart attack just one hour after smoking it. The federal government currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, with no relevant use as a medicine and with high risk for abuse and dependency: nine percent of users becoming addicted and even higher rates of addiction for users who begin when they are teens and daily users. Although marijuana has been pointed to as a legitimate treatment for conditions such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, and epilepsy, clinical evidence has not yet shown that marijuana has viable medical value and it has not been approved for therapeutic use by the FDA (United States, par., 2,7,10,12,18). The legalization of medical marijuana in Minnesota would go against federal law and would cause more damage than it supposedly could treat.

            These opposing view-points raise the question, should the Minnesota State Legislature pass HF 1818 to legalize the use of medical marijuana because marijuana is an effective treatment for some diseases and because the state could increase revenue through taxes and fees on medical marijuana and could boost the Minnesotan economy, or should the Minnesota State Legislature reject HF 1818 because marijuana is an addictive, psychoactive drug and legalization for medical purposes could lead to increased use of recreational marijuana, endangering public safety and because over time, damages caused by medical marijuana will outweigh its tax revenue so legalization will end up costing more money than it generates?

1.                 Background

            Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drugs in the United States, but some people argue that marijuana should be considered a medicine. In the last twenty years, whether or not medical marijuana should be legal has rapidly become one of the largest social problems in the United States. The event catalyst which began medical marijuana legalization in US states occurred in 1996, when California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana. In addition to Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana, there are now 20 states which allow the use of cannabis for medical treatment and 14 others, including Minnesota, are debating bills to legalize medical marijuana. These state laws and bills exist despite the fact that marijuana is completely illegal at the federal level, classified as a Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value and having a high risk of abuse (United States, par., 2). The federal laws are, however, subject to change; The Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration are supportive of medical researchers who are studying marijuana and intend to conduct clinical trials and adhere to the FDA’s drug approval process (Meyer). To be considered a valid medical treatment, a substance is required to have measurable ingredients with consistency between units. Because marijuana’s chemical composition is inconsistent from plant to plant and because it is most normally consumed by smoking, it is hard to accurately judge marijuana’s place as a medicine (United States, par., 10).

            At the beginning of the Minnesota State Legislature’s 2013-2014 session, key players in Minnesota’s debate for medical cannabis, Rep. Carly Melin (DFL – Hibbing) and Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL – Minneapolis) initiated the public policy response by introducing HF 1818 to legalize the use of medical marijuana for seriously ill Minnesotans (“Legislation” par. 1). The bill would allow patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, Lou Gehrig’s disease, Tourette’s Syndrome, Crohn’s Disease, multiple sclerosis, severe pain or nausea, wasting syndrome, seizures or severe and frequent muscle spasms to receive medical marijuana from non-profit dispensaries and issue qualifying patients with medical marijuana identification cards (Williams, par., 8). Major stakeholders who want to see HF 1818 pass are patients suffering from any disease which would qualify them to receive medical marijuana as well as the family members of qualifying patients.

            The main opponent of medical marijuana legalization in Minnesota is law enforcement. The police force acts as both a stakeholder and a key player in this issue. Should medicinal marijuana fall into the possession of people to whom the drug was not prescribed and choose to abuse it, the police would be responsible for more drug busts. Their concern is the major element of harm associated with medical marijuana: people who do not suffer from a disease qualifying them to receive the drug will obtain possession of it and use it for non-medicinal purposes, and jeopardizing public safety. Executive Director of Minnesota’s Sheriff’s Association James Franklin says, “Our position has always been that we’re not in favor of another drug becoming available on our streets here in Minnesota and affecting public safety” (Williams, par., 5).  What makes the police a key player is their leverage in this debate; Governor Mark Dayton has made his public policy response clear by stating time and time again that he would not approve a medical marijuana bill unless law enforcement supports it (Brooks, par., 9).

            This battle between the police force and the severely ill truly makes this issue a law vs. ethics value tension. Objectively, marijuana is illegal because it is a dangerous, psychoactive drug with damaging side effects, but on the other hand, marijuana is known to sooth severe pain of patients suffering from debilitating diseases. This raises the subjective question, which obligation is more important for the Minnesotan government to keep: easing the pain of the violently ill, or keeping the most popular illegal drug in the country out of the hands of those who want to use it recreationally?

            If implementation of HF 1818 went perfectly, medicinal marijuana would never fall into the hands of unqualified people or organizations, but there is always the possibility of medical marijuana being exploited. This is another factor which must be considered. Treating patients with severe pain and helping them regain normalcy is important, but so is keeping non-patients from consuming a dangerous substance which endangers their lives and the lives of people around them. In order for a medical marijuana decision to be made in Minnesota, state representatives must decide if the social and economic benefits outweigh the social and economic costs of passing HF 1818.

1.              Social Costs and Benefits

Whether or not the Minnesota State Legislature passes HF 1818 to legalize the use of medical marijuana has profound societal implications. This issue can be analyzed using two sociological perspectives: structural functional theory and conflict theory. If viewed using the structural functional perspective, the institution of government is failing to provide relief to patients suffering from diseases which can be treated with medical marijuana. On the other hand, if the conflict theory is applied, the values of law enforcement are clashing with the values of medical care providers and patients.

            Structural functional theory holds that society is composed of interrelated social institutions. Institutions exist to provide social stability and to meet basic human needs. According to the theory, changing norms and values creates instability, and the institution which has failed must reorganize in order to return society to stability. In the case of medical marijuana, Minnesota’s institution of government has an obligation to meet the basic needs of Minnesotan citizens, including allowing access to adequate medical treatments for patients suffering from severe illness or pain. Medical marijuana is known to relieve severe pain, nausea, seizures and spasms symptoms associated with life threatening and debilitating diseases such as Cancer, immune deficiencies, AIDS, and epilepsy (Zawidzki). However, the Minnesota state government has a conflicting obligation to protect its citizens, specifically, by preventing healthy citizens from obtaining medical cannabis for recreational use. Not only is marijuana a gateway drug that can lead to more dangerous substances, it damages the heart, lungs and brain when smoked (“Legalization of Marijuana,” par. 10, 11). Recreational users of medical marijuana wouldn’t only endanger their own lives, but also the lives of others. Drugged driving could become an issue; marijuana delays reflexes like alcohol does, and an increase in the number of drivers who are under the influence of marijuana could mean more car accidents and fatalities (“Legalization of Marijuana,” par. 12). When analyzed using structural functional theory, medical marijuana should be legalized in Minnesota because suffering patients already exist while threats to public safety because of medical marijuana are hypotheticals at this point, and strict regulation on medical cannabis will proactively eliminate these dangers.

            On the other hand, when this issue is analyzed using a conflict theorist’s approach, the issue is considered as a fight between law enforcement and suffering medical patients and their families. Between the two, the police are the group in power because Governor Mark Dayton has said that he would not pass a medical marijuana bill until law enforcement approves (Brooks, par. 9). Until HF 1818 is passed or rejected, these groups are locked in a conflict of values. The police force holds the power and is attempting to maintain order by keeping medical marijuana out of Minnesota, but patients who could benefit from medical marijuana and their families are upset by this inequality and want to see it legalized. The Minnesota medical marijuana issue is also affected by factors outside sociological theories.

            American values also factor into the equation when talking about legalizing medical marijuana. Society views addiction as a negative trait, so potential addiction to medicinal marijuana is listed as a reason to not legalize it. When marijuana is used, dopamine is released into the mesolimbic area of the brain. This neurochemical release of dopamine is what can create dependence on drugs (Joffe, par. 6). This information, while correct, needs to be viewed in proper context. Although marijuana users are at risk of becoming addicts, they are less likely to become dependent than tobacco and alcohol users. Only 9% of marijuana users become addicted to the drug, while 15% of alcohol users and 32% of tobacco users develop dependency (Joy 94, 95). In addition, there are more addictive drugs than marijuana which are already prescribed as medical treatments. Consider morphine, codeine and oxycodone, all of which are more addictive than marijuana yet are legal prescription drugs. Given these facts, risk of dependency is not a logical reason for medical cannabis to be outlawed (Malerba, par. 7).

            The changing legal status of marijuana across the country could also affect the perception of marijuana in society, especially in adolescents. Even though alcohol and tobacco use is illegal for minors, they are the most widely used substances by people younger than 18, so legalization of medical marijuana could lead to an increase in adolescent use of recreational marijuana (Joffe, par. 20). There is evidence that use of recreational marijuana has a negative correlation with the perceived risk. In the years 1978 and 1997, the perceived risk of regular marijuana use was at a low point, whereas the number of high school seniors who admitted to use in the previous month was at a high point (Joffe, par. 24). This information suggests that legalization of medical marijuana would lead to a decrease in the perceived use of marijuana among minors, and therefore lead to an increase in minors’ use. In addition, legalization of medical marijuana could be considered a stepping stone to legalization of recreational marijuana. Minnesotan culture could cease to view marijuana as a threat, and eventually become legal for recreational use.

            Given the risks of legalizing medical marijuana in Minnesota, HF 1818 should still be passed because the negative latent effects of drugged driving, marijuana addiction and increased use of recreational marijuana can be prevented if strict enough regulations are put in place and if the public is educated on the valid uses of marijuana. For some suffering patients, medical marijuana is one of their last options, and it should be available to them for treatment.

1.              Economic Costs and Benefits

The economic costs and benefits of medical marijuana cannot be discussed without observing the effects of scarcity and market failure caused by externalities. Scarcity deals with the fact that there are limited resources available to satisfy unlimited wants and needs of a society. In this case, there are not enough medical treatments for patients with severe pain. Medical marijuana is a possible solution to the scarcity, but the market has failed to provide it because of the negative externalities associated with medical marijuana. Medical marijuana could result in either increased revenue for the state of Minnesota, or it could end up costing the state money because of  the damages it causes. Medical marijuana’s impact on the state budget depends on how the market receives it.

            Legalization of medical marijuana in Minnesota would result in an increase in state revenue. This revenue would be raised through taxes and fees. In 2012, the city of Oakland alone collected $1.4 million in medical cannabis taxes (Cooper, par. 2). Likewise, when Michigan legalized medical marijuana, they collected $10 million in applicant fees, while spending only $4 million to institute their medical cannabis program (Brooks, par. 24, 25). The money that the state collects could be spent to further fund other public goods such as education and infrastructure (“Economic Benefits of Regulation,” par. 5). The revenue gained from medical marijuana would also be consistent and sustainable. Medical cannabis would be an inelastic good, since consumers will be willing to pay high taxes for it because it is seen as a necessary medical treatment. This would enable the state government to implement high taxes on medical marijuana because high prices won’t deter people who need it from purchasing it.

            Unfortunately, the revenue gained from medical marijuana may be offset by damages caused by medical marijuana. Alcohol and tobacco are the two most widely used drugs in the United States, and even though local and state governments collect tax revenue from them, damage caused by their use far out-weigh the money that they bring in. Between alcohol and tobacco, federal and states gain roughly $39.5 billion in taxes each year while their costs total over $385 billion (“Why We Should…” par. 12-13). The costs for the two substances are nearly ten times the tax revenue collected, and the same could happen with medical marijuana. Even though states initially profit from application fees and taxes, medical marijuana could end up costing Minnesota just like tobacco and alcohol. However, HF 1818 dictates that medical marijuana can only be dispensed to qualifying patients or their caregivers, so it will have a far smaller market than that of either alcohol or tobacco (“Legislation,” par. 2-4).

            The negative externalities, or unintended harms caused by the market, of legalizing medical marijuana are comparable to those caused by the legalization of gambling. State governments began to encourage and even promote gambling once it became legal and stopped acknowledging it as a social issue. Legalization of certain gambling did not reduce the levels of illegal gambling in the United States; it actually increased illegal gambling (“Why We Should…” par., 7-8). Something similar could happen with medical marijuana; more marijuana may be sold untaxed through illegal channels, resulting in more costs to the state government. But since medical marijuana will only be available to a small portion of the population and prescription will be required to obtain it, there should not be an issue with government promotion.

            Though it is too soon to see if legalizing medical marijuana in Minnesota would result in costs or gains for the state government, it does have potential to boost the state economy. Legalization would mean the opening of the medical marijuana market in Minnesota, resulting in new businesses and new jobs. Dispensaries would need to hire growers, “budtenders,” store operators, security personnel, lab technicians, and many other people to fill various other positions (Cox, par. 1). Legalization would also result in increased business for existing companies such as accounting firms, security companies, laboratories, legal firms and insurance companies, all of whom would receive business from the dispensaries (Cooper, par. 20).

            Though legalizing medical marijuana may boost the state economy, there are high risks to dispensary owners. Because marijuana is illegal at the federal level, anyone who owns or operates a medical marijuana dispensary would be committing a felony and in danger of being prosecuted by the federal government (“Obama Cracks Down”). Because of federal law, there are many trade-offs associated with opening a dispensary anywhere in the country. But if the potential profit is high enough, suppliers who are willing to take the risk of being arrested for a felony will enter the market due to the law of supply, which states that as the price of a good increases, more suppliers enter the market.

            Since HF 1818 will only legalize marijuana for medical purposes the market for it will be far smaller than the markets for alcohol, tobacco or gambling, so it is improper to assume that the medical marijuana market will behave the same or cost the state government the same as those markets. For that reason, it would be economically beneficial for the state of Minnesota to legalize medical marijuana because it should result in a net increase in revenue for the state and improvement in the strength of the Minnesotan economy, while resulting in minimal costs to the state government.

1.                 Policy Recommendation and Conclusion

            Considering the social and economic costs and benefits for legalizing medical marijuana in Minnesota, the Minnesota State Legislator should pass HF 1818 to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. The importance of easing the pain of patients severely suffering and the economic boost that Minnesota would receive are more valuable than the risk of medical marijuana redistribution and government costs are destructive.

            If passed, HF 1818 would institute severe punishment for anyone found guilty of distributing marijuana for non-medical purposes: they would have to pay a fine of up to $3,000, would be eligible for two years of imprisonment and would be guilty of a felony. Due to the threat of lengthy incarceration, the proposed bill discourages medical marijuana redistribution (Williams, par. 9). But for patients, there is little to no risk involved; even though marijuana is illegal at the federal level, federal prosecutors say they won’t indict patients who need to use medical marijuana (“Obama Cracks Down”). Considering this information, there is little to no risk for patients to acquire medical marijuana. Economically, it would be very beneficial for the state of Minnesota to pass HF 1818. It would result in an increase in state revenue which could be used to benefit other public goods and would boost the state economy by creating jobs and giving business to existing firms.

            HF 1818 indicates restrictions on the number of allowable dispensaries in the state and how much marijuana a qualifying patient can have in their possession. The bill limits the number of dispensaries each county can have depending on population. Hennepin County would be allowed three, counties with more than 300,000 residents being allowed two, counties with more than 20,000 residents being allowed one and all other counties not allowed a dispensary, totaling 54 dispensaries statewide. The bill also allows for patients suffering from qualifying diseases to carry 2.5 ounces of marijuana (Williams, par. 8-9).

            The only major roadblock to HF 1818 becoming a law lies with Governor Mark Dayton. Dayton says he will veto the bill as long as law enforcement opposes it (Brooks, par. 9). In order for Dayton to allow the bill to pass, HF 1818 needs to gain support from Minnesota law enforcement, which may take some time to acquire. John Kingrey, executive director of the Minnesota County Attorney’s Association says, “We need to have some time to see how this is happening in other states. Medical marijuana is ending up on my kid’s college campus in Fargo, North Dakota, and that tells me it’s not very tightly regulated.” Kingrey’s opinion is mirrored by James Franklin, executive director of the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, “It would be wise for Minnesota to sit back and watch what happens in such states as Colorado” (Williams, par. 5-7). Since Dayton wants to wait for police approval, and the police want to observe what becomes of medical marijuana in other states before allowing medical marijuana in Minnesota.

Realistically, HF 1818 may not be passed in Minnesota in coming years, not until the effects of medical marijuana on the safety of the public in other states are quantified so Minnesotan law enforcement can judge how large of a safety risk medical marijuana will pose. Since law enforcement is also concerned that loose regulations on medical marijuana will lead to redistribution, Minnesota’s regulations on medical marijuana will have to be extremely tight to make sure that the drug is not sold for recreational purposes.

1.              Works Cited and Bibliography

Works Cited

Brooks, Jennifer. “Will Minnesota Be Next to Legalize Medical Marijuana?” Star Tribune, Michael Klingensmith, 26 Jan. 2014, Web. 26 Feb. 2014 <http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/241988901.html>

Cooper, Michael. “Struggling Cities Turn to a Crop for Cash.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 11 Feb. 2012, Web. 17 March 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/cities-turn-to-a-crop-for-cash-medical-marijuana.html?_r=0>

Cox, Ted. “14 Kinds of Jobs Sustained by Marijuana.” AlterNet. Independent Media Institute, 21 Sept. 2011, Web. 17 March 2014. <http://www.alternet.org/story/152487/14_kinds_of_jobs_sustained_by_marijuana?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark>

“Economic Benefits of Regulation.” Halcyon Organics Medical Marijuana Program. Halcyon Organics, n.d. Web. 17 March 2014. < https://halcyonorganics.com/economic-benefits-of-regulation>

Joffe, Alain. “Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth.” Pediatrics 113.6 (2004): 632-638. Web. 9 Feb. 2014 <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/e632.full>

Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington: The National Academic Press, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014

 “Legalization of Marijuana.” Gale Student Resources in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Student Resources in Context. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.

“Legislation.” Minnesotans for Compassionate Care. Minnesotans for Compassionate Care. n.d. Web. 18 March 2014. <http://www.mncares.org/legislation/>

Malerba, Larry. “Medical Marijuana: The Pros and Cons of Legal Cannabis.” Huffington Post 25 Oct. 2010: Web. 9 Feb. 2014 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-malerba/marijuana-healing-herb-or_b_765531.html>

Meyer, Robert. United States. Food and Drug Administration. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. House Committee on Government Reform.  Potential Merits of Cannabinoids for Medical Uses. Washington: GPO, 1 April 2004. Testimony. Web. 11 Feb. 2014 <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114741.htm>

"Obama Cracks Down On Medical Marijuana." All Things Considered 12 July 2011. Student Edition. Web. 10 Feb. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-marijuana>

United States. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Facts: Marijuana. Washington: GPO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014 <http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana>

“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana.” CNBC. NBCUniversal Television Group, 20 April 2010. Web. 17 March 2014 < http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223>

Williams, Sarah T. “Statewide Law-Enforcement Groups Not Budging on Medical Marijuana Bill.” Minnpost. n.p. 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 March 2014. <http://www.minnpost.com/mental-health-addiction/2014/01/statewide-law-enforcement-groups-not-budging-medical-marijuana-bill>

Zawidzki, Kate. Marijuana Policy Project. Marijuana Policy Project Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014 <http://www.mpp.org/>

Bibliography

Brooks, Jennifer. “Will Minnesota Be Next to Legalize Medical Marijuana?” Star Tribune, Michael Klingensmith, 26 Jan. 2014, Web. 26 Feb. 2014 <http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/241988901.html>

Cooper, Michael. “Stuggling Cities Turn to a Crop for Cash.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 11 Feb. 2012, Web. 17 March 2014 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/cities-turn-to-a-crop-for-cash-medical-marijuana.html?_r=0>

Cox, Ted. “14 Kinds of Jobs Sustained by Marijuana.” AlterNet. Independent Media Institute, 21 Sept. 2011, Web. 17 March 2014. <http://www.alternet.org/story/152487/14_kinds_of_jobs_sustained_by_marijuana?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark>

“Economic Benefits of Regulation.” Halcyon Organics Medical Marijuana Program. Halcyon Organics, n.d. Web. 17 March 2014. < https://halcyonorganics.com/economic-benefits-of-regulation>

Joffe, Alain. “Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth.” Pediatrics 113.6 (2004): 632-638. Web. 9 Feb. 2014 <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/e632.full>

Joy, Janet E., Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. Washington: The National Academic Press, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014

“Legalization of Marijuana.” Gale Student Resources in Context. Detroit: Gale, 2012. Student Resources in Context. Web. 9 Feb. 2014.

“Legislation.” Minnesotans for Compassionate Care. Minnesotans for Compassionate Care. n.d. Web. 18 March 2014. <http://www.mncares.org/legislation/>

Malerba, Larry. “Medical Marijuana: The Pros and Cons of Legal Cannabis.” Huffington Post 25 Oct. 2010: Web. 9 Feb. 2014 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-malerba/marijuana-healing-herb-or_b_765531.html>

Meyer, Robert. United States. Food and Drug Administration. The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. House Committee on Government Reform.  Potential Merits of Cannabinoids for Medical Uses. Washington: GPO, 1 April 2004. Testimony. Web. 11 Feb. 2014 <http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm114741.htm>

Miron, Jeffrey A. “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition.” Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition in the United States. Marijuana Policy Project, June 2005. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. <http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport/>

"Obama Cracks Down On Medical Marijuana." All Things Considered 12 July 2011. Student Edition. Web. 10 Feb. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/2011/07/12/137791944/obama-cracks-down-on-medical-marijuana>

United States. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Facts: Marijuana. Washington: GPO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014 <http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana>

“Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana.” CNBC. NBCUniversal Television Group, 20 April 2010. Web. 17 March 2014 < http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223>

Williams, Sarah T. “Statewide Law-Enforcement Groups Not Budging on Medical Marijuana Bill.” Minnpost. n.p. 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 17 March 2014. <http://www.minnpost.com/mental-health-addiction/2014/01/statewide-law-enforcement-groups-not-budging-medical-marijuana-bill>

Zawidzki, Kate. Marijuana Policy Project. Marijuana Policy Project Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2014 <http://www.mpp.org/>