Prohibition of psychoactive drugs is preventing crucial scientific research, three scientists argue in a new neuroscience journal paper. The scientists — two former UK drug officials and an American professor with expertise in psychiatry, chemistry, and pharmacology – call for both national and international bodies to lift drug access restrictions, at least when it comes to research.

“The decision to outlaw these drugs was based on their perceived dangers, but in many cases the harms have been overstated,” neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt said in a statement accompanying the paper. “If we adopted a more rational approach to drug regulation, it would empower researchers to make advances in the study of consciousness and brain mechanisms of psychosis, and could lead to major treatment innovations in areas such as depression and PTSD.”

A theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology, John H. Schwarz, has lobbed similar criticisms in the past, pointing out that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse act as a “tag team” to censor science on marijuana.

Under U.S. federal law, marijuana and some other psychoactive drugs are designated as “Schedule I” controlled substances, meaning they are considered dangerous substances with no currently accepted medical value. This designation not only severely limits government funding for research on these drugs’ potential medical uses; it also means the government controls access to a legal supply of these drugs for research. The panel that controls this access has declined to provide marijuana for a proposed triple-blind study to investigate the impact of marijuana on post-traumatic research disorder. The Drug Enforcement Administration, meanwhile, has declined to reconsider marijuana’s designation as a Schedule I drug on the justification that there is not enough rigorous scientific research on its benefits.

Schwarz laments that the very agencies that control drug control research — NIDA and the DEA — exist for the purpose of opposing drugs. If all research were run like marijuana research, he reasons, creationists would be running paleontology. Nutt, whose own research proposal on the impact of a psilocybin mushroom component on depression was blocked by the British government, made similar comments in a statement accompanying his paper, analogizing drug laws to “the worst case of scientific censorship since the Catholic Church banned the works of Copernicus and Galileo.”

In spite of research obstacles, preliminary studies and anecdotal evidence suggest marijuana may relieve not just PTSD, but Crohn’s disease, cancer, and diabetes, which is probably why 76 percent of U.S. doctors said in a recent survey they would prescribe medical marijuana to their patients.

A new Colorado state law requiring magazines focused on marijuana to be treated like pornography is unconstitutional, according to the state’s Attorney General John Suthers (R). The law provides that “magazine[s] whose primary focus is marijuana or marijuana businesses” must be kept behind the counter in most stores.

The immediate impact of this decision is that, instead of promulgating a regulation enforcing the new law, the state’s rule instead reads that “[n]o magazine whose primary focus is marijuana or marijuana businesses is required to be sold only in retail marijuana stores or behind the counter in establishments where persons under twenty-one years of age are present, because such a requirement would violate the United States Constitution, the Colorado Constitution, and section 24-4-103(4)(a.5)(IV), C.R.S.”

Vermont became the 17th state to decriminalize marijuana possession on Thursday. A bill signed into law by Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) removes criminal penalties for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana or less than five grams of hashish by adults age 21 or older, and imposes civil penalties akin to a traffic ticket with a fine. For those under 21, possession offenses are treated like underage alcohol consumption, and referred to a court diversion program on the first offense.

Decriminalization is one of several ways states are reconsidering drug policy in light of the failed War on Drugs. But while removing criminal penalties addresses some of the most perverse impacts of arrest and imprisonment for low-level nonviolent offenses, it does not address the violence and underground activity that accompany the illegal drug trade. Washington and Colorado‘s legalization measures aim to tackle these issues by providing a legal mechanism for production and distribution, albeit with significantly greater risk of federal prosecution so long as marijuana remains federally illegal.

More than a decade ago, Nevada removed criminal penalties for medical marijuana when it amended its state Constitution to recognize its medical use. The amendment, however, did not create a legal mechanism for distributing cannabis — only for home growing or obtaining it from a designated “caregiver.” A law passed by the Nevada legislature this week would create a system for state-regulated dispensaries, eliminating the legal gray area that has plagued several states with medical marijuana laws. If Gov. Brian Sandoval signs the law, Nevada would become the 14th state out of 19 whose medical marijuana law licenses dispensaries. The recreational marijuana laws in Washington and Colorado also regulate dispensaries. Sandoval has not said whether he will sign the law, but has previously said he was open to medical marijuana dispensaries. A similar law that would have created state-wide oversight of medical marijuana distribution stalled in California this week, leaving in place the patchwork of local laws that now govern California medical marijuana.

Nevada’s action marks the maturity of the medical marijuana movement, as states that have seen benefits from medical marijuana programs move to further legitimize and regulate the industry. Other state bills to broaden medical marijuana programs have expanded the types of medical conditions covered by state laws, and implemented driving under the influence provisions.

A survey released this week by the New England Journal of Medicine found that 78 percent of doctors in the world, and 76 percent on the United States, said they would prescribe marijuana to their patients. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), meanwhile, whose state Assembly passed a medical marijuana bill this week, called the medical use of cannabis “one of the greatest hoaxes of all time.”

A former Microsoft manager who is acquiring chains of medical marijuana dispensaries announced his plans for a major national, and eventually international, brand at a press conference this week. Jamen Shively’s claims of establishing international trade on marijuana might have seemed a pipe dream, if not for the fact that Shively’s special guest was former Mexican President Vicente Fox.

Fox blasted United States prohibition as imposing an “unbearable” cost on Mexico. “Too high for Mexico, Latin America and the rest of the world,” he said. “The impact in the economy, on income, on tourism investment, loss of talent, and above all, loss of hope, and 80,000 kids dead in the last six years. All this because our neighbor to the north represents such a gigantic consumer market.”

Shively, who now owns the marijuana brand Diego Pellicer, lamented that the world has turned what Carl Sagan called a plant for “serenity and insight, sensitivity, and fellowship,” into “a tool for violence,” exploited by organized crime.

Both men served, in part, as powerful spokespeople for the harms of prohibition. But woven in with their outrage over the drug war was announcement of a national, and eventually international, marijuana business with plans to acquire several sets of dispensaries that reads like a list of keywords to trigger the most virulent federal crackdown. Shively said:

What remains to be done is to safely and systematically dismantle the wall of prohibition and replace it with a system of laws, international agreements, regulations and standards to ensure a prosperous and above all else, safe cannabis industry. We are moving forward. The states of Washington and Colorado are leading the way.

We have waited long enough for some sort of a “green light” from Washington, D.C. telling us that it is ok to proceed. In fact, the silence from our nation’s capitol has been deafening. We are moving forward with our plans to build a national, and eventually international network of cannabis businesses, spanning the production, processing, distribution and retail of cannabis and cannabis-based products. Our network will span both the medical and the social use cannabis markets. […]

With these acquisitions, along with other acquisitions in the works from California to Washington, we are creating the first national brand of retail cannabis.

The phrases “national,” “international,” along with Shively’s stated intent to “move forward” after having “waited long enough” for the green light are almost designed to elicit the federal government’s wrath, so long as marijuana remains federally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. While the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the federal government has the authority to regulate and enforce the marijuana market whether or not it crosses state lines, the purpose of national regulation under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause is to address the interstate flow of these products. And where that flow is open, explicit, and widespread, it is particularly unlikely that federal officials will look the other way, particularly since they have prosecuted medical marijuana businesses for much, much less. Reports on conversations between state officials and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder have emphasized that the Department of Justice is most concerned that marijuana produced in states that have legalized it will flow to other states where it is not legal.

The benefit of the two state ballot initiatives on recreational marijuana is that they allow for a measured experiment into heavily regulated legalization as an alternative to the failed War on Drugs. What Shively is proposing takes a premature leap that makes even the drafter of Washington state’s new recreational marijuana law uncomfortable, and is likely to make him a federal target. With the political capital of an exasperated Latin American leader by his side and an intractable national political climate, perhaps that’s what is he gunning for.

Colorado took a major step toward implementing a legal system for dispensing recreational marijuana, as Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) signed into law on Tuesday several pieces of legislation on the licensing, cultivation, and taxing of marijuana. The ballot initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana passed by voters last November immediately eliminated criminal punishment for possession by those 21-and-over of less than an ounce of pot and for growing up to six plants. But a legal system for dispensing cannabis will not take effect until producers and dispensaries can be licensed. And although Hickenlooper opposed the ballot initiative, his signature signals his willingness to implement the will of the voters. The laws passed Tuesday set up a state licensing authority that will set more specific rules for the marijuana industry, and enable the law to fulfill its stated purpose of regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol to minimize criminal activity while protecting public health. Here are six of the ways it achieves that:

1. Marijuana dispensaries will have time, place, and number restrictions. The law authorizes local “time and place” restrictions on marijuana dispensaries and limits on the number of dispensaries, which will likely take the form of zoning laws. Statewide, it prohibits marijuana businesses from siting within 1,000 feet of schools, drug treatment facilities, or child care facilities, mirroring similar restrictions in many state marijuana laws. Also particularly noteworthy is that the law permits local jurisdictions to not only implement their own independent licensing schemes, but also to entirely ban retail marijuana establishments, a move that has been controversial and subject to court challenge in other states.
2. Colorado limits who may obtain a marijuana license. Among those prohibited from obtaining a license are all sorts of law enforcement officers, those with a criminal history that indicates “he or she is not of good moral character,” and anyone who plans to site a marijuana business in a food establishment.
3. Products will be subject to state oversight and testing. Licensed suppliers and retailers are required to provide a sample of their product to a state testing facility, which will likely verify the purity, potency, and safety of the products and eliminate the risk of black market purchases sometimes laced with other drugs.
4. Colorado will limit interstate purchases. Recognizing the significant concern of the Department of Justice that states with recreational marijuana laws not become suppliers for those around the country, Colorado law permits licensed marijuana retailers to sell only ¼ of an ounce per transaction to nonresidents.
5. Retailers, producers, and consumers will pay a hefty tax. The law Hickenlooper signed would impose a 15 percent excise tax and a 10 percent sales tax. The first $40 million of this revenue will go toward school construction. But state voters will have to vote on whether to approve this tax scheme during the 2014 election. Additional state and local taxes on all products may result in a total tax rate in excess of 30 percent.
6. Colorado has finally implemented driving under the influence regulations for marijuana. After years of wrangling over a DUI law that would both protect drivers and ensure that those who use medical marijuana regularly would not be criminally punished, Colorado now has a law limiting THC levels to 5 nanograms while driving. Those charged, however, will have the opportunity to rebut a DUI allegation with evidence that their driving was in no way impaired.

Among the most controversial provisions in the set of laws is one to keep marijuana magazines behind the counter, like pornography. This first-of-its kind provision raises serious First Amendment flags by limiting marijuana speech in the same way as “indecent” sexually explicit material, and several publications are already queueing up legal challenges to this measure.

As Colorado moves ahead to implement the ballot initiative approved by voters in November, Attorney General Eric Holder has remained silent on how it will respond to Colorado and Washington’s recreational marijuana laws. While the Department of Justice has recently renewed crackdowns on some medical marijuana dispensaries in Washington, no similar recent reports have emerged from Colorado, which has a particularly robust scheme for regulating medical marijuana. Facilities already dispensing medical marijuana will get first dibs on applying for licenses, starting in October, 2013, and those dispensaries could be operating as soon as January, 2014.

Most people are aware of the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws on marijuana. While marijuana remains flatly prohibited and subject to criminal punishment under federal law, 19 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, and two have legalized recreational marijuana. The most pressing and well-known issue for medical marijuana dispensaries and the customers who rely upon them for medical relief is threats of prosecution and asset forfeiture from federal officials. Many dispensaries, facing jail time, eviction, or seizure of real estate, have opted to shut down entirely.

But what is less known is that even those dispensaries that haven’t been targeted for federal prosecution or have thus far survived it are subject to fundamental legal obstacles to operating their business. These obstacles discourage potential marijuana distributors and growers from applying for licenses, and make it more likely that they will operate at least partially under the table and outside the legal system.

1. Medical marijuana businesses can’t open a bank account. Banks that do business with marijuana distributors are considered money launderers, so dispensaries cannot bank or access other bank services legally if they are open about their status as a marijuana dispensary. Even those who have skirted this by opening accounts in their personal names or being vague about the nature of the account have had their accounts terminated, often jumping from bank to bank. One Colorado state bank known for allowing dispensary clients terminated more than 300 accounts after the Department of Justice warned in 2011 that they would pursue money laundering charges. Without a bank account, dispensaries have no good means of even paying employees, let alone storing their money or paying their exorbitant taxes (see below). Washington State officials who contacted banks about their position said they are waiting from a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder on the federal government’s response to two ballot initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana before they reconsider their position. Some dispensaries are trying to form their own banking cooperative to skirt these restrictions.

2. Medical marijuana businesses have scant access to loans. Because of the same banking regulations that bar bank accounts, marijuana dispensaries that are open about their purpose typically can’t take out loans from traditional financial institutions or the Small Business Administration — eliminating the major sources of funding for most small businesses. But they may also have difficulty borrowing funds from nontraditional lenders, including the sorts of “angel investors” that have popped up in the industry. An Arizona ruling last year on an attempt to enforce a loan to a medical marijuana dispensary refused to enforce the loan contract, because the money was for an illegal purpose under federal law.

3. Medical marijuana entrepreneurs can’t open a credit card account, and many are blacklisted from any credit card use. “Over the past two years, Amex and other major credit card companies – including Visa and MasterCard – have distanced themselves from the medical marijuana industry, refusing to process transactions at dispensaries and closing merchant accounts for MMJ centers,” Medical Marijuana Business Daily reported last week. Now business owners are learning that they have been added to a “merchant match list,” which makes it almost impossible for that person to open an account for any other unrelated business, stifling many entrepreneurs who might want to dip their toe into the marijuana industry. This blacklist can even affect businesses in which one owner with a minority stake in the company is on the list. Without access to loans, dispensary owners who enter the business because of a passion or expertise about medical cannabis rather than financial means will be all-the-more reliant upon partners and investors, who may be deterred from entering a business that will tar their credit eligibility.

4. The IRS won’t let marijuana businesses deduct any of their business-related expenses. Although the IRS is happy to take marijuana dispensaries’ money, a tax code provision that bans any tax deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances” has made their business very expensive. While some IRS rulings have held that expenses unrelated to marijuana distribution might be deducted, that ruling has been construed narrowly, and leaves most marijuana businesses with a hefty bill and few permissible deductions. After the owner of the largest U.S. dispensary lost his challenge to the 2011 IRS rule, he said, “I see only two outcomes here. Either this IRS assessment has to change or we go out of business. There really isn’t a middle ground for us.” Thus far, this dispensary and others continue to operate.

All of these obstacles stem from the same federal ban under the Controlled Substances Act that enables criminal prosecution or asset forfeiture against marijuana businesses, and even if federal officials stopped prosecuting dispensaries altogether, these issues would chill state attempts to make dispensation of medical and/or recreational marijuana above-board, regulated for health and safety, and taxable. All of these issues could be resolved by legislation that eliminates federal penalties for those actions that comply with state marijuana laws.

In the wake of calls from several Latin American leaders to end the failed war on drugs, a new report by an international alliance of major Western Hemisphere nations flags the potential benefits of decriminalization and/or legalization. Although the 200-page Organization of American States report shies away from drawing conclusions, it definitively states that “a public health approach is needed to address drug use” and that “decriminalization of drug use needs to be considered as a core element in any public health strategy,” while incarceration “runs counter to this strategy.” In a cost/benefit analysis, the report also identifies the significant potential benefits of legalization, while noting that countries seem poised at this point only to legalize marijuana:

Legalization could substantially reduce the criminal justice costs of enforcement of prohibitions, which has dominated estimates of total spending on drug control in countries as different as the United States and the Netherlands. The costs of crime itself, generated primarily by illegal status and enforcement, dominate estimates of the social costs of drugs. Enforcement costs, however, would not disappear entirely. Ensuring that sellers comply with regulatory restrictions, for example of not selling to youth, requires law enforcement efforts, though these costs are likely to be smaller than amounts currently spent in many countries on drug enforcement.

Morbidity and mortality could also decline for legalized drugs. The illegal status of the drugs is a primary cause of overdoses, both because it creates uncertainty about the purity of what is being purchased and because it encourages use of adulterants that can themselves have dangerous effects. In a regulated legal regime, the drugs sold would be of known purity and ingredients would be listed on the label. HIV, long associated with heroin injecting, might be substantially reduced if heroin users no longer had to conceal their habits and share needles. Increased use and dependence would cut into these gains, as these drugs still present health risks even when purity is known and use does not have to be clandestine.

Additional consequences of legalization could include reductions in market-related disorder and criminal violence, as well as reductions in corruption of the criminal justice system and of political authority more generally. This assumes that countries are capable of putting into place and implementing effective regulatory regimes that do not result in a large parallel black market for drugs, an assumption that is somewhat doubtful in light of Chapters 6 and 8 of this Report, which note the linkage of violence in many countries in the region to weak institutions subject to penetration by drug trafficking organizations. […]

Negative consequences must also be taken into consideration. It is impossible to know with certainty how much drug use and dependence would increase in a legalized regime, but it is reasonable to assume that greater availability, under conditions of legality and especially if commercialized, would lead more people to use drugs.

The report goes on to explain why legalization is likely to lead to increased experimentation and possibly drug dependency. These issues, however, could be separately addressed through public health policies that would better address drug dependency whether or not a legalization regime is in place.

The group makes explicit that the report is not intended to be conclusory, but only to present information and options. But the objective tone makes all-the-more compelling the report’s identification of numerous potential benefits and significantly fewer costs. As Drug Policy Alliance Executive Director Ethan Nadlemann points out, “it would have been inconceivable just two years ago that the OAS – or any multilateral organization – would publish a document that considers legalization, decriminalization and other alternatives to prohibitionist policies on an equal footing with status quo policies.” He cites evolving U.S. views, as well as strong calls from Latin American leaders to end the drug war that prompted plans for a United Nations summit, as key to this shift, and predicts that the report “is sure to have legs in a way that few reports by multilateral institutions ever do.” The report has already been endorsed by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and will be presented to the 35 member states in June.

The Illinois legislature sent a medical marijuana bill to Gov. Pat Quinn Friday, after the Senate passed a measure 35-21 largely along party lines. The measure would permit marijuana use with a doctor’s prescription for 33 specified ailments, require users, growers, and dispensaries to undergo fingerprinting and criminal background checks, and limit the number of growers and dispensaries.

The news comes as several new studies are released suggesting that marijuana may aid in post-traumatic stress disorder, Crohn’s disease, diabetes, and as a possible weight control remedy. All of these studies, however, were either performed in other countries or based on surveys or self-reporting from marijuana users, because federal agencies have blocked access to a legal supply of marijuana even for academic studies.

Earlier this month, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signed Maryland’s much more limited marijuana law, which provides narrow access to medical marijuana for research purposes. If the bill is signed into law, Illinois would become the 20th state with a medical marijuana law, in addition to the District of Columbia. Gov. Quinn has said he is “open-minded” about the measure.