Marijuana Law and Policy in the USA

I wrote the below paper a decade ago while I was in law school. There have been some huge strides in the last ten years, but most of the points in this paper still hold true, so I thought I would share it. Reach out to me, if you are interested in helping with an update. There seems to be a need to write about the relationship between the marijuana and financial industries, marijuana users ability to drive and work while having marijuana in their system, the impact of previous/current marijuana policy on minority communities, the black/gray market marijuana vendors ability to transition into legal businesses, where to direct tax revenue, and leaving room for impacted communities to benefit from a legalized marijuana industry. Hope you enjoy the article!

Best,

Angel

Marijuana Law & Policy in the United States

Introduction

Marijuana has become an increasingly popular issue in society today. Some believe it is a powerful and dangerous substance that the government should protect the population from, while others contend marijuana is harmless and has many useful applications. Over the past century, marijuana use has become progressively more of a controversial issue whether for recreational use or medical use. Who decides whether marijuana is suitable for public consumption and/or prescription? When we are considering such questions on other substances today, we look to government regulatory bodies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs marketed within the United States. However, with marijuana it seems that politics was the deciding factor in its regulation.

What repercussions have been caused by this political meandering that seems to have decided what United States policy on marijuana is? Today, there exists a growing divide between the federal and state governments on both the penalties for marijuana use and whether it should be available for medical use. States have been trending toward legalizing and/or decriminalizing marijuana for medical use and possibly even for recreational use, while the federal government classifies marijuana as one of the most dangerous drugs and as not suitable for medical use.

With the current financial climate, state and federal deficits have become problematic and many believe marijuana policy reform would be a step towards a solution. Marijuana has gone virtually untaxed because of its illegal status. The potential revenue a tax on marijuana would bring could be substantially helpful in closing deficits, as would the tax revenue on any other emerging commodity. With taxation, regulation will surely follow and because of the potential dangers associated with marijuana, regulation is sorely needed.

This paper will discuss the following topics: First, the history of marijuana in America, detailing how marijuana was used in early America up until it was outlawed by the states encouraged by the federal government. Second, Beginning of Prohibition, explaining how prohibition of marijuana came about and the political background. Third, the Beginnings of the FDA, illuminating the fact that the FDA was capable and available to regulate marijuana, but was not used to evaluate the safety or efficacy of marijuana. Fourth, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the statute that effectuated the demise of legal marijuana use in the United States. Fifth, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the law behind the FDA’s ability to regulate marijuana is explained. Sixth, Overturning the Marijuana Tax Act, uncovering another chance to allow marijuana to be studied and explains the unconstitutionality of the Marijuana Tax act. Seventh, the Controlled Substances Act which embodies the reiteration of political influence in determining marijuana policy instead of following science. Eighth, the Role of the FDA, explanation of the FDA’s role is evaluating and approving substances to enter the interstate marketplace. Ninth, Marijuana’s Schedule I status, inexplicably other than for political reasons marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance. Tenth, Evaluating Marijuana, studies and myths are discussed with regards to marijuana. Eleventh, Peer Reviewed Studies, a discussion of the peer reviewed clinical studies on marijuana occurs. Twelfth, the science behind marijuana laws is discussed. Thirteenth, State Efforts to Circumvent the CSA & FDA, state laws legalizing and/or decriminalizing marijuana are discussed, the first state to pass such laws was California. Fourteenth, an overview of States’ and Federal policies on marijuana is outlined to help the reader understand the direction enforcement is heading and the conflict that exists between the State and Federal policies. Fifteenth, an analysis of the cases defining the development of the current federal tax policy on those dealing in marijuana, helping the reader understand how the taxation of illegal business activities developed and how much the court relied on the current public policy attitude in making its decisions. Sixteenth, an analysis of the potential revenue taxes on marijuana could bring in and proposal on the changes necessary to realize marijuana tax revenues. Here the reader is presented with the numbers behind the various considerations behind the marijuana industry and what how public policy changes may have created an environment conducive to changes that would allow the states and federal government to collect taxes on marijuana.

History of Marijuana in America

Marijuana has not always been illegal in the United States. In fact, Marijuana has been a huge part of American history. In 1619, the Virginia Assembly passed legislation requiring every farmer to grow marijuana and the marijuana plant itself (hemp) was allowed to be exchanged as legal tender in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland. [FN1]. Even the first U.S. president, George Washington grew marijuana as one of his main crops like many others in his time. [FN2]. Hemp was commonly used to make rope, paper, boat sales, and possibly recreational smoking. [FN3]. Marijuana was a common commodity in the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries, as evidenced by marijuana’s inclusion in the United States Pharmacopoeia, an official list of the drugs recognized in medical practice, from 1851 to 1942. [FN4]. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required the labeling of, among other things, marijuana in over the counter remedies [FN5] and prohibited interstate commerce of mislabeled and adulterated food and drugs, requiring accurate listing of contents on labels of medicines shipped interstate. [FN6].

Beginning of prohibition

The end of the legal free trade of marijuana began in the early 1900s and has been attributed, among other things, to the Mexican revolution, which began in 1910, and the large influx in immigration from Mexico to United States. [FN7]. Mexican immigrants commonly used marijuana recreationally and the fear and prejudice against the Mexican immigrants that ensued, spread to marijuana. [FN8]. Ironically, California (the first state to legalize medical marijuana) was the first state to pass a marijuana prohibition [FN9]; followed by Wyoming in 1915; Texas in 1919; Iowa, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Arkansas in 1923; and Nebraska in 1927, thereby beginning the trend of states passing marijuana prohibition laws. By 1931, 29 states outlawed marijuana. [FN10]. Soon thereafter, in 1932, the Uniform State Narcotic Act was passed to encourage the rest of the states to create and enforce their own statutes against marijuana. [FN11]. At this point, marijuana was still a legal substance under federal law. [FN12].

While the fear and prejudice against Mexicans was a huge part of the American trend toward making marijuana illegal, there were also large financial interests involved. In 1916, USDA scientist Jason Merril and Lyster Dewey reported findings stating that paper made from marijuana is better than that made of wood, because of the more efficient process and fewer pollutants required. [FN13]. This report led to the timber industry’s campaign to criminalize marijuana through supporting papers like that of William Randolph Hearst that published articles demonizing marijuana. [FN14].

There was also worry about marijuana’s use in making plastics. According to The Emperor Wears No Clothes, DuPont had patents for paper derived from wood and plastics derived from coals and did not want hemp to be used for paper or plastic production, as it would make their patents worthless. [FN15]. Andrew Mellon, a huge financial backer of Dupont and the Secretary of the Treasury under the Hoover Administration, is suspected of making efforts to criminalize marijuana for his own financial gain. Mellon appointed his soon to be son-in-law, Harry Anslinger to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). [FN16]. Anslinger as the first commissioner of the FBN took a strict stand against marijuana and embraced the task with a strong display of bureaucratic overkill. [FN17]. Mellon’s plight against marijuana is further corroborated by the House Ways and Means committee chairman’s announcement that he had introduced the bill, soon to be known as the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury. [FN18]. The influence Mellon and Anslinger exerted on marijuana policy, in getting the Marihuana Tax Act passed alone, caused the demise of marijuana’s use as a medical and industrial commodity. Some of the news accounts demonizing marijuana, with stories of outrageous acts committed by criminals under the influence of marijuana, may have been “emanating from Mr. Anslinger’s office and being received by a grateful yellow-tinged press.” [FN19].

The suggestion has been posited that the Great Depression further fueled the resentment of immigrants because of the high unemployment rates. [FN20]. This, coupled with the large financial interest in seeing marijuana criminalized, seems to have instigated research that linked violence, crime, and socially deviant behaviors to the use of marijuana. [FN21]. Much of the findings of this biased research about marijuana is clearly evidenced in the film released in 1936, Reefer Madness. [FN22].

The Beginnings of the FDA

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), known as the Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration or the Bureau of Chemistry before 1930, the first statutory power to regulate at a national level came with the passing of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the FDA’s regulatory power became increasingly authoritative as more statutes were passed regarding matters related to food, drugs, and eventually cosmetics and medical devices. [FN23]. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 did not require that medicinal products be tested or approved for safety before being marketed. [FN24]. Any power granted the FDA by Congress is derived from the U.S. Constitution’s grant of power to Congress to “provide for the… general Welfare of the United States,” [FN25] a power that may be exercised in ways that intrude on individual rights. [FN26]. The trepidation in exercising the state police power intruding on citizens personal autonomy was squelched by the Supreme Court in a case deciding an individual’s right to refuse vaccination during a smallpox epidemic in Massachusetts, Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358 (U.S. 1905). The Jacobson court upheld a law authorizing boards of health to require vaccination and revaccination. [FN27] The court reasons that while the Constitution does afford freedom to the people, it does not grant the “absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint… restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good.”[FN28].

The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

However, using the FDA for marijuana regulation was never presented, which is strange considering expansion of the FDA’s powers by passing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C) of 1938, discussed below. Instead, Mellon and Anslinger’s legislation governed. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (Marihuana Tax Act) created a system imposing a transfer tax requiring anyone who manufactured, imported, possessed, dispensed, or otherwise used marijuana to pay special taxes, by establishing a procedure for registration that required anyone dealing in marijuana to register. For those registered a $1.00 per ounce tax was imposed and for the unregistered, the tax was $100.00 per ounce tax was enforced. [FN29]. Proponents argued that the purpose of the Marihuana Tax Act was not to abolish the medicinal use of marijuana, which was accepted at the time, but to discourage recreational use of the drug. [FN30]. At this time, marijuana use for medical purposes ranged from treatment of such maladies as asthma, chronic bronchitis, convulsions, dysmenorrheal, gonorrhea, headaches, insomnia, lack of appetite, and rheumatic pain. [FN31]. The legislative history also strongly indicates that the act was intended merely to impose a very high tax on transfers to non-registrants and not to prohibit such transfers entirely. [FN32].

In effect, the Marihuana Tax Act increased the difficulty of obtaining marijuana legally because of the extensive paperwork necessary to do so. [FN33]. Soon after the passing of the Marihuana Tax Act, marijuana was removed from the United States Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary because of the increased difficulty for manufacturers to dispense marijuana legally. [FN34]. This is most likely the reason why the American Medical Association (AMA) opposed the Marihuana Tax Act and proposed marijuana be added to the Harrison Narcotics Act (HNA) instead. [FN35]. The HNA mandated pharmacists to improve record keeping and to require prescriptions for narcotics, but was not so prohibitive that it caused significant hardship to obtain those narcotics. [FN36]. Dr. William Woodward of the AMA condemned the inhibitory effect the Marihuana Tax Act’s taxes, penalties, and registration requirements and feared that the Act would be prohibitive to any future research that could prove/disprove medical uses of marijuana. [FN37]. Yet another factor contributing to the decline in marijuana use was brought about by the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act governing the illegal importation and smuggling of marijuana, but did not restrict marijuana cultivated in the United States. [FN38]. This Act, forbid the importation, buying, selling, or transporting of marijuana. [FN39]. These two Acts conformed to the belief that the states should create and enforce their own marijuana prohibition laws restricting marijuana possession, the Acts only restricted importation and imposed heavy taxes on non-registered marijuana dealers (meaning anyone dealing in marijuana whether for personal or commercial use).

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FD&C)

           The FD&C act required that drugs meet safety standards prior to marketing. [FN40]. Before a drug was permitted to enter the stream of interstate commerce, the FD&C act requires that all new drugs be scientifically evaluated. [FN41]. The FDA’s responsibility under the FD&C act was to evaluate the safety of new drugs using “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualifies by scientific training and experience.” [FN42]. If marijuana was so dangerous and there existed scientific evidence supporting this reality, why couldn’t the FD&C act restrict marijuana from entering interstate commerce and prohibit its use because it was dangerous? The FD&C Act expanded the definition of drugs from the Pure Food and Drugs Acts definition of articles included in the United States Pharmacopeia, adding articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. [FN43]. Traditionally, the FDA regulated “products explicitly marketed to provide some sort of medical benefit.” [FN44]. The FD&C Act defined a “new drug” as:

(1)  Any drug … the composition of which is such that such drug is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended or suggested in the labeling thereof…; or

(2)  Any drug … the composition of which is such that the drug, as a result of investigations to determine its safety for use under such conditions, has become so recognized, but which has not, otherwise than in such investigations, been used to a material extent or for a material time under such conditions.

[FN45]. The Act also provided a “grandfather clause” that allowed drugs that had been subject to the Pure Food and Drugs Act and it’s labeling at that time contained the same representations concerning the conditions of its use, those drugs were allowed to bypass FDA review. [FN46].

           However, alcohol was not regulated by the FDA at this time and was not regulated until 1996. [FN47]. Tobacco also was not regulated, and in 1980 the FDA declined jurisdiction over nicotine containing products. [FN48]. There was concern that subjecting tobacco to FDA regulation would lead to taking cigarettes off the market and public health concerns could be raised by the withdrawal from the nicotine many are addicted to and could be dangerous. [FN49]. In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 153 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 1998), the court decided that Congress did not intend to delegate jurisdiction over tobacco products to the FDA. [FN50]. Marijuana is easily differentiated from tobacco and Alcohol, because it was a part of the U.S. Pharmacopoeia and marketed for a plethora of medical uses (mentioned above). Therefore, unless a marijuana product fell under the grandfather clause, marijuana products fell under the jurisdiction of the FD&C Act.

Overturning the Marihuana Tax Act

In Leary v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court declared the Marihuana Tax Act unconstitutional, as it caused a violation of citizens’ Fifth Amendment rights. [FN51]. In this case, the plaintiff Leary challenged his convictions for not having paid the transfer tax required under the Marihuana Tax Act claiming the statute violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination by requiring him to register his possession with federal officials for tax purposes even though this possession was illegal, thereby requiring Leary to admit that he was committing a criminal act. [FN52]. The court found that if read according to its terms, the Marihuana Tax Act compelled the petitioner to expose himself to a “real and appreciable” risk of self-incrimination. [FN53]. The court reversed Leary’s conviction under the Marihuana Tax Act and remanded Leary’s criminal conviction for possessing marijuana to determine whether he knew that the marijuana had been illegally imported into the United States, which was an element of the crime Leary was charged with (Narcotic Act). [FN54].

Despite the unconstitutionality of the Marijuana Tax Act regarding criminal charges, the court in Storton v. Foley (1973) upheld the constitutionality for the civil tax provisions contained in the Marihuana Tax Act. [FN30]. The court in Foley found that the heavy tax imposed on unregistered persons dealing in marijuana was a legitimate exercise of the tax power despite the severity of the tax and its collateral regulatory purpose and effect. [FN31]. The court reasoned that tax liability is not extinguished by the privilege against self incrimination. [FN32].

The Controlled Substances Act

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Leary v. United States, Congress repealed the Marihuana Tax Act and passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1970. [FN55]. The CSA classifies controlled substances into different categories based on their medical utility. [FN56]. These categories are split into five schedules, schedule I being the most restrictive (in the context of regulation) and schedule V being the least. [FN57]. Schedule I substances are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and lack the ability to be safely used under medical supervision. [FN58]. Schedule II substances are those with a high potential for abuse, have a currently accepted medical use, and if abused lead to psychological or physical dependence. [FN59]. Schedule III substances are those that have somewhat less potential for abuse than substances in schedules I and II, have a currently accepted medical use, and if abused lead to lower physical or psychological dependence than substances in Schedules I and II. [FN60]. Schedule IV substances have a lower potential for abuse than substances in schedule III, a current medical use, and lower risk of physical and psychological dependence than substances in schedule III. [FN61]. Lastly, schedule V substances contain low potential for abuse, a currently accepted medical use, and limited risk of physical and psychological dependence. [FN62]. Marijuana is currently a Schedule I substance.

Schedules

Classification

Schedule I

High potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States, and lack the ability to be safely used under medical supervision.

Schedule II

High potential for abuse, have a currently accepted medical use, and if abused lead to psychological or physical dependence.

Schedule III

Have somewhat less potential for abuse than substances in schedules I and II, have a currently accepted medical use, and if abused lead to lower physical or psychological dependence than substances in Schedules I and II.

Schedule IV

Have a lower potential for abuse than substances in schedule III, a current medical use, and lower risk of physical and psychological dependence than substances in schedule III.

Schedule V

Low potential for abuse, a currently accepted medical use, and limited risk of physical and psychological dependence.

The CSA delegates the responsibility of determining safe and effective use of marijuana to the FDA and scientific research to the National Institute of Drug Abuse. [FN63]. Under the CSA the executive branch may decriminalize medical and/or recreational use of marijuana without any action by Congress, if findings of the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, on certain scientific and medical issues specified by the CSA reflect that marijuana is safe. [FN64]. In 2002, the HHS issued its report recommending marijuana remain a schedule I substance, quashing challenges to marijuana’s schedule I status.  [FN38].

The Role of the FDA

While it seems that the CSA hands some authority to the FDA, the CSA still keeps marijuana from going through the FDA approval process, marijuana’s Schedule I status prohibits any meaningful research. The FD&C Act, along with its amendments, does not require that a new drug be proven superior to existent approved drugs, but that the drug sponsor provide “substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports…” [FN65]. Three phases of drug evaluation must be completed, in order for the sponsor to proceed to the next step of filing a New Drug Application (NDA). [FN66]. The NDA must be provided with detailed records of the results of all investigations accompanied by the names of all the investigators, a description of all drug components, the methods of manufacturing, and samples of the proposed labeling. [FN67]. In evaluating the NDA, the FDA must be believe the benefits of using the drug in the manner proposed are greater than the risks associated with the drug’s use. [FN68].

Marijuana’s Schedule I status

The House Report 1970 recommending that marijuana and all of the cannabinoids, even those without psychoactive properties, be placed in schedule I, showed uncertainty about marijuana’s placement and stated that the house only did so until further research could be conducted. [FN69]. Congress classified marijuana, as However, marijuana’s Schedule I status has made it extremely difficult to conduct such research. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Administrator determined that the chemistry and pharmacology of marijuana were not established, its effectiveness in human trials was not sufficiently documented in clinical trials, and that marijuana was not generally accepted as medicine. [FN70]. The DEA Administrator used and eight factor test to make this determination:

(1) Scientifically determined and accepted knowledge of [marijuana’s] chemistry; (2) the toxicology and pharmacology of [marijuana] in animals; (3) Establishment of [marijuana’s] effectiveness in humans through scientifically designed clinical trials; (4) General availability of [marijuana] and information regarding [marijuana] and its use; (5) Recognition of [marijuana’s] clinical use in generally accepted pharmacopeia, medical references, journals[,] or textbooks; (6) Scientific indications for the treatment of recognized disorders; (7) Recognition of the use of [marijuana] by organizations or associations of physicians; and (8) Recognition and use of [marijuana] by a substantial segment of the medical practitioners in the United States.

[FN71].

Evaluating Marijuana

Before evaluating marijuana on its safety, efficacy, and benefits, we must distinguish between its recreational and medical use. There is a big difference between medical use, for a limited period of time, under the supervision of a doctor and recreational use, which may consist of frequent abuse. One may also want to consider the various methods of use including smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting marijuana. Remember that in evaluating NDAs, the FDA must be believe the benefits of using the drug in the manner proposed are greater than the risks associated with the drug’s use [FN72] and it is not required that a new drug be proven superior to existent approved drugs. [FN73]. Therefore, marijuana’s safety and efficacy need only be demonstrated in order to prove its feasibility to enter the interstate market. However, since marijuana is classified as Schedule I under the CSA, it’s addictive qualities and accepted medical uses must be accounted for.

Marijuana’s addictive qualities do not bar it from market entry, as experience with other CSA regulated substances used under proper medical supervision suggests that the addictive qualities should be balanced with the potential risks and benefits marijuana use may bring. [FN74]. Also, there exist some myths that should be cleared up. Among the general population there is a popular misconception that marijuana is a gateway to hardcore drugs, but in reality this “gateway effect” can be attributed to the current methods of acquisition that force those seeking to buy marijuana to do so through illegal sources, though this statement may be subject to some debate. [FN75]. Many also believe that marijuana has serious addictive qualities. However, almost a century of evidence shows the harmful and addictive side effects of marijuana have been greatly exaggerated, as compared to alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana has been proven not to be physically addictive. [FN76].

There have also been numerous studies contradicting the DEA’s argument that marijuana has no medical use. In 1944 the Mayor of New York City, LaGuardia, formed a committee on marijuana enlisting the New York Academy of Medicine (NYAM). [FN77]. The NYAM issued an extensively researched report declaring marijuana could be used for medical purposes and did not induce violence, insanity, sex crimes, addiction, or lead to other drug use. [FN78]. Then in 1972 the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, a bipartisan commission created by President Nixon at the direction of Congress, determined medical use was appropriate and even that personal use of marijuana should be decriminalized. [FN79]. More evidence of the political bias against marijuana is demonstrated by Nixon’s rejection of these findings. [FN80]. Ironically, the drug czar in the Nixon administration was named Robert DuPont. [FN81]. Later, in 1999 the Institute of Medicine issued a report, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, as part of a request from the White House office of National Drug Policy. [FN82]. The report found that marijuana does have medical uses and short term smoking of marijuana is recommended, but warns that while the harmful effects of smoking are outweighed by the benefit, safer delivery systems should be created. [FN83].

Peer Reviewed Studies

No matter the prestige or lack of bias involved in the above studies, the information cannot be used by the FDA during its investigation as the standard of review set forth in the FD&C Act requires “evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualifies by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved.” [FN84]. Because of marijuana’s Schedule I status and the stigma related with marijuana research, marijuana for research has been prohibitively hard to obtain. [FN85]. One author suggests that “[m]ost people would be shocked to know that the federal government has actually been blocking research on the medical benefits of cannabis while supporting research aimed at demonstrating the negatives.” [FN86]. Jack Herer, a renowned researcher and marijuana activist, claims the United States government forbade all federal research into marijuana’s promising therapeutic effects and with the “encouragement of drug manufacturers, is actively suppressing the medicinal use of marijuana.” [FN87]. Herer also claimed that drug manufacturers “would lose hundreds of billions of dollars annually if marijuana bec[a]me generally available as a prescription drug.” [FN88].

The first peer reviewed publication was completed by Donald Abrams. Abrams conducted a trial on adults suffering from HIV-associated sensory neuropathy, by randomly administering marijuana or identical placebo cigarettes three times daily for a five day period. [FN89]. The investigation analyzed the participant’s description of pain intensity and the subjects who reported more than a thirty percent reduction in that pain intensity. [FN90]. Concluding that smoked marijuana reduced the pain suffered by one third on average. [FN91]. More than twice as many participants given marijuana cigarettes reported a significant reduction in pain compared to those given the identical placebo cigarettes. [FN92]. The pain relief reported by the participants was rapid, recognizing significant pain reduction after the first cigarette, and only fifteen percent of those given identical placebo cigarettes reported immediate pain relief. [FN93].

Abrams’ findings were further corroborated by investigators at the University Of California San Diego Department Of Neurosciences. [FN94]. This study also dealt with patients suffering from HIV-related sensory neuropathy, administering marijuana and placebo cigarettes four times daily for a five day period. [FN95]. Then, after a two week “washout” period, the participants restarted another five day period where the control group was given marijuana and vice-versa. [FN96]. During trial, participants who smoked marijuana reported a significant decrease in pain and elevated mood. [FN97]. The university study concluded that smoked marijuana was an effective and generally tolerated treatment for those suffering from HIV-related neuropathy. [FN98]. These two studies alone call into question marijuana’s Schedule I status under the CSA, by concluding marijuana does have a currently accepted medical use.

What Science is behind Marijuana Law?

           One popular argument for the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is that more dangerous products are already illegal, namely alcohol, cigarettes, and many prescription drugs. However, this type of argument is contraindicative of legalization and when logically thought through, should leave one wondering why these dangerous substances are still legal. It seems as though the law is attempting to protect a public that is increasingly in support of risky activity, our need for these dangerous substances outweighed the law’s paternalistic nature. Instead of saying more dangerous substances are legal; we should ask whether marijuana’s negative effects are too dangerous. When pondering this, we should again, keep in mind the difference between medicinal and recreational use.

           Heavy marijuana use can lead to cognitive impairment. Used recreationally, daily for at least a month, may be associated with residual neuropsychological effects that are persistent even after a day of supervised abstinence, but it is still unclear whether this impairment is a result of a withdrawal effect or the drug itself. [FN99]. High dosages of marijuana can lead to paranoid feelings, delusions, and hallucinations. Thinking can become disorganized and panic coupled with heightened anxiety may result. With high enough doses, a state of toxic psychosis may ensue complete with full on hallucinations, depersonalization, and loss of insight. [FN100]. However, any cognitive damage has not proven to be permanent and if used for a limited period under medical supervision there is virtually no danger. Also, no evidence can be found of any deaths associated with high doses of marijuana as evidenced by the American Society of Addiction Medicine’s report stating that “[d]ocumented evidence of death resulting from recreational use, even in large doses, is lacking.” [FN101]. This fact alone probably makes marijuana the safest recreational drug and is probably why Judge Francis Young “concluded that marijuana is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” [FN102].

As with any substance, there is concern about the addictive qualities of marijuana. As a Schedule I substance, marijuana is deemed to be so highly addictive that it cannot be safely used under medical supervision. [FN103]. This is strange because studies show that marijuana’s potential to cause dependence is far less significant than the potential associated with Morphine, Phenobarbital, or Valium, which are all currently legal to prescribe. [FN104]. National data indicates that ten percent of regular marijuana users become addicted. [FN105]. This information may be compared to alcohol, opium, or nicotine which maintained addiction rates of fifteen percent, twenty three percent, and thirty two percent respectively. [FN106].

Smoked marijuana has added effects similar to that of smoked tobacco. The chemical composition of marijuana smoke is riddled with many of the same carcinogenic components found in tobacco smoke. Ammonia has been found in marijuana smoke at levels up to twenty times greater than found in tobacco and hydrogen cyanide, nitrous oxide, and aromatic amines have been found in marijuana smoke as well at concentrations up to five times greater. [FN107]. Smoking marijuana may result in mild airway obstruction, chronic cough, bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function and exercise tolerance. [FN108]. However, marijuana’s association with cancer is controversial. In 2006, a pulmonologist at the University of California “discovered ‘no association at all’ between cannabis smoking and lung, head, or neck cancer… even among heavy smokers… [and] that THC actually induced a protective effect by killing aging cells and preventing them from becoming cancerous.” [FN109]. Either way, these concerns can be reduced or eliminated via alternative methods of administration. For example, a study has been conducted on “the acceptability and usefulness of a novel mode of intrapulmonary THC [tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the active ingredient in marijuana] administration using a Volcano vaporizer” concluding that vaporizing is a “suitable method for the administration of THC” and could be useful in the “development of novel cannabinoid agonists and antagonists, and in studies of the pharmacology and physiology of [the] cannabinoid system in humans.” [FN110].

THC “is accompanied by more than sixty other cannabinoids[,] that are unique to botanical marijuana[,]” and some are “non-psychoactive.” [FN111]. The human brain “also produces substances called endocannabinoids, the ‘brain’s own marijuana.’” [FN112]. The endocannabinoid system is not yet well understood, there seem to be receptors that bind with the endocannabinoids and engage in “cross-talk” with neurochemicals in the brain, establishing a “brain-immune” system connection. [FN113]. Endocannabinoids “are produced on demand” outside of the brain and interact with receptors near the part of the body they originate from. [FN114]. It has been noted by scientists “that [the] release of endocannabinoids might ‘constitute a protective response’ during injury to neurons.” [FN115]. Using the various cannabinoids separately, can help one avoid the psychoactive effects of marijuana, Cannabidiol is an example of a cannabinoid that may help reduce anxiety, unlike THC which may cause anxiety. There have also findings that “CT-3,” a chemical derived from a metabolite of THC, “actually blocks the psychoactive effects of THC.” [FN116]. “If you give [lab rats] THC they get stoned. If you give [lab rats] CT-3 and then give them THC, they don’t get stoned.” [FN117].

Many find marijuana’s Schedule I status puzzling, because some synthetic forms of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, are currently classified as lower schedule substances and available to prescribe for medical use. [FN118]. Dronabinol or Marinol is a Schedule III substance, approved by the FDA for medical prescription for patients suffering from AIDS-associated wasting and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. [FN119]. However, because Dranibol is approved by the FDA, physicians may prescribe it for uses other than that approved by the FDA according to the court in United States v. Evers (1981), finding “Congress did not intend the FDA to interfere with medical practice” and doctors could prescribe any lawful drug for any purpose. [FN120]. In fact, because Dranibol must be taken orally physicians had difficulty administering it to patients suffering from nausea and vomiting. Sativex, a cannabinoid-based oral-mucosal spray, was developed in response to this problem. [FN121]. Savitex is currently approved for use to treat spasticity in multiple sclerosis in the United Kingdom and Canada. In the United States and European Union, Sativex has been approved. [FN122]. Sativex may be viable legal alternative to smoked marijuana in the United States, as advanced trials are being prepped treating pain in cancer patients. [FN123]. However, this may be another example of the more costly patent being used when natural marijuana could serve just as well.

State Efforts to Circumvent the CSA & FDA

States have passed laws circumventing the CSA and FDA, by allowing for the prescription and growing of medical marijuana. The first law to legalize medical marijuana was passed in California, Proposition 215 also known as the Compassionate Use Act, passed with 55% approval. [FN124]. Later California passed Senate Bill 420 also known as the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) to make the medical marijuana laws clearer, with better defined parameters. [FN125]. Also, the California Attorney General issued medical marijuana guidelines to further clarify and confirm the law, including the legality of not for profit cooperative, and provide guidelines on record keeping. [FN126]. The MMP authorizes the use of not for profit collectives and cooperatives to distribute marijuana. [FN127]. Fifteen other states have similar provisions legalizing the medical use of marijuana. [FN128].

When the constitutionality of the MMP was challenged by local municipalities, the California Court of Appeals upheld the MMP and the United States Supreme Court denied certiari. [FN129]. While medical marijuana is legal in California, 73 cities and 7 counties have complete bans on marijuana. [FN130]. This issue is currently being litigated in Qualified Patients Assoc. v. City of Anaheim. [FN131]. When challenged under the CSA the California court of appeals upheld the MMP reasoning that as long as marijuana legalization statutes only exempt statutes only remove penalties of state laws, they do not conflict. [FN132]. Positive conflict only exists, if one law requires conduct that is prohibited by the other. [FN133].

The federal government has turned a blind eye to the states circumvention of the laws and safety systems administered by the FDA and governed by the CSA. On October 19th, 2009 the United States District Attorney’s office issued a memo instructing federal prosecutors not to pursue marijuana related activities that conform to state laws. [FN134]. So the medical marijuana industry is operating unencumbered.

When asked why medical marijuana was legalized in California one assembly member stated he introduced the marijuana bill as a way to improve public safety and to help solve the state’s more than $26 billion budget shortfall. [FN135]. States have greatly reduced penalties related to marijuana and more municipalities are making marijuana their very lowest priority in law enforcement. [FN136]. Thirteen states have made first time possession of up to twenty eight grams of marijuana a minor violation or ticket-able offense. [FN137]. States’ actions legalizing and/or decriminalizing marijuana use is creating an environment conducive to trouble. Given the facts that some states have legalized and/or decriminalized the marijuana industry; the federal government is not enforcing federal marijuana statutes; and the IRS does not allow deductions for expenses related to marijuana trafficking (according to Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code) the perfect storm has been created, encouraging small time marijuana traffickers to sprout and flourish. Perhaps for purposes other than bona fide medical use. [FN138].

In 2010, California voted on Proposition 19, which would have legalized the recreational use and sale of marijuana within its borders. [FN139]. The ballot initiative failed, but some believe the fact that millions of voters “supported it means marijuana advocates have a solid base of support.” [FN140]. It would have been interesting to see the Obama administration’s response, if this initiative had passed. Marijuana advocates believe this is just the beginning, a “battle in a big war,” and do not seem discouraged by this law. [FN141].Perhaps, we will get to see the Obama administrations reaction to the passing of this initiative in 2012, if President Obama is re-elected to office and the ballot initiative passes.

Scourge or Blessing?

           Marijuana, in its splendor, is either the scourge of humanity that if legalized and widely used would lead to the end of civilization or is a miracle plant, with which we are blessed, for industrial and medical use. Shouldn’t science decide what marijuana really is, not political maneuvering and rhetoric? The political influence on Andrew Mellon, seemingly exerted for his financial gain but supposedly exerted to protect citizens from the dangers of marijuana, has resulted in the steady underground growth of a marijuana smoking culture and has delayed scientific research significantly. Research that could have uncovered the best possible uses of marijuana, the most effective methods to administer marijuana, and the potential dangers that prolonged exposure to marijuana posits.

However, political influence obstructed all chances at an unbiased and proper scientific evaluation of marijuana, resulting in the precarious legal situation (regarding marijuana) we currently face. Is this what happens when politics disrupts the function of government agencies? Would the FDA, if allowed to evaluate competent scientific findings related to the safety and efficacy of marijuana’s medical use, either in complete or separated cannabinoid form, approve its use? The research presented in this paper argues that because marijuana does have medical uses, whether smoked, vaporized, or processed and converted for oral pill or spray application, should be allowed to be prescribed for medical purposes. FDA approved Synthetic oral pills and sprays may be the safest and most effective ways to administer marijuana, but because of the costly manufacturing process, they are also far more expensive than administering smoked, vaporized, or cooked marijuana.

To the FDA’s credit, it already has approved some uses (as mentioned above) and others are pending approval. However, those methods of administration approved or pending approval by the FDA are more costly then the use of crude marijuana and these costs may even be prohibitive to some. Is the prominent marijuana researcher and advocate, Jack Herer, correct in his belief that major financial interests have been influencing the government in order to suppress the use of medical marijuana? This question presents us with an issue outside of the scope of this paper, the influence of corporate America on government and the problems that result from this influence. The current legal policy on marijuana may be the prime example, you decide.

Federal Policy on Marijuana

Billions have been spent federally on enforcing marijuana prohibition under the CSA with little effect. [FN81]. The federal government spends twice as much on enforcement then on education and prevention. [FN82]. A 2004 assessment conducted by the Office of Management and Budget found that the DEA was unable to demonstrate progress in reducing the availability of illegal drugs in the United States. [FN83]. In fact, the National Drug Intelligence Center reports sharp rise in domestic production since 2000, most likely because of the increased border security after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. [FN84]. But this is not the only reason; direct access into the local drug markets and higher profit margins has likely contributed to the increase in production as well, despite rising law enforcement pressure. [FN85]. In spite of the Billions spent in enforcement of current marijuana laws, marijuana continues to be the most extensively used and readily available drug in the United States and is the only “narcotic” grown in within the our borders. [FN86]. It is estimated that the United States marijuana market has a value of over $10 billion. [FN87]. The yield of a new tax on marijuana would be a pure gain in revenue. [FN88].

In the mid 1970’s Congress created the Compassionate Investigative New Drug Program (Compassionate IND), which allowed patients to obtained marijuana from the government for therapeutic use. [FN89]. However, few Compassionate INDs were awarded. [FN90]. By 1990 only 34 patients were participating in the program. [FN91]. In 1991 the Public Health Service decided to suspend the program because it conflicted with national anti-drug policy. [FN92]. Eight patients continue their current marijuana use under the Compassionate IND program, supplied by the University of Mississippi. [FN93]. An estimated 30,000 new cases of leukemia were reported in 2001. [FN94]. Assuming this number is representative of the number of people suffering from conditions that would warrant use of medical marijuana and would like to use medical marijuana. We can take from the number of patients participating in the Compassionate IND program, that the federal government did not take the use of medical marijuana seriously.

The federal government’s attitude can be further illustrated in Conant v. Walters, a class action by physicians against government enforcement of policy that threatened to punish physicians for communicating with their patients about the medical use of marijuana. [FN95]. Here the government could not justify a policy that threatened to punish physicians for recommending medical marijuana to a patient the on the ground that such a recommendation might encourage illegal conduct by the patient. [FN96]. The court reasoned that the government could not do so unless it was doing so to protect public interest and prove the elements necessary to convict the physicians of aiding and abetting. [FN97]. The court set out the factors for determining public interest as: (1) The recommendation of the appropriate state licensing board or professional disciplinary authority; (2) the applicant’s experience in dispensing or conducting research with respect to control substances; (3) the applicant’s conviction record under federal or state laws relating to the manufacturer, distribution, or dispensing of control substances; (4) compliance with applicable state, federal, or local laws relating to control substances; and (5) such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety. [FN98]. And conviction of aiding and abetting requires the government to prove four elements: (1) that the accused had the specific intent to facilitate the commission of a crime by another; (2) that the accused had the requisite intent of the underlying substantive offense; (3) that the accused assisted or participated in the commission of the underlying substance of offense; and (4) that someone committed the underlying offense. [FN99]. The government was unable to prove its case. The court stated that a doctor’s anticipation of patient conduct does not translate into aiding and abetting, or conspiracy. [FN100]. By recommending marijuana, the doctor does not know that the patient will resort to illegal activity. [FN101]. The patient could participate in a federally approved program or even seek to lobby the government to change the law. [FN102]. The court believed its decision to be consistent with the principles of federalism that have left the states as the primary regulators of professional conduct. [FN103].

We may soon be seeing a change in the federal government’s view of marijuana, however. On October 19th, 2009 the United States District Attorney’s office issued a memo instructing federal prosecutors not to pursue marijuana related activities that conform to state laws. [FN104]. This coupled with the bill in the house, mentioned earlier, is a clear indication that that the government may have changed its policy on medical marijuana.

Development of Current Tax policy on Marijuana

While there are no clearly defined statutes providing for federal taxation of marijuana, since the Marihuana Tax Act, the federal tax treatment of marijuana can be deciphered from the following series of cases. In the first case, Holt v. Commissioner (1977), the petitioner had been engaged in the trade or business of trafficking marijuana and was arrested for transporting marijuana. [FN105]. Pursuant to his arrest Holt’s truck and horse trailer were seized and forfeited, and his marijuana was confiscated, but the $5,000 cash he had on his person was added to his property. [FN106]. The court held that the forfeitures and confiscation resulted in losses for the Holts, not deductable expenses. [FN107]. The losses inflicted on Holts because of Mr. Holt’s illegal activities are disallowed under section 165, as it is against a sharply defined national policy to allow those losses. [FN108]. The court did not allow deductions for anything confiscated by authorities.

However, it was stipulated that during 1972, Holt’s gross receipts from the sale of marijuana totaled $780,000. [FN109]. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allowed deductions for the cost of goods sold (marijuana) amounting to $280,000, sales commissions of $320,000, driver’s expenses of $40,000, legal and professional fees of $32,250, bad debts of $5,000, and bonds for $4,500. [FN110]. The $780,000 in gross receipts was considered community income, taxed one half to Doug Holt and one half to Gail Holt citing Hopkins v. Bacon. [FN111]. However, the IRS disallowed the deductions for the losses of the confiscated truck, horse trailer, and marijuana because they were not “ordinary and necessary” business expenses and because, under section 162 (F) and common law, it is against public policy to allow such deductions. [FN112]. At the time of the Holt case, there was no dispute as to the deductibility of the marijuana actually sold by Holt as cost of goods sold. [FN113]. However, the confiscated marijuana was found not to be deductable, because of the fact it wasn’t sold and public policy concerns. [FN114]. As for the cash, there was also no dispute that under 21 U.S.C. sec. 881 (1970), nor 49 U.S.C. sec. 782 (1970), there was no required forfeiture of cash used in connection with marijuana trafficking. [FN115].

In the second case, Wood v. United States (1989), the court held that proceeds from drug smuggling which were forfeited to government constituted taxable income, and that the tax payer was not entitled to any loss deduction for the forfeited funds. [FN116]. The court reasoned that the test for determining taxable income is not in the actual transfer of title, but is in the actual dominion and control. [FN117]. It is not inconsistent to tax income for years in which the funds in question were of economic benefits to tax payer. [FN118]. In fact, dominion and control in its terms excludes consideration of what happens to income after it flows from the taxpayer’s hands. [FN119].

In the third case, McNichols v. Commissioner (1993), the taxpayer sought a review of the assessment of income tax deficiencies and penalties on proceeds from his illegal drug trafficking activities. [FN120]. Here the court held that the assessment of deficiencies on property already forfeited to the government did not subject the taxpayer to excessive fines in violation the 8th amendment nor did it constitute multiple punishments as proscribed by the double jeopardy clause. [FN121].

In the fourth case, King v. United States (1996), taxpayers who forfeited revenue from their marijuana operation sought an income tax refund. [FN122]. Here the court held that the taxpayers were not required to pay taxes prior to the filing of the refund claim with the IRS in order to file a refund suit in the first place; the taxpayers could not treat forfeited funds as pre payment credit as they intended to; the taxpayers were not allowed to claim loss deductions for any forfeited funds; and that the denial of any deduction for forfeited funds did not constitute an excessive fine. [FN123]. The court reasoned that no provision exists for using forfeited drug proceeds to pay income taxes. [FN124].Therefore, the Kings could not use the $636,940 in forfeited funds as a prepayment credit. [FN125].

In the fifth case, Californians helping to alleviate medical problems, Inc v. Commissioner (2007), the tax payer provided both medical marijuana pursuant to state statue, as well as, non-marijuana related counseling and care giving services to its members. [FN126]. In this case the taxpayer seeks a re-determination of the deficiencies arising from the dis-allowance of all of the taxpayers ordinary and necessary business expenses. [FN127]. Here the court held that the current rule against the deduction of business expenses related to drug trafficking does not preclude the deduction of expenses for the non-drug related business of taxpayers; the taxpayers provisions of medical marijuana constituted “trafficking” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); and that the taxpayers care giving services constituted a separate trade or business for the purposes of business expense deductions. [FN128]. According to the court, section 280E of the IRC precludes the taxpayers from deducting any expenses attributable to its provision of medical marijuana. [FN129]. The court stated that the taxpayers’ provision of its care giving services and provisions of medical marijuana were separate trades or businesses for the purposes of section 280E of the IRC, thus section 280E of the IRC does not preclude the taxpayers from deducting any expenses attributable to its care giving services. [FN130]. Congress enacted section 280E as a direct reaction to the outcome for a case in which this court allowed a tax payer to deduct expenses occurred in an illegal drug trade (citing S. Rept. 97-494 [vol. 1], at 309 [1982]). [FN131].

Here the court reasoned that sharply defined public policy against drug dealing does not allow drug dealers the benefit of business expense deductions while the Unites States and its citizen are losing billions of dollars per year to such persons and such deductions are not compelled by the fact that similar deductions are allowed to other, legal, enterprises. [FN132]. The court stated that these deductions must be disallowed on public policy grounds. [FN133]. However, a taxpayer may carry on one or more trades or businesses at the same time. [FN134]. The court reasoned that it has never been thought that the mere fact that expenditures bear a remote relation to an illegal act makes it non-deductible. [FN135]. Since the petitioners operated a separate trade or businesses, the court was required to apportion the taxpayers overall expenses accordingly. [FN136]. However, in this matter the court is reluctant to substitute its judgment for that of the petitioner’s management as to its understanding of the expenses the petitioner incurred in each trade. [FN137].

Congress, assisted by the courts, has developed its current policy on taxation of the marijuana industry through the above cases. At first, the court treated marijuana dealing as any other normal business, allowing for cost of good deductions, but disallowing losses for seized or forfeited assets due to illegal activity. Then in the following case the court confirmed that seized and forfeited assets constituted taxable income, despite the fact it was forfeited. The court again upheld its stance that seized or forfeited assets constituted taxable income and that this did not constitute excessive fines or multiple punishments. Continuing its trend, the court in the next case decided that any forfeited funds do not constitute payment of taxes owed, even though the government was the recipient of the forfeited funds. In the final case we see a shift, attributable to congress’ reaction to the first case enacting section 280E of the IRC, requiring the court to refuse to allow cost of good deductions for any dealings in marijuana. However, the court in the fifth case discussed above did find that if a taxpayer is operating multiple trades or businesses, the taxpayer may take deductions for those trades or business unrelated to its dealings in marijuana. Interestingly, the court allows the taxpayer to decide which expenses involve marijuana and those that do not.

In reviewing federal policy on marijuana, we see that conflicts with national anti-drug policy are important. When we consider the national anti-drug policy on marijuana, we see that it may be changing. When Section 280E was passed in reaction to the Holt v. Commissioner, there was no concern about state sanctioned “marijuana traffickers,” so it conformed to the national anti-drug policy. However, now that states are beginning to sanction what section 280E of the IRC considers “trafficking” and the Attorney General’s office has announced its policy not to prosecute marijuana dealers operating under state law, the current tax policy may cause a conflict with national anti-drug policy on marijuana.

Marijuana’s Tax Revenue Potential and Proposal

Using California as an example, 2006 figures show an estimated 8.6 million pounds of marijuana, with production value of more than $13.8 billion and retail value of about $24 billion was produced in California. [FN138]. Taking alcohol as a comparison, over 817 million gallons of alcohol were sold in California in 2005, approximately $19.5 billion in sales. [FN139]. The population of California in 2006 was approximately 36.5 million. [FN140]. According to these figures we can roughly estimate that a population of 36.5 million will consume 8.6 million pounds of marijuana and 817 million gallons of alcohol, assuming that the percentage of the population that do not consume alcohol or marijuana match up with the percentage of alcohol and marijuana that are exported out of California.

Surely, if marijuana was legalized it would face normal sale, income, and business taxes and face additional excise taxes similar to alcohol and tobacco. [FN141]. One example of an excise tax passed in California is the city of Oakland’s current law imposing 1.8% gross receipt tax on marijuana sold within the city. [FN142]. This tax supplements the current sales tax, and is similar to the “sin taxes” on cigarettes and alcohol. [FN143]. Let us assume for this arguments sake that the income tax rate is 35% and the sales tax is 7%. We can then deduce that the sales tax revenues on the $24 billion retail would be $1.68 billion, plus $432 million in excise taxes, and $2.8308 billion in income taxes. [FN144]. So for a population of about 36.5 million, we can assume that taxes on marijuana would yield $7.3416 billion in revenues. [FN145]. This is excluding licensing and permit fees and penalties for violations enforced, that are likely to occur. [FN146]. For this argument, we will assume that these licensing and permit fees, as well as, penalties for violations match up with the additional deductible expenses we have not considered. If we extrapolate this tax revenue over the 308 million in population of the United States [FN147], we will find that if the marijuana industry was federally taxed, revenues would increase by about $61.951 billion. [FN148]. The yield of a new tax on marijuana would be a pure gain in revenue. [FN149].

However, to solidify this argument we should account for costs in regulation. In California the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control regulates the alcohol industry with a budget of approximately $53.4 million. [FN150]. Assuming the cost of regulation would be the same for the marijuana industry, we can estimate that it will cost $53.4 million to regulate marijuana for a population of 36.5 million. If we extrapolate that over the entire United States population, we find that it would cost the federal government about $450.611 million to regulate the marijuana industry. [FN151]. This leaves us with a truly pure gain in revenues of about $61.5 billion. [FN152]. This $61.5 billion increase in revenues, does not include savings on the pursuit and prosecution of marijuana trafficker. The expenditures could be used to focus on other prohibited drugs or can serve as ways to supplement spending. Considering the above facts, marijuana legalization is a viable solution to increasing revenues and decreasing spending in these hard times. However, given the political stigma surrounding marijuana, it is unlikely that politicians will vote to legalize marijuana.

 With the current laws as they stand today, the federal ban on marijuana “would impair enforcement of a state marijuana tax for two reasons: 1) it would preserve the current fragmented structure of the marijuana market, by giving marijuana distributors an incentive to remain small and to operate inconspicuously; and 2) it would put state tax collectors in a dilemma, because federal authorities could use state tax rolls.” [FN153]. Because of section 280E of the IRC, the inability to take deductions for cost of goods sold for marijuana related activities, a tremendous burden is placed on those attempting to file federal taxes, not to mention the self incrimination concerns. [FN154] Surely, these are disincentives to consider filing federal taxes.

If we were to remove the stigma on a bill presented, by passing a law that would not be seen as legalizing marijuana, but allowing for the taxation of state sanctioned marijuana “traffickers” operating under state law. The perfect bipartisan project, that champions State and Individual rights. To accomplish this section 280E of the IRC must be amended to allow “traffickers” operating under state law to take deductions and granting immunity from prosecution to those who report on their state sanctioned “trafficking” activity. If these proposed modifications to section 280E of the IRC are made, the problems with State tax collection on marijuana would be solved and new federal tax revenue could be generated.

Conclusion

Legalize Marijuana in the United States.

Footnotes

FN1-      Philip Smith, More Cops Died Directing Traffic Than Waging the Drug War Last Year, Drug War Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2007, https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2007/jan/11/feature_more_cops_died_directing.

FN2-      Steve Hammons, George Washington’s whiskey distillery rebuilt; first president also grew hemp at Mount Vernon, American Chronicle, Oct. 11, 2006, https://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/14731.

FN3-      id.

FN4-      Mathew W. Grey, Comment, Medical Use of Marijuana: Legal and Ethical Conflicts in the Patient/Physician Relationship, 30 U. Rich. L. Rev. 249, 251-52 (1996); The Pharmacopoeia of the U.S., Extractum Cannabis (3d ed. 1851) (“Extract of hemp. An alcoholic extract of the dried tops of Cannabis sativa ... variety Indica.”).

FN5-     Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, P.L. 59-384, 34 Stat. 768 (1906).

FN6-      Peter Barton Hutt & Richard A. Merrill, Food and Drug Law: Cases and Materials 8 (2d. ed. 1991) (1980).; see also James Harvey Young, The Long Struggle for the 1906 Law, FDA Consumer, June 1981, at 16, available at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/CentennialofFDA/TheLongStrugglefortheLaw/default.htm.

FN7-      Linda Whitlock, Marijuana, 2 Crime & Delinquency Literature 363 (1970).

FN8-      Public Broadcasting Service, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN9-      Jesse Mckinley, Push to Legalize Marijuana Gains Ground in California, New York Times, Oct. 28, 2009, NYT A18 2009 WLNR 21396158.

FN10-   Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN11-   Richard Bonnie & Charles Whitebread, The Forbidden Fruit and The Tree of Knowledge: An Inquiry into the Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition, Drug Library, (unknown year), https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/vlr/vlr3.htm (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN12-   At this point, marijuana was still a legal substance under federal law. See discussion supra in fourth topic The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

FN13-   Jack Herer, The Emperor Wears No Clothes 25 (Chris Conrad ed., Quick Trading 1996) (1985).

FN14-   id.

FN15-   id.

FN16-   id.

FN17-   id.

FN18-   Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 21 (1969).

FN19-   Larry Sloman, The History of Marijuana in America: Reefer Madness 50 (1979).

FN20-   Public Broadcasting Service, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN21-   id.

FN22-    Reefer Madness (Legend Films 1936).

FN23-   Michael Brannon, Organizing and Reorganizing the FDA, in FOOD & DRUG LAW 113, 115 (Richard M. Cooper ed., 1991).

FN24-   Julie C. Relihan, Expediting FDA Approval of AIDS Drugs: An International Approach, 13 B.U. INT'L L.J. 229, 234 (1995); Steven R. Salbu, Regulation of Drug Treatments For HIV and AIDS: A Contractarian Model, 11 YALE J. ON REG. 401, 406 (1994); David W. Jordan, International Regulatory Harmonization: A New Era in Prescription Drug Approval, 25 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 471, 475, (1992).

FN25-   U.S.C.A. Const. Art. I.

FN26-   21 U.S.C. § 393 (b); see also Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. 26 (1905).

FN27-   Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358 (U.S. 1905).

FN28-   id.

FN29-   The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, Pub. L. No. 75-238, 50 Stat. 551 (repealed 1970).

FN30-   Lester Grinspoon, M.D. & James B. Bakalar, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine 8 (1993) (describing marijuana's medicinal uses).

FN31-   David L. Luck, Gens, Drugs, and… Federalism? – Gonzales v. Raich Enfeebles the Rehnquist Court’s Lopez-Morrison Framework, 61 U. Miami L. Rev. 237 (2006).

FN32-   Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 21 (1969).

FN33-   Lester Grinspoon, M.D. & James B. Bakalar, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine 8 (1993) (describing marijuana's medicinal uses).

FN34-   id.

FN35-   Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN36-   id.

FN37-   Larry Sloman, The History of Marijuana in America: Reefer Madness 76 (1979).

FN38-   Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, Pub. L. No. 84-728, ch. 629, 70 Stat. 570 (1956) (repealed 1970). See also Allison L. Bergstrom, Medical Use of Marijuana: A Look at Federal & State Responses to California's Compassionate Use Act, 2 DePaul J. Health Care L. 155, 159 (1997).

FN39-   Allison L. Bergstrom, Medical Use of Marijuana: A Look at Federal & State Responses to California's Compassionate Use Act, 2 DePaul J. Health Care L. 155, 159 (1997).

FN40-   21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) (2006).

FN41-   Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 2, 17 (2005).

FN42-   id.

FN43-   21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1).; see also Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 966 F.Supp. 1374 (1997)

FN44-   21 C.F.R. § 328 (1996).

FN45-   Charles J. Walsh & Alissa Pyrich, Rationalizing The Refulation of Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices: Perspectives on Private Certification and Tort Reform, 48 Rutgers L. Rev. 883, 884 (1996).

FN46-   id.

FN47-   21 C.F.R. § 328 (1996).

FN48-   Coyne Beahm, Inc., 966 F. Supp. at 1384.

FN49-   Phillip R. Costello, Put This in Your Pip and Smoke it: FDA Regulation of Tobacco Products, 41 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 703, 726 (1997).

FN50-   In Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 153 F.3d 155 (4th Cir. 1998).

FN51-   Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 6 (1969).

FN52-   id.

FN53-   id. at 16.                                                                                                                                                                              

FN54-   id. at 6.

FN30-   Storton v. Foley, 1973 WL 667 (W.D.N.Y.).

FN31-   id. at 2.

FN32-   id.

FN55-   21 U.S.C.A. §§ 801-971 (West 1999).

FN56-   Rick J. Strassman, Human Hallucinogenic Drug Research in the United States: A Present-Day Case History and Review of the Process, 23(1) J. Psychoactive Drugs 29 (1991).

FN57-   21 U.S.C. § 812 (1994).

FN58-   id.

FN59-   id.

FN60-   id.

FN61-   id.

FN62-   id.

FN63-   See Alexander T. Shulgin, Controlled Substances Act: A Resource Manual of the Current Status of the Federal Drug Laws 227, 231 (1988).

FN64-   Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN38-   The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, https://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5088 (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN65-   21 U.S.C.A. § 355(d).

 FN66-  James L. Zelenay, Jr., The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Is a Faster Food and Drug Administration Always a Better Food and Drug Administration?, 60 Food & Drug L.J. 261, 268 (2005).

FN67-   21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) (2006).

FN68-   Zelaney, supra note 66, at 268-69.

FN69-   Medical Letter on the CDC & FDA, Cannabis Science Hails the American Medical Association for Urging the United States to Facilitate Clinical Research and Development of… Cannabis Science Inc., 2009 WLNR 23956538 (2009).

FN70-   Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 938 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

FN71-   id.

FN72-   Zelaney, supra note 66, at 268-69.

FN73-   21 U.S.C.A. § 355(d).

FN74-   Jason Freeden, Top Five Most Dangerous Drugs to Use, Associated Content, June 11, 2007 available at https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/272367/top_five_most_dangerous_drugs_to_use_pg5.html?cat=5.

FN75-   Cynthia S. Duncan, The Need for Change: An Economic Analysis of Marijuana Policy, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 1701, 1707 (2009).

FN76-   id. at 1706-1707.

FN77-   Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN78-   id.

FN79-   Benjamin Dolin, National Drug Policy: United States of America, California Library of Parliament, Jul. 24, 2001 available at https://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/library-e/dolin2-e.htm#C. The Shafer Commission – 1972.

FN80-   id.

FN81-   NPR All Things Considered, FDA on Medical Marijuana: Science or Politics?, Apr. 21, 2006, 2006 WLNR 22945813 (2006).

FN82-   Janet E. Joy et al., Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, Institute of Medicine (1999).

FN83-   id.

FN84-   Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C § 321 (2006).

FN85-   Peter J. Cohen, Medical Marijuana: The Conflict Between Scientific Evidence and Political Ideology, 2009 Utah L. Rev. 35, 77-80 (2009).

FN86-   Medical Letter on the CDC & FDA, Cannabis Science Hails the American Medical Association for Urging the United States to Facilitate Clinical Research and Development of… Cannabis Science Inc., 2009 WLNR 23956538 (2009).

FN87-   Walter F. Wouk, For the Medical Use of Marijuana, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1991 WLNR 4243881 (1991).

FN88-   id.

FN89-   D. I. Abrams et al., Cannabis in Painful HIV-Associated Sensory Neuropathy: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial, 68 Neurology 515, 516 (2007).

FN90-   id. at 517.

FN91-   id.

FN92-   id.

FN93-   id. at 518.

FN94-   Ronald J. Ellis et al., Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial, Neuropsychoparhmacology 2009:34:672.

FN95-   id. at 1-2.

FN96-   id.

FN97-   id. at 6-7.

FN98-   id. at 1.

FN99-   Harrison G. Pope, Jr. & Deborah Yurgelon-Todd, The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students, 275 J. Am. Med. Ass'n 521, 521 (1996).

FN100- Jerome H. Jaffe, Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse, in Goodman and Gilman's: The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics 535, 561 (Alfred Goodman Gilman et al., eds., 6th ed. 1980).

FN101- Sandra P. Welch & Billy R. Martin, The Pharmacology of Marijuana, in Principles of Addiction Medicine 249, 261-263 (Allan W. Graham et al., eds., 3d. ed. 2003).

FN102- United States Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Agency, Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, available at https://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medical/young/young1.html.

FN103- 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1994).

FN104- Peter J. Cohen, Medical Marijuana: The Conflict Between Scientific Evidence and Political Ideology, 2009 Utah L. Rev. 35, 56 (2009).

FN105- id.

FN106- id.

FN107- David Moir et al., A Comparison of Mainstream and Sidestream Marijuana and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Produced Under Two Machine Smoking Conditions, 21 Chemical Res. Toxicology 494, 496-500 (2007).

FN108- Mark S. Gold, The Pharmacology of Marijuana, in Principles of Addiction Medicine 163, 164 (Allan W. Graham & Terry K. Schultz eds., 2d ed. 1998).

FN109- Marc Kaufman, Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection, Wash. Post, May 26, 2006, at A3.; see also Jill U. Adams, Damaging Habit?, L.A. Times, Aug. 18, 2008, at F6.

FN110- Life Science Weekly, Data from L. Zuurman and colleagues advance knowledge in life sciences, 2008 WLNR 19724989 (2008).

FN111-  Oakley Ray & Charles Ksir, Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior 460 (9th ed. 2002).; see also J. Ludovic Croxford & Takashi Yamamura, Cannabinoids and the Immune System: Potential for the Treatment of Inflammatory Diseases? 166 J. Neuroimmunology 3, 12 (2005).

FN112- Roger A. Nicoll & Bradley E. Alger, The Brain's Own Marijuana, Scientific Am., Dec. 2004, at 68, 73.

FN113- Thomas W. Klein et al., The Cannabinoid System and Immune Modulation, 74 J. Leukocyte Biology 486, 493 (2003).

FN114- Daniele Piomelli, The Molecular Logic of Endocannabinoid Signaling, 4 Nature Revs. 873, 878 (2003).

FN115- Diego Centonze et al., The Endocannabinoid System in Targeting Inflammatory Neurodegenerative Diseases, 28 Trends Pharmacological Sci. 180, 182 (2007).

FN116- Pippa Wysong, Marijuana derivative may fight arthritis [CT-3], Medical Post, Jan. 27, 1998, 1998 WLNR 152612 (1998). 

FN117- id.

FN118- Marijuana, Medicine & the Law at viii (R.C. Randall ed., 1988).

FN119-  Marinol--the Legal Medical Use for the Marijuana Plant, https://www.justice.gov/dea/ongoing/marinol.html (last visited Dec. 18, 2010).

FN120- United States v. Evers, M.D., 643 F.2d 1043, 1048 (5th Cir. 1981).

FN121- GW Pharmaceutical: FAQs, https://www.gwpharm.com/faqs.asp (last visited Dec. 18, 2010).

FN122- Megan Johnson, Medical Claims for Marijuana—Just Blowing Smoke?, U.S. News, Jun. 30, 2010, at 2010 WLNR 13350955 (2010).

FN123- id.

FN124- Bill Jones, Secretary of State, Statement of Vote: November 5, 1996, viii (1996).

FN125- Medical Marijuana Program, S.B. 420, 2003-04 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2003).

FN126- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Cal. Dept. of Justice, Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use (2008), https://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1601_ medicalmarijuanaguidelines.pdf.

FN127- Medical Marijuana Program, S.B. 420, 2003-04 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2003).

FN128- State by State Laws, NORML, https://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516 (last visited Dec. 18, 2010).

FN129- San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 461, 461-486 (2008); San Bernardino County, California v. California, 129 S. Ct. 2380 (2009).

FN130- Americans For Safe Access, Local California Dispensary Regulations, https://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3165 (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN131- Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim, No. G040077 (Cal. Ct. App. filed Mar. 13, 2008).

FN132- Hyland v. Fukuda, 580 F.2d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 1975).

FN133- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 289-90 (2005); San Diego NORML, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 476-81.

FN134- David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys, Investigations and Prosecutions in the States: Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana, October 19th, 2009.

FN135- Quintin Meche, Ammiano Proposes Bill To Tax And Regulate Marijuana, Assembly member Tom Ammiano Representing the 13th Assembly District - Welcome, Feb. 23, 2009, https://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a13/News_Room/Press/20090223AD13PR01.aspx.

FN136- David Abel, Marijuana Law Advocates Seek Wider Change, Boston Globe, Nov. 8, 2008, at B3.

FN137- State by State Laws, NORML, https://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516 (last visited Dec. 18, 2010).

FN138- California Issues New Medical-Marijuana Guidelines, Join Together, Sep. 2, 2008, https://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2008/california-issues-new.html.

FN139- Henry K. Lee, Legal Pot Backers Vow to Try Again in 2010, San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 4, 2010, 2010 WLNR 22007950 (2010).

FN140- id.

FN141- id.

FN81-   U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control Strategy, No. GAO/GGD-97-42, at 4 (1997), available at https://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/gg97042.pdf.

FN82-   Office of Nat'l Drug Control Pol'y, Executive Office of the President, Nat'l Drug Control Strategy: FY 2009 Budget Summary 13 tbl.3 (2008), available at https://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/fy09budget.pdf.

FN83-   Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Executive Office of the President, Program Assessment Rating Tool: Program Summaries 254 (2005), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/ap_cd_rom/part.pdf.

FN84-   Nat'l Drug Intelligence Ctr., U.S. Dep't of Justice, Domestic Cannabis Cultivation Assessment 2007, at 2 (2007), available at https:// www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs22/22486/22486p/22486p.pdf.

FN85-   id.

FN86-   Solomon Moore, Border Proves No Obstacle for Mexican Cartels, N.Y. Times, Feb. 2, 2009, at A1, available at LEXIS, News Library, NYT File.

FN87-   Office of Nat'l Drug Control Pol'y, Executive Office of the President, What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs 26 tbl.9 (2001), available at https://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/american_ users_spend_2002.pdf.

FN88-   Mark A.R. Kleiman, Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results 272 (1992).

FN89-   Abbie Crites-Leoni, Note, 19 J. Legal Med. 273, at 278 (1998).

FN90-   id.

FN91-   id.

FN92-   id.

FN93-   id.

FN94-   The Cancer Cure Foundation, https://www.cancure.org/statistics.htm (last accessed on Dec. 1, 2010).

FN95-   Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 629-644 (2002).

FN96-   id.

FN97-   id. at 632-633.

FN98-   id. at 632-633.

FN99-   id. at 635.

FN100- id. at 636.

FN101- id.

FN102- id.

FN103- id. at 639).

FN104- David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys, Investigations and Prosecutions in the States: Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana, October 19th, 2009.

FN105- Holt v. Comm’r, 69 T.C. 75, 75-81 (1977).

FN106- id.

FN107- id.

FN108- id.

FN109- id.

FN110- id.

FN111- id.

FN112- id.

FN113- id.

FN114- id.

FN115- id.

FN116- Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417, 417-423 (1989).

FN117- id.

FN118- id.

FN119- id.

FN120- McNichols v. Comm’r, 13 F3d 432, 432-436 (1993).

FN121- id.

FN122- King v. United States, 949 F.Supp. 787, 787-790 (1996).

FN123- id.

FN124- id. at 790.

FN125- id.

FN126- Californians Helping to Alleviate Med. Prob., Inc. v. Comm’r, 128 T.C. 173, 173-185 (2007).

FN127- id.

FN128- id.

FN129- id.

FN130- id.

FN131- id. at 181.

FN132- id. at 182.

FN133- id.

FN134- id.

FN135- id.

FN136- id. at 184.

FN137- id. at 186.

FN138- Jon Gettman, Marijuana Production in the United States (2006), Bulletin of Cannabis Reform 10-11, Dec. 2006, available at https:// www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf.

FN139- Simon M. Rosen, et. al, Miron Institute, The Cost of Alcohol in California (slide presentation) (2008) (powerpoint based on article in 32(11) Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 1925 (2008), available at https://www.freethebowl.com/site/images/stories/media/the_cost_of_alcohol_to_california_final.ppt.

FN140- True Knowledge, https://www.trueknowledge.com/q/population_of_california_in_2010 (last visited Dec. 1, 2010).

FN141- IRS, Excise Tax (2010), https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99517,00.html.

FN142- Dan Simon, Oakland, California, Passes Landmark Marijuana Tax, CNN.com, July 22, 2009, https:// edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/22/california.pot.tax/.

FN143- Cal. State Board of Equalization, Special Notice: Important Information for Sellers of Medical Marijuana (2007).

FN144- 24 billion x .07; plus 24 billion x .018; income taxes on <[24 billion – 1.68 billion] - 432 million> – 13.8 in deductions x .35.

FN145- 1.68 billion + 432 million + 2.8308 billion.

FN146-  CS, Proposed Initiative Measure 09-0025 (Aug. 4, 2009) § 4; RCTCA, Proposed Initiative Measure 09-0024 (Aug. 4, 2009) § 3-11302; TRCCA, Proposed Initiative Measure 09-0022 (July 15, 2009) § 4-11302.

FN147- Robert Schlesinger, U.S. Population, 2010: 308 Million and Growing, U.S. News, Dec. 30, 2009, https://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing.

FN148- 308 million/36.5 million = 8.4384 x 7.3416.

FN149- Mark A.R. Kleiman, Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results 272 (1992).

FN150- California Budget 2010-11, 2100 Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, available at https:// www.ebudget.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/2000/2100/department.html.

FN151- 308 million/36.5 million = 8.4384 x 53.4.

FN152- 61.951 billion – 450.611 million.

FN153- Mikos, Robert A., State Taxation of Marijuana Distribution and Other Federal Crimes. Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 10-05; Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 10-04; University of Chicago Legal Forum 222, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1549828.

FN154- 26 U.S.C.A. § 280E.