# Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-17954

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** August 12, 2016
- **Citation:** 81 FR 53688

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. DEA-426]
Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana

AGENCY:

Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

ACTION:

Denial of petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana.

SUMMARY:

By letter dated July 19, 2016 the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denied a petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Because the DEA believes that this matter is of particular interest to members of the public, the agency is publishing below the letter sent to the petitioner which denied the petition, along with the supporting documentation that was attached to the letter.

DATES:

August 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael J. Lewis, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

July 19, 2016

Dear Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Inslee:

On November 30, 2011, your predecessors, The Honorable Lincoln D. Chafee and The Honorable Christine O. Gregoire, petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Specifically, your predecessors petitioned the DEA to have marijuana and “related items” removed from Schedule I of the CSA and rescheduled as medical cannabis in Schedule II.

Your predecessors requested that the DEA remove marijuana and related items from Schedule I based on their assertion that:

(1) Cannabis has accepted medical use in the United States;

(2) Cannabis is safe for use under medical supervision;

(3) Cannabis for medical purposes has a relatively low potential for abuse, especially in comparison with other Schedule II drugs.

In accordance with the CSA rescheduling provisions, after gathering the necessary data, the DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Therefore, the HHS recommended that marijuana remain in Schedule I. The scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation that the HHS submitted to the DEA is enclosed with this letter.

Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, the DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I. A document prepared by the DEA addressing these materials in detail also is enclosed. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for Schedule I control under the CSA because:

(1)
Marijuana has a high potential for abuse.
The HHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by the DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.

(2)
Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no “currently accepted medical use” because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug's chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

(3)
Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
At present, there are no marijuana products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. The HHS evaluation states that marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.

The statutory mandate of Title 21 United States Code, Section 812(b) (21 U.S.C. 812(b)) is dispositive. Congress established only one schedule, Schedule I, for drugs of abuse with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lack of accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

Although the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data lead to the conclusion that marijuana must remain in schedule I, it should also be noted that, in view of United States obligations under international drug control treaties, marijuana cannot be placed in a schedule less restrictive than schedule II. This is explained in detail in accompanying document titled “Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations.”

Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying HHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for the DEA to grant your predecessors' petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. The petition is, therefore, hereby denied.

Sincerely,

Chuck Rosenberg,

Acting Administrator
.

Attachments:

Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations

Cover Letter from HHS to DEA Summarizing the Scientific and Medical Evaluation and Scheduling Recommendation for Marijuana.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

U.S. Department of Justice—Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Schedule of Controlled Substances: Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, Background, Data, and Analysis: Eight Factors Determinative of Control and Findings Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)

Dated: July 19, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator, Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations.

As the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) recognizes, the United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (referred to here as the Single Convention or the treaty). 21 U.S.C. 801(7). Parties to the Single Convention are obligated to maintain various control provisions related to the drugs that are covered by the treaty. Many of the provisions of the CSA were enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of ensuring U.S. compliance with the treaty. Among these is a scheduling provision, 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). Section 811(d)(1) provides that, where a drug is subject to control under the Single Convention, the DEA Administrator (by delegation from the Attorney General) must “issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such [treaty] obligations, without regard to the findings required by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) or 812(b)] and without regard to the procedures prescribed by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b)].”

Marijuana is a drug listed in the Single Convention. The Single Convention uses the term “cannabis” to refer to marijuana.
1

Thus, the DEA

Administrator is obligated under section 811(d) to control marijuana in the schedule that he deems most appropriate to carry out the U.S. obligations under the Single Convention. It has been established in prior marijuana rescheduling proceedings that placement of marijuana in either schedule I or schedule II of the CSA is “necessary as well as sufficient to satisfy our international obligations” under the Single Convention.
NORML
v.
DEA,
559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977). As the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has stated, “several requirements imposed by the Single Convention would not be met if cannabis and cannabis resin were placed in CSA schedule III, IV, or V.”
2

Id.
Therefore, in accordance with section 811(d)(1), DEA must place marijuana in either schedule I or schedule II.

1
Under the Single Convention, “cannabis plant' means any plant of the genus
Cannabis.
” Article 1(c). The Single Convention defines “cannabis” to include “the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.” Article 1(b). This definition of “cannabis” under the Single Convention is slightly less inclusive than the CSA definition of “marihuana,” which includes all parts of the cannabis plant except for the mature stalks, sterilized seeds, oil from the seeds, and certain derivatives thereof.
See
21 U.S.C. 802(16). Cannabis and cannabis resin are included in the list of drugs in Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Single Convention. In contrast to the CSA, the drugs listed in Schedule IV of the Single Convention are also

listed in Schedule I of the Single Convention and are subject to the same controls as Schedule I drugs as well as additional controls. Article 2, par. 5

2
The Court further stated: “For example, [article 31 paragraph 4 of the Single Convention] requires import and export permits that would not be obtained if the substances were placed in CSA schedules III through V. In addition, the quota and [recordkeeping] requirements of Articles 19 through 21 of the Single Convention would be satisfied only by placing the substances in CSA schedule I or II.”
Id.
n. 71 (internal citations omitted).

Because schedules I and II are the only possible schedules in which marijuana may be placed, for purposes of evaluating this scheduling petition, it is essential to understand the differences between the criteria for placement of a substance in schedule I and those for placement in schedule II. These criteria are set forth in 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) and (b)(2), respectively. As indicated therein, substances in both schedule I and schedule II share the characteristic of “a high potential for abuse.” Where the distinction lies is that schedule I drugs have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug . . . under medical supervision,” while schedule II drugs do have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”
3

3
As DEA has stated in evaluating prior marijuana rescheduling petitions, “Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’and ‘lack of accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.’ 21 U.S.C. 812(b).” 76 FR 40552 (2011); 66 FR 20038 (2001).

Accordingly, in view of section 811(d)(1), this scheduling petition turns on whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. If it does not, DEA must, pursuant to section 811(d), deny the petition and keep marijuana in schedule I.

As indicated, where section 811(d)(1) applies to a drug that is the subject of a rescheduling petition, the DEA Administrator must issue an order controlling the drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out United States obligations under the Single Convention, without regard to the findings required by sections 811(a) or 812(b) and without regard to the procedures prescribed by sections 811(a) and (b). Thus, since the only determinative issue in evaluating the present scheduling petition is whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, DEA need not consider the findings of sections 811(a) or 812(b) that have no bearing on that determination, and DEA likewise need not follow the procedures prescribed by sections 811(a) and (b) with respect to such irrelevant findings. Specifically, DEA need not evaluate the relative abuse potential of marijuana or the relative extent to which abuse of marijuana may lead to physical or psychological dependence.

As explained below, the medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services concludes that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the DEA Administrator likewise so concludes. For the reasons just indicated, no further analysis beyond this consideration is required. Nonetheless, because of the widespread public interest in understanding all the facts relating to the harms associated with marijuana, DEA is publishing here the entire medical and scientific analysis and scheduling evaluation issued by the Secretary, as well as DEA's additional analysis.

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Washington, DC 20201.

June 25, 2015.

The Honorable Chuck Rosenberg

Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.

Dear Mr. Rosenberg:

Pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 811(b), (c), and (f)), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is recommending that marijuana continue to be maintained in Schedule I of the CSA.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has considered the abuse potential and dependence-producing characteristics of marijuana.

Marijuana meets the three criteria for placing a substance in Schedule I of the CSA under 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). As discussed in the enclosed analyses, marijuana has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Accordingly, HHS recommends that marijuana be maintained in Schedule I of the CSA. Enclosed are two documents prepared by FDA's Controlled Substance Staff (in response to petitions filed in 2009 by Mr. Bryan Krumm and in 2011 by Governors Lincoln D. Chafee and Christine O. Gregoire) that form the basis for the recommendation. Pursuant to the requests in the petitions, FDA broadly evaluated marijuana, and did not focus its evaluation on particular strains of marijuana or components or derivatives of marijuana.

FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's current review of the available evidence and the published clinical studies on marijuana demonstrated that since our 2006 scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation responding to a previous DEA petition, research with marijuana has progressed. However, the available evidence is not sufficient to determine that marijuana has an accepted medical use. Therefore, more research is needed into marijuana's effects, including potential medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives. Based on the current review, we identified several methodological challenges in the marijuana studies published in the literature. We recommend they be addressed in future clinical studies with marijuana to ensure that valid scientific data are generated in studies evaluating marijuana's safety and efficacy for therapeutic use. For example, we recommend that studies need to focus on consistent administration and reproducible dosing of marijuana, potentially through the use of administration methods other than smoking. A summary of our review of the published literature on the clinical uses of marijuana, including recommendations for future studies, is attached to this document.

FDA and the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) also believe that work continues to be needed to ensure support by the federal government for the efficient conduct of clinical research using marijuana. Concerns have been raised about whether the existing federal regulatory system is flexible enough to respond to increased interest in research into the potential therapeutic uses of marijuana and marijuana-derived drugs. HHS welcomes an opportunity to continue to explore these concerns with DEA.

Should you have any questions regarding theses recommendations, please contact Corinne P. Moody, Science Policy Analyst, Controlled Substances Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, at (301) 796-3152.

Sincerely yours,

Karen B. DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc

Acting Assistant Secretary for Health
.

Enclosure: Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

On November 30, 2011, Governors Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island and Christine O. Gregoire of Washington submitted a petition to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) requesting that proceeding be initiated to repeal the rules and regulations that place marijuana
4

in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The petition contends that cannabis has an accepted medical use in the United States, is safe for use under medical supervision, and has a relatively low abuse potential compared to other Schedule II drugs. The petition requests that marijuana and “related items” be rescheduled in Schedule II of the CSA. In June 2013, the DEA Administrator requested that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provide a scientific and medical evaluation of the available information and a scheduling recommendation for marijuana, in accordance with the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(b).

4
Note that “marihuana” is the spelling originally used in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This document uses the spelling that is more common in current usage, “marijuana.”

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b), DEA has gathered information related to the control of marijuana (
Cannabis sativa
)
5

under the CSA. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(b), the Secretary of HHS is required to consider in a scientific and medical evaluation eight factors determinative of control under the CSA. Following consideration of the eight factors, if it is appropriate, the Secretary must make three findings to recommend scheduling a substance in the CSA. The findings relate to a substance's abuse potential, legitimate medical use, and safety or dependence liability.

5
The CSA defines marijuana as the following:

All parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination (21 U.S.C. 802(16)).

Administrative responsibilities for evaluating a substance for control under the CSA are performed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the concurrence of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), as described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of March 8, 1985 (50 FR 9518-20).

In this document, FDA recommends the continued control of marijuana in Schedule I of the CSA. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c), the eight factors pertaining to the scheduling of marijuana are considered below.

1. Its Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse

Under the first factor the Secretary must consider marijuana's actual or relative potential for abuse. The CSA does not define the term “abuse.” However, the CSA's legislative history suggests the following in determining whether a particular drug or substance has a potential for abuse:
6

6
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, H.R. Rep. No. 91-1444, 91st Cong., Sess. 1 (1970) reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 4566, 4603.

a. There is evidence that individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community.

b. There is a significant diversion of the drug or drugs containing such a substance from legitimate drug channels.

c. Individuals are taking the drug or drugs containing such a substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs in the course of his professional practice.

d. The drug or drugs containing such a substance are new drugs so related in their action to a drug or drugs already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that the drug will have the same potentiality for abuse as such drugs, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

In the development of this scientific and medical evaluation for the purpose of scheduling, the Secretary analyzed considerable data related to the substance's abuse potential. The data include a discussion of the prevalence and frequency of use, the amount of the substance available for illicit use, the ease of obtaining or manufacturing the substance, the reputation or status of the substance “on the street,” and evidence relevant to at-risk populations. Importantly, the petitioners define marijuana as including all
Cannabis
cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents, thus the analysis is based on what is known about the range of these constituents across all cultivated strains.

Determining the abuse potential of a substance is complex with many dimensions, and no single test or assessment provides a complete characterization. Thus, no single measure of abuse potential is ideal. Scientifically, a comprehensive evaluation of the relative abuse potential of a substance can include consideration of the following elements: Receptor binding affinity, preclinical pharmacology, reinforcing effects, discriminative stimulus effects, dependence producing potential, pharmacokinetics, route of administration, toxicity, data on actual abuse, clinical abuse potential studies, and public health risks. Importantly, abuse can exist independently from tolerance or physical dependence because individuals may abuse drugs in doses or patterns that do not induce these phenomena. Additionally evidence of clandestine population and illicit trafficking of a substance can shed light on both the demand for a substance as well as the ease of obtaining a substance. Animal and human laboratory data and epidemiological data are all used in determining a substance's abuse potential. Moreover, epidemiological data can indicate actual abuse.

The petitioners compare the effects of marijuana to currently controlled Schedule II substances and make repeated claims about their comparative effects. Comparisons between marijuana and the diverse array of Schedule II substances is difficult, because of the pharmacologically dissimilar actions of substances of Schedule II of the CSA. For example, Schedule II substances include stimulant-like drugs (
e.g.,
cocaine, methylphenidate, and amphetamine), opioids (
e.g.,
oxycodone, fentanyl), sedatives (
e.g.,
pentobarbital, amobarbital), dissociative anesthetics (
e.g.,
PCP), and naturally occurring plant components (
e.g.,
coca leaves and poppy straw). The mechanism(s) of action of the above Schedule II substances are wholly different from one another, and they are different from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and marijuana as well. For example, Schedule II stimulants typically function by increasing monoaminergic tone via an increase in dopamine and norepinephrine (Schmitt et al., 2013). In contrast, opioid analgesics function via mu-opioid receptor agonist effects. These differing mechanism(s) of action result in vastly different behavioral and adverse effect profiles, making comparisons across the range of

pharmacologically diverse C-II substances inappropriate.

In addition, many substances scheduled under the CSA are reviewed and evaluated within the context of commercial drug development, using data submitted in the form of a new drug application (NDA). A new analgesic drug might be compared to a currently scheduled analgesic drug as part of the assessment of its relative abuse potential. However, because the petitioners have not identified a specific indication for the use of marijuana, identifying an appropriate comparator based on indication cannot be done.

a. There is evidence that individuals are taking the substance in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health or to the safety of other individuals or to the community.

Evidence shows that some individuals are taking marijuana in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community. A large number of individuals use marijuana. HHS provides data on the extent of marijuana abuse through NIDA and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). According to the most recent data from SAMHSA's 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), which estimates the number of individuals who have used a substance within a month prior to the study (described as “current use”), marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug among Americans aged 12 years and older, with an estimated 18.9 million Americans having used marijuana within the month prior to the 2012 NSDUH. Compared to 2004, when an estimated 14.6 million individuals reported using marijuana within the month prior to the study, the estimated rates in 2012 show an increase of approximately 4.3 million individuals. The 2013 Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students also indicates that marijuana is the most widely used illicit substance in this age group. Specifically, current month use was at 7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th, graders and 22.7 percent of 12th graders. Additionally, the 2011 Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) reported that primary marijuana abuse accounted for 18.1 percent of non-private substance-abuse treatment facility admissions, with 24.3 percent of those admitted reporting daily use. However, of these admissions for primary marijuana abuse, the criminal justice system referred 51.6 percent to treatment. SAMHSA's Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) was a national probability survey of U.S. hospitals with emergency departments (EDs) and was designed to obtain information on ED visits in which marijuana was mentioned, accounting for 36.4 percent of illicit drug related ED visits. There are some limitations related to DAWN data on ED visits, which are discussed in detail in Factor 4, “Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse;” Factor 5, “The Scope, Duration, and Significance of Abuse;” and Factor 6, “What, if any, Risk There is to the Public Health.” These factors contain detailed discussions of these data.

A number of risks can occur with both acute and chronic use of marijuana. Detailed discussions of the risks are addressed in Factor 2, “Scientific Evidence of its Pharmacological Effect, if Known,” and Factor 6, “What, if any, Risk There is to the Public Health.”

b. There is significant diversion of the substance from legitimate drug channels.

There is a lack of evidence of significant diversion of marijuana from legitimate drug channels, but this is likely due to the fact that marijuana is more widely available from illicit sources rather than through legitimate channels. Marijuana is not an FDA-approved drug product, as an NDA or biologics license application (BLA) has not been approved for marketing in the United States. Numerous states and the District of Columbia have state-level medical marijuana laws that allow for marijuana use within that state. These state-level drug channels do not have sufficient collection of data related to medical treatment, including efficacy and safety.

Marijuana is used by researchers for nonclinical research as well as clinical research under investigational new drug (IND) applications; this represents the only legitimate drug channel in the United States. However, marijuana used for research represents a very small contribution of the total amount of marijuana available in the United States, and thus provides limited information about diversion. In addition, the lack of significant diversion of investigation supplies is likely because of the widespread availability of illicit marijuana of equal or greater amounts of delta
9
-THC. The data originating from the DEA on seizure statistics demonstrate the magnitude of the availability for illicit marijuana. DEA's System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) provides information on total domestic drug seizures. STRIDE reports a total domestic seizure of 573,195 kg of marijuana in 2011, the most recent year with complete data that is currently publically available (DEA Domestic Drug Seizures, n.d.).

c. Individuals are taking the substance on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a practitioner licensed by law to administer such substances.

Because the FDA has not approved an NDA or BLA for a marijuana drug product for any therapeutic indication, the only way an individual can take marijuana on the basis of medical advice through legitimate channels at the federal level is by participating in research under an IND application. That said, numerous states and the District of Columbia have passed state-level medical marijuana laws allowing for individuals to use marijuana under certain circumstances. However, data are not yet available to determine the number of individuals using marijuana under these state-level medical marijuana laws. Regardless, according to the 2012 NSDUH data, 18.9 million American adults currently use marijuana (SAMHSA, 2013). Based on the large number of individuals reporting current use of marijuana and the lack of an FDA-approved drug product in the United States, one can assume that it is likely that the majority of individuals using marijuana do so on their own initiative rather than on the basis of medical advice from a licensed practitioner.

d. The substance is so related in its action to a substance already listed as having a potential for abuse to make it likely that it will have the same potential for abuse as such substance, thus making it reasonable to assume that there may be significant diversions from legitimate channels, significant use contrary to or without medical advice, or that it has a substantial capability of creating hazards to the health of the user or to the safety of the community.

FDA has approved two drug products containing cannabinoid compounds that are structurally related to the active components in marijuana. These two marketed products are controlled under the CSA. Once a specific drug product containing cannabinoids becomes approved, that specific drug product may be moved from Schedule I to a different Schedule (II-V) under the CSA. Firstly, Marinol—generically known as dronabinol—is a Schedule III drug product containing synthetic delta
9
-THC. Marinol, which is formulated in sesame oil in soft gelatin capsules, was first placed in Schedule II under the CSA following its approval by the FDA. Marinol was later rescheduled to Schedule III under the CSA because of low numbers of reports of abuse relative to marijuana. Dronabinol is

listed in Schedule I under the CSA. FDA approved Marinol in 1985 for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who failed to respond adequately to conventional anti-emetic treatments. In 1992, FDA approved Marional for anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Secondly, in 1985, FDA approved Cesamet, a drug product containing the Schedule II substance nabilone, for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. Besides the two cannabinoid-containing drug products FDA approved for marketing, other naturally occurring cannabinoids and their derivatives (from
Cannabis
) and their synthetic equivalents with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity are included in the CSA as Schedule I substances.

2. Scientific Evidence of Its Pharmacological Effects, if Known

Under the second factor, the Secretary must consider the scientific evidence of marijuana's pharmacological effects. Abundant scientific data are available on the neurochemistry, toxicology, and pharmacology of marijuana. This section includes a scientific evaluation of marijuana's neurochemistry; pharmacology; and human and animal behavioral, central nervous system, cognitive, cardiovascular, autonomic, endocrinological, and immunological system effects. The overview presented below relies upon the most current research literature on cannabinoids.

Neurochemistry and Pharmacology of Marijuana

Marijuana is a plant that contains numerous natural constituents, such as cannabinoids, that have a variety of pharmacological actions. The petition defines marijuana as including all
Cannabis
cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different biological and pharmacological profiles.

According to ElSohly and Slade (2005) and Appendino et al. (2011), marijuana contains approximately 525 identified natural constituents, including approximately 100 compounds classified as cannabinoids. Cannabinoids primarily exist in
Cannabis,
and published data suggests that most major cannabinoid compounds occurring naturally have been identified chemically. New and minor cannabinoids and other new compounds are continuously being characterized (Pollastro et al., 2011). So far, only two cannabinoids (cannabigerol and its corresponding acid) have been obtained from a non-
Cannabis
source. A South African
Helichrysum
(
H. umbraculigerum
) accumulates these compounds (Appendino et al., 2011). The chemistry of marijuana is described in more detail in Factor 3, “The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance.”

The site of cannabinoid action is at the cannabinoid receptors. Cloning of cannabinoid receptors, first from rat brain tissue (Matsuda et al., 1990) and then from human brain tissue (Gerard et al., 1991), has verified the site of action. Two cannabinoid receptors, CB
1
and CB
2
, were characterized (Battista et al., 2012; Piomelli, 2005). Evidence of a third cannabinoid receptor exists, but it has not been identified (Battista et al., 2012).

The cannabinoid receptors, CB
1
and CB
2
, belong to the family of G-protein-coupled receptors, and present a typical seven transmembrane-spanning domain structure. Cannabinoid receptors link to an inhibitory G-protein (G
i
), such that adenylate cyclase activity is inhibited when a ligand binds to the receptor. This, in turn, prevents the conversion of ATP to the second messenger, cyclic AMP (cAMP). Examples of inhibitory coupled receptors include opioid, muscarinic cholinergic, alpha
2
-adrenoreceptors, dopamine (D
2
), and serotonin (5-HT
1
).

Cannabinoid receptor activation inhibits N- and P/Q-type calcium channels and activates inwardly rectifying potassium channels (Mackie et al., 1995; Twitchell et al., 1997). N-type calcium channel inhibition decreases neurotransmitter release from several tissues. Thus, calcium channel inhibition may be the mechanism by which cannabinoids inhibit acetylcholine, norepinephrine, and glutamate release from specific areas of the brain. These effects may represent a potential cellular mechanism underlying cannabinoids' antinociceptive and psychoactive effects (Ameri, 1999).

CB
1
receptors are found primarily in the central nervous system, but are also present in peripheral tissues. CB
1
receptors are located mainly in the basal ganglia, hippocampus, and cerebellum of the brain (Howlett et al., 2004). The localization of these receptors may explain cannabinoid interference with movement coordination and effects on memory and cognition. Additionally, CB
1
receptors are found in the immune system and numerous other peripheral tissues (Petrocellis and Di Marzo, 2009). However, the concentration of CB
1
receptors is considerably lower in peripheral tissues than in the central nervous system (Herkenharn et al., 1990 and 1992).

CB
2
receptors are found primarily in the immune system, but are also present in the central nervous system and other peripheral tissues. In the immune system, CB
2
receptors are found predominantly in B lymphocytes and natural killer cells (Bouaboula et al., 1993). CB
2
receptors may mediate cannabinoids' immunological effects (Galiegue et al., 1995). Additionally, CB
2
receptors have been localized in the brain, primarily in the cerebellum and hippocampus (Gong et al., 2006). The distribution of CB
2
receptors throughout the body is less extensive than the distribution of CB
1
receptors (Petrocellis and Di Marzo, 2009). However, both CB
1
and CB
2
receptors are present in numerous tissues of the body.

Cannabinoid receptors have endogenous ligands. In 1992 and 1995, two endogenous cannabinoid receptor agonists, anandamide and arachidonyl glycerol (2-AG), respectively, were identified (Di Marzo, 2006). Anandamide is a low efficacy agonist (Breivogel and Childers, 2000) and 2-AG is a high efficacy agonist (Gonsiorek et al., 2000). Cannabinoid endogenous ligands are present in central as well as peripheral tissues. A combination of uptake and hydrolysis terminate the action of the endogenous ligands. The endogenous cannabinoid system is a locally active signaling system that, to help restore homeostasis, is activated “on demand” in response to changes to the local homeostasis (Petrocellis and Di Marzo, 2009). The endogenous cannabinoid system, including the endogenous cannabinoids and the cannabinoid receptors, demonstrate substantial plasticity in response to several physiological and pathological stimuli (Petrocellis and Di Marzo, 2009). This plasticity is particularly evident in the central nervous system.

Delta
9
-THC and cannabidiol (CBD) are two abundant cannabinoids present in marijuana. Marijuana's major psychoactive cannabinoid is delta
9
-THC (Wachtel et al., 2002). In 1964, Gaoni and Mechoularn first described delta
9
-THC's structure and function. In 1963, Mechoularn and Shvo first described CBD's structure. The pharmacological actions of CBD have not been fully studied in humans.

Delta
9
-THC and CBD have varying affinity and effects at the cannabinoid receptors. Delta
9
-THC displays similar

affinity for CB
1
and CB
2
receptors, but behaves as a weak agonist for CB
2
receptors. The identification of synthetic cannabinoid ligands that selectively bind to CB
2
receptors but do not have the typical delta
9
-THC-like psychoactive properties suggests that the activation of CB
1
-receptors mediates cannabinoids' psychotropic effects (Hanus et al., 1999). CBD has low affinity for both CB
1
and CB
2
receptors (Mechoulam et al., 2007). According to Mechoulam et al. (2007), CBD has antagonistic effects at CB
1
receptors and some inverse agonistic properties at CB
2
receptors. When cannabinoids are given subacutely to rats, CB
1
receptors down-regulate and the binding of the second messenger system coupled to CB
1
receptors, GTPgarnmaS, decreases (Breivogel et al., 2001).

Animal Behavioral Effects

Self-Administration

Self-administration is a method that assesses the ability of a drug to produce rewarding effects. The presence of rewarding effects increases the likelihood of behavioral responses to obtain additional drug. Animal self-administration of a drug is often useful in predicting rewarding effects in humans, and is indicative of abuse liability. A good correlation is often observed between those drugs that rhesus monkeys self-administer and those drugs that humans abuse (Balster and Bigelow, 2003). Initially, researchers could not establish self-administration of cannabinoids, including delta
9
-THC, in animal models. However, self-administration of delta
9
-THC can now be established in a variety of animal models under specific training paradigms (Justinova et al., 2003, 2004, 2005).

Squirrel monkeys, with and without prior exposure to other drugs of abuse, self-administer delta
9
-THC under specific conditions. For instance, Tanda et al. (2000) observed that when squirrel monkeys are initially trained to self-administer intravenous cocaine, they will continue to bar-press delta
9
-THC at the same rate as they would with cocaine. The doses were notably comparable to those doses used by humans who smoke marijuana. SR141716, a CB
1
cannabinoid receptor agonist-antagonist, can block this rewarding effect. Other studies show that naïve squirrel monkeys can be successfully trained to self-administer delta
9
-THC intravenously (Justinova et al., 2003). The maximal responding rate is 4 μg/kg per injection, which is 2-3 times greater than observed in previous studies using cocaine-experienced monkeys. Naltrexone, a mu-opioid antagonist, partially antagonizes these rewarding effects of delta
9
-THC (Justinova et al., 2004).

Additionally, data demonstrate that under specific conditions, rodents self-administer cannabinoids. Rats will self-administer delta
9
-THC when applied intracerebroventricularly (i.c.v.), but only at the lowest doses tested (0.01-0.02 μg/infusion) (Braida et al., 2004). SR141716 and the opioid antagonist naloxone can antagonize this effect. However, most studies involve rodents self-administrating the synthetic cannabinoid WIN 55212, a CB
1
receptor agonist with a non-cannabinoid structure (Deiana et al., 2007; Fattore et al., 2007; Martellotta et al., 1998; Mendizabal et al., 2006).

Aversive effects, rather than reinforcing effects, occur in rats that received high doses of WIN 55212 (Chaperon et al., 1998) or delta
9
-THC (Sanudo-Pena et al., 1997), indicating a possible critical dose-dependent effect. In both studies, SR141716 reversed these aversive effects.

Conditioned Place Preference

Conditioned place preference (CPP) is a less rigorous method than self-administration for determining whether or not a drug has rewarding properties. In this behavioral test, animals spend time in two distinct environments: one where they previously received a drug and one where they received a placebo. If the drug is reinforcing, animals will choose to spend more time in the environment paired with the drug, rather than with the placebo, when presented with both options s.imultaneously.

Animals show CPP to delta
9
-THC, but only at the lowest doses tested (0.075-1.0 mg/kg, intraperitoneal (i.p.)) (Braida et al., 2004). SR141716 and naloxone antagonize this effect (Braida et al., 2004). As a partial agonist, SR141716 can induce CPP at doses of 0.25, 0.5, 2 and 3 mg/kg (Cheer et al., 2000). In knockout mice, those without μ-opioid receptors do not develop CPP to delta
9
-THC (Ghozland et al., 2002).

Drug Discrimination Studies

Drug discrimination is a method where animals indicate whether a test drug produces physical or psychic perceptions similar to those produced by a known drug of abuse. In this test, an animal learns to press one bar when it receives the known drug of abuse and another bar when it receives placebo. To determine whether the test drug is like the known drug of abuse, a challenge session with the test drug demonstrates which of the two bars the animal presses more often.

In addition to humans (Lile et al., 2009; Lile et al., 2011), it has been noted that animals, including monkeys (McMahon, 2009), mice (McMahon et al., 2008), and rats (Gold et al., 1992), are able to discriminate cannabinoids from other drugs or placebo. Moreover, the major active metabolite of delta
9
-THC, 11-hydroxy-delta
9
-THC, also generalizes (following oral administration) to the stimulus cues elicited by delta
9
-THC (Browne and Weissman, 1981). Twenty-two other cannabinoids found in marijuana also fully substitute for delta
9
-THC. However, CBD does not substitute for delta
9
-THC in rats (Vann et al., 2008).

Discriminative stimulus effects of delta
9
-THC are pharmacologically specific for marijuana containing cannabinoids (Balster and Prescott, 1992; Browne and Weissman, 1981; Wiley et al., 1993, 1995). The discriminative stimulus effects of the cannabinoid group appear to provide unique effects because stimulants, hallucinogens, opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, NMDA antagonists, and antipsychotics do not fully substitute for delta
9
-THC.

Central Nervous System Effects

Human Physiological and Psychological Effects

Psychoactive Effects

Below is a list of the common subjective responses to cannabinoids (Adams and Martin, 1996; Gonzalez, 2007; Hollister 1986, 1988; Institute of Medicine, 1982). According to Maldonado (2002), these responses to marijuana are pleasurable to many humans and are often associated with drug-seeking and drug-taking. High levels of positive psychoactive effects are associated with increased marijuana use, abuse, and dependence (Scherrer et al., 2009; Zeiger et al., 2010).

(1) Disinhibition, relaxation, increased sociability, and talkativeness.

(2) Increased merriment and appetite, and even exhilaration at high doses.

(3) Enhanced sensory perception, which can generate an increased appreciation of music, art, and touch.

(4) Heightened imagination, which can lead to a subjective sense of increased creativity.

(5) Initial dizziness, nausea, tachycardia, facial flushing, dry mouth, and tremor.

(6) Disorganized thinking, inability to converse logically, time distortions, and short-term memory impairment.

(7) Ataxia and impaired judgment, which can impede driving ability or

lead to an increase in risk-tasking behavior.

(8) Illusions, delusions, and hallucinations that intensify with higher doses.

(9) Emotional lability, incongruity of affect, dysphoria, agitation, paranoia, confusion, drowsiness, and panic attacks, which are more common in inexperienced or high-dosed users.

As with many psychoactive drugs, a person's medical, psychiatric, and drug-taking history can influence the individual's response to marijuana. Dose preferences to marijuana occur in that marijuana users prefer higher concentrations of the principal psychoactive substance (1.95 percent delta
9
-THC) over lower concentrations (0.63 percent delta
9
-THC) (Chait and Burke, 1994). Nonetheless, frequent marijuana users (>100 times of use) were able to identify a drug effect from low-dose delta
9
-THC better than occasional users (<10 times of use) while also experiencing fewer sedative effects from marijuana (Kirk and de Wit, 1999).

The petitioners contend that many of marijuana's naturally occurring cannabinoids mitigate the psychoactive effects of delta
9
-THC, and therefore that marijuana lacks sufficient abuse potential to warrant Schedule I placement, because Marinol, which is in Schedule III, contains only delta
9
-THC. This theory has not been demonstrated in controlled studies. Moreover, the concept of abuse potential encompasses all properties of a substance, including its chemistry, pharmacology, and pharmacokinetics, as well as usage patterns and diversion history. The abuse potential of a substance is associated with the repeated or sporadic use of a substance in nonmedical situations for the psychoactive effects the substance produces. These psychoactive effects include euphoria, perceptual and other cognitive distortions, hallucinations, and mood changes. However, as stated above, the abuse potential not only includes the psychoactive effects, but also includes other aspects related to a substance.

DEA's final published rule entitled “Rescheduling of the Food and Drug Administration Approved Product Containing Synthetic Dronabinol [(-)-delta
9
-(trans)-Tetrahydrocannabinol] in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules From Schedule II to Schedule III” (64 FR 35928, July 2, 1999) rescheduled Marinol from Schedule II to Schedule III. The HHS assessment of the abuse potential and subsequent scheduling recommendation compared Marinol to marijuana on different aspects related to abuse potential. Major differences in formulation, availability, and usage between marijuana and the drug product, Marinol, contribute to their differing abuse potentials.

Hollister and Gillespie (1973) estimated that delta
9
-THC by smoking is 2.6 to 3 times more potent than delta
9
-THC ingested orally. The intense psychoactive drug effect achieved, rapidly by smoking is generally considered to produce the effect desired by the abuser. This effect explains why abusers often prefer to administer certain drugs by inhalation, intravenously, or intranasally rather than orally. Such is the case with cocaine, opium, heroin, phencyclidine, methamphetamine, and delta
9
-THC from marijuana (0.1-9.5 percent delta
9
-THC range) or hashish (10-30 percent delta
9
-THC range) (Wesson and Washburn, 1990). Thus, the delayed onset and longer duration of action for Marinol may be contributing factors limiting the abuse or appeal of Marinol as a drug of abuse relative to marijuana.

The formulation of Marinol is a factor that contributes to differential scheduling of Marinol and marijuana. For example, extraction and purification of dronabinol from the encapsulated sesame oil mixture of Marinol is highly complex and difficult. Additionally, the presence of sesame oil mixture in the formulation may preclude the smoking of Marinol-laced cigarettes.

Additionally, there is a dramatic difference between actual abuse and illicit trafficking of Marinol and marijuana. Despite Marinol's availability in the United States, there have been no significant reports of abuse, diversion, or public health problems due to Marinol. By comparison, 18.9 million American adults report currently using marijuana (SAMHSA, 2013).

In addition, FDA's approval of an NDA for Marinol allowed for Marinol to be rescheduled to Schedule II, and subsequently to Schedule III of the CSA. In conclusion, marijuana and Marinol differ on a wide variety of factors that contribute to each substance's abuse potential. These differences are major reasons distinguishing the higher abuse potential for marijuana and the different scheduling determinations of marijuana and Marinol.

In terms of the petitioners' claim that different cannabinoids present in marijuana mitigate the psychoactive effects of delta
9
-THC, only three of the cannabinoids present in marijuana were simultaneously administered with delta
9
-THC to examine how the combinations of these cannabinoids such as CBD, cannabichromene (CBC) and cannabinol (CBN) influence delta
9
-THC's psychoactive effects. Dalton et al. (1976) observed that smoked administration of placebo marijuana cigarettes containing injections of 0.15 mg/kg CBD combined with 0.025mg/kg of delta
9
-THC, in a 7:1 ratio of CBD to delta
9
-THC, significantly decreased ratings of acute subjective effects and “high” when compared to smoking delta
9
-THC alone. In contrast, Ilan et al. (2005) calculated the naturally occurring concentrations of CBC and CBD in a batch of marijuana cigarettes with either 1.8 percent or 3.6 percent delta
9
-THC concentration by weight. For each strength of delta
9
-THC in marijuana cigarettes, the concentrations of CBC and CBD were classified in groups of either low or high. The study varied the amount of CBC and CBD within each strength of delta
9
-THC marijuana cigarettes, with administrations consisting of either low CBC (between 0.1-0.2 percent CBC concentration by weight) and low CBD (between 0.1-0.4 percent CBD concentration by weight), high CBC (>0.5 percent CBC concentration by weight) and low CBD, or low CBC and high CBD (>1.0 percent CBD concentration by weight). Overall, all combinations scored significantly greater than placebo on ratings of subjective effects, and there was no significant difference between any combinations.

The oral administration of a combination of either 15, 30, or 60 mg CBD with 30 mg delta
9
-THC dissolved in liquid (in a ratio of at least 1:2 CBD to delta
9
-THC) reduced the subjective effects produced by delta
9
-THC alone (Karniol et al., 1974). Additionally, orally administering a liquid mixture combining 1 mg/kg CBD with 0.5 mg/kg of delta
9
-THC (ratio of 2:1 CBD to delta
9
-THC) decreased scores of anxiety and marijuana drug effect on the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) compared to delta
9
-THC alone (Zuardi et al.,1982). Lastly, oral administration of either 12.5, 25, or 50 mg CBN combined with 25 mg delta
9
-THC dissolved in liquid (ratio of at least 1:2 CBN to delta
9
-THC) significantly increased subjective ratings of “drugged,” “drowsy,” “dizzy,” and “drunk,” compared to delta
9
-THC alone (Karniol et al., 1975).

Even though some studies suggest that CBD may decrease some of delta
9
-THC's psychoactive effects, the ratios of CBD to delta
9
-THC administered in these studies are not present in marijuana used by most people. For example, in one study, researchers used smoked marijuana with ratios of CBD to delta
9
-THC naturally present in marijuana

plant material and they found out that varying the amount of CBD actually had no effect on delta
9
-THC's psychoactive effects (Ilan et al., 2005). Because most marijuana currently available on the street has high amounts of delta
9
-THC with low amounts of CBD and other cannabinoids, most individuals use marijuana with low levels of CBD present (Mehmedic et al., 2010). Thus, any possible mitigation of delta
9
-THC's psychoactive effects by CBD will not occur for most marijuana users. In contrast, one study indicated that another cannabinoid present in marijuana, CBN, may enhance delta
9
-THC's psychoactive effects (Karniol et al., 1975).

Behavioral Impairment

Marijuana induces various psychoactive effects that can lead to behavioral impairment. Marijuana's acute effects can significantly interfere with a person's ability to learn in the classroom or to operate motor vehicles. Acute administration of smoked marijuana impairs performance on learning, associative processes, and psychomotor behavioral tests (Block et al., 1992). Ramaekers et al. (2006a) showed that acute administration of 250 μg/kg and 500 μg/kg of delta
9
-THC in smoked marijuana dose-dependently impairs cognition and motor control, including motor impulsivity and tracking impairments (Ramaekers et al., 2006b). Similarly, administration of 290 μg/kg delta
9
-THC in a smoked marijuana cigarette resulted in impaired perceptual motor speed and accuracy: Two skills which are critical to driving ability (Kurzthaler et al., 1999). Lastly, administration of 3.95 percent delta
9
-THC in a smoked marijuana cigarette not only increased disequilibrium measures, but also increased the latency in a task of simulated vehicle braking at a rate comparable to an increase in stopping distance of five feet at 60 mph (Liguori et al., 1998). However, acute administration of marijuana containing 2.1 percent delta
9
-THC does not produce “hangover effects” (Chait, 1990).

In addition to measuring the acute effects immediately following marijuana administration, researchers have conducted studies to determine how long behavioral impairments last after abstinence. Some of marijuana's acute effects may not fully resolve until at least one day after the acute psychoactive effects have subsided. Heishman et al. (1990) showed that impairment on memory tasks persists for 24 hours after smoking marijuana cigarettes containing 2.57 percent delta
9
-THC. However, Fant et al. (1998) showed that the morning after exposure to 1.8 percent or 3.6 percent smoked delta
9
-THC, subjects had minimal residual alterations in subjective or performance measures.

A number of factors may influence marijuana's behavioral effects including the duration of use (chronic or short term), frequency of use (daily, weekly, or occasionally), and amount of use (heavy or moderate). Researchers also have examined how long behavioral impairments last following chronic marijuana use. These studies used self-reported histories of past duration, frequency, and amount of past marijuana use, and administered a variety of performance and cognitive measures at different time points following marijuana abstinence. In chronic marijuana users, behavioral impairments may persist for up to 28 days of abstinence. Solowij et al. (2002) demonstrated that after 17 hours of abstinence, 51 adult heavy chronic marijuana users performed worse on memory and attention tasks than 33 non-using controls or 51 heavy, short-term users. Another study noted that heavy, frequent marijuana users, abstinent for at least 24 hours, performed significantly worse than the controls on verbal memory and psychomotor speed tests (Messinis et al., 2006). Additionally, after at least 1 week of abstinence, young adult frequent marijuana users, aged 18-28, showed deficits in psychomotor speed, sustained attention, and cognitive inhibition (Lisdahl and Price, 2012). Adult heavy, chronic marijuana users showed deficits on memory tests after 7 days of supervised abstinence (Pope et al., 2002). However, when these same individuals were again tested after 28 days of abstinence, they did not show significant memory deficits. The authors concluded, “cannabis-associated cognitive deficits are reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure, rather than irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use.”
7

However, other researchers reported neuropsychological deficits in memory, executive functioning, psychomotor speed and manual dexterity in heavy marijuana users abstinent for 28 days (Bolla et al., 2002). Furthermore, a follow-up study of heavy marijuana users noted decision-making deficits after 25 days of supervised abstinence. (Bolla et al., 2005). However, moderate marijuana users did not show decision-making deficits after 25 days of abstinence, suggesting the amount of marijuana use may impact the duration of residual impairment.

7
In this quotation the term
Cannabis
is used interchangeably for
marijuana
.

The effects of chronic marijuana use do not seem to persist after more than 1 to 3 months of abstinence. After 3 months of abstinence, any deficits observed in IQ, immediate memory, delayed memory, and information-processing speeds following heavy marijuana use compared to pre-drug use scores were no longer apparent (Fried et al., 2005). Marijuana did not appear to have lasting effects on performance of a comprehensive neuropsychological battery when 54 monozygotic male twins (one of whom used marijuana, one of whom did not) were compared 1-20 years after cessation of marijuana use (Lyons et al., 2004). Similarly, following abstinence for a year or more, both light and heavy adult marijuana users did not show deficits on scores of verbal memory compared to non-using controls (Tait et al., 2011). According to a recent meta-analysis looking at non-acute and long-lasting effects of marijuana use on neurocognitive performance, any deficits seen within the first month following abstinence are generally not present after about 1 month of abstinence (Schreiner and Dunn, 2012).

Another aspect that may be a critical factor in the intensity and persistence of impairment resulting from chronic marijuana use is the age of first use. Individuals with a diagnosis of marijuana misuse or dependence who were seeking treatment for substance use, who initiated marijuana use before the age of 15 years, showed deficits in performance on tasks assessing sustained attention, impulse control, and general executive functioning compared to non-using controls. These deficits were not seen in individuals who initiated marijuana use after the age of 15 years (Fontes et al., 2011). Similarly, heavy, chronic marijuana users who began using marijuana before the age of 16 years had greater decrements in executive functioning tasks than heavy, chronic marijuana users who started using after the age of 16 years and non-using controls (Gruber et al., 2012). Additionally, in a prospective longitudinal birth cohort study of 1,037 individuals, marijuana dependence or chronic marijuana use was associated with a decrease in IQ and general neuropsychological performance compared to pre-marijuana exposure levels in adolescent onset users (Meier et al., 2012). The decline in adolescent-onset user's IQ persisted even after reduction or abstinence of marijuana use for at least 1 year. In contrast, the adult-onset chronic marijuana users showed no significant changes in IQ compared to pre-exposure

levels whether they were current users or abstinent for at least 1 year (Meier et al., 2012).

In addition to the age of onset of use, some evidence suggests that the amount of marijuana used may relate to the intensity of impairments. In the above study by Gruber et al. (2012), where early-onset users had greater deficits than late-onset users, the early-onset users reported using marijuana twice as often and using three times as much marijuana per week than the late-onset users. Meier et al. (2012) showed that the deficits in IQ seen in adolescent-onset users increased with the amount of marijuana used. Moreover, when comparing scores for measures of IQ, immediate memory, delayed memory, and information-processing speeds to pre-drug-use levels, the current, heavy, chronic marijuana users showed deficits in all three measures while current, occasional marijuana users did not (Fried et al., 2005).

Behavioral Effects of Prenatal Exposure

Studies with children at different stages of development are used to examine the impact of prenatal marijuana exposure on performance in a series of cognitive tasks. However, many pregnant women who reported marijuana use were more likely to also report use of alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine (Goldschmidt et al., 2008). Thus, with potential exposure to multiple drugs, it is difficult to determine the specific impact of prenatal marijuana exposure.

Most studies assessing the behavioral effects of prenatal marijuana exposure included women who, in addition to using marijuana, also reported using alcohol and tobacco. However, some evidence suggests an association between heavy prenatal marijuana exposure and deficits in some cognitive domains. In both 4-year-old and 6-year-old children, heavy prenatal marijuana use is negatively associated with performance on tasks assessing memory, verbal reasoning, and quantitative reasoning (Fried and Watkinson, 1987; Goldschmidt et al., 2008). Additionally, heavy prenatal marijuana use is associated with deficits in measures of sustained attention in children at the ages of 6 years and 13-16 years (Fried et al., 1992; Fried, 2002). In 9- to 12-year-old children, prenatal marijuana exposure is negatively associated with executive functioning tasks that require impulse control, visual analysis, and hypothesis (Fried et al., 1998).

Association of Marijuana Use With Psychosis

This analysis evaluates only the evidence for a direct link between prior marijuana use and the subsequent development of psychosis. Thus, this discussion does not consider issues such as whether marijuana's transient effects are similar to psychotic symptoms in healthy individuals or exacerbate psychotic symptoms in individuals already diagnosed with schizophrenia.

Extensive research has been conducted to investigate whether exposure to marijuana is associated with the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses. Although many studies are small and inferential, other studies in the literature use hundreds to thousands of subjects. At present, the available data do not suggest a causative link between marijuana use and the development of psychosis (Minozzi et al., 2010). Numerous large, longitudinal studies show that subjects who used marijuana do not have a greater incidence of psychotic diagnoses compared to those who do not use marijuana (Fergusson et al., 2005; Kuepper et al., 2011; Van Os et al., 2002).

When analyzing the available evidence of the connection between psychosis and marijuana, it is critical to determine whether the subjects in the studies are patients who are already diagnosed with psychosis or individuals who demonstrate a limited number of symptoms associated with psychosis without qualifying for a diagnosis of the disorder. For example, instead of using a diagnosis of psychosis, some researchers relied on non-standard methods of representing symptoms of psychosis including “schizophrenic cluster” (Maremmani et al., 2004), “subclinical psychotic symptoms” (Van Gastel et al., 2012), “pre-psychotic clinical high risk” (Van der Meer et al., 2012), and symptoms related to “psychosis vulnerability” (Griffith-Lendering et al., 2012). These groupings do not conform to the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) for a diagnosis of psychosis. Thus, these groupings are not appropriate for use in evaluating marijuana's impact on the development of actual psychosis. Accordingly, this analysis includes only those studies that use subjects diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

In the largest study evaluating the link between psychosis and drug use, 274 of the approximately 45,500 Swedish conscripts in the study population (<0.01 percent) received a diagnosis of schizophrenia within the 14-year period following military induction from 1969 to 1983 (Andreasson et al., 1987). Of the conscripts diagnosed with psychosis, 7.7 percent (21 of the 274 conscripts with psychosis) had used marijuana more than 50 times at induction, while 72 percent (197 of the 274 conscripts with psychosis) had never used marijuana. Although high marijuana use increased the relative risk for schizophrenia to 6.0, the authors note that substantial marijuana use history “accounts for only a minority of all cases” of psychosis (Andreasson et al., 1987). Instead, the best predictor for whether a conscript would develop psychosis was a non-psychotic psychiatric diagnosis upon induction. The authors concluded that marijuana use increased the risk for psychosis only among individuals predisposed to develop the disorder. In addition, a 35-year follow up to this study reported very similar results (Manrique-Garcia et al., 2012). In this follow up study, 354 conscripts developed schizophrenia; of these 354 conscripts, 32 used marijuana more than 50 times at induction (9 percent, an odds ratio of 6.3), while 255 had never used marijuana (72 percent).

Additionally, the conclusion that the impact of marijuana may manifest only in individuals likely to develop psychotic disorders has been shown in many other types of studies. For example, although evidence shows that marijuana use may precede the presentation of symptoms in individuals later diagnosed with psychosis (Schimmelmann et al., 2011), most reports conclude that prodromal symptoms of schizophrenia appear prior to marijuana use (Schiffman et al., 2005). Similarly, a review of the gene-environment interaction model for marijuana and psychosis concluded that some evidence supports marijuana use as a factor that may influence the development of psychosis, but only in those individuals with psychotic liability (Pelayo-Teran et al., 2012).

A similar conclusion was drawn when the prevalence of schizophrenia was modeled against marijuana use across eight birth cohorts in Australia in individuals born between the years 1940 to 1979 (Degenhardt et al., 2003). Although marijuana use increased over time in adults born during the four-decade period, there was not a corresponding increase in diagnoses for psychosis in these individuals. The authors conclude that marijuana may precipitate schizophrenic disorders only in those individuals who are vulnerable to developing psychosis. Thus, marijuana
per se
does not appear to

induce schizophrenia in the majority of individuals who have tried or continue to use marijuana. However, in individuals with a genetic vulnerability for psychosis, marijuana use may influence the development of psychosis.

Cardiovascular and Autonomic Effects

Single smoked or oral doses of delta
9
-THC produce tachycardia and may increase blood pressure (Capriotti et al., 1988; Benowitz and Jones, 1975). Some evidence associates the tachycardia produced by delta
9
-THC with excitation of the sympathetic and depression of the parasympathetic nervous systems (Malinowska et al., 2012). During chronic marijuana ingestion, a tolerance to tachycardia develops (Malinowska et al., 2012).

However, prolonged delta
9
-THC ingestion produces bradycardia and hypotension (Benowitz and Jones, 1975). Plant-derived cannabinoids and endocannabinoids elicit hypotension and bradycardia via activation of peripherally-located CB1 receptors (Wagner et al., 1998). Specifically, the mechanism of this effect is through presynaptic CB1 receptor-mediated inhibition of norepinephrine release from peripheral sympathetic nerve terminals, with possible additional direct vasodilation via activation of vascular cannabinoid receptors (Pacher et al., 2006). In humans, tolerance can develop to orthostatic hypotension (Jones, 2002; Sidney, 2002) possibly related to plasma volume expansion, but tolerance does not develop to the supine hypotensive effects (Benowitz and Jones, 1975). Additionally, electrocardiographic changes are minimal, even after large cumulative doses of delta
9
-THC are administered. (Benowitz and Jones, 1975).

Marijuana smoking by individuals, particularly those with some degree of coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease, poses risks such as increased cardiac work, catecholamines and carboxyhemoglobin, myocardial infarction, and postural hypotension (Benowitz and Jones, 1981; Hollister, 1988; Mittleman et al., 2001; Malinowska et al., 2012).

Respiratory Effects

After acute exposure to marijuana, transient bronchodilation is the most typical respiratory effect (Gong et al., 1984). A recent 20-year longitudinal study with over 5,000 individuals collected information on the amount of marijuana use and pulmonary function data at years 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 (Pletcher et al., 2012). Among the more than 5,000 individuals who participated in the study, almost 800 of them reported current marijuana use but not tobacco use at the time of assessment. Pletcher et al. (2012) found that the occasional use of marijuana is not associated with decreased pulmonary function. However, some preliminary evidence suggests that heavy marijuana use may be associated with negative pulmonary effects (Pletcher et al., 2012). Long-term use of marijuana can lead to chronic cough and increased sputum, as well as an increased frequency of chronic bronchitis and pharyngitis. In addition, pulmonary function tests reveal that large-airway obstruction can occur with chronic marijuana smoking, as can cellular inflammatory histopathological abnormalities in bronchial epithelium (Adams and Martin 1996; Hollister 1986).

Evidence regarding marijuana smoking leading to cancer is inconsistent, as some studies suggest a positive correlation while others do not (Lee and Hancox, 2011; Tashkin, 2005). Several lung cancer cases have been reported in young marijuana users with no tobacco smoking history or other significant risk factors (Fung et al., 1999). Marijuana use may dose-dependently interact with mutagenic sensitivity, cigarette smoking, and alcohol use to increase the risk of head and neck cancer (Zhang et al., 1999). However, in a large study with 1,650 subjects, a positive association was not found between marijuana and lung cancer (Tashkin et al., 2006). This finding remained true, regardless of the extent of marijuana use, when controlling for tobacco use and other potential confounding variables. Overall, new evidence suggests that the effects of marijuana smoking on respiratory function and carcinogenicity differ from those of tobacco smoking (Lee and Hancox, 2011).

Endocrine System

Experimental marijuana administration to humans does not consistently alter many endocrine parameters. In an early study, male subjects who experimentally received smoked marijuana showed a significant depression in luteinizing hormone and a significant increase in cortisol (Cone et al., 1986). However, two later studies showed no changes in hormones. Male subjects experimentally exposed to smoked delta
9
-THC (18 mg/marijuana cigarette) or oral delta
9
-THC (10 mg three times per day for 3 days and on the morning of the fourth day) showed no changes in plasma adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), cortisol, prolactin, luteinizing hormone, or testosterone levels (Dax et al., 1989). Similarly, a study with 93 men and 56 women showed that chronic marijuana use did not significantly alter concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, prolactin, or cortisol (Block et al., 1991). Additionally, chronic marijuana use did not affect serum levels of thyrotropin, thyroxine, and triiodothyronine (Bonnet, 2013). However, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of HIV-positive men, smoking marijuana dose-dependently increased plasma levels of ghrelin and leptin, and decreased plasma levels of peptide YY (Riggs et al., 2012).

The effects of marijuana on female reproductive system functionality differ between humans and animals. In monkeys, delta
9
-THC administration suppressed ovulation (Asch et al., 1981) and reduced progesterone levels (Almirez et al., 1983). However, in women, smoked marijuana did not alter hormone levels or the menstrual cycle (Mendelson and Mello, 1984). Brown and Dobs (2002) suggest that the development of tolerance in humans may be the cause of the discrepancies between animal and human hormonal response to cannabinoids.

The presence of
in vitro
delta
9
-THC reduces binding of the corticosteroid, dexamethasone, in hippocampal tissue from adrenalectomized rats, suggesting an interaction with the glucocorticoid receptor (Eldridge et al., 1991). Although acute delta
9
-THC presence releases corticosterone, tolerance develops in rats with chronic administration (Eldridge et al., 1991).

Some studies support a possible association between frequent, long-term marijuana use and increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors (Trabert et al., 2011). On the other hand, recent data suggest that cannabinoid agonists may have therapeutic value in the treatment of prostate cancer, a type of carcinoma in which growth is stimulated by androgens. Research with prostate cancer cells shows that the mixed CB
1
/CB
2
agonist, WIN-55212-2, induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells, as well as decreases the expression of androgen receptors and prostate-specific antigens (Sarfaraz et al., 2005).

Immune System

Cannabinoids affect the immune system in many different ways. Synthetic, natural, and endogenous cannabinoids often cause different effects in a dose-dependent biphasic manner (Croxford and Yamamura, 2005; Tanasescu and Constantinescu, 2010).

Studies in humans and animals give conflicting results about cannabinoid

effects on immune functioning in subjects with compromised immune systems. Abrams et al. (2003) investigated marijuana's effect on immunological functioning in 62 AIDS patients taking protease inhibitors. Subjects received one of the following three times a day: A smoked marijuana cigarette containing 3.95 percent delta
9
-THC, an oral tablet containing delta
9
-THC (2.5 mg oral dronabinol), or an oral placebo. The results showed no changes in CD4+ and CD8+ cell counts, HIV RNA levels, or protease inhibitor levels between groups. Thus, the use of cannabinoids showed no short-term adverse virologic effects in individuals with compromised immune systems. However, these human data contrast with data generated in immunodeficient mice, which demonstrated that exposure to delta
9
-THC
in vivo
suppresses immune function, increases HIV co-receptor expression, and acts as a cofactor to enhance HIV replication (Roth et al., 2005).

3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance

Under the third factor, the Secretary must consider the state of current scientific knowledge regarding marijuana. Thus, this section discusses the chemistry, human pharmacokinetics, and medical uses of marijuana.

Chemistry

Marijuana is one of the common names of
Cannabis sativa
L. in the family Cannabaceae.

Cannabis
is one of the oldest cultivated crops, providing a source of fiber, food, oil, and drug. Botanists still debate whether
Cannabis
should be considered as a single (The Plant List, 2010) or three species,
i.e.,
C.
sativa,
C.
indica,
and C.
ruderalis
(Hillig, 2005). Specifically, marijuana is developed as sativa and indica cultivated varieties (strains) or various hybrids.

The petition defines marijuana as including all
Cannabis
cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. Thus, all
Cannabis
strains cannot be considered together because of the varying chemical constituents between strains.

Marijuana contains numerous naturally occurring constituents including cannabinoids. Overall, various
Cannabis
strains contain more than 525 identified natural constituents. Among those constituents, the most important ones are the 21 (or 22) carbon terpenoids found in the plant, as well as their carboxylic acids, analogues, and transformation products, known as cannabinoids (Agurell et al., 1984, 1986; Mechoulam, 1973; Appendino et al., 2011). Thus far, more than 100 compounds classified as cannabinoids have been characterized (ElSohly and Slade, 2005; Radwan, ElSohly et al., 2009; Appendino et al. 2011).

Cannabinoids primarily exist in
Cannabis,
and published data suggest that most major cannabinoid compounds occurring naturally have been chemically identified. New and minor cannabinoids and other new compounds are continuously being characterized (Pollastro et al., 2011). So far, only two cannabinoids (cannabigerol and its corresponding acid) have been obtained from a
non-Cannabis
source. A South African
Helichrysum (H umbraculigerum)
accumulates these compounds (Appendino et al. 2011).

Among the cannabinoids found in marijuana, delta
9
-THC (alternate name delta
1
-THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannibinol (delta
8
-THC, alternate name delta
6
-THC) produce marijuana's characteristic psychoactive effects. Because delta
9
-THC is more abundant than delta
8
-THC, marijuana's psychoactivity is largely attributed to the former. Only a few varieties of marijuana analyzed contain delta
8
-THC at significant amounts (Hively et al., 1966). Delta
9
-THC is an optically active resinous substance, insoluble in water, and extremely lipid soluble. Chemically, delta
9
-THC is (6aR-trans)-6a,7,8,10a-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-6H-dibenzo-[b,d]pyran-l-ol, or (-)-delta9-(trans)-tetrahydrocannabinol. The (-)-trans isomer of delta
9
-THC is pharmacologically 6-100 times more potent than the (+)-trans isomer (Dewey et al., 1984).

Other cannabinoids present in marijuana include CBD, CBC, and CBN. CBD, a major cannabinoid of marijuana, is insoluble in water and lipid-soluble. Chemically, CBD is 2-[(1R,6R)-3-methyl-6-prop-1-en-2-ylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl]-5-pentylbenzene-1,3-diol. CBD does not have cannabinol-like psychoactivity (Adams and Martin, 1996; Agurell et al., 1984, 1986; Hollister, 1986). CBC is another major cannabinoid in marijuana. Chemically, CBC is 2-methyl-2-(4-methylpent-3-enyl)-7-pentyl-5-chromenol. CBN, a major metabolite of delta
9
-THC, is also a minor naturally-occurring cannabinoid with weak psychoactivity. Chemically, CBN is 6,6,9-trimethyl-3-pentyl-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol.

Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may differ in chemical constituents including delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al. 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains may have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. In addition to differences between cultivated strains, the concentration of delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids in marijuana may vary with growing conditions and processing after harvest. In addition to genetic differences among
Cannabis
species, the plant parts collected—for example, flowers, leaves, and stems—can influence marijuana's potency, quality, and purity (Adams and Martin, 1996; Agurell et al., 1984; Mechoulam, 1973). All these variations produce marijuana with potencies, as indicated by cannabinoid content, on average from as low as 1-2 percent to as high as 17 percent.

Overall, these variations in the concentrations of cannabinoids and other chemical constituents in marijuana complicate the interpretation of clinical data using marijuana. The lack of consistent concentrations of delta
9
-THC and other substances in marijuana from diverse sources makes interpreting the effect of different marijuana constituents difficult. In addition to different cannabinoid concentrations having different pharmacological and toxicological profiles, the non-cannabinoid components in marijuana, such as other terpenoids and flavonoids, might also contribute to the overall pharmacological and toxicological profiles of various marijuana strains and products derived from those strains.

The term marijuana is often used to refer to a mixture of the dried flowering tops and leaves from
Cannabis.
Marijuana in this limiting definition is one of three major derivatives sold as separate illicit products, which also include hashish and hash oil. According to the DEA,
Cannabis saliva
is the primary species of
Cannabis
currently marketed illegally in the United States.

Marijuana can vary in cannabinoid content and potency (Agurell et al., 1984, 1986; Mechoulam 1973, Cascini et al., 2012). In the usual mixture of leaves and stems distributed as marijuana, the concentration of delta
9
-THC averages over 12 percent by weight. However, specially grown and selected marijuana can contain 15 percent or greater delta
9
-THC (Appendino et al., 2011). Thus, a 1-gram marijuana cigarette might

contain delta
9
-THC in a range from as little as 3 milligrams to as much as 150 milligrams or more. Additionally, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that marijuana's delta
9
-THC content has increased significantly from 1979-2009 (Cascini et al., 2012). In addition to smoking marijuana, individuals ingest marijuana through food made with butter or oil infused with marijuana and its extracts. These marijuana butters are generally made by adding marijuana to butter and heating it. The resultant butter is then used to cook a variety of foods. There are no published studies measuring the concentrations of cannabinoids in these marijuana food products.

Hashish consists of the dried and compressed cannabinoid-rich resinous material of
Cannabis
and comes in a variety of forms (
e.g.
balls and cakes). Individuals may break off pieces, place it into a pipe and smoke it. DEA reports that cannabinoid content in hashish averages six percent (DEA, 2005). With the development and cultivation of more high potency
Cannabis
strains, the average cannabinoid content in hashish will likely increase.

Hash oil is produced by solvent extraction of the cannabinoids from plant material. The extract's color and odor vary, depending on the solvent type used. Hash oil is a viscous brown- or amber-colored liquid containing approximately 50 percent cannabinoids. One or two drops of the liquid placed on a cigarette purportedly produce the equivalent of a single marijuana cigarette (DEA, 2005).

In conclusion, marijuana has hundreds of cultivars containing variable concentrations of delta
9
-THC, cannabinoids, and other compounds. Thus, marijuana is not a single chemical with a consistent and reproducible chemical profile or predictable and consistent clinical effects. A guidance for industry, entitled
Botanical Drug Products,
8

provides information on the approval of botanical drug products. To investigate marijuana for medical use in a manner acceptable as support for marketing approval under an NDA, clinical studies under an IND of consistent batches of a particular marijuana product for particular disease indications should be conducted. In addition, information and data regarding the marijuana product's chemistry, manufacturing and control, pharmacology, and animal toxicology data, among others must be provided and meet the requirements for new drug approval (See 21 CFR 314.50).

8
This guidance is available on the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/default.htm
under Guidance (Drugs).

Human Pharmacokinetics

Marijuana can be taken in a variety of formulations by multiple routes of administration. Individuals smoke marijuana as a cigarette, weighing between 0.5 and 1.0 gram, or in a pipe. Additionally, individuals take marijuana orally in foods or as an extract in ethanol or other solvents. More recently, access to vaporizers provides another means for abusers to inhale marijuana,

The absorption, metabolism, and pharmacokinetic profile of delta
9
-THC, cannabinoids, and drug products containing delta
9
-THC vary with route of administratfon and formulation (Adams and Martin, 1996; Agurell et al., 1984, 1986).

Pharmacokinetics of Smoked Administration of Cannabinoids

Characterization of the pharmacokinetics of delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids from smoked marijuana is difficult because a subject's smoking behavior during an experiment varies (Agurell et al., 1986; Heming et al., 1986; Huestis et al., 1992a). Each puff delivers a discrete dose of delta
9
-THC. An experienced marijuana smoker can titrate and regulate the dose to obtain the desired acute psychological effects and minimize undesired effects. For example, under naturalistic conditions, users hold marijuana smoke in their lungs for an extended period of time which causes prolonged absorption and increases psychoactive effects. The effect of experience in the psychological response may explain why delta
9
-THC venous blood levels correlate poorly with intensity of effects and intoxication level (Agurell et al. 1986; Barnett et al. 1985; Huestis et al., 1992a). Puff and inhalation volumes should be recorded in studies as the concentration (dose) of cannabinoids administered can vary at different stages of smoking.

Smoked marijuana results in absorption of delta
9
-THC in the form of an aerosol within seconds. Psychoactive effects occur immediately following absorption, with mental and behavioral effects measurable for up to 6 hours (Grotenhermen, 2003; Hollister 1986, 1988). Delta
9
-THC is delivered to the brain rapidly and efficiently as expected of a very lipid soluble drug.

The bioavailability of the delta
9
-THC, from marijuana in a cigarette or pipe, can range from 1 to 24 percent with the fraction absorbed rarely exceeding 10 to 20 percent (Agurell et al.,1986; Hollister, 1988). The relatively low and variable bioavailability results from significant loss of delta
9
-THC in side-stream smoke, variation in individual smoking behaviors, cannabinoid pyrolysis, incomplete absorption of inhaled smoke, and metabolism in the lungs. An individual's experience and technique with smoking marijuana also determines the dose absorbed (Heming et al., 1986; Johansson et al., 1989). After smoking, delta
9
-THC venous levels decline precipitously within minutes, and continue to go down to about 5 to 10 percent of the peak level within an hour (Agurell et al., 1986, Huestis et al.,1992a, 1992b).

Pharmacokinetics for Oral Administration of Cannabinoids

After oral administration of delta
9
-THC or marijuana, the onset of effects starts within 30 to 90 minutes, reaches its peak after 2 to 3 hours and then remains for 4 to 12 hours (Grotenhermen, 2003; Adams and Martin, 1996; Agurell et al., 1984, 1986). Due to the delay in onset of effects, users have difficulty in titrating oral delta
9
-THC doses compared to smoking marijuana. Oral bioavailability of delta
9
-THC, whether pure or in marijuana, is low and extremely variable, ranging between 5 and 20 percent (Agurell et al., 1984, 1986). Following oral administration of radioactive-labeled delta
9
-THC, delta
9
-THC plasma levels are low relative to plasma levels after smoking or intravenous administration. Inter- and intra-subject variability occurs even with repeated dosing under controlled conditions. The low and variable oral bioavailability of delta
9
-THC is a consequence of its first-pass hepatic elimination from blood and erratic absorption from stomach and bowel.

Cannabinoid Metabolism and Excretion

Cannabinoid metabolism is complex. Delta
9
-THC is metabolized via microsomal hydroxylation to both active and inactive metabolites (Lemberger et al., 1970, 1972a, 1972b; Agurell et al., 1986; Hollister, 1988). The primary active metabolite of delta
9
-THC following oral ingestion is 11-hydroxy-delta
9
-THC. This metabolite is approximately equipotent to delta
9
-THC in producing marijuana-like subjective effects (Agurell et al., 1986, Lemberger and Rubin, 1975). After oral administration, metabolite levels may exceed that of delta
9
-THC and thus contribute greatly to the pharmacological effects of oral delta
9
-THC or marijuana.

Plasma clearance of delta
9
-THC approximates hepatic blood flow at about 950 ml/min or greater. The rapid disappearance of delta
9
-THC from blood

is largely due to redistribution to other tissues in the body, rather than to metabolism (Agurell et al., 1984, 1986). Metabolism in most tissues is relatively slow or absent. Slow release of delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids from tissues and subsequent metabolism results in a long elimination half-life. The terminal half-life of delta
9
-THC ranges from approximately 20 hours to as long as 10 to 13 days, though reported estimates vary as expected with any slowly cleared substance and the use of assays with variable sensitivities (Hunt and Jones, 1980). Lemberger et al. (1970) determined the half-life of delta
9
-THC to range from 23 to 28 hours in heavy marijuana users to 60 to 70 hours in naive users. In addition to 11-hydroxy-delta
9
-THC, some inactive carboxy metabolites have terminal half-lives of 50 hours to 6 days or more. The latter substances serve as long-term markers in urine tests for earlier marijuana use.

The majority of the absorbed delta
9
-THC dose is eliminated in feces, and about 33 percent in urine. Delta
9
-THC enters enterohepatic circulation and undergoes hydroxylation and oxidation to 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta
9
-THC. The glucuronide is excreted as the major urine metabolite along with about 18 non-conjugated metabolites. Frequent and infrequent marijuana users metabolize delta
9
-THC similarly (Agurell et al., 1986).

Status of Research Into the Medical Uses for Marijuana

State-level public initiatives, including laws and referenda in support of the medical use of marijuana, have generated interest in the medical community and the need for high quality clinical investigation as well as comprehensive safety and effectiveness data. In order to address the need for high quality clinical investigations, the state of California established the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR,
www.cmcr.ucsd.edu
) in 2000 “in response to scientific evidence for therapeutic possibilities of cannabis
9

and local legislative initiatives in favor of compassionate use” (Grant, 2005). State legislation establishing the CMCR called for high quality medical research that would “enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent,” but stressed the project “should not be construed as encouraging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana.” The CMCR funded many of the published studies on marijuana's potential use for treating multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, appetite suppression and cachexia. However, aside from the data produced by CMCR, no state-level medical marijuana laws have produced scientific data on marijuana's safety and effectiveness.

9
In this quotation the term cannabis is interchangeable with marijuana.

FDA approves medical use of a drug following a submission and review of an NDA or BLA. The FDA has not approved any drug product containing marijuana for marketing. Even so, results of small clinical exploratory studies have been published in the current medical literature. Many studies describe human research with marijuana in the United States under FDA-regulated IND applications.

However, FDA approval of an NDA is not the only means through which a drug can have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. In general, a drug may have a “currently accepted medical use” in treatment in the United States if the drug meets a five-part test. Established case law (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) upheld the Administrator of DEA's application of the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use.” The following describes the five elements that characterize “currently accepted medical use” for a drug:
10

10
57 FR 10499, 10504-06 (March 26, 1992).

i. the drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible.

“The substance's chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced into dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201 G) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321G), is sufficient to meet this requirement.”

ii. there must be adequate safety studies.

“There must be adequate pharmacological and toxicological studies, done by all methods reasonably applicable, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, that the substance is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.”

iii. there must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.

“There must be adequate, well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-documented studies, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, on the basis of which it could be fairly and responsibly concluded by such experts that the substance will have the intended effect in treating a specific, recognized disorder.”

iv. the drug must be accepted by qualified experts.

“The drug has a New Drug Application (NDA) approved by the Food and Drug Administration, pursuant to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. Or, a consensus of the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus.” and

v. the scientific evidence must be widely available.

“In the absence of NDA approval, information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of the substance must be reported, published, or otherwise widely available, in sufficient detail to permit experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, to fairly and responsibly conclude the substance is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.”

Marijuana does not meet any of the five elements necessary for a drug to have a “currently accepted medical use.”

Firstly, the chemistry of marijuana, as defined in the petition, is not reproducible in terms of creating a standardized dose. The petition defines marijuana as including all
Cannabis
cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta
9
-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. Thus, when considering all
Cannabis
strains together, because of the varying chemical constituents, reproducing consistent standardized doses is not possible. Additionally, smoking marijuana currently has not been shown to allow delivery of consistent and reproducible doses. However, if a specific
Cannabis
strain is grown and processed under strictly controlled conditions, the plant chemistry may be kept consistent enough to produce reproducible and standardized doses.

As to the second and third criteria; there are neither adequate safety studies nor adequate and well-controlled studies proving marijuana's efficacy. To support the petitioners' assertion that marijuana has accepted medical use, the petitioners cite the American Medical Association's (AMA) 2009 report entitled “Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes.” The petitioners claim the AMA report is evidence the AMA accepts marijuana's safety and efficacy. However, the 2009 AMA report clarifies that the report “should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the same and current standards for a prescription drug product.”
11

11
In this quotation the term cannabis is used interchangeably for marijuana.

Currently, no published studies conducted with marijuana meet the criteria of an adequate and well-controlled efficacy study. The criteria for an adequate and well-controlled study for purposes of determining the safety and efficacy of a human drug are defined under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 21 CFR 314.126. In order to assess this element, FDA conducted a review of clinical studies published and available in the public domain before February, 2013. Studies were identified through a search of PubMed
12

for articles published from inception to February 2013, for randomized controlled trials using marijuana to assess marijuana's efficacy in any therapeutic indication. Additionally, the review included studies identified through a search of bibliographic references in relevant systematic reviews and identified studies presenting original research in any language. Selected studies needed to be placebo-controlled and double-blinded. Additionally, studies needed to encompass administered marijuana plant material. There was no requirement for any specific route of administration, nor any age limits on study subjects. Studies were excluded that used placebo marijuana supplemented by the addition of specific amounts of THC or other cannabinoids. Additionally, studies administering marijuana plant extracts were excluded.

12
The following search strategy was used, “(cannabis OR marijuana) AND (therapeutic use OR therapy) AND (RCT OR randomized controlled trial OR “systematic review” OR clinical trial OR clinical trials) NOT (“marijuana abuse”[Mesh] OR addictive behavior OR substance related disorders).”

The PubMed search yielded a total of 566 abstracts of scientific articles. Of these abstracts, a full-text review was conducted with 85 papers to assess eligibility. Of the studies identified through the search of the references and the 566 abstracts from the PubMed search, only 11 studies met all the criteria for selection (Abrams et al., 2007; Corey-Bloom et al., 2012; Crawford and Merritt, 1979; Ellis et al., 2009; Haney et al., 2005; Haney et al., 2007; Merritt et al., 1980; Tashkin et al., 1974; Ware et al., 2010; Wilsey et al., 2008; Wilsey et al., 2013). These 11 studies were published between 1974 and 2013. Ten of these studies were conducted in the United States and one study was conducted in Canada. The identified studies examine the effects of smoked and vaporized marijuana for the indications of chronic neuropathic pain, spasticity related to Multiple Sclerosis (MS), appetite stimulation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, glaucoma, and asthma. All studies used adult subjects.

The 11 identified studies were individually evaluated to determine if they successfully meet accepted scientific standards. Specifically, they were evaluated on study design including subject selection criteria, sample size, blinding techniques, dosing paradigms, outcome measures, and the statistical analysis of the results. The analysis relied on published studies, thus information available about protocols, procedures, and results were limited to documents published and widely available in the public domain. The review found that all 11 studies that examined effects of inhaled marijuana do not currently prove efficacy of marijuana in any therapeutic indication based on a number of limitations in their study design; however, they may be considered proof of concept studies. Proof of concept studies provide preliminary evidence on a proposed hypothesis involving a drug's effect. For drugs under development, the effect often relates to a short-term clinical outcome being investigated. Proof of concept studies often serve as the link between preclinical studies and dose ranging clinical studies. Thus, proof of concept studies generally are not sufficient to prove efficacy of a drug because they provide only preliminary information about the effects of a drug.

In addition to the lack of published adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies proving efficacy, the criteria for adequate safety studies has also not been met. Importantly, in its discussion of the five-part test used to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use,” DEA said, “No drug can be considered safe in the abstract. Safety has meaning only when judged against the intended use of the drug, its known effectiveness, its known and potential risks, the severity of the illness to be treated, and the availability of alternative remedies” (57 FR 10504). When determining whether a drug product is safe and effective for any indication, FDA performs an extensive risk-benefit analysis to determine whether the risks posed by the drug product's side effects are outweighed by the drug product's potential benefits for a particular indication. Thus, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that marijuana has accepted safety, in the absence of an accepted therapeutic indication which can be weighed against marijuana's risks, marijuana does not satisfy the element for having adequate safety studies such that experts may conclude that it is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.

The fourth of the five elements for determining “currently accepted medical use” requires that the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus. Medical practitioners who are not experts in evaluating drugs are not qualified to determine whether a drug is generally recognized as safe and effective or meets NDA requirements (57 FR 10499-10505).

There is no evidence that there is a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. As discussed above, there are not adequate scientific studies that show marijuana is safe and effective in treating a specific, recognized disorder. In addition, there is no evidence that a consensus of qualified experts have accepted the safety and effectiveness of marijuana for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. Although medical practitioners are not qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, we also note that the AMA's report, entitled “Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes,” does not accept that marijuana currently has accepted medical use. Furthermore, based on the above definition of a “qualified expert”, who is an individual qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a drug, state-level medical marijuana laws do not provide evidence of a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.

As to the fifth part of the test, which requires that information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of marijuana to be reported in sufficient detail, the scientific evidence regarding all of these aspects is not available in sufficient detail to allow adequate scientific scrutiny. Specifically, the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's chemistry in terms of a specific
Cannabis
strain that could produce standardized and reproducible doses is not currently available.

Alternately, a drug can be considered to have a “currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions” (21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B)), as allowed under the stipulations for a Schedule II drug. Yet, as stated above, currently marijuana does not have any accepted medical use, even under conditions where its use is severely restricted.

In conclusion, to date, research on marijuana's medical use has not progressed to the point where marijuana is considered to have a “currently accepted medical use” or a “currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.”

4. Its History and Current Pattern of Abuse

Under the fourth factor, the Secretary must consider the history and current pattern of marijuana abuse. A variety of sources provide data necessary to assess abuse patterns and trends of marijuana. The data indicators of marijuana use include the NSDUH, MTF, DAWN, and TEDS. The following briefly describes each data source, and summarizes the data from each source.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)

13

13
NSDUH provides national estimates of the prevalence and incidence of illicit drug, alcohol and tobacco use in the United States. NSDUH is an annual study conducted by SAMHSA. Prior to 2002, the database was known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA). NSDUH utilizes a nationally representative sample of United States civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years and older. The survey excludes homeless people who do not use shelters, active military personnel, and residents of institutional group quarters such as jails and hospitals. The survey identifies whether an individual used a drug within a specific time period, but does not identify the amount of the drug used on each occasion. NSDUH defines “current use” as having used the substance within the month prior to the study.

According to 2012 NSDUH
14

data, the most recent year with complete data, the use of illicit drugs, including marijuana, is increasing. The 2012 NSDUH estimates that 23.9 million individuals over 12 years of age (9.2 percent of the U.S. population) currently use illicit drugs, which is an increase of 4.8 million individuals from 2004 when 19.1 million individuals (7.9 percent of the U.S. population) were current illicit drug users. NSDUH reports marijuana as the most commonly used illicit drug, with 18.9 million individuals (7.3 percent of the U.S. population) currently using marijuana in 2012. This represents an increase of 4.3 million individuals from 2004, when 14.6 million individuals (6.1 percent of the U.S. population) were current marijuana users.

14
2013;
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH.aspx.

The majority of individuals who try marijuana at least once in their lifetime do not currently use marijuana. The 2012 NSDUH estimates that 111.2 million individuals (42.8 percent of the U.S. population) have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. Based on this estimate and the estimate for the number of individuals currently using marijuana, approximately 16.9 percent of those who have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime currently use marijuana; conversely, 83.1 percent do not currently use marijuana. In terms of the frequency of marijuana use, an estimated 40.3 percent of individuals who used marijuana in the past month used marijuana on 20 or more days within the past month. This amount corresponds to an estimated 7.6 million individuals who used marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis.

Some characteristics of marijuana users are related to age, gender, and criminal justice system involvement. In observing use among different age cohorts, the majority of individuals who currently use marijuana are shown to be between the ages of 18-25, with 18.7 percent of this age group currently using marijuana. In the 26 and older age group, 5.3 percent of individuals currently use marijuana. Additionally, in individuals aged 12 years and older, males reported more current marijuana use than females.

NSDUH includes a series of questions aimed at assessing the prevalence of dependence and abuse of different substances in the past 12 months.
15

In 2012, marijuana was the most common illicit drug reported by individuals with past year dependence or abuse. An estimated 4.3 million individuals meet the NSDUH criteria for marijuana dependence or abuse in 2012. The estimated rates and number of individuals with marijuana dependence or abuse has remained similar from 2002 to 2012. In addition to data on dependence and abuse, NSDUH includes questions aimed at assessing treatment for a substance use problem.
16

In 2012, an estimated 957,000 persons received treatment for marijuana use during their most recent treatment in the year prior to the survey.

15
“These questions are used to classify persons as dependent on or abusing specific substances based on criteria specified in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder,
4th edition (DSM-IV). The questions related to dependence ask about health and emotional problems associated with substance use, unsuccessful attempts to cut down on use, tolerance, withdrawal, reducing other activities to use substances, spending a lot time engaging in activities related to substance use, or using the substance in greater quantities or for longer time than intended. The questions on abuse ask about problems at work, home, and school; problems with family or friends; physical danger; and trouble with the law due to substance use. Dependence is considered to be a more severe substance use problem than abuse because it involves the psychological and physiological effects of tolerance and withdrawal.” (NSDUH, 2013).

16
“Estimates . . . refer to treatment received for illicit drug or alcohol use, or for medical problems associated with the use of illicit drugs or alcohol. This includes treatment received in the past year at any location, such as a hospital (inpatient), rehabilitation facility (outpatient or inpatient), mental health center, emergency room, private doctor's office, prison or jail, or a self-help group, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous.” (NSDUH, 2013).

Monitoring the Future (MTF)

17

17
Monitoring the Future is a national survey that tracks drug use prevalence and trends among adolescents in the United States. MTF is reported annually by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan under a grant from NIDA. Every spring, MTF surveys 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in randomly selected U.S. schools. MTF has been conducted since 1975 for 12th graders and since 1991 for 8th and 10th graders. The MTF survey presents data in terms of prevalence among the sample interviewed. For 2012, the latest year with complete data, the sample sizes were 15,200—8th graders; 13,300—10th graders; and 13,200—12th graders. In all, a total of about 41,700 students of 389 schools participated in the 2013 MTF.

According to MTF,
18

rates of marijuana and illicit drug use declined for all three grades from 2005 through 2007. However, starting around 2008, rates of annual use of illicit drugs and marijuana increased through 2013 for all three grades. Marijuana remained the most widely used illicit drug during all time periods. The prevalence of annual and past month marijuana use in 10th and 12th graders in 2013 is greater than in 2005. Table 1 lists the lifetime, annual, and monthly prevalence rates of various drugs for 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in 2013.

18
2013;
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/index.html.

EP12AU16.005

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)

19

19
DAWN is a national probability survey of the U.S. hospitals with ED designed to obtain information on drug related ED visits. DAWN is sponsored by SAMHSA. The DAWN system provides information on the health consequences of drug use in the United States, as manifested by drug-related visits to ED. The ED data from a representative sample of hospital emergency departments are weighted to produce national estimates. Importantly, DAWN data and estimates, starting in 2004, are not comparable to those for prior years because of vast changes in the methodology used to collect the data. Furthermore, estimates for 2004 are the first to be based on a redesigned sample of hospitals, which ended in 2011.

Importantly, many factors can influence the estimates of ED visits, including trends in overall use of a substance as well as trends in the reasons for ED usage. For instance, some drug users may visit EDs for life-threatening issues while others may visit to seek care for detoxification because they needed certification before entering treatment. Additionally, DAWN data do not distinguish the drug responsible for the ED visit from other drugs that may have been used concomitantly. As stated in a DAWN report, “Since marijuana/hashish is frequently present in combination with other drugs, the reason for the ED visit may be more relevant to the other drug(s) involved in the episode.”

For 2011, DAWN
20

estimates a total of 5,067,374 (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 4,616,753 to 5,517,995) drug-related ED visits from the entire United States. Of these, approximately 2,462,948 ([CI]: 2,112,868 to 2,813,028) visits involved drug misuse or abuse.

20
2011;
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/dawn.aspx.

During the same period, DAWN estimates that 1,252,500 (CI: 976,169 to 1,528,831) drug related ED visits involved illicit drugs. Thus, over half of all drug-related ED visits associated with drug misuse or abuse involved an illicit drug. For ED visits involving illicit drugs, 56.3 percent involved multiple drugs while 43.7 percent involved a single drug.

Marijuana was involved in 455,668 ED visits (CI: 370,995 to 540,340), while cocaine was involved in 505,224 (CI: 324,262 to 686, 185) ED visits, heroin was involved in 258,482 (CI: 205,046 to 311,918) ED visits and stimulants including amphetamine and methamphetamine were involved in 159,840 (CI: 100,199 to 219,481) ED visits. Other illicit drugs, such as PCP, MDMA, GHB and LSD were much less frequently associated with ED visits. The number of ED visits involving marijuana has increased by 62 percent since 2004.

Marijuana-related ED visits were most frequent among young adults and minors. Individuals under the age of 18 accounted for 13.2 percent of these marijuana-related visits, whereas this age group accounted for approximately 1.2 percent of ED visits involving cocaine, and less than 1 percent of ED visits involving heroin. However, the age group with the most marijuana-related ED visits was between 25 and 29 years old. Yet, because populations differ between age groups, a standardized measure for population size is useful to make comparisons. For marijuana, the rates of ED visits per 100,000 population were highest for patients aged 18 to 20 (443.8 ED visits per 100,000) and for patients aged 21 to 24 (446.9 ED visits per 100,000).

While DAWN provides estimates for ED visits associated with the use of medical marijuana for 2009-2011, the validity of these estimates is questionable. Because the drug is not approved by the FDA, reporting medical marijuana may be inconsistent and reliant on a number of factors including whether the patient self-reports the marijuana use as medicinal, how the treating health care provider records the marijuana use, and lastly how the SAMHSA coder interprets the report. All of these aspects will vary greatly between states with medical marijuana laws and states without medical marijuana laws. Thus, even though estimates are reported for medical marijuana related ED visits, medical marijuana estimates cannot be assessed with any acceptable accuracy at this time, as FDA has not approved marijuana treatment of any medical condition. These data show the difficulty in evaluating abuse of a product that is not currently approved by FDA, but authorized for medical use, albeit inconsistently, at the state level. Thus, we believe the likelihood of the treating health care provider or SAMHSA coder attributing the ED visit to “medical marijuana” versus “marijuana” to be very low. Overall, the available data are inadequate to characterize its abuse at the community level.

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS)

21

21
The TEDS system is part of SAMHSA's Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (Office of Applied Science, SAMHSA). The TEDS report presents information on the demographic and substance use characteristics of the 1.8 million annual admissions to treatment for alcohol and drug abuse in facilities that report to individual state administrative data systems. Specifically, TEDS includes facilities licensed or certified by the states to provide substance abuse treatment and is required by the states to provide TEDS client-level data. Facilities that report TEDS data are those receiving State alcohol and drug agency funds for the provision of alcohol and drug treatment services. Since TEDS is based only on reports from these facilities, TEDS data do not represent the total national demand for substance abuse treatment or the prevalence of substance abuse in the general population. The primary goal for TEDS is to monitor the characteristics of treatment .episodes for substance abusers. Importantly, TEDS is an admissions-based system, where admittance to treatment is counted as an anonymous tally. For instance, a given individual who is admitted to treatment twice within a given year would be counted as two admissions. The most recent year with complete data is 2011.

Primary marijuana abuse accounted for 18.1 percent of all 2011 TEDS
22

admissions. Individuals admitted for primary marijuana abuse were nearly three-quarters (73.4 percent) male, and almost half (45.2 percent) were white. The average age at admission was 24 years old, and 31.1 percent of individuals admitted for primary marijuana abuse were under the age of 18. The reported frequency of marijuana use was 24.3 percent reporting daily use. Almost all (96.8 percent) primary marijuana users utilized the substance by smoking. Additionally, 92.9 percent reported using marijuana for the first time before the age of 18.

22
2011;
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/DASIS.aspx?qr=t#TEDS.

An important aspect of TEDS admission data for marijuana is of the referral source for treatment. Specifically, prima

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-17954. Public record. Not legal advice.