Despite some positive results of Colorado’s marijuana legalization, like additional revenue and a decrease in crime, there are issues that require further legislative attention. The main point of dispute is the regulation, or rather lack thereof, of marijuana edibles. THC, the mind-altering ingredient in marijuana, can be converted into a cooking oil and used to make treats including truffles, lollipops, cookies, and basically anything else you can eat.

It is easy to see the appeal after just a glance at the menu in a dispensary, often including selections like macadamia nut cookies and candy bars alongside the more traditional brownies. This appeal, however, does not only apply to legal users over age 21, but to children who unknowingly find these THC-laced goodies lying around.

Why Regulate?

Critics claim edibles are far too alluring to children. The cardinal concern here is that kids will be tempted by marijuana candy and guzzle it down without knowing what they are eating. According to the New York Times, “so far this year, nine children have ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora after consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the hospital treated only eight such cases.” In a recent incident, a seven-year-old girl in Colorado was hospitalized after ingesting a THC edible. While it does appear that the trend of the hospitalization of children who consumed pot has increased, the evidence is not yet conclusive.

What is the key to preventing future events from occurring? Law enforcement officers and manufacturers of marijuana edibles stress time and time again the importance of the role of parents in keeping their kids away from potentially tempting pot candies. “There is a level of discretion and education and, frankly, tenacity on the behalf of parents that has to occur. If you leave pot lying around, kids are going to find it,” said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for the Denver-based Dixie Elixirs edibles.

Another issue noted with marijuana edibles is the difficulty with dosing them properly. To deal with these issues, lawmakers are considering new packaging with more obvious warnings or limiting each package to contain just a single dose. Recreational dispensaries are also implementing safety measures by listing precautions for edible users.

Edible marijuana information sheet via anonymous

Last time I ate a brownie I bought it legally from a recreational marijuana dispensary. The brownie was 90 MG, so I used caution in the portion I ate because I knew that my tolerance was nonexistent. I started feeling the sensation creeping on about 20 or 30 minutes after eating it. My girlfriend, who has had much less experience using marijuana than myself, was trying to argue that it wasn’t working and that we should eat more, but I urged her to be patient because I knew that even the small amount we ate would get us high. We both ate a little more because I figured she could learn firsthand about the appropriate dosage for her. The peak of my high wasn’t attained until two to three hours after consumption. The experience is equally in the mind as well as the entire body, so I recommend not going out or driving and just letting the drug take effect.

-Anonymous Colorado marijuana user

Advocates of further regulation often cite recent incidents in which two individuals died, allegedly due to the over-consumption of THC edibles; however, the roll of edible marijuana in these deaths remains in question. The only instances on record include a man who jumped off a balcony to his death after consuming a cookie laced with the amount of THC in six joints. In the other instance, a man hallucinated and stabbed his wife, but other drugs were more likely the contributing factor leading to his actions.

Whether the marijuana edibles were the true culprit or not, these events and others have led lawmakers to begin tightening the regulatory noose on their THC content, sale, and marketing. Many express concern over the appearance of the labels on edibles as they appear strikingly similar to their non-THC counterparts.

How are Edibles Different?

In short, when THC is digested, the body absorbs it more slowly than when it is smoked, and therefore can cause the user to feel the need to consume far too much. In spite of this, edibles do not cause damage to lungs in the way that smoking can.

According to an anonymous Colorado marijuana user, the experience consuming pot edibles is a juxtaposition of emotion. “There is a simultaneous balance of being completely relaxed and being on the verge of a panic attack, for me.”

Like many other recreational pot users, he generally prefers pot edibles. “Edible marijuana makes me feel like I need to go to sleep right away but my heart rate is also increased because THC is a stimulating drug. The mind altering properties of weed are especially apparent because it takes feelings that I experience and makes me see them from a different perspective, making me physically uncomfortable yet more accepting to new ideas.”

Even supporters of legalization such as Brian Vicente, one of the authors of the amendment that legalized marijuana, say that Colorado needs to pass stricter rules about edible marijuana. He said that the state was racing up a sharp learning curve. “Marijuana was illegal for 80 years. Now it’s legal, and everyone’s just trying to figure out how to approach these new issues.”

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Janet Hudson via wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Have Your Pot and Eat it Too: Regulating Edible Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision to curb the use of prescribed painkillers has quickly become a topic of huge media speculation. A debate focusing on the pros and cons of this verdict has been sparked between the drug-selling companies, health providers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  While few health providers argue that this might have serious consequences on patients suffering from acute pain, others believe that this is an attempt to reduce the increasing number of deaths caused due to the abuse of household painkillers.

According to the CDC, painkiller overdose death rates have more than tripled since the 1990. In 2009, abuse of prescription painkillers was the major reason behind all 475,000 emergency department visits across the nation.  Hydrocodone-the main ingredient behind most household painkillers included in the variety of opioid narcotics, is seen as the dominant cause for the increasing number of deaths.  In the past, hydrocodone was classified as a low-risk drug that permitted doctors to prescribe it over phone, and allowed patients to use it for a period of six months on a single prescription. Although, these rules eased the access to the drug and pushed the sales to new heights, it additionally fueled the widespread dependence and related deaths.

Last week, almost after a decade and a half of careful cross-examination, the FDA took a step forward to reduce the harmful effects of the drug. The new proposal eliminates the conveniences of prescribing painkilling drug. It reclassifies Hydrocodone under Schedule II drugs, thus bar phone-in prescriptions and place a 90-day limit on refills.  Most opponents of FDA’s decision complain that this will force ailing patients to schedule more frequent visits to the doctors, which might prove to be burdensome for most middle-income families. In response to this, FDA reaffirms that a change in regulations for Hydrocodone containing drug supply was absolutely necessary as it kills more people than any other forms of narcotics.

Controlling substance abuse has always posed a challenge for the FDA, and extension of this malpractice into the prescribed drug sector; could lead to results much more uglier than ever imagined. In my personal opinion, the FDA’s recent drug restrictions should be applauded as this initiative could save lives and mitigate the overall narcotic abuse rates. Hydrocodone supplying companies could experience an initial down surge in sale revenue, but that should not lead them to undermine the dangers of selling the drug.  It is time for drug-selling giants to realize and act on their social responsibilities.

[CDC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Norris via Flickr]

Tanzoom Ahmed

Tanzoom Ahmed is a graduate of George Mason University with a Master of Public Policy. Contact Tanzoom at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Memo to FDA: Kill the Pain, Not the Patient appeared first on Law Street.