By Shelby Huffaker, MPH | Chair, San Diego Americans for Safe Access
On Tuesday, August 29, 2024, the County Board of Supervisors listened to a presentation from the San Diego County Grand Jury on a report it released earlier this summer: Cannabis In San Diego – How Is It Going? The report outlines the “financial, health, and law enforcement impacts of cannabis legalization and recommends actions that should be taken to better inform the public about these impacts in San Diego.” The recommended actions include the following:
- To the San Diego Police and Sheriff’s Departments: take greater efforts to crack down on unlicensed delivery services and smoke shops selling “enhanced” CBD products;
- To the Mayor: direct city staff to develop reports documenting the financial and law enforcement impacts of cannabis legalization and conduct a public education campaign around cannabis use among children and seniors;
- To the County Board of Supervisors: develop reports documenting the financial and law enforcement impacts of cannabis legalization.
Each entity addressed in the report must submit a response to the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations within 90 days of its publication.
The San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access submitted the following public comment ahead of the meeting on August 27, which we have published below.
Dear Members of the County Board,
I am writing in response to the grand Jury report titled Cannabis in San Diego – How Is It Going?, a Board discussion on which will take place Tuesday, August 27th as consent agenda item #10. As a public health researcher, a concerned citizen, and advocate for evidence-based policy, I would like to respectfully offer a rebuttal to some of the conclusions and recommendations outlined in the report. While I appreciate the intention to address the impacts of cannabis legalization, I believe that the report does not fully consider the broader context, particularly the failures of the War on Drugs, and in some cases, it relies on assertions without sufficient citation or evidence.
The War on Drugs: A Historical Failure
The report touches on the negative impacts of cannabis legalization but fails to acknowledge the broader context of drug prohibition and its well-documented failures. The War on Drugs, which began in the 1970s, has been widely criticized for its disproportionate impact on communities of color, the overcrowding of prisons, and the misallocation of law enforcement resources.1 The criminalization of cannabis has historically led to thousands of arrests, particularly targeting marginalized communities, with little to no impact on overall drug use or public safety.2
Cannabis legalization was, in part, a response to these failures. It represented a shift away from punitive measures and towards a more regulated, health-focused approach. The significant reduction in cannabis-related arrests mentioned in the report—from 15,000 in 2016 to 6,000 in 2017—is evidence of the positive impact legalization has had on freeing up law enforcement to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, research on key public safety outcomes further demonstrates how cannabis legalization benefits our resource-constrained Police and Sheriff’s Departments: a review conducted by researchers at the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center found that cannabis legalization is associated with reductions in violent and property crime, as well as improved crime clearance rates.3 Another analysis found that cannabis legalization was associated with decreased rates of intimate partner violence (within the City of San Diego, there was a 4.23% decrease in domestic violence-related calls for assistance in the four years following cannabis legalization compared to the four years prior).4,5 Furthermore, the shift away from harsh, punitive policies should be seen as a success rather than a failure.
Lack of Citations and Questionable Assertions
Throughout the report, there are several assertions made without proper citation or evidence. For example, the report claims that “legalized cannabis has had significant health impacts on school-aged children and senior citizens” (Finding 5). However, this statement is not backed by specific, peer-reviewed studies that directly link cannabis legalization to these alleged health impacts. The referenced study from the UCSD School of Medicine on emergency room visits for seniors lacks context; it does not compare the risks of cannabis use with other medications commonly used by seniors, nor does it address whether these visits are due to misuse or a lack of proper education about dosage.
Furthermore, the report discusses the challenges posed by unlicensed delivery services and the illicit market (Findings 1 and 2) but fails to provide a detailed analysis of how much of this issue is a direct result of overly restrictive regulations and high taxes, which drive consumers to the illicit market. Without addressing these underlying causes, any enforcement strategy is likely to be ineffective.
The Health Impacts of Cannabis: A More Nuanced View
The report correctly points out that cannabis, like any substance, can have negative health impacts, particularly on youth and seniors. However, the report does not sufficiently differentiate between correlation and causation in its discussion of these impacts. For instance, the claim that frequent use of high-THC cannabis in youth is linked to higher risks of psychosis (Discussion, page 4) needs to be contextualized within the broader spectrum of mental health and population-level research. Many factors contribute to mental health outcomes, and cannabis use is just one of them. In addition, a substantial body of research has demonstrated that cannabis legalization is not associated with increased prevalence of underage consumption and may actually be associated with decreased usage rates, underscoring the need for context when discussing health outcomes as they relate to policy.6–8 Moreover, the report fails to mention the potential benefits of cannabis, such as its use in managing chronic pain, reducing opioid dependence, and treating multiple sclerosis and epilepsy.9–12
Recommendations: A Call for Balanced Reporting and Public Education
While the Grand Jury’s recommendations aim to increase transparency and public education, it is crucial that these efforts present a balanced view. Public education campaigns should not only highlight the potential risks of cannabis use but also inform the public about safe consumption practices and the benefits of cannabis, especially as a less harmful alternative to other substances like alcohol and opioids.
Moreover, if the City of San Diego and the County are to produce reports on the impacts of cannabis legalization, these reports should be comprehensive and based on sound scientific evidence. They should include peer-reviewed studies, comparative data from other states that have legalized cannabis, and a critical analysis of the costs and benefits of cannabis legalization in the context of the broader failures of drug prohibition.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while I understand the concerns raised in the Grand Jury’s report, I believe that a more balanced and evidence-based approach is necessary. The legalization of cannabis was a significant policy shift aimed at addressing the failures of the War on Drugs and reducing the harm caused by cannabis prohibition. Any discussion of its impacts should be grounded in robust evidence and consider both the risks and the benefits.
I urge the Supervisors to carefully consider the findings and recommendations in light of the broader context of drug policy reform and encourage that future reports be supported by comprehensive and well-cited evidence.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Sincerely,
Shelby Huffaker, MPH
Chair, San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access
The San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is the local chapter of the largest national member-based organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research. ASA works to overcome political and legal barriers by creating policies that improve access to medical cannabis for patients and researchers through legislation, education, litigation, grassroots actions, advocacy, and services for patients and their caregivers. ASA has over 150,000 active members with chapters and affiliates in all 50 states.
