MMJ States

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881

Deaths from Marijuana

Deaths from Marijuana v. 17 FDA-Approved Drugs (Jan. 1, 1997 to June 30, 2005) Background Cause of Death Categories & Definitions FDA Disclaimer of Information Summary of Deaths by Drug Classification Deaths from Marijuana & 17 FDA-Approved Drugs Sources & Disagreement on Marijuana Deaths Full Text of All 17 FDA "Adverse Event" Reports I. Background Much of the medical marijuana discussion has focused on the safety of marijuana compared to the safety of FDA-approved drugs. On June 24, 2005 ProCon.org sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to find the number of deaths caused by marijuana compared to the number of deaths caused by 17 FDA-approved drugs. Twelve of these FDA-approved drugs were chosen because they are commonly prescribed in place of medical marijuana, while the remaining five FDA-approved drugs were randomly selected because they are widely used and recognized by the general public. We chose Jan. 1, 1997 as our starting date as it is the beginning of the first year following the Nov. 1996 approval of the first state medical marijuana laws (such as California's Proposition 215). The FDA reports we read from Sep. 13, 2005 to Oct. 14, 2005 included drug deaths "to present", which was the date each report was compiled for our request. We cut off the counting as of June 30, 2005 to provide a uniform end-date to the various reports. On Aug. 25, 2005 the FDA sent us 12 CDs and five printed reports containing copies of their Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) report on each drug requested. These reports included all adverse events reported to the FDA, only a portion of which included deaths. We manually counted the number of deaths reported on each drug from the FDA-supplied information. A review of the FDA Adverse Events reports also revealed some deaths where marijuana was at least a concomitant drug (a drug also used at the time of death) in some cases. On Oct. 14, 2005 we used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the adverse events reported deaths for marijuana, cannabis, and cannabinoids. We received those reports on Aug. 3, 2006 in the form of three additional CDs. The FDA listed over 150 deaths on more than one report (aka double counted them), however, to ensure accuracy, we removed duplicates from our final count. All the FDA adverse events reports that we received can be seen in full at the bottom of this page. II. Cause of Death Categories & Definitions The FDA AERS reports rely on health professionals to detect an "adverse event" and attribute that event to the drug, and then to voluntarily report that effect to either the FDA or the drug manufacturer. The drug firm, by law, must report that event to the FDA. The FDA states "ninety percent of the FDA's reports are received from drug manufacturers" on page one of its "Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) Brief Description with Caveats of System." (PDF 2.7 MB) Select instructions on how to report adverse events, as per the FDA's AERS Form Instructions (PDF 65 KB), are provided below: Adverse Event: Any incident where the use of a medication (drug or biologic, including HCT/P), at any dose, a medical device (including in vitro diagnostics) or a special nutritional product (e.g., dietary supplement, infant formula or medical food) is suspected to have resulted in an adverse outcome in a patient. Death: Check only if you suspect that the death was an outcome of the adverse event, and include the date if known. Do not check if: The patient died while using a medical product, but there was no suspected association between the death and A fetus is aborted because of a congenital anomaly (birth defect), or is miscarried Suspect Product(s): A suspect product is one that you suspect is associated with the adverse event. Up to two (2) suspect products may be reported on one form (#1=first suspect product, #2=second suspect product). Attach an additional form if there were more than two suspect products associated with the reported adverse event. To report: it is not necessary to be certain of a cause/effect relationship between the adverse event and the use of the medical product(s) in question. Suspicion of an association is sufficient reason to report. Submission of a report does not constitute an admission that medical personnel or the product caused or contributed to the event. III. FDA Disclaimer of Information III. FDA Disclaimer of Information Included in the 15 CDs and five printed reports from the FDA was the following disclosure: "The information contained in the reports has not been scientifically or otherwise verified. For any given report there is no certainty that the suspected drug caused the reaction. This is because physicians are encouraged to report suspected reactions. The event may have been related to the underlying disease for which the drug was given to concurrent drugs being taken or may have occurred by chance at the same time the suspected drug was taken. Numbers from these data must be carefully interpreted as reported rates and not occurrence rates. True incidence rates cannot be determined from this database. Comparisons of drugs cannot be made from these data." -- July 18, 20/05 - FDA Office of Pharmacoepidemiology and Statistical Science, "Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) Brief Description with Caveats of System" [Editor's Note - ProCon.org makes no claim that the data below reflects occurrence rates. The information is presented for our readers' benefit who may feel that the relative comparisons have value. ProCon.org attempted to find the total number of users of each of these drugs by contacting the FDA, pharmaceutical trade organizations, and the actual drug manufacturers. We either did not receive a response or were told the information was proprietary or otherwise unavailable] IV. Summary of Deaths by Drug Classification   DRUG CLASSIFICATION Specific Drugs per Category Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 A. MARIJUANA also known as: Cannabis sativa L Marijuana Cannabis Cannabinoids 0 279 279 B. ANTI-EMETICS (used to treat vomiting) Compazine Reglan Marinol Zofran Anzemet Kytril Tigan 196 429 625 C. ANTI-SPASMODICS (used to treat muscle spasms) Baclofen Zanaflex 118 56 174 D. ANTI-PSYCHOTICS (used to treat psychosis) Haldol Lithium Neurontin 1,593 702 2,295 E. OTHER POPULAR DRUGS (used to treat various conditions including ADD, depression, narcolepsy, erectile dysfunction, and pain) Ritalin Wellbutrin Adderall Viagra Vioxx* 8,101 492 8,593 F. TOTALS of A-E Number of Drugs in Total Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 TOTAL DEATHS FROM MARIJUANA 1 0 279 279 TOTAL DEATHS FROM 17 FDA-APPROVED DRUGS 17 10,008 1,679 11,687 V. Chart of Deaths from Marijuana and 17 FDA-Approved Drugs   A. Marijuana DRUG (Year Approved) Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 1. Marijuana (not approved) also known as: Cannabis sativa L 0 109 109 2. Cannabis (not approved) also known as: Cannabis sativa L 0 78 78 3. Cannabinoids (unclear if these mentions include non-plant cannabinoids) 0 92 92 Sub-Total - Anti-Emetics 0 279 279     FDA-Approved Drugs Prescribed in Place of Medical Marijuana B. Anti-Emetics DRUG (Year Approved) Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 1. Compazine (1980) also known as: Phenothiazine, prochlorperazine 15 30 45 2. Reglan (1980) also known as: Metaclopramide, Paspertin, Primperan 37 278 315 3. Marinol (1985) also known as: Dronabinol 4 1 5 4. Zofran (1991) also known as: Ondansetron hydrochloride 79 76 155 5. Anzemet (1997) also known as: Dolasetron mesylatee 22 5 27 6. Kytril (1999) also known as: Granisetron hydrochloride 36 24 60 7. Tigan (2001) also known as: Trimethobenzamide 3 15 18 Sub-Total - Anti-Emetics 196 429 625 C. Anti-Spasmodics DRUG (Year Approved) Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 1. Baclofen (1967) also known as: Lioresal, 4-amino-3-(4-chlorophenyl)-butanoic acid 72 33 105 2. Zanaflex (1996) also known as: Tizanidine hydrochloride, Sirdalud, Ternelin 46 23 69 Sub-Total - Anti-Spasmodics 118 56 174 D. Anti-Psychotics DRUG (Year Approved) Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 1. Haldol (1967) also known as: Haloperidol, Haldol Decanoate, Serenace, Halomonth 450 267 717 2. Lithium (1970) also known as: Lithium Carbonate, Eskalith, Lithobid, Lithonate, Teralithe, Lithane, Hypnorex, Limas, Lithionit, Quilonum 175 133 308 3. Neurontin (1994) also known as: Gabapentin 968 302 1,270 Sub-Total - Anti-Psychotics 1,593 702 2,295 E. Other Well-Known and Randomly Selected FDA-Approved Drugs DRUG (Year Approved) Primary Suspect of the Death Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 1. Ritalin (1955) also known as: Methylphenidate, Concerta, Medadate, Ritaline (used to treat ADD and ADHD) 121 53 174 2. Wellbutrin (1997) also known as: Bupropion Hydrochloride, Zyban, Zyntabac, Amfebutamone (used to treat depression & anxiety) 1,132 220 1,352 3. Adderall (1966) also known as: Dextroamphetamine Saccharate, Amphetamine Aspartate, Dextroamphetamine Sulfate USP, Amphetamine Sulfate USP (used to treat narcolepsy or to control hyperactivity in children) 54 12 66 4. Viagra (1998) also known as: Sildenafil Citrate (used to treat erectile dysfunction) 2,254 40 2,294 5. Vioxx* (1999) also known as: Rifecixub, Arofexx (used to treat osteoarthritis and pain) 4,540 167 4,707 Sub-Total - Other Popular Drugs 8,101 492 8,593 F. TOTALS of A-E Primary Suspect Secondary Suspect (Contributing to death) Total Deaths Reported 1/1/97 - 6/30/05 TOTAL DEATHS FROM MARIJUANA 0 279 279 TOTAL DEATHS FROM 17 FDA-APPROVED DRUGS 10,008 1,679 11,687   *[Editor's Note: Merck, the maker of Vioxx, publicly announced its voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx from the global market on September 30, 2004. In 2005, advisory panels in both the US and Canada encouraged the return of Vioxx to the market, stating that Vioxx's benefits outweighed the risks for some patients. The FDA advisory panel voted 17-15 to allow the drug to return to the market despite being found to increase heart risk. The vote in Canada was 12-1, and the Canadian panel noted that the cardiovascular risks from Vioxx seemed to be no worse than those from ibuprofen. Notwithstanding these recommendations, Merck has not returned Vioxx to the market as of July 8, 2009.]   VI. Sources & Disagreement on Marijuana Deaths Has marijuana caused any deaths? General Reference (not clearly pro or con) The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) 2003 report Mortality Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2001 (1.5 MB) stated: "Marijuana is rarely the only drug involved in a drug abuse death. Thus ... the proportion of marijuana-induced cases labeled as 'One drug' (i.e., marijuana only) will be zero or nearly zero." 2003 - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration PRO (Yes) CON (No) Thomas Geller, MD, Associate Professor of Child Neurology at the Saint Louis University Health Sciences Center, et al., wrote the following in their Apr. 4, 2004 article titled "Cerebellar Infarction in Adolescent Males Associated with Acute Marijuana Use," (560 KB) published in the journal Pediatrics: "Each of the 3 cannabis-associated cases of cerebellar infarction was confirmed by biopsy (1 case) or necropsy (2 cases)... Brainstem compromise caused by cerebellar and cerebral edema led to death in the 2 fatal cases." Apr. 4, 2004 - Thomas Geller, MD Liliana Bachs, MD, Senior Medical Officer at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, et al., wrote the following in their Dec. 27, 2001 article titled "Acute Cardiovascular Fatalities Following Cannabis Use," published in the journal Forensic Science International: "Cannabis is generally considered to be a drug with very low toxicity. In this paper, we report six cases where recent cannabis intake was associated with sudden and unexpected death. An acute cardiovascular event was the probable cause of death. In all cases, cannabis intake was documented by blood analysis... Further investigation of clinical, toxicologial and epidemiological aspects are needed to enlighten causality between cannabis intake and acute cardiovascular events." Dec. 27, 2001 - Liliana Bachs, MD [Editor's Note: Dr. Bachs clarified the findings from her Dec. 27, 2001 study reported above in a Nov. 28, 2005 email to ProCon.org, as quoted below. "Causality is a difficult assessment in forensic toxicology. It is often an 'exclusion diagnosis,' and so it is in our cases. I'm therefore not sure about how to classify those deaths. At the time I published that study I would probably not classify [the cannabis] as primary causation because it was not broadly accepted that [a death from cannabis] could occur at all. Today I see reports coming all the time that acknowledge cannabis cardiovascular risks, and the situation may be different."] Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research at Kaiser Permanente, wrote the following in his Sep. 20, 2003 article titled "Comparing Cannabis with Tobacco -- Again," published in the British Medical Journal: "No acute lethal overdoses of cannabis are known, in contrast to several of its illegal (for example, cocaine) and legal (for example, alcohol, aspirin, acetaminophen) counterparts... Although the use of cannabis is not harmless, the current knowledge base does not support the assertion that it has any notable adverse public health impact in relation to mortality." Sep. 20, 2003 - Stephen Sidney, MD Joycelyn Elders, MD, former US Surgeon General, wrote the following in her Mar. 26, 2004 editorial published in the Providence Journal: "Unlike many of the drugs we prescribe every day, marijuana has never been proven to cause a fatal overdose." Mar. 26, 2004 - Joycelyn Elders, MD   VII. Full Text of All 20 FDA "Adverse Event" Reports [Please note that some of these PDF files exceed 5 megabytes and may take several minutes to load] Adderall (PDF 495 KB) Anzemet (PDF 1.5 MB) Baclofen (PDF 755 KB) Cannabinoids (PDF 65 KB) Cannabis (PDF 330 KB) Compazine (PDF 1.6 MB) Haldol (PDF 1.5 MB) Kytril (PDF 2.2 MB) Lithium (PDF 2.4 MB) Marijuana  (PDF 220 KB) Marinol  (PDF 535 KB) Neurontin  (PDF 6.3 MB) Ritalin  (PDF 1.6 MB) Reglan  (PDF 1.5 MB) Tigan  (PDF 2.4 MB) Viagra  (PDF 7.6 MB) Vioxx  (PDF 31.5 MB) Wellbutrin  (PDF 8.3 MB) Zanaflex  (PDF 6556 KB) Zofran  (PDF 1 MB)

Media & Press | How to Cite ProCon.org | How to Use ProCon.org | Link to Us | Reprinting Policy | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy © ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit    |    All rights reserved    |    233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401    |   Tel: 310-451-9596

MI ruling

MI: PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATES REACT TO APPEALS COURT RULING BARRING MARIJUANA DISPENSARY SALES
mapinc/ 8/25/2011 / By Carol Hopkins And Ann Zaniewski, Daily Tribune, Associated Press contributed to this story., Source: Daily Tribune

Oakland County law enforcement officials and medical marijuana advocates are taking sides regarding a Court of Appeals' decision that states medical marijuana cannot be sold through private shops or dispensaries -- estimated to currently number in the hundreds in Michigan.

Wednesday's ruling -- a major decision that strikes at businesses trying to cash in on pot -- is the first time the appeals court has ruled in a case involving commercial pot sales. The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals on other aspects of the medical marijuana law.

A three-judge panel said the 2008 medical marijuana law, as well as the state's public health code, does not allow people to sell pot to each other, even if they have state-issued marijuana cards.

Paul Walton, Oakland County chief assistant prosecutor, said given the Medical Marihuana Act's language, the ruling wasn't surprising.

"If you are a patient under the act, you can grow 12 plants yourself or you can designate a caregiver to grow for you," he said. "Caregivers can have up to five patients. It's pretty clear -- patients have to be linked to caregivers, and patient-to-patient sales are illegal."

He explained that the Medical Marihuana Act provides an exemption to allow patients to use marijuana.

"If you don't fall within the four squares of the law, then you are engaged in illegal activity," he said. "The Court of Appeals has repeatedly said, 'This is an exemption.'"

Rick Thompson, editor of Oak Park-based Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine, said the Court of Appeals ruling is a "direct contradiction" to the Medical Marihuana Act.

"The act states transfers don't constitute sales of an illegal substance," Thompson said.

Thompson estimated there may be 500 dispensaries currently operating in Michigan. Walton said he knows of dispensaries in Wayne and Macomb counties, and said Lansing just put a limit on having 48 in the city.

Thompson also referenced a number of medical marijuana-related bills recently supported by Attorney General Bill Schuette.

"There was no bill on dispensaries," said Thompson. "Either he loves them or he already knew the Court of Appeals was going to strike them down."

If the latter is true, said Thompson, "The Attorney General should not be privileged to knowing Court of Appeal rulings in advance. It's inappropriate."

The Court of Appeals ruling stems from a case out of Isabella County involving Compassionate Apothecary, a facility in which members who were either registered patients or their caregivers purchased marijuana from other members while the business owners retained at least 20 percent of the sale price. Prosecutors filed a complaint alleging that the operation of the facility was not in accordance with the state's Medical Marihuana Act, and therefore a nuisance because it violated the public health code.

A trial court judge sided with Compassionate Apothecary. In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals said the operation of the business is an enjoinable public nuisance and in violation of the health code, which prohibits the possession and delivery of marijuana.

The appellate judges also said the business is not operated within the provisions of the state's Medical Marihuana Act because the medical use of marijuana, as defined by the Act, does not include patient-to-patient sales.

Gerald Fisher, a professor at Cooley Law School in Auburn Hills, wrote an extensive paper last fall on the Act for the Michigan Municipal League and the Michigan Townships Association. He said the Court of Appeals decision is consistent with his interpretation of the law.

"When you read the Act as a whole, the fundamental intent of the Act is to allow a caregiver to help up to five patients," he said. "What we have here is not a caregiver helping five patients, but patients helping an unlimited number of other patients. That strays very far from the fundamental intent of the Act."

Michael Komorn, an attorney who has defended medical marijuana cardholders, called the appellate court's ruling "an unfortunate decision for patients who are suffering."

He said that this opinion means "a cancer patient going through chemotherapy, vomiting and pain would not be able to acquire cannabis from another state license caregiver or patient.

"If they did, they would be labeled a criminal and the Court of Appeals would tell that cancer patient they would have to wait 3-4 months until they could grow their own plants or be arrested," Komorn said.

"I believe that the 63 percent of the voters in Michigan intended medical marijuana patients to have safe reliable access to cannabis. This decision does not recognize this very basic but important fact.

"It is easy to issue opinions from the comfort of judicial chambers when the Justices don't see the faces of pain and suffering of the sick."

Medical Marijuana Business Consultant Samantha Moffett of the Walled Lake-based Ambrose Law Group said she was disappointed with the ruling.

"It is not just business-minded patients and caregivers who believe dispensaries are a legal business structure in Michigan -- multiple municipalities across the state have passed ordinances allowing and structuring such businesses," she said.

"Cities and townships have been able to fill commercial spaces dormant for years, generate jobs, collect licensing fees to fund the municipality, and most importantly, provide safe access to medicine for patients. The appellate court has taken these things from the people of Michigan today.

"As of right now, all dispensaries in the state are considered a nuisance and must be shut down unless they want to be pulled into court. It will be interesting to see how municipalities who have collected licensing fees from these businesses react."

Clarkston-based attorney Steve Reina, who has handled cases involving medical marijuana patients facing drug charges, said he said believes that political events and other factors will result in laws prohibiting marijuana use eventually becoming more lax.

"Those who cannot learn history's lessons are doomed to repeat them," he said. "From Prohibition on forward, a lesson in American history has been you cannot legislate morality. The Court of Appeals ruling, therefore, probably stands eventually to be reversed by history itself."

There are several medical marijuana-related cases working their way through Oakland County courts. A number of people were charged in connection with the raids of medical marijuana dispensaries Clinical Relief in Ferndale and Everybody's Cafe and Herbal Remedies in Waterford Township.

Oakland Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien issued a ruling last week that said the Medical Marihuana Act does not provide protection from prosecution to medical marijuana dispensaries.

Michigan voters in 2008 approved a ballot proposal that included physician- approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions and allowed registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for patients.

Medical marijuana is a controversial topic, with some people saying that the laws related to marijuana use in Michigan are still unclear.

Chino Valley

Got up here Sun afternoon did a little tooling around the area. I got my scripts (hate walgreens) the weather is great! good to be out of the valley... Hottest Aug on record! i can tell it has been the hottest since I have lived done here. In June it was 17 years since I've lived here. When it is hot it is just that HOT! Nothing compared to the Minnesota winters. Can't do a lot of things when it 30 below. I can do stuff in 110 heat, I prefer not to if I don't have to but there are times where I have to work out in the heat. we packed Rena in the heat and it was 117 that day! Having a great time with Michele. I went to an AA meeting yesterday and may go tomorrow.

Bummer

Two Men Found To Have $16.8 Million In Marijuana At Addison Business

permalink

---

Addison, IL — Luis Pichardo, 32, of 138 N. 18th Ave., Melrose Park, and Ignacio Morales, 28, of the same Melrose Park address have each been charged with one count of unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to deliver (over 5,000 grams), a class-X felony, punishable by up to 6 to 30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, according to a release today from the DuPage County State’s Attorney Robert. B. Berlin.

On Friday evening, undercover agents with the DuPage Metropolitan Enforcement Group (DuMeg) allegedly observed Pichardo and Morales acting suspiciously at a business at 135 Laura Drive in Addison. The men left the business and were pulled over by an Addison police officer a short time later for traffic violations. The driver of the vehicle, Pichardo, allegedly did not possess a valid driver’s license and was arrested.

During the traffic stop, a K-9 unit positively alerted officers on the vehicle. In the early morning hours on Saturday, a search warrant was obtained and executed for the 135 Laura Drive address. Inside the business, DuMeg officials recovered 3,700 pounds of marijuana with an estimated street value of $16.8 million.

The men appeared in bond court Sunday morning, where Judge Else set bond for each man at $10 million with 10 percent to apply.

Both men are scheduled to appear in court on Sept. 19 for arraignment in front of Judge Robert Kleeman.

420magazine.com

Secetary Clinton Views

Monday, January 31, 2011

Secretary Clinton is Interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa in Mexico

(Transcript)

QUESTION: So about Mexico, you said recently it’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, where the narcotraffickers controlled certain parts of the country. These drug cartels are actually more and more indices of insurgency. What do you understand by narcoinsurgency?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that every situation is different, and certainly Mexico is not Colombia, Mexico is not the United States. We have to analyze every situation. But both Mexico and the United States have a series of transnational threats that we have to confront. The drug traffickers are a transnational threat and they cross borders. They have, unfortunately, set up business in your country, in my country. So we have to see it not just as something that is local but is something that has unfortunate tentacles that go outside, which means we have to work together to try to eliminate it.

QUESTION: But the word insurgency – I mean, do you have evidence of an alliance taking place between organized crime cartels and subversive groups seeking to overthrow the Mexican Government, for instance?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. And that was not my intent with that word. That was not at all what I intended. What I was intending to say, and appreciate the chance to clarify that, is that the techniques that are used now by drug traffickers, unfortunately, resemble other threats around the world that we see: the barbaric, horrific amount of violence, the communication capabilities that they now have, how heavily armed they are. They are armed like the military now, unfortunately. So it’s not in a sort of geostrategic sense but in sort of tactical – some similarities.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you consider that the violence in our country is something that threatens national security in your country?

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, I consider it more of a problem that we have some responsibility for that’s affecting our neighbor. And therefore, we have to take not only the responsibility, but also offer assistance so that the people of Mexico can have the security that Mexicans deserve. And this is not a national security issue in a traditional sense. It’s a border security issue, and for that reason it’s something we take very seriously. It’s an organized crime issue, and we just had this huge roundup of organized crime figures in the United States. And we’re working closely with our counterparts so that we can try to prevent these drug traffickers and organized criminals from hurting Mexicans or Americans.

QUESTION: But what are your plans to face this threat? I mean, we know you’re helping our country to restore peace, or trying to restore peace, in Ciudad Juarez. Exactly what are you doing?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what we’re doing is providing assistance to law enforcement, equipment, building capacity. But we’re also working with the Mexican Government on the reform of the judiciary that President Calderon has begun on building a stronger corrections system so that when criminals are caught they can be detained, and having a prosecution system that uses all the modern techniques in order to put these people behind bars. We believe that you can’t just have a law enforcement response. You have to have a broader, more comprehensive approach, and that is what President Calderon is taking.

QUESTION: Okay. In several occasion, you have recognized that the partial explanation to the violence in Mexico can be found in the elevated drug consumption and the tolerance towards arms selling in your country. The consumption has not diminished. On the contrary, I hear it’s, like, reached a historical maximum and arms selling continue. And it’s very unlikely that it would – this will change. So why would – should we continue giving this battle? And when I say we, it’s like our country, Mexico.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are making some progress. There has been some decrease in drug use. But more than that, there’s been greater cooperation across the border. We are stopping more people and finding not only drugs, but guns, money for money laundering. We have much better law enforcement cooperation across the border. I don't think either of us could do this without working with the other. And I don't think either of us wants to let a drug kingpin and his gang behead people or addict people on either side of the border.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

QUESTION: But in the United States there [is] more and more tolerance for marijuana, right?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So this doesn’t seem right. Like the tolerance in the United States, and here we are killing each other for this product.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, the tolerance is in a very limited arena. It is for medical –

QUESTION: Medical use.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Medical use. And there are lots of regulations on it. So it’s not accurate to say, as I’ve heard some say, well, we’re legalizing marijuana. We are not. We are – the biggest – we have more people incarcerated, unfortunately, than any country in the world, and most of them are there because of some drug-related offense. So we know that this is not an easy struggle. We’ve been at it ourselves. But we also believe that you have to keep the pressure on the criminals; otherwise, they will just expand their operations, and then you do have to worry about more corruption, more problems with institutions.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

——————————

Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State, Guanajuato, Mexico, January 24, 2011; Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. State Department