Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson has said, on more than one occasion, that legal prescription drugs statistically kill 100,000 Americans a year while there are no documented instances of deaths due to marijuana. Even if that is true, it may not have much impact on voters in states voting this fall on measures to permit medical or recreational use in their states.

Investigators at PolitiFact decided to check up on Johnson’s statement on the number of deaths related to prescription drugs compared with marijuana.

First, they found that a lethal overdose of marijuana would need to be at least 1,000 times the size of an effective dose (15 grams or so). Alcohol, by contrast, can be lethal at just 10 times an effective dose.

PolitiFact also noted U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency data reporting that no deaths from marijuana overdose have ever been reported. That does not mean that weed has not contributed to deaths from car crashes or adverse psychological effects.

Johnson’s claim of 100,000 deaths related to prescription drugs is based on a 1998 study that the National Institute for Drug Abuse told PolitiFact “was based on invalid calculations that overestimated the number of deaths.

PolitiFact’s conclusion:

Marijuana is far less toxic than many prescription painkillers, which kill tens of thousands of people every year. Marijuana has never killed anyone through overdose, but Johnson’s vague claim leaves out the crucial fact that marijuana has played a role in accidental deaths. And the number of prescription drug deaths isn’t estimated to be as high as Johnson said.

What You Need to Know about the 2016 Presidential Candidates’ Marijuana Views
The chatter of cannabis has grown a little louder on the U.S. campaign trail this season.

The leading third-party candidates have called for full marijuana legalization, while the nominees for the Democratic and Republican parties have broached the topic more frequently — now that half of the nation has medical marijuana laws in place, a handful of states have gone recreational and several others will have cannabis-related ballot initiatives this November.

“It has the capacity to become a very important issue,” said Andrew Schnackenberg, an assistant professor of strategic management at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business. “It is a hotbed issue still, and you have at least two of the (presidential campaigns) on the record in favor of legalization, which pushes the debate into an interesting direction for the other two candidates (Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton).”

But just how prominent the topic may become this election likely will depend on whether the pro-legalization, third-party campaigns of Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein successfully make it to the debate stage, said Paul Seaborn, an assistant professor in the Daniels College of Business’ Department of Management.

Seaborn said he is doubtful that marijuana will play a direct role in the presidential election.

Read more at The Cannabist.

Marijuana Is a Better Pain Reliever for Men than Women  
With legalization of marijuana increasing across the United States, there is more focus than ever on identifying the risks and benefits of the drug. A new study provides further insight, after finding men experience greater pain relief with marijuana use than women.

Study co-author Dr. Ziva Cooper, of the Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC), and colleagues report their findings in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence.

As of June 2015, marijuana – or cannabis – has been legalized for medical use in 25 U.S. states and Washington, DC. In these states, marijuana can be prescribed to relieve pain, nausea and vomiting, and to stimulate appetite.

These effects are believed to be driven by the two main cannabinoids in marijuana: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD).

When it comes to pain relief, however, animal studies have suggested that marijuana’s effects many differ between sexes, though Dr. Cooper notes that no studies have looked at whether this is the case for humans.

Read more at Medical News Today.

DEA Ends Mississippi’s Medical Marijuana Research Monopoly
Countless activists, researchers and enthusiasts let out a collective whimper when the Drug Enforcement Administration upheld a 46-year-old policy of classifying marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic with no medicinal properties.

But then, federal officials did something utterly unexpected and loosened restrictions on the cultivation of marijuana for research purposes. While that might sound counterintuitive, it sends a signal that perhaps the government is looking for a reason to eventually reschedule cannabis as a less offensive drug than, say, heroin.

Until that day comes, marijuana researchers across California can finally enjoy better access to their most prized possession. Thanks to the DEA’s recent decision, the University of Mississippi will no longer be the sole, legal distributor of cannabis for scientific purposes.

Read more at the LA Weekly.

U.S. Prosecutors Dealt Setback in Medical Marijuana Cases
The U.S. Department of Justice cannot spend money to prosecute federal marijuana cases if the defendants comply with state guidelines that permit the drug’s sale for medical purposes, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday.

The ruling, from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, comes as voters in nine more states will consider allowing the recreational or medical use of marijuana this November.

Twenty-five U.S. states currently allow for medical marijuana. While the sale of the drug is still illegal under federal law, Congress in 2014 passed a budget rule which prohibits the DOJ from using federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state marijuana regulations.

Due to this rule, defendants in 10 cases in California and Washington argued that their federal charges should be dismissed. The 9th Circuit in San Francisco, which covers nine Western states, ruled on Tuesday that the DOJ could not spend money as long as those defendants “strictly complied” with all state regulations.

Read more at Reuters.

Get Our Free Investment Newsletter

I have read, and agree to the Terms of Use

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.