The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights | The White House

The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights | The White House

The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights

FY 2015 Funding Highlights

Click here for details on the President’s FY 2015 drug control budget request.

FY 2014 Funding Highlights

Click here for details on the President’s FY 2014 drug control budget request.

FY 2013 Funding Highlights

February 2012
The Administration’s inaugural National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy), published in May 2010, represented a new direction in our efforts to reduce illicit drug use and its consequences in the United States, with the goal to achieve a 15 percent reduction in the rate of drug use and similar reductions in drug use consequences over the course of 5 years. This effort, which was continued in the President’s 2011 Strategy, includes:

  • preventing illicit drug use and addiction before their onset;
  • bringing more Americans in need of treatment into contact with the appropriate level of care;
  • protecting public safety while also ensuring that drug‐involved offenders have the opportunity to end their drug use and rebuild their lives;
  • countering drug production and trafficking within the United States;
  • implementing new strategies to secure our borders against illicit drug flows;
  • working with our international partners to reduce drug production and trafficking and strengthen rule of law, democratic institutions, transparency in government, alternative livelihoods, and respect for human rights around the world.

For 2 years this principle has guided the Administration’s efforts – and we will continue to pursue a balanced approach that brings all sectors of society together in a national effort to improve public health and public safety. The requested Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 National Drug Control Budget demonstrates commitment to these goals, requesting $25.6 billion to reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States. This represents an increase of $415.3 million (1.6%) over the FY 2012 enacted level of $25.2 billion.

The FY 2013 request includes two new Departments and two new bureaus to the National Drug Control Budget. These additions are consistent with the restructuring of the budget in FY 2012 that provided for a reliable, accurate, and transparent accounting of Federal funding spent in support of the President’s Strategy. The new bureaus or programs, which will be reflected in the National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2013 Budget and Performance Summary (Summary) are:

  • Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (a comprehensive drug prevention and intervention program for all Job Corps participants)
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Continuum of Care (housing and other efforts in support of homeless with substance abuse disorders)
  • Department of Defense’s Defense Health Program (drug abuse treatment provided by military treatment facilities and private sector care)
  • Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (enhancing the safety of children affected by parental methamphetamine or other substance abuse)

Highlights of the FY 2013 Budget by Function


The FY 2013 Budget proposes $9.2 billion in Federal funds for early intervention and treatment services for individuals with drug problems. This represents an increase of 4.6 percent ($403.0 million) over the FY 2012 enacted funding level. The major efforts and changes are highlighted below:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Department of Health and Human Services: $4,751.1 million1
(Reflects $283.7 million increase from FY 2012)
The Nation’s substance abuse treatment providers treated an estimated 2.6 million clients
in specialty facilities in 2010. Substance abuse treatment most often is paid for by two or more public and private sources (private health insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, state and local funds, and other Federal support). The Federal Government makes its largest contribution to the payment for treatment through the Medicaid and Medicare insurance programs. These programs are increasing in size and scope, with the expansion of populations and/or services covered.

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

Programs of Regional and National Significance ‐ Treatment
Department of Health and Human Services ‐ SAMHSA: $364.1 million
(Reflects $61.1 million decrease from FY 2012)

The SAMHSA request includes a bundle of programs that are awarded directly to providers. These programs advance specific treatment methods, modalities, and services to targeted groups. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis to ensure the funding supports a particular identified need. These include:

  • $93.8 million (decreased $4.5 million from FY 2012 enacted) for Access to Recovery, which provides states funding for vouchers, coupled with state flexibility and executive discretion, to offer an opportunity to create positive change in substance abuse treatment and recovery service delivery across the Nation.
  • $30 million (decreased $21.1 million from FY 2012 enacted) for a Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment approach, which provides grants to health care providers to intervene early in the disease process before individuals achieve dependency, and can motivate the addicted client to engage in substance abuse treatment.
  • $65.1 million (decreased $2.4 million from FY 2012 enacted) for Criminal Justice Activities, including Treatment Drug Courts and Ex‐Offender Reentry program grants. Drug Courts help reduce recidivism and substance abuse among offenders and increase an offender’s likelihood of successful rehabilitation through early, continuous, and intense judicially supervised treatment, mandatory periodic drug testing, community supervision, and appropriate sanctions and other rehabilitation services. Ex‐Offender Reentry program grants provide screening, assessment, and comprehensive treatment and recovery support services to offenders reentering the community, as well as to offenders who are currently on or being released from probation or parole.
  • $41.6 million (no change from FY 2012 enacted) for Treatment Systems for the Homeless grants, which combine long‐term, community‐based housing assistance with intensive individualized treatment and recovery support services.
  • $52.5 million (decreased $13.5 million from FY 2012 enacted) for the Minority AIDS Initiative, which delivers and sustains high quality and accessible substance abuse and HIV prevention services.
  • $13.3 million (decreased $14.7 million from FY 2012 enacted) for Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) grants, which are designed to address gaps in treatment capacity by supporting rapid and strategic responses to demands for substance abuse (including alcohol and drug) treatment services in communities with serious, emerging drug problems, as well as communities with innovative solutions to unmet needs.
  • $57.0 million (decreased $0.9 million from FY 2012 enacted) for several other Treatment Capacity programs including: Opioid Treatment Programs and Regulatory Activities; Children and Family Programs; Pregnant and Post‐Partum Women; and the Recovery Community Services Program.

Substance Abuse Treatment Block Grant

Department of Health and Human Services ‐ SAMHSA: $1,448.6 billion
(Reflects a decrease of $7.4 million over FY 2012)

This formula‐based funding to states expands substance abuse treatment services, while providing maximum flexibility to states. States and territories may expend their funds only for the purpose of planning, carrying out, and evaluating activities related to these services. In FY 2013, the grant will continue to support the delivery of treatment while allowing states to access funding for prevention services.

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Drug Treatment Efforts

Department of Justice: $109.3 million
(Reflects $15.8 million increase from FY 2012)

Approximately 40 percent of new inmates entering BOP custody have a diagnosis of a substance use disorder. Accordingly, BOP’s strategy of strong and comprehensive drug abuse treatment consists of screening and assessment; drug abuse education; non‐ residential drug abuse treatment services; residential drug abuse treatment programming; and community transitional drug abuse treatment. There is enormous demand for these services, in part because of the potential for some non‐violent offenders to earn a 1 year reduction in sentence following the successful completion of the program. Due to limited capacity, inmates eligible for the reduction receive an average reduction of about 8 months. Resources requested in this budget are vital to allow expansion of drug treatment capacity, and will help BOP reach the goal of providing 12 month sentence credits to all eligible inmates.

Problem Solving Justice

Department of Justice: $52.0 million
(Reflects $17.0 million increase from FY 2012 (drug court funding only))

In FY 2013, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) requests $52.0 million to increase their support to problem solving courts and other strategies. OJP provides grants to criminal justice agencies to implement and improve drug court programs, as well as focus on mental health and other issues. The program focuses on the risks and needs of offenders through drug court programs and other problem‐solving approaches in an effort to decrease recidivism and improve public health and safety.

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

Department of Justice: $21.0 million
(Reflects $11.0 million increase from FY 2012)

The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program for state prisoners was established to help states and local governments develop, implement, and improve residential substance abuse treatment programs in correctional facilities, and establish and maintain community‐ based aftercare services for probationers and parolees. Ultimately, the program goal is to help offenders become drug‐free and learn the skills needed to sustain themselves upon return to the community. The Department of Justice will assist states and local jurisdictions to improve substance abuse‐related services for offenders and increase the number of offenders served.

Homeless Assistance Grants ‐ Continuum of Care

Department of Housing and Urban Development: $542.4 million
(Reflects $96.4 million increase from FY 2012)

The Continuum of Care – Homeless Assistance Grants support efforts to eliminate homelessness by financing local solutions to locate, intervene, and house the homeless population. The Continuum of Care programs are designed to provide housing and supportive services on a long‐term basis for homeless persons with disabilities (primarily those with serious mental illness, chronic problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and AIDS or related diseases). With 28 percent of the persons using housing under these programs having a demonstrated substance use disorder, the Strategy specifically calls for programs to prevent homelessness as a step toward recovery from addiction. Finding stable and affordable housing is among the most difficult barriers for individuals in recovery to overcome.

Trainee Employment Assistance Program

Department of Labor ‐ Job Corps: $6.6 million
(Reflects no increase from FY 2012)

Job Corps is a no‐cost education and career technical training program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor that helps young people ages 16 through 24 improve the quality of their lives through career technical and academic training. The Job Corps program is authorized by Title I‐C of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Job Corps operates 125 regional offices and employs approximately 125 Trainee Employment Assistance Program counselors who provide drug prevention and early intervention to nearly 60,000 at risk youth enrolled in the program. Costs associated with its Trainee Employment Assistance Program include salaries of the counselors and the cost of administering drug testing.

Veterans Health Administration Treatment

Department of Veterans Affairs: $568.2 million
(Reflects $19.4 million increase over FY 2012)

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operates a national network of substance abuse treatment programs located in the Department’s medical centers, residential rehabilitation facilities, and outpatient clinics. Reflecting the Administration’s commitment to combat veteran homelessness and provide compassionate and caring treatment to veterans, VHA increasingly treats substance use disorders in a mental health setting, including when it co‐ occurs with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).


Federal resources totaling $1.4 billion support education and outreach programs aimed at preventing the initiation of drug use. This represents a nearly 1 percent decrease ($‐12.9 million) over the FY 2012 enacted level; the major efforts and changes are highlighted below:

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Grant Program

Department of Education: $108.3 million
(Reflects $43.4 million increase over FY 2012)

This new program will support student achievement and help ensure students are mentally and physically healthy and ready to learn. The objective is to provide resources and programming to selected local educational agencies that are trying to create an improved school climate that reduces drug use, violence, and harassment and improves school safety and students’ physical and mental well‐being. Within the program, the Department of Education would use:

  • $85.9 million to award grants to assist state educational agencies and local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop and implement programs and activities that create safe environments. Included in this amount is $37.3 million for Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students State and Local Grants and $48.6 million for grants for Safe and Supportive Schools projects to support statewide measurement of, and targeted programmatic interventions to improve, conditions for learning in order to help schools improve student safety and reduce drug abuse.
  • $17.0 million for grant awards under the “Safe Schools/Healthy Students” initiative. Safe Schools/Healthy Students supports LEAs and communities in developing and implementing a comprehensive set of programs and services to prevent youth drug use and violence, support early childhood development activities, and provide needed student mental health services. Education blends this initiative with the HHS Youth Violence Prevention Program and administers it in collaboration with both HHS and the Department of Justice.

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Prevention Grants

Department of Health and Human Services: $404.5 million
(Reflects $49.5 million decrease from FY 2012)

In support of a national, community‐based prevention system to protect our adolescents, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) SAMHSA budget request includes a newly designed State Substance Abuse Prevention Grant that combines the Prevention set‐ aside and the Strategic Prevention Framework programs focusing exclusively on preventing substance abuse. The program will identify and address problems in communities, create a sustainable and predictable source of prevention funding that will focus on high risk communities and youth, integrate the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF‐SIG) principles more widely, and hold states and territories accountable for achieving measurable outcomes in their prevention programs.

Drug Free Communities (DFC)

Office of National Drug Control Policy: $88.6 million
(Reflects $3.4 million decrease from FY 2012)

The FY 2013 request includes $88.6 million in DFC funding to support the development of community drug‐free coalitions throughout the United States, fully funding 624 grants. Community coalitions strive to develop local solutions and increase community involvement and effectiveness in carrying out a wide array of drug prevention strategies, initiatives, and activities.

Youth Drug Prevention Media Program

Office of National Drug Control Policy: $20.0 million
(Reflects $20.0 increase from FY 2012)

The FY 2013 request will allow for the continuance of a national media program with a community focus to educate youth about the dangers of drug use – its adverse and serious consequences – and to inspire teens to live “above the influence” through positive behaviors.    The Program will continue to build upon the high level of awareness of its “Above the Influence” (ATI) brand with teens by executing its multi‐tiered messaging approach – strong community‐level local ATI drug prevention efforts delivered through various youth‐serving organizations combined with a base level of national‐level ATI messaging to maintain the integrity of the ATI brand.

Drugged Driving

Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: $4.0 million
(Reflects $1.3 million increase from FY 2012)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) FY 2013 request will support the Drug‐Impaired Driving Program, provide public information, outreach efforts, and improved law enforcement training to help reduce drugged driving. Funding will support the development of a roadside survey of drug use by drivers and the analysis of case control study data to determine the crash risk of drugged driving.

Domestic Law Enforcement

Over $9.4 billion in FY 2013 Federal resources are requested to support domestic law enforcement efforts, an increase of $61.4 million (0.7%) over the FY 2012 enacted level. The Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the Treasury, with support from the Department of Defense’s National Guard, provide key domestic law enforcement support; the major efforts are highlighted below.

Department of Defense (DoD) Domestic Counterdrug Support

Department of Defense: $146.9 million
(Reflects $124.6 million decrease from FY 2012)

In FY 2013, DoD’s request will support Federal, state, and local drug law enforcement agencies requests for domestic operational and logistical support to address drug‐related crime. The change from the prior year is largely the result of lower funding for the National Guard State Plans.

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP)

Department of Justice (DOJ): $7.0 million
(Reflects no change from FY 2012)

The PDMP program enhances the capacity of regulatory and law enforcement agencies to collect and analyze controlled substance prescription data, aiming to assist states that want to establish a PDMP. In addition to providing grants to states for PDMP planning, implementation, and enhancement, funding will support the continued training and technical assistance to states; further develop a clearinghouse of best practices and measures of effectiveness for PDMPs; and provide technical support for states to engage in electronic interstate data sharing.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – Diversion Control Account

Department of Justice: $352.6 million
(Reflects $30.6 million increase from FY 2012)

DEA’s Office of Diversion Control (ODC) enforces the provisions of both the Controlled Substances Act and the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act by preventing, detecting and investigating the diversion of controlled pharmaceuticals and listed chemicals from legitimate sources. The FY 2013 President’s Budget for the Diversion Control Fee Account includes an increase of $8 million and 87 positions to support Tactical Diversion Squads. Additional personnel will perform duties related to intelligence gathering and dissemination, laboratory analysis of evidence, legal counsel and action against violators, technology for internet investigative support, headquarters program support including internal controls, drug and chemical scheduling, liaison and policy, regulatory drafting, financial management, and clerical case support.

Incarceration Operations

Department of Justice/Federal Judiciary: $4,527.2 million
(Reflects $141.8 million increase over FY 2012)

The Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service ‐ Federal Prisoner Detention, and the Federal Judiciary conduct activities associated with the incarceration and/or monitoring of drug‐related offenders. As a consequence of drug abuse, the FY 2013 request includes funding for the costs associated with inmate care, security and facility maintenance, contracted confinement, and general management and administration.

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program

Office of National Drug Control Policy: $200.0 million
(Reflects $38.5 million decrease from FY 2012)

HIDTA coordinates Federal, state, and local collaboration of law enforcement investigations and operations to disrupt and dismantle complex drug trafficking organizations.


The Federal budget request for interdiction totals $3.7 billion in FY 2013, for an increase of $89.3 million (2.5%) over the FY 2012 enacted level. The Departments of Homeland Security and Defense perform activities designed to interrupt the trafficking of illicit drugs into the United States by targeting the transportation link; major efforts and changes are highlighted below.

Customs and Border Protection ‐ Border Security at Ports of Entry (POE)

Department of Homeland Security: $946.7 million
(Reflects $53.2 million increase over FY 2012 enacted level)

The FY 2013 President’s Budget request proposes a $53.2 million increase over the FY 2012 enacted level for border security and trade facilitation at the POE’s. The increase in resources will further drug interdiction efforts at POEs.

Customs and Border Protection – Air & Marine Support

Department of Homeland Security: $644.9 million
(Reflects $66.9 million decrease from FY 2012 enacted level)

The decrease in the FY 2013 request is due to a one‐time FY 2012 non‐recurring enhancement for the Office of Air and Marine’s (OAM) fleet acquisition of new aircraft and marine vessels and for the P‐3 Service Life Extension Program’s structural inspections and wing and tail replacements and upgrades. The decrease also reflects a reduction in OAM mission and field support staff.

United State Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction and Improvements

Department of Homeland Security: $401.9 million
(Reflects $147.4 million increase over FY 2012 enacted level)

The FY 2013 request proposes an increase of $147.4 million, primarily due to the Coast Guard’s planned procurement of the sixth National Security Cutter.


The FY 2013 Budget requests nearly $2.0 billion to provide international support, a decrease of $125.6 million (6.0%) from the FY 2012 enacted level. The Departments of Defense, Justice, and State perform a wide range of drug‐control activities primarily focused on or conducted in areas outside of the United States. These programs help facilitate the disruption or dismantlement of the most significant international drug organizations, and increase the demand reduction and drug enforcement capabilities of partner nations. Major efforts and changes are highlighted below.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Department of State: $179.1 million
(Reflects $104.2 million decrease from FY 2012)

The FY 2013 request will focus on efforts to disrupt the market for illegal drugs through alternative development programs in the Andean Region. In Afghanistan, USAID will continue to focus on reducing the production of illegal crops by promoting alternative livelihoods programs. The majority of the decreased funding in FY2013 is in Afghanistan, and is due to a shift away from stabilization‐ and staple crop‐focused alternative development programs to those more closely integrating stabilization, alternative development, and market‐led agricultural development objectives. The decrease also is due to the ability of the Government of Colombia to support many alternative development programs themselves in the Andean Region.


Department of State/INL: $114.0 million
(Reflects $16.4 million decrease from FY 2012)

The United States will continue supporting Colombian‐led interdiction and eradication efforts as the Colombian Government works to implement its National Consolidation Plan. Additional support will expand local drug prevention programs and enhance the Colombian National Police’s capability to maintain a security presence in former conflict and drug trafficking regions while expanding access to state institutions and services in these regions. Much of the decrease in the FY 2013 request is due to the successful nationalization of the Colombian Army Aviation and Counterdrug Brigade programs in FY 2012, which resulted in no request for funding in FY 2013.


Department of State/INL: $55.0 million
(Reflects $12.0 million decrease from FY 2012)

In FY 2013, support will continue to include counternarcotics, law enforcement, and demand reduction initiatives in an effort to dismantle drug trafficking and other criminal organizations, and strengthen justice sector institutions while expanding their capacity to attack and deter crime affecting the United States, especially along our shared border. The reduction in counternarcotics funding is due to the successful maturation of programs that will become the responsibility of the Government of Mexico.

Caribbean Basin Security Initiative

Department of State/INL: $11.5 million
(Reflects $6.3 million decrease from FY 2012)

The FY 2013 request will include support for law enforcement professionalization and capacity building, as well as interdiction operations. Other priorities include rule of law initiatives and enhancements in the judicial process. The decrease in funding in FY 2013 is attributed to a focus on training and capacity building for law enforcement and less emphasis on logistical support and equipment.

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI)

Department of State/INL: $14.0 million
(Reflects $4.8 million decrease from FY 2012)

The FY 2013 request will be used to combat international drug trafficking in Central America. In addition, support will be provided to assist law enforcement and justice sector capacity building and prevention programs. The decrease is attributed to the end of funding for the aviation program in Guatemala, as the 4‐year program ended in FY 2012.

Afghanistan and Central Asia

Department of State/Department of Defense: $653.3 million
(Reflects $72.5 million increase over FY 2012)

U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Central Asia, provided by the Departments of State and Defense, will focus on interdiction, justice reform, and law enforcement capacity building efforts, as well as building the capacity of the Afghan government so it can independently support counternarcotics activities. Funding also will support reducing the supply of illicit crops through the Afghan Governor‐led eradication and the Good Performers Initiative programs, and providing demand reduction efforts. The majority of the increase in drug control funding in FY 2013 is attributed to increased requirements to support the Counternarcotics Police of Afghanistan and the work of the DEA in Afghanistan.

Performance Measurement

Performance represents a key tool for ONDCP in its oversight of Federal agencies – it enables ONDCP to assess the extent to which the Strategy meets its goals, and the relative contributions of drug control agencies. Section 1705 of Title 21 of the United States Code and the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) set the framework for a range of performance requirements.

21 USC §1705(c) requires ONDCP to track and report on progress of the Strategy as reflected in performance measures and targets established for each goal and objective in the Strategy. ONDCP has worked to develop such a performance monitoring and assessment mechanism – the Performance Reporting System (PRS). The PRS will monitor key performance measures to inform ONDCP whether drug control programs are performing as expected.

The PRS was developed through an extensive interagency process that brought together subject matter experts, policy and program analysts, researchers, statisticians, and leadership from Federal drug control agencies. Targets were then determined by interagency groups for each measure based on baseline data and trend lines.

The PRS will collect and report on data for each performance measure in the PRS including the data source, agencies responsible for achieving the target, and the agency that reports the data. This information will be used to inform budget formulation and resource allocation, Strategy implementation, policymaking, and planning, and will show progress toward the Strategy’s Goals and Objectives. The first PRS Report will be published in 2012 along with the update of the Strategy.

Table 1: Federal Drug Control Spending by Function

Note: Detail may not add due to rounding.

1 Detail may not add due to rounding.
2 DOD amounts include funding appropriated or requested for overseas contingency operations.
3 OPTEMPO funding (flight hours and steaming days) is reported by the military services and is not part of DOD’s counter‐drug activities budget request.
4 The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) outlay estimates include substance abuse treatment expenditures for both Medicare and Medicaid. While CMS’s Office of the Actuary (OACT) developed the Medicare estimates, Medicaid estimates were developed as a placeholder by ONDCP, based on data in the 2008 Report from HHS entitled ‘SAMHSA spending estimates: MHSA spending projections for 2004–2014’. OACT did not develop nor approve the Medicaid estimates. Medicaid estimates are not consistent with the FY 2013 President’s Budget Medicaid baseline projections, and do not incorporate the impact of recent legislation (including the Recovery Act and the Affordable Care Act), or recent economic and policy changes to the programs. These estimates are for use while HHS develops a more precise estimate consistent with current program spending.
5 Includes budget authority and funding through evaluation set‐aside authorized by Section 241 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act.
6 FEMA amount reflects Operation Stonegarden grant funding.
7 The USCG budgets by appropriation rather than individual missions. The USCG projects resource allocations by mission through use of an activity‐based costing system. Actual allocations will vary depending upon operational environment and mission need. In FY 2011, the USCG anticipated allocating $1,162.3 toward the drug interdiction mission. According to the USCG operations database, however, actual EOY allocation totaled $1,408.1 million.
8 State Department amounts include funding appropriated or requested for overseas contingency operations.
9 VA Medical Care receives advance appropriations; FY 2013 funding was provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–74).

Download PDF

The National Drug Control Budget: FY 2013 Funding Highlights | The White House.



Provinces MMPR Input Sought Then Ignored | Cannabis Culture

Provinces MMPR Input Sought Then Ignored | Cannabis Culture

An article in Vancouver alt-weekly Georgia Straight B.C. Government and Fed Disagree On Conservative’s New Rules For Medicinal Marijuana really caught my attention. The article shows a tug of war between that province and the fed’s.

I’ve been quietly examining provincial overlap in Health Canada’s new med pot program and apparently the Straight has too. The Straight filed a Freedom of Information request for notes from two closed door meetings between provincial and federal health officials.

Some documents were redacted to protect intergovernmental relations, because B.C. Ministry of Health informed Health Canada their new program sucks donkey dick and is worst than Canucks losing game seven of the Stanley Cup. However, journalists have to inhale plenty of God Bud and hold the documents up to the light of a full moon to read the blacked out remarks.

What it does reveal is the provincial health agency employees politely spoke up about;

  • people losing their opportunity to self produce
  • the outlawing of compassion clubs
  • how would people on B.C. provincial disability program afford medical marihuana
  • doctor’s clinics selling medical cannabis

Every MMPR bellyache I’ve read on social media these B.C. Ministry of Health employees challenged Health Canada on…and the fed’s provided no rationale. Did they receive notes from MLA Terry Lake (or his predecessor) or were the employees acting on their own?

If people had known just before BC and Nova Scotia provincial elections medical marihuana discussions took place behind closed doors, would it have become an election issue?

When Health Canada created the MMPR I noticed several areas where there was provincial overlap, especially in the area of access.

Nurse practitioners are currently granted federal authority to prescribe med pot, but every province prevents them from doing so. An example is B.C., which has a list of drugs nurse practitioners are permitted to prescribe, while Ontario has a list of drugs they are not allowed to prescribe.

I don’t know if this change would improve access, but if you believe Health Canada’s ten year access projections I have this amazing mine grown marijuana you will love too.

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne spoke to the annual nurse practitioner’s convention and the legislation preventing NP’s from signing medical marihuana appears it may get an overhaul. That would be perfect timing for the province to remove ‘marihuana’ from the legislation, but will they. ATM we don’t know.

Personally I’m shocked the fed’s met with their provincial counterparts. Given federal strong headedness I was working off the play no meetings had happened. My first provincial inquiry (about the time these meetings were happening) turned up nothing.

Now we know Health Canada held provincial meetings!

What did Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long Term Care tell Health Canada in closed door meetings their concerns were regarding the MMPR? Did they echo the same sentiments as B.C. Ministry of Health or did the Ontario agency drink the fed’s swill? What did your province’s health ministry say in these meetings?

Wynne addressed the issue of inhaling cannabis during a summer press conference, but she added an interesting footnote none of the Queens’ Park journalists caught. She remarked the province would need to be part of legalization talks. There was no follow-up question.

Was MPP Wynne or her health minister MPP Deb Mathews already privy to provincial and federal talks regarding medical marihuana? If Wynne knew, why didn’t she mention Ontario’s stance regarding the MMPR when she confessed to inhaling 35 years ago? Ontarians deserve to know where the minority Liberal party stands on the issue of medical marihuana. What’s the Ontario NDP stance? We don’t need to know what Tim Hudak’s Conservative think because they will goose step with anything out the PMO.

Matt Mernagh is a gonzo ganja bud blogger, host of The Mernahuana Zone on Pot TV and a popular marijuana legalization advocate. Purchase his debut book Marijuana Smoker’s Guidebook The Easy Way To Identify and Enjoy Marijuana Strains from Amazon or Indigo.

Provinces MMPR Input Sought Then Ignored | Cannabis Culture.

U.S. judge says government view on marijuana raises ‘equal justice’ concerns –

U.S. judge says government view on marijuana raises ‘equal justice’ concerns –

bs-md-marijuana-hearing-20131025A ruling handed down by a federal court this week strongly suggests that recent changes in state laws governing marijuana are now being reflected in how federal drug laws are enforced and will further change the conversation about marijuana use in America.

U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar acknowledged that new reality when he sentenced Scott Russell Segal this week to nearly five years in prison for his role in smuggling hundreds of kilograms of marijuana to Howard and Anne Arundel counties from California and New Jersey. Under federal sentencing guidelines Mr. Segal could have received eight to 11 years behind bars.

But the judge used his discretion to cut that penalty nearly in half, saying the federal government’s response to the legalization of marijuana in some states had raised concerns of “equal justice” if federal law mandated significantly harsher punishments than state laws for the same crime. In doing so he clearly had in mind the Justice Department’s recent announcement that it would not seek to block state laws legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use.

Thus while he acknowledged the gravity of Mr. Segal’s crimes, Judge Bredar also noted that “it’s indisputable that the offense is not regarded with the seriousness it was 20 or 30 years ago” when the guidelines were written. Since that time 18 states, including Maryland, and the District of Columbia have passed laws decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes. Two more states, Colorado and Washington, recently legalized the drug for recreational use as well.

Taken together, these developments have made it clear that marijuana policy in this country increasingly is being driven by state legislatures rather than by lawmakers in Washington. Judge Bredar’s ruling is just the latest evidence of that momentous shift, which is sure to have important legal, social and public health and safety consequences for the country, not all of them predictable.

Meanwhile, the federal government obviously will have a continuing interest in how the policy debate unfolds. Even states that legalize marijuana sales can be expected to limit minors’ access to the drug, for example, similar to the restrictions that presently apply to alcohol and tobacco. Today’s pot is a lot stronger than the weed smoked by the flower children of the 1960s, and relatively little is known about it’s long-term effects. At the same time, federal officials are the only ones who can promulgate uniform national standards to protect consumers against tainted or counterfeit products, as well as rules against false or misleading advertising by marijuana growers and processors.

Moreover, the federal government will continue to bear responsibility for seeing to it that any relaxation of state marijuana laws doesn’t open the door for criminal gangs to profit from smuggled contraband. The increased revenue state lawmakers anticipate from taxing marijuana in states where the drug is legal would quickly evaporate if a flourishing black market were allowed to continue.

Judge Bredar briefly wondered aloud whether underground sales of marijuana were comparable to the black market in untaxed cigarettes in terms of the seriousness of the threat posed to society. But the truth is that, unlike black market cigarettes, the gangs that deal in illegal marijuana have gotten a lot more violent in recent decades, a function of the widespread continuing limited supply and high demand for pot as well as of the easy availability of guns. That’s a direct consequence of the drug’s prohibition, just as the gang wars of the 1920s and ’30s were a result of attempts to ban legal sales of alcohol. Part of the wisdom of Judge Bredar’s ruling lies in the recognition that we don’t want to repeat the same mistake again.

Overall, the court’s decision was a reasoned attempt to take into account all these factors in order to balance the strict requirements of the law against changing public perceptions of marijuana’s impact on public health and safety. Ultimately some new consensus about the benefits and dangers of legal marijuana will emerge and be codified in a coherent body of law. But we are not there yet, and until that happens cases like this will provide the forums through which our national conversation on the subject is conducted.

U.S. judge says government view on marijuana raises ‘equal justice’ concerns –

LA Marijuana Dispensary Ban Suspended: 50,000 Signatures Could Force Pot Shop Referendum

LA Marijuana Dispensary Ban Suspended: 50,000 Signatures Could Force Pot Shop Referendum

LA Marijuana Dispensary Ban Suspended: 50,000 Signatures Could Force Pot Shop Referendum.