If you’ve been keeping up with discussions around cannabis legalization, you’ll have undoubtedly heard of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM).
They’re an advocacy group run by Dr. Kevin Sabet, an ex-government advisor for Clinton, Bush, and Obama, and they’ve been central to the anti-legalization movement over recent years.
But the organization raises a lot of questions.
They advocate for a “smart” approach, but you’d be forgiven for thinking they’re actually pushing for continued prohibition, given their broad opposition to both recreational and medical cannabis.
But what is really going on? Is SAM an anti-cannabis group trying to position themselves as an “alternative” when they actually support the status quo, or are they genuine reformers with a goal beyond reversing cannabis legalization?
We’ve taken an in-depth look at SAM, who they are, and what they do to find out.
Smart Approaches to Marijuana Is Opposed to Legalization, But Why?
The main position that Smart Approaches to Marijuana advocates is opposition to the commercial legalization of cannabis. They have many reasons for this, but the main ones are:
Preventing another Big Tobacco:
- This is their tagline. They are concerned that the commercialization of cannabis will lead to “Big Marijuana,” or in fact that this is already happening.
- They say the only people who benefit from this are a small number of investors, and eagerly point out investment in the cannabis industry by Big Tobacco themselves.
Legalizing encourages youth use:
- SAM points to many data points suggesting that youth use has increased as a result of legalization.
- Their talking points document argues that Colorado has the top “ranking” for first-time cannabis use among youth, that the top states for cannabis use all have ”relaxed laws” and that cannabis-related ER visits by Colorado teens have increased since legalization.
It’s bad for minorities:
- They argue that “more minority kids are being arrested in Colorado for pot since legalization.”
- They point to the racial disparities in arrests in Colorado and Washington without pointing out that the disparity is much lower in legal states in general and those two states specifically are among the most racially-equitable for arrests in the country.
- Colorado is the lowest and Washington is only beaten by other states that have legalized or decriminalized.
Black markets still exist:
- They point to the continued existence of the black market as a downside but ignore two key facts: the alternative is all sales being black market sales and the states that have reduced the black market the most have done so by legalizing more dispensaries per 100k residents.
- They are correct that black markets still exist, but how this supports their argument is extremely unclear.
Criminal justice reform doesn’t require legalization:
- They say, “We can remove criminal penalties, expunge records, and offer justice without commercializing today’s highly pure THC products.”
Does SAM Support Medical Cannabis?
SAM argues that component treatments (not whole plant cannabis) that are FDA-approved and not smoked cannabis are the way forward for the medical use of cannabis.
A commonly-used argument is: “Smoking the raw form of marijuana is akin to smoking opium to get the effects of morphine, or willow bark for pain relief already available as aspirin.”
They support increased research into medical marijuana, but argue for a more medicalized approach to treatment, basically stripping out THC, CBD, or other components to produce medicines like Marinol/drobanil.
In its current form, SAM does not support medical cannabis.
Their one-pager on the topic is probably the best insight into their thinking on the topic. There are four main points they make:
- Medical cannabis is a marketing plan. They see medical cannabis as a way to move towards recreational legalization. Indeed, the former director of NORML said the same thing, and it makes sense that having more people using cannabis medically will increase societal acceptance.
- They doubt the efficacy of medical cannabis. For example, they say that medical cannabis doesn’t help with pain despite it being one of the most common qualifying conditions.
- Medical cannabis brings “many of the same consequences as recreational legalization.” They tie this to increased experimentation among youth and young adults, as well as increased poison control center calls.
- Businesses face risks. They are bothered by some states not allowing drug testing for cannabis when hiring for a job. New Mexico courts also decided that insurers have to pay for medical cannabis.
So their position seems to be: the current form of medical cannabis is not safe or effective, it is a scheme to move towards legalization, it doesn’t work very well and it brings the same consequences as recreational legalization, which they are of course, against.
I will leave this to you to determine how exactly one can hold all these beliefs and not be against medical cannabis.
What About Decriminalization?
If SAM doesn’t support criminal penalties for cannabis, does this mean they support decriminalization? You would think so, but it’s not as simple as that.
They say, “Decriminalization is also a confusing term, often inadvertently or purposefully used to advance legalization. Non-violent drug offenders – regardless of the drug – should not be saddled with criminal records that would imperil their recovery and reintegration into our communities. Still, we also know laws discouraging drug consumption work to keep rates of use down. That is why we support evidence-based reforms that discourage use while avoiding criminal penalties.”
They call these reforms “smart on crime” and give three examples: drug courts, pre-trial diversion programs, and probation reform.
Drug courts
Drug courts are basically an approach within the criminal court system tailored to drug users.
In particular, they often include monitoring and supervision, sanctions and incentives, treatment, education, and other things as determined through an initial needs and risk assessment.
Drug users have to frequently appear in court and are subjected to random drug tests. Completing the program and/or sticking to the plan leads to rewards, failing to do so leads to sanctions.
It tends to take months or years to complete, and it’s important to remember that use is still a crime under this system, just one where traditional punishments are easy to avoid. Continued use of the drug is not really an option if you want to avoid punishment.
There are many ways the specifics of a drug court system can play out. We approached SAM to ask more about this, but in lieu of a full response, we received an email from a consulting company, Empire Solutions, simply providing links to SAM’s own pages and those on the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions’ website. For this question, the website included two links relevant to the discussion, including a best practices document from AllRise and a UN document about alternatives to criminal punishments for drug users.
Taking this as representative of SAM’s view, the above description pretty much covers it.
AllRise’s document points out (page 70) that sanctions in the form of jail time are discouraged, but also adds that jail sanctions for drug use are possible in some situations (when the individual is “psychosocially stable” and in “early remission” from their substance use).
The UN document puts forward the case for treatment as an alternative to sanctions and discusses the morality of forcing users into treatment they may not want. It concludes that provided the user is given a choice – either engaging with treatment programs or receiving the original criminal charge – then drug courts or other treatment-based alternatives to incarceration are valid approaches.
Finally, back in 2013 just after the founding of SAM, Kevin Sabet gave a presentation on the ideal role of law enforcement in drug control. This emphasizes that drug tests, outpatient treatment, and weekly court meetings are required, and drew positive attention to Hawaii Hope, in which, “Every positive drug test leads to an immediate, short-term jail stay.”
In summary, drug courts are indeed better than the current system. However, it is abundantly clear that SAM’s conception of this includes mandated treatment and abstinence in some form, if the individual doesn’t wish to receive sanctions and possibly jail time.
Pre-trial diversion
Pre-trial diversion programs are basically programs that take you out of the criminal justice system after your arrest but before trial. The overall goal is to reduce re-offending rates and tackle the issue outside of the traditional criminal justice system.
They can work in different ways, but for drug offenses, they generally involve completing a rehab program, passing drug tests throughout the program, providing regular status updates to a court or program officer, and maintaining stable employment or being in education.
However, regardless of the details, if you meet the requirements and stick to the program, your charges will be dismissed, but if you don’t, it goes back to the regular process.
In short, this again means that if you continue to use cannabis, you will be punished in the criminal justice system.
Probation reform
As the generic name suggests, this is quite a vague suggestion. However, probation reform generally means improving the probation system, by (for example) ensuring that “technical violations” (such as being late to a meeting) don’t land people back in jail.
Reform Alliance explains that people on probation and parole make up the majority of those in the criminal justice system, and that probation and parole failures are the reason for 45% of state prison admissions.
As well as loosening the rules for technical violations, reformers also advocate removing automatic incarceration as a punishment for alleged violations, replacing it with a notice to appear in court.
So, Does SAM Support Decriminalization?
No. SAM supports reform of various aspects of the criminal justice system to reduce the number of people going to jail for minor cannabis offenses.
In each of the “smart on crime” examples given, there are criminal punishments for cannabis use, with an option to avoid them by going through a pre-trial diversion or by meeting the requirements decided by the drug court.
The Case of the Average Joe
Imagine Joe, a person we just made up who uses cannabis at a monthly poker game with his buddies. Joe is not addicted, he holds down a well-paying job and doesn’t commit any other crimes beyond his cannabis use. He maybe has an eighth in his possession at most. If – on the way to his poker game – Joe is stopped by police because one of his brake lights went out, and the cops notice that he is in possession of cannabis, what happens to Joe?
If it was legal (or if the situation was different and he had a medical authorization), nothing would happen to him. He can keep his weed and enjoy his poker game.
If it was decriminalized, he would receive a small fine and have to forfeit his cannabis. No weed for poker but ultimately a minor inconvenience.
If there was a drug court system or a pre-trial diversion system without decriminalization, he would be criminally charged for cannabis possession. The “smart” reforms would then kick in. Instead of this charge going to court (or him simply pleading guilty), he would be assessed (in a drug court) and/or given a series of requirements for avoiding the criminal penalty. In either pre-trial diversion or drug court, he would have to submit regular (or even random) clean drug tests, and possibly attend rehab for a non-existent “issue” with drugs.
When next month’s poker game rolled around, Joe would not be able to smoke his joint with his buddies. If he did, he would likely fail a drug test and then the original criminal penalty would essentially return. You could imagine a forgiving drug court system, where this is only a point against him rather than an immediate return to the regular criminal justice process. But the point remains: he risks punishment for continuing to use cannabis in his distinctly non-problematic fashion.
From this example, it’s pretty clear that even decriminalization is not exactly ideal for someone like Joe. But much worse are the “smart” approaches, where he would have to stop using cannabis and meet continuing requirements or risk criminal prosecution.
For someone with a legitimate problem with cannabis (or indeed other drugs), these systems would certainly be better than the current approach. You could even argue it would be a substantial improvement.
But they definitely do not prevent someone like Joe from being punished despite not having an issue or even needing help. It is criminalization with window dressing and a burdensome escape route.
What Is the Smart Approach to Marijuana, According to SAM?
Bringing all of this together, the “smart approach” to cannabis looks a lot like the current approach, minus the state-level recreational and medical legalization, minus intoxicating hemp, and with drug courts, pre-trial diversion, and probation reform added in. They oppose rescheduling, so they implicitly support schedule I for plant-form cannabis.
SAM ostensibly doesn’t have an issue with low-level cannabis users. However, their opposition to commercial legalization suggests that they think the ideal way for these people to buy their cannabis is from the black market. That is simply the only option for buying cannabis with no commercialization, but it is also not safety-tested and there are no age restrictions on black market sales.
RELATED: New York’s “Gray Market” Weed Dealers Talk Crime, Cops, and Money
In our view, this is not smart. The proposal would be improved with decriminalization thrown in – because then you could actually remove criminal penalties while still encouraging people to get treatment via assessment and referrals – but it would still depend on illegal sellers.
SAM’s refusal to clarify their positions when we approached them underlines a key point: they talk about smart solutions but are not actually clear about what this means.
In 2023 – a full decade after founding SAM – the same people created the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions. The “seminal work” of the foundation is a “Blueprint for Effective Drug Policy,” but they have not yet released this and they’ve missed their intended deadline of fall 2024, with no update on their progress.
We are not saying that deadlines should always be met or that coming up with an effective drug policy is easy (of course it is not), but if you pitch yourself as the “smart” alternative or the “third way” to tackle the issue, you better have an actual alternative or third way to point to. Hand-waving references to vague criminal justice reforms do not make a coherent policy platform, and if those reforms still amount to “abstinence or jail” for people like Average Joe, they are not a third way at all, just the first way with some window-dressing.
It’s worth stressing that there are some good points in SAM’s proposals. There is undoubtedly a risk of extensive commercialization turning into a Big Tobacco-like situation, probation reform is clearly necessary, and addressing addiction is of course a good thing.
However, the risks of commercialization can easily be managed in the same way we do with tobacco – restricting advertisement and having robust systems in place for both safety and preventing youth access – and most cannabis users are not addicted.
Getting What You Want: SAM’s Lobbying
With any concrete policy suggestions from SAM being nebulous at best and ultimately depending on a blueprint that is perpetually on its way but hasn’t yet materialized, there are no prizes for working out what their real priority is.
As well as SAM, they have SAM Action, the same organization’s lobbying arm, which spent $120k lobbying the government in 2024 (up to September) and $200k in 2023.
They also hired two lobbying agencies as SAM in 2024, Blue Mountain Strategies and Off Hill Strategies.
This is really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2019, SAM had a dispute with the Joint Commission on Public Ethics in New York, who rejected their request to keep their donors secret. While it isn’t clear if SAM actually released this information, some excellent reporting from Diane Goldstein shows why they may want to keep this as quiet as possible.
Goldstein revealed that while opposing the legalization effort in California, SAM received millions of dollars from Californians for Drug Free Youth. This organization received federal grant money from the San Diego Imperial High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program. This HIDTA money is taxpayer money, which by law must be restricted to use for charitable purposes only, and cannot be used for lobbying. In short, this means that if any of that money went to SAM Action, the organization was breaking the law.
The rescheduling hearings – now delayed – offer another insight into SAM’s lobbying activities and the disturbingly close ties with governmental agencies such as the DEA.
Cannabis company Village Farms International and the veterans’ organization Hemp for Victory alleged that SAM had “ex parte communications” (that is, communications that one party in a dispute is not made aware of) with DEA officials. The biggest piece of evidence for this is a tweet from SAM President Kevin Sabet claiming with “full confidence” that DEA administrator Anne Milgram did not sign the rescheduling order, which he attributed to “confidential sources inside DEA.”
SAM didn’t deny this so much as to clarify that they didn’t have any ex parte communications after the notice of proposed rulemaking appeared in the Federal Register. Likewise, the DEA didn’t deny that conversations took place, but that these conversations did not involve anyone ‘who is or may reasonably expected to be involved in the decisional process of the proceeding.” Of course, this is not particularly comforting, and partially as a result of legal challenges, the rescheduling hearings have been delayed.
RELATED: Rescheduling of Cannabis: What the Experts Think
SAM: Policy Experts or Lobbyists for Prohibition?
SAM is not what it claims to be. They claim to support a “third way” but spend all of their time advocating against legalization, medical use, or any use of the cannabis plant which is not filtered through the sanitizing and bureaucratic medical approval process.
They say they don’t think cannabis users should go to jail, but instead of embracing this position and supporting decriminalization or legalization, they instead focus on ways to divert people prior to sentencing while the criminal justice system still looms large over them.
This is not respect for users, especially the average Joe-type users who are not in need of addiction treatment. This is the same coercive, paternalistic approach we’ve come to associate with the War on Drugs, where you must conform to the demands of people who make no effort to understand you or your needs, lest you find yourself in a jail cell because you want to smoke some weed with your buddies every other weekend.
SAM wants you to think they aren’t the “Reefer Madness” style of anti-pot crusaders, but they have simply slipped on a costume to advance the same agenda. They tell you they want a “reasonable” approach but shirk away from giving any details, and if you look close enough, you can still see the same prohibitionists lurking beneath.