A Quick & Dirty Lesson in Neuroscience

1. Thought Crimes and Synthetic Drugs – Defending Cannabinoid Receptor Agonists on First Amendment Grounds

2. A Quick & Dirty Lesson in Neuroscience

3. “A neuron regulates the production of neurotransmitters, making more or less of them as needed.” Gahlinger, 137. Synapse – the area across which neurotransmitters travel

4. “All thoughts, sensations and stimulations of the body are brought about by nerve cells, called neurons.” Paul Gahlinger, M.D., Ph.D., Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to their History, Chemistry, Use and Abuse, 133 (Plume 2004). “Almost every neuron is constantly changing its function by adapting to bodily demands, sensations and environmental influences.” Gahlinger, 137

6. “In an effort to understand which neurotransmitter systems create THC’s effects, investigators eventually identified two receptors that respond specifically to cannabinoids.” Mitch Earleywine, Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence, 141 (2002 Oxford University Press). 1992 “…which led to the discovery of endogenous cannabinoids.” Gahlinger, 332.

7. This system now appears as a relevant modulator of physiological functions not only in the central nervous system but also in the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine network, the immune system, the gastrointestinal tract, the reproductive system and in microcirculation. http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/1/2.full The Endocannabinoid System

8. What does all this have to do with the law????

9. Cannabimimetic Agents: Known colloquially as synthetic marijuana, herbal incense, K2 or Spice

10. Cannabimimetic Agents: Known legally as……

11. So, what is an agonist?????

12. Remember our Endocannabinoid System with its two distinct receptors? CB1 Receptors: Found primarily in the nervous system. CB2 Receptors: Found primarily in the immune system.

14. “…cannabinoids alter the communication between nerve cells” Earlywine, 137.

15. “Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds.” Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 565 (1969) “Freedom of speech presupposes a willing speaker. But where a speaker exists… the protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.” Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc, 425 U.S. 748, 756 (1976)

16. The Third Circuit

17. “Our review of the Supreme Court's decisions confirms that the First Amendment does not merely prohibit the government from enacting laws that censor information, but additionally encompasses the positive right of public access to information and ideas.” Kreimer v. Bureau of Police for Town of Morristown, 958 F.2d 1242 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 1992)

18. The Fourth Circuit

19. “To be sure, it is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas from a willing speaker” (internal quotations omitted) Stephens v. County of Albemarle, Va, 524 F.3d 485 (4th Cir., 2008) “This lurking right to receive speech (in essence, the right to listen), however, is not sufficient to trigger First Amendment scrutiny… First Amendment scrutiny applies only if there is government action that directly or at least incidentally affects a protected expressive activity… Because recreational dancing of the type at issue in this case is not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, the factual dispute about the nature of Willis's dancing is not material to her First Amendment claim.” Willis v. Town of Marshall, N.C., 426 F.3d 251 (Fed. 4th Cir., 2005) Limitation on Stanley 

20. The Fifth Circuit

21. “Protection of the First Amendment, however, does not turn on the social worth of ideas.” (internal citations omitted) Ayers v. Western Line Consol. School Dist., 555 F.2d 1309, 1319 (C.A.5 (Miss.), 1977) “:It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged ....” Muir v. Alabama Educational Television Com'n, 688 F.2d 1033, 1055 (C.A.5 (Ala.), 1982) Dissent of Circuit Judge Johnson

22. The Sixth Circuit

23. First Amendment protection of the right to know has frequently been recognized in the past. Minarciniv. Strongsville City School Dist., 541 F.2d 577, 583 (C.A.6 (Ohio), 1976)

24. The Seventh Circuit

25. “Since the facet of the First Amendment protection under review is the right to receive information it is appropriate to consider the effect which a restrictive regulation…may have on the flow of information to the persons whose right is asserted” (internal citations omitted). Aikens v. Jenkins, 534 F.2d 751, 754 (C.A.7 (Ind.), 1976)

26. 763 The Eighth Circuit

27. “The First Amendment is concerned with the freedom of thought and expression of the speaker or writer, not the conditions under which the auditor or listener receives the message. One need not, as a condition precedent to his right of free speech under the First Amendment, secure permission of his auditor.” National Labor Relations Bd. V. Montgomery Ward & Co., 157 F.2d 486, 499 (8th Circuit, 1946)

28. The Ninth Circuit

29. “It is of no significance that the conduct in question may be condemned as immoral by a majority in our society.” Dissent of Circuit Judge Norris Miller v. Rumsfeld, 647 F.2d 80, 86 (C.A.9, 1981) “The Supreme Court has made it clear that mere entertainment is protected speech.”(internal citation and quotations omitted) Footnote 3 Chase v. Davelaar, 645 F.2d 735 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1981)

30. The Tenth Circuit

31. Limitation on Stanley  “The possession of contraband drugs does not implicate any aspect of personal identity which, under prevailing precedent, is entitled to constitutional protection. (internal citations omitted) Validly enacted drug laws put citizens on notice that this realm is not a private one.” Mangels v. Pena, 789 F.2d 836, 839 (C.A.10 (Colo.), 1986)

32. The Eleventh Circuit

33. “…when the conduct being regulated is…for purposes of entertainment, it is impossible to separate “speech" from "conduct" in order to determine the true subject of the regulation.” Grand Faloon Tavern, Inc. v. Wicker, 670 F.2d 943, 947 (C.A.11 (Fla.), 1982)

34. Recap: • Neurons have receptors that bind with specific neurotransmitters • Cannabinoids have their own receptors, CB1 and CB2 • CB1 receptors are located primarily in the nervous system, including in the cerebral cortex and hippocampus. • The Cerebral Cortex is where conscious thought occurs. • The hippocampus is where learning and memory occur. • Cannabinoids alter the physiology of neurons, thereby altering thought • By criminalzing CB1 agonists, you are criminalizing something based on how it affects the brain, including how it affects thoughts. • This creates a thought crime. • Freedom of thought is encompassed within the free speech rights granted by the First Amendment • Limitations on free thought that are content based are subject to strict scrutiny.