The New York Times has a nifty interactive map based on data from the 2006-2007 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (more data here).  It provides a drop-down menu to choose which dataset you’d like, which I naturally used to choose “Percent of people 12+ who have used marijuana in the past year”.  Based on that information, your Top Five Stoner States are:

1. Rhode Island (16.12%)
2. Vermont (15.75%)
3. Alaska (13.79%)
4. Oregon (13.12%)
5. Colorado (12.99%)

Surprised that California isn’t in that list?  Me, too.  I’m not at all surprised by Vermont, Alaska, Oregon, and Colorado, but stunned that Rhode Island came in at #1.  I’d caution that this represents everyone from the once-a-year-at-a-concert toker all the way through the daily Stasher.  If frequency and amount used were considered, I’d be willing to wager we here in Oregon are, uh, higher than #4.  Curious about your Bottom Five?

1. Utah (7.17%)
2. Iowa (7.32%)
3. Mississippi (7.79%)
4. Texas (7.92%)
5. Alabama (7.96%)

That #1 result for Utah shouldn’t surprise anyone with its majority Mormon population that even rejects coffee drinking.  Another category where Utah is number one is consumption of Jell-O, which was named the official state snack.  Oddly enough, the one time Utah lost its Jell-O crown was when Iowa briefly overtook them.  So I wonder, is there some sort of yin/yang thing going on between cannabis and gelatin snacks?  If you’re too high does it make it tough to follow the Jell-O recipe, or is it that you get such munchies you don’t have time to wait for Jell-O to set?  By the way, does anybody have a recipe for ganja Jell-O; maybe that’s the solution?

I also thought it would be interesting to look at the Top Five States for Binge Alcohol Drinking:

1. North Dakota (32.02%)
2. Wisconsin (28.84%)
3. Minnesota (28.75%)
4. South Dakota (28.34%)
5. Rhode Island (27.92%)

Apparently Rhode Island is the place to get your drink on and your smoke on.  But for the other Top Five Stoner States, binge drinking rates fall somewhere in the middle of the country from Oregon (21.71%) and Alaska (22.74%) toward the lower range and Vermont (25.57%) and Colorado (26.15%) toward the upper range.  Unsurprisingly, Utah (15.64%) is at the bottom of this list as well.  I suppose if Jell-O vodka shots aren’t bumping that number up, ganja Jell-O won’t likely work, either.

Thank you for your recent communication concerning the legalization of marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you on this subject.

H.R. 2943, the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act, would eliminate federal penalties for the possession and distribution of small amounts of marijuana. This bill would also eliminate federal penalties prohibiting the personal use and possession of up to 3.5 ounces of marijuana, and allow the transfers of up to one ounce of marijuana provided no profit was earned.

I have long opposed any move to legalize drugs. I believe the legalization of drugs would jeopardize the health of our citizens, most notably our children. Those drugs that are currently illegal have been made so because they pose serious, often fatal, health risks to the user, and drug users themselves often pose serious risks to society. It is my fear that the proponents of drug legalization have latched on to the marijuana-as-medicine argument in order to further their own decriminalization agenda. If they were truly concerned about the health of chronically ill patients, they would encourage the use of legal medication that contains synthetic forms of the supposedly beneficial components of marijuana. They have not done this; so all the talk about suffering patients is nothing more than a red herring.

Decriminalization is not a universal remedy for solving all of the problems related to drug use. Statistics have shown that once something is legalized, more people have access to it, and more will use it. It is safe to say the same thing would occur once marijuana is legalized.

As marijuana use rises with legalization, so would the increased costs of health care and lost productivity. Marijuana is hardly a harmless substance. At best, it is a plant, which is smoked in a filterless manner, which is detrimental for the lungs. At worst, it remains a relatively unknown substance. Prolonged use of marijuana has been shown to cause memory loss and other negative cognitive side effects and reduce coordination and communication skills. Finally, it is addictive, and has been known as a “gateway drug,” which leads users to “harder” substances.

Finally, despite the fact that state law in California and Arizona permit “medicinal” use of marijuana, such practice remains a violation of federal law. Moreover, there is conclusive evidence that links drug cartels and suppliers to international organized terrorism, even in the marijuana market. For these reasons, federal law enforcement activity in the interdiction and seizure of marijuana is not only a proper use of police resources, it is entirely appropriate given the current state of affairs, in which we live.

H.R. 2943 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While I do not sit on either committee, should H.R. 2943 come to the floor for a vote, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind.

Once again, thank you for expressing your views on this issue.

If I can be of any assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG

Congressman for All Alaska

In summary:

1. Drugs pose fatal risks (but not marijuana),
2. the Marinol argument (stop puking by swallowing a pill and keeping it down for 45 minutes),
3. the “use will increase” scare (if it did, so what, especially if alcohol use drops as well?),
4. the lung damage lie (let’s lock you up to protect you from a cough),
5. memory loss lie (only short-term and only while high),
6. cognitive decline lie (yeah, that dumb old Carl Sagan),
7. coordination lie (ever tried playing Hacky Sack with a bunch of stoners?),
8. communication lie (you can’t get us to shut up!),
9. addiction lie (ever hear of a pot “addict” ripping metal off a bridge for recycling money to buy a dimebag?),
10. the gateway drug myth (marijuana and hard drugs: the only commonality is illegality),
11. a mistaken reference to Arizona as a medical state (they have a law, true, but it is not workable as it requires “prescription”),
12. cartels’ link to terrorism (which is true for non-home-grown pot only because it is illegal).

If you ask me, the wrong Alaskan politician resigned.  This congress critter has been in office now for 36 years.

An inquiring Stasher read the NY Times Freakonomics Blog’s quorum on marijuana legalization (which I dissected here), particularly the first paragraph of Mike Braun, a recently-retired chief of operations for the DEA, and asks:

Hi, I just read Mike Brauns text on http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/pot-quorum/ .

The numbers and so on, on the decriminalization in alaska, are they true? And what is the argument you have against their decriminalization “failure”?

Well, first let’s share former agent Braun’s Reefer Madness with the rest of the class:

In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that an adult’s possession of marijuana for personal consumption in the home was legal. Although the ruling applied only to persons 19 and over, teen consumption of the drug skyrocketed. A 1988 University of Alaska study found that the state’s 12- to 17-year-olds used marijuana at more than twice the national average for their age group. School equivalency test scores plummeted, as work place accidents, insurance rates and drugged-driving accidents went through the roof. Alaska’s residents voted to recriminalize possession of marijuana in 1990, demonstrating their belief that legalization and increased use was too high a price to pay.

The first sentence is true enough.  Alaska’s Constitution has a personal privacy clause much more explicit than anything found in the US Constitution (unfortunately) and the Supreme Court ruled (Ravin v. Alaska) that personal possession of up to four ounces and 25 plants in the home was protected.

The second sentence leaves a lot to be desired, like a reference to any study or data to back up the “skyrocketed” claim.  However, if Alaskan teen marijuana use went up from 1975-1979, I wouldn’t be surprised, since teen use of marijuana “skyrocketed” nationwide from 27.1% to 36.5% of high school seniors using marijuana monthly.  That’s an increase of over a third (34.6%), so Alaskan teen use would have to have increased by more than that for Alaskan decriminalization to even be considered as likely a cause as the overall nationwide increase in use.

The third sentence cites a University of Alaska study, but is using some crooked numbers in its reference.  As Cannabis Culture debunked:

In reality, a survey conducted in 1982 by the University of Alaska showed that a 4% of Alaskan students used marijuana every day, compared to 6.3% of all American high school seniors.

Bennett based his “more than twice” figure on a 1988 University of Alaska study whose author specifically stated that “because there are so many variables” his study should not be used to argue for or against legalization. … Northern aboriginal communities have always had higher rates of alcohol and drug abuse than the national average and during the years of Alaskan decriminalization alcohol consumption went down. The 1988 usage numbers are self-reported, meaning that after 13 years of decriminalization more Alaskan teenagers felt comfortable discussing their cannabis use than teenagers in more prohibitive states. No surprise there.

The fourth sentence claims that test scores fell, workplace accidents, insurance rates, and drugged driving increased. Again, no citations for these claims and my quick Googling found no way to determine the validity of these claims.

Based on those claims, Braun says that Alaskans voted to recriminalize marijuana in 1990.  That is true: in 1990, 53% – 47% of Alaskans passed an initiative, pushed heavily and promoted in-state by the federal drug czar Bill Bennett, that criminalized possession of marijuana in the home.  Keep in mind that in 1990, nationwide support for legalizing marijuana was at its lowest point ever, only 16%.  However, in 2003, a state appeals court invalidated much of the 1990 measure as unconstitutional and once again, possession of up to four ounces in the home was legal.  By 2006, the state legislature passed new recrim laws, but another judge ruled that only the portions that recriminalized possession of greater than an ounce passed constitutional muster.

So what you have in Alaska’s history of legal personal home marijuana is:

• 1975-1990: Four ounces legal
• 1990-2003: Zero ounces legal
• 2003-2006: Four ounces legal
• 2006-Now: One ounce legal

If I’m following Braun’s pretzel logic here, he’s saying that after 1975, legal marijuana’s impact on teen use, school tests, workplace accidents, insurance rates, and drugged driving led Alaskans to recriminalize in 1990.  By his reasoning, then, those impacts would have gone the opposite direction from 1990-2003 and since 2003 we should see those impacts heading the wrong way again.

Teen use: In 1995, when marijuana was still criminalized (earliest year I can find), 48.4% of Alaskan students had tried marijuana at least once.  In 2003 when four ounces was again legal, usage dropped to 47.5%.  By 2006 when one ounce was legal, usage dropped to 44.7% (page 42).  For monthly use, the 1995 figure is 28.7%, which drops to 23.9% in 2003 and 20.5% in 2006 (page 44).

School tests: In 1990, 8th graders placed in the top quartile on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills at 31.5% on reading, 30.3% on math, and 29.2% on language (page 33 – nationally, each quartile breaks down to 25% of the population, so any number above 25% is beating national average).  By 2003, Alaska switched to the Terra/Nova test, and the 9th graders in the top quartile for reading, math, and language were 29.2%, 31.5%, and 26.6% (pages 13-14).

But it’s wrong to compare data from two different tests, even if Alaskan kids have outperformed the national average in both of them.  Besides, 8th & 9th graders may still be too young to be affected by their parents legal use of marijuana in the home.  So how about high schoolers in Alaska – does legal marijuana make them drop out or perform worse in school?

Alaskan Dropout Rates 1990-2007

Here’s a look at the dropout rates from 1990-2003, the thirteen years where marijuana was recriminalized in Alaska.  While dropout rates declined in the early part of marijuana recriminalization, they jump when medical marijuana is introduced and jump when marijuana is decriminalized again.  However, note how the rates drop back down in the three years following, until the 2007 dropout rate is nearly the same as the 1990 dropout rate.

Alaskan 10th Grade Standardized Test Scores

Here’s a look at a standardized test used in Alaska called HSQGE from 2000-2008.  Remember that Braun opined that Alaskans recriminalized in 1990 because “school equivalency test scores plummeted” when adults could legally possess marijuana at home.  Well, it’s been five years now and the scores haven’t “plummeted”, in fact reading and writing scores have increased.  If you’re thinking that 10th graders may be too young, we can look at SAT scores, which have remained steady at about 518 Verbal, 516 Math from 2000-2006.

As for overall marijuana use, the NSDUH for 2006 shows that 8.26% of Alaskans between ages 12-17 used marijuana last month, compared to the national average of 6.74%.  However, in 1999, when personal use was still recriminalized, the Alaskan monthly 12-17 rate was 8.65% and the national rate was 7.24%.  It seems like teen marijuana use in Alaska actually declined since 1999, as noted in an MPP report co-authored by Dr. Mitch Earleywine on teen use in medical marijuana states:

[S]ince Alaska passed its medical marijuana law, high school students’ lifetime usage of marijuana has slightly declined — by 8% — and their  current marijuana use declined more significantly — by 29%. Current marijuana use decreased among all grade levels. … The rate at which Alaska high schoolers currently use marijuana dropped by a larger margin than national numbers did between 1995 and 2007. The national YRBS found a 22% decrease in high schoolers’ past 30-day marijuana use, while Alaska’s YRBS show a 29% drop. During the same time frame, Alaska teens’ lifetime marijuana use declined by about the same percentage as their counterparts nationwide: 10% fewer reported trying marijuana throughout the U.S., while 8% fewer Alaskans reported having ever tried marijuana.

Alaskan Traffic Fatalities 1982-2006

Finally, I can’t get you any Alaskan OSHA workplace safety statistics without a username and password, but I did find traffic fatality data from 1982-2006.  There seems to be a slight rise in traffic fatalities following re-legalized marijuana in 1990, and that follows a steep decline in deaths while four ounces of marijuana was still legal.  Fatalities reached their lowest point in 1998 (70) while marijuana is criminalized, but have also reached down into the 70s during re-legalized marijuana in 2005-2006.

It looks to me that former DEA Chief Mike Braun has been getting his statistics from the Department of Right Outta His Ass.  I’m not claiming any causality between Alaskan marijuana decriminalization and these statistics; there are far more variables than just marijuana involved (did Alaska’s rise and fall in oil revenues cause more kids to drop out, for example).  I’m just showing you that Mike Braun’s claim that the people of Alaska recriminalized because they saw these terrible statistics is a bunch of reefer madness, and the statistics don’t even show what he claims the people of Alaska saw.

Help us end the 21st century prohibition! Join NORML today!

I am now NORML’s National Chapter Outreach Coordinator.  In that capacity, I receive the emails from people all across the country looking to join NORML.  We currently have 64 chapters and 47 campus chapters in 38 states, and 8 international chapters.

I want a NORML chapter in all fifty states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.  I want double the number of chapters.  So I really need your help.

Just this last two weeks, I have received emails from budding activists (pun intended) looking to start NORML Chapters in Colorado, North Carolina, Alaska, Alabama, Florida (Miami), Missouri, Virginia, Idaho, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Mississippi, Vermont, Texas, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Kansas, as well as four new college chapter inquiries and inquiries from Australia, Japan, Guam, and Mexico (Cuidad Juarez).

I work to put the people in the same state in touch with each other because the hardest thing about forming a NORML Chapter isn’t finding the guy or gal to lead, it’s finding the other four people to form your board.

So Stashers, if you’re in one of the above-named states or countries and you’d like to get on board with a new local chapter, send me an email to stash@norml.org with the subject “Join a Chapter” and I’ll hook you up.

‘Bong Hits’ case going back to court – Juneau Empire
The “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case is headed back to court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the case in September, local attorney Doug Mertz said Wednesday.

Mertz represents Joseph Frederick, the former Juneau-Douglas High School student who displayed the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner that sparked a free speech debate that has been going on for six years and has been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mertz said the Supreme Court ruling had not addressed all the issues involved in the case, particularly whether Alaska’s free speech provisions protected Frederick’s actions and whether the banner constituted a legitimate political or social protest rather than a pro-drug declaration.

Frederick pressed his case in district court, but was turned down. The appeal is in reaction to that decision.

“Frederick’s banner had nothing to do with drugs, the principal’s seizure of it was unreasonable, and … the banner was well within the protections of the Alaska Constitution,” Mertz said in a statement.

Mertz said he was notified directly that the same panel of three judges that had previously sided with his client agreed to hear the case.

The case started in 2002, when then-Juneau-Douglas High School Principal Deborah Morse took down Frederick’s banner at a school-sponsored, off-campus event, and suspended him from school.

Frederick sued, saying his right to free speech had been violated. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court, which sided with Morse and the school district in 2007.

The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the principal on the narrow interpretation that “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” was a passage intended to celebrate drug use and therefore the school, in its mission to prevent student drug use, is justified in tearing down the banner.  Pete Guither at the DrugWarRant cited this review from the SCOTUSblog:

The Chief Justice’s opinion, too, indicates that the case would have come out differently if the banner had “convey[ed] any sort of political or religious message,” such as that involved in “political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession,” rather than (in the Court’s view) mere “student speech celebrating illegal drug use.” Debate, political and religious messages — protected. “Celebration” of illegal activity (drug use, anyway) — no go. That’s the upshot.

If only the sign had said “It is politically wrong to make Bong Hits (which we would never endorse) illegal 4 Jesus, who I believe is the Son of God and commanded by Him to partake of the cannabis sacrament”, then he would have passed under the Roberts court.  It might have been hard to read and even harder to write with duct tape, but at least it wouldn’t have been illegal student speech celebrating drug use.

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2008-04-03

Today is Cannabis and the Law Day here at the Stash and coming up after the news we speak with Attorney Adam Wolf of the ACLU ’s Drug Law Reform Project. He just argued a case before the Alaska Supreme Court that questions the Ravin v. State decision that over thirty years ago declared that the personal possession and use of cannabis at home is protected under the privacy rights outlined in the Alaska constitution.

Then Cannabis Karri brings us a great tokin’ tune from a Pacific Northwest band called Ivy League… uh, how do you get Ivy league when your band members are from Seattle and Provo? Anyway, they’ve got a song called “Let it Burn” for your musical marijuana enjoyment.

And to conclude our show, we speak with Rob Corry, an attorney in Denver, Colorado, who is representing a Fort Collins couple that plans to sell medical marijuana from their holistic medicine center.

We’ve got a lot to cover, so sit back and relax with your favorite strain and enjoy your NORML Daily Audio Stash…

WA high court says random school drug testing unconstitutional
OLYMPIA, Wash. — The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that random drug testing of student athletes is unconstitutional, finding that each has “a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions.”

The court ruled unanimously in favor of some parents and students in the lower Columbia River town of Cathlamet who were fighting the tiny Wahkiakum School District’s policy of random urine tests of middle school and high school student athletes.

The high court wrote, “we can conceive of no way to draw a principled line permitting drug testing only student athletes.”

“If we were to allow random drug testing here, what prevents school districts from either later drug testing students participating in any extracurricular activities, as federal courts now allow, or testing the entire student population?” Justice Richard Sanders wrote for the court’s plurality. Joining him were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Susan Owens and Tom Chambers.

“In particular, the school district has failed to show that a suspicion-based regime of drug testing is inadequate to achieve its legitimate objectives,” [Justice Barbara] Madsen wrote.

Madsen wrote that if there is not an observable drug problem in the school, “the school’s interest in detecting drug use does not justify nonconsensual drug testing.”

She wrote that if drug use is a problem, then schools have the individualized suspicion necessary to require a drug test.

“Thus, it is difficult to see how a suspicionless drug testing program is necessary,” she wrote.

Hooray for the Pacific Northwest (yeah, I’m biased)! It’s nice when your state constitution provides you more privacy protections than the United States Constitution… just ask the people of Alaska, where personal possession of <1oz. of cannabis at home and growing <25 plants is protected as a privacy right.

I particularly like Justice Madsen’s commonsense opinion: If you can’t see a drug problem, there’s no need to test randomly, and if you can see the drug problem, then you’ll know who to test!