(Change.org Criminal Justice) Advocates for marijuana reform frequently argue that the drug should be legalized because it’s safe. This is generally true, and I support legalization for this and many other reasons. But when it comes to driving and safety, legalization advocates often go a step too far — claiming that driving under the influence of marijuana is not dangerous and that marijuana causes zero deaths each year. These misleading arguments are harming the reform movement.

In the next couple of paragraphs the author calls out the authors of “Marijuana is Safer”, so I’ll leave that to Paul Armentano to cover.  I’ve never claimed that driving under the influence of marijuana is not dangerous, though I have pointed out how it is safer than driving under the influence of alcohol or driving while text-messaging.

I also am increasingly perturbed by a society that thinks nothing of parking lots at bars and .08 BAC laws having zero tolerance for the notion of cannabis-using drivers.  The fact that we have a per se standard of .08 BAC for alcohol-using drivers means that at below .08 BAC, the state has to prove you were actually too impaired to drive, not simply that you’d been drinking.  We tolerate the idea that a big guy like me (6′0″ 260lbs.) might be able to drink one beer and be OK to drive, but the notion of driving after one puff off a joint is unthinkable?  We tolerate people driving their cars to bars for the express purpose of becoming impaired knowing full well that not 100% of them have designated drivers, but were supposed to worry that legalizing pot will lead to blood on the highways?

So, I want to say to the commenters who frequently write here and elsewhere that driving under the influence of marijuana is not risky: you’re wrong. Not only are you wrong, but you’re spreading a dangerous myth that could cause deadly accidents and will hurt the chances for marijuana reform in the United States. To those who cite that stat that alcohol causes 75,000 deaths each year in the U.S. and marijuana causes zero: you’re wrong, too. Marijuana causes far, far fewer deaths than alcohol (maybe 0.1%) , but the number is not zero. Fatal accidents like this one and this one confirm that.

It’s always funny to me how one or two stories of people being helped by medical marijuana are just anecdotes that don’t scientifically prove anything, but one or two stories of a person pleading guilty to a fatal marijuana DUI wreck proves how dangerous marijuana and driving are.

The author, I believe, is purposefully excluding the context under which most of us say “marijuana never killed anyone”.  I am always referring to marijuana being non-toxic and incapable of overdose.  I try to be careful and only cite the 35,000 alcohol deaths from chronic conditions like the 18,000 whose livers fail or the 4,500 who suffer strokes and heart attacks or the 2,200 who get cancer.  I try not to include the 40,000 whose alcohol use causes acute conditions like the 14,000 who wreck their car, boat, or plane or the 19,000 who fall, commit suicide, or are murdered, or the 2,200 who freeze, burn, or drown.

If we want to include all of the ways in which marijuana might lead to death of its users, then, indeed, it is false to say nobody ever died from marijuana.  First we’d have to add in all the people who’ve been shot by police, murdered by dealers, or died choking on their own vomit due to lack of medical marijuana in a prison cell.  We’d have to include people like the two drivers in the examples above, plus all the people who fell off a cliff because they tripped while stoned and the people who die of a heart attack from the obesity they got from the munchies.  As you admit, that number is still probably 0.1% the deaths compared to alcohol under all conditions, which is why we are also careful to say marijuana is not harmless, but it is far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.  (Even that percentage is high, I think, as that would be 75 pot-related deaths per year.)

To show that we’re serious about responsible reform, marijuana reformers need to take a stand against driving under the influence of pot. Each of us can do our part.

Fine, I’ll take that stand: if your consumption of marijuana has led you to be as impaired as someone with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 or above, do not drive a car.  If you’re at a public event, wait to drive for as long as they force the beer drinkers to wait before you get behind the wheel.

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 3 /PRNewswire/ — San Diego DUI lawyer Lawrence Taylor claims that California DUI laws should not be applied to marijuana usage. Unlike alcohol and many drugs, he says, marijuana probably does not impair driving.

On the one hand, the California Department of Justice has found that marijuana impairs psychomotor abilities that are functionally related to driving, particularly at high-dose levels or among inexperienced users. (”Marijuana and Alcohol: A Driver Performance Study,” California Office of Traffic Safety Project No. 087902)

However, the San Diego DUI defense attorney points out, two federal studies contradict this.

In one, the U.S. Department of Transportation conducted DUI research with a fully interactive simulator on the effects of alcohol and marijuana, alone and in combination, on driver-controlled behavior and performance. Although alcohol was found consistently and significantly to cause impairment, marijuana had only an occasional effect.

Accidents and speeding tickets reliably increased with alcohol, but no marijuana or combined alcohol-marijuana influence was noted. (”The Effects of Alcohol on Driver-Controlled Behavior in a Driving Simulator, Phase I”(DOT-HS-806-414).)

Taylor, who heads a large firm of DUI attorneys with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Riverside and San Francisco, points to another more recent report. Entitled “Marijuana and Actual Performance” (DOT-HS-808-078), it also found that “THC is not a profoundly impairing drug….It apparently affects controlled information processing in a variety of laboratory tests, but not to the extent which is beyond the individual’s ability to control when he is motivated and permitted to do so in driving.”

The researchers found that it “appears not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.”

Sounds like a “whoo-hoo!” moment, huh?  Well, not so fast.  NORML’s Principles of Responsible Use states “The responsible cannabis consumer does not operate a motor vehicle or other dangerous machinery while impaired by cannabis.”

The $64,000 question*, then, is “what defines impaired?”  I can tell you that one puff off a vape bag full of Oregon’s finest will severely impair your average Kansas ditchweed smoker, while that same puff for a 5g/day Oregon patient won’t even break his concentration from completing the New York Times crossword.

The same phenomenon exists for alcohol; the alcoholic can seem perfectly capable with as many drinks under his belt as would knock out your average sorority sister.  But as a society, we decided that there should be an absolute measurable physical limit – .08 blood alcohol content – that defines impairment per se, that is, if you’re over .08 you’re too impaired even if you’re not really too impaired.

As always when there is a story about cannabis drug testing and driving, I called on NORML’s Deputy Director, Paul Armentano.  Here’s what he had to say:

As someone who is somewhat regularly brought in as a consultant for the defense in DUI-marijuana cases I can report, contrary to attorney Taylor’s claim [above], that there are in fact several available studies associating certain blood-THC levels (but not carboxy-THC levels) with psychomotor impairment and/or increased risk of traffic accident. These include:

• Drummer et al. 2004. The involvement of drugs in drivers killed in Australian road traffic crashes. Accident, Analysis and Prevention 36: 239-248.
• Grotenhermen et al. 2007. Developing per se limits for driving under cannabis. Addiction 102: 1910-1917.
• Bedard et al. 2007. The impact of cannabis on driving. Canadian Journal of Public Health 98: 6-11.
• Laumon et al. 2005. Cannabis intoxication and fatal road crashes in France: a population base case-control study. British Medical Journal 331: 1371-1377.
• Ramaekers et al. 2004. Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 73: 109-119.
• Khiabani et al. 2006. Relationship between THC concentration in blood and impairment in apprehended drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention 7: 111-116.

Remember that blood-THC is a measurement of the actual impairing substance (the metabolized 11-THC which is actually more psychoactive than the initial 9-THC that you inhale), while carboxy-THC (or THC-COOH) is the inactive metabolite they detect on the pee tests that doesn’t prove any impairment, only past use.

My personal preference would be that all chemical measurements of impairment, even blood-alcohol levels, be abandoned in favor of punishing people for actual impairment.  If a person is driving poorly enough to warrant a traffic stop and then cannot pass a field impairment test (walk the line, touch your nose, etc.) they should be busted for driving while impaired, no matter whether that impairment is alcohol, THC, anti-histamines, lack of sleep, or illness.

But since BAC measuring isn’t going anywhere, I suppose that we’ll have to adopt some measure of THC blood testing and some per se limit that defines impairment.  I’ll bet soon we’ll see a device like diabetics use to test blood sugar – one quick prick on the finger tip, a drop of blood on a test strip, and in 90 seconds we know what you’re on.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Young men who are impulsive thrill-seekers are more likely to admit to driving while high on marijuana, Canadian researchers report.

Men who drove under the influence of cannabis were also more likely to report certain risky driving behaviors, and tend to get in more accidents, Drs. Isabelle Richer and Jacques Bergeron of the University of Montreal say.

After alcohol, cannabis is the mind-altering substance most often found in the urine or blood of drivers after a crash, the researchers note in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention. Studies have shown that people’s driving skills are impaired within the first hour after smoking pot, they add. And it’s also possible, according to Richer and Bergeron, that people who get behind the wheel after smoking marijuana are also by nature more likely to be dangerous drivers.

Study participants with high scores on personality tests measuring sensation seeking and impulsivity were more likely to say they had driven under the influence of cannabis in the past year. The pot-smoking drivers were also more likely to report having engaged in risky driving, meaning driving in a careless way that could hurt others but isn’t intended to do so; and negative emotional driving, for example, getting angry with other motorists. These men were also more likely to exhibit these behaviors in the simulation tests. There was a slight increased likelihood that the pot smokers would get in crashes, and they were also more likely to admit to drinking and driving.

via Pot-smokers may take more risks on the road – News Wires – CNBC.com.

OK, so what you’re telling me is that young men who are “impulsive sensation seekers” are likely to:

• Smoke pot,
• Drive risky,
• Get road rage.

Color me surprised.  Impulsive young men do stupid things.  At sixteen, I once stole my dad’s pickup and gas credit card to hook up with a girl who lived in Tri-Cities, Washington whom I’d met just that week in Boise, Idaho, all on impulse, not thinking that the credit card receipts would totally ruin my alibi lie.  I also drove fairly recklessly, almost wrecking the truck as I went off the road and spun out in the median of the freeway, while I was completely sober (I hadn’t touched alcohol or cannabis at that point.)  Go figure.  Teenage hormones made me a worse driving risk than cannabis ever has.

The fly in the ointment in this news report for me is “cannabis is the mind-altering substance most often found in the urine or blood of drivers after a crash”.  No kidding – considering that cannabis is the third most used substance after alcohol and tobacco, it wouldn’t be surprising at all to find cannabis in people’s blood or urine.  With the urine test, the cannabis can turn up even weeks after smoking; with the blood, days.

What none of this proves is that they are “driving while high on marijuana”.  In most of America, we have a .08 blood alcohol standard – above that, you are, per se, impaired.  What that implies, then, is that below .08, it is possible you are not too impaired to drive.

Similarly, we have a whole host of pharmaceuticals whose ads say, “Until you know how you may react to Fuqitol, don’t drive or operate heavy machinery,” which suggests to me that once you do know how you may react, it is possible you are not too impaired to drive.

Yet with cannabis, these studies will point to drivers who’ve been in a crash who’ve had inactive, non-impairing marijuana metabolites in their urine and proclaim, aha!, “Young men who are impulsive thrill-seekers are more likely to admit to driving while high on marijuana!”

At NORML, we are clear – you should never smoke and drive.  (Mostly for self-preservation – the vast majority of possession pot busts are made during traffic encounters with police.)  Smoking and driving is not “responsible use”.  However, these reports that imply a huge social risk from cannabis-impaired drivers are way overblown.  I’ve said it before – when someone can show me the bar that has only taxicabs in its parking lot, you can talk to me about the social danger of stoned drivers.

Oakland, CA — The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued a new policy yesterday with regard to how it treats qualified medical marijuana patients. The DMV Driver Safety Procedure Manual was revised to include reference to medical marijuana, stating that “use of medicinal marijuana approved by a physician should be handled in the same manner as any other prescription medication which may affect safe driving.” The manual states that the existence of medical marijuana use “does not, in itself, constitute grounds for a license withdrawal action.” 

The change in DMV policy was the result of a lawsuit filed on November 19, 2008 by medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) on behalf of Rose Johnson, a 53-year-old patient from Atwater, whose driving license was revoked because of her status as a patient. Despite Ms. Johnson’s clean driving record, not having caused an accident in 37 years of driving, the DMV revoked her license on July 26, 2008. According to the DMV, Ms. Johnson’s license was revoked “because of…[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug,” thereby rendering her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, even though no evidence existed to substantiate this claim. In January, as a result of the lawsuit and a positive driving test by Ms. Johnson, the DMV reinstated her license and issued the new policy before the case had a chance to be heard in Superior Court.

Advocates assert that the DMV policy of suspending and revoking the licenses of medical marijuana patients was widespread, occurring in at at least 8 California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License revocations by the DMV, which have been based on a person’s status as a medical marijuana patient, are often rationalized by calling the drivers “drug abusers” despite no evidence of the claim. 

In California, this “drug addict” language was being used to deny medical marijuana patients right to drive.  Here in Oregon, “drug addict” language was used to revoke or deny medical marijuana patients their right to a concealed weapons permit.  In most medical marijuana states, employers can deny a medical marijuana patient’s right to work when a pre-employment urine test marks them as a “drug addict”.  Across the country women who are using marijuana medically to treat the nausea of morning sickness are considered “drug addicts” when their newborn’s urine tests positive for THC metabolites and are denied the right to hold their own baby.

Meanwhile, prescription drugs are advertised on television all day that say, “until you know how Dammitol effects you, don’t drive or operate heavy machinery.”  Nobody thinks to take away the concealed handgun permit from the guy who gets an alcohol DUI.  You can show up to your workplace drug testing center drunk and still pee clean enough for a job.  Nobody takes the newborn away from the morbidly obese mother who has been passing on lousy nutrition to her baby in the womb.  It’s funny to me how much danger and risk we are willing to tolerate as a society from alcohol, prescription drugs, and obesity, but that little cannabis flower that makes you happy and never killed anyone, that’s the one we scrutinize for safety.

NORML regrets to inform you that Senate Bill 5, an act to criminalize anyone who operates a motor vehicle with any detectable level of marijuana in their blood, has been referred to the Kentucky Senate Rules Committee.

If passed, Senate Bill 5 would mandate criminal penalties for any person who operates a motor vehicle with any measurable level of THC in their blood. This proposal would improperly impact cannabis consumers because THC can remain detectable at low levels in the blood of daily marijuana users for up to 1 or 2 days after past use. In the case of chronic smokers, THC may be detectable in the blood for even longer periods of time. (More information on this subject is available from NORML here.)

Someone who smokes marijuana is impaired as a driver — at most — for a few hours, not days. To treat marijuana smokers as if they are impaired, even when the drug’s effects have long worn off, is illogical and unfair.

In addition, Kentucky already has laws on the books targeting and prosecuting drivers who operate a motor vehicle “under the influence” of illicit drugs. Senate Bill 5 creates a separate crime of “drugged driving” that is, potentially, divorced from impairment and that could jail motorists for simply having consumed an illicit substance at some prior, unspecified date.

Please take a moment today to contact your elected officials and urge them to oppose Senate Bill 5. If your senator sits on the Senate Rules Committee then it is especially important that he or she hears from you. For your convenience, a pre-written letter will be e-mailed to your state representative when you enter your contact information below.

Montana Stashers, get on the phone NOW and call your State Senators to oppose SB 212 (details below).  Montana Patients and Families United reports this bill would mandate blood testing for any patient suspected of DUII, sets the blood threshhold so low no patient could pass, the requires lifetime loss of the patient’s medical marijuana privileges.

SB 212 – Hearing Next Tuesday Morning, Jan. 20th

Can you come to Helena very early next Tuesday – and stay until late afternoon or evening the following day?
 
We need help next Tuesday morning to oppose a terrible bill – SB 212 – that just moments ago was scheduled for hearing that morning.  (Info about SB 212 below.)
 
 Hearing: Senate Judiciary Committee, Room 303 of Capitol Building (“old Supreme Court chambers”)
 
When: 9 am, Tuesday, January 20
  
You can read SB 212 here:  http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/SB0212.pdf <http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/SB0212.pdf> 
 
SB 212 would require THC blood-testing of any registered patient/caregiver found or thought by law enforcement officials to be driving “under the influence” (which already is illegal under the law).  Meanwhile, the THC threshold specified in the bill is extremely low – so low that most bona fide patients would fail the blood test even if they hadn’t medicated for a day or longer.  And the bill’s penalty for failing the THC blood test – loss of patient privileges for life.

This bill violates privacy (and other constitutional) rights, and would carry penalties that are truly unprecedented.
 
Consider:  A person guilty of multiple drunk-driving incidents can lose his/her driver’s license – and might even serve time in jail – but would NOT permanently be forbidden to drink alcohol.  A person who committed driving violations while under the influence of too many prescription pain relievers might similarly lose driving rights for a period of time – but would NEVER lose the basic human right to receive needed prescription medicine from a physician.
 
Patients & Families United will strongly oppose this bill, as you might imagine.
 
Senate Judiciary Committee

Please call your friends and relatives and ask them to help us defeat SB 212.  Everyone who cares about the welfare of patients should call to leave messages for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee urging a “Do Not Pass” committee vote.
 
The number to call to leave messages for legislators is: 406-444-4800.

Committee members who should receive messages are:
 
Sen. Gary Perry, chairman (R-Manhattan)
Sen. Jim Shockley, vice-chair (R-Victor)
Sen. Aubyn Curtiss (R-Fortine)
Sen. John Esp (R-Big Timber)
Sen. Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls)
Sen. Larry Jent (D-Bozeman)
Sen. Carol Juneau (D-Browning)
Sen. Jesse Laslovich (D-Anaconda)
Sen. Dan McGee (R-Laurel)
Sen. Lynda Moss (D-Billings)
Sen. Terry Murphy (R-Cardwell)

And if you can stay in Helena for an extra day, there is HB 73 which you can lend your support to:

Hearing on Wednesday, Jan. 21 on PFU’s HB 73

Next Wednesday, January 21, the first of two medical marijuana improvement bills that Patients & Families United has developed – HB 73 – will be heard by the House Human Services Committee.

See the news/alert we sent last night for more detailed information.

You can read HB 73 here: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/HB0073.pdf

Details on the hearing:

Time: 3 pm, Wednesday January 21

Where: Room 157, ground floor of capitol building

Patients & Families United will host a lunch in Helena for those who can join us for the hearing. The lunch will begin at 11:30 am and end by 1:30 pm, leaving us plenty of time to get to the capitol and “take charge” of the hearing room before legislators arrive. More info on the lunch location as the day approaches.

Again, the members of the committee who need to receive phone messages urging a “Do Pass” recommendation for HB 73 are:

House Human Services Committee
Arlene Becker, chairperson (D-Billings)
Mary Caffero, vice-chair (D-Helena)
Pat Ingraham, vice-chair (R-Thompson Falls)
Bill Beck (R-Whitefish)
Julie French (D-Scobey) – our bill’s sponsor!
Tim Furey (D-Milltown)
David Howard (R-Park City)
Chuck Hunter (D-Helena)
Dave McAlpin (D-Missoula)
Michael More (R-Gallatin Gateway)
Pat Noonan (D-Ramsay)
Ken Peterson (R-Billings)
Diane Sands (D-Missoula)
Cary Smith (R-Billings)
Ron Stoker (R-Darby)
Jeff Wellborn (R-Dillon)

To leave a message for these legislators, call: 406-444-4800.

[UPDATE:  The Reuters people seemed to have flipped the numbers for cannabis and alcohol.  This line from the actual TRL website:

Reaction times were around 35% slower when writing a text message. Earlier studies at TRL showed that alcohol consumption to the legal limit caused a 12% reaction time increase; cannabis slowed reaction times by 21%.

Regardless, there are numerous studies showing the threat of cannabis-impaired drivers to be less than the threat of alcohol-impaired drivers.  Bottom line - just don't smoke and drive.]

Texting drivers more dangerous than drunks: study

LONDON (Reuters Life!) – Sending text messages from your mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than climbing behind the wheel under the influence of drink or drugs, a study by Britain’s Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has found.

The reaction times of people texting as they drove fell by 35 percent, while those who had consumed the legal limit of alcohol, or taken cannabis, fell by 21 percent and 12 percent respectively, according to the study.

The study, which was commissioned by motoring group RAC Foundation, also found that the ability to stay in lanes or maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front was worse than drivers under the influence of cannabis.

[D]rivers who texted were distracted by taking their hand off the wheel to use their phone, by trying to read small text on the phone display and by thinking about how to write their message.

Nearly half of all 18-24 year-olds admitted to texting as they drove, a separate survey by the RAC Foundation discovered.

While the study here focuses on the important news that texting while driving is far worse for your road skills than drinking and driving, I want to focus on the part of the study they buried in the lede:

• Driving while texting dropped reaction times by 35%
• Driving while drunk dropped reaction times by 21%
• Driving while stoned dropped reaction times by 12%

Indiana Company Formed to Improve Marijuana Detection – Newsroom – Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick
Two Purdue University researchers have joined with a northern Indiana biotechnology firm to launch a company to improve marijuana’s detection in a person’s system.

Intelimmune LLC will focus on developing a more reliable and accurate diagnostic tool for detecting the presence of tetrehydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, said Fred Regnier, Purdue’s John H. Law Distinguished Professor Analytical Chemistry.

Jiri Adamec, research assistant professor at Bindley, said the current test for THC is based on unstable antibodies and fraught with problems. Intelimmune researchers hope to devise a process that’s much more precise and reliable.

“Law enforcement can use breathalyzers to determine whether a person is above the legal limit for alcohol use, and saliva is used to detect the presence of marijuana, or THC, in a person’s system, but that test isn’t reliable,” Adamec said. “We look to deliver a proven process that will vastly improve on the present-day test for marijuana.”

Adamec, who will serve as a technical officer for Intelimmune, said the process being developed by the company also is a saliva test, but it will not use protein-based antibodies. Instead, he said, it will employ a process known as “molecular imprinting,” in which an artificial antibody is used to capture THC. Results from this process also would be available in about five minutes, which is comparable to existing diagnostic tools.

For me, this is one sticky issue to cover.  NORML always has called for the responsible use of marijuana by adults, and most certainly driving while impaired by cannabis is not responsible use.  NORML has also opposed marijuana drug testing for impairment because testing for metabolites only proves prior use, not current intoxication.

However, from a political standpoint, a marijuana test that does accurately measure current intoxication presents some advantage.  It might be easier to win votes for marijuana decriminalization or taxation and regulation if the public felt safer because there was an accurate way to catch DUIs.

The problems I see are these – setting a baseline “legal limit” on THC that would have nothing to do with impairment.  What if you’ve smoked, waited two hours, then drove, but tested positive?  Were you impaired?

I guess the same argument could be made for alcohol – some people at .08 are truly wrecks waiting to happen, but an alcoholic with a tolerance can drive quite functionally at .20.  As a society, though, we set .08 (in most places) as the limit, figuring enough people would be wasted at that point to justify the limit.

Where do you set that limit with weed, especially considering that many studies show marijuana-intoxicated drivers to be safer than alcohol-intoxicated drivers?  And what about medical marijuana patients?  Are we condemning them to life without driving privileges?

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2008-06-12

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2008-06-12.mp3)

I’m just about caught up on all the media processing.  Check out the National NORML YouTube Page and you can see all the videos I’ve been uploading from the Aspen Legal Seminar.  Also, check out the Aspen Legal Seminar Archive I’ve put together.  I’ll be adding more audio, video, and photos as I process them.

Today I’m giving you a two-part presentation from Paul Armentano’s seminar on the latest DUID laws and the studies on cannabis and driving.  Yes, they really want to take your license even if you never drive stoned.

Plus we’ve got some good new rock and roll from Skracht Apple, and a new segment on the Stash – Stupid Stoner Stories.  I hope you enjoy, and take it as it’s meant – we’ve got to hold ourselves up to a, ahem, higher standard.  That means no dope in court!

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2008-05-19

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2008-05-16.mp3)

It’s Monday, May 19th, and it’s 4:20 somewhere in the world. I’m your host, “Radical” Russ Belville.

Don’t forget to your Congress at 202-224-3121, and tell your representative to support Barney Frank’s HR5843 bill that would legalize marijuana for personal use. Ending prohibition starts with you!

For our Political Activism day today, I’ve just got to tell you about my Sunday at the Waterfront in Portland, where me and 75,000 of my friends gathered to hear Senator Barack Obama. Check out the pictures, map, and video on my personal blog at RadicalRuss.com. It’s exhilarating to feel so many people gathered for political change and awareness, and it’s my goal to bring that wave of change toward ending adult marijuana prohibition. It’s time for a change and it starts with you.

Today we start our Political Activism day halfway around the world to New Zealand, where we spoke with New Zealand NORML’s Chris Fowlie about their Global Marijuana March, or as they call it, “J-Day”.

For our musical break on Blues Monday we’ve got Julian Fauth, a contemporary bluesman from Toronto, Canada. Cannabis Karri picked out “Roll on In” – is it a tribute to great joint rollers? Stay tuned and find out. (If it is, it ain’t about me. I’m a lousy joint roller.)

To conclude our Stash we welcome back new NORML Dad, Deputy Director Paul Armentano. Our international flavor continues as Paul breaks down research from Israel comparing the driving effects of mild doses of cannabis vs. alcohol on drivers.

We’ve also got another great NORML Pass the Stash contest. This time you could win the uncensored DVD of “Totally Baked”, written by Craig Shoemaker (a guest on the Stash). Bonus for you Stashers: it’s autographed by the Executive Producer, Brian Johnson, the lead singer of AC/DC! No joke, there are even three brand new Brian Johnson songs on the DVD. Listen for details later in the podcast on how you can win.

And remember, if you are a business or non-profit who’d like your message heard on the Daily Audio Stash or the NORML Weekly News, you can advertise with us. We have rates for every budget and a 10% discount for non-profits. Just send us an email at stash ‘at’ norml.org and we’ll have you on the air in no time.

So sit back and relax with a good friend and your favorite strain, it’s time for your NORML Daily Audio Stash.