Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_SHOW_LIVE_2011-08-12.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

1. Kern Country California begins enforcing a new 12-plant grow limit for medical marijuana
2. Stupid Stoner Story: 39-year-old calls dude to sell him marijuana, dude turns out to be wrong number and belonged to narcotics cop
3. ONDCP praises texas Tech’s “CSAR” program of drug recovery at college campuses
4. New Mexico drugged driving legislation driven by scandal over public safety officer’s wife, who crashed not because of drugged driving, but from a seizure
5. NORML Nebraska beginning drive for both medical marijuana and marijuana legalization in the Midwest

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Urb Thrasher from Urb Age Designs

• Live from the Northwest World Reggae Festival with Urb Thrasher and Lindsey, coordinator for the festival at http://nwwrf.com
• The Green – “Love I”

This Month in NORML with Executive Director Allen St. Pierre

Cannabis Community

• Amber Chase interviews “Radical” Russ at Hempfest 2009

Radical Rant

• If we had a dime for every dimebag sold in America, marijuana would be legal by now

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-01-04.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Marijuana is now decriminalized in California, one ounce is now just a $100 ticket
2. Washington State denying waivers for parolees seeking to use medical marijuana
3. Oklahoma traffic stop leads to man’s loss of $14,000 in seized cash thanks to marijuana “residue” on the man’s pants

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Cannabis Cure UK

• Electric Tuesday: Statiq – “Last Dance with Mary Jane Remix”

Behind the Headlines with NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano

• Understanding per se DUID laws and drug testing for “drugged driving”.

The little red police cars show you the zero-tolerance states. If there is a time next to it, like 24h, that's the mandatory jail time you serve immediately.

(UPDATED with helpful research from Paul Armentano.)

The headline from the Associated Press reads “Gov’t: Drugs were in 1 in 5 drivers killed in 2009“.  The lede for the story is:

About 1 in 5 drivers who were killed last year in car crashes tested positive for drugs, raising concerns about the impact of drugs on auto safety, the government reported Tuesday.

Other outlets like USA Today give it a more chilling headline “U.S.: Third of tests on motorists killed shows drug use“.  The discrepancy results from the AP considering all drivers who were killed when not every driver killed was drug tested.  The USA Today considers the “tests on motorists killed”, thereby discounting the roughly 40% of killed drivers who were never drug tested.  Whatever – 20% of all drivers or 33% of all drivers tested – they’re dead, they drove, there’s drugs, be afraid!

The AP then follows with a second paragraph that points out the obvious logical fallacy of “correlation = causation” – just because dead drivers had drugs in their system doesn’t mean drugs caused the accident that killed them - something the USA Today article never addresses:

Researchers with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the new data underscored a growing problem of people driving with drugs in their systems. But they cautioned that it was not clear that drugs caused the crashes and more research was needed to determine how certain drugs can hinder a person’s ability to drive safely.

However, while AP doesn’t get around to distinguishing what exactly “drugs” refers to until paragraph seven, USA Today opens by explaining we’re talking about all drugs, prescription and recreational:

One-third of all the drug tests done on drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents came back positive for drugs ranging from hallucinogens to prescription pain killers last year — a 5 percentage point increase since 2005, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported Tuesday.

Nobody recommends driving while impaired by drugs – legal or illegal.  NORML has maintained this as a core Principle of Responsible Use for years.  But there are many legal prescription drugs that will cause impairment that bear the warning “Until you know how you may be affected by this drug, do not drive or operate heavy machinery,” which suggests to me that once you do know how it affects you, it’s your judgment call.  In fact, one of those drugs is prescription dronabinol, the synthetic cannabinoid THC marketed as “Marinol”.

AP’s seventh paragraph also points out that presence of a drug in your system may have no bearing on whether that drug was impairing you in the first place:

The tests took into account both legal and illegal drugs, including heroin, methadone, morphine, cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, LSD, prescription drugs and inhalants. The amount of time the drug could linger in the body varied by drug type, the researchers said, so it was unclear when the drivers had used the drugs prior to the fatal crashes.

Cannabis metabolites can be detectable in urine for weeks and THC itself can be detected blood for at least six hours.  Most illegal drugs can be detected for a few days in urine and a few hours in blood.  Prescription drugs are just as varied.  So we’ve got 20% or 33% of killed drivers who had a drug in their system that may or may not have contributed to the crash that killed them and they may or may not have taken that drug before driving.

For comparison’s sake, USA Today links to the stat that drowsiness was a factor in 17% of all fatal crashes.  You just may be more likely to die in a crash caused by lack of a nap as by taking the pill to get a good night’s sleep.  Are you scared yet?  Well, you should be, because the whole point of scaring you about the drugged drivers is the push for nationwide zero-tolerance DUID laws.  Back to the USA Today:

Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, called the numbers of fatalities involving drugs “alarmingly high,” and called for more states to pass laws making it a crime to have illegal drugs in the body while driving, no matter how much. Seventeen states already have such laws.

The lack of research also presents a problem for lawmakers to develop laws. They can outlaw the use of all illegal drugs while driving, but what about someone who took a prescription sleeping pill a few hours ago?

Since they can outlaw the illegal drugs and there is no political cost in doing so, they will.  These “zero tolerance” laws means if they detect any metabolite of any illegal drug, you are guilty of driving impaired.  Since that joint you smoked could be detectable long after its effects had worn off, you’d be an impaired driver in the eyes of the law even if you were completely sober and unimpaired.  Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods than most any other drug, legal or illegal, “zero tolerance” laws amount to witch hunts for cannabis consumers behind the wheel.

The irony here is that compared to the threat from drinking drivers, drowsy drivers, texting drivers, and prescription drugged drivers, the threat from drivers using cannabis is negligible.  Just last week we took a look at a study in the Netherlands that showed that experienced users can develop a tolerance to the psychomotor impairing effects of cannabis.  This summer we examined a study performed in Iowa and Connecticut that showed cannabis-using drivers performed as well on a driving simulator after smoking marijuana as they did before smoking marijuana.  (If you’d like the full examination of marijuana and driving, please see Paul Armentano’s impeccable white paper, Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review.)

As for the prescription drugs, there isn’t much political benefit in threatening a majority of your constituents, especially the older ones who do most of the voting, with a DUI charge for the pills they’re required to take every day.  Also consider the lobbying money and clout of Big Pharma that won’t look kindly on strict new driving laws that might cause people to use less pills.

No, the per se limit on prescription drugs isn’t coming to your state anytime soon… but maybe the end of driving privileges for cannabis consumers in your state is.  The seventeen states with current per se DUID laws are:

• Arizona (except for medical marijuana patients), Utah, South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Delaware, and Georgia already have these zero tolerance laws for any THC or metabolites of THC – if you toked within the past week, you could already be an impaired driver.
• Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island have zero tolerance for THC in the blood – if you toked before bed you might be an impaired driver in the morning.
• Nevada and Ohio consider you impaired if they detect 2 nanograms (2 billionths of a gram) of THC per milliliter of blood (2ng/ml) and Pennsylvania raises that limit to 5ng/ml.
• Virginia, Minnesota, and North Carolina have zero tolerance laws for drugs that do not include cannabis or its metabolites.

Learn what the DUID laws are in your state.

One of our loyal readers turned us on to this desperate scaremongering video from opponents of California’s Prop 19:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The top video response is the perfect rejoinder:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Line by line debunking follows after the break…

The #1 ADDICTION for 60% of TEENS in Drug rehab.

This is a little like saying orange jumpsuits are the #1 fashion choice of 60% of inmates in prison.  Cannabis is the third most popular substance.  When teens are caught with it, they are sentenced to drug rehab.  This says nothing about whether teens are addicted or whether they need rehab, but it says a lot about prohibition’s failure to keep teens off pot.

A GATEWAY drug to Cocaine and Meth.

Despite every scientific look at the gateway theory proving it to be nonsense, prohibitionists still cling to it.  The only gateway connecting marijuana to meth is the one you walk through to get to the illegal drug market.  Nobody considers alcohol a gateway drug to meth, despite more meth addicts having tried alcohol before they ever touched pot, because you can’t get meth in the liquor store.

4 times more MIND-ALTERING than in the 1970′s

Well, at least this time they’re not saying today’s pot is 14x, 30x, or 400x stronger than the Woodstock Weed.  Look at the clothes and listen to the music; you don’t think 1970′s weed was mind-altering?  The facts are that the average potency of marijuana seizures has doubled.  However, that says nothing about what’s available on the streets.

Law enforcement since the 1970s has increasingly focused on indoor grows that produce stronger weed, so their averages went up.  That doesn’t mean the indoor grows and potent weed weren’t there before.  It would be like picking a baseball team of eight Little Leaguers and Roberto Clemente in 1972 and comparing that team to five Little Leaguers and four Pittsburgh Pirates today and claiming baseball teams are 4x more talented than the 1970s.

50%-70% MORE CANCER-CAUSING than Cigarettes

50% to 70%?  Why the wiggle room?  It should be an easy calculation: count the people who got cancer from cigarettes, count the people who got cancer from cannabis, divide the difference by the former and you’ve got an exact percentage.  Now let’s see, Cancer.gov tells us:

Cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke cause an estimated average of 438,000 premature deaths each year in the United States. Of these premature deaths, about 40 percent are from cancer, 35 percent are from heart disease and stroke, and 25 percent are from lung disease…

So, 40% of 438,000 is 175,200 cancer cases caused by cigarettes.  For cannabis to be 50%-70% more cancer causing than cigarettes, it must have caused 262,800 to 297,840 cancer cases.  Do you know a single person who smoked cannabis only who ever got cancer?  Where is the cannabis cancer ward, anyway?

What they’re doing here is conflating carcinogens with carcinogenic.  Yes, cannabis smoke has carcinogens, as does every burning vegetable matter from campfires to Camels.  But it also contains THC, which has been shown to have anti-tumoral properties.  Dr. Donald Tashkin at UCLA Medical Center found in 2006 that not only did cannabis-only smokers not have any greater risk for head, neck, and lung cancer, but they had lesser risk of those cancers than did non-smokers.  That cannabis smoke contains carcinogenic molecules is no more frightening than water containing explosive molecules (hydrogen and oxygen) – the question isn’t “does it have carcinogens?”, the question is “does it cause cancer?”

MARIJUANA – What’s Good About Legalizing It?

I know it’s rhetorical, but how about checking kids’ ID, reallocating scarce police and court resources, realizing tax revenues, separating hard and soft drug markets, crippling Mexican drug trafficking organizations, ending discriminatory employment practices, reducing prescription drug and alcohol and hard drug use, reviving our American hemp heritage, living up to our Constitution, and treating adults like adults?

NOTHING

Oh.  So I guess you’re also for criminalizing alcohol and tobacco, right?  They’re addictive, potent, cancer-causing, and popular with kids, too.

Passage of Prop. 19 would mean: Marijuana could be SOLD IN GROCERY STORES.

You mean like alcohol and tobacco, where we check kids for ID, unlike marijuana, which is sold in parks and high school hallways?

Prop 19 does mean pot could be sold in grocery stores… if the government of your city approves that.  I seriously doubt any city is going to go that direction.  The handful of cities that may allow cannabis sales (remember, they aren’t required to) will probably keep it in marijuana-only dispensaries that are adults-only establishments.

Skyrocketing usage among Teens and Young people.

28% of young people aged 18-25 smoke pot once a year.  11% smoke pot twice a week.  85% of high school seniors say pot is “easy” to get.  25% can get a hold of a bag of weed in an hour or less.  It doesn’t seem as if prohibition is really stopping them from using cannabis now.  I find it hard to imagine it will be easier to access for kids when we’re checking people’s ID’s for it.

But let’s suppose that cannabis usage does go up among young people.  If that usage replaces binge drinking or pharmaceutical use among young people, we will have done them and society a great service.

“DRUGGED DRIVING” on Streets and Freeways.

This would be terrifying if you didn’t realize that Californians are smoking pot now and some already irresponsibly use cannabis and drive.  Those people are being arrested now for driving under the influence and Prop 19 specifically does not alter any laws against so-called “drugged driving”.  The people not smoking pot now because it is illegal are the type who like to obey laws, so why would these new pot smokers suddenly want to violate DUID laws?

The fact is that study after study has failed to show any causation between automobile accident and one’s cannabis use.  One study showed even the most stoned driver was no worse than an alcohol-using driver at a 0.05 blood-alcohol level (i.e. below “legally drunk”) and another study showed marijuana-using drivers performed no worse on simulators than when they were sober.  Nobody here is suggesting that you should chief bong hits and see how well you do on the road; what we are saying is that the risk public harm from stoned drivers is less than what we tolerate for alcohol and prescription drugs (or eating fast food while driving, for that matter.)

Higher COSTS for Everyone as Addictions SOAR.

First you have to believe marijuana is a gateway drug and I addressed that above.  Then you’d have to ignore the fact that 3 million Californians are smoking pot now and whatever negligible cost that entails is being paid by society now, while we take in nothing in tax revenue and spend a billion dollars failing to stop pot smoking.  Assuming we make nothing in taxes, we’d still have to see a billion dollars worth of new addiction costs to just break even on the money we’d save not prosecuting marijuana use after Prop 19.

Marijuana Operatives could buy THOUSANDS of Acres of farmland.

“Operatives?”  What are we, a spy agency now?  Aren’t these the people that complain about illegal immigrants setting up illegal marijuana farms in public forests?  Now you’re complaining that California citizens could set up legal marijuana farms on proper farmland?

Considering the plight of the average California farmer these days, I think most would applaud finding a new profitable use for their farmland.

Prop. 19 Means:
Messed up minds.
Messed up lives.
Messed up families.
California out of Control.

Prohibition is the abdication of control of marijuana to criminals.  Nobody is controlling where it will be grown, where it will be sold, or who is allowed to buys and sell it.  Lives and families are messed up when someone is caught using or growing it.  Minds are messed up when forced to assent to lies about marijuana in coerced rehab.

We don’t regulate alcohol because it doesn’t mess up minds, lives, and families.  We regulate it because we want government, not criminals like Al Capone, to have control over it and we’ve found it is the best way to mitigate the harms associated with alcohol by the few who abuse it.  Only prohibition makes marijuana more harmful to the user and society than alcohol.

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2010-08-16.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Activists fighting Colorado HB 1284 restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries
2. BC Hydro installing new digital power meters to thwart indoor growers
3. Toronto medical marijuana club neighbor complains about the smell
4. A look at Canadian roadside testing for drugged driving

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

• Roots Monday: Green Outlaws – “I Wish Stephen Harper Would Smoke a Joint”

Cannabis Community

• Vivian McPeak, executive director of Seattle Hempfest, previews this weekend’s world largest hemp festival

Radical Rant

• Radical Russ vs. the California Chamber of Commerce on drug testing

If you smoked a joint last week, in eleven states you're as bad as a drunk driver.

From the Obama Administration’s recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

Here are the states President Obama would like to emulate:

1. Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.
2. Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.
3. Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.
4. Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.
5. Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.
6. Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.
7. Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.
8. Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.
9. Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.
10. South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.
11. Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Nine of the fifteen states cited have “zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites”.  What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law.  (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.)  Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml.  At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey.  Metabolites in urine don’t tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when.  Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is “solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event.”

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don’t eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance.  The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC!  You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

These per se DUID “zero tolerance” laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple.  Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much quicker:

• PCP (“angel dust”) = up to 2 days detection.
• Cocaine (and “crack”) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.
• Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.
• Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.
• Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.
• Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!
• Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.

So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These “zero tolerance” laws are criminalizing an entire population – cannabis users – for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability.  Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin… whoops, never mind.

Our Executive Director has posted the latest salvo of propaganda from the Drug Enforcement Administration on the NORML Blog and provided a very thorough rebuttal to the notion that Alaskans “legalized” marijuana in the 1970s, freaked out over the carnage and, my god, the children!!, and in the 1990s made it illegal again.  This “failed experiment” with “drug legalization” is supposed to be a dire warning to those on the West Coast who are trying to regulate the third-most popular recreational substance somewhat like the first, but Allen St. Pierre tells you the history of Alaskan constitutional privacy rights the DEA would like you to forget.

Left there hanging on the vine, though, are the other nine “facts” the DEA are presenting, a la David Letterman (but not as funny), in something we’re calling the…

“These here, Paul, from our own government, from somewhere deep in Dick Cheney’s secret bunker, the Top Ten Facts About Legalization from the DEA…”

Fact 1: We have made significant progress in fighting drug use and drug trafficking in America. Now is not the time to abandon our efforts.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the fight against drugs cannot be won. However, overall drug use is down by more than a third in the last twenty years, while cocaine use has dropped by an astounding 70 percent. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not use drugs. This is success by any standards.

Actually, two out of three Americans use drugs if you include alcohol and one out of ten Americans use cannabis (National Survey on Drug Use & Health 2008) every year, so I’m not sure how you can say 95% of Americans do not use drugs.  If we were to include prescription and over-the-counter drug use, I’m sure something close to 95% of Americans actually use drugs.

But we weren’t talking about “legalizing drugs”, we’re talking about regulation of cannabis.  Whether cocaine or other drug use has risen or fallen is beside the point.  Fierce marijuana criminalization laws haven’t stopped the United States from leading the world in lifetime marijuana use and open tolerance of cannabis coffeehouses in The Netherlands haven’t moved the Dutch from having half the lifetime use rates and one-third the young teen (<=15) use rates of cannabis as Americans.  Portugal has decriminalized drugs to a large extent and the international community calls it “a resounding success”.  Singapore and Indonesia have some of the harshest anti-cannabis laws in the world, and yet they still have to keep executing the smugglers who won’t stop bringing it in to the country.  We can’t even keep drugs out of our SuperMax federal prisons; what makes the DEA think it can succeed in keeping drugs out of free adult hands?

Lifetime cannabis use = 31% in 1988 to 41% in 2008

Drug use rates have very little to do with drug laws.  And even the DEA’s claim that drug use is down a third in twenty years is suspect.  If we define “drug use” as the lifetime rates that have been tracked by the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health over the past twenty years (1988-2008), then cannabis use has risen dramatically in the past twenty years, from 31% to 41% of the population aged 12 and older who have tried cannabis.

Lifetime crack use = more than double; heroin use = almost double; hallucinogen use = almost double; coke, meth, and inhalants = all increased >20%

In fact, when you take a look at the lifetime use of illegal drugs (cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants), you find that all those figures have risen over the past twenty years, too.

Annual alcohol consumption = steady; annual cigarette consumption = 38% in 1988 to 28% in 2008

The most interesting figures appear when you look at lifetime, annual, and monthly use of the legal drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.  Alcohol use has remained steady but declining, while cigarette use has plummeted.

What this all tells us is:

• People that want to use substances will;
• Maintaining prohibition over marijuana and drugs hasn’t stopped anyone; in fact use has risen;
• Regulating dangerous and addictive drugs like alcohol and tobacco hasn’t encouraged greater use; in fact use has decreased.

Fact 2: A balanced approach of prevention, enforcement, and treatment is the key in the fight against drugs.

A successful drug policy must apply a balanced approach of prevention, enforcement and treatment. All three aspects are crucial. For those who end up hooked on drugs, there are innovative programs, like Drug Treatment Courts, that offer non-violent users the option of seeking treatment. Drug Treatment Courts provide court supervision, unlike voluntary treatment centers.

Almost twice as much of your tax money goes to trying to arrest you for drugs as trying to help you quit them

That’s a nice sentiment, but it is not how the government actually prosecutes the War on (Certain American Citizens Using Non-Pharmaceutical, Non-Alcoholic, Tobacco-Free) Drugs.  49.8% of all drug arrests are for marijuana violations, with 89% of those marijuana arrests made for possession alone.  The “balanced approach” in President Obama’s FY 2011 Budget makes the DEA the fat kid on the see-saw, with $9.9 billion appropriated for law enforcement and interdiction vs. $5.6 billion appropriated for treatment and prevention.

Fact 3: Illegal drugs are illegal because they are harmful.

There is a growing misconception that some illegal drugs can be taken safely. For example, savvy drug dealers have learned how to market drugs like Ecstasy to youth. Some in the Legalization Lobby even claim such drugs have medical value, despite the lack of conclusive scientific evidence.

Once again, I haven’t seen any movement on the West Coast to put legalization of MDMA on the ballot; we’re talking about regulating marijuana.

Remember, this is a graph on a logarithmic scale. Cannabis is actually 2,000 times safer than alcohol.

However there is a way of measuring how safe a particular substance is to ingest; it’s called a “therapeutic index“.  It’s the ratio of “ED-50″, that is, a  minimum dose that will have the desired effect in 50% of test subjects, to the “LD-50″, which is the size of a lethal dose that will kill 50% of test subjects.  For example, half the people who cop a buzz on a “dose” of alcohol – whatever amount that is – will die if they drink ten times that amount.  That’s a “therapeutic index” of 1:10.

When measured by therapeutic index, most “illegal” drugs are technically safer than alcohol and cannabis is the safest of all with a therapeutic index that’s practically immeasurable.  Cannabis is so non-toxic that it’s ratio is estimated to be 1:20,000 to 1:40,000.  The DEA’s Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young concluded it would take a man smoking 1,500 lbs. of cannabis in 15 minutes to die of an overdose.

Fact 4: Smoked marijuana is not scientifically approved medicine. Marinol, the legal version of medical marijuana, is approved by science.

According to the Institute of Medicine, there is no future in smoked marijuana as medicine. However, the prescription drug Marinol—a legal and safe version of medical marijuana which isolates the active ingredient of THC—has been studied and approved by the Food & Drug Administration as safe medicine. The difference is that you have to get a prescription for Marinol from a licensed physician. You can’t buy it on a street corner, and you don’t smoke it.

"The DEA's doing research like it's 1999..."

Nice of the DEA to reference the 1999 Institute of Medicine report.  That was the report that concluded, as every report on the subject has, that marijuana use “does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse.”

That report also noted that only 9% of marijuana users develop “dependence”, compared to 15% for alcohol, 17% for cocaine, 23% for heroin, and 32% for tobacco.

It also noted that “A distinctive marijuana and THC withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and subtle compared with the profound physical syndrome of alcohol or heroin withdrawal,” which can cause seizures, hallucinations, and severe cravings.  According to the report, “the symptoms of marijuana withdrawal include restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep EEG disturbance, nausea, and cramping.”

So if sometime later in the Top Ten list the DEA wants you to believe that legalization of marijuana will lead to increased addiction, remember that they were the ones using this report to argue against the medical efficacy of smoked marijuana.

However, it is interesting that the DEA makes no mention of the 2009 statement by the American Medical Association which concluded “Results of short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis…. To the extent that rescheduling marijuana out of Schedule I will benefit this effort [to develop cannabinoid medicines], such a move can be supported.

It’s also interesting how the DEA never mentions vaporization, tinctures, and edibles, which have been proven to eliminate the major harm of cannabis use – smoking.

And I never tire of the DEA that warns us about the super-potent Schedule I “Pot 2.0: Not Your Father’s Woodstock Weed” that approaches average THC potencies of 10% with maximums in the 30% range, then turns around and tells us how Schedule III 100% potent Marinol is so safe and effective.

Fact 5: Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget. Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction, government spending on drug control is minimal.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the United States has wasted billions of dollars in its anti-drug efforts. But for those kids saved from drug addiction, this is hardly wasted dollars. Moreover, our fight against drug abuse and addiction is an ongoing struggle that should be treated like any other social problem. Would we give up on education or poverty simply because we haven’t eliminated all problems? Compared to the social costs of drug abuse and addiction—whether in taxpayer dollars or in pain and suffering—government spending on drug control is minimal.

The "Legalization Lobby's" budget, in green, vs. the DEA's budget, in red. What's that, you don't see much green? Yeah, neither do we!

Finally, something sort or true from the DEA: “Drug control spending is a minor portion of the U.S. budget.”  At $15.5 billion compared to the overall fiscal year budget of $3.7 trillion, they’re right.  The entire drug war budget doesn’t even equal  the single “Military Construction” line ($16.9 B) in the Pentagon’s $548 billion budget.

But then they pivot that fact to the falsehood that saving money on law enforcement and making money in tax revenues by regulating marijuana markets would not match the gross expenses we’d suffer from our kids becoming slaves to drug addiction.  Never mind that they just ignored the previous point from the 1999 IOM Report about the gateway theory – what they are telling you is that legal marijuana users will cost society more than it saves and earns from taxation.

Canadian study of costs per substance user per year

To bolster this point, drug warriors like to point out that “sin” taxes on alcohol and tobacco only bring in a fraction of money compared to the measurable social costs of alcoholism and tobacco cancers.  It’s another example of starting from a fact and pivoting to a falsehood.  Alcohol and tobacco cost society a lot of money because (a) they’re addictive (see 1999 IOM Report above) and (b) they can kill you (see therapeutic index above).  A Canadian study on the annual health costs of one tobacco, alcohol, or cannabis user were $800, $165, and $20, respectively, while the enforcement costs on tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis per user were $0, $153, and $328, respectively.  In essence, Canada is spending $328 per toker to save $20 in health care costs!  Those numbers must be worse in America.

But set aside the numbers for a moment and just use some common sense.  If cannabis users cause such a great social harm that they are a cost burden to society, we are costing society right now.  It’s not as if nobody smokes pot now and suddenly legalization on the West Coast will create a country full of 22 million pot smokers imposing a new burden on society.  I’ve broken down this cost argument before, but basically whatever we cost now (some number far less than alcohol or tobacco, certainly), we’d cost less once you’ve made some tax revenue off of us.  The California Board of Equalization estimates $1.4 billion in revenues from legalization, so there would have to be $1.4 billion-worth of new pot smokers recruited and old tokers puffing more for this theory to make any sense at all.  If California doubled its current 2.3 million tokers after legalization, those 2.3 million new tokers would have to cost the state $608 each to eat up the tax revenues.

For comparison’s sake, according to the UC San Francisco Institute on Health and Aging, alcohol abuse costs California $17.8 billion and kills 13,000 Californians annually.  The NSDUH State Reports tell us that 62.5% of Californians 18 and older use alcohol, which works out to 17.1 million drinkers.  That division works out to a drinker costing California $1,041 each.

So in order to swallow this whopper, we need to believe that a legalized toker will cost California 60% as much as a legal drinker, when the studies show that in Canada a legalized toker would cost about 6% as much as a legal drinker.

Fact 6: Legalization of drugs will lead to increased use and increased levels of addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.

Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990.

Again, see Allen St. Pierre’s deconstruction of the Alaska story, and remember that the same DEA that cited the 1999 IOM Report above that said marijuana use doesn’t lead to hard drug addiction is now telling you West Coast legalization of cannabis will lead to increased addiction.

When we look at the experience of thirteen states that have decriminalized marijuana and the fourteen states that have legalized medical use of marijuana, we find the DEA’s theory blown to bits.  In fact, that same 1999 IOM Report cited by the DEA above even concluded, “In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use.”

Fact 7: Crime, violence, and drug use go hand-in-hand.

Crime, violence and drug use go hand in hand. Six times as many homicides are committed by people under the influence of drugs, as by those who are looking for money to buy drugs. Most drug crimes aren’t committed by people trying to pay for drugs; they’re committed by people on drugs.

60% of the revenue for Mexican murderers comes from marijuana prohibition

Drugs, drugs, drugs… what does this have to do with cannabis?  The notion of a cannabis user deprived of weed and jonesing so bad he commits a crime to get the money for weed is ridiculous and the idea that cannabis users are driven to crime by the effects of cannabis is ludicrous.  Every study (like this one) that looks at violence and marijuana finds that cannabis use tends to inhibit violence by its users.

The only violence commonly attributed to marijuana is directly caused by its prohibition.  Mexican drug syndicates are not murdering 18,000 people over a three year span to protect their breweries, vineyards, beer and wine trucks, and hops and tobacco crops.  The only crime commonly attributed to marijuana use is the plundering of munchies from the fridge.

Fact 8: Alcohol has caused significant health, social, and crime problems in this country, and legalized drugs would only make the situation worse.

The Legalization Lobby claims drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol. But drunk driving is one of the primary killers of Americans. Do we want our bus drivers, nurses, and airline pilots to be able to take drugs one evening, and operate freely at work the next day? Do we want to add to the destruction by making drugged driving another primary killer?

No, I actually claim that cannabis is far safer than alcohol, see the therapeutic index data above.  This is another talking point that pivots from a fact (drunk driving is a serious problem) to a falsehood (the implied threat that legalization of cannabis would lead to more highway fatalities).

Nobody's suggesting you hot-box your ride and see how well you do on the test... but you will out-perform a drinker.

First of all, the US Dept. of Transportation fact sheet on cannabis states, “Effects from smoking cannabis products are felt within minutes and reach their peak in 10-30 minutes. Typical marijuana smokers experience a high that lasts approximately 2 hours.”  So if the bus driver, nurse, and airline pilot want to smoke a joint before bed and drive, nurse, or fly me the next day, I’m not at all worried; no more so than if they decide to have a glass of wine the night before work.

Then we have to remember that if cannabis smokers are driving, they are driving now.  If pot smoking were such a threat on our roadways we’d have seen the bodies pile up by now.  Numerous studies have confirmed what we all know:

• Drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to follow less closely to the vehicle in front of them;
• Drivers tend to decrease speed following cannabis inhalation;
• Drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana;
• Drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for high concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml).

In other words, even the highest cannabis-using driver is less dangerous than an alcohol-buzzed driver who is still below the per se impairment limits (0.08%) for alcohol.

Fact 9: Europe’s more liberal drug policies are not the right model for America.

The Legalization Lobby claims that the “European Model” of the drug problem is successful. However, since legalization of marijuana in Holland, heroin addiction levels have tripled. And Needle Park seems like a poor model for America.

Compared to Americans, Dutch teenagers use marijuana at half the rates, even though it is sold openly in coffeehouses

The Dutch began their policy of cannabis tolerance in 1976.  According to the 2008 EMCDDA National Report for The Netherlands, lifetime prevalence of heroin use was 0.3% in 1997 and 0.2% in 2001.  I looked all over the DEA’s website and press releases for 2001 looking for them to claim that Dutch cannabis tolerance has led to a one-third decrease in heroin use, but I never found it.  Prevalence of heroin use in 2005 was reported to be 0.6%, which would be triple the 2001 figure, but only double the 1997 figure.

But once again, the DEA cited the 1999 IOM Report above that tells us smoking pot doesn’t lead to heroin addiction, so I’m not sure what the DEA’s point is.  It also doesn’t help their case that their heroin use rates are less than half of American heroin use rates (1.52% lifetime prevalence).

Fact 10: Most non-violent drug users get treatment, not jail time.

The Legalization Lobby claims that America’s prisons are filling up with users. Truth is, only about 5 percent of inmates in federal prison are there because of simple possession. Most drug criminals are in jail—even on possession charges—because they have plea-bargained down from major trafficking offences or more violent drug crimes.

"The fact is that finding a first-time. non-violent offender in prison for marijuana is like finding a unicorn." -- John Walters, former drug czar, on the 11,200 Marijuana Unicorns in a cage right now.

Oh, only 1 out of 20 of the 2.3 million people we imprison are there for simple possession?  My math tells me that’s 115,000 Americans in a cage for their personal use of drugs.  The Sentencing Project determined that 11,200 of those Americans are in a cage for simple marijuana possession alone.  Of course, this is just federal prison we’re talking about, when most marijuana users are processed through city and county jails and housed in state prisons.

Another bit of falsehood pivoted to from these imprisonment facts is that pronouncement that most “drug criminals” are plea-bargaining down from more serious charges.  Often those are “intent to distribute” charges filed when a cannabis user makes the mistake of keeping separate strains in separate bags (multiple bags in the eyes of the law means you must be selling), “conspiracy” charges filed against cannabis users who “go in” with other cannabis users to split the cost of expensive cannabis, and “manufacture” charges filed when a cannabis user grows his own instead of participating in the black market.

But whether people are serving a day, 29 years, or 93 years for marijuana charges is irrelevant; it is the the arrest for marijuana possession itself that causes the harms to the user irrespective of any stay in a jail cell:

• If you’re convicted or enter a plea, you’ll be on probation and mandatory Urinalysis Tests will be performed.
• A conviction could impact child custody issues in family court.
• An arrest for Possession with Intent to Distribute or an arrest for the Manufacture of plants may result in the State attempting to Forfeit your home, your car, your cash and other assets which they can do even if charges are later dismissed or you are acquitted at trial! This heinous law is know as “Asset Forfeiture”.
• A conviction can impact Federally insured student loans
• A felony conviction deprives you of the right to vote
• A felony conviction deprives you of the right to possess firearms
• A conviction can get you tossed out of government subsidized housing
• A conviction can impair your ability to obtain food stamps and other welfare benefits
• Your ability to ever adopt children will be jeopardized
• You will be denied entry into Canada and possibly other countries
• A misdemeanor conviction remains on your record and available to the public for three years before it can be expunged, which may have an impact on current or future employment
• A felony conviction remains on your record and available to the public for five years before it can be expunged, which may have an impact on current or future employment.

The DEA is terrified because there is a legitimate shot for the voters to legalize marijuana use, manufacture, and sales in one, possibly two, and maybe even three West Coast states this year.  If this bit of reefer madness is the best counter they have to offer, I really like our chances!

(Highbrid Nation) Yesterday I heard about two high profile celebrities caught wilding out while in their cars. Nas has been charged of driving while under the influence of marijuana stemming from a routine traffic stop back in September. Then there’s Minnesota Vikings animal status running back, Adrian Peterson who was issued a speeding citation last weekend for driving 109 mph on a suburban Minneapolis highway with a posted speed limit of 55 MPH.

While AP was only issued a citation, charges are pending against Nas who was arrested after he flunked a field sobriety test. The arresting officer said he observed “eyelid tremors in both eyes and body tremors.” after noticing a smell of weed inside his car. In his report he said Nas had “a green tongue with raised taste buds.”

So my question is… Who was more wrong? Does it even matter?

There are few studies on the relative impact of cannabis on driving ability and nobody would argue that you should blaze up a blunt and get behind the wheel. Or eat cheeseburgers or send text messages or put on mascara, for that matter.

However, when you read one study in Britain reported by New Scientist magazine, there may be truth to your friends’ notion that weed is safer than alcohol:

In the study, cannabis significantly affected only one criterion, known as tracking ability. Volunteers found it more difficult to hold a constant speed and follow the middle of the road accurately while driving around a figure-of-eight loop.

However, volunteers drinking the equivalent of a glass of wine fared worse than those who had smoked a joint.

[D]rivers on cannabis tended to be aware of their intoxicated state, and drove more cautiously to compensate. Indeed, doped-up volunteers often rated themselves as being more impaired than police surgeons brought in to evaluate their sobriety.

The problem in this debate is once we bring cannabis into it, ignorance reigns supreme. We have a society that tolerates a certain level of impairment while driving. There is a .08 blood-alcohol limit in the United States, which recognizes that there will be some people driving with <.08 BAC and they aren’t necessarily impaired. (.08 limits are called per se impairment, meaning no matter how well you drive, at .08 you’re impaired. It doesn’t mean that at .07 you’re not impaired, however; it just means that at .07 you’re not automatically deemed to be impaired, the state has to prove it.) It’s a sensible solution that realizes that “zero tolerance” for drinking and driving is an impossible and unnecessary standard.

But when we consider that driving marijuana smoker, suddenly there are only two states, sober and high, with people who’ve never smoked or maybe smoked irresponsibly when young imagining that one puff of the reefer moves you immediately from sober to red-eyed Cheetos-craving couch-lock.

Consider Irv Rosenfeld, the federal medical marijuana patient* who just set the Guinness World Record for smoking his 115,000th lifetime joint. He quite openly smokes his government marijuana while driving (his prescription legally allows him to) and insists that it has negligible impairing effect.

There is evidence that drivers with >5ng/ml of THC in the blood (use within past 1-3 hours) do have an increased risk of accident. However, there is also evidence that alcohol-using drivers at .05 BAC (well below .08 per se impairment) were bigger driving risks than very stoned (>5ng/ml) drivers.

My personal bottom line? If my choices for a ride home are a drunk and a stoner, I’ll ride with the stoner.

Now, as to Nas vs. Adrian Peterson. At 109 MPH, you are covering about 160ft/sec. If Nas was driving the speed limit while high, he was going 55 MPH, or 80ft/sec. If both have to dodge something on the road, Peterson has half the time Nas has to do it. I’m willing to believe that Peterson has quick reaction times and that Nas was impaired, but I can’t believe Peterson is going to be twice as quick as Nas. If you ask me, Peterson is far more guilty of endangering public safety, because he willingly chose to increase the risk to self and others by behaving in a reckless manner. Stoned Nas might have been a danger if he were unable to react quickly enough, but sober Peterson was a danger by his actions.

By the way, the DUI charges against Nas were dismissed because the drug test came back negative.

*You do know that there are four Americans remaining in the Federal IND program, a.k.a. federal medical marijuana, that ran from 1978-1991, right? Yes, the same government that tells you there is no such thing as medical marijuana ships 9-oz tins of 300 pre-rolled government joints to four surviving members of this federal program.

I think the lesson here is: don’t drive stoned, but if you do, don’t stop to switch drivers!

“In a last ditch effort to push the bad “zero-tolerance” DUI bill through the Kentucky Legislature, proponents of SB 5 have now attached this misguided legislation to yet another House bill – HB 315 – in the form of a floor amendment.  HB 315 SFA1 now joins HB 369 SFA1 as the vehicle for a horrible proposal that would punish the prior use of controlled substances like marijuana with an automatic DUI conviction, regardless of whether the driver was actually impaired.”

Once again we urge you to call your Kentucky legislators and let them know what a bad idea “zero tolerance” is and that this bill will guarantee that innocent people will be prosecuted.