Science continues to explain me.

The “Just Say No” generation was often told by parents and teachers that intelligent people didn’t use drugs. Turns out, the adults may have been wrong.A new British study finds children with high IQs are more likely to use drugs as adults than people who score low on IQ tests as children. The data come from the 1970 British Cohort Study, which has been following thousands of people over decades. The kids’ IQs were tested at the ages of 5, 10 and 16. The study also asked about drug use and looked at education and other socioeconomic factors. Then when participants turned 30, they were asked whether they had used drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin in the past year.

Researchers discovered men with high childhood IQs were up to two times more likely to use illegal drugs than their lower-scoring counterparts. Girls with high IQs were up to three times more likely to use drugs as adults. A high IQ is defined as a score between 107 and 158. An average IQ is 100. The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Read more: http://www.kitv.com/family/29768928/detail.html#ixzz1dpZNWWd2

The researchers hypothesize that intelligent kids are more likely to try drugs because they’re more likely to seek new experiences (ding!), feel bored in school (ding!), or cope with feeling different (ding!).  But I think there is another obvious explanation at work: intelligent kids make intelligent decisions.

All our lives we are saturated with cultural messages extolling the virtues of drink.  Every day we are bombarded with commercials for the next magic pill.  So if we take it for granted that (a) humans have a natural innate desire to alter consciousness and (b) our culture promotes the use of drugs and alcohol to alter consciousness, then it follows that (c) a person making an informed choice as to how they’ll alter their consciousness will pick the safer drugs.

The confound in this hypothesis is the report here says “more likely to use illegal drugs… such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin.”    Since most “drugs” being used are “marijuana”, I’m assuming the smarter kids make the smarter choice to smoke weed, but I can’t tease out the IQ vs. cocaine and heroin alone, so it is hard to tell.

I can only go from my own experience.  I was one of those “gifted and talented” kids.  I was kicked ahead a grade in school, placed the 2nd-highest on the citywide Iowa skills test, always made honor roll and took college courses beginning my junior year.  That was the same time I began drinking alcohol.  From age 16 to age 22 my academic performance plummeted and I eventually flunked out of college with a GPA of 1.88 and a BAC of 0.24.

Then at age 22 I smoked my first joint.  My initial thought was “THIS is drugs?!?”  I was so amazed that the herb didn’t give me a hangover, didn’t make me puke, didn’t turn me belligerent, and left me feeling great the next day and yet, the alcohol I’d been chugging was the legal drug.  My drinking tapered off to almost nothing as I became friendlier with the ganja.

Unfortunately, having been lied to about marijuana I figured that I had been lied to about cocaine and methamphetamine as well.  As a curious and thrill-seeking young man, I tried them both.  Meth damn near killed me and as I recovered from an emergency surgery to save my life I pledged to stay away from the hard drugs.  That included the oxycontin and vicodin the doctors prescribed post-surgery; I treated my pain with cannabis, which also beat back the withdrawals from the meth.  Cannabis saved my life from yet another hard drug, first alcohol, then meth… if anything, it was my gateway away from hard drugs.

So I think the study isn’t whether smart kids are more likely to do drugs… it’s that smart kids are as likely to do drugs as anyone else, they just pick the safer ones.

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-01-12.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Canada’s newly adopted civil asset forfeiture laws netting $15 million in British Columbia
2. Texas lawmakers introduce decriminalization bill for marijuana
3. Fresno man convicted of manslaughter for shooting medical marijuana thief
4. Washington lawmakers introduce bills to protect patients and provide dispensaries

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Grateful Dread Public Radio at http://gdreadradio.net, a 24-hour community service Internet radio station proud to carry NORML SHOW LIVE

• Irie Wednesday: Pato Banton – “Sensimilla”

Cannabis Science with Dr. Mitch Earleywine

Embed Code:

<embed src="http://player.stickam.com/flashVarMediaPlayer/190638549"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale"
allowFullScreen="true" width="400" height="300" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed>

• Addressing Jared Loughner, the Arizona shooter, and his use of cannabis and whether that contributed to his psychoses

Radical Rant

Embed code:

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="300"
src="http://player.stickam.com/flashVarMediaPlayer/190638620" allowfullscreen="true"
wmode="transparent"></embed>

• Cliff Kincaid’s Reefer Madness about Jared Loughner, marijuana and schizophrenia, and NORML


Embed Code:

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" height="300"
src="http://player.stickam.com/flashVarMediaPlayer/190638833" allowfullscreen="true"
wmode="transparent"></embed>

• The Top Ten Drugs in 2010 That Were More Harmful Than Cannabis

Israel may begin distributing medical marijuana though the country’ pharmacies as early as next spring if a recent recommendation by the Israeli Health Ministry Committee is accepted. Last week the Israeli Health Ministry committee on medical marijuana recommended that marijuana should be added to the list of medicinal drugs distributed throughout the countries pharmacies. If the recommendation is accepted by the ministry, medical marijuana could be available in pharmacies in six months

Go here to see the original:
Israel Expands Their Medical Marijuana Program

From Tampabay.com 29 Apr 09 – The House just unanimously approved a bill that would create greater safeguards for police informants — nearly a year after the death of Florida State University grad Rachel Hoffman.

“Depending on your age, Rachel could have been your sister and Rachel could have been your daughter,” said Rep. Peter Nehr, R-Tarpon Springs, the bill sponsor. “Rachel Hoffman’s death was unnecessary and unneeded.”

But the bill (HB 271) has lost some of its force after law enforcement groups complained provisions would hurt the widespread use of informants. Hoffman’s parents, who watched from the House gallery, say they will fight to strengthen the legislation next year. Among their wishes: That people in drug treatment programs not be used as informants.

Hoffman agreed last April to become a police informer after officers found marijuana and ecstasy in her Tallahassee apartment. The 23-year-old was found dead of gunshots on May 9 after police gave her $13,000 to buy 1,500 ecstasy pills, cocaine and a gun from suspected drug dealers. Two men have been arrested.

Rachel Hoffman was a bright young Florida State University graduate arrested for possession, and subsequently forced into drug deal by Tallahassee Police who unintentionally arranged her brutal murder. (Just a reminder for our readers that on issues related to marijuana, police are NOT your protector, they are your oppressor).

As crazy as this sounds, that is exactly what police did. They arranged for her to meet several known violent criminals, left her completely alone with them, the criminals killed her, and now she’s dead. No charges have been filed against any of the law enforcement officers that unintentionally arranged her murder.

If you are ever asked, compelled, or ordered to participate in an undercover narcotics operation as the result of a “deal” you’ve made with the DA, you need to understand they do NOT have your best interested in mind. Their only concern is “the bust”, above and beyond your safety. Your concern should be your safety above everything else. Rachael Hoffman would still be alive today and would likely be finishing her culinary school this spring if she would have said, “no” to being a narc.

A new Time article entitled, “Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work?” examines the practical theory of how decriminalization and use, when applied to a society properly, can have resounding success; and that is exactly what is being praised for the country of Portugal.

First, let me explain the Portugal model and put it into perspective. As we all know, with the exception of thirteen states that have medical Marijuana laws, the sale and cultivation of marijuana is illegal in the United States under both state laws and federal laws. The laws may vary from state to state, but typical first time possession varies from a civil fine to a year of incarceration.

Contrary to what one might hear in the news, in The Netherlands marijuana is also a crime. The difference in The Netherlands is the Dutch have decided not to enforce those laws because it’s in contrast what the people desire. However, when the Dutch decide to go after a particular grow operation or cannabis shop, they have full charge of the law behind them to do as they please.

The Portugal model is the only one of it’s kind in Europe because they were the first European country to remove all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs including marijuana. And they have been completely legal since 2001!

Portugal

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal’s drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%.

The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%.

According to the Time article, a CATO study concludes that Portugal’s legalization program is a resounding success having reduced overall drug use, HIV cases, and cutting addiction rates by half across the board with all hard (addictive) drugs.

This is an extremely unique report because Portugal, unlike other countries, didn’t just “dabble” in decriminalization for a select group or demographic, they simply LEGALIZED EVERYTHING.

Currently in Portugal,

If an individual is caught in possession of a modest quantity of drugs (below ten daily doses), and police have no further suspicions or evidence that more serious offenses such as sale or traffic are involved, the drug will be seized and the case transmitted to a local Commission composed of 3 members (a lawyer, and two from a range of doctors, social assistants, and psychologists), supported by a technical team. The Commission meets the person in order to evaluate his/her situation and with the aim of eventually diverting the person from prosecution or sending them to treatment. If the user presents evidence that use is occasional or regular, but not habitual (addicted), the proceedings are dropped”.

By embracing the idea that a nation’s drug problem is a health and human services issue, not a law enforcement problem, Portugal helped to reallocate financial resources from law enforcement to address the underlying issues of the health effects of addiction. By doing so, Portugal removed the criminal element behind their illicit drug industry.

In contrast, The Netherlands still experiences a measurable amount of crime related to the illicit cannabis (Europeans refer to marijuana as cannabis) market because they still have laws against the manufacture and sale of cannabis. California also isn’t exempt, the state still sees crime as a result of marijuana being an illegal substance (federally and state without proper authorization). As long as the United States has a Prohibition in place, we will continue to battle cartels and crime on all fronts.

Although Portugal is a smaller country, initiatives like those Portugal put into place could also be put into place in this country within our communities.

Like removing a pot of boiling water from the stove; if you remove crime from Marijuana, you wouldn’t have any crime to fight.

Could Portugal’s solution serve as a model to the United States?

Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal’s, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of it’s prisoners”.

Let me simplify Senator Jim Webb’s proposal:

It asks for a National Commission to discuss and propose policy for prison reform.

It’s that simple.

I think it’s finally time to have this conversation. Don’t you? Contact your representative and affirm your support for Senator Webb’s proposal today.

As my British friends say, “spot on!”  Radley Balko at The Agitator has nailed it with a sledgehammer:

Dear America,

I take it back. I don’t apologize.

Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months per year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture.

Go read the whole thing, it’s brilliant, especially the “let’s see you rationalize in your next lame ONDCP commercial how the greatest motherfucking swimmer the world has ever seen . . . is also a proud pot smoker” part.  The comments are pretty good, too, especially this one from Eric Ogunbase:

You know who I feel bad for? Everyone who competed against him in the pool.

“You mean I’ve been training my whole life for these events and I STILL got my ass kicked by a dude who smokes the chronic?!”

Also, my diary at DailyKos could use some comments and recommendations.  Let’s bump this one up!

THIS is the astonishing picture which could destroy the career of the greatest competitor in Olympic history.

In our exclusive photo Michael Phelps, who won a record EIGHT gold medals for swimming at the Beijing games last summer, draws from a bong.

And after sporting chiefs announced laws which mean four-year bans for drug-taking, Phelps’ dreams of adding to his overall 14 gold medal tally at the 2012 games in London could already be OVER.

Those dreams seemed the last thing on his mind when he puffed from the bong during two days of partying with students last November, a quiet time in the swimming calendar when athletes would not expect to get tested for drugs.

As he basked in his hero status, Phelps knocked back beers and shots of spirits. And when a student offered him the glass bong engraved with red writing, he did not hesitate, says our source.

Our source said: “You could tell Michael had smoked before. He grabbed the bong and a lighter and knew exactly what to do.

“He looked just as natural with a bong in his hands as he does swimming in the pool. He was the gold medal winner of bong hits. Michael ended up getting a little paranoid, though, because before too long he looked like he was nervous and ran out of the place.”

The US Olympics Committee, who have pledged to clamp down on drug use, refused to comment, as did USA Swimming and Phelps’ coach Bob Bowman.

More surprising still was the World Anti-Doping Agency’s refusal to comment, given that they introduced the four-year ban on sport’s drug users.

Spokesman Clifford Bloxham offered us an extraordinary deal not to publish our story, saying Phelps would become our columnist for three years, host events and get his sponsors to advertise with us.

In return, he asked that we kill Phelps’ bong picture. Bloxham said: “It’s seeing if something potentially very negative for Michael could turn into something very positive for the News of the World.”

So, you wanna explain to me how marijuana smoking will make one a lethargic, unmotivated loser who will never get anywhere in life?  This should be fun, watching sponsors and Olympic and USA Swimming officials trip all over themselves.  I expect to see a special exemption or a sudden new rule that lets firt time offenders skate with some sort of class and community service.  Does anybody really think they are going to end Michael Phelps’ career, the greatest Olympian ever, and a huge marketing and endorsement cash cow, for a picture of him doing something that isn’t even criminal in thirteen states?

“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
April 16, 1963

Today our nation honors what would’ve been this week the eightieth birthday of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., on the eve of the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of these United States.  I was sixty-four days old when an assassin’s bullet cut down Dr. King in the prime of his life.  Today I am six-hundred forty days older than Dr. King when he was killed.  Tomorrow I will see something few people my age and older thought we’d ever see, yet something Dr. King had dreamed from the start.

There remains a grave injustice to be battled, the most unjust of laws to be disobeyed, a law that by its definition is not rooted in eternal law and natural law: the man made code that declares nature itself to be illegal, the prohibition on cannabis.  Yet when I mention marijuana law reform in the context of the great civil rights struggles in America, so many are quick to dismiss me with snickers of derision.  ”You just want pot legal so you can get high!” is a common refrain.

Marijuana law reform is a civil rights struggle.  I will not attempt to equate this struggle to those of minorities, women, or gays and lesbians; however, there are some parallels among our fight and theirs and, indeed, some threads of drug law injustice are woven directly into the struggles of these groups.  The prohibition of drugs was one of the tools of oppression – the “Negroes” for their cocaine, the “Chinamen” for their opium, and the Mexicans for their marihuana.  It remains so today – while people use drugs at about the same rate regardless of race, African-Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and serve longer sentences for drug use than white people.

Aside from the racist nature of the origins and applications, cannabis prohibition itself is an unjust law.  First consider that it isn’t merely against the law to possess, cultivate, traffic, buy, and consume marijuana – it is against the law to be marijuana.  Federal and state law enforcement spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours flying helicopters attempting to spot cannabis growing out in the wild.  Ninety-eight percent of what is seized is known as “feral hemp”, which is wild ditchweed with unsmokably-low levels of THC.  Officials rip up and destroy every plant they see whether it is owned or tended by any human, whether or not it could possibly intoxicate any human.   Logically, then, the ultimate goal of marijuana prohibition is not to simply stop humans from using it for intoxication, but to eradicate the species cannabis sativa L. from the earth!

Think of that: our official policy is the extinction of a species of life.  Certainly that’s not entirely new.  We’re dedicated to the extinction of all manner of microscopic life, after all, but that is a justifiable policy for self-preservation – we kill bugs that kill us.  I cannot think of another plant or animal we treat like cannabis.  Deadly plants like nightshade and belladonna are legal, annoying plants like poison ivy and poison oak are legal, even intoxicating plants like coca and poppy are legal when cultivated for prescription medications.  But the cannabis plant, the plant that cannot kill you is completely illegal*.  The plant that can provide the food, clothing, shelter, and medicine humans need to survive is illegal.  Nature itself is illegal.  How much more contrary to eternal law and natural law could this unjust prohibition law be?

The fight against cannabis prohibition, against this unjust law, is a civil rights fight.  This declaration will offend some people who will point to four centuries of slavery and Jim Crow, to lynchings and cross burnings, and to beatings and firehoses and condemn my declaration as making light of the plight of those who were truly oppressed.  I do not make light of those struggles, but I also recognize that civil rights are not a zero sum game and the degree and manner in which one is being oppressed are not what make the fight against oppression a just one.  Dr. King dreamed of a day when children would be judged by not by the color of their skin but the content of their character; I dream of a day when workers are judged not by the metabolites in their urine but the quality of their work.

Later in King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he writes:

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. …

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. …

The unjust law of marijuana prohibition is difference made legal.  The majority compels our minority to forgo our intoxicant, but does not bind itself to forgo their intoxicant.  The majority compels our minority forgo our medicine, but does not bind itself to forgo their medicine.  The majority compels our minority to forgo their religious sacrament, but does not bind itself to forgo their religious sacrament.  The majority compels our minority to forgo our source of food, fuel, and fiber, but does not bind itself to forgo their sources.

The majority may argue that they do not prohibit intoxication, medication, religious sacrament, or food, fuel, and fiber cultivation, so long as it doesn’t involve marijuana.  This to me sounds like the argument against same-sex marriage rights, that gays and lesbians are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as everybody else.  If we are given a right, but then proscribed from exercising that right in the manner that benefits us without a valid reason from the majority, it is not really a right.  When intoxication, medication, and sacrament are legal rights, but we are proscribed from using a demonstrably safer intoxicant, medicine, and sacrament, that is difference made legal.

No, we do not face the firehoses and the dogs and the lynchings, nor do we suffer in as great of numbers as did the African Americans Dr. King so graciously led in the years before my birth.  Our oppression is more subtle and codified into laws that restrict our housing, employment, and educational opportunities.  We do not tremble in fear of the midnight ride of white-robed vigilante Klansmen; our terror comes in the form of midnight no-knock raids of body-armored SWAT teams.

Like the civil rights struggles of the past, we work to change laws that oppress people, laws that enjoy support from the majority and are rationalized by tradition, religion, and junk science.  Unlike the civil rights struggles of the past, our constituency is an invisible group defined by lifestyle, not genetics.  That choice to use cannabis should not disqualify our fight to be treated as equals under the law.  After all, the choice to worship the God of your understanding is not genetic, it is a lifestyle choice as well, and our law recognizes that one cannot be discriminated against for that choice.  In fact, it is a bit ironic that one’s choice of God, a belief that cannot be proven by science to beneficial, is a protected right, yet one’s choice of cannabis, a plant that can be proven by science to be beneficial, is a federal crime.

The freedom to worship, of course, is an explicit right recognized by our First Amendment, but its foundation is in the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, among them being Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.  If that last one – the Pursuit of Happiness – doesn’t give me the right to smoke a joint so long as I don’t affect anyone else’s Life and Liberty, then the Constitution isn’t worth the hemp paper on which it was drafted.

Also from King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he writes:

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Today’s freedom fighters are the people like Eddy Lepp and Charles Lynch, providing aid and comfort to the sick and dying by growing and supplying them with medicine, only to face the rest of their natural lives behind bars because what they did was “illegal”.

Today’s “whites-only” establishments are the “drug-free” workplaces keep cannabis users confined to low-paying part-time or temp service jobs, while the rest of the workers are allowed all the alcohol, nicotine, and prescription medications they desire.

Today’s lynchings are the Rachel Hoffmans and Jonathan Magbies who are murdered by police negligence, solely over their use of cannabis.  Today’s institutionalized discrimination is the over 20 million in my lifetime whose lives are marked with the scarlet letter of a drug conviction, affecting their child custody, government assistance, college financial aid, employment opportunities, professional licenses, voting rights, and liberty.

The prohibition of cannabis ultimately degrades human personality and is against moral law.  It is an unjust law that cannot stand, and we have a moral responsibility to disobey it.  In doing so, we express the highest respect for the law.  On this day when we recognize the greatness of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream, and on tomorrow, when we see part of that dream fulfilled, remember that we don’t fight to “make pot legal so you can get high”; we fight because the Pursuit of Happiness is our right and caging us for our method of pursuit is unjust.

Smoking pot is our civil right!

Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.

* I recognize that marijuana is legally grown at ElSohly’s lab at the University of Mississippi.  But consider that marijuana’s two purposes – to supply five people grandfathered in to the IND program and to provide marijuana for studies to prove how awful marijuana is to justify its prohibition.  In this metaphor it would be akin to saving a few vials of polio virus so you could use them to make vaccines.