Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2009-11-20.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Irv Rosenfeld: World Record Joint Smoker
2. Could marijuana advertising save Denver papers?
3. Mississippi teacher faces 30 years, $1 million fine, for growing marijuana

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by NORML SHOW LIVE, the Voice of the Marijuana Nation

• Rockin’ Friday: Sean Hayes – “Smoking Signals”

Cannabis Conversations

• Dr. Carl Hart, Dr. Wendy Chapkis, Philippe Lucas, and Paul Armentano (among others) discussing medical marijuana’s future at the DPA Reform Conference in Albuquerque.

In the face of growing calls to tax and regulate marijuana, the prohibitionists are left with few tools in their rhetorical arsenal.  One talking point they’ve trotted out lately goes something like this:

Why not tax pot and alleviate the financial burden of our cities and states? We tax alcohol sales and it earns billions. “The latest studies show that the U.S. collects about $8 billion yearly in taxes from alcohol.” However, this is not the end of the story. “The problem is, the total cost to the U.S. in 2008 due to alcohol-related problems was $185 billion, and the government pays about 38% of that cost (about $72 billion), all due to consequences of alcohol consumption, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism.”

In other words, if we “legalized” marijuana, the damage caused by all the rampant stoners would cost us more than the pot taxes would bring in.

Of course the argument is silly on its face; alcohol use causes serious health problems, violence, and auto wrecks, so it naturally costs society more than it brings in.  Cannabis use is relatively safe and as I’ve argued before, 22 million of us are using it now, so if there is any social cost, why not at least bring in some tax revenue instead of none?

So today I was very happy to see Paul Armentano’s latest piece on the NORML Blog regarding a Canadian study of social costs of cannabis vs. alcohol and tobacco, which concluded:

In terms of costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user. On the enforcement side, costs for cannabis are the highest at $328 per user—94% of social costs for cannabis are linked to enforcement. Enforcement costs per user for alcohol are about half those for cannabis ($153), while enforcement costs for tobacco are very low.

Now that’s Canada, so our US numbers may vary a bit, especially when we’re talking about health care costs.  But in the title of his post, Paul asked me to “do the math”.  So here it is:

• Prohibited Cannabis: Total Cost to Society = (22,000,000 Annual Users * $20) + (22,000,000 Annual Users * $328) = $7,656,000,000

When cannabis is relegalized, that doesn’t mean the $328/user enforcement costs go completely away.  I don’t think they’d be as high as alcohol but not as low as tobacco.  Let’s split the difference and say it ends up costing $75/user in cannabis enforcement costs.

• Relegalized Cannabis (Low Estimate): TCS = (22M * $20) + (22M * $75) = $2,090,000,000

Let’s also imagine that cannabis enforcement does cost as much as alcohol, unreasonable as that may sound:

• Relegalized Cannabis (High Estimate): TCS = (22M * $20) + (22M * $153) = $3,806,000,000

For David H. Kerr and the other prohibitionists’ theory about legal cannabis costing society more than prohibited cannabis, there has to be enough increase in use and users to make up between $5.6 and $3.8 billion dollars in cost.  In the Low Estimate, a cannabis user costs society $95/user; in the High Estimate, $173/user.  So between 22 and 58 million more people would have to smoke cannabis in the US, at rates comparable to the current usage rates, for legal cannabis to cost as much as what we spend on prohibiting it.  That means a 100% to 263% increase in annual user population, or 44 to 80 million annual users, or between 18% and 32% of all US adults.

Now currently, only about 9% of US adults use cannabis annually.  So imagine a room with 25 adults in it.  Right now, about 2 of those adults will smoke pot this year.  Under relegalization, about 2 to 6 more would have to start smoking pot for the TCS to break even.

Then we’d have to consider what happens under a substitution effect; that is, would alcohol and tobacco users lower their use of those substances if they have the choice of legal cannabis?  The alcohol user costs us $318 per year and the tobacco user costs us $800 per year.  Under the Low Estimate, three drinkers are worth close to ten tokers and two smokers are worth close to seventeen tokers; under the High Estimate, the ratios are about 1:2 and 2:9.  If just 1% of the 162.5 million annual drinkers and 70 million annual smokers quit and took up cannabis instead, that’s a savings of over a billion dollars in health and enforcement costs, or another 3.9 to 10 million new tokers we could afford over the 2.3 million new ex-smoker/drinker tokers we’ve added.

In other words, in order for legal cannabis to cost society more than illegal cannabis, a whole hell of a lot more people will have to be smoking it, and that’s even under grossly inflated estimates of legal marijuana’s enforcement costs.

Advocates of reforming marijuana laws will convene in Columbia Nov. 7, according to a news release from organizers Dan Viets and Sean Randall.

The conference of Missouri NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) seeks to educate attendees about the negative effects of marijuana prohibition and to increase public awareness and support of medical marijuana legislation in Missouri, the news release said.

Rep. Kate Meniners of Kansas City will introduce The Missouri Medical Marijuana Bill in the upcoming legislative session, the release said. If approved, it would protect patients from criminal arrest and prosecution who use medical marijuana with recommendations of their physician, the news release said.

Presentations throughout the day will address a variety of topics, including community organizing, firsthand stories of people using marijuana for medical purposes. Paul Armentano, deputy director of national NORML, will be the keynote speaker. He will speak about the safety and effectiveness of medical marijuana in comparison to other prescription and over-the-counter medications at 6 p.m.

The conference takes place at the Ellis Library Auditorium on the University of Missouri campus. It is free and open to the public. For more information, including a schedule, go to www.joplin-norml.org.

Part I: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/798

Part II: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/799

Part III: http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/800

NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano has sent a follow-up letter to Assemblyman Ammiano that challenges the more egregious allegations from our opponents (like Scott Kirkland’s “18% to 24%” THC average claim) with all the hyperlinky academic study goodness we have come to expect from Paul.

Thank you so much for holding yesterday’s hearing, “Examining the Fiscal and Legal Implication of the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana.” This is just the sort of comprehensive, civil, and intellectual debate that is needed if we are to move marijuana policy forward in California.

Over the course of yesterday’s nearly three hours of testimony there were several questions and allegations raised by both witnesses and members of the Committee. I have noted several of them below and have tried my best to provide accurate responses to them. Please note that I’d be happy to make background materials re: all of these issues available to your office upon request. More comprehensive replies to several of these issues are also available in my book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green, 2009) — a copy of which was handed to you at the conclusion of the hearing.

1) RE: federal surveys on marijuana use: Assemblyman Ammiano asked how these surveys are conducted:

The National Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted annually by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, is “the primary source of statistical information on the use of illegal drugs by the U.S. population. Conducted by the Federal Government since 1971, the survey collects data by administering questionnaires to a representative sample of the population through face-to-face interviews at the respondent’s place of residence.”

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k8nsduh/2k8Results.cfm#1.1

Critics of this survey methodology note that respondents in such settings have historically under reported their usage of alcohol and tobacco by as much as 30 to 50 percent, and arguably under report their use of illicit substances by an even greater margin.

2) Assemblyman Hill asked about other regional marijuana policy regulatory systems and whether these systems have impacted use rates:

I’ve recent drafted a paper reviewing some 30 studies in scientific journals assessing the potential impact of cannabis liberalization and use rates.  I’ve summarized the consensus of the data as follows:

• Strict government legalization/regulation of marijuana is unlikely to increase the public’s use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
• Decriminalization is unlikely to increase the public’s use of marijuana or significantly influence attitudes.
• Free market legalization of marijuana without strict government restrictions on commercialization and marketing is likely to increase marijuana use among the public; however, given that the United States already has the highest per capita marijuana use rates in the world, this increase is likely to be marginal relative to other nation’s experiences.

Here is how the World Health Organization summarized the data in PLOS last year:

Degenhardt et al. 2008. Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: findings from the WHO world mental health surveys. PLOS Medicine 5: 1053-1067.

“Globally, drug use is not distributed evenly, and is simply not related to drug policy. … The U.S. … stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies.  The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the U.S., has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in national rates of illegal drug use.”

Notably, there are significant variations in cannabis regulatory regimes even within U.S. states — where possession is treated as either a felony, criminal misdemeanor, minor misdemeanor, or civil infraction — dependent on the state. Interestingly, a recent SAMHSA report illustrates that several states with the most lenient laws on marijuana possession offenses (e.g., possession is treated as a civil infraction) have some of the lowest comparative use rates (e.g., Nebraska, Mississippi). See: Figure 2.5 Marijuana Use in Past Year among Persons Age 12 or Older. U.S.
Office of Applied Studies, 2009. http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k7State/Ch2.htm#Fig2-5

3) Assemblyman Hagman questioned whether taxes may be collected on an act that is considered to be illegal federally:

Two answers: One, the BOE is already collecting taxes statewide on marijuana sales. Two: many states have enacted drug tax laws, which assess taxes on drug possession and sale activities, and sanction defendants who have not paid a tax preemptively on such endeavors to the state. In fact, the initial federal law outlawing cannabis possession was a Tax Stamp Act.

4) Assemblyman Hagman alleged that marijuana was one of the few products Americans consume that isn’t FDA approved:

Not true; in fact 40 percent of all prescriptions drugs — including all drugs prescribed to minors — are not FDA approved for that specific purpose for that particular population. Further, all clinical trials — including those on medical marijuana, such as those conducted at the California Universities — proceeded with FDA approval.

5) Witness John Standish alleged that taxing marijuana would cost society far more money than it would ever bring in, citing the societal costs of alcohol and tobacco:

The social costs of alcohol and tobacco far outweigh the social costs of marijuana, as the consumption of both substances have a more adverse impact on both the body and on behavior than does marijuana. By contrast, marijuana’s actual “total burden on society” — when quantified — is minimal. A good example of this is the 2007 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study  The Burden of Disease and Injury in Australia. It noted:

“Alcohol harm was responsible for 3.2 percent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia. By contrast, marijuana use was responsible for 0.2 percent.

6) Witness John Standish implied that marijuana use among Britons increased when Parliament downgraded its regulatory classification in 2004:

This allegation is false. Just the opposite result happened.

The Guardian. “Fewer young people using cannabis after reclassification.” October 25, 2007.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/25/drugsandalcohol.immigrationpolicy

“Cannabis use among young people has fallen significantly since its controversial reclassification in 2004, according to the latest British Crime Survey figures published today. The Home Office figures showed the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds who had used cannabis in the past year fell from 25% when the change in the law was introduced to 21% in 2006/07″

7) Witness Sara Simpson alleged that there would be an increased demand for high potency marijuana if cannabis was regulated:

False.

Reinarman et al. 2009. Cannabis policies and user practices: market separation, price, potency, and accessibility in Amsterdam and San Francisco. International Journal of Drug Policy 20: 28-37.

“Decriminalization was associated with a preference for milder cannabis.”

8) Witness Scott Kirkland stated that today’s marijuana averages “18 to 24 percent THC.”

False, and blatantly so. According to the federal government’s own potency data, the average THC in domestically grown marijuana — which comprises the bulk of the US market — is less than five percent, a figure that’s remained unchanged for nearly a decade.

See: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/FullPotencyReports.pdf, page 12

Second, THC — regardless of potency — is virtually non-toxic to healthy cells or organs, and is incapable of causing a fatal overdose. Currently, doctors may legally prescribe a FDA-approved pill that contains 100 percent THC.

Third, when consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2560548?dopt=Abstract Effects of tetrahydrocannabinol content on marijuana smoking behavior, subjective reports, and performance.

9) Witness Kirkland also raised concerns about incidences of DUI cannabis:

I have reviewed this subject extensively, and even was a consultant on this issue for the Canadian Public Health Association’s “Pot and Driving” Media campaign to discourage such irresponsible behavior. Please see my review of the literature and policy suggestions re: this important issue here:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review

Thank you again for your efforts on this issue. I look forward to future debates on marijuana policy and am here to offer my expertise on this issue in any way that helps supports your efforts toward enacting sensible marijuana regulations.

Milkshake: drank!

I’m editing and compressing audio from our NORML National Conference last month in San Francisco as fast as I can.  Here are five items from the conference that are already up at the Special Events feed at http://www.norml.org/rss/normlevents_podcast.xml

Secret Stash - Register to access

(This also means that tonight’s podcast will be posted late – 10pm Pacific time — “R”R)

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2009-10-09.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

1. Rising domestic pot production threatening Mexican drug gang profits
2. California Police Chiefs Association Position Paper on the Decriminalization of Marijuana (Truth Edition)

Daily Toker Tunes by Marijuana Music Awards . com

• “Resin” by The Supervillains

Behind the Headlines with NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano

• The Impact of Legalization presentation at NORML CON 2009

Paul points out that marijuana has no LD-50 rating.  LD-50 means the dose at which 50% of the people taking it will die.  Paul tells us that alcohol, aspirin, and even water has an LD-50 rating.  His point is that while people think marijuana is OK or safe, they have no idea how uniquely safe it is.

Paul relates the story of Cathy Jordan, diagnosed with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), given three years to live in 1986.  She only uses marijuana now and is still alive, the world record longest surviving ALS patient.  So does medical science admit cannabis may help ALS?  No, they think they may have misdiagnosed her in 1986.  Typical.

Now he’s pointing out how THC programs cancer cells to kill themselves without killing the healthy cells.  Why won’t science start testing THC therapy on human cancer patients, when they know so much about what it does to rats?

Check out audio now on http://live.norml.org.

Show 001: Steve Fox (MPP), Mason Tvert (SAFER), & Paul Armentano (NORML) discuss "Marijuana is Safer" book; NORML Exec. Dir. Allen St. Pierre; MMA Fighter Toby "Tigerheart" Grear

I am thrilled to be hosting our debut show tonight at 6pm PT / 9pm ET. I hope you all make it a regular Saturday night ritual.

You can listen to the show live three ways (and no, regular terrestrial or satellite radio is not one of those ways… yet):

1. Point your web browser to http://live.norml.org and follow the links to Show 001.  (Or use the link on the powder-blue BlogTalkRadio player you see there on the right…)
2. Point your mobile phone’s browser to http://m.blogtalkradio.com/norml.  Click the link at the bottom of the page for Shows and Blogs.  Click the link for Show 001. (I’m not completely sure the live show will play this way; it may only allow you to see the blog and comments.  If so, try…)
3. Call 347-994-1810 on your mobile phone.  (”347″ is a New York area code, so long distance charges, if any, would apply.  Probably only an option if you’ve got unlimited minutes and free domestic long distance.)

The show will also be archived about one hour following the live broadcast.  You’ll be able to hear it all week on the embedded player to the right or by subscribing to it as a podcast on iTunes.

Paul Armentano, Mason Tvert, Steve Fox

Guests for our premiere in the first hour are Steve Fox (MPP), Mason Tvert (SAFER), and Paul Armentano (NORML) discussing their new book, “Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?”.  Later in the hour, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre joins the discussion.

Toby "Tigerheart" Grear from True Warrior Fitness

In our 2nd hour, mixed-martial arts champion Toby “Tigerheart” Grear of True Warrior Fitness discusses being banned from fighting professionally in California because of positive tests for his legal medical marijuana.

We’re also taking your calls at the bottom of each hour.  Dial 347-994-1810 to listen in on your phone and press 1 at any time if you’d like to speak to the host or guests.  Your call will be screened and we remind you to have a question ready, keep it short and to the point, and avoid profanity (we’re not FCC regulated on the net, but if we want to take this to terrestrial radio, we need to act like it.)

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.