City Insider : Marijuana hotspots vs. Starbucks — who wins?

There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco than Starbucks Coffee shops. Or at least, so says the Office of National Drug Control Policy in a posting on its official blog, pushingback.com.

The feds contend there are 98 marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco, compared to 71 Starbucks Coffee shops. They even provide a Google map mashup showing the supposed locations of both.

San Francisco’s Department of Public Health, which issues permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, is befuddled by the federal data.

DPH lists 24 dispensaries in the city that either have permits or are trying to obtain one.

When asked for the data used to create the map, [Rafael Lemaitre, a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy,] provided a list with 74 entries for marijuana dispensaries, not the 98 claimed.

Of the 74, six of them don’t list addresses in San Francisco. Five of those say they offer marijuana delivery service to the city, while a sixth is in Los Angeles.

Of those with city addresses, some are clearly marijuana dispensaries, like The Vapor Room on Haight Street. But other listings include 12 Galaxies, the Mission District nightclub that closed in August, and businesses with defunct Web sites and phone numbers that just ring and ring.

The data also has at least one double listing. It includes both ACT UP, the AIDS organization that used to run a dispensary at 1884 Market St., and Market Street Cooperative, which currently operates the dispensary at that location.

Bottom line though: the data the feds turned over listed less than 71 actual marijuana dispensaries in San Francisco, meaning Starbucks wins.

No, bottom line is that the ONDCP has no problem lying the American people in order to maintain its prohibition on cannabis.  In fact, the Drug Czar is actually required to lie to the American people about medical marijuana; it’s in the job description.

But that misses the point, which is, who cares how many dispensaries are in San Francisco?  Did Californians not vote to support medical marijuana?  Is it not legal in the state?  Have the people of San Francisco decided to not allow dispensaries?  Are San Franciscans suddenly rising up to protest the number of dispensaries?  

The Drug Czar continues to push the theme that the states have been “duped” by medical marijuana advocates manipulating the natural compassion for sick people as a Trojan Horse scheme to let freaks get high legally.  First, with a hat tip to Bill Hicks, I love the idea that we pot-smoking dope-legalizers are so effective and clever as to be able to fool voters and legislators in sixteen of the seventeen states and districts where we’ve asked* – it sort of invalidates all that “pot makes you stupid, amotivated, and unsuccessful” talk.

And second I wonder why the Drug Czar never considers that perhaps Californians know exactly what is going on with medical marijuana dispensaries and they like it just fine!  Whoa, people that used to buy dope illegally on the streets and feeding into criminal profits are now buying it in nice secure storefronts with security cameras and feeding into state sales tax revenue.  What a concept.  Whoa, people who used to sneak around and smoke dope on the sly now have to go at least see a doctor and follow a set of rules.    And maybe for every relatively healthy “anxiety” or “insomnia” customer bankrupting a street dealer by buying in a dispensary, there are also a few cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, MS, lupus, fibromyalgia, glaucoma, and epilepsy patients whose lives are remarkably better because they can buy some cannabis without having to rely on a shady character in park.

* Medical marijuana exists in thirteen states, but also passed Arizona and DC, only to be rendered ineffective (long stories).  It also passed the Connecticut legislature, only to be vetoed by the governor.  Only in South Dakota has a medical marijuana initiative gone before the voters and been defeated.

Wow, Paul must have struck a nerve. The Drug Czar’s blog is linking to his debunk of the marijuana potency report:

Setting the Record Straight: Marijuana Potency

Over the past week, the University of Mississippi’s reporting of the highest-ever levels of THC in U.S. marijuana has been picked up by hundreds of media outlets (including some in the UK). We’re pleased that this important health information is getting into the hands of parents. Hopefully, responsible adults will have critical conversations with young people about the serious health consequences associated with today’s pot.

Given the wide reach of the report, it’s no surprise that pro-marijuana lobbyists whose goals are to legalize drugs in the United States have attempted to counter the research-based evidence about increased marijuana potency.

Did you catch how they did that? “Pro-marijuana lobbyists whose goals are to legalize drugs”. They always must tie “cannabis” to “drugs”, because nobody’s that afraid of cannabis, but most everybody fears drugs. Here let me try: It’s no surprise that prohibition-supporting bureaucrats whose goals are to eliminate competition to pharmaceuticals have attempted to propagandize marijuana potency as some sort of health concern. Hey, that’s fun!

Here are two main assertions often made by marijuana advocates and why their claims are off-the-mark:

Claim 1: “…even by the University of Mississippi’s own admission, 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.” (via the HuffingtonPost)

Not exactly. The “domestic” samples analyzed in the University of Mississippi’s report do not represent what’s found in the U.S. market. “Domestic” samples refer to marijuana plants that were found in the process of being grown and were then eradicated by law enforcement in the U.S. The potency of these “domestic” specimens is far lower because those specimens are most often taken from immature plants that never reached full cultivation (maturity) for distribution and consumption in the illegal market.

Oh, you’re counting domestic as stuff grown in the US before it’s harvested? Well, excuse us. Our mistake. If we knew that was how you were defining “domestic”, then we would have pointed out that 98% of your “domestic” seizures are feral hemp (“ditchweed”). You claim that these “domestic” seizures are averaging 5% THC content, but you define “ditchweed” as having virtually no levels of detectable THC.

We have no way of knowing how much of your “domestic” seizures were, in fact, ditchweed. But I’d venture to guess you’re not including ditchweed, because you’re wanting to make a point about consumer marijuana, and nobody is smoking ditchweed. Fair enough… but then you need to explain why you’ve spent $175 million taxpayer dollars since 1984 to eradicate something you don’t count as part of the consumer marijuana “problem”.

The “non-domestic” specimens in the report are from actual DEA street or border seizures, which are a different set of specimens from the “domestic” eradications. These samples more accurately represent the quality of marijuana that’s smoked in the U.S. (The “non-domestic” label has been misinterpreted because the origin of the seized marijuana is not known.)

So, “non-domestic”, then, is the marijuana that has already been harvested and prepared for consumer sale. You don’t really know where any of it actually was grown, whether it was imported or grown here. Why not just call it “growing plant seizures” and “prepared marijuana seizures”. Why publish something so easily misinterpreted?

And why include the “domestic” seizures when, by your own admission, they weren’t ready for the consumer market? A cynic might conclude this carefully chosen wording was designed to stoke fears about “deadly foreign cannabis” so you can seize on xenophobia to bolster the anti-pot case – “Not only is it not your father’s impotent Woodstock weed, it’s not the local weed your uncle still grows in his back yard!”

Claim 2: “If and when consumers encounter unusually strong varieties of marijuana, they adjust their use accordingly and smoke less.”

The research cited in this argument undermines the author’s own claim. The almost 20-year old study found that the effects of the marijuana were greater for the high THC doses of marijuana. Even though the 12 experienced users in the study were titrating, they ended up more intoxicated, and that was with marijuana that only had 1.3 percent versus 2.7 percent THC. One has to wonder what effects the average 9.6 percent THC found in today’s marijuana would have on a naïve user…

How in the world did they get that explanation out of this abstract:

Male subjects (N = 12) with histories of moderate marijuana use smoked ad lib one cigarette containing 0, 1.3, or 2.7% delta 9-THC on separate days. Smoking topography measures revealed smaller puff and inhalation volumes and shorter puff duration for the high marijuana dose compared to the low dose.

…which is something we’ve been pointing out whenever someone claims the harm from marijuana is caused by the smoking of it…

… Active marijuana also increased subjective reports of drug effect over placebo, but not dose dependently. … Thus, although subjects adjusted their smoking of cigarettes varying in THC content, dose-related effects of marijuana were obtained on several measures.

So the people smoking good weed puff less of it, the people smoking bad weed puff more of it, and both groups get higher if they take more hits? OK, but where is the harm? You worry about the naive user puffing some 9.6% THC, but what is going to happen – he gets really high instead of high? It’s not like whiskey vs. beer, where if he chugs whiskey like he chugs beer he’s going to die of alcohol poisoning.

[UPDATE: Dr. Mitch Earleywine emailed me to give me his take, since he's actually read the full report.  He tells me that it basically says that people who smoked pot (either 1.3% or 2.7%) got high and the people who smoked placebo did not, but no matter which pot got smoked, they got equally high.  In other words, the opposite of what the ONDCP is trying to make you think that abstract said.]

Marijuana: Harmless?

As harmless as the 100% potent legal THC you approve of, Marinol. That’s Claim #3 which for some reason you don’t address. We can argue about marijuana’s THC content – 5%, 10%, whatever – but that presumes we accept your premise that more potent marijuana is more harmful, which we can’t when you’re also telling us a 100% potent pill is less harmful and medically useful.

In fact, many of these fears you stoke about using natural cannabis seem to be heightened when using the bar-coded Marinol. Marinol lacks the cannabidiol (CBD) that helps moderate the psychoactive effects of THC, and its oral administration forces the user to wait thirty minutes before they feel the effects. Then they experience both the THC and another liver-metabolized compound – 11-hydroxy-THC – which is four to five times more psychoactive than the natural THC alone. That ride lasts four to six hours, and that’s what you consider safer than smoking marijuana that’s one-tenth as potent and provides immediate feedback for the user.

And let’s never forget that you also approve of a very dangerous recreational intoxicant that you buy at 75% purity in most states and even 90% purity in a couple, one that’s been proven to be incredibly unhealthy to the user and very dangerous to society at large, one whose prohibition caused more crime and violence and despair. Until you can explain to me how my smoking a joint of any potency is different than you sipping a Bacardi and Coke, your concern for my health and safety rings hollow.