Archives for March 2012

The data for pedestrian safety after the Nickerson Street road diet (pdf) is worth looking at. And as someone who supports road diets in general, it’s worth pointing to the good. Pedestrian collisions are down from the average of the last 5 years. But if we’re looking at accident rates to tell us something, we’ll have to factor in the fact that “SDOT installed two new marked crosswalks at Dravus Street and 11th Avenue W” at the same time.

Although, obviously reduction in speeds helps too:

Speed data was recorded between 6th Avenue W and 3rd Avenue W in June, 2007. Prior to the project, the 85th-percentile speeds in both directions exceeded the speed limit: 40.6 mph westbound and 44.0 mph eastbound. Approximately 90 percent of drivers exceeded the speed limit. Speed data was collected at the same location after rechannelization in February, 2011. The 85th percentile declined to 33.1 mph westbound and 33.3 eastbound. After rechannelization, the percent of speeders declined by two-thirds and the percent of drivers exceeding the speed limit by 10 or more miles per hour dropped by more than 90 percent.

Of course I don’t know what’s better for pedestrians, and they surely work in tandem. In any event, those of us who support road diets should talk about the success of Nickerson in terms safety walking the neighborhood. But we should also acknowledge that it’s more complex.

Current and former State Republican Party chairs have two things to say about tomorrow’s G.O.P. caucus:

Here is current Chair Kirby Wilbur with Fox News:

For the first time in decades, Republican caucus-goers in Washington state may have a real say in who runs for president.

“We have always been the ugly sister who never gets invited to the dance,” Washington state Republican Party Chairman Kirby Wilbur said. “But this year we’re the princess, and we really like it.”

And former Chair Chris Vance on KUOW:

Vance explains the candidate who “wins” Washington will have won a non-binding straw poll of caucus-goers. […]

But Vance says the results of the straw poll have nothing to do with which candidate gets the most delegates. And even then, in Washington, delegates aren’t committed to a candidate until they go to the state convention.

“So there is no accurate way to know who has won any delegates from Washington state,” Vance says.

So…tomorrow’s caucus are either: (1) The first time in forever that Washington state actually counts, or (2) a largely meaningless beauty contest.

The truth is somewhere in between. Clearly, whoever wins the beauty contest, will get some inertia and a fundraising boost. A Romney win will help solidify the perception that Romney is inevitable. A Santorum win will throw the contest into chaos until next Tuesday, when everyone will forget us. And a Ron Paul win will make us the laughing stock of the nation for a bit.

Who will win? Several months ago, before there was any polling, I would have said that the G.O.P. sheeple would go for the establishment candidate. In 2008 it was John McCain, who won both the primary and the caucus.

The 2008 primary results were pretty “mainstream” looking with 49.5% going for McCain and 24.1% going to Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul squeaked out 7.7% of the vote.

The 2008 caucus results brought out the fringe side of the state G.O.P. (and some controversy): 25.9% for McCain, 23.5% for Huckabee, and 21.6% for Ron Paul. Now you understand why Paul is focusing on caucus states….

There have been three polls taken this year for the 2012 G.O.P. caucus contest.

A mid-January SurveyUSA poll found Mitt leading the pack with 26%. Second was Newt Gingrich at 22% with Santorum nipping at his heels with 19%. Ron Paul squeaked out 7%.

In mid-February, PPP released a poll that put Santorum on top with 37%, Gingrich second with 20% with Mitt nipping at his heels at 18%. Ron Paul squeaked out 9%.

What a turn-around!

But today PPP released a new poll showing Mitt back on top with 37% and Santorum nipping at his heels with 32%. Ron Paul has surged to 16%, and the smartest man in the world, Newt, tumbling to 13%.

In other words…nobody has any fucking idea what is going to happen tomorrow. The volatility in the polls could be real—pollsters happened to capture the fall of Newt as well as the rise and fall of Santorum and the fall and rise of Mitt over these three polls. Or it could be issues of identifying people who will be caucusing.

From my perspective, the uncertainty adds to the entertainment value.

The uncertainty also provides some incentive for trouble-making—you know, Democrats pretending to be Republicans and showing up to caucus. It’s legal, even if you leave the event with the taint stain of Santorum….

Here’s how you can participate on Saturday (I mean, you don’t want to miss out on the most important and influential Washington state beauty contest in your lifetime, now, do you?) Mitt Romney has a handy set of instructions to help you find your caucus location.

And don’t forget to stock up on popcorn for the post-caucus show. Entertainment is what you should expect from a “beauty contest.”

Lots of retiring politicians in the news the past two days. I’ll chalk it up to the economic rebound, but feel free to offer your own theory….

Rep. Norm Dicks (WA-6) just announced his retirement:

The 18-term representative, first elected in 1976, said he and his wife Suzie “have made the decision to change gears and enjoy life at a different pace.”
[…]

Dicks is the ranking member on the powerful Appropriations Committee, and would become the panel’s chairman if Democrats won control of the House. […]

“Norm Dicks is a true Washington state institution,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement. “But more than that, he is my mentor, my friend, my advisor, my teammate, and my brother. He is our state’s quarterback here in Congress, and I can’t imagine our delegation without him.

Yesterday we also learned of the retirements of state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36) and state Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez-Kenney (D-46).

NORML, one of the oldest and most respected marijuana law reform organizations in the United States, has officially endorsed I-502. As expected, this has created another backlash from those within the reform community who think the bad parts of the bill outweigh any good that comes from having a statewide vote in favor of ending prohibition. In particular, the DUI provisions are what drive much of the opposition, and even though NORML expressed their opposition to its inclusion in the bill, they still support its passage.

My personal position isn’t too much different from NORML’s. I’m pained by the inclusion of the DUI provision, but I-502 is still likely to get my vote. But what’s been troubling to me is how much of the debate over the DUI provision seems to have very little scientific backing and how much of the “science” surrounding this topic appears to be contradictory or just pure nonsense.

To begin to wade through this debate, I want to post a video that illustrates how difficult all of this is to understand:

The video was taken during last year’s Cannabis Freedom March in May. It was during the signature gathering drive and Sensible Washington volunteer Mimi Meiwes was driving her RV around the state rallying support for the effort. Meiwes had driven the vehicle (dubbed the “Canna-bus”) up to Seattle from Kelso, and if you click ahead to 1:30 in the video, you’ll see her driving from Capital Hill to SoDo while being interviewed by the cameraman. I was actually a passenger in the vehicle at the time.

Meiwes is a medical marijuana patient (as she discusses in the video). She uses it throughout the day every day. However, as you can clearly see from the video, despite consuming marijuana that frequently, she’s not impaired at all as she navigates a gigantic RV through Seattle while being interviewed on camera. She continued to drive the Canna-bus across the state several times that spring, and despite using medical marijuana throughout that entire time, her driving ability was never impaired at any point.

I recognize that this is difficult for a lot of people to understand. There’s a strong desire to merely equate alcohol to marijuana in terms of drawing parallels, but the comparison doesn’t hold up. Even an alcoholic who consumes large amounts of booze all the time still gets drunk (even if their tolerance goes up). But individuals who consume large amount of marijuana (usually for medicinal reasons) stop feeling the typical intense psychoactive response that recreational users enjoy.

Taking an objective look at this, there are two main questions and neither one seems to have an easy answer:
– How much active THC does a person like Meiwes have in her system at any one time?
– How much do non-impaired drivers like Meiwes have to fear from a per se DUI?

I was intending only to write about the latter question in this post, but after reading this post from Russ Belville at the NORML blog, I want to start with the former question*.

Before reading Belville’s post, I’d been under the impression that folks who consume large amounts of marijuana will be well over the 5ng/ml active-THC DUI threshold even for many hours after last use. This was based upon what happened when Denver columnist William Breathes had his THC levels checked and discovered that even after 15 hours of abstinence, he still tested at a whopping 13.5ng/ml. But Belville points to a different study that shows something quite the opposite:

For comparison’s sake, Participant N is a 21-year-old obese African-American woman who admits to smoking pot starting at age 9. She admits to smoking a half-ounce per day and had done so that day. She didn’t even have detectable ng/mL when she checked in. Participant L, a man who’d smoked an ounce that day tested at only 0.4ng.

Obviously, something isn’t right here. For those who aren’t up on the measurements, an ounce of marijuana is a lot. A whole lot. Even when I was a 2-3 times a week marijuana user, it would take me about a year to use that much. So this study is saying that someone who smoked several hundred dollars worth of marijuana in a single day only tested at 0.4ng/ml, and another person who smoked half as much had no active-THC in their system at all.

What this study suggests (if it’s accurate) is one of two things. Either the existence of active-THC in one’s system really does fall to near-zero levels quickly after use – or someone has to smoke pounds of marijuana every day to be at 5ng/ml for several hours. Either way, this is clearly not compatible with the data point from Breathes in Denver. Something clearly isn’t correct and I have no way on knowing what it is.

If the study that Belville points to is accurate, though, then the concerns over the DUI provision are totally unwarranted. In fact, people would still be totally free to get baked and drive since most people consume far, far less than the remarkably prolific pot consumers they managed to find for this study. If a person can process an ounce of active-THC within a short period of time, they can easily process a gram or two faster than the officer can take you to the hospital for a blood draw.

But I obviously have my doubts about the accuracy of that study, and I’d love to get some feedback from the comments on what other studies have found. While a lot of people are merely interested in advocacy and propaganda as we approach this historic vote, I want to make sure we have the facts straight. If the DUI provision really does make drivers like Meiwes sitting ducks for the police to saddle with DUI’s, it certainly gives me pause.

[Read more…]

Is anyone going to caucus for president based on The Seattle Times’ endorsement? I don’t think so, and further, I think they realize it. Why else would they open their endorsement (bold mine):

THE 20th, and possibly last, debate among GOP presidential candidates is mercifully over. Washington’s Republican precinct caucuses on Saturday force a choice.

Hmmm. Ah, Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has the most potential in a thin field to represent his party in head-to-head competition with Democratic President Barack Obama.

This is certainly no endorsement of Romney’s candidacy. We share Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna’s obvious ambivalence about making an early commitment.

First off, what does Rob McKenna have to do with anything? Seriously, what? They didn’t even introduce it as anything. They just — what — think everyone who reads their editorials follows Rob McKenna as closely as them? There was no reason to mention him whatever.

Second, congrats for putting some actual snark in the ed page. I mean it when I say it could use more that, even if this time they executed it poorly.

More to the point, I love the phrase “this is certainly no endorsement” in the middle of the endorsement. It’s not like anyone is forcing them to endorse. Literally nobody changed their mind because of what they read in the editorials this morning. Nobody.

– Suck it, Portland.

– And hopefully we’ll get a transportation revenue bill.

– a state capital gains tax would tap into the enormous profits generated by such exclusive investment clubs, generating roughly $700 million a year in new resources for investments in education, health care, and other core economic structures.

– Andrew Breitbart has died.

– And how is Carol doing at the fish stick factory?

– I would totally watch all of these horrible, horrible movies.