Variation in Medical Card Holder Rates in Oregon

[socioecologist]

In November 1998, Oregon voters approved a ballot measure legalizing the cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana for qualified medical patients . Since its inception, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) has experienced significant growth, starting with several hundred patients in 1998 and expanding to nearly 40,000 registered marijuana users today . The explosive development of the program has surprised many, including legislators, law enforcement officials, and the state agency tasked with overseeing it. An interesting trend has emerged under this regime of rapid growth: despite relatively homogenous health statistics for the major afflictions covered under the OMMP, Oregon counties have widely divergent rates of participation in the program.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the rate of cardholders in each county (relative to population) varies significantly. Using 2011 data to construct confidence intervals on cardholder rates leads to a data-driven tripartite division; 8 counties exceed the 95% confidence interval, 10 fall within it, and 18 fall below the 5% confidence interval. This division appears relatively consistent over time; data collection at the county level began in 2005, and since that time a small cadre of counties have consistently ranked ahead of their counterparts. Several southern Oregon counties (Josephine, Curry, Coos, and Douglas) emerge as the de facto flag-bearers for medical marijuana cards, while a handful of other counties (Tillamook, Lincoln, Jackson, and Wasco) also consistently score much higher than their counterparts. Looking at the most extreme example from recent data, top-ranked Josephine county has a cardholder rate more than 9x higher than last-ranked Umatilla county (34.98 patients / 1000 residents vs. 4.84 patients /1000 residents, respectively). Rates of cardholder growth in each county are also highly variable, though all counties in Oregon have experienced rapid expansion in the last few years, with an astonishing average growth rate of 41% between 2010 and 2011.

The startling differences in cardholder rates and the lack of any existing studies on medical marijuana prevalence drives the research question for this paper: why do Oregon counties have such divergent rates of participation in the state medical marijuana program?

Figure 1.

 

[GeorgeSmiley]

I think that coincidences with the areas in Oregon that cultivated marijuana, illegally, dating back to the 70's.

Also it might be that, many, many, many cardholders in the densely populated counties (Mult, Wash, Clack) have their cards registered with growers down in southern Oregon where the big outdoor farms are located. This is where most of the outdoor production takes place...... at least in the circles that I'm acquainted with.

Lets not forget they've always been a little different in southern Oregon, Norther california. They did try to form their own state

In October 1941, the mayor of Port Orford, Oregon, Gilbert Gable, announced that the Oregon counties of Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath should join with the California counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc to form a new state, later named Jefferson.[

GS

 

[socioecologist]

Hit the nail on the head GS--there seems to be something distinct about the Southern Oregon / N. California culture that is amenable to growing. The goal is to find out if that difference can be described statistically, or if it requires in-depth interviews. I have a feeling this could become a pretty long project if done appropriately.

Thanks for the input! The question then becomes: why S. Oregon / N. California? Does the sign welcoming people to Grants Pass, OR offer us clues?

 

[socioecologist]

Assessing Variation: Background on Cannabis Use and Production

Assessing Variation: Background on Cannabis Use and Production

Who Uses Marijuana and Why?
Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States, with 16.7 million US residents estimated to have used the drug in the last 30 days and 4 million using it 300 days per year or more (SAMSA 2009: 13; 27). Males are nearly twice as likely to report using marijuana regularly as females, and individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 are the prime demographic group of consumers (21; 17). Despite the near-monopoly on use by young people, older adults are increasing their use of marijuana in the US as the baby-boomer generation ages (DeNitto and Chol 2011). With the exception of Asian Americans, non-whites are more likely to use marijuana than whites (SAMSA 2009: 24). College graduates are less likely to be current users than those with lower educational attainment, though more likely to have tried marijuana (24). Additionally, individuals who are employed full time have lower rates of use than those who are either unemployed or working part time (25). Finally, rates of use increase monotonically with city/area of residence size (26).

Investigations into the causal factors responsible for marijuana experimentation traditionally focused on attributes of individuals: i.e., “What characteristics predispose or otherwise condition people to use an illegal, psychoactive substance?” (Marcovitz and Meyers 1944; Gaskill 1945; Charen and Perelman 1946; Kaplan et al. 1986; Kandel 1986). Recent investigations attempt to chart a number of various social forces (family structure and attitudes, school characteristics, demographic attributes, city size, economic circumstances) influencing use. Derzon and Lipsey (1999) offer the most robust summary of statistical findings using this approach. Using a meta-analysis of 86 longitudinal studies, they identify several categories of social concepts that consistently correlate with future marijuana use. Each category—which include “drug attitudes and prior intentions, social support or ties, personal skills or knowledge, parent and child relations, male gender, prior marijuana use, mixed drug use, peer and parental support for drugs, and family characteristics”— successfully identifies “over half of the marijuana users” in the meta-study.

Other studies attempt to link less cited, disparate factors to marijuana consumption. Mauss (1969) situates marijuana experimentation within the context of college preparation, arguing that many university-bound high school students begin use before matriculating to assist in the cultural assimilation process. Conversely, Brown (1974) finds that college students cease marijuana use following graduation, citing social pressures of work, family, and social integration as key causal factors. Yamaguchi and Kandel (1985) use cross-sectional event history analysis to demonstrate that marijuana use is negatively related to marriage and becoming a parent, yet positively related with separation/divorce. This research design was replicated and validated with longitudinal data by Yamaguchi (1997). Bahr (1998), Hoffman (1998; 2002), Willis (2003), and Duncan (2006) examine family structure as a potential causal variable in adolescent marijuana use and find that children of single-parent households (with male-headed families) have the highest rates of use.

Using a more structural approach, Jacobson (2004) finds that high school class cohort size is positively related to marijuana use, the reported availability of the drug, and self-reported illicit sales; having a larger student population leads to denser social networks and a lower likelihood of being apprehended for criminal behavior.

Furr-Holden et al. (2011) employ a measure of “neighborhood disorder” (operationalized as the number of abandoned buildings within a city block) and find that it is highly correlated with marijuana use over time. Abandoned buildings, while not as robust an indicator as more comprehensive economic data, provide a starting point for examining structural differences that emerge within economically depressed communities. One can posit that other indicators, such as unemployment rates or the vitality of regionally specific economic activities, could be implemented as meaningful determinants of marijuana consumption. While such studies are useful in identifying users of illegal marijuana for recreational purposes and predicting future use by individuals, they do not address the quasi-legal consumption of medical marijuana, nor do they augment our understanding of the structural factors influencing rates of use in larger units of analysis (such as counties).

Reinarman et al. (2011) provides the lone scholarly attempt at identifying medical marijuana users. Using a sample of 1,746 patients from nine separate medical marijuana clinics in California, Reinarman et al. finds that Blacks and Native Americans use at higher rates than other ethnic groups, while and Latinos and Asians have lower rates of use (Whites are near the average for all groups). Use is heaviest in the 25-44 year age range, and males made up 73% of the sample. Chronic pain suppression and improved sleep were the most commonly cited maladies reported by subjects (82.6% and 70.7%, respectively). Other conditions/uses of medical marijuana included relaxation (55%), muscle spasms (41%), headaches (41%), anxiety (38%), nausea (28%), and depression (26%).

Who Grows Marijuana and Why?
Due to the nearly worldwide prohibition and concomitant secrecy surrounding marijuana cultivation, few studies examine the demographic composition and rationales of growers. Weisheit’s (1992) qualitative study of arrested growers in Illinois offers the most detail and insight into this phenomenon, though it is limited by an admittedly small sample size and narrow geographic scope. Weisheit identified police cases involving the cultivation of 20 or more plants in Illinois (n=74) and attempted to interview the defendants; the growers interviewed (n=31) were overwhelmingly white, nearly all male, middle age (median: 38), simultaneously employed in other professions, often highly educated, had not been arrested for other major crimes, and were long-term residents of their respective communities (159; 71-73). Building on the in-depth interviews, Weisheit constructs a typology of growers based on their stated rationales and the size of their growing operations (hustlers, pragmatists, and communal growers).

Hustlers are entrepreneurs involved in marijuana production “because it is a business challenge,” and are involved with large-scale, highly lucrative operations (as well as other legitimate businesses) (41). This type of grower acts as a coordinator of satellite employees, provides start-up money and plants, and, relying on connections with large dealers, serves as a purchasing agent for smaller growers; they are not involved in the day-to-day growing operations and are the most rare of cannabis producers (42). Due to the size of their operations, individual hustlers “may contribute significantly to the illicit marijuana trade” (75). As Weisheit notes, (between 1987 and 1989 in Illinois), criminal justice “cases involving 100 or more plants accounted for 15 percent of the cases but 92 percent of the plants” (76).

Pragmatists “enter the marijuana business out of economic necessity and approach the activity with no moral or philosophical righteousness” (43). As opposed to hustlers, pragmatists are not in the business to get rich; rather, they use marijuana production as a temporary means of survival. Some of the interviewed subjects who fell in this category were farmers (soybeans, corn, and wheat) who were attempting to mitigate the effects of depressed agricultural commodity prices (89). Additionally, this type of grower “demonstrate that growing marijuana for profit requires no commitment to a drug lifestyle or even a ‘liberal’ or tolerant attitude toward drugs in general”; some do not use the drug and others are outspoken critics of its impact on society (45). The size of their growing operations directly relate to their monetary needs, but are typically much smaller than the hustler’s.

Communal growers “cultivate marijuana as part of a larger lifestyle,” which usually begins with regular cannabis use; they often graduate to growing “for their own consumption, either to defray the costs of their habit or as a hobby” (45). For these cultivators—who “probably represent the single largest category of growers”—marijuana production is variably regarded as a means of self-sufficiency, short-term economic stimulus, a “personal statement of independence or rebellion,” a way of validating self-worth, and a didactic opportunity to gain gardening/farming skills. Many of these growers are said to sell small amounts of marijuana, but also give it away to close friends; growing operations are typically small in size (45; 74). Where hustlers and pragmatists are profit-oriented (to varying degrees), the communal grower is driven by “the spiritual, the social, or the intrinsic rewards of growing” (88).

Spiritual rewards were those feelings of satisfaction expressed in almost transcendental terms. Social rewards included the pride that came from impressing fellow growers and users with a highly potent product or with a product with an unusual form of high. Finally, intrinsic rewards were the feelings of self-satisfaction that arose from the process of growing itself and were comparable to the feelings of many people who become deeply enmeshed in hobbies. The frequency with which growers reported feelings of pride and satisfaction from their operation suggested that understanding what motivates marijuana growers requires an appreciation of these intangible rewards (99-100).

In addition to revealing varying personal motivations of growers, Weisheit also finds distinct variations in marijuana garden seizures between regions within Illinois, with most occurring in the southern-most counties—despite the fact that northern counties are home to much of the agricultural production in the state. Furthermore, the number of garden seizures does not appear related to several commonly cited social and economic factors (population density, percent below the poverty line, unemployment rate, crime rate, percent minority) (69). With these findings in mind, Weisheit states:

It is clear that whatever impact economic factors have is not direct. These economic and social factors may interact with other cultural features of these regions to shape the production of marijuana. Further study of these patterns may be useful in explaining patterns of marijuana growing in other states as well (69-70).

Though this information is quickly becoming historical (Weisheit’s work is derived from research conducted in the late 1980s) and it focused on individuals growing 20 or more plants, more recent studies offer corroborating evidence.

Decorte (2010) implemented a web-based survey of cannabis cultivators in Belgium (n=659) and found similar results—though important differences emerged as well. Basic demographic information gathered on age (mean: 28.5), gender (88.5% male), marital or relationship status (77.5% unmarried, 66.5% in a “steady” relationship), and educational attainment (47.6% college graduates) indicate strong similarities to Weisheit’s conclusions. On the other hand, the self-reported size of growing operations was much smaller (over 75% were growing 10 plants or less) and money was less of a motivating factor for growing (68% claimed to have never sold their marijuana). As Decorte notes,

On average, 67.2% of the cannabis harvested by our participants was intended for personal use, and another 22.8% was given away: mostly to friends (19.3%), and on occasion to acquaintances (2.4%), anyone who asks (0.4%), or for medical use (0.7%). Very little of the cannabis harvested by our respondents is sold (9.0%) to friends, acquaintances, or others (356).

Outdoor growing dominated the Illinois study, but only accounted for 53.2% of the Belgian grows (35.1% reported using artificial lighting in either greenhouses or indoor operations). This is not surprising given the shift from outdoor to indoor growing due to stricter enforcement of marijuana prohibition in many industrialized countries and harsh crackdowns on large-scale international smuggling operations opening the door to high quality domestic cannabis production (Pollan 2001). A final piece of relevant data gleaned from these surveys details the average weight obtained per marijuana plant harvested, with outdoor plants weighing in at 63.7 grams and indoor plants producing 48.8 grams.

 

[socioecologist]

Medical Marijuana: Altered States, Altering State Laws, and a Theoretical Altercation

After years of failed lobbying (and in some cases, because of personal health crises), many leaders of the marijuana legalization movement began signature gathering campaigns in the early 1990s and sent ballot measures directly to state voters (Ferraiolo 2007). In a four-year surge of direct democratic action (1996-2000), the elected officials of six states were bypassed by successful medical marijuana ballot initiatives. Ten other states (and the District of Columbia) implemented similar laws in the subsequent ten years. The laws enacted are fairly uniform in terms of qualifying conditions, allowing for personal production, permissible marijuana possession amounts, and plant counts per patient—though California and Oregon offer notable exceptions.

A statewide minimum weight and plant count is in effect in California, set at 8 oz. of processed marijuana and 18 plants per patient. However, counties and cities are still allowed to set their own guidelines above this amount, leading to wide variations between areas. Of California’s 58 counties, 35 abide by the state minimum; the other 23 range from 8oz. to 3 lbs. of processed marijuana per patient, and permissible plant counts vary from 18 to infinite (capped by garden canopy size: largest = 150 square feet). Not surprisingly, counties with the largest allowable possession limits are in Northern California, a traditional “hot-spot” of illegal production. These high plant and possession amounts—coupled with legally sanctioned marijuana dispensaries, legal provision for the “reasonable compensation” of growers, and allowances for growers to produce for multiple patients—make small-scale commercial production possible.

While not as laissez-faire in its allowance as some California counties, Oregon is still far above the national average. Each patient is allowed 24 oz. of processed marijuana, and 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature). However, any for-profit sale of marijuana is illegal and no provision for marijuana dispensaries exists. Registered growers may produce marijuana for up to 4 patients, which would equate to 6 lbs. of cannabis and 96 plants (24 mature) at any given time.

The rise of medical marijuana in US states adds complexity to Weisheit’s (1992) theoretical typology. Most states (14 of 17 with medical marijuana laws, including DC) allow patients to grow their own medicine, but only two have plant limits that would coincide with Weisheit’s selection criteria (more than 20 plants). Does the influx of medical growers require an alteration of the typology or does it maintain coherence and explanatory power in these changing social circumstances? This question is re-addressed following the presentation of our findings.

With some of the known and proposed causal forces for both consumption and production of marijuana elucidated, we return to our research question: why do Oregon counties have such divergent rates of participation in the state medical marijuana program? In a turn from previous research on marijuana use and production, we examine an array of county-level structural factors (political, social, economic, and ecological) that may explain the disparate regional distribution of medical marijuana cardholders in Oregon.

 

[guest8905]

why doesnt the medical program in OR cover PTSD or Panic Disorder and many other seriously debilitating conditions that are relieved by cannabis?

 

[socioecologist]

Sticky, you probably already know this, but the qualifying conditions include agitation related to Alzheimer’s disease, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, nausea, severe pain, seizures, or persistent muscle spasms. You are 100% correct that more should be included, but the beauty of the Oregon program is that several of these conditions are impossibly vague to dispute (i.e. chronic pain). It sucks that patients have to needle the system a little bit to win the right to participate, but the numbers don't lie--of the nearly 40K patients in Oregon, most include "chronic pain" as either a primary or secondary diagnosis (35,793 of the 39,774 registered patients).

 

[socioecologist]

Methods

Methods

We construct two explanatory models using political, social, economic, and ecological variables at the county-level to disentangle the relationship between medical marijuana cardholder rates and the specified structural forces at work in Oregon. The first model is a cross-sectional OLS regression analysis applied to 2008 data, while the second is a Prais-Winsten time-series model utilizing Feasible Generalized Least Squares (FGLS), applied to 2005-2011 data. In all models, the dependent variable is “cardholder rate,” which is operationalized as the number of registered medical marijuana patients per 1000 people in a particular county. Cardholder data for each county is derived from the Oregon Department of Human Services and covers 2005-2011, using published figures from January 1st of each year. Independent variable operationalization and data source explication follows.

 

[socioecologist]

Political Factors

Political Factors

Public opinion polling consistently demonstrates that Democratic political party affiliation strongly correlates with positive views on marijuana legalization and medical marijuana applications, though this explanatory variable is heavily mediated by geography and time (the West is home to the highest support levels, while positive views of legalization has increased consistently in the last 30 years). While Oregon—like many states—has a significant rural/urban political divide, county-level cardholder rates appear to defy this traditional dichotomy; for example, the de facto leader in the county cardholder rate race—Josephine—is primarily rural, Republican, and heavily dependent upon resource extraction, yet it is home to a 3.6x higher rate of cardholders than the urban, Democratic, and multifaceted economy of Multnomah county. Additionally, county cardholder density appears unrelated to county-level voting on the original medical marijuana ballot initiative. These confounding inconsistencies aside, we hypothesize that Democratic party membership is positively related to cardholder rates in Oregon counties. We operationalize political party affiliation as the percentage of a county’s registered voters who are members of the Democratic party. Voter registration data from January 2005-January 2011 is derived from the Oregon Secretary of State publications (Elections Division 2011).

 

[socioecologist]

Social Factors

Social Factors

On its face, the primary differences between previous studies of marijuana use and this project stems from the legality of cannabis consumption and the unit of analysis. While many of the commonly cited social variables undoubtedly help to explain why individuals participate in the OMMP, they are not amenable to higher levels of analysis. Additionally, the basic requirement for obtaining a medical marijuana card in Oregon is medical necessity—cardholders must demonstrate that they suffer from one of the included conditions and receive a recommendation from a licensed doctor indicating that marijuana may be beneficial to them. Unfortunately, county-level epidemiological data on qualifying conditions does not exist; however, even if this information were available, current figures on the conditions reported by participants in the OMMP program suggest that the overwhelming majority suffer from “severe pain” (35,793 of the 39,774 registered cardholders claim this affliction, though patients may have multiple diagnoses). Consequently, the most appropriate social variables—affliction prevalence—are not used in this study.

Following findings of related literature, our social variables include county-level population (obtained from the Population Research Center at Portland State University), population density (land area reported in the Oregon Blue Book (2010) / population), the presence of a state university within the county (operationalized as a dichotomous measure), and the presence of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the county (also operationalized as a dichotomous measure—MSA data obtained from the US Census Bureau’s 2010 census). Additionally, we also include educational attainment, operationalized as the percent of county residents holding a bachelor’s degree or higher (US Census Bureau).

 

[socioecologist]

Economic Factors

Economic Factors

Due to its prohibition in the United States, marijuana commands a high price relative to many other agricultural commodities. Prices range from $1800 to $7000 per pound, depending on where and in what quantity the marijuana is sold. In addition to providing in-state legal protection for authorized consumption of marijuana, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act licenses individuals or their registered growers to produce cannabis. While the scale of allowed production is small, a registered cardholder could, depending on their horticultural skills, illegally sell their produced marijuana for a small profit.

This economic reality is the basis for claims by law enforcement officials in Oregon that the medical marijuana program simply serves as a legal shield for profit-oriented cultivators—or “pragmatists,” following Weisheit’s (1992) typology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to expect that certain economic indicators—we focus on unemployment rates—within a county should be positively related with cardholder rates. Contrarily, Weisheit (1992) and Decorte (2010) both found that the majority of the growers interviewed were simultaneously employed in another occupation while producing cannabis; however, the current economic contraction in Oregon has produced both higher jobless rates and fewer hours worked by those with jobs (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010). For both pragmatists and communal growers, marijuana production is regarded as an economic buoy to maintain an accustomed standard of living. While incorporating the number of hours worked by those employed would be a sensible strategy, county-level data on this measure do not exist. Instead, we use unemployment figures for January 2005-January 2011 (unadjusted), obtained from the Oregon Labor Market Information System, as an independent variable in both regression models.

Keeping with previous research on the positive relationship between marijuana consumption and economic malaise in a region, we examine timber harvests in Oregon. Timber harvests were a harbinger of economic health in Oregon for the better part of a century; recently, more efficient mills—combined with lower timber harvests and loosened international trade regulations—have decimated forest products employment in the state. Foster (2002: 121) provides the definitive summary of the political economy of northwest timber production in recent years:

In the 1980s, forest product workers in the Northwest were hit by a process of industrial restructuring that seriously undermined their economic positions and their capacity to engage in effective class struggles. These included: (1) a drastic drop in housing starts; (2) increased exports of unprocessed logs coupled with rising excess capacity in Northwest mills; (3) a vastly stepped-up rate of imports of lumber from Canada (which had the effect of creating deep fissures between Canadian and U.S. workers within the International Woodworkers of America); (4) rapid declines in employment due to mechanization; (5) wage competition from Southern wood workers (who earned almost $3 an hour less on average in 1986 than their Northwest counterparts); and (6) a general shift of the industry from the Northwest to the Southeast, where faster growing pine plantations and right to work laws provide a greater ‘comparative advantage’ in timber production. Of all of these factors affecting Northwest timber employment, automation has been the most important. In 1987 it took only eight workers to process one million board feet of timber, compared to ten workers a decade earlier. In 1976, a total of 15 bbf of timber was harvested from all sources in Oregon and Washington, giving employment to 150,900 workers in the lumber and wood products and paper and allied products industries. In 1989, the same total harvest level employed 135,700 or about 10 percent fewer workers. In Oregon, the state with the largest old-growth forests, employment in the lumber and wood products industries declined by 21.9 percent between 1978 and 1990, with 71 percent of this decline occurring between 1978 and 1988, before the northern spotted owl became a major issue.

The debate on appropriate timber harvest levels, forest products employment issues, species protection, and ecosystem preservation still rages in Oregon, though, as Foster illustrates, the debate needs to be reframed from the oft-cited industry vs. environmentalist dichotomy to one of capitalist vs. laborers--and must consider the role of efficiency advances as well. Due to the major economic role of forest products in many Oregon counties, we include the total timber harvest data (2005-2011) for each county (an aggregation of harvests from private industry land, other private lands, Native American, State, BLM, Forest Service, and other public lands, measured in thousands of board feet)—this data is derived from Oregon Department of Forestry publications.

 

[socioecologist]

Ecological Factors

Ecological Factors

Cannabis sativa is day-length sensitive annual that matures in Oregon between September-November. It thrives in a warm climate (70F-90F), low relative humidity (40%-60%), minimal variation in day/night temperatures (+/- 10F), and rich, well-drained soil (Cervantes 2006). While most locations in Oregon are suitable for marijuana cultivation, certain areas offer distinct advantages. Southwestern Oregon, the Willamette Valley, and areas along the Columbia River Gorge have long, predictable growing seasons coupled with relatively dry summers—though cannabis production has some agriculturally unique considerations to account for.
Due to prohibition and aggressive eradication efforts by government agencies (federal, state, and local) in the 1980s, many growers turned to indoor cultivation. To facilitate this dramatic change in environment, marijuana growers/breeders introduced cannabis indica into the long-flowering cannabis sativa gene pool; the result is a faster and denser flowering plant that remains relatively short in stature (Pollan 2001). However, this creative breeding strategy fomented a number of unforeseen latent consequences. Shorter internodal distances between branches provide a fertile breeding ground for voracious spider mite colonies. Denser flower clusters make plants more susceptible to a number of pathogens (botrytis and powdery mildew), particularly in late flower stages. The quick-maturation genes make many modern cannabis cultivars extremely sensitive to changes in day-length and prone to inopportune early flowering (leading to significant reductions in yield).

In Oregon, the main determining factors in successful outdoor marijuana production is prolific sunlight, appropriate temperatures, and minimal late season rainfall. In agricultural research, growing degree-day figures—a measure of temperature degrees above the minimum and below the maximum for a specific crop over time—are often employed as composite measures for sunlight and temperature. In this study, we operationalize a degree-day measure using cannabis-specific thresholds (50F minimum, 100F maximum) over the normal outdoor growing season (April 1st-October 31st) in each county (Clarke 1993). Degree-day data is derived from meteorological station readings throughout Oregon, and aggregated by the Oregon State University Climate Research Service; stations were selected based on their proximity to population centers within respective counties and, in several instances, more remote stations are utilized due to data gaps in the primary climate station data. Though this form of ecological measurement is only applicable to outdoor marijuana cultivation, we expect a positive relationship between cumulative degree-days and cardholder rates. To account for the deleterious affect of late-season rainfall on production success, we also include cumulative rainfall totals (using the same meteorological stations as the degree-day measure) in inches for each county, July 1st-October 31st of each year (normal flowering period). We expect cumulative rainfall totals during the flowering season to be negatively related to cardholder rates in each county.

 

[supersmallgiant]

It is interesting that some of the states on that chart show separate numbers for mature and immature plants yet Maine just shows 6 plant period. The reality here is 6 flowering plants and 99 plants total. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the the rest of it.

 

[socioecologist]

ssgiant: that's a big part of why I'm posting this here. I've been working on this paper for the last couple weeks and wanted to get feedback from actual participants in these programs. I'm pretty familiar with the Oregon law (textual and how it is actually implemented), but not other states. As George Smiley pointed out, many of our larger farms are in S. Oregon; I know a number of people who run these and they do not follow the letter of the law due to the way it is enforced.

The text of Maine's law is here:
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billpdfs/IB000201.pdf

I can't find anything in the law that allows for 99 plants; the bill specifically states "6 plants". I'm curious to know where the 99 plant figure comes from?

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Crusader Rabbit]

I can't find anything in the law that allows for 99 plants; the bill specifically states "6 plants". I'm curious to know where the 99 plant figure comes from?

Thanks for the feedback!

One hundred plants or more makes it a federal offense.

 

[GeorgeSmiley]

Growing is legal with a card on a state level but still against the law on a federal level. The penalties and severity of the punishment go up at 100 plants. So even though a big farm down in So OR has their plants covered by cards, they still stay under 99 plants in case the feds come in.

Smiley

 

[socioecologist]

Right--I totally get the state/fed balancing act that many growers deal with. On the other hand, supersmallgiant said:

The reality here is 6 flowering plants and 99 plants total. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the the rest of it.

The question I have is: do the Maine authorities allow patients 99 plants even though the law specifically allows 6 plants?

 

[trichrider]

interesting read.
what is your paper designed to reveal? the difference in cardholder registration across counties, or the related variables correlating?
these factors probably manifest in every medical state; to a lesser degree than Oregon i would presume.

Well written friend.

 

[supersmallgiant]

The question I have is: do the Maine authorities allow patients 99 plants even though the law specifically allows 6 plants?

I didn't realize this was all written by you, what an undertaking!

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_125th/chapters/PUBLIC407.asp

Here you can see that we are allowed "an incidental amount of marijuana" in addition to our 6 "mature" plants.

1. Qualifying patient. Except as provided in section 2426, a registered qualifying patient may:A. Possess up to 2 1/2 ounces of prepared marijuana and an incidental amount of marijuana as provided in subsection 5;
B. Cultivate , or designate a primary caregiver to cultivate under paragraph F, up to a total of 6 mature marijuana plants for that qualifying patient. The total number of mature marijuana plants per qualifying patient, whether cultivated by the patient or by a primary caregiver, may not exceed 6. In addition to the 6 mature marijuana plants, the patient who is cultivating the patient's own marijuana may have harvested marijuana in varying stages of processing in order to ensure the patient is able to maintain supply and meet personal needs.

"Mature plants" are defined:

4-B. Mature marijuana plant. "Mature marijuana plant" means a harvestable female marijuana plant that is flowering.

"Incidental amount of marijuana" is defined:

4-A. Incidental amount of marijuana. "Incidental amount of marijuana" means an amount of nonflowering marijuana plants and marijuana seeds, stalks and roots defined by rules adopted by the department.

DHHS tell us to keep "any amount of nonflowering marijuana plants" to under 100 to keep the peace.

Also of interest is as stated above:

6. In addition to the 6 mature marijuana plants, the patient who is cultivating the patient's own marijuana may have harvested marijuana in varying stages of processing in order to ensure the patient is able to maintain supply and meet personal needs.

This allows us to exceed our 2.5oz limit as long as its not bagged up.

 

[socioecologist]

Supersmallgiant: that's really cool of the state to operate like that, awesome information to include, and really cool of you to share that. Thanks SO much for taking the time. I wonder if that might be the case in other states as well--Colorado and Michigan are of particular interest to me. It's tough to work out how these laws are being enacted "on the ground" from afar; your insight is priceless!

Hey trichrider! Thanks for the compliments and interest. I'm doing both--trying to figure out if these variables correlate with (1) card holder rates in each county in one year (2008) and (2) the rate of change in card holder numbers with time (2005-2011). The preliminary numbers suggest that they do, but only in certain counties--unemployment rates and timber harvest levels are the strongest correlates.

I think George Smiley's original post hit the nail on the head; there's a cultural difference at play between these counties that cannot be captured through statistical analysis. There is a strong history of cultivation in S. Oregon / N. California, which, to me, probably outweighs any of the other commonly cited variables--though they are probably working in tandem. When economic uncertainty is on the rise, a certain set of people--who have been exposed through their parents/community to this alternative means of subsistence--react by growing. You're far more likely to be amenable to this lifestyle if you know others involved in it. It's the normalization of behavior considered deviant in other parts of the state.

I'll post the analysis and discussion as they get completed in the next week or so.

You guys rock--thanks!