I would bet similiar relatioships will come about with regard to per capita income, economic output, and education levels.

The funny thing about marijuana in particular is that every developed place where it is tolerated (medical or otherwise) has a booming economy. Think Oaksterdamn (the medical marijuana neighborhood in Oakland), Vancouver, Amsterdamn, ect.

I know this is a bit off topic, but i wonder why all people who use marijuana for recreational reasons are potheads but not everyone who uses alcohol recreationally is an alcoholic.

It is also curious that conservative America has less of a problem with a substance (alcohol) that is physically addictive, toxic (overdose is possible), makes you physically sick, can make many people belligerent and/or aggressive, can put a person in a state where they cannot even remember or control what they were doing or what they said… but a completely non-toxic, non-physically addictive, substance that does not cause inebriation, aggression, vomiting or headaches or loss of ones ability to control themselves or even remember what they were doing is illegal and anyone who uses it is deemed a “pothead”.

“If you don’t like my fire then don’t come around cuz I’m gonna burn one down.”

But Texas, Florida and New Jersey that much lower than Montana and Colorado? Don’t fit my preconceptions. Or the stark differences in the bordering states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming? Do people leave their stashes at the state line?

The election patterns is interesting, if the drug data can be believed. The data is from 2006-07 when nobody was predicting new Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana to go Democratic. Are potheads a leading indicator?

Can you do this at the county level? As a big “Entourage” fan, it seems like the smog in LA is all from pot smoke.

So are there any drugs positively correlated to McCain states?

Is the cocaine is the correlation including crack cocaine?