Today, on more than 80 college campuses across the country, students organized by MPP-grantee Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) are calling for changes in campus policies that steer students toward the use of alcohol instead of marijuana. Although the national day of action was timed to coincide with the first day of Alcohol Awareness Month, the organizers played off the April Fool’s Day theme by emphasizing that the health and safety of students is not a joke.

[Disclosure: I am one of the co-founders of SAFER. But I will try to be objective while discussing today’s brilliant, aggressive, and well-coordinated events. ]

There is no doubt that many Americans who read about this effort will initially dismiss it as the actions of a bunch of students who “just want to get high.” But that would be missing the point entirely. What these students are trying to say is that they and the vast majority of their fellow students are going to do something to get intoxicated at parties. And for most of these students, the choice is between one of two substances – alcohol and marijuana.

The conundrum though is that on almost every campus in the country, the penalties for being caught with the less harmful substance, marijuana, are far greater than the penalties for being caught with alcohol. The students are trying to raise awareness about this widespread irrational disparity. It is a disparity that steers students toward alcohol and the more harmful effects – both in terms of health and campus safety – associated with its use.

Let me be clear here: Neither I nor MPP are promoting or encouraging marijuana use by students. The point here is that university administrators, as well as our elected officials, need to examine their policies and regulations and determine whether they are really protecting the health and welfare of community members. By punishing individuals more harshly for using the less harmful of the two recreational substances, it doesn’t appear that current policies do.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, the publication of record for university administrators, posted a solid article today about SAFER’s efforts. And if you want to read more about the movement to educate the public about the relative harms of marijuana and alcohol, check out Marijuana is Safer: So why are we driving to drink?, a book I co-authored with SAFER’s executive director Mason Tvert and Paul Armentano of NORML.

Today, Sports Illustrated (on SI.com) breathlessly reported an “epidemic” of marijuana use among student-athletes eligible for the 2010 National Football League draft. Apparently, despite the fact that approximately 40 to 50 percent of high school students in the U.S. use marijuana by the time they graduate, it is somehow shocking that 20-33 percent of college-aged athletes have tried the substance.

Here is how one NFL team personnel executive described the “problem”:

“Marijuana use is almost epidemic, with more guys having tested positive for marijuana at some point in their college background than I can ever remember. It’s almost as if we are having to figure out a new way to evaluate it as part of the character and background report, because it’s so prevalent.”

The real question here is whether the simple use of marijuana by a student-athlete should be considered a “character flaw.” Sure it is illegal. But so is the underage use of alcohol. As is driving over the speed limit. Scouts do not consider someone a “character” risk for these actions.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a column on Alternet related to the Ben Roethlisberger situation. I made the point that the NFL’s existing policies steer players toward alcohol instead of marijuana. I believe what I wrote at the end of that column is relevant here:

Sure, players who use marijuana might still get in trouble with local law enforcement. And if they do, they will have to deal with the consequences. But the NFL has no reason to blindly and ignorantly mimic the government’s irrational marijuana policies. At some point even the government will stop the insanity and will allow adults to use marijuana instead of alcohol, if that is what they prefer. For now, the NFL needs to adopt that policy itself.

We are neither encouraging nor condoning the use of marijuana by students. But let’s get real about this. If people at some point in their life choose to make the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol, why should any entity punish them for doing so or consider it some kind of Scarlet “M” on their record?

And to all you professional draft experts out there, maybe you should think twice this year before not drafting someone like Percy Harvin because of something you consider a character flaw.

Gil Kerlikowske, the man tasked with “protecting” our nation from the “dangers” of marijuana, appears to be supremely uneducated about the substance.  In a recent speech [pdf] to – hold on to your chair for the surprise – the California Police Chiefs Association, Kerlikowske defended the continuation of marijuana prohibition forever into the future by talking about the social costs of an entirely different substance – alcohol.

The tax revenue collected from alcohol pales in comparison to the costs associated with it. Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Taken together, this is less than 10 percent of the over $185 billion in alcohol-related costs from health care, lost productivity, and criminal justice.

Backed with this evidence, Kerlikowske concludes,

[I]t is clear that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied.

No, Mr. Kerlikowske, it is not clear. You can’t just cite the costs of alcohol abuse and use them to conclude that marijuana would produce similar costs. What might have helped is if your speech included at least one statistic about the costs of marijuana use. And, no, the costs of “illegal drugs” grouped together (and including enforcement costs, no less) do not count.

But we are nothing if not helpful. We suggest the Drug Czar start educating himself with this Canadian study, which concludes that the health costs to society per alcohol user are more than eight times higher than the costs per marijuana user. After that he can peruse another study, “Alcohol and Violent Crime” (available here), which notes that alcohol-related crime costs more than $16 billion annually in the U.S. He might then try to compare that to the cost of violent crimes attributed to the use of marijuana (as opposed to violent crimes caused by the illegal marijuana market). Good luck finding that.

Not all drugs are created equal, Mr. Kerlikowske. We would expect you, of all people, to know the difference. It’s time for you to get “above the influence” of marijuana propaganda.

For decades, advocates of marijuana policy reform have argued that a regulated and taxed marijuana market would generate revenue for government on the local, state and federal levels. There have even been studies projecting tax revenues from marijuana sales at $6.2 billion and even $31 billion annually.

Occasionally – although far too rarely – we have even seen elected officials reference the possible revenue-generating benefits of a legal marijuana market. But today we read something that we can’t recall seeing before. A notable elected official actually cited a legal and taxed marijuana market as the best means of generating revenue for her state.

Betty Yee, chairwoman of the five-member California State Board of Equalization, made her feelings clear after a gloomy speech about the state’s current fiscal situation. Here is how the article conveyed her position:

As for new revenues, Yee is favoring Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s marijuana legalization approach, which will likely appear in some form on the November ballot and would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana growing to the tune of about $1.4 billion a year.

Will she be ignored or will she be joined by other elected officials finally willing to accept this most logical position? We are hoping – and advocating for – the latter.