Latest

The effects of long-term addiction has shown that substantial changes in the way the brain functions are present long after the addict has stopped using drugs.

I've previously noted the reluctance of the current administration to actually debate marijuana legalization. When cornered, they'll say they're against it, but they won’t say why or offer any interesting observations about our marijuana laws.

Another great example appeared in this superb MSN piece on the merits of legalizing and taxing marijuana. The article goes on and on about the economic benefits of legalization, to which the drug czar's office replied with a shrug:

A spokesman for the drug policy office declined to comment, saying the office wanted to wait until the Senate has confirmed Obama's drug czar nominee, Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.

This wait-and-see response may sound reasonable enough, but it's totally nuts when you consider that opposing legalization is literally one of the fundamental purposes of the this office as defined by law:

Responsibilities. --The Director-- [...]

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that--

   1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
   2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

That is all perfectly straightforward, and yet the office currently has no talking points prepared when a reporter calls for a quote about marijuana legalization? ONDCP has never been anything other than a clearinghouse for unhinged drug war propaganda. It is literally a factory for designing crazy arguments against legalizing drugs. So if they can't answer a simple pot policy question without the help of a guy who doesn’t even work there yet, then it's safe to say that ONDCP as we know it has been completely destroyed.

Once the new drug czar arrives, the office will no doubt regroup and formulate some kind of response to the thunderous cries for reform that presently surround them. I'm sure whatever they present will be deeply problematic. But it is simply delicious to witness even a temporary collapse of the once-great government drug war propaganda machine.

Opponents of taxing/regulating marijuana and other drugs frequently maintain that there's just no way we can really cripple the black market. It's true insofar as there's a black market for everything (I saw a lady buy a bootleg DVD from a guy on the subway recently). But people overwhelmingly prefer to do their shopping at actual stores. The burden shouldn’t be on us to prove that pot stores can effectively corner the market on selling pot. Of course they can.

The only reason anyone has a hard time picturing the demise of the traditional drug dealer is because there's so damn many of them, every one of which was created when we stupidly tried to ban drugs.

Anyway, go read this post from Pete Guither which addresses this point quite well.

This is interesting/disturbing:

Kern Sheriff’s deputies and agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency were searching a medical marijuana store in east Bakersfield Wednesday afternoon.
…
Calls to the sheriff’s department were not immediately returned. A spokesman from the DEA said that agency was there only to assist. The spokesman said the sheriff’s department was the lead agency in the case.
…
Sheriff Donny Youngblood said his office will not interfere with the operation of non-profit medical co-operatives run by patients for patients. But, he said, dispensaries that sell marijuana for a profit should be expected to be treated like other drug dealers. [KGET]

DEA explained that they're "only there to assist," but that doesn’t eliminate the possibility of federal charges down the road. This isn’t the first time DEA has "assisted" local law enforcement during a dispensary raid. I just spoke with Caren Woodson at Americans for Safe Access and they're waiting to learn more about the situation.

I'll update as details emerge.

Update: ASA just informed me that this appears to be a DEA raid being assisted by local authorities, rather than the other way around.

Update 2: Turns out it really was a state raid, based on a state warrant. ASA got some mixed messages from the PR dept. at DEA.

Standing tall and true on my soapbox 2!

Considering that he vetoed a hemp bill in 2006, this is about as good a statement as I would expect from him:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says California should study other nations' experiences in legalizing and taxing marijuana, although he is not supporting the idea.

He says it's time to debate proposals such as a bill introduced in the state Legislature earlier this year that would treat marijuana like alcohol.

State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, says taxing marijuana at $50 per ounce would bring more than $1 billion a year to the state.

Schwarzenegger said during a Tuesday news conference that "it's time for debate" on the idea. [NBC]

I like what's happening with this "let's debate it" line we keep hearing lately. It's a way for public officials to show interest in the subject without alienating anyone who feels strongly about the issue. Perhaps it has come to the Governator's attention that 56% of Californians support legalizing marijuana.

Considering the famous Schwarzenegger-smoking-pot video that's all over the web, some will accuse him of hypocrisy should his position ultimately fall anywhere short of outright support for legalization. Still, it's notable in and of itself that we're beginning to see politicians shifting away from knee-jerk opposition to reform, in favor of the more open-minded position of endorsing a debate on the subject.

...and nobody north of the Rio Grande seems to have noticed. Last week, I wrote that the Mexican decrim bill had passed the Senate, but on the afternoon before we published that report, the bill also passed the Chamber of Deputies. Now it awaits only the signature of President Calderon. While a Dallas Morning News blogger wrote that it is unclear whether Calderon will sign the bill, it seems likely to me that he will. The bill, after all, was pushed by his ruling PAN party, and unlike 2006, when a similar bill passed only to be vetoed by then President Fox in the face of US threats and bluster, there have been no threats and bluster from Washington this time. And, of course, the situation in Mexico is much worse than in 2006, thanks largely to Calderon's war on the cartels. The bill is not great: The personal use quantities are tiny, and it allows for the states to prosecute low-level trafficking offenses (currently, that is the province of the feds, with the result being that being low-level traffickers are never tried because the federal prosecutors and courts are overwhelmed with serious trafficking cases). But it is decriminalization, and right on our border, not an ocean away, like Portugal. I'll be talking to people on both sides of the border this week about this bill and what it means and I'll have a feature article on it Friday. In the meantime, here's the lone Reuters article on these momentous events:

Mexico passes bill on small-scale drugs possession Fri May 1, 2009 8:39pm EDT MEXICO CITY, May 1 (Reuters) - Mexico's Congress has passed a bill decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs, from marijuana to methamphetamine, as President Felipe Calderon tries to focus on catching traffickers. The bill, proposed by Calderon after an attempt by the previous government at a similar bill came under fire in the United States, would make it legal to carry up to 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana, 500 milligrams (0.018 ounces) of cocaine and tiny quantities heroin and methamphetamines. The lower house of deputies passed the bill late on Thursday. It already has been approved by the Senate and is expected to be signed into law by Calderon in the days ahead. Mexico's Congress passed a similar proposal in 2006 but the bill was vetoed by Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, after Washington said it would increase drug abuse. The United States recently pledged stronger backing for Calderon's army-led war on drug cartels, whose turf wars have killed some 2,000 people so far this year in Mexico, as the drug violence is starting to seep over the border. The new bill also allows Mexican states to convict small-time drug dealers, no longer making it a federal crime to peddle narcotics, a move that should speed up those cases. U.S. President Barack Obama praised Calderon's drug war efforts in a visit to Mexico last month and promised more agents and southbound border controls to curb the flow of guns and cash to the cartels. (Reporting Miguel Angel Gutierrez; Editing by Bill Trott)

Ethan's really getting the hang of this. I thought this face-off with Colbert was his best yet:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Ethan Nadelmann
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor First 100 Days

Duh. Still, I was intrigued by the way they framed the question:

The majority of British Columbians think the legalization of marijuana would reduce violence related to the drug trade, an Angus Reid Strategies poll suggests.

Sixty-five per cent of the respondents would legalize marijuana in order to minimize violence, while 35 per cent think harsher penalties for marijuana trafficking are the answer. [Vancouver Sun]

This question could be criticized for putting words in the respondents' mouths. Still, it's notable that, given a choice, so many opted to conclude that violence is a consequence of prohibition. Once that concept is understood, the whole idea of a war on drugs pretty much falls apart.

A new ABC poll shows that 46% of Americans favor legalizing personal use of marijuana. That's the highest number we've ever seen and, interestingly, it's doubled in only 12 years. Wow.

The idea of fixing our marijuana policy is enjoying a meteoric rise in popularity. It's particularly noteworthy when you consider how vigorously the previous administration campaigned to convince the public that marijuana is highly toxic and evil. They have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us, and here we are, stronger than ever before.

So how does one explain such a dramatic shift in public perceptions surrounding marijuana policy?