Some interesting comments from former drug czar Barry McCaffrey at Huffington Post:

Our traditional justice system has been inadequate to the task of breaking the cycle of substance abuse and crime. Four out of every five offenses are committed by someone with a drug or alcohol problem; and we just keep locking them up!
…
Given the abysmal outcomes of incarceration on addictive behavior, there's absolutely no justification for state governments to continue to waste tax dollars feeding a situation where generational recidivism is becoming the norm and parents, children and grandparents may find themselves locked up together.

And here's Robert Weiner, former spokesman at the drug czar's office, writing in the Baltimore Sun:

Why…is the Obama administration proposing to spend an even higher percentage of its anti-drug resources on law enforcement than the administration of George W. Bush?
…
Mr. Kerlikowske has said, "It is only through a balanced approach - combining tough but fair enforcement with robust prevention and treatment - that we will be successful in stemming both demand and supply of illegal drugs." Yet, in the 2010 budget, there is a 3.3 percent reduction in treatment and prevention initiatives since 2008, exacerbating the bias toward enforcement, which now represents 65.6 percent of the budget, even higher than the last administration's 62.3 percent.

So why are these prominent drug warriors now criticizing U.S. drug policy for its perpetual focus on enforcement and incarceration? The short answer is probably that they now work as consultants with clients in the drug treatment industry who love seeing editorials like these.

But I'd like to think that on some level they feel maybe just a little bit responsible for their role in filling our prisons with an unfathomable number of people who don't belong there.

An interesting article from Workforce Management:

Now that more states are legalizing the sale of the marijuana used solely as a medicine, the next hurdle for reformers who say the drug is more cost-effective than pharmaceuticals is getting those who pay for health care—insurers and employers—to reimburse patients for its use.
…
Reimbursing patients who use it could push them away from otherwise costly drugs that some advocates say are not as effective. Employers, as payers of health care, should champion the legalization of medical marijuana as a potential cost-saving tool, advocates say.

It's certainly the case that many patients can effectively treat specific conditions with marijuana at a lower cost than the pharmaceutical alternatives. For starters, marijuana is vastly cheaper than Marinol, which contains the same main ingredient. It would be interesting to see some research into how medical costs for marijuana patients compare overall to those of patients treating the same conditions with other drugs. While you're at it, it would worth investigating which group is happier with their medicine.

To whatever extent medical marijuana offers savings on health care costs, it's another example of the massive often-invisible expenses created by the insane federal prohibition of medical marijuana. It's presently illegal under federal law for health care providers to cover marijuana-related expenses, which just goes to show how DEA raids were just one dimension of the government's continuing war on medical marijuana.