According to the New Jersey Law Journal, via Law.com, the NJ Supreme Court has shifted away from a 20-year-old policy of suspending lawyers convicted of cocaine possession, instead merely censuring a Wayne-based workers compensation and personal injury attorney for it:

The court, in an order made public on Tuesday, took one step further a recommendation for lenience made by the Disciplinary Review Board, which suggested a "suspended" three-month suspension for the lawyer, Wayne, N.J., solo Anthony Filomeno, in view of his demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation and early release from a year-long pretrial intervention program.

Now maybe they'll go a little softer on the rest of the drug-using public...

Alex Coolman has a nice summary of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment and its history over at Drug Law Blog. I haven't heard yet about this year, but will let you all know when I do... Read our '06 Hinchey-Rohrabacher coverage here and here.

Read about it courtesy Kerry Howley, at Reason. We reported on a previous flare-up back in '04.

NORML just announced its annual conference, October 12-13, in LA this year. DPA's conference is December 5-8 in New Orleans.

The only thing more misguided and pointless than obsessing over pot potency is banning bongs:

As reports have surfaced that potent marijuana could be introduced into Australia, state lawmakers have talked about banning drug paraphernalia.

At a ministerial council on drugs strategy meeting in Adelaide, officials discussed the merits of banning instruments such as bongs and pipes that are used to smoke illegal cannabis. [AHN]

A report in The Herald-Sun prompted helpful comments from readers:

"The way the government is going, there wont be any water for bongs."

"I can't stand the smell of the stuff, leave alone stuffing it in a pipe and trying to smoke it. Rather have a good Aussie Beer instead of a dozzy intoduced Weed. Yuk Duck as they say."

I don’t speak Australian, but I think what they're saying is that trying to prevent marijuana use by banning bongs is like trying to prevent drinking by banning pint glasses.

This raises more questions than it answers:

TRAVERSE CITY — Joseph Giganti's life and home recently took a hit when Traverse Narcotics Team officers allegedly rammed into his rented residence, then seized property during a drug raid.

The Traverse City businessman is suing the state police agency for a $2,700 security deposit he forfeited after a TNT vehicle allegedly collided with his rented residence during the April 5 drug raid, according to Giganti's lawsuit. [Traverse City Record-Eagle]

What's going on here? Radley Balko has noted how SWAT teams are stocking up on large attack vehicles, which will inevitably be used for something. We don’t know what type of vehicle was involved, or why it collided with the suspect's residence, but I'm not expecting a perfectly logical explanation to emerge.

If this was an accident, it is a troubling one, in that it requires particularly reckless driving in order to collide with a house. If, on the other hand, this was done deliberately to disorient the suspect, it should be unnecessary to explain how intolerably excessive such tactics are.

So what was this guy doing that necessitated such aggression?

Officers found about a half-ounce of marijuana and a water pipe in the raid, but no evidence of drug dealing, [attorney Michael] Stepka said. Giganti has not been charged with a crime, court records show.

Once again folks, when we talk about legalizing marijuana – and other drugs, for that matter – it isn't because we want to get stoned on the sidewalk. It's because we don't want public safety officers to protect people from themselves by ramming houses with police vehicles.