Pete Guither points out the drug czar's mischievous use of the word "probably."

The greater use of today's high potency marijuana has probably been a critical factor in the unprecedented surge among those seeking treatment for marijuana… [ofsubstance.gov]

Unless it isn't.  Right there on the same page, you'll find the drug czar insisting that we need police to help people get treatment:

The majority of people in drug treatment programs today are there because of a law enforcement intervention

In other words, marijuana users aren't usually in treatment because their pot was so good it destroyed their life. They're there because they got caught by the cops, and according to the law, possession of marijuana is sufficient evidence for a determination that you're addicted to it.

The biggest risk associated with high potency marijuana might be that police are more likely to smell it.

But don't take my word for it, just look what he did:

Despite near-unanimous support, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has vetoed a bill preventing prosecutors from using bong water to calculate the weight of controlled substances in drug prosecutions — and a lawmaker who helped pass the legislation accused the governor of doing so for political reasons.

The bill was the result of a 4-3 Minnesota Supreme Court decision last year that allowed Rice County prosecutors to charge Sara Ruth Peck, 47, of Faribault, with first-degree drug possession — a charge often reserved for drug dealers — after the water in a glass pipe tested positive for traces of methamphetamine.

If Pawlenty is condoning this nonsense for political reasons, he needs to go on the internet or something. This guy is a rumored republican presidential candidate for 2012, but he apparently missed the memo that mind-blowing acts of reefer madness aren't exactly selling out stadiums these days.

Perhaps this bong controversy is too nuanced to screw him, but his veto of a medical marijuana bill that would only have protected dying patients is another story. Note to Gary Johnson: if you find yourself in a debate with Tim Pawlenty, ask him why he wants to arrest terminal AIDS patients for using pot brownies to stimulate their appetite.

And while you're at it, ask him if he thinks Michael Phelps should have been charged as a drug trafficker for the weight of the water in that bong he smoked.

Many Americans believe that the war on drugs on Mexico is their problems not oursited States is involved way more than they think they are.

Last week, the Associate Press ran one of the best pieces on U.S. drug policy I've ever seen, and it began like this:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
 
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

So now the drug czar is annoyed at AP for, I guess, quoting him and accurately reporting on his anti-drug budget:

The budget piece is fair to focus on, but we told AP that we objected to the article's mischaracterization of current policy.  A fairer and more nuanced observation would have been: This does look/sound a lot different, but the budget scenario hasn't changed overnight (it never does, in any realm of government) and it will take some time to test the Administration's commitment to the new approach. [ofsubstance.gov]

Really? Because the drug czar did kinda admit that the strategy sucks. It's not a "mischaracterization" when someone prints the words coming out of your mouth. It's not like Ethan Nadelmann said that and they falsely attributed it to you. Guess what guys: until you stop spending more than half your budget on the exact activities that even you agree have failed, you're going to get called out early and often.

If the drug czar wants us to understand why his budget can't change overnight, then he'll need to explain what the hell that means. Is he talking about the massive drug war industry that depends on our tax dollars to buy fancy technology that's useless without prohibition? Is he wondering what the dog-slaughtering SWAT soldiers in Missouri are supposed to wear without federal subsidies for their bullet-proof bodysuits? If that's the problem, then let's talk about it.

In the meantime, Kerlikowske shouldn't be complaining that AP's coverage isn't "nuanced" enough for him. He's the one who talked to them and said things that didn’t make sense.