If 80% of Americans support medical marijuana, why do we keep hearing stories like this one:

Jane Roe has suffered from severe migraines for years… Jane tried every prescription drug imaginable but none gave her relief. She finally found the answer after receiving authorization for medical marijuana from a doctor. Not long after that, Jane was hired at a company called TeleTech. Her position involved answering customer service calls for Sprint at TeleTech's Bremerton office. Jane was up front about her situation with the company from the very start.

Roe: "I knew that I already had medical marijuana; I didn't want to have to hide it. So I went to the Human Resources Department and provided them with a copy, they said they did not want one. They told me to still go take the drug test."

Jane did as she was asked and then began her training program. On her tenth day, she was called out of the training. She was told her drug test had come back positive and she would have to leave immediately. Jane felt humiliated. [KUOW.org]

She's not the one who should be embarrassed by this. TeleTech is the second company this month to get ugly press attention for discriminating against patients. In the current political climate, only an idiot would want their business associated with this sort of reckless cruelty and prejudice.

Unfortunately, those enforcing such arbitrary policies are still hiding behind claims of conflicting laws and vague liability concerns. It might be totally incoherent, but it goes to show how federal intransigence continues to leave patients vulnerable to abuse despite improvements in enforcement policy. It's time for the White House to move beyond the argument that medical marijuana raids are a "poor use of resources," and directly acknowledge that medical use is a basic human right.

Even the worst drug warriors will be the first to insist that patients aren't arrested and jailed in the war on medical marijuana. Shouldn't firing patients from their jobs be considered comparably reprehensible?

The Winds of Change: Drug Policy in the World opened yesterday in Colonia Napoles, a ritzy area of Mexico City. I would have blogged about it yesterday, but I was in the conference all day long, and in the evening, I attended a related event where they plied us with wine, so I never got around to it. Former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda got it all started in fine provocative form. He suggested during the opening session that Mexico needs to go back to the "good old days" of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), at least when it comes to dealing with drug trafficking organizations. The PRI, of course, ruled Mexico in a virtual one-party state for 70 years before being defeated by Vicente Fox and the conservative National Action Party (PAN) in the 2000 elections. It was widely (and correctly) seen as not fighting the drug trade so much as managing it. Fox, under whom Castaneda served, started to move against the cartels, and his successor, Calderon, accelerated the offensive by bringing in the military in a big way. The result has been a bloody disaster, with Mexico being wracked by an ever mounting death toll as the army and federal police wage war on the so-called cartels, the cartels wage war on the police and the army, and when they're not busy killing cops and soldiers, turn their guns on each other. And the drugs keep flowing north and the guns and cash keep flowing south. Perhaps it is time to return to a quiet arrangement with the cartels, Castaneda suggested. "How do we construct a modus vivendi?" he asked. "The Americans have a modus vivendi in Afghanistan," he noted pointedly. "They don't care if Afghanistan exports heroin to the rest of the world; they are at war with Al Qaeda." Castenada's comments on Afghanistan rang especially true this week, as American soldiers push through poppy fields in their offensive on Marja. The US has made an explicit decision to arrive at a modus vivendi with poppy farmers, although it still fights the trade by interdiction and going after traffickers—or at least those linked to the Taliban. President Karzai's buddies, not so much. Casteneda also came up with another provocative example, especially for Mexican leftists in the audience. "We had a modus vivendi with the Zapatistas in Chiapas," he noted. "We also pretended they were real guerrillas with their wooden rifles. We created a liberated zone, and the army respected it, and it's still there. But it is a simulation—the army could eliminate it in 90 seconds." And in yet another provocative comment on the theme, Casteneda suggested that somebody may already have arrived at a modus vivendi with the Sinaloa Cartel—a suggestion that is getting big play in Mexican newspapers these days. "Why is it that of the 70,000 drug war prisoners in Mexico, only 800 are Chapo Guzman's men?" he asked. "Many people think the government has made a deal with the Sinaloa cartel. I don't know if it's true." This isn't the first time Castaneda has made provocative statements in recent months. At the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Albuquerque in November, he said bluntly that the Mexican military is committing extrajudicial executions of drug gang members and blithely repeated the charge when called on it. All of the Mexicans I've been talking to think Castaneda has political ambitions. Perhaps he's angling for a cabinet appointment in the next presidency or perhaps he's getting ready to run for political office himself. In any case, he certainly has no problem stirring things up when it comes to making allegations about what's going on beneath the surface in Mexico's drug war. Stay tuned for some more blog posts about the conference, which ended just a couple of hours ago. Now that it's done, I have some time to write about it.

I'll be the first to tell you that medical marijuana is in a better position politically than ever before. Even the recent ugliness in Colorado doesn't approach what we've seen in years past (and you know it's true so don't accuse me of Obama-worship or naivety). But the fact remains that the current federal rules of engagement are impossibly vague and will inevitably become deeply problematic for both sides.   

LA Times explains perfectly why this is so:

The confusion can be resolved only by Washington. Fourteen states currently have medical marijuana laws, and more are likely to adopt them, multiplying the legal disarray exponentially.

The new policy of respecting state laws is already helping to expand the medical marijuana map (NJ, DC), yet the feds still claim the right to intervene at their own discretion. DEA enforcement against clear violations of state law might be tolerated politically, but their active involvement becomes less sustainable as new states enter the picture. As long as DEA maintains its authority to enforce local regulations, any inaction on their part will inevitably resemble tacit approval. It makes far more sense to step aside entirely and let state police and state courts take full responsibility for interpreting and enforcing their own laws.

If the White House wants to shield itself from political fallout over medical marijuana, the quickest and easiest approach is to get out of the game altogether.