For at least six years, the DEA has had access to a massive AT&T database of phone call records dating back to 1987, the New York Times reported Sunday. According to the report, the DEA pays AT&T to place company employees in DEA offices around the country, where they supply DEA agents with phone data in compliance with federal subpoenas.

The program, known as the Hemisphere Project, is not limited to AT&T calls. It also covers data for any carrier using an AT&T switch and picks up 4 billion calls a day, according to the Times.

It only came to light because a Washington peace activist filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking information from West Coast law enforcement agencies, and one of them included training slides from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The slides, which included a power point presentation, were marked "law enforcement sensitive."

They revealed not only the existence of the Hemisphere Project, but also efforts to keep it secret.

"All requestors are instructed to never refer to Hemisphere in any official document," one slide said.

The exposure of Hemisphere comes at a time when concern over government surveillance technologies is high, as revelations from former NSA employee Edward Snowden and his interlocutors about the extent of spying continue to appear on a regular basis. While NSA spying is ostensibly directed at foreign terrorists, it has also provided surveillance information to the DEA for use not in terrorism investigations, but in criminal ones.

Federal officials told the Times that the Hemisphere Project was no big deal, saying it has been useful in finding drug dealers who frequently discard cell phones and it uses investigative techniques that have been employed for decades and present no new privacy issues.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates begged to differ.

The Hemisphere Project "certainly raises profound privacy concerns," ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer told the Times. "I'd speculate that one reason for the secrecy of the program is that it would be very hard to justify it to the public or the courts," he said. And while he acknowledged that the database remained in AT&T's possession, "the integration of government agents into the process means there are serious Fourth Amendment concerns."

Attorney General Eric Holder told the governors of Colorado and Washington Thursday that the Justice Department would not -- at least for now -- block their states from implementing regimes to tax, regulate, and sell marijuana. The message was sent during a joint phone call early Thursday afternoon.

The Justice Department will take a "trust but verify" approach, a department official said. The department said it reserved the right to challenge the state legalization laws with a preemption lawsuit at a later date if necessary.

The go-ahead from Holder to the states was accompanied by a memorandum from Deputy US Attorney General James Cole to federal prosecutors laying out Justice Department concerns and priorities. If marijuana is going to be sold, the memo said, it must be tightly regulated.

"The Department's guidance in this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety, public health and other law enforcement interests," the memo said. "A system adequate to that task must not only contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice."

The memo listed a number of activities that could draw federal prosecutorial attention or result in a Justice Department reassessment, including sales to minors, profits going to criminal actors, diversion to pot prohibition states, marijuana sales as a cover for other drug sales, violence and the use of firearms, drugged driving and other "adverse public health consequences," and growing marijuana on public lands.

That leaves some wiggle room for federal prosecutors, some of whom have shown a willingness to be quite aggressive in going after medical marijuana providers. But it also gives them a clear signal that legalization will, in general, be tolerated in states where voters have approved it.

In a first response from marijuana reform activists, Tom Angell of Marijuana Majority called the Justice Department's stance "a step in the right direction", but also blasted the administration for its aggressive enforcement activities against medical marijuana providers and warned that interpreting the new directive will be up to US attorneys.

"It's nice to hear that the Obama administration doesn't at this point intend to file a lawsuit to overturn the will of the voters in states that have opted to modernize their marijuana policies, but it remains to be seen how individual US attorneys will interpret the new guidance and whether they will continue their efforts to close down marijuana businesses that are operating in accordance with state law," Angell said.

"It's significant that US attorneys will no longer be able to use the size or profitability of a legal marijuana business to determine whether or not it should be a target for prosecution, but the guidelines seem to leave some leeway for the feds to continue making it hard for state-legal marijuana providers to do business," he continued.

Angell chided the administration for using cheap rhetoric about not busting pot smokers to obscure deeper issues of federal harassment of marijuana businesses.

"The administration's statement that it doesn't think busting individual users should be a priority remains meaningless, as it has never been a federal focus to go after people just for using small amounts of marijuana," he said. "The real question is whether the president will call off his federal agencies that have been on the attack and finally let legal marijuana businesses operate without harassment, or if he wants the DEA and prosecutors to keep intervening as they have throughout his presidency and thus continue forcing users to buy marijuana on the illegal market where much of the profits go to violent drug cartels and gangs."

The Marijuana Policy Project also reacted Thursday afternoon, saying it applauded the move.

"Today's announcement is a major and historic step toward ending marijuana prohibition. The Department of Justice's decision to allow implementation of the laws in Colorado and Washington is a clear signal that states are free to determine their own policies with respect to marijuana," said Dan Riffle, the group's director of federal policy.

"We applaud the Department of Justice and other federal agencies for its thoughtful approach and sensible decision," he added. "It is time for the federal government to start working with state officials to develop enforcement policies that respect state voters, as well as federal interests. The next step is for Congress to act. We need to fix our nation's broken marijuana laws and not just continue to work around them."

US Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced Monday that he would hold a hearing next month on the Justice Department's response to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington and legal medical marijuana in 20 states and the District of Columbia. The hearing is set for September 10.

Leahy has invited Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole to testify before the committee and help clarify the conflicts between state and federal law, as well as the federal response. Cole is the author of the 2011 Cole memo giving federal prosecutors the green light to go after medical marijuana providers in states where it is not tightly regulated.

"It is important, especially at a time of budget constraints, to determine whether it is the best use of federal resources to prosecute the personal or medicinal use of marijuana in states that have made such consumption legal," Leahy said in a statement Monday. "I believe that these state laws should be respected. At a minimum, there should be guidance about enforcement from the federal government."

After Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana last November, Leahy sent a letter to the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy asking that the Obama administration make public its position on the matter. Although Holder said in February that a Justice Department response would be coming "relatively soon," it still hasn't appeared.

State officials in Colorado and Washington said last week that they thought the Justice Department had given them "tacit approval" to move forward with their plans to implement marijuana regulation, taxation, and legalization. Leahy, who has said he supports the efforts in those two states, would like to get something more definitive from the Justice Department.

In the meantime, while the feds are silent on how they will deal with legalization, federal prosecutors and the DEA have kept up the pressure on medical marijuana producers and distributors. Since the Cole memo came out two years ago, hundreds of dispensaries have been raided and hundreds more subjected to federal "threat letters." While actual prosecutions have been more rare, the result has been a reduction in access to medical marijuana for patients in areas where dispensaries have been forced out of business.

Leahy isn't the only one in Congress who is interested in federal marijuana policy. At least seven bills have been filed, most with bipartisan sponsorship, addressing federal marijuana policy. They range from bills to legalize hemp and marijuana to bills that would prevent the use of the IRS to crack down on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Holder won kudos from many drug reformers earlier this month when he announced his support for further sentencing reforms, but medical marijuana and marijuana legalization advocates were disappointed that he did not address the tension and contradictions between state and federal marijuana policies. Now, it appears that Leahy is going to force the issue, and marijuana reform advocates couldn't be more pleased.

"This is an important development for all sorts of reasons -- not least because the Senate has been so remarkably passive on marijuana issues even as twenty states have legalized medical marijuana and two have legalized it more broadly. I am delighted that Senator Leahy now seems ready to provide much needed leadership on this issue," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

"The ballot initiatives in Washington and Colorado made history not so much because they legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana but because they mandated that state governments regulate and tax what had previously been illicit markets," Nadelmann continued. "Ending marijuana prohibition not just in the states but also nationally is going to require the sort of leadership that Senator Leahy is now providing. Now is the time for his colleagues to stand up as well in defense of responsible state regulation of marijuana."

"Two states have made marijuana legal for adult use and are establishing regulated systems of production and distribution. Twenty states plus our nation's capital have made it legal for medical use. By failing to recognize the decisions of voters and legislators in those states, current federal law is undermining their ability to implement and enforce those laws," said Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the Marijuana Policy Project.

"Marijuana prohibition's days are numbered, and everyone in Washington knows that," Riffle continued. "It's time for Congress to stop ignoring the issue and develop a policy that allows states to adopt the most efficient and effective marijuana laws possible. We need to put the 'reefer madness' policies of the 1930s behind us and adopt an evidence-based approach for the 21st Century."

"We're still waiting for the administration to announce its response to the marijuana legalization laws in Colorado and Washington, a policy that the attorney general has been saying is coming 'relatively soon' since December," said Tom Angell, head of Marijuana Majority. "If the administration is serious about using law enforcement resources in a smarter way, it should be a no-brainer to strongly direct federal prosecutors to respect the majority of voters by allowing these groundbreaking state laws to be implemented without interference."

It ought to be an interesting, and perhaps, historic hearing. It's two weeks away.

Medical marijuana wars continue in California, a Michigan town gets intrusive, Nevada prepares to rake in the dough from dispensaries, and Washington patients organize in the face of legalization. Let's get to it:

California

Last Thursday, a state task force charged with setting policy on dealing with pollution generated by marijuana growers met for the first time. The task force is the outgrowth of a Butte County request that state water regulators take part in dealing with the problem. Its members include county officials, state legislators, a representative from the governor's office, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Water regulators had told local officials they were reluctant to send their employees to grow areas, and the parties involved agreed to create a task force aimed at producing a policy that could be applied statewide on how to attack the water pollution threat.

Also last Thursday, police raided and shut down the first dispensary to open in Los Angeles County. The historic IMCC Wellness Center in Inglewood, which opened in 1999, was raided by numerous officers, who said the three other dispensaries in the city would also be shut down. The owner, Paul Scott, suspects local authorities have been emboldened by the recent state Supreme Court decision holding that localities can ban dispensaries.

Also last Thursday, the Clear Lake city council made moves to retool a draft medical marijuana cultivation ordinance that had failed to pass in the spring. The council ordered administrators to make several changes to the draft ordinance, which is modeled on the cultivation ordinance adopted by the Lake County Board of Supervisors last summer. The ordinance would limit the number of plants according to parcel size, but got hung up earlier over whether to include daycare centers in the definition of schools, from which grows must be at least 600 feet distant. The council now wants to define daycare centers as a separate category, but maintain the 600-foot requirement, although it would have a grandfather provision.

On Monday, a letter from the Contra County DA to Richmond officials saying dispensaries are illegal was made public. Contra Costa District Attorney Mark Peterson sent a letter dated July 25th to the City Council of Richmond advising them that the medical marijuana dispensaries they approved are illegal and are in violation of state and federal laws. Peterson also warned those who facilitate these actions may be liable as well. He copied the letter to city governments throughout the county.

Also on Monday, Doc Holliday's Collective in Mentone closed under protest, with demonstrators marking its last day of operation. The dispensary shut down after reaching an agreement with San Bernardino County authorities over thousands of dollars in fines it had racked up for continuing to operate despite a county ban on dispensaries.

Also on Monday, a Coronado family filed a lawsuit charging officials took their children for a year because the father was a medical marijuana patient. Michael Lewis, Lauren Taylor and their children Cameran and Bailey Lewis sued San Diego County and seven of its officers, the City of Coronado and two of its police officers for civil rights violations, battery, false imprisonment and negligence, in Superior Court. The suit alleges the children were taken without any actual evidence of abuse or neglect, solely because of the father's medical marijuana use, and that police and child welfare workers lied about the nature of the case. It took 364 days and an appellate court ruling for the parents to get their kids returned.

On Tuesday, there was strong public support for a restrictive cultivation ordinance in Merced County. Advocates of a crackdown on grows supported a proposed ordinance that would limit the number of plants to 12, no matter what the size of the parcel. The county sheriff's office showed slides of massive marijuana grows, and deputies linked them to various crimes, as well as fires and environmental pollution. Several residents also spoke about the violence they witnessed in their own neighborhoods, where pot plants are growing. No one spoke in opposition to the ordinance, but two speakers asked for exceptions for caregivers and others stressed the difference between "cartel operations" and legitimate grows for patients. A second hearing will take place on September 10, and the board of supervisors will vote on the ordinance then. If approved, it will go into effect a month later.

Michigan

On Tuesday, the Jackson city council approved an intrusive cultivation ordinance that would limit patients to using no more than 20% of their homes to grow or consume their medicine. The ordinance also bans dispensaries. The ordinance had stalled in June over the 20% requirement and two others -- that tenants must provide a statement from landlords approving the use of medical marijuana, and that "combustible materials" were to be prohibited in homes where marijuana was grown. Those latter two provisions have now been removed, but even the 20% provision stuck in the throats of some council members. The measure passed 4-3, and will go into effect September 12 after a final vote. Protestors outside the council meeting said they will sue the city if it attempts to enforce the new ordinance.

Nevada

On Tuesday, the state Board of Examiners approved initial funding for the Tax Department to implement tax collection efforts on medical marijuana sales next year. A dispensary law passed the legislature this year, and sales will begin next year. The Board approved a $529,000 funding request from the department, most of which is the cost to start the collection process involves one-time changes to its tax system at a cost of $496,000. The agency also is seeking ongoing funding of about $52,000 a year to hire a new tax examiner, he said. The state will collect a 2% excise tax on medical marijuana growers and sellers, and purchasers will pay a sales tax as well.

Washington

On Tuesday, medical marijuana advocates launched a "Health Before Happy Hour" campaign to ensure that the effort to implement marijuana legalization in the state does not result in negative impacts on patients or the dismantling of the state's Medical Use of Cannabis Act. Assisted by Americans for Safe Access, the campaign seeks to educate lawmakers about the distinct needs of patients and avoid seeing the medical marijuana program folded into the recreational system, a possibility that is being raised by some observers.

[For extensive information about the medical marijuana debate, presented in a neutral format, visit MedicalMarijuana.ProCon.org.]