Personal Marijuana Use

According to a Los Angeles Times/USC poll released Tuesday, the California Tax and Regulate Cannabis initiative has the support of 49% of voters, while 41% are opposed, and 10% are undecided. The figures are in line with other recent polls. Two weeks ago, an internal campaign poll had support at 51% and another public opinion poll had it at 49%. The bad news for initiative supporters in the latest poll is that it needs 50% plus one vote to win, and it isn't there yet. The good news, however, is that the initiative only needs to pick up one out of five of those undecided voters to go over the top. Or, as Dan Schnur, director of USC's Jesse M. Unruh institute of politics put it: "The good news for proponents is that they are starting off with a decent lead. The good news for the opposition is that initiatives that start off at less than 50% in the polls usually have a hard time." The poll also questioned voters about their marijuana use histories, finding that 37% had tried pot and 11% had smoked it within the last year. Not surprisingly, those who had smoked within the last year favored the initiative by more than four-to-one (82%). This latest poll, like previous ones, points to women, especially married women, as a key demographic. While men favor the initiative, women are split, and among married women, 49% oppose the initiative while 40% are in favor. Pollsters also asked about some of the key arguments made by supporters and opponents of the initiative. When asked whether they thought legalization marijuana could raise a billion dollars in revenue, 42% said yes, while 38% said that figure was wildly exaggerated. Voters in Los Angeles, where dispensaries spread like wildfire in the last half of the last decade, were most likely to believe that such revenues could be generated. When asked whether legalizing marijuana would worsen social problems, voters were similarly split, although such concerns especially resonated with those who oppose the initiative. Of that group, 83% think freeing the weed would increase crime and teen marijuana. Fifty-five percent of married women also think that. Attitudes toward legalization diverge sharply by age, with support much higher among younger voters. A 52% majority of voters 65 and older oppose legalization. Among voters between 45 and 64, 49% support it. But among those 30 to 44, 53% are in favor, and that rises to 61% among those 18 to 29. The next five months is going to be very interesting. But if the tax and regulate initiative is to emerge victorious at the polls come November, it has its work cut out for it. And it looks very much like the path to victory is going to have to go through mom.

This is impressively stupid:

AURORA, Colo. (CBS4) ? A medical marijuana patient says wearing a pro-pot T-shirt got him banned from Town Center at Aurora.

Jake Gailey told CBS4 mall personnel approached him last weekend and told him his shirt was offensive to some customers. The shirt features a play on Barack Obama's "Yes We Can" campaign slogan and graphics but instead features the message "YES WE CANNABIS" and displays a marijuana leaf.

Sounds like Gailey handled it pretty well at first:

"I reminded him that (medical marijuana) was legal in our state, that I voted for it and I had a medical marijuana card as well," Gailey said.

Gailey, 28, was told to take the shirt off, turn it inside out or leave.

"I asked him if 'I buy a hat with a marijuana leaf in Spencer's, I can't wear it in the mall?' And he said 'No.'

"I said 'Well, how can the stores sell products you can't allow in the mall?' He said 'Well, we're trying to get everybody on the same page, and it hasn't worked.'"

Eventually, he got worked up and was arrested for being a nuisance, but the charges were dropped when he agreed not to go to the mall for a year. I'm sure Jake Gailey won't be the only marijuana activist avoiding the Town Center mall for a while.

According to this article, badass attorney Robert Corry is on the case, and there might be some interesting 1st Amendment questions here, despite the fact that it's a private mall.  Protests are being planned in the meantime, so you can bet there will soon be far more pot leaves on display in and around Town Center than there would have been if they'd just kept their prejudice to themselves.

Note to Corporate America: if you think you have anything to gain by discriminating against marijuana culture, you're dead wrong. If you screw with us, we will go completely ballistic and drive you crazy. If you don't believe me, ask these people.

Our new drug czar really has a way with words. He says things you never thought you'd hear from a drug czar. Unfortunately, like his predecessors, he's completely full of BS:

THE United States has "ended its war on drugs" and is now moving its focus to prevention and treatment, the US drugs chief has told top Irish drug officials.
…
"We’ve talked about a ‘war on drugs’ for 40 years, since President Nixon. I ended the war," said Mr Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). [Irish Examiner]

Except, he absolutely did no such thing. Their guns are still loaded. Their rubber stamps are all inked up and ready to authorize aggressive raids on non-violent suspects. They'll put several hundred thousand people in handcuffs this year just for smoking marijuana. Just watch this and tell me what the guys in the battle suits are doing if not waging war on people.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it when the drug czar talks about moving beyond the "war" metaphor and approaching drug policy from a public health perspective. It's a step in the right direction, even if it's shockingly disingenuous under the current terms of engagement. I just wonder if they actually think anyone's buying any of this.

It's a war, you numbskull. You can't fight a bloody war against millions of people on your own soil and just pretend it's not happening. If you really believe we don't need this war, then stop trying to sugarcoat it and end this dreadful escapade once and for all.

The new trend of holding online votes for policy ideas continues to thrive, and this time it's the republicans who want to hear from us:

America deserves a Congress that respects the priorities of the people. Unfortunately, Washington hasn't been listening. Let's change that. America Speaking Out is your opportunity to change the way Congress works by proposing ideas for a new policy agenda. Republicans have offered solutions, and we have our principles, but this is a new venue for us to listen to you. So Speak Out.

You can vote for ideas you like or create your own, and as you might guess, ideas like legalizing marijuana are getting a lot of support. Please take a few minutes to register and use your up and down votes to help push our issue to the top.

A strong showing for legalization in a right-wing forum will send a powerful message that the drug war is being rejected by Americans across the political spectrum.

Paul Armentano at NORML breaks down the latest research. It really shouldn’t be necessary to keep going over this, but as Paul laments…

The mainstream media loves to spill ink hyping the allegation that marijuana causes mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. In fact, it was in March when international media outlets declared that cannabis use ‘doubled’ one’s risk of developing the disease. Yet when research appears in scientific journals rebuking just this sort of ‘reefer madness,’ it generally goes unreported.

Honestly, I don't think the problem is necessarily that the press is fundamentally hostile to marijuana. But there exists a long and tragic history of the media courting readership with scare stories about drugs. Alarming accounts of the potential dangers of anything a lot of people put into their body are irresistible to the press regardless of accuracy or context, and that's just the way it is.

Maybe the problem is that the media hasn't been trained to sell the reverse version of the story. Given that marijuana is a topic of considerable public interest, it really shouldn’t that hard to market a story about the fact that it doesn't appear to cause schizophrenia. Just simplify the headline. Instead of "New Study Casts Doubt on Marijuana-Schizophrenia Link," how about, "New Study Suggests Marijuana is Safer Than We Thought." Yes, I think that headline would do well on the internet.

Of course, we really shouldn’t have to convince the press that reality is marketable in order to get it reported.

Gene Healy has a sharp piece in the Washington Examiner:

The president lacks the moral authority to lock people up for behavior he engaged in as a young man. Still, political realities being what they are, we can't expect him to declare a total cease-fire in the drug war. To his credit, Obama has at least reversed the Bush policy of prosecuting medical marijuana cases in states where it's legal.

But Obama may soon be presented with an unwelcome test of character. In November, Californians will likely approve a ballot initiative legalizing recreational pot use. Will Obama ignore the people's will and continue to prosecute marijuana users in our largest state?

Well, not if he knows what's good for him. I assure you, the new administration's more tolerant approach to medical marijuana didn't happen because Obama is particularly concerned about the plight of seriously ill patients caught in the drug war's indiscriminate crossfire. It happened because it's no longer politically viable to overturn the will of voters in the war on marijuana.

Sure, we'll continue to hear the drug czar whining from time to time about the perils of legalization, but if Californians decide to go through with it, don't expect a federal occupation in the streets of Oaksterdam. Obama's base is decidedly supportive of marijuana reform, thus he has nothing to gain and a considerable hassle to endure should he be foolish enough to stand between Californians and their cannabis.

Of course, while I highly doubt Obama will interfere in any meaningful way with the legalization effort in California, I am curious as all hell what he'll say about it if asked. Thus far we've heard the President address marijuana policy in as few words as humanly possible, even when doing so made him look ridiculous. He won't speak one word about any of this unless he's forced to, and it's only a matter of time until that happens once again. Maybe you should be practicing, Mr. President, because another one sentence explanation isn't going to cut it next time around.

Further proof that police aren't exactly experts on botany:

I suppose it's ok to laugh at this one, since nobody got shot. On the other hand, it's probably just a matter of time before a similar mistake results in someone getting a gun shoved in their face. Oh wait, it's already happened.

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.

This FOX News segment with Judge Napolitano is a must-see that really captures how everyone is feeling about the raid in Missouri.

Radley Balko follows up with the best piece yet written about this epic drug war controversy. There is nothing more important to understand here than the fact that everything that took place in that video is standard operating procedure in the war on drugs. The vilification of drugs and drug users has given birth to a vicious recklessness that characterizes modern drug enforcement even, and sometimes especially, when police perfectly follow the law and the orders they're given.

Until that changes, nothing else ever will.