Occasional observations from Dick Evans

 

(Feedback:  dick[at]cantaxreg.com)

October 11, 2010. I've been AWOL from this blog, focusing on Proposition 19 in California, and doing what I can to help it. The best feature of the measure is what many detractors say is its worse, namely, that it authorizes local governments, not the state, to regulate and tax the commercial production and distribution of cannabis, producing a patchwork of different laws among communities.

That's its genius, I think. If the initiative passes, California will be a true laboratory of democracy where cities and counties experiment with a wide range of policy mechanisms to accomplish the goals of legalization, and local officials will have the very rare opportunity to actually make local policy, instead of having to follow state dictates.

I have added a new page to this site from whence to provide copies of local ordinances.

July 10, 2010. Today's New York Times carries an interesting story by Malcolm Gay, dateline St. Louis, about "synthetic marijuana," which is apparently some ordinary herbs laced with laboratory-produced cannabinoids and is known as "K2." A handful of states have passed laws against it, and more are expected, citing cases of overdoses and even some deaths said to have been caused by using it. What is truly remarkable about this story is what it does not acknowledge, namely, that the market for toxic, "synthetic marijuana" is clearly created by the prohibition of natural, non-toxic marjuana, just as the market for toxic moonshine was created by the prohibition of safe beverage alcohol during Prohibition, providing yet another example of how legalizing marijuana will protect the public health. Duh.

July 4, 2010. The Democratic candiate for U.S. Senator from Arizona, John Dougherty, has come out squarely against the drug war. Kudos!

July 1, 2010. The California tax/reg initiative has been given the designation of Proposition 19 for the November ballot. One of the most encouraging developments is that the measure has been endorsed by the California chapter of the NAACP. I'm thrilled to see that important organization acknowledge the racist origins and functions of marijuana prohibition, and undertake to right that wrong. Hopefully, many African-American churches will follow their lead.

June 23, 2010. So, Sarah Palin speaks sense on marijuana. I'm speechless!

June 16, 2010. I've been away, attending a conference in Colorado, where my eyes were opened by the medical marijuana scene in that state. Two words: medical, money. More on that later.

It's great to see that Sarah Palin says people shouldn't be arrested for pot. What's curious is that's the basic definition of legalization, not arresting people, but she opposes legalization. Go figure.

June 6, 2010. Today's MercuryNews.com, out of the Silicon Valley, brings a long article by Gary Cohn and Michael Montgomery, "reported in collaboration with" KQED public radio and the Annenberg School, about the burgeoning medical marijuana delivery industry in California. The article describes in great detail how this nascent industry is easily circumventing local ordinances against storefront dispensaries, and staying ahead of local law, as no municipality has ever legislated on delivery businesses. The article, and the industry itself, are not only tributes to the futility of enforcement, but to entrepreneurial ingenuity. Someday it will all seem so funny, that "the government" thought it could contain marijuana.

June 5, 2010. The Montreal Gazette editorializes today in support of an "honest national debate about marijuana legalization, pointing out that "Laws that are only selectively enforced can do more harm than good." Indeed. I would tweak that conclusion slightly, arguing that it's time for an honest national debate over prohibition, not legalization. But perhaps I'm picking nits.

June 4, 2010. Here's the first in what I hope will be lots of articles this summer, comparing marijuana prohibition to alcohol prohibition, sparked by Dan Okrent's new history of Prohibition, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. There can't be too many. I finished reading the book last night, and am full of comparisons. More later.

June 3, 2010. A column in today's Sacramento Bee by Peter Hecht predicts failure for the California initiative in November, simplistically based on the notion that marijuana smokers constitute a minority "voting block." His mistake is to believe that the initiative's constituency is pot smokers. That's wrong. The initiative's constituency is people who are impacted by prohibition, and that's a clear majority! The challenge for the initiative organizers is to make the case that repeal isn't for stoners. I hope they can, and will. My suggestion to the campaign are ads showing ordinary people--teachers, parents, businesspeople, etc.--with the tag line, "I don't smoke marijuana. But it shouldn't be illegal,' followed with a few lines describing how he/she is adversely affected by prohibition.

June 2, 2010. The Detroit legalization initiative has qualified for the November ballot! And, in Snohomish County, Washington, a candidate for Prosecuting Attorney, Jim Kenny, has endorsed I-1068, the Washington legalization initiative (for which signatures are still being collected). Also encouraging is the response from the incumbent, Mark Roe:

Prosecutors enforce laws. We don't make them or repeal them. If voters or legislators repeal laws on marijuana, we will stop prosecuting marijuana cases.

It really is that simple. Good for both of them.

May 31, 2010. Here's a new interview with Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, who is testing the waters for a run for the 2012 Republican nomination for President, and who is the only candidate ever to endorse cannabis regulation and taxation.

May 24, 2010. Good news from Washington state. A statewide poll, designed by University of Washington and Western Washingon University political scientists," reveals that 52% support "removing both civil and criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of cannabis." They're still collecting signatures for I-1068. Nice to see the word "cannabis" used routinely.

Also, I failed to note Hemp History Week, May 17-23, sorry. This story seems to concoct a rivalry beween hempsters and legalizers; it seems phony. Each stands to help the other.

May 25, 2010. Today's Washington Post has a fluffy story about an 88 year old woman in Miami who tokes daily.

Siegel, who uses a cane and has arthritis in her back and legs, said marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did.

I suspect we'll start seeing more of these stories, as the baby boom generation ages (although an 88 year old is no baby boomer, contrary to the headline). I've long been of the view that pot is a perfect drug for nursing homes. Will prohibitionists soon claim that legalization sends the wrong message to elders?

May 24, 2010. This is cute. The Illinois Sheriffs' [sic] Association awarded a $500 scholarship to a high school graduate, Christie Faling, who stood out from among her peers in terms of "academic achievement, community involvement, financial need and the written essay." However, the spokesman who presented the award declared that "Christie's essay was the deciding factor in our decision because we felt that she most effectively responded to the questions asked."

Apparently one of the questions asked was about medical marijuana, and this is where Christie really stood out. Her "research" took her apparently to police-sponsored prohibitionist websites, and she merely parroted back the usual nonsense on the subject that law enforcement folks so wanted her to believe. How could they not give her the scholarship?

Brilliant. Here's the full story.

May 23, 2010. Here's a thoughtful, informative and serious column by Dave Stancliff of the Times-Standard about the prospect of a post-prohibitionist marijuana economy in Humboldt County, California. It's wonderfully forward-looking, free of all the usual smirks and snickering. In it, he mentions some serious community leaders, notably County Supervisor Mark Lovelace, who have convened a task force to give this subject the priority it deserves. Good journalism, good civic leadership.

May 22, 2010. Check this out. The police chief of Columbia, Missouri, whose squad terrorized that family and shot their pet dog last February, the video of which recently went viral ([see below, May 9) recently gave a press conference. What made the headlines was that in response to a well-crafted and well-asked question from an unidentified reporter, the chief, Ken Burton, "came out in support" of legalization.

That's the truth, but not quite the whole truth. The whole truth is even better. It is that Chief Burton has a solid understanding of his reponsibility. On marijuana, he said,

I don’t have anything against it, except that it’s against the law. And as a police officer, I swore to uphold the law.

Yes! Finally a cop who gets it, who understands that his job is to enforce the laws that the legislature makes, not to defend them, and knows better than to try to justify his department's brutal tactics by simply demonizing weed, like most if not all his colleagues would do in the this circumstance (after waterboarding the guy who made the videotape).

The people of Columbia, like citizens everwhere, should be ashamed that their police are terrorizing families in the name of enforcing marijuana prohibition, but the Columbians can take some satisfaction in the knowledge that their chief is the first (to my knowledge) to defend his department's reprehensible conduct by claiming that he was only following orders from lawmakers. Hardly a principaled stand, but perfectly defensible in law. history and politics. One cannot reasonably expect him to resign his position than to carry out violent assults against peaceful families.

I take this all as a sign of progress, yet another tiny crack in the eggshell of prohibition.

May 21, 2010. A new public opinion is out in California, reflecting 49% support for the initiative. Money quote:

"Everyone is very certain how they feel about this,” said pollster Mark Baldassare. “They have very hardened attitudes on the topic.”

Hence winning the election does not mean changing minds or "educating" people in the usual sense. It means simply getting them out to the polls. Nice word, "hardened."

May 19, 2010. Bravo to Oakland, California, for being the first municipality officially to endorse the legalization initiative!

May 18, 2010. This is curious, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Today's New York Times carries a long article in the "Dining & Wine" section about haute stoner cuisine, which, as best I can tell from the article, is about food prepared by stoned chefs (who insist they weren't) for the enjoyment of other chefs (who probably are), and who conceive new restaurants "with the creative help of marijuana." See: "Chefs using marijuana create a new kitchen culture.'

My take? Optimistically, it's the Times dipping its toe into a future post-prohibitionist cannabis culture. It's people celebrating marijuana, as millions have done for years, but for the first time the New York Times is sharing in the celebration, as it has often shared in the celebration of other indulgences..

Money quote:

Much of the food of the haute stoner movement is well crafted and well executed by chefs with traditional culinary training who are trying to create something both countercultural and sophisticated, said Gail Simmons, special project director of Food & Wine magazine. “You need to have some thought and some skill to make these dishes,” she said. “It’s not just, ‘I’m twirling around at a Dead concert and I stumbled upon this cool dish.’ ”

I've never seen the words "countercultural" and "sophisticated" in the same sentence. This is revolutionary.

What is truly revolutionary, in terms of the MSM, is that this is a story not about using marijuana to play, but using marijuana to work; not about its recreational use, but its vocational use.

Of course it's no secret that many people use marijuana to work, and not just writers and artists. It's common among a wide range of professions, from professors to laborers.

Score one for the Times.

(Not to quibble, but pot is no longer "countercultural," is it? Isn't it the law that is countercultural?)

May 16, 2010. I've been readiing Dan Okrent's new book, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. He's a terrific writer, certainly a masterful phrase turner and a thorough researcher. I am disappointed, however, that he ignored the story of the VCL, and did not get the 1923/Al Smith story right. And, I've been curious about whether he will even acknowledge the parallels with marijuana prohibition.

No more; he has jumped in, feet first. Today's Los Angeles Times carries his op-ed, "An illegal substance sold legally," wherein he trumpets the parallels between medical alcohol in the 20s, and medical marijuana today.

The end of marijuana prohibition has begun. Now we await politicans and other public figures to ascknowledge it and jump aboard the tax&reg train.

May 13, 2010. Also today, a very long article has come out of the Associated Press, remarkably not credited to anyone, titled "AP Impact: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals." It is pegged to the release, by the Administration, of this year's "drug control strategy" and drug war budget. The piece has a good history of prohibition, and lots of numbers and statistics backing up its futility (if you accept that the purposes of the drug prohibition laws is what the executive branch says they are). It is not compassion for drug addicts that drives us to arrest them.

Too bad they asked questions only of the executive branch, whose job it is to carry out the laws made by congress, a separate branch of government, and who naturally cannot criticize the law. If the policy drawn up and annually approved by congress is futile, then it's congress's responsibility to fix it. So long as they are afraid to, the rest of us will have to rouse what rabble we can.

May 13, 2010. Today The Wall Street Journal published my letter-to-the-editor responding to the recent review, by Russ Smith, of Dan Okrent's new book, Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, wherein I chastise the reviewer for not crediting the work of reformist organizations like the Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, and, most especially, the Voluntary Committee of Lawyers, for the extraordinary demise of Prohibition.

May 12, 2010. Another outstanding piece of writing: "Just another casualty in the criminal war on drugs," by Dan Gardner, published in today's Ottawa Citizen. The author recounts the plight of Mark Emery, the obsequiousness of the Canadian government, and the shameful deceit of ours. May it gain wide circulation.

My only comment is that it is not strategically helpful to identify the DEA and other law enforcement agencies as our villians, though they are indeed, and many seem to relish that role. Rather, the blame for prohibition can fairly and honestly be placed at the feet of our racist ancestors, who conceived marijuana prohibition nearly a century ago as a way to oppress minorities.

May 9, 2010. Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for the Boston Globe, has a piece today on the immigration crisis and the new Arizona law. In it, he condemns the seldom-challenged view of the infallibility of law. A perfect illustration is the story of Rosa Parks.

In Montgomery, Ala., in 1955, Rosa Parks broke the law that mandated racial segregation on public buses. For refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger, Parks was arrested, fingerprinted, and fined. As she was being removed from the bus, she asked the arresting officer, “Why do you push us around?’’ “I don’t know,’’ he replied. “But the law is the law and you’re under arrest.’’

His conclusion:

Respect for law is important. But when laws are foolish, perverse, and repugnant to American interests and ideals, they should be resisted and replaced. Republicans and conservatives should be leading the fight for real immigration reform. How sad that so many of them would rather fight immigrants instead.

Ditto marijuana law reform. One of these days a small child will cry out that the emperor is naked, whereupon prohibitionists and punishers, now the parade organizers, will lose themselves in the crowd.

Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875) The Emperor's New Clothes (1835)    An Emperor who cares for nothing but his wardrobe hires two weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.

That cry might have been heard this past week, when the video of the police SWAT raid in Columbia, Missouri, hit the net. it is not that the emperor is naked, but that this nation's marijuana laws are putrescent--rotten to the core--and doing serious damage to our nation and to our people. Everyone knows it, but few dare declare it, lest their jobs or homes be risked.

The Youtube viewings are approaching a million, and a number of reaction-videos are appearing.

Here's a letter-to-the-editor I sent to the Columbia (Missouri) Tribune:

To the Editor: Although the SWAT raid video revealed brutal police tactics against a defenseless family, it is likely that the police operated fully within “procedures.” The real question is who sanctioned those procedures. Was it the police captain who led the raid, the chief who authorized it, the judge who signed the warrant? Was it the Mayor’s fault for not knowing how the police behave? The legislature’s for giving them an unreasonable task in the first place, plus all the “tools” they need to carry out their savage campaigns against “narcotics?”  Or was it the rest of us, whose elected officials interpret public silence as indifference, not fear? The ultimate blame for marijuana prohibition lies with racists of the early 20th Century.  Nobody has to defend it today. It’s time to legalize pot and put this sordid episode behind us. /s/ RME

May 9, 2010. The Guardian of Great Britain has a long piece today titled, "Could marijuana save California?" The headline is better than the piece, as it is yet another look at today's (medical) marijuana industry in northern California...as if, naively, it could save California. What the writer seems to overlook is that once the commercial cannabis industry comes into the legal light of day, everything will change. The most highly rewarded attributes will be planning, organizing, raising capital, managing employees, delivering quality product and getting paid by customers, and no longer a willingness and ability to work hard, live underground and to flout a very bad law. Of course many people currently in the medical marijuana business have all of those skills, and will ply them successfully when marijuana is liberated. It is also true that many people with those important business skills have, up to now, put their liberty before their pocketbook and attended to other matters. Unleashed, a legal marijuana industry may well save California--or at least lend a big hand--but it won't, I suspect, be based in Humboldt County.

He did have a great quote. At a recent public meeting, one Dan Rush, "special operations director for UFCW5, the north California branch of America's third largest trade union, United Food and Commercial Workers," declared:

Schools are closing. Police officers are being laid off. If government opposes legalisation, they've lost their minds.

Indeed.

May 8, 2010. It's good to see the MSM starting to pay attention to "drug law reform," as Katrina Vanden Heuvel properly put it in her Washington Post blog. Referring to LA's halving of medical marijuana dispensaries, and D.C.'s implementation of a medical marijuana law, she writes:

It is telling that, at the same that Los Angeles seems to have given up on eradicating the killer weed from its environs, Washington is beginning its own birth pangs of liberalization and legalization. Though it would appear that L.A. is cracking down while D.C. is easing up, they’re actually related parts of a larger, progressive trend towards comprehensive drug law reform.

Exactly. And that trend is further along than she imagines.

May 7, 2010. Since this website is devoted to how marijuana should be legalized, and not whether it should be legalized, I have deferred to others to make that case. But a video is making the rounds that knocked my socks off, and needs to be watched by every American and every taxpayer and every parent... and every dog owner, who might hesitate to repeal marijuana prohibition immediately. It shows a police SWAT raid on a middle class family in the middle of the night. Remarkable footage, shocking content. Everything but the German accents. Please distribute it widely.

May 7, 2010. Yes! The Liberal Democrats did well enough to produce a stalemate--"the prospect of a hung parliament," as the NY Times put it--forcing the Labourites to try to form an alliance with the Conservatives. No mention of cannabis in today's press, but one has to wonder.

April 30, 2010. Interesting story out of Great Britain. It seems that some Tories have unearthed a "secret" document from the Liberal Democrats that put the party in support of cannabis legalization. (My guess it that the "discovery" was engineered by the LibDems themselves.) This makes next week's elections much more interesting! If they win, politicians everywhere will notice. It's a long shot, but so was the defeat of Martha Coakley

April 22, 2010. A new poll is out from California today, showing 56% support for legalization. (It isn't clear if that is support for the Lee Initiative, or for legalization generally.) That is still too close to be betting the farm that the initiative will pass, but certainly encouraging. The challenge to reformers in November is to get voters out to the polls.

"This is really the first attempt to legalize drugs," he said. "This is just a Trojan horse. The first of an incremental strategic attempt."

So, there we have Official Argument #2 against the measure. The first is the old bromide about sending messages to children, as if law enforcement policy should be shaped by how it might be misinterpreted by minors. Now it's a "Trojan horse," as if our side can't wait to legalize cocaine and meth.

Will opponents come up with anything better?  Will they go away when it's pointed out that they're simply mistaken, that we have no further agenda?

March 25, 2010. Another historic day. The Lee Initiative has been certified for the California ballot this November. Everything is about to change. My guess is that California won't be the only one. Look for Washington and Oregon, too. Brace for federal apoplexy.

March 23, 2010. It has happened. The MSM has adopted the p-word. It appears several times in an article in today's Los Angeles Times by John Hoeffel, about the Lee Initiative in California:
* "Proponents will cite the financial and social cost of enforcing pot prohibition....'"
* Supporters hope to "persuade voters to replace prohibition with controlled sales..."
* Adversaries will "dispute the effect prohibition has on marijuana use...'"

It's an historic day in the history of drug war rhetoric. (Curiously, the article does not mention federal law.)

March 21, 2010. Today's Washington Post carries an AP story, apparently generated by a law enforcement organization in California, linking medical marijuana to violence. The writer then states: "Pot activists say the opposite: that prohibition breeds crime and legalization would solve the problem." So close, but not yet, in terms of using the p word. The writer attributes the word to "pot activists," but can't bring himself to use it as his. We're still awaiting the first news story in the leading MSM wherein that word stands on its own.


March 16, 2010. The Report of the Rhode Island Special Senate Commission to Study the Prohibition of Marijuana came out today, and it calls for decrim a la Massachusetts, with not a mention of legalization.... which is fine. Decrim would be a splendid improvement over the status quo. The Commission's big accomplishment is rhetorical. Including the p word in their name was a stroke of genius. When that word catches on in the popular discourse, change will pick up speed geometrically. And we will owe our friends in Rhode Island a big debt of gratitude.

March 14, 2010.  A long article appears in today's New York Times, dateline Reynosa, Mexico, describing the horrific violence along the border said to be perpetrated by the "drug cartels," and how the local press has been intimidated into ignoring it.  Nothing new there, unfortunately. What is remarkable, however, that as the Mexican press has been silenced from reporting the violence, the American press has been silenced from reporting its cause. Nowhere in the article does the word "prohibition' appear.

March 5, 2010. Last Tuesday, March 2, the Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts legislature held the requisite hearing on S1801, An Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry. A good delegation, including law students from Suffolk, showed up for our side, and no one spoke against the measure. Pat Ogelsby travelled from North Carolina and testified with great aplomb. Jack Cole from LEAP was solid and persuasive. Steve Epstein, Bill Downing, Mike Crawford, Marguerite Walker and so many more, all these good folks earned the gratitude of the Commonwealth.  That gratitude will be acknowledged some day, and I hope it will be soon.

The committee gave a polite hearing to what we had to say about prohibition and legalization, but obviously cared nothing about the subject. Our success for the day,  I believe, was in sowing linguistic seeds for the coming debate. Never have I heard "prohibition" and "repeal" spoken so frequently and seriously.

Video from the hearing, thanks to Mike Crawford:  Jack Cole, Steve Epstein & Dick Evans, Marguerite Walker. Here's the text of what I had to say.  And here's Jack Cole's testimony.

Read Pat Ogelby's remarkable statement here. It represented the first-ever testimony from a serious expert in taxation discussing the particulars of legalization before a legislative committee... first time certainly on the east coast if not in the nation.

BTW, another linguistic seed we need to sow describes those who support legalization vs those who oppose it. During Prohibition, the two sides were the "wets" and the "drys."  I have been searching for some short; punchy terms that captures both sides of our struggle, but so far without success. Since in actuality the two sides are those who tolerate cannabis vs those who are intolerant of cannabis, I suggested "tols" vs "intols' to a friend, but  he advised me to keep looking. Help please.

March 4, 2010. Another reg/tax bill has been filed, this time in Rhode Island. We've been expecting this one, but what we're particularly eager to see is the report the Senate commission that has been studying prohibition. Hopefully it will be out any day now.

January 24, 2010. Here's an anonymous  column from a soccer mom lamenting prohibition without using that term.  These are the narratives that rarely get told, and these are the experiences that people bring with them into the privacy of a voting booth... and of which most politicians are oblivious or pretend to be oblivious.

January 17, 2010. This is curious. A small evangelical church in Colorado is deliberating whether a Christian can smoke pot, and attempting to "discover the biblical position on the use of medical marijuana as well as obtain insight into the Christian position if marijuana becomes legal for recreational use." You gotta hand it to them for looking ahead!

And, a columnist for the Denver Post has condemned the director of the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, one Tom Gorman, for illegal lobbying and failing to respect the directive of the Justice Department not to prosecute people obeying state medical marijuana laws.  When was the last time you heard any columnist critize a cop for his positioin on drugs?

January 15, 2010. More news from California, but it didn't get much press. Obviously in anticipation of the passage in November of the Lee Initiative, the local option plan, one of the members of the San Franciso Board of Supervisors has urged putting the vote to the people over whether the City, pursuant to the authority (expected to be) granted by the new law, ought to develop a plan for the regulation and taxation of cannabis commerce. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi is  being prudent and concervative on wanting to best position the City for claiming the prospective benefits of regulation and taxation. Prescient too, I trust.

January 13, 2010. News today is that a tax-and-reg initiative has been filed for the November, 2010, ballot in Washington state, by the group, Sensible Washington.

January 12, 2010. Big day! The New Jersey legislature passed a medical marijuana bill, which Gov. Corzine promises to sign before he leaves office next week. In California, the Ammiano bill  advanced with a favorable vote in the Public Safety Committee of the Assembly. It's the first time ever that any committee of any legislature has voted to repeal marijuana prohibition. Great quote from Rep. Ammiano: "This is a significant vote because it legitimizes the quest for debate." Legitimizes the quest for debate. Indeed. 

    What was really significant about the hearing was that the principal witness for the opposition, Andrea Barthwell, former deputy director for demand reduction for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, testified, "... prohibition is working for our young people to keep them drug free."

    What's remarkable is not only her claim that prohibition has successfully kept young people drug free, but the fact that she used the word "prohibition' matter-of-factly.  "When the other side starts using your terms to describe reality, you start to win," said Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We've started to win.

    Here's a totally different take on the California hearing, from a prohibitionist perspective.

December 17, 2009. Number Four! A bill has been filed in New Hampshire for the 2010 legislative session to tax and regulate marijuana. That makes New Hampshire the fourth state legislature to entertain such a measure, after Massachusetts, California and Washington. (The Massachusetts bill was filed by right of citizen petition.) The rattle is not quite a rumble, but is off to a good start. A few elected legislators have found the courage to declare in public what they have been whispering among themselves for years, namely, that trying to enforce marijuana is a luxury we can't afford. Everybody knows that trying to suppress pot is futile, but too few have the courage to admit it. The sponsors of the California, Washington and New Hampshire bills,  who deserve prominence in a hall of heroes, are

California                State Representatvie Tom Ammiano
Washington            State Representatives Dickerson, Goodman, Upthegrove, Appleton, White, and                                  Roberts.
New Hampshire:     Reps. Calvin Pratt, Joel Winters, Carla Skinder, and Timothy Comerford

The Washington bill has been endorsed by the Mayor-elect of Seattle, Mike Mcginn.

December 13, 2009.  The "mess" of medical marijuana is manifest in an op-ed in today's Denver Post, and the comments thereto from readers.

November 29, 2009. Two significant opinion pieces appeared today. One, by the columnist George Will, excorciates the sham of medical marijuana, but offers no suggestions. The other, by a pharmacist in Redding, California, similarly excorciates the sham, but urges legalization as a remedy. Will's column is remarkably uninformed. He fears that the ineluctable legitimatization of medical marijuana will "institutionalize hypocrisy," naively overlooking the colossal hypocrisy of prohibition itself.

The good news about Will's piece is that his attention to this subject legitimizes the issue, silently proclaiming it as safe to weigh in on. I predict a wave of articles and opinion pieces will appear over the next week, similar to the pharmacist's, pointing out that notwithstanding the near-legal status of cannabis in California, the sky hasn't fallen.... and we might as well legalize the stuff.

November 25, 2009. The police chief of Kent, Washington, Steve Strachan, has an op-ed in today's Seattle Times grumbling politely about all the legal confusion surrounding  medical marijuana. The piece ends with this paragraph:

As a chief law-enforcement officer, I would encourage all of us to have a healthy and respectful debate about what place marijuana has in our society and if it should remain criminalized. That decision belongs to our elected representatives, and we will enforce laws based upon those choices. We ask only that the laws be clearly understood, supported, and we be allowed to enforce them uniformly and appropriately.

Well put. This chief, to his credit, understands the distinction between the legislative function of making law, and the executive function of enforcing it. He could teach a thing or two to his big-city colleagues.

November 24, 2009. A short piece in today's Wall Street Journal Health Blog, carries a great headline: "Medical marijuana goes retail: you can tax it." The last four words will resonate widely, expecially among folk that are more interested in revenue than marijuana, and will get them thinking: if medical marijuana can be taxed, why not non-medical?

November 23, 2009. Huge development today. For the first time, the word "prohibition" has appeared in the MSM, in a Washington Post story, "Support for legalizing marijuana grows rapidly around U.S.," by Karl Vick. A sub-headline reads, "Approval for medical use expands alongside criticism of prohibition," and the fourth paragraph from the end reads, in its entirety, "Advocates cite the latter [that medical marijuana dispensaries don't bring violence] as evidence that, as with alcohol, violence associated with the marijuana trade flows from its prohibition."  (See below, September 18) This is historic.

November 21, 2009. Today's New York Times carries a story on the Health page, "Medical marijuana: no longer just for adults," which describes the debate among medical professionals about the proprieity of treating children and teenagers with marijuana. This is more good news. Obviously the Times editors consider this newsworthy, which means they consider the use of medical marjuana by adults old news and not worthy of ink. When cannabis is fully liberated, debates like this will seem so quaint.

November 18, 2009.  Another major development. Notice of marijuana has reached the Christian right. They're past ignoring it, and straddling the line between ridiculing and opposing the new "Cannabis Cafe" that the Portland, Oregon, chapter of NORML is said to have opened.  They are also into issue-framing, and this publication seems to be framing the marijuana issue in terms of  the right to get stoned.  And that might not be so bad, when you think about it. That's why people smoke it!  

I love the line from an unhappy patron quoted in Sarah Mirk's story in the Portland Mercury: "Why would I want to smoke with a bunch of people I don't know?"

It's also very curious that the local NORML chapter is doing this. Quite a stretch, I'd say, for NORML, but we could certainly use a stretch!  I am proud to be a long-time member and supporter of NORML.

November 17, 2009. The Colorado attorney general, John Suthers, has formally opined (also reported here) that sales of medical marijauna are taxable just as sales of other "tangible property" are taxed. When the revenue starts rolling in, other states (and municipalities) will leap on board. Legitimization is an important step to legalization.

November 12, 2009. A medical marijuana dispensary in Gilroy, California, has remained open for business, in defiance of a cease-and-desist order from city officials. Finally, civil disbedience! By this time next year, when at least one tax-and-reg initiative will be on the ballot, confusion will reign supreme, and legalization--for both medical and non-medical use-- will look like a very simple way to clean up the entire mess.

November 11, 2009. Another big development. The American Medical Association yesterday adopted a resolution calling for the federal government to "review" its classification of cannabis, so as to open the door to more research into its use as medicine. This will be construed by the MSM as an endorsement of medical marijuana, which will boost reform efforts in other states. That camel won't stop climbing under the tent. His nose is long past in; I'm seeing his ears.

November 7, 2009. A recent piece in the Denver Daily News describes the current confusion on the Denver City Council as to whether, and, if so, how, to regulate the medical marijuana industry in that city. (In 2000 voters amended the state constitution to allow medical marijuana.) One of the opponents of regulation is said to have complained that "taxing the industry would legitimize it."

It is amusing that an elected councilmember finds medical marijuana illegitimate even though it is expressly provided for in the state constitution, and instructive as to the mindset we are up against in the struggle for legalization.  Many people have listened their entire life to anti-pot propaganda, most of it promulgated by the government in defense of prohibition, and cannot bring themselves to accept that pot, and the people who use it, are simply not demons.

There is an old German saying, Was nicht sein darf, ist nicht, which translates to "What must not be, does not exist."

To so many Americans, it must not be that cannabis consumers are ordinary, otherwise law-abiding people who pose little threat to our society, and it must not be that they have been told otherwise all their life and it must not be that they were so gullible as to believe the lies. Therefore, such is not the case.

November 2, 2009. Two "drug advisers to the British government" have resigned following the Nutt flap, claiming that "ministers were putting inappropriate presure on scientists to make decisions about drugs for political reasons."  Might this story have legs? Might it become a story about politicians vs. science, and not about politicians vs. marijuana?  Stay tuned!

November 1, 2009. A story in this morning's Oakland Tribune, "Marijuana laws spur small businesses in Oakland, elsewhere," describing the growth of marijuana-related commerce created by the medical marjuana market, gives a glimpse of the industrial explosion that will occur when cannabis is fully liberated.  Money quote:

Newer are the small business ventures such as delivery services and publishers of books about how to start pot-related businesses. Pharmacologists are standardizing the safety and strength of the pot consumed in everything from lemon bars to olive oil. Companies are preparing special machines, packaging and containers for the industry.

When policymakers discover that they can safely utter the L word, step back as capitalism roars its head and plunges forward, creating multitudes of new jobs.

In other news, there's a story today out of the U.K. It seems that their Drug Czar, one David Nutt, stated in public that marijuana, ecstasy and LSD were less dangerous than alcohol, and he was immediately fired by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  Certainly he's not the first public official to be fired for telling the truth, and won't be the last.  At least they didn't make him drink poison hemlock.

October 30, 2009. A new piece by the national Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, is significant. In it, Mr. Kerlikowske declares that the issue of marijuana legalization is not on the table in the Obama administration. "It is not something that the President and I discuss; it isn't even on the agenda." The piece goes on to acknowledge that the arguments for legalization include ending violence in Mexico, curing state budget problems, and helping sick people. Then he denounces the notion of taxing marijuana, pointing out that the social and health care costs of alcohol and tobacco exceed the revenue gained from those "legal drugs."

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Kerlikowske has done the legalization movement a huge favor. In his official capacity, he acknowledges the existence of the marijuana legalization issue, understands (but rejects) arguments in support, and concedes that cannabis can be regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco (though is not in favor of it). To put a cherry on top, he observes that alcohol and tobacco are "legal drugs."  Has any Drug Czar ever so admitted?

(Now, candidates for public office can be asked, "Do you agree with Obama Aministration that the revenue potential from a taxed, regulated market in cannabis should be ignored?" )

Those acknowledgements from an official Obama administration spokesperson are significant. Legalization is not being ignored, and not being ridiculed. Opposition is welcome, especially when it helps us like this.

[Added November 1:  Or, perhaps I'm all wrong and we should be condemning Mr. K instead of thanking him. For a contrary view from a fellow reformer, see here.]

October 29, 2009. Last night's two-hour documentary on PBS, Michael Pollen's The Botany of Desire, was artfully and courageously illuminating in its treatment of cannabis (and brilliant as well as for tulips, apples and potatos). It's great to see cannabis  presented on prime time (albeit on PBS) as a hugely talented plant which, by the way, happens to be illegal.. and how its illegality has affect its botony. Mr. Pollen did not overlook the observation that men and women sacrifice their liberty for it, and taxpayers spend a lot of money to keep it illegal.

October 28, 2009.  A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to codify the recent declaration of the Justice Department that federal agents will not target medical marijuana dispensaries or sick people. It seems so obvious, so right.  The more confusing and confounded medical marijuana becomes legally,  which it inevitably will,  sooner is the day that regulation and taxation will seem so right.  

        As repeal approaches, the burden of defending prohibition will inevitably fall to those who perceive themselves as having the most to lose,  namely, law enforcement officers and officials who have risked  their lives and dedicated their careers to the cause of prohibition.  They do indeed stand to lose in terms of law enforcement budgets, but, more importantly, repeal of marijuana, either by the legislature or the voters, may be perceived as defeat and surrender in the drug war. It is natural that some should feel that way.  Thank goodness there is LEAP.
October 21, 2009. The editorial fallout on the medical marijuana thing is overwhelmingly favorable. Several editorials I have seen conclude with a sober look forward to legalization, but with timidity. Consider this paragraph from an editorial from the Mercury News:

The carnage in Mexico and other developments in the worldwide drug trade have led to increased calls for legalizing marijuana for recreational use, much as the rampant crime during Prohibition led to the legalization of alcohol once again. But that's debate for another time.

Another time??

The p-word is appearing regularly in editorials and blogs, though not in news stories. It's fun to guess what major paper or news service will be the first to use the word to describe reality.  That's when we begin to win. (See entry of September 18, below).  The D of J's pronouncement (not, curiously, the Attorney General's), assured that the whole legal imbrolio called medical marijuana, where nobody is quite sure of what she can and can't do, will grow more confusing and chaotic.  Inevitably, the suggestion will be made that we might as well legalize it. And the issue will thus be joined: to repeal marijuana prohibition or not.

October 19, 2009.  Big day for medical marijuana. The U.S. Justice Department published new "guidelines" for prosecution of medical marijuana users, caregivers, and providers, basically putting in writing what AG Holder announced six months ago, namely, that the feds would back off when people comply with state law.  On the same day, a Superior Court judge invalidated a moratorium on new dispensaries in LA.  This chaos sure makes legalization looks good. The local DA must be scratching his head. Why can't these people read the election returns? Do they not know that the public supports medical marijuana, and are just pretending that they don't?  My guess is that they are so steeped in anti-marijuana propaganda that they simply cannot imagine life without prohibition. 
October 17, 2009. The dust having settled from our whirlwind trip to Boston and the Statehouse for the hearing on H2929 before the Revenue Committee, it's time to opine on how it went and what we accomplished.  A fuller report is here.  The salient facts are these:  The room was filled with supporters. Only one opponent showed up, a long-time anti-drug crusader. The Committee was respectful, listed attentively to the witnesses, and, most importantly, asked good questions. I believe it represented the first time, ever, that there was a substantive engagement between legalization advocates and elected legislators on the merits of legalization.

The next event will be a similar hearng on S1801, the tax-and-regulate bill that was filed on the senate side, and assigned to the Juduciary Committee. I haven't a clue when it will be called for hearing.  My personal preference would be to wait as long as possible, to give time for developments  in California and Rhode Island.

Today's New York Times carries an article, "Los Angeles prepares for clash over marijuana," describing the chaos that the LA medical marijuana scene has become. I smile with the knowledge that regulation and taxation would solve all that. Certainly lots of people, pretending ignorance,  recognize that fact, but it still can't be talked about in polite company!


October 1, 2009. A remarkable piece appeared today, of all places, on the NBC Today Show, (deceptively) titled Stiletto Stoners.  Matt Lauer interviewed the editor of a women's magazine and a psychologist, both of whom said lots of smart, productive women get high regularly. Matt dutifully pretended dismay. More remarkable, but not surprising, was the flood of emails to NBC commenting. Nearly all the submissions, many of them quite moving in their eloquence, supported legalization. The word "prohibition" appeared several times!

September 21, 2009. Today's Boston Globe carries a curious AP strory from the state of Washington, describing confusion over the state's medical marijuana law, in particular who is allowed to grow and for whom.  This website doesn't typically follow the medical marijuana "controversy," as the media likes call it, but this one is significant, in that it describes no controversy at all  over the use of medical marijuana;  rather, the controversy is over how the production and distribution should occur to meet the intent of the law, viz., to help sick people. Not whether, but how.  

That's the  story I've been awaiting for years on legalization: not whether to tax and regulate, but how best to. The appearance of MSM stories like that about legalization will signify a great advance.  I'm still waiting.

HOME                         MASSACHUSETTS                         CURRENT MEDIA