Prohibition and Americans: Legalizing marijuana, like alcohol, is the rational thing to do

by Christopher Brauchli

The Congress doesn’t run -- it waltzes.
Charles Joseph, Comment to Comte Auguste de LaGardeChambonas (1814)

Congress is not as idle as it may seem.  Whereas much of the publicity it is getting suggests it is not getting anything done, that is because the things it has not accomplished tend to be more interesting than the things a few of its committees have gotten done.  The House Judiciary Committee is an example of this.   As has been observed here and elsewhere, in July it addressed the vexing problem confronted by peripatetic armed citizens.

Constitutionally armed citizens are confronted by a plethora of state laws covering concealed weapons.  Each time they cross a state line bearing concealed weapons they fear they may be in violation of the law of the state they are entering and that fear impinges on their rights to freely travel around the country. To remedy that, in July  the House Judiciary Committee passed the National Right-to-carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 in July.  If enacted by Congress all rules pertaining to concealed weapons will come from the federal government and not from individual states.   The Judiciary Committee has now passed amendments to the criminal code that, if enacted by Congress,  will fix a problem that was created by United States vs. Ivan Lopez-Vanegas et al., a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit  decided in 2007. 

In Lopez the Court reversed the conviction of Mr. Lopez who was convicted of a conspiracy to possess, with the intent to distribute,  cocaine.  Mr. Lopez and his colleagues were assisting Prince Nayef bin Fawwaz al-Shaalan, the son-in-law of the Saudi Vice Minister of Defense (who is the brother of the former king of Saudi Arabia) by coordinating the purchase of cocaine.  Two tons of  cocaine were purchased in Colombia and transported on a plane owned by the Saudi royal family to Europe where all but 840 grams was distributed. (The Prince is a wealthy member of the royal Saudi family who owns oil interests in Colombia and Venezuela and the court does not explain why he was selling cocaine.)  French authorities seized the 840 grams two weeks after its arrival in France.  Following its seizure Mr. Lopez and others were apprehended and tried and in Mr. Lopez’s case, convicted.

The extent of Mr. Lopez’s activities in the United States consisted of hotel meetings that planned the operation.  The cocaine was never in the United States.  The government charged Lopez with violating two sections of the United States Code that, read together, make it a crime “to conspire to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, such as cocaine.”   He was convicted in the trial court but  his conviction was reversed on appeal.  The court found that since none of his activities involved possessing or distributing cocaine within the United States,  Code sections relied on did not apply to him.  That was the end of the matter until September 2011. 

For four years, Congressman Lamar Smith, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, had contemplated the effect of the decision.  By September 2011he had decided that it was inimical to the best interests of the United  States for a violation of the Controlled Substances Act to apply only if the controlled substance was in the United States. Accordingly he proposed a bill that was passed by the Judiciary Committee on October 6.  It “amends the Controlled Substances Act to  clarify that persons who enter into a conspiracy within the United States to possess or traffic illegal controlled substances outside the United States, or engage in conduct within the United States to aid or abet drug trafficking outside the United States, may be criminally prosecuted in the United States. . . .” The bill was baptized the “Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011” and does not distinguish between controlled substances that are legal in the country where the distribution is to take place and those that are illegal in that country.  Thus if someone in the United States enters into negotiations for the purchase and sale of a drug that is legal in the country in which the transaction is taking place, that individual can nonetheless be prosecuted in the United States.  The democrats on the committee tried to amend the bill to provide that it only applied if the controlled substance was illegal in both countries.  The Republicans set aside their dislike of the ever-expanding role of the federal government in the lives of ordinary citizens and retained language that caused the amendment apply to as many people as possible.

Commenting on the bill, a civil rights lawyer and author, Harvey Silverglate, said:  “Just when you think you can’t get any more cynical, a bill like this comes along.  It just sounds like an abomination.  [T]here’s no intuitive reason for an American to think that planning an activity that’s perfectly legal in another country would have an effect on America. . . . [T]his is just an act of shameless cultural and legal imperialism.  It’s just outrageous.” He’s right.  Of course it is nice to see that occasionally a Congressional Committee can actually pass legislation, even if it’s bad.  It shows that at least one part of the Congress is not doing nothing. 

   A new Gallup poll shows that 50% of voters nationwide answered “Yes” to the question, “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?” Only 46% of respondents answered “No.” This is the first time on record that more Americans support ending marijuana prohibition than support maintaining the status quo of arresting and prosecuting people for marijuana possession. Support for marijuana reform has been growing steadily over the last few decades, but this poll shows a 4% increase over last year, when Gallup asked respondents the same question.

Opinions were heavily divided by age, with support being strongest among 18-29 year olds (62%) and 30-49 year olds (56%). The results were also quite divided geographically, with the highest support coming from the West, Midwest, and East.

“This is an historic day in the decades-long war on marijuana. As of today, a majority of the American public believes the use of marijuana should be legal for adults,” said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project. “Moreover, it is clear from the levels of support among various age groups that support will only increase over time. None of this is surprising. Americans know that prohibition is a failed policy. It was true for alcohol, and it is true for marijuana, a substance far less harmful than alcohol. The American people are clearly saying it is time to stop arresting adults for using marijuana. Now it is time for our elected officials to listen to the public.”

This poll comes at an interesting time, with many states re-examining their marijuana laws and a series of bills sitting before Congress that would limit federal involvement in marijuana policy. Currently, the Obama administration is reversing its earlier stance of non-interference in medical marijuana states and is increasing efforts to shut down the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere, a move that experts say will drive medical marijuana patients into the criminal market to obtain their medicine. At the same time, several states, including Colorado, California, and Washington, are considering ballot initiatives that would tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.            

            The poll, conducted October 6-9 by Gallup, surveyed 1,005 registered voters from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is available for download at http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/Record-High-Americans-Favor-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx

Marijuana Policy Project

by Steve Chapman

Candidates running for president can easily wreck their campaigns with one serious misstep. Back in 1976, one Democrat said he favored getting rid of criminal penalties for marijuana use. Can you imagine how Americans of that primitive era reacted to his blunder? They elected him.

Once in office, Jimmy Carter didn't abandon his temperate approach to cannabis. He proposed that the federal government stop treating possession of small amounts as a crime, making a sensible but novel argument: "Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself."

Nothing came of it, of course. Carter's logic was unassailable even 35 years ago, but it has yet to be translated into federal policy. The American experience with prohibition of alcohol proved that we are capable of learning from our mistakes. The experience with prohibition of marijuana proves that we are also capable of doing just the opposite.

The stupidity and futility of the federal war on weed, however, has slowly permeated the mass consciousness. This week, the Gallup organization reported that fully 50 percent of Americans now think marijuana should be made legal. This is the first time since Gallup began asking in 1969 that more Americans support legalization than oppose it.

The shift has shaped drug policy at the state level. Seventeen states have approved medical use of pot, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and 14 have decriminalized possession of small amounts for personal use — including such staunchly conservative places as Mississippi and Nebraska.

Changes in a permissive direction may bring casual use out of the closet, but they don't elicit the disasters that anti-drug zealots fear. In fact, research indicates that decriminalizing cannabis has only a tiny effect on consumption, if any.

For that matter, hardly anything has an effect. Over the last 30 years, federal spending to fight drugs has risen seven times over, after inflation. Since 1991, arrests for possession of pot have nearly tripled. But all for naught.

As a report last year by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy noted, more high school students and young adults get high today than 20 years ago. More than 16 million Americans smoke dope at least once a month. Pot is just as available to kids as it ever was, and cheaper than before.

If we had gotten results like this after reducing enforcement, the new policy would be blamed. But politicians who support the drug war never consider that their remedies may be aggravating the disease. They follow the customary formula for government programs: If it works, spend more on it, and if it fails, spend more on it.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for overriding states on medical marijuana."What I'm not going to be doing," he vowed, "is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue."

For a while it seemed like he meant it. Early on, the Justice Department said it would not waste resources going after sick people who were using cannabis as allowed by states. But recently, federal prosecutors in California have been mobilizing to shut down the state-approved dispensaries that supply those patients.

It's like George W. Bush never left. William Panzer, co-author of the medical marijuana initiative approved by California voters, told The Los Angeles Times, "The Obama administration has been incredibly disappointing on this issue."

The effort to combat marijuana has served to punish Americans for using a substance that is far less harmful than legal ones. It has enriched organized crime, while fueling endless slaughter by drug cartels in Mexico. It has prevented clinical research on the therapeutic use of cannabis. Its results run the gamut from pathetic ineffectuality to outright harm.

Those facts account for the growing support for legalization, despite ceaseless government propaganda against marijuana. It may seem impossible that cannabis will ever be permitted, regulated and taxed like beer or cigarettes. But when public opinion moves, public policy is bound to follow.

In 1930, the author of the constitutional amendment establishing Prohibition said, "There is as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a hummingbird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail." Three years later, it was gone.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman

schapman@tribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Copyright © 2011, Chicago Tribun
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1020-chapman-20111...

by Jesse McKinley

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — Kern County is not exactly the kind of place where you would expect a voter rebellion, what with its conservative rural residents, its live-off-the-land values and its almost unshakable devotion to the Republican Party.

But over the last several months, Kern County — about 100 miles north of Los Angeles and as far as it can get from San Francisco — has become the scene of a civil war of sorts over an issue, medical marijuana, whose supporters are often of a more liberal stripe. At stake is a controversial law — passed unanimously in August by the county’s all-Republican Board of Supervisors — which would have effectively shut many of the three dozen or so medical marijuana dispensaries in the county.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the ban: medical marijuana advocates started a petition drive to challenge it, calling for a referendum on the law, something that could happen as soon as next year. In the meantime, the law is in limbo.

And while such an effort is nearly unheard of in Kern — perhaps the first time in modern memory that anyone can recall a county law being so challenged — it is not the only place in California, the original medical marijuana state, where local regulation is meeting opposition. Laws passed in several other counties and cities have also been the subject of referendum movements, something permitted by California state law.

In San Jose, for example, advocates for medical marijuana filed tens of thousands of signatures last Friday to try to force a vote on a new law that would have regulated dispensaries there, a development that Mayor Chuck Reed said could cost his city — facing a $100 million deficit next year — sorely needed finances to mount an election.

“It’s definitely not a small number,” Mr. Reed said. “But that’s the choice we’ll have to make.”

At the same time, some state officials in California are also increasingly perplexed about mixed signs from the federal authorities, who still view marijuana as illegal under federal law despite legislation in more than a dozen states allowing the drug’s medical use. The strongest indication of recent federal disapproval came in early October, when four United States attorneys in California said they would crack down on dozens of dispensaries — which sell marijuana to anyone with a doctor’s recommendation — saying that many are operating as large-scale drug-selling operations, not medically minded collectives, as required by state law.

And while state officials here admit that the current model of distribution is subject to manipulation by those simply wanting to buy marijuana for recreational use, they argue that the federal threats are endangering those who truly need it.

“If there are abuses we should deal with those, but this is not the way to do it,” said Tom Ammiano, a state assemblyman from San Francisco, who called the federal threats thuggish. “I expect any day now for a droid to come down on some poor dispensary in Fresno or something and obliterate the people.”

The two men at the heart of the battle over the Kern County ordinance have similar backgrounds — both with years of law enforcement experience — but very different attitudes about California’s landmark medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, which was passed by voters in 1996. On one side is Sheriff Donny Youngblood, a former Army drill sergeant, who has made it very clear that he thinks the way Proposition 215 is being used now is a “sham” that flies the face not only of federal statutes, but also of common decency.

“It’s not just a legal stand,” Sheriff Youngblood said. “It’s really a moral stand.”

On the other extreme is Robert Wade, a narcotics officer turned entrepreneur, who says being laid off led him to open a medical marijuana dispensary and clinic last year, an operation that now brings him a six-figure salary in what he calls “one of the few growing industries in this country.”

“Five years ago, I was living the American dream,” said Mr. Wade. “Now, I’m living the American dream, just in a different avenue.”

Mr. Wade is one of several dispensary owners and supporters who helped finance a movement to collect the 17,000 signatures — some at booths in front of Wal-Mart — needed to put the new law to a vote. Those petitions were turned in in early September, temporarily suspending the carrying out of the law. The county board is now considering its next step, but a referendum could come as soon as next spring.

And while the biggest block of Kern’s 310,000 registered voters are Republicans, national drug reformers say the vote here could be an indication of what they feel is increasing bipartisan support for medical marijuana.

“For Kern, as a red county, to step up and say, ‘Wait a minute,’ I think that would really resonate,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for more liberal drug laws.

That said, it will not necessarily be an easy sell. Kern County’s right-leaning tendencies are well-documented and deeply felt, including its pride over Representative Kevin McCarthy, a fourth-generation resident who serves as the House majority whip. Even more tellingly, Kern County voters soundly rejected a 2010 measure to legalize recreational use of marijuana, with 65 percent of the vote.

Local supporters of medical marijuana say that they are confident that Kern residents are more independent-minded than that some outsiders expect. “The people here, they’re pretty tough,” said Gary Fly, a former big rig driver who runs two dispensaries in Kern County. “They’re not the pushover type of people. If they want to fight for their rights, they will.”

But Sheriff Youngblood says that marijuana has been a destructive force in his county, destroying public lands — where growers often plant — and bringing into an otherwise largely peaceful rural environment an influx of weapons as a result of what he says are criminal cartels involved in the drug trade. He has conducted several major raids this year, including one in September that netted more than 2,100 plants near the town of Wasco.

He rejects the notion that somehow sick people are being denied succor. “This marijuana issue is about money,” he said, “not about medicine.”

Mr. Wade says that he has, in fact, invested tens of thousands of dollars in his business, a pair of handsomely appointed storefronts just north of Bakersfield in Oildale, near several other marijuana-related dispensaries and horticulture shops. Last week, Halloween decorations adorned Mr. Wade’s consultation center as customers compared samples of marijuana mounted on a magnetized board in the dispensary next door.

Mr. Wade, who uses marijuana to treat his own anxiety, said he has been fielding questions from worried patients about whether the local law will stand or a federal crackdown will shut him down. He worries, too, he said, not only for his business but for the nearly dozen workers he has hired in a county with double-digit unemployment.

“There’s people here who weren’t working before who are working now and are living in apartments and buying cars,” he said. “Now they have hope for the future.”

Ian Lovett contributed reporting from Los Angeles, and Malia Wollan from San Francisco.

Copyright 2011 The New York Times

by Karen O'Keefe

Tuesday, voters in Kalamazoo, Michigan and Tacoma, Washington directed local law enforcement to make marijuana possession the lowest enforcement priority. The measures passed by 2:1 margins, garnering nearly 65% of the vote in Tacoma and 66% in Kalamazoo.

With only 61-66% of homicide cases in this country cleared every year, and only 12% of burglaries cleared, it’s not surprising that voters think police should have more important things to do than arresting individuals who possess a substance safer than alcohol. While crimes with actual victims went unsolved, police found time for the arrests, bookings, and court time associated with more than 750,000 marijuana possession arrests in the U.S. in 2009.

Kalamazoo and Tacoma are far from alone in directing police to find better things to do than arrest marijuana users. More than a dozen cities and counties — with a total population of over 3.3 million — have directed law enforcement to de-prioritize marijuana possession enforcement.

Congratulations to all who were involved in these sensible measures that will prevent the convictions and resulting stigmatization and heartache that can haunt people for life.

This is one more step in the turning tide. In less than a year, voters in Colorado, Washington, and possibly other states will be deciding whether to replace marijuana prohibition with regulation in their states. With 50% of Americans now supporting making marijuana use legal, we are hopeful that the first states will have opted out of prohibition by this time next year.

http://www.mpp.org/

by Abby Zimet

A question advocating marijuana legalization and regulation from a retired LAPD deputy chief of police won twice as many votes as any other video question in the White House's 'Your Interview with the President' online competition this weekend. A member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), Stephen Downing said his 20 years of experience convinced him the country's drug policies are "a complete waste of criminal justice resources."

"What do you say to (the) growing voter constituency that wants more changes to drug policy than you have delivered in your first term?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J0IpiATxdR4

by Morgan Fox

This should come as no surprise by now, but President Obama has once again failed to address questions about the need for marijuana policy reform in a public forum. Once again, this issue was among the most popular, but it seems that after laughter, disagreement, and capitulation, the president’s responses are wearing thin, and the question will no longer be asked or answered.

Last week, the White House asked for people to submit questions to be asked during a Google+ Hangout with the president. As usual, marijuana questions dominated the site. Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who support making marijuana legal, the popularity of this issue no longer matters.

First, NORML’s question was removed for being inappropriate.

Then MPP’s question suffered the same fate.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition spokesperson Stephen Downing submitted a video question that quickly became the second most popular on the site. During the forum, however, the folks at Google decided that the president had already answered their question in previous forums and opted to ignore the people and ask inane questions about midnight snacks and tennis instead.

The White House, of course, had nothing to do with the exclusion of a marijuana reform question (or so they say).

The time has come to demand real answers to these pressing questions, not jokes or simple platitudes. Marijuana prohibition is a failed policy that causes far more harm than good, and alternatives must be seriously discussed in open forums before this juggernaut can do any more damage.

It is time for the president to take this issue seriously.

http://www.mpp.org/

PROVIDENCE – A January 25-26 Public Policy Polling survey found strong support for marijuana policy reform, including more than 2:1 support for reducing the penalty for possession of marijuana to a $150 civil fine. Marijuana possession is now punishable in Rhode Island by a $500 fine and up to a year in jail.

Of those polled, an overwhelming 65% supported decreasing the penalties for simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by removing the possibility of jail time and making the offense a civil citation. Such a change received support from across the political spectrum, with 73% of Democrats, 64% of Republicans, and 60% of independents in favor of the measure. Two bills, H 7092 and S 2253, have been introduced in the Rhode Island House and Senate to remove the threat of arrest and jail for personal possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

A majority of Rhode Islanders would like to go beyond the reforms proposed by H 7092 and S 2253. Of those polled, 52% would like to see all penalties for personal possession and use of marijuana removed and marijuana treated in a manner similar to alcohol, where it would be taxed, regulated, and sold in state-licensed stores to adults over the age of 21. This idea also received bipartisan support and was backed by 55% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans. Legislation to establish such a system will likely be introduced in Rhode Island this year.

“As this polling demonstrates, the public is clearly aware that marijuana prohibition is failed policy and they are ready for change,” says MPP Legislative Analyst Robert Capecchi. “The people of Rhode Island understand the need for sensible marijuana policy reform. Ending marijuana prohibition would created entire industries with hundreds of jobs, allow the government to collected needed revenue from responsible sales, and keep marijuana out of the hands of minors through thorough regulations.”

The poll also showed that a clear majority (72%) of respondents continue to approve of Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law that allows seriously ill individuals to use marijuana to treat their conditions. Seventy percent believe Governor Lincoln Chafee should implement the 2009 law that allowed the establishment of three non-profit compassion centers to provide medical marijuana to registered patients in the state. Gov. Chafee has delayed the opening of these centers, however, forcing patients to grow their own medicine or acquire marijuana from the illicit market.

For a complete copy of the survey of 714 Rhode Island voters with crosstabs, please visit: http://mpp.org/RIpoll.

Pat Robertson Says Marijuana Use Should be Legal
By JESSE McKINLEY

Of the many roles Pat Robertson has assumed over his five-decade-long career as an evangelical leader — including presidential candidate and provocative voice of the right wing — his newest guise may perhaps surprise his followers the most: marijuana legalization advocate.

“I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

Mr. Robertson’s remarks echoed statements he made last week on “The 700 Club,” the signature program of his Christian Broadcasting Network, and other comments he made in 2010. While those earlier remarks were largely dismissed by his followers, Mr. Robertson has now apparently fully embraced the idea of legalizing marijuana, arguing that it is a way to bring down soaring rates of incarceration and reduce the social and financial costs.

“I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” he said.

Mr. Robertson’s remarks were hailed by pro-legalization groups, who called them a potentially important endorsement in their efforts to roll back marijuana penalties and prohibitions, which residents of Colorado and Washington will vote on this fall.

“I love him, man, I really do,” said Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former law enforcement officials who oppose the drug war. “He’s singing my song.”

For his part, Mr. Robertson said that he “absolutely” supported the ballot measures, though he would not campaign for them. “I’m not a crusader,” he said.

That comment may invite debate, considering Mr. Robertson’s long career of speaking out — and sometimes in ways that drew harsh criticism — in favor of conservative family values. Recently, he was quoted as saying that victims of tornadoes in the Midwest could have avoided their fate by praying more.

But advocates of overhauling drug laws say Mr. Robertson’s newfound passion on their issue could help sway conservative voters and other religious leaders to their cause.

“Pat Robertson still has an audience of millions of people, and they respect what he has to say,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for more liberal drug laws. “And he’s not backtracking. He’s doubling down.”

Mr. Robertson, 81, said that there had been no single event or moment that caused him to embrace legalization. Instead, his conviction that the nation “has gone overboard on this concept of being tough on crime” built up over time, he added.

“It’s completely out of control,” Mr. Robertson said. “Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all.”

Such talk was welcomed by some other religious leaders, especially those in African-American communities who have long argued that blacks are unfairly targeted in drug cases.

Iva E. Carruthers, the general secretary for the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, the Chicago group that represents hundreds of black clergy members and lay leaders, said Mr. Robertson’s remarks suggested that he recognized that “if you’re a Hollywood exec with money, you’re treated differently than if you’re a poor kid getting off public transportation and get arrested.”

“I would hope and think that it would move the needle for the large constituencies of evangelicals he represents,” Dr. Carruthers added.

She said that she personally supported marijuana legalization, as did a growing number of conference members. But whether Mr. Robertson’s endorsement would have a lasting impact was unclear, even to Mr. Robertson.

“I think they would agree if they understood the facts as I do,” he said of other evangelical leaders. “But it’s very hard.”

He attributed much of the problem of overpopulated jails to a “liberal mindset to have an all-encompassing government.”

Conservative groups that usually align with Mr. Robertson, meanwhile, were largely silent when asked for comment on his stance. For example, Focus on the Family — a Christian group whose disdain for same-sex marriage and support for family values are in line with Mr. Robertson’s — declined to respond beyond saying that the group opposes legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use.

For his part, Mr. Robertson said he was “not encouraging people to use narcotics in any way, shape or form.” But he said he saw little difference between smoking marijuana and drinking alcohol, a longstanding argument from far more liberal — and libertarian-minded — leaders.

“If people can go into a liquor store and buy a bottle of alcohol and drink it at home legally, then why do we say that the use of this other substance is somehow criminal?” he said.

Mr. Franklin, who is a Christian, said Mr. Robertson’s position was actually in line with the Gospel. “If you follow the teaching of Christ, you know that Christ is a compassionate man,” he said. “And he would not condone the imprisoning of people for nonviolent offenses.”

Mr. Robertson said he enjoyed a glass of wine now and then — “When I was in college, I hit it pretty hard, but that was before Christ.” He added that he did not think marijuana appeared in the Bible, though he noted that “Jesus made water into wine.”

“I don’t think he was a teetotaler,” he said.

And while Mr. Robertson said his earlier hints at support for legalization had led to him being “assailed by those who thought that it was terrible that I had forsaken the straight and narrow,” he added that he was not worried about criticism this time around.

“I just want to be on the right side,” he said. “And I think on this one, I’m on the right side.”

Copyright 2012 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-mari...

Then there are those dishonest politicians with various silly, stupid, venal, duplicitous, conniving, vain ones, plus this guy...

Texas: Anti-Drug Politician Arrested by DEA for Marijuana Trafficking

EL PASO, TX — A critical opponent of drug law reform in Texas has been indicted on charges of trafficking 50 kilograms of marijuana and money laundering.

El Paso County Commissioner Guillermo “Willie” Gandara Jr., 37, who is currently a Democratic candidate for the Texas legislature, along with Juan Canales, 50, were arrested late Wednesday night following a multi-agency investigation that included the DEA and FBI.

A federal grand jury indictment charges the defendants with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana. The indictment also charges Gandara with three counts of maintaining property for the distribution of marijuana.

The indictment alleges that from November 2010 until the present, the Gandara and Canales conspired to possess and distribute over 50 kilograms of marijuana using property owned by Gandara in El Paso County.

“Elected officials who engage in drug trafficking violate the public trust,” Joseph M. Arabit, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s El Paso Division, said in a statement.

“As this lengthy investigation attests, DEA and its law enforcement partners are committed to holding drug traffickers accountable for their illegal activity, regardless of their position, and we will not allow the actions of a few to tarnish the honorable work that other government officials perform each day. The residents of El Paso County deserve no less.”

Throughout his political career, Gandara has taken a hard-line anti-drug stance. In September, he told the El Paso Times he thought drug legalization was a bad idea for the country.

“Legalizing drugs is the coward practice of combating cartels, it is an insult to our men and women in law enforcement, and the laziest form of parenting our children and youth about the effects of drugs,” he said.

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/9324/texas-anti-drug-politician-arre...
>>>>

Yeah, rah-rah, more Drug War, it's been such a successful program to reduce the size of government and make it more efficient. At least with this guy, you can cop and vote against your own best interests all in one stop. Sheesh.

by Rob Kampia

A national Rasmussen poll released today indicates that 47% of American adults answered “yes” to this question: “To help solve America’s fiscal problems, should the country legalize and tax marijuana?” Forty-two percent disagreed, and a whopping 10% were undecided.

Forty-seven percent is impressive, especially when one considers that this figure could grow to 57% if we’re able to persuade the undecided folks to come to our side through positive news coverage, paid advertising, and person-to-person contact.

The 47% is a national figure, which means support for taxing marijuana is surely higher in states like Colorado and Washington, both of which will have marijuana-taxation initiatives on their ballots this November 6. (And, of course, support would necessarily be lower than 47% in states like Alabama and Mississippi.)

The same Rasmussen poll also indicates that only 42% of Americans “favor so-called ‘sin taxes’ on sodas and junk food.”

In case you’re thinking that the 47% figure is a decrease from previous polling … it’s not. The national Gallup poll, released in October, found that 50% of American adults “think the use of marijuana should be made legal.”

So, these are two different marijuana questions. It makes sense that (slightly) more people are comfortable with the simple use of marijuana than the overall legalization and taxation of marijuana — which would involve retail establishments, large-scale grow operations, and maybe even advertising.

I’m very excited about the 47% figure, and I’m looking forward to working with our allies to pass the Colorado ballot initiative in just seven months.

http://www.mpp.org/

Just as with other American holidays that focus on gratuitous consumption, reporting by the NY Times now recognizes 4/20 as a holiday celebrated by millions of freedom-loving Americans, even as some out of touch with reality people with nothing better to do waste time trying to justify government suppression of the natural rights we all enjoy.

The Holiday for Fans of Liberalized Marijuana Laws
by Jesse McKinley

Despite a buzz-killing backdrop of federal raids and local crackdowns, marijuana fans celebrated their high holiday on Friday in all the traditional ways: smoking, speaking out and — no doubt — snacking.

Known as 4/20, the annual April 20th pot party has been celebrated for decades at lazy, hazy rock shows, pungent backyard barbecues and untold numbers of air freshener-challenged dorm rooms. But this year, 4/20 comes at a time both pleasant and paranoia-inducing in the pro-marijuana movement, a good-news, bad-news mindbender that mirrors some people’s experience of being on the drug.

On one hand, see, sometimes it seems as if the American people want to embrace marijuana, with some polls suggesting a growing acceptance of the drug’s use — medically and otherwise — and voters in Colorado and Washington scheduled to vote on legalization in the fall. All of which could be really cool, supporters say.

Unless, of course, it’s not. Antidrug groups have lambasted 4/20 as a gateway event to illegal drug use, and several declared Friday as a day to “Take Back 4/20,” which has its roots in a foggy 1970s ritual involving a group of Northern California teenagers who liked to smoke marijuana at 4:20 p.m.

Opponents have also lately been cheered by an increased enforcement effort by federal officials, who still view marijuana as illegal despite more than a dozen states allowing medical use of the drug.

Nowhere has that pushback been stronger than in Oakland, Calif., where federal drug agents recently raided Oaksterdam University, a cannabis industry training school that had been at the forefront of failed ballot effort in 2010 to legalize in California. Earlier this week, its founder, Richard Lee, announced his retirement, and officials say they are “on life support.”

Still, on Friday, many there were also on something else.

“Today is like being Irish on St. Patrick’s Day,” said Wade O’Connor, an activist and Oaksterdam alumnus who took ample tokes from a blown-glass pipe in the school’s student union.

At the University of Colorado, Boulder, which boasts one of the largest pro-marijuana celebrations in the country, school officials decided to close the campus to outsiders for the day, amid concerns that 4/20 crowds — which have numbered in the thousands in the past — would get disruptive.

“We’ve had complaints from people with respiratory issues, pregnant women, students who are simply trying to get to class, faculty who are trying to teach,” said Bronson Hilliard, a university spokesman.

Going one step further, officials also decided to coat the Norlin Quad on Friday, where 4/20 gatherings have unfolded in the past, with a fish-based fertilizer, resulting in a briny stench. All of which had seemingly had a deterrent effect on students like Tom Ronat, though a handful were arrested for crossing roped-off areas.

“It just seems way too extreme,” Mr. Ronat said.

Like all holidays, 4/20 has taken on a distinctly commercial feel in some quarters. Concerts by pot-friendly musicians like Willie Nelson and the group Cypress Hill were planned for April 20, as was the opening of a documentary on Bob Marley, considered a patron saint of cannabis aficionados. At Harborside Health Center in Oakland, a popular marijuana dispensary, salespeople were offering deals on ounces of the drug, as well as free mugs and T-shirts for buyers.

Others had brought their own costumes. Steve DeAngelo, the dispensary’s founder and executive director, said he dressed as a sailor for the holiday because “we’re sailing through troubled waters,” adding that recent federal raids had transformed “a day of celebration into a day of resistance.”

For all that bummed-out rhetoric, Stephen Gutwillig, the deputy executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which lobbies for more liberal drug laws, said they would eventually carry the day, especially as younger voters make their voices heard.

“That’s what’s taking more and more people into the streets every 4/20,” he said.

Which is just fine by David Evans, a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation, which opposes legalization.

“If a bunch of dopers want to sit around getting high, that’s fine,” Mr. Evans said. “It only makes our case that that is what it’s all about.”

That said, groups in favor of legalization seem to have made strides over the years in distancing themselves from the movement’s sometimes grungy past. In Richmond, Va., for example, about 300 people came to the city’s Monroe Park for a rally organized by a local chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy. And while there was a fair share of sandals and shorts, the event also attracted people like Kirby Myers, a contractor for the Federal Aviation Administration and one of many gray-haired attendees.

He drove about 95 miles from his home in Springfield, Va., because he believes “the drug war is a misguided program and an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money.”

But would he partake?

Oh no.

“I’m a beer drinker,” he said.

Lisa A. Bacon, Dan Frosch and Carol Pogash contributed reporting.

Copyright 2012 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/4-20-a-holiday-for-fans-of-liberali...