Ten years after the passage of Proposition 215, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has finally clarified that law-enforcement must respect the state’s medical marijuana law:

California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued long-awaited guidelines on medical marijuana today with support from advocates and law enforcement alike. The guidelines direct law enforcement on how to approach encounters with medical marijuana patients and establish a road map for local police policies. However, more significantly, the guidelines provide recommendations for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in accordance with state law.
…

The guidelines firmly establish that as long as patients and caregivers are abiding by local and state laws, they "should be released" from police custody and "the marijuana should not be seized." In the event that medical marijuana is wrongfully seized from a patient or caregiver, and the court orders its return, the guidelines state that police "must return the property." Affirming that California's medical marijuana law is not preempted by federal law, the Attorney General further directs "state and local law enforcement officers [to] not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law" when an individual's conduct is legal under state law. [Americans for Safe Access]

While Prop. 215 has gone a long way towards protecting the medical marijuana community from harassment by state law-enforcement, there have been continuing regional problems such as unjustified confiscation of medicine. The new guidelines should remind police that their duty is to uphold the law, not circumvent it.

Blogger and biomedical research scientist DrugMonkey asks drug war critics to explain declining rates of drug use over the last several years.

…for those of you who insist vociferously that the War on Drugs (considered inclusively with the Just Say No, D.A.R.E, main-stream media reporting, and all that stuff that is frequently rolled into a whole by the legalization crowd) is an abject failure...

for those of you who insist vociferously that you cannot tell teenagers anything about the dangers of recreational drugs and expect them to listen to you...

I would like these data explained to me.

There are many ways to respond to this and I wasn't surprised to find Pete Guither in the comments section with some good points. I guess I'd begin by observing that the existence of a massive often-brutal campaign to end drug use simply doesn't mean that said campaign is responsible when drug use declines. The drug czar has an obnoxious tendency to claim success by comparing current drug use rates to their highest point in history, which isn't exactly helpful.

But if there is one point that I think really illustrates the absurdity of crediting the drug war at large for the reductions in drug use we've seen, it is this: rates of alcohol and tobacco use have fallen in virtual lockstep with these declines in illegal drug use. That happened without any effort to eradicate the manufacturing of those substances, without interdicting the supply, without revoking financial aid for college from those found in possession, without mandatory minimums, drug-sniffing dogs, or student drug testing (which doesn't look for tobacco and utterly sucks at detecting alcohol).

The drug czar has actually gone so far as to imply that the war on illegal drugs somehow reduced alcohol and tobacco use, I guess through some sort of reverse gateway theory that he didn't flesh out for obvious reasons. But even if someone were to buy that argument (at tremendous risk of becoming an idiot), it would still be true that we were able to reduce consumption of our two most harmful drugs without deploying against them any of the costly, destructive and controversial tactics that characterize our modern drug war.

I would like that explained to me.

At StoptheDrugWar.org we work hard to expose and address abusive police practices, particularly the aggressive paramilitary drug raids that too often target the innocent. We watch in horror as lives are destroyed or lost in the name of counterproductive war on drugs law-enforcement tactics and we understand the strong feelings that such discussion generates among our readership.

Nevertheless, I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not the place to post comments that threaten or endorse violence against police. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about:

AMERICANS MUST MAKE IT TO DANGEROUSE TO HAVE THIER HOMES BROKEN INTO BY THESE THUGS TERRIOSTS LIKE THESE MUST BE MEET WITH THE FIRE POWER TO STOP THIS BEHAVIOR OR IT WILL CONTINUE

I hesitate to even dignify this kind of talk with a response, so I'll leave it at this: violence is not a means through which we'll achieve drug policy reform, or any social justice goal, ever. Advocating violence destroys and discredits popular movements. We need not and will not stoop to that level, both because it is morally wrong and tactically suicidal.

I hope everyone, except possibly the person(s) responsible, will understand why it is necessary for me to delete comments like this from the site. I do not enjoy censoring anyone and I will never remove anything simply because I disagree with it, but language like this embarrasses our movement and carries the potential to damage vital relationships if we become associated with it.

I felt it was necessary to bring this up because I've had to remove a few comments recently and I want to be open about that. Moreover, I want to make it clear that any comments which are relevant and do not advocate violence are very welcome and I tremendously appreciate the overwhelming majority of the feedback we receive.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

Update: Our friend has returned with another comment, which in this case I will share instead of delete:

MAYBE YOUR DOG WASENT SHOT BY CRAZY POLICE IN FRONT OF YOUR CHILDREN .MAYBE YOU WERNT HELD TO THE GROUND WITH A SHOT GUN TO YOUR HEAD MAYBE YOUR FAMILY WASENT HELD HOSTAGE BY THESE TERRIOSTS .WHILE THEY RIPPED YOUR HOUSE APART LOOKING FOR A FEW JOINTS .I STAND BY MY RANT .TRY IT AGAIN YOU WILL FEEL THE STING OF MY RIFLE .NO MORE NAZIS WHY DID I SERVE IN VIETNAM JUST TO COME HOME TO BE ROBBED BY SCUM SUCH AS THEM .MAYBE I DONT HAVE THE EDUCATION TO RIGHT SENSABLE .BUT I HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO KILL MY ENEMIES WHEN ATTACKED IN MY HOME .WTF

Sir, I think we all understand how you feel. And you read the blog so you know that I'm well-versed in the horrible things police do to people in the name of the drug war. But we are here to save lives, not end them. Getting yourself killed in a shootout with police won't bring back your dog and it won't end the drug war. If everyone took your advice, it would make things worse, not better. Maybe you're so angry you don't care. I hope not.

But please, hear me out on one thing: there are police working with us to end the drug war. The folks at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition are doing incredible work and I don't want them coming to our site and reading comments about killing cops. You are welcome to post here anytime, and I don't care if you're a brilliant writer. You can tell us what they did to you. You can tell us about your dog. But please stop telling us to shoot the cops. Please, tone it down just a little. That's all I'm asking.

The Drug Czar proudly announced yesterday that President Bush has signed the Merida initiative, which will spend U.S. tax dollars on Mexico's drug war. Here's a sample of what our money will be spent on:

The soldiers had apparently panicked at the speeding Hummer and attacked it from two sides, killing both the civilians and their own troops in the cross fire.

"These soldiers are idiots. What protection do they give us?" Maldonado asked, staring at the dirt road where the killings had taken place. "They should get out of our communities and back to their barracks."

The debacle in Santiago in Sinaloa state, a stronghold of drug traffickers, is one of a series of blunders by Mexican soldiers waging a bloody campaign against narcotics cartels — a crackdown that the U.S. Congress is looking at supporting with up to $1.6 billion. Since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and sent out 25,000 troops to take on the mafias, soldiers have killed at least 13 unarmed civilians. In the latest incident this month, soldiers shot dead two men speeding through a checkpoint in Chihuahua state along with another motorist who was unfortunate enough to be driving behind them. The public was also shocked when troops shot dead two women and three children traveling to a funeral in Sinaloa in 2007. [Time]

Amazingly, Drug Czar John Walters boasted yesterday that Mexico's drug war will "protect human rights," even though he personally opposed requiring Mexican authorities to uphold human rights standards.

As frustrating as it is to consider that we're subsidizing the killing of innocent people across Mexico, let's not forget that it's happening here, too.

Since many of you may be skeptical of NYPD when it comes to matters of search and seizure, I'd like to clarify that this is a very good thing:

The New York City Police Department wants suspects to sign a consent form before searching their homes or cars, a move that eliminates the need for a warrant and is meant to provide police a layer of legal protection, Newsday has learned.

The initiative was put in place because consent searches are often challenged at trial - and jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said.

At the same time, sources said, there has been concern within the NYPD about a handful of cases in which an officer's truthfulness was recently called into question. [Newsday]

Written consent policies are a win-win situation for police and the public. When consent is given in writing, police have an easier time demonstrating in court that consent was given voluntarily. Since evidence seized during a consent search is almost always legally admissible, defendants challenging such evidence must argue that consent was given involuntarily or not at all. As a result, police spend a considerable amount of time in court defending the manner in which consent was obtained. A written form goes a long way towards resolving such conflicts.

For the citizen, written consent provides a quick reminder that permitting searches is optional, while simultaneously creating an added layer of protection in disputes over whether consent was given voluntarily. The form will go a long way towards resolving widespread concerns about police erroneously claiming to have received consent before conducting a search.

Finally, there's an additional important point illustrated here. As Newsday reports, "jurors too often believe the suspect's claim that police never got permission to conduct the search, police sources said." For anyone questioning the viability of refusing consent during a police encounter, this should go a long way towards explaining how asserting 4th Amendment rights can help citizens achieve a more desirable outcome. It serves as a helpful reminder that, even if police violate your rights and search despite your refusal, any evidence they discover can be effectively challenged in court. Obviously, this is a frequent occurrence if NYPD cites such outcomes as a reason for moving towards a written consent policy.

Given the significance of the citizen's decision whether or not to permit police to look through his/her belongings, a written form is just the obvious, common sense approach to establishing whether consent was given.

Update: Pete Guither at DrugWarRant has a good post discussing the NYPD policy and explaining why it is never in the citizen's interest to consent to a police search.

This is creepy:

AKRON, Ohio - A medical examiner must change her autopsy findings to delete any reference that stun guns contributed to the deaths of three people involved in confrontations with law enforcement officers, a judge ruled.

Friday's decision was a victory for Taser International Inc., which had challenged rulings by Summit County Medical Examiner Lisa Kohler, including a case in which five sheriff's deputies are charged in the death a jail inmate who was restrained by the wrists and ankles and hit with pepper spray and a stun gun. [kstar.com]

I can't speak to the specific cases at issue here, but we're hearing more and more about this dubious "excited delirium" diagnosis that's being offered when people die in police custody. Drug use is often a factor, thus we must consider the possibility that tasers, though not typically lethal, may pose heightened risk of fatality when used on people who are under the influence. After all, people who are super wasted are among the most likely recipients of a thorough tasing by police.

I wouldn't want tasers to be erroneously identified as a cause of death, just as I wouldn’t want marijuana use to be, but as fatal outcomes involving these weapons are reported with increasing frequency, it's clear that more research is needed.

In the meantime, scratching these weapons out of autopsy reports sounds to me like the opposite of what we should be doing to address growing concerns about their alleged safety.*

*None of this is intended to disparage the fine people at Taser International, Inc. I'll say or do anything to avoid being sued or tased by those nice folks.

Everyone's talking about the new episode of South Park, which can viewed here. As usual, the show is way over the top, but the social commentary is sharp and on target. I'm not always a big fan, but I quite enjoyed this and you'll see why.

I won't spoil it here, but have at it in the comment section if anyone's interested.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Jenifer Van Nortwick is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section at http://stopthedrugwar.org/about/staff

Evidently Carroll County schools feel it is in their best interest to punish student-athletes for having a social life. The examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/a-1287426~Parents__Drug__alcohol_policy_targets_...) recently published an article that discussed parents’ uproar about the drug policy of schools in Carroll Country, Maryland. It seems that if students are at a party or with a group of friends and there is even the presence of drugs or alcohol, they can expect to be kicked off of their sports teams, even if they never touched drugs or alcohol.

And America deplores communism because it is too controlling and doesn’t let people live their lives the way they see fit? I can’t wait until high schools start to tell students they have to leave the room while their grandmothers take arthritis medicine.

The high school I attended in northern New York also seemed to think this was the best course of action when dealing with illicit drug use and underage drinking. During junior year in high school, at least two winter sports teams had to forfeit most of their season because a hockey party got busted at which approximately three fourths of all the student-athletes were in attendance. I can guarantee everyone who got kicked off was not drinking, let alone smoking. I can see possibly justifying kicking someone off of an athletic squad whose behavior is detrimental to the team, someone who is drunk or high enough to get the cops called to their house perhaps needs a little intervention. But someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong? That’s ludicrous. What happens if every sober person suddenly leaves a party? There are no designated drivers to shuttle intoxicated people home or rush someone suffering from alcohol poisoning or a drug overdose to the emergency room.

Furthermore, what is gained from expelling an innocent kid from their soccer or volleyball team? They did nothing wrong except spend time with their friends. What the school system has done is punished a good kid for being responsible and not taking part in underage drinking and illicit drug use. Some students live for the sports they play – not everyone excels at school, and when something as monumental as that is taken away, the school district is in essence telling them what matters to them is irrelevant and inconsequential.

What happens if sports are their anti-drug?

Here's an especially sordid and sickening example of abusive policing in the name of the drug war. A young woman driving in the wrong part of Albany gets pulled over by a special, aggressive drug enforcement squad, the Street Drug Unit. As the Albany Times-Union explains:

ALBANY-- The cops in the marked patrol car had circled through West Hill a couple times keeping an eye on their female target.

They were part of the Street Drug Unit, an aggressive squad assigned to help rid Albany's neighborhoods of drug dealers and addicts blamed for much of the city's problems.

It was early evening and already dark when the patrol car's emergency lights flashed in the rearview mirror of Lisa Shutter's Mitsubishi sedan on Quail Street, just off Central Avenue.

Police records show the officers called out a "Signal 38" to alert a dispatcher they were onto something suspicious and about to pull someone over. They would later write in a report that they had pulled her over for "failure to signal," although no ticket was issued, according to police records shared with the Times Union.

The actions of police in the minutes that followed would end in controversy rather than with an arrest. They would also leave Shutter, a 28-year-old single mother from Ravena, shaken and angry after one of the officers allegedly inserted his finger into Shutter's vagina on a public street during an apparent search for drugs.

When it was over, "I pulled off down the road and I just cried for probably a half hour," Shutter said. "I called my dad. ... I felt like I had been basically raped."

Sounds pretty horrendous, but then, so is the response from the Albany police when Shutter filed a complaint:

The incident has triggered an ongoing internal affairs investigation by the Albany Police Department.

But the handling of that investigation has raised questions about whether the department has sought to cover up the incident. Shutter claims Burris Beattie, a commander in internal affairs, dissuaded her from reporting the incident to a civilian police oversight board.

The board, which was formed in 2001 in response to community concerns about the handling of internal police investigations, is empowered to monitor cases involving claims of brutality and civil rights violations against any officer.

"He said they (internal affairs) would do a better job," Shutter said, recounting her conversation with Beattie. "He said they would like to keep it 'internal' ... that that's how they like to handle things."

Good thing they kept it aware from the civilian police review board, because it would have gotten to the bottom of things, right? Well, maybe not. It seems that the Albany board is as toothless and feckless as the rest of those organizations that are supposed to provide oversight to law enforcement:

Jason S. Allen, acting chairman of Albany's Citizens' Police Review Board, did not respond to a request for comment about whether all civilian complaints against officers are forwarded to the board. Instead, someone from the review board, which maintains an office at Albany Law School, contacted the department two weeks ago and alerted them that a Times Union reporter was asking questions about their policies, according to a police department source.

Let me get this straight: The civilian police review board, which is supposed to keep an eye on police misconduct, but when the board is contacted by reporters about an alleged incident, it doesn't investigate, but instead alerts the department? With review boards like this…But wait, there's more:

A member of the Citizens' Police Review Board, who spoke on condition of anonymity because only the chairman is authorized to make public statements, said some members of the board have privately suspected that the department may be hiding cases of police misconduct.

In other instances, the internal affairs reports are so poorly organized and investigated the board has had trouble reaching decisions and often sends them back for more investigation. The board is supposed to appoint a monitor for complaints involving civil rights violations or allegations of excessive force.

"Whether the letter of the law says that this should be the process, the intent and spirit of the law mandates that, especially in cases of civil rights violations, they be submitted to us for review," the board member said. "If not this, what do we review? ... The fact they would dissuade someone from reporting an incident and say they would do the investigation better completely defeats the purpose of why we were created."

One of the two officers involved, Matthew Fargione, is the son of a former Albany narc who is a long-time buddy of the chief, James Tuffey. Fargione Sr. used to be Tuffey's boss on the narc squad. The other officer was Nick Abrams. While Shutter said police internal affairs told her one of the officers had been suspended, apparently that is untrue.

Here's how it went down, according to the Times-Union account:

The incident unfolded just after 7 p.m. on Dec. 22. Shutter said she'd just finished some last-minute holiday shopping and became confused as she drove through West Hill looking for a friend she'd agreed to pick up that night.

Shutter was behind the wheel of a friend's rented car, and said she saw the police car drive past her twice before the stop.

The officer at her window grilled her about drug use and hidden crack pipes, she said.

"You fit the profile," the officer said, according to Shutter. "You're a white girl in a rental car."
She told the officer she had no drugs and offered to take a Breathalyzer test, but he declined to give one, she said.

The officer then allegedly reached through her window and plucked Shutter's cellphone from her lap.

He scrolled through the personal information in her phone, she said, asking questions about "private calls" and someone named "Mandie," whose name appeared on her contacts' list.

Mandie Buxton, 28, who is Shutter's friend since childhood, was at home when her cellphone rang that night. The man calling identified himself as an Albany police officer and asked whether Shutter was supposed to be picking Buxton up that night.

"I said: 'What are you talking about?' " Buxton said. "He said: 'You don't know what I'm talking about?' and then he hung up. I called right back and no one answered."

Ordinarily, police need a search warrant to seize or access someone's telephone.

Before it was over, Shutter was ordered to stand outside her vehicle with her hands on the trunk. One officer searched her body while a second scoured the inside of the car. They also dumped the contents of her purse and asked whether she'd spent her money on crack because her wallet was empty.

Shutter said she never consented to a search of her vehicle, her telephone or her body. She said she pleaded with the officer who allegedly slid his hand down the back of her jeans, and inside her underwear, to stop.

"I kept saying over and over ... 'If you have to search me, can you bring me to the precinct?' " Shutter said.

A female officer was called to the scene and informed Shutter she was there to search her body, Shutter said. The female officer patted her down, lifted Shutter's sweater and felt along her bra strap, and made Shutter open her mouth and lift her tongue. No reason was given.

The police found no drugs or other evidence of criminal wrongdoing before allowing Shutter back in her car.

"He said 'you're lucky' ... and that I better not drive around there again," Shutter said.

Shutter called Buxton and her father minutes later, crying hysterically, they said.

Shutter's mother, Sherry, characterized her daughter's encounter with police as a "life-changing nightmare at the hands of an Albany police officer."

"Our daughter did not deserve to be so grossly violated and I want the officers to comprehend and be held accountable for violating our child," she said. "I just keep telling her that 'you did not deserve this.'"

One question: How many other women have been sexually assaulted by these criminals in blue? Another question: Is it okay for women to be digitally raped by cops if there are drugs in their vaginas?

This story isn't going over too well in Albany, either. Check out the responses by Albanyites (Albanians?) at the Time-Union's blog page.

The following is Kevin Sabet's response to my recent posts regarding his participation in the Beyond 2008 forum in Vancouver.

Your posts have multiple half-truths and lies that beg major correction. First, while I did say that 80% of the Forum's participants agreed with each other that legalization/regulation was the way to go, I would hardly call this an "observation that the experts are lined up against him" since the so-called experts you referred to were composed almost entirely of the major activists of drug policy "reform." People from organizations like NORML, the ACLU, DPA, multiple cannabis consumers unions, drug user unions, etc. This was not at all a diverse and representative group of people composed of researchers, practitioners, or policy makers. These were well-known voices in the legalization movement, many of which I have debated and discussed drug policy with before.

That is why this Forum was so one-sided and closed-minded. Multiple ad hominem attacks were hurled at me and other colleagues -- attacks deemed unreasonable and unfair by the moderators and hosts of the conference. Rather than focusing on the questions at hand, the Forum served to prop-up people like Jack Cole (who gives new meaning to the term "media seeker") to get on a soap box and rant about legalization. This was unfortunate, because I was hoping for much more civil, less biased dialogue. Also, please check The Province article. I NEVER "heckled" anyone, but rather, as the article reads:

"Cole's message at the conference drew criticism from Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former speechwriter for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is now with Project: Sundial (Supporting United Nations Drug Initiatives and Legislation)."

[Note: SUNDIAL is a volunteer effort that came about when NGOs from around the world approached me to form an umbrella group to keep them informed of UN policies and programs.]

Second, I NEVER asked anyone for 50% of the time at this Forum. That would have been unattainable and undesired. I spoke each time I wanted to, and I think the moderators did a pretty good job at making sure that everyone spoke. The entire subject of your second blog is completely wrong! Please correct it as such. That isn't to say that I thought the meeting was pretty one-sided.

Other notable corrections are needed: this was NOT a UN-sponsored forum, even though people claimed this was true. This was a forum sponsored by the Vienna NGO Committee, in order to hopefully give guidance to the CND at the UN. Very different.

I would like to point out that the tone in which I am referred to -- as a belligerent, ignorant, single-minded goof making money off of the "drug war" -- is offensive and distasteful. I worked hard to make sure we had two Forums -- one in Vancouver and one in Florida -- in order to get diverse points of view, even if I didn't agree with the Vancouver recommendations. I worked closely with Vancouver's organizers, and we discussed things in a civil spirit. I came back with contacts from many people whom I hope to open a dialogue with, including Deborah Small of Breaking The Chains, Daniel Wolfe of OSI, and others. To be barraged afterward on your blog is simply unclassy on your part, and it certainly does not serve your cause well. I strive everyday to find common ground with people I disagree with.

I continue to be amazed as to why I would be singled-out in your blog. I simply believe that drug use causes more harm than good, and I have seen the devastating effects of it on families and communities. While I agree that laws should also not cause more harm than good, I also believe that there are simple ways of changing certain aspects of a restrictive policy that does not resort to the pitfalls and uncertainties of full-scaled regulation/legalization. I think we have a difficult time enough dealing with our legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco), and I've been unimpressed with places that have attempted to experiment with quasi-forms of legalization (Platzpitz, The Netherlands, etc.). These are simply my views and my opinions. Why should I be chastised for them?

Organization, Contact Name
Addictive Drug Information Council, Billy Weselowski
AIDS Vancouver, William Booth

The following oddly-worded advertisement, presumably computer-generated, popped up in one of our Google ad boxes:

Prohibition
Looking for Prohibition? Find exactly what you want today.
Yahoo.com

Sad but true. Not forever, though, if we have our way...

It's funny because it's true. At least I think that's why it's funny. Anyway, I hope the whole movie is Tim Meadows getting stoned, acting super intense, and reverse peer pressuring people.

As part his new proposed plan to combat AIDS, democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards is speaking out in favor of needle exchange:

"And I think we also ought to promote programs that prevent harm and specifically needle exchange, which I support. We ought to get rid of the federal ban on needle exchange." [NPR]

Drug war absolutists have long opposed needle exchange, despite overwhelming evidence that it prevents AIDS and saves lives. It is just amazing that the people in charge of protecting Americans from drugs support policies that spread AIDS and kill people.

Edwards deserves credit for calling out one of our nation's most ill-conceived drug policies. It's a no-brainer for sure, but at least he got it right.

And in the process, John, you may have stumbled upon a nifty device for drafting a superb drug policy platform for your campaign: simply check what the federal policy is on any drug issue and advocate the opposite. You will be correct every time.

Update: At the risk of further emboldening the hysterical Obama fans who freaked out over my last post, and irrationally implied that he's good on drug policy, it's only fair to add that Barack Obama has also spoken in favor of needle exchange. Hillary Clinton, who's otherwise sounded good on drug policy (for a front-runner, anyway) wants to see more proof that it works, which, at this point, is like demanding proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Our Executive Director David Borden and NORML's Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano have coauthored an updated version of Dave's DWC editorial, "Why Do People the Government Says Don't Exist Keep Writing Me?"

Check it out over at Huffington Post. It's quite good.

You know, it's funny how drug policy reformers keep getting accused of exploiting sick people in the medical marijuana debate, yet when patients write to us, it is always to thank us for our efforts. Somehow I doubt the Office of National Drug Control Policy gets many letters from medical marijuana users thanking them for opposing the evil marijuana lobby that tries to exploit them by making their medicine legal.

Listen up hippies: smoking pot in your car is for jerks. Here's what will eventually happen to you if you insist on doing this:

An off-duty Sioux Falls police officer called other officers Thursday after he pulled up next to a car in which a man was smoking a marijuana pipe while driving, police spokesman Loren McManus said.
…

"As a matter of fact, (the pipe) was still warm when they found it," he said. [Argus-Leader]

Marijuana enthusiasts are fond of claiming that the drug doesn't actually impact your driving ability to any significant extent. I think it depends on your experience level, but literally getting high behind the wheel is just stupid no matter who you are. For one thing, the more comfortable you are with marijuana, the more you'll hate having to pee in a cup every 30 days for a year (or worse).

In my work with Flex Your Rights, I've heard so many horror stories about people getting arrested this way that I could never count them. For anyone who doesn’t already know this, the smell of marijuana automatically gives police probable cause to search your vehicle. You will be arrested for anything and everything that might be in your car.

So, whether you're Willie Nelson or my friend Peter, just wait 'til you get where you're going (depending, of course, where that is).*

*This public service announcement has been brought to you by StopTheDrugWar.org, a division of the international conspiracy to legalize drugs.

Pain Relief Network's Siobhan Reynolds and son are slated to appear on The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet --- tomorrow morning, I think, Tuesday -- a Fox network talk program that airs at 9:00am in the New York area and on various Fox stations around the country.

Dr. William Mangino is out on bail and able to work on his own appeal as was hoped.

Richard Paey's clemency petition has been granted expedited consideration by Gov. Crist and the Florida Board of Clemency. Visit Alex DeLuca/PRN's War on Doctors / Pain Crisis blog for info.

(See our pain archive here. Subscribe to our pain feed via RSS here.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy needs your help. Facebook has a cool contest where non-profits can win a $1,000 grant just by collecting votes. All you have to do is vote for them before tomorrow. If SSDP gets the most votes, they win $1,000 to help provide materials for their chapters this Fall.

Click "read full post" to see the instructions. It's really easy.

One of the articles we published in the Chronicle this morning is a newsbrief about investigations starting in Thailand about the 2,500 extra-judicial drug war killings. User "eco" has posted a couple of pictures in the comment section at the bottom of the page, with a link to a web site that has more. If you have the heart for it, you can see them here.

Did the "tax-it and make money for the government" argument carry the day in the fight to end alcohol prohibition? Donald Boudreaux makes a case in Prohibition Politics, Pittsburgh Tribune Review. (Via Radley Balko, who is not a fan of prohibition or taxes.)