John J. Dilulio Jr. once coauthored a 1996 book entitled Body Count: Moral Poverty...And How to Win America's War Against Crime and Drugs. The other two authors were Bill Bennett and John Walters, both former drug czars and infamously rabid prohibitionists. I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it's a thick serving of ugly drug war propaganda.

And I'm sure it sounds nothing like what Dilulio wrote this month in Democracy Journal:

… legalize marijuana for medically prescribed uses, and seriously consider decriminalizing it altogether. Last year there were more than 800,000 marijuana-related arrests. The impact of these arrests on crime rates was likely close to zero. There is almost no scientific evidence showing that pot is more harmful to its users’ health, more of a "gateway drug," or more crime-causing in its effects than alcohol or other legal narcotic or mind-altering substances. Our post-2000 legal drug culture has untold millions of Americans, from the very young to the very old, consuming drugs in unprecedented and untested combinations and quantities. Prime-time commercial television is now a virtual medicine cabinet ("just ask your doctor if this drug is right for you"). Big pharmaceutical companies function as all-purpose drug pushers. And yet we expend scarce federal, state, and local law enforcement resources waging "war" against pot users. That is insane.

Well, it certainly is and Dilulio deserves credit for his candor, particularly given the likelihood of hugely pissing off his former colleagues (not that they don't deserve it). I hope we hear more from him, both because there's nothing more powerful than former drug warriors speaking out for reform, and because I'm just intensely curious if there were specific events or observations that triggered the evolution of his thinking on these issues.

Moments like this illustrate something powerfully important: any of our opponents could come around at any time. Most won't, and predicting who will is probably impossible, but recognizing that any of these people could potentially end up on our side someday is instructive in terms of how we might choose to interact with them on the rare occasions that big-time drug warriors emerge from their bunkers for public engagement.

It's so easy to just hate the hell out of these people that want to put us in jail, that lie reflexively and professionally, and that preside over monumental injustices with smug callousness. But we have nothing to gain by loathing them and much to lose if our frustration betrays opportunities to build bridges that could one day foster further defection from the ranks of the great drug warrior army.

As the war on drugs continues to cascade out of favor with academics, politicians and the public, those whose careers have been defined by defending it will suffer the greatest disillusionment and may soon crave the embrace of the kind, generous and forgiving people they spent so many years trying to destroy. It would serve our interests well to make it clear that they are always welcome among us.

An awesome presentation from Judge Jim Gray. He really nails a lot of important points in a few short minutes:

I will make one comment on Judge Gray's discussion here with regards to his statement that politicians are benefiting from the war on drugs. This has certainly been true in the past, but we're witnessing a palpable shift in the way these issues are approached in mainstream politics.

The drug war has become so deeply unpopular among a sizable segment of the population that the White House felt it necessary to publicly reject the "war" metaphor. It was a shrewd and arguably disingenuous political maneuver, but it illustrates vividly how far removed we are from the days when politicians went out of their way to impress the public with tough lock 'em up rhetoric. You don't hear many mainstream politicians bragging about their drug war credentials these days. Heck, Obama's most popular drug policy decision since taking office was his effort to curtail DEA raids in medical marijuana states.

We need to stop selling the idea that supporting the drug war is good for politicians. We don't want them thinking that, and it isn’t really even true anymore.

Some legislators in Vermont aren't thrilled about a bill to create 5 medical marijuana dispensaries in the state:

The bill has drawn opposition from the Department of Public Safety, where officials say they worry that dispensaries would fuel increased illegal drug use.

Well, I certainly understand your concerns, ladies and gentlemen, and I thank you for sharing them. Allow me to clarify one thing though, if I may; this is legal drug use we're talking about here. This is for sick people using marijuana legally with a doctor's recommendation.

You see, Vermont's patients can only obtain their medicine from illegal sources currently, so this is actually about creating a legal option and reducing illegal activity. If anyone is still anticipating problems here, I would refer you to the fact that you live in Vermont. Your neighbor grows marijuana. Vermont's epic pre-existing marijuana supply will not be substantially impacted by 5 little dispensaries that only sell to sick people. If your happy life in Vermont hasn’t already been ruined by hippies, then you have nothing to worry about with this, I assure you.

Cliff Kincaid, kingpin of paranoid prohibitionists, blames last week's Pentagon shooting on the attacker's use of medical marijuana. That's right folks, marijuana makes you kill people. Meanwhile in Los Angeles, where they have more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks, the murder rate is at its lowest level since 1957.

As more states begin to consider reforming marijuana laws, legislators are struggling to sort fact from fiction in the marijuana debate. Fortunately, we've already made enough progress that we have plenty of practical experience studying the impact of marijuana reform.

Our friends at NORML have compiled this useful and revealing information in a new report, Real World Ramifications of Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization. It's an excellent resource that ought to help any reasonable person understand why ending marijuana prohibition will make the world a better place.

Via Radley Balko, here's a perfect example of routine policing in the war on drugs. If it sounds supremely pathetic, that's because it is:

Another tip from a watchful citizen early Tuesday morning brought the Greensburg Police Department closer to exterminating the drug problem in the city.
…

The caller advised that there was suspicious activity, strange noises and unusual odors coming from the apartment. When GPD officers arrived, the strange smell was identified as "burnt marijuana," Chief Heaton reported.

After identifying the apartment that was emitting the odors, the GPD attempted to make contact. But inside the apartment, no one answered.

Working quickly to establish probable cause, the officers sought to obtain a search warrant from the office of the Decatur County Prosecutor.

In the interim period before the warrant was granted, the GPD kept a secure perimeter around the residence, making sure that no one went in or out of the apartment, Chief Heaton explained.

"It definitely tied up our units (for about two hours)," Heaton said.

The search warrant was secured and served at 1:23 a.m. Tuesday. Upon gaining entry to the apartment, the police found marijuana and proof of marijuana consumption and the five suspects were arrested. [Greensburg Daily News]

What a horrible place Greenburg, IN must be if the police have nothing better to do than this and the newspaper has nothing better to do than report every agonizing detail of it. The whole thing is so impressively lame, I can hardly believe I'm reading it. Good luck "exterminating the drug problem" in Indiana's most boring city.

One of the most embarrassingly mindless trends in the mainstream media's marijuana reporting is that of publishing one redundant story after another about the explosion of illegal outdoor cultivation in our national parks, while failing entirely to diagnose why it's happening and how it might be prevented: 

Pot has been grown on public lands for decades, but Mexican traffickers have taken it to a whole new level: using armed guards and trip wires to safeguard sprawling plots that in some cases contain tens of thousands of plants offering a potential yield of more than 30 tons of pot a year.

"Just like the Mexicans took over the methamphetamine trade, they've gone to mega, monster gardens," said Brent Wood, a supervisor for the California Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. He said Mexican traffickers have "supersized" the marijuana trade. [AP]

This Associated Press report is over 1,200 words long, yet does not contain one single idea for addressing the problem. Not even a stupid hopeless drug war idea like "we need more funding for eradication," or "we need to get everyone to stop using marijuana." Apparently, the AP is simply content to point out to us that our most precious natural resources are being slowly destroyed by Mexican marijuana cartels and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it.

But, of course there is. Illegal outdoor marijuana growing will immediately end the instant it becomes legal for Americans to grow their own marijuana on private property. People don't plant pot in remote wilderness because they like to go hiking. The reason they do it is obvious, but not so obvious that the AP should be forgiven for writing so much without mentioning it.

Marijuana is illegal and until that changes, the problems associated with it will get worse every year. Keep that in mind. As devastating as our marijuana laws are today, they are actually causing greater and greater harm the longer they continue.

Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation says to ban it immediately and ask questions later:

Research has linked naturally produced marijuana to health issues, including schizophrenia. With synthetic marijuana being even more potent, it is frightening to consider its potential damage.
…
Increasing numbers of children are purchasing synthetic marijuana products because they are legal and easier to obtain than cigarettes.
…
Let's face it: Anytime you consume an uncontrolled or unregulated drug or a drug with unknown effects, you are taking a risk. Products like K2 are not made in a controlled environment, and those who use it are playing Russian roulette.
…
The U.S. should move urgently to protect the public from yet another dangerous and potentially deadly class of drugs. [CNN]

Grant Smith of the Drug Policy Alliance says to take a deep breath and remember that prohibition never delivers on its promises:

When lawmakers consider regulating K2, they should keep in mind that the government has waged a futile war against marijuana and people who use the drug for decades.
…
Time and time again, elected officials have dropped the ball when it comes to regulating drugs. Lawmakers have preferred to lazily pass the responsibility of controlling a drug on to law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

The problem is, we know from marijuana prohibition that law enforcement has no control over the drug market and the criminals who run it. Criminalizing K2 will only worsen the devastating harm our society already suffers under drug prohibition. Rather than regulation of the supply and ingredients of K2, criminalization leaves the question of what goes into the product up to drug dealers.

Rather than passing regulations that bar K2 sales to minors, criminalizing K2 will essentially give dealers the green light to sell the product to whomever they please. [CNN]

Nice job, Grant. You win. Every valid concern that exists here is better resolved by regulation than prohibition. If you don't want young people buying it, you can pass age limits. If you're concerned about what's in it, you can require more accurate labeling. If you don't want it sold in certain areas, you can use zoning laws to establish appropriate locations. Or, if you'd prefer to have no control over it at all, you can ban it altogether and let criminals make all these decisions.

Pay attention, folks. The effort to ban synthetic marijuana products could be coming to your state before you know it and it's up to you to tell your legislators that regulation is the best approach. This fight could play out 50 different times and we'll win in more states if we start thinking about it now.

As I mentioned yesterday, LEAP speaker David Bratzer has been ordered by the Victoria Police Dept. not to speak at a city-sponsored harm reduction event. If they thought they could silence the case for legalization, their plan backfired:  

I agree with Pete Guither that it's a great segment. No matter what you think about drug policy, it just seems stupid and cowardly to deny this man his chance to speak. When opponents of legalization start resorting to this sort of petty obstructionism, it doesn’t exactly reflect confidence. If the drug war is so frickin' great, it should be easy enough to defend it without attempting to silence its critics.

Check out this letter in The Baltimore Sun from an ex-cop who's pissed off about Cheye Calvo's efforts to monitor the use of SWAT teams. The writer apparently thinks police should be free to use as much violence as they choose without having to explain themselves to angry innocent citizens whose pets they kill.

Radley Balko picks the whole thing apart masterfully, resulting in a rather useful point-by-point refutation of all the most common defenses of constantly using SWAT teams for everything. There isn’t much else to say except that it still amazes me that anyone would dare condemn Calvo's advocacy. Guess what, if cops bust into an innocent family's home and kill their dogs, they're going to be extremely displeased.

Everything that happened here is the fault of bad laws, bad procedures and bad cops. None of this is Cheye Calvo's fault, and any suggestion that he's overreacting is plainly ridiculous. You can't overreact to police coming into your home and shooting your pets! It's a really big deal. This wasn't a random accident that everyone can just put behind them. There is no such thing as an acceptable number of dog killings in the homes of innocent marijuana suspects. Things like that should never happen at all, and if they do, it should be discussed constantly until every contributing factor is identified and every responsible party is held accountable.