Maybe someday governments will base policy on facts and data. It sure would be nice.

From JustThinkTwice.org:

The American Medical Association has rejected pleas to endorse marijuana as medicine, and instead has urged that marijuana remain a prohibited, Schedule I drug, at least until more research is done.

It’s false, and it needs to change. Please join me in sending an e-mail to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov and asking them to update this language.

Also of note is the relative silence from the drug czar’s office. You would think the Office of National Drug Control Policy would have something to say about a new marijuana position from the nation’s largest medical association, right? Wouldn’t that warrant a press release or blog post? It certainly has whenever the AMA said something negative about marijuana.

I guess they’re showing their true colors. The drug czar’s office isn’t about bringing you up-to-date, factual information on drugs and drug policy. Their job is to make sure you don’t question the laws we have in place — even when it puts them at odds with reality. So when the nation’s largest group of doctors breaks from the government talking points, all we hear is silence.

Striking this language from the DEA’s Web site is a manifestation of something larger and more abstract: the gutting of our opponents’ most effective talking point.

I know everyone reading this blog has sent a letter to their member of Congress and asked for medical marijuana reforms (If you haven’t, you can here), and I’m willing to bet a lot of you have received negative responses. Think back to that response … did it mention the AMA’s opposition? Chances are it did.

When marijuana prohibition was first debated in 1937, one of the first questions was “What is the AMA’s position?” This line of thinking has been pervasive ever since. In every state where MPP has fought for patients, in every congressional office in Washington, and in countless media debates, prohibitionists have used the AMA’s opposition as their flagship talking point. That they can no longer do so is a major development.

The update removed several references to the AMA, including: “the American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance,” and “the American Medical Association has rejected pleas to endorse marijuana as medicine.” These changes came just over a week after the AMA released its new position on marijuana.

When it comes to marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug, there is now a battle between cops and doctors. The cops say it has no medical value, but the doctors — who one might think are in a position to know — either say it does or, at a minimum, want the government to review its stance. And again, medical marijuana advocates are left wondering why the cops have a say in this debate at all. It will be interesting to see how the DEA does characterize the AMA’s new position. MPP will let you know when they do.

Earlier this year, Cooley ignored the legal opinion of California’s attorney general when Cooley claimed (incorrectly) that virtually all medical marijuana dispensaries were operating illegally and should be shut down. 

Now, after two L.A. City Council committees rejected calls to ban the sale of medical marijuana, Cooley is once again making up his own rules, declaring that he will prosecute dispensaries even if the city council adopts an ordinance allowing the legal sale of medical marijuana under state law.

Perhaps someone should remind the district attorney that he is paid to uphold the law, not invent it.

But this example is particularly egregious. On the DEA Web page “Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana,” the agency writes, “the American Medical Association recommends that marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance.” That statement directly contradicts the new policy that the AMA issued last week.

The DEA also has a contact page where you can call them out on this (likely) willful ignorance of recent news: http://www.justice.gov/dea/contactinfo.htm

In West Hollywood, city officials say, it’s been more than two years since a resident has complained about a dispensary. Neighborhood watch leaders say their streets are safer because the dispensary guards are required to walk nearby blocks. School officials welcome dispensaries as neighbors. And the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, which patrols the city, says there have been no recent crimes at dispensaries and no calls from agitated neighbors.

As the article goes on to explain, this positive model provides a stark contrast to cities such as Los Angeles and San Diego that do not have regulations, and consequently have witnessed more tension between community members and existing dispensaries.