I don’t think “The Real World” could survive on TV without alcohol. There wouldn’t be enough drama. But, why is that we have never seen any of these real worlders making the safer choice by using marijuana instead of alcohol? MPP does not encourage anyone to use any substance (legal or otherwise), but we certainly know which substance is safer: Marijuana.

Is it MTV policy to never show marijuana use? If that is the case, I feel duped, because in the real world people use marijuana all the time. In fact, more than 100 million Americans have used marijuana, and more than 15 million use it at least monthly.

The organization SAFER (Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation) is asking the public to sign their petition calling on MTV to stop driving its cast members to drink and “start getting real.” We encourage you to do the same.

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

Several other advisers on the once 31-member group are rumored to be “planning collective action” against British Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who has taken to the airwaves to defend his controversial sacking of Nutt.

Johnson said Nutt publicly campaigned against government policy and “crossed the line” when he said illegal drugs such as marijuana, LSD, and ecstasy were safer than legal drugs such as tobacco and alcohol.

“Professor Nutt was not sacked for his views, which I respect but disagree with,” Johnson wrote in today’s Guardian.  “He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy.”

It certainly is frustrating, to say the least, (“mind-boggling” might be a better word) when the people hired to reassess flawed government policies get punished for doing just that. But now that many high-profile members of Britain’s scientific community are speaking out about the incident, there is reason to hope that more Britons will realize just how misguided their current marijuana laws are, and that they too should support a change in the way the UK classifies certain drugs.

Nutt himself has continued to speak out about his ousting and the reasons behind it, arguing that his actions—as opposed to Johnson’s—were motivated by science, not politics.

In Nutt’s own words: “When [UK Prime Minister] Gordon Brown says that cannabis is a ‘lethal drug,’ when it clearly isn’t, young people are not going to pay him any notice. You don’t reduce drug harm by lying.”

Just a few hours prior to his sacking, Nutt had publicly condemned British politicians for “distorting” and “devaluing” scientific research used in the debate over illegal drugs. In an article published Thursday by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, Nutt said that illegal drugs such as cannabis, LSD and ecstasy were less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, and he called for changes in the way such substances are classified in order to better inform the public about their relative harms.

Specifically, Nutt criticized a January decision by British ministers to upgrade marijuana from a class C drug to the higher class B, a change that increased the maximum penalty for possession to five years in prison, and the penalty for dealing to 14 years.

Nutt still maintained that cannabis was “harmful,” but he made an appeal—based on reason and science—for the government to be honest with the public about marijuana and the fact that it causes no major health or social problems:

“I think we have to accept young people like to experiment, and what we should be doing is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives,” Nutt wrote. “We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. We have to tell them the truth, so that they use us as their preferred source of information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you’re probably wrong.”

To recap: The British Home Office asked Prof. Nutt to reexamine that nation’s drug laws and offer some suggestions based on sound scientific evidence. As requested, Nutt presented his findings and concluded—rightfully—that Britain’s 2004 decision to soften its marijuana laws was correct and should have been maintained. But because those findings contradicted government policy, he was fired. So much for free and open debate in a democratic society.

If you’re wondering if the same thing could happen here in the United States, it already has: Nutt’s predicament is eerily similar to the 1994 firing of then Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders (now a member of MPP’s VIP advisory board).

The fact that 44% percent of people favor taxing and regulating marijuana is even more impressive because—in stark contrast to many other public policy issues—for once, a substantial number of Americans actually view an issue favorably.

After all, Americans are a finicky bunch. We don’t like much these days, and in 2009 it’s impressive for anything to get 44% approval ratings. In fact, according to the latest numbers from a variety of polling sources, the idea of taxing and regulating marijuana enjoys higher support among the American public than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the top Democrat and top Republican in the House of Representatives, and—perhaps not surprisingly—Congress itself.

Take a look at these figures:

Based on these numbers, as well as the growing mainstream media coverage of marijuana issues, there is no longer any doubt that Americans see marijuana policy reform as a legitimate mainstream issue worthy of national debate. Let’s keep talking!

The challenge, announced by MPP-NV manager Dave Schwartz with a large mock check for $10,000,  kicks off a long-term public education campaign regarding the relative harms of marijuana and alcohol, and the harm caused by marijuana prohibition.

MPP-NV is challenging Nevadans to disprove the following three statements:

1. Alcohol is significantly more toxic than marijuana, making death by overdose far more likely with alcohol.

2. The health effects from long-term alcohol consumption cause tens of thousands of more deaths in the U.S. annually than the health effects from the long-term consumption of marijuana.

3. Violent crime committed by individuals intoxicated by alcohol is far more prevalent in the U.S. than violent crime committed by individuals intoxicated by marijuana only.

To receive the $10,000 award, Nevada residents must provide peer-reviewed studies or government statistics that contradict all three of these statements. In a statement issued today, Schwartz said, “We are confident that we won’t need to pay out this $10,000.” That’s putting it mildly. Not only is marijuana safer than alcohol, there’s evidence that it may even protect against some of the damage caused by binge drinking.

Walters’ fanaticism about marijuana is epitomized by a November 2002 letter sent to the nation’s prosecutors by his deputy, Scott Burns, claiming that “no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana.” Walters carpet-bombed the nation with anti-marijuana propaganda – TV, radio and print ads, reports, press conferences, news releases, etc. – and quickly began to follow up with exaggerated claims of success.

That game is now over. Compare the just-released 2008 data to the 2002 survey, the first to reflect Walters’ policies:

In 2002, 94.9 million Americans admitted having used marijuana at some point in their lives. In 2008, that figure had grown to 102.4 million. In percentage terms, that’s an increase from 40.4 percent in 2002 to 40.6 percent in 2008 – unchanged, statistically speaking. For current (past 30 days) use, the pattern is similar: 14.6 million or 6.2 percent in 2002, 15.2 million or 6.1 percent in 2008. The slight declines of a couple years ago have now been entirely erased and were likely no more than statistical noise.

The drug war industrial complex will never admit it, but the most intensive anti-marijuana campaign since the days of “Reefer Madness” produced exactly nothing.

“I look at the risk-benefit ratio, and I worry,” Carroll concludes, and understandably so.

Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disease, characterized by inflammation of the lining of the joints. It can be painful and even disabling.

Of course, there’s a drug that’s a well-documented pain reliever and anti-inflammatory, and there is already some evidence that it may work for rheumatoid arthritis. It doesn’t cause fatal infections, cancer, or heart failure. But you won’t see major drug companies advertising it. Can you name this drug?