Today's just-announced $1 million donation from philanthropist George Soros should help keep the Yes on 19 TV ad running through Election Day, as well as provide a tremendous boost to crucial get-out-the-vote efforts.

From Soros's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal:

Like many parents and grandparents, I am worried about young people getting into trouble with marijuana and other drugs. The best solution, however, is honest and effective drug education. One survey after another indicates that teenagers have better access than most adults to marijuana—and often other drugs as well—and find it easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Legalizing marijuana may make it easier for adults to buy marijuana, but it can hardly make it any more accessible to young people. I'd much rather invest in effective education than ineffective arrest and incarceration. [...]

In many respects, of course, Proposition 19 already is a winner no matter what happens on Election Day. The mere fact of its being on the ballot has elevated and legitimized public discourse about marijuana and marijuana policy in ways I could not have imagined a year ago.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is generally thought of as a progressive, blindsided New Yorkers yesterday, when he publicly came out against medical marijuana legislation. Cuomo, who has admitted using marijuana recreationally in the past, said “the dangers on medical marijuana outweigh the benefits,” and compared legalizing proven medicine to legalizing prostitution. This is an incredibly disappointing move by AG Cuomo, who is out of touch with the medical community, and with the vast majority of his constituents.

If you live in New York, please help us reach out to AG Cuomo and explain why he is wrong for opposing compassionate medical marijuana legislation.

This TV ad hits California airwaves tomorrow -- just in time for the Prop 19 campaign's final stretch.

Learn how to reach out to voters here, find out other ways to help the campaign here, and read up on the latest polls here and here.

Only 8 more days until the election!

On Thursday of last week, I represented the Marijuana Policy Project in a historic press conference in Los Angeles, joining fellow panelists Melissa Etheridge, Danny Glover, Hal Sparks, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and LEAP representative Steve Downing to endorse California’s Proposition 19, the measure to tax and regulate marijuana for adult use.  This was the first time world-renowned celebrities have spoken out in favor of Proposition 19, decrying the failed policy of prohibition.

Melissa Etheridge, a breast cancer survivor and medical marijuana patient, called on the federal government to authorize further research of marijuana’s medical applications.  Danny Glover talked about the prisoners he has seen, in the course of his lifetime of activism, who are locked up for non-violent marijuana offenses.  Gary Johnson cited our nations’ culture of incarceration, locking up more of our own people than any other industrialized nation.

At one point, a reporter asked the celebrities if they had been paid by the Proposition 19 campaign to deliver their endorsements.  They each replied “no” but then Hal Sparks offered this caveat, “I will benefit financially if Proposition 19 passes, in that my tax dollars will no longer be wasted on a policy that doesn’t work.”  So true!  The whole state will benefit to the tune of at least a billion dollars a year, the amount California currently spends enforcing marijuana prohibition.  (And that doesn’t include the tax revenue that would be generated!)

I closed my own statement by reading a quote from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Let’s be that courageous state.  Vote yes on Proposition 19!

(Pictured above, from left: Danny Glover, Melissa Etheridge, Hal Sparks, and MPP's Sarah Lovering.)

A new study released today shows conclusively that in California’s largest cities African-Americans are arrested for marijuana possession at much higher rates that whites. In the 25 cities profiled, African-Americans were arrested at four to 12 times the rate of whites, despite much higher use rates among whites.

This horrifying disparity is one reason Proposition 19 has earned the support of civil rights groups, including the California NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens of California. These numbers make it clear that removing penalties for marijuana possession would eliminate a tool that has been used to institute a system of pervasive racism in the Golden State. Given that even a single possession charge can result in severe economic and social consequences, the fact that arrests are focused so disproportionately on minority communities is an overwhelming argument for reform on November 2^nd.

Some folks disagree, namely the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Several law enforcement groups have given large sums of money to the campaign against Proposition 19, the most recent being the California Police Chiefs Association, who donated $20,000 to No on Prop. 19.

Throughout the public debates on this issue, law enforcement groups (other than those backing Prop 19) have said that reformers need to prove why marijuana should not be illegal. It seems much more reasonable to expect the burden of proof to be on the other side, especially when marijuana prohibition results in such obvious racial persecution. Yet law enforcement does not rise to this challenge, probably because there is no justification for such practices in a civilized society.

Could it be that some California cops actually like targeting minorities?

If Proposition 19 passes, they will lose their easiest way to do so.

Interestingly, the largest law enforcement group supporting Proposition 19 is…

…the National Black Police Association.

Has it really come to this?

According to today’s Baltimore Sun, a new business in Maryland is offering parents the services of trained, drug-sniffing dogs. Parents who are concerned about their children hiding drugs at home – and apparently unable to have simple, honest and well, healthy conversations with their kids about drugs – can, for “about $200 an hour,” rent specially trained canines to come into their homes and “within seconds, detect even the tiniest whiff of narcotics.”

Gimme a frickin’ break.

This approach is so stupid that even a spokesperson for the National Institute of Drug Abuse (a prohibitionist stronghold) was quick to say so.

The best way for parents to handle a child's potential drug problem begins with a good old-fashioned conversation rather than a drug-sniffing dog, says Elizabeth Robertson, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's chief of prevention research.

"Given everything we know about substance abuse prevention, what you want to do with your kids is build trust and communication," she says. "This seems like a tactic that would disrupt trust."

[…] Baltimore parent Genny Dill agrees with Robinson. Upon hearing of the service, she says slowly, and with increasing notes of incredulity, "No. Really? Crazy. Absolutely crazy. That's a whole new level of distrust."

The mother of a 17-year-old girl, Dill says she has no trouble peeking at her daughter's text messages and e-mail. Though she's wondered if her daughter has tried pot, or been offered drugs, Gill is fairly certain that by hiring a drug-sniffing dog, she'd ruin their relationship.

"They're never going to love you again," she says. "Well, maybe they'd love you, but they will seriously not trust you as a parent, and when they're teenagers, that's a terrible time for that to happen."

Sadly, the true motivation behind such an enterprise – which is modeled after similar businesses in other states, according to the article – is almost certainly not a concern for the wellbeing of young people, or for healthy parent-child relationships, but rather, good, old-fashioned profit. The business, “Dogs Finding Dogs,” has been around for three years and “until now has used the skills of search dogs to find missing pets,” according to the Sun, “helping to reunite nearly 300 wayward dogs and cats with their frantic owners.” Somewhere along the line they probably realized they needed to expand their business model, and luckily many of their canine employees were equipped with a particular skill – finding drugs!

Among the program’s supporters is Michael Gimbel, a Baltimore County substance abuse counselor who has repeatedly spoken out against passing a medical marijuana law in Maryland (and whose latest DVD is on sale for just $59.95 plus shipping!).

One thing not mentioned in the article is how many parents have actually paid for the service of having strangers and dogs comb through their property, alienate their children, and violate their privacy. I hope the number is low, if not zero. (And, by the way, if there aren’t any customers, then this article amounts to nothing more than free advertising for a business trend that does not yet even exist).

As for the dogs – well, at least the people looking for drugs aren’t shooting them this time.

Two days ago, Mexican authorities seized 134 tons of marijuana in Tijuana, just across the border from California. The value of the seizure was estimated at $340 million.

According to the logic of prohibitionist economics, such a huge bust should have quite a damaging effect on the marijuana market in the United States, right?

Wrong. Mexico confiscated more than 1,300 tons of marijuana in 2009 alone, and before that the average was more than 2,000 tons per year. Yet each year, production goes up and street prices in the U.S. remain relatively static.

In California, the efforts to make an impact on the availability and price of marijuana result in similarly impressive seizures, but they too fail to have any effect whatsoever. Each year during the late summer and early fall, eradication programs such as CAMP take to the hills and skies, destroying millions of budding marijuana plants. Yet each year, production goes up and street prices remain relatively static.

The lesson to be learned here is that no matter how much marijuana law enforcement takes off the street, it will still be equally and readily available. And it will cost about the same at the consumer level as it did before the governments of these two countries spent millions of dollars on their fruitless efforts.

The solution is simple, and follows the very basic laws of supply and demand: tax and regulate marijuana in California (and the rest of the U.S. for that matter). Less risk for American growers and distributors translates to lower consumer prices, and undercuts the Mexican suppliers. With a large source of income gone and decreased incentive to take the risks that do not hinder legitimate American marijuana businesses, we will soon see cross-border shipments into California dwindle down to nothing. And as the cartels’ influence in California declines, so too will the environmental damage from illegal grows on public land and the violence that exists in an industry without legal recourse for settling disputes.

But then, what else would these guys do for fun?

Mothers who support Proposition 19 held a press conference in California yesterday to make the case for regulating marijuana and removing it from an illicit market that makes it readily available to young people. (Video below)

“When I think of what kind of world I’d like my children to grow up in, [I’d like] that they grow up in a world with marijuana being legal and controlled, and not this out of control system that we have today,” said Hannah Liebman Dershowitz, an attorney and mother of two kids, aged 7 and 5. “It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana would be safer for our children.”

On a related note, the Women’s Marijuana Movement has teamed up with the Just Say Now campaign to create an online phone-banking tool that allows marijuana-reform-minded women across the country to make phone calls to female voters in California. If you’re a woman who supports Prop 19 and has a few minutes to spare, this is a great way to help make a difference.

And speaking of lawyers, last week more than 65 professors from the nation’s top law schools joined the growing number of groups speaking out in favor of Prop 19.

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly bet guest John Stossel $10,000 (to a charity of the winner’s choice) that Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would make marijuana legal for all adults, will fail. Stossel, who supports Prop 19, said that it’s time to end marijuana prohibition because “it’s a war on our own people.”

“A war on our own people?” asked a bewildered and defiant O’Reilly. “What does that mean? They’re breaking people’s doors down?”

Yes, Mr. O’Reilly, that’s exactly what it means. Below is video of a Feb. 11 raid in Columbia, Missouri, in which a SWAT team broke down a family’s front door, terrorized a 7-year-old child, and shot and killed one of the family’s dogs. The reason for such tactics? The officers found a pipe and a small amount of marijuana.

More than 800,000 Americans – nearly one every 37 seconds – are arrested every year for possessing marijuana, something that's safer than alcohol. It is a war on our own people, Mr. O’Reilly.

In another poor and puzzling attempt to defend our failed status quo, O’Reilly tried to compare marijuana to tobacco, by saying “marijuana is exactly as addictive as tobacco.”

Once again, he’s wrong. From TIME magazine yesterday: “Estimates vary, but compared with tobacco, which hooks about 20% to 30% of smokers, marijuana is much less addictive, coming in at 9% to 10%.” According a 1999 report from the federal government’s Institute of Medicine, “Compared to most other drugs … dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare … [A]lthough few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”

More importantly, tobacco is responsible for killing more than 400,000 Americans every year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marijuana kills no one. But tobacco is legal – and few families have their doors broken down, children terrorized, and pets murdered because a parent is in possession of a cigarette.

And according to the most recent poll, it looks very likely that Mr. O’Reilly could soon be out $10,000. SurveyUSA shows Prop 19 leading among California voters 48 to 44.

About one-third of “unlikely” voters in Oregon said they were more enthusiastic and more likely to vote after learning that a medical marijuana initiative was on their state’s ballot this year, according to a new survey released today by the measure’s campaign. Measure 74 – which has been endorsed by the Oregon state Democratic Party – would add state-licensed dispensaries to Oregon’s existing medical marijuana law.

According to the survey, which polled a random sampling of under-40, Democratic and independent voters, 31% of respondents said they were more likely to vote after hearing that Measure 74 was on the ballot, while only 18% were more enthusiastic after hearing about the contest between their state’s candidates for governor.

These findings add further merit to the argument many have made in the run-up to Nov. 2 – that marijuana initiatives could be the key to increasing youth voter turnout in this and future elections. Once mainstream political candidates acknowledge that there is a large and growing constituency of voters who want to see our marijuana laws change, it will hopefully be just a matter of time until they begin to embrace marijuana reform as a major issue that’s in their own best interests to endorse.

As Jon Walker points out, in Oregon’s 1998 election, more total votes were cast for Measure 67, the medical marijuana initiative, than for any other statewide candidate or ballot measure.