Last night’s election produced two noteworthy victories for the marijuana policy reform movement.

In Maine, an estimated 58 percent of voters approved Question 5, making Maine the third state in the nation (along with Rhode Island and New Mexico) to establish state-licensed non-profit dispensaries that will provide medical marijuana to qualified patients. This is also significant because it is the first time such a system was enacted by voters. (The other two were approved by state legislatures.)

And in Colorado, more than 70 percent of voters in the tiny ski town of Breckenridge voted to remove city-level criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults over 21. While possession of any amount is still illegal under state law, the citizens of Breckenridge have undoubtedly sent a message to lawmakers in Colorado—and around the country—by taking this first and necessary step toward the end of marijuana prohibition.

A frequent claim made by opponents of marijuana policy reform is that hardly anybody is ever really arrested for low-level marijuana offenses. But like most prohibitionist arguments, that's a lie.

In California, where marijuana possession was “decriminalized” in 1976 and medical marijuana legalized 20 years later, the state Department of Justice reports that law enforcement conducted a record 78,492 marijuana arrests in 2008. About 80% of these (61,366) were for mere possession – not sale or cultivation.

The California-based Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) took a long look at trends for marijuana arrests in the state and revealed some disturbing information. In its recent report to the California Legislature, CJCJ showed that the arrest rate for marijuana possession has skyrocketed in California – up 127% – between 1990 and 2008. But during the same period, arrests for all other offenses in California decreased by 40% – including other drug possession, which sank by nearly 30%. The arrest rate for marijuana sales and manufacturing even decreased 21% during this period.

You can’t help but conclude from this data that California’s police agencies have developed an almost singular focus on marijuana possession as their top law enforcement priority. This is shocking, not only because most Californians now say they want marijuana legal, but because it’s a dangerous and irresponsible use of limited public safety resources.

Last year, while California’s law enforcement officers were rounding up a record number of marijuana consumers, almost 60,000 reported violent crimes never resulted in an arrest.* Thanks to decriminalization in California, these arrests usually don't result in jail or lengthy detainment, but they do take real police time and other criminal justice resources.

Anyone unfortunate enough to have been a victim of an unsolved crime should support repealing marijuana prohibition and freeing up police to focus on public safety rather than consensual adult activity that's no more harmful than drinking beer or wine.

*Source: FBI, Crime in the U.S., 2008

Two members of Britain’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have resigned in protest after the group’s chairman, Professor David Nutt, was fired last week for criticizing the UK government’s decision to strengthen penalties for marijuana offenses. Chemist Les King and pharmacist Marion Walker said that the government wrongly dismissed Nutt and violated his freedom of expression.

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.”

Last week, I posted the results of the MPP-commissioned poll showing that despite outrageous claims being made by local officials, there is wide support for medical marijuana among Los Angeles County voters. A new poll now shows that support for medical marijuana access isn't confined to Los Angeles.

A poll released Wednesday in San Diego found super-majority support for medical marijuana in that city. The poll -- commissioned by addiction recovery Web site keepcomingback.com -- found 77% agreement that "officials must make sure that San Diego's medical marijuana patients have convenient access to their medicine in the city." 70% support regulating the city's medical marijuana collectives in some way, while only 9.5% support banning them (3% said they didn't need any regulations). The poll also collected other interesting information about how San Diegans view medical marijuana sales. Read more about it here.

This poll should send a firm message to San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who just last month ordered a series of shocking raids on local medical marijuana patients and suppliers.

Yesterday I posted a brief summary of a new study of vaporization of marijuana as an alternative to smoking. Since that original post, I’ve spoken to a couple of researchers about this study, and they raised a few points that seem worth sharing:

First, for reasons that aren’t clear, before performing the tests of smoking and vaporization, the researchers put the marijuana through a drying procedure that ordinary marijuana consumers don’t do. This might have eliminated some plant compounds, such as terpenoids, that are actually of interest.

A second possible flaw is that the researchers considered all “byproducts” – defined as substances other than cannabinoids --  together. They didn’t analyze precisely what they were, lumping bad stuff like the toxic combustion products contained in smoke with potentially beneficial plant compounds like those terpenoids mentioned above. That puts the finding that fewer byproducts were produced at 230 degrees Celsius than were produced at lower temperatures in a somewhat different perspective: We don’t know if the same byproducts were produced at 230 degrees as were produced at lower temperatures – and what’s in that mixture could be just as important as how much of it there is.

Professor David Nutt, chairman of Great Britain’s advisory council on the misuse of drugs, was forced to resign today after he criticized the British government’s decision to toughen penalties for marijuana possession.

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).

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending a first-of-its kind hearing on the “legalization and regulation of marijuana,” held in the California Assembly Committee on Public Safety. The three-hour hearing included testimony from experts who told the legislature that arresting adults for marijuana is a gross waste of police resources and that the only way to control marijuana is to end prohibition and institute regulations for its sale.

Witnesses advocating for reform included retired superior court judge James P. Gray and former San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan – both of whom have seen the futility of marijuana prohibition firsthand from inside the criminal justice system.

Some law enforcement organizations, who make a living arresting people for marijuana, also participated in the hearing. I'm sure readers of this blog won't be surprised to know that these entrenched interests employed their usual tactic of hyperbole and flat-out lies to scare legislators from supporting reform.

One thing is for sure, and it's that yesterday's hearing was another step forward in the march toward marijuana sanity. The more lawmakers and the voting public are exposed to the truth about marijuana and the effects of marijuana policy, the more likely they are call for an alternative to prohibition.

This informational hearing set the stage for another hearing and a vote on A.B. 390 -- legislation to tax and regulation marijuana -- that the Public Safety Committee is expected to hold in January.

Here is one of the news reports covering this historic hearing and both sides of the debate:

This video is being distributed by a group opposing legislation to tax and regulate marijuana in California. Seriously. We are not making this up.

MPP's Aaron Smith speaks in support of California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's bill to tax and regulate marijuana after a hearing to discuss the effects of the law when it passes. This was the first time that a legislative body has held hearings on the possibility of ending marijuana prohibition in California. 10/28/2009

Opponents of medical marijuana love to condemn smoking, but a new study adds more data to the growing pile of research confirming that vaporization provides the benefits of inhalation without the unwanted combustion products in smoke.  In a study comparing vaporization to smoking in the journal Inhalation Toxicology, researchers from Leiden University report, “Based on the results, we can conclude that with the use of the vaporizer a much ‘cleaner’ and therefore a more healthy cannabis vapor can be produced for the medicinal use of C. sativa, in comparison to the administration of THC via cigarettes.”

The article also provides some new practical information on vaporization, suggesting that a temperature of 230 degrees Celsius is ideal, and that using smaller amounts of marijuana in the vaporizer produces more vapor, but does not extract THC more efficiently, so there is no apparent gain in using an amount less than about half a gram at a time.