Two new reports by public policy expert Jon Gettman, a senior fellow at George Mason University, highlight the ineptitude of U.S. marijuana policy during the Bush Administration.

The reports – one analyzing marijuana use rate statistics and the other examining the explosion in court-ordered marijuana treatment admissions – directly contradict the White House drug czar's office's frequent claims of success in reducing marijuana use rates.

There's little question that this administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy has spent its tenure consumed with a singular obsession with marijuana and marijuana users, but the breadth of their failure to make any meaningful impact in this area is stunning.

The drug czar, John Walters, likes to claim that teen marijuana use rates have declined 25 percent under his watch – which, lo and behold, is exactly the benchmark his office set in 2002 – but it simply doesn't hold up, as Gettman's analysis shows.

If you look at overall marijuana use rates, you see that the number of monthly marijuana users barely even budged from 14.6 million users in 2002 to 14.5 million users in 2007. In other words, Walters created 127 separate anti-marijuana TV, radio and print ads, 34 marijuana-focused press releases, 50 reports detailing the dangers of marijuana – while marijuana arrests ratcheted from 697,000 in 2002 to 872,000 in 2007 – and all us taxpayers have to show for it is a tiny decline in frequent marijuana users.

Gettman's second report examines the startling rise in marijuana treatment admissions – a trend the drug czar frequently points to as evidence that contemporary marijuana is dramatically different and magnitudes more dangerous than the comparatively harmless stuff baby boomers enjoyed in their youths.

Again, Gettman's analysis proves what most of us suspected – the drug czar's claim is nonsense. There has been a marked jump in marijuana treatment admissions over the past 15 years or so, but it has been fueled almost entirely by referrals from the criminal justice system. In fact, only 45 percent of these admissions even met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for marijuana dependence. Marijuana users, presented with a choice between jail or treatment, logically choose treatment, and then the drug czar turns around and uses that as evidence that marijuana is prohibitively dangerous. But these folks never had a problem with marijuana. They had a problem with getting arrested for marijuana.

For those who follow marijuana policy reform closely, Gettman's conclusions may not be so earth shattering – there's already a general consensus among experts that the Office of National Drug Control Policy operates in a realm divorced from reality. The significance of Gettman's contribution here is in quantifying the failures of this administration's marijuana policies. Thanks to a heated culture war and an inattentive press, this drug czar got away with a lot of this nonsense, but his replacement should take note: Americans are sick of this war on marijuana users, and they're sick of the tortured logic, manipulated statistics and bald-faced lies used to justify it.

The next drug czar will be held accountable for her actions; Gettman's work offers a blueprint for how we should judge her success.

White House Drug Czar John Walters told the press last month that “people don’t go to jail for the possession of marijuana” and challenged MPP to prove him wrong.  In his words, "if you find the unicorn ... I'll buy you a steak dinner."   Well Mr. Walters, it took nearly three minutes on Google, but I found your unicorn.  Seven of them, actually.

On August 13, 2008, the Clinton County Municipal Court near Jackson, Mississippi sentenced seven people, in unrelated cases, to jail for simple possession of marijuana.   That’s seven in one day – an eighth person was sentenced to jail for paraphernalia.  And guess what?  A quick spot check of the county’s court dockets revealed that this happens all the time.

Jonathan L. Brister - 45 days in jail, $749.50 fine
Michael A. Bryant - 45 days in jail, $769.50 fine
Dwayne B. Thompson - 50 days in jail, $834.51 fine
Alexander Mack Watson - 45 days in jail, $749.50 fine
William P. Lancaster - 45 days in jail, $749.50 fine
Jacob Falcon - 45 days in jail, $749.50 fine
James A. Dugas - 45 days in jail, $769.50 fine
Sharon A. Watson was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $769.50 fine for possession of paraphernalia.
(Source)

These individuals were arrested with between 1 and 30 grams of marijuana and were not suspected of selling the drug – which is Mississippi's definition of simple possession.  They were sentenced based on an obscure law that calls for jail time when marijuana is found in a motor vehicle (§ 41-29-139(c)(2)(B)).  The law has nothing to do with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of the drug (DWI is a separate charge that these folks did not receive); it is just a straightforward example of people going to to jail for marijuana possession.

Mississippi is considered one of the 11 states with "decriminalized" marijuana laws.  In the other 39 states, the courts don't even need an obscure motor vehicle law to sentence someone to jail for possession.  However, Mr. Walters still claims that jail sentences are reserved for drug dealers.  It's not the case.

I found the unicorn(s) ... Now where's my steak dinner?

"If something is not legal, you can't regulate it very effectively."

            -- Prof. Robin Room, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne

On October 2, the Global Cannabis Commission, a group of top scientists commissioned by the Beckley Foundation, issued its groundbreaking report, "Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate." Your faithful correspondent was able to attend the daylong seminar in which the report was discussed, held in the distinctly imposing Moses Room of the House of Lords in the Palace of Westminster.

This is a highly condensed summary of the 175-page report. I wrote a lengthier summary here, and the full document can be downloaded here.

The report was written by five leading marijuana and drug policy researchers: Benedikt Fischer of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland, and three Australians: Wayne Hall of the University of Queensland, Simon Lenton of the National Drug Research Institute at the Curtin University of Technology, and Robin Room of the University of Melbourne. A number of other important researchers joined the discussion (and contributed advice and research to the report).

Some highlights:

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH MARIJUANA USE:

Marijuana is not harmless. Intoxication "increases the risk of motor vehicle crashes 2-3 times" -- not trivial, but "far more modest than that of alcohol." There is clearly an increased risk of bronchitis among heavy marijuana smokers, but no evidence of increased rates of emphysema, while the evidence regarding lung cancer is mixed, the report states.

Marijuana almost certainly exacerbates symptoms of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals, but epidemiologic evidence argues against it causing psychosis in healthy people. As for worries about increased potency, more research is needed. If users adjust their intake in relation to potency, dangers are minimal. Perhaps most important, "All of these trends [toward increased potency] have been encouraged by prohibition, which favors the production of more concentrated forms."

Overall, the report finds the risks of marijuana use are "modest" compared with those of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco. 

POLICY AND REFORM:

While causing obvious harm to those arrested and convicted, criminalization of marijuana possession has not succeeded in preventing marijuana from being widely available. Contrary to wild claims being made in Massachusetts right now, decriminalization measures have not increased use rates. "If a nation chooses to use the criminal law for controlling cannabis use, there is no justification for incarcerating an individual for a cannabis possession or use offense, nor for creating a criminal conviction," the report concludes.

While not firmly advocating one policy alternative, the report lays out many advantages to a system of legal regulation like that used for alcohol. As report co-author Prof. Robin Room noted succinctly, "If something is not legal, you can't regulate it very effectively."

A staggering $15.2 billion budget deficit in California didn’t stop Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger from sending thousands of state-legal medical marijuana patients into unemployment. Last night, the “Governator” vetoed A.B. 2279, which would have made it illegal for employers to fire or deny employment to state-legal medical marijuana patients for testing positive for marijuana.

A.B. 2279 included provisions that exempted safety-sensitive positions and didn’t force employers to violate federal law. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to the bill’s opponents.

Schwarzenegger’s veto message states that he couldn’t support the bill because “Employment protection was not a goal of the initiative as passed by voters.” Apparently the governor thinks that voters want to force medical marijuana patients into unemployment rather than allow them to work and pay taxes like those who use physician-prescribed Oxycontin do.

California's medical marijuana law still enjoys overwhelming support from voters and it clearly demands that seriously ill patients not be subject to sanction for their use of medical marijuana.

Schwarzenegger, who freely admits his past use of marijuana and says he did it because he “always knew how to enjoy [himself],” just declared that if you use it as part of a physician-approved treatment, you don’t deserve to be employed.

I don't get to say this often, so here goes: The latest statistics from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration support one of White House drug czar John Walters' most frequent claims about marijuana.

According to the just-released CARAVAN Study for SAMHSA on Addictions and Recovery, John Walters, who likes to call marijuana "the blind spot of drug policy," is correct that most Americans just don't share his view that marijuana is "The Greatest Cause of Illegal Drug Abuse."

In fact, according to the survey (Page 9), Americans rank marijuana below prescription drugs, other illicit drugs, and even alcohol among various drugs' harm to society.

If the Office of National Drug Control Policy director's obsession with marijuana puts him outside the mainstream, it's not for lack of trying. Mr. Walters has spent eight years and upwards of a billion dollars in advertising trying to scare us about marijuana, but it just hasn't taken.

Which leaves two possibilities: The world (or at least two-thirds of Americans) has gone crazy, or the drug czar has.

I'm off to London to represent MPP at the launch of the Beckley Foundation's Global Cannabis Commission Report October 2 and 3.

This document, put together by some of the world's top researchers and drug policy analysts, promises to be of great value in efforts to base marijuana policy on facts and data rather than spin or political expediency. So you won't see me posting for a few days (outside of meetings, I will be fully occupied recovering from jet lag), but I will post a full report early next week.

I've written before about the death of Rachel Hoffman, a recent Florida State graduate who was murdered in a botched drug sting after Tallahassee police used a petty marijuana charge to pressure her into acting as an informant.

It's at least a little comforting to see that there's now some accountability for some of the principals involved in this tragic event.

But I can't help wondering what would have happened had Rachel, through luck and grace, avoided her awful fate. What if she had safely purchased the drugs and weapons the cops had put her in harm's way for? What if this dangerous scheme had led to drug convictions for these two smalltime thugs?

Would these officers still face disciplinary action? Or would their reckless caper be rewarded? I think we all know the answer.

Real accountability in Rachel Hoffman's death won't come until we acknowledge that the petty marijuana offense that dragged her into this situation should never have been a crime in the first place.

By the way, please check out this short tribute my colleagues John Berry and Joe Haptas made for Rachel.

On Tuesday, the Office of National Drug Control Policy sent out an email and put up a post on its blog (yes, ONDCP really has a blog, but unlike ours, they don't let readers post comments -- why, I wonder?) promoting a new "Marijuana Awareness Kit." Actually, it's mostly a rehash of old material, but still an interesting window into ONDCP's thought process.

The packet's introduction, for example, warns, "The fact is, cigarettes and marijuana are now tied as the illegal substance kids report is the easiest for someone their age (12 – 17) to buy."

That's roughly true, give or take a little and depending on what survey you look at. It also demolishes ONDCP's rationale for maintaining marijuana prohibition: that in order to "protect the children," we must keep marijuana illegal for adults, and any lessening of adult penalties will lead to an explosion of marijuana use among our kids.

But in 2007 we arrested over 872,000 Americans on marijuana charges -- 775,000 for simple possession -- and zero for possession of cigarettes. Yet not only is marijuana just as available to kids as cigarettes, the CDC reports that current use rates are statistically tied as well. 

And if you look closely at that CDC chart, teen cigarette smoking is down markedly since 1991, while marijuana use is up. One significant reason for this is the successful crackdown on cigarette sales to minors, something only possible when a product is legally regulated.

So the reason for sticking blindly with our current policies is what again?

California's medical marijuana state ID cards protect qualified patients and caregivers from arrest, and each of the state's 58 counties is required to make them available to their residents. However, in a crusade against the voter-approved medical marijuana law, some counties have refused to implement the program.

Fortunately, most counties are respecting the rule of law – even in traditionally conservative, rural and agricultural communities. Just yesterday, the Board of Supervisors in Kings County unanimously voted to implement the ID card program and the cards will be available to local patients very soon. The decision comes only two weeks after another San Joaquin Valley county, Fresno, also moved to implement the program. These developments are significant because San Joaquin Valley voters rejected Proposition 215 twelve years ago and the region has been painfully slow in implementing the state law ever since.

Have these agricultural, Republican-dominated communities been suddenly overrun by drug legalizers? Hardly. Instead, local policymakers across California – in red and blue counties alike – are acknowledging that the state's medical marijuana law is here to stay. It's unfortunate that counties like San Diego and San Bernardino are continuing to ignore state law, but these scofflaws are increasingly looking less credible and more like isolated, rogue elements every day.

Every year around this time,  Project Censored recognizes the 25 "most censored" news stories from the prior year -- stories of great public significance that got little or no attention from the mass media. This year, they've honored MPP and NORML's Paul Armentano for pointing out the alarming rise in marijuana arrests.

Since The Project Censored materials were written, the latest FBI Uniform Crime Reports survey has been released, showing yet another marijuana arrest record.