The sometimes-chaotic medical marijuana situation in California has spurred a fair amount of sensationalized and unbalanced press coverage, even in the esteemed New Yorker. Yes, there have been some problems and some misuse of the law, but an editorial in today's L.A. Times hits the nail on the head as to the real source of the problems:

Most of the negative consequences [of Proposition 215] can be attributed to the gap between state and federal marijuana laws. The fact that even sellers considered legitimate by the state can be prosecuted and ruined by federal agents encourages black-market dealers, who endanger their communities by ignoring fire codes, selling to healthy minors and fighting turf wars with other dealers. ... [T]he only long-term solution is for the feds to stop the medical marijuana raids and leave California law enforcement to California officers.

Precisely.

It looks like the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors will make taxpayers foot the bill for their lesson in constitutionality yet again, voting yesterday to continue their futile lawsuit against state medical marijuana laws. Although it hasn't been a problem for 40 other California counties, the board maintains that federal law prevents them from obeying a state law requiring a county identification card system for medical marijuana patients.

The board – along with their counterparts in San Diego County – have already lost this argument twice in court, first in 2006 by a Superior Court judge and then again earlier this month in a unanimous decision by the 4th District Court of Appeals.

This time it will be the state Supreme Court's job to explain to county officials that they must obey all laws, even the ones they don't like.

A common source of frustration for MPP – and for most folks in the marijuana policy reform movement – is being mischaracterized as "pro-pot" or "pro-drug" by the press. Not only are these labels misleading and politically charged, they're completely inaccurate.

Most of us who wish to end marijuana prohibition do so because we see the policy's utter futility and its legacy of failure and waste. Our argument isn't that marijuana is fun; it's that marijuana prohibition is a disaster, and that perpetuating it is inhumane and irresponsible. That's true whether you use marijuana or not, and whether you approve of marijuana use or not.

I don't think reporters mischaracterize us on purpose. Reporters pride themselves on their ability to approach topics with a healthy dose of skepticism. But most of them haven't given marijuana policy as much thought as, say, the pro-choice movement, which you'll rarely – if ever – see referred to as "pro-abortion."

And it isn't just the small papers and local news channels. A few weeks ago, CNN Headline News' "Showbiz Tonight" called MPP a "pro-pot group." And just last week, a reporter with the Washington Post used the same label to describe us in a story about Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr.

I'm not bringing this up to bash anybody. When I contacted the Post reporter to request a correction to the online version of her story, she was prompt in responding to me, and I believe that she and her editor gave my request sincere consideration based on their point of view. But they declined to change the story.

It makes sense that defenders of marijuana prohibition like to characterize critics of our current policies as being pro-marijuana or as encouraging marijuana use. They have a much better chance defeating this straw man than if they were to engage in an honest debate about properly assessing marijuana's relative dangers to individuals and to society and developing effective policies designed to mitigate those dangers. It's very difficult to defend prohibition in that light.

It can certainly get wearisome countering these same mischaracterizations in the press, but it's also an opportunity. Although I failed to get the Post article corrected, I did get in touch with the paper's ombudsman, who agreed that the phrase "pro pot" was "simplistic" and posted a note to the Post staff advising them about my complaint and her opinion.

So who knows? I'd like to think that pointing out the problem at least caused some folks over there to think about marijuana policy for a moment or two.

Never fear, we're not asking readers to support the annual exercise in futility known as marijuana "eradication," which is now in full swing as summer nears an end and harvest season approaches. Not only has there never been the slightest indication that these campaigns reduce the marijuana supply -- the supposed objective -- but the U.S. Department of Justice's own National Drug Threat Assessment 2008 indicates that "eradication" campaigns directed at outdoor farms are actually driving a shift to indoor growing in converted homes, resulting in year-round production of high-potency marijuana (often with jerry-rigged wiring and other dangerous conditions) and an "exponential increase in profits" for the criminal gangs that control most large-scale marijuana cultivation and distribution.

But there is something you can do: Help keep the news media honest.

 Most news coverage of these hopeless and counterproductive campaigns is devoid of skepticism or analysis. See, for example, this Aug. 23 story from a chain of California papers that fails to cite a single source not connected with law enforcement. That's not journalism, it's stenography.

If you see a story like this, write a letter to the editor, asking the paper to actually investigate the efficacy of marijuana "eradication" campaigns rather than simply act as a mouthpiece for failed polices. If y

ou see an unbalanced story on TV, write or call the station's news director. And let MPP's media team know about it. You can reach me at Bruce@mpp.org or Dan Bernath at DBernath@mpp.org.

Finally, one quick word about making complaints to the media: Be diplomatic. Don't yell or make accusations. Be calm, clear, concise, and factual when you lay out your case. Reporters and editors are human, after all, and no one likes being yelled at. And (sadly) many are unaware that there is another side to this story.

While some medical uses of marijuana remain controversial, a new study of marijuana and HIV-related neuropathy published online in early August by the journal Neuropsychopharmacology closes the case regarding one important indication: neuropathic pain. 

Neuropathic pain -- pain from damage to the nerves -- can be caused by any number of conditions, including HIV (as in this study), diabetes, and multiple sclerosis. And it is notoriously resistant to conventional pain drugs, as the article notes. The patients in this study, conducted at UC San Diego, still suffered significant pain despite being on a variety of pain drugs. Two-thirds were taking opioid narcotics and still suffering.

Marijuana didn't work for every patient, but on average, pain declined from "strong" to "mild to moderate," accompanied by "similar improvements in total mood disturbance, physical disability, and quality of life." For the vast majority of patients, side effects were relatively mild.

This is the third published clinical trial to demonstrate that marijuana can safely and effectively relieve neuropathic pain, following a UC Davis study published in April and a UC San Francisco study published in February 2007.

Remember, this is a type of pain for which there are no good, universally effective treatments, and which causes suffering for millions. Marijuana works. Case closed.

Today's Associated Press story on a group of college presidents proposing reconsideration of the legal drinking age is accompanied in some outlets by a fascinating graph, reproduced here. Two things are striking:

1) The number of alcohol poisoning deaths in the U.S. each year is shockingly high, consistently between 300 and 400. The number of annual deaths from marijuana poisoning remains -- as always -- zero.

2) The number of alcohol poisoning deaths spiked just as the U.S. government started going all-out to demonize marijuana, deploying hundreds of millions of dollars worth of anti-marijuana ads on TV, radio, and in print.

One can't help but wonder if this is really just coincidence. The recent low point came in 2000, with 327 alcohol poisoning deaths overall, and 16 among college-age Americans. In 2001, the Bush administration came into office, with anti-marijuana zealot John Walters taking over as drug czar late in the year. Shortly thereafter, Walters began his anti-marijuana crusade, and in 2002 alcohol poisoning deaths spiked to 383 -- a level they've roughly maintained ever since. Booze deaths among college-age young people also ratcheted upward, and in 2005 set a recent record of 35 in one year.

No one wants to encourage kids either to drink or smoke marijuana. But if you keep bombarding young people with propaganda about the dangers of marijuana while saying virtually nothing about the possibility that booze can literally kill you -- precisely what our government has done -- well, that just might be "sending a message to young people," as the federal bureaucrats say. And that message could be deadly.

For a press guy, there's nothing like returning from vacation to find yourself quoted in a major newspaper. It's even better when the story -- in this case actually a set of articles examining medical marijuana in today's Los Angeles Times -- does a clear, thorough, and informative job.

Reporter Jill Adams looks at the latest scientific evidence regarding marijuana's medical benefits and its risks, citing several of the world's top researchers in the field. Unlike the once-over-lightly jobs that happen so often in the mass media, Adams seems to have taken the time to get the details right about everything from neuropathic pain to recent controversies regarding marijuana and mental illness.

Money quote:

"The truth, these researchers say, is that marijuana has medical benefits -- for chronic-pain syndromes, cancer pain, multiple sclerosis, AIDS wasting syndrome and the nausea that accompanies chemotherapy -- and attempts to understand and harness these are being hampered. Also, they add, science reveals that the risks of marijuana use, which have been thoroughly researched, are real but generally small."

It's here, it's hot, it's new, it's fresh: the latest video from MPP-TV, The War on Drugs in 100 Seconds.  This video takes a look at the war on drugs through a couple of quotes by author Michael Pollan from his book The Botany of Desire: A Plant's Eye View of the World. Check it out, enjoy, and--as always--let us know what you think and what you'd like to see in the future!

This video is a quick showcase of a couple of quotes from Michael Pollan, author of The Botany of Desire: A Plant's Eye View of the World.

Want to help promote marijuana policy reform but think it’s too much work? Not anymore! With MPP’s free e-mail alerts, we’ll deliver the information you need right to your inbox with no muss or fuss!

No real surprises in the latest National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse, the annual National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse survey of teens' and parents' attitudes on drug use. But it does confirm what we've long known about the availability of illicit drugs for kids – including marijuana – compared to that of regulated drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

According to the report, half of the 16- and 17-year-olds surveyed said their peers use marijuana more than tobacco. More teens say it's easier to acquire marijuana than beer. And there's a 35% increase from last year in the number of teens who say they can buy marijuana within an hour and a 14% increase in the number of teens who say they can find it in a day.

Like I said – no big surprise; tobacco and alcohol have realistic controls placed on them. We enforce rules prohibiting sales to minors, and we talk honestly with our children about the dangers and responsible use of these substances by adults .

But marijuana is illegal. That means we must leave it up to drug dealers to determine what – if any – age limit ought to be placed on its sale, and we must lie to kids in order to justify the fallacy that marijuana is too dangerous to control or regulate.