Tonight, MPP’s allies in the U.S. House of Representatives took a big step toward protecting medical marijuana patients in the District of Columbia.

For ten years, the D.C. spending bill has included an amendment that prevents the city from implementing a voter-approved medical marijuana initiative. Tonight, the House passed the 2010 version of the bill, wiping out the provision blocking medical marijuana.

This is a major step and likely signals ultimate victory for advocates in D.C. The spending bill will need to move through the remainder of the legislative process and be signed into law by President Obama before any changes will take effect.

MPP spokesperson Bruce Mirken is questioned by the hosts of CNBC Power Lunch about the compelling rationale behind regulating and taxing marijuana like alcohol in California. Experts agree that such a plan could generate over a billion dollars in revenue for the state, as well as bolster the economy and relieve the fear of arrest from the otherwise law-abiding population of marijuana consumers. 07/16/2009

Today, the California Board of Equalization (BOE) released its analysis of state Assembly Bill 390 - legislation that would tax and regulate marijuana.

According to the report, the BOE would collect $1.38 billion annually in new revenue from the sales of legal marijuana, if the legislation is approved. The analysis is based on research that indicates that Californians annually consume about 1 million pounds of marijuana.

$990 million would be generated from a $50/ounce excise tax and would be earmarked for state drug education and treatment programs. An additional $392 million collected in sales tax would go into the state general fund. This report does not address the potential hundreds of millions in criminal justice savings that would be realized if California stopped arresting nonviolent adults for marijuana.

These figures should be raising some eyebrows under California's capitol dome today as the governor and state legislators are attempting to hammer out  a solution to the state's record $26 billion budget deficit.

MPP spokesperson Dan Bernath talks about the efforts to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol in California. 07/09/2009

MPP's Rob Kampia refutes prohibitionist Calvina Fay's arguments against the taxation and regulation of marijuana in California and her criticisms of the TV ad promoting that policy. 07/13/2009

MPP's Bruce Mirken and California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano discuss how taxation and regulation of California's marijuana industry could help alleviate the state's budget problems. Ammiano's bill, AB390, would treat marijuana like alcohol. 07/12/2009

A quick item from our Aggressive Stupidity files. Whom would you trust more on medical issues?

The California Narcotics Officers Association, from its official training materials: "Marijuana is not a medicine. ... There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine." [emphasis in original]

Or...

The American College of Physicians, from its position statement on medical marijuana: "Preclinical and clinical research and anecdotal reports suggest numerous potential medical uses for marijuana. ... Given marijuana's proven efficacy at treating certain symptoms and its relatively low toxicity, reclassification [out of Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act] would reduce barriers to research and increase availability of cannabinoid drugs to patients who have failed to respond to other treatments."

While I was in the green room waiting to debate Calvina Fay on Fox Business News today (we're working on getting the video posted), former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sat down next to me to wait for his interview on the sister Fox News Channel.

After exchanging some small talk, he asked me what I was going to be talking about on TV.  After telling him that MPP was the organization that ran those ads in California last week that touted how taxing marijuana could help some of the California government's budget crisis, he said, "Well, I can't say I'm supportive of that.  I have a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old to worry about."  I responded, "Well, I'm not surprised that you're not supportive."

But, continuing, I noted to him that teenage tobacco use has been decreasing for years because of public education about tobacco's harmful effects, as well as the "We Card" campaign that has gotten serious about carding people for age before they're permitted to buy cigarettes.  He added that another factor is that the price of cigarettes has also been rising, to which I agreed, noting that the price increase is because of a tax increase.

In any case, I continued, teenage marijuana use actually increased over the same period of years, and tobacco usage rates have been falling, so that now an equal number of teenagers are using marijuana and tobacco.  Maybe we could do better with marijuana by taxing and regulating it.

I also said, "You know, with your two kids, you might want to ask them whether it's easier for them to find marijuana or alcohol in or near their schools."  He laughed, I think because the idea of asking his kids about scoring drugs is probably outside his comfort zone.

Just then, a Fox staffer came in to get me for the interview.  "Good luck," Mr. Gonzales said.  "You can say on TV that I'm intrigued by your proposal."

An argument regularly raised by those who want to keep marijuana illegal is that because there is no equivalent of a breathalyzer test for marijuana intoxication, DUI laws would be impossible to enforce. The California Supreme Court just shot a very large hole in that argument.

It's an odd argument anyway, given that tens of millions of Americans regularly take drugs that can impair driving -- pain relievers, antihistamines, etc. -- for which there is no simple, roadside test. For most of these drugs, and for marijuana, the old-fashioned field sobriety test works quite well.

Still, people have tended to regard the alcohol breath test as the gold standard. Now, the California Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that defendants can challenge the accuracy of these tests. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "Even though experts say the standard ratio used to derive a blood-alcohol concentration from breath generally approximates or even underestimates the amount of alcohol the driver consumed, they also agree that Breathalyzer results may sometimes overestimate the amount of alcohol in the blood."

No one -- repeat, no one -- should ever drive while impaired by anything. But it's time to put aside the false notion that Breathalyzer tests are infallible, or that there's no way to enforce laws against driving under the influence of marijuana.