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.

On Saturday, New Bedford Standard-Times columnist Jack Spillane weighed with an eminently sensible and amusing take on the opposition to Question 2 , the marijuana decriminalization initiative on the November ballot in Massachusetts. He quotes some funny/scary dialogue from the press conference held by prosecutors and other opponents that managed to escape the notice of other reporters. The silliness begins with Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter:

And "I don't want to hear," he said, those "specious" and "bogus" arguments that marijuana is like alcohol. Alcohol, he informed the media event, can have health benefits. You know, like wine, he said.

And tobacco? Why, that takes a long time to do damage, he informed.

Ah, Sam, say it ain't so.

Not to be outdone, Fall River Mayor Bob Correia trotted out the time-tested "gateway" argument.

"Marijuana," he said, is "the one they start our children off with!"

Oh dear, where does one start? Pretty much every reputable authority who's actually looked at the data has concluded that both alcohol and tobacco are far more toxic and addictive than marijuana.

Last year, for example, a group of British scientists headed by David Nutt, a pharmacology professor at Bristol University and a member of the British government's official Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, published a study comparing the harm caused by various drugs in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. They constructed a nine-category matrix of harm, looking at physical risks to the user, the risk of addiction, and effect on users' families and society as a whole.  Marijuana scored markedly lower on the harmfulness scale than both alcohol and tobacco.

As for medicinal benefits of alcohol, a recent WebMD video explained that benefits may exist, but only if you limit yourself to low doses -- more causes harm rather than benefit -- while the beneficial components in booze can also be obtained in a number of other ways that don't risk the liver and brain damage that alcohol has been proven to cause.

In contrast, the medicinal benefits of marijuana are based on marijuana's unique components, called cannabinoids, and its use for relief of pain, nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms has been noted by such prestigious organizations as the Institute of Medicine, American College of Physicians, American Nurses Association, and many others.

As for the gateway theory, it's been debunked so often that I won't bore you with a full recitation. To quote the American College of Physicians: "Marijuana has not been proven to be the cause or even the most serious predictor of serious drug abuse."

It's definitely silly season in Massachusetts. And it's likely to get worse.

Medical marijuana advocates often hear that marijuana can't be a real medicine because it hasn't been approved by the FDA. One common response to this is that the Drug Enforcement Administration continues to block the only avenue that could produce the research needed to seek FDA approval for medical marijuana, over a year and half after an administrative law judge ruled that the project should go ahead. 

But that's just the start. The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a scathing critique of the drug company research that does lead to FDA approval,  demonstrating that the system is even more fundamentally rotten than most of us suspected. The author is Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the most prestigious medical journal on the planet, and now a professor at Harvard Medical School.

"Drug companies now finance most clinical research on prescription drugs," Angell writes, "and there is mounting evidence that they often skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer." Angell walks readers through a depressing litany of conflicts of interest, showing how researchers, the academic institutions they work for, and even members of FDA review panels are financially in bed with the drug companies whose products they test and evaluate. Drug company control of research on their products is now so complete, she explains, that the companies "often design the studies; perform the analysis; write the papers; and decide whether, when, and in what form to publish the results."

Companies controlling research on their products not only skew that research to produce positive results, they suppress negative results that would interfere with marketing -- suppression that, Angell explains, has often only been uncovered as a result of lawsuits or congressional hearings. The bottom line, this esteemed physician and journal editor writes, is that bias in favor of drug company products "permeates the entire system. Physicians can no longer rely on the medical literature for valid and reliable information [italics mine]."

Natural marijuana, of course, has no drug company sponsor. And yet we're told it can't be a real medicine because it hasn't been fully run through this broken, biased, dysfunctional system.

This is the story of Rachel Hoffman, a young girl who has now become just one more victim of the government's war on marijuana users. A casual marijuana user, Rachel became embroiled with the Tallahassee Police Department, forcing her into a dangerous situation as an untrained informant.

Did you know you can help MPP without spending a dime? Sign up for MPP’s free e-mail alerts and you’ll learn about ways to help us spread the word whenever important developments happen. Let's make sure we never see the need for a video like this again.

On Wednesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives endorsed nearly all of MPP's arguments for regulating and taxing marijuana as we now regulate beer, wine, and liquor. But don't get your hopes up too much: The word "marijuana" never appears in the resolution hailing 75 years of successful alcohol regulation and the end of Prohibition.

Nevertheless, try reading the following excerpts and mentally substituting the word "marijuana" for "alcohol":

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited 'the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws ...

Whereas development of a transparent and accountable system of distribution and sales, an orderly market, temperance in consumption and safe practices, the efficient collection of taxes, and other essential policies have been successfully guided by the collective experience and cooperation of government agencies and licensed industry members throughout our geographically and culturally diverse Nation;

Whereas regulated commerce in alcoholic beverages contributes billions of dollars in Federal and State tax revenues and additional billions to the economy annually ...

Whereas members of the licensed alcoholic beverage industry have created and supported a wide range of national, State, and community programs to address problems associated with alcohol abuse, including drunk driving and underage drinking: Now, therefore, be it

      Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

            (1) celebrates 75 years of effective State-based alcohol regulation since the passage of the 21st Amendment;

            (2) recognizes State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale; and

            (3) continues to support policies that allow States to effectively regulate alcohol.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

One of the arguments raised regularly by opponents of marijuana law reform is the claim that any lessening of penalties will lead to higher rates of marijuana use, and from that all sorts of terrible consequences will flow. This argument has already been raised against Question 2 in Massachusetts. It's one of those claims that makes intuitive sense, but research suggests it's simply not true.

That's not just my opinion. A few years ago the White House asked the National Research Council to look at the data being collected about illegal drugs in order to better understand how that data could be used to inform policy. The NRC report, "Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us," looked in some detail at what research tells us about the effect of drug laws.

Here's a bit of what they had to say, from pages 192-193 of the report:

The issue most extensively studied has been the impact of decriminalization on the prevalence of marijuana use among youths and adults. Penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use were significantly reduced in 11 states in the 1970s (Bonnie, 1981b). All of these laws preclude incarceration for consumption-related marijuana offenses, making the offense punishable only by a fine, and most also classify the offense in a category (typically a civil infraction) that does not carry the stigmatizing consequence of having been convicted of a crime— hence the term 'decriminalization.'

Most cross-state comparisons in the United States (as well as in Australia; see McGeorge and Aitken, 1997) have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states (e.g., Johnston et al., 1981; Single, 1989; DiNardo and Lemieux, 1992; Thies and Register, 1993). Even in the few studies that find an effect on prevalence, it is a weak one. ...

In summary, existing research seems to indicate that there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use, and that perceived legal risk explains very little in the variance of individual drug use.

The most recent state-level data from the federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health continue to show little difference in use rates between states that have decriminalized marijuana and those that haven't.

For example, in Mississippi, a decrim state, 8.45% of those aged 12 and up say they've used marijuana in the past year. In neighboring Louisiana and Alabama, both of which continue to arrest and jail people caught possessing marijuana, the rates are 9.58% and 7.99%, respectively. Some decrim states, like Oregon, are above the national average of 10.37%, while others are below. Overall, the difference between decrim and non-decrim states is well within the survey's margin of error.

The lesson: Just because something seems like it should be true -- or makes a good sound bite -- doesn't make it so.

The latest Crime in the United States report from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program is out, and the news is disturbing. Marijuana arrests set another all-time record in 2007, totaling 872,720 -- that's a marijuana arrest every 36 seconds.

Arrests for marijuana possession totaled 775,138, greatly exceeding arrests for all violent crimes combined, which totaled 597,447.

Bizarrely, at his recent press conference announcing new drug use survey data, White House drug czar John Walters stated, "We didn't arrest 800,000 marijuana users," and called that figure, when raised by MPP's Aaron Houston and Dan Bernath, a "lie."

Well, he was sort of right. Dan and Aaron were low by 72,000.