In the aftermath of the recently release video showing a family terrorized and their pets shot by a SWAT team in Columbia, Missouri, that city's police chief is now saying he supports efforts to change marijuana laws so officers will no longer need to spend time and resources enforcing them.

During a press conference yesterday, Columbia Police Chief Ken Burton went out of his way to state his support for ending marijuana prohibition.

"I applaud your efforts," he told a reporter who asked about campaigns to change marijuana laws. "If we could get out of the business [of going after marijuana offenders], I think there would be a lot of police officers that would be happy to do that."

After reviewing the results of a four-month internal investigation, the chief announced that his officers acted appropriately during the February SWAT raid that resulted in the death of a dog and endangered a young child.

Columbia police are currently updating their policies to hopefully prevent further incidents, but the decision to use extreme force in executing a warrant for marijuana possession has been widely criticized as being contrary to city law. Columbia passed a law in 2004 making marijuana violations the lowest law enforcement priority. Unfortunately, as the chief points out, state laws can still interfere with officers' abilities to go after real criminals.

Chief Burton also acknowledged that violence surrounding marijuana is often associated with the illegal market created by prohibition, and not the drug itself. "Crimes do occur because of marijuana," he said. "And you may make the argument that it's because it's not legal, and you may be right."

And if there was any lingering doubt about the sincerity of his remarks, the chief even gave a big thumbs up to the cameras.

Well, a big thumbs up to you too, chief. Hopefully, you won't have to worry about enforcing irrational marijuana laws for much longer.

While states across the country are discussing positive reform of marijuana laws, there have recently been some bizarre exceptions, as other states have renewed attacks against one of the most recognizable icons of marijuana use: the water bong.

Yesterday, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill that would close a loophole in state law that makes it possible to prosecute people for the contents of their bong water. Under the bill, which passed the Minnesota legislature in a nearly unanimous vote, prosecutors would no longer be able to use bong water to calculate the weight of controlled substances in drug cases.

We've previously discussed the court ruling that allowed Minnesota residents to be charged with drug possession for the drug residue dissolved in the water used to filter the smoke from pipes or bongs. While the case in question involved methamphetamine residue, policy analysts worried that the same ruling could easily be applied to marijuana residue.

Last year, Pawlenty - a Republican who is widely expected to run for president in 2012 - vetoed a medical marijuana bill that would have permitted seriously ill patients to use marijuana without fear of arrest.

Meanwhile, a bill in Florida was recently passed that basically outlaws the sale of water pipes in commercial establishments.  Some stores would be exempt from this, but most "head-shops" will likely be forced out of business.

It seems a sure sign that prohibitionists are grasping at straws when these types of policies are invoked.  In an act of desperation, drug warriors are ramping up the attack on a symbolic tool used by marijuana users, and the people that do business with them. Does anyone think this will stop anyone from using marijuana? Or will it simply tie up more money in prosecuting and punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens?

The absurdity of marijuana prohibition in the United States is on full display today in The New York Times. On the one hand, we have the national “newspaper of record” publishing a long, mouth-watering and entirely non-critical article about “haute stoner cuisine” in the restaurant industry. On the other hand, we have an article on their Web site reporting that a professional basketball player for the NBA’s New York Knicks was arrested last night for marijuana possession.

Beneath a headline, “Marijuana Fuels a New Kitchen Culture,” the Times explains that marijuana use is rampant throughout the restaurant industry – but that isn’t a bad thing.

“Everybody smokes dope after work,” said Anthony Bourdain, the author and chef who made his name chronicling drugs and debauchery in professional kitchens. “People you would never imagine…

“There has been an entire strata of restaurants created by chefs to feed other chefs,” Mr. Bourdain said. “These are restaurants created specially for the tastes of the slightly stoned, slightly drunk chef after work.”

But what is apparently a bad thing is someone actually using marijuana outside of this exclusive restaurant culture. This is the message sent by the screaming headlines in the Times and elsewhere about the arrest of Knicks star Wilson Chandler. Ironically, he was arrested at almost the exact time the restaurant article appeared online.

We are at a crazy time in history in which marijuana’s popularity in an ever-expanding segment of the populace has advanced far ahead of more traditional segments of our society’s acceptance of it. We look forward to the day when traditional society -- and our lawmakers -- catch up. Fortunately, that day is being forced upon them whether they like it or not.

For people who still don’t believe that medical marijuana is a mainstream issue supported by a majority of Americans, last night’s GOP Senate  primary in Kentucky provided just one more example.

Newcomer Rand Paul, son of Republican congressman Ron Paul, defeated establishment candidate Trey Grayson, in part, because of his support for medical marijuana laws.

Here’s how the L.A. Times described it:

“Grayson and his allies sought to portray Paul, a Bowling Green eye doctor, as something of a kook. They cited, among other things, his support for legalizing medical marijuana […] But the criticism served mainly to rally Paul supporters — many of whom backed his father for president in 2008 — and helped reinforce his image as a political outsider.”

If this can happen in conservative Kentucky, it can happen anywhere. Politicians of all stripes need to realize they have nothing to fear by supporting compassionate laws that protect seriously ill patients—and in fact, much to gain.

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Indiana), perhaps the most fanatic opponent of sensible marijuana laws in the U.S. Congress, announced that he is resigning this morning amid revelations that he had an affair with a 45-year-old staffer.

Souder, who was preparing to run for his ninth term in office, has spent the last 16 years fighting for cruel and unscientific drug policies, many of which have caused irreparable harm to his country and his constituents. Among the lowlights:

• In defiance of mountains of evidence saying otherwise, Souder has repeatedly declared that marijuana cannot be a medicine and has vocally supported efforts to stop the advance of medical marijuana laws that protect and provide care for patients.
• Souder was a primary author and defender of the “Aid Elimination Penalty” provision of the Higher Education Act, which for more than a decade prevented thousands of students with even minor drug convictions from receiving federal financial aid for college. (Luckily, that provision might soon be overturned, despite Souder’s best efforts.)
• Over the years, Souder’s office has issued numerous press releases spewing long-debunked nonsense about marijuana, such as this one, which claims “smoked marijuana, along with tobacco and alcohol, is the gateway drug for all other drug abuse” and that the Obama administration’s position on state medical marijuana laws will “over the next few years, result in higher crime rates, more highway deaths, and destroyed lives.”

During his reign of ignorance, Souder also had several notable run-ins with MPP staffers.

• At a 2001 hearing of a U.S. House subcommittee, Souder got into heated debate with MPP executive director Rob Kampia, who was testifying in favor of removing criminal penalties for medical marijuana patients. Souder told Kampia: “You’re an articulate advocate for an evil position.”
• In a scene from the 2007 Showtime documentary “In Pot We Trust,” MPP director of government relations Aaron Houston asked the congressman if there were any chance he’d ever change his position on medical marijuana. “There isn’t such a thing as medical marijuana, so I would never change my mind,” Souder replied. When Houston pointed out the government’s own Institute of Medicine found otherwise, Souder slammed a door in his face after twice declaring, “There is no such thing as medical marijuana.”

But now, it seems, Souder’s days of opposing compassionate and science-based drug policies are finally at an end. It’s about time, Congressman. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

A group of local leaders in Santa Barbara seems to have been stricken by a particularly nasty form of Reefer Madness.  Last week, the “Don’t Cannabis Our Kids” campaign (huh?) held a press conference to tell the world about a very disturbing “public health threat” to the local children.  I had the (apparently) silly notion that they were going to raise awareness about the relative dangers of marijuana versus alcohol, given that alcohol abuse kills more than 70,000 people a year and marijuana kills zero.  I thought that perhaps they were going to express concern about the number of licensed alcohol vendors in the county (more than 1,000), and the fact that our federal government’s policies toward marijuana would have you believe that it’s far more dangerous than alcohol and has no valid medical applications.

Sadly, though, it turns out that the “Don’t Cannabis Our Kids” campaign is actually trying to convince us that medical marijuana collectives are a public health threat to children and should therefore be banned.  So, let me get this straight …  Allowing people to buy medical marijuana in an establishment that is regulated by its local government, pays taxes, and is so forthright about its operations that it has brick and mortar location, is somehow MORE harmful to children than forcing those transactions to take place in the shadows of the black market?

I’m sorry, Santa Barbara, but you’re really asking me to toss out my critical thinking skills on this one.  Here’s a little advice: if you want to send children helpful messages about drug use, don’t lie to them.  Because if you lie to them about marijuana, they might not believe whatever you tell them about alcohol, cocaine, or methamphetamines. And then you’ve really failed them.

A new Rasmussen telephone poll released over the weekend shows that 49% of Colorado voters support taxing and regulating marijuana, while 13% are still undecided.

The findings come just days before Colorado’s governor is expected to sign a bill that would regulate the state’s booming medical marijuana industry. Some local patients groups protested the proposed regulations last week, since roughly half of the state’s estimated 1,100 dispensaries are not expected to be able to comply with the changes. However, once approved, the regulations would also grant new legal status to 500 or more existing dispensaries, making Colorado home to the largest number of law-abiding, state-regulated marijuana dispensaries anywhere in the United States. If future demand increases, even more could follow.

Stay tuned to the blog for developments, as Gov. Bill Ritter (D) is expected to sign this new law any day.

Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske has stated on many occasions that his vocabulary does not include the word “legalization.” Now today, we learn that our nation’s top drug warrior doesn’t know the meaning of the word “prohibition” either.

Sadly, I’m not making this up.

In an online video interview today with the Washington Post, Kerlikowske says the Obama administration is “very much opposed” to taxing and regulating marijuana because—get this—he says the taxes paid on alcohol do not make up for the “criminal justice, health care, [and] social costs” of alcohol consumption. Oh, and he just assumes taxes on marijuana wouldn’t either, though he doesn’t bother to mention the billions of dollars we could save on law enforcement, prison, judicial and environmental costs by calling for an end to the futile and unwinnable war the government wages against our country’s largest cash crop and the millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans who use it.

This bizarre answer prompts Post editor Fred Hiatt, the interviewer, to ask an obvious question: “So … are you looking at the prohibition of alcohol?”

The drug czar chuckles. “No,” he says, “we’re not exploring prohibition.”

Actually, Mr. Kerlikowske, you’re enforcing prohibition (defined as a “law, order or decree that forbids something”). It’s the same prohibition—on marijuana—that the federal government has kept intact for more than 70 years, despite its undeniable failure to meet any of its stated goals, and of which you are now the chief overseer.

Your prohibition, Mr. Kerlikowske, leads to the arrest of more than 750,000 Americans every year, all for mere possession of a substance that is demonstrably safer than alcohol, the very notion of (again) prohibiting you yourself find laughable. Marijuana prohibition, meanwhile, has deprived countless sick people of potentially live-saving medicine, endangered peaceful families in terrorizing and unnecessary SWAT raids that murder their pets, and killed more than 22,000 people in Mexico in less than four years of prohibition-fueled violence.

There’s nothing funny about prohibition, Mr. Kerlikowske. You might want to stop laughing, pick up a dictionary, and think long and hard about what it means.

Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws spokesperson Dave Schwartz is interviewed regarding the effort to put an initiative on the 2012 ballot to tax and regulate marijuana in the state of Nevada. 05/11/2010

Doctors at Oregon’s two organ transplant centers will not provide organs to people who have marijuana compounds in their blood, even if they are legal medical marijuana patients, The Portland Tribune reports today.

This restriction has had dire consequences for patients like Jim Klahr, a Portland medical marijuana patient who suffers from hepatitis and cirrhosis, but hasn’t been able to take his medicine since 2004 because he’s on the waiting list for a liver transplant at Oregon Health and Science University and wants to remain eligible.

A director at OSHU defended such discrimination by saying medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law and that doctors are afraid of fungal infections in patients who use marijuana.

But those fears are baseless, says Stuart Youngner of Case Western Reserve University, a major transplant center. “This is unconscionable,” he told the Tribune,  “unless they have good medical evidence that there’s a significant risk to the transplant, (or) that it makes a recipient a poor steward of the organ.”

According to the Tribune:

“Years ago, Michigan surgeons discovered about 10 percent of transplant patients had marijuana compounds in their blood. The surgeons provided livers to many of the marijuana smokers anyway and then followed them post-surgery and found that they did as well as non-smoking patients.”

As it turns out, according to one of those surgeons, marijuana use does not matter all that much in organ transplants. What matters is how well the patient takes care of their body. This related 2009 Michigan study found that "patients who did and did not use marijuana had similar survival rates."

An official at one of the discriminating centers said he didn’t think such a harsh policy was costing lives -- but sadly he may be wrong. Two years ago in Washington state, 56-year-old Timothy Garon died after being denied a liver transplant. He had twice been denied the operation because he legally used doctor-approved medical marijuana to combat the symptoms of advanced hepatitis C.

Those Oregon centers need to understand that patients can’t be discriminated against because of their condition and the treatments that doctors find work best for them. More importantly, they need to end their senseless ban on transplants for medical marijuana patients before a similar tragedy occurs in Oregon, if it hasn’t already.