Some reassuring words of wisdom from Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D), who tells The Stranger that she intends to introduce a bill to tax and regulate marijuana in next year's legislature:

“We would legalize it, regulate it, and tax it,” she says. “I am serious. We have been wasting scores of millions of dollars on arresting and jailing people who have done nothing more than smoke marijuana recreationally. That has ended up harming people and costing taxpayers tremendously. So it’s a very high cost to individuals and to taxpayers—it’s a wrongheaded policy that simply needs to be changed. People need to stick their neck out and say enough already and people are starting to do that. You will see that we will have a very good sponsor [for a companion bill to legalize marijuana] in the senate, someone who is very well respected. I am dead serious about this."

Dickerson also points to a recent poll showing support for treating marijuana like alcohol at 54 percent among Washington voters. “If [the legislature doesn't] pass it this year, there’s a possibility we will take our case to the people in the initiative process in 2012,” she says.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has spent much of the last year trying to weaken the medical marijuana law signed by his predecessor, announced new regulations Friday that made several concessions to patient advocates, but in many respects remain unjustly prohibitive. In either case, the latest proposal may finally allow for the first medical marijuana sales in New Jersey to take place as soon as this summer.

Under the new rules:

• New Jersey will become home to six legal growing sites and six distribution sites. (Christie originally wanted only two growers and four distributors.)
• Patients suffering from three “nonfatal” conditions – seizures, glaucoma, and intractable muscle spasms – will be required to exhaust all other treatment options before their doctor can recommend marijuana. (Christie originally wanted this cruel mandate to apply to all qualifying patients.)
• New Jersey will become the first medical marijuana state in the country to place an arbitrary cap (10 percent) on the level of THC allowed in all marijuana sold. (This is an unreasonable restriction for several reasons: THC is virtually nontoxic at any concentration, some patients may have better results with higher potency marijuana, and the pill Marinol, which is legal in all 50 states and approved by the FDA, is comprised of 100 percent THC.)
• Patients will still not be allowed to grow their own medicine. (Washington, D.C. is the only other medical marijuana jurisdiction with such a restriction.)
• The sales of marijuana-laced edibles will be prohibited, but items such as lozenges and skin ointments will be permitted.
• Only six marijuana plant strains will be allowed to be sold, further limiting the options for patients who might respond better to one specific strain over another.

From The New York Times:

Advocates of medical marijuana complained on Friday that despite the compromise, the regulations continued to discourage access to the drug: by forbidding home cultivation or delivery, and by requiring doctors to be registered and to take a training course before they could certify patients for treatment.

Ken Wolski, a registered nurse and chief executive officer of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey, complained that doctors also had to “attest that they’ve provided education for the patients on the lack of scientific consensus for the use of medical marijuana.”

“What kind of statement is that?” Mr. Wolski said. “The act found legitimate uses for marijuana therapy in a number of specified conditions.”

Christie says the restrictions are designed to prevent abuse, but he fails to realize that constructing too many barriers to legal access could ultimately force many patients to resort to the illicit market in search of reliable pain relief. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the state Senate still has options for rejecting Christie’s proposed amendments, but it’s not yet clear what action, if any, senators and patient advocates will take.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) will put a hold on the nomination of Michele Leonhart to be the next administrator of the DEA.

Kohl's beef with Leonhart has nothing to do with her views on marijuana issues, but rather the DEA's work in restricting access to certain prescription pain medications in nursing homes. Still, this represents the strongest opposition to date against Leonhart, who is currently interim DEA head and has played a crucial role in overseeing raids on state-legal medical marijuana collectives and denying applications to do FDA-level research on marijuana.

In recent months, MPP and many of our allies have protested Leonhart's nomination to head the DEA based on concerns over those above-mentioned actions and some less-than-thoughtful comments she has made about the worsening prohibition-fueled violence in Mexico. At her confirmation hearing, Leonhart, a Bush administration holdover, promised Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) that, “If confirmed as administrator, we would continue to enforce the federal drug laws” -- which directly contradicts last year's Department of Justice directive to respect state medical marijuana laws.

Despite those concerns, Leonhart's confirmation seemed all but certain, but Sen. Kohl now has the power to draw the process out for some time. Stay tuned for updates.

Back in May, the Associated Press published the first piece in a groundbreaking series concluding that, after 40 years and more than $1 trillion spent, America’s war on drugs “has failed to meet any of its goals.” Today, as part of the same series, the AP looks specifically at U.S. enforcement strategy toward drug cartels in Mexico, and concludes that even record-level arrests and seizures have failed absolutely to curb the power of the violent gangs that control vast swaths of northern Mexico and make billions by selling drugs, particularly marijuana, to the illicit U.S. market.

Boiled down, it’s a damning indictment of prohibition – and more importantly, the assumption that if we just arrest enough people, and seize enough drugs, then these bloodthirsty, increasingly powerful cartels will somehow just go away.

Citing just one example, a major DEA operation that arrested 761 members of the Sinaloa drug cartel and seized 23 tons of narcotics, the AP quotes acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief Michele Leonhart, as declaring: "Today we have dealt the Sinaloa drug cartel a crushing blow."

But just how crushing was it? An Associated Press investigation casts doubt on whether the crackdown caused any significant setback for the cartel. It still ranks near the top of Mexico's drug gangs, and most of those arrested were underlings who had little connection to the cartel and were swiftly replaced. The cartel leader remains free, along with his top commanders.

The findings confirm what many critics of the drug war have said for years: The government is quick to boast about large arrests or drug seizures, but many of its most-publicized efforts result in little, if any, slowdown in the drug trade.

When confronted by the AP with the fact that the current U.S. enforcement strategy is futile, DEA Deputy Director David Gaddas insisted such tactics work, reportedly arguing, “it’s disruptive for cartels to lose their drivers, their accountants, and their money launderers.”

Yes, but aren't the drugs they seize a fraction of those on the street, and the criminals arrested replaced or released?

Gaddas dropped his head into his hands for a moment, thinking.

"You know, we're doing God's work," he replied.

I never realized that was who told the DEA how to go about its business.

All kidding aside, that’s an unbelievably lame excuse. Hardly a week goes by now without a mainstream media report of the increasing carnage in Mexico, the discovery of yet another elaborate tunnel they cartels have used to smuggle marijuana into the United States, or the political and social tension that Mexican instability and violence are causing along our southern border. If you read the entire AP article, it cites one frustrating example after another.

And the DEA sits there and claims – despite mountains of evidence to the contrary – that its strategy is working.

Thankfully, a major news organization like the AP has now – finally – read the writing on the wall and spelled it out with meticulous detail: current U.S. drug policy does not work. It does not reduce crime, does not reduce use, does not reduce availability, does not weaken major drug traffickers.

So what should we do instead? How else can we strike a blow against these murderous cartel thugs?

Well, according to former Mexico presidents, leading Mexican intellectuals, a sitting U.S. federal judge, a former U.S. border governor, and many others, the single most effective thing the U.S. could do would be to remove marijuana from the criminal market, and tax and regulate it like alcohol. Deny the cartels their most lucrative product, and make border cops spend their time on more worthwhile activities than arresting Willie Nelson.

First, the good news: California attorney general candidate Steve Cooley conceded the election to his opponent, Kamala Harris. While Harris may not be the most outspoken supporter of Prop 215 or medical marijuana patients, she is sure to be a better option. Cooley's history of antagonism toward the medical marijuana field and complicity with federal law enforcement as district attorney of Los Angeles would have meant trouble for the state's more than 350K registered patients. Disaster averted!

Unfortunately, the marijuana-hostile legal and civic environment that Cooley helped create in Southern California resulted in Los Angeles and Orange County supervisors voting to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in all unincorporated areas. Rather than use the tools at their disposal to deal with illegal dispensaries, the supervisors elected to effectively deny patients in those areas access to their medicine unless they feel like a nice long drive (assuming they are able to travel, or even get out of bed).

L.A. County patients can take one small comfort, though. It appears that higher politics has left Cooley feeling a little burned out, judging from a statement he released suggesting that this is his last term in office:

"I will complete my third term and finish my career as a professional prosecutor in the office where it began over 37 years ago," he said.

Good riddance.

The DEA announced today that it will temporarily classify five synthetic chemicals that mimic the effects of marijuana as Schedule 1 drugs, meaning they have no medical value, a high potential for abuse, and will be illegal to sell, purchase, or use. (Marijuana itself, as many of us are already well aware, is also classified as a Schedule 1 drug).

The move comes after more than a dozen states nationwide have passed bans on the herbal blends, which go by names such as "Spice" and "K2," and -- while advertised as "not for human consumption" -- were sold in smoke shops around the country and used by customers as a legal alternative to marijuana. The products generally do not show up on drug tests, but there have been various reports of them causing adverse health effects, including accelerated heart rates, increased blood pressure, and several documented trips to the emergency room.

As I have argued before, the prevalence of these substances is simply another unintended consequence of the government's irrational prohibition on natural, whole-plant marijuana, which comes with none of the side effects attributed to these chemical knock-offs. The DEA's ban on the five synthetic versions could take effect in 30 days and last for at least a year, but as I've said before, the bans on fake marijuana will ultimately be as ineffective as the ban on real marijuana (used by 17 million Americans monthly, despite its Schedule 1 status) and could lead users and suppliers to begin experimenting with other, possibly more dangerous synthetic variants that mimic marijuana's effects.

In September, I wrote a more detailed article for the Huffington Post explaining my thoughts on K2 bans. Here's an excerpt:

All this K2 nonsense is simply one more reason — alongside more important issues like sensible law enforcement, personal liberty, racial justice, and potential tax revenue — why America needs a legal, regulated marijuana market. Whereas the full health effects of K2 are largely unknown because they haven’t been studied, marijuana is perhaps the most studied plant in history — one that a former DEA judge once called “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” In a regulated market, consumers would know exactly what they’re purchasing and putting into their bodies. This is not the case when somebody buys K2 — or one of its various knockoffs — that’s been sprayed onto some mystery plant matter.

I don’t have a solid opinion one way or the other as to whether K2 should be banned or regulated like other drugs. But I do know this: The only reason anyone uses K2 and not marijuana is because K2 is legal and marijuana is not. It’s as simple as that. Make marijuana legal, and few, if any, consumers will waste their time seeking out K2.

It’s for this reason that K2 bans are misguided, because they don’t address the core issue: millions of Americans want to use marijuana, or something that will mimic its effects, and if they’re afraid about illegal means of doing so, they will continue to seek out legal alternatives. In fact, the Associated Press has reported that in states where K2 has been banned, merchants have simply changed its name, altered its chemical makeup slightly, and continued to sell it to customers. That’s right: people in those states are now seeking legal alternatives to the legal alternative to marijuana. And round and round we go.

In the latest sign of the growing legitimacy and political clout of America’s emerging marijuana industry, medical marijuana business leaders and others have announced the creation of the National Cannabis Industry Association, an organization founded with the express purpose of improving business conditions for the burgeoning marijuana industry. From today’s New York Times:

Based in Washington, the group, the National Cannabis Industry Association, will focus primarily on lobbying, but will also help medical marijuana businesses navigate a patchwork of laws that differ depending on location.

“This is an industry that is emerging — from the dispensaries to the ancillary businesses that are now coming out of the shadows,” said Aaron Smith, a medical marijuana advocate in Phoenix and the group’s executive director. “While there is good work being done, there isn’t anyone out there representing the industry’s interests directly.”

The group’s board members, which include some of the more prominent names in the medical marijuana industry, say the need for a national association has become increasingly apparent with the explosion of the legal marijuana business. Such businesses include dispensaries, growing facilities and equipment suppliers.

According to a press release the group sent out this morning, "In addition to working to repeal the federal prohibition of marijuana, NCIA is already focusing on more immediate policy goals for the industry such as ensuring that the nation’s revenue and banking policies are not out of step with state laws allowing medical cannabis sales."

Readers may remember Aaron Smith from his past work as MPP’s California state policy director, where he helped advance marijuana law reform legislation in the California state legislature by working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle (and was also a frequent contributor to this blog!). We wish him all the best in his new role at NCIA.

You can learn more about the group at TheCannabisIndustry.org.

In Steve Fox's third appearance on Fox & Friends, he discusses the passage of Arizona's Proposition 203. At the end of this "fair and balanced" debate, Mr. Fox is cut off before he can respond to some extremely dubious statements. Read Mr. Fox's rebuttal after the video.

From Steve Fox:

The closing argument by Paul Charlton about MPP's disinterest in seeing marijuana go through the FDA approval process was both inaccurate and uninformed. Since 2002, MPP has engaged in a wide range of lobbying efforts in an attempt to pressure the DEA into granting a license to the University of Massachusetts to cultivate marijuana for FDA-approved research. Currently, anyone who wants to conduct research on the therapeutic benefits of marijuana must seek permission from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to acquire marijuana from the only federally-approved marijuana farm in the country at the University of Mississippi. But no corporation or organization would be able to use this marijuana for testing purposes and then bring the product to market, since they would not have control of the substance nor would they be able to prove that they could reproduce it.

A separate marijuana cultivation facility, which could effectively work with a private company or organization to develop and test a specific strain of marijuana, is needed in order to navigate the FDA process and bring a marijuana-based product to market. Yet the DEA has intentionally blocked the University of Massachusetts application for eight years, despite the fact that an administrative law judge within the DEA ruled in 2007 that granting the license would be "in the public interest."

If Mr. Charlton is truly interested in allowing science to determine whether marijuana is a medicine, he should join MPP in calling on the DEA to award the cultivation license to the University of Massachusetts. If he isn't willing to do that, he needs to find a new -- and accurate -- talking point.

There are now 15 states with medical marijuana laws, but at a Senate committee hearing yesterday to confirm the next head of the DEA, not a single person asked nominee Michele Leonhart how she would address this growing divide between state and federal marijuana policy. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R - AL) did, however, take the opportunity to make sure Leonhart will remain a loyal, unquestioning, die-hard drug warrior.

Mike Riggs has the story in today’s Daily Caller:

Perhaps due to the failure of Prop 19 in California (and despite the passage of medical marijuana in Arizona), Kohl, along with Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Al Franken of Minnesota, made no mention of medical marijuana. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, however, made it his prime focus.

“I’m a big fan of the DEA,” said Sessions, before asking Leonhart point blank if she would fight medical marijuana legalization.

“I have seen what marijuana use has done to young people, I have seen the abuse, I have seen what it’s done to families. It’s bad,” Leonhart said. “If confirmed as administrator, we would continue to enforce the federal drug laws.”

“These legalization efforts sound good to people,” Sessions quipped. “They say, ‘We could just end the problem of drugs if we could just make it legal.’ But any country that’s tried that, Alaska and other places have tried it, have failed. It does not work,” Sessions said.

“We need people who are willing to say that. Are you willing to say that?” Sessions asked Leonhart.

“Yes, I’ve said that, senator. You’re absolutely correct [about] the social costs from drug abuse, especially from marijuana,” Leonhart said. “Legalizers say it will help the Mexican cartel situation; it won’t. It will allow states to balance budgets; it won’t. No one is looking [at] the social costs of legalizing drugs.”

Actually, Ms. Leonhart, there is a vast academic literature exploring the social cost of liberalizing drug laws, and the overwhelming conclusion most studies reach is that prohibition does far more harm than most of the substances themselves ever could, especially marijuana. Riggs cites just one example, a 2009 Cato Institute white paper released eight years after Portgual decriminalized illegal drugs, which concludes: “None of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’ — has occurred.” He could have also cited another Cato study from this year showing that the U.S. could improve its national budget by nearly $18 billion a year if marijuana were taxed and regulated like alcohol, a legal substance that has eight times the health care costs of marijuana, and is – according to one California study – responsible for 403 times more emergency room admissions than marijuana.

But in the twisted fantasyland where people like Sessions and Leonhart spend most of their time, things like “facts” and “studies” don’t seem to carry as much weight as the unshakeable notion that drugs are bad and so, in positions of authority, “we need people who are willing to say that,” as Sessions put it.

The disgraceful exchange between Leonhart and Sessions is just another example of how the American public is far ahead of politicians when it comes to marijuana policy reform issues, and why our movement will continue to look to individual states – and not the federal government – to drive change.