Is there something in the water over at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that turns every new drug czar into a babbling idiot? If not, how else can one explain the latest statement from new ONDCP honcho Gil Kerlikowske? Has he somehow been possessed by the spirit of his predecessor, John Walters?

While never a reformer, Kerlikowske had a reputation for being pretty rational while he was police chief in Seattle. But a story in Wednesday's Fresno Bee quotes the drug czar as saying, "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit."

Bear in mind that this is from an administration whose declared policy is not to attack state medical marijuana laws (even though the law authorizing ONDCP requires the director to "take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of any Schedule I drug). And bear in mind that Mr. Kerlikowske's scientific judgment has been contradicted by, among others, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, American Academy of HIV Medicine, etc., etc., etc.

Click here to use our online action center to send a message to the president about his drug czar's statement.

Distressingly, Kerlikowske made the remark while tagging along on the latest adventures of California's marijuana "eradication" drive, for which he seems to have become an enthusiastic cheerleader. This is a campaign that, despite a 2,000% increase in plant seizures over the last dozen years, has produced zero reduction in marijuana availability. But it has had one notable impact: Until 2001, the majority of plants seized were on private lands. Now, nearly three-quarters are on public lands -- often environmentally sensitive areas located in national parks and forests. "Eradication" campaigns have literally driven growers into the hills, multiplying the environmental damage.

So the new drug czar is touting policies that make the problem worse while spouting unscientific nonsense. John Walters lives.

Read more

MPP spokesperson Dan Bernath appears on Russia Today to discuss the failure of marijuana prohibition and the move in California toward taxing and regulating the substance as a way to help the suffering economy. 07/23/2009

Read more

That would seem to be the implication of a new study just published online by the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence. But the study's authors aren't so sure.

The study measured drinking patterns in individuals who enrolled in treatment for marijuana dependence as part of a study designed to test different treatment methods. Participants greatly reduced their marijuana use, but 73 % also increased the number of days on which they drank alcohol by at least 10%. Most also increased the amount they drank on those drinking days. This seems like prima facie evidence of a substitution effect -- alcohol being substituted for marijuana.

The researchers, surprisingly, don't draw that conclusion, based on the fact that drinking behavior did not seem to change in proportion with marijuana use. Instead, they write, "We are left with a mystery."

It seems to me that, in the absence of another plausible cause, substitution of booze for marijuana still looks like the most likely explanation, though more research is absolutely needed. Given what's known about the much more serious health risks of alcohol as compared to marijuana, this ought to cause at least some unease regarding the 140,000-plus Americans forced into treatment for alleged marijuana problems by the criminal justice system each year.

Read more

Former Senator Alfonse D’Amato (R-N.Y.) said there is merit to the idea of legalizing marijuana on Monday, a surprising statement from a law-and-order Republican who once tried to ban any dietary supplement that makes you happy.

In 1995, then-Senator D’Amato introduced legislation to classify any “dietary supplement that claims to produce euphoria, heightened awareness or similar mental or psychological effects” as a drug. The legislation’s intent was to combat the popularity of ephedrine-based herbal supplements by banning them, the same logic he applied to marijuana prohibition as an ardent supporter of our current laws.

D’Amato now appears to have changed his position, telling Howard Stern on Monday “there’s some merit to” the idea of legalizing marijuana. If only he had come to that conclusion while he had the power to do something about it.

Read more

Yesterday, voters in Oakland, California overwhelmingly approved a proposal, backed by the city's medical marijuana community, that will create a new local sales tax for marijuana. The initiative, "Measure F," was one of  four budget-related measures in a vote-by-mail special election called by a city faced with a projected budget deficit of $83 million.

Medical marijuana collectives teamed up with city officials to propose the new tax, set at 1.8% of gross sales. The tax is expected to generate close to $300,000 for the city next year.

It's not every day that an industry stands up and says "tax us more." MPP commends Oakland's four medical marijuana collectives for stepping up to the plate and helping the bridge the city's budget gap.

This is the first time a municipality has levied a special tax on marijuana. For now, the tax will only apply to medical marijuana collectives, but once adult marijuana use is legal in California, it will apply to all sales.

A similar movement to tax medical marijuana sales is also underway in Los Angeles.

Read more

After a 12-hour hearing in which hundreds of medical marijuana advocates testified, the Colorado Board of Health Monday rejected a proposal limiting the number of medical marijuana patients a caregiver can serve to five.

The proposal, which attorneys testified violated the 2000 constitutional amendment passed by voter initiative protecting valid medical marijuana patients from arrest, was designed to hinder legally operating medical marijuana dispensing centers.

Opponents of medical marijuana tried a similar tactic before, and it was ruled unconstitutional by a Colorado court in 2007. Is it too much to hope they might have learned their lesson this time?

Read more

The New York Times weighed in on the marijuana debate July 17 with an article that tilted distinctly in the direction of unwarranted hysteria.

Built around a series of anecdotes involving individuals who got into difficulty with marijuana -- which is entirely possible -- the story fell apart when it got to the science.

For example, it referred to a 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association study that "suggested that the stronger cannabis is contributing to higher addiction rates." But the Times failed to note that this study did not provide any actual evidence that higher-potency marijuana is leading to higher rates of abuse or dependence. While such a suggestion was offered by the authors, it was pure speculation, as the study was not designed to determine the effects of potency. And it was arrived at by ignoring relevant data.

According to the official diagnostic criteria, a person can be  diagnosed  as a "substance abuser" because of "recurrent substance-related legal problems" -- without any other symptoms. During the period of the JAMA study, marijuana arrests skyrocketed, from 300,000 in 1991 to well over 700,000 in 2001. Given the complete lack of scientific evidence that high-potency marijuana is more addictive, the massive increase in arrests represent a more plausible explanation for the increase in purported "marijuana abuse."

The story also failed to note that there is no scientific consensus that increases in potency represent any risk at all. For example, an examination of the issue published last year in the journal Addiction noted that claims about increased potency date back to at least 1975, but that "more research is needed to determine whether increased potency ... translates to harm for users."

And the Times, which gave little space to scientists not hysterical about marijuana, let all sorts of utter nonsense go unrefuted, including National Institute on Drug Abuse director Nora Volkow's bizarre claim that "it's going to take some real fatalities for people to pay attention" to marijuana. Given that the number of proven fatalities caused by marijuana's direct effects remains zero, basic journalism should have required the Times to get a contrasting view from one of the many scientists with at least some grip on reality.

Read more

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.

Read more

Read more

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

Read more