A new study released today shows conclusively that in California’s largest cities African-Americans are arrested for marijuana possession at much higher rates that whites. In the 25 cities profiled, African-Americans were arrested at four to 12 times the rate of whites, despite much higher use rates among whites.

This horrifying disparity is one reason Proposition 19 has earned the support of civil rights groups, including the California NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens of California. These numbers make it clear that removing penalties for marijuana possession would eliminate a tool that has been used to institute a system of pervasive racism in the Golden State. Given that even a single possession charge can result in severe economic and social consequences, the fact that arrests are focused so disproportionately on minority communities is an overwhelming argument for reform on November 2^nd.

Some folks disagree, namely the majority of California’s law enforcement community. Several law enforcement groups have given large sums of money to the campaign against Proposition 19, the most recent being the California Police Chiefs Association, who donated $20,000 to No on Prop. 19.

Throughout the public debates on this issue, law enforcement groups (other than those backing Prop 19) have said that reformers need to prove why marijuana should not be illegal. It seems much more reasonable to expect the burden of proof to be on the other side, especially when marijuana prohibition results in such obvious racial persecution. Yet law enforcement does not rise to this challenge, probably because there is no justification for such practices in a civilized society.

Could it be that some California cops actually like targeting minorities?

If Proposition 19 passes, they will lose their easiest way to do so.

Interestingly, the largest law enforcement group supporting Proposition 19 is…

…the National Black Police Association.

Has it really come to this?

According to today’s Baltimore Sun, a new business in Maryland is offering parents the services of trained, drug-sniffing dogs. Parents who are concerned about their children hiding drugs at home – and apparently unable to have simple, honest and well, healthy conversations with their kids about drugs – can, for “about $200 an hour,” rent specially trained canines to come into their homes and “within seconds, detect even the tiniest whiff of narcotics.”

Gimme a frickin’ break.

This approach is so stupid that even a spokesperson for the National Institute of Drug Abuse (a prohibitionist stronghold) was quick to say so.

The best way for parents to handle a child's potential drug problem begins with a good old-fashioned conversation rather than a drug-sniffing dog, says Elizabeth Robertson, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's chief of prevention research.

"Given everything we know about substance abuse prevention, what you want to do with your kids is build trust and communication," she says. "This seems like a tactic that would disrupt trust."

[…] Baltimore parent Genny Dill agrees with Robinson. Upon hearing of the service, she says slowly, and with increasing notes of incredulity, "No. Really? Crazy. Absolutely crazy. That's a whole new level of distrust."

The mother of a 17-year-old girl, Dill says she has no trouble peeking at her daughter's text messages and e-mail. Though she's wondered if her daughter has tried pot, or been offered drugs, Gill is fairly certain that by hiring a drug-sniffing dog, she'd ruin their relationship.

"They're never going to love you again," she says. "Well, maybe they'd love you, but they will seriously not trust you as a parent, and when they're teenagers, that's a terrible time for that to happen."

Sadly, the true motivation behind such an enterprise – which is modeled after similar businesses in other states, according to the article – is almost certainly not a concern for the wellbeing of young people, or for healthy parent-child relationships, but rather, good, old-fashioned profit. The business, “Dogs Finding Dogs,” has been around for three years and “until now has used the skills of search dogs to find missing pets,” according to the Sun, “helping to reunite nearly 300 wayward dogs and cats with their frantic owners.” Somewhere along the line they probably realized they needed to expand their business model, and luckily many of their canine employees were equipped with a particular skill – finding drugs!

Among the program’s supporters is Michael Gimbel, a Baltimore County substance abuse counselor who has repeatedly spoken out against passing a medical marijuana law in Maryland (and whose latest DVD is on sale for just $59.95 plus shipping!).

One thing not mentioned in the article is how many parents have actually paid for the service of having strangers and dogs comb through their property, alienate their children, and violate their privacy. I hope the number is low, if not zero. (And, by the way, if there aren’t any customers, then this article amounts to nothing more than free advertising for a business trend that does not yet even exist).

As for the dogs – well, at least the people looking for drugs aren’t shooting them this time.

Two days ago, Mexican authorities seized 134 tons of marijuana in Tijuana, just across the border from California. The value of the seizure was estimated at $340 million.

According to the logic of prohibitionist economics, such a huge bust should have quite a damaging effect on the marijuana market in the United States, right?

Wrong. Mexico confiscated more than 1,300 tons of marijuana in 2009 alone, and before that the average was more than 2,000 tons per year. Yet each year, production goes up and street prices in the U.S. remain relatively static.

In California, the efforts to make an impact on the availability and price of marijuana result in similarly impressive seizures, but they too fail to have any effect whatsoever. Each year during the late summer and early fall, eradication programs such as CAMP take to the hills and skies, destroying millions of budding marijuana plants. Yet each year, production goes up and street prices remain relatively static.

The lesson to be learned here is that no matter how much marijuana law enforcement takes off the street, it will still be equally and readily available. And it will cost about the same at the consumer level as it did before the governments of these two countries spent millions of dollars on their fruitless efforts.

The solution is simple, and follows the very basic laws of supply and demand: tax and regulate marijuana in California (and the rest of the U.S. for that matter). Less risk for American growers and distributors translates to lower consumer prices, and undercuts the Mexican suppliers. With a large source of income gone and decreased incentive to take the risks that do not hinder legitimate American marijuana businesses, we will soon see cross-border shipments into California dwindle down to nothing. And as the cartels’ influence in California declines, so too will the environmental damage from illegal grows on public land and the violence that exists in an industry without legal recourse for settling disputes.

But then, what else would these guys do for fun?

Mothers who support Proposition 19 held a press conference in California yesterday to make the case for regulating marijuana and removing it from an illicit market that makes it readily available to young people. (Video below)

“When I think of what kind of world I’d like my children to grow up in, [I’d like] that they grow up in a world with marijuana being legal and controlled, and not this out of control system that we have today,” said Hannah Liebman Dershowitz, an attorney and mother of two kids, aged 7 and 5. “It may be counter-intuitive, but legalizing marijuana would be safer for our children.”

On a related note, the Women’s Marijuana Movement has teamed up with the Just Say Now campaign to create an online phone-banking tool that allows marijuana-reform-minded women across the country to make phone calls to female voters in California. If you’re a woman who supports Prop 19 and has a few minutes to spare, this is a great way to help make a difference.

And speaking of lawyers, last week more than 65 professors from the nation’s top law schools joined the growing number of groups speaking out in favor of Prop 19.

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly bet guest John Stossel $10,000 (to a charity of the winner’s choice) that Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would make marijuana legal for all adults, will fail. Stossel, who supports Prop 19, said that it’s time to end marijuana prohibition because “it’s a war on our own people.”

“A war on our own people?” asked a bewildered and defiant O’Reilly. “What does that mean? They’re breaking people’s doors down?”

Yes, Mr. O’Reilly, that’s exactly what it means. Below is video of a Feb. 11 raid in Columbia, Missouri, in which a SWAT team broke down a family’s front door, terrorized a 7-year-old child, and shot and killed one of the family’s dogs. The reason for such tactics? The officers found a pipe and a small amount of marijuana.

More than 800,000 Americans – nearly one every 37 seconds – are arrested every year for possessing marijuana, something that's safer than alcohol. It is a war on our own people, Mr. O’Reilly.

In another poor and puzzling attempt to defend our failed status quo, O’Reilly tried to compare marijuana to tobacco, by saying “marijuana is exactly as addictive as tobacco.”

Once again, he’s wrong. From TIME magazine yesterday: “Estimates vary, but compared with tobacco, which hooks about 20% to 30% of smokers, marijuana is much less addictive, coming in at 9% to 10%.” According a 1999 report from the federal government’s Institute of Medicine, “Compared to most other drugs … dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare … [A]lthough few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs.”

More importantly, tobacco is responsible for killing more than 400,000 Americans every year, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Marijuana kills no one. But tobacco is legal – and few families have their doors broken down, children terrorized, and pets murdered because a parent is in possession of a cigarette.

And according to the most recent poll, it looks very likely that Mr. O’Reilly could soon be out $10,000. SurveyUSA shows Prop 19 leading among California voters 48 to 44.

About one-third of “unlikely” voters in Oregon said they were more enthusiastic and more likely to vote after learning that a medical marijuana initiative was on their state’s ballot this year, according to a new survey released today by the measure’s campaign. Measure 74 – which has been endorsed by the Oregon state Democratic Party – would add state-licensed dispensaries to Oregon’s existing medical marijuana law.

According to the survey, which polled a random sampling of under-40, Democratic and independent voters, 31% of respondents said they were more likely to vote after hearing that Measure 74 was on the ballot, while only 18% were more enthusiastic after hearing about the contest between their state’s candidates for governor.

These findings add further merit to the argument many have made in the run-up to Nov. 2 – that marijuana initiatives could be the key to increasing youth voter turnout in this and future elections. Once mainstream political candidates acknowledge that there is a large and growing constituency of voters who want to see our marijuana laws change, it will hopefully be just a matter of time until they begin to embrace marijuana reform as a major issue that’s in their own best interests to endorse.

As Jon Walker points out, in Oregon’s 1998 election, more total votes were cast for Measure 67, the medical marijuana initiative, than for any other statewide candidate or ballot measure.

Former U.S. Surgeon General -- and MPP VIP Advisory Board member -- Joycelyn Elders appeared on CNN yesterday to argue against the criminalization of marijuana users. "Marijuana has never caused anybody directly to die," she said. "It's not a toxic substance ... We can use our resources so much better. I think we need to legalize marijuana for adults, and tax it so we can use the money for much better things."

Elders is just one of the countless other esteemed medical, legal, civil rights, law enforcement, labor, and economic leaders and organizations who have endorsed Proposition 19 in California, the measure to make marijuana legal for all adults.

Only 15 days left until Election Day!

According to the Associated Press, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter earlier this week to former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration in which he promised that the Justice Department would continue to enforce federal marijuana laws in California even if the state’s voters approve Proposition 19, which would make marijuana legal for all adults 21 and older and allow localities to tax and regulate marijuana’s sale. In response, Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, offered the following statement:

“The truth is that the use of marijuana -- a substance far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco -- is widespread in this country and nothing the government can do will ever stop that. The only question is how we structure the market for marijuana so that it is best for society. Will we have marijuana sold in licensed, tax-paying and regulated stores or will we continue to have it sold in a completely unregulated market that makes it more available to teens? Will we impose standards so that purchasers know the quality and purity of the marijuana they are buying or will we keep it in a far less safe unregulated market? Will we have the profits from the sale of marijuana go to legitimate taxpaying American business owners or will they go to underground dealers and cartels who will pay no taxes and defend their interests through violence?

“Attorney General Holder is not looking out for the health and safety of the American people. He is nothing more than the lead advocate for a never-ending taxpayer-funded jobs program for law enforcement officials in this country. If you look at the opposition to marijuana policy reform in this country, it is driven almost entirely by people whose jobs are dependent on arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana-related offenses. The only other prominent group is elected officials who ignorantly turn a blind eye to alcohol-fueled violence in our communities in order to pretend they are 'tough on crime' by going after marijuana users who simply want to enjoy a substance less harmful than alcohol in peace.

“If Attorney General Holder and the former heads of the DEA truly and sincerely cared about keeping our society safe from more dangerous drugs like cocaine, they would break the link between marijuana and harder drugs. Keeping marijuana in the illegal market does not reduce the use of harder drugs; it increases it by forcing teens and adults to purchase marijuana in the same 'stores' that sell those other drugs. This cannot be stated strongly enough: Supporters of marijuana prohibition in law enforcement, who know that alcohol use causes far more problems than marijuana use, are not motivated by concerns for public safety. They are motivated by a dangerous combination of arrogance, prejudice and self-interest. Law enforcement has lost all credibility on the subject of marijuana prohibition and it is time the American people start thinking for themselves on this issue.

“States are the laboratories of our democracy. California voters have an opportunity this November to choose an alternative to the failed policies of marijuana prohibition. Sadly, Attorney General Holder is trying to deny them that chance before the election even takes place.”

If you believe most headline writers, yesterday the RAND Corporation released a study that said ending marijuana prohibition in California would do little to take away profits from Mexican drug cartels. But if you take the time to actually read the study, you’ll learn that Mexican cartels make billions of dollars from exporting marijuana to the United States (not including profits from the marijuana they grow within our borders), that a statistic originally put forward by the U.S. drug czar’s office was based on little and “should not be taken seriously,” and that removing marijuana from the criminal market in California (just one state) would deprive the cartels several percentage points worth of their revenue.

In short, the report tells us what we already knew: the cartels make huge profits from illicit marijuana sales, the U.S. drug czar’s office is prone to spreading misinformation, and the passage of Prop 19 in California could be a first crucial step toward dealing a much larger blow to the cartels’ revenue.

Let’s address these points one at a time:

How much money do the cartels make from marijuana? RAND estimates the cartels make somewhere around $1.5 to $2 billion annually “from moving marijuana across the border into the United States and selling it to wholesalers.” But this estimate makes a serious omission: How much money are the cartels making from all the marijuana they grow within U.S. borders? “This [$2 billion] figure does not include revenue from [cartel] production and distribution in the United States,” the report says, “which is extremely difficult to estimate with current data.” That’s a huge lapse, especially considering that every year, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting digs up literally millions of marijuana plants that authorities blame on illegal cartel growers. In order for RAND’s estimate to have any meaning, marijuana grown by the cartels in the U.S. needs to be taken into account.

What percentage of the cartels’ revenue comes from marijuana? It’s been widely stated by legalization opponents and advocates (including myself) that the cartels make 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the U.S. Our source for that statistic was none other than the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. But now RAND says that number isn’t true:

The ubiquitous claim that 60 percent of Mexican [drug trafficking organizations’] export revenue come from U.S. marijuana consumption should not be taken seriously. No publicly available source verifies or explains this figure and subsequent analyses revealed great uncertainty about the estimate (GAO, 2007). Our analysis— though preliminary on this point—suggests that 15–26 percent is a more credible range of the share of drug export revenues attributable to [marijuana].

I have no way of confirming which of those estimates is closer to the truth. But either way, says NORML’s Paul Armentano, “someone is lying.”

So who should we believe? On the one hand we have the federal government, which consistently lies about marijuana to further their own agenda. On the other hand, we have RAND, which also isn’t above making its own specious claims to further their own agenda — which in this case seems to be opposing California’s Prop. 19.

And more importantly: so what? If the cartels make 15 to 26 percent of their revenue from marijuana, that is still a hugely significant sum, and it shouldn’t discredit the argument that legalizing marijuana would hurt the cartels (an argument made not just by advocates in the U.S., but also former Mexican president Vicente Fox and many others). According to RAND, it could deprive them up to a quarter of their profits.

Pete Guither does a nice job summing up the headache this causes:

The government comes out and says that 60% of the cartels’ income is from marijuana. Legalizers say that legalizing will hurt the cartels (true) and mention the government’s numbers. Rand comes out and says that the government was lying through its teeth, but they don’t really know for sure what the real numbers are, but probably lower, and therefore the legalizers’ argument for legalization is supposedly weakened. And yet they admit that the legalizers’ core argument is true (that legalization will hurt the cartels – see above). Then they word their press release in such a way that they know the newspapers will report it as a blow to Prop 19.

So how much of an impact could Prop 19 have on the cartels? RAND estimates that Prop 19’s passage could decrease cartel revenue by 2 to 4 percent. For a single state initiative, those numbers aren’t small potatoes.

We believe that legalizing marijuana in California would effectively eliminate Mexican DTOs’ revenues from supplying Mexican-grown marijuana to the California market. As we elaborate in this chapter, even with taxes, legally produced marijuana would likely cost no more than would illegal marijuana from Mexico and would cost less than half as much per unit of THC (Kilmer, Caulkins, Pacula, et al., 2010). Thus, the needs of the California market would be supplied by the new legal industry. While, in theory, some DTO employees might choose to work in the legal marijuana industry, they would not be able to generate unusual profits, nor be able to draw on talents that are particular to a criminal organization.

But somehow RAND portrays this negatively. Of course, legalizing marijuana in a single state wouldn’t completely wipe out the cartels. But what MPP and others advocate is that marijuana be taxed and regulated like alcohol nationwide. Passing Prop 19 would simply be the first step toward doing that. Jon Walker from Just Say Now gets it right:

No one has been claiming just the passage Prop 19 alone would eliminate all of the Mexican drug cartels’ marijuana profits across the whole country. Prop 19 is just the first big step toward a broader adoption of a more sensible marijuana policy that denies the cartels a huge source of funding.

And of course, until Prop 19 or some similar initiative is passed in an American state, this entire debate will remain abstract and hypothetical. It’s up to California voters to make it a reality on Nov. 2.