[Editor's note: The July 2009 issue of Socionomics has an interesting essay and series of graphs that seeks to look 5-10 years into future regarding the decidedly declining public, political and business support for cannabis prohibition. Socionomics is a subscription based publication, and the graph and first 500 words of the essay are re-printed with permission.]

The Coming Collapse of a Modern Prohibition

History shows that mood governs society’s tolerance for recreational drugs. A rising social mood produces prohibition of substances such as alcohol and marijuana; a falling mood produces tolerance and relaxed regulation. In the case of alcohol, the path from prohibition to decriminalization became littered with corruption and violence as the government waged a failed war on traffickers. Eventually, as mood continued to sour, the government finally capitulated to public cries for decriminalization as a means to end the corruption and bloodshed.

We predict a similar fate for the prohibition of marijuana, if not the entire War on Drugs. The March 1995 Elliott Wave Theorist first forecasted the Drug War’s repeal at the end of the bear market and in 2003, EWT stated that during the decline, “The drug war will turn more violent. Eventually, possession and sale of recreational drugs will be decriminalized.”

The Case of Marijuana
Social mood influences people’s actions and their social judgments. In times of positive mood, people have the resources to enforce their social desires. They can afford to express the black and white moral issues preferred during bull markets, and drug abuse is a favorite target.

During times of negative mood, on the other hand, society’s priorities change. People have other, bigger worries and begin to view recreational drugs as less dangerous, if not innocuous in offering stress relief, pain reduction and the ability to cope with the pressures of negative social mood.

Over the past 100 years, governmental activities have manifested these changing attitudes. During periods of rising mood, policymakers stepped up regulation of cannabis. During periods of falling mood, they eased those same stances.

As shown in Figure 1, each legislative attempt to restrict marijuana use followed at least three, and in most cases four or five, bull-market years. In 1937, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. The law banned casual consumption of the drug and limited its use to specific medical and industrial purposes. Franklin Roosevelt signed the law at the top of a roaring bull market, the Dow Jones Industrial Average having quintupled from its 1932 low. The real crackdown, however, came over a decade later during the massive wave III bull move.

The Boggs Act, which increased drug use penalties fourfold, and the Narcotics Control Act, which increased penalties another eightfold, both came during the most powerful portion of wave 3 of III of the bull market. Then in 1958, after four more years of rising mood, Wisconsin farmers harvested the last legal crop of U.S.-grown hemp. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush’s famous “War on Drugs” speech came on the heels of seven years of net progress in the stock market. In 1999, a year before the top of the Grand Supercycle bull market, the DEA banned the importation of hemp products that contained even a trace of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient.

More at Socionomics.net

Photo Caption: Hundreds attend the Colorado Board of Health hearing today on rules and regulations pertaining to the medical use of marijuana. The hearing had to be moved from the offices of the Department of Health to the Tivoli Student Union on the Auraria campus because of increased public interest. (THE DENVER POST | Kathryn Scott Osler)

Update: The Colorado Board of Health voted not to place patient limits on cannabis buyers clubs to five patients, and other proposed limitations. Congratulations to the 500 or more concerned citizens in Colorado who came from all parts of state for a historically high turnout for a state board meeting.

Auraria crowd stands up for access to medical marijuana

By Claire Trageser
The Denver Post
Posted: 07/20/2009
———-

About 350 people signed up to testify at the Colorado Board of Health’s meeting today about proposed changes to the state’s medical-marijuana laws.

The most controversial of those planned changes would effectively shut down medical-marijuana dispensaries and could potentially cut off access to the drug for some of the 7,630 Coloradans registered as patients who can legally use marijuana.

Public testimony started around 2 p.m. at the Tivoli Student Union on the Auraria campus, which was standing room only as more than 500
spectators filled all of the seats in a large auditorium and balcony.

Despite slips of paper distributed by Sensible Colorado, “a pro-marijuana, nonprofit advocacy group” reminding those in attendance to “be respectful and professional” and not to “speak out of turn or taunt speakers,” the audience often broke out in cheers, hisses, or boos.

The board is contemplating a number of changes to Colorado’s Amendment 20, passed by voters in 2000. The amendment allows those with debilitating medical conditions to either grow their own marijuana or appoint a “caregiver” to do the growing for them. The proposed changes to that amendment would limit caregivers, which sometimes take the form of dispensaries serving hundreds of patients, to supplying five patients at a time.

Eleven people were scheduled to testify in support of the proposal, but two were not present when their names were called, and one, the owner of Cannabis Therapeutics in Colorado Springs, seemed to have accidentally signed up on the wrong side.

“This must be a mistake,” said Glenn Schlabs, the president of the board of health.

Holly Dodge, the deputy district attorney for El Paso County, spoke in support of the proposal on behalf of 20 other DAs on the Colorado
District Attorneys’ Council. She said the proposed changes would clarify, not change, the intention of the original amendment.

“There is no way of appropriately protecting a patient when they have a caregiver with 300 other patients,” she said. “That’s not caregiving, that’s marijuana growing.”

Her comments were met with boos from the crowd.

Other supporters who spoke, including police officers and spokespeople for anti-drug advocacy groups, emphasized the proposal’s ability to help
law-enforcement officers control marijuana growing operations. Because there is no limit on a caregiver’s size, several speakers said police
officers have had difficulty determining whether a growing operation is legal.

“While Amendment 20 is clear in its intent, its definition is vague enough that district attorneys cannot meaningfully advise people on the
street who are enforcing marijuana laws,” said Helen Morgan, Denver’s chief deputy district attorney.

In addition, the board heard testimony from Ned Calonge, chief medical officer of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; Ron Hyman, registrar of vital statistics at the state health department; and representatives from Sensible Colorado and the Colorado branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

In his presentation to the board, Hyman said the state’s marijuana registry does not have enough resources to manage what he called the
“explosive growth” of registered marijuana patients.

The registry has grown by about 1,000 patients a month this year, including 2,000 new patients in June, Hyman said. He predicted that the
state would have 15,000 registered patients by the end of the year.

“We’re doing the same amount of work in a day that we used to do in over a month,” he said.

Calonge then explained why the proposal sets the patient cap for caregivers at five.

“We define a primary caregiver as significantly participating in a patient’s everyday care,” he said. “If those caregivers are making home
visits to each patient, considering travel time, they could visit five patients a day.”

Calonge cited numerous examples where a caregiver is defined as seeing five patients a day, including Rhode Island’s medical-marijuana law and
the number of patients nurses from a home-health care company sees.

“We believe we have ample precedent and supportive evidence for this number,” he said.

The board then heard testimony from those opposed to the proposal, including a doctor, a police officer, a caregiver and a medical-marijuana patient.

“More regulation drives people to the black market, and that means patient care suffers,” said Dr. Paul Bregman.

“If this law passes, patients will lose their access to safe medicine and some will die,” said the owner of a Colorado dispensary. “Please be compassionate.”

The dispensary owner said that although his dispensary serves more than five patients, he believes he provides significant care to each one.
When asked by the board where he would set his own patient limit, he said that even 5,000 patients would not be too many.

“I’d like to be under the same standards as Walgreens or a Wal-Mart pharmacy,” he said.

Lauren Davis, a former senior district attorney in Denver said the proposal would not address the concerns raised by the other law-enforcement officials who had testified.

“Limiting caregivers will increase the number of small-grower operations,” she said.

Although the public-comment period of the meeting was set to begin at 12:50 p.m., by noon, the meeting was already an hour behind schedule.
After public comments, the board will deliberate and then vote on whether to approve the proposal.

Claire Trageser: ctrageser@denverpost.com or 303-954-1638

—————

Patients say pot restrictions will force them to buy from black market

The Associated Press
Posted: 07/20/2009

DENVER Colorado’s chief medical officer, police officers and prosecutors are urging health officials to limit the state’s medical marijuana providers to five patients each. They say the current system ‘which has no limits’ is causing confusion over who can legally grow marijuana and is susceptible to fraud.

But medical marijuana users and their supporters said the rule change, one of five being considered, would make it harder for people who need
the drug to get it legally.

The state health board is holding an all-day hearing on the changes on the Auraria Campus. Opponents far outnumber supporters with 350 people signing up to speak against the changes.

Voters allowed the use of medical marijuana in Colorado by passing Amendment 20 in 2000. The board is considering rules changing how the
program is run. Opponents say the five person limit is a significant change and that the board doesn’t have the authority to do that.

[Editor's Note: This interesting and informative exchange of ideas, provided by experts on cannabis regarding the future of America's cannabis policy, was originally published July 19 on the 'Open for Debate' blog found at the New York Times' webpage.]

If Marijuana Is Legal, Will Addiction Rise?

By The Editors
July 19, 2009, 7:00 pm

A New York Times article on Sunday discussed the debate over whether more and more potent types of cannabis affect the levels of addiction to the drug. This particular issue has become part of the larger debate over whether marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized.

Antidrug activists say that if the drug is legalized, more people will use it and addiction levels, made worse by the increased potency, will rise too. Legalization advocates note that pot addiction is not nearly as destructive as, say, abuse of alcohol. What would be the effect of legalization or decriminalization on marijuana abuse and addiction?

*Roger Roffman, professor of social work

*Wayne Hall, professor of public health policy

*Mark A.R. Kleiman, professor of public policy and author

*Peter Reuter, University of Maryland professor

*Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief

Full Story

During a time of immense cannabis law reforms and major shifts in public opinion in favor of such, emerges now a throwback to the dark ages of America’s war on some drugs from the 1980s: The Congressional Anti-Cannabis Caucus.

Escaping any real media attention last week was the formulation of a new anti-marijuana caucus in the House of Representatives. As reported in Roll Call on July 13, a press conference was held with former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) that seeks to re-commit the Congress to the status quo of ‘fighting a war on drugs’.

The photograph displayed on Roll Call (which is a subscription publication) of the press conference prominently featured an anti-medical marijuana prop (made from a shoe box).

Heard on the Hill: Issa clutched a prop, a box that represented a shipment of medical marijuana. On the box was the handwritten phrase “Medical Rx” and a drawing of a pot leaf. …

The newly formed House Drug Task Force elected ardent anti-cannabis congressman John Mica (R-FL), who, according to the Deseret News,  complained that the Obama administration “seeks to shut the war on drugs down.” And that, “the record to date is dismal with the demotion of Drug Czar’s office to a sub-Cabinet position, the announced support for needle exchange programs, the decriminalization of illegal narcotics and other measures that would weaken current national anti-drug efforts.”

Deseret News reports that the task force–which currently only has Republican members–has four core initiatives: stopping drug use before it starts through education and community action; healing drug users; disrupting the narcotics market; and stringent narcotics enforcement.

In other words, this ‘new’ anti-cannabis caucus would like to continue wasting taxpayers’ money, keep twisting the Constitution into knots, and continue killing innocent bystanders and drug users–while at the same time–hypocritically supporting government regulatory schemes that allows for the production, sale and taxation of more dangerous and addictive drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals products.

The members of this new anti-cannabis caucus in the Congress are: Dan Burton (R-IN), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), John Mica (R-FL), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Mark Souder (R-IN) and Michael Turner (R-OH).

What? No Mark Kirk (R-IL)?

Two relevant points: 1) As this so-called ‘House task force’ is only populated with Republicans, it is hardly a ‘House’ task force, and 2) back in the overzealous ‘anti-drug’ 1980s, there was a large, powerful and bi-partisan ‘Select House Subcommittee On Narcotics’, chaired by uber-powerful Charles Rangel (D-NY), and strongly supported by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). This committee dubiously helped champion the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Partnership for a Drug-America campaign, DARE program in public schools, civil forfeiture laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, mass drug testing in the workplace, etc…..

Where is the CBC and Way and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel these days on the so-called war on drugs?

In general, Rep. Rangel and the CBC (headed by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA, of Oakland) no longer support ‘warring on drugs’ as much as they embrace the effective public health doctrine of ‘harm reduction’.

RIP Walter Cronkite! In the summer 1992, I was told by an assistant that I had a phone call, and that “unless the person on the phone was kidding, that it was someone claiming to be Walter Cronkite.”

ABC's John Stossel, DPA director Ethan Nadelmann, Dr. Mathilde Krim, Walter Cronkite and Ira Glasser (former executive director of the ACLU)

I took the call and it was in fact Mr. Cronkite, who wanted to talk about his concerns regarding America’s so-called ‘war on drugs’. We talked for about half an hour and he asked me to fax him some data and/or reports to support some of the information I’d related to him regarding arrest rates, racial disparity and I think the efficacy of medical cannabis. As he related his fax number to me I recognized the exchange as coming from Dukes County, MA (which is principally Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Islands). I told Mr. Cronkite that I had grown up in close proximity to his locale, across Nantucket Sound in the Cape Cod town of Chatham. That sparked an additional half hour conversation about striped bass, giant Atlantic bluefin tuna and the importance of knowing where you derive pleasure.

All in all, a most pleasant conversation with a journalist I’d grown up watching and had always generally respected.

I was heartened some years later when Walter Cronkite started speaking out strongly against the war on some drugs, including doing fundraising letters and videos for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Drug war is a war on families
By Walter Cronkite

Article Published: Sunday, August 08, 2004

In the midst of the soaring rhetoric of the recent Democratic National Convention, more than one speaker quoted Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, invoking “the better angels of our nature.” Well, there is an especially appropriate task awaiting those heavenly creatures – a long-overdue reform of our disastrous war on drugs. We should begin by recognizing its costly and inhumane dimensions.

Much of the nation, in one way or another, is victimized by this failure – including, most notably, the innocents, whose exposure to drugs is greater than ever.

This despite the fact that there are, housed in federal and state prisons and local jails on drug offenses, more than 500,000 persons – half a million people! Clearly, no punishment could be too severe for that portion of them who were kingpins of the drug trade and who ruined so many lives. But by far, the majority of these prisoners are guilty of only minor offenses, such as possessing small amounts of marijuana. That includes people who used it only for medicinal purposes.

Full Story

For 35 years scientists have known that naturally occurring compounds in the cannabis plant possess potent and selective anti-cancer properties, a fact that I have documented extensively in previous writings here, here, and here.

Yet for more than three decades the scientific study of these anti-cancer effects has remained almost exclusively limited to preclinical in vitro (in a petri dish) and in vivo (in lab animals) analysis, rather than clinical (human) study. Why? A just published review in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology provides an answer.

Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer agents – high hopes for new therapies?
abstract excerpt via PubMed

In recent years, CB receptor ligands, including Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, have been proposed as potential anticancer agents. This review critically discusses the pharmacology of CB receptor activation as a novel therapeutic anticancer strategy in terms of ligand selectivity, tissue specificity and potency. Intriguingly, antitumour effects mediated by cannabinoids are not confined to inhibition of cancer cell proliferation; cannabinoids also reduce angiogenesis, cell migration and metastasis, inhibit carcinogenesis and attenuate inflammatory processes.

Sounds promising, huh? Well it is — that is, until you get to this:

The development of CB(2)-selective anticancer agents could be advantageous in light of the unwanted central effects exerted by CB(1) receptor ligands.

And just what are these terrible “unwanted effects” — effects so “problematic” that we must continue to forbid scientists from clinically studying the drug’s effects in cancer patients? I’ll let the authors explain.

“In terms of a potential therapeutic application the unwanted psychotropic effects mediated via CB1 could be a problem.”

You read that right. The ‘problem’ with cannabinoids anti-cancer abilities is that patients might temporarily feel better after they take them!

Now contrast mainstream science’s feigned concern with the so-called ‘unwanted effects’ of the natural cannabis ‘high’ with the actual side-effects of the pharmaceutical cannabinoid antagonist drug rimonabant (aka Acomplia), which was recently withdrawn from the European market because of the the drug’s link to depression and suicide.

The psychiatric side-effects of rimonabant

Experimental evidence has suggested that drugs that enhance cannabinoid type-1 (CB1) receptor activity may induce anxiolytic and antidepressant effects, whilst the opposite has been reported with antagonists. Thus, the objective of the present review is to discuss the potential psychiatric side-effects of CB1 receptor antagonists, such as rimonabant, which has been recently marketed in several countries for the treatment of smoking cessation, obesity and associated metabolic disorders.

… Patients taking CB1 receptor antagonists should be carefully investigated for psychiatric side-effects. These drugs should not be prescribed for those already suffering from mental disorders. Nevertheless, the development of new compounds targeting the endocannabinoid system for the treatment of several conditions would be necessary and opportune.

Let’s review shall we? Natural plant selectively kills cancer, but it may also get you high = “problematic.” Synthetic pharmaceutical drug short circuits the body’s natural endocannabinoid system and will likely make you depressed and suicidal = “opportune.”

Any questions?

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from today's NORML weekly media advisory.]

A revised budgetary analysis by the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) estimates that taxing and regulating the retail sale of cannabis by adults would raise approximately $1.4 billion in annual new state revenue.

The BOE’s estimate, released late yesterday, assesses a $50 per ounce tax on the retail sale of cannabis (among other state-imposed costs), as recommended under Assembly Bill 390: The Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act.  This act seeks to license and tax the commercial production, packaging, and retail sale of marijuana to those 21 years of age or older.

As introduced, AB 390 would not impose taxation or licensing requirements on the non-commercial production of cannabis (up to ten mature plants), or on the not-for-profit distribution of pot.  Further, the bill would not alter existing legislation on the use of medicinal cannabis, nor would it impose new taxes or sanctions on the medical cultivation of cannabis.

According to the BOE’s revised calculations, the enactment of AB 390 would raise an estimate $990 million annually from the proposed $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana in addition to another $392 million in yearly sales tax revenues.

The BOE assessment did not assess whether the enactment of AB 390 would reduce existing law enforcement and prosecutorial costs, which have been estimated by California NORML to average some $200 million per year.  In 2007, a record 74,000 Californians were charged with marijuana offenses – the largest total since the state ‘decriminalized’ the personal possession of small amounts of marijuana in 1976.

The BOE report acknowledged that legalizing pot for adults would likely result in a “substitution effect” where consumers gravitate toward the use of marijuana “and away from cigarettes and alcohol.”

According to a May 2009 California Field poll of 901 registered voters, 56 percent of Californians say that lawmakers should “legalize marijuana for recreational use and tax its proceeds.”  Presently, the state is facing a $26 billion budget deficit.

Assembly Bill 390 is presently before the Assembly Committees on Public Safety and Health, which are expected to take up the issue early next year.

Marijuana No Longer Focus of Anti-Drug Campaigns

CBS News Examination Finds Prescription Drugs Are Seen as Bigger Threat Than Marijuana by Government, Non-Profit Groups

[Editor's note: Hallelujah!]

By Elizabeth Sprague

Over the last several years, without many people realizing it, the U.S. government has changed the focus of its anti-drug efforts, deemphasizing marijuana in favor of prescription drugs.

A CBS News survey of government and nonprofit anti-drug groups has found a retreat from anti-marijuana campaigns over the past several years as prescription and over the counter drug abuse has grown amongst teens.

In fact, the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the nation’s largest creator of anti-drug messages, hasn’t produced a single anti-marijuana public service advertisement since 2005.

The change comes as a result of the decline in marijuana use amongst teens, and growing worry over the abuse of prescription drugs. Marijuana use has been declining for 10 years and past-month use is down 25 percent since 2001 according to the largest tracking study in the U.S., “Monitoring the Future” by the University of Michigan.

Meanwhile prescription drug abuse has held steady over the past five years according to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, with nearly one in five teens (19 percent) abusing prescription medications to get high.

“There is a new threat in town,” Robert Dennisoton of the Office of National Drug Control Policy said.

The concern about pills has been highlighted by a string of high profile deaths like that of Heath Ledger, Anna Nicole Smith, and possibly Michael Jackson — all tied to the abuse of legal prescription drugs.

In an effort to spread awareness about the dangers of the misuse of prescription drugs, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America even refers to young people today as “Generation Rx” in TV advertisements that point to the dangers of misuse of those drugs.

“For this generation, high prevalence of prescription drug abuse was kicking in… there was a dawning, and a number of us began to feel that we need to do something about it,” said Sean Clark, executive vice president with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy, the government’s drug policy wing, now dedicates all of its campaign resources directed at parents – some $14 million dollars since 2008 – to the abuse of prescription and over the counter drugs.

“The issue of prescription drug abuse, which the Office of National Drug Control Policy has been shouting about from the rooftops, it is a significant problem in this country,” National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said on “The Early Show” last week.

Advocates for marijuana legalization argue that the shift from anti-marijuana to anti-pill messages has come at least in large part because prescription and over the counter medicines are far more deadly than marijuana.

Full Story

“When governments arrest people, it hasn’t stopped people from consuming cannabis.”

In what can be described as a comprehensive journalistic undertaking, CBS News is broadcasting an in-depth review of America’s 72-year old cannabis prohibition called Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed and what are some of the possible public policy alternatives that will be supported by the American public in future.

Starting with a broadcast piece on Sunday Morning, and via extensive web reportage, CBSNews.com, in my personal opinion, has done a far better job than other major news networks who’ve also recently run either a series, or documentaries, examining the growing public support for ending cannabis prohibition, cannabis as a taxed commodity, and looking into how American drug policies affect other countries’ drug policies.

Both sides, prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists, are well represented and make their cases for either reform or to maintain the status quo of prohibition.

A transcript from Sunday Morning, examining California’s ever-growing medical cannabis industry and the growing calls in America’s most important state for outright legalization, is available here.

The accompanying article, featuring quotes from NORML Advisory Board member and former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper, America’s Love-Hate History with Pot, is read here.

Norm Stamper still remembers the day, nearly six decades ago, when a police detective visited his elementary school class to warn of the dangers of smoking the “devil weed.”

“That was the term he used — and he even brought along a bag of marijuana to show us,” said Stamper, 65, who would later become Seattle’s police chief. “I remember him saying something to the effect that, ‘If you smoke this, it will rot the membrane in your nose.’ He was an authority figure, and so I figured he could tell me something about the dangers of this drug. That was my early education about marijuana.”

By today’s standards, such a warning might sound as dated as the bug-eyed, morally-depraved pot fiends portrayed in the 1936 movie Reefer Madness.

But it was in line with the prevailing view of the 1950s, which considered marijuana to be not just a dangerous drug, but a stepping stone to the use of heroin or even more dangerous controlled substances. In 1979, 27 percent of Americans favored legalization, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll at the time.

A new CBS News poll released today finds that more Americans now support legalization. Forty-one percent said they think marijuana should be made legal and 52 percent are opposed. That’s even more than in a CBS News poll in March when 31 percent said they were in favor of legalization in all cases with another seven percent saying they would favor legalization if marijuana were taxed and the money went to projects.

“They told us that marijuana was a gateway drug,” said Stamper, who these days is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. “It was not.”

America’s Love-Hate History with Pot
With a New CBS News Poll Finding 41% Now Support Legalization, CBSNews.com Examines Changing Views of Marijuana in the U.S.

Video: Politics of Pot
Highlights of Presidents and Presidential Candidates addressing the marijuana question.

-Amid Calls for Marijuana Legalization in the U.S., CBSNews.com Looks at the Lessons of the Dutch Approach-
This story was written by Brian Montopoli as part of a new CBSNews.com special report on the evolving debate over marijuana legalization: Marijuana Nation: The New War Over Weed.

Full Story

While Congress debates health care, handles the economic downturn, and the quagmire in Afghanistan, Congressman Barney Frank is eyeing America’s draconian pot policies. Read Esquire’s exclusive interview.

By: John H. Richardson, Esquire Magazine

To my shame, I started my interview with Congressman Barney Frank about the legalization of marijuana by apologizing to my subject. “I know you guys have a lot on your plate these days, so I’m sorry to be calling you about something kind of trivial…”Then I did a rapid midcourse correction. “But it’s not trivial, because people go to jail over it.”

“That’s exactly right,” Frank said.

We were talking about the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009, Frank’s latest attempt to bring sanity to the federal marijuana laws. Currently, pot is classified as a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substance under federal law, which makes it worse than morphine, cocaine, amphetamine, and PCP. Possession of a single joint carries a penalty of $1,000 and a year in prison – a charge faced by about 800,000 American citizens every year. This is the government whose judgment on war and economics we are supposed to respect.

So I started the interview over.

ESQUIRE: Could you tell me why you’re doing it at this time? Everybody says you guys have got so much to handle right now.

BARNEY FRANK: Announcing that the government should mind its own business on marijuana is really not that hard. There’s not a lot of complexity here. We should stop treating people as criminals because they smoke marijuana. The problem is the political will.

ESQ: That’s my second question. There’s already been a lot of change in the country. Thirteen states have decriminalized pot. What’s holding up Congress?

Full Story