The Obama Administration Opposes Legalization — So Tell Us Something We Didn’t Already Know

The mainstream media is in a frenzy over statement’s issued today by the Justice Department alleging that the office will “vigorously enforce” federal anti-marijuana laws in California, regardless of whether voters enact Proposition 19 this November.

Even if Prop. 19 passes, federal drug laws will be ‘vigorously’ enforced, official says
via The Los Angeles Times

The nation’s top federal law enforcement official said the Obama administration would “vigorously enforce” drug laws against people who grow, distribute or sell marijuana for recreational use even if California voters pass a measure to legalize it.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., in a letter sent Wednesday to nine former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, wrote, “Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.”

The initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot would allow Californians 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet and possess up to an ounce of marijuana. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales. Several cities, including Oakland, appear poised to do so if the law passes. [Author's note: Oakland appears poised to do regardless of whether Prop. 19 passes or not.]

Holder’s letter was made public Friday.

… Possession and sales of marijuana are illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. In his letter, Holder wrote: “We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law.”

To which I’d respond: So what? Of course the Obama administration is wedded to America’s failed prohibition policies. After all, it is their policy.

And of course the voters of California cannot change the federal Controlled Substances Act via a statewide vote. Nobody ever claimed that they could.

However, here’s what is noteworthy. Despite the claims of various Prop. 19 opponents that the measure is in ‘direct conflict‘ with federal law or is somehow ‘unconstitutional‘ and would thus be ‘preempted’ by the Feds, at no time today did the federal government challenge the fact that Californians have the legal right to determine their own marijuana policies. Rather, the federal government simply reinforced that they remain of the opinion that marijuana ought to be criminally outlawed — a position that is out-of-step with the American public’s sentiment.

Furthermore, Californians have been here before, and not just in 1996. Seventy-eight years ago this November, Californians overwhelmingly voted for the repeal of a morally, socially, and economically failed public policy – alcohol prohibition. Voters did not wait for the federal government to act; they took the matter into their own hands. And they will do so again this November.

Finally, it goes without saying that the federal justice department — verbal bluster aside — lacks both the resources and the political will to take on the role of targeting and prosecuting the estimated 3.3 million Californians who are presently consuming cannabis for non-medical purposes. These duties are relegated to state, not federal, law enforcement officials. Just as medical marijuana has existed as a legal market in California, in obvious violation of federal Controlled Substances Act, Prop. 19 will too remain the law of the land post-November 2.

Which ultimately begs the question, “If a government’s legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy?” Perhaps it is time to ask President Obama and United States Attorney General Eric Holder?

Marijuana Triple Play

Politico does a twofer and the New York Times remembers an academic titan who well chronicled drug use and ensuing government policies to thwart it–a largely unsuccessful endeavor.

With unmistakable juxtaposition, Politico’s printed tabloid available in Washington, D.C. featured two informative items married together. First, a column from constitutional scholar and salon.com contributor Glenn Greenwald underscoring the political significance, public health benefits and taxpayer savings if Prop 19 is passed by California voters in a few weeks based on his recent research paper for the Cato Institute examining the benefits of Portugal decriminalizing all drugs in 2000.

Additionally, Politico wickedly notes that 28-years-ago today President Ronald Reagan declared a ‘war on drugs’, yet these days, the current drug czar is uncomfortable employing the now broadly derided term, deeming it “counter-productive”.

RIP David Musto, MD

Today’s New York Times does justice in honoring the recent death of Dr. David Musto, a well respected professor at Yale Medical School, an author of many notable books and expert in the history of drug control policy.

Before there was an Internet…from 1991 to 1993, David and I frequently corresponded about cannabis use, policy making and law enforcement via letters and faxes. His books (notably for me, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control, along with other very important scholarly works researched and penned by Drs. Lester Grinspoon, Norman Zinberg, Andrew Weil and Consumer Union’s Edward Brecher; along with the writings of law professors Charles Whitebread and Richard Bonnie) quite definitely helped form my political and sociological views about cannabis.

I note from the Times’ obituary that David passed away in China whilst visiting to deliver his academic papers to Shanghai University. I trust somewhere in what must be an immense collection of papers and correspondences will be our exchanges, and a rare conceit from David in a correspondence to me, replying to my frustration that he was not more of an advocate for reforms rather than a genuine ‘Ivy League’ academician, he noted, I recall, something like: I seem best equipped to point out the history of drug use and government’s efforts to control for such…and let the public and elected policymakers make of my work what they will…I’m not an activist or a solutions person  per se.

As noted by NYT book reviewer James Markham correctly predicted that The American Disease would “probably become mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand how we got into this mess”.

True then. True now. You can purchase a copy @ Amazon, or you can get the flavor of David’s writing from his 1972 essay, The History of the Marihuana Act of 1937 at druglibrary.org.

Los Angeles Times: “California’s Next Attorney General Can’t Punt on Marijuana”

Republican candidate Steven Cooley and Democratic candidate Kamala Harris are campaigning to become California’s next attorney general. In that position, he or she will be sworn to uphold the laws of the state of California. Yet neither one of them will commit to upholding and defending California’s Prop. 19, and that — as I write in today’s Los Angeles Times online — is unacceptable.

California’s next attorney general can’t punt on marijuana
via The Los Angeles Times

[Excerpt: Read the full text and comment on it here.]

Regardless of which candidate wins the race for California attorney general, voters expect that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley will respect the outcome of the election gracefully.

But they appear reluctant to extend that respect to Proposition 19, which would legalize the private, adult use of limited amounts of marijuana statewide and allow local governments to regulate commercial production and retail distribution. At their debate last week at UC Davis, neither Harris nor Cooley would state whether they would, as attorney general, enforce and defend Proposition 19.

… Given that the attorney general is sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, not just the ones he or she supports, the candidates’ responses were disconcerting. In both cases it appears that their personal biases against marijuana legalization could compromise their ability to objectively carry out their duties as attorney general.

Further, both candidates’ statements exhibit extreme arrogance. On the one hand, both Harris and Cooley believe that voters should be empowered to choose the state’s top law enforcement officer; but when it comes to amending the state’s marijuana laws, Harris isn’t sure that voters have the final word, and Cooley disregards them outright. Both candidates ought to know better; after all, voters pay for enforcing these criminal policies with their tax dollars.

… If a government’s legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California’s next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.

Someone Is Lying: Latest RAND Reports Disputes Feds’ Longstanding Cartel Claims

A report released today by the RAND Drug Policy Research Center undercuts the longstanding federal government claim that Mexican drug gangs are reaping the bulk of their profits from the exportation of marijuana to the United States.

States RAND, “The claim that 60 percent of Mexican drug trafficking organizations gross drug export revenues comes from marijuana is not credible.”

And just who was the source of this ‘not credible’ statistic? In this case, full credit must go to the nation’s top anti-drug office, the Office of National Drug Control Policy — aka the Drug Czar’s office.

Marijuana big earner for Mexico gangs
via The Associated Press

Posted 2/21/2008 8:55 PM |

MEXICO CITY — Marijuana is now the biggest source of income for Mexico’s drug cartels and the U.S. is committed to cracking down harder on traffickers, U.S. drug czar John Walters said Thursday.

“We’re trying to increase the force with which we’re attacking this problem,” Walters said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. “This is a focus because of the overlooked importance marijuana has in the violence.”

Walters made the comments following a meeting with Mexican officials who want the U.S. to prosecute marijuana cases more zealously to reduce the amount of cash gangs can spend on guns.

… Walters said the U.S. government is seeking additional resources to prosecute traffickers of marijuana, which now earns cartels about $8.5 billion or about 61 percent of their annual estimated income of $13.8 billion. Cocaine sales earn the cartels about $3.9 billion, and methamphetamine about $1 billion, he said.

Today RAND retorts, “Mexican DTOs’ annual gross revenues from illegally exporting marijuana and selling it to wholesalers in the United States are likely less than $2 billion.”

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.

Ultimately, however, the dueling statistics don’t really matter. Regardless of whether Mexican cartels are reaping 60 percent of their profits from pot or 16 percent, the fundamental principle remains the same: the criminal prohibition of marijuana fuels an underground, unregulated, black market economy that empowers criminal entrepreneurs and jeopardizes the public’s — and the marijuana consumer’s — safety.

If you want to bring control of this market over to regulators, lawmakers, and licensed business, then you support legalization. If you wish to continue to abdicate control of this market to criminal gangs and drug traffickers, then you support prohibition.

The choice is up to you.

C-Span TV: Marijuana Legalization and California Ballot Initiative Prop. 19 To Be Debated and Discussed

C-Span TV: Marijuana Legalization and California Ballot Initiative Prop. 19 To Be Debated and Discussed This Saturday; NORML Director Allen St. Pierre vs. Former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson

Update: Watch today’s program here. The 45 minute discussion on legalizing cannabis starts at the 2:19:30 mark. Like the many current commentators’ lament, I too wish more questions were directed to the reform side and/or allowed some rebuttal to any number of Mr. Hutchinson’s misdirections and contradictions. However, unlike AM radio or cable TV news shows, guests on C-Span are encouraged not to talk over each other, keeping answers short, and to try to take as many calls as possible from viewers.

As noted, as has been the case every single time I’ve appeared on C-Span, most of the callers are critical of the current policies and favor law reform.

I’ve been invited back to C-Span to debate and discuss the topics of cannabis legalization, and specifically California’s upcoming vote on Prop. 19, a measure that if approved by the voters will effectively legalize cannabis in America’s most important state politically and economically.

Former Drug Enforcement Administration chief and Republican congressman from Arkansas Asa Hutchinson has stepped up to argue in favor of the status quo and continuing into a ninth decade of Cannabis Prohibition.

The live interview is scheduled to broadcast Saturday morning (10/9/10) on C-Span TV, 9:15am – 10:00am (eastern…sorry west coasters!).  Like most C-Span shows, the public is invited to ask questions or make short commentary.

This C-Span interview is likely the result of the Wall Street Journal publishing an unprecedented jointly signed letter earlier this week by every previous DEA administrator predictably calling for the Obama administration to actively oppose politically viable cannabis legalization voter initiatives in places like California  (just the way they did).

Is the body politic (and the mainstream media that has so aptly aided and abetted these technocrats’ blatant disregard for democracy, science, compassion and common sense) really, really nervous about the cataclysmic blow that California voters are about to level on a self-evidently failed federal government public policy—another ‘war’ lost by government?

As one overexposed, former half governor is known for saying all too frequently: Youbetcha!

See you on the Groove Tube!

The Mainstream Media’s Promoting Marijuana Myth Makers and Prohibition Junkies

The longtime government supporters of Cannabis Prohibition are very nervous about the upcoming binding ballot initiative in California which appears on track to be approved by millions of state voters. There is much evidence for this assertion:

A few weeks ago the Los Angeles Times published a so-called unprecedented ‘jointly’ signed letter by all of the former drug czars (aka, Directors of the Office of Drug Control Policy) crowing against cannabis and the voter initiative in California that is likely going to pass this November 2nd. Ironically, or not, when readers go to the Los Angeles Times’ webpage to read the former czars rant-n-rave, they’re pitched cannabis-related Google ads.

It is hard to imagine Cannabis Prohibition surviving too much longer when pro-cannabis ads ring government propaganda!

This week the Wall Street Journal regrettably compromised its usual rhetorical commitment to ‘less government’, more ‘free markets’ and ‘personal responsibility’ by publishing an absurdly argued op-ed from every previous administrator from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) calling on the Obama administration to actively oppose the democratic will of the voters in America’s most important state politically and economically if they choose, as it appears likely they will based on recent polling, to legalize cannabis for responsible adult use, sales and taxation.

Why the ‘we don’t like big government’ and free market-oriented editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal decided to  shill for a federal government agency, who, according to a report from the Office of Management and Budget is little more than a bureaucratic sacred cow, has one of the worse performance records in the history of otherwise bloated inside-the-beltway bureaucracies that the Journal editors usually relish skewing is beyond me.

Firstly, the rant from these former ‘head narcs’ against the Democratic Obama administration comes mainly from partisan Republicans.

Second, as has been noted in NORML’s submitted letter-to-the-editor at the Wall Street Journal (which we understand will be published on Monday, October 11) and at Reason, these former DEA heads make a flaccid and intellectually dishonest assertion that a state must be saddled with a failed federal public policy like Cannabis Prohibition in contradiction to the popular will of it’s voters. Really? Is this true? Then why do states like California, Colorado, New Mexico, District of Columbia, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maine have systems in place to authorize the retail sale of medical cannabis and to tax the product as well?

Is the sole focus on ‘legalization’ by these former anti-drug technocrats a left-handed acknowledgement that medical cannabis use and sales are in fact lawful and taxed commerce at the state level now, while at the same time trying advance the unpersuasive argument that states sanctioning and taxing non-medical cannabis is now going over some kind of impermissible line of state autonomy? Or worse, a violation of international treaties?

One can understand on the level of myth-making, propagandizing, brain-washing, indoctrinating, embracing pseudo science and possessing the most tin ears politically why these men (and a woman) who’ve represented the ‘big lie’ to the American public and Congress for so long are reticent to  1) acknowledge that they were at all wrong in opposing cannabis legalization (even notably medical access and industrial hemp), 2) that they’re logically afraid of rightly being branded as ‘liars’ and 3) having to cop to the hundreds of billions of tax dollars that have been both wasted and left uncollected for decades…to say nothing of the 21 million arrests and millions of incarcerations since 1937.

One can almost feel bad for these individuals for a nanosecond when considering how badly pop culture is currently treating them, and how I personally believe history will likely cast dark shadows over their championing of Cannabis Prohibition.

What do I mean by ‘casting dark shadows’?

Here’s two prime examples from the list of former DEA heads:

After making a reputation at the DEA for opposing NORML’s administrative law victory in challenging the DEA’s mis-scheduling of cannabis in Schedule I, Jack Lawn went on to fame and fortune as the CEO of the Century Council–the main non-profit organization funded by the hard booze lobby to promote ‘alcohol awareness and to deter youth access and drunk driving’.

Peter Bensinger, who has a business partnership with former drug czar Robert DuPont providing anti-drug advice to fortune 500 companies and drug testing services (including to members of Congress), also has a daughter who used to be a spokesmodel for Miller Beer.

Yep…you can’t make this stuff up!

These lame and too-late-to-the-game monologues by all of these former government agency heads who made careers (and small fortunes) lying about cannabis and demonizing cannabis consumers and patients in the Los Angeles Times (shame on you!) and the Wall Street Journal (doubly shame on you!) are likely going to be as successful as the last and great ‘unprecedented’ attempt by Cannabis Prohibition’s A-Team to thwart the direct will of the citizens regarding setting a new path to end prohibition, when, every living US president (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1.0 and Clinton) signed a 1996 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times (so much shame for this paper’s historical support for Cannabis Prohibition!) against a then supposedly radical and society-threatening Prop. 215–which the voters approved in California at a higher rate than they did for returning President Clinton back to office.

As has been predicted recently by a number of polling firms and political scientists in California, the state’s voters may well endorse in greater numbers for legalizing cannabis in three weeks then they will in supporting any major political candidates for elective office. One would think that these mainstream, duopoly political candidates would finally say ‘Uncle!’ and end their stubborn and unfounded opposition to a long-sought end to cannabis prohibition in California if only out of the pure embarrassment of how wrong they’ve been in bucking public sentiment and the free market.

Something tells me I probably shouldn’t hold my breath.

U.S. Government Data Shows That Marijuana Prohibition Has “Clearly Failed To Achieve Its Stated Objectives”

The increased enforcement of criminal marijuana prohibition has failed to reduce marijuana use and access in the United States, according to a report released today by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.

The report — based almost entirely on published U.S. government data — finds that increased funding for marijuana law enforcement is not associated any demonstrable reduction in marijuana availability, arrests, potency, or “rates of cannabis-related harm.”

The following excepts are taken from the report’s executive summary and conclusion.

Tools for Debate: US Federal Government Data on Cannabis Prohibition
A report of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy

In the last several decades there has been a remarkable increase in US federal and state funding for anti-drug efforts, with the annual overall federal anti-drug budget as reported by the US Office of National Drug Control Policy increasing by more than 600% (inflation adjusted), from approximately $1.5 billion in 1981 to more than $18 billion in 2002 (the last year the budget was consistently reported). While only a portion of this budget funded programs specific to cannabis prohibition, increased federal and state funding nevertheless coincided with a greater than 150% increase in cannabis-related arrests and a greater than 420% increase in cannabis-related seizures between 1990 and 2006.

The limitations of cannabis prohibition in the US, however, are demonstrated by federally funded surveillance systems which show an approximate increase of 145% in estimated cannabis delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content between 1990 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in funding to anti-drug efforts. Furthermore, evidence of prohibition’s failure to reduce the supply of cannabis is demonstrated by the estimated decrease of approximately 58% (inflation adjusted) in the retail price of US cannabis between 1990 and 2007.

The limitations of US cannabis prohibition are further evidenced by the ease with which American youth report being able to obtain the drug. According to US drug use surveillance systems funded by the US National Institutes on Drug Abuse, over the last 30 years of cannabis prohibition the drug has remained “almost universally available to American 12th graders,” with approximately 80–90% saying the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain. The failure of prohibition to reduce cannabis supply is also demonstrated by the fact that roughly 60% of school-aged US youth who use cannabis report having obtained their most recently used cannabis for free or having shared someone else’s. Interestingly, rates of cannabis use among American youth do not inversely correlate with levels of funding for cannabis prohibition. Instead, the estimated annual prevalence of cannabis use among US grade 12 students rose from 27% in 1990 to 32% in 2008, whereas among 19- to 28-year-olds it went from 26% in 1990 to 29% in 2008.

While it has been argued that rates of cannabis use would be higher if strict criminal penalties were not in place, this argument is inconsistent with available scientific evidence which indicates that patterns of drug law enforcement are not strongly correlated with rates of cannabis use.

… Given that cannabis prohibition has clearly failed to achieve its stated objectives and has also resulted in a range of serious unintended harms, regulatory models should be given urgent consideration, both in the United States and in other settings. … In light of the widespread and often free availability of cannabis that exists despite extremely costly criminal justice measures, successfully reducing rates of cannabis-related harm will likely require the implementation of strict regulatory measures which are associated with reducing the harms of other legal substances and are too commonly underutilized in the areas of tobacco and alcohol control.

Full text of the study, as well as links to the power point and video version of the report may be accessed here.

The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP), based in Vancouver, Canada, is “an international network of scientists, academics, and health practitioners committed to improving the health and safety of communities and individuals affected by illicit drugs.”

Facebook Billionaire Gives Money to Legalize Marijuana in California

I think it hard to imagine that other rich supporters of cannabis law reform are not going to follow Dustin’s lead and make a sizable donation in these last few weeks of the campaign as…everyone loves a winner!

An irony here is about a month ago Facebook refused to take FireDogLake’s ‘Just Say Now’ pro-cannabis law reform ads…blessedly, karma exists.

From Forbes:

Dustin Moskovitz confirmed tonight that he has recently given $50,000 in support of Proposition 19, which is seeking to legalize marijuana in California this November. He had previously donated $20,000 to supporters of the act, which would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate or transport cannabis for personal use and would permit local governments to  regulate and tax commercial production and sale of the substance. (Update: Dustin explains why he backs Prop 19.) (more…)

OregonLive.com — “Oregon’s Measure 74: Regulation Is The Key For Supplying Medical Marijuana”

On November 3, 2009, Maine voters became the first to approve — by initiative — the creation of state-licensed not-for-profit dispensaries to assist in the production and distribution of marijuana to qualified patients. This November, Oregon citizens will decide on the issue when they vote on Measure 74, The Oregon Regulate Medical Marijuana Supply System Act of 2010.

Since 1998, tens of thousands of Oregonians have received state approval to use and grow cannabis for medical purposes. Measure 74 — which was recently endorsed by the Democrat Party of Oregon — seeks to provide these patients with safe, above-ground, reliable access to their medicine.

Oregon’s Measure 74: Regulation is the key for supplying medical marijuana
via OregonLive.com

[excerpt] Clearly, we need to balance supply and demand in any regulated system. We must bring medical marijuana supplies under the law, but not strangle the new system. After all, we don’t limit the number of pharmacies in Oregon — instead, we regulate them. By any measure, medical marijuana will be far more tightly restricted.

There can be no doubt that we need to act. The current system is unworkable and completely unregulated. There are now thousands of legal, medical marijuana growers across Oregon, but not a single one is ever inspected. No one pays taxes. Anyone can go into business, without background checks.

… All of this would change under Measure 74. Producers and suppliers would need to get licenses, pay taxes, subject themselves to inspections and have open books. Suppliers would also need to operate as not-for-profit enterprises.

Measure 74′s tough rules, enforced by inspections and fines, provide a better alternative.

Measure 74 will improve the quality of life for seriously ill patients who qualify for medical use of marijuana under existing law. It removes the fear and uncertainty patients face now and will put a stop to black-market profiteers exploiting patients for financial gain.

We all share common concerns for our communities and a basic compassion for the seriously ill. Let’s pass Measure 74 and agree to come together as Oregonians to make the system work.

Further information about Measure 74 is available here and here.

Consumers Now Have Tool To Price And Find Best Marijuana Available For Purchase

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Cannabis consumers have always needed and pined for an effective tool that would tell us where the best cannabis can be found, what is the potency and price (and pricing trends).

Medical cannabis patients in the 14 states and the District of Columbia with cannabis patient protection laws can now visit a single webpage and receive real time pricing, popularity and potency on over 300 cannabis strains at Weed Strain Exchange (which is a component of the successful WeedMaps…See below).

In reviewing more and more commercial webpages that are catering to the ever-growing and lawful medical cannabis industry Weed Strain Exchange differs from the recently released PriceofWeed in that more information is available for consumers to employ, in real time, when making their medical cannabis purchases.

The information can be deployed on mobile devices providing the ultimate in cannabis consumer empowerment…making the days of purchasing cannabis from open air drug markets, the dude on the corner or calling a ‘friend’ seem increasingly antiquated.

Great business story, right?

Wait a minute…

With over 90 million Americans living in the states with medical cannabis laws a cool application like Weed Strain Exchange is getting short-sighted and imprudent blow back from one of the country’s biggest Telecom providers, T-Mobile, who has decided it is going to censor WeedMaps’ commerce and is blocking their short code from showing up on T-Mobile devices.

The matter of a major cell phone provider blocking lawful information about lawful commerce is now in the federal courts where a number of public interest groups (notably Public Knowledge) are supporting WeedMap’s efforts not to be discriminated against by T-Mobile by establishing federal laws that treat text messaging (and other short codes) with the same privacy protections as all of our phone conversations enjoy (which can’t be interfered with unless a judge signs a warrant).

WeedMaps and its related webpages are not only on the cutting edge of cannabis commerce in America, the company is standing up for the rights of all of us to communicate free of corporate or governmental interference and/or censorship.

Kudos to WeedMaps!

Lastly, despite the current legal wranglings with T-Mobile, WeedMaps was acquired today in a friendly merger by LLUC.PL, further demonstrating the era of M & A (mergers and acquisitions) in the nascent, but fast-growing cannabusiness industry in America.

Looks like cannabis-related businesses are going ever higher.

Suit against T-Mobile for text blocking heads to federal court this week

By Cecilia Kang, Washington Post

September 27, 2010

A federal court will hear arguments this week on EZ Texting’s suit against T-Mobile for for blocking cellphone text messages. The case has spurred debate over the government’s role as a regulator of text-messaging communications on cellphones.

On Thursday, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York will conduct a hearing on allegations that T-Mobile stopped sending texts for EZ Texting’s customer WeedMaps.com, a medical marijuana distribution Web site, because of the content of the site. EZ Texting said that T-Mobile’s action stifled free speech and that rules to protect phone users from blocking should also be applied to texts.

T-Mobile disputes EZ Texting’s claims in comments to the court, saying the New York-based messaging firm didn’t comply by T-Mobile’s best practices guidelines. EZ Texting was originally assigned the short code 313131 for cellphone users to call and receive text messages for promotions from bars and night clubs. When EZ Texting decided to add marketing alerts for WeedMaps.com, it didn’t inform T-Mobile of the change. T-Mobile said it and the cellular industry require such notification from its short-code partners.

Last Friday, EZ Texting responded to the court that it believed that Weedmaps.com texts were blocked because of the site’s content. Of T-Mobile’s best practices guidelines, EZ Texting CEO Shane Neman said, “This is not common industry practice, and T-Mobile never enforced this purported requirement until it learned about the Web site at issue here.” (more…)