Last week the nation watched President Obama bestow a rarely presented Medal of Honor to former Marine Sgt. Dakota Meyer. News reports indicate Mr. Meyer requested to have a beer the night before with his former commander-in-chief before the formal ceremonies.

The two men were in fact widely photographed enjoying a beer on the White House back porch.

Where did the beer the two men consume come from?

The same news reports reveal that our President has become the first ever home brew resident of the White House, brewing a “White House Honey Blonde Ale”.

Is it not painfully ironic to the point of disgust that the President of these United States of America–an occasional tobacco consumer and home brewer–along with the Speaker of the House John Boehner (a well-known tobacco and alcohol consumer), can responsibly engage in these adult-oriented activities, while at the same time providing ample public resources and rhetoric for continuing the nation’s farcical and long-suffering Cannabis Prohibition (74 years as of October 2nd!)?

Next time you hear one of these two elected policy makers spout off about being ‘anti-drug’ and not being in favor of cannabis law reforms…just remember that both men are just selective Prohibitionists…and hypocrites.

Really! Who wants to be governed by hypocrites who possess this ‘Good for Me, but not for Thee’ mentality?

Does this mean that this ownership group, which owns other professional sport franchises in Phoenix, is against profiting from the sales of one of the most deadly and addictive ‘drugs’ called beer? I think not…

Also, one would think that the Arizona Cardinal’s ownership would be greater students of recent history and more respectful of the citizen’s will in Arizona, who’ve already twice passed medical cannabis initiatives in 1996 and 1998 (which the legislature recklessly disregarded and never implemented).

Phoenix Business Journal

The Arizona Cardinals are opposing Proposition 203 which could make medical marijuana legal in the state and let chronically ill or severe pain patients buy small amounts of pot from state licensed clinics with a doctor’s approval.

The Cardinals gave $10,000 to Keep AZ Drug Free today, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

That group opposes 203 saying it could lead to more illegal drug use.

Cardinals team President Michael Bidwill is listed by the anti-203 group as one of the main Valley leaders opposed to medical marijuana legalization. USA Basketball Chairman Jerry Colangelo also is part of the Keep AZ Drug Free group’s efforts.

Arizona voters will decide Prop. 203’s fate in November Arizona would be the 15th state to allow for medical marijuana.

The Cardinals were not able to provide comment on their $10,000 contribution Wednesday evening.

Kudos to the Wynkoop Brewery (and their ad firm) for seizing upon the current cannabis reform zeitgeist in the country, and for not necessarily being threatened by the presence (and competition) of commercially available retail cannabis sales in the greater Denver-area.

BTW, ironically, Wynkoop Brewery was founded by Denver’s anti-cannabis mayor, John Hickenlooper, who, after Denver’s voters overwhelmingly approved a 2005 voter initiative that would have reduced the penalty for possessing one ounce of cannabis from a $100 fine to zero, decided to stiff the voters and not implement their will. Mr. Hickenlooper is no longer an owner of the Wynkoop Brewery.

Currently, however, Mr. Hickenlooper is running to be the next governor of Colorado. Voters there should remind Mr. Hickenlooper (and the media) of his supreme arrogance towards the will of voters and hypocrisy regarding his parochial views of alcohol use vs. cannabis use. Apparently, in his mind, it is ‘OK’ to own and operate a drug-making business regarding a dangerous and addictive product like alcohol–but not cannabis (which, unlike alcohol products, cannabis can’t deliver lethal overdoses and does not cause any where near the same degree of physical and mental impairment, addiction, cravings and withdrawals).

NORML CALLS FOR A GREENER, CLEANER AND SAFER ST. PATRICK’S DAY:

*Empire State NORML and noted speakers come downtown for a press conference concerned about social and property damage associated with St. Patrick’s Day Calling for marijuana to be recognized as a safer alternative to alcohol.

*Demanding the NYPD respect marijuana’s decriminalized status.

*Celebrating the premiere of the new NORML ad, running in Times Square

-CITY HALL PARK, MARCH 16, 2010, NOON-
This coming Tuesday at high noon, Empire State NORML, the New York Chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) will rally at City Hall Park on the Broadway side. They will be presenting marijuana as a safer alternative to alcohol for New York’s many St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. Dozens are expected to attend and it’s certain to gain the attention of the hundreds of financial district workers who access the park area every lunchtime.

Speakers include Dr. Julie Holland attending physician and board-certified psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital and CUNY Professor Harry Levine author of the 2008 NYCLU report, “Marijuana Arrest Crusade: Racial Bias and Police Policy in New York City 1997-2007“.

-Alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana-
According to Dr. Holland “Say what you will about marijuana, one thing you can’t say: pot kills. No practical lethal dose has ever been established; no fatal overdose has ever been recorded. In America, the most likely harm to result from using cannabis is being arrested.”

Dr. Holland added “Alcohol kills brain cells and liver cells. If you drink long enough, heavily enough, you will end up needing a new liver and a new brain.  American hospitals are clogged with people suffering from alcohol-induced dementia and liver failure. And don’t forget: abrupt withdrawal from alcohol, once you are addicted, carries a thirty percent mortality.  The DT’s can kill you, just as getting too drunk can kill you. Alcohol is a toxic drug. And it is legal.”

-Call for the NYPD to stop unjust marijuana prosecutions-
Empire State NORML will also call on the New York City Police Department to enforce the marijuana possession laws in line with its decriminalized status under New York State penal law.

In 2008, the New York City Police Department made 40,383 marijuana possession arrests-over 110 per day, and more than all the marijuana possession arrests under Mayors Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani combined. Most of those arrested are young, male and black and Latino

Professor Levine explains “In 2008, the NYPD made 40,300 lowest level marijuana possession arrests [NY State Penal Law 221.10] In 2009, the NYPD made 46,400 of these marijuana possession arrests. A 15% increase from 2008, and the second highest number of pot possession arrests ever, bested only by the year 2000 when the NYPD had five thousand more cops.

“As in 2008, those the NYPD arrested were 54% blacks, 33% Latinos, and 10% whites. In 2009, as in 2008, police arrested blacks for pot possession at seven times the rate of whites, and Latinos at four times the rate of whites. Most of the people arrested were under 26 years of age and about 30% were teenagers. 90% are male.  Most of the people arrested are black and Latino teenagers and young men. In all of the arrests, marijuana possession was the highest charge or the only one.”

Noted Doug Greene of Empire State NORML, “Even though New York State decriminalized marijuana in 1977, New York City has become the marijuana arrest capital of the world,” He added “New York City’s prosecution of young, poor minorities for pot possession doesn’t come cheap, it cost taxpayers between $60,000,000 and $100,000,000 in 2008 alone.  How can we justify these expenses when New York City is facing multi-billion budget gaps as far as the eye can see?”

-CBS changes position and allows NORML ad in Times Square-
“Money can grow on trees.” That is the message of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws Foundation (NORML) in a 15-second digital ad scheduled to debut in New York City’s Times Square this week. The advertisement, produced and paid for by NORML’s educational arm, The NORML Foundation, will air on the CBS Super Screen through May 31, 2010

###

“Supporting marijuana use is an example of domestic terrorism—it puts the public at great risk and threatens the very fabric of our society.” -Ron Brooks, President of National Narcotics Officers’ Association, 4/11/08

In my many annual public appearances and media interviews advocating for cannabis law reforms, the question will often arise ‘if NORML and the other drug policy reform groups are right that there are safe and viable alternatives to cannabis prohibition laws, who then opposes you in trying to amend current state and federal laws?’

The recent political endorsement given to former Republican congressman and ardent drug warrior Doug Ose by the National Narcotics Officers’ Association (NNOA) provides a handy opportunity that helps reveal exactly who are America’s prohibitionists and what are their motivations against ending cannabis prohibition.

Who Actually Supports (Or Profits From) Cannabis Prohibition?
At this juncture having worked over 17 years at NORML/NORML Foundation, my standard reply, without achieving doctoral dissertation length is 1.) There are five basic subgroups of Americans who strongly oppose any reforms in cannabis laws, and 2.) These subgroups constantly seek to deepen and enhance prohibition laws, i.e., politically and culturally oppose citizens and organizations who don’t favor prohibition laws; advocate for greater criminal sanctions and fewer civil liberties (more penalties, longer prison sentences, higher fines, and more of the ‘Big Three Ps’: police/prosecutors/prisons) and civil penalties (forfeiture, drivers license suspension, loss of child custody for parents who consume cannabis, denial of college loans to students busted for pot, removal from public-assisted living housing, etc…).

The Five Pillars Of Pot Prohibition
For all intent and purposes, in my opinion, educators, religious leaders, health organizations, military leadership, business and insurance institutions, and economists are not rabid supporters of cannabis prohibition per se. However, the five subgroups of Americans who do support rigorous cannabis prohibition laws and penalties are:

1- Law Enforcement
Police, sheriffs, state police; prison guards, parole officers and wardens; federal law enforcement [i.e., DEA]; local, state and federal prosecutors; drug court professionals and probation officers. Also, as you plainly read from the NNOA’s webpage, private law enforcement officer associations such as NNOA, California Narcotics Officers Association (read the CNOA’s anti-cannabis, laugh-inducing rants, click here, and here), Fraternal Order of Police, Chief of Police Association (and their state affiliates; Florida’s chapter is a prime example of police influencing the law—not just enforcing them) and the National Association of Attorney Generals (NAAG) work in concert to promote prohibition over tax-n-control policies.

2- So-called Parents Groups
Back in the 1970s there really was an organic, grassroots parents’ movement motivated and organized to oppose NORML’s marijuana decriminalization efforts. However, after the successful election bid of Ronald (and Nancy) Reagan in 1980, the executive branch largely hijacked the parents’ movement under the guise of Mrs. Reagan’s ‘Just Say No’ anti-drug program and a number of well funded government front groups were established by inside the beltway Republicans as promotional vehicles for Mrs. Reagan, leaving the nascent grassroots parent’s movement largely high and dry.

The legacy of federal government anti-drug bureaucracies usurping the 1970s parents’ movement against marijuana is found today in a number of what are supposed to pass for parents’ groups, but today are largely government-funded organizations such as, in two examples: National Families in Action (NFIA) and Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA).

3-Companies and industries that financially benefit from the government’s 70-year old ban on cannabis and hemp products

When government passes a law there are always winners and losers. When the US Congress created cannabis/hemp prohibition in 1937 it created a number of economic opportunities for certain industries that effectively exist to support and prosper cannabis prohibition, such as: drug testing industry; private prisons; private for-profit cannabis ‘rehabilitation’ centers, high-tech surveillance (i.e., forward looking infrared radar, aka FLIR) and interdiction devices (i.e., ion scanners).

Many of these profit-making, prohibition-supportive companies and industries (some of which are multi-billion dollar and powerful multi-national corporations, i.e., General Electric, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin or Dyncorp) aggressively lobby for government policies and tax expenditures that benefit their companies, and their shareholders.

A change in cannabis laws from prohibition to tax-n-control negatively impacts the bottom line of many large and politically connected US corporations (and their subsidiaries), along with hundreds of smaller government contract-dependent companies.

4- Companies that would have to compete with cannabis and hemp products if it were not for the government’s cannabis prohibition, and therefore lobby for cannabis/hemp to remain illegal and its consumers treated like violent criminals:

The alcohol industry (beer, wine and distilled spirits; wholesalers and retailers), tobacco industry (cigar, spit and cigarettes; wholesalers and retailers), pharmaceutical industry and industrial material and energy companies (i.e., wood, paper, petroleum, plastics, fiber, seed oil, animal fodder, etc…), lobby and/or advocate against taxing and controlling cannabis and hemp products. Pro-industry associations like the US Chamber of Commerce and The Business Roundtable often work closely with industries and companies benefiting from cannabis prohibition by opposing cannabis law reform, promoting the alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries (after all, these are legitimate, tax-paying industries. Right? Must be nice…).

5-Local, County, State, Federal and International ‘Anti-Drug’ Government Agencies and Bureaucracies

One could argue that absent the tens of thousands of government employees (civil servants and political appointees alike) and their inherent taxpayer-funded, multi-billion dollar annual budgets, there would be no so-called ‘war on drugs’ in America (and around the globe attributable to America’s exportation of cannabis prohibition through 1.) United Nation treaties and World Bank funding criterion, 2.) NIDA funding for anti-cannabis scientific and medical research and 3.) US Government-funded crop eradication and market disruption.

However, in conclusion, as long as the US Congress continues to allocate tens of billions of funding annually for huge government agencies and anti-cannabis propaganda campaigns—such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Partnership for a Drug Free America, Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and about a dozen more US government bureaucracies with odd sounding acronyms that represent tax-draining agencies, most of whom the general public have never heard of, such as the incredible Congressional boondoggle known as NDIC, the National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, PA—allows the other four pro-prohibition subgroups to both foster and proliferate cannabis prohibition in support of their parochial profits and narrow business interests (or in the case of government agencies and their employees: annual funding with almost assured built-in budget increases, nearly impossible to terminate civil worker status, regular cost of living increases and a host of other highly sought after government employee benefits).

Thankfully, on June 3, Ose and National Narcotics Officers’ Association lost the primary to one of the most longstanding libertarian politicians in the nation, California Republican state senator Tom McClintock—a supporter of cannabis law reforms.

Case in hand, a federal bureaucracy, the US Treasury Department’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is harassing a family-owned microbrewery in Northern California for some creative marketing, while looking the other way regarding the advertising practices of a huge, politically powerful beer company.

Treasury technocrats are taking umbrage with the Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s use of bottle caps imprinted with ‘Try Legal Weed’, claiming that beer (AKA a drug) can’t have a drug reference, even when the reference is the name of the brewery’s hometown and last name of the city’s (Weed, California) 1880s wood baron founder (Abner Weed).

Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s already sold 400,000 brews with names like Shastafarian Porter and Mountain High IPA (an additional catchy slogan on these notable craft beers: ‘A Friend in Weed is a Friend Indeed’), and had started printing up an additional 400,000 bottle caps in February when the feds put the kibosh on these funny and effective marketing double entendre.

Vaune Dillmann, Mt. Shasta Brewing Company’s 61-year-old owner and a former cop, irked by the government’s heavy handedness and lack of a sense of humor, is vexed by the obvious double standard that the feds don’t harass Budweiser for their now ubiquitous slogan ‘This Bud’s for you’.

Dillmann tells the LA Times’ Eric Bailey, “They Sell Bud. We Sell Weed”.

The ‘Weed’ beer debacle reminds me of a another recent and equally absurd government effort to ‘protect’ citizens from marketing imagery prohibitionists and well intending public health officials don’t like…

April 7, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt fulfilled a campaign promise to hasten an end to alcohol Prohibition when he signed a modification to the Volstead Act, allowing the sale of 3.2 percent beer in advance of the formal end to the 21st Amendment being ratified.

His reward? The first case of beer delivered directly to the White House.

Today, many in the media including National Public Radio and Bonneville radio stations, such as the top-rated WTOP in Washington, DC, are highlighting, even touting, both the joy and commonsense wisdom found in allowing beer to be consumed, albeit under some regulations and controls.

I enjoy responsibly drinking a well-made craft beer. The act is hardly a criminal one, as such, alcohol Prohibition proved an abject failure as a public policy and the ‘great’ social experiment lasted hardly more than a decade. However, amazingly, and at terrific costs to the federal and state taxpayers, cannabis prohibition in America has frustratingly lasted over 70 years.

Tonight, if I were to enjoy some cannabis responsibly in the privacy of my home, I can be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated (along with other harsh civil penalties), joining 830,000 other like-minded citizens arrested annually in the US. Since 1965, nearly 20 million Americans have been arrested on cannabis charges (90% for possession-only), costing hundreds of billions of tax dollars, and yet cannabis is more popular than ever before as a cash crop, consumer commodity and therapeutic.

The Irony, and Comradery, Should Be Clear Here–Cannabis Consumers and Beer Drinkers Are Much More Alike Than Different
I’ll raise a glass tonight of a fine American crafted brew, Moylan’s Kilt Lifter, brewed in Novato, CA. Yum!! However, ideally, beer drinkers, crafters, major brewers, retailers and wholesalers should embrace and rally around cannabis consumers—not continue to vilify cannabis consumers and producers as the major brewers (and some wholesalers) do, such as Anheuser-Busch and others.

Beer by the numbers in the US:

-Beer is a $190 billion a year industry

-Beer accounts for 1.7 million jobs

-Over 13,000 labels of beer marketed by over 1,400 brewers

-2,750 independent beer distributors

Today’s modern beer industry claims that the current state-based regulatory system works just fine and is the near-perfect answer to the concerns in the 1930s about how to best and most safely produce, market and retail a potentially dangerous consumer product.

The beer industry (and alcohol industry on the whole) highly stresses the need for STATE, not federal control. The beer industry lauds its three levels of control and taxation:

-Responsible Brewing
-Responsible Regional Distribution
-Responsible Retail

I say right on beer industry! I also agree with the sly metaphor of the brother-publishing duo of Jason and Todd Alstrom at Beer Advocate: Respect Beer.

In this same vein, the beer industry and its consumers should respect, and not oppose the tens of millions of responsible cannabis consumers who seek the lawful use of cannabis, just like the tens of millions of beer drinkers who today celebrate 75 years of a pragmatic and tolerant end to beer Prohibition.

I’ll drink to that!