The guest column below published in the MetroWestDailyNews is from former NORML board member and Lifetime Award recipient Richard Evans –

From MetroWestDailyNews:

It was a curious coincidence last month, that as PBS was broadcasting the Ken Burns/Lynn Novick documentary, Prohibition, describing the Hoover Justice Department’s last-gasp crackdown on alcoholic beverages in the late 1920s, prosecutors in the Obama Justice Department were announcing a crackdown on medical marijuana in California, threatening to confiscate the property of people “involved in drug trafficking activity,” which is fedspeak for providing pot for sick people.

After nearly a decade under the Volstead Act, the utter futility of enforcing public abstinence from alcohol was evident to all but prohibition’s stakeholders – chiefly police, prosecutors and bootleggers. Despite the draconian penalties imposed by the 1926 Jones Act, which turned Volstead violations into felonies, booze remained generally available. Similarly, despite the draconian penalties of the Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act, and nearly a million arrests annually, marijuana has proven itself ineradicable, and, indeed, has become a part of our culture.

The warnings from U.S. Attorneys in California come on the heels of similar threats from their counterparts in Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado and other states whose medical marijuana laws authorize secure, large-scale cultivation facilities, such as that contemplated in the anticipated ballot question in Massachusetts. If they make good on those threats, one can only imagine the perp walks outside the federal courthouse: plumbers, equipment suppliers, bookkeepers, state functionaries and investors in suits – all the “conspirators” it takes to bring an agricultural product safely to a large, regulated market of doctor-authorized patients.

This clash does not arise from the disparity between state and federal law. Under basic principles of federalism, both the states and the federal government may prohibit marijuana, but neither is required to. A state is under no legal compulsion to enforce federal law, and is indisputably within its rights to determine who should and should not be arrested for marijuana by state and local police.

Rather, the conflict arises from the disparity between how the two sides view reality. Sixteen states (and a majority of the voters, according to many polls) recognize that marijuana has significant medical value for some patients, and that its benefits outweigh its risks. Federal law, on the other hand, peremptorily rejects such claims as hokum, declaring that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and cannot be used safely under medical supervision.

That marijuana is dangerous and without medical value is the dogma at the heart of federal prohibition. To admit otherwise would be to confess that arresting nearly 20 million people, and spending $10 billion in the war against pot, has been a mistake of gargantuan proportions. Admitting that mistake is unthinkable. What must not be, cannot be, to paraphrase the familiar German expression.

Compassion for sick people aside, there are two other reasons to take note of medical marijuana: jobs and revenue. When the voters of Montana, population one million, legalized medical marijuana six years ago, some 1,400 new jobs were said to have been created, largely in the building trades, equipment supply and solar installations, until the feds cracked down earlier this year. The New York Times recently reported that in California, more than $100 million in new revenue has been collected from the industry by state and local tax collectors.

Everybody knows what politicians want when it comes to marijuana: to change the subject. Whether a candidate believes that states should be free to enact, implement and enforce their own medical marijuana laws, free of federal interference, would reveal much about his or her view of states’ rights generally, and provide useful differentiation from the other candidates.

Not since Prohibition has the federal government been so on the wrong side of history. Now, with the Justice Department crackdown on medical marijuana, presidential candidates and others who purport to be leaders can pick a side and defend it.

Richard M. Evans is an attorney practicing in Northampton.

Along the way to becoming one of America’s wealthiest individuals, Mr. Bloomberg has donated a remarkable amount of money to many worthy causes, notably in the field to improve public health in America and the world, most especially at his alma mater, one of the best universities in the world, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

With good health and continued good fortune, who knows what further impact Mr. Bloomberg will choose to make in national politics in his lifetime? He possess all the requisite skills and resources to become president if that’s what he chooses.

Today we find out that Mayor Bloomberg is once again demonstrating why he is one of the most interesting and charitable politicians in the modern era in reading today’s New York Times about his most recent donation of $30 million to help black and Latino youth get better integrated into the region’s economy, develop valuable skill sets and to find productive employment.

The Times reports that Mayor Bloomberg’s initial grant will be matched by New York City-based hedge fund manager and philanthropist George Soros.

Here is the ironic point to this blog post: If Mayor Bloomberg is genuinely serious about creating more favorable employment environs for black and Latino youth in New York City, he should converse with Mr. Soros, who, has donated more money than anyone on the face of the earth in favor of drug policy reform—notably for cannabis law reforms—who, I’m sure would insist that the good mayor stop arresting black and Latino youth in New York City en mass.

Regrettably, embarrassingly, for such an enlightened and civic-minded man, Mayor Bloomberg has largely maintained the shameful and starkly racially disparate cannabis law enforcement policies that he inherited from former Mayor (and drug prosecutor) Rudolf Giuliani. Mayor Giuliani exploded the annual cannabis arrest rate in the five boroughs of New York City from an average of about 2,000 arrests to an eye-popping 60,000 arrests per year.

Bloomberg’s administration has, on average, maintained an annual arrest rate for simple cannabis possession cases over 45,000, with a disturbing ninety percent of arrests happening to….black and Latino youth.

Mayor Bloomberg, please, listen to Mr. Soros and stop arresting and negatively effecting future employment opportunities for an entire generation of minorities in New York City who got caught doing the same thing you did in your more youthful years.

And look how well you turned out after using cannabis?

Why deny over 45,000 other New Yorkers (and tourists) annually the opportunity to pursue their life’s goals and dreams just because, like you, absent an arrest for your cannabis use, they chose to use a little ganja to relax? Unfortunately for them and New York taxpayers, they’re getting permanently scarred by your feckless and expensive Cannabis Prohibition law enforcement practices in Gotham.

Mayor Bloomberg, your generous and thoughtful donation of $30 million—and that of Mr. Soros’—will be working at cross purposes if you continue to give the green light to the NYPD to arrest 45,000 cannabis consumers annually into the criminal justice system, the vast majority of whom are the very population you’re concerned with.

Mr. Bloomberg, if you’re worried about saving face or “what does the NAACP think about all of this?”, don’t be. Because, hundreds of thousands of cannabis consumers and tourists in New York City will very much appreciate the change in policy and the NAACP now supports changing America’s antiquated Cannabis Prohibition laws.

Mayor Bloomberg, please magnify the positive impact of your philanthropy and concerns for civil society by ending the practice of ‘collaring’ cannabis consumers in New York City, and, instead, return to the cost effective and less detrimental practice to cannabis consumers (notably for minorities) by simply issuing a civil fine in the form of a written ticket for cannabis possession cases rather than employ valuable police time and resources unnecessarily arresting so many black and Latino cannabis consumers.

Steve gets it. The audience gets it. According to all polling, in excess of 90% of U.S. citizens broadly believe the ‘war on drugs’ is a failure (75% support medical access to cannabis. 73% support decriminalizing adult possession for cannabis; and 46% support cannabis legalization outright).

When will the two major political parties and presidents—like Obama—get it?

According to polling last week, President Obama is quickly falling out of favor with the Millennial generation that helped sweep him to power in 2008. Lest President Obama forget who brought him to the dance, he might want to look at the clear discontent—across all party lines—with the way the federal government has been conducting drug warring, notably its full-throat perpetuation of antiquated and tax-draining Cannabis Prohibition policies.

Instead, he should deliver a clear message for supporting a system of legally controlling cannabis, rather than deny economic reality, waste taxpayers’ money and constantly face embarrassing questions about a failed public policy that has long festered in the public’s mind.

President Obama should endorse a ‘drug peace’ where cannabis is legally controlled like alcohol products; patients can access a safe and non-toxic naturally occurring medicine; and farmers, entrepreneurs and consumers in America can benefit from industrial hemp production.

President Obama, NORML and tens of millions of cannabis consumers and lovers of liberty ask you not to re-commit us to war against ‘weed’, but, instead, to re-think the leaf.

By David Edwards of Raw Story

President Barack Obama said Friday that the U.S. would not be ending its war on drugs under his watch.

“Much is being asked of our generation,” a doctoral student named Steve told the president at a town hall event in Maryland. “So, when are our economic perspectives going to be addressed? For example, when is the war on drugs in society going to be abandoned and be replaced by a more sophisticated and cost effective program of rehabilitation such as the one in Portugal?”

“I have stated repeatedly — and it’s actually reflected in our most recent statement by our office of drug policy — that we need to have an approach that emphasizes prevention, treatment, a public health model for reducing drug use in our country,” Obama said. “We’ve got to put more resources into that. We can’t simply focus on interdiction because, frankly, no matter how good of a job we’re doing when it comes to an interdiction approach, if there is high demand in this country for drugs, we are going to continue to see not only drug use but also the violence associated with the drug trade.”

After several minutes of explaining U.S. efforts to help Mexico fight transnational drug dealers, the president got to the point.

“Just to make sure that I’m actually answering your question, am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.”

“But I am willing to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the treatment and prevention side,” Obama added.

Watch the video from MSNBC, broadcast July 22, 2011 here.

(CNN) — It is hardly surprising that former drug czar William Bennett would, in his CNN.com op-ed, oppose any changes to America’s criminalization of marijuana. But it is surprising that he would lump Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s proposal to allow states the opportunity to enact their own marijuana policy with the effort to legalize drugs.

Let’s be clear: HR 2306, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, proposed by Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul, does not “legalize drugs” or even so much as legalize marijuana. Rather, this legislation removes the power to prosecute minor marijuana offenders from the federal government and relinquishes this authority to state and local jurisdictions. In other words, HR 2306 is just the sort of rebuke to the “nanny state” that conservatives like Bennett otherwise support.

Barney Frank and Ron Paul: Get feds out of pot regulation

The House bill mimics changes enacted by Congress to repeal the federal prohibition of alcohol. Passage of this measure would remove the existing conflict between federal law and the laws of those 16 states that already allow for the limited use of marijuana under a physician’s supervision.

It would also permit states that wish to fully legalize (for adults) and regulate the responsible use, possession, production and intrastate distribution of marijuana to be free to do so without federal interference. In recent years, several states, including California and Massachusetts, have considered taking such actions either legislatively or by ballot initiative. It is likely that several additional states will be considering this option in 2012, including Colorado and Washington. The residents and lawmakers of these states should be free to explore these alternate policies, including medicalization, decriminalization and legalization, without running afoul of the federal law or the whims of the Department of Justice.

Of course, just as many states continued to criminalize the sale and consumption of alcohol after the federal government’s lifting of alcohol prohibition, many states, if not most, might continue to maintain criminal sanctions on the use of marijuana.

But there is no justification for the federal government to compel them to do so. Just as state and local governments are free to enact their own policies about the sale and use of alcohol — a mind-altering, potentially toxic substance that harms the user more than marijuana — they should be free to adopt marijuana policies that best reflect the wishes and mores of their citizens.

Does Bill Bennett believe that state and local governments cannot be trusted with making such decisions on their own?

Speaking during an online town hall in January, President Obama acknowledged the subject of legalizing and regulating marijuana was a “legitimate topic for debate,” even as he expressed his opposition. Yet Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, recently boasted that he would not even consider scheduling HR 2306 for a public hearing.

There might be another reason people like Smith and Bennett will go to such lengths to try to stifle public discussion of the matter. To do so would be to shine light on the fact that the federal criminalization of marijuana has failed to reduce the public’s demand for cannabis, and it has imposed enormous fiscal and human costs upon the American people.

Further, this policy promotes disrespect for the law and reinforces ethnic and generational divides between the public and law enforcement. Annual data published in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, and compiled by NORML, finds that police have made more than 20 million arrests for marijuana violations since 1970, nearly 90% of them for marijuana possession offenses only.

It is time to stop ceding control of the marijuana market to unregulated, criminal entrepreneurs and allow states the authority to enact common sense regulations that seek to govern the adult use of marijuana in a fashion similar to alcohol.

In Bennett’s own words, “We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country.” How is such a conclusion anything but a scathing indictment of the present policy? After 70 years of failure it is time for an alternative approach. The “Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011″ is an ideal first step.

Editor’s note: Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML , the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and is the co-author of the book “Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?” (2009, Chelsea Green).

[Editor’s note: Kellen’s brief review of a new organization dedicated to bringing attention to the numerous life sentences in America for cannabis-only related offenses is apropos as a 35-year-old father of a young child was sentenced in Louisiana Thursday for life in a cannabis possession case (the life sentence was triggered by the state’s controversial ‘three strikes and you’re out’ mandatory minimum sentences).

Regrettably, and discernibly, the greater south of the United States is the hotbed for these kind of insanely long prison sentences for supposedly criminal acts that many citizens in fact no longer believe are crimes whatsoever.

A new interactive map from the Sentencing Project aptly demonstrates that deep southern states like Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have the highest prison incarceration rates not only in America, but the world.]

By Kellen Russoniello, George Washington Law School student, NORML legal intern

To many of us, the idea of anyone spending life in prison for a nonviolent marijuana offense is absolutely ridiculous. Yet with the recent passage of a bill in the Oklahoma State Legislature making the manufacture of hash punishable by life imprisonment, it is clear that life sentences for nonviolent marijuana offenders do exist.  In fact, a new website is drawing attention to this issue and has identified several people who are currently serving life sentences for nonviolent marijuana offenses.

LifeforPot.com focuses on finding individuals who have been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for federal nonviolent marijuana only offenses.  Beth Curtis, the founder of the website, has identified eight people, each with a unique background and story of how they came to spend the rest of their lives in prison for nonviolent marijuana offenses.

Beth is very familiar with the subject: the first individual listed is John Knock, her brother. Since 2000, John has been serving two life sentences plus twenty years for his connection to a conspiracy to import multiple tons of marijuana and hashish from Pakistan and Lebanon into the United States and Canada, a sentence that Beth believes is the harshest ever for nonviolent marijuana crimes. When she talked to others about the severity of her brother’s sentence, she realized that people believed that nonviolent marijuana offenders could not receive such draconian sentences.

Despite having retired and living in Hawaii when law enforcement came knocking on John’s door he was extradited to Florida—a state that he’d never lived in or committed a crime. Instead, John was drawn into a sting operation because of his contacts with a San Francisco area smuggler who had been indicted. However, John was never seen by law enforcement committing any of the crimes he was convicted of, he was never found in possession of marijuana, and his prosecution rested only upon the testimony of informants. Criminal defense lawyers describe his as a ‘dry case’, and the full story is available at johnknock.com and grandmasmind.com

But how extraordinary is this sentence? Life for Pot lists some of the most famous drug kingpins and the sentences that they received, and it seems that John’s sentence was given special treatment. For example, “Freeway” Ricky Ross, the preeminent crack dealer of the Los Angeles area during the 1980s and early 90s was sentenced to life in 1996. His sentence was subsequently reduced to 20 years, and he was released in 2009. Manuel Felipe Salazar-Espinosa, deemed by the DEA to be one of the world’s most significant drug kingpins making up to $14 million in a week, was given 30 years for conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States and money laundering.

It is clear that there are differences in the sentencing of these individuals. Life for Pot seeks to identify and make others aware of these discrepancies. Beth notes that the creation of mandatory minimums at the federal level has resulted in the increase in power of the prosecutor to decide the sentence by choosing which charges to pursue. She specifically points out that the 11^th Circuit, which encompasses Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, has given 6 of the 8 life sentences identified for nonviolent marijuana only offenses.

So where does this effort go from here? Although Beth has already received some feedback from politicians, attorneys, activists, and journalists, she hopes to start an organization focused on this issue soon. In order to do this, she explains that she will need advisers to help out, as well as a strong coalition. The roots of this coalition have already begun to take hold, with organizations like the November Coalition, Drug Policy Alliance, and Families Against Mandatory Minimums providing support, as well as media attention from a Columbia, Missouri NPR affiliate and High Times Magazine.

Beth would also like to broaden the focus by included those serving de facto life sentences for nonviolent marijuana only offenses, including where older individuals are sentenced to long sentences (e.g., a 50 year old sentenced to 20 years).

State sentences are another area that Beth would like to examine. Sentence reform efforts can be very successful at the state level. In order to do this, however, more resources must be available.

A group petition for clemency is also in the works for those prisoners that have been identified as part of this effort.

“The solution is political,” Beth declared. Legislative action is the best way to address the problem of egregious sentencing disparities. An organization focused on this issue would therefore be heavily focused on reaching legislators. So far, Life for Pot has sent out several cards and letters to federal congressmen and agencies. Beth also noted that advocacy efforts for the legalization of marijuana at the national level must be bolstered.

In these times where some jurisdictions are locking up nonviolent marijuana offenders for life, it is good to hear that someone is bringing the inconsistency and irrationality of these practices to light.

If you know someone that is currently serving a federal life sentence without parole for a nonviolent marijuana only offense, or would be able to assist Beth in her efforts, please contact her at johnknock@johnknock.com.

If drug policy reform is to make the large strides that its important mission and sense of purpose aspires, it can’t achieve such without the participation of both minorities and women in substantially larger numbers.

This important seminar is free to the public and provides continuing legal education (CLE) credits for lawyers.

The Council on Racial and Ethnic Justice is comprised of eleven members appointed by the ABA President and is committed to:

-eliminate racial/ethnic bias in the justice system by educating and involving lawyers and their bar associations

-engage lawyers and their bar associations in programs designed to eliminate racial/ethnic bias in their communities.

Alternative Solutions to the Impact of Drugs on Communities of Color

Saturday, August 9, 2:00-3:30pm, Marriott Marquis, Music Box, Majestic Complex, 6th Floor

Conclave with the leaders of color from the medical, dental, legal and other pertinent professions to discuss the impact of drugs and drug policies on communities of color. Crucial issues that confront communities of color that are combating these issues will be addressed, and an in-depth discussion on how to obtain the necessary resources, networks and tools will be discussed. This will be a complimentary CLE program.

“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.

Houston? Atlanta? Dallas? Birmingham? New Orleans? Miami?

According to a new and comprehensive report, would you believe the five boroughs that make up New York City?

What was the New York City Police’s reaction to the data? In the New York Times today they of course attack the groups involved in bringing to the public’s attention the department’s overly aggressive and expensive enforcement of what are supposed to be decriminalized cannabis laws, and then make the amazing claim that there were not 350,000 cannabis-related arrests from 1997-2006, but a mere 8,770.

What the ?!*%$?!#@*^$#<:+={/#@7$!!!

The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, has denied that the city’s police officers are using racial profiling in conducting street stops.

The department’s chief spokesman, Paul. J. Browne, said on Tuesday that the report was flawed. He said there were 8,770 marijuana-related violations from 1997 to 2006. In a statement, Mr. Browne said:

The N.Y.C.L.U. has used an advocate for marijuana legalization to mislead the public with absurdly inflated numbers and false claims about bias. (Note that the report was underwritten by the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization organization). If the N.Y.C..L.U. is for legalization it should just say so without resorting to smears. It has repackaged
virtually the same flawed presentation Harry Levine made to the marijuana legalization lobby group NORML in Los Angeles last year. The report erroneously claims that most of the over 300,000 persons arrested between 1997 and 2006 were not smoking marijuana in public and that they possessed only small amounts of marijuana; in other words, the
infractions were violations. But the actual violations total for 1997-2006 was 8,770; not the 350,000. Between 2002 and 2006, the total was 3,449. Here’s the breakout by year:

1997: 1062
1998: 987
1999: 810
2000: 1394
2001: 1068
2002: 758
2003: 701
2004: 663
2005: 623
2006: 704 (It was 683 in 2007)

Hmmmm….I wonder who is telling the truth here, public advocates or the cops?

At least when NORML confronted Mayor Bloomberg on his 100th day in office in 2002 to stop the NYPD’s then controversial practices such as ‘Operation Condor’ that exploded the cannabis arrest from around 2,000 per year to over 55,000, the NYPD’s public spokesperson did not come out and, shall I say, prevaricate regarding New York City’s verifiable criminal justice data. Back then, the NYPD’s top brass in effect said to NORML and the national media ‘So what if there was an increase in arrest? We were tasked with a quality-of-life, ‘clean up New York City’s streets’ campaign under Mayor Giuliani…’

The documentation of New York City’s massive increase cannabis arrests have been well documented for years (and affirmed by both state and federal data!), so why is the NYPD attempting to now downplay, in such a dramatic way, their nearly 15-year old aggressive policing policy regarding minor cannabis offenses?

In a report released yesterday in coordination with the New York City Civil Liberties Union that should and hopefully will shake up the way the Bloomberg Administration and the NYPD conduct their cannabis law enforcement, Harry Levine, Ph.D of Queens College and Deborah Peterson Small, Esq. in remarkable breadth and detail reveal startling criminal justice data of excess and institutional racism in New York City’s criminal justice system.

Also included, which provide interesting insight, are on-the-record interviews with NYPD law enforcement personnel that help to explain the motivations (preview: ‘Dollar$ For Collars’) behind what is now truly a deviant cannabis prohibition enforcement policy in the United States—and the world.

Who’d thunkit?!

Key Points from The Marijuana Arrest Crusade in New York City: Racial Bias in Police Policy 1997-2007

New York City’s 400,000 marijuana arrests were…

…racially skewed. From 1997 to 2007 police arrested and jailed nearly 220,000 blacks, more than 112,000 Latinos, but only 58,000 whites. Over that period, whites represented the largest percentage of the city’s population. Government surveys consistently show a higher rate of marijuana use among young whites than in other racial groups.

…extremely skewed by gender. About 91 percent of people arrested were male.

…ineffective in reducing serious and violent crime. The arrests may well increase crime by diverting police officers and resources from more effective anti-crime work.

…often the result of stop, frisk and search encounters. In 2007, the NYPD stopped nearly 469,000 people. The vast majority (87 percent) of people stopped were innocent of any wrongdoing.

New York City’s 400,000 marijuana arrests were not…

…in line with the marijuana arrest rates of other large cities. New York City now arrests and jails more people for possessing marijuana than any city in the United States or the world.

…part of a similar increase in marijuana arrests nationwide. While marijuana arrests more than doubled in the U.S. from 1990 to 2000, they have spiked tenfold in New York City and now represent 10 percent of all arrests in the city.

…the result of an increase in marijuana use, which peaked nationally around 1980.

…primarily of people caught smoking marijuana in public. Most people arrested for marijuana possession in the city had small amounts of the drug concealed in their possessions, often in a pocket, purse or backpack.

…of people caught for more serious crimes who happened to be possessing marijuana. In all of these arrests, marijuana possession was the highest charge and often the only one.

…the result of people committing crimes. Simple possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is not a crime under New York state law, which classifies marijuana possession as a violation, like a traffic violation.

NYC Media Coverage 

Jim Dwyer – NY Times – “On Arrests, Demographics, and
Marijuana”   THE ABSOLUTE BEST!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/nyregion/30about.html?pagewanted=print

Newsday – “Report: NYPD targets blacks, Hispanics on marijuana”  by
Rocco Parascondola

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nymari0430,0,1720357,print.story

NY TIMES on line, with reader comments
“A Little Stop-and-Frisk May Turn Up a Little Pot”

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/a-little-stop-and-frisk-may-turn-up-a-little-pot/index.html?scp=2&sq=marijuana&st=cse

NY Daily News – Racial slant in pot busts?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_racial_slant_in_pot_busts.html

41 on line comments as of 2 PM April  30

Village Voice – “The NYPD ‘Weeds’ Out Blacks and Latinos:  New study
outlines racial disparity in NYC’s staggering number of pot
busts”  by Sean Gardiner    VERY GOOD!

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0818,weeding-out-blacks-and-latinos,427158,2.html

Gothamist – NYCLU Reports NYC’s Pot Arrests Up “Tenfold”

http://gothamist.com/2008/04/30/pot_1.php

Nat Hentoff – Village Voice – Ray Kelly for Mayor? A Voters’ Guide
In this proudly cosmopolitan city, the NYPD and its leader are far
from color-blind

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0818,kelly-for-mayor-a-voters-guide,427148,4.html

1010 WINS NEWS RADIO

http://www.1010wins.com/pages/2093876.php?

NATIONAL MEDIA
Reason – New York City’s ‘Marijuana Arrest Crusade’  by Jacob Sullum

http://reason.com/blog/show/126253.html

Associated Press – NYCLU says city is now world’s ‘marijuana arrest
capital’  By Tom Hayws http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–nyc-potarrests0429apr29,0,4022052.story
Also in CBS New (California)  Study: NYC Is World’s ‘Marijuana Arrest Capital’

http://cbs2.com/watercooler/nyc.marijuana.arrests.2.712135.html

Associated Press – NYCLU says city is now world’s ‘marijuana arrest
capital’  By Tom Hayws

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–nyc-potarrests0429apr29,0,4022052.story

Also in CBS New (California)  Study: NYC Is World’s ‘Marijuana Arrest Capital’

http://cbs2.com/watercooler/nyc.marijuana.arrests.2.712135.html

1010 WINS NEWS RADIO – NYCLU Says City Is Now World’s ‘Marijuana
Arrest Capital’

http://www.1010wins.com/pages/2093876.php?