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.

The Pot Republic

FRONTLINE’s primetime monthly newsmagazine returns with three new stories, leading with a timely report from the frontlines of marijuana legalization in California. The bulk of the marijuana consumed in the United States used to come across the border from Mexico, Canada and elsewhere. Now, more than half of it is believed to be home grown in California, where an enormous black market has emerged under the cover of the state’s medical marijuana law.

With more than a third of all states now experimenting with some form of legalization and decriminalization — and several California counties attempting to openly regulate pot production — FRONTLINE and the Center for Investigative Reporting team up to investigate the country’s oldest, largest and most wide-open marijuana market.

Is the federal government now moving to shut it down?

Read more here.

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.

“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.