Pete Guither points to yet another prominent example of the Obama administration's glaring inability to explain the president's position on legalizing marijuana:


When asked why Obama opposes legalization, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs literally said this:

"Uh, he, he does not think that, uh, uh, that that is uh, uh, [pause] he opposes it, he doesn't think that that's the, the right plan for America."

It's a comical and precious moment, like when the teacher calls on that half-asleep kid who never has a clue. Except, as Paul Armentano points out, they knew perfectly well that this was a hot issue in their online forum and that the press would likely be asking about it. Clearly, they are badly boxed in, simultaneously reluctant to embrace reform, while equally hesitant to offend marijuana reform advocates with the typical anti-pot propaganda you'd expect from a guy who just said he opposes legalization.

The result is a ridiculous and failed effort to laugh the issue off, even as everyone stares at them expectantly. They're still working from the old rules which state that drug legalization questions are best handled by chuckling and mockery, followed by a quick pivot towards a more "serious" issue. That advice is no longer very good.

Via NORML's Russ Belville, CBS's Bob Schieffer asked President Obama about the drug war violence in Mexico and got this surprising response:

President Obama:  Well, what’s happened is that President Calderon I think has been very bold and rightly has decided that it’s gotten carried away. The drug cartels have too much power, are undermining and corrupting huge segments of Mexican society. And so he has taken them on in the same way that when, you know, Elliot Ness took on Al Capone back during Prohibition, oftentimes that causes even more violence. And we’re seeing that flare up.

I honestly cannot believe the president is looking towards alcohol prohibition for a little perspective on our present predicament. Everyone knows that story. Elliot Ness didn't defeat those cartels. Legalization defeated them.

Law enforcement likes to argue that it needs to resort to heavy-handed tactics such as SWAT-style raids and no-knock warrants because drug law enforcement is just so darned dangerous. You know the spiel: "We're outgunned and up against crazed drug dealers, so we need to come on like gangbusters for our own safety." But I'm in the process of reviewing police deaths in the drug war since the beginning of 2008 for a Chronicle article that will appear Friday, and so far, I've only found two officers who were killed in drug raids during this time. I'm using the Officer Down Memorial Page and the National Law Enforcement Memorial data bases and I still have to dig a little deeper into the numbers and the discrepancies between the two, but so far, it doesn't appear that enforcing the nation's drug laws is that dangerous for police. For civilians, it is perhaps a different story. Nobody's keeping a data base of citizens killed by the police, let alone those killed by police enforcing the drug laws, although I have a few ideas on where to come up with some figures, or at least some especially horrendous cases. I'll be looking into that, as well. I'll be talking to as many cops, criminologists, and other interested parties as I can, but at this point, it seems that it is going to be hard to justify the overwhelming use of force typical of police drug raids. As much as they would like to think they are, cops are not US military Special Forces units, and drug law violators are not terrorist fugitives. Look for the story on Friday.