Dr. Sanjay Gupta's anti-pot article contains this passage:

That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.

Now if you actually read the linked article, it's clearly a call for the drug's  legalization:

The chief dangers of marijuana, practically, seem to spring from only one of its features: it's illegal. People get beat up, shot up and locked up because of the great amount of money that rides on selling the stuff, stuff that would be about as expensive as lettuce if it weren't against the law. I have treated people seriously hurt by the illegality of pot.

...  I also feel pretty strongly that nearly every child should study Latin—really—but I don't think we should lock them up if they don't.

Hanging around with all sorts of big dope-smokers for the same 35 years I should have bumped into at least one or two with those "serious health effects". The fact is I haven't.

But when you try to change certain things by force, things close to the core about what folks love and hate, about their personalities, you just run into trouble. It doesn't work. You might knock down but you will never build up. This is why the government is better off out of the marijuana business.

Either Gupta didn't read the article, or someone at Time linked the other story, without reading it!

From CNN Money:

FYI, I've found a good way to stay on top of prohibition news in my RSS reader (I use Bloglines).

Total chaos has erupted in El Paso, TX following a city council resolution calling for an open dialogue about drug legalization. The mayor promptly vetoed it, and lots of angry people are talking about how we shouldn’t talk about this.

To understand how little it takes to drive drug war supporters completely insane, watch El Paso City Rep. Beto O’Rourke’s impressively reasonable argument for a dialogue on our drug policy. All he’s saying is that we should talk about drug policy options and try to address ongoing problems. And to that, the mayor replied…VETO!

Here is the totality of El Paso Mayor John Cook’s argument for not talking about drug legalization:

"It is not realistic to believe that the U.S. Congress will seriously consider any broad-based debate on the legalization of narcotics," Cook added. "That position is not consistent with the community standards both locally and nationally." [El Paso Times]

If this sounds familiar, it’s because enemies of the drug war debate have been insisting for years that there’s nothing to talk about. It’s weird too because if they’re so sure Congress will never do it, then there’s really no good reason to obstruct the conversation. What are they afraid of?

Of course, the downside of claiming a monopoly on reality and refusing to debate is that you look like an idiot. And that’s exactly what appears to be happening here, as the mayor’s allies are refusing to back his veto and the council is pushing for an override.

So all we have to do is win the debate over whether or not to have a debate, and we can finally get around to debating. I can't wait.