The Drug Free America Foundation’s perpetually panic-stricken director Calvina Fay gave a speech at the World Forum Against Drugs that was so over-the-top crazy, I wish more people could have heard it. Pete Guither recounts and refutes it here, so I’ll call attention to the one thing she said that is actually truthful:

Just since the beginning of 2008, we have seen an extraordinary increase in drug legalization efforts and activities in the US.

Nice to meet you too, Calvina. Welcome to the future of the drug war debate, a bizarre upside down world in which you are the extremist and everyone else is talking about reform. That’s the only stop on this train, so I hope you brought some reading material. In fact, here, have a free copy of Drug War Facts. You'll need this where we're going.

New Zogby data shows a bipartisan consensus that the drug war is a losing battle:

Three in four likely voters (76%) believe the U.S. war on drugs is failing, a sentiment that cuts across the political spectrum – including the vast majority of Democrats (86%), political independents (81%), and most Republicans (61%). There is also a strong belief that the anti-drug effort is failing among those who intend to vote for Barack Obama (89%) for president, as well as most supporters of John McCain (61%).

When asked what they believe is the single best way to combat international drug trafficking and illicit use, 27% of likely voters said legalizing some drugs would be the best approach -- 34% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain backers agreed.

* One in four likely voters (25%) believe stopping the drugs at the border is the best tactic to battle drugs -- 39% of McCain supporters, but  just 12% of Obama backers agree.
* Overall, 19% of likely voters said reducing demand through treatment and education should be the top focus of the war on drugs.
* 13% believe that the best way to fight the war on drugs is to prevent production of narcotics in the country of origin.

At first glance, 27% support for legalization appears disappointing, but a look at the question itself provides a much more encouraging outlook. Respondents were asked to select "the single best way to handle the war on drugs" and here’s the breakdown of their responses:

Prevent production of narcotics at their country of origin:  12.7%
Stopping drugs at the U.S. border:                                            24.8%
Reducing demand through treatment and education:           18.7%
Legalizing some drugs in the U.S.:                                            27.5%
Ending the War on Drugs:                                                           8.2%
Not sure/none of the above:                                                        8.1%

Legalization was the most popular answer. Support for interdiction/eradication encompassed only 37.5% of respondents, thus the majority clearly supports some level of reform. I don’t see how you could look at this without concluding that supply reduction strategies lack public support. A smart politician could easily begin chipping away at the most militaristic aspects of the war on drugs without suffering any political consequences.

If there ever existed a tangible political advantage for candidates who play the "tough on drugs" card for votes, those days are behind us. The current political climate favors cutting bad programs and changing business-as-usual in Washington, D.C. The drug war belongs at the top of that list, and while it isn’t there yet, we are undeniably on a trajectory towards a unique moment when the political landscape that sustains prohibition will face re-evaluation. At that point, anything and everything we’ve understood about the politics of drug policy reform could change overnight.

Note: I will begin refering to this concept as "the new drug war politics."

Drug enforcement officers never tire of their overpowering compulsion to exaggerate marijuana seizures to the point of absurdity. Again and again, we’ve caught police making ludicrous claims that contradict basic math and science.

The latest example comes from California, where local narcotics officers found some large marijuana plants and tried to frame it as some sort of unbelievable shocker:

Marijuana plants seized Monday in Browns Valley and Live Oak "are the largest I've seen," a drug enforcement official said.
…
Some of the plants were 7 feet tall or higher. Most averaged only 5 feet in height but had a circumference of about 12 feet and could have produced about 10 pounds each of marijuana, said Hudson, who called it "some of the highest quality marijuana currently available."

It would take about 2,000 normal-size plants to produce an equivalent amount, he said. [Appeal Democrat]

That all sounds very exciting and newsworthy, except for one thing: marijuana plants don’t yield 10 pounds. They just don’t. That’s crazy and wrong.

To illustrate how absurd this is, I contacted Chris Conrad, a court-qualified cannabis expert and author of Cannabis Yields and Dosage. Here’s what Chris had to say:

Probably they would end up getting about 3-4 pounds of actual bud from a plant that size, depending on how well it is manicured, plus more than that as leaf that could be converted into hash or edibles. Remember that the police use the "bud-leaf-seed" version of cannabis, whereas the actual market is for bud, not leaf or seeds. So cops almost always think there is twice as much 'marijuana' there as does the grower.

I was just looking at some big plants in Oregon for a collective, and they claimed 5 pounds per plant, but I think that included the shake, which they said they give away to indigent patients. Visually they looked like 3 pound plants to me, so the implication is that they toss out the fan leaf but keep the bud leaf and trim for patients. That would explain how they could come to 5 pounds.

I've never had anyone claim to have gotten 10 pounds from a plant, but quite a few people have boasted about getting between 2 and 5 pounds of bud from one. I haven't had the pleasure of sitting in on the manicure and weighing to see it for myself, yet.

Cops often inflate the weight of their yield by using the fresh weight instead of the dry weight of the plants, BTW, so the most typical inflation is 400%; in other words, their alleged 10 pounds is most likely to weigh about 2.5 pounds, based on the typical cop exaggeration.

It is almost amusing to picture officers standing around a bunch of big plants issuing arbitrary clueless declarations about the garden’s quality and yield. They have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. It’s like asking a mugger to appraise jewelry. It might be funny if it weren’t for the fact that these spontaneous, incompetent assessments are used at trial to influence how long non-violent offenders will spend behind bars.

The last time our country faced a major economic crisis, we ended alcohol prohibition. Think about that.