Police in Denver must be so sick of Mason Tvert. But in case they haven't noticed, he's not gonna stop calling them out until they stop wasting valuable public safety resources on petty pot busts:

A panel set up to review Denver's marijuana policies has recommended that police refrain from busting adults who fire up during the Democratic National Convention.

Police will have to deal with numerous security issues next week when thousands of people - ranging from protestors to delegates - descend on Denver, said Mason Tvert, leader of a group that sponsored a law mandating that marijuana be a low-enforcement priority.

"It is absolutely absurd for the police to be spending any of their time worrying about adults using a drug that is less harmful than alcohol," he said today.

Tvert, who also sits on the Marijuana Policy Review Panel, said he would deliver the recommendation to Mayor John Hickenlooper, Police Chief Gerald Whitman and Denver City Council president Jeanne Robb. [Denver Post]

Of course, this conversation wouldn't even be happening if Denver police just listened to the people they serve. The citizens of Denver voted against petty marijuana enforcement not once, but twice, first legalizing possession of up to an ounce, and then calling on police to make marijuana enforcement the lowest priority. Is there anything confusing or ambiguous about that?

If the community makes a statement about what type of policing they want, it is law-enforcement's job to make it work. Anything less renders the police department a rogue agency, abusing the very population whose tax dollars pay police salaries.

This is big news:

Sacramento, CA -- A medical marijuana employment rights bill, which would protect hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination, passed the State Senate today. AB2279 had already passed the State Assembly in May, which means the bill now heads to the Governor's desk. Advocates expect the bill to reach Schwarzenegger's desk in the next few weeks.

AB2279, introduced in February by Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego), reverses a January California Supreme Court decision in the case Ross v. RagingWire. Support for the bill has been widespread, coming from labor, business, and health groups at the local and national level. [Americans for Safe Access]

Ten years after the passage of Proposition 215, medical marijuana hasn’t lost any support in California. Even the state legislature is standing up for patients' rights, as well it should. How embarrassing this must be for those who claimed that medical marijuana was a threat to public safety. Californians are pleased with their medical marijuana law, despite unwelcome inference by the federal government. It is just beyond dispute at this point that allowing patients with a doctor's recommendation to obtain medical marijuana doesn't cause any significant social problems. We can see with our own eyes that the sky has not fallen.

Now it is up to Governor Schwarzenegger to do the right thing and sign this commonsense bill into law. He's already bowed disgracefully to federal pressure by vetoing a sensible and completely harmless bill to legalize hemp cultivation, so there's good reason to question his judgment. On the other hand, this bill is about the basic employment rights of people treating medical conditions according to the advice of their doctors. A veto would not be well-received by the people of California. Let's hope the Governator knows what's good for himself and his constituents.

This is an easy one. Don't let anyone try to make it complicated.

The Marijuana Policy Project has put together an absolute must-see video telling the stories of real people who were unfairly targeted by the war on drugs.

Part 1:

Part 2:


There is simply no counterpoint to this. No one will come forward to defend these atrocities. They cannot. Instead, the drug czar and his soldiers will continue to celebrate their war, while pretending these people don't exist.

The duty falls on us, therefore, to give a voice to the drug war's countless victims. These stories puncture the false narrative that the war on drugs protects life and liberty. These are the inevitable, intolerable consequences of the terrible war we've declared on our own neighbors and friends, on the sick and dying, on children and grandparents. To know these stories is to know the truth: the drug war has brought us the opposite of every good outcome we were told to expect.

So today I call upon the silent drug warriors lurking around the site (I know you're out there) to come forward and tell us why the nice people in these videos were worth sacrificing. Speak now, lest we assume you have no answer for this.

It's encouraging to see prominent educators take a stand for more sensible drug policies:

As college students gear up for annual back-to-school parties, a group of university and college presidents in California and across the country this week pushed for a national debate over whether the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18.

The current limit ignores the reality of drinking during college years and drives it underground, making binge drinking more dangerous and students less likely to seek help in an emergency, according to a petition signed by more than 100 campus presidents. Though they don't call for an outright age rollback, the campus chiefs said they support "an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age." [LA Times]

The drug czar's office went code red, of course, and was probably more than a little displeased at having to respond to a bunch of respected college presidents who couldn't be ignored or accused of being pro-drug. With the help of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, they've compiled a list of emphatic counterpoints most of which, if true, would compel us to ban alcohol entirely for everyone. My favorite is that, "all underage drinking is unsafe drinking."

And isn't that just precisely the point here? Kids are getting bombed surreptitiously in dormrooms across America. They're being ushered into the drinking culture by the drunkest people on earth. And they're afraid to ask for help in an emergency because well-meaning morons have criminalized their behavior instead of supervising it.

Of course, beyond the practical problems with the 21 drinking age, I'm still a big fan of the old cliché that if you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you're old enough to drink a beer. That argument should've worked a long time ago, but I guess I've been fighting for drug policy reform long enough to know that being right doesn't mean politicians will do what you propose.

So instead, every American between the ages of 18 and 20 should refuse to serve in the armed forces until this is addressed, lest they should find themselves fighting in defense of a freedom they may not live long enough to taste.