As the Obama campaign appears to gain momentum, the Senator has been reluctant to support any change in the way recreational marijuana users are treated by the criminal justice system. Given Obama's past sympathy for marijuana reform, it's a pretty safe bet that his current position is politically calculated. But what if he's making the wrong calculations?

As SSDP's Tom Angell explains in this LTE, actual public support for marijuana decriminalization simply defies conventional political wisdom:

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman is absolutely right that decriminalizing marijuana will save taxpayers boatloads of money and free up limited resources so that police can focus on preventing violent crime, as he pointed out in his recent column "A truth Obama won't dare tell" (Commentary, Feb. 3).

But it's absolutely wrong of Chapman to say, as he does in the column, that endorsing this common-sense policy change "would be considered political suicide" for a presidential candidate like U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

To the contrary, a CNN/Time Magazine poll taken in 2002 shows that 72 percent of Americans support marijuana decriminalization.

Obama's latest position opposing decriminalization will only win him favor with the mere 19 percent of Americans who, according to the poll, favor the continued arrest and jailing of otherwise law-abiding citizens who happen to use marijuana.

Supporting the criminalization of responsible adults is not only a senseless and cruel public policy, it is politically foolish. [Chicago Tribune]

Of course, polling data like this doesn’t necessarily reflect precisely how those same people will behave at the ballot box. And, as Pete Guither explains, any candidate endorsing reform faces the prospect of vicious mischaracterizations from their opposition.

All of this is true. Still, success in American politics has always depended on a candidate's ability to gracefully negotiate divisive issues. Just as an opponent's harsh attacks might chip away support for a controversial policy position, so may passionate words and sound reasoning reshape public opinion itself, turning polling data on its head and bringing legitimacy to ideas long relegated to the political fringes.

In that rare instant when the pre-written script is abandoned and the truth is permitted to speak for a moment on its own behalf, we have no frame of reference for the political viability of marijuana reform in presidential politics. The "foolishness" Tom describes is the mistake of recognizing common ground within the electorate and declining to indulge and nurture public values which run parallel to the candidate's own.

I suspect that the moment an already exciting and change-driven candidate takes the marijuana issue on the offensive and challenges Americans to envision a better policy, the popular preconceptions of our pundits and politicians will be disproved. If I am correct, then the biggest obstacle facing any politician who'd like to reform our marijuana laws is nothing other than his/her own willingness to throw the first punch.

The lunacy of the UAE (Dubai) is described rather well here: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/08/uaes-very-scary-drug.html I took the liberty of asking for a donation to DrCNet and Leap in post #61.

Did you see the Drug Czar's Super Bowl ad last week? The one with a drug dealer complaining that he'd lost all his customers because all the kids are getting high for free by stealing prescriptions from their parents' medicine cabinet? No? Well, don't worry because no one else noticed it either.

USA Today reports that ONDCP's latest ad was rated second-worst out of all 54 ads appearing during the game. Just look how many stupid ads were still vastly more popular than ONDCP's. And the #1 spot was a Budweiser™ ad, of course, which just goes to show how people would rather be offered beer than be encouraged not to eat random pills.

As usual, ONDCP's failure comes at a high cost to everyone, specifically a mind-blowing $2.7 million in tax dollars for 30 forgettable seconds. It's almost as if ONDCP's ad campaign is liquidating its remaining assets after their latest brutal congressional funding slash.

Will Congress now get the message and finally stop subsidizing this embarrassing spectacle? Hopefully so, but for once I almost feel sympathy for the Drug Czar. I've criticized ONDCP for focusing on marijuana despite the fatalities associated with increasing abuse of prescription drugs. This new message is a step in right direction and I'd give 'em the benefit of the doubt if the ad didn’t utterly suck.

The whole premise is ridiculous, implying that pharmaceutical diversion is bankrupting the illicit drug market. The last thing anyone needs is a $2.7 million announcement from the Drug Czar that we've basically won the war on illegal drugs and must now simply lock our medicine cabinets and march merrily towards total drug-freedom. Meanwhile, the actual risks associated with prescription drug abuse are ignored entirely. After all, there is a powerful perfectly legitimate industry that markets these drugs on the very same airwaves and you can bet that you'll never hear ONDCP enumerate their dangers with the same vigor they've routinely brought to bear in their towering archive of anti-marijuana propaganda.

So no, there's really nothing surprising or coincidental about the fact that ONDCP's new campaign against pharmaceutical diversion is its most boring to date.

I'm now down in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on the border between the US and Mexico. I've been staying in a hotel on the US side in McAllen, Texas, because, somewhat surprisingly, a hotel with an internet connection in the room is cheaper on this side. But I've been crossing the river every day to scout out Reynosa, the city of about half a million, on the other side, and to talk to informed observers, as well as common folks, there, about the recent wave of drug prohibtion-related violence and what can or should be done to reduce the toll. One thing I'm finding is that people are very nervous, whether its the man in the street, human rights observers, businessmen, or even the US enforcers on the north side of the river. The human rights advocate I spoke with didn't want his picture taken ("there are several narco families on my block"), the Reynosa businessmen absolutely refuse to say anything on the record (although they complain bitterly of local corruption), people on the street look around nervously when I ask about the drug trade and the violence, and when I tried to take photos of the border crossing here, ICE agents ran up and demanded I stop. While the violence here has subsided from the violent spasms of a few weeks ago, it continues, with my human rights observer reporting that another narco killing had occurred in the city Sunday night. That makes 14 so far this year in Reynosa, out of 23 total homicides. I'll be getting into some more of the numbers in a feature article on the situation here that will appear on Friday. The poverty in Reynosa is striking. There are guys trying to sell calendars on the streets, there are guys quite eager to show me the way to "Boys Town," and there are other guys quite eager to peddle whatever drug I desire. I haven't taken them up on that, though. Meanwhile, my schedule in Mexico City next week appears to be filling nicely. I'm set to meet with Congresswoman Elsa Conde, the author of the marijuana decriminalization bill, early in the week, as well as with a bunch of Mexican reform activists. I'll also be talking to various Mexican academic experts and people working with drug users in the city. And I take advantage of being in Mexico. Yesterday, I stuck my head in the door of one of the numerous dental clinics just across from the bridge in Reynosa that cater mainly to American visitors. Before I knew it, I was in the chair and getting that crown I had long needed but could never afford. It cost $125, no appointment necessary, in and out quickly, and now I can drink cold drinks again. I'll be trying to talk to as many people as possible here between now and Friday, so stay tuned.