Has anyone ever told you that we must never change our marijuana policy because doing so would send the wrong message to children? I'll bet they have, because this particular argument is as ubiquitous as it is absurd. Just listen to John Edwards at Sunday night's Democratic Presidential Debate explaining why he opposes marijuana decriminalization:

Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people. [MSNBC]

That is all he said. It is apparently the totality of his position; the most important and compelling argument he can put forth to explain why it is necessary to arrest nearly a million people each year for having marijuana.

Are you listening children of America? It is essential that you refrain from using marijuana, because if you do, the government will arrest you and give you a criminal record that will haunt you for the rest of your life. That is why you shouldn't use marijuana.

Threatening to arrest and criminalize our children is, rather obviously, the stupidest solution to youth drug abuse ever conceived. It completely contradicts the message that we want them to be healthy and successful in life. The penalties for marijuana (criminal record, loss of college aid, loss of drivers license, loss of public housing, jail time, etc.) are all designed to reduce a person's potential. The contradiction between saying we'll help people with drug problems, only to then injure them with harsh laws, confuses even me.

If the whole point is to send a message, then I suppose it matters little whether the punishment fits the crime. Are proponents of the "message to children" model for marijuana policy admitting that we can destroy adult users in order to coerce compliance from children? If so, how badly shall we injure the adult users that we catch?

In the end, it all comes down to the question of what the appropriate punishment for marijuana really is. If we are truly comfortable with our marijuana laws, we should have no problem discussing them as part of a comprehensive drug education program for young people. But I have a feeling that if teachers were required to warn high school students about the HEA Aid Elimination Penalty, that law would cease to exist in the very near future.

You might remember Drew Carey from his hit sitcom The Drew Carey Show. Now he's hosting reason.tv, which has a great new episode about medical marijuana:

This program totally confirms my pre-existing belief that we must defend patient access to medical marijuana, and that the spineless bureaucrats who want to take it from them should be tossed into the Potomac.

Interestingly, the DEA refused to be interviewed by Drew Carey for the episode. If they are tired of discussing this issue, perhaps they should stop raiding dispensaries and terrorizing patients and caregivers.

Critics of marijuana policy reform are fond of dismissing the idea as a liberal fantasy. Unfortunately, last night's Democratic Presidential Debate revealed that the party's so-called leaders would still rather play politics than stand up for the 800,000+ Americans that are needlessly arrested each year for the world's pettiest crime:

Tim Russert: Senator Dodd, you went on the Bill Maher show last month and said that you were for decriminalizing marijuana. Is there anyone here who disagrees with Senator Dodd in decriminalizing marijuana? [MSNBC]

Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards all raised their hands. Only Dennis Kucinich stood with Senator Dodd on this important question. John Edwards was quick on the draw, pulling out the oldest pro-drug war line in the book:

Russert: Senator Edwards, why?

Edwards: Because I think it sends the wrong signal to young people. And I think the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome once again to the brain-dead world of mainstream drug war politics. It is a peculiar place where we ruin real lives in order to send fake messages. It is a vacant echo chamber in which those speaking the truth are singled out for ridicule, attention seekers spew tiresome incoherencies, and the rest cower embarrassed behind their podiums praying never again to be asked such a horrible thing.

Shameful and cowardly as their responses may be, the democratic front-runners were clearly sidelined by Russert's cheap hackery. Drug policy is so much more than a yes or no question, and this drive-by shooting approach to the marijuana debate trivializes the issue and obscures any diversity of opinion. I am saddened, but not at all surprised, that this question provoked this response when asked this way.

If we've learned anything from the brutal war that's been waged in our names for far too long, it is that many of our leaders would sooner allow it to continue for decades than speak one word of the truth that stands naked before us all.

With that in mind, I'm asking all of you to do something. Find out when the candidates are speaking in your area and attend the events. Bring friends. Bring a video camera. Dress well and arrive early. Sit where you can be seen and raise your hand high just a moment before they open the floor to questions. Ask whatever you like. Maybe something like this:

Senator/Governor/Congressman _______,

Over 800,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana this year. Some went to jail. Others lost their jobs, lost custody of their children, lost their driver's licenses, lost public housing, lost financial aid for college, the list goes on. Many people think these punishments are more damaging than the drug itself.

What do you think the punishment should be for someone who uses marijuana?

It is one thing to say you don't support marijuana decrim. It is quite another to describe how specifically you would go about destroying the lives of the millions of Americans who enjoy marijuana. Let's find out where they really stand on this issue.

Our friends at reason have a new video site that we're told will be featuring lots of drug policy content in the coming weeks and months. In the meantime, they're featuring this classic duel between Bill O'Reilly and Saying Yes author Jacob Sullum:


Predictably, O'Reilly shouts at him and even calls him a "pinhead," but Sullum holds his own. What fun.

It is just unbelievable that we must even debate the concept that drugs can often be helpful and good. Of course they can. Only an idiot would suggest otherwise and, obviously, Bill O'Reilly is exactly that type of idiot.