A pending marijuana decriminalization effort in Joplin, MO revealed the city's police chief to be a pretty decent guy. This is a textbook example of how a professional public servant regards the democratic process:

"Somebody is going to say, 'you're the chief ... you ought to oppose this thing,'" he said. "Somebody else will say 'you are the chief of police and supposed to be protecting our constitutional rights.' My argument is, 'yep ... you are right.'" [Joplin Globe]

It's such a simple concept, yet it is so often abandoned by law enforcement agencies when citizens work to reform marijuana policy. There's something very creepy about police lobbying to protect their own obscene drug war powers, and it's refreshing to hear a veteran police chief speak in defense of democracy.

"And I think we also ought to promote programs that prevent harm and specifically needle exchange, which I support. We ought to get rid of the federal ban on needle exchange." [NPR]

Drug war absolutists have long opposed needle exchange, despite overwhelming evidence that it prevents AIDS and saves lives. It is just amazing that the people in charge of protecting Americans from drugs support policies that spread AIDS and kill people.

Edwards deserves credit for calling out one of our nation's most ill-conceived drug policies. It's a no-brainer for sure, but at least he got it right.

And in the process, John, you may have stumbled upon a nifty device for drafting a superb drug policy platform for your campaign: simply check what the federal policy is on any drug issue and advocate the opposite. You will be correct every time.

Update: At the risk of further emboldening the hysterical Obama fans who freaked out over my last post, and irrationally implied that he's good on drug policy, it's only fair to add that Barack Obama has also spoken in favor of needle exchange. Hillary Clinton, who's otherwise sounded good on drug policy (for a front-runner, anyway) wants to see more proof that it works, which, at this point, is like demanding proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I am in the real estate investment business. Increasingly I find investors staying away from investing in rental properties and neighborhoods perceived to have illegal drug problems. Investors more frequently state police can too easily forfeit their real estate because of one tenant's illegal activity at a rental property, e.g., selling drugs, even when it is unknown to the owner. Consequently investors' fears of forfeiture are depressing property values in certain neighborhoods and cities, driving downward the property tax base needed for tax revenues to support the infrastructure of the community. Consider: As governments more and more force landlords to act as attorney generals policing the lives of their tenants, and hold landlords accountable to police for not stopping their tenants from committing unknown or foreseen illegal acts, more investors say, "who needs this!" Constant police raids in certain neighborhoods may actually result in a financial net loss to a community where investors retreat, causing assessed property values and property taxes to decline. There is little incentive for investors to spend money upgrading rental property in neighborhoods where drug problems exist if the police are targeting rental property for asset forfeiture.

• click here to read how the Fulton County (Atlanta, GA) DA's office spent forfeiture funds on banquets and balloons and a superman costume;
• click here to read about the Austin, Texas police department's criminal inquiry into possible misuse of forfeiture funds; and
• click here for a recent report over what is basically an act of theft via forfeiture committed by New Mexico police. (Make them stop, Gov. Richardson!)