The article in the latest Chronicle about two people being indicted on witness tampering charges for outing a snitch is very interesting. It seems that things have become so bad that law enforcement officials can't seem to be able distinguish between snitches and concerned citizens who want to see justice done. The difference is very simple. A snitch receives a benefit in return for their testimony and therefore has an incentive to lie. The concerned citizen is motivated by morals and the only benefit they receive is knowing they did the right thing.

I am 45 a month before my 30th birthday I had a resection sugary because of crohns . i have dailly diareia 40 lbs under weight and i have used marijuana to help with my appitite and to relax me when my guts are pulling and turning I have had to explan to my kids why i have to associate with people that are what she called scum she is now 19 and understands but as a teenager she couldnt.

Some good news on the forfeiture front, via TalkLeft: California's Supreme Court has found that city ordinances allowing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles that police claim were used in the commission of minor crime's (including drug possession) are not authorized by state law, overturning a law passed by the city of Stockton. We'd rather they threw the law out because it's disproportionate and corrupting of police agencies, and because taking people's cars is theft. But we'll take it.

Another pain physician, Dr. William Mangino, was convicted on trumped up charges equating his reasonable prescribing of opioid pain medications in the course of practicing medicine with illegal drug dealing. He is in jail pending sentencing, unless someone comes up with the $3,500 bail he needs to get out. Dr. Mangino is a writer and a thinker, and throughout his lengthy travail he has sent a copious amount of email to people who are interested in this problem, including myself -- not just about himself but commentary on the issue too, and on prosecutions brought against other doctors, much of it very detailed. It always makes me sad when these cases turn out badly (or when most drug cases turn out badly, for that matter), but the combination of the absence of his emails with the news itself has reinforced the reality of it for me. It probably won't be long, though, before he writes some things for us about this latest stage and someone gets it typed up and posted. Alex DeLuca has an update that includes some of the defense strategies for challenging the conviction (which include a Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty), the address for writing to Dr. Mangino in jail, and other information.

Although I'm sitting in British Columbia this month and will be in Northern California next month, I am registered to vote in South Dakota. My representative in Congress--South Dakota only has one congressperson--is Democrat Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Elected in 2004 in an extremely tight race, she has consistently voted against Hinchey-Rohrabacher, which would stop the feds from arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers in states where it is legal. I emailed and telephoned her office prior to the vote urging her to vote for Hinchey. Again this year, she voted against it. Here's her reason why:

July 27, 2007 Mr. Phillip Smith XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Huron, SD 57350 Dear Phillip: Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of medical marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you. As you may be aware, on July 25th, the House of Representatives again defeated an amendment that would have prevented federal enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana users and providers in the states that have approved such use. I opposed the amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the scope of federal authority to make and enforce laws regarding medical marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice can continue to enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana use in states whose laws authorize medical marijuana use. The ruling does not strike down state laws approving such use, but permits the Department of Justice to continue enforcing federal laws regarding such use. Thank you again for contacting me. I will keep your thoughts in mind as issues related to medical marijuana use are discussed in Congress. Sincerely, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Basically, Herseth Sandlin is saying that illegal (under federal law) is illegal, and she's not about to get in the way of the DEA--even if it means allowing the agency to disrupt the lives of seriously ill people (whom she never even mentions). She does not bother to say where she stands on the issue of medical marijuana, only that the feds are allowed to enforce the law. As much as I disliker her reasoning and her vote, she has something of a point: If we don't like a law, we should get rid of it, not allow it to remain on the books but with no funding to enforce it. Now, I understand the political realities that lead to efforts like Hinchey-Rohrabacher: A bill to legalize medical marijuana at the federal level will go nowhere any time in the foreseeable future, and we want to do something NOW to stop these raids. But as my Blue Dog Democrat representative and her fellow "no" voters demonstrate, Hinchey-Rohrabacher doesn't seem to be going anywhere, either. Maybe it's time to drop the Hinchey effort and retarget. Is it better to push for the currently unobtainable--a federal medical marijuana law--or try to seek interim fixes like Hinchey? I don't have a good answer. All I know is I'm getting very frustrated playing this political game. Where's my "Don't Tread On Me" flag? I'll have some more suggestions tomorrow about where we can go from here, and they don't involve begging our political leaders to do it for us. Stay tuned.