I have been watching the most-recent brouhaha over national (or nationalized, if you prefer) heath care grip the country. Whether you are pro or con, EVERYONE must admit one thing: This is a significant increase in federal government power. It is just one area where federal government power has increased, along with policing, military affairs, food regulation, etc., etc.

We all can agree that, for the time being, the federal government has no plans to consider drug decriminalization or legalization. The status quo will be with us for the foreseeable future and likely beyond.

This begs the question: Are drug legalization advocates focusing their efforts in the wrong place by working so hard in the USA? This is a legitimate question on my part to which I have no answer. I do believe, however, that prospects for legalization would be better in a place where the writ of the central government was not so powerful. A smaller place or smaller government unit (county, province, canton, etc.) that is self-sufficient and that exercises self-policing would be a better prospect for showing whether legalization can and would work. Should we focus our energies on identifying such places and experimenting there first?

Just a thought, but I think an important one. Help me to identify such places.

I remember years ago sitting in court while working, waiting for all of the trials of the day to get under way, wondering just who would lose what that day and who if anyone would go home. I can‘t imagine how the good Reverends felt having no home to go to. And what it’s like for Marc Emery, who will not be allowed to go home for the next while. Maybe years.

Why do we incarcerate non-violent drug offenders? I could never figure that out. Just who are they hurting? People make choices in life. Sometimes those choices may not be good for us, but that doesn’t make them all illegal and it certainly doesn’t always warrant jail.

Hopefully soon LEAP’S message will get out there even further and people everywhere will learn that once all drugs are legalized and regulated these sorts of things just will not happen. Until then, we continue our work on the front lines…..

Inspector Leviathan Hobbes (a pseudonym) is a police inspector from the UK. As a serving officer at the management level, he's chosen to publish his blog anonymously, which is completely understandable. I'm a big fan of his writing and I've read every single one of his posts.

One post that stood out was The Drug Warrant. It was frank, funny, disgusting and tragic all at the same time. It portrayed the futility of the War on Drugs perfectly. Here's a paragraph describing the arrest of a heroin addict:

I tell Billy T he's under arrest and put a handcuff on one wrist. I take hold of his other to do the same, and he lets out a gut-wrenching scream. He drops from the sofa onto his knees, doubled in pain, tears rolling down his face. I ask him what's wrong and he rolls up the sleeve of his shirt. The arm - from the elbow down to the very tips of his fingers - is yellow. It's swollen to four times the size it should be, dotted with weeping open sores, the stench from which immediately fills the room. I take the handcuff off his other arm, walk him out to the van and take him back to the station. No words of comfort are offered.

After my guest post there was a lengthy debate in the comments section regarding the pros and cons of regulating drugs. Then the Inspector shared his own thoughts on the matter. I can tell it was not an easy decision for him. Below is an excerpt from his comments:

What I mean by this is, just because as police officers or MOPs [members of the public] we see the full impact that drugs misuse has on the wider community, not only on the user themself - and because we know the law inside and out regarding drugs - we can sometimes become blind to the alternatives. Just because the law and societal opinions have been the same throughout the lives of almost all of us, it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean the law was devised because it works. Sometimes it's wrong. I can point to many examples, as I am sure many of you can. Think about it this way - if drugs WERE legalised and regulated, the Mister Bigs would suffer - the ones who deserve to suffer. Prostitution, a drug-reliant trade, I'm guessing would halve at the very least, as would most acquisitive crime. You can't get away from the fact that the majority of acquisitive crime is committed by habitual drug users. Yes, there are issues around the practicalities of this proposal, but they're not unachievable in the overall aim.

He further wrote (and this is the part that made my day):

So, I'll subscribe to LEAP. Sometimes what appears radical actually isn't. It's a conservative reaction to restore order to that similar to times gone past.

I know you will like visiting this enjoyable and well written blog. Also, please consider sending him a thank you note from LEAP, either through his contact form or in the blog comments section.

Any law disobeyed by more than 100 million Americans, the number who’ve tried marijuana at least once, is bad public policy. As a 34-year police veteran, I’ve seen how marijuana prohibition breeds disrespect for the law, and contempt for those who enforce it.

Let’s examine arguments against legalizing marijuana: use and abuse would skyrocket; the increased potency of today’s marijuana would exacerbate social and medical problems; and legalization would send the wrong message to our children.

It’s reasonable to expect a certain percentage of adults, respectful or fearful of the current prohibition, would give pot a first try if it were made legal. But, given that the U.S. is already the world’s leading per capita marijuana consumer (despite our relatively harsh penalties), it’s hard to imagine a large and lasting surge in consumption. Further, under a system of regulated legalization and taxation, the government would be in a position to offer both prevention programs and medical treatment and counseling for those currently abusing the drug. It’s even possible we’d see an actual reduction in use and abuse, just as we’ve halved tobacco consumption through public education — without a single arrest.

Potency? Users, benefiting from the immutable law of supply and demand, have created huge market pressure for “quality” marijuana over the past few decades. Legalization opponents are correct that “today’s weed is not your old man’s weed.” But the fear-mongers miss the point, namely that stronger strains of marijuana are already out there, unregulated by anything other than market forces. It’s good that responsible consumers know to calibrate their consumption; they simply smoke less of the more powerful stuff. But how about a little help from their government? Purchase booze and you have access, by law, to information on the alcoholic content of your beverage, whether it’s .05 percent near-beer or 151-proof Everclear.

Perhaps the biggest objection to legalization is the “message” it would send to our kids. Bulletin: Our children have never had greater access to marijuana; it’s easier for them to score pot than a six-pack of Coors. No system of regulated legalization would be complete without rigorous enforcement of criminal laws banning the furnishing of any drug to a minor.

Let’s make policy that helps, not handcuffs, those who suffer ill effects of marijuana or other drugs, a policy that crushes the illegal market — the cause of so much violence and harm to users and non-users alike.

Norm Stamper was Seattle’s police chief from 1994 to 2000. He is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and the author of “Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing.”

At one point Morrison even had a tooth removed - even though there was nothing wrong with it - so he could get more painkillers. Although drug seeking behaviour is common in emergency rooms and doctor's offices, this is the first time I've heard about dentists. (By the way, in June LEAP released a four part series on prescription drug abuse. Have a look in our blog archive to find it.)

The manner in which Morrison obtained his drugs does not reflect an efficient, sustainable or comprehensive healthcare system. Ask yourself: how long does it usually take to schedule an appointment with your dentist? What is the waiting time for various medical procedures in your area? How much does your health insurance cost?

There is a real cost to our current approach to drug abuse, and not only for Morrison, but for the rest of us as well.

"Weekend sees rash of killings," the headline read Tuesday in another Chicago newspaper. The paper reported that Chicago violence led to 11 people being killed within 30 hours. As a former Chicago drug and homicide prosecutor who worked in Branch 66, a homicide preliminary hearing court at 26th Street and California Avenue in the early 1970s during Chicago's peak killing years, I remain attuned to homicide news and the correlation between drug-war prohibition and rampant killings.

Dr. Gary Slutkin is an epidemiologist and the founder of CeaseFire Illinois, an organization aiming to "stop the killing." He and I debated the solution to Chicago violence in 1994, not long after 12 kids were killed in a single weekend by Chicago gunfire. Slutkin argued that violence needed to be treated as an epidemic disease like cholera, with systemic changes.

I argued that violence was the inevitable and unstoppable consequence of drug prohibition modeled after Al Capone-style alcohol prohibition, and that drugs needed to be legalized, controlled and regulated to minimize two distinct types of crime - addict crime and turf-war crime. Drug addicts make huge crime waves fueled by:

# The insatiable and incessant need to raise money to pay exorbitant prohibition drug-prices to gang-affiliated street drug vendors.

# Turf-war shootings, in which drug entrepreneurs, young and old, compete with guns for control of lucrative drug sales at a particular street, corner, building or neighborhood.

Identically, drug cartels in Colombia, Italy, Mexico and elsewhere compete with violence for the control of whole drug markets, cities and countries.

Slutkin formed CeaseFire and received millions of dollars for his organization from the same elected officials who enacted or supported drug laws that, in large measure, cause the wholesale killing of our children, and destroy entire neighborhoods and the quality of life for many. As a drug-policy reform crusader, I received no public funds and have lost elections while raising the issue. I continue to point the finger at drug-prohibition as the chief cause of the redundant killings and shootings, speaking and advocating on college campuses and at media venues across America, along with other law-enforcement leaders who once led the fight against drugs but who now belief that the drug war itself is the heart of the problem with drugs, crime and a dozen other American crises. Those former drug-war crusaders are members and speakers for an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, or LEAP. Visit LEAP's website at www.LEAP.cc

In the words of CeaseFire Illinois director Tio Hartiman: "The community is sitting in a pot of gasoline. And every once in a while, someone lights a match and an explosion happens. Nobody is trying to drain the gasoline."

That is not entirely true. The pot is not filled with gasoline; it's filled with drug-war soup. Some of us are trying to throw out the soup and substitute the legalization, control and regulation of drugs that are too dangerous to leave to the gangs and cartels to manage and control. Nothing frightens a drug dealer, cartel or gang like legalized drugs.

James E. Gierach is a former Cook County assistant state's attorney, a municipal attorney, a LEAP board member, a delegate to the Sixth Illinois Constitution Convention, a father of three, chairman of a church council, former president of the Oak Lawn United Way, and Democratic primary candidate for Cook County state's attorney and Illinois governor who advocates drug policy reform.

Schaler says that no one has been able to find a cause of the addiction disease in autopsies or medical exams. He says that one of the only treatments for the disease of addiction is therapy in the form of talking to someone. The success rate for this treatment is not much different from those who stop using drugs on their own.

He believes that most people begin abusing drugs because of what he calls problems in living: childhood sexual abuse, poverty, losing a job, and so on. Many people start, stop or moderate their drug use on their own, without intervention. This would not work for someone who has a true medical disease like cancer. Schaler also points out that, contrary to demonstrating a lack of willpower, many drug abusers demonstrate incredibly strong willpower and planning skills as they manipulate those around them and execute various crimes to obtain money for drugs.

He also suggests that it is not helpful to use the disease model because it implies that people have no control or free will in regard to their drug abuse. He says that research has shown that if someone believes they have control over their behavior, then they are in fact more likely to control their behavior.

In this respect, he believes that drug prohibition is harmful because incarcerating drug abusers only creates more problems in living. Schaler believes that even if people had regulated access to their drug of choice, many of them would still eventually stop using drugs on their own.

I don't agree with everything that he says, but some of his ideas make sense to me. However, I also feel like I don't know enough about the science of addiction to fully commit to either the free will model or the disease model.

What do you think?

So why don't we just make being high illegal? The actual state of being intoxicated could be against the law. Simple answer - this legislation would incorporate too many perfectly legal items that cause brain altering reactions. Think nicotine, caffeine, or booze.

So, law makers are limited to proscribing certain items from people's possession. That appears to be the only way to do it. However, there is a big problem here: people's creativity at finding substances to get high with appears limitless.

Don't believe me? Take a look at these two stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/406067.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2131440.stm

States are on a crusade to get salvia divinorum outlawed. What next? Morning glory seeds? At to what extreme will they go? Outlawing poop for jenkem use?

We laugh now but remember - truth is stranger than fiction.

I live in Rio de Janeiro, and I worked here as a judge for almost twenty years. I can say that unfortunately these tragic data are not something exceptional that happened only in 2007.

In fact, at least in the last ten years, 20% of all murders in Rio de Janeiro have been summary executions that happen during police operations against drug dealers in the "favelas". This is Brazil's own war on drugs.

These tragic police actions are not surprising. In fact, police officers are formally or informally authorized and stimulated to be violent, to torture, and to kill.

In 2007, a Brazilian movie called "The Elite Squad" was a great success here (I think a theater in NYC also showed it). It is a movie about a police department, a kind of SWAT, and it shows very violent actions played by the main characters, which appear as heroes fighting against drugs. A well-known critic of Variety qualified this film as "a one-note celebration of violence-for-good that plays like a recruitment film for fascist thugs". His article can be found here.

During several exhibitions of the film in Brazil, some people applauded the scenes of torture. It's not surprising that police officers go on killing in their real war on drugs.

In the Brazilian war on drugs, drug dealers that live in the "favelas", or any people that look like them are seen and treated as the "enemies". In a war, the main goal is to eliminate the "enemy".

Maybe police officers feel powerful when they kill. They don't realize that they are doing wrong, and that their actions are really weakening the profession of policing. In Brazil, most people don't respect the police (naturally including those people that applauded that movie). Most people, especially poor people that live in the "favelas", don't feel safe when the police come. Rather, they are afraid of the police. They are more afraid of the police violence than of drug gangs' violence. These feelings surely weaken the profession of policing.

The drug dealers that survive to this war are overcrowding Brazilian prisons. Brazil has now about 440.000 prisoners, which is about three times the number that we had in 1995. It's much lesser than the US, but the increase on the number of prisoners in Brazil, due especially to drug related sentences, follows the same trend."

What’s more, the reduction of violence isn’t even the best reason to walk the path to decriminalization. More important is to remember the warning of Nils Christie that the worst danger of criminality in modern societies is not crime itself, but, rather, that the fight against it ends up conducting those societies to totalitarianism.

Best regards.

Maria Lucia

The THC Expo was a high energy event, full of interesting people. Brian Roberts and Todd McCormick, the event organizers brought together the international marijuana industry for a full weekend at the LA Convention Center June 12 and 13. The THC Expo was a marijuana merchandising event with people and businesses from across the continent as well as from overseas. There were hemp traders and artists, educators and innovators, patients and politicians. There were growers, patient unions, compassionate care givers, merchants, activists, and cops. There were the famous and the infamous.

Kim Dobner and Ethel Rowland were the volunteers helping me out at the LEAP booth. There were many times when we couldn't keep up with the number of people interested in hearing about our work. Even with time set aside for nay-sayers we still signed up over 300 new members in just 17 hours. The volunteers really enjoyed the experience and did a great job representing LEAP.

Even in this seemingly supportive crowd there were plenty of people who had not considered the legalization of all drugs. Surprisingly, there was about the same small percentage that was not in agreement with our message as at any other events, go figure.

Mike Gray, author of Drug Crazy, helped out with some logistics and he produced this great clip about the Expo and LEAP. It is always fun working with Mike and this time was no exception.

Directly across the aisle, Drug Policy Alliance had their booth, and down a couple of spaces was Students for Sensible Drug Policy. As co- sponsors of the upcoming 2009 International Drug Policy Reform Conference being held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 11-14, we hope to see some of the folks from the THC Expo there, as well as some of you.

This New York boy saw some interesting sights on the trip, but it’s always good to get back home with my lovely wife, Paula.

Thank you very much for asking this question. This is a very intelligent question. It is also a very helpful question for us because it helps illuminate the limitations of the word legal, and the importance of the kinds of regulations that a legal regime uses. It is also an important question because it puts into focus some of the issues of demand, legitimate use, medical use, self-medication, and non-medical use.

Drugs that can be used pursuant to a doctor's prescription are legal in a very narrow sense. The user of the drugs has obtained the drugs directly from the doctor or from a pharmacy pursuant to a prescription written by the doctor with whom the patient has a professional relationship. The drugs are obtained after a bona fide examination and consultation in which the doctor has examined the patient and reviewed the history and made a good faith determination that the medication is the appropriate medication for the patient's condition. The prescription is for a dosage consistent with the medical community's accepted practices, and all the components of the transactions comply with DEA's regulations for practitioners.

Depending on a variety of circumstances, this narrow legal zone is inconvenient, medically preposterous, offensive to individual liberty, impractical or otherwise unrealistic, and thus widely disregarded leading to a criminal market. When a legal scheme deviates substantially from what the affected public considers realistic, the scheme gets violated. A classic example is highway speed limits. A six lane boulevard, divided by a median, might have a posted speed limit of 25 mph, highly desired by the people whose homes are directly on that street. Yet most drivers are likely to drive 35 or 40 on such a road if traffic permits. On an interstate highway, a posted speed limit of 55 is likely to be exceeded. Most drivers accept the need for speed limits in the abstract, but drive in technical violation of those limits.

Prescription drugs are expensive. A prescription for powerful pain medication after a procedure may often be for more doses than the patient needs to use before the pain subsides. The patient is reluctant to throw the expensive extra doses away. At a minimum, six months later when a family member is in pain, the patient may give their medication to a relative who is not named on the prescription label -- a violation of the law. In a society in which many households' surplus goods are sold on Ebay, the culture accepts selling what you don't need. Someone might feel that it is thrifty and good sense not to waste and throw away surplus drugs but to sell them to someone who needs them. The seller may desire to make the drugs available to a person who has a bona fide need for the drugs, but who, for any number of reasons, cannot get a prescription for that medication filled. Those reasons could include lack of health insurance, lack of a job, or illegal status in the United States. The seller may have no knowledge of nor intent to support an addict's habit. The prescription system can be inconvenient and economically wasteful.

In some circumstances the potential risks to the patient of using the drugs are very small. The patient may have had a prescription, but is required to see a doctor every 30 or 60 days in order to get a new prescription. The patient may reasonably believe that these doctor visits are medically unnecessary, but provide the doctor with income, even if they are necessary to comply with regulations designed to prevent abuse. The patient may reasonably decide that their use is not abusive, and that the law is overbroad as applied to them, and should be ignored.

In many circumstances, patients know enough about their medical condition and the medications and their effects and side effects that they consider the doctor's participation in obtaining the medication to be medically superfluous, expensive, inconvenient, and an interference in their liberty.

In other cases, persons are addicted to opiate medications. Their addiction can be satisfied by heroin, or by legal narcotics. But doctors know that if they provide narcotics to addicts they risk being prosecuted. So addicts do not have legal access to legal narcotics.

The idea that these are legal drugs, for the most heavy users of these drugs, is absurd. No doctor feels it is legal for them to prescribe to such persons, and no drug user who is an addict has legal access to the legal drugs.

The legal narcotics may be much more desirable for the addict than heroin because they are made in pharmaceutical factories and are pure -- that is they are free of any dangerous contamination or cut, unlike street heroin -- and they are of a known dosage. No need to worry that it is weak and you a getting ripped off, or that you will be poisoned. Legal opioid medications are highly desirable substitutes for illegal heroin. If heroin were legal, the market in the legal prescription pharmaceuticals would go down.

The illegal market of legal prescription drugs is natural because our law does not consider maintenance of addiction a legitimate medical circumstance. When it is not a crime to be an addict, and addicts can legally get the drugs they need, the illegal secondary market in pharmaceutical products will be substantially reduced. Addicts will stop robbing and burglarizing pharmacies to get drugs, and the street market in stolen or fraudulently obtained drugs will be substantially be reduced.

For the drug users who are most problematic and already involved in the illegal drug market, the illegal market in prescription drugs, makes sense, but in no way is it for them a legal market in drugs.

Only legalizing and regulating drug production and sales can do that.

We'd still be at war with gangsters like Al Capone.

In any case, I hope that this Mexican legislation will help to keep the newly-prominent debate on the failure of the "war on drugs" going for months to come.

1. In the 1970's we had a team in the narcotics bureau that investigated the diversion of legal drugs into the illegal market. The problem was minor compared to the illicit drug problem.

2. Organized crime, street gangs, or cartels were not involved in the diversion of prescription drugs. Therefore there was none of the crime, violence, and corruption associated with the illicit drug market. I have never heard of a drive-by shooting, home invasion, drug rip-off, etc, over diverted prescription drugs.

3. Addicts today may commit burglaries in search of pharmaceuticals, but with a program of government regulated dispensaries, addicts would no longer need to commit such burglaries. The dispensaries might also help reduce the need to even seek illicit pharmaceuticals.

4. The profit opportunity is just not there for the gangs and cartels.

5. Large scale diversion of pharmaceuticals is difficult because law enforcement has a starting point. They know who manufactured the drug and can trace, to a point, the distribution route.

6. For some of the above reasons, it is more difficult for an addict to rely on the ready supply of a diverted pharmaceutical.

7. The abuse of prescription drugs, as with the abuse of alcohol, will be with us no matter what but we can deal with it as harm reduction and health issue instead of a law enforcement issue.

There is no perfect system to control access to drugs; but, there are systems that are clearly and demonstrably worse, with highly destructive impacts on society. There are no benefits associated with the war on drugs, only costs (see Arthur Benavie's new book Drugs: America's Holy War for an economic and social analysis of the impacts ISBN 978-0-7890-3841-8). By any measure prohibition is an ineffective, counterproductive and highly destructive policy.

There will always be a small segment of the population who circumvent any regulatory system. This happens to some degree with alcohol and tobacco products. However, because these substances are legally accessible, very few users are willing to take risks associated with using illegal purchased products (trafficking, adulteration, criminal networks, etc.). This may change for tobacco if prices continue to escalate sharply and create conditions that open space for a black market in lower priced tobacco.

Despite marginal leakages in any regulatory system, there is far more control and far fewer adverse impacts associated with mechanisms that allow regulated legal access than under prohibition. There is little evidence to support any assertion that illegal substances would or could be more readily available than they are currently under prohibition. Illegal drugs are readily and easily accessible to people of any age under prohibition. Under prohibition a grade school kid could be given money and sent to the corner by his parent to score drugs for them from a dealer and would probably return with the drugs. It is hard to argue that a regulated system of legalized access would provide easier access to psychoactive drugs.

There will always be some diversion of substances and illegal sales of fraudulent drugs. But given the available evidence (and there is a lot of evidence available) it is unlikely that (a) illegal sales of drugs diverted from the regulated system, (b) illegally produced substances or (c) fraudulent substances will be as serious or destructive as the incredible array of problems produced by the war on drugs.

Prescription drugs are legal but they are still trafficked on the street. Why is that?

Look at all the problems with prescription drug abuse. How will legalizing drugs make anything better when there are already huge problems with legal drugs, like Tylenol 3’s?

The timing of these questions was coincidental, but it got me thinking about the issue. There is no question that prescription drug abuse is a serious matter. This Associated Press report from 2007 emphasizes the scope of the problem:

Abuse of prescription drugs is about to exceed the use of illicit street narcotics worldwide — and the shift has spawned a lethal new trade in counterfeit painkillers, sedatives and other medicines potent enough to kill, a global watchdog warned Wednesday. Already, prescription drug abuse has outstripped traditional illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine and Ecstasy in parts of Europe, Africa and South Asia, the UN-affiliated International Narcotics Control Board said in its annual report for 2006.

I must confess that I did not have a well thought position on this issue. So I asked the members of the LEAP speakers bureau, how does prescription drug abuse relate to drug prohibition? The answers that came back were impressive. We are certainly have a lot of smart, experienced and articulate individuals working with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Several speakers, including Michael Gilbert and Eric Sterling, have agreed to post their answers on the LEAP blog. Stay tuned over the next week as LEAP releases a mini-series about prescription drug abuse. And as always, feel free to comment with your own thoughts and ideas about this topic.

I applaud the trend towards healthcare rather than prosecution and incarceration. I think that is long overdue but whatever kudos might have been awarded have been eliminated with Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments on KUOW radio.

Legalization is not “waving the white flag” as Mr. K put it, it is taking off the tee shirt that says, “I’m with Stupid”. White flags, after all are symbols of a truce, not just surrender, and if we are not in a war what role does surrender have in anything. His statement, "legalization is off the charts when it comes to discussion, from my viewpoint" and that "legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me and it was made clear that it doesn't exist in President Obama's vocabulary." not only gives rise to concerns about his approach but President Obama’s as well.

In an effort to be fair I must say that Mr. Kerlikowske stepped into an environment that may well be populated by fanatics. I have met some of the zealots and find them truly frightening. Still, he is supposed to be in charge, and if I inherited an organization that had failed to accomplish its mission, goals, and objectives, I would introduce the concept of accountability. Those responsible for wasting $70 billion a year and whose only accomplishment was getting that amount of money again and again would not be an influence, they would be terminated.

Now that I’ve tried to be fair I’ll continue; without remorse because there is nothing fair about the drug war or those who continue it.

I live in New Mexico, a state that has done great things legislatively in an effort to deal with issues of drug use and abuse. It not only allows medical cannabis, it has a program that provides for the distribution to certified participants. As a recently certified member of the program I can and will dispute Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments on marijuana, "It's a dangerous drug" and, regarding its medical benefits, he said, "we will wait for evidence on whether smoked marijuana has any medicinal benefits - those aren't in." Again the question of Planet of Origin pops up. And, smoking is not the only way to ingest cannabinoids. Perhaps Mr. Kerlikowske should ask those who’s suffering is relieved only by, or best by cannabis as to its efficacy.

I thank the new drug czar for clarifying his position because I think that will rejuvenate the efforts of everyone opposed to the drug war. As Chief Dan George stated so eloquently in The Outlaw Josie Wales, “We must endeavor to persevere”.

I would like to thank everyone who is engaged in this effort to end the insanity of the drug war. Thanks to those who commented on my poor attempts at blogging and to those who read all the blogs. After enjoining everyone to keep up the fight it seems out of place to say that I will be on sabbatical vis-à-vis LEAP immediately. I will continue to fight for legalization & support LEAP where I can but my direct involvement is at what I hope will be a temporary end.

Roll the drums…Former Congressman and Republican candidate for President Tom Tancredo this week stated for the first time in public the need to legalize drugs, all drugs. Mr. Tancredo and I have been in regular contact the past 12 months, including being on his radio show. I applaud his courage to become a leader on our issue. Though no longer in Congress, he remains the spiritual head of the Congressional Immigration Caucus. I am exploiting this connection.

The Kumbayjah Moment has arrived: I attended a Senate hearing this week. Although the topic was immigration and the borders, the witnesses spent well over half their time on how federal agents are arresting drug smugglers and seizing drugs. The Chairman, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was focusing his hearing to demonstrate that the borders are now secure enough to allow the Congress to move forward with a comprehensive, immigration bill.

Near the end Senator Hatch (R-UT) stated to all, The War on Drugs has been a failure. Ladies and Gentlemen his admission has become the general tone on the Hill. His sentiments reflect the Zogby poll that 76% of Americans agree the Drug War has been a failure. As I present to staffers, there is a statistical zero pushback on declaring the Drug War a dysfunctional failure. This does not mean we are near the finish line. No. There is a lot more work to be done. Think of the 12-step process for Alcoholics Anonymous. – Hi, my name is Bob and I am an alcoholic: Hi, my name is America and the Drug War is a failure. Eleven steps to go. Kumbayjah.

Out to lunch: As you know, many believe that the Congress and federal employees live in a Lah-Lah Land and have no idea of what the real world (outside the Beltway) is like. This perception was reinforced at the above hearing. A federal police agent reported a great victory as the federal police have seized 13 million dollars (out of a yearly total of some 25 billion) in the past two months going from the US to Mexico. Upon hearing this, I reacted instinctively and made a pddffhh noise that was heard by a few around me, including a newspaper reporter and a former Congressman and hearing witness. After the hearing the reporter and I had a good chat and chuckle. Yes, it was impolite but I was unable to stop myself. Me bad.

The world economy is wreaking havoc in American politics. Faith in the two major parties is at an all-time low. A new poll recently released showed more people identifying as independents than vouching affiliation for the Democrats or Republicans. Third parties, most notably the Libertarian Party, look at these times with great hope for growth.

Recently, conservatives have been identifying themselves with libertarian philosophy. Fox News' Glen Beck claims a growing affinity for libertarian ideals . Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina recently defended libertarian House member Ron Paul against attack, siding with many of Paul's positions.

However, I wonder what these newcomers think of libertarian ideals when the 600 pound gorilla in the corner is brought up - the drug war and personal liberty. Beck supports marijuana legalization but is silent about other drugs. Governor Sanford does not have a great track record on opposing the drug war.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that we in the drug legalization camp will be the vanguard of future independents. We will be able to ascertain who is truly dedicated to the cause of individual responsibility and greater freedom, and separate out the fair weather friends. Dedication to the drug legalization cause will be the best tool for sizing up future political candidates.

Don't forget the line from the movie Braveheart: Uncompromising men (and women - ed.) are easy to admire.

Thus spake, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, a city cop who joined other police officers and DEA agents in a packed federal courtroom last week. All those badges flashed in support of Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Lee Lucas who is facing an 18-count indictment. The 19-year veteran stands accused of perjury, making false statements in internal reports, obstruction of justice, and civil rights violations. (The day after the federal agent was fired veteran Richland County Sheriff's Deputy Charles Metcalf copped in U.S. District Court to a civil rights violation stemming from his work with Lucas.)

The alleged facts (Lucas has pleaded not guilty) are all too familiar: a narcotics agent recruits an informant but fails to monitor the man's activities or verify his statements. When the narc learns of his snitch's make-believe cases, he conceals evidence, makes false statements to his superiors, lies on the stand, and sends guiltless people to prison. Can you say "Tulia, Texas"?

Of all the shameful deeds alleged, let's focus on one pivotal in this and so many other police scandals, namely lying. Not the "Why, yes those cargo pants are flattering" kind of lie but the kind that results in innocent people living life behind bars.

Early in my career I worked for a police chief who was fond of saying, "The thing I love about cops? They know the difference between right and wrong. They tell the truth." I worked with such police officers; those who mixed competence with their honesty were justly treasured by their communities. But I also fired or had a hand in firing many cops whose loyalty was to something other than truth.

At bottom, there are two explanations for cops who lie. The first is that the institution hires liars. We could waste a lot of time on this one. Or we could, as I'm happy to do, concede the point: Despite advances in the hiring process--smarter psychological testing, more rigorous background investigations--a certain percentage of characterologically untruthful candidates do winnow their way through the screening protocols. This happens most often when law enforcement agencies are on a hiring binge. In a push to get cops out on the street, they sacrifice quality for speed, compromise standards, and hire people who should never don a police uniform. The lesson here is constant diligence, and a willingness to let a position to go vacant rather than fill it with a prevaricator (or worse).

But the second and far more useful explanation is systemic. Cops lie for reasons embedded in the history, structure, and culture of the institution itself. A critical part of that system is the laws police officers are called upon to enforce, none more relevant to this discussion than the nation's drug statutes.

Since the 1930s but with ever-growing vigor from 1971 to this moment, America's police officers have been conditioned to believe that anyone who's ever taken illicit drugs, contemplated same, or trafficked in them is The Enemy. The constitution aside, why would cops fret over legal niceties or democratic rules of engagement when working behind enemy lines? The very nature of an undercover narcotics assignment dictates duplicity.

But too many drug cops wind up lying to their bosses. They fudge or manufacture facts in their official reports. They perjure themselves on the stand. (Too many, for that matter, wind up planting, stealing, using, and/or selling drugs.)

The facile response is to scold/fire/prosecute these wayward individuals and (rarely) their too-trusting--or complicit--bosses, and let it go at that. Nothing wrong with holding people accountable, nothing right about not doing so. It's a must. But it begs the tougher question. When will we learn that drug prohibition is a huge part of the problem of police corruption?

There is a long list of justifications for ending not merely the rhetoric but the reality of America's holy war on its drug consumers. But one of those reasons is that it would eliminate the all-too-common cheating, stealing, and lying that goes on in the name of drug enforcement.

Ending drug prohibition will not halt the spectacle of cops lining up to defend the indefensible. But it will make for a healthier, safer society, and it will reduce the temptation for a law enforcer to lie his or her way to drug warrior fame.