Obama’s selection of federal prosecutor Eric Holder to serve as attorney general has provoked concern among reformers, namely due to Holder’s calls for increased marijuana enforcement and harsher sentences in Washington, D.C. during the mid-90’s.

U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.

"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling. [Washington Post]

There’s nothing good to be said about that, but it’s incomplete in terms of giving us a sense of what Holder’s overall drug policy priorities may be. 3 years later, Holder was sounding a bit more reasonable on the issue of drug sentencing:

QUESTION: In the last couple of weeks there has been renewed dialogue about mandatory minimum sentences. Some conservative groups and some traditionally thought of as liberal groups are both saying that the mandatory minimums are not working, they are filling jails unnecessarily. Is the administration fairly well satisfied that mandatory minimums are good idea? Or will you try -- will this administration try again in the coming Congress to take another look at mandatory minimums?

MR. HOLDER: Well, I do not think that we should ever foreclose the possibility that we take a look at how the laws that we have passed are working. I tend to think that mandatory minimum sentences that deal with people who commit violent crimes are almost always good things. I think the concerns are generally raised about mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenders. And I think there are some questions that we ought to ask.

I do not go into it with a presumption that they're necessarily bad, but we ought to look at the statistics and see, are we putting in prison, are we using our limited prison space for the kind of people that we want to have there? Are the sentences commensurate with the kind of conduct that puts people in jail for these mandatory minimum sentences?

Those are the kinds of questions I think that we ought to ask. And as thinking legislators on both sides, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, I would hope that we would ask those questions and then go into it with an open mind.

Almost a decade later, the disastrous consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing are more evident than ever and even notorious drug warriors like Joe Biden have pushed drug war posturing aside to begin addressing the problem. As the political landscape surrounding drug sentencing continues to evolve, Holder’s "open mind" along with Obama’s concerns about over-incarceration of non-violent drug offenders could provide a positive climate for sentencing reform.

Beyond that, we just don’t have a great deal of evidence to draw upon. I haven’t seen any public statements from Holder regarding medical marijuana and other top drug policy reform issues. Realistically, it may be a best-case scenario that we’re faced with a long-time U.S. attorney who appears viable and at least lacks a lengthy track record of drug war grandstanding. The totality of Holder’s scary drug policy demagoguery potentially falls far short of what we might hear from others with his background. Silence on most of our issues is arguably the best reformers can hope for when it comes to selecting the next head of the DOJ.

At this point, I know nothing about Eric Holder that would indicate opposition to the drug policy reforms Obama endorsed on the campaign trail. Holder enters office fully cognizant of Obama’s perspective on the war on drugs and I remain hopeful that he’ll become a critical figure in moving forward the reforms we’ve been told to expect from this administration.

It’s hard to overstate the extent to which marijuana does the opposite of what the government says it does:

The more research they do, the more evidence Ohio State University scientists find that specific elements of marijuana can be good for the aging brain by reducing inflammation there and possibly even stimulating the formation of new brain cells.
…
"When we're young, we reproduce neurons and our memory works fine. When we age, the process slows down, so we have a decrease in new cell formation in normal aging. You need those cells to come back and help form new memories, and we found that this THC-like agent can influence creation of those cells," said Yannick Marchalant, a study coauthor and research assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State. [Physorg.com]

Over and over again, research finds that marijuana appears to prevent the exact conditions we were told it might cause. It’s amazing and we’re only just getting started. Not long from now, it’s quite likely that we’ll be faced with a new climate in which marijuana’s seemingly endless medical applications become impossible to ignore, even among those most determined to do so.

In the meantime, how do we explain to skeptics that marijuana is something completely different than they’ve been led to believe? Even the most sympathetic people look at me like I’m crazy when I explain that marijuana doesn’t cause cancer and may even cure it. We’re conditioned to instinctively reject a notion such as that and it usually takes a considerable amount of personal research and reflection to even become receptive to the reality that marijuana is a fascinating substance of untold potential.

If nothing else, it shouldn’t be terribly difficult to understand why marijuana users so often report wonderful outcomes in their lives. Many of the drug’s effects are decidedly positive and the only way to obscure that fact is to constantly obstruct users from participating in public discussions of what marijuana actually is.

The drug czar's recent claim that there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks stores in San Francisco has finally achieved the level of public embarrassment it so thoroughly deserved.

San Francisco's Department of Public Health, which issues permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, is also befuddled by the federal data.

"It was extremely incorrect," said Larry Kessler, a senior health inspector at the department. "I don't know how they got that." [San Francisco Chronicle]

SF Chronicle obtained the alleged dispensary list from ONDCP and found double listings, closed businesses, and even a business in Los Angeles. With their fraud fully exposed, ONDCP has issued a totally bizarre reply saying it's "good news" that their story got press.

It’s straight-up insane. By the time you get to the part about how many Taco Bells there are in San Francisco, you’ll join me in hoping Sarah Palin is the next drug czar so we can at least get MSNBC to give these clowns the daily fact-checking they deserve.

Here’s a substance abuse counselor describing a new diversion program for marijuana offenders:

"We've had two groups go through the program now, and we are just thrilled with the results we've seen," she said. "Individuals are coming in with no real perception of how marijuana is impacting their lives." [Toledo Blade]

Could it be that marijuana wasn’t impacting their lives? If you forced a bunch of people into treatment for enjoying poetry, they’d be confused too. But after 48 hours of court-mandated therapy, I bet they’d tell you whatever you wanted to hear just to get the hell out of there. People can be terribly insincere when you hold a gun to their head.

I’m not saying there aren’t people who can benefit from marijuana treatment, but rather that having some in your pocket is a wildly insufficient diagnostic criteria for marijuana addiction. That’s like saying you’re an alcoholic if you have beer in the fridge.

And yet, despite the complete lunacy of indiscriminately forcing recreational marijuana users to complete drug addiction treatment, there are some who strongly believe a harsher approach is needed:

Bowling Green Police Chief Gary Spencer said he does not believe allowing people charged with a crime to complete an educational program and have the charge dismissed deters future crime.

"I'm not sold on any diversion program because I think it's a 'get out of jail free' card," he said. "It's giving someone a warning. To me, there has to be consequences for your actions."

No, there don’t have to be consequences for your actions. There just don’t. If someone smokes marijuana 1,000 times and nothing bad happens, then it’s all good. There is no logical reason on earth why there have to be consequences for people who enjoy marijuana. Just leave them alone.

Every day, the stories coming from Mexico get worse. Nothing surprises me at this point. Not even this:

MEXICO CITY – Elementary school teachers are the latest victims of an exploding extortion racket in the border city of Ciudad Juárez, as criminal gangs threaten educators to either hand over their coming Christmas bonuses or see harm done to their families or students, teachers' groups say.

With Monday a school holiday and news of the threats spreading in the media, on the Internet and by word of mouth during the long weekend, there were fears that an increasing number of parents would keep their children at home today, forcing additional schools to close. [Dallas News]

Is anybody going to come forward and claim this is just a temporary problem? Shall we double our drug war donations to restore law and order? Let’s get real. The drug war is destroying the entire country before our eyes and there’s no limit to how bad it can get.

It’s amazing to witness the criminal feeding frenzy that is now erupting all over the country now that the drug war has turned Mexico’s justice system into a complete mockery. Dangerous levels of police corruption have created a horrific laboratory in which violent criminals have begun experimenting with all sorts of terrible schemes. Can you even imagine what’s next?

If anything can solve the crime problems plaguing Mexico, it will have to be the exact opposite of everything we're doing right now.

NORML’s Paul Armentano has a good piece at The Hill, pointing out that sensible drug education can be effective without having to arrest anybody. Even if you believe marijuana is the worst thing in the world, you can’t rationally argue that we must arrest people in order to stop them from doing it. It’s an important observation that I hope can be effective when reaching out to folks who hate drugs.

Please consider posting a comment on the original article to show The Hill that marijuana reform is a popular topic. They’ve been cool about publishing pieces from NORML, which is great since their paper is widely read by Washington insiders.

Pete Guither has the details. I agree with Pete that we’re just not going to know who the next drug czar is for a while still, but it’s worth noting that none of the names circulating thus far are very encouraging.

If we end up disappointed, it will be our own fault for thinking Obama’s nominee wouldn’t completely suck.

The U.S. is a major source country for guns:

TORONTO -- Canadian officials have told the United States they want to bring a Chicago gun dealer to Toronto to stand trial on charges of smuggling more than 200 handguns across the border.

The case, which may be a first for Canada, appears to signal a harder line against gun smugglers as Toronto grapples with a rash of gang-related shootings that have claimed several innocent bystanders.

Seventy per cent of the crime guns seized by Toronto police have been smuggled into the country from the United States. [National Post]

For 3 years, the U.S. has been attempting to extradite Canadian marijuana reformer Marc Emery for shipping pot seeds to America. Meanwhile, we’re supplying Canada’s violent criminals with all the firepower they could ever need.

American guns are driving the drug war in Mexico and beyond, while we prance about self-righteously issuing certifications to other countries based on their level of cooperation with our international drug strategy. American weapons kill more people than Colombian cocaine ever could, yet we pass judgment on small countries that fail to conquer the black market drug armies that are fed with our drug money and armed with our guns.

Still, the problem is not our gun laws. The problem is drug prohibition, which creates an infinite international market for high-powered weaponry. It is really quite absurd to think that we live in a country that manufactures enough guns to kill everyone on earth tomorrow, yet we jail our own citizens for growing marijuana for personal use and we try to extradite foreigners for being nice enough to send us decent pot seeds.

On Monday, I wrote about angry cop Jim Carnell, who attacked Massachusetts voters for supporting marijuana decrim. Yesterday, Boston Herald ran this response from NORML’s Paul Armentano:

Am I the only one who is troubled to learn that a public servant like Jim Carnell has such a low opinion of those he’s paid to protect ("Everybody musn’t get stoned," Nov. 8)?

According to Carnell, those 2 million Bay Staters who decided in favor of Question 2 are “starry-eyed nitwits” and those 100 million Americans who have ever tried pot are "cretins."

And the author’s home state is a national "laughingstock" because its voters enacted common sense pot policy that is nearly identical to the laws in Mississippi and Maine. Sorry Jim, but the joke’s on you!

It’s true and the more I think about it, the more crazy Carnell’s rant really is. He all but wishes out loud for the new policy to cause problems. Ideally, the law will work well, and even police should be hoping for a positive outcome, right?

If it turns out that marijuana decrim doesn’t create major problems, then everybody wins. And I’m quite sure that’s exactly what will happen, so long as Jim Carnell and his colleagues don’t find a way to screw this up.

President-elect Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff is hardly a good sign for reformers. As Jacob Sullum points out, he’s a complete nightmare when it comes to drug policy:

"We are going to continue to find ways within the administration to fight legalization and the notion of legalization," Rahm Emanuel, a key Clinton drug-policy adviser, said yesterday. "We're against the message that the initiative sends to children. Marijuana does not come cost-free. It is illegal and it is dangerous."

Of course, that was more than 10 years ago, when even Bob Barr was still in full-blown drug war demagogue mode. Has Emanuel improved? Unfortunately not, and if anything he’s gotten worse as demonstrated by this totally deranged attack on former AG Alberto Gonzalez for saying the war on drugs wasn’t a "real" war:

"Thanks for the white flag. From the United States' most senior law enforcement official, the man who should be leading the war on drugs, this white flag of surrender will not be reassuring to the millions of parents trying to protect their kids."

This full-scale war mentality regarding drug policy is about as bad as it gets and I just shudder to think this is the guy who’ll have the president’s ear on a daily basis. Obama has called for "shifting the paradigm" with regards to the war on drugs, only to then surround himself with the worst drug warriors in the democratic party.

It’s too soon to call this a betrayal of anything Obama has pledged regarding reform; I doubt drug policy was a factor in Emanuel’s or Biden’s selection. But it’s a harsh reminder that vehement support for the war on drugs continues to thrive on both sides of the aisle. Reform won't come easily for Obama even if he's completely serious about changing our approach to the war on drugs.