I'm not inclined to defend the Obama's DOJ positions on these issues -- Greenwald's work on this subject has seen to that.

I think I write for a lot of us that we have mostly moved past what and are now wondering why. Given the past statements of the players in power it was reasonable to expect major reversal in policy and we are actually getting anything but.

So here's my "why" theory. The people most vested in keeping this part of the government secret are very powerful and not well known. In addition to the corruption that we write about here, they know many other things with which they can threaten anyone, including the president. Obama could have shown up in the oval office and announced to the world that he is tearing the lid off but once the applauding crowds dispersed (and Glenn writes a "that sounds good but lets wait and see" essay) a pair of nondescript well dressed men show up to explain.

They explain that you can have your health care, you can have the EPA, the SEC, FISA, and whatever else. But touch this man and you are over. You can kiss everything you wanted to do goodbye. We don't care what you said on the campaign. You better hope certain things don't come to light whether its you or anyone else that does it because if that shows up in the Times then this (produces stack of files) shows up as well. And where is your progressive agenda then. In short, we go down you go down.

Sure this is a crackpot theory, but where does it not fit the known facts as well as any other?

It was in the 80's that many of these guys came to prominence, in the era that taught that greed is good and good is measured only by who has the most at the end of the day. So the practice of journalism started changed from "get it fast, get it first, but get it right" into "get it fast, get it first, and get it the most." Add the demise of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of cheap media (cable) and the recipe is complete.

It has been some years since I have done any reading on this subject, but I recall one of the big barriers to de-criminalization of drugs was that the U.S. had managed to get U.N. resolutions through that placed severe negative consequences on any member nation that did not have specific drug laws on the books. This is (was) the reason that some nations that favored legalization could not do so, and instead attempt to work around their own laws that they do no want.

Is this still the case?

As for the Drug War being a failure, by some estimations it clearly was (is) not. It was Ed Meese in the Nixon administration that managed to convert the issue from a health-care problem into a morals crusade. Generations of politicians got plenty of electoral mileage out of it. For them it is an unqualified success.

Anyone remember Ari Fleischer talking to the press about the trashing of the executive offices and Hillary stealing the towels from Air Force One? A cherished right wing episode.

Glenn's essay today would be required reading for everyone who is permitted to post messages at democraticunderground.com, freerepublic.com, fark.com, slashdot.com, and the next 100 popular posting forms devoted to politics. Not only required reading, but they should also have to pass a basic exam with an essay question on the concepts involved.

Of course then only about 2% would be left to post anything, but still it is a daydream worth pursuing.

I was going to congratulate Glenn on a nice weekend off but it looks like once again he has been working harder than the rest of us. Don't burn yourself out dude we need you.

It does seem that there is a major power struggle over this going on behind the scenes. If you take it as a given that the stakes aren't just the holding up of nominees (even an idiot would see that the Republicans would do that anyway) then the stakes must be something we can't see.

Unfortunately, the weapon they have is that it sounds too plausible to too many people that the U.S. coming clean is weakness and will compromise our security. Defuse that weapon and you can win this game.

Those charts are impressive, but I bet they understate the drug usage during the criminalization period. There is simply no way to count the people underground, who successfully evade scrutiny by authorities and use illegal substances anyway.

However, to get the same policy here, we have to find some way to immunize politicians from attack. Anyone running for Congress with de-criminalization in their platform will immediately be attacked by the other side as "soft" and "wants your kids on drugs." Parents will vote for nearly anything if they think their kids are in danger if they vote otherwise.

Just look at the comments before this one. It might be just a troll but Glenn has already been accused of encouraging drug use. Imagine the challenge if he were running for office.