I'm affirmatively PRO-pot. Yes, I understand what I'm saying.

And I hope this thread doesn't unravel entirely within a page or two.

I read the Izzy Award presentation remarks and nodded in silent appreciation. Thank you for all that you are doing.

So far, no sign of the memos today, but I did just run across the WaPo story about the LegiStorm.com website which reveals the sources of income of congressional staffers and the fear and loathing it inspires in the village people. Link to the blog at my name.

I would like to learn more about the staffers behind legislators in important policy and legislation. This seems to me to be where the unreported action is - where lobbyists and unnamed staffers grind out the sausage so fine that tracing the ingredients and their nutritional value/toxicity becomes nigh unto impossible.

I'm looking forward to your remarks tomorrow. One question: does Portugal's predominant uni-ethnicity/culture significantly impact decriminalization policy? Because of the multi-ethnicity/culture milieu in the US, does decriminalization need to look, feel or act differently from your standpoint?

glenn says, most of the work to compel disclosure of Bush-era secrets has been, and still is being, performed not by our establishment media or the Congress [ ... ] but by the ACLU and similar organizations.

i second that notion ...

I hope you get a ball rolling on this issue. America can not afford the War on Drugs anymore: that besides being immoral and unconstitutional.

You should read "La Rubia y La Droga" by Fred Reed that was posted today. He makes a great point that Mexico (or all of South America) does not have a "drug problem" --- we do.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

or sig.

I may have to cut back on the pot a little.

I read that Obama had a talk about nukes with Medvedev. He should have a talk with Medvedev about why the Russian Duma approved a drug decrim measure in 2004 and why Putin not only signed it but elevated the authors to his cabinet and put them in charge of the campaign against corruption.

Back in 2000, recall, American Fulbright scholar John Edward Tobin Jr. spend half a year in an ex-Soviet labor camp because the Russian police claimed to have caught him with marijuana.

He was freed when the police managed to lose most of the evidence against him and couldn't say exactly how marijuana they found on him.

A while after this international incident, there was a high level crackdown in Moscow on a police-run extortion racket where Russian police were planting drugs on rich people and foreigners and demanding money so the evidence could be lost by the trial date.

Since there is no bail in Russia and you have to wait for your trial in jail, this was a very effective scam.

It seems likely that Tobin was a victim of this scam.

The police at the top of the scam were all arrested, but what really stopped the corruption was drug decriminalization.

People caught with "personal use" amounts of illegal drugs now only face fines rather than jail. So it doesn't do the police any good to plant small amounts of drugs on people. The fines for drug possession are not scary enough to make anyone submit to blackmail.

See, Obama thinks marijuana legalization is a laughing matter.

John Edward Tobin Jr. got to spend a half a year in an ex-Soviet labor camp because corrupt cops planted marijuana on him. I don't think he found that experience very funny.

I wonder how Russian drug decrim is working out. You don't hear a lot about it in the American media. Mostly what the American media does is demonize Putin. They cover Russia like Russia = Putin.

A draft of the report completed in December by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility is described by officials who have been briefed on its contents as highly critical of three authors of legal memorandums on interrogation: Jay S. Bybee, John C. Yoo and Mr. Bradbury.

Answering a query from the two senators last week, M. Faith Burton, the acting head of legislative affairs at the Justice Department, suggested that the report was far from ready for public release. She said copies had been given to the former department lawyers whose work it criticizes and the department was awaiting their comments before beginning additional reviews.

Do I understand this correctly? That Bybee, Yoo, and Bradbury are being allowed to weigh in on the contents of this report and, presumably, have influence over what the report contains when it is released?

Judge Bates has decided that three Bagram prisoners seized outside Afghanistan have the right to challenge their detentions -- contra Obama Justice Department -- in the federal courts.

One for the rule of law.

War on terror........what's the big idea about having these eternal "wars".

If I had half your drive and commitment to truth, justice, reason, and change, I'd probably be in a position to contribute something more than just praise and moral support in the comments section. But hopefully that will change sooner rather than later.

I think it's safe to say you're an inspiritation to a bunch of us out here on the interwebs. Keep up the good work, and good luck at CATO. Tell Mr. Moyers thanks for all he does in fighting the good fight as well. You guys are the vanguard. And with battle hardened troops like you, Amy and Bill, gutting it out in the trenches, the battle for America's conscience, soul, and sanity might still be won.

Thanks again for being you and doing what you do.

While I'm gratified to see Joe Klein saying this in a major publication, I think the tone of the article lends itself to the sort of snickering dismissal we saw in President Obama's response.

The conversation on legalization needs to move away from this approach -- "happy potheads are no threat, so why not let them have their happy hash?" The moralistic folk will trump this everytime with high-handed arguments about corruption, indecency, crime, etcetera. The only way to confront this is head-on, with facts. And this is why your Cato report is so so useful Glenn. Thank you for arming us with details for conversations with those who don't seem to think this is a necessary battle to pitch.

I'm not a pot-smoker -- can't even be in the same room with it as it makes me nauseous (so I guess I'm screwed should I ever have a medicinal need). I do drink alcohol though and, like many others, can't fathom the "logic" underpinning the sociological and legal distinctions between the bottle and the weed.

Best wishes tomorrow with the presentation; I look forward to the follow-up. And thank you for insisting on raising the conversation to the level of adults addressing serious and pressing matters.