I'm cautiously hopeful that federal persecution (not prosecution) of med clinics will cease and that front will be left entirely up to the states. I don't think there'll be any federal decrim happening for non-prescribed use -- but again, cautiously optimistic about a lack of federal pressure on those cities who choose to go that route for recreational users. I also think it's possible we might see some federal pressure against mandatory minimums for nonviolent offenders, and against prison/fines for first-time offenders of the same.

I disagree that the war on drugs is a priority for the administration, though. I'll be happy if the above happens, and if we tone down our shit in South America. Rescheduling isn't realistic, though -- the economy, health care, and yes, the war in Iraq, are more important to a majority of Americans and will require the vast majority of political capital the new administration has. Exhausting it on drug policy would be a mistake.

The successes were so overwhelming that I think we're looking at the possibility of legalization sooner rather than later.

Barney Frank has said on the record more than once that he intends to try to do that - he has the bill drafted already.

We could see it and I expect some loosening, at the very least. I wish the DEA would leave marijuana alone and concentrate on the dangerous shit- meth. That shit makes you seriously psychotic.

In all my years of defending convicted felons,I never knew one who did the crime while just high on marijuana. The idea is laughable - the motivation ain't there. Thinking and talking about it while snacking might happen but that's as far as it would go.

If cannabis were left alone, and addictive drugs were prescribed as a part of a treatment program, their cost would plummet and there would be no incentive for big-time drug dealers to get new people hooked. Crime would go down, and our law resources could go to protecting us from actual threats.

I'm down with ancient herbal remedies, but I seriously doubt that the Obama administration is likely to push for any sort of decriminalization, as smart a thing as it would be in the big picture, at least not early on. It's a complex issue, for sure. As a simplified political analogy, I think of gays in the military for Clinton. Damn good idea, but the timing, maybe not so great. In the present case, I do think Obama has more pressing concerns to deal with. I also think the theatrics are not great -- we finally elect a brother, and he legalizes ganja? I hope I'm wrong, and he does change our approach to the war on some drugs in a big way, as the present approach is frighteningly unproductive, but I'm not holding my breath.

One of the first promises Bill Clinton broke was his assurance to medical marijuana patients that they could get their medicine reinstated under the Bush,Sr.-suspended Investigative New Drug protocol. Dozens of patients had been approved when the DEA and HHS pulled the plug on this low-profile legal, federal supply of medicinal herb.

Clinton double-crossed patients--some of whom he had personally promised to help. Obama will too, or I'll quit smoking it myself! The Marijuana Policy Project specifically asked all candidates last year, during the primary races, whether they would halt the federal raids on clinics in states where state law allows medicinal use of cannabis.

Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Paul, and even (I think) Tancredo all agreed the feds should stay out. Biden waffled but his whole record has been unsympathetic and if he ends up as President he definitely won't help.

I read Obama's answer carefully. It was artfully phrased to create the impression that he was sympathetic---but he only said the feds shouldn't prosecute "users" and totally dodged the question about whether he would stop the raids on growers and clinics. In politics, the unspoken is often more meaningful than the spoken utterance.

Conclusion: President Obama will continue the DEA raids on state medical cannabis programs. I'd like to be wrong, but denial of therapeutic pot has been a bi-partisan travesty that has lasted since 1972. Drug prohibition is institutionalized like all the rest of the modern high-tech police state, and Obama---"Constitutional scholar" that he once was---has no interest or perceives no political advantage, in altering that reality.

On the other hand: liquor prohibition was ended in 1933 because during the Depression, government at all levels NEEDED REVENUE. Legal, moral, cultural and constitutional arguments had all failed . . . but the prospect of taxable alcohol brought the Noble Experiment to an unexpectedly early end.

Therapeutic use of cannabis is already supported by a large majority of Americans. The Feds won't budge. If the economy keeps sliding, then the point of political vulnerability suggests we advocate across-the-board re-legalization (as a source of revenue)---which will make it easier for the patients along with all the rest of us. And a revived domestic hemp industry would be another economic boost.

Problem is, prohibitionists like JNagarya don't understand the principle underlying civil liberty is that people can make decisions for themselves and don't need "angels in the form of kings" to rule us.

I'm a Jeffersonian on this: "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others. . . Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now [under the coercion of a state-established church]. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as medicine, and the potato as an article of food."