Three western states have marijuana reform measures on the ballot this year--Oregon, Alaska and Montana. White House Drug Czar John Walters has been out campaigning in these states to defeat the measure.

If all three measures are approved, Montana would become the 10th state to legalize pot for medical purposes, Oregon would dramatically expand its existing medical-marijuana program, and Alaska would become the first state to decriminalize marijuana altogether.

Walters may be making headway in Oregon. Montana and Alaska, on the other hand, may succeed in their reform efforts. The Alaska measure goes the furthest. If it passes, it would

...prohibit prosecution of anyone 21 or older who consumes, grows or distributes pot for private personal use. It would allow authorities to regulate marijuana along the lines of alcohol and tobacco _ for example, taxing it and barring its use in public.

The Marijuana Policy Project has been funding much of the reform movement. Their Alaska campaign website is here. The White House isn't giving up though. You can expect to see a new ad this week, Open Letter to Parents . MPP argues that the Alaska measure will:

After a blistering but accurate review of Bush's discombobulated performance at the Miami Debate, Philiop Gourevitch, writing in the new issue of The New Yorker notes:

Kerry is offering himself as the candidate of change--”truth vs. unreality, a fresh start vs. more of the same. We need friends in this dangerous world, he says, and we need diplomacy to try and disarm and contain our enemies lest it should be our burden, otherwise, to destroy them. What Kerry doesn't say --and cannot say --is that when it comes to real threats, like North Korea and Iran, Bush's fixation with Iraq may already have made it too late for any American President to find a peaceful solution.

He never gave up. He tirelessly advocated for those who were paralyzed. He lobbied Congress to fund spinal cord research and Hollywood to make more films about social justice. Actor Christopher Reeve has died of heart failure, at 52. May he rest in peace.

Among the provisions in the House and Senate versions of the 9/11 Commission bill is one that would standardize the requirements for drivers' licenses among all states. Power to determine what information must be provided will vest in the Homeland Security Director.

The secretary could require the license to include fingerprints or eye prints. The provision would allow the Homeland Security Department to require use of the license, or an equivalent card issued by motor vehicle bureaus to nondrivers for identification purposes, for access to planes, trains and other modes of transportation.

The House's version of the intelligence bill, passed Friday, would require the states to keep all driver's license information in a linked database, for quick access. It also calls for "an integrated network of screening points that includes the nation's border security system, transportation system and critical infrastructure facilities that the secretary determines need to be protected against terrorist attack."

Civil liberties advocates are appalled.

Colorado is always beautiful, but today is especially so. I'll be back this evening, but if you have something to discuss in the meantime, be my guest.

One of TalkLeft's regular readers, a nationally prominent and well-respected D.C. lawyer, suggested we point out another problem with Bush's reference to the Dred Scott decision during Friday's debate. Bush said, when asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he would appoint:

"Another example [of a judge making decisions based on personal opinion rather than strict construction] would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution said. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America."

Our reader points out:

Let's set aside the fact that this passage is almost entirely incoherent, and assume that what Bush was trying to say was that Justice Taney, in holding that slaves were personal property of which their owners could not be deprived by Act of Congress, was acting in accord with his personal beliefs (he was unquestionably pro-slavery) in opposition to the Constitution. The problem, of course, is that the Constitution clearly recognized the existence of slavery, in the infamous "three-fifths" clause which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of apportioning House seats (Art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3); in the prohibition on regulation of the slave trade prior to 1808 - but the authorization of taxes on the importation of slaves (Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1); and most notably in the requirements that states deliver fugitive slaves to their master (Art. IV, sec. 2, cl. 3).

In fact, if President Bush were correct, the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, would have been wholly unnecessary. It's nice that our President at least doesn't want to appoint justices who favor slavery; it's a little distressing that this is the only threshold he seems to set.

Shades of Vietnam again...some Marines in Iraq are questioning Bush and the war.

In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

These marines think Bush isn't being straight with the American people on how long the war will last.

I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

This is a long article and fairly depressing, but read the whole thing anyway.

Update: Jeanne at Body and Soul has some important comments on this article and the distinction between the marines being angry about being in the war and the marines being angry about the restrictions placed on them in not being able to go far enough:

Both Bush and Kerry and their running mates now have said there will be no draft during their administration. But the War in Iraq is ongoing, Afghanistan is not settled, Iran and North Korea are beyond the (Bush) horizen, there's also Al Qaida and the Saudis and who knows who else. Just in case unexpected events causes the new President to change his mind and ask Congress to reinstate the draft, we thought it would be helpful to print some information on how it would work.

The good news is you would have 193 days--more than six months-- from the time Congress passes and the President signs a draft bill before you can be inducted. It most likely would begin with Congress restoring the expired Military Selective Service Act. Here's how it goes: [From the October 22, 2001 Atlanta Journal Constitution, article by Bill Hendrick, available on Lexis.com]

SK Bubba's on a rant, and it's a good one:

only in America can a harmless homemaker/cooking show host be cooling her jets in Federal prison for fibbing about a crime she did not commit and was never charged with while the President of the United States can stand before the people and lie about the economy, taxes, the deficit, and the reasons for taking us into a war that has cost the lives of over 1000 American soldiers, countless civilian lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Only in America can Martha Stewart sit in prison while Ashcroft gets away with shredding the Constitution and Rumsfeld presides over the torture and murder of prisoners of war in violation of international law while Bush pats them on the back for a job well done and nearly half the people in America agree and think this crew ought to be allowed to stay in the White House instead of being sent to jail. Go figure.

OK, then.

Say hello to You Forgot Poland.

The Associated Press reports that Muslims could prove key in choosing our next president:

Muslims in New Jersey and across the country say they support the president on moral issues like abortion and gay marriage, but strongly favor Kerry because they oppose the war in Iraq and feel he'll end it sooner than Bush will. They also support Kerry because they think he has a stronger commitment to civil rights in the United States.

In an election that could once again be razor-close, the support of Muslims - whose estimated numbers nationwide range from 1.2 million to 7 million - could be crucial. The Bush and Kerry campaigns have courted Muslim voters, particularly in swing states like Ohio and Florida, as well as Michigan, which has the nation's largest Arab-American population.

"I can't see how any self-respecting American - forget about Arab-American or Muslim - can vote for President Bush, unless you're a total kook," said Hani Awadallah, president of the Arab-American Civic Organization.

Of all people who may not vote for Bush, former Congressman Bob Barr? Check out his latest article:

Now we have the election of 2004. For the first time in my voting life, the choice in the race for president isn't so clear And, among true conservatives, I'm not alone.

...the concerns for many conservative voters -- concerns that may cause them not to vote for Mr. Bush on Nov. 2 -- fall generally into three categories: fiscal, physical (as in the physical security of our nation) and freedom (as in protecting our civil liberties).

Link via Matthew Gross.