Global Ganja Report

US Attorney General Eric Holder stated Oct. 16 that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes Proposition 19," the pending cannabis legalization initiative in California. He wrote: "If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens." He pledged to "vigorously enforce" the federal ban on possessing, growing or selling the drug if voters approve the ballot measure. Holder also indicated that the federal government might sue to overturn the measure if it is approved by voters on Nov. 2, writing that the DoJ "is considering all available legal and policy options."

Former administrators of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) John Bartels, Peter Bensinger, Francis Mullen, Jack Lawn, Robert Bonner, Tom Constantine, Donnie Marshall, Asa Hutchinson and Karen Tandy threw down the guantlet over Proposition 19, writing an editorial which doubled as an open letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder to bring suit against California —just as the Obama administration sued Arizona when that state passed its controversial immigration law.

On Aug. 25, the Los Angeles Times ran an opinion piece, "Why California should just say no to Prop. 19." jointly written by Gil Kerlikowske, John Walters, Barry McCaffrey, Lee Brown, Bob Martinez and William Bennett, directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. On Narco News, Al Giordano responds with "Six American Zeroes: Reason Enough to Support California Prop 19." Here are some excerpts:

The blog FireDogLake reports that Facebook ads for its pro-legalization campaign Just Say Now, which included an image of a cannabis leaf, have been banned by the social networking site. Facebook decided to ban all images of the cannabis leaf after the ad had been viewed an estimated 38 million times. FireDogLake has launched an online petition against Facebook's censorious policy.

Wachovia Corp. on March 18 agreed to pay $160 million to settle federal charges that it failed to establish an adequate anti-money laundering program. The case stems from investigations into transactions with Mexican exchange houses—or casas de cambio (CDCs)—between 2004 and 2007.