So the commissions recommendations will be more difficult to ignore and congress has a budgetary reason to ensure that legislation passes. Yes, I expect LEO’s and ONDCP types on the panel, but I also expect balance to be appointed by Pelosi and Reid. Change to drug policy will be suggested, simply because you can’t cut prison population without it. During the 18 months that the commission is charges, we will most likely see a few more states pass decrim (NY) and medical marijuana laws. This will further pressure the commission to put federal laws in line with states laws.
I don’t share your belief that the road to legalization runs through Mendocino (who actually voted to reign in their possession laws with Measure G), or Alaska which has already decrimmed up to 4oz. or 25 plants. I believe that the road to an enlightened policy is through state legislatures AND the congress.
In short, I guess we must agree to disagree.

We know what the commission will say about legalizing marijuana. The Shafer Commission recommended decriminalization in 1972, and that’s without the tons of new science on marijuana and it’s health effects. It will be no different this time.

Sadly, I think you’re way off-base. We just DON’T what the commission will say about legalizing marijuana. Yes, there was a commission in 1972 that came to legalization conclusions. And, perhaps more surprisingly, it seemed that the head of that commission came to that conclusion after starting with an anti-legalization bent, then considering the facts, and reconsidering his conclusions.

1) Most of the time, people don’t come to issues with an open mind. If it’s an issue of some importance that they’ve already thought about, they assume they already know the correct answer. Then, they collect evidence that confirms their reasoning and discount evidence that points in the other direction. See here.

2) Personnel is policy. In general, when it comes to people with a record in public affairs, you can already tell what they’re going to say before they “study” an issue. The guy from ONDCP isn’t going to look at all the evidence on cannabis and then decide it’s time to narrow our Drug War. Neither is the guy from the private, for-profit rehab clinic. Cui bono? Who benefits? Alternately, whose ox is getting gored?

There are the rare exceptions of people who approach issues with a genuinely open mind and commitment to following the facts wherever they lead. Those people are likely to piss off people from both sides. Thus they are often particularly UN-influential.

3) A lot of these questions are irreducibly value-laden. There’s no “scientific” or “objective” answer. Some people value the right of people to pursue their own good in their own way (we call it “liberty”) and other people value order, authority, commitment to “unintoxicated” view of reality, whatever.

If we really want to win, we need to localize this fight. I’m not sure we can win a majority of people in the lower 48 states. And Congressmen are famously slow to awaken to changes that reduce their power. But I bet we can win a sensible policy in Mendocino County or Boston, MA or Ann Arbor, MI or maybe even a whole state like Hawaii or Alaska.

De-federalization = Victory.