ELIMINATION OF MARIJUANA LAWS SMART, BUT WILL FAIL

Matt Jividen claims this legislation can be beneficial, even though
it will not pass.

Welcome back, everyone. I assume many of you spent your breaks
working on your suntan in some exotic locale. Personally, I stayed in
Madison and watched snowfall top the century mark for the season. I
did, however, between my long-hibernation-style sleep cycles find the
time to watch a rather interesting episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher."

The episode featured a panel discussion, during which Rep. Barney
Frank, D-Mass., said the following: "It's time for the politicians to
catch up with the public on [the issue of marijuana]." He continued,
adding his plans to introduce a bill to address the problem this week.

The proposed legislation, dubbed the "Make Room for Serious Criminals
Act," would supposedly end the federal government's ability to arrest
and prosecute responsible cannabis users.

The new proposal would eliminate all federal penalties prohibiting
the personal use and possession of up to 100 grams of marijuana.
Adults who consume cannabis would no longer face arrest, prison or
even the threat of a civil fine.

In addition, this bill would eliminate all penalties prohibiting the
not-for-profit transfers of up to one ounce of cannabis between
adults. This bill will also cease federal law enforcement agencies
targeting those using marijuana as a legal medical treatment under
California law.

Many are doubtful of the bill's passibility, yet at the very least it
is a step in the right direction. Although the medical marijuana
issue has been hot as of late, this is the first decriminalization
bill introduced in Congress in the last quarter-century.

Even so, on a local and state level, several areas have replaced
criminal sanctions with fines, including Madison and Milwaukee.
Furthermore, a number of states, which collectively are home to over
1/3 of the nation's population, have passed decriminalization
legislation. These include Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio and Oregon. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts are
expected to join the ranks within the year as well.

Outraged yet? Apparently, you're in the minority. A CNN/Time Magazine
poll found that 76 percent of U.S. citizens support changing the
marijuana policy so responsible adults who enjoy marijuana are no
longer subject to humiliation, arrest and incarceration. Many people
support changing marijuana laws on the basis that it is no more
dangerous than other state-condoned substances. For others, it is a
financial and social issue—perhaps people have realized that taxing a
$6 billion-a-year underground industry could be an economic boon in
tight financial times.

Others are tired of paying for prosecution and incarceration for
nearly 830,000 Americans who are arrested on marijuana charges each
year, 89 percent of which are guilty of no more than simple personal
possessions. And let's not forget the large number of people who are
productive and otherwise law-abiding citizens who don't wish to be
marginalized by the outdated and counterproductive prohibition.

In theory, Frank's bill should pass. However, Washington hypocrisy
may once again stymie any progress. And before you start pointing any
fingers, it is coming from both sides of the aisle.

In theory, Republicans should support this legislation. The bill is,
at heart, a state's rights issue. States would be given the autonomy
to make decisions based on the general constituency of the state,
rather than be limited under the umbrella of federal mandates. Many
readers may be too young to remember, but the Republicans are
theoretically the party of small government and less federal
oversight. The bill would decriminalize marijuana on the federal
level, yet it would still theoretically leave the states with the
final say. For example, there's no federal law against mugging, yet
mugging is illegal in every state because of a decision by the
individual states. The prohibition on marijuana, on the other hand,
is a federal law that supercedes any law made by individual states.
Big government, anyone? Unfortunately, I assume the "moral
obligations" of congressional Republicans will once again subvert the
theoretical foundations of the party.

Did you think I would let the Democrats off that easily? Not a
chance. What they have done, in many circumstances, is literally
criminal. Remember the 2004 presidential campaign? In a 2003 debate,
John Edwards, Howard Dean and John Kerry practically fell all over
each other admitting to past marijuana use. Joe Lieberman, who denied
any allegations of drug use, did so apologetically. In 2000, Gore
openly admitted to frequent marijuana use to calm his nerves while in
Vietnam. Before Gore, former President Bill Clinton allegedly would
have gotten high had he understood the mechanics of a joint—but, in
all fairness, he was only a Rhodes Scholar.

Given the circumstances, how is it then that the law remains? Is it
not silly to keep a law on the books that the highest elected
officials break with impunity, or even pride? Is it fair that the
majority of users are more likely to end up in an eight-by-eight
cell, while others unabatedly are free to become president? I would
be less upset if these previous users made any attempt at legitimate
decriminalization while in office, but, more often than not, the
opposite happens. Even Clinton's "attempted" drug use did not stop
the marijuana arrests from soaring during his administration, nor did
it stop him from signing a bill into law that revoked federal
financial aid to students who had been convicted of drug offenses—no
matter how small.

Even current Democratic golden boy, presumptive nominee and
self-described "frequent inhaler" Barack Obama has been hypocritical
and inconsistent on the issue. While running for Senate in 2004,
Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating
criminal penalties for marijuana use. Fast forward to October 2007
when, in a presidential debate, Obama joined other Democratic
candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana. I can't
remember the 2004 election too clearly, but I believe the Republicans
had a hyphenated phrase describing that sort of thing…

Hopefully Frank's proposed legislation will start a long-overdue
discussion in the country. Hell, maybe it will pass, but I wouldn't
count on it. Regardless, I'll still write my senator and tell him to
support the bill—and you should too. On the bright side, even if the
bill does go "up in smoke," I'm sure some of the more creative
congressional democrats can find some use for all the wasted paper.