PROSECUTING POT IS A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY

This is historic. Barney Frank and I agree on something.

Actually, I probably agree with at least 10 percent of what the
now-veteran, hard-left Massachusetts congressman says and does. It's
just that there are few places where the views of the liberal and the
libertarian converge so perfectly.

And this place would be the insane, unaffordable War on Drugs -
specifically as it pertains to marijuana.

Frank said on national television last week that he intends to file a
bill to get the feds out of the business of busting pot smokers. No
longer would it be a federal crime to possess "small amounts" of the
intoxicating weed. He didn't define "small," but I'm willing to bet he
means what most people mean - the amount somebody would have for
personal use, instead of running a dealership.

He points out the obvious - that most crimes aren't federal crimes,
including mugging, which is far more of a threat to others than
lighting up a joint.

And such a bill, if it gained any traction, would dovetail nicely with
the effort now underway in Massachusetts to put a question on the
ballot this fall that would make simple possession of marijuana a
civil, rather than a criminal, offense. Instead of facing criminal
penalties, including jail time, an offender would pay a $100 civil
fine, like a traffic ticket.

It's about time. My only objection is that none of this goes far
enough - pot ought to be legal for anybody older than 21. Either
that, or let's punish possession of alcohol by a $100 fine as well. I
mean, they're both drugs, both intoxicants. This is massive hypocrisy.
Let's at least be consistent.

And it is worth noting that plenty of people have died of alcohol
poisoning. Nobody has died from overdosing on pot.

The congressman pitches his initiative with the same talking points
used by most marijuana advocates. And they're all good points. It
would save millions, if not billions at the federal level, in law
enforcement time and effort. It would free up federal agents to go
after real threats to public safety, instead of spending their time
prosecuting people for giving themselves no more of a buzz than a
couple of glasses of wine.

In Massachusetts alone, the estimate is that the change could save
almost $30 million a year. That's not much of a dent in a budget of
more than $30 billion, but it would also let the cops concentrate on
things that are more important.

And it would spare harmless and productive citizens from carrying
criminal records for the rest of their lives.

It's just that none of this goes far enough, and doesn't confront the
absurdity of the way we treat different drugs. If alcohol is legal,
there is no good reason that marijuana shouldn't be legal. If gambling
is legal, not to mention heavily promoted by the state, there is no
reason pot should be banned for adults.

If you haven't done so already, read the Forum essay by state Sen.
Steve Baddour, D-Methuen, on casino gambling that appeared in last
Sunday's Eagle-Tribune. He argues that only 3 percent of the
population falls victim to problem gambling, compared to 10 percent
who are problem drinkers and 18 percent addicted to tobacco.

He talks about the benefits of jobs, of tax revenue, and of money set
aside to address the inevitable social costs of people pouring their
"hard-earned" money into the glittering, but black hole of gambling
palaces.

And if you substituted "pot" for "gaming," you could make most of the
same arguments. Think of the tax revenue, think of the jobs for
cannabis farmers, distributors and retailers, think of the
"entertainment" for adults getting a nice buzz instead of staring,
half catatonic, at a video poker machine.

Even the pot advocates aren't pushing for that much, of course. While
the public supports, by an overwhelming margin, the decriminalization
of marijuana, it is less receptive to giving it the same status as
alcohol.

But, at some point it should. It is indefensible not to do
otherwise.

I've got no personal stake in any of this. I don't gamble and I don't
smoke pot. I wouldn't smoke it even if it were legal. But whatever
happened to giving emancipated adults freedom of choice?

Here we are in liberal, government-has-no-business-in-your-private-life
Massachusetts, where I can't count the number of politicians who have
told me they are firmly pro-choice - that they believe absolutely
that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body. What
a load of effluent. The only thing they think a woman should be
allowed to choose is to abort a baby. No choice about inhaling the
smoke from burning a plant.

If none of that is persuasive, consider this fact: The War on Drugs
doesn't work. It never has. It never will. But it would have a better
chance if pot was taken off the enemies list.