SAFER COULD STILL BE SMARTER

Initiative 100 has caused quite a stir in recent weeks.

And though I am sympathetic to the aims of Safer Alternative for
Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), there is a fundamental flaw in the
campaign's logic that simply can't be overlooked. But more about that later.

If I-100 passes, Denver would be the first city - other than a couple
of college towns like Ann Arbor and Berkeley - to decriminalize
recreational pot, making it legal for anyone 21 or older to possess
an ounce or less of marijuana.

Should Americans have the liberty to be listless pods, spending all
their disposable income on trail mix and bootleg Phish CDs, if they
so choose? I think so.

Well, as long as they don't force me to listen to Phish.

So far, SAFER has done an admirable job of whipping up the
controversy - and with it, media coverage - with signs that read
"Make Denver Safer. "

"Critics say that our signs are misleading," Mason Tvert, director of
SAFER, tells me. "Yet, every day, I see signs in favor of Referendums
C and D that read 'Move Colorado Forward.' ... Clearly, around 49
percent of Coloradoans disagree that C and D would move Colorado
forward. Aren't those signs misleading?"

They sure are. But "Vote Yes on the biggest tax increase in the
history of Colorado!" would find as much traction as a billboard that
read "Vote no! Screw roads; we have SUVs!"

Show me an honest campaign and I'll show you a losing one.

You would think proposing the legalization of pot would be
provocative enough, but SAFER has made sure to antagonize our pious
city leaders even further.

"Our city council opponents continually argue that I-100 is 'useless'
because state law supersedes city law," Tvert says. "Like many drug
warriors, they are trying to discourage people from voting for it by
arguing their vote is futile."

One furious city council member, according to Tvert, was so upset he
began yanking out I-100 yard signs all around the city. Democracy at work.

Outrage over campaign tactics recently persuaded SAFER to switch a
billboard picturing a woman's battered face to one reading: "Alcohol
use makes domestic violence 8 times more likely ... Marijuana use
does not. Vote yes on I-100."

But in truth, I-100's problem is not campaign dishonesty, it's
intellectual dishonesty.

By masking a policy debate about marijuana and transforming it into a
bogus argument about safety, SAFER does a disservice to voters and
those who believe in legalized pot.

"It's our position that if this passes," Tvert explains, "and less
people use alcohol, we would have less problems. If one person
decided to use pot instead of alcohol and doesn't beat up his wife or
drive, it's worth it."

Actually it's not. In fact, if we use SAFER's line of reasoning,
government would be out there promoting quaaludes, heroin and
sleeping pills - all less likely to spark domestic violence than whiskey.

Ironically, SAFER is advancing arguments against personal
responsibility. They are admonishing alcohol in rhetoric suspiciously
similar to that used by drug warriors about pot.

But there is hope.

At the age of 23, Tvert's shown great passion and skill as a campaigner.

He successfully ran initiative campaigns at the University of
Colorado and Colorado State University, where they overwhelmingly
approved SAFER-sponsored nonbinding referendums to lighten penalties
for marijuana.

(OK, I conceded that persuading college students to endorse
recreational drug use is about as momentous as convincing toddlers to
officially make chocolate ice cream a "healthy food.")

Yet, despite the flaws of this campaign, I hope Tvert comes back with
a more candid and vigorous initiative in the future.

If you believe in more individual freedom, you may still feel
comfortable voting for I-100. But don't fall for SAFER's wobbly logic.

David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday.