STATES RIGHT ON DRUG REFORM

While the federal government in recent years has approached illicit drug
policy along the lines of the classic definition of a fanatic - if it isn't
working, redouble your efforts - there has been a quiet rethinking of drug
policy at the state level, beginning with the decision by California voters
in 1996 to approve the medical use of marijuana. But it has been difficult
to tell how widespread this phenomenon is.

A new report (available at www.drugpolicy.org) from the Drug Policy
Alliance, an advocate of a harm-reduction rather than prohibitive approach
to potentially dangerous drugs, goes a long way toward demonstrating that a
willingness to enact drug policy reforms is more than a passing fancy.
Almost every state in the nation has passed some kind of reform since 1996,
and 17 states, including California, have passed three or more reform measures.

Specifically, 46 states passed more than 150 new laws that could be
classified as harm-reduction reforms between 1996 and 2002 - and more
reforms have been passed in 2003. These reforms have been proposed by
Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Libertarians, and approved by citizen or
legislative majorities. Can it be that politicians no longer fear that even
discussing drug policy will get them labeled "soft on crime" and defeated
in the next election?

Among the reforms passed have been medical marijuana laws, reduction of
drug offense sentences, measures to increase legal access to sterile
syringes, restoring the right to vote to some with a felony conviction,
replacing incarceration with treatment, and curtailing the abuse of
asset-forfeiture laws.

The most interesting story we heard in a conference call with journalists
this week came from Don Murphy, a four-term former state legislator from
Maryland. A conservative Republican from a Baltimore suburb, he was
persuaded by a constituent from another district - a Green Beret with
cancer - to introduce a medical marijuana bill in 2000.

In 2000 his bill had eight co-sponsors (four Republicans and four
Democrats) and did not pass. In 2001 it got 28 co-sponsors and didn't pass.
In 2002, "an election year in which everybody said it would be political
poison to discuss this issue," according to Mr. Murphy, it got 54
co-sponsors and failed by one vote. In the election that November, several
key opponents of the bill were defeated by opponents who supported it and
made an issue of it. This year it passed and the Republican governor has
signed it.

In three years, then, medical marijuana went from an issue most politicians
were afraid to discuss to one they were afraid to oppose for fear of being
defeated at the polls.

So the news from the states is encouraging. Now if only the feds would get
the message that voters are tired of drug policies that not only don't stop
drugs but do more harm than good.