DRUG WAR INVADES STATE ELECTIONS

The drug warriors are nervous, very nervous.

Last month, Maryland's Republican governor signed legislation reducing the
maximum punishment for anyone caught using marijuana as medicine to a $100
fine. Eight states are even more lenient, having legalized medical
marijuana; and Canada is expected to soon decriminalize possession of small
amounts of the drug. With all this going on, the office of the nation's
drug czar is getting more desperate to keep the marijuana genie in the bottle.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy has resorted to extreme claims,
suggesting in past television ads that smoking marijuana promotes
terrorism, or will make you shoot your friend. In one ad that ran last
year, two male teens are smoking pot in a comfortable den when one picks up
a gun he thinks is unloaded and accidentally shoots his buddy. The text at
the end says, "Marijuana can distort your sense of reality."

I can imagine teenagers rolling their eyes - that is after they stop laughing.

The drug warriors have it backward. What really can distort one's sense of
reality is a blind crusade against marijuana use - a drug to be sure, but a
substance that is less dangerous and addictive than alcohol and tobacco.
But the crusade launched by ONDCP offers little nuance, conflating
marijuana with every other illicit substance, including crack. (Drug czar
John Walters has derided medical marijuana as an idea as looney as
"medicinal crack.")

A hysterical letter from ONDCP sent in November to every local prosecutor
in the nation declared that "no drug matches the threat posed by
marijuana," and continued with claims that "marijuana and violence are
linked" and "marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggests
that it is." Posh! Serious and credible studies dispute both claims,
including a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine and commissioned by
the ONDCP that found marijuana effective in addressing symptoms of "nausea,
appetite loss, pain and anxiety."

Because the battlefront for easing marijuana restrictions is in the states,
Walters and the other princes of prohibition in the Bush administration -
Attorney General John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, chief of the Drug
Enforcement Administration - have abandoned the classic Republican refrain
of home rule and local control. Instead, they have been doing everything
possible to defeat the voters' will, including unleashing the DEA in
California to harass sick people who say marijuana helps them control their
pain and other ailments.

The latest tactic is not to wait for the passage of new liberalizing ballot
initiatives but to influence the outcome of the election. When Nevada
voters were asked last fall to vote on whether to decriminalize the
personal possession of small amounts of marijuana, Walters barnstormed the
state during a couple of days in October, making speeches and media
appearances opposing it. Just before election day, he told the Wall Street
Journal, "We're going to fight, whether we win or lose, in every state that
(supporters of drug reform initiatives) come into from now on."

The Nevada initiative failed, probably in part due to his efforts.

But Walters' campaigning has raised serious ethical and legal issues.
Federal officials are not allowed to use the resources of their office to
affect the results of an election. The Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939,
bars federal employees from using their "official authority or influence"
for electioneering.

Unfortunately, challenges to Walters' actions have so far come up empty.
The federal Office of Special Counsel was asked by the pro-legalization
Marijuana Policy Project to investigate the Hatch Act violation, but rather
than closing this loophole the office opened it even wider. In a May 7
opinion letter, the office said that nonpartisan statewide ballot
initiatives are not "elections" for the purpose of the act and federal
officials are free to lobby against them.

MPP also contacted Nevada election officials to complain that Walters'
campaigning violated election reporting rules. But in April, Brian
Sandoval, Nevada's attorney general, said Walters was probably immune from
the state laws. Notably though, he also expressed extreme displeasure with
the degree to which Walters intervened in his state. "The excessive federal
intervention . . . is particularly disturbing because it sought to
influence the outcome of a Nevada election," Sandoval wrote.

This should be disturbing to anyone interested in a limited federal
government and comity, but House Republicans have a different view. They
want to codify the drug czar's politicking and turn the ONDCP's annual
$195-million advertising budget into a campaign war chest. A provision
slipped into the bill to reauthorize the ONDCP would give the drug czar
express authority to spend money to oppose any state ballot initiative to
legalize drugs or any candidate favoring legalization.

Did you get that? The proposal would open the federal treasury to a federal
official for the purchase of TV ads opposing local candidates deemed too
soft on drugs. Hmmm, tax money used to challenge opposition candidates and
referenda - it's an idea worthy of a corrupt Latin American democracy.

One Republican at least refuses to go along. Rep. Ron Paul from Texas vows
to fight this on the House floor if necessary. He calls the idea
"outrageous" and says it would force federal taxpayers "to promote propaganda."

Even Walters is opposing this idea. His spokesman, Tom Riley, says the
media campaign's purpose is "to prevent teen drug use and to get parents
involved in the effort" - plenty to do without participating in an election
process. Though he quickly adds that the director himself is free to fight
liberalizing ballot initiatives and will continue to do so.

The prohibitionists are now damaging more than just the lives of
recreational drug users, they are interferring in state sovereignty. This
is what I'd call Reefer Madness.