VOTERS JUST SAY NO TO DRUG LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT

THINK Nevada, and gambling and prostitution come to mind. A state with that
philosophical starting point might be open to other vices as well.

At least that's what national groups that favor legalization of marijuana
had hoped, but they turned out to be wrong.

On Tuesday, a Nevada ballot initiative to allow possession of up to three
ounces was soundly defeated.

Meanwhile, next door in Arizona, voters agreed that marijuana laws
shouldn't be relaxed.

They defeated an initiative to remove criminal penalties for recreational
use. Anyone caught in possession of two ounces of marijuana or less would
have gotten the equivalent of a traffic ticket.

Actually, advocates for relaxing drug laws have an intriguing argument,
which they have been making unsuccessfully for 25 years.

The war on drugs, they point out, has not been a success. "Let's stop
pretending that we can be a drugfree society," one advocate for change
says. "The challenge is not to get rid of drugs, but to have them cause the
least possible harm."

"We need to make drugs a controlled substance just like alcohol," says
another. "Legalization means we educate, regulate, tax and control."

This point of view has supporters at both ends of the political spectrum:
left and right. But it has obvious flaws.

It ignores the fact that if marijuana -- or other drugs -- were cheap,
easily available and low-risk, consumption would increase.

Also, legalization would send the wrong signal on drug use. Marijuana is
addictive for some. It's attractive to minors. And it's a gateway to more
serious drugs. The government shouldn't condone its use.

Also on Tuesday, Ohio voters defeated a related ballot measure: a proposal
to send folks arrested for marijuana possession to drug programs, not jail.
That decision, too, was probably wise.

Treatment may be more effective than incarceration in solving addiction
problems, but it's expensive and not needed in every case.

And to automatically send everyone to treatment would be as misguided as
sending everyone to jail, as mandatory minimum-sentence laws require.

Judges should have the discretion to decide what's appropriate in
individual cases. In many jurisdictions, including Louisville, drug courts
are effectively doing that work.