ARREST WEEDS OUT POTHEADS' BEST HOPE

We don't know which of the candidates to succeed retiring New Orleans DA
Harry Connick will get his endorsement, but we do know it won't be criminal
defense lawyer Gary Wainwright.

One of Wainwright's first acts, were he to be elected, might be to nol-pros
his own case; he was picked up on a marijuana charge at an Algiers Carnival
parade this year. He is highly unlikely to get the chance, however.

Because Wainwright advocates decriminalization of marijuana possession, he
was originally declared persona non grata when Connick, with his
conventionally stern views on drugs, announced a briefing for candidates.
Connick relented, however, and Wainwright duly turned up last week, seizing
the opportunity at a subsequent press conference to spout what his host
will have regarded as hippy heresy.

None of the other candidates present at the briefing -- Civil District
Court Clerk Dale Atkins, former U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan and lawyers
James Gray and Michael Darnell -- cared to address the topic. If they had,
they would hardly have agreed with Wainwright. Although his theories make a
certain amount of sense, espousing them is no way to be elected DA. Those
theories are, however, gaining ground elsewhere.

Nevada is about to hold a referendum on a proposition to legalize
possession of up to three ounces of marijuana, which would be taxed and
sold in state-licensed stores.

Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon wants fines instead of prison for
users.

And British Home Secretary David Blunkett announced last week that
possession of marijuana will, in most circumstances, no longer be grounds
for arrest, although at the same time the penalty for dealing will be
increased from five to 14 years in prison.

Blunkett must be in a muddle of five-joint proportions to conclude that it
should suddenly be less wrong to possess marijuana, but almost three times
as wrong to sell it. Dealers will naturally be encouraged to push more
lucrative, and dangerous, hard drugs if they are liable to a long stretch
regardless.

The Nevada proposition makes much more sense by putting the illegal pot
dealers out of business and generating a few bucks for the government.
Perhaps that will raise moral objections, but what is good for alcohol and
tobacco ought to be good for such a comparatively benign drug as marijuana.

Wainwright, though a lonely voice in the DA's race, would find plenty of
support among the police in this and other countries for the view that an
inordinate amount of time and money is wasted on penny-ante drug cases.
Britain's Association of Police Chiefs agrees with that proposition,
although Blunkett's announcement caused the resignation of drug czar Keith
Hellawell.

If it is true, as hard-liners argue, that marijuana users are liable to
graduate to heroin and crack cocaine, it cannot be said that strict
prohibition has helped. Heroin is making a big comeback on the streets of
New Orleans right now, and it may be that legalizing marijuana and
regulating its sale would separate users from purveyors of the hard stuff.

Since the Dutch government adopted such a policy, far fewer marijuana users
are reported to have made the switch to hard drugs. In Holland heroin is
the province of old timers; in New Orleans youngsters continue to become
addicted.

It is at least arguable that the legalization of marijuana would make New
Orleans safer by freeing the police to concentrate on crimes, often
committed by hard drug users, that threaten life and property. Any debate
on the subject would certainly be germane in a DA's race, but the only
politic course for candidates is to denounce drugs as a scourge and oppose
any move to relax the laws.

A liberal candidate for DA seems, after 30 years of Connick, almost a
contradiction in terms. A candidate for DA who is awaiting trial takes a
bit of getting used to as well. That Wainwright may not agree with the law
he is accused of breaking does not make his candidacy any less incongruous.