Sobriety Check

AMEND. 44 STEP TOWARD CLEAR-HEADED DRUG POLICY

The long journey toward a more rational and workable national drug
control policy begins with a single step. That's why we're backing
Amendment 44 in next week's election. The text of Amendment 44 is
simple. It reads: "Any person under twenty-one years of age who
possesses not more than one ounce of marijuana commits a class 2
petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars." Not very complicated, but
this change could make a big difference in how the judicial system
deals with drug offenders, as well as send a strong message to
Washington that Coloradans are ready for a more realistic and
rational national drug policy.

In essence, it would legalize possession of small amounts of
marijuana by adults. It would still be illegal for minors to possess
it and possession of more than one ounce by anyone would remain
illegal and subject to current laws. This vote could have national
implications, which explains why the nation's drug czar came to
Colorado to campaign against the measure. Because approval of
Amendment 44 would make Colorado the first state to legalize
marijuana, putting state law at odds with federal law, the drug
warriors evidently see this as a major chink in the armor of the drug
war. They worry that passage would be the beginning of a flood of
legalization around the country.

We have long been on record as questioning the reasons behind, and
conduct of, the so-called war on drugs -- an effort that's
responsible for thousands of deaths, prison overcrowding and untold
misery for a lot of people in a number of countries. A blanket
prohibition on the use of certain drugs clearly isn't working. But
some politicians, law enforcement officials and professional drug
warriors refuse to consider options that move us in the direction of
drug legalizations. Passage of Amendment 44 at least sets the stage
for a national debate on the issue, and possibly sets us on the road
to a partial solution.

Proponents of the amendment say marijuana use is safer than alcohol,
which is legal for those over 21. They point to links between
drinking and domestic violence and argue that marijuana use does not
lead to violent outbursts. Opponents of the amendment point to the
dangers of prolonged use of marijuana as a reason to derail the
proposal. They also point out that many drug users commit other
crimes to support their habits. We won't attempt to settle either
argument today, because both are beside the point.

As libertarians, we simply don't believe the government should tell
adults what they can or can't ingest, except when their irresponsible
use of such substances brings them into conflict with the rights of
others. The use of illegal drugs can sometimes do that, to be sure.
But so can the reckless or irresponsible use of many legal drugs, as
well as other legal products. Government attempts to meddle in these
choices by barring the use of certain substances, while sanctioning
or regulating the use of others, to us seems arbitrary, irrational
and an encroachment on individual liberty.

Banning substances or products on the grounds that they might be
dangerous in the hands of some people shouldn't fly in a truly free
society. Government is in the business of protecting us from others,
not ourselves. It's true that marijuana use is not risk free. But
very little in life is, and free people should be able to make their
own choices.

The drug war has been going on for decades and drugs are still
readily available across the country, proof that current policy isn't
working. This is a good first step toward forcing government to
abandon an approach that just doesn't work.

We encourage freedom lovers to vote yes on Amendment 44.