ANTI-20 ARGUMENTS MAKE YOU WONDER WHO'S SMOKING WHAT

Oct. 22, 2000 - After dutifully watching all three presidential debates, as
well as the vice-presidential debate, the main conclusion I reached is that
I'm still an undecided voter. For sensible voters, the choice is between
Ralph Nader of the Green Party and Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party,
and I'm leaning toward Nader.

For one thing, he actually ventured into the remote interior of Colorado
this fall, and I'm partial to candidates who think we're worth the trouble.

For another, he seems to answer the reservations that many people have about
the major-party nominees. Those who worry about Al Gore's possible ethical
lapses can be solaced by Nader's consistency and integrity during the 35
years since he became a national figure with his campaign for improved auto
safety.

Those who are concerned about Bush's ties to the oil industry and his genial
attitude toward big business can rest assured that Nader is not a corporate
lackey.

And there's the simple fact that Nader has had more effect on American life
than Gore, Lieberman, Bush and Cheney combined, and most of that effect has
been toward improving public safety, health and involvement.

Sure, there are people who say that this is "just throwing your vote away,"
but it's my vote, isn't it? And if I can't deploy it for the best candidate
on the ballot - the one with the record of integrity and pubic service -
what's the point?

The hypocrisy of the two major parties may be most evident in Amendment 20
on the Colorado ballot.

It's the medical marijuana amendment, and it would make possession and use
legal for people with certain medical conditions or whose physicians believe
they might benefit.

When it comes to abortion, another medical matter, the Democratic Party is
pro-choice, that it's solely a matter for the woman, her physician and her
conscience.

Abortion is a serious issue, certainly more serious than growing a few
plants and burning their dried leaves. So why aren't the Democrats out in
front on this issue, which also involves medical choice?

As for the Republicans, on Tuesday night Bush kept saying he was for
empowering the people, not the government - as if the people and the
government were entities that had no connection with each other, which is an
odd attitude for someone who seeks to lead what Abraham Lincoln called a
"government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

If Bush really believed that, wouldn't he also be telling Colorado
Republicans to support Amendment 20, since it allows "the people," rather
than "the government," to determine which medication best assuages their
afflictions? Then there are the congressional Republicans, the ones who
think the states know best when it comes to education or environmental laws.
But they didn't vote to cut off funds for anti-pot programs in California
after that state passed a medical marijuana law.

The silly arguments against Amendment 20 make you wonder who's been smoking
the pot.

One such argument is that it will send the wrong message to children, who
might think marijuana is OK if doctors can prescribe it.

Physicians can prescribe morphine and cocaine now, as well as a host of
other potent and addictive substances, and somehow society survives. If the
anti-20 people were truly worried about this, they would be trying to ban
all prescription drugs that have the potential for abuse, on the grounds
that the first duty of physicians is not to treat their patients, but rather
to send the politically correct message to children.

Another frivolous argument is that Amendment 20, just like the campaign to
legalize industrial hemp, is just a first step toward re-legalizing
marijuana for any and all purposes.

And so what? I keep trying to imagine what horrors lurk if marijuana were
legal. It's not going to kill anybody - in all of history, there isn't one
recorded death from an overdose of marijuana.

Corporate agriculture and real-estate developers might suffer if small farms
had a decent cash crop, and that prospect doesn't exactly frighten me. Edgy
people might grow and roll their own, rather than go through the expensive
drill to get a Prozac prescription, but it's something that society should
be able to survive.

Bush was right the other night when he said we should trust the people
rather than the government. It's too bad that he doesn't believe it, though,
or he'd be supporting any and all campaigns to "keep the government out of
our medicine cabinets."