POT PROPOSALS VS. DRUG WARRIORS

Nevada is known for gambling, 24-hour liquor sales and legal
prostitution. Yet the main group opposing Question 7, an initiative
on the state's ballot next month to allow sale and possession of up
to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 or older, is called the
Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable.

In Colorado, opponents of Amendment 44, which would eliminate
penalties for adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, are
equally certain of their own rectitude. "Those who want to legalize
drugs weaken our collective struggle against this scourge," declares
the Colorado Drug Investigators Association. "Like a cancer,
proponents for legalization eat away at society's resolve and moral fiber."

In sum, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree
followed by a visit to a hooker; people who think adults shouldn't be
punished for their choice of recreational intoxicants are like a
tumor that will kill you unless eradicated. The marijuana
initiatives' backers have refused to cede the moral high ground to
such self-righteous posturing, a strategy from which other activists can learn.

The Nevada campaign, which calls itself the Committee to Regulate and
Control Marijuana, emphasizes the advantages of removing marijuana
from the black market, where regulation and control are impossible,
and allowing adults to obtain the drug from licensed, accountable
merchants. To signal a legal market does not mean anything goes, the
initiative increases penalties for injuring people while driving
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The "regulate and control" message has attracted public support from
more than 30 Nevada religious leaders. The list includes not just the
usual suspects -- Unitarian Universalist ministers and Reform rabbis
- -- but also representatives of more conservative groups, such as
Lutherans and Southern Baptists.

"I don't think using marijuana is a wise choice for anyone," says the
Rev. William C. Webb, senior pastor of Reno's Second Baptist Church.
"Drugs ruin enough lives. But we don't need our laws ruining more
lives. If there has to be a market for marijuana, I'd rather it be
regulated with sensible safeguards than run by violent gangs and
dangerous drug dealers."

Troy Dayton of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, who was largely
responsible for persuading Mr. Webb and the other religious leaders
to back Question 7, notes that support from clergy, which was
important in repealing alcohol prohibition, "forces a reframing of
the issue." It's no longer potheads versus puritans.

The Colorado campaign, which goes by the name SAFER (Safer
Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), emphasizes marijuana is less
dangerous than alcohol and asks, "Should adults be punished for
making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol?" This
approach puts prohibitionists on the defensive by asking them to
justify the disparate legal treatment of the two drugs.

So far they have not been up to the task. Mesa County District
Attorney Pete Hautzinger has implicitly conceded marijuana itself is
not so bad by implausibly linking it to methamphetamine. In a
televised debate with SAFER's Mason Tvert, Colorado Attorney General
John Suthers insisted "the only acceptable alternative to
intoxication is sobriety."

That's fine for those who avoid all psychoactive substances as a
matter of principle. But since most people -- including Mr. Suthers,
who acknowledges drinking -- like using chemicals to alter their
moods and minds, it's reasonable to seek some consistency in the
law's treatment of those chemicals, especially when police arrest a
record number of Americans (nearly 787,000 last year) for marijuana offenses.

Despite a hard push by federal, state and local drug warriors who
have been telling voters in Nevada and Colorado that failing to
punish adults for smoking pot will "send the wrong message" to
children, the latest polls indicate most are unpersuaded. Perhaps
they worry about the message sent by the current policy of mindless
intolerance.