MAKE LAWS, NOT WAR

WASHINGTON - There has been a curious wrestling match here between the
government of the District of Columbia and Congress. The district
government won the latest round; but Congress, which has the ultimate
authority on laws in the nation's capital, will prevail in the end. The
question is whether it ought to prevail.

The subject, of all things, is marijuana. A year ago, voters were asked to
consider legalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The
referendum went to a vote on Election Day 1998, but before the tally could
be publicized, Congress stepped in to prevent release of the results. The
subsequent tug-of-war between Congress and advocates of what is called
medical-marijuana -- who include the mayor of Washington, Anthony Williams
- -- was resolved the other day by a federal judge, who ruled that the vote
should be public knowledge. As expected, the marijuana referendum was
endorsed by 69 percent of those who bothered to cast ballots (75,536 voters).

This is not the only place where such votes have been cast: In four states
- -- California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska -- medical-marijuana laws are
already in effect, and more are doubtless on the way. The District of
Columbia, however, faces an immovable object. Congress is overwhelmingly
opposed to the law, and under the district's home rule charter, that ends
the argument.

THIS HAS LED to a furious debate about the status of the district as a
creature of Congress and the rights of district residents to make their own
laws. The trouble with this argument is that the District of Columbia was
created by Congress in 1787 as a "federal enclave." Ironically, while
Congress has endorsed statehood for the district in past years, it is the
50 states that have generally resisted amending the Constitution. Of
course, no one is forced at gunpoint to live in Washington, D.C., and so
Congress has the final word on the subject.

It should be said that members of Congress oppose the medical-marijuana law
on principle: They are not determined to make district residents miserable;
they believe that any relaxation of the laws governing marijuana sends the
wrong message in the war on drugs. And it would make enforcement of
existing laws difficult in the nation's capital, where the previous mayor
was once imprisoned for using crack cocaine. Even some supporters of the
law admit that voting for the medicinal use of marijuana would yield
"30-second ads claiming they voted to legalize drugs," in the words of one
congressman. Appealing to the pot-smoking residents of Washington, D.C.,
does you little good back home in Iowa.

Yet it is a difficult issue. Advocates of medicinal-marijuana claim that it
relieves the symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other illnesses, as well as the
side effects of chemotherapy. Much of the medical evidence for this is
dubious, and opponents point out that other drugs exist for such
contingencies. There is also the slippery-slope argument: If marijuana were
to be legalized in the District of Columbia for medicinal purposes, you can
imagine the fun-loving physicians who would: write prescriptions for their
"suffering" friends. During Prohibition, after all, medicinal brandy and
whiskey were popular tonics for thirsty patients.

Which is precisely the point: In contemplating the war on drugs, we are led
to the memory of Prohibition -- another historic failure of government
policy. By coincidence, in the very week that results of the
medical-marijuana vote were released, it was announced that the United
States would dispatch unprecedented assistance -- including weapons,
ammunition and personnel -- to Colombia to fight that county's ever-growing
cocaine and heroin trade.

As with any war where things aren't going so well it is a good idea to step
back and calculate losses and gains. Any objective evaluation of the war on
drugs would reach an obvious conclusion: Not only has it failed to prevent
the import of illegal drugs from foreign lands, it has done little to
reduce the appetite for drugs here in America. This is a market-driven
phenomenon, and the market is thumbing its nose at the war on drugs.

THE SINCERITY of the combatants is not at issue: It is perfectly
understandable that some people would wish to discourage other people from
behavior that can be self-destructive. But as our recent hysteria about
smoking reminds us, there is a lot of self-destructive behavior -- tobacco,
alcohol, sugar, cholesterol, sexual promiscuity -- that is both legal and
impervious to taboos and restrictions. By all means, the use of drugs
should be discouraged; but for how long can a war against their use be
sustained? We are considerably more tolerant of, say, reckless drivers than
we are of wretches who crave marijuana, who face stiff legal sanctions and
imprisonment. And yet, who is more dangerous to encounter on the street?