PUTTING THE 'WAR ON DRUGS' BEHIND BARS

Before this election, I was genuinely concerned that we as a people
may have lost control of our very own legal system. That was until I
witnessed the democratic and libertarian victory of Question 2 in
Massachusetts.

Despite almost every major state politician coming out of the
woodwork to stand against the ballot initiative, it remained popular
from the outset right through the election, passing with an
overwhelming 70 percent to 30 percent. Nearly everyone supposedly
representing and protecting us in government and law enforcement
wanted the measure dead, including Deval Patrick, John Kerry, Mitt
Romney and the district attorney of every state country. But all the
king's horses and all the king's men couldn't keep pot from being
nearly legal again.

The state actually stands to make millions of dollars each year by
ticketing violators, according to those who pushed for the ballot
initiative. Apparently, voters are starting to catch on to the fact
that it's incredibly expensive and futile to wage war on nouns, such
as "drugs" or "terror." I'm sure a little less war and a little more
educated democracy might be good for everyone involved.

There's only one little problem. Our cute new state law could
possibly be considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The people of California legalized the use of marijuana for medical
purposes in 1996. However, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) officers
still continued to arrest those legally smoking and growing in the
state. After 10 years of contradictory state and federal law, the
Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the DEA indeed has the right
to seize pot plants being grown to treat cancer and HIV/AIDS
patients, as well as other ailments marijuana can help.

Question 2 in Massachusetts doesn't legalize the drug, but instead
requires state and local police to not arrest individuals for
possession of small amounts (under an ounce, as I'm sure you've heard).

This is a policy that works well within the confines of state powers
(local police duties), so don't expect Question 2 to show up on a
Supreme Court docket anytime soon. But the ballot initiative does
again point out how horribly deluded our national drug policy is in America.

Ever since President Richard Nixon declared the War on Drugs in 1971
and pushed through the Controlled Substances Act, our country has
placed Cheech and Chong under the same legal framework as users of
serious drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

Are we really going to let Nixon - that infamous, slimy crook - shape
our modern day drug policy? Are we really going to continue to
disenfranchise millions of voters with racist and authoritarian
national drug laws? Are we really going to continue to dump billions
of dollars each year into arresting our own citizens for a victimless crime?

Marijuana still makes up nearly half of all our drug arrests as a
nation. America has more than 1 percent of our population in jail,
which is the largest proportion of any civilization's population to
ever be incarcerated in the history of the world.

This huge surplus of felons is thanks in large part to our
determination to pour money and law enforcement resources into the
War on Drugs. Our own government has had plenty of shady connections
to drug dealers such as the Contras, yet it has the audacity to say
it should put a person behind bars for smoking a joint? Give me a break.

This election, the 1960s and 1970s generations of pot-smoking baby
boomers finally showed up to vote in Massachusetts, and across the
nation. If this trend continues over the next few decades, we may go
from living in a country that talks about "freedom," to one that
finally embraces it.