DOES PROHIBITION OF POT REALLY WORK?

Drink and drive and it's grrrrrrrr-eat! Smoke pot and your flakes are
frosted, dude.

So seems the message from Kellogg, which has decided not to renew its
sponsorship contract with Michael Phelps after the Olympian was
photographed smoking marijuana at a party in South Carolina.

That's showbiz, of course, but the cereal and munchie company had no
problem signing Phelps despite a prior alcohol-related arrest. In
2004, Phelps was fined and sentenced to 18 months probation and
community service after pleading guilty to driving while impaired.

The silliness of our laws needs no further elaboration. Even so,
things are getting sillier by the minute.

Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff Leon Lott has now made eight
pot-related arrests based on the snap that shot around the world.

Seven were for possession and one for distribution, after deputies
used warrants to enter the house where Phelps allegedly was photographed.

Phelps may be next.

In an earlier column, I gave Lott the benefit of the doubt,
suggesting that his hands were tied given the laws of the land and
South Carolina's political climate. I retract the benefit.

Sheriffs, though elected and therefore political, have great latitude
as to what crimes they pursue.

In a state that recently ranked among the most dangerous in the
nation, one would think South Carolina's law enforcement officials
have better things to do.

In our peculiar obsession to track down the Willie Nelsons, Rush
Limbaughs, and now Michael Phelpses of society - nonviolent,
victimless imbibers of drugs - we've actually made society less safe.
That's the conclusion of 10,000 cops, prosecutors, judges and others
who make up the membership of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

Howard Wooldridge, LEAP's Washington representative, is a former cop
and detective who lectures civic clubs and congressional staffers on
the futility of drug laws that reduce public safety by wasting time
and money. He points to child pornography as just one example.

As of last April, he says, law enforcement had identified 623,000
computers containing child pornography, including downloadable video
of child rape.

Only a fraction of those have been pursued with search warrants,
thanks to limited resources and staff shortages.

What's worse, Wooldridge says, is that three times out of five a
search warrant also produces a child victim on the premises.

Another example: Last year Human Rights Watch reported that as many
as 400,000 rape kits containing evidence were sitting unopened in
criminal labs and storage facilities.

Arguments against prohibition should be obvious. When you eliminate
the victimless "crime" of drug use, you disempower the criminal element.

Neutering drug gangs and cartels would be no small byproduct of
decriminalization.

Not only would state regulation minimize toxic concoctions common on
the black market, but also taxation would be a windfall in a hurting economy.

No one's saying that drugs aren't dangerous. Alcohol and tobacco are
also dangerous.

And no one thinks children should have access to harmful substances,
though they already do.

Parents who recoil because their child became an addict should note
that prohibition didn't help.

What prohibition did was criminalize what is essentially a health
problem - and overcrowd prisons. In 2007, there were 872,720
marijuana arrests in the U.S.

Of those, 775,137 were for possession. South Carolina just added
eight to this year's roster.

The answer - and the solution - seems clear.

I'm not convinced that all drugs should be legalized, but we should
at least put prohibition on the table to take another look.

In the meantime, Sheriff Lott has some 'splainin' do to.