WHY OUR DRUG LAWS AREN'T WORKING

IT seems pretty obvious that the last three presidents - Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush and Barack Obama - once smoked marijuana. OK, Clinton
claimed he didn't inhale. Bush refused to say whether he ever used
drugs; instead, he coyly alluded to mistakes in his youth. Obama
didn't play games in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father" - he wrote
about using marijuana and cocaine as a kid.

The big question: If all three men nonetheless managed to become
president, why can't Washington decriminalize marijuana?

Or better yet, legalize, regulate and tax it. At what the White House
billed last week as an "experimental" town hall meeting with questions
submitted online, the most popular questions were about marijuana.
President Obama chose not to answer any such question directly.
Instead, the president volunteered that "there was one question that
was voted on that ranked fairly high, and that was whether legalizing
marijuana would improve the economy and job creation." Then he quipped
to laughter, "And I don't know what this says about the online audience."

His answer to his question: "No, I don't think that is a good strategy
to grow our economy." Fair enough, legalizing marijuana isn't a
strategy to improve the economy. But there are reasons to legalize
marijuana, such as the 872,720 marijuana arrests made in America in
2007 - more than 775,000 were for possession, not sale or manufacture.
Those individuals who are convicted may have criminal records and may
have trouble obtaining financial aid for college - even if some day
they could grow up to be president.

And what can America show for its drug laws? The World Health
Organization found that 42.4 percent of Americans had tried marijuana
- - the highest ratio of any of 17 countries surveyed. WHO researchers
concluded that drug use "does not appear to be related to drug policy,
as countries with more stringent policies (e.g., the United States)
did not have lower levels of illegal drug use than countries with more
liberal policies (e.g. the Netherlands)."

In short, drug laws don't work, but they cost the federal government
alone some $3.7 billion annually, according to Harvard economist
Jeffrey A. Miron.

Ess Eff's Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project observed, "I
can't say that I'm completely surprised by the way Obama dealt with
it, but I wonder if he was smart to insult the online audience that
played a very large role in electing him."

Insult? I don't think Obama meant to insult anyone. I think that was a
well-executed political straddle - Obama winked at the
pro-legalization crowd, even as he ran from the policy it so craves.

Mirken told me, "I can't help but feel that (Obama) really knows
better, but just doesn't think he can go there politically now."
That's the sign of a successful straddle: when the people whom you
officially oppose believe you secretly sympathize with them.

In February, pollster Scott Rasmussen reported that 40 percent of
Americans support legalizing marijuana, 46 percent oppose, while 14
percent are not sure. Voters under 40 are more supportive of
legalizing marijuana than older folk.

With such findings, you might expect that 4 in 10 Washington
politicians support legalizing marijuana. But only a minority of
politicians dares support something as modest as the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to stop federal raids on medical
marijuana clinics. In 2007, the House defeated the measure by a
262-165 vote in its fifth incarnation. In 2008, however,
Hinchey-Rohrabacher never even made it to a House vote.

Too toxic for a presidential election year. Mirken and I agree on
this: Any change in America's marijuana laws will percolate from the
bottom up. Said Mirken: "This is one of those issues that when it
changes, it's going to be all of a sudden, like the fall of the
Soviet empire. I think we're getting close to that point, and I think
that politicians will be the last to see it coming."

Or maybe the change will never come. Maybe Americans want politicians
who back expensive, ineffective marijuana laws - even if the
politicians ignored those laws when they were young.

Maybe some voters are willing to support laws that they believe will
turn someone else's kids into criminals if it means that their kids
will be less likely to stray - even if tough laws don't really dampen
drug usage. Maybe anyone can grow up to be president - whether he
inhaled or not - just as long as he campaigns on the promise to just
say no.