FINALLY, A LITTLE HONESTY ABOUT AMERICA'S INEPT WAR ON DRUGS

Finally, a little honesty.

Finally, after America has frittered away billions of taxpayer dollars
arming Latin American death squads, airdropping toxic herbicide on
equatorial farmland, and incarcerating more of its own citizens on
nonviolent drug charges than any other industrialized nation, two
political leaders last week tried to begin taming the most wildly out
of control beast in the government zoo: federal narcotics policy.

It started with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating an
embarrassingly obvious truth that politicians hardly ever discuss. In
a speech about rising violence in Mexico, she said, "Our insatiable
demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," and then added that
"we have co-responsibility" for the cartel-driven carnage plaguing our
southern border.

She's right, of course. For all the Rambo-ish talk about waging a "War
on Drugs" that interdicts the supply of narcotics, we have not
diminished demand - specifically, demand for marijuana that cartels
base their business on.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Americans
spend about $9 billion a year on Mexican pot.

Add that to the roughly $36 billion worth of domestically produced
weed, and cannabis has become one of the continent's biggest cash
crops. As any mob movie illustrates, mixing such "insatiable" demand
for a product with statutes outlawing said product guarantees the
emergence of a violent black market - in this case, one in which
Mexican drug cartels reap 62 percent of their profits from U.S.
marijuana sales.

That last stat, provided by the White House drug czar, is the silver
lining. Every American concerned about Mexico's security problems
should be thankful that the cartels are so dependent on marijuana, and
not a genuinely hazardous substance like heroin. Why? Because that
means through pot legalization, we can bring the marijuana trade out
of the shadows and into the safety of the regulated economy,
consequently eliminating the black market the cartels rely on. And
here's the best part: We can do so without fearing any more negative
consequences than we already tolerate in our keg-party culture.

Though President Obama childishly laughed at a question about
legalization during his recent town-hall meeting, his government
implicitly admits that marijuana is safer than light beer. Indeed, as
federal agencies acknowledge alcohol's key role in deadly illnesses
and domestic violence, their latest anti-pot fear mongering is an ad
campaign insisting - I kid you not - that marijuana is dangerous
because it makes people zone out on their couches and diminishes video
gaming skills.

(This is your government on drugs: Cirrhosis and angry tank-topped
lushes beating their wives are more acceptable risks than stoners
sitting in their basements ineptly playing Halo ... any
questions?).

Despite this idiocy, despite polls showing most Americans support some
form of legalization, and despite such legalization promising to
generate billions of dollars in tax revenue, Clinton only acknowledged
the uncomfortable reality about demand. That's certainly no small
step, but she did not address drug-policy reform. Confronting that
taboo subject was left to Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va.

Last week, this first-term lawmaker proposed creating a federal
commission to examine potential changes to the prison system,
including a relaxation of marijuana statutes.

Webb hails from a conservative-leaning swing state whose
criminal-justice laws are among the nation's most draconian, so
there's about as much personal political upside for him in this fight
as there is for Clinton - that is to say, almost none. That isn't
stopping him, though.

"The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the
criminal-justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration,"
he said in a speech, later telling the Huffington Post that pot
legalization "should be on the table."

Finally, a little honesty - and now, maybe, some action.