ARNOLD'S BRAVE CALL FOR A POT DEBATE

Arnold Schwarzenegger proved last week he's not a girly-man when it
comes to the debate over whether marijuana should be legalized and
taxed in California. Gov. Arnold called for a large-scale study of
the consequences of legalizing pot for recreational use in California
and suggested that the study might benefit from looking at the
effects of drug legalization moves already made by European countries.

Arnold earned high praise from drug-law reformer Ethan Nadelmann for
doing what most politicians are too chicken to ever do -- go on
record as being in favor of honestly discussing the pros and cons of
ending drug prohibition.

Nadelmann, who believes drug prohibition has failed miserably
wherever it's been tried, is executive director of the Drug Policy
Alliance (drugpolicy.org), which promotes alternatives to the federal
government's failed war on drugs.

Question: This talk about legalizing marijuana and taxing it -- is it
merely a result of the dire budget problems states like California are having?

Answer: That is the single most important thing driving it now. Why
was alcohol prohibition repealed so quickly in the 1930s? People were
pointing to the crime and the violence, the corruption, the violation
of civil liberties, the disrespect for the law, the people dying from
bad liquor -- all those reasons were motivating people to call for
repeal. But, ultimately, the first, second and third reasons were the
Depression, the Depression, the Depression.

Similarly today, people are looking at the violence in Mexico, where
marijuana is a major source of revenue for the drug gangs. There are
a lot of things going on, but clearly it is the recession, the
recession, the fear of depression that are the number 1, 2 and 3
reasons for somebody like Schwarzenegger.

Q: For those who don't know what your official position on U.S. drug
policy is, please spell it out.

A: Basically it boils down to three elements. The first one is that
we believe that we should move in a direction of treating marijuana
more or less like alcohol. Secondly, we basically believe that nobody
should be punished for possessing a small amount of any drug simply
for their own use, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, like
getting behind the wheel of a car. Thirdly, although my organization
has an internal debate about whether to legalize or how far to go on
the other drugs, our basic view is that we need a vigorous debate in
this area and we need to move in the direction of taking as much of
the drug market from the underground and bringing it above ground so
it can be effectively regulated.

Q: If Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to learn from the Europeans, what
will he find that would help him make a persuasive case for legalization?

A: The most persuasive evidence will come from the Netherlands. The
Netherlands changed their law in 1976. Their sort of coffee-shop
distribution system for cannabis evolved over a decade. Remember, the
Dutch have not fully legalized cannabis. It's essentially legal at
the retail level but it's still illegal at the wholesale side. But
basically any adult who wants to buy cannabis -- by which I mean
marijuana or hash -- can go into a coffee shop and buy it.

What they'll find is that the levels of cannabis use in The
Netherlands, both among young people and others, is lower than it is
in the United States. What they'll also find is that the percentage
of young people who use cannabis and then go on to try quote-unquote
harder drugs is less than it is in the United States.

Q: What would Schwarzenegger find in Europe that would argue against
the legalization of drugs in the United States?

A: The evidence you have from Europe is mostly not about
legalization. It's mostly about decriminalization. The Netherlands is
the one exception, where cannabis can basically be bought and sold
openly in regulated shops. He would find evidence that when you
rolled back the criminal law you don't all of the sudden have an
explosion in drug use; you don't have all sorts of other problems.

Q: Obviously, there are many people who disagree with you 180
degrees. What's the weakest part of your argument for legalization of drugs?

A: I believe -- as do millions of others, and not just libertarians
- -- that even if the drugs that are now illegal were to be made legal
- -- whether like alcohol or in some more restrictive way -- the
increase in drug use would minimal, whereas the savings and the
benefits in terms of the reduction of crime, violence, corruption and
other things would be dramatic. But there are those people who
believe that if we made these drugs legal you would see drug abuse
increase tenfold. I'm convinced they are wrong, but I cannot prove
they are wrong.