THE HYPOCRISY OF JOHN SUTHERS

"I would rather have legalization than have that widespread
government-sanctioned hypocrisy," Attorney General John Suthers said
this week, regarding action the legislature might or might not take on
medical marijuana. But when did it become the attorney general's job
to police "hypocrisy," rather than criminality? If that's his job, he
could charge himself with a violation, based on that statement alone.

Suthers opposes legalization of any kind, even if it would end the
alleged "hypocrisy." He has for as long as I've been paying attention.
He's simply having trouble adapting to new realities, so he wants to
roll the clock back as far and as fast as he can. He has plenty of
colleagues in law enforcement (and a good number of politicians)
willing to join him in that effort. But there's a bit of "hypocrisy"
on that side as well.

Americans can dose themselves and their children with massive
quantities of any pharmacy-bought drug -- drugs that are widely abused
and aren't always safe, even with FDA approval. They can sop their
brains with alcohol, as long as they don't get behind the wheel while
under the influence. But if some of them find answers to their
physical or psychological maladies in the "evil weed," Suthers raises
red flags.

Does that constitute "hypocrisy"? It's "inconsistency," or a case of
"cognitive dissonance," at the very least.

Medical marijuana use has been legal in Colorado for nearly a decade,
like it or not. Yet providers and patients have had to operate in the
shadows, fearing that abiding by the state constitution would invite a
federal drug bust. And Suthers, who is sworn to uphold the state
constitution, was content with that arrangement, in which a legal,
constitutionally sanctioned activity was treated as an illegal one. He
was content to have law-abiding Coloradans slink around like common
criminals. Instead of siding with Coloradans, and the Colorado
Constitution, Suthers and his predecessors sided with the George W.
Bush Justice Department, which was also stuck in the "just say no"
era.

Does that constitute "hypocrisy"? Some might say so.

The AG's major complaint about medical marijuana, as I understand it,
is that it's all a giant scam -- a backdoor path to legalization. He,
like a lot of law enforcers, look back fondly on a time when the "drug
war" battle lines were boldly drawn in the sand. Use of pot for any
purpose was prohibited. Drug busters were the good guys, marijuana
users the bad. Partial legalization complicates their jobs. It's
disorienting. It goes against deeply ingrained (but largely personal)
prejudices.

Suthers is nostalgic for that simpler time, because it made his job
easier. But policy isn't and shouldn't be made for the convenience of
attorney generals. His personal prejudices about pot and potheads are
largely beside the point. And if he can't adapt to the new situation,
and defend the Colorado Constitution, he should go back to private
practice.

I'm not an advocate for medical marijuana or non-medical marijuana. I
don't doubt there's some abuse of the new system (such as it is) going
on. And, yes, I'm sure some out there view the medical marijuana
movement as a circuitous route to full legalization. But I am an
advocate for freedom, reason, limited government, states' rights and
constitutionalism (both state and federal), which in this case puts me
at odds with an attorney general who (at least on paper) espouses some
of these same values.

Am I guilty of "hypocrisy" for wanting to move forward -- for wanting
to deal with the new reality constructively and creatively? Perhaps.
But the far greater hypocrisy is in claiming to uphold the state
constitution with one hand while trying to undermine it with the other.