UP IN SMOKE

Despite the Rejection of Proposition 19 in California, the
Prohibition of Marijuana Remains an Indefensible Policy

On Tuesday, California voters rejected Proposition 19, which would
have legalized the cultivation and possession of small amounts of
marijuana for personal use. The proposition presented a tremendous
opportunity to help reverse an expensive and paternalistic policy that
has decimated state and federal budgets, spurred the growth of gangs
and drug cartels and imprisoned millions of Americans for a harmless
recreational activity.

But Proposition 19, despite its defeat at the polls, was not a total
failure. Legalization of marijuana has been transformed, in the
public's eyes, from a subject of mockery to a legitimate policy
possibility. According to a Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans now
favor marijuana legalization, up from 31 percent in 2000.

From a libertarian perspective that favors social and economic
freedom, the overt paternalism of the "war on drugs" renders the
policy indefensible. The choice to use marijuana recreationally in the
privacy of one's home does not infringe on the rights of others; it is
a victimless crime. The government should not interfere if someone
wants to smoke a joint in his home. Opponents of legalization point to
the allegedly harmful effects of marijuana to justify prohibition. The
government, however, should not have the authority to dictate
individual health choices.

If the government had such authority, it would immediately attack the
number one health problem in America: obesity. If government is
responsible for individual health choices, it should mandate daily
exercise classes, enforce healthy diets and ban fast food. Perhaps it
might consider 15-year sentences suitable for possession of unhealthy
contraband, like french fries.

That most Americans would, justifiably, view such proposals as absurd
and tyrannical parallels public indictment of the war on drugs. But
the analogy becomes starker when one considers that marijuana use is,
in fact, far less harmful than a plethora of common habits. In fact,
unlike most drugs, overdosing on marijuana is virtually impossible.
Additionally, WebMD recently reported that, contrary to government
propaganda, marijuana use does not increase the risk of lung cancer.
Although the underlying reason for this is unclear, experts say
tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC -- a key chemical component of marijuana
with anticancerous properties -- could be the answer.

But whether marijuana is healthy or not is, ultimately, beside the
point. Responsibility for one's life -- one's career choice, one's
health, one's recreational activities, one's choice of spouse -- lies
with the individual. It is usurpation on the part of government to
meddle with personal decisions that do not infringe on other's rights.

Legalizing marijuana does not preclude sensible regulation. The
government could still prohibit participation in dangerous activities,
such as driving or operating machinery, while under the influence of
marijuana. Minors could still be banned from using marijuana. In
short, many of the same regulations currently applied to alcohol could
also be implemented with marijuana.

The costs of our current policy, moreover, are high. Spending on drug
prohibition for all levels of government exceeds $50 billion annually.
Still, more than 40 percent of Americans have used marijuana.
Furthermore, the direct costs of prohibition do not include the
ballooning state and federal government prison budgets, a large
percentage of which is driven by the drug war. After all, 55 percent
of federal prisoners and 20 percent of state prisoners are locked up
for drug offenses.

More than 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses each
year and 5 million have been taken into custody during the past
decade. Sentences for those convicted of marijuana felonies are
comparable to those imposed on individuals convicted of aggravated
assault. This is unconscionable. Taxpayers are spending billions of
dollars a year to arrest and prosecute non-violent offenders who have
made a poor health decision and billions more to incarcerate these
individuals for hurting themselves. That is twisted.

The list of drug war abuses and injustices is enormous. Also,
enforcement is racist: Blacks comprise 13 percent of drug users, but
account for 59 percent of drug convictions. Motivations underlying
most prohibition proponents are corrupt; prison guards and police
officers lobby to keep their jobs persecuting marijuana users and
private prison systems fight to increase mandatory minimum sentences
to increase demand for their services. Prohibition enforcement
encourages police militarization. SWAT-style raids on people's homes
for even small amounts of marijuana occur more than 100 times a day.

Each party's cowardice on this issue is an inexcusable abdication of
its most fundamental principles. Where are the Democrats? The values
of privacy and respect for the lifestyle choices of cultural subgroups
are under assault. Racist enforcement trends that result in
disproportionate imprisonment of black males are destroying the fabric
of black society. Where are the Republicans? The principles of limited
government and individual autonomy are abused and infringed by the war
on drugs.

The drug war is a fiscal drain and a moral tumor. Those who seek
merely to be free do not bear the burden of proof to justify their
position. This burden instead rests with those who would employ the
coercive power of government to punish peaceful citizens for a
recreational activity.