LEGALIZING CANNABIS: HIGH TIME FOR A SOBER DISCUSSION ABOUT MARIJUANA

It is rare we publish an editorial on a hot topic and receive near
universal praise. But that is what happened last week when we came
out in support of Washington state legalizing cannabis.

The fact that a lot of people support the drug being legal is not
surprising. Most people I know have long supported legalization of marijuana.

Knowing people who support it and public opinion about a newspaper
supporting it are different things.

When people take the time to e-mail or call me about an editorial, it
is usually because they do not agree with the editorial page. This
editorial was different. The compliments rolled in, the discussion in
the comments section of the editorial is nearing 600 and is
interesting and thoughtful -- which is not always the case -- and so
far the editorial has been recommended by about 3,000 people on Facebook.

Those numbers are nice to see, but only a minor part of the story.
What the editorial has shown is that a broad cross-section of
Washingtonians supports legalizing cannabis, or at least are ready to
discuss the issue seriously.

Legalizing would put Washington out in front. We would be the first
state to make the drug legal and regulate it. This would put us at
odds with federal law -- something we considered. Through our
internal discussions this opposition to federal law became a point in
favor of endorsing legalization. We believe it is the right thing to
do, so why not lead the county?

The possibility of a positive response is not why we voiced our
support for Seattle Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson's bill to
legalize cannabis. Any decent editorial page is going to take
unpopular stands or endorse politicians or issues that rile
readership. I still hear from readers fuming about The Seattle Times'
endorsement of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. (I
was not here then but am certain the editorial board was not smoking anything.)

How did we get to the point of supporting the legalization of a drug?
Like any big decision or change of opinion, it was a process. This
process started more than a year ago when I brought the issue up with
the publisher. He was intrigued, but clearly not comfortable with the idea.

My argument was that the war against marijuana was a loser. It is a
drain on law-enforcement resources and precious government funds. I
also pointed out that by legalizing cannabis it cuts off a major
source of funds for cartels and gangs.

From there we set about researching the topic. Some on the editorial
board had worries about it being a gateway drug and about the effects
on children. My counter was that if a teenager really wants pot, he
or she is going to find a way to get it regardless of its legality.
Just like alcohol. By regulating cannabis, it removes those under 18
from the presence of drug dealers, who, because it is their business,
often have other kinds of drugs they can push on their young customers.

Another factor that played heavily in the decision is the outsize
punishments for relatively small amounts of marijuana.

Enter Dickerson's bill. It dovetailed nicely with our yearlong
internal examination of the issue. The publisher was comfortable with
the decision so I gave editorial writer Bruce Ramsey the green light.

As far as I can tell, The Times is one of the few metropolitan
newspapers to push for legal cannabis. That does not mean we are
alone. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a piece below
about regulating illicit drugs. Stamper is not a lone voice in law
enforcement believing that the dollars spent in the futile effort to
eradicate drugs would be better used for treatment.

It is high time this country had a sober discussion about marijuana.
Because what we are doing now is not working. Washington state's
Legislature could lead the discussion by passing Dickerson's bill.