CPOA OBJECTION '... SQUASH THIS TAINTED ORDINANCE.'

The Columbia Police Officers Association officially invoked the killing of
Officer Molly Bowden to oppose Columbia's recently passed law reducing
penalties for minor marijuana violations.

CPOA President Sterling Infield pointed to marijuana use by Bowden's
killer, Rick Evans, as evidence the new law should be reversed. He asked
the city manager's office to help "squash this tainted ordinance."

This unsupported cause-and-effect allegation offers no case against the new
ordinance and does not reflect any official position of the Columbia Police
Department, whose members have been doing a credible job of enforcing the
new law despite the disappointment expressed by many over the loss of the
option they formerly had to file these cases with either city or state
prosecutors.

All evidence indicates police officers, and the general public, are more
likely to be harmed by someone under the influence of alcohol than
marijuana or any other illegal drug. Government policies regarding these
drugs should reflect larger considerations of criminal causation and
protection of individual freedoms. Laws concerning alcohol reflect these
larger societal concerns, but drug laws, sadly, do not.

Those advocating tough drug laws usually say marijuana is a "gateway" drug
leading to use of more serious substances. The same often is said of
alcohol by those urging moderation, particularly among young people. Both
groups are right to urge moderation, even abstinence, but that's not the
same as making the case for government prohibition laws.

Without slightest doubt, drug prohibition causes more crime than it solves.
Robbery, assault and other forms of mayhem are typical tactics in the
search for money to buy drugs, priced artificially high by prohibition. We
learned this hard lesson once earlier in the past century with alcohol
prohibition and repealed our destructive laws. Because drugs do not enjoy
acknowledged favor with as large a segment of today's population, drug
demagoguery and its associated crime persist.

Meanwhile, who thinks these prohibition laws are effective in controlling
drug use and abuse? Those who would keep them in force must have other
motivations - moral approbation or a stake in the multibillion-dollar war
on drugs. If we diverted half this expense to education - call it
propaganda - showing its potentially negative aspects, we'd do more to
combat drug use.

We're not likely to end the debilitating war on drugs anytime soon, but at
least we should avoid opportunistic misstatements of cause and effect to
discredit a sound law like the one recently passed in Columbia. The former,
harsher law it replaced was not a drug prevention measure; it merely was
additional punishment without palpable benefit. I was quite proud of local
voters for seeing this equation.

The CPOA president and others say the new law "sends the wrong message," as
if it will unleash a new flood of marijuana use hereabouts. I wouldn't want
to try to prove any such thing.

Henry J. Waters III, Publisher, Columbia Daily Tribune