SUTHERS ON DRUGS

Most everybody loves John Suthers. Nobody questions his motives; indeed,
he's taking a pay cut to serve in state political office. The Denver Post
predicted his confirmation as attorney general would meet with "little
resistance," even though he is a Republican replacing Democrat Ken Salazar,
who is headed to the Senate.

There is one tiny little problem with Suthers becoming Colorado's top legal
official: He promotes existing legislation that dramatically increases
crime. Even though the main job of the attorney general is to fight crime,
the policies Suthers endorses cause horrendous crime. Even if he works every
hour of every day for the rest of his life, the crimes Suthers stops will be
as an anthill compared with the mountain of crime that his politics creates.

Of course I am talking about drug prohibition. Economist Jeffrey Miron
reviews in his new book, Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition,
"eliminating drug prohibition would reduce homicide in the United States by
25-75 percent."

The theory is pretty simple: Prohibition creates a large underground market
in which conflicts are resolved by violence rather than by the courts.
People who don't use drugs pay through higher taxes, national interference
in medicine, increased suffering of loved ones who do use drugs, expenses
associated with the violence and illegality and a higher risk of getting
caught in the crossfire.

Last year, Suthers and I debated drug policy on KBDI. We discussed The New
Prohibition, a book to which Miron and I contributed. Suthers made it clear
that he is a hardcore prohibitionist.

Suthers also testified against a 2002 bill in the Colorado legislature that
limited asset forfeiture. Most forfeitures of property involve some
allegation of a drug crime. The bill, which passed under the guidance of
Republican Shawn Mitchell (now a State Senator from Broomfield), required a
criminal conviction in most cases prior to forfeiture. Mitchell debated much
of Suthers' testimony but tweaked the bill based on the complaint that an
alleged criminal might die prior to conviction.

Christie Donner of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition
(ccjrc.org), whom I joined to support Mitchell's bill, expressed the concern
that local agencies might simply bring in the feds for the purpose of
evading the Colorado law by pursuing federal forfeiture. As Attorney
General, Suthers should verify that Colorado agencies do not bypass the
requirements of Colorado law.

Last year, the Drug Enforcement Agency raided the home of Dana May, an
Aurora man who grows marijuana in accordance with state law for medical
purposes. The raid occurred under Suthers' watch as U.S. attorney, even
though the raid was apparently initiated by local police and the DEA. On May
27, around 20 armed agents stormed the sick patient's home and stole his
medicine and growing supplies. Thankfully, May successfully sued to have his
growing supplies (but not his medicine) returned.

In a letter printed in the Dec. 17 Rocky Mountain News, May claimed, "When
asked about my case, Suthers said medical marijuana is nothing more than a
smoke screen, an excuse for lifelong pot smokers to get high." Peter Blake,
a columnist for that paper, followed up by reporting Suthers will
"'absolutely uphold the state law' permitting medical marijuana, even though
he may not like it. At least that's what he said... through spokesman Jeff
Dorschner."

Still, it seems clear that Suthers will resist any break with strict
prohibition, and he will follow popular reforms only grudgingly. This is
troubling, especially given the office of attorney general is one that can
influence policy and launch its holder to higher office.

Suthers could not unilaterally repeal prohibition even if he wanted to, so
the harms of prohibition cannot be pinned on him alone. Nevertheless, the
policies he promotes massively increase crime, violate individual rights and
cause a host of related problems. As an enforcer and propagator of unjust
laws, Suthers bears some of the responsibility for them.

Miron's book is a concise review of the history and economics of
prohibition, published by the Independent Institute of California (not to be
confused with the similarly named think tank in Golden). Miron concludes,
"Prohibition increases violent and nonviolent crime, fosters corruption...
reduces the health and welfare of drug users... destroys civil liberties,
distorts criminal justice incentives... transfers billions of dollars each
year to domestic criminals and enriches foreign revolutionaries who foment
terrorism... [and] denies medicine to seriously ill patients and prevents
doctors from alleviating the pain of the suffering." Meanwhile, Miron finds,
"prohibition reduces drug use only modestly," a goal that can be met more
effectively through other means and without the harms of prohibition.

When I debated Suthers, I got the feeling he was stuck in the echo-chamber
logic of the drug warriors who mistake solidarity for sound argumentation
and good evidence. But if Suthers is going to be Colorado's top lawyer, he
owes it to the people of the state to learn about the effects of the laws he
promotes. Miron's book would be a good place to start. To adapt a refrain
that should be familiar to Suthers, ignorance of the consequences of the law
is no excuse.