DAVE CAVES ON POT PROMISE

Drug reform takes political courage. Anyone got some?

Believe it or not, I'm one of those people who could pass a drug test
hands down -- or pants down, as the case might be. Give me a cup and
I'll fill it with 100% drug-free personal product. No trace of
marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, acid, goofballs, angel dust,
crystals, leapers, mescaline, snappers, white lightning, yellow
jackets or even alcohol. I'm clean, man. Have been for years.

So the lack of sensible drug policies does not affect me. Society can
burn druggies at the stake and the worst I'll suffer is getting too
warm as I walk by. We can pack our prisons with drug offenders and all
it means is that folks like me must pay higher taxe -- hey! -- I guess
I am affected, after all.

Self-interest aside, there are ample reasons to oppose the massively
stupid and cruel war on drugs. That members of a culture that
prescribes a pill for every ill should turn to substances for pleasure
or pain relief is at most a public health problem, not inherently
criminal behavior.

Madisonians grasp this better than most. In 1977, voters here
overwhelmingly approved Madison ordinance 23.20, which decriminalizes
public possession and allows private possession of specified amounts
of marijuana and hashish; it was also the first law anywhere to
legalize medical marijuana with a doctor's note. Last year, the Common
Council backed a local medical marijuana awareness week. And the
public has consistently favored politicians who promise to pursue less
punitive drug policies.

In fact, our current mayor, Dave Cieslewicz, backed the legalization
of marijuana during the 2003 campaign, trumping rival Paul Soglin's
weak-tea support for legalizing just medical marijuana. Candidate
Cieslewicz also vowed to rethink the city's harsh penalties for
employees who test positive for drugs.

But, as mayor, Cieslewicz has disappointed voters gullible enough to
believe him.

Like other municipalities, the city of Madison is required by federal
law to subject employees who drive vehicles to pre-employment, random,
for-cause and post-accident drug and alcohol testing. But it is the
city's own decision to fire workers who test positive more than once
per year or thrice per career. (Madison Metro employees get just two
strikes and they're out.)

Since 1995, 39 city employees have lost their jobs due to drug
testing. Two-thirds of the positive results are for marijuana. That's
in part because pot can remain in a person's system for months, while
harder drugs like heroin and cocaine flush out in a few days. Workers
subject to testing who want to get high would be well-advised to use
these harder drugs. How messed up is that?

This fall, when a city streets worker who tested positive for pot for
the second time in ten years sought to hold Cieslewicz to his campaign
pledge, the mayor used the opportunity to again pander to his
progressive base. He told Isthmus he was no fan of drug testing and
was inclined "to back off of the penalties." To this end, he asked
interim Human Resources director Roger Goodwin and City Attorney
Michael Mays to "look into the penalties and give me some
recommendations about what we can do." What a guy.

To close observers of city hall, however, the mayor's call for a staff
review was suspicious from the start. "Generally, that's what you do
when you want something to go away," reflects Ald. Austin King.

Indeed, there was never any doubt what the report would recommend,
since Goodwin is a big fan of the current policy. Released in the dead
zone between Christmas and New Year's, the report (see
thedailypage.com under Document Feed) claims that relaxing penalties
would increase the city's liability, if an employee impaired by drugs
or alcohol were to cause an accident.

Yet the report notes only one lawsuit involving a city employee who
tested positive following an accident -- and, in that case, the jury
never learned that the driver evidently used marijuana "several days"
prior. Goodwin concedes that all but a handful of city workers,
including this one, have tested clean in post-accident tests.

So why not ease up on the penalties, as Cieslewicz has said he would
like? The report notes that Metro drivers had far fewer positives than
other drivers, and speculates this is because Metro drivers face
sterner penalties. Therefore, it opines, "any attempt to reduce
sanctions for non-Metro drivers...will result in an increase in the
[percentage] of tests coming up positive." Hence, the report
recommends staying the course.

This thin reed gave Cieslewicz the cover he sought. "The mayor,"
asserts chief of staff Janet Piraino, "believes our current policies
are reasonable and is not inclined to propose any changes at this time."

Cieslewicz is certainly not the first politician to give lip service
to saner drug policies while doing little to bring them about. There's
good reason for his reticence.

Whatever else you might say about it, the war on drugs is emphatically
not a failure. Rather, it has succeeded spectacularly at its clear if
unstated goal: Generating oodles of cash for law enforcement and many
thousands of bodies (especially nonwhite male ones) for the booming
prison industry.

Thus the war has powerful advocates eager to oppose any who would
stand in its way. Witness the drubbing dished out recently by Scott
Favour, president of the Madison police union, when Progressive Dane
dared question a case in which the cops searched a man's home after
nabbing him in a traffic stop with an amount of marijuana less than
the threshold for criminal charges. Favour, in a published letter,
went ballistic, accusing the group of being anti-police and pro-crime.

No doubt the police union would do the same to Mayor Cieslewicz if he
ever put any political might behind his belief that marijuana should
be legalized. Of course, maybe that was just something he said to get
elected.