SAME ARGUMENTS USED IN ALASKA IGNORED IN CHICAGO

The prohibitionists are waking up in Alaska. Thursday's Anchorage Daily
News carried a story about an initiative to essentially legalize marijuana
in the state, and how federal anti-drug officials are joining with Alaska's
governor and law enforcement to fight the plan - see
http://www.adn.com/front/story/5668643p-5600700c.html

Predictably, the pro-police-state crowd bring out all the tired arguments.
One argument seems new, but it's as weird and unconvincing as the
others. Here's an excerpt from the Daily News story:

The governor also said the military plays a great role in Alaska and
legalized pot could harm that relationship.

"These are serious considerations for the state of Alaska," he said.

Expanding on that theme, a Murkowski spokesman, Mike Chambers, later said
the governor was drawing on his experience serving as a U.S. senator during
base closure proceedings.

Chambers said legalization could be an "aggravating factor" in such
proceedings. "This could be something that influences someone's decision,"
he said. "It's going to have a negative effect on our relationship with
the military."

Chambers said Alaska is also a major training center for the
military. "The fear is that something like this would have a chilling
effect on the training dollars and where they spend them."

Close military bases because of local marijuana policy, without considering
broader security issues? If true, it seems like more evidence that the war
on marijuana does a lot more to undermine national security than marijuana
itself ever could.

What's really interesting, however, is the reaction in Alaska compared with
the reaction to a marijuana decriminalization plan in Chicago. Granted,
the Alaska plan is more far-reaching and radical. But, the arguments being
used against marijuana legalization plans in Alaska could be used against
marijuana decrim plans in Chicago. Indeed such arguments have been used in
Chicago (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1379/a04.html), though by
individuals with considerably less power than those speaking out in Alaska
(and without the military angle).

The prohibitionist arguments would be just as ineffective and irrational
for either plan. But because drug warrior's arguments hinge completely on
the perceived badness of marijuana and the alleged need to use the coercive
forces of government to curb that badness, the arguments could be applied
equally to either plan.

Why do the arguments matter in Alaska, but not in Chicago? Or, will they
matter? I suspect Alaskan voters aren't going to be much more impressed by
the scary rhetoric than supporters of decriminalization in Chicago's police
department.