FEDERAL OFFICIALS DECLARE WAR ON MARIJUANA INITIATIVES IN STATES

The drug warriors are nervous, very nervous.

Last month, Maryland's Republican governor signed legislation reducing
the maximum punishment for anyone caught using marijuana as medicine
to a $100 fine. Eight states are even more lenient, having legalized
medical marijuana; and Canada is expected to soon decriminalize
possession of small amounts of the drug. With all this going on, the
office of the nation's drug czar is getting more desperate to keep the
marijuana genie in the bottle.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana is
a greater menace than any other illicit substance. A hysterical letter
from ONDCP sent in November to every local prosecutor in the nation
declared that "no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana" and
continued with claims that "marijuana and violence are linked" and
"marijuana is not a medicine, and no credible research suggests that
it is."

Posh! Serious and credible studies dispute both claims, including a
1999 report by the Institute of Medicine and commissioned by the ONDCP
that found marijuana effective in addressing symptoms of "nausea,
appetite loss, pain and anxiety."

Because the battlefront for easing marijuana restrictions is in the
states, Drug Czar John Walters and the other princes of prohibition in
the Bush administration -- Attorney General John Ashcroft and William
Simpkins, acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration -- have
abandoned the classic Republican refrain of home rule and local
control. Instead, they have been doing everything possible to defeat
the voters' will, including unleashing the DEA in California to harass
sick people who say marijuana helps them control their pain and other
ailments.

The latest tactic is not to wait for the passage of new liberalizing
ballot initiatives but to influence the outcome of the election. When
Nevada voters were asked last fall to vote on whether to decriminalize
the personal possession of small amounts of marijuana, Walters
barnstormed the state making speeches and media appearances opposing
it. Just before election day, he told The Wall Street Journal, "We're
going to fight, whether we win or lose, in every state that
[supporters of drug reform initiatives] come into from now on."

The Nevada initiative failed, probably in part due to his
efforts.

But Walters' campaigning has raised serious ethical and legal issues.
Federal officials are not allowed to use the resources of their office
to affect the results of an election. The Hatch Act, a law passed in
1939, bars federal employees from using their "official authority or
influence" for electioneering.

Unfortunately, challenges to Walters' actions have so far come up
empty. The federal Office of Special Counsel was asked by the
pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project to investigate the Hatch Act
violation, but rather than closing this loophole the office opened it
even wider. In a May 7 opinion letter, the office said that
nonpartisan statewide ballot initiatives are not "elections" for the
purpose of the act and federal officials are free to lobby against
them.

MPP also contacted Nevada election officials to complain that Walters'
campaigning violated election reporting rules. But in April, Brian
Sandoval, Nevada's attorney general, said Walters was probably immune
from the state laws. Notably, though, he also expressed extreme
displeasure with the degree to which Walters intervened in his state.
"The excessive federal intervention . . . is particularly disturbing
because it sought to influence the outcome of a Nevada election,"
Sandoval wrote.

This should be disturbing to anyone interested in a limited federal
government and comity, but House Republicans have a different view.
They want to codify the drug czar's politicking and turn the ONDCP's
annual $195 million advertising budget into a campaign war chest. A
provision slipped into the bill to reauthorize the ONDCP would give
the drug czar express authority to spend money to oppose any state
ballot initiative to legalize drugs or any candidate favoring
legalization.

Did you get that? The proposal would open the federal treasury to a
public official for the purchase of TV ads opposing local candidates
deemed too soft on drugs. Hmmm, tax money used to challenge opposition
candidates and referenda -- it's an idea worthy of a corrupt Latin
American democracy.

One Republican at least refuses to go along. Rep. Ron Paul from Texas
vows to fight this on the House floor if necessary. He calls the idea
"outrageous" and says it would force federal taxpayers "to promote
propaganda."

Even Walters is opposing this idea. His spokesman, Tom Riley, says the
media campaign's purpose is "to prevent teen drug use and to get
parents involved in the effort" -- plenty to do without participating
in an election process. Though he quickly adds that the director
himself is free to fight liberalizing ballot initiatives and will
continue to do so.

The prohibitionists are now damaging more than just the lives of
recreational drug users, they are interfering in state sovereignty.
This is what I'd call Reefer Madness.