SEIZE MARIJUANA MARKET FROM CRIMINAL CLASS

WASHINGTON--A friend recently remarked to me, "Alcohol is the original
date-rape drug." That's very sadly true. And it's why I found it
hypocritical that the national drug czar's new ad equating marijuana use
with teen pregnancy should debut during the Super Bowl, in which beer and
sex were the dominant advertising themes.

Teen drinking is the bigger problem, both in sheer numbers as well as health
risks, yet the federal agency overseeing drug-control policy ignores it. An
anti teen-drinking commercial would have been a powerful counterpoint during
that game; the antipot ad came off as a clumsy attempt to maintain beer's
market share.

These ads are emblematic of the government's overall war on marijuana. Since
marijuana was first federally outlawed in 1937, prohibition has had the
perverse effect of making marijuana more popular, particularly among youth
and the counterculture. Our government insists on staying the course even
though there is no evidence that criminalizing marijuana has ever reduced
its use, let alone its trafficking. Meanwhile, the focus on marijuana
diverts attention away from more serious problems.

Historian Barbara Tuchman once defined folly in government as the perverse
persistence in bad policy in spite of evidence of its failure and the
existence of a reasonable alternative.

Marijuana prohibition is a clear example of this. Reports by governmental
commissions in several countries point out its failure and call for drastic
changes, from decriminalization (for example, the Shafer Commission in 1972)
to legalization (a Canadian Senate committee report in 2002). So many of our
political leaders have tried marijuana that it becomes news if a politician
ever denies any "youthful indiscretions." And yet, still prohibition
persists. Why?

Some argue that marijuana is a dangerous drug so it must be banned. Yet
we've decided that the dangers of alcohol and tobacco present an acceptable
risk, so let's compare:

Alcohol overdoses kill more than 15,000 people each year in the United
States, and alcohol-related deaths push the toll up to more than 100,000
annually; marijuana, according to the scientific evidence, has not racked up
a single overdose death in centuries of use.

Alcohol use is involved in 40 percent of the violent crimes committed in the
United States annually; marijuana is associated with meditative, peaceful
behavior, while violence in the marijuana trade is the result of
prohibition, not the drug.

Tobacco use is credited with more than 400,000 deaths annually, according to
the Surgeon General; in spite of decades of trying, the federal government
has still not found anyone dying from marijuana use.

Clearly, marijuana prohibition is not justified by health concerns.

Prohibitionists say we don't need to legalize yet another drug because the
ones we have do too much damage. That argument misses the point in many
ways.

First, marijuana is widely used, legal or not. At least 21 million people
used it last year, according to the federal Household Survey. (The real
number is much higher, possibly 40 million; government surveys of illegal
behavior are not noted for their accuracy and are widely believed to
underreport the true totals.)

More important, marijuana is not simply another substance, it's a less
dangerous--not safe, but less dangerous--alternative to drugs we already
make available. And, if regulated as we do with alcohol, there would be
guarantees of marijuana purity as well as regulation of potency, something
the illegal market does not provide.

Prohibitionists counter: Ending marijuana prohibition "sends the wrong
message" that legalizing drugs supposedly connotes societal approval of drug
abuse. Oh, really? Then we need to bring back alcohol prohibition because,
by that logic, legal alcohol sends the message that alcoholism and alcohol
abuse are OK. Obviously, that's not true. And we're not going back to
alcohol prohibition. We need to turn in a different direction.

It makes no sense to continue threatening people with arrest over their
simple use of marijuana. A regulated system takes control of the marijuana
market away from the criminals. This means age limits, just as we have for
alcohol--drug dealers never ask for ID.

As for the "gateway" theory? Research shows that alcohol and tobacco are
more likely suspects than marijuana. A recent study published in the Journal
of the American Medical Association found that early alcohol and tobacco use
were strong indicators of later drug use. That study's authors contended
that the link between marijuana and other illegal drugs may be due solely to
marijuana's illegality, nothing more.

A regulated marijuana market--similar to alcohol but a little more
restricted (no Super Bowl marijuana promotions, for example)--is workable.
And selling U.S.-grown marijuana through state-run outlets similar to
Virginia's ABC stores could bring in millions in tax revenue to states and
the federal government.

So why does prohibition persist? As Tuchman put it in her book "The March of
Folly": "Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception, is a factor that
plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a
situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting
any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing
oneself to be deflected by the facts."

Seventy years ago, we ended the tragic mistake that was alcohol prohibition.
The time has now come to end the folly of marijuana prohibition.

KEVIN B. ZEESE is president of Common Sense for Drug Policy.