POT PROPOSAL IS A STEP TOWARD SANITY

It was back in the long-ago time, children, before these cheeks had felt
the scrape of a razor or this backside the sting of the lash, when I first
learned to distrust my political prognostications.

I had been trudging door to door in the Iowa snow, handing out campaign
fliers on behalf of my favorite candidate for president of the United
States. In my naiveté, I felt confident that the American people would
seize their chance to hurl the evil Richard Nixon from office and replace
him with a solid, staid, decent and rather dull Midwestern politician.

They did just that, of course, but they delayed for about two years. And
the Midwesterner they chose was not George McGovern but Jerry Ford.

The experience, while reaffirming my belief in the long-range wisdom of
democracy, also made me somewhat skittish and pessimistic about predicting
election results. To this day, I enter the polling booth under the glum
assumption that most of my causes and candidates are doomed to go down in
flames. That way, I am sometimes pleasantly surprised, rarely disappointed
and never entirely devastated.

I have that old familiar feeling about Proposition 1, the marijuana-related
municipal measure on the April 8 ballot. It is a common-sense proposal that
if enacted would save time, money and grief for the public and individuals.
Does it have a chance? Nah, probably not. But you never know.

Several aspects of the proposal are already incorporated into city law,
passed by the Columbia City Council back in the mid-1980s. The council
voted then that simple pot possession cases may be dealt with through
municipal summonses and fines rather than in the costly and congested state
circuit court system.

The proposed ordinance would funnel all small pot possession cases into
municipal court instead of leaving that decision up to police and
prosecutors, who are inclined to take nearly every case to the state. I'm
not sure why, but I think they view the state charges as one of those
things they call "a critical tool for law enforcement."

Jail, bail, attorneys, hearings, the prospect of a public trial and a
permanent criminal record: These are the vice-and-tongs that police employ
to extract information from some putz they've caught with a pinch-hitter in
the parking lot. Where did you get that weed? Where else do you buy it?
This is how they assemble an army of spies, snoops and informants in a
destructive circular game that clogs our courts, crowds our prisons and
costs more than World War II.

Proposition 1 is a small first step toward the restoration of sanity in our
drug policy.

One of its provisions would give seriously ill people the right to possess
small amounts of pot for medicinal purposes if they have a physician's
recommendation. A friend of mine who is undergoing chemotherapy was greatly
touched recently when some of her students slipped notes under her office
door, telling her that they were inspired by her plight and would vote in
favor of the measure.

Personal compassion aside, students might also be influenced by the fact
that those convicted in state court of possessing a joint lose their
federal financial aid. A municipal court conviction would have no such effect.

One of the best arguments for rationalizing our drug policy comes from a
recent series of antidrug ads, which point out that drug money is behind
much of our crime in the streets and that it funds all kinds of other
illegal activity, including even terrorism!

If that is true, then there are two ways to stop it. The first is to
persuade people not to do drugs. This method has never worked. People keep
on buying and consuming drugs even under the threat of a prison term for
simple possession. Moral suasion is unlikely to change their habits.

The other method - the one that would work - would be to decriminalize and
regulate the sale and possession of pot as we do with alcohol, cigarettes
and gambling. That way, the money spent would not just finance drug lords
and law enforcement, as it does today. It could go to boost public
education, health care, the environment, the war on terrorism: Take your pick.

No, Proposition 1 would not accomplish this miracle. It is a sensible start.

And even though it probably doesn't have a chance at the polls, get out
there and vote anyway. With elections, you just never know.

<