WESTERN VOTERS TAKE STEPS TO DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA

Unexpected chinks are appearing in the once seemingly insurmountable legal
wall the government has erected against marijuana. Not only are western
voters continuing their efforts to ease access to the drug by people with
chronic ailments, there are signs that a more laissez-faire attitude may
also be extended to recreational users. Even in the halls of power in
Washington, D.C., important questions are being asked about the morality and
practicality of the federal government's drug prohibition policies.

In a move that emphasized California's resistance to federal marijuana
policy, that state's Supreme Court recently ruled that people who use or
grow marijuana with a doctor's approval are protected by a voter-approved
law from state prosecution. "The possession and cultivation of marijuana is
no more criminal than the possession and acquisition of any prescription
drug," the unanimous opinion said.

That California is a hotbed of opposition to federal drug laws is little
surprise; the state often functions as a world unto itself. But similar
sentiments are being voiced very vocally in other jurisdictions.

Arizona voters, who have already approved marijuana for medical use, will
vote on a measure that would establish a state-administered system for
providing marijuana to the ill and decriminalize the possession of two
ounces or less of the drug. Drug warriors have responded to the ballot
initiative with a measure of their own that would actually toughen penalties
for nonviolent drug offenders, setting the stage for a full-scale battle.

Nevada voters, who have also legalized the medical use of marijuana, may
eliminate penalties for possession of less than three ounces of marijuana
and allow the sale of the drug in licensed shops. The initiative, which
would have to be approved a second time if it passes, appears to have
Nevadans about evenly divided. It briefly enjoyed the support of the state's
largest police organization before board members switched positions and
ousted their president over the issue.

And Seattle voters may direct police to make arrests for marijuana
possession their lowest priority. Opposing the measure, officials argue that
it's unnecessary, since they already consider marijuana arrests a waste of
resources.

Obviously, there's been a sea change in public attitudes toward marijuana in
recent years. But what's behind this grassroots revolt?

For starters, Americans no longer seem to find the drug warriors very
convincing. Prohibitionists have tightened laws and massed their forces for
years with little discernible effect on the availability or popularity of
illegal intoxicants. Marijuana has been used by millions of Americans with
little ill effect -- many responsible people happily smoke an occasional
joint the way their neighbors sip wine and beer.

Opponents of restrictive laws have been vocal with their message that
prohibitionist efforts are far more threatening to health and freedom than
are drugs themselves. Common Sense for Drug Policy singles out for criticism
mandatory minimum sentences that condemn many nonviolent drug offenders to
years behind bars. CSDP also points to countries like Canada and the UK,
which are moving to ease their own restrictions on marijuana use.

Opponents of drug prohibition have also effectively rebutted the drug
warriors' heavy-handed propaganda efforts. When the federal government ran
TV spots accusing drug users of complicity in terrorism, the Libertarian
Party and the Drug Policy Alliance quickly responded with print ads accusing
drug warriors of funneling funds to terrorist organizations.

As over-the-top as such charges may seem, they have the benefit of being
founded in reality. Writing for the conservative Hoover Institution,
economist David R. Henderson recently traced the incentives that people with
criminal intent have to deal in illegal goods and services. He said,
bluntly, "A more informative ad line from the U.S. government would be:
'When you support the drug war, you're supporting terrorists.'"

And when the illegal nature of drugs doesn't funnel funds to terrorists
through purchases, it does so through outright subsidies. The U.S.
government has repeatedly cut checks to unsavory national governments --
many with terrorist ties -- in return for assistance on drug prohibition.

The terrorists who have enjoyed the support of prohibitionists in recent
years strike Americans where they live in the most visceral way possible.
The Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter offers this uncomfortable tidbit:
"Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to
financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict
ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies."

Just months later, Taliban troops and their al-Qaida allies faced off
against U.S. forces sent to avenge September 11.

Even at the federal level, where die-hard prohibitionists have dug in for
the long haul, some softening of policy is apparent. John Walters, head of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, reassured Nevada voters that if
they passed their legalization initiative, "I don't believe you'd see
federal officials coming into [Nevada] to enforce possession laws."

FBI director Robert Mueller sounded a similar note, saying that the bureau
is shifting resources from anti-drug tasks to efforts against terrorism.
"Where there were 10 [FBI agents] on a drug task force in the past, now
there will be five."

And in an admittedly symbolic effort, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank
introduced the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would revive
federalism by blocking the federal government from opposing state efforts to
allow the use of marijuana as medicine. Frank was supported by conservative
Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Ron Paul, a GOP member of Congress
with strongly libertarian inclinations.

Americans are moving slowly and carefully to dismantle the failed policy of
drug prohibition. But when it comes to marijuana, people appear eager to
protect themselves and their neighbors from laws that do more harm than any
drug ever could.