POLS MUST NOT BE SILENT ON DRUG WAR

In Great Britain, newspapers have a tradition of "campaigning." They take
up causes and campaign by focusing attention on them in their news columns,
editorializing and generally badgering people in power to change the status
quo.

Over the years, campaigns pressed by British newspapers have brought major
shifts in the country's political and cultural landscape.

The best of the current crop of campaigning newspapers is the Independent
(www.independent.co.uk), a London-based daily that circulates nationally.

The Independent's boldest and most successful campaign of recent years has
been a drive to liberalize Britain's drug laws. In particular, the
campaigning focused on lifting criminal penalties against the possession
and use of marijuana.

When the Independent's campaign began, Britain was coming out of the
Margaret Thatcher/John Major era of conservative rule, in which successive
British governments embraced all but the silliest American affectations.
Thus, while Brits were never subjected to Nancy Reagan's "Just Say 'No' "
blathering, the country continued to mete out harsh punishments to people
found to be in possession of marijuana.

Worst of all, politicians who knew better remained generally silent. As in
the United States, where most mainstream candidates and elected officials
are afraid to appear to be "soft on crime" - or even "soft on soft drugs" -
British pols simply avoided discussing the absurdity of laws that applied
the same criminal sanctions for possession of marijuana as it did for
possession of dangerous drugs.

That all changed when the Independent started campaigning for
decriminalization of marijuana possession and use. The newspaper's
reporters demanded that cultural, business, legal and political leaders
address the issue of marijuana prohibition and, over the past few years,
they have.

Predictably, the first to speak up were rock and film stars, civil
libertarians, and others who have long objected to a "drug war" that was
lost before it began. Then came a few bold members of Parliament, most of
them from the progressive wing of Tony Blair's governing Labour Party.

Slowly, more Labour parliamentarians spoke. Cabinet ministers and members
of the opposition Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties decried
marijuana prohibition. Police chiefs joined the chorus to point out that
time wasted on pursuit of marijuana users was undermining their ability to
tackle serious crime.

Finally, the senior jurist sitting on Britain's highest court, the broadly
respected Lord Bingham, declared the country's tough laws against marijuana
possession and use to be "stupid." Asked if he supported legalization of
cannabis, Lord Bingham replied, "Absolutely."

The judge's answer made headline news, not just in the Independent, but in
newspapers and on broadcast reports throughout the country. Even Blair felt
compelled to respond, with an admission that the war on drugs has been a
failure.

Blair's aides quickly announced that the government plans to change the
classification of marijuana so that Brits caught in possession of small
amounts of the substance will no longer be subject to arrest and imprisonment.

The change in Britain mirrors a dramatic rejection of drug war rhetoric and
policies by European nations. Switzerland, Portugal and other countries are
moving rapidly to embrace liberal approaches to marijuana like those of
Holland.

While most Americans are well aware that the drug war is bankrupting our
states, misdirecting our police and overcrowding our courts and jails,
political leaders here - with the notable exceptions of progressives such
as U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin and state Rep. Mark Pocan, both Madison
Democrats - remain as silent as their British peers were a few years ago.
Over the next few months,

The Capital Times will try to change that circumstance by borrowing a page
from Britain's Independent and asking Wisconsin's candidates for governor,
attorney general and other jobs to stop just saying "no" to an honest - and
needed - debate about the latest failed attempt at prohibition.