Pubdate: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL) Copyright: 2003 St. Petersburg Times Contact: http://www.sptimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/419 Author: Robin Blumner Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?194 (Hutchinson, Asa) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign) DRUG WAR INVADES STATE ELECTIONS 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. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has resorted to extreme claims, suggesting in past television ads that smoking marijuana promotes terrorism, or will make you shoot your friend. In one ad that ran last year, two male teens are smoking pot in a comfortable den when one picks up a gun he thinks is unloaded and accidentally shoots his buddy. The text at the end says, "Marijuana can distort your sense of reality." I can imagine teenagers rolling their eyes - that is after they stop laughing. The drug warriors have it backward. What really can distort one's sense of reality is a blind crusade against marijuana use - a drug to be sure, but a substance that is less dangerous and addictive than alcohol and tobacco. But the crusade launched by ONDCP offers little nuance, conflating marijuana with every other illicit substance, including crack. (Drug czar John Walters has derided medical marijuana as an idea as looney as "medicinal crack.") 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, Walters and the other princes of prohibition in the Bush administration - Attorney General John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, 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 during a couple of days in October, 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 federal 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 interferring in state sovereignty. This is what I'd call Reefer Madness. - --- MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager