Pubdate: Sat, 17 Nov 2012
Source: Herald, The (Everett, WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Daily Herald Co.
Contact:  http://www.heraldnet.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/190
Author: David Sirota
Note: David Sirota is a syndicated columnist based in Denver.

ENDING THE DRUG WAR WITH COMEDY

What's next? Amid all the munchie-themed jokes from reporters, 
political elites and late-night comedians, this remains the 
overarching question after Coloradans voted overwhelmingly to 
legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in the same way alcohol is 
already legalized, regulated and taxed. Since those anti-Drug-War 
principles are now enshrined in Colorado's constitution, only the 
feds can stop this Rocky Mountain state - if they so choose. But will 
they? And should they even be able to?

The answer to the former is maybe. Barack Obama campaigned for 
president pledging to respect state marijuana laws and his Justice 
Department in 2009 issued a memo reiterating that promise. But by 
2011, the same Justice Department countermanded that directive and 
authorized a federal crackdown. Now, with the results of the 2012 
election, Colorado's Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has been 
forced into the awkward position of fighting off the feds in defense 
of a state constitutional amendment he tried to defeat.

Because of Hickenlooper's cynical contradictions - the beer mogul 
opposed pot legalization after making millions selling the more 
hazardous drug called alcohol - he is not trusted by those pushing 
for a more rational narcotics policy. That distrust only intensified 
after the election. Instead of acknowledging the seriousness of a 
Drug War that is unduly arresting thousands and that often 
disproportionately targets minorities, Hickenlooper reacted to the 
ballot measure's passage with his own infantile attempt at comedy.

"Don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly," he snickered.

Not surprisingly, proponents of the pot initiative, which passed with 
more votes than either Obama or Hickenlooper have ever received in 
Colorado, weren't laughing with the governor. They suspect 
Hickenlooper's recent consultations with the Obama administration 
over the new law are a devious concession. Specifically, they argue 
that Hickenlooper even asking the White House for permission to 
proceed - rather than simply moving forward on behalf of his state's 
voters -- could be a deliberate attempt to solidify the precedent of 
federal preemption before courts cite the 10th amendment to 
invalidate that authority.

Of course, in the years before the judiciary steps in, the federal 
Drug Enforcement Agency will likely cite the 1970 Controlled 
Substances Act to do whatever it wants. That gets to the second issue 
of "should" - should that statutory power exist anymore? That's not a 
rhetorical query for academic navel-gazers - it is a pressing 
question that a new Democratic proposal could force Congress to confront.

As the Colorado Independent reports, while Hickenlooper cracks weak 
frat-boy jokes, Colorado's "three Democratic U.S. House members are 
drafting legislation ... that would exempt states where pot has been 
legalized from the Controlled Substances Act."

So far, President Obama hasn't taken a position on the bill. However, 
a White House citizens' petition supporting the measure could force 
his hand. In just days, it has garnered the necessary number of 
signatures to officially require a presidential response (you can 
sign it at http://wh.gov/9oaC). Signatures are no doubt piling up 
because the initiative presents a straightforward path to success.

Politically, it would allow culturally conservative drug warriors in 
Congress and the White House to support the states' rights position 
on narcotics policy that a new Rasmussen poll shows the public 
supports. At the same time, it would let those drug warriors avoid an 
explicit stand in support of marijuana use. Meanwhile, it would 
ratify voters' right to end this destructive part of the Drug War and 
it would short circuit a jurisdictional fight between states and 
Washington, D.C.

Such a skirmish would not merely be expensive and pointless - it 
would also be lengthy, meaning billions more taxpayer dollars wasted 
on a failed prohibitionist policy, and worse, more innocent Americans 
punished for the "crime" of smoking a joint.

That's not funny - no matter how many politicians, comedians and 
reporters try to tell you otherwise.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom