Pubdate: Sun, 03 Feb 2008
Source: Orlando Sentinel (FL)
Copyright: 2008 Orlando Sentinel
Contact:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/325
Note: Rarely prints out-of-state LTEs.
Author: Steve Chapman
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

A TRUTH BARACK OBAMA WON'T DARE TELL: DECRIMINALIZING MARIJUANA USE

Lately, Barack Obama has been quoting John F. Kennedy:  "The world is 
changing. The old ways will not do." For  a few hours the other day, 
I was starting to think he  really meant it.

On Thursday, The Washington Times reported that in  2004, as a 
candidate for the U.S. Senate, Obama came  out for decriminalizing 
marijuana use. That usually  means eliminating jail sentences and 
arrest records for  anyone caught with a small amount for personal 
use,  treating it more like a traffic offense than a violent  crime. 
But in a show of hands at a debate last fall, he  indicated that he 
opposed the idea.

When confronted on the issue by the Times, however, the  senator 
defended his original ground. His campaign said  he has "always" 
supported decriminalization.

It's a brave position, and therefore exceedingly rare  among 
practicing politicians. Which may be why it  didn't last. Before the 
day was over, the Obama  campaign issued a statement saying he thinks 
"we are  sending far too many first-time non-violent drug users  to 
prison for very long periods of time" but "does not  believe that we 
should treat offenses involving  marijuana with a simple fine or just 
by confiscating  the drug." Recently, he had told a New Hampshire 
newspaper, "I'm not in favor of decriminalization."

This episode reveals that as a candidate, Obama is more  fond of bold 
rhetoric than bold policies. But it also  proves the impossibility of 
talking sense on the  subject of illicit drugs during a political 
campaign.  That course of action would mean admitting the 
inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been  cruel, 
wasteful and fraudulent.

Cruel because it leads to the arrest of nearly 700,000  people a year 
for mere possession of a substance that  is comparatively benign. 
Wasteful because it expends  billions of dollars in police, court and 
correctional  resources that could be deployed against dangerous 
predators. Fraudulent because it hasn't solved  anything: According 
to the federal government, nearly  100 million Americans have tried the stuff.

But in the political realm, a strangely disjointed view  of drugs 
prevails. Past use is forgivable. Both George  W. Bush and Bill 
Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana,  as did Al Gore and John 
Kerry. Obama has admitted doing  the same.

At the same time, no major party presidential nominee  has advocated 
decriminalization (much less  legalization) since Jimmy Carter did so 
in 1976. It  would be considered political suicide. So we are now in 
a bizarre position: A candidate who spent his college  days flouting 
our marijuana laws can be elected  president, but an abstemious, 
button-downed candidate  who proposes to change those laws has no hope.

Had we enforced our statutes more vigorously, of  course, Bush, 
Clinton and the others would never have  been elected anything, 
because they would be  ex-convicts. Yet Bush, Clinton and the others 
were  happy to put people behind bars for crimes they  themselves committed.

One alternative to that approach is decriminalization,  which is not 
exactly radical or untried. It's already  the norm in 12 different 
states -- not just California  and New York, but Mississippi, Ohio 
and Nebraska. About  one of every three Americans lives in a state or 
city where pot users typically don't go to jail.

Despite this lenient approach, Omaha and Cincinnati  still would 
never be mistaken for Jamaica. One thing we  know is that criminal 
penalties have little if any  effect on the number of stoners. States 
that have decriminalized cannabis are largely indistinguishable  from 
states that have not.

A 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences found  "little 
evidence that decriminalization of marijuana  use necessarily leads 
to a substantial increase in  marijuana use." In 2003, Boston 
University economist  Jeffrey Miron surveyed the available data from 
here and abroad and agreed: "Existing evidence provides 
no  indication that marijuana decriminalization causes  increased 
marijuana use."

This discovery should not be surprising. Cigarettes and  beer are 
both legally available, but smoking and  drinking have been declining 
for years. Freedom is not  incompatible with enlightened 
self-restraint. In fact,  it seems to foster it.

Politicians normally can't say such things. But near  the end of his 
administration, Bill Clinton confided to  Rolling Stone magazine that 
he thought marijuana should  be decriminalized. Maybe eight years 
from now, Obama  will do likewise.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom