Pubdate: Sun, 23 Sep 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Betty Aldworth
Note: Betty Aldworth is advocacy director of the Campaign to 
Regulatemarijuana Like Alcohol.

Should Pot Be Legal?

YES: END SENSELESS MARIJUANA PROHIBITION

It started with Richard Nixon. When he publicly launched the war on 
marijuana 40 years ago, the decision was not grounded in facts or 
reason. Actually, it was just the opposite.

The president handpicked a national commission in 1971, and tasked it 
with taking a hard look at the substance. Chaired by Raymond Shafer, 
the Republican governor of Pennsylvania, it was no left-leaning 
group. They approached the subject objectively and produced a 
comprehensive report. Their conclusion? The harms of marijuana are 
quite limited, and the use of marijuana by adults should not be 
considered a criminal offense.

Nixon promptly ignored their findings and moved forward with his plan 
to make marijuana Public Enemy No. 1. Since that time, marijuana 
prohibition has become an industry, and the actors whose jobs are 
dependent on that industry are fighting tooth and nail to keep it going.

By and large, they are members of law enforcement, such as the 
Colorado Drug Investigators Association. This trade group of 
narcotics officers knows that the 10,000 marijuana arrests that occur 
in Colorado each year account for more than 60 percent of all 
drug-related offenses in the state. If marijuana prohibition fizzles 
out, so do the budgets for enforcing it.

As a result, these individuals who should just be enforcing the law 
engage in biased public dialogue in order to prevent sensible changes 
in the law.

They advocate arresting and prosecuting adults for marijuana, even 
though there is no arguing whether limited law enforcement resources 
would be better spent combatting violence and other crimes that 
actually cause harm to others.

Instead of trying to eliminate modern-day Al Capones, these law 
enforcement officials are actually working to keep them in business. 
They decry illegal grows by drug cartels in neighborhoods and 
national forests, yet seem oblivious - intentionally or not-to the 
fact that regulating the production of marijuana is the only way to 
eliminate this illicit cultivation.

A vote against Amendment 64 is a vote to keep profits flowing to 
these drug cartels instead of legitimate Colorado businesses.

Worst of all, these tough men-yes, they are mostly men-prey on 
parents' fears about their children in order to continue using your 
tax dollars to fight an endless battle to prevent adults from using a 
product proven to be less harmful than the one our president brews in 
the White House.

On the children issue, they are both wrong and reckless. Any 
objective examination of the facts demonstrates that marijuana 
prohibition is the worst possible policy for children. It has created 
a situation in which underground marijuana is almost universally 
available to teens, and those teens who inevitably seek it out are 
often exposed to other, more dangerous drugs.

Moreover, there is now evidence that regulating marijuana might be 
better for teens in Colorado. Since our state established a tightly 
regulated legal medical marijuana market in 2009, marijuana use among 
high school students has dropped 11 percent in the state, according 
to surveys conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention. Nationwide, where marijuana is entirely unregulated, it 
increased 11 percent.

As a last resort, our opponents try to scare voters and business 
leaders with unfounded claims that passage of Amendment 64 will 
affect the workplace, despite the fact that the measure explicitly 
grants employers the right to maintain all of their current 
employment policies.

So, what is motivating our opponents? Are they attempting to deceive 
the public, or are they actually unable to see the problems 
associated with marijuana prohibition and the benefits of regulation?

Perhaps it is the latter. As author Upton Sinclair once said, "It is 
difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary 
depends on his not understanding it."

But I hope you understand it is time to replace this ineffective and 
wasteful policy with a more sensible approach.

Please vote "yes" on Amendment 64 to regulate marijuana like alcohol.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom