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: Vincent Carroll

NO NEED TO CALL HICK A HYPOCRITE

Can a fellow who was in on the ground floor of Colorado's 
microbrewery boom and who made a fortune off of beer and bars take a 
stand against legalizing marijuana without being called a hypocrite?

Of course not. Gov. John Hickenlooper has already been denounced more 
than once as a hypocrite for coming out against Amendment 64, the 
Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012, and will no doubt hear 
the charge repeated many times before November.

But is he a hypocrite?

Not unless he's smoking dope on the side or is secretly rooting for 
legalization to pass.

I say this as someone who appreciates the appeal of Amendment 64 - 
who is tired of the futility of the drug war (as directed at pot), 
the arrogance and lies of the DEA and federal prosecutors, the 
violence and corrupting influence of traffickers, and the paternalism 
of those who believe adult Americans are incapable of regulating 
themselves when it comes to the use of recreational drugs.

But reasonable people - even those who once sold another recreational 
drug - should be able to oppose legalization without being called 
names. After all, they may well distinguish among different drugs and 
- - for a host of defensible reasons - support legal status for one or 
more but not the rest.

If Hickenlooper is a hypocrite for opposing 64, then by the same 
logic so are hundreds of thousands of other Coloradans - on a lesser 
scale - who drink alcoholic beverages but will also vote "no" on 64. 
They enjoy their drug of choice, critics could argue, but apparently 
have little problem denying a similar right to others.

But they deserve the benefit of the doubt, too. Maybe they are 
cautious and don't like cultural experiments. Or they think we've got 
enough social lubricants as it is. Or they consider it is our bounden 
duty to submit to the great and powerful Nanny on the Potomac, whose 
officials have a hard time admitting a distinction between pot and 
heroin (honestly, they do).

Or maybe they simply believe some of the half-truths being peddled by 
the opponents' campaign, which has chosen to fixate upon the 
potential risk to teens.

Hickenlooper adopted the imperiled-kids theme both in his initial 
announcement and when elaborating on his position later.

"Let's assume [marijuana] was legal," he told Westword. "I think 
almost half as many kids smoke pot illegally as kids who drink 
illegally. The implication by my critics is that therefore we should 
make everything legal and have that many - double the number of kids 
that are smoking illegally as well."

He then went on to say that "repeated pot smoking does affect 
[adolescents'] ability to hold on to information. If that's true - 
and that seems to be a pretty factual basis - what kind of leaders 
are we if we tell them that that's okay?"

But of course we wouldn't be telling them it's OK, any more than we 
are telling our kids it's OK to drink because adults are allowed to 
do so. Nor do backers of 64 blithely concede that teen pot use will 
track with alcohol use after legalization. Why should that be inevitable?

Moreover, teens who drink face heightened risks, too. Those who start 
before age 15, for example, are "four times more likely to also 
report meeting the criteria for alcohol dependence at some point in 
their lives," according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse 
and Alcoholism, as well as risk possible impairment of "long-term 
memory and learning skills."

We might be able to reduce the number of teens who experiment with 
alcohol by banning it, but of course almost no one these days is 
publicly advocating such a draconian approach.

Does that mean they're hypocrites? No, no, no. Remember, we're not 
going there. Let's just say their arguments betray a notable degree 
of inconsistency.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom