Pubdate: Thu, 11 Oct 2012
Source: Grand Junction Free Press (CO)
Copyright: 2012 Grand Junction Free Press
Contact:  http://www.gjfreepress.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4327
Author: T. Kelley

AMENDMENT 64, WILL REASON OR BLIND CONSERVATISM PREVAIL?

Travis Kelly Grand Junction Free Press Opinion Columnist

Email Print Up for our vote in November here in Colorado, Amendment 64
would do two immensely sane and beneficial things: 1. Re-legalize
marijuana and regulate it just like alcohol. 2. Make the growing of
industrial hemp crops legal again.

In the 1930s, the folly of alcohol prohibition was finally recognized,
and repealed. The folly of marijuana prohibition is now finally being
recognized by a wide spectrum of studied professionals in the
universities, medical schools, and on the front lines of law
enforcement. In the debate about how to conduct our wars in the Middle
East, it is often said that we should "listen to what the troops on
the ground say." So should we now in the longest war in our history --
The War on Some Drugs.

Lt. Tony Ryan (ret.), a 36-year veteran of the Denver Police Dept.,
endorsed Amendment 64 at a recent press conference in Denver, along
with several other police officers, members of the nationwide Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), prosecutors and judges.

"Law enforcement officers know better than anyone that keeping
marijuana illegal and unregulated means the gangs and cartels that
control the illegal trade win, and the rest of us lose," said Lt.
Ryan. "Our current marijuana laws distract police officers from doing
the job we signed up for - protecting the public by stopping and
solving serious crimes. They also put us at risk by forcing us to deal
with an underground marijuana market made up of gangsters, cartels and
other criminals."

Another member of LEAP, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper,
said, "Over the past four years I've asked police officers throughout
the U.S. (and in Canada) two questions. When's the last time you had
to fight someone under the influence of marijuana? (I'm talking
marijuana only, not pot plus a six-pack or a fifth of tequila.) My
colleagues pause, they reflect. Their eyes widen as they realize that
in their five or 15 or 30 years on the job they have never had to
fight a marijuana user. I then ask: When's the last time you had to
fight a drunk? They look at their watches."

On every count, the evidence is now conclusive that alcohol is a far
more insidious drug than marijuana, from personal health to public
safety. According to the American Public Health Association, excessive
consumption of alcohol is the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
There has never been a documented case of death from marijuana
overdose, nor any case of cancer attributed to marijuana-only smoking.
There are even some studies claiming that pot has anti-carcinogenic
effects, in addition to being effective for pain remediation. Alcohol
has been implicated in cirrhosis of the liver, numerous cancers, and
the vast majority of violent crimes.

"All of which begs the question," said Stamper. "If one of these two
drugs is implicated in dire health effects, high mortality rates, and
physical violence - and the other is not - what are we to make of our
nation's marijuana laws? Or alcohol laws, for that matter?"

We can make this of it: Certain vested interests are interested in
perpetuating this war for their own bureaucratic budgets; namely the
DEA, which has opposed every medicinal marijuana initiative in the
country. When a similar proposition was defeated in California a few
years ago, the two leading lobbies spending against it were the liquor
industry and the prison guards' unions. And I wouldn't doubt that the
violent drug cartels were covertly throwing some money against it, as
they would be the biggest losers.

Rather than draining municipal and state budgets to fight this futile
and counterproductive "war," Colorado could be gaining up to $22
million in tax revenue annually from legalized marijuana. Amendment 64
mandates that the first $40 million be directed to support our public
schools. Given the fiscal realities in this economy, this makes
unassailable sense. To those who would instinctively vote against it,
regardless of the facts, I'll let this ex-president make the final
appeal:

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is
a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds
of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by
legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A
Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our
government was founded."

That was Abraham Lincoln, who also wrote a curious letter to the Hohner
Harmonica company in Germany: "Two of my favorite things are sitting on
my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner
Harmonica." Hemp was not illegal then. Yes, friends, it's very possible
our greatest president was at one time a pothead.

I can think of no better final argument than this for legalization.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt