Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Colorado Springs Gazette Endorses Marijuana Initiative in Colorado
11-03-06|MPP|Colorado Springs Gazette

The long journey toward a more rational and workable national drug control policy begins with a single step. That's why we're backing Amendment 44 in next week's election. The text of Amendment 44 is simple. It reads: "Any person under twenty-one years of age who possesses not more than one ounce of marijuana commits a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars." Not very complicated, but this change could make a big difference in how the judicial system deals with drug offenders, as well as send a strong message to Washington that Coloradans are ready for a more realistic and rational national drug policy.

In essence, it would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults. It would still be illegal for minors to possess it and possession of more than one ounce by anyone would remain illegal and subject to current laws. This vote could have national implications, which explains why the nation's drug czar came to Colorado to campaign against the measure. Because approval of Amendment 44 would make Colorado the first state to legalize marijuana, putting state law at odds with federal law, the drug warriors evidently see this as a major chink in the armor of the drug war. They worry that passage would be the beginning of a flood of legalization around the country.

We have long been on record as questioning the reasons behind, and conduct of, the so-called War on Drugs — an effort that's responsible for thousands of deaths, prison overcrowding and untold misery for a lot of people in a number of countries. A blanket prohibition on the use of certain drugs clearly isn't working. But some politicians, law enforcement officials and professional drug warriors refuse to consider options that move us in the direction of drug legalizations. Passage of Amendment 44 at least sets the stage for a national debate on the issue, and possibly sets us on the road to a partial solution.

Proponents of the amendment say marijuana use is safer than alcohol, which is legal for those over 21. They point to links between drinking and domestic violence and argue that marijuana use does not lead to violent outbursts. Opponents of the amendment point to the dangers of prolonged use of marijuana as a reason to derail the proposal. They also point out that many drug users commit other crimes to support their habits. We won’t attempt to settle either argument today, because both are beside the point.

As libertarians, we simply don't believe the government should tell adults what they can or can't ingest, except when their irresponsible use of such substances brings them into conflict with the rights of others. The use of illegal drugs can sometimes do that, to be sure. But so can the reckless or irresponsible use of many legal drugs, as well as other legal products. Government attempts to meddle in these choices by barring the use of certain substances, while sanctioning or regulating the use of others, to us seems arbitrary, irrational and an encroachment on individual liberty.

Banning substances or products on the grounds that they might be dangerous in the hands of some people shouldn't fly in a truly free society. Government is in the business of protecting us from others, not ourselves. It's true that marijuana use is not risk free. But very little in life is, and free people should be able to make their own choices.

The drug war has been going on for decades and drugs are still readily available across the country, proof that current policy isn't working. This is a good first step toward forcing government to abandon an approach that just doesn’t work.

We encourage freedom lovers to vote yes on Amendment 44.