Colorado Springs Gazette
1/19/06

Marijuana proposal promotes freedom

GEORGE LEWIS
Editorial staff

(Return to Press Section)
Did you ever spend a great deal of time explaining something to someone and a few days later have them say something that made you think you¡¦d dreamed the previous incident? As a parent I go through that quite a bit. But a few weeks ago I felt something similar when I read what John Newsome, district attorney for the Fourth Judicial District, said about the possibility of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana in Colorado.
Newsome was quoted in a Gazette story about the group Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation and its attempt to get such a law on the 2006 ballot in Colorado. He said dismissively, ¡§I have yet to hear any discussion or clamoring for the legalization of drugs.¡¨
Newsome must have somehow missed the many editorials and op-eds in this paper over the years discussing that very subject. The drug war has failed, and society should be questioning the government when it tries to regulate citizens¡¦ lives. SAFER¡¦s proposal would do just that.
In a free society, like the one we purportedly have, people should be free to pursue happiness in their own ways, so long as it doesn¡¦t infringe on the rights of others. That¡¦s why Prohibition was such a failure in the early 20th century and why drug prohibition is a failure in modern times. Free people don¡¦t rely on their government to give them permission to do things. In fact, that often gets their dander up and sometimes pushes them into behavior they might otherwise not engage in.
Don¡¦t get me wrong; it¡¦s not that I believe marijuana or any other drug is harmless. News reports are too full of stories to the contrary. And there are costs to society when people abuse drugs, just as there are when they misuse legal products. Alcohol comes immediately to mind, but there are many other products in our world that can cause harm when overused or abused. Shall we outlaw them as well?
Newsome continued, ¡§I can tell you in my line of work we see people destroyed by drugs.¡¨ I don¡¦t doubt that for a minute. As the official charged with pursuing justice when crimes are committed, he comes in contact with the seamy side of life many of us only read about. That could be coloring his judgment on the matter of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana for adults.
The district attorney¡¦s office doesn¡¦t usually come into contact with the thousands of residents whose actions are below the legal radar, especially when it comes to drug use. In his official capacity, Newsome probably doesn¡¦t see the people who drink socially but don¡¦t get behind the wheel, either, but that doesn¡¦t mean they¡¦re not drinking. They¡¦re just not causing trouble to others. And that¡¦s the point where the government is obliged to step in: when one¡¦s behavior infringes on the rights and safety of others.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers registered his objections to the proposal by saying, ¡§You would basically give the people of Colorado a free pass.¡¨ A free pass to do what? Enjoy a pastime that harms no one except the user? Marijuana, like alcohol, is a problem to society only when it¡¦s misused in such a manner that affects other people¡¦s safety. And we have laws to deal with that.
SAFER¡¦s proposal wouldn¡¦t have any effect on those laws. Users who are under the influence of drugs should be taken off the road just as drunken drivers are. And those who use drugs and become violent would be dealt with as well.
Suthers also seems to overlook the fact that the proposal would legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and would cover only adults, not juveniles. The drug couriers that seem to be routinely busted on Interstate 25 with several hundred pounds of pot would still be held accountable for breaking the law.
It¡¦s not surprising that Newsome and Suthers would be wary of decriminalizing small quantities of marijuana; they¡¦re prosecutors. They¡¦re used to looking at ideas from the perspective of the damage freedom can cause. And they¡¦re to be commended for enforcing the laws on the books.
But the fact that use of a product by some people can possibly result in harm to themselves or others is no reason to forbid it in a free society. The government cannot protect us from danger. Individuals ought to be able to make decisions themselves and pay the consequences. That¡¦s called freedom.
(Return to Press Section)