Pot amendment deserves a 'no'

Amendment 44 is bad policy

Published October 8, 2006 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

There must be hundreds of things that sensible Coloradans believe would benefit this state, but surely one of them is not an infusion of more illegal drugs. Yet here we are, thanks to Amendment 44, poised as a state to vote on whether we should make it easier to get high on marijuana.

It's an atrocious idea and deserves a resounding defeat.

Amendment 44 would legalize under state law the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults who are 21 and older. But of course federal laws involving marijuana would remain in place. And it would still be illegal under a variety of statutes to buy or grow marijuana (except for medicinal use), so the only way someone could "legally" possess the substance would be by breaking other laws.

That's the first problem with Amendment 44: It encourages people to enter the illicit drug market.

But the bigger problem with the measure is that it is based on faulty premises.

• It is simply not true, as the measure's advocates suggest, that law enforcement in this state devotes any significant amount of time or resources pursuing minor possession cases unrelated to serious crimes.

• It is not true that Coloradans are being incarcerated or otherwise punished harshly for minor marijuana possession. Possession of under an ounce is already a petty offense.

• It is not true that marijuana is a harmless alternative to alcohol. Alcohol is dangerous when abused, but marijuana can be dangerous, too. Too many people become psychologically addicted to its drug. Some users get into accidents or otherwise endanger themselves. Some become intrigued with harder, more addicting drugs and begin to experiment with them.

Ah, but isn't the present ban on marijuana equivalent to a double standard given the many accidents, crimes and other social problems associated with alcohol, which is not only legal but widely sold and promoted?

Maybe, but maybe not.

We simply don't know what the social costs of marijuana would be if it were as widely used as alcohol - but we can be certain they'd be significant. Why would Colorado want to be the guinea pig in resolving this question?

What bothers us as much as anything about Amendment 44 is the message it would send to teens, and the possible spike in marijuana use among them if it were to pass. The national trend in teen use of marijuana in recent years actually has been fairly encouraging. The war on drugs may be much ridiculed as a hopeless cause, but people do in fact respond to reasonable arguments about why they should stay sober. Even kids respond - which is extremely important since early drug use is the gravest warning sign of possible addiction problems to come.

Passage of Amendment 44 would signal that voters in Colorado, despite the anti-drug messages they insist on being preached in schools, in fact do not believe there is much of a downside to marijuana use. And if there isn't, kids will reasonably wonder, why not check it out?

We don't think there is a double standard in our position, but if there is then so be it. More drug use is not one of the many things that might improve this state.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News