Enforce fed drug laws, but not fed gun laws? Our sheriffs confuse me.

Interesting article in the paper Monday about how the police are opposed to making marijuana legal because, as we all know, drugs are bad.

Yes, really, they are. Not being snarky there.

The sheriffs of Davis and Weber counties are quoted as being opposed to the federal government's stand declining to interfer in states that have made MJ legal. They say drugs bring about all sorts of crime and evil, although a lot of the crime (robberies for money, for example) comes about precisely because drugs ARE illegal, a point they never like to admit, just like they don't relate crime and other problems caused by alcohol to the legalization of alcohol.

But that's not what interests me here. What interests me is that these two sheriffs are suddenly gangbusters for law enforcement by the federal government. They're really angry that the US Attorney General has told states which legalized marijuana that he would not challenge their laws.

These are the same two local sheriffs who, not too long ago, told the federal government it could take a flying leap at the moon if it tried to pass any sort of federal gun law because guns are protected by the constitution and Utah's not going to let the feds tell it what to do, no way no how.

Sheriff Thompson in Weber County even wrote stuff on his blog criticizing me for (click) criticizing his stand, in my blog, but really, if you are going to demand the feds enforce federal laws, should you get to pick and choose?

The drug laws the fed isn't enforcing don't impact Utah, because Utah hasn't legalized marijuana. Other states have and, hey, what about state's rights?

When they were criticizing federal gun laws, our fine sheriffs (click) made much of Utah's right to decide for Utah and said the feds should respect that. Well, Colorado decided for Colorado, the feds are respecting it, what's your beef?

More to the point, it is pretty clear to everyone that the war on drugs has been won, by drugs. I would think the sheriff's would welcome a chance to quit fighting a losing battle.

After 25 or more years, more people are in prison than ever before for drugs, more police are spending billions of dollars for anti-drug gear than ever before, and more drugs are coming over the border than ever before. Whole industries have been built around supplying prisons to house everyone.

Meanwhile, around $15 billion a year in American money flows south to buy drugs, a pretty strong indication that Americans want the drugs that are illegal and are willing to vote with their dollars.

Yes, drug addiction is evil. The billions we spend fighting drugs should be spent on treatment and prevention -- call Weber or Davis mental health to see how underfunded their drug programs are. The money all flows to enforcement, buying swat teams and huge RV-mobile command centers and other fun toys, not prevention.

Would making drugs legal cause a boom of abuse, gang rape in the streets and all other sorts of tragedy? Probably not. California seems to have de facto legalization with all those "clinics" selling medical marijuana, but none of those other horrors.

When alcohol was made legal again (thanks to Utah!) after Prohibition, use did go up, but abuse stayed about the same. People who wanted to get drunk had no problem finding booze during Prohibition. People who only wanted a casual drink with dinner at home now and then were the ones who went without, but they weren't the problem in the first place.

Legalize drugs, you'd see people wonder what the fuss was about, but that's where prevention money comes in, and treatment. Those things work. The nation has cut tobacco use through education and treatment, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet.

 Legalize marijuana, the hard core addicts would keep on getting what they're getting now, only instead of jail they might get treatment. And our sheriffs could concentrate on other crimes that need solving.