As you might already know, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) really doesn't like marijuana. Maybe he's afraid of anything that would mellow him out and remove the giant stick from his ass. Whatever the reason, in June of 1999 he managed to attach what has become known as "the Barr Amendment" to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act. According to Barr, his amendment "says that basically the District of Columbia should not and shall not make marijuana a legal substance."

Except that's not exactly what it does. According to House records, the amendment "prohibit[s] the use of any funding to legalize or reduce the penalty for" crimes associated with Schedule I substances. It doesn't take a lawyer or even a legislator to see the distinction between criminalizing a substance and withdrawing funds from those who advocate a change in the criminalization of a substance. But then again Bob Barr really isn't much of either. Look at some of the arguments he made in favor of his bill:

"If we think that kids should not smoke tobacco, then I think it is a logical step that probably we should not make this available for kids or anybody to be smoking marijuana. "

Do I really need to point out what a complete non sequitur this is? Not to mention the fact that we do permit adults to smoke tobacco, so the argument fails to even make sense.

"When the City of Memphis, Tennessee, tested all reckless drivers for drugs, it was discovered that 33 percent showed signs of marijuana use."

Of course, if reckless driving were grounds to prohibit a substance, Prohibition would have never ended -- alcohol was involved in 40% of all fatal automobile crashes in 2000. But we can even leave that argument aside when we look at the actual Memphis study to which Barr refers. In that study, Memphis police "gave drug tests on the spot to any reckless drivers who were not obviously drunk," and "59 percent tested positive for cocaine or marijuana." The drug tests involved were urine tests.

Assuming that Barr is not misrepresenting the data (I'm being charitable), this means that 33 percent of reckless Memphis drivers had detectable levels of marijuana in their bodies. However, unlike a breathalyzer (which can tell you whether a driver is drunk at that moment) a urine test tells you whether a person has smoked marijuana within the past several days or even weeks, since marijuana can easily stay in the bloodstream that long. The test is therefore inconclusive as to whether a person is high on marijuana at the time the test is given.

So Bob Barr's statement is technically accurate, but clearly designed to leave the impression that 33 percent of reckless Memphis drivers were stoned behind the wheel. This is a conclusion unsupported by the facts of the study.

"If the folks on the other side are against legalization of marijuana, I do not understand why they would be opposed to this amendment."

Well, maybe that's because many people who oppose legalizing marijuana are intelligent enough to support the rights of others who want to work within the legal system to change the laws. As a California voter, I've been disturbed by many initiatives which have made it onto our ballots, but I've never once wished an initiative sponsor could have been denied the chance to legally place an initiative there. Shouldn't a former prosecutor know how to draw these types of legal distinctions?

And leaving all other arguments aside, the Barr Amendment is obviously unconstitutional. It abuses the Congressional spending power to essentially discriminate between political viewpoints, which is a textbook violation of the First Amendment. Late last week, a federal judge in Washington agreed, overturning the Amendment and enjoining it from being executed:

"The Barr Amendment effectively prohibits plaintiffs from circulating a Board-approved petition for signatures in an attempt to submit an initiative for placement on the ballot at the next general election. There can be no doubt that the Barr Amendment restricts plaintiffs' First Amendment right to engage in political speech."

We already know Bob Barr doesn't understand the Constitution. Maybe if his legislative flotsam continues to be smacked down in the courts he'll get a clue... but I won't hold my breath. For the time being, I'll just continue to despair over having to share a last name with the man.

-Jason