Perks of political office

Here's a perfect example of the inequities in the war on some drugs.

BRIDGEPORT (AP) - The mayor of Connecticut's largest city admitted Friday that he made "poor choices" but would not address allegations of cocaine use that surfaced when prosecutors inadvertently filed FBI reports naming him in a drug case.

Bridgeport Mayor John Fabrizi was named in a summary of an FBI interview with Juan Marrero, who faces cocaine trafficking charges. Marrero said an associate had a videotape of Fabrizi using cocaine.

After the documents were disclosed Friday by the Connecticut Post, U.S. Attorney Kevin O'Connor apologized to Fabrizi and took the unusual step of saying he was not a target of the drug investigation. [...]

"We made a mistake here and I apologize to the mayor and anybody else named there," O'Connor said in a telephone interview. "That information should not have come out in that form and that manner."

And why is he not a target of the investigation? You can be damn sure if he was just some poor black schmuck on the streets he would be and I remind you that this is the same city where the police were reprimanded for confiscating works from addicts in violation of the clean needle program.

The mayor has no plans to resign, nor should he if it didn't affect his performance on the job. In fact, he's a poster boy for reform. If you can successfully use cocaine and still run a city, I'd say that's a pretty good argument for legalization. It certainly belies the notion that all coke consumers are violent criminals.

My only criticism is that all drug consumers should receive the same treatment as the mayor and other politicians receive from law enforcement.