A few weeks ago, New Mexico governor Gary Johnson said publicly that he felt it was time to discuss our policies towards currently illegal narcotics. Actually, Johnson was put on the spot -- he made the comments at a private luncheon and they were leaked to the press.

The Albuquerque Tribune, Albuquerque's afternoon newspaper, contacted Johnson for comment and he confirmed that he had engaged in such a conversation. The next day, The Albuquerque Journal followed the Tribes lead and ran the story on the front page, borrowing heavily from the Trib story (without attribution).

The Journal, owned by local right-winger Tom Lang, ran a quite slanted story. In the lead, they said that Johnson had said it was time to question our drug enforcement methods, and perhaps time to consider legalizing marijuana and cocaine. They then left the Governor and started quoting republican senators and congressmen who all said, in accordance with the National Republican Party platform, that drug penalties should be stiffened, not lessened.

Anyone with attention span enough to reach the bottom of the Journal's report then found Johnson's key argument -- that he had used pot and cocaine once but quit because he's a triathlete, and that he has friends who still use the drugs recreationally. Johnson pointed out quite poignantly that he never considered himself or his friends to be criminals, and doesn't believe they should be thrown in jail or face legal penalties.

Now, any normal newspaper who printed the story would probably follow up the lead paragraph with the governor's explanation of his feelings -- that he has used the drugs and knows drug users and that they never hurt anybody, were good people, and shouldn't be called criminals for their harmless activities. It's a civil rights argument against our national policies towards narcotics -- one which says that the drug control argument shouldn't be made with statistical arguments since it is a moral concern: why should the law care if, in the privacy of your own home, you smoke from a bong or cut up a line of Bolivian Marching Powder?

The Journal has ignored the civil rights angle completely. They didn't, for example, interview the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union to see if maybe someone might agree with Johnson's sentiments. Nor did they contact the many "legalize hemp" activist groups operating in and around the University of New Mexico. Basically, the Journal presented any talk of drug legalization as a crackpot notion.

The Journal recently ran an article by Republican state senator Skip Vernon which said there should be no discussion on the topic, that our drug laws aren't harsh enough and that more people should go to jail. The Journal printed one letter to the editor in negative response to Vernon's rant, but that letter also made no mention of Civil Rights. Again, the Journal could balance its coverage by calling the ACLU and asking for a column. Or, they could run this column. After all, Johnson has no plan in mind for legalizing drugs, he merely said we should discuss the notion. A newspaper would be a good place to hold such a discussion. But so far, the Journal's coverage has been more monologue than discussion -- those in favor of harsher penalties have had their say, but the other side has no voice.

Journal publisher Lang, the Washington Post reported a few years back, led a drug raid on his own building, causing the arrests of his own employees who had snuck a little pot into work. Employees of Lang's Albuquerque Publishing Company, by the way, must submit to intrusive drug testing.

The Albuquerque Journal killing the "legalize it" talk due to the biases of its publisher, and that's too bad because it's just talk right now, and both sides deserve to be heard.

Michael Maiello reads the Albuquerque Journal every morning because he loves to get infuriated.