Pubdate: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI)
Copyright: 2002 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Contact:  http://www.jsonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/265
Author: Sheldon Richman
Note: Sheldon Richman is a senior fellow at The Future of Freedom 
Foundation, a libertarian organization based in Fairfax, Va. He is the 
author of "Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State" and editor 
of Ideas on Liberty magazine.

WAR ON DRUGS A WAR ON IDEAS

The American Inquisition got another one last month. Singer Dionne Warwick, 
who was found with nearly a dozen marijuana cigarettes at the Miami 
airport, had her charges dropped in return for promising to undergo "drug 
treatment" and to make anti-drug public service announcements.

Let's not dwell on the fact that a poor kid found with a few joints in a 
bad neighborhood isn't offered the same deal Warwick got. The two- tier 
system of punishment for drug offenses is old news. Just look what happens 
when the child of a senator is caught with contraband.

Rather, let's look at what Warwick's case says about the "war on drugs" per 
se, which is not a war on drugs at all, but a war on people. This 
modern-day Inquisition is designed to hunt down drug heretics. Ultimately, 
its victims are punished not just for what they do, but also for what they 
think. And what they think are forbidden thoughts about drugs.

Instead of believing, say, that a glass of wine is OK but a joint is bad, 
they may think that a joint is not much different from a glass of wine. We 
can't have people thinking that. That's why Warwick was offered the deal. 
As a celebrity, she is more valuable as a convert than as a convict.

That the Inquisition is aimed at thoughts can be readily seen in the terms 
of her deal. To avoid trial, she had to promise to attend "drug treatment." 
What happened there? She certainly was not treated for drug use the way a 
physician would treat her for a stomach ulcer or high blood pressure.

This "treatment" consisted of talk by her and by psychiatrists, 
psychologists and other mental health personnel. What did they say? The 
experts probably told her lies about marijuana that are only slightly more 
sophisticated than those told in the government's old propaganda film 
"Reefer Madness."

Warwick, under obvious duress, perhaps said she was stressed and thought 
that marijuana would help her to relax. Or maybe the professionals explored 
how low self-esteem "caused" her to use drugs. Or maybe her interest in 
drugs was attributed to mental illness. (If so, why is criminal law involved?)

She probably said she saw the error of her ways and wouldn't repeat the 
offense. Nationwide, taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars to 
finance this inflated nonsense called "treatment." Most of the people there 
are trying to stay out of jail.

Then there are those public service announcements. Here is where Warwick 
will do public penance by recanting her heresy. She will probably tell kids 
not to use illegal drugs. How convincing will she be?

Until recently, Warwick apparently saw nothing wrong with using marijuana. 
She "got religion" (an apt phrase here) just after criminal charges were 
filed against her and then dropped. A coincidence? If not, why should 
anyone believe anything she says about drugs? It's likely that she'll 
deliver her anti-drug message only because she could go to jail if she 
refuses. When someone has that strong a personal interest in making a 
statement that conflicts with his or her own previous conduct, we are 
entitled to skepticism, if not outright incredulity.

Does the government think we are so dumb that we will take Warwick's public 
service announcements seriously? Yes, it does. It is striking how much of 
what the government does is comprehensible once you realize that it thinks 
most Americans are idiots.

While Warwick will avoid prison in return for her re-education and public 
recantation, others are not so fortunate. Prison statistics are a scandal. 
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 57% of federal 
prisoners in 1999 were drug offenders. That's more than 68,000 people. In 
1997, state prisons held 251,200 drug offenders, about 20% of the overall 
population of state prisons. A disproportionate number of those prisoners 
are black.

Americans are losing their liberty for having unapproved ideas - and acting 
on them peacefully - about substances they should be free to ingest. That 
loss of liberty is unworthy of a self-described free society.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth