Pubdate: Fri, 19 Mar 2004
Source: Brown Daily Herald, The (RI Edu)
Copyright: 2004 The Brown Daily Herald
Contact:  http://www.browndailyherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/727
Author: Katherine Cummings
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n455/a09.html
Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org
Cited: Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.ssdp.org
Cited: Brown SSDP http://bu.ssdp.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?179 (Nadelmann, Ethan)

THE MORALITY OF OUR MISERABLE WAR ON DRUGS

In the world of drug policy reform, Ethan Nadelmann is the man, so to 
speak. He is a go-to person, both well informed and well connected in his 
capacities as an academic and activist. As an active member of Students for 
Sensible Drug Policy, and as an American citizen who has long felt 
concerned and perplexed about the manner in which we "fight" the drug war, 
I am well acquainted with Nadelmann's initiatives as a leader of the reform 
movement. But as I listened to his lecture "Building a Movement to End the 
War on Drugs," Tuesday evening here at Brown, I was struck by new 
realizations about the illegitimacy of current U.S. drug policy, 
specifically considering the manner in which the drug war violates any 
notion of the sanctity of personal sovereignty over mind and body.

In questioning our need to utilize the criminal justice system to protect 
ourselves from the evils of drugs, Nadelmann articulated the fundamental 
problems with global drug prohibition: Why do we rely upon criminalization, 
as opposed to implementing a system of strict regulations, treatment and 
education? And what is it about the prohibited drugs that distinguishes 
them from the drugs that we use and abuse every day? We allow 
Anheuser-Busch to televise ads that directly link alcohol with glamorized 
visions of youth and sex, but launch propaganda crusades relating marijuana 
with terrorism, teenage pregnancy, negligence and violence. Why are we so 
quick to accept the misinformation campaigns and drug demonization efforts 
facilitated by organizations like D.A.R.E. and the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy?

This pattern of thinking opens up the possibility of castigating drug use 
not only within a legal framework but also on a moral axis. According to 
Nadelmann, somewhere along the way Americans arrived at the "conviction 
that there was something viscerally, morally and biblically wrong" with the 
use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, mushrooms, crack and other illegal 
drugs.

I often wonder about the origins of the deeply imbedded belief in the evil 
menace of drugs. I don't presume that the aforementioned substances are 
harmless and should be legalized and distributed on every street corner. On 
the contrary, I am acutely aware of the potential hazards associated with 
drug use. But why do some drugs elicit an almost irrational panic and not 
others?

My question is this: Does the government have the authority to intercede 
between citizens, as potential drug users, and specific drugs they may 
choose to put into their bodies?

If the government chooses to apply the model of regulation and not 
criminalization to alcohol and tobacco, there is no legitimate basis 
(medical, scientific, moral, religious or otherwise) for discrimination 
between drugs in terms of the legality of use. We impose rules about 
driving under the influenced, and punish acts of violence and the 
destruction of property in an attempt to discourage behavior that is 
harmful to society. But laws that explicitly attempt to control the intake 
and possession of drugs are not sustainable, enforceable or legitimate.

The alcohol prohibition efforts of the early 20th century failed for the 
same reasons that the attempt to globally prohibit drugs has been entirely 
unsuccessful. People will not respond to state mandates about what they can 
or cannot put into their bodies, especially when these mandates assume the 
universality of a given moral code. According to the United Nations 
International Drug Control Program, the international drug trade generates 
as much as $400 billion annually, reflecting 8 percent of all international 
trade. Clearly, people are still using drugs.

Instead of criminalizing and imprisoning drug users, we need to focus our 
resources and energy on minimizing the harms of drug use through education 
and treatment programs. The dangers of drug addiction cannot be overlooked, 
and real information about these dangers -- not the scare tactics of recent 
anti-marijuana commercials -- needs to be available to citizens of all ages.

The War on Drugs poses far more of a threat to the safety and well-being of 
the American populace than the terrors of "reefer madness" ever did. Our 
drug-war policies have resulted in the propagation of innumerable social 
crises: the spread of infectious diseases (through needle sharing), the 
disenfranchisement of nearly 2 million people criminalized for drug use or 
trafficking, racially disproportionate incarceration rates, unlawful civil 
asset forfeitures and exorbitant budget deficits.

To date, federal and state spending on the drug war amounts to $8.5 
billion, a large portion of which is allocated to the incarceration of over 
1.5 million people every year. In 2002, Drug Enforcement Administration 
agents armed with automatic weapons raided a Santa Cruz, Calif., hospice 
because it grew and distributed marijuana to its patients. When a 
paraplegic patient suffering from post-polio syndrome could not comply with 
officers' demands to stand up, she was handcuffed in bed. Is the arrest of 
an invalid, or the greater numbers of arrests and incarcerations of drug 
users and traffickers appropriate uses of our tax dollars? I certainly hope not.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake