Pubdate: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 Source: DrugSense Weekly (DSW) Section: Feature Article Website: http://www.drugsense.org/current.htm Author: Stephen Young Note: Stephen Young is an editor with DrugSense Weekly and author of Maximizing Harm. HEADLINING SUPPORT FOR PROHIBITION IN ALL ITS ABSTRACT GLORY Who says George Will's writing about the drug war is tough to decipher? Certainly not us at DrugSense Weekly, ahem, but headline composers at newspapers across the country who had to title a recent work by the syndicated columnist seemed to have different ideas on the ultimate point of the piece. ( See http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n968/a03.html to read Will's piece, which was published June 16 in many papers. ) The headlines conflicted in some cases. The Dayton Daily News asked, "Is drug war worth fighting?" For the Washington Post, there was absolutely no question: "Drug war worth fighting." I found that stacking up several of the various headlines gave them a poetic effect (in the sense of a Soviet-era agitprop poem) while neatly encapsulating the circular arguments and half-hearted questions commonly stressed by the mainstream press when it attempts to explore drug prohibition. An appropriate title for the following headline collage might be: What does George Will really think about the 'Drug war'? Is the Drug War Worth Fighting Despite Odds, Drug War Worth the Fight Difficulty of Drug War No Reason to Give Up This War Is Worth Fighting Should There Be an Armistice on the Pot Front This Is Not the Time for an Armistice in the 'War on Drugs' Marijuana's Reputation Too Benign We Should Not Give Up on the Drug War Fighting Our Lesser Angels Fighting 'War on Drugs' Bush Drug Fighter Believes Effort Essential Drug-War Leader Faces Tough Fight Soldiering on in the War on Drugs Drug War Necessary to Keep Better Angels Preponderant Drug War's Naysayers Fail to See the Effort's Overall Worth Pessimism About the 'War on Drugs' The Anti-Drug Argument War on Drugs Worth the Effort Drug War Remains Paradox That little conglomeration doesn't make much less sense than Will's column. This is the way I interpret the column: Will's reason tells him the drug war is a dismal failure, but his emotional fear of illegal drugs doesn't want to believe it. So he ties the sweet-sounding lies of drug czar John Walters into a obfuscated bundle, describes them as "Lincolnian" and apparently hopes his smartest readers will understand his inner conflict. He expressed his confusion, but in a way that no one will call him pro-drug. Strangely, Will knows how to make a clear point when he wants to. In today's column in the Chicago Sun-Times, Will lambastes "liberal" members of the U.S. Supreme Court for failing to uphold individual property rights in yesterday's eminent domain decision. The decision allows municipalities to take private property, with compensation, if municipal leaders believe the property can be used to generate more tax revenue under another owner. Will waxes indignantly about the Bill of Rights, particularly the Fifth Amendment. He writes: "Liberalism triumphed Thursday. Government became radically unlimited in seizing the very kinds of private property that should guarantee individuals a sphere of autonomy against government." Of course, the drug war has been chipping away at the Fifth Amendment for decades, but Will didn't mention that in his drug war column. And, when government limits what you can do with your consciousness, that certainly reduces an individual's autonomy against the government. But Will can't just come out and say this is a bad thing. It doesn't even need to show statistical success; the drug war's good intentions make it a matter of "better angels" fighting "lesser angels." Whose side are the better and lesser angels on in the battle over property rights? It seems clear on that issue, Will feels he's with the angels, while opponents have sided with the devil. George Will is entitled to his opinion. He gets well compensated for it. I even think he's correct about the eminent domain decision. But, with his wishy-washy attitude toward the predatory nature of the drug war, he shouldn't be surprised that government becomes more controlling and invasive every day. If he thinks it's not wrong for the government to restrict the rights of certain drug users, why shouldn't the government determine that some property owners have less rights than others? Notes: To see a list of headlines, check out the first 25 results at http://www.mapinc.org/author/Will+George . To see a thorough dissection of Will's drug war column by Richard Cowan, go to http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=828 To see Will's column about property rights, visit http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo24.html - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake