From: dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: "War on Drugs and Media" Paper (LONG)
Message-ID: <1991Dec10.205213.1@hamp.hampshire.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 91 00:52:13 GMT
Representation of the "War on Drugs" in "Time" and "Newsweek"
By David Hirmes (dhirmes@hamp.hampshire.edu)
December, 1991
The Big Picture?: A Case for Perplexity
My method of research was fairly simple. I searched for articles in
Time and Newsweek that in some way dealt with the "War on Drugs"
between 1986 and 1989. I came up with several cover stories, and many
smaller ones. As for my purpose: I was looking for how these news
magazines handled a problem that has been a part of society for thousands
of years, and yet just recently has been declared a "war". Even in terms of
hightened awareness about drugs, there were several times in history, not
just the 60's and 70's, in which drugs became of "national importance". So
why the hype? How had it changed and how does it change through the
years analysed? I decided that the best way to discover this would be to
search for the "frames" the media used to portray the "war on drugs".
The idea of frames was first introduced to me in Todd Gitlin's book "The
Whole World Is Watching". Gitlin's example was the turbulent times of
the 60's, and in particular, the New Left. He found that the media used
various ways of framing the New Left which gave a distorted view of
what the movement was all about. In this paper I hope to expose some
frames used in the "war on drugs".
The overall impression I got through reading a plethora of articles from
Time and Newsweek from August of 1986 to November of 1989 was that
the news media were just as perplexed as the government and the general
populous about drug abuse. The questions asked in '86 were still being
asked in '89, with perhaps a heightened sense of urgency. The question of
why people do drugs in the first place, why and how it leads to addiction,
how serious is the problem, is it getting worse, what can we do about it as
citizens, what can the government do about it, how has it gotten this far,
who is to blame... The questions remain in a steady stream, yet no one
seems to have realistic answers. Those who do make promises or
predictions usually end up looking foolish a month or a year later.
President Bush has learned his lessons, and has made little promises on
how successful the "war on drugs" will be in the near future. Recently,
"Drug Czar" William Bennett resigned from his post. One of the prices
payed for turning a problem into a "war" is that there is always the chance
one might lose.
Framing the Problem - 1986
Discovery
The government's "war on drugs", and therefore, coverage of the
nation-wide drug epidemic, began in full force when large scale drug abuse
expanded from the inner-city to middle-class Americans and the
workplace. Coverage also expanded with increased violence in urban,
and later rural areas. There is an interesting admission to this subtle (and
not so subtle) classism in both 1986 cover stories from Time and
Newsweek. In Newsweeks' "Saying No" article (8/11/86) it is stated that:
"In part, the change in the public mood has a racist tinge: drugs simply
moved from the black and Hispanic underclass to the middle-class
mainstream and are being felt as a problem there."1 While the admission
of racism within mainstream America was surprising, it was equally as
interesting that Newsweek blamed Americans for their lack of caring
about the plight of the inner-city, and not the lack of news coverage itself. I
have found, although I did very little research before 1986, that the
problems of drug abuse in the inner-city were covered only when the
problem had reached many more levels of American society. This is
exemplified by what seemed to be an extremely offensive comment in the
Time article "The Enemy Within":
As drugs have moved out of the ghetto and into the workplace, as bus
drivers and lawyers and assembly-line workers get hooked, innocent
consumers are put as risk. The cost of employers from drug abuse-- from
lost productivity, absenteeism and higher accident rates-- is estimated at
about $33 billion by the government.2
Are they assuming that there are no bus drivers, lawyers, and
assembly-line workers in the ghetto? Is the loss of work- place
productivity more of a concern than the decay of the inner- city?
Obviously, Time knows its audience.
A History Lesson
After realizing that there is indeed a drug problem in America, the two
news magazines diverged on two different paths. While Newsweek
chose to deal with the current administrations changing policy, Time
decided to give some historical context to the drug problem. Since the
article had already framed itself as as dealing with the "war on drugs", the
history that was presented held all drugs at an equally evil level. Pot,
heroin, cocaine, and PCP were all equally responsible for the current drug
crisis. Of course, no mention of legalization efforts, were mentioned, two
notable deletions seemed to be the World War II program of "Hemp for
Victory" as well as the complete failure of prohibition. While pot is
regularly lumped with much more dangerous drugs such as cocaine,
heroin, and PCP, or in the context of a "gateway" drug, cigarettes and
alcohol are rarely mentioned. By leaving out cigarettes and alcohol, which
account for over 100 times more deaths a year than all illegal drugs
combined, an important facet of this issue is missing.3 The violent aspects
of drugs like crack and PCP are hyped in many articles, but rarely are the
moods of those on alcohol.
There were some positive aspects of "The Enemy Within" article. For
one, a framing in which the "enemy" is ourselves, rather than some evil
Latin American drug empire is a positive shift the idea that DEA officials
can cure the drug problem by cutting off the Southern supply. And the
article did spend almost half of a small paragraph explaining the
disproportionate cases of death and health care costs from tobacco and
alcohol opposed to other illegal drugs. But it must be stressed that
devoting even a half a paragraph on this subject was the exception to the
rule.
Reagan's Analysis
Probably due to my reading Mark Hertsgaard's "On Bended Knee", a
book about the relationship between the Reagan administration and the
press, the coverage of Reagan seemed especially dubious. In the
Newsweek cover story "Saying No", it is stated point blank that Reagan
began taking the drug crisis seriously only when public opinion polls
deemed it necessary. While Nancy's Just Say No campaign had been in
full swing for a few years, the President had not considered it a top priority
until '86. The article states that Reagan's philosophy had always been one
of education and treatment, where volunteers and corporate America
should take the responsibility to deal with the problem. Yet at the same
time, a full $1.8 billion of the $2 billion given for "war on drugs" in 1985 was
for enforcement, leaving the remaining $200 million to be divided between
education and treatment programs.4 In fact, from 1982 to 1986, the
allotment for treatment and education actually decreased over $80
million.5
The Newsweek article also featured a short interview with the
President. When asked "You've described America as 'upbeat, optimistic'
--why are drugs such a problem now?" Reagan replied: .ls1
For one thing... the music world.. has... made it sound as if it's right there and
the thing to do, and rock-and-roll concerts and so forth. Musicians that
young people like... make no secret of the fact that they are users, [And] I
must say this, that the theatre--well, motion-picture industry--has started
down a road they'd been on before once, with alcohol abuse...6
(note: ... and [] are Newsweeks, not mine.)
When asked directly why drugs were a problem in America, our
Presidents answer was rock and roll and the movies. This is the president
who had been cutting social programs for the last five years, who had been
virtually ignoring the problems of the inner-city, and this was his thoughtful
analysis. But this had been part of Reagan's fairy-tale version of America
from the start. By framing the issue in this way, Reagan disqualified his
domestic policy from any part in the drug crisis, and at the same time
trivialized the issue as non-political.
As a side note, just as Hertsgaard points out over and over in "On
Bended Knee", the press let the President frame the issues. Following his
short interview, Newsweek dedicated a full article entitled "Going After
Hollywood" which spent a good amount of time nit-picking at recent
movies in which drug use was glorified.7 While the initial Newsweek
cover story was entitled "Saying No!", no one from the inner-city was
asked about the effectiveness of this campaign, nor were they asked about
any of the new policy changes. In the place where the drug crisis
supposedly originated, no voice was given at all.
Framing the Solution - 1986
The Big Three
Options to combat drug abuse are limited to the Big Three:
enforcement, treatment, and education. Throughout the four years
analyzed, the "debate" always dealt with which of the three is more
important to focus on financially. Legalization is barely mentioned at any
level, except to completely lambaste the idea. On the other end,
enforcement debates range from cracking down on casual users, to full
military intervention at home and abroad.8
"Battle Strategies"/Reagans on TV
Even as early as September of 1986, the news magazines had a cynical
view of the "war on
drugs". The First Couple went on national television urging Americans to
stop the using drugs at the same time when law enforcement officials
were telling the press there was no way to stop the supply of drugs from
entering the U.S.9 A Time article entitled "Battle Strategies" explained
the various methods of "combat" (remember, this is a "war"): The border
patrols, heightened arrests, drug testing (which would soon become a
major issue), treatment, and education.10 Another article in Newsweek
(9/22/86) explained how the Reagans were getting involved through
Nancy's Just Say No campaign and Ronald's new interest in the issue
(now that he realized voters felt it an important issue).11 The tone of both
articles seemed to take the issue as more of a political one that a social or
economic problem, a trend that would continue through my research. In a
September, 1986 article, Time extolled: "The abuse of illegal drugs has
certainly become the Issue of the Year, except that the main issue
involved seems to be how far politicians scramble to outdo one another in
leading the crusade."12 One must ask: Whose fault is that-- the politicians,
the news media, or both?
In framing the solution, the news magazines seem to forget that the
problem itself has not truly been identified. The so- called solutions are
attacking the symptoms, not the disease. This simple fact is not recognized
by the news magazines. By telling kindergardeners in the inner-city not to
do drugs is one thing, but when these same children grow old enough to
see the best opportunity for wealth and power is that of the drug dealer,
ideals could change quite easily.13
Re-Framing the Problem - 1988
Night of the Living Crack Heads
The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) conducts a survey every
two to three years called the National Household Survey on Drug Use,
which questions about 8,000 people.14 Much of the government's policy
relies on this document for data. In 1988, after decades of almost steady
increase, the survey showed a decline in most drug use in the United
States. The marked exception was cocaine (and its smokable derivative
crack) which went down for casual use, but rose steadily for those who
used the drug more than once a week.15 By this time, the "war on drugs"
had been in full swing for several years, and while the NIDA statistics
showed one side of the story, the "rising tide of violence" (a favorite media
catch phrase), "crack babies", rise of crack use by upper and middle-class
whites, and what appeared to be the growth of gangs, gang violence, and
drugs in small towns across America, showed quite another. A common
frame to begin articles in which policy changes or announcements were
being made by Bush or William Bennett, were specific incidents of
violence or irony resulting from the drug crisis.16 Interestingly enough,
while this gave a cynical and somewhat confrontational frame for the
article, it also seemed to lead into something of an aggressive opinion
regarding the implementation of enforcement policy: In response to more
violence, reporters' first reactions seemed to be "Where are our guns?"
The vast majority of articles found from 1988 on that did not report
specifically on an event or government announcement, dealt with various
aspects of crack. Two out of the three cover stories dealing with drugs
from 1988 to 1990 had to do with crack: Time had "Kids Who Sell Crack"
(5/9/88) and Newsweek simply had "Crack" (11/28/88). The third was
entitled "Addictive Personalities" and featured Kittie Dukakus on the
cover (Newsweek, 2/20/89). Both "crack" cover stories had various
problems and inaccuracies, although in general Time seemed to have a
slightly better grasp on the "big picture" (i.e. some semblance of analysis)
than Newsweek, in which sensationalism seemed a much higher priority.
I'd like to give a somewhat detailed account of these articles because to a
large degree, they focus on most of the (domestic) frames used in media to
represent the "war on drugs".
The Time story begins with the tale of a 13 year old dealer named Frog.
In describing why young blacks from the ghetto might begin to deal drugs,
Time explains: "Like most young American people, they are material girls
and boys. They crave the glamorous clothes, cars, and jewelry they see
advertised on TV." I suppose because most young Americans do not read
their magazines, this allows Time to print ads of a similar type (not to
mention another highly addictive drug, nicotine, which kids can't see on
TV). Showing that not only kids from the ghetto can get hooked, Time
next focuses on Eric, an upper-middle class white honor student who
became addicted to crack. The next section of the article discusses the
"live for today" attitude of many teenagers involved in drug dealing, as well
as prison over- crowding. When a huge raid in L.A. is conducted and "Half
(of those arrested) had to be released for lack of evidence" A mere
sentence is dedicated to this frightening trend of mass arrest, with only the
"civil libertarians" upset over the seeming loss of civil rights.17 The article
redeems itself to some degree, towards the end, when it goes into a
somewhat detailed account of the current job and educational situation for
lower-class people in America. This is the only article I found where more
than half a sentence is used to blame cuts in job training and education
programs by the Federal government as a possible problem somehow
related to drugs.18 It is also worthwhile mentioning that this article was
written on Reagan's way out, over seven years since Reaganomics began.
Newsweek, which tried to give a nation-wide view of the drug war by
going to a crack house, a prison, a rehab center, and a court, failed to find
any connections or insights into the drug problem except to equate all drug
addicts as on the same low-life level. It's hard to expect much from an
article that in the third paragraph states: .ls1
These are the two Americas. No other line you can draw is as trenchant
as this. On one side, people of normal human appetites, for food and sex
and creature comforts; on the other, those who crave only the roar and
crackle of their own neurons, whipped into a frenzy of synthetic euphoria.
The Crack Nation. It is in our midst, but not a part of us; our laws barely
touch it on its progress through our jails and hospitals, on its way to our
morgues.19
If images virtually out of "Night of the Living Dead" are used as the
initial frame towards the drug addict, why would anyone not feel that these
"Others" should be dealt with by any means necessary. Since this article
was purported to be a "day in the life piece", practically no historical
background on the crisis, and no analysis of a larger picture were given,
leaving a very narrow view of the true problem.
In Herbert Gans' book "Deciding What's News", he describes what he
calls "enduring values", values that the press consider an intragle, positive,
and necessary part of American society. It is when these values are
threatened, that the news responds. Some of Gans' "enduring values"
include: "ethnocentrism, altruistic democracy, responsible capitalism,
moderatism, [and] social order"(p.42) All of these values are threatened
by drugs. Newsweek's portrayal of this bipolar society, the "Crack
Nation", is proof of how the threatening of these values can turn to
dangerous assumptions, exaggerations, and misrepresentations within the
"objective" news media.
Re-Framing the Solution - 1988
Big Guns
The journalists seemed as war-weary as the DEA agents they were
reporting about. So when Time purports in March of 1988 that
"Americans lose patience with Panama", they are possibly referring more
to the administration and news journalists, than the American people.20
With hind-sight, we can see that Noreiga was actually a minor player in
Latin American drug smuggling operations. Soon after the U.S. invation,
the New York Times reported that the flow of drugs in and out of Panama
actually had increased.
Later in 1989, when Newsweek reports on William Bennett's progress
as Drug Czar (one of the oddest terms associated with the "war on
drugs"), the reporter intones: "...he is likewise correct that tougher law
enforcement is the necessary first response."21
To a large degree, it seems that reporting on the drug war by 1988-9
turned from cynical, somewhat hopeless, and aloof, to cynical, angry, and
battle-worn. Reporters began to tire of the governments rhetoric, and as
drugs began to draw closer to their own homes, they became more
anxious for a solution. So perhaps because of the fact that law-makers are
giving no other solutions, when Bennett and Bush explain the solution
begins with more cops, more guns, more prisons, and harsher treatment of
casual users (as well as treatment and education, of course), the press are
not so alarmed. When the Presidential appointee Bennett explains that
legalization would be a "national disaster" as would attacking the "social
front", one find the options even more limiting.22 .pa
Breaking the Frames: Distortions and Omissions
In beginning to understand the framing of the "war on drugs" within the
news media, one must first look at the statistics (the NIDA survays) and
how they are used to shape governmental policy and public opinion. First,
it must be noted that these are household surveys, which would exclude
the homeless and those with no permanent homes. Second, the rising
trend to punish the casual user would automatically create an atmosphere
of distrust and suspicion. Third, the surveys do not consider legal drugs
such as alcohol and cigarettes, which account for many more deaths a
year than all other illegal drugs combined. I am unaware if the police
reports, which have been used to show that large amounts of people
arrested test positive for drugs, include alcohol. While these reasons do
not completely disqualify the results of the surveys, they do question their
accuracy.23
The next problem found through the articles analyzed were the
selection of sources for information and anaylsis, in a word: who was given
a voice in the news. By this I mean who was interviewed, quoted, and
used as the source of information for the articles. For the most part,
ordinary citizens were interviewed only to determine the level of the
crisis-- how bad a neighborhood had gotten, how many people they knew
were involved with illegal drugs, etc. Never was a man or woman from
the inner-city, or even one from a suburban area for that matter, asked
what they thought the causes of the drug crisis were, or why it was so bad
in certain areas. For the most part, the Big Picture was left to the
government and to a lesser extent, the news media itself.
Where were the voices of teachers, medical professionals, social
workers, minority group leaders, civil rights activists, and the most taboo of
all, legalization activists? The medical professionals and social workers
were asked how their various programs were coping, and sometimes the
successful ones were examined in detail, but that was the extent of their
voice. Minority leaders, even media favorites like Jesse Jackson, were
ignored, and their cries for reinstating social programs lost in the Reagan
years were never heard. Civil rights activists were only refereed to in the
third person as in "civil libertarians were worried of this law" or "those
concerned with civil rights had reservations about the legality". The one
notably exception to this was the continuing controversy over drug testing.
But it is important to realize that this controversy deals with almost all
Americas. Anyone with a job (no longer simply air-traffic controllers and
government employees with "security" positions) could be effected by
these measures. And yet the truly dangerous actions, ones that most
Americans take for granted, are all but ignored. From mass arrests of
suspected drug dealers and not using warrants to search homes and cars,
to suggestions of using the military to destroy coca fields in other countries-
- these issues were barely discussed.
The entertainment element within the news media played an important
role in the "war on drugs" as well. Just as with Magic Johnson now, were
it not for the death of Len Bias and the scandal of Daryll Strawberry, who
knows how long it would have taken the media to catch on that there was
a drug problem in America. When looking up source articles for this
paper, the list of "Drugs and Sports" was longer than that of "Drug Abuse"
or "Crack" for several of the years between 1986 and 1990. Possibly the
media found in sports-drug related scandal,an entertainment side of the
drug war that had more mass appeal than an inner-city murder or siezure
of some odd tonnage of cocaine from Latin America.
Finally, while it is not a panacea, nor a complete answer to the reasons
behind America's drug crisis, I had thought that questioning the social and
economic policies of Reaganomics would have brought to light some of the
reasons why drug dealing, let alone drug abuse would become more
appealing to those who suffered from the cuts in Federally funded social
programs in housing, medical care, and education. But those comparisons
were never made. Except for a small section in the Time cover story of
1988 mentioned earlier in the paper, simply the idea that economic factors
were somehow involved in drug abuse were completely ignored. A
portion of the reason for this might have to do with Reagan's insistence
that it is the drug user and potential drug user that must be focused on. It
is "Just Say No" and law enforcement-- these are our options. Not much
has changed.
10"Battle Strategies" Time (Sep 15 86)
11"Rolling Out the Big Guns" Time (Sep 22 86)
12"The Enemy Within" Time [cover story] (Sep 15 86)
13see "Addictive Personalities" Newsweek [cover story] (Feb 20 89) for
the sillyness of trying to find a definition.
14see "Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, 1991, also see the first chapter of
"Communications Campaigns About Drugs", Pamela J. Shoemaker, ed.,
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
15 see "Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, 1991, and "National Drug Control
Strategy", U.S. Government document, 1990.
16"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88) and "Bennett's Drug War"
Newsweek (Aug 21 89)
17"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)
18"Kids Who Sell Crack" Time [cover story] (May 9 88)
19"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)
20"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88)
21"Bennett's Drug War" Newsweek (Aug 21 89)
22Ibid.
23see the chapter "Cocaine-Related Deaths: Who are the Victims? What
is the cause?" Linda S. Wong, M.A., and Bruce K. Alexander, Ph.D., in the
book "Drug Policy 1989-1990: A Reformer's Catalogue" Arnold Tresbach,
ed., The Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1989.
Article Bibliography
(in chronological order)
"Saying No!" Newsweek [cover story] (Aug 11 86)
"Going After Hollywood" Newsweek (Aug 11 86)
"The Enemy Within" Time [cover story] (Sep 15 86)
"Battle Strategies" Time (Sep 15 86)
"Rolling Out the Big Guns" Time (Sep 22 86)
"Urban Murders: On the Rise" Newsweek (Feb 9 87)
"L.A. Law: Gangs and Crack" Newsweek (Apr 27 87)
"The Southwest Drug Connection" Newsweek (Nov 23 87)
"Drug Use: Down, But Not in the Ghetto" Newsweek (Nov 23 87)
"Tears of Rage" Time (Mar 14 88)
"Where the War Is Being Lost" Time (Mar 14 88)
"Kids Who Sell Crack" Time [cover story] (May 9 88)
"Crack" Newsweek [cover story] (Nov 28 88)
"Addictive Personalties" Newsweek [cover story] (Feb 20 89)
"Fighting on Two Fronts" Time (Aug 14 89)
"Bennett's Drug War" Newsweek (Aug 21 89)
"A Plague Without Boundries" Time (Nov 6 89)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Research", U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services (NIDA is under this orginization), Rockville, Maryland,
1991.
Gans, Herbert J., "Deciding What's News", Vintage Books, New York,
1979.
Gitlin, Todd, "The Whole World Is Watching", Univ. of CA Press,
Berkeley, 1980.
Hertsgaard, Mark, "On Bended Knee", Schocken Books, 1988.
Hiebert, Ray E., ed., "What Every Journalist Should Know About the
Drug Abuse Crisis", Voice of America, Wash. DC., 1987?
(this book has articles from Nancy Reagan and Ed Meese
amoung others.)
Hoffman, Abbie, "Reefer Madness", The Nation, Nov. 21, 1987.
Levine, Michael, "Going Bad", Spin, June 1991.
(this article is the story of a DEA agent disallusioned
by the governments handling of the drug war)
"National Drug Control Strategy", U.S. Government document, 1990.
Shoemaker, Pamela J., ed., "Communication Campaigns About Drugs",
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
(a suprisingly uninformative book.)
Trebach, Arhold S., ed., "Drug Policy 1989-1990: A Reformer's
Catalogue", The Drug Policy Foundation, Wash. DC, 1989.
(an excellent resource for those interested in
drug legalization.)
Some sources suggested to me that I didn't get a chance to read:
"The Great Drug War" by Arnold Treback. Macmillan, 1987.
"Storming Heaven: LSD and the American Dream" by Jay Stevens,
Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987.
"Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD, and the Sixties Revolution" by Martin
Lee (one of the founders of F.A.I.R.) and Bruce Shlain, Grove
Press, 1985.
[END OF PAPER]
==============================================================================
From: hunky@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Loco Dudley)
Subject: A "must read" paper on drugs (longish)
Message-ID:
Date: 29 Apr 92 17:10:39 GMT
I came across this paper a few days back and thought it was something
that many people should read. While it is reasonably large, I found it
easy and quick reading.
Most of what is said in this letter has been discussed extensively in
this group. Check back articles and the FAQs before bringing up any
threads off of this paper!
I DID NOT WRITE THIS PAPER!!! The author wishes to remain anonymous to
avoid trouble and I intend to uphold his wish. Furthermore, he does not
have access to Usenet News and thus will not see any follow-ups.
Finally, the bibliography is missing. If there is considerable interest,
I will retrieve this and forward it to those who request. I cannot
guarrantee the timeliness as I do not see the author frequently.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For as long as mankind has lived, mankind has used drugs. This is
totally natural. All animals are active drug users, and humans may well
lead the pack. All organisms with brains seek to alter their normal
states of consciousness, to fulfill a need to experience novel stimuli.
Elephants eat fermented fruit off the ground to get drunk. In order to
experience an altered state, monkeys will eat insects that have gorged
themselves on psychedelic plants. Cattle will eat marijuana in great
quantities to get high. Humans are the most active drug seekers; they
seek out and use mushrooms, peyote, DMT (from tropical plants), cocaine,
alcohol drained from rotting grain, marijuana..If it can be used to alter
basic brain activity, humans have probably eaten, smoked, snorted, or
injected it. Young children will spin around in circles to experience the
vertigo "high". But as they get older, this ceases to be novel. The
child moves on to more intense experiences, such as alcohol, nicotine,
marijuana, and speed. The concept of a "gateway" drug is a myth. We are
constantly engaged in a search for a new kind of kick, beginning with the
drugs in our own bodies.
We are thoroughly indoctrinated into a drug using culture. As
children we are fed caffeine in soft drinks. When we have physical pain,
we reach for an aspirin. When we need a charge of energy, we eat sugar to
fire up our systems. In fact, almost anything we eat can be considered a
drug. Normally we are protected from serious psychoactive properties of
common foods by such built-in safety measures as the blood-brain barrier
(Carlson, 1992). If it were not for this basic protective measure, we
would be bombarded with the psychedelic properties of such common foods as
bananas (which contain minute amounts of the psychedelic bananadine). But
we are protected from the psychedelic effects of our normal diet. Only
when we take in certain molecules that are small enough to slip through
the blood-brain barrier do we feel the alteration of our perceptual
systems. Foods such as Psilocybe cubensis profoundly affect our
perceptual systems, yet they are as harmless to us as common edible
mushrooms. Despite this, natural psychedelics are outlawed by our
government. Individuals who cultivate naturally occurring plants such as
the various psychedelic mushrooms, Cannabis sativa, or the opium poppy are
arrested and can be sentenced to long stretches in prison. Tragically,
some innocents who simply have the plants growing wild on their property
are charged with cultivation of a controlled substance. These plants
differ from common weeds and mushrooms in only one way: they contain a
substance which can slip past the blood-brain barrier. This is the only
distinction. Yet, these plants and fungi are hunted with an almost
genocidal fervor, and those individuals who eat or smoke them are branded
as criminals.
Although it is not widely taught in schools in the U.S., every
culture that has developed on this planet has had a favorite drug of
almost religious significance. Many cave paintings in southern Europe
depict the magic mushrooms as almost holy. They were seen as the
sacrament by which man could commune with the primal forces that dwell
within each of us. Recently, the science of ethnobotany has opened up new
territory in the field of drug study. Ethnobotany is the study of the
plant-derived drugs of different cultures. Ethnobotanists are trying to
change the militant attitudes of individuals who erroneously believe that
drug use is an unnatural and immoral practice. Terrence McKenna, in his
book Food Of The Gods, even provides a highly plausible theory about the
development of human consciousness. He maintains that the early
proto-humans which humankind is descended from were active users of
psilocybin mushrooms. which were in ready supply around the herds of
animals they hunted and raised. The mushrooms grow quite well in
livestock dung. The psilocybin mushroom causes stimulation in the area of
the brain humans now call Broca's area (McKenna, 1992). This area is
directly responsible for speech production when it is developed (Carlson,
1992). Knowing that our entire ego-structure (and, consequently, mental
processes and social rituals) is based on our ability to generate and
understand complex language, we see that the sort of stimulation produced
by the magic mushroom could be responsible for the development of the
earliest language. If this is the case, we owe our entire society to the
effects of psychedelic drugs.
This theory is borne out by many European creation myths. Many of
these myths are parallels of the Christian "Garden of Eden" story.
Ignoring certain patriarchal particulars, the story is essentially a tale
of the first humans eating a fruit that imparts knowledge. Fruit is a
very old word, and has not always been a designator of a particular fleshy
type of seed pod. It often simply meant a type of food that is grown and
eaten. It is important to note that this gaining of knowledge was seen by
Christians as a fall from grace, a separation from God, and the beginning
of our earthly miseries. This view was not held by any of the pantheistic
cultures which were brutally conquered and subjugated in the name of God
by monotheistic crusader religions.
Some individuals in our society seem to hold a serious disdain for
drugs without any apparent knowledge of why they do so. This makes it
easy for these people to fall prey to misinformation. Our federal
government is predominantly composed of white male Protestant politicians.
Many of these individuals have a serious interest in keeping certain
psychoactive plants illegal, mostly for economic considerations. The
marijuana plant has been demonstrated to be a superior source of paper, a
cleaner burning alternative fuel, the strongest plant fiber on the planet,
and the ideal source of long lasting clothing. This makes it the enemy of
logging interests, petroleum interests, and petro-chemical interests. In
addition, our Protestant political leaders carry the Christian prejudice
against psychoactives. This is a powerful array of opponents for the
marijuana legalization movement. It insures that the well-financed
opponents of marijuana legalization will have adequate funds to misinform
the American public.
Rehabilitation clinics capitalize on drug horror stories. They cite
worst case scenarios as the norm. They provide unsubstantiated
information about drugs shown to be harmless when used in moderation.
These clinics have provided a means of depriving certain individuals (such
as teenagers) of their basic rights. The Partnership for a Drug Free
America has even gone so far as to fabricate information to scare the
public. The most glaring example of this was the famous "Brainwaves" ad.
This ad started with the statement, "This is the brainwave of a normal
fourteen year old," showing an electroencephalogram indicating an active
brain. Immediately following this was a nearly flat EEG readout, coupled
with the statement, "This is the brainwave of a fourteen year old who
smokes marijuana." In fact, the second brainwave pattern was taken from
a man who was in an accident induced coma (High Times, 1989). "Get the
message?" is their catch phrase. The message is clear: our government
can find no concrete evidence of significant harms stemming from the use
of marijuana, so they scare the public with lies. In fact, no reliable
studies have demonstrated any significant harms from smoking marijuana
(Brecher, 1990). Many studies have clearly demonstrated that hashish
smoke causes serious lung damage (Nahas, 1990), but these studies were
conducted on isolated tissue samples, away from the host organism, away
from the immunosystem. These samples have no homeostatic mechanisms to
remove the caustic tar that is present in hashish. We must also note that
hashish is a concentrated form of THC (Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol).
Drugs are usually condensed into a more concentrated form such as hashish
in order to smuggle them past ports where it is illegal to import the
substrate material. In effect, prohibition leads to the development of
the more harmful drug concentrates (Hoffman, 1987.)
Cocaine hydrochloride is another example. Raw coca leaves have been
used for centuries by South American natives of Peru and the surrounding
empires. These leaves were too bulky to smuggle past authorities, so
cheap methods of making coca paste were devised (Ray and Ksir,1987). The
dried paste is easily processed into the white powder we know of as
cocaine. Increased enforcement efforts led to the further development of
crack, only a few years ago touted as the most dangerous drug of all time.
Then the amphetamine concentrate called ice was brought onto the scene,
making the rush from crack seem like a No-Doz. All of these concentrated
drugs are dangerous to human health, and all are the direct result of
misguided attempts to reduce our country's drug problem. By our
heavy-handed enforcement tactics, we have created drugs far more dangerous
than those we originally sought to prohibit.
We can separate the major illegal drugs commonly used in the United
States into a few broad categories: opiates, stimulants, cannabinoids,
depressants, and psychoactives. The opiates are medical drugs, used to
reduce pain. Our own bodies synthesize opioids for use in cases of
extreme trauma. These drugs produce euphoria by locking into receptor
sites on cell membranes; these receptor sites, when filled with an
opiate, prevent the neuron from sending pain impulses to the brain. When
overused, these drugs cause the body to produce many more receptors on the
membrane surface (Ray and Ksir, 1987). If these receptors are not
blocked, the addict is adversely affected. Experienced addicts suffer few
impairments when they receive their drug; they are totally dysfunctional
without it. Prohibition forces them to endure pain, and gives addicts the
undeserved reputation of being unable to function. The media construct of
death by heroin overdose is often held high by anti-drug forces, but it
does not stand up to close scrutiny. In almost every case, the addicts
who reportedly died of heroin overdose were mixing drugs (most common and
lethal was the alcohol-heroin combination), had used tainted heroin (which
would not happen if drugs were available to addicts), or they had taken
far too much and were unable to call for medical assistance (heroin
overdose is a slow way to die, and can be neutralized if it is treated).
The social stigma around drug use prevents addicts from openly admitting
their addiction, and makes them fearful to seek medical aid. This would
not occur if addiction was not viewed as a crime.
Stimulants include synthetic amphetamines and cocaine. These
chemicals cause their effects by blocking re-uptake of neurotransmitters
at a pre-synaptic membrane (Carlson, 1992). This means that a cell
secretes activation chemicals, but cannot re absorb them in the presence
of cocaine or speed. The user feels "wired", full of energy, because
his/her cells are receiving massive stimulation. The more concentrated
the drug is, the more intense the rush is, and the more damaging the
effects are. In worst case scenarios, cardiac arrest will occur from over
stimulation and energy depletion. Coca leaves themselves are too weak to
cause this effect. Only in concentrated forms, such as injection and
crack smoking, is cocaine lethal.
Alcohol is the premier depressant. It causes its effects by an
overall depression of the central nervous system. When taken with other
drugs, the effects of both are enhanced in a geometric progression.
Coupled with drug concentrates, alcohol is highly lethal. In fact, even
without other drugs, alcohol is surprisingly deadly (Ray and Ksir, 1987).
In addition, its depressant effects severely inhibit motor response time,
decrease inhibitions of sexuality and violence (often in combination), and
cause general emotional depression. Alcohol, the sacrament of the
Christian church, is legal.
The Cannabinoids and psychedelics are best grouped together. They
affect various areas of the brain and central nervous system. The
cannabinoids primarily attach to the hippocampus, a structure vital to
relational learning, and the cortex and cerebellum (Carlson, 1992). It
causes profound changes in mental state, and inhibits motor response time.
There are no known cases of overdose. There are no observed harmful
effects to the brain (Brecher, 1990). Other psychedelics include LSD (a
synthetic), mescaline, DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and psilocybin.
These chemicals enter the central nervous system, act on cells, and are
metabolized in the range of fifteen to sixty minutes. The powerful
alterations of consciousness caused by these drugs can persist for as long
as two days (with powerful LSD). Usually, the "trip" lasts from two to
fourteen hours. There is evidence of brain alteration, but not brain
damage accompanying usage. The alteration is a result of the
strengthening of certain synapses during the drug induced state. These
same changes occur when humans learn. If we consider psychedelic effects
as brain damage, we must also consider learning as brain damage.
Despite current enforcement attitudes against psychedelics, the
federal government was quite interested in them in the 1960's. During
this time, the C.I.A. carried out the infamous Mk. Ultra experiments
(Vankin, 1991). These consisted of dosing civilians and military
personnel with various types of untested psychedelics. This was not done
in laboratories, but on the streets, without controls. The movie Jacob's
Ladder was based on this series of experiments. Many times the agents who
dosed the "subjects" forced them to endure distressing stimuli, inducing
"bad trips". These formed the core of the LSD myths reported in the
media. In controlled circumstances, with a trained guide, "bad trips" are
easily managed. Unfortunately, this avenue of psychic exploration is
closed to law abiding citizens, despite an utter lack of harms claimed by
anti-drug advocates. Those individuals who take adulterated psychedelics
can look forward to anything from permanent brain damage (because of
"hitchhiker" toxins transported with the psychotropic drugs) to strychnine
poisoning (LSD is very similar to strychnine, and is often cut with it by
unscrupulous black market dealers.) Every adverse effect claimed to be a
result of psychedelic use is actually more properly attributed to
contaminated psychedelics, which would not exist if we would legalize and
enforce quality control measures.
Having reviewed the major illegal drugs of concern in the United
States, we will now look at the historical facts behind illegalization in
the U.S. The first act toward national criminalization of drugs was the
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 (Silver, 1979). This set the stage for a
national criminalization craze. The original food and drug act stipulated
that all patent medicines must label the drugs they contain. In addition,
the use of cocaine in soft drinks was specifically prohibited, and
prosecution of druggists who dispensed "poisons" to addicts was now legal
(Silver, 1979). The first local drug control laws were enacted some 30
years prior to this act, and these were targeted directly at Chinese opium
smokers in San Francisco and cocaine-using blacks in the deep south.
These discriminatory laws, coupled with the 1906 act set the stage for the
intrusive drug controls we see today. A strange zeal to "protect the
native races" (who used the drug anyway) (Silver, 1979) initiated "World
War on Opium Traffic" in Shanghai in 1909, which, in turn, led to the
Hague Convention of 1912. These measures did not reduce production as was
hoped. Instead, it gave the United States an excuse in the form of
international treaty to implement the Harrison Act of 1914.
This act was the basis of modern drug regulation. It forbade the
use of opium and cocaine for any reason other than medical. It was now
impossible for doctors to prescribe drugs to addicts, which forced the
addicts to turn to other sources, namely, a now booming black market.
This market did not, indeed could not, exist prior to criminalization.
"America soon consumed ten times more dope than any other country,"
(Silver, 1979). To combat this problem, the Jones Miller Act (1922)
established a Narcotics Control Board, and mandated five year sentences
for illegal drug dealers. It is noteworthy that in England, the Dangerous
Drugs act of 1920 authorized physicians to give their choice of treatment
(usually maintenance levels of the addict's drug). The black market there
remained negligible.
Meanwhile, the United States government was busy blaming England and
Japan for America's drug problems. The League of Nations debated the
issue, and implemented rigid treaties regulating world drug production to
amounts required for medical purposes. These were ratified in 1933, and
illicit drug trafficking immediately skyrocketed (Silver, 1979).
The men behind the policies were also quite interesting. The son of
Col. Levi Nutt, the chief of the U.S. drug police force, was payrolled by
Arnold Rothstein, a prominent drug smuggler supplying 85% of all narcotics
in New York, Chicago, and Hollywood. Several agents were also charged
with "corruption, incompetence, and willful neglect of duty." This
resulted in the formation of a new drug bureau, headed by Harry J.
Anslinger, who would control drug regulation in the U.S. for thirty years
(Silver, 1979).
Now, we must follow the words of Gary Silver, in his book The Dope
Chronicles. He presents the incredible story in a very succinct fashion.
Silver points out that it was sometimes difficult to tell the government
agents from the "vicious criminals" they were supposed to apprehend.
Police inflated dope prices and seizure amount figures, releasing
estimates of confiscation, but not showing anyone any evidence. The
narcotics agents' bloodthirsty tactics drew little public attention, as
they draw little attention now. In Silver's words:
"The Fanatic Dry Killers of prohibition had their counterpart
in Killer Narks, who drew less public loathing because they
operated mostly in ghettos far from the fashionable speaks.
No statistics as there were for dry killings, only anonymous
droplets of blood awash in a sea of crime: here a cop kills a
vendor, there a drug runner dies, here a "boy shot as police
chase dope peddler," there an innocent woman beaten by narks."
Silver then goes on to specify city by city instances of graft:
"California: State agents confess being ringleaders of a dope racket,
taking protection money and then selling prisoners back the dope
seized...Chicago: "Federal narcotics agents in every big city in the
United States are involved in a gigantic 'dope' traffic."(Silver, 1979).
Its funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Racism has always been a key factor in marijuana legislation and
enforcement. Most of the articles culled from the 1920's and 30's were
filled with cases of "black men" taking "liberties" with "white girls"
whom they had intoxicated with the Devil's weed. This tactic seems rather
transparent today. Yet, when we see drug dealers portrayed in the media,
they are most often black or Hispanic. In particular, Mexicans have been
targeted. This has something to do with the fact that Mexico grows some
of the best marijuana in North America, but it seems to have even more to
do with prejudices and jealousies toward Mexican migrant workers (Abel,
1980). It was even claimed that Mexicans became "very violent, especially
when they become angry and will attack an officer even if a gun is drawn
on him...I have also noted that when under the influence of this weed they
have enormous strength and that it will take several men to handle one man
while under ordinary circumstances one man could handle him with ease."
(Bonnie and Whitebread, cited by Abel, 1980).
The myth of marijuana-induced violence has often been perpetuated by
the media. This claim has no support. Marijuana has been demonstrated
again and again to be relaxing and pacifying, Yet, stories of axe murders
by reefer smokers were common in the 1930's, adding fuel to the
governmental anti-drug fever. In truth, a very disturbed young man named
Victor Licata went berserk and belabored his mother, his father, two
brothers and a sister. The boy was a marijuana user, and this was seized
upon as evidence of marijuana induced violence. There was no indication
that the boy was intoxicated at the time of the murder (Abel, 1980). One
could just as easily attribute the crime to "something in the water".
The government has been involved with drug regulation for the better
part of this century. It has also been involved in drug importation.
There has been a persistent rumor about C.I.A. involvement in the various
drug trades. The C.I.A. was supportive of the contras in Nicaragua, and
there is a good deal of evidence to link the C.I.A. with illegal drug
trafficking (Beirne and Messerschmidt, 1991). The evidence clearly
demonstrates affiliations with known drug traffickers despite Executive
claims of zero-tolerance policies toward drugs. Intelligence agencies see
a ready source of funding for illegal covert operations in drugs:
"The U.S. Government's Mafia and narcotics connection goes
back, as is well known, to World War II. Two controversial joint
operations between OSS (Office of Strategic Services) and ONI (U.S.
Naval Intelligence) established contacts (via Lucky Luciano) with
the Sicillian Mafia and (via Tai Li) with the dope-dealing Green
Gang of Tu Yueh Sheng in Shanghai. Both connection were extended
into the post-war period."(Kruger 1980, cited in McKenna, 1992).
Even more suspect is the tendency of the "problem drug" of the
United States to follow the area of covert operations of the C.I.A. In
the 1950's-1970's, the problem drug was heroin; the U.S. was involved in
the "Golden Triangle" at the time. In the 1980's, C.I.A. operations
turned to Central and South America; the problem drug of the U.S. became
cocaine. As the U.S. intensifies its presence in the Middle East, we see
a resurgence of marijuana and heroin as the problem drugs. The Middle
East has long been considered a mecca of marijuana and hashish production,
and the "Golden Crescent" area in Afghanistan has increased its output of
heroin to large levels, particularly in areas controlled by the U.S.
backed Mujahideen. The correlation is clear and disturbing. When we also
consider that President Bush is an ex-C.I.A. director, how can we do
anything but doubt his sincerity about his "War on Drugs"?
This "war" was originally meant to be a metaphor for a concentrated
attempt to cut down on drug related crime in the U.S. It has come to
resemble an actual war on the drug using population of America. The
F.B.I. and the D.E.A. are armed with state of the art infra-red sensors
and film, super listening devices, surveillance equipment used for illegal
eavesdropping on suspects, wire-taps, automatic weapons, and questionable
powers of confiscation and detention. These technological and legal
advantages undermine the fundamental rights guaranteed to each U.S.
citizen by the Constitution. The "war on drugs" has become a brutal
assault on the rights and freedoms of U.S. citizens. The naive person
would ask, "If you aren't breaking the law, what are you worried about?"
The formidable arsenal of powers now at the disposal of the police is
enough to chill the blood of the staunchest anti-drug advocate.
Currently, police have the power to confiscate any property used in
drug related offense, regardless of whether the property's owner was
involved. In order to retrieve the property, a deposit of not less than
one tenth the value of the property must be paid, and this is still no
guarantee of the property's return. What this amounts to is holding
property responsible for criminal acts. The Constitution grants the
people the right to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure, but
this does not prevent the injustices which have occurred of late. For
further information on this issue, I would recommend the April 5 episode
of 60 Minutes news magazine, on CBS. Time constraints did not allow time
for ordering a transcript.
The second most frightening power is the power of arrest on
suspicion because a suspect matches a "drug courier profile".
Conveniently, this profile is general enough to include anyone a police
officer might choose to scrutinize. The profile simultaneously includes
such traits as "walks too slow", "walks too fast", "walks nervously",
"appears calm"...The list goes on. Even more frightening, police may now
pay employees of service companies such as busses or airlines to point out
individuals who carry large sums of cash and little luggage, or who match
any other aspect of the profile. This power coupled with the ability to
detain suspects for 48 hours without charges is very likely to be abused.
Further, the police power to use evidence obtained by an illegal search
(provided the evidence does not relate to the specific case being
investigated when the search occurred) leaves citizens open to search,
arrest, detention and prosecution for any violation (such as carrying a
weapon of self defense, found by police during a drug frisk) without any
probable cause other than fitting an ultra-general drug courier profile.
It is clear that the federal government has loosed the dogs of
oppression on its controllers, the American people. Further, these acts
of oppression have been committed under the guise of protecting the U.S.
from drugs. The truly obscene thing about this is that it is that
selfsame war on drugs that is directly responsible for the social harms
cited as effects of drug use. Crime rates have skyrocketed as drug
enforcement has increased. Our prisons are stuffed to overflow capacity
with people whose only crime was to have a few joints on them. Dealers
are now so paranoid of arrest that they are more likely to kill potential
buyers for fear of the buyers being drug agents in disguise. A member of
our group had personal experience with a nark encouraging him to use
cocaine, even though the member refused. This nark later tried to justify
his drug use and dealing as an "attempt to blend into the drug using
community." That particular nark brought more drugs into that county than
any of the dealers who lived there ever considered bringing in.
Individuals not trained in law enforcement are now being used as Judas
goats to net small time users and dealers, while avoiding the entrapment
charges which would apply to police officers in the same situation.
Entrapment is common. Abuses are legion. And all are committed in the
name of drug law enforcement.
Accounts of overzealous officers harming terminally ill people are
now becoming increasingly more common. The therapeutic properties of
marijuana are well known (even though the DEA refuses to acknowledge this
fact, and continues to classify it as a schedule one substance ), and chronic pain sufferers and chemotherapy patients sometimes
turn to it to relieve their pain and nausea, despite the law. These
people are not in any condition to go on a spree of violence, as some
individuals ignorantly believe occurs when a person uses drugs. They are
otherwise law-abiding citizens. Yet, police have broken down doors,
thrown suffering people to the ground, and confiscated the few possessions
owned by some unfortunates. Their health related expenses insure that
they will not be able to recover their property. Any law enforcement body
that strikes out so savagely at such a harmless portion of the population
is in need of some serious review of priorities. This sort of action is
the legacy of drug criminalization.
Two distinct cases of abuses illustrate the patent lunacy of
supporting continued draconian ant-drug efforts. The Chicago Sun Times
reports on the DEA bust of a major Chicago dope ring. "Among the 19
people arrested...were a sergeant with 26 years on the Chicago police
force, and a patrolman with 35 years." (High Times, 1989). The second
case comes to us from Los Angeles: "Charged with vandalizing homes and
terrorizing citizens during a 1988 drug raid, nine Los Angeles cops have
been ordered to appear before LAPD board of rights tribunals. The nine
face long suspensions or job termination; 25 others have been suspended
without pay." (High Times, 1989). It seems that the officers raided a
poverty stricken Southwest LA neighborhood, smashing down walls, windows,
and plumbing fixtures. They also spray-painted anti-gang messages on the
walls of private citizens' property! Of 30 people taken into custody, 9
were arrested. The people filed a lawsuit, which is what prompted the
action against the police. In addition to the above crimes, the officers
also forced some of those arrested to whistle the theme song to the Andy
Griffith Show; those who refused were punched and beaten with metal
flashlights. These are not the most shocking cases. These are what are
reported. If these people could not have hired a lawyer, no action would
have been taken against the police, and the whole episode would never have
come to public attention. How many cases like these are occurring in the
U.S.? It seems that the spirit of the Gestapo lives on in American
anti-drug laws. It is quite clear that we must restrict the police and
drug enforcement agencies. Regardless of whether one feels that drug use
is right or wrong, this much is clear: the war on drugs has exploded into
a government supported destruction of our rights as citizens.
The biggest victim of the war on drugs is the truth. The hysteria
which has been whipped up by this campaign of anti-drug propaganda has the
American people terrorized into standing idly by while our government lies
to us and imprisons our free thinkers for daring to speak out. Some
government officials have used drugs, especially marijuana, as the
universal scapegoat for all evils of our time. There was even one U.S.
Senator who attempted to blame the My Lai Massacre on marijuana use
(Grinspoon, 1987.) Anyone who doubts that our government lies to us about
drug arrests needs only to sit down with a piece of paper and figure it
up:....."Every six months or so, the DEA and the media parade a new and
more powerful kingpin. Even more regularly, some prosecutor in our
country holds a press conference announcing another "largest drug bust on
record." If any serious statistician or investigative journalist used his
brain and a calculator, it could be easily "proved" that over the past
four years, we have eliminated more than 400 per cent of the drug supply
for all users in America. In other words, capturing a "kingpin
responsible for 80 per cent of the cocaine" or making the "largest drug
bust in history," or adding bigger numbers to the body count (arrests) may
be nothing more than propaganda ploys to justify the expense of the war on
drugs. Ironically, after all the DEA's "successes," the problem keeps
getting worse and worse." (Hoffman, 87.) Hoffman also states, "Using this
economic system (DEA drug value estimates), I can prove that a car you
bought for $10,000 is actually worth $500,000." (Hoffman,87.) If we are
truly a democratic, free society, why must our government misinform the
people of America? A lie cannot stand up to the piercing light of truth
but if the light is never allowed to shine the darkness will continue to
cloak us all with confusion and paranoia. Our government should not be
afraid to tell us the truth unless it had something to hide.
It cannot be denied that drugs do cause certain health harms. These
are often exaggerated by the experimenters who report their findings to
the federal government. After all, why would the government give grants
to researchers whose findings contradict the official position? What we
must consider is not the absolutist position of "any health harms are
grounds for illegalization," but the comparative advantages to be obtained
by legalizing certain drugs. Most opponents of drug legalization claim
drug use is abhorrent because it alters consciousness. The claim that
drug use is immoral cannot be borne out empirically. Both of these
arguments assume one fundamental assertion that is basically untrue: the
assumption that the human body exists in a "pure" state which should not
be defiled. Our bodies constantly change, incorporating whatever
materials exist in our environment as a part of themselves. If we ingest
a good deal of selenium, we will have a higher concentration in our
bodies. If we snort cocaine, we will have a higher concentration of
cocaine hydrochloride metabolites in our bodies. This is neither a good
nor a bad thing, it is simply a state of being. Our state of
consciousness is not a stable, enduring thing. It is a pattern of highs
and lows in electrical and chemical activity, directly related to brain
composition and dietary intake (Carlson, 1992). To say that one mental
state is any more or less moral than any other is simply a matter of
personal opinion. Drug use is not an act of evil, it is a behavior, much
like sleep (Carlson, 1992). Neither of these behaviors is necessary for
a healthy person, but they are patterns of behavior which people fall
into, and when that behavior is interrupted, it takes time for a body to
compensate. This is why people feel edgy or angry when they have not
slept. If we are to condemn drug use as something that distinguishes the
good from the bad, where do we draw the line? Are non-sleepers inherently
more moral than sleepers? Should we imprison those who sleep and force
them to stay awake? And whom should we blame if one of these sleepers
becomes deranged because he is not allowed to sleep and lashes out,
killing someone who kept him awake?
If we argue that the consciousness altering effects of drugs are
what makes them immoral, what about sugar? It gives you a charge of
energy, stimulating the brain. What about sleep? It depresses the normal
conscious brainwave pattern, and introduces two totally new types of
brainwaves. How about television? It alters consciousness, and it
distorts peoples' views of the real world in a far more long-term manner
than any chemical (McKenna, 1992). Television addicts may not even be
aware that their electronic fix has them in its iron grip. So what's
next? Do we imprison television viewers for immorally altering their
consciousness? Or do we imprison those who don't watch television? These
examples are not ridiculous. They are directly analogous to the claims of
anti-drug activists. They illustrate how weak the rationale is, and how
repressive this sort of legislation can become.
Let's go back over the facts. Drugs have some minor health harms in
their natural substrate forms, but the harms usually cited are results
from concentrated drug distillates (which would not be in demand if the
substrates were legal). Drugs do induce changes in consciousness, but
these are no different than those caused by dietary and environmental
stressors. The concept of a gateway drug is nothing more than a cover-up
theory for the fact that increased enforcement limits supply, forcing
addicts to ease their craving with whatever can be found. Bad trips and
psychotic episodes are the results of adverse stimuli, such as paranoia,
which is induced because the drug is illegal and the user fears arrest.
The violence often claimed as a "natural by-product of drug use" is
actually the unnatural product of profit hungry profiteers fleecing the
drug using public of money. If you only need two dollars to buy your fix,
you have a lot more options of where to get the money than if you need
fifty dollars; your options are limited to the criminal unless you are
wealthy. The poor are beaten and abused by police, their scant
possessions confiscated or destroyed by authority-crazed zealots. Our
city streets are a war zone, with armed engagements between gangs and
police. The motive is drug profit. Rehabilitation centers, which amount
to little more than sanitarium style behavior modification, also seek to
cull profits from drug users who are arrested and forced to pay for
treatment. Once again, profit is the motive. Inexpensive hemp products
are not widely available (due to marijuana's illegal status) so the
American public is forced to buy ecologically damaging synthetic fiber
clothing, forest-annihilating paper products, and greenhouse effect
inducing petroleum fuel. Once again, the oil and lumber corporations reap
huge profits while destroying the planet, when legalized hemp would be
much cheaper and ecologically sound. We see profit as motive on all
counts, except police action: there, we see control of the American
people as the motive.
With legalization, the black market would cease to exist (Kleiman,
1989). Gangs who thrive on the drug trade will either be out of business,
or they will be forced to switch to less profitable activities. Either
way, they lose money, and without money, they cannot afford their weapons
of terror. With legalization, the money currently being wasted on a
losing battle against drugs can be applied to education. An educated
society can make informed, responsible decisions about whether or not to
use drugs. Since natural substrates are cheap to produce (after all,
marijuana is a weed, mushrooms grow where there is cow dung and water, and
coca can be cultivated relatively inexpensively), prices could be
regulated by a government agency which would keep them affordable. The
addicts would not have to commit crimes to support their habits. Some
maintain that legal drugs would make everybody into a drug addict. First,
I would ask the "coffee generation" and the "TV. generation" what they
think they are now, and secondly I contend that usage will in general not
change. There will be an increase in new users, but some users who take
drugs to demonstrate their rebelliousness would lose the incentive to use.
Also, with increased education, it seems unlikely that people would use
the highly addictive drugs which keep people using. In addition, legal
drugs would not be adulterated or contaminated. Purity of product will
improve the health of the drug user. This will, consequently, improve the
overall public health.
Legalization will also help the people to rein in the runaway
enforcement arms of our government, removing their justification for the
erosion of our rights. Unnecessary surveillance currently justified as
drug preventative will require proper justification. The public will not
have to live in fear of matching a drug-courier profile. They will not
have to forfeit their hard earned property because they were caught using
a drug. Illegal funding of covert operations will become increasingly
more difficult for our intelligence agencies, perhaps helping to reshape
the currently anti-American attitudes which are becoming alarmingly more
prevalent around the world. The Gestapo tactics currently being employed
under the banner of the drug war will either stop, or be exposed as the
vicious assaults on basic liberties that they truly are.
We do not seek to legalize all drugs. Only those which have been
shown to be relatively harmless will be legalized. The substrate plants
will be totally legal to grow or purchase. It is recommended that sale of
drugs by unlicensed individuals remain illegal, with penalties being
restitution to the licensed dealers of the area. Physicians and
psychiatrists will be able to prescribe any drugs shown to be relatively
harm-free, including recreational psychedelics, if they feel the
prescription is warranted. Expanded educational programs will make people
more aware of the factual behavioral and pharmacological effects of drugs,
allowing for informed decisions on use. We do not advocate drug use for
children, although this will undoubtedly occur. We do not seek to wipe
out drug use or addiction. This is an impossible goal. We seek to
protect the American people from a government of out of control power
fiends, as addicted to control as any heroin addict. The difference is
that the heroin addict harms only himself. Power addicts in political
positions get their "high" by oppressing the American people, the very
group who elected them, the very group to which they have sworn loyalty.
The choice is clear: legalize now and damn the minor health harms, or let
our country continue its slide into a totalitarian police state.
-anonymous
--
- dudley
is hunky@matt.ksu.ksu.edu -
