Editorial: The Arrogance of Stupidity
David Borden, Executive Director
David Borden
For example, I consider the effects of sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year into the criminal underground -- only one of prohibition's many adverse consequences -- to be so serious in its impact on crime and violence and corruption as to be unfathomable. I cannot imagine how any realistically conceivable increase in drug use following legalization -- a hypothetical -- could come close in the harm it might cause to rivaling the incredible, well-demonstrated damage done today by just that one aspect of prohibition. Even if prohibition didn't make the drugs more dangerous themselves (which it does), I just couldn't see that happening. Not surprisingly, since I founded an organization devoted to working for legalization.
Still, I'm not so arrogant as to deny the possibility that people who oppose legalization might have legitimate reasons for holding the views that they hold. Not for marijuana -- support for marijuana prohibition is a truly bizarre aspect of our modern society, one that I believe will ultimately be viewed as such. But some of the other drugs that are illegal now do pose serious dangers for some of their users. Not for most of their users, despite popular belief; and the dangers have been greatly increased beyond what they would otherwise be by the conditions that prohibition has created. But there's enough potential danger connected with drugs like cocaine or heroin for the impulse to prohibit them to be understandable -- misjudged, in my opinion, but understandable -- it's not completely strange that many people agree with prohibition of those drugs, even though I think they're quite wrong.
Those of us who see things this way are in pretty good company -- there are legislators, judges, doctors, editorial columnists, former Cabinet members, even some heads of state, counted within our set of strong and fervent allies. In Britain over the past couple of weeks the set has grown larger. Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable of North Wales, called drug prohibition "immoral" and recommended legalization in a report he submitted to the national "Home Office." His police force has backed him up on it. And this week the former prison chief added his voice to the supportive mix as well.
They are by no means the first Brits to say these things. For example, the current head of the Conservative Party in the UK, David Cameron, is a legalizer, as was the late Mo Mowlam, Britain's "drug czar" equivalent in her time. The UK-based Economist magazine, a widely-read global publication, used to opine for legalization almost non-stop, and still sometimes does so. So to reads the words of Brunstrom's opposition, the country's Association of Chief Police Officers, I have to wonder at the arrogance; ACPO president Ken Jones released a statement calling legalization "arguably a counsel of despair."
Despair? Really? Despite all the extremely smart people in the country who've expressed pro-legalization viewpoints to date, who have explained why they see it making things better, not worse? I completely recognize ACPO's right to take a prohibitionist position, and despite my views I'm not one to say that it automatically makes them unreasonable. But Jones' particular choice of words make me think he is either not familiar with the ins and outs of the issue, nor of the well known support that exists for legalization, or that he is unwilling to acknowledge them.
On this side of the ocean, upstate New York saw some similar illogic emanate from drug warriors in a District Attorney race. After the Democratic candidate, Jonathan Sennett, called for marijuana decriminalization -- not even legalization, just decriminalization, of marijuana no less, he said it's no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco -- his two opponents attacked him on it. One of them, a former Manhattan prosecutor named Vincent Bradley, actually said it was "inappropriate" for a DA to say that marijuana is no more dangerous than tobacco.
Well actually, if one judges by the mortality data, tobacco is enormously more dangerous than marijuana. Not that tobacco should be illegal either, of course. But the facts about what the two substances do are the facts about them, and acknowledging them is not irresponsible. I've already explained what I think about marijuana prohibition, and there are a number of blue-ribbon commissions whose findings back me up. So I think that Bradley's and Jones' comments are a clear-cut case of the arrogance of stupidity. Not because I disagree with them, but because they have taken their positions so arrogantly in the face of many impressive people who completely disagree with them.
We in the anti-prohibition movement can take a few insults. Indeed, the more of them get thrown our way, the more successful we know we are growing. Don't be too confident, Ken Jones, more Britons have heard of Richard Brunstrom now than have heard of you; and don't be too confident about your drug strategy, Vince Bradley. Our message is getting out, and it beats your message, hands down.
digg
redditRanter Offers No Useful Information
Comment posted by Giordano on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 1:08amAnd yet another visitor from the deepest, darkest recesses of the drug warrior culture crashes onto the honorable web pages of StoptheDrugWar.org.
This one uses a kind of school-yard bully approach in making arguments. The wild-eyed drug-user stereotypes the ranter enlists are right out of a racist’s playbook. More likely, it’s hearsay produced and reinforced within a very close-knit cultural group, the kind of insular group that refuses to value empirical evidence. No valid bits of information are offered to back up the claims made by the writer, because none exist.
I never cease to be amazed by people who believe that talking trash to well informed political activists is going to accomplish anything. And then to portray oneself as a jerk while doing it? Oh yeah, great PR. Are we supposed to laugh or cry when there are people in the drug warrior business who reflect this kind of hate mongering mentality?
Actually, studies have been done on these very people. John W. Dean wrote about “authoritarians” in his book Conservatives Without Conscience (2006). Dean greatly acknowledges the influence of Bob Altemeyer’s book: The Authoritarian Specter (1996). Altemeyer’s work goes beyond the Milgram experiments done at Yale where test subjects kept shocking mock test subjects despite fake cries of agony emanating from behind opaque panels.
And which Milgram test subjects had no problem at all pressing the shock button all the way up to the highest voltage? Hint: Altemeyer includes drug warriors among those he refers to as authoritarians.
Giordano
Vague?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 12:27pmThe guy, who came on to comment to all of the "dopers", had many unsupported "facts" in his letters. "The 10,000 years of evidence" What evidence is he referring to here? People "seem" to support drug prohibition (they supported alcohol prohibition, too, back in the days). "poisonous plant drugs" Could you be referring to foxglove? (One of its chemical components used as medication, even today?)
And the phrase "don't seem to like the economy of the planet tilting to produce dope", seems invalid also. What about the bumper crop of poppies in one occupied middle eastern country? What about MJ being the second biggest crop in many states, throughout the nation? I bet there are some people that like it. Even though, they are not on my list of people I want to associate with! The reason the drugs get so much attention is the fact that prohibition has made them the gold standard of the world of terrorism! Money just waiting to be had by the Mexican cartels, so strong that the government cannot even win the battle against them!
And what about the "dope fiend hating hillbilly"? Where does the evidence for this, rude, comment come from? I lived for years in the hills of the old south and this type of disrespect seems to be common amongst elitists. (better than anyone who would use drugs!?) Now that is a joke! Offend as many as you can. (of the "drugged UNDERCLASS") Does that underclass include the alcoholics and alcohol abusers that consume way too much, legally, in this country? (What about re-introducing alcohol prohibition?) Seems they are a big part of the so called "elite" maybe? Talk about a toxic drug! At least,there would not be as much cirrhosis, if alcohol was not legal!
You talk about the "risk" of THC. What about the other legal drugs out there and their risks? Lets just talk about the ones that have not been taken off of the market. Prozac or Xanax anyone? There is a new inhaled insulin that causes known lung damage, yet it is being advertised on TV for people who just cannot a stick themselves with a needle. Permanent lung damage because you are scared and can't take a stick of an insulin syringe? I think that, is a very strange situation.
And "getting along" with each other! How do you propose that, when the group you seem to represent here, is incarcerating non-violent drug offenders at such a rate that our country has the highest population per capita of prisoners, anywhere, in the world? And where does the claim about the history of strong anti-cannabis views " prior to the DEA" come from? Any documentation to support, yet another vague claim! (Well, I made one mistake, here, about that.) The DEA was not around in 1913. It was established in 1970! That is the only reason, I can see, that your claim is substantiated. Twist the facts to fit the situation. Sounds like typical drug warrior propaganda. Does that mean the views, that were stated by Anslinger and associates (that Mexicans, Chinese, and blacks would get white women on it, so they could have their way with them) are valid? Those are a couple of the views, I recall.
And the claim that no legislation has been victorious, confuses me. Isn't that one of the biggest debates in the country. Is it not claimed that well over 60% of the population accept medical marijuana as a possibility? Has it not been accepted by several states, already. Its prohibition has been declared unconstitutional, for years, in Alaska. But, maybe it helps them tolerate that wasteland! Your claims are, not only , unsubstantiated, they, at times, seem to mock any semblance of reason!
And what is tobacco "credibility"?! There are many fewer people using it, now-a-days, because of the education as to its, valid, risks. I am sure there are many non-smokers, like me, on this site, as well. Just as many on here don't condone or promote drug use, either. We just see the hypocrisy of it all! I say, lets go for it! I think it is time to prohibit alcohol again!
And "contributions of stoners" There was a great surgeon, Halstead, I think that used morphine all of his life! Most contributions that stoners make would be swept under the carpet ( I am sure, if they were known ) by people, like you, wanting to spread more propaganda than facts.
And you end your essay by asking for footnotes and facts and complaining about vague whining?! Sounds about right!
You should, at least, expect some sort of response to your vagueness!
Sort of like stepping on a skunk, then wondering why the heck you got sprayed! I guess we do stink!
actually...
Comment posted by borden on Sat, 10/20/2007 - 5:47pmActually, there have been medical marijuana laws passed in a dozen states, with hundreds of dispensaries in California alone, and needle exchange has made significant progress in gaining acceptance as well. While Plan Colombia (now the Andean Initiative) continues to rage, there are real debates about it happening in Congress that would not have taken place at this level ten years ago. The public is more skeptical of the drug war than ever before; when presented with alternatives they tend to go with them. Support for marijuana legalization is not quite at 50% yet, but it's getting close. States are beginning to enact sentencing reform -- a slow process, but it's happening. During my time in the issue (14 years) I have seen heroin maintenance come to Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada (to varying degrees of implementation), as well as moves to restore it in Great Britain.
Obviously we have a long way to go to get to legalization. But name a major social reform from the past that didn't take many decades to accomplish. In historical terms our movement hasn't been at it for that long. The currents of the time may still be against us, but the under-currents have been moving our direction for some time, and the future is ours...
David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org
Victory for Stoners
Comment posted by Giordano on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 4:44amThe bizarre futility of alcohol prohibition was defeated and rolled back by its opponents after 13-years of blood-drenched street crime, political corruption and currency diversion. I would say the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition in 1933 constitutes winning a legal battle and a net gain by the alcohol branch of the drug culture.
After Harry Anslinger finally croaked in 1975, a number of states decriminalized marijuana. Felony marijuana crimes were made misdemeanors. In the Netherlands, Amsterdam’s city government made possible the quasi-legalization of marijuana in ‘coffee shops’ (great coffee, by the way). Since then, a number of U.S. communities have made marijuana their lowest law enforcement priority. The battles were both political and legal, and all were won by the “stoners.”
The computer revolution was pioneered by hippie freak stoners who went on to write the code and build the machines that changed the world forever. This is a well documented fact.
Stoner victories continue in millions of small and larger ways every day. Some feel that every time they light up it’s a victory over the forces of old and evil. Bring me a joint, and I will win the war! Tough battle. Before prohibition can win, drug warriors cannot leave a single marijuana smoker standing. Tougher battle.
But nothing says it like the numbers. The ONDCP estimates that each year 1.4 million people enjoy a hit of marijuana for the very first time. On the opposite end, there is an attrition factor. People aged 65 and older, who generally did not participate in the drug revolutions of the 60s, 70s, etc., and who currently make up a greater part of the voting public, are steadily passing into the great beyond and taking their conservative voting habits with them.
Chairman Mao maintained that it only took 10-percent of a nation’s population behind a leader or a social movement to foment and bring about a successful revolution. The drug culture far surpasses that number. Victory is certain.
Giordano
subject of rants?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Thu, 10/25/2007 - 9:59amI am sorry that I got off of the topic. But, I thought that the response I gave above, was made by asking about the erroneous statements made in your rant. I guess I would have to balme you, since you got it started!
And, you may see prohibition as winning. I agree it is doing just as good as alcohol prohibition was at winning! We are supplying many new jobs, with all of the new prisons, we are building, for housing the, many, non-violent drug offenders, created by that prohibition. But, it does nothing to stop the deaths created by our drug culture, in Mexico and other countries, that don't have the abililty to, properly fight the militaristic drug cartels.
actually (again)...
Comment posted by borden on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 7:25pmActually, Ed Rosenthal wasn't found guilty of supplying non-medical marijuana under the guise of medical marijuana. He was found guilty of supplying marijuana. Federal law doesn't recognize the medical marijuana defense, and the judge didn't allow his defense attorney to tell the jury that it was a medical marijuana case. Many of the jurors were angry when they found out that it was a medical marijuana case and went on to join the protests against the conviction that they had just voted for. As for "slim margins," public support for medical marijuana is at about 80%. When the federal government legalizes medical marijuana, it will become more possible to regulate the trade.
As for other nations supporting opium eradication, actually there is a lot of opposition in the European Union to it, they are losing troops in Afghanistan as part of NATO and they are more willing to acknowledge that eradication doesn't work and would turn the country upside down if it were pursued in a serious way.
You say you "want to know," well the first thing you need to do to know more is to stop using silly loaded terms like "dopetopia." This is a policy issue, and most drug use of whatever the drug is done in a moderated way and that will always be the case no matter what the laws are. It's a natural human tendency to accept the status quo, whatever the status quo happens to be, and that's why there isn't higher support yet for legalization. As we get our message out to more people about the incredible destruction being caused by the drug laws, minds will change our way.
David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org
dear anonymous...
Comment posted by borden on Sun, 10/21/2007 - 9:50pmDear anonymous:
You are proving the validity of my title with every post you make. I've cited by name some very impressive supporters of legalization, including the top police constable in North Wales and the former prison chief in the same, and the widely respected Economist magazine. Without listing the names in this particular article, I believe I alluded to heads of state who have expressed pro-legalization views (Batlle in Uruguay did so very passionately, Mexico's Fox in a comment to the press once but he said it), judges, doctors, former members of presidents' cabinets here in the US, probably others and if I didn't I could have.
You on the other hand have ignored all of that, instead referring to us all with names like Dopetopists, etc. Funny, I have never heard George Shultz or William F. Buckley or Clarence Page called Dopetopists before, I wonder how they would react to it -- perhaps with a tone similar to that of my editorial! Did I mention Gustavo de Greiff, former attorney general of Colombia who organized the work that defeated the drug lord Pablo Escobar? He spoke at our conference 4 1/2 years ago. Is he a "dopetopist" who lives in "dopetopia"? Does he know a thing or two about the consequences of drug prohibition?
So yes, you are free to continue to prove my point about arrogance by using the kind of language you are using to refer to all of these extremely accomplished and knowledgeable people. By the way, I've never even used any illegal drugs, not even marijuana. Am I a "dopetopist" who lives in "dopetopia"?
As wrote, disagree with my views about legalization, I think you're quite wrong, but not automatically unreasonable. But insult my legalization views, like the guys in New York and now you, and I'll have a few things to say about the foolish mindset that that represents.
David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org
Why Do People Favor Prohibition?
Comment posted by Giordano on Mon, 10/22/2007 - 1:51amI think the reason countries adhere to drug prohibition policies is that they are obligated by treaty to do so, and undoing treaties is a messy business. Mexico, Canada, Jamaica, the EU, et al., would probably all file exceptions to the Single Treaty for cannabis products, as well as for some other soft drugs, were it not for the bullying efforts of the United States.
I think any countries filing such an exception to the 1961 Single Treaty would probably adopt the Dutch harm reduction model as a starting point for a more comprehensive plan to bring hard drugs under tighter, government sponsored control; while allowing soft drugs to enter the commercial market in a regulated manner.
The reason many people agree with drug prohibition policy (although I don’t think they always agree with every aspect of it) is part of a much more complicated question dealing with what makes people tick. That question can’t be answered in the available space. A few items can illustrate the gist of the answer, however.
One problem is ignorance. People don’t have the time to peruse the ever-insidious aspects of the government’s war on drugs. In fact, it takes many full-time professionals just to keep track of it all. And yet, in the United States, only 5-percent of the population reads books. There is a strong undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in the U.S., and it is a puritanical country. After all, any country that hyperventilates over an exposed tit with a pasty on it during a half-time show has some real issues happening.
Another problem is that not many Americans travel. Only 16-percent own passports. This travel disadvantage is made clear by the anonymous prohibitionist who, from his description, has never been to Vancouver, and who has no idea what a fantastic and cosmopolitan city it is and remains. Vancouver has been voted the second most desirable city to live in the world for several years running. I guess that means there’s something really attractive about all those Vancouver-based, decadent, dope-smoking hippies.
And I’m sure few prohibitionists have visited the tranquil time warp called Amsterdam to see how a wealthy, civilized, secular society handles and provides for the happiness and security of all its citizens, and not just for a few proto-Nazis with deep pockets. According to the Chief of Narcotics for Amsterdam, the sale and use of marijuana poses “No problems whatsoever.” And he’s right. Nothing unusual goes on inside or outside the coffee shops. They’re as quiet and peaceful as the curio shops and ancient churches they adjoin.
The problem with prohibitionists is that such people live inside their own little bubble. Fear of the big, bad world is absolute. They are afraid to know or experience the new and unusual. They surround themselves with regimented and dictatorial social nets upon which they become totally dependent. Independence is freedom, and freedom is fear. Sad, sad, sad. They end up being frustrated, angry, little people with meaningless lives who attack those smart enough and courageous enough to refuse to buy into the petty delusions of a temporary majority.
Giordano
Critical Thinking
Comment posted by Giordano on Tue, 10/23/2007 - 6:42pmThe neologism “Dopetopia” as it’s defined by the prohibitionist, has no applicability in the lexicon. The definition doesn’t describe any society that currently exists, and it goes on to posit a social condition that exists only as a straw man argument in the minds of drug warriors, or at least in the mind of the drug warrior respondent in question.
Democracies are not societies “shackled” in servitude to the will of minorities or majorities. Democracies are meant to accommodate all their citizens in ways that are fair and equitable to each citizen, even if it means nudging the boundaries of personal privacy in ways that might temporarily annoy a particular majority.
The “fallout of drug misuse over time” is a vague assumption in which “fallout” can mean just about anything. The belief that the use of substances such as marijuana harms people or society in some way is not supported by the available facts of the 6,000+ year history of cannabis use by humans. If drug misuse over time is to be part of a definition, then the particular drug and the time factor must be specified.
Implying that “short term social gain” is undesirable because of some unknown future consequence is an argument that was made by southern Confederates in defense of slavery. In fact, it’s the argument used by reactionaries whenever they cower in fear of some pragmatic social advancement.
As for “critical thinking,” nearly all the postings by the drug warrior respondent begin by representing recreational drugs as evil and then in some manner he mirrors the demon-drug idea to claim that all illegal drug users are evil as well. This kind of transference is classic scapegoating.
The term for the drug warrior’s overall mode of thinking is “ethnocentrism;” a word that has been in use for some time. Ethnocentrism functions in a manner similar to racism, but denigrates cultures rather than races. Ethnocentrism plays by the same game rules as racism, and throughout its history, it’s been equally, if not more destructive than racism to societies that have chosen to embody its outlook and methods.
Giordano
The nature of the beast and battle
Comment posted by Malkavian on Wed, 10/24/2007 - 3:56pmOur favorite Anonymous prohitionist writes:
"However, I wonder why if the reasons for prohibition are so wrong, how do you explain how billions of your fellow educated, life experienced community loving fellow humans seem to support drug prohibition..? They are not listening to your arguments, they are directing their police to encircle doptopia and take it apart..at whatever price, it would be a bargain."
Technically speaking this is the fallacy called Argumentum ad Populum, or simply stated the fallacy that goes "because millions believe in it, it must be true". This is, however compelling and emotionally satisfying as it may be, illogical. Truth is NOT determined by popular vote.
This WAR we're in, lots of people do not understand the nature of it, in my view. For it is a war of primarily morals, feelings and cultural prejudice. If it were anything else people would have read the scientific studies and simply legalized ages ago.
To continue the Argumentum ad Populum: does anyone remember the time where homosexuals were regarded EXACTLY like drug users are today? Remeber when gay people couldn't legally have sex (illicity drugs), while the hetero people could just have their own sex without restriction (alcohol/nicotine). Remember when we used to punish homosexuals AS IF what they did was a ... crime?
Simply stated: people just hated homosexuals, and they just didn't fucking CARE about Constitutions are other such human issues. So they let the homosexuals have it!
This hate had been learned from infancy and onward and bolstered by language, religion and cultural institutions. Today, despite Brokeback Mountain and a pretty friendly population, there are still many, many millions who really hate gay people. The understandable root cause of this hate is no doubt the simple fact that most heterosexual people (the majority) intensely dislikes the very THOUGHT of having homosexual sex. It makes them go "ewww" just like the thought of having sex with a really, really ugly member of the opposite sex can make them go "eww" too.
However, one of the fine and beautiful aspects of our modern Western civilization is that we have learned (though evidently not all) that even though we personally dislikes something it's no good reason to compromise the freedom of everyone else.
The War on Drugs - and the rampant criminalization - ONLY makes sense if you think of these "crimes" as one of the last vestiges of Thought Crimes left in the West. Every single one in prison is a political prisoner. Hands down.
In itself it just isn't a CRIME to puff on a joint or eat an Ecstasy pill. The very definition of the term "crime" requires a perpetrator and a victim, and the violation of the victim must target his or her body or property.
To label (for example) the behavior "smoking a joint" a crime is nonsensical, but the vast majority allow themselves the luxury of not having to be upstanding members of Western Civilization in this particular area. Here, like in the old days, they are allowed to let their prejudice and bigotry be expressed in the most unsavory kind of Western Sharia.
Sharia is, to those of you unfamiliar with this religious term, the systematic making into secular law the teachings of the Holy Quran. This is e.g. why they still murder homosexuals in Iran ... sorry "sentence them to death by hanging for their crimes".
When WE put someone in prison for using drugs we're doing the exact same thing as those gay-killing and gay-whipping people in the Middle East.
So FEEL what you will about drugs, about being "stoned" or "high" or "loved up" or whatever. But whatever you feel about the issue, and whatever you would LIKE society to be, PUNISHMENT is not the proper response to something that is simply not a crime.
Pity the poor creature ...
Comment posted by Emmet C on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 9:58pm... all bound up in hate.
S/he is only carrying on the the tradition of our Pilgrim forebears - rabidly maintain unquestioned dogmata and attempt, without regard for reasoned argument, to impose some code of conduct on others who are 'obviously' unable to make their own decisions.
After all, it's for their own good. If miscreants were meant to make choices about their own lives, they wouldn't have been "endowed ... with certain inalienable rights." Especially that Liberty thing.
Besides, what fun would s/he have if s/he couldn't feel superior to those whose logic leads them to a more realistic and compassionate view. S/he don't need no stinking logic!
So, pity the poor creature, all bound up in hate.