Politics & Advocacy
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.
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Comments
In reply to Why Do People Favor Prohibition? by Giordano (not verified)
VANCOUVER
I'm sorry to say that your lovley little drug war has turned our fair city into a war zone.Another victory for ignorance and oppression.TUXPUS
Only those who count ...
Prohibitionist wrote: "your task is to convince billions of other people who believe otherwise on the merits of your claim." Naah, we only have to convine the few that count - everybody else will fall in line after that. In fact, that is what happened when marijuana was outlawed. Harry Anslinger and his coterie persuaded Congress to pass the Marihuana Tax Act and the rest is history, including the pressure the U.S. has exerted on other countries to follow suit.
If there is anything that trumps "morality" and The Children, it's money. Cannabis has become an economically important cash crop, and the incomes of entire regions in the U.S. and Canada depend on cannabis production. I am confident that the growth of cannabis production and sales will eventually tip the scales toward legalization as the industry becomes increasingly enmeshed with the local economies. Oh, excuses will be made and some sops will be thrown to the fanatics, but cannabis will become de facto legal.
Odie
The snowball effect
Ron Paul has become very popular lately, and he wants to legalize drugs. I'm sure he must be making a significant impact in getting people to think seriously about the possibility of legalization. Sure, perhaps most of his supporters don't even know yet that he's pro-legalization, but when they find out, they'll be forced to think about the issue. The more people realize this is a legitimate debate, the more people will back legalization, and then, the more people will debate it. Support for our views will grow faster and faster. One huge reason this snowballing effect hadn't taken off in the past is that the internet is so new. With the internet, ideas with potential grow much faster than they used to. The article "Digg and Reddit users want to legalize marijuana" illustrates this. Presidential candidates can see the support that these ideas have on the internet, and they are less afraid to back the issue in their campaigns. The more candidates back it, obviously (and Paul isn't the only one), the more people will debate it, etc.
Legalization might be a lot closer than even we realize.
Dear Prohibitionist, I don't want dopetopia either
Dopetopia sounds like a place where everybody uses drugs. If I wanted to live in dopetopia, then that would mean I am pro-drug. I am not. I am against drug use. I believe drug use harms individuals and society. I am pro legalization. There is a big difference; please try to understand that.
File under " D "
Dopetopia-( noun) a state of unlimited drug access for all seekers , that shackles society in servatude to the will of the minority to lift all reasonable prohibition and render prohibited drugs legal for short term social gain rather than deal with the fallout of drug misuse over time.
an idealistic notion of drug reform stripped of democracy and critical thinking
*********************************************************
" legalization might be a lot closer than we realize "-
....... hurry up send that letter to Santa, Christmas is closer than you think
**********************************************************
." Naah, we only have to convince the few that count - everybody else will fall in line after that"
............................ would that would be your facebook Friend list ?
**********************************************************
" One problem is ignorance. People donât have the time to peruse the ever-insidious aspects of the governmentâs war on drugs"
............................ that explains the high incarceration rate in America
*********************************************************
"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"
..................................learn a new word every day,
todays word is DOPETOPIA
In reply to File under " D " by Anonymous (not verified)
Critical Thinking
The neologism âDopetopiaâ as itâs defined by the prohibitionist, has no applicability in the lexicon. The definition doesnât 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 âshackledâ 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 âfallout of drug misuse over timeâ is a vague assumption in which âfalloutâ 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 âshort term social gainâ is undesirable because of some unknown future consequence is an argument that was made by southern Confederates in defense of slavery. In fact, itâs the argument used by reactionaries whenever they cower in fear of some pragmatic social advancement.
As for âcritical thinking,â 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 warriorâs overall mode of thinking is âethnocentrism;â 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, itâs been equally, if not more destructive than racism to societies that have chosen to embody its outlook and methods.
Giordano
The tipping point...
I too believe the repeal of prohibition (a term I've found to resonate better than legalization) is closer than we imagine. I've been carrying on a conversation about drugs with Americans for the past 4 decades. And while these conversations are not exactly empirical, I believe they are more than just anecdotal - and I have become quite hopeful as a result.
With those Americans outside the recreational drug environment, law and order seems to be their rallying cause. And those inside the environment are, of course, happy that they will no longer be subject to life-ruining, and very often arbitrary, arrests (not to mention the fact they will, in essence, get a pay raise when drug prices drop...). Not surprising is that only the hardcore prohibitionists/punishers among us (a group with slowly but steadily deceasing numbers) refuse to accept the logical and commonsense argument for repeal.
What is most frustrating, however, is that those inside the drug policy reform clique claiming to speak for us have yet to find the intestinal fortitude to stand up and advocate for total repeal. Their claim that winning the battle on medical marijuana will lead to winning the war for repeal begs the question: What drug will you champion next? Cocaine? LSD? MDMA?
To believe the government will just roll over and play dead should medical marijuana be (finally) normalized, is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. More likely is that the government will say "We gave you medical marijuana, now shut up." And when in a few years the crime rate doesn't abate (which it won't without total repeal), you can bet they'll say "I told you so," and return to a prohibitionist position.
Prohibition is just a Road Closed Sign
The letter above is in my mind closer to the workable truth than most.
They ask hard proper questions..and raise hard strong points.
Asking / demanding total repeal of all drug prohibition as written in 2007 will probably.not work.
Cutting a deal with the feds for timely proper access to medical cannabis just might work provided the pro pot people ferret out all in house cheaters before the DEA steps in and just breaks down doors and locks compassion clubs. This barricades mind reluctance / refusal of the compassion pot players to call foul when they discover a med pot player from their ranks cheating is what is holding all advances back.
Any professional association elsewhere who discover wrong doing amongst their members will dicipline them..or if the offence is criminal - immediately call the Police. The objective is to maintain "integrity" not provide cover for the wrong doings of their members..
The California Compassion Clubs could have diciplined their sketchy pot providers ( example: Ed Rosenthal ) long ago, and established their integrity as the serious health professionals they aspire to be. But they supported his double dipping as if he was a hero to their cause. That lapse of judgement may have been very unwise in the long run
The big reason why cannabis tolerance is so successful in Holland and is because the players agreed to uphold a code of ethics in lieu of changing the laws of the land.. and decades later, they do not as a rule cheat on that agreement. That means proper stock reporting, proper security measures and proper income declaration for taxation. They also obey 1001 unwrittren rules that address civic courtesy.
Their goal is not what excesses they can get away with , but to work together , -as- a -group to become fully accountable citizens, and to actually operate as respectable gentlemen of commerce. The police watch them carefully..afterall, pot is a pirates game and this recent fling with cannabis respectability is still in the probation stage, even in Europe.
But because the players themselves are reaching for moral highground, the Dutch police have cut them some slack. The opposite is true in America.
Those players in Euro pot commerce who cheat are admonished by their peers: if that doesn't clear up transgression tendencies, the police step in and the compliant players step back as justice is applied. This crisp moral stance and unwavering sence of right & wrong goes a long way in preserving the integrity of those in cannabis commerce who _do compliy with the agreement.
Untill the American pot pirates show some sence of responsibility ,and cull the bad apples amongst them, they will be plea bargaining in handcuffs with the DEA
Arrogance of Stupidity
First off, I think your article was very good, and holds true all too often. (i.e. âMr. Prohibitionâsâ rants being Exhibit A) However, in argument to the reference of only two citations of what seem to be referred to as stupidity; these citations do not really seem very stupid.
My statement, of course, is based solely on the information presented in the article.
You state ACPO president Ken Jones called legalization âarguably a council of despairâ. To your merit of inclusion here, Ken Jones admits his statement of legalization being a âcouncil of despairâ to be arguable.
In the second citation, Vincent Bradley merely refers to Jonathan Sennettâs comment as inappropriate for a District Attorney. This is in no way a denial of the information presented, but more to the point, an attack on ones character rather than the claim. The attack on his character, given that this was some sort of political race, was a classic debate fallacy to belittle his aptitude as prosecutor while simultaneously hoping to appeal to popularityâ¦The validity of a war on drugs being considered the popular consensus.
Having not read the original transcript of either of these citations, I may not understand the full bias or motive behind these statements from prohibitionists. However, I donât see this as the arrogance of stupidity per say, or even the arrogance of ignorance, but rather a blatant political bias of misplaced social and moral values. Many government officials are not stupid or ignorant of the negative effects of drug prohibition legislation.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
We must remember that regardless as to the popularity of a position, whether prohibition or legalization, does not make that position any more valid. Likewise, the viewpoint of âextremely smartâ individuals does not automatically validate that viewpoint. (ex: person A is an authority on subject X. Person A makes claim C about subject X. Therefore claim C is true.) These are logical debate fallacies.
As supporters of legalization, the strength of our position comes from diligent submission of strong facts, research, and valid logical argument, as well as effectively refuting the proponentâs arguments, revealing fallacious tactics, and without matching them in subjective opinion. Otherwise we may be accused likewise of the arrogance of stupidity.
Michael Moon
United States
The nature of the beast and battle
Our 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.
Last appeal
Mr. Prohibitionist,
I would urge you to get to know a "stoner" personaly. I think it might change the way you percieve them. They are the people that hold the door for you to let you in first. They are the musicians you hear on the radio. They the teachers of your children. There is no conspiricy of drug users to take over the country. Think about it, some to the greatest contributers to our society either have used drugs or struggled with addiction. Miles Davis, Billy Holliday, Eric Clapton, The Beetles, Sigmund Freud e.tc.e.t.c......Furthermore I don't think anyone on this site is advocating a person should try a dangerously addicting substance. I'm glad to see that you are fond of John Stuart Mills and I would like share with the audience a quote from him " Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opionion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them..." As someone who enjoys healthy debates, I find it good your on this site and I would like to extend a hand in friendship. But I have to sharply dissagree with your perspective on individual freedom vs. the popular opinion of an era. It is clear from the speeches and writings of the founding fathers and Intelectuals who framed the constitution that the individual as "inalienable rights". That means the Sate does not give us those rights neither can the State take them away. "Life" ( the state does not have the right to take your life on a whim), "Liberty"(the right to move to and fro on this planet) and last but not least" The pursuit of happiness"( personal moral decisions). Mr. Prohibition, neither you nor the state has the right to impose your moral opinion on others. You may choose to coerce people anyhow but "Might does not make Right" as the saying goes. In addition I've noticed your powers argumentation have been weakened by your claim that 6.5 or 8 billion poeple on this planet share your views. I'm confident you don't have the time to interview every individual on this planet so I'll claim for the sake of argument that at least half of the people on this planet don't share your view which doesn't make us a minority. In fact it might be possible that yours is a minority.( scary huh!) Fortunately for you and me this "freedom thing" is not a numbers game. It's a unversal principal that niether you, me or the state can change. MAKE PEACE, NOT WAR!!!
a dream
What do you guys think about who the President should be? From what I can gather from the UK, Ron Paul is against the war on drugs as a republican, and Mike Gravel as a democrat. Although both of them wouldn't have stood much chance in a pre-internet world, maybe the general consensus against the drug war will create something of a groundswell, who knows? There's certainly a lot of disenfranchised voters out there sick of the usual options. Perhaps this website could run something supporting these people for President or something. Really if these people were to get into power, considering the enormous impact US policy has worldwide, I'm certain it would create a much better world for everybody living on it.
I'd love to hear your opinions about the Presidency.
Brilliant website, really informative, rational and reasoned btw! Really puts the stupid prohibitionists to shame!
Paul.
Disappearing Act
various posts disappear from this site after a few days-
just the recent ones that don't support your editorial stance disappear.
older selective posts remain some 3 weeks old
the anti prohibition ones remain intact,
Friday October 26- 2007 12:26 EST
Missing in Action
Several posts have disappeared
some three weeks old
that support your editorial stance remain
Add new comment