Latest

Following this week's departure of DEA Administrator Karen Tandy, Pete Guither explores the motivations of the shot-callers in America's brutal war on drugs. Are they serious? Cynical? Smart? Stupid? Insane? Who would want to put their name on something so grotesque, only to walk about each day insisting that it is gorgeous?

Years ago, I interned for Eric Sterling at CJPF and asked him what motivates the proud champions of this great disaster. Eric used to write federal drug laws, and while he did so as an observer rather than a drug warrior, he's been closer to the belly of the beast than most. I don't remember everything he said, but the point that stuck with me was that, as a nation, we've invested so much in the name of destroying drugs.

To wake up and acknowledge this colossal error is to trivialize the incalculable sacrifices we've already made. For all the lies told and lives lost, those responsible have a powerful incentive to maintain that victory awaits atop the hill. This is necessary so they may sleep at night, and also to placate the many Americans who still willfully sacrifice their tax dollars to the war and their neighbors to the gulag.

The actual depth of their convictions notwithstanding, the mighty drug war architects surely feel the pressure of widespread and growing intellectual skepticism that now surrounds them at every turn. For this reason, one can never overstate the extent to which prohibitionist political posturing is now shaped literally by a desire to refute and antagonize their opposition. The more outrageous their positions become, the more evident this is. That is why, when discussing simple commonsense issues like medical marijuana and hemp, the drug warriors are quick to dismiss their critics as instruments and/or representatives of the "pro-drug lobby."

They are driven, at least in part, by pure animosity towards us; a deep-seated compulsion to reject our philosophy. They believe that associating an idea to our movement is inherently derogatory to that idea, thus they brand as "pro-drug" anyone who opposes them, despite the failure of that label to even vaguely describe our agenda. It is enough to make one wonder what sorts of bizarre things they could be cajoled into saying simply by proposing the opposite.

As Pete stresses, we cannot claim to know what goes on between the ears of the bold and brave bureaucrats that give drug war orders from behind their desks in D.C. We can only guess what they are thinking. But the consequences of the choices they make are very real and very hideous to behold.

Suppose you have a machine that depends for its proper operation on wooden pegs in wooden holes. Say that it has been traditional, if wooden pegs were not available, that brass pegs were an accepted substitute. Now suppose the government outlawed the use of brass pegs and decreed that if you didn't have wooden pegs only gold pegs were acceptable. Would that be right?