cannabisnews.com: Why Washington has Lost its War on Drugs! Why Washington has Lost its War on Drugs! Posted by FoM on February 22, 1999 at 06:07:29 PT America’s policies on illicit narcotics have long displayed evidence of having been crafted by people who give the appearance of having dabbled in a few recreational pharmaceuticals themselves. When the amount of U.S.-bound cocaine intercepted in the Gulf of Mexico dropped off after a few years of steadily increasing hauls in the 1980s for instance, Washington’s Drug Enforcement Agency took the statistics to indicate that it was winning its “war on drugs.” It took several years for the hapless drugbusters to realize that many of their adversaries had simply adopted a roundabout route, taking advantage of Canada’s endless coastline and then shipping their wares overland through the porous entry points on the world’s longest unprotected border. The response? The DEA tightened its rules to keep the evil Canadians at bay: A prescription written by a Canadian doctor for, say, a heavy dose of Panadol must now be accompanied by an official DEA registration number if a pharmacy on the American side of the border is to fill it. Drug barons everywhere must have been shaking in their Guccis. Now the head of the DEA, Thomas Constantine, has decided on a new target: The American people, he says, have not shown the will to fight illegal drugs. Implicitly admitting that interdiction had failed to do anything but raise street prices and create new protection rackets, Mr. Constantine said the “war” would only be won when “our own citizens, families, teachers, and employers take this as seriously as the Y2K problem.” Talk about your apples and oranges: The only people who like the Y2K computer bug are those who are making a fortune off correcting it. Drugs are an entirely different matter: The DEA’s budget is relatively small ($1.4 billion a year) because many Americans simply don’t care about its mission. It has little to do with their daily lives except for the fact that shoot-outs between rival drug gangs sometimes have tragic results for innocent bystanders. Why are there shoot-outs? Because drugs are illegal. There is also the reality that a goodly number of Americans, like other peoples around the world, simply like to take drugs once in a a while: They have little reason to press their congressmen for more DEA money when the agency has shown no potential to accomplish a task which they disapprove of. The crux of the matter is that Washington has criminalized behavior which, while unhealthy, is not popularly seen as an abhorrent offense. Yes, America’s drug users support a vast underworld of domestic dealers and (mostly) foreign suppliers, but those who sell drugs range from small-timers to irredeemably murderous thugs not because of their product but because of its illegality. Those who ran liquor into the U.S. during the era of prohibition were little different from today’s drug barons, but that did not mean that customers in speakeasies were hardened criminals: They just wanted a drink. An exaggerated version of the same phenomenon took place in Soviet Russia when straightforward businessmen were put out of business by Moscow’s insistence on a centrally planned, profitless and impotent economy. Even today, it is almost impossible to buy a high-quality television set in Russia without visiting an unseemly character: Legalizing some drugs (for example, marijuana, hashish, and cocaine) will not draw hordes of good-hearted businessmen into the trade. And lethal substances such as heroin and the like must be stamped out. But a partial legalization of relatively “soft” drugs would allow careful inspection of substances which many people routinely inhale, snort, or swallow. And nor would it make taking drugs more socially acceptable. As conservative columnist William F. Buckley noted many years agon a televised debate in which he advocated limited legalization, it is perfectly legal to contract syphilis, but nonetheless not reputable to do so. And in any event, telling a high school or university student not to smoke a joint because it is not socially acceptable is like waving a red flag in front of bull. The ranks of people who sell drugs would still contain a great many social predators, but how would they differ from liquor venders who sell to alcoholics or casinos that drain every last penny from gambling addicts? All of this would be irrelevant to other countries had Washington not foisted its own foibles on the rest of the world. The State Department is about to release its annual report card on the global narcotics trade. This is not the Draconian practice often described in the media the U.S. does not sanction countries that fail to pass muster, but simply cuts aid to their governments but it is nonetheless an exercise in self-righteousness. America basically tells the world that “we can’t stop our people from using drugs, so you have to stop yours from growing them.” Lebanon has felt the sting of Washington’s drug paranoia in the past, and many farmers are still feeling the financial pinch. The UN was supposed to compensate those who stopped growing the crops that earned them the highest returns, but many say they have never been adequately compensated. The process is especially hard to take when one considers that California’s No. 1 cash crop is you guessed it marijuana. But imagine what would happen if America’s most populous state were suddenly cut off from federal funds because its governor had failed to eliminate dope farming. If President Clinton wants to leave office with a bang, he should renounce his claims that he “never inhaled” and invite a few reporters to watch him blaze up on the roof of the White House. It’s hardly as though he has a “role-model” image to protect, and he just might kickstart the process of having the U.S. government finally reflect what its people have known for years. Besides, an unusual act like telling the truth might add to the presidential high. Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by Lizzy on December 11, 2000 at 10:40:59 PT Cool Page I lkike your page. It is very informative. I fully support drug legalization. It is common sense! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on February 22, 1999 at 20:11:39 PT Author's Name! I felt bad because I forgot to include the writer's name so here it is! Now I feel better!Marc J. Sirois is a member of the editorial staff at The Daily Star [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 22, 1999 at 19:52:37 PT Thank You! Thanks once again for your comment! I want you to know that I didn't write the article but posted it because I felt it was so good. The news changes so much from day to day. It is an interesting time to be involved in reform issues! Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Dr. Ganj on February 22, 1999 at 18:40:34 PT The failed war Well said FoM!Keep up the great work. We are listening! Change will occur. Cheers, Dr. Ganj http://www.norml.org [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: