THE DRUG WAR'S POLITICAL CLIMATE

While members of the marijuana reform movement as well as drug policy
activists may disagree on what types of reform are needed, we all
agree on two issues: opposition to our current all-out war on some
drugs and the people who they are associated with, and the need for an
open evaluation of our current policies that is free of moral
demonization.

The former will not be commented on in this writing. However, the
latter issue needs to be addressed in order to open the door for those
who are afraid to express dissent.

A number of major studies of drug policy have been released by
government appointed as well as independent commissions in Canada, the
United States, Australia, the Netherlands, England, and many other
places, including Connecticut.

None of these studies support what we're currently doing with our
policies. The Connecticut Law Revision Commission recommended a
variety of reforms last year, including decriminalization of marijuana
possession, and some of these recommendations were followed by
legislation.

However, a positive response to such studies is the exception rather
than the rule.

Drug policy is one of the areas of public policy where research is
generally ignored in favor of moral arguments and political posturing.

President Nixon appointed a commission on marijuana, chaired by former
Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer. When the study was completed and
the policy recommendations were released, the President didn't like
what he saw. So he ensured that the media pay no attention to it. They
ignored it. Since then, the federal government has refused requests
for such studies.

The most damaging aspect of the drug war political climate, however,
is not the ignoring of evidence, but the demonization of all who
express dissent. After reading numerous newspaper articles from around
the world on these issues, I can safely conclude that the United
States is one of the worst offenders in this category.

A few years ago, Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was fired for
responding to a question, saying that legalization should be studied.
It was not even for supporting legalization, but for advocating a study.

That's not all. Advocates of medical marijuana are daily being accused
of being leftover flower children or "drug users" whose sole agenda is
to "legalize all drugs" using a "trojan horse" disguised as medical
use.

All who oppose the prosecution of those who find marijuana to be their
only hope are accused of using the sick and dying merely as an excuse
to further this "sinister" agenda. The accusers ignore the fact that
the organizations that have been pushing the recent wave of marijuana
related voter legislation initiatives are generally being run by
doctors and AIDS patients.

There is currently a strong need to break the taboo and the stigma
that drug war critics must contend with every day.

The Lindesmith center, a drug policy think tank, recognized this
reality when they purchased two pages of ad space in the New York
Times for an open letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. The
letter appeared last June on the first day of the United Nations
special session on drug control.

It asked Annan to take the lead in "stimulating a frank and honest
evaluation of global drug control efforts". Among the 500 prominant
signatories: Former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar,
former republican US Secretary of State George Schultz, and Walter
Cronkite, as well as health professionals, Nobel Laureates, and
members of the criminal justice system.

It was hoped that the credentials and titles of the signatories would
add some credibility to the argument and destroy the stereotypes. This
goal was achieved in part, but not without an explosion.

The letter sparked a world wide editorial debate in most major
publications and drew intense opposition from many public officials. A
Wall Street Journal editorial suggested that the signatories were
bamboozled by the "legalization" conspiracy, and that "the future of
the debate would profit if all of these people stated publicly whether
they themselves use any of these drugs recreationally"

One of the signers, Nobel-Prize winning economist and former Wall
street Journal columnist Milton Friedman, responded to this point in a
published letter saying "As for myself, I have not done so during the
past 85-plus years. But I make no guarantees for the future".

A.M. Rosenthal from the New York Times also wrote a damning article
claiming that the signatories were "legalizers" camouflaging their
secret sinister agenda to "legalize" drugs (whatever that means).

Retired General Barry McCaffrey, Clinton's drug czar, testified before
congress saying that "There is a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly
funded, well-heeled, elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize
drug use in the United States" and "Through a slick misinformation
campaign, they perpetuated a fraud on the American people...so devious
that even some of the nation's most respected newspapers and
sophisticated media are capable of echoing their falsehoods".

The United Nations is now planning to draft international legislation
that would criminalize opposition to the drug war (Let's see the Land
of the Free get away with that one).

In summary, don't let anyone tell you that the war on drugs is only a
metaphor. It's a war. Just remember the words of James Reston: "...In any
war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open
discussion."