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."

Checked-by: Richard Lake