A DUTY TO CENSOR ADULTS

One might think that in a world rife with tyrants and dictators, the United
Nations would celebrate any victory for freedom of expression over
censorship. Strangely, though, the annual report of the UN's International
Narcotic Control Board reveals a different view of free speech: It's an
unfortunate obstacle that must be swept aside in the name of the War on Drugs.

The INCB is irked that although the UN's member-states signed a 1988
agreement that committed them to make it a crime to "publicly incite" the
use of illegal drugs, many governments haven't done so. The result is
people are still free to promote, encourage or simply speak positively
about drug use. And since most humans are sheep devoid of free will -- at
least that seems to be the belief of the INCB -- they are thus compelled to
smoke, snort and inject themselves to oblivion. Hence, speech that is
positive about drugs must be censored.

It doesn't take much imagination to see what could be targeted if the INCB
had its way. For one, pop singers who extol the virtues of some drugs are
specifically criticized in the INCB report -- think of Bob Marley being
hauled off-stage by police, not because he smoked pot, but because he said
he liked it. And there would be some gaps down at the local theatre. Fear
and Loathing in Las Vegas? Confiscated, along with every copy of the Hunter
S. Thompson book. Video stores could loose every frat-house comedy and
Cheech and Chong flick.

Why stop there? There are a great many serious works of philosophy,
sociology and religion which explore aspects of drug use. Those which laud
aspects of it would surely be seen as dangers to impressionable undergrads.
So long, Aldous Huxley, Ernst Junger, Timothy Leary and so many more.

The reason many nations have failed to implement the INCB's desired
censorship is not, alas, due to a sudden appreciation of the merits of
unfettered free speech. Only the courts are protecting us. Canada did, in
fact, pass a law which made it illegal to import or sell literature or
videos which "promote, encourage, or advocate" the consumption of drugs. In
1994, a lower court in Ontario struck down this law as an obvious violation
of free speech. The government did not appeal.

For governments stymied in this way by free speech, the INCB helpfully
offered some advice: Get over it. The report says it should be considered a
"duty," no less, that governments find a way to overcome freedom of
expression because it "cannot remain unrestricted when it conflicts with
other essential values and rights."

Even more frightening than the INCB's belittling view of free speech is the
sinister subtext of its report. The INCB worries that newspapers that
support legalization -- like this one -- tend "to generate an overall
climate of acceptance that is favourable to or at least tolerant of drug
abuse." Given that the preceding paragraphs deal with censoring speech that
is positive about drug use, this has a sinister ring to it, as if those
favouring an end to drug criminalization should be given the same
censorious treatment as those advocating drug use. The whiff of press
censorship is unmistakable.

Among the re-packaged mistakes the federal government is passing off as a
drug policy is a renewed commitment to international co-operation in the
War on Drugs. That means bowing further to the leadership of bodies like
the INCB. Since the drug warriors have so clearly shown contempt for one of
the most fundamental rights, that of free speech, doing so would be
reprehensible.

Copyright 1998 The Ottawa Citizen

Checked-by: Richard Lake