TALK IS CHEAP, PERHAPS WE SHOULD GIVE IT A SHOT

Presidential politics. War. Terror. Oil and energy. Economics and
environment. In the world today, there are so many uncertainties and so
many threats to our country and way of life that one might wonder why Drug
War politics should be an issue at all. And to the average American, it
might make sense that our current situation mandates a steadfast vigilance
against drugs, drug pushers, and drug users. For of course, these things
are a scourge to society according to the inundation of anti-drug
propaganda America has seen throughout the past couple years. For example,
drugs fund terrorism. This is another heavy revelation when taken in
addition to the already 'well-known' fact that drugs are a major factor in
inner-city crime, and a huge burden to the American tax-payer, who of
course must foot the bill for the addicts' jail time (and to a lesser
extent, their rehabilitation).

However, the strangest thing about being an opponent to drug prohibition is
that one cannot deny these claims. It is true that drug profits help fund
terrorism. However, it is also true that the immediate markup in price from
prohibiting the substance is what makes them profitable for groups seeking
to maximize moneymaking ability in a short period of time. The
international drug trade is worth approximately 400 BILLION dollars
annually, every cent of which is tax free and untraceable. It is not the
drugs that are to be directly implicated in terrorism and violent crime, it
is the drug trade.

It is the black market price markup that pushes thousands of individuals
living in poverty to turn to drug sales to try to make ends meet. And in
communities of the disenfranchised, it is that same poverty (and the wish
to escape from) that furnishes the demand for such drug sales. It is that
black market price markup that gives incentive for powerful governments,
such as the United States, to utilize drug profits to help fund campaigns
of coercion in foreign lands (i.e. Nicaragua, et al) that would not be
approved for the receipt of tax money.

Furthermore, modern prohibition has the effect of separating science from
its means. Why should humanity be forbidden to investigate the ecological
benefits that increased use of hemp products would facilitate? Why should
psychiatrists and neurologists be unable to freely investigate the modus
operandi of substances such as LSD, which carries with it the unique weight
of being an unofficial catalyst for the massive change in thinking during
the 1960's.

Why should science and civilians be held to the whim of rich industrialists
who wish to maintain monopolies on goods that can be recreated through
other means, or companies who profit from of the use of mercenary armies in
third-world nations known for being drug suppliers? Why should we fall
victim to a forked-tongue politician who pushes strong prohibition as a
means of getting elected?

And more importantly, when are we going to realize that the real evil is
not drug use, but our own misunderstanding of what drugs really mean and
how they relate to both societal and individual development throughout
history. Perhaps blanket legalization is not the answer, for that would be
just as fool-hearty as blanket prohibition. But, the true solution will
never be found until we begin to embrace rational discussion in this time
of high need.

Mark Verhoff

President, SSDP