THE MORALITY OF OUR MISERABLE WAR ON DRUGS

In the world of drug policy reform, Ethan Nadelmann is the man, so to
speak. He is a go-to person, both well informed and well connected in his
capacities as an academic and activist. As an active member of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy, and as an American citizen who has long felt
concerned and perplexed about the manner in which we "fight" the drug war,
I am well acquainted with Nadelmann's initiatives as a leader of the reform
movement. But as I listened to his lecture "Building a Movement to End the
War on Drugs," Tuesday evening here at Brown, I was struck by new
realizations about the illegitimacy of current U.S. drug policy,
specifically considering the manner in which the drug war violates any
notion of the sanctity of personal sovereignty over mind and body.

In questioning our need to utilize the criminal justice system to protect
ourselves from the evils of drugs, Nadelmann articulated the fundamental
problems with global drug prohibition: Why do we rely upon criminalization,
as opposed to implementing a system of strict regulations, treatment and
education? And what is it about the prohibited drugs that distinguishes
them from the drugs that we use and abuse every day? We allow
Anheuser-Busch to televise ads that directly link alcohol with glamorized
visions of youth and sex, but launch propaganda crusades relating marijuana
with terrorism, teenage pregnancy, negligence and violence. Why are we so
quick to accept the misinformation campaigns and drug demonization efforts
facilitated by organizations like D.A.R.E. and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy?

This pattern of thinking opens up the possibility of castigating drug use
not only within a legal framework but also on a moral axis. According to
Nadelmann, somewhere along the way Americans arrived at the "conviction
that there was something viscerally, morally and biblically wrong" with the
use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, mushrooms, crack and other illegal
drugs.

I often wonder about the origins of the deeply imbedded belief in the evil
menace of drugs. I don't presume that the aforementioned substances are
harmless and should be legalized and distributed on every street corner. On
the contrary, I am acutely aware of the potential hazards associated with
drug use. But why do some drugs elicit an almost irrational panic and not
others?

My question is this: Does the government have the authority to intercede
between citizens, as potential drug users, and specific drugs they may
choose to put into their bodies?

If the government chooses to apply the model of regulation and not
criminalization to alcohol and tobacco, there is no legitimate basis
(medical, scientific, moral, religious or otherwise) for discrimination
between drugs in terms of the legality of use. We impose rules about
driving under the influenced, and punish acts of violence and the
destruction of property in an attempt to discourage behavior that is
harmful to society. But laws that explicitly attempt to control the intake
and possession of drugs are not sustainable, enforceable or legitimate.

The alcohol prohibition efforts of the early 20th century failed for the
same reasons that the attempt to globally prohibit drugs has been entirely
unsuccessful. People will not respond to state mandates about what they can
or cannot put into their bodies, especially when these mandates assume the
universality of a given moral code. According to the United Nations
International Drug Control Program, the international drug trade generates
as much as $400 billion annually, reflecting 8 percent of all international
trade. Clearly, people are still using drugs.

Instead of criminalizing and imprisoning drug users, we need to focus our
resources and energy on minimizing the harms of drug use through education
and treatment programs. The dangers of drug addiction cannot be overlooked,
and real information about these dangers -- not the scare tactics of recent
anti-marijuana commercials -- needs to be available to citizens of all ages.

The War on Drugs poses far more of a threat to the safety and well-being of
the American populace than the terrors of "reefer madness" ever did. Our
drug-war policies have resulted in the propagation of innumerable social
crises: the spread of infectious diseases (through needle sharing), the
disenfranchisement of nearly 2 million people criminalized for drug use or
trafficking, racially disproportionate incarceration rates, unlawful civil
asset forfeitures and exorbitant budget deficits.

To date, federal and state spending on the drug war amounts to $8.5
billion, a large portion of which is allocated to the incarceration of over
1.5 million people every year. In 2002, Drug Enforcement Administration
agents armed with automatic weapons raided a Santa Cruz, Calif., hospice
because it grew and distributed marijuana to its patients. When a
paraplegic patient suffering from post-polio syndrome could not comply with
officers' demands to stand up, she was handcuffed in bed. Is the arrest of
an invalid, or the greater numbers of arrests and incarcerations of drug
users and traffickers appropriate uses of our tax dollars? I certainly hope not.