Pubdate: Thu, 27 Jul 2006
Source: Cavalier Daily (U of VA Edu)
Copyright: 2006 The Cavalier Daily, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.cavalierdaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/550
Author: Dan Keyserling, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

A CEASEFIRE FOR THE "WAR ON DRUGS"

WE WERE somewhere around the 1970s on the edge of the Acid Wave when 
the drug war began to take hold. The politically typical thing to say 
today is that the so-styled "War on Drugs" is without foreseeable 
victory -- and how unfortunate, really. Almost without exception, 
however, America regards its beloved war as one worth fighting. And 
it is, to an extent. But the tactics need some adjustment to 
accomplish anything beyond the current, hopeless stalemate. The most 
crucial step to changing America's atrociously flawed drug policy is 
to reevaluate our rules of engagement, so to speak. If we don't, we 
continue along a path to nowhere, entrenched in a war with endless 
enemies and no peace in sight.

If you reread my first paragraph, you will hopefully notice the 
absurd way martial analogies pervade even casual discourse. We are 
fighting a war. Drugs are the enemy. Enemies must be killed, etc. The 
militant analogies swell further when politicians rant about "an 
all-out offensive" against "public enemy number one," as Nixon did 
during the dope-sodden 1970s. Such unthinking saber rattling 
strangulates thoughtful debate, it removes the tactics from rational 
discussion (we are at war, mind you), and it brands anyone with a 
different opinion a dissenter and, therefore, a traitor

As my horrific first paragraph no doubt suggests, the limited lexicon 
from which we draw our descriptions of American's drug problem 
cripples our ability to deal with it. The height of ignorance and 
inarticulacy, of course, being American policy regarding marijuana.

American media and politicians hone tactics to excuse illogical, 
senseless, even blatantly racist public policy -- you've all seen it 
- -- they eagerly "declare war." By issuing haughty proclamations, 
politicians submerge the issue in a climate of fear and images of 
struggle, and they adjust their accountability accordingly.

When drug addiction becomes worthy of (often unjust) imprisonment 
rather than treatment, the consequences are lumped under the 
disgraceful terms, "collateral damage," or a "casualty in the war on 
drugs." In other words, the terminology regarding the drug war has 
outlived its usefulness. We need new vocabularies, and thus new policies.

There is no longer (nor was there ever) the need for certain statutes 
- -- mainly the intense prosecution for marijuana violations -- that 
originated during the time when "Reefer Madness," a propaganda film 
portraying marijuana as the impetus for rape, murder, domestic 
violence, and schizophrenia, was considered insightful medical commentary.

As it happens, the city of Denver recently legalized possession of 
modest amounts (under one ounce) of marijuana. And they have done so, 
shockingly enough, without a scourge of dope-crazed rapists and 
killers. Perhaps they dodged a bullet there, but I think the Denver 
example is evidence that drugs aren't all equally detrimental to 
society, and therefore they do not all deserve to bear the same 
consequences (or cultural taboo, for that matter).

Specific, less dangerous drugs like marijuana ought to be considered 
similarly to less stigmatized substances -- cigarettes and alcohol, 
for example. Though even that exaggerates its dangers.

This column is far too brief to discuss the minutia of marijuana 
legislation, but allow me to clarify this point with some statistics. 
According to the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency, 
more than 100,000 Americans die each year as a result of alcohol 
consumption. Additionally, in the United States, there are an average 
of nearly 360,000 tobacco-related deaths annually. These are 
astonishingly high numbers for two substances that are legal, albeit 
well regulated.

Compare those casualty rates with those of marijuana. Statistics on 
the matter of marijuana-related deaths range from zero to around a 
dozen or so, but nearly every reputable source is loath to attribute 
any deaths to the supposedly madness-inducing weed. Alcohol and 
tobacco kill more people annually than atomic weaponry ever has. 
Judging strictly by the numbers, we always seem to miss the real 
weapons of mass destruction.

During war, as President Bush parrots frequently, one is either "with 
us" or "against us." Obviously, anyone who challenges American 
lawmakers or their war making knows precisely to which side he or she 
belongs. Hence, war analogies. It makes disagreement treasonous and 
skepticism seditious. An effective strategy, you must admit.

It seems a bit curious that while marijuana is outright banned, 
alcohol and tobacco dwell comfortably on nearly every college campus. 
Which is okay, even great. But our standards for regulation ought to 
have some ringing of justice and fairness. Other states will be well 
served to move, however gradually, toward the progressive example of 
decriminalizing legislation set by Denver. By finally matching 
punishment with the gravity of the crime, we might finally be able to 
declare victory in a war against a more fearsome foe, stupid wars.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman