"Taboo No More?" by Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union from the Fall/Winter 1989 issue of "Civil Liberties" newsletter reproduced without permission ------------------------- At long last, judging from recent comments by public figures and editorials in the mass media, Americans seem willing to at least begin thinking about what was previously unthinkable: ending criminal prohibitions against the use of drugs. Our nation's compulsive pursuit of the unattainable goal of a drug-free society has been wedded to a policy of prohibition, aimed at eliminating the use of certain drugs. Sadly, we would be much better off today if we had pursued policies aimed at controlling, rather than eliminating, drug use and reducing its harmful consequences. Today, consequences of "the drug problem" include the spread of AIDS, high homicide rates, property crimes, the proliferation of criminal cartels, corruption of public officials, paralysis of our criminal justice system, and the steady erosion of our civil liberties. Ironically, almost all of these ills are enhanced by prohibition. For example, our commitment to prohibition has prevented us from establishing programs to combat the spread of AIDS by putting clean needles in the hands of intravenous drug users. Foreign observers who have described this obstinacy as genocidal are not far wrong. The steady erosion of civil liberties is another ominous offshoot of prohibition. Opinion polls show that large numbers of Americans, in the grip of anti-drug hysteria generated by the gobernment, are ready to permit warrantless searches of their apartments, inform on family members, ban films that depict drug use, and allow the military to police their neighborhoods. We've been led to believe that such measures are required to keep drugs, especially crack (a smokable form of cocaine) from destroying our society. But in fact, the vaunted "war on drugs" targets marijuana users primarily. Federal statistics show that in the last few years, about 750,000 arrests have been made annually for drug law violations. About three-quarters of these arrests are not for producing or selling drugs, but for possession of an illicit substance, usually marijuana. After declaring a stepped-up "war on drugs" a few months ago, for example, the federal government last October launched simultaneous raids in 46 states on GARDEN SUPPLY STORES, seeking customer lists so they could apprehend people who might be growing marijuana indoors! In the 1950's, it was dangerous to join a political organization for fear the FBI would get your name and harass you. Today, tomato growers are in danger. The traditional accompaniment to such official zeal has been the media blitz, starring the image of a devil drug. The culprit substance is always said to be so dangerous that even a single dose of it will entrap a normal person into lifelong addiction and turn law-abiding citizens into violent monsters. At different times in our history, we have been bombarded by frightful images of "demon rum," "reefer madness," and the "heroin dope fiend." All of these exaggerations turned out to be scientifically false, but they were useful propaganda for manipulating a fearful public into accepting prohibition. Today, it is happening again. The violence attending the use of cocaine is caused, we're told, by the chemical effects of the drug itself. But a recent study of drug-related homicides in New York showed that 87 percent of those involving cocaine were caused, not by people under the influence, but by territorial disputes, deals or debt collections gone awry, and other vagaries of the criminalized drug trafficking system. Only 7.5 percent of the homicides were related to the behavioral effects of a drug, and two-thirds of those involved alcohol, not cocaine. We tolerate endless violence induced by alcohol - 54 percent of violent crime offenders in the U.S. are under the influence of alcohol at the time they committed the crimes - without being told that alcohol prohibition must be restored. Relatively few people use crack - only one-half of one percent of the population during the past year, according to federal statistics. Yet we're constantly told that crack-induced violence can be stamped out by a policy that appears to create more violence than it stamps out. We are also told by some that cocaine use would increase significantly if prohibition were ended, a claim for which there is no scientific evidence. In the inner city, prohibition notwithstanding, crack is accessible and cheap. So anyone likely to use it is already using it, undeterred by the law. While decriminilization is not likely to affect crack use much, it might well alleviate the deadly fallout - including the sky-high rates of homicide and imprisonment. The fear that ending prohibition would substantially increase the spread of drug addiction is also contradicted by the example of the Netherlands, where marijuana use actually went down after legalization, and where the percentage of the population using marijuana is no higher than in the United States. Nothing is certain, of course, and more research is needed. But studies of cocaine users in the Netherlands, as well as in Australia, indicate that the barrier created by prohibition is relatively small and the market relatively inelastic. Studies here and in other countries also mock the instant-drug-enslavement propaganda, revealing that controlled use of cocaine is possible and that no more than 20 percent of users carried their habits to the point where adverse effects occurred - and most of those users cut their indulgence back to lower levels. Norman Zinberg's research in this country established that addiction or compulsive use of any drug, including alcohol, is a function of three variables: the chemical effect of the drug, the state of mind of the user, and the conditions under which the drug is used. Heroin used as a painkiller in the hospital, for example, will often not have the same addictive effect as heroin used by a street hustler in a criminalized setting. This is important for projecting the likely effect, on the general population, of ending prohibition. Generalizing about the effects of cocaine and crack by looking only at pathological users is like trying to infer the effects of alcohol on guests at a cocktail party from the behavior of skid row alcoholics. Again, more research is needed, but that need is being obscured by a din of nonsense about devil drugs and their capacity to enslave us. The impossible dream of a drug-free nation must be challenged. Abstinence makes as little sense in the drug context as it does in the fight against AIDS. It's time to cool out the hysteria and talk rationally about controlling the use of drugs through practical policies that become us, rather than disgrace us, as a nation. X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X Another file downloaded from: NIRVANAnet(tm) & the Temple of the Screaming Electron Jeff Hunter 510-935-5845 Rat Head Ratsnatcher 510-524-3649 Burn This Flag Zardoz 408-363-9766 realitycheck Poindexter Fortran 415-567-7043 Lies Unlimited Mick Freen 415-583-4102 Specializing in conversations, obscure information, high explosives, arcane knowledge, political extremism, diversive sexuality, insane speculation, and wild rumours. ALL-TEXT BBS SYSTEMS. Full access for first-time callers. We don't want to know who you are, where you live, or what your phone number is. We are not Big Brother. "Raw Data for Raw Nerves" X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X .