Читать книгу The War on Drugs - Paula Mallea - Страница 5

The War on Drugs was never about the drugs. If it were, there would be consistency and logic about which drugs are prohibited. Science and evidence would determine what gets banned. Instead, drugs have been selected for prohibition arbitrarily, and not according to which ones cause harm, or whether they cause harm at all. Decisions to ban drugs have been based upon political expediency, prejudice, and ignorance. Those affected by this unfair “war” are disproportionately the marginalized of our society. Prison sentences are the sanction of choice, even though most drug offences are victimless and non-violent.

The champions of this war have sent the users of certain substances to prison while they have simultaneously allowed organized crime bosses to reap the profits and thumb their noses at the justice system. They have allowed people to get sick and die from drug use because gangsters don’t care about the quality of their product, or the age or health of their buyers.

It is by now indisputable that the War on Drugs has failed in all of its objectives. It has not reduced the drug trade, eliminated production, or decreased the number of users. Governments have thrown billions of dollars and thousands of police and military resources at the issue, and they have also opened and expanded many prisons to deal with it, but the illegal drug trade persists and grows. More drugs than ever are available today; they are cheaper, and they are being moved around the world by means of the Internet and paid for with virtual currencies. More violence than ever is attributed to gangster turf wars over this very lucrative industry.

The War on Drugs was an invention of American politicians. It has spawned a system of criminalization that has incarcerated millions of citizens who choose to use recreational drugs other than tobacco or alcohol. In the 1960s and 1970s, drug abuse was not high on the list of concerns for Americans. They were more preoccupied with the war in Vietnam, with civil rights, and with the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. In an effort to distract voters from these serious and difficult issues, politicians chose an easy target — the demonization of drug users.

In the late 1960s, the Republican Party was desperately searching for an issue that would distinguish it from the Democrats and would appeal to the public, thus returning the Grand Old Party to the White House. Taking careful aim at the social programs and progressive philosophy of Lyndon Baines Johnson’s “Great Society,” the GOP objected to the idea that fighting crime included fighting poverty, inadequate housing, and unemployment.[1] As aspiring president Richard Nixon wrote in 1967, “The country should stop looking for the ‘root causes’ of crime and put its money instead into increasing the number of police. America’s approach to crime must be ‘swift and sure’ retribution.” That fight against crime swiftly focused on the young, rebellious Americans who used marijuana and other illegal drugs. The mantra of “sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll” was despised by those in power, who quickly used drugs as an excuse to lock up troublemakers and position the GOP as tough on crime.

Nixon thus ranks high among politicians who have adopted the reliable tactic of replacing evidence-based policy with hide-bound ideology. Having avoided talking about the real issues of the day, he won the presidency and promptly declared drug abuse “public enemy number one,” calling it a national emergency. He placed a considerable amount of funding and other resources into waging “total war” on the “slave traders of our time”; hence, the War on Drugs. Ironically, his own National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1972 recommended legalizing marijuana, but his government steadfastly pursued the War on Drugs anyway.

After Nixon resigned in disgrace, presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both made moves to climb down from the War on Drugs. The Democrat Carter even supported eliminating federal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. By 1979–1980, though, he was fighting for re-election. At the time, Americans were being held hostage in Tehran, the domestic economy was ailing, and Ronald Reagan was waiting in the wings. Political expediency ruled the day, and Carter’s administration announced a new “war on marijuana.”

This about-face was not enough to win the election for the Democrats. Within two years, Republican president Reagan announced a re-energized War on Drugs, singling out marijuana for special attention. “We’re taking down the surrender flag that has flown over so many drug efforts,” he said. “We’re running up a battle flag.”[2] The president’s wife, Nancy Reagan, urged schoolchildren to “Just Say No” to drugs, and called casual drug users “accomplice[s] to murder.” From the early 1980s onward, both Democratic and Republican governments ratcheted up the war, with an extraordinary amount of violence and countless citizens incarcerated.

Today, former president Jimmy Carter is among many who argue that this war cannot be won. In an op-ed for the New York Times, he appealed to the government to call off the global drug war.[3] He urged the government to adopt the recommendations of a new Global Commission on Drug Policy to stop incarcerating drug users who do no harm to others, and to concentrate instead on fighting violent criminal organizations. He argued convincingly that “penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself.”

Former president Bill Clinton has also admitted the failure of the War on Drugs. In a documentary film produced by Sam Branson, Breaking the Taboo, Clinton said, “Well, obviously if the expected result was that we would eliminate serious drug use in America and eliminate the narcotrafficking networks, it hasn’t worked.” President Obama has allowed that marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, and his Attorney General has taken the first steps to releasing thousands of prisoners incarcerated for drug offences. They also appear ready to allow Washington and Colorado to proceed with legal regimes for marijuana.

Admitting that the War on Drugs has failed, though, is only a first step. Recognizing the inappropriateness of lengthy incarceration for non-violent, victimless offences is not adequate to address the issue of drug prohibition. We need to consider new ways of thinking about illegal drugs: how they first became illegal and why; what health and other consequences they have for users and communities; what the impact of criminalization has been; what other solutions are being sought around the world. A War on Drugs premised upon prejudice, fear, and moralism needs to be replaced with policies that are based upon public health concerns, scientific evidence, and, not least, compassion.

This book begins with an overview of how we have arrived at this place, and then reviews the health consequences of using drugs, together with the myths surrounding their use and their potential therapeutic uses. It examines the economic costs of the War on Drugs, and the potential economic benefits of alternatives to drug prohibition. It highlights the difference between the harm caused by drugs and the harm caused by their prohibition. I will explore what other countries around the world are thinking and doing to deal with the issue of drug use and the worldwide shift that began in the dawn of the twenty-first century. Proposals for decriminalizing and legalizing drugs in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, and Latin America, are leading the way to a new approach to the problem.

The final chapters of this book examine the disconnect between Canada and virtually every other nation. I advocate for a reasoned and sensible solution to the problem of drug prohibition. At the risk of “committing sociology” — to use our prime minister’s disparaging terminology — I conclude that we must consider the root causes of drug abuse and then direct resources to those. We must also stop dealing with drug abuse through the criminal justice system and treat it as a public health problem. Prevention, treatment, and harm reduction should be priorities, and saving individual lives and helping families and communities should be paramount. Perhaps we could instead describe this as “committing decency.”

This is a book for a lay audience, so I have taken some liberties in order to make it more accessible. Instead of referring to “cannabis,” I talk about “marijuana” in all cases, even though hash and hash oil may be included in the discussion. I also refer to “addictions” and “drug addicts,” even though today the politically correct terms would be “substance dependence” and “substance abusers.”

I have also concentrated the discussion around three illegal drugs — heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Arguments about how to end the War on Drugs and find new solutions to the problems of addiction, illness, crime, and violence can be made based upon our knowledge of and experience with these three drugs. I could have gone on to examine methamphetamines, new psychoactive drugs, and prescription drug abuse, but this would only make for a longer book, not for a more comprehensive argument.

Many advocates of change appeal to our experience with the legalization of alcohol as a justification for legalizing other drugs. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that the harms caused by legal alcohol provide the best reason for never legalizing other drugs. I have not offered a detailed comparison of illegal drugs and alcohol because many others have already done so. It is enough for our purposes to assert that the two main legal drugs — alcohol and tobacco — cost society much more in dollars and suffering than all of the illegal drugs combined.[4]

One final thought. Before I began to work on this research, I had my own ideas about what might be an acceptable alternative to the War on Drugs. There are two general possibilities — decriminalization or legalization.

Decriminalization is also described by some as “prohibition lite” because it leaves prohibition intact. It generally allows adults to possess, grow, or even share a small quantity of drugs. These activities, though, remain prohibited and may attract criminal sanctions in the event of non-compliance with any imposed fines or drug treatment programs. Trafficking and production continue to be strictly banned, leaving criminal organizations in control of the drug trade, with the attendant concerns about violence and quality control.

Legalization eliminates prohibition altogether. Some advocates recommend a wide open, free market model in which there are no regulations. Most, though, envisage a government-controlled regime with regulations tailored to the particular drug. Regulations appropriate for heroin, for example, might not be sensible for marijuana, and vice versa. Legalization would generally allow adults to possess, sell, or produce drugs, but within strictly controlled and regulated regimes. This has the advantage of removing control of the drug trade from criminal organizations altogether, ensuring the drugs are not adulterated with dangerous substances or sold to children, and eliminating the violence associated with organized crime.

My own ideas about an acceptable alternative to the War on Drugs were modest. They ran along the lines of decriminalizing, not legalizing, marijuana and then working on a solution for other drugs. The evidence, though, pulled me along inexorably and I was drawn to an unexpected conclusion.

What follows is based upon the best work of the best minds in the field. The science and research are as solid as they can be when dealing with a regime that is illegal and necessarily conducted underground. If nothing else comes from this book, I hope that readers will begin to think differently about the drugs that we have chosen to label “illegal.” The future of our children may depend upon it.