"drug wars"

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a trimmed down and polished version of a long post I sent to
Adam and Trygve Joda, in response to a post from Trygve, following
Adam's initial raising of the issue on this list.  I hope it may also
be of some interest/relevance to some members of this list, as there
was a brief thread about it at the time, about 2 weeks ago.
__________________

Trygve: I have seen this myself; a guy in my class at school last
year  ended up on amphetamin after extended use of cannabis.
Narcotics, drugs, RUIN PEOPLE'S  LIVES! Don't you realise that?

LR:  There is no way that one can begin to sensibly, socially analyze
this issue if one cannot get past the pure outrage that one has been
taught to focus upon _drugs and drug use per se_.  It's a lot bigger
picture than that.  Of course I care about "PEOPLE'S LIVES", my point
is that the "war on drugs"  ruins lives!  You seem to think that just
blaming "drugs" per se and then supporting _criminalization_ actually
makes sense, but you neglect the actual outcome of "anti-drug" law
enforcement.

Here are some topics that one should consider, IMO, in order to
continue discussion:

1.  Why should drug use be legally punished worse than violent crimes
against non-consenting others?  [Why do people convicted of raping
children spend less time in jail than some drug users?]

2.  Why is crack punished far more severely than coke, at least in
US?  [Hint: there is a difference in the incomes and other socially
demonized characteristics of many crack users compared to powder coke
users, but it is chemically the same thing, in easily interchangeable
forms.]

3.  Was the US mafia created by drugs/alcohol or created by
prohibition and the resultant black market/ profits?

4.  Did alcohol prohibition actually make any difference in alcohol
consumption by the population?  [How many people were killed by
contaminated black market booze?  Who benefitted from prohibition?]

5.  Who is getting the multi-billion dollar profits from black market
drugs right now?  Same question: who would lose income as a result of
decriminalization?  Don't leave out the politicians, prosecutors,
attorneys and boss cops all expanding their little empires.  [Who,
what class, does your position support?]

6.  What are the actual/class effects of the "war on drugs," which is
being used as an excuse for the biggest growth in police powers that
we have seen in decades, and an excuse for reduced defendants'
rights?  and police confiscation of property?  [Again, who is
supported by your position?]

Now, about those stats you mention, this is a totally useless and
unconvincing point in three different ways:
1.  I'm sure you made up the number 999/1000 for "hard drug addicts"
that "started with pot", but it doesn't really matter.
2.  If correlation were worth spit, you would at least have to
explain the fact that 999/1000 weed smokers do _not_ become addicted
to some "harder" drug.
3.  Correlation does not equal causation.  [Guaranteed, 100% of all
heroin addicts did previously drink milk.]

It is common to say that drug use is related to other drug use.  But
do you wonder why anybody uses any drugs to begin with?  If you fill
in this part of the picture, no matter what your answer is, you may
still have to admit that it is not going away just because it is
banned.  So sorry.  Besides, banning them does little or nothing to
the supply.

This is a very challenging argument that all advocates of the "war on
drugs" must face: the criminalization of drugs simply does not
prevent or repair the harms of drug abuse.  It only adds more harms.

The story of your friend is very sad.  I can weep for his pain, and
your own as his friend, I'm as soft-hearted as anybody.  But shall I
also advocate that he should be jailed?  To add fines, imprisonment,
confiscation, loss of rights, a criminal record and a big expenditure
of public monies, more cops and prisons _on top_ of the addiction?
How will that help anyone?  Or rather, _who_ will that help?  Surely
not the addict! nor the rest of us workers.

Tell me no sad stories of addiction, for I have seen it myself, I
know how bad it is for any addicts and those around them.  But let me
weep a little more for those that want help but are put on a 6-month
waiting list before they can get any treatment, unless they are rich
enough to go directly to a fancy clinic.

Tell me no sad stories, for it makes me think of the woman shot and
killed in her bed by cops who charged into the dark room in full
battle gear, because they were looking for someone else, someone
wanted for _drugs_.  I'll recall the old couple with a little farm
that was confiscated because their son was growing a weed patch
behind the cornfield, because that is the law that is allegedly
designed to protect us all from _drugs_ [but who shall protect us
from cops and laws?]  Or the people with terminal illnesses dying in
unnecessary agony because anti-drug insanity argues that "they might
get addicted" to _drugs_, like my own precious granny.  It would only
have been a humane kindness to ease her last few weeks; if she were a
dog, somebody would file charges of cruelty!

So, tell me no stories of the evils caused by drugs, until you
include the suffering and injustice caused by the _criminalization_
of drugs.  You should be advocating the reallocation of resources to
reasonable education and treatment, instead of supporting a police
state.  Or, how about changing the circumstances, opportunities and
therefore hopes of people, so that there is less pain and desperation
for drugs to numb...

I suggest you'll be better able to engage in this conversation, if
you will please do a few things differently in future:

1.  Get more informed.
2.  Don't rely on emotional appeals alone to back your position.
3.  Don't imply that those who advocate decrim. or otherwise disagree
with _your_ solution just don't know or care about "people's lives".
3.  Please take a seriously class-based look at the issues, such as
the actual effects of the "war on drugs".
4.  Get on with an analysis of _all_ the social costs and benefits of
any position that you may consider supporting.
5.  Please consider responding to other points I have raised.

After that, if you still think that criminalization/prohibition is
the best way to deal with drugs that we should all work for and
advocate, I will be surprised.  If you decide that I've got some
really good points, but it is too controversial for you or a group to
admit or advocate decrim. in public at this time, that is a tactical
decision.  If you do not seriously study and consider these real
issues I have brought up, I'll call you lazy as hell, and a
dilettante as well.

 Hoping for a reply.
                        In solidarity,
                                        Trygve

You got it.  Hope you find it ... stimulating.

Best wishes,
Lisa




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------