The Drug War is the Health of the State
In
1918, Randolph Bourne wrote an essay which came to be called War is the Health of the State. In it, he argued that the
characteristics which define a state come to full flower only during military campaigns. War encourages nationalism, obedience,
coercion, intolerance, and violence. The ÒfirstÓ world war, which prompted Bourne to write
this piece, not only produced mass slaughter, but cranked up patriotism and
repression in the united states and the other ÒhomelandsÓ with the result that
anyone who spoke out against the killing was considered a traitor worthy only
of contempt, and dissidents were arrested, beaten, killed, and imprisoned.
The
word war has come to be used more loosely and metaphorically since BourneÕs
day. There was the war on poverty
and the war on cancer, neither of which were military operations, but both of
which resulted in a surrender by the government. And then there is the ongoing war on drugs. This war shares some of the characteristics
of the latter two in that the campaign involves government funding of research
and education programs to counteract what it sees as a social problem. But it has come to resemble more and
more a traditional war both in its strategy of aggressively and violently enforcing
anti-drug laws domestically and its increasing use of military and political
intervention in the affairs of other countries. While this war is, technically, not a military campaign, it is
used to justify warlike government action both at home and abroad.
The
Myth of Dangerous Drugs
The
drug warriors believe that any use of recreational drugs that are not approved
of by the government and polite society is a problem. In fact, it is considered not only a
social problem, but a medical problem as well. The authorities would have us believe not only that regular users
of cocaine, heroin, and even cannabis, are suffering from a disease called
addiction, which, of course, requires expert medical treatment, but that any
use of these drugs is harmful. Any
bogus study which claims to prove that marijuana or coke are dangerous in
heretofore unknown ways merits immediate coverage in the newspaper and on
television. It can be the most
patent nonsense, whether it is that smoking cocaine or methamphetamine is
immediately addicting, that cannabis causes brain damage, or that snorting coke
spreads hepatitis C. If something
bad can be said about illegal drugs it will be.
In addition
to exaggerating the adverse physical effects of illicit drugs, the experts have
sold most people a bill of goods in the form of the addiction hypothesis. The theory goes that habitual users of cocaine
methamphetamine, opium, etc, continue to use these drugs despite the financial,
physical, and social effects their intemperate use can lead to, because they
have a medical condition which compels them to continue getting high. This is nonsense. Using drugs, like any other habit, is
ultimately a voluntary act over which the individual has control. For whatever reasons, some people find
it easier to give up habits which serve them poorly, whether smoking meth or
biting oneÕs fingernails, more easily than others. But just because some find it more difficult or distressing
to change their behavior than do others, this does not mean they are ill. They have simply chosen unwisely, as many
other people do in any of a number of areas of their lives.
Even the medical and legal powers-that-be
who promote such misconceptions about drug users donÕt really believe this crap,
however. If they did, their approach
would be different. In the case of
real diseases, when people do not take recommended treatments or they continue
to do things that make them sicker, they do not run the risk of ending up in
jail for doing so. But when an
addict is caught buying or using drugs they can be arrested and thrown in
prison. Hardly a therapeutic intervention.
This punitive
approach on the part of the state has also spread into private employment
settings. People are routinely
asked to piss in a cup for drug-testing before being hired, and can be tested
at random in some occupations.
Having a dirty urine, even if there is no problem with oneÕs work and no
evidence that the person is under the influence of drugs during working hours
can mean being fired, and in state-licensed occupations, being blackballed from
working in oneÕs specialty unless one undergoes the torment of ÒrehabilitationÓ
and constant surveillance.
Caution:
Use of Police Powers Can Be Habit-forming
While the pseudo-medical
approach to drug users has the flavor of social work about it, the warrior
mentality comes out unadorned in the a governmentÕs methods of dealing with
those who provide the drugs. Punitive
as the cops and courts can be in their approach to drug consumers, they reserve
their special wrath for those who grow, sell, transport, or otherwise are involved
in the supply end of the drugs trade. Most of those arrested for possession or use do not actually
end up serving time in prison anymore, but thousands of people are arrested and
do serious jail time simply for growing or selling a product others want to buy. Someone growing cannabis plants on federal
land, for example can spend years in prison if caught. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws
ensure severe penalties even for non-violent activities related to the drug
trade.
The
collateral damage in this war extends beyond drug users and their dealers. The war on drugs has led police
departments to become more like the military with SWAT teams and snipers and
armored vehicles. Squads of goons dressed
in black lay siege to apartment houses, batter down doors, and terrorize
uninvolved neighbors, who are forced out of their homes and onto the streets
and sidewalks while the cops wreck their buildings in order to ÒprotectÓ them
by rooting out the evil drug sellers.
And if, as often happens, the cops have wrong information from their
paid informants, people who have no ties to drugs at all can be beaten,
arrested, and even killed, before the police will admit they have made a
mistake.
Besides allowing
cops the excuse act like the bullies they are trained and desire to be, laws
designed to fight drugs also encourage cops to go after people with minimal
evidence. Forfeiture laws allow
police to take possession of personal property that they contend was acquired
with drug money, even in cases where the evidence is minimal. Simply having large amounts of cash on
your person or in your home is presumptive of guilt to these thugs, and they
are more than happy to relieve you of it. Even if the cases never go to trial, and they often donÕt, it
is almost impossible for people affected by these laws to regain the cash,
homes, and/or vehicles stolen from them in the name of the drug war.
The
Real Drug Wars
However
violent and repressive the domestic drug campaign against drugs is, the toll on
peaceful people in the united states pales in comparison to that taken on those
in other countries to which the american government has exported its anti-drug
policy. The american military killed
hundreds in panama when it invaded that country to capture Noriega. American money and arms have fed the
war of terror by the colombian military against farmers who grow coca
there. And thousands have been
killed in the area of mexico near the border with the united states, where american
drug enforcement administration agents and mexican police are at virtual open
war with drug traders.
Now
that the war of terror is losing support among americans, the government is using
the cultivation of opium poppies in part of afghanistan as a justification for its
continued attacks against the people who live in that country. But even when there is no real evidence
of any drug-related activity going on in some country whose rulers they dislike,
the politicians will invoke the drug war as an excuse for their belligerence. If they canÕt find other means to generate
support for their destructive campaigns against other countries, american
officials are not above making up charges of drug-trading to justify hostile propaganda
and embargoes, as they have in the case of Cuba.
All
of this murder and mayhem is bad enough, but the hypocrisy of american foreign
policy related to drugs is almost incredible. During the war against the people who live in indochina,
united states agents worked with heroin traders in the golden triangle. They supported Noriega for many years,
during which time he was engaged in the activities for which the americans
arrested and jailed him. At the
time of the soviet occupation of afghanistan, american spies worked with opium
growers to raise money for the islamist resistance, which ended up producing
the taliban. And who can forget
the CIAÕs commerce in cocaine to raise money for their war against the Sandinista
government and the people living in nicaragua. The united sates government has no business preaching to
anyone, whether it is drug users or foreign governments, about the evils of
illegal drugs.
What
Prohibition Has Wrought
There
is nothing inherently wrong with using cocaine, heroin, or cannabis. Using too much too often can cause
problems, financial or physical or social, for people, but so can shopping or
eating to excess, driving too fast, or taking too much aspirin. Lying about the supposed evils of
recreational drugs and trying to prohibit their use not only does not keep
people from using them, but drives them to use them in unsafe ways. Prohibition and the illegal trade in drugs
that it creates, makes the product costly because of the risks involved and encourages
adulteration of the goods, since there can be no above-ground quality control monitoring. Illegality leads to more concentrated
products which are easier to transport secretly, so people end up smoking, snorting,
or injecting coke instead of chewing coca leaves, a safer and cheaper method of
administration. The same thing
happened when alcohol was banned in the united states: people switched from low
alcohol beverages like beer and wine to higher potency drinks like whiskey. Thus the drug war, like alcohol
prohibition, has not made life safer for users.
Because
the dangers involved in growing and selling illegal drugs lead to higher prices
than these products would otherwise command, there is a lot of money to be made
in this business. High profit margins and the lack of
other methods of resolving disputes in such an underground enterprise lead to violent
interactions between competing traders, as well as between the traders and the
legal authorities, again as was the case during alcohol prohibition. So teenagers shoot each other on the streets
of the united states, gang members kill cops in mexico, and american bombers
murder farmers in afghanistan. And
all to keep individuals from ingesting or injecting something they like into their
own bodies.
The
drug war has led to more violent policing, high rates of incarceration of non-violent
law-breakers, the death of people uninvolved in drug use or commerce, and
increased snooping into peopleÕs personal lives by government and businesses in
the united states. It has led to
butchery by the armies of nasty little police states in latin america. It has served as an excuse for american
military operations against people in other countries and propaganda campaigns
against governments of which american officials disapprove.
The drug
war, like other wars, may be the health of the state, but it has brought only
misery to millions of regular people. Government action created the modern drugs problem, and the
continuing war on drugs only makes it worse. Although the politicians eventually wised up and ended
alcohol prohibition, this was largely because most americans were opposed to it
and were fed up with the violence it produced. Unfortunately, most people today believe the lies spread by
the government and its experts about other recreational drugs, although they
are hardly different from the stories made up to justify banning alcohol. Until people wake up and reject the demonization
of currently illegal drugs and the myth of addiction, this bloody war on drugs will
continue to wreak havoc around the world.