Get Your War On...
Last week, USA Today ran a piece on the increasing sophistication and boldness of the drug cartels in Mexico. According to the story, the drug cartels have amassed an arsenal of military weapons, have vast numbers of public officials on the payroll and do not hesitate to flex their muscle. Along with the story, there was an interactive feature that allowed readers to comment. I would say about half the posts suggested that we need to get "tougher" on drug sellers and users. Some even called for the military to become involved. (Folks wanted the military to become involved in Katrina relief too. It seems that engaging the armed services is our answer to everything now.)
It is difficult to imagine that anyone could read the USA Today story (carefully written in seventh grade English with nice short paragraphs) and come away with the conclusion that we just need to ratchet up the War on Drugs. Since president Nixon declared war ion 1972, our outlays of money to combat drug use have expanded exponentially, now topping $40 billion a year. Our jails are packed to the ceilings thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, we have catered to many a warlord in Afghanistan and Latin America in order to secure their help in shutting down the drug trade, and our Fourth Amendment protections have been consistently scaled back as evidenced by the demise of the "knock and announce" rule. The result? Drug lords are now more powerful than ever. Drugs are stronger and more readily available and while surveys show that our interest in particular drugs waxes and wanes, we are far from being a narcotic free society. Yet, all we hear in the public square is the cry for more enforcement, harsher sentences, more para military tactics and more money.
The reason for the one sided debate is not hard to discern. Saying "more of the same" is easy. No one likes drug lords, or drug pushers, we all will admit that even the recreational use of drugs is a vice that carries certain risks and we all admit that drug use by folks prone to addiction can be devastating if not deadly. No one is really going to stand up for drug use. The trouble is, Piety Road has gotten us nowhere. We have not made any significant progress in wiping out drug use, we have not made drugs less available, and we have paid a tremendous price in dollars, liberty, and our stature abroad for our efforts. If you were running a business and you saw this mix of investment and results, I suspect heads would roll and some plans would change.
Americans will never really agree on drug use. Some see it as a scourge, a sin, a sign of weak character. Others see it as a harmless social vice, a matter of personal choice, and perhaps even some sort of acceptable cognitive enhancement. We all have our vision of the good life and we are just never going to sing from the same hymnal on this issue. But there are some things I believe we can agree on.
First, we have to agree that Americans like to take the edge off, get high, catch a buzz, get a good nights sleep, or what have you. Whether it is Tennessee Whiskey, British Columbian pot, Ambien, or the valium our doctor so helpfully prescribed, Americans like their narcotics. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that our particular brand of late capitalism breeds a whole lot of anxiety, alienation and despair. It also breeds an appetite for constant enhancement of any experience. Like sex? Try it with Viagara ...or Ecstasy. Like the symphony? Listen to it stoned. Enjoy a quiet day in your back yard? Take a valium and you will forget the office, the kids, and your aunt Gracie in the nursing home. A good meal? Everything is better with the right wine or the perfect scotch. Your workout? We have a whole host of things that will make you lift more, run longer, and play harder. Trouble sleeping... millions of Americans have found the answer in a pill bottle .. after seeing a prime time commercial featuring oh so well rested actors. Let's face it, chemicals make the jokes funnier, the colors richer, our friends more charismatic. our thoughts more lucid, and our lives so much more enjoyable. Americans have no real qualm with enhancing their quality of life chemically. We would not have a "Drug War" if there was not an insatiable appetite for narcotics in this country and no one would be interested in getting into a mean and dangerous business if there was not serious change involved. Lastly, Big Pharma would not have the sales numbers it enjoys if we Americans did not relish the fact that many pharmaceuticals serve no other purpose than to make life more liveable. Demand is driving supply. Live with it.
Second, I suspect we can all agree that government does not do a very good job of protecting people from themselves. Prohibition is the usual example of this but there are others. The bottom line seems to be that no matter how much you spend and no matter how much of a moral sanction you attach to certain conduct, people tend to follow their own desires and ethics. You may change some behavior, but not a lot and not for a very long time. This is particularly true with the War On Drugs because, wittingly or unwittingly, often the public messages of our drug warriors do not square with scientific facts and often do not even square with everyday experience. Thus, we tend to undermine our own best p.r. efforts.
Third, and I know we can all agree on this, even though we may not be able to stop people from taking drugs, we can certainly mitigate the societal cost of drug use. We can certainly maintain that it is a crime to sell drugs to minors whose brain chemistry and judgment is still maturing. As with alcohol, we can make it a crime to engage in any number of activities while under the influence: driving, hunting, flying a plane.
One would like to think that substantial agreement on these issues would outweigh the moral divide over the use of drugs. Unfortunately, prohibitionists have a powerful jones which they are unable to shake -- the bogus image of a pure America free of vice and largely free of the social conditions that nurture it. That's probably one addiction we should outlaw.
It is difficult to imagine that anyone could read the USA Today story (carefully written in seventh grade English with nice short paragraphs) and come away with the conclusion that we just need to ratchet up the War on Drugs. Since president Nixon declared war ion 1972, our outlays of money to combat drug use have expanded exponentially, now topping $40 billion a year. Our jails are packed to the ceilings thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, we have catered to many a warlord in Afghanistan and Latin America in order to secure their help in shutting down the drug trade, and our Fourth Amendment protections have been consistently scaled back as evidenced by the demise of the "knock and announce" rule. The result? Drug lords are now more powerful than ever. Drugs are stronger and more readily available and while surveys show that our interest in particular drugs waxes and wanes, we are far from being a narcotic free society. Yet, all we hear in the public square is the cry for more enforcement, harsher sentences, more para military tactics and more money.
The reason for the one sided debate is not hard to discern. Saying "more of the same" is easy. No one likes drug lords, or drug pushers, we all will admit that even the recreational use of drugs is a vice that carries certain risks and we all admit that drug use by folks prone to addiction can be devastating if not deadly. No one is really going to stand up for drug use. The trouble is, Piety Road has gotten us nowhere. We have not made any significant progress in wiping out drug use, we have not made drugs less available, and we have paid a tremendous price in dollars, liberty, and our stature abroad for our efforts. If you were running a business and you saw this mix of investment and results, I suspect heads would roll and some plans would change.
Americans will never really agree on drug use. Some see it as a scourge, a sin, a sign of weak character. Others see it as a harmless social vice, a matter of personal choice, and perhaps even some sort of acceptable cognitive enhancement. We all have our vision of the good life and we are just never going to sing from the same hymnal on this issue. But there are some things I believe we can agree on.
First, we have to agree that Americans like to take the edge off, get high, catch a buzz, get a good nights sleep, or what have you. Whether it is Tennessee Whiskey, British Columbian pot, Ambien, or the valium our doctor so helpfully prescribed, Americans like their narcotics. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which is that our particular brand of late capitalism breeds a whole lot of anxiety, alienation and despair. It also breeds an appetite for constant enhancement of any experience. Like sex? Try it with Viagara ...or Ecstasy. Like the symphony? Listen to it stoned. Enjoy a quiet day in your back yard? Take a valium and you will forget the office, the kids, and your aunt Gracie in the nursing home. A good meal? Everything is better with the right wine or the perfect scotch. Your workout? We have a whole host of things that will make you lift more, run longer, and play harder. Trouble sleeping... millions of Americans have found the answer in a pill bottle .. after seeing a prime time commercial featuring oh so well rested actors. Let's face it, chemicals make the jokes funnier, the colors richer, our friends more charismatic. our thoughts more lucid, and our lives so much more enjoyable. Americans have no real qualm with enhancing their quality of life chemically. We would not have a "Drug War" if there was not an insatiable appetite for narcotics in this country and no one would be interested in getting into a mean and dangerous business if there was not serious change involved. Lastly, Big Pharma would not have the sales numbers it enjoys if we Americans did not relish the fact that many pharmaceuticals serve no other purpose than to make life more liveable. Demand is driving supply. Live with it.
Second, I suspect we can all agree that government does not do a very good job of protecting people from themselves. Prohibition is the usual example of this but there are others. The bottom line seems to be that no matter how much you spend and no matter how much of a moral sanction you attach to certain conduct, people tend to follow their own desires and ethics. You may change some behavior, but not a lot and not for a very long time. This is particularly true with the War On Drugs because, wittingly or unwittingly, often the public messages of our drug warriors do not square with scientific facts and often do not even square with everyday experience. Thus, we tend to undermine our own best p.r. efforts.
Third, and I know we can all agree on this, even though we may not be able to stop people from taking drugs, we can certainly mitigate the societal cost of drug use. We can certainly maintain that it is a crime to sell drugs to minors whose brain chemistry and judgment is still maturing. As with alcohol, we can make it a crime to engage in any number of activities while under the influence: driving, hunting, flying a plane.
One would like to think that substantial agreement on these issues would outweigh the moral divide over the use of drugs. Unfortunately, prohibitionists have a powerful jones which they are unable to shake -- the bogus image of a pure America free of vice and largely free of the social conditions that nurture it. That's probably one addiction we should outlaw.
posted by Jack Reed at 12:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home