Across the western world and beyond, laws for 'consenting adults in
private' mean that prostitution, homosexuality and even suicide are no
longer criminalised. The sole exception to this rule is the taking of
recreational drugs. It is a prohibition maintained by
'The War on Drugs' - a war that not only fails
in its objectives, but which has unleashed an avalanche of criminality on
the world. Writer, commentator and former drug smuggler Howard
Marks gives his view.
Recreational drugs (substances consumed for purposes other than medical
treatment or sustenance) can change one's feelings, thoughts, perceptions
and behaviour: they can change one's state of mind.
One's state of mind may be changed physically (hang-gliding or fasting),
spiritually (talking to witch doctors or undergoing purification rituals)
or psychologically (being hypnotised or psychoanalysed).
Generally, the activity of changing states of minds is permitted, if not
approved and encouraged, by the powers that be.
One hundred years ago, any respectable person could walk into a chemist
in Britain and choose from a range of cannabis tinctures, hashish pastes,
cocaine lozenges and opium extracts.
He could immediately purchase morphine, heroin and a hypodermic syringe
and could place an order for mescaline. But for the past 80 years,
authority has not so approved.
Even though most people take recreational drugs (as they always have) the
possession and trade of most recreational drugs (excepting, in some
countries, alcohol and tobacco) have relatively recently been
criminalised under a strategy of prohibition often referred to as the
'War on Drugs'.
According to Rousseau's social contract, society emerges from an
agreement between the citizens and an elected subgroup, the state.
In exchange for upholding their liberties by the rule of law, the
citizens agree to empower the state by paying taxes. Insufficient law
yields anarchy (American firearms laws). Excessive law yields tyranny
(Iranian religious law).
Western jurisdictions have sought the optimum by forbidding acts harmful
to others but allowing those that are not, including any that are harmful
only to oneself.
First applied officially by von Humboldt in 1810, it is known as
'consenting adults in private' legislation.
Prostitution, homosexuality and even suicide are no longer crimes. The
only exception is the taking of recreational drugs, prevented by the very
costly 'War on Drugs'.
We are asked to consider whether the 'War on Drugs' (a phrase coined by
United States President Richard Nixon when he formed the United States
Drug Enforcement Administration in 1972) provides a protection necessary
for society's well-being.
Does it clearly reduce any harm caused by people's desire to take
recreational drugs or is it simply a means of social control, be it
benign (preventing the spread of disease, unemployment, dysfunctional and
criminal behaviour) or more sinister (ensuring that ignorant and
meddlesome outsiders such as ourselves don't interfere with the work of
the serious people who run public affairs)?
I find it impossible to accept the view that protection against the
taking of one's own life is less necessary than protection against the
consumption of recreational drugs.
If the so-called necessary protection mandated is merely misguided or
overvalued, then authority could be forgiven for its imposition. But
since the War on Drugs was implemented, drug use has risen at an
unprecedented pace.
Two- thirds of all registered voters under the age of 25 take soft drugs
and have access to harder drugs if they want them. Everyone who wants to
take drugs is already taking drugs.
This clearly means the War on Drugs is not working, even from the
prohibitionist's point of view. Apart from not achieving its aims, the
War on Drugs also makes drugs artificially expensive and spawns an
avalanche of acquisitive criminal behaviour.
The illegal drug business has become so profitable that there are violent
fights over territory in which to sell drugs. Across the Middle East,
South-East Asia, Africa and Latin America, civil war after civil war has
been funded by the only strategy available to revolutionaries and
counter-revolutionaries alike - the mass production of their traditional
drugs for sale to the absurdly lucrative global market.
The War on Drugs drives out socially controlled, relatively safe drugs
such as opium and coca, and promotes the consumption of adulterated
concentrates such as heroin and cocaine.
There are no controls in a black market, so some illegal drugs might be
mixed with dangerous substances. People dilute and adulterate illegal
drugs to make more money.
Black-market drugs are of variable strength, and can cause accidental and
fatal overdoses. Black-market drugs are often administered dangerously
because of inadequate education and resources, resulting in serious
infections such as Aids or hepatitis B.
Some recreational drugs can definitely have adverse effects on health.
The War on Drugs makes them more dangerous, and fails to reduce their
use.
The War on Drugs increases any harm that might be caused by recreational
drug use. A recreational drug cannot by virtue of its chemical nature
cause crime; it can only do so within a social context, which is the War
on Drugs and the consequent black market.
The War on Drugs is therefore a root cause of crime, violence and ill
health. The War on Drugs is not about benign social control but instead
the abrogation of such social control, leading to unregulated peddling of
adulterated substances outside the reach of the law.
It would be difficult to construct a policy more physically dangerous,
more individually criminalising or more socially destructive.
Accordingly, any social control accompanying the War on Drugs is probably
motivated by the desire to keep the populace passive, apathetic and
obedient and prevent them from interfering with privilege and power.
One of the traditional and obvious ways of controlling people in society,
whether it's a military dictatorship or a democracy, is to frighten them
so that they'll accord authority to their superiors who claim they will
protect them.
The War on Drugs creates fear of people from whom we have to protect
ourselves. It also takes care of superfluous people who don't contribute
to profit making and wealth (in the US, this tends to mean the poor and
black): they're put in prison.
The War on Drugs protects no one outside a small elite group, endangers
everyone else and is a sinister means of social control.
Howard Marks at the Orange Index
debate in Glasgow.
Comment on this article.
Links:
Howard Marks' excellent
website.
Clare Giltrow interviews Marks for
Urban75 and the website's 'bullshit-free' guide
to the drugs issue.
Thailand's child victims in the War
on Drugs.
The Cato Institute campaigns for a
change in US drug policy.
Drugsense tracks the US government as it spends over 19.2 billion dollars
- about $609 per second - on the War
on Drugs during 2003.
Salon.com's extensive coverage of the
War on Drugs.
http://www.indexonline.org/news/20030203_a2z_marks.shtml
