TALK IS CHEAP, PERHAPS WE SHOULD GIVE IT A SHOT

Presidential politics.  War.  Terror.  Oil and energy.  Economics and environment.  In the world today, there are so many uncertainties and so many threats to our country and way of life that one might wonder why Drug War politics should be an issue at all.  And to the average American, it might make sense that our current situation mandates a steadfast vigilance against drugs, drug pushers, and drug users.  For of course, these things are a scourge to society according to the inundation of anti-drug propaganda America has seen throughout the past couple years.  For example, drugs fund terrorism.  This is another heavy revelation when taken in addition to the already 'well-known' fact that drugs are a major factor in inner-city crime, and a huge burden to the American tax-payer, who of course must foot the bill for the addicts' jail time ( and to a lesser extent, their rehabilitation ).

However, the strangest thing about being an opponent to drug prohibition is that one cannot deny these claims.  It is true that drug profits help fund terrorism.  However, it is also true that the immediate markup in price from prohibiting the substance is what makes them profitable for groups seeking to maximize moneymaking ability in a short period of time.  The international drug trade is worth approximately 400 BILLION dollars annually, every cent of which is tax free and untraceable.  It is not the drugs that are to be directly implicated in terrorism and violent crime, it is the drug trade.

It is the black market price markup that pushes thousands of individuals living in poverty to turn to drug sales to try to make ends meet.  And in communities of the disenfranchised, it is that same poverty ( and the wish to escape from ) that furnishes the demand for such drug sales.  It is that black market price markup that gives incentive for powerful governments, such as the United States, to utilize drug profits to help fund campaigns of coercion in foreign lands ( i.e.  Nicaragua, et al ) that would not be approved for the receipt of tax money.

Furthermore, modern prohibition has the effect of separating science from its means.  Why should humanity be forbidden to investigate the ecological benefits that increased use of hemp products would facilitate? Why should psychiatrists and neurologists be unable to freely investigate the modus operandi of substances such as LSD, which carries with it the unique weight of being an unofficial catalyst for the massive change in thinking during the 1960's.

Why should science and civilians be held to the whim of rich industrialists who wish to maintain monopolies on goods that can be recreated through other means, or companies who profit from of the use of mercenary armies in third-world nations known for being drug suppliers? Why should we fall victim to a forked-tongue politician who pushes strong prohibition as a means of getting elected?

And more importantly, when are we going to realize that the real evil is not drug use, but our own misunderstanding of what drugs really mean and how they relate to both societal and individual development throughout history.  Perhaps blanket legalization is not the answer, for that would be just as fool-hearty as blanket prohibition.  But, the true solution will never be found until we begin to embrace rational discussion in this time of high need.

Mark Verhoff

President, SSDP