Legalization? Part II

I received this reply via e-mail from a friend of mine that knows what he's talking about.

don

nice. but still i'm for legalization since i think the consequences are less damaging than the current situation. and i think people will always use drugs because urban industrial civilization creates stress.

one little note: agri business may be an ugly face of capitalism. but it is also ecologically lethal.

and one more little note: drugs are now a government business. the enormous apparatus dependent on fighting drugs and imprisoning people lobbies for the drug laws. no one cares about skeletal people roaming a park because drug use has never been examined as public health issue but simply as a crime. and it must remain  a crime in order for our law enforcement industry to have sufficient product.

My understanding from reading Narco News, and the main reason I give a damn about ending the war on drugs, is that the policies of the war on drugs are a major tool by governments to prevent people from addressing the worldwide problem of the unfair distribution of wealth.  That's certainly the case in the U.S., where a huge portion of the young men of our most clear-seeing and radical group, African-Americans, are locked up on drug laws.  In Latin America, in many places, larger and larger numbers of people know that, in order to survive, they will need to throw off the control of their economies by the rich, and that unequalled representative of the rich, the U.S. government.  Drug war policies here are a major part of repressive governments' efforts to criminalize social movements.

That's the battle here.  But if you have a more direct tactic to bring fairness to the world economy than trying to take some of the pressure of the U.S.-imposed drug war off those fighting for fairness most effectively -- the people and social movements of Latin America -- I'm on board with that, too.  Let me know.

Don Henry Ford Jr. asks "Do you think we really want to turn over the production of coca to groups like these? Because that’s what you’re talking about when you say legalization. (That’s how I see it anyway.)"
No, I wouldn't want that anymore than I want the likes of Cagrill and Archer Daniels Midland having anything to do with the global food supply.  Their impact on global health, environment and living standards is beyond deplorable.  But even if ADM were to become "The Coca Market to The World," it would still be preferable to global prohibition.  And at least without the repression, incarceration and other traumas inflicted on people through prohibition, we might have a better shot taking on the likes of Cagill and ADM.  
Ben Melançon (and this time I'm spelling it right, thank you) is onto something extremely important about the politics of the United States.  Prohibition is the engine of mass incarceration.  Mass incarceration itself is a serious form of political repression, but no matter the degree to which it is used for repression at a given time, its infrastructure of prisons, probation and parole apparatus serve as a ready reserve to ratchet up political repression in the future.  
At that time in the 1960s when African Americans were perceived as a distinct revolutionary threat, the United States had no ready made infrastructure to lock up hundreds of thousands of political prisoners.  Even as late as the early 1980s when the Reagan administration pondered what to do about domestic opposition to an invasion of Nicaragua, they had to plan the construction of temporary camps.  But now that they've got so many hundreds of thousands of prisoners who could be quickly and safely released, that's a lot of prison bed space should the state ever need it for targeted political repression.  
Not that a lack of prison bed space did anything to slow the destruction of the Black Panthers through the FBI's notorious COINTELPRO program of surveillance, dirty tricks, frame-ups and various forms of assassination.  There are still Panthers in jail from the politicized prosecutions of that era.  One only need look at the extra-legal methods used to keep Veronza Bowers Jr. in prison (who fortunately appears slated for release later this month) to get an idea of how the "criminal justice" system feels even 30 years later.  

Here's a letter Narconews received in repsonse to some of my posts related to legalization.

Don Henry Ford supports the war on drugs because, "Make no mistake about it. Total legalization of cocaine and heroin is akin to letting people walk around with loaded automatic weapons...."

That statement hysterical nonsense. Here are the facts. Cocaine and heroin were legal and widely available in the U.S. untill 1914.  And millions of people were not running around murdering each other.  Opiates and cocaine are valuable medicines which have served mankind throughout history.  These plant drugs are also the safest drugs.  They have been safely produced and consumed for hundreds of years.

Currently, millions of people such as doctors, medical technicians, pharmacists, and licensed producers have legal access to these drugs and,
they do not run around murdering people.

The people who do run around with automatic weapons are government drug fighters who routinely murder peasant farmers all over the planet for the "crime" of producing plant medicines.  These "drug free" drug fighters also poison the land, water, and families of these farmers.  Mr. Ford and his fellow illegalizers such as Bush, Cheney, Asscraft, etc. are the people who authorize these murders, assaults, and prisons.  As a result of illegalization, all of these murders are legal. That is what the law is all about, guns, violence, prisons, and legalized murder.

All professional killers such as soldiers who work for governments are all tested to insure that they are "drug free".  Likewise, the Islam "extremeists" who kill with automatic weapons are also "drug free". They are all illegalizers like Ford, Bush, etc.  In fact, the U.S. government gave millions of dollars to the Taliban for their drug wars.

The war on drugs is a lie.  In fact, it is a war against people.  It is people, not drugs, who are being murdered, assauled, robbed, and imprisoned. And, all this state-sponsored terrorism is legal.  It is authorized by the
illegalizers.

Mr. Ford and his fellow illegalizers need to be informed that adults who refuse to be told what they may eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise ingest are not criminals anymore than those who refuse to be told what they may read, write, think, or believe.  Mr. Ford does not have the right to illegalize drug users anymore than the Nazis had the right to illegalize the Jews.

It is the Drug fighters and illegalizers who are the criminals because they kill, assault, rob, and arrest peaceful human beings. They are also
terrorists because they target civilians.

I have a few questions for Mr. Ford.  Suppose that a heavily armed gang attacked you, threw you to the ground, pushed your face into the pavement, pointed guns at your head, and blew your head off if you resisted, just because they did not approve of your diet -- would you say
that they were violent criminals or would you conclude that you were the violent criminal?

Suppose that same gang kicked down your door, invaded and ransacked your home, terrorized your family, stole your property, and murdered anyone who resisted, just because some people did not approve of what you chose to eat drink or smoke -- would you conclude that your family
were the criminals?

If you were given a taste of your own medicine, would you be cured of your violence, ignorance, and inhumanity?

Regarding the drugs that he would allow, Mr. Ford needs to be informed that the adult population of this planet are not children and heis not
their father.  They do not want, seek, or need his permisssion to do anything.

In any case, Mr. Ford has it backwards.  It is the drug fighters who are running around with guns destroying people's lives.

First. I too am opposed to the thing they call the war on drugs.

Second. I am in favor in some form of legalization (decriminalization).

Third. I don't have all the answers. We are practicing democracy here--an exchange of ideas with hopes of making this world a better place. These are complex issues we're dealing with and this thing called the war on drugs is only one piece of many that work in concert to enslave and control the people of this world. It's one thing to simply denounce the war on drugs and another to come up with viable alternatives.

And last. Don't ever accuse me of being part of bush's program if you're not ready to trade licks. I consider them fighting words.

From Contrabando:

I am curious to hear from those of you that favor legalization, (or not, for that matter).

How do you envision legalization working? How would the product be distributed? Could anyone sell them? Would you place restrictions related to age? What about driving under the influence, or using drugs on the job where performance affects others?

What about those that "spike" the punch at a prom? Would this be a crime?

What about health issues related to the use of drugs. Should the state pick up these expenses?

Would you place measures related to concentration on the products to make it more difficult for someone to kill themselves?

All of these questions (and more) will have to be answered before you have a snowball's chance in hell to sell legalization to those that write our laws. (Or at least I would hope so.)

What happens now? All those questions you raise are now relevant under prohibition.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key, or let them rot in their own desparation on the streets. Is that the answer? Why should the burden of proof be on those who favor ending prohibition?

Why don't the prohibitionists have the burden of proof in defending the mess that's been created under their rules?

By the way, how do we handle the issues you raise in the case of legalized, mass-marketed drugs, such as alcohol, tobacco, coffee and presciption pills?

Should we prohibit all those products as well with the mistaken notion that will somehow make things better? Should we go back to circa 1920s and the days of Al Capone, and politicians on the bootleggers' payrolls, and Valentine's Day massacres ... wait, isn't that kind of where we are already at?

No, I don't agree that anyone has to prove ending prohibition is a utopia; we just have to show that it will be an improvement over maintaining prohibition. If it stems the AIDs crisis in some small way, then that is an improvement. If we hinder the further development of a massive prison-industrial complex, then that is an improvement. If we create better addiction-treatment services that allow people to come forward for help without fear of reprisal, then that is an improvement, and on and on....

As I see it, all the problems you suggest must be solved in the wake of ending prohibition are with us now, and need addressing, even if prohibition continues ....

You can continue to consider yourself a pragmatist on this matter, but then you also have to accept the pragmatic reality that prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, and there is little evidence that it is working today, a century later.

Sometimes, pragmatism takes a while to sink in.