Barbara Benjamin
4500 words
MISPLACED MORALITY:
A Study of the Argument for Drug Prohibition
The
Western world inherited from ancient Greek philosophers, like Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle, a unique way of thinking and information processing.
As well, many of our ideas of virtue and morality developed from these
philosophers' ruminations on logic. Today,
though, it seems many Americans have misplaced—even lost—this heritage of
Socratic logic and Platonic morality, as evidenced in the institution and
practice of drug prohibition. A majority
of Americans favor decriminalization and legalization of many, if not all,
drugs currently under prohibition. According to Gallop Polls taken over the last
two decades, no less than half the general public favors decriminalization
of, at the very least, marijuana (Galliher 46).
However,
regardless of the desire and wisdom of the majority, not to mention the cold,
hard facts of its failure, prohibition continues, adamantly supported by zealots
from the "right." Curiously,
the idea of legalization evokes strong emotional, irrational reactions from
many pro-prohibitionists, as opposed to a logical and methodical fact-finding
process. A careful analysis of their
arguments reveals the prominent tendency centered around emotions rather than
any basis on logic. What are these
arguments, and, when dealing with this subject, why is logic and rationality
abandoned in favor of emotionalism?
When
listening to or reading many anti-legalization arguments, I've noted several
common factors in their arguments. During
an exploration of their issues, one definitive example will be cited and used
as a representative sample of those common elements.
The speech cited was made by Lee P. Brown, director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy under President Clinton. I cite Brown's speech for the sake of simplicity
since his methods and arguments share strong similarities with most of those
used by other anti-legalization people.
Brown
delivered this speech at a conference sponsored by American Cities Against
Drugs, held in
When
stating why he (and the government) opposes the legalization of drugs, Brown
states:
[We will not] surrender
to the forces that would poison our children and our communities. . . .[we
won't] give up on your cities, on your citizens, and most of all on your children
(628); . . . . Why would we sanction any policy that would threaten the well-being
of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens. . . .
[our policies will] help our young people stay off
drugs and out of trouble. . . . We have always been a nation that protects
its children. (629)
Brown
liberally peppers his speech with comments about protecting families and children,
an emotionally effective theme. His
concern may be genuine, but the tone he uses fuels heated emotions. The speech's subtitle, "Protecting Our
Children," incorrectly suggests that children are the major victims of
"drugs" and the reason that drugs were placed on prohibition. Like Brown, many politicians routinely exploit
subjects, such as families and children, as devises to stimulate sympathetic
responses. Additionally, the subtitle's
submessage cleverly pushes doubters into a corner. Subliminally, the subtitle actually says:
"How can my (our) policies be wrong if they are protecting your children?" A position difficult to counter, the message
causes many fence-sitters to quietly stay there or to reluctantly join the
ranks to avoid an "antifamily" guilt conscience.
Brown
also makes irrational cause-and-effect connections.
For example, he comments:
Almost half of those
arrested for committing a crime test positive for the use of drugs at the
time of their arrest. Making drugs
more readily available could only propel more individuals into a life of crime
and violence. (629)
This
conclusion escapes logic. Criminals
testing positive to drugs at the time of arrest may have no bearing on their
criminal actions. The same erroneous conclusion could apply to
numerous other substances. If these
same people were tested for nicotine or caffeine—even chewing gum—the probability
would be very high that the majority would test positive. Would Brown, then, draw the same connection between
these substances and criminal activity? He
cites nothing to support his far-flung conclusion. Also, he avoids specifying which drugs the "criminals"
tested positive for. The implication,
of course, is the currently illegal drugs. However, facts show that many of those arrested
are merely drunk at the time of their arrest. Significantly, however, no where in the speech
does Brown implicate alcohol as a dangerous drug.
A
look at
One
of Brown's most indicting and misleading statements refers to black men. He says, "when we look at the plight of
many of our youth today, especially African American males, I do not think
it is an exaggeration to say that legalizing drugs would be the moral equivalent
of genocide" (629). The surface
appearance of this comment seems like genuine concern for the plight of the
black male population. A closer look,
however, discloses a subtle, but degrading and demeaning suggestion. The statement leaves the impression that black
males lack moral strength to resist the allure of drugs. By extension, then, legalization will lead most
black men to increase usage of drugs, and consequently, by Brown's own erroneous
cause-and-effect relationship of drug use to criminal activity, deepen their
inclination towards criminal activities. The natural conclusion, then, infers that black
men are the cause of the violence and crime he rants about.
Another
impression falsely conveyed by Brown's statements allows the assumption that
drug users are almost exclusively black men—---a patently erroneous fact. This idea plays well to people with a prejudicial
bent against blacks. After heightening
emotions and arousing prejudicial attitudes, Brown offers his listeners assurance
of how he and the government will protect their children and families with
such phrases as: "We intend to punish those who insist on breaking the
law. . . . [put] more police officers on the street
. . . . [and] strong law enforcement measures"
(629). He says nothing new, just typical
political rhetoric. Despite the appeasing
intent of these comments, they ignore federal government statistics—---the
same government he represents—---which clearly show the miserable failure
of our drug "war." Increased law enforcement and increasingly harsher
sentences have proven ineffective in reducing crime associated with the illegal
drug trade. Instead, harsher sentences
have resulted in clogging and overwhelming the courts and prisons with many
people who are not criminals. Shamefully,
Since
the prohibition on drugs began, the American public has been conditioned to
the unjust demonization of the word "drug."
The Economist states that:
Three-quarters of a century of prohibition has ingrained
in the public mind the idea that, outside a medical context, a drug is by
definition an illegal substance, and that what is not illegal (such as tobacco)
is therefore not a drug. (20)
The
customary use of the word "drug" associates it with crime and violence;
thus, conditioning the public mind. Over
time, the word has come to signify the evils which specifically developed
from drug prohibition-—--not drug use. Brown takes advantage of and perpetuates this
association by consistently ignoring the presence of legal drugs, such
as alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Since
his use of the word "drug," selectively applies only to illegal
drugs. The extended application
of his use of the word, then, necessarily eliminates alcohol and nicotine
from consideration when discussing drug testing of criminals. Like many politicians, he steers completely
clear of associating tobacco and alcohol as a drug; and, in turn, their possible
reference with crime and violence.
When
Brown promises to incarcerate and punish drug users and sellers, he obviously
intends exclusion of manufacturers, retailers, and users of alcohol, tobacco,
and caffeine products. Although, according
to the scientific definition of drugs, manufacturers and retailers of alcohol,
tobacco, and caffeine products have no other function than as "drug pushers."
When he exclaims, "We need to make clear in no uncertain terms
that drug use is not acceptable at any level [italics mine]"
(628), his intended exclusion of tobacco and alcohol, in fact, makes his statement
problematical since he emphatically includes all drugs. Considering this, then, how many people at this
conference were drinking coffee and smoking tobacco during the speech, or
who later went out for alcoholic drinks after the meetings? Curiosity arises, also, to
know how many of the attendees ever drove under the influence, or were
ever arrested for drunk driving. The
totality of his statement also begs the question if any of the attendees were
searched for drugs (cigarettes) before they entered the conference? Were any arrested for the possession of or usage
of "drugs" (i.e., nicotine or caffeine)?
Probably
the strongest component, and indeed, the heart, of the anti-legalization rhetoric
concerns "morality." Brown
claims that:
We
have a solemn obligation to our citizens to propose and
enact
policies for the common good [italics mine] . . . . [and]
drugs
are illegal because they are harmful—to both body and
mind. (629)
Again,
Brown's argument selectively and illogically determines elements for inclusion
or exclusion, without consideration to scientific facts.
By his argument, such things as ice cream, Twinkies, and nacho cheese
dip, to name only a few, would have to be made illegal. In fact, of all things, Twinkies should be considered
exceptionally dangerous, based on the Dan White verdict. One wonders if anyone at the conference was
overweight, had high blood pressure or heart problems. Oddly enough, of all the arguments made by prohibitionists,
this one is the weakest to support but engenders some of the strongest allegiance.
As
mentioned, Brown avoids the use of facts.
When referring to a possible discussion of the facts, he makes a most
peculiar statement :
We are not going to be distracted by silly
arguments about why drugs should be legalized. There is no need to debate the facts. The facts are well-known, and we have no intention
of seeing these facts manipulated and twisted into a mistaken conclusion.
(628)
Though
purposely vague, he alludes to certain "well-known" facts. A sly form of intimidation, this tactic does
the reverse of eliciting dialogue. Since
the unspecified "facts" are supposedly "well-known," few
would tempt showing their ignorance by inquiring what facts he refers to. The statement, in fact, contradicts itself and
makes no sense, but its intent is clear. It
distinctly suggests that the pro-legalization people manipulate and twist
facts. Later in the speech, he makes
another similar insinuation:
The
legalization gurus shamelessly advance a laissez-faire attitude about drugs,
at a time when we need to be unequivocal with our youngsters that drugs should
never be a choice for them. . . .Why would we. .
.accommodate a frustrated few who want to let drug abuse run amok through
our society? (628)
This
short passage teems with hyperbole, absolutisms, and falsities.
Both passages contain not a shred of proof, and the insinuations approach
slander. The wording, purposely vague,
suggests gross negligence and evil intent by the opposition. He presents the two sides as extreme opposites—good
and evil: "They," the "good"
prohibitionists, represent a positive, though unequivocal and firm, direction
for youth; whereas, "Them," the "evil" opposition, represents
wanton desire, severe lack of self-discipline, and extreme permissiveness
towards youth. Such gross mischaracterization of the pro-legalization
advocates and their position goes beyond a simple ignorance of that position.
Rather, it shows willful malevolence.
Brown knows the opposition does not advocate free usage of any drug
by anyone at any age, which he tries to sway his listeners to
believe. This kind of rhetoric serves one purpose: to
provoke strong emotional reactions.
When discussing the correlation of crime to drug use, Brown
is again guilty of faulty logic. He
claims that:
Without laws that make drug use illegal,
some experts estimate that we could easily have three times as many Americans
using cocaine and crack. This has a
direct correlation to the crime and violence that grips so many of our neighborhoods
and communities. (629)
Together
with the falsities Brown promotes, lurking in this fascinating statement lies
the truth that he tries to deny. Brown
attempts to draw a direct correlation that usage of cocaine and other substances
causes crime and violence. If merely
using drugs were the cause, then crime and violence would have been a major
problem prior to prohibition—a time when they were legally available. The fact is, crime
and violence directly results from drug prohibition, driven by the huge profits
gained by the sale of black market drugs.
Brown correctly assesses that usage would increase as a natural consequence
if drugs are legalized. The question
is, to what degree, for how long, and what would be the harm? As Barbara Ehrenreich writes in Time:
Yes, legal drugs.
. . which could mean more people sampling them out of curiosity. But this danger has to be weighed against the
insidious marketing dynamic of illegal drugs, whose wildly inflated prices
compel the low-income user to become a pusher and recruiter of new users.
(70)
Another common argument
by the prohibitionists, seen also in Brown's speech, again shows faulty logic.
Brown claims, "One of the things that bothers me most about the
legalization argument is the mixed message it sends to our young people"
(628). Brown seems oblivious to the mixed messages
that youth receive directly from drug prohibition. This country's biggest drug problem continues
to be alcohol, probably the most enfeebling and dangerous of all the drugs—legal
or otherwise. In addition, as stated
in the Economist:
Cigarettes
seem to turn almost all users into addicts, and to be
bad
for their health at any dose. . . .But others (marijuana) are
less
damaging, if they are harmful at all, and are nonetheless
illegal. (20)
What
kind of message can we expect our youth to receive from these serious inconsistencies? Less addictive and less harmful substances are
illegal, while more addictive and more dangerous substances are legal. Awareness of this contradiction contributes
to confusion, a lack of respect, and willingness to flaunt the laws. That the most benign drug—marijuana—is illegal,
yet alcohol, a highly disabling drug, is legal, tells them our laws
can't be trusted. John Galliher writes
in Law & Society Review, "The law, as it stands today is being
subverted. It's being
met with a lot of cynical amusement by the young people today" (45).
Why is it that Brown and others like him stubbornly maintain
their positions and refuse to recognize the double standard and double-edged
messages young people receive, and of the "drug war's" distinct
failure, coupled with its devastating economic factors? The answers are several fold. As head of this country's drug policy, the legalization
of drugs would clearly jeopardize Brown's job. Furthermore, this so-called "drug war"
has expanded into a behemoth multi-billion dollar industry, obviously supporting
a tremendous number of workers. Many
people, then, have a vested interest in the continuation of this senseless
"war."
In addition to job security, money also plays a major role
in the continuation of drug prohibition. The
tobacco and alcohol industries steadfastly refuse to admit the true nature
of their products, pumping huge sums of money into a political machine which
keeps tobacco and alcohol from being labeled as drugs. They stand to benefit economically by keeping
other drugs illegal. If their products
were classified as drugs, they would fall under much stricter regulation by
the FDA, something they're vehemently against. Stimulated by large lobbying
efforts from these manufacturers, the government ignores the fact the medical
establishment proclaimed many years ago—that tobacco and alcohol are drugs. Thus, the highly powerful and effective lobbying
groups and the enormous contributions from these two industries strongly influences
the way legislators see things. The Economist reveals why these industries fight
so assiduously to keep their products free from the label of "drugs":
If
cigarettes were recognized as the oral equivalent of syringes—delivering a
controlled dose of a mood-changing drug in order to satisfy a user's addiction—then
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which encouraged the subcommittee's
hearings, would be able to regulate them as it saw fit, without any change
in the law. (20)
FDA
regulation of tobacco and alcohol would be as damaging to legislators who
receive----—well, let's face it----—drug money, as it would be to the cigarette
and alcohol industries. FDA regulation would greatly impact the easy
access these drugs now enjoy, curtailing sales and, therefore, impacting profits
significantly.
Rather than risk the loss of significant campaign contributions, and instead of facing the disastrous reality
of drug prohibition, Brown and other politicians point the finger of blame
at poor black and other poor minority neighborhoods as perpetrators of crime
and violence from using and selling these illegal drugs. Politicians, then, find this explanation of
the problem politically expeditious. However,
scrutiny of the uncomfortable truth about drug prohibition reveals that the
poor are, in fact, the true victims of it. Ehrenreich points to the sad effects of this
insane policy:
The
billions we spend a year on drug-related law enforcement represents money
not spent on improving schools and rebuilding neighborhoods. Those who can't hope for the lasting highs of
achievement and self-respect are all too often condemned to crack. (70)
The
abysmal circumstances of poverty are primarily to blame for pushing many into
crime. Most non-violent criminals were raised in poverty
and struggle all their lives at the survival level. Drugs provide an escape from their miserable
lives. The excessive cost of illegal
substances forces them into petty criminal activity to pay for their addictions.
Thus, the poor are not inclined to criminal behavior, as many people
prefer to believe. The education available to the poor is shamefully
inadequate. Lacking a decent education
profoundly limits their chances of obtaining adequate employment.
Compounding this situation, most poor people are members of a minority
group and must bear the weight of racial or other discrimination, which adversely
affects their opportunities. The poor,
then, tend towards drugs because, for them, the alternatives are exceptionally
bleak. These are people without futures to look forward
to. Brown neglects to recognize this
factual and crucial piece of information. Unfortunately, much of what he does
say about the poor is slighting and misleading.
What, though, causes non-politician moralists to cling so
vehemently to the idea of drug prohibition?
In a word: POWER. Power is intoxicating. Controlling the behavior of others produces
a feeling of power—a common reason people seek political offices. Power, for many righteous prohibition advocates,
is the mind altering drug of their choice. Many are no less addicted to power than heroine
addicts to their drug. In addition,
most who demand control over particular drugs partake freely of others; namely,
tobacco, caffeine, and alcohol. This
double standard escapes their notice, the same as the double standard that
the youth do recognize about drug prohibition. Strong "moralistic" attitudes towards
the illegal drugs would, no doubt, quickly turn 180 degrees if the popular,
now legal, drugs were also put under prohibition. Otherwise law abiding citizens might find themselves
on the street corners illegally trying to obtain alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine
to satisfy their addictions.
The prohibitionists entrust to themselves exclusive judgment
over what's right and wrong. Because
they consider their particular beliefs as "moral," they feel justified
forcing those beliefs onto others. Essentially, they distrust everyone else's ability
to make "moral" decisions—or, more pointedly, they consider only their own point of view as valid. They regard their own drugs of choice as socially
acceptable and all others non-acceptable, eschewing facts or logic.
What has happened to Plato's "Virtue of Moderation"?
Are we no longer believers? Is
each person no longer master over himself?
Two of the strongest drugs—nicotine and alcohol—now line the aisles
in supermarkets, drug stores, and other retail establishments, in addition
to their ready availability in many eating establishments, hotels, and other
entertainment centers. Most people
use these drugs responsibly and in moderation, including many prohibitionists. Would the legalization of currently illegal
drugs cause sensible users to abruptly change their natures and abuse only
those drugs?
It
seems that some view Plato's "Virtue of Moderation" selectively,
as applicable to certain things and not to others.
In his keen wisdom, Plato makes no qualifications—as long as one causes
no harm to others. Is it anyone's place to stipulate what others can or cannot do if they cause
no harm to others? Moderation is the
key to Plato's code of moral conduct. Each
individual has the responsibility to make their own choice whether to follow
it: a straightforward and simple concept.
Humans possess free will to make their
own choices. Automatically built into
the concept of free will is the punishment factor. Those who abuse to excess inflict harm or discomfort
onto themselves.
Assuredly
we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather: that
which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. . . . what wisdom can there be to choose, what continence to forbear
without the knowledge of evil? (728)
Humans
cannot live simply by the word of someone else.
Our empathy and sympathy towards others become enhanced through our
own sufferings and trials. Lessons
gained through suffering tend to be the most memorable and valuable.
Believers of the Genesis story, which Milton depicts so beautifully
in his "Paradise Lost," certainly understand that free will is God's
unique gift to man. To punish Adam
and Eve for disobedience, God did not take away their free will; nor did he
remove the apple tree. In fact, God
made no limits at all on their choices, just as before they disobeyed. Do those individuals presume to be wiser than
God who, through their claim of superior knowledge of the evils, assign themselves the authority to control and limit the decision-making
process of others, thereby, denying others the use of their own free will?
Curtailing the free will of others slams against the very foundation
of the religious beliefs that the majority of moralizers profess.
Their actions deny a precious gift that God gave to all humans—not
to a select few.
But, beyond religious considerations, other crucial questions
must be asked. Does drug prohibition
stop people from wanting drugs? Does
drug prohibition improve our society? Does drug prohibition make life safer? Does drug prohibition make people wiser? Does drug prohibition decrease crime? The answer to each question is a resounding,
"NO." What, then, is the
benefit of drug prohibition? Certainly,
it perpetuates and guarantees some types of jobs; it provides the poverty-stricken
and disenfranchised with some means of income; and, it lines the vaults of
organized crime with gold. The most
blatantly obvious question about prohibition---—so obvious it escapes most
people, pro and con——is: After decades
of utter failure, why does this so-called "war" continue unabated?
The answer to this question represents the most compelling reason why
prohibition should be ended: it has not, can not, and will not work.
If logic and rationality can't convince the prohibitionists,
perhaps they need to seriously consider the startling comments of tobacco
company executives:
The bosses of
If
the idea of smoking cigarettes cut with a myriad of unknown substances (which
could run the unregulated gauntlet from totally benign to absolutely lethal)
doesn't cause the body follicles to react, then reality bears the same truth
as the prohibitionists' arguments. The
comments by the tobacco company executives mock the effects of drug prohibition. Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a raging
success---—to organized crime. The
negative affects on the rest of society were so profound the government repealed
prohibition a short time later. Sadly,
today it seems that many citizens and government officials now remain immune
to these very harsh lessons of our own history, their minds leaping at erroneous
conclusions, sadly missing the safety nets of Socratic and Platonic logic.
WORKS CITED
"No
Smoke?" (Editorial) The Economist v331 n7860
Defeis,
Marion. "The Case for Legalization
of Drugs" Journal of Community Health v20 n2 April 1995: 101-109.
Galliher, John F. and Albert DiChiara.
"Dissonance and Contradictions in the Origins of Marijuana
Decriminalization" Law & Society Review v28 n1 Feb. 1994:
41-77.
Ehrenreich,
Barbara. "Kicking the Big One"
Time v143 n9 Feb. 28, 1994: 70.
Brown,
Lee P. "Why the United States Will
Never Legalize Drugs" Vital Speeches of the Day v61 n20
Augustine,
"The Free Choice of the Will," Theories of Human Nature ed. Donald C. Abel
(McGraw-Hill, 1992) 116-147.
John
Milton, "Areopagitica," John Milton,
Complete Poems and Major Prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes, (New York: Macmillan, 1957) 716-749.
Unpublished work ©
1996 Barbara Benjamin