Americans are being constantly reminded that there are fanatical people in the world hell bent on killing them. They are also being reminded that since that fateful day in 2001 there has been no additional successful terror attack on US soil. Thus, the average American goes to sleep every night content that every possible thing is being done to protect them against waking up one day to the “mushroom cloud” thought to be the penultimate goal of the aforementioned bad guys. But what if our government actually isn’t doing every possible thing that it can, and isn’t devoting every possible dollar, computer and brain to preventing such a calamity? Worse yet, what if a large chunk of the required assets already existed, but rather than being devoted to guarding us against terrorism were being used to protect us from pot? What if, in our zeal to find grow ops and “meth labs,” we fail to detect the people next door assembling a weapon of mass destruction? And, really, who would you rather be protected from: a guy with a bong, or a guy with a bomb?
These are some of the issues addressed in the latest book by Arnold S. Trebach, “Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror.” Trebach has argued for more than the past two decades that America’s so-called “war on drugs” is a misguided and ill-conceived public policy that has led to disastrous consequences that exceed by far those actually caused by drug abuse. He is trying to sound the alarm as loudly as possible this time around, given the apparent gravity of the current situation with the “Global War on Terror.” What needs to be done is blindingly obvious to him: we need to end the drug war, legalize all the drugs, and take the vast resources being squandered on the drug war and put them on the job of protecting us from Islamic fanatics. While, at first glance, that may seem like a radical idea, as he puts it: “Intolerable situations demand radical reforms.”
Certainly, there won’t be many people who would argue that terrorism is not a real threat (though perhaps not as grave a threat as is claimed, given that the claims about that threat are being made by the very same government waging the drug war), but there is still a bit of a hard sell involved in getting the public at large to take the “radical” move of ending the drug war. Trebach has been down that particular road before, and as expected does an outstanding job of presenting the academic arguments that readily disprove all of the claims surrounding drug use and its impacts on society. What is most impressive in this effort, however, is how he is able to succinctly weave together an incredible array of the various facets of the drug war into a single, coherent, and easy to read whole. His central focus is to demonstrate how much more damage our drug policies have created than the drug use itself does, while the war on terror aspects are woven into the framework of the book as a bit of a “no-brainer.”
Trebach brings to this effort the academic rigor one would expect from a university professor, and indeed declares that he himself only came to the conclusions he has reached after expending the great deal of effort required to track down and assess all of the available data and information. He didn’t do the work as part of a quest to legalize drugs – he ended at that destination simply because of the overwhelming evidence that doing so was the only logical, practical and proper response to the facts at hand. He posits that what drives the drug war is not factual information and logical decision processes, rather, that the whole mess is the result of clinging to what he terms the “cherished myths” that have caused most citizens (not to mention the government itself) to blindly ignore all the available evidence to the contrary.
Those myths have fueled what has been termed “the drugs exception to the Constitution,” and as can be expected from a legal scholar, Trebach devotes a part of the book to exposing and decrying some of the more heinous aspects of allowing fear of drugs and drug users to form the foundation of public policy. Mandatory prison sentences for even low-level first time offenders, asset forfeitures in which a person is never even charged with a crime, and most horrifying, the practice of sending young people to military-style camps to “protect” them from drug use are just a few of the abuses taking place in the name of “fighting drugs.” Each of those abuses considered separately should be enough to increase public outcry, and when combined they would seem an absolutely impregnable indictment of the “war.” However, the most significant (and most fatal) aspect of how much impact Trebach’s book will make or not make is entirely dependent on an ironic twist in his title: distraction.
The real problem involved in drug law reform remains getting people’s attention. The reality is that, especially in America, people do not care to invest the time and attention required to actually become sufficiently indignant about the current state of affairs. The issue is compounded greatly by the (to me inexplicable) hesitancy of those involved in drug law reform to reach the conclusion that Trebach so elegantly builds the case for: complete elimination of the entire scheme. This is not an issue that we can slowly dig our way out of – not the least due to the fact that those involved in drug law reform are too cautious (I would say frightened) to say the words out loud: “legalize the drugs.”
Trebach devotes a good bit of the text calling to task the pitiful “leadership” of the self-proclaimed deacons of drug war deconstruction for failing to exhibit the necessary levels of courage and comprehension that are the clear way forward out of the morass. One notable exception is the recently formed organization LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), which is composed of the very people who were once charged with waging the war. Rather than dissembling about how “the American public isn’t ready for legalizing drugs,” or that “we can’t bite the whole thing at once, so we should try to get something like medical marijuana legal first, then we can work on recreational use,” Trebach calls a spade a spade: the bit by bit approach not only won’t lead us to where we need to go, but as he puts it – “It is the equivalent of the Abolitionist movement of the 1800s having worked not to free the slaves but to provide better housing and health care for them.”
After several decades of drug war, the time has certainly arrived for “radical” change. Perhaps the most radical of which is simply getting all of the various organizations and individuals involved in drug law reform to start working together on common goals. Bringing about the radical change of ending prohibition, however, will require gaining the attention of, and successfully motivating millions of American citizens. But the drug war isn’t exactly something that most Americans think about on a day-to-day basis. They simply have too many other things to worry about in life – which, ironically enough, is the most fatal of the many distractions keeping people from learning about, and working to destroy the nightmare we call the “War on Drugs.” Trebach has done the heavy lifting, and put it all together in an entirely readable volume. This book should enrage American citizens and propel them to demand the “radical” reforms required – but first, they’ll have to care enough to actually read it.
11 comments:
Looks like more useful ammunition for the cause. But the sting is in your tail:
"but first, they’ll have to care enough to actually read it."
We both know that the really difficult problem is that we only seem able to attract the attention of the already converted. Has this book presented anything which might grab the attention of the prohibitionists?
As you know, I've been promoting the "spend it fighting real crime and terrorism" line for some time in sundry locations and it doesn't seem to attract any more support (or opposition) than the "standard" arguments. Will the book be reviewed in journals that matter?
hi harry, thanks for weighing in. i wish it was easy, but the public does not go out of its way to get educated about much of anything. even truly deplorable behaviors like killing completely innocent people in botched drug raids is met with a shrug of the public shoulders.
it is absolutely a matter of getting attention -- but not necessarily from the prohibitionists. those idiots have nothing to lose by ignoring this book, and i seriously don't think we need to concern ourselves over their reactions at all.
the people we really need to reach are the mom and pop average citizen, who are blissfully unaware at the moment of just how wrong things are. aside from tatooing "end the drug war" on britney spears' crotch, i'm not sure how to get them to pay attention.
as to being reviewed in "journals that matter" -- that's a bit of a loaded question. matters to whom? in my book every new set of ears and eyeballs matters, so we need to continue trying to reach them by whatever means we can.
the task is not to convert the prohibitionists, it is to attract the support of those who simply do not care at the moment.
b
How do we combat the fact that once one actually utters the words, "Legalize the drugs," in a public forum which I have not been afraid to do since it was first suggested to me by the professor in economics class at BYU in 1986, he/she is immediatey branded as immoral or amoral, as well as being entirely unconcerned for the lives and health of the majority of those who dabble in drugs who, they say, will inevitably become addicted after this, "radical," and irresponsible," change which is designed, according to many, entirely to give license to pot smokers and other druggies to do their drugs with impunity?
In other words, how do we combat the posturing which frames, just before ending, almost every drug war discussion after the point that someone mentions any schema of non-prohibition?
Eric
hi eric,
excellent comments and questions.
to me, the way forward is to completely alter the entire dialogue. in essence, users of the "wrong" drugs are modern day witches, and the reactions to which you refer are the result of 100 years of brainwashing (or as arnold puts it "mythology").
getting to the point that you can use logic and the overwhelming evidence at our disposal requires getting past the knee-jerk pre-programmed responses you speak of.
so, i first insist that we start thinking of this in terms of something more lofty than "legalizing drugs." instead, i suggest that the focus of all efforts at reform be directed at the goal of "equality for all." it is most important that we get people to understand that the biggest problem with drug war is that by supporting it, we are declaring the concept of individual rights null and void.
today it's drugs, but who's next? if the governemnt can punish you for taking the drugs you want to take (or having sex or marrying the person of your choice), then they can also force you to do things to yourself that you would not choose to do.
we either have individual rights and the authority to make our decisions, or we are mere serfs to the "state." once we have made that connection, we can then deconstruct the emotionally fueled components piece by piece.
clearly, the critical factor in all of this is simply getting everyone involved in drug law reform working from the same script and pulling together as a cohesive whole. and by making equality the core of the dialogue, we can easily reach out to the other disenfranchised groups like gay people.
in essence, we need to demand that people start acting like "Americans" and put into practice all the bullshit we claim to be about. if we don't live like equals in our own nation, then we can hardly expect the rest of the world to trust that we will treat them as equals.
it's a tough job -- but that's what the Foudners laid down as our challenge as a people and as a nation. fear has led the parade for too long.
there is much that needs to be done -- and it all starts with having a coherent game plan. unfortunately, the "leaders" in drug reform aren't leaders and honestly don't have a clue what to do -- let alone a coherent plan.
i'm putting together my plan, and will get it all on my site as soon as i can. this is a battle for hearts and minds -- the data can win the minds, but the dialogue needs to win the hearts first.
i say we start acting like "Americans" and stop pretending that it is in any way acceptable to punish people for what they do to themselves.
my mantra is a simple one -- Drugwar: We Have No Right, There Is No Reason.
now all we need to do is unite and make it happen.
b
hey--
as has been repeatedly shown on the History Channel's series, 'Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way', the ONLY reason any drug has been made illegal was racism.
we can educate our children about drugs. no amount of education will protect them from a dirty bomb.
it's time we stop the race war and concentrate on the important issues facing us.
hi two crows,
i did see that series on the history channel -- it was really well done.
and, yes, you are correct, the basis of all drug law prohibition is indeed racism. that explains how it all started, but does not explain why it is allowed to continue. even though the brunt of the "war" is focused against minorities, most drug users are white people.
we're slowly but surely making progress, but there are literally 100 years worth of propaganda that must be overcome -- and arnold's book is really a great place to start.
i encourage everyone to read the book, get righteously pissed off, tell everyone else they can, and get busy helping to set things right again.
it's time to grab the politicians by the balls (please do not actually grip your congress person by the crotch ... yet) and make them honor their oath to defend freedom and liberty for ALL OF US!
b
oh, a couple of other points--
telling our children the truth is a really, really good way to begin.
I remember when I was coming of age [so many eons ago] and marijuana was touted as The TERRIBLE Scourge.
well, I tried marijuana, of course, and I didn't drop dead or want to go out and commit terrible crimes or any other horrible things I had been told would happen.
so, when I was told by the 'establishment' that other drugs were terrible scourges, I was less likely to believe what I was told. that threw me back on my own resources of figuring out which drugs would be relatively safe to use and which to avoid at all costs.
that's the trouble with lies. when you tell one, EVERYTHING you say becomes suspect.
so, to any parents who read this, it behooves you to be scrupulously honest with your kids. it could save their lives one day.
not all drugs are KILLER DRUGS.
not all drugs are safe, either -- even [maybe especially] those accepted by the mainstream and prescribed by our doctors..
that's the story with basically every one of us.
the main reason i tried pot for the first time was becasue of my own drug "education."
after i heard all the stuff they said about pot and hallucinogens, i couldn't wait to get high.
here's a book that captures this common back drop among drug users:
http://www.thenakedtruthaboutdrugs.com/
the good news is that despite the lies, the vast majority of drug users will never do meth, pcp or heroin. drug users know what drugs are safe -- despite the best efforts of the lying liars in authority.
b
well, I'm not sure I agree with one thing you said:
about racism explaining how drug prohibition started by not why it continues.
I think it does explain why it continues.
I think racism is very much alive and well in our country. or else why does cocaine use [which mostly whites practice] carry such a lighter penalty than crack use does [which mostly blacks practice]?
and the rich get away with it much more often than the poor do.
it's just another way to promote inequality in this country.
if we'll get off our arses and address those 2 things we MIGHT begin to address the drug issues in a sane manner.
oh, and getting it our of the vote-getting arena and into reality-- that would help, too.
b!...
Imagine finding you raisng hell all over the place. Nice blog. Same layout I use over at my (non-drugwar) blog:
http://morningdonut.blogspot.com/
Intelligent readers you have here. I like 2 Crows comment here at the end:
"and the rich get away with it much more often than the poor do."
Oh no! Dang those rich folk and their "whats good for me you can't afford" schtick. Is that why Rush is still on the air and Richard Paey is in jail (in his wheelchair)?
See ya on the funway b!
hey allan!
i'm glad you wandered by -- and thanks for your comments.
i use this particular layout because it looks like an old parchment -- ala the ones that document the why and how of "America." apparently the ideas captured there are not as durable as the paper upon which they have been written.
i visited your blog today -- it's wonderful! i already knew you were a good writer -- but your blog reveals that you are a talented one as well. i read all of the latest essays you've written with my morning coffee -- but no donuts (of either kind). it really is a great read.
i am indeed fortunate to have a good number of readers -- and excellent commentary from them. two crows is one of the latest -- and as you can see, provides excellent perspectives on the multiple dimensions of this issue.
something tells me though, that if i am ever among the "rich" it won't change how i think about my fellow travellers on the road of life.
somwhere along the way "Americanism" has been perverted -- so that's why i do what i do.
it doesn't make me wealthy, but it does make me rich.
b
Post a Comment