From the Ottawa Citizen
letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/

See
Great Ottawa Citizen Editorial Assails War on Drugs And UN Summit As "War On Reason"
June 16, 1998

A DUTY TO CENSOR ADULTS

One might think that in a world rife with tyrants and dictators, the United Nations would celebrate any victory for freedom of expression over censorship. Strangely, though, the annual report of the UN’s International Narcotic Control Board reveals a different view of free speech: It’s an unfortunate obstacle that must be swept aside in the name of the War on Drugs.

The INCB is irked that although the UN’s member-states signed a 1988 agreement that committed them to make it a crime to "publicly incite" the use of illegal drugs, many governments haven’t done so. The result is people are still free to promote, encourage or simply speak positively about drug use. And since most humans are sheep devoid of free will—at least that seems to be the belief of the INCB—they are thus compelled to smoke, snort and inject themselves to oblivion. Hence, speech that is positive about drugs must be censored.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see what could be targeted if the INCB had its way. For one, pop singers who extol the virtues of some drugs are specifically criticized in the INCB report—think of Bob Marley being hauled off-stage by police, not because he smoked pot, but because he said he liked it. And there would be some gaps down at the local theatre. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? Confiscated, along with every copy of the Hunter S. Thompson book. Video stores could loose every frat-house comedy and Cheech and Chong flick.

Why stop there? There are a great many serious works of philosophy, sociology and religion which explore aspects of drug use. Those which laud aspects of it would surely be seen as dangers to impressionable undergrads. So long, Aldous Huxley, Ernst Junger, Timothy Leary and so many more.

The reason many nations have failed to implement the INCB’s desired censorship is not, alas, due to a sudden appreciation of the merits of unfettered free speech. Only the courts are protecting us. Canada did, in fact, pass a law which made it illegal to import or sell literature or videos which "promote, encourage, or advocate" the consumption of drugs. In 1994, a lower court in Ontario struck down this law as an obvious violation of free speech. The government did not appeal.

For governments stymied in this way by free speech, the INCB helpfully offered some advice: Get over it. The report says it should be considered a "duty," no less, that governments find a way to overcome freedom of expression because it "cannot remain unrestricted when it conflicts with other essential values and rights."

Even more frightening than the INCB’s belittling view of free speech is the sinister subtext of its report. The INCB worries that newspapers that support legalization—like this one—tend "to generate an overall climate of acceptance that is favourable to or at least tolerant of drug abuse."

Given that the preceding paragraphs deal with censoring speech that is positive about drug use, this has a sinister ring to it, as if those favouring an end to drug criminalization should be given the same censorious treatment as those advocating drug use. The whiff of press censorship is unmistakable.

Among the re-packaged mistakes the federal government is passing off as a drug policy is a renewed commitment to international co-operation in the War on Drugs. That means bowing further to the leadership of bodies like the INCB. Since the drug warriors have so clearly shown contempt for one of the most fundamental rights, that of free speech, doing so would be reprehensible.