(This is a fascinating piece showing how the
prohibitionist paradigm can block the minds of even the most intelligent observers.)The
London Daily Mail
letters@dailymail.co.uk
March 28, 1998
DO WE NEED ANY MORE DRUGS?
One deeply-felt conviction unites the thousands of demonstrators who will be marching
though the streets of London today: that the law banning cannabis is
an absolute ass.
It may not be a view shared by the Government, but it cannot
simply be brushed aside. The protest will show that the campaign to legalise the drug now
reaches far beyond the ranks of the young and rebellious.
The marchers will be led by the Labour MP Paul Flynn, supported by a number of
prominent European MPs. A liberal broadsheet is giving the campaign its backing. And it is
not just the fashionable bien-pensants who think the present law is unworkable. The Mail's Ann Leslie has argued powerfully in this newspaper that
cannabis should be decriminalised.
Their case can seem beguilling. The law in this matter is more honoured in the breach
than the observance. Academic studies suggest that half of all
sixteen-year-olds have experimented with the drug. Millions of adults have puffed the
occasional joint without coming to any noticeable harm. And it is arguable that
cannabis is less injurious to health than either alcohol or tobacco.
Yet when all that is said, today's demo still does not deserve to
succeed.
Yes, the ban on cannabis may indeed be ineffective. But then, so are the bans on harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine. There were
just 333 registered addicts in 1958. Today the number hooked runs into tens of thousands.
Despite police successes - like yesterday's arrest of a Turkish drugs baron - junkies can
all too easily find a fix.
But should the law be changed simply because it isn't always
obeyed?
(Ed. note: This editorial begins and ends with two of the more
common prohibitionist arguments in the form of questions.
"Do we need any more drugs?" Now look at this almost word by word. Who are
"we?" Does this mean that the collectivist "society" will
determine by either majority vote or appeal to politically correct "authority"
what is permitted? Or, is it saying, "We have our Scotch and cigars; bug off,
hippie!" Isn’t this what the people in power are really saying?
Do we "need" this? Is "need" -- as opposed to
"want" -- the criteria for freedom in a free society? Do we "need"
most of the things that make up modern life? Most have been opposed at one time or another
by both Puritans and egalitarians of the grimmer sort.
Do we need any "more" of what the writers recognize is already in
superabundance? Isn’t the question really whether we will have cannabis in a
regulated and humane way that does not impose such burdens on both personal freedom and on
the police? (More than 75% of all British "drug" arrests are for cannabis.)
Also, note from the Dutch experience "legal" does not necessarily mean
"more."
Do we need any more "drugs?" By lumping cannabis in with heroin and
cocaine the writers and current policy get precisely what they profess not to want
--"more drugs." In point of fact, the basis of Dutch "drugs" policy is
to separate cannabis from the "hard" – not "harder"
– drugs. Marijuana prohibition is not merely a failure; it is counterproductive.
See Comparison
of drug addiction levels in various European countries
Finally, no one is arguing that the marijuana laws should be repealed simply because
they aren’t "always obeyed." That would be fatuous. No law is "always
obeyed." This is a straw-man argument. (No kin to the Home Secretary, but just as
silly.) However, the hundreds of thousands of arrests in the UK and the millions in the US
are very cruel costs that cannot be justified.
The oddest thing about this editorial is that is does not even try to justify its
conclusion. It just states it after recognizing that there are serious people who
disagree. (This is to its great credit.) On the contrary, it sounds rather like an addict
who says that he recognizes – "You’re right; you’re right!" --
that his habit is harmful and stupid, but he just can’t quit and doesn’t want to
talk about.
However, addicts primarily harm themselves. Prohibitionists
harm all of society. Do we need any more prohibitionists? Should a bad law be kept, just
because it is painful to think about changing it?
Supported