Don't Criticize It, I'll Advertise It

And still I see no changes, can a brother get a little peace? / There's war in the streets, war in the middle east / Instead of a War on Poverty / They got a War on Drugs so the police can bother me

One of my earliest TV-related (non-video game) memories involves one of those "Just Say No" advertisements, involving some ridiculously 80's-ed out guy prancing around a rough-looking (at the time) pool hall wearing sunglasses (at night) singing a song about how "It's right (or cool) to say 'no'!" Although I don't remember specifically, I'm sure that I ran around the house singing about saying no to drugs, even though I didn't know or care what drugs were.

GOD, the 80's sucked. Awesomely.

The "Just Say No" campaign was the most ridiculous of a long line of efforts to get These Damn Kids Today to avoid drugs (and other fun activities), part of the PR in the War on Drugs. Now, the people who listened to terminally unhip adults preach in black-and-white terms about the evils of drug use are all growed up. And they have jobs as commentators, and they're commentating on the futility of the War on Drugs -- like most smart people were doing 20 damn years ago.

The whole conversation got started up again over the killing of a U.S. Marshall by a Mexican drug cartel. Which is tragic and all. But now a bunch of people in establishment media (for our purposes, "establishment media" = CNN) is suddenly sounding off about the futility of the War on Drugs and how much more awesome legalizing all drugs (not just pot, but damn near everything) would be. "Just think of how many people would be out of our jails!" "Just imagine all the tax revenue we could collect!" "Oh Gawd, we could put the cartels out of business!"

Like it's that easy.

This conversation has already taken place, and the arguments have already been made. Why isn't anyone bringing up the arguments from the 80's and 90's, when the cost of the War on Drugs was first realized? Is it because it's not until U.S. Marshals' lives are lost that the establishment tries to run behind legalization, and when it's just inner city kids and crack mothers, enforcement is the way to go?

Nobody is bringing up the fact that the enforcement policies of the 80's and 90's impacted poor people the hardest. Nobody wants to mention the fact that the War on Drugs was interpreted by many as a War on Blacks, leveraging a large budget and a larger public opinion against a population that had few, if any, advocates in the mainstream media. As soon as the economy is in the crapper, as soon as whites are losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet, all of a sudden legalizing drugs doesn't seem so crazy anymore. NOW all options are on the table, NOW we should re-examine the cost of this fight, this shit is getting serious. Shame on you.

And shame on you for taking such a one-sided look at the issue. In all honesty, the "keep-it-illegal" folks have valid points as well: legalization is tantamount to endorsement for many people. "It (the War on Drugs) is expensive" is hardly an argument for "It should be eliminated." Hard drugs have much more devastating effects on people than alcohol or cigarettes, you can't just look at death tolls. The process of legalizing drugs may put cartels out of business, it's true, but we might start to see drug-related assassinations targeted at politicians pushing legalization.

And then there's the big unknown: How many people in America would start doing drugs -- from pot to heroin -- when the pharmacy starts selling them, with the stamp and approval of the government? When the "Nanny" State becomes the "Do Whatever You Want, I Don't Care" State, what do you do? After being taught that the law is the arbiter of Right and Wrong, does that mean that drugs are now right? We are a culture that, for better or worse, looks to our government and the law for guidance on what is and is not acceptable behavior; in America, the phrases "I've done nothing wrong" and "I've done nothing illegal" are one in the same. To assume that after decades of preaching and guiding we can suddenly make drugs legal and let people decide for themselves what to do is criminally naive. Interestingly this is the main failure of the anarchist philosophy as well -- "Don't tell me what to do" only works if, when left alone, you do the right thing. Not only you, but everybody. Take a drive on a highway during rush hour in New Jersey, and then come talk to me about how people will do the right thing for humanity when left to their own devices.

To argue, as some people are doing, in favor of legalization without a passing glance at the negative side-effects is irresponsible and juvenile. To argue in favor of enforcement without understanding the HUGE negative impact on society -- morally, financially, socially -- is equally irresponsible and flawed. I don't have many answers (besides those that have already been discussed), but I do think it's hugely offensive that nobody is talking about the havoc that this war has visited on the impoverished for the past two decades.

For the record, I happen to be in favor of legalization, but I have no interest in using drugs. In fact, people who use drugs now should be the LAST advocates for legalization: you really think you'll be able to get primo chronic at a decent price when the government is busy regulating imports and exports and THC levels? Good luck with that, let me know how that works out.