Pete Guither has a good post looking at the latest nonsense from U.N. Drug Czar Antonio Maria Costa:
The fact that our opponents have resorted to revising their understanding of the English language is a powerful statement about how far we've come in the drug policy debate. It's hard to imagine a more confused and desperate defense of the drug war than this, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone achieves it.
His attempts to own the word “control” go to ridiculous lengths.Drugs are controlled (not prohibited) because they are dangerous.
I beg your pardon? Drugs aren’t prohibited? Since when? Where? You can’t just waive a magic wand and say that since you don’t like the word “prohibited” you declare it to mean something else.
The fact that our opponents have resorted to revising their understanding of the English language is a powerful statement about how far we've come in the drug policy debate. It's hard to imagine a more confused and desperate defense of the drug war than this, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before someone achieves it.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
newspeak
Unfortunately, this kind of newspeak can be effective, and is old hat. That's why copyright oligarchists like the term "Intelectual property", and why we have a department of defense, not a war department.
On the double-plus-good side, it shows the prohibitionists feel on the defensive, and that's a good thing. One can hope that the vocabulary in question is well enough defined that we can use this trend to our advantage. Now instead of trying to break a hard-line approach, we can frame the discussion in terms of whether or not the current levels of control are appropriate or not, and how they should be adjusted. If the current system is called "controlled" which is a synonym of "regulated", we can discuss whether or not the regulation policies should look a little more like alcohol regulation, rather than the systems now in place.
In all, I think this is good news. It seems to indicate that the old propaganda is no longer acceptable. One sees this repeatedly in social movements. First the language changes, then the thinking changes, then the policy changes. Of course, there is no guarantee that we will keep progressing to changing thought and policy, which is why we must not grow complacent.
www.glenstark.net
My response
So I went and read the letter in its entirety. It got me riled up enough I registered at the Guardian to post a response. If anyone is interested, here it is:
One has to wonder if Mr. Costa believes the nonsense he is promulgating, or he is simply performing his function as a propaganda minister for the prohibition industry to the best of his abilities. Both could reasonably be the case.
He posts the question
and goes on to discuss the current policy of drug prohibition as though "control", "prohibition", and "regulation" were synonymous. They are, of course, not. We have systems of control in place for the regulation of alcohol and tobacco, both of which are significantly more dangerous and more addictive than many drugs which are currently prohibited my most nations (for example Cannabis, LSD, Ecstasy). By comparing the effect of regulation of alcohol against the effect of prohibition of alcohol, we can easily see that we protect our citizenry better through regulation than we do through prohibition. Regulation results in less crime, less overdose, less underage use, in short more control than does prohibition.
The current prohibitionist policies and irrational assessments of drug harm result in a situation that is quite simply out of control, and this is what we in the "legalization chorus" object to. Or does Mr. Costa wish to make the claim that things are in control in, say, Mexico? Or the United States for that matter?
How many lives would have been saved if our children had been obtaining honest information about the relative harms of drugs, rather than dishonest propaganda? How many lives would have been saved if our addicts (I am writing as an American here) could have gotten treatment and counselling for their problems instead of getting labelled as a criminal and ostracised as a criminal? How many lives would have been saved if clean needles were freely available? How many lives have been lost in botched drug raids, in drug violence?
The facts, Mr. Costa, speak against you, and your rhetoric and word-play is too weak to obscure them. Of course we need controls on harmful substances. We in the chorus are not asking you to stop controlling potentially harmful substances. We are asking out governments to regulate them. We simply want sane and rational regulation, rather than jingoistic prohibition.
www.glenstark.net
Great Counterpoint to Prohibitionist's view of thedrug war
Glenn Stark makes some excellent points to Mr. Costa's claim that Prohibiting drug is equal to controlling them. The whole argument for legalization centers around the issue of controlling them in a free market regulated by the government. The secondary issues(problems) of prohibition and there are many, stem from a policy that was originally based on appealing to the racist sentiments
of Southern Democrats.
Thank you for posting your thoughts on the Guardian's website. If more reformers could articulate their opinions with the clarity and vision of Mr. Stark, our opponents' arguments would look even more ridiculous by comparison.
Hysterical
The ONE thing I can say about drugs is, they are NOT under any sort of control. NOT AT ALL.
Not when 26 MILLION Americans used in the last year, and not a single one of them got it via a government 'controlled' distribution system.
When they are so dishonest with themselves, how can we expect them to be honest with us?
Post new comment