24 Jun 2012: Drugs are Illegal Because They're Bad
This annoyed me:
This is in reference to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart's refusal to say whether a variety of drugs were worst for someone's health than cannabis. Leonhart kept restating that all illegal drugs were dangerous. I find this logic far more compelling than that of L. Joy Williams and her panelists.
Williams says, "Heroin is worse than marijuana." My first reaction is, "And you know this because of all your experience with heroin? With all your research of heroin? Isn't it just that when it comes to both drugs you except the prevailing view? Isn't it true that if you were having this conversation in 1955, you'd be claiming that cannabis was very dangerous?" I find Leonhart at least consistent: if it is illegal, it is bad; why else would it be illegal? The common liberal view is ridiculous: "What is used by people I know must not be bad."
I'm not saying that heroin is not more dangerous than cannabis. I truly don't know. I don't know of anyone ever injecting THC. I do know of a friend who took a small dose of THC orally and had various and intense physical and mental discomfort. The problem I have with Williams[1] is that she has had an awakening about one drug but is blind to the limited thinking she still has about other drugs.
Williams continues, "Alcohol, you know, can be worse than marijuana in some instances as well." I think she should come right out with it. I would prefer, "Alcohol, you know, can, if it is shot right into your eyeball, be worse than marijuana in some instances but only when the moon is absolutely full and the sun in eclipsed."[2] Yes, we have to tread very lightly talking about alcohol. Why? Because whether she admits it or not, Williams is fundamentally in agreement with Leonhart: if it is illegal, it must be harmful.
Finally, we get to perhaps the most annoying thing of all. "That's a whole history lesson in terms of why marijuana is illegal in the first place." My first question: if you know this, why do you use the term for cannabis that was invented to vilify it and associate it with Mexicans? But mostly, I am just back to my previous point: can you really be so ignorant to think that cannabis became illegal because of racism, but the other drugs became illegal because they were "bad"?
In case readers aren't aware: cocaine was made illegal because it was associated with blacks, especially in the south. As I recall, in the congressional record of the Harrison Narcotics Act, there is discussion of coked up blacks raping white women. Opium was the first drug to be made illegal in the United States. Because it was harmful? Of course not. It was made illegal to get the Chinese. And again, there were lots of claims that white women were coming to opium dens, and getting high where the evil Chinese men could have their way with them.
If L. Joy Williams doesn't know these things, we are lost. But then you already knew that, didn't you?
[1] Williams is the co-host on the excellent This Week in Blackness. I have long been a big fan of Elon James White:
[2] Fun Astronomy Fact: a solar eclipse only happens during a new moon.
This is in reference to DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart's refusal to say whether a variety of drugs were worst for someone's health than cannabis. Leonhart kept restating that all illegal drugs were dangerous. I find this logic far more compelling than that of L. Joy Williams and her panelists.
Williams says, "Heroin is worse than marijuana." My first reaction is, "And you know this because of all your experience with heroin? With all your research of heroin? Isn't it just that when it comes to both drugs you except the prevailing view? Isn't it true that if you were having this conversation in 1955, you'd be claiming that cannabis was very dangerous?" I find Leonhart at least consistent: if it is illegal, it is bad; why else would it be illegal? The common liberal view is ridiculous: "What is used by people I know must not be bad."
I'm not saying that heroin is not more dangerous than cannabis. I truly don't know. I don't know of anyone ever injecting THC. I do know of a friend who took a small dose of THC orally and had various and intense physical and mental discomfort. The problem I have with Williams[1] is that she has had an awakening about one drug but is blind to the limited thinking she still has about other drugs.
Williams continues, "Alcohol, you know, can be worse than marijuana in some instances as well." I think she should come right out with it. I would prefer, "Alcohol, you know, can, if it is shot right into your eyeball, be worse than marijuana in some instances but only when the moon is absolutely full and the sun in eclipsed."[2] Yes, we have to tread very lightly talking about alcohol. Why? Because whether she admits it or not, Williams is fundamentally in agreement with Leonhart: if it is illegal, it must be harmful.
Finally, we get to perhaps the most annoying thing of all. "That's a whole history lesson in terms of why marijuana is illegal in the first place." My first question: if you know this, why do you use the term for cannabis that was invented to vilify it and associate it with Mexicans? But mostly, I am just back to my previous point: can you really be so ignorant to think that cannabis became illegal because of racism, but the other drugs became illegal because they were "bad"?
In case readers aren't aware: cocaine was made illegal because it was associated with blacks, especially in the south. As I recall, in the congressional record of the Harrison Narcotics Act, there is discussion of coked up blacks raping white women. Opium was the first drug to be made illegal in the United States. Because it was harmful? Of course not. It was made illegal to get the Chinese. And again, there were lots of claims that white women were coming to opium dens, and getting high where the evil Chinese men could have their way with them.
If L. Joy Williams doesn't know these things, we are lost. But then you already knew that, didn't you?
[1] Williams is the co-host on the excellent This Week in Blackness. I have long been a big fan of Elon James White:
[2] Fun Astronomy Fact: a solar eclipse only happens during a new moon.
MikeB wrote:
The relationship between white privilege (more specifically white, heterosexual, property owning male privilege, but it applies to the white "race" in a more general, more nuanced interconnection) white supremacy, law, public policy, drug law enforcement, popular culture, and government has always consumed me.
Great history lesson too LOL, although I'm upset you didn't sneak any comment about the "yellow claw" or Sax Rohmer in :(
I've never heard of Elon James White. Of course I could just wiki them, but I'm interested as to why your a fan.
It doesn't need to be said, but for the records EVERYthing I've ever come across in the mainstream new media annoys me to one degree or another. I think the only example I can think of that I've seen in the media (and enjoyed for non-cynical reason), albeit the New Yorker, was an article in this week's edition. It was about Steven Martin (no relation to the comedian/actor, as far as I know) and his passion for collecting opium-smoking paraphernalia ("Where There's Smoke, Paraphernalia / June 25th, 2012 / Nick Paumgarten). Even then, it hardly goes into drug policy or the like though. So in my mind it doesn't really count :p
Always enjoy reading your thoughts on the genesis and recreation of American drug policy. As I commented on another of earlier your posts, Alexander's treatment of this exact subject in The New Jim Crow is spot on.
As a Human Rights Studies double major in college, I wish human rights reporters and journalists would do more to focus on this stuff. To bring it into public view, in a consistent and obvious way I mean. This, however, seems to be too much to ask, for a variety of reasons. The closest I've seen to this is stuff that has come out about problems our society faces as a consequence of drug policy and law enforcement (mandatory minimums, crack vs cocaine disparity, private prisons, racial disparity, prison overcrowding, etc. etc.) And even then, such articles are still rather few, far between, and one step removed from America's mechanisms of popular mass media (e.g. USA Today [...shudder...]).
Do you have an opinion on Tim Wise, btw? I know rather little about him, but I generally enjoy his essays. Then again, I'm more in line with the Race Traitor concept than the Anti-Racist paradigm. I hope, if you haven't already, you one day have the pleasure of reading Ignatiev's (and company) Race Traitor. I can't find a link to the edition of collected essays of theirs that is my fav, but the following will give you an idea if you're new to this:
http://racetraitor.org/features.html
http://books.google.com/books/about/Race_Traitor.html?id=zWMyXbfFKcQC
After thinking a minute, in truth Race Traitor also doesn't often get to the heart of this matter either. Then again, it has a broader focus than just drug policy/law enforcement.
To get the most complete understanding of these topics, I would have to say that NGOs, smaller ones like the Sentencing Project and Drug Policy Institute (along with the more grassroots groups like A Better Way Foundation - CT) and more prominent groups like (even) Human Rights Watch, are the most on-point. They're research oriented, generally, but that's okay. Numbers and data can be manipulated for anyone's particular ends, but it clear there is not much, if any, ideological bent behind their work.
Alas, I've rambled too much. Please excuse the poor grammar and flowery diction. I am tired, stinky and uncomfortable. Time to bring a modicum of pleasure to my day - good, old fashioned masturbation.
TMI? I think yes ;)
Adios, mi compaņero.