Eyes are Wide Open

by Croc

I'd like to open up this post with a disclaimer; that being I'm only under the influence of coffee, nicotine, and sleep deprivation. I haven't smoked any leafy, green substances since Tuesday, and I only had a bit of beer last night.

That being said, folks, I've made a discovery. Now I realize that I'm not the first or the last, but for me this comes as a very profound realization. Back during alcohol prohibition, it was the criminal element that had the most to gain. They had the power, the resources, and a very thirsty public. Fortunes were made overnight, as imfamous names like Al Capone became notorious public figures. Still, the law kept attacking alcohol, until prohibition's repeal in 1929. (is this the correct date? I couldn't find a prohibition site which would load fast enough...) Leading this crusade were not drinking advocates, but the same groups which proposed prohibition in the first place. They realized that their panacea had far more serious effects besides keeping people dry; they saw that they were benefitting the underworld. It all boiled down to money; who had it and why they had it.

In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act was passed. This was a pre-Rooseveltian-expansion technique the government used to ban various things; form a tax law requiring the possession of stamps (you still see this on every box of cigarettes), and then simply not print any stamps. The most interesting thing about this law was its sponsor, Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina. Does that state happen to ring a bell? Does it just happen to be one of our country's largest tobacco producing areas, both in the past and present? I'm beginning to wonder if Mr. Doughton wasn't looking out for the public good, or trying to prevent "marihuana crazed negroes from raping white women," (paraphrase of sentiments at the time, no real reference). I highly suspect (oh, how the puns roll out) that Mr. Doughton saw competition for his state's cash crop. This was also at a time of renewed isolationism after the first World War; no doubt our politicians, always looking out for us, saw marijuana as a non-American invention, not as good for you as good ol' apple pie and cigarettes.

Of course one cannot buy marihuana stamps from any government outlet, because the 1937 act was made null by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which made marijuana more illegal than cocaine, PCP, and opium (although of course the penalties are less severe, marijuana is federally scheduled as having a high abuse potential and no medicinal value). I can't elaborate too much now, here are the lists of drug schedules formed under the Controlled Substances Act. Please take some time and visit the DEA website, because to really be fair about questing for legalization and/or decriminalization, one should examine all sides of a given issue. But that leads me into a nice segeway (is that word going to be copywrited now?) into the main bulk of this post, and where I can finally list my thesis.

The current invasive nature of the government, made precedent by Depression-era federal expansion, criminalizes the use of euphoriant substances not out of concern for the public's well-being, but because of well established systems of law enforcement, treatment programs, and government agencies which exist and can only continue to exist if such substances remain illegal.

Heavy enough for ya!? Here's what I mean in layman's terms. Basically, there is so much money being spent to pay narcotics officers and treatment centers that the government is addicted to this source of money. It's far easier and more lucrative to fine or imprison someone than to tax them. Plus, think of all the poor souls who would lose their jobs if drug use didn't need to be stopped! My heart aches for these people, it truly does. Maybe they could get jobs as counselors trying to restore order and decency to those millions of lives which have been ruined thanks to the illegality of controlled substances.

Why do I bring this up? I was only made aware in the last week that probation officers and treatment centers are not, for the most part, part of any government institution. Instead they are for-profit centers where people such as myself are buried in an avalanche of carbon copy papers, fines, fees, and humiliation. In my case, I have just been mandated to take a 'risk reduction' course as part of my misdemeanor probation. The course is $175, payable not to the county or state, but to a for-profit mental health organization. Also, I've been told by people who have taken the course that in its whole 20 hours, less than half and hour of it is spent on drug use. This course is for DUI offenders, not casual drug users (or even drug abusers). For less than two dollars of green crumbs and a pipe which I cherished as part of my journey into adulthood (you may form your own opinion of that last statement), I have had to pay fines, fees, and costs which today exceeded $1,000. Now I ask, who are the real criminals in this case? Oh, of course it's me, I'm the one who broke the law. And in my sadistic drug-crazed state, I amassed a huge fortune which I use to support terrorists and try to undermine the picket fences way of life here in the US.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Being arrested has ruined me financially, lowered my self-esteem, and left me fearing for my freedom at every turn. I don't hate the police, I want everyone to know that they scare me like nothing else, not even snakes or heights. I'd rather fall from a cliff into a rattlesnake den than try to have a conversation with an officer of the law about anything ("Well, just a minute ago you told me...")

Also, I don't hate the picket fences, apple pie and 4th of July US culture. I grew up in it, I enjoy it, and it would be my greatest joy to achieve such a state when I grow older. I just differed a little bit from the status quo in that I don't think these drug things are all that bad, and they don't really mess with my life like all the advertising claims. I didn't start any kind of rigorous intoxication until I was 19, and it wasn't from peer pressure or a pusher on a street corner. I made the decision on my own to try it for the first time, and the only regret I have is that I live in a society which feels this goes against every value which is held dear.

Inebriation is not a birthright, it's not for everyone, and it's certainly not for those with existing conditions or criminal intentions which would aggrivate abuse. However, it's time that our society must realize that we're not homogenous. Haven't we been told since childhood to respect people of all races, religions, and creeds? Wasn't our country at its strongest when it could bring together all these different people for one civic purpose? We see this now in our current conflict in Afghanistan (although in my opinion it's no longer even a conflict, and it certainly isn't a war). Yet given all this, there is an exception to accepting the differences of others, and that is drug use. One hundred and forty years ago, our nation was engaged in the great Civil War, which was precipitated largely due to philosphical differences between the industrial North and the agrarian, slave-holding South. What I'd like to suggest now is that we have actually entered the 6th or 7th decade of the Second Civil War.

Drug users pay taxes, we have places to live, pets, families, many of the things which shape the perception of the 'American Way.' It is only when use shifts to uncontrollable abuse that any public institution should step in to rescue these poor souls. Also, such institutions should make responsible choices about which drugs actually do the most harm, and these choices should be done through rigorous scientific testing, testing which has been largely banned since 1970. Of course I'd like to make my own suggestion that such true drugs of harm would be: Opiates, cocaine both powdered and crack, amphetamines (including regular meth as well as Ecstacy), and tobacco. Please don't tell me that Ecstacy isn't the same as meth or whatever; I'm well aware of the myriad differences in chemical structure and composition, although comprehension of such matters is another issue altogether; these are simply very blatant generalities.

I am a citizen of the United States, and my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were violated on December 12th, 2001. They were violated by a man who thought I was no less evil than Usama bin Laden, a man who wore a blue uniform and a gold badge. This is the year of the common era 2002, and yet our society chooses to make a discrimination based not upon any normal distinction, but by the choice that users make (hopefully) as responsible adults.

I am a drug user. I am white, I am black, I am oriental, I am the son of parents of different races. I am rich, I am poor, I am successful, I have just been laid off.

I am Christian, I am Muslim, I am Jewish, I am an atheist. I use drugs despite my religion's insistence that drug use is bad, because I feel that it doesn't necessarily conflict with the tenets I choose to hold. I am a Republican, I am a Democrat, I am a Reformer, I am with the Green Party, I am Libertarian. I am a natural citizen, a naturalized citizen, a citizen of the world. I am a drug user. Maybe it wasn't the best decision I could have ever made in my life, but it was my decision, and I made my decision after the age of 18. I am an American. I grew up with moderately sober, highly educated parents. I love the outdoors, I am not violent by nature, and I think that the ultimate rush rests not in the world's most powerful drug, but rather in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. I am unique as can be, I am as generic and bland as an old car. I am a drug user.

I will close this essay with a plea: Do not allow money to be the deciding factor of social policy, and do not let money be the factor which keeps a corrupt and futile War on Drugs in business. Because in that war, I was a battlefield detainee.