So many problems are laid at the feet of drug use in our mainstream media yet these problems are not solved by the only means we people are ever allowed and have been following since the beginning of drug prohibition. We are told that we must maintain the illegality of some psychoactive substances for fear that changing the laws now would send the wrong message to children.
On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Nobody wants their kids to be strung out on crack, willing to do anything for that next hit. Willing to forget about everything in pursuit of that next all-to-brief rush, willing to lie, steal, and even kill.
However, what do we do? We hire police to attempt to inderdict the supply. We build a legal apparatus that greatly empowers the state to interfere with the citizenry. Privacy is eroded, armed and ruthess people have endless supplies of untracable cash, clandestine smuggling networks and often dangerous drug manufacturing facilities,
This fails continully, whether by nature or by design, I am not certain.
In Canada, the anti drug laws were introduced in racist times, under suspect circumstances, the government of the time wanted a way to deal with civil unrest. This led to the The Opium Narcotic Act of 1908.
Quoted from The Complete History of Cannabis in Canada
1907-1923: Prohibition, Legislation, Propaganda.
Then Deputy Minister of Labour, William Lyon MacKenzie King, was appointed to investigate and settle Chinese property damage claims. During his investigation, MacKenzie King discovered the use of opium among the Chinese population, and hit upon a unique solution to the labour crisis. MacKenzie King decided that the only means of eliminating the civil unrest was to eliminate the Chinese. In his capacity as a private citizen he submitted a report titled "The Need for the Suppression of Opium Traffic in Canada". This report was largely based on sensational newspaper stories depicting the ruin of white women caused by opium use.
Mackenzie King's report led to the creation of the Opium Narcotic Act of 1908, which prohibited the import, manufacture and sale of opiates for non-medical purposes. The Opium Narcotic Act of 1908 has provided the basis for all other Canadian legislation dealing with the use of illicit drugs to this day, despite the fact that it was created solely to eliminate an undesirable element from the labour pool, and gave no regard to medical, social or any other scientific research to back up its necessity or wisdom. In fact, it is doubtful that MacKenzie King had ever intended the Act to be applied to any segment of the white population at all.
Difficulties in enforcing the Act and the development of illicit smuggling networks prompted the establishment of a royal commission on Chinese opium smuggling. The recommendations of the commission resulted in the Opium and Drug Act of 1911. This Act expanded the list of prohibited drugs, made simple use and possession of the prohibited drugs an offense, and widened police powers of search and seizure.
In 1920, one year before MacKenzie King became Prime Minister of Canada, the Opium and Drug Branch was established by the Department of Health, and was put in charge of enforcing narcotics legislation. The RCMP worked very closely with the Drug Branch, and their service was rewarded with ever more lenient laws regarding their right to search and seize the property of suspected drug users.
Up until the 1920's, cannabis extracts were used in patent medicines to treat about twenty different ailments. Queen Victoria herself was an avid advocate of cannabis medicine in her lifetime, as well as feeding it to all the songbirds and rare birds in the Royal sanctuaries. During this period three states in the US had made cannabis illegal, all without the benefit of any scientific studies. These laws were put in place to harass and deport the minority groups who favoured different drugs than those of the European population. These unfounded and racist laws were to find their way into Canada, assisted by Maclean's Magazine, which in the early 1920's ran a series of articles about the illicit drug trade in Canada.
These articles were written by Mrs. Emily Murphy under the pen name of "Janey Canuck", and were later compiled into a larger book entitled The Black Candle. Mrs. Emily Murphy was Canada's first female police magistrate judge, and was also a leader of the Irish Orange Order, a religious group which then wanted a pure white Canada.
The articles that Mrs. Emily Murphy wrote were very biased and sensationalized. In one chapter a Los Angeles County Chief of Police is quoted as saying that
...persons using this narcotic smoke the dry leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence are immune to pain. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any forms of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility.
When The Black Candle was released in 1922 its sole purpose was to arouse public opinion and pressure the government into creating stricter drug laws. The RCMP used this book to increase its power along with making cannabis hemp illegal under the name "marijuana" in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act of 1923.
The laws against cannabis were likewise foisted upon the public based in falsehoods, falsehoods inspired by racism. And we look a the fruit of this today. Gangs, corruption, drugs so easy to get any child can and does get it.
They are likewise maintained by deception, and although racism is now considered socially unnacceptable, hating cannabis users is not.
The RCMP has become nothing more than thugs enforcing rules that most of the country does not even agree with. Those with honor are tarred with the same brush as those that get caught in malfeasance. We have been telling them for years that the cannabis is not the cause of violence, the laws are YET they form unions that push these laws with fear and deception to create the conditions.
So if they :
1) have not learned yet
2) learned but maintain the status quo for power and money
this leads to the inevitable conclusion that
1) If they have not learned yet: they are too stupid to allow weapons in their possesion, let alone power.
2) Know the truth and continue for political reasons, they are too evil to allow to have guns, let alone power.
either way, I believe they are totally out of control because of the peoples complacency. These are the kinds of absolutes we get faced with so turnabout is fairplay. There is lots of wiggling room between these extremes, plenty of grey where white and black overlap.
We trust police to enforce laws, we sometimes need their assistance, and society needs order to ensure the maximum amount of liberty for citizens as is possible.
There are likely many good people in the forces who just want to make a positive contribution to society , all cops are not bad, most are good people. Who else wants the job? However, contact with criminals constantly is bound to color attitudes, the people they bust for drugs all the time are who they see in their minds when they think of 'pot smokers'. People who have deviated in a decided manner from acceptable paths then become representative of the whole subgroup.
Well this goes the other way too.
After reading quote after quote about drugs from so-called drug experts pretending to be police.. (or is that the other way around?) my respect sinks. It is as if they are fed the DEA lies and they each get to echo them in the press. The same things over and over. By their own rules, should one of these police have actual first hand knowledge of the drugs (and not the ill conduct of some people while on them) they become unsuitable for their job. Hence, all police drug experts are actually PR people whose primary function is to convince people to support a war on some people who use non sanctioned drugs while the bodies pile up from alcohol and tobacco.
The message they continually send is that it is ok to poison yourself with alcohol(just dont drive ok?) but if you smoke some cannabis, you risk up to 7 years in jail for possession.
The governments own anti-tobacco campaigns in some small way helped my resolve to quit tobacco smoking, they did not have to threaten me with arrest and incarceration. Why should it be different with any drug? I believe that if you showed people the truth about hard drugs without trying to always include cannabis, messages would be more credible. The ultimate result of having as much crack as an addict could have would be a non-life in dark holes, hiding from life. The damage to society comes when these dwellers in darkness emerge to obtain more drugs.
The true motivation of the war on drugs has always been to demonize cannabis. During the 70s, anti-war protesters were associated with cannabis so the 'war on drugs' became a war on culture, the hippies. It also permitted the persecution of non-white races to be renewed after so many civil rights victories by African Americans in the 60s.
Drug prohibition allows gangs endless supplies of income, corruption, loss of privacy, rights, we are blocked from agriculture, prevent serious research, cannot prevent children from getting drugs, and suffer a total loss of respect for authority and the rule of law.
We did not tolerate this nonsense for alcohol prohibition nor should we for drug prohibition. Drugs and the search for altered states of mind will never go away, the sooner the 'professional' investigators realize that, the sooner they can begin to restore their honor. Police conduct, not consumption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------The public policy regime we propose expresses the fundamental premise underlying our report: in a free and democratic society, which recognizes fundamentally but not exclusively the rule of law as the source of normative rules and in which government must promote autonomy as far as possible and therefore make only sparing use of the instruments of constraint, public policy on psychoactive substances must be structured around guiding principles respecting the life, health, security and rights and freedoms of individuals, who, naturally and legitimately, seek their own well-being and development and can recognize the presence, difference and equality of others.Senate Special Committe On Illegal Drugs 2002
Well I am happy to say that there are some people out there that realize the total havoc drug prohibition is the cause of and are working to restore respect to law enforcement persons. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
The whole house of cards sits upon a paper foundation, it is only a few mistaken beliefs that keep the 'drug dealers' in business.
1) Drug laws exist to protect the public
2) Drug laws were concieved with a scientific basis
3) Drug laws are not as harmful as drugs
4) Drug laws protect children
5) Drug laws are worth the cost
Beliefs that are patently false.