Establishment vs. the Drug War
Matt Welch | December 17, 2007, 3:18pm
David Fleming, long one of L.A.'s most powerful private citizens, has now become one of its most powerful advocates for drug legalization. The L.A. Daily News has produced a profile of Fleming and his wife Jean, who together have created a new medical-marijuana docudrama entitled Smoke Screen.
"The War on Drugs has cost the American taxpayer $1 trillion since 1972," he said. "We're paying $69 billion a year to make a health problem into a criminal one."
That's the libertarian side of him talking - he's also a board member of the Reason Foundation. But while Fleming can go on at length about drug stats from a policy standpoint, he's also got a personal stake.
His wife, a former Miss Illinois turned actress, suffers debilitating pain from post-polio syndrome. Several months ago, she obtained a prescription for medical marijuana. At night, she takes a few drops of liquid THC or snacks on a pot brownie to ease the pain.
"Here's Jeannie, well-to-do and a pillar of society, using marijuana," Fleming said.
"And I could be thrown in prison by Bush," she interjected.
That's Bush as in President George W. - the one who named her husband as a trustee for the James Madison Foundation, a group of politicians, jurists and two private citizens that hands out scholarships for teachers. Fleming has a photo of him and the president in his office.
The couple have an unusual marriage. He hangs with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. She wears a Barack Obama T-shirt. The two disagree on many political issues, but they vehemently agree about the need for drug-policy reform.
"Look, I'm an old lady, so I can say what I want to," she said. "In the '60s, I used to go to parties where cocaine was passed around and snorted. Nothing ever went up my nose, but I smoked marijuana."
Whole thing, well worth a read, here. (Link via L.A. Observed.)
Paul | December 17, 2007, 4:33pm | #
Peter:
Probably because if
Reason staffers delved this deeply into the history and origins of the War on Drugs, they'd become hopelessly depressed.
This morning on
this show, an individual made a point of saying the for the most part, drug prohibition is a
global issue, in that there really wasn't a square inch on the globe where drugs were legal. Even in Amsterdam, he pointed out, drugs are illegal, the authorities take a "look the other way" approach due to their pragmatism.
I take Reason's side on the war on drugs, however, I'm not as optimistic about its arc. In my opinion, the War on Drugs is expanding, and any belief that *poof* prohibition will become a thing of the past is wishful thinking.
We may institute reforms, and we may not fight the war on drugs with DEA agents in South America, but in some way, the government WILL control and regulate what and how we put stuff in our bodies, end...of...discussion. The will to regulate is simply too strong.
In the link I post above, one of the individuals being interviewed wants to reform drug laws in this country, but his approach is disconcerting to me. He approaches the issue with a mish-mash of populist thinking, top-down government control, and change of focus from prevention to treatment. He also thinks that the "cure" to the substance abuse problem is some sort of National Health system. So there ya go.
Paul | December 17, 2007, 4:59pm | #
What about alcohol, caffeine and nicotine? What give them their exalted status as THE legal intoxicants? Should they be illegal, since the other intoxicants must be illegal?
First of all, Juanita, we're working on that right now. There are top men, making lots of money, trying to figure out how to ban them, as well as trans-fats, foie gras and many other things. Again, it's all about regulation.
And another point on that is that it makes me cringe everytime someone who wants to end the drug war starts talking about all the damage alcohol does to society. Because you'll never make your point and make the regulator say "Oh, yeah, you're right, this whole drug war thing should end", they're going to say "Oh crap, how'd we miss that? Yeah, let's ban that too!".
So please, don't call anymore attention to the few vices I do have-- and enjoy.
Oh, FWIW, the guy in the interview (link in my previous post) made some rather schizophrenic points about ending the war on drugs. He was asked about cigarettes, recreational drug use etc., he seemed to be whistling past the graveyard on his answers, but he indicated that we're having success with eliminating tobacco use from society, by pushing the users onto the cold, rainy street. To him, that was success. Had I been in the studio, I'd have said "Uhm, heroin users have been on the cold, rainy street for decades, and that's not working so well." And to think this was the guest who was
against the drug war. In the end, it seemed like he was really arguing for a "New and Improved Drug War, a kinder, gentler drug war... with lots of government control and regulation."
Be very afraid.
