[LEMONS] 2.06.2002
Bush's new anti-drug Superbowl ad was on the money, however many millions that was. It was the first anti-drug ad to make salient points that I can recall seeing in my entire lifetime. And it was obviously designed to appeal to socially-conscious lefties. Don't use drugs because doing so supports violence in Colombia, or Burma, or even Arizona. But there are still a couple of problems with the message. First, and this is the less obvious issue,is that the commercial targets the wrong audience. For example, the majority of the violence the commercial describes tends be associated with the "body drugs," Cocaine, speed, and the like. Appealing to these users is futile. These are the drugs of dipshits, not critical thinkers. Furthermore, aside from crack (which you're not going to get someone off of by pointing out the damage done 3000 miles away when you can't even get them off of it by pointing out the violence it causes in their own homes) most recreational cocaine users I've known have fallen on the right side of the political spectrum. They tend to be, if not straight up Republicans, Libertarian, Ayn Rand reading, self absorbed types, more concerned with finding out who John Galt is than the plight of Andean workers. And as for meth, how many bikers do you know with a social conscience? The other users whose drugs tend to be associated with violence are the opiate addicts. Have you ever known a regular heroin user? I have. Even those who are concerned with saving their own lives are typically incapable of doing so. They certainly aren't going to kick in order to save a faceless cop in Ankara. You might as well try to convince Kansas that it shouldn't be next to Nebraska anymore. Thus, only audiences that this commercial effectively targets are marijuana and "designer drug" users, which leads me to my second, and more important, point. The commercial is a more effective argument against the War on Drugs than it is against drug use.
LSD is a dangerous drug. So is DMT. So is peyote and mescaline and even MDMA. But these drugs are dangerous in the same way that a book, say The Turner Diaries, is. In and of themselves, they are quite harmless. But the effect they can have on some minds can be terrible and unalterable. For others, however, they seem to pose no threat whatsoever. The main danger these drugs pose is incarceration, or violence done to a dealer/supplier in the process of making a black market trade, because those engaged in the trade must operate on a cash basis, and have no recourse with the police if robbed or beaten during a business transaction. Likewise, I don't know of any reasonable, unbiased person who legitimately feels marijuana is dangerous, or even a threat to the public health. Marijuana is dangerous solely because it is illegal. (Sure, it causes lung cancer. So do automobile emissions. Ban those and then we'll chat.) Similarly, the murdered families, police and judges, blown up buildings, kidnapped fathers and murderous children are caused by the War on Drugs. You don't see FARC killing people for coffee beans, now do you? (Although apparantly there is blood for oil. Again, as with the War on Terrorism, if you're to follow Bush's argument to its logical conclusion, you have to end our oil dependency.) Were drugs legalized and regulated, much of the associated violence would fall off.
In San Francisco, marijuana has been decriminalized. In Mendocino county, small growers aren't prosecuted. The drug trade has been moved, to some extent, above ground. At city sponsored public events, you'll find marijuana openly sold, especially in brownie form. The pot clubs have by no means been shut down. Many pot dealers are as open as any other small business (with the exception that they pay no taxes), even going so far as to advertise. It is entirely possible to buy marijuana that is organically grown in worker-owned cooperative farms. In Northern California, the marijuana trade is as, if not more, socially responsible than most other business that generate similar revenues. This is the big flaw in the Bush message.
The violence of the drug trade is easily eradicated. Yet it won't happen because people quit using drugs, we've got 4000 years worth of recorded history that tells us that just ain't gonna happen. To stop the violence, illegal drugs must be taken off of the black market.
And finally, as if I have not been polemical enough, I'll leave you with something I found on FilePile today.
- l i n k -
