Altered Minds (Former drug warriors turn against prohibition.)

Reason ^ | August 29, 2003 | Jacob Sullum

[Korth]

In the 1980s, not many people could plausibly claim stronger anti-drug credentials than Nancy Reagan. But Forest Tennant could.

"It's great for the Reagans to get up and say, 'Let's do something about the drug problem,' but I don't know who's going to do it," he told the Los Angeles Times in 1986. "Only true professional people like myself can do very much with the drug problem."

The remark was characteristically haughty, but Tennant had the training, experience, and reputation to back it up. A physician and researcher with a doctorate in public health, he operated a chain of drug treatment clinics in California and was widely cited and consulted as an expert on drug abuse and addiction.

Tennant has published hundreds of scientific articles, testified in high-profile trials, and advised the NFL, NASCAR, the California Highway Patrol, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The Times described him as "riding at the forefront of the current wave of anti-drug sentiment."

So when the folks at the Hoover Institution who produce the PBS show Uncommon Knowledge were looking for someone to debate drug policy with me, Tennant must have seemed like a natural choice. Imagine their surprise when he ended up agreeing that the war on drugs has been a disastrous mistake.

To be sure, Tennant is not completely comfortable with the idea of treating all psychoactive substances the way we treat alcohol. Among other things, he worries about underage access and legal liability issues.

But Tennant concedes that only a small percentage of drug users become addicted, that the drug laws are not very effective at preventing abuse, and that any increase in addiction that follows the repeal of prohibition is apt to be small. Equally important, he has come to realize after decades of dealing with addiction that the war on drugs imposes tremendous costs in exchange for its dubious benefits.

Tennant says the September 11 attacks had a big impact on his thinking about drug policy. He recognized that the connection between drugs and terrorism, cited by the government to justify the war on drugs, was actually a consequence of prohibition, which makes the drug trade a highly lucrative business and delivers it into the hands of criminals. "We've got to take the profit out of it," he says.

Tennant is also troubled by the impact that U.S. drug policy has on countries such as Colombia, where it empowers thugs and guerillas, sows violence, undermines law and order, and wreaks havoc on the economy. And he believes the war on drugs has fostered systemic corruption in the United States. "We need to try something different," he says.

As a first step, Tennant would like to see states experiment with various approaches to drug policy, including decriminalization of marijuana, a drug he considers much less dangerous than the government claims. He thinks it plausible that in 15 years Americans will be able to purchase pot legally.

This is the same man who made waves in the 1980s by promoting a home eye test kit to help parents detect and deter drug use by their children. Parents were supposed to administer the test every few days, beginning when their kids were about 7. No one could have accused Forest Tennant of being soft on drugs.

Tennant is by no means the only former drug warrior who has become a critic of current policy. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), founded last year, includes more than 400 current and former police officers, judges, federal agents, prosecutors, and parole, probation, and corrections officers. The group is headed by Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran of the New Jersey State Police who worked in narcotics enforcement for 14 years.

"After three decades of fueling the US war on drugs with over half a trillion tax dollars and increasingly punitive policies," says LEAP, "illicit drugs are easier to get, cheaper, and more potent than they were 30 years ago. While our court system is choked with ever-increasing drug prosecutions, our quadrupled prison population has made building prisons this nation's fastest growing industry...Meanwhile people are dying in our streets and drug barons grow richer than ever before. We must change these policies."

As an attorney quoted in a recent Seattle Weekly article about LEAP observed, "The news story is not that the war on drugs has failed. It's who's saying it now."

[JmyBryan]

Another wacked-out radical doper. (sarcasm)

[corkoman]

Enough of this. ENOUGH OF THIS I SAY.

Stop making sense or it will be OFF WITH YOUR HEAD.

[Physicist]

Tennant says the September 11 attacks had a big impact on his thinking about drug policy. He recognized that the connection between drugs and terrorism, cited by the government to justify the war on drugs, was actually a consequence of prohibition, which makes the drug trade a highly lucrative business and delivers it into the hands of criminals. "We've got to take the profit out of it," he says.

Proof positive that he himself does not do drugs. This is a very clear-headed man.

[Sir Gawain]

Already posted.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Former drug warriors turn against prohibtion."

Danggit, I thought it was going to be Dane.

[CJ Wolf]

Ok then lets re-focus our LEO's on the illegals. Fund it with the drug tax.

[zerosix]

Yeah, and let's make carjacking, murder and rape no longer criminal acts. After all, wanting someone else's car can be clearly understood and punishing anyone for taking it or anything else someone owns, is just taking advantage of a human trait.
And as to murder, or even rape, for that matter, why the desire to kill someone who has wronged you or rape a woman/child because she/he says no, is hardly acceptable in today's society, is it?

Remember, if it (whatever it is)feels good, do it!

[MrLeRoy]

let's make carjacking, murder and rape no longer criminal acts.

No, let's keep laws against acts that violate rights, and eliminate laws against acts---like drug selling and using---that do not violate rights.

[robowombat]

Or more correctly reduce the profit margin to make this sort of activity similar to the production and marketing of beverage alcohol. A few large producers and a network of distributers and retail trade sales outlets operating on normal profit margins for a regulated trade.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[MrLeRoy]

But then people might enjoy themselves in ways the bluenoses don't approve of!

[Joe Bonforte]

Posted last Friday here.

Good discussion over there. I don't recall any post as silly as the one posted above by zerosix.

[MrLeRoy]

Not just anyone can be that foolish.

[Ed_in_NJ]

What would all the drug warriors do for a living?

Maybe they could become Border Patrol.

[vpintheak]

One gigantic load of....Common sense. I don't like drugs in the least bit, except caffein maybe. But prohibition didn't work with booze and it sure isn't working with drugs. Can anyone prove otherwise? It has just been a huge money pit, and another reason for the government to shred the Constitution.

[Physicist]

Excellent! The perspicuity of Mr. Tennant's statements needed just such a contrast to set them off. Well done.

[Britton J Wingfield]

Danggit, I thought it was going to be Dane.

"Danggit"? What is that, gang or prison slang? You dopers are all alike.

[Vigilantcitizen]

"What is that, gang or prison slang?"

Don't make me go Dead Kennedy's old timer.

[JG52blackman]

Jesus said regarding people, "By their fruits you shall know them." I think this can be applied to policies as well as to people. What are the fruits of the "war on drugs"? The same as the fruits of prohibition: 1. The financing of criminal (and in today's case terrorist) empires; 2. The criminalization of otherwise (possibly) innocent people; and 3. The corruption on a broad scale of significant chunks of law enforcement and government entities. Why do we have laws against drugs? Because most of us recognize that their use is often destructive. This recognition should be used to attack drug use via societal conventions and the option to withhold priveleges rather than via the legal/criminal system. Drug use (except regarding use by or sale to minors) should be removed from the criminal arena provided that there is a guaranteed right of any organization or individual, government or otherwise, to discriminate against users for any reason. You want a job here? Drug test. You want a driver's license or insurance? Drug test. You want a loan or a credit card? Drug test. Most prudent people recognize that a drug user will be a poorer risk and should be discriminated against in these areas if only by paying higher premiums or interest rates. Removing this from the criminal arena means that people will not be incriminating themselves in a criminal case and allows them to get what they want only after staying clean long enough to provide a clean sample for the drug test. Of course we should still keep criminal penalties for driving under the influence or committing any other felony under the influence, much like the laws that penalize a felon more for carrying a gun even if it's not used. The whole point of this approach is that it attacks the demand side of the equation. Doing this via the criminal approach would result in a police state which none of us want. I think more people would favor legalization if they were allowed to use more effective weapons against drug use. It should be obvious that the current laws don't have a deterrent effect on people intent on using drugs. There are plenty of "casual" or "recreational" users who would quit rather than lose job, driver's license, insurance, etc. I saw it happen in my workplace. I work at a chemical plant where we handle millions of pounds of hazardous materials every year. A significant percentage of the salaried professional degreed people I worked with fell into the casual or recreational drug user group when I started working there, but when drug testing was finally initiated, very few were fired for it because they recognized a good reason to quit and they just quit.