Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    97
  • comments
    424
  • views
    45,583

Pot, Music and the Feds

Sign in to follow this  
Kzoppistan

178 views

In tribute to 4/20 the other day. I would have posted it then.... but I was busy... and forgot.

I enjoyed this general rant and you might, too. I've read more academic responses, but this one was worth the few minutes to read.

-----------------------------------

http://www.counterpunch.org/sinclair04262011.html

Pot, Music and the Feds

By JOHN SINCLAIR

Oxford, Miss.

The War on Drugs was still just a twinkle in Richard M. Nixon's evil eye when the great John Lennon released his classic recording called "Imagine." That was in 1971, and Nixon launched his horribly misconceived attack on recreational drug users the following year as part of the re-election campaign headed by the aptly named Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).

My fantasy of late has been to imagine an America without a War on Drugs — a place where the cynical, old, rich, white men who dominated the United States Senate, and their feral sidekicks in the House of Representatives, had never succeeded in hoodwinking the public into welcoming their rhetoric about the dangers of getting high and the sick, draconian measures they enacted to interdict and punish the millions of recreational drug users among our citizenry.

Forty unrelenting years of this inhuman campaign founded in a passel of lies, untruths and severe misrepresentations has transformed our country from a flawed but still idealistic democracy to an ever-burgeoning police state with a gigantic, self-perpetuating, taxpayer-funded apparatus of persecution and doom directed at everyone who refuses to accept the vicious anti-drug mythology that's been enacted into law.

Let's imagine that the White House and the federal legislative bodies had simply rejected the specious argument advanced by empire-building bureaucrats like Harry J. Anslinger that marijuana was a narcotic with no conceivable medical application and its users presented a clear and present danger to the social order.

What if, instead, they had conducted an unfettered scientific investigation into the actual properties, patterns and methods of usage, physical and mental effects, documented medicinal uses, economic potential, and overall impact of marijuana on the fabric of American society, resulting in the reasonable conclusion that cannabis causes virtually no harm to its users nor to society in general.

With respect to other recreational drugs with certain detrimental effects on their users, the relatively enlightened lawmakers might well have concluded that the resultant problems were likely medical and/or psychological in nature and demanded treatment of some sort to reduce the potentially negative impact on the drug users and, by extension, on the social order itself.

Nowhere would such an informed approach dictate legal sanctions against recreational drug users of any sort. If their behavior were to cause problems in the workplace or in social settings, the usual remedies — demotion, firing, suspension from duties and the like — would be applied to resolve any discrepancies. If laws were broken as a result of their drug use, the mandated responses — arrest, prosecution, conviction, punishment — would be effected as for all similar violators.

The idea of segregating recreational drug users from their fellow citizens as a class unto themselves and punishing them for getting high in their chosen ways would be seen as indefensibly stupid and entirely without basis under our system of jurisprudence and its guarantees of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — like arresting and jailing persons for smoking a cigarette or drinking a bottle (or even an entire case) of beer.

Not only could there be no finding suggesting that recreational drug users constitute a criminal class to be treated in the same manner as armed robbers, arsonists, rapists and murderers, stripped of their lives and livelihoods and sentenced to long terms in prison, but it is indeed likely that testimony solicited during the course of such scientific investigations would indicate that there are many positive effects from getting high on drugs and that drug users have made many valuable contributions in the areas of medicine, psychology, philosophy, poetry, literature, painting, cinema and music of many descriptions.

A short list of such exemplars crucial to the development of "America's only original art form" would include Louis Armstrong, the pioneer of jazz improvisation, Lester Young, the president of the tenor saxophone, Charlie Parker and Thelonious Monk, originators of modern jazz, and Miles Davis, perhaps its greatest avatar, as well as sonic explorers like Cecil Taylor, John Coltrane, Pharaoh Sanders and Marion Brown.

With respect to the giants of jazz, the record indicates that a wildly disproportionate number of musical creators were forced to serve lengthy prison terms as a consequence of their arrest for use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other illegalized substances — a list that includes Mezz Mezzrow, Prez, Dexter Gordon, Hampton Hawes, Sonny Rollins, Stan Getz and the great tenor saxophonist Gene Ammons, who served a seven-year stretch in the Illinois penitentiary for being a heroin addict.

More familiarly, the popular music of the past 50 years now known as "classic rock" was created and advanced by people deeply steeped in marijuana smoke, LSD and other chemicals, including such originators as Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison and many others who succumbed to the fatal effects of their habitual drugs of choice.

Further, with regard to popular culture, it's hard to imagine any film or television production that has been realized without the participation of writers, directors, actors, producers and crewmembers under the influence of illegal drugs of some sort. The ranks of record producers, entertainment executives, concert promoters, artists' managers, booking agents and other industry operatives are rife with drug users of every description, yet the show goes on and the profits roll in to the coffers of the corporations who utilize their drug-addled services.

But we're only making little scratches on the surface of the fabric of modern American society. The fact is that millions of people use illegal drugs on a regular, daily basis and suffer primarily from the efforts of the insanely dedicated minions of law and order who are bent on enforcing the letter of the law that proscribes getting high without a prescription and mandates elaborate punishment schemes for those unlucky enough to be apprehended.

Imagine that it's OK to get high and that you could acquire your drug or drugs of choice across the counter at a reasonable cost from a licensed dispensary. Imagine that the police and legal authorities had no stake in what might be going on in your head as long as you weren't hurting anyone or breaking the established codes of social conduct. Imagine that the people who grow, manufacture and supply your drug needs are treated like producers of other essential goods and services, allowed to make a reasonable profit and pay the appropriate taxes into the public treasury.

Imagine that the police had absolutely no power of arrest with respect to recreational drug users unless we were to commit some sort of actual crime. Imagine that they weren't allowed to tear your car or your home apart looking for drugs or the attendant paraphernalia. Imagine the vast number of closed police stations, courtrooms, jails and prisons, the shuttered probation and parole offices and drug treatment centers. Imagine that those police forces that remained were directed toward detecting and confiscating unregistered or illegal weapons of human destruction.

Then imagine the resultant savings in tax dollars and the massive redirection of tax revenues to underwrite music and arts programs in schools, free health care for the sick and damaged among us, expanded human services of every kind instead of money wasted on the idiotic War on Drugs. Imagine a society where you can get high and go about your business without fear of persecution, arrest or punishment of any kind except that which you may inflict upon yourself in the course of your experimentation and habitual use of your drugs of choice.

In the immortal words of the bard (who, by the way, smoked the stuff):

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

Sign in to follow this  


13 Comments


Recommended Comments

said iPod theft would not be necessary when the commodity was not proscribed by law. It would then be a consumer product, more like any other FMCG with prices fettered by competition and fair trade practices instead of soaring high due to the patina of criminalisation like right now.

By taking a naturally occurring plant and saying "you cant have this or i will break your face", you do two thing, you instantly turn a whole section of society into criminals by definition and you give rise to crime by criminalising the act. When one is forced to break the law in order to get something, their methods and practices get more extreme, paranoia and the need to "not get caught" lead one to more "criminal like behaviour". For example, if weed were legal, it would be sold in stores and were the store takings robbed the store owner would have recourse to the law. Unlike today, where the only way to ensure that one's sales proceeds do not get stolen is to hire goons who more likely than not, have illegal weapons. you see where i am going with this?

Share this comment


Link to comment

I think you misunderstand the causes of the types of crimes Schatt is referring to, Alfred. Pot is one thing, but hard drugs result in strong addictions, and users become desperate to get it at any cost. Since these users are often poor, many of them turn to crime to get money for drugs. Even if hard drugs were legalized, low-income users would still be addicts and would still be desperate to get their hands on money to buy the stuff. Pot is less harmful than tobacco, and probably ought to be decriminalized at least. Hard drugs though are a major societal problem. Drug freedom? No, addiction is the opposite of freedom.

-Bama

Share this comment


Link to comment

Fancy cars and expensive clothes are not addictive in any way and thus are not the cause of the crime. The guy who says "I'm going to steal something so I can get that new car" is someone who would have ended up involved in crime even if he hadn't just seen that car. Drugs like meth and heroin force people to turn to crime who would not otherwise have turned to it (obviously the same cannot be said for pot). That is where the societal problem lies.

-Bama

Share this comment


Link to comment

Alcohol is addictive and dangerous, remember how well the prohibiton era went?

Also it's a pretty bold statement to say "Fancy cars and expensive clothes are not addictive in any way", compulsive shopping/spending addiction is a real thing.

if somebody becomes addicted to opiates or w/e and commits a crime to pay for their habit, is it their fault or the fault of the drug?~

Share this comment


Link to comment

Alcohol is cheap. How often do you hear of anyone robbing a house to get money for Natty Light?

Compulsive spending exists, but crime stemming from it is hardly a social epidemic.

Don't get me wrong, people are responsible for their own actions no matter what. But drug addiction does get people to turn to crime who, if not for their physical addiction, would never have turned to it. Doesn't mean it's not their fault, just that it wouldn't have happened if not for meth, heroin, etc.

-Bama

Share this comment


Link to comment

"Alcohol is cheap. How often do you hear of anyone robbing a house to get money for Natty Light?" - my point was that during prohibition when alcohol was made illegal it became expensive and crime went through the roof

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yeah, much of the cost of illegal drugs is because they're illegal. Though I rather agree with Bama, at least some hard drugs should remain illegal because they are too dangerous to let people use without training. Since alcohol and tobacco are ingrained in our culture as legal, though, anything which is less harmful than them should be legal, and that's a pretty high bar, particularly in the case of tobacco which is addictive, carcinogenic and has multiple other negative health effects to the user and people around them.

Cannabis in particular should be legal, its harm is only on a low level (comparable at worst with tobacco) and countries where is is legal (e.g. Holland) are hardly drug-addled dystopias.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...