From: Christopher B Reeve <[cr 39] at [andrew.cmu.edu]>
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon,
Pittsburgh, PA

I've seen a lot of theories thrown around lately as to why drugs are
illegal today.  A lot of them boil down to conspiracy theories.
Personally, I don't put too much faith in that way of thinking.  But
anyways, I have some opinions from some really different viewpoints
typed in that I thought everybody would like to see.  Check these out.
This is good shit.  I like the psychologist's approach.  I'd like to
memorize that one for the next time someone tries to shove anti-drug
propaganda down my throat:

"One function of laws against the use and possession of drugs is that
they publicly sanciton the feeling of most people that drug use is
morally wrong, even when no one is hurt.  John Kaplan, an advocate of
marijuana reform, has articulated this feeling: 'Like many Americans of
my generation, I cannot escape the feeling that drug use, aside from any
harm it does, is somehow wrong.'  Professor Kaplan, however, was able to
separate his moral views from his legal judgment.  Since the marijuana
laws created heavy burens for the legal system, he urged that penalties
be dropped.  Most people, however, are unable or unwilling to keep law
and morality distinct.  If drug use is wrong, they reason, it is
perfectly natural to have the law express that judgment and punish the
immorality when it occurs.  Indeed, the need to enshrine moral
sentiments in the law often obstructs the desire to lessen the damage
from drug use." (Norman E. Zinberg and John A. Robertson, Drugs & The
Public, 190)

  "First, by being greatly concerned about the potential danger of drugs,
Mr. Fry [the typical anti-drug advocate] is protected personally against
drug-taking, alerted to the use of drugs by those close to him, and
predisposed to support antidrug measures.  These are the manifest
functions of his concern.  The latent functions are to reinforce his
desire to resist the temptation to take drugs and to be a 'good' person.
 But the depth of his desire to maintain the status quo reaches into
unconscious levels, and has driven Mr. Fry, normally a reasonable man,
into regarding the marijuana smoker whose only crime is his use of the
drug as a dangerous criminal.  By censoring material that conflicts with
his views, Mr. Fry minimizes the internal conflict that would arise were
he to take note of all the information available to him.  We know enough
about nonmedical drug use to make Mr. Fry and the others we interviewed
uncomfortable if they were to acknowledge all the facts.
  Second, our vision of ourselves as upright and capable of judging is
reaffirmed vis-a-vis drug use, and this strengthens our resolve to
maintain the status quo.  Mr. Fry, for example, on the subject of drug
use felt on firm ground in an insecure world.  He was keenly aware that
he had done little to make the world a better place for his children,
and his guilt about this immobilized his wish to control the younger
generation.  However, when it came to drugs, he knew what was right.
His desire to protect the kids from themselves made him certain of is
position, exorcised his guilt, and permitted him to feel perfectly
justified in his wish to control.  These are the manifest functions.
Mr. Fry is unaware of the latent function, by which his veyr
rwillingness and power to judge the drug user affirms the uprightness of
him who judges.  The myths about drug use that Mr. Fry clings to - such
as htat of an inevitable drug progression - permit him to retain his
sense of righteousness." (Norman E. Zinberg and John A. Robertson, Drugs
& The Public, 50 - 51)

"Given the failure of the War on Drugs to accomplish its stated goals
and the negative consequences of the criminalization-enforcement
strategy, why has the administration chosen to pursue this course?  The
answer is this: While the War on Drugs has been ineffective and
destrictive in some ways, it has been highly effective and highly
successful in other, more important ways.
  First, the focus on the dangers of illegal drugs diverts attention away
from the dangers of legal drugs, which are well integrated into the
culture and the economy and are represented by powerful interests.  The
serious consequences  of the legal drugs (like tobacco, alcohol, and the
more dangerous prescription drugs) in terms of public health, violent
behavior, spiritual deterioration, family disruption, death, and disease
are downplayed in the quest for a so-called drug-free culture.  The
drug-free culture is in fact one in which citizens are free to consume
their own culturally and economically integrated drugs and the drugs of
other cultures are excluded.  The population is encouraged to absorb the
social costs of the use of legal dangerous drugs but not hte social
costs of the use of illegal drugs whose profits are not under control.
  Second, the War on Drugs has been highly successful in diverting public
attention away from fundamental social problems that plague the society.
 The Reagan and Bush administrations have managed to convince a
substantial proportion of the American public that the dangers emanating
from the use of cocaine, marijuana, crack, and heroin are among the
greatest dangers threatening not only the health of the population but
the very fabric of their existence as a society.  Drug abuse is
portrayed as a cause rather than a symptom of severe social problems,
which are the predictable outgrowth of a social order that has failed,
even with all its wealth, to provide a satisfying, enriching quality of
life for its citizens.
  Third, by primarily focusing on drug use and trafficking by members of
the lower class and minority groups, the War on Drugs has aided in
legitimating hte virtual abandonment of minority and marginalized
segments of the population and has assisted in making them appear as an
enemy class deserving of marginality and impoverishment.  Fourth, the
War on Drugs has been used to legitimate a massive expansion of domestic
state power and control." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy,
and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 57 - 58)

"the primary intent of the War on Drugs is not to stop drug trafficking
or drug use.  The War on Drugs is a tool in a larger war that is about
increased authority and social control.  William Bennett, the Drug Czar
(or as some say, the Drug Bizarre), said himself that the issue was one
of authority and control.  The Wall Street Journal [Wall Street Journal.
 (12/29/89).  The Devil You Know: A6.] echoed Bennett when it
editorialized: 'This nation is suffering a drug epidemic today because
of the loosening of societal control in general.'  The real agenda, as
the Drug Warriors have so plainly stated, is increased social control.
  The Wall Street Journal editorial continued by arguing that the remedy
to the drug epidemic should include maintaining and increasing the
stigma of drug use.  Drug users, it was reasoned, should be stigmatized
more, not less, so that they may be controlled more effectively."
(Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs:
Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 174)

Chris

--
"Freud was convinced that 'the voice of the intellect will be heard.'
But no one understood better than he that if reason is to triumph,
it has to sound above the clamor of conflicting emotion and the roar
of primitive desires." (Zinberg and Robertson, _Drugs & The Public_, 242)