or subscribe to our
Twitter service


Undernews is the online report of the Progressive Review, edited by Sam Smith, who covered Washington during all or part of ten of America's presidencies and who has edited alternative journals since 1964. The Review, which has been on the web since 1995, is now published from Freeport, Maine. We get over 5 million article visits a year. See for full contents of our site

January 18, 2010


Hugh O'Shaughnessy, Independent - After 40 years of defeat and failure, America's "war on drugs" is being buried in the same fashion as it was born - amid bloodshed, confusion, corruption and scandal. US agents are being pulled from South America; Washington is putting its narcotics policy under review, and a newly confident region is no longer prepared to swallow its fatal Prohibition error. Indeed, after the expenditure of billions of dollars and the violent deaths of tens of thousands of people, a suitable epitaph for America's longest "war" may well be the plan, in Bolivia, for every family to be given the right to grow coca in its own backyard.

The "war", declared unilaterally throughout the world by Richard Nixon in 1969, is expiring as its strategists start discarding plans that have proved futile over four decades: they are preparing to withdraw their agents from narcotics battlefields from Colombia to Afghanistan and beginning to coach them in the art of trumpeting victory and melting away into anonymous defeat. Not surprisingly, the new strategy is being gingerly aired in the media of the US establishment, from The Wall Street Journal to the Miami Herald.

Prospects in the new decade are thus opening up for vast amounts of useless government expenditure being reassigned to the treatment of addicts instead of their capture and imprisonment. And, no less important, the ever-expanding balloon of corruption that the "war" has brought to heads of government, armies and police forces wherever it has been waged may slowly start to deflate. . . .


Since the Independent reminded us that it has been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs, we thought it might be interesting to look at some of the articles we published on the topic in 1970 (when the Review was the DC Gazette). Some excerpts:

John E. Ingersoll, director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, [strongly opposes] a bill offered by Senator Harold Hughes that would label dependence on drugs "an illness or disease." Ingersoll said this could be "a serious impediment to criminal prosecutions," which the Nixon Administration apparently considers more important than kicking habits.

Erbin Crowell - The Public Safety Committee of the City Council held two days of hearings this month to hear scientific and public testimony about marijuana. Most what it heard; marijuana, scientifically, is a mild conscious altering drug; it is not addictive, nor does it lead to the use of addicting drugs; it has been known and used and studied for literally thousands of years, and no physiological damage whatsoever has been discovered; instances of adverse mental effects resulting from its use are extremely rare. Most significant to the Council's hearing - and to a good number of kids who are in prison on pot convictions - was the fact, reiterated by Surgeon General Jesse L. Steinfeld, that "in the case of marijuana, legal penalties were originally assigned with total disregard for medical and scientific evidence of the properties of the drug or its effects."

"I know of no clearer instance in which the punishment for infraction of the law is more harmful than the crime," Steinfeld concluded.

That touches on the ostensible reason the Council is so concerned, but Catfish Turner probably got closer to the reality of the matter when he noted that no one in the white establishment was concerned when the use of pot was limited to Mexican Americans , ghetto blacks and a few musicians.

"It's only when it gets into your suburbia and your white middle class colleges that you begin to get at all concerned, " Turner said. And Petey Greene, who testified alongside Turner agreed: "See, you people are just conning. . .

"What?" Councilman Daugherty asked

"Faking, man, just faking. You're showing all this concern not for the community but just because some congressmen's kids got busted. " Marijuana smoking is now so widespread among the white middle and upper classes, said Greene, that "probably some of you up there got a little nickel (5-dollar) bag you go back to when this is over."

The government has never worried about lying to the ghetto, but now, Catfish said, it is realizing that it "has got to stop telling these youngsters all these lies 'cause they know you're lying and you know they do." Greene "testified" on behalf of his grandmother, whose opinions on marijuana are based on practical experience. She once told her grandson to quit: "Petey, you gotta stop smoking those reefers, because they make you too hungry, and I can't buy all that extra food." Later, on comparing its effects with those of alcohol, "She said she'd rather me smoke reefers and just sit and smile at people than drink that old wine and come in throwing chairs around."

While [Republican] Council Chairman Hahn admitted that the Council has no power to make the use and possession of marijuana legal, "it may have the power by regulation to create an alternate lighter penalty for the use and possession of marijuana." And more important, Hahn told reporters afterwards, the hearings provided an opportunity both to hear from and educate the public.

So the scientists were called in. (There were only a couple of cops guarding the Council chambers on that day and about five times that number the next morning when "the public" was to be heard.) . . . Harvard's director of psychiatric research, Dr. Lester Grinspoon, called for immediate legalization under controls similar to those now on alcohol. . . Much of the other scientific testimony said as much about the testifiers as it did about pot. The John Hopkins Drug Abuse Center and the Pharmacology Departments of Howard and George Washington attempted to convince the Council that "we know so little" and that what was needed was a great deal more research money, presumably to their own institutions.

The testimony of representatives of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs was notable for its meekness. Although the narcs still refer to marijuana as a killer drug before high school audiences, still try to imply that pot inevitably and immediately leads to heroin, still pass out 1930 "s posters of marijuana as the Grim Reaper - they backed off under Council questioning. The narc's Dr. Milton Joffe even allowed that although "legalizing simply for hedonistic purposes" was not warranted, "I'm not against pleasure."

And there were few surprises in the public testimony from about thirty individuals and organizations. Judge Charles Halleck recommended more realistic penalties, since present laws tend to cause the community "to lose faith in the entire system of justice. " James H. Heller of the National Capital Area Civil Liberties Union called for legalization of pot. He said he saw no reason that it should be treated any different from alcohol. (He admitted to having tried grass once, "but it didn't have any effect. " "Maybe you just didn't know how to smoke it, " Councilwoman Polly Shackleton consoled him.)

Rev. John Bussey, President of the D. C. Baptist Ministers Conference, called marijuana evil and sinful and warned against the terrors of bending or reducing any penalties. "This is not the time to let up," said Bussey. Dr. Seymour Albert, speaking for the D. C. Medical Society, promised to testify only on medical grounds but could cite no medical evidence for his opinion that pot was more harmful than alcohol, expressed worry that "marijuana is only used in a deliberative effort to escape reality, " said he had no opinion on legal matters but that marijuana should "be not legalized," and concluded that the penalties should be "left up to lawyers."

Virginia Riley of the D. C. Bar Association Mental Health Committee took the time to testify that the Bar Association had no opinion and no position on the matter. Father Robert Judge, a dean at Georgetown University, estimated that as many as 85% of Georgetown freshmen have used marijuana at one time or another. He felt that continued use might indicate a tendency to "cop out, " but admitted that "often the continuing users are the better students. " He recommended that legal sanctions against pot "should be extremely minimized."

The D. C. Republican Central Committee asked for more study, expressed the hope that it could after a year or so "make a more mature judgment, " and under questioning hinted that penalties should be reduced. Dr. Dan Fivel of the D. C. Democratic Central Committee submitted its resolution that all penalties be eliminated "for possession, use, and distribution of marijuana except insofar as may be required to control sale to minors and use by persons operating motor vehicles. " . . .

A couple of ex-addicts who had smoked, shot and drunk virtually everything they could get their hands on testified to the mild nature of pot. One even told the Council that it was liquor-not marijuana-that led him to heroin. The Capitol Hill Action Group recommended legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana- the tax revenues,would be significant to this tax-poor colony. Terry Becker, a Quicksilver Times reporter, surprised everyone by calling for more stringent penalties and stricter enforcement. Becker wanted "everyone to turn on and everyone to get busted;" it would hasten the revolution, he said. "

There were 100 to 125 spectators on each day of the hearings and WETA carried some of the proceedings so, as Chaiman Hahn hoped, there was ample opportunity for "educating the public. " And Hahn made sure there was a full and accurate record.

Noting that Surgeon General Steinfeld had referred to the famous Alice B. Toklas marijuana or hash brownies but claimed the recipe was not to be found in Alice's cookbook, Hahn opened the second day of hearings by setting the record straight. You will find the recipe on page 273 of Alice B. Toklas, announced Hahn, and having fulfilled his public responsibility, he ordered the proceedings to proceed.

Thomas Shales, now with the Washington Post, covered television and theater for us back then. And one 1970 article included this commentL:

Thomas Shales - In one significant way, this new TV season will be different. The networks have launched an even greater effort to please the media-mad Nixon Administration. The most obvious element will be the torrent of programs on drugs--little fright show peep shows which the Administration requested as part of its anti-drug campaign. Variety reports that "virtually every dramatic series and, in some instances, even comedies"--as well as daytime soap operas--will feature stories about the drug menace.

NBC thought it could go this gambit one better and get even more kissy-faced with the Nixon gang by inviting Mr. Dick himself to appear on "The Name of the Game" when it does its obligatory drug story. The chief executive, as he is sometimes called - and let's make no mistakes about that - would, naturally, portray himself (that is, his latest self, or the self of the moment, or the image self, or whatever).

Nixon declined this opportunity to repeat his "Laugh-In" triumph, instead will send Robert Finch before the cameras.

You can see it now, can't you? Thousands of American youth put down their roach holders, needles, spoons, pills and water pipes when they find out 'that the folks in Mayberry simply do not approve of such behavior. Why, what would Aunt Bee. say if she caught young Opie whiffing opium? (We may soon find out). Yes, Nixon has certainly come up with the answer, and the TV networks, anxious for any easy ways to protect their investment from government interference without additional expense, have fallen into line like good sheep that they are.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The gov't is not throwing in the towel. They're regrouping.

Expect to hear that Hugo and Evo are 'narco terrorists'.

January 18, 2010 9:19 AM  
Blogger m said...

This is not a 40 year failure, but rather a 96 year failure. A "drug war" may have been pronounced 40 years ago, but it has been going on since at least the 1914 passage of the Harrison Act.

Not just a failure, be a ferocious malignant disaster that infects everything it touches, and is orders of magnitude worse than the worst outcomes that it purports to eradicate.

Drug wars have gone on for centuries. Once upon a time, execution was the solution to the illegal use of chocolate, coffee and tea. Most of us now take these dangerous drugs in stride. Indeed, as I write this, above my monitor hangs a picture of my not yet two year old grandson in the throes of his first bout with chocolate. Had he been in some areas of the world in the 16-17th centuries, he would have been summarily put to death, along with his parents. How little we have progressed in hundreds of years.

January 18, 2010 5:02 PM  
Anonymous Give me liberty or give me weed said...

Everytime there is some sensible drug policy initiative on the ballot tn any US domain, the real narcoterrorists come out of the woodwork. Police and prison employees and contractors comprise the great majority of opposition to change. Wonder why that is.
"To be kind to the next door faker,
To be kind to the jailhouse screw,
To be kind to a child in a fantasy wild,
Is the best thing you can do"
Richie Havens

January 19, 2010 1:21 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home