ACLU’s Santa Barbara chapter held a forum Wednesday evening on civil liberties, incarceration, and legalization of drugs. Around 50 people — ranging from doctors and professors to teenagers and hippie leftovers — gathered in the downtown public library to join in the debate. Approaching the issue from a variety of angles, speakers Kyle Kazan, Damien Schnyder, and Suzanne Riordan argued that the legalization of illicit substances is the most just, logical, and potentially beneficent course of action regarding the contentious issue.
The speakers urged for legalization and decriminalization, as well as efforts toward preventative education and treatment programs, in order to end the War on Drugs and stop what they described as the waste and injustice that’s characterized the conflict. Referencing countries that have experimented with legalization, they discussed potential merits with this course of action. In Portugal, for instance, legalization has actually decreased drug use and the dangers thereof, as the products are regulated and distributed by governmental agencies. There have been massive declines in crime, HIV, overdoses, and overall use of heroin, and a larger percentage of U.S. kids smoke pot than in countries where marijuana is legal. It has been argued that legalization will increase general use, but evidence says otherwise, and as Kazan queried, “Are you going to try meth if I tell you it’s legal?”
Kazan spoke on behalf of LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group which consists mainly of police officers, judges, and district attorneys who have retired and advocate the legalization of illicit substances. Kazan, an ex-cop, said that legalization is the most reasonable course of action, despite his personal dislike of drugs. Kazan said that the War on Drugs, a phrase coined in the Nixon Era, simply does not work, and that it is “insane to do the same thing continually and expect different results.”
He traced the history of drug legality from 1914 — when even heroin could be bought at the market — to today, and showed that despite the degree of permissibility, roughly 1.3 percent of the population will fall prey to addiction. He lamented the billions of dollars consumed by the War on Drugs, the billions poured into prisons, and the trillion thrifted away in the name of prosecution — all to no effect, save the rocketing prison populations, much of which consists of nonviolent drug offenders. Meanwhile, the black market thrives while the rest of the economy is in tatters. The purity of drugs, he said, has increased since the seventies, while the cost has dropped, and in Los Angeles, there are more marijuana dispensaries than there are Starbucks, though marijuana use is ostensibly illegal.
Damien Schnyder, an urban anthropologist, discussed the War on Drugs in terms of racial conflict. He argued that it was an effort to control people of color who threaten the established system because they are traditionally less included, and thus invest less of themselves into it. He said that this freedom is countered with various prejudicial handicaps. He gave examples of black men sent to prison for possessing a modicum of marijuana, or another illicit substance, and pointed out that profiling is encouraged in police work, which puts people of color at an automatic disadvantage. In fact, he was pulled over by a police officer right before he arrived at the forum, he said.
Suzanne Riordan, a Santa Barbara mother who lost her son to drugs, criticized the quality of the current, punishment-based approach, and instead urged for one based on understanding. She said that most users suffer from emotional imbalances, insecurities, and are generally fragile — so they gravitate towards drugs — and while they need help, they are instead jailed. Furthermore, because of a lack of adequate treatment options, jail is often the best choice. “Unless we get to the causes of these problems, we’re never going to solve anything,” she said.
Each speaker conceded that drug use is not the most effective way to deal with anything — but they argued that the way in which policy deals with drugs is even more detrimental. It’s clear that a change must come about.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article
Myspace


Previous Month



Comments
Unfortunately rational policy is anathema to the American electoral system. The upcoming opportunity for voters to approve the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010” might be a welcome exception to that rule. You can be sure that the prison guards union and most police departments will vehemently oppose it because it threatens their job security. We have too many serious social and economic problems in this state and nation to waste as much of our time and resources on this endless and apparently futile "war". Just because something is bad for you doesn't mean we have to make it illegal and arrest people for doing it or using it. If that were the case we'd all be criminals.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Prohibition has decimated generations and criminalized millions for a behavior which is entwined in human existence, and for what other purpose than to uphold the defunct and corrupt thinking of a minority of misguided, self-righteous Neo-Puritans and degenerate demagogues who wish nothing but unadulterated destruction on the rest of us.
Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.
By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous, ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved.
Many of us have now, finally, wised up to the fact that the best avenue towards realistically dealing with drug use and addiction is through proper regulation which is what we already do with alcohol & tobacco, clearly two of our most dangerous mood altering substances. But for those of you whose ignorant and irrational minds traverse a fantasy plane of existence, you will no doubt remain sorely upset with any type of solution that does not seem to lead to the absurd and unattainable utopia of a drug free society.
There is an irrefutable connection between drug prohibition and the crime, corruption, disease and death it causes. If you are not capable of understanding this connection then maybe you're using something far stronger than the rest of us. Anybody 'halfway bright', and who's not psychologically challenged, should be capable of understanding that it is not simply the demand for drugs that creates the mayhem, it is our refusal to allow legal businesses to meet that demand.
No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, diminution of rights and liberties, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safer, only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are you willing to foolishly risk your own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?
If you still support the kool aid mass suicide cult of prohibition, and erroneously believe that you can win a war without logic and practical solutions, then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, terrorism, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, foreclosed homes, and the complete loss of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.
The only thing prohibition successfully does is prohibit regulation & taxation while turning even our schools and prisons into black markets for drugs. Regulation would mean the opposite!
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote yes in November. Good event, great topic. BH
BongHit (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good to hear that there are some individuals out there who are stepping away from the norm. The norm has gotten us where we are now, a new direction is needed.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
April 23, 2010 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Remember, America is the largest consumer of Illegal Narcotics in the World. We are a walking-Dead on dope society, but hey man....it's kool.
Charles
dou4now (anonymous profile)
April 24, 2010 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes, seems to me there is a war on "certain drug" or on "certain subcultures" using drugs... but we are a drug crazed society, just by the amount of drugs we can get our hands on. I think there needs to just be more pre-emptive relational work done in our communities to offer other solutions, via a grass root network of relationships and communities. Much harder to do, much easier to pass laws and jail folks (though that is more expensive). We are a society lacking in wisdom as a whole....
syncman (anonymous profile)
April 28, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've always found it odd that some people want to jump straight to legalization without solid science on standardized delivery. I mean, two Tylenol will cure your headache, but ten could kill you.
Let's take a step-by-step, science-based approach. More here:
http://evidencebasedthinking.blogspot...
reason_voice (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2010 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)