From: Mike Rosing <mrosing@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:15 PDT
Subject: Book review:Drug Legalization +/-
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1484000062:000:12287
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mrosing    Oct 11 19:15:00 1992


	I was honored (?) with the task of reviewing the book "Drug
Legalization, For and Against".  For publishing the review they let me
have the book.  So here it is, "published" on the net.
[in paper: ISBN-0-8126-9169-5  in cloth: ISBN-0-8126-9168-7]

	The book is published by Open Court Publishing Company,
(LaSalle IL, 61301 (c) 1992) edited by Rod L. Evans and Irwin M.
Berent with a forward by Linus Pauling and a redundant introduction by
Hugh Downs.  The editors are appologetic for being biased in favor of
some form of legalization and given the arguments they picked favoring
the status quo of prohibition it's easy to see why.  I think they
tried hard to find good arguments for continuing prohibition but it
really boils down to accepting a paternalistic government versus a
free society.  Out of 11 articles favoring prohibition, only 2 were
consistent: given their basis of argument you could logically reach
the same conclusion.  I just happen to disagree with their basis.

	So there's no confusion, both the editors and reviewer
agree, legalization (of some form) is the way to go.  

	In general, the legalizers used facts and talked much about
marijuana and the prohibitionists used rhetoric and polls (nobody
believes the other side so don't listen to them) and talked much about
heroin and cocaine.  Given the skew argument, maybe legalizing hemp
really is possible?  All other drugs are just a matter of changing a
few polls.  To this reader, the best prohibitionist argument was "we
have helmet laws, therefore we can control your mind too."  This is
true.  We ought not have helmet laws!

	What follows are my notes of each contributing author.
Their efforts were culled from various journals and proceedings from
1988 to 1992.  Only one article has never been published before.  It
was actually my favorite piece.

	Linus Pauling opens the book with the concept of
*orthomolecular substances* as things which the human body has adapted
to over the past million years or so and *drugs* as substances not
normally present.  He figures distilled alcohol is only a few hundred
years old so that falls in the catagory of drugs but he says
"marijuana and cocaine, and perhaps also peyote" should be as
available as beer.  I hope he meant coca leaf and not processed
cocaine because that would make him a hypocryte, calling distilled
alcohol a drug but not processed cocaine!

	Hugh Downs asks the readers to think about legalization and
suggests a few questions to have in mind while reading the book.  The
editors then spell out their rational for putting the book together
the way they did.  The book is laid out in 11 chapters of various
types of arguments with the first chapter a list of questions that
Charles Rangle (chairman  of the select Committee on Narcotoics Abuse
and Control) asked his committee to consider at the behest of Kurt
Schmoke's request to investigate legalization.  They are really good
questions and he obviously ignored the answers to stay a
prohibitionist.  All in all the book starts out interesting.

	Next up was a very abridged version of Nadelmann's 1989
Science article arguing for legalization.  I'd read the original so I
skipped this.

	James Wilson (prof. of mang. and public policy at UCLA)
mounts a personall attack on Nadelmann and tries to use history of
drugs starting in 1970.  Very unconvincing.

	Then comes Milton Friedman's famous letters to Bill Bennett
and the reply.  Bennett says "I advocate a larger criminal justice
system to take drug users off the streets." And "drug use is a threat
to the individual liberty and domestic tranquility guaranteed by the
constitution."  Friedman replies with a quote from Justice Brandeis:
"The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding."

	At this point I'm wondering if the prohibitionists have
anybody who can articulate their viewpoint at all with reason.
Fortunately Ed Tully and Marguerite Bennett of the FBI show up with
the most consitent argument for the prohibitionists.  They start out
making good points about individual rights versus social safety.  They
feel that laws which "protect the individual" (seat belt and helmet
laws) are good things.  Using this as a basis they argue well for
prohibition. They also use several specious arguments about the
dangers of marijuana which are blatently false but this does not
affect their arguments.  Proves to me that paternalistic society is a
bad thing.

	Merrill Smith (U.S. Chief Probation Officer) gives lots of
quotes from professors and medical doctors.  Lots more facts than the
FBI argument and an excellent review of history of how drugs went from
the medical domain to the criminal starting from the 1890's.

	John Hill (Law prof. and Ph.D. philosophy) then comes along
with a really nice libertarian perspective.  The book might be worth
getting for this article alone.  Hill argues for the principle of a
"zone of privacy".  He defines "'privacy' in the jurisprudential sense
is that which is beyond the legitimate concern of the government and
its laws."  A couple of quotes I really liked are: "Similarly,
monarchists, Marxists, and fascists of various brands reject the
notion of a private realm of individual choice as a chimera of modern
Liberalism."  And "Defenders of a zone of privacy, on the other hand,
recognize the logical and moral primacy of the individual over the
state.  The individual is not, as it was for Aristotle, a part of the
state.  Rather, the state is the creation of the individual and, as
such, the servant of individual ends."  Right on dude!

	Hill goes on to study supreme court rullings about privacy
and covers 4 specific areas.  He then quotes Mill's definition of
'harm to others' and relates all this to drug use.  He does not
venture a direct opinion towards legalization and tosses out bits for
debate such as "prohibition might also be warranted in the case of
certain specified drugs that pose a threat to the continued autonomy
of the individual user."  An ivory tower argument but a great place to
get definitions and a basis for legalization.

	Mark Moore (Harvard Prof. of Criminal Justice) starts off
with "In this Article, I note that the 'drug problem' is primarily a
cocaine epidemic."  Sets up 6 straw men 'alternatives' of legalization
and then knocks them down.  Very unconvincing.  He blames all of
societies problems on drug use.  Actually it's kind of sad.

	Todd Brenner (Lawyer, Notes Editor for Capital Law Review)
is very repetitive of the legalization side.  Nadelmann covered the
facts and Hill covered the logic.  I didn't finish reading it.  It
seemed like 50 pages of the book could have been saved leaving Moore
and Brenner out.

	I then skipped Wisotsky (Law prof. at Nova University) as
just another boring lawyer.  [That's part of the reason I'm running
for office on the Libertarian ticket.  I'm sick of lawyer's telling me
how to live my life.]

	Kurt Schmoke gives a short, succinct and powerful message
for legalization.  Bill Bennett (again!?) rantingly replies "law
enforcement works".  Is this bias of editors or is there really no
rational explanation of prohibition?

	Dr. Gazzaniga (psychiatry prof. Dartmouth Med. school) is
published in interview format.  This was interesting to read after the
previous boring rants and gave a useful counter to the "drugs create
crime" falicy.  Compares alcohol, tobacco to crack and cocaine
addictions.

	Gabriel Nahas (pharmacologist and known liar) claims alcohol
"does not impair mental acuity" but marijuana does "even in minute
quantities".  Seeming to admit he has no facts he says "Only when the
vital grass-roots forces of America feeling their existance
threatened, become determined to fight drugs will they be able to wage
a war and win it."  He basicly believes propaganda and lies will work
forever.  Made me want to puke.

	Thomas Szasz (psychiatrist prof. from SUNY) follows in
typical great style.  He has a sharp wit but uses few real facts.  He
gives a high level abstract argument with some of the best
legalization propaganda I've seen.  He directly ties Hitler's argument
of the 'dangerous jew' to WoD's 'dangerous drugs'.  He says: "The
perennial confrontation between authority and autonomy, the permanent
tension between behaviour based on submission to coercion and the free
choice of one's own course in life - these basic themes of human
morality and psychology are now enacted on a stage on which the
principal props are drugs and laws against drugs."  Kind of made me
wonder if the human race is worth the effort I expend on it.

	David Musto (psychiatry prof. Yale) gives an accurate
historical perspective.  He argues public opinion polls be used to
determine what to do with drugs: "My belief is that the popular
attitude which is growing so powerfully against drug use in this
country is in the long run more determinative than profits or even
foreign supply."  He does think "we must not again revert to extreme
punishments, silence or exaggeration" when discussing drug use.  He
suggests that the war should plow ahead as usual because it is
working.  He ignores his own arguments but it ranks up there with the
FBI paper as the best of the prohibitionists.

	William Buckly (editor National Review) complains that "no
politician can be elected who recommends the one thing that hasn't
been tried."  They could have picked a better piece.  I think this
could have been left out also.

	Morton Kondracke (senior editor New Republic) claims that
"drugs have been the rage in America only since about 1962".  He makes
the amazing assumption that because alcohol kills 200,000 people per
year that legalizaing marijuana would do the same thing and including
all drugs he says "the number of deaths actually could go as high as
500,000 a year."  He concludes "in the name of health, economics, and
morality, there seems no alternative but to keep drugs illegal."  The
'liberals' are more dangerous than the 'conservatives'!

	Ms. Taylor Branch (freelance writer) comes at it with a
literary attack.  She compares Prohibition to today.  She comments on
the connection between racism and drugs and why doctors did not
defend use of opium or cocaine.  She argues for a "Koop model" of
legalization: no advertising, no sales to minors, but legal to
purchase with warnings that it's bad for you.  She ends with "To fight
the entire drug war by Everett Koop's rules would require disciplined
courage within individual citizens and enormous trust between them.
But so does the practice of democracy itself."

	The book ends with Arnold Trebach (law prof. American
University and head of Drug Policy Foundation) throwing a self
promoting rah-rah.  He gives a few good points on how activists should
push for medical marijuana and heroin and asks that users be left
alone but dealers still be punished.  Argues for political reason on
the part of legalizers and suggests taking things one step at a time.

	The lawyers were definitly boring.  Too many words and not
enough said.  If you've been in the WoD for awhile, this book does you
no good at all.  But their market is the "public" and for that it may
be too thick.  If the market is libertarians it may sell ok.

	I just have the feeling that there must be more to the
prohibitionist argument.  If there isn't then it should be really easy
to legalize hemp.  The major argument is that the government has the
power to control individual behavior.  This is absurd.  Government can
not control its own behavior let alone that of individuals.  This is
observed historical fact.  I'll be suprised if the book gets wide
circulation because it is biased in favor of legalization.  The powers
that be are biased against it.  

	Nahas is right about one point: "Only when the vital
grass-roots forces of America feeling their existance threatened" will
they fight oppression.  If this book really represents the
prohibitionists then they are planting the seeds of their own
destruction.  And this book documents their demise.

Patience, persistence, truth,         reality:       mgr@anhep2.hep.anl.gov
Dr. mike                                 UUCP:    uunet!pyramid!cdp!mrosing
IMI, P.O. BOX 2242, Darien IL 60559    bitnet:              mrosing@igc.org

Xref: sparky talk.politics.drugs:6854 talk.politics.guns:22260 talk.politics.misc:52578