I confess to particularly enjoying afternoons where discussions turn to bigger picture themes and underlying principles. Or perhaps I just had a great weekend and spending a fair amount of time on the phone this afternoon has left me parallel time for reading and typing.
Either way, I want to jump into this afternoon in two ways.
First, I want to offer a brief bit of support for the voices who are pointing out that valuing diversity of thought includes thoughts with which we personally disagree. We all have a natural tendency as humans to project some of our internal beliefs upon the external world as if they were facts beyond dispute, perspectives whose multi-faceted nature nonetheless all point to our own personal belief. Being reality-based doesn't render us immune from this tendency; rather, it makes us open to acknowledging that we grow as individuals by seeing the world through the eyes of other people. Realism isn't a lack of passion; rather, it's recognizing that our initial gut responses, and even deeply held beliefs, benefit from understanding passions that run counter to our own. It makes us accountable to the natural tendency to grab the most extreme example, and then apply it as broadly as possible. In short, it's the tools that collectively allow us to disagree without being disagreeable. It's what separates democratic governance from the twin problems of authoritarianism and terrorism.
Second, I want to apply the principle of 'Mind Your Own Business' to a particular policy area that is near and dear to me. How we treat detainees generally, and the role our drug laws play in particular, has been of great interest and concern to me over the years. There's not really anything 'new' to observe. Indeed, that's part of the frustration. This piece I wrote in December could just as easily apply today. Research from the previous century about the problems of drug laws could just as easily apply in this century.
I believe analyzing the drug war in the context of today's discussions about abortion in particular and the religious fundies more generally is helpful because it helps us distill what principles, exactly, we really believe. Not which principles we can cite, or which principles are used to justify things on TeeVee, but which principles we really, truly, privately believe.
Do we believe that a woman really can make choices about her own body? Do we really believe that?
Do we believe that government should mind its own business unless the reason for getting involved is overwhelming? Do we really believe that?
Do we believe that plurality, diversity, differences of opinion, are good things that make us a better, stronger society? Do we really believe that?
The drug war is an excellent example of too many people trying to mind too many other people's business. The data is overwhelmingly conclusive that drug laws are worse than drugs, whether you care about the Constitution, or public health, or taxes, or poverty, or families, or education, or crime, or a whole host of other concerns.
But, but, but...it's still legitimate to argue that drugs should be criminalized. People who advocate for drug laws are, mostly, not evil people out to destroy America. They're, mostly, just folks who for some reason or other fundamentally believe that government has a role in regulating the usage of recreational drugs. Many drug law advocates believe this very passionately. Those of us who advocate for drug reform have two options. We can mock, harass, and demean these perspectives. Or, we can take the concerns seriously, trying to educate and persuade those who support drug laws to change their mind. We can lump everybody together as corporate drug warriors, or we can understand that different people have different reasons for their beliefs.
As the Drug Policy Alliance describes in their excellent summary of What's Wrong with the Drug War
Everyone has a stake in ending the war on drugs. Whether you’re a parent concerned about protecting children from drug-related harm, a social justice advocate worried about racially disproportionate incarceration rates, an environmentalist seeking to protect the Amazon rainforest or a fiscally conservative taxpayer you have a stake in ending the drug war. U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America "drug-free." Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights.
Many of the problems the drug war purports to resolve are in fact caused by the drug war itself. So-called "drug-related" crime is a direct result of drug prohibition's distortion of immutable laws of supply and demand. Public health problems like HIV and Hepatitis C are all exacerbated by zero tolerance laws that restrict access to clean needles. The drug war is not the promoter of family values that some would have us believe. Children of inmates are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency. Drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse.
Few public policies have compromised public health and undermined our fundamental civil liberties for so long and to such a degree as the war on drugs. The United States is now the world's largest jailer, imprisoning nearly half a million people for drug offenses alone. That's more people than Western Europe, with a bigger population, incarcerates for all offenses. Roughly 1.5 million people are arrested each year for drug law violations - 40% of them just for marijuana possession. People suffering from cancer, AIDS and other debilitating illnesses are regularly denied access to their medicine or even arrested and prosecuted for using medical marijuana. We can do better.
It's past time to change our drug laws. We can do better.
After all, there's a reason most of us are pro-choice. We believe fundamentally that government should mind its own business in most matters.
Our responsibility, though, is to treat those with dissenting opinions respectfully and thoughtfully. On another issue, we just might be the minority viewpoint.