< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
As is customary, I made my New Year's call to my favorite inside source, a retired lieutenant colonel named Ananias Ziegler who serves as media relations director for the top-secret Committee That Really Runs America.
Why don't you make a New Year's resolution never to
call me again, Quillen?
he asked, then answered it
himself. Because you wouldn't keep it any better than
your other resultions, and you'd still be pestering me when
I'm up to my armpits controlling Renaissance gatherings for
Democrats, Medieval synods for Republicans, Revolutionary
drills for Militiamen, Proletarian soviets for Socialists
-- it's all a lot of work.
I apologized, but wanted to know what strings he was pulling these days in Washington concerning the War on Drugs.
That's one of our toughest operations. For a while,
we could claim public support as our rationale, but the
1996 initiatives in California and Arizona pretty well
killed that. The voters there made it real clear that
doctors and patients, not the government, should make
pharmaceutical decisions.
And so you're giving up on that tactic?
Not yet. I got a few Clinton appointees to give the
usual 'Big Brother in Washington Knows Best' spiel, along
with some threats to go after doctors who exercise their
rights under these new state laws. But I don't know how
long those tactics will remain effective.
They've worked for a long time, so what's the problem?
Well, the Republicans might start taking all their
'devolve power to the states' rhetoric seriously, and they
run Congress. They could cut funding for any federal agency
that tries to thwart the expressed will of the people in
California and Arizona. That would be a serious
threat.
But wouldn't they run the risk of being labeled Soft
on Drugs
?
Not necessarily. Remember that conservative beacons
like William F. Buckley and George Schultz support
legalization. There'd be some ideological cover
there.
Well, there must be some other approaches under development.
We keep working on the scientific approach, arguing
that there's no valid medical use for cannabis.
I protested that I have a good friend who was treated for cancer at the National Institute of Health a few years ago, and that cannabis, prescribed to enhance his appetite and mood, was a vital part of his therapy. It was all provided by the very same government which now argues that there's no medical use for the stuff.
You hit upon the main problem with that approach,
Ziegler said. It's a flat-out lie. Healers have been
using the stuff for centuries. But we can say it's really
dangerous, and nobody can argue with that.
How many people have die each year from cannabis overdoses?
Well, none. Never in recorded history has that
happened. And you hit on another problem. If our policy
were based only on how dangerous drugs are, we'd have to
try eliminating alcohol and tobacco, which kill myriads of
Americans every year. And you know how Prohibition turned
out. So we don't really have any rationale along that
line.
So why not just give up, perhaps by following the suggestion of Vermont Sen. George Aiken during the Vietnam War -- declare victory and withdraw? The public is turning against the War on Drugs, and isn't the government supposed to represent the public will?
Do you realize what a catastrophe that would be,
Quillen? For starters, we've got thousands of cops, snoops,
informants and the like on various government payrolls.
Turn them out of work, and the economy might collapse.
Then look at the medical industry. If people get the
idea they can improve their mood by toking on a joint,
rather than visiting an expensive therapist and getting a
prescription to Valium or Prozac, there's another big
sector of the economy that could tumble.
And what of all those drug inmates in prison if the
law were changed? They'd probably get released, and file
lawsuits that they'd likely win. That could bankrupt the
country if it had to pay restitution to victims of this
war, and you should also have some sympathy for all the
corrections employes who'd be thrown out of work.
I'd never thought of it that way. So the Drug War is absolutely necessary to life as we know it in this Great Republic, whether we want it or not, no matter how people vote?
Well, I wouldn't put it that way, Quillen, but in
essence, you're right. If Americans didn't have an enemy,
why would they need a big government? And if there's no
real enemy out there, isn't it the job of the Committee
That Really Runs America to fabricate an enemy?
So give me a break for a change, will you? We're just
doing our job here.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1997 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >