Yesterday was 4/20…and I got the feeling that I’m the only one cool enough around here to know what that means. *Cough*—narcs. I’m not a pot-smoker, although I am often bewildered as to why marijuana is illegal, or why there is even a war on drugs. Prohibition is a term that comes to mind when I consider it, as it is just as effective as prohibition was.

Before you read through all of this, Italy’s top prosecutor, Franco Roberti, also Italy’s anti-terrorism and anti-mafia chief, made a compelling argument in favor of decriminalization on the 18th of this month:

Decriminalization or even legalization would definitely be a weapon against traffickers, among whom there could be terrorists who make money off of it.

 

Marijuana, along with nine other substances, is specifically prohibited under Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and penalties for its use can range from a general discharge to dishonorable discharge (for positive results of a urinalysis) and even imprisonment for possession.

Let’s start with some simple facts before I go on a tirade:

  • In 2016, a total of $27.6 billion was requested by the president to support the National Drug Control Strategy efforts to reduce drug use and its consequences in the United States. This represents an increase of more than $1.2 billion (4.7 percent) over the enacted 2015 level of $26.3 billion.
  • Colorado collected more than $135 million in marijuana taxes and fees in 2015—about $35 million designated for school development projects.
  • Anyone over 21 can buy marijuana in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon.
  • Medical marijuana is legal in 24 states, and in D.C.
  • Number of arrests in 2014 in the U.S. for marijuana law violations: 700,993
  • Number of these arrests that were for possession only: 619,809 (88 percent)
  • Many current and former service members, federal employees, law-enforcement officials, and I, believe current marijuana laws to be draconian.

The Roots of the War on Drugs

Last month, when I was on the last leg of my Mexican border expedition, a report on the War on Drugs came on the radio. The report featured John Ehrlichman, the counsel and assistant to the president for domestic affairs under Nixon. Mr. Ehrlichman was close to President Nixon, proven by his loyalty and subsequent disgrace following the Watergate scandal, and he served 18 months in prison for his boss. A trooper, he voluntarily entered prison before his appeals were exhausted, accepting personal responsibility for his actions. A genuinely rare and noble trait. That does not make him a great man, but it does designate individual ownership of his actions.

In the segment, talking points on President Nixon were brought up from an interview with Dan Baum of Harper’s magazine. Among them, the War on Drugs. Mr. Ehrlichman, a politician, breezed through the following segment with little difficulty. It was 1968. There was fear and loathing on the campaign trail, the nation was at a crossroads, and it was an election year. Dan Baum, the author, was swarming Mr. Ehrlichman with questions pertaining to the logic behind the War on Drugs, and he eventually got this answer: “You want to know what this was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?” Here we have just jumped to the past for Mr. Ehrlichman. His rhetoric was holstered, and it was time for the old, point-blank, presidential campaign communication playbook.

In 1968, Dan Baum would not have thought to publish what he just heard, and if he did, his editor would have stopped him. Unfortunately for Mr. Ehrlichman, it’s 2016, and neither Dan Baum nor his editor was going to censor his comments on his behalf, even though Mr. Ehrlichman continued down a rather disheartening path, further stating, “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

Fantastic news from the treacherous bastards in charge. The nation was hoodwinked on a political ploy, a damned gimmick, a sideshow act, the ever-glowing, works-every-four-years invitational rhetoric to fix it all from a presidential candidate. Apparently, it used to work for President Nixon and has for everyone since. After all, no decent person makes it into politics; one can only fall so far before reaching madness at terminal velocity.