1. Running head: TAKE A STAND 1
Take a Stand
Sarah Marais
BSHS 455
September 22, 2014
Professor Menasche

2. TAKE A STAND 2
Take a Stand
The most obvious function of drug control, and the primary reason lawmakers cite, is to
reduce the amount of a specific drug that is used (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p. 203). However,
societal regulation appears to be motivated by which drugs are stable sources of wealth and
power and whether drugs may threaten established business and profit. As a result, federal
policies are far more concerned with preventing recreational drug use than helping addicts.
According to the “The War on Drugs: Winners and Losers,” Ronald Reagan introduced the self-
perpetuating, never-ending war on drugs and in the process, generated funding for the third-
largest growth industry in the United States (U.S.). In addition, funding for drug treatment
dropped almost 40 percent, during his first term. As drug policy does not work to reduce crime,
but to increase commerce surrounding drug enforcement, this rendered the potential for
corruption to magnificent proportions. The criminal supply network quickly exploded, informers
are paid, children are enlisted, private corrections focus on profit, and drug enforcement police
can seize any assets deemed valuable when they arrest buyers and drug dealers. Middle and
upper class white people end up in drug treatment while lower class minorities end up in jail,
perpetuating the unspoken racial war discriminating against certain minorities. Many innocent
people serve lengthy prison sentences for drug convictions based on false testimony or merely
suspicion. As drug enforcement increases, more women go to jail for drug crimes, largely due by
association. Many children with incarcerated parents have nowhere to go and end up in foster
care and are more likely to end up in prison themselves. The majority of hard core drug addicts
do not receive treatment in the U.S. and the number of drug-related deaths has doubled since
1979. “Only the general public takes casualties, while police and prosecutors benefit from the
war through increased budgets and a 1984 the federal crime bill changed incentives for police

3. TAKE A STAND 3
involved in drug enforcement, allowing them to share in the assets seized” (Films On Demand,
1999). The final, and most ignored, aspect to this is the question of sovereignty over one’s own
consciousness. Since the 1960s, more evidence is forthcoming in presenting the advantageous
properties of certain naturally occurring plants and fungi, while some countries and states have
already legalized Marijuana, Peyote, and Ayahuasca for medical and religious purposes. This
paper serves to address all of these issues and present the positive anthropological, medicinal and
therapeutic benefits and the potential outcome of legalizing them.
In his speech, Ronald Reagan stated “the American people are willing to make it clear
that illegal drug and alcohol use will no longer be tolerated” and it was time to take the necessary
“steps to rid America of this deeply disruptive and corrosive evil… to defeat this enemy, we've
got to do it as one people, together, united in purpose and committed to victory” (Films On
Demand, 1999). However, many of the American people do not agree with this stance and it is
those very people who have been targeted by the authorities; the rate of imprisonment is greater
than almost any other country in the world. The people conducting the war never suffer the
consequences. They are not taking the casualties, but are only benefiting in the sense that they
accrue greater budgets. Funding for traditional jobs, such as farming, decreased, while it rose for
state and federal law enforcement and prison jobs; leading to redistribution of profit margins and
expansion corrections operations. The war on drugs is a thirty billion dollar industry. California
alone has built more than twenty new prisons in ten years and only one public university; their
prison guards are paid more than starting professors, and the prison guards union is the second
biggest political contributor. The question is how this happened. In 1984, the Federal Crime Bill
changed the incentives for police in the war on drugs. The asset forfeiture section stated that
police who cooperate with federal agencies in drug investigations share the assets that are

4. TAKE A STAND 4
ceased—including money, jewelry, cars, airplanes, boats—anything that has value and, since
then, the level of seizure activity in the United States has amplified (Films On Demand, 1999).
The State saves money and does not question their activities because they are totally self-funded
and the offender does not have to even be proven guilty. For example, after getting permission to
search the car, law enforcement will find a large amount of money, but no drugs. They can
simply state that it is going to be seized because they believe it may have been related to a drug
deal. They do not even have to prove that it is drug money. The proof of burden lies with the
suspect because it is a civil, not a criminal, proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, you are
innocent until proven guilty. In a civil proceeding, it is reversed. Incentives are also created for
citizens to inform on each other and regulated by setting up a reward structure. Under the guise
of going after big fish, which is very difficult to do, the vast majority of seizures are small
because the little fish can be caught relatively easily. About 5,000 are arrested annually on minor
drug offenses. Non-violent offenders account for 60 percent of current prison populations in the
U.S. and, in many cases, minor drug offenders serve longer sentences than violent criminals
(Films On Demand, 1999). Dan Baum states, “There's something wrong when the possession of
a pound of marijuana gets you more hard time than murdering your spouse” (Willard, 2001).
The Fortune Society, a thirty-one year old organization, states that the United States is
involved in a two-tier experiment of wholesale incarceration that has a multi-generational
impact. If you are white and privileged, you are likely to end up in drug treatment, whereas the
poor and, especially a person of color, are likely to end up jailed. Nathan McCall states that “this
country's so called war on drugs is a political hoax; it's a multibillion-dollar ploy set up to win
political offices, often at the expense of America's most convenient scapegoats-blacks” (Willard,
2001). Husak (2000) states that the rate of imprisonment is grossly disproportionate, despite

5. TAKE A STAND 5
minorities being just as likely to use illicit drugs as whites (Husak, 2000). The Sentencing
Project discovered that one out of four young black men in their high teens and low 20s, were
either in criminal justice custody, in prison, or under criminal justice supervision at any point in
time (Films On Demand, 1999). The racial and cultural impact of this is profound. They were
still fathers providing for their families and members of the community and when you eliminate
them from an already struggling community, you further weaken that community. Many
innocent people serve lengthy prison sentences for drug convictions based on suspicion or false
testimony. Ten years imprisonment for giving a phone number to undercover police in
connection to a drug-related sale; twenty years imprisonment simply because the drug dealing
boyfriend said the drugs were stashed in their house; ten years imprisonment for mailing a
package for friend; entire families being convicted… each of these and many more examples fall
under the declaration for intent to distribute. They are usually victim to a drug dealer who is
looking for a reduction in his sentence, under the guise of cooperating, by testifying against other
people. The authorities only want and care about a conviction because that justifies their budgets
and it perpetuates an increasingly corruptible system. Five hundred children nationwide end up
in foster homes and that number is multiplying. These children grow up institutionalized and
when foster care kids turn sixteen or eighteen, they age out; that is, their possessions are given to
them in a black garbage bag and they are turned out on the street. They had never learned the
coping skills to be able to go out on their own and very few teenagers have the ability to support
themselves and many get arrested and return to the institution of the criminal justice system.
U.S. President George H. Bush enforced zero tolerance law enforcement based on the
assumptions that abuse starts with a willful act, most users can choose to stop and must be held
accountable if they do not. Possession or suspicion related to illicit drugs could result in the

6. TAKE A STAND 6
seizure and confiscation of an individual’s automobile, home, or other property, which is a
serious threat to civil liberties (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p. 211). The rate of Americans jailed
or imprisoned has more than tripled since 1980 and a rise in the foreseeable future is a certainty;
due largely to the increasing severity of drug related punishments (Husak, 2000). The main effect
of the war on drugs on health is to downgrade the drug user, which puts them outside the system
where they could receive health care. The majority of heavy drug addicts do not receive
treatment in the U.S. and the number of drug-related deaths has doubled since 1979, from seven
to fourteen thousand deaths. Because the drug addict is an exile in this society, the war on drugs
is actually a war on drug users and thus, incarceration is preferable to treatment and the criminal
justice system will not protect or help them. “In 1996, the total number of people who need
treatment, 9 million… of the class that's level two, that are most addicted, five million need
treatment… less than two million got treatment” (Films On Demand, 1999). Many simply do not
seek treatment because they are afraid to be turned in. It is clear that the public would be better
served with a different allocation of resources and the best argument often made by advocates of
legalization is that the thirty billion dollar annual deficit for law enforcement could be better
used for the treatment and prevention of drug abuse (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012, p.217).
There is another aspect to this, control over the sovereignty of one’s own consciousness
that remains largely ignored, due to the declaration of a drug war. Renowned journalistic
investigator, Graham Hancock states it is not a war on drugs at all, but a, war on consciousness
(Hancock, 2013). Not all substances are detrimental or harm the user. There are naturally
occurring plants and fungi that may affect a deep healing assistance. Dennis and Terence
McKenna wrote at length about the properties of Ayahuasca and its prospective therapeutic uses,
arguing that we have become “spiritually bereft… Our spiritual institutions have devolved into

7. TAKE A STAND 7
hollow shells, perverted to the agendas of rapacious governments and fanatic fundamentalisms;
benumb[ing] ourselves with consumerism and mindless entertainment, ultimately meaningless
pursuits of a civilization that has lost its compass” (McKenna, 2005). In fact, current drug laws
and policies are based on a mechanistic view of the universe, socio-political extensions of profit
and materialism. Indian scriptures mention soma, an entheogenic plant, being used from the
second millennium B.C.E.; Mescaline was widely by Native Americans, dating back at least a
millennia; while the kykeon potion in Greece, produced visionary consciousness until the 400
C.E. “In all three cases the substances were integrated into a full-bodied religious practice”
(Husak, 2000). MDMA (ecstasy) was used in the United States as an entactogen, (ie, enhancing
empathy, intimacy, tranquility, communication, emotional bonding, and introspection) to assist
psychotherapy in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Schwartz, R. and Miller, N. (1997). Lysergic
acid diethylamide (LSD) was deliberated as a promising psychiatric medication in the 1950s and
early 1960s, until its recreational use made the headline news and created moral panic, thus
quickly delegitimizing it. Even alcohol was once deemed a medicinal or sometimes ceremonial
(Tupper, 2006). However, once the war on drugs exploded the recreational use of substances, the
sacred component was lost, and irreligious use spiraled out of control, generating alternative
motivations for drug use, such as escapism, feelings of inadequacy, dysfunctional coping skills,
etc. The principal and original motivations of ingesting Ayahuasca are emotional healing,
personal spiritual development, increased self-awareness, insights, and access to deeper levels of
the self that enhanced personal development and the higher self, providing personal direction in
life (Winkelman, M. (2005). The tea has been used by indigenous peoples in countries such as
Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil for medicinal, spiritual and cultural purposes since pre-Columbian

8. TAKE A STAND 8
times. The therapeutic benefits of Ayahuasca have been identified and many hope that it may
someday be afforded its rightful place in medical practice, perhaps also, MDMA, and LSD.
Pauline Sabin argued, “Not only is it impossible to legislate morality, trying always
makes the vice attractive" (Charles Arthur Willard, 2001). It has done far more than that. The
war on drugs has served no more purpose than perpetuating profane use of once natural and
sacred substances and the manufacturing of drugs, so toxic they can induce psychosis,
schizophrenia, or even death. Repercussions and consequences from law enforcement actually
creates more harm and detriment to the user and their families, than the substances themselves.
Neither can all substances can be perceived as profane or harmful. A serious revision of
attitudes, values, beliefs, and those policies based on them is necessary if our culture truly wants
any change to happen. The problem is far deeper and stems way beyond law or even a cultural
issue at this point in the larger picture: “Humans are good at nothing if not hubris, arrogance, and
self-delusion… busily undermining and wrecking the very homeostatic global mechanisms that
have kept our earth stable and hospitable to life for the last four and a half billion years”
(McKenna, 2005).

9. TAKE A STAND 9
References
Cussen, M. and Block, W. (2000). American Journal of Economics and Sociology: Legalize
Drugs Now!: An Analysis of the Benefits of Legalized Drugs. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/stable/10.2307/3487894?origin=api
Films On Demand. Films Media Group. (1999). “The War on Drugs: Winners and Losers.”
Retrieved from: UoP Web:
http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=11181
Hancock, G. (2013). TEDTalks: The War on Consciousness. Retrieved from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0c5nIvJH7w
Husak, D. (2000). Liberal Neutrality, Autonomy, and Drug Prohibitions. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/210983113?pq-
origsite=summon).
McKenna, D. (2005). Ayahuasca and Human Destiny. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/207972636?pq-
origsite=summon).
McNeece, C. A., & DiNitto, D. M. (2012). Chemical Dependency: A Systems Approach (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Schwartz, R. and Miller, N. (1997). MDMA (ecstasy) and the rave: A review. Retrieved from:
http://av4kc7fg4g.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.8
8-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-
8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journ
al&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MDMA+%28Ecstasy%29+and+the+Rave%3A+A+Revie
w&rft.jtitle=Pediatrics&rft.au=Schwartz%2C+Richard+H&rft.au=Miller%2C+Norman+

10. TAKE A STAND 10
S&rft.date=1997-10-01&rft.pub=Am+Acad+Pediatrics&rft.issn=0031-
4005&rft.eissn=1098-
4275&rft.volume=100&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1542%2Fpeds.10
0.4.705&rft_id=info:pmid/9310529&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=pedia
trics100_4_705&paramdict=en-US
Tupper, K. (2006). The Globalization of Ayahuasca: Harm Reduction or Benefit Maximization?
Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/science/article/pii/S095539590
6002283).
Willard, C. (2001). How to Legalize Drugs. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/226942647?pq-
origsite=summon
Winkelman, M. (2005). Drug Tourism or Spiritual Healing? Ayahuasca Seekers in
Amazonia[dagger]. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/docview/207972700?pq-
origsite=summon).

11. TAKE A STAND 11