What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
Blood Diamonds:
the Inside Story
An amazing
expose by T.R. Naylor: How the "Blood" or "Conflict
Diamonds" Myth peddled by NGOs Helped a Vicious Mining Company
Shore Up Its Monopoly, Made a Pile of Money for A Washington
Post Reporter and Leonardo di Caprio, Served As A Propaganda
Myth in the "War on Terror" and had Nothing to Do With
Osama Bin Laden. Pinochet
is gone, and the world is a cleaner place. JoAnn Wypijewski recalls
1988 in Santiago, when Chile lost its fear. And yes, here they
are in charge of Congress again, ready to facilitate a troop
hike in Iraq. Alexander
Cockburn re-introduces an old acquaintance: the Democrats--Party
of War. Remember, we are funded solely
by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
Nixon
on Pot, Booze and the Fall of the Roman Empire
Comes Now the Ghost
of "Decrim"
By FRED GARDNER
Along with the man who pardoned Nixon,
a man who disappointed Nixon left us this month: Raymond Shafer,
a former Republican governor of Pennsylvania appointed in 1971
to lead a bipartisan "Presidential Commission on Marihuana
and Drug Abuse." (Such a commission had been mandated by
Congress in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.) Nixon told
Shafer he wanted a report that would blur the distinction between
marijuana and hard drugs, according to declassified oval office
tapes. Instead, the Shafer commission would call for decriminalization
of the personal use of marijuana.
Nixon's public rationale for
rejecting decriminalization made good sense: "I do not believe
you can have effective criminal justice based on the philosophy
that something is half legal and half illegal." The oval
office tapes reveal Nixon's more nuanced views on marijuana.
On May, 12, 1971, as the commission was beginning its investigation,
Nixon told his aide Bob Haldeman, "I want a goddamn strong
statement about marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofabitching,
uh, domestic council? I mean one on marijuana that just tears
the ass out of them."
Two weeks later Nixon saw something
in his news summary that inspired him to tell Haldeman, "Every
one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is
Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what
is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them
are psychiatrists, you know, there's so many, all the greatest
psychiatrists are Jewish. By god, we are going to hit the marijuana
thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss. I want
to find a way of putting more on that."
On September 9, 1971, Nixon
had Shafer in for a meeting at which he advised, "I think
there's a need to come out with a report that is totally oblivious
to some obvious differences between marijuana and other drugs,
other dangerous drugs ... And also that you don't go into the
matter of penalties and that sort of thing, as to whether there
should be uniformity in penalties, whether in courts, I'd much
rather have uniformity than diversity ... You're enough of a
pro to know that for you to come out with something that would
run counter to what the Congress feels and what the country feels
and ITAL what we're planning to do END ITAL would make your commission
just look bad as hell... Keep your commission in line."
Nixon's aide Egil (Bud) Krogh
asked at the Sept. 9 meeting if the commission was contemplating
"endorsement of legalization of marijuana." Shafer
replied, "Absolutely, absolutely... At least one of the
opposition would like to take over. We've prevented that. I think
that we've got the commission moving in the right direction.
We're seeking unanimity. I think we're going to have that. And
we're staying away from that quote legalization endquote syndrome."
Shafer brought his commission's report to the White House March
21, 1972. The findings did not justify ongoing prohibition. As
culled by Doug McVay of Common Sense for Drug Policy, they included:
"No significant physical,
biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely
to their marihuana smoking."
"No valid stereotype of
a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn."
"Young people who choose
to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people,
socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco."
"No verification is found
of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent
heroin use."
"Most users, young and
old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social
functioning, academic achievement, and job performance."
"In sum, the weight of
the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive
behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression
of such behavior."
"In short marihuana is
not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice
community as a major contributing influence in the commission
of delinquent or criminal acts."
"Neither the marihuana
user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to
public safety."
"Recent research has not
yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability
or performance."
"No reliable evidence
exists indicating that marihuana causes genetic defects in man."
"Marihuana's relative
potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and
its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy
designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."
The executive director of the
Shafer Commission, Michael Sonnenreich, was a Democrat who'd
been kept on at the Justice Department after Nixon was elected
in 1968. Sonnenreich helped draft the Controlled Substances Act,
which transferred control over drug policy from the Surgeon General
to the Attorney General (John Mitchell), and gave the AG the
power to create the drug "schedules." Congressional
opponents of the Controlled Substances Act questioned marijuana's
placement on Schedule I as a dangerous drug with no medical use,
but were mollified by the creation of a commission that would
review its status.
The Shafer report ignored the
scheduling question, but reformers did not protest, choosing
instead to trumpet the demand for decriminalization. As recounted
in a Washington Post profile of Keith Stroup, the founder of
NORML, "Nixon rejected the report, but Stroup used it as
a lobbying tool in his increasingly successful campaign to reduce
penalties for pot. In 1975, five states -Alaska, California,
Colorado, Maine and Ohio- removed criminal penalties for possession
of small amounts of the weed."
"Decriminalization"
is a one-word lie. It means that the citizen caught by the cop
with a small amount of marijuana will get a ticket and pay a
fine instead of getting booked. He or she can be arrested and
face criminal charges if caught again, or even on the first encounter
if the cop doesn't like the cut of his or her jib. The basic
relationship between citizen and cop is unchanged. The citizen
remains fearful and illegitimate. No right to consumption has
been established and the penalties generally become stiffer for
growers and dealers.
It's no coincidence that "decriminalization"
entered the lexicon at the end of the about the same time as
"affirmative action," with which it has much else in
common. Both strategies were devised in response to movements
involving millions of people asserting their rights. Both serve
the interests of only a small fraction of the large population
that supposedly benefits. Both get sold to the rank-and-file
as necessary steps forward, but actually represent the end-point
of the political movement(s). Both are jargon.
Liberal reforms like "decrim"
are sops that our rulers provide when the natives get seriously
restless; then, when the restlessness subsides, the reforms are
curtailed or even withdrawn entirely. In response to the medical
marijuana movement, we can expect another push in Congress for
decrim, accompanied by fundraising pitches from Washington-based
reform groups. What we need instead is a complete revision of
the Controlled Substances Act. I recently asked Dale Gieringer
of California NORML what measures the national reform groups
would be promoting now that the Democrats controlled Congress.
Dale said he was very favorably impressed by Nancy Pelosi, whom
he'd met at a fundraiser, and advised not to expect much in the
way of legislation because "nobody wants to vote for a dead
bill and everybody knows that this president is not going to
sign any meaningful reforms." There was something weary
and paternalistic in his tone, as if he was reminding me and
others at the meeting not to do or say anything that would embarrass
his lovely new acquaintance. Afterwards I thought, "Why
shouldn't the Democratic Congress pass a bill the president has
to veto? Why not make him stand naked as a prohibitionist? Don't
they want to win in 2008?"
Bonus Coverage
From the oval office tapes,
May 26, 1971, President Richard Nixon in conversation with Art
Linkletter, a radio and TV "personality."
Nixon: Radical demonstrators
that were here the last, oh, two weeks ago. [unintelligible]
They're all on drugs. Oh yeah, horrible
Linkletter: They sit down with
a marijuana cigarette to get high-
Nixon: A person does not drink
to get drunk.
Linkletter: That's right.
Nixon: A person drinks to have
fun. Do you know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman
emperors were fags. The last six. Nero had a public wedding to
a boy. Yeah. And they'd [unintelligible]. You know that. You
know what happened to the Popes? It's all right that, po-po-Popes
were laying the nuns, that's been going on for years, centuries,
but, when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in,
I don't know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual.
And finally it had to be cleaned out. Now, that's what's happened
to Britain, it happened earlier to France. And let's look at
the strong societies. The Russians. God damn it, they root them
out, they don't let them around at all. You know what I mean?
I don't know what they do with them. Now, we are allowing this
in this country when we show [unintelligible]. Dope? Do you think
the Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can allow, not
if they can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality,
dope, immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong
societies. That's why the Communists and the left-wingers are
pushing the stuff, they're trying to destroy us.
Nixon: I have seen the countries
of Asia and the Middle East, portions of Latin America, and I
have seen what drugs have done to those countries. Uh, everybody
knows what it's done to the Chinese, the Indians are hopeless
anyway, the Burmese. They have different forms of drugs [unintelligible]
China and the rest of them, they've all gone down Why the hell
are those Communists so hard on drugs? Well why they're so hard
on drugs is because, uh, they love to booze. I mean, the Russians,
they drink pretty good."
Linkletter: That's right. Nixon:
But they don't allow any drugs. Like that. And look at the north
countries. The Swedes drink too much, the Finns drink too much,
the British have always been heavy boozers and the rest, but
uh, and the Irish of course the most, uh, but uh, on the other
hand, they survive as strong races. There's another, it's a very
significant difference.
Linkletter: That's right.
Nixon: And your drug societies,
uh, are, are, inevitably come apart. They-
Linkletter: They lose motivation.
No discipline.
Nixon: Yeah.
Linkletter: You know I did
a show-
Nixon: At least with liquor
I don't lose motivation [unintelligible]
Fred Gardner is a former Public Information Officer
for the District Attorney of San Francisco. He can be reached
at fred@plebesite.com
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
