Let's say there are two rocks, one of which is used to hold down papers on
someone's desk, the other of which is used to bash someone's head in. Which
is the "good" rock and which is the "bad" rock? Stupid question, right?
There are no such things as good rocks or bad rocks. Rocks don't have
morals. Rocks are inanimate objects that just sit there until an animate
object such as a human being comes along and does something with it.

What someone does with a rock can be judged good or bad because actions, and
only actions, involve morals. Everyone who is animate is capable of doing
good or bad things with whatever inanimate objects happen to be lying
around. You may bash in someone's head with a rock, a trashcan lid, or a jar
of facial cleanser, and the head will still end up equally bashed.

It's not the rock's fault the head got bashed in, the trashcan lid is
entirely innocent, and as far as the jar of facial cleanser is concerned, it
was all in a night's work of just sitting there until someone came along and
did something with it.

Let's say we want to stop this horrible wave of people getting their heads
bashed in. Would we go on a crusade against rocks? Round up people in
possession of trashcan lids? Give mandatory minimum sentences to those found
guilty of selling jars of facial cleanser?

Such is the war on drugs. Drugs are inanimate objects. There is no such
thing as a "good" drug. There is no such thing as a "bad" drug. Until an
animate object comes along and does something with a drug, the drug will
just sit there. Drugs, like the rocks and plants they come from, have no
morals. The central lie of the war on drugs is that there are such things as
good or bad drugs. There is no such thing as a "Schedule A" drug. All drugs
are exactly the same. They are nouns, not verbs, subjects without
predicates. They don't do anything until they are modified. All nouns are
good if used wisely. All nouns are bad if used stupidly. All drugs are good
if used rationally. All drugs are bad if used to excess.

Inanimate objects have no agenda. If your child is killed by a moron in a
car, you can join a campaign to ban all cars, or you can join a campaign to
stop morons from driving cars. If your mother is crushed by a grand piano
dropped from the 40th floor of an office building, you can picket Carnegie
Hall to stop performances of Mozart piano sonatas, or you can devote your
life to keeping idiots out of the piano moving industry. If your husband
dies of alcoholism, you can send bombers to destroy the wine fields at
Chateau Mouton Rothschild, or you can teach people to drink responsibly.

And likewise, if anyone you know is killed or is ruining their life with
illegal drugs, declaring war on the inanimate object involved is a hopelessly
misguided activity. Your totally justifiable scorn must focus on the misuse of
the inanimate object - be it guns, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, cars, pianos,
bathtubs, jars of facial cleanser, or any other potential instrument of death.

Every year an average of five people fall to their deaths while posing for
pictures at the Grand Canyon. The canyon is obviously dangerous, but only to
people who are stupid enough to climb out to the edge. This particular national
park is of absolutely no danger to those of us who, upon gazing at a mammoth
hole in the ground, are seized by no impulse whatsoever to walk to the very edge.

Those dead tourists don't purposely plummet to their deaths, though they are
well aware of the danger they put themselves into when they climb out onto
those overhangs. They certainly don't get what they deserve; nobody deserves
a painful death due to a minor lapse in judgment. But no one else is to
blame, least of all the Grand Canyon itself.

Most drug deaths are accidents too, which means they are no one's fault but
the victim. To blame the drugs themselves for these accidents is like blaming the
Grand Canyon for the deaths of those tourists. The vast majority of tourists do
not fall off the edge, and the vast majority of drug users live to tell the tale.

It has been extremely frustrating for me to watch the current drug debate,
which is being conducted by so-called experts who have never bought, sold,
or used drugs. In the past, I've engaged in all three of these activities.
The pundits are all basing their opinions upon second hand information,
delivered by those whose beliefs are polluted by political agendas. I'm
basing my opinions upon personal experience.

There are many arguments against current drug policy that no one is making,
perhaps because hard-liners find it particularly hard to face certain
truths. The establishment has put so much time and effort into their massive
propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the public that drugs are evil, that
they now find it impossible to backtrack.

Their propaganda machine has drilled into our heads the bad things that can
happen if you find yourself doing endless hits of crack, heroin, LSD, speed,
cocaine, ecstasy, or marijuana. They've got a point. Anyone who finds
themselves addicted to any drug should probably seek medical help.

What the drug war propaganda machine has failed to mention is that every
drinker is not an alcoholic and every drug user is not a drug addict. In
fact, the vast majority of drinkers and drug users do so responsibly. Some
drinkers swill down scotch every day, beat their kids, and then go out drunk
driving; others have an occasional glass of Bordeaux with their Caesar salad
or an occasional Bud with their hot dog. Some pot users smoke up a storm and
go out to rob drug stores; others have a small hit so they can stay home and
giggle through an episode of Mad TV. Some cocaine users blast off the tops
of their skulls with endless hits of crack, doing damage to themselves and
their unborn babies; others, whose stomachs can't stand coffee, inhale a
small line in order to stay up late for work.

Products like Haagen Dazs ice cream kill overweight people with heart
disease every day, but there's no pending legislation to make it illegal.
Ice cream is addictive and has absolutely no legitimate use other than it
tastes good and it helped Robert DeNiro gain weight for Raging Bull. Nobody
needs the threat of a jail sentence not to make pigs of ourselves.

If every action deserves an equal and opposite reaction, then the drug war
list of all the bad things drugs can do needs to be countered by a list of
all the good things drugs can do. Here's a bit of the information the drug
war is leaving out of its propaganda.

COCAINE

Ever notice that none of those toothache medicines on the market are worth a
damn? That's because they don't contain cocaine, which is an infinitely
superior local anesthetic to any on the market. The next time you have a
toothache, you can thank the war on drugs that there's not an un-smokable,
un-snortable salve on the market that will totally make the pain go away.

Want a stomachache medicine that puts all others to shame? Make some very
weak tea out of dried coca leaves.

Break your nose? Mix a small amount of cocaine in water and put it in a
nasal sprayer. A couple of squirts and the pain's all gone.

HEROIN

Why do they ask you if you're allergic to penicillin before they give you a
shot? Because if you are allergic, the drug could kill you. Why don't they
ask if you're allergic to morphine before they give you a shot? Because
there's no such thing as an allergic reaction to the opiates, including
heroin. They are the safest painkillers known to man. The only possible way
to die of opiates is to overdose by taking too much, or to go through
withdrawal by taking too little. Dosage is everything. Properly
administered, opiates save lives and save people from pain. All we need is
regulation so that every opiate on the market is properly labeled concerning
its strength. Did you know you have to do heroin for two weeks before you're
addicted? Stop after one week and you don't go through withdrawal. Shouldn't
the label mention that?

LSD

If everybody on earth respected everybody else and their stuff, there would
be no need for gun control laws. We would know that all guns were only being
used for sport or recreation since the whole idea of trying to hurt someone
or take their stuff would be inconceivable.

Want to reduce crime? Teach people to respect each other and their property.
Then it doesn't matter what weapons are at their disposal. If everyone were
moral, everyone would be safe.

Sound like a fantasy? Not with LSD. That's what it was invented for,
brainwashing. In one of the only legal experiments ever performed with the
drug, prisoners were given LSD and positive programming aimed at teaching
them to respect other people, sort of the opposite of what they did to Alex
in Clockwork Orange. These prisoners left prison determined to do good, not
out of fear of punishment, which is the current agenda, but out of actual
morality. They learned their lesson. They were determined not to steal from
or hurt others. The rate of recidivism plummeted.

Then, in a typical knee-jerk reaction, the drug was made illegal before more tests
could be done. The program ended prematurely, though it seemed to prove that
no other drug has the potential for changing society as much as the prudent and
well-controlled use of LSD therapy upon the sociopaths among us.

Nobody has ever died from LSD. Nobody. People have died because of things
they did on LSD, but the drug itself seems to be safe. There is no such
thing as a fatal overdose.

One of the simpler effects of the drug is the displacement of your sense of
perspective and depth perception. Things far away look in arm's reach while
things up close look light years away. Because of this, driving a car,
standing at the top of a building, wandering around the lip of the Grand
Canyon, or simply crossing the street are not good activities for tripping
on LSD. The best activity for tripping on LSD is just lying on your back
somewhere looking at the stars. If the law allowed tripping with supervision
under professional guidance, whatever problem the drug may or may not have
ever posed is solved.

SPEED

Ever drive on the interstate late at night? Want those truck drivers pulling
thousands of pounds past you at breakneck speed to be tired or wide awake?
Good. I'm glad you agree that speed should be legal, and not that crap they
sell at 7/11 checkout counters but the actual thing, Methamphetamine, the
ultimate focus puller. Some drugs, like pot and LSD, expand what you are
conscious of, spreading your focus to include everything from the smallest
atom to the ends of the universe. Other drugs, like coke and speed, contract
what you are conscious of, narrowing your focus to one thing only. If you've
got to do an endless repetitive task, try speed, not LSD.

Speed freaks act nuts, causing people to think that speed makes people go
nuts, but the drug isn't to blame, lack of sleep is. It doesn't matter WHAT
you use to keep yourself up for days, speed or Gestapo with bright lights,
lack of sleep alone makes people psychotic. Every dose of speed has to have
a label saying DON'T STAY UP FOR DAYS OR YOU WILL GET PSYCHOTIC. A couple of
nights, max, while you're driving that truck or cramming for that exam.

ECSTASY

In the right company, ecstasy is just that, relaxing and euphoric, like a
Quaalude with a dash of peyote. It's not a good mixer, however, which has
led to some incredibly asinine legislation.

Let's say that Herb slips an aspirin into Jackie's drink without Jackie's
knowledge, and Jackie turns out to be allergic to aspirin and dies. Herb
would probably be set free because aspirin is legal and Jackie told him she
had a headache, which was actually just an excuse not to fuck him. Nobody
would be going on a crusade against aspirin, arresting anyone in possession
of it. The last aspirins I saw showed no inclination whatsoever to jump out
of their bottle into someone's drink. It's not aspirin's fault that Herb
accidentally killed Jackie. Quite the opposite. Aspirin did its best to
alert him to the problem with a very extensive warning on the label.

One of the drugs commonly sold as ecstasy is GHB, also known as Liquid X.
When GHB was legal, just a few years ago, it was sold in health food stores
with a label warning against its use with alcohol or caffeine. Because of
the drug war, and only because of the drug war, GHB is now sold without
labels. A student at a party recently slipped a girl some GHB without her
knowledge and she died because it was mixed with alcohol. The student went
to prison. How was this kid to know that the drug was lethal under those
circumstances when the government very specifically decided not to warn him?

In fact, GHB is one of the safest mood-elevators and sleep inducers known to
man. If you overdose on GHB, uncontrollable vomiting removes any potentially
lethal doses from the body. Every single known case of death due to GHB
involves mixing it with alcohol or caffeine. Yet there is currently a bill
before congress that not only increases the penalty against giving someone
ecstasy, but makes it a crime to dispense any information concerning safe
use of the drug. (If you feel like forwarding the information in this
e-mail, do it now. It could soon be illegal)

This is a bill that's going to kill people as surely as the law against
marijuana killed Peter McWilliams. Doesn't it make a bit more sense to make
it illegal to sell ecstasy without a label that clearly states "WARNING: Do
not mix with alcohol or caffeine!" Isn't THAT what would make the world a
safer place? Both alcohol and ecstasy are very relaxing and completely safe
when taken separately in small doses. They're only potentially lethal when
mixed. Warning people not to mix these two drugs seems to demand too much
common sense. Making it illegal to pass around the information that these
two drugs shouldn't be mixed is not just moronic but lethal. It's clearly
the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

Which leads us to the gateway drug.

MARIJUANA

Pot gives you the munchies. Anyone wanna argue with that? It doesn't take
years of study to determine that pot gives you the munchies, any more than
it takes years of study to determine that water quenches thirst. It's a
given. And it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that anything that
gives you the munchies would be pretty useful to those who can't keep down
food or medicine.

50% of all pesticides on this planet are used in the cultivation of cotton.
There is no cotton product that cannot also be made from hemp. There isn't a
bug on earth that eats hemp. Want to reduce the amount of pesticides
poisoning our planet? Start making clothing out of hemp, just as all our
ancestors did before the invention of the cotton gin.

I agree that violins need to be made from trees, but there is no paper
product that cannot be made just as well from hemp. Why are we wiping our
asses on trees? Why are we cleaning up our spills and blowing our noses on
trees that take decades to grow back instead of a weed that grows back in
months? At the very least, all toilet paper, Kleenex, and paper towels
should be made from hemp instead of wood.

Before prohibition, hempseed oil was used as a binding agent in 90% of all
prescription drugs approved by the AMA. And we're declaring war against it?

We knew we'd won W.W.II when Japan and Germany surrendered. We knew we'd won
the Gulf War when Hussein retreated from Kuwait. How will we know when we've
won the war on drugs?

We won't. It can't be won. Not on any front. It will just go on and on and
on. This is commerce for products that are easy to make and that people
want. Making laws against them can't possibly do any good. It's like
Napster. It can't be stopped. The best you can hope for is decent regulation.

In fact, there is no current drug problem that cannot be solved by regulation
rather than prohibition. People are against legalization because they can't picture it.
They have no working model to compare it to. They somehow imagine that making
drugs legal will make these items more available.

Dynamite is legal. Do they sell it at the 7/11? No. Why? IT'S REGULATED.
Anybody can't get it. You need permission and you've got to use it right.
Why can't drugs work that way? That's the whole idea behind prescriptions.
Instead of busting people, why don't we give them permission to use drugs
right, and only punish them if they use drugs wrong? When alcohol
prohibition ended, it did not become available to everybody. You still need
to show proper ID. You can only purchase it between certain hours. You can't
use it and operate a motor vehicle. And the product itself is a hell of a
lot more safe because they don't make it in bathtubs anymore. Alcohol isn't
illegal but drunken behavior is. People who can't handle it should lose
their permission. The same with everything.

Under the current drug madness, the people handling the commerce for the
most potentially dangerous drugs are the only ones who DON'T have to abide
by any regulations. Illegal drugs are available on the black market to
anybody, of any age, at any time, day or night, all sold in the same handy
Ziplock bags without labels. Wouldn't it be an improvement if just the
regulations that currently apply to alcohol were to be applied to all drugs?
How many people do you see trying to sell Chardonney on street corners to
children? Regulation would make it more difficult for children to get access
to drugs, not less, because no more dope peddlers would be standing on
street corners. They have to go inside to purchase it. At the very least
they'd have to get fake ID or notes from their doctor. Please let little
Suzie have her crack, signed Dr. Seuss.

Though I can't help making jokes, the drug war isn't funny any more. The
drug war is stopping dying people from getting the drugs they need to stay
alive. It is the same as the war in Vietnam. It is immoral, un-winnable, and
it must be stopped. The only reason the anti-drug war movement hasn't
mobilized as strongly as the anti-Vietnam War movement did in the 60s is
because we're all a bunch of fucking zombies who have somehow been
brainwashed into believing the non-stop propaganda against products we
actually want and deserve. We don't even complain when the US government
steps in and tries to influence the drug content of our film and television
with the same fervor that McCarthy used to outlaw communism in our film and
television. When's the last time you saw someone use drugs in a studio movie
without any bad consequences? Remember Dudley Moore and Bo Derek running on
the beach in "10?" Remember that they were passing a joint back and forth?
Subsequently they not only weren't struck by a truck, they just fucked.
Couldn't happen today. The blacklist in Hollywood against rational drug use
in movies is just as pervasive and immoral as the commie blacklist in the 50s.

Hell, as long as we're going to devolve back to another era, don't forget that
Al Capone would never have become the world's biggest bootlegger, with gangs
of gunslingers and drive-by shootings, if alcohol prohibition had never happened.
And all the drug cartels, with gangs of gunslingers and drive-by shootings,
would never have existed if drug prohibition had never happened.

Here's news!

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DRUG BUST, NO MATTER HOW LARGE,
THAT HAS EFFECTED THE AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS ON THE STREET
IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!

Destroy every single bottle of Jack Daniels in the country and guess what?
Drinkers will switch to Jim Beam. Since the drug trade is currently
unregulated, it actually represents the purest form of capitalism in the
world. The marketplace is governed by plain old supply and demand, nothing
else. Decrease the supply, and demand goes up, along with prices. Quite
literally the only effect that drug busts have upon the marketplace is to
drive up the price. This effect is not positive, but actually detrimental to
the drug problem. Drug addicts need more money, so they commit more crimes.
Drug lords end up making more money, not less.

In order to understand this, you simply have to get into the mind of a drug
user for a moment. Let's say Fred intends on consuming some illegal
substances tonight, and there is absolutely nothing that you or anyone else
can do about it. He has heard all the arguments pro and con, and he has made
his decision. He is a free man, he feels like getting high, and he knows
where to get what he wants. No amount of logical argument, moralizing, or
law enforcement will stop him now. He has made his decision.

The question is not should he or shouldn't he; the question is not how can
he be stopped. Those questions are already answered. He shouldn't get high
and he can't be stopped. Bust his dealer and he'll find another one. Dealers
are a dime a dozen. Get rid of his cocaine and he'll just score some speed.
Can't find a Quaalude, how about a Dilaudid?

Forget all the current drug rhetoric. There are two choices, only two, as to
how to deal with Fred. Do you want him to break into your car or home, steal
your stereo, and hock it in order to get the hundred bucks he needs for a
fix? Or do you want him to go to the corner drug store and buy a fix for
five bucks? The hundred bucks will go straight into the hands of the drug
Mafia who will buy more guns and become more powerful. The five bucks would
go into the hands of a farmer, an importer, and a pharmacist, with taxes
going to the government.

And while we're at it, did you know that.

THE DRUG WAR HAS ACTUALLY CAUSED AN INCREASE
IN THE QUALITY OF DRUGS ON THE MARKET!

In order to understand this, you simply have to get into the mind of a
smuggler for a moment. Let's say you intend on smuggling some illegal
substances into the country. To do this, you are going to try to cram the
most drugs you can into the smallest possible space. Just ask yourself these
questions: If you were going to risk your life bringing five pounds of
marijuana into the country, would you bring in mediocre product worth a
hundred an ounce, or super high-grade product worth seven hundred an ounce?
If you were going to bring five pounds of heroin or cocaine into the
country, would you bring in normal grade product that would bring you a
hundred a gram, or the strongest possible product that could net you several
hundred a gram?

This was especially true during alcohol prohibition. Before prohibition,
people drank predominantly wine and beer, but during prohibition most of
what was smuggled into speakeasies was hard liquor. This prompted the
invention of the cocktail, hard liquor mixed with sodas and fruit juices
making the drinks more palatable to women. As soon as prohibition ended, the
ratio of sales of hard liquor to soft immediately flip-flopped, with soft
liquor vastly outselling hard.

Today, when people go into a liquor store to buy an alcoholic beverage, do
they automatically buy the strongest product available? Of course not. If
they did, then 151 proof rum would be the largest selling alcoholic
beverage. In fact, the largest selling alcoholic beverages are wine and
beer, which are the weakest products on the market. This is how the free
marketplace works when consumers are actually given a choice of recreational
substances.

But when marijuana or cocaine consumers go to a dealer, they are given no
choice but the strongest product available. Since the transaction is illegal
and dangerous, most consumers wish to participate in as few transactions as
possible, so they are always interested in buying the product that will last
them the longest, i.e. the strongest.

Crack is the strongest form of cocaine, and the most dangerous. The reason
there was a crack epidemic is because, in most cases, that was the only
product available. If there were weaker and cheaper cocaine available, most
consumers would go for it, just as alcohol consumers now predominantly
purchase wine and beer.

Just imagine how our nation's alcohol problems would increase if the only
alcohol available were 151 proof rum. Every drinker would be getting bombed
out of his skull instead of just getting a mild buzz from wine or beer. If
151 rum were the only legal alcohol, the obvious way to decrease the problem
would be to legalize wine and beer so that drinkers would stop drinking only rum.

The same is true with marijuana and cocaine. Current consumers of marijuana
have no choice but to spend hundreds of dollars to get high as a kite on
extremely strong sensimilla, because that's all there is available. But give
them access to all the other weaker and cheaper forms of marijuana, like
they had in the 60s, and they will go for it in a minute. Current consumers
of cocaine have little choice but to spend hundreds of dollars to get wired
out of their minds on pure cocaine such as crack. But put cocaine back as an
ingredient in Coca-Cola like it used to be at the turn of the century,
giving adults access to a cheap and mild cocaine high, and crack consumption
would undoubtedly plummet.

If you had a drug problem, would you go to a cop or a doctor? Same thing because...

CURRENT LAWS ACTUALLY INCREASE DRUG-RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS!

When you feel sick from pneumonia, you go to your doctor and he helps you
recover. But what if pneumonia were illegal? What if your doctor, rather
than helping you, was legally bound to turn you in to the police if you
admitted you had pneumonia? What if you were more likely to end up in jail
than a hospital? Would you go to a doctor with your pneumonia? Not likely.
You'd stay home and hope it went away. You might get worse instead of
better, not because of the pneumonia, but because of the laws against
pneumonia that stopped you from seeking help.

This is exactly the predicament that millions of drug users find themselves
in every day. They have a health problem that is drug related, anything from
addiction to paranoia to hepatitis. If they seek medical help, the doctor
won't be able to give an accurate diagnosis unless the patient tells the
truth about any illegal drug use, and suddenly they are facing jail instead
of a hospital. Our jails are overcrowded because they are full of people who
need treatment, not incarceration. Fear of jail is keeping people with
legitimate health problems from seeking the help they need. They are getting
sicker every day.

D.A.R.E. IS HOPELESSLY MISGUIDED

I hate D.A.R.E. and not just because they stole my name. The national
D.A.R.E. (Drug Awareness Rehabilitation Education) program has the exact
opposite effect that it is trying to achieve. Sending policemen to schools
to teach children about drugs is like sending nuns to schools to teach
children about sex. In both cases, it is very clear to even the stupidest
student that they are dealing with someone who has an agenda other than education.

It is virtually certain that any representative of the Catholic Church is
not going to answer the sexual questions most teens might actually have,
such as how to have safe sex or whether they will really go blind from
masturbation. A nun is just going to repeat the party line and preach
abstinence, and most students are just going to tune out and not learn a thing.

It is just as certain that a policeman is not going to answer the drug
questions most teens might want to know about, such as how to avoid diseases
or how to come down in an emergency. He is going to repeat the party line
and preach abstinence. Nobody learns a thing. (There are exceptions. I'm
sure there's that one nun in a million who knows everything Monica Lewinsky
knows, and that cop who rolls killer joints)

There's a big difference between propaganda and education. Education
consists of giving someone all the information necessary for them to make up
their own mind about something. Propaganda consists of making up somebody's
mind for them and then giving them only the information that backs your
conclusion. Students notice what they're not being told as much as they
notice what they are being told. Let them discover one single inconsistency
between what they are taught and their experiences in the real world, and
you will have just taught them that you are not to be trusted. They will do
the exact opposite of what they are told.

Virgins shouldn't teach sex education classes and cops shouldn't be teaching
drug education classes. If you want to teach children about drugs, wouldn't
it make a lot more sense to send a pharmacist? How about a doctor, or even
an ex-drug addict? Anyone but a law enforcement officer.

And in the long run.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Every morning, millions of Americans wake themselves up with a concoction
made from the beans of a South American bush. They enjoy stimulants, and are
called coffee drinkers. Hard-line addicts use a stronger version called
espresso. It destroys their stomachs. Others wake themselves up with a
concoction made from the leaves of another very similar South American bush.
They enjoy stimulants, and they are called criminals. Hard-line addicts use
a stronger version called crack. It destroys their common sense.

Some smoke a weed called tobacco. Some smoke a weed called marijuana.
To differentiate between any of these products is clearly hypocritical, like
encouraging the consumption of red wine while banning the consumption of white.
It makes no sense. There's no difference.

The Garden of Eden was a long time ago, but the apple is still there and it always will be.
Giving in to temptation can be disastrous. It can also be enlightening. And if you're an adult,
it should be up to you what you consume. You've been warned.

Still harbor the slightest doubt?
Let me ask you.
How much safer did you really feel when Robert Downey Jr. was in jail?