Harper Government on the Wrong Side of the Drug War

Harper's new omnibus crime bill will mean stiffer sentences for those growing a few marijuana plants, clearly designed to go after the user.  However, if he really wanted to do the war on drugs right, he would be targeting the pharmaceutical industry; the real drug pushers of this generation.

I often mock the ads on U.S television for new prescription drugs;  "cures" for ailments you never heard of.   Clearly they're just starting to make things up.

Direct-to-consumer advertising can be very effective, but also dangerous.  According to the Canadian Health Coalition, the ads push the newest medicines, those without a history of the affects of long-term use.

Truth in advertising demands that they list the side affects, but they are practically sung at the end or read so fast you can't keep up.

"Did she just say that this drug might make me want to jump out a window?"

What you remember the most from the ads is "ask your doctor".  Arthritis sufferers asked their doctors about Vioxx, a heavily advertised pain medication, and yet 115,000 died from heart attacks as a result of taking the drug. 

CHC also warns that the ads are designed to turn the normal into a problem, convincing people who feel fine but with "symptoms" of a new medical condition, that they need drugs. Others who have symptoms of a legitimate condition, could instead treat the fabricated one and mask the symptoms that need to be addressed.

In Canada direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicine is still prohibited, but Canwest Global is hoping to change that, calling it an infringement on their freedom of expression.  I believe the case is still pending.

With Harper now controlling the Supreme Court, if it goes that far, CanWest will win.  They'll just have to bring him a hockey sweater.  It won't hurt that Pfizer is now running the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, either.

History Repeating Itself

In his 2008 book White Protestant Nation, Allan J. Richtman traces the modern conservative movement to the 1920s and Prohibition, which was not only about banning the sale of alcohol but an attempt to crack down on all vices, including drug use.

A near panic over drug-induced crime that hit the United States during the 1920s led public officials and private reformers to declare America's first war on drugs. The nation closed its public drug treatment clinics and as it had done with venereal disease, adopted a moral and law enforcement approach to narcotics. Addicts had no recourse other than illegal sources of supply ...

Despite a continued drug war, however, the nation's experiment with Prohibition crashed in the late 1920s. Prohibition exposed the tension between moral reformers and a business community opposed to govern­ment control over industry ... a continuing thirst for alcohol gave rise to a thriving underground market operated by organized criminal syndicates that waged bloody street battles for control of market share and paid off law enforce­ment officials to look the other way. The prisons swelled with felons con­victed of violating the dry laws and collateral crimes. The cost of federal law enforcement quintupled during the '20s and intruded into the lives of ordinary Americans. (1)

Many believe that the narcotic trade is new and addiction something that can be cured with tougher laws.  They thought the same thing in the 1920s when federal laws were passed and a war on drugs was launched.

Throughout the Victorian era, narcotics were readily available and sold as patent medicines.

Cannabis Indica, patented by the American Druggist Syndicate in 1906.  Bottle reads:

"Fluid Extract. Cannabis Indica. USP eighth revision. The flowering tops of cannabis sativa. Alcohol 60 percent. Physiologically tested. A.D.S.

This was one of many cannabis products promising to cure migraines and "nervousness".  The 60% alcohol didn't hurt.

Bayer began selling liquid Heroin in 1899 for pain relief.  It earned it's name because those testing the miracle cure claimed that it made them feel heroic.

However, by the early 1900s heroism turned to addiction, so pharmaceutical companies began to patent a range of cures for addiction, including the German Liquor Cure.

To those addicted to the habit of using opium or morphia in  any form or manner whatever. We guarantee this preparation to be absolutely harmless, to contain no poisonous narcotics. Can be taken freely without producing any of the deleterious effects on the system, such as are caused by the use of opium and morphia. Immediately on taking a dose of this remedy, a calming and soothing effect is produced. It acts as a tonic to  the nerves;it will act at first as perfect substitute, rendering the patient independent of these poisonous drugs, and after continued use for a short period the nerves will become strong and the general health improved, so that the remedy can be taken at longer intervals and soon altogether discontinued; then the cure is complete". Cannot be sent by mail on account of weight".

They don't say what was in this stuff, but perhaps more alcohol than Cannabis Indica.

Enter the crusaders of the conservative movement, who were going to end all that, with a whole range of federal laws.  We'll call it an omnibus bill. 

Since Ronald Reagan launched his war full scale war on drugs, the results have been pretty much the same.  Some examples:

- the U.S. per capita spending on schools increased 32%. The per capita spending on prisons grew 189%

- California built 21 prisons since then but just one college.

- From 1985 to 1998, the number of deaths per 100,000 for drug-induced causes almost doubled. In other words, having a drug war proved twice as deadly as not having one. (2)

By the 25th anniversary $4 trillion dollars had been spent on the war on drugs with a record expansion of prison and jail systems.

Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent for the UK Telegraph writes that the War on drugs has failed:

Leading peers – including prominent Tories – say that despite governments worldwide drawing up tough laws against dealers and users over the past 50 years, illegal drugs have become more accessible. Vast amounts of money have been wasted on unsuccessful crackdowns, while criminals have made fortunes importing drugs into this country.

So why does the Harper government, at a time of record deficits, insist on making the same mistakes as those who have tried "crack down" before?

Robert O. Paxton blames it on the mindset of these kinds of populist movements. They "despise thought and reason" and "abandon intellectual positions casually" (3) .  Preferring emotional arguments to proven facts, is the basis of the new conservatism.  Even if their leaders know otherwise, manipulating emotion is what puts them into power and keeps them there.  They often refer to it, as Guy Giorno, Harper's former chief of staff, did, as "playing to the base". 

I tried to debate Canada's new drug laws with one of my conservative followers.  Frustrated, he said "You can't tell me that things weren't better in the Victorian era", (we'd already run the gamut from the 1920s).  And yet I can.  Every generation has had their problems and there has never been any quick fix.

Bill C-10 will only create a new set of problems.  Or an old set of problems, as history will repeat itself.

Sources:

1. White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement, By Allan J. Lichtman, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008, ISBN: 10-0-87113-983-7, pp 14-15

2. BOTTOM LINE: The true costs of Reagan and extreme capitalism, by Sam Smith
 
3. The Five Stages of Fascism, By Robert O. Paxton, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Mar., 1998), pp. 1-23. The University of Chicago Press

Hooligans and How the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

This week in the Winnipeg Sun, a column by Tom Brodbeck; Hooligan Harper haters: Crime bill protestors partisan hypocrites, irked me on many levels.

From the eye rolling "Harper haters" that's been done to death, to the notion of opposition to Bill C-10, being a partisan issue.

I contacted Mr. Brodbeck and asked if he had actually spoken with any of the protesters.  He dismisses anyone who challenges this government's policies, as simple "Harper haters", without asking those protesting how they actually feel about Mr. Harper.

Why is it that when Liberal governments bring in tougher sanctions for serious crimes they’re seen as being thoughtful and concerned about public safety?

But when Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in harsher sentences for sex offenders and killers, he’s a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who wants to jail everyone and throw away the key. It’s a bit of a double standard.

Many are simply angry over the Draconian crime bills, that are even being denounced by the law and order state of Texas. 

Brodbeck also dismisses the protesters as "hooligans".  A hooligan by definition is "a rough lawless young person."  In the image he provides, I see no roughness, unless you count a profanity on a sign, and I see no laws being broken.  In a healthy democracy dissent is not only allowed but should be welcomed, as proof that we do indeed live in a democracy.  As Lawrence Martin reminds us in his book, Harperland: The Politics of Control:

“In the run-up to the election, Stephen Harper had rolled out the rhetoric on the need for clean and transparent government, expressing frustration with Paul Martin's Liberals over their alleged secrecy and obstructionism. "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent," Harper declared in a statement to be later viewed as notable for ironic content, "Is frankly when it is rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

However, with so much "dissent" over Bill C-10, rumour has it that Stephen Harper is planning to simply again prorogue.  According to Lori Turnbull in the Globe and Mail:

Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning yet another prorogation of Parliament. This means the work of the House of Commons, including its committees, would stop and our elected officials, as a group, would be rendered incapable of performing their basic functions, including holding the government to account in Parliament. 

The prorogation rumours are not surprising, given the other tactics the government has employed to “manage” opposition scrutiny. During the current parliamentary session, the Conservative government has invoked strict time limits on House debates on complex bills, including its omnibus crime legislation, and forced committee proceedings behind closed doors, out of the public eye.

Stifling dissent, operating behind "closed doors", and limiting debate.  This man has no shame and clearly no "moral authority to govern".

Hats off to the Hooligans

If a "hooligan" is simply someone who opposes government policies or practices, then I think we must pay homage to history's "hooligans".  Like Harriet Beecher Stowe (above) who protested against the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that prohibited assistance to fugitives.  Wrote Stowe:  "I feel now that the time is come when even a woman or a child who can speak a word for freedom and humanity is bound to speak... I hope every woman who can write will not be silent."

Though arguably not a youth at 40, when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she inspired others, young and old, by injecting an anti-slavery message into popular culture.  And of course her work with the abolitionist movement is legendary.

But what of other "hooligans"?

Like Barbara Johns, who at the age of 16, took over her black high school and shut it down, leading to the legal crisis that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court as Brown v. Board of Education, the case that ended legal segregation in America.

Or Claudette Colvin, who at 15 in 1955, defied segregation laws by refusing to surrender her bus seat for a white passenger, choosing instead to be arrested.  Civil Rights leaders contemplated organizing a bus boycott then, but were concerned with Colvin's age.  How much traction could the movement obtain by backing a "hooligan"?  It wasn't until 42-year-old Rosa Parks, inspired by the young activist, did the same, that they had their heroine.

And what of the "hooligan" Joan of Arc, or the less well known, Sybil Ludington, who like Paul Revere took a famous ride.  At just 16,  Ludington rode twice the distance Revere did, through a rainstorm no less, to warn the countryside that Red Coats were sacking Danbury,  Connecticut.  Ludington alerted militia men, and the militia was able to stop the invasion, chasing the Red Coats back to their ships.  A "rebel" on the right side of history.

Or how about the 15-year-old Louis Braille, who created the Braille writing system, while a student at Paris's Royal Institution for Blind Youth.  Teachers at the school revolted, banning students from using it, claiming that the paper-punching note-taking was noisy and disruptive.  Braille has changed the lives of so many people living without sight, because he was a rebel.

Young "hooligans" like Brigette Depape, who challenged authority with the 'Stop Harper' sign on the Senate floor; or Emma Sullivan, who refused to apologize to a governor for a disparaging remark she left on Twitter, are inspirational.  I hope Pat Martin is now following Sullivan.  If we can't even Tweet dissent, where is our democracy?

Or maybe Brodbeck should wonder about another political agitator, or "hooligan",  born into a time of occupation and oppression.  Arriving at an annual festival, with a very large following, he attacked the greedy bankers, was later arrested and put to death.  His name was Jesus of Nazareth.

We can't dismiss youth simply because they are young, nor can we dismiss those wonderfully crazy enough to believe they can change a vote, a policy, a bill, or the world.

We go along to get along until someone doesn't. 

Why I Believe That the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

There is a very interesting book, written by Michael Kazin, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation.  In it he discusses, as the title implies, the contributions made by the Left to Western culture.  Naturally, the New Right is trying to topple them all, and yet they are not succeeding, I think because the notions of justice and injustice are fundamental to who we are.

Critics have blamed liberals for not doing enough to denounce right-wing rhetoric, but the nature of liberalism is in support of free speech.  The Right likes to use "free speech" as their rallying cry, but the fact is that they only promote "free speech', when that speech is what they want to hear. 

Kazin argues that liberal, or left culture, can impact the political, when their message resonates with voters, even when they are not involved with a political party.  Chances are pretty good that the young people in Brobeck's photo, are not affiliated with any.

Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was not really anti-slavery.  In fact, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, called Lincoln "the white man's president".  In 1864, one year after the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass threw his support to Lincoln's opponent, John Fremont (he was not able to actually vote until 1869).   Lincoln only began to listen to the abolitionists, mid-way through the Civil War, when he realized that emancipation could speed victory for the North.  Almost 200,000 black soldiers then joined the fight, recruited by Douglass himself.

A cultural movement inspired a political change.

The post WWI militant union activists, did not gain real validity, until FDR realized that he needed labor votes.   Lyndon Johnson gave up on the white South, to denounce Barry Goldwater.  He won in a landslide, and passed Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

Says Kazin, "For a political movement to gain any major goal, it needs to win over a section of the governing elite", but that doesn't mean that they began the movement on behalf of any political party.  They only worked through, or against, the government of the day.

In a January 2003 column, headlined It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media, Lawrence Martin quoted an unnamed European diplomat as saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values. Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle.  There is a disconnect."

If you judged the Canadian mood based on our media, you might think that Canada is indeed a right-wing country.  However, that is not the case.  We repeatedly prove in opinion polls, that we are progressive, and care about things like poverty, war, climate change, human rights, etc.

If Stephen Harper had to rely solely on his base for votes, he would probably be leading a third or even fourth place party.  In fact, his Reform-Alliance had stagnated by 2003, propped up primarily by the West.  It was only when he bought out the rights to the PC party and began calling himself a "Tory" that he was able to garner more mainstream support.
 
He himself wasn't pleased with the new name.  He had referred to the PCs as "elitist" and called Red Tories "Pink Liberals" promising to "jettison them" from the party once he took over.
 
In January of 2004, he told the Hamilton Spectator, when asked if his Reform-Alliance Party would now be called 'Tories':

"It's actually not a label I love… I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

He may have felt that he would be "stuck with it", but capitalizing on the "Tory" name has given him enormous political advantage, since many people who vote for him, believe they are actually voting "Tory".  The media has perpetrated a grave injustice, by allowing him to keep up the facade.

Returning again to Martin's Harperland:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group.

This is actually good news for the "Occupy" movement, because most Canadians are not right-wing, but have an ingrained sense of justice and faith in democracy.  If the 99% of those who feel that they are not being given equal opportunities for success, or the roughly 2/3 who did not vote for the New Right party of Stephen Harper, or even those who voted Conservative, having fallen for the bait and switch, come together; we could see positive political change.

We won't alter Harper's ideology, but his own party could demand that he loosen the reins, if they are forced to wear his full frontal assault on our democratic institutions, with his unheard of control.  They can't enjoy being muzzled and scripted.
 
We could also inspire opposition parties to include our demands in their platforms.  They'd be crazy not to.
 
Says Kazin, "The divergence between political marginality and cultural influence stems, in part, from the kinds of people who have been the mainstays of the left." 
 
Not necessarily, those who march, clash with police, get arrested or want to overthrow the government; but those who have been able to articulate their grievances.  People like Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Beecher Stowe and Tommy Douglas. 
 
The Occupy Movement has our attention, as they are beginning to articulate their message, and Canadians are listening.
 
So hats off to the "Hooligans" and thumbs down to a column that condemns them without cause.