HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/letter.daily.1

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 18KB | 253 lines

From dali.cs.montana.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!news Thu Apr 25 11:43:48 PDT 1991


  What good is it to me, after all, if there is an authority always busy to see
to the tranquil enjoyment of my pleasures and going ahead to brush all  dangers
away from my path without giving me even the trouble to think about it, if that
authority, which protects me from the smallest thorns on my  journey,  is  also
the absolute master of my liberty and of my life?
                              --Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  Democracy  in America

  Consider the following scenario.    The  Virginia  Legislature  decides  that
universities  receiving  state  funding  should  no  longer tolerate homosexual
activity on their campuses.  They pass a law  stating  that  universities  will
lose  their  funding  by  December  1st  unless  they: 1) clearly prohibit such
activity on campus and at school  functions,  and  2)  threaten  to  expel  any
student  and  fire  any faculty or staff member who violates the policy.  After
all, homosexual activity  is  a  felony  in  Virginia,  so  why  shouldn't  the
government  do  everything  it can to make sure that our young people and those
who serve as their role models "just say no" to gay sex?
  This scenario is  less  far-fetched  than  you  might  imagine.    Virginia's
anti-sodomy  law  is not some ancient statute that is accidentally still on the
books.  The legislature rewrote it in 1981  to  clarify  the  previously  vague
phrase  "crime  against  nature"  and to differentiate between the more heinous
crime of forced sodomy (a felony punishable by life imprisonment) and the still
heinous  but  not  quite  so awful crime of consensual sodomy (a mere "class 6"
felony).  The Virginia Supreme Court decided a few years ago that it is  not  a
violation  of privacy for police to secretly observe and videotape the activity
in a locked stall of a public bathroom if it helps them to eliminate homosexual
activity there.  Gay bars are illegal in Virginia under a clause that says that
no bar shall be granted a license to serve alcohol if it  is  a  known  meeting
place for gamblers, prostitutes, drug dealers, homosexuals, or other criminals.
  Getting  back  to my hypothetical university, suppose that the administration
caves in and has one of its lawyers draw  up  a  new  "campus  sexual  activity
policy"  that strictly prohibits homosexual sex on campus and at campus events.
What advice would you give to the students, faculty  and  staff?    Should  gay
people  give  in and abstain from having sex?  And if they refuse, should their
nongay roommates and friends be required to turn them in?  Should RAs  and  RFs
be expected to police the dorms and enforce the policy?
  My  answer  to  all  of  these  questions  is  "no."    I firmly believe that
government has no right to interfere  in  any  activity  that  takes  place  in
private  between  consenting  adults.    Sexual  activity,  for example, may be
restricted by government only if it takes  place  in  public,  or  one  of  the
partners does not consent to the activity, or a child is involved.
  I  do not, however, advocate capriciously disobeying laws.  I broke many laws
in my youth, but in recent years I have tried to be more  careful  about  which
laws  I  break.    Driving  on  a  public  street or highway, for example, is a
privilege, not a right.  When you disobey traffic regulations, you endanger not
only  yourself,  but  also  any  others who are driving on the same road.  Even
driving on private property is not an entirely private activity if gasoline  is
burned,  because  such  activity  has  an  effect  on  the  environment and the
availability of gasoline.
  I could find no rational justification for speeding.  The 55mph  speed  limit
was  intended partially to improve highway safety but mostly to reduce national
consumption of gasoline.  What right do I have to endanger others, to  increase
air  pollution,  to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and to increase the
probability of another Exxon-Valdez disaster by driving faster than 55?   None.
As  a  result, I now drive 55.  I am the only person I know who drives 55.  But
my gas mileage has improved significantly.
  What about underage drinking?  According to my principle, the government  has
no  authority to regulate drinking that takes place in private among consenting
adults.  The key question is whether those under 21 are adults.  I  think  that
most Americans feel as I do that the age of 18 is a reasonable threshold to set
for a legal definition of adulthood.    Eighteen-year-olds  can  vote,  can  be
drafted,  are  tried  as adults when they commit crimes, and are expected to be
financially responsible for themselves.  It makes no sense  to  treat  them  as
adults in every respect but this one.
  Thus, I believe that government has no authority to prohibit drinking done in
private by those who are 18 or older.  The primary motivation for  raising  the
drinking age to 21 was the reduction of highway deaths due to teenage drinking.
While I think the goal is desirable and the  approach  is  logical,  I  do  not
believe  that  the  ends  justify  the  means.   It is perfectly reasonable for
government to outlaw drunk driving and to vigorously pursue violators,  but  it
may not infringe on personal liberty to do so.
  What about the use of drugs?  Again, according to my principle the government
has no authority to regulate what consenting adults choose to  do  in  private.
No matter how dire the consequences of drug use might be for an individual, the
government may not make the decision for an individual.
  The counterargument is that drug use affects more  than  just  an  individual
because  it generates crime and addicts.  The crime argument is almost entirely
circular  because  drug  laws  generate  most  such  crime.    If  drugs   were
decriminalized, drug users and drug dealers (except those who sell to children)
would no longer be criminals, and the violence  associated  with  drug  dealing
would  disappear  when  the  dealers  found  themselves  unable to compete with
cheaper and higher quality drugs being sold along with beer and  wine  at  your
local Safeway.
  The addict argument is more complex.  If you are committed to the notion of a
welfare state, then you might very well be concerned about the possibility that
individuals  will  become  addicted  to drugs and eventually become a burden on
your taxes.  I would personally rather die than accept government welfare, so I
find  it  disturbing  that  people  use  this argument to prevent me from using
addictive drugs.
  I am even more troubled, however, by the  fact  that  this  argument  has  no
practical  bounds.    If recreational rock-climbing is dangerous, why can't the
welfare state ban it so that it does not have  to  support  its  victims?    If
eating  greasy  hamburgers  and  candy  is  bad  for your health, why can't the
welfare state ban them so that it does not have to pay the  associated  medical
costs?  Once you accept the addict argument, you grant the government unlimited
power to limit your  personal  freedom.    As  a  result,  I  reject  all  such
arguments.    In  fact,  I  think this predicament is one of the best arguments
against the notion of a welfare state.
  Thus, I disagree in principle with those who want to control highly-addictive
substances, but I understand the logic behind their reasoning.  I feel that the
federal government, however, in  its  "just  say  no"  campaign  against  drugs
violates not only principle, but common sense as well.
  Most  absurd  of  all  is  the  government's  "zero  tolerance" of all drugs,
independent of their particular properties.  Crack cocaine is taken to  be  the
prototypical  drug  in  setting drug policy, which makes about as much sense as
deciding how to treat British citizens by assuming they are all like  Jack  the
Ripper.
  Consider,  for  example,  marijuana.   One if its most desirable qualities is
that it can be grown  at  home.    Is  there  a  better  way  to  undercut  the
"international  drug  cartel"  and  reduce  violent  crime associated with drug
dealing than to have individuals produce their own supply of drugs?    Yet  the
government  uses  the crime associated with crack and crack dealing as a way to
justify its campaign against marijuana users and growers.
  My own personal favorite drug is a  substance  called  MDA.    MDA  has  been
nicknamed  "the love drug" because its primary effects are extreme euphoria and
a sense of liking everyone.   It  has  been  extensively  studied,  it  is  not
addictive,  no  detrimental long-term side effects have been recorded in the 50
years it has been studied, it lessens rather than heightens feelings of anxiety
and  paranoia,  and  it  does not bring about significant loss of self-control.
About the most dangerous thing you might do under the influence of MDA that you
wouldn't  do  otherwise  would  be to hug or kiss someone (in fact, the US Army
experimented with MDA because they hoped they could use it to  incapacitate  an
enemy by sneaking it into their water supply).
  I  can  find  no logic in a policy that outlaws MDA and leaves as the one and
only legal mind-altering substance a drug that is highly addictive, that causes
significant  loss  of  self-control to the point of loss of consciousness, that
increases violent behavior, that can have  associated  memory  loss,  and  that
kills  brain  cells.  As a drug, alcohol is one of the worst.  I can understand
why its unique history in this country makes it virtually impossible to outlaw,
but  why wouldn't alcohol's negative properties motivate the government to make
more desirable alternatives like MDA more readily available, in the hopes  that
people would use MDA instead of alcohol?
  Even  though  I  grant  that  there  is  some  logic  in  outlawing addictive
substances, there is no reasonable justification for outlawing the nonaddictive
drugs  such  as marijuana, MDA, LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy.  The government is
using faulty reasoning when it justifies campaigns against such drugs by citing
the  problems  associated  with  crack  cocaine.    And  to have the only legal
alternative be an addictive drug that is as  dangerous  as  alcohol  is  beyond
faulty reasoning, it's lunacy.






  That  whenever any form of government become destructive to these ends, it is
the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
                           --Thomas Jefferson,  The Declaration of Independence

  In my previous article I described why I believe that government has no right
to regulate what adults do in private, meaning that laws outlawing the  use  of
drugs  and  laws outlawing drinking for those 18-21 have no authority.  In this
article, I discuss my reaction to the new campus drug and alcohol policy.
  First of all, it would be nice to see  a  copy,  but  Stanford  doesn't  seem
willing  to  make  available  to me a policy that threatens to fire me and that
I've lived under for the past month.  I called the office of its author,  Susan
Hoerger,  but  was told by her secretary that she didn't want to distribute the
new policy to "everyone on campus" and that I should  get  a  copy  through  my
department  chair.   I have contacted the chairman's office several times since
then, but they have no copy of the policy either.
  I have an odd combination of reactions to what I do know  about  the  policy.
First,  while  I  do not recognize the government's authority to limit drug and
alcohol use of citizens 18 or over, I do  think  that  Stanford  as  a  private
institution has the right to expel students or fire staff for such behavior.  I
would try to convince members of the institution to  behave  otherwise,  but  I
don't think I have an inviolable "right" to my job at Stanford.
  But even though I think it is Stanford's prerogative to pass such a policy, I
do not think it can succeed as an institution of higher learning if it does not
encourage  its students, faculty and staff to take responsibility for their own
choices and if it does not afford each of them some sphere of privacy in  which
to  function.    In  short,  if  Stanford  becomes a regulatory institution and
invades the privacy of its students, faculty  and  staff,  it  will  ultimately
deteriorate in its effectiveness as a university.
  Most  importantly,  I  think that students must feel that the privacy of dorm
rooms on campus will not be violated.  The university should be indifferent  to
any  private  activity  taking  place between consenting adults in a dorm room,
even if that activity includes underage drinking or use of illegal  drugs.    I
believe  that  this  holds  even  for  dorm parties and activity in dorm common
areas, as long as everyone in the dorm feels comfortable about it.   Similarly,
the  university has no business interfering with analogous activity in the home
or apartment of a faculty or staff member, even if it happens to be on Stanford
land.
  Furthermore, Stanford should not limit what students, faculty and staff carry
on their persons while on campus or at campus  activities.    I,  for  example,
often  carry  illegal  drugs  in  my  backpack,  and  I  refuse  to work for an
institution that wants to dictate what personal items I will carry around  with
me.
  What  bothers  me  most  about  the  new  policy is that it was not initiated
because of any perceived problem, but as a reaction to coercion.   The  federal
government has no idea of what is best for Stanford's residences and activities
and I find their interference offensive.  I am equally distressed by Stanford's
response.   For all of our talk about being courageous and experimenting with a
new and better kind of university, we run  for  cover  at  the  first  sign  of
trouble and allow an external entity to make our decisions for us.
  I do not think that the federal government would have made good on its threat
if we failed to meet its standards.  A similar showdown came in the  summer  of
1982.   The Judge Advocate General of the Army wrote a letter to Harvard, Yale,
Columbia, NYU, UCLA and Wayne State University  warning  them  that  their  DOD
funding would be cut off unless they stopped banning army recruiters from their
law schools.  Those schools refused to allow DOD recruiters on  campus  because
the  DOD openly discriminates against gays, lesbians and bisexuals.  The threat
was made, the schools refused to change their policies, and  nothing  happened.
Stanford  missed the entire controversy because, cowering sheep that we are, at
that time we didn't ban DOD recruiters (our law school now does ban  them  from
their  facilities,  although the administration still uses the DOD threat as an
excuse for allowing them into the CPPC).
  In my personal life I've found that government most  often  accomplishes  its
goals  by  threats  it  never  intends  to  carry out.  For example, when I was
recently banned from my Northern Virginia high school because I'm openly gay, I
decided  that it was time to challenge Virginia's anti-sodomy law.  I presented
myself for arrest at two different police stations, but they had no interest in
arresting  me (in fact, they refused to arrest me, even though they agreed that
I was clearly guilty of a felony).
  My advice regarding the new alcohol and drug policy is to defy it and  to  do
so  as  openly as you are willing to do.  I encourage students to insist on the
right to decide whether they will drink or do drugs in their own dorm rooms.  I
encourage RAs and RFs to refuse to enforce this policy and to reserve the right
to set the social tone for their own dorm.  And I encourage faculty  and  staff
to  deny  the  university  any  right to dictate what they will do in their own
homes and what they will carry with them on campus.
  As for myself, I have done illegal drugs in the past and I will  continue  to
do  so.    I  have  never  taught  class  or  held office hours while under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, but I have kept illegal  drugs  in  my  backpack
while on campus, and I will do so in the future.
  I  know  that  my  attitude  about drugs will be shocking to many, especially
given the recent success of anti-drug  propaganda.    I  don't  claim  to  know
everything  about  drug  use  in America, but I know about my own life.  On the
positive side, drugs have provided many enjoyable and memorable experiences and
my  use  of  drugs  has  been an extremely important influence in my emotional,
intellectual  and  spiritual  development.    As  for  negatives,  I  have  not
experienced  any  of  the  nightmares  that supposedly go along with drugs.  My
greatest fear was the loss of conscious control, but in ten years of  drug  use
I've  never once experienced an uncontrollable lapse in awareness or judgement.
As for the "dark spiral of drug addiction," I have had  literally  hundreds  of
friends  who  used  illegal  drugs, and not one of them has turned to a life of
crime or become hopelessly addicted to drugs.  As for drug dealers, I have been
good  friends  with  a  half  dozen  of  them, and none have been the least bit
violent and all felt that selling drugs to children was immoral.  In fact, I've
had  more  interesting  discussions  about morality with drug dealers than I've
ever had with Stanford administrators or government officials.
  In conclusion, let me mention that one of the most  important  events  in  my
development  as  a  human being has been the realization that government has no
business making my choices for me and the subsequent determination on  my  part
to  openly oppose any such encroachment.  I realize that I might be arrested or
fired and that nobody will care that I drove the speed limit while breaking the
drug  and  sodomy  laws,  and  I fully expect that any such hardship on my part
would go mostly unnoticed.  The only alternative is to surrender  control  over
my  future  to  a  distant  and  alien  power,  and I do not understand how any
self-respecting individual, or self-respecting institution for that matter, can
possibly do so.