War on Drugs Blog Editorial Critique

The blog editorial that I chose to critique is a post at Daily Kos by Barry C. This editorial focuses on an analysis of a Dateline report that Chris Hansen did of a DEA raid of Mexican marijuana grow operations on American soil. The post points out, however, that only speculation had connected the grow-op that Hansen was reporting to the Mexican cartels.

This editorial caught my eye because it's a cause that I am personally convicted about, and I think this editorial draws on some good arguments to end the War on Drugs, at least with respect to marijuana. These include the methods by which it's currently being undertaken as well as benefits to society that allowing legal consumption of marijuana provides.

The intended audience of this editorial is Chris Hansen himself. The majority of the post is formatted as a personal letter to Hansen to make known that while Barry C. respects his work, he feels that this particular report contributes to the country's glorified perception of the War on Drugs, and is thus damaging. In reality, however, I feel that this editorial is meant to push readers that are on the fence about the War on Drugs toward the side of ending it.

While he doesn't advertise any credibility as a journalist or a scholar, Barry C. does draw on personal experience to formulate the arguments in his article. I think that his foray into the history of prohibition is a little bit out of his depth. I don't imagine it's historically fair to state that one photograph of some dead mobsters was responsible for ending prohibition. I don't think that argument is dishonest, but it's certainly hyperbolic. Regardless, it accomplishes the task of pointing out that where the government forbids a product that consumers want, criminals will provide the product.

This editorial has two main arguments. First is that the War on Drugs has turned the DEA into a paramilitary organization operating with military tactics to tackle a law enforcement issue. He argues that this is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a Restoration-era law that forbids local or national government from using federal personnel to solve law enforcement problems. The reasoning of the argument goes that by recruiting ex-soldiers and providing them with military surveillance technology, the government is in effect violating the Posse Comitatus Act.

The second argument is that the War on Drugs has prevented people, such as Barry C., from using marijuana in a medical context, such as chronic pain relief. Barry C. provides the example that his body has become desensitized to the legal opiate painkillers he's been prescribed and that marijuana is the only thing that helps with the pain associated with his Post-Polio Syndrome.

Overall, I think this is a very well reasoned editorial. I think that it's true that marijuana law enforcement is not the responsibility of military personnel and that the DEA operating in this way represents a potentially great threat to our civil liberties. I have a bit of an issue with him using the term War on Drugs to refer specifically to marijuana. There are some important considerations to take with other, more harmful drugs.

I think that the case that he makes about current policy preventing Americans with the medical care they need is very compelling. Ethical issues about drug use aside, if someone has pain associated with a medical condition and a natural product can alleviate that pain, that's a no brainer. There are no side effects, no synthetic compounds, and no reason that someone in a situation like Barry C. shouldn't have access to marijuana if it helps him. The only thing standing in his way is reactionary politics and rhetoric.