Breaking Glassrnby Philip JenkinsrnShadow of EcstasyrnIt’s starting again. ^^Iniost 20 ears ago, tliernfederal goernnicnt launehed what becamernknown as die “war on drugs,” a radicalrnexperiment to suppress illegal drugsrnriirough harsh penal solutions. Amongrnortier things, this meant long prison sentencesrnfor the sale or possession of tin’rnquantities of controlled substances, sentencesrnthat are astonishingl}- severe b thernstandards of irtualK’ all other advanced nations.rnNloreoxer, these sentences were imposedrnunder strict federal and state guidelinesrnthat all but eliminated the discretionrnof indi idual judges. The drug war hadrnother delightful features, including givingrnthe Drug Enforcement Administration arnmajor sa oer what medicines and anaestheticsrncould be prescribed b- doctors orrnhos|3itaLs.rnWe now hae more than enough pers])rneeti c to declare the drug war an abjectrnfailure —nothing less than a catastrophernisited upon American socieh’. The worstrnaspect of the whole aff;iir is that there cannotrnliterally be a war on drugs: Teams ofrnagents do not take sharp sticks and punishrnrows of marijuana plants, histcad, the warrnis on people—American people —andrnoerwhclmingl’, the ‘ichms of antidrugrncampaigns are quite ordinarv and fairh’rnharmless indi iduals. Nevertheless, millionsrnof lies hae been destroved in thernname of the unattainable principle of .socialrnpurih. The main beneficiaries of therndrug war hae been criminal-justice bureaucrats.rnespecialK’ prison administratorsrnand employees. (Just look at the amazingrnclout of the prison guards’ union in Californiarnstate polities.) It begjars belief that arnpolie- that shifts so much power into thernhands of the state bureaucracy originatedrnwirii politicians who would have describedrnthcmseUes as “consenatives.”rnAt least we now know enough never tornmake the same mistakes again, right?rnGuess again. As in everv example of staternrepression tiiroughout history, the merernfact of eliminating the opposition docs notrnslake die official thirst for blood. Timernand again over the last 20 ‘ears, antidrugrnautiiorities have declared ietor- after victon.,rndestroying tiiis or that “cartel,” seizingrnor killing supposed kingpins—often in circumstancesrnof dubious legalits—and allegedrndrug “epideunes” ha’e appearedrnand vanished. Drug usage in the UnitedrnStates has been reduced as far as it conceivablyrncan be by a total war based on policernand prisons. The statistics will not gornlower. Most of the really serious drugs, e,specialh’rnheroin and cocaine, ha e been reducedrnto marginal dimensions, and wernface nothing like the widespread experimentationrnof the 1960’s and 70’s. B anyrnrational standard, we should be celebratingrna famous victor}’, but of course we arernnot. Unlike real wars, the so-called drugrnwar has no natural ending, no momentrnwhen the enemy fleet is destroyed or arncapital city placed under occupation.rnWhen one phase ends, another begins.rnSince the collapse of tiie national panicrnoer crack cocaine in the 1990’s, the antidrugrnbureaucrats have lived in a state ofrndeep concern and have had to strive everrnharder to produce plausible new menacesrnto justif}- their continued existence. Somernof tlieir efforts have been simpK ludicrous:rnWlio remembers the drug methcathinonern(CAT), which, for several months in 1993,rnwas proclaimed to be the next nationalrndrug epidemic?rnHappily, though, in the last two years, arnsolution has been found in the pharmaceuticalrnMDMA, populariy known as “F.estasv,”rnwhich is now schccluled to be “thernnext crack cocaine.” Many medical authoritiesrnhae nothing but praise for MDMA,rnwhich, properly used, has enonuonsrnpotential in psychiatiic practice, to the extentrntiiat some have called it a “penicillin ofrnthe soul.” It allows people to confront tianmatiernmemories without fear, and the substancernhas basically no bad side effects, providedrnit is used widi adequate ventilationrnand water. Tragicall}-, though, in our presentrnsocial environment, MDMA has odierrnworr ing features, since it makes peoplernfeel er- happy, confident, and affectionatern—so tiie- u.se it rcereatiouallv. And an’rnchemical that makes people feel goodrnmust, in this land of Carrie Nation, be arndangerous drug that demands suppression.rnSince 1999, the antidrug agencies havernsteadiK’ cultivated scare stories about ficstas-rntiiat rely on the familiar rhetorical tacticrnol confusing tire consequences of its legalrnprohibition witli the efiFcets of the substancernitself VoT instance. Ecstasy use literally ne’-rner causes violence: At worst, it causes usersrnto grin in a silly fashion and declare undyingrnlove for all around tliem. Yet, when it isrnprohibited, people use it in clandestine settingsrnwhere they can suffer fi-oni the deprivationrnof fresh air and water. Users can tlrusrnsuffer and die, and the news stories declarernthat Ecsta.sy is a “killer drug,” and “death tornkids.” Moreover, if the substance is illegal,rntlien those seeking it must resort to undergroundrnchannels to obtain supplies. Thisrnbrings in organized-crime elements, whorntend to kill one another to secure their marketrnshare. Tlius, we find idiotic headlinesrnlike one that appeared in Hie New YorkrnTimes this simimer: “Violence Rises asrnClub Drug Spreads Out Into the Stieets”rn(June 24). Armed with such misinformationrnabout this “killer drug,” legislatorsrnthen leap into action, imposing draconianrnpenalties for sale or possession. Under newrnfederal sentencing guidelines, Eeshisy usernis now penalized five times more se erelvrnriian heroin use, in temis of the potentialrnprison sentence. As a result, everyone isrnhappy; especially the DEA agents, whorndon’t have to find new jobs, and the prisonrnofficials, whose pensions are secure.rnIn 2000,1 appeared before a committeernof the U.S. House of Representatives thatrnwas holding hearings on Ecstasy and otlierrnso-called “club drugs.” To sa’ the least, Irnwas in the minorit)- among tire witiiesses-rnI was so surrounded by hostile cops and polsrntliat I think I now have a luueh better sensernof how General Custer felt. I concludedrnmy presentation with a warning that, asrnCongress attempted to offer protectionrnfrom Ecstasy, it would “enact new prohibitionsrnand criminal justice-related policiesrnwhich will result in causing more harm,rnmore injury and death.” Subsequentrnevents make these dangers all the morernlikely. I would love to believe that tliere isrnstill time to tiim back. We do not have torncontinue down tire road into the next phasernof a never-ending drug war. crnDECEMBER 2001/r3rnrnrn