Wednesday, August 9, 2006

If only I had AIDS... Via Hit and Run and Rehabology: The new ad campaign from DrugFree.org: Captions (see all ads at Rehabology): If only I had AIDS. Then you would have some idea of what I was up against. You would see famous people wearing ribbons and speaking freely about my condition. You would walk, run and bike for greater awareness of my disease. If I had AIDS, you would understand that I need treatment, not scorn. It'd be better if I had cancer. Then you wouldn't tell me that what I'm going through is just a phase. You wouldn't see my condition as a lack of willpower but the disease that it truly is. There would be telethons, walks and campaigns to raise funds to end it. If I had cancer you'd understand I need treatment, not a lecture. I'd rather have heart disease. That way you wouldn't look at me with shame. You and I could talk openly about my problem. There would be no stigma. You could ask your friends how their family members got help. Insurance might cover it. If I had heart disease you would understand I need treatment, not hate. I'd be better off with a brain tumor. That way you wouldn't put off getting me the help I need. You'd understand that my condition is only going to get worse and not to hope it will go away by itself. If I had a brain tumour you'd understand I need treatment, not indifference. Jacob Sullum has it right: Leaving aside the scientific, conceptual, and moral issues, I'm not convinced that viewing addiction as a disease leads to less oppressive policies, as opposed to giving the war on drugs a kinder, gentler veneer by calling coercive re-education treatment instead of punishment. But let's take the Partnership for a Drug-Free America at its word: Addiction is a disease just like cancer or AIDS. Do police arrest people for having cancer or AIDS? Do doctors treat people for cancer or AIDS against their will? Are people with cancer or AIDS disqualified from various professions because the government refuses to license them? Until the partnership's prohibitionist propagandists start taking on these policies, I can't even give them credit for believing their own bullshit. 7:43:53 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Obligatory Lieberman-Lamont Post Lieberman's loss in the Connecticut primary may not seem to be of much consequence to readers of Drug WarRant. However... The media may frame it as a vote about the Iraq war, but if there is a lesson that politicians are taking away from this event, it's that the incumbent is not safe, and that if you aren't representing your constituents, it doesn't matter how much support you have from the machine. It's a huge and scary surprise to incumbents -- they haven't really had to pay attention to us before. This might be a good time to remind them that the general population is way ahead of politicians when it comes to issues like medical marijuana and smarter approaches than incarcerating non-violent drug offenders. If they don't listen, work to elect their opponents. This time, there just might be enough anti-incumbent sentiment to pull it off. The other aspect in our favor in this particular race is that the Lieberman loss is also a defeat for neocons -- the same movement that has been pushing for increased drug war tools for fighting terrorism, and increased terrorism fighting tools to go after drug users, and reduced individual freedom for everyone. It's too early to tell if Republican neocons will be experiencing a backlash along with their favorite Democrat, but it seems possible -- perhaps even likely. 1:43:12 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []