Critical Reflection 1 Chasing the Scream PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Critical Reflection 1 Chasing the Scream PDF

Description

TRA NGUYEN (PHE 326U) Critical Reflection #1 Critical Reflection #1: “Chasing the Scream”

When looking back into history, we can see that the drug war was the result of racial bias and fear. We learn that if Harry Anslinger had good intentions, it was not long before they were replaced with ego and racism. One could argue that once alcohol prohibition was lifted, Harry Anslinger’s job security was in jeopardy. That combined with him marrying into a wealthy family with connections to his department (bureau of narcotics), opened up the doors for Harry Anslinger to impose policies that would target the drugs, largely through targeting ethnic minorities. Johann Hari’s research goes as far back into the drug war’s origins as possible. Not only does he capture the side imposing the war, but also the casualties in the wake. With that said, I do not see where Hari could have dug deeper, and am ignorant to any other angles he could have approached to cover the drug wars’ history. What I believe is key for people to understand about the drug war is that its foundations were built on lies to serve political agendas and racist motivations. Society was fed all sorts of lies misinforming them of facts. We learn from Hari (2015), “He [Harry Anslinger] wrote to thirty scientific experts asking a series of questions about marijuana. Twenty-nine of them wrote back saying it would be wrong to ban it, and that it was being widely misrepresented in the press” (p.15). Let it be noted that Harry Anslinger reported and accentuated the findings of the one and only scientist who showed reservations. He also made sure it was clear to everyone that Mexicans were to blame for this psychosis-inducing drug. Anslinger made addicts out to be less than human and made sure anyone who thought otherwise was threatened, stripped of whatever

TRA NGUYEN (PHE 326U) Critical Reflection #1 status they held, and told to shut up. This reveals that this whole war is based on smoke and mirrors, and leaves us contemplating what exactly we are fighting for by criminalizing drugs. Another aspect of the history of the drug war I think is most important to know is how it affects much of the violence we see and hear of today. Once organized crime got its foot in the door via alcohol prohibition, it was not hard for gangs to control and fight over trade and turf. The stress of living in an environment where violence is chronically present takes a toll on people (psychologically and physically), and when you personally fall victim to violence it can be traumatic. The fastest and easiest way to deal with that trauma is to numb and distract your mind with drugs. This consequently supports the gangs and cartels, which in turn supports the violence. It turns into a black hole of desperation and leaves little room for redemption. Harry Anslinger tried his best to spread the drug war and the prohibition/criminalization method of dealing with drugs and addicts to the world. Using his (corrupt) political power and the fear/racial bias people already had, he was fairly successful in imposing our (America’s) views onto the rest of the world. Fortunately, some countries have taken a step back and have started to acknowledge a couple of facts. First, drugs are not going anywhere, and humanity will never be 100% free of traumatic events. Second, why are we trying to fix trauma by imposing more trauma through criminalization? Hari mentions a few different countries that range from making little changes to those who have decriminalized drugs all together. He even brings up the early attempts that were made in the U.S. but were quickly shut down by Anslinger himself. I think that Switzerland has the right idea when, through Hari (2015), they conveyed the message of “Expanding the criteria for prescriptions. If you can prescribe opiates for back pain, why cannot you prescribe them for psychological pain?” (p.227). Like mentioned before, trauma is a key element in drug users who

TRA NGUYEN (PHE 326U) Critical Reflection #1 turn into addicts. Take away or help them find better ways of coping with the psychological pain, and slowly you take away the need to self-medicate through the high risk drugs. The Swiss have come to terms that trauma victims are not criminals by nature, and that perhaps the criminalizing policies are not appropriate for treating or dealing with addiction. The country that was most compelling for me was Hari’s description of Portugal’s drug policies. What was so captivating about Portugal in my mind is that they seemed to have covered every aspect of the drug user, and focus on health and education. If drugs happened to be found on you, it is similar to receiving a traffic safety class referral. They get to talk to professionals and hear the health risks that come with whatever they were “caught” with. If they are deemed with having a substance problem, they are treated like humans (not criminals) and given options. If they are ready to get help, they receive help. If they are not ready to give up their habits, they get referrals to clean needle exchanges and facilities where they can use safely or get methadone, all while in the company of health and medical care professionals. The most surprising part in all of this is how the government actually gives its citizens tax breaks for employing former/recovering addicts. They seriously invest in all members of their society. We need to come to terms with the reality of the history of our drug war as a whole. While the U.S.A is slowly starting to wake up, we are still a long ways away from a national shift in attitude concerning addicts and decriminalization. What I think would need to happen (for us to respond to drugs as a health issue and not criminal) is for more people like Mason Tvert, and Tonia Winchester to step up and challenge current policies. We need for warriors on the legalization side to make a stand that can’t be ignored. Such as the scene and “dramatic gesture” that Bud Osborn was not afraid to throw in the faces of the public in Vancouver. We need politicians to follow the example of Philip Owen, who took the time to hear from addicts and

TRA NGUYEN (PHE 326U) Critical Reflection #1 built relationships with them. We need to humanize addicts, and not view them as lepers. The U.S. needs for its addicts to see their worth as people and demand human rights (healthcare). If they do not, it will be hard for the general public also. The roll of dishonesty is a main element to what started this drug war in the first place. Due to that dishonesty we have skewed views and beliefs around drug users and the drugs themselves. We are misinformed and fed alternative facts about statistics around users/addicts; we are withheld information that shows evidence that may contradict our drug war. Hari (2015) speaks to Dr. Carl Hart (professor at Columbia University) who states “Almost all the funding for research into illegal drugs is provided by governments waging the drug war- and they only commission research that reinforces the ideas we already have about drugs” (p.179). Other factors that contribute to our approach to drug use in this country (prohibition/criminalization) is the fear of our young, impressionable population becoming addicts if we legalize and regulate. If we look to countries with more progressive drug policies, we see that for youth subjected to trauma, this may be true, but in reality there are harsh penalties for supplying those who are underage, and that for the most part there is an active and critical dialogue between young people and mentors/health professionals around the subject.

References Hari, J. (2015). Chasing the scream: the first and last days of the war on drugs. New York: Bloomsbury....