Roar Mikalsen - HUMAN RISING - radiofri..

268 Doris Marie Provine, Unequal Under Law; Race in the War on Drugs (the University of
Chicago Press 2007), s 67.
269 Jeffrey A Miron, Drug War Crimes; the Consequenses of Prohibition (the Independent
Institute 2004) s 38
270 Peter Reuter & Robert MacCoun, Drug War Heresies; Learning from Other Vices, Times,
and Places (Cambridge University Press 2005) s 7,194, 197-98.
271 Dette sitatet sier mer om det:
“If there was no catastrophic drug problem before prohibition, why then was the Harrison
Act enacted? In 1926, after 11 years of narcotics prohibition, an editorial in the Illinois
Medical Journal stated: ‘The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the
statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who
put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their
supply of ‘dope’ and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening
themselves upon the infirmities of their fellow men. As is the case with most prohibitive
laws, however, this one fell far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping the
traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates
upon whom they prey. . . .The doctor who needs narcotics, used in reason to cure and allay
human misery, finds himself in a pit of trouble. The lawbreaker is in fact in clover. .. . It is
costing the United States more to support bootleggers of both narcotics and alcoholics than
there is good coming from the farcical laws now on the statute books. As to the Harrison
Narcotic law . . . people are beginning to ask, ‘Who did that, anyway?’” Edward M. Brecher
and the Editors of Consumers Reports, Licit and Illicit Drugs s 52 (Boston: Little,Brown, 1972).
Funnet i James Ostrowski Thinking about Drug Legalization Policy analysis nr 121 Cato
institute.
272 Doris Marie Provine, Unequal Under Law; Race in the War on Drugs (the University of
Chicago Press 2007), s 69.
273 Ibid s 69-70.
274 Ibid s 72.
275 “*D+rugs are criminalized in two steps. First, the substance must be re conceptualized as
dangerous, debilitating, and of no legitimate value. Second, the user must be reconfigured as
socially marginal and ignorant, or contemptuous, of community standards and moral
decency — the kind who responds only to the stern intervention of the criminal law. The
reconzeptualization of recreational drug use, from a personal matter to a cause for social
alarm, can occur as part of a broad-based movement over time, as exemplified by
448