Return to the main page.
See also news releases about The New Prohibition, along with chapter and biographical notes. Information about Drug War Addiction is available as well.
The New Prohibition is available from the publisher at 1.800.374.4049 ($14.95).
Media Reviews
Denver Post
Lead editorial, Sunday, September 5, 2004
It's time to rethink and reform drug laws Thoughtful conservatives such as William F. Buckley are joining the call for sweeping reforms, including legalization, taxation and regulated sale of marijuana.
America's war on drugs is now in its 90th year. Federal law first restricted access to cocaine, heroin and related drugs in 1914. Marijuana was outlawed in 1937. Now, after nine decades of largely futile and often counterproductive efforts at drug prohibition, the time has come to reevaluate and reform America's drug laws.
All wars have casualties, and this one is no exception. According to a recent report from the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., there are now more than 318,000 people incarcerated in the United States for drug-related offenses. The U.S. spends about $33 billion a year prosecuting this war, and law enforcement makes about 1.5 million arrests per year, according to Boston University economist Jeffrey A. Miron.
Wars - especially long and fruitless ones - inevitably generate war protesters. What is striking about the new wave of criticism of the drug war is how much of it comes from conservative sources. Most prominent, William F. Buckley Jr. wrote in the June 29 issue of National Review in support of the proposition that "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and make it illegal only for children."
That conservatives should question a government policy that intrudes on individual freedoms for no apparent public benefit is as natural as it is welcome. Their voices join with progressives, libertarians, and the downright hard to classify, such as former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, in an impressive new book, "The New Prohibition," from Accurate Press in St. Louis. Seven Coloradans have essays in that book, including federal Judge John Kane, San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters, and Mike Krause and David Kopel of the Golden-based Independence Institute.
We obviously cannot report all the information packed into that book in this short space. But Masters, Kane and others make a compelling argument that the problems with some drugs, notably marijuana, are actually magnified by the current prohibition policy.
"Marijuana use decreases aggression and threatening behavior," Kane notes. "The crimes by some drug users are committed in order to pay for drugs in the highly inflated black market. In other words, the crimes are caused by prohibition-induced high prices, not by the pharmacological effects of drug ingestion."
Even the last-gasp argument of prohibitionists against legalizing marijuana - the claim that today's varieties are more potent than the pot so many baby boomers puffed in the '60s and '70s - is actually an argument for the legalization and regulation of the product. Tell major companies such as R.J. Reynolds that they can make billions of dollars growing and selling marijuana legally if they keep it within specified ranges of potency and you can be assured that their legal products will fall within the specified standards. As long as marijuana remains outlawed, there is no possibility of setting such standards.
Clearly, there are drugs available that are far more dangerous than marijuana - including the ubiquitously legal alcohol. Certain drugs, such as methamphetamine, are so devastating to users and so likely to induce violent behavior that the current prohibition is the only feasible policy. A reassessment of the drug war should include an evaluation of the effects of each drug on users and adjusting the legal status of that drug accordingly. Drug policy should then be placed on a continuum ranging from continued prohibition to outright legalization. Medications that are cleared by the FDA go through a rigorous process. Drugs such as heroin, which induces passive behavior, might be placed on the British system, where existing addicts can get inexpensive "fixes" from licensed physicians. As Judge Kane notes, heroin users are now forced to steal to get money to buy their drug from greedy pushers. If addicts can get an affordable prescription from doctors, they have no need to steal. More important, pushers no longer have an incentive to recruit new addicts because they can't profit from the misery they are sowing in the community by selling their outrageously priced illegal drugs to a captive market.
It is also time to recognize that federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drugs have become a wellspring of injustice that puts petty offenders away for draconian sentences while major drug dealers beat the rap by ratting out their underlings. It is time that such laws be changed to restore reasonable discretion to federal judges in meting out sentences in drug cases.
The first step toward a rational drug policy is, as Buckley eloquently argues, to legalize, regulate and heavily tax the sale of marijuana - with the taxes earmarked to fund treatment programs for victims of truly dangerous drugs. In Colorado, there's not much left to be done on that score. Possession of 1 ounce or less is already a petty offense subject to a fine of up to $100. State voters also approved the growing and use of medical marijuana to victims of certain diseases, and that state law is being followed about as well as a surly federal government will permit.
Because of the federal government's pre-emptive authority, Colorado cannot take the final step of legalizing and regulating marijuana on its own. It is time for Congress and the president to call a cease-fire in what has become not a war on drugs but a war on people who use drugs. Buckley and the wide-ranging authors of "The New Prohibition" have performed a signal service by highlighting the current drug war as a microcosm of the inevitable failures of a federal nanny-state mentality.
Westword: "Provocative."
On May 20, 2004, Westword published a front-cover, feature article about Sheriff Masters and the new book he edited, The New Prohibition.
Alan Prendergast writes for Westword: "The New Prohibition, released this week, takes the case against the war several steps further. Edited by Masters, who also contributed an introductory essay, the book features contributions from a wide range of observers, including Texas congressman Ron Paul, Denver federal judge John L. Kane, Independence Institute guru Dave Kopel and three retired police officials -- some provocative and, in many cases, unexpected dissenters joining the chorus of voices critical of the drug war." See Westword's web page for the complete article.
LPNews
All-stars against the Drug War
by Bill Winter
The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War, edited by Sheriff Bill Masters. 224 pages. Published by Accurate Press. Softbound, $14.95. Available at: (800) 374-4049.
In years past, the ultimate trump card against ending the War on Drugs was the "Cheech and Chong Argument." Whenever a celebrity would speak out in favor of, say, legalizing marijuana, critics would respond: "Well, of course Cheech and Chong" -- or Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, Woody Harrelson, or whoever -- "want to legalize it! They want to smoke the stuff!" The argument was sophomoric and intellectually dishonest, but it worked.
No longer. The New Prohibition, edited by Colorado's Libertarian sheriff, Bill Masters, features the greatest all-star line-up of anti-Drug War essayists ever to appear in one book. And what a line-up it is! Let's see a drug-war zealot try to use the Cheech and Chong argument against a U.S. Congressman, a former mayor, a former governor, two sheriffs, a former police chief, and a U.S. District judge. It just won't work.
Not that it hasn't been tried. In 1999, Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey labeled then-New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson for daring to speak out against the War on Drugs. I'm not sure McCaffrey realized how ridiculous he sounded trying to pin that label on an Ironman triathlete who avoided even caffeine.
The New Prohibition's star power is only one of its virtues. It is also full of compelling insights from people who have experienced first-hand the failure of the War on Drugs. When a law enforcement official, a judge, or a mayor talks about the ruined lives, the corruption, the civil liberties violations, and the violent crime caused by Drug Prohibition, it forces people to sit up and take notice.
The writers' backgrounds and credentials guarantee that The New Prohibition will be full of interesting facts, quotes, and arguments. It is. Here are some highlights:
* On the Drug War's racism: "Of the 26.7 million Americans who recently used an illicit drug, 72 percent were white, 12 percent were black, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 6 percent were 'other.' But blacks constitute 36.8 percent of those arrested for drug violations and over 42 percent of those in federal prisons for drug violations." -- Former New Jersey police detective Jack Cole.
* Why drug laws are like gun-control laws: "Drugs became a national boogeyman, while individuals were reduced to helpless victims. In this sense the War on Drugs mirrored the gun-control movement's push to ban firearms, as both attempted to blame inanimate objects for the misdeeds of individuals." -- Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
* On the availability of drugs: "In 1975, 87 percent of youths said [marijuana] was 'very easy' or 'fairly easy' to obtain. Twenty-three years, millions of arrests, and billions of dollars later, 89.6 percent of adolescents said it was 'easily' obtained." -- Colorado U.S. District Judge John L. Kane.
* On the failure of the Drug War: "The War on Drugs, as far as I'm concerned, is our domestic Vietnam. It lacks rationale. It lacks a sound basis in policy. And it is time for a different direction." -- Former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke.
In addition to the "big-name" writers, The New Prohibition also contains essays from 14 anti-Drug War activists, Libertarians and scholars. Almost all are interesting and insightful.
For example, the Independence Institute's Mike Krauss and Dave Kopel paint a damning picture of how the United States' War on Drugs has devastated South American nations by funding communist rebels, destroying farmers' livelihood, spawning widespread corruption, and destabilizing governments. It's the best short history of U.S. anti-narcotic efforts in South America I've ever read.
Paul Armentano and Keith Stroup of NORML do a brilliant job of factually debunking the Drug Czar's claim that "nationwide, no drug matches the threat posed by marijuana." Boston University professor Jeffrey Miron offers an astute look at where liberal and libertarian arguments against Drug Prohibition overlap -- and how they differ. Criminal Justice Foundation Policy President Eric E. Sterling makes the innovative case that the Drug War is economically bad for businesspeople.
Jeffrey A. Singer, former spokesperson for Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform (ADPR), contributes a fascinating look at how that group drafted and successfully passed 1996's Proposition 200, which reformed the state's drug laws. Most interestingly, he reveals that ADPR conducted focus groups from which they learned that citizens thought the War on Drugs was a failure -- but that they also strongly opposed decriminalization. How the ADPR dealt with this paradox is necessary reading for any libertarian who genuinely wants to influence public policy.
I'd be remiss not to mention "My Arrest for Civil Disobedience" by the late LP activist Ron Crickenberger. The essay, about a 2002 medical marijuana protest, is funny, principled and wise. In short, it's all the things that makes so many libertarians (myself included) miss Ron, who died of cancer in early 2004.
What's not to like about the book? Well, Libertarians may be irritated at the policies some writers propose to replace the War on Drugs. Resist that urge.
Yes, Jack Cole wants the federal government to produce and distribute drugs, to eliminate the black market's inflated narcotics prices. (Despite the fact that they invented the $800 toilet seat, he thinks the feds would keep prices down. Interesting theory.) Kurt Schmoke wants to shift government money to "effective treatment programs." Ron Paul wants to let individual states, rather than the federal government, set drug policies.
However, even if some of the proposals fall well short of the complete legalization many libertarians favor, they mark a potential turning point in the Drug War debate. After all, when the argument shifts from "if" to "how," then we've won. The War on Drugs will be effectively over. All that will remain will be hammering out the terms of the Drug Peace.
The bottom line: The New Prohibition is an invaluable contribution to the growing library of anti-Drug War literature. It assembles what may be the most respected spokespeople, important perspectives, and compelling arguments of any book in the field. For the credibility of the anti-Prohibition movement, it represents a new high-water mark.
Cheech and Chong, Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, and Woody Harrelson, thank you for what you've done. Now please step aside. The torch has been passed.
Drawing the Line
On June 2, 2004, Reggie Rivers hosted a discussion about The New Prohibition for his Channel 12 KBDI television show, Drawing the Line. Ari Armstrong, who served as assistant editor for the book, appeared in studio, along with contributor Dave Kopel. On the other side were U.S. Attorney John Suthers and Mark Pautler, Chief Deputy District Attorney for Jefferson County. Sheriff Bill Masters and Judge John Kane, another contributor to the book, participated in the show via telephone.
Daily Camera: "A strong case."
Debunking the 'war on drugs,' libertarian style
By Clay Evans, Camera Books Editor
July 11, 2004
Reading his contribution to the new book, "The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War," I was intrigued to learn that San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters once was an avid drug warrior. It was, he indicates, simply part of what it meant to be a Republican law enforcement official.
But after several years of approaching drug use as a criminal problem, especially in free-spirited Telluride, he was frustrated by "the increasing drug problems in the county." In other words, arresting and jailing drug users, which he had accepted without question, simply didn't work.
"One day I was out politicking, talking to an old boy that I assumed would agree with me," Masters writes. "... After listening to my tirade in silence for a few minutes, he slowly turned to me and drawled, 'You know, Sheriff, I don't want to tell you your business, but it sounds to me like you've been shoveling hay into the wrong end of the horse.'"
To his credit, Masters drew the only sensible conclusion: "Obviously, if we were handling the problem the correct way we would have a stronger, safer, and healthier horse, but we aren't and we don't."
That's a compact summary of this volume of sensible, mostly libertarian argument against the damaging, wasteful, unwinnable "war on drugs." And no, it's not a "pro-drug" argument; most of the writers proclaim their abhorrence for drugs, but they think the "drug war" is doing more harm than good. And they make a strong case.
Written by police, a judge, a congressman, a mayor, and various think-tank-types, with an introduction from former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura, this collection offers a sharp, detailed critique of the money-sucking drug war. There's nothing particularly new here for those inclined to agree, but it's nice to have all these facts, figures and a few new alternative approaches between two covers.
The essays reveal in stark, practical terms how the government has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on the drug war only to drive up prices - which then attracts new, profit-seeking daredevils to the business. Supply and demand, remember? They show that the war's ammunition falls disproportionately on minorities, and how prisons rife with drugs may actually make addicts worse.
Meanwhile, write Mike Krause and Dave Kopel of Golden's Independence Institute, the drug war has made a mess of U.S. foreign policy, especially in Latin America.
"Before the United States government militarized the 'drug war' in the Andes, a majority of coca was cultivated in neighboring Bolivia and Peru. ... (T)he success of the U.S. 'Airbridge Denial' program - the shooting down of suspected drug flights ... - prompted traffickers to simply move their growing operations into Colombia. ... Already the largest producer of cocaine, Colombia became the largest coca-growing country as well," they write.
An essay by Fatema Gunja of the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts describes how government officials have tried to conflate drugs - even teenage pot smoking - and terrorism in the post-9/11 world. "From television ads aired during the Super Bowl to full-page ads in The New York Times, the government's campaign on the drug war has found a new niche, one that rests on manipulating existing fear and anxiety over national security matters to advance the drug war agenda," she writes.
In the closing section of the book, writers propose various approaches to drugs that do not involve self-defeating, money-wasting, feel-good campaigns, from "medicalizing" drug use and abuse to turning the whole issue back to the states.
The book isn't identified as written by libertarians (and in some cases, Libertarians), but their mark is charmingly unmistakable: "(T)he U.S. Constitution grants Congress no authority to establish any kind of criminal code, other than to punish treason and counterfeiting and crimes committed at sea or on federal property."
Of course, on this issue, libertarians have a virtual corner on common sense. Democrats and Republicans alike (with a few brave exceptions like former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson) are terrified to question the drug war and risk being labeled as "soft on drugs" by an opponent, then punished by a mindless electorate.
Strangely, President Bush got this backward. He sounded the right notes on the campaign trail, calling for a treatment-based approach to drug addiction, but once inaugurated appointed a drug czar, John Walters, and attorney general, John Ashcroft, who ramped up the anti-drug rhetoric immediately.
Issued by such a small press, it's unlikely that this fact-filled, persuasive volume will find it into the hands of the majority of Americans who remain stoned by the propaganda that "we're winning the drug war." But every little bit helps.
Boulder Weekly: "A Must-Read."
On July 8, 2004, Boulder Weekly published an article about The New Prohibition.
Dare to challenge the drug war
by Vince Darcangelo
Concerning America's war on drugs, what do a governor, a sheriff, a police chief, a police lieutenant, a judge, a Congressman, a doctor and a philosopher all have in common? They all speak out against the drug war in The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War. The New Prohibition is a collection of 21 essays edited by Sheriff Bill Masters, who has served as sheriff of San Miguel County in Colorado since 1980. This is Masters' second foray into publishing his opposition to the war on drugs, his first being 2001's Drug War Addiction: Notes from the Front Lines of America's #1 Policy Disaster. Featuring editorials from Masters, U.S. district judge John L. Kane, Congressman Ron Paul and a foreword by former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, The New Prohibition is a multi-angled view of the drug war, offering numerous and diverse perspectives that challenge current drug laws.
"I think there's a feeling among a lot of people that the drug war has failed," says Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute and a former assistant attorney general of Colorado.
In The New Prohibition, Kopel teams up with Mike Krause, a former member of the Coast Guard who was a boat coxswain for drug interdiction operations, to pen "A Foreign Policy Disaster." Counter to the anti-drug campaign of the U.S. government claiming recreational drug users support terrorists, this essay shows that it is actually drug prohibition and enforcement efforts abroad that have allowed terrorism to prosper without slowing the flow of drugs.
"The American-imposed drug war in South America is one of the most important factors that has created the success of terrorist organizations down there," says Kopel. "If we didn't have a drug war, the Shining Path in Peru and the FARC in Colombia wouldn't be making a huge amount of money running drugs. The drug war is a get-rich scheme for terrorists.
"To the extent that other terrorist organizations make money by dealing drugs is only because the illegality of the drugs creates the opportunity," he continues. "You don't see them selling alcohol."
Journalist Ari Armstrong also looks at this connection in, "Drugs and Terror." In his essay, Armstrong skillfully deconstructs the arguments for prohibition, the drug/terror link and the similarities between drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition-citing how the black market flourished during alcohol prohibition. Echoing Kopel's sentiments, Armstrong shows that the only link between drugs and terrorist organizations is that drug prohibition has made the drug trade profitable for terrorists.
"The crimes associated with drugs, including the crimes of terror, are so obviously the fault of prohibition laws," he says.
But don't go thinking The New Prohibition is a drug-glorifying treatise by potheads looking to legalize their favorite pastime. This collection of essays is a thoughtful commentary on reforming current drug laws and the enforcement thereof, not a condoning of drug use, something Kopel is quick to point out.
"[The New Prohibition] doesn't dispute that drug abuse can be harmful-in fact, quite harmful," he says. "But we have to look at what benefits are we getting from this war on the American people versus the costs we're paying as a result. The harms from drug prohibition are much more serious than the harms we face under a less prohibitionist regime-which is the same point that people made when the country repealed alcohol prohibition. It wasn't that the country suddenly decided you can drink all the gin you want, it's gonna be healthy for you."
And who better to comment on the perils of prohibition than those on the front lines-the members of law enforcement that have dealt with the issue first hand.
"Obviously it's important to have people in from law enforcement, because they've seen it, they've been there, they've seen the problems," says Armstrong.
The various angles and arguments of The New Prohibition are too numerous and detailed to flesh out in this limited space. But Armstrong, Kopel and contributors Mike Huemer and Judge John L. Kane will discuss the book in deep detail on Tuesday, July 13, at the Boulder Book Store. There will be a half-hour of speakers, followed by a question-and-answer session. The New Prohibition will be available for purchase at the event. Regardless of your stance on the drugs themselves, The New Prohibition is a must-read for anybody concerned with the issues surrounding the drug war. "I think if you're interested in civil liberties in this country, the drug war has to be one of the issues that concerns you," says Kopel.
A discussion on The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War takes place at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, July 13, at the Boulder Book Store, 1107 Pearl St., Boulder, 303-447-2074.
La Voz Nueva: "Invaluable."
On May 26, 2004, La Voz Nueva published a review of The New Prohibition by Michael Holzmeister. The article was published in both English and Spanish, and the English version follows.
New book continues drug war debate
Michael Holzmeister
People who believe the drug war is absurd will love The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War, a collection of essays arguing against United States' drug policy.
If you think the drug war is an effective method for controlling substances, you need to read this book, although you will likely believe it's full of poorly concocted lies.
Jesse Ventura, the former governor of Minnesota, writes in the foreward: "The so called war isn't working, and it's time to take a new approach." The book's 23 contributing writers go on to demonstrate the failures of the drug war and challenge the basic assumptions people have about illicit drugs.
"One of the distinguishing characteristics of drug policy is the sheer scope of issues on which it has bearing," writes David Borden in his essay "Out from the Shadows." The same could be said of the book.
Contributors include Bill Masters, the sheriff in San Miguel County in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, John L. Kane, a United States district judge in Colorado since 1978, and Ron Paul, a medical doctor and a congressman from Texas.
Writers attack the war on drugs from several directions. Eric E. Sterling, in "A Businessperson's Guide to the Drug Problem," sets out to show that "drug prohibition hurts the business climate, profits and investor returns." He lists nine ways in which the War on Drugs damages business, and he implores business people "to mobilize to end this drag on profits, on economic growth and on society with the same zeal they mobilize to change tax policy."
Former drug warrior Mike Krause and former Colorado assistant attorney general Dave Kopel argue in their essay, "A Foreign Policy Disaster," that "the U.S.-led drug war in the Andes has thwarted free-market capitalism, destroyed the livelihood of subsistence farmers, enriched narco-terrorists and criminal thugs, strengthened the role of the military, weakened civilian rule, propped up government corruption, and hindered Andean anti-insurgency efforts."
Fatema Gunja argues that labeling drug users as immoral hurts minorities more than anyone else. Latinos, Gunja notes, make up 10 percent of the population of drug users, yet they constitue half of the people charged with a federal drug offense.
The New Prohibition will prove invaluable for those opposed to the drug war, providing them with 224 pages of sound, logical arguments for use whenever the subject may arise.
Of course the people who really need to read the book will not. Addicts always have a hard time taking the first step.
"The only reason why drugs and crime have expanded to reach every Mayberry villiage in the country," Sheriff Masters concludes in his essay, "is our blind obedience to misguided laws and police tactics that just do not work. It is time to admit our own folly and stop our addiction to the drug war."
Lady Liberty
Lady Liberty
The New Prohibition
Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War
Edited by Sheriff Bill Masters
The New Prohibition isn't the first book to criticize American drug policy and the so-called War on Drugs. In fact, Sheriff Masters has himself written on the topic before. What sets The New Prohibition apart isn't its subject matter nor the fact it's a collection of essays. No, what makes The New Prohibition different and gives it maximum impact is that its viewpoints come from so many different-and authoritative-directions.
Worried about the rule of law? There are several essays written by law enforcement officers, both active and retired. Likening the Drug War to the spectacularly unsuccessful prohibition on alcohol, the writers show in terms of personal experience and knowledge the extreme violence and other criminal behaviors engendered by prohibition eighty years ago and by the War on Drugs now.
What about public health? Doctors and administrators write against the present drug police from their own perspectives. Not least of their concerns is compassion for the ailing (which some states are beginning to recognize, but which the federal government still blithely and cruelly denies). Social implications, too, are considered and found to suffer under current policy as well.
Politicians discuss in writing the changes that must be made to the system; a judge and several attorneys weigh in on the overburdened court system and irrationality of sentencing guidelines. And then the argument is taken beyond our own city streets and the Fourth Amendment. Though you may not have considered it, The New Prohibition will show you how the War on Drugs also affects the Second and Tenth Amendments and even foreign policy. Of course, the book couldn't be complete if the claims that illicit drug use helps fund terrorism weren't also addressed.
Whatever your own argument against the War on Drugs, it's bolstered here. And if you're in favor of the War on Drugs, you won't be when you've finished The New Prohibition. There are simply too many very good reasons you shouldn't support the War, and they're presented so cogently here you'll find them impossible to ignore.
Although the foreward of the book is short, it strikes me as a particularly appropriate choice to let the introduction be by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. When Jesse Ventura ran for state office, he was very much a third party underdog. He didn't have the organization or the money that the two major parties did. And yet he appealed to the people, and they voted accordingly. In much the same way, the War on Drugs has an almost bottomless financial well to draw from while it enjoys a substantial enforcement infrastructure.
But many people are beginning to see the flaws in the system, and it's entirely possible that the status quo will be upset in the near future. Books like The New Prohibition will help that day come sooner, and for all of those who've been victimized in any of a multitude of ways by the War on Drugs, that day can't come soon enough.
LADY LIBERTY'S READ: I've long found the War on Drugs to be irrational purely from a prohibition standpoint. So certainly I felt vindicated when I read some of what was contained in The New Prohibition. While that's nice, the best parts of the book came for me when I found such well-reasoned arguments from other perspectives, some of which I frankly hadn't even considered.
If you want to know more about the pitfalls of the War on Drugs, I can't imagine a more complete or reader friendly book for you to use to start-or complete-your education. But be warned: finding so many other reasons to oppose the War on Drugs made me angrier than ever at those who perpetuate it. Still, if that anger can serve as motivation for change, then here's hoping it makes you mad, too.
The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent challenge the Drug War is available from Amazon.com, or directly from the publisher.
Interview with Bill Masters
Colorado Sheriff Bill Masters is on a crusade. Of course, he does his job working to protect the citizens of his county and arresting the bad guys there. But his greatest passion is reserved for righting what he sees as a truly great wrong, and that wrong is the so-called War on Drugs.
There's little question that Masters is fighting on the right side despite the seeming incongruancy of a law enforcement officer coming out against the War on Drugs. But he's seen firsthand, and heard stories directly from others with similar experiences, just how little good and how much evil the existing drug prohibition in this country has done. Any law enforcement officer who takes seriously his oath to protect "civilians" can't ignore insensible statutes; inconsistent enforcement; draconian penalties all too frequently unfairly applied; the temptations for abuse of authority; and the massive waves of crime and violence encouraged and abetted under prohibition. And Masters doesn't. Instead, he works toward sorely needed reform.
Sheriff Masters was once an uncompromising enforcer of drug laws. In fact, he won an award for being so good at it. But in the face of evidence that showed him the War on Drugs was more of a problem than the drugs themselves, and his notion that there are better ways to deal with those drug problems not actually caused by enforcement activities, he determined that repeals and reforms were the only logical way to proceed. Several years ago, he wrote a book entitled Drug War Addiction. In that book, he revealed much of what he'd learned about the War on Drugs over his years in law enforcement, and he offered his own ideas for ways to address both drug use and drug enforcement in a more efficient, effective, and rational way.
Masters has now published The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War. This book consists of a collection of essays all discussing and dissecting the American War on Drugs. Masters wrote one of the included essays himself, and serves as the editor for the rest. The New Prohibition isn't the first book to criticize American drug policy and the War on Drugs. But what sets The New Prohibition apart isn't its subject matter nor the fact it's a collection of essays. No, what makes The New Prohibition different and gives it maximum impact is that its viewpoints come from so many different-and authoritative-directions. (For more on The New Prohibition, read our book review.)
After having read both books, I had a few questions for Sheriff Masters which he kindly took the time to address.
Lady Liberty: I've heard it said in the past that law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the law. It doesn't matter whether they like a particular law or not, they must enforce it. Is that true?
Sherriff Bill Masters: Police officers have a tremendous amount of discretion in the enforcement of law. Few laws (some domestic violence laws, etc.) actually require that law enforcement officers make arrests. 90 percent of a good police officer's activities involve resolving problems without the application of legal processes.
LL: I'm not the only person that has suggested that law enforcement officers simply refuse to enforce a law that's just plain wrong, much as I would advocate juries to take advantage of their powers of jury nullification. Is that what you did in connection with the various laws that make up the War on Drugs?
SBM: No. We, the sheriff's office, do not refuse to enforce any law. There may come a time when the application of the law is the best answer to a problem. Really bad laws are recognized as such only after the police apply the letter of the law to the issue. If the police arrested everyone-not just kids and black people but prescription pill popping and pill sharing housewives, Jeb Bush's ("just a private family matter") daughter, Rush Limbaugh etc.-who violated any drug law, "normal people" (white voters) would demand change. Just like other wars, change doesn't really happen until middle American kids are coming home in body bags with no end in sight.
LL: I trust your decision-making abilities. I've read your books, and you're obviously interested in constitutionality and in what I'd call libertarian logic. But what about those in law enforcement who can't be trusted?
SBM: Listen, the problem is not with law enforcement being trusted. They are just doing what the legislative branch tells them to do and funds them to do. Put the blame on the senators and congressmen who are "states' rights, small federal government" talkers [but who] then vote to fund federal drug enforcement on all levels. Put them on the discussion panels, not the cops.
LL: You determined some time ago that the War on Drugs was wrong. Did you change your attitude suddenly, or was it a gradual shift? What was the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak that tipped you to the other side in the War on Drugs?
SBM: I really always felt this way. I just forgot to listen to logic and my true conservative (limited government/personal responsibility) roots. The straw for me was the misallocation of law enforcement dollars away from homicide investigations and now terrorism prevention and into busting pot smokers.
LL: Did you debate the matter with your colleagues?
SBM: Most cops don't debate the law. The ones that do, besides the political hacks, know that change is needed.
LL: Once you made your decision, what was the reaction of your colleagues? How about that of your superiors?
SBM: I am an elected official, so I have no superior other then the public I serve. Most of my colleagues thought I was crazy or a drug user. Most now are beginning to understand that change is in the air. Some even say that the drug war is over.
LL: Many people are convinced that the War on Drugs is bad, or at least unwinnable. The federal government, however, has made it clear that it disagrees. How can local and state authorities overcome the threat implicit in that fact?
SBM: Don't make it a liberal issue; make it a conservative one. It is, pure and simple, a nanny state-big federal government, wasteful spending, no states' rights issues. True Democrats should love it, and true Republicans should hate it.
LL: Obviously, if you had a magic wand, you'd wave it and make a few changes. If you could literally rewrite American drug policy overnight, what would it look like tomorrow morning?
SBM: 1. States decide the drug laws that are best for them; 2. People have a constitutional right to decide what goes into their bodies; 3. People, not objects, are judged harshly for their actions that directly hurt or endanger others.
LL conclusion: It's cynical to say so, but I also suspect it's all too true that Sheriff Masters' suggestions make too much sense for the authorities to suddenly adopt. Too many agencies have become dependent on the money they get from forfeitures based on drugs or the accusations of drugs (something Masters addresses in his book Drug War Addiction). At least as many have also become enamored with their own authority. But at least we do know that, when the time comes, there are people ready with cogent alternatives to the War on Drugs. We can only hope that it won't, as Masters puts it, take too many more American kids in body bags to initiate the needed changes.
My thanks go out to Sheriff Masters first and foremost for his thought-provoking books, and for taking the time to talk about his views. For more about The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent challenge the Drug War, read our book review. The New Prohibition is available from Amazon.com, or directly from the publisher.
Return to the main page.