The war on drugs is in the house.

| Home

by Tonne Serah, Ph.D

In the summer of the year 2001 we are still being swamped with hysterical media reports on the popular dance scene drug, ecstasy.

"This stuff is lethal," says a Drug Enforcement Agency official. Teenagers are dying, screams the headlines. Millions of pills are seized in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Officials vow a crackdown. Meanwhile, to get into our parties we must submit to humiliating body searches and dance under the creepy gaze of undercover cops. What's next?

Are all drugs always harmful? That's the government's position, and the job of the war on drugs is to make sure that they are. As a government drug official recently testified before Congress, "Reducing the availability of MDMA has become one of the biggest challenges faced by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration today."

Now, the goal of the government might be to fund research to study the effects and side-effects of ecstasy, to educate potential users about it, to implement efforts to reduce harm from it or they could try to shut down the sources of ecstasy altogether and eliminate, not just reduce, its availability.

So, why does the government only want to reduce the availability of E? Because that's the best way to drive up the price and lower the quality, to ensure that more and more adulterated pills are swallowed by suburban teenagers, to force the manufacturing and distribution of ecstasy into the hands of big-time criminals willing to use violence to control their markets. Because reducing availability is the best way to increase harm. And once the "harm" of ecstasy is finally apparent - because right now it's not - the demands of these agencies for bigger budgets will be irresistible.

Meanwhile, as the availability and quality of E declines and its price goes up, clubbers, and ravers will start looking for alternatives. What will they turn to? Casual users of E could end up addicted to speed.

I'm not making this up. Critics of the war on drugs have been pointing this out for years. Substances that were once generally available were intensely criminalized - blah, blah, blah - and before you know it you have international drug cartels and whole countries like Colombia plunged into violence fueled by the drug trade. Thank you, America.

The distribution of ecstasy, according to a recent article in New York magazine, is already in the hands of international syndicates. How long until the dealer you buy your pill from has a Russian accent and a gun in his glove box? Already, almost one-half of the ecstasy pills tested by Dance Safe are bogus or adulterated. How long until you swallow rat poison thinking it's going to be the best roll you ever had?

How are you going to protect yourself when the war on drugs is in your house?


	\| Home Oakenfold's Ego vs. New York City Trance Scene \| Are ravers being profiles by the police? \| Are ravers treated as drug users? \| Raves may be limited. \| Sell a glow stick, go to prison. \| The war on drugs is in the house. The war on drugs is in the house. by Tonne Serah, Ph.D In the summer of the year 2001 we are still being swamped with hysterical media reports on the popular dance scene drug, ecstasy. "This stuff is lethal," says a Drug Enforcement Agency official. Teenagers are dying, screams the headlines. Millions of pills are seized in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Officials vow a crackdown. Meanwhile, to get into our parties we must submit to humiliating body searches and dance under the creepy gaze of undercover cops. What's next? Are all drugs always harmful? That's the government's position, and the job of the war on drugs is to make sure that they are. As a government drug official recently testified before Congress, "Reducing the availability of MDMA has become one of the biggest challenges faced by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration today." Now, the goal of the government might be to fund research to study the effects and side-effects of ecstasy, to educate potential users about it, to implement efforts to reduce harm from it or they could try to shut down the sources of ecstasy altogether and eliminate, not just reduce, its availability. So, why does the government only want to reduce the availability of E? Because that's the best way to drive up the price and lower the quality, to ensure that more and more adulterated pills are swallowed by suburban teenagers, to force the manufacturing and distribution of ecstasy into the hands of big-time criminals willing to use violence to control their markets. Because reducing availability is the best way to increase harm. And once the "harm" of ecstasy is finally apparent - because right now it's not - the demands of these agencies for bigger budgets will be irresistible. Meanwhile, as the availability and quality of E declines and its price goes up, clubbers, and ravers will start looking for alternatives. What will they turn to? Casual users of E could end up addicted to speed. I'm not making this up. Critics of the war on drugs have been pointing this out for years. Substances that were once generally available were intensely criminalized - blah, blah, blah - and before you know it you have international drug cartels and whole countries like Colombia plunged into violence fueled by the drug trade. Thank you, America. The distribution of ecstasy, according to a recent article in New York magazine, is already in the hands of international syndicates. How long until the dealer you buy your pill from has a Russian accent and a gun in his glove box? Already, almost one-half of the ecstasy pills tested by Dance Safe are bogus or adulterated. How long until you swallow rat poison thinking it's going to be the best roll you ever had? How are you going to protect yourself when the war on drugs is in your house?