Former Drug Czar William J. Bennett Says Legalization Wouldn't have Saved Whitney Houston Or Anyone Else
Call it Bennett on Bennett on Houston on drugs. That is to say, former U.S. Drug Czar William J. Bennett had some harsh words in response to singer Tony Bennett's comments about legalizing drugs so as to prevent tragedies like the deaths of Amy Winehouse, Michael Jackson, and now Whitney Houston.
Singer Bennett said at a Grammy awards party last week:
I'd like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves to get our government to legalise drugs. So they have to get it from a doctor, not just some gangsters that just sell it under the table.
Drug Czar Bennett is not keen on this argument, referring to Singer Bennett's "idiotic comments" in a piece on CNN.com today. The former Bennett notes that Arianna Huffington agreed, saying "the war on drugs is a failure."
Bennett and Huffington's misguided solutions would result in more tragic deaths like Houston's. Illicit drugs are not harmful because they are illegal, they are illegal precisely because they are harmful. It is my hope that in the national dialogue surrounding Houston's death, our country's loudest voices would speak honestly and seriously about the drug problems in America.
In the 1980s and '90s, the U.S. beat back the cocaine and heroine epidemics, not by legalization or decriminalization, but by tough law enforcement, strong prevention and education programs and public outcry. You could hardly watch TV without seeing the Partnership For a Drug-Free America's famous "This is your brain on drugs" advertisements. If we are to be successful today, we must reignite that same national effort.
Maybe William Bennett isn't entirely wrong about Tony Bennett beng too hasty. After all, Winehouse died from alcohol, Jackson from a legal painkiller administrated directly by his doctor. And Houston, though she admitted to and clearly suffered from addictions to illegal drugs such as cocaine, still has a big question mark around her cause of death. Maybe it was prescription drugs mixed with alcohol, maybe it was something completely shocking. We won't know for a few weeks. But can't we at least be certain that the war on drugs didn't help Houston?
Writing over at the Huffington Post, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition executive director Neil Franklin, along with the president of Columbia University's Students for Sensible Drug Policy, take issue with the notion that Singer Bennett was trying to score political points (which is only acceptable when you're anti-legalization!) or was simply being irrelevant:
Some of those criticizing Bennett's remarks don't seem to understand the role that prohibition of some drugs plays in stigmatizing all people battling addiction -- whether to legal or illegal drugs -- and how punitive drug laws create roadblocks to recovery.
For example: "Bennett's remarks were misleading because in every case he mentioned we are talking about legal prescription drugs or alcohol," addiction specialist Marty Ferrero told Fox News.
"No, sorry. She got legal drugs from her doctor," said songwriter Diane Warren. "So that was inappropriate," she told the Los Angeles Times.
These well-meaning folks sadly miss the point. It doesn't matter if you're hooked on alcohol, Xanax or illegal drugs like heroin and cocaine -- prohibition for some drugs stigmatizes all people struggling with addiction. Period. Addicts are not defined simply by their drug of choice nor the drug that is or is not their ultimate cause of death. Their entire lives are tragically plagued by the stigma that criminalization heaps upon them, and the marginalized underworld prohibition thrusts them into.
That is a painful and deadly component of the experience of anyone unlucky enough to live with a disease that, unlike cancer, our government tries to battle with handcuffs.
Maer Roshan of TheFix.com -- a great news source on addiction and recovery issues -- rightly explains, "We can't tackle this epidemic in a piecemeal kind of way. At detoxes and rehabs across the country, prescription pill addicts and alcoholics and meth-heads are coke-heads all share the same plight, and suffer from the same scatter-shot treatment."
If drug warriors wanted to make drug use a grand moral issue, then they can't complain when people point out the reprecussions of the stigma of an addiction to drugs, legal or otherwise.
More Reason on LEAP, on prescription drugs, and on the drug war.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So W. Bennett defends keeping drugs illegal because they are dangerous and might kill people if they weren't illegal even though the people in question are already dead even though drugs are already illegal?
His policy isn't working, and his defense of it is that he needs to keep it in place or what might happen? What actually already happened under that policy? Huh?
Don't you idiots understand how many more people would die! Society would be littered with losers doing goofballs! There would be a huge demand for these substances and the children would pay the ultimate price. Why would you want to turn a drug free America into a heroin den? Now excuse me while I tend to my herd of unicorns.
Society would be littered with losers doing goofballs
Come off it! The entire USA can't live in Hollywood and D.C.
The terms 'losers' and 'goofballs' are just used to prejudice the conversation. Children are paying the price for liberal social engineering more than for legal or illegal drug use. Cigarettes are legal and addictive yet use is going down because of information and public pressure. The same would be true other addictive drugs. Many of our illegal drugs have proved to have beneficial uses in other societies.
Tired of feeling like we don't have a place where we can just be ourselves? Interested in meeting other like-minded folks who are Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual or Bi-friendly? The goal of ===bicupid*n/e/t====is to provide a fun, safe space for all Bisexual/Queer/Pansexual and Bi-friendly Transgender, Lesbian, Gay and "Straight-But-Not-Narrow" folks to find out about great Bi-inclusive stuff to do, gather and interact .
Now that her death has been politicized, am I at least allowed to hope that there will not be some oppressive new legislation called "Whitney's Law?"
No
California Legislator: We introduce "Whitney's Law" in the hope that it sends the message that abusing multiples substances (alcohol, prescription meds, things that come out of Bill Bennett's ass) is bad. We know that it won't bring Whitney back to us, but we all know that passing a law is the best way to inform the young people of this country what is in their best interests.
former U.S. Drug Czar William J. Bennett had some harsh words in response
Why would I want to listen to or read the words of a complete and utter failure? He was a drug warrior and drugs won. William J Bennett is the General Custer in the War On (Some) Drugs.
This may Godwin the thread, but I would describe him more as the Wilhelm Keitel of the WoD.
I loved him in Mean Streets.
Wrong Keitel.
Yeah, Wilhelm was the one in Pulp Fiction....
I think you mean Inglourious Basterds and it was his voice only.
I remember those commercials from the 70's/80's
Another thing to think about is that if you abuse prescription drugs you may also be treated as a criminal, so it does not matter if they are "legal"
Sez Bennett:
Illicit drugs are not harmful because they are illegal, they are illegal precisely because they are harmful.
This, of course, is demonstrably, and laughably, untrue. The "harm" caused by many illicit substances is negligible, and others have only grown MORE pure (and thus more dangerous) as a result of the monetary incentives created by prohibition.
Bennett is a lying asshole.
Category error. Many illegal drugs are not particularly harmful, and many legal drugs definitely are. The categories of "harm" and "illegal" do not coincide.
I thought he was supposed to Jesuit-trained?
Particularly when contrasting them with legal drugs like alcohol in the short term and tobacco in the long term.
Cool. That totally explains why I haven't heard of anybody using cocaine or heroin anytime in the last decade and a half or so.
The "epidemics" were themselves overhyped, most likely in order to gain funding for anti-drug programs. Mostly we remember the "your brain on drugs" ads because they were so damned silly. Drugs are bad. Yeah. Everybody already knew that.
We learned it by watching you!
Freedom includes what you choose or don't choose to put into our bodies. It also includes being responsible for those choices. One thing is for sure. Legalized drug use would radically reduce prison populations and the drug trade wouldn't be nearly so lucertive.
John you have made good arguments here. But they are not the arguments Tony Bennett made.
I think Tony Bennett made a lousy argument for legalization. I find it a stretch to believe that Whitney would have been just fine if drugs were legal. (And I sure don't think legalization would have helped Amy Winehouse.)
Others here may disagree. That's fine. But keep in mind it's possible to support drug legalization and still reject what Tony Bennett said as true or a good argument.
Propofol is not a painkiller. It is an anesthetic. Pleas fix this egregious error immediately!
This guy is a great example why libertarian is a much better choice that conservative.
I predict that her cause of death will be from mixing acetaminophen (from the Vicodin) and alcohol.
I doubt that it's from mixing acetaminophen (from the Vicodin) and alcohol. That usually causes liver failure, which is a slow painful death as body poisons itself.
There's a lot of difference between acute liver failure due to APAP toxicity, and sub-acute liver failure from chronic over-use of APAP.
So...legal drugs will make self-abusing addicts live longer because...
...drugs won't be "stigmatized"? It'll suddenly be A-OK to take stupid risks with your health because it's legal to do so?
Talk about a stretch. Libertarians grow less credible daily. Is there any personal problem on which a libertarian can't blame the government bogeyman?
"Hey Whit, last week coke was illegal but now it's perfectly legal and socially acceptable. Let's get an 8-ball! Hell, let's get two!"
Yes, your argument is utter genius!
I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
That's the most original retort I've seen in literally minutes.
I'm happy for you that your government is there to keep you from doing stupid things on your own.
By this logic, I'm glad murder's illegal because clearly, if your Overlords hadn't instructed you think that killing another was a bad thing, I'm guessing you'd be all Grand Theft Auto. Because no one would ever know that murder was bad without Big Brother.
Putz
You know what would have saved Whitney's life? Banning pop songs.
Stick to Gospel, the way God intended.
Bennett and the drug warriors are against drugs, not because they are harmful, but because 1.) they look at drug use as a "moral weakness" and 2.) because drug use is associated with 60's counterculture.
Harm reduction is a ruse, since Bennett would never use this same logic to argue for the prohibition of firearms or the regulation of "unhealthy" foods, etc.
If you want to see the mindset of the prohibitionists, read the comments here:
http://townhall.com/columnists.....itney_died
It boils down to drug users are "God-less heathens" and "weak minded liberals".
Right on Ray. Freedom is sovereignty over one's own body, even if one makes bad choices, as long as no one else is made responsible. I know what you are saying is true about cannabis Ray, it was seen, in the 30s, as the drug of the blacks from the West Indies. Therefore inappropriate for white Americans.
Sarah Palin's on The Five, so now it's a SIX way!
Man, if they could get Christine O'Donnell in there, they could have one helluva kinkfest...
"STRAP THEM TO THE PENTAGRAM TABLES!!"
If you don't like drugs, then don't use them.
If they're not legal I'll abuse them and maybe I'll die, and if I do, it'll be the government's fault.
Instead of making a person responsible for their choices and behavior. We like to blame some easily conned doctor or some other 3rd party.
This is the same Bennett who says aborting black babies will reduce crime.
This is the same Bennett who says aborting black babies will reduce crime.
Dishonest. I don't care for Bennett's neo-con philosophy, but he never made the above claim. This is a distortion of an argument he was making where he argued against the idea of legislation strictly for positive consequences. The "aborting black babies" and "reduce crime" idea was to show why the ends do not always justify the means.
There are people who argue that legal abortion reduced crime because "low-income urban" mothers (a whistle word if ever I heard one) got a disproportionate number of abortions, and presumably their children would have grown up to be fleet-footed.
The actual statistical data they have for this is quite inconclusive -- the confounding variables are legion -- but that doesn't stop pro-choicers from repeating the claim.
It is however interesting to see people who fly off the handle at the mere idea of studying whether women are, on average, inherently worse at math and science, cite such research, with all its racist presumptions, to justify their support for womb lynchings.
You could hardly watch TV without seeing the Partnership For a Drug-Free America's famous "This is your brain on drugs" advertisements. If we are to be successful today, we must reignite that same national effort.
I agree. This country would be a lot better off with our drug war being totally focused on unintentionally hilarious PSAs, rather than shooting dogs and people in the middle of the night.
If Mama Cass had given that sandwich to Karen Carpenter, Whitney Houston would be alive today. Stupid government!
I remember. Kids on every corner hawking Wonder Woman and Batgirl.
It was a dark time. A dark time.
"heroine" epidemics? was that an epidemic of joan of arc impersonators?
that being said, law enforcement didn't have much to do with the decrease in crack etc. problems from the 80's on forward.
and the primary problem in the 80's was NOT crack.
the primary problem was that SINCE crack was illegal, highly lucrative and popular in low income communities, the war for TURF over CRACK DEALING was violent
there wouldn't have BEEN war for turf for crack, if crack wasn't ILLEGAl
duh
who #$(#$ cares?
the drug war is a miserable failure. it doesn't matter how it affected WHITNEY HOUSTON. it matters how it affects the nation as a whole. she is/was no more important than ANYBODY else positively OR negatively affected by drug use or the WOD