"If God dropped acid, would he see people?" - Steven Wright

Recently purchased and watched Almost Famous, Cameron Crowe's semi-autobiographical film about a teenager writing for Rolling Stone in 1973. Delightfully surprised to spot a pre-Office Rainn Wilson in a fun bit part. It took me a loooong time to see the movie initially. I was embittered by an experience senior year involving a cadre of inconsiderate roommates, a stereo system, and an early-morning decision to play Elton John's "Tiny Dancer" several dozen times at a volume that the Sex Pistols would've found offensive.

But I did finally watch it and I did finally like it.

In one funny scene, guitar hero Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) drops acid and - while holding court over some doting Topeka youths - proclaims "I am a golden god!" And it got me thinking about drugs.

Is there anyone still under the delusion that our federal policies make any practical, legal, or ethical sense? I don't know if I've ever heard a good argument FOR them, just good arguments (of varying complexity) AGAINST them.

Anyway, my friend Conor wrote a solid, sober piece on the topic here. Read it for yourself, of course, but the crux of his essay hinges on the point that the legalization of drugs would not comprise an entitlement BESTOWED by the government, but rather a realization of constitutional principles currently (and selectively) IGNORED by the government. Legalization is, as Conor convincingly argues, not so much a matter of adopting progressive politics (though progressives - and libertarians - are the only ones who seem to understand the issue), but rather of reclaiming traditional conservative values. Pity that neither Obama nor McCain have room in their "bipartisan" agendas to attempt anything so radical as following the Constitution, at least not when it would amount to electoral poison.

For more reading on the subject, Eric Schlosser - of Fast Food Nation fame - wrote two pieces for The Atlantic that I find instructive and devastating. Pay special attention to the connection he draws between race and the chronology of drug policy. Hint: draconian laws tend to follow closely upon the heels of localized racist paranoia. Where did opium become illegal first? Why, California, of course. Someone had to stand up to those impudent Chinamen and their dens of iniquity. How about marijuana? Texas, 1914. Just after the Revolution of 1910 sent many Mexicans northward. Coincidence? Temperance movements seemed to flourish in northern cities throughout the 1800s, but in fact enthusiasm for the cause waxed and waned along with successive waves of immigrants. Roll out the paddywagon! It's the only thing that'll stop those drunken Irish louts.

In closing, as Conor makes clear in his post, support for the legalization of drugs has too often been conflated with support for the drugs themselves. This is a rationally flawed and intellectually lazy talking point utilized by those who believe that sex ed & the distribution of birth control is tantamount to encouraging promiscuity. According to that rationale, my having seen Silence of the Lambs three times and my possession of cooking implements should preclude you from visiting me for dinner. Though I've been able to keep my latent cannibalistic tendencies in check until now, I could snap at any moment.

To sum up: legalization good, drugs often bad.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Man in Black: