For decades, communist rulers manipulated the flow of information and research about their repressive systems to put the best face on their successes and failures. A term for this practice emerged at a 1932 conference of the Soviet Union's Communist Party: "socialist realism." It was derived from Vladimir Lenin's concept of "party-mindedness," by which a person would openly adopt "the standpoint of a definite social group in any assessment of events."

Truth was considered a commodity to be molded and twisted in the service of the state. Errant ideas that did not fit the leaders' claims of glorious achievements in a worker's paradise were suppressed. Non-believers and dissenters were silenced. The practice was so successful that Communist Chinese rulers adopted it.

For decades the leaders of American government and society have promulgated a form of socialist realism regarding the flow of information and research about the successes and failures of the drug war system. As a result, a blanket of censorship and distortion smothers research and open discussion of more enlightened options to current martial methods of drug control. I am aware of not a single penny that has ever knowingly been spent by the National Institute of Justice or the National Institute on Drug Abuse — major research centers of the federal government — on explorations of politically unpopular approaches to drug control. All federally funded drug research must start with the assumption that the drug laws and the drug war are politically correct. The only questions that may be researched with federal funds deal with how to improve the enforcement of the criminal drug laws in the glorious cause of building the drug-free people's paradise.

Today, there is even a federal law expressly forbidding the use of certain federal funds for research on the matter of providing clean needles to addicts so as to prevent the spread of AIDS. This was not labeled "Even Thinking about Lifesaving Options Prohibited by Drug War Realism and by Our Glorious Leaders Who Know Better," but it might as well have been. Indeed, in today's atmosphere, there is really no need for such censorship laws. Government officials and scientific researchers know the unwritten rules of this repressive system.

How the System Works

I have seen close up how the system works. Several years ago, the Department of Justice banned my book, The Great Drug War, from inclusion on a government archive computer disk that contained a wide array of recent significant drug research. Arrangements had been made to put the book on the disk. A department official explained to an amazed friend that the book had to be stricken from this allegedly objective group of writings because, he had discovered, "it disagreed with government policy."

On another occasion, the director of a major federal research agency introduced himself as we both were sitting in an anteroom waiting to testify before a congressional committee. He went out of his way to be nice and said how much he admired the creation of the Drug Policy Foundation and the work it was doing. Shortly thereafter, he appeared before the congressional committee and testified against me and the Foundation.

I have encountered such fear of honesty on countless occasions. Among the people who have told me that they agreed with what I and the Foundation were doing but were fearful of openly saying so have been Drug Enforcement Administration agents, members of Congress, NIJ and NIDA officials, scientific researchers supported by federal funds, and many others in responsible positions. They knew the rules of drug-war (read socialist) realism and had careers to promote and families to support.

Certainly, the leaders of Stanford University know those rules, whether or not they agree with them. They could not ' comprehend how to deal with defiant lecturer Stuart Reges except to fire him summarily and thus violate age-old academic traditions. Reges challenged the intrusion of federal government power into his private life by saying he was a responsible drug user and that this was not the business of the state. He used symbolic speech, the carrying of a backpack that might, he said, contain illegal drugs. Even if it did, in my opinion, the message of this prize-winning teacher was that he was begging his colleagues to support him in a dialogue about the smothering impact of the war on drugs. Free speech and personal privacy were the issues, not the propriety of drug use.

A practitioner of the new socialist realism is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, launched a few years ago with government encouragement and major corporate support. The Partnership combines the talents of leading advertising writers with the time and resources of media moguls — all amounting to over $500 million annually for a national advertising blitz to convince the American people that drugs are the greatest national threat and that the drug war is our only salvation. Truth is as important in the brief, sensational Partnership TV spots as it is in most of the other ads these writers produce. Comrade Vladimir would be pleased.

Drug Policy Foundation Born

One of the major reasons for the creation of the Foundation four years ago was to provide a respectable center for the loyal opposition to the drug war; it was formed for those who craved the opportunity to have an honest debate about drug policy options. We believed that achieving a fair dialogue, with all points of view included, would be a great victory for rationality and for America. Yet, zealots have just as consistently tried to silence the Foundation, many of its supporters and independent allies through the use of slander and distortion. It is ironic that such neo-McCarthyite tactics are the tools of our brand of socialist realism.

A particularly vicious campaign has been launched against the Foundation's new television series, "America's Drug Forum," which began appearing on PBS and cable stations in 1990. The essence of the series, mirroring the essence of the Drug Policy Foundation, is honest debate. These televised discussions provoked a feeding frenzy among those who believe that debate will merely confuse the public. Among the chief purveyors of such alien ideas have been Dr. Gabriel Nahas and Otto and Connie Moulton. The Moultons lead the Committees of Correspondence, a network of hard-core zealots based in Danvers, Mass.

Doctor Zealous

While the Moultons have no professional qualifications to speak of, Nahas is a medical doctor and a professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He has devoted much of his medical career to warning the world of the extreme dangers of marijuana and to attacking those who disagree with him. Much of the medical profession criticizes Nahas for being totally oblivious of any scientific fact that does not fit his alarmist view of marijuana. In spite of that, his fervent practice of socialist realism in the field of drug research has gained him entry into White House policy councils.

Dr. Nahas and the Moultons see eye-to-eye on many subjects, including the dangers posed by the Drug Policy Foundation and its television series. Nahas recently slammed the Foundation in the fifth edition of Keep Off the Grass:

"[I]t bred debates countrywide. The relegalizers are dividing public opinion, enhancing the confusion and misinformation about addictive drugs, preventing a consensus of social refusal. They are projecting abroad an image of the United States as a drug-consuming society incapable of controlling the plague that is eroding the nation."

Their complaints about the television series are, in a nutshell, that no organization opposing the drug war should be allowed to produce a show for American television. The reason is that such a show will be inherently biased. They, and many of their well-intentioned supporters, seem oblivious to the fact that there is as much bias among those producers who support the current drug war system. That, of course, is not bias, but proper thinking.

We have spent days, even weeks, calling and writing to engage the drug warriors in open debate on "American Drug Forum." To their credit, some have appeared and participated in the dialogue, including Dr. Nahas who was a panelist on the episode entitled "Reefer Madness Revisited." To his discredit, Dr. Nahas found the open debate on the show intolerable and proceeded to write letters of complaint to PBS officials. Otto Moulton has refused repeated invitations even to appear for fear his august presence would lend credibility to our disreputable efforts. We repeat the invitation to Moulton and others on his side.

Drug Policy Reform Thrives

Fortunately, despite the efforts of these virulent prohibitionists, the Foundation has made great headway in leveling the playing field of the drug debate. The Drug Policy Letter, an internationally distributed publication, is but one example of how rational discussion of drug policy is alive and well. The Foundation's other newsletter, Drug Policy Action, lists dozens of drug policy reform victories — from needle exchanges to medical marijuana trials to breakthrough articles published in traditional journals. We will continue to produce these and other publications, so Americans can have a true sense of the drug war and the alternatives to it.

Those who believe in unlimited governmental power are imposing rules that kill debate. Democratic reality demands the disorder of open discussion not the quiet, submissive order of the gulag.

AST

References

Otto and Connie Moulton, Committees of Correspondence, 57 Conant St., Room 113, Danvers, Mass. 01923. (508) 774-2641.
Gabriel Nahas, M.D., Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 630 W. 168th St., New York, N.Y. 10032. (212) 305- 7127.
Theresa Grant, Vice President for Public Affairs, Partnership for a Drug Free America, 666 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017. (212) 922-1560
Bob Martinez, National Drug Control Policy Director, White House, Washington, D.C. 20500. (202) 467-9800.
U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, Chairperson, House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, Ford House Office Building, Suite 234, Washington, D.C. 20515. (202) 226-3040.
U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, Chairperson, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Suite 224, Washington, D.C. 20510. (202) 224-5225.