Losing a voice of reason against ‘war on drugs’

Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his resignation from the Supreme Court after 34 years, is at 90 old enough to remember Prohibition, and he's among the few members of the judiciary to liken our modern "war on drugs" to the failed effort, between 1919 and 1933, to keep Americans from drinking liquor.

It was in his dissent in a student freedom of speech case from 2007 — known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case — that Justice Stevens wondered why more Americans do not openly question the war on drugs, and he compared our silence to those who secretly disagreed with the constitutional ban on booze way back when.

"Just as Prohibition in the 1920's and early 1930's was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies," Justice Stevens wrote, "today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several states that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs."

He also wrote: "The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs."

→ more