Posted 5/13/2005 05:21:00 PM by Douglas

Radley Balko has an interesting article about the final days of Alcoholics Anonymous founder Bill Wilson and how his last days serve as a parable to the asininity of the current drug war.

In the article, we learn that as Wilson was dying of emphysema, he — the man who has inspired millions to kick the bottle — asked his caretakers for three shots of whiskey. Over his last days, he asked three more times for a drink. He was never given one.

Cheever says she was "shocked and horrified" that Wilson would want whiskey on his deathbed, and confesses that her "blood ran cold" when she read of his request in the nurses' logs of the last days of his life. Though she doesn't say so explicitly, the implication is that Cheever — and I would imagine a good percentage of people who read Drehle's article — took relief in the fact that the man who founded Alcoholics Anonymous remained clean and sober to the very end.

Why, exactly? I guess I could understand how Bill's last drink would been seen by someone trying to quit drinking as a defeat of their strongest ally, but in doing so, you'd have to overlook all of alcohol's medicinal effects. Which, I believe, is exactly Balko's point here. The "War on Drugs" has gone so haywire (as he goes on to exemplify in the article) that the legal (and dare I say, moral) aspects of drugs are the primary source of consideration, while their medicinal purposes are secondary.

Wow. That last sentence makes sense. It's 2005 and "medicines" (whatever that means) not only have to function medicinally, but also have to pass muster legally and morally.

Because if I'm in chronic and persistent pain, and licking moth balls and poking myself in the ear with a rusty nail while listening to Celine Dion CDs makes my pain go away, you can guess what I'll be doing.