A Novel Solution to the Drug Problem - part 2
November 25th, 2007 by Kavan WolfeIn my previous post I explained the true drug problem. I differentiated the symptoms from the underlying pathology by defining “the drug problem” as a conflict between:
In my next post I will propose my own plan for addressing the drug problem. But first, this post discusses five existing approaches to drug policy and explains why they don’t work.
1. Prohibition
By prohibition, I mean making it illegal to import, produce, sell or consume a substance. In the language of my previous post, prohibition explicitly rejects the individual’s right to choose how s/he lives his or her life.
This is the approach of the United States with respect to drugs like Marijuana, Cocaine and Heroin. The reason this doesn’t work comes down to first-year economics. Barriers on the supply chain of a product (i.e. prohibitions on importing and production) increase the difficulty and risk associated with distributing that product. Increased risk drives up profit margins to the point where some people are willing to take the risk (and reap the rewards). Meanwhile, these barriers to the supply chain get pretty sophisticated. Thus, those who would overcome the barriers must become more sophisticated, i.e., more organized. In this way, prohibition creates organized crime (for those non-history buffs out there, this is precisely how the Mafia became so powerful in the U.S. during the dry years from 1920 to 1933). Furthermore, the huge profit margins associated with drug running fund other criminal activities, not to mention expert legal defenses.
In sum, prohibition does not stop drug use but it does provide the impetus and financial basis for organized crime.
2. Libertarianism
By Libertarianism, in this context, I mean legalizing all drugs. In the language of our drug framework, this approach holds sacred the ‘right to choose’ and ignores either the individual’s responsibility not to cause harm to others or the unfortunate reality that use of and addiction to various drugs causes harm to people besides the user or addict, depending on which libertarian you ask.
This is the approach taken by The Netherlands (more or less). On the upside, rates of drug use in The Netherlands are not significantly higher than in Western Europe overall (probably because prohibition doesn’t work, as we’ve already seen). However, this approach has three major problems. Firstly, and most obviously, it does not address social problems linked to drug use. Second, The Netherlands effectively created a safe haven for drug distribution organizations, making The Netherlands a major drug producer and transit center. In other words, the mob moved in. Third, and most subtly, many people continue to slip into life-destroying drug addiction.
Some people argue that a drug addict’s life isn’t “destroyed,” s/he has just chosen a lifestyle that seems strange to us: perhaps an antisocial existence, supported by petty crime and characterized by violent mood swings and mental depravity. Have you ever seen or talked to a crack addict between fixes? “Alternative lifestyle” my ass.
This brings me to a complex point so please bare with me (this goes double for the Ron Paul Mafia who desperately need to get their heads around this idea). The prominence of ‘the right to choose’ is based on a flawed ideal of human cognition. I, for one, think people should have the liberty to decide how they live their own lives. However, said liberty cannot be implemented by simply removing constraints (i.e. the laws against drug use). For a person to have the liberty to choose among alternatives, s/he must have sufficient information regarding the risks and benefits of each alternative and sufficient mental faculties to understand and process those risks and benefits. In a society where children (and adults) are brainwashed, poorly educated, and devoid of critical thinking skills, many lack the liberty to choose, even if society grants them the right to choose. Some legal document granting you the right to do something doesn’t mean you have the slightest clue whether or how to do it. Furthermore, humans are social beings and, especially in youth, are vulnerable to peer pressure and low self-esteem. Many children are incapable of making a sound decisian at precisely the age when they are most likely to get hooked on drugs. How many people do you know who started smoking at 14 and swear they never should have started because now they can’t quit?
This is an often-misunderstood, fundamental point: it is impossible to grant the freedom to choose whether or not to use a drug simply by legalizing it.
3. Education
Many societies attempt to educate children about the dangers of drugs. The idea is that if the populace is aware of the dangers, they won’t partake in the drugs. Note the hidden bias: ‘the dangers of drugs.’ Drug education, as it is normally practiced, is a politically motivated manipulation intended to produce a taboo. It’s attempted brainwashing. It is not giving people the tools they need to make an educated decision. Do you think junior high students have debates about whether it is reasonable to give crack-cocaine to terminally-ill patients as death approaches? How about an honest treatment of the benefits of amphetamines? Not, that I’ve heard of. To decide whether indulging in a drug is worth the risk, a person needs unbiased information, the critical thinking skills to evaluate that information, and the self confidence to make the decision regardless of what some transient social circle thinks. None of these things are high on the priority list of the education systems I’m familiar with.
I am not claiming that education, in principle, is ineffective. I am claiming that “drug education” is a euphemism for an incompetent, politicized, horribly biased, farcical attempt at brainwashing our children. And because more dangerous socially acceptable drugs are tolerated while less dangerous, taboo drugs are not, the whole exercise ignores the right to choose entirely. Bullshit is not lying but a message conveyed regardless of truth.
I am not aware of any education system that provides the necessary skills and knowledge discussed above. If you know of one, please bring it up in the comments.
4. The In-Your-Own-Home Strategy
The number of countries that ban smoking in public places — in bars, restaurants, hotels, beaches, parks, etc. — is growing steadily. This is an approach that recognizes the responsibility not to harm others and the inevitability of harm to others from smoking in public places. It’s only a matter of time before some country bans smoking anywhere outdoors. In fact, I remember reading some report years ago that said Canada’s drug policy was moving toward a situation where citizens are free to do whatever they like, but only in the privacy of their own homes.
This sounds pretty good, unless you actually think about it. If tobacco addicts can only smoke in their homes, they surely will. Guess who else is in their homes? Their kids, that’s who. So to avoid poisoning the general public, society has created a situation in which the addict must kick the habit or poison their children. And it’s not just smoking - this same scheme might well apply to all drugs. It’s one thing to know daddy’s got a drug problem, it’s something quite different to sit on the couch with daddy while he shoots up. Don’t think it can happen? You ever meet a kid who knows mommy’s like Players and daddy like Camels? Extrapolate. Many addicts will choose to poison their children rather than quit.
This strategy doesn’t solve the drug problem, it just concentrates the victims: now they’re mostly children.
5. The Marijuana Party Approach
In Canada, the Marijuana Party is a political party that bases its platform on legalizing its namesake. The primary argument here is denying that marijuana is dangerous. In the language of my framework, they are denying that use of this particular drug causes harm to themselves or others. This is not a viable strategy for Cannabis or drugs in general. First, even if Cannabis is relatively safe, plenty of other drugs are not. Second, whether or not weed hurts its users, it still interferes with the lives of others. I don’t want to walk through clouds of smoke wherever I go. Whether or not it will kill me, marijuana smoke still smells like post-coital sweat from a fat man’s ass. If the look of something offends you, you can just choose not to look at it, but if the smell of something bothers you, you cannot choose not to smell it. Third, even if there is no conclusive evidence that marijuana is hazardous to adults, we still don’t know what it does to children, and legalization does nothing to protect the children.
Thus, while I admit that the weed party may have a point on decriminalization and maybe even legalization, they don’t have anything approaching a comprehensive plan. I mean, just look at this — whining about jurisdiction is not a proposed solution!
Conclusion
This concludes my discussion of existing approaches to solving the drug problem. Did I miss any? Please bring it up in the comments.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:07 am
You are right about the education part. Absolutely right. Saying “This is your brain on drugs” and smashing an egg under a frying pan is simply bullshit. I agree with you 100% on that part.
However about the causing harm to others, you seem to ignore that alcohol and even prescription medications can do the same thing. As I see it, the only difference between what is legal and what is illegal is a matter of who profits from it. Government, or ordinary people (anyone can grow weed) who don’t pay tax on it, no less. This is the motivation I see for this ridiculous, asinine, idiotic war on drugs. Health of the public? Bullshit! Those dangerous pharmaceuticals harm and kill people as well. I wonder why you don’t see any “This is your brain on pharmaceuticals” commercials? Think hard now.
So, what would be legal if it really was for the protection of the people and not the protection of mega corporations (if it actually was the government’s job to protect the sheeple from themselves in a nanny state)? Pretty much nothing.
As for the smell, so what? Lots of stuff people wear and eat stinks like ass.
November 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Who said alcohol and meds weren’t drugs? I didn’t…
November 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
“I don’t want to walk through clouds of smoke wherever I go. Whether or not it will kill me, marijuana smoke still smells like post-coital sweat from a fat man’s ass. If the look of something offends you, you can just choose not to look at it, but if the smell of something bothers you, you cannot choose not to smell it.”
“As for the smell, so what? Lots of stuff people wear and eat stinks like ass.”
In terms of marijuana, the smell isn’t necessarily the most significant aspect–I don’t know whether you can get high off of second-hand marijuana smoke, but if so, many people may not want to be involuntarily intoxicated on their way to work, for example. The same with proper disposal of drug paraphernalia–if people can’t even throw away their McDonald’s wrappers properly, can we expect any less with used needles?
November 27th, 2007 at 12:50 am
I have to wait an entire week just to hear the solution?!!?!?!?
November 29th, 2007 at 4:50 am
“This is the approach taken by The Netherlands (more or less). ”
sorry to say, it’s rather less than more! *No* drug, except alcohol + tobacco, is legal in Holland. Practical politics allow for things like “If you have marijuana with you, you don’t get a fine or sentence as long as it’s less then 2(?) grams.” And care for national health led to the idea that selling weed is not legal, but will be allowed only if it’s being sold by someone who is a) known by the local authorities and b) complies with all the laws regarding any cafe or bar. Drug trafficking-especially heroin etc. is absolutely high on the police priority lists. Coupled with very good school education (also in private/ religious schools) and close cooperation between various health services, this policy actually makes for the lowest addiction rates in Europe….
November 29th, 2007 at 7:24 am
“This is an often-misunderstood, fundamental point: it is impossible to grant the freedom to choose whether or not to use a drug simply by legalizing it.”
Bullshit. You’re trying to invoke the “forced to be free” dogma, wherein you endeavour to set up a distinction between the ‘true’ individual and the ‘actual’ individual and then go on to determine the individual as their ‘true’ self (i.e. the way they ’should’ be, as defined by you). This leads to political oppression. It’s been tried, and it doesn’t work. It’s a supreme failure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22forced+to+be+free%22
The libertarian approach (i.e. positive liberty for the ‘actual’ individual) is the valid approach to drugs policy. You have to trust people to do the thing that is in their best interests as they perceive them. You have to accept that you are not the authority on what constitutes said “best interests”. I think we will both agree that people should be informed of the risks they are taking, but to insist that they are incapable of weighing those risks when they make a determination that is different to yours is misguided.
You will note that you can in fact buy nutmeg at the supermarket, yet nutmeg abuse isn’t a social problem. You can buy petroleum nearly everywhere, yet most cultures don’t have a problem with petrol sniffing. It’s not availability that creates the “problems”.
“Have you ever seen or talked to a crack addict between fixes? “Alternative lifestyle” my ass.”
No matter how you try to spin that it will always come down as your value judgement of another. Have you ever been a crack addict when they were high on crack? Was it worth it? Did it remain worth it? Was there a tipping point were it stopped being worth it?
Have you ever seen a skier screaming in pain over their broken leg? Have you ever seen a person incoherent and panicked due to the stress of their work? Have you ever seen a fat person huffing up stairs? Have you seen a life-long jogger develop painful joint problems? Have you ever seen a mountain climber fall to their death?
It’s for people to determine for themselves how they will live.
Would you also have the state promote your dogmatically held view that there is no value that outweighs the consequences in smoking tobacco? Do you think smokers are as ‘pathetic’ as crack addicts? I imagine you do. I vehemently disagree with such a position however.
“this approach holds sacred the ‘right to choose’ and ignores either the individual’s responsibility not to cause harm to others”
Bullshit. It doesn’t ignore responsibility at all. In fact, it’s predicated on faith in responsibility. It says: you can do whatever you want, but you have to be responsible for the outcomes of your actions. If you die, that’s your fault. If you get sick, that’s your fault. If you become dependant, that’s your fault. If you are putting someone else at significantly increased risk, that’s unacceptable. If you hurt someone else, that’s your fault, and you’re in big trouble.
Your claims against “libertarianism”:
1. does not address social problems linked to drug use
2. creates a safe haven for drug distribution organizations
3. many people continue to slip into life-destroying drug addiction
My rebuttal:
1. does not address social problems linked to drug use
That’s not true. Have you enumerated the “social problems”? What are they?
One social problem is persecution and stigmatisation of participants, and legalisation paves the way for acceptance (via tolerance, indifference, accommodation, participation, whatever).
Another social problem is incarceration of participants, and legalisation prevents that.
Another social problem is the quality and misrepresentation of substances (e.g. laced marijuana, indeterminate concentrations, etc.), and a free and open market can resolve that.
Another social problem is the high cost of illicit drugs. It’s primarily the cost that leads to unaffordability, which leads to theft. Legalisation and a free market can make drugs significantly more affordable.
Another social problem is the dishonesty of those who take drugs. Not only are they forced to be subversive to participate in their cultural activities, but there is consequently a cultural division across which it is difficult to pass aid or well intentioned advice.
Another social problem is the lack of credibility of the opponents. Legalisation removes forceful opposition and opens the door for credible advice.
Another social problem is the lack of genuine support for people who feel they’ve made a mistake and need help. For instance, methadone is promoted as a treatment for heroin addiction, because it is equally addictive and creates a revenue stream for pharmaceutical companies. There are better treatments, but they aren’t offered as they aren’t as lucrative. No-one cares about junkies anyway.
2. creates a safe haven for drug distribution organizations
How can you possibly claim that legalisation creates a haven for criminals? If it’s not a criminal activity, then it’s not a crime. You might as well have just said that it creates an opportunity for industry. Perhaps your point is that states that criminalise recreational drugs create a problem not only for themselves, but also for states that do not. It just throws the problem into the global arena, it doesn’t argue against legalisation, and in my view it functions in support of legalisation.
3. many people continue to slip into life-destroying drug addiction
So what? “Life-destroying” is a value judgement. If people choose to engage in a high-risk lifestyle and their life ends differently to the hypothetical life in which they hadn’t, that’s their business. What do you think the point of life is? People choose to live the way they do, and they likewise reap the rewards and suffer the consequences of their choices. It’s not for you to determine in absolute terms what activities or outcomes constitute a “destroyed” life, or by implication what constitutes a “happy” life. That’s the point of freedom.
I live a very happy life as a cigarette smoker. I’m thoroughly addicted to nicotine. The ritual of smoking is one that is central to my life, and I wouldn’t have it any other way (I might change my mind when I’m older, but I’m talking about the decisions that I make in light of my present circumstance). The benefits and joys of participating in this activity, in my judgement (which, owing to freedom, I’m not obliged to explain or defend), far outweigh the risk that I *might* get lung cancer when I’m old (a one in twelve chance) or that I *might* die of some other cause to which smoking is correlated (a one in four chance, as extrapolated from historical data). In all probability (three in four) smoking will in no way affect my longevity, and even if it does we’re only arguing over a few additional years in old age. Is smoking worth the risk? I think so.
You might think that drug addiction is destroying my life, but I am certain that you are wrong about that. What’s destroying my life is idiots who think they know what’s best for me, anti-smokers who feel free to tell me how much they hate me, the lack of accommodation made for me (and the several billion other people like me) in public spaces, disproportionate consumption tax, dishonest representation of the social costs and health risks, alarmist and distressing propaganda that I have no interest in being subjected to, etc.
You’re not me, and you don’t know what’s best for me. You don’t know how I make value judgements, and you aren’t the arbiter of what I deem valuable. I am. If I forced you to comply with my values, then I’d force you to smoke. By not smoking you’re destroying your life, and, statistically speaking, you’re only prolonging your suffering.
That you can’t understand or appreciate my decisions isn’t my concern — nor should it be. Of course, if you don’t want to be near me when I’m smoking (due to perceived health risks, or other emotional discomfort) then we’re going to need to make accommodation for having our own spaces. If you don’t like me because of the choices I make, that’s your prerogative, but I imagine in that case the feeling would be mutual. The same argument applies for other drugs. I hope we can be grown up and responsible about this.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
John practically wrote part three for you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 am
Wouldn’t it just be down right ironic if John contracted lung cancer or some other smoking-related disease (ex. atherosclerosis)? Actually, it would be more ironic if he ended up living his shortened lifespan in agony. By the way, I’m not disagreeing with what you said, John. But do make another post in the near future about your health (or if you find out you’re terminal). I’m just curious.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Whoosh!
John’s comment goes right over Dave’s head.
December 4th, 2007 at 4:23 am
I think it would be more ironic if Dave died of lung cancer.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am
@John
It is difficult to respond to such a complex argument succinctly, so let me start by saying that you’ve put the libertarian argument very well. I will limit my response to two points, and I hope you will continue (revise?) you’re comments based on the drug strategy I intend to lay out soon.
1. I am not trying to invoke the forced-to-be-free dogma. I am simply pointing out the limitations of the individual’s ability to understand consequences and make good choices, where the individual, not the state, defines “good.”
2. I agree that not every addict’s life is destroyed by the addiction; however, the libertarian manifesto does not address the protection of children. The addiction of a parent can irreparably damage their children, and yes, that is the value judgment - but it’s the child’s values I’m talking about. Where individuals would make decisions that do irreparable harm to their dependents, the state must intervene. This is a basic assumption of my social philosophy, and it seems to contradict something inherent to libertarianism.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
[…] War On Bullshit Take No Prisoners « Macho Men vs. Real Men: Top 15 Differences A Novel Solution to the Drug Problem - part 2 […]
December 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 am
[…] the second post, I discussed five existing approaches to the drug problem, and found them all lacking, in that each […]