This Is Your Brain On Legalized Crack
Nobody talks drugs like William F. Buckley. Scroll down (the interview is near the bottom of the page) for a pro-legalization discussion between Buckley and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. I especially Buckley's use of the word "crimogenic" to refer to thieving crackheads!
BUCKLEY: It is said that the drug crack is substantively different from its parent drug, cocaine, in that it is, to use the term of Professor van den Haag, "crimogenic." In other words a certain (unspecified) percentage of those who take crack are prompted toówell, to go out and commit mayhem of some kind. Is that correct?GAZZANIGA: No, not in the way you put it. What you are asking is: Is there something about how crack acts on the brain that makes people who take it likelier to commit crime?
Let's begin by making it clear what crack is. It is simply cocaine that has been mixed with baking soda, water, and then boiled. What this procedure does is to permit cocaine to be smoked. Now any drug ingested in that wayói.e., absorbed by the lungsógoes more efficiently to the brain, and the result is a quicker, more intense experience. That is what crack gives the consumer. But its impact on the brain is the same as with plain cocaine and, as a matter of fact, amphetamines. No one has ever maintained that these drugs are "crimogenic."
The only study I know about that inquires into the question of crack breeding crime reports that most homicides involving crack were the result not of the use of crack, but of dealer disputes. Crack did not induce users to commit crimes. Do some crack users commit crimes? Of course. After all, involvement in proscribed drug traffic is dangerous. Moreover, people who commit crimes tend to use drugs at a high rate, though which drug they prefer varies from one year to the next.
BUCKLEY: You are telling us that an increase in the use of crack would not mean an increase in crime?
GAZZANIGA: I am saying that what increase there would be in crime would not be simply the result of the pharmacology of that drug. Look, let's say there are 200,000 users/abusers of crack in New York Cityóa number that reflects one of the current estimates. If so, and if the drug produced violent tendencies in all crack users, the health-care system would have to come to a screeching halt. It hasn't. In fact, in 1988 the hospitals in New York City (the crack capital of the world) averaged only seven crack-related admissions, city-wide, a day. The perception of crack-based misbehavior is exaggerated because it is the cases that show up in the emergency rooms that receive public notice, and the whole picture begins to look very bleak. All of this is to say: when considering any aspect of the drug problem, keep in mind the matter of selection of the evidence.
(via Metafilter)
This is the typical circular logic our government continues to use to justify the war on drugs. Basically, the more "desirable" a drug seems to be, the more criminalized (ie: more severe penalties) the government makes it, with of course the higher resulting body counts among drug lords, as well as higher criminal activity to pay for/obtain the drug. Voila! - the drug is deemed more "crimogenic".
Alcohol, which is arbitrarily legal in this country, is directly involved in about half of all highway fatalities, and something over half of all homicides and violent crime. Far and away greater than the involvement of any other "crimogenic" drug, but I don't hear anyone clamoring to make that illegal. (Oh yeah, we tried Prohibition already and it didn't work. And, oh-by-the-way, "crimogenic" activity surrounding alcohol sky-rocketed.)
This country does not have a war on drugs, it is at war with itself. Our society is colapsing beneath the weight of it's own hypocrisy. You simply cannot arbitrarily say that one drug (alcohol) is legal, and all other recreational drugs are illegal. That's not a rule, a law, or a consensus opinion; that's just plain hypocrisy. And in a free, democratic society, that inevitably must create a situation where there is endless internal conflict, and citizens constantly at war with themselves. It's tragic and it needs to end.
Jeff R at June 6, 2004 11:39 PM
"when considering any aspect of the drug problem, keep in mind the matter of selection of the evidence."
Selection is the issue, period. We'll never really know how drugs contribute to crime, because drug use and criminal behavior are probably driven by the same risk factors (impoverished childhood, etc). That is, the people who select into (choose) lives of drugs and crime are fundamentally different from those who choose only drugs or those who choose only crime, and those differences exist BEFORE they begin their actual drug using and criminal behavior.
There are at least three possible causal models:
Drug use --> Crime (drugs disinhibit people to become criminals)
Crime --> Drug use (people commit crimes to get money for drug use)
Long-term risk factors --> Drug use AND Crime
(drug-using criminals had bad role models as children, etc)
All three models can operate simultaneously, and they probably do in real life. Taken together, the first two models illustrate the methodolgical problem of reverse causality. The third model illustrates what statisticians call "common response": the association between X and Y is not due to an effect of X on Y, but rather that both of them are associated with Z. Policy implications: To reduce Y, you have to target Z, not X. My problem with Buckley and the other war-on-druggies is that their inadequate (moralistic) conception of drug use and crime have lead to inadequate (moralistic) policy.
Lena Nerd-a-weena at June 7, 2004 11:54 AM
Just a note on Buckley. If you read the linked article you will find that the discussion is just that. Mr. Buckley is at times playing devil's advocate, but mostly just illiciting in depth analysis from Mr. Gazzinaga. I believe I have read some things from Buckley that inferred a somewhat favorable view of de-criminalizing drugs. I do know that years back he famously tried marijuana, finding it rather innocuous in its affect on him personally. And he did inhale...
It's really annoying reading him though. Having to reach for the dictionary practically every sentence. Whatta brain.
allan at June 7, 2004 9:32 PM
Ooops...that would be eliciting, not illiciting. Although illicit is sometimes way more fun and interesting. 'Scuse me, could you pass that pipe down this way?
allan at June 7, 2004 9:59 PM
So when the revolution comes, we'll be able to handle our cholesterol and bp meds without those hectoring doctors, right? This isn't just about giving teenagers the power to desecrate their immortal souls.
crid at June 8, 2004 8:34 AM
If by "revolution" you mean legalization of all currently illicit drugs, that's a revolution that I'm definitely NOT interested in. I've heard too many stories about speed freaks spitting out their teeth as they walk down the street, and that just doesn't sound like liberty and justice to me. But truth be told, I basically stand on the traditional bleeding heart liberal side of the demand vs. supply debate on drug control. Policymakers need to realize that the demand for any particular drug is highly elastic. Why spend so much money on stopping cocaine at the borders when my next door neighbors have a fabulous crystal meth lab set up in the kitchen? Most addicts would rather switch than fight. And they do.
Lena at June 8, 2004 9:26 AM