No Logic In Drug Policy-Making
Cory Doctorow reprints his review of Brit David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air
He begins and ends the book with a look at the irrationality of our present drug policy, recounting a call he had with then-Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who was furious that he'd compared horseback riding harms to the harms from taking MDMA. Smith says that "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." When Nutt asks why not, she says, "because one is illegal." When he asks why it is illegal, she says, "Because it is harmful." So he asks, "Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?" And Smith reiterates, "you can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal activity." Lather, rinse, repeat, and you'll get our current drugs-policy disaster.Nutt has been talking about harm reduction and evidence-based policy for drugs policy for years, and he often frames the question by pointing out that alcohol is a terrible killer of addicts and the people around them, and a disaster for society. But if he was to synthesize a drug that produced an identical high to alcohol, without producing any of the harms, it would almost certainly be banned and those involved in producing, selling and taking it would be criminalised. We ban drugs because they are harmful and we know they are harmful because they are banned. Drugs that we don't ban -- tobacco, alcohol -- are "harmful" too, but not in the same way as the drugs that are banned, and we can tell that they are different because they haven't been banned.
...There's also a sense of the awful, tragic loss to society arising from the criminalization of promising drugs. A chapter called "Should Scientists Take LSD?" surveys the literature preceding the evidence-free banning of LSD, and the astounding therapeutic benefits hinted at in the literature.
The book closes with the War on Drugs, and the worlds' governments own frank assessments of the unmitigated disaster created by Richard Nixon's idiotic decision 40 years ago. Nutt analyzes the fact that policymakers know that the War on Drugs is worse than the drugs themselves (by a long shot), but are politically incapable of doing anything about it, not least because politicians on all sides stand poised to condemn their opponents for being "soft on drugs."
Mmm. I believe MDMA can permanently change your brain chemistry from one use. Don't quote me, been a long time since I read up on it. And I'm not saying it turns you into a drooling idiot in one use, but it did something with the neurotransmitters.
One good toss off a horse can turn you into a drooling idiot, though. Rare, but it happens. So he's got a point.
momof4 at September 1, 2012 9:23 AM
I wrote to my congressman to ask him for his support on a bill that would remove marijuana from Schedule 1. I didn't ask that the Federal Government make marijuana legal, simply that they no longer take notice of it.
He wrote back and said he could not support removing it from Schedule 1, because it was a Schedule 1 drug.
I won't vote for him any more, but that will not keep him out of office. Your government at work.
Steve Daniels at September 1, 2012 9:58 AM
The criminal "justice" system does more harm to the lives of drug users and their families than the drugs do.
Ken R at September 1, 2012 3:10 PM
"Astounding benefits hinted at in the literature"?
Like homeopathy?
Radwaste at September 1, 2012 5:05 PM
Radioactive Man snarks:
Like homeopathy?
Homeopathy is bullshit. Lysergic acid diethylamide is real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Potential_uses
Steve Daniels at September 1, 2012 5:29 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/09/no-logic-in-dru.html#comment-3319200">comment from Steve DanielsI knew Oz Janiger when he was alive -- he did some of this research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Janiger
I took LSD at one point -- it was too strong for me, but mushrooms, which I used a few times back in NYC, were very helpful for working through some problems I had. I think there's probably some very good therapeutic use of these drugs but it can't be explored due to the drug nannies.
Amy Alkon
at September 1, 2012 5:37 PM
I have a co-worker that is using the argument "the war on drugs" is a federal issue because of how much is imported.
He doesn't see the illogic that the drugs could and would be made in the U.S.
Jim P. at September 1, 2012 7:13 PM
It's not a war on drugs. It's a war on people who use drugs.
Why did we make them the enemy?
Steve Daniels at September 1, 2012 7:40 PM
Becuase its cost effective for politicains and bearucrats
lujlp at September 2, 2012 1:37 PM
Steve, if you want a drug "legalized", first define that term, then produce the return on investment. Medical marijuana advocates are doing that, even as they are sabotaged by the antics of recreational users.
Thanks for the link. It should have appeared instead of the "hinted at" line: that's my point.
Radwaste at September 5, 2012 2:26 AM
Leave a comment