|
The Case for Drug Legalization and Decontrol in the United States
Thomas L. Wayburn, Ph.D.
Introduction
Prohibition is Immoral
It is easy to prove that the laws against drugs
are unconstitutional. The Declaration of Independence states that
the rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness" are "unalienable" rights, i.e., rights
that are incapable of being sold or transferred. The preamble to
the Constitution states that one of the purposes of the
Constitution is to "secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity". The Ninth Amendment states,
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people." Clearly, the rights to liberty and to the pursuit
of happiness, specifically mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence, are retained by the people. Many people take drugs
to pursue happiness. Thus, any law that denies them the liberty
to take drugs is unconstitutional. Q.E.D.
Some people pursue and attain happiness in no
other way than by taking drugs; they work all day so that they
can pay for and enjoy drugs after work and on weekends. The
Constitution, which views people not as statistical averages but
as individuals, should protect each drug user until such time as
he or she actually harms another person. Of course, as we all
know, the Supreme Court does not base its decisions on logic,
therefore it would be very difficult to have the laws against
drugs declared unconstitutional even though an irrefutable case
can be made in ten seconds.
It might be argued that the need to
"promote the general welfare" overrides the need to
"secure the blessings of liberty", but that argument is
specious. The prohibition of alcohol caused social chaos; and,
although reliable statistics are difficult to obtain because of
the illegality, it is probably safe to say that prohibition
resulted in more people drinking than ever before, including many
children and many who were poisoned by bad booze. Also,
prohibition consolidated the position of organized crime in
America. The prohibition of drugs is having a similar, and worse,
effect. This is only natural. Not much good can result from
legislation that is inherently immoral. (As Brent [1] points out,
one possible "good" result of prohibition is that,
after some members of the Afro-American race or the Hispanic
races consolidate their positions as drug bosses, they can ally
themselves with the establishment and become part of the ruling
class, start legitimate businesses, send their children to the
"best" schools, etc., as did some members of other
undervalued races before them, e.g., the Kennedys.)
Many Americans may be willing to repeal (drug)
prohibition because it is impractical; but, some of them may be
offended when they are told that they must repeal prohibition
because it is immoral. Moreover, it is bound to be difficult to
get the average American to recognize that the drug problem is
merely a symptom of a corrupt and inefficient social and economic
system. Nevertheless, I must reveal the whole truth as I perceive
it no matter how unpopular it may be. I cannot imagine that
anything positive will be achieved by discussing only what is
"politically acceptable" and inoffensive.
Even if every single American were in favor of
a law that would violate the Constitution, it would be improper
to enact such a law so long as we wished to retain the semblance
of a civilization. What we have in America today is not a war on
drugs, but a war against people, based on our need for
scapegoats. Indeed, many people take drugs because of the misery
in their lives, but drugs are not the fundamental cause of the
misery. The majority of the people, frustrated by our many social
problems, have been whipped into a state of mass hysteria by the
media and by politicians who wish to divert attention from the
true causes of the problems. This is reminiscent of the McCarthy
era and the Massachusetts witch hunts, which, presumably, were
conducted by people who thought they were doing the right thing.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
In order to provide a perspective different
from my own and to corroborate some of my points, I have included
the preface to the book Ceremonial Chemistry [2], by permission
of its author, Thomas Szasz, the well-known social observer and
professor of psychiatry. This clear, concise, and insightful
analysis of the "drug problem", written over sixteen
years ago, appears in its entirety in Appendix A.
The Fundamental Axiom. [Note (3-24-92): In my
philosophical system, three moral axioms and a number of other
fundamental assumptions are based on aesthetics, reasonableness,
and utility. The first moral axiom is the fundamental axiom
stated below except it is stated without reference to rights.
Rights, then, are based on morals. Also, the terms materialism
and dematerialism have been dropped in favor of competitionism
and decompetitionism and the word decompetitionism is no more
than a writer's convenience. Basically, we don't like Isms! My
basic theorem is that the abandonment of competition for wealth
(or money), power, and fame is a necessary and sufficient
condition for sustainable human happiness. I mean the sustainable
happiness of all of humanity.]
Nearly everyone agrees that our right to
personal liberty does not extend beyond the point where it begins
to interfere with the personal liberty of others. The personal
choice of individuals to take drugs in the privacy of their own
homes or in other places set aside for that purpose does not, in
and of itself, interfere with the personal liberty of anyone.
Certainly, there are many cases where the use of drugs leads to
excesses and social disorder including pain and misery for the
families of the user, accidents in the workplace, and serious
crimes that affect innocent people. This social disorder is what
sincere proponents of tough laws against drugs wish to prevent,
but it is not an inevitable result of taking drugs and the
noninevitability is crucial. Thus, it is improper and immoral to
condemn all users of drugs and to deprive them of their civil
rights because of the action of a few (or even of many). This is
precisely the punishment of an individual for a crime that he or
she has not committed. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that
the laws against drugs cause more social disorder than they
prevent.
The Fundamental Axiom of this paper is that
adult American citizens living in the United States have a right
to do whatever they please provided they do not interfere with
the rights of others. Probably this principle can be extended to
a larger class of people, which might include children under
certain circumstances, but, for this paper, the above statement
is sufficient.
Morals, Ethics, and Laws
Inevitably, this essay must concern itself with
what is moral. I choose to distinguish two categories of morals.
The first category consists of personal or arbitrary morals the
violation of which does not interfere with the rights or freedoms
of any other person. Examples from this category are the
requirement to do no work on the Sabbath, the proscription of
eating meat on Friday (no longer in fashion), the prohibition of
certain sexual acts, and, most important for this discussion, the
taking or nontaking of drugs. Some of these lower morals are
similar to the taboos of primitive tribes. The second category
consists of higher morals the violation of which does interfere
with the rights of others. Examples from this category are
"Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not bear false
witness against thy neighbor", and thou shalt not impose thy
religious beliefs on others. By definition, it is a violation of
a higher moral to interfere with the rights or freedom of others.
We would like to have a system of absolute
morals, morals that are independent of culture or point of view.
Of course, some religious people believe that we already have a
system of absolute morals given, for example, by the Bible, but
most of these people are not aware of the epistemological
difficulties that would have to be overcome to establish such a
system. Probably absolute morals are impossible and, eventually,
it might be discovered that some sort of uncertainty principle or
undecidability principle prevents the establishment of a system
of absolute morals.
We do not need a system of morals that can be
applied to the entire world though. We need a system of morals
that can be applied to the United States and is consistent with
our Constitution. A system of morals may fall short of the
absolute and still be good enough to gain universal acceptance
within a nation whose members are finite in number. Suffice it to
say that the Fundamental Axiom of this paper should be the
cornerstone of such a system of morals.
Whether a self-consistent and complete system
of morals can be constructed or not, a subset of a system of
morals or a superstructure built upon it has been chosen to be
the law of the land, or at least that part of the law that deals
with human and institutional behavior, as opposed to governmental
procedures. I submit that the law should be congruent with our
system of morals and easily derivable from it. We are far from
that advanced state where legislators would be almost unnecessary
inasmuch as anyone with an inference engine (computer and
appropriate computer program) could test automatically whether a
given proposition was a "law" (or not) by deriving it
(or its contradiction) from fundamental axioms or first
principles. The American legal system is in such shambles that we
can hardly be considered a society governed by laws at all.
Although this begs the question, prohibition would not even be
considered if laws were derived from first principles rather than
willy-nilly to consolidate the power of the ruling class and to
appease the superstitions of the people.
Simply stated, we are probably going to have
laws into the foreseeable future. The laws should be derived from
and congruent with a system of morals with which we can all
agree, but the Fundamental Axiom of this paper is nonnegotiable.
In any case, there is no possibility of a nation living in
America in peace under a constitution unless we can agree to
embrace higher morals and to recognize that some morals are a
matter of personal preference. Since the religious right has
given the word "morals" a bad name, I will use the word
"ethics" to refer to higher morals, even though I do
not believe the religious right should have a monopoly on the
word "morals".
It is a corollary of the Fundamental Axiom,
then, that no one has a right to impose an arbitrary system of
morals on others. The correctness of this position is
corroborated by the failure of every attempt by church or state
to enforce an arbitrary system of morals. Prohibition, which, by
the way, required a constitutional amendment, was a dismal
failure and had to be repealed. The repression of drugs and the
persecution of drug users and dealers still continues, but the
effects are catastrophic and the drug trade thrives. (One
arbitrary aspect of the current laws against drugs is the
illegality of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin and the legality of
nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol, all of which can be just as
dangerous depending, of course, on the dosage.)
Materialism and Dematerialism
[Note (7-19-93): I now employ the terms competitionism
and decompetitionism.] For the purposes of the discussion
that follows I must say what I mean by materialism and
dematerialism. Materialism can be defined as the use of material
wealth as a measure of success, a reward for achievement or
effort, or as an inducement to behave in a certain way.
Materialism leads to unequal distribution of wealth, which, in
turn, results in economic and social strife. Only a (usually
undeserving) minority, whose particular talents and inclinations
correspond to making (or preserving) money, can depend on
enjoying a comfortable old age. In order to have a flexible
supply of human resources, in order to cope with the business
cycles, inevitable in a quasi-laissez-faire economy, and to keep
the price of human resources low, according to the laws of supply
and demand, it is necessary that there be a pool of unemployed
persons. These people are susceptible to both sides of the drug
market, because of boredom and despair on the one side and
because of the lack of any other opportunity on the other. Of
course, many people who are not reduced to such circumstances
elect to deal drugs, partly, at least, because materialism
teaches that only those who acquire large amounts of wealth are
"winners".
Many people are upset (and frustrated) because
materialism, as it manifests itself in a quasi-laissez-faire,
free-enterprise, capitalistic society, has created a large number
of social ills, many attributable to poverty itself, one of the
least desirable consequences of materialism. They see reduced
standards of living, senseless crime, bizarre behavior (and
dress), dishonesty in business and government, the decay of
family values, hopelessness, and cynicism marked by a new
hedonism among the youth as signs of the decay of everything they
value. These people are easy prey to mass hysteria and crowd
madness. They are looking for scapegoats.
An alternative to materialism is dematerialism.
By dematerialism, I mean libertarian wealth-sharing, not the
socialism of Russia or China. Dematerialism requires the equal
distribution of wealth, modified slightly to account for
differences in needs, and the production of wealth in a
cooperative setting according to the abilities of the individual,
allowing for the need for abundant leisure. An education that is
consistent with the aims of dematerialism provides people with
the ability to enhance the material wealth and prosperity of
society, viewed as a collection of private individuals; but, more
important, it teaches people how to enjoy leisure in a manner
consistent with their development as human beings, through the
arts and sciences, sports, and other recreation, which might
include the use of drugs.
Materialism feeds on itself and leads to a
large authoritarian government to control a society that is
essentially unstable because of large differences in wealth. A
properly-constituted, democratic, privatized, libertarian,
wealth-sharing society, such as might exist under our
Constitution, would require only a small government because a
nonmaterialistic society is essentially stable. The successes or
failures of experiments in Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and
all of their "practical" implementations
notwithstanding, the truth of the above assertions can be proved
in the context of an appropriate system of ethics, modulo
undecidability; that is, the above statements can be proved at
least as rigorously as social propositions are ever proved. That
is the subject of another paper. For now, the above statements
must be regarded as the author's point of view, a point of view
that is entitled to as much respect as any other. Although the
postulate that materialism is unethical is not needed to advance
the thesis of this paper, namely, that drugs should be legal, it
is useful to recognize that materialism may be the root cause of
most of the drug problem including the laws against drugs
themselves.
The Drug Problem
Most of us agree that too many people are
taking excessive doses of too many drugs on too many occasions.
The drug problem can be defined as these excesses coupled with
the misery and social disorder surrounding the illegal drug
trade. But, it is materialism and the laws against drugs, not the
drugs themselves, that are the cause of the problem. There is a
growing number of people, in addition to the dealers, who profit
from the multibillion-dollar drug industry created by the laws
against drugs. The drug problem is not likely to disappear until
the profit motive is removed.
The Solution
The reasonable solution, in a free society, is
complete legalization and decontrol accompanied by unbiased
education. By "decontrol" I mean decontrol of the
purchase and consumption of drugs. Prescriptions should continue
to be used, but they would not be required for the purchase of
pharmaceuticals. Manufacturers should continue to be regulated,
but the government should not control which drugs are produced or
in what quantity.
Employers have a right, sometimes a duty, to
demand sobriety on the job, but people should be allowed to do as
they please elsewhere, provided they do not interfere with the
rights of others. Taking drugs, in and of itself, does not
interfere with the rights of anyone. The legalization of drugs
will remove the thrill of breaking the law and the incentive to
get people "hooked"; it will end the suffering caused
by unmetered doses, impurities, substitutes, and substandard
paraphernalia; legalization will move a huge segment of the
underground and extralegal economy into the legitimate economy,
taking money away from criminals, eliminating crime and violence,
and restoring many talented people to useful endeavor.
Outline of This Paper
The purpose of this paper is to show that
legalization and decontrol is a practical solution to the drug
problem and that it is the ethical solution that should be
advocated by all right-thinking people of good will. A number of
additional points that are made in this paper can be listed here:
1) it is not the proper role of government to decide what is good
for the people or what is not; 2) the war against drugs is
essentially an attack on freedom of religion; 3) "drug
addiction" may not be a disease that requires treatment; 4)
many people who advocate prohibition do not have respectable
motives; 5) the laws against drugs lead to numerous catastrophes
and absurdities; 6) much of the misery experienced by many
consumers of drugs is caused by the laws against drugs; 7) the
social, political, and economic disorder on the supply side of
drugs is caused by the enforcement of the laws against drugs; 8)
in many cases the use of drugs is natural, proper, necessary, or
otherwise justified; 9) the aggressors in the unwinnable war
against drugs are guilty of the oppression of innocent people;
moreover, the oppressors themselves are victims of crowd madness.
No matter which aspect of the case one considers, no matter what
line of reasoning one pursues, rigorous logic always leads to the
same conclusion, namely, that the laws against the manufacture,
sale, possession, and consumption of drugs must be repealed.
I begin by pointing out the failure of methods
currently being employed to end the drug problem and mention some
of the absurdities and tragedies that are caused by these
methods. The next section contains a short discussion of the
important topics of addiction and treatment. There is some
confusion as to what people are talking about when they use the
term "drug addiction". It is not at all clear that drug
addiction is a disease; moreover, the question of whether there
is such a thing as an efficacious treatment for drug addiction is
still open.
Next I give twelve reasons for legalizing drugs
and I repeat a very important point that is usually ignored,
namely, that the laws against drugs are essentially
unconstitutional. I have pointed out that the taking of drugs in
and of itself does not interfere with the rights of anyone. One
wonders then, with so many good reasons for legalizing drugs, why
many people still oppose the idea. In the next section, I attempt
to answer that question, at least partially.
Antidrug propaganda rarely has anything good to
say about drugs, particularly recreational drugs, i.e., drugs
taken for the fun of it. In the next part of this paper, I list a
few uses of drugs that are not abuses. I include here some of the
responses I have obtained in discussions with drug users who
demand repeal. Next, a few of the anticipated bad effects of
legalization are addressed and, finally, after summing up what
the government should do, I suggest some possibilities for action
by individuals.
Failure of the Current Approach
Disaster, Absurdity, and Irony
Nearly every day the newspapers carry an
account of a disaster, the threat of disaster, or an absurdity
created by our government's "war on drugs". A U.S.
agent is murdered; criminals seize control of a city, perhaps an
entire nation; the government prepares to employ the military in
a manner contrary to law. Suspects are beaten; their civil rights
are violated; the Constitution is trampled as law-enforcement
agents spy on American citizens. Millions, perhaps billions, of
taxpayers' money is squandered by a government that has already
spent far beyond its means in a cause that is absolutely
guaranteed to fail. People who are reasonable in ordinary matters
advocate cruel and inhumane policies. Police officers fall to the
temptation of huge profits; entire squads of narcotics agents
conspire with drug dealers; confiscated drugs return to the
"free" market.
Recently, in our town, two crack houses were
destroyed by bulldozers. The houses were punished for the
behavior of the people who occupied them! More recently still
laws against attempting to buy drugs have been enacted. Can you
imagine someone being arrested for saying, "Gee, I'm so
tired; I wish I had something to pep me up for a few hours"!
The Kiplinger Newsletter warns that imports from Central America
will be delayed by exhaustive searches; so, now, the war on drugs
interferes with business itself, in an ironic twist of fate.
The Beneficiaries
Dealers, money launderers, law-enforcement
agents, social workers, psychiatrists, physicians, lawyers,
bureaucrats, drug testers, and dealers in drug-free urine are in
on the action. Recently I saw a sign by the side of the road
advertising cut-rate prices on beepers. (Beepers are widely used
by drug dealers, even to summon children in school.) Convenience
store operators place items used to prepare and smoke crack in
prominent places in the store. Only the dealers and the money
launderers are on the illegal side of the law and the money
launderers just barely. The others will fight legalization
roughly in proportion to the loss in income they will experience
if drugs are legalized. This is an important point. It is clear
that, in a market economy, the current approach to solving the
drug problem is not likely to succeed for this reason if for no
other, namely, that there are too many people who have too much
to lose if the problem goes away.
Thomas Szasz, the well-known social observer
and professor of psychiatry, points out that the biggest gainers
in the war on drugs are the politicians themselves [3]. When
things are going badly, there is nothing like a popular war to
divert the attention of the people.
Physicians
After the politicians themselves, physicians
probably have the most to lose since many physicians earn their
living by writing prescriptions for people who have already
decided on their own course of treatment including which drugs
are indicated. In addition, an informed population will recognize
that the non-use, use, and abuse of drugs and the withdrawal from
drugs is not the province of the medical profession alone. Most
physicians know about prescription drugs only what they read in
the Physicians' Desk Reference and in manufacturers' brochures
and they know about drugs not in the pharmacopoeia such as heroin
and hashish next to nothing unless they or their patients are
using them. (Probably most patients are not discussing their use
of illegal drugs with their physicians.) Thus, physicians are not
entitled to a monopoly on the distribution of drugs and the
treatment of drug abuse.
The Rehabilitation and Prevention Rackets
Quacks and do-gooders are setting up clinics
and earning their living practicing half-baked and unproven
techniques to stop, from using drugs, people who, for all we
know, have been enjoying drugs and are trying to stop only
because of outside coercion. (The insects who prey on human
weakness are coming out of the woodwork.) Educators lie to their
students and "public-service" groups buy television
time to lie to the public or to get well-known ex-addicts to lie
to the public either because they (the ex-addicts) have been
brainwashed or because they are afraid of what will happen to
them if they don't cooperate. "Drugs are all bad," they
tell us. But, most people, including the children, know that that
can't be quite true and so they reject the entire message even
though some of it may have merit.
For example, The Partnership for a Drug-Free
America sponsors a television ad contrasting "brain
waves" from a fourteen-year-old before and after taking
marijuana. First of all, the ad implies that the significance of
the signals is well-known, which is false. Epileptics sometimes
exhibit quiescent brain waves, but epileptic seizures are often
preceded by moments of extreme mental clarity. The punch line is
that, if you are using pot, you are not using your brain. Now,
that is patently false. Anyone who has experimented with pot
knows that, far from the absence of cerebral activity, there are
often valid insights, the obvious again becomes obvious (perhaps
a little slowing down of the brain is useful, assuming, for the
moment, that the quiescent brain waves do in fact reflect less
mental activity; a lot of mental garbage is cleared out), and the
beauty of music becomes more apparent (unfortunately, the
listener may be hearing music with little merit, but, at least,
he's hearing all of it). Moreover, the liars behind The
Partnership don't have the guts to reveal who they are; no
address or phone number is given in the ad. [Note in proof:
Lately I have heard that the ad is faked, which certainly makes
sense. Where would they get a fourteen-year-old boy on
"pot" without breaking the law themselves?]
People wonder why American students do so
poorly. Part of the reason is, of course, TV. But, how can
students develop self-reliance when their educators don't respect
them sufficiently to tell them the truth about drugs! Students
descend to the expectations people have of them. Also, young
people must be confused, at best, when they try to reconcile the
standard party line on the American economic and social system
with what they can actually observe at home and in the streets,
but that, perhaps, is another matter.
Sports
No discussion of drugs would be complete
without some mention of drugs in sports. We find here that
rigorous logic leads to surprising conclusions. The drugs used by
athletes are of two types: (i) the usual recreational drugs
(drugs that are taken for the fun of it) and (ii) steroids and
other substances taken to increase muscle bulk or strength or in
some other way to enhance performance. The banning or suspension
of athletes who are caught using illegal recreational drugs could
lead to the following absurdity: Some year, perhaps decades from
now, a given National Basketball Association team wins the
national championship, after which it receives a formal challenge
from a team formed from among professional basketball players who
have been banned from the league for using drugs. To make it
really interesting the members of the outcast team could be
allowed to use any substances they choose administered by the
most skillful sports doctors or "dopers". In one case,
the national champions are defeated decisively in a challenge
they are honor-bound to accept. In another case, they decline the
challenge or are forbidden to accept it. In either case, do they
have a right to consider themselves national champions? The very
existence of a class of people who might be able to form a team
and defeat them compromises their championship. Farfetched? Not
according to rigorous logic.
The situation with steroids is more disturbing
still. The policing of athletes is nearly impossible as
substances that mask the use of other substances already exist.
World records that are broken by athletes using banned substances
are compromised if not invalidated. Athlete A holds the world
record for the 100 meter race, but everyone, including A himself,
knows that athlete B actually ran the race faster, not with a
machine but with his own body. It appears, then, that the banning
of steroids is as hopeless as the banning of other drugs.
But, competitions that encourage or require
participants, if they want to be the world's best, to risk their
health and their lives are unethical. It is even worse to force
someone to take something he really doesn't want to take than it
is to forbid someone to take something he wants to take. So, the
realities of professional sports and world-class amateur sports
are even more unfair than the laws against drugs. Thus, the
olympic games, professional and college football, even
high-school football, and many other activities that have grown
to be national and international institutions should not be
encouraged. (I do not favor the passing of even more laws;
boycotts and nonparticipation by governments should be
sufficient.) There is no doubt that the seriousness with which
athletes and the general public treat athletic competition has
reached the point where all types of absurdities are commonplace.
One wonders whether friendly competition of a local nature, the
results of which are not reported by the media, might someday
supplant the current madness.
On the subject of sports, what about the
"runner's high"? Suppose the chemical substance that
gives the runner his high could be isolated and synthesized. Then
people could enjoy it without going to the trouble (and danger)
of running. Naturally it would be banned. People would have to be
tested for it just as they are tested for other illegal drugs, in
which case runners would test positive. When one starts with an
absurdity like drug prohibition, it is easy to derive another
absurdity.
The Enforcers
On the day following the completion of the
previous version of this paper a news story broke that
illustrates dramatically the failure of the government's current
approach to the drug problem. It appears that the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) has been staging phony drug busts that
are reported by the media as real. Also, the DEA has been
furnishing drug chemists with equipment and chemicals to make
drugs. The DEA claims that the staged arrests are designed to
gain the confidence of big-time dealers abroad, at least one of
whom has been arrested subsequently. The agency claims that
assisting drug chemists makes it easier to keep tabs on them,
that it is not entrapment, and that the drugs never reach the
public. The Justice Department investigated the staged drug
arrests and the concomitant deception of the media and, in turn,
the people. In a matter of two or three days, it found no
evidence of wrongdoing and closed the case.
First of all, why would a dealer have
confidence in a smuggler who loses the goods? In the second
place, how does the DEA arrest a subject of a foreign power if
the subject does not enter the United States? By what right does
it have jurisdiction? It would appear, at least to this observer,
that the DEA is attempting to bolster its image and to
manufacture some success in the "war against drugs".
But wait! There's more. One of the people involved in the
smuggling operation claims that seventeen duffle bags of cocaine
were seized, whereas the DEA can account for only fifteen. Could
it be that someone in the DEA is involved in drug trafficking and
that the missing cocaine will find its way back to the market?
For that matter, when was the last time you saw with your own
eyes the destruction of confiscated cocaine? We have seen
marijuana burned from time to time, but cocaine destroyed?
Concerning the DEA-supplied drug labs, one of
the chemists alleged that DEA-sponsored chemists have given the
DEA the slip and DEA-sponsored drugs have indeed been sold to the
public. Also, it is not clear that this is not entrapment. Also,
the drug chemist claims that, at one point, it was so obvious
that he was making drugs that he asked his supplier if he knew of
a better procedure to produce the drug. The DEA agent supplied
the procedure for $2000. Are we supposed to believe that the
$2000 ended up in the U.S. Treasury?
You will draw your own conclusions about these
events or withhold judgment, but it is clear to me that there is
something rotten in the DEA. Also, I suspect the Justice
Department of a cover-up. Sadly, if I am asked to choose to trust
the word of a drug-smuggler/drug-chemist or the word of a DEA
agent, I'll take the smuggler/chemist every time.
Attacking the Constitution
Lately, the United States has asked for the
extradition of "known" drug kingpins from Colombia.
Does not the Constitution guarantee a fair trial by a jury of
peers? How are these people, who played no role in the passage of
the laws they are accused of breaking, ever going to get a fair
trial in the United States? Are we going to import Colombians for
jurors!
In addition, the United States government has
begun seizing the assets of suspected traffickers without due
process, possibly depriving them of the resources they will need
to defend themselves in a legal battle against a powerful enemy.
Also, the United States, while interfering in the internal
affairs of a sovereign state, is aiding and abetting the seizure
of assets without due process, which would be unconstitutional if
it happened here.
Addiction and Treatment
Addictions
Most people are against drug addiction and so
is this author, if drug addiction, indeed, exists, and, for the
sake of argument, I am willing to agree that it does. But, I am
also against all the other forms of addiction that plague
society. While we are eliminating addiction to drugs, let us
eliminate addiction to TV, which is lowering the IQ of a nation
and filling its collective mind with nonsense. Is there an
addiction to popular music, some of which is not really music at
all? Some children and even some adults cannot leave it behind
for a minute. They wear earphones everywhere, even while driving
a car, "studying", or attending a lecture. That sounds
more like an addiction than a form of recreation or culture. Some
women seem to be addicted to cosmetics. Some people are addicted
to getting something for nothing! They easily fall prey to state
lotteries, the coupon industry, sweepstakes, rebates on
automobiles, and the numerous forms of gambling. Incidentally,
how can states prohibit the use of drugs, on one hand, and
encourage, by expensive and insidious advertising, gambling, on
the other! Recently I read about the addiction of some people to,
of all things, surgery! How are these addictions, all of which
can be traced to materialism, going to be treated?
The Meaning of the Term "Drug Addiction"
With respect to the existence or nonexistence
of drug addiction it should be noted that at least five different
phenomena are referred to as "drug addiction". In one
class of cases the "addict" is attempting to treat him-
or herself for chronic depression. A drug has worked at least
once and the victim hopes that it will work again and sometimes
it does. In a second and completely different set of
circumstances the use of a drug has caused, usually as a side
effect, a symptom that can be relieved only by taking more of the
drug. After a good night's sleep the craving is gone. I believe
this is the case with the ordinary use of cocaine and, for some
people, with alcohol. It could be referred to as short-term
addiction. In other cases the victims experience acute withdrawal
symptoms that last several days or longer. This third class of
cases could be referred to as long-term addiction. Apparently,
this is what heroin addicts and caffeine addicts experience. (I
am aware of the fact that some alcoholics seem to experience both
short-term and long-term addiction.)
It is this third meaning of the word that lays
the best claim to the term "addiction". However, many
people are addicted to drugs in this "true" sense of
the word if and only if they believe they are addicted. (Perhaps
the headaches I experience when I try to give up coffee occur
only because I expect them.) Perhaps all such addictions are
psychosomatic.
A fourth behavior pattern that is often called
addiction occurs when the user derives a great deal of pleasure
from using drugs and therefore repeats the experience as often as
possible with or without consideration of the long-range
consequences. (After all, if you tell a twenty-year-old man that
drugs will kill him in forty years, he is not likely to be too
concerned, especially if he's having a good time.) And finally,
many people take drugs repeatedly in order to perform a specific
task that cannot be performed as well or at all without drugs.
It has occurred to me lately as I reread Ceremonial
Chemistry by Thomas Szasz, who views the war against drugs as
the persecution of drugs, drug addicts, and drug pushers, that
many people relish the idea of being persecuted. After all, Jesus
himself in the Sermon on the Mount suggested that it might be a
blessing to be persecuted under certain circumstances. I believe
that many people believe that living the drug life satisfies the
conditions alluded to by Jesus, namely, a pursuit of spiritual
things rather than material things.
The Treatment of Drug Addiction
I am very suspicious of counselors,
psychoanalysts, ministers, priests, lecturers, gurus and other
"professionals" who make their living by treating the
spiritual problems of man. It is easy for a charlatan to pose as
a spiritual healer. I don't believe anyone knows enough about the
human mind and the spiritual nature of man to be certain he is
not doing more harm than good. In particular, it is not clear
that drug users should be subjected to professional treatment at
all. Normalization of drug use, i.e., legalization, decontrol,
and public tolerance, should make most problems disappear; but,
when a problem persists even in a normalized society, undoubtedly
the best way to treat it is with ordinary human kindness and
compassion. Friends or family members are the ones who can help
the most.
In a normalized society, drug users who cannot
cope and have no family or friends who can provide sufficient
help fall into a special class, as do drug users who require
restraint. Probably the state will have to intervene, but it
should do so in as nonauthoritarian and nonpatronizing a manner
as possible. Of course, prisons will continue to exist as long as
materialism exists, but not many drug users belong in prison. The
state should supply help, i.e., food, clothing, shelter,
information (not propaganda), job training (if needed), and
considerate people (who might be fellow sufferers) to talk to,
rather than treatment. In any case, treatment must be voluntary,
particularly if the patient's freedom is to be surrendered.
(Probably most treatments diminish the humanity of the patient by
the use of tranquilizers, by brainwashing, or by tactics similar
to those employed by cults.) Remember, the term "mental
illness" is a metaphor! But, if "professionals"
insist on treating "drug addiction", they damn well
better know what it is they are treating!
Practical, Humanitarian, and Ethical Benefits
of Legalization
Disclaimer
The following is a list of the main practical
and humanitarian benefits that will result from the legalization
of drugs. The proof of each of these points is taken to be
obvious. If it should happen that reasonable doubts arise as to
the truth of these assertions, it will be necessary to provide
more detailed arguments. I have avoided purposely the recitation
of statistics of indeterminate accuracy. I believe it is
sufficient to accept the fact that, for example, some people have
died because they bought impure drugs; it should not be necessary
to know the exact statistics. Perhaps a more ambitious author is
willing to make the effort to supply the numbers.
Practical and Humanitarian Benefits
1) Legalization would remove the economic
incentive to get people "hooked" and, as discussed
below, prevent some people from changing from nonaddictive or
mildly addictive drugs to more addictive drugs. (Some people
believe that drug addiction is a myth manufactured by society and
caused by mass delusion and hysteria. People become addicted to
drugs because they believe in drug addiction.)
2) Legalization would make it unnecessary for
"addicts" to steal. Of course, some people were thieves
first and addicts second. Whether or not they will continue to be
thieves is another matter. Others have gotten into the habit of
stealing and the habit of stealing may be more difficult to break
than the habit of taking drugs. But, in any case, there will be
fewer people stealing to pay for drugs and they won't have to
steal as much as they do now unless the government levies heavy
taxes. A punitive tax on drugs would be unfair and unwise since,
under heavy taxation, only the rich could afford legal drugs and
the black market would return.
3) Drug legalization would eliminate the
violence surrounding the drug business. This is a very important
point.
4) It would move a huge segment of the
underground economy into the legitimate economy, taking profits
away from criminals, keeping drug money, unless it were spent on
other imports, in the country, allowing reasonable, but not
punitive, taxation of the legal trade, providing alternate crops
for tobacco growers, etc. As everyone now knows, some dealers are
becoming so rich that they can take control of sovereign states.
The laws against drugs are the source of their wealth.
The above four points are the ones usually made
by people who favor legalization on practical grounds alone. Many
writers and speakers have discussed these points and I shall not
elaborate on them further. The next eight items have received
less attention.
5) Legalization would remove the thrill of
breaking the law. This is especially important if children are
going to forget about taking drugs. On the other hand, if enemas
were made illegal, some children somewhere would dedicate
themselves to taking enemas. Naturally, it would be preferable if
children could be taught respect for the law, but there are two
important reasons why this cannot be done in general. The first
is that children see that many important people break the law
without losing the respect of society. In fact, in many important
cases, the prestige of the criminal is enhanced. At the very
least the criminal becomes famous and children are encouraged by
the media to believe that only famous people count. The second
reason is that children know that many laws are unjust and are
designed either to enhance the wealth, power, and privileges of
the ruling class or to satisfy the biases and superstitions of
the masses. (Yes! Many children know this.) It is crucial, then,
that children, acting on their own, stop taking drugs because
drugs no longer interest them, not because drugs are forbidden by
their parents or the rest of society.
6) Legalization would end the suffering and
death caused by unmetered doses, impurities, dirty paraphernalia,
substitutes, and substances that have only a short history of
use, e.g., designer drugs. In particular, it would end the deaths
caused by AIDS for which the laws against drug paraphernalia, and
the sponsors of such laws, are directly responsible. Those who
oppose legalization seem to be singularly lacking in compassion.
It is not unreasonable to assign responsibility for a great deal
of the misery surrounding the use of drugs to the people who
advocate and enforce the laws against drugs and drug
paraphernalia. Opponents of drugs like to say, "Drugs
kill." Yes, sometimes they do, but most of the deaths can be
traced to unmetered doses, poorly prepared drugs (impurities),
and "drugs" that turn out to be something other than
drugs (poison) sold by unscrupulous or incompetent dealers. It
makes sense to license dealers and manufacturers, but to require
users to register is, again, an infringement of personal liberty
and it won't work. Content and strength of all drugs, including
coffee, should be labeled clearly.
7) Many users of "hard" drugs began
by using "soft" drugs; but, due to the laws against
drugs, there came a time when their drug of choice was not
available. This is what led them from marijuana, say, to heroin.
There are many similar instances of harm resulting from the
unavailability of the drug user's favorite and familiar drug.
Conversely, many troubled people choose to drink, and have
problems associated with drinking, mainly because alcohol is
legal and readily available. These people might have been able to
select a drug from a larger menu, marijuana say, that would
provide the same relief with fewer problems or no problems at
all. (Sometimes I find it difficult to believe that there has not
been a conspiracy to suppress the use of marijuana, amphetamines,
and heroin so that the cocaine business could flourish.)
8) Legalization of all drugs would eliminate
the "drug life", the endless cycle of getting money,
"copping", getting high, etc. that constitutes a career
for many. Indeed, many addicts are among those who have most to
lose from legalization. They would have to give up their entire
"lifestyle" with its many positive aspects including
good friendships, camaraderie, etc.
9) Legalization would restore many to useful
endeavor, even some who continue to use drugs. It would
decriminalize an even greater number of people who use drugs
properly as discussed below.
10) Legalization and decontrol would allow
people to exercise their right to be their own physicians. Many
people could do this without deterioration in the quality of
medical care they receive. The legitimate medical uses of drugs
prohibit punitive taxes such as those levied against cigarets.
Moreover, the legalization and decontrol of all drugs is a step
toward controlling medical costs, which we all know are spiraling
out of control, to some extent because of the greed of
physicians.
11) Drug legalization would eliminate the need
for controversial and perhaps unconstitutional intrusion into the
activities and physical bodies of suspected drug users, although
the need to have sober airline pilots, etc. will probably prolong
the debate on just how this is to be accomplished for some time,
even after legalization.
12) Recently, subsequent to the original draft
of this paper, new drug legislation has been enacted by Congress
that includes cruel and unusual punishment. Wayne Saums writes in
a letter to the Houston Post as follows:
The current drug hysteria is the closest thing
to McCarthyism America has seen in 40 years. Draconian penalties,
in a drug bill that just passed Congress, include $10,000 fines
for a single marijuana cigarette!
The biggest mistake any American could make, in
the face of such insanity, is to assume he is safe if only he
does not smoke marijuana.
This drug is cheap and plentiful. An angry
neighbor, a political opponent, anyone at all, would have only to
toss a "joint" onto your property, into your home, or
your car. A police officer could stick it right in your shirt, or
your trash can!
No, the truth is that, once police state
tactics get to this advanced stage, no one is safe.
NO ONE!
Legalization would eliminate the possibility
that some diabolical adversary could put us through the nightmare
of being falsely accused, or even punished, by a Pharmacological
Inquisition.
Ethical Benefits
Thus, there are many practical and humanitarian
benefits to be derived from legalization, but, in addition, there
are many ethical benefits beginning with respect for the Ninth
Amendment to the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people." A fundamental right, recognized at least abstractly
by most Americans, is the right and freedom to do anything one
pleases so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights and
freedom of others. This right is not explicitly stated in the
Constitution, but it is retained by the people in accordance with
the Ninth Amendment. Whether or not the majority of Americans
believe that the right to take drugs is reserved under the Ninth
Amendment, any interference with that right is unacceptable to a
large group of Americans and they will struggle to protect it.
Thus, widespread disobedience of antidrug laws can be interpreted
as political struggle. Apparently, Americans recognized that the
right to take drugs falls under the Ninth Amendment when they
required a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol. This
corroborates my position that the laws against drugs are
essentially unconstitutional; i.e., such laws cannot be enacted
by Congress without a constitutional amendment. It required a
constitutional amendment then; why should it not require a
constitutional amendment now!
Legalization would end the hypocrisy of banning
most drugs while not banning others, namely, alcohol, nicotine,
and caffeine. The legality of alcohol is probably related to its
role in the Christian faith. Thus, the banning of hashish, for
example, and not alcohol could be construed as a violation of the
doctrine of separation of church and state. We all know why
caffeine is legal. Most of the working people of the nation, at
least those who work in offices, are addicted to caffeine, but
that's what gives them the strength, or the will, to work long
hours for the benefit of their employers, some of whom have a lot
to say about what the law of the land will be. In the case of
caffeine, many people who try to stop using it will experience
violent headaches; so, at least in this sense, caffeine is truly
addictive.
People Who Oppose Legalization
Hypocrites and Prudes
Some members of society, particularly the
religious right, would like to impose their sexual and religious
"morals" on others. The word "morals" is
enclosed in quotation marks to distinguish these personal and
arbitrary "morals" from higher morals about which
nearly everyone can agree. As discussed in the introduction, a
reasonable test of these higher morals, as exemplified by the
Sixth and Ninth Commandments, is that their violation does indeed
interfere with the rights of others. Some opponents of
legalization are genuinely concerned about the welfare of others,
but many of them are simply too mean-spirited to approve of
pleasure. At least they do not approve of intense pleasure, and
drugs do, on occasion, provide some people with intense pleasure,
a plain fact that deserves more discussion.
Control Addicts
There is another group of people in the
opposition (to legalization) who simply like to control others.
These are the control addicts. It is ironic that in their war
against addiction they succumb to one of the most insidious of
all addictions, namely, the addiction to power. Of course, most
of these people have an appetite for power that can never be
satisfied other than in the authority they exercise over people
in their own family. They are perfect candidates to be parents of
children who escape into the world of drugs. Many control addicts
might benefit from taking drugs themselves, since one of the most
desirable effects of some drugs is to shock people out of rigid
modes of thought. Taking drugs might be a form of therapy for
control addicts.
Legislators
The congressman from my district wants to apply
lethal force to stop the flow of drugs, but he doesn't have the
slightest idea how to stop people from wanting drugs. As long as
people want them, someone will find a way to deliver them,
although the prices (and the profits) will be high. Addicts will
have to steal even more than they do now; criminals will have
even greater incentive to murder other criminals who muscle in on
their territory; and the problem will get worse. What the
congressman doesn't realize is that his policies are part of the
reason that many people take drugs in the first place. He is part
of the problem, not part of the solution. (Subsequent to the
first draft of this paper a new and tougher drug law has been
passed by Congress. As we watch the situation worsen in the wake
of this law, we should gain confidence in the essential
correctness of my position. For example, dealers will have even
less to lose by killing other dealers inasmuch as the law puts
their life at even greater risk. Of course, in many cases, this
risk is what motivates them.)
Uses and Users of Drugs
The Right to Use Drugs
In the beginning of this paper I made the claim
that taking drugs does not interfere necessarily with the rights
of anyone. The reader can prove this by performing a thought
experiment in which someone takes drugs and no one's rights are
violated. (For example, a man with no family lives alone; food
and drugs are delivered to him daily by a disinterested party;
the fruits of his solitary labors, proofs of mathematical
theorems, say, are picked up by the letter carrier. There is no
impact on society other than the benefits to be derived from his
proofs, which are assumed to be correct.) The reader should
realize that this one example of what many may feel is an
abnormal case is sufficient to prove the premise. I maintain that
thousands of "normal" cases occur daily, but it is not
necessary to enumerate them. Nevertheless, I will offer some
additional evidence to support this important claim and to show,
further, that taking drugs is not always bad.
Drugs for Celebration
Most of the discussion about legalizing drugs
neglects the traditional and proper use of drugs in ritual and
celebration. Some opponents of legalization believe that the
so-called recreational drugs have no valid use, but those same
people probably would be disappointed if they could not have a
drink or two on New Year's Eve, Christmas, or their birthdays.
Many Americans don't consider Saturday night a success unless
they become at least somewhat intoxicated. Is it really so bad to
want to experience the exhilaration, release from tension, and
just plain joy of getting a little "high" with good
friends? Most people consider complete abstinence a little weird
if not downright antisocial. People who never loosen up with a
drink or the drug of their choice could be thought of as
deficient, a judgment that is undoubtedly too harsh. (Wayne Saums
points out how much people enjoy that first cup of coffee in the
morning with its "pure chemical high".)
Drugs in Ritual and Religion
Throughout recorded history intoxication has
played a large role in human ritual. Whereas the Catholic mass
cannot be celebrated without wine, the religious rituals of some
native-American Indians are incomplete without peyote. Government
control or taxation is inconsistent with freedom of religion.
True religious freedom is not limited to a few established
religions, moreover vows of poverty preclude payment of taxes on
substances that can be cultivated on the homestead without
participation in the mainstream of the economy. The book, Ceremonial
Chemistry [2] by Thomas Szasz, elaborates on the role of
drugs in ritual and, in addition, explains why many people are so
anxious to persecute people who use drugs other than the ones of
which they approve. Every person who participates in this debate
should read this book. In fact, I will go further and say that
anyone who advocates the regulation of drugs by government and
has not read this book should be disqualified from the drug
debate. For the edification, and convenience, of the reader, the
preface to Ceremonial Chemistry appears in Appendix A of
this paper by permission of Dr. Szasz.
Drugs to Kill Pain
Another legitimate use of drugs is to eliminate
pain. What could be more absurd and inhumane than limiting the
dosage of painkillers taken by terminally-ill people because they
might become addicted! The place of the medical profession is to
advise not control. The final decision on the dosage of
pain-killing (or any other) drugs must rest with the patient. For
that matter, drugs must be made available to those who wish to
end their lives.
Many people in American society rely on drugs
to assuage the pain inflicted upon them by a callous,
materialistic society and by their own mistakes or bad luck.
Apparently, society is not yet ready to make the commitment to
remove the circumstances that cause this pain and suffering nor
is society willing to pay the price to relieve human misery. Now,
society wants to take away the drugs that provide the only
relief, however fleeting, that these people will ever enjoy.
Ironically, it may be drug use and only drug use that is
preventing a violent revolution in America.
Drugs to Enhance Ability
Drugs can be used to enhance the ability of
people to perform certain tasks. Many jazz musicians in the 40s
and 50s used drugs. I do not believe there was a single exception
among, at least, my fifty favorite jazz musicians. It was common
to hear people opposed to drugs say that musicians played well
despite the use of drugs, but does it make sense that all of them
played well in spite of taking drugs! Maybe taking drugs helped
them just a little. In any case, the connection between
intoxication and the muse dictates that the music could not have
been the same without the drugs. Actually, many "drug
addicts" do very well in society. Many famous entertainers,
athletes, artists, and, yes, even scientists take or have taken
drugs.
I just found out from Jim Bouton's book, Ball
Four [4], that more than half of all major-league baseball
players in the 60s and 70s took amphetamines. This doesn't prove
that it made them play better, but it was said on one occasion
when a famous ballplayer narrowly missed a fly ball that with
five more milligrams he would have made the play. So, in any
case, there was a widespread belief among major-leaguers that
amphetamine helped them. It's interesting, though, that people do
apply a different set of standards to major-league baseball
players from those they apply to the average drug user, just as
racists accept black people provided they are celebrities. After
all, the cult of fame and the cult of money are the core of our
national religion.
"Very Unimportant People"
As long as I have brought up the cult of fame I
might just as well say a few additional words on that subject
here. In the minds of many Americans wealth, power, and fame are
subsumed under the general concept of Importance. Many people
take drugs because society is telling them that they are not
important or even significant. Many people are selling drugs
because being a dealer makes them feel important. Television and
other media seem to be telling us every day of our lives that, if
we are not important, our lives are meaningless. A comicstrip
child after seeing her grandfather on television says, "Gee
Gramps, you are a real person." This phenomenon goes a
little way toward explaining some of the so-called senseless
crimes reported in the media practically daily. Because it is
controlled by commerce, television is one of the most pernicious
influences in society.
Special Uses of Drugs
It is easy to construct hypothetical scenarios
wherein the use of drugs makes possible an important human
activity. For example, suppose that it is necessary to stay awake
and alert for several days in order to perform an important
scientific experiment. The use of artificial stimulants is
justified in this exceptional case. The use of a sedative is
indicated if a person is required to remain motionless for a long
period in order to participate in a test.
Moderation
No one advocates the use of drugs all of the
time by everyone. The infiltration of drugs into the lives of our
children is deplorable as are many other aspects of drug abuse.
Some people should never touch certain drugs and they know who
they are. Perhaps no one should use drugs every day except for
the treatment of a pathology. On the other hand, there is
practically no one who would not benefit from the occasional use
of one or another drug as an alternative to complete abstinence
from all drugs. For nearly everyone there is a drug that can be
used safely on special occasions to improve the quality of his or
her life. I find it interesting that practically every discussion
of drugs jumps from abstinence to abuse as though there were
nothing in between.
Drugs as a Spiritual or Intellectual Adventure
Needless to say, the mere taking of drugs does
not automatically elevate people to an elite class of individuals
capable of discerning right from wrong and able to see through
all the illusions and myths perpetuated by society. Many drug
users are just as narrow-minded with respect to drugs that happen
to differ from their own particular favorites as are those who
oppose the use of all drugs. But, of two hypothetical people who
exhibit the same moral and ethical behavior in all respects other
than the taking or not taking of drugs, I would have to rank
higher, in the traits that distinguish us from the beasts, the
person who takes a risk in order to discover and experience
something new, even if the discovery and experience is
catastrophic. In fact, it could be argued that the taking of
drugs, under many circumstances, indicates an intelligence higher
than the intelligence of the abstainer even though the latter may
excel in prudence. Therefore, it is conceivable that the average
intelligence of the drug-taking population, which, of course,
includes those who exercise moderation, exceeds that of the
abstainers. Also, it should be pointed out that many drug users
claim that drugs have helped them see through the myths
and illusions perpetuated by society.
"Good Guys" and "Bad Guys"
Moreover, the taking of drugs, particularly in
excess, cannot help but teach a lesson in compassion learned by
virtue of experiencing one's own vulnerability. Further, drug
users are rarely involved in the struggle for money and power
that is destroying our civilization. On the other hand, many
people who are waging the war on drugs employ devious and
underhanded tactics, not the least dishonorable of which is
arranging a highly-contrived purchase of drugs near the White
House and then implying, for rhetorical purposes, that the
purchase was routine. Thus, it is not at all clear that those who
are trying to prevent people from taking drugs are the "good
guys" and those who are using drugs are the "bad
guys" as the establishment would have us believe. It seems
that just the opposite is true.
Fear of Death
Also, it is interesting to note that the
following statement, attributed to Jesus, could be construed as
approval of drug users: "For whosoever will save his life
shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall
find it." Of course, it is not clear that everyone who uses
drugs will die from taking drugs, nor is it clear that everyone
who destroys his life with drugs is moved by a divine purpose.
Nevertheless, one wonders about all those people who want to go
to heaven but are afraid to die.
Some Words from Victims of the War On Drugs
I have talked with many users of drugs. Some of
them support the laws against drugs. Some users imagine that the
laws against drugs are the only thing standing between themselves
and lethal doses. If so, they would have to adopt the techniques
employed by alcoholics to save themselves in a world where
alcohol is legal, cheap, and advertised on TV. But, many users of
drugs are outraged at the attempts of society to deprive them of
their personal liberty. Many believe, as I do, that it is not the
function of the government, however well-meaning, to protect us
from ourselves. The authors of the following ideas shall remain
anonymous. I do not recall their exact words, thus the
responsibility for the wording rests with me although I shall
employ quotation marks, which are to be interpreted loosely.
One well-known speaker on drugs sets the tone
by saying, "I do not permit anyone to tell me what to put
into my own body." A woman, who contracted AIDS from her
husband, who was an intravenous drug user and has since died from
AIDS, says, "I blame every legislator, bureaucrat, and
medical lobbyist who is responsible for the restrictions against
the purchase of new disposable syringes. I blame the
law-enforcement agents too." A man who is dying of cancer
and is forced to endure unspeakable agonies because he is a drug
addict and "cannot" be given the indicated dosage of
painkillers asks, "Is it legal to do this to me?"
A middle-aged man who has health insurance but
still objects to the outrageous fees charged by physicians
answers, "Certainly I'd like to boycott doctors. They make
far too much money and most of them don't place their patients'
interests far enough above money to spend enough of their time to
do a good job. Of course, they're generous enough with your
time. If I couldn't live without doctors, well ... no one ever
got out of this life without dying. I would never be operated on
nor would I ever submit to chemotherapy or other radical
treatment; but, I should have access to the drugs I know about or
could find out about to treat my medical complaints; I should be
allowed to have whatever drugs I needed to kill pain if I were in
great pain; and I should be allowed to end my life if I were
seriously ill and it became impossible to kill the pain. Instead
I am forced to pay the doctor a ridiculous fee to write a
prescription. Of course, I could petition the FDA [Food and Drug
Administration] to permit me to prescribe for myself and sue them
if they refused, but I don't have the time, money, and energy.
And, as we all know, I would lose." I agree with this man.
We have a right to repair our own car or be our own gardener.
Even more valid is our right to heal ourselves and to avoid doing
business with people who are extracting excessive profits from
society.
A young mathematician tells his story: "My
physician started me on a psychic energizer when I began to get
ulcers from drinking too much coffee. Now, he won't write
prescriptions for it because it has been classified as a
dangerous drug and is monitored by the state, which requires a
prescription in triplicate. I can't do math without it and I am
about ready to turn to the black market. Is it fair for the state
to interfere with my career in this way? If this drug is a
dangerous narcotic, why wasn't it classified as such before I
became dependent upon it? It seems that the classification of a
drug is a political decision."
I have talked to numerous musicians who play
classical, jazz, and rock music and who are dependent on drugs.
I've heard some musicians say, "I can play music without
drugs, but I don't enjoy it." Others say, "Drugs put me
in a state of mind wherein I am receptive to musical
inspiration", "Drugs open up a part of my mind that is
unavailable without drugs", "I couldn't begin to play
inspired music without drugs." Other similar statements are
commonly heard. One musician complains, "Music is the only
thing in life that matters to me and, for me, drugs and music go
together. How dare the state try to deprive me of life as I want
to live it."
A famous jazz musician is supposed to have
said, "The three greatest things in the world are music,
drugs, and sex, in that order." Notice, he chooses
drugs before sex. Now, taking drugs for the pleasure it gives is
similar to having sex for the pleasure it gives. There are people
in this world who don't want anyone to have sex for pleasure. How
would the average prohibitionist like it if sex for pleasure were
made illegal?
Another famous jazz musician, now deceased
after a reasonably long life of approximately 60 years, said to
me, "I haven't had sex in two years and, if I never have it
again, it will be too soon." Now, this man not only
preferred drugs to sex but rejected sex entirely, although it may
have been deficiencies in society or the drugs themselves that
caused him to abandon sex altogether. One can argue that the
world would be better off if a significant number of people
substituted abstinence from sex for abstinence from drugs. As bad
as it is, our drug problem doesn't come close to our population
problem. The main point, though, is that, for this man,
prohibiting drugs was like prohibiting sex for the average man.
If the government can stop people from taking drugs with today's
technology, it might be able to stop people from having sex with
the technology of tomorrow.
In Defense of Liberty
It seems clear then that very many people,
perhaps millions, believe that they have a right to manufacture,
sell, buy, possess, and consume whatever drugs they please. They
consider a system irrational and unfair that punishes a drug
dealer who sells a chemical to someone who wants to ingest it,
but rewards a person who dumps, into the air or water, poisons
that everyone must ingest whether they want to or not. These
pro-choice people are bound to regard those who are attempting to
repress drugs as tyrannical and evil. Normally, the criminal
justice system of the United States is directed against people
who acknowledge that they have done something wrong; and,
needless to say, not everyone involved with drugs is completely
innocent of wrongdoing. But, there is a large group of people who
use drugs and, yes, sell drugs who know that they have done
nothing wrong. Those who persecute them will be fighting an enemy
who knows he is on the right side. As for the ones who feel
guilty about their involvement with drugs, enlightenment will
reveal that they are not the guilty ones. As for you, William J.
Bennett, you are fighting on the side of evil.
The other day I saw a large piece of graffiti
that said, in English and in Spanish, "The war against drugs
is a war against people!" It is a crime to conduct such a
war. If Czar William (Bennett) wants to behead people, has he not
committed murder in his heart already; is he not a man of
violence; are not his enemies entitled to retaliate violently,
however ill-advised that may be! If the American people want to
wage a declared war on drugs, they should expect
"drugs" to fight back. For example, drug enforcement
agents not in uniform could be shot as spies. Prisoners of war on
both sides should be treated according to the Geneva conference,
provided, of course, that they are "in uniform".
Dealing with the Negative Aspects of
Legalization
The Abuser as a Bad Example
Naturally, there is bound to be some negative
impact from legalization. Some individuals are bound to increase
their intake of drugs and some will exhibit bizarre or antisocial
behavior, but there is a positive side even to that. If some drug
users make horrible examples of themselves, it will be a
deterrent to others, particularly children. Perhaps some people
will try drugs who would not have been willing to break the law,
but these must constitute a very small class of Americans. As
taking drugs begins to assume its natural role in society, free
from the denormalizing effects of criminalization, most negative
activity will die out. But, we should not expect to recover from
decades of wrong thinking and bad public policies without some
pain. Drug legalization could be compared to balancing the
budget, another pill that will have to be swallowed eventually.
Physicians Who Are Addicts
A recent letter to Time Magazine warns
that the increase in drug use would not be trivial. It cites the
high use by physicians, who have easy access to drugs but should
know better. While it is true that many physicians use drugs, the
health care system in the United States is not exactly in a state
of collapse. At least the physicians and surgeons, whether they
take drugs or not, have managed to look after their own interests
quite well, and the number of doctors on skid row is not
excessive. If society at large does no worse with free access to
drugs than the physicians have done, we will be able to withstand
the shock of legalization.
The Dissemination of Information
Of course, many nonphysicians will not
"know better". It is up to the government, which caused
this mess in the first place, to do a first-rate job of informing
the public about the risks of taking drugs without neglecting to
mention the positive aspects of drug use. There is no use in
denying that many people may enjoy the occasional use of
recreational drugs without incurring appreciable harm,
particularly if drugs are free of harmful impurities and are
labeled properly. The dissemination of information is cheap
compared to the alternatives.
Establishment Drug Firms
One possible infelicitous aspect of drug
legalization is that drugs would be manufactured and sold by
establishment chemists, engineers, and businessmen. I still have
faith in most chemists and engineers, be they establishment or
not, but my experience with American and foreign businessmen has
been most disappointing. It is possible that they might be more
unethical than the drug traffickers they would replace. Just look
at what they have done with cigarets, alcohol, and patent
medicines. The solution, I fear, in a capitalist society, is
strict government regulation of manufacturers. Of course, this
would not be necessary in a dematerialist society because there
would be nothing to be gained by being unethical. Spending of
excessive profits would be noticed and prevented by social
pressure.
Despite the tolerable track record of
established drug firms, strict standards of purity, labeling,
documentation, and pricing should be enforced. Also, the
government must ensure that the public is getting correct,
complete, and up-to-date information on all drugs. Any drug
whatsoever may be manufactured, but the effects of new drugs must
be understood sufficiently well that a well-informed public can
have expectations concerning the new drugs that are reasonably
likely to be fulfilled. A well-informed person, then, can begin
using a new drug at any time during the testing cycle, completely
aware of the risks involved. This could benefit many people
suffering from AIDS, for example, or other "incurable"
diseases.
The Social System
Many people believe that a share of the blame
for excessive use of drugs must be placed on the many unnatural
aspects of our economic and social system. The abuse of drugs is
a symptom of a deeper problem, the solution to which is a gradual
movement toward dematerialism preceded by the teaching of the
necessity of dematerialism, along with an open discussion of how
the difficulties of implementing dematerialism might be overcome.
Suffice it to say that the prohibition of the free use of drugs
is part of the problem, not part of the solution. In any case, we
have no choice as to whether or not we will endure whatever
negative impact accompanies drug legalization. We can only hope
to hold the damage to a minimum by making the necessary changes
gradually and by providing help for people who request it.
Conclusions
The Correct Solution
Legalization and decontrol is the correct
solution because it will eliminate most of the evil surrounding
the drug trade; it will have many desirable consequences and very
few bad side effects, all of which can be overcome; and, finally,
it is the ethical and prudent thing to do in a nation of free
people who will not tolerate being told how to live their lives,
particularly by people whose actions are not even based on decent
motives or good will. Legalization and decontrol could be gradual
in order to absorb the shock of a sudden change in policy, but I
hesitate to say this because no matter how rapidly legalization
is implemented it is nearly certain to take place too slowly
rather than too rapidly. Education of the public, especially
children, should continue, but educators should tell the truth
about drugs or lose credibility. Employers should continue to
demand sobriety on the job, so the testers probably will not be
put out of business immediately. The tests, however, must
determine sobriety at the time of the test, not last Saturday
night. A man can be drunk on Saturday night and fly an airplane
as safely as it can be flown on Monday.
Anti-Discrimination
Laws should be passed to make it illegal to
discriminate against drug users in employment, housing, etc. Of
course, the performance and behavior of drug users should be
evaluated by the standards that apply to everyone else.
Research
Some of the money saved by abandoning the war
against drugs should be devoted to research to develop better
drugs, e.g., drugs that induce euphoria but have no unpleasant
side effects or withdrawal symptoms. Research could be done to
develop drugs that do not require larger and larger doses to
achieve similar effects or at least reach the saturation dose
earlier. Perhaps we should stop trying to prevent people from
taking drugs (they will always take drugs) but give them better
drugs. However, we must be careful not to let the government
create a "brave new world" by means of some future
class of drugs. It is unlikely, though, that any drug will ever
be as great a threat to freedom of thought as television and
religion are.
Dematerialism as a Solution
Naturally I believe that an important step
toward ending the drug problem (and the problems of crime,
poverty, forced labor, unhappiness, injustice, inequality, and
undemocratic government) is the teaching of the virtues of
dematerialism in the schools. The adoption of dematerialism by
society will be extremely gradual. For those of you who think
they know why dematerialism won't work, let's hear your solution.
For the rest, let's begin to think of ways to make dematerialism
work in the United States, to overcome its difficulties (and it
does have difficulties), and to convince others that we must make
a change. Most (in my opinion, all) social problems have been
solved theoretically. The difficulty is convincing a brainwashed
people to adopt the theoretical solutions and to make them
practical. The failures of others to do this are not really
relevant (unless you can prove that people will never learn).
Letters to Congress
The drug problem persists because the
government and other institutions continue to pursue incorrect
solutions based on poor reasoning and hysteria. We, the people,
should demand an end to this folly through letters and telegrams
to our elected representatives. One letter is probably worth a
thousand votes since congressmen know that fewer than one in a
thousand writes.
An Appeal to Reason
The comments by Szasz in an address he gave at
an anti-prohibition conference in Brussels last year [3] are so
incisive that I must repeat them.
Sadly, the war on drugs has offered, and
continues to offer, modern man much of what he seems to crave:
fake compassion and genuine coercion; pseudo-science and real
paternalism; make-believe disease and metaphorical treatment;
opportunistic politics and unctuous hypocrisy. It is hard for me
to see how anyone who knows anything about history, about
pharmacology, and about the fundamental human struggle for
self-discipline and the seemingly equally intense human need to
reject it and replace it with submission to a coercively
paternalistic authority - how any such person could avoid coming
to the conclusion that the war on drugs is simply another chapter
in the natural history of human stupidity.
I believe that just as we regard freedom of
speech and religion as fundamental rights, so should we also
regard freedom of self-medication as a fundamental right; and
that, instead of mendaciously opposing or mindlessly promoting
illicit drugs, we should, paraphrasing Voltaire, make this maxim
our rule: "I disapprove of what you take, but I will defend
to the death your right to take it!"
In closing, it is important to emphasize that
the war on drugs is the longest, most protracted formally
declared war of this turbulent century: It has already lasted
longer than the First and Second World Wars and the wars in Korea
and Vietnam combined - and its end is nowhere in sight. Indeed,
because this war is a war on human desire, it cannot be won in
any meaningful sense of that term. Finally, since its principal
beneficiaries are the politicians who wage it, we must, against
all odds, try to enlist some honest and humane [and courageous]
politicians in our quest to lay before the people the case that
peace, after all, is better than war - even if the 'enemy' is
stupidly called "drugs".
Other Methods of Effecting Social Change
Although I don't claim to know much about
effecting social change (hopefully the reader will know more), it
seems to me that legalization could be achieved by strong
advocacy, education, demonstrations, and organized lobbying.
Prolegalization groups exist and are growing in number and size.
Despite the negative aspects of lobbying and other types of
concerted effort, participation in prolegalization organizations
probably is essential in American society as it (American
society) is presently constituted. One such group is the Drug
Policy Foundation, 4801 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington,
D.C., 20016. This group sponsors periodic meetings on issues
pertaining to drug policy. These meetings are attended by many
resourceful people who support legalization and who could have an
influence on government.
Also, the first edition of The International
Journal on Drug Policy, 10 Maryland St., Liverpool L1 9BX,
England, was published on July 1st, 1989. This bi-monthly
publication will concern itself with "the legal, social,
medical, and educational issues [surrounding] the use of
psychoactive substances". While the emergence of this
journal should be viewed with cautious optimism, there is a
danger that the people who contribute to it (and to the meetings
of the Drug Policy Foundation) will become a permanent part of
the drug "industry" and thus become one more group of
people who have a vested interest in the drug problem never being
solved.
Remedies at Law
There is one additional approach that I would
like to see tried, perhaps by a sympathetic attorney in his or
her spare time, although I have no idea if one person could
manage this alone. I would like to see someone file suit to get
the laws against drugs declared unconstitutional. The amount of
resources required to carry this out would depend on whether the
intent was to win the case or not. The probability of winning is
low because the decisions of the Supreme Court are not based
entirely on logic, but the action itself, if publicized properly,
would help to educate the public and, if handled masterfully,
would discredit authoritarians. Also, a class-action suit to
recover damages for all those who have been injured by the laws
against drugs might have a similar
"consciousness-raising" effect.
Addendum
So as not to disturb the organization of the
September 25, 1989 version of the paper, some new material is
collected in Appendix B.
Thomas L. Wayburn
Houston, Texas
September 25, 1989
References
1. Brent, Joseph L., "How Drug
Entrepreneurs Pursue the American Dream", Drug Policy
Newsletter, 1, No. 2, (1989).
2. Szasz, Thomas, Ceremonial Chemistry,
Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. (1975). (Now available
from Laissez-Faire Books, New York.)
3. Szasz, Thomas, "A Plea for the
Cessation of the Longest War of the Twentieth Century: The War on
Drugs", paper presented at The International
Anti-Prohibition Forum, Brussels, Sept.28-Oct.1, 1988.
4. Bouton, Jim, Ball Four and Ball Five,
Edited by Leonard Shecter, Stein and Day, New York (1981).
Appendix A:
The Preface to the Book Ceremonial Chemistry
There is probably one thing, and one thing
only, on which the leaders of all modern states agree; on which
Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans, and atheists agree; on
which Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists, Liberals,
and Conservatives agree; on which medical and scientific
authorities throughout the world agree; and on which the views,
as expressed through opinion polls and voting records, of the
large majority of individuals in all civilized countries agree.
That thing is the "scientific fact" that certain
substances which people like to ingest or inject are
"dangerous" both to those who use them and to others;
and that the use of such substances constitutes "drug
abuse" or "drug addiction" - a disease whose
control and eradication are the duty of the combined forces of
the medical profession and the state. However, there is little
agreement - from people to people, country to country, even
decade to decade - on which substances are acceptable and their
use therefore considered a popular pastime, and which substances
are unacceptable and their use therefore considered "drug
abuse" and "drug addiction."
My aim in this book is at once simple and
sweeping. First, I wish to identify the actual occurrences that
constitute our so-called drug problem. I shall show that these
phenomena in fact consist of the passionate promotion and panicky
prohibition of various substances; the habitual use and the
dreaded avoidance of certain drugs; and, most generally, the
regulation - by language, law, custom, religion, and every other
conceivable means of social and symbolic control - of certain
kinds of ceremonial and sumptuary behaviors.
Second, I wish to identify the conceptual realm
and logical class into which these phenomena belong. I shall show
that they belong in the realm of religion and politics; that
"dangerous drugs," addicts, and pushers are the
scapegoats of our modern, secular, therapeutically imbued
societies; and that the ritual persecution of these
pharmacological and human agents must be seen against the
historical backdrop of the ritual persecution of other
scapegoats, such as witches, Jews, and madmen.
And third, I wish to identify the moral and
legal implications of the view that using and avoiding drugs are
not matters of health and disease but matters of good and evil;
that, in other words, drug abuse is not a regrettable medical
disease but a repudiated religious observance. Accordingly, our
options with respect to the "problem" of drugs are the
same as our options with respect to the "problem" of
religions: that is, we can practice various degrees of tolerance
and intolerance toward those whose religions - whether theocratic
or therapeutic - differ from our own.
For the past half-century the American people
have engaged in one of the most ruthless wars - fought under the
colors of drugs and doctors, diseases and treatments - that the
world has ever seen. If a hundred years ago the American
government had tried to regulate what substances its citizens
could or could not ingest, the effort would have been ridiculed
as absurd and rejected as unconstitutional. If fifty years ago
the American government had tried to regulate what crops farmers
in foreign countries could or could not cultivate, the effort
would have been criticized as meddling and rejected as
colonialism. Yet now the American government is deeply committed
to imposing precisely such regulations - on its own citizens by
means of criminal and mental health laws, and on those of other
countries by means of economic threats and incentives; and these
regulations - called "drug controls" or "narcotic
controls" - are hailed and supported by countless
individuals and institutions, both at home and abroad.
We have thus managed to replace racial,
religious, and military coercions and colonialisms, which now
seem to us dishonorable, with medical and therapeutic coercions
and colonialisms, which now seem to us honorable. Because these
latter controls are ostensibly based on Science and aim to secure
only Health, and because those who are so coerced and colonized
often worship the idols of medical and therapeutic scientism as
ardently as do the coercers and colonizers, the victims cannot
even articulate their predicament and are therefore quite
powerless to resist their victimizers. Perhaps such preying of
people upon people - such symbolic cannibalism, providing meaning
for one life by depriving another of meaning - is an inexorable
part of the human condition and is therefore inevitable. But it
is surely not inevitable for any one person to deceive himself or
herself into believing that the ritual persecutions of scapegoats
- in Crusades, Inquisitions, Final Solutions, or Wars on Drug
Abuse - actually propitiate deities or prevent diseases.
Thomas Szasz
Syracuse, New York
September 1, 1973
Appendix B: Addendum
The following are a number of afterthoughts
that were not included in the September 25, 1989 version of the
paper.
1) There are drugs that improve one's interest
in things. Why not encourage our apathetic students to take these
drugs provided the risk were acceptably low?
2) Probably, without drugs to aid our
imaginations, we cannot emerge from the social abyss into which
we have descended. When the world is a better place, with fewer
mind-deadening institutions, we will not need drugs as much.
3) Another circumstance often mistaken for
addiction: Drugs anesthetize one from the pain of awareness of
the world. The more sensitive one is, the greater the likelihood
of using drugs, all else being equal (and it never is). Some
people would take drugs habitually whether chemical dependence
existed or not; they simply cannot stand the world. Some of these
people are recognized geniuses. Vahn Lewis, a professor at U. of
T., Austin, asked me if there was a correlation between talent
and drug-taking among jazz musicians in the 50s and 60s. I
thought for a minute and then replied, "Yes, the better they
were, the more drugs they took." Perhaps, they were too good
for this world. (Undoubtedly some people take drugs because they
are not "good" enough.)
4) Some of the points made in my paper can be
clarified by the ideas of Andrew Weil [5]. He supplied a general
principle to account for a number of phenomena that I accounted
for separately. The principle was lurking in my
"subconscious" (unarticulated or preverbal thoughts),
but Weil put it in words beautifully. The general idea is that it
may not be drugs at all that get you "high".
5) Corroboration of Weil's theories: Sometimes
the less you take the higher you get. Some people who have no
faith in drugs are not affected even by a large dose.
6) Frequently the spiritual rewards of taking
drugs far outweigh the harm and risk.
7) On the constitutional point again: Drugs are
legal. I wish someone would offer a constitutional defense. The
DPF should offer to pay for such a defense for people like those
middle-class farmers who grew pot out of economic necessity.
8) I have not emphasized sufficiently that we
will never accept laws against drugs or sex or food or guns or
anything that is our personal business. Even the seat-belt laws
are wrong, though seat-belts are essential. Some people prefer
drugs to sex. How would you like it if sex were prohibited! This
war can end up in terrorist attacks or all-out civil war.
Although I personally am against violence, it wouldn't be hard to
convince some people that violence is the only answer. Eventually
the religionists must be defeated, so there is no possibility of
peace any time soon.
9) The following paragraph is from my paper
"Introduction to Dematerialism" [6]:
The point of my paper "Toward Axiomatic
Morality" [7] is that it might be possible to get nearly
everyone to agree to a few basic morals (or moral axioms) from
which all other morals [and laws] could be derived. By basic
morals, I do not mean religious superstition or sexual and
pharmacological prudery. I am referring to respect for the
freedom of others (and their posterity), respect for the
environment, and respect for truth. The fundamental principle of
morality, which allows one to be free to do anything one pleases
so long as the freedom of others is not abridged, is the
prehistoric basis for society, giving everyone his or her own
share and space. I believe that respect for the freedom of others
implies equal distribution of material wealth, since excess
wealth can be used to abridge the freedom of the other, in one
case by purchasing excess political power, in another by bidding
up the price of land and acquiring unfair exclusive access to
part of the earth's surface, in another by holding a stronger
negotiating position in an economic transaction, which might be
the employment of one person by another, a practice that is
revolting to many thoughtful people. The violation of these
morals causes all of our troubles and creates all of our logical
conflicts and inconsistencies.
10) The following statement might be able to be
understood by most intellectuals: "The notion of controlling
the possession of a substance is absurd. One may possess
plutonium if one desires. The conflict arises out of the
unreasonableness of society not out of the unreasonableness of
possessing plutonium." These final statements may sound
silly to all but the most astute philosophers: "Everyone has
forbidden substances inside his or her body with a nonzero
probability due to quantum effects." "Substance is a
variation in the geometry of space, therefore the notion of
possession of a substance is absurd."
11) A woman suffering from arthritis
complained, in a letter to a Houston newspaper, that, due to
anti-drug hysteria, she has difficulty obtaining prescriptions
for Tylenol 3, which contains codeine, a drug the research for
which was supported by her tax dollars.
12) The proponents of prohibition indulge in a
number of fallacies and one way to undo their mischief might be
to point out their fallacies. Bennett, lately, has been indulging
in ad hominem arguments. Also, when he refers always to
the use of drugs as abuse, he is indulging in the fallacy of the
excluded middle. Almost all prohibitionists indulge in Bentham's
dyslogistic and eulogistic fallacies, which consist in applying a
term of either denigration or praise to an item that is logically
neutral. An example is calling drugs "poison" or
"horrible mind-bending chemicals" [Carl Rowan]. Clearly
drugs are good if they are used to remedy an unpleasant condition
or cure a disease; but, for the sake of argument, they could be
considered neutral, i.e., their goodness or badness depends on
how they are used. Referring to drugs as poison is a clear case
of the dyslogistic fallacy.
Another use of the dyslogistic fallacy is
reference to the spread of drugs as an epidemic, whereas taking
drugs is not even a disease. Also, users of drugs are referred to
as slaves even though they act more independently than the
average employee of the average American corporation. Actually,
the average Christian, who accepts Christian dogma without
reservation is more of a slave than is the most hooked addict,
i.e., the religionist's soul is entirely subjugated whereas the
body only of the addict is under the control of the addicting
drug, as evidenced by the fact that his will remains free to wish
to be free of the addiction. Even this analysis is granting too
much to the use of the word slave. How can one become the slave
of an inanimate substance, which has no will! An example of the
eulogistic fallacy is the praise of the narcs as the good guys,
when in fact they are no better and no worse than anyone else
including the dealers. This ignores the fundamental facts of
man's existence.
13) I recently heard an ex-addict make the
following statements more or less (I do not remember his exact
words): "I used drugs for about 30 years so I know what I'm
talking about when I talk about drugs. Some of these guys who are
making these outrageous attacks on drugs ought to try drugs
before they shoot off their mouths. Anyway, I quit taking drugs
about 10 years ago. Why? I guess they didn't fit into my plans
anymore. I changed careers and the new career didn't require the
use of drugs. To be fair, I should say that the new career really
didn't tolerate drugs either. Maybe I just outgrew drugs. I know
a lot of people to whom that happened. One day drugs no longer
interested them. They put up with all kinds of drug treatments
and it didn't mean a thing, then one day they just stopped. It
happens all the time, especially to older folks. So you can
forget that hooked-for-life nonsense.
"On the other hand, although I do not wish
to argue that I am not better off now that I have stopped taking
drugs or that the next older person who stops taking drugs won't
be better off, it's worth considering that, if you stop taking
drugs, you may lose the ability to take drugs! That's true. You
may wish to take drugs again to get high, but your body may lose
the ability to tolerate them after a certain age. This could lead
to serious regrets. At least, it's worth thinking about. People
are accustomed to thinking that the decision to take drugs is
irrevocable, but they do not consider the possibility that the
decision to stop taking drugs might be irrevocable.
"But, I want to make a couple of
additional comments about taking drugs: First, the laws against
drugs caused me to take more drugs and to take them more often
and for a very understandable reason. I took as much as I could
because I was afraid I wouldn't be able to get any more. Even if
I didn't feel like getting high and I had the opportunity to get
high, I got high because I was afraid it might be my last chance.
The law was always there with the threat of interrupting the
supply. One had to make hay while the sun shone.
"Also, I want you to know that I was never
harmed by drugs, but I was harmed a number of times by the laws
against drugs. Once because I used an infected needle, which I
would not have used had needles been available in the drugstore.
A number of times I took bad drugs. If they were legal, I would
have used desoxyn or isotonic solution of methamphetamine
hydrochloride for a stimulant, dilaudid (or pharmaceutical
heroin) for a narcotic, hashish (orally, in cookies) for a
hypnotic (trance inducer or meditation enhancer), and valium for
a tranquilizer and/or a soporific. By the way, it was a dark day
for America when the ampules of isotonic solution of
methamphetamine hydrochloride were removed from the market. The
effect of that stuff, when injected, was like turning on the
lights in a room that had been darkened with a dimmer switch.
Perhaps it did a little harm, but the damage must have been
negligible compared to the benefits. Also, American civilization
(such as it is) took a giant step backward when heroin was
removed from the pharmacopoeia.
"I know I can't sue the law enforcement
community and Congress, but those people owe me plenty. Sometimes
I hope there really will be a judgment day so that those guys
will get the punishment they deserve. But, what the hell, they
are just ignorant slobs like the rest of us. No one is perfect.
If they were in the john when the brains were being passed out,
is it their fault!
"Finally, I want to say a word about drugs
and sex. I enjoyed sex before I took drugs, but after I started
having sex while I was high I wondered why I thought it was so
great when I was not high. I mean it was a thousand times better.
So, go ahead. Abstain from drugs. (Probably you should nowadays.
Maybe it's no longer safe. If so, too bad.) Maybe you'll live
longer. Maybe you'll never go to jail. Maybe you'll be a big
success in business. So what! You'll miss out on one of the two
or three greatest things on this earth. Maybe I wouldn't think
that were true if society hadn't destroyed most of the natural
pleasures of life by perverting the way we live, but I can't
imagine a life that wouldn't be enhanced by drugs. Some people
think Jesus lived a perfect life and he took drugs. Put that in
your pipe and smoke it."
14) The most important hidden assumption in the
thinking of Bennett and other prohibitionists is that the
individual serves some higher purpose than himself, usually the
needs of the economy. In a paper, "Drug Abuse in the
Workplace", by Walsh and Gust of the NIDA [8], this tacit
assumption stands behind every conclusion. It is interesting that
they viewed as an intolerable circumstance surrounding drug use
the discovered fact that "marijuana and cocaine users
`skipped work' two to three times as often as nonusers, simply
because they 'didn't want to be there'. [Shuster C.R., Testimony
Before the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control,
May 7, 1986.] Walsh and Gust were unable to recognize that drugs
might have helped users realize their true feelings and that the
difficulty might lie with the workplace rather than with drugs.
15) Someone said, "I broke my toe and the
doctor gave me some nasty little codeine substitute. I needed a
pill for pain, but not a pill that makes me wish I hadn't taken
it. Heroin would be fine. What's that you say? Heroin is too
strong? Fine, I'll take less. Also, I could use a Sabbatical from
this nasty little world we live in. I could have killed two birds
with one stone, killed the pain and had a holiday, for the price
of the same harm to my body, if there would have been any harm.
But this codeine substitute feels so much worse than heroin that
nobody will ever be able to convince me that it doesn't do more
harm as well. My body isn't stupid you know!"
16) "If I were a young man, I would go to
any lengths to avoid living in a drug-free society. I would find
an island refuge and grow and manufacture my own drugs or I would
live on the high seas as a pirate. Forcing a person to go without
drugs is intolerable repression. Some of the greatest moments of
my life, physically and spiritually, have occurred while I was
high on legal and illegal drugs. Unfortunately, I am too old to
do what I would have to do to re-create those moments."
17) The choice between taking drugs and not
taking drugs is a little like the choice between a planned
economy and a laissez-faire economy. Actually it is like a
religious choice if not precisely a religious choice. Most
Americans think that planned economies have been discredited, but
that is not the case. It is easier to argue that laissez-faire
economies have created the more undesirable circumstances. In any
case, to regulate one's own body chemistry or not is clearly a
personal decision. Nearly everyone chooses to regulate to some
extent.
18) In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley depicts a
nation enslaved with the aid of drugs, free sex, and freedom from
religion. It appears that Huxley has the situation reversed.
Nowadays one sees that the forces of repression favor drug
prohibition, restrained sex, and the spread of religious dogma.
19) Banning of all drugs, even for children,
might be compared to banning masturbation. While masturbation is
admittedly a poor succedaneum for true erotic sex, our public
school system has not sufficiently prepared many
thirteen-year-old children for responsible, meaningful sexual
relations. For the time being, then, masturbation is the
inevitable alternative. When society is sufficiently advanced
that no one feels the need for the artificiality of drugs,
coercion will no longer be required to discourage the use of
drugs. Until that time, no amount of coercion will suffice. Thus,
it appears that, as usual, we have the cart before the horse. The
problem isn't drugs at all; it is a badly organized society.
References
5. Weil, Andrew, "The Only Solution to The
Drug Problem", The Truth Seeker, 1, No.5 (1989).
6. Wayburn, T. L., "Introduction to
Dematerialism", Preprint available from author (1990).
7. Wayburn, T. L., "Toward Axiomatic
Morality", Preprint available from author (1990).
8. Walsh, J. Michael and Steven W. Gust,
"Drug Abuse in the Workplace", Seminars in Occupational
Medicine, 1, No.4 (1986).
Thomas L. Wayburn
Houston, Texas
April 2, 1990
|