
Legalize It All – How to Win the War on Drugs (2016) - aaronbrethorst
https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/?single=1
======
qbit
It's interesting that whenever the subject of legalizing drugs comes up,
people rarely argue for legalization from the perspective of cognitive
liberty. Why we allow certain people to decide what states of consciousness
are allowed for other people never ceases to amaze me.

~~~
chroem-
I'm a huge fan of Washington State's ban on public smoking, and I wish they
would ban tobacco outright.

Why then should I support proliferation of even more addictive and harmful
substances? Tobacco smoke is bad enough, but used hypodermic needles laying on
the ground is another issue entirely. The trouble with addictive drugs is that
a person's free agency is overruled by dependancy on the substance: addicts
want to quit but can't. We keep other far less harmful products off the market
through regulation, and I don't see how this is any different.

~~~
cortesoft
Did you read the article? The percentage of people who become addicts after
using drugs is actually quite low, even for the 'big four' most addictive
drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth, and crack)... so it is NOT true that everyone's
free agency is overruled by addiction. In fact, a significant majority do not
lose free agency; should they all be restricted because some people can't
handle it?

The harmful products we should regulate are ones whose use harms other people;
things like pesticides, pollutants, etc. Otherwise, where do you draw the
line? Lots of people think playing video games or watching tv 'rots your
brain.' Some people eat way too much unhealthy food. Should we ban tvs and
Doritos?

~~~
wfunction
> In fact, a significant majority do not lose free agency; should they all be
> restricted because some people can't handle it?

What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for
the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few
can't live a healthy life?"?

~~~
dunmalg
>What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for
the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few
can't live a healthy life?"?

Accepting universal drug prohibition is not anything like accepting mandatory
insurance. Mandatory insurance results in nearly everyone being covered by
insurance. Conversely, universal prohibition doesn't result in people NOT
using drugs, it simply results in drugs being expensive and unregulated. Over
a century of of strict prohibition has demonstrated this extensively.

------
grondilu
Beware, though. It's true that the war on drugs seems to do much more harm
than the products they try to prevent people from consuming, but I would worry
a bit about a world where big pharmaceutical could suddenly research
recreational drugs as business opportunities.

Medicine is only for sick people. Recreational drugs would potentially be for
everyone. Plus, they can be made extremely addictive. It's the perfect
commercial product.

New drugs already exists that are more addictive and powerful than old ones.
Like Fentanyl, for instance[1]. Who knows what research labs would come up
with if they threw lots of money and brain power into it?

A global legalization of drugs would be quite a Pandora's box. I'll quote Noah
Harari and say it would start what he calls "the chemical pursuit of
happiness" [2].

In the end, the risk is that we end up like the woman with an orgasm
button[3], or turn us into some kind of vegetative state, as described in "the
metamorphosis of Prime intellect"[4].

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Deus:_A_Brief_History_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Deus:_A_Brief_History_of_Tomorrow)

3\. [http://boingboing.net/2008/09/16/brain-implant-
result.html](http://boingboing.net/2008/09/16/brain-implant-result.html)

4\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Int...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Metamorphosis_of_Prime_Intellect)

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "New drugs already exists that are more addictive and powerful than old
> ones. Like Fentanyl, for instance. Who knows what research labs would come
> up with if they threw lots of money and brain power into it?"

Taking the perspective of a business man, it's possible for drugs to be too
addictive, as they have the bad side effect of killing your customers, which
is bad for revenue and a PR disaster. So even if a 'designer drug' market
emerged, I don't think you'd find many companies that wanted to develop
something as addictive as fentanyl.

~~~
arcticbull
I'd imagine a legal Fentanyl wouldn't get great reviews on Yelp. Or more
likely, TRIPadvisor, get it? Serious point, jokingly said.

------
PaulAJ
The quote in this article is dubious at best. There is no other evidence that
Erlichman said this, and no evidence in the Nixon archives to back up
allgation made in the quote, even if Erlichman had said it. Erlichman served
time in prison for Watergate, and seems to have been annoyed about not being
pardoned.

The records from the Nixon presidency suggest that the WOD was actually driven
by Nixon's fixed belief in then-prevalent myths about the danger to America
from blacks, homosexuals, drug use and mental damage.

[https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32247/did-
ehrli...](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/32247/did-ehrlichman-
claim-the-reason-for-the-nixon-drug-war-was-to-criminalize-black/33044#33044)

[https://medium.com/@ReachCASP/health-scientist-
blacklisting-...](https://medium.com/@ReachCASP/health-scientist-blacklisting-
and-the-meaning-of-marijuana-in-the-oval-office-in-the-
early-1970s-71ea41427b49#.9ksrgwmj3)

------
Nickersf
The war on drugs policy is a disaster.

As someone who enjoys doing drugs I have put though into the stigmatization
legality and health effects of drugs.

Much like healthcare this is an extremely complex subject.

Decriminalization:

Pros: helps treat addiction as a public health issue. Keeps people out of the
prison industrial complex. Takes the taboo elements out of it for the youth.

Cons: supports the drug trafficking systems that kill people. Strips tax
revenue from governments and money from 9companies who can help treat
addiction. No quality control of drugs - look at tweekers and junkies who
can't afford quality gear. Spread of infectious diseases.

Legalization: Pros: substances can be produced by companies who can compete to
make good quality drugs. Generates tax revenue and stimulates the economy.
Puts a wrench in the cog of the drug trafficking systems - less babies filled
with dope and dead drug mules.

Cons: companies exploit addicts. Drugs get marketed to the wrong people. Drug
revenues go to support more corrupt politicians. Drug addiction becomes
normalized.

It also raises other questions such as what are the goals of our greater
society? Living in a rigid corporate, industrialized society leaves little
time for many people to have recreation time. Being strung out or twisted on
meth can make it hard to keep up with the rigors of life.

I also don't want the construction crew down the street drunk or high on
heroin working the tower crane... downers impare your motor skills. Stimulants
go after your cognitive and social abilities.

Tough topic.

~~~
DanBC
> I also don't want the construction crew down the street drunk or high on
> heroin working the tower crane... downers impare your motor skills.
> Stimulants go after your cognitive and social abilities.

Legalisation of drugs doesn't mean you can drive while under the influence of
heroin, or operate machinery under the influence of amphetamines.

Interestingly, amphetamines are already commonly used in the construction
trade (particularly shop-fitting) to help people work the "crunch" timeframes.

~~~
3131s
This is another crucial but obvious point that somehow gets glossed over -- we
already have laws for criminal negligence, DUI, littering (for the syringes
that everyone is complaining about), disorderly conduct, theft, etc. so there
is no need to worry that the world will collapse into disorderly chaos.

There is zero indication that someone will decide to just do heroin because
it's suddenly legal, and Portugal's recent history indicates that it's
possible to simultaneously lessen addiction rates while moving toward less
criminalization.

------
mnm1
H. L. Mencken identified in Americans “the haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, may be happy.”

A better, more succinct description of the American attitude that created and
still fuels the drug war (amongst other disgusting things) simply does not
exist. You can write a million pages and not get as much clarity as Mencken
does in this one phrase.

------
b_ttercup
"Addiction is a hideous condition, but it’s rare."

Is this a true statement for harder drugs?

~~~
anythingnonidin
Yes.

> Proportion of users that become dependent:

> Tobacco: 32-68%

> Alcohol: 15-23%

> Cannabis: 9% (30% of users with abuse or dependence)

> Cocaine: 17-21%

> Stimulants: 11%

> Anxiolytics (includes benzodiazepines): 9%

> Analgesics i.e. pain relievers: 8%

> Psychedelics: 5%

> Heroin: 23%

> Anthony, Warner, Kessler, 1994; Lopez-Quintero, Pérez de los Cobos, Hasin,
> et al., 2011

[http://www.rethinkpsychedelics.org/](http://www.rethinkpsychedelics.org/)

~~~
dvt
Almost everything is > ~10%. Maybe it's just me, but I would consider 1/10
people getting addicted (i.e. psychologically or physically dependent on the
drug to the point of ruin or death) extremely high.

~~~
bluejekyll
> i.e. psychologically or physically dependent on the drug to the point of
> ruin or death

That's not what dependence means. That could be an outcome. And each of those
drugs has a different potential outcome from long term use.

Take for example the difference between marijuana and cigarettes. Cigarettes
are much more addictive, and have clear evidence of causing lung cancer. It
would seem logical that marijuana would also cause lung cancer, but there is
not enough evidence to say for certain that it does.

So dependence on cigarettes can definitively kill you. Dependence on marijuana
might make you less employable, but it's not certain that it might kill you.

~~~
int_19h
It would seem logical that _smoking_ marijuana would also cause lung cancer.
But there are many other ways in which you can take it.

~~~
dekhn
Why would it seem logical that smoking marijuana would cause lung cancer? That
seems like an overly simplified model for cancer.

Anyway, there is no data showing smoking marijuana causes lung cancer (rather,
there is no high quality data. I'm sure some NIDA-funding scientists have
found otherwise, but it's not considered correct).

The NSF review concluded that, at most, smoking marijuana causes respiratory
problems, but _not_ lung cancer. The only type of cancer positively associated
with marijuana smoking was a form of prostate cancer, which happens to be
easily treated.

~~~
int_19h
Logical in a sense that it's a reasonable initial premise in the absence of
other evidence. Not saying that it's true, but if you don't know if it's true
or not, and you know that smoking other things does give you cancer, that's
the side I'd err on.

~~~
dekhn
nope, the null hypothesis is "smoking something does not give you cancer".
That smoking other things gives you cancer is specific to what they contain.

------
mattbgates
Definitely agree.. if not legalization, decriminalization. You cannot
criminalize someone who is addicted to something. In fact, if were to get
politically correct with treating addicts like criminals and arresting them,
it is probably likely that over 100 million Americans would be in jail for
being addicted to a substance.

I wrote an article on the decriminalization of drugs. The only ones "winning"
the war on drugs are those who have turned it into a business.
[http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/drug-user-
decrimi...](http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/drug-user-
decriminalization/)

------
vinceguidry
I don't think we are ever going to be able to move towards a perfectly-
reasonable public stance towards intoxicants. My personal problem with
marijuana is that I just don't want to smell the shit everywhere.

Your human right to ingest whatever substance you want is going to inevitably
conflict with my right to choose _whether_ I want to ingest it too or not.
We've gone in one policy direction with marijuana, and another entirely with
tobacco. Once you get to legalization, you're inevitably thrust back towards
getting it the heck back out of the public sphere.

Tobacco seems to offer the perfect opportunity to examine the intersection of
human rights way of looking at it with "plain ole'" regulation for greater
social harmony. Tobacco, like it or not, is a mind-altering drug that people
rely on for all sorts of really personal reasons. Our recent push to banish it
is pure and simple classism.

But the people decrying the war on drugs also seem to often nurture a quiet
bigotry against smokers. Smoking is legal, for now at least. But eventually
you won't be able to light up without running afoul of some regulation, God
forbid they start actually enforcing the now-common 50 foot rule from the
entrance of businesses.

So yeah, maybe the focus on tax revenue is probably the best one. I like human
rights as much as the next guy. But I'm gonna turn into a raving classist
asshole the second my neighbor forces me to smell his damn weed through the
shared wall. (yes it's happened) I'm already quietly cheering the slow
banishment of tobacco, cognitive liberty be damned.

Sure, cannabis and tobacco are both smoked, and not all drugs are. But are we
really prepared as a society for a world in which drug use is truly legal? Are
people really forgetting that these things are well and truly dangerous?
Cocaine makes a real mess out of people.

What about synthetic drugs? I don't think you're ever going to be able to
convince a reasonable person that those things should be legal. So there you
go, War on Drugs part 2.

To sum up, legalization isn't really a viable public option. It's a fantasy.

~~~
DanBC
> Our recent push to banish it is pure and simple classism.

No, it's a response to the overwhelming evidence we have that smoking tobacco
is massively harmful.

You seem to be saying that poor people will be disproportionately affected by
smoking cessation laws, and that this is somehow unjust. The fact that poor
people disproportionately smoke is the actual injustice, and is one of the
reasons for the mortality gap between rich and poor.

~~~
vinceguidry
> No, it's a response to the overwhelming evidence we have that smoking
> tobacco is massively harmful.

Pardon me while I guffaw incessantly. That might be the excuse given, but
people really just don't want to smell it all the time.

~~~
3131s
That's a disgusting reason to put people in prison.

~~~
vinceguidry
You don't have to go to prison if you don't break the law.

------
bkeroack
By this definition of win we also "won" the Vietnam war.

------
mcappleton
What if they were legal but every sale had a special tax with the money
specifically going to rehab and for those who need help.

~~~
nefitty
I imagine regulated distribution. Make people have to jump through hoops, get
enrolled in a national registry and take educational classes on the drugs.
Incentivize this route by offering cheap/free, pure drugs so that black market
alternatives become exceedingly less worthwhile. Basically the meta version of
parents allowing their kids to drink under supervision. Society has a chance
to convey and establish norms for use and can intervene if a person falls into
dangerous patterns.

~~~
mythrwy
You don't see potential problems with a national registry of drug users? Like
say, employers, snoopy neighbors and political opponents?

~~~
nefitty
That's a great point. I actually heard of a colleague of mine who was injured
on the job at his previous work. He did construction. They found out he was a
medical marijuana patient and that made him ineligible for re-employment or
workers comp.

------
Piccollo
No drugs are degenerate.

~~~
mullingitover
Not sure if this is an anti-drug statement with poor punctuation...Or pro-drug
legalization.

~~~
Piccollo
It is

~~~
nkozyra
Clears that right up.

