Youthful Experimentation - Part 2

Last week, I wrote a post breaking down an editorial by San Diego State University student Conor Shapiro, who took the scare tactics about drugs he was exposed to in high school, combined them with his political science curriculum, and came to a predictable conclusion that is shared by hardly anyone who actually pays attention to drug policy. Conor found my post and replied in the comments, so I'll post my response to that here. As this is several steps beyond the original thread now, I'll provide the context for each part.

The point wasn't to show that children and adults are the same. You completely missed the point. It is to show that because we cannot fight obesity (also a major problem in adults) we shouldn't allow more access to fatty foods. Similarly, drug users shouldn't be given easier accesibility to their vice.

Conor's original point was trying to compare legalizing drugs to providing fatty foods to children in school cafeterias as a way to demonstrate the danger of legalizing drugs. I explained that his point is completely invalid for a number of reasons, the fact that children and adults are not the same being only one of them. Another reason that the comparison is wrong is because there's a major difference between criminalizing a behavior and trying to discourage it through education and other regulations. Most drug policy reformers want accurate education about drugs and very strict restrictions about where they are sold. But the act of drug use should be legal, just as it should be legal for a child to eat a candy bar. I have no problems with efforts to provide healthier choice for schoolchildren, but for the comparison to make sense, you'd have to be saying that children should be punished for not following the healthy guidelines laid out. They're not, and you're not saying they should be, and I can't imagine too many people would stand for that anyway.

Going back to the comparison between adults and children, the reason the comparison matters is because adults are able to exercise a level of responsibility and accountability above what we expect from children. By criminalizing drugs, we are treating adults like children in the worst way, as people whose decisions can not be trusted by the government. This isn't wrong for moral reasons, it's wrong for practical reasons. The overwhelming majority of adults can and should be trusted with their own decisions. We do more harm than good in the way we second-guess people's drug habits. Marijuana is probably the best example of this. This country has roughly 20 million marijuana users, most of them productive members of society who feel they benefit from it in some way, from either pure enjoyment or spiritual enlightenment. What is accomplished by having the government decide that that choice is a criminal one?

Again you missed the ponint. Did I type that speeders go to jail? No. what I typed was that laws that are good in theory but cannot be enforced practically should still be implemented and enforced (as much as they can be)

The original comparison here was to speeding on the freeway. Conor tried to draw a comparison to speeding by saying that legalizing drugs because you can't stop drug use is the same as legalizing speeding because you can't stop speeding. Again, a number of things are wrong with that comparison. The one I pointed out is that speeders don't go to jail. That's an important one, and it shows that while speeding is illegal, it's not considered criminal in the same way that drug use is. The second major difference is that speeding, when it involves driving recklessly on a public road, is a real danger to others, whereas drug use and small-scale drug distribution is illegal even when it's done privately with only consenting adults and doesn't affect anyone.

Finally, the major reason there's a difference between making speeding illegal and making drug use illegal is that making drug use illegal has led to powerful black markets that generate violence in our streets and make it easier for young people to be exposed to addictive drugs. Making speeding illegal has only created a black market in illegal radar detectors (a subject for another post, perhaps).

The next response from Conor needs a quick intro. I wrote that it's not the duty of the government to protect people from themselves and that for many people, drug use is not even detrimental when done in moderation and with the risks understood. Here was his response:

Wow. Are you serious? One of the primary reasons for government is to protect people from themselves. Aren't necessarily harmful to the individual???!! Cocaine, Heroine, Meth. Nicely done. The limit on the government is too restrained if people can walk aroud intoxicated and (often times commit crimes while on drugs) threaten others because they are no longer in control of their actions.

It's definitely a little alarming to hear someone - especially someone who studies political science - claim that protecting people from themselves is a primary reason for government. By that logic, we could outlaw rock climbing, bungee jumping, deep-sea diving, or any number of activities that involve risk. But Conor doesn't see that because he's been conditioned to believe that all drug use isn't just a risk, but a guarantee of encountering danger. Anybody who's paid attention to what the ONDCP does on a dialy basis knows why this happens. Many Americans certainly agree with Conor on this, although no one who's actually familiar with this stuff does.

As many people probably already know, I've used illegal drugs in my life, even harder drugs than marijuana. I don't believe I was harmed by those drugs in any way. The only exception was a time when I took ecstasy that was probably laced with something, which is actually another indictment of how drug prohibition works that I'll talk about a little later in this post. It was all part of being younger and experiencing life. There are risks involved, but I knew the risks, accepted them, and was willing to bear any consequences. The idea that any type of drug use inherently makes a user unable to control their actions is a myth. There are certainly cases where people have been intoxicated to the point where they don't remember what they're doing, but the overwhelming majority of those incidents involve a legal drug - alcohol. Of all the times when I've looked back and said "crap, I can't believe I did something do dumb," it has always been because of alcohol - never from marijuana, ecstasy, or mushrooms.

As for committing crimes, I'll break that down with the next part, where Conor questions my assertions that government should not dictate morality and that the black market and the people who tend to get swept up in it are a major reason for our current societal decline:

Once again, wow. Whose right is it to promote morality then? God? Religion? Those seemed to have worked great over the years. Geez, it's as if you have no understanding of history. Of course government dictates morality...they call them laws. As far as the black market causing crimes..most of these people are poor and will commit crimes regardless of legality. Just look at the death penalty serving as a deterrant. (IT DOESN'T)

I'll give some props to him for recognizing that the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent. I'm not sure if I'd quite made that realization at his age. Other than that, though, he demonstrates a clear lack of understanding over why there's so much drug-related crime in this country. I'm not entirely sure who he means when he says "these people." It's certainly true that most people who end up dealing drugs are those without much money or opportunity, but it's absolutely incorrect to say that they'd still be committing crimes if they weren't part of an illegal organization that had to compete for customers, maintain their supply chains, and avoid arrest all at the same time. From alcohol prohibition in the 1920s to drug prohibition today, the amount of crime tied to drugs has always been a result of the nature of the black market rather than the willingness of the individuals in the market to engage in illegal activity. I won't accuse Conor of racism, because I'm not clear on the context of what he meant by "these people," but the misperception he buys into is easier for many in our society to buy into because many of those who end up on the street corner selling drugs are young black males. The idea that they are more willing to commit crimes is already something that exists in our collective consciousness.

As for his first point on who dictates morality, it's simply not the role of government to dictate (or more importantly, to enforce) morality. This is one of the proud achievements of this country's founding. Religion has been, and will continue to be, the source of most people's morality. What our founding fathers realized (correctly) is that in order for government to truly protect the rights of its citizens, it must separate itself from the role that religion plays in attempting to coerce behavior from its followers. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are set up in such a way as to allow the people to fight back against a government that tries to do this. What we've seen in the war on drugs is that certain drug habits are deemed "immoral" by the government. The way that this has been maintained has been by convincing people that drug use does harm others by its very riskiness, a lie that Conor believes because he hasn't discovered otherwise yet. And the evidence of the damage done by this attempt by government to dictate morality is all around us, just as it was during alcohol prohibition, when people were convinced that it was impossible to drink alcohol responsibly, and therefore it should be banned.

I then mentioned how there's bipartisan agreement on this issue:

Right. Which is why over eighty percent of the country agrees with my point of view. And no substantive repeal of current laws is even brought up in the US House or Senate. Your way out of touch.

I'd love to know where he got the eighty percent figure. I don't doubt that the number of people nationwide who think all current illegal drugs should remain illegal outnumber those who think that we need to move towards legalization, but around 35% of Americans believe that marijuana should be legal. What's more interesting is to look online at the disparity. For people who study these issues closely, there isn't even a debate any more. I've yet to see a single blog anywhere (not run by people whose paychecks depend on drugs remaining illegal) arguing for continuing the drug war. Yet there are numerous blogs authored by drug policy experts around the world, all arguing for some form of legalization, whether it's just marijuana, or more complete legalization. The reality is that opposition to legalization exists in such strong numbers because the misinformation campaign that has made it so difficult for Conor to understand this issue with any depth has been very successful in convincing others that drug use is an existential threat to this country, even while the experts are in full agreement that they most certainly are not.

They don't have the right to do with their bodies. You want to live in a libertarian society? Trans fat will kill. NY City banned it. Alcohol and tobacco kill. Government places restrictions on it. Part of the government's role is to promote self-preservation. (Of it's constituents). That should be obvious.

What else should be obvious is that despite the fact that alcohol kills, we don't ban it. I hope Conor at least knows the history of alcohol prohibition, but if not, I'll fill him in. It started with a movement in the 1800s that became successful right after WWI when the Constitution was amended to allow a nationwide ban of alcohol. Soon after, underground sources of liquor sprang up and supplied the country's drinkers, who were obviously not deterred by the law. Speakeasies were opened. Federal agents were tasked with destroying the industry, but could barely make a dent. The illegal alcohol industry grew and grew until the number of drinkers started approaching the levels from before prohibition. This phenomenon had a number of negative side-effects. Illegally produced moonshine was made without quality controls so the number of people killed by drinking went up. Crime and corruption in inner-cities became bigger problems than ever, with men like Al Capone building massive organized crime groups with the profits from the alcohol black market. Children were drinking more as the supply remained underground in people's homes.

All of these problems happen today because of drug prohibition. No one is saying that government can't put restrictions on how drugs are sold. What drug law reformers and legalization advocates are saying is that banning these behaviors only creates bigger problems than the one that would exist from just letting adults make their own choices. As for the trans fats, I find that to be a terrible comparison. Trans fats exist because of how businesses have come about in their methods to create food items for the public. Trans fats do not exist because people knowingly desire trans fats and demand them in their foods. As long as consumers aren't demanding trans fats, I don't see that ban as a way for government to impose morality. I could be wrong on this (are there people out there who have to have their trans fats?), but that's the important distinction that needs to be made. Government can regulate commerce and make rules about how and where things are sold, but when it tries to coerce moral behavior is when it opens the door to disaster.

I then dared him to come out in favor of banning alcohol since that was the logic path he went down:

Not at all what I suggested. However, alcohol is a societal norm, if not a staple. It kills thousands of people per year. I would love to prohibit alcohol, but it's completely inpractical, we both know that. I'll stick to what can continue to be illegal.

But the prohibition of marijuana and other drugs have been shown to be just as impractical as the prohibition of alcohol was. Empirical evidence from countries that have already decriminalized marijuana back this up. Marijuana use in Holland is much lower than in the United States or the UK where it remains illegal. Alcohol prohibition didn't fail because we went too far, it failed because drug prohibitions don't work for any substances for which there's a demand.

Next I challenged him to give me the figure for what it would cost to win the war on drugs:

It can't be won. It can be fought and reduced, that's the point, and to save lives in the process. Bush and his cronies have cut funding and manpower. I suggest more, but do not have an exact figure.

and how to make it work:

Simple. More money towards the fight. More inspection of int'l trade ships and flights. More police and DEA agents.

These two parts are good to discuss simultaneously. The problem with defining how much it costs to succeed in the war on drugs (without doing some form of legalization) is that it's never been done by just spending more money. The only way it can be successful (again, without doing some form of legalization) is to greatly restrict people's freedoms. This has been done in a number of places, like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That's a path that I'm sure Conor would not advocate. So instead he can only advocate a plan that has already overseen a steady rise in drug use since the modern war on drugs began in the early 1970s.

In my original post, I pointed to how Switzerland is one of several places to implement a legalization plan that achieved all of Conor's goals (fewer overdoses, less crime, fewer new users). For a little more background, it's good to study the history of heroin addiction in the United States and Britain to really understand why we now have such an intractable problem with it today. Heroin was invented by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical firm, and was easily obtained until it was banned in 1914 during the temperance movement (which also eventually brought us alcohol prohibition). Meanwhile, in Britain, it remained legal to obtain it until the 1950s. In the time inbetween, however, heroin addiction rates in the United States were much higher than they were in Britain, even though it was legal to obtain there. The lesson here isn't necessarily that prohibition drove the increase in use (although it's certainly possible), the lesson is that drug use rates aren't affected by a drugs legality as much as one would think. Drug use rates often rise and fall on their own due to various factors. That said, I do believe that the part of the reason why Zurich saw a massive decrease in the number of new heroin users since allowing doctors to prescribe it is because heroin addicts are on full display, and seen as pathetic losers, rather than as rebellious outlaws.

Conor wasn't convinced and he didn't quite understand the Swiss program either:

One example doesn't sell me. After all aren't American people addicts? There is no way giving unrestricted access will prevent more new users.

People weren't given unrestricted access, they simply allowed doctors to treat heroin addicts as medical patients who needed to get their fix, instead of criminals engaging in criminal behavior. The two immediate benefits of this approach were obvious; there was fewer crime as addicts didn't have to steal to buy from dealers and there were less overdoses as the heroin given to addicts was being handled by medical professionals and was very unlikely to be laced with anything, as often happens to drugs in the black market. Vancouver, which also opened a safe injection site, but doesn't allow for doctors to actually prescribe the heroin, has seen a drop in overdoses, but not as much of a drop in crime. It's becoming very clear how to be successful in waging a battle against drug addiction, but the first step in doing so is that you must move away from the notion that drug use is a criminal act.

He then responds to a statement I made about wiping out the black market:

Once again, it is goverment's right and role to promote good morality. The only way to fully eliminate it would be to completely legalize it. Not the solution.

This is nothing more than stubbornness over the realities of this issue. According to Conor, we can eliminate the black markets by legalizing drugs, but it's not the solution because the government would be failing in its role to promote good morality. This incompatibility between government effectiveness and the desire for those in power to dictate morality is what compelled this country's founders to lay out their vision for what government should and should not do. We need to revisit those lessons as a society, and take a long look at what the war on drugs has wrought.

And then, out of nowhere, he says:

I advocate decriminalization of marijuana and possibly other hard drugs.

Huh? What the heck was all that other stuff about? Then, in response to a question about making tobacco illegal, he says this:

Absolutely. If it is blatantly and intentionally harmful, it should not be legal. I didn't say a black market will be created via a surgeon general's warning. You missed the point as usual. The point is, laws are implemented every day and new ones are constantly coming up combating the sale and usage of tobacco products. You can hardly smoke in certain states now. Only in your own home. There will be many, many more laws, which will eventually lead to abolition.

Yes, you read that correctly. This little dipshit is advocating for cigarettes to be abolished because they are harmful.

Anyways, I have to go to class. Something you might want to attend. I'll get back to you with more from your pathetically weak refutations.

He does return, and he's still as stupid as he was before he went to class:

Moving right along.

Don't feel sorry for me as I don't need a blog to express my thoughts, unlike you. People dying as a result of drugs is relevant to my argument. Quite relevant actually. And although I don't have statistics on deaths and diseases for hard drugs, I can only fathom that they're not documented because they're illegal. And that's a good thing, because those numbers would make your heart hurt.

Well, I do have statistics on death and diseases for hard drugs. In Vancouver, after the safe injection site opened, and drug users could take drugs without the threat of arrest and supervised by medical professionals, the amount of deaths plummeted. After decriminalizing heroin use in the 1990s, Frankfurt saw a drop of 80% in the number of deaths over that decade. Sydney, Australia has seen a 92% decrease over six years after opening up their heroin safe injection site. That's just deaths. The success in HIV-prevention that has been achieved through programs like these have been just as remarkable.

Here in the United States on the other hand, hundreds of heroin users have died over the past year as a result of heroin laced with fentanyl. In a system where addicts are able to get heroin from doctors, with pharmacists and other professionals maintaining and overseeing the supply, these tragedies don't happen. This is all very simple and well-understood by the people who follow it closely. Prohibition adds to the body count from drug addiction. It doesn't limit the damage, it compounds it.

The next paragraph was an attempt to explain how cancer deaths would rise if drugs were legalized:

No, I'm saying quite clearly that the number of drug related deaths would increase with increased availability. Pretty straight forward. I can correlate availability to usage. Kind of like I can compare fast food in indian reservations to rise in diabetes and obesity.

As I explained above, this claim is laughable. Alcohol prohibition proved this. The decreased availability of alcohol led to more deaths from people drinking homemade alcohol with various impurities and toxins. The illegality of consuming alcohol also made people more reluctant to go to the hospital for treatment. I do believe that for some drugs, greater availability may lead to greater usage. But the fact that the behavior is not deemed criminal will also remove a lot of the danger associated with many forms of drug use. Conor believes, as it was likely drummed into his head in high school, that all drug use is bad, and therefore more drug use = more bad. We know that it's far from being so simple.

I then talked about the effect of "making drugs boring," a concept once explained very well by a much smarter California student. Here's Conor's response:

Nice monologue. Facts are, the most popular drug of choice is alcohol. And it's legal. I guess some things never lose their "Glamor."

Alcohol was the most popular drug of choice during prohibition as well. In fact, alcohol has always been the most popular drug in this country. It's not because it's glamorous per se, it's because it's socially acceptable and people enjoy it. But that's beside the point. Some drugs are glamorized by the fact that those who do them are seen as rebels. In Holland, marijuana has been basically legal for over 30 years. Dutch rates of marijuana use are lower than ours, and the coffeeshops in Amsterdam tend to be filled with as many foreigners as locals. Why? Because the fact that marijuana is legal there makes it kind of boring. Teenagers in America who have the urge to rebel see marijuana as a way to do so much more than a Dutch teen ever would.

I then brought up the dangers to children from prohibition which yielded some cynicism:

I never typed that this is how you cure addiction. Way to bring children in to support your argument. You would make Christopher Buckley blush. And actually, the point is not that addicts can't do that, it's that non-addicts may begin to use.

Prohibitionists and others who are skeptical of legalizing drugs really get offended at accusations that prohibition is harmful for children. It's one of the basic tenets of the war on drugs that the reason that it's necessary is to keep children safe. But this has never been the case. Keeping the massive supply chain underground keeps it in people's houses and exposes it to children way more than if it were handled like alcohol or other prescription drugs. And since laws have tended to be more lenient on minors, drug organizations have always found them useful for assuming the risk of being caught.

I then made the point that a person who's never done drugs before is not as likely to start if they have to obtain it from a pharmacist and fill out a registration form. He responded:

First off, I'm all for drug rehabilitation. I'm a liberal for crying out loud. Whether I've tried the donut or not is not what's the point.

The donut reference had to do with whether having had a delicious donut in the past would make you more likely to get a donut again. Of course it does. That's absolutely the point. Once you know what something tasted like and you enjoy it, you'll be more likely to get it again. And when some people eat too many donuts and put on some weight, they stop eating donuts and exercise.

Temptation is. Classic Adam and Eve. (I'm non-religious) Do I think a drugged up society liked the US will experiment with new illegal drugs if all they have to do is fill out a registration and fork out a few bucks. Absolutely! And I'm afraid of that possibility.

But those people are doing drugs already. People who would walk into a pharmacy, fill out a form, and try a drug they've never tried before aren't prevented by prohibition either. In fact, many people become even more risk-averse because of it. The other problem, again, is that when the supply of drugs is kept underground using human couriers and with supplies in people's homes, way more potential new users are exposed to it.

And then I brought up the point that drug dealers don't ID:

This is where you lose all common sense. Alcohol is doled out to young kids by older kids, everyone knows this. If you need proof check your local 7/11 on a weekend night around 11PM. You'll see kids asking strangers to buy them booze. With legality of lethal drugs, the same practice would occur and the youth would not only be exploited, but can die from lack of restrain from the experimentation. You failed that one pretty badly.

I realize that teenagers are usually capable of getting older people to buy them alcohol, but that's certainly not a case of those teenagers being "exploited". Age limits are just one obstacle, but it's one more obstacle than exists for illegal drugs. If there are problems with kids buying certain drugs late at night, you impose limits on the hours of the day drugs are sold. Or you can station an officer outside the store. You can't do any of these things to protect your kids if some drug dealer lives next door. As I'd mentioned before, many surveys have shown that its easier for American teenagers to get marijuana than alcohol.

I'm not even sure what this was a response to:

Once again, not to worry about me (I know you're a worrier) but I have taken many a class on addiction and pharmocology in addition to learning from my mother who is a nurse. I know ritalin and cocaine aren't similar. THAT'S NOT THE POINT!! The point is, how is it (if these drugs became legal) that one would need a perscription for something like Paxil. Cocaine wouldn't need one. Heroine wouldn't need one. But Paxil would ??!! Even you surely must see the absurdity of that.

Whether or not to require a prescription for any use of addictive drugs is a topic of debate in the drug reform world. My personal view is that for chemically addictive drugs like meth or heroin, you should be able to obtain it from a pharmacy, even without a doctor's prescription, but you should have to register as a recreational user. Other drug law reformers disagree, saying that one should be able to obtain it without even registering, possibly just by ensuring ID and verifying across a do-not-sell list of known individuals who've committed crimes. I'm sure there are a number of other ideas, but that's where the debate is happening now. Few people who have been studying this disagree with the basic notion that the best way to treat heroin addiction is through a medical environment, often by prescribing heroin or other opiates for users who are simply not able to quit without some form of treatment. This is hard for a lot of people to accept, but it just works better than locking people up and expecting them to be driven from their addiction through the fear of punishment. Many people can't defeat their addictions either way, let alone on the prison route.

Oh, and cocaine and ritalin are actually very similar.

He continues to misunderstand my point about doctors handling addictive drugs:

You just hit Mars. You're in outer space lol. What it means is if prescriptions for paxil, ritalin, etc.. remained after legalization of lethal drugs, our logic there is irrational. Unless the pro-argument wanted doctors to prescribe these drugs. But then they wouldn't be legal. Your argument is flawed.

Prescription drugs aren't legal? Huh? By this point in the original article, Conor was making little sense, and I was having trouble comprehending the points he was trying to make. I think the fact that he considers prescription drugs to be illegal explains a lot now. Anyway, the issue of taking prescription drugs recreationally is a good way to understand this. We know that lots of prescription drugs are abused and many others are just taken recreationally. People (sometimes fat toads with right-wing radio shows) are able to obtain large amounts of drugs for either their own addictions or to sell. As a result, doctors are scared to subscribe pain medications for fear that the DEA will go after them, and pain patients with legitimate needs for the drugs go without. Drugs like Xanax and Vicodin are used by people who have no real need for them without a prescription. Is it smart to let people use these drug recreationally without a prescription in order to keep doctors from always being under suspicion of contributing to the gray market? That's a real debate within the community of people looking at drug law reform. I think it's smart to treat them the same as other drugs that you can become chemically addicted to over time. But no one out there is advising we make them illegal.

His babbling intensified:

It means the pro-argument is moronic. Because no doctor would prescribe cocaine/meth to his patients, unless doctor means high schooler in Mars.??

Nope, even here on earth, doctors prescribe both cocaine and meth for various uses.

I then compared his mindset that "we can't throw in the towel" to the belief that the Iraq War can still be won:

I disagree with the Iraq War.

That's good to hear, but Conor's idea that we can't just give up in the war on drugs is similar to the idiocy unleashed this evening by David Frum on Real Time with Bill Maher. Frum talked about how we can't leave Iraq because there will be sectarian violence if we leave. When it comes to treating drug addiction, you first have to accept the fact that substance abuse is a part of the human condition. Human beings naturally seek escapes from world. As people enter adulthood and have to shoulder great responsibilities, they discover the escapes that work for them. People who end up in particularly difficult situations in life are prone to choose escapes that consume them and begin to cause harm. The belief that we can never step away from the war on drugs because drug addiction will get worse ignores the fact that prohibition itself is what tends to put people into the difficult situations in life that they can't escape from. And that's not much different than the mindset that we can't leave Iraq because the Iraqis need us to keep the peace when the reality is that we've become the major part of why there's so much violence in the first place.

Almost done:

Move to Switzerland. There's some advice.

How about we learn from them instead.

Well I guess if over the cliff there is rationality than I'm heading in the right direction. Thanks for your refutation. It needs work.

Looking forward to his response.