Glenn Beck

[Phi for All]

If it's accurate. Asking people whether they're addicted doesn't really strike me as the best way of determining whether they are.

I thought they based it off "Have you ever tried X?" vs "How often do you use X now?" The ones who still did the drug one or more times a month were considered regular users. AFAICT, they didn't ask anything about addiction, just use.

 

It's also in line with personal experience and reason. I know lots of people who've tried various drugs but never became regular users. And the fact that our society still operates despite these "highly addictive drugs" being commonly available tells me our overall character is capable of handling them.

 

Alcohol is legal though, and I'll bet there are a lot more than 4% of the population who use it once a month or more. I'm sure marketing and encouragement would make the numbers for drugs quite different. From bascule's article about Portugal, I gather they don't jail people for small amounts of drugs, and offer counseling instead, but trafficking and manufacturing is still illegal. This is quite different from legalizing drugs and letting the market make them readily available. On the other hand, while the Portugal approach keeps more people out of prison, it doesn't seem to address the black market criminal exploitation problem.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Phi for All
additional thoughts

[ParanoiA]

Does is strike anyone else as odd and cruel to essentially make it dangerous to acquire a product? It's not like we're talking about whether or not a product should be accessible, because it's accessible either way. We're effectively kicking the town drunk. It's not bad enough that he's an alcoholic. Oh no. We're actually creating fatal danger for him to negotiate to acquire his drug - which we also know he will do since we understand addiction.

 

And while jryan makes a valid point about knowing about this "government manufactured" danger and choosing to allow yourself exposure to it - I have to wonder how that logic would play out if the government started building lava pits on children's playgrounds using that same appeal to known dangers in reponse to public outcry. "Sorry. You knew the lava pit was there ahead of time, so no, we see no reason to remove it - and it was all your fault for getting burned".

 

Not my best example, but surely we can realize some culpability on the part of our laws for creating a danger that isn't necessary since it isn't effective at achieving its mission statement.

 

Think of all the innocent people killed by drug gangs, the proverbial drive-by's, neighborhoods dominated by criminals getting rich off of selling drugs and keeping the residents living in fear - disturbingly similar to war lords in 3rd world war torn countries.

 

That's on us. We're culpable for that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Does is strike anyone else as odd and cruel to essentially make it dangerous to acquire a product? It's not like we're talking about whether or not a product should be accessible, because it's accessible either way. We're effectively kicking the town drunk. It's not bad enough that he's an alcoholic. Oh no. We're actually creating fatal danger for him to negotiate to acquire his drug - which we also know he will do since we understand addiction.

 

A great column from the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/melanie_reid/article7083395.ece

 

The American pharmacologist Ronald Siegel has described intoxication as the fourth strongest irrepressible human desire after food, sleep and sex, and few would challenge him — particularly on the miserable evidence of our relationship with that other well-known legal high, alcohol.

[ParanoiA]

That is a good piece, thanks Cap'n.

 

The “perversity of prohibition”, Measham found, is that reduction in supply results in drug users turning to unfamiliar and under-researched chemicals — perhaps more dangerous than the last one.

 

 

And to take this further, it also results in drug users turning to a dangerous criminal environment as well.

 

Really, regardless of where we stand on legalization, we should at least acknowledge that we're not following through on the job. It's illegal. Ok, fine. Then finish it and wipe it the hell out. We're either doing a half-assed job of enforcement, or it's unenforceable. And that's what creates the fatally dangerous market that is so dominant and prolific to the point whole cultures are stereotypically defined by them.

 

So, probably even more important than the legal question is the enforcement ultimatum, like my dad always used to say: shit or get off the pot.

 

If you want it to be illegal, then really, actually, for real, do something about it - more than just meaningless pledges at election time to add more police officers. Do it, or don't. Half doing it and half failing is worse than doing it all or giving up on it all.

 

This hit and miss, inconsistent, ineffective prosecution of the drug war is failing for either end - it's the worst of our options.

[Phi for All]

This hit and miss, inconsistent, ineffective prosecution of the drug war is failing for either end - it's the worst of our options.

It fails for either end, but is a complete success for those who have positioned themselves in the middle. If you build/maintain prisons, if you need a boogeyman to scare bucks out of the taxpayers, if you're near the top of the supply chain and practically immune to prosecution, if you need a never-ending supply of power and money and fear, then the current war on drugs is just perfect for you.

[Pangloss]

I thought they based it off "Have you ever tried X?" vs "How often do you use X now?" The ones who still did the drug one or more times a month were considered regular users. AFAICT, they didn't ask anything about addiction, just use.

 

Fair enough, but still qualitative.

 

"How many cigarettes do you smoke per day, Mr. President?"

[Phi for All]

Fair enough, but still qualitative.

 

"How many cigarettes do you smoke per day, Mr. President?"

I don't see how that's a qualitative measure. It's "Have you ever (yes or no)", and "How often do you take them now?". The ones who take them once or more a month are considered regular users. Strictly quantitative; no mention of addiction, can you quit, do you love them more than your kids.

 

If Mr. President smokes 4 cigarettes a day and the measure you're using for regular smokers is 5, then he isn't a regular smoker.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Phi for All

[Pangloss]

And if he actually smokes 10?

 

Sure, it's giving us numbers. I'm just saying it would be nice to have a physiological measurement of addiction. Perhaps that's asking too much -- maybe that's even part of the problem here.

 

But you know what, even if Sullum's right those numbers are actually pretty bad. 4.2% (the addiction rate he quoted for crack) of the entire population of the United States is 12,600,000 people. Half, a quarter, even a tenth that number of newly unemployable Americans would have a massive impact on the economy (the Obama administration on Friday was cheering the net addition of 162,000 jobs).

 

At any rate, a link to a quote from a book that I can't read or even see the original reference for doesn't help a whole lot. Without the study Sullum claims to be referencing (or even access to his book) I can't look at his claim (nor can anyone else, hint hint). So I did a little digging, and this 1996 Harvard study seems to show much higher numbers than the addiction rate Sullum reports. On the plus side, it does seem to confirm that most people don't become "instantly addicted", the way the media has been suggesting.

 

For example, in the U.S. in 1988, 90% of those who had sampled an illicit drug (e.g., opiates, stimulants, and cannabis) were not addicted. (Thirty-six per cent had at one time sampled an illicit drug (Tables 1 and 5, Kandel, 1992.)) Similarly, according to the Household Survey (Clark & Hilton, 1991), 80% of those who consume one or more alcoholic drinks a year report no adverse effects. Thus, for most people, experience with an addictive drug did not lead to addiction.

 

Second, there is a population for whom drug use leads to serious problems but not addiction. The technical term for this group is "substance abusers." They use drugs frequently, incur costs for doing so, but do not experience withdrawal symptoms or show signs of compulsive use. In reference to alcohol, Gordis (1990, p. xviii) used the criterion of self-control to distinguish between these two groups. He makes the comparison that alcohol abusers "are responsible for their behavior; they can modify their alcohol consumption patterns in response to simple explanations and warnings," while alcoholics (alcohol addicts) suffer from a "disease."

 

Dependent males outnumber dependent females by about 1.7:1 (Anthony & Helzer, 1991). For both groups, dependency is highest in the twenties and then declines sharply to negligible levels. For instance, the likelihood of dependence for those 65 and over is from 40 to 50 times less than for those in their twenties (Anthony & Helzer, 1991; Kandel, 1992). Marital status is correlated with drug use. For married men who were neither separated nor divorced from their wife, the lifetime prevalence of addiction to an illicit drug was 3.6%. In contrast, for men who lived with a woman but were unmarried, the lifetime prevalence was about 8 times as great, 30.2% (Anthony & Helzer, 1991; Kandel, 1992). Historical factors also influence addiction. In 1978, 10.8% of high school seniors smoked marijuana daily. In 1989, 3.0% of high school seniors smoked marijuana daily (Kandel, 1992).

 

This bit from the same study was interesting:

 

American servicemen in Vietnam had easy access to high quality, inexpensive opiates, including heroin. A team of researchers, headed by Robins, interviewed a large number of these men to determine the extent of their drug use while in Vietnam and afterwards (Robins, Davis, & Goodwin, 1974; Robins, Helzer, Hesselbrock, & Wish, 1980). Prior to Vietnam, about 1% of the sample had used opiates regularly. In Vietnam, this number jumped to 20%, with about one-sixth injecting opiates and the rest either sniffing or smoking opiates. However, upon return to the United States, the vast majority (88%) did not resume regular opiate use during a three year follow-up period. Importantly, those who stopped reported withdrawal symptoms and had access to heroin. They stated that they knew where to obtain heroin and had occasionally (but not regularly) resumed use. Rather, what led Vietnam veterans to stop using opiates, according to the interviews, was the "sordid" atmosphere surrounding heroin use, high prices, and the fear of arrest.

 

Possibly the Vietnam veterans were not really addicts, but drug abusers or simply recreational users. However, highly dependent men, who failed a publicized urine test at departure because they did not stop using, had re-addiction rates of no more than 14% (Robins, Helzer, & Davis, 1975). Similarly, those who injected heroin regularly in Vietnam did not typically resume heavy opiate use at home.

 

It is informative to compare the Vietnam veteran relapse rates to those of heroin addicts in the United States who either entered treatment voluntarily or were ordered to do so by the courts. In an extensive survey, Brecher (1972) estimated that relapse rates were close to 90%, just about the opposite of what was found for those addicted in Vietnam. Thus, local conditions can have a dramatic effect on both the acquisition and the elimination of addiction.

 

The suggestion of the italicized bit being that withdrawal lies in the future of every regular user. That's unfortunate but perhaps not too surprising.

 

Here's a link to the above study, which again is from 1996 (perhaps Sullum's data is more recent):

http://geneheyman.com/pdf/Resolving%20the%20contradictions%20of%20addiction.pdf

(warning: pdf!)

Edited April 4, 2010 by Pangloss

[Phi for All]

But you know what, even if Sullum's right those numbers are actually pretty bad. 4.2% (the addiction rate he quoted for crack) of the entire population of the United States is 12,600,000 people. Half, a quarter, even a tenth that number of newly unemployable Americans would have a massive impact on the economy (the Obama administration on Friday was cheering the net addition of 162,000 jobs).

Gah, you're applying the percentage to the whole population?! Are you seriously saying that if crack were legal, *everybody* would try it so Sullum's 4.2% addiction rate would kick in? Do you really judge our national character that poorly? Or are you smoking crack?!

[Pangloss]

Actually if you re-read that quote you'll see that I suggested that if even 1/10th of the population tried crack and that subsequently 4.2% of that figure became addicted then we would be looking at a serious economic disruption. That would be something like 1,260,000 million people, which would be around a 3.5X increase over Sullum's quoted current addiction figure of 359,000.

 

It doesn't seem unreasonable to speculation that one person in ten might try crack cocaine if it were legalized.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Gah, you're applying the percentage to the whole population?! Are you seriously saying that if crack were legal, *everybody* would try it so Sullum's 4.2% addiction rate would kick in? Do you really judge our national character that poorly? Or are you smoking crack?!

 

Yeah that's not exactly sound statistics there. I, for one, never intend to try crack ever.

 

Actually if you re-read that quote you'll see that I suggested that if even 1/10th of the population tried crack and that subsequently 4.2% of that figure became addicted then we would be looking at a serious economic disruption.

 

You really think 1 out of every 10 people has any interest in trying crack? I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 frequent marijuana smokers (for whom legality has little concern) has any interest in ever trying crack, let alone the US population as a whole.

 

Cocaine? Maybe. Crack? No.

[Pangloss]

If you say so. Put a legal crack dealer in the local mall and publicize that 4.2% addiction rate and I think the number will be quite a lot HIGHER than 10%.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And, of course, I bet the addiction rate would be far different if everyone were trying it, vs. just people who have already used various drugs trying it.

[Pangloss]

And, of course, I bet the addiction rate would be far different if everyone were trying it, vs. just people who have already used various drugs trying it.

 

That's an interesting point.

 

I will readily agree that the numbers I used are very broad. You could, for example, eliminate those under the age of, say, 11, as just being too young to be interested even on a dare. Also the study I linked above said that those above the age of 65 had (iirc) an almost negligible addiction rate. That would eliminate maybe 10-20% (?) of the 300-mil total, and of course the over-65 crowd (thankfully) grows every day.

 

My point was just that even a conservative estimate suggests a very large increase in addiction once a drug becomes legalized, with a significant impact on the economy. We're all connected, right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Now, if drugs were legalized, it would also be easy to subsidize pharmaceutical companies to come up with aids to break addiction, just like nicotine patches.

 

I wonder how feasible that is.

[bascule]

If you say so. Put a legal crack dealer in the local mall and publicize that 4.2% addiction rate and I think the number will be quite a lot HIGHER than 10%.

 

You really think 1 out of every 10 Americans wants to try crack? And seriously, you think crack dealers are going to open up shop in malls?

 

The real-world situation in Portgual serves as an excellent counterexample to your crack-sold-in-malls hypothetical

[Pangloss]

You really think 1 out of every 10 Americans wants to try crack? And seriously, you think crack dealers are going to open up shop in malls?

 

The real-world situation in Portgual serves as an excellent counterexample to your crack-sold-in-malls hypothetical

 

I don't see how. It says that drugs are on the decline in that country, but they didn't legalize drugs -- it doesn't say anything about crack stores in shopping malls. It says they removed the criminal penalties and replaced them with therapy and counseling, etc. Where's the commercialization?

 

Also, that story says that 10.6% of 9th-graders in Portugal are still trying illegal drugs.

 

But sure, that kind of approach combined with laws against opening crack stores in shopping malls (etc) might prevent mass numbers of people trying them. It's also maintaining them as illegal, so it doesn't seem to jive with the progressive and libertarian agendas on drugs. They might go along with something like that for a while, but then they'd press for "real" legalization. For them it's about ideological concern, not practical realities.

 

The left loves to tell us that we are all connected, and that when 31 million Americans don't get health care it hurts us all. But when it comes to the harm from millions of Americans who might turn to drug use were it to become fully legal (and correspondingly commercialized), they become all "mind your own business" and "get off my lawn" on you. So much for the global village.

 

But hey, don't despair. I know how you could have your legal drugs tomorrow:

Step 1: Find a way to make it cost a trillion dollars.

Step 2: Watch Congress fall all over itself to "reform the drug war".

Step 3: Break ground on your new crack store.

[bascule]

Also, that story says that 10.6% of 9th-graders in Portugal are still trying illegal drugs.

 

It says...

 

between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%

 

Omitting context, are we?

 

it doesn't seem to jive with the progressive and libertarian agendas on drugs. They might go along with something like that for a while, but then they'd press for "real" legalization.

 

Yes, the slippery slope, they will slip down it...

 

But when it comes to the harm from millions of Americans who might turn to drug use were it to become fully legal (and correspondingly commercialized), they become all "mind your own business" and "get off my lawn" on you.

 

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that certain changes in drug policy will lead to increased use?

[Mr Skeptic]

But sure, that kind of approach combined with laws against opening crack stores in shopping malls (etc) might prevent mass numbers of people trying them. It's also maintaining them as illegal, so it doesn't seem to jive with the progressive and libertarian agendas on drugs. They might go along with something like that for a while, but then they'd press for "real" legalization. For them it's about ideological concern, not practical realities.

 

Rehabilitation is better then throwing them in jail for it, for sure. It's definitely a reasonable compromise.

[Pangloss]

it doesn't seem to jive with the progressive and libertarian agendas on drugs. They might go along with something like that for a while' date=' but then they'd press for "real" legalization.

[/quote']

Yes, the slippery slope, they will slip down it...

 

Nope, that's an observation that special interest groups often pursue agendas in stages, getting what they can in the short term in order to move towards a long-term goal.

 

But hey, if people say they honestly just want a compromise and nothing more, more power to them. I haven't formed an opinion on that particular idea yet, but what you said earlier (and Mr. Skeptic says above) makes reasonable sense at first blush.

 

 

Do you have any evidence to support your claims that certain changes in drug policy will lead to increased use?

 

I haven't made any claims.

 

I asked some pretty good questions above, or so it seems to me, and the post from Mr. Skeptic above seems to take it in an interesting direction. Anybody want to suggest some further answers?

 

 

1) What kinds of restrictions on selling locations might be necessary?

 

2) Is it really unlikely that the pro-legalization crowd would choose not to be involved in the debate over restrictions on selling locations? (And what about online purchasing?)

 

3) Given a compromise on selling locations, is it really likely that there would be NO increase in "trials", and therefore addiction numbers?

[Phi for All]

Portugal has obviously compromised in a way that favors the individual who holds only enough drugs for personal use, but leaves the laws in place to prosecute dealers and manufacturers. This keeps prison populations free of drugs-only inmates but still leaves the criminal element in charge of distribution.

 

I don't see a way to take the criminal element away without making all drugs legal, which inevitably leads to commercialization. I think open distribution and marketing techniques would increase the usage of many drugs, but liability issues and regulations would make them safer, if not less addictive.

 

Perhaps drugs could be treated like fireworks. It's OK to make them and sell them, without advertising (other than signs on your place of business), but if you're caught with them in a non-designated usage area you'll be heavily fined. If you can't pay the fine, you join a work detail that fixes up damages done by drug-users.

[Sisyphus]

Slippery slope arguments are not valid as logical necessities, but it's also simple reality that measures are easier to accomplish the less they upset the status quo, so any compromise does make it easier to later pursue stronger measures.

 

So yes, I think that if, say, cannabis were legalized, there would be people pushing for less restrictions and more legalizations, and they'd have a somewhat easier time. Similarly, the people who would like to see alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc. made illegal would have a somewhat harder time.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think the best solution is this: Make drugs legal to buy, sell, and use in private. Tax the drug sales, and use the money to fund rehabilitation and education programs. The tax should be low enough that it is not worth it to sell illegally to avoid it. Have it be illegal to sell on public property, and to advertise or "push" drugs.

[bascule]

I haven't made any claims.

 

What?

 

But when it comes to the harm from millions of Americans who might turn to drug use were it to become fully legal (and correspondingly commercialized)

 

That's not a claim? You're just tossing that one out there as a hypothetical that you completely absolve yourself of? The word "might" means it's not actually a claim?

 

Perhaps I should talk about the millions of conservatives who might rise up against the government in armed insurrection...

[Pangloss]

I don't see a way to take the criminal element away without making all drugs legal, which inevitably leads to commercialization. I think open distribution and marketing techniques would increase the usage of many drugs, but liability issues and regulations would make them safer, if not less addictive.

 

Exactly, thank you.

 

I think you're probably right that some sort of enforcement would have to take place -- that's the part about Portugal's plan (at least as stated in that article) that didn't make much sense. You'd have to at least prosecute people who don't undergo treatment, and doesn't that just bring you back to square one? But still, a focus on selling locations might at least keep low the number of people trying it out.

 

A ban on advertising might be needed as well. (And I can't see the pro-drug lobby supporting that notion either.)

 

 

Slippery slope arguments are not valid as logical necessities' date=' but it's also simple reality that measures are easier to accomplish the less they upset the status quo, so any compromise does make it easier to later pursue stronger measures.

 

So yes, I think that if, say, cannabis were legalized, there would be people pushing for less restrictions and more legalizations, and they'd have a somewhat easier time. [/quote']

 

Exactly, thank you, there -- might -- indeed.

 

 

Similarly, the people who would like to see alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, etc. made illegal would have a somewhat harder time.

 

Interesting point.