Tidbits on Drug Policy

In our mainstream cultural framework, illicit “drug use” and “drug addiction” have become practically synonymous. Addictiveness is viewed as an inherent property of an illicit drug, similar to such internal properties as its texture or taste. Placing of addiction with a drug rather than with a user of a drug is one of the rhetorical fallacies that both sides in the drug policy discussion often commit. Of course, if nobody would be ingesting a drug in question, there would be no addictive property to speak of.

To look at addiction (and, subsequently at drug use) from a rather different angle, let us first consider what addiction actually means. “Addiction” as a term was first introduced in the beginning of the century in reference to opium use. It has subsequently evolved to mean dependence, a state in which a body/individual needs the drug for “normal” functioning. Addiction can be physical or psychological, although there exists a lively debate about the definitions of various types of addiction and even about what constitutes addiction itself. To illustrate, consider the following hypothetical:

After a hard day’s work, Mr. Smith likes to have a glass of scotch. This has become somewhat of a tradition - hardly a day goes by when Mr. Smith doesn’t have his usual drink. The alcohol amount is hardly sufficient to inebriate Mr. Smith, but a drink is a welcome soothing cap to a hectic day. One day, Mr. Smith run out of scotch and went to bed without his usual drink. His mood soured, he had trouble falling asleep and developed a headache.

Is Mr. Smith addicted? If yes, is his addiction physical or psychological? What if, instead of alcohol, Mr. Smith had a habit of listening to classical music for half-an-hour before going to bed, to calm his nerves? He could have easily developed the same symptoms (sour mood, insomnia, headache) if deprived of this little treat. Does it mean that Mr. Smith is addicted to classical music?

Some maintain that addiction is simply a medical term for a habit. I would venture to say that if most of us are suddenly deprived of our long-standing habits, we would exhibit certain signs of distress. So, can we actually claim that regular drug use is simply a drug habit? Mr. Smith likes to listen to classical music before going to bed and Mr. Jones prefers to roll himself a small marijuana joint. Did we simply create a new disease out of behavioral condition?

Whether addiction is actually a disease or simply a very hard to kick habit is irrelevant - after all, even most mundane undesired behavior can be looked at as a disease and thus, medically treated. What I wanted to demonstrate by discussing it is that addiction as something inherent to an individual, just like a preference, habit or a predilection, and not primarily a quality of a drug. Some people may like scotch, others - marijuana, yet others prefer to smoke opium. Some people may like scotch so much that they become alcoholics; others can go through life drinking a couple of glasses of wine per day and never have any problems arising out of their alcohol consumption. Or, consider a “harder” drug: contrary to the popular belief, there is a large number of recreational users of heroin, known as “chippers”, who regularly use the drug, but seem not to run into problems normally associated with heroin use. Does it mean that those people are addicted? Of course, there are plenty of others who get habituated with heroin (or, more conventionally, addicted to heroin) to a detrimental extent. So, it seems that some people are addicted to some drugs more than others. Well, some people like classical music (or wine, or scotch) more than others.

Addiction is primarily a function of a user, not substance. Before drug use reaches the level of addiction (if ever), it is merely a drug habit. Just like with any habit, there are some people who may prefer a drug more than others. Speaking of addiction as a demon inside a particular substance that is sure to destroy anybody who ingests it smacks of medieval ideas of persons possessed by devil.

admin :: May.09.2008 :: Rants, Social Policy :: No Comments »

In Morse v. Frederick (2007), a.k.a. the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” case, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, delivered the most remarkable quote, that, a few years ago, would have been virtually impossible to hear from someone that high up in the Establishment:

Reaching back still further, the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our antimarijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting — however inarticulately — that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely.

Lets see whether we see this kind of talk make its way into the Court’s majority opinions.

admin :: Apr.03.2008 :: Marijuana, Rants, Social Policy :: No Comments »

Most of the time, the subject matter of this blog is marijuana and/or narcotics, or, in other words, opiates. That is pretty much consistent with the two primary threads that the drug policy debate predominantly adheres to. However, in this post, I would like to digress a bit towards the hallucinogens.

The primary reasons why hallucinogens don’t get as much spotlight from the debaters of drug policy is simply because they are simply (1) not as popular as marijuana - less than 10% of Americans older than 12 tried LSD at least once, as opposed to almost 40% of Americans who tried weed; and, (2) as compared to opiates, the addiction potential of hallucinogens is practically non-existent.

I think hallucinogens merit some discussion simply because they pose some unique issues of their own. Despite being non-addictive and non-toxic, the psychological impact of, say, ingestion of LSD cannot be underestimated. So far, the policy approach to LSD poses more questions than answers. Should LSD use be regulated at all? If yes, then, how? Most psychologists think that LSD use can be very beneficial in a controlled environment. Furthermore, they feel that LSD can be a very effective psychotherapeutic tool.

But - if you are nodding your head after reading the above couple of sentences, think about this: after reading about taking LSD in controlled environment, one of my friends said: “Anybody, who ever tripped on LSD would tell you that that’s complete bullshit! Imagine me tripping on acid surrounded by doctors and hooked up to machines… sounds to me like *the* recipe for a ‘bad trip’!” So, wouldn’t we actually be doing more harm by providing supervised environments for acid trippers? Basically, I am writing about this to demonstrate the rudimentary level of drug policy discourse when it comes to hallucinogens - even the most benign and unquestioned notion about hallucinogen regulation can seem ridiculous upon the slightest reflection. I wonder if there is any solid body of work that tries to tackle these issues? If not, this is definitely something for drug policy addicts to think about.

admin :: Feb.17.2008 :: LSD and "Shrooms", Rants :: 1 Comment »

In a wonderfully informative primer, Why is Marijuana Illegal? A brief history of the criminalization of cannabis, Pete Guither writes:

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers.

Pete has touched upon a very important issue: way too often, our legislatures pass laws that are based on faulty data. The Drug War is just the most glaring manifestation of this phenomenon. Our elected representatives have no clue about many of the issues that they are called upon to regulate. As the result, we get a bunch of nonsensical laws - laws that we have to abide by, laws that govern our daily lives, laws that can send a person to prison for many years for doing something that likely doesn’t cause any major harm to himself or the society anyway.

Laws can be overturned if they are deemed unconstitutional; however, the Supreme Court exercises extreme deference to legislative opinion in most challenges. And, there is really no effective mechanism that would prevent legislatures from legislating on the basis of misinformation, hysteria or political agenda. As a result we are stuck with a plethora of laws and regulations that do more harm than good, and - most of these laws will be with us for a long, long time, simply because there is no mechanism that would evaluate them on the basis of effectiveness.

Well, you might ask, but what about the political leverage? If the society doesn’t like some law, its elected representatives will be forced to repeal or amend it, simply because they would like to get reelected. Ideally - yes, that’s how it should work. However, too often, the people simply don’t care or are just as misinformed about the issue as their legislators. The Drug War amply demonstrates that the society may welcome the most egregious and punitive laws even when credible information is available that proves that these laws do more harm than good.

The mere list of ideas on how to insure that we are governed by laws enacted on the basis of the most accurate information available can balloon this post to a barely readable length. I will try to outline a few of them in later posts and I encourage you to also think about how our system may be improved. Think about this: if Congress enacted laws based on the best available information the whole Drug War quagmire might have been avoided.

admin :: Jan.06.2008 :: Laws, statutes, regulations, Rants, Social Policy :: 1 Comment »

Jack Herer, the author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes writes:

In 1974, Virginia Medical College in Richmond, Virginia did research on tumors of the lung, brain, liver and kidney using mice and rats. Incredible things were done. The cancer stopped growing and in most cases even reversed itself 100 percent. Some of the mice who were given cancer and treated with cannabis actually lived longer than some of the controlmice who were not even given cancer! It was found that marijuana is the best thing to treat cancer of the lungs, brain, etc. After that they were stopped from doing anymore research at all by first Nixon and then Ford.

Source: Jack Herer’s Home Page

Well, I was sort of skeptical - but then, I found the link to the Virginia the study that he mentions. The synopsis indeed shows that

Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC), delta8-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta8-THC), and cannabinol (CBN), but not cannabidiol (CBD).

Upon a further search, a study done in Spain in 2000 turned up:

Here, we show that intratumoral administration of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and the synthetic cannabinoid agonist WIN-55,212-2 induced a considerable regression of malignant gliomas in Wistar rats and in mice deficient in recombination activating gene 2. Cannabinoid treatment did not produce any substantial neurotoxic effect in the conditions used.

Finally, the pilot study involving nine patients suffering from glioblastoma - a type of brain cancer, concluded that

Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

Basically, that’s strong evidence that THC may indeed be effective in treating certain types of cancers. Something like that - I would think - would get plenty of media attention; however there wasn’t much apparently, since even myself, who actively looks for these types of news, wasn’t aware of this.

Suppressing the results of the Virginia study… ignoring credible results of European studies… obstructing studies into THC’s medicinal properties… the amazing consistency of government’s resistance to acknowledging the therapeutic value of marijuana really makes me wonder: it can’t be just about the desire of the anti-drug warriors to retain the lion’s share of their budget. There has to be some compelling reason behind this: a reason so sinister, that the government doesn’t want to disclose it out of concern for our feeble minds… But - I don’t usually subscribe to conspiracy theories - the ugly and banal truth is likely that it is all about the money. Apparently, the well-financed moral posturing is more important than a chance to save lives and alleviate suffering of thousands of people.

admin :: Nov.03.2007 :: Marijuana, Medicinal Value, Rants :: No Comments »

Just got back from a month-long stint in Eastern and Western Europe(s). Of course, because of my interest in the field, I took some time to study the drug policy on the ground - talked with some people from both sides of the barricades and read some studies.

Of course, one cannot bundle together the drug policy approach of Eastern European countries such as Russia, Ukraine or Georgia and say, Netherlands. The law enforcement in Russia and Ukraine use the extremely punitive drug legislation as a tool in ensuring that they would be able to arrest anybody at any time simply by planting some “evidence” on an (un)desired person. The harm reduction approach is virtually dead. I will write a bit more about drugs and Russia/Ukraine sometime later.

Now, I mainly want to point out one thing that the drug policies of countries such as Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Netherlands have in common: the absence of any moral component in decisions involving drug policy. The stress is made on harm reduction. That’s why Netherlands doesn’t persecute simple possession and its heroin addicts can safely shoot up in specially designated places (often located at or near police precincts).

If you, the reader, are from the United States, you might feel, if not indignation, but maybe, a certain discomfort, a feeling that there might be something wrong with that scenario. That’s your morality talking. We’ve been conditioned to believe that drug use is simply wrong - and, unfortunately, it largely colors the public discourse in this country concerning recreational drugs and recreational drug use. After all, when something is wrong, morally wrong, it is really beside the point whether or not it is good or bad for you. The objective reasons don’t matter.

The Dutch approach may have resulted in a marked decrease in overdoses and a general decrease in young hard drug addict population (the average age of a Dutch heroin addict has risen to 37!) - but it is morally wrong and thus, is completely unacceptable on our shores. Unfortunately, I am not being sarcastic. Until the public learns not to view drug use as one of the “vices,” we are bound to be hindered in our common sense judgments by our righteousness.

admin :: Oct.25.2007 :: Rants, Social Policy :: No Comments »

This nation smokes far more pot than uses any other illicit drugs. For example, almost half (47.8%) of all high school seniors tried it, as compared with the next runner-up - all of hallucinogens, at 12%. Source: Monitoring the Future Study (2002). The numbers are similar for general population drug use - marijuana users represent an overwhelming share of drug users in general.

This information generally requires no specialized knowledge. Similarly, by now it has become apparent to the point of becoming common knowledge, that the dangers of marijuana smoking are seriously overstated, to say the least. Some even call marijuana “the safest therapeutic substance known to man.” Who?? None other than Administrative Judge Francis Young of the DEA in In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION (Docket No. 86-22). It is very likely that even the most stalwart DEA officials don’t really believe in the dangerousness of marijuana.

So, how come it remains in Schedule I?

The answer lies in the first paragraph. Removing marijuana from the list of “evil” illicit drugs would substantially reduce this nation’s drug problem: without marijuana the number of drug users - other drug users - would drop significantly. A dramatically smaller drug problem wouldn’t justify tens of billions of dollars in funding that the DEA currently receives. Regardless of the objective pros and cons of marijuana use, the DEA will always oppose the rescheduling of marijuana simply because they want to retain their allowance.

In order to request an addition, deletion or a change in the schedule of the drug, one must petition the DEA. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug. Then, the investigation goes through some more motions, until the DEA Administrator reviews all available data and makes a final decision whether to propose that a drug be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed. I wonder how objective you would be in making a decision that has a potential to deprive you of a substantial majority of your budget?

admin :: Jul.14.2007 :: Marijuana, Rants :: 2 Comments »

Legal Formalism is a doctrine that reflects the wishful thinking of many legal theorists that judges should apply law in a sort of mathematical fashion without any regard to “real-life” normative or policy issues. (I think, in this country, Langdell was the originator of the formalistic school of thought in jurisprudence.)

Anyway. Under the doctrine, the judges should not concern themselves with whether the law is good or bad, just or biased, sound or nonsensical - all those issues are for the legislatures to decide. The idea is that a law should yield an unequivocal decision regardless of the substantive nature of the underlying fact pattern. There are many proponents of this doctrine, as well as many opponents (I, personally, happen to belong to the opposing camp) - but this post is really not about the merits of legal formalism, but rather about Supreme Court Justices hiding behind it, whenever they chicken out of truly addressing the issue before them on its merits.

For example, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), observe Justice Stevens resorting to legal formalism in ruling upon an issue that is clearly about the right of gravely ill persons to, legally (under the state law) receive their medicinal marijuana without harassment by federal agencies:

“The case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case.”

Hey, it’s just about the blind application of the Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, right? As a legal formalist would put it, clearly the Controlled Substances Act legitimately has that power - and that’s all that matters - how that power is applied is beyond the scope of the judiciary. Notice how under Justice Stevens’ approach, the “case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments” - meaning, how strong real-life arguments of real-life respondents interfere with his structurally sound, aseptic interpretation of the issues. Well, lets consult the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas:

“On this traditional understanding of “commerce,” the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market — intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial — for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress’ commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial.”

Hmmm… Now we have two eminent legal minds, one ruling that the CSA is within the commerce clause’ power to regulate interstate commerce; another saying that it isn’t. Under the perfect conditions envisioned by the formalistic doctrine, it isn’t supposed to happen. Seems like either the Controlled Substances Act is deficient, the Justices understanding of the formalistic approach is lacking or Legal Formalism itself is faulty. It could be all three are correct. It doesn’t really matter - after all, hiding behind a questionable doctrine to duck important issues is a dubious tactic all in itself.

admin :: Jul.03.2007 :: Legal Issues, Rants :: No Comments »

New York has a chance to join the 12 States that have already permitted medicinal marijuana. Connecticut and New Jersey also seem on the verge of passing some sort of therapeutic marijuana laws.

On this note, here is an interesting argument against medicinal marijuana, mainly on the grounds that smoking a therapeutic substance isn’t a safe and uniform method of administration:

“If marijuana has therapeutic potential, it should be required to pass muster with the F.D.A. like any other medicine. We have considerable experience with making drugs from plant material, including the opium poppy. We don’t authorize patients to smoke ( or vaporize ) opium for medical purposes; rather, we require that opiate products, including morphine for pain relief and paregoric for diarrhea, be standardized, controlled for quality, fully tested, delivered in an appropriate manner and shown to be safe and effective. Why should marijuana be any different?”

Source:: NYT OPED: Crackpot Legislation

The author’s reasoning is medically sound; however, as far as I understand, the problem is that no marijuana derivative (i.e.: Marinol) in existence has been found just as effective as smoking marijuana. Smoking pot definitely has all the drawbacks that are described in Henry I. Miller’s article - but it still remains the only truly effective method of alleviating symptoms of many debilitating conditions. So far, there hasn’t been a single recorded death attributed to marijuana. Thus, it is no wonder that many patients choose an admittedly imperfect, but a relatively safe treatment over no treatment at all. Legalizing marijuana would certainly allow more research into its therapeutic effects and will allow development of medications that will better address Henry Miller’s concerns.

admin :: Jun.19.2007 :: Marijuana, Medicinal Value, Rants :: No Comments »

The government may sincerely be trying to protect us from the harms of drug use. This is something that is known as legal paternalism. Legal paternalism is a belief that “[I]t is always a good reason in support of a prohibition that it is necessary to prevent harm (physical, psychological, or economic) to the actor himself.” (Joel Feinberg) The State sees itself as a concerned parent vis-a-vis its citizens. It views its citizens not as responsible adults, the subjects who possess independent free will, but merely as children, objects in the State’s care, which need to be protected from harm, especially from harm that they may inflict upon themselves. Concerned with the alleged harms of drug use (it doesn’t matter whether they are real or merely perceived), the State feels justified in punishing its children for conduct that it feels is more harmful than the punishment.

Consistent with the parenting role, is the notion of legal perfectionism, the idea that laws should play a role in positively shaping citizens for their individual benefit. The current militantly prohibitionist legal system may not be very effective in reducing drug use and trafficking; however, its role in cultivating “healthy” attitudes towards drug use amongst the constituency makes it ultimately justified.

Legal paternalism is a very prominent aspect of our legal framework. And, it seems that most citizens don’t mind. They want to feel protected, even from themselves, if need be. If Big Papa sometimes misguidedly causes more damage by punishing its children than can result from harm he protects them against - well, no system is perfect, right?

admin :: Jun.14.2007 :: Rants, Social Policy :: No Comments »