James Taranto, one of the web’s best writers and clearest thinkers, on drug legalization:
Since we live in the real world and not Libertarianland, it’s unreasonable to think that legalization of drugs would not result in at least some of the sort of government expansion of the sort Greenwald desires. Thus we continue to lean against drug legalization, in part on libertarian grounds.
Clever as always, but in this case perhaps too clever, because his conclusion is exactly wrong, and not just in Libertarianland.
First, the notion that legalization will significantly increase addiction is deeply flawed. Given the two fairly indisputable notions that here in reality 1) virtually anyone who wants drugs can get them and 2) fewer than one percent of drug transactions are intercepted, it’s fairly obvious that anyone who wishes to habitually consume drugs is already able to do so, albeit at some small risk to his liberty*.
The argument against legalization therefore depends on the notion that slightly increased access to drugs (by removing the small risk to one’s liberty) will cause more people to become habitual users. This is where this already weak anti-legalization hypothesis breaks down completely. First off, those of us who choose not to use drugs today are not going to change our minds just because drugs are slightly more available (I think Niven puts it best: “Only a sophisticate would fear a tasp.”) but even were that not the case, the best research suggests that addiction is not a function of use, but rather of mental distress:
Alexander’s hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself.[1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that “severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can.”[2]
To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, an 8.8 m2 (95 sq ft) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16–20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters.[3] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. “Nothing that we tried,” Alexander wrote, “… produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment.”[1] Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.
There’s a little empirical reality for you.
And as my co-blogger M Simon has extensively documented, much addiction in humans appears to be explained by post-traumatic stress disorder. This also helps explains the observed general lack of iatrogenic addiction: people given morphine-based painkillers do not exhibit an increased rate of addiction consonant with the anti-legalization hypothesis that addiction is driven by exposure.
To say legalization would grow the nanny-state flies in the face of the numbers: we are spending around $44B a year on law enforcement and incarceration related to the WOD. Even if these people were never able to work, it costs considerably less to support someone on welfare than to try, convict, and imprison them — and research into drug maintenance suggests most of these users could actually be self-sufficient if they were left to their own devices, and perhaps even very high functioning members of society making valuable contributions to human welfare.
*******
Taranto is owed a debt for single-handedly inserting the term oikophobia into the political debate (a word that so elegantly encapsulates otherwise paradoxical leftist tendencies such as being quite aggrieved at the slightest of perceived slights to Western women’s rights while generally ignoring the far more serious plight of women in various Mideast cultures), a great service to the Web’s intellectual swirl. Here’s another fun new word underlying a flawed cultural trend: akrasia.
a·kra·sia noun 1.The state of mind in which someone acts against their better judgment through weakness of will
Akrasia necessarily underlies most of our modern drug laws; the use of drugs must be viewed as a moral lapse, else it would be even more difficult to justify arresting and incarcerating millions of U.S. citizens who are doing no direct harm to anyone else. Ironically the modern idea that akrasia justifies government violence is actually a progressive notion, or more properly a Progressive one. The social engineers of the early 20th gave us Prohibition to make us a better people, and though it required an amendment to ban alcohol, for no logical reason the government does have the power to try to forcibly prevent you from ingesting virtually any other mind-altering substance, 4th Amendment or no.
Currently drug laws mostly succeed in accomplishing only two things: they make the habitual user’s habit excessively expensive, and they make drug dealers tens of billions in profit due to risk premium. The first of these greatly increases the likelihood the habitual user will need state support and/or turn to crime, the second ensures a steady stream of criminals will need to be arrested, tried, fed, clothed, housed, provided medical care, and guarded when they are apprehended — that’s a hell of a lot of nannying. And of course the War on Drugs additionally justifies unconstitutional civil forfeiture and heavily-armed SWAT raids on those not suspected of any violence, raids that have already cost too many innocent lives.
I’m somewhat sympathetic to James’ point of view because it was one I shared (as a movement conservative heavily influenced by the likes of Mona Charen and Ann Coulter) until not that long ago . But eventually the pile of empirical evidence from books like Mike Gray’s Drug Crazy and various pieces over at Reason magazine forced me to conclude coercive utopianism is just as wrong on social issues as it is on economic issues; like Obamacare, these policies do more harm than good.
*UPDATE: James replies on Facebook, saying this is a poor argument because habitual users see a greater risk due to their many uses, that he sees no evidence of the superiority of the cited research, and he does not deign to read the rest. Well, we all know this argument is an uphill battle, so I thank James for the modicum of attention that was paid.
He slightly misreads the argument made, though I can see how it might be read that way. I’ll clarify, even if it seems unlikely James will revisit the argument.
I don’t disagree that the habitual user would see a larger risk, but a <1% failure risk is probably not going to deter him from any given transaction; the time horizon problem in addicts is well-known, and even aside from that he would obviously need a very large disincentive. Do laws today deter very many of those who are already habitual users? It seems very unlikely; drugs are even available in prison.
But the thrust of my argument is really aimed in another direction: that we cannot prevent any person from at some point experiencing an illegal drug if they so choose — it’s the mirror of James’ habitual risk argument, life is long and the success rate for any given attempt is >99% (for which I should probably dig up a cite, since I’ve been using it so often; I believe Mike Gray’s book has it but I’ve become hopelessly dependent on Kindles for this sort of thing and Drug Crazy is not yet available in Kindle format). Combine that with the low rate of addiction from exposure, and the rationale of “reducing addiction” seems very weak.
And for fun and pedantry’s sake, I will just add that I stand by my use of “fewer than” above, though James objects — drug transactions are a countable noun.
UPDATE: James graciously agrees to read the rest at some point, which as a semi-anonymous blogger is more than I probably deserve to hope for. Thanks!
UPDATE: The link to M Simon’s PTSD post was broken before. Sorry about that!
Comments
17 responses to “From Oikophobia To Akrasia”
It is difficult to refute William F. Buckley’s arguments on the matter.
If addictive drugs are legalized will they not be more available than they already are? Think for a minute, how many stores do you walk into that sell alcohol. Now were you accosted on the way into those stores by drug dealers. I know I wasn’t. So, yes, drugs will be considerably more available. So, yes, the potential for far more people to end up addicted is indeed real.
A second thing to consider is that if drugs are legal, then the profit motive arises for people to devise new ones. This would be companies with actual chemists. So yes, there would be considerably more drugs available.
So, yes, it is quite likely there will be considerably more addiction. The pro-drug people need to get over the idea that this would not be a major change. It might be a worthwhile change. But it will indeed be a major change.
Dear @rick, did you read the cited research ?
Rick,
A fair question. But no, I think the stigma of drugs is such that they will generally not be sold except in specialty shops.
The problem with “new drugs” is they must have a market. So yes, we probably would get new drugs — safer, with less side effects. But like most other people who choose not to use them, I don’t think I’ll start.
See the rat study and PTSD links abovce — addiction is not a natural state, but a respone to distress.
Sure is tough to be libertarian on this issue. Can’t decide whether to save money by letting druggies be druggies, or to try and fix them later. Neither of which is a good trade.
Common sense and historical societal taboos should be enough to maintain the status quo. Perpahps there’s a better, more effective way to combat the illegal drug market.
I will support complete legalization of addictive drugs in general practice iff the responsibility is fully borne by the abuser. Invariably, the few addicts that result from experimentation hold the rest of us hostage to the grave consequences of their behaviour when under the influence of illegal drugs.
I’d like to see just one of the legalization advocates put forth an “eye for eye” policy for the harm that will be caused by the introduction of additional addicts into society. It is unquantifiable how many simply avoid addiction because of the legal consequences to illegal drug use. That deterent works, and it doesn’t, experimentation with addictive substances ensnares many that would otherwise avoid addiction.
Michael,
But again, there’s really not much reason to expect additional addicts. The net harm to society should actually be greatly reduced.
That said, one is generally liable for any damages caused while under the influence.
One hell of a good post. Thanks.
BTW, the claim that addiction is driven by exposure reminds me of similar claims made about homosexuality. It’s one of those half truths, as there has to be a preexisting propensity. Without that, the attraction does not appear.
Dave,
Thanks for that.
I came across the study when it first came out. It had dropped from my radar. I’m glad you have brought it back to my attention.
I will support complete legalization of addictive drugs in general practice iff the responsibility is fully borne by the abuser.
And the crime and violence that prohibition engenders is not now fully supported by users. That job goes to society. And it is doing a heck of a good job. About 10,000 drug war murders a year (including 2,000 innocents) and hardly a peep from society. To think that we can handle that OK and “users” will be a problem is absurd.
Eric,
Good point.
The NIDA says addiction is a genetic disease:
Addiction Is A Genetic Disease
Only about 10% of the people why try drugs gets addicted. Of those with the known genetic markers only about half who try drugs get addicted. The difference is environmental. Trauma.
The legalization fears I see mostly these days are based on “if we leave those people alone what will they do?”
Of course the question started gaining a lot of ground when the communists started asking questions about the capitalists. Such as: “What are they going to do? It is unpredictable and could be bad. They must be controlled.”
[…] has an outstanding post up dealing with the drug legalization question. I’m always interested in the comments as a […]
I am pretty amused by the insistance that a major change to the system will have some small effect. A good introduction to the behavior of complex systems is “The Black Swan.”
A more interesting question is how is the epistemological arrogance of libertarians any different than that of socialists? Or drug warriors for that matter. Yea, I know the answer. The difference is that libertarians are right.
Rick — like most things, it will have small effects in some areas, larger effects in others. In this case, we should expect a large drop in the revenue to criminals and the costs to taxpayers, and perhaps a small increase in the rate of addiction.
Left-liberals have compassion and fairness, conservatives have tradition and morals, libertarians have reason and the absence of coercion. The nature of humans and the universe is simply such that libertarianism produces better outcomes, just as capitalism worked better than Communism.
I have a fair amount of respect for conservative arguments generally, because they tend to make some effort towards empiricism as opposed to the emotional appeals of left-liberals. Conservatives are, however, regrettably sometimes intellectually inconsistent regarding the use of coercion.
[…] today I saw a a billboard proclaiming that pornography is slavery. Nothing new. But later a comment Dave made reminded me of it: “Conservatives are, however, regrettably sometimes […]
I note the comment about the “cited research” made several times. I’m not James Taranto, nor can I speak for him, but my feeling is that he would point out that it is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Robert — research is not authority, it’s evidence. An appeal to authority would be along the lines of “X is true because Y says so” where Y is a authority. (Appeals to authority are not necessarily fallacious, but they are inductive.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authority
I try to be an empiricist first and foremost, so I don’t like inductive reasoning in general, but this isn’t that.