Have you ever wondered why alcohol and nicotine
are legal in most countries, while LSD, ecstasy,
and mushrooms are not?
If you haven’t, then you may, as I once
did, assume that there’s good reason, but
what if I told there’s not?
What I told you that the status of these drugs
is almost entirely the result of economics,
cultural prejudice, and the uninformed whims
of apathetic sold-out politicians (otherwise
known as ‘politicians’)?
My guess is that you’d likely be intrigue
and compelled to hear more.
Well, this is exactly how I felt when the
same rhetoric was presented to me just a few
weeks ago, because while I had experimented
with many legal and illegal drugs, and while
I had long recognised that the reasons given
for the banning of some drugs and the allowance
of others is inconsistent and contradictory,
I had not realised the sheer scope and scale
of this problem, nor the extent of its ramifications…
that is, until I met Dale Bewan.
Bewan is the author of the book Dropping Acid:
A Beginner's Guide to the Responsible Use
of LSD for Self-Discovery, and he also happens
to be one of my biggest patrons, and hence,
he’s largely responsible for my being able
to do this nearly full time.
Pretty awesome, huh?
Anyhow, as gratitude for his tier of support,
he has suggested, worked closely with me,
and essentially educated me on the topic and
importance of drug laws, and so without further
ado, this is ‘The War on Drugs – Debunked’.
So let me begin by making the purpose of this
video crystal clear: I’m not going to argue
that certain drugs should be legalised, because,
to be honest, I simply don’t know enough
about them to make such a case, but what I
do know, and what I am going to argue, is
that drug laws are deeply inconsistent and
hypocritical, and that the cost of this is
vast… it violates human rights, causes tremendous
unnecessary misery, is extremely expensive,
and perhaps most importantly of all, it doesn’t
work…
Now I was going to clearly define what a drug
is, but since not all drugs are illegal, this
doesn’t actually matter… what matters
is the classification system, because it is
the classification of a drug that dictates
its legal status and punishment – and so
the most salient question to ask is why do
drugs such as LSD, ecstasy and mushrooms tend
to carry such a severe penalty?
Is it because they’re particularly harmful
to the user and/or those around them?
Or is it perhaps because they’re especially
addictive?
Just what is it?
Well, as it turns out, depending on your country,
the answer is either allegedly based on both
of these factors (as is the case with the
U.S), or it’s based on both of these factors
but under the word ‘misuse’, which is
suspiciously susceptible to subjective bias
and selective enforcement (as is the case
with the U.K).
And so, let us ask if it’s true – are
drugs really classified according to their
likelihood of causing harm and addiction (or
to put it another way, according to their
potential ‘misuse’)?
Curious of this question, in 2010, the psychiatrist
and neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt,
published a peer-reviewed study in which he
got the Independent Scientific Committee on
Drugs to classify drugs according to their
potential harm, by evaluating factors such
as their fatality rate, physical damage, psychological
damage, addictive properties, impairment of
mental faculties, criminal activity, and even
their effect on the economy, and the results
outrageously contradicted (and still contradict)
the classification systems of most countries.
For example, the study concluded that while
the class A drugs heroin and crack cocaine
cause significant harm to the user and the
those around them, the completely legal drug
alcohol causes far more than either of them.
And conversely, it concluded that the class
A drugs LSD, ecstasy and mushrooms (which
to put into perspective carry up to 7 years
in prison for possession) are almost entirely
harmless… now if this makes anything clear,
it is that drug classification systems are
not based on harm potential.
And furthermore, they’re not based on addiction
(or ‘dependency’) either.
The study (and other studies, all linked in
the description) evaluated addiction potential
thoroughly, and concluded that while heroin
and crack cocaine are easily the most addictive
drugs, meth, alcohol and nicotine are all
fairly equivalent, and yet two of them are
legal, while one of them carries up to 7 years
in prison for possession!
And conversely, they concluded that LSD, ecstasy
and mushrooms are less addictive than even
the class C drug Khat…
And so what this all means is that the assertion
that drug laws are based on potential harm
and / or addiction is… well… bullshit!
It’s complete crap, and the general population’s
approval of one drug and disapproval of another
is little more than indoctrination.
Now I could conclude here, since I’ve made
my case, but in my research I found a few
really fascinating related avenues, and since
you’re a curious bunch I’ve decided to
tersely share them with you.
The first is more of an answer to question
that these studies raise – that being, “if
drug laws are not based on harm and addiction
potential, then what are they based on?”
And the answer, as alluded to in the intro,
is a combination of economics and politics.
In short, marijuana was banned to alienate
and vilify Mexicans (so that Harry Anslinger
could keep his ‘untouchables’), LSD was
banned to alienate and vilify hippies (because
they opposed the Vietnam war), and ecstasy
was banned to alienate and vilify youths partying
and being promiscuous (because old people
were… jealous).
The second avenue is that quite fascinatingly,
in 2001, Portugal decided to treat possession
and use of small quantities of all drugs as
a public health issue rather than a criminal
one, and so rather than issuing jail time
and criminal records (like the rest of the
world) they have issued small fines and referrals
to treatment programs – and the result has
been outstandingly positive.
And the third and final avenue is that because
the War on Drugs focuses on drugs rather than
drug users it ignores the most fundamental
of market forces… supply and demand.
To quote my current favourite YouTube channel,
Kurzgesagt, “If you reduce the supply of
anything without reducing the demand first,
its price goes up.
This might lower sales for many products,
but not for drugs – the drugs market is
not price-sensitive – drugs will be consumed
no matter what they cost, so the effect is
to encourage the production of more drugs
and recruitment of more traffickers, which
increases availability.”
As it unfortunately stands, “we are putting
people who are not well is a situation that
makes them feel worse, and hating them for
not recovering.”
Anyhow, to conclude, the ‘War on Drugs’
is an abomination, because it’s based on
economic and political subjectivity rather
than scientific objectivity.
The truth is that whether we’re interested
in taking drugs or not, we all ought to insist
that drug laws be reformed, because as it
stands, good people who’re consuming harmless
and non-addictive drugs are being snatched
from their families and put in prison, while
others, who’re consuming harmful and addictive
drugs, are doing nothing to stop this.
As always, thank you kindly for the view,
an extra special thank and a super thank you
to Dale, both for suggesting and collaborating
with me on this video, and of course, for
your support – which is largely responsible
for my being able to create videos nearly
full time.
On behalf of us all, thank you Dale.
You’re helping us spread reason and rationality
in a world lacking in both.
Oh, and on the topic of Patreon, due to me
failing to announce a winner of the monthly
giveaway last month (sorry, by the way), for
this month I’m going to announce two.
The first is Jocelyn Gingras, and the second
is Ken Klavonic - congratulations!
You’ve both won a copy of Bewan’s book
that’s been signed by Bewan himself, and
of course has a little thank you note from
me too.
Thank you both so much for your support.
