DEMON DRUGS

Why don't modern drug prohibitionists want to return to the full
prohibition of the drug alcohol? One answer, as expressed by the drug
czar's deputy, is that there's no political will for that. Another
reply is that most people use alcohol responsibly. That's what U.S.
Attorney John Suthers said when we met on Reggie Rivers's television
show last week, and that's what Denver DA Bill Ritter said at a recent
debate sponsored by the Independence Institute.

Yet alcohol obviously can be abused, as CU's football scandal reminds
us. As Jacob Sullum reviews in his book, Saying Yes, alcohol is
associated with approximately a third of violent crimes and around
two-thirds of domestic-violence cases.

"Alcohol is the drug that is most strongly associated with violence,"
writes Sullum.

Yet, while some people abuse the drug alcohol, most people use it in
moderation. Those who abuse the drug (as I did in my younger days)
generally learn to stop using it in self-destructive ways. Alcohol,
while it has some reputed health benefits, is used almost exclusively
for recreational purposes, and often to get drunk. Yet we don't
normally see much of a problem with this, at least when we consider
adults who don't drive drunk.

If we consider those few who abuse alcohol or become violent when
consuming it, is the user to blame or is the drug to blame? Sullum
goes on to argue that, while alcohol is associated with violence, it
isn't responsible for the user's behavior. The user's expectations and
choices come into play. For example, a guy who gets drunk and beats
his wife probably gets drunk for the purpose of beating his wife.

What's true for alcohol is true for all other drugs. Sullum argues
that, for all drugs, including cocaine, heroin and amphetamines, the
overwhelming majority of users use the drugs in moderation, and they
never resemble anything like the crazed poster-children of
prohibition.

Yes, some people abuse all these drugs and become violent or otherwise
antisocial while using them. But the users are to blame, not the
drugs. Yes, drugs can affect a person's personality. So can an
inordinate attachment to zoning restrictions, as the residents of
Granby can attest following the bulldozing of several buildings there.

Go rent Reefer Madness. I hear it's coming out in a digitally enhanced
version. That movie is a cult classic because it shows the absurdity
of anti-drug propaganda. Nobody today seriously believes marijuana
makes people do the things suggested by the movie. Yet the same
mythology has played out with alcohol, marijuana and many other drugs.

Sullum calls it "voodoo pharmacology." He challenges "the idea that
certain substances have the power to compel immoral behavior." It's no
accident that drug use (at least the use of certain politically
targeted drugs) is often compared to demonic possession. The
pseudo-scientific equivalent is a crude determinism that denies human
free will.

A half-truth seems to make the prohibitionists' case plausible: Some
drugs are worse than others. Only a self-destructive fool would
consume methamphetamines produced in a modern "meth lab." Where
cocaine grows naturally, locals chew on it much like Americans consume
the addictive drug caffeine. Coors is a more innocuous form of the
drug alcohol than what was produced in toxic "alc labs" during alcohol
Prohibition.

And that suggests the core problem is prohibition, which spawns impure
production of more potent drugs. Sullum points out "amphetamines were
available without a prescription until 1954," yet it is prohibition
that has created the problem of meth labs and the most destructive
forms of amphetamines. It's a self-perpetuating cycle: Prohibition
creates all sorts of social problems, which the prohibitionists then
use as a pretext to expand prohibition.

But, the prohibitionists argue, people who take drugs sometimes drive
dangerously, abuse their children and commit crimes. Yes, and this is
true of the drug alcohol, too. The proper recourse is to address all
those crimes directly and lift prohibition for all drugs.

All drugs can be used self-destructively. And all drugs can be used in
moderation. Of course, one can argue that even the moderate use of
some drugs is immoral or harmful. But that's how the issue should be
addressed: by doctors and community leaders, with spiritual guides,
among friends, in reasoned discussion. Not by the prison-industrial
complex.

The fact that alcohol is so often abused is not an argument for the
prohibition of that drug. People have a right to consume alcohol, they
usually do so in moderation, and prohibition is a cure that is orders
of magnitude worse than the disease. The same goes for all other drugs.

People are not the playthings of drugs. Instead, people choose whether
and how to use drugs. "Addiction is a choice," as Dr. Jeffrey Schaler
puts the matter, and that applies to television, sugar and
irresponsible sex, as well as to drugs. The "demonic possession"
theory of drug use is false. Eventually, a saner society will view
drug prohibition in much the same way that we view things like witch
burnings.