Drug Policy Signs

Addiction scholar and Reason contributor Stanton Peele (whom you might have seen in last month's John Stossel special, Help Me! I Can't Help Myself) offers an interesting take on "the best and the worst signs of how things are going in addiction treatment, addiction theory, and alcohol and drug policy." Among the positive developments, he counts public acceptance of medical marijuana, a consensus about the health benefits of moderate drinking, and the growing recognition that "drug prevention" programs don't work. His bad signs include the (literal) drug war in Latin America, the continued dominance of the disease model, and the popularity of forced "treatment" even among critics of the war on drugs.

Stanton also sees over-the-top anti-pot propaganda as a reason to be discouraged. But these messages--especially the widely ridiculed, soon-to-be-abandoned TV spots linking drug users to terrorism--could be taken as a sign of the government's desperation to maintain the specious moral distinction between legal and illegal drugs.

Comments

[Robert Nabors]

No one is denying that addiction exsists. However, they are questioning the placement of addiction status in the same catagory of true diseases.

-Robert

[Eric Hanneken]

"Denying the existence of addiction, pretending that addicts are exercising free will, and ignoring the success of drug treatment are examples of forcing your view of reality to conform to a predetermined policy preference."

Doesn't that depend on how a person arrives at that conclusion, rather than on the contents of his beliefs?

[fyodor]

Robert Nabors,

I believe you're wrong. I believe it is the position of Reason Magazine that addiction *as we commonly know it* essentially does not exist. This link, http://reason.com/0010/bk.js.drugs.shtml, takes you to a book review Jacob does of a book that flatly states that addiction is a choice. What Reasoners dispute is not only that addiction does not qualify as a disease but that it is a condition in which there is "no choice."

Technically and strictly speaking, who can disagree? But I do tend to think the proponents of this position tend to gloss over the fact that an addict's set of choices are not the same as a non-addict's. Hell, otherwise the word has no meaning other than as a concept that simply doesn't exist in the real world. And that just doesn't seem to pass the sniff test.

Eric Hanneken,

That's a good point (and a better response to joe than Steve's), but you have to admit, it's kinda convenient to think that addiction doesn't essentially exist when you're against the drug war.

I'm against the drug war too, and I agree that there's a lot of bs out there about the dangers of drugs. Still, there's pros and cons to every policy position, such as the heroin addicts who mug tourists in Dutch parks (only tourists get mugged cause the locals know how easily they're scared off!). Not nearly the degree of problems you get from prohibition, but there *is* a downside....

[Madog]

Addiction is a complicated issue. There are a lot of legal things you can become addicted to: gambling, sex, alchol, nicotine
Then there are other behaviors that seem very similiar, but are called "obsessions" most of the time:
Shopping, shoes, overeating, undereating, computer games
(Then there's my own little theory that exercise is an addiction: notice how it changes your body, then when you stop doing it, your body feels worse and you have cravings for it...)

[Eric Hanneken]

fyodor,

How do you distinguish between addicts and non-addicts? Take an example of someone who has a habit of eating "comfort food" like Oreos, and, as a result, weighs more than she would like. Is that person an addict?

I agree that the non-existence of addiction would be convenient for anti-prohibitionists like you and me, but then, the existence of addiction would be convenient for prohibitionists, and they all seem to believe in it. This doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

[MP]

I think that the "Addiction is a Choice" camp (of which I am a part of) is essentially out to undermine two commonly held beliefs:

1) Addicts are compelled to do what they do, and have no ability to choose otherwise.

2) Because they are compelled, they cannot be held responsible for their actions.

My simple belief is that addicts do have the ability to choose otherwise. However, it can be very difficult for them to make this choice. Factors such as losing the pleasure derived from gambling or avoiding the pain of physical withdrawal can influence someone to decide to stay addicted, even if the addictive tendencies are generally self-destructive. But they still can choose. They are not doomed to remain addicted.

As for responsibility, absolving responsibility on the basis of addiction removes any sort of structural incentive to not be addicted. If I can kill somebody while I am high, and then claim the drugs made me do it, and thus not be held accountable, why should I avoid getting high again? That is true with all criminal punishment. Society believes that morally it is wrong to kill another person, but the law provides incentives to keep people from doing this.

Unsurprisingly, I only believe in laws that protect your natural rights and your property rights, but that is another debate.

[joe]

MP proved my point about why libertarians deny the existence of addiction. He does not recognize the addicts are unfree or unhealthy, because he doesn't like a certain political outcome he thinks that recognition would endorse (absolving addicts of legal responsibilities for their actions). First, the truth is the truth regardless of its political convenience. Second, being aware of the compulsion associated with addiction, and the physical aspect of that compulsion, does not necessarily lead to the dissolution of reponsibility.

Nobody is suggesting that addicts be sent to treatment as a sentence for murder, just for drug "crimes." Neither addiction nor intoxication are recognized defenses in the legal system. Drug users are routinely convicted of crimes committed while high or strung out, and their drug using is more likely to get them extra time than sympathy.

I'm as opposed to the idea that drug users should not be held responsible for their actions as you are. But I don't see why I have to close my eyes to objective reality to believe that.

[Tommy_Grand]

All intelligent people can agree that the vast majority of addictions are (to various extents) resistible. Since almost all (if not all) addictions are resistible, people should not (generally) be absolved of individual responsibility for the consequences of succumbing to addictions.

[Eric Hanneken]

"I'm as opposed to the idea that drug users should not be held responsible for their actions as you are."

Given your previous remarks (Believing that "addicts are exercising free will" is "pretending"), why? If someone isn't in control of his actions, is it fair to punish him for them? Will punishment discourage that behavior in the future?

[jean]

joe said: "All intelligent people can agree that the vast majority of addictions are (to various extents) resistible."

hmmm... Y'know, it has been show scientifically (MRIs, PET scans, autopsy) that the actual brain structure of addicts is changed. With some, such as addictive behaviors, i.e., gambling, the changes are slower and more subtle. With others -- drugs -- it's faster and more overt; permanent changes to brain chemistry slowly over time with pot, and almost immediate neural re-wiring with coke and meth.

So I would have to disagree that an addiction is always resistable.

[fyodor]

I think where the factor of addiction becomes relevant is in what to do about it. As in first of all, don't do it in the first place because once you start smoking cigs (or doing whatever) regularly, it becomes a lot harder (not impossible, but harder) to not smoke than if you hadn't started. As to the efficacy of treatment programs, I'm no expert on that, but apparently people who are addicted feel they need outside assistance to resist that those who haven't started whatever habit don't seem to need.

Eric Hanneken,

Good question and good point about the Oreos. But since I'm open to the position that addiction isn't a disease per se (except maybe in the case of physical withdrawal), I'm comfortable saying that it's subjective.

joe,

Good point that addiction absolves no one. As for what MP says, his or her opinion is consistent with your charge, but it still doesn't prove it. I wonder about it as you do, but perhaps Eric Hanneken has demonstrated that we should drop the charge as there's no way to prove it through, you know, Reason! 🙂

[Lefty]

It seems, in fact, as though the second half of a man's life is made up of nothing, but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.

~ Fyodor Dostoevski ~

[joe]

Eric,

It's complicated. I think this issue is wound up with the issue of coercion. People who are addicted are being coerced by physical illness, mental torture, and fear for their physical well being. If another person was doing the coercing, then the addict couldn't be held responsible for his coerced actions. However, the addict is responsible for his or her own coercion - he got himself addicted, and/or stayed addicted. This eliminates the "I was coerced" defense, legally and morally. However, it also opens the addict up to charges that he coerced himself; the he wasn't just the innocent victim of the coerciion, but also the guilty party, driving a person to commit criminal acts, with the credible threat of physical pain and harm if he doesn't commit them.

So, in the great balance of thigs, any absolution an addict acquired by "having to steal something to sell, or I'll get sick," is balanced out by the fact that their actions drove a person to that state. The difference between the addict/criminal's responsibility and that of the plain old criminal is qualitative, not quantitative.

[Tommy_Grand]

ME: "All intelligent people can agree that the vast majority of addictions are (to various extents) resistible."

JEAN: "So I would have to disagree that an addiction is always resistible."

Obviously, I did not assert that all addictions are always resistible (note "VAST" + "MAJORITY"). If you believe no addictions are resistible, you are stupid. People quit every day. On the other hand, if you're saying: "it should not be called an *addiction* unless it's irresistible," I can dig that. Under that definition, very few genuine cases exist & we should not base public policy on rare exceptions.

[fyodor]

I have nothing left to say on the subject, having been trumped by my own namesake!!!

Thanks, Lefty!!!

[Anonymous]

I always interpret the phrase "take responsibility" to mean "go to jail" (it usually works out that way...).

Jailing people who are clearly under the influence of drugs is completely pointless.

It simply satisfies those who have an addiction to punishing others...

[Jim]

Jean raised an interesting point, but rather than clarifying the issue of the existence of addition as a disease, it muddies the waters. It seems reasonable to think that a chemical can alter one's brain chemistry or function, but if a behavior can alter it similarly (if at a lesser extent or over a longer period of time) is there any real distinction here other than a matter of degree? At what point does my like for beer cross over into alcoholism? At what point does my obsession with wasting my time reading these posts turn into an addiction? No clear answers here.

I believe that since addicts do things that are (in extreme cases anyway) recognizably different from non-addicts, the 'existence' of addicts can be established. What seems to me to be reasonably debatable is the causes and implications of this. One can in fact be a libertarian and believe that addiction is a disease of some sort and still be opposed to drug prohibition (it doesn't work, encourages the excess that leads to addition, and penalizes those who aren't addicts and aren't harming anyone) and can still believe drug addicts commiting crimes can still be culpable (they still chose to indulge in substances and take their chances, and I don't think anyone believes that addicts have NO control whatsoever).

I'm not sure whether addiction is a disease or not, I've heard arguments supporting both cases. One need not abandon libertarian principles because they still apply regardless of the 'cause' of excessive behavior.

[Jean]

Joe: sorry for that very short, incomplete response to you. I'm one-handed on a rickety laptop, so long posts are out. I think Jim says very well what I meant... physical changes, matter of degree and all...

[Mona]

Joe: Ignoring the "success" of treatment? Please, if the measure of success is long-term absintence, then treatment a miserable and expensive failure. It's success rate is in the single digits.

I was once alcohol dependent and did rehab and out-patient -- until I could no longer hack the religious proselytizing of the 12 Step fanatics as well as the prohibitionist propaganda.("Pick a Higher Power, any Higher Power," these well-paid morons told me, "it can even by a styrofoam cup.") It was a joke, and we were all told that only about 1 in 10 of us would "make it."

Well, I made it, but not because of the absurd and expensive nonsense peddled to me in treatment. Stanton Peele is right about 90% of what he says. While I do believe there is a genetic predisposition to alcohol dependency (and last I read Stanton on the subject he was skeptical on that point) I know it is not a disease unless that word is to be corrupted, as it has been, beyond useful meaning.

[joe]

Denying the existence of addiction, pretending that addicts are exercising free will, and ignoring the success of drug treatment are examples of forcing your view of reality to conform to a predetermined policy preference.

[Steve]

Pssst....Hey, Joe....it's an OPINION site.

Grow up.

[geophile]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Mona.

dis?ease

n.

1. A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms.

2. A condition or tendency, as of society, regarded as abnormal and harmful.

As to definition No. 1, one could spin drug addiction as a disease, though torturously. As to definition No. 2, ever speed while driving, pick your nose, or fart in church? Congratulations, Typhoid Mary, you're diseased!

Let us not get started on the abuse of the word "addiction" by drug prohibitionists. That case is even more disturbing.

[J]

But without drug prohibition, how will the white man keep the black man down? I mean, with college diversity from racial prefrences being challenged perhaps they are paving the way for the de-criminalization of pot, but otherwise there will be too much misogeny going on, particularly in the deep south.