Matthew Perry, Drug Abuse, and Prohibition
The death of the Friends star should remind us of the costs of the war on drugs.

Last Saturday, October 28, the actor Matthew Perry died in his hot tub. Best known for playing Chandler Bing on the sitcom Friends, since the show ended he'd become almost as famous as a celebrity addict who very publicly struggled with substance abuse, recovery, and relapse. His untimely death offers an opportunity to think about both drug use and drug prohibition, as he took both legal and illegal substances throughout his life.
Does his life support continuing the federal drug war—a broad-based, overlapping series of policies that has given rise to high levels of incarceration over the past half-century, a $3.2 billion annual budget for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and record levels of overdose deaths?
Perry's best-selling 2022 memoir, Friends, Lovers, and the Big Terrible Thing, is a searing account of his long and difficult relationship with currently banned substances the government calls "illicit drugs," legal pharmaceuticals, and alcohol. In it, he discussed his near-death experience when his colon burst due to taking too many opioids, which have a constipating effect. (At one point, he says he was downing up to 55 Vicodins a day.) He was put into a medically induced coma, given just a 2 percent chance of survival, and spent months using a colostomy bag. He says he had his first drink at 14 and started drinking every day at age 18. He was clean and sober for only one season of Friends, which ran for a decade between 1994 and 2004. By his count, he made 15 trips to rehab, had 14 stomach surgeries, and told The New York Times that he'd "probably spent $9 million or something trying to get sober."
The cause of death for the 54-year-old is not known and an inquest and full toxicology report could take months to complete. Reportedly, the only drugs found in his house were prescription medicines for anxiety, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, (an artifact of his heavy smoking). But whether Perry's death was directly caused by drugs, there is no question his long history of substance abuse hastened it. Bodies just can't take the sort of punishment he gave his. Perry intuited this and noted in an interview promoting his book that he wanted to be remembered more for helping people get straight than for playing the sarcastic Chandler Bing. "When I die," he said, "as far as my so-called accomplishments go, it would be nice if Friends were listed far behind the things I did to try to help other people."
Given his personal history, it's not surprising that he was no fan of legalizing drugs. Rather, he supported drug courts and forcible treatment, as he made clear in a famous-at-the-time dust-up with British conservative Peter Hitchens. After Hitchens challenged whether addiction is a disease in the way that cancer or diabetes is, Perry responded by saying that denying the disease model of addiction was "as ludicrous as saying that Peter Pan was real." He continued: "I'm a drug addict. My life is, 'If I have a drink, I can't stop.' And so it would be following your ideology that I'm choosing to do that."
Yet while Perry's definition of an addict who has no volition is one we commonly associate with substance abuse, it should be remembered that his experience is atypical, and not simply because he had the means to pay for a level of care far beyond that of an average person, or because of the intensity and duration of his substance use.
A 2018 study of people prescribed opioids, reported Reason's Jacob Sullum, "found that just 1 percent of people who took prescription pain medication following surgery showed signs of 'opioid misuse,' a broader category than addiction." Other research shows that even people classified as "excessive drinkers"—eight drinks a week for women, 15 for men—are not "alcohol dependent." That is, they show no signs of withdrawal and report no increased tolerance for beer, wine, or spirits. Harvard psychiatrist John F. Kelly tells CNN that somewhere between 60 percent and 75 percent of people diagnosed with substance-use disorder "reach remission." One need not agree with figures such as Columbia neuroscientist Carl Hart, who has written about his "responsible" heroin use, or Sullum, whose 2003 book Saying Yes is a "defense of drug use," to understand that most people manage their legal and illegal (or illicit) substances pretty well.
In the wake of a tragic death like Perry's, it's easy to overlook how drug prohibition makes it harder for people to seek treatment by compounding shame and denial with legal issues. As a wealthy celebrity in a creative industry that is uncommonly accepting of drug problems, Perry was able to more openly deal with his issues (though as his memoir makes clear, it was still no easy task). The drug war "others" users and makes them seem less than human, which explains why it's more common that, as the Cato Institute's Trevor Burrus puts it, "heroin addicts get cages and alcoholics get treatment."
Drug prohibition also means casual users face monumentally greater risks from adulterated drugs whose potency and purity are unclear. Last year, "a record high of 109,000 Americans" died from drug overdoses, "with roughly three-quarters involving opioids and 90 percent involving illicit fentanyl."
Yet most opiate/opioid users are not trying to kill themselves. What percentage of fentanyl-related deaths involve users who don't even know they are taking fentanyl, which has been showing up in all sorts of other drugs as a cutting agent? Or who have no clear sense of how much of a substance they are taking? During alcohol prohibition, tainted liquor killed people because there were no controls on its production. That ended the minute the stuff became legal and its makers and distributors had an incentive not to poison their customers.
Legalizing drugs and regulating them similar to beer, wine, and alcohol won't end abuse or accidental deaths, but it will make those outcomes less likely. Evidence from Oregon, which decriminalized low-level drug possession in 2021, shows that reducing legal penalties had no impact on overdose deaths a year after implementation. In 2022, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) told the Senate that marijuana legalization "has not been associated with an increase in adolescents' marijuana use." That's almost certainly because legal businesses have more reason than outside-the-law dealers to follow rules.
It's better to stop spending billions of dollars a year propping up a drug war that fails most basic cost-benefit analyses (such as this one coauthored by Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker) and spend more time helping people with problems and creating new cultural norms that encourage responsible living, with or without the use of intoxicants. (Drinking, for instance, has declined globally over the past 20 years.)
That may not be exactly the way that Matthew Perry thought about helping other people, but it would be a fine legacy nonetheless.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Could I be anymore of a vaxxer douchebag?
- Chandler
It would be ironic if it wasn’t the booze or drugs that killed him.
I don’t think it was drugs directly, more likely, the decades of hard drug use took their toll on his cardiovascular system and he had some kind of cardiac event. I’ve seen this in a lot of people I know I’m their forties and fifties, who abused hard drugs for twenty plus years. Even though most of them had been clean for years when they developed problems.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.
This Website➤---------------➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
While it is not all that unusual for someone in their 50s who hasn't taken very good care of themselves to die from heart problems - until they can prove definitely that it wasn't the jaberoony, it was the jaberoony. He tested positive for douchbagery already.
The Jab did him in.
54 Vicodin a day? I'm surprised he didn't kill his liver before he blew out his colon.
Sounds like he would have killed himself with booze and drugs in any legal regime. Plenty manage to do it with just alcohol.
Or Menthol Cigarettes.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
The Tylenol in Vicodin kills more people than the opiate does.
The more conspiracy minded don’t think that’s an accident.
Do not drink alcohol if you are on Vicodin, if you want to live. Not a good combo. They warn you, but still.
That was my point.
I don't see the "conspiracy" in there. Nobody is forcing you to take Vicodin. Nobody is forcing you to drink alcohol. Those are choices you make.
Pointless drug additives to dissuade or outright kill drug abusers are literally nothing new. I'm not saying that's the case with Vicodin, but it's certainly the case with certain other drugs.
Tylenol and oxycodone have different mechanisms of action and it makes sense to give them together for pain relief.
Yeah. I’m not seeing how this is really a ‘war on drugs’ situation.
If we took away all of Reason's rhetorical shoe horns, they'd only publish 2 articles a month.
I mean FFS, one of the writers was proud to tweet out the suggestion that The City of Baltimore as depicted in The Wire would be better off if the Jones Act were repealed.
I agree,for him everything was legal,he could afford them.
Well, apparently, we're discussing one of the casualties of the war on drugs.
Does his life support continuing the federal drug war—a broad-based, overlapping series of policies that has given rise to high levels of incarceration over the past half-century, a $3.2 billion annual budget for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and record levels of overdose deaths?
Of fucking course not. Even if the War on Drugs was the Best Policy Ever (TM), with no downsides, citing one single anecdotal case is not determinative of its value. Why even offer this argument as a strawman?
The headline seems to put forth the argument that it is the war on drugs that leads to overdose deaths: If only drugs were legal, people wouldn't abuse them. That is false on its face.
The war on drugs leads to overdose deaths. TRUE.
If only drugs were legal, people wouldn't abuse them. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT?
Your inventions constitute NO argument against canceling the Drug War. Please don't insult our intelligence with them.
Did you read the same article we did?
No, we're not on the mailing list for the Bizarrro World edition.
This is a common refrain and argument from the legalize everything crowd. They blame deaths on impurities and not on abuse. They think addicts buy and use drugs rationally. It harms their arguments.
Sure. Plenty of people will abuse drugs whether they’re legal or not. That should be obvious to everyone. Some people have compulsive/addictive tendencies that make most drugs very risky.
The legality and abuse of alcohol demonstrates that decisively.
I'm for drug legalization because I believe adults have a right to do what they want with their body as long as they don't hurt others; but that doesn't mean I think addiction numbers won't be as bad or worse when legalized.
I doubt it would change much at all. And I’m for drug legalization as long as all laws that protect shitty addict behavior are repealed along with it.
Exactly what laws are "protecting" shitty addict behavior? I'm not aware of any. And if cops and courts weren't prosecuting otherwise productive people, maybe they could crack down on genuinely dangerous behavior.
I suspect legalization might see a small spike from curious experimenters. I seriously doubt it will lead to any significant long term rise in either use or addiction. (Which are not remotely the same thing.) Seriously, how many people do you know whose only or even primary reason for not using drugs is because they're illegal? If heroin were legalized Monday morning, I wouldn't be shooting up Monday night, and I doubt you would either. How many people do you really think would be?
Besides the benefits of accurate labeling and decreased contamination, legalization might have other benefits as well. If more drugs were legal, there would probably be more social pressure to use responsibly. Just look at alcohol. Changing social standards have made abuse less acceptable and lead to drops in behavior such as drunk driving. There's a lot less similar pressure with illegal drugs since using them at all requires violating norms.
To be blunt, I don't care if you off yourself with drugs (or anything else). I do care that trying to enforce prohibition distorts our legal system, spawns crime and corruption, and screws up entire nations.
Except that most users aren't addicts. Most drinkers don't spend their entire life in a drunken stupor. Most marijuana users don't spend their lives in a cannabis haze. Even most users of "hard" drugs such as cocaine or heroin are occasional users. Do you really think a multi-billion dollar drug business is supported by a handful of basement dwelling junkies?
It's kind of what the article implies. Of course it makes no sense.
The whole article makes no sense.
Regardless if it's true or false, I'm criticizing the writing. Overextrapolation from a single data point is always going to lead to the wrong answer.
No it's that people wouldn't get adulterated drugs. You think you're buying cocaine and it's half fentanyl.
While some people would always overdose on drugs whether legal or not, if drugs were legal, the manufacture would be above board and tested and inspected for purity and quality and wouldn't have adulterants which would definitely result in more deaths.
Adulterants not only include other drugs, but also dangerous substances for human injestion or injection, such as Ajax or Comet Cleaner, detergents, powdered paint, corn starch, flours, baking soda, talcum powder, alum, and many other substances you wouldn't want in your nose or veins.
People abuse everything but don't have to overpay or go to prison for their stupidity.
No one anywhere has ever said that people can't or won't abuse legal drugs. The point is that most drug users aren't raving junkies, helpless in the face of their addiction any more than most drinkers are hopeless alcoholics. Most are perfectly capable of using responsibly, but prohibition makes that much harder because black market drugs don't have reliable labeling for dosage or even content. If I walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle of whiskey, I can still drink excessively, but at least I know exactly what I'm getting.
Given his personal history, it’s not surprising that he was no fan of legalizing drugs. Rather, he supported drug courts and forcible treatment, as he made clear in a famous-at-the-time dust-up with British conservative Peter Hitchens.
So how credible are the words of an addict in arguing for continuing the War On (Some) Drugs? If he can’t run his own life, by what stretch can he run the life of others?
Like Jonathan Edward’s put it in song, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine, Sunshine!
https://youtu.be/QoGxz7Tsmxo?si=c0P9ItiEazGFgPN5
And when we wake up and end The War On (Some) Drugs, a “brand new bell will be ringing!”
🙂
Other research shows that even people classified as "excessive drinkers"—eight drinks a week for women, 15 for men
Wait what?
Those are definitely rookie numbers.
Leah Thomas can only handle eight drinks a week. Riiiiiight.
Compared to Sarc, 15 drinks per DAY is rookie numbers.
Didn’t the NHS redefine excessive as more than 2 per week?
Do Irish people get a pass?
The Polocks should get one too.
I make sure to put about 8oz in a glass. Just to make sure I don't exceed 1 drink a day.
Two fingers...spread into a "V for Victory Gin."
🙂
😉
Yeah, it's like doctors have no idea how people actually use alcohol. Just like they don't seem to know how normal people eat.
When my Grandpa told the Doctor that he only drank some wine at Christmastime and an occasional 6-pack on a fishing trip, the Doctor said: “Damn! I spill more than you drink!”
🙂
😉
In the wake of a tragic death like Perry’s, it’s easy to overlook how drug prohibition makes it harder for people to seek treatment by compounding shame and denial with legal issues.
I don’t believe that “drug prohibition” makes it “harder for people to seek treatment”. I believe that, in any modern context is a herculean leap of assumption and wishcasting.
Drug treatment, and options for it, as provided by the very state that supposedly “fills our prisons with non-violent marijuana users” is offering free drug treatment, fired out of tee-shirt cannons into the crowd, and that treatment is often rejected by the people who are arguably suffering the worst effects of drug abuse. In fact, that treatment is so often refused that people start demanding that treatment be forced– or “nudged” just to try to shave the worst aspects of America’s current Zombie apocalypse in its most expensive upzoned cities.
The ravages and second order effects of drug prohibition are clear enough without having to fudge the narrative by saying “there’s too much shame in people seeking treatment… because of *checks talking points* prohibition.”
So no, I’m sorry, Baltimore would not be in full economic recovery if but for The Jones Act.
It’s very easy to seek drug treatment. Especially if you’re a rich connected celebrity like Perry.
I mean, he *did* seek treatment, so the argument that treatment is stigmatized falls a bit flat here.
Not really. The point was that there's a bit of a double standard. Seeking rehab is "brave" if you're wealthy and popular. For ordinary people, it's still often seen as weakness or a moral failing.
Locklear and Lohan are on the wagon.
So no, I’m sorry, Baltimore would not be in full economic recovery if but for The Jones Act.
[drink]
Ah, but the treatment prescribed and proscribed by courts is typically 12-Step-Goose-Step bullshit, which is both State-mandated religion and has a recidivism rate of 87 percent.
With a Libertarian society, there would not only be no legal stigma in seeking help openly, but there would be competing methods and schools of recovery as well, none mandated by courts, who would only punish acts against persons and property with no excuses for "diminished capacity."
In ancient Greece, committing a crime while drunk was considered an aggravating factor, not an excuse. The reasoning was that people who drank to excess were depriving themselves of human reason and deserved to be punished for that as well as the crime itself.
The slots for "free" rehab are often limited, with long waiting lists. And like many "free" things in life, it's worth what you pay for it. Not to mention that even decent programs are often jammed with court-ordered "patients" who don't need or want it. Every one of these is taking up space that might otherwise be available for someone that might actually be helped.
Drug War propaganda identifies who this eras socially acceptable targets to hate are. It used to be n****r's, f*g's and J*w's. Currently it's "ADDICTS!!!".
Is there a twelve step program to stop being any of the examples you offered?
It appears it jews agian.
You know, this is a libertarian website. (ahem)
Anyway, you can write the word “Fags” or “Jews” if you want. I mean, people might think less of you, but spelling the letters “niggers” isn’t the same as calling someone that as a pejorative, and anyone reasonable here knows that.
So, if you want to stop being a bot and a troll, spell your words out. They don't get filtered like on MSN. We’ll still know you’re full of shit, but you might as well do so to prove your humanity.
Well writ
Addicts, adulterers, liars, gluttons, etc. will hopefully always be socially acceptable targets for hate. Free societies depend on that kind of social control.
Oh, and being an actual faggot myself, I have no problem with you hating me and being vocal about it! It's best when people like you identify themselves.
Addicts, adulterers, liars, gluttons, etc. will hopefully always be socially acceptable targets for hate.
If you have been paying attention, none of those things is socially acceptable to hate anymore.
In fact, at least a couple of those are actually viewed as positive things now I.E. being morbidly obese, an addict, or a polyamorous individual.
Ackshuyally, Polyamory is not adulterous if all parties know and consent. It's the deception that makes adultery shitty.
Perhaps in your circles. In my circles, we still view these as moral failings and avoid contact.
It would also be helpful if Gay-bashers didn't run State-funded, State-mandated STARs camps like those in Utah, right?
Izzat ‘chu Nemo Aequalis?
If so, Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!*
* (In Pre-Enlightenment times, people were often stigmatized as ‘witches’ for their knowledge and use of herbs for healing. Nowadays, with The War On (Some) Drugs, it is “same as it ever was, same as it ever was…”)
Reason has descended into self-parody. It's been that way for at least a decade, but occasionally there's an article so stupid that I feel the need to point it out again.
Reason is the weekly world news of libertarianism.
It is to libertarianism as The Onion is to comedy. Once was a valid example of their ideal now it is a thin shell of what it once was.
The funniest part about it, IMO, is lots of us still think HRC, Trump, and Biden are the worst possible options for POTUS. Like an electoral contest between any of Elizabeth “These placental sacks are as body-free as Nazi delousing chambers” Nolan Brown, Shikha “White people are as horrible and racist as Modi because of Trump” Dahlmia, Emma “Since when do you have to be 35 to run for President?” Camp, Scott “GODDAMNIT I SAID IT SAID DON’T SAY GAY!” Shackford or Matt “Red Wedding” Welch wouldn’t have ended with half of us sloughing off huge chunks of skin from the radioactive fallout.
Yeah,I usta be a big fan,now avoid it if I can.
What I find sad is even though he has been involved in other projects since 2004 that 20 year old sitcom is what people most remember him for.
The parade of Drug War justifying conservatives is predictable.
Is this where we pretend the drug war didn't start in dem controlled inner cities and the current president and VP had no hand in it?
Democrat politicians support and profit from the war on some drugs just as much as Republicans. Democrat voters self delude that their politicians don't do that and thus they don't cheerlead the war on some drugs.
"Drug War justifying conservatives"
Conservatives like this guy? He was the Senate's biggest drug warrior.
Poor Shrike, all his narratives are retarded.
"C'mon, Man! That rock my Son's smoking might be cut with Jello™ Pudding powder and Boost™ powder, so it's all right!"
🙂
😉
The parade of faux libertarians who think that in a libertarian society, you can take drugs without severe consequences for your wealth and liberty is also predictable.
I'm not justifying the war on drugs. But we either need a fully libertarian solution or the current progressive solution; legalizing drugs while keeping the rest of society progressive is no "libertarian".
Perry unfriended everyone.
He did give an ultimate answer the question "How ya doin'?"
Regardless of a drugs legal status perry was able to get it take it and face no legal consequences. The war on drugs has nothing to do with this
If he’d been poor, they’d have put him away.
And he might still be alive.
Alive in prison maybe.
Forced to watch reruns of Friends on a 9 inch black and white tv.
Until they release him in diabolical plot of revenge?
That's b.s. You don't get "put away" for simple drug use in the US anymore. Unfortunately, you don't even get forced into treatment anymore.
So you favor forced treatment and the State playing with people's minds?
What if that included State-mandated "Gay Conversion Therapy," such as existed in the U.S., U.S.S.R. and Red China within the memory of the living and is now making a comeback with Putin, Xi, and Utah's STARs camps?
Please stay in your Stepford and leave the rest of us the Hell alone!
Yes, I favor forced drug treatment for people who commit crimes because of their drug addiction. The alternative is prison without treatment or letting people rot in the streets and commit more crimes.
You shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about.
Apparently you think that it is moral to let people rot in the streets from drug abuse and commit crimes against law abiding citizens, all in the name of "libertarianism". My views are pretty mainstream. You are the fringe nutcase,
I'm all for punishing acts against persons and property. I am dead-set against Government playing with people's minds and doing compulsory indoctrination of anything to anyone! That is as 1st Amendment American as it gets!
Step off my rights, Stepford Boy!
Good!
Well, that's why drug addicts who commit criminal acts should get a choice: drug treatment or drug-free prison without treatment. See, they get a choice.
Get lost you f*cking communist.
You don't know the difference between choice and compulsion, do you?
And I'm not the one who thinks a Stepford is freedom, so you don't know what Communism is either. So you are the one who should Fuck Off!
Which party of drug addicts who commit criminal acts did you fail to understand?
Actually, unlike you, I experienced communism first hand. You're an ignorant American nincompoop.
The purpose of punishment in a free society should be to make restitution to victims where possible, to protect the innocent in society from danger, and to deter criminals from committing future crimes.
It is not the purpose of punishment in a free society to play with people's minds and be a "soul doctor.". If prisoners do that themselves by their own efforts, whatever, but government has no legitimate role in that, otherwise we have Yevgeny Zamyatin's We or Anrhony Burress' A Clockwork Orange.
If you experienced Communism, you need another debriefing because it didn't rub off.
should remind us of the costs of the war on drugs.
No, it should remind us of the costs of drug abuse.
Indeed. Stupid article is stupid.
"It's better to stop spending billions of dollars a year propping up a drug war that fails most basic cost-benefit analyses (such as this one coauthored by Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker) and spend more time helping people with problems and creating new cultural norms that encourage responsible living, with or without the use of intoxicants."
This paragraph reminds me of South Park's Underpants Gnome profit model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
Reportedly, the only drugs found in his house were prescription medicines for anxiety, depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD, (an artifact of his heavy smoking).
Dr. Gillespie has determined that COPD is from smoking and could not possibly come from hard core drug abuse.
Maybe it was the deadly menthol.
Menthol is deadly only to Black people. Ask RFK Jr.
Sure, it could, depending on what he was into. But if he was a heavy smoker, that is probably the main cause.
How can I use a well-known celebrity's untimely death to politicize a subject I want to convince people to agree with when I'm not even sure it contributed to his death?
No neither drugs nor alcohol should be regulated by the government. Is this a libertarian site or not?
Huh?
It will reduce deaths from adulterated drugs, sure, just as ending Prohibition reduced deaths from adulterated alcohol. But it will quite certainly increase the amount of drug abuse, just as ending Prohibition was provably followed by a rise in alcohol abuse.
The libertarian answer is not that legalizing drugs will magically have no downsides; it is that initiating force to protect adults from themselves is a crime against those adults.
The libertarian answer is also that drug users would likely be ostracized from society and excluded from jobs, housing, and insurance in a way that makes the current legal repercussions seem like a slap on the wrist in comparison.
That is, a libertarian society has none of the anti-discrimination and privacy rights that our progressive society has.
Oh please! It's the 2020s. There is no stigma about being a druggie. See Hunter Biden as the poster boy.
The only real problem is the hypocrisy that lets the elites get away with it while poor people go to jail.
These days it's pretty hard to get into the jail just for drug use or possession.
Thanks for sharing such a great blog about drugs.
dont forget to get updates of celebrities from CelebChitChat from https://celebchitchat.com/
Do the celebs share drug tips?
Fascinating: you have the death of a person from drugs for whom drugs and drug treatment were essentially available without limitation, and your conclusion is: "make this available to more people"!
Good!
In a libertarian society, it isn't "cultural norms" that encourage responsible living, it's hard, naked economics and price signals. Under libertarianism, taking drugs may be technically legal, but you would likely lose access to insurance, driving, and many jobs. The effect would be far more severe on drug users than the kind of legal tolerance of drug use we currently have.
So, what about economic incentives for suppliers to (1) keep their users alive and (2) keep them economically functional? Sure, some people will not be able to handle intoxicants, but do we design society to impose protective plans on others?
Drug dealers right now have those incentives, don't they? But they become less compelling after legalization since drugs are dirt cheap to make and there is going to be almost no profit in them. Nor are suppliers going to be legally liable in any meaningful way.
Did I argue anywhere for prohibiting drugs? What I am arguing for is that if we legalize drugs, we ensure that we do so in a fully libertarian framework, namely with respect for free markets, private property, and freedom of association. I'm simply telling you and others that the consequences of legal drug use in a libertarian society would likely be much more severe for drug users than even the war on drugs.
Yet you were supporting compulsory drug treatment it your posts above. Which is it?
In the context of the progressive social welfare state and legal system we live in, compulsory drug treatment for people who commit crimes because of their drug addiction is necessary.
In the context of a libertarian society, the consequences of drug addiction would be so severe that no policies are needed. I favor the libertarian solution.
Your problem is that you want the lack of state drug policy of a libertarian society with all the socialization of costs of a progressive social welfare state. You are not a libertarian, you are effectively a communist.
I never supported socializing costs of drug use or drug addiction. That should have been clear from my position that crime against persons and property should be punished, with no excuses for "diminished capacity."
But then, you think that Sciences are social clubs, so that explains a lot.
But right now, the costs of drug abuse are socialized, and as long as that is the case, it makes no sense to adopt libertarian drug policies.
Yet, when I suggested that criminals should be put into drug treatment, you called me an authoritarian.
You are one very confused man.
You'd might as well say that guns and autos shouldn't be legal, since medical costs of crime and accidents are socialized as well. There are many other things that wouldn't be legal as well because of "socialized costs."
Get the Government out of the business of socializing costs and stop making peaceful use of things illegal.
More likely, pharmaceutical firms in a free society would innovate and eventually create drugs and alcohol that kill pain without killing people and let people have fully functional lives.
Under libertarianism, taking drugs may be technically legal, but you would likely lose access to insurance, driving, and many jobs. The effect would be far more severe on drug users than the kind of legal tolerance of drug use we currently have.
Why is that a necessary outcome?
It might also be the case that under libertarianism, there would be far more private wealth to fund charities and foundations that would be able to provide more assistance to those with addiction problems than ineffective government treatment programs can now currently offer. The consequences of drug addiction wouldn't necessarily be more punitive, the might be more compassionate instead.
Besides, addiction is not just a sign of poor moral character. Sometimes it is, but not exclusively. There is a strong psychological component and perhaps also a genetic component to it. Do you think a guy like Matthew Perry really wanted to go so far down the path of addiction that he was looking forward to the day when he would get a colostomy bag? So saying that social ostracism is the proper libertarian response to drug addiction is akin to saying that social ostracism is the proper libertarian response to, say, schizophrenia, or cancer. If that is the case, why would any sane person WANT to choose libertarianism?
If alcohol and drug addiction were genetic, how would the trait have manifested itself prior to the time that humans domesticated and grew drug plants and produced alcohol?
I'm not buying it. I've also asked this question of 12-Step Goose-Steppers and have never got a coherent answer.
Generally speaking, traits that contribute to addiction to some drug are likely either neutral or beneficial when that drug is unavailable. That is why those genes haven't been eliminated.
For example, there is genetic variation in the degree to which people experience unpleasant side effects from opioids. If you don't take opioids, this won't make any difference to you. Once you take opioids, it will affect how likely you are to become addicted to them.
But all of this assumes a genetic marker for addiction which has yet to be proven. Hence it is a Begging the Question Fallacy.
Alcoholism and drug abuse are each about 40-60% heritable. Many related genes have been identified.
For alcoholism, some of the key genes include:
ADH1B and ALDH2: These genes encode enzymes that are involved in alcohol metabolism. Certain variants can lead to an accumulation of acetaldehyde, which can produce unpleasant effects and may decrease the risk of alcoholism in some populations.
GABRA2: Related to the GABA neurotransmitter system, variations in this gene have been linked to the risk for alcohol dependence.
DRD2: This gene is associated with the dopamine receptor, which plays a role in the reward pathway and has been linked to alcoholism.
For drug abuse, some of the identified genes are:
DRD2: As with alcoholism, the DRD2 gene is also implicated in the risk of drug abuse, given its role in the reward pathway.
OPRM1: This gene encodes the mu-opioid receptor, which is the primary site of action for opioids. Variations in this gene may influence reward response mechanisms and susceptibility to opioid addiction.
CNR1: The gene that encodes the cannabinoid receptor may influence the effects of cannabis and the risk of cannabis dependence.
But not one gene makes anyone actually do the stuff.
For years I advocated for drug legalization and regulation.
After seeing what some states have done with cannabis has me rethinking my position.
I've been saying that here for a long time. "Legalization" of opioids and other "hard" drugs would be just as FUBARed as marijuana "legalization" has been. We're not going to have heroin, meth, and Fentanyl hanging next to the aspirin at RiteAid. We would have a micromanaged legal distribution system with very high prices that almost no users would buy from, alongside a continuing black market that did most of the business. Just like with weed.
The libertarian obsession with legalizing drugs in the face of all evidence is pathetic. It's no longer a hypothetical argument for the pure liberty set to throw around as an Edgy Guy signal at the barcade.
Have a look at the drug legalization poster children: Portland, Seattle, Denver, Anytown California. Tell me how much they've improved now that those freedom-loving communists have legalized drugs and have de-facto legalized open-air drug use. DUI, property crime, deaths of despair, rampant homelessness (AKA drug addicts in tents). These aren't just exploding alongside increased access to drugs, they're exploding in large part because of it.
But alcohol! But black kids locked up over a milligram of cocaine! I'm so sick of your strawman horseshit. You got what you wanted and now we have real life case studies. Maybe human beings should be able to handle access to drugs, but they obviously can't. And while I do generally agree with the "I don't care if you destroy your own life" crowd, it's clear that drug addicts are incapable of *only* destroying their own lives. They are taking the rest of us with them.
When the facts change, change your views.
drug addicts are incapable of *only* destroying their own lives
Yes, the "harm reduction" theorists don't seem to notice the harm done to OTHERS by addicts.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do.
This Website➤---------------➤ https://www.dailypro7.com
Somebody's addicted to sending biz-op spam. Proof that you don't need to do drugs to be a menace and nuisance to others.
🙂
This is the only dangerous part of your argument:
I mean, the same is arguably true for guns, cars, contraception, social media, etc etc. Heck, you could even go so far as to say that they can't handle liberty itself.
The problem isn't "human beings." The problem is some human beings. The problem is also some human beings in power who want to take an "all or none" approach to things, refusing to target the some while leaving everyone else the heck alone.
And the answer is laughably simple:
Round up all the drug addicts, burn their tent cities, and dump them in a FEMA camp until they detox or die. Round up all the criminals and throw them in jail. If they're disproportionately one race over another who the heck cares. Shut down all the entitlement pumps and consequence parachutes. If some people can't figure out basic personal responsibility and accountability, then let them deal with the consequences of their poor decisions ALONE. (If you're really that worried about them, google the definition of "charity.")
When there's a hole in your roof, you don't tear down the entire house to rebuild it; nor do you ignore it and let it get worse. You fix the hole.
It's not obvious to me that mass "round ups" of people into concentration camps is more libertarian than laws against hard drugs.
lol, "concentration camps."
As opposed to the camps they're literally in right this minute where we just let them drug and crime and otherwise destabilize local property/commerce value without consequence, while pretending it's not any kind of problem whatsoever?
Careful falling into that fainting couch Vern, its legs look pretty weak.
You'll notice, incidentally, that I didn't mention any "laws against hard drugs." I said to get the addicts and other criminals off the street. Do you have some sort of problem with that?
Don't blame me if you can't follow the conversation.
Seems you're the one struggling in that regard.
Judge Dredd, is that you?
Judge Dredd would take out the building. I'm specifically not advocating that.
You're advocating making drug addiction effectively a crime.
What are the redeeming qualities and positive aspects of drug addiction? What benefit does drug addiction confer upon an individual, a family, a community, a society, or a nation?
What are the redeeming qualities and positive aspects of wasting time posting on an Internet comment forum on a Saturday afternoon? What benefit does wasting time posting on an Internet comment forum on a Saturday afternoon confer upon an individual, a family, a community, a society, or a nation?
That's a very curious avoidance. It's like you couldn't come up with an answer, so you tried to completely change the subject.
Tell you what though - I'll be happy to answer your question about the redeeming qualities of internet usage social dialog, but first you have to answer mine:
What are the redeeming qualities and positive aspects of drug addiction? What benefit does drug addiction confer upon an individual, a family, a community, a society, or a nation?
I question your premise. Why does some human activity have to have "redeeming qualities" and "positive aspects" and "social benefits" in order to avoid being rounded up and thrown into a FEMA camp for practicing that activity?
I didn't assert a premise when I asked you the question. The question is independent of any other consideration. You've now twice avoided it. Leading one to believe that you either don't have an answer, or refuse to admit one.
What are the redeeming qualities and positive aspects of drug addiction? What benefit does drug addiction confer upon an individual, a family, a community, a society, or a nation?
Third and final opportunity Jeff. If you don't answer now, then you've made it clear that you're not participating here in good faith or constructive dialog.
Okay - suppose there are absolutely no redeeming social values to drug addiction. So what? Does that alone justify throwing drug addicts into FEMA camps?
If there are absolutely no redeeming qualities (not just social; no redeeming qualities at all) to drug addiction - then why support, defend, rationalize, or otherwise make excuses for drug addicts being drug addicts or encourage/empower that which leads to it?
I'm not defending someone being a drug addict. I'm defending a person's liberty to govern his/her own life. That is what's at stake here.
And what when their exercise of liberty causes demonstrable harm to others or their community?
Like I said - if you want to become a drug-addled derelict living in a tent eating garbage and tweaking on the street, great. But we've seem the demonstrable harm and damage that does. So, the consequence of that particular exercise of liberty is that you get rounded up and removed from the rest of civil/polite society (same goes for the dealers/distributors, only they go to jail and never come back out). Why is that so unreasonable?
The fact is, there's lots of liberty we curtail. Like the liberty to beat the snot out of each other over disputes. Like the liberty to walk into a place of business and say/do/take whatever you want. A liberty exercise that has no redeeming value of any kind, and instead presents clear demonstrable harm - we put a stop to them. By force if necessary.
It's not unreasonable. It's called society.
"Liberty" doesn't mean "you can do what you want without any kind of constraint or pressure"; liberty merely means "you can do what you want without government interference".
No, that is not the problem. The root problem is lack of market and pricing mechanisms for discourating bad behavior.
The hell-holes you describe are a result of quasi-not quite-legalized drug use coupled with unreasonable tolerance and even support for bizarre human behavior.
Here's an alternative: truly legalized drugs, enforcement of basic behavior standards (e.g. no defecating on the sidewalk), and privately-funded no-cost drug supply zones located in the middle of nowhere with free one-way transportation.
The refusal by progressives to enforce legitimate laws does not, in fact, demonstrate the need for illegitimate laws. When drug addicts commit real crimes, they should wind up in prison (or, often enough, executed -- whatever is said by namby-pamby pseudolibertarians who refuse to recognize the reality of the use of force).
Have a look at the drug legalization poster children: Portland, Seattle, Denver, Anytown California. Tell me how much they’ve improved now that those freedom-loving communists have legalized drugs and have de-facto legalized open-air drug use.
Wiz Biz makes an excellent point about the timing of de-facto legalization of drugs and the explosion of homelessness in the urban shit-holes.
But if we’re honestly discussing these issues, emptytheprisons also happened about the same time. Both policies were designed to keep shitheads voting for democrats (libertarian moment my ass).
The only solution is NO INCUMBENTS IN 2024, so obviously the problem is only going to get worse before it gets better, if ever.
The Totalitarian obsession about criminalizing peaceful acts of consenting adults when history shows it ends in nothing good is what is really pathetic.
In fact, seeking, exercising, and clinging to power over sovereign consenting adults is the most deadly, dangerous addiction Humanity has ever suffered, with a death toll in the hundreds of millions just in the Twentieth Century alone.
And the biggest addicts to power also penalized drugs with life imprisonment and death and still never eliminated drug use and drug addiction from their Utopias.
And in all the places you cited, drugs are still illegal on the Federal level and most likely the State level too.
All those dispensaries you see cannot get financing or insurance without charges of money laundering against the banks and insurers and every one of those dispensaries could be shut down at a moment’s notice by a zealous Jackbooted Thug Alphabet Soup Agency head.
How about a little fire for that Strawman, Scarecrow?
https://youtu.be/F74g9CXxmQw?si=0z2pAL2OwhpSW5Wx
And how about you change your views in the face of those facts?
That's not legalization, that's decriminalization combined with lack of enforcement of other laws. Basically the worst option. Leave the supply in the hands of amoral criminals while not holding druggies responsible for their actions. That's not legalization by any reasonable definition and isn't going to lead to anything good.
What is missing from the drug legalization argument, and the freedom argument, is that freedom introduces necessity. The Conservatives and Progressives only see permissiveness, but real freedom could not include the financial support our current government provides. Individuals would be required to provide for themselves, where real freedom existed, because it would not be permissible to take from the productive. It would be difficult to maintain a drug addiction, if one couldn't engage in some sort of employment. Freeing the law enforcement resources from the futile efforts to stop drug use could be redirected to protecting our persons and property, not to mention the increased ability of each individual to personally protect those things. The greatest obstacle to achieving this is the deep contempt Conservatives and Progressives have for others. Contempt is a natural human characteristics, but introducing it into law makes it a cultural pollutant.
Mmmph. Maintaining a opioid addiction in a world where they're legal commodity products, rather than artificially scarce due to a prohibition regime, would be pretty damn cheap.
Opioids are probably as cheap as they get right now; under a legalized regime, sellers would face product liability and other issues.
In any case, that's not the main problem drug addicts face in a libertarian society; rather, they would face problems getting insurance, they would excluded from many jobs and private property, etc.
Let’s not turn him into a saint. He liked to get high . Getting high is fun but it obviously has detrimental consequences for some people. There’s a stigma attached to addiction not because drugs are illegal. The stigma comes from the fact that some people mess their lives up because of it . Drug prohibition doesn’t stop people from using. It just makes it more expensive. I’m all for freedom but if you want to get high you can’t impose that cost on others if you can’t handle it .
Adults are responsible for their own actions. Sorry to break it to all you shitlibs and christian conservatives alike.
Absolutely. And that also goes for Subsidiatarian/AnCaps with no reading comprehension skills too.
Guy had a fucking heart attack, like Jim Fixx did (Google that shit)
Diamond Exchange Id on BappaBook is your ultimate platform for secure and efficient diamond trading. Our user-friendly interface and cutting-edge technology ensure seamless transactions, connecting buyers and sellers in the diamond industry. Join us to experience a hassle-free diamond exchange, where trust, transparency, and top-quality service are our core values.
Visit: https://bappabook.com/diamond-exchange-id.php
I was diagnosed with COPD stage 2, six years ago now. I moved to Spain 2 years ago in the hope my health would improve. I am now 66. I also had a triple heart bypass 10 years ago, which doesn't help! I often get headaches and migraines and can't walk upstairs without getting out of breath. I was told by Mayo Clinic there was nothing left to do to improve my health. Miraculously i found Multivitamin herbal cure on YouTube .When I contacted this herbal foundation through their email,i wasn’t certain the herbal treatment will get rid of COPD disease not until I complete the treatment as instructed. I will be resuming my business next month because this herbal cure seriously reverse my lung condition which we never expected ,im referring this to anybody at there suffering from this condition and they have assurance about this treatments their website : www multivitamincare .org