Drug Legalization: A Philosophical

Analysis Chris Meyers

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/drug-legalization-a-philosophical-analysis-chris-meye
rs/
 DRUG
LEGALIZA-
TION
A PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

CHRIS MEYERS
Drug Legalization
 Chris Meyers

Drug Legalization
A Philosophical Analysis
Chris Meyers
George Washington University
Washington, DC, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-17004-1    ISBN 978-3-031-17005-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17005-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2023
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to
the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Preface

Drugs and drug policy affect the lives of millions of people every day,
sometimes for the better but more often for the worse. Most people are
well aware of the potential detrimental effects of illicit drugs, though they
can also be beneficial when used responsibly. But drug prohibition can be
equally detrimental for those whose lives it affects. My own family pro-
vides good examples of both.
I have an older brother who has struggled with addiction to alcohol
and methamphetamines throughout his adult life, much of which was
spent either homeless or in jail. My older sister, by contrast, has been
impacted more by the prohibition of drugs than by personal use. Though
she developed a serious cocaine habit in her 30s, her real troubles began
when she was coerced into selling coke after her drug dealing boyfriend
skipped town. She was later tortured by her drug cartel supplier and then
busted by the feds for trafficking.
Thankfully, I have been much more fortunate in my experiences with
illicit drugs. Two of the best decisions I ever made (both of them rather
late in life) were to start growing marijuana and to start using psychedel-
ics. But this book is not about personal experiences, mine or anyone else’s.
Although I may toss in the occasional story for the purpose of illustration,
the focus of this book will be on evidence and arguments.
My aim is to provide a critical and balanced review of the drug legaliza-
tion debate, examining and assessing arguments on both sides. This book
should be of special interest to students studying moral philosophy, politi-
cal science, or public policy since we will examine many important moral/
political issues, including liberty, paternalism, punishment, political

v
vi PREFACE

obligation, legal moralism, utilitarianism, justice, the nature of law, rights

and liberties, and the public good. Nevertheless, the book is written pri-
marily for activists, policy makers, and concerned citizens interested in
drug policy and related social and political issues. Both reformers and their
critics would benefit from a careful, structured, comprehensive analysis of
the arguments on each side of the debate.

Washington, DC, USA Chris Meyers

 Contents

Part I Background   1

1 The Question  3

2 Just the Facts 25

Part II Morality  53

3 Religious Prohibition of Drug Use 55

4 Is it Morally Wrong to Use Drugs? 71

5 Morality and the Law 99

Part III Liberty 119

6 Liberty and the Right to Get High121

7 Libertarianism and Laissez Faire Legalization143

8 Paternalism and Preventing Self-Harm163

vii
viii Contents

Part IV Criminal Justice 179

9 Crime and Punishment181

10 The War on Drugs and Civil Rights203

Part V The Public Good 225

11 Social Consequences of Drug Prohibition227

12 Social Consequences of Drug Legalization253

13 Alternatives to Prohibition and Legalization273

Part VI Implementation 295

14 Belling the Cat297

Index307
 PART I

Background
 CHAPTER 1

The Question

Like most professional philosophers, I am a theory guy. My line of work

involves analyzing concepts and constructing arguments; I leave the story-
telling to the historians and the journalists. While this book reflects that
theoretical orientation, I want to start with a little anecdote to help frame
the primary question of our inquiry. It is a story of how, on one early
spring afternoon in 2016, I found myself strolling along the hiking trail of
a small town in Mississippi, tripping out of my gourd on psilocybin
mushrooms.
Needless to say, that is not how I usually spent my Sunday afternoons.
But I had been reading a lot about drugs for this book and the research
sparked an interest in the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. I had
learned about a UCLA study in which psilocybin was given to twelve ter-
minal cancer patients suffering from severe anxiety and depression [1].
With the help of the drugs, these patients were able to come to grips with
their impending mortality. After the experiment, all twelve participants
registered much lower levels of anxiety and an increased sense of peace and
acceptance. All but one showed decreased signs of depression. The psy-
chedelic trips allowed the patients to think more objectively about the
difficulties they faced, without the despair and fear that would normally
accompany such thoughts. These benefits continued long after the effects
of the drugs had worn off—for weeks or even months.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 3

Switzerland AG 2023
C. Meyers, Drug Legalization,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17005-8_1
4 C. MEYERS

I had also come across evidence that psychedelics can help with creativ-
ity and problem solving. Many famous people cite LSD as having aided
their scientific, artistic, or other professional achievements, including com-
poser Andre Previn, visual artists Ralph Steadman and H.R. Geiger, phi-
losopher Jean-Paul Sartre, fiction writers Ken Kesey and Tom Robbins,
comedian George Carlin, actors Cary Grant and Frances McDormand,
entrepreneur Steve Jobs, engineer Douglas Engelbart, neurologist Oliver
Sacks, and the winningest coach in NBA history, Phil Jackson. There are
even two Nobel Prizes in science that might not have occurred without
the help of psychedelic drugs: Francis Crick’s discovery (with others) of
the structure of the DNA molecule and Kary Mullis’s polymerase chain
reaction method for sequencing genes [2]. Knowing that psychedelics are
relatively safe and nonaddictive, I thought it might be useful to explore
their potential benefits firsthand.
I ordered some Psilocybe cubensis spores online, and eight weeks later I
harvested my first crop of psilocybin mushrooms. At the time I was rent-
ing a house that I refer to as the “cabin” because it was dilapidated, sur-
rounded by trees, and harbored a few freeloading mice. It was right next
to a cemetery, so I had no need to worry about nosey neighbors. My
permanent residence was nine hundred miles away in Washington,
DC. While other married men might use this arrangement to stay out late,
watch more football, or change the bed sheets less often; I took advantage
of the situation by growing mind-altering fungus in my closet. Given the
illegal nature of what I was doing, I kept it a secret from everyone, even
my wife (for her protection as much as mine).
I had used ‘shrooms once in college and had some idea of what to
expect—or at least I thought I did—but this time I was much more careful
and prepared diligently for my journey. I read everything I could find
online about proper dose size, set and setting, various precautions, and
recommended activities to get the most out of the experience. Although I
was not facing an existential crisis like the cancer patients, I did have some
issues that I wanted to work through. The university where I worked was
a sinking ship, and despite an impending promotion to full professor I was
contemplating quitting so that I could live fulltime with my wife in DC. I
had been unable to secure an acceptable academic post in the mid-Atlantic
region and feared a career change might be necessary.
On the designated day I skipped lunch, meditated briefly to clear my
head, and then consumed a carefully weighed dose of 3.5 grams of mush-
rooms (which would turn out to be a bit more than I had bargained for).
 1 THE QUESTION 5

After choking them down with an orange juice chaser, I settled into my
comfy chair, put on my headphones, dialed up Vivaldi’s “Four Seasons”
on YouTube, and waited for the magic mushrooms to do their magic. It
took a while for the psilocybin to take effect. When it finally kicked in, it
hit hard. It felt as if my whole body was vibrating in unison with the music,
and I had to throw off the headphones and catch my breath.
After a moment I looked at the laptop and noticed something strange.
The music had now moved on to the Autumn movements, accompanied
by a picture of a tree with bright orange leaves. It seemed that the tree was
growing more and more leaves, sprouting them all over, causing the foli-
age to flow like a slow-moving fountain, only with leaves instead of water.
It quickly dawned on me that this might be a hallucination; it could be a
still image that only seemed to be flowing. To confirm this hypothesis, I
paused the video. Sure enough, the tree kept flowing, churning out more
and more bright orange leaves.
About that time, I started to experience an unpleasant cluster of sensa-
tions that regular users refer to as “body load.” Every molecule of my
body seemed to be quivering, as if an electrical current were running
through me. I felt lethargic yet antsy, short of breath, and queasy. I
thought to myself, Oh shit! What have I gotten myself into!? Fortunately, I
had done enough research to know that no one has ever overdosed on
psychedelic mushrooms. And 3.5 grams is not a heroic sized dose.
I got up to splash some cold water on my face, but walking around the
house was very disorienting. It felt as if I were walking on a treadmill and
the house was moving around me. When I looked in the bathroom mirror,
I saw that my face was red and flushed. Or was it? Maybe my face was
normal, but the mushrooms made it appear red. There was no way to tell.
This epistemic puzzle was rather disconcerting. How could I know which
experiences were real and which were the product of my altered brain
chemistry?
Fortunately, psychedelics do not interfere much with rational thinking,
and I realized that there was a simple way I could find out whether my face
was really flushed. All I had to do was take a selfie with my phone. Then
later, after the drugs had worn off, I could look at the picture. (I did not
actually take the picture. It was reassuring simply to know that it was pos-
sible to compare my experience with objective reality.)
At this point, the interior of the cabin was starting to feel eerily unreal.
One common effect of psychedelics is the appearance of complex, geo-
metrical patterns in your visual field. These are typically seen only with
6 C. MEYERS

your eyes closed and are referred to, appropriately enough, as “closed-eye
visuals.” I was seeing these with my eyes open, especially when looking at
blank surfaces. They took the form of a warped grid with abstract glyphs
in each little compartment, gradually transitioning through every color of
the spectrum. This imagery seemed to be projected onto the walls and
ceiling of the cabin. I needed some fresh air.
After a few aborted attempts, I managed to make it outside and set out
for the hiking trail. As I crossed the cemetery I was awestruck by the trees
along the perimeter. They were perfectly ordinary trees that I had seen
hundreds of times before. But now I was amazed at the sight of these
monstrous giant plants towering thirty or forty feet tall. Everything looked
more intense than usual, and I was feeling a bit of sensory overload. I
continued toward the trail, praying that I would not run into any of my
students.
It was a Sunday, and the canopy-covered trail was sparsely populated
with joggers, bike-riders, and people walking their dogs. I avoided eye
contact (even with the dogs), wondering to myself, Can they tell?
Of course not, I reassured myself. Most people are too wrapped up in their
own issues to notice any subtle quirks in my behavior. Besides, I thought, I am
acting well within the normal range for a human being.
But that started a dialectic in my head. What do you mean “for a human
being”? What other standard would be appropriate? It’s not like I’m
PRETENDING to be a human being; I AM a human being.
Ok, sure, came the rejoinder. You are a human being. But that does not
mean that you are not also pretending to be one.
Touché, I concluded, and resolved to do a better job at pretending to
be human.
My trip turned out to be quite enjoyable despite the somewhat rocky
start. The shady, tree-lined path was the perfect setting. I was able to
appreciate the beauty of my surroundings like I never had before. It felt
like I was on an adventure, exploring uncharted territory, even though I
had strolled on this trail many times before. It seemed new and yet familiar
at the same time.
After the walk I returned to the cabin and lay down on the couch. It
was time to think about my career. Under the influence of the psilocybin
my thoughts flowed freely—if anything, a bit too freely—and I considered
the issue from a hundred different perspectives. Every assertion I made
was questioned and rebutted with a counter-assertion, which was then
itself questioned and rebutted by a counter-counter-assertion, spiraling off
 1 THE QUESTION 7

in every direction. I did not come to any conclusions, but the psilocybin
allowed me to ask some important questions that I was unable to consider
previously. Did I really want to continue doing philosophy? Why? Couldn’t
I still do philosophy without working in academia? Would quitting consti-
tute failure? What else would I do? Previously I had taken for granted that
I wanted certain things, and my deliberation consisted of trying to figure
out how to get them. Now I was questioning all my previous goals and
priorities in a very cool and detached way.
I stayed up quite late that night, insomnia being one of the primary side
effects of psychedelics. When I was finally drowsy enough, I went to bed
and slept peacefully, waking in the morning without a hangover. I did not
have to teach that day, but I did have to go to the university natatorium
for the scuba diving class where I volunteered as an assistant diver. My
usual tasks involved helping the students with equipment issues underwa-
ter and hovering around in case one of the divers-in-training panicked and
tried to bolt to the surface. It was an excuse for me to perfect my skills
while the instructor put the students through their rigors.
This time I went to scuba class with a new attitude. I felt more consci-
entious. I was not there to have fun or work on my skills; I was there to
help the instructor and to take care of the students. I showed up early. I
took the initiative and helped without waiting to be asked. In the water I
was much more attentive and diligent in performing my duties. After class
I stayed to help rinse off the gear instead of ducking out. Psilocybin, it
seems, had made me a better person, at least temporarily. This afterglow
did not last forever; but it lasted a while, taking weeks to gradually wear off.
I have used psychedelics several times since that fateful day and have
found that they often provide deep psychological insight, helping me
come to terms with personal issues I had not even been aware of.
So much for the story; now the moral. Should I be sent to prison for
what I did? And if so, why? Legally I could be locked up for violating sev-
eral federal and state laws. Psilocybin mushrooms are schedule-I narcotics,
the most illegal of illegal drugs. Growing any amount, even for someone
like me with a clean criminal record, is a level-12 felony, which carries a
minimum of ten months in the slammer. But my question is not about
what the law is; it is about what the law should be. I could be incarcerated
for what I did, but should I be?
One might argue that certain drugs are illegal because they are danger-
ous, and the law is there to protect potential users from harming them-
selves. But that is clearly not the case here. For one, it is virtually impossible
8 C. MEYERS

to overdose from psilocybin. It is also nontoxic and nonaddictive. As

rewarding as my experience was, it was not something that I wanted to
repeat anytime soon—it was too much work. Overall, the experience was
quite beneficial. Those around me also benefited from my improved atti-
tude. Even if my activities had put me at risk of harming myself—say, if I
had grown poppies instead of mushrooms and made my own opium—a
stint in prison would certainly be more harmful to me than using the drugs.
Some might claim that drugs should be illegal because drug users help
fund violent criminal enterprises. But that is irrelevant here for two rea-
sons. First, the only reason why purchasing drugs provides revenues to
brutal cartels is precisely because they are illegal. Criminal organizations
are the only ones willing and able to sell them. Also, more specific to the
case at hand, I did not purchase my ‘shrooms from a dealer; I grew
them myself.
Still, some might say that I am setting a bad example for others. But a
few close friends were the only ones who knew about my psilocybin adven-
ture (until now). Moreover, it seems to me that I am setting a good exam-
ple of how to use drugs responsibly. I did my research, carefully weighed
my dose, and took every precaution against having a bad trip. Not every-
one who uses will be as cautious as I was. But those reckless users would
obviously not be following my example. Of course, my little mushroom
trip is hardly typical of recreational drug use. But the law makes no such
distinction between responsible use and reckless use.

Why Now?
Scholars have long questioned the wisdom and justice of drug prohibition.
In the preface for How to Legalize Drugs, an anthology of original articles
on drug policy, the editor Jefferson Fish says, “[This] book takes the posi-
tion that the debate whether to end drug prohibition has already been
resolved in the affirmative. It is time to move on to the next question” [3,
p. xi]. Not all scholars agree, of course, but the thirty-two contributors to
that collection—respected academics from law, anthropology, sociology,
political science, philosophy, economics, criminal justice, psychology, and
medicine—concluded that the prohibition of drugs should end. That
book was published over twenty years ago. If anything, there is even more
consensus today among experts that the drug war is a colossal failure, and
that we need to find an alternative approach.
 1 THE QUESTION 9

It seems that those outside of academia, however, did not get the
memo. Drug legalization has not, for the most part, been taken seriously
by politicians, pundits, or the voting public. There are, however, a few
notable exceptions. The most significant is the legalization of marijuana—
at first for medical purposes and more recently for recreational use.
Seventeen states in the United States have legalized recreational cannabis,
along with the Netherlands, Uruguay, Canada, Mexico, and Malta. Today
over 60% of adults in the United States favor legalizing possession and
sales of marijuana for recreational use. Support for legalizing marijuana is
much weaker in Europe and Australia, but it is growing. The therapeutic
use of psychedelic drugs is also gaining support. Clinical trials of MDMA
(aka “ecstasy”) for treating PTSD are already in phase 3, and the FDA is
expected to approve the drug for medical use as soon as 2023. That would
require the DEA to remove it from the schedule-I category, something
that has virtually never happened before.
Decriminalization of illicit drugs, which would mean that it is not a
crime to possess small amounts, is also gradually gaining in popularity.
Twenty-six countries and a dozen US states have decriminalized mari-
juana. In 2019, the city of Denver decriminalized psilocybin-containing
mushrooms, followed shortly by Oakland and Santa Cruz. Portugal
decriminalized all drugs back in 2001, and other European nations, as well
as the state of Oregon, are experimenting with similar measures.
These are just some of the cracks that are starting to appear in the drug-­
war dyke. They could be a bellwether for a complete overhaul of drug
laws, both domestic and international; or they could provide a release of
pressure that will forestall any long-term substantive reform. Either way,
the time is ripe for a careful, critical examination of the arguments on both
sides of the issue.

The Question
This book aims to answer a seemingly simple question: Should drugs be
illegal? In other words, What reasons, if any, do we have for prohibiting
illicit drug use? This book will not provide my own answer to this ques-
tion. Instead, I will offer analyses of arguments on both sides so that read-
ers can answer the question for themselves.
Before we can decide whether there are good reasons to prohibit drugs,
we need to consider what would count as a “good reason.” Whether we as
a society ought to adopt some policy—whether a business regulation,
10 C. MEYERS

entitlement program, infrastructure investment, or criminal law—depends

in part on the harms and benefits that the policy would cause to individu-
als in our society. Social consequences are a major criterion for assessing
policy, since the government has a duty to prevent harm and promote the
public good. That duty, however, can conflict with other moral consider-
ations. For example, it might serve to lower crime in certain neighbor-
hoods if police were to randomly search houses, but it would violate the
right to privacy. Similarly, a law that would ban junk food might promote
public health, but it would also involve an undue restriction on personal
liberty. I will not try to defend any particular theory of justice. Any plau-
sible conception, however, must include not only considerations of public
good but also matters of fairness and basic rights.
Another point in need of clarification involves the term “prohibit.”
What exactly are we prohibiting when we prohibit drugs? It is not the
substances themselves that are prohibited. It would make no sense to pro-
hibit the existence of psilocybin, cocaine, or THC, since these are naturally
occurring chemicals. We cannot reasonably stop plants from making
DMT, mescaline, morphine, or other psychoactive compounds; and trying
to eradicate these plants would be futile. Prohibition—at least when it
comes to drug prohibition—applies to human actions, specifically the pos-
session, use, manufacturing, transportation, and distribution of certain
drugs. (I will use the term “possession” to include use, since you have to
possess a drug to use it. I will use the term “trafficking” to refer broadly
to making, transporting, and selling, since these are all just different parts
of the same illicit drug market and are punished on a par.)
Prohibition need not apply to all of these activities. The passage of the
Eighteenth Amendment in 1920, for example, did not forbid possessing
or consuming alcohol. It was even legal to make beer or wine at home for
your own private use, and large beer manufacturers started offering malt
syrup for home brewing. Many people simply stocked up before the law
went into effect, hoping that a large enough supply would last them until
the so-called Noble Experiment was concluded. (If we were to adopt a
similar policy for illicit drugs, we would call it “decriminalization.”) When
we question the prohibition of drugs, we should question both sides of
recreational drug use—the possession side and the trafficking
side—separately.
One way to prohibit an activity is to make it so difficult that it might as
well be impossible. For example, we might try to prohibit trespassing by
erecting fences with razor wire. Similarly, we might try to prohibit drug
 1 THE QUESTION 11

use by removing illicit substances from the marketplace, making drugs

harder to get. If that were the primary strategy of drug prohibition, it
would be doomed to fail. Users will always find a way to get their pre-
ferred substances, and smugglers and dealers will always find a way to sup-
ply them. It would be unrealistic to think that we can keep drugs off the
streets when we cannot even keep them out of prisons.
Drug prohibition thus involves forbidding possession and trafficking
illicit drugs by law. For the law to be effective it must be enforced through
criminal sanctions. Prohibition thus aims to prevent drug use, or reduce
the rate of drug use, by deterring users and traffickers with the threat of
punishment. In the United States and other Western democracies, this
typically means incarceration; but some countries punish drug violations
more harshly. Over thirty countries allow capital punishment for drug
crimes, though only seven are known to actually carry it out (Saudi Arabia,
Iran, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia) [4].
It may seem obvious that prohibition involves threatening people with
criminal sanctions, but this point needs to be made salient if we are to
assess the justice of our current drug laws. Conservatives defend drug
prohibition by appealing to its admirable goals of preventing drug abuse,
addiction, and overdose. But drug prohibition is not about goals; it is a
means to achieving those goals, a means that relies almost exclusively on
the criminal justice system, punishing possession and trafficking in ways
similar to shoplifting, assault, fraud, burglary, rape, and murder.
Distinguishing between the laudable goals and the questionable means
of drug prohibition is important because there might be ways to reduce
problem drug use in society without putting hundreds of thousands of
people in prison. It would be unjust to threaten users with incarceration if
we could prevent them from using by more gentle means, such as educa-
tion, free addiction treatment, and excise taxes. Tobacco use by Americans
has been reduced from 42% of adults in 1965 to 14% in 2017, without
arresting a single smoker [5]. It might be possible to do something similar
with heroin, cocaine, and other drugs.

Simple Answers
The question is thus, Should we, as a society, make it a crime, punishable by
imprisonment, to possess or traffic certain recreational drugs? While this is
not a simple question, it tends to elicit simple answers. Drugs should be
illegal because they are dangerous. Or because it is morally wrong to use
12 C. MEYERS

them. Or because drug use harms the economy by making users less pro-
ductive. But these answers are unsatisfactory, as simple answers typically
are. They might bring up relevant considerations, but they oversimplify
the issue.
Let us start with the first answer above: Drugs should be illegal because
it is dangerous to consume them. Even if psilocybin is relatively safe, this
might justify prohibition of other drugs, such as cocaine, PCP, heroin, or
meth. This argument assumes an unstated premise that we should outlaw
any activity that might be dangerous to those who engage in it. But that is
not plausible. After all, skydiving is dangerous, but it is not against the law,
nor should it be. Of course, we do outlaw some activities because they are
deemed too dangerous, such as driving without a seatbelt. But we do not
throw people in prison for failing to buckle up.
Even more to the point, nicotine and alcohol are at least as dangerous
as most illegal drugs, yet they are legal and easily available for purchase in
most countries. Every year, about 90,000 people in the United States die
of alcohol-related deaths, and 480,000 Americans die from tobacco-­
related causes. By contrast, only about 70,000 people annually die in the
United States from all illegal drugs combined. If heroin or cocaine should
be outlawed because they are dangerous, then shouldn’t we outlaw alco-
hol and nicotine as well? Of course, prohibition supporters might point
out that drinkers and cigarette smokers outnumber drug users by a con-
siderable margin. But opponents of drug prohibition might in turn point
out that drugs like heroin and cocaine would be much safer to use if they
were regulated instead of being prohibited. Drug prohibition might be
justified as a way to prevent users from harming themselves, but much
more needs to be said to make that case. (We will examine the paternalistic
argument in Chap. 8.)
What about the moral argument? First of all, it is not obvious that con-
suming a mind-altering substance is morally wrong. Contrast that with
actions that are undeniably wrong, such as assault, murder, rape, fraud, or
theft. Any reasonable person would agree that those things should be out-
lawed because they involve intentional harm to innocent people. But if I
get high on heroin in the privacy of my own home, the only person I am
hurting is myself (if anyone). Of course, drug use can cause collateral dam-
age, and it can be wrong to use in certain circumstances. I should not
snort a line of ketamine if I am babysitting a toddler. But it is not obvious
that there is anything inherently wrong with getting high.
 1 THE QUESTION 13

Secondly, this simplistic answer assumes an unstated premise that we

should outlaw any and all activities that are morally wrong. But that is
dubious. I think it would be morally wrong for me to cheat on my wife,
and I think most people would agree. My wife certainly would. But that
does not mean that we should throw adulterers in prison. (We will take a
closer look at the morality argument in Chaps. 4 and 5.)
Lastly, there is the productivity argument. This is rarely used in isola-
tion as a reason for criminalizing drugs. More often it is included in a list
of social goods to be promoted by drug prohibition. But it is not clear that
it provides any legitimate reason for criminalizing drugs, even as a small
part of a bigger argument. For one, there are many other activities that
might make one less productive: becoming a devout Buddhist, taking up
golf, or having children. It would certainly be unjust to criminalize any of
those things. Also, this would not be a reason at all to criminalize drug
trafficking, since drug traffickers are extremely productive. The illegal
drug market rakes in an estimated $150 billion a year in the United States
and over $426 billion worldwide. Even if we consider only laws against use
and possession, the productivity argument is dubious. Drug users might
not be as productive on average compared to nonusers; but putting them
in jail will make them much less productive and, even worse, a burden to
society.
Of course, simple answers are not exclusive to the prohibition side of
the debate. Many legalization supporters are also guilty of offering facile
arguments for ending prohibition. One such argument addresses the racial
disparity in drug law enforcement. Black people use and traffic drugs at
the same rate as white people but are three times more likely to be arrested
for a drug crime and ten times more likely to be serving time for a drug
crime. This is certainly a grave injustice that ought to be rectified. But the
obvious solution would be to enforce the law more evenly, not get rid of
it all together. Suppose similar racial disparities were found in the enforce-
ment of other crimes. If black people are disproportionately punished for
assault, robbery, or murder, that would not give us any reason to legalize
these crimes. Of course, drug use is not analogous to those other crimes,
which violate the rights of others. But this point has to be included in the
argument; and once it is, it ends up doing most of the work.
Legalization proponents also argue that a legalized and regulated drug
trade would provide tax revenues that can be spent on important public
goods such as infrastructure or education. That could be part of a bigger
argument that legalizing drugs would promote the general welfare. But
14 C. MEYERS

such an argument would require careful consideration of all the many

consequences of legalization, good and bad. We would not legalize the
recreational drug industry simply to increase tax revenues just as we would
not legalize the child pornography industry so that we would collect tax
revenues from the profits.
Another simple answer points to the fact that people in all cultures
throughout history have used mind-altering substances of one kind or
another to get high. The desire to seek out altered states of consciousness
is a part of human nature, and thus attempts to irradicate drug use are
futile. While this does expose the naivete of drug war hawks who urge us
to aim for a “drug-free society,” it is not by itself a reason to legalize
drugs. One might argue that violence, racism, and deception are also parts
of human nature, but that does not make those things ok. We would not
legalize murder, rape, or torture even if we were convinced that these are
inevitable social evils that will never be entirely stamped out.

Reframing the Question: Burden of Proof

One reason why people outside of academia may be unwilling to question
the wisdom or justice of drug prohibition is due to the particular phrasing
of the question. It is an instance of the phenomenon of framing effect, a
cognitive bias in which a person’s opinion is irrationally influenced by the
way the alternatives are presented.
Often framing effects result from particular words that are used. Here
is classic example. Suppose you witness a traffic accident and a police offi-
cer questions you about the incident. If she says, “How fast was the car
moving when it collided with the truck?” you will probably give a lower
estimate than if she had asked, “How fast was the car moving when it
crashed into the truck?” Giving a different answer to the two questions
would be irrational because the two sentences are asking for the same
information: the estimated speed of the car. The question should depend
only on your observation of the event, not on the slightly different impli-
cature of specific words used by the officer after the fact. Whether the
officer says “collided” or “crashed” does not change how fast the car was
moving, so it should not affect your answer. But it probably would.
Framing effects can depend on other factors as well, for example
whether options are presented as a gain or a loss, as a glass half-empty or
a glass half-full. People are more willing to undergo surgery described as
having a 90% survival rate than if they were told it had a 10% fatality rate,
 1 THE QUESTION 15

even though they are exactly the same, just described in different ways.
Hearing about the survival rate encourages hope while receiving informa-
tion about the fatality rate makes the risks more salient.
In the case of drug prohibition, it matters whether we ask, “Should
drugs be legalized?” or “Should drugs be prohibited?” The first question
assumes the prohibition of drugs is a given. Legalization is then seen as a
radical, risky alternative. The second question causes us to reconsider the
prohibition of drugs rather than assume it as the default. Unlike the 90%
survival versus 10% fatality example, however, there is an asymmetry to
these two questions. That is because drugs like heroin, cocaine, LSD, and
meth are illegal and have been since before most of us were born. That
makes it seem more natural to ask whether they should be legalized.
What we see here is a combination of both the framing effect and status
quo bias, another cognitive prejudice that has an irrational influence on
our opinions. Status quo bias is the unconscious tendency to assume that
the way things are is the way they ought to be or must be. It is an irrational
preference for the current state of affairs and a propensity to overestimate
the risks and undervalue the potential reward of alternatives. This is
reflected in various nuggets of folk wisdom, such as the old saw, “Better
the devil you know....” Asking whether we should legalize drugs plays into
this bias, as does much of the drug war rhetoric describing worst-case
scenarios of legalization and warning that we will not be able to “put the
genie back in the bottle.”
But now it seems that we are faced with a dilemma. We have to ask the
question one way or the other, but whichever way we ask it will unduly
influence the answer we might give. This is not, however, a genuine
dilemma. We are not faced with two equally legitimate ways of formulating
the question. Under any plausible conception of justice, the default should
be legalization; otherwise, we risk the possibility of punishing people with-
out justification. As philosopher Doug Husak argues, “punishment is the
most terrible thing that a state can do to its citizens; it is the most powerful
weapon in the national arsenal. The criminal sanction should not be invoked
casually; it always requires a compelling defense” [6, p. 13]. In other words,
it is always wrong for the government to punish anyone without a damn
good reason. And it is more wrong to punish an innocent person than not
to punish someone who deserves it. Thus, in a civilized society, if we cannot
give decisive reasons either for prohibiting or for legalizing drugs, then
they should be legal (though perhaps with substantial regulations). Those
who favor criminalizing drugs need to shoulder the burden of proof.
16 C. MEYERS

Defining Our Terms

Philosophers love defining terms, and I am no exception. It is not why
they are so much fun at parties, but it is an important and useful skill,
nonetheless. Before we can adequately examine a topic, we need a clear
idea of exactly what we are talking about. Suppose we wanted to know
whether music is universal across human cultures. Do all human societies
have some form of music? Well, that might depend on what counts as
“music.” Consider an isolated hunter/gatherer society that plays the
drums but does not sing or play any other kind of instrument. Is that
music? It will depend on whether we define music in a way that requires
having tones or whether simply having a rhythm is sufficient.
We could simply stipulate that having rhythm is all that is strictly
required for music. But our resulting definition of “music” might be
biased by our desire to give an affirmative answer to our original question.
Instead of determining whether music is universal, we would be deciding
to make it universal by our choice of definition. There is, however, more
than one way to define a term. Instead of arbitrary stipulation we should
engage in conceptual analysis, which aims to articulate the conception we
already have for the term we want to define. We start with the vague,
implicit idea denoted by a word and make it more precise by homing in on
its precise features.
Our topic is drugs, so we need to define the term “drug.” That might
seem easy. Obviously, we are talking about substances such as heroin, can-
nabis, LSD, cocaine, meth, and so on. But that “and so on” is problemati-
cally vague. A list of examples is not the same as a definition. Still, examples
may help to bring the concept of drug to mind. These prototypical sam-
ples help to identify the core of the concept. Examples of what is excluded
from a concept can add additional help by indicating its boundary.
Prototypical examples that help identify the core concept of drugs
include heroin, cocaine, meth, LSD, psilocybin, ketamine, and marijuana.
We can sketch out the boundary by noting that we are not interested in
antibiotics, birth control pills, heartburn medication, statins, or beta
blockers, even though they are often referred to as “drugs.” We can dis-
tinguish these substances from the sort of drugs we are interested in by
calling them medicines. Medicines are a matter of healthcare policy, not
drug policy.
What distinguishes drugs (such as cocaine, marijuana, heroin, or LSD)
from medicines (such as antibiotics, birth control pills, or statins)? The
 1 THE QUESTION 17

difference is that the term “drug” refers specifically to a mind-altering

substance, a chemical that changes our moods, thoughts, or perceptions.
We might also want to specify that drugs affect our mental states by
directly altering our neurochemistry. Otherwise, ice cream could be a
drug, since it is a chemical substance that makes me happy when I eat it.
What about prescription antidepressants? They also change our moods
and perceptions by directly altering our neurochemistry. But those sub-
stances are not what most people have in mind when they talk about drug
policy. Antidepressants should be excluded from the category of drugs
because they cannot get you high. That seems to be an essential element
of what we mean when we talk about drugs: they are used to achieve a
desirable altered state. People take antidepressants to feel normal, not to
feel better-than-normal.
We might be tempted to distinguish drugs from medicines by exclud-
ing from our drug category any substance that is taken for medical rea-
sons. But that goes too far in the other direction by excluding substances
that we obviously want to include. Heroin can be taken for medical rea-
sons, specifically as a pain reliever; but it is a paradigmatic example of a
“drug” in the sense that we are concerned with. The same is true for ket-
amine, which is used as an anesthesia; amphetamine, which is used to treat
ADD/ADHD; and other substances that are used both medically and
recreationally. Another problem is that it will sometimes be difficult to
determine what counts as “medical.” If I smoke cannabis to alleviate my
anxiety, is that a medical use? What if I use whisky for the same purpose?
For a working definition, I propose that “drug” refers to any substance
that (1) alters your moods, thoughts, or perceptions (2) by directly chang-
ing your neurochemistry and (3) that people are, at least sometimes, moti-
vated to consume these substances in order to experience certain enhanced,
altered states (i.e., to get high). This might not be the perfect definition,
but it is close enough. Like most definitions, this one will inevitably have
fuzzy boundaries with borderline cases. Benzodiazepines, such as valium,
are a good example. They are used primarily to alleviate anxiety and induce
sleep. They can also be used to get high, though they are not especially
good for that purpose. They tend to make users more groggy than giddy.
Since our concern is primarily (though not exclusively) with illicit drugs,
we need to define what it means for a drug to be “illicit.” Literally, the term
means “forbidden by laws, rules, or customs.” That should work well
enough for us. Illegal drugs will obviously count as illicit. There are also
drugs that are not illicit, such as alcohol. Unfortunately, the word “drug”
18 C. MEYERS

is often used to refer exclusively to illegal drugs. People who drink alcohol,
for example, often claim that they do not use drugs. But illegality is not an
essential part of our concept of drug. After all, a hundred years ago you
could legally purchase heroin over the counter without a prescription. It
did not suddenly become a drug the day it was outlawed. And what about
marijuana? If “drug” referred only to illegal substances, then it would be a
drug in Kansas but not in Colorado. Another problem with using the term
“drug” to refer only to illegal substances is that it would render our ques-
tion of whether drugs should be prohibited nonsensical. If the term “drug”
referred only to illegal substances, then we could not legalize drugs because
once we legalize them they would no longer be drugs.
What about legal highs, such as nitrous oxide, inhalants such as glue or
spray paint, kratom (a weak herbal opioid), salvia divinorum (a powerful
hallucinogenic), and others? I think most people would consider these to
be illicit drugs, even though they are not against the law. That is because
they resemble prohibited substances in their effects and are not socially
acceptable, even if they are not criminalized. In other words, they are for-
bidden by custom. Also, many of these substances—glue, spray paint,
nitrous oxide—are legal only for uses other than causing inebriation. A
store that sells kitchen gadgets can offer nitrous canisters for use in
whipped cream dispensers; but selling those same canisters at a head shop
for recreational purposes would not be allowed. Lastly, I will also include
prescription medicines as illicit drugs when they are consumed to get high
instead of for their intended medical use.
Why is it so important to define these terms? Because any argument for
allowing or prohibiting drugs such as heroin, LSD, cocaine, or meth must
also apply equally to other drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. If
you think that we should outlaw cocaine because it is addictive, then you
must—on pain of contradiction—agree that alcohol should also be out-
lawed, since it is just as much a drug and it is equally addictive.
Some people might be ok with outlawing booze. But if you think alco-
hol should be legal while drugs such as heroin, LSD, marijuana, and
cocaine should be outlawed, then you must provide some relevant differ-
ence between them other than their current legal status. Otherwise, it is
nothing more than an unjustifiable prejudice. The arguments in this book
will assume that alcohol should not be outlawed. That does not mean,
however, that the sale of alcohol should not be more tightly regulated. I
take that to be an open question.
 1 THE QUESTION 19

Why Is This a Philosophical Question?

Our question is whether illicit drugs should be prohibited. While analyz-
ing key concepts helps to clarify a question, it is usually not enough to
answer it. For that we need to look at evidence and arguments. In other
words, we need critical thinking. Critical thinking is usually defined as an
intellectually disciplined process of objectively analyzing and evaluating an
issue. But the real key of critical thinking is the willingness to question
your own beliefs and change your opinion in light of arguments and
evidence.
An inspiring example can be found in the case of Lester Grinspoon [7].
Grinspoon was a psychiatrist who worked at the Harvard Medical School.
In 1966, he attended a party at the home of Carl Sagan and was aston-
ished to find that Sagan and many of his friends, most of whom were dis-
tinguished scientists and intellectuals, smoked marijuana. Grinspoon had
accepted the view of the medical establishment that marijuana was a dan-
gerous and addictive drug that could cause brain damage. As a physician,
he tried to warn Sagan that marijuana was bad for his health, both physical
and mental, but Sagan laughed him off.
So Grinspoon set out to publish an article summarizing the many dan-
gers of marijuana consumption in the hopes of discouraging its use. He
read everything he could find on the topic in the medical school library.
Much to his surprise, most of the studies on marijuana proved it to be rela-
tively harmless. It even had many useful medical applications. And the few
studies that did find any negative consequences were deeply flawed.
Realizing that he had been duped by anti-marijuana propaganda,
Grinspoon published his findings in an article that got reprinted as the
lead story in the November 1969 issue of Scientific American [10]. He
later expanded this into a book, Marijuana Reconsidered [8], and went on
to become a staunch legalization advocate.
Grinspoon’s volte-face on marijuana illustrates the most important ele-
ment of critical thinking: the willingness to revise our views on the basis of
evidence. He did not let his preconceived opinions get in the way of objec-
tively assessing the evidence. Though he started his research with an axe
to grind, he did not let that blind him to the truth.
There are many pundits, however, who try to discourage critical think-
ing about drug policy. Robert L. DuPont, the first director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), opined that “This country needs less
debate on the legalization of drugs.” He goes on to say, “Debating
20 C. MEYERS

legalization is a dangerous decision” [11]. You should always be suspi-

cious of someone who says we need less debate, less critical thinking—espe-
cially when that person makes loopy claims, such as DuPont’s assertion
that marijuana is “the most dangerous drug” [9].
This is one reason why philosophy is the best approach for examining
the drug prohibition debate. Other fields of inquiry are certainly relevant
and important for formulating drug policy. Historians, sociologists, neu-
roscientists, legal scholars, psychologists, and political scientists all have
something to contribute. But it is the philosopher’s job to analyze argu-
ments, identify fallacies, and ask the fundamental questions. Philosophers
do not have a monopoly on critical thinking, but it is the most important
part of their job description.
Philosophy is also important to our topic because the drug legalization
debate is ultimately a question about values, ethics, and justice. Other
fields of inquiry might also be interested in asking which public policies
accord with our social values or our accepted notions of justice. But it is
the purview of philosophy to ask the more fundamental questions, such as,
What is justice? (Political scientists, of course, might also take a stab at
constructing a theory of justice. But in doing so they are making a philo-
sophical inquiry.)
Our topic, however, is not limited to questions of justice. There are
other fundamental questions that need to be asked, the kinds of questions
that have traditionally been handled by philosophers. Here are just a few:
Can you have a duty not to harm yourself? Do drug addicts lack free will?
Is it morally wrong to use drugs? How do we decide between competing
values such as individual well-being and freedom? These questions cannot
be settled by scientific inquiry or empirical observation alone, though such
facts might be necessary for informed deliberation.

Summary Preview
Though there are many arguments for and against drug prohibition, most
of them can be organized into four categories: moralism, liberty and
paternalism, the proper role of criminal punishment, and utilitarian or
cost–benefit arguments. Before examining these arguments, however, we
need to review the relevant facts. Chapter 2 will provide a quick survey of
consumption rates of different recreational drugs (including nicotine and
alcohol) as well as the associated harms and the nature of addiction. We
 1 THE QUESTION 21

can then proceed to assessing the arguments, starting with the weakest
ones and gradually moving on to better, stronger arguments.
The first argument we will look at is the moralism argument, according
to which we should outlaw activities that are morally wrong even if they
are not harmful. To assess this argument, we first need to ask whether it is
morally wrong to use drugs recreationally. Some people disapprove of
illicit drug use on religious grounds. Thus, we will start by looking at
religious-based support for drug prohibition (Chap. 3), the weakest argu-
ment on either side of the debate. Next, we will examine nonreligious
moral disapproval of illicit drug use (Chap. 4). Whether it is morally wrong
to get high will depend in part on our conception of morality and whether
you can have a moral duty to yourself. We then need to ask whether it is a
legitimate use of the criminal justice system to enforce morality (Chap. 5).
Obviously, we should outlaw morally bad conduct such as robbery, assault,
fraud, murder, and rape because those actions violate the rights of others.
But when I get high, I am not violating anyone’s rights. The question,
then, is whether we can and should outlaw harmless wrongdoing, or
harmless actions that are widely held to be morally wrong.
After that we will look at the conflict between liberty and paternalism.
Many legalization proponents argue that drug prohibition violates a basic
right to autonomy (Chap. 6). This argument appeals to the principle of
liberty, which claims that competent adults have the right to act as they
please, as long as their actions do not impose serious risk on others or
violate the rights of others. In contrast, one of the most popular argu-
ments for prohibition is the paternalism argument (Chap. 8). According
to paternalism, it is ok for the state to limit individual freedom in order to
prevent people from harming themselves. Paternalism and the principle of
liberty obviously conflict, though there may be some compromise that
allows for substantial freedom with some limits to prevent self-harm.
Some of the most vocal and ardent legalization supporters are libertar-
ians. In Chap. 7 we will examine the libertarian approach to drug legaliza-
tion. Libertarians reject all but the most minimal governmental interference
in the lives of the governed. For them, the only legitimate role of govern-
ment is police protection and national defense. Legalization under the
libertarian model would involve little if any restrictions or regulations. We
will examine objections to libertarian drug policy after first analyzing and
assessing libertarian ideology and libertarian arguments for legalization.
Since drug prohibition amounts to using criminal punishment to pre-
vent people from using or trafficking drugs, we need to look at the
22 C. MEYERS

legitimate use of punishment in a just society (Chap. 9). There are two
major theories for why, and under what circumstances, it is morally accept-
able to punish law breakers. The retributivist theory claims that we ought
to punish wrongdoers because they deserve to suffer. The question then is
whether drug users or nonviolent drug dealers deserve to be treated the
same way as burglars, con artists, embezzlers, murderers, and rapists. By
contrast, the consequentialist justification of punishment claims that we
ought to punish wrongdoers because doing so has better consequences,
for society at large, than not punishing them. The primary social benefit of
punishment is a reduction in crime through deterrence. On this view, pun-
ishing drug users and drug dealers might be justified if the threat of pun-
ishment could significantly reduce problem drug use and its associated ills.
While considering criminal justice, we must assess the “war on drugs”
approach, an especially belligerent version of prohibition that involves
heavy enforcement of drug laws and harsh punishments for violations
(Chap. 10). Critics argue that the war on drugs threatens certain basic civil
rights. For example, mandatory drug testing may violate a basic right to
privacy; civil asset forfeiture appears to violate the right to due process;
and racially biased enforcement of drug laws violates the right to equal
treatment under the law.
Finally, we will examine the utilitarian or cost–benefit arguments for
and against drug prohibition. Both sides appeal to social consequences of
current and alternative drug policies. The prohibitionists claim that legal-
ization would lead to increased drug abuse and related social problems
while legalization supporters claim that prohibition does more harm than
good—by making drug use more dangerous, creating a black market run
by violent criminal organizations, wasting tax money and law enforcement
resources, and putting hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug law
offenders in prison. In Chaps. 11 and 12 we will consider the social con-
sequences of prohibition and the social consequences of legalization,
respectively.
When examining the social consequences of alternative drug policies,
we need to look at all the alternatives (or at least all the plausible ones).
Legalization and prohibition are somewhat of a false dichotomy. For one,
legalization can take many forms depending on what sorts of regulations
are involved. It could mean making drugs like heroin, meth, and LSD
legal in the same ways that marijuana is in states with legal recreational
weed. Or we could legalize these substances with more stringent regula-
tions, such as requiring users to obtain a license to use or restricting use to
 1 THE QUESTION 23

supervised facilities. There are also alternatives to prohibition other than

legalization, including decriminalization (which would mean that drug
possession is no longer a criminal offense), or harm reduction (which aims
to make illicit drug use safer). We will consider the social consequences of
these alternatives in Chap. 13.
In the final chapter (Chap. 14), we will consider some of the obstacles
to implementing substantial changes in drug policy. The goal of this book
is to find out where we should go with regard to drug policies. But know-
ing where to go is not much help if we do not know how to get there. I
will sketch some of the biggest hurdles to changing the status quo and
suggest how we might try to clear them.
At the end of each chapter, I present a few questions intended as “food
for thought.” The aim of the Food for Thought section is to introduce
related topics, prompt critical thinking, and suggest some directions in
which the debate might continue. The questions are designed to encour-
age discussion, whether in the classroom or a book club, or to foster per-
sonal reflection for those reading the book on their own. Since this book
was written with a college curriculum in mind, I wrote the questions with
the intent that they may also suggest potential research topics for students.

Food for Thought

1. Do you think that drugs should be legalized? Why or why not? If so,
what form should this legalization take? If not, are there any changes
you think should be made to our current drug policies? Are there
any issues in the drug legalization debate that you are unde-
cided about?
2. How much confidence do you have in your answers to the previous
question? Do you think you could be persuaded otherwise? Is it pos-
sible that your opinions might bias your assessment of the argu-
ments? If so, are there ways to mitigate this bias in order to think
more critically?

References
1. Grob, Charles, Alicia Danforth, Gurpreet Chopra, Marycie Hagerty, Charles
McKay, Adam Halberstadt, and George Greer. 2011. Pilot study of psilocybin
treatment for anxiety in patients with advanced-stage cancer. Archives of
General Psychology 68.
24 C. MEYERS

2. Nutt, David. 2012. Drugs without the hot air. Cambridge: UIT. Chapter 14,
“Psychedelics—Should Scientists Try LSD?”
3. Fish, Jefferson. 1989. Preface. In How to legalize drugs, ed. Jefferson Fish.
Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
4. T.W. 2015. Which countries have the death penalty for drug smuggling? The
Economist, April 29.
5. American Lung Association. 2022. Tobacco trends brief. Accessed June 7,
2022. https://www.lung.org/research/trends-­in-­lung-­disease/tobacco-­
trends-­brief/overall-­tobacco-­trends.
6. Husak, Douglas. 2002. Legalize this! The case for decriminalizing drugs.
London: Verso.
7. Meyers, Chris. 2022. Heroes in drug policy II: Lester Grinspoon. https://
medium.com/@feedyourhead411/heroes-in-drug-policy-ii-lester-grinspoon-
efac63bbc59
8. DuPont, Robert L., and Ronald L. Goldfarb. 1990. Drug legalization: Asking
for trouble. January 26: Washington Post.
9. Grinspoon, Lester. 1969. Marihuana. Scientific American, December.
10. DuPont, Robert L. 2012. Why marijuana is the most dangerous drug. World
Federation against Drugs, February 24.
11. Grinspoon, Lester. 1971. Marihuana reconsidered. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

Just the Facts

After being appointed as the first Commissioner of the newly formed

Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, Harry Anslinger spent the next
seven years badgering Congress to pass a law banning marijuana use. He
claimed that marijuana was a dangerous and addictive drug. According to
him, one puff of the devil’s lettuce could turn an ordinary, law-abiding
citizen into a homicidal maniac. “Parents beware!” he warned on a national
radio address, “young [people] are slaves to this narcotic, continuing
addiction until they deteriorate mentally, become insane, [and] turn to
violent crime and murder” [1, p. 17].
If those claims were true, then we would have a pretty good reason to
make marijuana use against the law and impose hefty punishments to deter
people from using it. But scientific studies, as well as firsthand experience,
reveals marijuana to be a rather harmless drug that does not cause aggres-
sion. So Anslinger’s argument fails, even if it managed to pursuade gullible
legislators to criminalize marijuana trafficking and possession with the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The moral of the story is that assessing argu-
ments for and against drug prohibition—as with any other public policy—
requires an understanding of relevant facts. What might appear on the
surface to be a good argument is completely worthless if it relies on factual
claims that are, in fact, false.
It might be obvious to us today that Anslinger’s claims about marijuana
were preposterous. But it was not obvious to most people at the time. Just

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 25

Switzerland AG 2023
C. Meyers, Drug Legalization,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17005-8_2
26 C. MEYERS

as legislators and voters in the late 1930s were ignorant about the effects
of marijuana, many people today—even otherwise well-informed peo-
ple—are ignorant about important facts involving drugs and drug laws. In
this chapter, we will survey some of the most important facts relevant to
the drug policy debate. It would take an entire book (my next book) to
give an exhaustive account, so I will limit this chapter to those facts that
are most important for drug laws and policies with a special focus on dis-
pelling common misconceptions.

Drug Use by the Numbers

Let us start with some basic statistics about drug use. In 2020, an esti-
mated 53.2 million Americans used an illicit substance, which is about
21.4% of the US population twelve years or older. But this includes people
who use very rarely and even some who tried a drug only once and never
used again. These one-off users artificially inflate the statistics. A more
accurate picture is based on past-month use. Significantly fewer Americans,
about 37.3 million, reported using an illicit substance in the past month,
which is about 16% of those twelve years or older. This is up by almost 17%
from just two years earlier (31.9 million). For comparison, about 138.5
million Americans reported past-month use of alcohol (50% of the popula-
tion 12 years and older), and 51.7 million used tobacco (18.7%) [2].
Globally, an estimated 269 million people used an illicit substance in
2018 (past-year use), which is about 5.4% of the world’s population aged
fifteen to sixty-four years. By contrast, about 47% of the world’s popula-
tion fifteen years or older consumes alcohol at least once a year, and about
20% are “heavy episodic drinkers,” which is defined as past-month con-
sumption of at least four drinks in one session—in other words, enough to
get drunk [3].
The most commonly used illicit substance in the United States is mari-
juana. About 49.6 million Americans used marijuana at least once in the
past year, but only about 32.8 million reported past-month use (about
12% of adults). This rate is higher than all other illicit drugs combined.
The next most popular illicit drug in the United States is prescription opi-
oids, with about 2.5 million past-month users, which is only about 1% of
the twelve-or-older population. Next are prescription sedatives such as
valium (2.2 million past-month users), hallucinogens (2.2 million), cocaine
(1.8 million), methamphetamine (1.7 million), and prescription stimu-
lants such as Adderall or Ritalin (1.5 million). The numbers for
 2 JUST THE FACTS 27

hallucinogen use might be somewhat misleading because the category is

quite broad and includes dissociatives such as PCP and ketamine; psyche-
delics such as LSD, psilocybin (“magic mushrooms”), and ayahuasca;
entactogens such as MDMA (aka “ecstasy” or “molly”); and salvia divino-
rum—even though these drugs work very differently in the brain and have
very different psychological effects. Lastly, only about 513,000 Americans
report using heroin in the past month, an increase of 45% from just two
years prior [2].
Marijuana is also the most popular illicit drug worldwide, even though
less than 200 million people (about 3.5% of the global population four-
teen years or older) consumed cannabis in the past year. Rates vary widely
from country to country, from less than 0.1% reporting past-year use in
Singapore, Brunei, China, and Libya to more than 30% in Canada, India,
and Chile. Opioids have about 58 million past-year users globally (about
1% of the world’s fourteen-or-older population), and stimulants such as
meth and cocaine about half of that.
An estimated 18.7 million Americans have a substance use disorder, or
about 14.5% of the population twelve and older. That is more than double
what it was just two years ago. Of those, 70% are addicted to alcohol and
45% have a problem with illicit drugs (which means that about 16% are
dependent on both alcohol and an illicit substance) [4]. Almost half of
these users also suffer from some serious mental illness, especially depres-
sion or anxiety disorders. People with a serious mental illness are more
than 2.5 times more likely to have used marijuana in the past year and five
times more likely to have used an opioid (heroin or prescription pain-
killer). Less than 10% of Americans with a substance use disorder are cur-
rently receiving treatment.
Globally, over 280 million people (6.75% of adults) have alcohol depen-
dency disorder, and about 35 million are addicted to an illicit substance
(only about 0.8% of adults). That is an alcohol-to-drug addiction ratio of
greater than eight to one, whereas in the United States the ratio is less
than two to one. Americans thus use more illicit drugs than residents of
other Western democracies (Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.) while drink-
ing significantly less liquor. Why that is we can only speculate.
Rates of use, addiction, and overdose increased substantially from 2018
to 2020. Much of this can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to one survey, 13% of Americans have started using or increased
use of intoxicating substances since the pandemic began [5]. These num-
bers may go back down if and when the pandemic is put to rest. Or they
28 C. MEYERS

may not since it is generally easier to initiate or increase drug use than it is
to quit or curtail drug use.

Drug-Related Fatalities
Illicit drugs are a much bigger problem in the United States than in most
of the rest of the world while alcohol is much less of a problem. Although
the United States has only about 4% of the world’s population, a stagger-
ing 42% of all overdose deaths from illicit drugs are American. By contrast,
only about 1% of alcohol overdose deaths occur in the United States. But
not all drug-related fatalities are from overdose. Let us examine the statis-
tics for drug-related deaths generally.
The drugs responsible for the most fatalities (in the United States and
around the world) are nicotine and alcohol. Deaths from nicotine are
almost entirely indirect deaths—due to heart disease or lung cancer—
unlike deaths from cocaine, opioids, and meth which are almost exclu-
sively from overdose. Alcohol kills in many ways, including long-term
health problems, overdoses, accidents, and suicide.
In the United States, about 480,000 people die every year from
nicotine-­related conditions. An estimated 41,000 of these are nonsmokers
exposed to secondhand smoke. Alcohol kills an estimated 95,000
Americans per year, about 2500 of which are from overdose, 8000 from
suicide, and almost 20,000 from car crashes or other accidents. The rest
die from health conditions such as cancer, stroke, or liver disease.
According to World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco kills about
8.1 million people worldwide annually, while alcohol kills about 3.3 mil-
lion [6]. Global fatalities from all illicit drugs combined are only around
167,000. Tobacco smoking is the second leading death risk factor in the
world, behind only high blood pressure. Alcohol use is ninth, after high
blood sugar, air pollution, obesity, high sodium diet, and low-grain diet.
Illicit drug use is way down at twenty-fourth, after several dietary deficien-
cies, lack of physical activity, unsafe drinking water, secondhand smoke,
low birth weight, unsafe sex, and poor sanitation or hygiene. It is impor-
tant to note that this does not mean that illicit drug use is less risky than a
high sodium diet. Rather, these numbers reflect the fact that people who
consume too much sodium far outnumber those who consume illicit
drugs. What it does mean is that illicit drug use is less of a public health
problem than many people assume. If we narrow our focus to the United
States, tobacco smoking is still the second leading risk factor for premature
 2 JUST THE FACTS 29

death, with illicit drug use coming in at number eight, and alcohol use at
number twelve.
Now let us look at direct deaths caused by drugs, by which I mean over-
dose fatalities. An estimated 91,799 Americans died in 2020 from overdos-
ing on illegal drugs, up from just over 70,000 two years before. The bulk
of these (56,516) were from the super powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl
or its analogs. Most people who use fentanyl do so unwittingly. It has,
unfortunately, become a common adulterant in illicit street drugs. Another
16,416 overdose deaths were from prescription opiates, though about half
of these involved other drugs as well. Heroin was responsible for 13,165
overdose deaths, down from a peak of 15,469 in 2016. Only about one-
third of 2020 heroin overdose deaths were caused by heroin alone; most of
the rest also involved fentanyl [7]. Opioid overdose rates (including her-
oin, prescription pain killers, and fentanyl) have increased more than five-
fold since 2008, the start of the Great Recession. Opioid overdoses started
to decline around 2015, but the coronavirus pandemic and resulting eco-
nomic recession and social isolation caused them to increase again in 2020.
After opioids, the next highest rates of overdose are from stimulants.
There were 9,447 reported US cocaine overdose deaths in 2020, though
less than one-quarter involved cocaine alone, and 23,837 US lethal meth
overdoses, only about half of which involved meth alone [7]. Can you
guess what other drugs were involved? If you guessed fentanyl, then you
are starting to get the picture. Illicit drugs have gotten much more dan-
gerous over the past decade due to more and more street drugs containing
this extremely powerful substance.
Overdoses also occur from MDMA, PCP, ketamine, and even caffeine
but are so rare that NIDA (the National Institute on Drug Abuse) does
not even track them. Overdoses from marijuana, LSD, and psilocybin are
virtually impossible—these drugs combine for a total of zero overdose
deaths annually.
Globally, illicit drugs account for about 166,000 overdose deaths annu-
ally, less than overdoses from alcohol, which number around 185,000.
Different drugs present different overdose risks, and there are many fac-
tors that contribute to that risk. Some drugs are easier to overdose on than
others because of their low safety index. The safety index is a ratio of the
average sized recreational dose compared to the LD/50, the dose that
would kill 50% of people who took that much (for average sized person
with no tolerance). The lower the number, the closer the lethal dose is to
the normal dose, meaning there is a smaller margin of error and a greater
30 C. MEYERS

risk of overdose. Here is a list of various drugs and their approximate

safety indexes [8, 9]:

• Heroin….. 5
• GHB…. 8
• Alcohol….. 10
• Methamphetamine…. 10
• Cocaine….. 15
• MDMA….. 16
• Ketamine….. 38
• Fentanyl….. 150
• Nitrous Oxide….. 150+
• LSD & Psilocybin….. 1000+
• Marijuana….. 1000+

The safety index is important but does not entirely explain a substance’s
overdose potential. For example, alcohol has a safety index of ten com-
pared to cocaine’s safety index of fifteen (when consumed intranasally). In
theory, that should make drinking riskier than snorting coke. In fact,
cocaine overdoses outnumber alcohol overdoses in the United States by
eight to one, even though there are far more drinkers than coke users. Part
of this is the way that alcohol is consumed compared to other drugs. Most
people drink alcohol gradually over the course of the evening, allowing
the body to break it down as it is being consumed. Ten martinis—contain-
ing a combined fifteen ounces of pure ethanol—would have about a 50%
chance of killing an average drinker (depending on body weight, gender,
and tolerance). But that assumes that all ten are downed in quick succes-
sion. Since most people sip their martinis, it would take several hours to
put away ten of them, and your liver would be breaking down the ethanol
as you go. (You would still probably get sick and have a screaming hang-
over the next day, but you would most likely survive.) Most other drugs
are consumed all at once. Heroin use would be a lot safer (though perhaps
less enjoyable) if it were administered by a slow intravenous drip. But most
users take their entire dose in a single shot of smack big enough to keep
them high for six hours or more.
There are other factors besides the safety index and consumption pat-
terns that make it easier to overdose on one drug than another. MDMA,
for example, has a safety index that is almost the same as cocaine. Yet
MDMA overdoses are extremely rare. One factor is that MDMA lasts four
 2 JUST THE FACTS 31

to six hours, so there is less temptation to re-dose. The cocaine high, by

contrast, is fleeting. It starts to wear off after thirty minutes, leaving the
user wanting more. Redosing also does not quite work with ecstasy.
MDMA is a stimulant, but it is also an entactogen, which means that it
causes feelings of empathy, openness, and emotional connectedness. Most
people use MDMA for those entactogen qualities, not for its stimulating
effects. Higher doses of MDMA increase the stimulating effects but not
the empathy and emotional openness that most users desire. So higher
than normal doses tend to be less enjoyable than moderate sized ones. I
also suspect that MDMA users are more savvy about the proper ways to
consume their drug of choice. They are more likely than cocaine users to
test their substances, weigh their doses, and follow other harm reduction
practices. (I have no evidence or explanation for this, just anecdotal
observation.)
Another thing that increases the overdose risk of a drug is its sheer
strength. Consider fentanyl. It has a surprisingly high safety index of about
150, which should make it extremely safe. But a single recreational dose of
the drug is only about 100 micrograms. To put that in perspective, one
grain of rice weighs about as much as 250 recreational doses of fentanyl.
Also, most people who consume fentanyl recreationally do so unwittingly.
The drug is often sold as heroin or as an adulterant to strengthen weak,
diluted heroin. Using heroin with more than 1% fentanyl could be deadly.
A better way to determine the overdose risk of a drug might be in terms
of annual overdoses. Here is a list of US overdose deaths in 2019 [7, 10]:

• [Total opioids… 49,800]

• Fentanyl… 21,700
• Methamphetamine… 16,200
• Cocaine… 15,900
• Prescription opioids… 14,100
• Heroin… 14,000
• Benzodiazepines… 9700
• Alcohol… 2600
• Marijuana… 0
• LSD or psilocybin… 0

This gives a more accurate picture, but it is still misleading. The main
problem is that it does not take into account the rate of use. From just the
numbers it would look like heroin use confers a 12% lower risk of overdose
32 C. MEYERS

death compared to cocaine, but that ignores the fact that cocaine use is
much more prevalent than heroin use.
To get a better understanding of the overdose risks of these drugs, we
should divide the number of overdoses by the number of regular users.
The following list ranks these drugs in terms of the approximate number
of overdose deaths per every 100,000 past-month users. (These numbers
might be a little fuzzy, since overdose rates fluctuate from year to year
more than use rates.)

• Heroin… 4000–4400
• Methamphetamine… 1000–2300
• Prescription opioids… 500–1000
• Cocaine… 550–800
• Benzodiazepine… 500–550
• Alcohol… <0.0002
• Marijuana… 0
• LSD or psilocybin… 0

This might make it seem like alcohol consumption is quite safe. But these
numbers are for overdose deaths only, not deaths from liver disease,
drunken driving, etc. If we include all deaths from alcohol, then the annual
mortality rate for drinking is about 65 per 100,000, which is still consider-
ably safer than opioids, cocaine, meth, or sedatives. Of course, that is for
the United States, where drinkers tend to consume less booze than drink-
ers in other Western industrialized nations. Globally there are about 16
alcohol overdose deaths per 100,000 drinkers and 287 deaths from
alcohol-­related causes.1
If we take the number of annual nicotine deaths compared to the num-
ber of nicotine consumers, we get a death rate of somewhere between 840
(US) and 1400 (global) deaths per 100,000 smokers. That would make
tobacco at least as dangerous as methamphetamine and possibly more
dangerous than any illicit drug except heroin. (Why the big difference
between US and global nicotine-related death rates? I am not sure, but I
suspect it is because most Americans smoke cigarettes with filters.)

1
According to my own calculations, based on past-month use of at least four drinks.
 2 JUST THE FACTS 33

Other Long-Term Health Risks

Both illicit and legal drugs can cause serious long-term health problems,
at least if used regularly or in excess. Some of these conditions can be life-­
threatening. Let us first examine the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine.
Alcohol consumption can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease,
stroke, and of course, liver disease. It also contributes to certain kinds of
cancer, especially cancer of the mouth, throat, liver, colon, and breast.
Unlike most other drugs, alcohol can also be dangerous to quit. An esti-
mated 831 people in the United States died from complications of alcohol
withdrawal in 2016 [11]. Symptoms of mild alcohol withdrawal include
anxiety, irritability, depression, tremors, fatigue, sweating, headache, and
insomnia. But seriously heavy drinkers who quit cold turkey can experi-
ence the potentially deadly condition known as delirium tremens, which
includes fever, extreme agitation, confusion, hallucinations, elevated blood
pressure, and seizures. This condition, however, is rarely seen in people
who consume less than 250 ml of ethanol daily. That is about two and a
half bottles of wine, fifteen beers, or almost a full bottle of hard liquor.
The mortality rate of DTs is about 5%.
Nicotine causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, and bronchitis.
It increases your risk of stroke, diabetes, leukemia, and even macular
degeneration (which can cause blindness) [12]. Smoking also interferes
with proper circulation, causing premature aging of the skin. Smokers live
on average ten to fifteen years shorter than nonsmokers.
Although opioids are the most addictive of recreational drugs (with the
possible exception of nicotine) and carry the biggest risk of overdose
death, they cause surprisingly few if any permanent health problems.
Regular consumption can lead to constipation and loss of libido, but these
will go away with discontinued use. Chronic heavy use can also damage
the brain. Heroin suppresses breathing, and so heavy users do not breathe
enough air, resulting in hypoxia (death of brain cells from insufficient oxy-
gen) [13]. Although opioid withdrawal is extremely unpleasant, it is not as
bad as depicted in the movies. Symptoms include anxiety, nausea and
vomiting, runny nose and sneezing, muscle aches, sweating, diarrhea, and
fever. Most people who have experienced opioid withdrawal compare it to
a bad case of the flu. Unlike the flu, however, opioid withdrawal can last
for weeks.
The biggest health risk of heroin, apart from overdose, is caused not by
the drug itself but by its most popular mode of delivery: the hypodermic
34 C. MEYERS

needle. Injecting any drug is risky, and heroin is the most commonly
injected drug. Using or sharing dirty needles can cause infections, includ-
ing HIV and hepatitis C. According to the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) about 10% of IV drug users (IDUs) in the United
States are HIV positive. The problem is much worse in other parts of the
world. For example, according to a study in 2009, 42% of Ukrainian IDUs
and 37% of Russian IDUs are infected with HIV. Many of these HIV posi-
tive IDUs infect their sexual partners giving rise to epidemics. An esti-
mated 31% of new HIV cases in Eastern Europe are nonusers who were
infected through sex with a drug-using partner [14]. This problem could
be avoided if IV users had easy access to clean hypodermic needles.
IV drug use can also cause collapsed veins and abscesses. An abscess is
a painful, swollen, pus-filled bacterial infection at the site of injection,
which can lead to serious health risk if untreated. A collapsed vein is one
that has caved in and can no longer transport blood. Sometimes a col-
lapsed vein will repair itself, but often the damage is permanent.
Recreational drugs can cause collapsed veins due to undiluted particulates
in the mix. These tiny particles irritate the inner lining of blood vessels.
This is not a problem with injecting pharmaceutical-grade drugs. Infections
and collapsed veins can easily be avoided by smoking or snorting drugs
instead of injecting them.
Stimulants such as cocaine and meth/amphetamines cause more long-­
term health problems than opiates. Snorting coke can damage the sinuses
and nasal passages. Because cocaine is a vasoconstrictor, it reduces blood
flow to the tissues it comes into contact with. Prolonged reduced blood
flow will result in cell death. (This is not a problem for snorting ketamine
or other drugs that do not constrict blood vessels.) My sister’s cocaine use
left her with a hole in her septum large enough to put a pencil through. It
is worth noting, however, that she was a very heavy user, snorting 3.5 gm
(about fifty normal-sized doses) daily for four years. Vasoconstriction also
limits the blood flow to heart tissue. A large enough dose can cause a heart
attack while regular use can cause myocardial fibrosis, a condition in which
heart muscle is replaced by fibrous tissue [15]. Chronic heavy use of
cocaine or methamphetamines can also cause permanent damage to the
substantia nigra, a structure in the midbrain involved in voluntary move-
ment, leading to a condition that closely resembles Parkinson’s disease.
Arylcyclohexylamines, such as the dissociative hallucinogenic drugs
PCP and ketamine, are mildly neurotoxic. High doses or chronic heavy
use can cause tiny holes in the brain known as Olney’s lesions [16]. These
 2 JUST THE FACTS 35

lesions, not surprisingly, are associated with significant cognitive impair-

ment. And the damage is permanent. Regular use of ketamine (but not
PCP) can also damage the bladder. Some heavy users have had to have
their bladders removed and replaced by an ostomy bag. These effects,
however, are rarely seen in moderate users. One case study of drug-­
associated lesions involved an individual who snorted up to 20 gm of ket-
amine per day, which hardly seems possible. Nevertheless, it is estimated
that as many as 20% of regular ketamine users suffer at least some degree
of bladder damage [17].
MDMA is also mildly neurotoxic. Though the damage it causes is not
as serious as ketamine or PCP, harm can occur with even light to moderate
use. MDMA injures the axons of serotonin-producing neurons [18]. It
does not kill the neurons, so the damage is not permanent; but they can
take years or even decades to be repaired. The damage can be reduced, but
not entirely eliminated, with lower doses, long periods of abstinence
between uses, and other precautions.
Though marijuana is much safer than most other recreational drugs,
including the legal drugs alcohol and nicotine, its use is not entirely risk-­
free. Smoking marijuana, just like smoking anything, can irritate the lungs,
leading to bronchitis. Marijuana smoke also contains carcinogens, though
marijuana smokers do not have higher rates of lung cancer than nonsmok-
ers. This might be because it takes only a couple of tokes of marijuana to
get high whereas the typical cigarette smoker consumes throughout the
day, causing prolonged exposure to carcinogens. Marijuana causes an
increase in heartrate, which is not a risk for healthy users but can be a
problem for people with serious heart conditions or when mixed with
stimulants. A rare side effect of chronic cannabis use is a condition called
cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). This condition is characterized
by dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain. The condition goes
away with discontinued use, but symptoms will return if the user starts
up again.
Psychedelics are arguably the safest mind-altering substances to use rec-
reationally. LSD and psilocybin are not associated with any health prob-
lems, even with relatively heavy use, at least for normal healthy people.
However, they can trigger psychotic reactions in people who are prone to
them. Anyone who has experienced a psychotic episode or has a family
history of schizophrenia should avoid psychedelics. Still, on average, peo-
ple who have done psychedelics even just one time have demonstrated
better than average mental health. Psychedelic users also tend to have
36 C. MEYERS

better overall physical health than nonusers [19]. That does not necessar-
ily mean that using psychedelics is good for you; but it certainly suggests
that it is not bad for you.

Cognitive Impairment and Mental Illness

Prohibitionists have long claimed that illicit drugs cause brain damage or
mental illness. Though mostly exaggerated, there is some truth to this.
Heavy marijuana use is associated with diminished cognitive ability and
interferes with regular learning and memory [20]. The diminished func-
tioning is dose-dependent, meaning that the more you smoke the worse
the impairment. Dose-dependency indicates that it is probably the mari-
juana causing the loss of cognitive function rather than the other way
around. This diminished cognitive function, however, seems to be tempo-
rary, at least among adult users, and goes away after about a month of
abstinence [21]. Also, the diminished cognition was found mostly in heavy
users, which was defined by researchers as someone who had gotten high
at least 5,000 times. That is the equivalent of smoking cannabis every day
for thirteen years.
Though marijuana use is relatively safe for adults, that is not the case for
children. The cognitive impairment caused by marijuana might be perma-
nent for underaged consumers. Studies have also found a correlation
between early cannabis consumption and an increased likelihood of devel-
oping a psychotic disorder. A longitudinal study found that people who
were using marijuana heavily by age fifteen were three times more likely to
develop schizophrenia later in life. Those who started smoking regularly
between fifteen and eighteen years of age were only 50% more likely [22].
A stronger connection with drug use and mental illness is found with
cocaine and meth/amphetamines. Heavy prolonged use can cause psy-
chosis lasting for up to a week. Symptoms include paranoia, delusions of
grandeur or persecution, and visual hallucinations like those of DTs,
including the hallucination of bugs crawling under your skin. This kind of
thing will not happen if you snort a couple of lines of cocaine at a party. It
requires heavy prolonged use on a cocaine or meth bender. And sleep
deprivation might be partly to blame. Chronic use may also cause cogni-
tive impairment, especially with memory and executive functioning, which
may be permanent [23].
Of all recreational drugs, none has been accused of causing madness as
much as the psychedelics, especially LSD. But in fact, psychedelics are
 2 JUST THE FACTS 37

associated with improved mental health, unlike every other recreational

drug, even cannabis. A study at the University of Alabama—Birmingham
found that those who have used psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, ayahuasca,
etc.) at any time in their life were 14% less likely to engage in suicidal
thoughts, 29% less likely to plan suicide, and a whopping 36% less likely to
attempt suicide [24]. As statisticians love to say, correlation is not the same
as causation. It could be that healthy people are more likely than mentally
ill people to use psychedelics. But it seems implausible that mental illness
would lead to increased drug use for all drugs except psychedelics. It is
more likely that psychedelic use improves mental health.
Interestingly, the worst commonly used recreational substance for brain
health and cognitive function is probably the legal drug alcohol.2 Chronic
heavy drinking can cause serious cognitive impairment, including alcohol-­
related dementia (ARD) and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (WKS) [25].
ARD is characterized by problems with visual/spatial processing, difficulty
planning, impulsiveness, diminished motor control, and psychosis. WKS
symptoms include uncontrollable twitching in the eyes, slurred speech,
clumsiness, confusion, and severe memory problems. As with delirium
tremens, these conditions occur only with very heavy drinking—we’re
talking a-bottle-of-whisky-per-day level of drinking. Nevertheless, a recent
study by researchers at Oxford found that no amount of alcohol consump-
tion is safe. The study surveyed over 25,000 participants on their alcohol
consumption and compared these to scans of their brains. Alcohol con-
sumption levels were highly correlated with loss of grey matter, even for
very light drinkers [26].

Drug use and Criminality 1: Pharmacologically

Induced Crime
The connection between drug use and criminality plays an important role
in the drug prohibition debate. Those who favor drug prohibition claim
that illicit drug use causes crime. There are two ways that drug use can
allegedly lead to criminal behavior. First, the effects of the drug might
cause the user to commit a crime while high. This is especially a concern
for those substances that lower inhibition while increasing motivation,
such as cocaine or meth. Second, addiction to drugs can motivate addicts
to commit crimes such as shoplifting or burglary to feed their habit. These
2
I say “commonly used” to exclude things like huffing paint or sniffing glue.
38 C. MEYERS

crimes may or may not be committed while high and are caused by addic-
tion rather than intoxication.
Let us start with crimes committed while high, or pharmacologically
induced crime. A survey of convicts found that 26% of federal inmates and
32% of state inmates were under the influence of an illegal drug at the time
that they committed the crimes for which they were convicted [27]. This
number, however, includes consensual crimes, such as prostitution or
drug dealing. Also, a survey of convicts counts only those who were
arrested and successfully prosecuted. Criminals who manage to evade
punishment will be excluded from such surveys. The actual percentage of
crimes committed by people who are high on drugs might be much lower
than indicated by surveying convicts because sober criminals are more
likely to avoid getting caught.
Even assuming that there is a real, statistically significant correlation
between being high and criminal activity, we cannot conclude that intoxi-
cation causes criminality. In at least some cases the causal connection goes
the other way; it is the criminal activity that motivates the drug use.
Prostitution is an obvious case. Many sex workers get high to make their
job more bearable. Also, a life of crime can be quite stressful, and one way
people cope with stress is to use illicit drugs.
When we think of drug-induced criminality, the drug most likely to
come to mind is PCP, which is legendary for causing bizarre acts of vio-
lence or self-destruction. Like most legends, this is mostly exaggeration,
though there are a few documented cases of unspeakable acts committed
while under the influence of this substance. Perhaps the most notorious
case is that of aspiring rapper, Antron Singleton, aka “Big Lurch.” On
April 10, 2002, Singleton murdered a female acquaintance, chewed her
face off, cut her open, and ate part of her lung. Police found him standing
naked in the middle of the street looking up at the night sky, covered with
his victim’s blood. Nevertheless, a study in the late 1980s found that most
of the stories involving aggressive PCP behavior were exaggerated or even
fabricated [28]. Also, PCP was used as a general anesthesia on thousands
of patients in the 1950s without a single incident of violent or aggressive
behavior.
The perceived link between drugs and crime is partly the result of sen-
sationalized news stories or media hype. This is illustrated by one of the
most well-publicized cases of pharmacologically induced violence, the infa-
mous Miami cannibal attack. In 2012, thirty-one-year-old Rudy Eugene
inexplicably attacked a homeless man, beating him senseless and biting off
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
a list of names, and in no way illustrate the present subject. It will be
nothing relevant to our purpose, to know how many Ericas were enumerated
by Petiver, Plukenet, Hermann, Oldenland, Ray, &c. &c.; as, before
Linnæus had, by his mode of classification, determined the precise limits of
the Genus, the confusion that then pervaded all the elder Botanists is such,
that any comment from them, would rather perplex, than elucidate.
Wherefore, beginning with the Systema Naturæ of Linnæus, Vol. II. of
1767, including the European species, he there enumerates but 42; and
Dahlgren, in 1770, edited a dissertation, under his eye, on the genus,
containing a catalogue of 58 names from Bergius, the Mantissa, &c.
Thunberg returning from Africa in 1772, added 13 to the number; all of
which were inserted in the Supplementum Plantarum of 1781. From this last
work, and some other sources, Murray has, in his Syst. Veg. of 1784, made
up a Catalogue of 74 names. The last to be noticed, till the appearance of the
Hort. Kew. is, the Dissertatio de Erica; published under the inspection of
Thunberg, in 1785, with a list and descriptions of 91 species. In the year
1789, a Catalogue of the plants cultivated in the Royal Gardens at Kew, was
published by Mr. Aiton; where, 41 Heaths are to be found in the 2d Vol.;
and four in the addenda at the end of the 3d, making in all 45. Martyn in his
Edition of Miller’s Dictionary, fasciculus of 1795, article Erica, enumerates
but 84. Willdenow, collating from all the foregoing, and assisted by his
friend Wendland, of the Royal Gardens at Herenhausen, Hanover; has
mounted the list to 137, in his Species Plantarum, now publishing in
continuation at Berlin. This, however, as will appear by the catalogue, falls
far short of the number, we have now, in actual cultivation in Britain. From
the great number of beautiful specimens lately received by G. Hibbert, Esq.
many of which were accompanied by seeds, now living plants, contributing
to the present richness of the extensive and superb Collection of that
Gentleman at Clapham, and brought from the Cape of Good Hope by Mr.
Niven, who was employed for the only purpose, of amassing the vegetable
treasures of that country, to enrich the Clapham gardens, and herbarium; as
well as, from the numberless importations, by different hands, of seeds,
since we have been in possession of that territory; a fair conjecture may be
made, that the Genus is not bounded, by double the number of species with
which we are at present acquainted. Few, if any, of the species but have been
increased by cuttings; which has occasioned the total disuse of propagation
by layers; wherefore, the only methods we shall treat of, is this, and from
the seed. The process for the making, and planting of the cuttings, is as
follows. Let a middle sized pot be prepared by filling it, within three inches
of the margin, with small broken potsherds, or some such matter; to the end
that, a constant and ready drain may be gained for the water, which it will be
necessary to give the cuttings, at any time the earth, &c. shall appear dry on
the surface. Then consulting the list given with Volume 1st, take a sufficient
quantity of sandy loam, sandy peat, or common sand, or a mixture of any of
them finely sifted, to fill the pot up to the margin, and press it lightly with
the hand; thus prepared it is fit to receive the cuttings. These must be taken
about an inch long, or shorter, according to the nature and season of the
plants making their fresh branches, from the smallest and tenderest shoots;
cutting off the leaves from two-thirds of their length close to the shoot; for
which a pair of small scissars is the most convenient. When a few are thus
made ready, for not many should be cut at a time, lest they wither before
they can be planted, with a small piece of wood, tapered to a point, dibble
them into the pot; fixing the lower end of the cutting as firm as possible.
When the pot has been thus filled with them, at about half an inch distance
each way, leaving a clear half inch from the inner edge; cover them with a
small bell-glass, procured as near as possible to fit within its inner rim, then
place it under a large hand-glass, or frame, where it must be kept from the
stronger rays of the sun, until the cuttings are rooted. Some time after this
has taken place, which will be known by their growth, the small bell-glass
must be first removed; about a week after, the pot may be taken from under
the large hand-glass, and the plants exposed to the open air, in the shade of a
north wall, or in winter put in the shady part of the green-house, to protect
them from the sun and wind, till they are removed into separate pots. The
seeds of some species, which ripen in this country, as well as those which
may be procured from the Cape, may be sown about the middle of March, in
pots, prepared in the same way as directed for cuttings; with this exception,
that the earth be invariably sandy peat finely sifted; the seeds should be
covered so slightly, that they may be but just concealed; when covered, they
must be watered with a watering-pot whose rose, or head should admit of a
passage for the water, only as a light dew; lest the seeds be all thrown
together, or washed over the side of the pot. Both plants from cuttings, and
seedlings, may be removed with greater safety whilst quite young, than after
they have acquired a considerable size. The smallest pots that can be
procured, are the best for the first transplanting; in which they should
remain, till the pots are quite filled with roots. The earth in which all Heaths
thrive most is a soft, loose, sandy peat. That nothing may be wanting, which
we can contribute, to the illustration of the Genus; a list is subjoined,
communicated by Messrs. Lee and Kennedy, of all those species cultivated
by them at their nursery, Hammersmith; unquestionably, the most extensive
collection, of living plants, of every denomination, now in Europe.
 ERICA coccinea.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris muticis, sub-inclusis, stylus exsertus; flores in sumitate

ramorem, verticillati, clavati, curvati, coccinei; foliola calycis acuta; foliis
senis, incurvis.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis erectus, cinereo-fuscus, pedalis; rami verticillati, erecto-patentes,

raro ramulosi.
Folia sena, incurvata, acuta, glabra, sub-glauca; petiolis adpressis.
Flores in summite ramorum verticillati, conserti, brevissime
pedunculati, bracteæ calyciformes.
Calyx. Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis subulatis, marginibus
membranaceis, acutis, carinatis.
Corolla curvata, elevata, pubescens, sanguinea; oris laciniis erectis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo capillaria, longitudine tubi. Antheræ muticæ,
sub-inclusæ.
Pistillum. Germen turbinatum, sulcatum. Stylus filiformis, exsertus.
Stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Augusti, in Decembrem.

REFERENTIA.

1. Calyx, et Corolla.
2. Calyx lente auctus.
3. Stamina, et Pistillum.
4. Stamina a Pistillo diducta, anthera una lente aucta.
 5. Stylus, et Stigma, lente aucta.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with beardless tips, just within the blossom, shaft without; the
flowers grow at the end of branches in whorls, club-shaped, curved, and of a
scarlet colour; the leaves of the cup are sharp-pointed; the leaves grow by
sixes, and are turned inwards.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem upright, of a brownish ash-colour, growing a foot high; branches

grow in whorls, upright, and spreading, seldom branching.
Leaves grow by sixes, turned inwards, sharp-pointed, smooth, and of a
bluish green; the leaf-stems pressed to the branches.
Flowers grow in close whorls at the top of the branches; the foot-stalks
very short, the floral leaves appearing like a second cup.
Empalement. Cup four-leaved, which are awl-shaped, skinny at the
edges, sharp-pointed, and keel-shaped.
Blossom curved, club-shaped, downy, and of a blood colour; the
segments of the mouth are upright.
Chives. Eight hair-like threads, the length of the tube. Tips beardless, and
just within the blossom.
Pointal. Seed-bud turban-shaped, and furrowed. Shaft thread-shaped,
and without the blossom. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from August, till December.

REFERENCE.

1. The Empalement, and Blossom.

2. The Empalement magnified.
3. The Chives, and Pointal.
4. The Chives detached from the Pointal, one tip magnified.
5. The Shaft, and its Summit, magnified.
 ERICA conspicua.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris basi bicornibus, exsertis; corollis clavatis,

sesquipollicaribus, luteis; foliis quaternis, glabris, obtusis, crassis.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, erectus, tripedalis, ramosus; ramulis verticillatis,

brevibus.
Folia quaterna, obtusa, linearia, crassa; petiolis brevissimis, adpressis.
Flores in apicibus ramulorum terminales, nutantes, pedunculis brevibus,
bracteis tribus spathulatis.
Calyx. Perianthium tetraphyllum; foliolis obtusis, glabris, sub-ovatis.
Corolla clavata, sesquipollicaris, lutea, basi attenuata; oris laciniis
magnis, revolutis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo capillaria, receptaculo inserta; antheris bifidis,
basi bicornibus, exsertis.
Pistillum. Germen cylindricum, sulcatum. Stylus filiformis. Stigma
tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mense Junii in Augustum.

REFERENTIA.

1. Calyx et Corolla.
2. Calyx lente auctus.
3. Stamina et Pistillum.
4. Stamina a Pistillo diducta, antherâ unâ lente auctâ.
5. Stylus et Stigma lente aucta.
 SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with tips two-horned at their base, and without the blossom: the
blossoms are club-shaped, an inch and a half long, yellow: the leaves grow
by fours, are smooth, blunt, and thick.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem shrubby, upright, grows three feet high, and branching: the smaller
branches are short, and grow in whorls.
Leaves grow by fours, are blunt, linear, thick, and have short foot-stalks
pressed to the branches.
Flowers are terminal at the summit of the smaller branches, waving,
having short foot-stalks, with three spathula-shaped floral leaves.
Empalement. Cup four-leaved: leaves blunt, smooth, and nearly egg-
shaped.
Blossom club-shaped, an inch and a half long, yellow, and tapering to
the base: the segments of the mouth are large, and rolled back.
Chives. Eight hair-like threads, fixed to the receptacle: the tips are cleft,
two-horned at their base, and without the blossom.
Pointal. Seed-vessel cylinder-shaped, and furrowed. Shaft thread-
shaped. Summit four-cornered.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from June till August.

REFERENCE.

1. The Empalement and Blossom.

2. The Empalement magnified.
3. The Chives and Pointal.
4. The Chives detached from the Pointal, one tip magnified.
5. The Shaft and its Summit magnified.
 ERICA coronata.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris aristatis, inclusis; corollis cylindrico-clavatis,

speciosissimis; foliis octonis seu spiraliter sparsis, truncatis, arcuatis.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, erectus, bipedalis, basi simplicissimus, rami pauci,

simplices, longi.
Folia octona, linearia, obtusa, supra scabra, subtus sulcata, attenuata in
petiolos longos capillares.
Flores plures, subterminales, simpliciter verticillati, conserti, viscosi;
pedunculi longi recurvati, bracteis tribus instructi.
Calyx. Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis lanceolatis, viscosis, adpressis.
Corolla cylindrico-clavata, pollicaria, apice recurvata, ima parte
profunde carnea, apice viridie, ore arctata, laciniis rectis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo capillaria; receptaculo inserta. Antheræ
aristatæ, inclusæ.
Pistillum. Germen clavatum, sulcatum. Stylus filiformis, subexsertus.
Stigma peltatum, concavum, viride.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a Februarii, in Aprilem.

REFERENTIA.

1. Folium unum, cum petiolo.

2. Calyx, et Corolla.
3. Calyx, lente auctus.
4. Stamina, et Pistillum.
 5. Stamina a Pistillo diducta, anthera una lente aucta.
6. Stylus, et Stigma lente aucta.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with bearded tips, within the blossoms, which are cylindrically club-
shaped and very shewy; the leaves grow by eights or spirally scattered,
appear cut off at the ends and arched.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem shrubby, erect, grows two feet high, simple at the base, with but
few branches, which are simple, and long.
Leaves grow by eights, are linear, blunt, rough on their upper, and
furrowed on their under surface, tapering into long hair-like foot-stalks.
The Flowers are numerous, nearly terminating the branches, in simple
whorls, crowded together, and clammy; the foot-stalks are long, bent
backward, with three floral leaves.
Empalement. Cup four-leaved, leaflets lance-shaped, clammy, and
pressed to the blossom.
Blossom cylindrically club-shaped, an inch long, bent back at the point,
the lower part of a strong flesh colour, the end green, compressed at the
mouth, whose segments are straight.
Chives. Eight hair-like threads fixed into the receptacle. Tips bearded,
and within the blossom.
Pointal. Seed-vessel club-shaped, and furrowed. Shaft thread-shaped,
almost without the blossom. Summit shield-shaped, concave, and green.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from February, till April.

REFERENCE.

1. A Leaf, with its foot-stalk.

2. The Empalement, and Blossom.
3. The Empalement, magnified.
4. The Chives, and Pointal.
5. The Chives detached from the Pointal; one tip magnified.
6. The Shaft, and its Summit magnified.
 ERICA costata.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris muticis, inclusis; stylo exserto; corollis sub-cylindraceis,

incarnatis, costatis; foliis pubescentibus, ternis.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, bipedalis, erectus ramosus; ramuli frequentissimi.

Folia caulina, terna, recta, linearia, obtusa, pubescentia; folia ramea,
erectiora, ovata, sub-serrata, acuminata; petiolis adpressis.
Flores plures, tres, quatuorve ramuli terminates; pedunculi brevissimi.
Calyx. Perianthium duplex; interius, tetraphyllum, foliolis sub-ovatis,
acuminatis, serratis, coloratis, apice sulcatis, adpressis; exterius triphyllum,
priori brevioribus, virescentibus.
Corolla sub-cylindracea, apice paulula curvata, incarnata, costata; oris
laciniis erectis, albidis, obtusis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo, ima parte spathulata, receptaculo inserta.
Antheræ inclusæ, muticæ.
Pistillum. Germen sub-cylindricum, sulcatum. Stylus attenuatus,
exsertus, apice curvatus. Stigma tetragonum virescens.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a Februarii, in Junium.

REFERENTIA.

1. Folium unum, lente auctum.

2. Calyx, et Corolla.
3. Calyx, lente auctus.
4. Stamina, et Pistillum.
 5. Stamen unum, lente auctum.
6. Stylus, et Stigma, lente aucta.

SPECIFIC CHARACTER.

Heath, with beardless tips, within the blossom; pointal without; blossoms
nearly cylindrical, flesh-coloured, and ribbed; leaves downy, growing by
threes.

DESCRIPTION.

Stem shrubby, grows two feet high, upright, and branching; the smaller
branches are numerous.
The Leaves of the stem grow by threes, straight out, linear, blunt, and
downy; those on the smaller branches, more upright, egg-shaped, a little
sawed at the edges, and sharp pointed; the foot-stalks pressed to the
branches.
The Flowers are numerous, growing by threes, or fours, at the end of
the smaller branches; foot-stalks very short.
Empalement. Cup double; the inner four-leaved; leaves almost egg-
shaped, pointed, sawed, coloured, furrowed at the point, and pressed to the
blossom; the outer three-leaved, shorter than the former, and greenish.
Blossom nearly cylindrical, curved a little at the end, of a flesh colour,
and ribbed; the segments of the mouth are upright, white and blunt.
Chives. Eight threads, spathula-shaped at the base, and fixed into the
receptacle. Tips within the blossom, and beardless.
Pointal. Seed-vessel almost cylinder-shaped, and furrowed. Shaft
tapered, without the blossom, and curved at the end. Summit four-cornered,
and green.
Native of the Cape of Good Hope.
Flowers from February, till June.

REFERENCE.
1. A Leaf, magnified.
2. The Empalement, and Blossom.
3. The Empalement, magnified.
4. The Chives, and Pointal.
5. One Chive, magnified.
6. The Shaft, and its Summit, magnified.
 ERICA cruenta.

CHARACTER SPECIFICUS.

Erica, antheris aristatis, sub-inclusis, foliis quaternis, corollis sub-ternis,

glabris, clavato-cylindricis, pollicaribus; saturate sanguineis.

DESCRIPTIO.

Caulis fruticosus, bipedalis, erectus; rami erecti, ramulosi; ramulis

brevissimis, frequentissimis.
Folia quaterna, linearia, glabra, nitida, saturate viridia, petiolis
brevissimis, adpressis.
Flores in ramulis terminales, prope caulis summitatem, racemum quali
formantes longum; pedunculi longi, bracteis tribus ad basin instructi.
Calyx. Perianthium tetraphyllum, foliolis lanceolatis, serratis, adpressis.
Corolla clavato-cylindrica, glabra, cruenta, pollicaris; oris laciniis
rectis, obtusis.
Stamina. Filamenta octo capillaria, receptaculo inserta; antheræ aristatæ,
sub-inclusæ.
Pistillum. Germen sub-ovatum, sulcatum, pubescens; stylus exsertus;
stigma tetragonum.
Habitat ad Caput Bonæ Spei.
Floret a mensi Augusti, in Decembrem.

REFERENTIA.

1. Calyx, et Corolla.
2. Calyx, lente auctus.
3. Stamina, et Pistillum.
4. Stamina a Pistillo diducta; anthera una lente aucta.