Forum

Mounting data and an eyebrow-raising report about schizophrenia rates (25% of male cases below the age of 49 are cannabis induced) in Denmark are ringing alarm bells and casting a harsh light on the relative lack of limits on how much THC can be put into cannabis products that are smoked, vaped or ingested. “The higher the potency, the more addictive it is. It’s the addiction-for-profit model,” said Luke Niforatos, executive vice president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an organization that warns about the potential harm of marijuana use. “Once there was an industry producing and selling and manufacturing marijuana products, that’s when we saw potency start to skyrocket.”

19 states and the District of Columbia have varying approaches to sales. Now more people are using marijuana and doing so more frequently.

 

Data compiled by SAM shows that 52.5 million Americans used marijuana in 2021, up from 17.5 million in 1992. The number of Americans 12 and older reporting daily use increased from 6.2 million in 2009 to 13.8 million in 2019.  When it comes to cocaine use, the U.S. is tied for first place with Spain, a nation having a drug crisis of its own. Spain and Portugal offer an interesting contrast: Both decriminalized possession of all drugs, “soft” and “hard,” concentrating on civil fines and treatment for users while reserving jail time for dealers. The U.S. ranks high on the list of total drug-related arrests – placing at No. 2 overall. However, it pales in comparison to Spain – ironically, a country in which drug possession is no longer a criminal offense. This shows the massive challenge Spain faces as a port of call for smugglers of all types of drugs from all around the world, which doesn’t disappear unless drugs are made legal with a significant price drop, which of course would stimulate demand causing many more social problems and lowering the price would also dry up any revenue needed for all the social services drug addiction causes.  While Portugal, with a tiny population of 10 million people, a per capita income half of that of the US, a homogeneous culture and deeply dominated by Roman Catholic believers-84% of the population-about 33% of the population go to mass and take the sacraments regularly, has been a success story and a model for other countries, including Spain, whose success has been decidedly different – showing there is no one-size-fits-all solution to drug abuse. It should also be pointed out that cause of death statistics rely on death certificates issued by doctors, and studies have shown that there can be substantial variations in what doctors in different countries report on death certificates, both on a cultural and individual level.  China's hatred of drug use doesn't extend to the fentanyl its factories ship by the kilo to the US of Overdoses. You might call that karma for the Opium War. Or you might wonder if karma is another word for revenge.

 

In the long or even medium term, nations can radically change the amount of drug use by making it more or less culturally and legally acceptable. The left and legalizers know this (which is why they seek to normalize use/addiction), they just like to pretend it's not true. They want to make you believe levels of drug use are fixed (or inevitably rising) and that all we can do is manage the harm it causes, without admitting:

A) That we have NEVER found ways to manage the harm

B) That the mere fact of pretending we can't deter use encourages it.

 

Prohibitions against drugs can be theoretically justified. Drugs regularly harm not only the user but the people immediately around him - who are often children. In contrast, the pleasure of drug-taking accrues only to the user. Further, many people can use drugs - even cocaine and heroin - without becoming addicted. But many others cannot. Neither we nor the first-time user can know whether he will become an addict until too late.

 

Addiction is a horror, both in theory and practice. Addicts are cruel to themselves and to everyone around them - again, especially, children. They are nearly as damaging to the rest of society. To be blunt, they are parasites, often incapable of work and committing criminal acts to pay for their habits. Their drug use may drive them to violence through aggression or psychosis.  Addiction is equally problematic ethically. It cuts against demands to allow users autonomy, as addiction by definition robs the user of choice. And if addiction is an illness, as advocates for drug users insist, it is a mental illness (what other kind could it be?).

 

The safest course then is to do everything possible to reduce the number of addicts. Addiction is notoriously untreatable; only the addict can stop using. Since using a drug even once carries a risk of addiction (different drugs have different risks, but all are higher than is often understood), and since we cannot know who will become addicted, and we cannot really treat addiction, we are well justified in trying to stop it on the way in - discouraging use by making it illegal.

 

If all of this seems high-faluting and theoretical, it’s not.

 

For decades, we allowed physicians and drug companies to make legal opioids widely available to huge numbers of Americans. They were not only not prohibited, they were medically supervised and even paid for by insurance. The consequences were horrific. So, is drug prohibition practical? This is a harder case, but the answer is yes. Yes, prohibition is not completely effective, not even close. But laws against drug use have a notable effect on the number of people who are willing to try illegal drugs, an effect visible between countries as well as over generational periods in the United States.

 

What about alcohol? Alcohol prohibition is theoretically justifiable but practically impossible. We tried that experiment. It failed. But alcohol is the exception, not the rule. It is far more embedded in our culture - not just in the United States but almost everywhere - than any illegal drug, including cannabis. The answer is not to legalize other drugs and encourage their use, but to discourage the use or abuse of alcohol without prohibiting it.

 

Should people not have the freedom to use drugs and overdose/kill themselves if they please?  If we as society should have to pay for their treatment, that's a separate point entirely.  But, No! The externalities of use and especially addiction are too severe. The pleasure goes to the user (for a time), the harm to everyone else. This isn't a moral judgment, it's an economic/legal argument. The user is a polluting chemical plant - he profits, the community suffers. And it's perfectly reasonable for the community to regulate the polluter in the way it sees fit under those circumstances. That doesn't necessarily mean jailing users. What it means at the core is understanding that WE, not they, are the victims of use.

 

Freedom is not an end in itself in neither politics or morality. It's one of the necessary means to virtue. Emphasizing individual freedom over social formations such as the family, the neighborhood, church, associations, invocations, tend to inhibit one's ability to choose virtue or even to know what it is. And statesman should exhort moral behavior and civic responsibility. This is the point the legalization/harm reduction movement has succeeded in obscuring. The harm that should be our focus is to the people and community around the user - and we should reduce it as WE think best. The user can always reduce his own harm by stopping use. The only thing worse than the War on Drugs is surrendering to them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/washington-dc-homelessness-drug-abuse-democrats-election/