Hari's rats: is drugs liberalisation the answer?

"Powerful interview with Johann Hari, author of Chasing the Scream.
This will completely change the way you look at the war on drugs:
http://bit.ly/1yrYMlD - ‪#‎EndTheDrugWar"

Hari has his own agenda, but I agree with him and Russell Brand that addicts (of all kinds) need treatment.

I worry that decriminalising drugs will lead to a massive increase in their use among children - you have only to see how porn and violent fantasy have spread down the age brackets. And of course, there are millions of stressed and depressed adults who will be tempted to lean on any available - if ultimately disabling - crutch.

Hari argues (from a 70s rat experiment) that a well-balanced society produces individuals who are unlikely to abuse drugs. I think he misses the logic of his own argument: it implies that we shouldn't liberalise until we have such a society.

I see every day traumatised young people who are prime potential victims of illegal and prescription drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Billionaires are waiting in the wings, ready to develop another market in exploiting weakness. These lions are eager for us to tear down the fence between them and the lambs.

Yes, a purely punitive approach is not enough. But until that sane and loving society has been established - somebody tried it 2,000 years ago and we see how long that lasted - we need some way to protect addicts and potential addict-recruits from themselves, plus therapeutic help for those who are already caught in the trap.

This may not please those who call themselves libertarians, but I don't agree with the latter that you can do exactly as you please to yourself without in any way impacting on others.

 

READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Addictive behaviour is the West's major challenge

"I finally decided to give up", say some. Yet I made that decision about smoking many times, before the last time (1977) that worked. I haven't seen an account of how to make a decision that sticks. Otherwise most of us would be slim, fit etc.

Gerald Durrell, in "My Family and Other Animals", tells how as a child he let his sister take care of some orphaned baby hedgehogs while he was away. He told her to be strict with the milk, not to overfeed. When he came back, he found that she'd fed on demand and they'd all died, because they couldn't stop demanding.

We live in a society that has plentiful cheap food, readily available and aggressively marketed alcohol, easily obtainable tobacco, easily found illegal drugs (and glamourised a thousand times by the media), computer games everywhere. It's surprising that anything gets done.

Some argue for decriminalisation of "harmless" drugs like cannabis, contrasting it with the undoubted dangers of alcohol. I agree with them in a way they won't like: alcohol is far too easy to get hold of.

Libertarians overestimate the amount of control we have over our behaviour, I think. Sartre argued stubbornly against the theory of the unconscious, because it undermined his philosophy of existentialism. I incline to the Buddhist analysis, that we continually form strong attachments and only the most determined can break the chains. Few manage it on their own. Some would say only 5% per year break free of alcohol, and perhaps a far smaller percentage stay off it permanently.

In our debates on liberty, should there be some discussion about restrictions that make us more free?