Home » The Drug Policy Sham

The Drug Policy Sham

Blog Stats

  • 16,565 hits

Follow me on Twitter

51 Myths, Lies and Misconceptions behind the Drug Apartheid

by Julian Buchanan

 

Drug law and policy has its roots in fear, ignorance, racism and self interest. Sadly, this has changed little over the years. It continues to be shaped more by punitive populism and moral crusades rather than scientific evidence, reason and rationality.
To expose and encourage a critical debate I’ve tried to uncover some of the main myths, lies and misconceptions that underpin and shape and inform drug policy development. Unless we acknowledge our philosophical position and identify the principles that inform our thinking, we risk replicating further misguided drug policies. Although punchy and accessible in style, each point below is carefully considered and can be academically supported – but that’s for another day!

 

1. “There is a clear pharmacological definition for drugs.” There isn’t – what we classify as illegal ‘drugs’ is a 1950s & 60s social and cultural construct with no coherent pharmacological rationale. We fail to recognise alcohol, tobacco or caffeine as drugs – and maybe sugar should also be classified as a drug.

 

2. “People who use drugs are drug misusers.” Untrue – the vast majority are recreational users who generally use drugs recreationally and sensibly, unfortunately we conflate use with problematic use. 

 

3. “Drug users are dirty, immoral and dangerous losers.” An unjustified and hostile stereotype – illicit drug users are a diverse group of people from every walk of life. The drug business is dirty, immoral and dangerous – that’s because it’s illegal, extremely lucrative and subject to fierce law enforcement.

 

4. “People take drugs because they have problems.” Untrue – most people take drugs because they enjoy the effect, just like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.

 

5. “Regular drug use inevitably leads to addiction.” Untrue – only a small proportion of people who use drugs develop addiction – just like alcohol.

 

6. “Taking drugs damages people.” All substances (legal and illegal) can damage people and the most damaging drug of all is a legal one – alcohol. However, prohibition makes illicit drugs more dangerous and damaging. In addition, acquiring a criminal record for drugs can be more harmful to life than the drug. 

 

7. “Drug use fuels crime.” The presence of a drug and the commission of a crime does not equate to a causal connection. The relationship is ‘associated’ rather than ‘causal’. However, there is evidence that prohibition and tough law enforcement fuel violent crime.

 

8. “Legal drugs are safer and less harmful.” This is particularly misleading statement because alcohol and tobacco are far more damaging than most illegal drugs. However, prohibition makes it difficult to know the strength, ingredients or quality of illegal drugs.

 

9. “Law enforcement measures affect levels of drug use.” Studies show that in advanced western democracies neither tough, nor liberal law enforcement approaches have much impact upon levels of drug use.

 

10. “Addiction is an equal opportunity employer.” Drug use is an equal opportunity employer but addiction isn’t. While anyone can be affected, chronic problematic drug use tends to disproportionately affect those with disadvantaged and damaged lives that had significant difficulties before PDU and these people lack the resources, opportunities and support to recover.

 

11. “Addiction is a brain disease”. Untrue, yes the brain will be affected but loss of control of drugs (similar to internet addiction, gambling, over-eating) has much more to do with social, psychological and behavioural fact than neurological defects. If addiction was a brain disease MRIs would be used as diagnostic evidence of addiction.

 

12. “The government can protect society by banning new drugs”. Banning drugs masquerades as positive action to deal with the ‘problem’ when actually banning drugs has little impact on use and actually makes production, distribution and consumption more dangerous.

 

13. “Once listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act, drugs become controlled.” Technically correct – but once a drug is listed as a controlled drug it actually goes underground and ironically it becomes an uncontrolled drug.

 

14. “Cannabis is a gateway drug that leads to addiction to ‘hard’ drugs.” Untrue, most young adults have used cannabis and most have not progress onto using other drugs, nor have they become ‘addicts’. The last three Presidents of the USA all successfully used cannabis without any gateway affect.

 

15. “People who use caffeine, tobacco and/or alcohol are not drug users”. Untrue – they certainly are drug users and many are ‘addicts’. These three substances are all drugs, and ironically unlike some illegal drugs – in high dosages caffeine, tobacco and alcohol are toxic and result in death.

 

16. “If we lock up dealers we can reduce the drug related violence.” The opposite is true, disrupting the supply distribution and removing dealers creates more violence by fuelling market uncertainty, presenting new business opportunities and creating ‘business’ conflict.

 

17. “Drug use isn’t a crime issue it’s a health issue.” This may sound like a step in the right direction but taking a substance isn’t inherently a health issue anymore than enjoying a coffee or glass of wine is a ‘health issue’. Even problematic drug use isn’t best described as a health issue it’s more accurately a social, psychological, health and/or legal issue.

 

18. “There are ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs.” There is scientific evidence underpinning the misleading categorisation of hard and soft drugs. While some drugs can generally pose greater problems than other drugs to some people – these generalisations are misleading because the impact of a drug varies from person to person depending upon the set (the person) and the setting (the environment) – it’s not just the substance.

 

19. “Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous, and the proof they are dangerous is that they are illegal!” This circular Double-Speak offers no evidence but is used to defend prohibition, but the substances we have called ‘drugs’ are not particularly more dangerous than other substances such as alcohol, sugar, tobacco, fat, caffeine and peanuts. However, prohibition increases the risk, danger and uncertainty considerable.

 

20. “Drug testing will tell you if a person is on drugs.” The result is unreliable due human error, machine error, deliberate and accidental false positives and false negatives. Some who tests positive for cannabis could have been cannabis free for four weeks because the drug can be detected days, weeks even months later.

 

21. “Like everything else on the market drugs must be proven safe before they can ever be legalised.” Not true. The safety for other products does not have to be established before approval (for example mobile phones or GM foods). Substances that are damaging or even lethal to some such as tobacco, alcohol, peanuts are legal and promoted, whereas a drug such as cannabis that has medicinal benefits and has never killed anyone is considered dangerous and remains illegal.

 

22. “People who use drugs are not criminals they need help.” An apparently benign and supportive statement, however, while taking a drug should not be a law enforcement concern, neither should we problematize or pathologize drug use as a health issue. There is no reason why we should assume a person using drugs needs help.

 

23. “Recovery is about becoming drug free.” Recovery is about people who have been dependent on drugs regaining control of their life, but becoming drug free isn’t always necessary to achieve that. Some people sort their life out and continue to use in a non-problematic way, and some take clean legal prescribed substitutes such as methadone or heroin and successfully lead productive and stable lives. 

 

24. “Harm reduction is about reducing the spread of diseases.” Harm reduction is not just about health – it’s also about reducing social, cultural and psychological harms. Harm reduction is an evidenced based approach that should sit alongside human rights to underpin all drug policy. It’s pragmatic, humane and non judgemental, it engages people where they are at with a view to reducing risk and harm.

 

25. “Harm reduction doesn’t support abstinence.” Harm reduction isn’t about getting people off drugs – it’s about working with people to reduce risks. However, in some cases abstinence might be a good way to reduce risks – so harm reduction incorporates abstinence – but only if the person is ready, able, interested and wanting to become abstinent.

 

26. “Illegal drugs have little or no use in medicine.” Although this sentiment is enshrined in the much out-dated 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotics this statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Opiates are essential in severe pain management  cannabis and MDMA, have medicinal benefits in the treatment of a growing number of conditions (e.g. MS, PTSD, Epilepsy). Illegality has made medical trials and acceptance extremely difficult.

 

27. “People who use drugs need treatment not prison.” Another apparently positive statement however, people who use drugs don’t need treatment or prison anymore than someone who has a double espresso each morning, or the person who enjoys a glass of whisky before bedtime needs treatment or prison. Under the umbrella of ‘it’s better than prison’ all sorts of questionable practices can be made palatable.

 

28. “To prevent stigma we need to understand addiction as a disease.” Yes we want to prevent stigma but addiction is not a disease. The most effective way to prevent stigma is to end the drug apartheid and challenge the hypocritical and flawed social construction of ‘drugs’. 

 

29. “Drug laws affect everyone the same.” This is not true. The chances of being stopped, searched, arrested and prosecuted for drug possession depends a greatly on the colour of your skin, your social class, age, location and your social background. 

 

30. “If we try hard enough we can eradicate drugs.” A fallacy. Forty years of extremely tough prohibition involving masses of time and money for police, armed forces and customs has had no impact upon supply, price or use. They can’t even keep drugs out of high security prisons.

 

31. “Heroin is a dangerous drug that damages your body.” Any street drug could be very damaging because illegality means the user hasn’t got a clue what’s in it. But clean pharmaceutical heroin (unlike alcohol) doesn’t cause any permanent damage to the body.

 

32. “Crack cocaine in pregnancy leads to permanently damaged ‘crack’ babies.” There is no consistent evidence to support this claim – from the longitudinal studies severe and enduring poverty appears to be the key factor that thwarts child progress and development not parental crack cocaine use during pregnancy. So instead of crying out about crack babies it would be more approapriate to get express concern over ‘poverty babies’. 

 

33. “Drug testing will help identify people who have a drug problem.”  Besides it’s unreliability – at best drug testing only indicates drug use it wont show pattern, time, place, nature or context of drug use. A positive results indicates drug use not problematic use.

 

34. “Law enforcement targets the most dangerous drugs.” Untrue, arrests and drug seizures for cannabis out number all the other drugs arrests combined. The war between drugs is largely a war on the relatively benign cannabis while the significantly more dangerous drug alcohol is enjoyed and promoted amongst law enforcement officials.

 

35. “People caught with cannabis don’t end up in prison.” Untrue, many certainly do.

 

36. “Drug law enforcement targets people who use drugs.” Levels of drug use across the white and black population are similar. However it depends upon the colour of your skin and your social status as to whether you will be targeted. If you are poor and have a minority ethnic heritage you are much more likely to be targeted – stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted and subsequently sentenced – for drug defined crime. 

 

37. “Heroin during pregnancy will cause permanent harm to the unborn child.” Street heroin is a problem because you don’t know what’s in it. But clean pharmaceutical heroin causes no known permanent damage to a baby. Once recovered from withdrawal symptoms babies will have no permanent harm. However, alcohol taken during pregnancy can cause Foetal Alcohol Syndrome – a permanent condition.

 

38. “A drug free world is desirable.” Drugs have been used since records began for pain relief, treating sickness, for relaxation and social reasons. Alcohol, caffeine, tobacco are drugs and arguably cocoa, sugar and fat too. A world without drugs is unthinkable, undesirable and untenable.

 

39. “Illegal drugs kill people.” This is misleading because the majority of drug deaths are consequences of prohibition and a draconian drug policy that makes taking drugs uncertain and more dangerous and getting help risky. A lot of deaths could have otherwise been avoided. 

 

40. “Drug policy is based upon the best available evidence.” For decades research reports, reviews, inquiries, expert groups have provided mountain loads of evidence – but drug policy has repeatedly ignored the best available evidence and instead continued to uphold the principles of prohibition enshrined in the 1961 UN Single Convention. Drug policy is rooted in ideological beliefs and moral high ground not science and evidence.

 

41. “It’s a war on drugs.”  Untrue drugs have never been more accommodated, integrated or promoted. There is no war on alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, fat or BigPharma drugs.  It is a war on particular drugs that have been outlawed for political, social and economic reasons (not pharmacological or scientific reasons). It’s a ‘War Between Drugs’ enforced by an uncompromisingly tough Drug Apartheid.

 

42. “Regulation is the way forward.” Ideally, but it depends upon what regulation looks like. Not if that regulation (as illustrated in the New Zealand Psychoactive Substance Act 2013) means: you are now prohibited and punished for possession of substances not approved by the state (s.71 $500 fine); supply carries a 2 year prison sentence (s.70); all new psychoactive substances not listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act are automatically prohibited and the only way of acquiring ‘approved’ substances is through BigPharma or BigBusiness.

 

43. “Every day drug free is a another day of being clean.”  This is misleading, is anyone ever (and should they be?) drug free because we take caffeine, sugar, cocoa, aspirin, alcohol?  More importantly this statement wrongly insinuates taking a drug is wrong and dirty and without them we become ‘clean’.

 

44. “Alcohol occupies so much police time – imagine how bad it’d be if we legalise cannabis.”  There is no comparison these are two very different substances. The impact of any drug also depends more upon set and setting.  Better regulation will create controls of cannabis and alcohol – but prohibition provides no control whatsoever.

 

45. “Legalising drugs is dangerous because more people will use drugs.”  People who are currently using unknown (purity, toxicity, ingredients, strength) street drugs and risking a criminal record will be in a much safer position. In countries where drugs have been legalised or decriminalised there has not been any overall increase in drug use. However, it is dangerous and problematic drug use that should concern us not drug use per se.

 

46. “Cannabis use by drivers is leading to more deaths on the road.” Unfounded. There is evidence that cannabis is increasingly found in blood samples but this presence of cannabis in the blood stream could arise from use of cannabis days, weeks even months ago. Drug presence doesn’t mean impairment.

 

47. “Every drug death is further evidence of the dangers of drugs.”  Most drug deaths are a by-product of draconian drug policy that could be avoided by a combination of naloxone distribution, safer drug use education, drug testing kits, drug consumption rooms and less intolerance and stigma.

 

48. “The underground criminal business in drugs is enormous so we need tougher law enforcement.” Unfortunately it is prohibition that has created these conditions in the first instance, more enforcement will have little positive impact. However, regulation and decriminalisation would make a real positive difference significantly reducing the underground illegal drug business.

 

49. “Better that someone goes to Drug Court than prison.” Anything can appear palatable and justified if presented as an alternative to prison. Better that people who need help can access that help in the community following a thorough assessment and a best-fit treatment plan that has access to a full range of services, rather than having to access an enforced abstinence 12 step programmes through the criminal justice system.

 

50. “The world would be a better place without drugs.” Drugs are vital in medicine and pain relief, they are also important for relaxing, sleeping, socialising, providing energy, thinking laterally, creatively and artistically. Legal drugs alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are used for these purposes every day, although other illegal drugs might be safer and better suited.

 

51. “People grow out of taking drugs.”  While there is evidence that people grow out of criminal activity the use prohibited drugs involves criminal risks, so if there is a shift away from illegal drugs at a later age it’s not necessarily that people aren’t growing out of drugs but more likely people may grow out of accessing drugs if it involves criminal activity. There is no evidence people grow out of using the drugs alcohol, tobacco and caffeine.

© Copyright 2014 Julian Buchanan

 


24 Comments

  1. Very good piece. I believe #9 should be “affect” rather than “effect.”

  2. Hi Julian,

    I think you erroneously added an “s” to #28: “Addiction is not as disease.”

    Can you please clarify what you mean by “addiction is not a disease”? Or if not a disease, what is it in your opinion? How do you understand addiction?

    Best
    Ziggi

    • julianbuchanan says:

      Thanks Ziggi
      I think addiction is not a disease it’s essentially a psychosocial condition (it may have physiological impacts too). I’d reserve the term disease as essentially a disorder that physiologically affects the body (it may have psychosocial impacts too).
      So addiction (the loss of control of a habit) can occur in any repeated pattern of behaviour – texting, gambling, washing, cleaning – note these are behaviours that don’t involve physically taking anything but they can result in addiction just the same. Because addiction is essentially not physiological.

      • Tim Chiswell says:

        Thats a rather muddled reply. Some drugs – heroin, alcohol and some presceiption sedatives spring to mind, certainly can result in a physiological addiction if used regularly. Also, limiting the term ‘disease’ to purely physiological problems would exclude depression, anxiety disorders and a host of other conditions from being viewed as ‘diseases’ too.
        In general I agree with most of what you say, I dont believe that the deaire to use a drug (by which term I include alcohol, tobacco, caffeine) indicatws the prescence of a medical condition per se – but thats not to say that regular or daily drug use cant cause a medical syndrome (lets avoid the term ‘disease’ for clarity).

      • julianbuchanan says:

        Even for substances like alcohol, opiates and benzos which are clearly physiologically addictive the overall addiction, even to these substances, (in my professional experience) is not exclusively or mainly physical – but social and psychological.

        In terms of phobias, depression, anxiety etc I don’t think they are a generally best classed as a disease rooted in physiological, neurologic a, medical or organic disorders – but better understood as conditions. Although acknowledging some mental health manifestations are rooted in organic changes such as dementia. Again while there are physiological components I regard the social and psychological are more significant.

        When Nature Journal asserted addiction was a disease and this was widely accepted by scientists in the field 94 International experts in drug addiction reject this over simplified notion see: https://www.academia.edu/6133616/Letter_published_in_Nature_challenging_the_notion_that_addiction_is_essentially_a_disease

      • With all due respect, I fully disagree with your conceptualization of what is a disease. Your statement of “So addiction (the loss of control of a habit) can occur in any repeated pattern of behaviour – texting, gambling, washing, cleaning – note these are behaviours that don’t involve physically taking anything but they can result in addiction just the same. Because addiction is essentially not physiological” does not prove that addiction is not a disease.

  3. Thanks. I’m not sure I agree that a disease necessarily has to have a physiological cause. I would say that addiction is at the least a psychiatric disorder, and with most psychiatric disorders, it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause, which is usually a combination of biological/hereditary and social/psychological factors. Nevertheless, I would generally consider psychiatric disorders to come under the category of “disease” or “mental illness”, and thus also addiction. I would also say that there is a difference between an addiction and an obsession/compulsion.

    I think you made a very good list of misconceptions though. Thank you for that.

    • julianbuchanan says:

      The danger of widening disease to include non physiological conditions is how are they diagnosed, by whom? Also anyone who behaves in a manner deemed by the State as unacceptable could be diagnosed to have ‘a disease’ and be subject to [compulsory?] medicalisation and treatment.
      So you can imagine that in such terms homosexuality could be a disease, or a desire to use illegal drugs, or people with anti-state tendancies, or people who who commit crime etc.

  4. Good point. I’ll have to give that some thought.
    Cheers for replying

  5. Mathias says:

    Thx for this! Great information and therefore a great thing to show people in doubt. That is why i would ask you if it would be possible to add sources and academic proof of these answers. I agree with them all, and find many of them even as “common knowledge”, unfortunatly not all people see it this way, and it would be great if i could show it to “doubters” with being able to really backing it up.

    Thx alot!

  6. julianbuchanan says:

    thanks Mathias – It is something I intend to do They can all be evidenced – but I just need some space to do it. Ideally I want to turn each of the points into mini chapter. Although I haven’t got space at the moment if you really need evidence for a particular point – email me and I’ll see if I can help julian.buchanan@vuw.ac.nz

  7. […] 50 Common Myths, Lies and Misconceptions informing Drug Policy (Julian Buchanan) – Read More […]

  8. […] 50 Common Myths, Lies and Misconceptions informing Drug Policy Drug law and policy has its roots in fear, ignorance, racism and self interest. Sadly, this has changed little over the years. It cont…  […]

  9. I didn’t read all of your posts, mainly because while some has some truth, some has no merit to it. There is considerable amount of evidence showing that addiction has a genetic and neurological aspect to it. Addiction is a disease, a disease that is chronic. Drugs can and do kill people, and it has nothing to do with the prohibition of drugs. Addiction is an equal opportunistic- homeless to the richest; pre-teens to geriatric; white, black, Asian; middle school drop outs to individuals with professional degrees. While some individuals can continue to use socially, it is a very small amount of people.

    • julianbuchanan says:

      You are right people have died from drugs like alcohol, tobacco and in rare cases even from caffeine but a large number of people are able and continue to use these drug socially. People have also died directly from illegal drugs, but most use them socially too.

      Prohibition kills in so many ways: the denial of clean drugs and clean equipment; the spread of lethal diseases HIV Hep.ABC; drugs mixed with poison; drugs that are much stronger than the user realised; violence fuelled by illegal markets; overdose where people are afraid to see help; the killing between gangs for turf wars; the killings in drug wars such as the invasion in Afghanistan.

      While addiction can have genetic and neurological aspects the social, environmental, cultural and psychological aspects are more significant. People are not born ‘addicts’.

      Consistently those most at risk of chronic drug dependence are not from a cross section of society, but are over represented by people who had damaged lives, learning difficulties, physical or sexual abuse, traumatic childhoods, loss, blocked futures and/or mental health issues BEFORE drugs became a problem. So it’s hard to see chronic drug dependence as an equal opportunity employer.

      • I totally disagree that prohibition kills. Nothing you mentioned even supports your argument.

        Yes, social and psychological factors do play a role, but there is considerable amount of evidence indicating that addiction is a brain based disease. There is also tremendous amounts of research showing that it is genetic. But, I agree, a person isn’t born an addict, but often, they are born with the predisposition for addiction. Think, Diathesis–stress model.

        I further disagree that addiction is not an equal opportunity employer. Addiction is and can be seen in all walks of life. All ages, race, SES, educational status, profession, etc are seen in substance abuse treatment.

        Many concepts within addiction have varying ideologies. While you attempt to “debunk” some of these myths, you in fact are providing are mere opinions.

  10. julianbuchanan says:

    I amazed you struggle to recognise that prohibiting drugs results in deaths – I’m not sure how to respond. Here’s one case example for you to read: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19458107-5742-days

    Yes people from all walks of life are seen getting help for addiction but they are not proportionately represented. It is the poor, excluded and damaged BEFORE drug dependence who struggle most with chronic addiction difficulties and tend to be those most likely seen in prison and drug in treatment.

  11. Zedd says:

    I agree with many of your remarks.. the war on drugs is a war on people (often with racist overtones), a cannabis plant can hardly take up arms & return fire. The war on ‘marijuana’ apparently was more about getting rid of industrial Hemp. Prohibition is a failure. it did not work in 1920s USA with alcohol, resulted in Black-market, Gangsters, Corrupt Officials, Massive cost to the tax-payer & Violence. Alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933 & replaced with strict legal regulation. The demonisation of cannabis started soon after & continues today, by those who benefit from it, regardless of all the harm that PROHIBITION (not drugs) is causing !
    ‘Kia ora’

  12. Charles Novak says:

    I love the article and agree almost 100 %. Best take away was “The War Between Drugs” Agree addiction is not a disease, but let’s pretend it is. I ask those disease people how is that better? I guess I would include “It’s not w moral failing” When was the last time any credible person said addiction is “a moral failing?” 1919? It’s a myth to think that opposition to the disease theory equates a moral failing.

    • julianbuchanan says:

      Thanks Charles glad you like the piece!
      My worry about disease is not only that it’s inaccurate, but it could later with support from MRI scans, be used to coercively ‘treat’, remove or detain the ‘diseased’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,230 other followers

%d bloggers like this: