Dear researcher,
Is today’s drug policy really about protecting people?
If so, why does today’s drug education (particularly in schools) portray a picture of drugs that, for example, deems alcohol acceptable whilst demonising LSD, even though David John Nutt’s research has clearly produced the opposite results?
If not, what are the reasons for continuing with drug policy as it stands?
Why are we taught that drugs are the cause of addiction, rather than the underlying problems leading people to suffer from addiction, given that drugs offer a simple and, in themselves, effective solution?
Also, if not, to what extent does the oppression of marginalised groups in society play a role? (Example: the USA – penalties for pure cocaine (which is mostly consumed by the white population) compared to crack (which – for various reasons – is predominantly consumed by people of colour). To my knowledge, many mental health issues (trauma, etc.) could actually be resolved or alleviated WITH the help of psychoactive substances, had research into them been permitted over the last few decades rather than criminalised.
There is a huge difference between political and social justifications for drug addiction on the one hand, and scientifically sound explanations on the other.
It is not the substance alone that causes addiction
The scientifically grounded perspective: Drug addiction is NEVER solely the result of consuming a particular substance; it is not the substance alone that causes addiction. An addiction to alcohol, medication or drugs always has multiple causes, with biological, psychological and social factors all playing a part. Family plays a role, as do relationships with friends and experiences at school or in clubs.
Varying levels of risk depending on the purpose
Social relationships and emotional bonds can strengthen people, but bad experiences can also place a heavy strain on them and undermine their self-esteem. This influences how someone deals with such substances. Drugs, alcohol and medication may be taken to enhance positive feelings or to suppress negative ones. In the latter case, the worse the feelings, the greater the temptation to take substances. This increases the risk of dependence – on alcohol and medicines as well as on illegal drugs.
Medicine or drug? Effects and judgement
Drugs are also medicines, and medicines are also drugs. However, if someone becomes dependent on medically prescribed medicines (e.g. an opioid-based painkiller), we regard that person as a victim. If they become dependent on an illegal drug containing exactly the same active ingredient (e.g. heroin), we regard that same person as a perpetrator who is doing something illegal. It is therefore not about the effect of the substance, but about whether or not it is socially, politically and legally accepted. Cannabis, LSD and painkillers, too, can be used legally with a doctor’s prescription or illegally. The active ingredient and the effect always remain the same, except that illegally obtained substances are often impure and therefore more harmful.
A political perspective on addiction
The political perspective: Politics is about enforcing a particular social and economic order. Behind this lie tangible interests, but also ideological and religious values. Politics dictates what should be and how the citizens of a state should behave. This is the only way to explain why addiction to an illegal drug is treated differently from addiction to alcohol or medication.
Definitions of addiction
Under the Swiss Road Traffic Act, for example, a person is considered to be drug-dependent if they consume an illegal substance more than twice a week. In the case of alcohol, a medical diagnosis is required. This distinction between alcohol and drug dependence is not scientifically tenable; there is only one diagnostic system for all substance dependencies. However, the Swiss Parliament adopted this regulation because it wishes to impose stricter penalties on users of illegal drugs than on alcohol consumers. And this is despite the fact that more road traffic accidents are recorded as a result of alcohol consumption than as a result of drug use. If the legislature were just as strict with alcohol as it is with illegal drugs, it would be doing more to promote road safety. However, there might well be greater resistance to this from the public.
In politics, therefore, the question is always which sections of the population succeed in imposing their vision of order and which do not. In a democracy, such decisions are made through referendums and influenced by elections. So if we perceive our current drugs policy as contradictory and, in some respects, inhumane – as I do – we must ask ourselves how we can convince others to change it.
Addiction as “fault”
The individual perspective: Our moral views are strongly shaped by the question of responsibility or blame. If a person is not themselves responsible for a problem, we are intuitively more willing to help them than if we feel they have got themselves into a mess through their own actions. No one would refuse to give a diabetic a dose of insulin. Yet in hospitals, drug-dependent people are still occasionally denied medication. But that is not all: sometimes, examinations and treatments that would be taken for granted for non-drug-dependent people are also withheld. It is then said, for example, that the person must first get off the drugs, because as long as they are harming themselves with drugs, treatment is not worthwhile, and so on. This would be roughly the same as refusing treatment to an injured motorist after an accident because they caused the accident whilst under the influence of alcohol. In the case of illegal drugs, however, personal responsibility is given greater weight than in the case of alcohol. This is because one behaviour is socially accepted and the other is not.
If we want to change drug policy, we must change the way we think about substances and, above all, our attitudes towards the people who use them.
Thank you very much for the accurate and informative answer.