So wouldn't this utterly destroy the claim that ceasing the War on Drugs would collapse the price of illegal drugs and thereby drive the drug dealers out of business?
I hope we're not ignoring the fact that maybe crack became more prominent because it's way more fucking addicting than most substances on the planet.
Except that that is the claim that, if true, destroys the argument against the War on Drugs which claims that the high prices resulting from reduced supply are precisely what draws the dealers into the market.
I do, however, know several people who have switched to (or temporarily substituted) synthetic marijuana, which is still legal and available at any head shop in my state, when the real deal wasn't available. (Either that, or they drank more alcohol.) As a friend said, "I swipe my Visa and done -- no meeting up with sketchy dealer guy." And synthetic appears to have much greater health risks than nature's own:
That can be said about just about anything that is enjoyed to excess. The problem is that when we start saying that, say, cocaine is "addictive," then we open the door to such notions as "sex addiction" and "internet addiction," which are qualitatively different medically from dependencies like alcoholism or opioid addiction.
I think most people who end up using hard drugs habitually are starting, even before they get high the first time, at a disadvantage: a difference in brain chemistry or some other reason that they don't experience life even in a moderately pleasurable way. That "some other reason" might be situational (frustration or boredom or anger at current life circumstances) or it may be something else.
« Older The best description I can give
Would be that if... | Foreign Policy... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt