Recently in Drugs Category

Not really.

The discovery of cannabinoid receptors was fairly recent.  Undoubtedly, sometime down the road therapeutic uses of drugs that act on those receptors will be discovered.  But we're not there yet and even when we get there the prescription will not be to toke up but will likely involve highly refined, pharmaceutical-grade pills at doses much lower than are used by recreational marijuana users.    

One of the principal arguments for legalizing drugs is that they are "victimless."  This is false even when the argument concerns only the user.  It is all the more so when one considers the large number of non-user deaths and injuries caused by drug-impaired driving.

Prof. John Pfaff has an interesting post up over at PrawfsBlawg that highlights the common misconception that the incarceration rates in the United States are largely due to drug offenses.  As he discusses:

Two things jump out on this graph. First, after a rapid rise the percent of drug offenders peaks at 21.8%, in 1990. Second, from 1990 forward the fraction steadily declines, with only a few upticks here and there, to 18.4% in 2008; by 2009, it was down to 17.8%. In other words, in 1990, nearly 80% of all prisoners were non-drug offenders, and by 2009 that percent had risen to more than 84%. And almost all of these other inmates are serving time for violent or property offenses.

Adding in the federal system, which is much more drug-focused--about half of all federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes--does not change numbers or trends much: 24.1% in 1990, 22.1% in 2009. This is unsurprising: despite the extensive (in fact, quite excessive) attention it receives from legal academics, the federal system held only 13.5% of all prisoners in 2011, and until the 2000s it wasn't even the largest prison system in the country, lagging behind California.

Since this data is presumably derived from publicly available sources, one wonders why it has taken so long for the message to get out. 

...or maybe not.  From the local radio station in Washington, DC:

WASHINGTON - A Loudoun County teen is in the hospital after overdosing on synthetic marijuana which is often found in gas station type convenience stores. The 15-year-old was taken to Inova Loudoun Hospital in critical condition but is now listed as stable.

Dr. Ed Puccio, the medical director of the hospital's emergency department says these cases of young people overdosing on this drug can be common in Loudoun.

"There could be several cases in a week and sometimes there maybe be several weeks without a case," he says.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."  This variation on Occam's razor, attributed to Albert Einstein, shifts the emphasis to warn against oversimplification as well as overcomplication.

In drug policy debates, there is a lot of oversimplified claptrap on both sides.  A note of caution on marijuana comes to us from across the pond.  The title of this post is the headline of this story in the London Telegraph by John Bingham.

Peter Wehner asks whether the Republican Party should "get with it" by supporting drug legalization.  His answer is "no."

[I]n some liberal and libertarian circles, the "language of morality" is ridiculed. It is considered unenlightened, benighted and simplistic. The role of the state is to maximize individual liberty and be indifferent to human character.

This is an impossible stance to sustain. The law is a moral teacher, for well or ill, and self-government depends on certain dispositions and civic habits. The shaping of human character is preeminently -- overwhelmingly -- the task of parents, schools, religious institutions and civic groups. But government can play a role. Republicans should prefer that it be a constructive one, which is why they should speak out forcefully and intelligently against drug legalization.

The dreaded substance dihydrogen monoxide is in the news again.

They improve it by making sure you kiss your mom!  Only with drugs, there's always a twist.

And if you hadn't already heard, you would never guess who is heading it.  The WaPo's Reliable Source bloggers Roxanne Roberts and Amy Argetsinger have this post.

For a generation of liberals, legalization of marijuana has become a harmless -- if not inevitable -- issue.

Not for Patrick Kennedy. The former Rhode Island congressman and scion of the famed Democratic dynasty has taken a surprising turn to the right in this debate.

"Marijuana destroys the brain and expedites psychosis," he told us Tuesday. "It's just overall a very dangerous drug."

*                                  *                                  *

After 16 years in Congress, Kennedy, 45, left Washington two years ago and began traveling the country to see how legislation he spearheaded on mental health is being implemented. He's become convinced that marijuana ("the biggest single threat to the cause I care so much about") is as destructive as alcohol and tobacco and just launched Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana) to shift the debate from legalization to prevention and treatment -- despite what appears to be a growing social acceptance of the drug.

On the SAM website, I note that Mr. Kennedy et al. share my view that a legal industry that promotes pot the way tobacco has been promoted is a nightmare.

Finally, Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy have this article on the drug war.  Becker is a Nobel-prize winning economist who pioneered the use of economic methods to the study of crime.  Becker and Murphy make the case that decriminalization would be a net positive.

The critical question, of course, is whether a legal drug market would result in an increase or decrease in drug use and particularly the number of people becoming addicted to drugs.  Becker and Murphy argue:

The lower drug prices that would result from full decriminalization may well encourage greater consumption of drugs, but it would also lead to lower addiction rates and perhaps even to fewer drug addicts, since heavy drug users would find it easier to quit. Excise taxes on the sale of drugs, similar to those on cigarettes and alcohol, could be used to moderate some, if not most, of any increased drug use caused by the lower prices.

I'm not so sure about the lower addiction rates.  Increased consumption would come not only from lower prices and removal of criminal sanctions but also from the marketing that a seller of a legal product has a constitutional right to engage in.  We have seen that with alcohol and even more so with tobacco.  And the increased consumption of drugs would be a major societal problem even without increased addiction.  More people on drugs means fewer people being productive in a society where declining work ethic is already a huge problem.  I respect Becker's views, but the question is a closer one than he and Murphy portray it.

People determined to get high can do so with a variety of legal substances as well as illegal ones.  Andy Furillo has this article in the Sacramento Bee on a lawsuit involving the sale of nitrous oxide (N₂O), also known as laughing gas.

On Halloween night 2010, Jason Starn had just returned home from a local head shop in Modesto after buying more nitrous oxide "laughing gas" canisters when "my brain kind of froze."

Last month, Washington state legalized (as a matter of state law) the recreational use of marijuana.  Earlier this week, we saw what the "recreation" looks like, as reported on a Fox TV station.  As the story notes, "Police believe this is the first deadly crash involving the drug since it became legal in the state of Washington."

CJLF takes no position on the legalization of marijuana.  I'm opposed to it for a variety of reasons, including that legalization is sure to increase usage, which will lead to more health problems for users and more accidents and injuries to non-users, from impaired driving and other causes.  Simply because we tolerate the bad effects of alcohol and tobacco hardly strikes me as a good reason to make it a trifecta by adding pot to the list.  To the contrary, I believe we should be more circumspect, not more carefree, before we pave the way for more public health problems.  I also worry about the complacent message this will send to teenagers, who I assure you are listening.

The American people are nearly evenly divided on whether marijuana should be legal, according to the Gallup Poll.  (Article by Frank Newport here; questions and data here.  Caption on the data file is incorrect.)  The "no" is slightly above the "yes" at 50-48, within the 95% confidence interval for sampling error.

On the question of whether the federal government should enforce its prohibition in states where marijuana is legal under state law, the result is overwhelmingly against (64-34).  Among people who oppose legalization generally, 43% nonetheless oppose the feds overriding the state's choice.

Theodore Dalrymple has this interesting article at the City Journal, with the above title.