| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ferre
Cannabis Sacrament Minister.
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 7295
Location: Amsterdam
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: What's Right with Drugs |
 |
|
| Quote: |
What's Right with Drugs
By Buford C. Terrell
I've been studying drugs, drug laws, and drug use, mainly from a
historical viewpoint, for many years now. As that time passed, a
couple of things slowly dawned on me.
The first is that almost all of the people arguing for reform of the
drug laws argue either that drugs aren't really as bad as they are
portrayed or that they would have no worse effects if they were
legal. Even the Libertarians tend to argue that if people want to
destroy themselves, they should be allowed to do so. Almost no one
argues that the use (other than medical use) of some drugs has some
beneficial effect.
The use of psychoactive drugs seems to be coextensive with human
society, and evidence from non-human populations like elephants and
birds, which seek out and eat fermented fruits, suggests that the
use extends throughout prehistory as well. I'm enough of a Darwinian
to believe that any behavior that has been that universal must have
some survival benefit, especially when we know that it comes with a
relatively high price in terms of negative effects.
The second thing I noticed was that for 150 years, the length of
time the drug as been available in the West, many creative people,
especially poets and musicians, have strongly claimed that hashish
or cannabis has enhanced their creativity. This claim is
wide-spread, and often comes from those who have reached the top of
their art; Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, and Willy Nelson are among
the musicians so claiming. In some branches of music -- jazz and
rock in particular, those using seem to be a majority of the active
performers.
Interestingly enough, no one seems to have tried to rebut these
claims. A few critics have scoffed, saying that the performers were
stoned and only thought they were playing better; but no one has
ever offered any evidence opposing the claim. On the other hand,
many musicians have bemoaned their use of opioids or stimulants and
have ruined their careers or fought long and hard to break
dependencies on those drugs.
My next change in thinking came when I starting studying LSD. Even
those of us who work extensively have trouble overcoming the
stereotypes drummed into us through a lifetime of propaganda. But I
soon realized that the proponents of LSD in the 1950s and 60s were
not drug fiends or junkies. Aldous Huxley was the third generation
of one of Britain's leading scientific families and an accomplished
writer and thinker himself. Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert were
respected members of the Harvard faculty. Ken Kesey was an
outstanding novelist and a fellow of the Stanford Creative Writing
Project. Strong evidence suggests that President Kennedy tried LSD.
When men of that stature and with those backgrounds report that LSD
expands and deepens thinking and experience and encourage others to
follow them, their reports are hard to ignore.
Amphetamines were first developed in the 1930s, and by WWII, all of
the armies of the world were using them to keep troops alert and
awake under adverse circumstances. The armies, including the U.S.,
are still using them today, with over 60% of the air missions in the
Gulf War being flown by aircrews using amphetamines. For 80 years
now, long distance truckers have used them to be more productive;
and many college students, including medical students find the
invaluable for those necessary all-nighters.
Over 80% of Americans use caffeine daily and find it makes them more
alert and productive. They do this in spite of "coffee nerves" and
upset stomachs.
Will any of these claims survive the cold light of the laboratory? I
don't know. I do know that they present testable hypotheses; and
that if confirmed, could lead to large social benefits.
Should we change the law if the benefits are established? I think
so, but a social calculus weighing those benefits against any social
cost would have to be made. In the 1970s, prescription amphetamines
clearly provided weight-loss and energy benefits to many, but the
problems of managing the resultant abuse was felt to outweigh those
benefits.
What I do know is that we should put those claims to the test and
see if they hold up. I don't know about you, but my life would be
better with some more Willy Nelsons, Louis Armstrongs, and Ken
Keseys.
--
Buford C. Terrell is a retired law professor whose teaching fields
included drug laws, law and sex, First Amendment, and legal history.
He also hosts a public interest television show in Houston called
"Drugs, Crime, and Politics". Read more of his writings at his blog,
http://terrelldruglaws.blogspot.com/.
|
_________________
█ Please read the Board Rules and Posting, and you
█ Radio Free Amsterdam
People who know truth, speak truth.
Those who don't, quote scriptures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Public Forum
Members only forum
Members Group
| 
