[.ca] Saying Yes (ISBN 1585423181)

saying yes in defense of drug use:
One of the greatest obstacles to reforming current drug laws is the fallacy of confusing drug use with drug abuse.Marijuana and other "illicit" substances should be viewed the same as alcohol with an emphasis on "moderation" rather than complete abstinence.Jacob Sullum does an excellent job on telling readers the difference between what most people know about drugs and what the government wants us to believe.His presentation of religious opinions on this matter is also thought provoking.

good introduction to why the drug warriors are wrong:
Sullum addresses myths and misconceptions about drug use and abuse, compares the facts about illegal and legal drugs, and makes the case that there is such a thing as responsible use of illegal, as well as legal, drugs. This is a well-written and interesting book that covers the history of drug and alcohol prohibition, addiction and the consequences of drug use and abuse, and argues for moving to a more sane policy on drugs in the United States. This would be an excellent first book to read on drug prohibition and why the "war on drugs" is foolhardy, after which the reader could move on to books like Hamowy's _Dealing with Drugs_.

This is a must-read.:
What an interesting book. I read it faster than I've read almost any other book - cover to cover in two days. (I'm normally a really slow reader.) Although the middle kind of drags on, with the same thesis repeated in several different forms, it's quite an enlightening read. I've always considered myself well informed and quite liberal on drug issues, but it turns out that I was much more influenced by anti-drug propaganda than I had realized. My mind has been filled with stories that are true, personal experiences, or second-hand accounts of people I trusted, but I was seeing them in the wrong light. I thought of my father performing autopsies on cocaine users whose hearts had stopped with no warning. Someone who tried to kill his roommate with an axe while tweaking on crystal. Lots of perfectly real scare stories, which had caused me to feel chills just thinking about these "hard" drugs. But these were still viewed through the lens of prohibition. Conveniently forgotten in these tales were the many, many more cases my father had seen of alcohol poisoning, a common cause of death among young people in the town where I grew up. Drunken rages in which people were killed - one that killed one of my best friend's bosses just two months ago. Somehow, because of the legality and familarity of alcohol, these were not "scare stories" about drugs. They were, instead, stories about people, and their foolishness; the blame was not transferred to the chemical. The best part of the book is his historical review of alcohol prohibition, and the hype over the evil powers of alcohol at a time when opium and cocaine were not only legal, but popular and commonly used in "patent medicines". He illustrates how prohibition didn't cut down on drinking for more than a few years, but instead shifted drinking towards hard liquor, a more dangerous substance that was simply easier to smuggle and conceal. Similarly, when cocaine and opium were legal, they weren't consumed in their most severe forms, but in much milder preparations such as beverages and tinctures. Prohibition, in retrospect, doesn't reduce use so much as make that use more severe, and probably more harmful. Sullum doesn't argue that drugs are always good. He seriously considers the argument that drug prohibition is justified by the harm it prevents. But he does put all drugs onto a level playing field. There is an abundance of statistics indicating the rates at which drug problems actually occur, and these reveal a huge, invisible majority of drug users - even of "hard" drugs like heroin and crack - who are not addicted, do not suffer severe problems, and most often stop using the drug when it no longer suits their needs. Just as with alcohol. In my mind, as is the case for many people, I had formed a hierarchy of harm. Tobacco and alcohol are not so great, but not so terribly harmful. Pot is maybe a little better, a little worse, but other things, such as crystal and PCP, are scary and dangerous. Common sense, right? Well, maybe not. When you look at actual patterns of use, these "hard" drugs don't look so hard anymore. It is the lack of direct experience with these things that makes us so suceptible to scare stories - the "voodo pharmacology" he describes, wherein these substances have the mysterious power to turn people into zombies. But, if Sullum is right, these scare stories, despite their kernel of truth, are mostly just mass hysteria. Psychologically, prohibition is hardly different from witch-burning. Sullum is saying, in effect, that drugs don't cause addiction, but rather, addicts cause addiction. That drugs don't cause criminals, but that people are criminals to begin with; that drug use and crime have a common cause, and do not cause each other except through the mechanisms of prohibition itself. That addiction adheres not to the drug, but to the user, and the availability (or not) of any particular drug is not the most relevant factor. This is a not a new idea, but it is rare to have it explained and supported so clearly and convincingly. My personal anxieties over drug use have been shaped by anti-drug propaganda to a far greater extent than I had realized. I fret over the amount of pot I've used, the amount of poppers, the amount of alcohol. I even fret over my love-hate relationship with the espresso machine at work. But this is a neurosis, fuelled by voodo pharmacology. As a sensible, responsible person, Sullum has convinced me that drugs do not have this power over me. I have the power to decide whether to use them or not, and that ordinary social considerations (work, friends, et cetra) are almost certainly not going to be overwhelmed by any craving they might generate. In reading this, I find an almost existential relief. This book affirms the power of the individual to control their lives, and casts aside the superstitious, magical thinking that ascribes such amazing powers to mere chemicals. I wonder if it is the power of suggestion itself that made me wonder if I was becoming a slave to marijuana; when I consider it now, it doesn't seem nearly so compelling. Sullum's argument becomes most interesting when he argues that drug use by teenagers is perfectly appropriate, so long as it is done with the guidance of caring role models. He points out how unreasonable it is to expect someone with no experience with alcohol to suddenly become "responsible" on their 21st birthday, and somehow just know how to use it appropriately. Or worse, that they should consume it furtively, with no guidance, at secret parties. Instead, he suggests that teenagers should be introduced to alcohol, among other drugs (he specifically cites marijuana) in controlled environments, preferably in the company of their parents. With a chorus of "what about the children" seemingly right around the corner, this is a brave statement to make. Perfectly sensible, of course, but it's always the most sensible ideas that are the most dangerous to say out loud. Is this book biased? Such questions are very hard to answer. In reading it, I was reminded of the furor over The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book full of references to scientific literature that were later criticized as being tangential, incorrect, or at best, highly selective. I was frustrated by that controversy, but didn't have the motivation to track down all the references and evaluate them for myself. In contrast, with Saying Yes, I am eagerly awaiting its challengers. Because I want to know the truth; is this guy giving us a realistic portrayal of what drugs really do, or is he, well, "smokin' crack?" My guess is that Sullum is right on the money. Reading this book has turned me from a lukewarm anti-prohibitionist to a true drug libertarian. If he's even approximately correct, it is clear that all drugs, even the "hard" ones, should be made legal for anyone over 21, and that we must reject this "voodoo" that is granting drugs much more power than they deserve. Only then will we find balance.

Informative but not effective:
Jacob Sullum sets out to dispel myths about the various facets of drug use and drug users. He examines the religious basis with regards to mind-altering substances and tries to expose the contradictory application of the scriptures towards various substances. His most common comparision model is alcohol versus some illicit drug. He also attempts to show how the religious attitudes and their influenced mores shape the social taboo on "getting high". He deals with most categories of drugs, like psychedelics, stimulants, opioids, and examines the statistics related to these substances. Examples of issues exploredinclude marijuana and productivity, LSD and insanity, stimulants and violence, opioids and addiction. His central thesis is that contrary to mainstream govt-fed propaganda, it is very much possible and in fact, the norm, for most drug users to be productive citizens of society, who can keep their habits and priorities in check. But, this book isn't as effective (to me, of course) as it appears. The biggest problem with this book is its prose and presentation. If he intended the audience of his book to be those who were on the fence or anti-drugs, then he should have employed a more "neutral" and "academic" tone. You may think that this is an absurd stance, given that it's clear that the author is pro-reform and possibly pro-legalization. But that's the point. That bias clearly creeps in, in his prose. As it is currently written, I can't be sure that he's not cherry-picking the statistics to counter the cherry-picked statistics presented on the anti-drug side. The best exposition to present for an anti-drug audience is a comprehensive one that allows the audience to decide on their own. The tone of this work doesn't do that. A better argument for drug law reform is presented on the website of the Economist in a 8,9 article survey. It can be found by searching for 'Stumbling in the dark' at the Economist website.

A Voice Of Reason Against War On Drugs Fundamentalism:
Saying Yes: In Defense Of Drug Use, by Jacom Sullum, senior editor at Reason, is an excellent polemic against the War On Drugs and for moderate drug use by consenting adults. Sullum commits the heresy of demonstrating that most drug users don't become hopeless addicts with dim prospects for future success. The majority of drug users engage in drug use either for a brief period of time in their lives or in moderation on a frequent basis, and the government agencies prosecuting the War On Drugs have the data for the author to make his case. Daily users take drugs in moderation while holding down jobs and supporting families, like Larry Seguin, a truck driver and long time marijuana smoker from upstate New York, who was arrested and convicted on marijuana charges in 1998. Or Jim Dahl, a physician whose career was nearly ruined for the crime against humanity of using the pain killer Vicodin for nine months starting in 1998 without another doctor's prescription. Dahl was pressured by the Drug Enforcement Administration into surrendering his federal prescription license and to undergo "rehabilitation," even though he was already tapering off the Vicodin at the time the drug warriors came knocking on his door. Sullum takes on many of the myths perpetrated by the drug warriors and drug treatment evangelists over the years. Like the myth of the drug that is "so good" and addicting that nobody should take it "even once." In the '70s it was heroin that was promoted this way by the drug prohibitionists. Then in the '80s it was crack-cocaine. By the '90s methamphetamine was the most dangerous drug of the decade. Sullum demonstrates the changing perceptions of how a particular drug affects users. In the early 20th century, anti-marijuana crusaders depicted marijuana smokers as raving maniacs driven to extreme violence. By the '60s, the image of the shiftless stoner smoking marijuana all day had taken hold of public consciousness. The other important contribution Sullum adds to the debate over drug laws is the blurring of the lines between medical and recreational use of drugs, which has been brought about by the aggressive marketing of antidepressant drugs since 1988. A drug user who copes with depression by taking heroin is an "addict" engaged in a "crime," while a Prozac user seeking out the same thing as the heroin user is a "patient" seeking "treatment." Sullum rightly points out the limitations of the arguments in favor of medicalizing all drug use, like with "medical marijuana." The reason for this is because the assumption underlying medicalization is the notion that, say, smoking a joint just for the sake of getting high is not a legitimate use of marijuana and should, therefore, remain illegal. Sullum offers his readers an important primer on how we can liberate ourselves from the oppressive War On Drugs regime. With talk radio host's Rush Limbaugh's highly publicized drug problem now making headlines, Saying Yes should guide the terms of debate on reforming drug laws in favor of decriminalizing the purchase of drugs by consenting and responsible adults. -Rick, http://rickgiombetti.blogspot.com