Let’s unpack an interesting social phenomenon, shall we?
Many people alive today live in highly regulated societies. Australia is one such society, so is the UK.
Many regulations are aimed at keeping people safe. Other regulations are ostensibly aimed at keeping people safe, but are either ineffective or have some other purpose.
It is possible to argue that the criminalisation of certain drugs falls into the latter category: many people believe that the fact that a drug is criminalised is an indication is is less safe than a drug that has not been criminalised. This is not necessarily true. The historical reasons for criminalising particular drugs are varied, and not all are to do with safety. It is also an open question whether criminalising a drug that is unsafe is the most effective way of protecting society and/or potential users.
This is important. It means that there is a real possibility that people will assume that a drug that is not criminalised is totally and completely safe, whereas a drug that is criminalised is totally and completely unsafe. The second aspect of that causes problems of its own (such as the fact that if people are sold an absolutist position of any kind, anything which shows that the absolutist position is not entirely true tends to result in people reaching the conclusion that the absolutist position is entirely not true), but this post is about the first aspect.
It’s at work in the reactions and positions described in this article about mephedrone.
The motivation for the article is that two young men have died after taking (although not necessarily because of) mephedrone:
They took mephedrone – also known as M-Cat and Meow Meow – along with alcohol and methadone, the heroin substitute, while clubbing.
Cause of death is currently unknown. However, methadone taken with alcohol is risky – and they are both legal, albeit regulated, drugs.
The article continues:
There have been no confirmed cases of deaths in the UK from the substance, and only one in Europe.
I’d like to point out here that even where there has been one death, you can’t assess the safety of the drug until you know at least: (1) how many people are actually taking the drug; (2) dosage information; and (3) circumstances of use (including other drugs taken with it and the general health of the person taking the drug). You can’t compare its safety with the safety of other drugs unless you also know the same thing about those other drugs. Other substances, I should say – I would bet that peanut butter kills more people!
About the importance of the circumstances in which the drug was taken:
It is legal but its dangers remain unclear. Last November, Sussex police linked the death of a 14-year-old girl, Gabrielle Price, to mephedrone, but the coroner said the cause was bronchial pneumonia.
So, why is this even mentioned here? The coroner knows a damn sight more than the police about things like cause of death!
The parents of one of the men who has just died have reacted as follows:
Today Smith’s mother, Elaine, pleaded for it to be taken off the market.
“Nick’s not the first one to die from taking it,” she said. “It’s still around and still so available in colleges and schools. These drugs just should not be on the market … [Nick] made probably an uninformed, foolish decision to take it and for that reason Nick’s gone and we’re never going to be the same as a family again.”
His father, Tony Smith, told Channel 4 News: “He’s taken a legal drug and why would anyone assume that could kill you? You can speak to your children about it but politicians need to do something. How many more children need to die? This drug should be banned.”
Apart from the fact that I still don’t get why this is all being blamed on mephedrone given the young men took methadone and alcohol as well, the father’s comment particularly illustrates my point above: people assume that if it’s legal, it’s not dangerous. (It’s a bit like people assuming natural = good for you.)
However, regulation should not be about wrapping us all in cotton wool. Good regulations – including safety regulations – should balance safety risks AND other factors. At this point in history, we have a social narrative that tends to value the existence of human life about pretty much every other factor. I have no problem with that as a narrative, as long as we all understand that that is not actually how regulation works, because it simply wouldn’t be practical. (Also, there is no one-size-fits-all approach – what is healthy/safe for one person may be neutral or actively unhealthy/unsafe for another person.) As I’ve written before, we all take risks – legal risks (and possibly illegal ones – anyone jaywalk today?) – every day. We do this because we perceive (albeit subconsciously, perhaps) a benefit to us in taking those risks.
In the post I linked to, I talked about our prerogative to take risk – in that post, the prerogative of a pregnant woman to choose which risks she wants to take in childbirth. This post, perhaps, is more about the responsibility of taking risk.
Regulation is not about cutting out risk completely, and our regulators (ie the government) are dishonest when they present regulation in that way (eg the “drugs will kill you” style ads). Regulation is about weighing up the risks for society as a whole, and changing the risk balance in order to affect behaviour. In the drugs context, if we assume for the moment that a drug is unsafe, and that the reason for regulation is entirely about safety, then the rationale for regulation (ie criminalisation) of a drug is as follows: without regulation, the person taking the risk is the person taking the drug – but the person supplying the drug takes very little risk, if any. If we criminalise the drug, then the risk balance changes, and all of a sudden, the person supplying the drug is taking a significant risk. You also increase the risk for the person taking the drug (that is, risk of criminal sanctions as well as the risk to safety), the rationale for which is that that type of risk will act more effectively on people’s minds than the nebulous “I might die” type of risk.
Now, as I said above, drug regulation is generally not about safety, or not only about safety, even if that’s the way it’s sold. The rationale described above is not necessarily valid.
I would like to live in a society where we had more open discussions about risk. In the drug context, that would mean: (1) being honest about the real risks of certain drugs; (2) being honest about the real reasons for regulating drugs; and (3) making it clear that each individual who chooses whether or not to take a drug has to take some measure of responsibility for taking that risk, whether it be a risk of death, risk of criminal sanctions or some other risk (or some combination of risks). (I acknowledge that it’s not ever that simple – that even where there is open and honest discussion, that the concept of choice is not a simple one – but if we were honest about the purposes of regulation, we could acknowledge that one purpose of regulation may be to make a particular choice easier or more palatable.)
At the moment, the discussion we have tends to be: illegal drugs will kill you. Which leads to the assumption: if it will kill you, the government will make it illegal. Which leads to: it killed someone, therefore the government should make it illegal.
And I find that to be a totally irresponsible version of the discussion.
(Note: I am not saying that mephedrone is safe and should not be criminalised. I do not know whether it is safe and I do not know enough about it to have an opinion on whether or not it should be criminalised. I will say, however, that I think that at least some of the drugs which are criminalised in Australia should not be criminalised.)
“At the moment, the discussion we have tends to be: illegal drugs will kill you. Which leads to the assumption: if it will kill you, the government will make it illegal. Which leads to: it killed someone, therefore the government should make it illegal.”
I know right. I haven’t even heard of this drug yet, so I’m guessing maybe it hasn’t hit the west coast?
” I will say, however, that I think that at least some of the drugs which are criminalised in Australia should not be criminalised.)”
Hear hear! My parents raised me with an attitude of “drugs aren’t bad, it’s how you use them” + “as long as you’re honest, we won’t be angry with you” – I watched children of parents who DIDN’T have that attitude trying crack and/or meth once and getting hooked. Funnily enough, I might indulge in illicit substances time to time and I still manage to hold down a job and go to university.
I think maybe a lot of the problem is the immediate association is drug user = criminal, even though it’s only the law that makes them so. I’m all in favour of legalisation of currently illegal substances. Especially weed :D
From a pharmacy POV, it’s so difficult to explain that a legal drug can harm or kill you. Yes, even one you can buy in the supermarket. No, not just if you’re allergic to it. People do themselves and others horrible harm with prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs, and that’s not even getting into the prescription black market or robberies in pharmacies and hospitals.
I don’t drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, and that’s my choice. This does not mean that I am for prohibition of currently illegal (or possibly about to be illegal, in this case) drugs – that honest discussion would be far better than the current blanket bans and inconsistent regulation. Bans also harm legitimate medical research and legitimate treatment protocols (e.g. LSD for migraines, marijuana for people on chemotherapy or with advanced AIDS).
Cannabis also has uses for the treatment of anorexia/bulimia nervosa, PTSD, can be used for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease and a bevvy of other things. Not to mention hemp oil can be used as an environmentally sound alternative to petroleum and gasoline ;)
berryblade: one of the reasons the story caught my eye is that I had seen something recent in the SMH about mephedrone. That article is here – and it seems that mephedrone is not a completely legal substance in Australia.
When I went searching for that article, I also found this one, which outlines some of the purported effects. Check the disclaimers at the end – which strongly suggest the article is worth taking with a grain of salt ;) But it might answer your question, as it suggests that it’s an eastern drug at the moment.
“I think maybe a lot of the problem is the immediate association is drug user = criminal, even though it’s only the law that makes them so.”
Yep, I think you have something there :)
lilacsigil: yep, I figured the post was too long to raise the issue up re pharmacy-drugs-can-also-harm, but it is definitely relevant, so thank you for bringing it up.
Also this: “Bans also harm legitimate medical research and legitimate treatment protocols” – yes, exactly. If the criminalisation of certain drugs was *really* about safety, then it would involve an assessment of the balance of risks to society in general, specific risks to individual users, benefits to society and specific benefits to individual users – which would mean that a regulation that was *really* about safety would definitely have the sorts of exceptions you mention!
Hmph.
Ahhh I see. that explains a lot. It’ll be interesting to see how much the Worst Australian sensationalises everything if and when it gets here.
I don’t have much to add, because I completely agree with both your post and the other commenters. I have previously written about perception of risk which I think is relevant.
And the other issue, which is also one Bruce Schneier keeps harping on in the context of security, is that our society treats risk as an absolute that can be eliminated, whereas risks are always relative and every decision is a trade-off of risks. You cannot eliminate risks, only re-arrange them.
And since every individual person is going to have a different sense of the importance of different risks, a grown-up society that truly respects the individuals in it, is going to allow each individual (adult) to make those risk decisions themselves, and accept that different individuals will choose differently. The best thing for one person is not necessarily best for another.
“You cannot eliminate risks, only re-arrange them. ”
Nicely put :)