drug use…
Of course when talking of the evil spectre of the drug user it is important to remember that what is actually being considered is bad drug use. This is the either the use of bad drugs or the abuse of good ones.
Now the assumption is often made that if something is illegal then it must be a bad thing. Surely somewhere, at sometime, important and qualified people have investigated the issue and made a decision in our best interests. In many instances this will be true and indeed this is how our society operates. However, in order to understand prohibition and its costs such assumptions must be challenged. If only bad drug use is unacceptable then just what is it that defines a drug is as being bad and what exactly qualifies as drug use anyway?
The most basic definition of drug use must surely be to cause the introduction of a drug into the body in order to change body chemistry and therefore perception. While smoking a joint and getting high is an obvious example of this, there are other activities that also fit this bill. Exercise can produce adrenalin and endorphins, these chemicals alter our body chemistry and in turn the way we feel. Both involve the intentional release of chemicals into the brain in order to achieve a particular sensation, so what is the real difference between these two situations?
Baroness Susan Greenfield is a professor of psychopharmacology at Oxford and a highly respected prohibitionist. While writing for The Times Baroness Greenfield stated that, “…by working at the chemical locks and keys that enable a transmitter released from one brain cell to interact with the next cell along, drugs can tamper with the message that is sent.”(1)
So when is this a bad thing? When questioned about the presence of naturally occurring cannabinoid receptors in the human brain another eminent prohibitionist, Professor Heather Ashton of the University of Newcastle explained, “endogenous (naturally occurring) receptors for cannabinoids are not designed to receive cannabinoids such as THC. They are designed through evolution to receive endogenous cannabinoids … which have a different chemical structure.”(2)
It is worth mentioning at this point that is very easy to fall into the trap of demonising the prohibitionist in much the same way as they themselves demonise the illegal drug user. While it is unfortunately true that many prohibitionists are ignorant bigots it should be noted that in correspondence both Professors Greenfield and Ashton were more than willing to entertain a rational and open minded debate and that they certainly do not fall into this category.
Anyway, back to the science. If a chemical is naturally occurring, such as endorphins or adrenalin, then it’s ok because that’s what our brain has come to use after millions of years of evolution. This is good drug use. Introducing chemicals that would never naturally be in the brain is dangerous as our brains are not designed to receive them. This is bad drug use.
Unfortunately these definitions fall down very quickly, as soon as we get ill for example. If the drugs we impose on our bodies are bad then where does that leave medicine? Taking a paracetamol when you have a headache is drug use. You introduce the chemical to your system in order to change your perception of pain and paracetamol does not occur naturally in the body, otherwise you wouldn’t need to take it.
As part of an inquiry into the governments drug policy Baroness Greenfield wrote, “Anyone who takes drugs will run the risk of changing their personality and their view of the world. Such arguments would indeed extend to prescribed as well as proscribed drugs. It is simply that for medicinal reasons the cost benefit analysis is more justified.”(3)
And so the definition is refined once more. Drug use is now bad if it is not natural and not beneficial. Unfortunately this immediately poses another question, what is beneficial?
Consider the situation of a patient with a terminal illness. The good drugs prescribed by the hospital may keep him alive as they are designed to do, but if the patient no longer wants to live then is this beneficial? The problem now is that the only distinguishing factor seems to be how positive the outcome of using the drug is. This is of course entirely subjective and so it becomes clear that drugs and their use can be defined neither as good nor bad in of themselves, drugs are what we make of them. This being the case who is the drug user now and how can prohibition be so selective? Today our society accepts the risks of the use of some drugs if they have a physically beneficial use, but what about other possibly beneficial applications?
references
1. chemical locks and keys:
“Man, we’ve got to get out of these joints”
Susan Greenfield
The Times, Sat 14th July 2001
2. naturally occurring cannabinoid receptors:
personal correspondence with Prof. Ashton
3. risks and benefits of drug use:
“Inquiry into the Government’s Drugs Policy ‘Is It Working?’”
Baroness Susan Greenfield
