So where were we?

Well, I was asking you. But I suppose it's up to me to hold this conversation together as usual.

Ah yes, addiction.

When we last spoke, we had basically decided that nobody ever wanted to be an addict, but that it becomes easier to remain one, and that the net effects of addiction are the primary reason the whole thing is so terrible.

I had, I believe, also mentioned that two people in my life stand on opposite sides of the issue of drug legalization.

My feeling, as always, is that the truth quite likely lies between the two poles. If you're experiencing a kneejerk reaction that says "Of course drugs must stay illegal--and we should introduce the death penalty for being an addict" or if your first instinct is to say "We should immediately open a large chain of free heroin distribution centres nationwide" then please suppress those thoughts for a bit.

I'm looking at heroin because my roomie seems so convinced. His contention is:

1) That heroin addiction is little different from alcoholism--in fact, alcoholism is worse because (he feels) heroin addicts can function in society, hold down jobs and so forth.

2) That if people had access to clean, pure heroin of a standard quality, the human misery would be mollified since there would be no reason to steal to support the habit (once a drug becomes legal, the price tends to drop--check the statistics on the accursed 18th amendment to the US constitution).

3) Moreover heroin users function better than alcoholics over the long term, partly (so roomie contends) because heroin has no ill effects.

Yeah, that last one threw me too. But since I've never considered the possibility that this might be correct, I think it's worth a look at the merits of the case.

Those statistics above are connected to the Cato Institute, a vaguely libertarian/right think-tank. But the site seems fairly thoughtful, and importantly, it isn't shrill, nor does it appear to be deliberately misleading.

If the figures are correct, per capita consumption of alcohol during "the noble experiment", after the initial shock in 1920-21, remained within a few points of the same even while alcohol was strictly prohibited! On average, every American was consuming 1.2 gallons of pure alcohol--and it was banned nationwide.

On the other hand, according to the same source, per capita spending on booze actually increased--why? Well duh--If you want something and it's illegal, it gets more expensive. Consider the price of articles smuggled into jails.

Consider the Bronfmans. Or here's a quicker reference. By making sure they shipped quality whiskey across the border, the Bronfman family became millionaires--and who could blame them? Warning--that last linked article is offensive to me, and to my intelligence--you may or may not find it so.

Now it doesn't do to go with data from only one source, especially on a contentious issue like this. Let's check that out again: Hypothesis is that during the Noble Experiment, per capita consumption of alcohol ended up roughly the same, (untaxed) money spent on booze, from what became Seagram's finest to bathtub rotgut that'd turn you blind, actually went up.

The government didn't get their cut. People had to shell out more of their hard-earned bread to buy their drug of choice, and the dodgy quality made indulging risky. Who profited from prohibited alcohol?

So, let me back up figures on that:

Whoops--not here. This site, I think, is selling information false-to-fact. "Nearly everyone was addicted". Yeah, sure.

Not here, either. While it supports my thesis and seems to be well researched, I'm trying to find a more academic source.

This site doesn't have an academic tone, but it's fun to read and seems to carry some gravitas: Click here. It's a pro-alcohol site which includes well-reasoned (my opinion only) cautions against allowing incremental prohibition. It's professional-looking, reasonably current, the articles are thoroughly referenced, and all the links work.

Y'know something? I've been scrabbling around for more figures for a long time here, and I'm getting tired of it. We were going to discuss the possibilty of a moderate approach to heroin, but this post is going off-track.

So let it stand: Prohibition of alcohol raised prices, led to the mushroom growth of organized crime, increased civic corruption both in the government and among citizens, raised the price of illicit booze, and most importantly did not solve any of the problems it was brought in to cure. Argument welcome at the e-mail links on the right.

So it seems logical that prohibition of heroin has raised the price, made addicts both criminals and social outcasts, and encouraged the sharing of needles. At the same time, most governments allow the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which are in themselves draining and disruptive to a degree in society.

So why prohibit heroin? Especially in light of what other nations are doing (look at the bottom of the first page, then click here)?

Is it the physical effects?

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the US National Institutes of Health, heroin's effect of use is much like any other drug. Basically, you get a rush. However, additional effects can include nausea, vomiting, and a slowing of heart and lung function--possibly to the point of death. It is not clear from this site whether this slowing is a result of overdose or a natural effect.

Most of the long-term medical complications are associated with the injection of the drug under street conditions: Collapsed veins, immune system disease, and overdose are mentioned.

So far, it seems to me that these effects don't actually have a lot to do with the use of the drug itself--more to do with the conditions of street drug use including dirty needles and the social effects of addiction. Two questions:

1) Is the slowing of cardiac and lung function unto death related to normal use or overdose? Nicotine is known to produce accelerated heart function, but doesn't seem to kill anyone in controlled doses--while three drops of pure nicotine on your tongue would kill you.

2) Do addicts reach a plateau--that is, if an addict were supplied with quality heroin in a measured dose, administered with clean needles, would they be able to put heroin out of their minds and lead a productive life?

Has anyone else ever asked these questions?

Perhaps we can find out. But that's for next time. For now, it seems like we know this much:

Many of the worst effects of heroin use are to do not with the drug itself, but with the circumstances under which addicts are generally forced to live and self-administer.

Several countries have shown net economic and social benefits from putting in place controlled-dose programs: Switzerland, and the Nederlands are putting controlled-supply programs in place. Australia (against the wishes of the Howard government) and Canada (against the wishes of another government entirely), have entered trial programs.

(In Australia, addicts bring their own heroin to a safe injection site. In Canada, the idea is to supply the drug for free. The Australian site appears to be experiencing legal problems. The Canadian site was rather stupidly placed close to, among other things, a daycare centre and a rehab facility. Nontheless, it seems lives have been saved, and there seems to be a strong whiff of net benefit in the air.)

Neither distributing heroin nor prohibiting it can cure the personal, social, and psychological problems that make drugs attractive in the first place.

While addiction is definitely a long term effect, and involves physiological changes in the brain, I have yet to find support for the idea that one's brain becomes permanently addled as a result, or that the physical problems are anything other than environmental. Differing opinions welcome via e-mail links at right.

While searching the Bronfmans, I ran into this. Before you click--It's really quite unpleasant and stupid. The Ku Klux Klan must be laughing their pointy little heads off. It's just one of the most egregrious in a series of pages from conspiracy nuts and sites by the sort of people who speak "for the people".

This one's about addiction.

Here's a very scholarly paper about alcohol consumption and prohibition--it confused me until I realized that the the words "positive effect" meant that prohibition increased net consumption.

The Schaeffer Library of Drug Policy Seems fairly straightforward. Links include law reform sites and professional organizations.

A guide from the White House on how to sound "hip" while buying your heroin.

A note on policy. This article highlights one of the fundamental problems:

"U.S. officials have angrily criticized the Canadian policy of harm reduction."The very name is a lie," John Walters, the White House drug policy director, said in a telephone interview. "There are no safe injection sites." Walter said the United States would continue to treat drug abuse as a "deadly disease that shortens lives."

What a good idea! If this disease were approached the same way the War on Drugs has been, no doubt the epidemic would end in a short while.