Recreational Drugs

In this paper, I identify an argument derived from the commitments of John Rawls’s liberalism for restricting the consumption of recreational drugs in a liberal society, but not because of a great passion for restriction at present. The argument can also be used to respond to Jonathan Quong’s example of an unresolvable disagreement between liberal citizens.

The aesthetics of tea, in some practices, seems to focus on appreciating the mental effects of tea — the altered states of mind. Wine aesthetics, on the other hand, seems to actively exclude any inebriative effects. Wine experts are supposed to spit, in order to avoid inebriation when they judge wine. Why? The answer, I suggest, lies deep in several key suppositions in the traditional model of aesthetic experience: that aesthetic experience needs to be accurate of its object, and that (...) it needs to be inseparable from the particular details of its object. But, I argue, that model is not really incompatible with an aesthetics of drugs. The problematic presupposition is that the aesthetics of drugs is either an aesthetics of the world, as experienced while drugged, or an aesthetics of the physical substance itself. The aesthetics of some drugs, such as LSD, will turn out, instead, to be a self-reflective aesthetics — one in which the primary object of appreciation is the alteration of one’s own cognitive faculties. This can be valuable as a humbling aesthetic vision, of one’s own cognitive fragility. But the aesthetics of gastronomical drugs, such as wine and tea, will turn out to be even more complicated. Gastronomical drugs demand that we bridge the inwardly-focused aesthetics of inebriation and an outwardly focused gastronomical aesthetics. They open the door to the possibility of an aesthetic reconciliation between our capacity to get onto the world, and our fears about the fragility of that capacity. (shrink)

Historically, laws and policies to criminalize drug use or possession were rooted in explicit racism, and they continue to wreak havoc on certain racialized communities. We are a group of bioethicists, drug experts, legal scholars, criminal justice researchers, sociologists, psychologists, and other allied professionals who have come together in support of a policy proposal that is evidence-based and ethically recommended. We call for the immediate decriminalization of all so-called recreational drugs and, ultimately, for their timely and appropriate legal regulation. We (...) also call for criminal convictions for nonviolent offenses pertaining to the use or possession of small quantities of such drugs to be expunged, and for those currently serving time for these offenses to be released. In effect, we call for an end to the “war on drugs.”. (shrink)

Soll der Freizeitkonsum von Drogen wie Marihuana, Kokain, Heroin und LSD einem gesetzlichen Verbot unterliegen? Drogengegner sagen ja. Sie behaupten für gewöhnlich, Drogenkonsum sei sowohl für den Nutzer als auch für die Gesellschaft allgemein äußerst schädlich – vielleicht sogar unmoralisch, und sie glauben, diese Tatsachen seien als Verbotsgrund ausreichend. Freigabebefürworter sagen nein und berufen sich dabei für gewöhnlich auf eines oder mehrere von drei Argumenten: Erstens behaupten einige, Drogenkonsum sei nicht so schädlich, wie Drogengegner meinen, und sei gelegentlich sogar nützlich. (...) Zweitens behaupten einige, Drogenverbote „funktionierten“ nicht, d. h. sie verhinderten den Drogenkonsum nicht besonders wirksam und hätten eine Reihe sehr nachteiliger Folgewirkungen. Schließlich behaupten einige, Drogenverbote seien Unrecht oder verletzten Rechte. -/- Ich unternehme an dieser Stelle nicht den Versuch, all diese Argumente zu besprechen. Stattdessen beschränke ich mich auf die drei Hauptargumente der Drogendebatte: Erstens demjenigen, Drogen solle man aufgrund der Schädigung der Konsumenten verbieten; zweitens, man solle sie verbieten, weil sie außer den Konsumenten noch anderen schadeten; und drittens, man solle sie legalisieren, weil Drogenverbote Rechte verletzten. Ich richte mein Augenmerk auf die moralphilosophischen Fragen, welche diese Argumente aufwerfen, statt auf medizinische oder gesellschaftliche Fragen und werde zeigen, dass die beiden Verbotsargumente scheitern, wogegen das dritte Argument für die Freigabe greift. -/- [This is a German translation of "America's Unjust Drug War". In The New Prohibition, ed. Bill Masters (St. Louis, Mo.: Accurate Press, 2004), p. 133-144.]. (shrink)

Addiction is one of the most significant problems facing contemporary society. Consequently many scholars, institutions and clinicians have sought to understand this complex phenomenon, as is evident in the abundance of etiological models of addiction in existence today. A literature review pointed that there is little consensus regarding the nature and etiopathogenesis of addiction, and integrative models have not yet been able to provide the sought-after integration. In addressing this problem, this study offers a theoretical analysis of the paradigmatic and (...) meta-paradigmatic suitability of Integral Theory in the design of an integrated metatheory of addiction. The data consisted of the most prominent etiological theories and models of addiction. The study focused on several essential features constituting the architectonic of any metatheory that attempts to provide conceptual scaffolding for the construction of a comprehensive metatheory of addiction. The criteria for the construction of a metatheory were conceptual integration, ontological span, ontological depth, empirical validity and internal consistency. Integral Theory was critically assessed in terms of each of the abovementioned criteria. The study suggests that Integral Theory is eminently suitable as a philosophical foundation for the development of an integrated metatheory of addiction. (shrink)

Why is cannabis not our drug of choice? On the face of it, cannabis seems so much better than legal drugs: it does not cause aggression, it gives the user no hangover, makes everything seem funny, and appears to be a lot healthier. Of course, at the dark end of the spectrum, cannabis is thought by some to act as a gateway drug, gets the user involved with criminals, causes social isolation and depression, and can lead to psychosis or even (...) schizophrenia. Regardless of the supposed pros and cons of cannabis use, it certainly is the drug of choice for many. For instance, 22.7% of English and Welsh 16 to 29 year olds had used cannabis in the previous 12 months in 2001/2002.1 The popularity of cannabis raises concerns that the use of less popular drugs perhaps does not, namely, how does the use of cannabis affect the quality of life and what sort of socio-economical impact does it have? Given the widespread use of cannabis, the implications that it may have should be taken under careful consideration. In what follows, I will examine both the adverse effects as well as potential benefits that cannabis use is likely to have in the light of recent research. The inquiry will be divided into two sections: the implications of cannabis use from the point of view of the individual on one hand, and from the point of view of society on the other. (shrink)

Recreational Drugs European Network (ReDNet) project aims to use the Psychonaut Web Mapping Project database (Psychonaut Web Mapping Group, 2009) containing novel psychoactive compounds usually not mentioned in the scientific literature and thus unknown to clinicians as a unique source of information. The database will be used to develop an integrated ICT prevention approach targeted at vulnerable individuals and focused on novel synthetic and herbal compounds and combinations. Particular care will be taken in keeping the health professionals working directly with (...) young people showing problematic behaviors regularly updated in terms of novel compounds and combinations as well. A user-friendly project website will be developed aimed primarily at delivering the information/prevention approaches, but will also be a way of communicating with project partners and relevant stakeholders (e.g. thematic forum facilities, instant messages, blogs, video chat, wikiblog, newsletters distributed via mailing list). The website will support various ICT prevention tools, including an SMS alert service. Different areas and sections will be aimed specifically at the different target groups. -/- . (shrink)

This paper is a survey of the positive and negative aspects of cannabis use from the point of view of the individual on one hand and from the point of view of the society on the other hand. Health, social, and political motives are all discussed, and the best method of harm reduction is analysed. The upshot is that zero tolerance policy is obsolete, and that most individuals would be better off using cannabis rather than other drugs.

The article explains why we should not use dangerous drugs for pleasure.

Despite analgesic and emetogenic benefits, cannabis has been banned from prescription in a number of western countries. Although some benefits are shared by drugs already available, the options of prescription are limited to the physician. The negative side-effects of cannabis do not justify this limitation on freedom and autonomy. Recreational use warrants limitations, as the search for euphoria is regularly believed to be a non-autonomous behavior. Medical prescriptions serve an analgesic and emetogenic purpose comparable to other prescribed drugs. This vindicates (...) the right for a physician to prescribe cannabis to qualified patients. For a patient to be considered qualified, they must be an adult that does not drive often, is not pregnant, and not at risk of schizophrenia or cardiovascular disease. If possible, cannabis should be eaten in an effort to avoid smoke irritation in the lungs and aerodigestive tract. In the end, the question is not whether cannabis use is efficable, but rather is the limitation of medical treatments to patients in need ethical? In light of the medical benefits, the banning of cannabis is simply immoral. Keywords: cannabis, banned substance, prescription, analgesic, emetogenic Note. Authors did not receive any external funding, nor display conflict of interest. (shrink)

Recent evidence shows significant potential for therapies involving psychedelic substances such as psilocybin and MDMA to improve clinical outcomes for patients experiencing various mental disorders. However, research to date focuses almost exclusively on adults. I argue that adolescents should be included in research into psychedelic therapies. First, I demonstrate the pressing need for novel interventions to address the growing mental health burden of adolescents, and I draw on empirical evidence to show that research into psychedelic therapies presents an opportunity to (...) address this shortfall. Secondly, I argue that psychedelics pose low risk to young patients, particularly relative to existing psychiatric medications. I then address two major concerns specific to adolescent contexts. First, I address the risks of using psychedelic substances at earlier stages of physiological and cognitive development. I note that the lack of understanding of the risks underscores the need for including adolescents in research. I then address the added complexity of consent in the adolescent context. I highlight some additional concerns that should be addressed in an “enhanced” informed consent process for adolescents and defend the view that capable adolescents should be able to consent to psychedelic interventions. I ultimately hold that including adolescents in emerging psychedelic research has the potential to substantiate innovative treatments that could improve their clinical outcomes, long-term mental health and quality of life. (shrink)