Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | The Drug Legalization Debate
by Thomas L. Wayburn, PhD
We think we know almost everything; what we actually know is almost nothing - and most of that is false. The most pernicious type of ignorance is belief in falsehood. We are ignorant, but our minds are filled with something. In the beginning, our minds begin to be filled by words, which represent ideas. That's why I shall place so much emphasis on the abuse of words. Next, our minds begin to be filled with notions, i.e., unexamined assumptions, promulgated or inculcated by parents, teachers, government, business, etc. Some of these notions we hear repeated every day, but others are buried so deeply that we are never aware of their existence. In either case they are prejudices; they have been assimilated without the exercise of our judgment or our reason. Some are true, but most are false. Social institutions are willing to go to great lengths to prevent falsehood from being exposed. Heterodox views are everywhere repressed. The world stands on the brink of the Orwellian abyss.
People who are unwilling to examine their prejudices are said to be closed-minded. The notion that all fundamental philosophical questions have been answered is the ultimate mind closer. The world is filled with closed-minded people and we may never be able to influence most of them by an appeal to reason, but that does not excuse any one of us as an individual from being willing to drag out and examine under the cold light of reason even our most cherished prejudices. The world may not be ready to give up its myths, but there is no law of the universe that says we cannot understand something merely because our ability to make a living depends on our not understanding it. As soon as one of our assumptions is questioned or its opposite averred by even one solitary soul, it becomes incumbent upon us to drop the contested claim as an assumption and provide for it, instead, a proof. If the claim is metaphysical, it must be supported by the twin pillars of reasonableness (aesthetics) and utility. That's what I believe. None of us is completely open-minded. I am curious to know, however, why there is such a great disparity between what one can say to an individual and what one can say to the general public.
Currently, we are moving from a law-enforcement approach to a prevention-treatment approach to drugs. This change is resisted by government to whom it represents a loss of power, but it is supported by business, education, medicine, and other institutions that stand to gain. The unstated assumption is that, since prevention and treatment are less repressive than law enforcement, they are not at all repressive. This is the fallacy of false consolation, an appeal to peace (ad quietem). Both law-enforcement and prevention-treatment are characterized by the notion that one person has a right to regulate the behavior of another. The prevention-treatment approach puts drugs under the auspices of the health establishment. People who have run afoul of both the criminal-justice system and the mental-health system know that between the two there is not much to choose. Both enjoy pretty gruesome reputations. The days of shock therapy, pre-frontal lobotomies, and "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" are not far behind us, if they are behind us. The Supreme Court ruled recently that mental health institutions may force patients to take drugs against their will. Man's inhumanity to man continues apace. The decriminalized "addict" may wonder whether he has jumped out of the frying pan directly into the flame. The jailer knows damn well he is punishing someone for nonstandard behavior, in which he may indulge himself. The therapist may be running around with his head full of what is very likely to turn out to be mush.
The assumption that some people have a right to have power over other people is usually justified on the basis that the dominant people know what's best. Even if we dispose of the notion that drugs represent a public-health problem, we will have to contend with those who have the most to gain from the point of view that drugs represent a spiritual problem, namely, the clergy. As Bertrand Russell [1] said, "It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion." (I would have said "organized religion".)
Eventually we will realize that we have a political problem resulting from spiritual corruption. That problem has nothing to do with drugs. An example of spiritual corruption, in my opinion, is the notion that one should receive something in return for what one gives. This is supported indirectly by the so-called Protestant work ethic, which has been adopted by Catholics and which is accepted in Asia. Only by a complete change of heart will we be able to recognize the types of political change required, but we should not look forward to the assistance of any professional politician alive in this world today. Enlightenment will come exceedingly slowly and is contingent upon the survival of the human race. In the meantime, we must struggle to be allowed to teach our view of things in contradistinction to the conventional wisdom. Exposing fallacies and stating unstated assumptions might be helpful.
Whether stated or unstated, this represents a serious fallacy backed up by dozens of other fallacies. In my previous paper [2], I said what I thought of the idea. It is based in part on the notion that drugs are what get us high. This assumption, taken to be so obvious as to require no mention, is questioned by Andrew Weil [3]. What if we show people how to get high without drugs, but the subsequent behavior and other consequences of getting high were the same as they are now with drugs. Would that be acceptable to prohibitionists? Some of them believe that pleasure itself is evil. The idea that a drug-free society is desirable depends, too, on the assumption that genuine devotees of drugs will submit to tyranny.
Frequently, we are told that taking drugs is immoral. This is the vague-generalities fallacy, another fallacy of confusion and an example of ad judicium (to judgment). Some morals are good, others bad. The proponent implies that the nature of good morals is understood and that, if we violate his morals, we are against Morality. Drugs may be bad for the body but good for the soul. Perhaps the body and the soul are at war for possession of the will.
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley pictured a dreadful totalitarian society, supported by atheism, free sex, and free drugs. Huxley's fears are well founded, but, in my opinion, he has precisely reversed the instruments of repression, perhaps purposely to suggest what he could not espouse publicly. A drug-free society would expedite the repression of independent thought. Drug users have been in the vanguard of the anti-war and other progressive movements, including the movements for civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights.
Some believe that LSD and marijuana were symptoms of "the movement", but it is easy to make a good case that they were the prime cause. Whatever else one thinks of Uspenski, it is difficult to argue against his theory that drugs provide a conscious shock that enables one to break through the walls of prejudice that bind us, especially in a society where we are immersed in propaganda. In any case, those who use drugs are in a better position than those who don't to judge the validity of the argument. Finally, many people believe that drugs themselves are the cause of the drug problem. This assumption is highly suspect. Apparently, outside of context, drugs are neutral.
Almost all prohibitionists indulge in Bentham's [4] dyslogistic and eulogistic fallacies, which consist in applying a term of either denigration or praise to an item that is logically neutral. An example is calling drugs "poison" or "horrible mind-bending chemicals" [Carl Rowan]. Clearly drugs are good if they are used to remedy an unpleasant condition or cure a disease; but, for the sake of argument, they could be considered neutral; i.e., their goodness or badness depends on how they are used. Referring to drugs as "poison" is a clear case of the dyslogistic fallacy. Potassium cyanide is poison! William Bennett, lately, has been indulging in ad hominem arguments.
Users of drugs are referred to as "slaves" even though they act more independently than the average employee of the average American corporation. Actually, the average religionist, who accepts religious dogma without reservation is more of a slave than is the most hooked addict; i.e., the religionist's soul is entirely subjugated whereas the body only of the addict is under the control of the addicting drug, as evidenced by the fact that his will remains free to wish to be free of the addiction. Even this analysis is granting too much to the use of the word slave. How can one become the slave of an inanimate substance, which has no will!
Similarly, we are told that drug enforcers are the "good guys" and users and dealers are the "bad guys". This ignores the fundamental facts of human existence. Needless to say, the mere taking of drugs does not automatically elevate people to an elite class of individuals capable of discerning right from wrong and able to see through all the illusions and myths perpetuated by society. On the other hand, many people who are waging the war on drugs employ devious and underhanded tactics, not the least dishonorable of which is arranging a highly contrived purchase of drugs near the White House and then implying, for rhetorical purposes, that the purchase was routine. Thus, it is not at all clear that those who are trying to prevent people from taking drugs are the "good guys" and those who are using drugs are the "bad guys" as the establishment would have us believe.
Recently I attended a class given by the Houston Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (HCADA) for people who will speak to students in the Houston Independent School District (HISD) to prevent them from taking drugs. I attended another class (to be discussed below) for children referred by the court and their parents. I will not apologize to the reader for attending only two classes or for assuming that these classes were typical. No one is better able to judge than some of my audience whether the fallacies discussed in the sequel apply or not. The assumption that falsehood and fallacious reasoning are a proper means to the end of preventing children from taking drugs is not specifically stated by the HCADA nor do they acknowledge it; but, if it is not behind their program, they are very badly deceived. Under these circumstances, this is the end-justifies-the-means fallacy (ad judicium).
"Charles Manson, for example, took drugs, therefore drugs are bad" is an example of an ad odium (to hatred) fallacy. It neglects the fact that William Rowan Hamilton, for example, took drugs. Counselors are advised to tell the students that marijuana, nowadays, is 1000% more powerful than formerly rather than 10 times more powerful, despite the fact that percentages are applied normally only when they lie between 0 and 100. Whether increase in strength is observed or not (NORML says "not"), the deception that 1000% seems more than 10-times reinforces stupidity and is ad metum (to fear). Again, "the end justifies the means". The HCADA neglects to mention that one might simply take 1/10th as much, which will reduce the trauma to the throat, very much exaggerated by HCADA. The HCADA does not recommend ingestion by eating (in hash brownies, say) or the use of a water pipe, which they might do if they were truly interested in the student's welfare.
The HCADA says that marijuana is toxic. The best scientific data places its toxicity below that of potatoes on the LD-50 scale. Also, marijuana has a therapeutic ratio immeasurably superior to that of aspirin, for example. HCADA claims marijuana is often contaminated, sometimes by dried horse manure. This is unjustified and ad metum. They describe horrible effects of smoking pot, which, in real life, are never seen. They give data for exceptionally heavy smoking and for tests done on animals with absurdly heavy doses. They describe an isolated case as though it were common, failing to give statistics. Ad metum, again and again. They show photographs of damaged nerves in a videotape by AIMS Media of Van Nuys, California, which refuses to supply literature citations for the purported research. Lester Grinspoon thinks it's faked. The AIMS tape features a narrator dressed in a white lab coat with a stethoscope hanging around his neck. The more astute students will recognize that this man is not likely to need a stethoscope during the narration of this tape. This is an appeal-to-authority fallacy, an example of ad verecundiam (to modesty).
Reported side-effects of marijuana are listed in dyslogistic terms, whereas they might have been listed in eulogistic terms by a devotee of pot or in neutral terms by an unbiased reporter. Examples: "lethargic" (dyslogistic) instead of "meditative" (eulogistic), "loss of interest in school" instead of "able to see through the stupidity of the curriculum and the teachers", "absenteeism" instead of "unwilling to tolerate the inhospitable atmosphere in which we work and learn", "chaotic" thinking instead of "creative" (or "imaginative") thinking, and so on. In a perverse abuse of language, many anti-drug people try to detach the word "square" from non-users and attach it to users. "Hip" and "square" are the words coined by users to differentiate themselves from others.
The HCADA employs the gateway fallacy. Epidemiological evidence seems to point to marijuana as a "gateway" to "harder" drugs. The evidence can be explained by the behavior of individuals who cannot obtain their drug of choice due to the laws against drugs. The HCADA employs a poster that indicates one might go to jail for smoking pot without mentioning that many people believe that the laws against smoking pot should be repealed. They claim that smoking marijuana impairs one's sense of time without mentioning the great musicians who smoked marijuana when they played. It is intellectually dishonest to report only half of the story, but that's what HCADA does at every point. They divide drugs improperly into stimulants and depressants.
Two charts were employed showing drugs that are not abused and drugs of abuse. Nyquil, which can be abused, if the word is to have any meaning, was on the first chart, and alcohol and cigarets as well as the usual illegal drugs were shown on the second chart. I asked if moderate use of alcohol or any of the illegal drugs constituted drug abuse. I was told that any use whatsoever was considered abuse. This is the excluded-middle fallacy and illustrates that the Houston Council of Alcohol and Drug Abuse doesn't know the meaning of the word "abuse". I could go on and on, but I will finish by noting that the teacher commented in passing that, "with kids, honesty is best"!
After the class, I reminded the teacher that exaggerating the danger had been tried and failed. When I pointed out the factual and logical errors in her presentation, she "refuted" my objections on the basis that (i) she had many years experience in this field and I had very little (ad verecundiam), (ii) her presentation was consistent with the latest "scientific" research, and (iii) the HCADA was a highly respected United-Way institution. These are fallacious appeals to authority and the use of the term "scientific" is a vague generality. I pointed out that it is intellectually dishonest not to present both sides. Even when I reminded her that it was not I who was disseminating questionable facts in the public schools, she insisted that the burden of proof was on me. Students don't have to prove we are lying, they need only know it, after which they discount everything we have said even though some of it may be true. "Falsehood is so unexacting, [it] needs so little help to make itself manifest!" [Proust] If I wished, I was told, I could bring my argument to the director, but the director refused to meet with me and review the evidence I had assembled. So much for truth in the public schools of Houston. My letters to the school board and the United Way are still in my head. They will be written but probably to no avail.
The effect of this assumption, whether stated or unstated, is to bring "drug abuse" and "drug addiction" under the purview of the medical profession. We wish to investigate under what circumstances this may be done legitimately. Peele [5], Schaler [6], and others make an excellent case that it cannot be done at all. But, placing drug treatment under the auspices of the medical profession constitutes an appeal to respect for authority and to fear. Leading authorities support prevention and treatment, therefore, if we are against prevention and treatment, we are against Science. In the preface of Ceremonial Chemistry [7], Szasz states, essentially, that "everyone" is against drugs, but different drugs depending on era and culture. The use of acceptable drugs is a popular pastime, while the use of unacceptable drugs is considered "drug abuse" and "drug addiction." "Drug abuse is not a regrettable medical disease but a repudiated religious observance. Accordingly, our options with respect to the 'problem' of drugs are the same as our options with respect to the 'problem' of religions: that is, we can practice various degrees of tolerance and intolerance toward those whose religions - whether theocratic or therapeutic - differ from our own."
I believe that terms such as "disease", "epidemic", "treatment", and "recovering" in the context of drug (mis)use originated in metaphor but continue to be used to confuse the public because it is advantageous to the health professions to do so, in which case the use of these terms is the impostor-terms fallacy (ad judicium), a fallacy of confusion. Even the use of the word "illness" in the phrase "mental illness" probably originated as a metaphor but became confused with actual illness almost immediately. In any case, it is not at all clear that mental illness exists in the sense that the health profession would like us to believe it exists. Szasz [8] thinks not. Behind the disease model of conflicts in living is the unstated assumption that "social intercourse would be harmonious, satisfying, and the secure basis of a good life were it not for the disrupting influences of mental illness."
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language [9] defines disease as (i) a condition of the body in which there is incorrect function resulting from the effect of heredity, infection, diet, or environment and (ii) any deranged or depraved condition, as of the mind, society, etc. The definition in The Mosby Medical Encyclopedia [10] agrees with (i) but doesn't include (ii). Health professionals can remove people from environment or society temporarily at some cost, but they, the people, must return eventually to an environment or society about which the health profession can do nothing. Therefore, we may dismiss society and environment from the discussion for the time being. We must then inquire as to the meaning of "deranged" and "depraved" and whether they might not be dyslogistic terms for behavior of which we do not approve, behavior that might just as well be described in eulogistic terms, such as "divinely inspired" or "impelled by a vision", or neutral terms such as "nonstandard".
The effect of infection can be ruled out; there are no germs, viruses, etc. If we may consider drugs part of our diets, we recognize that some discomfort due to having taken drugs might be considered disease, but we wonder if that is what is being treated by physicians and other members of the health professions. The effects of heredity have been discussed in connection with alcohol. Many researchers still believe in a gene for alcoholism; but, as shown by Peele [5], undesirable responses to alcohol can be explained in other ways. In any case, we hope researchers identify the gene for drug addiction soon, if it exists, so that those of us who don't carry it can use drugs casually without fear of becoming addicted!
I have not encountered definitions of drug abuse or drug addiction. As discussed above, HCADA does not distinguish between use and abuse. Mathre [11] dissociates casual users and people "who choose to alter their state of consciousness through drugs" from abusers and addicts. Peele [5] states that "the administration's own statistics disprove the link between recreational drug use and addiction". Mathre seems to exempt drug (or chemical) dependence from her disease model of addiction, but she does not say what addiction is.
I have compiled a short list of phenomena that are sometimes referred to as (or mistaken for) drug addiction: (1) self-medication for chronic depression or chronic pain, (2) taking a drug that causes a symptom that can be relieved only by taking more of the drug or by the passage of a few hours, (3) acute withdrawal symptoms that last several days, (4) dedication to the repetition of a pleasurable experience regardless of long-range consequences, (5) taking a drug to perform a task, which might have to be performed several times a week, perhaps to make a living, (6) obligatory daily performance of a task that cannot be performed during withdrawal from a drug, (7) using drugs to isolate oneself from the painful realities of life in a bad world, (8) unwillingness to pass an opportunity to take drugs because the law may cut off one's supply, (9) the case of a drug that, like valium or blood-pressure medication, poses a health risk if one forgets to take it in the absence of a craving that (blessedly) reminds one to take it. In Case 1, a physician may prescribe another drug, Case 2 is normal and involves a conscious choice between two alternatives on the part of the individual, Case 3 might require supervised tapering off or the prescription of other drugs, Cases 4-8 are behavioral choices in the face of circumstances that are beyond a therapist's control. I do not believe any of the cases correspond to what we normally call a disease. Case 9 is a normal medical situation and stretches the meaning of addiction seriously, but may not be omitted as it constitutes a requirement to take the drug, which, in this case and in this case alone, is strictly medical.
Drug abuse usually refers to some type of behavior of which other people do not approve but which is consistent with the goals of the user, who might be a criminal or only an oddball. The term "denial" is a fallacious appeal to the authority of the treatment community in a dispute with a user who is insufficiently articulate to defend his values and motives. The term "denial" is an impostor. When the user himself disapproves of his own behavior, the term "drug abuse" might make sense, unless the user is a victim of anti-drug propaganda. Many people who have tried to stop taking drugs might benefit from the friendship and advice of other drug users. As suggested by Henman [12], drug use must be looked at from the perspective of the user.
Occasionally a person who has never used drugs but is possessed of great sensitivity and penetrating insight might be able to offer useful advice to drug users, but normally a non-user simply does not know what's going on. Ex-users are usually failed users. If they didn't understand drugs when they were using them, why should they be expected to understand them now?
In my many years of experience in the drug culture (1954-1963 and 1969-1980), I have observed very few people whose drug taking was troublesome to themselves or other users. Ex-users were sometimes more troublesome within the drug community than were users. If a member of the set was out of line, the other members could usually bring social pressure to bear upon the transgressor and things would soon return to normal. Many of the people with whom I associated during those years have died short of their 70s, but there is much to be said for quality of life. Most people, when they are born, have no right to expect to live as interesting a life as some of my friends have lived. The reader might protest that I was not living in the inner-city ghetto of 1990. It is widely assumed that the greatest problem in the inner city ghetto is drugs, but isn't it more likely that racism and the other institutions that created the ghetto are the central problem?
Only mathematics is unconditionally true. Physicists employ mathematics to provide provisional solutions to easy problems. The difficult problems are referred to chemists unless they involve the mystery of life, in which case they are referred to biologists. Since World War II, social scientists, particularly economists, have tried to apply the techniques of physics to the behavior of people. Despite some successes, the likelihood of continued progress in this direction is open to doubt, especially now that the phenomenon of chaos has been observed in systems as simple as a dripping water faucet! For the purposes of treating drug users, it is insufficient to predict the behavior of people in statistical aggregates and even that is suspect. The twentieth century has been distinguished by revealing what can not be done by science.
As one might expect from the name, The Houston Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse attempts to exploit the parallel between alcoholics and people who use drugs excessively (according to someone). In particular, they employ the word "sober" to mean "not high on drugs". This is an impostor term as many drugs, e.g., pot, make one abnormally sober. The comparison with alcohol breaks down because, whereas alcoholics might not avail themselves of other drugs to counteract the effects of alcohol or to substitute for alcohol when alcohol is not indicated, free drug users could employ a large slate of drugs, including alcohol, to adjust their body chemistry appropriately under most circumstances; i.e., they might use one drug to work, another to play, another to have sex, a fourth to drive home, and a fifth to go to sleep. With more research, this might be accomplished safely.
At the second class at the HCADA, referred to above, the class leader claimed he could always recognize a kid from a dysfunctional family. According to Bertrand Russell [13], the family has been dysfunctional since men began to work away from the homestead, and it has become less functional with each change in modern society. Why blame dysfunctionality on drugs when both parents work? Also, why must it be assumed always that the behavioral choices of the drug user are incorrect? Often the members of the family who are troubled by a person taking drugs, although convinced of the rectitude of their conduct, are not well-behaved themselves, nor do they always have the best motives for wishing to restrict the user's activities. How many wives of musicians complain about the behavior of their husbands without understanding the importance of the musician's quest! We have a problem of conflicting values, not a drug problem.
The thrust of the class was an explication (as fact) of the victim-enabler-hero-scapegoat-loner-mascot theory wherein "volunteers" were asked to simulate the various roles, holding up poster-size signs with lists of psychological attributes. Oversimplifications aside, it is clear that this theory cannot predict. The class leader did not indicate that the theory was conjectural and unproven. The term "victim" is clearly an impostor, used to signal the disease theory of nonstandard behavior. The term "enabler" ignores the impediments created by most spouses of alcoholics and drug users. Also, the theory totally ignores the possibility that the school, the workplace, or the political system in which we live is the "culprit". Political theory seems to be missing from almost all approaches to social problems in the United States. Since "substance abuse" seems to be a symptom of a deeper problem, why should we not expect abstinence to shift the problem elsewhere?
While watching the class, I could not help but be struck by the wide disparity of backgrounds of those present. This must be reflected in a wide disparity in values. As suggested by Szasz [8], why should a single approach fit everyone?
The self-esteem fad was very much in evidence, but why should people feel good about doing bad? Children have only to turn on the TV to realize how unimportant they are in a society where only famous people count, an abuse perpetuated by ourselves, today, in the conference for which this paper was prepared. This business of applauding themselves and each other at the tiniest provocation and standing up and saying "Hi, I'm Darrell" is brainwashing and gets the respect it deserves among children. The group leader referred to God and quoted Proverbs (but not Proverbs 31:6,7) in violation of the First Amendment, as discussed by Luff [14]. The Tough Love theory was introduced. Although there may be a little truth to the idea, truth suffers when one tries to turn tough love into a business. The unstated assumption is that one can package wisdom.
Nevertheless, some people do stop taking drugs. Does that mean treatment has been successful? This is the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy (after this, therefore because of this). Perhaps subjects have merely exchanged one form of deviance for another. Perhaps subjects have invested a great deal of money and don't want to admit they have wasted it. (Charter Hospital of Sugarland, Texas, charges $825/day for 30 days and employs some pretty hard sell.) This is not a cure; it's self-deception. And this is the main point: Do people who stop taking drugs and enter a lifelong abstinence program along the lines of Alcoholics Anonymous really improve their lives? Are they not simply exchanging one bad habit for another, or, perhaps, exhibiting the same character defect in a new way? Perhaps people in treatment "cults" are saving the body at the expense of the soul. "I'd rather be a drunk than belong to AA." Perhaps, though, as in the case of Marcel's friend Saint-Loup, who stopped taking cocaine to become a war hero in Remembrance of Things Past, they have simply found something better to do. I believe that nearly anyone will stop using drugs if he has an opportunity to do something worthwhile with which drugs are incompatible.
The most important unstated assumption in the thinking of William Bennett and other prohibitionists is that the individual serves some higher purpose other than himself, usually the needs of the economy. In a paper, "Drug Abuse in the Workplace", by Walsh and Gust of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [15], this tacit assumption stands behind every conclusion. It is interesting that they viewed as an intolerable circumstance of drug use the discovered fact that "marijuana and cocaine users 'skipped work' two to three times as often as nonusers, simply because they 'didn't want to be there'." [Shuster C.R., Testimony Before the House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, May 7, 1986.] Walsh and Gust were unable to recognize that drugs might have helped users realize their true feelings and that the difficulty might lie with the workplace rather than with drugs. "The number one problem in the workplace is drugs," they tell us. But, according to Husch [16], "Work is not the arena to which problems are brought, rather work may be the forum within which problems arise."
Walsh and Gust assume obliquely that drug use leads to impairment, neglecting cases where it leads to improved performance. They refer to occupations "where it is essential that the individual be free of any and all effects of all drugs at all times", without naming even one such occupation. I challenge. The assumption is that the individual should adjust to the workplace rather than the other way around. NIDA advocates Tough But Fair drug policies, but is it likely that business will be fair when faced with values that conflict with its own? Why is it that, according to business, drugs are harmful but pesticides are not?
Houston, Texas
September 19, 1990
1. Russell, Bertrand, "Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?" in Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays, Paul Edwards, Editor, Simon and Shuster, New York (1957)
2. Wayburn, Thomas L., "No One Has a Right To Impose an Arbitrary System of Morals on Others" in Drug Policy 1889-1990, A Reformer's Catalogue (Abbreviated as DPFC), Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese, Eds., The Drug Policy Foundation, Washington, D.C. (1989).
3. Weil, Andrew, "The Only Solution to the Drug Problem," The Truth Seeker, 116, No. 5 (1989).
4. Bentham, Jeremy, Bentham's Handbook of Political Fallacies, Ed. Harold A. Larrabee, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore (1952).
5. Peele, Stanton, "Does Addiction Excuse Thieves and Killers from Criminal Responsibility" in DPFC (See Ref. 1)
6. Schaler, Jeffrey A., "Truth, Traynor and McKelvey: Politics and the Alcoholism Controversy" in DPFC.
7. Szasz, Thomas, Ceremonial Chemistry, Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. (1975). (Now available from Lassez-Faire Books, New York.)
8. Szasz, Thomas, "The Myth of Mental Illness" in Ideology and Sanity, Doubleday Anchor, Garden City, NY (1970).
9. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Lawrence Urdang, Editor in Chief, Random House, New York (1968).
10. The Mosby Medical Encyclopedia, Eds. Walter D. Glanze, Kenneth N. Anderson, and Lois E. Anderson, New American Library, New York (1985).
11. Mathre, Mary Lynn, "New Treatment Options after Repeal: Variety and Availability of Treatment for Clients" in DPFC.
12. Henman, Anthony Richard, "Coca: An Alternative to Cocaine," in DPFC.
13. Russell, Bertrand, "The new Generation" in Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays, Paul Edwards, Editor, Simon and Shuster, New York (1957)
14. Luff, Ellen, "The First Amendment and Drug Alcohol Treatment Programs" in DPFC.
15. Walsh, J. Michael and Steven W. Gust, "Drug Abuse in the Workplace", Seminars in Occupational Medicine, 1, No.4 (1986).
16. Husch, Jerri, "Of Work and Drugs: Notes on Prevention" in
DPFC.
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | The Drug Legalization Debate