1
Substance effects and behavior: Only the sum of it’s parts
Tyson Baker
578072
Sociology 214.3
Social Deviance and Control
Prof. Carolyn Brooks
November 27, 2002
The purpose of this essay is to show the effects of substances lay in their physiological effects and the behavior of the people around the substances, which is largely influenced by their legal status. The physiological effects of drugs cannot be altered, but the behavior and laws controlling the behavior, surrounding the drugs can be altered to reduce the harm of the drugs. In the early 20th century, anti-drug laws were legislation supporting racial and social prejudice against the Chinese, Mexicans, and Blacks. The “War on drugs” campaign, since it was proposed by Reagan in 1986, has been a downward spiral of economic, social and personal factors that is continued through circular reasoning. Research in Jamaican society, where the smoking of marijuana is not only legal, but also looked upon as a social act, shows that smokers of marijuana actually outperform the non-smokers in many ways, including work productivity. The standards of which drugs become legal and which do not become legal is based on the interests of those in power of legislation, not the actual health effects of the drugs themselves. The black market of drugs, caused almost directly by the illegality itself of drugs, relies on the illegality of drugs for profits; if the substances traded on the black markets were to become legal, organized crime based on black market drugs would fade or disappear. The legalization, or even decriminalization, of psychoactive substances will result in less wasted money used enforcing arbitrary drug laws that harm the marginalized, will allow destigmatization of drug users, and more open help for drug abusers.
Prejudice: Where all Wars Start
Around 1900, anti-Chinese sentiments in the U.S.A. were high, especially in California. Although the Chinese population using opium was less than that of the white population, it was the smoking of opium that became associated with negative Chinese stereotypes. Early in the 20th century, cocaine and cocaine-containing drinks became associated with African Americans, who reportedly became extremely powerful after using the drug. It was reported that some police stations switched from .32 caliber pistols to .38 caliber pistols to “incapacitate ‘cocaine crazed negroes’.” Anti-Mexican sentiments were involved in the outlawing of marijuana in the U.S.A. in 1937; allegedly marijuana was mostly used by Mexicans, and it allegedly made them violent.
The Downward Spiral: Circular Reasoning
Johnson & Weisheit (1992) investigated citizen opinion regarding public views of marijuana and the law; apparently the political rhetoric is confusing citizens. In general, they found that public supported tougher marijuana sanctions and believed that reducing or eliminating the current marijuana laws would result in an increase in crime. Confusingly enough, the same citizens stated that they would be reluctant to contact the police when they knew of marijuana law violations and would rather channel money into prevention rather than criminal justice. Most citizens believed that even if the police force were given unlimited resources, they would still not be able to stop the drug problem, yet stated they would be willing to pay more in taxes to help the police do so. Most also believed that marijuana is addicting, acts as a gateway drug, and is morally wrong.
Numerous studies have shown that marijuana is not addicting. Marijuana only appears to be a gateway drug due to its technical illegality and the behavior associated with getting marijuana is close to that of other drugs than alcohol; as with other businesses, drug dealers try to up-sell their customer to something ‘bigger and better’ than marijuana. “Morally wrong” could also be used to describe ‘laws’ to limit one’s constitutional rights by preventing them from partaking in a substance that is arguably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, with no victims other than the self due to the substance and effects on the person itself. Through my personal experience I have found that non-users of drugs tend to group users and abusers of drugs together, and though contact with users and abusers, they feel they are separate from one another, even to the point that drug users will show utter contempt for drug abusers; not for using the drug, but allowing the drug to control the abuser.
An excellent example of how political rhetoric somehow dissociates ‘safe’ substances from ‘dangerous’ substances. Between 1908 and 1917 even alcohol was illegal in 34 U.S.A. states, the result: a 16% increase in alcohol consumption (Ray, 1972, p. 83). Was it the illegality of alcohol at this time that caused the increase? I believe it is probable, but as Dowling (1994, 1995) states, the greatest harm is done when drugs are considered illegal, irregardless of their physiological effects. Dowling states that in 1996 there were 37 heroin-related deaths in Holland, most were foreigners, afraid to call for an ambulance; this compared to the 642 deaths in Australia the same year, most due to impurities as a result of the illegal nature of heroine compared to 1980, before the war on drugs had hit Australia, the heroine-related deaths was 90 in that year.
Apparently the ‘just say no’ campaign using the egg in the hot frying pan, or the cerebral cortex of coloured wires getting snipped and smoldering, stating “This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” leaves many questions. Among them could be “How is my brain like an egg? And how are drugs like a frying pan? Isn’t that what eggs and frying pans are intended for? Does your brain actually smolder and lesion when you do drugs?” The rhetoric has to be this thick: if it didn’t cloud the vision of the public, then people would be able to see right through it, and the politicians would lose a perfectly good campaign slogan and scapegoat.
Research in Jamaica
In Jamaica marijuana, or ganja as it is called there, is legal; it grows in the streets and is part of the social fabric (Dreher, 1982, p. 197). Contrary to what some believe such as D.E. Smith(1968, p 24, as cited in Dreher, 1982, p. 197) the amotivational syndrome allegedly caused by marijuana use does not exist in Jamaica, but rather smoking marijuana has the opposite effect. This means that, on average, people who smoke marijuana in Jamaica, compared to people who do not smoke marijuana in Jamaica, seem to not show symptoms of amotivational syndrome such as “impairment of the ability to work, apathy, lethargy, unsound judgment, and detachment from reality” (Dreher, 1982, p.197). These conclusions are also enriched by the opinions of the workers themselves, such as “When crop is on I “eat” the weed. It mek (lets me) feel workish.”(Dreher, 1982, p173). Dreher (1982, p. 198) points out that cross-cultural studies undermine the North American and European belief that cannabis use is linked (as a substance) to deviance, rebellion, relief of boredom, and as a gateway drug, leading to more dangerous and harmful substances. This is an excellent example of how the same substance viewed in two different cultures can be associated with positive or negative effects. The physiological effects of the substance does not change, but the behavior, seen in stigmatization and laws, is different, showing contrary beliefs. The difference is the Jamaican belief that marijuana increases productivity is supported by empirical evidence of measurable productivity (Dreher, 1982, pp. 180-181).
Painkillers: which one would you choose?
Two painkilling drugs will be explained in this section without reference to their real names or legality. The reader will only be told the possible side effects of each as stated by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (AHFS) Drug Information 2001 book, a very respective medical reference used by doctors as objective information dealing with prescriptions of drugs. It is your job to pick which drug you would ask for if you were in mild, moderate, or severe pain without any reference to legality. Painkiller-B (PK-B) (AHFS, 2001, p. 1993) is the stronger of the two drugs, insofar as it will reduce pain more than painkiller-A (PK-A) (AHFS, 2001, p. 1917) before symptoms of overdose occur.
PK-A has side effects of use that include: anorexia, peptic ulcer, GI bleeding (Gastro-Intestinal bleeding, sometimes resulting in death), dizziness, nervousness, headache, lightheadedness, anxiety, confusion, mental depression, combativeness, lethargy, hypotension, tinnitus, decreased hearing, and has been linked to hallucinations, parasthesia, pseudo tumor cerebri, and cataracts. Overdose is shown by symptoms of seizures, coma, acute renal (kidney) failure, apnea (failure to breath not due to respiratory failure), and respiratory failure. This drug is taken usually in tabular form, but sometimes it is mixed with a liquid and drank.
PK-B has side effects of use that include: respiratory depression, respiratory arrest, respiratory shock, circulatory arrest, dizziness, calcium depletion, visual disturbances, mental clouding or depression, sedation, coma, euphoria, dysphoria, weakness, faintness, agitation, restlessness, nervousness, seizures, nausea, vomiting, constipation, impotence, lowered libido, flushed face, muscle tremors, twitches, delirium, disorientation, dry mouth, physical dependence. Many of the symptoms described above are related to overdose levels that must be injected intravenously; there are no reported cases of death resulting from the usual form of ingestion (Baden & Roach, 2001, pp. 68, 75).
My question to you is simple: which of these two drugs are more dangerous? Or to rephrase “Which of these drugs would you choose to take if you were in mild, moderate, or severe pain?” Both have the effect of reducing pain, but PK-B is more able than PK-A at a prescribed dosage. PK-B does seem to have more immediate life-threatening side effects, while PK-A seems to have side effects that seem to be more gradual, with the exception of acute renal failure, apnea, and respiratory failure. PK-B seems to have many contradicting, and thus most likely unpredictable, side effects such as sedation and agitation, euphoria and dysphoria. PK-A does seem to make the person tenser by symptoms of anxiety, combativeness, mental depression, nervousness, and malaise. PK-B has no reported causes of death from its usual form of ingestion, whereas PK-A has shown numerous deaths due to its usual form of ingestion. Finally, PK-B is rather hard to obtain and PK-A is easily obtained, often the mere asking of 4-5 nearby people, from personal experience, will result in free PK-A. If it has not yet been guessed, PK-A is a legal painkiller, whereas PK-B is not. Many people, from personal experience, do not accept the risks and possible side effects of Ibuprofen, and refuse to listen to the possible medicinal properties of heroin and other opiates. The side effects of PK-B shown above are those of heroine combined with those of opiates in general, whereas the side effects of PK-A above are solely those of Ibuprofen, and not of the general class of drugs to which it belongs. This was done deliberately to counterbalance any bias of my own to persuade the reader to pick PK-B over PK-A, but should be mentioned.
A possible counter-argument to the example I have shown here could be stated that “Ibuprofen is not addictive, but heroine is, and that makes a large difference.” Yes heroin is addictive, as Dowling (1994, 1995) admits, 1% of army veterans that used heroin as a painkiller became dependent, but at the same time over 15% of people using alcohol become dependent. Dowling mentions that typical heroin use results in a passive and peaceful mood, whereas alcohol use results in “boorish and aggressive” behavior. Dowling also mentions there is no cellular damage associated with heroin use, but extensive damage results from alcohol use, such as in the nervous system, heart, brain, liver, foetal, circulation, kidneys, and other areas. This evidence is further supported by Holland (2001) stating the estimated U.S. deaths in 1998 attributed to substances were: tobacco with 400 000, alcohol with 110 000, prescription drugs with 100 000, over-the-counter-painkillers with 7 600, and MDMA with 9 deaths.
The purpose of this exercise is to show the arbitrary nature of which drugs are considered legal and illegal, at least in terms of health risks. I hope that you may have had trouble weighing the pros and cons of each drug mentioned, showing that a person informed on the effects rather than the legality of drugs will have problems deciding which of two drugs they would use in different instances. I have found people to base their decisions on the legality of a drug rather than its effects when posing the same question to them in daily conversation; my goal here was to keep you blind to the legality of two painkillers and to only concentrate on the health risks involved and have you base yourdecision on the relevant information or effects, rather than irrelevant legalities, whichever drug you chose.
Taking the Black off the Black Market
Yves Lavigne, a famous journalist who managed to be accepted and document the Hells Angels while undercover, wrote a 1999 book titled “Death Dealers”, in it he explains the power illegal drugs have for those who control them, among other things. He states “One Hells Angels’ lab in central Ohio can produce $14 million of speed [methamphetamine] a month.”(p. 347) and that “The Hells Angels became the country’s top crank [methamphetamine] producers…Four Angels made $6 million selling crank [methamphetamine] at the wholesale level between 1976 and 1979.”(p.346-347). These are rather large figures when it is taken into account that the first quote is only one of many labs, and it is 14 million dollars per month: $168 million per year per lab. Yves Lavigne includes a statement from Sterling Johnson, Jr., special narcotics prosecutor for New York City inside the front cover of his book: “Drugs are to organized crime what gasoline is to the automobile.” An interesting analogy, but it does seem to have some truth to it: organized crime does depend heavily on illegal drugs for income. As Lavigne states “The Hells Angels and traditional organized crime operate the same way…drug trafficking is the Hells Angels’ main source of income, the club is involved in countless other crimes…arson, assault, blackmail, bombing, burglary, corruption…gun running, insurance fraud, international white slavery…murder…weapons thefts from military bases.”(p.345) Therefore, illegal drugs are a major support for this organization, and others.
Not only are drugs a source of power for organized crime, but drugs such as Ecstasy, also known as MDMA, are often manufactured with additives such as amphetamine and ketamine (Holland, 2001, p.90) and sold to buyers under the impression that they are receiving pure MDMA. This poses serious health risks, especially when an overdose occurs due to impurities. Dowling (1994, 1995) states that authorities in Holland arrive at raves to test the purity and strength of MDMA being sold, but do not interfere with the distribution insofar as reporting the purity and strength would be considered interfering. To reduce such a support would invariably reduce the power of such an organization involved in a variety of crimes. There is no reference I know of that links organized crime to legal drugs, let alone ‘undercutting’ the prices of the legitimate market. It follows logically then, that if the drugs were decriminalized, and allowed to all members of society at reasonable prices, then organized crime would need to find another form of income, and thus, power. If organized crime is unable to recover from such power depletion, then it may follow that their power to do other monetary-dependent crimes will deplete as well.
The Next Step
Hopefully by this point it has become painfully obvious that many of the drugs that are illegal today are illegal for racial and political reasons. The damage caused by such substances lies not in their physical qualities, but rather the behavior of the individual in society, which is largely effected by the substance’s labeled illegal quality. The current illegal nature of many substances harm many: the user is labeled as the abuser and used as a scapegoat, organized crime profits, making itself more powerful for other crimes, the country loses money into a cause that comes back on them to only make the problem worse, possible medicinal properties of drugs are not used, abusers are stigmatized and often do not get treatment. But at least the politicians win: they have an ever-present scapegoat that cannot stand up for itself, manifested in those on the margins of society who are silenced, and manifested in those inside society who silence themselves to keep themselves from the margins. The war on drugs confuses the public; they do not know which course of action is more helpful because the rhetoric is so thick. The decriminalization of psychoactive substances, therefore, will bring the users in from the margins, help the abusers with the money saved from the legal costs, produce a business for the country to tax, allow people to choose their own actions, undercut the black market, thereby reducing the power of organized crime, and allow people to not only accept the substances for their effects, but also learn the complete effects of all substances regardless of their current legal status. The lack of a good scapegoat in political campaigns will also increase concentration on important issues, such as how to help those in society, rather than wasting money and lives in jails.