Shapiro on Drugs & Drug Policy  (in James E. White text) 

Focus: Many paternalistic arguments for prohibiting access to narcotics & other drugs is that they are ADDICTIVE.

WHAT IS ADDICTION? The STANDARD view says that it involves cravings that produce compulsive behavior, acquired tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms when one stops using.

But these are symptoms; they don't really explain addiction. Drugs aren't the only things that combine these symptoms. Furthermore, the "compulsion" doesn't FORCE a response and the withdrawal problems from illegal drugs are mild compared to nicotine.

MOST USERS OF ILLEGAL DRUGS NEVER BECOME ADDICTED. (Almost no one who uses them regularly are daily users)

PEOPLE WHO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITIES (e.g. who want to raise a family, maintain a marriage, hold a job) either LIMIT their intake or STOP USING after a while. This would not be true if these drugs were addictive in the way that tobacco is.

THESIS: People with "rich" lives don't become addicted.

NON-STANDARD VIEW OF DRUGS: We don't respond to narcotics automatically; we respond by interpreting what we think we're encountering.  Example: People who need pain killers in hospital care seldom leave as "addicts" despite having large, continuous doses. The SETTING determines whether they continue to seek the drugs, and the change of settings makes them not regard them as desirable any more.

Example: Large numbers of US soldiers in the Vietnam conflict were heroin users; of those who tried it, 75% became addicted, half of whom quit after returning home, 38% used only occasionally, and only 12% were still "addicts" (daily users). In other words, 88% of the addicts stopped being addicts when the situation made it irresponsible to be one.

Example: There is a close link between alcohol use and violence in Scandinavia (e.g. major study in Finland) but no such link is found in Greece or in the Mediterranean. The former has high rates of alcoholism; the Mediterranean does not, DESPITE having very high consumption rates. EXPLANATION: In the former culture, people learn to associate alcohol with violence & getting drunk, but in the latter they do not, so most drinkers in each culture behave accordingly. SOCIAL SETTING matters more than the chemical.

Looking at COCAINE users, middle class users were far less likely to "abuse" the drug than lower class users. In the one case, there are more SOCIAL CONTROLS to reduce "addiction"

Besides social setting, we need to think about the individual's SET point (i.e., personal expectations, values, personality).

THESIS: Distinct "sets" lead to addiction & behavioral problems, not the drug itself. (E.g., told that they are drinking alcohol, college-age men behave "drunk" and become more violent, even when they have received no alcohol)

WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON? Psychologically healthy people respond with greater personal control. Drug addicts INDEPENDENTLY manifest a wide range of behavior disorders & undesirable personality traits.

VERY CRUDE SUMMARY: Drugs don't create losers. Drug attract losers! (Drugs don't create addicts. Addicts go looking for drugs)

SECOND ARGUMENT: "Pharmacology and setting interact" Legal drugs are allowed in a wider range of settings, and their potency is kept low. Illegal markets are aimed at abusers, so potency is high.

In a middle-class or upper-class life setting, legal narcotics will therefore be consumed at lower potency, only occasionally, and will cause few problems. In this setting drugs are a social habit, not a personal one.

There are no addictive drugs. There are, instead, drug problems that arise when a SET interacts with a permissive SETTING.

OBJECTION: We don't want heroin use to be as widespread as tobacco use!

REPLY: Why not? If the hypothesis about set & setting is correct, then few problems would result, because most people just aren't willing to destroy their lives through excessive consumption.