Who's Informing Your Drug-Use Decisions? Not the Government...

Artist: Daniel Chang

An excellent article about Erowid, everyone's favorite drug-info database.

Now I haven't used it, never ever, but I knows some friends who have, and, I hear it was quite useful. Seriously, though, this is an excellent example of why the free-market will always trump command economy production: it's ability to self-organize. These folks, Earth and Fire, seem perfect for the job, slaving away at providing a source of unbiased information, and doing it at low cost, due to their personal convictions. There's simply no chance that the government could produce a similar resource at such low cost, and use it effectively. In fact, they've tried, time* and again, to create similar resources, but with government-approved information and a biased, anti-drug agenda, which its intended audience rejects, as it doesn't take much experience to realize something isn't right. If Erowid failed as the above sites likely are, the creators would likely abandon the project to find a better use of their time, or a competitor would rise up and begin to sap away their marketshare (if they present a better alternative). Meanwhile Congress keeps shoveling your money into failed projects, like informative websites laking information, and thus, lacking viewers. Here's to informed decisions, now show Erowid a little love, if you're so inclined (they need donations).

---

The web isn't the only place that the government is failing (expensively) in it's drug deterrence efforts. They're also doing quite poorly on the television. Our very own Dr. Carson Wagner has detailed, in his research (story here), the failure of the anti-drug ads (which have cost $195 million a year in tax money for years now). Apparently, people who watch these ads are more, not less likely, to do drugs. Talk about unintended consequences!

"Years ago, I noticed that every time a news story was broadcast about illicit drug use among teens, a small epidemic would ensue," says Wagner. "Logic instructs us that news programs and anti-drug ads showing drugs in a negative light should not lead people toward drugs."

It's not simply that being exposed to the ad would make you more likely to try the drugs, but also that the research subjects who paid more attention to the ads, had more willingness to try drugs afterwards. Could it be that the government's attempt to demonize drugs instead leads subjects to consider the logic of their arguments, in light of their own experiences? The vast majority of University students use drugs in some form or another, and the vast majority of users do so responsibly. I have friends whose parents (respectable, productive people) have a stash of pot. These people don't deserve to be in jail, and I don't need the government spending hundreds of millions of dollars (and more) trying to tell me that they do.

---

While I'm on the topics of drug-use and government failure/inflexibility, I'd like to bring up the story of Ibogaine, a hallucinogen which, in recent studies and according to quite a bit of anecdotal evidence, is the perfect drug/medicine for curing addiction. Reportedly, the user enters a lucid dream-state, in which the undergo rigorous self-directed psycho-analysis. When the sober up, they find that experience no little or no withdrawal pain or cravings. Reportedly it's is effective against addictive drugs of all kinds, including Heroin, Amphetamines, and even Alcohol (which is by far the most destructive of the group). Unfortunately, it's illegal, so many addicts pay thousands to take it in international waters or in foreign nations, or are otherwise forced to live with their addiction or fight an unnecessarily difficult battle. The drug is finally going under considerations, after decades of delays, so we may finally know if it lives up to it's promise, but until then, the government will tell you it's not for you to try, and that they'll put you in jail if you do, "For your own good". Good Grief.

* www.freevibe.com is a joint project between the government and... Disney! The same Disney that, reportedly, ditched distributing Michael Moore's new film because it feared it would lose out on tax breaks it received from Florida. From the looks of it though, Eisner won't be in the mix for too much longer, if last quarter's shareholder vote is any indication (45% No Confidence). (More on the campaign to oust Eisner here)