The war on drugs has failed: doctors should lead calls for drug policy reform

My dad recently retired after 30 years of practicing oncology and hematology in a private practice ran with a female colleague, located in an office building adjacent to a very large regional hospital. He also worked a supervising shift in the ER every Thursday night, simply because he found it easier to be in the ER since so many of his patients visited it while he was oncall, sometimes forcing him to go in anyway.<p>I guess you could say I enjoy recreational drugs and have done them all and my dad generally knows this and we&#x27;ve talked quite a bit about drugs, specifically the insane amount of opiates and benzos he used to prescribe to his cancer patients.<p>I&#x27;ve sort of gotten the impression the DEA was a hassle in his life and he would not want any attention gained by publicly saying anything but &quot;drugs are bad&quot; (aka the failed war on drugs). There would be no incentive for him to do this on a day to day basis; in fact, there would only be disincentives, at least in the short term.<p>One day in the early 00s, the DEA showed up at his practice unannounced and wanted to start auditing him on the spot. They told him he was in the top 10 opiate prescribers in his area and they were concerned. They had absolutely no paperwork, so my dad kicked them out of his office, and later the building via security. He told them to come back with a warrant. They never did.<p>What struck me about this story is how visibly upset he got at the idea of the DEA depriving people of comfort when they are in pain. When he told me this he said, very emotionally, &quot;These people are dying and in pain and they want to look at paperwork?&quot; I can only imagine how pissed off he was when it happened.<p>This anecdote is all to say I think that doctors probably take one look at any effort to delegitimize the war on drugs and say Nope. What&#x27;s the point? To help society? Like they do every day as doctors? I just have never felt much of a &quot;let&#x27;s rock the boat&quot; attitude from any doctors I&#x27;ve known personally regarding drug laws (keep in mind they live in a bubble where all of the drugs are available to them via an Rx pad -- this is very relevant to the enthusiasm drought IMO).<p>Based on a lifetime of being around doctors as personal and family friends (my mom is a medical doctor too), I don&#x27;t think doctors are going to pick up this cause enthusiastically, even if it makes sense on paper.

This call seems problematic.<p>Doctors suffer from a kind of bias-- not sure the name of it-- but they only see people when they have problems. The only time doctors encounter the human experience of LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. is when something has gone wrong.<p>Unless the doctor has spent a lot of time at music festivals, burning man, etc. they<p>Sure, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, and causes all kinds of ill health, chronic conditions, emergency room visits, accidents, etc. But, because most doctors have had a typical experience with alcohol, from trying it as a teenager, binge drinking at college, and now social&#x2F;casual drinking, they think it&#x27;s safe, because they&#x27;ve had lots of experiences that didn&#x27;t end with someone going to the hospital.<p>I&#x27;m not sure what the best route is for this, but asking doctors to take lead on this doesn&#x27;t seem like an effective campaign.

Our laws on drugs are really quite arbitrary. In the UK people have factual evidence showing that drugs such as MDMA causes both less physiological and social harm than alcohol[0] so it&#x27;s not really that we are trying to prevent harm rather than can&#x27;t prohibit a behaviour that is now deeply ingrained in society.<p>Humans love intoxication. It&#x27;s as old as time, with mountain people chewing coca leaves or brewing mescaline tea. Even in cultures where alcohol is banned such as the middle east, they simply found alternatives like coffee and tobacco.<p>[0]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.co.uk&#x2F;amp&#x2F;s&#x2F;amp.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2009&#x2F;oct&#x2F;29&#x2F;nutt-drugs-policy-reform-call" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.co.uk&#x2F;amp&#x2F;s&#x2F;amp.theguardian.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;...</a>

And yet Jeff Sessions, Trump&#x27;s nominee for Attorney General, is one of the most notorious anti-drug (particularly anti-pot) politicians around: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.csmonitor.com&#x2F;USA&#x2F;Justice&#x2F;2016&#x2F;1122&#x2F;As-Trump-s-AG-how-might-Sessions-crack-down-on-recreational-marijuana" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.csmonitor.com&#x2F;USA&#x2F;Justice&#x2F;2016&#x2F;1122&#x2F;As-Trump-s-AG...</a>

We don&#x27;t need doctors to point out that the War on Drugs is bound to perpetual failure. Don&#x27;t even need a scholar. Anyone with two eyes wired to a working brain would reach the same conclusion. That being said, the more people speak up, the closer draws the day where we may transition drug policy into a saner state.<p>It&#x27;s all rooted in good intentions, of course, as was the US ban on alcohol a century ago. But sometimes the road to mafias and murderous drug cartels is paved with good intentions. Time to wake up.

The alcohol and tobacco lobbyists will be dead set against the removal of prohibition. Although alcohol and other drugs tend to go together when binging, the amount of alcohol consumed will likely be less. Additionally a mild drug like Marijuana will likely be preferred by some people who would traditionally have a glass of wine or beer every day after work instead of a stronger and more dangerous drug like Alcohol.

Private Prisons (through their lobbyists) are likely one of the main opposers of loosening the War on Drugs. We don&#x27;t know clearly what they lobby for - they would never admit it publicly, but it is not hard to guess. Stopping the War on Drugs would be a cut to their profit margins.<p>Snopes dissected this a bit: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;drug-law-lobbying-by-corrections-corporation-of-america&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.snopes.com&#x2F;drug-law-lobbying-by-corrections-corpo...</a>

Couldn&#x27;t read the article, but I think the issue is that doctors aren&#x27;t <i>directly</i> more qualified to call for drug policy reform than anyone else.<p>Hear me out: Doctors are aware of the side effects and dangers of drugs, and the harm they cause people who take enough drugs to require medical help.<p>However, a doctor isn&#x27;t specifically informed about the cost of prison, the damage imprisoning someone does to their families, and their communities, and their prospects for rehabilitation.<p>Drug policy reform calls for a comparison of the impact of softening drug law against the social impact of imprisoning the people we enforce drug laws on.<p>There just isn&#x27;t a profession with credible authority in that specific area. It&#x27;s sort of like what a public policy think tank should make a recommendation based on. But I don&#x27;t think any corporate interests align with the message enough to fund that sort of research&#x2F;lobbying.

It&#x27;s amazing that we just still live in a system where the people who methodically know nothing about something can end up controlling the majority share.

The war on drugs was never about health, but was about racism. One poster talked of Chasing the Scream which details this. So the idea that doctors should be advocates for the ending of the WoD just continues the false rationalisation that health is at the heart of the WoD. I can ask 1 question which will show that health has nothing to do with it: why is hemp illegal?<p>What is at the heart of ending the WoD is human rights; a topic which doctors have no more knowledge than anyone else.

We (the US) are in the middle of an opioid addiction epidemic. The surgeon general has just made this his highest priority - and physicians are now expected to take a soft stance on drug use? While I am all for reform - there seems to be a major disconnect here.

Chasing the Scream is a fantastic book on this very topic. Highly recommended.

This pub is f&#x2F;k&#x2F;a the British Medical Journal. They&#x27;re addressing a worldwide audience of physicians and health-care professionals. It seems a bit narrowminded to interpret their suggestions in a US-only context.<p>There&#x27;s plenty of evidence supporting the position of this editorial. Various nations have tried some form of decriminalization. The effects have been generally positive in places like Portugal, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.<p>It may be time for some of these nations to propose, and sign off on, an alternative to the 1951 anti-drug treaty. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...</a> Maybe physicians can lead the way in some nations.<p>But, of course, if drug users are the face of sentient evil, then decriminalizing the drugs is the same as failing to resist evil. This is why selling the idea in the US is very difficult. We&#x27;ve been taught for generations that drug users are inherently evil, and treating them is, at best, a waste of time.<p>US physicians have enough trouble with the federal government as it is. The US government has a century-long history of making the professional lives of dissenting physicians very difficult indeed. It&#x27;s unreasonable to expect many of them to embrace this cause with public speech.<p>Here in Massachusetts USA, the voters recently chose to end the prohibition on cannabis (following the lead of Colorado and Washington state). The Roman Catholic church (Boston diocese) chose to compel their clergy to speak against this initiative from their pulpits on the Sunday before election. (Huh! I thought electioneering from the pulpit was prohibited. I guess not for the RCs.) I know a couple of law-enforcement leaders who privately supported the end of prohibition, but didn&#x27;t dare speak publicly.<p>The end of prohibition has to come from voters in the US. Physicians can&#x27;t do it: the government can revoke their licenses. Legislatures can&#x27;t do it; they&#x27;re much too beholden to the military-industrial complex that fights the war on drugs. Religious leaders can&#x27;t do it: to declare that certain behaviors aren&#x27;t evil erodes their worldly authority, which comes mostly from the ability to condemn &quot;those&quot; people, whoever they are.<p>It will take a generation, or more.

There are enormous industries around WoD and we know what happens when unintended industries form in a capitalist society.

HAHA! Doctors? they are the reason for the failure. Doctors were directly responsible for the overdose and death of my wife. The epidemic of drug abuse which starts by over the counter addiction is perpetuated by DOCTORS.<p>Citizens need to lead for calls of drug policy reform. We are the masters of our destiny, The problems surrounding drug abuse directly affect US, the people who live in our communities. Start going to your local city council meetings and take a stand, voice your opinion. This isnt going to be solved by Doctors! The majority of Doctors are direct beneficiaries to this abuse. I am not saying EVERY doctor is bad, I am saying that they are part of a business and drugs are a high margin product.

Here&#x27;s a great speech on the topic that I recommend to anyone interested <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Nsu_4zsfp2M&amp;index=3&amp;list=PLKKWbWvkO0GAGTVufsIQcg-CA7PfA4dq6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Nsu_4zsfp2M&amp;index=3&amp;list=PLK...</a>

Where did the government get the authority to tell adults which drugs they can take?

I think doctors are too tightly bound to the status quo to take the kinds of professional risk by speaking out against any law, no matter how heinous.

Ok, end the war on drugs. Force the ACLU and legislatures to enact laws allowing for forcing adults into mandatory detox and&#x2F;or mental&#x2F;rehab programs based on their drug use.<p>Live in a liberal area sometime and experience the excuses and lack of action around heroin addicts and meth heads and their criminal activities for the next fix or based off their current hit...<p>Or the long term mental effects.

Has it really failed to all parties envolved? In a war, if only one side profit from it, it may not be a failure.