Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Is This Option Beyond the Pale for Heroin Addicts?
Ted Scheinman has a piece up at Pacific Standard arguing that there already exists an effective means of helping heroin addicts conquer their enslavement to the drug:
There is only one short-term chemical therapy that actually obviates the wrenching withdrawal symptoms of any opiate. This therapy involves the administration of a therapeutic dose of ibogaine, an alkaloid derivative of a family of plants in Central West Africa that Bwiti worshipers have long used as a visionary sacrament. A dissociative and powerful psychedelic compound, ibogaine induces a dream-state described variously as beatific, clarifying, and terrifying; the after-effects, usually a hazy state of dull relaxation, can last a number of days. In the majority of reported cases in Europe and Africa, cravings disappear once the psychoactive iboga wears off…
This treatment is scarcely even spoken of, let alone officially researched, because ibogaine is itself a psychedelic drug:
Most scientists at R1 schools (especially those with a research budget to lose) are uncomfortable speaking publicly about the treatment because to do so is to league oneself with the black sheep of the American scientific community—psychedelic researchers, a culture still stained by the legacy of Timothy Leary’s decades-long LSD boosterism. Even tenured researchers express a certain skittishness when the subject arises.
There is one organization, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), that is pursuing research on the use of ibogaine for heroin addiction. MAPS is conducting studies of the long-term effects of ibogaine on patients undergoing therapy at independent treatment centers in Mexico and New Zealand. Rick Doblin, a public policy Ph.D. from Harvard’s Kennedy School who co-founded MAPS, advocates a multilateral treatment program that combines ibogaine with “collaborative rehab and the talking cure.”
The war on drugs is costing taxpayers an annual $51 billion and accomplishing very little. Surely it’s reasonable to suggest that a portion of that whopping tally be expended for research into a practical solution to the nightmare of addiction? Where is the logic in the continued refusal to countenance research into the beneficial effects of psychedelic drugs?
Published in General
Demand creates supply, not the other way round. The focus of the drug war is faulty because the ‘enemy’ is within. The driver is the desire for drugs at home, not drug lords with difficult names in foreign countries.
Ten years ago Portugal decriminalised all drugs – which allowed them to put money that would have gone to enforcement and prosecution towards treatment and help instead. Their results have been good. Their focus is addiction rather than drug use per se.
Worth considering if we’re interested in reducing drug use and addiction more than we are invested in being right.
Let’s see. AA rescues tens of thousands from alcoholism a year (my Dad swore by it for thirty years). If you could report out a similar recovery rate from heroin addiction, we would probably not be arguing.
‘Sugar addiction’ being comparable to ‘heroin addiction’? Have we really lost the discriminating knack to distinguish these two?
…
…the number of deaths we have suffered in the last few years to terrorism in this_country (= 3). …
I guess you are also going to do something to prevent the scourge of alcohol, right? You are going to ban cigarettes and wipe out lung cancer, and outlaw corn syrup to combat deaths from obesity and diabeies too.
Tis’ you who is not adequately making distinctions. Because heroin is bad for you you wish to amp up the drug war. So corn syrup is bad for you, alcohol is bad for you what do you propose to do about those things? That’s the question.
As an experienced user who was struggling with his obsession, he probably had no way to evaluate the purity of the heroin he injected that ultimately killed him.
Among many things I don’t understand about addiction, it has always surprised me that people like PSH, who probably strap a seat belt on in their car, will put their very lives in the hands of people who sell heroin for a living. Whether ultra pure or just mixed with some deadly substance to enhance the dealer’s profit, how could one ever think that’s a chance worth taking? Someone is handing you plastic bags from God-knows-where, filled by God-knows-who with God-knows-what and you pump it into your veins?
Is there no relatively simple and relatively inexpensive way to test this junk and at least get an idea of whether it’s super pure or poison before you stick it into your bloodstream? You are a human guinea pig every time you make a score? Madness indeed.
Not to make light of a serious problem, but the last time I came across ibogaine was in 1972 when Hunter Thompson claimed in “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign trail” that Ed Muskie’s behavior could only be explained by his use of it. “It is entirely conceivable — given the known effects of Ibogaine — that Muskie’s brain was almost paralyzed by hallucinations at the time; that he looked out at that crowd and saw gila monsters instead of people, and that his mind snapped completely when he felt something large and apparently vicious clawing at his legs. We can only speculate on this, because those in a position to know have flatly refused to comment on rumors concerning the Senator’s disastrous experiments with Ibogaine.”
Yes. And it needs to be pointed out that Thompson admitted much later that he had made the story up to discredit Muskie.
Shows if you lie outlandishly more people are inclined to believe you.
Let’s see. AA rescues tens of thousands from alcoholism a year (my Dad swore by it for thirty years). If you could report out a similar recovery rate from heroin addiction, we would probably not be arguing.
‘Sugar addiction’ being comparable to ‘heroin addiction’? Have we really lost the discriminating knack to distinguish these two?
I guess you are also going to do something to prevent the scourge of alcohol, right? You are going to ban cigarettes and wipe out lung cancer, and outlaw corn syrup to combat deaths from obesity and diabeies too.
Tis’ you who is not adequately making distinctions. Because heroin is bad for you you wish to amp up the drug war. So corn syrup is bad for you, alcohol is bad for you what do you propose to do about those things? That’s the question
This is utter drivel. I presume that you consider murder should be outlawed – “because it is bad” for the victim and his family, eh?
Should I conclude from that that you want to outlaw serving corn syrup to other folks then? Seems to be how you are ‘reasoning’ above. Crazy.
… In fact, the approach is a demonstrated failure. How else to explain the explosive increase in heroin supply in the NYC area four decades into this strategy?
And, according to the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy report, prices of illicit substances have fallen and purity increased during the “war on drugs.” So, if we could exterminate every leader of organized drug supplies today, the vacancies would be filled by nightfall.
As we on Ricochet know, individuals respond in their actions according to the incentives before them. As long as there is tremendous profit in manufacturing, transporting and distributing illicit drugs, they will be made available. It seems to me reasonable at this point, given the enormous amount of anti-social activity created by the illegalityof drugs, it is worth a try at decriminalizing and regulating them, like alcohol. Yes, alcohol still causes 88,000 deaths annually (CDC), but organized gangs, murderers, muggers, robbers are not at work supplying it or supporting habits. Respond to the evidence.
You forget the sheer joy to be had from killing drug pushers. Don’t forget that now.
Interesting calculus Fred. How about if we repeal the Federal welfare state. That should save us more than $51B. ·9 hours ago
For the record, I am 100% in favor of repealing both.
One seems like it would be a hell of a lot easier than the other. But considering how many conservatives are kicking and screaming while holding onto marijuana prohibition, I’m not gonna hold my breath.
Hey Manfred, I suggest you start your own post about how you would solve the drug problem in America instead of dumbing-down this discussion.
Yes. And it needs to be pointed out that Thompson admitted much later that he had made the story up to discredit Muskie.
Shows if you lie outlandishly more people are inclined to believe you. ·1 hour ago
I think his readers were sufficiently clued in to know this was wild satire.
I did a lot of research for the three novels I wrote last year. The Heroin Trade was a big part of my second two. I don’t claim to be an expert on addiction, but when I heard and read that Philip Seymour Hoffman was found with a syringe in his arm, I knew that he had injected an unexpected, ultra pure dose and was probably dead before he he could pull it out.
In my second novel, The High Fortress, one of the characters remarked that it wasn’t good for business to kill your customers.
Sadly, Philip Seymour Hoffman did business with dealers who didn’t mind if he died.
He obviously injected a purity of heroin that he had never experienced and that is part of the reason why he died. As an experienced user who was struggling with his obsession, he probably had no way to evaluate the purity of the heroin he injected that ultimately killed him. I do not regard his death as a suicide. He probably thought he was in control.
Obviously, if had he not been a user he would have survived.
All treatments that address a human subject as if he’s nothing more than a biological organism are in danger of doing more harm than good. ·14 hours ago
Edited 14 hours ago
kati,
You might call it “The War on the Soul”. The left has been waging this war for quite some time and with great success. Two world wars, a holocaust, the destruction of marriage & family. Yes, “The War on the Soul” is going quite well. Why go with a loser like fighting the perversity of a drug obsessed society. Why defend antiquated institutions like marriage & family against sexual perversity of every kind.
Hey man let’s get with the program. Let’s go with the flow. Let’s ride with the tide. Join “The War on the Soul” today!
Regards,
Jim
Don’t use drugs or alcohol and teach your children to do likewise. Or, use them and roll the dice of addiction – simple choice, really.
Regarding Hoffman’s death, I found this blog article extremely interesting; it seems our interaction with these chemicals is a lot more complex than it seems on the surface.
I have no personal experience with any of this stuff, thank God! So this is the opinion of a goody-two-shoes suburban kid.
Current medical treatments for a lot of things include prescriptions for addictive substances that are subject to abuse (and a lot of them get abused). And they have side-effects – known and unknown. So if research indicates that prescribing a substance that is subject to abuse might free someone from addiction to another substance that is subject to abuse, how does it not make sense to investigate further, and find ways in which to get the good effect while minimizing the bad? The extensive discussion about the morality of using any of it in the first place seems to miss the morality of helping folks struggling with an awful thing.
I can’t forgive folks like yourself that create such a permissive attitude toward consumption of any substance remotely related to this category – you are the enablers. Social opprobrium should be your lot, not cozy converse on blogs like this.
What is immoral about taking psychedelic drugs? I know a lot of people like yourself believe that, I don’t know what basis they have for those beliefs.
You haven’t answered the question. You are just getting self-righteous and huffy.
I don’t believe that I’m creating any permissive attitude or enabling anyone. I don’t have that high opinion of my force in the world. I’m not changing your mind am I? I don’t have that kind of power.
I would venture that people who have unreasonable and ignorant opinions about drugs and prostelatize, have done a much better job enabling people to become addicts.
Really?
Compare that number above with the number of deaths we have suffered in the last few years to terrorism in this country (= 3). And how much do we spend in anti-terrorism efforts, BTW?
OK … that’s about 6/10ths of one percent of the population. We’re $17 Trillion in debt. How much more you want to spend on this 6/10ths of one percent? Whatever it takes?
I guess you are also going to do something to prevent the scourge of alcohol, right? You are going to ban cigarettes and wipe out lung cancer, and outlaw corn syrup to combat deaths from obesity and diabeies too.
You don’t give a $%$# about 2.1 million (multiple thousands of deaths) Americans?
It’s true. I don’t care about throwing money at a problem that money can’t solve. I’m odd this way. I actually think that this much debt requires us to make choices, not just shout and wave our arms about.
And when it comes to choices between spending money and accomplishing nothing, or not spending money that accomplishes nothing . . . oddly, I think that’s not a terribly difficult choice to make.
You, on the other hand, should run for office. Lord knows one can’t get elected with my views on fiscal probity.
I haven’t answered because_it_requires_dignifying_a_stupid_question. But here goes anyway. Taking these drugs can be considered immoral as forbidden by Biblical and other religious teaching, let alone what Reason dictates as healthy for human development, etc., etc..
You may well reply,
“It happens that I am not a Christian, or not hospitable to Biblical injunctions, so up yours about your preachy ways.”
And then I will reply:
“Well, so good as far as that goes; what you do with your body and mind is your business – normally. But here’s the rub – I am raising my kids in a community that you are polluting by being permissive of drug use that I abhor, and enabling my kids to be exposed to, whether you intend to or not.
And that, my friend, is what you fail to reckon with, just as you fail to reckon with your (albeit indirect) complicity in the access of heroin to these addicts.
What is immoral about taking psychedelic drugs? I know a lot of people like yourself believe that, I don’t know what basis they have for those beliefs.
You haven’t answered the question. You are just getting self-righteous and huffy.
Your views on fiscal astringency are admirable, and ones I share. But you haven’t even begun to deal honestly with the Drug War issue, and that is why you shouldn’t be elected. As I have said previously, we spend lots of money on that war, but, alas not wisely. Certainly not with the conviction we spend on the War against Terror (that may not be named), thanks in no small part to the Franco’s of this world.
As I asked previously, “how many drug lords have we killed with drones?” Answer: Zero.
You don’t give a $%$# about 2.1 million (multiple thousands of deaths) Americans?
It’s true. I don’t care about throwing money at a_problem_that_money can’t solve. I’m_odd_this_way. I actually think that this much debt requires us to make choices, not just shout and wave our arms about.
And when it comes to choices between spending money and accomplishing nothing, or not spending money that accomplishes nothing . . . oddly, I think that’s not a terribly difficult choice to make.
You, on the other hand, should run_for_office. Lord knows one can’t get elected with my views on fiscal probity.
You don’t give a $%$# about 2.1 million (multiple thousands of deaths/year) Americans?
It’s true. …
P.S. You should.
I suspect last night’s psychedelics still linger. But am I the only to see any similarities in photos? The hand to the face, the hair over the left eye…
Crow’s nest, I read TNT and it’s consistent with what I knew already. What is interesting at the end is they seem to hold the illusion that this is some winnable hearts and minds kind of war in spite of the timeline. I find that immensely amusing in a very sad way.
Anyone ever wonder why the French fought at Dien Bien Phu? It was outside effective artillery range other than what they had at the outposts there. It was far from air support and the monsoon was upon them. Why indeed because it was in a valley surrounded by great offensive terrain for Gen Giap. It turns out the outpost was key to the Golden Triangle and the profit from the narcotics trade was critical for either side to control.
I pulled this gem from the net……. By the time the Vietnam War was in full swing, the CIA and its Vietnamese underlings were busily peddling huge amounts of Heroin from the Golden Triangle region of Southeast Asia. Historically, the French controlled the Opium trade in this part of the world. After WW11 it was agreed that members of the underworld would manage Opium smuggling on behalf of 2eme Bureau of French Military Intelligence. This was the top secret project known as Operation X, sanctioned at the highest levels. Raw opium was cultivated by the Hmong hill tribes and then trucked to Saigon. Here it was turned over to the Binh Xuyen bandits for distribution throughout the City. At this point, members of the Corsican underworld took their share of the drugs, shipping them to Marseilles and then to America. This smuggling route later became known as the “French Connection.” Captain Savani of 2eme supervised the entire arrangement.
Here’s the rest…..With the embarrassing defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, the French began to withdraw her forces from Indochina. This resulted in top CIA operative, Major General Edward Lansdale being sent to Saigon. A year earlier, during a fact finding mission to the region, Lansdale had learned of the existence of Operation X. There now ensued a power struggle between the remnants of 2eme, along with their Corsican gangsters and Lansdale’s American team under the watchful eye of CIA director, Allen Dulles. Open battles were fought in the streets and Lansdale, more than once came close to death. However, the die had been cast. The French were “out” and the Americans were “in,” and the Opium trade began to rapidly grow
Almost all we see and hear should be interpreted in the context of the giant game of thrones that has been going on a long long time in which we are pawns or fairly ignorant observers.
As I asked previously, “how many drug lords have we killed with drones?” Answer: Zero.
You might want to consider if the way we are fighting the war on drugs isn’t a reflection on who we are and what we are capable of doing. After all, we’ve been at it for nearly five decades. It might be more than just bad luck or coincidence that we’re unsuccessful at it.
As I said in a much earlier post, we lack the ruthlessness to win the drug war. Whether that’s good or bad–a reflection of our high moral standards or abject stupidity–I’ll let others decide. But either way, what’s the answer as to why we can’t seem to drop drug lords with drone strikes? It’s not because we lack the technology, obviously . . . we’ve killed lots of Taliban and Pakistanis.
Just saying we could win a war isn’t the same as explaining why we have not.
So what is the result of shaming, supply disruption and the largest per capita prison population in the world – i.e. the “war on drugs?” More addicts than ever. Shall we do more of the same? Sounds like the usual progressive answer when government programs fail.
You didn’t read my first post. I decidedly differentiated between the two there. Pay attention.
I can’t forgive folks like yourself that create such apermissive attitude toward consumption of any substance remotely related to this category- you are the enablers. Social opprobrium should be your lot, not cozy converse on blogs like this.
What is immoral about taking psychedelic drugs? I know a lot of people like yourself believe that, I don’t know what basis they have for those beliefs.
You are merely displaying ignorance and inability to reason. To your mind they are related (if remotely) and this notion is based on ignorance. Because they are both illegal and both called drugs they are the same to you, but they are most definately not the same ….
… substances ibogaine here- can help people overcome addiction (not just withdrawl symptoms) and thus reduce -perhaps significantly, the problem.