Book Review: Chasing The Scream

 

Johann Hari’s new book, Chasing The Scream,CTS provides a broad (but not deep) history of the War on Drugs. He offers not only a convincing case for why it is counterproductive and self-defeating (it’s been said before) but why everything we think we know about addiction is wrong and why — without addressing addiction and its causes — the the war is an exercise in futility.

The book engages with a variety of viewpoints from both sides: Not just the usual prohibitionist and harm reduction positions, but also the viewpoints of law enforcement officials as well as (unusually) those of a variety of drug users.

The book comes with endorsements (on the cover, no less) from Glenn Greenwald, Stephen Fry, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and — somewhat be musingly — Elton John. I know that one or more of these names is the mark of doom for many Ricochetti, but the book contains compelling arguments and statistics worth addressing nonetheless.

It’s worth further noting that Hari has previously been accused of plagiarism and making sloppy quotations. This book seems to be an attempt to redeem himself in this sphere: Not only is it copiously footnoted, it has referenced interviews — the original sources data, if you will — available for listening to on his website.

The book was given to me by a friend who was — and perhaps still is — a drug addict and who went to jail for it. So, it also comes with at least one real-life (thinking) addict’s endorsement of the insights it claims.

I know that some among us are legal, medical, and law enforcement professionals who regularly deal with the results of drug use and the War on Drugs. I’d be very interested if any of you have read the book and, if you have, what you think of its arguments.

With the Republican primaries switching into high-gear, public debate in America is being monopolized by some big items: the Iran deal, ISIS, the deficit, etc. What, if anything, is being said by any of the presidential hopefuls — Republican or Democrat — about the drug war at home? If not much, isn’t it an important enough subject to merit some serious analysis, discussion and airtime?

Published in Domestic Policy, Law, Policing
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    John Penfold:Stopping supply cannot work. It is flatly impossible. So we must look elsewhere. As I say above we don’t like demand suppression because our kids are the problem.

    I don’t get it.  The most effective demand suppression is having people with engaged, full lives who have too much else going on to fall into addiction.  Don’t people want engaged, full lives for their kids anyway?

    • #31
  2. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Zafar:

    John Penfold:Stopping supply cannot work. It is flatly impossible. So we must look elsewhere. As I say above we don’t like demand suppression because our kids are the problem.

    I don’t get it. The most effective demand suppression is having people with engaged, full lives who have too much else going on to fall into addiction. Don’t people want engaged, full lives for their kids anyway?

    Agree, Zafar, although I believe that children are attracted to drugs much more because they are children, i.e., immature, than because they do not have full lives.  I also think that the argument about getting at the root cause is like so many other such arguments, i.e., impossible to achieve and in effect supportive of the status quo.  E.g., the root cause of poor school performance is bad parents, so schools cannot improve until bad parents are transformed into good parents.

    John, I don’t understand your argument.  It’s true that parents do not want their children to be arrested, but they pretty desperately want to keep their children from drugs.  Legalization, for instance, makes them very nervous because to the child “legal” too easily equates with “fine and dandy.”

    • #32
  3. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Zafar:

    Sandy:Do children try drugs because they feel that their lives are without meaning? Doubtful.

    Oh I agree. But do people (including children) become addicted to drugs when their lives are meaningful? Also doubtful, right?

    But more to your point, Zafar, how do you propose that we address the problem of meaningful lives? Are you joining the social conservative side? If so, yay!

    Sandy, if I knew that I’d be rich and sadly I’m not : – (

    But I do think focusing on that (including for recovering addicts) rather than on drug supply would be a good thing.

    Meanwhile, though I’m sure you won’t agree, I like the Singapore model better than the Amsterdam model.

    I don’t know what the Amsterdam model is, but why do you like the Singapore model? It sounds “tough on drugs” but – it doesn’t seem to be working. What’s so great about it?

    I’m relying on Theodore Dalrymple re: Amsterdam.  As he writes in City JournalAmsterdam, where access to drugs is relatively unproblematic, is among the most violent and squalid cities in Europe.  I can understand why you are skeptical about Singapore, but I think that critics of such programs expect too much of the programs, and have much higher than warranted expectations of their own solutions.  

    • #33
  4. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    But what about Portugal? I believe they are the only country to take that approach – decriminalize every drug – and their results apparently aren’t violent and squalid.

    • #34
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Also – I think children try drugs because they’re curious, they may use drugs because it feels good, but I don’t think they get addicted to drugs without a gap in their life.

    • #35
  6. John Penfold Member
    John Penfold
    @IWalton

    Zafar, my argument? Cocaine and Heroine powder can be reshaped and shipped in an infinite variety of ways, it cannot be stopped  When I followed the business, paste in Bolivia cost $200, wholesale cocaine outside our border sold for $2000 a kilo, already a 1000% profit, and inside our border  for $20000.  If the elasticity is anywhere near that of cigarettes a big bust would lead to an increase in prices greater than the loss and an even bigger increase in  profits.   That is why we never managed to get enough material off the market to appreciably affect prices.  Indeed the Medellin and Cali cartels sold to hundreds of small time traffickers then informed on some, cementing relations with the DEA, making wholesale profits and reducing potential competition for the retail trade.  The costs were thirty years of terrorism in Colombia, the collapse of the Colombian judicial system, not to mention the spike in murder and addiction rates in Colombia, countries along the way and in our ghettos. There were also costs from the impact of agent orange trying to kill the plants, or chemical spills by the producers.  When Uribe finally crushed the FARC which had had a rebirth exclusively because we stopped the paste trade from Bolivia, the business moved to Mexico and Central America.  The costs the US middle class pays for this insane hopeless policy are tiny in comparison.  That is my point about costs and supply and the incentives to hook kids that drive business. 

    • #36
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    John – I can’t really disagree with any of that – imo that was really persuasive.  Though while the human cost may be higher outside the US, the bill (not counting opportunity cost) is being picked up by the US taxpayer.

    I’m surprised this isn’t a political issue – it’s linked to social and financial outcomes at home and foreign relations in America’s near abroad.  Why is it not being addressed?

    • #37
  8. John Penfold Member
    John Penfold
    @IWalton

    Zafar: Why is it not being addressed?

    Well what does our political class address with seriousness?    But there are many interests that have grown up around the business who would lose, our kids would lose because if we went after demand they’d lose drivers licenses, embarrass their parents, maybe lose scholarships.  Who knows what politicians, city political machines would lose, not to mention the billion dollar drug warrior business and the cartels themselves who can spread a lot of influence money around.  It’s just easier to arrest the inner city kids who do the street retail and leave our kids alone.    We always put forward the issue as if the choice were legalize it as if it were tooth paste or candy or continue the war.  There are many choices but we haven’t had that debate.  Instead we are gradually de facto decriminalizing it but that makes it worse here.   First we have to have the debate,  and it has to be long and serious because Congress will get it wrong if we don’t lay out the  fundamentals of the issue and have a core of folks who have specific changes in mind.  The fact is there will always be dumb kids who will engage in self destructive behavior, there will always be people who will exploit that fact for  profit and there will be people who benefit politically, financially, bureaucratically from these realities.

    • #38
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.