How Do We Decide Which Drugs Are Bad and Which Ones Are Good?
/By Crystal Lindell
I was in elementary school during the height of the original DARE campaign. I vividly remember fully uniformed police officers coming into my classrooms to share the Drug Abuse Resistance Education’s program’s very direct message: “DARE to say no to drugs!”
My friends and I all got free black T-shirts with the bold red DARE slogan splashed across it, and every year we signed a pledge promising to never use drugs.
What qualified something as a “drug” was a little more difficult to discern though.
Back in the 1990s there was a lot of talk about “pot” and “dope,” so I figured those were both bad, although as a 10-year-old living in a pre-Google world, I didn’t really know what either one was and I didn’t know how to find out.
I also remember lots of conversations about alcohol and cigarettes, but those were apparently only “drugs” if you were under a certain age, seeing as how a lot of adults I knew used them.
How effective DARE was is still hotly debated, but there is one part that seems to have left a lasting legacy: Most Americans still think anything labeled as a “drug” by cops is inherently bad and must therefore be greatly restricted and regulated.
Now that I’m in my 40s, I am much less accepting of the blanket “drugs are bad” messages that law enforcement agencies spread to my peers and me back in the day.
As it turns out, “drugs” can mean a lot of things, and the reasons we are given for why some are bad and some are good are murky at best.
If you ask most adults in the United States to define “drugs,” they’ll often reach for whatever legal categories the police have neatly provided. Opioids and stimulants are “drugs” because they are heavily regulated, but NSAIDS and acetaminophen aren’t because you can buy them over the counter at Walgreens.
If you push them to consider the definition beyond what law enforcement has provided, they’ll usually go right to “things that are addictive.” If you point out that caffeine is extremely addictive though, they’ll shrug that off with “well that’s different.”
I’ll also often hear people defend their morning latte with something along the lines of “well nobody’s ever resorted to sex work to buy an espresso," as though that in and of itself makes coffee superior to a morning Adderall.
Aside from the fact that this logic shames sex workers, it also leaves out the very important reason that people don’t have to resort to extremes to access coffee: Caffeine is legally sold over the counter.
If medications like hydrocodone or Adderall were sold in the same way as your morning coffee, they would also be cheap, safe and easily available – and thus people wouldn’t have to resort to extremes to be able to afford them.
Beyond that, we also have decided, as a culture, that lots of very addictive things should be sold over the counter.
In addition to coffee, adults can purchase alcohol and nicotine with no problem, despite how deadly both of those are. What makes them different from Adderall or even Oxycontin? Have you ever really considered the question?
If anything, don't drunk driving and second-hand smoke potentially make alcohol and nicotine worse, since there’s so much danger to non-users?
Personally, as a pain patient who has also seen many loved ones suffer as a result of an onslaught of opioid-phobic regulations over the last decade, I will admit to having been radicalized on this issue.
I think most of the drug laws we have on the books are far too restrictive, and most substances should be sold the same way alcohol and coffee are: Over the counter.
However, I can appreciate the fact that this is a radical position in the United States. After all, we’ve all been subjected to heavy anti-drug propaganda for decades now, going back to Nancy Reagan first telling kids to “Just Say No” way back in 1982.
I’d encourage you to think critically about such a simplistic slogan though. When it comes to which substances people want to consume and why, it’s not quite so easy to know when a drug is bad and when it’s good.
In fact, I have a saying of my own that I like to share during conversations about drug legalization. I believe people use the drugs they need and, absent that, they’ll use the drugs they have access to.
So if a drug is something you need, is it really something you should “Just say no” to?