My research has long centred on drug policy, a subject on which I hold a liberal view; not because I have an affinity for drugs, but because I believe that illegalisation causes significantly more harm than a more liberal approach would. Additionally, I have quite strong opinions regarding my fellow Swedes’ lack of interest in their cultural heritage in general, as well as their neglect of art glass/Orrefors in particular. The talks outlined below—whether in the form of seminars, lectures, or something more informal—I deliver in English, Swedish, or Spanish. VIDEO
The topics I am offering lectures on are drawn either from my two drug policy books – The Drug Problem – or from my book on Orrefors: Svenskt Konstglas. I intend to post professional videos; however, as I have not yet mastered the new equipment, here is an amateurish one.
LIST OF TALKS
DRUG POLICY TALKS
FUTURE DRUG POLICY
ORREFORS
DRUG POLICY TALKS
Generally speaking, my talks involve more questions than most would expect and fewer answers. However, I will endeavour to compensate for this by ensuring that the few answers I provide are interesting, novel, and occasionally well corroborated; I like to challenge my audiences. Reading material will be provided in connection with most talks. The topics include: 1. The Problem Of The Drug Problem, 2. Drug Harms, 3. What’s Your Problem? 4. Quantum Weed, 5. Blessed Be He Who Can Believe Without Seeing, Or…, 6. Darling Dealers And Useless Users, 7. How Should We Legalise? 8. Beware The Consequences Of Illegality, 9. A Pro Prohibition Argument, 10. Conduction And Convection, 11. Monster Drug’s Surpluses & 12. Why Are Drugs Illegal?
1. The Problem Of The Drug Problem
(What can be done about the fact that “the drug problem” has no definition?)
The concept of the “drug problem” is a meaningless one; since the expression does not carry the same significance for you as it does for me, it cannot be discussed meaningfully. As long as we do not agree upon a common definition—or categorise everything anyone today thinks of as the drug problem into well-defined parts, or simply disregard the concept—we are, by definition, more or less precluded from finding a solution. Although this critique regarding the lack of definition is valid for many concepts, it particularly applies to the “drug problem.” The “drug problem”, as perceived by some individuals and some countries, is primarily viewed as a health issue. In contrast, others, or in other countries, regard it as a crime issue, a corruption issue, an economic issue, a matter of foreign relations, one of national security, or occasionally as something not really worthy of concern, or even as something positive rather than a problem. This lack of definition is detrimental, and “What should we do about this?” is a significant question.
Questions and issues to be discussed include: What are the consequences of lacking a proper definition of the drug problem? What actions can be taken regarding this deplorable state of affairs? Why is it foolish to argue about how we should resolve something that is undefined? How can we reach a unified definition?
2. Drug Harms
(There are more harms related to drugs than you might think)
In some ways analogous to how “The Drug Problem” means different things to different people, individuals (and nations) tend to emphasise various drug harms. I – as a bachelor, without children, a non-drug user, and with an interest in drugs that is primarily economic and philosophical – must make an effort to understand how a parent of teenagers perceives the main drug harms. It is easy and quite natural to become preoccupied and at least partially blinded by one’s own concerns. In the first book of my series, I touch on over 40 harms, categorised under the headings of “Health Harms,” “Social and Economic Harms,” “Safety and Public Order Harms,” and “Criminal Justice Harms.” This lecture is designed to shed light on these harms so that the next time you find someone atop his or her soapbox - proclaiming that “Illegality/legality is good/bad because of X!” – “you” can recall that there is more to the “drug problem” than simply “X.” Then, if “you” can play the devil’s advocate and remind the enthusiastic orator of this, you will have contributed to steering the drug discourse away from its present all-too-often realm of “uninformed,” “axe-grinding,” “emotional,” etc., and towards that of “scientific,” “impartial,” “rational,” etc. If this talk is to be followed by the lecture below (“What’s Your Problem?”), special emphasis will be placed on the question “Does drug use or drug illegality cause these harms?”
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed include: What are the “drug harms”? How should we conceptualise these harms? Who are the primary sufferers? How should we rank these harms, both individually and categorically? Should benefits be seen as a “positive” in the harms equation, transforming it into a cost-benefit equation rather than merely a “cost-listing”? Does use or illegality result in health harms? Does use or illegality lead to social and economic harms? Does use or illegality provoke safety and public order harms? Does use or illegality generate criminal justice harms?
3. What’s Your Problem?
(Find out what you ought to think about your drug problem)
This lecture can stand on its own, but it also serves effectively as a “part 2” to the “drug harms” talk described above. It will take you on a guided tour through the drug harms. “You” will be asked to answer a series of questions so that by the end of the session, you shall be able to respond to: 1) “Ought I prefer my legalization to the present system?” and 2) “How much better or worse off would we be with my legalization when compared to the present system?” The questions you will be asked – questions that I would greatly appreciate if you contemplated or answered for yourself before coming to listen to me – are:
- What is the drug problem, in my opinion? Now, please translate your answer into ‘weights’ and assign these to the 43 suggested harms in the text you will receive after adding or removing anything you believe should be adjusted. If you have the time, you might even experiment until the total reaches 100.
- “If I had to (at least in part) ‘legalise’ drugs, how would I go about doing it?”
- “In what direction and to what extent would the “strength” of each particular harm change if drugs were legalised (in the way that you would have legalised them, assuming you had to)?” This question “you” will have to answer for each harm, or, if you prefer a softer approach, for each of the four categories.
This talk is presented in three forms: 1) As a 1-2 hour lecture where the drug harms are categorised into four main sections: “Health Harms,” “Social & Economic Harms,” “Safety & Public Order Harms,” and “Criminal Justice Harms,” 2) As a 3-4 hour discussion that places special emphasis on one category, and 3) As a series of lectures spread over a week (perhaps five sessions of two hours each) that could be titled “Introduction to Drug Harms.” Once you have responded to all these questions, I (well, Excel, really) will inform you whether you—based on your own definition of drug problems, values, and reasoning—should be in favour of or against (your) legalisation.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed include: What should one consider the drug problem to be? What are the most significant categories of drug-related harm? Can the drug problem be effectively divided into “Health Harms,” “Social & Economic Harms,” “Safety & Public Order Harms,” and “Criminal Justice Harms”? Does usage or illegality cause the most significant harms?
4. Quantum Weed
(Why do we take drugs troublesomely?)
In my first book, The Drug Problem, I proposed the idea that problematic drug use can be understood against the backdrop of humanity living in increasingly troubled times; that we use drugs because we are navigating what appears to be an era of mounting uncertainty. It is asserted that traditional sources of certainty – religion, family, knowledge, hierarchy, and community – can no longer offer the meaning-in-life seeker the assurance they once did. While this context was presented primarily because it is useful rather than necessarily true, I have discovered that it serves as an intriguing and possibly quite robust explanation for why we engage in troubling drug use; it seems to elucidate the situation on a deeper level than most theories (though, naturally, all discourses tend to acquire coherence once sufficiently elaborated, particularly in the mind of the elaborator). I then attempt to clarify by suggesting that we use drugs either to escape from an increasingly troublesome reality (i.e., seeking oblivion) or to feel more capable of managing it (i.e., seeking strength). This lecture serves as both a statement and a question to my audience: “Are uncertainties/troubled times really a good explanation for why we take drugs and how should this explanation be viewed in relation to other explanations?” If time allows, once my own explanations have been articulated, I will address perhaps as many as twenty other explanations.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed: Is the explanation I have put forward a good one, and if so, why or why not? Which of the alternative explanations is the best, and why? Is a criminal approach more useful or warranted? If you have taken drugs or may consider doing so one day, why would you choose to?
5. Blessed Be He Who Can Believe Without Seeing, Or…
(Skepticism vs. leaps-of-faith as means of dealing with uncertainty)
This talk - which “lives” very much in the borderland between drug policy and philosophy - can be seen as a continuation of the “Quantum Weed” talk outlined above. After putting forth the proposition that we take drugs because we feel troubled by living in times when certainties are hard or perhaps even impossible to come by, it is argued that there are two distinct ways in which we can address this problematic situation. The first way is through scepticism, and its principal forms are discussed, along with arguments for and against; it concludes that total scepticism is difficult to live with, that a sceptical mindset may be preferable to total scepticism, and that such a worldview is accompanied by both positive and negative aspects. The second way we can confront uncertainty, it is contended, is through leaps of faith; by pretending that something which isn’t necessarily true really is (i.e., is a source of certainty), we find meaning in life. However, this method of addressing the problem of certainty virtually always leaves the leaper with at least a grain of unconscious doubt (call it “bad faith”, if you wish). Some of the most common leap destinations are then mentioned, and it is explained why these destinations rarely offer the leaper the comforts they once did. After referencing some destinations - suicide, the other, work, religion, money, and philosophy - the attention turns to drugs, and it will be argued that drugs can be viewed in this context: as one of many leap destinations taken by people seeking meaning in life. However, drugs differ from most other leap destinations in that, rather than providing meaning per se, they make the leaper feel better prepared to confront reality by altering their state of mind.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed: What about the proposition “Blessed be he who can believe without seeing?” Are there any alternatives to scepticism besides leaps of faith? Do we truly need certainties, or is commitment (“engage” in Sartre-speak) sufficient? If we opt for scepticism, what are the costs and benefits?
6. Darling Dealers And Useless Users
(What would the actors on the drug scene get up to if drugs were legalized?)
Prediction is difficult, especially regarding events that have yet to occur, and some of us may not have given much thought to what users, dealers, growers, corrupt law enforcers, traffickers, drug lords, and others might do if drugs were legalised. This discussion aims to provide useful ideas and thinking tools for those who have an unclear picture of what would follow legalisation. It is argued that: (i) although the number of users would likely increase, along with their average consumption – and although these users would probably experiment with harder drugs more frequently than before - their use would become significantly safer and more rewarding, while the negative externalities associated with their use would diminish considerably; (ii) the common notion that the most important goal is to get drug users away from use, rather than criminals away from criminality, is not necessarily correct. It is argued that, although stopping problematic drug use is important, steering would-be drug dealers, traffickers, financiers, and others onto a legitimate path (or, rather, encouraging them to pursue whatever they might do if drugs were legalised) could be even more crucial. This is a highly controversial viewpoint, so if you ask me to speak on this subject, you should expect some backlash.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed: Would this imply that other crimes would also be affected? For those who have increased their usage, which drugs would they turn to? What about individuals “moving in” from tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food? How should we assess “better lives for the users?”
7. How Should We Legalise?
(Assuming we had to legalise, how ought we do it?)
Once one has accepted the idea of pursuing a more liberal approach to narcotic drugs, the next question becomes: “How ought this more liberal approach manifest itself in legislation?” There was a time and a place when tobacco and alcohol were outlawed while heroin, cocaine, and cannabis were available more or less over the counter, and the person arguing that the world would become a better place if we returned to this state of affairs would not find him or herself entirely without arguments. Some narcotic drugs are suggested to be much less detrimental to our health than certain legal substances that are being abused, and it has been argued that these narcotic drugs, therefore, ought to be legalised; however, one must then contend with the proponents of the “Gate-Way Theory.” Other drugs are said to be so difficult to control that it is pointless to keep them illegal, leading only to disrespect for the law; yet, arguing thus, one will have to grapple with the stance of ethical absolutists. Some suggest that heroin, or some substitutes, ought to be provided freely because substantial benefits could arise for both users and society at large; however, one will need to confront the argument, “But then many more would become heroin users!”
Questions and issues that can/will be dealt with: The question of “How should we legalise?” is a challenging one, and, of course, it cannot be resolved through mere discussion, at least not by me. However, it is a topic that can be elaborated upon, and I see my role in such a discussion/elaboration less as a lecturer and more as “the devil’s advocate,” pointing out counterarguments and introducing disruptive perspectives on whatever we consider to be right or wrong.
8. Beware The Consequences Of Illegality
(Illegalization causes much more than desired price-rises)
Illegalisation primarily focuses on supply-oriented drug policies; policies that – by attempting to limit the supply of narcotic drugs through legislation, punishment, and harassment – operate on the principle: “If we are successful in pursuing these policies, then the price will rise.” This is undoubtedly true; illegalisation does, indeed, lead to higher drug prices for consumers, which in turn results in reduced consumption. However, illegalisation entails far more than just higher prices, and these elevated prices lead to much more than merely diminished consumption. What all these “a whole lot more things” have in common is that they are largely detrimental. In my second book in my series Dys functional Disc ourses, I will present a model of this, and although I am not yet ready to share it here, I would be pleased to give a talk on the subject and discuss some of the often quite obvious consequences of illegality—consequences that we rarely hear of.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed include: Does anything positive, apart from higher prices, result from illegalisation? How beneficial, if at all, are higher prices? Do higher prices necessarily lead the drug trade to raise their prices? How does illegalisation affect the profits generated by the drug trade? What is the relationship between illegalisation and the creation of criminals?
9. A Pro Prohibition Argument
(A rarely heard argument against legalization)
Quite unexpectedly and unintentionally, I have stumbled upon an unpleasantly valid pro-prohibition argument that I have rarely seen emphasised before, yet it is most definitely worth considering. If drugs were to become legal, market forces could very well, sooner or later, take over, pushing us towards consuming more drugs rather than less. That is what happened in many places when tobacco and alcohol, having been outlawed, became legal. This possibility makes even a legalisation enthusiast such as myself feel uncomfortable. A legalised and monopolised drug business, dedicated to keeping consumption as low as possible, could soon find itself under pressure from the private sector, facing accusations of all sorts of bad things: monopolism, state corruption, inefficiency, communism, missed export opportunities, and so forth. Unless we handed over the entire drug business to some global organisation, like the UN, we would soon find ourselves once more in a position where market forces—although not as formidable as before—would have to be combated, because instead of waging war on the supply and demand of illegal drugs, we would “only” have to stand firm against well-funded lobbying commercialisation interests. Whereas the "Public Interest Theory" suggests the outcome of this could well be good for social welfare, the "Capture Theory" suggests that it probably would not, and that the outcome would, sooner or later, be a victory for market forces; i.e. that legal drug providers, in order to maximise their profits, would eventually find themselves in a position where they would endeavour to make us consume as much and as expensive narcotics as possible.
Questions and issues that may be addressed include: Is the commercialisation of a legalised drug trade a likely scenario? What measures could be implemented to prevent this from occurring? What challenges would a government encounter from lobbyists, critics, legislation, foreign interests, etc., if a drug, say cannabis, were legalised? Would the commercialisation of narcotic drugs necessarily be detrimental? Cannabis worldwide causes fatalities in the single digits, if at all, whereas unhealthy food, alcohol, and tobacco lead to millions of premature deaths each year; would it be so terrible if users of dangerous drugs that are currently legal became legal cannabis consumers instead? If drinkers, smokers, and “eaters” turned to narcotic drugs, how would this influence the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food? Is the total of abuse or problematic use a constant, and if it is not, then what is it?
10. Conduction And Convection
(Two manners by which the racket corrupts)
These two suggested mechanisms and phenomena are asserted to be useful ways of thinking about how the supply-oriented drug policies of illegalisation—by creating surplus profits and criminal values—diminish the quality of life for nearly everyone. When examined closely, these mechanisms reveal how illegality “necessarily” corrupts the fabric of society and the ways in which it does so, often in ways that are, at least in part, unacknowledged. As they represent two sides of the same coin, convection and conduction are undoubtedly related and, in some respects, they complement each other well. However, the audience that would find a discussion on convection intriguing is not necessarily the same audience that would appreciate a lecture on conduction.
Convection argues that if the (bad) ways in which the drug racket’s surpluses are acquired are reflected in how these surpluses are invested, then—especially if this is representative of how other similarly (i.e., bad) acquired surpluses are invested—there could be cause for concern.
Conduction argues that when a person with “bad” values “bumps into” a person with “good”, the outcome is likely to be moral deterioration rather than improvement. This mechanism is illustrated by a drug-related experience from which I was fortunate to emerge alive.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed: Will the manner and morality by which large sums of money are amassed reflect in the manner in which they are invested? If “a good guy” and a “bad guy” “bump” into each other, what mechanisms are at work in deciding who shall influence whom? In the examples of convection and conduction given, what are your reflections?
11. Monster Drug Surpluses
(Why are drug profits so high?)
Most of us would agree that the drug racket offers a good return to investors who can successfully acquire a slice of the action for themselves. However, our theories about why the surpluses from the trade are so high do not all align. One of the simplest explanations is, “Because drugs are so expensive,” which, though not entirely wrong, fails to provide much insight. A more elaborate explanation suggests that participants in the drug market demand compensation for the risks they face due to the dangers around them: the law, dangerous customers, competing gangs, corrupt law enforcers, hazardous diseases, etc. Again, this explanation is not incorrect, but like the previous one, it only accounts for part of the phenomenon. A much better explanation can be found by examining the mechanisms that weaken competition in the drug market; this weakening allows players to corner the market, creating oligopolies and sometimes even monopolies. By understanding the fundamental “laws” that cause the drug market to be cornered—and drug lords to set prices significantly above where they otherwise could—one can gain a better understanding of illegalisation's role in the “drug problem” and the reasons behind the substantial surpluses that result.
Questions and issues that can or will be addressed include: Who is getting rich from the drug trade? How is globalisation “playing” in terms of the size of the surpluses? Are the surpluses from the drug trade evenly distributed, or do they “trickle down” to more or less everyone in the drug-providing organisations? What happens to competition when the number of drug lords per square mile increases or decreases?
12. Why Are Drugs Illegal?
(Why have drugs not been legalized long ago?)
The conclusion of my first two books on drug policy is that the current emphasis on illegalisation and supply-oriented drug policies is not only marginally harmful but also dysfunctional to the society they were initially (at least allegedly) designed to protect. This seemingly allows for two different explanations: either we are truly foolish, or it serves the interests of some powerful player or players that drugs remain illegal. Perhaps we are even speaking of player(s) who were once instrumental in getting narcotic drugs outlawed in the first place. Many among the usual suspects and quite a few among the less typical can be considered. Assuming that my diagnosis is correct, and that we are not insane, potential culprits may include: the UN and its Single Convention, discord within the legalisation camp, foreign governments, terrorists, property moguls, language, life mathematics, the drug trade, Americans, our need for a common enemy, the arms industry, law enforcement, South America and complexity, or some combination of the above, for misery indeed has a tendency to produce strange bedfellows.
Questions and issues that may be addressed: Are drugs illegal because we are foolish or because someone is profiting? Who are the primary beneficiaries of drug illegality? Can you contribute to my list of suspects or provide some of them with an alibi? Are there any relevant analogies to this question of profit, analogies that could prove helpful when considering the issue?
FUTURE DRUG POLICY TALKS
The headings above have been organised into proper talks, which I can deliver today. However, there are additional issues that I will endeavour to develop into lectures, seminars, or something more informal. A paragraph discussing some of these issues is provided below. If you are interested in a talk on any of these other subjects, please do not hesitate to contact me.
A. The Sneaking Economic Reason
(We, for the sake of money, ever more frequently do what we should not do)
The Sneaking Economic Reason/“SER” is my own neologism that refers to the often misunderstood or unacknowledged fact that, as money becomes the measure of more and more aspects, economic reasoning tends to “sneak up on us” with increasing frequency and a greater lack of examination. SER further suggests that whenever there is an economic reason for something to occur, the probability that it will actually happen – more or less whatever “it” happens to be – rises in proportion to the strength of that economic reason. This can be viewed as a law of human behaviour: a probabilistic law moving in a deterministic direction. I even propose that the concept of SER can be employed to predict socioeconomic phenomena, for instance, the undocumented and, as far as I know, unacknowledged cooperation between drug and real estate lords. If this prediction proves true, my suggested “new law”/SER would have served to predict the existence of something previously unobserved. Although what is posited to exist may not be a new planet or elementary particle, its existence would support the hypothesis that our tendency to act for economic reasons could explain human behaviour better than we have previously acknowledged.
B. Drug Illegality Is A Dysfunctional Discourse
(A few words about my next phase: dysfunctional discourses)
I believe that in my first two books on drug policy, I have “decisively corroborated” that our currently dominant approach to problematic drug issues – i.e., illegalisation coupled with supply-oriented drug policies - is fundamentally flawed; it is virtually “absolute”/full stop and not merely detrimental from some particular point of view, or framework, or for a specific group of people. It is harmful for nearly everyone, except perhaps for 1) those who benefit from high drug prices and profits, and 2) children (and parents with children) who stay off drugs because of its illegal nature rather than due to parental advice or some other reason. Drug illegality, in its consequences, is simply damaging to the vast majority: a societally dysfunctional discourse that is neither achieving – nor likely to achieve in the foreseeable future – much of what the majority would consider “good.” This is a substantial assertion, and it is too complex to articulate all at once. Therefore, my aim with this talk is not “How to corroborate that drug illegality is a dysfunctional discourse in a day,” but rather, “Are there other dysfunctional discourses “out there,” waiting to be dismantled in a manner similar to the way I believe I have dismantled drug illegality?”
C. Drug Policy Incompatibility
(Are supply- & demand-oriented drug policies incompatible?)
Drug policies designed to reduce supply (SODPs) and demand (DODPs) coexist uneasily in a world where price is emphasised as the primary weapon in the fight against drugs. They may even be mutually exclusive unless applied to different parts of the drug distribution chain; at least some economic models seem to support this thinking. This discussion will largely focus on economics and be quite theoretical.
D. The Three Forces On The Drug Scene
(The weaponry of the law, supply, and demand)
We typically think of the “Drug War” as a battle between the law and the suppliers of drugs. This perspective overlooks a crucial player: demand, i.e., those who seek the drugs. This force has a highly effective “arsenal” at its disposal; the demanders of narcotic drugs could mobilise a significantly stronger defence against increased law enforcement and its attempts to raise prices, more so than most of us acknowledge. The prospect of heightened user self-sufficiency is therefore very real. User weaponry—alongside globalisation, the web, and reduced imports—could, with or without de facto legalisation, transform the stage upon which the “drug problem” is enacted. Thus, especially when the formidable weaponry of “supply” is considered, increased law enforcement would not necessarily lead to the higher prices we expect in the long term. Given the likelihood of ongoing globalisation and the impressive resources in the service of both supply and demand, there is nothing inevitable about a long-term price rise on drugs in response to increased harassment, even if such policies succeeded in imposing greater costs on the racket for both 1) purchasing, producing, and distributing drugs and for 2) harassment compensation.
E. Bye Bye Criminality
(If the drug racket shrunk, then would other criminal rackets shrink too?)
With the drug racket going out of business or shrinking dramatically, it is suggested that other criminal enterprises would consequently suffer severe losses. This is because those involved in the drug racket are not only likely to invest their surpluses in other forms of organised crime but also represent a significant portion of other rackets’ demand/customer base. If the drug racket were to cease, this could provide the criminal justice system with a once-in-a-millennium opportunity to substantially and “permanently” reduce the total amount of crime. However, would the criminal justice system want to eliminate the discourse upon which it feeds…
F. The Drug Problem Is The Solution
(Can Jacque Lacan’s psychoanalysis be applied to the “drug problem?”)
Your writer believes he has strongly corroborated the idea that the main cause of what most of us consider the “drug problem” – possibly including problematic use itself – is drug illegality, rather than drug use. While this does not solve the drug problem, accepting this proposition would allow us, at least in a sense, to bypass it. Instead of asking, “Why do people take drugs troublesomely?”, "Why are drugs supplied?", or “Why is the drug situation perceived as problematic?”, we could ask, “If drug illegality is the drug problem, then why are drugs illegal?” – a step in a potentially fruitful direction. Suppose we accept that drug illegality is the problem. In that case, this suggests that instead of asking, “How do we make the “drug problem” go away?”, we should consider the insights of Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories and ask, “What “real” problems does society address by creating the drug problem – including, or even especially, our drug policies - in this manner?" This is a question I have so far only formulated and briefly touched upon, yet one that I, DV, shall endeavour to return to or at least try to shed some light upon elsewhere.
G. Work With The Market Forces
(We should not pick a fight with what we cannot functionally defeat)
Working with market forces refers to the belief that as money increasingly measures more aspects of life, it creates market forces related to drug use that are so powerful that we can ever more rarely hope to “profitably” oppose them. Therefore, it seems reasonable that we should try to work with these forces as much as possible rather than oppose them; a way of thinking that strongly suggests that illegalisation and supply-oriented policies are not our best means of addressing social problems such as the “drug problem”. For “good” human intentions to influence a situation, the economic de-powering of the forces we aim to overcome could well be a good place to start. How to tackle problematic issues with the wind of the market forces aiding one’s project by “pushing from behind,” rather than blowing in one’s face, is a fascinating question.
H. Harassment
(Consider whom to pick a fight with)
In pursuing supply-oriented drug policies, the greatest price-increasing effect—rather than from the seizure and destruction of drugs, as one might suspect—could well arise from the harassment of racket members, at least for as long as the policy is implemented with such an intention. It could even be argued that such harassment, assuming we insist on continued illegalisation, ought to be viewed as a targetable weapon susceptible to “fine-tuning” rather than merely a “the-more-the-merrier canon” to be indiscriminately fired against supply.
I. What Would Drug Users Do If Prices Rose?
(Who would quit and at what prices?)
If law enforcement managed to raise prices, then who would stop or cut down, and what would they do instead? If we provided law enforcement with more funding, they would be able to target the drug trade more effectively, seizing greater amounts of drugs and harassing those employed in the industry even more, demanding ever greater remuneration. This, in turn, could lead to higher prices, which might cause drug users to quit, cut down, and substitute. If “the law” doubled its harassment, then who would do what? And then, what if they doubled it again, and again… Then what?
J. Money Is Becoming The Measure Of (Too) Much
(Money is allowed to rule where it has no business rule)
Although this is not a proposition with any unique relevance to the drug problem, our desire for money often, perhaps increasingly, leads us to engage in actions we would have preferred to avoid after prolonged reflection. Participating in harmful drug-related activities exemplifies how we compromise our values for financial gain, and it particularly concerns me that in our inclination to pursue ever more money (at least partly because money is becoming the measure of more aspects of life), I perceive a threat to social welfare and a significant reason why dysfunctional discourses, such as drug illegality, persist.
K. The Price Of Successful Illegalization
Would we be willing to pay it?
We often say, “Of course we would all like the law to succeed in eradicating all drug use!” but what we might forget – or at least not have a realistic picture of – is the price we would have to pay for effectively addressing the problem of drug use. There are many aspects of our society that would need to change, along with the rules governing its operation, in order to create the potential for eliminating the drug issue; changes that could themselves be quite undesirable. What is this price, and are we truly prepared to pay it?
L. Permission To Speak Freely
Would a world without drugs be better than one without?
I have faced my own struggles with drugs – food, tobacco, and wine – and although these may not be classified as narcotic substances, that doesn’t make them any less potent. With an interest in drug policy, I have reflected on the pros and cons of my “addictions,” considering what they have done to me and what life could have been like without them, among other things. I have pondered for myself: “Would I have preferred to live in a world where these, my drugs, had not existed, or in a world where the negative effects of these drugs could have been eliminated by means of a pill, a patch, or an implant? Would I have preferred never to be subjected to these temptations? Would I have preferred to lead a life without demons? One day, I would like to elaborate on this.
M. What To Legalize
Should we legalise the consumption of drugs, the supply of drugs or both?
When we discuss the legalisation of narcotics, we often consider the legalisation of drug use: the legalisation of demand. However, allowing drug use while maintaining the illegality of drug sales is not necessarily advantageous.
ORREFORS
(Art glass, the only thing we Swedes been best at for the last 1000 years)
In my book Svenskt Konstglas, I did my utmost to make my fellow Swedes realise that Orrefors 1925 – 1950 was quite good and that we should really endeavour to understand this. Unfortunately, my utmost wasn’t sufficient, and even today, a fine piece sold at a major auction in Sweden is less likely to remain in the country than to be sold abroad. Orrefors is dear to my heart, and I enjoy discussing the subject. My last two talks were at “Bern’s” in Stockholm around 1992 (with Lill Lindfors) and at the Ontario Royal Museum (Investing in the 20th century) around 2000. Although this makes me a bit rusty, I am trying to keep myself up to date. If you would like me to bring my collection along (which could well be the best Orrefors collection remaining in private ownership and contains only about 18 objects), you should be prepared to pay a rather high price, especially if your insurance doesn't cover the project.