Customer Reviews

Saying Yes

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

What an interesting book.

I read it faster than I've read almost any other book - cover to cover in two days. (I'm normally a really slow reader.) Although the middle kind of drags on, with the same thesis repeated in several different forms, it's quite an enlightening read.

I've always considered myself well informed and quite liberal on drug issues, but it turns out that I was much more influenced by anti-drug propaganda than I had realized. My mind has been filled with stories that are true, personal experiences, or second-hand accounts of people I trusted, but I was seeing them in the wrong light. I thought of my father performing autopsies on cocaine users whose hearts had stopped with no warning. Someone who tried to kill his roommate with an axe while tweaking on crystal. Lots of perfectly real scare stories, which had caused me to feel chills just thinking about these "hard" drugs.

But these were still viewed through the lens of prohibition. Conveniently forgotten in these tales were the many, many more cases my father had seen of alcohol poisoning, a common cause of death among young people in the town where I grew up. Drunken rages in which people were killed - one that killed one of my best friend's bosses just two months ago. Somehow, because of the legality and familarity of alcohol, these were not "scare stories" about drugs. They were, instead, stories about people, and their foolishness; the blame was not transferred to the chemical.

The best part of the book is his historical review of alcohol prohibition, and the hype over the evil powers of alcohol at a time when opium and cocaine were not only legal, but popular and commonly used in "patent medicines". He illustrates how prohibition didn't cut down on drinking for more than a few years, but instead shifted drinking towards hard liquor, a more dangerous substance that was simply easier to smuggle and conceal. Similarly, when cocaine and opium were legal, they weren't consumed in their most severe forms, but in much milder preparations such as beverages and tinctures. Prohibition, in retrospect, doesn't reduce use so much as make that use more severe, and probably more harmful.

Sullum doesn't argue that drugs are always good. He seriously considers the argument that drug prohibition is justified by the harm it prevents. But he does put all drugs onto a level playing field. There is an abundance of statistics indicating the rates at which drug problems actually occur, and these reveal a huge, invisible majority of drug users - even of "hard" drugs like heroin and crack - who are not addicted, do not suffer severe problems, and most often stop using the drug when it no longer suits their needs. Just as with alcohol.

In my mind, as is the case for many people, I had formed a hierarchy of harm. Tobacco and alcohol are not so great, but not so terribly harmful. Pot is maybe a little better, a little worse, but other things, such as crystal and PCP, are scary and dangerous. Common sense, right? Well, maybe not. When you look at actual patterns of use, these "hard" drugs don't look so hard anymore. It is the lack of direct experience with these things that makes us so suceptible to scare stories - the "voodo pharmacology" he describes, wherein these substances have the mysterious power to turn people into zombies. But, if Sullum is right, these scare stories, despite their kernel of truth, are mostly just mass hysteria. Psychologically, prohibition is hardly different from witch-burning.

Sullum is saying, in effect, that drugs don't cause addiction, but rather, addicts cause addiction. That drugs don't cause criminals, but that people are criminals to begin with; that drug use and crime have a common cause, and do not cause each other except through the mechanisms of prohibition itself. That addiction adheres not to the drug, but to the user, and the availability (or not) of any particular drug is not the most relevant factor. This is a not a new idea, but it is rare to have it explained and supported so clearly and convincingly.

In reading this, I find an almost existential relief. This book affirms the power of the individual to control their lives, and casts aside the superstitious, magical thinking that ascribes such amazing powers to mere chemicals. Sullum's argument becomes most interesting when he argues that drug use by teenagers is perfectly appropriate, so long as it is done with the guidance of caring role models. He points out how unreasonable it is to expect someone with no experience with alcohol to suddenly become "responsible" on their 21st birthday, and somehow just know how to use it appropriately. Or worse, that they should consume it furtively, with no guidance, at secret parties. Instead, he suggests that teenagers should be introduced to alcohol, among other drugs (he specifically cites marijuana) in controlled environments, preferably in the company of their parents. With a chorus of "what about the children" seemingly right around the corner, this is a brave statement to make. Perfectly sensible, of course, but it's always the most sensible ideas that are the most dangerous to say out loud.

Is this book biased? Such questions are very hard to answer. In reading it, I was reminded of the furor over The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book full of references to scientific literature that were later criticized as being tangential, incorrect, or at best, highly selective. I was frustrated by that controversy, but didn't have the motivation to track down all the references and evaluate them for myself. In contrast, with Saying Yes, I am eagerly awaiting its challengers. Because I want to know the truth; is this guy giving us a realistic portrayal of what drugs really do, or is he, well, "smokin' crack?"

My guess is that Sullum is right on the money. Reading this book has turned me from a lukewarm anti-prohibitionist to a true drug libertarian. If he's even approximately correct, it is clear that all drugs, even the "hard" ones, should be made legal for anyone over 21, and that we must reject this "voodoo" that is granting drugs much more power than they deserve. Only then will we find balance.

There is nothing not to like about Jacob Sullum's "Saying Yes." It's gracefully written, scientifically accurate and completely sensible. I guess I'm a little more pessimistic that other reviewers about the affect it will have on the drug policy debate -- as Sullum points out only too well, truth, common sense, and pragmatism have never had much to do with drug policy in the United States. If nothing else, this book will at least re-assure future generations that not everyone in our era was nuts.

Readers who have read a great deal on this subject will find much here that's familiar, but it's nice to have it all in one place and footnoted. And while I have quite a library of books on alcohol and other drugs, I did find a considerable amount of new info and thought-provoking angles. A very nice job.

Voodoo pharmacology. That is the term that Jacob Sullum uses for our irrational fears and phobic behaviors toward psychoactive drugs. In a plea for common sense and sanity, he confronts the stereotypes that sustain our current drugs policy. He destroys the myths that these substances have magical and/or supernatural powers to enslave those who use them and places the power and responsibility for drug use back in the hands of the individual.

In example after example, he compiles a wealth of data on how the vast majority of people learn to use alcohol and other drugs in responsible manners, balancing their use with the rest of their priorities in life. While not ignoring the harms that can come from misuse and abuse of drugs, he places them in perspective with other behaviors in people's lives.

Rather than erecting legal edifices that prohibit these substances, increase the harms associated with their use, and forever give up the chance to sensibly regulate them, he goes back to the original roots of the temperance movement to show that we have always had extensive historical precedents for moderation and effective social norms in this area.

This is a profoundly uplifting book that elegantly restates the philosophy that human beings have an inherent drive for balance and health and psychoactive substance use is no exception.
Since America's War on Drugs has pernicious effects in every area of our society, this is a book that should be read by all.

I bought this book two weeks ago and really was not sure what exactly it would be. I hoping that Sullum would write a well-referenced work that provided a fairly objective analysis of drugs and the ensuing war against them, and that's basically what I got. Although, the reader is never in doubt as to what the author's opinion is regarding his subject, this is a scholarly synopsis of the literature and studies that embody our knowledge of psychoactive substances. Sullum always presents both sides of the issue and never retreats to the shallow role of advocate.

I personally have not tried, nor will I be trying, most of the drugs that are discussed in this book but I can say that I recognize the futility in our societal war on whatever the FDA and DEA suspect private individuals of currently enjoying at the moment. Some of the arguments he presents are quite convincing such as the legitimate medical uses of marijuana, and also the way we avoid examining the occasional darkness of human nature by making drugs the scapegoat for the acts of promiscuous sex, violence, and irresponsibility that we commit. Much of "Saying Yes" is a historical survey of drug origins and interdiction efforts, and this background information is absolutely fascinating. Some of the discussion left me unmoved as I do not buy LSD as having any legitimate uses, but I was glad to read views that contradicted my own on the subject.

Overall, a strong "yes" must be given in regards to this book. We should not be surprised as Jacob Sullum has always been an engaging and stylistic writer. I read his articles in Reason whenever I get the chance.

One of the greatest obstacles to reforming current drug laws is the fallacy of confusing drug use with drug abuse.Marijuana and other "illicit" substances should be viewed the same as alcohol with an emphasis on "moderation" rather than complete abstinence.Jacob Sullum does an excellent job on telling readers the difference between what most people know about drugs and what the government wants us to believe.His presentation of religious opinions on this matter is also thought provoking.

This book is a timely call for sanity in an irrationally framed debate on drug policy. It challenges the most fundamental premise of self-anointed crusaders for prohibition: that drugs are inherently bad. This issue is ill-framed, argues Sullum, because it presumptively ascribes value to illicit substances independent of their user. Rather, drugs are only as destructive as the people who use them.

This is important because it challenges the validity of the so-called "studies" of illegal substances funded by the government (nevermind the fact that the government won't fund studies which challenge the destructive war on drugs). Studies like these are skewed because they do not take into account those that consume drugs in sparing moderation. Instead, these studies often sample those drug-riddled addicts in rehab or those sent to jail, i.e. those whose drug use is publicly available. The truth is that the majority of drug users consume infrequently (because they are for the most part upstanding citizens) and anonymously (for fear reprisal if they publicly disclosed their use).

This brings Sullum to his next point. He takes to its logical consequence the libertarian argument that our acceptance of alcohol, caffiene, and gluttony but not marijuana, cocaine, etc. is utterly hypocritical. In particular, through a thorough examination of the history of alcohol, Sullum reveals that our collective experience with alcohol does not fundamentally differ with the history of any other illicit substance. Both are unfairly portrayed in binary extremes of addiction and sobriety by the state. Sullum convincingly argues that our history with both drugs and alcohol is more suitably characterized by moderation. Moderation, not addiction, underlies our experience with substance-use (any substance, from food to wine to cigarettes to marijuana).

Replete with statistics, anecdotes and analytic arguments, Sullum cogently engages the prohibitionist crowd to its most basic premise and decisively wins. Highly reccomended.

I have read countless books, articles, essays, and websites debating the ethics of drug use and abuse, but this one is by far the best I have ever read. It doesn't go to great lengths to debate whether or not drug use is good or bad for you, but rather examines how drugs have historically fit into our society and what the world would be like if we made changes to our restrictive drug policy. If you have any interest at all in the psycology, philosophy, or legal sides of drug use and abuse in society, you absolutely must read this book.

This book attacks head on a lot of the popular myths about drug use, such as the accusations that any drug use instantly makes one lazy, crazy, violent, or sexually depraved, and takes them apart one by one. It goes into a lot of the history of drugs as well, and takes the relatively rare position of declaring that it doesn't matter what drug you prefer; it should be your decision alone whether or not to use drugs (as long as you don't harm anyone else). Unlike a lot of anti-drugwar books, which make (valid) economic and social arguments, this book deals specifically with the human right to own your own body, and control what goes into it. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the drug war situation in this country.

It really doesn't matter how thoroughly columnist Jacob Sullum argues for the legalization of street drugs. He can demonstrate the hypocrisy of marijuana prohibition, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that alcohol is more dangerous than the killer weed; he can document the misinformation and outright falsehoods that masquerade as truths about illegal drugs; he can cite scientific studies that show that marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol; he can do these things and more (and he does) but it won't make slightest difference. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, PCP, and other street drugs will remain illegal.

The reason is simple: the laws are predicated not upon rational debate or the presentation of evidence one way or the other. The prohibitions are the result of emotional attitudes held by the people who make the laws and by those who elect them. Sullum knows this; in fact this is one of his major points. He shows how the current attitudes toward illegal drugs are just the reprise of historical attitudes toward not just the same drugs but toward tobacco, alcohol, and even coffee. Any substance that has a mind-altering effect on people will be controversial at some level. People are naturally suspicious of anything that alters their consciousness or the consciousness of their neighbors. Consequently all such substances undergo the most strenuous test by the society into which they are introduced and will not be easily accepted.

Marijuana continues to be tested by our society and rejected even though millions use it. Alcohol was tested, as Sullum chronicles, throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the culmination occurring with the Volstead Act of 1919. At first it seemed that the prohibitionists had won. But a few years later it became clear that prohibition would not work and the act was repealed.

Marijuana has not done as well. The reasons for this are complex, including opposition from the established nicotine and alcohol purveyors who lobby against legalization, and from a law enforcement bureaucracy which has a vested interest in keeping pot illegal, but also from millions of non-users who want to stigmatize users as lawbreakers and members of a lower social class.

Perhaps the best thing Sullum does in this book is to show that street drugs are not nearly as debilitating as the prohibitionists would like us to believe. He also does a good job of recalling the historical context that has led us to the present legalities. However what he doesn't do very well is see the human drug experience from a biological and evolutionary point of view.

I think it's important to understand that the yeast, for example, that produce alcohol (as well as the plant that produces the sugars that the yeast feeds upon) have formed a symbiotic relationship with human beings, a relationship that may be mutually beneficial--or not, depending on your point of view. Marijuana in particular is an example of a plant that has been in a symbiotic relationship with humans since well before the dawn of history. We can see this in the cannabis hemp that humans have found useful and in the seeds that we have eaten or at least fed to our animals. However the resin that the female plant exudes is variously seen as the door to another consciousness by its champions or a noxious substance that saps our strength and leads us into immorality by others. With such a divergent point of view, it is not surprising that marijuana is illegal.

Other drugs are the highly concentrated products of plants, heroin from opium, cocaine from coca, etc., while still others are manmade chemicals patterned after natural occurring ones, amphetamines and LSD, for example. Sullum argues that people once told lies about alcohol, coffee, tobacco, tea, etc., and are doing the same thing again about heroin and marijuana. Yes, they are; however it does not follow (and Sullum acknowledges this) that the conclusions society will ultimately come to will be the same. Each substance must be evaluated on its own merits, and on how the substance is taken, whether it is ingested, inhaled, injected, drunk, or snorted. Sullum makes the further important point that dosage must also be considered. How highly refined is the drug and how much of it does a user typically use?

I think this book would be more effective if Sullum had emphasized the differences among the various drugs and had presented his arguments more succinctly. Clearly he wanted to err on the side of being thorough. But many of the points he makes are familiar articles in the on-going debate. Furthermore his unabashed touting of drug use is certainly decades ahead of its time. It is only when it becomes clear that legal drugs, such as produced by the great pharmaceutical companies, are being used because people like the effects they have on their minds, that the public will begin to look upon the taking of drugs for pleasure and recreation in a positive way.

I finally found a book to recommend to people of my era who "induldged" once upon a time and now have kids of their own. Responsible drug use can be no more traumatic than wine at dinner or the daily dose of caffine. It isn't about the drug it is about the way it is used and under what circumstances. Teach children the facts and show them responsible conduct and they are likely to respond accordingly.
However, Sullum did not write this book to condone the use of drugs. He wrote a book that instead argues to the logical conclusion that humans have always used drugs and they are likely to keep right on doing so. This book takes the wind out of the argument that drug use is somehow morally wrong. In fact he is pretty convincing when he claims that drug use is normal and to adopt a "Zero Tolerance" position towards drugs is impossible to do without creating high crime and coruption as a side effect. It is morally wrong to attempt to regulate moral behavior in a free society.
It is acknowledged in the writing that "Some" people have trouble with drugs but the majority of users do not. Spending hugh amounts of public money to stop drug use in a free society does not make any sense but Sullum makes it clear to the reader that making sense has never been the point in the war on drugs. This really rung a bell with me because it appeals to my common sense and personal experience.My use of drugs in my younger days did not stop me from being honorably discharged from the military, getting a college degree or becomming a professional technician. I find that I am one of the many middle aged people who smoked some pot and still became reponsible adults. I also stopped, including cigarettes, when it no longer suited me. Just as Sullum points out that the overwhelming majority of us do.
So... I would highly recommend this book to you if you are questioning the rationality behind the war on drugs. It is not going to convince you that you should be doing drugs and that is not the point of the work. This study will give you many well argued points that demonstrate how the effort to stop drug use through draconian drug laws is not working and worse, doing more damage to society overall than the drugs themselves are causing. An example of this is tobacco. (The author writes a great deal on this point.) This is one of the most widely used and harmful of all the drugs in our society. Through education and a publily funded add campain the used of tobacco has dropped dramatically over the past 30 years without draconian enforcement. Just the opposite has happened with Marijuanna where the laws are becomming more and more draconian every year, the cost of enforcement is mind boggling and the easiest place to score a bag of pot is right down at the local high school.
It is a strange, sad situation to tolerate.