This question from Jonathan bears scrutiny;

"Given that reality, is it responsible to willfully flout laws that are constitutional and produced by a generally fair and open democratic process?"

Has he ever read the history of how marijuana became illegal? There was nothing "fair" or "open" or "democratic" about it. How about the Shaeffer Commissions' recommendation many years later that marijuana be decriminalized? Nixon cherry picked the members of that commission, they took a fair, open and democratic look at marijuana and decided the laws were too harsh and ineffective. Nixon then slammed the door on the fair, open and democratic process and ignored the commission's report entirely. And now we have DEA raids in states where voters have decided -- through fair, open and democratic processes -- that marijuana should be made available to sick people.

I ask the following question with all due respect: Is Jonathan Caulkins a complete idiot? If he isn't, he needs to educate himself a little more about topics he chooses to address -- and choose his words a lot more carefully.

"What distinguishes the Erowids is their assertion that modern humans must integrate psychoactive use into life. Apparently from their perspective, choosing abstinence, at either the individual or societal level, is inherently inconsistent with being modern.

Denying or denigrating an individual’s right to choose temperance is an extreme position not worth engaging."

Choosing abstinence at the societal level is impossible. And at the individual level, the Erowids' were not trying to "deny or denigrate an individual's right to choose temperance". Everybody is well aware that abstinence is a good choice, and the Erowids never stated they were against it. They want to create a culture of people who, if they decide to use drugs, are as careful as possible. I think that was well understood from reading their article. To jump from that to claiming that the Erowids want everybody to use drugs, and that they're denigrating those who choose abstinence, is a huge leap and an insult to them. It is also a necessary leap, i might add, if he doesn't want to recognize the validity of the Erowids' ideas.

"I am skeptical that they constitute a practical framework for social policy, as distinct from being useful guidelines for individuals who choose to use psychoactive drugs. Note, though, that nothing about American alcohol policy precludes application of these principles. So if their advocates are successful in taming the rather considerable problems with legal alcohol, then I would take more seriously claims about the Principles’ universal efficacy with respect to all psychoactives, including, say, methamphetamine."

He doesn't specify what "efficacy" means to him. I don't suppose he expects society can just rid itself from every drug related problem. What the Erowids' meant was that they wanted to move towards a culture that would minimize harms and maximize benefits. Does he have a better suggestion? The Erowids' also said that alcohol education in public schools prohibits mention of "responsible use". With that in mind, it makes sense to believe that we do indeed have a lot room for improvement in terms of alcohol related harms. And then he throws in the mention of methamphetamine just to sort of mock the possibility of harm reduction. Again, what does he suggest is the best way to educate people about methamphetamine? Plus, he fails to recognize that even if methamphetamine was legal, there is no way the level of use would ever rival alcohol's. Over 60% percent of people in the US use alcohol right now, and, I believe, about .3% of people use methamphetamine. And guess why that is? No, not because it's illegal. It's because PEOPLE MAKE CHOICES, which is precisely what the Erowids are advocating.

"Most affluent industrialized countries take a far less aggressive approach to their prohibitions than the United States does, yet they maintain prohibitions nonetheless. The problems with America’s prohibition stem primarily from particulars of its implementation, not from prohibition per se."

He does not explain how this is so, plus, he is wrong. Prohibition always creates a black market, and in most countries (even the netherlands), that black market is violent. He says the netherlands is the "poster-child" for legalization, but the netherlands if far from what we as reformers are advocating for (full legalization, with taxation and regulation of every substance, and no black market).

"Even at the individual level, I wonder whether these Principles are universal. They strike me as overkill for caffeine and thin protection for the average person contemplating daily crack use."

And what does he suggest is the best way to educate people about drug use?

"No one knows how legalization would change these probabilities. The Erowids might argue the risks would go down, particularly if their principles were applied. I would argue the opposite. The drugs would be cheaper, more easily available, and (likely) marketed aggressively; and their use would be less costly in terms of risk of arrest, loss of employment, and social approbation. In short, there would be fewer external constraints on use, and more frequent and heavier use increases the risk of dependence."

He fails to recognize that "risk of arrest, loss of employment" alienates drug users and makes it less likely for them to recover (if you're alienated form society, and if you can't get a job anyway, it's less likely you'll have the motivation to use more responsibly). Plus, his entire arguement falls apart if you take out the "more frequent and heavier use" part. He fails to explain why there would be more frequent and heavier use. Just because the drug is cheaper doesn't mean people are gonna overdose for fun. He seems to subscribe to the general prejudice that drug users don't care at all about their health and that they would never take any measures to control their use and minimize harms, which is precisely what the entire article he's responiding to was talking about.

"Civil disobedience has its place as a form of political expression, but stealthily using drugs with the objective of getting away with breaking the law is an act of selfishness, not civil disobedience. "

People use drugs for many different reasons, but never had I thought that their objective was "getting away with breaking the law". This is a gross mischaracterization of drug users, and shows how prejudiced his views are, and how little he understands why people choose to use drugs. If he has this attitude, it's no wonder that he can't accept the Erowids' good ideas.

Mr. Caulkins response to the Erowid post is so fraught with sophistry that I find it offensive. He states that the Erowid assertion that "Modern humans must learn how to relate to psychoactives responsibly, treating them with respect and awareness, working to minimize harms and maximize benefits, and integrating use into a healthy, enjoyable, and productive life.” is a condemnation of drug abstinence?
"What distinguishes the Erowids is their assertion that modern humans MUST integrate psychoactive use into life. Apparently from their perspective, choosing abstinence, at either the individual or societal level, is inherently inconsistent with being modern." With this statement Mr. Caulkins makes the assertion that the Erowids relativist position is in fact an absolutist position, that ALL must use drugs!!! This rhetoric attempts to justify a program of social engineering and have us believe that the removal of individual freedom of choice is in fact "choosing at the societal level".
Mr. Caulkins is the only absolutist here.
"Denying or denigrating an individual’s right to choose temperance is an extreme position not worth engaging." This statement is too obnoxious to respond to.
"Essentially every country in the world prohibits production and distribution of cocaine, crack, heroin, and methamphetamines for recreational use, even legalizers’ poster child, the Netherlands". This is a can of worms way too large to tackle in this letter. The U.S., acting through the U.N. after WWII enacted an international policy dedicated to the destruction of indigenous plant poison cultures; those cultures where opium, coca leaf, and cannabis were used. Interestingly, opium smoked does not lead to overdose. But opium is now illegal throughout Asia and has been essentially replaced by heroin and methamphetamine, thanks to U.S. drug policy.
"In practice, how responsible is use of drugs that are now prohibited? Most people who try an illegal drug do not harm themselves or anyone else. However, it is also true that most instances of drunk driving and speeding do not result in accidents, yet this does not mean that driving under the influence or speeding is a responsible way to drive." What? This attempt at metaphor is so weak as to make me question your capacity for honest critical thought Jonathan!
"Does society have a right to “protect” its citizens from a one-in-six risk of dependence, even though that “protection” denies five times as many people legal access to something pleasurable? The question is parallel to asking whether society has a right to pass a law against riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving without a seatbelt, or swimming when there is no lifeguard." No Mr. Caulkins, your question is parallel to asking whether society has a right to pass a law against riding a motorcycle, driving, or swimming.
Carl

It DOESn't WORK. It can't work.

...does work, for tyrannies.Theres BIG $$$$ in prohibitions.Boring,dull ,specious sophistry,indeed.I wonder if he even cares, that informed people are laughing.Oh well, I'm sure he's well on his way to the next payday.

From William Burroughs 1986 Thanksgiving Day prayer: "CONTROL, the ugly American....."

Calkins writes:

"Even at the individual level, I wonder whether these Principles are universal. They strike me as overkill for caffeine and thin protection for the average person contemplating daily crack use."

They are universal. Caffeine is addictive, and all addictions drain your pocket. That's something to consider, and most people don't consider it. Doesn't it strike you as unusual the level of popularity that Coca-Cola has enjoyed all over the world for about a hundred years? Most people have been addicted to caffeine since they were children, so the thought of them being addicted never even crosses their minds. The Erowids believe that should change.

Plus, in many cases, caffeine even kills people. Probably not by drinking coke or coffee, but by taking those caffeine pills that they sell over the counter at some pharmacies. Many people take a couple of those pills to stay awake and be able to work long nights or to study, but some people take them for fun. Those things are dangerous. Not being aware of it, and thinking "what the hell, it's just caffeine", some people overdose on them.

In the case of crack, the principles also apply. I agree it's thin protection, but at least the principles can get people into a mentality of being careful. That mentality can mean the difference between trying the drug a few times for the sake of satisfying curiousity, and doing it for an extended period and becoming addicted. (Trying it only a few times is very possible, as "wrong" as it might sound to say that. According to samhsa, about three times more people smoked crack in the last year than in the last month (at the time the statistics were gathered.)) A mentality of being careful can also mean the difference between taking small hits with some time allowed in between, and taking a bunch of big hits in a row, which could result in a stroke or a heart attack (or in death). So yes, I agree it's thin protection, but a mentality of being careful can really make a difference. A mentality of being careful is what Erowid's Principles are all about.

You don't have to be pro-drug to be anti-Prohibition.

"Given that reality, is it responsible to willfully flout laws that are constitutional and produced by a generally fair and open democratic process?"

This is probably the most dubious thing said in the entire piece. As mentioned by an earlier commenter, the process by which drugs became illegal was hardly democratic. More importantly, though, is that he asserts that the drug laws are constitutional. They technically are, but only because of some of the worst SCOTUS decisions known to man, interpreting the commerce clause to allow congress to do anything it feels like. So yes, once the Constitution was turned inside out, into the exact thing that it was carefully designed to prevent, then you could call drug laws "constitutional". Caulkins has no idea what this country stands for, and obviously has no concept of individual rights. A pretty sad argument all around.

Cultural development is the only way to improve the drug abuse situation. The ONLY way.

“Moral progress has consisted, in the main, of protest against cruel customs….”—Bertrand Russell

"The question is parallel to asking whether society has a right to pass a law against riding a motorcycle without a helmet, driving without a seatbelt, or swimming when there is no lifeguard."
Helmets, seatbelts and lifeguards are methods of harm reduction, not prohibition.