
During wartime, the media generally engages in propaganda in order to bolster support for the government’s policies. The so-called “War on Drugs” is no different.
Consider the following headline, from the BBC:
Cranberries singer O’Riordan died by drowning
O’Riordan had fallen into a stupor due to excessive consumption of a legal drug known as alcohol. She drowned in her bathtub. Her death was treated as a tragic accident.
A few years later, TV star Matthew Perry fell into a stupor due to excessive consumption of a drug named Ketamine. He drowned in his bathtub. His death was treated as an outrage, as if was killed by drug pushers.
Here’s Reason magazine:
Last month, federal prosecutors indicted five people for the overdose death of a celebrity the previous year. Three have pleaded guilty so far, and this month, a trial date was set for the other two. . . . For one thing, Perry did not overdose, and his drugs were not tainted; while the medical examiner listed ketamine as the primary contributing factor in his death, the most direct cause was drowning. “Matthew Perry drowned while intoxicated on ketamine the same way people routinely drown while intoxicated on alcohol,” Ryan Marino, a doctor of toxicology and addiction medicine at University Hospitals in Cleveland, told Filter.
Andrew Stolbach, a physician and toxicologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, “said it’s unlikely Perry would have died if he was not in a body of water,” VICE reported last year. “It’s really dangerous to use sedative drugs in a pool, especially alone, or a bathtub,” Stolbach added.
Of course, no attempt was made to find the people that sold Dolores O’Riordan her alcohol.
Reasonable people may disagree as to the optimal policy for illegal drugs (or alcohol). Reason suggests that Perry might be alive today if Ketamine were not illegal without a prescription:
Ketamine was developed for use in anesthesia and pain relief before gaining a reputation as a club drug in the 1980s. Recent evidence suggests it can be used to treat persistent depression and addiction. In the right context, it’s also quite safe: A 2022 scientific review of 312 overdoses and 138 deaths in which ketamine was present found “no cases of overdose or death related to the use of ketamine as an antidepressant in a therapeutic setting.” . . . As investigators would discover, Perry was staying clean through therapeutic ketamine treatments but eventually became addicted to the treatment itself; when doctors refused to increase his dosage, he sought the drug elsewhere.
Obviously, we cannot be sure what would have happened if Perry had continued to have access to a legal source of the drug. O’Riordan drowned despite access to legal alcohol. Perry might have done the same. All intoxicating drugs are dangerous to some extent. But it’s also clear that illegal drug use creates greater risks, as it is much more difficult to ensure that one has the desired dose. Many fentanyl deaths occur in people who were not even aware that they were consuming fentanyl.
My concern here is with the media. If voters are to make intelligent decisions about drug policy, it is essential that the media not become an arm of government propaganda. Thus far, they have failed to provide objective information on the effects of drug use, as they report the consequences of illegal drug use in a radically different fashion from the way the report on the consequences of legal drugs such as alcohol. Please, just give us the facts.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Oct 28 2024 at 1:52pm
Will largely agree with you but I would point out that margin between the feel good dose of alcohol and Ketamine is much smaller. It also takes a while to consume enough alcohol until you reach the dangerous dose while you can take the dangerous dose of ketamine quickly. Still, ketamine is much like alcohol as the risk is taking enough to become so sedated something bad happens. That is different from fentanyl which is specifically a respiratory depressant making it much riskier.
Steve
Mactoul
Oct 29 2024 at 12:16am
Voters do not need to make decisions about anything, esp not intelligent decisions. Which is not bad considering that a typical voter is a (mild) national socialist (cf Bryan Caplan)
Scott Sumner
Oct 29 2024 at 4:27am
I’d prefer mild national socialist voters to extreme national socialist dictators.
Fred
Oct 29 2024 at 3:26pm
I wish that O’Riodan had escaped from the dangers of drugs and her profession. Rory Gallagher and Phil Lynott come to my mind readily as other Irish people who lost the drug death lottery. The number of American artists who died too young is enormous. I want to believe that a libertarian laissez faire policy is best, but the extinguishing of so many young people from all walks of life is certainly disturbing.
Scott Sumner
Oct 30 2024 at 5:36am
“I want to believe that a libertarian laissez faire policy is best, but . . .”
“but” is not the right term here. The war on drugs makes the death toll worse. There’s no trade-off between freedom and health.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Oct 30 2024 at 6:45am
I agree on the basic point about needing to look at regulation of each each drug separately (each regulation separately, period), but the problem here is probably not media acting as government propagandist, but just popular status quo bias. Not really that much different from the feeling that “illegal” immigration is bad.
Scott H.
Oct 30 2024 at 8:28pm
Agreed on all your points. But good luck redefining the default of “breaking the law for personal gain” away from “bad”.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Oct 30 2024 at 8:59pm
For mutual gain.
Jim Glass
Nov 1 2024 at 4:33am
That’s sure not how I remember things during the real war I had a draft card for. Walter Cronkite declaring the Tet Offensive a shocking victory for the Viet Cong, when in reality it was a bad defeat for them, was Lyndon Johnson’s nightmare. In fact, the media was a thornbush in the side of the government all the way through that war. Ask Dick and Henry. And that was a real war, which the “war on drugs” isn’t.
A good part of the media is torturing the government all the time. Fox tortures Democrats, MSNBC and CNN torture Republicans, etc. So let’s not pretend the media just dutifully swallows and regurgitates “government propaganda”, like some sort of hapless, helpless, impotent dupe.
Instead, Fox, MSNBC and CNN and the rest dutifully, consciously, intentionally report what their audiences want to hear — regardless of the truth, as was proven at law via the Fox – Dominion trial, to the tune of $787 million.
The media has 100% full access to all the truth there is. And is happy to stick a knife in the government when it is in its interest to do so — in fact, it is always doing so more or less.
So if you are unhappy with what the media reports, perhaps you should be upset with … the media.
Jim Glass
Nov 1 2024 at 4:58am
I’m generally very much on the side of legalization — or often better, decriminalization –depending on the specifics. But, after Perry drowned …
Was he being funny? I hope one immediately sees the problem with this glibness.
This is the exact attitude Americans took towards drunk driving immediately after being freed from Prohibition, “It’s unlikely Margaret Mitchell would have been run over by a car if the drunk hadn’t been driving a car.” It was driving a car, not drinking. Look up the contemporary reporting. Car accidents were just car accidents, that drug C2H5OH, so what? Car crashes happen. There were no meaningful DWI laws anywhere until the 1950s, as late as the 1980s near half the states still had none (when federal law intervened). Deca-thousands died.
(By coincidence I recently watched 1937’s Topper, with Cary Grant and Constance Bennett as perpetually inebriated partiers who love inebriatedly racing their sports car on country roads – Cary steering it with his feet – until they unexpectedly die in a crash. They then learn that they must perform one good deed on Earth [having never performed any before] to get into heaven. They decide this will be teaching their staid, henpecked, bank manager friend Topper how to enjoy life by getting inebriated with them and racing with them in their sports car – which unexpectedly crashes. Topper wakes up in the hospital a fun-loving, happy man, his wife now appreciates him for the first time, and the angels get their wings. The moral of the story is ….? It was a huge hit movie.)
It’s worth pondering the huge sudden reversal of the public’s attitude towards the drug alcohol from hating it so much as to force a Constitutional Amendment banning it in 1919 (after 23 states had enacted anti-alcohol laws of their own), to the media glamorization of it from 1933 on while ignoring its worst costs. The media delivers what the public wants, and what the public wants follows its own dynamic — much more so than government “propaganda”. In the history of Prohibition I’ve read (which is really interesting) the politicians followed the popular opinion all the way through, from enacting Prohibition to repealing it, to ignoring the costs of drunk driving and the like for decades, to finally being politically forced to address them in the 1980s by MADD and the like. Is it really different with other drugs?
Sorry, Libertarians totally forfeited any moral high ground as to this — when in the *pandemic* the government and many others did “provide objective information on the effects of drug use” – vaccines, ivermectin and the rest – and the libertarians led the charge of angry, reality-denying protesting against it.
Penn Jillette on why he is no longer a libertarian.
Libertarians have proven that they want the government to provide *only* the objective truth that they want to hear and very much not any other — they are just like everyone else.
Comments are closed.