Up till now the "war on drugs" has been a huge failure. It has incarcerated millions of people. Corrupted entire societies. Destroyed millions of lives. Cost many billions -- maybe even trillions -- of dollars.
This essay argues that properly funded researchers using modern scientific methods can -- and should -- kill the demand for dangerous narcotics by developing "benign substitutes" that, at the very least will persuade users of bad narcotics to switch to substitutes that give them an intensely pleasing experience while doing no harm, and at the same time lead to enhancing their capabilities in everyday living. This would be a multidisciplinary effort involving, at the very least, biochemistry, pharmacology, nutrition studies, psychology.
It is further argued that at best, the best possible outcome. such "benign substitutes" might very easily achieve much wider consumption, if they make most people feel better and -- very important -- perform better, as defined below. And, ultimately, spread to entire societies, influencing human behavior in a positive direction.
There is enormous demand to feel good. Why not take advantage of this gigantic demand to leverage products that are both beneficial and at the same time make users feel good?
A first class of "benign substitutes" - the most important class - would enhance the ability of consumers to achieve goals, perform tasks, both complex and simple, and should aim at trying to fulfill eight important criteria: [1] good mood - not quite euphoria, not quite high, but feeling good, without loss of ability to perform tasks; [2] improved cognition; [3] low irritability; [4] better memory; [5] better health; [6] more energy; [7] improved learning ability [8] increased longevity. The objective here is to remove feelings of low self esteem, depression, boredom, and replace low functioning in day to day living with high energy, efficiency and success in achieving goals. This class would not require an immediate effect. It might take weeks, months, even years, to have absolutely full effect. It would most likely involve a combination of diet, exercise, pharmaceuticals and training. (Special restaurants — and other restaurants offering special dishes — might greatly help in deploying ingestibles as they emerge through the research, serving helpful foods and drinks.)
A second class of benign substitute, immediate acting with no delay, for recreation, for relaxation, intended to wean users from dangerous drugs, would be euphoriants of varying levels of intensity, which should to a certain extent mimic euphoriants currently consumed in various societies, such as alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, but without the dangerous side effects of incapacity or addiction. By distributing these at low cost, this should kill the demand for dangerous narcotics. And hopefully reduce excessive alcohol use, that is legal, and yet destroys many lives.
It is very important to remind the reader the amazing effectiveness of some of the consumables that have been discovered. For example aspirin, penicillin, and a host of medications that relieve symptoms and some that cure disease. And, also to remind the reader, that there has been a long history of discovery of natural substances that affect mood and behavior, ranging from marijuana to opium to coca leaves to betel and pan to peyote and mescaline. And also to remind there are foods that negatively impact health and performance, and on the other hand, foods that have strong positive effects. It is therefore realistic to think that well funded modern science is quite capable of refining existing foods and nutrients -- and inventing entirely new ingestibles -- to produce socially desirable results that come more or less close to fulfilling the eight criteria enumerated above, both making people feel good and making them perform better in socially desirable ways.
Ideally there would be a number of different kinds of substitutes: there would be fast acting substitutes to immediately wean users from dangerous narcotics; and at the other end of the continuum, substitutes that might take a substantial amount of time to have full effect, such as a diet or combination of diet and exercise. It would be politically easier to sell substitutes based on consuming existing food products... the idea that improving your diet will make you feel better and function better. But the effects of a new diet are not likely to appear before a substantial time period has passed, and would not be useful for immediately weaning users from dangerous narcotics.
Before further discussion, let me attack the argument that humans should not try to invent new substances aimed at improving human well-being, because such substances might have disastrous results. Humans have for a very long time been observing the effects of substances on people. At its simplest, it's been observing what is safe to eat, and finding methods for converting unpalatable or indigestible plants into consumable foods, through processing and, very important, finding cooking methods that make such foods nice to eat.
Observation of cause and effect has greatly improved since written records emerged. And over the past few hundred years there have been great strides in observation and rigorous experimentation, and increasingly better safety precautions in protecting human subjects.
Private enterprise is not likely to produce the kind of low cost foods and dietary supplements and euphoriants that would help entire populations.
Private companies are chiefly interested in profits and rapid return on capital and pushing people with enough income to purchase products at a profitable price. The profit motive has had great effects in driving innovation and progress, but on the other hand is increasingly tying things up in patents and trying to bolster prices. Like the disgraceful behavior of Pfizer profiting from Covid, putting the interests of shareholders over the interests of public health.
Governments are likely to face pressures from private interests to not go down the road being advocated here. The liquor industry does not want low cost benign substitutes replacing alcohol. The pharmaceutical industry has no interest in cheap substitutes for psychiatric drugs.
Some governments may have the intestinal fortitude to resist such pressures and may be prepared to fund this kind of applied research dedicated to finding benign substitutes that not only kill the demand for dangerous drugs but improve human performance.
However, there may be opposition to governmental support for developing benign substances because of fear of being manipulated and controlled by governments. This fear was dramatically expressed in Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World”, where Huxley described an item called "soma", that made people feel good, and that made them compliant with an odious government. This should not be a genuine problem when there are countries with democratically elected governments and strong universities and strong journalistic institutions that will identify and resist perversions of science for strengthening social control by a small elite, much as we are currently (June 2023) resisting the mis-use of AI (Artificial Intelligence).
The institutions most likely to resist pressures against development of cheap benign substances are private foundations. They can take a much longer view that is not constrained by the money-making motive, by the constraint of wanting rapid return on investment. Also they are not subject to the same .political pressures as governments.
Employees of such foundation funded enterprises should be firmly bound by agreements not to take the ideas to private companies to produce profit making consumables and build a wall of patents to prevent further development. Through a strong legal department, steps should be taken to prevent obstruction of the basic thrust of the activity, namely to devise inexpensive benign substitutes to wean users from dangerous drugs.
In conclusion: developing inexpensive substances that make people smarter, happier and healthier and will kill demand for dangerous drugs is an objective worth massive support, because it is likely to have massive benefits.
Annex to Winning the drug war (and perhaps improving human behavior)
I am well aware that nutrients (foods, dietary supplements, medications) and physical exercise are only part of what determines human behavior.
The culture of the group you belong to is very important in determining your behavior.
Also, your genetic inheritance.
But if sufficient numbers of individuals belonging to your group ingest stuff and do exercises that push them in the direction of being calm, cognitively sharp, quick to learn, slow to anger, physically healthy, high energy, endurance -— if this happens — this will push your group in the right direction.
On the other hand, people who fall prey to incapacitating narcotics and drag others into that scene, are likely to pull the group down.
Make no mistake, "designer drugs" invented by people with training in chemistry but unmoored to any ethical framework are a threat... but deserve close examination because some may be beneficial, or have some positive value.
I should add yoga to the list of exercises.