August 29, 2023 - 1:00pm
Americans, from college to middle age, have a newfound taste for drugs, and are smoking marijuana and taking psychedelics at unprecedented rates.
That’s according to the Monitoring the Future survey, which has tracked, among other topics, American substance use since the mid-1970s. The latest figures for MTF’s adult cohort, reported in the New Scientist, indicate that roughly a quarter of adults aged 35-50, and almost half of adults aged 19-30, said they had used marijuana in the past 12 months. About 4% of older adults, and 8% of younger adults, reported past-year use of psychedelics like LSD and MDMA.
Both these figures are historic highs. The psychedelic use rates are up dramatically from a decade prior, when less than 1% of each group used psychedelics. Rates of adult marijuana use more than doubled in the same period, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
What’s driving this increase? The answer is simple: policy changes that have made both marijuana and psychedelics less regulated, and therefore more widely available.
The mass legalisation of recreational marijuana — it is available in 23 states and in the District of Columbia — is no secret. And, while this was for some reason contested, the evidence is in that the creation of legal markets leads to an increase in consumption. A recent systematic review found across 13 studies that “an increased availability of legal cannabis was linked to increased current cannabis use and health-related outcomes (vomiting, psychosis, or cannabis-involved pregnancies), regardless of the indicator employed to measure availability (proximity or density) among both adults and adolescents.”
Psychedelics are now following the same path marijuana previously did. Both Oregon and Colorado have decriminalised and legalised psychedelics for medical use. The District of Columbia has decriminalised possession of psychoactive plants like ibogaine, peyote, and “shrooms”. Supporters are looking to expand, with planned ballot initiatives in Massachusetts and California.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf you were the ruling elite and your policies demanded falling living standards and fewer freedoms, then you too would encourage recreational drug use to zombify the public.
Be under no illusion, the net zero commitments that are apparently non-negotiable are only feasible with a major restriction to resources and reduction of material wealth for most Westerners. Drugs, identity, and sexuality require relatively few resources and are a tremendous distraction too.
It is no consolation to know that, unlike Brave New World, we will have a choice of soma.
You’re missing the mark; psychedelics don’t zombify. If anything, they open the mind to new viewpoints by increasing neuroplasticity and softening prejudiced conditionings.
Absolutely correct, and not only that, but they are of assistance in treating a range of conditions like PTSD.
Absolutely correct, and not only that, but they are of assistance in treating a range of conditions like PTSD.
You’re missing the mark; psychedelics don’t zombify. If anything, they open the mind to new viewpoints by increasing neuroplasticity and softening prejudiced conditionings.
If you were the ruling elite and your policies demanded falling living standards and fewer freedoms, then you too would encourage recreational drug use to zombify the public.
Be under no illusion, the net zero commitments that are apparently non-negotiable are only feasible with a major restriction to resources and reduction of material wealth for most Westerners. Drugs, identity, and sexuality require relatively few resources and are a tremendous distraction too.
It is no consolation to know that, unlike Brave New World, we will have a choice of soma.
“…indifference to those who will be harmed by drug use”. Those harmed by drug use will not just include users. It will include employers dealing with less productive workers, children with drug addicted parents, victims of drug-driving and other drug-linked crime, and tax payers picking up the tab for mental health treatments for drug users. We’re about to appreciate the previous benefits of a decades long war on drugs which kept a cap on recreational drug abuse, and which has now been meekly surrendered on a false premise.
I don’t know where you live, but I have been few places in the Western world (and indeed the world in general) where recreational drugs are not generally available. I am accordingly not sure how the “war on drugs” has “kept a cap on” recreational use.
Dailymailland
Dailymailland
I don’t know where you live, but I have been few places in the Western world (and indeed the world in general) where recreational drugs are not generally available. I am accordingly not sure how the “war on drugs” has “kept a cap on” recreational use.
“…indifference to those who will be harmed by drug use”. Those harmed by drug use will not just include users. It will include employers dealing with less productive workers, children with drug addicted parents, victims of drug-driving and other drug-linked crime, and tax payers picking up the tab for mental health treatments for drug users. We’re about to appreciate the previous benefits of a decades long war on drugs which kept a cap on recreational drug abuse, and which has now been meekly surrendered on a false premise.
‘The smell of failure.’ Resinous and heavy.
‘The smell of failure.’ Resinous and heavy.
Ha!
Ha!
Ok, so increased use may increase drug related harms. But what of the increase in benefits? Presumably fewer people in prison or perhaps less street violence? Less psychosis or depression because of the use of psychedelics?
We need those figures to make a reasoned response.
Ok, so increased use may increase drug related harms. But what of the increase in benefits? Presumably fewer people in prison or perhaps less street violence? Less psychosis or depression because of the use of psychedelics?
We need those figures to make a reasoned response.
Wow, I’m disappointed with UnHerd for approving this war-on-drugs minded hit-piece. Big pharma is “Herd”, guys. this reads like standard saturnian control freakery. I wanted to yawn..
What we’re seeing is just the wrong mindset that was there since the Nixon era being finally righted; with Psychedelics and Marijuana being put in the same bag of “what those hippies use” with real harmful substances such as Heroin or Cocaine by clueless old men in congress, fearing that the youth might be getting a little too neuroplastic for political control.
Wow, I’m disappointed with UnHerd for approving this war-on-drugs minded hit-piece. Big pharma is “Herd”, guys. this reads like standard saturnian control freakery. I wanted to yawn..
What we’re seeing is just the wrong mindset that was there since the Nixon era being finally righted; with Psychedelics and Marijuana being put in the same bag of “what those hippies use” with real harmful substances such as Heroin or Cocaine by clueless old men in congress, fearing that the youth might be getting a little too neuroplastic for political control.
I have never understood why those on the Right, who are generally in favour individual freedoms, switch their attitude so totally when it comes to mind-altering substances.
I go back and forth on this one. My reasoning is that people both on the left and the right will except, tolerate or insist upon morality laws that they deem for the greater good. Between left and right there is just a difference of opinion on where the boundaries of the greater good lie. For the left, individual freedoms seem to the be consistently linked to sexual behavior, for the right, they are more broadly applied to various behaviors. I suspect many right wingers (and left wingers) would turn a blind eye to an individual who kept themselves to themselves and engaged in drug use in their own home if they otherwise caused no issue. For many of those on the right, the common usage of hard drugs brings with it social problems and these problems are foisted on the community: overdoses, promiscuity, damage to property etc. Yes, you could argue that smoking and alcohol can bring similar issues, but alcohol, in particular, has a much longer history of being not only socially acceptable but also a part of various social events from the banal to the celebratory. Interestingly, it seems as hard drugs are pushed for as a recreational option, alcohol use and smoking are falling out of favor either through choice or regulation.
It all sounded quite plausible until you used the word “promiscuity”. Leaving aside those on what might be described as the “Religious Right”, does anyone actually care about that? The other thing I find strange is that in the US (historically the driving force behind the “war on drugs”), the recreational use of cannabis is legal in approximately 50% of States. I suspect that opinions may be shifting.
It all sounded quite plausible until you used the word “promiscuity”. Leaving aside those on what might be described as the “Religious Right”, does anyone actually care about that? The other thing I find strange is that in the US (historically the driving force behind the “war on drugs”), the recreational use of cannabis is legal in approximately 50% of States. I suspect that opinions may be shifting.
I go back and forth on this one. My reasoning is that people both on the left and the right will except, tolerate or insist upon morality laws that they deem for the greater good. Between left and right there is just a difference of opinion on where the boundaries of the greater good lie. For the left, individual freedoms seem to the be consistently linked to sexual behavior, for the right, they are more broadly applied to various behaviors. I suspect many right wingers (and left wingers) would turn a blind eye to an individual who kept themselves to themselves and engaged in drug use in their own home if they otherwise caused no issue. For many of those on the right, the common usage of hard drugs brings with it social problems and these problems are foisted on the community: overdoses, promiscuity, damage to property etc. Yes, you could argue that smoking and alcohol can bring similar issues, but alcohol, in particular, has a much longer history of being not only socially acceptable but also a part of various social events from the banal to the celebratory. Interestingly, it seems as hard drugs are pushed for as a recreational option, alcohol use and smoking are falling out of favor either through choice or regulation.
I have never understood why those on the Right, who are generally in favour individual freedoms, switch their attitude so totally when it comes to mind-altering substances.
The only thing prohibition did with total success was to act as a job-creation scheme for organised crime. Other than that, it failed completely.
Yes, it’s probable that legalisation will result in an increase in consumption. The repeal of Prohibition in the 1930s probably did the same for alcohol. So what? Prohibition does not work. All it does is to provide a ready-made market for business-minded criminals. We must learn to live with psychoactive substances.
Seems to work in Singapore and Malaysia.
And China, and Japan, and plenty of other countries
Maybe not Japan (https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8q7k/how-stigma-created-japans-hidden-drug-problem).
And since when was Xi’s China a shining example for the rest of the world to follow?
Your point was to do with the failure of prohibition, not the quantum of sheen or lustrousness attained by particular regimes.
Your point was to do with the failure of prohibition, not the quantum of sheen or lustrousness attained by particular regimes.
Maybe not Japan (https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8q7k/how-stigma-created-japans-hidden-drug-problem).
And since when was Xi’s China a shining example for the rest of the world to follow?
Only in Singapore – a small wealthy, culturally homogenous enclave whose population happily submit to laws that are deemed to be fair (including btw no particular restrictions on tobacco and booze). Malaysia has substantial problems and is a trade hub for drugs. It is not only in the user countries that problems manifest (including Iran and Phillipines, not known for it’s easy going police), but in the producer and transporter countries – Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico etc.
Iran has prohibitions on alcohol that produce something of an appetite for chemicals. They seem inclined toward amfetamine, as also in the Arab world.
I never noticed any problems in Malaysia, which I got to know well. They are certainly doing a better job than we are.
Iran has prohibitions on alcohol that produce something of an appetite for chemicals. They seem inclined toward amfetamine, as also in the Arab world.
I never noticed any problems in Malaysia, which I got to know well. They are certainly doing a better job than we are.
I see Singapore executed two people for drug trafficking recently. If even the death penalty does not stop people, what prospect is there of stopping it completely?
It stops most people. Including those two!!
Obviously a few aren’t very smart and there’s hanging for that.
You need to cater to all eventualities.
The only result is that smart drug traffickers moving product through SE Asia tend to avoid Singapore.
As the Singaporean government’s main concern is errrr, Singapore, that sounds like a definite win for them!!
Am glad you have convinced yourself.
Well, I live in Australia, and there is absolutely no shortage of drugs here.
You have no death penalty. For that, anyway.
Stands to reason.
We don’t have a death penalty for anything, because we are a civilised country. My point is that Singapore has a death penalty for trafficking in illicit drugs, but it hasn’t actually eradicated the trafficking of illicit drugs through its territory.
My point stands.
Your point is a second-order concern only, as regards the Singapore government.
Singaporean residents do not use many drugs. First order concern = sorted
Even so, I’m sure some through traffic of drugs is dissuaded by Singa. death penalty.
Australian nationals are certainly wary of it. My stupid ex-boyfriend was dissuaded, for one.
I take your point that if you were (say) importing drugs from Thailand to Australia, you would be well advised not to go via Singapore. The fact is that Singapore laws prohibit a lot of acts that would be permissible elsewhere, and which most citizens of Western countries wouldn’t support (for example the fundamental human right to take a durian on public transport).
Have you smelt a durian on public transport? I love durian and even I think it’d be inconsiderate to take one on the metro.
************
And anyway, your posturing about ‘civilised’ needs to be put in context.
Australia does indeed have the death penalty.
It is just extra-judicial, that’s all.
Eligibility criteria :
1. be aboriginal
2. have done nothing wrong or only something minor
3. be in custody
Have you smelt a durian on public transport? I love durian and even I think it’d be inconsiderate to take one on the metro.
************
And anyway, your posturing about ‘civilised’ needs to be put in context.
Australia does indeed have the death penalty.
It is just extra-judicial, that’s all.
Eligibility criteria :
1. be aboriginal
2. have done nothing wrong or only something minor
3. be in custody
I take your point that if you were (say) importing drugs from Thailand to Australia, you would be well advised not to go via Singapore. The fact is that Singapore laws prohibit a lot of acts that would be permissible elsewhere, and which most citizens of Western countries wouldn’t support (for example the fundamental human right to take a durian on public transport).
My point stands.
Your point is a second-order concern only, as regards the Singapore government.
Singaporean residents do not use many drugs. First order concern = sorted
Even so, I’m sure some through traffic of drugs is dissuaded by Singa. death penalty.
Australian nationals are certainly wary of it. My stupid ex-boyfriend was dissuaded, for one.
We don’t have a death penalty for anything, because we are a civilised country. My point is that Singapore has a death penalty for trafficking in illicit drugs, but it hasn’t actually eradicated the trafficking of illicit drugs through its territory.
You have no death penalty. For that, anyway.
Stands to reason.
Well, I live in Australia, and there is absolutely no shortage of drugs here.
As the Singaporean government’s main concern is errrr, Singapore, that sounds like a definite win for them!!
Am glad you have convinced yourself.
The only result is that smart drug traffickers moving product through SE Asia tend to avoid Singapore.
The best prospect is to penalise the small users and thereby choke off demand. Once the teachers, social workers and doctors start losing their jobs for convictions, we’ll know that the “war on drugs” is actually being fought with live ammunition.
Yup, the glamorous idea of going after big dealers is hopelessly wrong here.
It’s just a product of liberal hand-wringing and bad television.
If you do not punish users, but only dealing, the demand remains.
The prize is thereafter pursued by those who are organised and capable of great violence.
I don’t know what country you live in, but whichever it is, you would need a Stasi-like network of informers to prosecute small users. The fact is that a reasonable proportion of the citizens of Western countries see no issue with taking recreational drugs, which is why large numbers of them (professionals included) do.
Not really. Just get the police to bust them as part of their routine duties, rather than turning a blind eye as they now do. It’s hard to walk in any UK town or city and not witness drug use. That “reasonable proportion” would be a good deal less if someone made it an issue for them. Of course people will take substances that make them feel good if there is no discernible down-side.
I can’t speak for the UK, but the “drug use in public places” doesn’t seem to be a big problem here in Australia. In any event, “drug use” in some instances involves no more than “popping a pill” (which doesn’t really stand out to the casual observer).
“People will take substances that make them feel good”… your problem being????!!!!! But it’s illegal?! Perhaps, the better question should be, WHY do people need nature’s bounty to make them feel good?
“It’s hard to walk in any UK town or city and not witness drug use“ … I think you must be talking about ‘a homeless’… the kinda people MOST in need of nature’s bounty to make them feel good. Loving your empathy ♥️
I can’t speak for the UK, but the “drug use in public places” doesn’t seem to be a big problem here in Australia. In any event, “drug use” in some instances involves no more than “popping a pill” (which doesn’t really stand out to the casual observer).
“People will take substances that make them feel good”… your problem being????!!!!! But it’s illegal?! Perhaps, the better question should be, WHY do people need nature’s bounty to make them feel good?
“It’s hard to walk in any UK town or city and not witness drug use“ … I think you must be talking about ‘a homeless’… the kinda people MOST in need of nature’s bounty to make them feel good. Loving your empathy ♥️
Not really. Just get the police to bust them as part of their routine duties, rather than turning a blind eye as they now do. It’s hard to walk in any UK town or city and not witness drug use. That “reasonable proportion” would be a good deal less if someone made it an issue for them. Of course people will take substances that make them feel good if there is no discernible down-side.
Yup, the glamorous idea of going after big dealers is hopelessly wrong here.
It’s just a product of liberal hand-wringing and bad television.
If you do not punish users, but only dealing, the demand remains.
The prize is thereafter pursued by those who are organised and capable of great violence.
I don’t know what country you live in, but whichever it is, you would need a Stasi-like network of informers to prosecute small users. The fact is that a reasonable proportion of the citizens of Western countries see no issue with taking recreational drugs, which is why large numbers of them (professionals included) do.
It stops most people. Including those two!!
Obviously a few aren’t very smart and there’s hanging for that.
You need to cater to all eventualities.
The best prospect is to penalise the small users and thereby choke off demand. Once the teachers, social workers and doctors start losing their jobs for convictions, we’ll know that the “war on drugs” is actually being fought with live ammunition.
And China, and Japan, and plenty of other countries
Only in Singapore – a small wealthy, culturally homogenous enclave whose population happily submit to laws that are deemed to be fair (including btw no particular restrictions on tobacco and booze). Malaysia has substantial problems and is a trade hub for drugs. It is not only in the user countries that problems manifest (including Iran and Phillipines, not known for it’s easy going police), but in the producer and transporter countries – Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico etc.
I see Singapore executed two people for drug trafficking recently. If even the death penalty does not stop people, what prospect is there of stopping it completely?
“All it does is to provide a ready-made market for business-minded criminals.”
Unfortunately, so does legalization. Using the state of Colorado as an example, the theory was that legalization of marijuana would stop the illegal trade. In practice, this is not what happened. Instead, the illegal trade is thriving, because the cartels are smart enough to undercut the legal market. All the fine hopes and wishes that legalization would reduce petty crime have unfortunately gone up in smoke.
I was in Colorado recently, and shops selling cannabis products abound. I think most users of those products would patronise these shops, even though some would get their product from an “untaxed source”. It is the same with tobacco. Most people buy tobacco products in shops, but a few buy “untaxed tobacco” (called “chop chop” here in Australia) from illicit sources.
The pot shops you saw are for the marijuana tourism industry. They’re often quite fancy, and many are located along the main streets in tourist towns. The CO “natives” rarely use those places, since regular users have well established connections to buy the cheaper stuff. Ask people who live there, and they’ll know.
I did stay with a friend who lives in Colorado, but he is not a part of the “cannabis” community (I am not a cannabis user either, for that matter), he wasn’t able to enlighten me on how things worked. It makes sense that established users would continue to use existing sources, but with the passage of time, the “licit” market will get bigger, and the “illicit” market will get smaller.
I did stay with a friend who lives in Colorado, but he is not a part of the “cannabis” community (I am not a cannabis user either, for that matter), he wasn’t able to enlighten me on how things worked. It makes sense that established users would continue to use existing sources, but with the passage of time, the “licit” market will get bigger, and the “illicit” market will get smaller.
The pot shops you saw are for the marijuana tourism industry. They’re often quite fancy, and many are located along the main streets in tourist towns. The CO “natives” rarely use those places, since regular users have well established connections to buy the cheaper stuff. Ask people who live there, and they’ll know.
I was in Colorado recently, and shops selling cannabis products abound. I think most users of those products would patronise these shops, even though some would get their product from an “untaxed source”. It is the same with tobacco. Most people buy tobacco products in shops, but a few buy “untaxed tobacco” (called “chop chop” here in Australia) from illicit sources.
Seems to work in Singapore and Malaysia.
“All it does is to provide a ready-made market for business-minded criminals.”
Unfortunately, so does legalization. Using the state of Colorado as an example, the theory was that legalization of marijuana would stop the illegal trade. In practice, this is not what happened. Instead, the illegal trade is thriving, because the cartels are smart enough to undercut the legal market. All the fine hopes and wishes that legalization would reduce petty crime have unfortunately gone up in smoke.
The only thing prohibition did with total success was to act as a job-creation scheme for organised crime. Other than that, it failed completely.
Yes, it’s probable that legalisation will result in an increase in consumption. The repeal of Prohibition in the 1930s probably did the same for alcohol. So what? Prohibition does not work. All it does is to provide a ready-made market for business-minded criminals. We must learn to live with psychoactive substances.
I would encourage people who are against Psychedelics to watch the series ‘changing your mind’ on Netflix by a plant scientist called Michael Pollen.
The second episode is about psilocybin and how it’s being given to people with terminal cancer. It was very moving.
I would encourage people who are against Psychedelics to watch the series ‘changing your mind’ on Netflix by a plant scientist called Michael Pollen.
The second episode is about psilocybin and how it’s being given to people with terminal cancer. It was very moving.
Well, what a load of temperance bullshit… but hey, I’m from South Wales, home of the magic mushroom… and I’ll leave you with a quote from a South Wales poet Iolo Morgannwg, circa 1794:
To Laudanum
Thou faithful friend in all my grief,
In thy soft arms I find relief;
In thee forget my woes:
Unfeeling waste my wintry day
And pass with thee the night away,
Reclin’d in soft repose.
Wntl??! Oh, you should be taking Sertraline or some such shit instead because that’s the ‘scientific’ (big pharma) way… because otherwise you may become addicted or psychotic or or or… and if you DO decide to take your chances, well, then best you go directly to gaol and do not pass go… Cool…