Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:12:38.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal drug use and rational drug policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2011

Geoffrey F. Miller
Geoffrey F. Miller
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161. gfmiller@unm.eduhttp://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/lg_gmiller.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Müller & Schumann (M&S) view of drug use is courageous and compelling, with radical implications for drug policy and research. It implies that most nations prohibit most drugs that could promote happiness, social capital, and economic growth; that most individuals underuse rather than overuse drugs; and that behavioral scientists could use drugs more effectively in generating hypotheses and collaborating empathically.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2011 , pp. 318 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks, I. M. (2010) Surface detail. Orbit.Google Scholar
Bedi, G., Hyman, D. & de Wit, H. (2010) Is ecstasy an “empathogen”? Effects of +/−3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine on prosocial feelings and identification of emotional states in others. Biological Psychiatry 68(12):1134–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dumont, G. J. H., Sweep, F. C. G. J., van der Steen, R., Hermsen, R., Donders, A. R. T., Touw, D. J., van Gerven, J. M. A., Buitelaar, J. K. & Verkes, R. J. (2009) Increased oxytocin concentrations and prosocial feelings in humans after ecstasy 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine administration. Social Neuroscience 4(4):359–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, D., Riba, J., Bousco, J. C., Gomez-Jarabo, G. & Barbanoj, M. J. (2006) Pattern of use and subjective effects of Salvia divinorum among recreational users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 85(2):157–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, R. R., Richards, W. A., McCann, U. & Jesse, R. (2006) Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology 187(3):268–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, J., Seder, J. P. & Kesebir, S. (2008) Hive psychology, happiness, and public policy. Journal of Legal Studies 37(S2):S133–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husain, M. & Mehta, M. A. (2011) Cognitive enhancement by drugs in health and disease. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(1):28–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kjellgren, A., Eriksson, A. & Norlander, T. (2009) Experiences of encounters with ayahuasca – “The Vine of the Soul.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 41(4):309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, T. (1967) Religious experience: Production and interpretation. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs 1(2):1–23.Google Scholar
Leary, T., Litwin, G. H. & Metzner, R. (1963) Reactions to psilocybin administered in a supportive environment. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 137(6):561–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. (2008) Erasing pleasure from public discourse on illicit drugs: On the creation and reproduction of an absence. International Journal of Drug Policy 19:353–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nichols, D. E. (2004) Hallucinogens. Pharmacological Therapy 101(2):131–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donoghue, T. & Rabin, M. (2006) Optimal sin taxes. Journal of Public Economics 90:1825–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, P. & Valverde, M. (2004) Pleasure, freedom, and drugs: The uses of “pleasure” in liberal governance of drug and alcohol consumption. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association 38(1):25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pudney, S. (2010) Drugs policy: What should we do about cannabis? Economic Policy, 61:165–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repantis, D., Schlattmann, P., Laisney, O. & Heuser, I. (2010) Modafinil and methylphenidate for neuroenhancement in healthy individuals: A systematic review. Pharmacological Research 62(3):187–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reuter, P. (2009) Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): Assessing drug problems, policies, and reform proposals. Addiction 104(4):510–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sahakian, B. & Morein-Zamir, S. (2007) Professor's little helper. Nature 450(7173):1157–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, S. G. & Wu, Z. Y. (2007) Rapid scale up of harm reduction in China. International Journal of Drug Policy 18(2):118–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. & Thaler, R. H. (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not any oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70(4):1159–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tammi, T. & Hurme, T. (2007) How the harm reduction movement contrasts itself against punitive prohibition. International Journal of Drug Policy 18(2):84–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tupper, K. W. (2008) The globalization of ayahuasca: Harm reduction or benefit maximization? International Journal of Drug Policy 19(4):297–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, E., Werb, D., Kazatchkine, M., Kerr, T., Hankins, C., Gorna, R., Nutt, D., Des Jarlais, D., Barré-Sinoussi, F. & Montaner, J. (2010) Vienna Declaration: A call for evidence-based drug policies. The Lancet 376(9738):310–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar