What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Right to Drugs: The Case for a Free Market
.In Our Right to Drugs, Thomas Szasz shows that our present drug war started at the beginning of this century, when the American government first assumed the task of protecting people from patent medicines. By the end of World War I, however, the free market in drugs was but a dim memory, if that. Instead of dwelling on the familiar impracticality or unfairness of our drug laws, Szasz demonstrates the deleterious effects of prescription laws which place people under lifelong medical tutelage. The result is that most Americans today prefer a coercive and corrupt command drug economy to a free market in drugs.
Throughout the book, Szasz stresses the consequences of the fateful transformation of the central aim of American drug prohibitions from protecting us from being fooled by misbranded drugs to protecting us from harming ourselves by self-medication--defined as drug abuse. And he reminds us that the choice between self-control and state coercion applies to all areas of our lives, drugs being but one of the theaters in which this perennial play may be staged. A free society, Szasz emphasizes, cannot endure if its citizens reject the values of self-discipline and personal responsibility and if the state treats adults as if they were naughty children. In a no-holds-barred examination of the implementation of the War on Drugs, Szasz shows that under the guise of protecting the vulnerable members of our society--especially children, blacks, and the sick--our government has persecuted and injured them. Leading politicians persuade parents to denounce their children, and encourage children to betray their parents and friends--behavior that subverts family loyalties and destroys basic human decency. And instead of protecting blacks and Hispanics from dangerous drugs, this holy war has allowed us to persecute them, not as racists but as therapists--working selflessly to bring about a drug-free America. Last but not least, to millions of sick Americans, the War on Drugs has meant being deprived of the medicines they want-- because the drugs are illegal, unapproved here though approved abroad, or require a prescription a physician may be afraid to provide. The bizarre upshot of our drug policy is that many Americans now believe they have a right to die, which they will do anyway, while few believe they have a right to drugs, even though that does not mean they have to take any. Often jolting, always stimulating, Our Right to Drugs is likely to have the same explosive effect on our ideas about drugs and drug laws as, more than thirty years ago, The Myth of Mental Illness had on our ideas about insanity and psychiatry.
Throughout the book, Szasz stresses the consequences of the fateful transformation of the central aim of American drug prohibitions from protecting us from being fooled by misbranded drugs to protecting us from harming ourselves by self-medication--defined as drug abuse. And he reminds us that the choice between self-control and state coercion applies to all areas of our lives, drugs being but one of the theaters in which this perennial play may be staged. A free society, Szasz emphasizes, cannot endure if its citizens reject the values of self-discipline and personal responsibility and if the state treats adults as if they were naughty children. In a no-holds-barred examination of the implementation of the War on Drugs, Szasz shows that under the guise of protecting the vulnerable members of our society--especially children, blacks, and the sick--our government has persecuted and injured them. Leading politicians persuade parents to denounce their children, and encourage children to betray their parents and friends--behavior that subverts family loyalties and destroys basic human decency. And instead of protecting blacks and Hispanics from dangerous drugs, this holy war has allowed us to persecute them, not as racists but as therapists--working selflessly to bring about a drug-free America. Last but not least, to millions of sick Americans, the War on Drugs has meant being deprived of the medicines they want-- because the drugs are illegal, unapproved here though approved abroad, or require a prescription a physician may be afraid to provide. The bizarre upshot of our drug policy is that many Americans now believe they have a right to die, which they will do anyway, while few believe they have a right to drugs, even though that does not mean they have to take any. Often jolting, always stimulating, Our Right to Drugs is likely to have the same explosive effect on our ideas about drugs and drug laws as, more than thirty years ago, The Myth of Mental Illness had on our ideas about insanity and psychiatry.
232 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 1992
8 people are currently reading
547 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Szasz
99 books308 followersThomas Stephen Szasz (pronounced /sas/; born April 15, 1920 in Budapest, Hungary) was a psychiatrist and academic. He was Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in Syracuse, New York. He was a prominent figure in the antipsychiatry movement, a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. He is well known for his books, The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement which set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 19, 2018
Alternative title: The drug problem as seen from my libertarian bubble.
This book turned out to be the exact opposite of what I was expecting. Absolute neoliberal rubbish with no class consciousness, which blames the consumer, exonerates drug dealers, forgets about organised crime and completely ignores the destructive power of drugs.
This is clearly the point of view of an accommodated person who has never had a first-hand experience of what a problem with drugs implies, and who hasn't even tried to understand it. It is just offensive to many people. Definitely not worth reading.
This book turned out to be the exact opposite of what I was expecting. Absolute neoliberal rubbish with no class consciousness, which blames the consumer, exonerates drug dealers, forgets about organised crime and completely ignores the destructive power of drugs.
This is clearly the point of view of an accommodated person who has never had a first-hand experience of what a problem with drugs implies, and who hasn't even tried to understand it. It is just offensive to many people. Definitely not worth reading.
June 10, 2012
This trenchant work is brimming with insight into the folly of drug prohibition. Szasz astutely lays out the facts and drives home his correct viewpoint. The historical disintegration of the free market in drugs has been largely ignored and dismissed as "progress" by Statist "reformers." Szasz makes an excellent case for the return of a true free market, not a increase of State power, as many "legalization advocates" truly desire.
November 2, 2016
I loved the introduction. I couldn't believe this book was written in 1992 and I couldn't wait to see what it would hold. I wasn't disappointed as far thought-provoking content, but the writing and the opinions were a little overwhelming at times.
The book was pretty sensationalist at times, but you'd have to be to defend the type of sweeping claims he makes throughout. I don't entirely disagree, but it's so over the top that I find myself shying away from wanting to give it credence. For instance, I understand and agree with most of his points about recreational drugs, but what does he think about medicines like antibiotics and our current problem of antibiotic resistant disease strains? Obviously that wasn't an issue at the time this was published, but it definitely would've become one a lot sooner if we had a free market in all drugs like Szasz proposes.
I'm not sure if he believed it or was just making a point about moral or family values, but free condoms and financial support for mother and baby are not "rewards" for non-marital sex.
I was initially impressed that the chapter entitled "Blacks and Drugs" opened with the authors admission that he was not black and therefore could not speak on their behalf, but it quickly devolved as he delved into the issue of who could speak for them, despite acknowledging that black people are not a homogeneous population but a group of individuals... then started talking about "black racists and white liberals" and it got worse from there.
Until the chapter specifically about prescription drugs (the last), I was very confused as to his stance on such drugs as anti-depressants, sleeping pills, and blood pressure pills that have very real, very terrible side effects and cannot just be taken as people please. This sentence in Chapter 8 is a very important counterpoint to his entire argument of the whole book: "Admittedly, in our contemporary American society, it is chimerical to expect people to assume responsibility for informing themselves about drugs and for adhering to the principle of caveat emptor."
I kept wanting to recommend this book to friends and see what they thought of it, but I was forced to realize that the writing is pretty dry and dense, and wouldn't be enjoyable reading for most people. The subject matter is very intriguing and worth digesting and debating, but it does feel very much like reading strongly opinionated academic papers. I just really didn't like the author or his views and while I agree with some of the things he says, he just takes it all way too far and gets way too judgmental while claiming to not believe in judging people. He openly admits to believing compassion is a weakness, but he treats people like nothing but numbers and concepts. This book is good for theory and for teasing out your own thoughts, but there's no way that what was written here could ever be feasible.
I do believe that coercing mentally ill people into hospitalization or drug addicts who don't want help is wrong, but Szasz fails to consider addicts or drug abusers who DO choose to go to rehab because they DO feel out of control and need help resisting the temptation of drugs to do the things they want in life, such as being their for their children and families. It all makes a lot more sense as I skimmed his Goodreads bio and found out he was a prominent figure of the anti-psychiatry movement.
Overall, it was an incredibly interesting read and I highly recommend it to anyone seeking information about possible alternatives or methods of drug legalization as marijuana propositions will be brought to the ballot very soon!
Some good quotes:
"In short, the aim of real drug education ought ot be to encourage not drug avoidance, but good drug-using habits, that is, using drugs knowledgeably, responsibly, and with self-discipline."
"If the state (official medicine) certifies you as sick and gives you drugs-- regardless of whether you need them or not, whether they help you or not, even whether you want them or not-- then you are a patient receiving treatment; but if you buy your own drugs and take them on your own initiative-- because you feel you need them, or, worse, because you want to give yourself peace of mind or pleasure-- then you are an addict engaged in drug abuse."
The book was pretty sensationalist at times, but you'd have to be to defend the type of sweeping claims he makes throughout. I don't entirely disagree, but it's so over the top that I find myself shying away from wanting to give it credence. For instance, I understand and agree with most of his points about recreational drugs, but what does he think about medicines like antibiotics and our current problem of antibiotic resistant disease strains? Obviously that wasn't an issue at the time this was published, but it definitely would've become one a lot sooner if we had a free market in all drugs like Szasz proposes.
I'm not sure if he believed it or was just making a point about moral or family values, but free condoms and financial support for mother and baby are not "rewards" for non-marital sex.
I was initially impressed that the chapter entitled "Blacks and Drugs" opened with the authors admission that he was not black and therefore could not speak on their behalf, but it quickly devolved as he delved into the issue of who could speak for them, despite acknowledging that black people are not a homogeneous population but a group of individuals... then started talking about "black racists and white liberals" and it got worse from there.
Until the chapter specifically about prescription drugs (the last), I was very confused as to his stance on such drugs as anti-depressants, sleeping pills, and blood pressure pills that have very real, very terrible side effects and cannot just be taken as people please. This sentence in Chapter 8 is a very important counterpoint to his entire argument of the whole book: "Admittedly, in our contemporary American society, it is chimerical to expect people to assume responsibility for informing themselves about drugs and for adhering to the principle of caveat emptor."
I kept wanting to recommend this book to friends and see what they thought of it, but I was forced to realize that the writing is pretty dry and dense, and wouldn't be enjoyable reading for most people. The subject matter is very intriguing and worth digesting and debating, but it does feel very much like reading strongly opinionated academic papers. I just really didn't like the author or his views and while I agree with some of the things he says, he just takes it all way too far and gets way too judgmental while claiming to not believe in judging people. He openly admits to believing compassion is a weakness, but he treats people like nothing but numbers and concepts. This book is good for theory and for teasing out your own thoughts, but there's no way that what was written here could ever be feasible.
I do believe that coercing mentally ill people into hospitalization or drug addicts who don't want help is wrong, but Szasz fails to consider addicts or drug abusers who DO choose to go to rehab because they DO feel out of control and need help resisting the temptation of drugs to do the things they want in life, such as being their for their children and families. It all makes a lot more sense as I skimmed his Goodreads bio and found out he was a prominent figure of the anti-psychiatry movement.
Overall, it was an incredibly interesting read and I highly recommend it to anyone seeking information about possible alternatives or methods of drug legalization as marijuana propositions will be brought to the ballot very soon!
Some good quotes:
"In short, the aim of real drug education ought ot be to encourage not drug avoidance, but good drug-using habits, that is, using drugs knowledgeably, responsibly, and with self-discipline."
"If the state (official medicine) certifies you as sick and gives you drugs-- regardless of whether you need them or not, whether they help you or not, even whether you want them or not-- then you are a patient receiving treatment; but if you buy your own drugs and take them on your own initiative-- because you feel you need them, or, worse, because you want to give yourself peace of mind or pleasure-- then you are an addict engaged in drug abuse."
October 27, 2022
While my view on capitalism and the free market is not as glamorous as Szasz’, this didn’t make me think of this as a bad book.
What bothers me very much is that at the very end of the book he says that “we would have to disallow drug use (intoxication) and mental illness (however defined) as excusing condition for crimes”. Why we would have to disallow mental illness as excusing condition is never discussed or elaborated at all and doesn’t make any sense to me (except if he means that the illness is caused by taking drugs voluntarily, but this is nowhere stated).
What I like is that his reasoning could pierce through my hard wired thought pattern that was formed by the media and anti-drug propaganda. It made me look at the whole problem from a much more objective view and the comparisons with previous situations make it easier to get away from the prohibitionists point of view.
In my opinion he doesn’t account enough for the fact that some of the drugs are addictive. He mentions it throughout the book and in more detail in the last chapter, but it seems to have little effect on how he thinks they should play a role in the markt. Even when he quotes Garrison Keillor who thinks addictive substances don’t work in a free market, he doesn’t explain why this wouldn’t be the case or why this isn’t a problem or how it could be tackled. Later he explains that he thinks that it is peoples own responsibility to be educated enough about the drugs so they can decide for themselves to take the drugs. From the current opioid crisis (granted this is decades after the publication of the book) I think we can conclude that this will probably not be enough. I wonder how he would view this situation.
What bothers me very much is that at the very end of the book he says that “we would have to disallow drug use (intoxication) and mental illness (however defined) as excusing condition for crimes”. Why we would have to disallow mental illness as excusing condition is never discussed or elaborated at all and doesn’t make any sense to me (except if he means that the illness is caused by taking drugs voluntarily, but this is nowhere stated).
What I like is that his reasoning could pierce through my hard wired thought pattern that was formed by the media and anti-drug propaganda. It made me look at the whole problem from a much more objective view and the comparisons with previous situations make it easier to get away from the prohibitionists point of view.
In my opinion he doesn’t account enough for the fact that some of the drugs are addictive. He mentions it throughout the book and in more detail in the last chapter, but it seems to have little effect on how he thinks they should play a role in the markt. Even when he quotes Garrison Keillor who thinks addictive substances don’t work in a free market, he doesn’t explain why this wouldn’t be the case or why this isn’t a problem or how it could be tackled. Later he explains that he thinks that it is peoples own responsibility to be educated enough about the drugs so they can decide for themselves to take the drugs. From the current opioid crisis (granted this is decades after the publication of the book) I think we can conclude that this will probably not be enough. I wonder how he would view this situation.
April 7, 2020
Thomas Szasz was a genius, and it shows in this book as much as anywhere else. I very much enjoy how it treats the War on Drugs as broadly encompassing not just the government's war against recreational use but also against its unrestrained free use medicinally, as well.
I regretfully must award this only four stars, however, and not five, on the grounds that it is better viewed as a very well-written string of miscellaneous observations that serves as a good companion to the issue it discusses; if one seeks a stand-alone book, I would not necessarily recommend it quite as much as I would had it been more systematically presented and organized.
As a companion, however, I recommend it along side Robert Higgs's edited volume Hazardous to Our Health? alongside a general history of the FDA and one on the War on Drugs (such as Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts as well as the two books on the War on Drugs written by Douglas Valentine, all three of these books being ones I plan to read soon as of posting this review).
I regretfully must award this only four stars, however, and not five, on the grounds that it is better viewed as a very well-written string of miscellaneous observations that serves as a good companion to the issue it discusses; if one seeks a stand-alone book, I would not necessarily recommend it quite as much as I would had it been more systematically presented and organized.
As a companion, however, I recommend it along side Robert Higgs's edited volume Hazardous to Our Health? alongside a general history of the FDA and one on the War on Drugs (such as Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts as well as the two books on the War on Drugs written by Douglas Valentine, all three of these books being ones I plan to read soon as of posting this review).
November 5, 2023
Un libro interesante, principalmente porque con argumentos a lo sumo brillantes mercantilista el fenómeno de salud pública del consumo de drogas hasta llevarlo a la individualidad, pesada carga para quienes usan drogas. Una defensa neoliberal, pero no conservadora, del consumo de drogas. Delicioso de leer, peligroso de llevar a cabo.
December 5, 2024
Impecable. Estudia desde varias perspectivas lo inútil y contraproducente del control estatal de las drogas. Si Szasz viera la crisis del fentanilo actual, vería como sus hipótesis escritas hace 30 años estarían en lo correcto, y que toda regulación estatal conduce a consecuencias nefastas que ya estamos viendo.
May 29, 2020
Absolute trash book. Szasz looks at this from an extreme neoliberal lens, advocating for full deregulation of drugs. It is bad
April 19, 2023
Estupendo tratado de moralidad frente a las barbáricas leyes sobre drogas.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews