Rating: 
Summary: Just Say Know
Review: a largely balanced, thorough discourse on a fundamental right (that the politically "Right" so callously negates, then criminalizes to the mindless joy of idiots everywhere) - the freedom to alter, enhance, or modify our own nervous systems to the degree that we see fit.Sullum reminds us that there is a huge difference between judicious personal exploration of neuroactive substances and self-destructive addictions to such potentially harmful substances as TV, food, the Sun and Crack. Champions like Sullum are much-needed voices of reason to assist us in navigating a subject so usually riddled with propaganda. Just Say Know!
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant!!!
Review: A must read for anyone interested in the drug policy debate -- regardless of side. Jacob Sullum has changed the face of the discussion.
Rating:
Summary: Top-notch review of American philosophy regarding drug use
Review: I have read countless books, articles, essays, and websites debating the ethics of drug use and abuse, but this one is by far the best I have ever read. It doesn't go to great lengths to debate whether or not drug use is good or bad for you, but rather examines how drugs have historically fit into our society and what the world would be like if we made changes to our restrictive drug policy. If you have any interest at all in the psycology, philosophy, or legal sides of drug use and abuse in society, you absolutely must read this book.
Rating:
Summary: Just say yes!?
Review: It really doesn't matter how thoroughly columnist Jacob Sullum argues for the legalization of street drugs. He can demonstrate the hypocrisy of marijuana prohibition, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that alcohol is more dangerous than the killer weed; he can document the misinformation and outright falsehoods that masquerade as truths about illegal drugs; he can cite scientific studies that show that marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol; he can do these things and more (and he does) but it won't make slightest difference. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, PCP, and other street drugs will remain illegal. The reason is simple: the laws are predicated not upon rational debate or the presentation of evidence one way or the other. The prohibitions are the result of emotional attitudes held by the people who make the laws and by those who elect them. Sullum knows this; in fact this is one of his major points. He shows how the current attitudes toward illegal drugs are just the reprise of historical attitudes toward not just the same drugs but toward tobacco, alcohol, and even coffee. Any substance that has a mind-altering effect on people will be controversial at some level. People are naturally suspicious of anything that alters their consciousness or the consciousness of their neighbors. Consequently all such substances undergo the most strenuous test by the society into which they are introduced and will not be easily accepted. Marijuana continues to be tested by our society and rejected even though millions use it. Alcohol was tested, as Sullum chronicles, throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the culmination occurring with the Volstead Act of 1919. At first it seemed that the prohibitionists had won. But a few years later it became clear that prohibition would not work and the act was repealed. Marijuana has not done as well. The reasons for this are complex, including opposition from the established nicotine and alcohol purveyors who lobby against legalization, and from a law enforcement bureaucracy which has a vested interest in keeping pot illegal, but also from millions of non-users who want to stigmatize users as lawbreakers and members of a lower social class. Perhaps the best thing Sullum does in this book is to show that street drugs are not nearly as debilitating as the prohibitionists would like us to believe. He also does a good job of recalling the historical context that has led us to the present legalities. However what he doesn't do very well is see the human drug experience from a biological and evolutionary point of view. I think it's important to understand that the yeast, for example, that produce alcohol (as well as the plant that produces the sugars that the yeast feeds upon) have formed a symbiotic relationship with human beings, a relationship that may be mutually beneficial--or not, depending on your point of view. Marijuana in particular is an example of a plant that has been in a symbiotic relationship with humans since well before the dawn of history. We can see this in the cannabis hemp that humans have found useful and in the seeds that we have eaten or at least fed to our animals. However the resin that the female plant exudes is variously seen as the door to another consciousness by its champions or a noxious substance that saps our strength and leads us into immorality by others. With such a divergent point of view, it is not surprising that marijuana is illegal. Other drugs are the highly concentrated products of plants, heroin from opium, cocaine from coca, etc., while still others are manmade chemicals patterned after natural occurring ones, amphetamines and LSD, for example. Sullum argues that people once told lies about alcohol, coffee, tobacco, tea, etc., and are doing the same thing again about heroin and marijuana. Yes, they are; however it does not follow (and Sullum acknowledges this) that the conclusions society will ultimately come to will be the same. Each substance must be evaluated on its own merits, and on how the substance is taken, whether it is ingested, inhaled, injected, drunk, or snorted. Sullum makes the further important point that dosage must also be considered. How highly refined is the drug and how much of it does a user typically use? I think this book would be more effective if Sullum had emphasized the differences among the various drugs and had presented his arguments more succinctly. Clearly he wanted to err on the side of being thorough. But many of the points he makes are familiar articles in the on-going debate. Furthermore his unabashed touting of drug use is certainly decades ahead of its time. It is only when it becomes clear that legal drugs, such as produced by the great pharmaceutical companies, are being used because people like the effects they have on their minds, that the public will begin to look upon the taking of drugs for pleasure and recreation in a positive way.
Rating: 
Summary: Informative but not effective
Review: Jacob Sullum sets out to dispel myths about the various facets of drug use and drug users. He examines the religious basis with regards to mind-altering substances and tries to expose the contradictory application of the scriptures towards various substances. His most common comparision model is alcohol versus some illicit drug. He also attempts to show how the religious attitudes and their influenced mores shape the social taboo on "getting high". He deals with most categories of drugs, like psychedelics, stimulants, opioids, and examines the statistics related to these substances. Examples of issues exploredinclude marijuana and productivity, LSD and insanity, stimulants and violence, opioids and addiction. His central thesis is that contrary to mainstream govt-fed propaganda, it is very much possible and in fact, the norm, for most drug users to be productive citizens of society, who can keep their habits and priorities in check. But, this book isn't as effective (to me, of course) as it appears. The biggest problem with this book is its prose and presentation. If he intended the audience of his book to be those who were on the fence or anti-drugs, then he should have employed a more "neutral" and "academic" tone. You may think that this is an absurd stance, given that it's clear that the author is pro-reform and possibly pro-legalization. But that's the point. That bias clearly creeps in, in his prose. As it is currently written, I can't be sure that he's not cherry-picking the statistics to counter the cherry-picked statistics presented on the anti-drug side. The best exposition to present for an anti-drug audience is a comprehensive one that allows the audience to decide on their own. The tone of this work doesn't do that. A better argument for drug law reform is presented on the website of the Economist in a 8,9 article survey. It can be found by searching for 'Stumbling in the dark' at the Economist website.
Rating:
Summary: saying yes in defense of drug use
Review: One of the greatest obstacles to reforming current drug laws is the fallacy of confusing drug use with drug abuse.Marijuana and other "illicit" substances should be viewed the same as alcohol with an emphasis on "moderation" rather than complete abstinence.Jacob Sullum does an excellent job on telling readers the difference between what most people know about drugs and what the government wants us to believe.His presentation of religious opinions on this matter is also thought provoking.
Rating:
Summary: A Voice Of Reason Against War On Drugs Fundamentalism
Review: Saying Yes: In Defense Of Drug Use, by Jacom Sullum, senior editor at Reason, is an excellent polemic against the War On Drugs and for moderate drug use by consenting adults. Sullum commits the heresy of demonstrating that most drug users don't become hopeless addicts with dim prospects for future success. The majority of drug users engage in drug use either for a brief period of time in their lives or in moderation on a frequent basis, and the government agencies prosecuting the War On Drugs have the data for the author to make his case. Daily users take drugs in moderation while holding down jobs and supporting families, like Larry Seguin, a truck driver and long time marijuana smoker from upstate New York, who was arrested and convicted on marijuana charges in 1998. Or Jim Dahl, a physician whose career was nearly ruined for the crime against humanity of using the pain killer Vicodin for nine months starting in 1998 without another doctor's prescription. Dahl was pressured by the Drug Enforcement Administration into surrendering his federal prescription license and to undergo "rehabilitation," even though he was already tapering off the Vicodin at the time the drug warriors came knocking on his door. Sullum takes on many of the myths perpetrated by the drug warriors and drug treatment evangelists over the years. Like the myth of the drug that is "so good" and addicting that nobody should take it "even once." In the '70s it was heroin that was promoted this way by the drug prohibitionists. Then in the '80s it was crack-cocaine. By the '90s methamphetamine was the most dangerous drug of the decade. Sullum demonstrates the changing perceptions of how a particular drug affects users. In the early 20th century, anti-marijuana crusaders depicted marijuana smokers as raving maniacs driven to extreme violence. By the '60s, the image of the shiftless stoner smoking marijuana all day had taken hold of public consciousness. The other important contribution Sullum adds to the debate over drug laws is the blurring of the lines between medical and recreational use of drugs, which has been brought about by the aggressive marketing of antidepressant drugs since 1988. A drug user who copes with depression by taking heroin is an "addict" engaged in a "crime," while a Prozac user seeking out the same thing as the heroin user is a "patient" seeking "treatment." Sullum rightly points out the limitations of the arguments in favor of medicalizing all drug use, like with "medical marijuana." The reason for this is because the assumption underlying medicalization is the notion that, say, smoking a joint just for the sake of getting high is not a legitimate use of marijuana and should, therefore, remain illegal. Sullum offers his readers an important primer on how we can liberate ourselves from the oppressive War On Drugs regime. With talk radio host's Rush Limbaugh's highly publicized drug problem now making headlines, Saying Yes should guide the terms of debate on reforming drug laws in favor of decriminalizing the purchase of drugs by consenting and responsible adults.
-Rick, http://rickgiombetti.blogspot.com
Rating:
Summary: Thorough and Well Done
Review: This book attacks head on a lot of the popular myths about drug use, such as the accusations that any drug use instantly makes one lazy, crazy, violent, or sexually depraved, and takes them apart one by one. It goes into a lot of the history of drugs as well, and takes the relatively rare position of declaring that it doesn't matter what drug you prefer; it should be your decision alone whether or not to use drugs (as long as you don't harm anyone else). Unlike a lot of anti-drugwar books, which make (valid) economic and social arguments, this book deals specifically with the human right to own your own body, and control what goes into it. Highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the drug war situation in this country.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing Perspective on 'Voodoo Pharmacology'
Review: This book is a timely call for sanity in an irrationally framed debate on drug policy. It challenges the most fundamental premise of self-anointed crusaders for prohibition: that drugs are inherently bad. This issue is ill-framed, argues Sullum, because it presumptively ascribes value to illicit substances independent of their user. Rather, drugs are only as destructive as the people who use them. This is important because it challenges the validity of the so-called "studies" of illegal substances funded by the government (nevermind the fact that the government won't fund studies which challenge the destructive war on drugs). Studies like these are skewed because they do not take into account those that consume drugs in sparing moderation. Instead, these studies often sample those drug-riddled addicts in rehab or those sent to jail, i.e. those whose drug use is publicly available. The truth is that the majority of drug users consume infrequently (because they are for the most part upstanding citizens) and anonymously (for fear reprisal if they publicly disclosed their use). This brings Sullum to his next point. He takes to its logical consequence the libertarian argument that our acceptance of alcohol, caffiene, and gluttony but not marijuana, cocaine, etc. is utterly hypocritical. In particular, through a thorough examination of the history of alcohol, Sullum reveals that our collective experience with alcohol does not fundamentally differ with the history of any other illicit substance. Both are unfairly portrayed in binary extremes of addiction and sobriety by the state. Sullum convincingly argues that our history with both drugs and alcohol is more suitably characterized by moderation. Moderation, not addiction, underlies our experience with substance-use (any substance, from food to wine to cigarettes to marijuana). Replete with statistics, anecdotes and analytic arguments, Sullum cogently engages the prohibitionist crowd to its most basic premise and decisively wins. Highly reccomended.
Rating:
Summary: Puts traditional andti-drug propaganda to shame...
Review: Thoroughly researched and well documented, this book is the intelligent, articulate, and above all logical rebuttal to the overwhelmingly accepted public opinion of illegal drugs which is peddled in high school classrooms and endlessly publicly propagated through conventional wisdom, hyperbolic myths, and flimsy results of bad science. Sullum reveals the folly of allowing legal alcohol consumption while illegalizing many far less harmful substances. He destroys the popular perception of all drugs as inevitably and inescapably addictive, and takes on the stereotypes of drug users, replacing the hippie and the bum with the middle-aged business man with a family and a savings account. The insights into the values of MDMA and LSD as introspective tools are particularly articulate. Anyone who is strongly anti-drug should read this book, and anyone who has leanings in the opposite direction should own this book.
| 
