Necessary Background:

You should understand the issues presented in The Hedonistic Imperative, and much earlier in Richard Dawkin's seminal book The Selfish Gene. Basically, that we have evolved to serve our genes, not to be happy, and that technology will soon let us redesign humanity based on better criteria.

Why Drug Legalization Matters

by Patri Friedman (patri@izzy.com)

As a libertarian, I have always been in favor of drug legalization. However, I always thought of it as an issue no more or less important than the many other consensual activities which are crimes in our society. Lately, however, I have realized that this is not true. Not because of the expense or the violation of civil rights or the innocent people jailed, but because of a much larger reason. Drugs are at the root of one of the critical issues of the next century - the question of whether humanity will remain enslaved to its genes, or whether we will begin to remake ourselves in a mold of our own choosing.

Drugs are a way of making the brain do things that it wasn't programmed for. These are not necessarily good things (although they can be), but the mere existence of states of consciousness not programmed for us by genetics is very important for a number of reasons:

• These experiences make clear to the user the chemical nature of the brain. We are at the top level, and sometimes it is tough to understand that underneath layers of abstraction and complexity there are chemical reactions that make it all happen. For many, it is non-intuitive and difficult to believe. But when we add a chemical to the mix, and experience an alteration in consciousness, this chemical layer becomes difficult to deny.
  
• By studying neurochemistry and undergoing shifts in consciousness, we can learn a great deal about how our brain works. Because we do not yet have the tools to watch in great detail what is happening inside, and because there is still much we do not understand about the brain, we have to resort to these "black box" mapping techniques. Change a setting, see what happens. Change another setting, see what happens. We are yelling in the dark and listening for echoes, but when crude techniques are all one has, they should be used until better arrive.
  
• Some of the sustainable changes to our neurochemistry that we've found are a proof of the concept that we can improve upon our genetic heritage. We can maintain boosted levels of neurotransmitters that make people happy with antidepressants. We can take smart drugs and make our brains work better. We can use deprenyl to protect our dopamine system so that we live longer. This is crude tinkering and there is far, far more we will want to do, but drugs show us that improvements can be made. The changes we make now foreshadow the far greater changes we will want in the future.
  
• By experiencing different states in consciousness, we become aware of the tremendous variety of ways that a thinking mind could work or be built. We are forced to admit that our way is not the only way, that our brain is but one possible brain, and that experimentation with differences may prove fruitful.

This why drugs are so dangerous to the status quo and so important a political issue - not because of the right to get high but because of the right of the phenotype to decide its own destiny instead of the gene. Naturally it is not enough to just tinker with software - we need to change the hardware. (This may not be a good metaphor - perhaps more accurate is to say that it isn't enough just to patch the OS, we need to re-design the hardware and re-write the OS). But it is a start, it is a demonstration, it is foreshadowing.

The question of whether or not we must stick with the neurochemistry we were born with is the question of who gets to rule - our genotype, a dynamic, immortal string of data, with no consciousness, no consciense, no aesthetic sense, or us, thinking, living, feeling creatures.

I find it interesting that the positions taken by many governments & religions is what the genes would say if they had a voice. Forbidding birth control has obvious genetic benefits. Banning drug use helps keep people from realizing that there are alternatives to the course that has been laid out for them, which may make them realize they are slaves. Banning genetic engineering/experimentation and beliefs that "our genome is chosen by god" and we shouldn't tamper with it also serve our genes' interest, keeping them in supremacy. The identification of god w/ genes is strong. Now, I don't think that there is an *actual* conspiracy, because genes don't have a voice, and because the timeframe over which drugs/genetic engineering have become a threat to genes is much too short for evolution to have responded. I had a neat idea about a co-evolution of the memeplex of religion with a geneplex of credulity & desire to believe in religion, but I don't think it holds together - the timeframe is too short. Still, it is startling & intriguing to hear the voices of our masters (genes) sounding from our powerful cultural institutions.

Last Modified: September, 2000
Patri Friedman / patri@izzy.com