Details

Published: 21 July 2026

Hits: 26

New findings from brain science and education research are changing how communities view school based drug education. Researchers no longer treat it as one isolated lesson. Instead, they place it within life course science, alongside growing research on youth resilience. Two recent studies show why this shift matters. For example, a large cohort study in JAMA Network Open examined this question directly. It linked sustained access to a dedicated health course with lower rates of vaping and alcohol use. In addition, the same study found lower rates of binge drinking and marijuana use. Separately, University of Illinois researchers looked closely at adolescent beliefs. They found that one belief stands out above the rest. Specifically, a young person’s conviction that drug use is wrong predicts substance use more strongly than almost any other factor they measured. Together, these findings support what prevention educators have argued for years. Consistent, values informed drug education therefore forms a foundational part of building resilient young people. In short, it is not an optional add on.

School Based Drug Education and the Adolescent Brain

Understanding why school-based drug education matters starts with the brain itself. Neuroscience shows that white matter, the tissue connecting different brain regions, keeps developing well into a person’s twenties. In fact, some researchers now push that timeline into the early thirties. White matter relies on myelin, a fatty layer that speeds up neural signals. As a result, this layer supports memory, decision making, emotional regulation and impulse control. Because this system matures slowly, alcohol and other drugs pose particular risks during adolescence and young adulthood. Studies using diffusion tensor imaging consistently show reduced white matter integrity in people with substance use disorders. Notably, the extent of this change tracks with how early use began and how long it continued. It also tracks with how much a person used. Encouragingly, however, longer periods without use link to improved white matter integrity. This finding therefore explains why prevention and delayed uptake, rather than damage management alone, sit at the centre of best practice.

Viewed through this life course lens, school-based drug education does more than simply transmit facts. Instead, it protects a brain system that is still under construction. This system builds judgement, planning and emotional regulation, and young people rely on these capacities for the rest of their lives.

New Evidence Links Sustained School Based Drug Education to Lower Substance Use

Until recently, few large studies tested whether routine school coursework reduces adolescent substance use at a population level. A 2026 cohort study in JAMA Network Open closed that gap. Specifically, researchers analysed close to two million student survey responses. The data came from 915 California public high schools over seven years.

They found that sustained health course availability mattered most of all. Schools needed to offer the course for at least two consecutive years to see an effect. As a result, this sustained access linked to meaningfully lower prevalence across several substance use behaviours. Vaping, for instance, fell by an estimated 1.36 percentage points, while marijuana use fell by 1.22 percentage points. Alcohol use also dropped, by 1.11 percentage points, and binge drinking fell by 0.70 percentage points. Importantly, these differences held up even after adjustment for multiple testing.

Admittedly, these percentage point changes may look modest in isolation. However, school-based programmes reach entire student cohorts. Even small reductions, therefore, translate into meaningful numbers of young people avoiding early substance use altogether. The researchers also ruled out an alternative explanation. General declines in youth substance use elsewhere in the state did not explain the results. Instead, comparisons within the same schools over time produced the association. A dedicated health course that becomes a stable, ongoing part of the curriculum therefore functions differently to a single unit. In this way, it creates a durable structure for prevention messaging and reaches students consistently across cohorts and years. (No Brainer Curriculum)

Beliefs Matter Most in Adolescent Substance Use Prevention

Sustained coursework provides the structure for school-based drug education. Belief formation, however, may be its most powerful lever. University of Illinois researchers drew on more than 128,000 responses to the Illinois Youth Survey. They found that one belief stood out above all others. Specifically, a young person’s conviction that drug use is wrong carried real weight, roughly twice the predictive weight of other established risk and protective factors in the study.

Each incremental increase in how wrong a student rated drug use raised the odds of abstinence. For example, abstinence during the past year rose by 39 per cent among eighth graders. Similarly, it rose by 50 per cent among tenth graders and 53 per cent among twelfth graders.

The researchers grounded their work in cognitive dissonance theory. This theory holds that people seek consistency between their beliefs and their actions. Therefore, a clear conviction that using drugs is wrong tends to act as an internal brake on behaviour, even under peer pressure. Parental beliefs, meanwhile, reinforced this protective effect too. Peer acceptance of drug use, by contrast, increased risk.

These findings carry a clear implication for school based drug education programmes. Content that conveys risk information alone may not be enough. Instead, programmes also need to help students form and reinforce genuine convictions. Without this, prevention efforts may miss their single most influential lever.

Weaving Resilience Across the Life Course

Drug education does not operate apart from the wider project of building resilience. Recent research, for instance, examined youth wellbeing across 137 countries. It found something striking. Around 40 per cent of young people, in fact, report family members who have struggled with mental health or substance use. These adverse experiences often compound one another, feeding cycles that are difficult to break without deliberate support.

Resilience researchers increasingly describe this capacity differently now. Rather than a fixed trait, they see it as something people must build, much like weaving strands into a rope. Managing hardship, developing problem solving skills, persistence and a sense of hope all contribute. Each of these strands, however, depends on the same underlying brain systems that early substance use can compromise.

This is why prevention focused drug education fits naturally within a resilience building framework. A young person who never takes up substance use, in other words, keeps the full developmental runway needed to build these capacities undisturbed. Schools occupy a unique position here, since they are among the few institutions with sustained, repeated contact with young people. This contact spans the years when brain development and belief formation remain most malleable. Embedding drug education within that ongoing contact, rather than treating it as a standalone topic, therefore matters. Ultimately, this approach aligns prevention with the wider science of how resilience gets built across childhood and adolescence.

A Shared Responsibility for the Years That Matter Most

None of this evidence points to a single lesson, campaign or slogan shifting outcomes on its own. Instead, the research points towards something more sustained. Effective drug education, in other words, stays belief centred and developmentally informed. It reaches young people consistently across their school years, not just once.

Policymakers and educators, of course, face real choices about limited curriculum time. This growing evidence base, however, offers a clear direction. School based drug education deserves a stable, ongoing place in how communities prepare young people for the future. Understood within the broader science of life course development and resilience building, in short, it stands out. It ranks, ultimately, among the most evidence backed investments schools can make.

By Dalgarno Institute

References

• Drug use beliefs found to be strongest predictor of youth substance use
• Sustained Availability of Dedicated High School Health Courses and Adolescent Substance Use
• Mental Health Prevention That Works
• The Resilient Brain & The Resilient Life
• AOD Primary Prevention & Demand Reduction Priority Primer

Details

Published: 21 July 2026

Hits: 75

Ask someone why they can’t put their phone down and they’ll probably laugh it off. Ask them why they can’t cut back on drinking, and the conversation gets heavier fast. Both answers start in the same place: a reward circuit in the brain that doesn’t much care whether the trigger is a text message or a drink. Understanding how addiction affects the brain explains a lot about why some habits grip harder and faster than others. The circuit is the same. The speed at which it fires is not.

What Happens in the Brain During Addiction

Dopamine is the chemical doing most of the work here. Something feels good, dopamine gets released, and the brain quietly files that moment away as worth repeating. Do it enough times and the circuit itself starts to change shape. Eventually the brain wants the trigger before it has even arrived. Plenty of people describe reaching for a habit as a kind of self-medication, something to blunt stress, boredom, or pain. The trouble is that the brain adapts to it, and what started as a choice stops feeling like one.

How Addiction Affects the Brain at Different Speeds

Not everything gets there at the same pace. Nicotine can hit the brain within seconds of a single inhale, which is part of why it produces such a sharp, immediate lift. Alcohol takes the scenic route, moving through the digestive system before it reaches the brain, though it still lands hard once it does. Stimulants barely pause on the way, flooding the reward circuit almost as fast as nicotine and just as intensely. That speed is exactly why they carry such a steep risk of dependence, sometimes after only a handful of uses. When a surge hits that quickly, the brain has almost no chance to talk itself down.

Why Substances Often Move Faster than Habits

Behaviours reach the same circuit, just by a longer road. A gambling win, a shopping haul, a flurry of likes on a post, all of it needs processing first. Only then does the brain decide it’s worth a reward. That extra step means the dopamine tends to arrive slower and land softer than it does with most substances. Frequency changes the equation, though. A phone that buzzes every few minutes works the same trick, and so does a slot machine paying out on no fixed schedule. Either one can train the brain to crave the next hit almost as hard as a drug would. Even so, each individual reward stays small.

The Same Circuit, a Different Risk Profile

Because substances tend to hit the circuit harder and faster, they also tend to build tolerance and withdrawal faster. Anyone who has skipped their morning coffee and spent the afternoon nursing a headache already knows what that feels like, even in miniature. Behavioural patterns can become just as consuming, given enough time, though they usually take longer to get there. That’s probably why they still get waved off as bad habits rather than treated as genuine risks. The numbers say otherwise. An estimated eight million Americans struggle with problem gambling. Roughly one in ten social media users show patterns that look a lot more like dependence than simple overuse.

Why This Matters for Prevention

A teenage brain is still under construction, particularly in the areas that handle judgement and impulse control. That makes early exposure to any fast acting trigger far riskier for a young person than for an adult. It’s also why prevention works better when it focuses on delaying first use rather than managing exposure after the fact. Willpower alone rarely carries the weight people expect it to. Families, schools, and communities all matter here. So do the industries designing products meant to hold attention, from slot machines to social media feeds to ad campaigns. Looking at product design and early intervention gets closer to how the brain science of addiction actually plays out. That’s a more honest picture than treating every case as a personal failing.

Noticing how fast a trigger reaches the brain is a useful place to start. So is watching how relentlessly it can reshape behaviour once it settles in. Anyone worried about a habit, their own or someone else’s, is better off understanding how addiction affects the brain before the pattern hardens. The earlier support comes in, the more room the brain still has to bend back the other way.

(Source: WRD News)

Details

Published: 24 June 2026

Hits: 93

Australia ran the most successful anti-smoking campaign the world had ever seen. Not one of the most successful, the most successful. We reduced daily tobacco consumption from around 52 per cent of all Australians aged 16 and over in the late 1940s down to around 13 per cent just a few years ago. That is not a small achievement. That is decades of disciplined, consistent, evidence-based public health work paying off in one of the most sustained behaviour change campaigns any country has ever managed.

And then we watched it get systematically undermined.

A Campaign That Was Actually Working

The Quit campaign succeeded because it kept the message simple and it never wavered. Don’t start. If you started, quit completely. No substitutes –  No safer alternatives – No managed use – Just stop. That sustained clarity in and from all major sectors, health, policy, government, media and education, cut through for decades and the numbers proved it.

The data from that period showed around 100,000 Australians quitting annually. Real people walking away from a real addiction and that is the campaign working exactly as intended. The problem was that roughly the same number from the emerging youth demographic were replacing those who quit each year. That should have been the alarm bell. Instead, addiction for profit activists saw it as an opening and they moved quickly to exploit it.

Cannabis: The First Substitution

That youth replacement trend did not emerge in isolation, it coincided directly with the steady liberalisation of cannabis use across Australia. Along with the faux medicinal prefix conveniently attached to it, cannabis was reframed in the public mind as the more acceptable, less harmful option to tobacco. Genuine clinical need had very little to do with how that label landed in popular culture. It was a perception shift, and it was effective.

Suddenly the choice for young Australians was not between using and not using. It was between products, with one framed as medicine and the other as poison, that is a profound and deliberate shift. Harm reduction did not discourage substance use here, it redirected it toward a different product while keeping the behaviour intact and unsurprisingly, redirected use still builds dependency. 

Dependency drives demand – that pattern is not complicated and it is not accidental.

Vaping: Same Trick, New Vehicle

If cannabis cracked the prevention model, vaping came along and really went to work on it. Pro-drug activists hijacked harm reduction again, this time pushing e-cigarettes hard as the clean, modern alternative to tobacco. A legitimate quitting tool, they said. A safer delivery mechanism that declared – compassionate harm reduction in action was the ad nauseum spin.

Except it did not stop people inhaling health-destroying toxins, it just changed the device. 

The fundamental behaviour, drawing toxic substances into your lungs, remained completely intact. And then, surprise surprise, we discovered that this new delivery vehicle carried its own serious harms; Respiratory damage, cardiovascular risk, lung injuries that were not supposed to exist in a product sold as the safe alternative. Who could possibly have seen that coming!

What vaping actually delivered, away from the carefully controlled conditions of clinical trials, was a brand new generation of nicotine users who had never smoked a cigarette in their lives – teenagers and young adults. Drawn in by flavours, by slick marketing, by a product deliberately designed to feel nothing like smoking while delivering exactly the same addiction. These were not smokers switching to a safer product, these were new users being recruited into nicotine dependency through a door that harm reduction activists propped wide open. Dependency followed – demand followed dependency, and that demand needed somewhere to go.

A Generation Sold a Crock

So here we are, a generation sold a lie on multiple fronts. Cannabis was medicine. Vaping was quitting. Every step dressed up as harm reduction, every step quietly encouraging use rather than ending it, every step adding to the pool of dependent users while presenting itself as a public health solution, and now it has all landed back on the cigarette.

That is the real backdrop to Australia’s exploding illicit tobacco trade. Illicit product now accounts for somewhere between a third and half of all tobacco sold nationally. Excise losses run between seven and twelve billion dollars annually. A decade ago that number sat under one billion. The trajectory is not subtle. Organised crime moved into that space fast and they brought arson, shootings and systematic retailer intimidation with them. This is not a grey market, this is a serious criminal enterprise operating at scale, and it is operating into a demand base that bad harm reduction policy helped build and maintain.

The Quit Campaign Did Not Fail

Now the message gaining traction in the public square is that the War on Tobacco failed, that the illicit market proves it. That prevention doesn’t work and we need a new approach. Same old mantra, new spin, same people pushing it.

Let us be crystal clear, the Quit campaign did not fail – it worked and it can still work. What failed was harm reduction policy hijacked by addiction-for-profit operators who are very good at exactly one thing – finding ways to build an inescapable customer base. The playbook is consistent; introduce a substitute, market it as safer, recruit new users under the cover of helping existing ones. Normalise the behaviour, sustain the dependency and collect the revenue.

They line their pockets and they throw hapless thousands into an already collapsing health system to manage the ever-increasing damage their products cause. And then they point at the chaos they helped create and call it proof that prevention doesn’t work. It is breathtaking in its cynicism and it has been running for a long time.

The short- and long-term harms of this game are almost inestimable. And the first step toward addressing them honestly is calling it exactly what it is.

Dalgarno Institute  (Source: WRD News)

Details

Published: 17 June 2026

Hits: 101

A New York Times podcast on the global drug crisis raises urgent concerns, but leaves the most important questions unasked.

There is something almost cinematic about the way The New York Times framed its recent investigation into the synthetic drugs crisis. A mysterious death in a Chicago jail. A criminal investigator who says “keister” instead of something cruder. A “Rosetta Stone” of ten overlapping substances on a single sheet of paper. Drug-soaked mail laundered through Amazon packaging. A paper baron operating out of the South Side.

The episode of “The Daily” features NYT international investigations correspondent Azam Ahmed in conversation with host Natalie Kitroeff. It is gripping journalism. Ahmed spent more than a year embedded in the world of synthetic drug trafficking, and his reporting is serious, detailed and built on sustained access. The Cook County jail investigation is a genuinely revelatory piece of work.

But what the episode reveals about contemporary drug-policy thinking is, in some respects, more troubling than what it reveals about the drugs themselves. It is worth examining closely, because the gaps are not random – they follow a concerning pattern.

The Reporting at the Heart of the Episode

The conversation covers substantial ground. Ahmed describes a paradigm shift in global drug markets: the move from plant-based substances to synthetically manufactured ones. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has catalogued more than 1,450 new psychoactive substances, a figure that has tripled in a single decade. As Ahmed puts it, making a new drug is now “like chefs testing new recipes,” because the chemistry can be altered endlessly in a lab.

He traces the Cook County jail story from a 2023 death that left no visible contraband, only burned paper fragments. Investigators eventually found that people were smuggling synthetic drugs by dissolving them into liquid and soaking sheets of paper. Mail, personal visits and Amazon third-party sellers all served as entry points. One sheet recovered in August 2024 carried ten different synthetic compounds, from cannabinoids to opioids to substances found in rat poison.

Ahmed also discusses nitazenes, a class of opioids developed in the 1950s but never brought to market because of their extreme potency. He says they can be 20 to 40 times stronger than fentanyl, and that authorities now find them across Europe and the United States. Methamphetamine production in Southeast Asia, he reports, operates at a scale that dwarfs cartel output in Mexico. Enforcement pressure on fentanyl precursor chemicals, he argues, simply pushed criminal networks toward even more dangerous alternatives.

From this, Ahmed draws his own clear and not unsurprising conclusions:

• Enforcement-focused approaches have failed and may have made the crisis worse.
• Harm reduction, he suggests, must form part of any serious response. 
• The policy conversation, in his view, should move away from what he calls “retrograde rhetoric” about cracking down.

That is the frame – the lens this ‘investigation’ wants us to look at and through, Ah, but this deserves closer examination than the episode gives it.

“The War on Drugs Has Failed”: A Claim, Not a Finding

Throughout the episode, Ahmed treats the failure of the war on drugs as the starting point rather than the conclusion. He says it plainly: “We all know the war on drugs has failed. We also know it not only failed, it kind of made things worse.”

That is a significant claim to present as settled fact, and not unsurprisingly with confirmation bias leaning investigations, the episode never tests it. 

What evidence does it actually offer? 

• Enforcement operations that failed to permanently disrupt drug markets. 
• The arrest of a South Side paper baron that did not reduce overdoses at Cook County. 
• Cartel crackdowns that did not stop fentanyl. 
• Precursor restrictions that appear to have driven innovation toward nitazenes. 

These observations are real, however, all these examples do is show the limits of supply-side enforcement in isolation. They do not show that the entire framework of drug control made things worse, and no one in the room considers what conditions would look like with no enforcement infrastructure at all.

There is also a circularity that this conversation never challenges. The argument runs: Enforcement suppressed fentanyl, so criminals built something worse, therefore enforcement made things worse. Apply that logic to any regulation and it collapses. Restricting dangerous products sometimes drives innovation toward replacements, but that is not an argument for ceasing to restrict dangerous products.

The War FOR Drugs

Here is the larger omission. The episode scrutinises the “war on drugs” relentlessly, while ignoring its mirror image entirely: the war for drugs being actively, no, assiduously and relentlessly being waged.

If there has been a fifty-year campaign to suppress supply, there has also been a sustained, well-resourced and increasingly successful campaign to expand demand, normalise consumption and lower the social and legal cost of using. It has commercial backers, advocacy organisations, lobbying budgets, friendly media framing and a cultural tailwind. The legal cannabis industry, growing rapidly across multiple jurisdictions, has a direct financial incentive to enlarge its user base. Organised pro-drug movements actively work to expand the acceptability of a range of substances, influencing legislation and public opinion. Entertainment, music and social media steadily frame intoxication as ordinary, even desirable, particularly to the young.

That campaign has arguably been far more effective than the constantly undermined enforcement effort it is so often contrasted with. Yet it appears nowhere in the episode as a named actor. When you examine one side of a conflict with forensic attention and treat the other as if it does not exist, the analysis is incomplete by definition. The honest question is not only whether the war on drugs failed – it is whether the war for drugs has been quietly winning.

The Demand Nobody Discussed

This points to the deeper gap. Why do so many people, in so many societies, actively want these substances?

Half an hour on one of the most serious public health crises of the modern era produced almost no examination of the forces that create and sustain demand. To the episode’s partial credit, Kitroeff does eventually raise the consumption side, asking about “the alternate route here… addressing demand.” But watch what happens next. Ahmed immediately reframes the question as “legalisation, or decriminalisation,” and from there moves to harm reduction. Demand is raised, and then redirected, away from any discussion of reducing it.

That redirection is the whole problem in miniature. Demand reduction received no real attention. Early intervention did not feature and school, community and family-based prevention went unmentioned. Recovery appeared only briefly, framed through harm reduction of course. Nobody asked why people begin using, or what might reduce initiation or facilitate active recovery. The cultural normalisation of drug use, the commercial expansion of markets, the social conditions that make chemical escape attractive: none of it was scrutinised.

Inmate Rashad Rowry came closest to the heart of it when he described becoming “addicted to not caring,” to the drug’s power to make him indifferent to his circumstances, his future and the deaths around him. That is profound hopelessness, and it is a demand-side statement of the first order and it deserved far more than a passing moment of reflection. The question it begs, what produces that hopelessness and how might it be prevented, is precisely the one the episode does not ask.

Drug-Soaked Paper Is Not New

The episode presents drug-soaked paper as an apparent startling recent innovation, encountered with bewilderment, defeating existing detection methods. The framing suggests a genuinely novel threat. The chemistry is new, however, the method is not.

Drug-infused paper has been a street staple for more than half a century. LSD was distributed on absorbent sheets so commonly that one of its enduring street names was simply “blotter.” It was also known as “sacrament,” because users would soak it into wafers, sugar cubes, or any medium that would hold the liquid, and then consume it. The principle, dissolve a potent compound into liquid and carry it on an absorbent material, is decades old. What is genuinely new is the range of synthetic compounds now being used, and the deployment of the method in jails specifically to defeat detection of more conventional contraband.

That distinction matters for policy. If drug-soaked paper looks entirely novel, it seems to demand entirely novel responses. Seen accurately, it is a modern chemistry applied to an old smuggling method, one more turn in a long cycle of adaptation and counter-adaptation. Emphasising novelty at the expense of that history distorts the conclusions that follow from it.

Harm Reduction and the Assumption of Inevitability

When Kitroeff asks what can actually be done, Ahmed centres his answer on harm reduction and wheels out an increasingly misrepresentative ‘chestnut’. He parrots a well worn pro-drug activist mantra in describing the issue as a public health matter rather than a criminal one, something “Europe is really focused on.” That can be a legitimate perspective, but again, only half the story, but the episode simply never interrogates the assumptions inside it.

If you listen to the interview  you will hear how Ahmed defines the approach: “We understand people are going to use drugs. We understand that we’re never going to be able to fully reduce all of the demand.” There is that sabotaging apriori assumption – that sentence does a great deal of quiet work. It accepts as given that drug use is permanent and that reducing demand is a lost cause. From there, the only sensible goal becomes managing the consequences. That is a coherent position. It is not a neutral one, and it is not the only one available.

Three assumptions sit inside it, each worth the same scrutiny the episode reserves for enforcement. 

• First, that abstinence and recovery are unrealistic for most users, a claim that research on natural recovery from substance use disorders directly challenges. 
• Second, that reducing initiation will not work, which effective school-based prevention and the long decline in tobacco and drink-driving both contradict. 
• Third, that the cultural forces driving demand are beyond intervention, which the public health practitioners who turned the tide on smoking would dispute.

There is a subtler risk too. A comprehensive harm reduction framework can function as a “permission model,” accommodating drug use as normal and ongoing in ways that lower the perceived cost of starting. E.g Needle exchange cuts HIV transmission – Naloxone saves lives. These tools have a genuine evidence base and a real place, but a framework that manages the consequences of use while showing little interest in reducing the number of people who start is not a comprehensive public health strategy – it is at best, containment. And containment, as the jail reporting itself shows, tends to fall behind the adaptive capacity of the thing it is trying to contain.

The Question Nobody in the Room Asked

Investigative journalism is most credible when it applies its scepticism consistently, including to the views it finds congenial.

Early in the episode, Kitroeff notes, in passing, that she has “a special interest reporting experiences in this world.” The phrase is left to hang – no elaboration, no clarifying question. In a half-hour conversation about who uses drugs and why, that is a curious thing to skip past.

It raises a question the episode never asks of itself; Contemporary drug-policy discourse leans heavily on the “living experience” of drug use as a source of insight and authority. If living experience is treated as a qualification when it belongs to the people being studied, then transparency about the living experience of the people doing the studying matters at least as much. Did anyone in that room, the guest, the host, the producers shaping the framing, use these substances recreationally? It is not an accusation, it is the obvious question, and its absence from a conversation that prides itself on “dispassionate, brutal honesty” is conspicuous. A genuinely sceptical investigation would have asked it of everyone present, not only of the inmates.

A War FOR Sobriety

Ahmed’s reporting, on Cook County, on nitazenes, on Southeast Asian meth, on the sheer adaptive sophistication of these networks, is serious and important. The reporting is far more rigorous than the policy analysis wrapped around it.

The “war on drugs has failed” narrative functions as settled truth rather than a contested claim. The war for drugs, the organised commercial, cultural and political effort to expand use, goes unmentioned. Demand is raised once and immediately redirected into legalisation and harm reduction. Prevention, early intervention and demand reduction are essentially absent. Harm reduction receives sympathy but no scrutiny. And the most basic question, why so many people in so many societies are reaching for these substances at all, goes almost entirely unasked.

That omission is not incidental. When demand is treated as a fixed constant rather than something that can be reduced, prevention disappears and containment becomes the only strategy left on the table. And containment, as this episode’s own reporting demonstrates, tends to generate the very innovation it is trying to suppress.

The real crisis may not be that the war on drugs has failed. It may be that no one has yet seriously attempted a war for sobriety.

Dalgarno Institute (WRD News)

Source: How A Drug Cocktail Made of Paper Is Killing Inmates