Brave New Drugs

Brave New Drugs is the name of a pamphlet written by Al Hofmann (born Alistair Greene, he claims to be the “spiritual son” of LSD creator, Albert Hofmann, and changed his surname in 1984).

A long-time proponent of the legalization of all recreational drugs, Hofmann was influenced to adopt a different approach after reading a feature on pot theory. The result was Brave New Drugs, but before considering Hofmann’s new argument, it’s worth exploring his former beliefs.

The reason the feature on pot theory produced such an impact on Hofmann was that he realized his existing manifesto fell within its parameters – this in turn made him realize that, as with most pot theory thinking, the changes he was proposing would always be too much for politicians and the public to stomach.

Hofmann’s legalization manifesto had called for the legalization of all drugs, but whilst Hofmann is a somewhat colourful character who famously released short films of himself under the influence of various drugs, his arguments were methodical and clearly thought out.

Hofmann argued that the status quo bordered on the ridiculous. He pointed out that “controlled” drugs were not controlled at all, that decades of law enforcement had failed to stem the tide and had alienated several generations of drug consumers. Illegality had led to a lack of safety or quality-control measures, had been a causal factor in related crime (carried out by addicts in order to feed their addiction) and empowered criminal gangs. Governments also failed to see any revenue from an industry worth billions.

His solution dealt differently with different drugs. Hofmann rightly predicted that public smoking bans would eventually be commonplace and that this would ensure the smoking of cannabis was a private activity. He proposed that packs of cannabis cigarettes would be available from licensed premises and that “coffee shops” would exist for people who wanted to smoke in a social setting or consume edible cannabis treats.

In the next category he included LSD, Ecstasy, Cocaine and other drugs that might be enjoyed on a night out in the clubs. Again, he proposed that specialist shops run along the lines of a pharmacy would be able to sell the drug directly to consumers. But he also proposed that nightclubs could be specially licensed to sell these drugs (a proviso for holding such a license would be a requirement for the club to have chill-out rooms and also to have staff qualified to ensure the safety of the consumers and intervene in the case of adverse reactions).

Finally, Hofmann suggested that Heroin could be made available free of charge in measured doses in clinics across the country (known as the English Method, this system is already used in Switzerland).

The economic and social arguments that Hofmann used to couch these arguments were all impressive, but he was even honest about the possible drawbacks. For example, Hofmann suggested that, despite stringent controls, more children would probably get their hands on drugs than do so currently, but he argued that the drugs would at least be manufactured to safe standards.

The world envisaged by Hofmann wasn’t a stoned paradise – if anything, drugs would be considerably more controlled than they are at present – but he came to realize that getting from here to there would be a process that would always prove too controversial for government and electorate. What he feared most was that incremental steps would be made, resulting in some sort of decriminalization, which he considered the worst of both worlds.

The result of this epiphany was Brave New Drugs, the title of the pamphlet inspired by Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, in which the entire population is kept permanently content with a drug called Soma.

Put simply, his new proposal was for government to sanction pharmaceutical companies to experiment with the development of new recreational drugs. The logic was that the population might not accept the legalization of Heroin or Cannabis, but it might be more receptive to an enhanced form of Prozac.

Hofmann realized that it wasn’t so much the fear of mood-altering drugs that prejudiced the general public but the fear of unknown drugs with dark associations. He reasoned that any drug created and licensed by a pharmaceutical company and sold under strict conditions would be considered safe for consumption.

The drugs, even if they used some of the same compounds found in currently available recreational drugs, would be safer, possible side effects would be known in advance, treatment of adverse reactions would be more straightforward. Furthermore, the drugs would exist within the mainstream economy and contribute to government finances accordingly. Most drug-related crime would disappear as, eventually, the new drugs supplanted the old.

Perversely, and to the consternation of Hofmann, a number of politicians voiced cautious support for his pamphlet but it drew considerable criticism from some of his former advocates (see the ostalgie paradox). They argued that he was playing into the hands of big business and intrusive government, and that consumers would never really know the impact of the drugs they were being given.

To some extent, Hofmann had probably brought some of this criticism upon himself in his choice of title. The fear was that the drugs created under Hofmann’s proposals would be too similar to Soma and would serve as a tool with which governments could subdue their peoples and eradicate dissent. (This view gained widespread support and in America an indie band even called themselves The Stepford Hofmanns – they were briefly successful, releasing three albums before splitting.)

Hofmann answered his critics by citing voter apathy and the lack of political activism in western societies as evidence that governments hardly needed to introduce a drug to enforce compliance.

The only players not to have expressed an opinion are the pharmaceutical companies themselves, but it’s almost certain that they would be willing to rise to the challenge if sanctioned to do so. As ever with such policy decisions, though, the drug problem may have to get considerably worse before any politician is willing to consider something this radical.

In 2006, Hofmann created his own political party and plans to stand for election to the European Parliament.