The War on Drugs has Unduly Biased Substance Use Research

After working in the substance use field for several years and conducting research on substance use, it has come to my attention how deeply ingrained the War on Drugs propaganda is in substance use research. The lines of research demonstrating the potential benefits of substance use (including illicit substances), delineation of harm from stigma, and the societal impact of the War on Drugs is rather weak and lacking, despite numerous recent studies showing the benefits of certain substances and reports of individuals in therapy and online suggesing that illicit substances help them in some respects. There are numerous critical implications of this bias in substance use research. Suppose the field primarily produces studies that show that all substances are harmful in almost any circumstance and that substance use disorders (SUDs) are primarily driven by psychological deficits (e.g., willpower). In that case, we, as researchers, would be feeding into the War on Drugs, which is known for marginalizing individuals, promoting organized crime, exacerbating SUDs, feeding into a police and prison state, and killing individuals due to tainted substances. Substance use researchers and clinicians are among the first to recognize that the War on Drugs has failed. Yet, despite this belief, we seem to have not quite fully noticed how the propaganda has influenced how we conduct our jobs and the research we produce. In the current letter, I inform researchers who study substance use and clinicians who treat SUDs to acknowledge their own learned biases against substances and those who use substances; to be more cautious when interpreting substance use data in the future.