Melvin Sembler's Penis Pump

    This tale has a little bit of everything, humor, sadness, irony and is a cautionary tale. This story begins with Richard Bradbury, a survivor of the drug "treatment" provider Straight Inc. 


The Penis Pump, the Ambassador and our Medical Privacy by Maia Szalavitz

Florida native Richard Bradbury lost years of his adolescence to an abusive drug program called Straight Inc. Much of his "treatment" consisted of being forced to admit his "part" in having been sexually abused by a small group of pedophiles when he was a boy. Program staff believed the eleven-year-old Richard "seduced" these adult men in order to get them to buy him drugs. His "recovery" would begin when he admitted how low drugs had made him go and was prepared to accept the program's "help" with that. 

But Richard never actually had a drug problem. His sister did. Because of the way Straight worked, her treatment required him to be "screened" for addiction as well. This screening consisted of an 8-10 hour interrogation in which admission of any marijuana smoking or alcohol use was seen as denial of more serious addiction-- and any denial of any use was seen as denial, period. His addiction was a foregone conclusion. Even though Richard's parents didn't believe he had a drug problem, they felt forced to admit him because otherwise his sister-- whom they believed the program was helping-- would be expelled.

Dirt and the diplomat by Leonora LaPeter (other quotes are from this source unless otherwise specified)

Bradbury says a fireman molested him when he was 11, abuse that continued for three years with a high school principal and other men the fireman brought around. He dropped out of school but says he was not hooked on drugs when his adoptive parents brought him to Straight. 

Other teens further along in the program forced him to sit up in a plastic chair for 10 to 12 hours a day, he says. If he leaned back, he was thrown to the floor and others sat on his arms, legs and chest. Forbidden to use the bathroom, he would soil his clothes. He says he was beaten. 

He graduated, joined the staff and inflicted beatings on other teens. He left Straight in 1985, after he said he learned other counselors were sexually abusing teens and tried to report it, only to be told to shut up or be returned to the program as a client.

Bradbury was eventually able to see through the brainwashing tactics of Straight Inc. and see the abuse he suffered, and imposed on others, as the human rights violation that it is. Bradbury then attempted to fight the Semblers any way he could. Mel and Betty Sembler are wealthy and politically connected, Melvin Sembler was even appointed as the ambassador to Italy in 2001. In this David verus Goliath battle Bradbury did whatever he could to try to damage the Sembler's credibility.

For 10 years he combed through the garbage outside Sembler’s home on Treasure Island, meticulously cataloging little treasures he discovered, including documents with the ambassador’s seal and presidential schedules complete with aircraft tail numbers. 

Three years ago, Bradbury’s garbage runs hit what for him was the mother lode: Sembler’s discarded penile pump. 

Thoughtful soul that he is, Bradbury offered the item on eBay: 

“Pump, one of a kind formerly owned by current United States Ambassador to Italy …” Minimum bid: $300,000. 

The Semblers filed a lawsuit that called Bradbury’s actions “so dark and fringe as to outrage common sensibilities” and “an invasion into the sanctity of our home and our bedroom.” 

It’s been three years, and the outgunned jobless guy is more than holding his own: Sembler offered to drop the suit if Bradbury would keep his distance. Bradbury said no. 

“Anybody else would have cut and run. I’m not backing down.”

Melvin Sembler has never been charged with a crime. The legacy of Straight Inc. continues to haunt survivors to this day. It is particularly ironic that the Sembler's are so distressed by the publicity surrounding a discarded penis pump. 

“Plainly put Mr. Bradbury,’’ wrote attorney Leonard Englander, “it would be our intention to have you become the prey and not the hunter, as you have fancied yourself to be these past several years.” 

The letter outlined the Semblers’ potential claims: intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of privacy for publishing a private fact. 

Bring it on, Bradbury wrote back. He welcomed a lawsuit to “open Pandora’s box” and expose what happened at Straight: 

“I will give anything of my life for the victims of Straight,’’ he wrote, “in any legal effort to expose the dishonorable Melvin Sembler and all his actions including but not limited to the fraudulent organized child abuse Straight fraud centers.”

 “Mr. Bradbury’s been an irritant and he’s been distressing to my family, not only personally, and to my wife, but to my children,” Sembler testified. “I’ve told my family one of these days I wouldn’t be surprised if a bomb wasn’t placed in my mailbox by this outrageous behavior of this young man.” 

He said Bradbury was intelligent but “not a normal human being.” He said Bradbury had trespassed all these years; the garbage bin was on their property, not in the public right-of-way at the end of the driveway — as Bradbury remembered — where it would be legal for anyone to go through it. 

It especially upset Betty Sembler. “I’m under severe emotional distress,” she said in her deposition. She had lost sleep over it, cried about it and, afraid of Bradbury, changed the way she entered her home, making sure to look around when she got out of her car.  

“She’s like many women,’’ Sembler testified, “she’s emotional and she’s — this man is very distressing, particularly recently. Since his antics with his disclosing that, you know, he’s been coming on the property for 10 years and then advertising this medical device … he’s gotten out of control now.’’

Penis Pump Case Goes Limp, But Serious Issues Remain follow up by Szalavitz

One can only imagine the kind of distress the Semblers would experience if they had been subjected to Straight's "therapy." The national clinical director of the program admitted to regulators that kids were kept awake for 72 hour stretches as "a therapeutic technique." He acknowledged that he made teens crawl through each other's legs to be hit in a "spanking machine," that was intended to be "humiliating" and that he forced teens to eat nothing but peanut butter sandwiches for weeks at a time.

Regulators in several states repeatedly documented excessive use of force. At Straight, kids restrained each other by slamming the victim to the floor and sitting on his limbs, often for hours and without providing bathroom breaks. Straight was forced to pay out millions of dollars to settle lawsuits in which dozens of teens and parents testified to beatings, kidnappings, assaults, and hundreds of other repeated violations of human rights.

What I want to know is: Who should be suing whom for emotional distress and invasion of privacy in this case?

Bradbury's fight has cost him dearly. I don't think it would be an overstatement to say that Melvin Sembler ruined Bradbury's life, an was certainly the cause of his quixotic quest for some accountability.

Bradbury never married,  his most trusted companion his 7-year-old cocker spaniel, Gumbo, who is dying of cancer. Other than his parents, he has only himself, and he says the case has sapped him of that. After the trial, he says he’s ready to move on. 

“I accomplished what I set out to do, which was to draw attention to what they did to us kids,” Bradbury said. “But emotionally and financially, I’m finished. It’s ruined me.”

Further reading:

Pump-Gate - Blog Devoted to Court Case
Help at Any Cost - website about Szalavitz's expose of the troubled teen industry

Malum Prohibitum, Malum In Se

     Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase that means "wrong because prohibited," it is distinguished from malum in se, "wrong in and of itself." In discussions about legalizing drugs inevitably someone will say "well why do we just legalize murder/rape/robbery? That would lower the number of arrests too." Virtually every human civilization has prohibitions against property crimes, where property is defined broadly so as to include one's own body.  Thus stealing, murder and assault (including sexual assault) are all examples of mala in se (wrong and evil in themselves). By contrast, mala prohibita include prohibitions against social taboos. In my previous post I argued that drug abuse is only abuse in the sense that certain drugs are used in ways that are wrongful in custom, drug abuse is nothing more than drug use that lies outside cultural norms.

Drug Use vs Abuse (Updated 2/24)

 

Most anti-drug fundamentalists espouse a moralistic view of drug use. They are adamant in their belief that the desire to alter ones consciousness is by no means a normal component of the human condition, and that such desires indicate ungodliness and immorality. Meanwhile, most of those in the treatment, prevention, and recovery world are just as passionate in their own belief that the desire to alter ones mind is pathologically abnormal, supposedly indicative of a brain disease.

Both the moralistic anti-drug fanatic, and the paternalistic treatment-official, are misguided in their conclusions. We cannot and should not continue to categorize the use of drugs by the reductionistic dichotomy of "use" vs "abuse"; nor can we rightfully make judgements as to which use of a drug is right and which use of a drug is wrong.

The symbolic divide often drawn between therapeutic use and non-therapeutic use (i.e. "abuse"), is not nearly as fine a line as it's made out to be. In fact, one could argue that no such line actually exists. In terms of the motivational context (i.e. ones reason for taking drugs), drug use exists on a continuum.  

"Why do People Use Drugs?" Project Narco

Derek Meyer goes on to list 25 reasons as to why people use drugs. It would not be difficult to double or triple his list. This post is not about why people use drugs, but about the rather strange notion that one can abuse a drug.

Masturbation, Self Abuse and Drug Abuse

            In pondering the strange wording concerning the “abuse” of drugs.  What exactly is being abused here?  The drug?  One does not usually speak of inanimate objects being abused.  People and animals? Yes.  A hammer or computer? No.  Abuse implies that an object is being misused, but using a gun or car to murder another human being is not “gun-abuse” or “vehicle-abuse.”  Or perhaps the abuse part of “drug abuse” refers to the person ingesting the drug, making “drug abuse” a form of self-abuse or mutilation.  And yet, given the actual harm most drugs cause the user, especially the class of drugs known as the narcotic analgesics (opioids), it seems drug “abuse” has more in common with masturbation than with self-mutilation.  In the 19^th century masturbation was called “self-abuse,” and widely thought to be a cause of insanity and mental illness.  These mythologies were perpetuated by psychiatrists and widely believed to be true by the general population, a cycle to repeat itself nearly a hundred years later with illicit drugs replacing masturbation as the cause.

            John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943) is probably best known for inventing corn flakes.  What is less known is that he was also a tireless crusader against the evils of masturbation.  In the 19^th century masturbation was also called Onanism, self-abuse and self-pollution. Kellogg writes in his 1877 book, Plain Facts for Young and Old (available online at project Gutenberg [Link]):

If illicit commerce of the sexes is a heinous sin, self-pollution, or masturbation, is a crime doubly abominable. As a sin against nature, it has no parallel except in sodomy (see Gen. 19:5, Judges 19:22). It is the most dangerous of all sexual abuses, because the most extensively practiced. The vice consists in any excitement of the genital organs produced otherwise than in the natural way. It is known by the terms, self-pollution, self-abuse, masturbation, onanism, manustupration, voluntary pollution, solitary or secret vice, and other names sufficiently explanatory. The vice is the more extensive because there are no bounds to its indulgence. Its frequent repetition fastens it upon the victim with a fascination almost irresistible. It may be begun in earliest infancy, and may continue through life. 

Even though no warning may have been given, the transgressor seems to know, instinctively, that he is committing a great wrong, for he carefully hides his practice from observation. In solitude he pollutes himself, and with his own hand blights all his prospects for both this world and the next. Even after being solemnly warned, he will often continue this worse than beastly practice, deliberately forfeiting his right to health and happiness for a moment's mad sensuality.

     The similarities between Kellogg's notion of self-abuse and the modern conception of drug abuse are evident.  The "excitement," whether of the genital organs or psyche, is unnatural, extensive and irresistible. If the behavior is done in secret, this is given as evidence as to its wrongness. Finally the individual's health and happiness is forfeited for a "moment's mad sensuality."  Drug "abuse" is pharmacological masturbation.

     As is the case with drug abuse, the "treatment" for these fictional ailments is often coerced against the "patient's" will. Since drug use is a natural phenomenon, every human civilization that has had access to drugs has utilized them, it should go without say that attempts to suppress human nature is doomed to failure and bound to do more harm than good.
     The use of the term "abuse" therefore describes drug use that is society disapproves of.  "Abuse" itself is usually reserved for sentient creatures, thus we have animal abuse or child abuse.  Furthermore whatever you may call the relationship between a person and their drug, it could hardly be called abuse.  Most drug users treat their drugs with great reverence and respect. In the context of "drug abuse," abuse refers to a more esoteric meaning.

Wikipedia extends the definition of abuse:

Abuse is the improper usage or treatment for a bad purpose, often to unfairly or improperly gain benefit. Abuse can come in many forms, such as: physical or verbal maltreatment, injury, sexual assault, violation, rape, unjust practices; wrongful practice or custom; offense; crime, or otherwise verbal aggression. [Wikipedia]

      When discussing drug abuse, the relevant section is "wrongful practice or custom."  Using opiates outside of a doctor's prescription is a wrongful custom, which is what is meant by abuse in this case.  Unfortunately "wrongful practice or custom" is not what comes to mind when people hear the word abuse. Self-injection of "street" drugs or even pharmaceuticals outside of a clinical setting may very well be a "wrongful custom" in the eyes of the non-drug user, but it is interpreted as both an act of self-mutilation as well as "wrongful custom."
     Use of the term "drug abuse" has negative effects on the perceptions of drug users by non-users. The following three paragraphs are taken from a UK-based drug policy commision looking at the effect of language on people's perceptions. Essentially, labeling someone a "substance abuser" elicits stigmatizing and punitive reactions. Admittedly the terms "problem drug user" and "drug misuse" are not much better.

The language that is used to denote problem drug use and problem drug users is important. An interesting study showing how even mental health professionals are influenced by language was undertaken by Kelly and Westerhoff (2010). They provided 728 mental health providers attending conferences with two randomly allocated vignettes, which differed only in terms of the following phrase: ‘Mr Williams is a substance abuser’ or ‘Mr Williams has a substance use disorder’. A number of questions were asked about Mr Williams. Multivariate statistical analysis showed that the group of people given the vignette describing Mr Williams as a substance abuser were significantly more in agreement with the idea that Mr Williams was personally culpable for his condition and that punitive measures should be undertaken.26 While the difference was significant, it was quite small, but the authors conclude that “Referring to an individual as a ‘substance abuser’ may elicit and perpetuate stigmatizing attitudes that appear to relate to punitive judgements and perceptions that individuals are recklessly engaging in wilful misconduct” (p.4). The term ‘substance abuse’ is frequently used in the drug field, although the UK Government generally uses the term ‘misuse’. However, the central US government drug research agency is entitled the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

White and Kelly (2010) have weighed in heavily against the use of the words ‘abuse’ and ‘abuser’. As they point out, abuse is a highly inaccurate term: drug users treat their substances with great devotion, they do not abuse them. They trace the term to religious and moral objections to alcohol in the seventeenth century, with its associations with sinful acts and forbidden pleasure, but it also has modern associations with sexual and physical violence. White and Kelly (2010) also point out that the use of the term contributes to the stigma attached to problem drug use and inaccurately implies a sense of volition. They call for the term to be dropped from the 25 Surveys of problem drug users who have been arrested (Boreham et al., 2007) or are in treatment (Jones et al., 2007) show the large majority of self-reported offences to be acquisitive rather than violent. There is a much closer association between heavy drinking and drunkenness and violent offences (e.g. Boreham et al., 2007).26 This was one of three factors coming out of an exploratory factor analysis.55 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and from the names of US government organisations where it appears.

This would seem to represent a good start in the area of terminology, but there remain questions about other terms in common usage. ‘Misuse’, the favoured term of the UK Government, is a peculiar term. What is the correct use for crack cocaine? Likewise, the term used predominantly in this report, ‘problem drug user’, could be said to denote the person as being a problem (rather than the drug use, which is the origin of the term). While ‘drug addiction’ sounds relatively neutral, the term ‘drug addict’ seems to have taken on a much harsher connotation. There is, perhaps, a tendency for all of these terms for drug users to take on a stigmatising flavour, simply because they are used to denote a stigmatised group. More research is needed on the use of language and the impact that this language has on attitudes towards drug users.

          UK Drug Policy Commision

          Policy Report Sinning and Sinned Against the Stigmatization of Problem Drug Users, p 54

So if we are to reject the term "drug abuse," because it is absurd that an individual can abuse an inanimate object, and equally absurd that the drug is abusing the individual (drug use is, after all, a willful act), what are we to replace them with? Drug misuse seems just as bad, contrary to the UK commision, not all use of heroin, crack and methamphetamine is "misuse." Many, perhaps most users of even the supposedly most addictive drugs use them without any problems in their lives. It should also be noted that many of the supposed problems surrounding drug use is due to drug prohibition.

The International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD) addresses these stigmatizing terms in their Statement and Position Paper on language, identity, inclusivity and discrimination.

INPUD resists any implication that drug-taking of any sort leads inevitably to problems, nevertheless, it is undeniable that some people sometimes experience difficulties associated with the use of drugs. These difficulties can arise or be exacerbated by drug prohibition and sometimes by factors associated with the properties of the drugs themselves, the person consuming them and their situation and terminology is needed that address the relevant range of experiences. 

INPUD recognises that language cannot be regulated and that context can transform a term that is used to oppress into one through which emancipation is pursued. Just as the reclaiming of the label ‘queer’ by LGBT activists and feminists was an assertion of power, empowered drug users may sometimes elect to refer to themselves as ‘junkies’. This reclaiming of language can be a highly effective political tool. Ordinarily, however, language that may denigrate, is best avoided and the following terms are preferred:

People who use drugs (PUD)  – The collective term for all people whose interests INPUD represents. We tend to avoid the term ‘drug user’ as it reduces the complexity of an individual to one aspect, albeit an often important or defining one, to a single activity. Similarly, we reject terms such as ‘drug abuser’, ‘problem drug user’ (PDU) or ‘misuser’ for general use because these are often used in an uncritical, disparaging or hostile way.
People who inject drugs (PWID) – A key constituency within INPUD, because this group is often the most discriminated against, marginalised, criminalised and experiences some of the most serious health problems that can be associated with drug-taking under the regime of global prohibition.
People who are dependent on drugs - Dependent drug users literally depend on their drug doses to get through the day. This does not imply that they are dysfunctional in any way or necessarily require services and dependence is not otherwise incompatible with a productive, happy, and fulfilled life.
Clients (of drug and related services) – The term client is generally preferred when referring to people using drugs who are receiving services from which they are intended to benefit (or for whom they are intended). ‘Patient’ is probably foremost among the possible alternatives, but can be problematic because it connotes a medical/disease model, which is still contested.

Opiate Users get Lobotomized

Here is some sad but completely unsurprising news regarding the "treatment" for opiate addiction in China. This procedure, surgical destruction of the "pleasure center" in the brain (ablation of the nucleus accumbens), is not new and has been used on cocaine users in South America. I'm sure the "patients" were all fully informed and not at all coerced, just like when a judge "suggests" a defendant undergo drug treatment in the US. I have reproduced some paragraphs from two articles, though I highly recommend reading them both in full.

Controversial Surgery for Addiction Burns Away Brain’s Pleasure Center by Maia Szalavitz

How far should doctors go in attempting to cure addiction? In China, some physicians are taking the most extreme measures. By destroying parts of the brain’s “pleasure centers” in heroin addicts and alcoholics, these neurosurgeons hope to stop drug cravings. But damaging the brain region involved in addictive desires risks permanently ending the entire spectrum of natural longings and emotions, including the ability to feel joy.

David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins and author of a recent book about the brain’s pleasure systems calls the surgery “horribly misguided.”  He says “This treatment will almost certainly render the subjects unable to feel pleasure from a wide range of experiences, not just drugs of abuse.”

Given the available evidence, in fact, it’s hard to find a scientific justification for even studying the technique in people at all. Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on psychoactive drugs, says animal studies suggest the approach may ultimately fail as an effective treatment for addiction; a 1984 experiment, for example, showed that destroying the nucleus accumbens in rats does not permanently stop them from taking opioids like heroin and later research found that it similarly doesn’t work for curbing cocaine cravings. Those results alone should discourage further work in humans. “These data are clear,” he says, “If you are going to take this drastic step, you damn well better know all of the animal literature.” [Disclosure:  Hart and I have worked on a book project together]. 

Moreover, in China, where addiction is so demonized that execution has been seen as an appropriate punishment, it’s highly unlikely that addicted people could give genuinely informed consent for any brain surgery, let alone one that risks losing the ability to feel pleasure. And even if all of the relevant research suggested that ablating the nucleus accumbens prevented animals from seeking drugs, it would be hard to tell from rats or even primates whether the change was due to an overall reduction in motivation and pleasure or to a beneficial reduction in desiring just the drug itself. 

There is no question that addiction can be difficult to treat, and in the most severe cases, where patients have suffered decades of relapses and failed all available treatments multiple times, it may make sense to consider treatments that carry significant risks, just as such dangers are accepted in fighting suicidal depression or cancer.  But in the ablation surgery studies, some of the participants were reportedly as young as 19 years old and had only been addicted for three years.  Addiction research strongly suggests that such patients are likely to recover even without treatment, making the risk-benefit ratio clearly unacceptable.

Pleasure Center Lobotomy: The Logical Extreme of The Brain Disease Model of Addiction by Steven Slate

You must understand that the idea of addiction, as currently conceived, holds that people use drugs because of the structure and functioning of their brain. In this view, addiction has nothing to do with thoughts, beliefs, or values. It has nothing to do with personal awareness and judgment of various life options and the pursuit of happiness – it has everything to do with the makeup of one’s brain – nothing more, nothing less. And if that is true – that you use drugs because your nucleus accumbens “wants” the dopamine triggering powers of drugs, and will push you to do anything to get more drugs, then removing it must be the simplest and most surefire solution to ending addiction. 

So all of you counselors and addiction theorists who have a history with addiction and identify as lifelong recovering addicts and alcoholics, and spread this tragic view to vulnerable troubled people, here’s your solution: put your brain and life where your mouth is, and move to China to get this procedure done. You will be cured of your disease. This is the end product of all your propaganda. Just beware of the full implications of this, as Maia lays out in her article:

Alcohol Poisonings During Prohibition

The Chemist's War The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition with deadly consequences.

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

[...] 

I did, however, remember the U.S. government's controversial decision in the 1970s to spray Mexican marijuana fields with Paraquat, an herbicide. Its use was primarily intended to destroy crops, but government officials also insisted that awareness of the toxin would deter marijuana smokers. They echoed the official position of the 1920s—if some citizens ended up poisoned, well, they'd brought it upon themselves. Although Paraquat wasn't really all that toxic, the outcry forced the government to drop the plan. Still, the incident created an unsurprising lack of trust in government motives, which reveals itself in the occasional rumors circulating today that federal agencies, such as the CIA, mix poison into the illegal drug supply. 

During Prohibition, however, an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee.

This is an interesting article about how the federal government poisoned industrial alcohol during alcohol prohibition.  To this day there are calls for the government to infiltrate drug trafficking organizations to poison supplies, thereby murdering thousands of users. It is only when these proposals are put into the proper historical context that the motivations of the authors become clear. These people want to kill drug users. They don't care who you are, if you are a good person, have children or others depending on you or whatever. If you use the "wrong" drugs you deserve to die, that's it. The following quotes were taken from a debate over alcohol prohibition in 1926. I wonder how many people would defend Wheeler today. In 100 years, how many people will still advocate poisoning the supply of opiates?


"The government is under no obligation to furnish the people with alcohol that is drinkable, when the constitution prohibits it. The person who drinks this alcohol is a deliberate suicide." Wayne Wheeler.

"Any man who takes a drink of alcohol today may be poisoned without a trial by jury, without anything, just be poisoned because he dared take it!" Clarence Darrow responding to Wheeler.

The Economic Case for Decriminalizing Heroin

The Economic Case for Decriminalizing Heroin by Dylan Matthews
From the Washington Post Wonk Blog

The University of Chicago’s Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy, who generally lean right on matters of public finance, made some waves by calling for the full decriminalization of drugs in the Wall Street Journal. They don’t want to just, say, decriminalize the use of marijuana while still banning its sale, as Massachusetts does. They want to decriminalize the sale and use of heroin, and meth, and crack, and other hard drugs. 

Becker and Murphy have been making this argument for a while. Indeed, they first broached the subject back in the 1980s when they argued that many drug addicts are perfectly rational consumers. They, like the savviest grocery shopper, use the resources they have to get what they want in a cost-effective manner. It’s just that what they want happens to be drugs.
But the most relevant paper for understanding the Becker/Murphy critique is one they coauthored with CUNY’s Michael Grossman, who was last seen in these parts arguing for a tax on junk food. The paper attempts to describe the economics of the drug market in the broadest sense. In particular, the authors want to combat the idea that legalizing drugs would lead to more addictions. 

Becker, Murphy and Grossman think this view is dramatically mistaken and they build a model to show why. They put together an equation that outputs the benefits to society of a drug prohibition regime, taking into account the social cost of drugs but also the cost of enforcement, and the enjoyment that drugs provide to their consumers. They then used that equation to determine the regime that maximizes social welfare and determined what the cost of drugs would be under that regime. 

Here’s the kicker: if drugs sold for that price after taxes in an environment where drugs are legalized, they’d still be cheaper than drugs sold on the black market. So the legal market would drive illegal producers out of business, there wouldn’t be any of the enforcement costs — including huge social costs like mass incarceration — that come with drug prohibition, the government would gain considerable new tax revenue, and because the price is the same, consumption of drugs wouldn’t be any different than under prohibition. In short, the best form of prohibition is still worse than legalize-and-tax.

"In short, the best form of prohibition is still worse than legalize-and-tax"

The idea behind Becker, Murphy and Grossman's proposal to legalize and regulate (despite the headline they mean the L and R words) the sale of heroin is to keep the price similar to that of the current black market.  They hypothesize that the high price will keep use down.

Let's start with the positives with such a regime:
Decriminalization
There would be enormous savings from police time spent enforcing prohibition, incarceration costs (including the opportunity cost of locking up citizens who would otherwise be working and paying taxes), court costs and all the expenditures of fighting the drug war.
Legalization
The loss of a customer base would decimate the black market.  Drug cartels may not disappear, but their major source of revenue would dry up. Prostitution, human smuggling and other areas organized crime traditionally deals in require far more work and are not nearly as profitable.  Without drug trafficking these cartels would be significantly weakened.  The term "Narco-state" would become obsolete.
Regulation
Users would presumably be getting pure drugs with labeled dosages. Sterile ampules of heroin suitable for injection could be made available along with clean syringes. Heroin could also be formulated in smokable or
insufflatable (snortable) formulations. Naloxone and naltrexone could also be made available or given along with every purchase. Blood-born disease transmission among IV users and overdoses would both decrease. Funds currently directed toward ineffective (indeed some say counter-productive) public information campaigns demonizing heroin could instead be used to educate users about using opiates safely.

Unfortunately for users who have a habit, this regime will not significantly improve their lives. It is the high cost alone which prevents those dependent on black market opiates from having normal lives. Furthermore heroin is not a particularly expensive drug, at least at first until tolerance develops.

According to Brian Bennett's excellent site, the per gram cost of heroin has been decreasing quite a bit since the 1980's. The last entry in his data set is the year 2003, in which the cost of a gram of heroin at the retail level (sales of less than a gram) was $372, or 37 cents per milligram. For the regime discussed in the Washington Post article to work, the cost would have to be below the black market prices. For the purposes of discussion, let's say the government set the price at 25 cents per milligram. It is also entirely possible that the black market could take a significant price reduction and still be profitable, but I will leave out that factor for the purposes of this discussion.

For the occasional user, or chipper, heroin is not particularly expensive. A dose of 10-20 mg of pure heroin, for an individual with no opiate tolerance, would get them feeling quite nice. For these individuals the cost of a dose would probably cost $5-10, and not exceed $20. Heavy users often reminisce over the days when they could get a buzz off a couple bags or a few percocets.  

For individuals who are physically dependent the benefits of the proposed regime are far more modest. Contrary to the popular mythology surrounding opiate (opioid), tolerance does not continue to develop indefinitely, every individual eventually reaches a plateau beyond which the returns rapidly diminish. We know from authors like de Quincey and Burroughs that extraordinarily high doses of opiates are not pleasurable, but rather cause some adverse symptoms. From reviewing the results of the Swiss heroin prescription trials, and other trials done in Vancouver, we know that the average daily dose (the plateau or therapeutic dose) is about 500mg. Therefore dependent users are still going to have to come up with over $100 a day to support their habit. As I said before it is the high cost alone which prevents even heavy heroin users from having otherwise normal, functional lives. The purposed regime will do nothing to end drug dependent prostitution or the acquisitive property crime that has become characteristic of heroin dependence in the 20th century.

Best Comment Ever left on WSJ Article on Drug War

Have We Lost the War on Drugs?

Even God could not enforce prohibition and He only had two people to watch. We will always eat the apple.
Norman Gooding