What follows might not be a new idea, but it happened to pop into my head last week when I was in the process of preparing a lecture on drug addiction. If it isn't new, then please let me know where you have read this idea before, as I would like to have that as a reference.
My(?) idea is based on some standard introductory psychology fare: Variable ratio (VR) schedules of reinforcement. In a VR schedule, a reinforcer is delivered after some random number of responses. A casino slot machine delivers rewards according to this schedule. VR schedules are notable for producing the highest rate of responding and the greatest resistance to extinction. There is a common idea that gambling owes some of its addictive potential to the fact that games of chance usually employ a VR schedule of reinforcement.
So what happens when you buy street drugs? You never know what you are going to get, that's what. If I were to head out and try to buy some heroin right now I would not know with any amount of certainty whether the drug I would get would be cut with 20%, 50%, or more filler. The result of my purchase would be a variable chance that I would get as high as I desired to get upon making my purchase. Accordingly, street drugs have a VR schedule of reinforcement: You only get very high on a street drug after some random number of purchases. The point of this discussion is that the addictive potential of a drug is possibly heightened by making it illegal: Its illegality produces unpredictable doses, thus unpredictable doses set up a VR schedule of reinforcement, and that VR schedule produces a behavioral response that is robust and difficult to extinguish. If this assessment is correct, then making a drug legal might reduce its addictive potential. Just a thought.
(political, economic,
(political, economic, sociological factors, aside and not getting into the legalization debate)
can't the idea of VR and be looked at in two ways?
'in' state - when you are already playing and you continue to play, maybe because VR impairs your judgment or maybe causes you to lose track of time; either way, you need to choose to start playing first.
'out' state when you choose to play more often; for this model, wouldn't the idea be that VR produces a sentiment during the 'in' state (say the excitement of uncertainty) which is addictive. that is, ppl gamble precisely to feel that excitement.
by this then, your idea would only apply to 'out' states, since we are talking about purchases separated by time? (i'm not sure which situations VR experiments address).
so if a pigeon had a choice btwn a VR button which might produce a treat and a button guaranteed to produce a treat, are you saying that the pigeon would rather go for the VR button anyway? I say this bc, the VR button would be all things equal, more 'fun' (i.e bc it produces excitement from uncertainty) than a non-VR one?
so if some drugs were regulated and others which produced say the same reward (but were VR), were not, would the VR drugs win out because they provided that extra excitement (even though the regulated drugs provide an 'outlet' for the need for a high)? if so you'd have to look at the possibility that the experience of buying drugs is more important as a motivator than the high itself...very interesting implications .
(also, not just being picky, but it doesn't follow that illegality or even the current legal regime in and of themselves produce variable doses. if we were to ignore the dealers who actually cut drugs not advertising clearly. it's certain forms of illegality (which is a continuum) which do - this could be a territory of compromise btwn the two camps since i think both have valid points, and primarily bc the current legal framework obviously doesn't work)