The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the makingof photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. If a user makes arequest for, or later uses a photocopy or reproduction (including handwritten copies)for purposes in excess of fair use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement.Users are advised to obtain permission from the copyright owner before any re-useof this material.

Use of this material is for private, non-commercial, and educational purposes; additionalreprints and further distribution is prohibited. Copies are not for resale. All other rightsreserved. For further information, contact Director, Hoover Institution Library and Archives,Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6010

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIA TlON

GUESTS:

SUBJECT:

#7816/29/88

DR. LESTER GRINSPOON, DR. THOMAS SZASZ

"UPDATE ON DRUG LEGALI7.ATION"

SECA PRESENTS ®

FIRinG Line

HOST: WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.

The FIRING LINE television series is a production of the Southern Educational

Communications Association, PO Box 5966, Columbia, SC 29250 and is

transmitted through the facilities of the Public Broadcasting Service. FIRING

LINE can be seen and heard each week through public television and radio

stations throughout the country. Check your local newspapers for channel and

time in your area.

GUESTS: DR. LESTER GRINSPOON, DR. THOMAS SZASZ

MODERATOR: MICHAEL KINSLEY

SUBJECT: "UPDATE ON DRUG LEGALIZATION"

FIRING LINE is produced and directed hy WARREN STEIBEL

This is a transcript of the Firing Line programtaped in New York City on June 29, 1988, and telecastlater by PBS.

SOUTHERN EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

© Board of Trustees of the L and Stanford Jr. University.

© 1988 SOUTHERN EDUCATIONALCOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

MR. KINSLEY: Hello, I'm Michael ~insley, editor of The NewRepublic. Welcome to Firing Line.

Many years ago, William F. Buckley Jr. sailed his yacht outinto international waters to sample the joys of marijuana. ~e

don't know what happened out there, but When he came back, Mr.Buckley became one of the nation's most fervent advocates ofdrug legalization. As the nation today goes through one of itsrecurrent bouts of drug fever, Mr. Buckley is joined by agrowing number of voices advocating what might be called theGeorge Aiken solution to the drug problem--that's after thesenator who famously recommended that we end the war in Vietnamby simply declaring victory and going home.

Today's guests are both psychiatrists and both a vocates ofdrug legalization, though from somewhat differenl perspectives.Dr. Les te r Gr i nspoon teaches a t the Ha r 'a rd I~ed ica 1 Schoo 1 andis the author of a veritable bookshelf on pleasure drugs,including books about marijuana and cocaine, among others. Hewould legalize drugs, but tax them heavily in order to use therevenues for drug therapy and other social costs of the drugproblem.

Dr. Thomas Szasz, characteristically, takes a more radicalline. He is the author of books with titles like The Myth ofMental Illness and The Myth of Psychotherapy, and he thinksthat the war on drugs is yet another myth. And here's a quote.He says the war "is a new variation in humanity's age-oldpassion to purge itself of its impurities by st3ging vastdramas of scapegoat persecution." Using drugs, according toDr. Szasz, is no more dangerous than the proscribed practicesof past cultures, such as masturbating, among others, andeating pork.

Now, Mr. Buckley, the question of drug legalization, it seemsto me, pits the two strains of conservative thought againsteach other: the libertarian strain and the social paternalismstrain. Now if you were convinced that the practical case fordrug legalization was wrong--that is, that legalization wouldcause more problems than it would solve--would you continue tobe for legalization as a matter of principle?

11R. BUCKLEY: No. No, I would not. Here I differ from theeminent Dr. Szasz. When I ran for mayor of New York I had achapter in the book I subsequently wrote, in which chapter Imade out what I thought to be an entirely convincing case,which I continue to think of as a convincing case, in favor ofthe continued illegalization of cocaine. What altered mythinking along the line was that suppressing it was notworking. So that I am, unlike you, guided exclusively byinstrumental criteria here. NOW, this, I know, is not yourpoint at all, or have I misunderstood you?

DR. SZASZ: NO, you have not. You rarely misunderstand anyone.[laughter] No, your point is a prUdential one, and mine is-­excuse me for putting it this way--a principled one. And

1© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

although the word "lioertarian" is one I would not reject, Ithink it would be more illuminating to put these two cases inthe framework of the market, of the free market. Cigarettes,tobacco, alcohol, nicotine, sugar, cholesterol, automobiles,diamonds are in the market.

MR. BUCKLEY: All the contagious diseases.

MR. BUCKLEY: The Democratic Party?

DR. SZA5Z: The Democratic Party? [laughter]

[laughter]

decriminalize. There was certainly an increased number ofpeople who smoked marijuana, but the increment was not any morethan in other states which had not in that time in the early'70s. Secondly, I think-- Let's take the case of cigarettes.Cigarettes and alcohol are the two drugs which we know mostabout in this regard. Now, it's estimated that the-- What Iwould do is I would immediately make marijuana, alcohol, andtobacco--as tobacco and alcohol are now, but marijuana too-­available with a tax, which would be adjusted to pay for thecost to society of using those particular drugs. Let the drugusers pay their own freight.

DR. SZASZ: Well, yes, AIDS should come into this at some pointbefore we finish, but what are our priorities in terms of thegovernment's duty to protect us from other people and fromourselves? This is where I think the argument has becomeskewed. The government's duty is to protect us from otherpeople, which it is not doing, not from ourselves. The so­called social cost of dangerous drugs is very difficult tocalculate, because actually one could argue, as economists haveargued--this is not personally my argument, although I agree.with it--that tobacco saves a lot of money, because people killthemselves with it by having a fatal coronary at 45 or 50, andby overeating, instead of living to be 80 and needing hipreplacements or living to be 90 and needing very expensivemedical care and nursing care at the end 0f their life. Sowhat is social cost? And let's get back to Adaln Smith.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, let me try this out on Professor Grinspoon.A recent piece in The New Republic attempted to calculate themoney cost of licensing all these drugs. I forget the exactfigure, but let's say it was in the neighborhood of $200billion. The author of that piece, Morton Kondracke, says thatthe acknowledged cost of pursuing current policies is in theneighborhood of $30 billion--lost time plus policemen, etcetera, et cetera. Under the circumstances there is a netloss. Now, it would be impossible, as far as I can see, toapply the criteria of Dr. Szasz unless one were to re-makesociety entirely. But if we acknowledge a social obligation tolook after somebody who is an addict, then don't weautomatically incur whatever cost results from increasing thenumber of addicts by this policy of liberalization?

DR. GRINSPOON: Well, I think that first of all, it is notabsolutely established that if drugs were legal, for example,if marijuana were legal, that there would be that many moremarijuana smokers.

MR. BUCKLEY: In the state of Washington, there hasn't been,has there?

DR. GRINSPOON: In the state of Oregon--

MR. BUCKLEY: Oregon.

DR. GRINSPOON: --or Alaska, which were the first two states to

2

MR. BUCKLEY: Let me stop you for a moment and say that taxcannot be high enough to subsidize a black market, right?

DR. GRINSPOON: It has to be below the level-- I mean, thereare limits to how high you can make that tax. For example,let's take tobacco. It's estimated that there are about--asyou know, there are about 315,000 or 350,000 people who dieevery year from tobacco ~moking. It's estimated that themedical cost of tobacco smoking is about $22 billion--

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, he disputes you on the grounds that theseare costs that are less than would result if they lived another20 years.

DR. GRINSPOON: Well, that then-- Let me just--

MR. BUCKLEY: Hang on to that. Okay?

DR. GRINSPOON: Let's hang on to that. But the costs fortreating people who develop the kinds of medical consequencesthat tobacco smokers get is about $22 billion. The estimatesof the lost productivity and the other kind of things, $43billion. Now, if you translate that in~o a tax for tobaccosmokers, let them pay that cost, it would come out to a littlemore than $2 per pack. Then they would be paying--

MR. BUCKLEY: Supplementary.

DR. GRINSPOON: On top of what exists now. Then they would beabsorbing the cost of that. And indeed it is an elastic demandmarket. It's estimated that if you increase the price oftobacco by 10 percent, you cut down the smoking, theconsumption by--

MR. BUCKLEY: Eight percent or something like that--

DR. GRINSPOON: I understand it's about four percent. And it'strue, it's not completely elastic. That is, people who havebeen smoking for a long time are less likely to be influenced,but people who are about to start-- In tobacco you have towait for awhile to get the full effect of it. But you could dothe same sort of thing with alcohol. With alcohol you get intothe difficulty that the cost is so high if you added that muchtax, you would probably get into an area where it would be

3

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

profitable to get into the black market--get gins establishedagain and so forth and so on. So again, you might not be ableto recover all of the cost. You would have to keeo it belowthe level where it's profitable for the black mark~t to getinto. But I think that-- And the other advantage of this-­let's say if you have marijuana in this--and you adjust it tothe social cost of marijuana, you would be taxing marijuana--Iwould guess, from what I know about marijuana--much less thanthese other substances, because of the three, it's far lessharmfUl, and thereby you would serve a kind of educationalpurpose, because people would move towards the less harmfulsubstance insofar as there ~as mobility within intoxicants.

MR. BUCKLEY: NOW, if I understand you, you don't really careabout this kind of calculation, do you? In the first place,you find it very abstruse and you're unwilling to accept thosefigures, given the fact that the larger figures might renderthem nugatory.

DR. SZASZ: Thank you. It isn't that I don't care. I thinkthey are intellectual obstructions, obscurantism, becausetalking about social costs without talking about existentialprofits is misleading. After all, why is there a war on drugs?What other issue is there on which Jesse Jackson, Nancy Reaganand everybody in between agrees today in America? This is asensational kind of thing. I thank Mr. Kinsley for making thatpoint. This is a sensational kind of scapegoating. This islike that joke about what did the preacher talk about, and thenthe person says, what?--that he was against sin is the answer.Well, everybody can be against drugs. Look at the cheapeningof the political rhetoric that the country has undergone. Alot of people gloat over this. How many parents can gloat overthat their children are smoking marijuana--no, they will punishthem. They are no good. People can do all kinds of dirt toeach other under the guise of, "You are taking drugs." And youintroduced another complication, Mr. Buckley, when you impliedthat everyone who takes drugs--not everyone, and you certainlyimplied it, or the viewers might think it--becomes an addict.We have not talked about self discipline, which I hope you andI agree pretty much. There is a self-discipline-- I mean,Sigmund Freud was taking cocaine--

MR. BUCKLEY: But we--

DR. SZASZ: William Halsted of the Hopkins Medical School was amorphine addict.

MR. BUCKLEY: Now, you said that on this program 10 years ago-­

DR. SZASZ: Fifteen.

MR. BUCKLEY: --15 years ago--and I know that you are correct,however, there are more modern figures on the rate ofaddiction. For instance, crack is much more addictive thanmarijuana.

4

DR. SZASZ: Nobody has to take it.

MR. BUCKLEY: Cigarettes are much more addictive than alcohol.

DR. SZASZ: Once this information is out there, no one has totake it. That's part of-- Hang gliding is more dangerous thanlying at home in bed and watching television. How aboutsunbathing? See, this whole social cost business, how muchmedical cost is induced by sunbathing and causing basal cellcarcinoma 25 years later?

MR. BUCKLEY: I don't know, but my guess is that you know.[laughter]

DR. SZASZ: I don't know the figures. I know thatdermatologists in Arizona and Florida make a lot of moneytaking those skin lesions from people, and this is anincreasing problem, especially as the ozone layer isdecreasing. So there are lots of things which we allow peopleto do-- How about overeating? That's where I would start.That's the most obviously damaging, overeating.

MR. BUCKLEY: But now, given the fact that you are in yourgeneral philosophy committed to the notion that people shouldlook after themselves--

DR. SZASZ: Yes. They should only be punished if they injuresomeone else. Which is important.

MR. BUCKLEY: Yes, well, why aren't you in sympathy withProfessor Grinspoon's notion that if you are a tobacco smokerand therefore are probably going to end up using up medicalfacilities to look after you, you ought to pay more for thetobacco, which would then cause a bank available to you whenyou get sick?

DR. SZASZ: Because that's a socialist--I am being polite-­communist argument.

DR. GRINSPOON: It's also--

DR. SZASZ: Let the insurance companies discriminate. Let themnot insure people who smoke or are homosexual or who arewhatever. It's a free market. The insurance companies shouldonly insure people they want to insure. They should not becompelled by law to do things Which become complicatedly anti­capitalist and then we are off to a race where we are objectingto self-injurious behavior not because it's self-injurious butbecause it will cost us money, and then we posture as do­gooders.

MR. BUCKLEY: Do you have a problem with that?

DR. GRINSPOON: Well, I think in a way the scheme that Iproposed is a kind of enforced insurance program--

5

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

who is in need. I know that you ar2 not in sy~pathi wit~ that,but that is the situation--

MR. BUCKLEY: Wait ~ minute. Wait' minute. The dns~er isthat that's coerect. Just as we send policemen out to heIrsomebody to keep him from committing suicide, so we send peopleto help people who are found in the middle of the str:et on ahigh from too much alcohol or whatever. Now, 3lven tnat thestructure of the laws, which you disapprove of, butnevertheless, given that as a hypothesis, then doesn't it makesense to do what Dr. Grinspoon suggests, and sai, "OKai, sincea smoker or a drinker or a marijuana user is making trouble forhimself, at least let's bank by direct taxation for that thekind of money we're going to be using on them, ince we live inmy kind of society rather than in youe kind of society?"

DR. SZASZ: No problem, but let's not limit it to marijuana,because the issue really is-- Why pick on one deug at a time?

DR. SZA5Z: There is no such thing. Insurance is either aprivate enterprise or it's a communist enterprise.

DR. GRINSPOON: It is levying an insurance premium on people toprotect themselves against the consequences of whatever it isdrug that they are using, so they do get the medical care, theydo get the kinds of things that-- Then it is a kind ofinsurance policy.

DR. SZASZ: By the way, I have no particular objection totaxing cigarettes any more than taxing anything else.Obviously not a utopia, I'm not interested in re-making ..society; I'm more interested in showing how our drug p~llcles

which orevailed 100 years ago, when we had no drug pOllCy, havereleva~ce for today. After all, from 1776 until 1914 thiscountry did perfectly okay without any drug policy. And all ofthese drugs we are talking about existed then. And the drugshaven't changed; human physiology hasn't changed; all that'schanged is politics.

DR. SZASZ: A self-induced high, what do you meDn, need?

Well, why did you pick on marijuana--MR. BUCKLEY: Now, wait a minute.sense that airplane wings existed.1920.

They existed in the sameNobody smoked crack in MR. BUCKLEY:

DR. SZASZ: Well, crack. Let's legalize ceack, too.

DR. SZASZ: They had opium. But why do we have crack? I hopeyou know that you are making my argument. Because it's cheaperto refine it and bring it in in small quantities than it isto-- Why can't you chew coca leaves? Because coca leaves arenot available in--

DR. GRINSPOON: That's not the reason. I mean, the reason--

DR. SZASZ: Come on, how do you know that's not the reason?

DR. GRINSPOON: I can tell you what the reason for crack is. Imean the reason that, I mean, people that are cocaros who chewcoca leaves in South America who don't get the kind of highfrom cocaine, even though they consume as much cocaine--or theymay--as someone who snorts it, but it has to do with the rateof rise of the cocaine level in the blood, and if you gofurther and you smoke cocaine, then you-- Smoking is the mostdirect way to get it to the brain. The most direct way to getthe biggest increment-- It doesn't matter what the total is orwhat the. blood level is, it's the rate--

DR. SZASZ: I don't disagree with that--

DR. GRINSPOON: --and that's why people use crack.

DR. SZASZ: But what business of the government is this? Idon't understand that. What business of the government isthat?

MR. BUCKLEY: Dr. Szasz, may I make this attempt? We can't atthis moment un-make a society that is wedded to the notion thatthere is a collegial responsibility by all citizens to somebody

6

DR. GRINSPOON: A~tually I, in this paper, which was given atthe Nova Law School, I proposed that all drugs be involved insuch a scheme, and that now with modern data collection anddata computing capacities, we could calculate annually what thecost to society is of a particular drug and that the tax headjusted annually for that cost.

DR. SZASZ: But that's what I have been saying, thatessentially it's a free market--

DR. GRINSPOON: But the reason I only included marijuana andtobacco and alcohol at this point because I think one has gotto get started somewhere, and I think these are the first threedrugs to bring on line--

MR. BUCKLEY: But even then you said that revenues from alcoholwould not be sufficient to take care of alcohol damage and thattherefore you would have to have access to supplementary funds,wouldn't you? Otherwise you would have a black maeket.

DR. GRINSPOON: Or the government or we the taxpayers continueto supplement the alcohol abusers.

DR. SZASZ: But how do we calculate the social cost? I reallythink there is something logically amiss here.

MR. BUCKLEY: Wait ~ minute.

DR. SZASZ: Let's say--

MR. BUCKLEY: Okay--

7

© Board of Trustees of the L land Stanford Jr. University.

MR. BUCKLEY: But suppose he was not going to be on welfare.Suppose he was going to be Thomas Edison.

DR. SZASZ: Let's take someone who is a heroin addict who atage 25 ODs. Look at the amount of mOlley he has saved societyby not being on welfare for the next 60 years and not being injail, not mugging people.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I don't think it's unlikely at all when youread the record oE the great artists who have mutilatedthemselves and killed themselves and committed suicide andeverything else. Unfortunately there is no correspondencebetween genius and the capacity to selE-destruct. But nowsurely at age 25 if you assume a normally productive citizen-­let's say he's making $20,000 a year, Which is the medianincome--

well, not as long as he sits and doesn't sayBut we are talking about on the job and doing

NOW, w'lit ~ ,ninute.;1rl. BUCKL£Y:

DR. SZA5Z: It depends on how much they take. We have a lot ofdoso1'jes. AEter ~ll, none oE these drugs ill minimal doses isparticularlj dangerous, as Ear as I know. Drugs only do one oftwo things, and you know more about drugs than I do. Theyeit'ler ,nakr~ you ,nore awake or ,nort'; asleep. So what? So youget a little sti~ulated Erom cocaine and you get a little moresleepy Erom heroin. That doesn't make you a criminal or'-Joesn't do anjthing.

DR. SZASZ:anything.co,npl''!x--

MR. SUCKLf.:Y: '.vell, 15 years a<]o you told me that people who dotake heroin in Eact 10 to work and exercise their--

drives a car and runs over a child, so therefore, it isn'talways maniE~st. And a drunk is--

IIIt's unlikely that he would be so undisciplinedDR. SZASZ:then.

MR. BUCKLr~Y: :-ly under;,tanding is that crack il1duces hostilebehavior in many people. Is that incorrect?

DR. SZASZ: That's not a Eair assumption. We are not talkingabout normally productive citizens. Normally productivecitizens in America are not drug abusing to the extent that itinterferes with their Eunctioning. Mr. Buckley--

DR. SZASZ: No, no--

DR. GRINSPOON: That's absolutely true and--

DK. GRDlSl'OON: 'tlell, it does, Tom.

MR. BUCKLEY: You're talking about Mr. Hyde, but I'm talkingabout Dr. Jekyll. And Dr. Jekyll, before you ~ame along andseduced him, was not taking crack. And thereEore he wasraising a family and he was going to leave an estate. He wasgoing to pay taxes, he was going to help protect your libertiesand mine from the Soviet Union. Now obviously it's a loss ifhe ODs instead of doing that, isn't it? uR. SZASZ:

hostile.

How could it do that?

[laughter]

[ don't believe that it makes a peaceful person

DR. GRINSPOON: Well, it makes a peaceful person behave-- It,nay make d peacef.ul person behave in a hostile and paranoidway, a very aggressi/e, assertive--

DR. SZASZ: Yes, granted, but I have a kind of empiricalsociological proof that this is not what the drug hysteria is.The drug hysteria is about people taking illegal drugs as asymbol of evil. Otherwise why would there have been so muchinterest politically by both parties, by industry and by themedical proEession in routine drug testing? The phenomenon ofroutine drug testing of people proves to me that you can't tellwhether so,nebody is on drugs, you have to take blood or urinefrom him, because you can't tell Erom his behavior. And if youcan't tell Ero,n his behavior, then he is an okay citizen andhas a right to be left alone. Otherwise, why the routinetesting?

'I

I

~IR • BUCKLr~Y :

DR. SZASZ:

~1R • BUCKLEY:

DR. SZA5Z:

It's what Jack the Ripper took.

You I almost believe.

But this is true, isn't it?

NO, it's not true.

[laughter]

11R. BUCKLEY: Now, that reallj isn't fair. DR. GRI SPOON: Yes, it is true.

DR. SZASZ: What's wrong with it?

r1R. BUCKLEY: Well, for instance, you are an experiencedprofessional, but my guess is that 1 COUld, if I exercisedmyself, bring somebody in there and asked you the question, "Isthis guy drunk?" and you might very well say, "NO, he is not,"but he might be actually extre'nely drunk and he goes out and

:1R. 'lUCKLEY: Itlell, for inst.-wce, in this morning's paper, itsaid that 'IDS is beco~ing in part a problem for people whopatronize crack houses fin engage in excessive sexua-l activity,mixing it 'Ill 11f) with intrdvenolls drugs and all that kind ofst'lEE. So ther.efore there L3 'in abnor,nality of behavior thatis induced by crdck, i n't there?

8 9

© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr_ University_

DR. GRINSPOON: Oh--

and 'no~ manu people have taken amphet.~ines forDR. SZASZ:" ~ .1 - -

five years and not become psychotic?

Yes, t here is a phenomenon known as the cocaineDR. GRINSPOON: -psychosis, it's a paranoid psychosis--

k ~ a'ne for ~ number oEDR. GIUNSPOON: lie was able to ta e ._O~l " ' 1 b tears He took it moderately and dLdn L get tnto troup, e, u

~ne o~ his closest friends [Ernst von Fleischl] wh? became a

h ' ddl'ct because oE a traumatic lOBS oE ~ tnumb and had100 r 0 i oe a d I' to t a k '"oha~tom oain, it ~as Freud who ?ersuade tliS man ,- ~ ,• , "for t't Freud like Be,ltley in America, belt~ved tn-:ltCocalne . ' 11 h' - ma bI'C3IO P --cocaine could cure morphine addiction. We , t is n -" 1_

MR. KINSLEY: And I am going to be severely punished if I don'tcut it off right here. Mr. Buckley, just because Jesse Jacksonand Nancy Reagan agree about something, as Thomas Szasz noted,doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. Since you firstrecommended or came around to the legalization viewpoint manyyears ago, the problem of drugs seems to have gotten muchworse. Doesn't this really change what JOU yourself say isprimarily a practical rather than a principled consideration inthe balance?

DR. SZASZ: See, this is the problem. Mr. Buckley, let mebring you back to-- If this person commits a crime, then Iwould suggest he be severely punished. That's the way todeter--

11R. BUCKLEY: Well, actually, no, for this reason: I use ametaphor, which Dr. Szasz didn't like and Milton Friedmandidn't like, which was that we have-- A society has a right tomove against drugs because they are not merely personallyaddictive, but generally addictive. I used as an example thatrecent figures--this is 1965--have shown that the averageaddict tended to contaminate two or three more people becauseit tends to become a gregarious experience. Under thecircumstances a single marijuana user or a single drinker orcigarette user tends to ask other people aged 17 or 18 or 19 totry this. Under the circumstances I think I was correct insaying that the probabilities were that it would grow. Infact, it did not grow exponentia~ly as was widely predicted.In 1965 there were 200,000 users of cocaine--of heroin, rather:100,000 in New York City and 100,000 elsewhere. That figurehas only increased to about 4-500,000 so it hasn't in fact-­But on the general thesis, it seems to me that we are upagainst the challenge to test utilitarian alternatives, and Ithink Dr. Grinspoon's is very, very attractive. We have tocope with the counterargument that we are going to beoverwhelmed with problems much greater than those we now faceif we proceed to legalize. But let's at least think throughthose problems instrumentally.

Now

He was a 5el:­cocaine he would have

[laughter]

a short-lived psychosis, a paranoidmuch 1 i ke amphe talni ne psychos is, on 11'and--

this is just combining the two scapegoats,

No, he was able to take cocaine-~

You mentioned Freud's taking cocaine.

There used to be a mast,J(batory psychosis.

There used to be a masturbatorj psychosis, too.

DR. SZ~SZ: He didn't become anything.destructive person. If he hadn't takendone something else destructiv~.

DR. GRINSPOON: And both Koller and Freud ~escribe as ~he mostfrightful nights oE their llves nights eacn of. t'1em sf",-n~ hsta in UD '~ith this man, who han become sO paranOid, a'1 , e

wasYno~ o~dinarili oaranoid. There is no quest ton that tne~e'tis such a thing as ~ocaine paranoia! and th~ best,:ay to ge BL~is for oeople to take crack. Now, it's a snort~l~Jed o~e. ,~uthat's ~he extreme. There are other problems wLtn cr CK taKingwhich are-- You don't want to be in the same room Withsomebody who takes a lot of. crack.

MR. BUCKLEY: Well, I don't know.

DR. GRINSI"OON:

DR. SZASZ: was he psychotic?

DR. GRINSPOON:remember--

DR. SZASZ: Come on,cocaine and AIDS.

DR. GRINSPOON: There isosychosis, which is veryit's even shorter lived,

DR. SZASZ:

DR. SZASZ:

DR. GRINSPOON: What?

MR. BUCKLEY: Or on the same bus.

DR. GRINSPOON: Or on the same bus.

10 11© Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr, University,