STUDIES INECONOMICTHEORYIntroducing a Distinguished New Book SeriesECONOMICS AS ACOORDINATION PROBLEM:<strong>The</strong> Contributions of Friedrich A. Hayekby Gerald :r O'Driscoll, Jr.Foreward by E A. HayekThis first full-length examination ofHayek's work in economics traces hiscontributions from his lectures on thebusiness cycle to his papers on thepricing system. Professor O'Driscollplaces the significance of that work inthe context of current debate. He showsthat in Hayek's considering generalequilibrium theory a mere starting pointfor economic analysis, Hayek rejectedorthodox neoclassical theory asinadequate. To Hayek, the real economicproblem was to describe how millions ofpeople, each of whom knows little. ornothing about the plans and resourcesof others, could remotely approachan equilibrium state. Instead, heapproached the problem bymasterfully describing the distributionof information as a dynamic process,coordinating the otherwise disparateplans of individual agents.240 Pages, Index$15.00 Cloth, $4.95 Paper($5.50 in Canada)THE FOUNDATIONS OFMODERN AUSTRIANECONOMICSEdited with an Introduction byEdwin G. DolanWith many eminent economistsseeking a more thorough explanationof the nature of market phenomena,many serious scholars have increasinglyfocused on analyses in the tradition ofCarl Menger and the Austrian Schoolof economics. Presenting the bestintroduction to the current Austrianparadigm,<strong>The</strong> Foundations of ModemAustrian Economics includes essaysby Israel Kirzner, Ludwig Lachmann,Gerald O'Driscoll, Murray Rothbard,and others. <strong>The</strong> selections includepapers on the nature and significanceof praxeology and comparative statics,Austrian and neo-Ricardian capitaltheory, Austrian and neoclassicalmonetary and trade cycle theory, andother areas. This volume examinesthe main gallery of Austrian ideasand contrasts this tradition with moreconventional economic approaches.284 Pages, Index$12.00 Cloth, $4.95 Paper($5.50 in Canada)For free catalogplease write:SHEED ANDREWSS' /I,,~ AIrA I& McMEEL, INC .L7.01 rlfd. rl6700 Squibb Road/Mission, KS 66202
I Books and the ArtsAnti-drug madnessby Richard AshleySensual Drugs, by Hardin and HelenJones. Cambridge University Press, 373pp., $3.95.Agency of Fear: Opiates and PoliticalPower in America, by Edward Jay Epstein.G.P. Putnam's Sons, 352 pp.,$9.95.<strong>The</strong> war against nonalcoholic drugsgot under way over a century ago withthe passage of the first prohibitionagainst prepared (smoking) opium. <strong>The</strong>ensuing conflict has been the longestsustained losing effort in American history.We now have prohibitions againsthundreds of drugs, a multi-billion dollardrug-law enforcement program, andlife· sentences for drug sellers. And wehave more drugs available and moredrug users than ever before.<strong>The</strong> latest light at the end of thetunnel-destroying dope at the sourcewith the highly toxic herbicide paraquat-involves the deliberate poisoningof citizens by their government. Americafinanced and supervised the sprayingof Mexican marijuana fields knowingthat a significant portion of the sprayedweed would be exported to this countryand smoked by Americans. (By the government'sown figures, 20 percent of themarijuana coming in from Mexico iscontaminated by paraquat. As many ashalf of the samples tested in Californiahave contained this herbicide.) As ofthis writing there are no verifiedfatalities from smoking paraquat, butthere are several verified cases of fibrosisof the lungs. Were it not so obscene, theAlice-in-Wonderland logic at work herewould be good for a few laughs. <strong>The</strong>prohibitionists, after all, have alwayscontended that marijuana is a dangerousdrug- and now they have fulfilledtheir own prophecy for anyone unfortunateenough to smoke their handiwork.How public policy on psychoactivedrugs could ever have reached suchheights of absurdity is made plain by theexamples of what passes for "expert"knowledge about them, and the enforcementof the prohibitions againstthem, - as evidenced by Sensual Drugsand Agency ofFear."<strong>The</strong> distinction between medicinesand the sensual drugs," write Hardinand Helen Jones-a team comprising aprofessor of medical physics and physi010gy at the University of California,Berkeley, and his wife and helpmate"is simple. Sensual drugs are those thatthe body has no need for, but that givethe user a strong sense of pleasure."Simple, yes; distinctive, no. For if thebody does need medically prescribedtranquilizers, depressants, and stimulants,surely it can equally need suchsubstances when they are selfprescribed.And if they give pleasure inone case, they surely do so in the other.<strong>The</strong> distinction drawn by the Joneses isEdward]. Epsteinone drawn by moral fiat, not by differencesof kind. <strong>The</strong> authors simplydon't believe we have the right toprescribe our own medicines. To convinceus that the doctors and thegovernment know what's best for us,they set out to prove that, when left toour own ill-inform.ed choices, we usesubstances - sensual drugs -which"diminish the power of the brain tofunction in a normal, healthy way."Marijuana users, for example, are"susceptible to any sexual invitation andlack the will to resist." And since marijuana"upsets motor coordination, causingunsteady hands, a change in gait,and a lag between thought and facialexpressions," these pushovers are easy tospot, too. Who would be attracted tothem is another question: "Chronic,heavy users of marijuana have dry scalyskin much like that produced by thyroidhormone deficiency." Which, consideringthat "three people in six who usemarijuana are likely to become addicted,"bodes ill for our success in theinternational beauty sweepstakesbodesextremely ill in as much as thestuff is hard to kick: "If the use of marijuanais discontinued after two weeks ofheavy use, the decline in THC levels onabstinence is marked enough to causepronounced withdrawal symptoms."All of these assertions-like most ofthose which fill the pages of SensualDrugs - are contrary to the common experienceof humankind, a species whichincludes drug researchers of all persuasions.Still,.how can you get mad at a coupleso wondrously naive as to believe thatDOM (4 methyl 2,5 dimethoxyamphetamine),otherwise known as STP, was"originally synthesized as a motor oil additive"?Far removed from reality asthey are, the comments by the Joneseson psychedelics saved me from an embarrassingblunder. Had they remainedsilent here, nothing could have persuadedme that the publication date wasanything more than a typographical error.And I would have received thispiece of neo-"reefer madness" as areprint of an original first concoctedduring the prime of Harry Anslinger.A pair of academic vaudevilliansdancing to the myths of the 1930s, theJoneses at any rate provide boffo laughson every page. Only their publisher and<strong>July</strong> <strong>1978</strong>33
Change language