Review of The Next Fix: The Winners and Losers in the Future of Drugs
At this point in the unwinnable "war on drugs," the question is not whether drugs should or will be legalized, but rather how.
The Next Fix: The Winners and Losers in the Future of Drugs by Kojo Koram, Verso 2026
"We want to move slow and not break anything. We might not be able to put it together afterwards!" –Nick Wallis, Australian harm reductionist
At this point in the unwinnable "war on drugs," the question is not whether drugs should or will be legalized, but rather how. Author Kojo Koram is a professor of law and political economy in the UK, and The Next Fix is a brilliant global study of drug policy reform– not only in "consumer" nations like the US, Canada, and throughout Europe, but also in "producer" nations in South America and Africa. Koram shows that worldwide, governments motivated mostly by fiscal concerns are moving drugs from illicit markets into the sphere of legal commerce. The problem is that too often, the legalized drug market becomes a "libertarian free-for-all" reinforcing racial inequities and colonial exploitation of poor countries by their rich counterparts.
What is "the next fix"? Koram compares capitalism to addiction, pointing out that societies structured by capitalist economics tend toward short-term solutions, and are always seeking opportunities to expand further and extract more resources. This addictive style causes long-term damage and compounding harm, but those too will be "fixed" with short-term, market-driven solutions (which likely will require fixes of their own, and so on). This observation reminded me of the "Number Go Up Rule," by which society chugs along, no matter how chaotic or miserable its living conditions, as long as the total capital value of the stock market keeps rising. Ruth Wilson Gilmore might call it "capitalism saving capitalism from capitalism."
The other important meaning of the "fix," here, is the preordained result of what is supposed to be a contest: "the fix is in." Koram points out that while academics, policymakers and activists debate a change in drug laws, business interests behind the scenes are quietly "fixing" the outcome in their own favor. Nick Wallis, quoted above, went from advocating education and decriminalization of psychedelics in Australia, to urging his own government to slow down its process of legalization before the market simply takes it over.
In the opposite of the tech ideal to "move fast and break things," Koram shows that drug policy reform done right could be a tool of reparations for the drug war. He calls for "transitional justice:" addressing the deep and lasting generational harms of prohibition, including mass incarceration, paramilitary conflict, and unregulated supplies causing overdose and death. Prudent policies look like:
- Wiping criminal records from the illegal drug trade and facilitating these former offenders' entry into the legalized market
- Ensuring that producers (who are often in developing nations) retain control of their business and receive their fair share of its profits
- Preventing consolidation of the legalized market into too few hands; making sure smaller, local/regional entities can compete
- Educating clinicians and the public about the benefits and risks of a drug from a health perspective
Koram notes that unfortunately, even when goals like these are supposed to be driving policy changes, market forces interfere at the practical level. There is simply too much money and power protecting the existing structures of profit.
Three More Key Points
1) The people need decriminalization, not legalization. Because private interests are so quick to commandeer the process of legalization, we should focus instead on eliminating the harms of prohibition. This means not prosecuting for possession, use, or sale of illicit drugs– but not setting up infrastructure for a legalized market either. (The latter might come after decriminalization, moving slowly and without breaking anything.)
2) Prohibitionists and profiteers are saying the same things. Koram points out similar arguments coming from people advocating to keep drugs illegal, on one hand, and those hoping to make their fortune in newly legalized drugs, on the other. Both imagine an explosion of new users after legalization– though examples to date show this generally does not happen. Both also exaggerate the effects of the drug, with prohibitionists catastrophizing its alleged harms and profiteers holding it up as a panacea for whatever ails you.
3) What we learn from legalized drug markets applies to other industries as well. I was especially excited by this idea, because it's no secret that what I might call addiction is part of nearly everyone's life in a consumer economy. Koram mentions gambling, alcohol, sugary foods, and social media. I might add apparel, consumer technology, video gaming, and other everyday indulgences. Long-term wellbeing is not the point for businesses who sell us our favorite escapes! Koram also mentions fossil fuels, and I might add to this, AI. Here "addiction" occurs at a level beyond any one person's decision-making, but it's still unmistakable: we're burning through the planet's finite resources as if we will never run out. The short-term view is built in as if we have no other choice.
Thing That Made Me Go "Hmmm..."
This is not necessarily an objection or a criticism. Let's call it an eyebrow raise with attendant questions.
Koram has a vision for the future of drug use that is more utopian than I think he realizes. He imagines "patient associations and social clubs"– I of course think of drug user's unions–
"ensuring that those people who want to use drugs do so in a way that is different to the gluttonous overindulgence of contemporary consumer culture...[and] ensure they understand the structure of [the drug], perhaps even produce it themselves if they want to, and, most importantly, have a support system that they can turn to if their use starts to cause further harms."
No "gluttonous overindulgence"? Consulting a support system because my drug use is causing harm? It sounds like these groups are not only curing addiction, but also preventing it from ever arising by providing an early opt-out.
I'm an idealist. I believe in lots of solutions that others may call "unrealistic." But I think this idea calls for some transitional justice of its own: acknowledgment that we have to start where we are. Even people who want to use drugs in moderation sometimes simply cannot– and we know from the prevalence of alcohol problems that the drug being legal does not necessarily help. Furthermore, with no disrespect: harm reduction and drug user groups are often unstable due to members' loss of control and death. One activist said, in Undoing Drugs, that he never knew who'd be alive for the next weekly meeting. Eliminating addiction is a lot to expect from anyone, but especially so in this context.
To be fair, The Next Fix is not really about addiction; it's about drug markets. And this newsletter being what it is, I am always interested in a world without addiction, including challenges to what I see as possible. I strongly recommend this book for a systemic, international-level understanding of what is at stake as drug production and sales move into the legal economy.
