In a very simplified version of the history of human psychoactive drug use, we have observed that in the past those who used psychoactive drugs were once taken as examples of individual moral failure and beastliness (O'Malley & Valverde Reference O'Malley and Valverde2004). Then, in the welfare states, drug users were pictured as the outcome of mind pathology (“disease of the will”) by a variety of psy-experts (O'Malley & Valverde Reference O'Malley and Valverde2004; Valverde Reference Valverde1998). As the war on drugs advanced, the political economy of neuroscientific studies of addiction also boomed; and the discourse of addiction as the “chronic, relapsing brain disease” gradually anchored in public imagination (Campbell Reference Campbell2010). With the development of a variety of neuroscientific molecular and imaging technologies, the so-called “neuromolecular gaze” emerged as a way to construct identities and selves by the language of molecular neurobiology (Abi-Rached & Rose Reference Abi-Rached and Rose2010). Meanwhile, as practices of harm reduction gained momentum, drug users have been construed as entrepreneurs of life who conduct their lives by making choices based on drug use risk information (O'Malley Reference O'Malley2004).

On the one hand, from the perspective of public health, whether drugs are legal or illicit is no longer an important distinction for assessing drug harm (Jonas Reference Jonas, Lowinson, Ruiz, Millman and Langrod2005). On the other hand, scholars have been finding that the pleasure and benefit of drug use have been downplayed to serve the purpose of moderating drug use (Moore Reference Moore2008; O'Malley & Valverde Reference O'Malley and Valverde2004). In their article, Müller & Schumann (M&S) propose that psychoactive drugs are instruments used by individuals to adapt to modern environments. Their model almost merges seamlessly with the above trend as M&S emphasize controlling all drug use through individual education, training, screening, biographing, biomarking, and even treatment. The hope is to make neoliberal drug users both neuromolecularly knowledgeable and freely self-governed. Although M&S mention environment from time to time in their article, there is a sad loss of sociocultural visions in their discussion of drug policy implications. In the following, I argue for the supplementation of such considerations to their individualized neoliberal drug misuse prevention model.

In recent decades, in addition to research into brain representations of sociality and morality, we have witnessed the exploration of brain plasticity in cultural neuroscience. According to the major theme and preliminary evidence in the field, brains have complex interactions with socioculture and could change through accumulated sociocultural experiences (Kitayama & Uskul Reference Kitayama and Uskul2011). Our brains are not hard-wired and could evolve and adapt with the requirement of sociocultural practices. Also, we explore our brains and interpret neuroscientific data via the concepts and frames we adopt in our current sociocultures (Gergen Reference Gergen2010). Therefore, it is no surprise that, as shown in M&S's drug policy model, the discourse of individual brain plasticity matches well the neoliberal individual self-governance; and concurrently, the neuroscientific description of the brain reflects the neoliberal thought paradigm (Malabou Reference Malabou2008; Pitts-Taylor Reference Pitts-Taylor2010). M&S could make their model more reflexive and dynamic by incorporating this sociocultural dimension. Henceforth, we could have a richer explanation of how drug-related memory and learning may unfold in different sociocultural contexts.

A bigger drawback in M&S's model is the omission of sociocultural contexts that facilitate or inhibit excessive psychoactive substance consumptions. In the typical neoliberal regulation regime, such as the one suggested by M&S, it is informed individuals who should take responsibility and blame for drug misuses. However, historical studies have shown that the adverse effects of drug misuses have not hit everyone or every group equally (Acker Reference Acker2010; Singer Reference Singer2008) The neoliberal model of drug policy carries the risk of neglecting the sociocultural backgrounds that make the prudent choices of drug use difficult. For example, in a poor and distressed community, even equipped with all the personal technology of moderated drug use, adolescents might start misusing drugs after they finally succumb to peer pressure, volatile family atmospheres, and/or doomed images of their future. Also, under the active promotion of drugs, it is doubtful that informed consumers could always make rational choices.

As both legal and illegal drugs are making their way into people's lives, the poor seem to be the most drugged group (Singer Reference Singer2008). Therefore, as observed in the complex causal networks of drug misuses that are also multileveled (from molecular through individual to the sociocultural) (Windle Reference Windle2010), the individuals might not be the best intervention targets as M&S indicate. Abundant literature has shown the impacts of neighborhood and social determinants on health (Kawachi & Berkman Reference Kawachi and Berkman2003; Marmot & Wilkinson Reference Marmot and Wilkinson2006). We should analyze along the multilevel sociocultural dimensions to address social justice issues not only about equality of what, but also about equality of whom (Young Reference Young2001).

Furthermore, according to a WHO analysis, in the developed countries, tobacco is the number one risk factor of mortality, with alcohol ranking as number three (Lopez et al. Reference Lopez, Mahers, Ezzati, Jamison and Murray2006). Not all the negative impacts came from addictive uses. If all the other legal and illicit drugs joined the neoliberal market, although many people would benefit from drug uses, the absolute number of those who suffer would also escalate. The worst scenario would be the other drugs joining tobacco and alcohol to become the strong risk factors of morbidity and mortality. Before implementing their drug policy, M&S should have examined what kind of sociocultural structures and institutions could stand the above-mentioned impact. Through deliberative democracy we might be able to add agreed communitarian measures into the neoliberal governance scheme to achieve the common good. For example, we could enable the sociocultural environment and resources to facilitate the positive and avoid the negative drug uses (Duff Reference Duff2010). Besides, it might be favorable to make the drug companies or dealers take social responsibility seriously by requiring them to internalize the externality of social costs by paying a premium for each sale of drugs earmarked for social welfare use. Hence, we might begin to map a more comprehensive drug policy based on the neurobiological framework offered by M&S.