Very interesting article.
If we assume, for a moment, that the article is dead-on, and most of a city's people (or country's for that matter - substitute at will) prefers to take some pill or other, that is known to be harmless, and helps them relax, helps them enjoy their evening, their life, helps them through some physical and mental pain, then shouldn't we consider this an instance of where democracy could help us?

Because if we truly live in one, and most people can benefit from some drug or other, at times, AND it's safe to occasionally self-medicate as described, then in a free country, in a democracy, the people should have easier access to these meds. They should not be illegal either. After all, we are assuming that a majority of people feel they can handle these medications.

The reality is different. We have virtually no access. Those who need it cannot always get a Klonopin to help them through a rough patch; it's virtually impossible today to get a script for Percocet from a doctor; think you need a boost and Adderall may do the trick? Good luck.

Accessibility to these drugs is regulated. We have Big Government, with its many rules and regulations and statutes, with the DEA, with SWAT teams, with controlled substance laws, we have the FDA hand-picking which drugs can even enter the country. And of course on the other side we have drug companies themselves, determining policies, telling us what we need.

And it's more attractive for a company to develop an 'emperor's new clothes' type drug such as an SSRI, tell you you need to be on it for years and you cannot just quit, while fast-acting drugs are said to be feelgood drugs, and are said to offer no solution, just addiction. Just because SSRI's don't make you feel great, doesn't mean they're not habit-forming. Of course this is one habit the drugmaker says is not just OK, you NEED this habit. It may feel different, you may not get high, but you're enslaved just the same, except it's with the blessing of the medical world.

A population, self-medicating and still funtioning, is a sign that individuality is still intact! In a free democracy, the population seems to be deciding they want access. Why should anyone feel they have the right to deny the people that? Who is smarter or better than the people? No one group or person is, and no one should have the right to determine how they're going to ruin the party for every one else..

And if the entire planet wants to have these 'ambien parties', what one person or group has the right to say that everyone is wrong?