Opinions - Social Acceptance of Pollutants of the Mind

[mouthwater]

SWIM was recently reading The Economist and came across an article that, s/he feels, may be directly related to substance (ab)use. SWIM will provide a link to the article, but isn't sure if membership is needed for y'all to read it.

Don't shoot the messenger
Films are not banned to keep them away from children. The same should apply to video games
Jan 18th 2007
From The Economist print edition [article available online here]

Excerpts:

They poison the mind and corrupt the morals of the young, who waste their time sitting on sofas immersed in dangerous fantasy worlds. That, at least, was the charge levelled against novels during the 18th century by critics worried about the impact of a new medium on young people. Today the idea that novels can harm people sounds daft. And that is surely how history will judge modern criticism of video games, which are accused of turning young people into violent criminals...

...In 1816 waltzing was condemned as a “fatal contagion” that encouraged promiscuity; in 1910 films were denounced as “an evil pure and simple, destructive of social interchange”; in the 1950s rock 'n' roll music was said to turn young people into “devil worshippers” and comic books were accused of turning children into drug addicts and criminals. In each case the pattern is the same: young people adopt a new form of entertainment, older people are spooked by its unfamiliarity and condemn it, but eventually the young grow up and the new medium becomes accepted—at which point another example appears and the cycle begins again.

As explained, it's not an uncommon trend for activities previously deemed polluting, dangerous, & detritus to gain acceptance in time. Does SWIY think drug (ab)use has the potential for true acceptance? Now, SWIM is under the belief that drug (ab)use isn't simply an "activity," it can also be therapeutic, deeply rewarding, an untapped tool for social reform, et cetera; however, SWIM would like to know if SWIY believes if drug (ab)use even has the potential for true acceptance within a "civilized" society, in due time. Will condemnation of drug (ab)use eventually seem as ridiculous to the majority of the population as it does to many of us, just as music, movies, and dancing now do?

[Forthesevenlakes]

SWIM thinks that eventually, social acceptance of certain substances (perhaps not all) will increase. Probably within our lifetimes, there could be a decriminalization of marijuana in many places...it almost occurred in Mexico last year until the meddling of a certain Dubya prevented this from taking place. Given the right (receptive) policymakers, and possibly a public awareness campaign similar to that discussed by Zera in another thread "anti-anti-drug ads", such things are not too far-fetched.

Perhaps its not that society is becoming more enlightened or tolerant as a whole that acceptance of many things previously verboten is the norm, but that society is becoming increasingly jaded. So it could be that the rights of drug users would be increased, not because society welcomes them with open arms, but because the majority of people could assume an apathetic attitude while a small group of committed activists change the existing structure of power.

Perhaps I'm being to cynical in my analysis of people, its been a loooong day. What do you all think? Will dropping the occasional tab of acid or chipping opiates once in a while someday be seen as harmless as Kevin Bacon's dancing in "Footloose"?

[mouthwater]

Originally Posted by Forthesevenlakes

Perhaps its not that society is becoming more enlightened or tolerant as a whole that acceptance of many things previously verboten is the norm, but that society is becoming increasingly jaded. So it could be that the rights of drug users would be increased, not because society welcomes them with open arms, but because the majority of people could assume an apathetic attitude while a small group of committed activists change the existing structure of power.

Thanks for your input, I find that extremely interesting. I suppose because I've held for a long time the idealistic hope that our (and our children's) generations will be level-headed & intelligent enough to seize political powers (or act as lobbyists) and change what's wrong in the system, namely drug laws and other certain social issues (such as abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research rights, among others), that I hardly thought to consider the possibility of reform through such a cynical approach, even though I do generally consider myself to have the heart of a cynic.

Phew! What a sentence. ;-)

[zera]

Ever hear the phrase: normal people talk about things, brilliant people talk about ideas and mediocre people talk about other people? There's always going to be a section of very small-minded, petty people in society who make it their chief concern in life to judge other people and butt in to their life. These people need moral outrage to make themselves feel better about themselves, they will always pick out and target people different then themselves, whether it be Jews, drug users, homosexuals or video gamers. If someone else lives their life in a different way it's not something to tolerate (or I prefer to celebrate it, a greater diversity of lifestyles means a greater diversity of ideas, which leads to a greater increase in society's happiness) it's something to first gossip and rumor about, then to discriminate, and then to scorn.

The fact of the matter is politicians absolutely need these moral outrage issues (the "meth epidemic," gay marriage, video games turning our children into violent killing machines, etc.) to distract voters from real issues (a 8 trillion dollar national debt, the highest incarceration rate in the world, a farm subsidy system that keeps the third world impovershed). As long as congressman, governors and the president can get up and grandstand about stupid issues they won't have to do any real work, like control the budget or stand up to special interests.

Anyway so it goes there's this minority of people who are assholes and make it their entire life's business to intrude into other people's lives rather than do anything productive themselves. People like, Pat Robertson, Jack Thompson and Grainne Kenney. Politicians then use these people to trump up fear in the general public who gets even more scared, drawing more busybody assholes out of the woodwork to rally against the moral outrage item of the day, inducing even more politicians discussion and on and on it goes in a vicious cycle.

The solution as I've always mantained is to drastically limit the power of politicians through a constitution that provides for a very weak government and is strictly enforced. As long as the politicians don't have the ability to exercise ridicously extensive powers (the Founding Fathers would be rolling over in their grave today if they knew that the federal government considered video game regulation to be part of its constructed powers), then these busybody assholes will go from being people in charge of politically powerful organizations with extensive lobbying power to what they used to be, worthless gossips, who no one listens to.


That being said I think society may be coming around to accepting drugs, the percentage of the population today that supports decriminilization is much higher than what it was in the era of Nancy Reagen. I just can't be that heartened about an end to the war on drugs with a corresponding end to unlimited government power, because I know the moral outrage machine will move on to the next target. I heard an interesting propisition the other day, that mantained by the time drug's are legalized hardly anyone will care because everyone will be using whatever the next big thing is (I'd love to hear the moral panics about direct brain stimulation or virtual reality).

Reputation Comments on this post:

Excellent and enciteful post.

[Nagognog2]

At the start of the 20th century, a certain Dr. Kellogg developed the now-famous breakfast cereal that still bares his name, Kellogg's Corn Flakes. But he didn't do this with an eye on nutrition - he did this to prevent the then current "great scourge of youth" - masturbation.

He argued, and the pinheads believed, that the diet of the young caused such maladies as nocturnal emmisions (wet dreams), erections, and the ultimate "pollution" of them all: Masturbation! Up until Dr. Kellogg's dietary plan for kids, horrified parents resorted to strapping their children's arms in heavy particle-board restraints to keep little Bobby from touching his wee-wee while asleep. These cumbersome and time-consuming pro-active measures could be done away with a simple bowl of corn flakes! If you believed Dr. Kellogg.

As well as the occasional 20-litre oatmeal enemas that the good doctor also was fond of.

So 100 years from now, what will people think of all this? Ba Ha Ha Ha Ha!!


"Teenage Enema-Nurse! Teenage Enema-Nurse! It's not a pretty job - but someone's got to do it! Teenage Enema-Nurse!"

[Riconoen {UGC}]

Well jacking off is mostly accepted by our society now. Maybe a hundred years from now the drug czars efforts will be seen as just as futile and silly as mr kelloggs.

[Nagognog2]

I rather doubt that more people are "tolerant" or "jaded" about drug-usage today compared to when Nancy Reagan began her monosyllabic campaign of "Just Say NO!" Up until then - everybody thought nothing about smoking pot.

The numbers of people using drugs likely, regards statistics, hasn't changed much. But a new generation has been dragged through the governmental training programs, replete with lies, and now scares their more progressive parents. Back in the 1960's the kids rebelled against mom & pop by growing their hair and smoking pot. Now the kids are likely to rebel by having mom & pop arrested for growing some pot-plants in the kitchen, getting a buzz-cut, and wearing a USA #1 t-shirt.

Reputation Comments on this post:

An excellent counter point.

[Forthesevenlakes]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

I rather doubt that more people are "tolerant" or "jaded" about drug-usage today compared to when Nancy Reagan began her monosyllabic campaign of "Just Say NO!" Up until then - everybody thought nothing about smoking pot.

The numbers of people using drugs likely, regards statistics, hasn't changed much. But a new generation has been dragged through the governmental training programs, replete with lies, and now scares their more progressive parents. Back in the 1960's the kids rebelled against mom & pop by growing their hair and smoking pot. Now the kids are likely to rebel by having mom & pop arrested for growing some pot-plants in the kitchen, getting a buzz-cut, and wearing a USA #1 t-shirt.

If SWIM finds out that ANY of his several hundred illegitimate children are "rebelling" in this fashion, he's immediately going to stop paying any child support. Interesting that people could have this attitude, do you really think that this kind of behavior has increased in recent years? Seems to SWIM that young adults tend to get more liberal with regards to drug use over the years, not less. Even most young conservatives SWIM meets are curious about experimenting with illegal substances (although many times theyre most curious about cocaine...taking a page from Dubya maybe? Kidding!)
SWIM thinks that despite the "drug war" and DARE, attitudes have gotten more tolerant or jaded, since once one finds out that smoking pot WONT kill you and that decent people who keep their grades high can keep themselves high too, alot of the indoctrination will be questioned and overturned. Even people who still hold the belief that "MDMA fries your brain so all I do is drink" can usually be convinced of the facts after they are explained in a clear, logical manner. But this is only SWIM's experience, others may encounter something completely different.

[Nature Boy]

No progress is being made from what I can see. Yes, there are some people who have gone to the bother to educate themselves about recreational drug use independently but this number is actually really, really small. Being a member of this forum might make you forget that from time to time. What really grinds my balls are these 'two shits to the wind' assholes who couldn't give a flying fuck because they can't see the bigger picture, yet they are always quick off the mark in making their worthless opinions heard. Many of these people have never taken drugs, others are drug abusers, but their level of ignorance promotes an attitude where no-one gets anywhere. 'Why bother?' is the theme of the day.

I'm disgusted at Europe more than the US at this stage. I expect the cold shoulder approach from those bastards but it's a real shame to see the so-called progressive diplomacy bloc just following Uncle Sam like a little lap dog. It's pathetic really. What makes matters worse is that I don't see another culture on the planet gaining enough power to make a difference. It's turned into a horrific mess, one that may never be rectified.