Whilst we may debate what the true intentions of the disastrous war on drugs really are, we can at least agree that the stated reason is to protect people from drugs (or, to be more accurate, from themselves). Yet it occurred to me that the very self-same illegality of drugs may be driving the market, especially for the young.
When we look at moral issues we are often left with two solutions - what I like to call the Arabic Solution and the Spartan Solution. I call them these because of the different ways they reacted to the same perceived problem - that of men being distracted by lust and led astray by female sensuality. The Arabic Solution to the problem was to cover all the women up - if you can't see it then you won't be distracted by it, the argument goes. Then you have the Spartan Solution - the Spartans opted to simply get everyone naked regularly so that sexuality and sensuality became normalised - people became used to it and thus were no longer distracted by it. The Arabic Solution never worked - it simply made men look elsewhere for arousal and created brothels, harems etcetera. The Spartan Solution was much more successful because it attacked the basic root of the problem - it took the issue of sensuality, laid it bare (Aha) and thus made it a normal part of society. Whilst the Arabic Solution seemed logical it actually resulted in super-charging sexuality.
The solution we have in place for drugs and, to a certain extent, drink is the Arabic Solution. Drugs are barred for everyone, drink is barred for minors. To make sure people don't breach the law we have created vast amounts of sensational advertising to try and make the tenuous laws morally embraced by everyone. However this makes the law sensational, because the law, whatever people say, is greatly influenced by public opinion, as are judges rulings. So what happens is the chain starts off and runs on and on like this: a minority perceive a problem with drink and drugs, they campaign and get more and more people to believe that there is a problem - because they had the head start the anti-prohibitionist lobby is too late to stop the swell of public opinion, especially when so few people knew anything about drugs like Cannabis at the time. Then legislators see the issue as a vote winner, so they legislate on it. Then, with the collaboration of the radicalised prohibitionists, they launch the legal issue into a new moral plain - drugs aren't just illegal because they are bad for you, the government advertising says, they are inherently evil (even if those precise words aren't used).
Legislators then ride on the up draft of their own advertising campaigns as more and more people with little personal knowledge of drugs become prohibitionists because they are told to, so the moral stance against drugs becomes more and more of a vote winner. So, at the end of this chain, the advertising just keeps getting more and more intense, more and more sensational. Now the issue of drug use is directly linked to fighting the establishment, because the view that drugs should be illegal is so heavily associated with the establishment. Now you have a situation in which simple drug use, just inhaling pleasurable vapours from a marijuana cigarette, becomes a form of protest against anything associated with the establishment, which means that for all forms of teenage rebellion drug use is the easiest and laziest way to express their distaste for anything that is considered conventional.
Now, because the issue of drug use has been so successfully sensationalised and therefore emotivised, it has moved far beyond the parameters of sensible legislation. Drug use is regarded as symbolic, although what it is symbolic of changes depending on who you are. What all of this legislation has done is to actively encourage teenagers to use drugs because it is such a simple, easy and sensational way to rebel. The more sensationalised the campaign against the drug, the greater the symbol of rebellion - so whilst Marijuana has a large following of what is really mild conventional rebellion, drugs like Methamphetamine etcetera become symbolic of deeper rebellion. The fact that Marijuana is very close to being legalised in some countries means that the rebellion of Marijuana use is not as fundamental or as shocking as the rebellion of Methamphetamine use. This sort of thing can really explain why so many young people, fully conscious of the risks of Meth, get involved in using it. The more sensationalised and demonising the advertising the more attractive it can seem, especially to people with subconscious self-destructive personalities. In that instance the rebellion element is so fundamental it's not a conscious thought, and that sort of thing is what we are seeing more and more of and what we will continue to see.
Of course this is not meant to be a universal mechanism for explaining drug use, but it does explain why it is especially prevalent amongst the young - because we are using the Arabic Solution rather than the Spartan one. We don't have many examples for the Spartan Solution in terms of drugs because of the world wide system of illegality. In terms of general drug use we can look at figures that say only 8% of Dutch nationals between the ages of 16-25 have used illegal drugs, whilst in Britain the figure is at 45%. When we look at France where alcohol is regularly given to kids alcohol problems are much much less, because alcohol use is taught and normalised - it isn't a symbol of rebellion because it's seen as a normal and integral part of their culture - it is far too normal and un-sensational. This sort of mechanistic reaction is still prevalent amongst adults as we have seen during the disastrous years of alcohol prohibition where alcohol consumption actually went up. Then it was just a symbol of rebellion against an unjust law, but the institutionalising of the war on drugs now means that drugs are seen as a symbol of rebellion against almost anything.
Those are my thoughts on the matter anyway, I wonder if any of you feel the same?
28-09-2007, 10:56
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
