|
the DRUG CULTURE We cannot discuss the quality of life in modern society these days without coming to terms with the so-called ‘drug culture’ . And in its widest sense this ‘culture’ has to include all those occasions when people resort to legal or illegal substances to adjust their response to the stresses and strains of existence. Thus the tobacco smoker , beer-swiller, martini-sipper and Vallium taker are just as much addicts in their way as the people hooked on marijuana ,’hard’ drugs and exotic hallucinants. When pressed about their addiction, people always fall back on one or more of the following statements:
· It makes me more relaxed under stressful conditions; · It helps in social bonding (is a ‘social lubricant’); · I actually perform certain tasks better than otherwise; · It reduces the pain/discomfort of physical problems; · It gives me a psychological, emotional and even spiritual ‘lift’ out of the depressing/boring/unhappy circumstances in which I live.
By and large, the resort to stress-relieving substances is a relatively harmless social phenomenon ; indeed, moderate alcoholic drinking is integral to the most civilised societies and sophisticated life-styles. Life without its pubs, cocktails, decanters, wine-cellars, champagne toasts and sherry-hours would be a lot less enjoyable and colourful for most of us. In short , we must not leap to judgement in this highly complex and controversial field. While very properly regarding sobriety as a cardinal virtue and essential to the safe and efficient performance of many tasks, we must allow even its best exemplars their occasional relaxations . But the line of indulgence is crossed when anyone’s drug usage is seen as threatening the welfare and security of other people to an unacceptable extent. So we also have a duty to advise and protect individuals against injudicious intake of any substance . It all comes down to distinguishing between what could be called life-enhancing and life-damaging substances and habits. As always, opinion can go to absurd extremes, from the grimly puritanical to the ‘far out’ hippy mantra of ‘turn on, tune in and drop out’. But the key word in getting to grips with the drug scene anywhere is escapism One takes a drug to escape from the tensions or perception or limitations of one’s present circumstances . And it is of course obvious that the disillusion, apathy and despair now permeating Western societies is the soil in which drug-dependency flourishes . So in every instance it is essential to recognise the actual motivation affecting drug usage. In approaching this subject a useful though broad classification of drugs is as follows:
a) relaxant substances; e.g. tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, Vallium,opiates; b) performance-enhancers; e.g. stimulants like caffeine and benzedrine ; c) hallucinants; e.g. LSD, DMT, and various herbal sources like peyote and ‘magic mushrooms’.
The legal categorization of ‘drugs liable to misuse’ gets us nowhere, since it applies to just about anything . Note for example that over-indulgence in ‘permitted substances’ like tobacco and alcohol wreaks enormous havoc in terms of disease, death , injury and family tragedy, let alone the cost to the taxpayer ; whereas there is little if any evidence linking marijuana and LSD (‘acid’) with criminality , disease or accidents. A sober(no pun intended) assessment therefore disregards government financial stakes in the brewing and tobacco industries and concentrates on the personal and social consequences of ingesting certain substances to excess. Clearly, there have to be legal constraints on substances which, even in small amounts, are a serious hazard both to the taker and to other people affected by his or her condition. Hence the breathalyser, licensing laws and drug-prescription regulations. But the law which criminalises private ingestion of ‘soft’ drugs like marijuana and LSD in moderation is manifestly absurd and so regarded by most people. Thus the lonely and impoverished student caught smoking a ‘joint’ in his flat is subject to magisterial disapproval and penalties like any drunken ,chain-smoking driver and closing-time thug. One thing is clear enough already: private consumption of ‘soft’ drugs is no more likely to disappear than private drinking and smoking, so the police are much better employed elsewhere . Countless doctors, lawyers, businessmen, academics and others in public life(including politicians) often use tobacco or alcohol to excess, and at least privately admit to taking ‘soft’ drugs at some time or other . While the state must always be protective ,supportive and persuasive in matters of health, it cannot be compulsive . If a mentally competent person chooses to ingest . certain substances to nobody’s disadvantage but his own, so be it. Only when such behaviour is seen to impinge on the wellbeing of others does it demand legal intervention. So much for the puritanical attitudes to drug-taking. Let us now examine the extravagant and strident claims of the ‘New Age’ lobby for unlimited access to drugs in general. The central theme, advanced not just by hippy ‘airheads’ but by some prominent intellectuals (notably Huxley and Leary) , is that certain drugs like LSD are not only for the most part harmless but can be actually life-enhancing. Thus for example a psychedelic drug like LSD is alleged to have a mind-expanding effect which can enhance creativity and even produce spiritual enlightenment. Huxley indeed outraged religious people by equating the LSD experience with the mystical ecstasies of medieval saints and recluses. The mystic’s life of austerity, according to Huxley, tended to produce changes in brain chemistry similar to those induced by LSD . So much for the ‘Tablets of Moses’ when any ‘acid-head’ can go up the mountain to enlightenment ! Given the millions of people experimenting with LSD and other psychedelics for decades now, the world should be awash with creativity and spiritual enlightenment . Maybe we just failed to notice it ; but the most likely explanation is simple self-delusion, like the boorish drunk who imagines he’s suddenly become witty, irresistible to women, intimidating or athletic. We have a sacred duty to function at our highest efficiency in terms of perception and performance throughout life. The cultivation of a healthy life-style is therefore the first duty of any citizen . This need not preclude moderate recourse to mild relaxants now and then . But we should bear in mind Plato’s wise distinction between pure and impure pleasures : the former are in truth life-enhancing; but the latter are merely escapes from disagreeable things(as with the junky’s desperate search for a ‘fix’ and the person ‘dying for a smoke/coffee/drink’). As always, we tread a narrow path through life between excess and deficiency ; and we must not be led astray by apparent shortcuts to a fool’s paradise.
F Kimbal Johnson January 2009
|