| Use, Abuse and Addiction |
|
|
|
| Written by John Monday | |
| Friday, 26 October 2007 | |
|
It's a common refrain a cute little meaningless observation - if you will, that in our present day society: one can only ever be either a victim or a perpetrator. There are seemingly no in-betweens, no fine-lines, grey areas or portions of doubt to the modern mainstream media view of the issues surrounding drug use and abuse. Or any other topic, really. Sheer intellectual lazyness leads to this climate of either pity or condemnation for drug users. Largely, the distinction is the choice of the drug user - they can blame all manner of things - in fact anything, but the minute they blame themselves and accept personal responsibility, or, heaven forfend - stick a big middle finger up and say: "I like [drug of choice], I can handle it, and I don't wish to stop" then, you can rest assured - they are no victim. They are the perpetrator - the human face of desirous indulgence. The greater part of this false, harmful dichotomy is the result of a somewhat Calvinist approach that will not make a differentation between Use, Abuse and Addiction - and this is in regards to any 'illegal' drug or narcotic, let alone alcohol and pork scratchings. To use a drug is simple to define - to abuse it is less simple and to set the limits of what quantifies as 'addiction' is harder still. The standard definition of addiction - which is entirely wrong is a function of how the use of any substance interferes with the everyday life of the user. Too much money lost to drugs, along with friends and family and, well, living the model existence basically. These often cited problems of your common garden drug user however are not the definition of addiction, nor should they be - as such things can come from simple 'use' alone, and not abuse or addiction. Therefore what is a better marker of addiction? Where is that fine line where 'the state' should step in and criminalise someone's choice to metabolise some 'illegal' drug? Is it the deeper liberal line of when one's use, abuse or addiction begins to harm others? Or the shallow illiberal line of where the user begins to hurt themselves alone? Some questions shouldn't be asked. Other's can't be answered for the simple reason that in a climate of condemnation, fear and hypocrisy there can be no easy answers. Legalisation and Re-habilitation worked better then the current drug war ever did. The current drug war is responsible for more family breakdown, social poverty, and corruption then drugs themselves ever were. Drug prohibition makes alcohol prohibition look like a cheap racket by comparison. There have always been people who like to shift their consciousness. And there always will be people whom take to excess. That's greed, and to hate the sin and not the sinner is the more productive, cost-effective and pleasent way to do things in my experience. Lest you turn into what you hate and become a hypocrit. Like every Labour politician whom never inhaled, and David Cameroon whom never exhaled. Drugs can be a problem - but before this can ever be tackled - the drug war must be stopped.        |
|
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 30 October 2007 ) |
Quick Post
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
