Substance Addiction
Substance Addiction
By Punkerslut
[Author's Note: Written on Monday, December 26, 2005.]
There is no doubt that a substance problem can be the worst
thing in a person's life. It can create a lifestyle that is
physically and mentally unhealthy. A person who is addicted to
drugs has the following problem: by following their desires,
their wants, their urges and cravings, by listening to their
needs, they fail themselves. By feeding their indulgences, those
with a substance addiction simply worsen their own condition.
Some drugs, like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, are
addictive enough that they stimulate theft and other morally
reprehensible acts, but there are just as many cases where such
chemicals force people to get jobs that they hate to supply
their hunger. In either case, the individual begins sacrificing
their soul just to enjoy their high. Instead of being a
multi-colored palette of experiences, life becomes an endless
race to maintain a state of complete and uninterrupted
intoxication. Some people can be addicted while sustaining an
ethical and cultured existence. Others suffering from substance
dependency, however, have only one meaning to their lives.
Since I have written a great deal on drugs and their positive
effects on humanity, it is only fair that I give my opinion on
addiction. It appears to be the primary reason for the current
prohibition of intoxicants. If I weren't to address the question
of chemical dependency, it simply would not be fair to my
opponents in the drug debate. Their argument is as follows: drug
addiction has created so much pain and suffering, that our only
recourse as responsible and intelligent citizens is to ban all
substances that inebriate the user. The American legal system,
as it stands today, is the greatest persecutor of the drug user.
In its attempts to smother the drug epidemic, the government
wages its war on drugs. The prevailing attitude among the ruling
class is that anything must be done to stop this menace to
society. Even though I agree with my opponents that drug
addiction is real, that it infects a sizable portion of society,
and that it is harmful, I disagree with their methods on solving
this problem.
If a person discovers that a close, loved one is addicted to
drugs, the last thing they would ever do is call the police to
arrest that person. Drug addicts suffer from a personal problem,
not much different than those addicted to gambling or those with
anger management, or those who can't quit smoking cigarettes.
Today, the state is arresting people for having these personal
problems. The government is putting them in a population of
rapists and murderers, with the absurd notion that once they
rejoin society, they will be "rehabilitated." To heal those who
suffer from alcoholism, there are support groups, psychological
treatment, and a wealth of highly trained staff. Those are the
methods that we promote when it comes to helping those with any
personal problem. It is only by addressing the problem and
treating it directly that we can ever achieve a solution to our
own psychological issues. Knowing this, it is our duty as a
society to promote this method for treating drug addiction. But,
our state is a coercive state -- it rules by power and force,
which ultimately translate to violence. The duly elected members
of our establishment feel a thrill to swing their hammer. If it
is a brilliant idea to imprison those who suffer from addiction,
then why don't we impose the same sentences on those who smoke
cigarettes, or those who accidentally slip on their diet plan?
Why not bring back alcohol prohibition? I'm sure that those
police officers who raid medical marijuana growers would
definitely love to participate on a raid on Alcoholics Anonymous.
When a person's addiction drugs causes them to lose control of
most of their life, the best thing they can do for themselves is
to stop using drugs. The most absolute worst thing that could
happen to them would be imprisonment. Conservatives still
support the "power equals force" theory. The state has an army
of police officers to subdue the population. By threatening this
type of punishment on the population, people can be coerced in
to abstaining from drugs, ultimately immunizing them from
addiction and its horrible effects on health. Animals are
similarly trained in the same way, by a system of rewards and
punishments, to encourage or discourage certain behavior. This
isn't something new: the established order seeking social
control by treating the people like sheep. The fact is that
human beings are not simple enough to be coerced by threats or
controlled by rewards. (And, if you want to get technical about
it, neither are animals.) What kind of people are produced by a
social that is so coercive? It produces citizens that obey every
order, carrying out every command of authority -- at one moment
they tremble at whatever punishment might come, at the next
moment they are pleased and satisfied with their reward... This
type of coercive authority produces the ideal citizens of the
Third Reich: men and women who are willing to turn their
leader's dreams into a reality, no matter what their own
personal or social cost.
A psychological issue simply cannot be threatened away. If we
genuinely want to rehabilitate people, to make them confident
and a value to others emotionally, then we certainly can't go
about it with threats. If it was that simple, we could just
threaten away alcoholism. The new message of the ruling order
would be this: in order to cure people of alcoholism, we are
incarcerating all individuals who are proven guilty of using
alcohol. By imprisoning these innocent, sick people, are we
rehabilitating them? The answer is no. Psychotherapy is an
important part of rehabilitation. Counseling and treatment can
change a person; it can help them discover the source of their
problems, it can help them remove that source. It is no
different when it comes to drug addiction. After all,
psychologists who treat those with drug dependency also treat
those who are alcohol dependent -- and this would make sense,
since alcohol is also a drug. If the government is not
imprisoning alcoholics, chronic gamblers, overeaters, smokers,
homosexuals, and offbeat artists, then it becomes a living
contradiction when it imprisons drug addicts.
The system maintains an unfair standard for society. It seeks
to punish those of us who use chemicals to tap in to the
unconscious parts of our minds. It is a personal activity,
something that has no direct effect on those around the user. To
outlaw it is equivalent to banning any type of harmless
preference, whether it's religion, diet, hobbies, or career.
There are certain cultures where one's profession is determined
by their parent's profession, while opium remains the most
popular drug. People born on different parts of the globe are
not that much different than each other. Whether it's a ban on
drug's, or a certain religion, or a style of artwork, the
problem is the same: a government that is overstepping its
bounds in "protecting its citizens." And, just as in every other
case of a government committing unjust acts, to change the
situation, we must break the law. Martin Luther King once wrote,
"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience
tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of
imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community
over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect
for law." ["Letter From a Birmingham Jail," written while in
jail by Martin Luther King Jr, 1963.] We are criminals like
Martin Luther King, but I believe can evolve. Until we can
arrange a one-million man smoke-in on the lawn of the
Whitehouse, I don't suggest any person to use drugs openly where
they can be arrested.
No one with any sense is in favor of arresting individuals
addicted to drugs. But, few people are willing to accept the
idea of "legalizing drugs." The idea behind legalization (or
"decriminalization"), however, is just that: those who are
caught with small amounts of any controlled substance will not
be prosecuted, nor will be they interrogated or harassed by the
police. While there is a great deal of sympathy of those
addicted to drugs, there is little sympathy for those who
distribute these substances. The drug dealer is looked at as the
man who sells poison to the children of his community. Much of
the antipathy towards chemical distributors is undeserved.
Marijuana and psychedelic drug sellers, for example, hold a high
code of ethics, something that even the DEA has admitted.
Heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine dealers, much like their
users, are less considerate and feeling. What many people don't
realize is that most dealers are people themselves who have
habits -- they are doing the only thing they know how to
survive. Again, the drug dealer just like the drug addict is
simply a pawn in a much larger social game. If poverty weren't
so rampant, if Capitalism left the ghettos untouched, then
perhaps these types of tragedies wouldn't have to be endured.
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut