…and now

For many of us the struggle against prohibition is a matter of civil liberties, our freedom to do as we please to our bodies. A comparable issue to this would be that of tattoos and piercings. Many conservative sectors of society regard such body art as unacceptable attire and unfortunately these sectors often consist of employers or people in positions of power. In this situation a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy is the norm. As long as your tattoo or piercing isn’t visible is doesn’t exist.

In some circumstances however, a tattoo is far easier to conceal than drug use. Many companies now take urine, hair or even blood samples from employees in order to test for illegal drug use. This is the major difference between body art and drug use. While parts of our society do not approve of body art there is no law that would allow them to strip an employee to check for it. The very suggestion of such a law would cause outrage. We are free to alter our physical bodies, to permanently change our appearance because, as a society, we recognise that we have the right to autonomy over our own bodies.

How then can we possible justify not having the same policy with regards to our minds? We are told that by prohibitionists that drug use can cause permanent changes to our minds, but surely this is our choice to make? The prohibitionist argument here would obviously be that getting a tattoo only harms yourself whereas drug use is detrimental to all of society. This point does contain some common sense.

While few people would consider getting drunk an entirely bad thing, most would agree that driving while drunk certainly is. Drugs can have a very powerful effect on the human mind and this is exactly where their vast potential lies. If this power is not treated with respect, however, there is also potential for great harm. The question is, is this a good enough reason for an outright ban on drug use?

Fire can be horrifically dangerous but did we sit in the cold and eat raw food to avoid being burned? Of course not! We learned to use fire and it changed the course of human history. Why then can society not embrace drug use and through education maximise it’s vast positive potential while minimising potential harm?

The final cost of prohibition can now be realised. In the past when drug use was accepted and utilised there was a wealth of common knowledge. Now, however, after generations of enforced ignorance, much of this knowledge has been lost. There are no shamans left to show us how to use drugs without harming those around us, or ourselves for that matter.

Today’s society lacks guidance, old or new, with regards to drug use. “Don’t do it,” is the only advice our authorities are prepared to give. They continue to misinform the public and reinforce the ignorance which leads to much drug abuse.

Across the UK there are local groups known as Drug Action Teams. One of their specified aims is to inform the public about illegal drugs and their use. They do this through various means including sending letters home to parents from schools. One such letter(1) includes the statement, “Cannabis is physically and psychologically addictive.” Another document concerning cannabis from the DAT organisation, (recognizable by their slogan, “Tackling drugs to build a better Britain”) states quite clearly that, “Cannabis does not lead to physical dependence”. What are the people of this country supposed to make of this?

Of course ignorance is not the only cause of drug abuse but it is definitely an enormous contributing factor. The reasons for drug use are also vastly important. Baroness Greenfield suggested to the government that one area of drug policy that had so far received insufficient attention was, “the real motives as to why people take drugs, eg: peer-pressure, a desire to seek oblivion, or the need for some new type of experience.”(2)

Let us consider these reasons in turn, starting with peer-pressure. An example of state sanctioned drug abuse occurred during our first Gulf War when a Canadian army unit was bombed by US aircraft(3). A defence specialist said that the pilot was “inexplicably aggressive” however one possible explanation for such aggression is suggested by the Naval air-warfare manual entitled, “Performance Maintenance During Continuous Flight Operations”.

This manual suggests a 10mg dose of Dexedrine, (basically speed,) followed by another 5mg every 2-4 hours as required. Upon completing such missions, pilots are then given sleeping pills in order to counter the effects of the amphetamine. This is apparently not uncommon and pilots in World War II (British, US and German), Vietnam and more recently Afghanistan all followed similar programmes.

This is not the most obvious example of peer-pressure leading to drug abuse however it is valid for two reasons. The pilots mentioned above had to use the drug in order to remain part of their social group hence peer-pressure, and people (possibly) died as a result of that drug use, making it abuse. Again we see that these absolute laws laid down by governments and supported by religions are anything but absolute.
The desire to seek oblivion is arguably by far the most dangerous reason to partake in any form of drug use. Prohibitionists often cite drug related crime as support for their position. Unfortunately it is true that there are many people who abuse drugs and as a result steal in order to maintain said abuse.

The point here is that people are abusing these drugs for a reason, usually because they are not happy with their lives or feel that there are no opportunities available to them. This is not an excuse for mugging the elderly but it is an explanation. In light of this explanation is it such a ridiculous notion to suggest that maybe tackling the social problems that cause people to turn to drug abuse in the first place may be more effective? Of course it is much more difficult to solve these problems, nowhere near as easy as just making drugs a scapegoat, but it is more difficult for a reason, namely that the rewards would be far greater.

Finally the need for some new type of experience. Does this have to lead to drug abuse? In light of the historical evidence it seems that in fact this is one of the best reasons to use drugs and that responsible drug use is the most effective way to do this. In fact isn’t this need for new experience simply part of being human? Isn’t it our curiosity that has driven us upwards and onwards throughout the history of our species? This being the case is it rather disturbing to note that our prohibitive authorities see this curiosity as a problem.

Today we live with the consequences of prohibition. The positive potential of drugs and their use is squandered through negligence while their potential for harm is maximised by ignorance. It isn’t hard to see how we got here when you consider the benefits of this situation for a powerful minority of our society. What is more difficult to see is how we will change this situation, again though, this is more difficult for a reason…

references

1. DAT letter:
“Hornsea Drug and Alcohol Forum”
Geoff Ogden
DATs co-ordinator
22 Lairgate,
Beverly,
East Riding of Yorkshire,
HU17 8EP

2. motives for drug use:
“Inquiry into the Government’s Drugs Policy ‘Is It Working?’”
Baroness Susan Greenfield

3. pilots on speed:
“US Amphetamine Force”
Steven Wishnia
High Times December 2002 #328