I'm sure most of us here are advocates of personal freedom. But like it or not, some of us would like to save our family and friends from taking the ticket out of this life. Our governments are the exaggerated constructs of this desire to protect. Or is it that simple?
"Say No To Drugs" is like saying
"Say No To Committing Suicide"
Suicide is a subject that most of us wouldn't like to talk about. But have you ever wondered why we don't mind the idea of extreme sports and daredevil stunts? We even air those things on TV for public consumption.
The only difference here is if the performer dies, it would be considered an accident. Compared to suicide, it's perceived to be the nobler way of dying. It's less sad, less morbid, and full of stories of courage that one may use to decorate obituaries. In the end, I rather not disabuse anyone of their decisions when it comes to peering over the edge - whether if it's thrill-seeking, suicide, or drugs.
People who are staunchly against suicide and drugs are usually the ones who buy into the notion of the "sanctity of life". That's actually the general population. Clearly chickens, cows, pests, plants and micro-organisms are not considered life since most of us take them out without blinking an eye. Or perhaps we treat them as less sacred? Whatever that means, it just means that we're extremely ego-centric. Life is a privilege and a state of existence, but it's certainly not sacred (in my opinion).
As seen in the examples above, it's evidently easy to have double standards when it comes to subjects which are so far removed from questioning. That's why drugs shouldn't be simplified into a mere "Say No To Drugs" campaign or word of mouth.
It's just too authoritarian, lazy, and shallow, lacking a certain flavour of inquisitiveness that ought to be promoted as a precept to building healthy and progressive societies.
Not asking questions is a sign of decay. It's what the old establishment wants you to do - just follow their instructions and be herded like cattle. Just like what our parents do sometimes. Perhaps it's our society's biggest mistake in taking easy measures by controlling instead of providing proper education.
Ultimately, I think drugs should be legalised. Or at least escape the prejudices of public opinion.
Hear me out.
Part 1: What are drugs exactly?
Water, alcohol, fried chicken, cigarettes, prescription pills, marijuana, acid, ecstasy, and everything else that you can consume are considered drugs in my opinion. After all, they're just chemical compounds with varying effects. While most of us enjoy peanut butter, some unlucky ones can even die from it.
But for the sake of discussion, let's define drugs in the conventional way - drugs are stimulants that alter sense of perception and sometimes, motor-abilities. The drugs that we know are statistically effective substances that will work as expected in a very large percentage of the population. But it could also work unexpectedly just like death from peanut butter. Sometimes it depends on our individual genetics.
Drugs can be separated into three kinds - medical drugs, recreational drugs, and uncategorised drugs. Some of these drugs are man-made, while others are readily available as part of nature like mushrooms and marijuana.
Uncategorised drugs are mostly chemically designed with some educated guesses, and some are cooked up experimentally. Funny thing is, this is the area that the law never touches, simply because you can't rule out what no one knows about! Yet, these are the kinds of drugs that can be fatal without warning. Blame it on the lack of "field reports". And remember, uncategorised drugs are legal in the sense that it cannot be made illegal.
Putting all kinds of drugs side by side, all drugs can potentially produce unwanted side effects, including addiction. Medical drugs are no different in this aspect. All these selective legalisation of drugs has been a topic so convoluted that most people are missing the real point, which is something that I'll cover in the next part.
Part 2: Why drugs?
Drugs have been around for a multitude of reasons. It's used to satisfy curiosity, and also to provide a form of escapism, to name a few. Somehow it has provided some sort of benefit or relief to the public - or else how would drugs still be in existence for hundreds of years, despite severe penalties imposed by modern laws of man? The prohibition era in the U.S did do anything to stop the proliferation of alcohol.
Digging in a little deeper is important here so we can start to understand why some people, maybe even you, try, or depend on drugs.
If you compare between drug and poison, there is only one clear distinction that comes to mind - drug is used for reasons other than harm, and poison is used to kill. The main attraction of drugs is not death, it's the non-fatal effects that come with them.
I don't claim to be an expert on the different kinds of drugs so I won't go into specifics.
So in general, recreational drugs are mainly used to achieve a different state of mind. Drugs are in a way, valued for its enhancements and in allowing users to perceive things differently.
Even Steve Jobs admitted to dropping acid and smoking marijuana when he was younger. He said that they're value-changing drugs, just as claimed by many popular figures. But I'm not trying to defend drug usage by riding on big names. It's just easier to reference.
Well-known figures aside, another thing to look at is the disparity of drug abuse between social extremes and the middle class. I think drug usage happens everywhere, but the abuse of drugs tends to happen in the very rich and the very underprivileged. Especially hard drugs. I would personally attribute the drug abuse to the need of escapism here. I have not looked well enough into this, but I guess it's noteworthy.
I'll simplify recreational drugs into one intended effect - pleasure. But it comes with pain, which is something I'll address later on in part five.
Part 3: Why are drugs controlled by the government?
Throughout the ages, ruling governments have been clamping down on drugs and establishing laws to regulate its usage. But why? Other than just assuming the simple relationship between drugs and death, let's probe into this issue.
For me, I have an immediate stance that says the government shouldn't interfere with personal freedom. If I take drugs, the consequences would be my own responsibility, so why would the government be such douches?
I can only see this interference of the government in 4 ways:-
(a) Our drug usage can potentially interfere with public life.
(b) The government is concerned with our personal lives.
(c) The government is too lazy to implement proper controls and education.
(d) The government has ulterior motives.
So let's take (a). This is quite an easily dispelled point. Take alcohol for example, it's mostly legalized and regulated. But with only a worldwide average of 1 policemen per 250 people, how would you regulate alcohol usage with good effect? Drive out at night and you'll get a good taste of road accidents, mostly coming from drunk driving. It interferes with public life for sure, but alcohol is not illegal.
This discussion ends here if you don't consider alcohol as a drug, but for all intents and purposes, it is. So let's strike (a) off the list and let's begin with point (b).
So is the government concerned with our personal lives and wants us to stay away from drugs? To prevent us from killing ourselves? If you think about it, there's a wide array of things that can kill us, especially if you consider stuff that goes into our blood stream and digestive system. It's quite irrational if this is the government's line of thinking.
Does it have anything to do with size? Is the government's goal to deter people from taking substances with high chances of dying from easily consumable stuff like pills? Well I don't see them banning coffee or rat poison, although you need to drink massive amounts of coffee to die from it. So the convenience of consumption isn't really the government's consideration in making drugs illegal.
Strike (b) off. Let's start with (c).
If it's the governments intention to really safeguard public health, it's clearly a big failure. The banning of known drugs is simply an age old practice. A quick remedy to control the people. What could be worse? People may just flock into trying uncategorised but legal substances that are not extensively tried and tested.
The futility of anti-drug laws is further drowned by the fact that rat poison and the likes are legal. People wouldn't try it, but it draws a counterpoint to the family-approved peanut butter - people would try it because everyone says it's delicious. And poof! Someone can potentially die from a rare case of intense allergic reaction. Substances with public warning or no warning, not so much difference after all.
However, deaths by rat poison and peanut butter are more likely to be accidental, and doesn't have the same nature of intention from ingesting them. But it proves the point that making drugs illegal is not so much to prevent deaths. It's just laziness masked in the intention of trying to prevent deaths.
Lazy measures produce bad results.
Strike (c) off the list.
This leave us with only one reasonable consideration - the government has ulterior motives other than to curb drugs from interfering with public life. Although quite speculative, it's at least the only logical one left in the mix.
From what I've mentioned so far, it really doesn't seem that the government is relating drugs and death to public life at large, or even concerned with proper implementations to achieve their goals. It's double standard at best, as evidenced by the selective legalization of alcohol.
Two smells begin to emerge throughout the haze. It's beginning to smell like the government simply doesn't want people to get high. Or, are they somehow making money out from all these? I'm not sure if it's for the interests of a certain group of elites, or if it's actually done for the public's best interest. To keep the economy running?
If the government doesn't want people to get high, I can only conceive of one reason - to reduce the number of "useless" citizens that would be too addicted and dependent on drugs to function well in society? The government wants the people to keep working the clockwork, to roll the economy. In this age when most laborious work is automated?
But thing is, were laws against drugs passed because of the considerations above, or just simply because that it's the common public perception?
Speculations aside, I think the anti-drug mentality is just an old perception that refuses to die off.
Part 4: Personal experience of a non-addict
I've tried a few different kinds of drugs before. It all boils down to educated risk taking, just like anything else. There are a few considerations on my part - genetic predisposition, statistical effects, and most importantly, personal responsibility.
I count myself lucky that I did not die as a rarity from stuff that I've tried before, even though I've only tried small dosages (quarter or half tabs). I could have collapsed unexpectedly just like anyone with peanut butter allergy. And peanut butter is government-approved..
Personally, I've never came close to any crazy experience. I never had my mind warped into oblivion. But I've experienced some kinda spiritual moment of seeing things a little differently. Out-of-the-box thinking may be a way of putting it.
If I may input my own thoughts about drug effects, allow me to simplify it down to one fundamental experience. Drug effects mainly drive our mind into different states, usually allowing us to experience amplified perceptions - it may be feelings, tastes, thoughts, sights or sounds.
As human beings, we have problems when it comes to scales which are not proportionate to us. It's hard for us to fathom the micro-world of atoms and the massive complexity of the universe. Take for example, if a large plane is flying past you in full view, it's a very difficult task to ascertain the distance between the plane and your position.
So, although I don't think we need drugs for music, I can relate to people who find the need for it, because with the example I've given above, the fullness and loudness of music can perhaps be appreciated on a totally different level with the help of drugs.
Like alcohol, pot is an occasional vice. Quite needless to say in our society, as I've discovered throughout the years. But I'm not saying that "It's okay since there are many people doing it". It totally does no harm to me. In fact it's a fairly relaxing substance, and a pleasant addition whenever I do my reading before sleep.
I'm just talking out of the small doses I've taken before in very controlled environments, so I wouldn't know how different it would be to even take one full pill or tab or joint of anything. Except for alcohol, in which I've blacked out before, sad to say. Overdosing shall be avoided. It's quite an irresponsible thing to do.
Part 5: How to manage drugs?
Physical addiction is something I've never experienced before, unless cigarettes can be counted as one. It just never occurred to me to stop smoking because I have yet to feel any adverse effects. So I'm not sure how I would advise people how to manage physical addiction.
I'm not an expert on this, but I know drug effects can be separated into pleasure and pain. Measuring from reports, drugs will first come off with more pleasure than pain. But the scales will usually tip over to the pain-side, and eventually outweigh pleasure.
I think at this point, it's actually purely a matter of intellect to reject from continuing such drug usage. Just like food. If you think you're too fat and if being less fat is better for you, just avoid eating too much!
Recognise and acknowledge the pain, then do something about it.
I'm not sure how fair it is for me to trivialise addicts when it comes to hard drugs, but people just need to suck it up and not blame their addiction on anything other than themselves I guess. It baffles me that our society even needs professional rehabilitation centres to wear off addictions.
Personal responsibility and moderation is the mantra here, if anything else. Try your best not to step into a dark room without prior knowledge of what's in it.
Part 6: Conclusion
I have yet to cover one thing: Will the legalisation of drugs be better than our current state of affairs? I have no idea. It depends on the goals of our society. But as I've discussed, anti-drug rules and sentiments are useless for sure. It's a narrow-minded practice at best.
The recent fiasco about the cancellations of massive outdoor music festivals in Malaysia due to drug abuse is nonsensical. I'm still with the opinion that drugs should be legalised. That way, drugs and its contents can be made as a form of official legal contract. If you take it, you're responsible for whatever the outcome.
Our governments may keep on pointing their finger to festivals for drugs. People who really want to abuse their body with drugs will still do it elsewhere. Anywhere! In clubs, on the treehouse, in their toilets, and even on their bed. The people who are at real lost here are the passionate event organisers and performers.
Drugs again, are only taken for desirable effects. No one wants to die, but stupidity kills (or bad luck). On a worldwide scale, drugs are not the problem. They are merely symptoms. Symptoms of curiosity, but mostly of a declining civilisation.
Let me quote one of George Carlin's interview on this:-
"As long as Americans are empty, spiritually, emotionally, morally empty, they will need things like the drugs they choose to use. Mankind has wanted to change the way it felt from the beginning anyway. People want to feel different. In this country there are even more reasons to want to feel different, to want to feel better, because this is such a neon sewer. This is such a degrading culture. It forces you to play Beethoven to your child in the uterus so that he will get into a better school and a better job and make more money so he can take care of you. You know, all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons. And so long as Third World peasants are poor they will send us drugs, and as long as we are empty we will ask for this little plant.
The other thing that's wrong with the way they approach drugs - they call it War On Drugs - is that they're fighting it one person at a time, eventually expecting that they will arrest all the people they have to arrest. That seems to me to be the theory: First we'll get this guy, then we'll get that guy, then we'll get this other guy. Of course, that's absurd, but that is actually the way you can define what they're doing by arresting low-level drug users and dealers. That is obviously the plan: we'll get them one at a time.."
Obviously, the current anti-drug plans of governments are patently stupid. But we're beginning to see an improvement. Even my anti-drugs mum is beginning to think that marijuana is a-ok.
Proper education takes time and is very difficult, if compared to the draconian measures of the authority. However, it doesn't mean that we should take the easy road. Strict laws were erected back then to easily control the largely uneducated masses, but it is something that should be a thing of the past now. We are now much better equipped with good knowledge on how to deal with drugs.
Extreme sport addicts are always learning ways to protect themselves. The same idea goes for drug use.
By writing this, I hope to have raised some awareness. And no, I'm not tripping on any shit.
To address suicidal tendencies / drug abuse, I've come across this quote in Reddit before. Just want to share it -
"The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn't do so out of ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling."
Note 1: Images are from https://pixabay.com/
Note 2: I've published this in Facebook a few years ago. Updated thoroughly for Steemit.
New to Steemit? Get the no-nonsense PDF guide here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@donkeypong/simply-steemit-your-no-nonsense-guide-to-getting-started
Follow Me 