By Paul Weiser
A question that arises, at least among those who object to both, is one of priority: which came first, drug culture or overall societal decay? Since the answer implies cause and effect, we should first determine what each pathology involves - then their relationship.
Whether approved or disapproved, drug culture denotes the same assertion: that drugs of the sort referred to as "addictive" are the most important thing about a person who uses them. This leads some societies to execute users, others to pamper them, but all who recognize drug culture (that is, the paramountcy of drugs in life whether they're revered or anathematized) to obsess on their supposed potency.
This obsession is certainly a component of societal decay (and the approving variant much the stronger). General societal decay, though, results from valuing anything (including drugs) over the traditional continuity of the society whether it be new religions, ethnic divisions or economic class. So the question becomes, egg or chicken? Does romanticizing drugs - for good or ill - commence societal decay, or vice versa?
Put that way, the answer is obvious. A decadent society (like Manchu China) is vulnerable to drug obsession (in that case, opium) because it has already lost its way: China was racked after meeting superior foreign nations not because they brought opium, but because they shattered China's assumption of self- sufficient superiority. A self-confident society - Victorian Britain or even Holland, A.D. 1995 - tolerates drugs with minimal obsession.
Drug addiction - overall obsession with drugs, of which the psychological deformation called "addiction" is itself an example - is thus a symptom rather than a cause of societal decay. Whether the obsession manifests as stoners in Haight-Ashbury or police breaking down doors to get at them, a society showing either (or both) and considering this situation normal is in deep trouble.
None of Your Lib (NOLIB) is a weekly column, appearing
each Monday. Email responses and requests
to Paul Weiser
- be sure to specify in the body of the message that
your mail is to NOLIB. Some past articles are in the
NOLIB archives, and you are also invited to
visit
my home page. All responses
are appreciated,
and may be incorporated into succeeding columns in whole
or in part unless the sender requests otherwise. And of
course, the opinions expressed are those of the columnist and
may
not reflect the views or opinions of gte.net.