A
allgrownup
Guest
Harper's Fear of Drugs Blinds Him to Proliferation of Legal Drug Cultures
In a recent speech announcing $64 million for a new federal anti-drug campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that the main reason Canada deals with illegal drugs is a "drug culture" that has existed "since the 1960s" that "often romanticized" drug use.
This drug culture makes it "cool" and "acceptable" to take drugs, and this is why there are widespread addiction problems, since addicts are coerced into destructive lifestyles. Harper underscored his argument by mentioning that his son is "listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean."
Of course, we have all heard this tired argument before, and it comes as no surprise that Harper, a rigid and unemotional man who famously shook his son's hand instead of hugging him as he went off to school, would give such a narrow reading of sociological trends as to blame pop culture for the "highly lucrative business" of the illegal drug trade.
I venture to guess that he trot out this "damn kids and their rock music" theme purely as a tool to gain old-school conservative credibility in anticipation of a potential election.
But tired rhetoric and political tricks aside, this campaign is indicative of a greater underlying social conservatism trend, that of pure economic hypocrisy. The Canadian state condones some types of corporate addiction-peddling while punishing others.
While it is admirable that a portion of the funding is being directed to addiction treatment centres, the campaign's main logic -- that to respond to subcultures where millions of individuals willingly abrogate their responsibility as law-abiding citizens, a state must be willing to intervene on the citizen's behalf through anti-drug advertising and harsher punishments for drug dealers -- is flawed.
The Canadian state permits many different potentially addictive methods of recreation -- gambling, smoking, drinking, sex-phone lines, fast food, you name -- on the assumption that as grown men and women, citizens are expected to lead responsible lives.
In other words, the responsible citizen is permitted to engage in recreational, but potentially addictive, behaviour. The vendors of these activities do not assume responsibility for their customers.
The mixed message inherent in this becomes obvious when we take the example of a legal drug culture, such as a university pub night. All aspects of such a culture are present -- a drug, an associated population of users and a steady stream of culturally related output. What is different is the presumption of personal responsibility.
In the pub culture, drug dealers are not only permitted to sell, but also to continually advertise and normalize their product as a regular aspect of the college lifestyle. Beer and liquor are marketed directly to the university student demographic.
Imagine a "Crack Cocaine Maxim Golf Experience."
There is nothing inherently wrong with the advancement of this assumption of customer responsibility in the face of brand marketing. It is the culmination of the politics of corporate liberation -- an evolution from a government style of central control to one of decentralized entrepreneurship.
This liberation is being paralleled in most facets of modern civil society. Individual and minority rights, corporate law and property law have all shown a trend of downloaded responsibility to the individual in return for less centralized state control. True to form, the state now contracts out more of its own former responsibilities than ever before.
But instead of maintaining a level playing field by downloading responsibility across the board, the new federal campaign exhibits a negligent understanding of the differences between demographics in subcultures and an unwillingness to apply the concept of corporate liberation to social policy. This economic hypocrisy is the real negative force in the world of illegal substances.
As can be seen with the pub culture, drug cultures accept the recreational use of substances specifically on the assumption that there exists a "mindspace" that can accommodate both personal responsibility and recreation.
That assumption of accommodation is what makes it specifically a culture and not merely a collection of individuals. There must be aspects from within that are productive enough to sustain a sufficient cultural output level.
It is ironic, then, that the existence of drug cultures themselves disprove the notion that use will inevitably lead to abuse. It is actually the cultural aspects of drug use that allow for a continually productive citizenry.
Meanwhile, illegal drug dealers can thank the federal government for funding their own advertising campaigns.
In a recent speech announcing $64 million for a new federal anti-drug campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that the main reason Canada deals with illegal drugs is a "drug culture" that has existed "since the 1960s" that "often romanticized" drug use.
This drug culture makes it "cool" and "acceptable" to take drugs, and this is why there are widespread addiction problems, since addicts are coerced into destructive lifestyles. Harper underscored his argument by mentioning that his son is "listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean."
Of course, we have all heard this tired argument before, and it comes as no surprise that Harper, a rigid and unemotional man who famously shook his son's hand instead of hugging him as he went off to school, would give such a narrow reading of sociological trends as to blame pop culture for the "highly lucrative business" of the illegal drug trade.
I venture to guess that he trot out this "damn kids and their rock music" theme purely as a tool to gain old-school conservative credibility in anticipation of a potential election.
But tired rhetoric and political tricks aside, this campaign is indicative of a greater underlying social conservatism trend, that of pure economic hypocrisy. The Canadian state condones some types of corporate addiction-peddling while punishing others.
While it is admirable that a portion of the funding is being directed to addiction treatment centres, the campaign's main logic -- that to respond to subcultures where millions of individuals willingly abrogate their responsibility as law-abiding citizens, a state must be willing to intervene on the citizen's behalf through anti-drug advertising and harsher punishments for drug dealers -- is flawed.
The Canadian state permits many different potentially addictive methods of recreation -- gambling, smoking, drinking, sex-phone lines, fast food, you name -- on the assumption that as grown men and women, citizens are expected to lead responsible lives.
In other words, the responsible citizen is permitted to engage in recreational, but potentially addictive, behaviour. The vendors of these activities do not assume responsibility for their customers.
The mixed message inherent in this becomes obvious when we take the example of a legal drug culture, such as a university pub night. All aspects of such a culture are present -- a drug, an associated population of users and a steady stream of culturally related output. What is different is the presumption of personal responsibility.
In the pub culture, drug dealers are not only permitted to sell, but also to continually advertise and normalize their product as a regular aspect of the college lifestyle. Beer and liquor are marketed directly to the university student demographic.
Imagine a "Crack Cocaine Maxim Golf Experience."
There is nothing inherently wrong with the advancement of this assumption of customer responsibility in the face of brand marketing. It is the culmination of the politics of corporate liberation -- an evolution from a government style of central control to one of decentralized entrepreneurship.
This liberation is being paralleled in most facets of modern civil society. Individual and minority rights, corporate law and property law have all shown a trend of downloaded responsibility to the individual in return for less centralized state control. True to form, the state now contracts out more of its own former responsibilities than ever before.
But instead of maintaining a level playing field by downloading responsibility across the board, the new federal campaign exhibits a negligent understanding of the differences between demographics in subcultures and an unwillingness to apply the concept of corporate liberation to social policy. This economic hypocrisy is the real negative force in the world of illegal substances.
As can be seen with the pub culture, drug cultures accept the recreational use of substances specifically on the assumption that there exists a "mindspace" that can accommodate both personal responsibility and recreation.
That assumption of accommodation is what makes it specifically a culture and not merely a collection of individuals. There must be aspects from within that are productive enough to sustain a sufficient cultural output level.
It is ironic, then, that the existence of drug cultures themselves disprove the notion that use will inevitably lead to abuse. It is actually the cultural aspects of drug use that allow for a continually productive citizenry.
Meanwhile, illegal drug dealers can thank the federal government for funding their own advertising campaigns.
