Post by piccione on May 13, 2007 14:42:24 GMT
Daz
////hmm..its very interesting discussion but I'm slightly leaning to wards Sandy in some respects because of the simple fact that most heroin addicts aren't prolific Poets (or even Artists).////
When opiates were legal, they were used by the upper/middle classes, and quite commonly and regularly. You’d be very surprised about the long list of famous people who used opiates regularly. The user profile began to shift with prohibition, and so did the image of the ‘typical’ addict. I doubt many people who hung out with ‘typical’ opiate addicts in those days would hang out with today’s ‘junkie’.
As for the question of ‘soul destroying’: This is an image of drug users we have today, because of that shift in perceptions and users, and because of prohibition, since already the very act of accessing heroin is a criminal offence. The image of heroin addiction (today) ‘naturally’ doesn’t remain untouched, or uninfluenced by the destructive social consequences of addiction to illegal drugs, as we have them today. People – the public - /need/ /explanations/ - and it’s a human trait (…and often a /vital/ one for ‘coping’ with daily life) to resort to ‘short cuts’ in explaining all sorts of phenomena. And one proof of 'short cut' explanations being applied is the perceptional difference we make between addcition to illegal drugs and addiction to legal drugs.
But ask yourself the question /who/ it is that is likely to become ‘addicted’? Is it someone who is perfectly ‘healthy’, with both feet firmly on the ground, a healthy social life, a balanced/positive outlook on life in general, or is it the person who (for whatever reasons) struggles, has negative attitudes towards self, life, others, and a ‘proneness’ to, or /actual/ ‘mental illness’?
Which is the ‘cause’ of ‘soul destruction’? The drug, or that person’s ‘state of mind’?
There are /many/ theories of addiction, but most of their differences are superficial, rather than fundamental. They all have the central feature of distinguishing between non-addicted behaviour (the ‘normal’, ‘health’) and addicted behaviour (the ‘abnormal, ‘disease’). There is no ‘inbetween’.
The same principle applies to other human ‘behaviours’ ‘deviating’ from ‘the norm’, and which are/were therefore classed as ‘diseases’ – e.g. homosexuality. It used to be a ‘mental disorder’, but because of progressive shifts in social attitudes and perceptions, it no longer is classed as such, and we /also/ accept that ‘pure’ heterosexuality’ and ‘pure’ homosexuality are the ‘extreme’ ends of a continuum, with many facets of sexuality/sexual behaviours inbetween.
We are not ‘ready’ yet to accept that the same is true for the (human) nature/ of ‘addiction’. Instead, we blame the drug and construct a 'disease' model.
////hmm..its very interesting discussion but I'm slightly leaning to wards Sandy in some respects because of the simple fact that most heroin addicts aren't prolific Poets (or even Artists).////
When opiates were legal, they were used by the upper/middle classes, and quite commonly and regularly. You’d be very surprised about the long list of famous people who used opiates regularly. The user profile began to shift with prohibition, and so did the image of the ‘typical’ addict. I doubt many people who hung out with ‘typical’ opiate addicts in those days would hang out with today’s ‘junkie’.
As for the question of ‘soul destroying’: This is an image of drug users we have today, because of that shift in perceptions and users, and because of prohibition, since already the very act of accessing heroin is a criminal offence. The image of heroin addiction (today) ‘naturally’ doesn’t remain untouched, or uninfluenced by the destructive social consequences of addiction to illegal drugs, as we have them today. People – the public - /need/ /explanations/ - and it’s a human trait (…and often a /vital/ one for ‘coping’ with daily life) to resort to ‘short cuts’ in explaining all sorts of phenomena. And one proof of 'short cut' explanations being applied is the perceptional difference we make between addcition to illegal drugs and addiction to legal drugs.
But ask yourself the question /who/ it is that is likely to become ‘addicted’? Is it someone who is perfectly ‘healthy’, with both feet firmly on the ground, a healthy social life, a balanced/positive outlook on life in general, or is it the person who (for whatever reasons) struggles, has negative attitudes towards self, life, others, and a ‘proneness’ to, or /actual/ ‘mental illness’?
Which is the ‘cause’ of ‘soul destruction’? The drug, or that person’s ‘state of mind’?
There are /many/ theories of addiction, but most of their differences are superficial, rather than fundamental. They all have the central feature of distinguishing between non-addicted behaviour (the ‘normal’, ‘health’) and addicted behaviour (the ‘abnormal, ‘disease’). There is no ‘inbetween’.
The same principle applies to other human ‘behaviours’ ‘deviating’ from ‘the norm’, and which are/were therefore classed as ‘diseases’ – e.g. homosexuality. It used to be a ‘mental disorder’, but because of progressive shifts in social attitudes and perceptions, it no longer is classed as such, and we /also/ accept that ‘pure’ heterosexuality’ and ‘pure’ homosexuality are the ‘extreme’ ends of a continuum, with many facets of sexuality/sexual behaviours inbetween.
We are not ‘ready’ yet to accept that the same is true for the (human) nature/ of ‘addiction’. Instead, we blame the drug and construct a 'disease' model.
