There is also a fear which surrounds homosexuals and drug users. This is the fear that if we let them speak about their lives, that they will use this opportunity to “recruit” the nation’s children. Some parents are afraid that if their child has a gay teacher or other mentor, that the child will “learn” to be gay, or want to “become” gay. Similarly, there is a fear that if drug users get around children, that they will push drugs on them. Surely this does happen sometimes. But personally, I have been to parties where there is drug use, had friends/acquaintances who use, and they have asked me if I wanted to join them, but as soon as I said that I wasn’t into that sort of thing, they accepted that. There is only one time that I have been really encouraged to use drugs, but I am too embarrassed to say who that person was. I don’t think that giving drug users a voice will encourage more people to use drugs, as long as there is a balance in the messages. There needs to be a discussion on both the positives and the negatives to drug use, hence current drug users, former drug users, and non-drug users should all have their time to speak. A lot can happen when there is clear understanding on all sides about what the other person’s side is. I see no harm in people having a balanced assortment of information available to them.

Furthermore, if drug users could be honest about their use, they could get more support. By this I don’t mean that they would find people to encourage their use of drugs. Rather, they could find people going through the same thing, and relate their experiences to one another. Often people think that they go through experiences alone, that there is no one who could possibly understand what they are going through. I have learned through my experiences in high school working with groups that people have a lot more in common with one another than they think they do.

In addition, the more homosexuals come out, and the more drug users do as well, the more accurate research we can have on these two things. So many people are looking for a gene that causes homosexuality; and they looked for a gene for alcoholism, so why not also do similar research into the causes of other drug use. If people could be open and honest about their use and why they use, then there could be more accurate statistics into the matter and a more thorough investigation. Information is important so that researchers can find the reasons for drug use and come up with alternatives that people will actually take. (In the case of homosexuality, however, I think that it is silly to try to “ungayify” (yes, I did make this word up) someone so that they become straight. Perhaps this is the same thing with drug users…I’m just not sure. I don’t think being gay is a choice, but who am I to say that being a drug user is a choice either). The statistics are an important way to bring about the acceptance of the normality of drug use. People need to realize that it’s not the just the prostitute in the inner city or the wealthy politician who uses drugs, but also the milk man and the next door neighbor who holds a steady job and has two point four children.

Once people accept that drug use is a part of our society, and has been for centuries, then perhaps an effort will be made to have the “illegal” drugs made legal, but under government supervision. Though, in general, I don’t agree with the way that the government handles a lot of things, I think that it is important to protect the safety of drug users. For example, in another country (Ireland? Scotland? Switzerland? Somewhere with a lot of very white people) the government gives out free, one-time use only hypodermic needles (to help stop the spread of AIDS). Also, they could regulate the strength and concentration of the drug to help prevent accidental overdoses and make the supply more standardized.

However, it seems hard to imagine that in this conservative country drugs will ever be accepted into mainstream society. Whether or not they should is another story. They have their positive aspects, and their negative ones, but both get so distorted by the media that the truth is very hard to uncover. I think that people deserve correct, complete information, but how they handle that makes me wary. Sometimes people simply can’t handle information in a mature fashion, and that could lead to further problems in our society. Also, I am wary about the government’s involvement in this process, and how they will handle their role (if one is given to them, but they always seem to be involved in everything). Finally, I know that this paper isn’t as cohesive as it might be, but we were instructed to think about the topic, then record our thoughts and observations. Unfortunately, my thoughts on this subject conflict with one another and fill my mind, and my essay, with turmoil.

The Voice of the Drug User

Are drugs immoral? Are drug users immoralists? Should we shun them into the depths of isolation and stigmatization simply because fear leads us to do so? One could definitely draw many parallels between drug users today and homosexuals twenty years ago. Something that often takes society a great deal of time to understand is the fact that there is an entire history that surrounds groups of people. In this case, there is an extremely rich and complicated history for each and every drug user, each and every homosexual. Society fails to acknowledge this individual history, this individual voice. And by failing to listen to the voices, or failing to care, society does nothing more than cast these individuals away into one bulk sum with its own huge name, be it addict, homosexual, or whatever the case may be. Having placed such a label, one has erased all semblance of individuality and has created something entirely different, something with one face, one history.

Why does such a thing happen? Why does society feel the need to create an entity rather than deal directly with what already exists? Fear. Can it be as simple as that? Yes, I think that it is as simple and as complicated as 'fear.' This new thing, called addict or homosexual, shares nothing whatsoever with the ordinary person, the guy next door, the elementary teacher, the politician, the successful working mom. One has altered the human face in order to sum up many human faces, and the result is distorted from reality. And one is taught to fear this thing, to never become this thing. All of society's efforts go into damning this face, this integral druggie face. All of the money, effort, intelligence, psychology, advertising, marketing, are aimed towards creating more fear and hatred towards this one object. The problem with this situation is that this object does not exist. How can it? How can one such face stand to tell the tale of every other drug user, every other homosexual, every other madman? How can one fight against something that is hidden under so many deceptive layers, layers created by a fear that fails to be acknowledged? What needs to be done is to keep as many of the faces in mind as possible. We need to be asking for people's histories, and to be keeping a sensitive ear out for detail, for feeling. Every single individual has a world within, and even if one were to realize that this world has been worn out, corrupted, abused, one needs to ask where this weariness, corruption and abuse has arisen from, and to begin to treat it from the depths.

This is obviously not easy-- one may find problems lodged in places that one would never have imagined, or never would have willingly acknowledged. One may find that these people are more similar to oneself, that their hopes and dreams are perhaps even identical to one's own. And what then? How does one deal with oneself after looking the problem straight in the eye, in the eye of the young girl, the neighbor next door, the loud politician, the quiet housewife? I do not suppose that fear will ever be completely eliminated from the history of drugs, not only because of all of the damage that has already been achieved by the anti-drug industries but because there is something really scary about drugs that we should not ignore. As Maia Szalavitz writes, "People need something to go towards if they are to turn away from heroin." This is our function in this "war against drugs," to remember that the war is against the drugs and not the individual, and to make even another change, a war against a life given away to drugs rather than against the drugs themselves. We need to create a space providing comfort, sympathy, understanding for people to start seeking disengagement from their addictions. And giving the "users" such voices will inevitably be difficult and frightful to bear, but it will be the truth. And that is where we need to start.

Morality of Illicit Drug Use

Writer and philosopher C.S. Lewis suggests that morality is concerned with three things: first, with fair play and harmony between individuals, second, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual, and third, with the general purpose of human life as a whole. He uses the analogy of a fleet of ships sailing in a formation. The voyage of the ship can only be successful if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way (harmonious society), second if each ship is seaworthy and his engines are functioning in good order (internal individual harmony), and third, if the ship arrives at its intended destination. It would be a failure if the ship’s destiny was Peru, but it arrived in Canada.

Often the morality of an action or an idea is determined by its larger social implications. Does drug use harm society as a whole? The media and other influences have suggested that it does. They promote a stereotype of the drug user as a “loser dealer” corrupting children’s playgrounds or the poverty-stricken bum on the street corner. It is true that at times drug use can be detrimental to social relations. For example, in some cases drug use leads to dangerous situations like drugged drinks at parties resulting in rape, etc. However, this is not the only type of drug use that exists, nor is there an average type of drug user. Drug use is wide ranging, and just as popular among upper middle class and upper class waspish suburbanites as it is in inner-city ghettos. In many of these instances, the drug use is personal and private, and does not affect social relations in any way. Consequently, some may conclude that illicit drug use is not immoral because its use does not necessarily have to do anyone else harm. Such thinking implies that it does not matter what one’s ship is like inside as long as he does run into the next ship. Furthermore, in some societies drug use is not illegal by law, and in fact is part of cultural or religious traditions. When held within these traditions, drug use actually promotes social relations rather than resulting in their deterioration.

Therefore, I am not certain that drug use in this sense is even an issue of morality. Just as eating potato chips or taking aspirin is neither immoral or moral, but rather amoral. A more important question to be asked is how is drug use being portrayed in our society? There are obviously drugs whose public image switches from good to bad over time, such as alcohol, cannabis, or heroin. These perceptions are largely affected by the messages sent out by the media and public anti-drug campaign efforts, which create stereotypical users. But is the public receiving accurate information about the actual physical and emotional consequences of drug use? There are obviously different motivations for taking drugs, and different physical and emotional results that drugs produce? Are people in the public, and young people especially making informed decisions when they use these drugs? I’m not sure that legalization or “coming out of the closet” by drug users is the only way, but it is perhaps one way, of the public gaining this necessary awareness about illicit drugs. There needs to be education about illicit drugs presenting the hard facts and raising awareness especially among those who are most likely to use them. The public also needs to understand the economic implications of drug trafficking, and the role of the middle class U.S. in perpetuating this trafficking. People should be free to make an informed choice about their personal decision to use illicit drugs. Also, the American public should consider the differences between illegal, over the counter drugs, and alcohol, and how their view of each has been affected by other influences, and the actual physical, psychological, and social effects of these drugs.

I believe that our perception of our own bodies and how we treat them is also affected by what we believe our bodies to be. First it is important to realize where my body has come from, and who it belongs to. I do not believe that the purpose of life, or the ultimate destination, is to attain the greatest pleasure or fun possible or to find methods of escape from circumstances. More important, more fulfilling, and exciting than this is the opportunity to have a personal relationship with who created me for specific purposes, not just my own. I believe that God has created me as a whole in body, mind, and spirit. Consequently, I’m like a tenant in a house owned by someone else, someone who created the atoms, the molecules, the cells, the nerves, the neurotransmitters, etc. and wants to see them cared for. Therefore, it is important for me to know the effects that chemicals, including those of all types of drugs have on my body physically and psychologically. I also believe that my life has meaning and an ultimate destination that I’m aiming to get to. The circumstances of my life that elicit a range of emotional responses I believe are part of the process of reaching this destination, and I don’t know that they need to be tempered with.

Drug Users in America

The morality of drug use in America is not at the forefront of anti-drug arguments today. Although a select few religious and conservative leaders may approach drug abuse from the perspective of morality, the whole of society is intent on saving lives, reducing crime, and/or cutting costs. The Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA), for example, believes that drug use is wrong. And so they should. To define drug use as something acceptable, even as something from which there is an easy recovery, would be to condone and encourage it. We, as a civilized society, should work together to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of deaths that occur each year as a result of drug abuse; we should be intent on reducing the high crime rates associated with this abuse; and we should absolutely attempt to erase the (currently necessary) costly expenditures for rehabilitation programs, incarceration, medical care for diseases transmitted through sharing needles, etc.

The PDFA has definitely characterized the drug user a particular way. In her article, Maia Szalavitz claims that the PDFA has demonized and demeaned addicts through their ads. The PDFA shows addicts as desperate for a "fix", lacking in self-esteem, hopeless and despondent. Is this representation so inaccurate? Szalavitz cites a number of ads in her article and I would contend that the dozens of ads she omits, show a different side of the drug user. It seems the PDFA has succeeded in capturing all sides of the drug use. From their ad which cites (something to the effect of), "40% of marijuana use takes place in cities...Where do you think the other 60% occurs?" to the recent Talk to Your Kids campaign, the PDFA represents the many complex levels and types of drug use. The PDFA ads are designed to accomplish a certain end, a drug-free America.

To compare the "plight" of drug users to that of homosexuals 20 years ago is completely absurd. To equate a behavior of self-destruction to a biological (or even chosen) life of companionship with someone of the same sex is simply illogical. Even if we were to assume the comparison as legitimate, it is wholly inaccurate. Both drug users and homosexuals have "safe spaces" to speak their truths. Narcotics Anonymous offers a place for addicts to share stories and experiences, accompanied with the component of recovery. This system is similar to many of the support groups available to gays and lesbians in that it creates a safe space to share one's experience. Just as homosexuals convene for Pride Parades across the country each year, marijuana users converge on Boston Common for the annual Hempfest. Drug users and addicts have also been glamorized by way of movies, television, magazine ads, movie and rock stars, professional athletes, and even government officials. It seems there are few limits on an user's prerogative to speak his/her truth.

Addicts possess many truths of their own experience and these should be thoroughly explored in therapeutic settings designed for rehabilitation. Anti-drug activists can certainly use demographic and anecdotal information from these settings and apply it to future programs. It would be unwise, however, to pull addicts any more forward into the spotlight. There is no need for our children and our peers to witness first-hand the rationale and stimuli behind such self-destructive behavior. As the PDFA website reads, "The more you know about drugs, the more you can do to help the people you care about." We should educate ourselves about the drugs, their effects, and the causation of abuse; there is no need to burden ourselves with the individual voices of users themselves.