Pubdate: Wed, 17 Oct 2007
Source: Excalibur (CN ON Edu)
Copyright: 2007 Excalibur
Contact:  http://www.excal.on.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3147
Author: Carl Meyer, Assistant News Editor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Stephen+Harper

'CRACK COCAINE MAXIM GOLF EXPERIENCE'

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. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake