Here's something ripped from Salon.com's resident advice columnist Cary Tennis. I highly recommend reading all of his other columns as well. His answers are consistently well-written and very insightful.
Original article: http://www.salon.com/mwt/col/tenn/2006/06/15/drug_abuse/index.html 'Since You Asked' column archive: http://dir.salon.com/topics/since_you_asked/
Dear Cary,
I've noticed you have published a few advice columns for
teenagers, and was wondering if I could hop on the bandwagon (although,
at 19, I'm kind of pushing it) and ask you a few question about drugs.
Neither I nor any of my close friends do drugs, mostly because it
complicates things unnecessarily and has negative consequences for the
user and all the people they interact with.
I live in a wealthy suburb of San Francisco. My boyfriend and I
know kids who were highly intelligent, together and promising, who
started smoking pot when they were 12 or 13, drifted from high school
to high school, stole money and painkillers from their parents,
graduated or didn't graduate, and now are in their early 20s, living
off their parents' money, and are either heroin addicts or trying hard
to be heroin addicts. One girl we know started using meth intravenously
when she was 14 (according to her brother, she got it from their
uncle). One kid with a long history of drug abuse overdosed on Valium
the day before finals, had a psychotic episode at our high school, and
was forcibly confined to a mental institution by police. There are
worse cases, but you get the idea. I know this sounds melodramatic and
scary, but it's not out of place in extremely affluent communities.
Drug education in this country is very polarized. On the one
hand, there is DARE, with police officers scaring middle-school kids,
"Go Ask Alice," etc. On the other hand, there is a weird reaction
emerging where parents think that, because they did drugs, they can't
tell their kids not to.
An example of the latter. The Drug Policy Alliance
is an organization that advocates reform in the war on drugs (which I
agree with) and wants parents to introduce drugs in a gradient of
badness, with the emphasis on safety. "I have news for you. Your kids
are going to do drugs," Ayelet Waldman (another columnist at Salon) stated in January 2005. Is that really the case?
Unlike sex, recreational drug use does not stem from an
instinctive behavior designed to further the good of the species.
Although some species and cultures use psycho-affective plants for
their non-nutritive benefits, I disagree that treating drug use as an
eventuality will do more good than, say, scaring the living bejesus out
of youngsters. Treating drug use as a phase might make sense for people
who grew out of it and faced no harrowing consequences, but as evinced
by your column, prison statistics, the booming market for
drug-confessional memoirs, and the thriving alcohol advertising market,
for many it is not a phase, and it is significantly harder to grow out
of than many in the Bay Area would have you think.
So the question is: What is the most effective stance to take? To
the best of my knowledge, recreational drug use has never made anyone
happy, but it is rarely as objectively terrible as the moral arbiters
would have one believe. Drug use is not sensational, outré or shocking
-- it's lonely and pathetic. I wish there was a way to explain to young
people the degenerative effects of this and other self-destructive
behaviors and still be listened to. Is there?
Or am I just trying to prevent the unpreventable?
Clean but Concerned
Dear Clean,
Like you, I think there would be more happiness and less misery in
our little part of the world if fewer teens took drugs. But I suggest
that you simply tell your own truth: how you feel about the drug use
you have observed, and why you yourself do not do it.
As far as policy goes, I agree with the goals
of the Drug Policy Alliance, with one caveat: When I was a teenage drug
abuser, if I remember correctly, well-meaning people did offer me
useful information about the drugs I might or might not be taking.
I nodded and looked concerned. I made them tea and said, "Would you
like to sit on the couch?" But if I was going to not take drugs, there
needed to be either A) no drugs around or B) big dogs and men with
sticks between me and the drugs.
If I had known you at the time, a hip, intelligent young person who
did not use drugs, I would have admired you and would have wondered how
you could be so cool and yet not do drugs. Maybe I would have thought
it was a little sad that you didn't get off like the rest of us. Or
maybe I would have thought it was great. It's hard to tell. But I doubt
that it would have stopped me. I was too desperately unhappy and too
cunning and insincere, too guarded, too aloof, too afraid and too
afraid to show that I was afraid.
I was meeting my needs the only way I knew how.
How was a guy like me going to use practical pharmacological data to
make balanced decisions about which drugs to take? My main goal was to
get so high I couldn't see my shoes.
And therein lies my concern about the realistic, common-sense
approach: It seems to assume that the adolescent drug user is a
rational actor who can weigh risks and benefits.
I frankly don't know what anyone could have done to help a kid like
me. My problem was not a lack of pharmacological data. It was the
problem of how to be a human being, how to live in society, how to
experience God, how to grow up and be a man. If somebody had offered me
answers to those questions, I might have listened. In other
circumstances there might have been a wise elder, healer, philosopher,
warrior, priest or some such to help me express and channel those
needs. No such luck. Not in that world.
My drug use may have been misguided, but it had at its heart the
most noble of desires: the desire to know the universe, to be at peace
in the world, to liberate the better self, the true self, to allow what
is good in the self to shine, and to know mysteries firsthand, to
experience the inexpressible beauty, harmony and complexity of
consciousness.
I understand your dilemma: When you say you're against drug use, you
seem to say you are against certain noble strains of the questing
American spirit -- Beats and hippies and transcendentalists and
Expressionists and all that.
So I suggest two things: 1) Tell your own truth about drugs. But
more important, 2) work to build a culture that meets the needs that
people take drugs to meet.
People take drugs to meet legitimate needs: initiation, profound
experience, encounter with death, exploration of consciousness,
exploration of personal limits physically and emotionally, a certain
derangement of the senses, to feel more deeply, to taste the edge of
insanity.
Our problem is that we do not know how to collectively actualize the
mystery of the universe so that our children can be ushered into
adulthood confident that they belong. We need rituals that create vivid
experiences of reality, vivid enough to make the drug experience pale
by comparison. We need to live in a way that makes drugs irrelevant.
We don't know how to live that way. We don't know how to live vividly enough.
That is what I would pray for: that we learn how to live.
|