I'm sure if someone was high on good govt. regulated heroin they'd make great decisions.
Actually, if you look into any of the clinics where heroin is given out for free under medically supervised conditions, you'd know that that is true. The people who get high on good gov't regulated heroin by and large get healthy, return to their jobs and families, and restore their lives.
Do I think there is social costs to legalizing drugs ? Yes.
I realize that's a gray term. Unfortunately there would be costs that go along with it. If one looks at it objectively there would be costs not nessicarily monetarily. Now when I say this I should clarify it. I don't or wouldn't consider pot a "hard" drug. I am not 100% opposed to legalizing it. Frankly I think that the states should decide. But I don't think it would be the end of the world if pot were legalized (Plus think of the money the snack food makers would rake in, buy stock in frito lay if that happens:) What I am opposed to is the hard drugs, heroin, crack, cocaine, lsd, meth etc. Those drugs have major addictivie qualities that can not only hook someone easily but can also turn people very violent. I don't believe someone addicted to heroin is going to be a very productive citizen, call me crazy but I don't see it.
It was said in that article that some resort to crime to support the habit. If someone became addicted to coccaine and they lost their job what would they do ? They'd still steal etc to get money to support the habit. So I don't see that problem being solved. I doubt many hard drug users are gainfully employed right now. (again not talking pot) A crack addict living in Minneapolis still would have to get the money from somewhere. You would have alot more people addicted and therefore I think crime would go up because more people would be addicted and therefore probably unemployed. So now they have to get money from somewhere. And it's either from a porgram or from going into someone's house and taking it.
So in essence I don't see it as a way to solve a problem I see it as merely transferring problems and in fact creating more in the long run. Even though you'd make tax money from the sale of it would it be enough to support the addicted ? Would it be enough to pay for treatment ? Would it be enough to offset the rise in crime ie: robbery etc ? Would it be enough to pay for more unemployment programs? You think there's a victim mentality out there now just wait until there's thousands more addicts. The programs that would be created to offset it would be staggering. Would it be enough to offset the healh costs of the heroin user who gets aids, is addicted and unemployed ? You'd have alot more people addicted if you legalize it (hard drugs)
Again, pot, I'm not really concerned with. I wouldn't do it but I see it in alot different light than I do Heroin or meth.
Actually, if you look into any of the clinics where heroin is given out for free under medically supervised conditions, you'd know that that is true. The people who get high on good gov't regulated heroin by and large get healthy, return to their jobs and families, and restore their lives.
So what's the success rate ? Heroin addiction isn't exaclty an easy habit to kick. What about the ones who juuuust didn't get enough at the clinic or who relapse. My point was that the article was claiming that the aids cases were due to needles not being availible which is b.s. It's poor decision making because ta da ! You guessed it, they were high on heroin.
My point wasn't about clinics. My point is that someone on heroin is going to make really bad decsions.
And deluded about Prohibition. Here's part of the spot where the congressional questioner is asking Anslinger why, since all the states already had anti-drug laws, there needed to be a federal law:
MR. JENKINS: If each state has a law on this subject I wonder why that does not reach it.
MR. ANSLINGER: It does reach it, but in spite of the act, we get requests from public officials from different states, and I will name particularly the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Oklahoma that have urged Federal legislation for the purpose of enabling us to cooperate with the several states.
MR. JENKINS: It seems to me if the states have taken such action on this subject so far, and if we are going to take any action at all, we ought to be able to stamp it out.
My point was that the article was claiming that the aids cases were due to needles not being availible which is b.s. It's poor decision making because ta da ! You guessed it, they were high on heroin.
Something tells me that the market for illicit clean needles is not as hearty as the one for heroin and other illegal drugs. where do you envision the addicts getting their clean needles? Have you looked into the effect that needle distribution programs have had on AIDS rates?
So what's the success rate ? Heroin addiction isn't exaclty an easy habit to kick. What about the ones who juuuust didn't get enough at the clinic or who relapse.
Yeah, well if you're looking for a perfect world, you're on the wrong planet. As I said, by and large people who get the free heroin in those circumstances do pretty well in getting straightened out. And I don't think it matters if they get off heroin -- I thought the social cost -- joblessness, poor health, family problems -- were the problem. If people can stay on the horse and go about their business, I can't see why anyone should care what's in their bloodstream.
So you don't think that if crack or heroin for instance were legalized that more wouldn't do it ?
I disagree. For one the stigma of it is gone somewhat.
The biggest reason you guys are overlooking is this. I'll use my own experience. Let's say I was an 18 year old guy and I got a hankerin for some heroin one day or let's say I was going to go out of town and I thought you know. That might be fun to try. Right now I don't know anyone who uses heroin. I wouldn't even know where to look for it. I suppose I could drive around the areas where drug dealers hang out and try to find it. I'm sure I could eventually. But I wouldn't have the first idea on how, and where to find it. If I can walk into the superette and say , yes I had gas on pump 10 and oh yea give me some heroin. Now it's easy to get, the stigma is gone and heey it's party time.
My point is that by making it easier to get and removing the stigma and any punishment ALOT more people are going to try it and yes become addicted. You're kidding yourself if you don't think use would go up.
My point was that the article was claiming that the aids cases were due to needles not being availible which is b.s. It's poor decision making because ta da ! You guessed it, they were high on heroin.
Something tells me that the market for illicit clean needles is not as hearty as the one for heroin and other illegal drugs. where do you envision the addicts getting their clean needles?
Ever heard of exchange programs ? Drugs are illegal but they can get them. You're telling me that they can't get clean needles ? You just made my point, obviously they are too impared to care about using a clean needle or they'd get one.
Have you looked into the effect that needle distribution programs have had on AIDS rates?
Yep it's helped and they are out there. That's my point, the article is sayign 3,000 deaths beacuse of new aids cases when those people can live a long time now. My point was It's not exactly hard to get a needle yet they are still sharing needles knowing the risk. Gee, do you think it might have something to do with impared thought ? Nah, not at all. We all know what fine descions addicts make.
"The results were remarkable. Seventy per cent of addicts remained in the treatment programme and went on to methadone programmes or detox programmes and became drug free," says Mr Loecher.
"While in the programme, their health situation improved, physically and mentally, their social integration improved, their criminal activity decreased significantly and overall the outcome was that they could be stabilised, they could hold jobs and they went back into society."
This isn't the best source, but this Liverpool clinic is widely documemted.
The situation became critical following a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast on the clinic in 1990. The facts in this story completely debased fundamental U.S. policy assumptions. The most startling statistic was the crime rate. Beginning in 1988, the local police began tracking the criminal records of 112 addicts who entered the drug maintenance program at Chapel Street. According to the Cheshire Drug Squad, there was a 93 percent drop in theft, burglary, and property crimes among this group over the next two years -- thus illuminating the age-old argument about whether it is the drugs themselves or the pursuit of drugs that drives addicts to criminal behavior.
In addition, the HIV infection rate among these injecting drug users was zero. Zero. And the incidence of death among addicts -- normally 15 percent per year -- was also zero.
Even more significant was the fact that the incidence of new drug users in the Widnes-Holton area dropped dramatically -- contrary to popular assumptions. Drug dealers simply stay away because they know the local addicts don't need them anymore. And the addicts themselves have no reason to sell drugs since they can get whatever they need for nothing.
Dr. Marks: Cure people? Nobody can. Regardless of whether you stick them in prison, put them in mental hospitals and give them shock treatment, we have done all these things, put them in a nice rehab center away in the country, give them a nice social worker and pat them on the head, give them drugs, give them no drugs, does not matter what you do. 5% per annum, 1 in 20 per year, get off spontaneously. Compound interested up that reaches about 50% (50/50) after ten years are off drugs. They seem to mature out of addiction regardless of any intervention in the interim but you can keep them alive and healthy and legal during that 10 years, if you so wish to.
Ed: By giving them drugs?
Dr. Marks: It doesn't get them off drugs, it doesn't prolong their addiction, either. But it stops them offending, it keeps them healthy and it keeps them alive.
Ed: That's exactly what happened to Julia Scott. Although she doesn't look it, Julia is a heroin addict. For the last three years the heroin she injects every day comes from a prescription. Before, she had to feed her habit by working as a prostitute, a vicious circle that led her to use more heroin to cope with that life.
Julia: Once you get in that circle you can't get out. I didn't think I was ever going to get out.
Ed: But once you got the prescription?
Julia: I stopped straight away.
Ed: Never went back?
Julia: No, never. I went back once just to see and I was almost physically sick just to see those girls doing what I used to do.
Ed: Julia says she's now able to have normal relation, to hold down a job as a waitress and to care for her 3 year old daughter. Without the prescription, where do you think you would be?
I thought the social cost -- joblessness, poor health, family problems -- were the problem. If people can stay on the horse and go about their business, I can't see why anyone should care what's in their bloodstream.
You're right Lance, I'm sure heroin users can stay on the horse and go about their business just fine, I mean it's not like they'd make a bad decsison , (hey can I borrow your needle?)
I'm done with this until people can be honest about it, there's no point. I really am not that passionate about it. I don't really care much if pot is legal. If you think though we'd be better off as a society legalizing heroin and meth I have a bridge to sell you,until people can admit that then there's not much point IMO.
So let's create more addicts, so we can create more programs and have govt. regualte drugs so we can treat the new addicts we make because that way the success rate is higher. Great idea guys.
The biggest reason you guys are overlooking is this. I'll use my own experience. Let's say I was an 18 year old guy and I got a hankerin for some heroin one day or let's say I was going to go out of town and I thought you know. That might be fun to try. Right now I don't know anyone who uses heroin. I wouldn't even know where to look for it. I suppose I could drive around the areas where drug dealers hang out and try to find it. I'm sure I could eventually. But I wouldn't have the first idea on how, and where to find it. If I can walk into the superette and say , yes I had gas on pump 10 and oh yea give me some heroin. Now it's easy to get, the stigma is gone and heey it's party time.
Sounds like alcohol. Do you think laws should be used to put "stigmas" on things? Do you support laws against sodomy?
My point is that by making it easier to get and removing the stigma and any punishment ALOT more people are going to try it and yes become addicted. You're kidding yourself if you don't think use would go up.
Use might go up, but use-related problems would go WAY down. If use doubles, but the "societal cost" of a given unit of use goes down by a factor of 10 (or 100)...well, you do the math.
Of course this won't help the folks here who just don't want other people to be doing something that they don't want them to do. I personally don't have a problem with someone doing heroin, no more than I do with people, say, voting Democratic or Republican for example, or any other personally harmful and irrational act. Actually, voting D or R is a lot more concretely harmful, since it can actually be linked to harm that occurs (like the continuation of the Drug War, for one.)
The simple fact is that someone doing heroin does not hurt me. The only ways his use hurts me are related to heroin's illegality -- not his act. It hurts me because heroin money is (due to its prohibition) supporting crime and maybe even terrorism, and because trying to catch the guy is wasting police resources that could be devoted to enforcing actual crimes of harm. But the heroin user didn't make that so.
If people can stay on the horse and go about their business
and I got news for you...millions of people take drugs every day and go about their business and don't bother you and aren't a drain on society (except the money they put into black market, but of course that's the laws fault) and have families and jobs. they are out there and you don't even know it.
I personally don't have a problem with someone doing heroin, no more than I do with people, say, voting Democratic or Republican for example, or any other personally harmful and irrational act. Actually, voting D or R is a lot more concretely harmful, since it can actually be linked to harm that occurs (like the continuation of the Drug War, for one.)
and I got news for you...millions of people take drugs every day and go about their business and don't bother you and aren't a drain on society (except the money they put into black market, but of course that's the laws fault) and have families and jobs. they are out there and you don't even know it.
Hard drugs Crabs ? You mean they are able to stay on that horse for years? You have stats for that I'm sure too from a reliable wbsite no doubt.
Well I will wish you luck in your efforts, your obviosuly passionate about making sure we can buy crack at the supermaket. It's a noble cause and it's everyone's god given right to have their heroin. So Who am I to get in the way of it. Enjoy.
is alcohol (the one that demonstrably does the most damage to society) a hard drug?
Just making sure that doesn't get missed. In my personal experience, I have undergone far greater personal harm and/or danger due to drinking alcohol than any other drug I have used, aside from possibly "Rush", which is some crazy foul shit that barely qualifies to be called a drug (in fact it might not be classified as one -- it's just some fumey shit that you -- or I, in this case -- sniff and it makes your brain feel like it's on fire.) Acid, ether, mushrooms, mescaline, pot, ephedrine (low-grade semi-legal speed), opium, hash, nitrous...none of them even came close to damaging me as much as alcohol. Not by a long shot. I never blacked out on any of them, I never puked from any of them, I never passed out from any of them, and collectively, all my use of all those drugs combined has done less damage to my body (and my brain, for that matter) than any handful of drinking nights in high school or college.
and why did so many women die getting illegal ones?
Irrelevant, and you didn't answer the question.
btw: Why do so many children die from legal ones?
For one thing, more women have more access to Birth-Control pills
Ok, I didn't really want to get on abortion but I have to ask. How has availability of birth control pills increased abortions? You'd think the result would be the opposite.
I don't know if birth control pills kicked off the sexual revolution. There has been a sexual revolution no doubt. I'm just not sure if birth control pills are the cause, or have just helped it along. Way back in the Leave it to Beaver days, sex wasn't talked about, it was seemingly contained to committed relationships, marriages. Yeah, there was some cheating, prostitutes, etc. And there was some pre-marital sex. Not to the degree there is today. We've had casual sex gain some acceptance, kids starting to have sex, a huge industry grow that caters to sex. Is there more reason for abortions? Unfortunately, yes. Is birth control the cause of it? I don't think so, but I think it's a big factor.
A freind of mine was telling me that a 13 year old girl in his sons class was pregnant. 8th friggen grade. Not saying it never happened years ago but it seems all to common now. Something has changed. The ages of girls getting pregnant is younger and younger. That's why my daughter is going to an all girls military school in Saskatchewan :) Just kididng.
I did hear a good Chris Rock line the other night on Leno. He was talking about his new daughter and how he was trying to pick a name that didn't sound like a hooker. He said "let's face it, if your daughter is swinging from the brass pole, you've failed as a parent".
A freind of mine was telling me that a 13 year old girl in his sons class was pregnant. 8th friggen grade. Not saying it never happened years ago but it seems all to common now. Something has changed. The ages of girls getting pregnant is younger and younger.
I think that's partly because the change in society on the personal level has outpaced the changes in society on the structural level. We still have all sorts of taboos, both official and unofficial, which prevent open discussion and education, and even activity. We make big issues where there aren't any, and we have all sorts of contradictions, and we're still hanging on to shame and stigma and force as a way to shape the behavior of our peers, and it skews things.
That, and too much reliance on schools to raise kids (which is really just one part of the above).
Another factor that plays in it is the family. There's a lot more divorce, single parent families, step-parent families, blended families. Some kids don't have as great a relationship with their parents. They aren't supervised as much, aren't seen as much by their parents. Parents are off working to provide for their kids. Kids come home to nobody, so they go off and have fun in their own way.
It's not that I want to force my morals upon someone else, it's that I don't want my children thinking this stuff is OK. If drugs are legal, they are considered OK to use. And that's how this (abortion) relates to the "War on drugs".
Abortion is now considered perfectly acceptable behavior, and that's why we have so many abortions.
Now, what's to say we won't have 1,000,000+ new drug addicts each year if drugs are legalized, just as we have 1,000,000+ abortions each year?
Of course, any Demon is a good Demon, when we need something or someone, to blame.
J.T., you will instill your moral values into your children regardless of what is legal or not. I don't think you really want the government to pass a law against something just so you can point to it and say to your kids, "See, it's wrong because it's against the law." That's allowing the government to help you raise your kids.
Liquor is legal, but it's entirely possible to teach children not to drink. Cigarettes are legal, but it's entirely possible to teach children not to smoke. Same with any other undesirable behavior.
I think that's partly because the change in society on the personal level has outpaced the changes in society on the structural level. We still have all sorts of taboos, both official and unofficial, which prevent open discussion and education, and even activity.
Let me preface this by saying that I agree it all comes down to the parents and your assertions that some parents rely too much on the schools raising their kids is right on. But as far as taboos or stigmas and education I think it's the exact reverse. In education sex ed is taught at younger and younger ages. We teach it, we tell the kids, don't have sex, but here's some trojans for you. I think the taboos have been removed through that and media.
No matter how hard a parent trys to send a different message we are saturated with sexual images that the parent can't control unless they want to lock their kid in the basement. We give children still almost adult status in some cases. Do you think that media and the essential removal of many limits don't play a part in it ? I would say the taboos have been very much removed. It's a free country and I would never want it legislated or mandated as to what can or can't be printed or on t.v. My point is that those taboos are removed very much mores so than in the 50's vs. today and it hasn't reduced teen pregnancy etc. it's increased dramatically. It's impossible to look at it objectively without seeing there is a connection. Not the sole reason mind you but it's connected.
We make big issues where there aren't any, and we have all sorts of contradictions, and we're still hanging on to shame and stigma and force as a way to shape the behavior of our peers, and it skews things.
How so, please explain how those taboos and stigmas on sex are still here today ? What's left ?
Let me preface this by saying that I agree it all comes down to the parents and your assertions that some parents rely too much on the schools raising their kids is right on.
Parents need a little help from society. Why is it liberals can get away with saying "it takes a village to raise a child" and at the same time advocate little or no moral restraints on that society?
I don't agree with jethro that parents need help from society, but he did point out the hypocrisy in the "It Takes A Village" crowd.
Actually, I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as a statement that says that society knows better than parents how their children should be indoctri -- I mean taught.
Help from society does not mean government help. What I mean is that society should hold and promote certain values that provide a good environment for children. It appears to me that our society promotes decadence.
Jethro, I too would like to see a society which holds virtue in high esteem. That can only be done by individuals influencing other individuals. You can't legislate it. And people will always disagree. The best of all possible worlds is one in which people have the maximum amount of freedom, even if it's to self-destruct, and you can raise your children with the values you hold.
The best of all possible worlds is one in which people have the maximum amount of freedom, even if it's to self-destruct, and you can raise your children with the values you hold.
Absolutely, Bill, I think you know that. As for the Native American villages, they were small closed societies with shared values and beliefs. I'm sure it was a wonderful world for a child. Another example would be the kibbutz in Israel.
Today in American society, the "village" school may teach children values and beliefs not shared by their families. The parents rightly may choose alternatives.
the "village" school may teach children values and beliefs not shared by their families.
I think that in todays society learning different values and beliefs is a necessity. It helps children understand and accept the differences prevalant in our local and "world" communities.
The parents rightly may choose alternatives
Of course, but is that really helping the children? Is it protecting them or sheltering them? When kids become "adults" and join the "real world" they will come into contact with many new and different lifestyles. Wouldn't it be better if the parents discussed the different values the children may learn about and why their particular family believes what they do? Give them the tools to deal with the differences, instead of trying to keep them in the dark.
Learning *about* different values, beliefs and customs is important. Learning a certain amount of tolerance is also important. But too many schools teach cultural relativism to the point that kids don't feel that they can make any judgments at all. Schools should teach objectively, but like the media they no longer do, nor do they feel that they have to. I wouldn't send my kids to a school that pushes values I don't want them to have.
Schools should teach objectively, but like the media they no longer do, nor do they feel that they have to. I wouldn't send my kids to a school that pushes values I don't want them to have.
I agree, no school should pushits values on childeren, if this is whats happening thats sad, for the children and the future of our society.
cultural relativism to the point that kids don't feel that they can make any judgments at all
truely saddening...but, being that these are our (public) schools, don't you think we should try to change them for the better? Even if you choose to send your children to private school, what the rest of the children learn (or don't learn) in public school will have a direct effect on our future society (on both you and me-and I don't even have kids). In (approximately)15 years all these kids are going to be voting, beginning to make decisions that contribute to society and joining the work force (we hope) and in (approximately) another 15 yrs(in their late 30's-early 40's) they will be coming more into positions of greater influence and power. When I am in my 60's what these kids learned in school will affect my life, and I think that if we want that affect to be positive we need to do the work now to try to make the necissary changes. It does no good to look back and say "I knew those public schools were going to turn out nothing but slackers" (or some such thing).
I don't have anything against private schools, I know kids that go to both private and public schools, and I don't believe any are better or worse because of their school (I still believe its the parents and family that make the biggest impact). But if there are all these problems with public schools, why don't we stand up and try to change them? Not by means of more money from taxes, but better management of money resourses and time and direct involvement from parents and communities.
But as far as taboos or stigmas and education I think it's the exact reverse. In education sex ed is taught at younger and younger ages. We teach it, we tell the kids, don't have sex, but here's some trojans for you. I think the taboos have been removed through that and media.
I was probably raised on the cusp of this de-taboozation to which you refer -- at least the modern version. When I was in first (and second, and third, and fourth) grade, I learned sex-ed through a program called (I kid you not) L.A.M.O. (pronounced "lammo", not "lame-o"...how they got that past us, I don't know). "Learning About Myself and Others". Right around that time, MTV came into being, and shortly thereafter, Madonna. That was the context of my life as a child and a pre-teen.
Sounds pretty racy and touchy-feely liberal and open overt sexuality, and on many levels it was. However, I can list a dozen related taboos and stigmas and contradictions that thrived during that time, either in my "society" (peers), or in the greater society. Most of them (the stigmas and taboos) are still out there, and thriving pretty well.
masturbation -- It's slowly losing its shame and stigma for adults, but unless school has turned into bizarro world since 1990, it's still rife with that baggage for kids, re: their peers, re: adults and parents, and re: themselves. It's probably one of the most enjoyable activities that most kids engage in, and still loaded with shame, stigma, and fear.
teen pregnancy -- One time a spiteful friend started a rumor that one of my sisters was pregnant, in high school. It was emotionally devastating -- just the rumor was. It was a giant scandal (and shame and stigma for her) until it was debunked. To say nothing of the shame and rejection facing girls who actually are pregnant.
"slut" -- a scarlet letter of sorts for teen girls and women; inapplicable to men
open discussion about sexual organs or "private parts" -- I learned when I was a little kid what my penis was, but even now over 20 years later, saying "my penis" even on this message board carries some shame and 'tee-hee' baggage. My arm, my leg, my lungs, my head -- all no problem. 90+% of my body parts are just fine to talk about. The others still carry long-standing baggage as being private - embarrassing, secret, even dirty. (What are "dirty pictures" pictures of?)
homosexuality -- when I was in school, "fag" was the most popular put-down by a long shot. It was seldom a real accusation, it was just as I said, a put-down. "Fag" = lame. "Fag" = weak. "Fag" = bad, jerk, asshole, uncool. And for the few folks who were actually suspected of being gay, it was whispers and jeers and shunning, and probably more aggressive stuff that I didn't see. Most who were gay in my school probably wisely kept their mouth shut and their feelings inside. On the adult side, gay people in the military have to keep their mouths shut and adapt their behavior by law . Our society is beginning to cope with homosexuality, but it's got a long way to go. And much (most?) of the change that has yet to come about in that arena is institutional as opposed to personal. The blockades are imposed more from on high than from individuals. Society will never be able to fully accept gays while the laws relegate them to second-class citizen status. In a very real way, society is forbidden from settling this issue on a person-to-person level. (The parallels to our treatment of blacks and women are very strong.) On the most basic analysis level -- gay people still have to walk around with a justifiable fear that they could get the shit beat out of them for being gay. Gay cop? Bam! Gay high school football player? Bam! Gay couple? Bam!
nudity -- the idea that a supposedly highly-developed society still has insecurities about the nude body at all is quizzical and amusing to me. Bouncing blurry dots on the TV is a great example of the whole thing I'm talking about...how the institutional structure is having a skew effect on society. Laws and TV norms have decided that a 1 to 2-inch area of reddened skin on the top half of a woman is something that people (I suppose, "the children") should not see. We can see the nipples of every other living thing on earth...but not the nipples that we would all probably most want to see (compared to those of other things on earth). Do nipples offend men? Do they offend women? Should they offend children, and if so, why? Is it really healthier to have girls gone wild bouncing their boobies behind computer-generated stars and sales pitches? Another example: Topless men -- fine. Topless women? Taboo. Why? It's not due to logic, it's due to mad-old traditions -- the same type of traditions that have Arab women covering up all but their faces, and often their faces too. Cause they don't want men thinking those thoughts about them. And it's codified in law -- there, and here to a lesser degree. And thongs and bikinis and speedos and the word "boobies" and a zillion other things which tiptoe around the issue are OK, but unless it's babies or little kids in the bathtub, nudity is still taboo.
swear words -- It's one thing for society to develop standards (which are organic, and created through the back-and-forth of everyone's individual standards and preferences, and which are enforced by freedom of association and social pressure) about what is inappropriate to say, or rude, or offensive, or dirty or whatever...it's quite another thing for the government and extra-governmental institutions to write up a list of "obscene" and/or "profane" words or subject matter, and enforce them through law. It produces the skew I mentioned originally, and creates a suspended reality in our culture. Beeping out the word "fuck" or "shit" on a TV show doesn't fool anyone -- not kids, not anyone. It doesn't hide the word or prevent its use or produce any sort of notable palliative effect on our culture. The words "fuck" and "shit" are out of the bag...any 7-year-old who hasn't lived in a cave knows them, and probably "motherfucker", "cocksucker", "son of a bitch", "pussy", "dick" and a host of others. It only takes one parent in the village to let a word like those out of the bag, and kids are very good about passing around newfound "off-limits" knowledge -- at least in terms of coverage. Accuracy, context, and meaning don't usually don't get passed around with them, though, precisely because of the off-limits thing. One of the results of that mentality -- which is handed down to kids from above...it's not of their making -- is that words like "motherfucker" (a truly perverse curse) and "cocksucker" (an overtly homo-based slam, like "fag") are still widely used. They can't be banished like "darkie" and "coon" were, because they've been hidden behind the curtain. Beeped, muddled, muted, ignored. The word "fuck" itself has some pretty wack origins -- variously, to beat, to screw (literally), to stab, etc. Almost all the etymological roots of the word "fuck" are violent in nature. But can we explain that to our kids? We could -- but the country's structure is such that for most people, language is taught in school, and most of that in public school. And in public school, an open discussion about the word "fuck" does not fly. (I can just imagine the wave of firings and resignations and lawsuits that would come from that.) Ditto for on TV, and in most of society's institutions. It's kept behind the beep half the time (the institutional level), while being largely accepted usage the other half of the time (the person-to-person level). And the whole time, it's never just dealt with like a normal fucking word. If it was, I bet it would get faded out of our culture voluntarily over time, as its origins and vulgarity were discussed more openly. Instead, under the off-limits/"beep" effect, the usage of it spreads widely. It sorta gets back to the mentality THX expressed by saying that the drug laws are a way of saying drug use is wrong. Saying motherfucker and cocksucker is declared wrong -- it's been branded into society as that institutionally -- literally branded ("R", "MA", "L", "AS", etc.). So society takes a break on actually dealing with the words and their usage. Not entirely, but largely. And they (the words) hang around in a skewed limbo state -- institutionally labeled "wrong", but used on the individual level plenty. (The similarity to illegal drug use is not coincidental.)
I could go on about this for a long time. I was going to do a dozen, but I can't do the in-depth thing with that many due to time. Prostitution, stripping, drug use, porn, condoms, abortion, premarital sex, BDSM, sex toys -- each of those issues is tangled in layers of institutional netting and taboo, and in each case the result is a reduction in the ability of non-coercive society to effectively deal with the situations tied to those issues. There are literally a zillion different skewing influences applied on society from above.
Here's three specific examples of the institutional screwing with the personal in a bad way:
--Sex education: parents and other citizens, many of whom disapprove of sex education, condom distribution and the like, and who believe abstinence is the birth control method of choice, are forced to pay, year after year, for thousands of kids to be given condoms (and taught how, why, and when to use them), etc. Forced to pay to promote and encourage something they find morally repugnant. The personal society is denied its ability to pursue its will in an organic fashion (through individual choice), by the institutional will of society, such as it is expressed through government.
--Parent-kid anti-drug ads: There are currently ads on TV that put pressure on parents to engage in a specific regimen of discipline and control with their kids -- insisting that they track their every move and bug the hell out of them, essentially. The ads use kids to tell the parents of America, "We will lie to you." Not "we might", but "we will ". Taxpayers are paying to train parents to assume (or to "know") that their kids are lying to them about drugs. The modes of deceit, suspicion, and distrust are officially sanctioned as proper parenting. Kids who see the ad are reassured that all kids lie about drug use -- that "we will hide it, we will sneak around, we will try drugs". Cat-and-mouse is nationally publicized as the way our nation's parents should handle the drug problem vis a vis their kids. It's paid for by straight-edge working teens who've never lied or tried drugs, it's paid for by open and permissive parents who don't mind if their kids experiment a bit, it's paid for by millions of functioning alcoholics and millions of harmless pot smokers, and by tens of millions of people who tried drugs when they were young and did just fine with their lives.
--anti-pot ads: There are a series of ads on now, paid for by taxpayers, which all end with the line, "Marijuana -- it's more harmful than we all thought." That statement is false right on its face. All it takes is for there to be one person for whom marijuana is equal or less harmful than they thought. It's basically a statement that is by its very construction guaranteed to be false. You could put almost any noun in place of "marijuana" and that statement would be false too. And yet our government is telling us it, over and over again -- stating it as fact. And some people actually rely on what the government says for some sort of compass of truth or good behavior. The guidance behind those ads is, "Take however harmful you thought pot was, and ratchet it up an undisclosed amount. It is more harmful than you thought." Maybe that will calibrate a few people correctly, just by chance, but it's not logical, and it's not sound, and it's definitely not organic in the societal sense. What it is, is skewing from above.
It's basically a statement that is by its very construction guaranteed to be false
forget the "we all" problems..."marijuana -- it's more harmful than we all thought" is simply a variation of "have you stopped beating your wife", instead it's now "it's beating it's wife more than it ever"
It worked for drugs! And it worked for alcohol the first ti-
It worked for drugs! Way less people do drugs now than pre-1914. And we all know how pot use declined in the decades after its banning in 1937. Just a generation later that nasty scourge was almost entirely purged from our society!
Actually, if you look into any of the clinics where heroin is given out for free under medically supervised conditions, you'd know that that is true. The people who get high on good gov't regulated heroin by and large get healthy, return to their jobs and families, and restore their lives.
Muskwa.
Do I think there is social costs to legalizing drugs ? Yes.
I realize that's a gray term. Unfortunately there would be costs that go along with it. If one looks at it objectively there would be costs not nessicarily monetarily. Now when I say this I should clarify it. I don't or wouldn't consider pot a "hard" drug. I am not 100% opposed to legalizing it. Frankly I think that the states should decide. But I don't think it would be the end of the world if pot were legalized (Plus think of the money the snack food makers would rake in, buy stock in frito lay if that happens:) What I am opposed to is the hard drugs, heroin, crack, cocaine, lsd, meth etc. Those drugs have major addictivie qualities that can not only hook someone easily but can also turn people very violent. I don't believe someone addicted to heroin is going to be a very productive citizen, call me crazy but I don't see it.
It was said in that article that some resort to crime to support the habit. If someone became addicted to coccaine and they lost their job what would they do ? They'd still steal etc to get money to support the habit. So I don't see that problem being solved. I doubt many hard drug users are gainfully employed right now. (again not talking pot) A crack addict living in Minneapolis still would have to get the money from somewhere. You would have alot more people addicted and therefore I think crime would go up because more people would be addicted and therefore probably unemployed. So now they have to get money from somewhere. And it's either from a porgram or from going into someone's house and taking it.
So in essence I don't see it as a way to solve a problem I see it as merely transferring problems and in fact creating more in the long run. Even though you'd make tax money from the sale of it would it be enough to support the addicted ? Would it be enough to pay for treatment ? Would it be enough to offset the rise in crime ie: robbery etc ? Would it be enough to pay for more unemployment programs? You think there's a victim mentality out there now just wait until there's thousands more addicts. The programs that would be created to offset it would be staggering. Would it be enough to offset the healh costs of the heroin user who gets aids, is addicted and unemployed ? You'd have alot more people addicted if you legalize it (hard drugs)
Again, pot, I'm not really concerned with. I wouldn't do it but I see it in alot different light than I do Heroin or meth.
Lance,
So what's the success rate ? Heroin addiction isn't exaclty an easy habit to kick. What about the ones who juuuust didn't get enough at the clinic or who relapse. My point was that the article was claiming that the aids cases were due to needles not being availible which is b.s. It's poor decision making because ta da ! You guessed it, they were high on heroin.
My point wasn't about clinics. My point is that someone on heroin is going to make really bad decsions.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/anslng1.htm
And deluded about Prohibition. Here's part of the spot where the congressional questioner is asking Anslinger why, since all the states already had anti-drug laws, there needed to be a federal law:
Keep dreaming...
Something tells me that the market for illicit clean needles is not as hearty as the one for heroin and other illegal drugs. where do you envision the addicts getting their clean needles? Have you looked into the effect that needle distribution programs have had on AIDS rates?
Yeah, well if you're looking for a perfect world, you're on the wrong planet. As I said, by and large people who get the free heroin in those circumstances do pretty well in getting straightened out. And I don't think it matters if they get off heroin -- I thought the social cost -- joblessness, poor health, family problems -- were the problem. If people can stay on the horse and go about their business, I can't see why anyone should care what's in their bloodstream.
So you don't think that if crack or heroin for instance were legalized that more wouldn't do it ?
I disagree. For one the stigma of it is gone somewhat.
The biggest reason you guys are overlooking is this. I'll use my own experience. Let's say I was an 18 year old guy and I got a hankerin for some heroin one day or let's say I was going to go out of town and I thought you know. That might be fun to try. Right now I don't know anyone who uses heroin. I wouldn't even know where to look for it. I suppose I could drive around the areas where drug dealers hang out and try to find it. I'm sure I could eventually. But I wouldn't have the first idea on how, and where to find it. If I can walk into the superette and say , yes I had gas on pump 10 and oh yea give me some heroin. Now it's easy to get, the stigma is gone and heey it's party time.
My point is that by making it easier to get and removing the stigma and any punishment ALOT more people are going to try it and yes become addicted. You're kidding yourself if you don't think use would go up.
My point was that the article was claiming that the aids cases were due to needles not being availible which is b.s. It's poor decision making because ta da ! You guessed it, they were high on heroin.
Ever heard of exchange programs ? Drugs are illegal but they can get them. You're telling me that they can't get clean needles ? You just made my point, obviously they are too impared to care about using a clean needle or they'd get one.
Yep it's helped and they are out there. That's my point, the article is sayign 3,000 deaths beacuse of new aids cases when those people can live a long time now. My point was It's not exactly hard to get a needle yet they are still sharing needles knowing the risk. Gee, do you think it might have something to do with impared thought ?
Nah, not at all. We all know what fine descions addicts make.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1727532.stm
"The results were remarkable. Seventy per cent of addicts remained in the treatment programme and went on to methadone programmes or detox programmes and became drug free," says Mr Loecher.
"While in the programme, their health situation improved, physically and mentally, their social integration improved, their criminal activity decreased significantly and overall the outcome was that they could be stabilised, they could hold jobs and they went back into society."
This isn't the best source, but this Liverpool clinic is widely documemted.
Liverpool Clinic Mocks Drug Warriors
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/body/drugs/usage/liverpool.html
The situation became critical following a CBS "60 Minutes" broadcast on the clinic in 1990. The facts in this story completely debased fundamental U.S. policy assumptions. The most startling statistic was the crime rate. Beginning in 1988, the local police began tracking the criminal records of 112 addicts who entered the drug maintenance program at Chapel Street. According to the Cheshire Drug Squad, there was a 93 percent drop in theft, burglary, and property crimes among this group over the next two years -- thus illuminating the age-old argument about whether it is the drugs themselves or the pursuit of drugs that drives addicts to criminal behavior.
In addition, the HIV infection rate among these injecting drug users was zero. Zero. And the incidence of death among addicts -- normally 15 percent per year -- was also zero.
Even more significant was the fact that the incidence of new drug users in the Widnes-Holton area dropped dramatically -- contrary to popular assumptions. Drug dealers simply stay away because they know the local addicts don't need them anymore. And the addicts themselves have no reason to sell drugs since they can get whatever they need for nothing.
From an apparent TV special about the Liverpool clinic:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/60minliv.htm
Dr. Marks: Cure people? Nobody can. Regardless of whether you stick them in prison, put them in mental hospitals and give them shock treatment, we have done all these things, put them in a nice rehab center away in the country, give them a nice social worker and pat them on the head, give them drugs, give them no drugs, does not matter what you do. 5% per annum, 1 in 20 per year, get off spontaneously. Compound interested up that
reaches about 50% (50/50) after ten years are off drugs. They
seem to mature out of addiction regardless of any intervention
in the interim but you can keep them alive and healthy and
legal during that 10 years, if you so wish to.
Ed: By giving them drugs?
Dr. Marks: It doesn't get them off drugs, it doesn't prolong their addiction, either. But it stops them offending, it keeps them healthy and it keeps them alive.
Ed: That's exactly what happened to Julia Scott. Although she doesn't look it, Julia is a heroin addict. For the last three years the heroin she injects every day comes from a prescription. Before, she had to feed her habit by working as
a prostitute, a vicious circle that led her to use more heroin
to cope with that life.
Julia: Once you get in that circle you can't get out. I didn't think I was ever going to get out.
Ed: But once you got the prescription?
Julia: I stopped straight away.
Ed: Never went back?
Julia: No, never. I went back once just to see and I was almost physically sick just to see those girls doing what I used to do.
Ed: Julia says she's now able to have normal relation, to hold down a job as a waitress and to care for her 3 year old daughter. Without the prescription, where do you think you would be?
Julia: I would probably be dead now.
You're right Lance, I'm sure heroin users can stay on the horse and go about their business just fine, I mean it's not like they'd make a bad decsison , (hey can I borrow your needle?)
I'm done with this until people can be honest about it, there's no point. I really am not that passionate about it. I don't really care much if pot is legal. If you think though we'd be better off as a society legalizing heroin and meth I have a bridge to sell you,until people can admit that then there's not much point IMO.
So let's create more addicts, so we can create more programs and have govt. regualte drugs so we can treat the new addicts we make because that way the success rate is higher. Great idea guys.
SYL.
Sounds like alcohol. Do you think laws should be used to put "stigmas" on things? Do you support laws against sodomy?
Use might go up, but use-related problems would go WAY down. If use doubles, but the "societal cost" of a given unit of use goes down by a factor of 10 (or 100)...well, you do the math.
Of course this won't help the folks here who just don't want other people to be doing something that they don't want them to do. I personally don't have a problem with someone doing heroin, no more than I do with people, say, voting Democratic or Republican for example, or any other personally harmful and irrational act. Actually, voting D or R is a lot more concretely harmful, since it can actually be linked to harm that occurs (like the continuation of the Drug War, for one.)
The simple fact is that someone doing heroin does not hurt me. The only ways his use hurts me are related to heroin's illegality -- not his act. It hurts me because heroin money is (due to its prohibition) supporting crime and maybe even terrorism, and because trying to catch the guy is wasting police resources that could be devoted to enforcing actual crimes of harm. But the heroin user didn't make that so.
and I got news for you...millions of people take drugs every day and go about their business and don't bother you and aren't a drain on society (except the money they put into black market, but of course that's the laws fault) and have families and jobs. they are out there and you don't even know it.
I rest my case.
I mean, how many functioning alcoholics are there out there?
Hard drugs Crabs ? You mean they are able to stay on that horse for years? You have stats for that I'm sure too from a reliable wbsite no doubt.
Well I will wish you luck in your efforts, your obviosuly passionate about making sure we can buy crack at the supermaket. It's a noble cause and it's everyone's god given right to have their heroin. So Who am I to get in the way of it. Enjoy.
cocaine?
you are kidding, right?
is alcohol (the one that demonstratebly does the most damage to society) a hard drug?
Everyone has their right to not be told what they can or can not do. It's called freedom.
as long as the laws are active and you aren't helping to repeal them, you are in the way.
Everyone has their right to not be told what they can or can not do. It's called freedom.
Said the man that wants me to pay for his healthcare.
why would someone who doesn't want to use drugs now all of a sudden decide to use drugs? because it's legal?
Why do we have more abortions now than when it was illegal.
I told ya if you don't want to participate, it's okay by me
I don't know, why?
and why did so many women die getting illegal ones?
Just making sure that doesn't get missed. In my personal experience, I have undergone far greater personal harm and/or danger due to drinking alcohol than any other drug I have used, aside from possibly "Rush", which is some crazy foul shit that barely qualifies to be called a drug (in fact it might not be classified as one -- it's just some fumey shit that you -- or I, in this case -- sniff and it makes your brain feel like it's on fire.) Acid, ether, mushrooms, mescaline, pot, ephedrine (low-grade semi-legal speed), opium, hash, nitrous...none of them even came close to damaging me as much as alcohol. Not by a long shot. I never blacked out on any of them, I never puked from any of them, I never passed out from any of them, and collectively, all my use of all those drugs combined has done less damage to my body (and my brain, for that matter) than any handful of drinking nights in high school or college.
and why did so many women die getting illegal ones?
Irrelevant, and you didn't answer the question.
btw: Why do so many children die from legal ones?
For one thing, more women have more access to Birth-Control pills
Ok, I didn't really want to get on abortion but I have to ask. How has availability of birth control pills increased abortions? You'd think the result would be the opposite.
and why did so many women die getting illegal ones?
There were not "so many."
I don't know if birth control pills kicked off the sexual revolution. There has been a sexual revolution no doubt. I'm just not sure if birth control pills are the cause, or have just helped it along. Way back in the Leave it to Beaver days, sex wasn't talked about, it was seemingly contained to committed relationships, marriages. Yeah, there was some cheating, prostitutes, etc. And there was some pre-marital sex. Not to the degree there is today. We've had casual sex gain some acceptance, kids starting to have sex, a huge industry grow that caters to sex. Is there more reason for abortions? Unfortunately, yes. Is birth control the cause of it? I don't think so, but I think it's a big factor.
ThoseMedallingKids 4/3/03 2:16pm
Good post TMK.
A freind of mine was telling me that a 13 year old girl in his sons class was pregnant. 8th friggen grade. Not saying it never happened years ago but it seems all to common now. Something has changed. The ages of girls getting pregnant is younger and younger. That's why my daughter is going to an all girls military school in Saskatchewan :) Just kididng.
I did hear a good Chris Rock line the other night on Leno. He was talking about his new daughter and how he was trying to pick a name that didn't sound like a hooker. He said "let's face it, if your daughter is swinging from the brass pole, you've failed as a parent".
I think that's partly because the change in society on the personal level has outpaced the changes in society on the structural level. We still have all sorts of taboos, both official and unofficial, which prevent open discussion and education, and even activity. We make big issues where there aren't any, and we have all sorts of contradictions, and we're still hanging on to shame and stigma and force as a way to shape the behavior of our peers, and it skews things.
That, and too much reliance on schools to raise kids (which is really just one part of the above).
Another factor that plays in it is the family. There's a lot more divorce, single parent families, step-parent families, blended families. Some kids don't have as great a relationship with their parents. They aren't supervised as much, aren't seen as much by their parents. Parents are off working to provide for their kids. Kids come home to nobody, so they go off and have fun in their own way.
"It is simple Logic, Mr. Spock."
Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with declining morals.
Where did I say it didn't?
Where did you say it did?
But now that you mention it...WHOSE morals?
Well, my morals of course. :-)
It's not that I want to force my morals upon someone else, it's that I don't want my children thinking this stuff is OK. If drugs are legal, they are considered OK to use. And that's how this (abortion) relates to the "War on drugs".
Abortion is now considered perfectly acceptable behavior, and that's why we have so many abortions.
Now, what's to say we won't have 1,000,000+ new drug addicts each year if drugs are legalized, just as we have 1,000,000+ abortions each year?
Of course, any Demon is a good Demon, when we need something or someone, to blame.
I don't know what that means.
J.T., you will instill your moral values into your children regardless of what is legal or not. I don't think you really want the government to pass a law against something just so you can point to it and say to your kids, "See, it's wrong because it's against the law." That's allowing the government to help you raise your kids.
Liquor is legal, but it's entirely possible to teach children not to drink. Cigarettes are legal, but it's entirely possible to teach children not to smoke. Same with any other undesirable behavior.
We still have all sorts of taboos, both official and unofficial, which prevent open discussion and education, and even activity.
Nonsense.
Lance,
I agree and partially disagree with this.
Let me preface this by saying that I agree it all comes down to the parents and your assertions that some parents rely too much on the schools raising their kids is right on. But as far as taboos or stigmas and education I think it's the exact reverse. In education sex ed is taught at younger and younger ages. We teach it, we tell the kids, don't have sex, but here's some trojans for you. I think the taboos have been removed through that and media.
No matter how hard a parent trys to send a different message we are saturated with sexual images that the parent can't control unless they want to lock their kid in the basement. We give children still almost adult status in some cases. Do you think that media and the essential removal of many limits don't play a part in it ?
I would say the taboos have been very much removed. It's a free country and I would never want it legislated or mandated as to what can or can't be printed or on t.v. My point is that those taboos are removed very much mores so than in the 50's vs. today and it hasn't reduced teen pregnancy etc. it's increased dramatically. It's impossible to look at it objectively without seeing there is a connection. Not the sole reason mind you but it's connected.
How so, please explain how those taboos and stigmas on sex are still here today ? What's left ?
Let me preface this by saying that I agree it all comes down to the parents and your assertions that some parents rely too much on the schools raising their kids is right on.
Parents need a little help from society. Why is it liberals can get away with saying "it takes a village to raise a child" and at the same time advocate little or no moral restraints on that society?
Good point, jethro.
I don't agree with jethro that parents need help from society, but he did point out the hypocrisy in the "It Takes A Village" crowd.
Actually, I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as a statement that says that society knows better than parents how their children should be indoctri -- I mean taught.
I don't agree with jethro that parents need help from society.
I'll admit it, I need help with the kids when my wife and I are not around.
That's why I send them to private school.
Where they can be indoctrinated the way I want them to be, instead of the way the Liberal Teachers union wants them indoctrinated.
:-)
Help from society does not mean government help. What I mean is that society should hold and promote certain values that provide a good environment for children. It appears to me that our society promotes decadence.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
What you consider decadence, others consider progress.
What you consider decadence, others consider progress.
Some people lie to themselves.
Jethro, I too would like to see a society which holds virtue in high esteem. That can only be done by individuals influencing other individuals. You can't legislate it. And people will always disagree. The best of all possible worlds is one in which people have the maximum amount of freedom, even if it's to self-destruct, and you can raise your children with the values you hold.
The best of all possible worlds is one in which people have the maximum amount of freedom, even if it's to self-destruct, and you can raise your children with the values you hold.
The maximum amount of freedom is anarchy.
Some people lie to themselves.
Some people, not you though right Jethro?
Absolutely, Bill, I think you know that. As for the Native American villages, they were small closed societies with shared values and beliefs. I'm sure it was a wonderful world for a child. Another example would be the kibbutz in Israel.
Today in American society, the "village" school may teach children values and beliefs not shared by their families. The parents rightly may choose alternatives.
the "village" school may teach children values and beliefs not shared by their families.
I think that in todays society learning different values and beliefs is a necessity. It helps children understand and accept the differences prevalant in our local and "world" communities.
The parents rightly may choose alternatives
Of course, but is that really helping the children? Is it protecting them or sheltering them? When kids become "adults" and join the "real world" they will come into contact with many new and different lifestyles. Wouldn't it be better if the parents discussed the different values the children may learn about and why their particular family believes what they do? Give them the tools to deal with the differences, instead of trying to keep them in the dark.
Learning *about* different values, beliefs and customs is important. Learning a certain amount of tolerance is also important. But too many schools teach cultural relativism to the point that kids don't feel that they can make any judgments at all. Schools should teach objectively, but like the media they no longer do, nor do they feel that they have to. I wouldn't send my kids to a school that pushes values I don't want them to have.
Schools should teach objectively, but like the media they no longer do, nor do they feel that they have to. I wouldn't send my kids to a school that pushes values I don't want them to have.
I agree, no school should pushits values on childeren, if this is whats happening thats sad, for the children and the future of our society.
cultural relativism to the point that kids don't feel that they can make any judgments at all
truely saddening...but, being that these are our (public) schools, don't you think we should try to change them for the better? Even if you choose to send your children to private school, what the rest of the children learn (or don't learn) in public school will have a direct effect on our future society (on both you and me-and I don't even have kids). In (approximately)15 years all these kids are going to be voting, beginning to make decisions that contribute to society and joining the work force (we hope) and in (approximately) another 15 yrs(in their late 30's-early 40's) they will be coming more into positions of greater influence and power. When I am in my 60's what these kids learned in school will affect my life, and I think that if we want that affect to be positive we need to do the work now to try to make the necissary changes. It does no good to look back and say "I knew those public schools were going to turn out nothing but slackers" (or some such thing).
I don't have anything against private schools, I know kids that go to both private and public schools, and I don't believe any are better or worse because of their school (I still believe its the parents and family that make the biggest impact). But if there are all these problems with public schools, why don't we stand up and try to change them? Not by means of more money from taxes, but better management of money resourses and time and direct involvement from parents and communities.
Some people lie to themselves.
Some people, not you though right Jethro?
Damn right!
I was probably raised on the cusp of this de-taboozation to which you refer -- at least the modern version. When I was in first (and second, and third, and fourth) grade, I learned sex-ed through a program called (I kid you not) L.A.M.O. (pronounced "lammo", not "lame-o"...how they got that past us, I don't know). "Learning About Myself and Others". Right around that time, MTV came into being, and shortly thereafter, Madonna. That was the context of my life as a child and a pre-teen.
Sounds pretty racy and touchy-feely liberal and open overt sexuality, and on many levels it was. However, I can list a dozen related taboos and stigmas and contradictions that thrived during that time, either in my "society" (peers), or in the greater society. Most of them (the stigmas and taboos) are still out there, and thriving pretty well.
masturbation -- It's slowly losing its shame and stigma for adults, but unless school has turned into bizarro world since 1990, it's still rife with that baggage for kids, re: their peers, re: adults and parents, and re: themselves. It's probably one of the most enjoyable activities that most kids engage in, and still loaded with shame, stigma, and fear.
teen pregnancy -- One time a spiteful friend started a rumor that one of my sisters was pregnant, in high school. It was emotionally devastating -- just the rumor was. It was a giant scandal (and shame and stigma for her) until it was debunked. To say nothing of the shame and rejection facing girls who actually are pregnant.
"slut" -- a scarlet letter of sorts for teen girls and women; inapplicable to men
open discussion about sexual organs or "private parts" -- I learned when I was a little kid what my penis was, but even now over 20 years later, saying "my penis" even on this message board carries some shame and 'tee-hee' baggage. My arm, my leg, my lungs, my head -- all no problem. 90+% of my body parts are just fine to talk about. The others still carry long-standing baggage as being private - embarrassing, secret, even dirty. (What are "dirty pictures" pictures of?)
homosexuality -- when I was in school, "fag" was the most popular put-down by a long shot. It was seldom a real accusation, it was just as I said, a put-down. "Fag" = lame. "Fag" = weak. "Fag" = bad, jerk, asshole, uncool. And for the few folks who were actually suspected of being gay, it was whispers and jeers and shunning, and probably more aggressive stuff that I didn't see. Most who were gay in my school probably wisely kept their mouth shut and their feelings inside. On the adult side, gay people in the military have to keep their mouths shut and adapt their behavior by law . Our society is beginning to cope with homosexuality, but it's got a long way to go. And much (most?) of the change that has yet to come about in that arena is institutional as opposed to personal. The blockades are imposed more from on high than from individuals. Society will never be able to fully accept gays while the laws relegate them to second-class citizen status. In a very real way, society is forbidden from settling this issue on a person-to-person level. (The parallels to our treatment of blacks and women are very strong.) On the most basic analysis level -- gay people still have to walk around with a justifiable fear that they could get the shit beat out of them for being gay. Gay cop? Bam! Gay high school football player? Bam! Gay couple? Bam!
nudity -- the idea that a supposedly highly-developed society still has insecurities about the nude body at all is quizzical and amusing to me. Bouncing blurry dots on the TV is a great example of the whole thing I'm talking about...how the institutional structure is having a skew effect on society. Laws and TV norms have decided that a 1 to 2-inch area of reddened skin on the top half of a woman is something that people (I suppose, "the children") should not see. We can see the nipples of every other living thing on earth...but not the nipples that we would all probably most want to see (compared to those of other things on earth). Do nipples offend men? Do they offend women? Should they offend children, and if so, why? Is it really healthier to have girls gone wild bouncing their boobies behind computer-generated stars and sales pitches? Another example: Topless men -- fine. Topless women? Taboo. Why? It's not due to logic, it's due to mad-old traditions -- the same type of traditions that have Arab women covering up all but their faces, and often their faces too. Cause they don't want men thinking those thoughts about them. And it's codified in law -- there, and here to a lesser degree. And thongs and bikinis and speedos and the word "boobies" and a zillion other things which tiptoe around the issue are OK, but unless it's babies or little kids in the bathtub, nudity is still taboo.
swear words -- It's one thing for society to develop standards (which are organic, and created through the back-and-forth of everyone's individual standards and preferences, and which are enforced by freedom of association and social pressure) about what is inappropriate to say, or rude, or offensive, or dirty or whatever...it's quite another thing for the government and extra-governmental institutions to write up a list of "obscene" and/or "profane" words or subject matter, and enforce them through law. It produces the skew I mentioned originally, and creates a suspended reality in our culture. Beeping out the word "fuck" or "shit" on a TV show doesn't fool anyone -- not kids, not anyone. It doesn't hide the word or prevent its use or produce any sort of notable palliative effect on our culture. The words "fuck" and "shit" are out of the bag...any 7-year-old who hasn't lived in a cave knows them, and probably "motherfucker", "cocksucker", "son of a bitch", "pussy", "dick" and a host of others. It only takes one parent in the village to let a word like those out of the bag, and kids are very good about passing around newfound "off-limits" knowledge -- at least in terms of coverage. Accuracy, context, and meaning don't usually don't get passed around with them, though, precisely because of the off-limits thing. One of the results of that mentality -- which is handed down to kids from above...it's not of their making -- is that words like "motherfucker" (a truly perverse curse) and "cocksucker" (an overtly homo-based slam, like "fag") are still widely used. They can't be banished like "darkie" and "coon" were, because they've been hidden behind the curtain. Beeped, muddled, muted, ignored. The word "fuck" itself has some pretty wack origins -- variously, to beat, to screw (literally), to stab, etc. Almost all the etymological roots of the word "fuck" are violent in nature. But can we explain that to our kids? We could -- but the country's structure is such that for most people, language is taught in school, and most of that in public school. And in public school, an open discussion about the word "fuck" does not fly. (I can just imagine the wave of firings and resignations and lawsuits that would come from that.) Ditto for on TV, and in most of society's institutions. It's kept behind the beep half the time (the institutional level), while being largely accepted usage the other half of the time (the person-to-person level). And the whole time, it's never just dealt with like a normal fucking word. If it was, I bet it would get faded out of our culture voluntarily over time, as its origins and vulgarity were discussed more openly. Instead, under the off-limits/"beep" effect, the usage of it spreads widely. It sorta gets back to the mentality THX expressed by saying that the drug laws are a way of saying drug use is wrong. Saying motherfucker and cocksucker is declared wrong -- it's been branded into society as that institutionally -- literally branded ("R", "MA", "L", "AS", etc.). So society takes a break on actually dealing with the words and their usage. Not entirely, but largely. And they (the words) hang around in a skewed limbo state -- institutionally labeled "wrong", but used on the individual level plenty. (The similarity to illegal drug use is not coincidental.)
I could go on about this for a long time. I was going to do a dozen, but I can't do the in-depth thing with that many due to time. Prostitution, stripping, drug use, porn, condoms, abortion, premarital sex, BDSM, sex toys -- each of those issues is tangled in layers of institutional netting and taboo, and in each case the result is a reduction in the ability of non-coercive society to effectively deal with the situations tied to those issues. There are literally a zillion different skewing influences applied on society from above.
Here's three specific examples of the institutional screwing with the personal in a bad way:
--Sex education: parents and other citizens, many of whom disapprove of sex education, condom distribution and the like, and who believe abstinence is the birth control method of choice, are forced to pay, year after year, for thousands of kids to be given condoms (and taught how, why, and when to use them), etc. Forced to pay to promote and encourage something they find morally repugnant. The personal society is denied its ability to pursue its will in an organic fashion (through individual choice), by the institutional will of society, such as it is expressed through government.
--Parent-kid anti-drug ads: There are currently ads on TV that put pressure on parents to engage in a specific regimen of discipline and control with their kids -- insisting that they track their every move and bug the hell out of them, essentially. The ads use kids to tell the parents of America, "We will lie to you." Not "we might", but "we will ". Taxpayers are paying to train parents to assume (or to "know") that their kids are lying to them about drugs. The modes of deceit, suspicion, and distrust are officially sanctioned as proper parenting. Kids who see the ad are reassured that all kids lie about drug use -- that "we will hide it, we will sneak around, we will try drugs". Cat-and-mouse is nationally publicized as the way our nation's parents should handle the drug problem vis a vis their kids. It's paid for by straight-edge working teens who've never lied or tried drugs, it's paid for by open and permissive parents who don't mind if their kids experiment a bit, it's paid for by millions of functioning alcoholics and millions of harmless pot smokers, and by tens of millions of people who tried drugs when they were young and did just fine with their lives.
--anti-pot ads: There are a series of ads on now, paid for by taxpayers, which all end with the line, "Marijuana -- it's more harmful than we all thought." That statement is false right on its face. All it takes is for there to be one person for whom marijuana is equal or less harmful than they thought. It's basically a statement that is by its very construction guaranteed to be false. You could put almost any noun in place of "marijuana" and that statement would be false too. And yet our government is telling us it, over and over again -- stating it as fact. And some people actually rely on what the government says for some sort of compass of truth or good behavior. The guidance behind those ads is, "Take however harmful you thought pot was, and ratchet it up an undisclosed amount. It is more harmful than you thought." Maybe that will calibrate a few people correctly, just by chance, but it's not logical, and it's not sound, and it's definitely not organic in the societal sense. What it is, is skewing from above.
forget the "we all" problems..."marijuana -- it's more harmful than we all thought" is simply a variation of "have you stopped beating your wife", instead it's now "it's beating it's wife more than it ever"
It worked for drugs! And it worked for alcohol the first ti-
It worked for drugs! Way less people do drugs now than pre-1914. And we all know how pot use declined in the decades after its banning in 1937. Just a generation later that nasty scourge was almost entirely purged from our society!