It’s very easy for people with anti-drug agendas to a voice
in the discussion that is both heard and respected. Drugs do come with some nasty side effects:
addiction, overdoses, health problems, and societal damage just to name a
few. This makes it easy for scientific
studies and other projects to be conducted which examine why people use drugs
and what mechanisms, biological and psychological, make them work. However, little research is done into what
causes vehement, even irrational, reactions against drug use and drug
users.
Why is it that some people (such as
Bill O’Reilly) will dismiss all other viewpoints but abstinence from drugs with
a heavy hand? Jason Torkelson sets out
to indirectly answer this question and others like it in his 2010 article “Life
After Straightedge Subculture.” In his
study, Torkelson interviewed twenty former straightedgers (people who refuse to
imbibe any intoxicants while using that abstinence as a social identity) to
find out why they eventually “broke edge” and began using drugs and/or
alcohol.
The interviews yielded several
consistent results. First, nearly all of
the research participants cited becoming straightedge as a way to rebel against
what they saw as mainstream youth culture; that being intoxication. Second, many also enjoyed the sense of
discipline that came with the straightedge lifestyle. Third, most of those interviewed also left
the lifestyle after realizing that many of the factors they found unsavory
about drug use, especially violence, were just as prevalent in the straightedge
movement.
Torkelson’s results lead to further
questions. How might factors like a
sense of discipline and a rejection of perceived “mainstream” culture affect
how those with power might view drug use?
From Hamilton Wright to Richard Nixon how have the personal psyches of
lawmakers influenced the drug laws now on the books?
No comments:
Post a Comment