View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-29-2007, 01:26 AM
sodomizedjello is offline  
sodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud ofsodomizedjello has much to be proud of
sodomizedjello
shrooooms
sodomizedjello's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: the forest
Posts: 1,380
An authoritarian ideal: drug control is social control

i thought this was interesting

http://www.cleartest.com/testinfo/social_control.htm

Fear and hate are the cornerstones of the war on drugs. We are taught to hate drug users and fear that we are too weak to resist the power of drugs. Prohibitionists harness negative emotions about drugs to create an elaborate system of social control. As we have seen, any atrocity can be justified by the drug war. However, we generally just imagine the atrocities could never happen to us, since our fear has kept us away from illegal drugs. The fear has been so expertly promoted that many Americans have been willing to forego certain constitutional rights and civil liberties, while simultaneously ceding more power to government officials and other drug war profiteers. The institutions trying to control the masses also recognize the utility of the drug war as social control. Since drug use frequently does not show outwardly, the drug war is an excuse to invade the private life of the individual. Everyone is a suspect. In order to see who really is and who really isn't a drug user, surveillance is necessary. Urinalysis in the workplace is an excellent example. Drug testing is sold as a safety procedure, but is really quite a bit more. Not only is it a process which demeans the employee while demonstrating the great power of the employer, drug testing gives the employer a glimpse into the employee's medical life, and the process asserts the employer's right to regulate behavior outside the workplace. Drug fear offers employers a broad justification to exert additional control over their employees. As we have seen, the additional control offered to government is even more invasive and overwhelming.
The drug war offers a slippery slope over which to slide into a completely authoritarian, surveillance-based police state. Drug war propaganda insists that individuals are too weak to control drug use. As criticism builds over the failure of drug policies, law enforcement officials claim they can't do the job either; instead each individual and institution is obliged to spy on their fellow citizens.

By zeroing in on the weakness of individuals, drug warriors highlight the need for themselves and other drug war institutions. If we can't control ourselves, what can we do? Pay someone else to control us, and give them whatever weapons they need, constitutional or not.

Ironically, the drug war also reinforces the idea that individuals are solely responsible for the problems of society. The drug war tells us that when we approach the problem of workplace safety, all that really matters is the types of drugs used by individual workers, not the condition of the workplace or its regulations.59 The drug war tells us inner cities are deteriorating because of drugs, not because of poverty and neglect.60 The propaganda of the drug war constantly reinforces the idea that drug users should be punished for their sins, not helped with their problems.61

Ultimately, the drug war exploits many of our personal weaknesses, and makes them open for pillage by some of the strongest institutions in society. If we continue to support the war blindly, it can only continue to balloon out of control. Drug war logic interprets signs of "drug problem" improvement as the vindication of getting tough; signs of failure are interpreted as a failure to get tough. Even though many recognize that this war can't be won, those promoting the war offer nothing but further escalation.

Fortunately, some brave individuals have stood up against this devastating crusade.

59. Gilliom, John (1996). Surveillance, Privacy and the Law, pp. 43-51. Hit "Back" button to return to text.

60. Reinarman et al, (1997). Crack in America, pp. 37-39. Hit "Back" button to return to text.

61. To see how the Partnership for a Drug Free America promotes this ideology, see Buchanan, et al (Spring, 1998). "This is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America: Any Questions?" Journal of Drug Issues p. 346. Hit "Back" button to return to text. If this title is out of print at retailers, you may want to search Powell's Books.


Source:

"Maximizing Harm: Losers and Winners
in the Drug War," http://www.maximizingharm.com/
Author: Stephen Young
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocoa
we erowidulated that shit.
questions? erowidulate that shit.

prying open my third eye

  Reply With Quote