For those who don't know, Patrick Kennedy is a national congressman who got into a little fender-bender with a police barricade yesterday (05.04.06) after taking a sleeping pill and anti-nausea drugs. The latest news reports say that he has already placed himself into a prescription drug rehab program at the Mayo clinic. The purpose of this post is not to rail on or defend Kennedy (no injury or death occurred, by the way). The purpose of this post is to highlight what I believe could possibly be, in one turn of events, a problem of significant consequence, especially in America--addiction.
________
Synopsis. It seems that addiction has always been around. My contention is that it has increased, and unless preventative actions are taken, is on a course to increase, particularly because of the increasing role of technology (not science) in our daily lives. Specifically, I contend that various abuses of science (it is only a tool, after all), and the perpetrators behind them, are responsible for the increase of addictive substances and our increased ability to acquire them, in addition to trying to mainstream a destructive and hateful drug sub-culture where taking drugs of all kinds are the norm. This increase may have specific consequences for our leaders and society in general.
What really troubles me is the increased availability and it's affect on our current and future leaders. Patrick Kennedy is a case in point. Forgive me for not examining his congressional record prior to this post, but I want to remain unbiased as possible. What I do know is that he has championed causes of disaffected people constituting only a minority of his constituents--let us say that this, and his almost immediate entrance to a rehab program (rather than waiting to be pushed by the media), gives us reason to believe he is more than just a coat-tail-riding, mediocre out-for-himself placeholder, but could possibly be a source of positive changes in our society.
Drug use (abuse and use--many times are the same), in my opinion, is horrible enough when it affects everyday people. It becomes increasingly troublesome, and a greater source of ill, when it affects people in power. This is because of the nature of addiction.
The Nature of Addiction. No matter what you are addicted to--be it man-made chemical, natural chemical (only a handful addictive exist), or neither--your mind, and whatever you want to call your innate being, is seriously affected. I have never taken drugs willingly, but I have seen their effect countless times up close. At first, the drug is rejected by the body, which understands that it is harmful, but the drug still gives a sense of pleasure. The druggie then usually thinks that he or she is not addicted--and it is exactly this thinking which causes a breakdown of our moral defense. After all, if you're not addicted, as you think, and the drug makes you feel good, you're going to do it again--you lack a good reason not to, and have a good reason to--it gives you pleasure.
It might not be right away (though it usually is), but soon enough will come about the third and fourth time, closer in frequency--congratulations, you're an addict. More and more of your time and energy is devoted to using the drug, and when not using the drug, obtaining it or thinking about it. Your hopes, dreams, and aspirations? Gone. I'm not talking about the fact that you won't be able to accomplish your dreams (obviously no one wants a drug addict in an important position). I'm talking about the fact that slowly, and oh so quietly, you start to change. You stop thinking about those dreams you have (a common coping mechanism used by addicts who are book-smart is to claim the loss of these dreams comes naturally through growth and maturation--completely untrue. I'm probably older than all of you). You inevitably become more selfish in thought and action as your primary concern is almost always the drug. (Ever see someone who is usually pacified by the drug go without it for just a little while? They become easily irate, and their otherwise easy-going demeanor is replaced by hate and blame...and that's just the beginning...) It is hard for some people to see the result of drug use--people lose their potential to change the world, they become shells of their previous selves. It's evil, plain and simple.
The Impact on Leaders. It should be clear that the corruptive nature of addiction has, most unfortunately, a stronger impact on the world when it affects our leaders, heaven forbid. But rather than only think about this generation of leaders, I want you to consider the coming generations. My contention is that more and more souls that have the possibility of being REAL chronotriggers (positive changers of society) are being robbed of their potential through the increased availability and mainstreaming of drugs and other sources of addiction, such as pornography and gambling.
Take pornography as a case in point. Do you think men like Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were superhuman? What make them worthy of our memory is not that they were perfect, but that they rose to perform acts that would help thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. No doubt they had help of course--in the "great man vs. movement" debate (i.e., the debate of what is the primary push of the course of human history), I apply to neither. They also made mistakes (not as many as the current trend of history writing aims to do, which seems to be to point out every flaw, large and small), but in the end, for whatever reason, they overcame their flaws to perform the acts we remember them by. It could very well be an inner strength which has propelled them to overcome flaws that would bring them down. After all, as long as you have a choice, no matter what the culture is around you, you never have to join the fray in their stupidity.
But let us consider those in our past who did make mistakes, but were fortunate enough to make only small ones that were not enough to corrupt them into total failure (unlike myself).
Now imagine if George Washington lived in the 21st century. All he would have to do is sit in front of computer and he would, within minutes, be able to access an almost endless supply of porn. In his century, such filth would cause you to be thrown out of society if you merely performed it; most women, though they held an inexcusable lack of power and fairness, had more dignity and wouldn't perform sex so casually or in deviant ways; and don't forget that the material wasn't even available! Not until the most recent boom in computer technology and the internet has such easy access to addictive material been so widely available. I'd like to think that George Washington the man would not partake in such filth. I'm pretty sure of it.
But what about George Washington the teen? What if he lived in this society in this time, when, the fact is, we don't really treat pornography as what it really is--a habit-forming DRUG. Are we as sure he, and the rest of the potential George Washington's, wouldn't succumb to curiosity or temptation or any other reason? I used to think a library banning porn sites was horrible as a violation of our first-amendment rights, now I'm not that sure.... What I am sure about is that pornography and other addictive material are seriously harming the world, and we would be better off if they were reduced rather than increased.
The Science-Abuser's Role. My second idea is that in an effort to make more money, (what else), people are abusing science to produce technologies and institutions that, while profiting themselves, serve to hurt the majority of people through the spread of addiction. To be specific, I indict these abusers of the following things:
1. Directing funds (government and otherwise) towards making more unnecessary pain medications when there are still cures to be found. (Many people don't know that the drug we know as heroin, widely considered one of the most addictive drugs, was actually invented by scientists who supposedly thought they were helping people (while making a few bucks on the side, no doubt). It is those scientists that named the drug, calling it a "heroine" against pain.)
2. Making it too easy to obtain highly-addictive drug prescriptions when there is no real need by the patient, when they have the internal ability to check and prevent abuse.
3. Through the use of persistent and ever-present presentation of advertisements in television and magazines, with the intention of by-passing doctor recommendation, of helping invent a culture where drug-use is the norm for healthy people.
4. Boldly and blatantly making up "diseases" that aren't. (HWS ("Hurried woman syndrome") is now treatable with mind-altering Prozac. Caffeine withdrawal is now a mental illness.)
Conclusion. As a final note, I would like to say that the responsibility to accept or decline drugs is still up to every individual, no matter what the circumstances. It is you who chooses your own path in life. I just wish that path didn't have as many roadblocks.
