One of the consequences, wanted or not, the prohibition is to generate a multitude of situations where, to assume the contradictions, it is necessary to what Orwell called doublethink. One such case is the question of drug information. From all sectors we are reminded that, regardless of the repressive apparatus, the question is basic information. To report, you have to be there to let young people, citizens, know the problem of drugs to combat them with the necessary weapons. But of course, this information should not be such. The prohibition based their stay just ignorant. Thus, the information must not be informative. Report on the substances, their effects, their risks, their dosages useful and dangerous dosages, interactions, etc, can not be part, paradoxically, of the information. Doing so would give young people, citizens with the wherewithal to use these substances responsibly. He seeks the ban is uninformed information. Be informed that the information is not required. Useful information provided is summarized in one sentence: 'just say no', 'drug kills',' Do you know someone who controls the drugs? we do not. " Memec and lies sold as information. In Szasz's words, "the goal of real education about drugs should not be to encourage abstinence, but good habits, that is, to use drugs in an intelligent, responsible and self-disciplined." I remember a televised debate on drugs which, for a moment, the agreement seemed to come when all participants unanimously agreed that it was most important campaigns informative. But while Escohotado and other anti-prohibitionists argued for drug information present, defenders of the status they were talking, of course, something else. For them, information is propaganda slogans. If you report that cannabis can be an invaluable tool fun to have negligible effects on health, people, young people, want to use. If that report is not known scientifically withdrawal in cocaine abusers, people, young, irresponsible and blindly fall in the irrational use of it. If you report that the concept of addiction is not applicable to hallucinogenic drugs or entheogenic, people, young people decide to go all day hallucinating rather than engage in tasks more productive and socially more deserving of applause. And so, ad nauseam.
has succeeded in creating an awareness that the best weapon against drugs is not knowledge but the lack of it, its remoteness. If you do not want to have problems, do not get into this, do not want to know certain things, leave them in the hands of professionals, trust those who know more than you, do not have to know how things are, the drug kills: If you offer just say no.
worth mentioning the important, critical of the media when create and maintain the perception of the 'drug problem'. And they do magnifying the problems, unifying the treatment when talking about drugs, as if all were equal and, ultimately, showing only the darker image of substance use. Already in the beginning of the Crusade the peridódicos built the image of marijuana as "killer of youth 'drug users or immigrants who perverted women and children, thus endorsing the crackdown. Today, with unanimous unknown in other areas of the humanities, the mass media remain, with little exceptions, firm ranks, alongside the official truth: drugs kill and the only solution unquestionable is to use the police to intervene. It is instructive to review the news offered by newspapers and, above all, by television, referring to drugs and, further, review the news that does not exist. Never said that those who use drugs can get them positive experiences. For the media, the experiences obtained with drugs are always a momentary illusion, an initial fleeting pleasure is immediately replaced by a dip in hell. Neither ever speaks of the thousands of people who use drugs without problems: according to official truth they do not exist because, as mentioned above, any use constitutes an abuse. I do not want to dwell on reflecting on how has reached the current monolithic media that address the drug issue, but if you try to offer a couple of reasons for reflection.
The problem occurs when you run across the 'politically correct'. This expression has become for many a euphemism to designate a censorship from the majority against the minority dissent. And if something has reached an almost unanimous definition of the 'politically correct' is the issue of drugs. 'The drug is not good', is an acceptable sentence. 'Drug use carries risks but can also be useful and beneficial' is, in every way, a damning statement from the 'politically correct'. Therefore, to advocate the legalization of drugs in a debate, one can not say that the use of marijuana encourages communication between persons or the use of LSD can enrich our understanding of the world and ourselves. And for this reason, a television news can not be attributed to the prohibition overdose deaths or tampering, or the fact that almost half of English prisoners have AIDS. If they did, they would consider taking sides rather than expose the truth so neutral. As if repeating slogans is not a way of taking sides. In the case of drugs, the 'politically correct' for media merely states that the drug is bad, to show the 'tragedy of Drugs', compliment any police action against traffickers, praise the strength of those who have managed to leave the' Hell of Drugs', broadcast football matches' Drugs' and give advertising space to let us know, with music, which can get high instead of go-to-listen-music-movies-out-with-friends-to-sport.
0 comments:
Post a Comment