G:asa (06/11/82)
"If a society...sees a particular behavior as a threat to its existence, then the society may be well-advised to remove the threat" [decvax!harpo!eagle!cw, June 5]. Fortunately, our system of government is predicated on the philosophy that there are strict limits to the actions a society may take in defense of its existence, and that the rights of an individual in many instances take precedence over society's existence. "I'd rather have my country die for me," as both Stephen Daedelus and Grace Slick phrased it. It is a misnomer to term obsessive interest in computers or computer games "addiction." Physiological addiction involves changes in the body's chemistry such that a previously unnecessary substance becomes a physical requirement--this is a helluva long way from playing Pacman all afternoon. Psychological dependence is NOT synonymous with physiological addiction, and those who would blur the distinction between the two do us all a disservice. The term "computer addiction" is nothing more than cheap, sensationalistic, journalistic claptrap. "Certainly some of the problems caused by heroin are severe enough to cause such action" [quoting eagle!cw again]. The problems caused by heroin addiction are caused by the lifestyle associated with the drug (determined in large part by the drug's illegality), and not by any pharmaceutical property of the drug itself. Legalize heroin, decriminalize addiction, make the drug available at cost, and the number of crimes committed by addicts to support their habit will be drastically reduced. There will still be addicts, of course--but there are addicts now, you dig? Only the Mafia benefits from heroin being illegal. I know of no problems associated with marijuana that warrant it being illegal. There is no such thing as a "marijuana addict." Marijuana users pose no threat to society; unfortunately, the converse is not true. Back in 1969, when "Better Living Through Chemistry" was our motto and Timothy Leary was running for governor of California (I remember his campaign speech on Cambridge Common distinctly), I sampled a fair number of recreational pharmaceuticals. To my mind, the most dangerous drug available (in terms of consequences for both the individual user AND society) is common, ordinary alcohol, with tobacco a close second: these drugs are killers. If society must defend itself, it should start here. Finally, let me say that we must not close our eyes to the threat posed by a condition that afflicts millions of people across our nation: SOS (Soap Opera Syndrome). Every afternoon, these unfortunate victims seat themselves before devices known as "television sets" (similar to CRTs that have had their keyboards surgically removed) and stare at flat, two-dimensional, banal facsimilies of human interaction. Mesmerized, they sit, oblivious to friends or loved ones, until the dreadful "drug" has run its course. You can help. Send your check or money order to: SOS ucbvax!G:asa
tugs (07/07/82)
I very much enjoyed your article, but there are three points I tink deserve some comment: 1) You seem to take the viewpoint that the use of the word "addiction" implies physical addiction exclusively. The idea of psychological addiction is a common and well-accepted one - psychological addiction to cocaine is a topic receiving much talk lately. 2) You said that the problems associated with heroin addiction result from the lifestyle needed to support it. Some do - but you can find medical texts full of information about the physical and psychological problems arising FROM THE USE OF THE DRUG. Lifestyle is not the only problem. 3) I agree that alcohol and tobacco are probably responsible for more problems than any other recreational drugs. But I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that they are the most socially accepted drugs in our culture. Next to SOS, of course... Steve Hull