Alcohol is a recreational drug. Most people tolerate it well – they use it in moderation and suffer very little in the way of side effects. It should be a model of how reasonable, self interested adults are perfectly capable, when they know the facts, of using recreational drugs in a mostly beneficial way.
We should be the kind of society where we can make informed, adult choices about these things. But informed, rational adults are not the target of the drug prohibition. It’s children and the yahoos and the donkeys that behave like children that seem to ‘demand’ that the state sets the boundaries for these children and wannabe children.
In this country we seem to have a problem with a minority abusing alcohol, causing havoc and chaos in our cities and town centres, making them no-go areas at night.
The state is attempting to lay down new boundaries for that too… but why? Why is it necessary? What’s wrong with our particular society that we’re like this?
I think I have a pretty good idea why we’re like this: Telling someone that’s drunk so much that they’re throwing up, yelling, screaming, fighting and behaving like a toddler that they’re utterly repulsive is less socially acceptable than getting paralytic itself. Infantalism is cool, rationality is not. Celebrating stupidity is hot, celebrating intelligence… well not in this lifetime. Bloody intellectuals, eh? What do they know?
But again, I ask: Why? Why are we like that?
We delegate the dirty work of being uncool, boring and judgemental to politicians… and we all seem surprised when they’re utterly incapable of doing anything about it and slowly society seems to be getting further and further away from any hope of being able to end drug prohibition.
No matter how much better things might be without prohibition, the majority can only see the potential bad – that this is not a society mature or civilised enough to cope with the freedom.
How do you fight this? What do you do about this? Are we in a chicken and egg situation where the state will only treat us like adults if we behave like adults, or will we only behave like adults if we’re treated like adults?
Those of us that already behave like adults resent and hate being dragged under the control of the state for things that other people have done and do, like a squad of soldiers being made to do press-ups because one failed to shine his boots properly.
That’s our democracy though, isn’t it? We vote for the politicians that promise to ‘look after us’ and ‘be nice to us’ and ‘stop people doing bad things’ and we wonder why we get politicians that regard themselves as surrogate parents for a nation of children.
Yet perhaps it’s because this is a country with more rules than freedoms, where the level of inhibitions on our behaviours and controls on our lives has become so oppressive, so subconsciously unbearable (all these additional things on top of simply trying to raise a family and put food on the table) and so universal we’ve come to celebrate and admire those who seem to live beyond these rules, those who rebel – that we ourselves have created the climate where there are cultural incentives and advantages to hedonism, to completely letting go of all self control for a few hours to get away from it all.
So we love rebels, and we love to rebel… well, until we see the consequences of that uncontrolled abandon in the form of vandalism, violence, abuse and so on, at which point the politicians being in more laws, more rules and the pressure keeps building, and glamour of the rebel continues to grow. Round and round we go…
Any society that thinks hedonism is a substitute for liberty is always going to end up like ours, isn’t it?
Simon Cooke said...
1 Nov 09 at 8:21 pm
The more we set rules the more rule breakers we get – and the more rebels…the more those rebels are normaised…and the more we set new rules to control those rulebreakers…and employ more poeple in offices and in uniforms to chase those rules breakers….(pauses for breath)…and create more of a rift between the rulers and the ruled…OMG “bring me some drugs, I can’t cope”…
Love the piece, Charlotte
Roger Thornhill said...
1 Nov 09 at 8:43 pm
The population has been infantilised.
They have “us” right where they want “us”.
Kidults are left to roam, forcing adults into their homes and thus into the soporific embrace of the television. People in pubs bitching about the State is reduced. Social networks are reduced. Resistance is eroded.
“and we wonder why we get politicians that regard themselves as surrogate parents for a nation of children.”
I don’t wonder. One only has to see the ridiculous “explanations” of Libertarians to see the mind-set over at LC – “toddler tantrum in a supermarket”, which says everything about the LC commenter and nothing about Libertarians, for the commenter presumes a parent-figure and that the Adult is, in fact, a child that is acting irrationally because it will not obey.
Dan Hill said...
1 Nov 09 at 11:12 pm
If we want to stop the extreme cases of alcohol abuse that we don’t want to see then we’ve got to give them the bill and get rid of the socialised losses.
If the police have to show up and break up a fight hand over the bill for their time. End up in A&E; send the guilty party an invoice.
Ideological territory, sure. But you’ll soon alter irresponsible behaviour by issuing responsibility.
schlumpf23 said...
2 Nov 09 at 12:11 am
It’s really quite simple. The state has no jurisdiction over my body. I, as a grown & well informed adult, have the right to do whatever I with with my body, as long as it doesn’t interfere with the liberty of others. If I choose to smoke dope or shoot smack, that’s my choice, I’m aware of the consequences, and I’m willing to take responsibility for my actions. The quicker this & any future government gets the fuck out of our lives, the better. I realize this is turning into a cliche but remember there’s 60million of us & only 646 of them. It’s time to do something about it. BTW love your blog Charlotte.
Jake Motta said...
2 Nov 09 at 12:58 am
Its all about government spending… nothing more. There is lots of legislation that hinders the majority against the feckless minority e.g. The hoops that obviously righteous claimants have to go through to claim benefits that are their right. Its all because the feckless minority cost a lot of money and someone seems to think its cheaper to legislate then manage than to allow everyone self determination…. they may be right, I just don’t know. Oh, also the printed media love to run drug/immigration/benefit stories and you gotta love the media
Gregory Carlin said...
2 Nov 09 at 12:59 am
I happen to be an expert re: Amsterdam, however one need look no further than Britain re: alcohol.
Alcohol has made dozens of town centres in Britain into no-go areas and costs the NHS billions.
With Amsterdam, it was the abolition of marriage, coupledom, gender and sexual dichotomy. Which may not have cost a drop in takings.
The drug thing on the other hand, was wild, & everybody was getting shot, or run out of town. Amsterdam became a gang city.
One of the reasons Amsterdam has a crap Gay Pride, is nobody worth talking to stayed.
Bryan said...
2 Nov 09 at 2:07 am
You done my ‘ead in, Charlotte. I need to think it all through. And especially why “values” may be inherited, but never taught…
JuliaM said...
2 Nov 09 at 8:17 am
“…we’ve come to celebrate and admire those who seem to live beyond these rules, those who rebel…”
‘We’ have..?
Charlotte Gore said...
2 Nov 09 at 9:10 am
Fair enough, not everyone. I mean, I can’t stand Russell Brand whereas others love him.
Leon Greenwell said...
2 Nov 09 at 10:44 am
Many moons ago I used to love going up town, drinking eight or so pints of a very dark Irish beverage – and toddling back home again – boverin’ nobody
Now the police, and other concerned citizens, are sending the hopelessly inebriated home in taxis
I think we are talking about another species – have aliens been breeding among us?
blind steve said...
2 Nov 09 at 1:16 pm
“We should be the kind of society where we can make informed, adult choices about these things. But informed, rational adults are not the target of the drug prohibition”
No indeed, witness this select committee report, which really gives it away :
blind steve said...
2 Nov 09 at 1:21 pm
Gregory Carlin said… Alcohol has made dozens of town centres in Britain into no-go areas and costs the NHS billions.
No Gregory, fuckwits have done that. I got royally shit faced twice this weekend, and I didn’t even go into a town centre.
Also I take issue with the repetition of the idiot phrase “no go zone” where it is being used to describe a zone where, in fact, many people do go.
You might not go there, but large numbers of other people seem to find it extremely desirable to do just that.
Niklas Smith said...
2 Nov 09 at 10:57 pm
Fantastic post, full of thought-provoking comments. Way to go Charlotte!
Sadly I think the answer to the question posed in the title is a simple “Yes”, at least for the moment. Politicians will unfortunately never relax their paternalism until we prove to them that we are capable of making our own decisions and behaving responsibly.
So maybe we need to start with a grassroots campaign against the social acceptance of moronic drunkenness? If people want to get sozzled in private that’s up to them but there must be some standards of of behaviour towards other people in public that are adhered to. Not attacking people randomly would be a good start.
(Just so this is not misconstrued, I’m sure no one on this thread behaves like that. But clearly many people do – two people I know have suffered from alcohol-fuelled violence, and one of them was badly injured in the head. He has lost his hearing in one ear permanently and has trouble with his sense of balance because of his injury.)
Gregory Carlin said...
3 Nov 09 at 8:15 pm
“No Gregory, fuckwits have done that. I got royally shit faced twice this weekend, and I didn’t even go into a town centre.”
I found Newcastle City Centre as scary as Beirut, where I did go to, so both, done it.
‘Central Newcastle: Highest number of violent attacks – ranging from common assault to murder – with 236.5 per 1,000 residents.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1119896.stm
That’s impressive.
Gregory
Rehab said...
23 Jul 10 at 1:10 pm
Enjoyed reading this article post, nice one for sharing.