From: Avatar Polymorph (way@warehouse.net)
Date: Sat Aug 22 1998 - 19:58:10 MDT
This article appeared in a University student magazine, Spark,
circulation 1,000, last week.
HEROIN, ILLEGALITY AND INTERNAL FREEDOM
Avatar Polymorph
The question of the legality of heroin is one that has been frequently
addressed by many commentators, and relates directly to the alleged
social and moral implications of heroin usage. I have injected heroin a
number of times. I can see little connection between its effects and the
alleged social and moral implications of heroin usage put forward by
anti-legalisation commentators. I can, however, see quite direct
connections between its addictive qualities, its expense and the actions
of those heroin takers who are addicted to it. If cigarettes were banned
tomorrow I believe you would find tobacco smokers behaving like heroin
addicts very shortly thereafter. That is, paying large amounts of money
for an illegal substance and, if relatively poor, stealing and acting as
sex workers for quick cash. As a former packet a day smoker, I remember
selling books and records in desperation when my income level was low,
in common with many artists.
The reality of this situation is very much obvious, even to conservative
commentators. There are a number of hidden or unspoken agendas at work.
1. Heroin use is perceived as a social threat because it does involve
new and altered states of consciousness, which are linked to the drug
and alternative cultures.
2. Heroin use is labelled particularly 'bad' as it allows for
concealment of the lack of compassion on the part of conservative
commentators. These commentators laud positivism and 'life' while
accepting all sorts of adverse consequences flowing from the current
hypocrisy. In the case of the illegality of heroin, these commentators
rarely mention the growing numbers of deaths and illnesses and slow
deaths stemming from the illegality of heroin. I have held the hand of
an overdose victim suffering an epileptic fit on Smith Street [a
Melbourne heroin centre] - one who stole from me once - while corrupt
police drove by, those same police who mouth platitudes. Unknown dosages
and contaminated syringe usage are the physical problem, not heroin
itself. Conservative commentators claim to be worried about the
addiction, rather than the social challenge of alternative ways of
thinking.
My personal viewpoint on these matters is two-fold. Firstly, I would
assert, as a general principle, that every person has the right to
control their own bodies, provided that they are not directly hurting
another. This includes the right to take drugs, whether poison,
nicotine, heroin, caffeine, marijuana, LSD or any form of medication or
therapy. This would make non-consensual smoking in the immediate
vicinity of non-smokers or the provision of alcohol to a violent and
aggressive person who is already drunk things to be avoided.
Secondly, I would suggest that research be done to create a form of
non-addictive heroin. While there may be physical limitations to
chemical alteration of heroin, the existence of neurotransmitters
similar in structure to opiates points to the viability of such a
possibility. This would increase the options for heroin users and
clarify the real issues involved. Similar research could be done for
nicotine and addiction, and perhaps also its cancerous effects.
Governments in general would currently oppose such research, just as
they oppose research into LSD. The importance of this issue will not go
away. It is a matter of general principle. The denial of legal heroin by
conservatives, and specifically by the police - as I can attest to
personally from my experience in government circles - is symbolic.
Removal of the addictive element would help clarify the debate.
It is possible that conservatives will shortly seek to restrict access
to genetic therapies, genetic splicing and intra-cellular
nanotechnology. It is a fundamental moral and spiritual right to control
your own body, up to and including suicide. What does the future hold?
In a world where advanced automation and nanotechnolgy are about to
remove the necessity for manual work and capital, it will be possible to
manufacture drugs within the body and experience altered states of
consciousness continuously. This is one option open to people, and a
legitimate one. Conservatives may attempt to restrict this option, and,
indeed, go further, by attempting to control the neurological
consciousness of others against their will, the 'Big Brother' approach.
This is the wider context of the issue of opiates, other currently
illegal recreational drugs and altered states of consciousness. The same
people who tell us that the death of others is better than controlled
provision of heroin may, in two decades time, be arguing that designer
neurotransmitters and direct access to the Internet - via optical and
aural nerves - should be restricted and monitered by the government. The
championing of choice, begun in the 1960s by such prophets and moral
teachers as Timothy Leary, will, however, continue, and is attested by
the positive attitude of youth towards freedom of exploration.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:29 MST