1 Comment so far

1. Paul H Said:

   ---

   I haven’t read the preceeding wikipedia article, but I would like to hazard an answer anyway… =)
   I guess the crux of the question is in the definition of the term ‘social’.
   We can get very metaphysical on this topic, but let us seperate answers in to two distinct catergories; sociological analyses and direct social impact. Let us leave the sociological analyses for now, and focus on the direct social impact.
   If we were to take social as meaning any effect one person can have on another, then any drug abuser would only be affecting society to the extent that they are directly influencing those around them. For instance, a heroin abuser from a close knit family would cause immeasurable harm to many of those who care about them dearly. If the user had no family, they might still have an effect on anyone who observed them in public, or was affected by their outward appearance.
   If social had a broader meaning, say, overall detriment to the wider society, the social implication could still be treated in the same way. I am reminded here of the (somewhat political) notion of civil libertarianism… Let us ignore the political implications for the purpose of this discussion…
   (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism for some info…)
   This theory holds that an individual should be entitled to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn’t interfere with the personal liberties of any other individual in a society. In this context, a heroin abuser might still be permitted to engage in their chosen predeliction, provided they could ensure they are not harming those around them. This would presume that if they were to be ‘socially innocent’ they could have no family or friends that would be negatively affected by their actions. To analyze the personal interactions of users and the people they know would, I think, be tedious. It is sufficient to say that there is a negetive (and entirely far reaching) impact of their actions.
   Now, sociologically, I would argue that heroin abuse is a result of the modern condition. Chuck Palahniuk argues in one of his novels (possibly Fight Club, but the exact reference escapes me…) that drugs are a natural escape mechanism from the blandness of modern life. The argument goes that modern life is so distilled, dilluted and censored that anyone seeking a truly novel, powerful and indeed original experience can’t help but be drawn to the taboo world of substances beyond legal control.
   I personally find this notion very seductive, having experienced many of the gammit of illegal drugs myself. I would stress, however, that any percieved enlightenment under the influence of illicit substances is only temporary and not, ultimately, substantial… At the end of the day, what goes up must come down… And what seems to be fact is rarely ever truly the case…