Book Review
Regulation of Happiness? Try Again
Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear
Good enough writing. Occasionally witty. Made me think actively. So, yeah.
Before reading Drug Use for Grown-Ups: Chasing Liberty in the Land of Fear, I wasn’t sure if I had any opinion on the legality of drugs. And now, well, I don’t know if it’s strong, but it’s lurking somewhere there in the air. And I was listening to what Carl had to say. I’m still unsure because it doesn’t affect me. Selfish? Maybe. But sometimes, you have to be there before saying, “Yeah, I understand.” No, I haven’t been there. No, I don’t understand.
So, I tried to pretend like a rational individual without any irrational instincts while reading this one.
Carl reminded me of my university days, late teens, naive idealism (still stuck with this one) when a friend of mine and I thought that we saw two random university guys exchanging what seemed like white powder. Scandalous. Super-worried about their future (what were we thinking?), we exchanged views whether we should inform someone who can stop them. Future, right? Our random act of uncalled-for idealism would also have destroyed their future. What a dilemma. We happened to be thoughtful enough to understand that dilemma. So, we decided not to say anything out of sheer laziness and doubt that stopped us to reach an ethical conclusion.
So, what is the right thing to do?
I do think Carl is super concerned about this question. I wasn’t in context to this issue while I was reading it. Because I was pretending, remember? He seemed to be too much concerned about the freedom to use drugs just like every other American teenager seems to be on every other American TV show. I find this particular argument almost irrelevant.
Irrelevant, because it almost sounded like “government can’t force us to wear masks.” Moreover, he supports his claim that it’s our right to enjoy recreational drugs with the evidence that if we can use alcohol responsibly, so can we use drugs. Alcohol, drugs. Potato, potato.
Almost, because, well, he talks about using drugs responsibly. Responsibly in the sense that people should do their homework before enjoying their right to ecstasy. He argues that people who are more likely to become addicted are ignorant teens/grown-ups, already depressed adults, financially unstable folks, or a combination of all of these. I agree. So, instead of just pointing all guns at soulless drugs, using drug trade to racially discriminate against Black people, and throw labels at people finding momentary bliss in drugs, governments and non-government folks should try for once to sincerely launch an operation enduring financial-and mental-health-freedom instead of launching a war on drugs. Yes, sir.
Carl also proposes that the same powerful folks with more than enough resources should spread awareness about responsible drug use. But these awareness campaigns can only work if drugs are legal. Why? Because when people are too concerned about getting caught, they spend all the time doing their maths homework that they forget that science can help them too. I do agree that some “immoralities” shouldn’t be codified. I mean it’s too much bureaucracy that is bound to fail.
Sure, but what’s ‘responsible’ use here exactly? If our freedom is restricted by the freedom of other humans, animals, and aliens, then shouldn’t we be concerned as much about losing control for the sake of our ‘right’ to ecstasy? If losing control was freedom, I would have agreed with Carl. But I don’t think it is.
For the most part, Drug Use for Grown-Ups has been written for the American folks dealing with American problems complicated by American laws, American racism, American crime, and very American society. Sure, parts of the drug problem can be universal, but they are definitely not the same as in the USA. But it does not mean it wasn’t worth a read. Carl never claimed that the book should serve the universal drug problem. Also, I mean, now I know how to use drugs responsibly even though I won’t. But that's something. Isn't it?
In short, I agree with most of Carl’s proposals, but I don’t agree with his thinking process. After all, means justify the ends. For many, the thinking process can be irrelevant. For me, that’s why I read.
