|
|
Essay Limbaugh's Disease by Thomas
Szasz Rush Limbaugh has been outed as a secret
drug user and gone off to rehab. Will he learn anything from his
plight?
Exposed as an illegal user of "legal" (prescription)
drugs, Rush Limbaugh has declared that he is an "addict" and said that he would
check himself into a "treatment" center.
| | Thomas
Szasz, M.D. is professor of psychiatry emeritus, SUNY Health Science Center,
Syracuse, New York. |
|
I oppose the War on Drugs. I regret when anyone gets injured by it. It will be
interesting to see whether Limbaugh learns anything from his plight. When he
returns to the airwaves — assuming he'll be able to do his job when he is
"healthy" and not "suffering from drug addiction" — will he reassume his
role as a bigoted drug warrior or will he realize that he has been waging a war
against liberty, responsibility, and the rule of law and act accordingly?
I have long been on record opposing drug prohibition in any form. I believe
that we have a constitutional right to use any drug we please, that (bad) habits
are not diseases, and that efforts to change habits are not treatments.
Twenty-nine years have elapsed since the first publication of my book,
"Ceremonial Chemistry." Since then, the Cold War has ended and the political
geography of our world has been transformed. But the War on Drugs rages on. The
combatants — drug providers and drug prohibitionists alike — have too
much to gain from their participation in the hostilities to end it.
Millions of people the world over continue to grow, manufacture, smuggle,
sell, buy, ingest, inhale, and inject illegal drugs, and other millions persecute
and prosecute them as participants in a medical-heretical depravity. The
pervasive criminalization and medicalization of drug use transformed
self-medication into "drug abuse" and created a political-economic drama with a
vast cast of characters whose roles require that they engage in violence,
endangering participants and non-participants in the drug war alike.
Despite this vast, worldwide turmoil, few people seem to question the premises
used to justify waging a War on Drugs or the morality of the means with which it
is pursued. This is because the War on Drugs is but one manifestation, albeit a
very dramatic one, of the great moral contest of our age — the struggle
between two diametrically opposed images of man: between man as responsible moral
agent, "condemned" to freedom, benefiting and suffering from the consequences of
his actions; and man as irresponsible child, unfit for freedom, "protected" from
its risks by agents of the omnicompetent state.
|
| His achievements while
"on drugs" ought to convince anyone — especially him — that drug
prohibition rests, just as did alcohol prohibition, on equal parts of deception,
self-deception, and hypocrisy. |
|
In the Cold War, this struggle was cast as the conflict between the "hazards"
of capitalism and the "security" of communism — the production and
distribution of goods and services regulated by the market or the state. In the
drug war, the struggle is cast as the conflict between persons opposing laws
aimed at protecting adults from themselves and persons supporting such
protections as requirements for the security of society.
So long as a drug remains outside of the human body — in the field, the
laboratory, or the store — it is an inert substance. No drug poses a danger
to the person who does not use it. As soon as the possession of a drug is made
illegal, however, it becomes dangerous — not pharmacologically, but
juristically and socially.
It is an abuse of language to call such a drug "dangerous," as if it were a
criminal; and it is folly to declare a "war" on it. War can be fought only by
some people against some other people. The War on Drugs is thus a battle fought
by governments, firstly against their own citizens, and secondly against
foreigners who grow or sell substances which the drug warriors have chosen to
prohibit. For nearly a century, the governments of the civilized world — led
by the United States — have waged a crusade against certain drugs.
| History is not likely to
remember Limbaugh for his support of conservative causes. But history might well
remember him if, freed from "rehab," he would oppose the War on Drugs with the
same vigor with which he has supported it. |
|
Although the War on Drugs is typically viewed as a medical or public health
effort to prevent illness or maintain health, it is actually a quasi-religious,
ceremonial struggle to rid society of evil — the forbidden drug standing as
a scapegoat for a variety of the problems that beset modern societies. To
understand the popular support for this war, it is necessary to keep in mind that
the scapegoat's social function is symbolic. Persecuting scapegoats "works" not
because it protects society from harm, but because it reaffirms the group's core
values and reassures people that its guardians are doing their job. The
scapegoaters of the pharmacopoeia have been at their job since the beginning of
the last century. The result is not drug peace but an unending drug war,
accompanied by the popular belief that the medical-criminal control of drug use
is a "scientific problem," and the popular acceptance of punishments for
violating such controls far more severe than those meted out for violent crimes
against others. The minimum penalties imposed by U.S. federal law for the
following offenses tell the story: kidnapping — 4.2 years; rape — 5.8
years; attempted murder with harm — 6.5 years; possession of LSD — 10.1
years.
A hundred years ago, a person in Limbaugh's position could have bought
laudanum (tincture of opium) and obtained pain relief legally and without
endangering his hearing. Limbaugh, if rumors are right, bought Vicodin (a
combination of hydrocodone and acetaminophen) illegally. As a result, he may have
lost his hearing and is now stigmatized as a drug law violator.
History is not likely to remember Limbaugh for his support of conservative
causes, regardless of how mistaken they might be. However, given his immense
influence, history might well remember him if, freed from "rehab," he would
oppose the War on Drugs with the same vigor with which he has supported it. His
achievements while "on drugs" ought to convince anyone — especially him
— that drug prohibition rests, just as did alcohol prohibition, on equal
parts of deception, self-deception, and hypocrisy.
The Twenty-first Amendment solved America's "alcohol problem." Repeal of drug
prohibition — which, significantly, requires no constitutional amendment
— would solve our "drug problem."
|
| | |
|
