Changing the script on drugs
A recent article in The Independent (13th Feb) contrasted industry and media responses to two high profile individuals who have had equally high profile drug problems. The music industry showered Amy Winehouse with awards at the Grammys while her standard media soubriquet has become ‘troubled Amy Winehouse’. Compare this to Dwain Chambers. He was caught taking anabolic steroids, served out his ban and wanted to return to athletics. What was his industry’s response? Having won a race in Sheffield, he was entitled to be selected for the World Indoor Athletic Championships. He was duly selected, but in a press statement, UK Athletics made it clear they had done so very reluctantly. And for the media, the standard tag for the athlete is ‘drug cheat Dwain Chambers’. The Independent suggested the difference was that Amy Winehouse presents as a white female waif -like victim, while Chambers is strong, feisty and above all, black.
But writing for the online magazine Spiked (14th Feb), Tim Black had another take on this and one that might be closer to a wider truth about society’s general response to drug users. He pointed out that in Chambers’ own words, he had become a ‘leper’ within athletics. Black believed this was because Chambers hadn’t been sufficiently contrite enough; “What should have been a legal matter, that is, a finite punishment for transgressing a rule, has become something else entirely. It is now a moral crusade’. Chambers, says Black, is not being judged for what he did, but who he is. “For the British Athletics establishment, Dwain Chambers has become a necessary sacrifice”.
But the scapegoat metaphors extend way beyond one story of an athlete caught using banned drugs. Drug users are society’s modern day lepers. They are the new scapegoats – and while it can be argued that the plight of users is made inexorably worse by the drug laws, the deeply held antipathy towards drug users goes back into the Temperance years of the 19th century when drugs like heroin, morphine and cocaine were still legal.
Look back into the earliest days of the tabloid press in America and you will find all the iconography of the modern day red-tops – junkies, dope fiends and drug fiends populated the stories of the so-called Yellow Press. The stories were made more potent by the use of vivid illustrations – demons, skeletons, vampires and the Grim Reaper. The message was clear – drug users are in thrall to a supernatural power that can only slake its thirst by feeding on the lives of the innocent. While the Victorians talked of the ‘demon drink’, drug users were themselves ‘fiends’. In other words, the evil was inherent in the person, not the substance they were using.
Flash forward to the plight of Mrs Elizabeth Burton-Phillips. She had twin sons both addicted to heroin, one of whom committed suicide. She wrote a book and has been seen on many conference platforms and in media studios telling her tragic story. Did any interviewer or conference delegate opine, ‘But your sons were just evil drug fiends, they were rotten to start with!’. Of course they didn’t - because of course they weren’t.
But this is the media-driven narrative on drug users. Sadly it is also embedded in the attitudes of many professionals in health and social welfare, underpinned by the overweening emphasis on crime in the current drug strategy. Here in the UK, drug users are seen as lesser members of society; their drug use can deny them access to housing, healthcare, education, employment but above all, dignity. If you look abroad, examples of serious human rights abuses against drug users – including the imposition of the death penalty - are legion. After all, how can a sub-human have human rights?



5 comments:
Some interesting points, but you omit one key fact — Dwain Chambers is hardly a problematic drug user. His motives are purely performance enhancement (i.e. cheating) and he's being castigated on that basis. He'd get a similar reaction if he'd unpicked his opponents' trainers and inserted lead weights into them.
As a music fan, drug-taking in the music industry is rarely performance enhancing: quite often the opposite. It usually results in LPs such as The Stone Roses' Second Coming and Oasis's Be Here Now.
One wonder why you make no mention of the epidemic of addiction that was prevalent when both morphine and cocaine were legal?
Why No mention of the prostitution by both men and women in order to fund their habit?
Why No mention of the violent crime that swept America when underworld figures were also addicted.
Why No mention the disease that swept the country.
It is little or nothing to do with temperance, or morality, but about protecting the majority of society from those who are unfortunate enough to have become so addicted that they are willing to go to any lengths to feed their habit.
The UK response? ineffective treatment which fails miserably to arrest the progression of disease and crime.
Ineffective treatment that has led to prisons being overcrowded and unfit for human habitation, where the majority of the inmates have serious mental problems arising from addiction to cocaine and heroin and other drugs including alcohol.
Our prisons are also places where drug trafficking and use goes almost unchecked, adding to the misery of the mentally ill, vulnerable and week. Why? because we have no facilities where those unfortunate people can be house in a safe an nurting environment and have their mental and physical needs addressed in a humane manner.
And all you can manage is to spout about temperance and legalisation of toxic substances?
Sadly this commentator (Peter O' Loughlin) has missed the point entirely. There is nothing in this piece about the 'legalisation of toxic substances'. The whole point is to say that the stigma and stereotyping which is heaped on people with drug problems goes back before there were drug laws. In other words, stigmatising drug users is not simply an expression of the fact that they are engaged in illegal acts, but is dominated by a moral agenda that demonises these people as inherently evil. This is deep seated and inhibits the political will needed to tackle many of the serious problems faced by those with chronic drug problems.
I agree with your points about the historical demonisation of drugs users but the Chambers Winehouse point is an intellectually weak one as it compares very different things. I thought it was a poor piece in the Indy, scratching around for a narrative when there was none there.
Dwain Chambers was cheating - he specifically violated proffesional codes - why he and other drug cheats are vilified, with good cause. His apparent 'everyone does it' lack of contrition only added to the problem.
Amy Winehouse is a hedonist recreational user whose use has clearly crossed the line and become seriously problematic. Its simply not the same. She may be irrepsonsible and reckless but shes not cheating.
Ive no response on Peters comment which doesnt seem relevent to the blog post. Ive probably responded to the same comment elsewhere.
Whilst the Amy Winehouse / Dwain Chambers Independent article is a useful springboard for debate, I do wonder about its meaningfulness for the reason's articulated in comments above. More interesting is the media celebration of self destruction that goes hand in hand with the stigmatisation of drug use. There is a also a particular gender issue here: Keith Richards is still celebrated for his drug use ("snorting his Dad's ashes"), Marianne Faithful was the fallen woman because of hers...
I think the media's attitude to drug use in women and men crystallises aspects of sexism rarely oobvious elsewhere.
Post a Comment