Matters of Substance: Drugs--and Why Everyone's a User

by Griffith Edwards

This book explores the pervasive influence of drugs around the world--from marijuana to nicotine, caffeine, opiates, and other licit and illicit substances. It positions the various uses and abuses of drugs within the web of ideas held worldwide about personal freedom, pleasure, and globalization. Authoritative and wide ranging, Matters of Substance is an essential reference in the ongoing debate about drug use.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology

352 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Tim Pendry · Rating 2 out of 5]

A surprisingly weak and uninspiring contribution to the debate on drugs from a senior British Government adviser looking back on the experience (largely) of the second half of the twentieth century. In part, the weaknesses are matters of style and, in part, of content.

The style issue is simple. It is pedestrian and a little repetitive with anecdotes and selections from other people's work without much of an analytical framework. The author is engaged in a stealth polemic where he tries to lull us into the feeling that he is being objective. It does not wash.

Edwards is an old-style nanny social democrat at heart, an administrator from above, shocked by undoubted truths about abuse and pain but unwilling to go much deeper (except in terms of social conditions of which more in a moment) into the 'why' of drug-taking.

Which brings us on to the content. Most of the book is a 'noddy and big ears' basic account of different drug classes designed to prepare us for the very short and not very clearly argued policy prescriptions in the final section. We are supposed to see a problem and then his solution.

This is not to say that he is entirely wrong but only that he does not argue his case well - one feels a little patronised and manipulated by a Home Office bod. He seems to miss out a lot of discussion that needs to be had before coming to a view, as if persuading a not-very-bright Minister.

He is right that drug taking and abuse (not quite the same thing) are intimately related to social conditions which fall into three broad categories: the poverty of the third world pushing supply; the despair of underclasses at home driving demand; and the hedonism of the middle classes.

One senses that he disapproves of the last - there is a vague 1950s morality lurking in there despite the claim to libertarian tendencies. He has a quasi-socialist and moral concern about the first two but, like all his type of expert, he can only see things in terms of administrative solutions.

The key questions to ask are, in fact, very different and existential. They are about experience and freedom, about education and personal development and about the degree to which freedom must be permitted precisely because it contains tragic risks if we are to be wholly human.

Our story is one of administrators vainly trying to eliminate risk entirely from life - which we see equally in the neurosis about terrorism and the management of markets - instead of concentrating on the triple safeguards of vigilance for serious harms, education and safety nets.

There are lessons to be learned from Edwards' stories - about the sources of supply and demand - and merit in some of his solutions, especially the banning of commercial advertising and further restrictions on harms to others with 'popular' drugs but he errs too far against individual choice.

This is not to say that the libertarian position for total deregulation is any better - quite the contrary. Many people are vulnerable, especially the young, poor and mentally troubled. There are cynical interests, corporate, criminal and tax-raising, always seeking to exploit this for gain.

But there is a growing consensus now that a more subtle middling approach is required to an expensive and increasingly futile 'war on drugs'. This book looks like a last ditch attempt to make concessions merely to preserve the old status quo of rule through administrative restriction.

Again, I am not making an argument against all administrative measures. Edwards is absolutely right that the real crisis lies in the deprivation in our own community and overseas. Dig deeper and he might see the real problem lying in our greedy embrace of globalisation.

There is probably not much we can do now about the creation of organised crime under conditions of globalisation any more than much could be done about the drug trafficking to China of the greedy entrepreneurs of the East India Company once the vested interest had been created.

Nothing, that is, until we face head-on globalisation as the problem and the regulation of international capitalism as a sticking plaster. Worse, regulation merely sclerotises the productive capacity that is compliant and incentivises work-arounds by unregulated capital and crime.

This is not just a problem with drugs but with 'human trafficking', arms smuggling, cultural property smuggling, fraud, money-laundering, terrorism and all the vices that have exploded since the clever monkeys of neo-liberalism started tampering with fire breaks.

What is needed (assuming we have got out of our absurd universalism about planetary governance and reinstituted the fire-breaks of the nation state) is massive national investment to relieve social exclusion and the re-engage the middle classes culturally in the national project.

Then and only then, can we start to step back and ask what drugs do to humans and why humans seek altered states. The scientific investigation of harms can guide education, limit harms and encourage treatment while individuals can come to choices that fit their risk profiles.

If a quarter or so of the population still smoke against the health interests of most (though not all) of them and under conditions of severe social disapproval, the reason lies in addiction as well as in need. Current restrictive policies strike me as sensible in such cases and to be applauded.

Alcohol, harmful in different ways, requires different approaches but having government move in and legislate pleasures or make access more difficult to save people from themselves represents the worst and not the best of social democracy. It treats people like weak subjects.

Perhaps they are weak subjects to administrators but the purpose of policy should not be to protect their cocooned weakness but to make them strong in themselves. There are other measures than post-feudal administrative control and surveillance which can do that.

For example, it would be a reasonable guess that a large number of 'lumpen' drug addicts had a history of family abuse, often sexual and emotional, as children. Recently the sheer scale of that abuse has come out into the open. Why was this never investigated as a cause in all those years?

Turning drug-taking into a criminal matter (although the market that supplies the product might reasonably be criminalised in obvious instances) and then trying to administer control of the consequences of despair and deprivation strikes me as topsy-turvy.

It would be more sensible to concentrate law enforcement on intelligence-based policing of criminal import of products and invest more funds in transforming the social conditions of the most deprived and in education, adopting a cultural war on bullying and abuse of the vulnerable.

The vast majority of drugs can be decriminalised by taking supply out of the hands of the market as far as possible and back into the hands of either medical practitioners (with draconian controls over abuse) and or offering quality-controlled supply through approved and licensed agents.

Drugs would soon fall into two categories - those that are either addictive or non-addictive solutions to much deeper miseries related to personality (which may be environmental or genetic) and those that have acquired some cultural or social functions, like dance drugs and alcohol.

The former requires work on the misery rather than work on the drugs with supply removed from the street and brought into the social protection structures and addicts honed down through treatment to the hard cases on which society, as a matter of decency, must spend the money.

The latter is all about safety and harms to others where the draconian punishments lie not in the use or even misuse but in the irresponsible use that causes harm to others and against the supply of truly dangerous materials. Drinking and driving can be criminalised, not drinking.

Nor would I argue for total acceptance of harms to the self. A regulated system within the social structure enables some sophistication here with insurance rates rising and recoverable costs for the health service from all but the most vulnerable. The middle classes are Pavlovian about money.

But no system is going to solve the problems easily of vulnerable people being harmed by drugs or deal with the opportunities for capital accumulation by vested interests or with the initially marginal but possibly accumulating side effects that have social costs or with 'tragic accidents'.

The art is to get the best possible mix of solutions within the total social context. Ignoring social conditions, widespread criminalisation, lack of educational investment, control of supply and failure to invest in treatment and regulatory structures that minimise harms is not the mix.

The central plank of any policy has to be sophistication within a framework of concentrated, effective and well funded policing and social policy targeting the hold of higher level illegal supplies and the socialisation of the alleviation of misery through investment and education.

This book (already a decade old) strike me as the last gasp of an 'expert solution' that means well but is based on an approach to management through administration designed (through no fault of the author) to evade and avoid the need to spend some serious money and trust the people more.

Containing and alleviating misery is a policy option that the author would probably agree with but there is a slightly unpleasant implicit distaste in the book for the agency of persons or, rather, a willingness to limit the agency of many persons to ensure social control.

The root of the problem lies in the stresses and strains of existence which no Government can deal with easily. Government has to go with the flow and try to alleviate as many of the causes of stress and strain as it can. Late liberal capitalism is appallingly bad at doing that.

[Alex2739]

v e r y dry... (；⌣̀_⌣́)

[Pablo Estevez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, objective introduction to the topic. Felt there was more room for discussion of organised crime, but that's not Edward's background.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would, in fact, give this book 3.5 stars.

It is always necessary to question oneself and that which one has learned indirectly and unintentionally.

There is something indispensable about compiling all of the data and facts together and trying to extract lessons in an objective sense. It is often very hard to extract oneself out of the biased cultural and historical frame that attaches strong connotations to mind-acting substances. Trying to think objectively about something that is so propaganda-driven and heavily emotionally influenced is difficult. I appreciate the effort and approach.

There are many well-presented facts in this comprehensive book covering drugs from caffeine to crack cocaine. A number of insightful comments were made given the comprehensive look at drug ecologies on a much larger scale than one generally considers. Various times throughout my reading I was forced to ponder the issues in a more global, historical, and contemporary context than I generally do. Ideally this would happen for any reader.


I didn't particularly care for the author's narrative style -- I felt that the occasional forays into sort of nonformal mannerisms seemed out of place. On the other hand, all personal beliefs were well outlined in the latter few chapters were well separated from the fact-centered bulk of the book. These chapters were also useful in stimulating thought and highlighting the contemporary debates about what to do with drug control on various levels. I mostly agree with his positions on how to begin ameliorating the current drug control policies...

[Waqar Saleem · Rating 4 out of 5]

Drugs are a sensitive topic, and people often have strong opinions for or against their use. In this climate, an objective study of drugs, what they are, which substances qualify, their history, effect and use over the years, as presented in this book, is a refreshing change.

The author on occasion lets his personal biases creep in, but that should not distract the reader from taking home the raw facts presented in this book and using them to form their own opinions. Besides, whenever personal opinion is stated, it is clearly marked as being so.

Very often, arguments on drugs are based on ill-formed opinions that are in turn derived from personal or social biases. Anyone wishing to inform themselves and have educated discussions on the issue will do well to give this book a read.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was surprisingly, and darkly, a delightful little fount of knowledge. The content is what the cover advertises - some insight into the background and current status of various licit and ellicit substances (as well as dancing?). The style is very readable and surprisingly casual, a pleasant surprise, though the very end advises on what should be done in government about substance abuse, ending on a bit of a preachy note. However, this digression is saved for its own section towards the end of the book instead of unforgivably nested throughout, and so it's not a huge detractor. Very good, insightful read, especially with such a necessary topic to be familiar with when irrevocable damage is possible. Very much recommended, though an interest in a bit of world history is a must.

[Fishface · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really excellent. Written by and for people who know how to read and reason, for a change. Full of facts and figures about mind-altering substances from around the world. I'd recommend this to anyone.

[Hazel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Enlightening look at the history of drugs, and some food for thought on the merits and issues with legalization of illicit drugs.