Pope Francis is on the wrong side of history (again)

[RainDog]

61. He was talking about drugs here, not the mafia

In the general sense of the issue of drugs. Someone above mentioned the mafia aside from the context of a statement made to bolster bureaucrats in the drug war at a time when this nation is undergoing a review of drug policy.

This really has nothing to do with the mafia, outside of the reality that, after alcohol prohibition was lifted, the mafia moved to heroin distribution.

There is a whole body of work about the issue of harm reduction as a strategy to deal with substance use/abuse.

Francis is denying the validity of the Portuguese model to say that drugs are evil, etc. He's denying decades of social science that demonstrates benefit from the move away from demonizing substances, to a look at the social problems that often motivate different behaviors.

Interestingly, more than a few scientists reject the addiction model in relation to drugs or any other activity as it is now understood as "common wisdom" from those who sought to deal with behavioral addiction issues by the term "illness" rather than "evil" or "sin." This move, beyond a religious blame and shame model, has helped many people - because it's a frame that moves beyond concepts of "good and evil" in relation to human health, in the same way we have long moved beyond blaming demon possession for epileptic seizures.

The evolution in this thought - and, more importantly, the corrective to taking these ideas and creating an industry dedicated to them (the "recovery" and "disease" models for addiction), is to look at environmental factors in relation to behaviors labeled "addictions." This is scary to some people who deal with addiction issues because it's easier to believe "all or nothing" - even when it's false. We see this in religion and in addiction issues.

The most forward-thinking scientists in this area see addiction as behavior that interacts with environment in specific places and/or times, not as an overarching ever-present state (i.e. the difference between "recovery" and always "in recovery&quot .

Carl Hart talks about the addiction model as incorrect because it is site-dependent behavior, connected to a lack of options.

This is what is also called "set and setting" for those who experiment with drugs, tho they wouldn't necessarily make the connection to what Hart is saying. This is about treating powerful substances with respect - what was considered "sacred" in the past - as a way to promote responsibility within the person - but also responsibility for a society to create conditions that do not foster drug use, which the same society turns around and criminalizes.

When authoritarian approaches are taken, studies indicate this leads to greater drug use. Labeling drugs "evil" is authoritarian because it appeals to shame and blame, not to rational discussion.

Stanton Peele, in 1975, talked about a reality that no drug is addictive per se. Instead, addiction is a set of behaviors that can be based upon individual responses. Someone can be "addicted" to religion or to a feeling of love when they're with another person.

To call drugs evil is simply.. stupid. It's so backwards, so far behind every bit of work that looks at behaviors over the 20th c. See, this is what I don't get. People think religion has some divine guidance - but, if so, why is it so wrong on issues that can be looked at dispassionately (beyond sex, say, which, to tell you the truth, is a subject about which an abstinent person or a virgin has nothing to say to anyone, imo, as a "expert&quot .

There are levels of discourse that go on in society. "Common knowledge" or "wisdom" is more about maintaining social control than investigating claims. From this, we get the idea that complex human behaviors can be reduced to the interaction of dopamine and receptors... and the belief that someday someone will find the "gene" for this or that.

That's not going to happen with any behavior that takes place in an environment outside of a petri dish, if even there. People want absolutes, so they go with religion, or they put science into the box that holds religious povs that knowledge is eternal, unchanging, and absolute. This isn't reality.

Reality is far, far messier, far more forgiving of error, far more willing to look at a subject without boxing it in with absolutes.

I don't think it's mere coincidence that changes are taking place in American society regarding its view of the issue of drug policy and Francis makes this a moment to call drugs "evil."

ymmv.