|
Why the social stigma between drugs?
I don't use drugs but I'm puzzled regarding the social "stratification" regarding differing types of drugs. Each drug seems to carry a social/moral judgment. Why the the hierarchy? Is it true that some drugs are "better" than others? Who makes the call?
Example of the hierarchy, in ascending order.
NOTE: These aren't my personal judgments just a summary of the 'common' perception of these drugs.
Crack = Lowest status. You're really fucked if you do this. Hints of criminality and absolute moral bankruptcy.
Meth = You are a redneck/hick who lives out in the sticks. Hence, the drug carries all the stigma associated with rural/country/'trailer park' folk.
Coke/cocaine = You are either a wannabe actress flunkie or ruthless business dude. You like to party but not in a rave/dance party kinda way. You obviously have some money and can make things happen but you're out of control. Linked to Republicans and business types.
Pot = You are mellow, easygoing person. You do this to relax. It's basically not even a drug anymore, really. Linked to reggae, environmentalism on one end, and to just a 'weekend' diversion mixed with some beer and a movie/video/concert on the other.
There's others for ecstacy, heroin, etc. But my point is, do you agree with ASSIGNING differing levels of moral "blame" depending on the drugs one takes?
My analysis: the level of moral "blame" decreases when people perceive the drug to be non-addicting. What do you think?
|