A drug is a substance that an individual uses to alter their mood or behavior in hopes that they will improve their lives. Obviously with most drugs there is the risk of addiction, so even though the person initially wanted to better his or her life (experimenting to make life more exciting, trying to self-medicate, trying to lose weight, trying to gain more focus, or trying to alter their sense of reality in order to break away from the realities of life), they might end up in a more negative state if the drug is abused. Usually people think of illicit drugs when they hear the word “drug”. Examples of illicit drugs are methamphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. There are also some drugs that I personally believe should fit into this category that are still legal. Those are tobacco and alcohol. Caffiene is also a legal drug. There is also an entirely different category of drugs that are man made and prescribed by doctors in order to better the life of a patient. Examples of these are aspirin, aderrol, ritalin, benadryl, and the countless other pills/drugs that one can buy in the medicine section of walgreens. I personally believe that all drugs have good and bad sides. They can make you feel better if used correctly, or they can take your life away if abused.

My thoughts about drugs honestly have not changed at all. I know that all drugs, illicit and legal all have negative sides. However, my idea of drug users have definitely changed. I’ll admit I had a very stereotypical view of a drug user or abuser. I imagine someone uneducated that has psychological problems that abuses cocaine or marijuana. The truth is, almost everyone is a drug user. Nearly everyone is “on” something. It seems that those I listed in my own steretypical view are simply the ones that get attention because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media pays attention to them, you hear stories about them in middle school in an attempt to get you to stay away from drugs all together. Did the teacher that gave you this lecture in 3rd grade talk about her own addiction to caffeiene or cigarettes? I seriously doubt it.

If I could share something I learned from this drugs course with the general population I would definitely explain to them the multitude of drug use in our country. That is, both the over prescription of pills by doctors, and the illicit drug users that keep their drug use a secret. I would encourage the general population to learn as much as they can about drugs and why people use them. And if those people in the general population do use drugs (which, chances are they do) I would encourage them to look at why they use drugs. Is it because a tall man in a white coat told you you had a disorder and instead of working on the problem, his solution was to give you a pill everyday? Do you smoke cigarettes because your brain is addicted to them? Do you have the willpower to stop? If everyone could look at drugs the way we do now that we have finished the course, I think our country wouldn’t be quite as drug obsessed. I think we as students have an opportunity to use this information, share it with others, and hopefully use it with our own families in the future.

I obviously think that drugs affect society for better and for worse. Drugs are like that famous quote — can’t live with them, can’t live without them. How many lives have drugs saved? How many have they lost? Is there a way to find an equilibrium in the middle? No, of course not, we’re only human. It is a nice, rainbow-filled thought that man made drugs and we now use them only for good — in hospitals, for pain, and for merriment. I truly do believe it all started out that way — people using drugs to make their lives better. They felt pain, they took  a painkiller. They drink a little bit more wine than they need to in order to feel drunk, to enjoy themselves. Somewhere  along the line, people began to abuse these drugs and bad things started to happen. People became addicted to the drugs, the drugs took over their lives, financially, emotionally, physically, and mentally. Or people took too many drugs and died as a result. One way or the other, these people lost their lives. Was this preventable? Yes. But was this inevitable? Yes. Like I mentioned earlier, we are only human. Mistakes will be made. We will go overboard. Drugs, like almost everything else in life should be tied to the Golden rule: everything in moderation. We as humans know what we SHOULD do. But as humans, it is more likely that we will overdo it, and suffer the consequences.

DBMS Paper II

Colleen Flory

19 November 2008

Drunk Kid Catholic

Drinking alcohol during a church service has got to be a sin, right? Catholics do not believe so. In fact, for Catholics, wine is an essential part of communion, a re-enactment of the Last Supper, which should be received by every Catholic once a week during mass, the Catholic church service. While it is true that Catholics believe drunkenness to be a sin, consuming a moderate amount of alcohol with a meal has never been morally wrong in their religion. This has lead to many misleading stereotypes and mistaken beliefs about Catholics and Catholicism. Many of the ideas behind the tradition of using wine in mass are controversial or misunderstood. By outlining the religion of Catholicism, explaining the traditions that surround the consumption of wine each weekend at mass, and describing the morality behind how Catholics view alcohol, we can better understand the function of alcohol in Catholic tradition.

            Gabriel Ferrer is an Associate Professor at Hendrix College and teaches classes at St. Joseph Parish for the Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults into the Church. Most of the information in this essay comes from him, unless otherwise noted. Mr. Ferrer emphasizes that essential to the Mass that is celebrated each week is Communion. Communion is a re-enactment of the Last Supper. The Bible denotes that Jesus broke bread and drank wine with his disciples the night before he died (thus, the Last Supper) naming the substances his own body and blood. Because He is present in the bread and wine, those who consume it are connected with Christ and with each other. Why did Jesus and the disciples drink wine and break bread at the last supper? It is important to remember that Jesus was Jewish. It was an old Jewish tradition to celebrate Passover with the consumption of wine and eating a meal. The tradition of Passover is celebrating the events that happened after the Israelites fled Egypt. They were asked to slaughter a lamb, and smear its blood over the doorpost of their homes. This would cause the angel of death to “pass over’ their homes while killing the firstborns in other homes. The eating of this meal was celebrated every year after Passover. They did this because the meal connected them to God and to one another. Essentially, Jesus is starting a new tradition for those who would become Catholic by celebrating an old Jewish custom. Jesus makes very clear that he is present in the bread and wine shared at the Last Supper. In fact, “the Gospel of John devotes the entire sixth chapter to Jesus as the ‘Bread of Life’” (Lukefahr 104). This tradition of Jesus actually being present in bread and wine carries over to communion. This phenomenon is traditionally called transubstantiation (Lukefahr 104). Transubstantiation is an essential ideal to Catholic theology. Other Christian denominations believe that the bread and wine (or grape juice in some sects) only symbolically represent Christ. Catholics, however, believe that the bread is truly the substance of His body and the wine is truly the substance of his blood. This is why it is so important to Catholics to consume it weekly. They believe that they cannot truly connect with Christ unless they take Communion. Catholics are very big on tradition. Tradition helps to preserve their religion, which has survived for almost 2000 years. As Mr. Ferrer points out, “due to the strictness with which Catholics seek to maintain the integrity of the Mass, the use of wine is not just permitted, it is a requirement”. Catholics believe that wine is what Jesus used, so that is what they should use now. They do not believe in using grape juice like other denominations do to symbolize Christ, they believe in using wine, which is blessed in a certain way by the priest, to become the substance of Christ during Communion. This is not to say that all Catholics everywhere completely understand how the bread and wine become body and blood. Most Catholics today, and even Peter, one of the apostles and the man considered to be the first Pope, simply accepted “the words of eternal life” (Lukefahr 105). That is, most Catholics simply accept Jesus’ words at the Last Supper that proclaim that He is present in the bread and wine.

            Looking at the tradition of Jesus present in Communion each week for Catholics, it is easy to see that alcohol is very accepted in that religion. It is not only accepted in church, but also in Catholic lifestyle outside of church. However, because it is so apparent that Catholics accept alcohol in their religion, many misconceptions have developed over the years. Some people believe that all Catholics do not believe that drunkenness is a sin. This generalization has some truth to it, as Mr. Ferrer points out, “many Catholics remain unaware that drunkenness is a sin, and often develop a reputation for excessive drinking”. It is important to understand that those Catholic who think it is alright to drink to the point of inebriation are mistaken. In keeping with Catholic teaching, drunkenness is a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lines out the concept of freedom and responsibility of the human being. It states that because of free will granted to us by God, there is the “possibility of choosing between good and evil”(C 481). It is this freedom that makes man “responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary” (C 481).  When a person becomes drunk, that person is no longer in control of his or her own actions. That person has essentially taken away his or her own free will. As Mr. Ferrer puts it, “self-mastery is considered an essential virtue for a Catholic Christian”. Once a person becomes drunk, s/he takes away the God-given gift of free will, and “in that way rejects God himself”. Not only is the act of becoming drunk a sin, but often it leads to other sins. However, although certain traditionally Catholic ethnic groups do have a reputation for drinking that precedes them, this is certainly not representative of all Catholic Christians. However, it is safe to say that many people learn this lesson based on experience, rather than being taught the concepts. This is why there is so much confusion even within Catholic communities. Those Catholics who have been drunk in life and went back to reflect on it and realized the sin in its nature might have come to this conclusion while some of their counterparts might not realize it. The idea of all Catholics being prone to drunkenness is simply a stereotype that has some truth to it, but certainly is not based in traditional Catholic teaching.

            Obviously, in the history of our country, alcohol has not always been morally accepted. The most prominent example of this is the Prohibition Era, which lasted from about 1920 to 1933 (The United States Prohibition of Alcohol). This is the time in which the government sought to vastly reduce the consumption of alcohol by ridding the country of businesses that manufactured and sold it. Needless to say, this experiment was not successful, and the Eighteenth Amendment was eventually repealed. However, today, there are some modern indications of the concept of alcohol as immoral. There are dry counties peppered throughout many states. Faulkner County, for example is a dry county, which means it is illegal for a business to sell alcohol products. Of course, there is some leniency to this rule. Certain  restaurants have special licenses that allow them to have alcohol and sell it in their establishments. Even though Faulkner is a dry county, there are people who own private vineyards. These people obviously do not sell products from their vineyards, because it is illegal. Mr. Ferrer brings attention to the fact that many of these people who own private vineyards are Catholic. He also indicates that many of the vineyards in Northwest Arkansas date back to the Prohibition Era. They remained open during Prohibition, but only to make enough wine for Mass. It is interesting that even though it was illegal to buy or sell alcohol, the Church was still allowed to have alcohol during Mass, regardless of the national law banning alcohol. Mr. Ferrer alluded to the fact that “the strong legal basis of freedom of religion…was a big help”. To sum up the relationship of Catholics between the laws of the state, and the integrity of their traditions at Mass, Catholic Christian have always tried to avoid breaking the law, while holding the integrity of the Mass at the highest level.

            Obviously, Catholicism is a religion built up on many traditions. Catholics believe that their traditions were initiated with Christ and the Disciples around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. The traditions set by Jesus at the Last Supper still remain in Catholicism today. Preserving those traditions is something that is extremely important to Catholic Christians. It is traditionally believed that Peter was appointed the first Bishop of Rome, or Pope, by Jesus at the time of Jesus’ death. Catholics have kept with this tradition for nearly 2000 years. A pope is still elected today, and is always male, just as tradition holds. The same is true of the use of alcohol during Mass. The use of alcohol during a church service is not very common. However, it is a tradition that has been upheld during Catholic Mass for centuries. Catholics have been taught that tradition is what works, so why use something, such as grape juice, that might not work? Because of the idea of transubstantiation, the bread and wine to be consumed during mass are referred to as “the blessed sacrament” (Lukefahr 104). Receiving the body and blood of Jesus during Mass is one of the most important things a Catholic Christian does. It makes utmost sense that Catholics would want to uphold this tradition for so many centuries.

            Personally, I believe that although some of the beliefs of Catholics are a little strange, they still fit in pretty well with the rest of society. The idea of one communal cup for wine, for all ages, even underage children to take a sip of wine from can be a little shocking for some people. But I believe that after understanding how long this tradition has stood the test of time, it is a bit easier to accept. I think that the emphasis that Catholics put on tradition is something to be admired. Their religion is so tradition-bound; it fills me with awe just thinking of how much tradition goes into just one aspect of the religion. I think that Catholics fit in well with our particular society because while the religion does stay true to its roots, it is still separate from the rest of society. Those who find the idea of transubstantiation a little too far-fetched, do not have to believe it. They have the freedom in our society to choose whatever religion they feel. However for those who do choose to be Catholic, they can take comfort in knowing exactly from where the tradition of transubstantiation comes. I personally do not believe that their beliefs should be changed at all. Who am I to change something that has been around for so long and is so based in tradition? I actually find it very appealing for a religion to be able to pinpoint exactly where one aspect of its traditions came from.

            With alcohol being a drug, it is very imperative that there is some regulation within the consumption during Mass. It is important to realize that no one takes more than a sip of wine, and some people do not take wine at all. Catholics are required to eat the bread, and while encouraged to drink the wine as well, they are not required. This is because people who are sick do not need to drink from the communal cup, and add germs to the mix. More than a few people actually go their whole lives without drinking from the cup because they just do not like the idea of sharing a cup with the entire congregation. Some people not familiar with Catholic tradition might also be a little weary that children are allowed to drink wine. While getting drunk is obviously not good for a child’s brain, an onlooker must realize that the wine is very diluted, and the child only takes a small sip. This is not dangerous for the child, or for anyone, at all. I think this regulation during the Mass makes for a very safe consumption of alcohol. It makes certain that the inebriation factor never surfaces during Mass.

            I believe that the strict tradition bound beliefs of Catholicism justify the use of alcohol in that religion. However, I understand how people who are unfamiliar with those traditions might be somewhat taken aback when they are first exposed to those beliefs. The idea of consuming alcohol during Mass would certainly be strange to me had I not attended a Catholic school. I also believe that because alcohol is used during mass, the idea that Catholics might be prone to drink more than other denominations might have a kernel of truth to it. It would not be unheard of to find a Catholic unaware of his or her own religion’s beliefs when it comes to alcohol and drunkenness. Therefore, because alcohol is accepted during church, they could easily believe that it is ok to drink and even to get drunk outside of church. I think this is unfortunate, but definitely true. That is why I like to be so informed about Catholic beliefs because I am becoming Catholic myself. The more I know about these beliefs, the more I can defend them.

            In conclusion, now that we have a better understanding of the background of Catholicism as a religion, the traditions that come along with using alcohol during the Mass, and the morality with which Catholics view the consumption of alcohol in and outside of church, we can better understand why Catholics use wine during their church services. Because they believe that wine truly becomes the blood of Jesus Christ, we understand the importance of wine during Mass. It helps to connect believers with Jesus. And because we can contrast the view that Catholics in general have about drinking versus the actual Catholic teaching on inebriation as a sin, it is easy to see how some stereotypes of Catholics as heavy drinkers could have a kernel of truth. Hopefully with a clearer sense of Catholic teachings and their traditions, the idea of consuming alcohol during a church service is no longer so shocking.

Works Cited

Gabriel Ferrer. Electronic interview. 14 November 2008.

Graham, Colleen. The United States Prohibition of Alcohol – 1920-1933. About.com. <http://cocktails.about.com/od/history/a/prohibition.htm>

Lukefahr, Oscar. “We Believe…,” A Survey of the Catholic Faith. Missouri: Liguori, 1990.

United States Catholic Conference. Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

This anxiety that Americans collectively experience, lead to sleep deprivation. After all, how can work all those hours, make all that money, be that stressed, and still get 8 hours every night? Well, we can’t. I personally believe that the answer to this problem should be setting aside enough time for sleep as often as possible, and not overscheduling oneself. But rather than give up their lifestyle, many Americans turn to sleep aids. These are another over the counter perscription. Are sleep aids want based or need based? Well the answer is both. Naturally, one wants more sleep at night, or at least enough sleep at night. If one knows that s/he will be up for several hours worrying about his or her life and responsibilities, s/he might turn to a sleep aid. That would be want based. However, commercials for sleep aids are pretty common and make it seem like we can’t help this. A lot of Americans may feel as if there is nothing they can do about their sleep deprivation. It might not cross their mind to exercise during the day, try going to bed around the same time every night, and not drink a caffeinated beverage before bedtime. So for those who have been led to believe that the situation is out of their hands, the sleep aid consumption would be need-based, because they truly believe that they need it.

I, like virtually every person I know, have struggled with sleeplessness. In high school, I would find myself tossing and turning at night only to have to wake up early to get to school the next day. I thought this wouldn’t be a problem in college, because I was able to schedule myself classes that started a bit later. However, I would still toss and turn at least 3 or 4 nights of the week. Luckily, my mom has never been one to go running to medication to fix all of our problems. (Even headaches! She would encourage me to not take anything unless the pain was very bad. I’m grateful for that now! I can endure a headache almost anywhere, and am even able to ignore it when it gets bad.) She made me look at my daily routine, find out what was wrong, and fix that. Then, if sleep was still a problem, maybe drugs could be a solution. Well, I started to go running once a day (whenever possible) and not drink coffee or cokes after about 6pm. Sleeping is no longer a problem for me. I still enjoy the occasional sleeping in, but other than that, I can honestly say I feel rested most of the time. I believe that drugs should not be the immediate answer to this problem. Simple things can be done with a little will power before drugs should be turned to.

Some people are considered so mentally ill that they are actually medicated against their will. These are people that have bpolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other severe mood disorders. This is done because they are considered a threat to society. Some may see this as morally wrong. In America, shouldn’t you have the freedom to say if you will take a drug or not? Although this is the viewpoint of several people, I have to disagree. These people are so ill that they are actually a threat to themselves and to those around them. They could do something impulsive and jump through a window, or crash into someone while driving. This is dangerous! It is for the greater good that these people are forcefully medicated, or at least kept under some sort of watch to ensure their own health and the safety of others. My heart goes out to these people, it must be horrible living with the disease, being considered a health threat, and being forced to be medicated. But for the greater good, I believe that it is right that these people are medicated.

Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society

First Paper Assignment

15 October 2008

Chocolate: The Bittersweet Drug

What does chocolate mean to you? Chocolate has many positive connotations, such as delicious, sweet, romantic, and happy. It is easier to find a person who does like chocolate than a person who does not like it. However, chocolate can mean different things to different people. For example, women find that chocolate makes them happier than it does their male counterparts (Horowitz and Mohun 78). Cortes and many Aztecs thought of chocolate as an aphrodisiac (McKenna 187). For many children in West Africa, chocolate is the reason they are overworked and enslaved (Egan 1). Although it does mean many things both positive and negative to different people, one fact remains – chocolate is a drug. Because of the way it is cultivated, its rich history, and its impact on gender roles, chocolate has been and remains an influential drug on human behavior.

            To understand how chocolate affects society, we first need to understand what chocolate is. Chocolate is made from the seeds of the cacao tree, which is widely grown in the countries of Central America and Africa (“Chocolate”). To be called chocolate, a product must contain cocoa (Becket 8). There are actually three types of cocoa. The first is Criollo, which yields little product. The second, Forastero, yields a higher product and is considered “more vigorous” (Becket 8). It is found in West Africa, which is where most cocoa is cultivated. The third, Trinitrio is a hybrid of the other two types. The seeds of the cacao plant are very bitter, so chocolate products were known for centuries to be bitter. The chocolate we know and love today however is mixed with sugar, sometimes milk (in the case of milk chocolate) and a very interesting substance called cocoa butter that together make for the familiar sweet, melt-in-your-mouth taste that we associate with chocolate (Beckett 1). The amazing and very convenient ability of chocolate to remain solid, or in bar form, until consumed, and then melt slowly once it enters the mouth is attributed to cocoa butter. This substance is able to hold the sugar and chocolate particles together in a solid state until being exposed to body temperature, in which the substance becomes mostly liquid (Beckett 3). Cocoa butter is a fat that is formed when the seeds of the cacao plant are fermented (Becket 12). Fermentation is a very important process in the making of chocolate. The cocoa bean must be killed so that it cannot germinate, and additional chemicals, such as cocoa butter are produced. There are two processes of fermentation: heap and box (Becket 13). In West Africa, the heap method is used. Fresh beans are put into a heap and are covered with banana leaves. This process takes 5 to 6 days to ferment. The box technique puts the beans into wooden boxes with slits in them and ferments them in about the same time frame as the heap technique. After fermentation, the cocoa beans are dried before they can be shipped to factories to be either ground up or mixed with sugar and milk to become different chocolate products.

 A lot of labor goes into cultivating cocoa. The beans must be pulled, fermented, dried, and shipped off before they even make it to the factory. Unfortunately, a lot of this work falls on children. The Ivory Coast and Ghana in Africa are the world’s main cocoa producers (Egan 1). Unfortunately, the wealth that comes from exporting so much cocoa is at the expense of children who are either trafficked or enslaved. An estimated 100,000 child laborers work for the cocoa industry of the Ivory Coast (Egan 1). Around 43%, almost half, of the world’s cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast. That means that about half of the chocolate found around the world was made from cacao plants cultivated by enslaved child workers in West Africa. Many large chocolate manufacturers such as Nestle, Cadbury, and Mars find it difficult to confirm that such child labor is taking place. This is understandable because a large part of child labor comes from plantations where the children are working alongside their parents. Many children in the Ivory Coast have fled from neighboring Mali to escape poverty (Egan 1). These children might have no option but to find work. Since cocoa is one of the main exports in West Africa, it is only natural that they would come upon this line of work. Still, the Salvation Army’s social justice director, Danielle Strickland, calls for “manufacturers…to urgently find out who produces their cocoa” (Egan 1). The US Congress has passed legislation calling for major manufacturers to end child labor on cocoa farms. However, little has changed. Although the future does look a little brighter because of “forms of approved labor certification” that are supposed to be introduced by major manufacturers this year, things are definitely moving slowly. Hopefully the awareness of the child enslavement and overwork will make chocolate manufacturers and consumers alike think very seriously about the source from which their product comes.

By looking at the history of chocolate and its uses, the drug elements of cocoa really stand out. Chocolate is classified alongside coffee as a stimulant. And although “chocolate contains only a small amount of caffeine, [it] has a lot of theobromine, a close relative with similar effects” (Weil and Rosen 43). Theobromine acts a lot like caffeine in the human body, and “the addictive potential of chocolate is significant” (McKenna 186). We can see this by looking at the rituals of the ancient Aztecs. Cacao plants were not always found in Africa. Originally, they grew in Central America and were introduced into Mexico “centuries before the arrival of Spanish conquistadores” (McKenna 186), or about 600AD (Becket 1). In Mexico, cacao plants played a role in the Aztec religion (McKenna 186). Beans were also used as currency. The Aztec ruler Montezuma was known to be addicted to ground cacao. As mentioned earlier, the seeds of cacao plants are known for being very bitter. The Aztecs did not mix cocoa with sugar like we do now. They mixed it with cold water and drank it in the form of “bitter water” (“Chocolate”). This mixture became very popular in their culture. They even served this drink at the coronation feast of Montezuma II (McKenna 187). Cortes had a different interest in chocolate. He was told by a mistress, one of 19 women given to him in a tribute by Montezuma, that cacao was a powerful aphrodisiac (McKenna 187). This did not have a lot of truth back then, but the sugary, fatty chocolate we know now also has a reputation as an aphrodisiac. Some say this is only because of the pleasurable feeling that is associated with the consumption of chocolate. Others say that it affects the hypothalamus, or pleasure center of the brain (“Chocolate”). Either way, the idea of chocolate being an aphrodisiac is backed up by little fact.

But, perhaps, the enthusiasm of Cortes when it came to cultivating chocolate is what led to the introduction of chocolate into Spain, where it slowly became popular. The reason for the slow introduction was that there were other stimulants competing for popularity at the same time. Tea, for example, contains caffeine, which is similar to theobromine found in chocolate. Like caffeine, theobromine improves mood and energy, which is the main source of its popularity. Much like tea, it was in Spain where people began to add sugar to overcome its bitter flavor. Cocoa came in its bitter drink form to Italy in 1606, and was considered an aristocratic drink that could help with digestion. It was considered so foul tasting that a Pope once declared “it could be drunk during a fast because its taste was so bad” (Beckett 2). Chocolate drinking houses began to serve the sweet version of chocolate in 1657. Finally, the sweet and rewarding treat we know chocolate to be in current times was gaining popularity.

Production of chocolate in America dates back to 1765. James Baker processed it in Massachusetts, although consumption, and therefore production were relatively small until the late nineteenth century (Horowitz and Mohun 75). By 1909, however there were over one hundred manufacturing firms that processed chocolate. This speaks to the popularity of chocolate in the early 20^th century. A lot of this popularity had to do with advertisement. Advertising helped these chocolate firms make money, but they also helped Americans form the chocolate habit — addiction to chocolate to the point that they overeat it. After World War I came the convenience and allure of having packaged, easy to ship and consume food. With packaged food came the packaged chocolate bar, something that almost all of us are familiar with. We even have these single packaged bars in vending machines in public buildings, available to anyone with extra change in their pocket to buy.

The convenient packaging, sugars, and fatty ingredients of chocolate led to overconsumption of chocolate. Some people no longer saw chocolate as a rare treat, but as a daily necessity. People became addicted to the good taste of the sugar, and the positive feeling provided by the theobromine. Eating such fatty food daily is not a good idea for people who tend to gain weight. Although chocolate alone is not the only cause for obesity in our country, it definitely does not help. People who are addicted to chocolate call themselves “chocoholics”. This word certainly does not have the same negative connotation that the word “alcoholic” does, but it still makes a point. Like alcohol, chocolate is a drug. It contains a mild mood altering substance, theobromine, and that along with the fact that its sugary taste makes it very appealing, and makes it a very addictive drug.

So what does a chocoholic look like? A chocoholic can be anyone who simply likes to eat chocolate and feels that they need it daily. A person might feel the need to buy a lot of chocolate so that he or she constantly has a supply at home and can get their daily fix. A chocoholic might spend more money on chocolate than a non-chocoholic would. Although no destructive behaviors having to do with others are associated with chocolate consumption, a chocoholic can find him or herself dependent on chocolate for happiness. Instead of dealing with sad emotions on his or her own, the chocoholic eats a chocolate bar to feel the affects of the theobromine in his or her body. Instead of eating a set amount daily, some chocoholics go on chocolate binges at certain times (Weil and Rosen 43). This is especially evident in women. Women are much more likely to go on a chocolate binge once a month than be reliant on a chocolate fix every day. This is because some women usually crave chocolate intensly just before their menstrual periods (Weil and Rosen 43). During this time, hormone levels are fluctuating, and emotions, especially angry or depressed emotions, are intense. Women who crave chocolate during this time claim that chocolate works as “an instant antidepressant” (Weil and Rosen 43). So the reason that most chocoholics are women is not that theobromine affects men and women differently, it’s that perhaps women are a little more unhappy than men and feel the affects of theobromine just a little bit more. Because women are usually associated with being chocoholics, they are also associated with chocolate products more. This is easy to see in TV ads. Single serving brownie mixes, as well as packages of luxury chocolates are both directed towards women by featuring women in the ads or using a woman’s voice to which other women can relate.

The romance associated with chocolate also has a lot to do with the association of women with chocolate. Consider Valentine’s Day, or a woman’s birthday. The customary gift from a significant other for a woman is flowers and chocolate. Traditionally, men are less likely to get this gift from a significant other, unless they just really love chocolate. Men are also expected to give chocolate when they have done something to make a woman mad. In terms of theobromine, this actually makes sense. The woman is upset, so why not give her a stimulant to lift her spirits? The romantic idea of chocolate often “identifies chocolate as an aphrodisiac” (“Chocolate”). As mentioned earlier, it is not only the theobromine but also the sugar and fats in chocolate that may stimulate the hypothalamus, the pleasure center of the brain. It also can alter the serotonin in the brain, which can have a pleasurable affect. This is another reason chocolate is a common gift on Valentine’s Day. With its romantic affiliation, alleged aphrodisiac affects, and ties to traditional courtship, it is no wonder chocolate is associated with women a little more than men.

Chocolate definitely has a rich and interesting story. It has both a sweet and bitter side. On the sweet side, it acts as an aphrodisiac and antidepressant with its sugar and theobromine, and has crossed cultures with its stimulating attributes. On the bitter side, a lot of child labor goes into cultivating the cacao bean, and overconsumption of sugar and fats helps to make nasty habits. With both sides of the story, it is easy to see how chocolate is a drug. Hopefully this information can help us make good decisions when it comes to finding from where the chocolate came, and consuming it in moderation. And the next time we take a bite of chocolate, it will be interesting to know we are feeling a similar effect that was experienced by Montezuma and Cortes in the ancient Aztec culture. Chocolate has been present in different cultures for many centuries, and will hopefully stay around for several more.

Works Cited

Beckett, Stephen T. The Science of Chocolate. York: RSC Paperbacks, 2000.

“Chocolate.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 15 October 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chocolate >.

Egan, Carmel. “Bitter Life of Chocolate’s Child Slaves.” 4 Nov. 2007. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/03/1193619205911.html

Horowitz, Roger, and Arwen Mohun. His and Hers: Gender, Consumption and Technology. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1998.

McKenna, Terrence. Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge; A Radical Histor of Plants, Drugs, and Human Revolution. New York: Bantam, 1992.

Weil, Andrew, and Winifred Rosen. From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.

Drugs, Behavior, and Modern Society

First Paper Assignment

15 October 2008

Chocolate: The Bittersweet Drug

What does chocolate mean to you? Chocolate has many positive connotations, such as delicious, sweet, romantic, and happy. It is easier to find a person who does like chocolate than a person who does not like it. However, chocolate can mean different things to different people. For example, women find that chocolate makes them happier than it does their male counterparts (Horowitz and Mohun 78). Cortes and many Aztecs thought of chocolate as an aphrodisiac (McKenna 187). For many children in West Africa, chocolate is the reason they are overworked and enslaved (Egan 1). Although it does mean many things both positive and negative to different people, one fact remains – chocolate is a drug. Because of the way it is cultivated, its rich history, and its impact on gender roles, chocolate has been and remains an influential drug on human behavior.

            To understand how chocolate affects society, we first need to understand what chocolate is. Chocolate is made from the seeds of the cacao tree, which is widely grown in the countries of Central America and Africa (“Chocolate”). To be called chocolate, a product must contain cocoa (Becket 8). There are actually three types of cocoa. The first is Criollo, which yields little product. The second, Forastero, is considered “more vigorous” (Becket 8) and yields a higher product. It is found in West Africa, which is where most cocoa is cultivated. The third, Trinitrio is a hybrid of the other two types. The seeds of the cacao plant are very bitter, so chocolate products were known for centuries to be bitter. The chocolate we know and love today however is mixed with sugar, sometimes milk (in the case of milk chocolate) and a very interesting substance called cocoa butter that together make for the familiar sweet, melt-in-your-mouth taste that we associate with chocolate (Beckett 1). The amazing and very convenient ability of chocolate to remain solid, or in bar form, until consumed, and then melt slowly once it enters the mouth is attributed to cocoa butter. This substance is able to hold the sugar and chocolate particles together in a solid state until being exposed to body temperature, in which the substance becomes mostly liquid (Beckett 3). Cocoa butter is a fat that is formed when the seeds of the cacao plant are fermented (Becket 12). Fermentation is a very important process in the making of chocolate. The cocoa bean must be killed so that it cannot germinate, and additional chemicals, such as cocoa butter are produced. There are two processes of fermentation: heap and box (Becket 13). In West Africa, the heap method is used. Fresh beans are put into a heap and are covered with banana leaves. This process takes 5 to 6 days to ferment. The box technique puts the beans into wooden boxes with slits in them and ferments them in about the same time frame as the heap technique. After fermentation, the cocoa beans are dried before they can be shipped to factories to be either ground up or mixed with sugar and milk to become different chocolate products.

 A lot of labor goes into cultivating cocoa. The beans must be pulled, fermented, dried, and shipped off before they even make it to the factory. Unfortunately, a lot of this work falls on children. The Ivory Coast and Ghana in Africa are the world’s main cocoa producers (Egan 1). Unfortunately, the wealth that comes from exporting so much cocoa is at the expense of children who are either trafficked or enslaved. An estimated 100,000 child laborers work for the cocoa industry of the Ivory Coast (Egan 1). Around 43%, almost half, of the world’s cocoa comes from the Ivory Coast. That means that about half of the chocolate found around the world was made from cacao plants cultivated by enslaved child workers in West Africa. Many large chocolate manufacturers such as Nestle, Cadbury, and Mars find it difficult to confirm that such child labor is taking place. This is understandable because a large part of child labor comes from plantations where the children are working alongside their parents. Many children in the Ivory Coast have fled from neighboring Mali to escape poverty (Egan 1). These children might have no option but to find work. Since cocoa is one of the main exports in West Africa, it is only natural that they would come upon this line of work. Still, the Salvation Army’s social justice director, Danielle Strickland, calls for “manufacturers…to urgently find out who produces their cocoa” (Egan 1). The US Congress has passed legislation calling for major manufacturers to end child labor on cocoa farms. However, little has changed. Although the future does look a little brighter because of “forms of approved labor certification” that are supposed to be introduced by major manufacturers this year, things are definitely moving slowly. Hopefully the awareness of the child enslavement and overwork will make chocolate manufacturers and consumers alike think very seriously about the source from which their product comes.

By looking at the history of chocolate and its uses, the drug elements of cocoa really stand out. Chocolate is classified alongside coffee as a stimulant. And although “chocolate contains only a small amount of caffeine, [it] has a lot of theobromine, a close relative with similar effects” (Weil and Rosen 43). Theobromine acts a lot like caffeine in the human body, and “the addictive potential of chocolate is significant” (McKenna 186). We can see this by looking at the rituals of the ancient Aztecs. Cacao plants were not always found in Africa. Originally, they grew in Central America and were introduced into Mexico “centuries before the arrival of Spanish conquistadores” (McKenna 186), or about 600AD (Becket 1). In Mexico, cacao plants played a role in the Aztec religion (McKenna 186). Beans were also used as currency. The Aztec ruler Montezuma was known to be addicted to ground cacao. As mentioned earlier, the seeds of cacao plants are known for being very bitter. The Aztecs did not mix cocoa with sugar like we do now. They mixed it with cold water and drank it in the form of “bitter water” (“Chocolate”). This mixture became very popular in their culture. They even served this drink at the coronation feast of Montezuma II (McKenna 187). Cortes had a different interest in chocolate. He was told by a mistress, one of 19 women given to him in a tribute by Montezuma, that cacao was a powerful aphrodisiac (McKenna 187). This did not have a lot of truth back then, but the sugary, fatty chocolate we know now also has a reputation as an aphrodisiac. Some say this is only because of the pleasurable feeling that is associated with the consumption of chocolate. Others say that it affects the hypothalamus, or pleasure center of the brain (“Chocolate”). Either way, the idea of chocolate being an aphrodisiac is backed up by little fact.

But, perhaps, the enthusiasm of Cortes when it came to cultivating chocolate is what led to the introduction of chocolate into Spain, where it slowly became popular. The reason for the slow introduction was that there were other stimulants competing for popularity at the same time. Tea, for example, contains caffeine, which is similar to theobromine found in chocolate. Like caffeine, theobromine improves mood and energy, which is the main source of its popularity. Much like tea, it was in Spain where people began to add sugar to overcome its bitter flavor. Cocoa came in its bitter drink form to Italy in 1606, and was considered an aristocratic drink that could help with digestion. It was considered so foul tasting that a Pope once declared “it could be drunk during a fast because its taste was so bad” (Beckett 2). Chocolate drinking houses began to serve the sweet version of chocolate in 1657. Finally, the sweet and rewarding treat we know chocolate to be in current times was gaining popularity.

Production of chocolate in America dates back to 1765. James Baker processed it in Massachusetts, although consumption, and therefore production were relatively small until the late nineteenth century (Horowitz and Mohun 75). By 1909, however there were over one hundred manufacturing firms that processed chocolate. This speaks to the popularity of chocolate in the early 20^th century. A lot of this popularity had to do with advertisement. Advertising helped these chocolate firms make money, but they also helped Americans form the chocolate habit — addiction to chocolate to the point that they overeat it. After World War I came the convenience and allure of having packaged, easy to ship and consume food. With packaged food came the packaged chocolate bar, something that almost all of us are familiar with. We even have these single packaged bars in vending machines in public buildings, available to anyone with extra change in their pocket to buy.

The convenient packaging, sugars, and fatty ingredients of chocolate led to overconsumption of chocolate. Some people no longer saw chocolate as a rare treat, but as a daily necessity. People became addicted to the good taste of the sugar, and the positive feeling provided by the theobromine. Eating such fatty food daily is not a good idea for people who tend to gain weight. Although chocolate alone is not the only cause for obesity in our country, it definitely does not help. People who are addicted to chocolate call themselves “chocoholics”. This word certainly does not have the same negative connotation that the word “alcoholic” does, but it still makes a point. Like alcohol, chocolate is a drug. It contains a mild mood altering substance, theobromine, and that along with the fact that its sugary taste makes it very appealing, and makes it a very addictive drug.

So what does a chocoholic look like? A chocoholic can be anyone who simply likes to eat chocolate and feels that they need it daily. A person might feel the need to buy a lot of chocolate so that he or she constantly has a supply at home and can get their daily fix. A chocoholic might spend more money on chocolate than a non-chocoholic would. Although no destructive behaviors having to do with others are associated with chocolate consumption, a chocoholic can find him or herself dependent on chocolate for happiness. Instead of dealing with sad emotions on his or her own, the chocoholic eats a chocolate bar to feel the affects of the theobromine in his or her body. Instead of eating a set amount daily, some chocoholics go on chocolate binges at certain times (Weil and Rosen 43). This is especially evident in women. Women are much more likely to go on a chocolate binge once a month than be reliant on a chocolate fix every day. This is because some women usually crave chocolate intensly just before their menstrual periods (Weil and Rosen 43). During this time, hormone levels are fluctuating, and emotions, especially angry or depressed emotions, are intense. Women who crave chocolate during this time claim that chocolate works as “an instant antidepressant” (Weil and Rosen 43). So the reason that most chocoholics are women is not that theobromine affects men and women differently, it’s that perhaps women are a little more unhappy than men and feel the affects of theobromine just a little bit more. Because women are usually associated with being chocoholics, they are also associated with chocolate products more. This is easy to see in TV ads. Single serving brownie mixes, as well as packages of luxury chocolates are both directed towards women by featuring women in the ads or using a woman’s voice to which other women can relate.

The romance associated with chocolate also has a lot to do with the association of women with chocolate. Consider Valentine’s Day, or a woman’s birthday. The customary gift from a significant other for a woman is flowers and chocolate. Traditionally, men are less likely to get this gift from a significant other, unless they just really love chocolate. Men are also expected to give chocolate when they have done something to make a woman mad. In terms of theobromine, this actually makes sense. The woman is upset, so why not give her a stimulant to lift her spirits? The romantic idea of chocolate often “identifies chocolate as an aphrodisiac” (“Chocolate”). As mentioned earlier, it is not only the theobromine but also the sugar and fats in chocolate that may stimulate the hypothalamus, the pleasure center of the brain. It also can alter the serotonin in the brain, which can have a pleasurable affect. This is another reason chocolate is a common gift on Valentine’s Day. With its romantic affiliation, alleged aphrodisiac affects, and ties to traditional courtship, it is no wonder chocolate is associated with women a little more than men.

Chocolate definitely has a rich and interesting story. It has both a sweet and bitter side. On the sweet side, it acts as an aphrodisiac and antidepressant with its sugar and theobromine, and has crossed cultures with its stimulating attributes. On the bitter side, a lot of child labor goes into cultivating the cacao bean, and overconsumption of sugar and fats helps to make nasty habits. With both sides of the story, it is easy to see how chocolate is a drug. Hopefully this information can help us make good decisions when it comes to finding from where the chocolate came, and consuming it in moderation. And the next time we take a bite of chocolate, it will be interesting to know we are feeling a similar effect that was experienced by Montezuma and Cortes in the ancient Aztec culture. Chocolate has been present in different cultures for many centuries, and will hopefully stay around for several more.

Works Cited

Beckett, Stephen T. The Science of Chocolate. York: RSC Paperbacks, 2000.

“Chocolate.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 15 October 2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/chocolate >.

Egan, Carmel. “Bitter Life of Chocolate’s Child Slaves.” 4 Nov. 2007. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/03/1193619205911.html

Horowitz, Roger, and Arwen Mohun. His and Hers: Gender, Consumption and Technology. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1998.

McKenna, Terrence. Food of the Gods: The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge; A Radical Histor of Plants, Drugs, and Human Revolution. New York: Bantam, 1992.

Weil, Andrew, and Winifred Rosen. From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know About Mind-Altering Drugs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993.

                In Food of the Gods, McKenna makes a claim that hallucinogens are the “real missing link” (32). He describes how these drugs helped our primitive ancestors develop the humanness we are familiar with today. Although he is definitely stretching it, I can see somewhat of a point to his rambling. Afterall, what separates humans from animals? Reasoning and self reflectiveness. A dog just barks at a mirror because the dog has no sense of self and therefore the dog he is seeing in the mirror is just another dog barking right back at him. McKenna explains that hallucinogen drugs have specific chemicals that “target many systems within the body” (32). He proclaims that this feeling of self is what one experiences when on hallucinogenic drugs. Never having experienced this myself, I honestly could not tell you how accurate this statement is. But from what I have read, it has a sort-of truth to it. It seems as if hallucinogenic drug users are definitely super aware of themselves and others when on the drugs. But as for hallucinogenic drugs being the missing link, I have to disagree. I can see his point, but I like to give credit for the development of the self to the human brain itself. I truly believed that our brains evolved in such a way that made us self-aware, without the help of some hallucinogenic drug.

                I would definitely believe an LSD user if s/he told me that the use of hallucinogens changed the way that s/he saw the world. I especially believe this because of the flashbacks that many hallucinogen users report experiencing. These flashbacks can occur, hours, days, even months after drug use. This is one way hallucinogens change the way drug users see the world. Another way I believe these drugs could change a person’s perception of the world would more affect long-term users. After experiencing time and time again the psychedelic or psychotometic affects, I think I would learn to appreciate things in a different way. The same thing applies after one learns an instrument. After learning to play piano, for example, that person would hear and appreciate music in a different way from then on. Well, a long term hallucinogenic drug user, after re-using and getting used to this drug, would see the world in a different way from then on.

                We all know the affect that drugs had in the 60s. The 1960s were a time when the youth were rebelling against war and the rigid structure of society and were more concerned with peace and love and feeling connected with one another. The drugs were a way to connect with one another. They needed a way to escape horrible events such as the assassinations of JFK and MLK. Hallucinogens especially altered the sense of reality and allowed people to feel closer together. As for new ideas, the hallucinogenic drug use was reflected in the culture of the 60s. The clothes had bright colors and random patterns. Many people appeared unwashed, which could show that they weren’t concerned about impressing anyone, they believed in loving unconditionally. When I think hippie movement, I think LSD and vice versa.

I have to say that excessive use of prescription drugs in our country has to be wrong. There is no way that so many people in the US are ailing to the point that they need to take a pill everyday in order to feel normal. Of course there are things I can think of that a person would actually need to take a pill for; my grandmother takes blood pressure pills for example. But I think a lot, if not the majority of drugs being prescribed now are not absolutely needed. I think the cause of people feeling the need to have drugs prescribed to them is that for whatever reason, they feel that they are not normal, or they are unhappy, or something is messing them up, and a drug could fix that. They want instant gratification. My brother went on anti-depressants in college, and I asked him why, and he said he felt distant from everyone else. He was only on them for a year when he realized that it was not worth paying to have to take this pill every day, when the truth is that everyone feels out of place, a lot of the time. I’m not saying that there aren’t definitely some individuals out there who do need the drugs, I’m saying that America is definitely over-prescribed, probably due to our stressful lifestyles and how people feel that they can be fixed easily with a pill, even if the truth is that the probably don’t need fixing anyway.

Of course it isn’t moral to prescribe a drug to someone who doesn’t understand all of the consequences. And in an ideal world, the prescriber would know every single side effect of a drug and exactly how it would affect every unique individual. But the truth is that, going along with the over excessive prescription drugs in our country, doctors probably describe a ton of pills every month, and might just assume it will affect most of their patients the same. For example, in the first online reading, the guy said his doctor first described him one antidepressant but it affected him negatively, giving him nightmares. The doctor then prescribed him a different antidepressant. This seems a little too “trial and error” for me. It’s a little scary that the doctor wasn’t able to tell exactly how the drug would react in the person’s body. But the truth is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a doctor to put each and every individual into a box and know exactly how the drug will affect them. I really and truly hope, however, that each doctor is doing the best they can at being thorough in describing the details, even though I’m aware this probably isn’t true.

I think that a patient pretty much has to inform themselves before they go to the doctor. The doctor isn’t going to take the time to go over every detail of the medicine, therefore the patient needs to be able to ask questions and pretty much force the doctor to be thorough. Like I stated above, it’s impossible for a doctor to know EXACTLY how the drug will react in your body, so it’s probably best to do a lot of research on a drug before taking it, so you can ask the doctor questions specific to your body. As for commercials, there are no way those are as informative as they should be. I understand a commercial needs to be funny or jarring or have a theme in order to keep your attention, but they only have so much time alotted to them, there is no way they are completely thorough in describing the drug and how it could affect a patient. I believe that they get all the positives across, and usually most of the major negatives across, but there is definitely more to learn, which is why a patient should do a lot of research on his or her own before talking to a doctor about it, so that they can ask questions. Now that I think of it, sometimes on those commercials, I can’t even tell what the drug is supposed to do! So, no they definitely are not informative enough for me.

It’s pretty apparant, to me at least, that if our nation has more prescription drug users than many other industrialized nations, and if drugs are being recalled, and drug misusue and abuse are common, that’s a pretty strong warning sign that the drug industry should definitely be reformed. Now, I couldn’t tell you how to do that, or that it would be easy, but it’s not hard to see that we are definitely overdoing it as a nation and maybe we should make patients aware that a pill is not always the only answer.

            Inhalants are substances such as Scotch-guard or glue that can be found around the house that include ingredients that, upon inhalation, make the user feel euphoric or high. Easy to obtain, most inhalant users saturate a cloth with the substance, then cover their nose and mouth to inhale a concentrated amount into their bodies. Substances like glue can be squeezed into a bag then held to cover the nose and mouth to be inhaled. Examples of inhalants are gasoline, glue, paint thinners, lighter fluid, stain removers, hair spray, spray paint, and Freon. Once in the body, an inhalant can be very damaging physically.

            Although all inhalants are dangerous, some are considered worse than others. One of the worst inhalants is gasoline. Gasoline can be lethal once it is inhaled. Other damaging effects are muscle disorders, liver problems, and CNS degeneration. Another pretty bad inhalant is toluene, which is inhaled from glue. It damages short term memory, and hearing, and also causes dysfunction of the cerebellum (coordination). Inhaling a lot of this substance is lethal. The inhalants that are considered not as bad as these inhalants are still pretty damaging! The only effect from inhaling acetone, for example, is significant damage to mucous membranes. This is only one effect, but that’s still pretty bad! So no matter what the inhalant, I wouldn’t recommend using it! They’re all bad.

            Why do people use inhalants? Considering the age of the average inhalant user (preteen), I think that a lot of them are just curious. These kids see drugs all over TV and movies, obviously they are nowhere near old enough to get alcohol, so they get what is easy to find around the house and start huffing to see what getting high feels like. Another reason could possibly be to get attention. Maybe the kid feels like they have no friends so they get high to feel better, and then talk about it at school to get some attention. The euphoria that is felt is probably a big reason inhalants are used by older people. Maybe they don’t want to spend a lot of money on drugs or alcohol, but still want to escape some problem and feel high. Inhalants are insanely easy to come by, so it’s not surprising that there’s a problem with inhalant abuse. It is sad that  a lot of inhalants are deadly and that so many people still don’t know that.

Opium has been around for thousands of years, first being harvested in villages in Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Afghanistan, Mexico, Columbia, and Peru, but it wasn’t used in the abusive way we think of opium use today. It was often mixed into drinks to be used medicinally, for the reduction of pain. Then, in the 18th century, China invented opium smoking, which is one of the norms for opium usage today. The Chinese also used this form medicinally, as a painkiller, and also as a treatment for diarrhea. Then, the British, who had a monopoly on raw opium, began trade with the Chinese. The British loved Chinese tea and would smuggle in opium in exchange for tea. Because of the large amount of opium coming into China, recreational use emerged. This became a social problem for the China, and the emperor, in an attempt to end the Chinese dependence on opium, publicly burned a shipment of opium. Fights between British and Chinese soldiers broke out, and that is how the Opium War began. In Britain, opium abuse was not that big of a deal. Being an opium abuser was no worse than being a drunk. In fact, a new culture grew out of this attitude toward opium. It was believed that opium addicts had heightened creativity, and many opium-addict writers emerged. This made opium use acceptable. Opium use in the US was similar to that in Britain. But as early as the 1850s, the people of the US began to have anti-Chinese attitudes because of the thousands of Chinese workers that were brought over to build the railroads. Because opium use was associated with the Chinese, slowly a fear of moral corruption due to opium use began to surface. Laws against the use of opiate drugs, growing opium poppies, and importing opium were established in the early and mid 20th century. This didn’t mean that opium use and abuse disappeared. Heroin and other opiates are still smuggled into the United States, and are still being abused. We no longer have an “ok” attitude toward the use of opiates. It is now seen by mainstream society as morally wrong, dirty, and low.

In my own opinion, it must be extremely easy to become so addicted to opiates, that one would risk losing his or her own life. It is easy to think of reasons that a person might first be interested in opiate use. There are both physical psychological reasons. For example, a person might have extreme intestinal problems, and be in constant severe pain, and for some reason can’t or won’t see a doctor, so he or she looks to heroin or some other opiate to reduce his or her severe pain. Or a person with a family and a job might be going through trouble at work but feels that he or she cannot confide in anyone, so they see the dreamlike effect of opiates as a way to escape. This might spark an initial interest in opium use. It is easy to see why a person would be interested in beginning to use opiates, but it is even clearer to see how easily a person could get addicted to these opiates. Reducing or taking away pain feels GOOD. Being in a dreamlike state feels good. Not many people would be able to feel that feeling only one time and never want to feel it again. This is how I see the abuse of opiates as such an easy thing to fall into once initial interest takes place.

I believe that Terence McKenna is absolutely correct when it comes to the hypocrity of opium being illegal while tobacco remains legal. He argues that both are very addictive substances (a US Attorney General once admitted this), both have great potential for abuse, so why aren’t both outlawed? He even makes the case that tobacco is worse for one’s health than opium (lung cancer and heart disease are some long term effects that have been linked to tobacco use). The major health risk of opium use doesn’t come from the substance itself, it comes inadvertantly from using an unclean needle to inject the drug. While all these things are true, it is easy to see why opium is outlawed. In history, when it has been used as a medicine, it was legal and even somewhat regulated. But when surplus turned to abuse in China in the 18th century, and dependence on the drug became a threat to Chinese society, and great meausures were taken to reverse dependence, to the point that the Opium War broke out between Britain and China, that’s when countries began to outlaw the use of opiates. A negative connotation with the Chinese use of opium was the reason for laws against the use of opium emerged in the United States. And although this was a very prejudice thing that happened, it had a grain of truth to it; opium has caused social strife in China and it had the potential to do the same in out own country. That’s the story of how opium became outlawed in many countries. It makes one wonder, what catastrophic event will have to occur that will eventually cause tobacco to become outlawed?

Marijuana is considered a schedule 1 drug. Basically a schedule 1 drug has high potential for abuse (rather than low or somewhat) and should not be used medically. The first part of this rule is by far the whole reason this drug is in this category. Yes marijuana has the potential for abuse. When I say abuse I mean the idea that the drug is used almost daily, it takes a lot of money to keep the habit of using it, and a lot of the user’s time is spent high on the drug or thinking about the drug. I think marijuana definitely has high abuse potential because it is so easy to get. I saw this drug being sold when I was junior high. It is also relatively cheap to obtain. It gives you a “high” feeling without a big “hangover” feeling afterwards, like alcohol. I think it is clear to anyone that marijuana is a highly abusable drug. However the second part of this definition somewhat bothers me. “No accepted medical use”? I’ve heard of way more than one case of someone using marijuana medicinally. It’s not something I would go buy at Walgreens’ for a headache or a cold, but I definitely see the potential for medicinal use of marijuana. And for that reason, I’d have to disagree with the classification of marijuana as Schedule I.

I personally find the marijuana policy in the United States a little frustrating. I understand the marijuana is a drug and can affect behavior for the worse (just like alcohol) and it has the potential for abuse (just like alcohol), but unlike alcohol, it is illegal for anyone, of any age, to possess it. Although I personally have never been too interested in using the drug myself, I am somewhat familiar with others, who have and do use the drug pretty regularly. I know more people who use (and abuse) alcohol regularly, too. What’s the difference? Alcohol has the potential for abuse too, but it is treated with much more leniency in our country. There are a ton of alcohol regulations that have to be enforced to ensure everyone’s safety. The same would be true of marijuana if it were legal to possess. What’s the difference?

Obviously, the US policy against marijuana has its good and bad points. On the positive side, because the drug is illegal, people aren’t as bold about using it in public as they are alcohol. When people use alcohol in public, it puts other people’s safety in danger (drunk driving or drunken violence). I see kids on the UCA campus at night just carrying around cups of what is clearly not lemonade. But I can safely say I have never seen a student just walking around with a joint for everyone to see. I guess what I am saying is that I feel that public safety, at least in my perspective, is in better shape in terms of marijuana than alcohol. However, our policy has its bad side as well. LIke I mentioned earlier, it frustrates me that alcohol is legal while marijuana is not. I consider them somewhat equal (fine in carefully planned moderation). But going along with this, the fact that marijuana is illegal puts it underground, with no one there to regulate it. No one there to say, “it’s not okay to lace marijuana with another drug and not tell anyone about it when you sell it to them!” I think that it is realistically impossible to cut marijuana use out of our country completely, and if it were legal (notice I said “if it WERE” –> not “it SHOULD be”) then there would be less drug traffic related crime, less people being ripped off, and less people’s health being put in danger because they don’t know where the marijuana they bought came from.