on addiction, part two.

i think that the reason drug addiction is so frowned upon by the commodity-fetishist state is that it by its nature impinges upon the dominance of the commodity.

i mean, think of the paradigm of the heroin addict.

obviously, the political economic perspective would tell us that we should look at the significance of drug consumption in its economic context. the heroin addict, is by definition, not a wage-labourer. the demands of heroin addiction are antithetical to consistent, productive labour. (see here) thereby, drug addiction in its most exaggerated forms disrupts the moment of production and diverts the worker from his or her accepted role in the capitalist mode. hence the second violence, the combined apparatuses of repression and ideology, swings into motion against this socio-economic subversion. the drug consumer begins to consume drugs as a means of escape from the alienation of this empty postmodern society, and in doing so subverts its hegemonic mechanisms.

particularly interesting in this case study is to think of the consequences of addiction in terms of metaphor for the capitalist mode writ large. the heroin addict's body is the microcosm of the realm of capitalist production. the subversive seeks subversion; in doing so unwittingly self-identifies through commodity consumption (yes, heroin is a commodity); the commodity culminates the parasitic relationship by consuming the consumer. this is the paradox of the commodity fetish. this is the all-consuming glory of the empire of modern passivity, and our hegemonic ideologies shine ever more brightly upon its waxen face.

the case of the heroin addict is, as i said, an exaggeration of the commodity-fetishist model of capitalism. referring more directly to myself, (cos i just can't avoid that, now can i?) addiction to soft drugs is a more moderate reaction to that same alienation. surrounded by consumer goods sold with ideologies, having hegemonic meanings shoved down my throat with each passing minute, it's nice to engage in some even-handed capitalism. my drug dealer isn't selling me an ideology, he's selling me a bag of pot with a clearly defined use-value. its exchange-value may not be keyed directly to that use-value, and it might not be a direct reflection of the labour-time invested in its production. however, it is participation in a relatively egalitarian market. and there's no goddamn advertising. all it takes is some seeds, and the will to subvert the repressive state apparatus, and you too can become a player in the drug market. the invisible hand of competition keeps prices down, since suppliers are generally independent. no more corporate dope men - it's not hell's angels running this shit no more, with the cheapness of hydro ops and decriminalization on the horizon, most producers are small. and the producers get all the value of their surplus labour. my drug consumption is not 'supplemented by the complete idleness of a stratum of society,' to (mis)quote everyone's favourite socialist thinker. that, i say, is why drugs are illegal. smoking pot is illegal because that's money that could be spent on commodities. that's self-identification that could be accomplished through commodities. that's social networking and critical thinking and emotional well-being and peace and stability. that's not a 'buying mood.'

every time i think of buying some inane and empty fetishized commodity, i think of how much pot i could buy with the money. that sounds immediately pretty sketchy. but think about it further. minor drug addictions like mine (aka vices) are pretty much only problematic in that they usurp money that could otherwise be spent on things that we want and need. yet the things that we want and need are indivisible from the things that this simulacrum of a society tells us that we need. through the selling of consumerist ideology, our desires have been subsumed into the capitalist system as its essential means of support.

to what other causes could we possibly attribute the fact that some innocuous drugs are illegal, whilst other vastly more destructive ones are not? the ranks of illicit drug addicts are but a tiny fraction of the hordes of prescription drug addicts in the western world. while smoking a joint every night is a 'dependence,' blindly accepting the techodeterminist proposition that self-medication can solve all problems is not. just look at the armies of our generation high on speed, the creative youth crushed by anti-depressants or regimented by ritalin, the bored housewives on valium, the drunks in the bars ... it's inescapable. soma ... soooooma .... soo-oooo-maaaa ..... the drugs which don't cause problems for the moment of production are ok. self-medication and addiction are fine, so long as you get to the factory the next day. heroin might stop you from going, so it's a problem. pot might stop you from wanting to go without killing you.... so it's in many ways a bigger problem for our ruling interests.

sure, it's not an unproblematic thing. i could be spending the money on a lot more productive things. i could find my happiness in other ways. maybe i really am buying an ideology, i'm buying a hippy-pothead ideology. maybe i'm merely marginalizing my own status within the system, and i could effect much more efficient change if i wasn't a stoner fuck.

but maybe i wouldn't have asked a single one of the above questions if it weren't for the fact that i like to spark some trees from time to time.

ok, alot of times. to alot of other times.