A new study has shown that alcohol is the most harmful drug in society - primarily as a result of the harm use can have on others versus simply on the individual themselves.
It fascinates me to see the debate on the harms associated with various substance uses because it seems almost like a contrived PR issue at times - sort of like the Republicans versus Democrats debate that never ends.
I say this because it's comparing apples and oranges - or green apples and red apples at times. If alcohol causes the most harm and it's legal, then why not make all drugs legal some might say. Obviously that doesn't make sense because if you were to make cocaine legal for instance the harms associated with its use in society would likely rise dramatically as rates of use would increase as a result of its legal status.
Also, a drug is not just a drug. Drinking one beer with supper is different than binge drinking and driving while under the influence. So you can't even compare alcohol to alcohol without segmenting different demographics and evaluating harms within those demographics.
Should the majority of people who drink moderately be lumped in to the same category as those who drink excessively and should policy be applied to all of society equally?
It seems to me this is the PR issue facing most developed countries today - how to make uniform policies and laws for an ever disparate population. Keith Richards is in his mid 60's I think and still smokes, drinks and only gave up cocaine in 2006. If you use Richards as your baseline, then one could argue that drugs won't kill you. But that would be ridiculous, because 99 per cent of the population would probably die if they lived the way Richards has. More over, even if they don't kill you, over the long run, do they benefit you in life? And isn't that the real issue - quality of life?
The problem is that the entire discussion was framed back in the Regan years with 'Just Say No' where drugs were demonized (and along with them, the users themselves). The media has ever since only known how to frame the issue in black and white - focusing either on the harms (ie. drugs are bad) or the notion of legalizing drugs (ie. not all drugs are as bad as we've made them out to be). To use or not to use, that is the question? (sorry, couldn't resist the Shakespeare pun).
Yet, it's a total red herring that has emerged as a direct result of the Regan years.
In reality, anything that you are addicted to has the potential to be harmful - whether that's alcohol, cigarettes, cheese burgers, or cocaine.
Instead of simply looking at the harms, it would be nice to see the media (and these research reports) articulate what are the variables associated with healthy living? If we look at people who are happy in life - satisfied with their career, relationships, physical health, etc. - what traits do they exhibit? Is drug use part of those traits? (I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it was).
If the discussion is only about the lesser of evils, what benefit really emerges? What people should be asking is what are the things that lead to healthy productive lives - and the substance abuse issue would then get flipped on its head - because you could easily start to define something as 'harmful' if it interfered with those things that were considered 'beneficial'. For all we know the most productive members of society drink a glass of wine with supper - but we'd have no way of knowing that from a study like this (and if that were true, would we then start to quantify wine as having beneficial contributions to society?)
Anyway, this is a great example of how something can on the one hand seem very simple (just tell me if drinking is harmful) and yet at the same time actually be extremely complicated. This is why PR folks are so essential because it's the work they do behind the scenes that transforms the conversation in the media and over the long run shapes public opinion (for good and for bad).
In this particular case, the way this research plays out in the media is the notion that no one knows what to do about substance abuse and / or current policies are totally hypocritical (and keep in mind the study was authored by Britain's former chief drug advisor, who seems to have a fairly polarizing view on the issue of substance use).
While the messaging was effective in generating media interest, one has to question whether it's added anything beneficial to the ongoing conversation or simply confused matters even further. I'd argue it's only confused matters even further. I would also suggest it's done this because it was published as a study in a medical journal with no news release accompanying it (at least none that I found). Had they issued a news release they could have articulated nuances or clarified misconceptions associated with their findings that the media may not pick up on from simply reading the study.
As a result, there's no framing of the research results and what they mean in the bigger picture. Instead, it's just a straight forward, one-dimensional message that "Alcohol is worse than illicit drugs like cocaine." And this is the message that hit every major outlet, from CNN to US News and World Report.
But like I say, I think as long as this issue remains polarized the media will keep writing about each end of the spectrum (just like they do in politics).
In reality, it would be more beneficial to have a paradigm shift and for the issue to be discussed within the context of what makes for healty quality of life. In this context we might actually find out that it's not even drug use that's the problem, but things like poverty and lack of education that lead to lower qualities of life and by association increased risk of drug use. Who knows what conclusions research would come to and the implications it would have for society.
But alas, the "Just say No' or 'Just how bad are drugs?' debate lives on and remains the frame of context in which substance abuse is discussed.
It fascinates me to see the debate on the harms associated with various substance uses because it seems almost like a contrived PR issue at times - sort of like the Republicans versus Democrats debate that never ends.
Also, a drug is not just a drug. Drinking one beer with supper is different than binge drinking and driving while under the influence. So you can't even compare alcohol to alcohol without segmenting different demographics and evaluating harms within those demographics.
Should the majority of people who drink moderately be lumped in to the same category as those who drink excessively and should policy be applied to all of society equally?
The problem is that the entire discussion was framed back in the Regan years with 'Just Say No' where drugs were demonized (and along with them, the users themselves). The media has ever since only known how to frame the issue in black and white - focusing either on the harms (ie. drugs are bad) or the notion of legalizing drugs (ie. not all drugs are as bad as we've made them out to be). To use or not to use, that is the question? (sorry, couldn't resist the Shakespeare pun).
Yet, it's a total red herring that has emerged as a direct result of the Regan years.
In reality, anything that you are addicted to has the potential to be harmful - whether that's alcohol, cigarettes, cheese burgers, or cocaine.
Instead of simply looking at the harms, it would be nice to see the media (and these research reports) articulate what are the variables associated with healthy living? If we look at people who are happy in life - satisfied with their career, relationships, physical health, etc. - what traits do they exhibit? Is drug use part of those traits? (I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it was).
If the discussion is only about the lesser of evils, what benefit really emerges? What people should be asking is what are the things that lead to healthy productive lives - and the substance abuse issue would then get flipped on its head - because you could easily start to define something as 'harmful' if it interfered with those things that were considered 'beneficial'. For all we know the most productive members of society drink a glass of wine with supper - but we'd have no way of knowing that from a study like this (and if that were true, would we then start to quantify wine as having beneficial contributions to society?)
Anyway, this is a great example of how something can on the one hand seem very simple (just tell me if drinking is harmful) and yet at the same time actually be extremely complicated. This is why PR folks are so essential because it's the work they do behind the scenes that transforms the conversation in the media and over the long run shapes public opinion (for good and for bad).
In this particular case, the way this research plays out in the media is the notion that no one knows what to do about substance abuse and / or current policies are totally hypocritical (and keep in mind the study was authored by Britain's former chief drug advisor, who seems to have a fairly polarizing view on the issue of substance use).
While the messaging was effective in generating media interest, one has to question whether it's added anything beneficial to the ongoing conversation or simply confused matters even further. I'd argue it's only confused matters even further. I would also suggest it's done this because it was published as a study in a medical journal with no news release accompanying it (at least none that I found). Had they issued a news release they could have articulated nuances or clarified misconceptions associated with their findings that the media may not pick up on from simply reading the study.
As a result, there's no framing of the research results and what they mean in the bigger picture. Instead, it's just a straight forward, one-dimensional message that "Alcohol is worse than illicit drugs like cocaine." And this is the message that hit every major outlet, from CNN to US News and World Report.
But like I say, I think as long as this issue remains polarized the media will keep writing about each end of the spectrum (just like they do in politics).
In reality, it would be more beneficial to have a paradigm shift and for the issue to be discussed within the context of what makes for healty quality of life. In this context we might actually find out that it's not even drug use that's the problem, but things like poverty and lack of education that lead to lower qualities of life and by association increased risk of drug use. Who knows what conclusions research would come to and the implications it would have for society.
But alas, the "Just say No' or 'Just how bad are drugs?' debate lives on and remains the frame of context in which substance abuse is discussed.
Comments
Post a Comment