5. Music & Drugs

Listen To
Neil Young

5. Popular Music

And

Drugs

RM Radio
Coming Soon

In this segment:

we look at drugs and Western Popular music. The norms of behaviour in Western

`traditional’ culture have long been challenged by alternative ideologies and lifestyles

and indeed perceptions of self and sexuality. Those considering themselves to be

`progressive’ or `liberated’ often measure/or determine what they regard as `oppressive’

societies by mainstream and even official attitudes to personal things like sexuality and

drug use. Those more conservative’ elements in society, however, tend to measure

what they consider as the 'decay’ and corruption of societies in much the same way.

Attitudes to sexuality and `drug’ use can thus tell us a lot about the power relations of

any given society. And much of collective society’s attitudes and indeed the challenges

to them are reflected in Western Popular music.

Therefore in this segment, we examine some Popular music linked to the use of drugs

and review the implicit and explicit messages therein.

JJ Cale Cocaine

Drug Music

Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit

Drug Use Has Been A Common Human Activity Since The Dawn Of

Time

As we all know, drug use has been a common human activity since the dawn of time.

Drugs and their use and the economy of their trade has often been central to many

civilisations. They have also been used as a weapon of war, and also as a tool for

foreign policy ends. Indeed governments have long involved themselves in the drug

trade, both legally and illegally, covertly and overtly, for the obvious financial and

other benefits that can be attained.

Drug Wars

For example, the British used the opium trade to break

down the trade doors of China and then ultimately

waged what was known as the 'Opium Wars' against

China when China opposed such enforced trade.

More recently, among other governments, it's claimed

the United States through its intelligence and other

agencies long involved itself and controlled the global

drug trade - or a large part of it to finance various foreign policy objectives

(particularly in the Reagan era) both in Southeast Asia, as the French did before them

- as we know.

This was the case also in Central America -

President Noreaga

when more recently America, during the Reagan

Administration financed the 'dirty war' against Nicaragua,

using President Noreaga of Panama, among others, as an

intermediary and conduit, in such operations as

Iran-Contragate. The drugs used in these operations,

primarily heroin, of course, were highly illegal, but not all

addictive and harmful drugs in human society are!

Our Use Of Drugs Is Selective - Some Are Sanctioned - Some Are Not

Depending On Power Relations

Around the world, human societies tend to treat and use drugs selectively, some are

sanctioned and seen as acceptable by various societies and states. For example, as we

know in the West - the use of alcohol and tobacco as opposed to others, are seen as

acceptable drugs. The question of just what is acceptable and what is not in various

cultures and countries around the globe, is of course dependent on the dominant power

relations within a community and on what economy those power relations depend on.

In our present dominant Western societies, two main drugs actually underpin our

lifeways, and even our economies to some extent, i.e - nicotine and alcohol. And as

such they are considered respectable and legitimate, whereas other drugs such as

heroin and marijuana (grass) are not. Yet this is not the same in all societies - as we

get shifting power relations and socialising processes which work to make some drugs

institutionalised and acceptable and others not.

Take prohibition in the US for example and attempts to ban alcohol.

The power structures in the United States in support of the

vested interests around alcohol saw this 'vested interest' win out -

and saw acceptance over time of its legitimacy and moral worth

as a social good, as opposed to heroin which is seen as morally

bad and corrupting, and deadly. And yet, more people die

from alcohol and smoking than anything else on this planet.

Therefore, when we get a dominant elite or set of power relations supporting the use

of one product or another, we also usually get a socialising process swing in as well to

support this structure. Usually this socialising process is waged by institutional

supporting agencies such as other arms of the elite or power structure - these may

be the state religion, and other bodies which together shape a culture in which

which such `outside’ drugs are seen to be immoral and as such therefore `bad’, etc.

Cold Chisel - Cheap Wine

Captain Matchbox - That Cat Is High

The Debate Over Drugs Reflects A Broader Debate Between

Collectivism and Libertarianism

Nevertheless in any society, there are always supporters of behaviour that is accepting

of different moral codes and practices and even certain illegal drug use. Hence, at

least in the West, we get ongoing debates and sometimes bitter ones, and civil

disobedience, wherein some sectors of society try and get some drugs, or behavior,

accepted as morally and legally legitimate and acceptable, for all sorts of reasons,

ideological, economic - and/or other.

At least in the West anyway, such debate over the use of drugs, or other aspects of

behaviour, has often been central to broader political debates about the way human

society should be organised. The drugs debate is central to this debate.

And within this debate is the 'Collectivism' versus 'Libertarianism' 'sub' debate - a

debate over the legitimate role of the state and the reach of its power in our society. A

debate that is fundamentally central to the way we organise our community, and hence

a debate we should briefly cover now.

Collectivism Versus Libertarianism

Now, much of our ideas of politics centres upon the idea and function/ role of the

'State'. And a great deal of academic and practical argument about politics can be

reduced to disagreements about the legitimate role of the State. For example, whether

the State ought to own any of the means of production, or whether it should leave the

economy in the hands of private enterprise.

The two opposing extremes in the debate over the legitimate role of the State have

been termed 'Libertarianism' and 'Collectivism'. We should now briefly outline what

these concepts mean and then also why Collectivism in fact has tended to become

the dominant orthodoxy over the last century or so, and as such show how the drugs

debate highlights many of the features of this debate.

Libertarianism

The idea of 'Libertarianism' is composed of a number of

characteristics.

First: Its first feature is a stress upon the individualism of human

beings, and their right to pursue interests unhindered by the

interference of the State and its agencies. The individual is believed

to hold certain inalienable rights which are not the subject of, and

do not fall within, the sphere of the arbitrary whims of

government.

Such rights would be the right to be tried by a jury, freedom from

arbitrary arrest, and the right to no taxation without representation.

Associated with these political and civil rights are those pertaining to the economic

sphere. The free acquisition and use of one’s property, including one’s own labour,

should fall outside the State’s sphere of influence. Thus a person is entitled to the

fruit’s of his/her labour and any interference with this right is a gross infringement of

individual liberty. (Indeed this entitlement has often been the basis for arguments

concerning the provision of incentive for increased productivity and for the provision

of spontaneous genius in a society. Novel and ingenious inventions will only be

forthcoming within a society when individuals are allowed to benefit from their

inventive capacities.)

Second:

Its second feature, and following on from the first, is that the

individual being the embodiment of certain inalienable rights, is

considered to have an invisible circle, or 'bubble' drawn around

him or her. This circle is considered to circumscribe the area of

activity which is exclusively the realm of the individual. A

distinction is thus made, then, between 'self-regarding' and 'other

regarding ' interests. Those activities which affect only the

individual, or consenting individuals, concerned are the exclusive

domain of the person as opposed to the State. Extreme libertarians

therefore would apply this to the free use of drugs, and the unimpeded engagement in

any form of sexual activity.

However, where an individual’s actions self-evidently impinge upon those of another

without their consent, and consent here would be a contract between an employer and

employee, the former restricting the movements of the latter during hours of work,

and where palpable harm is perceived, the State then is believed to have a role to play

in preventing this harm.

The State, therefore, is considered to be a necessary evil. Libertarians believe that

the powers of the State must be strictly limited to those minimal concerns of providing

the framework within which individual liberties can be preserved.

The State, then, is there to ensure and contribute to, the maintenance of individual

rights and liberties, including the free use of drugs, as this falls within the domain of

the inalienable rights of the individual to perform self regarding interests - an essential

human freedom. Indeed, the State is considered to be opposed to the individual, if it

denies this freedom. The thing to remember, therefore, is that Libertarians distrust

the power of the State because they believe that power corrupts and that absolute

power corrupts absolutely. And it is within this bubble of autonomy - or freedom, those

who would support the right to use drugs, or forms of considered `unnatural sex’

challenge the State.

Third:

This leads to the third feature of Libertarianism. This is a fear

of large concentrations of power. The power of the State

should be diffused throughout society. In other words there is

a predisposition to favour pluralistic politics. If you take the

British constitution, for example, the fear of large

concentrations of power has led to constant concern over

the separation of the powers and constant argument over the

checks and balances which restrain power, such as the freedom of the press.

This fear of strong central government, leads to a stress upon relatively autonomous

local authorities, free from the dictatorial hand of a centralised State.

Fourth:

A fourth feature of Libertarianism is that everyone, even those in

positions of power, is equal before the law. This doctrine is

commonly known as the rule of law. Officials are not exempted

from the law, and the laws must be clearly identifiable in order that

individuals who break them can reasonably predict the

consequences.

So, in essence you could say that Libertarianism involves a negative

attitude towards the State. In its most extreme form it borders on

anarchy. Individuals are considered sacrosanct and the State is a

necessary evil restricting certain areas of liberty to prevent harm to others.

Individuals are viewed as autonomous and independent entities, possessing rights

which entitle them to pursue their own self interest within a framework of laws

designed to protect these rights and minimise potential conflict in society. The State,

then, does not have an active role to play in imposing grand designs, or purposes on a

society. It does not set ideals to be attained by society as a whole. People are not

associated in society in terms of a common purpose to achieve this or that desired goal

for the collective good of the community.

It is not, then, what Michael Oakshott would call an enterprise association. It is a civil

association where individuals acknowledge the authority of the laws, and engage in

argument about their desirability without questioning their authority. Individuals

within civil association pursue their own purposes and not those imposed upon them by

the State. The idea, then of a planned economy, or five year plans for industry directed

by the State, are totally anathema to the Libertarian.

Collectivism

Collectivism, in contrast, has a totally different conception of

the State and the individual. Individuals are not conceived as

autonomous self-seeking units; they are understood to be

social entities related to one another in the social whole.

Individuals are dependent upon one another and could not

attain what they attain without conducive social conditions to

facilitate it. Thus, if part of society is suffering and falling

into decay it will have detrimental implications for the whole

of society. The Collectivist is predominantly concerned not

with individual freedoms and liberties, but with the public good.

Society is viewed as being something more than its parts and possessing certain rights

apart from those of individuals. The State is viewed as a necessary and all

encompassing aspect of society. Far from being opposed to the individual the State

provides the conditions for self-enhancement.

The State, then, is obliged to intervene in the free market to alleviate the indiscriminate

inequalities it precipitates. There is a stress upon equality of opportunity. Each

individual should be afforded the same opportunities to enhance their position in life.

Social Justice becomes of prime importance and provides the justification for State

involvement in all aspects of society.

Strong positive government is advocated by Collectivists in order to maintain the

conditions of a comfortable life free from poverty and deprivation for all members of

the community. The redistribution of wealth within society will be achieved through

taxation and property laws and rights should benefit the whole community and not just

privileged individuals. After all, the enjoyment of one’s property is a socially

recognised activity. Without the acknowledgment of society in respect of private

property the institution could not exist. Thus property must be distributed in such a

way as to benefit the common good.

There are of course many thinkers who would fall somewhere between these two

extremes, advocating free enterprise in respect of economic affairs, but at the same

time recognising that the State must provide certain services which ought not to be

left to the whims of the market, such as education, social services and health.

The Reality

Theory aside, the reality of all this is that the Libertarian

extreme is an ideal which has never in fact existed. Many

Libertarians concede that the State must regulate industry

in some rudimentary respects to prevent freedom of choice

being restricted. Thus they welcome anti-monopoly laws, and

would sometimes accept protectionist measures by the State

to promote new or ailing industries. In addition, the State has

always had a certain responsibility for the security of a nation. Indeed, the conduct of

the security of a nation, especially in times of war has been one of the greatest

contributors to the growth of Collectivism. In fact there has been a growth of

Collectivism commensurate with the development and sophistication of society,

technology, war, health and education, etc.

Drugs And Libertarians

However, while we note that Libertarianism does not exist in its extreme form,

elements of it do exist as we know, and in demands for individual freedoms in certain

affairs such as sexuality and lifestyle - in terms of freedom of choice of the drugs we

use, and the partners we choose for sex.

So What Has Modern Pop Music Actually Said About Drug Use?

Enough of theory, let’s now turn to modern pop and drug use. What has modern pop

music actually said about drug use?

Janis Joplin - Cry Baby

As we know, drugs have

been the staple diet of

many 'musos' - and as

such, drugs have taken

their toll on many

musicians - let’s name a

few.

Sex Pistols - My Way

Janis Joplin, Jimmy Hendrix, even others like Andy Gibb, and Sid Viscious died of

heroin overdoses, etc. But again we are being selective - Bon Scott of AC/DC it's

claimed also died of alcoholic poisoning, as did Peter Moon of The Who, and many

others.

Therefore, messages about drugs issuing from the Pop industry have been rather mixed

- some have advocated drug use, others have condemned it.

Some Music Describes The Hallucinogenic Effects Of Drugs

There is, and has also been, plenty of music around describing the effects of drugs

without necessarily making any sort of commentary on their respective value or

worth, or morality. Let’s hear some.

The Beatles - Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds

Donovan - Mellow Yellow

Drugs And The Counterculture

However, there was a time - way back when in the 1960s, when the Pop culture and

the music did champion the use of illegal drugs. As a result, drugs became the glue of

the counterculture and the music of the counterculture reflected drugs - hence the

name 'Acid Rock' (Acid rock - was no more than 'acid' and music)

Let’s read what music expert Rebebee Garafolo writes about Acid Rock:

`It was this sense of community, of contributing to the collective good that made the

counterculture, and San Francisco in particular, unique...The music that emerged from

the psychedelic experience came to be known, logically enough, as acid rock. Efforts

to reproduce the effects of the psychedelic experience naturally resulted in a new kind

of swirling concert poster art and light shows, attempts to incorporate colourful moving

images as an integral part of the music a band was playing. Sometimes simply the

presence of these extra musical elements was enough to categorise music as acid rock -

but much of it leaned heavily on blues - with psychedelic colouring. In fact blues based

rock enjoyed a surge among white rockers throughout the US during this period.’

As we know, there were many different influences, ideologies and peoples making up

the counterculture. And the one unifying element that held this myriad of forces

together was the widespread use of mind-expanding drugs... For the counterculture,

the focus on mind expanding drugs seemed to offer the possibility of greater self-

awareness and consciousness, which would in turn lead to a world without war,

competition, or regimentation.

And Perhaps The Greatest Exponent And Champion Of Drugs, At

Least Musically, Were The Grateful Dead. And Of Course Timothy

Leary

Timothy Leary

Both the Dead and Harvard Uni Professor, Timothy Leary

were great advocates for the use of LSD (or Lysergic Acid

Diethylamide). (The story of the Grateful Dead is one that

combines the anti-commercial tendencies of disaffected white

middle class youth with the mind altering properties of

Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) - made famous by Harvard

uni professor - Timothy Leary.)

The Grateful Dead

The Grateful Dead came from a smorgasbord of musical

influences...Ever open to the beckoning of psychedelia, the

'Dead' went on to become one of the most experimental and

improvisatory bands in rock.

Some More 'Drug' Music

Small Faces - My Mind's Eye

Traffic - Hole In My Shoe

Anti-Drug Music

Over time, as we know drugs have extracted/inflicted a tremendous toll on human

kind, and these days much of Pop even condemns the use of drugs, or at least

highlights its abuses and impact - so often deadly.

There have of course been many casualties of the drug industry and many in the Pop

business as well. Janis Joplin (who was a symbol of rebellion for millions of white

middle class youth, died of a heroin overdose in 1970) Jimi Hendrix, Bon Scott, Andy

Gibb, and so many others before and since.

And now there is much music highlighting the horrors and heartbreak associated with

the industry. One writer observed of the 1960s drug culture: `Some of us thought they

had found that better place, that greener spring, in drugs and minds that might else

have been good and great were spent and wasted on this youthful foolishness. Few

have looked frankly at this waste of potential, or the unworthiness of the drug for which

so much was sacrificed, and that drug of course was hallucinogenic LSD.'

Anyway, lets hear some music that could be interpreted as anti-drug. You have

already heard Neil Young and the 'The Damage Done'. Let's hear some others.

Led Zeppelin - Stairway To Heaven

But of course not all Pop has been about

illegal drugs as such - some legal drugs

are just as deadly. Hear the Rolling Stones

sing: 'Mother's Little Helper'

James Taylor - Carolina In My Mind

Rolling Stones - Mother's Little Helper

Pop And Drugs Today

Anyway, having said all that. Let’s look at Pop and the drug scene today. And there’s

no prizes for guessing that it is going very well. But as different to the 1960s - the

music today is mainly dance music - and the drug has largely been Exctasy, and now

'ice'.

In fact, the biggest single development in Britain and elsewhere, in the past 20 years, or

so, has been the rise of the ‘Rave’ culture. Though the term has dropped into disuse

(partly, as we shall see, as a result of government legislation) the culture of rave -

extremely long dance sessions to a continuous sound-track fueled by drugs, notably

Ecstasy, was a key-stone of teenage experience in Britain, and also to an extent

elsewhere in the West in the 1990s - at least in the big cities anyway.

The ‘Dance’ or ‘Club’ culture was founded on the premise that the week-end is party-

time. Now ‘parties’ take place every night of the week, and the special party

atmosphere is ‘guaranteed’ officially by the employment of ‘name’ DJ’s - who are

now stars’ in their own right -and unofficially by easy access to a wide range of drugs.

The coming of Ecstasy, which combined amphetamines with hallucinogenics, gave

this scene its unity, its staying power, and its ubiquity. There had been nothing like this

before in Britain - it was Mod culture meets Hippie culture - but without the politics

that both of those either implied or evinced. And one music expert noted there was the

irony, because the rise of Rave culture helped provoke the Tory (Conservative)

Government in the UK into passing the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) some time back.

The ‘political’ point we want to make about this is three-fold:

(i). For the first time ever a British government sought to outlaw a musical practice

(and hoped also to kill off that music);

(ii). The CJA didn’t provoke a truly mass opposition movement - although actions

taken against were headline-making (notably for violence - police violence is now

endemic in demonstrations in Britain);

(iii). How ‘political’ is a drug culture? Is it political because it is informed by a radical

set of alternative values - say, hedonism versus discipline? Or is it intrinsically

oppositional because it is criminalised by the State? In whichever interpretation (not

that they are mutually exclusive) this massive drug culture and its total inter-

penetration with a Pop music culture needs to be explored, politically. Now we don’t

have time to do any of that, save to highlight that the drug culture and Pop are still very

much intertwined these days, and worthy of much, more in depth study.

The above lecture material is heavily based on the work of expert academics - see

Sources.

A Question To Consider:

By examining the evolution of Western Popular music over the last thirty years would

you regard Western political culture as `progressive’ or `oppressive’ with regard to

`drug’ use?

See Below For A Song To Leave You With: