Illicit Drugs Cultural Conflict Scapegoats

by Robert Hamilton

The banning of illicit drugs by governments, has, in a number of instances, involved measures  being taken against particular minority groups and racial subcultures, to limit or control their behaviour. The drugs have in fact become symbolic scapegoats for a law and order response to much more complicated social conflicts. It is often, an electorally popular move by governments, to focus on a possibly disturbing aspect of minority behaviour by a certain subcultural group, and to exaggerate this as a major problem, through the media and their own law enforcement policies. It seems that nothing garners  votes, as much as picking on unacceptably different behaviour, and demonising this behaviour through the press.


A keen example of this occurred in the United States of America, in the nineteen thirties, when itinerate Mexican labourers, who smoked marijuana, were depicted as violent criminal elements who became out of control on this, so called, ‘killer weed’ (Himmelstein:1983:13).  Himmelstein in his article, From killer weed to drop-out drug: The changing ideology of Marihuana, published in Contemporary Crises: Crime, Law, Social Policy, states that public discussion in the US in the nineteen thirties focused on the physically violent behaviours that marijuana was thought to engender (Gerber:2004:3). Cannabis, became more widely known as marijuana because this was its Spanish/Mexican name and through racial stereotyping of users it was associated in the public consciousness with poor, immigrant workers and their milieu. Remembering that the US was a prohibitionist state, moral crusaders were able to demonise poor people with darker skins, in their attempt to control the use of this recreational drug (Davenport-Hines:2004:14); (Hall; Pacula:1993:188). Racism and prejudice was also provided by upper class Mexicans, wishing to distance themselves from the poor, and by white North Americans of all persuasions.


Australia had a similar situation, during the Victorian gold rush of the eighteen eighties, where the proclivities of some Chinese immigrants toward smoking opium created a public backlash, based on barely disguised racism, with a report in the Australian Bulletin in 1886 labelling then dirty and smelly (Manderson 1995:801).[1] Australian’s did not want people from other countries taking their gold or jobs, and especially not people who looked, smelt and behaved so differently. Creating public condemnation for unacceptable behaviour allows for legislation like the White Australia policy to come into effect, masking the real reasons with a smokescreen of demonised villainy. Similarly laws against opium smoking were enacted in the US in the eighteen seventies, again specifically targeting the Chinese workers who had emigrated during their gold rush and railway boom (Hoffman:1990:57). Both these Australian and US drug policy changes were made despite the fact that the major user of opiates were white middle class females.


A more modern example, may be the legislative changes enacted by the Queensland government toward, so called, outlaw motorcycle gangs operating in their state. These prohibitive and restrictive new laws, are said, to be targeted at the bikies because of their dealings in the supply of illicit drugs and other illegal activities. Actual evidence of these activities are not usually forthcoming in the published media, rather spokespersons are quoted as saying, this is the case, but little proof is revealed. Perhaps the real reason behind this law enforcement action is the government’s desire to eradicate groups of powerful warrior type men from society. The fact that bikies sport tattoos is always front and centre with the media.


To conclude, there is substantial evidence to suggest that drug policies in countries like the US and Australia have, historically, been used to target racial subcultures. Mexicans in the US, and Chinese in both Australian and the US, have been vilified by these drug law enforcement policies, despite the fact that these two countries own majority white constituents have used other forms of these illegal drugs in far greater numbers. Perhaps a more modern example are the outlaw motor cycle gangs and the new laws targeting their activities, which supposedly are to limit their activity in the illicit drug trade. Illicit drugs, and their use, continue to be used to symbolise undesirable behaviour and to paint those users as undesirables.

 ©Robert Hamilton



[1] Himmelstein, Jerome L. “From killer weed to drop-out drug: The changing ideology of Marihuana”Contemporary Crises: Crime, Law, Social Policy , 7:1 , 1983. P – 13.

“We saw………rooms darker and more greasy than anything on the ground floor: rooms where the legions of aggressive stinks peculiar to the Chinaman seems ever to linger…. Yet the rooms are not naturally repulsive, nor would they be so when occupied by other tenants: but the Chinaman has defiled their walls with his filthy touch…”



Agar, Michael H. “Into the whole ritual thing: Ritualistic drug use among urban American heroin addicts” in Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness , Du Toit, Brian M. , 1977.

Burr, Angela. “Chasing the dragon” British Journal of Criminology , 27:4 , 1987.

Carpenter, Lucas. “Enhancing the possibilities of desire: Addiction as postmodern trope” Southern Humanities Review , 35:3 , 2001.

Davenport-Hines, Richard Peter Treadwell. “Prologue” in Pursuit of Oblivion: A Global History of Narcotics , Davenport-Hines, Richard Peter Treadwell , 2004.

Gerber, Rudolph J. “History of demonizing drugs” in Legalizing Marijuana: Drug Policy Reform and Prohibition Politics , Gerber, Rudolph J. , 2004.

Grund, Jean-Paul G.; Kaplan, Charles D.; De Vries, Marten. “Rituals of regulation: Controlled and uncontrolled drug use in natural settings” in Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science , Heather, Nick; Wodak, Alex; Nadelmann, Ethan A.; O’Hare, Pat , 1993.

Hall, Wayne; Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo. “Policy alternatives (part 1 of 2)” in Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy , Hall, Wayne; Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo , 2003.

Harding, Wayne M.; Zinberg, Norman E. “The effectiveness of the subculture in developing rituals and social sanctions for controlled drug use” in Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness , Du Toit, Brian M. , 1977.

Himmelstein, Jerome L. “From killer weed to drop-out drug: The changing ideology of Marihuana”Contemporary Crises: Crime, Law, Social Policy , 7:1 , 1983.

Hoffmann, John P. “The historical shift in the perception of opiates: from medicine to social menace” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , 22:1 , 1990.


Krivanek, Jara. “Drug misuse, psychological dependence and addiction” in Understanding Drug Use: The Key Issues , Krivanek, Jara , 2000.

Manderson, Desmond. “Metamorphoses: Clashing symbols in the social construction of drugs” Journal of Drug Issues , 25:4 , 1995.

Montagne, Michael. “The metaphorical nature of drugs and drug taking” Social Science and Medicine , 26:4 , 1988.

Moore, David. “Beyond Zinberg’s ‘social setting’: A processural view of illicit drug use” Drug and Alcohol Review , 12:4 , 1993.

Robson, Philip. “The consequences of drug use” in Forbidden Drugs: Understanding Drugs and Why People Take Them , Robson, Philip , 1994.

Weimer, Daniel. “Drugs-as-a-Disease: heroin, metaphors, and identity in Nixon’s drug war” Janus Head , 6:2 , 2003.


Do You Ever Long For Certainty?

by Robert Hamilton

Do you wish that you had a direct line to God, especially during those times when you are really unsure about what direction to take in your life? Would you like to be able to reach deep inside yourself and just know the right answer? Well according to the theory of the bicameral mind, and its part in the origin of consciousness, we all do have that facility within our brains. In fact it was originally all we did have, as it preceded that sense of I or me, our very own subjective consciousness which we all have today. Julian Jaynes published his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, in 1976 and the waves of influence have been spreading out ever since. The first sixty pages of his book are to me, the most immediately confronting and mind expanding – as they focus on what consciousness actually is or is not.

I mean consciousness is not mere reactivity or being awake, it is much more than that isn’t it? Think about what your sense of consciousness is to you. Where is your consciousness located? Is it somewhere on or in your body? What purpose does your consciousness serve? Is it so that you can learn things? Jaynes lists a number of scientific studies showing that our ability to learn things is not dependent upon our sense of consciousness and is actually impeded by it – a perfect example is when we are overly self-conscious we cannot perform basic tasks that involve motor skills like talking. Try it now, try speaking and at the same time focus on your articulation, bringing your full consciousness to bear on every enunciated syllable. How each vibrational sound is made inside your throat – you will just stop speaking as it becomes overwhelming.

Our consciousness is also not a perfect copy of our experiences; it is not some recording device taking impressions of memories and storing them. You can show this to yourself by asking yourself what information you can remember about walking into the last room you walked into. Try remembering what was in the room and where, get a piece of paper and write down your results. You will find that you have very little to show for it, so our consciousnesses are not providing this service. Jaynes goes on to say, that when we recall a memory, we do not call up the actual physical memory but a generalised version of it largely invented by ourselves to represent whatever it is – swimming or walking in a park. The memory is a construct involving thoughts we have about the activities and often is influenced by how we imagine others see us swimming or walking  – so our consciousness is not a faithful recording of reality.

What Julian Jaynes does posit, is where our sense of consciousness has come about from, and he points the finger at language and in particular languages love of metaphor. In fact he states language is largely metaphor and shows how many words have their roots in metaphor, for example the verb ‘to be’ comes from the Sanskrit ‘bhu’- meaning to grow, or make grow. Similarly our English words ‘am’ and ‘is’ have evolved from the Sanskrit ‘asmi’- meaning to breathe. Think to yourself now just how many times our language references other familiar pictures to describe less familiar things. For example how we use parts of the human body to describe parts of other things, like the face of a clock, cliff, card; and the eyes of needles, storms, potatoes; the lips of cups, craters; and the tongues of shoes, joints; and the teeth of winds, cogs etc. Indeed we reference and compare constantly with language, in the meaning of the words themselves and in the expressions we invent to make metaphors with. The vastness of language over several millennia means that we lose touch with its incredible elasticity and tend to think of it as some solid construct, missing the obvious evidence it has to show us about ourselves and the origin of consciousness.

It is through the ability to metaphor that the modern lexicon of our language is able to remain a reasonably finite collection of words. Otherwise like the Inuit we would have to have 150 different words for snow.  Jaynes talks about the function of metaphor being one of creating understanding through familiarity. We use a familiar example to shine a light on something less familiar, but ultimately this brings us a limited understanding based entirely on the quality of the metaphor employed. I would go on to say that it means we actually know far less than we think we do. An example of this would be our understanding of what happens during an electrical storm, we have learnt at school that it involves air pressure, vacuums and particle friction but we have no real direct experience of what happens and only a theoretical knowledge of it. Our sense of subjective consciousness is based on how we perceive existence through the use of language and referencing through metaphor. It is like the relationship between a map and the geographical reality of what has been mapped. So ultimately our knowledge of reality is a tenuous one at best and it is riddled with theoretical understandings based on metaphorical language constructs. You think you know stuff that you don’t really.

Where does that certainty principle, I mentioned at the beginning, fit into this? It seems like we are getting further and further away from that shore of assurance.  Well Jaynes postulates, that prior to the development of our illusory sense of subjective consciousness, we had a fully operating God spot in the right hemisphere of our temporal lobe and it was here that we received direct transmission from the divine.  He lists a number of studies into the brain, where scientists have removed sections and whole hemispheres to reveal what areas of the brain are responsible for particular functions and how the brain adapts. He gives a fascinating example where a dozen neurosurgical patients have undergone a complete commissurotomy, the cutting of all interconnections between the two hemispheres down the middle, as a treatment for severe epilepsy. For a period of about two months some patients lose the power of speech, but gradually they all return to a sense of being how they were prior to the operation. Normal observation of these patients shows nothing amiss either. However under rigorous study it becomes clear that these people cannot see things on their left side and the dominant left hemisphere projects a repeat of the right side vision to fill in the gaps. Even more astonishing though is that the right hemisphere is actually seeing  what is there on the left side but because of the cutting of the interconnections between the two sides of the brain has no way to communicate it. Tests have shown that these people using their left hand only can point out or draw what is on the left side but have no verbal or cognitive awareness of what is there. It is like there are two separate awareness’s, functioning independently within the same body.

Julian Jaynes goes on, in a satisfyingly erudite manner, to illustrate through countless examples taken from the great recorded histories like The Iliad, The Old Testament, Egyptian Papyruses, Babylonian Cuneiforms and more, how different humankind was at this time. That this difference in how they thought was because of this bicameral mind, that there were literally two separate minds at work within them. A dominant over mind or ‘God speak’ operating from the right hemisphere, which was triggered during times of stress or novel challenges outside the normal demands of the time, and the more prosaic left hemisphere ‘man brain’, which at this time had no subjective consciousness, no sense of I or me. Jaynes takes you on a journey from languages evolution from signalling and intentional calls to the development of nouns. Remember for a long time nobody had a name for things and for individuals. Death was a different beast when the one who died did not even have a name. Try and imagine a time when the sense of self was so small or non-existent and nobody had names. When there were no names for things and no words, how would you think?

It is an incredible theory and explains a great deal about why we worshipped statues of Gods and why we buried dead kings and priests surrounded by things to eat and treasures to keep. If these Gods and their stewards were continuing to speak inside our heads, beyond their allotted life spans, then it makes a lot more sense. Religion has always been about control and if that controlling centre is inbuilt inside our brains, then anthropologically a lot of stuff makes much more sense. It explains why we still cling to religions even now hundreds of years after science had ridiculed their fundamental platforms of belief. We are programmed to believe and to follow instructions, to understand – meaning stand under God. Jaynes maintains an aesthetic appreciation for the many wonders that humankind’s devotion to beliefs in Gods have produced and he is perhaps an example of his Christian American background. Still his insights and his theory are so startlingly original that he may have had no reason to bother with aggravating those of a more narrow minded persuasion.

The modern parallels with those suffering from schizophrenia are explored and Jaynes again proffers numerous scientific studies to illuminate his theoretical claims. Joan of Arc and many of the first testament prophets are prime examples of individuals recorded in history, who heard the passionate and insistent voice of God inside their heads. These individuals often laid down their own lives and willingly would lay down the lives of others to fulfil the ambitions of the voice within their head. Culturally now we have no room for those exhibiting a fully fledged bicameral mind and the voice of God; and so we lock them up and drug them.

Jaynes points out that it is poetry, and poetries link to music, which has been the favoured speech of the Gods, with most of our great and holy missives having been delivered in verse. This fact again links the right hemisphere of our brains with our connection to God, for it is in the right hemisphere where we process music and poetry. Music comes from the Muses, and they were the daughters of Zeus – bringers of divine inspiration; our connection to the Gods. Poets have, down through the ages, often been deliverers of God’s message, and the metre of verse can have a hypnotic, hallucinatory effect upon the listener. So many of the strands of evidence produced by Jaynes, to promote his theory, illuminates these aspects of humanity with a new understanding of where they actually fit in with the greater scheme of things.

What I particularly like about Julian Jayne’s theory of the bicameral mind is that it shatters the safe and often dry outcomes of much of the study of ancient history. We are so far removed from these ancient millennia’s, and the translations of these earliest languages are rife with modern approximations, making so many assumptions about who they were grossly incorrect. This book is a quantum leap into the unknown and really worth reading on so many levels.

©Robert Hamilton

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

By Julian Jaynes

First Mariner Books  ISBN 0-618-05707-2