During class on the 28th, we very briefly mentioned how, when certain countries removed or relaxed formerly strict drug regulations or bans, drug use temporarily increased before dropping back to or below what it had been before the countries removed the restrictions. I was thinking about the motivation for that, and compared it to the high rate of alcoholism and drug use amongst college students relative to the general population.
I think that much of the motivation is likely a belief that, if something is forbidden, there must be something really brilliant about it in order for the 'enemy' (whether that enemy is the law, parental pressures, or societal norms) to decide to forbid it. After time, people realise that the thing which was forbidden to them previously is, in reality, not particularly special. The novelty and the thrill of doing something edgy wears off, and most (though not, of course, all) people cease doing that thing and settle down into relatively normal lives.
This can apply to things apart from drug use and alcohol consumption, of course. Many young adults take part in protest movements or other forms of rebellion against societal norms. Some of these people do so because of actual, genuine belief in a cause, but many seem to do it primarily because they want to rebel against something, or because it gives them some sense of power, which prior to becoming legal adults they did not possess much of. This is unfortunate, because it leads to genuine supporters of a cause becoming minimised in the eyes of the public; brushed off, so to speak, as hormonally-charged young rebels who will in time 'come around' to conventional views. However, it seems unlikely that this will change, as it appears to be human nature to take advantage of removed restrictions to an extent rather greater than is completely rational.
No comments:
Post a Comment