drugs and booze

A quote from The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition, the fascinating book that I'm reading. It's part of a passage about why certain drugs are abused in specific societies, why Americans were drunkards while Chinese were addicted to opium:

The reason seams clear in the light of a 1954 study that contrasted the use of marijuana and distilled spirits in a province in India. There, the priestly caste smoked cannabis, which they praised as a promoter of contemplation, an aid to insight, a stimulant to thought, and a help to attaining inner peace. Spirits they condemned for producing violence and sexual promiscuity. The warrior caste, on the contrary, drank distilled liquor, which they heralded as a reviver of sagging spirits, an invigorator of sexual desire, a stimulant for the brave warrior, and the promoter of a more zealous, active life. Marijuana they condemned for producing apathy and lethargy. In other words, a group's preferences for a particular drug and appreciation of its properties were determined by the group's ideology, values, and psychological set. The caste that valued aggressive behavior drank alcohol.

I find this idea very intriguing. I've often wondered about the absurdity of this country's drug laws. Why is alcohol legal and marijuana banned? Maybe it's because the powers that be value aggression and not contemplation. I think it's too tidy of a theory, but it's compelling. . . until I apply it to myself. I much prefer the alcohol to the marijuana. It doesn't stem from some secret desire for aggression and promiscuity, or maybe one that is too sublimated for me to recognize it. Pot doesn't do anything to me. Maybe I'm already contemplative enough.

So when favored by a society, alcohol denotes valuing aggressiveness, but when favored by an individual it is a sign of one who is already at peace.

I don't think theorizing works like that.