CHARBONNEAU – Huxley’s futuristic solution to the ‘drug problem’
ALDOUS HUXLEY came up with a solution to the drug problem of the day in his dystopian novel Brave New World.
Huxley’s book is set in the World State city of London in AD 2540. Soma, a hallucinogenic drug, is distributed as a panacea for the conditions of the totalitarian state.
Flash back to a century ago and the drug problem was not that people used drugs – it was who used particular drugs.
Humans have been using drugs for millennia. Our early ancestors sampled a wide variety of plants and potions, some toxic, some edible, some mind-bending. They chewed coca leaves; smoked opium, tobacco and cannabis; ate peyote, mescaline and psilocybin; drank brews of alcohol and ayahuasca.
Drugs used by the European establishment were acceptable – alcohol, coffee, cigarettes. The drugs used by the Chinese, Blacks, and Indigenous people of North America were not.
“The division between legal and illegal drugs was created in Canada in 1908,” says Neil Boyd, author of High Society.
The year 1908 marks a critical change in Canadian drug policy. That was the year that opium was criminalized through the Opium Act. It was so successful at the time that other drugs were criminalized.
Criminalization of drugs solved two problems: one social and the other commercial.
The social problem was Chinese immigrants and other ‘undesirables.’ The Opium Act was in response to a moral panic against Asians. Blacks were also targeted because of their cocaine use in Montreal.
Mackenzie King, the architect of criminalization, told the House of Commons that cocaine use resulted in “the seduction of our daughters and the demoralization of our young men.”
The commercial problem was that patent medicines were a threat to doctors and pharmacists. The patent medicines contained opium, cocaine and morphine. In their advertisements, the patent-medicine makers urged Americans and Canadians to medicate themselves in order to avoid the expense and unnecessary intrusion of physicians and pharmacists.
Physicians and pharmacists formed a powerful political lobby group to criminalize patent medicine and give them exclusive rights.
Criminalization solved the problem of drug control by ensuring that the prescribing and distribution of non-European drugs was restricted to physicians and pharmacists.
The “drug problem” of today has nothing to do with racial discrimination or control of the drug market by doctors and pharmacists. The out-of-control drug market has been flooded with deadly drugs, used by those who wish to escape the poverty and oppression of our sick society.
Fast forward to the solution that Huxley envisions.
The World State has found the perfect drug that allows escape from totalitarianism. Soma is encouraged and promoted as a healthy drug, much in the way that coffee is promoted now. It allows citizens a getaway from the tyrannical social structure in which they lived.
By providing an easy escape from reality, soma prevented people from questioning the state or seeking genuine fulfillment.
I think soma is the kind of drug Pierre Poilievre could advocate. Here’s a quote he is free to use: “Trudeau has no clue how to solve the drug problem,” said Poilievre, “I will bring a safe drug for all to use and bring tranquillity across this great nation.”
David Charbonneau is a retired TRU electronics instructor who hosts a blog at http://www.eyeviewkamloops.wordpress.com.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Mr. Charbonneau, I take issue with your historical analysis. Aldous Huxley Brave New World was a warning to humanity about technology and its uses to solve world problems. Huxley cautions against a World State based on the ideology of its founder, Henry Ford and abuse by powerful elites who control the science (Covid -19) for example.
Huxley himself was a eugenicist and a strong advocate of human genetic manipulation cautioning society about Pavlovian conditioning, promiscuous sexualities, and institutionalized propaganda totalitarian ideology that undermines the core values of humanity: truth, justice, equality, liberty, and human dignity.
The following statements by Charbonneau “Drugs used by the European establishment were acceptable – alcohol, coffee, cigarettes. The drugs used by the Chinese, Blacks, and Indigenous people of North America were not” is factually and historically incorrect.
Opium was legal in Britain in the early 1800s and British people consumed between 10 and 20 tonnes of the stuff every year for self medication and as a means of inducing euphoria or oblivion. Many writers produced some of their best works while in la, la land. Acceptance of opium was so general that horticultural societies gave awards for growing the poppy and medical practitioners were among the prize-winners.
Charbonneau also writes that “The social problem was Chinese immigrants and other ‘undesirables.’ The Opium Act was in response to a moral panic against Asians” which is factually and historically incorrect. The Opium Act had racist overtones as it stigmatized the Chinese males but it was more about who got the money from Opium trade.
The Opium Wars which were caused by imbalance of trade, and outflow of British Sterling for Chinese goods tea and porcelain. The British military settled that issue by importing opium from Bengal and reversing the imbalance by forcing the Chinese to pay for opium much of it they dumped into the sea huge sums to the British government and its merchants. This is similar to today we blame the Chinese for our stupidity of outsourcing and selling resources without value added.
Let’s not forget how Hong Kong, Shanghai, Macue, Taiwan and South-East Asia were used to pillage by the colonial masters. For example, the French had an alcohol tax in Vietnam where consumption tax was levied if enough alcohol was not consumed. The Chinese had enough. “If you talk to many Chinese about the Opium War, a phrase you will quickly hear is ‘luo hou jiu yao ai da,’ which literally means that if you are backward, you will take a beating.”1
China has not forgotten this beating and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi tells us politely to take a hike saying “China will defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, its legitimate right to development, and its dignity and place in the world which the Chinese people have worked so hard to earn”. On the other hand, Xi by his demeanor looked at Justin Trudeau as if to say “go away little boy.” Currently, bold initiatives and activism are writing the next chapter of drug policy in Canada. Once we politicise the drug issue we have lost the battle. Some comments on this article have already done that by pointing at Eby and the NDP without looking next door at Alberta and East at Ontario strongholds of Conservatism where the same problem exists. We need community-led harm reduction programs administered by health professionals
LikeLiked by 1 person
The drug issue is political by nature, because it landed with a thud and upended our communities. If we are to believe it’s solely a health issue (I personally do not believe it to be exclusively that) then the treatment must be such that it improves the outcomes of not only the addicts, but those it impacts (the community). If this were something like cancer, the impacts to the community at large are less acute – therefore it remains mostly in the realm of a health issue.
Take drinking and driving for example. That is not solely a health issue because it has dangerous implications for the community. A bystander can be harmed or killed due to the actions of the person abusing alcohol. The same goes for drugs, and arguably the damage is far more widespread as far as broad negative impacts to the community.
Let’s not get too carried away about what side of the political party spectrum is responsible for this. But it’s quite important to demand that the party in power put in place working solutions, and to point out their (abject) failures on this issue. But make no mistake, this is entirely political. The bungling response has made it doubly so.
I appreciated reading your discourse on Brave New World and the historical context. What a fabulous contribution to this topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all, Bill Christina Joan Clark BC Liberal was the premier of British Columbia (BC), from 2011 to 2017. Driven by an increasingly toxic drug supply contaminated by fentanyl, alfentanil, and other contaminants BC entered the overdose public health emergency in 2016. The NDP inherited this crisis from the BC Liberals who are now shifting the blame onto Eby.
The WACO as you call them, totally unfairly, the NDP also inherited various systemic issues including colonialism, entrenched poverty, government care involvement, and cycling through foster care and group homes that they had to deal with.
To attack the street drug use contaminated by fentanyl, alfentanil, and other contaminants the NDP in 2022 embarked on providing safe needle distribution program, an evidence-based way to reduce the risk of infections in our communities. It had negative issues as needles were discarded in public places but it helped prevent spread hepatitis and other diseases in the gay and lesbian communities which also affected the heterosexual communities.
The NDP introduced decriminalization allowing for safe injections and methadone at places like Kip Mallory pharmacy and other outlets to eliminate street drugs.
As you write this was not done with full safeguard and the NDP had to revisit the where drug use. Safe drug use will remain decriminalized. This is a good program that needs to be understood by the people of BC and drug users themselves in order to work. It is however being used by political parties (Liberals who have morphed into several parties) that did zero to eliminate the crisis while in power but now blame the ones (NDP) who are actually doing something to end the death in our streets.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But overdose rates, and deaths from overdoses have increased since the NDP wacko decriminalization plan.
Typically when you’re trying to fix or address a problem, and the problem gets bigger/worse, it means what you’re doing isn’t effective.
I’ll admit that progressives may call that progress, but for the rational human, 2 + 2 = 4.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you take two integers and use the standard addition law, then, yes, two plus two equals four. But there are many other things those numbers could stand for and many other addition laws, and depending on your definition, two plus two might be two or one or five or really anything at all. We need to look at all the variables in decriminalization to understand if punishment vs treatment is the option
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Charbonneau is a “retired electronics instructor”. He offers pandemic drug use solution advice to Conservative Leader Poilievre that would, “…would bring tranquillity across this great nation.”
If tranquillity was an on or off electronic signal that would be excellent advice.
Is tranquillity socially complex? I think so.
Elon Newstrom
LikeLiked by 1 person
But isn’t it the Trudeau government that has been in power through the entirely of the drug crisis, as declared by BC in 2016? The same government that foolishly agreed to BC’s wacko request for decriminalization without guardrails?
And it’s been the NDP in power in BC for the vast majority of time since the health emergency was declared.
But it’s scary PP we should be worried about? Isn’t it the NDP and Liberals distributing the “safe” drugs you attribute to PP? What you describe is happening right now. No need to wait for the Conservative sweep that’s incoming.
Typically it’s those in charge that are responsible for the results of a given situation. Not those attempting to change the results of those in power.
I don’t follow the logic at the end of this article. But a chance to revisit Brave New World was appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person