The skyrocketing use of prescription drugs over the last decade is alarming, and the fact that the Attorney General is trying to solve the problem is an admirable goal. However, I believe it is too lofty.

The attorney general's plan of implementing a computerized database would doubtful attain the desired result of decreasing drug use. Ultimately, people will do what they want. It is a dismal reality, but reality indeed.

As Eben has continually reinforced, law is a weak-possibly the weakest-form of social control. Drug users will not change their habits as a result of their actions being tracked. (In a less serious, though analogous, situation, we all continue to use facebook daily, despite knowing that the corporation gathers and sells information about us each time we do.) Similarly, those using drugs have addictions, changing their biology, psychology, and social relationships. At the most basic level, we respond to our anatomical needs. A drug user, needing his/her fix, is going to satisfy that need, completely ignoring the force of the law.

Additionally, as you mentioned, substance use has become part of our social culture. Even in the law school, a place rife with ambitious and accomplished young adults, the majority of events lure us with promises of "Free Beer," "Open Bar," and the like. Moreover, we rationalize our behavior-whether it's a ritual coffee from the Halal Cart on 116th or the drag before bed every night-saying it's necessary to cope with the overwhelming "stress" of our lives. The law will have a tough time overcoming such psychological and sociological forces.

What most interests me about this problem is why exactly it happens and who it happens to. I completely agree that the problem is rampant among the upper echelons, a reality often ignored in our society. In Black's "Behavior of the Law" article, he stresses how poor and disenfranchised people have less law, and that the law disfavors. It is undeniably true that wealthier people, and those with close family and friends, tend to receive more sympathy when facing legal troubles. Maybe, for this reason, wealthy, privileged people believe they have immunity from the law, making it an even weaker form of social control than it already is. Thus, they use drugs, thinking the law won't, in fact can't, touch them. Additionally, though some people seem well-integrated on the surface, their psychological make-up puts them at the fringes, mentally apart from society, disenfranchised. A person less integrated in society is more likely to lose protection under the law. Ultimately, people will ignore the law as opposed to social, mental, and biological forces. For this reason, I regrettably doubt the I-STOP Bill could have any drastic impact (besides pissing off hard-working doctors).

That being said....can you put the link to the article you refer to on the Wiki?

Just days ago the entire law school student body received an email from Career Services titled, "How To Survive Your Law Firm Summer With Your Liver Intact and a Warm Fuzzy Offer." At first I, like most others, just found the titled amusing. But after reading this article, I realized how disturbing it truly is. We are being taught in law school not only how to "sell our degrees," but also that it is expected that we use substances such as alcohol to help along the way. We are being desensitized to the idea that lawyers, at least lawyers in the private sector, use substances such as alcohol to be able to work in their professional field. Lawyerland, furthermore, shows how alcohol is also used as a means to disassociate from harsh realities, such as "realizing at 2AM that you are on the wrong side of the case." I do not believe CLS is endorsing us to go down that path, but it sure is not helping us avoid it.

When I tell other law students that I do not drink coffee (due to the fact that I dislike the taste, not because I do not need the extra boost), they often look at me as though I am a mythological creature. A law student who dislikes coffee and absolutely refuses to drink energy drinks? Usually the next thing I hear is, "How do you survive?" Easy. I am too tired too much of the time. By overwhelming us with volumes of reading, which we barely have time to read much less comprehend, law students are being trained to rely on any energy boost they can find (except for actual sleep). Worst of all, this behavior is seen as training for our future demanding careers. I agree with Meagan, Prashant, Agnes and Harry that at this point, as law students, the "morning cup of coffee or evening cocktail" have been socially engrained in us as simply being part of a hard day's work.

Over-Prescription as Normalcy

In terms of self-medication or use of prescribed medication bordering on abuse, I think one problem is that there is a lack of resources to get to the heart of the issue of soul-splitting for people who want them. Try looking for a psychologist/therapist who is not a psychiatrist on insurance that is not school insurance - you will have a hard time. Even schools, they want students to be able to go on with their lives, so they will often refer you to psychiatrists. Of course, going on with your life is important, but not at the expense of harboring unresolved issues that will continue to manifest themselves in the person's activities for their lifetime. I guess Wiley did attempt to do this with a sort of classic psychologist, but unfortunately, that psychologist was inept and had daddy issues.

I also think that muscling through those kinds of issues is glorified in many countries/cultures, especially the U.S. There is a stigma that you're a weakling if you can't function due to internal strife, and it's your own fault not to be able to deal with those issues. And that leads to what Meagan said, that self-medication is normalized. After all, our society wouldn't function with lawyers and other professionals being unable or unwilling to do their job due to internal conflicts or strife. And I think what Meagan said is also true, that nobody takes note of "our" dependence because it is necessary for our society to function efficiently. Who cares is, or who should care is, each and every one of us for our own well-being.

-- AgnesPetrucione - 07 Mar 2012

Yeah you better not be knocking a good cup of joe and a rum and coke.

I'm joking, but I think that your light-humored qualification actually proves your point. In order to not come off as a radical, you had to at least in some sense come across as ok with self-medication.

Also I totally agree with your point about the relationship between the econodwarf, cognitive dissonance and drug use in the economic upper-middle class. It reminds me of the scene in the film American Psycho where Patrick Bateman and Timothy Bryce do cocaine together in a bathroom stall of a nightclub after work:

"It's definitely weak. But I have a feeling that if we do enough of it, we'll be ok."

-- PrashantRai - 06 Mar 2012

This made me think of our discussion on Thursday regarding the prevalence of self-medication – through prescription drugs, alcohol and caffeine – in order to disassociate from the ‘soul splitting’ involved in the legal profession and to cope with those times “when you’re working on some deal that, if you were to think it through, you’d realize that it was going to ruin the lives of thousands of people and their families”. I think part of the problem may be that dependency on these substances to cope with moral compromise and cognitive dissonance is not viewed as an addiction or a crutch, but is normalized and accepted by those engaged in the same profession and society at large. The article’s discussion of the dangers inherent in over-prescription retains a focus on “crooked doctors, street-level drug dealers, and doctor-shopping addicts”. This perpetuates stereotypes associated with serious drugs - primarily that these drug problems are confined to a particular subset of society that doesn’t include ‘us’. There is significantly less attention paid to the prevalence of addiction within the employed upper-middle class.

While not as serious as prescription drugs, the routine use of caffeine and alcohol for coping with work and social situations is normalized even in the law school context. I’m not knocking a good cup of joe and rum and coke, but it is interesting to think about why we have come to believe in the necessity of these substances for proper functioning in day-to-day life. Are we attempting to subvert true consciousness and remain in denial of our moral ‘split’ through over-medication and consumption of performance enhancing drugs? I think this explanation, while perhaps true in certain cases, may be overreaching and an improper generalization to make. It seems less likely that my morning cup of coffee or evening cocktail is a manifestation of my subconscious attempt to cope with the splitting of my soul, and more likely that I have just been socially conditioned to use these devices. Perhaps we are brought up to believe that if we “time when it hits” just right, our “consciousness is heightened and everything glows” – but regardless, does this really matter? As Eben said, if all you’re selling is time not judgment, who cares? And even if we were to choose to dismiss the econodwarf, and start measuring our worth not by time spent but by judgment proffered, would anyone care then? Or have these processes of making it through the day and engaging socially with others become so entrenched and so normalized in society that no one would take notice of our dependence?

-- MeaganBurrows - 03 Mar 2012