ANTH106 RESEARCH
ESSAY
Zinberg (1984: 6) proposes that “Social controls apply to the use of all
drugs”. Discuss social controls surrounding drug use, as well as consider
the extent to which they function to minimise harm amongst drug users in
Western and non-Western societies.
Word Count (excluding references): 1495
Introduction
Social sanctions and rituals have an inherent effect on the use of drugs and the resulting
different impacts they have on individuals and their communities. This reflects Zinberg’s
theory that social controls such as rituals and sanctions affect all drug use, though this is an
imperfect perspective as it only considers limited social variables with particular focus on
establishing the controlled use of drugs (Harding & Zinberg 1977; Grund, Kaplan & DeVries
1993). This essay discusses the importance of these social controls in conjunction with other
factors such external determinants and the great influence these controls have on minimising
harm in Western and non-Western societies.
Social Controls and Alcohol
Social sanctions refer to the values and prescribed ‘norms’ of a community surrounding drug
consumption, which have inherent effects on the way a drug is used. Rituals refer to the
methods in which drugs are acquired and administered, social setting for use, activities
undertaken after the use of the drug and the preventative measures taken to control
problematic effects of the drug (Zinberg 1984). Alcohol as a psychoactive drug which is
capable of devastating physical and psychological damage (Sudhinaraset et al 2016)
exemplifies the effect of these social controls and supports Zinberg’s notion that
pharmacology and set alone are insufficient in understanding the experience of a drug (Moore
1993), as its widespread and relatively controlled use worldwide reinforce that it is rather
social sanctions which “pattern the way the drug is used,” (Zinberg 1977).
Zinberg and Harding highlighted in their 1977 article that social controls exist surrounding
alcohol through the and ritual of drinking at special occasions such as weddings, parties and
other ceremonies has encouraged its use whilst “promiscuous” use is condemned. Children
1
are heavily exposed to behaviours alcohol in media such as advertising and television,
therefore gaining an early familiarity with alcohol (Zinberg 1977; Sudhinaraset et al 2016),
and internalise the common proscriptions that it is “OK to have a drink,” but “Know your
limit,” “Don’t drink and drive,” (Zinberg 1977). These internalised social sanctions therefore
lead children to mature and develop the ideas that alcohol consumption can be both pleasant
and controlled if one consumes them moderately or ritualistically in celebration, as these
socially accepted norms as well as their gradual introduction to alcohol guide them to drink
responsibly, paralleled by the minimal legal regulation of alcohol in comparison to illicit
drugs.
Social Controls and Illicit drugs
Zinberg’s theory that social controls affect the way drugs are used is reflected by the
patterned use of illicit drugs, with a majority of The Drug Abuse Council’s subjects being
described as adhering to social sanctions to maintain a level of social control outside of legal
standards (Harding & Zinberg 1977). In Western societies there is the common attitude
towards illicit drugs of complete abstinence or “excess” which will lead to destructive
addiction (Zinberg 1984; Shiner & Winstock 2015) and an aversion to the safe teaching of
drug use to prevent abuse, paralleled by the “draconian policies,” in place by governments to
attempt to dissuade drug use (Hall 2017). The lack of mainstream culture to assist controlled
use of illicit drugs and the social sanctions discriminating against the ‘deviants’ who engage
in drug use suggested by Zinberg and Hall, has resulted in the link between use and antisocial
behaviours as drugs are used for “negative reasons” and their separation from mainstream
society (Weil 1973). These sanctions have resulted in tighter bonds between drug users
themselves and the development of symbolic rituals between them to enhance their ability to
control use. An example of this is the identified ritual of ‘frontloading’ in which users share
2
their drugs in order to avoid withdrawal to prevent the untoward outcome of drug taking and
strengthening bonds, despite associated health risks (Grund, Kaplan & DeVries 1993). This
ritual helps individuals to establish a framework of control and helps individuals to avoid
negative effects (Weil 1973), supporting Zinberg’s theory of social controls affecting usage
despite not minimising harm.
Social controls’ immense influence on drug use is too seen in Non-Western cultures, though
the controls surrounding drug use contrast immensely from the practices and norms in the
United States. In Indian societies, hallucinogens are used in their natural form rather than
chemically refined and utilized for positive reasons, their healing properties introduced to
children from a young age (Weil 1973). The rules and societal norms embedded in this
culture surrounding illicit drug use are similar to the aforementioned acceptance of alcohol in
Western culture due to gradual introduction and education, as there is “careful groundwork
laid,” (Dobkin de Rios 1972) by healers to establish the safe use of these drugs. The highly
ritualised use of illicit drugs by which individuals are guided by experiences “witch doctors”
through their experience, has a symbolic meaning for this culture as it connotes notions of
wider support and safety to its usage. This framework of order through the ritual eradicates
irresponsible use (Weil 1973) and positive social sanctions surrounding the use of
hallucinogenic drugs dictate its safe use in comparison to Western culture, highlighting
Zinberg’s notion that the beliefs and rituals surrounding a drug are inherent to the way in
which it is used.
Harm Minimisation in Western and Non-Western societies
The mere existence of social sanctions and rituals does not mean that they are effective nor
are they guaranteed to control drug usage (Zinberg 1984) and the limitations of Zinberg’s
theory of control are emphasised by Grund, Kaplan & Devries who criticise his lack of
3
explanation on “intra-group variations in the ability to effectively utilise these social
controls,” and his failure to consider the entire concept of control (1993). The authors suggest
that drug use is affected by rituals and rules as well as the life structure and drug availability
and that through the restriction of drug availability, i.e. the aforementioned heavy restriction
on illicit drugs in Western cultures due to their anti-drug mindset, drug trafficking is
incentivised and the subjective importance of drugs as a commodity is heightened (Grund,
Kaplan & Devries 1993). This has resulted in increased violence related to drug trafficking in
Mexico (Clarke & Guy 2018) and criminalisation and stigmatisation of drug users, separating
them further from mainstream society and towards unsafe “antisocial” drug patterns (Weil
1973). This social norm of separation has resulted in inadequate healthcare and education for
users, reflected by the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis B among users with only 1% of those
who inject illicit substances live in areas with syringe and needle health programmes
(International Drug Policy Consortium 2018). Therefore, despite the aforementioned
presence of rituals amongst drug users themselves helping somewhat to minimise negative
drug effects, the wider attitudes of Western societies society that have manifested into
government policy to condemn illicit drugs has had adverse effects on minimising harm. Too
is Zinberg’s theory of controlled use shown to be imperfect as he does not consider these
other social factors which contribute to the controlled use of substances.
As rituals and rules are the product of cultural learning processes, non-Western cultures’
different attitudes towards and rituals surrounding the use of drugs, and the level of education
and acceptance of illicit drugs embedded in their culture from a young age has been shown to
minimise harm and, as previously stated, is believed to have healing properties (Weil 1973).
Due to the guidance provided by drug experts in these societies and social controls such as
rituals, individuals who undergo the drug experience rarely experience “bad trips,” as their
socially defined controlled use of naturally sourced drugs is a cultural staple (Dobkin de Rios
4
1972), too agreed by Weil who stated that the framework surrounding their usage limited
negative effects of drugs (1973). Therefore, social sanctions surrounding drug use in this
culture are proved to be inherently linked to not only to Zinberg’s notion of controlled use
but also the minimisation of harm. This drastic comparison to Western cultures supports the
notion that the subculture directly affects the perception and impact of a drug and its use.
Conclusion
Social sanctions and rituals are capable of facilitating the controlled use of illicit drugs, as
seen in both Western and Non-Western societies, supporting Zinberg’s notion that social
controls are inherently linked to all drug use. Though his perspective is limited in its social
variables, the study of these different cultures has showcased how different social sanctions
embedded in subcultures dictate the way drugs operate in different communities. The
comparison of harm minimisation between Western and Non-Western societies too supports
that it is social controls that can dictate drug use and the large extent to which they can be
utilised to encourage controlled use.
5
Reference List
Clarke, H & Guy, J 2018, ‘Report says the UN's global 'war on drugs' has been a failure,’
CNN, viewed 1 January 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/21/health/drug-report-unfailure-intl/index.html
Dobkin de Rios, M 1972, ‘Ayahuasca Healing Sessions’. In Visionary Vine: Hallucinogenic
Healing in the Peruvian Amazon. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, pp. 99-116.
Grund, J-P, Kaplan, CD & DeVries, M 1993, ‘Rituals of Regulation: Controlled and
Uncontrolled Drug Use in Natural Settings’, in N Heather et al (eds), Psychoactive
Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science, London, Whurr Publishers, pp.
77-90.
Hall, W 2018, ‘The future of the international drug control system and national drug
prohibitions’, Addiction, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 1210-1223.
Harding, WM & Zinberg, NE 1977, ‘The Effectiveness of the Sub-culture in
Developing Rituals and Social Sanctions for Controlled Drug Use’, in BM Du Toit
(ed.), Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness, Rotterdam, Balkema, pp. 111133.
International Drug Policy Consortium 2018, ‘Taking Stock: A Decade of Drug Policy,’
International Drug Policy Consortium, pp.7-10, viewed 2 January 2020
http://fileserver.idpc.net/library/Shadow%20Report_FINAL_ENGLISH.pdf
Moore, D 1993, ‘Beyond Zinberg’s ‘Social Setting’: a Processual View of Illicit Drug Use’,
Drug and Alcohol Review, 12: 413-421.
Shiner, M & Winstock, A 2015, ‘Drug use and social control: The negotiation of moral
ambivalence’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 248-256.
Sudhinaraset, M, Wigglesworth, C and Takeuchi, D 2016, ‘Social and Cultural Contexts of
Alcohol Use.’ Alcohol Research: Current Review, vol. 38 no. 1, pp. 35-37
Weil, A 1986, ‘The natural mind: an investigation of drugs and higher consciousness’, in
A Weil (Rev.ed.), Boston, Houghton Mifflin, pp. 98-116.
Zinberg, N.E. 1984, ‘Historical Perspectives on Controlled Drug Use’. In Drug, Set and
Setting: the Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. Yale University Press, pp. 1-18.
6