The social normalization of alcohol and nicotine in society: Yes, you "do drugs" when you smoke and drink.

People either are aware and don't care or they aren't aware that alcohol and nicotine are drugs. They are considered soft drugs. 

The different between consuming these drugs and other drugs like cocaine or oopium is that alcohol and nicotine are socially accepted to the degree that they are sold like any form of liquid or hard material one finds in a grocery store, granted you have to be a certain age to legally purchase them which varies between county to country. In the US the legal age to purchase cigarettes was moved up to 21 in the end of 2019. Prior it was the age of 18 - the age of majority.

When the question "Have you ever done drugs before?" is asked people usually think of hard drugs or marijuana (which is considered a soft drug, but due to negative stigma it's looked at as "more of" a drug than alcohol and nicotine). They often respond with a "No." The technically right answer would be a "yes" if they consume alcohol and nicotine weekly or monthly.

TV/film before it was colorized normalized smoking amongst women, granted it was probably already more socially accepted in Western Europe. It was seen as 'cool.' Years later scientific research has shown that the weekly consumption of nicotine is rather bad - damaging the lungs, heart, throat, mouth and teeth. Despite hard evidence, people still consume nicotine in Western Europe and shrug their shoulders as if it's no big deal. In the US the stigma of nicotine is present where the scientific evidence has more of a effect on whether or not one smokes. The US has designated smoking areas in restaurants unless you go to bar where it's often allowed. There are even designated smoking areas outside buildings where you can only smoke a certain feet from the entrance. A bit much, but it does put emphasis on the effects of smoking on the smoker and second hand smoke. I personally support designated smoking areas in restaurants and don't mind smoking being allowed in bars. 

Usually smoking, if done by a woman, is seen as negative and unattractive in the US.  Is it biased and therefore sexist? Yes and maybe. In American tv/film, smoking is snuck in by people who know it's not healthy where they quickly hide "the evidence", brushing away the smell of smoke off their clothes before they renter the building or go back to studying for their chemistry exam.

In my younger years only a "particular person" who lived in an environment where it was excused smoked. And it was always a disappointment to find someone whom you thought knew better all of a sudden whip out a packet of cigarettes and started smoking. Smoking in the States has more of a negative social stigma than in Europe - and I think that's a good thing.

In Asia it's lopsided in terms of the sexes. In Europe it's common to have more of a 50/50 split of men and women who smoke, where at 18 it's completely normalized - I'd even bet smoking was allowed prior to turning 18 where 16 or 17 yr olds smoke in greater numbers than in the US. In Asia men far outweigh women in smoking. This lopsidedness is a good thing to a degree: it puts stigma on smoking and it frames the male and female dichotomony in a specific way. Females aren't so much grasping at bad habits to "be like the men" or push the "we're equal" mentality. 

People have examples in their life of what not to do and what to do. Take example my own household. My father has been smoking since as long as I can remember. My mother doesn't like it, or at least she tolerates it, and has said numerous times under her breath that she didn't want me or my older sibling to pick up "that habit." We never did, well, at least not cigarette smoking. I tried a cigarette twice while in Tokyo at a night club when I was 22, but that was the end of my nicotine phase. I was never drawn to nicotine since then.

How society treats alcohol is equally absurd since knowing full well of its effects. There are AA meetings worldwide, physicians warnings of abusing alcohol where pictures of damage livers are shown, national embarrassment where countries like Ireland and England are known to have weekends where its citizens are sloshed, car deaths via intoxication to domestic abuse caused by alcohol yet the social lubricant within society is given a pass. Ireland and England are no wiser. Even alcoholism has made its way into entertainment where the likes of Stephen King has made it a theme in his novels, and where tv and films use alcoholism as a serious, detrimental character flaw. But then there's the good portrayal and use of alcohol: the American sitcom Cheers.

The show revolves around a group of friends who work and own a bar named, well, Cheers (a real life bar located in the city of Boston). They use alcohol has a way to destress where conversations and shenanigans are held in and around the establishment. A number of themes were integrated into the show -

"Many Cheers scripts centered or touched upon a variety of social issues, albeit humorously. As Toasting Cheers puts it, "The script was further strengthened by the writers' boldness in successfully tackling controversial issues such as alcoholism, homosexuality, and adultery."

Granted, these are all adults much older than 30, so it also built in a perspective that alcohol consumption was "for responsible grownups" even the weathered adults weren't immune to the ill-effects of the soft drugs that is alcohol. I never once saw a show made in Western society where alcohol wasn't abused by those under 30. In reality, this is often true since a vast majority can't hold their liquor.

So the question should be asked: Why are minors, when they turn of age, so eager to smoke and drink alcohol? Though one sample size, smoking wasn't never a thing for me nor was it for a vast majority of my friends. Prior to 2019, the legal to purchases cigarettes was 18 now turned 21. This doesn't effect me since I'm neither under 21 and I don't smoke. Drinking in the States is at 21 legally, where many of us did commit underage drinking, but there was enough people around me that didn't drink or where quite responsible at consuming alcohol. Many of those who did go wild were never admired or looked up with respect. Looking back at this I now have respect for those that chose not to drink, or at least never went too far where they were sloshed. 

As written elsewhere on another platform, it's not so much the age of legal consumption of alcohol and nicotine that concerns me, but the motivation to consume and the normalization of consumption that intrigues me. I personally don't know what age it should be legal to drink and purchase smokes. People in Western society tend to smoke if it's normalized at a young age - whether by their parents, their friends or by the cultural norm set in their country or place of work (tv/film, fashion). Even then there are people who try to quit smoking. You don't get that much with drinking unless it has become destructive. Drinking, no matter the country, is arguable more fantasized than smoking, so there's a stronger pull to consume it since more people consume it: pubs and bars indirectly further normalize it. For smoking, you get packs of cigarettes from behind the cashier. Usually you need to go outside for a smoke if you aren't in a pub or bar, or if there's no designated smoking area inside. For alcohol, 9 out of 10 times it's accessibility is far more easier since once can simply go to any liquor store and grab beer, whiskey or vodka off the shelf without anyone acting as a gatekeeper.

Secular society knows exactly what it's doing when it showcases "sex, drugs and rock & roll." It knows sex and drugs are very similar to each other: they just abuse art forms, like music, to encourage its casual consumption. Maybe the prudes did have a good point in being skeptical of rock & roll? The act of sex is abused. Drugs are abused. Yet those that abuse them say they're adults. Hmmm. I don't think so. Actions speak louder than words or so they say. 

This also brings up the hypocrisy of people who extoll that they eat "healthy" yet do soft drugs. If people are so concerned about their health, why don't they completely cut out alcohol and nicotine? If they cut out added sugar, processed food, dairy, eggs and meat logically they should cut out any and all forms of soft drugs. But here's the thing: Since alcohol and nicotine are not seen the same way as unhealthy foods they chances they look seriously at alcohol and nicotine are slim to none. 

There is far more research that shows the ill effects of alcohol and nicotine in comparison to how "bad" consuming dairy, eggs and meat. There's actually no true scientific consensus that says a vegetarian or vegan diet is better than a diet that includes dairy and meat, yet we have hoards of people turning to no meat no diary diets. 

Now I exercise five out of seven days. I tend to eat a balance diet and I don't make any claims that I'm a health enthusiast. I just like leading a balanced life in terms of health. I also consume the soft drug that is alcohol every now and then. It varies, really. It may be a dram or two of whiskey one weekend night per one month, or it could be months without whiskey consumption. I'm not really a bar goer, but I do go to the bars usually when friends want to. Then again I'm a working adult older than 25 so I'm past the stage of being petulant and wondering why the age of drinking is 21. Thank god I'm not a European or else I'd be bitching to the heavens. I have had plenty of weekends where I know I can have fun and socialize without consuming alcohol or going to the bar.

And that's another thing: Society is too dependent on alcohol when it comes to socialization. It's as if it can't go a week or two - or even a month -without having sex. If you need alcohol to socialize and to have a good time then that's a red flag. You may need to self-reflect your relationship with alcohol. No legal age will make you an adult, truly. Adulthood is a long path starting at pre-school. 

I read an opinion that said turning to drugs, even soft drugs, for escape is a form infantilism. I can't help but agree to this. This further makes my belief that the age of majority of 18, as deemed by society, is a faux measure of true adulthood. It's no better than the Amish's rumspringa. I'd even argue that the secular 'starting line' of "you're 18 - go fuck, go smoke, pose nude and drink alcohol legally if you aren't already" is worse! But what is "escapism" though? I think it's fair to say that if it's an escape from childhood, since "this is what adults do" then yes, it's ironically making that 18 year old turn back it infantilism in which they believed they were shedding for the modern world. Even when one ignores the clear proof of ill effects of nicotine, yet consumes without concern because "this is normal" then that's also infantilism. There's no respect towards the drug. Out of the two, nicotine should be avoided more than alcohol. You can still consume alcohol within reason and be healthy in general, but that's not so much the case for nicotine. You don't see any athletes where cardio matters suck a cigarette or two per week. They'd be deemed an idiot.

But there is some upside: Even if it's more normalized in Europe, and with the  acception of older films romanticizing it, it's been long enough that smoking has never been made to "be sexy" in the past 25 years nor there has never been an attempt to delve in the "art" of making cigarettes. It's a nasty habit that's normalized like porn or prostitution yet people willingly and often times brainlessly engage in it. "So what?" they say. "It not your business. It's my body." Okay, kid. I hope you apply that same attitude to strangers when you see them eating a triple burger and eating Oreos. Go have fun eating tofu or your third acai bowl.

The only "art" of smoking came when it involved cigars and pipe smoking but there aren't nearly the same amount of tobacco users in comparison to those that smoke cigarettes. Oddly enough cigars and pipe smoking are mostly consumed by men around whiskey as they talk about the deeper questions of life (or from what I gather). You'd be hard pressed to find any women in such circles, but it does happen.

Now let's see how alcohol is handled before it reaches the pubs and bars. We have a growing amount of people who actually respect the drug: breweries, whiskey distilleries and vodka companies delving into the history of beer and whiskey and vodka, making their own alcohol and branding it. Usually you won't find people younger than 25 on brewery tours, but instead you'll find young professionals that skew somewhere in their late 20s to early 30s as walking tourists. Though young Americans still abuse alcohol to a large percent, it's seen as juvenile. I suppose the saying of Oscar Wilde "with age come wisdom" has some truth to it in this situation. 

I do want to reiterate something before I end this post: Vast majority of people only smokes because it's normalized via family member or place of work. This applies especially to millennials or a Gen Z. You'd have to hold a special type of ignorance to not know the effects of nicotine. You only smoke because you can and that it's normalized amongst people around you - not because you see it as something sexy, or something that can benefit you (fashion model tend to smoke in order to stay thin) despite its recent stigma and scientific evidence revealing its effect on health. One needs to go into the juvenile "I don't care I'm gonna do it anyways" mindset when they know better. Only a small amount of people smoke to deal with things like PTSD. Alcohol is easily more pushed to consume at an early age because more people drink than they smoke.

And just because Christians like G.K. Chesterton smoked pipe tobacco doesn't make smoking cigarettes okay. If Chesterton did cocaine would you be okay with it? No, of course not. 

In other words: If you smoke and you're well aware that there's no health benefit to it as you claim to be healthy and what not, I can't take you seriously. Have a pint on the weekends, but when you smoke it's as unattractive when you're sloshed. I question your judgement. 

Age of Consent

When people say "X or Y is 18 he/she is an adult. He/she can make their own decisions i.e. do drugs, have sex with whom they want etc.)" when casually dismissing any questionable acts of this 18 year old, I ask them that if the age of consent was 17 or 16, would they act the same way and if, say, the act was sex, would the the older party still engage. 

I ask this question because it's what I've observed in Western society. All of a sudden what is supposedly forbidden is now on the table without any discernment if one should do X or Y action. 

It's utterly bizarre to see nothing wrong with an 18/19 year old having sex with a 30 year old, especially if that 18/19 year old is exceptionally naive and not wise, yet has issues with people getting married in their early twenties and having kids before 25. 

I suppose this is the modern day feminist and the fruits of the Sexual Revolution - dulling the critical thinking skills and making all sexual things amoral unless there's consent of between the "adults." I mean, with this logic, don't get pissed of if two adults decide to have six kids - to say that one's a baby maker and they're actively destroying the earth with their carbon footprint would so immensely amusing.

The Sorting Hat & How Fanboyism Creates Children

Over at Castalia House, contributor Anthony has written about the much underrated and overlooked Hogwart's House, Hufflepuff. It's a really nice read, so check it out if you have the time.

His article inspired me to take the Sorting Hat "quiz," which placed me in Gryffindor. I later went to the wand portion of Pottermore to receive my wand. The wand that "chose" me after a series of questions was made of Acacia wood with a Phoenix feather core.

The Pottermore site, in late January, has been re-booted since its inception in 2011, with J.K. Rowling herself making the questions for the Sorting Hat. In the initial version of the sorting the questions weren't under her care and with this change the new version is seen as more legitimate.

When I took the quiz I was too preoccupied on answering the questions honestly, not trying to game the system in order to get into a particular house. I was too intrigued in the process to worry about whether or not I'd be a Slytherin or a Ravenclaw. Whatever house I was sorted into I would accept, even if it weren't my preference (if I had to choose I'd pick Hufflepuff).

Regarding the questions, I was met with some random ones that gave me no background, as in "heads or tails?" so I made up scenarios of what "heads" would be and what "tails" would be.  In this case I thought of "heads" to be the on the forefront, the popular one, the one that the public recognizes. The "tails" part I pictured as behind-the-scenes where the work was done in order for the "heads" to function. I picked "tails." That was my reasoning to that particular question.

I later learned that the reincarnation of the Sorting Hat "quiz" created some identity problems to those who already thought of themselves belonging to one house, or those that took the 2011 version and was sorted into another. There are debates that the quiz practices random selectivity while others say it's a decent mini-Meyer Briggs test. People who thought of themselves as Ravenclaws and were re-sorted into, say, Slytherin seem offended. Badgers turned into lions! Oh my!

I understand that people have grown attached to a particular house given how the books framed the identity of each, but these aren't teenagers or pre-teens having issues. Grown adults with full-time jobs paying taxes are putting on their frown face. Would I liked to have been sorted to Hufflepuff? Yes. When Gryffindor showed up I was surprised yet a little disappointed, but after a couple of minutes I accepted it and proceeded to get my wand, a far more interesting aspect of the two processes in my eyes. Over at Vox Day, this post summed it up well (quote within post) -

What Rowling really, really nailed is what magic would look like to a child. The nonsensical plots and world building largely result from this, and I think a lot of it was intentional. It was, after all, a series aimed at children. The hardcore love of the series from adults is a sign of a generation (or more than one, since it's huge with both Boomers and Millennials) that hasn't fully grown up.

To be clear, I say that as a fan of the series - but not a hardcore fan.

I attribute the recent "identity crisis" (and hours of discussion dedicated to it) as proof of this Peter Pan mentality.

As you read the virtues of each house, one should be honored to be accepted into either one despite initial wants. A reasonable mind would notice that even the average person would excel in any number of houses, not just one, since the virtues can overlap, and as people age and experience life the less dominant virtues can surface given their predicament. If it weren't for Rowling's simplistic division of "good vs bad" guys, Gryffindor vs Slytherin, the supporting cast of Ravenclaws and the emasculation of Hufflepuff this "identity crisis" would be less fervent.

Once we just focus on the virtues,we discover that each house is admirable. A well-balanced person would wear their house colors with pride even if they thought of themselves as a Hufflepuff who was sorted into Gryffindor.

Let me use these two houses as examples. Hufflepuff is said to value "hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play." That's all well and good. I already have some of these virtues and some I want to refine. Let's look at Gryffindor.  The house "values bravery, daring, nerve, and chivalry." I think that's amazing. I consider myself chivalrous and to some extent  brave. But daring and having nerves? Maybe. I ca see myself excelling in Gryffindor since I enjoy sports (Gryffindor is seen as the jock house). I think self-sacrifice is important, especially for one's country, so I can attribute that standard to a "Gryffindor-esque" quality.

How about Ravenclaw and Slytherin? I will say that I hold some of their virtues as well. My love of learning, for learning's sake, is within me. There are certain things I want to accomplish and resourcefulness is something I've grown to appreciate. A man who isn't resourceful is a stunted man in my eyes.

After all the "you can't define me/put me in a box" and the initial "no labels" movement it is telling -hypocritical mostly - on how people are passionate (as one writer puts it) to stay with a given house based on certain virtues, as if those virtues totally define you. And this is over fictionalized world-building. Have fun with it, learn about your given house. To agonize over it in the guise of "passion" is to further ignore reality and to demonstrate a lack of perspective.

It also makes me picture a child with his mother at a candy shop, holding her hand, with tears in eyes screaming, "No, I want that one! The big one! No! The red and blue one!" as he stomps his feet and points wildly. It's candy kid, calm down. Your mom's buying you a piece regardless. She doesn't have to, but she's doing it because she loves you. Or that if she doesn't you won't shut up.

I find the amount of heartache over being resorted a bit embarrassing. Being sorted into one house doesn't dictate or say you lack any virtue that another prides itself for. After all, if there's any spectrum within the human condition it's the spectrum of potential.

I believe I've written enough about the houses, so I'll pay my attention to my wand, which, as I said, was a far more interesting result than being put into Gryffindor. My wand, a wand made out of Acacia wood with a Phoenix core, 10" long and flexible sounds badass. According to the Pottermore wiki site,

A very unusual wand wood, which I have found creates tricky wands that often refuse to produce magic for any but their owner, and also withhold their best effects from all but those most gifted. This sensitivity renders them difficult to place, and I keep only a small stock for those witches or wizards of sufficient subtlety, for acacia is not suited to what is commonly known as 'bangs-and-smells' magic. When well-matched, an acacia wand matches any for power, though it is often underrated due to the peculiarity of its temperament.

Truly interesting. How about the Phoenix core?

This is the rarest core type. Phoenix feathers are capable of the greatest range of magic, though they may take longer than either unicorn or dragon cores to reveal this. They show the most initiative, sometimes acting of their own accord, a quality that many witches and wizards dislike.

Phoenix feather wands are always the pickiest when it comes to potential owners, for the creature from which they are taken is one of the most independent and detached in the world. These wands are the hardest to tame and to personali[s]e, and their allegiance is usually hard won.

On my wand length and flexibility -

Many wandmakers simply match the wand length to the size of the witch or wizard who will use it, but this is a crude measure, and fails to take into account many other, important considerations. In my experience, longer wands might suit taller wizards, but they tend to be drawn to bigger personalities, and those of a more spacious and dramatic style of magic. Neater wands favour more elegant and refined spell-casting. However, no single aspect of wand composition should be considered in isolation of all the others, and the type of wood, the core and the flexibility may either counterbalance or enhance the attributes of the wand’s length.

Most wands will be in the range of between nine and fourteen inches. While I have sold extremely short wands (eight inches and under) and very long wands (over fifteen inches), these are exceptionally rare. In the latter case, a physical peculiarity demanded the excessive wand length. However, abnormally short wands usually select those in whose character something is lacking, rather than because they are physically undersized (many small witches and wizards are chosen by longer wands).

Wand flexibility or rigidity denotes the degree of adaptability and willingness to change possessed by the wand-and-owner pair - although, again, this factor ought not to be considered separately from the wand wood, core and length, nor of the owner’s life experience and style of magic, all of which will combine to make the wand in question unique.

On numerous tumblr wand analysis sites, they deem anything within 9-10" as a lack of confidence or character. If people have issues with being sorted in the wrong house I find this metric lazy; it's the bigger offense. (Ideally I would've preferred my wand to be between 11-12".) I also find it a little counter-intuitive. If you lack self-esteem and you get a short wand that corresponds to that mental weakness, that wouldn't actually help the situation. And if you had a lot of confidence - and turn out to be a somewhat overrated wizard - that 11"+ would be a misnomer.

Besides that qualm I'm rather pleased with my wand. A rare wood that only answers to its master, needs subtlety to function, paired with a Phoenix core - an interesting combination. As with the flexibility, meh. The description made sense until it pulled the "ya know, it all kinda depends on where the person is coming from ... " card. In other words it's hot air. It goes one way, then another, then it says it's both.

With all that said, I shall hunt for a handmade Gryffindor scarf, for the weather outside calls for it.

Note: J.K. Rowling was sorted into Hufflepuff despite her thinking that if anyone was a Gryffindor it would be her. Now, that seems like entitlement. Slytherin, anyone?