Indulgence versus restraint: Finding the right balance
I’ve spent considerable time doing research on the costs of so-called societal vice. The DFL controlled state legislature has been working at a feverish pace to adopt legislation which would legalize recreational marijuana use in Minnesota along with additional legislation that would allow sports betting within the state.
In my opinion, neither of these endeavors are appropriate, suitable or in the best interests of Minnesotans or society in general.
A litany of research on the economic and human costs of alcohol, smoking, illicit drug use, and gambling addiction in America adds up to nearly $1 trillion dollars a year. Legal or not, each of these “vices” exemplify a growing sense of moral decline in American society. Each caters to societal demands for “personal freedoms” and self-centered indulgences, regardless of the adverse effects on the individual or the greater good.
Further research suggests that 14.5 million people, aged 12 and older, suffer from Alcohol Use Disorder, 480,000 people die each year from smoking and the effects of second-hand smoke, nearly 300 deaths occur every day from drug overdose, and as many as 10 million Americans live with gambling addiction.
Loss of life and staggering financial considerations aren’t the only costs associated with our desire for personal pleasure and escape. The social expense in terms of broken families, crime, loss of work and productivity, and mental disorders is, perhaps, too great for any accurate degree of accountability.
None-the-less, we Americans sure love our indulgences. Liberals and conservatives rally in support of them using separate definitions of personal freedom and individual rights.
Mental health experts suggest that these, and other addictive foibles, are “stimulants” for the brain’s reward system. I’ll suggest that as a society, we have become victims to this reward system that focuses more on personal pleasure than the ideals of social responsibility.
The debate, itself, surfaces a broader cultural discussion on indulgence versus restraint, or IVR as social academicians may term it. By definition, indulgence cultures allow relatively free gratification of basic and natural human desires related to enjoying life and having fun while restraint cultures control gratification of needs by means of strict social norms.
Research implies that people in indulgence societies tend to be happier and healthier with a greater perception of controlling their own lives than those in societies of higher restraint. They seem to have a more positive attitude, to be more extroverted, and subscribe more to a leisure ethic than that of a work ethic.
Those weighing in on the side of indulgence value freedom of speech over maintenance of order. Indulgence societies have fewer police and, correspondingly, have higher crime rates.
Because of looser sexual restraints and less moral discipline, indulgence societies have higher birth rates among the educated classes.
It is interesting to note that of the top ten “indulgent” societies, the US ranks number seven, behind the likes of Mexico, Sweden, Australia and Britain. Conversely, and perhaps without any surprise, Egypt, Russia, China and India rank among the highest in “restrained” societies. Research suggests that all Muslim societies rank among those in the restrained column as well.
By all appearances this research, and that of others, would suggest that indulgence societies – those that lean more toward personal gratification than restraint – have much higher levels of enjoyment and satisfaction. My only concern, however, is the seeming lack of personal responsibility among those in more indulgent societies.
A leisure ethic sounds idyllic, but at the end of the day, who pays the bills, who is accountable, and who assumes any sense of responsibility for tomorrow? Over the course of my lifetime I’ve seen too many people who live only for today – too many alcoholics, smokers, gamblers and drug addicts – who ultimately depend upon someone else for their tomorrows.
Personal freedoms and responsibility go hand in hand. A culture that can’t take responsibility for their actions soon moves into a society of restraint. When and where is it prudent for higher authorities to protect us from ourselves?
This is the opinion of Times Writers Group member Paul Bugbee, a Central Minnesota resort owner. His column is published the third Sunday of the month.
This article originally appeared on St. Cloud Times: Indulgence versus restraint: Finding the right balance
