Viewing Thread:
"Who? Me? Drugs? Nonnonononononononono!!"

Now, occasionally something swims through the news channels and grabs me like a shark through a haemophiliac’s swimming pool. For me, I can always sense it's approach because one simply knows that it will be a Daily Mail headline within a few days, and that letters beginning "Sir, I read your paper yesterday and was appalled...." will not be far behind. For the record, I am referring to the study that states that many children aged 11-16 are drug users.

I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.

However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.

With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.

This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.

All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.

Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.

Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?

If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.

The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)

The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.

If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.

I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....

Now, occasionally something swims through the news channels and grabs me like a shark through a haemophiliac’s swimming pool. For me, I can always sense it's approach because one simply knows that it will be a Daily Mail headline within a few days, and that letters beginning "Sir, I read your paper yesterday and was appalled...." will not be far behind. For the record, I am referring to the study that states that many children aged 11-16 are drug users.

I should throw my cards on the table before I go any further. I take the Bill Hicks approach to this (and many other) topics. I think drugs have done some great things for mankind. Alexander Graham Bell was a cocaine user and he invented the telephone (makes sense I suppose; you'd have to be high on something to come up with the concept of talking to someone far away by using copper wires...). Anyone can tell you about the vast drug intake of pretty much any musician who has ever lived (Jesus, even S Club 7 are getting in on the act). There are theories (ones that are actually well supported by evidence as opposed to my usual "bloke said down the pub" sources) that one of the driving forces of early civilisation was drugs. Early man was a hunter-gatherer but clearly changed his habits at some point to start predominantly agricultural settlements. One of the possible reasons for this was to cultivate hallucinogens for the warrior class of people. And don't get me started about the "morally superior" Victorians, addicted as they were to opium, laudanum, cocaine (as endorsed by Sherlock Holmes), cannabis, tobacco, and so on and so forth.

However, I also think drugs do need regulating. Our legal drugs (tobacco and alcohol) are theoretically not available to anyone below 16 or 18 and for good reason. One should be an adult before making an informed decision on whether to drink or smoke (yes, I know I'm being a hypocrite, but try to forget that you know me for a minute...). And at least one also has the benefit of being able to be well informed about booze and fags should one choose to be.

With drugs, we have no such choice. Let's concentrate on cannabis for the moment. This is a drug that has been used by man since at least 3000 BC (it was mentioned in the records of the Chinese Emperor of the time; curiously it was reputed to be a good cure for absentmindedness...), is or has been used by a huge cross section of the public, and yet public information is limited at best. I'm sure we've all heard about medical journals pointing out the medicinal benefits of cannabis for MS sufferers, or findings that cannabis is less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, or that it is not physically addictive. That is all well and good, but this information tends to be tucked away on page 11 whenever reported and so we still have the ludicrous sight of Ann Widdecombe denouncing it as purest evil whilst a multitude of rabid blue rinsed fanatics applaud her rancid demagoguery.

This lack of information allows certain politicians and pressure groups to make political capital from the "menace of soft drugs". They will tell us that they always lead onto harder drugs. Really? Okay then, firstly where is your evidence for that, and secondly if that is the case then could we not say exactly the same thing about alcohol or tobacco?
By the same token, the pro-drugs lobby can misuse this lack of information in much the same way. For years I laboured under the impression that it was good for asthma because the smoke cleaned out the lungs and that it has no effect or impairment upon ones driving ability.

All, some, or none of the above may be true. As drugs now play a part in the lives of many people, wouldn't it be perhaps useful to explore the effects in the short and long term? I personally think that we'll find that the positive effects will almost certainly outweigh the negative, but if this is not so then I damn well want to know about it. And yet curiously the most vociferous opponents of an in depth study into the effects of cannabis are the very people who oppose its decriminalisation. Either they know something I don't, or ignorance really is bliss and they're happy to continue to fear something that they don't understand. Fine, but I resent them inflicting their fears on everyone else.

Now then, I'd like if I may to have a look at the harder drugs by which I mean Cocaine, Ecstacy, Heroin, etc. These drugs never receive the benefit of any positive publicity. Indeed, their only mention in the media is when they are coupled with death or degradation, and we are constantly told tales of woe due to the horror of addiction to these drugs, hence their illegality. It is the duty of any society, we are told, to protect people from these drugs.

Why is it anybody else's business what someone chooses to do to their body?

If someone chooses to take these drugs based on the (once again) limited information available, why should they be criminals? I am assured repeatedly by the media that hard drug users end up committing criminal acts. I'd say that bearing in mind mere possession of these drugs is illegal, then it's pretty much inevitable! But of course, that is a nitpicky sort of point to make. The reference is clearly to the criminal gangs that provide the drugs and the petty thievery that arises amongst addicts to ensure they can get the vastly overpriced and substandard narcotics available.

The last time a situation such as this one arose, it was the American Prohibition of Alcohol laws. The current anti drugs laws have much in common with Prohibition in that they do not work, provide criminal organisations with a vast source of income, and tie up police resources with the pointless arrest and imprisonment of the end users. Nowadays, alcohol provides a massive amount of revenue for the government, there are formal and informal laws in place to deal with it's consumption (no-one can seriously expect to hold down a job whilst being permanently drunk, but you can't easily get drunk on a regular basis without a job; funny how people, when left to their own devices, figure this sort of thing out for themselves without having to be told by a minister isn't it?)

The doomsayers in the thirties were absolutely convinced that the legalisation of Alcohol would lead to the destruction of families and the breakdown of American society. Seventy years on and that has thus far failed to materialise (I live in hope though...) I don't want to belabour the point, but I think you can see what I'm getting at.

If we were to decriminalise and regulate all drugs then crime would have lost a huge amount of money whilst the government gets more and it's no more or less immoral than duty on tobacco and alcohol. I'm sure there would be a brief upsurge in the use of many drugs, but as the Post-Prohibition years showed, that would soon level out at a constant. The regulation would also be able to control quality of drug so there would be far less risk of overdose, or tragic deaths due to immensely strong ecstacy tablets.

I don't know what you're thinking whilst reading this, but I find that I'm imagine the splutters of horror that dear Miss Widdecombe or any of her ultra right wing ilk would utter at the above notion. With their protest of "We know what's best for you" they will ignore every point made. So let me put it this way for them; they fear a nation where drugs are freely available because it will cause the breakdown of civilisation. If the nation is made up of high, mellow individuals, then they're not going to be too concerned at whatever the government is up to. Therefore politicians can exercise their power in whatever manner they see fit; safe in the knowledge that everybody is too stoned to argue with them. I wonder if that argument will carry any weight with them....