]

The Drugs Debate


This is an increasingly serious issue in today's World especially for those of us who do live in an up to date and/or Urban setting as the question of the legitimacy of the use of not just recreational drugs continues to pervade more and more walks of life every day. If you are an Employer of more than a few individuals or a Landlord with a high turnover of younger tenants you are likely to have noticed this and probably realise that nowadays it is not just odd groups of wayward teenagers who are increasingly demanding that the habit of taking Ecstasy with their nightclubbing or consuming Cannabis with their Music be regarded as innocuous and that drug liberalisation is very much a demand of mainstream society nowadays. For myself, insofar as I have more of an interest in the subject than in shall we say for example the availability of hip replacement parts, I think the essential point that needs to be understood from the general perspective is that such evidence as can be gathered on the subject tends to support such assertions as: drug prohibition is going to be unworkable in the long run; that it is a major logistical nightmare and arguably the biggest single contributing factor toward lawlessness and the paralysis of law and order institutions in the western world and far beyond; that insofar as anyone wants to talk about democracy and government by consensus there clearly is an overwhelming majority in favour of the idea of a major change in our perception of drug use and the specific issue of drug prohibition and I do mean the true opinions of the silent majority when I talk about democracy in this sense rather than eg the question of mob rule.

In view of the fact that this sort of conversation often gives rise to much heated controversy of various sorts it seems worth clarifying the nature of the general principles involved in commonplace understanding of the issue. Without referring specifically to any of various statutes on the subject the thinking behind drug prohibition is that people need to be protected from dangerous/addictive substances/medicines they know little or nothing about; an argument which obviously does have a great deal of validity in very many situations. Those endorsing this argument as we have seen throughout the last 100, 50, or 20 years depending on your perspective that eg the standard of education among the population that this was meant to help has improved immeasurably and that numerous other factors in such an equasion have also altered virtually beyond recognition; the all too numerous instances of disturbed or bereaved parents saying that a more innocent view needs to be taken of widespread drug experimentation and drug usage for various reasons not the least of which is that millions of adults routinely defy drug legislation, that children will be children, and that there will be casualties whilst authority figures play a rather 'two faced game' over the issue often for example playing a game of 'wait and see' whilst paying lip service to what are perceived as 'safe' electoral viewpoints is an all too often recurring tragedy.

For myself I suppose the best argument in favour of the general proposition is simply the act that most of the thinking that was put into the principle of drug prohibition is derived from the mindset of mid 20th century thinkers who were mostly stuck in a colonial sort of control freak mindset and are rather having to admit that they don't have anything like that degree of control over general human progress in the space age and beyond. In some respects it is possible to posture a rather more sanguine future for humanity than is often proferred by those who sensibly fear War, Disease, Climate Change, Overpopulation, Famine and Drought in a futurist perspective based on some aspects of social and technical development despite the obvious concern with which the serious property holder views the general lack of proper control on the part of political leaders. For instance, specific legislation was often designed principally to deal with the question of keeping a Labour force operating and nowadays whilst it might not be of much comfort to most it ought to be acknowledged that in such a country as the UK the Government is rather dealing with people management than the urgent need for production which can increasingly be automated ; whilst there exist in the world of politics and literature many great and premature elucidations of how people and indeed whole populations can obviously use technology to free themselves from lives of drudgery and relative poverty it is now a very significant reality. The demand that people be put first in such hypotheses about social and economic development at home and abroad is only limited by the necessity for the spoecies to restrain and curtail the destructive consequences of an uncontrollably expanding population in a politically unstable world and the demand for more recreational interest is therefore increasingly legitimate and the argument that people have the right to pursue happiness or at least that they should and that their isn't much point in annoying billions of people who certainly aren't going to get the chance to live healthily for instance, and moreover that it is to say the least in principle rude, careless, patronising, deceitful and pointless to make out that these people shouldn't enjoy such happiness as can be found and that eg for billions of hopeless lives happiness from a pill or a pipe is much better than none at all and that inviting folks to admire Diana's kids instead, for example is going to prove a fairly counterproductive measure for those seriously courting popularity.

At the other end of the spectrum only the best trained Biochemists are really likely to have much idea how many contemporary world records have been set under what kinds of enhancement as sporting success attracts the best brains and considerable investment; though a major face lift on the image of Athletics was undertaken at the recent Olympic Games in Australia the difficulty the powers that be are having in maintaining an air of propriety over the setting of such records and the testing of the athletes involved for banned stimulants remains all too plain.

Many obviously (including myself) couldn't care less about the doings of an elite class of athletes, least of all in the case of those of one's own nationality with whom one is often supposed to have some natural affinity. I did used to follow some of the endeavours of the nations' sportspersons as a child but the idea of having any fellow feeling with those who do enjoy meaningful legal rights gets increasingly ludicrous as time goes by: those of my kind of socio-economic background never had much real chance to take advantage of state education let alone train for anything at any level and the suggestion therefore that such endeavours are a matter of interest is hurtful, insulting and to be quite honest I have no good wishes to offer those who have, if anything quite the reverse. I am very much afraid that when it comes to evaluating these matters that those with any such opportunity are living not merely in another nation, but another World altogether. There is also something worthless and voyeuristic about spectating on others' achievements however prepossessing they may be, though some sports I concede do have an aesthetic as well as a sensual appeal: I'll never forget seeing Nadia Comanec's first perfect ten at the '76? Olympics for example. Nowadays I am rather more attracted to the philosophical argument which says it demonstrates a lack of virtue for individuals to show off their superiority in the form of elite competitions organised by shadowy nationalistic interests on the basis that it is simply rude to go about telling others that you are better than they are unless it is necessary or worthwhile for some reason than I am inclined to take any interest in that which fate has forbidden me.

. On the subject however I do think it a fact for instance that allowing athletes from every US state to compete under the US flag is counter productive to the question of amicable sporting contests among nations, which is to say that if the Greeks have to compete against the Scots then the Texans should compete against the New Yorkers and so on. The fact of the matter being, that unless the populations of various geographic areas have an approximate equality of opportunity, which they do not these so called contests are in fact nothing more than meaningless charades perpetrated by the keen to please on behalf of established interests and are in fact only a contest for and on behalf of a privileged minority. I suppose it might evoke the interest of some, that this or that World Record should be whatever, with regard to the specific limits of human strength and endurance but in the final analysis those taking part will be qualified to do nothing more than pull Rickshaws and the obvious suggestion is that there are far more worthwhile things for people to be doing with their time. One has in mind such matters as the case of the Irish swimmer who took four Gold medals at the Atlanta Olympics where cheat methods were openly being advertised and was subsequently discredited though it was a bit late to forestall or prevent the media coup, or prompt re-allocation of the medals. The increasing number of question marks over the acquisition of athletics awards in the modern world is further reason to question the value we place on competitive sports and should also lead us to question the values which for instance permit the powers that be to parade numbers of dusky illiterate sycophant sportspersons of ex colonial derivation to masquerade as meaningful role models. It is a genuine shame that the displays of well groomed and maintained persons that we see in such sporting contests, which to a certain extent do inspire the general population to live healthy and sensible lifestyles' is subject to the whims of powerful individuals and combative nationalistic interests.

The recent death of an immensely successful track and field athlete who still holds world records (Flo Jo?) whose femininity was almost as seriously open to question as the result of hormone imbalancing drugs as was the health of the over wrought heart which killed her with a stroke before the age of forty, serves to illustrate that the pursuit of records and so called national prestige is a matter which can attract considerable rewards. It is an irresistable reiteration to say that perhaps the world would be a better place if society tended to regard the testing of individuals for such ability as pointless showing off and Artists, Authors and Musicians (not popstar bimbos) idolised rather than so called 'sporting heroes.' It is acknowledged that there are many world records that have been set illegally and many Medals lost to cheats. Perhaps among the best publicised of such cases is that of the British Swimmer Sharon Davies who is widely acknowledged to have been robbed by competitors from the old East Germany in the 1970's.

The reasons why all recreational drugs other than Alcohol and Tobacco are prohibited in most western nations, which the World Health Organisation states are both more dangerous and addictive than Cannabis for example are less obvious than the reasons why the powers that be seek to ensure that performance enhancing drugs are not used as part of a competitive athletic regimen. I think the rationale on the part of the shall we say establishment for want of a better word has been that the mass of people need to be guided by their benificent betters and that the social stability of middle England needs to be protected; I'm sure that few people require a lecture on the potential harm that careless or escapist use of drugs can create, but the fact of the matter is that drug prohibition is nowadays quite widely ignored, there is no prospect of the trend being reversed and less people would die or become a liability of medical expense if users were not criminalised. The extent to which users without Jobs or income are encouraged to regard the side effects of various drug habits as a medical disability by Conservatives and the consonance this view has with drink and tobacco interests whilst the population becomes expert in using banned substances is really both laughable and sinister. Despite all the publicity about the existence of a so called 'drugs problem' the actual burden that all forms of drug abuse combined constitute in financial terms on the British National Health Service, is hardly a tenth of what it is costing to treat endemic alcoholism: which is aside from all the collateral expense of policing and cleaning the cities after each weekends alcohol fuelled hostility in the guise of socialisation and respectable intercourse. Whilst I don't try to justify drug use as a way of life it or proffer the acquisition of drug habits as desirable in any way it is nevertheless as I have said before, a perhaps more legitimate form of escape from various intolerable realities than many have cared to admit. I really do think the powers that be have made rather too much of a meal out of the issue in the post war era and this is significantly because of the huge fortunes being acquired by established purveyors of Tobacco and Alcohol. As far as the ideology is concerned conservative forces have obviously badly overestimated their ability to control, and are now faced with the disintegration of the social environment in which middle England is set, with increasing numbers of regional conflicts taking place around the World over increasingly strained resources displaying an ever greater ability to destabilise the nation and society we know in the UK and even organisations and individuals as undemocratic and loth to change as the House of Lords and the Monarch are realising that their efforts are best spent seeking to remedy this long term perspective and that the chances of anything or anyone halting the trend toward recreational drug use in the 21st century is a thoroughly implausible proposition without an entirely unprecedented change in human affairs of the magnitude of a large scale alien visitation or the second coming of Christ.

the programme about the War on Drugs on Channel 4 in mid June 2001 was the most forthright condemnation of contemporary policy and rhetoric that I have seen including Labour MP's accusing advocates of prohibition, of 'killing our kids.' Apparently, in Brighton (a popular south coast resort with a high proportion of young inhabitants) the biggest single cause of death for males aged 20-45 is drugs and it is the Heroin capital of the nation in terms of numbers of addicts. Prior to prohibition there were less than 500 in the entire country, none of whom were to become any of the present legion of extreme medical cases of various sorts that the black market causes as they were prescribed quite harmless pure heroin. There are now an estimated 200,000 heroin addicts in the UK. Another striking point which has to militate in favour of decriminalisation is the huge income being acquired by criminal organisations as the result of the ban, and the concomitant epidemic of burglaries and property crime perpetrated by persons needing to purchase black market Heroin. I personally think in the short term that we should encourage people to deal with their habits sensibly and not encourage them to think that the fact of drug addiction is a licence to misbehave which the present legislative framework does whilst it seeks to justify alcoholism and tobacco dependancy as somehow decent, and a separate matter to other addictions: which is partly to say that there are far too many shiftless middle and upper class dropouts being mollycoddled by the system whilst those who have suffered severe general deprivation are overlooked and forced to endure what were always inferior existences.

(Fact)

Portugal has just legalised the possession of all drugs !

Switzerland has narrowly rejected such a proposition recently! More soon