Last year I wrote at length against the Scottish Parliament’s plans to raise the minimum age at which we can buy alcohol from supermarkets and off-licences and, in doing so, I single-handedly prevented the measure being approved. Some months later Parliament tried to encourage individual sellers to discriminate against those younger than twenty-one but, thanks to shameless capitalist greed (suck it, Communism!), this secondary barrage of governmental intervention amounted to nothing. The subject quite rightly elicited an enormous level of public interest and continues to do so. For the time being, however, the sound reasoning of the public and its determined, yet eloquent protesting has won the day over what was, at its root, a poorly conceived overnight attempt to lessen Scotland’s impressive list of social problems. But this is only the frothy head of the richly delicious pint; it is but the cork on the vintage bottle of palatable wine and the residual fermentation gas of the nutritious home-brew. There is still a considerable volume of topics patiently waiting to be knocked back!
The problem with alcohol is the effect it has on the brain. This is also the point of alcohol and the resultant moral and medical quandaries are a rather painful bite on the arse for society. But alcohol is not the only substance which suffers from these difficulties. Illegal drugs present the same problems and attract similar criticisms. The difference, of course, is that alcohol is legal, heroin is not. On some levels though, and with certain drugs, this difference could be interpreted as being simply an inane technicality. To provide an example, a drug which attracts a similar, if not greater, level of discussion to alcohol is cannabis. Known and widely prescribed for its medicinal purposes, and popularised by many musicians, artists, popular sub-cultures and certain Hollywood comedies, cannabis is almost certainly the most widely used illegal drug in the western world. It is not surprising then that many thousands desire its legalisation. The arguments presented but rejected time and time again are (perhaps surprisingly) very sensible and well researched. On the basis of their arguments it would certainly be wrong to generalise the pro-cannabis lobby as perpetually baked hippies. In Britain, for instance, a surprising portion of political right-wingers approve the legalisation of cannabis and the subsequent creation of national standards for the infant industry. However, smoking cannabis is still seen as one of the most anti-social things one can do. What seemed to me the rather frivolous, cannabis related political “scandal” of some years ago serves as a reminder of our society’s priggish intolerance of not only “guilty pleasures” (see last month’s entry for some more thoughts on this subject) but also of mistakes made easily in our youth, poor lifestyle choices and (the most laughable intolerance imaginable) harmless fun. Even more than drunkenness, the use of cannabis as a recreational drug earns one a reputation as a dreg of backwash in the discarded beer bottle of society. To me this makes little sense...
It is commonly known that the majority of violent crimes in Britain involve alcohol. Most murders are committed under the influence of alcohol and a staggering one hundred percent of drink-driving crimes are alcohol related. How many people turn homicidal while high? I may not be a seasoned cannabis smoker, and someone who is might well disagree, but it seems to me that after a few joints most people become extremely friendly, good-humoured and comically relaxed. I am told that the long-term effects of cannabis use include intense paranoia, so it isn’t all peace and love and happiness and rainbows, but compared to alcohol the negatives are thin on the ground. Paranoia seems rather trivial compared with violence, anger and the potential failure of the liver and other organs. It is all a matter of how much you, as an individual, can handle. Know your limits. So goes the mantra taught by the authorities. It is quite true.
The archetypal drug addict is filthy, smelly and can be frequently found in deep slumber on a park bench or in a gutter. They often resort to stealing from loved ones to fund their habit and their lives inevitably tumble in on them as relationships, careers and reputations unravel faster than their drug-addled minds can comprehend. Perhaps this stereotype holds some truth for certain junkies, but it can be just as easily applied to any addict. Gambling addicts run the risk of suffering identical fates and, with some thought and perhaps a degree of recollection I am sure you will surmise that my initial description of the typical junkie is a much better fit for the drunkard. Gambling and alcohol are legal, yet the consequences of over indulgence are just as severe and wide reaching as for a drug addict. The personal and collateral damage is still dependant on the individual in question, still directly connected to that individual’s mental and physical resistance to powerful impulses, regardless of legality. Many addicts function not only adequately, but exceptionally, in the world. Journalists are infamous for alcohol and substance abuse. Politicians have long been recorded as borderline alcoholics (Churchill and Roosevelt are but the best known) and I needn’t delve into the history of actors, models, photographers, musicians and assorted hangers on who have emerged from a kaleidoscope of addictions unscathed. But then Amy Winehouse, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison and more have succumbed prematurely to varying extents, cutting short what could have been, but for their presumably pathologically vulnerable personalities, a fulfilling life of substance abuse. Allen Ginsberg lamented this when he famously wrote Howl: “I saw the greatest minds of my generation destroyed by madness”. Obviously an able mind is not weapon enough to ward off the brutal effects of any riotous indulgences.
And so I cannot help but think that if the government is willing to allow thousands of people to wallow in the cheap malt of their own alcoholism, particularly poor, working-class men who suffer most as a result, then why not allow the legalisation of cannabis. It certainly isn’t any worse. Legalised, its production can be regulated, quality-controlled and economically beneficial. Past research projects have produced results which reveal cannabis to be relatively safe, non-addictive and, of course, less harmful to the lungs than cigarettes due to the absence of tar. The legalisation of other drugs, though more controversial and medically complicated (the increased risk of heart attacks which afflicts cocaine users and the potential for overdoses prevalent in most illegal drugs), would help to decrease the existing underworld of drug trafficking and assorted un-pleasantries. However, the medical risks of cocaine and heroin in particular, not to mention the barbarism funded by the cocaine industry in South America, strike me as solid arguments for maintaining their illegality. Then again, these difficulties exist regardless of legality.
Unfortunately, my reservations arouse suspicions of my own hypocrisy and self-contradiction. Surely certain drugs are too dangerous to be considered for legalisation? But it all depends, as I said, on the individual, does it not? Countries in the western world have long funded terrorism and brutal regimes, what difference will a little cocaine make to national conscience; surely it will happen whether cocaine is legal or not? Cannabis surely can’t be classed in the same manner as heroin? Is Ginsberg's first name “Allen”?
I am afraid this may be turning into, as they say, a “bad trip”. Perhaps it is simply too complicated a topic to be tackled on an eighteen-year-old’s Blog. As I begin to wrap up this entry, I find myself thinking that I support the legalisation of cannabis, but fear the possible backlash of disgruntled LSD users, not to mention the entirely plausible and catastrophic slump in national efficiency. But what of the benefit to the economy, the jobs the industry will create? Then what of the ambiguous logistics of altering national drug legislation?
Damn and blast! I have failed to reach a conclusion! It must have been all the acid I dropped before writing this... Oh well, at least the hippopotamus tap-dancing contest was cool.
Jamie
No comments:
Post a Comment