cannabisnews.com: Are We Tolerating The Wrong Drugs? Are We Tolerating The Wrong Drugs? Posted by FoM on March 13, 2002 at 14:07:29 PT By Deborah Orr Source: Independent UK Britain's governmental dream of a plain and simple solution to the myriad problems caused by the human desire to play dangerous games with brain chemistry is over. Zero Tolerance, until so recently promoted as the only moral way to tackle the use of illegal drugs, has surely had its day.For 30 years, there have been no modifications to the drug laws which have have not nodded in the direction of the creation of that fool's paradise. Now, a change in the status of cannabis looks certain to come. It may not be the legalisation promised in the Lib Dem's fantasy-manifesto, but it will have a similar shape to the de facto decriminalisation in London's Lambeth.A different attitude to other drugs has been signalled too, with the government's decision to issue guidelines on safer use of ecstasy in clubs. While welcome, this pragmatic move is almost touching too in its institutional tardiness. The quintessential club drug these days is nasty, zomboid ketamine, and if there are harm minimalisation strategies for the human use of this veterinary medicament, its users seem less-than-blissfully unaware of them.Every generation since youth culture began has had its drug of choice, and it tries to choose something its parents know nothing about. The e generation provided yesterday's moral panic. Today's clubbers are keeping one step ahead of acceptance in the usual manner, no matter how grudging that acceptance may be. Such irritating youthful stubbornness only serves to further illustrate how hopeless those visions of zero tolerance were.At this point though, as we wave it goodbye, it is safe to point out that the idea of zero tolerance, while impractical, was also, in its own way, optimistic. It has often been portrayed as a stupid and authoritarian threat to the rights of individuals, just because it took that shape in practice. Instead it was a position which did contain a compelling, stubbornly prelapsarian, moral logic.Drugs, their production, their trafficking and their use, cause so much human misery. Therefore, there is a genuine argument that all people who consider themselves decent and moral should simply 'say no". This is particularly obvious when looking at cocaine, and the bloody path it wends from lawless, debased and desperate economies to the recreational user's more-than-likely unbloodied nostrils.Also obvious, when looking at cocaine use, is tremendous moral equivalence. People are perfectly capable – even rather fond – of sitting around, off their faces on cocaine, manically discussing the iniquities of globalisation, the disgusting ethical no man's land that is shopping at the Gap, and the hideous scandal that is the human cost of western decadence. Certainly this is hypocrisy. But what can one expect in a world bent on securing an entirely free market for items made in "emerging economies", and an entirely controlled one in the people actually manufacturing them?There is a real synergy here, between free markets and free availability of this drug, which is why cocaine is such a wow in the City. Drugs are in many ways the ultimate free-market product. The more addictive they are, the more brand loyalty they have built into them. The consumer cannot resist.Which is why, at the opposite end of this hopelessly polarised debate, the argument for legalising all drugs, completely, is every bit as as valid as the one peddled by the prohibitionist. By legalising, the criminal element is removed. Any damage to the user (much lessened by simple quality control) is the consequence of poor individual choice-making, and treatable (if appropriate) under what is still called, the world over, the British method (prescribing the addict's necessary dose).No less moral or logical than zero-tolerance, full legalisation is similarly ham-strung by the exigencies of the real world. Even if the political will to force through such an unthinkably massive reversal were there, even if the moral majority could be bludgeoned into theoretical approval, the setting up of that global PPP to oversee the changeover would be manifestly impossible. Practically speaking, blanket legalisation is not one whit more progressive than zero tolerance, and one hell of a lot more expensive.So what we're left with is compromise. Compromise gets a bad press in a modern world in which the pursuit of a perfect ideal of splendid, individual happiness is part of the constitution in the most successful, most admired, most envied, and most hated nation state the world has ever known. But common sense tells us, constantly, that compromise is actually a very useful tool.The difficulty with drugs is deciding where the compromise should lie. Dispiritingly, we haven't even sorted out an adequate model for compromise in dealing with alcohol, the drug we're all most familiar with. Even though one in 13 British adults have greater or lesser problems around drink, we continue to find this a real threat only when drunk people become violent or start getting into cars.Such a climate is hardly an encouraging one in which to release other volatile, but for the majority purely recreational, substances. No one has to make a decision on that, because the substances are out there anyway, alongside some rather less benign ones. The current debate around the relaxing of the drugs laws is centred on whether we should acknowledge that truth or not.For many, admitting that the lump is there is when the cancer starts. It is when, hopefully, the ignorance ends and the treatment begins. Ending ignorance and starting treatment is what should be prioritised when it comes to drug use as well. But discovery of the lump, of course, can come too late as well, when the cancer is already raging.Lesson one in the ending of ignorance really has to be that cannabis is, while not harmless, less harmful than alcohol. If it really is the magical gateway drug, then one hell of a lot of people are stepping over it without even noticing, and moving on down the logical progression of horrors to booze. But it isn't a gateway drug, any more than nursery slopes are the gateway to extreme winter sports. There is a logical progression, but it is procedural rather than compulsive. This the political establishment is finally coming to accept.Sadly though, it's already quite late in the day for that truth to be singled out among the mayhem. Police and government are happy enough with Commander Brian Paddick's Brixton experiment in the non-prosecution of people in possession of weed for them to extend it in Lambeth, and be minded to take it nationwide.However, the move came as a desperate measure, in response to the leap in street crime partly prompted by the falling price of psychosis-inducing crack. Now the relaxation of the cannabis laws is being fingered for this separate, frightening development. Everyone is too busy fretting over this one little cyst though, to notice that the real threat is elsewhere.Cannabis is a recreational drug, providing a release from the everyday stresses and strains of modern life. But crack – like heroin – is much more powerful. It is a deadly, addictive anaesthetic for the troubled, nihilistic soul. Worse, while heroin induces people to steal to feed their habit, crack also prompts them to seek out violence and cruelty for the sake of it.Almost a decade ago, when the crack epidemic was reaching fever pitch in the ghettoes of the US, Britain was braced for an invasion of the same. The invasion is finally with us now. In America, the epidemic burned itself out. Its participants – a generation of young men – just kept on stepping up the violence until they'd achieved annihilation. It would be terrible if we all found ourselves too busy squabbling about the status of cannabis, to even register that the desperate, horrific problem was something else entirely.Note: 'Cannabis isn't a gateway drug, any more than the nursery slopes are a gateway to extreme winter sports'Source: Independent (UK)Author: Deborah Orr Published: March 13, 2002Copyright: 2002 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.Contact: letters independent.co.ukWebsite: http://www.independent.co.uk/ Related Articles:Victims Parents Call for All Drugs To Be Legalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12213.shtmlMake Cannabis Legal Nowhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12190.shtml The Pragmatic Path To Cannabis Reform http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11168.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by Patrick on March 14, 2002 at 06:23:34 PT Hell yeah Bill He is going off on the system. I love it! The INS visa fiasco too! Treatment vs Prison? No kidding the laws need fixed in this country. Everything effects your mind body and spirit. His message is going to floor the mainstream anti's. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Patrick on March 14, 2002 at 06:02:55 PT Watching C-Span. Propaganda or simply the statistics/facts? Dr Jeffrey Runge the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administer is no doubt passionate about auto safety. I was amazed to hear this his numbers indicate that auto fatalities are the leading cause of death in children in this country. Not to mention, it is also the leading cause of death in adults up to age 34. Hmmm any anti's up for automobile prohibition too? Wow. I drive and I believe him. And they claim that we live under the oppressive rule of cannabis prohibition for our own safety? Oh Please. Ok Bill Masters is up. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by ekim on March 13, 2002 at 18:00:35 PT: GUILT BY ASSOCIATION GUILT BY ASSOCIATION Court TV, tonight at 9 Anne Carlucci and Jean Bureau, executive producers; Graeme Campbell, director; Alan Hines, writer; Mary Silverman, Lynne Kirby and Rosalie Muskatt, executives in charge of movie development for Court TV. WITH: Mercedes Ruehl ( Susan ), Alex Carter ( Russell ), Alberta Watson ( Angie ) and Karen Glave ( Roxanne ). [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by mayan on March 13, 2002 at 17:48:06 PT Vision TV... a Canadian network,will air "9/11 Roundtable" at 9:00 P.M. & 11:00 P.M. on Thursday,March 14th. Additional screenings will air on Friday at 7:00 A.M. & 1:00 P.M. & also on Saturday at 8:00 P.M.(all times Eastern). Mike Ruppert is supposed to raise some more eyebrows in this feature.read about it: http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/03_12_02_canadatv.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on March 13, 2002 at 17:06:11 PT Crack Madness I have known many crack users. None of them are violent. But they do steal to support their habit. Beer drinkers are far worse than the crack users especially when they are watching college football games or soccer matches. By the way, if you would notice that crack users in Netherland do not tend to be violent. Is it that because the GOVERNMENT there are basically non-violent? It seemed to me that when any government that is violent, we get violent people.Maybe we just should outlaw violent governments. I aint talking about Iraq either..ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by mayan on March 13, 2002 at 16:53:56 PT Watch C-SPAN Thursday! Bill Masters,from the Libertarian Party,will be a guest on C-SPAN's Washington Journal discussing the drug war at 9:00 A.M(ET) on Thursday,March 14th.(time is approximate) http://www.c-span.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Shishaldin on March 13, 2002 at 16:51:59 PT the "rock" I can concur with SpaceCat regarding the effects on users of crack: pathetic. Having seen it on the streets of west Oakland where I worked in the late 80's gave me a mental picture that I'll never forget. The same dealer, day in and day out, would walk down the street with a mouthfull of ballons (with "rock" inside) and the same pathetic creatures would come out of the woodwork with $20 bills in their hands. It was like a scene out of Night of the Living Dead. These folks looked pretty ragged. Never saw crackheads get violent, unless they'd had some Cisco (a sweet syrupy high-octane malt "beverage") or some other malt liquor to wash down their alkaloid of choice, OR if they couldn't hook up with any "rock". That's when things got wierd...Peace and Strength,Shishaldin [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Morgan on March 13, 2002 at 15:32:36 PT Thanks... FoM, Spacecat. Just trying to fine tune my BS detector. I find that I have to use it on overdrive whenever the subject of 'DRUGS' pops up. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by SpaceCat on March 13, 2002 at 15:17:42 PT Cocaine I've never tried Crack, and don't approve of Cocaine,(and never would have tried it if I hadn't been lied to about Marijuana) but my experience over a couple of years casual indulgence with a bunch of musicians indicates that it is not specifically violence-inducing.Happy and hyper is how I would describe this group. Nothing violent or even remotely violent ever happened. Some people got into trouble and hocked their gear to pay for the stuff, and everyone noticed after a while that personalities seemed to diminish and flatten (which was the wake-up call for most, and the beginning of the end of that scene), but even amid numerous house parties nothing was even ripped off, let alone anything worse. A very tight group and even those that went too far were not violent or bitter, and were cared for within the group.I believe that if you are pre-disposed to violence Cocaine can certainly alter your judgement and diminish your inhibitions, leading to violent acts, but I doubt Cocaine actually causes the pre-disposition.Crack vs. powder seems like drinking whiskey instead of beer- gets you more wasted more quickly, with a much-diminished safety margin, but it's still the same trip. The two crackheads I have known were both pathetic, not violent. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 13, 2002 at 15:09:13 PT Morgan Here's a web site from the UK. It's called Trashed. I remember when I first saw this site a few years ago I thought it served a purpose. I have no idea about Crack or Cocaine. So much for being smart about drugs for me.http://www.trashed.co.uk/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Morgan on March 13, 2002 at 14:28:48 PT Crack "Worse, while heroin induces people to steal to feed their habit, crack also prompts them to seek out violence and cruelty for the sake of it."I've never had any experience with crack or cocaine. Is the above true? Does crack PROMPT people to seek out violence and cruelty for THE SAKE OF IT? Sounds too much like 'Reefer Madness' talk to me.I always thought that it was just another addiction that needed constant attention and an influx of money to satisfy the habit.Anybody know? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment