As someone recently said when asked "Did you inhale?"
"Of course, that was the point".
This from a middle aged politician. You see, apparently it's okay to have smoked a few joints, done a few lines of coke, and be a recovering alcoholic.
But, to anyone over forty and a disturbing amount of naive tossers under, popping a pill is one step from heating a spoon with a dirty Bic.
I think this is understandable, if not exactly reasonable. For example, I am not personally in favour of skydiving. It can kill you, it's really expensive and it seems like a lot of effort to go to for a brief thrill.
But I've never done it, and I probably never will, so I keep my mouth shut. If you want to do it, go for your life. The only thing I'll say is - make sure you have a decent parachute.
It would be handy if the rest of the world would do a similar thing with drugs. If you've never done it (and I haven't, but I've heard all about it) then shut up.
Because all this ridiculous panic and misinformation just makes it less likely that drug users ever get their parachute.
Annabel Catt died on the weekend at a dance festival. The usual media frenzy ensued. Then we find out today what every person that has ever bothered to research the topic already knew - she didn't take ecstasy.
Pill testing would have saved her - nobody in their right mind willingly takes PMA.
On top of that, the police have refused to release information about exactly what type of pill it was - the colour, the shape, the logo. Because this might encourage young folk and it might put the message out that the pill you have is okay if it's different.
No. It won't.
What it will do is make it more likely someone else dies.
People aren't that stupid. They'll take the information they have and make an informed choice. Statistically, most ecstasy users are well educated, stable, intelligent people. But because pills are illegal and not that easy to come by - (nobody just walks up and offers you a pill - you have to ask for them), nobody is going to throw theirs away on the off chance it's a bad one. They'll neck it, and hope.
So make up your minds, legislators.
If you don't want people to die, help them figure out a safe way to do what they're going to do anyway.
Or be honest and tell us you don't care.
Enough with the for-your-own-good bullshit.
Please go and have a look here.
Learn something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Raining here. The monsoon is back. I agree of course but I wonder whether we have the wrong legislative response or whether there should be any legislative response at all.
As you rightly say, it is imperative that people have information. Where they get it is up to them but I don't necessarily think it is a function of government to provide that information.
I have always tended to the view that what people do with and to themselves is up to them. The only time the society has a right to step in is when the consequences of a person's action delivers a cost to the society. Sometimes it is hard to draw an appropriate line and, unfortunately, it is always easier to say ban it, get the dealers etc. Never works and never will but it sounds and feels good. for some. Almost like a drug.
I agree that it's all about a lack of personal responsibility, and that a person needs to accept the consequences of their actions.
I suppose I'm making two points. First, if the authorities are going to use the line that their intent is to save lives and reduce harm, then their actions should reflect this. It is not their responsibility to provide information, but if they are going to provide resources for the area, they might as well be put in a place they will be useful. Any crackdown produces a short term appearance of stability. It looks like it's working until an election, then exacerbates the problem in the long term. Governments in Australia, mainly for political gain and according to an outdated set of Western/Christian morals, generally do more harm than good.
The other point is that it's a bit hypocritical for governments to generate millions in revenue from addictive behaviour (gambling, alcohol, smoking) and then demonise a section of the community so they can appear tough on crime.
The logic says you are right and I agree. The politics say something different. The great unwashed (proletariat if you like) drive the political agenda and, generally through a mixture of apathy and ignorance, often support populist and simplistic solutions.
In my view, the source of the problem is in the devaluation of leadership and idealism and the focus on win at all costs. We should expect and require our politicians to have and hold ideals and be capable or articulating them for us. And we should respect courageous leaders. That way we train them up - like a dog with a Smacko.
This is not to say that winning is not important, it means though that getting the balance right is imperative. Obviously, I think that we are out of whack at the moment.
And this brings me back to your point. We should flog them to stop doing the silly illogical things where we can but, simultaneously we should address the other, larger issues and require out politicians and parties to do the job the system requires.
Post a Comment