What is it about any discourse on drugs recently that brings out so many unattractive characters? First we had the Guardian-inspired debate between Virgin boss Richard Branson and former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, both very irritating in my view. The former, supposedly self-effacing and shy, a member of a UN commission on drugs, argues for a more caring approach to drug dependency. On the face of it what could be wrong with that? The trouble is I can't help thinking there might just be a wee bit of self interest involved as his Virgin Health Care moves inexorably onto the ground currently occupied by the NHS. And then there's that other irritating character Ian Blair who as an ex-copper is unsurprisingly still wedded to the War on Drugs and thinks we should just throw more money at it.
This all happened about a month ago and to be honest it made me so depressed I wasn't going to bother commenting. But then yesterday we had the circus at the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee presided over by the supremely pompous Keith Vaz. The irritating comedian and former drug user Russell Brand made the most of his appearance by a masterful show of irreverence and sartorial indifference whilst arguing for abstinence treatment, but not legalisation. And to round things off the unspeakably irritating Peter Hitchens plugged the case and his forth-coming book for the need to get tougher on all illegal drug usage, FFS!
Sadly, I don't think any of this has served to shed light on the issue, or move us forward towards a sensible drug policy. As evidence I would cite this piece in the Telegraph by Daniel Knowles. Whilst attempting to argue the case for legalisation, he says:-
"If we are to treat drug use as an addiction, then we must accept there will always be drug addicts."
This one small sentence amply demonstrates a true ignorance of the subject. There have always been, and always will be, users of controlled substances that do not develop 'addictions' and are able to lead perfectly normal lives, holding down good jobs and without committing other criminality. It also completely ignores the analogy provided by a legal drug called alcohol. As I can attest through personal experience, not everyone that imbibes has an addiction.
What your last two blogs have confirmed, JIm, is that the problem with these 'debates' is that to many people on the platform have not got the slightest idea what they are talking about. It would be like asking me to comment on a football match or having me as a judge on 'Strictly Come Dancing'.
ReplyDelete'I like the way they run around a lot but I think ball thingy got too much of a kicking and it shouldn't be allowed'.