Archive for the ‘decriminalisation’ Tag

An acceptable overdose

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

Another prominent drugs death, that of Philip Seymour Hoffman, has again exposed society’s moral judgements about drug users. Reports of the ‘tragedy’ of his death portray Hoffman as a victim, a tortured soul, an artist battling inner demons. I feel for the poor guy, even more so for his three kids – but I am also left questioning the discrepancy in reporting between his death and the reports in my local paper about comparable situations. I wonder why the kid who spent his childhood watching his dad kick his mum’s head in, being raped by his uncle, then living an adult life of deprivation and misery before overdosing in a skip, only gets three lines on page 15.

You could say it is because the local lad never made a dint on the world. He didn’t offer art, beauty and insight to the masses. The difference in media representation reflects the size of the social impact each man had.

You could also say it is a class issue – a rich death is mourned, whilst a poor death is ignored. Maybe human value is just measured in wealth.

But why is it that Philip Seymour Hoffman, a man of considerable intelligence and opportunity, is considered a victim? Where is his agency in this situation?

It goes back to the same moral position I recognised in myself many months ago, this presumption so unwittingly common, that using drugs is bad. And, as with all immoral activity, for those who we choose not to perceive as bad – possibly because we relate to them, or respect them, and struggle to look at them without also seeing a reflection of ourself – we must instead formulate them as either mad or sad. So they become ‘tortured’, a victim of their ailment, circumstance or art. With such brilliance, it could happen to anyone.

Of course, your average die-in-an-alley heroin user does not evoke this sense of admiration. He would have lacked eloquence, instead conveying his pain through aggressive expletives, and probably smelled a bit. We would have tried our best not to identify with him – to imagine how we would have coped with the hand life had dealt him, how he might feel as door after door shut in his face, his options reduced to their basest – to live or to die.

And yet whose death really is tragic? A man whose life embodied success and choice, whose demise resulted from an informed choice?

It is sad, as almost every death is. I do not feel, however, that Hoffman deserves our pity. He made his choices. And when he chose to inject himself, he had a number of other options available to him that day, chances most only ever dream of.

For those who stand in Daily Mail judgement of the drug users in their community – not the professionals who have the odd line or the students using MCat, I mean the drug users who with pasty, clammy skin and homemade tattoos – I recommend you watch “Stuart – a life backwards”. I had no idea it was possible to fit twelve years of drugs work into one film. And, as with many of my clients, the main character is mad, sad and bad all at the same time – as well as being a man worthy of admiration and bloody hilarious.

I just wonder, without presupposed moral judgements about drug users, how much more we would learn about the human experience. Hoffman must have had reasons for choosing to take the risks he did, not because he wanted the deification his death seems to have provoked. But no doubt any realism of his motivations will be media-ised into a preformed box to prove he was mad or sad. Whilst the local lad will be remembered for his convictions.

Advertisements

Comment from follower

Thursday, December 12th, 2013

This comment, sent by a follower of my blog, is both and informative and hilarious enough for me to want to share it with you all. I couldn’t agree more – or put it more eloquently.

Uruguay have today / yesterday moved to legislate about cannabis and take the trade out of the black market.. What with this and the crude and brash capitalist stance of Colorado and Washington Teresa May is worth a shot at this time I reckon or at least the superficial nature of her tenure .. If she can’t do a proper turd get her off the pot , we are losing money in austere times and disabling the true opportunity of capitalism via her policies – she is even crap at being a Tory !

Stick reclassification up your K-hole

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

The Government are now considering upgrading ketamine to Class B, as they have just realised it is popular and causes bladder damage. Fingers on the pulse again there, guys. Not only did they miss the original ketamine boom which took place years ago when I was a student (and spent a considerable amount of time watching people slumped in corners wondering why anyone would want to do that to themselves) – and then miss the more recent frenzy which occurred a few years ago in the wake of MCat legislation – but by increasing the penalties for possessing the drug, the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs have very much missed the point. The people who are taking ketamine daily and dissolving their urinary tracts are not going to stop just because the label is changed, or they are told they are now very naughty. They will just be less likely to disclose their use to anyone in the health profession, and their treatment will be less timely, less effective and more expensive.

It’s not exactly breaking news that ketamine causes significant health problems, either. The impact on the bladder is well-documented, and very young people are also being found to have irreversible damage to their kidneys, liver and brain. It’s not that I don’t think these facts need to be made more available – which I’m sure is the Government’s intention – it’s just that the last fifty years of prohibition have proved that the punitive method just does not work.

And I wonder, if there is any other policy which had failed so dramatically, and which had caused so much harm as a by-product? Why would any political organisation continue to implement a method so poor at achieving its targets?

I have been told not to bitch about Theresa May any more as apparently it has started to sound like a personal vendetta – but if she had listened to me on the khat issue, maybe her bumbling drug policies wouldn’t get her into so much trouble. Under pressure last week to reverse the ban, Khat Woman herself has been accused of implementing legislation without any supporting evidence, and, in the process, potentially damaging relations with Kenya. As a Home Office report has pointed out, given that khat is not associated with any social or medical harm, and there was no consultation with the people who use, produce or import the drug, this may have been a somewhat rash and uneducated decision to make. It could, in fact, impact negatively on unemployment and crime figures, as livelihoods are destroyed, and has led to accusations of hypocrisy within a supposed free market.

Instead, Keith Vaz MP has recommended introducing a licensing system for the substance. So maybe Keith has been reading even if Theresa hasn’t.

The end of the Road

Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

Some interesting updates on previous articles have appeared in the news this week.

Silk Road has finally been taken offline, and the alleged administrator, the pseudonymed Dread Pirate Roberts, has been arrested. The website appears to have been a one-man operation based in San Fransisco. The suspect, Ross William Ulbricht, kept his operations so secretive that his housemates knew him only as Josh, the guy who spent all his time in his room on his computer, and the FBI had to scour years of data to find very rare glitches in his online personas in order to identify him. It was only when a package containing fake IDs were seized at the Canadian border with Ulbricht’s picture on them, that investigators linked this to online activity – Dread Pirate Roberts had asked for advice on gaining fake identities to set up more servers. Given that Silk Road had a estimated $1.2 million worth of trading each month, and the FBI have seized $3.6 million worth of Bitcoin during the operation, it is astounding that Ulbricht has evaded identification and capture for so long. I wonder whether the US authorities will now power on with their War On Drugs and hunt down his suppliers and customers..

It will also be interesting to see whether previous Silk Road customers see a decline in the quality of their purchases now they have lost access to the Ebay-style seller rating system.. If there are any ex-customers out there, I would love for you to get in touch and let me know how you are buying your drugs now and what impact this has had on you.

Following on from last week’s blog about the normalisation of alcohol, a couple of interesting articles have been suggested to me by staff at Sheffield University. The first informed me of the alcohol industry-driven marketing concept that is Arthur’s Day. The producers of Guinness launched this national event in Ireland four years ago to ‘celebrate Arthur Guinness’, and then refused to accept any responsibility when alcohol-related ambulance call-outs increased by thirty percent. This somewhat sinister celebration, cleverly timed six months after St Patrick’s Day and on the busiest drinking night of the month (Thursday – student night, 26th – payday), has been described by some as exploitation of Irish culture for capitalist gain – and the way it has been embraced by the public suggests that alcohol marketing is even more powerful and socially influential than anyone could have predicted. (Apart from the Dr Evil-style masterminds at Guiness, obviously.)

This seems somewhat in conflict with the Irish health minister’s claim today that he wants to ‘denormalise’ tobacco use, and achieve a ‘tobacco-free state’ by 2025. Yet another example of policy-makers’ bizarre lack of parity between substances. Given that the Irish Government are encouraring Arthur’s Day as a tourist opportunity, I’m guessing from this that they would take a different approach to smoking were Marlborough produced in Galway…

The second article recommended looked at the normalisation of women’s alcohol use in the UK. It presents some scary facts about women’s health, and considers how the pressures of being a working mum are influencing alcohol intake. Again, it is pointed out that wine is sociably acceptable whilst cooking, and suggests we really need to question what has become ‘normal’ behaviour. It does make me wonder whether our kids think we drink that like all the time, been as that’s all they see of us. And with our young women drinking more than any others in the western world, maybe we need to look at ourselves and the patterns our children emulate.

And finally – I know you will all have seen this, so I will be brief – in a brave move which may mean he does himself out of a job, Chief of Police Mike Barton has stated that decriminalisation is the way forward. Drawing a clear division between drug dealers and drug users, Mike is making a bigger statement than many of us realise, given that many Police targets focus on homogenising and prosecuting anyone associated with drugs because ‘drugs are bad’. Mike draws the same comparisons that have been previously drawn here between the War On Drugs and alcohol prohibition in 1920s America – instead of stopping the trade, it routes the profits directly to criminals. It’s a relief to know that the frontline last bastion of the moral crusade, the Police, are willing to make their voices heard – instead of, as with the Police in 20s America, seeing the battle as a way of either lining their own pockets or buying their way into heaven. I think it is an honest and altruistic move by Mike, one which may well both damage his career and sit him outside his peer group, but I for one am heartened by his stance.

Alcohol – it’s not a drug, it’s a drink

Wednesday, September 25th, 2013

I have had somewhat of an epiphany recently. In light of my self-questioning around the application of morality to the laws of the land – specifically with reference to drug use – I have started to perceive alcohol differently. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a drinker. I always have been, and so has everyone around me. This is despite losing people to alcohol. And yet we all still drink drink drink like it was going out of fashion.

I still told my clients the dangers of drinking, indeed I knew them myself, and to be fair in recent years I have generally drunk within ‘safe’ limits. But that is far as I ever thought about going – after all, it was safe, so why would I question it any further?

Recently, I have pretty much stopped drinking – because after a spell of drinking very little, I realised that, when I do drink, I feel anxious the next day. Not only on the night itself, but the day after, I misjudge things, and my perception of the world and of myself is altered. This has nothing to do with ‘safety’ – but it definitely has a lot to do with health. If, as I am starting to wonder, alcohol can significantly affect mood the day after use – and bearing in mind that many people drink every night – does this not have huge implications for the mental state of the nation?

Then I saw a news report last week about the proposed ‘drunk tanks’. The idea was that people who were incapable of being responsible for their own welfare because of excessive alcohol consumption would be put into a unit overnight and then charged for the care they received – both to protect people and to reclaim some of the money in revenue spent on policing costs. It seemed like quite a good idea for me. But the man representing the alcohol industry gave me an insight into how much they care about the damage done by alcohol consumption and what they want to do to tackle it – which was, in summary, fuck all. The well-groomed young man in expensive glasses had a seemingly endless list about why no national mandates should be passed – why this was about local services making local decisions. Which, as anyone who works in the public sector knows, means doing nothing. Because everyone is too busy, are all praying to keep their heads above water and their jobs, and are not about to stump up the cash and time to commission and implement something so huge without imperative direction from the very top.

And as I sat there, watching this nicely-spoken young gent, something happened. Before my eyes, he morphed into every heroin and crack dealer I had ever met. His shirt was ironed, his face was clean – but his justifications for the continued sale of his product, his reasonings for why the deaths and the violence and the illnesses were not his fault, made him seem to me no different from the many dealers I have challenged about their choice of product and its impacts. The truth was – he didn’t give a shit about the number of young women getting sexually assaulted. He wasn’t the least bit interested in how much use of his product cost the taxpayer each weekend in policing and health interventions. And he certainly wasn’t willing to do anything about it.

Now, fear not – I am not about to go all evangelical about alcohol use and start praying to a higher power for strength to repel the demon drink. I am still going to have a drink when I feel like it and, likely as not, will drink too much on occasions. I suppose I am just realising, for myself, another layer to my indoctrination on the matter of legal and illegal drugs. Alcohol is not ‘bad’ – just like any other drug – and of course alcohol companies are only interested in taking your money, as per the capitalist mantra, or just like any other drug dealer. But where is the logic that most drugs should be illegal while just one remains legal – and what impact does this have on perceived safety and social acceptability?

My brother recently came back to the UK, and commented after a night out, “God, I’d forgotten how the English drink”. Recent reports indicate that, in fact, much like the truth-dodging representative for the licensing industry, we as a nation also forget how we drink. A report published by Alcohol Concern found that, in 2007-8, for Brits to drink within advised limits, alcohol consumption (excluding that brought into the country duty-free and home-brewed) would need to reduce by a third. The report found that if the alcohol bought in shops was divided between every adult, we would all be consuming twenty-six units a week.

However, an even scarier report published this year in the European Journal of Public Health , found that half the alcohol consumed in England was unaccounted for. (Again, this does not include imported of home-brewed alcohol, so the actual consumption is even higher.) The report exposed the discrepancy between self-reports of alcohol consumption, and alcohol sales. So at least three quarters of the population are estimated to drink above recommended limits – and no-one is admitting to it.

Now the alcohol industry clearly know this. If this wasn’t happening, they wouldn’t be eating caviar on their yachts. And yet, despite the serious health problems associated with drinking at these levels, they continue to push the drug. They continue to fight legislation to minimise the harm it causes. And they continue to put their hands up in objection when anyone suggests maybe they could be partly responsible for this problem and, as such, should maybe put their hands in their ever-deepening pockets and contribute towards reducing some of the damage done by their product. No less ruthless that the dealers who keep selling heroin they know contains congealants, or market their stash of PMA as ecstacy.

It also makes me wonder how much sway the alcohol firms have in the Tories’ drug policies. They bring in billions in revenue – and I am sure they are none-to-happy at the idea of someone muscling in on their market share by selling cannabis or other alternative products. Yet again, I am left questioning how much of our legislation is about the welfare of the population, and how much is about rich people scratching each other’s backs..

What’s morality got to do with drugs?

Friday, September 13th, 2013

My beliefs about the criminalisation of drug use have changed over the last few months of researching and writing this blog. Although I always supported a health agenda, I spent years working alongside criminal justice agencies and, in essence, being part of the machine that maintained the War On Drugs. Drugs caused harm – that was for sure – and whilst I insisted on working for health services and within a harm reduction agenda, I still had to contribute drug tests and pre-sentence statements to criminal justice organisations on behalf of people I didn’t really think were doing anything wrong. Besides, most of the criminal justice drugs services were part of the NHS. The whole agenda was blurred – and the lines between health and justice disappeared under the weight of morality. As we all know, drugs are bad, kids.

But let’s face it – they’re not. They’re just drugs. If it’s a moral compass we’re using, some of them, such as anaesthetic, are definitely good. But this isn’t the issue I want to discuss here – I want to showcase a couple of the best resources I have found which outline the damage caused by unquestioningly taking this legal and moral standpoint on drug use.

Count The Costs has published an Alternative World Drug Report to coincide with the UN’s Global Commission On Drugs Policy (which I wrote about in The War On Drugs versus livers, and focuses on the public health implications of socially excluding drug users). Instead of relying on self-reporting by international governments, the Alternative Report collates its own data, looking at the unintended negative consequences of the War On Drugs.

It is organised into seven main areas of damage that is caused by the continuing approach taken by drugs policies across the world:

undermining development and security, fuelling conflict
threatening public health, spreading disease and death
undermining human rights
promoting stigma and discrimination
creating crime, enriching criminals
deforestation and pollution
wasting billions on drug law enforcement

For those of you who haven’t considered some of these arguments before, or if there is a particular issue that catches your attention, do have a look at this website. It really is the best, most comprehensive single resource I have seen, and isn’t so arrogant as to presume it has the answers – it merely forces the question.

A more capsule summary of the War On Drugs is available from Peter Watt of Sheffield University, whose recent piece on the upcoming legalisation of cannabis in Uruguay identifies the main motivations behind the problems in South America, the continent most damaged by the US-driven criminalisation agenda. Uruguay is an experiment worth watching – and it seems that the countries most crippled but the War On Drugs are starting to take matters into their own hands and make some interesting moves when it comes to drug policy (as previously discussed in Santos speaks out).

A specialist in the South American drug wars, Peter also identifies the value to the US economy of perpetuating the War On Drugs, by generating the private prison industry. Quoting journalist Chris Hedges, “Poor people, especially those of colour, are worth nothing to corporations and private contractors if they are on the street. In jails and prisons, however, they each can generate corporate revenues of $30,000 to $40,000 a year”.

This sentiment is shared in Eugene Jarecki’s excellent documentary, The House I Live In, which looks at the impact of the War On Drugs on the USA’s poorest, predominantly black, communities and asks who this system is benefitting. Despite drug use being proportional across racial groups in the US, almost all those incarcerated for drug offences are black – one in three young black men spend time in prison in the US.

I hope some of you will look at these links, and that, if you find them interesting, you will share them. This is not a small problem – areas of Asia, South America and Africa are being destroyed by this nonsensical battle, where poverty is exploited by organised criminals using fear and violence – and the continents providing the target markets, North America, Australasia and Europe, are also seeing their poorest and most excluded communities injured by the trade. Drug use isn’t bad – whether it is smoking crack or having a quiet pint on a Friday, we all do it to some degree, and until the moral and criminal precursors are removed from the debate, a practical, just solution will remain evasive.

Drugs policy fails – again: Postscript

Monday, August 5th, 2013

This one’s for the geeks and academics. I consider myself the former.

A mystery donor has sent me the full article for the research I wrote about recently (thanks, mystery donor), and it seems my theory about MCat was incorrect. What I didn’t deduce from the abstract was that the inverted correlation between the legal classification of cannabis and the number of people admitted to hospital with cannabis-related psychosis straddled not only the regrading from Class C to Class B, but also the earlier move from Class B to Class C. This method, known as a reversal design, references both the introduction and removal of the intervention – in this case, down-grading cannabis. The article states:

“There was a significantly increasing trend in cannabis psychosis admissions from 1999 to 2004. However, following the reclassification of cannabis from B to C in 2004, there was a significant change in the trend such that cannabis psychosis admissions declined to 2009. Following the second reclassification of cannabis back to class B in 2009, there was a significant change to increasing admissions… This study shows a statistical association between the reclassification of cannabis and hospital admissions for cannabis psychosis in the opposite direction to that predicted by the presumed relationship between the two.”

So my theory about unidentified MCat use causing an increase in psychosis admissions after cannabis was re-upgraded in 2009 doesn’t explain the previous decrease in admissions after it was downgraded in 2004. However, what became clear from reading the whole article is that the study relies entirely on participants being admitted under the criteria of ‘cannabis-related psychosis’. I query the validity of this data. In my experience, psychiatrists wang down any old shit on admission. As the article acknowledges, “This research has highlighted the need for research that explores the way that diagnoses of cannabis psychosis are made and the influences that operate on these decisions”. I would love to be the person to undertake that research, as from what I have witnessed, the pre-admission assessment usually goes something like is..

Psych: So you’ve been hearing voices?
Patient: Yes.
Psych: Have you ever used cannabis?
Patient: Yes.
Psych (writes): “Patient X is a drug user with a long history of cannabis use. Conclusion: cannabis-related psychosis.”

This diagnosis not only provides an excuse for a quick in/out treatment pathway and passing-of-the-book to substance misuse or dual diagnosis teams, it also puts the responsibility for the illness on the person being admitted. I will not mince my words – psychiatrists hate drug users. They perceive them with the same level of moral integrity that Conservative politicians do – drugs are bad. Those who use them are bad, and we need to police and punish all who use them. Certainly not treat them. Certainly not block up our hospital wards with them for more than a day or two. Get them in, give the Valium for a couple of days until they’re symptom-free, chuck them back out.

Drug users are perceived and accordingly treated by mental health services, and especially by those that rule and dominate these services, as time-wasters – impossible to assess, impossible to treat. I mean, how can I tell whether it is the condition or the substance causing the symptoms? And when I want to know the answer these questions, why won’t they just stop using drugs like I tell them to? Why aren’t they compliant?! And how am I suppose to use my tool of choice – dangerous, numbing drugs – to these liabilities when they have nowhere to live, no family member willing to supervise, and haven’t even got a lockable bathroom cabinet?!

Going back to the research, my original thought that maybe cannabis-related psychoses were in fact unmonitored MCat psychoses has been blown out the water, as overall inpatient psychotic admissions actually went down over time – not up as mephedrone and other new synthetic drugs became more commonly used. Again, this might be due to something completely different – such as psychiatric wards closing and so less space being available to admit people, or community teams such as Early Intervention or Assertive Outreach Home Treatment becoming more effective at keeping people out of hospital – but based on admission data alone, there is no trend here to suggest that psychotic incidences have increased since these new drugs became widely available.

If you consider my point above, you might feel, as I do, that this is less about the mental health of drug users and more about how mental health systems treat people who use drugs – but having spent twelve years banging this drug I am going to leave this point before I start bursting blood vessels.

Drug policy fails – again

Wednesday, July 24th, 2013

Another kick in the teeth this week for Theresa May and her determined squeal that drugs policy is working. After ignoring the research-based recommendations from a group of cross-party peers concerning decriminalisation, then developing selective deafness towards her drugs advisory board by banning khat, Theresa seems fixated on perpetuating the War On Drugs, whether anyone agrees with her or not.

It will be interesting, then, to see how she reacts to the news that cannabis psychosis admissions have actually increased since the drug was reclassified as a Class B substance. Yep, you’ve got us there, Theresa, you font of knowledge for all things street – clearly drugs policy is reducing use and minimising harm just as it should. Well done for sticking to your guns, and thank god those running the country know what they’re talking about. Phew.

Tottering Tory Totty aside, I have to admit this is a pretty bizarre finding. At no point did I think that reclassifying the drug would decrease the harm caused – why would it, it’s still illegal and that didn’t put people off before – but the inverted correlation between cannabis-related psychosis hospital admissions and reclassification of the drug is difficult to explain.

I have been pondering on this. Without subscribing to the Journal of Drug Policy (which is, I have to admit, surprisingly tempting, but takes money, of which I have little), I can’t see whether participants who suffered psychotic admissions had taken solely cannabis. My hunch is that something different may be afoot here. Rates of psychosis amongst my client-group have gone through the roof since MCat has surfaced, and I have heard similar reports from prisons regarding synthetic cannabanoids. I know that, until very recently, and certainly not within the confined dates of this longitudinal study, testing facilities for these drugs had not been developed – and even if they had, the average mental health ward would not have had access to them. So, my sneaky conclusion is that the increased rates of psychosis admission may have been due to the use of other substances – which were not only impossible to detect, but were also legal at the time and so potentially not reported or classified.

That is my suspicion. Just don’t tell Theresa. I can’t wait to see what shit she spins to explain away this one. Although, to be fair, I think she’s more likely to get a bad case of tinnitus than indulge in any scientific analysis. You keep on trucking girl, we’re all behind you (with a metaphorical spade).

What do heroin and Theresa May have in common?

Sunday, June 30th, 2013

So the United Nations are fully behind The War On Drugs, it seems. A report released this week states, somewhat apologetically, "We have to admit that, globally, the demand for drugs has not been substantially reduced and that some challenges exist in the implementation of the drug control system". However, it continues to maintain that the War On Drugs is the only way forward as "the problem will not be resolved if drugs are legalized. Organized crime is highly adaptive. It will simply move to other businesses that are equally profitable and violent".

Anyone who watched Prohibition recently will question this premise. The documentary tracks the careers of various criminal gangs, who went from scraping a living together to living in the lap of luxury when alcohol prohibition provided them with a gaping gap in the market. As one interviewee recalled, small-time crooks who would previously have had the odd driving job suddenly had more work than they could cope with. The demand for the product elevated criminals to celebrities. Makes you wonder exactly which market the UN think could generate the turnover of the international drugs trade, to keep the drug barons in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

It will come as no surprise that the report identified significant changes in drug trends. Whilst heroin and cocaine use remain stable and predictable, new psychoactive substances being manufactured in Asia are the new big thing.

You don’t say. Quite aside from my highly-informative *ahem* pieces on MCat and PMA, the search terms that lead people to my blog give us an interesting insight as to the popularity of these new substances. Of the one hundred and thirty-four search terms I am able to see (and don’t worry, there is no way of me finding out which of you searched for which..), thirty-six of those contained the words MCat, meow meow or mephedrone. So over a quarter of people coming to my blog via an internet search engines were looking for information on MCat. This in comparison to just six searches for information relating to heroin.

However, possibly more worrying is that heroin is of equal interest to a somewhat more conservative issue. One which, unlike MCat, is not spread across the front pages. Yes, that’s right – my blog keeps receiving visits from people searching for images of Theresa May’s legs. Six of the pervs have been mortally gutted when their excited searches have revealed my somewhat drab and largely unsexy blog. Still, I am proud to incite flopsie in the dirty sods – and hope that maybe they learned something about drugs policy in the meantime.

Search Views
drugsworkertowriter 6
drugsworkertowriter.com 4
cheer for peers 4
from drugs worker to writer 4
summary of drug policy as social control 3
theresa may legs 2
taking mcat before drugs test 2
drugs worker to writer 2
what drug family is mcat in for drug testing 2
mcat epidemic 2
heroin and homelessness in london 2
mcat meow detection times 2
susan armenante 1
mcat smell like cat piss 1
drugworkertowriter 1
from drug worker to writer 1
twitter drugs worker to writer 1
cockney rhyming slang- drug dealer 1
mcat drug test 1
https://drugsworkertowriter.com/ 1
crystal meth mcat 1
drugs workeer to writer 1
drug testing mcat 2012 1
new drugs laws 1
is mcat better than amphetamines 1
detox 5 worker jeremy kyle 1
drug workers and drug criminalisation 1
can police sniffer dogs smell mcat 1
teresa mays legs 1
thersa may in short skirt 1
drug worker to writer 1
milton keynes cocaine purity 1
from drugs worker to grave 1
drug workers want decriminalisation 1
legal drugs in norway 2013 1
how does tolerance put a drug user at high risk for an overdose? 1
how long before i’d pass a drug test after mcat 1
drugs that don’t kill human 1
“then so too am i” 1
body representing gps 1
buy cocaine milton keynes 1
cockny for taking drugs 1
crystal meth and m cat 1
i black out when i’m on mcat and weed 1
drugged up to the eyeballs 1
cannabis 1
police slang “frank” 1
worried about drug test mcat 1
mcat result in police drug testing 1
is someone on social security disability were prescribed drug subutex daily star 1
mcat smells like 1
silk road down 2013 1
drug worker wands karen 1
cockney rhyming slang drugs 1
“david nutt” magic mushrooms 1
drug test for mkat 1
heroin legalise 1
http://www.drugsworkertowriter.wordpress.com 1
what mcat drug does to your looks 1
heroin addiction rants 1
the summary of drug policy as social control 1
mcat actually meth 1
psilocybin hepatitis c 1
pure cocaine prices 2013 1
comprehensive drug slang guide 2013 1
dealers required 1
changing a jaded life 1
teresa mays 1
mcat feline 1
flawerd psychological research 1
theresa may in skirt 1
cockney rhyming slang for drugs 1
neets are the future of humanity, as they hit 30 and the jobs still haven’t come back and a new block of kids are hitting the labour market in the same state governments will be forced to instate a basic wage and admit that going for full employment isn’t possible any more. 1
mainstream popularity of cannabis 1
deah of the capitalist dream 1
cocaine mk 1
towards a safer drug policy summary 1
cocaine smelling like cat piss blog 1
why drugs are bad kids 1
mcat cat piss 1
adhd medication take communion wine 1
meth recovery and unkempt appearance tired 1
anybody can buy them coke camron 1
silk road drugs 1
has anyone ever gave them self hepatitis c to himself with no exposure to hcv 1
how to pass mcat drug test uk 1
omnipotent medication 1
what is the substance mcat 1
can mcat get detected on a normal urine test 1
shisha drug athens documentary guardian 1
rant about using of drugs 1
silk road japan drugs 1
what’s unique about dr death drug 1
is mcat one of the top ten drugs to be tested for on a urine test 1
from crack to herione 1
unrestrictable porn sites 1
what does m cat come up as on a drug test 1
how long can you get for having 2000g of cocaine 1
mcat simular to crystal meth? 1
can you use mogadon for tooth ache 1
why should i pay for pothead baby boomers hepatitis c 1
does mcat make your breath smell of cats wee 1
police urine test for mcat 1
smell+mcat 1
cannabis decriminalisation 1
frank drugs slang 1
theresa mays legs 1
cannabis decriminalisation uk 1
pma death macclesfield 1
effects of mephedrone on sex in men 1
legaliser heroin 1
Unknown search terms 54

Cannabis vending machines, coming soon to a pub near you

Sunday, June 23rd, 2013

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m starting to think that cannabis is actually going to get decriminalised. Over the last six months, I have noticed a significant swing in the reporting of all debates around drugs, from the moral to the practicable. Particularly where cannabis is concerned, the reporting has changed from “if” to “when”. There have been changes to the social presentation of cannabis, as well as the moral and political discussions around drug use per se, and even discussions in the professional and academic arenas have started to reflect that this not only should but also might actually happen.

Yes, we know that the Tories are digging their heels in when it comes to making changes. But gigantic intra-party rifts (and an overall lack of charisma) pretty much guarantee that they won’t be getting in next time. The Lim Dems have voiced their more liberal approach to these matters, and whilst Labour have remained diplomatically quiet on the matter, the bunch of Guardian readers will not have been able to avoid the swing in public and press opinions. Plus by the time the Tories have deconstructed the NHS, the next Government will inherit a bunch of uni drop-outs instead of proper drug workers (because untrained, inexperienced workers are ever so cheap, you know), progress at tackling the issue will be reversed, and the drug problem the Tories so confidently state is currently under control (ahem) will be rearing its ugly head yet again, forcing a new course of action. And really, if the Tories actually thought about it, regulating and taxing cannabis would be an excellent capitalist move and revenue generator.

But when I take a step back and stop wrangling with the current political debate, I am in total awe of the social shift we are witnessing. If cannabis does become decriminalised and therefore a marketable product and commodity, and it becomes widely accepted that it does not cause the same level of physical and social harm as alcohol, the social laws that have existed throughout our lives so far will change.

Let’s take as an example the British institution – the public house. We can pretend that the Government has appeased the alcohol companies by giving them licenses to sell cannabis, hence reversing the demise of the good old boozer. People crowded into smoking areas outside pubs will now be passing round spliffs – a much more social activity than smoking cigarettes, and one which tends to spark discussions and create a sense of community. When these people go back into the pub they will probably feel a bit stoned (especially if they’ve already had a drink) and won’t feel like drinking as much. With less alcohol being consumed, and a more general state of relaxation taking prevalence, these punters will be feeling way too chilled out for the usual fight or sexual assault.

So there you have it – my solution to the main target for alcohol services over the last three years – if you want to reduce alcohol-related hospital admissions and A&E presentations, legalise pot. Seriously, with policies like that, I should totally work in public health.

However, what genuinely entertains me about this huge social shift is the looks on our future generations’ faces when we tell them what life was like under prohibition.

Futuristic young person (scanning screen implanted on palm): “So drugs used to be illegal?”
Old me (hopefully donning a jet pack): “They did. You could go for prison for having them in your possession.”
FYP: “What?! Seriously?! So did everyone go to prison then? Did you go to prison?”
OM: “No – we used to hide our drugs in air-tight containers called Tupperware and drive out into the countryside to take them without anyone knowing.”
FYP: “Plastic and petrol? That’s not very ecofriendly! You’d get arrested for that now.”
OM: “And the Police used to drive out into the countryside to to try and catch us.”
FYP: “That is totally wasteful of public money.”
OM: “Well think how much it cost to convict the people they caught and keep them in prison – then have to maintain them on state benefits when they were released because no-one wanted to employ a convicted drug user.”
FYP: “So if drugs were illegal, that means they weren’t taxable – so who paid for drug treatment?”
OM: “Most of the money for drug treatment came out of criminal justice and health budgets.”
FYP: “So money was taken away from catching rapists and treating cancer?! That is crazy!”
OM: “You lot don’t know you’re born. I bet you’ve never even been to a criminal’s house. You’d arrive at the dealer’s, completely shitting yourself, fearing unreportable violence, or, even worse, a Police raid, until the minute you left the dingy, fortified shit-hole, with a bag of godknowswhat, no doubt weighing less than you’d paid for.”
FYP: “Why would I have anything to do with criminals? You lot were bonkers, it’s only weed, as if I’d risk getting arrested for something so boring.”
OM: *shameful lowering of eyes at own stupidity* then *nostalgic state into space at memories of the old days when we thought drugs were cool*.

%d bloggers like this: