Phillip Adams on drugs ...

 .. and other fatal 'leadership' failures

-=*=-

1. Marijuana was not always illegal. Under prohibition, alcohol was made illegal - and created a crime-boom. Prohibition was subsequently reversed. But around the same time, marijuana was made illegal, and - Ta ra! - that created its own crime-boom, which continues to this day.

2. It is considered by many, that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, vide the 'drink-driving' never-ending story. In any case, it is also thought, that marijuana has been used since yonks, without ending civilisation as we know it, either then or now.

3. Then, consider heroin. This could be considered to be where some defining line is crossed; heroin may well be termed unsafe drugs, equally as dangerous as unsafe sex; one can die from either.

Phillip Adams: «Forever afterwards, he would argue against our cruel and stupid drug laws.»

I'm not exactly sure of the relevance of Adams' mention of a young heroin addict's death today, but for me (and the world), the 'tragedy' is not specific to any single 'user' (dead or alive), but to our entire society.

-=*=-

There are at least two points to be made:

1. Despite more than adequate warning (everyone *knows* heroin can kill), some people still try it, and an unfortunate few go on to die from it. (Q: Why?)

2. The 'simple' answer to that 'why' is that *exactly because* heroin is illegal, its supply is both irregular and impure; the hapless user gets the wrong dose and WHAM! (actually, more of a whimper) - dead.

-=*=-

The process of dying from heroin could be called 'evolution in action.' The 'why' of drug-taking in general (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, heroin, 'speed' aka ice; such a looong list) - is because that's what people do.

A note could be made here: drugs of any sort may be considered as a form of escapism. But exactly what is to be escaped from? Perhaps hopelessness; our rip-off oriented society, with globalisation shipping jobs - and with them, entire futures - overseas (and therefore out of reach), may have something to do with it. I mentioned nurture; there is no authoritative "Bringing up Baby" manual. Why not? So people are free to do it by their own, ill informed, trial and error? (With a lot'a error pretty-well guaranteed?) Then, add my perennial: TV. On the principle of "Monkey see, monkey do," over time TV portrays all possible perversions. People are 'free' to incorporate any peccadillo that suits into their 'life scripts' - and this may, often does, include the tendency to become a self-made victim, aka failure.

One of the 'principles' we hold dear, is that it's a free country.

Another way of saying that is "Fair go, ya mug!"

Nobody forces any druggy to take anything; surely one's greatest freedom is to be able to manage one's singularly, far and away most valuable possession: one's own life? (Refer also to euthanasia.)

And following so-called 'free market' principles, so-called 'pushers' are merely attempting to provide a supply to match a demand. That's also freedom, ain't it?

Sooo, following on from that's what people do, wouldn't it be clever - to clean up the drug scene? I don't mean try to put hapless users and their accompanying pushers in gaol, I mean make drug-taking safe: safe from crooks'n cops alike; by reverting to a non-illegal supply of pure drugs at known potency.

(Oh, yeah. Lets have a proper, authoritative "Bringing up Baby" manual. With rational, known-to-work dos and don'ts, including a proper morality to boot, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality. And while were doing 'pie in the sky,' banish religion - at least until after "the age of reason," i.e. until any sprog has the mental ability to distinguish bullshit when s/he hears it. No more abusing immature children's minds, no more insidious corruption of the helpless and vulnerable young, no more sneakily insinuating an imaginary, life-long impediment to rational thinking.)

-=*=-

It may or may not be, that some so-called 'Islamofascists' "Hate us for our freedoms!" - but what of governments that arbitrarily convert our rightful freedoms to futile felonies? Boo! Hiss!

-=*=-

Note to any relative of some dead druggy: consider that the 'victim' was not so much a victim of the fatal dose, but of his/her personality, i.e. genetics and up-bringing (nature, nurture) - plus the society in which we live, a society dominated by filthy rip-offs, hypocrisy and murdering criminals. Any relative of a dead druggy could consider that it was largely the lousy government policy that resulted in the regrettable death (see Adams' quote); policy coming from the same lousy governments (US, UK, Aus + Israel) that set out to mass-murder for spoil. In short: they don't care who they kill, just as long as the filthy fat-cat so-called élites, already rich beyond avarice, can get ever richer.

The utter, horrendous scale of the hypocrisy! On the one hand, these governments set out to make life miserable for a mere handful of otherwise harmless drug-escapists, causing concomitant collateral dead (that filthy word again: collateral), and on the other (thanks, but "No, thanks! " - to B, B & H) they set out to criminally mass-murder for oil in Iraq; 100s of 1000s if not 1mio+ dead, pink-mist slaughtered by the 'world´s best,' most dishonourable militaries.

-=*=-

There is no doubt in my mind that pernicious, Draconian drug laws create far more problems than they ever purport to prevent; just how clever is that?