satire
4 Apr 2008
"Innocent Child" or Potential Smackhead?
Now that Earth Hour has ended global warming, we can turn our attention to other problems, such as childhood drug abuse, writes Ben Pobjie
There has been some comment lately about the rights and wrongs of drug testing in schools. A new report has found that it would be a rather costly and pointless exercise, but this has not ended the argument. Miranda Devine is one who comes down firmly on the pro-testing side. Devine says some of our "most powerful tools" in the fight against drugs are "judgmental and intolerant adults", and she should be commended for sticking to her areas of expertise.But Devine aside, the question is whether this sort of extreme crackdown on drug-using kids is necessary. Now, I am no fan of drugs or of drug-takers. I think the less people in this world listening to techno music the better. And it is obviously true that drastic action is needed to end the enormous damage illicit drugs do to our society. Particularly cannabis, the most common drug among teenagers. Just look at all the savage marijuana-fuelled brawls going on every weekend outside our city pubs and clubs. Look at the huge number of serious car accidents involving drivers who've had one too many bongs. Look at the disgusting public urination of football stars after a big night on the weed. Look at the horrendous toll of domestic violence and child abuse in our Indigenous communities, attributable in large part to the "rivers of pot" flowing through outback Australia. And perhaps most damaging of all, look at the thousands of people dying every year of lung cancer, throat cancer and emphysema as a result of their foul 30-joints-a-day habit.
Clearly, recreational drugs are a dragon that must be slain before they do any more damage to our otherwise functional community.
But is drug testing in schools the best way to go about it? I am not, you understand, calling for less suspicion of children - Hannah Montana alone is proof that they cannot be trusted. And it is true that drug testing is a valuable tool in the US, and we should definitely be working to more fully emulate the American school system. I suggest we start laying in ammunition right away. But is the hit-and-miss, haphazard system of drug testing the best way to scour our schools?
The problem with the drug testing solution is that it places too much emphasis on seeking "evidence". One of the most vital tenets of modern law enforcement is that every second spent looking for proof of wrongdoing is a wasted opportunity for punishment. David Hicks, Mohamed Haneef, Rambo - recent history is packed with examples of the benefits of the anti-evidential approach. I suggest that if we really want to rid the world of mind-altering substances (apart from the benign, safe ones like those consumed by our top swimmers), we take the initiative, get into the schools and shoot first, ask questions later. Figuratively speaking, of course. At first, anyway.
Here's the plan: don't give those nasty little drug-addled juveniles an inch. I say as soon as any sign of drug-taking is detected, throw the book at them. For example, if a student comes to school sporting dreadlocks, incarcerate them immediately. If the Federal Government could provide funding for the construction of solitary confinement areas in high schools, that would be a big help. Likewise, swift corrective action can be taken at the first sighting of any of the scientifically determined danger signs - listening to John Butler, excessive and unnecessary laughter, joining the Greens, selling unboxed DVD players, etc. This will not only "weed out" the drug takers (ha ha, see, who says repression can't be fun!), but it will also send a strong message to "innocent children", or as we should really start thinking of them, "potential smackheads".
And it's not only schools that can be involved in the fight. Parents should be part of the solution too. Child psychologists say there is nothing wrong with searching a child's room, or looking through their schoolbag, or locking them in a cupboard, or applying medium-level electric shocks. Harsh? Cruel? Maybe. But remember, it's drugs. Do you know what drugs can do? Remember that girl who died? That could be your kid, if you don't care enough to take a few minutes out of your daily schedule to conduct a routine cavity search. And remember, you can't start too young. Nothing says "tough on drugs" like checking a toddler's pupils.
Now, since this site is, I know, frequented by a number of left-wingers, no doubt some of you are sitting there saying, "Hang on, Ben. Are drugs really that bad? Will they really mess our children up so much?" After all, Wayne Swan took drugs in his youth, and now he's the Treasurer, more or less. And he's not the only prominent public figure with such a story of redemption. US reality-TV star Snoop Dogg was once a well known drug user, but he has turned out to be a responsible and upstanding citizen, and is apparently planning to pursue a musical career. So perhaps some of you are thinking this is an overreaction.
Well, let me remind you of something: this is a WAR. It's not called the Dialogue With Drugs; it's not called the Peaceful Co-Existence With Drugs; no, it is the War On Drugs. And to win this war, we need everyone pulling in the same direction. If we relax, even for a moment, the drugs win. If we allow any skerrick of tolerance to creep into our hearts for drug users, we may as well give up and just start handing out spoons at creches.
You can bleat all you like about "civil liberties" and "privacy" and "reason", but we're talking about our children here. Go ahead, reject drug testing, reject strip-searches, reject pre-emptive sensory deprivation; all you're proving is that you don't love your kids. And should we really be taking advice on public policy from children-haters?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
"Just look at all the savage marijuana-fuelled brawls going on every weekend outside our city pubs and clubs. Look at the huge number of serious car accidents involving drivers who’ve had one too many bongs."
I assume you’re being sarcastic, but you’re ignoring the very real damage marijuana actually does do. Drugs cause more fatal road crashes than speeding and twice as many as alcohol - if you’re suggesting that alcohol is more of a problem on our roads than drugs, you’re flat out wrong. In NSW, for example, 25% of drivers involved in fatal crashes have speed, cannabis or ecstasy in their system.
As you point out, you’re a lot less likely to be involved in a brawl or take a piss outside a police station if you’re stoned. But on the other hand, getting a bit pissed, even on a regular basis, is not likely to lead to you developing schizophrenia. As a teenager, I watched four boys in my immediate circle of friends develop a serious mental illness. Three of them will probably be on medication forever. Another friend, whom I will always miss, developed severe depression and killed himself. The common link - they were all smoking, as you put it, "one too many bongs".
I also agree that drug testing children is not the way to combat drug use. But although I am one of the "left-wingers" who frequent this site, you’ll never find me asking "Are drugs really that bad?", or by extension questioning whether we should just be a bit more relaxed about kids trying them - I’ve seen the damage they do. We need serious measures to stop kids taking drugs, and I disagree with drug testing solely on the grounds that it won’t be effective.
Let the Pobjie be funny.
We need satire. Especially the kind that mocks Miranda.
Ben
I’ve been reading your columns and just wanted to say I think you’re one of the funniest writers around. Your ‘apology’ to the traditional owners of the Herald Sun opinion pages was brilliant - and obviously long overdue.
A few of the comments are every bit as good as the columns - there’s nothing that makes me smile more than the angry incomprehension satire seems destined to attract.
Regards
Catharine Lumby
amokUmenatrian
Hi rebekkap-
While I don’t wish to sound rude, or to diminish the real psychoscial harms and physical illnesses that may be induced or exacerbated by smoking cannabis, your statement re: the drug related road toll is simply untrue.
Alcohol intoxication is a contributing factor in the vast majority of road fatalities in Australia. In 2002 in Western Australia police reported that nearly 70% of road fatalities involved alcohol as a significant contributing factor.
Roadside saliva testing detects if amphetamines or cannabinoids are currently in the testee’s bloodstream. However toxicology testing in autopsy detects any of the substance in any body tissues- this may give a positive result days, or (in the case of cannabis) several weeks after the episode of drug use.
The presence of cannabis in a toxicology report does not demonstrate that the drug was causally responsible for the death. When Drummer did research in Victoria he found THC in just under 13% of accident victims. Given the demographic profile of the victims, and the long duration of canabinoids in the body, I would expect we could find a similar percentage of drivers who aren’t having accidents would test positive. (If 13% of Aussies were diabetic, and 13% of road fatalities had taken insulin, we would not assume causality).
Amphetamines such as Methamphetamine and MDMA are implicated in a much smaller percentage of road fatalities than alcohol. And most of these cases also show positive for alcohol. Amphetamine intoxication, especially in higher doses, does impact on decision making, vision, and concentration in ways that can increase the risk of an accident. However the majority of amphetamine-related road fatalities are believed to be caused by tiredness and lack of concentration when the drug wears off- this risk is of course not detected by roadside saliva tests.
Cannabis can have a negative impact on mental health, but problems with depression, anxiety, and dependence are much much more common than the spectacular problems such as psychosis, which affect less than 1.5% of all cannabis smokers.
Ben- Thankyou for an insightful and damn funny article. If we want our kids to grow up healthy and happy then more people like you and less "judgmental and intolerant adults" like Ms Devine would be a good start.
Yeah, Ben, that commenter sure did suck last night. He just plain sucked! I’ve seen people suck before, but he was the suckiest suck that ever sucked!
Thank you, RebekkaP, for having the courage to raise a very serious issue. marijuana these days is far stronger than it used to be, it doesn’t make people just a bit dopey and wet or crap themselves, but it can turn people into psychotic fruitcakes. In Aboriginal communities, so-called, it is doing phenomenal damage, socially and physically, and has contributed to the irreversible breakdown of society that we see today - not the only cause but a significant one. No, it’s not a joke.
The white middle classes can use it recreationally for a bit of relaxation, but the people who cop the consequences from those who are blowing half their incomes on the strongest heads and then going ape, may not be laughing.
I don’t understand, rebekkap. Why did you think I was being sarcastic?
Let’s just hope no right-wing politicians read this column.
Good point, Benmcd: when the Left makes a mistake and rerfuses t ocorrect it, or whe nit takes a wrong course, or actually pushes what it knows is a lie, then it is eas yfor the Right wing to step in and claim the high ground. What the fk is Left about cannabis ? or drunkenness ? Or any addictions ? Oh, they upset the oldies, therefore …. ? And that is what passes for the Left these days ? Marx help us.
Joe
Maybe we should follow Thailand’s example and just shoot everyone
Biuqs, I think that a bit extreme: I’d be happy if only the dealers were shot. Think of it this way: how many deaths are there each year, just in Australia, from drug overdoses ? How many from every 10 kg of heroin, or 100 kg of marijuana ? One of the last funerals I went to was of a young girl (well, 36), my niece, who ODd on heroin, but it could have been any of three or four other drugs. People die from drugs. Other people make money from drugs. Who would I rather see shot ? In a proper socialist society, pushers, dealers and growers would all be shot, Biuqs. Mao is supposed to have had a couple of hundred thousand shot after the Revolution. Fair enough.
There is strong evidence that marijuana can be detrimental to developing brains, even up to the age of 25, but keeping it illegal and therefore underground stops people with a problem from seeking help early.
You also get a fair percentage of people in society that distrust the police because of this one transgression. Do you ever hear of sniffer dogs patrolling the car parks of big businesses? Just public transport so its actually safer to drive. Stupid when you think about it from a public safety angle.
People die from bee stings and peanut allergy but no one is calling for honey and peanut butter to be made illegal. ‘Drugs’ is such an emotive word that often common sense is removed from the debate in a rush to be tough on crime. If I was a dealer I’d want it to remain illegal so that I could get black market prices for my product when it is easily grown and usually a lot less potent than modern hydroponics.
Even useful environmentally friendly hemp has been caught up in the war on drugs because of the hysteria it generates in certain circles.
Graeme,
I recommend Ben Elton’s novel on this very topic and warmly welcome its outcomes for all those who advocate the legalisation of drugs. But why stop there ? Why not legalise everything - at least, as you say, they wouldn’t then be driven underground.
And when trying to mount an argument, can I recommend to all the use of exaggeration, Red Herrings, non sequiturs, Straw Man or Aunt Sally arguments, as techniques ? This seems to work so well for many NM contributors. And you don’t even have to get out of your arm-chair or put down your Chardonnay. Or risk bee stings or peanuts.
Great article thanks Ben. All too true! Am in full agreement: punishment, incarceration, and a great PR campaign to sell it all to the public. Maybe Linton Crosby (Howard PR favourite) is out of a job now, and could put his many talents to this end? He was great with his ideas around marginalising and demonising migrants and refugees - in fact condemning the whole notion of multiculturalism. He could help win an unwinnable election with such ideas, and then the next, and the next. Think what he could do with your campaign! You’d be the President in no time.
Thanks to Catharine Lumby for the reference to Ben’s apology to Andrew Bolt - it’s fantastic! But - what I want to know is - who will apologise FOR Andrew Bolt? I’m waiting for that.
Helen Lewers
Helen,
I rest my case: ’ … when trying to mount an argument, can I recommend to all the use of exaggeration, Red Herrings, non sequiturs, Straw Man or Aunt Sally arguments, as techniques ? This seems to work so well for many NM contributors.’
Is it generally agreed that to be Left is to be pro-drugs, and only conservatives, like Howard or Linton Crosby, are anti-drugs ? So drugs are good ? Sorry, I can’t keep up with the furious pace of change in progressive thought.
Left, my arse.
It’s the likes of rebekkap who will keep this debate going for a few more years yet. Drug hysteria is aimed at these people who are quick to take the MSM bait and form an opinion without perceptive of the evidence they have gathered.
GraemeF: "People die from bee stings and peanut allergy but no one is calling for honey and peanut butter to be made illegal. ‘Drugs’ is such an emotive word that often common sense is removed from the debate in a rush to be tough on crime.". A great example of how perspective can change an opinion.
The fact is marijuana is "relatively" harmless but like ALL drugs, there are situations where it is not advisable to take this drug. Like an aggressive drunk or a person who becomes suicidal when drinking alcohol, there are people who should not take the drug, alcohol. Prescription drugs are exactly the same but they are labelled as such and the person who provides it is qualified to give advice or even stop you receiving it.
Even heroin is basically non toxic. It does no harm to you physically except constipation and a subdued respiratory system. The main damage is caused by an unhealthy diet, blood borne diseases and dirty needles causing collapsed veins etc. These are all caused by being treating addicts with jail instead of hospitalisation. The addiction is the nastiest part but only 10% of users become addicted. I bet this information is never reported in the MSM. I also bet most of you didn’t know it either.
Non of this on it’s own, warrant the opening up of free markets to illicit drugs but something must change as the hard line prohibition model has never, and never will be a success. Until facts without personal moral ideology is balanced against the current crock of shite reporting, rebekkap and like minded people will remain victims of drug propaganda and continue to base their arguments on misinformation.
Terry Wright
The Australian Heroin Diaries
Yes, Terry, you’re right (no pun intended): drugs per se are not necessarily harmful, but in excess, they certainly do kill and put users in the position of doing vast physical, social and psychological damage. Even kava has become misused through over-use in the NT, so limits have been put on its importation. When some cheap, powerful drug like ice starts to hit Aboriginal communities in a big way, then we will see and hear about horrific acts of violence, usually against women and children. But I don’t suppose they matter much to many readers since they are only Aboriginal. And anyway, they don’t feel pain or grief as much as ‘we’ do.
But I’m sure that nice middle-class people could probably take tiny amounts of ice on a Saturday night for a pleasant buzz, then tell us how harmless it is.
Joe
RMG.
You have hit it on the head. Anything good becomes bad when abused. I am not actually pro drugs at all but accept the fact the drug use, has and always will be part of every society. If people want to take drugs, well that’s their choice and in moderation will probably not cause any problems. But like alcohol, if it’s abused, then real problems arise. Luckily alcoholics can be treated in a humane way and the same should be for drug addicts.
Hi Terry,
I would be quite happy if everything but light beer and low-alcohol wines were banned, across Australia. I like the stuff as much as the next person, coming from an Irish background, but if banning full-strength beer and wines saved marriages, careers and lives, I would forgo the pleasure. Seriously, it would save thousands upon thousands of Aboriginal lives, and half of the health budget.
Ben Elton wrote a terrific book on this very subject, of legalising all drugs because it was impossible to control them properly: ‘High Society’ - I strongly recommend it, for a good laugh and, as always with Ben Elton, a very strong message beautifully put.
Joe
And I’d ban smoking too. Between grog and smoking, there’s three-quarters of the national health budget. I guess I’ll have to get elected Dictator for Life first.
Joe
You better be careful what you wish for RMG…
With the ever persistent social conservatives still being in power, the government might just grant your wish.
Terry,
Why do you think that good health, or being anti-addictions, is socially conservative ? I’m sure that communists are not in control of Phillip Morris or Anglo-American, or any major brewery or distillery or winery, or (I hope) of the drug traffic from Afghanistan, Burma, Colombia. I don’t think that any the growers and producers of kava would be socialist. In fact, I would not be surprised if the Mafia votes Republican, or at least right-wing Democrat in the US - they certainly had a cosy relationship with the conservative Christian Democrats in Italy.
Oh, I see: the bourgeoisie doesn’t approve of drugs, therefore it becomes a Left cause ? It is good to do drugs, because it gets up the noses of the middle-classes ? Let’s push Ice onto Aboriginal people because it will really, truly outrage the nice safe people in Toorak and Woollahra ? And anyway, we can’t ever eradicate them completely so we might as well legalise them all. I’m glad that you’re not in charge of the struggle against cancer, or AIDS, or poverty, or injustice. And that passes for progressive these days ? If so, then yes, I’m a conservative Marxist.
Joe
Extraordinary.
One mention of a self confessed socially conservative, church going politician who calls more than 4 drinks, binge drinking and I’m … what? A pro drug ultra lefty who wants the Aboriginals addicted to ice so I can "stick it to ‘em’? WTF? You were just agreeing with me a few comments back but since I mentioned that the government might be taking the high ground on drinking and your comments might ring true to the government, then I’m an evil drug pushing barbarian.
Your comments that alcohol and drugs aren’t worth the pain they cause are true. The problem is reality and facts. Those two words that interfere with all the moralist’s arguments.
How you concluded that the theory of legalising drugs because prohibition is a huge failure, is in any way connected to dealing with the problems of "cancer, or AIDS, or poverty, or injustice" is a long stretch. But these are the arguments of those who have no facts and a idealistic view of reality.
The difference is that science and medical research dictate policy on health issues like cancer and AIDS but science and medical research are ignored with that other health problem called drug addiction. Dealing with problems like poverty or injustice has the goal of helping people to overcome an adverse situation. Most current drug policies are not aimed at helping those with an adverse situation but catching and jailing them. All these strategies take into account reality and facts … except drug policies. These are just moral based ideals stepped in religious and conservative values.
How anyone can argue that a "tough on drugs" approach will work has a shocking sense of history. There has never been any evidence it would work from the start and after 40 years it has still not met one single goal. Not even one. The only result from this approach is cheaper drugs, stronger drugs, more drugs, easier to get drugs, younger users of drugs, more types of drugs and a 10 fold increase of drug users. Oh and corruption, massive prison populations, gang warfare, increased weapon usage, increased violence, explosion in crime, more overdoses, more people with drug records, more danger for pharmaceutical workers, monstrous government expenditure, over burdened courts, more racial and social problems etc. etc. Most of these problems hardly existed before the ‘war on drugs’ started 40 years ago when the US addiction rate was 1.3%. It’s still 1.3%
So are you saying that policies have held the line on more and stronger drugs ? The addiction rate is still 1.3 % in the US ? And presumably similar now in Australia to what it was 40 years ago ? So the policy is holding the line ? So if we accept that there is a sort of residual, hard-core bottom-line population which will find, use and die from addictions, no matter what, then what is the rationale for changing the current policies, one way or the other ?
I don’t agree with merely maintaining a problem (or vast range of problems) but what might be an alternative rationale for abandoning all the limitations on addictions and opening up the other 98.7 % to every pusher in the game (or plethora of games) ? Should pushers compete at every school gate, and pub door, to persuade every child to try ice, pot, heroin, cocaine, hashish, straight opium, grog, tobacco, petrol, kava, ecstasy, and Christ knows how many other idiotic mind-benders, once they are all legal ? Anything but reality.
Gosh, what a progressive world that would be, and how proud we would all be that we have fought to bring it about ?
No, I’m happy to stay a Marxist, and curse these addictions as capitalist con-jobs, which make filthy money for a few bastards, and destroy the lives of many fools.
Joe Lane
I can’t agree with the comments by rebbekap - especially for example her use of the 25% of road accident victims having "drugs" in their system. As others have pointed out having drugs in your system is not, by itself, evidence of impairment. Autopsy results can show cannabis several months after use and unless you’ve got hold of some truly strong stuff it is very unlikely that you’d be in any way affected a month after smoking a joint.
Indeed the 25% figure is probably quite an accurate reflection of the prevelance of drug use in the community - especially given that 17-25 year olds are over-represented in road accident fatality statistics. Again this does not imply a casual link between "drugs in the system" and "impaired driving abilities".
Steve Robinson
Pharmacotherapy Advocate
Perth WA