



Having listened to endless disputes about drug

legislation and finding the same kind of polarized rhetoric coming up each and

every time, I had second thoughts tuning into a live debate on Youtube concerning

the seemingly endless War Against Drugs (or the War Against Some Drugs Some of

the Time as is more accurately the case). But tuned in I did, and the debate proved

to be stimulating — horribly stimulating in fact. But I'll get to that in a

minute. I should say that whoever organized the cyberspatial debate did a very

professional job. As soon as you went to the Youtube page, the live debate

appeared — and in good quality too. Sir Richard Branson was on the panel, as was a

former Mexican president, a former Met Office police commissioner, WikiLeaker Julian

Assange, celebrity Russell Brand, plus authors, former US state governors, and

more (you can watch the debate at: http://youtu.be/gSrN2zIRwN8).

A few things bothered me. The issue of Portugal was inevitably

raised. Portugal decriminalized all drugs over ten years ago (many people are

not aware of this) and this is often mentioned as a test case that drug

decriminalization can work. After all, Portugal still exists and people still

go on holiday there. The UK Home Office, for instance, does not warn of burning

airports or deranged mobs running amok in the streets of Lisbon or whatever. In

fact, this is also true of places like Amsterdam where cannabis is openly

tolerated — yet the streets are safe to walk as I know from recent experience.

Having said that, those defending the War Against Some Drugs Some of the Time

let loose a volley of statistics that showed that the crime rate in Portugal had

actually gone up in the last ten years. Others said that this was rubbish. Counter

statistics were repeatedly proffered. Thus, an informed Portuguese minister or Portuguese

official of some kind armed with objective data would have helped clear up the

matter.

Another bone of contention that I had was that one panellist

(I forget who) compared the need for draconian police action against drug users

to the need for harsh penalties against drunk drivers. His argument was that if

we suddenly made it legal to drink and drive then loads of people would do it.

Therefore society must threaten punishment to those who drink and drive in

order to help prevent it happening. Well, of course, this is obvious. But it is

a totally misleading analogy. Because sensible drug legislation would also make

it a crime to drive under the influence of any

drug, be that alcohol or any other major psychoactive substance. Moreover, the

argument is doomed from the start as it compares drunk driving with

illicit drug use — as if they were

somehow the same kind of thing. Sure, if most cannabis users, MDMA users,

cocaine users, or LSD users were invariably harming other people in a manner

similar to running them down in a car, then one might have a point. But this is

not so. Thus, the criminalization of drug use cannot be compared with the

criminalization of drunk driving. In fact, by using such a crass argument, the

chap was revealing just how over-the-top his desire to oppress was.

What all this shows is that the demonizers of drug use

are sneaky. Everything about their language is loaded. As another example, one

repeatedly hears of 'drug misuse'. This is a crafty corruption of language.

There are even well funded departments within the UK government concerned with

studying 'drug misuse'. Because the language is skewed and biased, this will likely

affect any governmental recommendations that might be forthcoming. For most

users of currently illicit drugs, such substances are used, not misused or abused — in just the same way that most drinkers

around the world use alcohol and do not 'misuse' it. Also, one repeatedly hears

of 'drugs and alcohol'. And yet alcohol itself is a drug! So in order to move

this debate forward, one has to be wary of all this bad language that can cause

subconscious bias.

One issue became very clear in the debate, and I think

most of the panellists agreed on its importance — and this is that the whole drug

thing is a health issue. That is what it all comes down to. So why on earth criminalize

someone when the chief issue at stake is their health? We don't criminalize

mountaineers who risk their health by going up Everest do we? We don't smash

down their doors and threaten them with fines and court appearances. And yet a

few decades back fully one in ten of those ascending Everest died in the

attempt (making such activity far more dangerous to one's health than using

crack or heroin). And if these mountaineers further endangered themselves by

using shoddy ropes, we would not shake those ropes in front of them and sneer

"you're nicked son" as we handcuffed them would we? Not if we genuinely cared

about their health. Indeed, how does being grilled by the police, or being

fined, or, worse, being banged up in jail, possibly improve one's health? In

matters of health, the only responsibility of the state is to protect, educate

and inform. If you are a grown up adult, then what you do is your business, and

solely your business, unless you subsequently harm others in which case it is

right and proper for some kind of societal intervention to take place. For

decades I smoked tobacco. I knew it was not healthy — but it was my adult choice.

Banning tobacco and suddenly turning millions of otherwise law abiding smokers

into criminals is as crazy as criminalizing those who pursue potentially

dangerous sports.

Another point is worth mentioning. The defenders of

the war on drugs kept mentioning crack, heroin, neglected children, social

misery, and such. But this aspect of drug use is minor compared to the 200

million users of illegal drugs who are non-problematic. So it is very important

that we differentiate between those at risk of harm (to themselves and to others)

with those who are not behaving problematically. This further suggests that we

stop lumping all drugs together. Being unable to differentiate between, say,

psilocybin mushrooms and crack cocaine, is absurd, as is the tacit lumping

together of ayahuasca and amphetamines, or cannabis and heroin. Intelligent

legislation would treat different drugs in different ways and laws pertaining

to distribution and availability would reflect real harms. No one wanting to

end the war on drugs is advocating heroin ice cream vans, or cocaine popsicles

for kids — yet the anti-drug brigade make it sound like that is what is being

called for.

I was enjoying the debate until Peter Hitchens was

handed the microphone and spoke. I once read an anti-drug polemic of his and it

was frankly scary. The man detests illegal drug users with such a vengeance that

I am inclined to think that he is the reincarnation of some nasty medieval

Witchfinder General. The kind of violent oppression meted out to women with

botanical knowledge in the Middle Ages is echoed by Hitchens in his attitude

toward drug users. The venomous hatred is apparent in his indignant body

language, his accentuated arm folding, and in his burning eyes. The man is dangerous.

His ultra-oppressive sentiments, his keen desire to accelerate the war on drugs

and punish all those millions of immoral miscreants who use cannabis and MDMA,

was so disturbing to me that I almost keeled over. The malice streaming out of

my computer monitor was palpable! Conversely, I bet the heavily armed drug

mafia and drug cartels love Hitchens. The last thing these unscrupulous gangs

want is for their lucrative trade (third biggest trade in the world don't

forget!) to be legally and lawfully controlled, so Hitchens is a real kind of

champion for their cause. I don't know if they send him large wads of cash, but

they might want to think about it.

How I wish we could switch the area of focus from illegal

drug users (and I must include myself as I am the author of The Psilocybin Solution, a book about

mushrooms that are classified in the same category as heroin and crack cocaine)

to the people evincing extreme oppression. That would really turn the tables.

All those grim authority figures who wag their fingers and viciously condemn

and demonize other people simply because they are enjoying, or exploring,

altered states of consciousness — these oppressive people should be under

scrutiny, not drug users. What right does Peter Hitchens have to tell me what I

can, or can't do, in the privacy of my own home (or in the privacy of a remote

Snowdonian forest as might be the case with my mushroom use)? What does it mean

to be a grown adult if you are not, as author Graham Hancock often points out,

sovereign of your own mind? But I tell you what Mr Hitchens — how about this

compromise: legalize all drugs to those who are over 40 and who have a

university degree (this includes me). Surely this part of the population are

capable of making an informed choice? Surely they are not a risk group? Or must

you nanny and oppress them as well? Of course, I jest, but how could this not

be an acceptable strategy? The idea is worth thinking about as it raises all

sorts of interesting questions about what it really means to be an adult. And don't

forget, when we make laws we can make them as elaborate and as fine grained as

we like — as long as they are clear cut.

For some reason, Hitchens was actually invited onto

the stage. This made me feel even more uneasy and queasy. If he ever got into

power I thought, if he ever had armed forces at his disposal, then god help us

all. Tyrants and dictators are not kind people. Their inner worlds are infected

with hate. This is what makes them so dangerous. And this is what makes

Hitchens so scary — because in his rhetoric and his bigoted newspaper articles,

he exudes hatred and negativity. In fact, he is precisely a good candidate for

a psychedelic drug like ayahuasca. I reckon if he took a stiff dose of this

strong Amazonian medicine, his oppressive tendencies might actually be healed — a

tough job for sure, but something not beyond the power of ayahuasca. In any

case, when I think about those who keenly demonize drug users and make out that

they are morally corrupt, I often wonder what lies at the heart of their

oppression. I sometimes surmise that it is fear. It is possible, probable in

fact, that those who actively promote the War Against Some Drugs Some of the

Time don't personally know any cannabis users, MDMA users, psychedelic users, and

such, and that they are consequently afraid of them, as if they were some sort

of dodgy sub-cultural underclass or something. Yet normal everyday people use

illicit drugs — doctors, lawyers, innovators (the late Steve Jobs used LSD), celebrities,

sportsmen, pop stars, teachers, scientists (Carl Sagan was a cannabis user) — it

is not all dark alleyways and dirty needles. Illegal drug use is prevalent

throughout all sectors of society. To be sure, apparently most dollar bills in

the USA have traces of cocaine on them (and did you know that Coca-Cola

originally had cocaine in it?).

Mood altering substances will not go away. An interest

in altering consciousness will not go away. The desire for pleasurable

recreation will not go away. The War Against Some Drugs Some of the Time can

never be won. And as Russell Brand pointed out, war is not the right option as

a means to reduce the potential harms of drugs. Indeed, what is war if not the

breaking down of civilized communication and a green light to violent means of

oppression and suppression? Waging war also requires an enemy. Thinking that

only drug gangs are the enemy in the war on drugs is naïve. Illegal drug users

themselves — all 250 million of them — have become the enemy.

What needs to be removed from the equation is therefore

not drugs, but the kind of oppressive warmongering that Hitchens exudes. Then

we can get on with controlling drugs intelligently. Which means we can make new

laws that concentrate on harm reduction and that are based upon scientific

evidence and not whim. Drug use is not a criminal issue. You are not an immoral

criminal if you use drugs. If you are of sound mind, healthy and informed, then

the authorities need to do nothing (except control production, quality and

distribution where appropriate). On the other hand, if you need help, you should

get help. And that's it. Oppression is not necessary.

Image by wikithreads, courtesy of Creative Commons license.