Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Booze the greater of two evils: Nick Crofts

With the consistent and regular opinion pieces on the folly of Prohibition emerging out of the UK as of late, it is timely and inspiring to read Professor Nick Crofts' take on matters in the Age from yesterday. The articles from our northern 'neighbours' have been penned by highly qualified and experienced professionals, and such a description applies to Crofts, currently with the Nossal Institute for Global Health.

I don't need to spell out the merits, as you can see by clicking above that not only does Professor Crofts have a rational and reasonable grasp on the issues, but uses words like 'defenestrated' with aplomb. Typically, though, I just wanted to enact the slightest of nit-picks, as I can't help but keep the tragically unaware public in mind.

The first point I want to raise is the need to exercise caution with regards to contributing to the demonisation of any one substance. Of course it appears understandable when a drug like GHB for example is causing havoc because dose accuracy is difficult, or when many of a person's loved ones have lost their lives to heroin-related overdose, but what emerges is a further distortion of the drugs issue as:

a) people are further inculcated into embracing inaccurate and stigmatising sterotypes in general, as well as those attached to specific drugs
b) a misleading hierarchy is set up whereby certain drugs are okay but only 'scum' use those other drugs - this way of thinking has also gone hand-in-hand with the 'War on Drugs'
c) a well-rounded understanding of the drugs in question is lost as information is blurred and often, emotions ramped up

I am confident that Professor Crofts intends to venture nowhere near the aforementioned points, but I can't help but feel concerned when amphetamines, yet again, and in tandem with the Hall/ Weatherburn article in the Sydney Morning Herald a little while back, is described as "nasty" or something similar (plus, as one reader points out in the comments section, MDMA is in the amphetamine family - methylenedioxymethamphetamine). Refreshingly, Crofts places alcohol under this banner too, but again, the unaware public, who are most in need of an article like this, may be inclined to think, like a fair few people do, that particular drugs are more destructive or even 'evil' and therefore more deserving of prohibition.

This is not to say that amphetamines haven't led to nasty consequences, but MDMA, placed here in contrast to the former, has also been 'nasty' (teenage death, psychosis etc.). Ironically, most of the people that I have spoken to see amphetamines as okay and heroin as the evil, so Crofts' piece may cause a rethink in this regard, but I firmly believe that, in line with the article's recognition of the issue's complexity and the need for sensible, evidence-based humanism, we need to move away from inaccurate hierarchising. Apart from anything else, there is a significant number of regular amphetamine users who do not fit the 'nasty, psychotic, violent' stereotype and are, in fact, too busy having fun when they are on the drug to be damaging to others. And of course, there are those who medically require such drugs.

And whilst most readers in the comments section haven't gone in such a direction, we did have this from 'Scratcher' in Sydney:

"That being said, Cocaine and ICE are incredibly dangerous due to the paranoia,violence and heart damage caused in the long term. Now the South American Cartels are targeting Australia, we will start seeing a lot more street violence. My Answer, mandatory Cocaine and Amphetamine tests at the doors of clubs, more drug sniffing dogs located in clubs, patrons found to carry to be ejected."

Sounds like GHB, where, in some instances, people were merely being ejected from clubs when ambulances should have been called.

And then there are just those readers who... well, don't seem to be able to read:

"Let's cut the bull - pot is addictive, it does stuff up lives, and it does cause psychosis in many who are vulnerable. Don't paint it as the harmless drug because that is just an absolute load of rubbish"

That's right, 'Mother' from Sydney, Professor Crofts clearly stated that cannabis is "harmless" (NOT!).

The other point that will need to be made for the largely unaware public, is why drug taking occurs and what role it has played in the entire history of humanity. Professor Crofts most likely had limited space and it would probably be best in another article, but I can hear the remarks now from those who couldn't or wouldn't add a comment: "Well, it's their bloody fault! No-one forced them to take ecstasy because alcohol prices went up! It shouldn't be "If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot!" - it should be "if you take an illegal pill just because you couldn't afford alcohol you're an absolute dickhead!". In fact, I'm sure you can probably hear it too: "And you know what? They're even more stupid because they don't even know what's in the pill. Yeah, just like this Crofts bloke is saying - they are made by criminals who don't really know what they are doing and they're still bloody taking them! Waste of space I say. Either send 'em to the army, lock 'em up or let them rot. Actually, let them rot, because I don't want my taxes supporting them."

Like I was saying to a friend last night, our bodies actually have the pre-existing 'hard wiring' to be able to experience the effects of these substances (e.g. cannabinoid receptors etc.) and we also produce endogenous forms of these substances - so, there is something more to it that someone like Professor Crofts is far better placed to explain further.

And thirdly, whilst a previous blog posting here called alcohol a "crappy" drug, it is probably important not to demonise alcohol as there are a hell of a lot of people who have been enjoying the drug for many, many years and who are doing pretty good, and who have never been violent on it. So yeah, *note to self*, alienating these people is probably not a good idea.

To end, I kinda like 'abalone diver' from Sao Paulo:

"If society refuses to treat people like adults, then they will either act like children, or ignore it's rules, both of which continue to happen now."

1 comment:

  1. Found this on one of the e-lists:

    I gotta say, that Limit of Shunt author isn't too bad and has some valid points to raise, but I think he/she gets carried away and is probably overly-idealistic.

    I have had a review of the two articles in the Age convering the ecstasy/ alcohol/ young people issue and the comment by Professor Crofts, "Here is a situation in which we've moved young people from using a more dangerous drug to a less dangerous one.", does not seem to be backed up by research or data.

    This article: http://www.theage.com.au/national/alcohol-price-spike-fuels-switch-to-ecstasy-20101022-16xvj.html, compares the opinions of Dr Jenny Chalmers from UNSW with the owner of Chasers nightclub in South Yarra, Melbourne, and I think I am confident about whose opinion I would be trusting.

    Also, the article states that "The University of NSW National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre study found that most regular ecstasy users took it to ''feel great'' from the ''high'', the ''rush'' or the ''buzz''", and this is yet another article that doesn't quote statements from researched young people regarding price, so I think we need to be cautious about applying the 'blanket rule' that affordability is the primary criterion when young people are seeking out drugs to use.

    So whilst Limit of Shunt might spend his/her time pontificating to the masses about what they should or should not be taking into account, there are some finer details that are being missed. Oh well, I guess it shows that you can't put all your eggs in the one basket...

    ReplyDelete