30.01.1997

Drugs - moral dilemma of the left

‘When we were all uncivilised, who came like a mother to her child, gently raised her from the slime, kept our hands from hellish crime, and sentenced us to heaven in our good time?’

This is a sarcastic Irish song, describing the tender mercies of ‘mother Britannia’. Something of the moral outrage and empty paternalism of the state’s reaction to drugs can be seen in the sentiments of this song too, I think. All of the hoo-ha over East 17 and its ‘disgraced’ singer’s comments on the relative benignity of Ecstasy, coupled with the well-publicised and truly tragic deaths of 20 teenagers from the drug-related milieu and society, have thrown much of the left itself into a moral panic.

Gone are the days when even the most steely-eyed of the Bolshevik forces would have defended sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll per se - not least because they would have been bloody hypocrites not to; but also because they would not have had a spark of resonance with the generation as a whole and the young working class in particular if they hadn’t.

Sixties leftists, by and large, understood the drugs scene because they were to one extent or another part of it. This seems to be not so true today; much of the left has become the ‘establishment’. Its thoughts have become tired and out of touch with the vibrant new generation. Its concerns are largely outside those of this generation, so it is forced to peer in from the outside, chiding and scolding much like bourgeois opinion does. Indeed, the wish for acceptance and respectability amongst ‘ordinary’ people, has led some so-called leftists to join in the condemnation of drugs, to defend repressive laws and attitudes, and to join in the hue-and-cry in defence of the repressive age-of-consent laws.

That such a reactionary message will strike a chord with backward elements of the working class and the moralist petit-bourgeoisie is without doubt, as with the call for public execution and horse-whipping. How should we view the situation?

Firstly, let’s cut the hypocritical crap. While millions of parents quite deliberately ignore the absolute certainty of death and ill-health and continue smoking - like there is no tomorrow- the kids will never understand the question as to why they - in the face of evidence of possible death and ill-health from Ecstasy - should not keep on taking it.

Not that the comparison is fair anyway. Cigarettes are by far and away the most addictive and dangerous of any drug bar none. Against the size of its usage, Ecstasy accounts for a little higher annual fatality rate than those from allergic reaction to bee-stings. It is also a fact that the criminality of the drug allows for its abuse by suppliers, adulterating it with all sorts of substances which are by and large the cause of the damage. If the drug were legal, and supplied to clear medical stipulation, death and danger would be radically reduced.

Likewise, secrecy - in fear of detection and prosecution - has contributed to death and injury by those nervous of seeking urgent medical attention.

There is however a more general point. I can quite legally drink a bottle of Jeyes Fluid and almost certainly kill myself, causing massive damage to my insides - that is not illegal. What then is the logic of hounding and repressing those participating in an activity which might be damaging once the person is fully conscious of the risk?

Let’s be quite clear. Some of the drug-related practices of this generation in particular are a collision route to death. Sniffing aerosols, lighter fluid and glue are almost guaranteed to close down the lungs and bring on heart failure. Indeed, in part that is how the high is achieved. One can explain to the kids we love most, and are our nearest and dearest, how the thing works. We can explain why these above all others cannot be risked, as we do not want them to die and throw their precious lives away. But many will mistrust us because so many older people lie about drugs and substances which are patently not so dangerous; so many of the older people want to stop so many of the enjoyable activities of the young, that they are inclined to see it as one big repression and say ‘bollocks’ to it and get on with enjoying, experimenting and risking life. On the other end, there is an almost Russian roulette syndrome, which has adopted the attitude that ‘teenage’ is like climbing a mountain without a rope - inevitable if that is what you decide to do as part of the adventure of being young and bold. I vaguely remember that feeling myself: never trust anyone over 21 and I hope I die before I get old.

Only, really, with the benefit of hindsight, do you think ‘Stupid bastard, I was glad I was wrong’. The best we can be is supportive and educative, and if we are going to moralise, let’s do it against the state, the media, and public opinion, not the kids going through the haze of conflicting pressure while trying to enjoy their lives to the full.

Dave Douglass