I supported and still support the war in Afghanistan. Iraq however is another matter entirely...
This is a rant that I rather hoped I wouldn't have had to write. You see, about a fortnight ago I sat down to write something about current affairs that was brimming with optimism. I didn't expect it to be hugely difficult; my personal and professional life are good, and I expected my general good mood to be reflected in what I wrote. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I was wrong. That particular rant is still sitting in my Drafts folder gathering whatever passes for dust in a computer hard drive. And it's not like I didn't try; I started the damn thing 2 weeks ago and I've come back to it 8 or 9 times since. In that time I've managed to add one sentence. As I'm sure you can understand, this has caused no small amount of frustration; I've been banging my head against a brick wall trying to figure out a way to write down what I wanted to say. And now I've stopped trying. Why? Well, happy though I am with my life at the moment, it seems that I was rather foolish to think that this would allow me to obscure world events in the same fluffy pink fog that envelops one when one is personally very happy indeed. So I thought that I'd try a different angle; what in the hell is going on in the world that won't allow me to conclude a rant with the words "Hey, everything is going to work out just fine! Relax! Enjoy your life!"
Amazingly enough, the source of my deep-seated concern lies over the Atlantic in the personage of the US Government. (I was going to say a little something to stress that, despite my loathing of their current government, I'm not anti-American. However, seeing as the type of person who would scream at me for being some sort of Arab-loving, liberal, commie, subversive idiot would do so if I did anything less than praise the Land of the Free unconditionally whilst ignoring the catalogue of hypocrisy, arrogance, and political shortsightedness that has become the trademark of the Republican and Democrat parties...well, you'll excuse me if I'm inclined to think "Fuck 'em" and plough on regardless). The reasons why I am growing increasingly nervous are neither new nor particularly special to America. It's just that the possible consequences are enough to allow me to preserve my hard-won veneer of cynicism in the face of my actually being genetically indistinguishable from a pig in shit these days.
So, what the hell am I talking about? Astoundingly enough, bearing in mind that I'm talking about a government who's leader is widely regarded as heroic in his efforts to push back the boundaries of incumbent stupidity (and as he has Ronnie "Alzheimer" Reagan to compete with, this is no mean feat...) I'm talking about America doing it's level best to start another war. Apparently Afghanistan was merely an appetiser to those good old boys in the White House; all it did was give them a taste for blowing the hell out of little brown people attending wedding parties. The main dish is, of course, Iraq.
Here in the UK, we have been made vaguely aware that Dubya is trying to whip the nation into the kind of jingoistic fervour required to get popular support for a war. I say vaguely because the mainstream media, perhaps aware of the significance of the UK being drawn into a conflict that has barely any international support and that is almost certainly illegal under international law, has spoon-fed the great British public with stories of such huge significance as "Man Feels Queen's Arse" and "Big Brother’s Jade: Why I'm not a Minger". I don't mean to denigrate people for lapping up these stories (because I know I do), and I don't mean to sound as paranoid as I actually am, but doesn't it concern anyone that, whilst our attention has been distracted ("Hey, dumbass! Look at the pretty story! You looove Pop Idol...listen to Will wax lyrical about the significance of whatever sweltering turd he's inflicted on the charts! You think animals are cuuute...here, here's a story about some poor whales getting beached and nice people trying to save them, isn't that nice? Yep, the world sure is great folks, so don't you worry about a thing. And especially don't worry about what YOUR government that YOU allowed into power are doing, 'kay?") ,that nice Mr. Blair has all but choked on Dubya's dick in his eagerness to involve the UK in a war against Iraq? I mean Jesus Christ, one can almost hear the sucking noises on the rare occasions that Blair is on TV explaining how we're going to be backing America all the way.
Now then; why should anyone care that a war on Iraq seems to be imminent? Who cares if Saddam Hussein is toppled from power? What does it matter if America is choosing to fight the good fight and release the Iraqi people from virtual slavery? I'll deal with America's motivation for wanting a war in a moment, but firstly I have to confess; I'd love to see a change of regime in Iraq. I have a long-standing hatred of dictators and totalitarians and it would be a delight to see the moustachioed old bastard standing trial for the long, LONG list of atrocities that he is responsible for. However, these things have to be done in a certain way. When the first Gulf War was fought, it was fought with a UN mandate and an international coalition with America at it's head. There was a clear objective, widespread support from Iraq's neighbours in the Middle East, and whatever opposition to war that could be mustered was quickly marginalised due to it's impressive refusal to accept the facts and the reality of the situation. This war, if it is fought, will do so without reference to the UN, a coalition consisting of some gung-ho American and some reluctant British troops, no objective beyond "Saddam must Die!", and no support (in fact, there will probably be active opposition) from Iraq's neighbours. This time, it's not the opponents of war who have closed their eyes to reality.
Essentially, America is talking about ignoring the will of the rest of the world and doing what it wants because it believes it to be the right thing. Again, not necessarily a bad thing (as Winston Churchill discovered), but why exactly is the US government so determined to stick 2 fingers up to the world and behave in a manner not unlike the sports 'jock' stereotype that can be found in every bad American teen movie since the 70's? There are two schools of thought on this. One says that America is being true to the ideals of freedom and democracy on which it was founded, that it is acting in the defence of a poor and oppressed people and...I'm sorry, even as I was typing that I found myself chuckling. It's quite clearly a large and unmistakable pile of bullshit isn't it? The land of freedom and democracy has toppled democratically elected governments on a whim and, as a result, reduced the freedom available to huge swathes of people across the planet. They've done plenty to advance the cause of oppression (currently they're opposing an international agreement to end the use of torture by governments. There reason for doing so is that they don't want foreign observers allowed into US prisons. Way to stamp moral authority on your regime Dubya...), so all the protestations by Rumsfeld et al that they're doing this for apple pie and liberty sound rather hollow.
The other school of thought is a little fragmented, but runs thus; America is currently reaping the whirlwind caused by decades of corporate greed. The stockmarket is crashing, people's savings and pensions are being devalued to the point of worthlessness, and all the while a few CEO's are stuffing their cavernous pockets with money. Unsurprisingly, people are not happy about this. When they are not happy, they tend to register their disapproval in the time-honoured tradition of blaming the president for everything. Dubya's approval rating is falling (something that, after September 11th, no-one thought would happen for years) and he needs something that will send it shooting back up to election landslide levels. Happily, his Dad left unfinished business in Iraq, and so what better way to make people forget about their raped economy than a war with a country that coincidentally has huge oil reserves. What would help repair the economy better than a new supply of oil that would free America from it's need to keep it's Arabian allies sweet?
This sounds a little more believable, doesn't it? Perhaps a little too harsh in places (I can't bring myself to believe that their government is composed entirely of soulless monsters who believe in nothing more than their own self interest), but all in all it's a hypothesis that holds a lot of water. So that is what America is doing. It is willing to risk causing civil wars across the Middle East, a massive increase in terrorist recruitment, and a ruining of the economy that will make the current crash seem like a particularly nice dream involving 4 Playboy Playmates, some whipped cream, and a red snapper. All because a group of stupid white men want to cling on to their power and influence in America, and fuck the rest of the world if they don't like it. Yet the UK is supporting all of this. And I'll bet most of us didn't even know that we were.
It does seem that war is inevitable. It also seems that we in the UK are going to be part of it. If that does happen, then I'm patriotic enough to want 'us' to win; only a fool would wish defeat on his own country. But if I'm honest, I wish that Tony Blair would grow some balls and tell Dubya that we want no part of his attempt to win the approval of his Daddy and the American Public. We've supported his War on Terror, and that is all well and good. But we avoided the first Vietnam, so it would be nice if we could avoid their next one. Let's not support his War on Common Sense, eh?
Wednesday 31 July 2002
Tuesday 23 July 2002
Censorship
I have genuinely used the example in the last paragraph of this rant. Try it with a right wing friend; you'll laugh yourself sick at their reaction.
For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne shite that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative crap. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous bitch tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering tits who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
For some reason, I've found myself arguing with my friends about censorship recently. Seeing as I like few things better than a good and good-natured argument, I don't view this as a bad thing. Nor do I generally view it as a particularly noteworthy thing. But for some reason I've found the topic of censorship has tattooed itself onto my brain, and so it is that I'm sitting in front of a computer screen trying to put my thoughts in order about the subject. Hopefully it will provide an interesting read. I'm equally hopeful that it will help me settle on a firm opinion about censorship so that I no longer argue whichever point of view is the most likely to wind up the other person (What? Don't look at me like that; you know what I'm like...)
So then; is censorship a good thing or a bad thing? It has been with us since Roman times, where the office of Censor of Public Morals existed. It was, rather ominously for us, an office abused by successive Emperors who used the position to declare any point of view that conflicted with theirs as immoral. Unhappily, many countries use censorship in exactly the same way (Burma and Singapore spring immediately to mind, but just look at how often Blair or Dubya play the "moral high ground" card when faced with criticism.)
If, like me, you're a film, music, or literature buff, you'll almost certainly be inclined to say that it is a bad thing. The last 50 years has seen censorship of good films (A Clockwork Orange, though that was unusual in that it was Kubrick himself who ordered it's withdrawal from the UK. Numerous "video nasties" were also banned; The Evil Dead is my favourite among these.), good music (we are plagued with radio edits of songs in order to protect our delicate little ears from the trauma of hearing a swearword; why the hell we can't apply these same criteria to protect us from the anodyne shite that Stuttering Stanley of Pop Idol fame vomits out with alarming regularity I'll never know...), and good literature (Lady Chatterley’s Lover being the most famous casualty here).
However, you may just as easily be inclined to say that it is a good thing. I saw the Evil Dead when I was 8 and have been treated to a lifetime of nightmares about zombies ever since. Many of the video nasties that have now been freed from the thrall of the censors have turned out to be badly made and exploitative crap. I was as surprised as anybody to find myself thinking that I agreed wholeheartedly with the censors who wanted to ban Bad Lieutenant; it was the worst, most boring film I've ever seen. It consisted of a series of scenes that were designed to shock the viewer and...that's it. It's easier to find pirate treasure that it is to find the plot of this turgid lump of sensationalist rubbish. Obviously I'm being facetious when I say I wanted it banned, I merely wanted to stop watching it. Nevertheless, it is a film used by both the pro and anti censorship camps to justify why censorship should be increased or reduced. So who is right?
As we live in a relatively liberal western society (I'm talking only about Europe here; their are conflicting reports from the US that claim the current government are either the cultural equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, or the last guardians of decency depending on your point of view.), there has been an increasingly relaxed attitude to censorship. Most people, if questioned, would probably say that censorship is not a good thing, or that censorship begins and ends in the home. To which the reply is "What about kiddie porn? If you don't believe in censorship at a government level then what is to stop this stuff being made?"
Well, sorry to rely on sophistry and nitpicking here, but I think that's rather a dishonest way to argue in favour of greater censorship. Child pornography is, first and foremost, a human rights issue. Children should not have to be forced into doing something that will be physically and psychologically damaging, and I'm pretty damn sure that I would want the government to do everything in their power to stop it's production (unless you live in Belgium, where it would appear that the government are the biggest consumers of child porn...). Again I must stress; that is not censorship, it is protecting the rights of the vulnerable.
Yet isn't that what censorship is about; protecting the vulnerable? Well, yes in theory that is exactly what it is for. But the fact is that our trust in the censors and that they will know what is best for us has been eroded considerably. I've already mentioned how Blair, and all politicians for that matter, use censorship for political reasons; the Brass Eye special concerning the media's hypocrisy in dealing with Paedophiles was condemned without having been seen because that is the sort of thing that middle england wanted to hear. But it's not just politicians that one should be wary of; it's not often that I will punch the air in delight at the news of someone's death, but that's exactly what I did when I heard that Mary Whitehouse had shuffled off this mortal coil. How DARE that self righteous bitch tell me that she knows what is best for me, especially when she never used to watch most of the programs she condemned.
Michael Grade described her as "a bully in the guise of a victim", and I agree wholeheartedly with the description. Not just of her, but of pretty much every self appointed censor. Whether they argue for censorship on religious grounds (such as those peace loving Christians who hurled abuse and threats of violence at people who committed the cardinal sin of going to see "The Last Temptation of Christ"), or for moral reasons (the simpering tits who constantly worry about the negative effects of any TV program racier than "Little House on the Prairie"), or simply for personal reasons (if there are any bigger morons in the world than the ones who signed the petition calling for the second Lord of the Rings film to change it's title from "The Two Towers" because they believed it was a clear reference to September 11th, then I have yet to be made aware of their existence), they are essentially trying to force their views on others. And if you don't accept their view, then you are the enemy and you are to be condemned for your sinfulness/immorality/insensitivity.
So what is it that I'm trying to say here? Well, I do believe that there are certain fundamental things that the government (or some public body) should concern themselves with in respect of censorship. Personally, I believe that anything that involves a lack of consent of one or more of the participants at any stage of the creation of a particular piece of work should fall under the governments censorship remit. As far as I can see, that takes care of the horror stories that certain pro-censorship advocates will have you believe we are on the slippery slope to (I have, and I swear to God this is true, heard someone say that if we were to revoke the blasphemy laws in this country then we will see an increase in things like snuff films because "sacrifice is always prevalent in a godless society"). Other than that...well, as far as I can see it's a matter of personal choice and parental control. I rather like organisations such the BBFC (who decide the ratings for films depending on suitability) because they are provide a useful guideline to parents who wish to ensure that their children don't watch anything unsuitable (such as The Evil Dead...). Yet even then, I don't think that their ratings should be anything more than guidelines, and not rules set in stone.
In short, my ideal is a world where the likes of Chris Morris can continue to produce programs such as Brass Eye and the people who dislike it will all remember how to change the channel of their television rather than writing foaming letters to their MP's demanding that the filth be stopped. If people want to be so egocentric as to believe that something that offends them must therefore offend everybody, then by all means let them carry on. Perhaps listen to them for a while, and even allow yourself a few cooings of sympathy. Then remind them that all they have to do is stop reading or watching whatever it is that is upsetting them and do something else. Failing that, you could always do what I do and start complaining bitterly to them that something that they like or enjoy is offensive to you. Trust me, there is nothing funnier than watching a tinpot 'moral guardian' being forced to argue against censorship when you complain to them about sexism in an Enid Blyton book.
Tuesday 9 July 2002
More Drugs
Well, I've just returned from my holidays during which I spent a fantastic weekend at Glastonbury festival. Things are going well in both my love life and career. The friends I now have are about as dear to me as friends can be. And if that weren't enough, I've got 2 new playful pet cats. Bearing in mind how well things seem to be going for me right now, it would be churlish and ungrateful of me to work myself up into the state of indignation that I need to write these rants.
If there is one thing that has been getting up my nose recently, it's drugs. And unfortunately, I don't mean in a good way. After a year which has seen an MP (a conservative MP at that) calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the setting up of Amsterdam style cannabis cafes in the UK and, if reports of tomorrows announcement by the Home Sec David Blunkett are to be believed, the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug (meaning that possession would no longer be an arrestable offence), I was beginning to think that perhaps the powers that be were starting to see that perhaps smoking a spliff wouldn't bring about the collapse of civilisation. As per usual, fate and the media have conspired to vomit out more bilious bad news for the express purpose of ruining my day.
The Tories (and one Labour MP) are saying that the cannabis trial scheme in Lambeth, whereby cannabis users are basically left alone in order to free up police resources so that they can tackle the problem of hard drugs, is a failure. They say it is a failure because "it encourages drug taking". I look forward to the next release from Tory central office, when I expect them to declare that legalised alcohol encourages drinking, cigarettes encourage smoking, and chocolate encourages lardy fat bastards. I mean, for fucks sake! Have the Tory leadership allowed their brains to lie fallow for the summer? It smacks of opposing an issue for the sake of opposing it, and it certainly shows their lack of political daring and acumen.
The reason I say this is because their major complaint is that some people are buying their cannabis from dealers who also try and sell them harder drugs. No shit Sherlock! Why, who would imagine in this land where free enterprise and profit have been worshipped by successive governments for 30 years, that a dealer would try and sell someone a drug that will mean more profit for him? However, rather than use this complaint as a platform to push for decriminalisation (to which most people are...well, not opposed to; only the Daily Mail brigade provide any objections and they rather spoil their case by talking reactionary old shit about cannabis and crack cause the same damage for most of the time) and thus increase their popularity among the young (a large and mainly untapped source of votes), they simply spew out the same tired lumps of froth about how all drugs are banned, and how cannabis is a "gateway drug" that leads on to harder drugs (question; how many people were drunk when they first tried drugs? Most of you? Hmm...and yet we never hear complaints of beer being gateway drugs do we?). Their best argument seems to be "Well, it's not that bad for you, but it leads you into other things that are!", and the only people it appeals to are a small and vocal minority.
And if that were not enough, I now find that Blunkett's announcement concerning drug laws tomorrow is not a bold statement by a political party intent on change. It is, in fact, the rather soggy underpants of a drunk and incontinent old tramp. Sure, cannabis is being reclassified as category C. However, the sentences for dealing cannabis are to be doubled. So what we are being told is that it's alright to use the drug, but you're not allowed to buy it. I hate to break this to anyone with an ounce of idealism in them, but we're not getting a country where personal liberties that don't infringe on the rights of others are being increased. No, if I'm optimistic we're getting a rather badly performed sleight-of-hand trick where we think our little freedom's are being increased, but in fact nothing is changing at all. If I'm pessimistic (and, depressingly, realistic), we're seeing the set up for the return of draconian and illogical drug laws, with the excuse that the half cocked, half arsed pilot scheme in Lambeth didn't work.
Of course, when it comes to draconian and illogical drug laws, we're still quite some way behind our friends across the Atlantic. In some states of the land of the free, possessing enough cannabis for a reasonably pleasant night in is enough to get your arse thrown in prison for 10-20 years. Just recently, the war against terror has given the blockheaded anti-drug propagandists in their government yet another excuse to sink their vampire fangs of guilt and fear into the neck of America. You see, now when you buy drugs you're not just committing a crime. Oh no, you're personally responsible for prolonging the war against terror because the terrorists are getting a lot of their funding from drugs.
To which my response is "Then fucking well legalise them all and make sure that if anyone is going to profit from drugs it's going to be the government!". However, as I accept that I'm in the minority in that respect, I'll move on. It boils my piss that these simpleminded fuckwits honestly believe that the average cannabis smoker is happy to hand over money that aids in the running of any criminal enterprise. Speaking personally (and for most dope smokers I've ever met in my life), I absolutely LOATHE having to go to some of the places I do in order to buy cannabis. This is almost certainly going to sound like an intellectual's fear of the working class, but I don't like going to a shitty estate to buy a quarter ounce from somebody who may do me the pleasure of burgling my house later in the week. I hated defending the little fuckstack's in court and I hate having to be all matey with them when all I want to do is get out in one piece. This is why I, like many other smokers of my slightly repressed and middle class ilk, prefer to get their dope via a friend who only deals to his friends. It's all very suburban isn't it? And the attempt to remind people like me just where the drug money may be going will not result in a flood of people throwing away their rizla's in a fit of self-loathing. It will result in people being more secretive about it for fear of being demonised by a bunch of morally dubious hypocrites.
Of course, I would be naive if I thought that the twinning of anti-drug propaganda with anti-terrorist propaganda was being done in the interests of reducing drug use in America. America, along with the rest of the western world, has been fighting a rather pointless War on Drugs for years. It's had next to no impact so far, and I don't imagine that the US government expects this latest trick to have much effect on anyone who wouldn't unquestioningly swallow whatever rancid pile of stinking old dog-smeg that they've collectively spunked out in any given week. What it will do is deflect attention rather neatly from another major US source of terrorist income and training; their government.
Was it drug cartel money that paid for Osama bin Laden's training by the CIA in the 80's? Or for Pinochet's CIA sponsored Chilean coup? Or for Dubya's attempt to depose the Venezuelan president a few months ago? (which shows that Dubya handles international politics like Joey Deacon handled a basketball...) Maybe it was drug money that paid for the School of the America's in Georgia, where the glut of Central and South American sadists and murderers who laughably call themselves the governments of their nations can learn the fine arts of torture and murder in the idyllic surroundings of the USA? No? Oh, that's right; it was the US government who sponsored and paid for every last one of those, wasn't it? The War on Terror is nothing more than the US reaping what it's Government has sown worldwide since the end of WWII. The Newer, more Improved War on Drugs is not much more than another way to try and distract attention from this.
Which is a shame, because I find it funny. No, actually I find it hilarious. Not the death of innocent people or the muddlesome war. Rather, it is the firmly held belief among some Americans that the imperialistic attitude that was the downfall of the Romans, the Persians, the Imperial Chinese, the Japanese, the British Empire...hell, every nation that has ever held sway over world events and opinion, is a perfectly acceptable one and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it that has me chuckling in that smug way that only a European can manage when discussing America. Of course, I'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if I'm proved right about that (though all recorded history is on my side), so in the meantime, would it really hurt anyone if I sat and had a spliff whilst I'm waiting?
If there is one thing that has been getting up my nose recently, it's drugs. And unfortunately, I don't mean in a good way. After a year which has seen an MP (a conservative MP at that) calling for the decriminalisation of cannabis, the setting up of Amsterdam style cannabis cafes in the UK and, if reports of tomorrows announcement by the Home Sec David Blunkett are to be believed, the reclassification of cannabis as a class C drug (meaning that possession would no longer be an arrestable offence), I was beginning to think that perhaps the powers that be were starting to see that perhaps smoking a spliff wouldn't bring about the collapse of civilisation. As per usual, fate and the media have conspired to vomit out more bilious bad news for the express purpose of ruining my day.
The Tories (and one Labour MP) are saying that the cannabis trial scheme in Lambeth, whereby cannabis users are basically left alone in order to free up police resources so that they can tackle the problem of hard drugs, is a failure. They say it is a failure because "it encourages drug taking". I look forward to the next release from Tory central office, when I expect them to declare that legalised alcohol encourages drinking, cigarettes encourage smoking, and chocolate encourages lardy fat bastards. I mean, for fucks sake! Have the Tory leadership allowed their brains to lie fallow for the summer? It smacks of opposing an issue for the sake of opposing it, and it certainly shows their lack of political daring and acumen.
The reason I say this is because their major complaint is that some people are buying their cannabis from dealers who also try and sell them harder drugs. No shit Sherlock! Why, who would imagine in this land where free enterprise and profit have been worshipped by successive governments for 30 years, that a dealer would try and sell someone a drug that will mean more profit for him? However, rather than use this complaint as a platform to push for decriminalisation (to which most people are...well, not opposed to; only the Daily Mail brigade provide any objections and they rather spoil their case by talking reactionary old shit about cannabis and crack cause the same damage for most of the time) and thus increase their popularity among the young (a large and mainly untapped source of votes), they simply spew out the same tired lumps of froth about how all drugs are banned, and how cannabis is a "gateway drug" that leads on to harder drugs (question; how many people were drunk when they first tried drugs? Most of you? Hmm...and yet we never hear complaints of beer being gateway drugs do we?). Their best argument seems to be "Well, it's not that bad for you, but it leads you into other things that are!", and the only people it appeals to are a small and vocal minority.
And if that were not enough, I now find that Blunkett's announcement concerning drug laws tomorrow is not a bold statement by a political party intent on change. It is, in fact, the rather soggy underpants of a drunk and incontinent old tramp. Sure, cannabis is being reclassified as category C. However, the sentences for dealing cannabis are to be doubled. So what we are being told is that it's alright to use the drug, but you're not allowed to buy it. I hate to break this to anyone with an ounce of idealism in them, but we're not getting a country where personal liberties that don't infringe on the rights of others are being increased. No, if I'm optimistic we're getting a rather badly performed sleight-of-hand trick where we think our little freedom's are being increased, but in fact nothing is changing at all. If I'm pessimistic (and, depressingly, realistic), we're seeing the set up for the return of draconian and illogical drug laws, with the excuse that the half cocked, half arsed pilot scheme in Lambeth didn't work.
Of course, when it comes to draconian and illogical drug laws, we're still quite some way behind our friends across the Atlantic. In some states of the land of the free, possessing enough cannabis for a reasonably pleasant night in is enough to get your arse thrown in prison for 10-20 years. Just recently, the war against terror has given the blockheaded anti-drug propagandists in their government yet another excuse to sink their vampire fangs of guilt and fear into the neck of America. You see, now when you buy drugs you're not just committing a crime. Oh no, you're personally responsible for prolonging the war against terror because the terrorists are getting a lot of their funding from drugs.
To which my response is "Then fucking well legalise them all and make sure that if anyone is going to profit from drugs it's going to be the government!". However, as I accept that I'm in the minority in that respect, I'll move on. It boils my piss that these simpleminded fuckwits honestly believe that the average cannabis smoker is happy to hand over money that aids in the running of any criminal enterprise. Speaking personally (and for most dope smokers I've ever met in my life), I absolutely LOATHE having to go to some of the places I do in order to buy cannabis. This is almost certainly going to sound like an intellectual's fear of the working class, but I don't like going to a shitty estate to buy a quarter ounce from somebody who may do me the pleasure of burgling my house later in the week. I hated defending the little fuckstack's in court and I hate having to be all matey with them when all I want to do is get out in one piece. This is why I, like many other smokers of my slightly repressed and middle class ilk, prefer to get their dope via a friend who only deals to his friends. It's all very suburban isn't it? And the attempt to remind people like me just where the drug money may be going will not result in a flood of people throwing away their rizla's in a fit of self-loathing. It will result in people being more secretive about it for fear of being demonised by a bunch of morally dubious hypocrites.
Of course, I would be naive if I thought that the twinning of anti-drug propaganda with anti-terrorist propaganda was being done in the interests of reducing drug use in America. America, along with the rest of the western world, has been fighting a rather pointless War on Drugs for years. It's had next to no impact so far, and I don't imagine that the US government expects this latest trick to have much effect on anyone who wouldn't unquestioningly swallow whatever rancid pile of stinking old dog-smeg that they've collectively spunked out in any given week. What it will do is deflect attention rather neatly from another major US source of terrorist income and training; their government.
Was it drug cartel money that paid for Osama bin Laden's training by the CIA in the 80's? Or for Pinochet's CIA sponsored Chilean coup? Or for Dubya's attempt to depose the Venezuelan president a few months ago? (which shows that Dubya handles international politics like Joey Deacon handled a basketball...) Maybe it was drug money that paid for the School of the America's in Georgia, where the glut of Central and South American sadists and murderers who laughably call themselves the governments of their nations can learn the fine arts of torture and murder in the idyllic surroundings of the USA? No? Oh, that's right; it was the US government who sponsored and paid for every last one of those, wasn't it? The War on Terror is nothing more than the US reaping what it's Government has sown worldwide since the end of WWII. The Newer, more Improved War on Drugs is not much more than another way to try and distract attention from this.
Which is a shame, because I find it funny. No, actually I find it hilarious. Not the death of innocent people or the muddlesome war. Rather, it is the firmly held belief among some Americans that the imperialistic attitude that was the downfall of the Romans, the Persians, the Imperial Chinese, the Japanese, the British Empire...hell, every nation that has ever held sway over world events and opinion, is a perfectly acceptable one and that the rest of the world will just have to accept it that has me chuckling in that smug way that only a European can manage when discussing America. Of course, I'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if I'm proved right about that (though all recorded history is on my side), so in the meantime, would it really hurt anyone if I sat and had a spliff whilst I'm waiting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)