Stereotypical Chavs

This morning's news reported to the entire country an incident that saw 7 teenage boys conforming to the stereotype of a Howdon youngster; in a vigorous effort to get high they downed a cocktail of drink, cannabis, anti-depressants, and diazepam. Nothing unusual in that you may think, and for the most part I have the sinking feeling that you are correct. However, the little morons succeeded where most of their peers have failed in that they managed to get to hospitalise themselves. Indeed, it is possible that not all of them will live to see another day.

Okay, first reactions to this news; 7 less horrid little charva's to hassle me when I'm next in Howdon (a charva is what I believe TLC would have referred to as a "scrub" in their bland, soulless song No Scrubs). Sorry if that sounds a little heartless as I'm sure they may be very nice young men if I'd got to know them, but given the choice of having some gel haired, shell suit attired little mindswamp jabbering abuse at me, or having that same person drooling to themselves in intensive care after a cocktail of drink and drugs, I'll take the latter option every time. I don't mean to sound nasty or mean, but I am so you'll just have to deal with that.

Also, why is it always a cocktail of drink and drugs? Is it because cocktails have much the same effect? (If you don't believe me, try going to your local and downing 8 or 9 Peachy Strippers; a stomach pump will seem like a logical conclusion to the evening...) And secondly, is anyone else angry with the little bastards for spoiling the fun for the rest of us? It's always cases like this that are used as justification when the government announce yet more draconian measures aimed at curbing our enjoyment of life. Well, I don't think that this sort of thing does prove that "...we need to protect our children" or whatever other hypocritical bullshit excuse is used. I think that it does bear out my argument in an earlier rant that people need educating about the effects of drugs, both legal and illegal.

Of the mix of things that they took, only cannabis is illegal. Would anyone care to take bets on what will get the brunt of the blame for this "tragic" incident? This is despite the fact that it is impossible to overdose on dope (incidentally, that old slogan of "Why do you think they call it dope?" refers to the fact that most of the powers that be are total dopes when it comes to knowledge of it's effects). According to recent figures (admittedly they were gleaned from Bizarre magazine but that is by the by) it would take something like 2000 joints to overdose on THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. Anyone who has ever smoked a joint will know that if these little pricks managed to go through that amount of dope they have A: lots of money, and B: the constitution of an Elephant. So I think we can work on the basis that the cannabis had nothing to do with their overdose? Good.

However, I have read of grown men dying after about 20 pints and vodka chasers. This is of course a lot, but it is possible I think you'll agree. When one adds anti-depressants (which come with warnings not to take with alcohol) and diazepam (which carry that same warning), then one can see rather rapidly that it was the legal drugs that caused the problem here.

The police have said in their statement about this incident "someone is peddling drugs that can kill". Well, yes I suppose so. And it's the government, not a drug dealer. Anyone over the age of 18 can legally get the drugs that may yet kill these boys. Who is to say that their parents didn't have the anti-depressants and diazepam? And everyone I know can tell a salutary tale of underage drinking, so why are the authorities hinting darkly at the involvement of the criminal element? Whilst I accept that they could have gotten some or all of the drugs involved from a dealer, isn't it equally as likely that they could have simply bought the beer at a local off licence, got the drugs from their parents, and bought themselves a bit of dope from a dealer?

I think the problem runs a lot deeper than the usual "drugs and dealers are a menace to society" message that we get bombarded with time after time. The fact is that society itself has a major problem when it comes to dealing with young people in that they are pretty much entirely left to their own devices. Parental interest in controlling their children seems to be pretty much non-existent at the moment (and that is regardless of social background; this incident could just have easily have been 7 spoilt little rich kids), and when things go wrong for them, we are quick to look for a scapegoat rather than examine their home life. I realise that I am making something of a generalisation in saying this, and as I don't have any children of my own I am looking at this issue from the outside as it were. But if a parent refuses to take responsibility for the actions (or even their upbringing) then aren't they far more to blame than any drug dealer?

Once again, I'm going to cop out and say that although I think the solution lies in increasing parental responsibility, I have no idea as to how to achieve that. Certainly I'm not so naive as to think that it can be done overnight; I would say that the problem is so ingrained now that it is the work of many years to try and undo it. Unfortunately, in today’s society, the nature of our democracy with it's 5 year terms of power and reliance on personal popularity rather than political skill, we will almost certainly continue to be promised quick fixes by parties who would say anything to get elected, and will dismiss long term plans as they may not be in power by the time they come to fruition. But my anti-democracy attitude is a rant for another time...