Tripping Laws

In writing this column I must be honest about the fact that I have never taken a recreational drug in my life. The closest I've come to a psychedelic trip is the gentle sugar high of red cordial. So from an outsider's perspective I at least have no real bias towards condoning drug use, which is what I'm about to do.

 
Laws around drugs are intended to protect us, yet they are laden with hypocrisy. Alcohol is addictive, has negative health implications, contributes to violence and causes over 3,000 deaths per year in Australia alone. Cigarettes are addictive, have negative health implications, make your clothes all smelly and cause over 15,000 deaths per year. Cannabis is the least addictive, is known to have health benefits and has never caused death from overdosing. Yet in addition to it being illegal, the State Government is now also banning the sale of 'weed smoking devices' in Victoria. This seems redundant as people who are resourceful enough to buy weed are unlikely to be phased by the absence of bongs on Swantson Street. The lack of logic behind the whole weed ordeal makes you want to go out, get drunk and punch someone in the eyeball. Not that doing so would be out of the ordinary in this most liveable city of ours.
 
The whole drug debate is all over the net, so I'd rather not rehash (pun so happily intended) all the same points. Each individual substance deserves its own debate and scrutiny when it comes to its ethical use. Taking LSD, for example, is reported as being one of the most enlightening experiences a human being can have. Yet its distribution is left in the hands of the criminal world. Not the cool, attractive criminal world like on Underbelly: the ugly real one that kills people so that you can pop pills at Meredith. 
 
What I'm saying is that drugs like LSD may be deemed immoral purely by their association with crime. In truth, I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to one day make psychedelics available to the public, but it sure as hell isn't getting a fair trail.
 
My difficulty in writing the column, in part, comes from the fact that I received no drug education in my thirteen years of schooling. If it's illegal, they won't mention it. And here lies my point: the morality or immorality of a given drug cannot be determined by whether it's legal or not. Information and insight into the world of drugs will help create a safe and responsible culture around them,  as apposed to the dark, underground one that exists today.
 
On the legal drug scene we still have problems: alcohol. It's illegal to be intoxicated in a public place, even a pub or bar. Why? Because our great nation has bred the social habit of going out and getting smashed to the point of aggression and harm to others. Yet the law against public intoxication hasn't prevented Melbournites from excessive drinking every jolly weekend.
 
In Europe, the social norms around drinking are far more moderate. Plus, the treatment of the occasional drunkard is much more caring. In a European pub, the rare drunkard would be called a cab and even helped home by one of the bar staff. In our pretty little city when bar staff see someone slurring, stumbling or trying to chat-up a bar stool, they are legally required to block off the doors and call the cops. That's the solution we've created.
 
Ultimately, I think it is erroneous to imagine we can legislate our way to a moral society. Reacting to the difficulties that drugs create by just piling on more laws means we're less likely to develop a positive and reasonable drug culture. I'm not saying to take drugs just because they are legal or not to because they aren't. I feel that more open information on each of this world's narcotic wonders will help us come to the right decisions ourselves.

Check back weekly for Moral Melbourne with @MrSimonTaylor (Twitter).

Comments

Posted by Lachlan Kanoniuk on September 6, 2011 @ 10:15pm
Lachlan Kanoniuk's picture

I think the AFL has gone soft on the tripping rule in recent years - especially when contrasted to the crackdown on high tackles.

Wait, what?

Posted by ThePingMachine on September 7, 2011 @ 12:40am
ThePingMachine's picture

I think lawmakers are stuck in a bit of a bind with illegal drugs such as cannabis and LSD. If I’m remembering right, there is a bit of evidence linking marijuana to conditions like schizophrenia and anxiety, (Though some studies suggest that those are a cause for marijuana use, not an effect), and reports of extended psychotic episodes and Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder (Thanks Wikipedia) would tend to make anyone a bit hesitant to stamp an approval tick on them. Some narratives suggest that LSD had Syd Barret permanently ‘enlightened’ towards his later years of life, making him a barely functioning member of society. (Though he was a rock star. How functional a member of society was he really before?). I think sheer volume over an extended period of time may have something to do with that in any case.
I think that if cigarettes and alcohol had been discovered or invented today, in 2011, the debate about their legality would be entirely different. With the information we have about the potential damage they can cause, there’s no way any government would consider legalising them. But since they’ve been around for a million years or so, they’ve become such a pervasive part of our culture that illegalising them would not only cause meltdown, it would NEVER work. Prohibition in America wasn’t exactly a huge success, and it gave rise to organised crime. At least in the open, it can be controlled.... sort of. You get arrested for being too drunk sure, but who refuses to serve somebody because they want to buy a fourth carton of smokes for the morning?
I agree that education on illicit drugs is woefully inadequate. Filling heads with tall tales and horror stories about the ill effects of marijuana, cannabis, weed and even bongs does nothing to prevent people from taking them. In fact I tend to think the opposite happens. When people learn, as they most often do, that nobody ever really thought they were a glass of orange juice for their entire life because of one drop of LSD, they tend to start to wonder how many of the other cautionary tales they were told as a kid are true. Education, as it so often should be, is the key. Not with misinformation, but with ACTUAL facts.
I guess, in the end, it comes down to choice. I drink a lot of alcohol because I choose to, why deny a similar choice to others? Heroin and cocaine are a different, of course. Often, after that first taste, it no longer seems like a choice to users at all, rather a need. But to my knowledge, marijuana is barely addictive, and LSD is not addictive at all. The harmful effects are on the individual, not on the rest of the world (Although I don’t really want to be the intergalactic invading insect across from the guy on a freaky trip). It comes across as a bit of a parent-y move to stop us putting naughty things in our mouths, but we’re not children. We’re adults!
So morally, sure, I think it’s every person’s right to choose drugs if they like. But, legally, people are idiots, and they probably shouldn’t.
Wow... I rambled.... and I think I went in circles.... But there's my thoughts.

MrSimonTaylor's picture
MrSimonTaylor
Joined: 25th February 2011
Last seen: 28th September 2012
Q-bar Closed Down
7,480 views 6 comments
King Lear
1,982 views 0 comments
Do You Use Drugs When You're Out?
1,229 views 0 comments
Begging Your Pardon
3,844 views 5 comments
Osama Bin Laughed At
2,672 views 0 comments
SlutWalk
6,981 views 5 comments
Once, Twice, Both Times a Cheater
5,062 views 15 comments
Review : Dinner - The Gem
2,188 views 0 comments