Posted in February 2008

Sinking low

You know something\’s gone wrong with your life when… 1) you tell a court \”I found a dying girl in the street and had sex with her mutilated body\” and 2) that\’s your defence

Just a thought, like

If I was married to as poisonous a witch as Natasha Hogan, I\’d probably have gone mad and thrown myself off a building as well. And frankly, being dead seems like a better outcome for her kid than having to live with the horrible creature.

In general, dumping the father of your kids for \’being a bit unhelpful\’ (what, not enough flowers or something?) shortly after both his brothers have killed theselves is pretty fucking low. But a special circle in hell is reserved for anyone who says \”ooh, I don\’t like the fact that the court has said it wasn\’t his fault, that\’s a miscarriage of justice, and not a demonstration that my lack of support and general awfulness contributed to him doing it, so therefore I\’m going to domand he\’s tried again! And again! And again! until a verdict that makes me feel better about my horrible self and denies my partial responsibility for my kid\’s death comes in…

Shame he didn\’t kill her instead, really.

The puritan spin machine in action…

A couple of good \”ooh, isn\’t cannabis awful\” stories around today: apparently EEEEVIL DEEEEEALERS are targeting loonies; while a particular variety of cannabis is now more popular than other varieties, and this is a TERRIBLE THING.

The first story isn\’t news. It is entirely certain that there is a correlation between mental illness and cannabis smoking, with some mental patients smoking cannabis as a form of self-medication (although it has not been demonstrated by anyone ever that there is a causal link betwen cannabis smoking in adults and mental illness – just that it can exacerbate already-present tendencies towards schizophrenia).

But it\’s clearly not an \”evil dealers\” thing. People who smoke cannabis tend to have friends who do the same, and who view smoking it as a harmless-to-good thing. Small-time cannabis selling is a near-zero-profit activity which involves people sorting out their mates. So the first story really says \”stoners like to sort their friends out if their friends are having a shitty time of it, although perhaps their way of doing so isn\’t the wisest\”.

The second story is more clever, and more insidious. It\’s based around the entirely stupid meme that old-style hippy peace-\’n\’-love cannabis like what Jacquie Smith smoked is harmless, whereas this new evil skunk stuff will turn you into a gun-toting Yardie in ten seconds flat.

It\’s clever because it allows prohibitionists to get round the whole Lenny Bruce concept of \”the many law students who now smoke pot will some day become congressmen and legalise it in order to protect themselves\”. The government can now say to all the ex-toker baby boomers \”ah, but your personal experience is worth nothing – you only smoked weed, whereas this stuff kids are smoking now is a serious, proper drug that will totally flip you out, dude.\”

The fact that it\’s complete and utter bollocks is more or less irrelevant. More distressingly, the fact that it\’s transparently and obviously complete and utter bollocks is more or less irrelevant. I know, because I smoke cannabis from time to time and have been doing for the last 15 years or so (without any major impact on my personal or professional lives) that there have been two trends in cannabis availability over that timeframe:

1) good stuff, rather than diesel-flavoured resin that\’s been up a Moroccan trucker\’s arse, is more readily available than it was ten years ago
2) said good stuff is slightly stronger than it was ten years ago, but by a factor of about 50% (it remains about twice as strong as trucker\’s-arse resin, which has also increased slightly)

This is borne out by the actual data, not to be confused with random lies about \”SUPER SKUNK SO POWERFUL ONE PUFF CAN DRIVE YOU MAD\” (fuck knows what the source for the latter is – do the police even believe the stories they\’re peddling?)

The problem is, while it\’s socially acceptable for non-anonymous writers to say \”I smoked cannabis 15 years ago and it was fine\”, it\’s not socially acceptable for non-anonymous writers who don\’t want to be identified as Druggie Writers to say \”I still smoke cannabis now, and this stuff about superskunk is the most ridiculous hoax ever perpetuated on anyone\”. And this includes your (slightly ashamed of his lack of principles) host.

What\’s the solution? I\’m not sure: while beating people to death if they lie that cannabis causes major social problems would be fair enough, it probably wouldn\’t do much to win the public\’s sympathy. And I don\’t think it\’s fair to ask people who harmlessly break the law on a regular basis to publicly out themselves (I\’m certainly not joining the queue). So it\’s a pretty depressing situation, with idiot puritans taking the upper hand because – unfortunately – nobody ever got fired for being an idiot puritan…

Note: I wholeheartedly accept that cannabis use may make your teeth fall out. Until we ban Coca-Cola, this doesn\’t really go beyond the \’mildly interesting but entirely irrelevant to anything\’ notch on the radar.

Mirroring and all that

Alex links to Bartholemew\’s tales of Paul Guido Staines\’s links with various nefarious 1980s groups funded by the apartheid South African regime.

On the wack-a-mole principle, given Mr Staines\’s litigiousness, I\’ve mirrored the Bartholemew piece in the comments…