Illegal drugs by and large have continually been presented in one sided terms in the media.
While the more radical of our mainstream papers remain prone to speculative anecdotal evidence pieces surrounding the dangers of MDMA (Irish Times link below), the conservative press relishes clinging to the concept of regularly damning the “lethal drug”, continuing the same argument it has purported since ecstasy came on the scene. 2 days ago the health section in the Mail ran an article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-205952/Memory-danger-Ecstasy-pills.html ) warning readers of the possibility of memory loss associated with the drug. Complete with cringe inducing inverted commas to emphasise the alien language of the demonic, mysterious ecstasy users (8.6% of those aged 16-59 in the UK have tried it, almost 1 in 10 of 16-24 year olds), the article delivers in hackneyed scare tactics warning that smoking marijuana to “come down” could mean a “double whammy” because, it has "also uncovered further evidence that smoking cannabis harms short-term memory". The article is a reconstruction of the same language and message as almost every anti-ecstasy article of the 1990s. Why is the right wing press so adamant that people must be scared away from ecstasy? They have clearly failed so far anyway. To use the mail's own figure, 1 million people in the UK use ecstasy each weekend. Why the continued clichéd attack?
Ecstasy was indeed portrayed across the board as a monster drug throughout the mid 90s. It was a synthetic drug, formulated in a lab, something never before seen endangering the youth. It was viewed as something taking scoops out of teenager's brains.
It was widely predicted, and predictions were widely taken as inevitabilities, that this club drug was about to ruin the youth in every way imaginable – foretelling sudden deaths from many users and severe psychiatric illness problems for those who managed to escape it. It was certain that Western society was doomed to breed a destructive, disturbed, mindless demographic. The future generation, according to the main voices in print journalism, was in real danger.
15 years on from the height of the rave scene, and people of this generation are becoming mid-level managers, academics completing their PhDs, computer technicians, emerging political figures. All these people who had diced with this deadly drug should be filling up our state clinics suffering from unimaginable psychological trauma. Instead, there is nothing to suggest that MDMA has sent society to the dogs. 25-35 year olds aren't clogging the footpaths in wheelchairs, pushed by their parents, too emotionally disturbed to hear their elders' sad mumbling “I told you so”. Society hasn't fallen apart due to distressed former ravers too inept to function. If society has changed for the worse, this can surely be attributed to the speculative economic hubris of the baby boomer generation, not pinned to the 30somethings.
Previous generations have experimented with illegal substances, of which very little was known. Those involved with the 60s counter culture movement remember their revolution fondly, reminiscing at how harmless it was. Owing to the fact that the vast majority of 60s drug users turned out okay, it is now seen in reflection as something completely acceptable, something admirable, daring even.
Evidence that MDMA isn't addictive is undeniable. Instead of filling up psychiatric wards of our hospitals, MDMA is now being used to treat post traumatic stress disorder. US veterans from the Iraq war suffering from PTSD have noted lasting improvements in their overall well being as a result of using prescribed doses of the drug. Recorded deaths from ecstasy are extremely low (between 40-70 people each year in the last few years - technically you're more likely to die from eating peanuts). With this criteria, Alcohol would surely seem to be the veritable social vice which is widely harming youngsters and older generations alike. The “don't-you-alcohol-is-a-drug-also?” line is indeed clichéd at this point in defences of illegal drugs, but it still hasn't really been taken on board in conservative political discussions.
Print journalism is unified the continued use of scare tactics to dissuade prospective users and to strike fear into current users. It is something which has been widely used in clubs for a decade and a half at this stage. Scare tactics clearly aren't working in keeping people away from the drug. Use is just as high as ever, MDMA is the 3rd most popular drug. Shocking articles chronicling the supposed stupidity of MDMA users are apparently not dissuading very many people at all. Prophecies of the destructive long-term social effects of the drug are clearly rubbish. These type of articles would seem to aim at increased readership rather than to present a rational moral voice. See the IT article describing a young boys death: (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1119/1224283711217.html ) It is devoid of any compassion. Why would they describe a teenager's death in this way? The user is pigeon-holed, his last moments are presented in patronising statements. Why would a paper use such a demeaning tone to report a tragic loss?
Our more liberal European counterparts exhibit a different take on the drug issues. In the Netherlands, addicts are seen as human beings, people to save, people to help – the public believe in the concept of rehab for victims of truly harmful drugs. Fatalities of drug use are mourned, not used as part a greater statistic to be gleefully used by press and politicians alike.
A society that takes a harsh damning view of illegal substances that are widely used generally don't succeed in their goals to lower use. When being seen as a drug user is something that will draw patronisation, users are less likely to decide to seek help. Sneering tones levelled at users may additionally spur them to break their resolve. In many ways print journalism and politics hasn't made rehabilitation a very attractive option. It would seem drug horror stories are quite effective in selling papers and gaining votes.
Other drugs in the media.
Everyone is aware that that crack cocaine resulted in a near endemic in the late 80s and early 90s in USA. It was probably the biggest media frenzy surrounding a drug in history. A bloodbath was predicted to follow, as crack related violence seemed to be spiralling out of control. For various reasons this never really materialised. Many believe that crack all but left the market in the mid nineties. Crack did become less profitable, not necessarily less prevalent. The crack market bubbled, attributed perhaps to gang leaders being incarcerated or killed, with younger gang members reluctant to take their place amidst the high risk of getting killed themselves, at the same underpricing was cutting out profits. Crack didn't leave the streets by any means, but violence waned significantly – a product with a thinning profit margins was no longer something to kill over. Although figures have dropped percentage wise since the late 80s, in 2008 700,000 of the United States 2 million regular cocaine users used freebase/crack cocaine. The drug is still widely available on streets, just as affordable, and just as harmful to the user as ever. However the shocking stories associated with the drug have vanished. The articles of concern aiming to save the youth through gripping, and lucrative, stories have disappeared.
In recent years much media attention has been levelled at synthetic drugs. Articles describe synthetic drugs as capable of being made in anyone's home, and often from readily available over-the-counter substances. This evokes the concept of the “internal enemy” – ie. drugs harming our children are no longer just a matter of border protection, but of an internal disaster waiting to happen: any home could be transformed into a covert drug factory.
Loopholes in drug policies allowing new similar drugs to enter the market are texturing the frenzy of suspicion - a lucrative state of mind, a state of mind which consistently needs news to confirm its views. Piling on more traditional scare tactics with the existing denigrating agenda is a journalistic tour de force.
The generation game
Youth trends are viewed upon with scepticism at best in political circles. Teenage crazes must be quenched.
Interestingly, drugs sold in homeopathic alternative medicine shops, which are just as untested as head store drugs, thrive on legal loopholes and are rarely, if ever mentioned in the press. It is only when the youth invest in a loophole that it suddenly becomes a massive threat to established order.
The generation in power in politics and at the head of today's newspapers is the generation that has tried cannabis, and realised they turned out to be pretty damn successful regardless of what they were warned. The movement to legalise cannabis has gained some steam in recent years. Portugal has decriminalised, in Ireland its status is separated from all other scheduled drugs, and in the UK it will be reclassified (again) to a class C in January 2011.
Cannabis has gained a new level of acceptance by parents. Parents realise the inevitability of a teenager's inter-rail trip passing through Amsterdam, and parents are beginning to realise that this isn't such a bad thing.
The most powerful leaders of the world - Cameron, Obama - openly admit to using it when they were younger (Mentioning Brian Cowen's former use of cannabis wouldn't do much for this argument).
Each generation is more willing to accept things they got away with themselves. The flip side is that they react in a disgusted manner when another generation tries to steal their thunder. Something new, something that develops on what we realise to be quite safe must inherently be hazardous.
When it comes to recreational drugs, the youth are told they can't handle something new, or something which has caught on. Yet we are informed that as the children who grew up with the internet, we will inexplicably lead the economy in a new innovative, 'smart driven', [insert ambiguous buzz word here], direction. Some business incentives will be put in place, and the rest will be sorted out by the innovative youth who know all this technical mumbo-jumbo.
Today's youth has much to be worried about. The current youth generation are facing one of the most difficult times in recent history: a time where the growth of technology and a global economic crisis mean the society of the future is becoming ever more impossible to predict. Yet, we are spoken of with patronising concern, and entrusted with the future with an ominous “its up to you now”.
The society of the future is unclear, but the youth can count of having a lot expected of them, a lot is indeed already expected. It is certain that, everything considered – outsourcing in traditional reliable industries, technological advances in the workplace, years more of heavy economic debt – the youth coming into the workforce in the West in the next half decade will be expected to work harder than previous generations, and the inertia of previous years which has created the austerity we are now experiencing, will simply not be an option. It will be a busy world, recreation and entertainment time will be cut short.
The function of the youth in previous years has been unabashed hedonism – everyone leaves on a J1, the parents have an idea what goes on, but brush it off, grinning and reflecting nostalgically on their own holidays in between college years, whispering “those were the days”. For many, the possibility of such extravagant party-filled summer odysseys will soon be out of the question. As parents still attempt to provide the most fun for the youth years for their children, money is becoming an issue in ways never predicted a few years ago. Teenagers will be questioned on whether they really need to spend that €300 to go to that music festival this summer. Guilt is overshadowing what were once rite of passages. Whatever resentment the youth may feel in not being able to avail of the fun lifestyle set out in their parent's mould, they'll just have to grin and bare it.
An ecstasy pill is cheap in Ireland, costing generally €3 - €5. The “come down” can indeed last the best part of a day. However, almost everyone who has used alcohol will attest to this legal drug leaving them feeling incapacitated for most of the day after on many occasions.
Over indulgence of anything can't be good for you, but there doesn't seem to be much to suggest moderate use of MDMA ends up to be very harmful.
We're going to inherit the mistakes of an older generation, it's about time we were treated with some respect in relation to what we do for our entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment