In what must be the worst piece of timing ever in his career, Michael Phelps had his bong-toking “gotcha” moment on the same day that it was revealed that 17-year-old Gemma Thoms died of an ecstasy overdose at the Big Day Out concert in Perth.
Ms Thoms is reported to have taken three tablets after she saw police searching for drugs at the entrance to the event.
At least Phelps — who won a staggering eight gold medals at the Beijing Games — had the intelligence to openly admit what happened, stating, “I’m 23 years old, and despite the successes I have had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner that people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry.”
It’s become almost obligatory for anyone caught with illicit drugs to make some kind of grovelling apology like this and suffer the subsequent public humiliation. Perhaps the only people who can get away with taking drugs, and even have their stature increased by doing so, are rock stars. Seriously, think about how cool Keith Richards would be if he’d never taken any drugs. About as hip as Rolf Harris.
Now, you might think that’s all well and good. In that case, you’d be in lock step with the official line on drugs. You probably applaud the “tough on drugs” rhetoric that cascades endlessly from those well-known paragons of virtue, politicians, tabloid journalists, religious leaders and shock jocks. And you must stand and cheer when you see the latest anti-drug campaigns with their ominous warnings about casual drug use.
Indeed, WA Premier Colin Barnett, showing all the sensitivity, intelligence and lack of grammar we have come to expect from politicians from the West noted: “This Government will be bringing in legislation relating to drugs and we will take a tough line on drugs for the simple reason to try and stop tragedies like that happening. I hope particularly young people are starting to get the message that drugs kill.”
No. The message young people are getting is that drugs are cool, the girl was unlucky and that Barnett is a goose. And by “young people”, I mean everyone under 45, who remain openly dismissive, laughing when they are told they should be to panicking.
Look, the best Rugby League player in Australia, Andrew Johns, admitted to using recreational drugs. The best AFL player, Ben Cousins, did the same. Now perhaps the greatest Olympic athlete of all time has been caught on camera with a bong. So when your kids see a pontificating politician or a dire anti-drug advertisement that tells them if they take so much as one puff of a marijuana cigarette, then they will inevitably end up in a gutter, their lives in ruin, they, quite rightly, just don’t believe it.
Young Australians would like some plain talking on drugs. They, just like you, don’t like being patronised. Your children, as well as mine, deserve to live in a society that can speak plainly about difficult social issues.
The “Just Say No” crowd, as they puff on their cigarettes and down another scotch, have never answered this question: why do so many intelligent people across all strata of society take drugs? Just how many? The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that one in every three Australians aged 14 years and over had used marijuana/cannabis at some time in their lives. Do the math — that’s about 4 million of us (including Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott).
So if you’re scared that any change in drug laws or to the official hardline attitude to drugs will lead us to a society saturated in illegal drugs, then isn’t that exactly what we have now?
Look — this is not an argument for the decriminalisation or legalisation of illegal drugs. Rather, it is, in the wake of the Michael Phelps “scandal” an appeal for the official line on drugs to more accurately reflect the realities of life for young Australians. This is the only way drug use can be reduced. Because whatever we are doing now sure ain’t working.
Here’s one fact no one can run away from: just like Gemma Thoms, one night, your children will be offered drugs. How they respond depends on what they know.
So do you want your kids to be smart or do you want them to be ignorant? Your call.
The sad situation of death by overdose has a significant effect on those exposed to it. There is nothing romantic about being dead as a consequence of a foolish flirtation with drugs.
Legalised drugs such as tobacco and alcohol have arguably a lesser immediate effect Then cocaine or heroin, and the effects of the addiction are much generally much less severe. It is patronisingly stupid to log all drugs under the one umbrella and therefore say that if you allow one that the others should be allowed. This argument is the refuge of fools.
The difficulty is that the young and impressionable will experiment with drugs as well as other silly activities such as as dangerous driving and unprotected sex, and social Darwinism will weed out the less fit.
It is unfortunate that those who are predisposed to die as a consequence of this activity are sometimes pretty and ostensibly innocent. Unfortunately foolishness is not correlated with good looks, but the media will focus on the young and pretty because it sells newspapers. Such is the whoredom of the media.
Without law enforcement agencies we would have anarchy. Blaming law enforcement for the stupid activities of illicit drug takers in similar to blaming the police for death or injury arising from high-speed car chases. Such deaths area consequence of attempting to constrain anarchy on the roads. Without such constraint, the death would probably be higher. I believe there is a similar situation with with drugs. I suspect that the deaths from overdose would be much higher if we had open slather.
Unfortunately the bong-heads advocating this approach probably has their logical capabilities seriously impaired by their illicit activities.
Good article, may i note that the war on drugs was lost a long time ago. the only beneficiaries of the war on drugs are the dealers and politicians who campaign on a tough on drugs policy. i support decriminalisation of all drugs and treat the results of drug abuse how they should treated ie as a health problem. This would eliminate the corruption of our police forces by drug money. Wee known Brisbane doctor, Wendell Rosevear has written some excellent papers on drugs in our society, suggest you get hold of them.
As an interesting, but related comment, last year the Venezuelan Government withdrew from the US war on drugs when it discovered that the American DEA (drug enforcement agency) was actually running the pipeline of Columbian drugs into the Venezuelan barrios. Apparently a political decision)
A couple of points:
1. The number of deaths from cigarettes and alcohol astronomically outstrips that of all other drugs (legal and illegal) combined.
2. The grouping of drugs into illegal and legal categories is a result of historical processes, not rational thought and discussion.
3. Criminilisation and attempts to police the use of drugs has been shown to simply affect the given price of a drug and have little impact on usage.
On a more abstract level, why is it the business of the broader public what a person chooses to do with their body? Cigarettes and alcohol have the future healthcare costs of the consumer built into the price in the form of taxes, why not so with any drug?
It is a strange situation that we find ourselves spending money to control an uncontrollable industry, creating a fertile environment in which criminals flourish and imposing public values that are a hangover from previous decades on the individuals of today.
Drugs are no where near as popular or cool as alcohol with young people these days – the systemic line has worked pretty well I think.
You, sir, rock.