Drugs and the musician

[lowregisterhead]

In my experience there are no hard and fast rules that work in every situation - one person's recreational use of any drug, legal or otherwise, on a weekend can have no effect on their ability to function as a normal human being (I know, define 'normal') whereas to someone else the same level of ingestion will take them down a slippery slope almost immediately. So legislation or lack of it will suit some, but not most scenarios.

To quote Gore Vidal on another, perhaps not completely unrelated topic:
“There is no such thing as a homosexual or a heterosexual person. There are only homo -- or heterosexual acts. Most people are a mixture of impulses if not practices.”

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356625663' post='1911770']I suspect that will be down to the numbers of users you know/knew.

Practically every adult in the UK drinks. 4% are addicts, another large percentage are problem drinkers and even more are heavy drinkers.

If you license drugs (alcohol is NOT legal, it's licenced) you send a clear message that it's ok. I suspect that instead of 4% addicted to alcohol, that 4% will just be divided up. Drugs use would increase but alcohol use may decrease at the same time. You would just have less alcohol problems but more drugs problems - whether that is good or bad is another question.[/quote]

Well either way you have the same proportion of dysfunctional substance abusers, so legalisation wouldn't be detrimental to society in terms of health care or welfare. The main difference would be that the drugs currently being imported and sold by criminal gangs would be available through legal markets, so you'd have less money in the hands of organised crime and more in the treasury.

When you then factor in the affect on the drug addicted of making this change, well, it's clearly going to be better for them. Less chance of getting poisoned, considerably lower likelihood of being exploited by criminals to feed their habit, higher availability of appropriate treatment for those who seek treatment which should lead to less theft/burglary, etc.

Look up the opinions of Prof. David Nutt who was an advisor on drug policy to the last Labour government and whose professional advice was completely ignored because it wasn't seen to be politically appropriate.

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356637616' post='1911950']


Well either way you have the same proportion of dysfunctional substance abusers, so legalisation wouldn't be detrimental to society in terms of health care or welfare. The main difference would be that the drugs currently being imported and sold by criminal gangs would be available through legal markets, so you'd have less money in the hands of organised crime and more in the treasury.

...
[/quote]

You're effectively saying that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to cocaine are essentially the same thing.

[peteb]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356638024' post='1911960']
You're effectively saying that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to cocaine are essentially the same thing.
[/quote]
Are you saying that it isn't??

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356638024' post='1911960']You're effectively saying that being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to cocaine are essentially the same thing.[/quote]

What would you say are the important differences?

In my experience the drug with the most destructive effect on users' lives - at least here in the UK - is heroin. But that's as much to do with the quality of supply and the suppliers as it is the nature of the addiction, and either way we've got people who are addicted to heroin so would you rather criminalise them or rehabilitate them?

Cocaine is not massively problematic at all.

Edited December 28, 2012 by thisnameistaken

[lastnotleast]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1356610820' post='1911580']
Well done. 9/10 for effort.

(No, sorry, no malice intended. Just kidding. Nice post; thanks...)
[/quote]

That's hilarious! I apologize to Her Majesty. I'm certain she does not mispell [i]nurturing[/i]. Thank you Dad, I have started the day with a good laugh at myself.

Powdered/snorted cocoain was not a massive problem until folks learned they could freebase, the precursor to crack.
I watched it happen in the early '80's and it was terrifying. It turned healthy robust young men into shriveled skeletal zombies.

Edited December 28, 2012 by lastnotleast

[Bilbo]

[quote name='lastnotleast' timestamp='1356694705' post='1912443']
It turned healthy robust young men into shriveled skeletal zombies.
[/quote]

Bit like becoming a Jazz musician, then...

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356694378' post='1912433']


would you rather criminalise them or rehabilitate them?

Cocaine is not massively problematic at all.
[/quote]

Why would you need to rehabilitate someone taking a legal substance? If you're an alcoholic you're not forced to give it up.

If you look at the Portugal example where apparently drugs have been 'legalised' (they haven't) they have very strong enforcement. If you are found with drugs then you have a choice, voluntary rehabillitation or prison (with enforced rehabilitation).

I believe (have been told anecdotally) that in the UK the rehabilitation of drug users has improved massively in the last 10 years.

I believe licencing drugs isn't the way to go, you'll just shift the alcohol problems into drug territory. As we've seen countless times before, theory is all well and good, but humans don't behave theoretically. If they did then the economy would be nice and stable.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356697602' post='1912502']
Why would you need to rehabilitate someone taking a legal substance? If you're an alcoholic you're not forced to give it up.

If you look at the Portugal example where apparently drugs have been 'legalised' (they haven't) they have very strong enforcement. If you are found with drugs then you have a choice, voluntary rehabillitation or prison (with enforced rehabilitation).

I believe (have been told anecdotally) that in the UK the rehabilitation of drug users has improved massively in the last 10 years.

I believe licencing drugs isn't the way to go, you'll just shift the alcohol problems into drug territory. As we've seen countless times before, theory is all well and good, but humans don't behave theoretically. If they did then the economy would be nice and stable.
[/quote]

I am doing my best to read and comprehend your posts but it seems none of what you've posted so far contains any argument for the prolonged prohibition of recreational drugs.

Even the government can't put together a coherent argument for it. Presumably if they do have one, it's something they're not willing to share with the electorate.

Perhaps it's like the situation in the USA where the CIA appear to be one of their biggest importers of cocaine.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356697602' post='1912502']I believe licencing drugs isn't the way to go[/quote]

Me neither, there's still a massive list of things which are made legally which have their kooky counter-part, which many buy just for the cheap thrill or because it's all they can afford. You can't cater for all the reasons folk do things....... and of course it'll be another list to be monitored by Big Brother.

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356698192' post='1912518']


I am doing my best to read and comprehend your posts but it seems none of what you've posted so far contains any argument for the prolonged prohibition of recreational drugs.

...
[/quote]

You missed what I wrote about heavy drinkers and problem drinkers switching to more addictive substances?

What about a government that then decides that it's not a problem for people to be addicted to legal substances.

If you change attitudes to drugs then attitudes to drugs will change and probably not in the way you predict.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356622066' post='1911722']I've known very few recreational drug users who have become a burden to society - either on the NHS or through turning to crime to fund their habits.[/quote]

Then you've been incredibly lucky - my own experience was massively in the opposite direction.

In their case it's not about being a burden to society, it's about being a burden to themself to the point where self-destruction whether intended or not, is one of their better options, or feels that way.

[JellyKnees]

I smoke a little bit of dope now and then. Why should I be criminalised for that? I have a good job and in all other respects am a law abiding citizen.

People with addictive personalities will always find stuff to be addicted to, banning stuff will not change that. Living in Birkenhead all my life, I've seen close up the abject failure of the 'war on drugs' and the associated misery it causes. My ex-wife was also an alcoholic, so I know a fair bit about addictive compulsive behaviour.

Legalise, regulate, tax and then use some of the taxation raised to help addicts, whatever their drug of choice may happen to be (currently legal or otherwise).

[risingson]

Back to the OP, the 'music is my drug' thing is fine, but it doesn't pose any health risks like a strong addiction to cocaine or heroin would, so the acceptability and the impact to those around you isn't as comparable.

The stage at which drug use becomes unacceptable is when it damages relationships, causes you health implications and lands you in trouble with the law. You take drugs and you risk dealing with at least one or possibly all three of these things sooner or later, those with an addictive personality will find out sooner than those without.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1356699689' post='1912554']
I smoke a little bit of dope now and then. Why should I be criminalised for that?[/quote]

Because it's illegal.

A civilised society doesn't pick & choose which laws it wants to follow or not. Isolated cases of "I'm alright" don't outweigh the cases of the majority.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356701368' post='1912587']...A civilised society doesn't pick & choose which laws it wants to follow or not. Isolated cases of "I'm alright" don't outweigh the cases of the majority.[/quote]

I'm not sure that I could agree to these statements (in fact, I'm sure I couldn't...). I could easily imagine a fair number of circumstances where civil disobedience would be justified; at least to myself. I may be alone in this opinion, but, to me, my personal moral values and conscience outweigh massively (nay; absolutely...) any consideration of 'majority'. This does not mean, of course, that I am against any or all laws; simply that when there is a judgement call to be made, I decide with my own conscience; no-one and nothing else, whatever their numbers, take precedence. I have to assume, of course, any consequences of my decisions, and that's fine by me too.
I reject the term 'civilised society' as a concept. Imho, we are a collection of individuals.
"I"m alright" is somewhat reductionist, too. Many individual decisions are, in fact, to one's detriment, and for the (perceived, at least...) worthy cause. Altruistic behaviour, for instance, is not necessarilly for one's own profit. It's legallity changes nothing in this respect.
None of this should be taken as a plea for, or indeed against, legalisation of 'soft' drugs or whatever; just a tiny stand against have anyone else decide in my (or your...) place.
No malice intended...

Edited December 28, 2012 by Dad3353

[Bilbo]

'Civilised society' is not determined by its Laws and the adherence to them. The world is a lot more complicated than that and always has been. Law breaking in the last couple of hundred years has included vast swathes of the trade union movement, suffragettes, Nelson Mandela and the fall of Apartheid, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and the US Civil Rights movement, Ghandi's passive resistance and so on. Hitler's approach to society would suggest that Laws can and are used to abuse people as much as to keep them safe. That and to protect vested interests. Civilised people are not those who simply obey the Law but also question it and, when the Law is unjust, challenge it by any means necessary.

See what I did there?

[Bilbo]

PS - Burglary is against the law but is the reason we do not burgle our neighbours fear of and adherence to the Law or simply our willingness to accept that that kind of behaviour is unacceptable/wrong? Laws are there simply to articulate the generally held views of a society and to draw a line for the minority who would offend against that society. That line moves over time because society's values change but, in general, people don't think about the Law; they just behave in a civilised way because that generally works.

Take away everyone's food and watch the rules change.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1356703199' post='1912615']
I'm not sure that I could agree to these statements (in fact, I'm sure I couldn't...). I could easily imagine a fair number of circumstances where civil disobedience would be justified; at least to myself. I may be alone in this opinion, but, to me, my personal moral values and conscience outweigh massively (nay; absolutely...) any consideration of 'majority'. This does not mean, of course, that I am against any or all laws; simply that when there is a judgement call to be made, I decide with my own conscience; no-one and nothing else, whatever their numbers, take precedence. I have to assume, of course, any consequences of my decisions, and that's fine by me too.[/quote]

I didn't say that that was the be all & end of it; I credit most posters on here as having the intelligence to be able to use a bit of interpretation without having to have an essay that covers all points but is ignored by most posters.
The bit that becomes civilised is where it coincides with the general consensus of society. Even though there are probably hundreds - possibly thousands - of UK citizens who would encourage their actions recent months have seen the highlighting of the actions of one deceased now ex-celebrity who doubtless used his own personal values and tastes to do what he did - and possibly even saw no wrong. It's even been said that it was OK by the standards of the time.
Different people have different values, a law that works has to cover as many viewpoints as possible, it would be impossible to cover them all.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356701368' post='1912587']A civilised society doesn't pick & choose which laws it wants to follow or not.[/quote]

Nonsense. Everybody picks and chooses which laws they agree with and intend to follow, and those which they think are pointless/frivolous/unreasonable/unfair and will break at will.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356704929' post='1912661']

Nonsense. Some people picks and chooses which laws they agree with and intend to follow, and those which they think are pointless/frivolous/unreasonable/unfair and will break at will.
[/quote]

Fixed it for you, otherwise you wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you were broken into & robbed; mugged, or whatever else.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356705091' post='1912667']Fixed it for you, otherwise you wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you were broken into & robbed; mugged, or whatever else.[/quote]

You're either being facetious or you are bad at thinking.

[TimR]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1356707353' post='1912722']
You're either being facetious or you are bad at thinking.
[/quote]

Nope. He is right. Everybody doesn't break the law willingly. I certainly don't bring up my children to break the law willingly.

There is a difference between freedom and doing what ever you like whenever you like. If everybody just did whatever they liked, there would be anarchy.

We set laws as an absolute standard that we expect people to behave to, not as guidelines.

As Bilbo said, occasionally, the world moves on and some laws such as slavery, repressing women and homosexuals are seen as outdated. Usually we don't have to break laws to get our side of the argument across, usually lobbying your MP will do it. But in the end if the majority of people see laws as correct then they will stay as laws, regardless of how much 'civil disobedience' is employed.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1356707874' post='1912729']
Nope. He is right. Everybody doesn't break the law willingly. I certainly don't bring up my children to break the law willingly.

There is a difference between freedom and doing what ever you like whenever you like. If everybody just did whatever they liked, there would be anarchy.

We set laws as an absolute standard that we expect people to behave to, not as guidelines.[/quote]

Thank you; and exactly so.

We are - despite Daily Mail pages to the contrary - in many ways fortunate to live here, the laws will never be to everyone's liking but they do try to cover as many as possible.
If we were to ever have a Govt that promised a referendum - and stuck to that promise - my vote would be very much in favour of a total ban on all non-prescription drugs. Like some, and unlike others, I have no positive personal experience of drug use - only the abject misery they can cause. YVMV naturally.

[Jayben]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1356705091' post='1912667']
Fixed it for you, otherwise you wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you were broken into & robbed; mugged, or whatever else.
[/quote]

I disagree, simply because everyone picks and chooses the laws they want to follow, right down to the little ones like parking on double yellow lines, or using a zebra crossing properly, or speed limits. It's down to the individual to adhere to the law of the land, consternation on the part of any on-lookers may be enough to put the individual off, but that doesn't mean the individual wasn't going to do it under a different set of circumstances.

Like someone has said before, the only reason the general populace don't burgle each other's houses is because it's been socially unacceptable to do so for hundreds of years. Interesting to think whether that's society dictating legislation, or legislation dictating society, a fabricated social contract, if you will.

Similarly (and back on topic) with musicians, particularly ones about my age and younger, alcohol/nicotine/cannabis use and abuse is so prevalent (certainly in my area) that those who choose to follow legislated prescribed rules (not drinking under 18, not smoking under 16 etc.) are actively and publicly ridiculed - it's become socially unacceptable to abide by the law.

As for the OP.. Well. The media make substance abuse and addiction amongst musicians a glamorous thing, something to admire artists for. People who have survived their problems have a certain kudos (Ozzy Osbourne, Nikki Sixx, Duff McKagan) attached to their names, as do those who have succumbed. I like to think that the number of 'straight-edge' people is higher than those with major issues. But who knows? You could never do a survey of every musician on the planet, and most of them could/would simply lie anyway.