The clampdown on life

I'm a libertarian at heart. By which I don't mean "I'm one of those people who calls himself a libertarian to mask and justify his inherent racism", or "I'm one of those people who calls himself a libertarian because 'extremely right wing' doesn't sound as good" or anything like that. No, I mean libertarian in the sense that it used to be used before the so-called politically incorrect brigade turned it into a confusing term that can just as easily mean "free thinker" or "total arsehole": essentially, that adults should be allowed, as much as possible, to do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't do harm to other people.

I find it wearyingly disappointing, then, to read about the Government's plan to outlaw 'legal highs' with the wafer-thin justification that some people somewhere have died after taking them (not necessarily from taking them). I imagine that even if no-one had ever died after taking them, they would still be cracked down upon: because it's not a crackdown on danger, or risk, or people hurting themselves, but a crackdown on the kind of unregulated recreation (or, as you might call it, 'fun') which the state disapproves of. So if you take a lot of these drugs you might die? It's the same with water, or carrots*, or anything. Too much of anything isn't good for you. Banning it doesn't make the situation any better, either.

But this Government, as every other Government has or will do, wears the Mr Mackey hat when it comes to drugs, and simply says they're bad, mmkay. It was the same when a drugs expert told Jacqui Smith something which went against this logic - something she didn't want to hear, which led her to put her fingers in her ears and screech that drugs were definitely evil and killed you, and that was the Government's position, no matter what anyone else might say.

Not that the Tories are very much better, despite many Tories claiming to be 'libertarians' of a sort. David Cameron's plan to cure all the problems of alcohol by making it more expensive - rich people who can afford more expensive booze of course never cause any problems whatsoever, for example smashing up restaurants and then chucking some money at the owners to get it fixed up; whereas the poor are vermin who can't be trusted and who therefore must be forced to pay more - was mooted some time ago, and I said then it wouldn't work. Now it's turned up again and it's fairly obvious which groups are being targeted:

Such tax changes would mean a four-pack of extra-strong lager such as Carlsberg Special Brew costing an extra £1.30, a bottle of powerful cider an extra £1.25 and a bottle of alcopop an extra 50p. But duty on low alcohol products would be slashed.

So there you have it. A tax on poor alcoholics, essentially, street drinkers rather than anyone else. Are they really the ones causing the most trouble with booze - really? Or are they just the easiest to target because they don't complain, because they're easy to villainise, because it's simple to make out that they're the problem, rather than the pint-and-a-punchup types out in town centres every weekend?

And yet if our masters looked at the evidence, and kept a sliver of an open mind, they might like to reconsider. Take this story the other day which means that kneejerk censorship and film classification legislation is completely worthless. Has anyone been harmed in the few days since this was found out? No. Has anyone been damaged by a rudey video? No. Was anyone harmed before that? No. Are we living in a scary hinterland where there are no laws protecting us from watching things in our own homes through our own choice, and in which we might unwittingly, because we're so frail and vulnerable, do serious damage to ourselves? No.

But that doesn't matter. It never matters. Drugs are bad. Booze is bad. We must be stopped from ourselves. We must be told what to do. Don't anyone think the Nanny State is going to vanish in a puff of smoke when the 'libertarian' Tories get into power, because it's not. It's going to be here for a very long time to come.

* I saw this in an episode of Casualty once. So it must be true.

Jacqui Smith: Experts are there for me to ignore if they don’t say what I want

Clever old Jacqui Smith. In trouble for using a sneaky little shortcut to land yourself a great big stack of cash? Then simply shout some nonsense about drugs to placate the tabloids, and hey presto, it's all melted away like those last few flakes of winter snow.

You have to admire Smith's bloodymindedness and the sheer brio of the woman for saying to herself: "Well, here's an expert who knows a lot about drugs. Instead of listening to what he says to say and wondering whether he might be right or not, given that he's an expert and I'm just a career politician, I think I should just completely ignore what he says because it isn't what I want to hear."

Professor David Nutt, let's remember, said that taking ecstasy was about as dangerous as riding a horse, in terms of the number of people it killed. Was it really such a stupid analogy to make? After all, horseriding is certainly something that has the potential to be dangerous; people know that no matter what precautions they take, they run the risk of being thrown or falling off, or just plain bad luck leaving them injured or worse. Is it a million million miles away from the truth to consider that people who take ecstasy know that there's the possibility of a bad reaction, even a fatal one, no matter which precautions they take? In both cases, surely, the thrill and enjoyment of the activity - which harms no-one and nothing else (unless you happen to be wearing a red coat and chasing a fox across fields to its death while you're riding) - is considered to be worth the (relatively low) risk by those who do it.

Smith again:

She said she had told him he had gone beyond his role as head of the Advisory Council on Drugs Misuse.

By, er, advising about the misuse of drugs? If he's not allowed to do that, then what on earth can he do? Isn't that kind of the point of the advisory council, to give advice? No...?

Speaking during Home Office questions in the House of Commons, Ms Smith said: "I've spoken to him this morning about his comments. I've told him that I was surprised and profoundly disappointed by the article reported."

Why disappointed? Because he didn't say what she wanted him to say? If he'd gone against the evidence and the sum total of his experience and expertise in the field, and said something he didn't agree with at all, yet which she agreed with, I take it she would have been happier...?

"For me that makes light of a serious problem, trivialises the dangers of drugs, shows insensitivity to the families of victims of ecstasy and sends the wrong message to young people about the dangers of drugs."

Hang on though. See what Jacqui's done there - attempted to link ecstasy with all other drugs - including the genuinely dangerous ones like heroin, which kills about 1,000 people a year. Prof Nutt never said all drugs were OK. He was saying that ecstasy was different from other drugs and like other activities - perhaps trying to attempt a mature approach to the idea of drugs, a context-based approach, an approach that doesn't blindly scream "EVIL!" and run away into a corner for fear of the poor little babies who are slaughtered by such filth.

But then one fears that such an approach would be a little too sophisticated for the tabloids (and even grown-up papers), and for politicians like Smith. Yes, some people do die taking ecstasy. Many, many more do not. The vast majority do not. It might be an inconvenient fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. Sure, Jacqui can try and make it seem more dangerous than it actually is, but it isn't. And experts are there to attempt to advise and inform, not just back you up in your moral crusades when you're under a bit of heat for a few grand you've just trousered from Team Taxpayer.