Head Shops: Proving that legalisation is not the answer

So the country’s brief but fiery obsession with head shops and so-called “legal highs” has finally fizzled out, thanks to the government’s blanket ban on the majority of substances used by these shops.
Now, I know what you’re probably thinking; this is another rant condemning the practice entirely and praising the government to the high heavens for finally putting a stop to all of this. (As someone who has never made use of any of these substances, I’m going to keep this as objective as possible.) But the reality is that this whole drugs situation is much more complicated than merely the black and white of ‘to legalise or not to legalise’.
On paper, when you think about it, the concept of a head shop isn’t an awful idea. It provides safe channels for people who do use drugs to get them legally and legitimately. It almost sounds like an obvious solution to the problem of legalising, but practically, as we have seen, there’s problems abound. A lot of the substances being used in legal highs can be extremely harmful and, more alarmingly, are completely unknown and foreign to doctors. At least with heroin and cocaine, A&E staff know what they’re dealing with, but they’re blind in dealing with some of the drugs coming from head shops.
Another problem is that teenagers experimenting with legal highs are oftentimes unsure of how to take the drug, in terms of quantity etc., because there isn’t as common knowledge out there about them as there would be illegal drugs. Again, it’s the problem of dealing with the unknown.
So, should it be a case then of providing widespread education about these drugs and about drug use in general? This idea doesn’t sit right with me whatsoever. The idea of going around secondary schools and colleges instructing people on how to use drugs if they so wish is an idea I find disturbing, to say the least. That kind of education is bordering on the promotion of drugs, which I think goes beyond all realms of decency.
Then there’s the argument that some form of legal channels have to be put in place to counteract the illegal and thuggish underworld drugs trade. Of course I think this needs to be dealt with in some manner or form but legalising may not be the answer, as we have seen. Several bombings of various head shops around the country, which have been blamed on illegal drug traders, is worrying evidence that the illegal drug practice may not go away, at least not without a fight. Isn’t legalising about ending violence? I’m aware that head shops versus drug barons isn’t a thoroughly accurate indication of what full legalisation would be like (difference in substances being the main difference), but it is a warning nonetheless.
Another argument I’ve heard several times is that the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Of course it would be reduced, because an entire criminal practice would be wiped out. But the social consequences remain the same. If we’re talking full legalisation, it won’t change the life consuming properties of heroin or cocaine addictions. It won’t get the scum off our streets that live their lives for their next hit, not caring who they hurt or what they do to get it. Drug trafficking and illegal dealing would be a thing of the past (if the underworld trade is quashed by legal dealers), but drug related crimes would still remain, and would probably increase due to the hypothetical ease in which people would be able to acquire drugs upon legalisation.
But what about alcohol, I hear the cries? Isn’t alcohol technically a ‘legal high’? Well, yes. And this is where my argument, and I’m sure a lot people’s, falls apart. Don’t we all technically drink to get that buzz (pissed, sloshed, whatever the hell you call it yourself)? Of course there’s social drinkers out there but the reality is that this country’s people, young people in particular, abuse alcohol on a very regular basis, and no one bats an eyelid. Oh, but when hash or some other soft drug is mentioned, that’s a no go. I’m one of those people. I’ll admit that. But I think that’s what we’ve been conditioned to think like. Where along the line did the high afforded by alcohol become completely accepted, celebrated even, while the highs from cannabis remained widely frowned upon?
It’s a hugely complex issue, and I can say with a large degree of conviction that I’m not the only one on the fence over it all. I truly think society would be a poorer place if we legalised drugs, if my prediction that drug use would increase alarmingly does indeed come to pass. I can see some of the benefits that legalisation would bring, but I think for it to be even considered, it would have to be so tightly regulated. Nevertheless, as I’ve hopefully gotten across, there isn’t that much of benefit to society in general to warrant any form of legalisation.

Congratulations Liverpool, after a season of mediocrity, you finally celebrate it...

There comes a point in every football season where some aspect of the goings-on disgusts me. Whether that's due to blatant diving or inexplicable refereeing decisions, there's always one that sticks in my mind (Pedro Mendes' overhead kick against Man Utd years ago, anyone?) but this season something quite different has taken the biscuit.

Rivalries between clubs, and in particular clubs' fans, tend to run quite deep no matter what footballing climate you look at, and this is perfectly acceptable as long as it doesn't deteriorate into physical violence or serious abuse of players or other fans. But when this rivalry begins to tamper with the dignity of the game, it is going far over the line.

When Liverpool fans began to celebrate their 2-0 loss to Chelsea on Saturday, that's when I feel the line was crossed. The Kop were celebrating what should be an almost inevitable Premier League crown for Carlo Ancelloti's men, at the expense of their arch-rivals Manchester United.

But celebrating when their own team has lost? When there was still some hope of clinching 4th spot from under the noses of Manchester City and Tottenham? When there was still a chance to gain some modest achievement in a season defined by humiliating and humbling failure?

I think the behaviour of the fans is absolutely disgraceful. I did not see the game, but imagine the climate within that stadium had Liverpool been in the lead? What then? Would the Kop begin to boo their own players if they got on the front foot, with only one thing in mind; anything but United?

John Aldridge even admitted in a column the morning before the game that, if he had a 90th minute penalty to draw level with Chelsea in this particular fixture, he'd blast it over the bar on purpose.

Barely understandable from fans, but from a player? It really is shocking stuff.

Again, I did not see the game, but Gerrard's awful backpass to set up Drogba has even been called into question, as to whether there was intent to set up a goal or not. If this is the case, then this match was truly a blight on the game of football. Even more shocking, again, considering that 4th place was still a possibility. Why would a player of Gerrard's calibre and professionalism put petty rivalry over possible success? It beggars belief.

The Kop truly showed themselves to be an absolutely despicable set of fans.

Oh, and another thing:
Why, John Higgins, why? Don't profess your innocence and fear when you're in full swing suggesting getting another mortgage on your Spanish villa to cover up the payments...

What'll make headline news? Oh wait, I know....!

Sitting around in college this morning, I was reading an article which I found particularly poor, and expressed my thoughts out loud to friends sitting around me. One of them then remarked that since she's been studying journalism, she's been much more conscious of well stories are written in newspapers. I've found this to be true with myself as well, and this innate critiquing continues into broadcasting also.

I approach this impending rant from a position of the classic journalistic question "what is news?". Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Dublin Airport being closed entirely due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland is news, but you'd think there's only so much you can do with that story, right? Lots of ash in the air, damaging to planes, airport closed. End of story? So you'd think.

For the purposes of this rant, I will dump purely on TV3, considering I haven't watched RTÉ all day today. Not only did TV3 put the closure as their lead story, but they did what was at least 5 minutes of coverage on it. Excessive. Just a tad.

Really, what else can you say apart from the facts? There sat Alan Cantwell, delivering everything in his usual over-the-top dramatic voice. Cut to Colette Fitzpatrick standing outside Dublin Airport for a live feed, pretty much saying exactly what Cantwell did, just elongated. That's enough reporting, isn't it? Oh golly, no! That won't do at all.

Who's that I hear? Is that the dulcet tones of Brian O'Donovan? Oh yes of course it is. What would the top story be without the deep bass rumble of a Cork accent from TV3's most beloved reporter? Brian proceeds to give us an account of what's actually going on inside the airport, while reams of people queue after their flights have been cancelled. Brian proceeds to annoy a few of them, asking their opinion on what's going on.

But really, who bloody cares?! I don't need to hear the opinion of some disgruntled passengers who, in their frustrated state, will probably no doubt start blaming the airlines for not braving highly dangerous conditions just for them. (Disclaimer - that probably didn't happen, but I stopped listening right around then, and I'm in full flow here).

OK, OK, voxpop finished. Can we go back to Cantwell in the studio? NO, Colette Fitzpatrick has returned with some airport official, repeating pretty much what we already know. The madness never stops.

Who knows, it was probably a slow news day. Maybe I'm just not impressed anymore by what other people view as very interesting, important stories. Or maybe I am right, and the coverage was beyond excessive?

Oh, and another thing....:
A news assignment as uncovered that someone is systematically targeting dogs in an Artane estate, by mixing rat poison with food, and throwing it over garden walls. How evil and despicable can you possibly be to try this?

"Turn off that crap! Now Dizzee Rascal, there was an artist..."

The evolution of music is something that has baffled me ever since I became conscious of the phenomenon. Mozart, to the Beatles, to the Black Eyed Peas. Chopin, to the Rolling Stones, to Meshuggah. Berlioz, to the Beach Boys, to The Prodigy. Put in those terms, it's unbelievable isn't it?

I'm not sure about anyone else, but many times over the past few years I've had the music I listen to ridiculed by my parents as "noise". Their tastes include bands such as Dexie's Midnight Runners, Westlife and Madness, so that comes as no surprise to me when I'm blaring Devin Townsend at 1a.m. Yet, as I progress into manhood, I begin to wonder if I'm going to end up taking this attitude towards my own children's tastes.

Which then begs the question, how will music have advanced in twenty years time? Can metal get any heavier than it is? Can techno get any more annoying or less musical? I honestly cannot imagine a parent in twenty or thirty years time shouting up to their little sprog: "Turn off that crap!", while citing someone such as Dizzee Rascal as more musical than what the child is listening to. How is this possible unless the music they're listening to is just mechanical beeping?!

OK, I digress. I'm letting elitism seep in. But seriously, what is next? If we compare the Beatles to say, Lady Gaga as idols for respective generations, and then translate that another 40 years into the future, what exactly will we be hearing? Or have our generation heard all there is to hear? Has music changed so radically over the past decades that it really has nowhere else to go? Will our children be listening to pretty much what we're listening to, in complete contrast to the musical relationship between our generation and our parents?

I honestly can't imagine metal getting any heavier anyway. When a band like Sunn 0))) can get away with making entire albums out of low tuned drones and feedback (I'm not hating, I actually quite like them) it puts the whole question of musical progression into doubt.

However, up until now I've only been really speaking about periphery genres pushing their own boundaries. Pop music will probably always be around, not exactly reinventing itself completely but nevertheless generating (just about adequately) unique material as it trods along.

I can't really see music being that drastically different by time I'm the uncool dad. In fact, I think some of the stuff I listen to at the minute will still be regarded as experimental at that stage.

I'll leave it up to you readers to think upon this; musical stagnation - good or bad?

John Terry and his cheating: Why no one should care

Apparently, John Terry has cheated on his wife/partner/girlfriend/whatever she is to him. I heard this on the grapevine. Through the subtle and tasteful network of information that is the weekend tabloids (...), we have been informed of this, then slapped across the face with it, beaten over the head with it, and had its sorry, unimportant arse rubbed in our faces. And for what reason?

SO WHAT!? I genuinely feel sorry for people who find this kind of garbage news interesting enough to warrant frontpage coverage, with follow up stories and way too many inches of comment articles from loudmouth journalists over the course of the week, that have taken to this with dispicable glee.

And I've rarely been more infuriated when reading a newspaper than when I read the two cents of Terry Prone (Evening Herald, 3rd February). It's bad enough that there was yet MORE coverage of an ENGLISH football player in an IRISH tabloid (that wasn't the sports pages), but when Prone began to condone this kind of coverage and analysis of something that really should be kept private, my letter-of-complaint writing hand began to itch quite badly.

It was as if this event is something monumental, not just in the world of tabloid journalism but also in the sporting world, which anybody knows is pure bull. As a sports journalist myself, I know that when I'm reporting on a match or commenting on a player's ability, I certainly do not delve into his private life (apart from the possible one use of the horrible "playing offside" joke in passing), yet Prone seems to think that sports journalists gloss over private lives of sports professionals in fear of not getting an exclusive interview. Absolute madness.

She then shakes her head in disapproval because he is the England team captain, and he is an idol for millions of young English footballers. He shouldn't cheat because these kids will learn to copy him.

Did she stop to think for one second that the very thing she was doing was adding fuel to that fire? These young footballers would never hear ANYTHING about Terry cheating if the tabloids had eased up on the coverage, and the sports journalists focussed purely on the football side of things (which in most cases, they did).

I'm beginning to get the feeling that every woman feels personally insulted when a public male figure cheats on his wife. I can't remember the last time there was as much furore over a female celebrity cheating on her husband. Well, I'll be waiting in the wings with bated breath and keen interest to see how the media reacts to this next case of this.

The Internet: A Breeding Ground of Ignorance and Hatred

Anybody with even the vaguest experience of a Youtube comments page will know what I'm talking about already. That user that writes walls of text with incorrect grammar, that uses words and phrases like "fag" and "that sucks" like a young teen uses Kleenexes....when he has a terrible cold. Or how about that other user that cannot get it through his impenetrable skull that, oh no, God forbid, somebody has a differing opinion to him about a particular issue/band/song/whatever it may be.

These sad, lonely individuals hide behind the anonymity and facelessness afforded by the internet, and in a way, provides an insight into how a lot of individuals are underneath the facade they construct to hide the qualities they feel will hamper them in life, such as their baffling intolerance and borderline hatred to anything that doesn't conform to their view of the world.

For the purposes of this post, I'm doing a little bit of research. I typed in Linkin Park and clicked on the first video I found (I love them, but they generally get a lot of hate). Sure enough, about twenty comments down, I come across "fuck this song". Three words, no elaboration on the comment or any sign of tolerance towards others opinions. It's as if, in this person's own little world, it is plain fact that the song in question is awful, and there can be no debate about it. To quote a very wise man, it really "grinds my gears".

Another angle I took while researching was a classic cleavage filled with tension and controversy, American politics. On one video, the user posted the following in the info box: "I had stopped the comments on this video for many reasons, for example: racist rants, death threats, calling out for murder". (I'll take the user's word for it, considering there's thousands of posts). But is this not an awful sign of what we're really like? When the reins are loose, when we're allowed the luxury of pure free speech without consequence or the possibility of it being traced back to us, we are animals. The fact that people would make death threats over differing political views is truly shocking.

As a journalist, I often wonder also how easy it for people like this to get their views onto a pedestal more public and accessible than Youtube. It really is a simple matter of copying and pasting from Youtube, correcting all grammar mistakes, capitalising where appropriate, removing any expletives that will give them away as the immature, spoilt brats they are, and, hurrah, they have an opinion column on some random website. And of course, it being the internet, these distorted, warped, hateful views of our world will probably appear somewhere in, oh I don't know, a college essay, or serious publication, citing this verbal vomit as fact. False information has been posted on the internet before for experimental purposes, which has in turn been posted, so what's to say the opinions and spewings of these nutcases could be misconstrued as fact?

Everyone loves the internet, for a variety of (sometimes private, best left alone) reasons, but the dangerous mixture of unlimited free speech, anonymity, and ease of publishing information has lead to it becoming largely a dangerous concoction of distorted facts and extremist opinions, that only serves to spread all of this around until nobody really knows what the truth is.

A half an hour examination of comments pages and forums about anything, from politics to porn, will prove this, and will really make you fear for the future of humanity..

A country going backwards

On the 1st January 2010 the new blasphemy law came into effect in this country. It outlines that a person can be fined up to €25,000 by the State for saying anything "that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion".

Naturally there is global outcry over this mind-boggling law that is a throwback to the middle ages. In the age of free speech it's an appalling step backwards.

Let's not assume for one minute that I think hardened atheists should be swanning around spewing hatred and insults to the religious folk out there, upsetting them as they go. This isn't acceptable in any walk of life, not just with regard to religion. And neither do I for a minute think this will ever be enforced on any meaningful or consistent basis, as unless someone writes a blasphemous statement down and exhibits it to the public, I can't really see our Gardai ever catching anyone.

Anyway, what was Justice Minister Ahern thinking when he introduced this bill? It was clearly high on his list of priorities, in a year when gang violence terrorised neighbourhoods and towns across the country. His priorites beggar belief. According to a post by the group Atheist Ireland on Blasphemy.ie, "Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at U.N. level." This could conceivably open the floodgates for similar laws to be introduced in other countries around the world and, more frighteningly, for bodies such as the EU to adopt them and enforce them on member states.

As I've said already, the scope for proper prosecution with this bill is slim, considering that real crime is rampant and it would be very hard to catch someone being blasphemous, but the principle behind it is worrying. Have we as a nation instigated something worldwide?