Ecstasy

Rarely, if ever, is the drugs issue in the UK (or Australia) debated sensibly without misinformation, scare tactics and prejudice. But sanity does appear to be emerging in the drugs debate in the UK - a parliamentary committee there has been looking at the way that the UK classifies drugs and has found, surprise surprise, that the categories are based more on policy than on hard empirical science. You have the ludicrous situation in the UK where Ecstasy and Mushrooms are in the same class as Heroin and Cocaine. This simply makes a mockery of the whole system as it simply does not have any credibility.

The committee of MPs asked a panel of scientists, psychologists and experts to put drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) in order according to their real harm. Heroin and Cocaine came out at the top, as expected, but probably the biggest 'surprise' was that ecstasy was classified as the third least harmful drug - way behind tobacco and alcohol. Of course, those of us in the real world have known this for some time and have long argued that ecstasy should be downgraded, hell even David Cameron has floated the idea of downgrading it (no doubt because he used to take it in his wild days).
















I welcome this new approach to drug classification but remain extremely sceptical about it being implemented by the Home Secretary, John Reid. After all, governments of all colours have never allowed facts to get in the way of drugs policy so why will anything change now? Ecstasy will remain a class A drug alongside Heroin and people whom the government targets anti-drug campaigns at will continue to laugh at the ludicrous drug laws that exist.

Australia

PS - Please do not mistrue my comments in my email to Melanie Philips as being some kind of anti-Australian rant. They aren't. I love Australia and I love Melbourne - I was merely trying to tell Ms Philips that Australia is not the land of milk and honey like she thinks it is. It has its own problems just like any country does...

Mad Mel loves Howard

Mad Mel from the Daily Mail has penned a lovely tribute to John Howard in her column this week. I felt strangely compelled to write to her to take her to task over the outrageously one sided argument she presents. Here is her column and below is my email...

Melanie,

You write in your Daily Mail column that Mr Howard, the PM of Australia, is a phenomenally successful PM. He has been PM of Australia for 10 years, Tony Blair will be PM of the UK for 10 years next year – will you be writing a similarly congratulatory and fawning column about his success come May 1^st next year? No, thought not.

What you neglect to mention in your column is how utterly inept the opposition is here in Australia, how Howard only won by the skin of his teeth in 2001 (due to the ‘Tampa’ incident.) You don’t mention how people have been locked up for EIGHT years in detention centres waiting for their claims to be processed, how the poor of Australia now subsidise the lifestyle choices of the middle classes, how aboriginals have a life expectancy of some TWENTY years below that of white Australians, how Australia has interest rates of 3% above the UK, how rich students in Australia are allowed to gain entry into courses with entry marks LOWER than other students. You didn’t mention any of this – why should you, it doesn’t fit into your ludicrously one sided perspective on the topic? Sure, Mr Howard has been extremely successful electorally, but as someone who is always banging on about morals you should realise that his electoral successes have come on the back of an alarming lack of morality, compassion and empathy. Australia does have a strong community spirit and is confident in it’s own identity (most of the time) and these things do contribute towards a more stable society (as does it’s more egalitarian make up) but Mr Howard is trying to destroy the very society he wishes existed by ramming through divisive new labour market laws – which has meant that Australia now has a less regulated labour market than the US! Rampant individualism is growing here and is replacing the bonding and ‘mateship’ that has made Australia into a peaceful, functioning society. When Howard’s generation grow up then expect Australia to quickly slide as happened in the UK when Thatcher’s ‘me first’ generation became the dominant force in society.

You talk about Mr Howard being against welfare but he has actually MASSIVELY increased the welfare state in Australia by extending it to the middle classes – the welfare state is now not just a safety net for those at the bottom but a payment system in which payments go to people & families in Australia that conform to his ideal of a ‘good’ lifestyle. My tax money goes to people who don’t need it just so they can send their children to private school. That’s the problem with conservatives – they say they don’t believe in nanny governments, but they clearly do. If the government is funding lifestyle choices they approve of then they are all for it. Give money to the feckless poor though and it’s a different matter. It’s the same all over the world.

As an aside, do you ever get tired of being so angry? The world really isn’t that bad Mel. Enjoy it J

Shaun

Big Brother comes to an end...

Quelle Surprise! Mediocrity wins the day again as last night Jamie won Big Brother 2006. In a surprisingly close race he beat Camilla by 6% to take the title for this year. I was always doubtful that a strong, opinionated woman like Camilla could win BB and I was proven right - the Big Brother's producer's decision to reunite Jamie with his in house love, Katie, before he exited the house no doubt helped him secure the victory (before that slushy moment happened him and Camilla were running at 50% each). Why are the two remaining housemates allowed to meet people from the outside until they both exit the house after the winner has been announced? Isn't that, like, the point of BB? Last night's show was absolutely awful - two hours of cringe inducing shite and the show gave Jamie a blatant push in the voting, disgraceful.

This has been a very disappointing Big Brother year for me. It's clear than Channel 10 are now simply using it as nothing less than a cynical tool with which to make a fuck load of money. I have no problem with the premium rate SMS costs, no problem with them charging people to spend $1 a time to phone up their premium rate phone line, no problem with charging people to access the 'premium' services on the BB website. What I do have a problem with is the outrageous use of the show to try and flog products that are sold by their sponsors - the integration of '3' phones into a few features of the show was blatant (such as getting Jamie to try out the new Eye Camera thingy around the house *plug!*), the pathetic 'surprise' appearance of the Rogue Traders performing in the BB backgarden was clearly a stunt dreamed up by the Rogue Trader's PR company to increase publicity for their latest piece of musical dirge. Do Channel 10 think their audience is really that stupid not to see through all of this?

Channel 10 also introduced gimmicks a plenty into this year's series. 'The Insider' idea was moderately appealing but others were simply awful. Top of the list has to be BB's decision to let the housemates' Mums go into the house a few days ago whilst the housemates were locked in the diary room. They exited to find their mums had made their beds, left them food and bought new clothes with them. What???? The point of BB is that the housemates are kept away from the outside world AND their friends and families.

Obviously, Channel 10 are introducing all of these gimmicks (and there were plenty more that I can't be bothered to go in to) as they want to keep the program 'interesting'. Well, I've got some advice for Channel 10 - instead of all these tacky gimmicks why not just choose some INTERESTING house mates? Of different outlooks, ages and backgrounds - rather than just 10 18-21 white, middle class girls and boys with a token gay guy and a token older woman thrown in for good measure. I won't hold my breath though - expect more identikit housemates next year and more cynical attempts to use the show as nothing more than a PR tool for corporations to flog their products/crap music.

Will I still watch? Of course I will. Expect a similar moan this time in 2007.

Until next year.

Paris in IBIZA

Paris Hilton was spotted at Space, Ibiza last week for Carl Cox's Tuesday shindig. If she was avin' it to Mr Cox then she's gone up in my estimations. I doubt she even knows who Carl Cox is though and probably spent her time ligging around the VIP area. I haven'tseen any pictures to confirm it either way but I can't imagine her front centre, all sweaty and having a bosh to some techno...Can you?

Hurrah! Goodbye David...

My faith in the Australian public and general humanity was given a massive boost last night when David was booted out of the Big Brother house. I was beginning to think that he may win the whole bloody thing as people would warm to his pathetic emotional bluster and his 'sincerity' and 'integrity'. I didn't buy it for a second and instead saw a completely emotionally retarded individual who was utterly incapable of communicating with groups of human beings, patronised people on a regular basis and was earnest to the bitter end. He did have some good qualities of course and I'm pleased for him that his coming out experience on TV went well and that he now feels accepted by the Australian public.

So, we're left with Camilla & Jamie for tonight's final. It really is a matter of choosing the lesser fuckwit of the two. I've not really warmed to anyone on this series of BB and there hasn't been a Vesna like character who has really made me want to back them to win. I'll be voting for Camilla tonight though, I think it would be good for a strong, opinionated person to win for a change rather than just a nice, boy next door type like Jamie. I don't think the public really likes bolshy women like Camilla so I'll be amazed if she pulls it off...More tomorrow.

Howard stays on

In the most predictable news story to emerge since the announcement that there were no WMD in Iraq, John Howard has announced that he will stay on and fight the next election. Peter Costello has also announced that he is staying on as Treasurer but when asked what he thought of the PM's decision to stay on he tellingly replied, "It doesn'’t matter how I feel. That's the outcome." I think it's pretty safe to say that Costello is feeling as sick as a parrot!

Anyway, even though I don't like Howard I think he was right to stay on - it's clear that he has massive support still in the Liberal Party and more importantly, in Australia. There is no doubt in my mind, that baring a major economic downturn, Howard will romp to victory next Autumn and another three years of Liberal government will be secured. Why risk that and try out Costello? There's no way that Blair would be going in the UK if he enjoyed Howard's level of support. The saying is that all political careers end in failure, is John Howard destined to become the exception to this rule?