State sponsored drug growing and media promotion of drugs

I noticed an article in The Mercury concerning a second stage grant of $900,000 of public monies to expand the wine growing industry. I blogged the aforementioned ‘journal’ expressing my concern that the state was, in effect, sponsoring drug growing; my comment did not appear.

Most medical, law enforcement and other experts will tell you that the most problematic drug in our society is alcohol and yet it is legal, widely distributed, relatively cheap, returns dollars to government via excise, easily available to minors, deemed socially acceptable, provides employment and profits to shareholders, sponsors sport, lobbies government etc etc et bloody cetera!

Now I’ll drink and smoke just about anything put in front of me. I like a cold beer, a nice red, any spirits, tobacco, pipes, cigars and the rest.

Why does government persecute tobacco and cannabis smokers, pill poppers and users of other “mind altering” drugs? Why does government ‘brown out’ tobacco packets and include dire warnings and graphic images on every packet? If you were to apply similar logic to the more dangerous drug, (alcohol), then bottled wine would no longer carry beautiful labels in order to entice you to purchase them. Containers of alcohol would not be able to be displayed. You would have to request your poison by brand, size and type. Alcohol labels would contain warnings, pictures of buggered livers, bashed wives and crumpled cars. Non drinkers would look down their noses at you and complain about your second hand wine breath.

Why is it that police run the dogs over aggregations of young people at rock concerts? When was the last time you heard of the dog squad confronting patrons of the TSO or the ballet, probably cocained, pilled or pissed off their tits?

I’ll tell you several reasons why. We are signatories to the UN Single Convention on Drugs; authorities might catch someone important (that’s OK, they’ll get off lightly), and the government makes a squillion out of this, their preferred drug and they deem it acceptable.

So, the government gives money to the alcohol industry, supports poppy growing (alongside public roadsides and with little security) but can’t see its way clear to promote an industrial hemp industry, leave tobacco smokers alone or let folk grow and smoke their own cannabis and tobacco (like home brewers and their alcohol).

You’ll understand, perhaps, that as a smoker I’m feeling persecuted. How come I can’t grow and smoke cannabis/tobacco but I can home brew and drink alcohol? The one makes me a criminal the other is perfectly acceptable.

Time to set up a hemp industry for fibre and seed and medicine.

Time to stop persecuting folks who want to temporarily alter their consciousness through the use of relatively harmless substances and with little impact on others.

Time to cease prosecuting individuals for the commission of a victimless ‘crime’.

Time that criminals who commit violent crimes are not allowed to use intoxication as an excuse.

Time that governments buggered off from areas of our lives that are not their business and stop giving our money to drug industries that are already doing very nicely thank you.

You’ve really got to examine the motive behind The Mercury’s recent spate of stories/promotions/free advertisements that ‘inform’ the community of new apple/pear ciders, new flavours/bottle shapes of beer etc. This local rag recently gave some space to Greg Barns wherein he railed against the war on drugs as an exercise in futility and a persecution of otherwise law abiding citizens (as if to provide balance), but in the main the Editor seems happy to run horror stories of drug/alcohol fuelled crime and then every so often leads a campaign for law and order.

You know the sort of thing; some gutless dweeb fronts court claiming that after 15 bongs (cannabis smoking device) and a cask of wine he held up a bottle shop (drug distribution centre) or king hit some poor bastard at Salamanca Place then claims intoxication as an excuse (diminished responsibility). Then, following a spate of these events, something like this appears in The Mercury “TIME TO END THIS DRUNKEN TERROR”.

Why is it then that The Mercury promotes drug use through full page alcohol advertising (and lots of it) and glowing endorsements of new alcohol products?

Money, money, money.

Hypocrite!

Several states in America (where all of this cannabis prohibition started) have now decriminalised cannabis use for medical AND recreational purposes. Why doesn’t that get reported? Because the Editor of The Mercury is beholden to the alcohol industry, that’s why.

Meanwhile cannabis and tobacco users are demonised, persecuted and prosecuted.

That’s all, I’m gunna’ grab a beer, cheers.