« The Dangers of Gardening. | Main | Marcel Berlins »

October 17, 2005

Cameron and Drugs.

Well, yes, quite:

And so to David Cameron's cocaine problem - the problem being not with the drug so much as with the notion that he might have taken it. This is a generational thing. Chemical drugs really became general not in the 1960s, but in the middle of the 1980s. Cameron is just on the cusp of the generation, now arriving at the top level of politics, who came after that. Drug use is neither to be admired nor congratulated, but the convention that it's political cyanide to admit to it is surely doomed - if only under weight of numbers.

For my own curiosity, I tried making a list of substances I've used that I shouldn't have, and arrived at: speed, dope, acid, ecstasy, MDMA, ketamine, amyl nitrate, cocaine, nitrous oxide, magic mushrooms, temazepam, valium, salvia divinorum and khat. (Also, Rohypnol, though that was by accident. How did I know she was going to swap our drinks?)

This isn't the pharmacopeia of a determined drug fiend. It's pretty much what you'd expect from an average, middle-class drug tourist of my age and circumstances. I've never tried crack or heroin, and have done none of the others in great quantities.

If having taken drugs doesn't disqualify journalists from pontificating as to how public policy should be shaped - and there's no evidence from the newspapers leading the calls for Cameron to come clean that it does; one of them retains the former addict Will Self as a columnist - why should it disqualify politicians?

As I said before, I wouldn’t want someone currently taking cocaine to be PM....I’m sure Cabinet is full enough already of self-obssessed bores who refuse to listen to anyone else...but  to have taken it in the past? Poof, a nothing.

October 17, 2005 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8342555e153ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cameron and Drugs.:

» Prohibition doesn't work from Zacht Ei
According to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper: 'It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 17, 2005 11:52:07 AM

» Prohibition doesn't work from Zacht Ei
According to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper: 'It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 18, 2005 10:21:05 AM

» Prohibition doesn't work from Zacht Ei
According to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper: 'It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 18, 2005 10:22:43 AM

» Prohibition doesn't work from Zacht Ei
According to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper: 'It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 18, 2005 10:24:43 AM

» Prohibition doesn't work from Zacht Ei
According to former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper: 'It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 18, 2005 10:26:43 AM

Comments

I note that the press have still not said something on the lines of...'if Blair refuses to admit to even using joints why the heck should Cameron admit to anything either?'

Bias? Naaaaaaaaah

Posted by: Dave t | Oct 17, 2005 12:30:15 PM

The other candidates seem happy to let the coverage carry on - it precludes them from having to say anything.

Posted by: Sam | Oct 17, 2005 1:39:13 PM

I'm presuming that Sam Leith was joking when he claimed to have attempted to commit a serious assault on a woman by drugging her with Rohypnol, presumably with the intention of raping her afterwards; or is he seriously suggesting that a background as a rapist ought not to disqualify someone from office, as long as it was a long time ago as a burst of youthful high spirits, and the rapist was middle class?

Posted by: dsquared | Oct 17, 2005 2:54:48 PM