Drugs

The doctor eyed me suspiciously as I walked into her consulting room. ‘Ye-es?’ she said, nervously, eyeing me up and down, after I knocked softly and entered apologetically, as I always do. Whenever I go to see her, my GP gives the impression of being taken totally by surprise, and put to astonishing inconvenience, by my seeking her opinion on a medical matter, even though she is advertising herself as a general practitioner and has, I am assuming, various qualifications in this field. ‘Ye-es?’ she said, looking mortified, terrified and outraged on every level as I made my way to the chair by her desk. She never says anything else by way of small talk or introduction, by the way. No ‘hello’ or ‘how are you?’ or ‘what can I do for you?

The Conservatives might have gone in softer than Russell Brand and the gang predicted, with very little change announced in the Queen’s Speech last week, but they didn’t fail to cause a stir. The proposed 'Psychoactive Substances Bill' is designed to provide a blanket ban on all substances which produce a mind-altering effect, with several allowances made for booze, fags and chocolate. The idea is to protect the public from any psychoactive substance that ‘affects the person’s mental functioning or emotional state’. Rather than replying to a public demand for such drastic measures, the Home Office stated the purpose of the bill was simply to 'protect hard-working citizens'.

The man in the pub’s solution to the ongoing panic about legal highs is to ban them. 'Ban ‘em all! S’obvious, innit? I can’t believe politicians haven’t thought of it already. Yeah, go on, I’ll have another...' Here’s the thing. It is obvious and politicians have thought of it already. The reason that it never went from the idea stage to the planning stage is that it isn’t as simple as that. Previous home secretaries such as David Blunkett and Charles Clarke didn’t baulk at the idea because they were lily-livered pussy cats with libertarian tendencies. They rejected it because it’s a bad idea, not just illiberal but also unworkable. The current government thinks it knows better.

'Hidden menace of the drivers high on drugs,' says the headline in today's Daily Mail, revealing that – according to police – six out of 10 motorists are failing a new roadside test that can detect use of cannabis or cocaine. If so, that's worrying. But not as worrying as actually being driven by someone who's stoned. Trust me on this. Several times I've found myself in California bowling along the freeway at night, trying not to think about the spliff the driver smoked before turning the ignition key. A single puff induces terror in passengers, since all dope seems to be skunk these days and the Californian strain is wickedly strong. (Again, trust me on this.) It makes the journey 'more fun', it was explained to me.

Cocaine addiction is a dreadful thing. I've seen it so many times: bright, once-pretty people with washed-out grey faces who can't think about anything else. Children, partners, careers – they can all go hang so long as the restaurant has a loo where you can do a quick line between courses, or you can nip outside to suck on a crack pipe. This how frantic it can get: If anyone has stopped to watch me go to the cash machine and withdraw stacks of bills, several times because of the $200 transaction limit, then head out to an idling van with tinted windows, and return minutes later with bulging pockets, it wouldn't take much imagination to understand what had just transpired.

As every prisoner and ex-prisoner knows the most frequently used route for drug smuggling into all categories of jails is 'bottling it'. This is the crude but effective smuggling technique of inserting a package of drugs into an inmate’s anus. Unless prison staff receive a tip off that a particular prisoner is acting as 'a mule' for this route they will likely avoid detection, as routine anal searching at prison receptions is rare. It is not generally realised how many prisoners have to go in and out of prison during their sentences for court appearances, requisition order hearings, hospital check-ups, legal town visits, or transfers to other establishments.

New drug-driving regulations came into force on Monday, establishing legal limits for the levels of sixteen intoxicating substances in the blood. Eight are illegal drugs, and eight are legal, prescription drugs. Police are being issued with new roadside testing kits, though these can only detect the presence of cocaine and THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis). Others suspected of driving under the influence will still have to be taken down to the station for a blood test. The limits set for the illegal drugs are, perhaps unsurprisingly, lower than those set for prescription drugs. I am not about to argue for leniency in cases of drug driving, but the disparity between the two classes of drug reveals a lot about police priorities, and raises an important question.

Channel 4 is due to air its pseudo-scientific ‘Jon Snow stoned’ show The Cannabis Trials (or Drugs and How Not To Enjoy Them). Presumably intended to reignite national conversation about the government’s antiquated approach to narcotics, it seems unlikely that images of Snow wigging out will do much to advance the debate. I used to be a regular weed smoker, and contrary to the conclusions of last week’s leader in The Spectator, I take the view that weed should be made legally available on a modestly regulated market, much like alcohol. I am not alone. Last week a new political party was formed under the name CISTA (Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol).

So far Channel 4's Drugs Live series has examined the effects of ecstasy while next month's installment will look into cannabis use. However, for those wondering which illicit substance will be next, the programme's host Dr Christian Jessen is unsure about the show's future. Speaking to Mr Steerpike at The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel premiere in Leicester Square, Jessen confessed that getting permission from the Home Office for each programme is proving a hard task. 'We're slightly limited by whether we can get the Home Office to give us permission because obviously these drugs are illegal so doing experiments on them requires all these complicated licenses. They're really difficult.

Can I write an entire blog post about one sentence? I'd certainly like to. The sentence in question is 'The potent form of the drug, known as 'skunk', is so powerful that users are three times more likely to suffer a psychotic episode than those who have never tried it.' It's from a piece in the Mail on Sunday which claims in its headline that 'scientists show [not "research suggests", you notice] cannabis TRIPLES psychosis risk: Groundbreaking research blames 'skunk' for 1 in 4 of all new serious mental disorders.' The MoS is infuriatingly pleased with itself for having got hold of this research ahead of publication - they're pitching it as an 'exclusive leak', which sounds to me like a pretty grand way of describing breaking a PR embargo. It's infuriating for two reasons.

[audioplayer src="http://traffic.libsyn.com/spectator/TheViewFrom22_30_Oct_2014_v4.mp3" title="Henry Jeffreys and Sarah Coghlan join Mary Wakefield to discuss Movember and other wackiness." startat=1456.1] Listen [/audioplayer]Some men are growing facial hair for Movember but lots of people are just trying not to go bald. Male pattern baldness affects half of men over the age of 50, according to the British Association of Dermatologists. But that’s not all – half of women over the age of 65 are also grappling with hair loss. Usually, though, their hair thins, rather than disappearing quite so radically as it does in men. So what can both sexes do to preserve their crowning glory, or mitigate what they’ve lost? 1.

Lacking in pep? Looking for some extra zing as winter sets in? The Spectator recommends our energy conference on 1 December. Tickets are still available, sign up here. I don't want this to become the 'Tom Tells You To Get High' blog, so this will be the last time I write about cannabis for awhile, I promise. Unless there's something interesting in the news about it again. Anyway, pass the dutchie on the left-hand side and all that. The Daily Mail, the BBC and the Telegraph report that teenagers who smoke cannabis regularly do worse in their exams. Per the Mail: 'The findings. . . add to a growing weight of evidence that suggests cannabis is more harmful than legalisation campaigners would have us believe'. They're half right.

Sometimes I read things that really get on my wick, and last week was one of those times. A new, 'definitive' 20-year study has 'demolished the argument that the drug [cannabis] is safe', according to the Daily Mail. Has it, though? There are various things wrong with that claim. One, no study is 'definitive'; two, the research was not a '20-year study', but a review of other studies carried out over the last 20 years. There are lots other things wrong with the coverage, too, including the startlingly ridiculous claim that cannabis is 'as addictive as heroin'. Even according to the research itself, less than one-tenth of people who try cannabis become addicted to it, compared to nearly a quarter for heroin.