When it comes to currently illegal drugs, we know where the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre and his obedient hackery at the Daily Mail stand. They are vehemently opposed to any move to ease off the so-called “war on drugs”, despite it having failed miserably, and served only to increase the number of those addicted, and their subsequent misery. The Mail also disapproves of people who are not white - although it’s usually deniable.
Stormzy - under press attack once more
So the hit-job on grime artist Stormzy - for which no-one has owned up to having written it - was predictable. So was the headline “Popular grime artists such as Stormzy are fueling [sic] the use of 'skunk' by treating cannabis as 'product placement' in their chart-topping songs, researcher warns”. Mail readers be warned - keep your kids away from drugs.
But then it became clear why no-one in the Northcliffe House bunker wanted to claim credit for the hit job, which told “Ian Hamilton, based at York University, warned the popular music genre [grime] contains hundreds of lyrics glorifying the use of the class B drug … Speaking exclusively to MailOnline, he described songs featuring mentions of weed, including those by Stormzy, Kano and Wiley, as 'essentially product placement’”.
Hamilton went on to assert “Lyrics can plant the seed of an idea, and it’s not an abstract idea, it’s something they do pretty quickly and at low risk … If the association, viewing it as a product placement, is cool and something that may enhance their status as a young person, then that becomes quite attractive”, but then digressed slightly: “The problem we’ve got in the UK is the way that cannabis is used with tobacco”.
Hamilton’s forte is to warn of the dangers inherent in mixing cannabis with tobacco, because the latter carries known cancer risks. Cannabis alone, as he points out, does not. So he’s not at the same place as the Dacre doggies, who are just trying to scare the crap out of anyone considering going near anything that is currently illegal.
Who's calling me a f***ing racist scare merchant, c***?!?
Consider conclusions from some of the research with which he has been associated - for instance “at a population level, an increased risk of psychosis from cannabis use is low, and those vulnerable to developing serious mental health problems is relatively rare”. The Mail titles are forever telling readers that cannabis means increased psychosis risk.
On top of that own goal, the response from Stormzy has been direct, as he told the Dacre doggies “White rockstars (and pop stars) have been sniffing coke and taking MDMA and singing about it since the beginning of music - just admit you’re anti-black … Imagine raising your child, loving and nurturing them. Sending them off to school and then uni for them to grow up and then get a job working for the fucking Daily Mail. Embarrassing”.
So there won’t be any converts to the Mail’s nudge-nudge nonsense from his fans, then. And “embarrassing” is spot on for an article where no-one wanted to have their name appear on the by-line. Going after Stormzy on the grounds that he’s doing what white artistes have done for more than half a century is beyond contemptible.
But it keeps the readers frightened and ignorant, so that’s all right, then.
I loathe drugs and the criminal organisations that are usually behind them.
There is a question, however, as to why this country followed the USA down the drain by criminalising drug use. Who instigated it and why?
This becomes important since the CIA was exposed as one of the world's foremost drug runners. That being the case, which other Western "intelligence" agencies are culpable in the dirty business, and why?
The two worst deliberately addictive substances are alcohol and tobacco. US attempts at prohibiting the former only led to an immediate and devastating increase in organised crime. That's the same criminal organisations later recruited by the US establishment for a programme of political murders and community destabilisation - all of which is now a matter of public record. My bet is that is why drugs were criminalised. Why have we never had in this country a public inquiry into organised crime and its drugs activities?
An addictive personality is a tragic personality. Those who think drugs increase the creative instinct are living in lala land. Creativity exists DESPITE addiction, not because of it.
Drugs should be decriminalised, licensed and controlled in the same manner as the other two substances. Those who operate outside such laws should receive the justice prescribed.
Pity the genuine addict. Lock up the criminals.
Portugal has legalised drug use and drug related crime has plummeted. I'm not sure but I think addiction rates have dropped as well.
Biographers Peter Brown and Steven Gaines attribute the new musical direction to "the Beatles' now habitual use of marijuana", an assertion confirmed by the band – Lennon referred to it as "the pot album", and Starr said: "Grass was really influential in a lot of our changes, especially with the writers.
Found on Wikipedia in 30 seconds (but they do source it) including a quote from the now Sir Ringo. Hypocrisy at its finest from the Mail but what else do you expect?
So it's all the fault of The Beatles.
That explains everything.
This may help you on why.
I have read that there is some significance in the US adoption of a Mexican name, marijuana, and also the targeting of opium, favoured by Chinese immigrants on the West Coast.
I don't care who smokes what, or why they do it. Just seems odd that there was no hatchet job on fellow honour recipient Ringo Starr over drug use. Why that might be I have no idea.
Well, it might be that drug use extends even unto those who bestow gongs.
You never can tell.
Post a Comment