june 7 get some serious drugs There are days when trying to make a difference is for shit. And then there are days when what you're really getting paid to do whups you upside the head, and you realize you're not being asked to make a difference. You're asked to cough up copy, approximately 500 - 1200 words at a time, spell check it, pick some photos, get it approved, and move on to the next thing. I knew that. And I still thought, what the hell, I'll see just how subversive I can get.
Moron.
The subject: Drugs. In particular, drugs on soap operas. (Yes, I can hear the giggling already. Stop it. Thank you.) Look, around the world these shows are proven to have major health reprecussions on people who watch them; the reason you may have laughed just then could have something to do with the perceived hysteria and slavish devotion they inspire in their fans. So imagine this: Any message broadcast to those kind of fans becomes a type of reality. It's propaganda -- and it's a message. All depends on who's telling it, and who has the goal of getting the message through. My take: With all of the stories on daytime that feature syringes, evil potions and strange concotions that get you to regress into past lives (I shit you not), the line between "taking something that in a fantastical sense will mess you up" to get across a plot point gets blurred with "taking something that in a bad sense will mess you up" to get across an issue. That probably would have been enough for the required 1200 word hairball. Alas, getting people to talk about that was basically impossible. So we go to plan B. Which is where things get subversive. (And ultimately, quashed.)
Here's my mind on this: Drugs need to be legalized. And regulated. We've lost, people, the war is over. Vice has won out, just as it did with alcohol, just as it does with prostitution. The Village Voice, as if reading my mind, last week had a wonderful cover story all about the conservative (!) politicians and pundits who are now coming forward and outright saying that we need a new look at drugs in this country -- and that "new look" in many cases runs along the lines of legalization/regulation (though they're still more or less on the "marijuana only" road). Now, the VV is pretty lefty and edgy. But if conservatives all the way from Dear Abby to William Buckley (who says "Now it's one thing to say (I say it) that people shouldn't consume psychoactive drugs. It is entirely something else to condone marijuana laws the application of which resulted, in 1995, in the arrest of 588,963 Americans. Why are we so afraid to inform ourselves on the question?") are stepping in on this, to me, it's darn well time to work it into the mainstream. And I volunteer. I get this very articulate woman, Marsha Rosenbaum, director of the Lindesmith Center - Drug Policy Foundation to discuss how drugs are portrayed on television and, specifically, the ins and outs of Ecstasy -- since that's the only hard drug any of these soaps appear willing to tackle these days. In a very reasonable way, she confirmed a lot of what I've read elsewhere, mainly:
1) "Just Say No" doesn't work.Additionally, she was quite specific: Ecstasy isn't addicting, not in the way that heroin or cocaine are. It has uses, it has been used in numerous contexts that are not abusive and are, in fact, very illuminating. In a controlled environment -- she specifically stated that raves are the worst possible place to take Ecstasy -- they are conducive to therapy and communication, among other things. The New York Times Sunday Supplement published a cover story a year or so ago from the point of view of a writer who took Ecstasy, and he was very straightforward with the good and ill. Ecstasy is not the same as other drugs.
2) Telling kids that if they take drugs once there will be dire consequences is a lie. It might happen, and it might not.
3) Telling people about those instant dire consequences sets them up to think you've lied to them if (and when) nothing happens the first time around.Well.
Due to a confluence of The Queen Bee being in a meeting and The Princess (aka Second Boss Lady) being out of town, it was left to AH to read my article on drugs ... and the accompanying page and a half on Ecstasy. It passed muster. I was surprised. Our head Copy Lady (who is quite cool) flagged it, concerned that this might be a bit on the edge for our magazine. I tried convincing her otherwise. She took it to The Queen Bee, who let me know that we couldn't be seen as advocating drugs. Now, in truth, I'd have been surprised and pleased if the whole thing had gone through as is, so I wasn't blown away by this. Still, it seemed short-sighted. The "Just Say No" stuff was apparently passing muster, but the straight facts about Ecstasy were being perceived as advocating the use. Some tweaks later, and Ecstasy was scary again -- I used other quotes. And this time, differentiated between Ecstasy's physical addicting properties (not really) and emotional properties (yeah, pretty addicting). So all's well that ends well. I guess it just strikes me as sad that we're still having these kind of discussions at all. My head is all the way over here with legalization -- not because I'm a druggie, dream from June 6 to the contrary -- but because it would at least get things under control. It would take out the illegal profit angle. It also is the one thing we haven't tried. And we need to quit it with the Just Say No. But I forgot: We're about as mainstream as mainstream can get. Still, isn't that where you can have the most effect? Looking forward to the mail we may get on all of this. Or, if there's any fallout. Tune in tomorrow, as we say.
