Subj: UK: Opinion: Establishment hooked on hypocrisy



Date: 19 Aug 1999



Source: Scotsman, The  (UK)

     



OPINION



Establishment hooked on hypocrisy  



Mild drug use is endemic now among the professional classes 

- not to mention the usual suspects  

Gerald McAuliffe  



THE PROHIBITION on cannabis in its present form is more than 

20 years old. So much has changed in every single aspect of 

our society in that time. We have seen fit to overhaul 

completely the laws governing divorce - and are still doing 

so - because we saw that modern reality simply didn't fit 

within the old system of rules. A phalanx of legislation has 

been introduced to reflect the ethnic diversity of our 

society. The place of women and the rights of children have 

all seen legislative advancement. England is even slowly 

awakening from its First World War licensing laws.



It takes a mighty leap of faith to conclude that in the 

sphere of drugs alone the old law is an adequate model for 

the 21st century. And yet we are invited to believe that the 

present legislation remains an appropriate and workable 

legal framework for the use of cannabis.



Maybe it is. But at least let's have the debate. Not the 

fusty nay-naying of professional committee-sitters.



The problem is that discussion is stifled by a blanket of 

hypocrisy and fear. The politicians are eyeing each other 

for the first sign of weakness. The first to go "soft on 

drugs" has immediately handed his or her political enemies a 

free lunch. No sooner are the words out of Charles Kennedy's 

mouth than in wades Ann Widdecombe: "Once you start talking 

about legitimising the use of cannabis," she says "you are 

sending a signal to young people which suggests that it is 

an OK thing to do."



Let's forget for the moment what sort of an example is set 

by the alcoholic excesses and moral turpitude of leading 

lights in her own party. With her knee-jerk Punch-and-Judy 

politics she reminds everyone on the margins of the debate 

that if they speak up against the status quo they are 

political toast.



Similarly the press. The readers of the orangetops are bored 

with exposes of celebrity adultery. So exposing celebrity 

drug-taking is the new sport. There's nothing remotely 

surprising that radio DJs, TV presenters, minor royals, and 

middle-class children off to Oxford smoke dope. Yet week 

after week the same tedious story is retold with a different 

name and photo. If a newspaper tries to raise the debate 

above this level, as the Independent did under Rosie 

Boycott, it is pilloried by the rest of the media and mugged 

by the Wapping equivalent of the Venerable Widdecombe.



What aggravates most here is the hypocrisy. If something 

like 40 per cent of the UK population between 20 and 24 has 

smoked cannibis I wonder what the percentage is among the 

ranks of the media? I'll wager it is more than twice that. 

Much of the financial services industry is introducing 

random drug-testing. Can we expect this in the offices of 

the News of the World? I don't think so. The tabloid editors 

will dispatch their babes to entrap a minor celebrity, or 

even his son. But what happens within their own offices is 

nobody's legitimate public interest as long as the copy is 

filed on time.



Similarly in politics. Once in a blue moon some fool will be 

caught smuggling cocaine and a wedge of homosexual 

pornography. Or exercising his urge to "take risks" on 

Clapham Common at midnight. Like Peter Mandelson's 

sexuality, these members' peccadillos (perhaps there should 

be a register of them) may have been an open secret for 

years. Known by the party whips who keep the details in 

their little books. Known by the gentlemen and women of the 

lobby who get the lowdown in Annie's bar or the tearoom. 

Known by the editors of Fleet Street but left unpublished 

until they think a rival is about to run the story. But upon 

exposure the ranks of propriety close. Everyone tut-tuts and 

express surprise and a certain kind of sadness that public 

office has been demeaned again.



This cant is as irksome in New Labour as it was with the 

party of law and order. The coterie of thinkers and literati 

in Islington and Hampstead are no strangers to recreational 

drug use. Likewise the Notting Hill set that Mandelson 

spends time with. Like Bill, Tony may never have inhaled, 

but, by gosh, he knows a lot of people who have. Remember 

the Camelot parties at Number 10 just after the election? 

Some of the leading lights of Cool Britannia (RIP) must 

surely have smoked the odd joint (though certainly not at 

Number 10).



For how long will the keepers of the public morals maintain 

this sanctimonious pretence? Mild drug use is endemic now 

among the professional classes. Lawyers. Doctors. 

Architects. Business people. Not to mention the usual 

suspects - advertising executives, academics and those in 

the arts world. These are what used to be called the pillars 

of the Establishment. Cowed into silence by the strictures 

of a Victorian code which dictates that it's OK as long as 

you don't talk about it or get found out. But at all costs 

do nothing to encourage the man in the street that it is 

acceptable.



The man in the street is not dumb. The Establishment 

underestimates him. He is used to the idea of public virtue 

and private vice. God knows, he has seen enough of it. 

However, he may not care.



Another change in our society since the Seventies is the 

total collapse in the level of integrity we expect from the 

great and the good. The result is the continuation of the 

web of double standards which ensnares public life and 

leaves the truth obscured.



Charles Kennedy won't pursue it. He can't afford to. It got 

him some headlines in the wake of his appointment as leader 

of the Liberal Democrats. But Tony won't buy into this one. 

He has already made that clear. It would take a braver man 

than him. The threads of hypocrisy are knotted too tightly.



But we should be pleased that Kennedy at least flags up the 

issue. Death by a thousand cuts. Each time a public figure 

either speaks up or is busted the closer comes the day of a 

more informed debate.