Drugs For All The Family!

With cannabis liberalisation starting to take place all over the Americas, it may be that the moronic “war on drugs” (and yes, whoever thought up that concept must have been on drugs), is finally peaking. What better time could there be to buy some weed, and have a smoke with your kids? Even small babies can join in – just make sure you blow a little smoke in their direction.

Shocked? Angry? Upset that I mentioned drugs and children in the same sentence? I was, of course joking; while I believe all drugs should be decriminalised for adult use, I equally believe that the concept of liberty applies to adults, not to children. It is right that parents, teachers and other adults should restrict childhood behaviour, for many reasons.

So why is there no outrage at the widespread use of recreational drugs by children? Sucrose, fructose, dextrose and other members of a popular family of drugs (known on the street as “sugar”) are addictive stimulants with serious health implications. Even conservatives who think that cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine should be banned often use these dangerous substances, and shockingly, even give them to small children.

Europeans became addicted to sugar centuries ago, with demand so high that the early Atlantic slave trade was driven by the need to grow more. The sugar industry grew in wealth and power, and has its claws so deep into our culture and our politics, that few politicians dare question its right to push its dangerous substance to our children.

Even the recent research that definitively linked sugar to the global epidemic of type 2 diabetes hardly caused a stir.

Only one politician has tried to make a – very modest – stand. The mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, tried to ban the sale of huge servings of sugar-rich drinks (if you haven’t been to the US, the size of drink portions on offer are astounding – at least double what you will find anywhere else). Bloomberg’s plan was struck down in court, allowing the drug pushers: Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonald’s and the rest – to keep on selling quantities of the drug that are lethal if used long-term.

There is huge ignorance and hypocrisy here: sugar is probably more dangerous than a number of illegal drugs; yet people who would never touch these, will happily buy their kids Pepsi instead of milk or water – such is the addictive nature of sugar, and the overwhelming power of the sugar lobby to drown out any criticism in the media.

I think Bloomberg got it wrong. Just as cannabis and cocaine should be legally available for adult consumption, so should sugar. But none of these substances should be sold to children. Morons, thinking they are fighting for “liberty”, swallow the sugar industry’s propaganda just as readily as they buy the bullshit of the gun lobby.

It’s time to ban the sale of sugar to kids, along with all other potentially dangerous drugs; in a generation, adult consumption will also fall, and the apparently unstoppable “obesity epidemic” will start to fade away. But the sugar industry has been the world’s biggest drug pusher for centuries – as Bloomberg found, it will fight vigorously to defend its market.

3 thoughts on “Drugs For All The Family!”

  1. Quite. I think the division between illegal and legal drugs is highly artificial if you base it on the level of harm done. Alcohol and nicotine (or. perhaps more correctly, the by products of inhaling nicotine) are two of the biggest killers in the UK.

    A good general rule of thumb for drugs (and also, I reckon, sex) is “if it involves only consenting adults, it’s fine. Otherwise it’s not”. Doesn’t always work at the margins, though.

    As a side issue, if all drugs were legal (for adult consumption, in the same way as alcohol and nicotine are), the government would save huge amounts in police costs (as concepts, the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror” are equally ludicrous), and could collect vast amounts of tax without the price increasing. Win-win!

  2. It’s time to ban the sale of sugar to kids

    ‘You bloody serious? Are you really suggesting that we should ban the sale of foodstuffs containing sugar to children, meaning that we should effectively prevent children from buying sweets? Are you earnestly inviting us to entertain that as a serious proposition?

    Some libertarian you are!

    Furthermore, would all foodstuffs containing sugar be covered under your favoured legislation? Would it be illegal, for example, to sell tins of baked beans to children? Also, I notice that you use the scientific definition of ‘sugar’, which includes fructose (as opposed to the vernacular definition, which treats ‘sugar’ as a synonym for ‘glucose’). Does that mean that it would be illegal to sell fresh fruit to children, meaning that, in the name of good health, people would be penalised for selling healthy foodstuffs to children? You clearly haven’t thought through the ramifications of this, have you? In fact, it would be tempting to hypothesise that you must have been ingesting some narcotic when you were writing this?

Leave a Reply