Just because it's 'unacceptable'

... doesn't mean it's not true.

I started this a while back - just finihsed it...couple of years on. True now as it was then though.

A drugs adviser said that people were more likely to incur damage to their bodies by horseriding than by taking ecstasy. Jacqui Smith is "surprised" and "disappointed" by this assertion and there have been the inevitable calls for his resignation.

I have always been quite an advocate of Political Correctness. I think it's a good thing to think about the offence which might be caused someone before you say something, and when it's good PC is what used to be called courtesy.

But now we seem to have veered away from that to the idea that there is only one way to think and anyone who deviates from that line should be ceremonially hund drawn and quartered, or at the very least called upon to resign.

This seems most prevalent in the area of drugs. It seems to me absolutely nuts to go wildly overboard about the dangers of drugs. The further adrift adults' warnings about drugs are from young people's experiences and first hand observations, the less effective they will be. If you're going to give people information, don't assume that your audience are stupid - tell the truth.

I don't know too much about all this, and I had more opportunity to learn about it than most as as a part of my teacher training I went to spend a few day with a drugs adviser at a drugs centre

Yes, drugs are fun. If they weren't no bugger would do them. Duh!

No, odd cases aside, it is highly unlikely that you will be adversely affected by smoking a small amount of spliff, although it's probably best to avoid stronger strains (is it still called skunk? I'm out of date now...) because there is a sizeable minority of people who will can suffer significant and irreversible psychological damage. Most kids know other kids who smoke weed, and they observe no harm, so for a government to wave its arms around and proclaim that the sky is falling will make those kids sit back and say "They don't now what they're on about - it's all lies." They WILL NOT put the government's counsel above their prsonal experience. It's just not what teenagers do.

There are no consumer guidelines on the production of Ecstasy and the like, which can be cut with all sorts of other stuff, so if you don't fancy ingesting raw flour or bicarbonate of soda or plaster of paris on your night off, it's probably best avoided.

And obviously if you have the smallest modicum of self-respect and self-preservation don't assume that you'll beat the odds on opiates. Some people can do them and get away with it but many will get into some level of difficulty. Anything which can result in fairly hefty addiction is best avoided - it's why I've drummed into my children the necessity of not having that first ever cigarette.

But don't pretend that the first time any drug is ingested the pavements of the world will open aup and spew forth demons.

Possibly one of the attractions of drugs for young people is the fact that politicians with serious, uncool suits and serious, humourless, uncool faces keep telling them not to go there. I suggest the war on drugs would be better fought by some reasonably credible people pouring scorn on the whole things and pointing up the grubbiness, chavviness and boringness of the whole thing. Also point out that this generation didn't discover it and the whole business of drug-taking, frankly, is a bit of a yawn.

Start actually trying to confront the thing and do the job of directing kids away from drugs rather than aiming to win votes from their scared parents.