Sinead: "Cannabis Is Addictive"

I am writing concerning Olaf Tyaransen's article in your current issue, about his failure to be elected this year, representing the "Legalise Cannabis" party.
I am one of the "rock stars" whom Olaf approached for financial support, which I refused for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I felt that Olaf was not ready to stand for election, because he had not anticipated the many questions which parents would naturally have about this issue, and which would need answering in a manner respectful of their concerns. Questions such as if cannabis were to be legalised how easily available would it be to their children on the streets? Would it be like alcohol, for example, which can be bought at the supermarket. Any child under 18 can ask an older person to purchase alcohol for them, and many do. HOW exactly would cannabis be sold in a manner which would prevent its misuse by emotionally vulnerable people?
Olaf had not thought this through. He has no strategy. He does not know how to answer the questions he raises by his standing. I feel he is not responsible enough to support. He insisted to me that cannabis does not affect people adversely and that it is not addictive. This is ignorant, in the truest sense of the word. SOME people should not smoke, eat or drink cannabis. And cannabis IS addictive. Indeed, if Olaf were not addicted himself, he wouldn't be doing all this in the first place.
As with alcohol, SOME people do not use cannabis in a healthy way, but as an addition which dulls their pain like any other. I asked him how would the "emotionally vulnerable" be protected? He said that no such people existed.
I suggested to him that he is moving too fast. That perhaps to de-criminalise cannabis, rather than legalising it without having thought out how you're gonna protect people, would make more sense. Then those of us who like a spliff could have one without the fear of being arrested, and those who are ill - and benefit from its healing properties could do so, but at the same time it would be kept off the streets (as perhaps alcohol should have been) so that those who are vulnerable could be protected.
My other concern was that he said he was eventually "for" the legalising of all drugs. Again I asked him HOW would they be made available. He had not thought about this. Neither had he thought of how to protect the emotionally vulnerable. You can't have ecstasy in the supermarkets (well, you can, but not with drugs). And you can't have everyone taking it. Not everyone can cope with these drugs, and certainly anyone who is in any kind of emotional trouble should stay well away. Young people especially, who just might not be ready to deal with what might come up on some doorstep in Leeson St. in the middle of the night.
I am writing this letter because Olaf in his piece, dismissed my concerns as a mother, by saying "rock-stars and their money can't be easily parted". As I said to his face I say again that he is too young to stand responsibly for this issue, and that when he gets older and has a child, he will understand why the man in Dun Laoghaire would have wanted to wring his neck. I'm very glad he did not succeed, for 'tis a beautiful neck.
You don't shove drugs in people's letter boxes, or in their faces. If YOU want to take drugs, you keep them to yourself, and you educate yourself as to the dangers.
Just because I smoke spliffs, doesn't mean I think it's right. And saying that doesn't mean I think it's wrong, but I would not encourage my children to start smoking, nor anyone else's children. Drugs are a personal choice, similar in my mind to abortion. I feel there should be the same rules around it. Drugs should be safe and legal, and only available on prescription. And one should have to see two doctors, and have counselling in order to establish one's emotional capacity to cope with the effects and after-effects of the drug. Aftercare counselling should also be available. I feel it should be difficult for my children to get hold of life threatening drugs. And made difficult for people to overuse drugs. I feel that de-criminalising is where it's at. And setting up a system which will both help people who are already addicted, and monitor so that people can't.
I am hurt because I am someone who has actually been quite easily parted from her money when it's for a worthwhile cause, but to me, there are better things I could do with my hard-earned money than help Olaf to destroy himself. Such as send my children to school.
Love,
Sinead O'Connor

Olaf Tyaransen's reply

Dear Sinead,
Ouch! And ouch! again! I really didn't see this one coming and, to be perfectly honest, I'm a little shocked and surprised by your reaction. You obviously felt that I was having a go at you personally in my article. In fact, I wasn't (though I was having a go at someone else!). As it happens, I approached several people for financial support during the course of the campaign, some of them famous, some not. Of all of them, you were one of the few to actually take the time to listen to what I had to say and to read all of the material Tim and I had prepared. Naturally, I was quite disappointed when you finally decided not to help us, but I wasn't in any way bitter about it. I'm still not.
Anyway, enough about all that. In your letter you've portrayed me as some kind of naive, misguided and irresponsible drug addict. Actually, I'm none of these things (except on my days off). I've spent several years thoroughly researching the whole area of illegal drugs and, having spoken to the experts and looked at all of the available options have finally come to the conclusion that legalisation is the only sensible and workable approach to a problem that's getting seriously out of hand, not just here but all over the world. I firmly believe that most drugs aren't prohibited because they're dangerous, they're dangerous because they're prohibited. Control is the key to most things in life. Without it, there's nearly always chaos. And most governments have little or no control over the illicit drugs market. The results of their failure to deal with the problem can be seen all around us.
Over the last few years I've experimented with just about every drug available (all for the purposes of research, you understand) but, through self-education and a certain amount of ingrained common sense, have successfully managed to avoid becoming addicted to anything other than nicotine. I'm not addicted to cannabis, I simply enjoy smoking it every now and then. I ran for election so that I (and anyone else who'd care to join me) could continue to use this naturally occurring and wonderfully benign substance without any fear of retribution. And without being tarred a drug addict.
You say that I had no strategy, that I hadn't thought things through, that I couldn't answer the questions I had raised by my standing. All untrue. The fact is that when you asked me your own various questions, I had answers to all of them. They just weren't answers that you particularly wanted to hear.
And as for your questions about how I would prevent "vulnerable people" from experimenting with drugs, the answer is that I couldn't. The only thing I can say, really, is what's stopping them experimenting with drugs at the moment? Their illegality? Don't make me laugh. At least if they're properly educated about the dangers of drugs, they'll have a fighting chance.
You say my attitude will change when I have children of my own. Maybe it will, but probably not for the better. Believe you me, I fully understand where parents are coming from. I've seen it happen to friends of mine. The moment they have a child they suddenly have this natural urge to protect it from all the bad things in the world, even things they may have flirted with themselves. When people become parents they become overprotective and start thinking with their hearts, not their heads. This is great for the kids (once they don't overdo it), but not so great for progress.
One final thing. Tim Murphy (a huge fan of yours, incidentally) wanted to preface our manifesto with a quote from your lyrics, I can't remember exactly what it was but I do recall that it was highly appropriate, something to do with radical change. Anyway, I vetoed it at the time because you had declined to help and I was worried that you might think we were deliberately using your lyrics to infer to people that you were actually supporting us. In the end, we used these words from Normal Mailer instead: "Nothing less than the artful balance of old dialogues and new, of revolutionary approaches to particular problems and the delicate restoration of tradition within other kinds of crisis can begin to awaken our world from the chimeras of destruction which now surround us."

Lots of love,
Olaf Tyaransen