ECSTASY: WHEN IT'S OVER, IT'S ALL OVER

ECSTASY and I had this fling once. What chemical virgins don't realise is
that, for most of us, getting attached to a certain drug is just like any
other relationship. First, you fall in love, and spend a honeymoon period
unable to comprehend how you ever managed without it. ("Where have you been
all my life?") Then you hit a rocky patch, and start slagging it off to your
friends, wondering whether there's any real future for you as a couple.
("It's not the illegal substance I thought it would be.")

Finally, you part company and, like any disaffected ex, feel slightly
baffled by anybody who continues to succumb to its tired patter and singular
charms. You know it's no good for them, but you also know it's no use
interfering while the "relationship" is still going strong. People just have
to find out for themselves what a pointless, bogus sonovabitch ecstasy
really is.

These days, I suppose you could call me a casual non-user of drugs, which
might not be the oxymoron it first appears. There are a lot of us around,
and we can be identified by our age (late-20s through to mid-40s), our
social profile (semi-retired hellraisers), and our informed acceptance and
tolerance of widespread drug abuse. While casual non-users can't be bothered
with drugs such as ecstasy any more, we don't really see the point of trying
to stop others taking them.

The Swiss Supreme Court seems to agree, up to a point. They have ruled that
dealing in ecstasy is not a "serious offence". While ecstasy remains
illegal, it will henceforth be viewed as a "soft" drug that poses no real
threat to physical and mental health. Rather amusingly, they add that
ecstasy seems to be used mainly by "socially integrated people, and does not
lead to criminal behavior".

Obviously, they've never seen some of the criminally bad dancing, or heard
any of the hanging-offence gibberish that ecstasy users tend to indulge in
when their choice of "happy pill" kicks in. It's true though that, unlike
junkies, ecstasy users are unlikely to nick your telly or video. Even if
they did, they probably would be banging on your door at four the next
morning to return it, full of love and eager to congratulate you on your
taste in consumer durables.

If all this is starting to sound rather trite, I am at pains to point out
that, even in my hedonistic heyday, I wouldn't have considered it a good
idea to give ecstasy a cuddly, user-friendly image. This has nothing to do
with the supposed added thrill of illegality - I never paid much mind to
that, just as few under-age smokers or drinkers dwell excessively on what
the law says after the first few puffs or glugs.

My argument is with the naive assumption that any chemical could be
categorised as "soft". To my mind, they are highly dangerous, primarily for
the individual taking them but also for the rest of us. The fact that the
Swiss are ready to categorise ecstasy as soft doesn't alter the fact that
people who take it are very hard work for the people around them.

However, the same could be said of any stimulant. From alcohol and cannabis,
right through to the big baddie, heroin, there are always emotional,
intellectual and financial kickbacks. That's why most people tend to go
through a druggie phase in their youth, rather than spending their whole
lives tripping over their trainers on dance floors. When you're young,
reality is either "too much" or "not enough", but as you get older you
realise it's really all you've got.

That's why parents shouldn't panic unduly about ecstasy. While it is true
people start taking drugs such as ecstasy because they're bored, it's also
true that they stop taking them for exactly the same reason. However
degenerate the young might seem to you or themselves, in fact they are
merely the next wave of casual non-drug-users waiting to happen.