It's older people's attitude to drugs that is a killer

The complacency of those who think their own drug-taking experiences have anything to do with today's drugs is desperately misguided

Tom Simons, a deputy head, has spoken about his 16-year-old son, Joe, who died of an MDMA overdose in a Bristol nightclub last year, saying that his son was the victim of a widespread "complacency" regarding drugs, that is "spreading like a cancer" through culture.

These are heartfelt words, but whose complacency is Mr Simons talking about?

If we're talking about young people's complacency towards drugs then this would be a short and brutal conversation.

Sorry, parents, if your children are going to take drugs, they'll take them, from herbal powders bought from the internet, to class-As. For the most part, their complacency is tied up with being young and reckless, with delusions of invincibility.

But what of the complacency of older generations: the worldly-wise who've "been there, done that" with drugs (or think they have). People who can't resist opining on a drug culture, which the vast majority of them probably haven't participated in for years? How much damage is being wrought by their complacency - or, more precisely, their ill-informed outdated pseudo-liberal posturing?

It often seems that the "mature" liberal attitude to drugs is naive and out of touch, with an overriding attitude of: "I don't want to be a hypocrite, or an hysteric. We did pretty much the same, and we survived, didn't we?"

Do these people truly believe that what was true for them, regarding their youthful recreational drug use, remains hard fact today?

I am thinking of the cheerleaders for cannabis who think that a past of wafting through college grounds, smoking a few fragrant leaves, gives them a unique insight into the industrial-strength skunk that's now the norm.

Or those who believe that some sweaty bopping in a Smiley T-shirt to "Ebeneezer Goode" in the 1990s makes them an oracle on the current bewildering array of MDMA-derivatives, hallucinogens, and unregulated legal highs.

With, say, music, people accept that it constantly moves forward, and at such a pace that one finally has to admit the terrible truth - you're old, out of touch, and don't know what you're talking about (if you ever did).

By contrast, with drugs, it's as if people presume that once they've taken a drug, they're experts forever - sometimes to the point where they add their voice to calls for that drug to be legalised, and dismiss genuine concerns about toxicity, as hysterical, rightwing, or both.

Yet unless the older complacent hordes are actively taking drugs, or are closely involved with those who do, then what do they know?

Using the analogy of music, viewing current drug culture in the context of your own past drug use seems about as logical as playing "Que Sera, Sera" to better understand grime.

Is this the kind of complacency that Joe Simons's father was talking about - not just from the young, but also older people? Those quick to counsel against hysteria, but who won't accept that drug culture can't possibly be the same as it was 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.

All those people fretting about hypocrisy when, to me, it seems the height of hypocrisy to give younger generations "permission" to experiment with substances that may be much more potent and dangerous than they personally took risks with.

Like everything else on the planet, drug culture changes all the time, and most of us don't bother to keep up.

Maybe it's time to admit this, instead of using past experience of recreational drugs as some kind of magic shield against old age and irrelevancy, or pathetic proof that we're still "with it".

Indeed, perhaps it's time to stop posturing and accept that, however many spliffs we once puffed, how many powders we snorted or pills we chomped, in the end we all become as clueless, out of touch, and, yes, complacent, as previous older generations.

David, keep your tackle for the pitch

Why do I spend my life with David Beckham's groin stuck in my face? First for Armani, now for H&M, he's never out of his underpants. And while we supposedly shriek and crash cars when there's a billboard of a pretty girl in a bra, purring: "Hello, boys!", it's somehow become acceptable to have billboards of men bulging about in their keks.

I don't mind Beckham earning some extra pocket money by posing in his scanties, for the ladies, and doubtless for certain gentleman fans. What's interesting is that, while famous women, especially mothers, are berated for stripping (Katie Price, Kate Moss), dads such as Beckham never get criticised, even though he has just admitted that his sons find the whole dad-in-pants thing embarrassing.

Somehow, while standing about in underwear is still deemed tragic and slutty for females, a guy in his pants can be perceived as arty, sporty; it can even be "about health". Pull the other one. (No, not that one!)

Beckham also made a point of saying that he's never padded out for the shots: "I've been told I don't need much help in that department."

With that bombshell, the world now needs to know who told him this? Was it Victoria or did the information come via an official H&M memo?

Was a fluffer standing by in case this, erm, "help" was needed? There is also the issue of: why mention it at all? It seems that a man's crotch can be blown up to about 10ft long on a billboard, and all those dark insecurities will still surface.

On a wider level, maybe it's time for a little gender parity with the undies-modelling.

Beckham's sons prove that having a himbo for a daddy can be just as mortifying as having a supposed bimbo for a mummy.

Come on, Billy. Stand up and take it like a man

Is it time to stop calling Billy Connolly the Big Yin and start calling him the Big Jessie?

The comedian cut short two gigs during his tour, after being heckled, and has criticised heckling, saying it's unfair to the audience.

Granted, no one pays to watch a potty-mouthed drunk from Row C shout: "You're shite!" at the stage. Then again, surely part of a seasoned comedian's skill is how well he handles hecklers.

Connolly should also realise that heckling is no longer unique to live comedy. These days, online forums mean that anybody who does anything at all - from entertainment, politics or media, even just dancing with their cat on YouTube - can get heckled by millions within the time it takes to type: "Rubbish!". This is the age of the silent but deadly online heckle. Look at how Whitney Houston was viciously heckled while on tour.

Maybe comedy hecklers should be given their old school due - at least they "own" their heckles and deliver them in person, not anonymously. Where modern heckling mores are concerned, Connolly should realise that it's a rare treat to see the whites of your tormentors' eyes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk 5/2/2012