The Public Debate on Drugs Report

Introduction

Jürgen Habermas’ theory of public sphere is a successful theoretical ground since he stipulated that the emergence of the new civic society in the eighteenth century was caused by the growing number of literate people, availability of literature, and new type of critical press, hence the new kind of public sphere was born. According to Habermas new judgments require informed debate, whereas debate on drugs suffers lack of that. Curran and Seaton in their book ‘Power Without Responsibility : The Press, Broadcasting, and New Media in Britain’ question the connection between the public’s undermining confidence in media and the Conservative party.

Media impacts people’s minds differently: print, Internet, radio news programs, though every one of it can shape the opinions the way it is necessary for the government or certain private individuals. The point of this paper is to investigate the public on drugs within British media. Namely, this report will elaborate on the political, mass media, and third parties’ perspective on drugs in Britain. Also, the purpose of this report will be critically analyzing the relation between public opinion and media and if the ‘media bias’ is only an individual journalist’s personal perspective rather than distorting the truth.

British Media Nature and Its Effects on Public Opinion

The public opinion and mass media opinion are slightly different. This slightness is a result of profound work of media to persuade people in whatever it is necessary. The difference in media and public opinion can be achieved only via certain percentage of public having unshakeable conviction despite Internet, TV news, radios, and print claims.

Unfortunately, British media has been misrepresenting the drugs. If we should take media in print, it is important to state that print is the most available version of mass media to any person able to read; which is more than ninety percent of population in Great Britain. In order to describe the work of newspapers, magazines, etc. on drug representation it is possible to say that about every single source gave out exaggerated and inaccurate information. This, of course, misguides public on actual issues of drug abuse and medical drug use in the country. Moreover, this is the tendency that has been observed for about forty years of print media existence.

The foremost problem that resulted from ill informed way in which mass media reported on drugs was and is the myth that journalists are likely to write and hence pass on to the public. Of course, this is how all media kinds work, although it is important to understand that drug issues in the country is closely connected to political issues, therefore have to be taken more broadly rather than hysterically or sensationally.

Frequently, newspapers force people to make wrong conclusion out of the read stories. For example, the article “Mephedrone” in the Sun newspaper drew a wide response of concerned public to outlaw mephedrone, whereas any daily substance’s misuse can bring harm, of course. So, there were two myths drawn from the article: “Teachers were powerless to act because the drug is legal; The government dragged its feet over banning the drug” (Shapiro, 2011, p.82). All of the above is untrue. What is even more serious as per media’s impact on public within the drug issues coverage is that despite the accusative tone of the reports, media seems to display the opposite intention.

Political Leaders’ Opinions

Aeron Davis elaborates on ‘critical enquiry on the links between media, communication and power ’ that ‘must look beyond the elite-mass media audience paradigm’ (2007. P.3). Aeron speaks on how politicians are influenced by and use media in their daily professional activities. Also, the trust o public towards politicians has dropped to the utmost low as per Davis, as such it is important to understand the issues of drugs within the understanding of British society as conveyed by politicians.

The United Kingdom former defence secretary – Bob Ainsworth – offered a new way of regulating the problem of illegal drugs in the country. The main point of his was to decriminalize illegal drugs in order to have influence over them, namely this will give the government an opportunity to control the prices, production, and supplies. However, daily newspaper Guardian published a rebuking response of Ed Miliband. Undoubtedly, debates on drugs had always had a serious character, however, this time; the Labour Leader Bob Ainsworth is calling for a escalating debate, because Miliband sought to find rationale in his words saying the youth of the UK my interpret their message on legalizing drugs incorrectly. Of course, this is an extremely debatable topic because the issue is very serious and its resolving may entail nonreversible outcome, although it all depends on the way the newspapers represent the information.

While Ed Miliband is being critical on the issue because of the further transformations in youth’s attitude towards the drugs after the law’s possible adoption, Bob Ainsworth is approaching the problem globally in terms of affects for the domestic policy. Moreover, he is talking about the drugs issues as a failed war; hence, it is essential for the country to take the power away from criminals and cope with the regulatory arrangements on behalf of government. This is, of course, a matter of ethics and the public is being totally influenced by mass media’s representation in terms of touching the points of morality. However, if the war against drugs is actually failed by now, then it is necessary to take other actions for the sake of the country’s prosperity and further simplified struggle against drug abuse. Unfortunately, there is a fear of mass media backlash by many politicians; this results in proactive debates by politicians or unwillingness in taking actions.

The 3^rd Parties’ Messages on Drugs

In order to explain and analyze the 3^rd parties’ opinion on drugs and their ways to persuade and inform let me draw the article called “Let’s Legalize Drugs” by Meaghan Cussen, Walter Block. It is decidedly that the authors are talking about legalizing drugs as an impossible thing to do as this contradicts the freedom of every person, and civil rights. This is the approach that is hard to deny. Indeed, arresting individuals selling and/or taking drugs are close to violating his/her rights for freedom, since we live in democracy.

In a word, either philosophically or politically speaking it is important to understand that as well as in any trade, the third parties within the drug trade will always find a reason to get offended. Of course, there are moral and ethical grounds on which certain parties will surely be offended. For example, it is necessary to think about those people who protests against alcohol sale, birth control, or using animal products in sales – those will always lose in rhetoric about trading. There will always appear more important issues for the specific sales rather than taking into account views of the third parties, because commercial activity would have otherwise collapsed by now.

BBC’s Drugs Representation. Celebrities Involved

As per other mass media kinds, the television makes a great impact on public opinion about drugs. For example, BBC news report on drug use by celebrities, which, of course, applies moral attitude towards the problem and makes public think of the celebrities’ involved as an immoral issue. This always depends on the way the reporting is conveyed to viewers. Namely, the article ‘Warning over Celebrity Drug Use’ contains prejudice right in the title. All the more, Philip Emafo – a president of INCB – took criticizing position and blamed celebrities of using drugs as a poor example of “glamorized narcotics abuse.” (BBC, 2008) So, here the use of celebrities’ images, such as Pit Doherty, served a scathing rebuke for the public to stop following their ‘icons’.

Release Drugs, the Law & Human Rights

It is vitally important to stay unbiased when analyzing this kind of release. Undoubtedly, drug addicts are among us, they make up an impressive part of the society. The foremost message that the release is conveying to public is that there is no way to fight the drug problem except of accepting it. It is claimed that drug addicts are nice people, too and that drugs do not do as much harm as it is believed, thus people are able to start a sensible discussion.

So, the organization itself is controversial if regarded globally from the point of political and media view. Nowadays newspapers carry screaming heading on the drug abuse problems in Britain, whereas the recent claims of Bob Ainsworth witness about the opposite. Since he wants to legalize drugs the release may be regarded as a useful booklet by ‘Sex and Drugs and Rock n’Roll’ organization. Therefore, if so, then organization contributes to the society awareness greatly. They communicate via buses, social networks, t-shirts, festivals, etc. Moreover, it is essential that drug addicts get the necessary assistance and information online and on the phone.

However, it needs to be said that this release is a kind of cheering for drugs. This is close to unbelievable that they used some politicians’ images (including the president of the United States – Barack Obama) as former drug users. Of course, this is made in order to show that the war against drugs needs to be stopped and some legal actions have to be taken, however, will it not serve a nice call for another action – the extensive drug distribution, hence total health rates deterioration?

About fifty percent of young people smoking today are those who do it along for the ride. Does that mean that otherwise many youngsters would have not start smoking at all? Of course, the drug addict problem is much more serious; though let me compare legalization of drugs with the legalization of cigarettes. No doubt, tobacco business brings income to the government, though it harms our body – nobody abolished that law of nature. Therefore, since we have a freedom of choice as per cigarettes, Bob Ainsworth wants to do the same with drugs in order to make the war against it sensible. However, while cigarettes cause cancer and other lungs diseases, drugs are much more dangerous. Thus, it means that we will let those who go along for the ride die for the sake of commerce.

Conclusion

Mass media’s impact on public opinion is full-scaled. However, it tends to create inaccurate information conveyed to the readers or viewers; hence the public is misinformed and cannot make relevant conclusions on the issues of drugs. Emotional appeal is sometimes what prevents a journalist from being completely unbiased. Thus, it is important to analyze new information critically, and observe all sources of information in order to draw correct conclusions. The debates on drugs nowadays assumed a resonant character: whether to legalize illicit drugs disregarding political fears, or not. In any case, authorities have to be extremely careful in taking the decisions for they may cause great changes in society.

References

BBC Online (2008) ‘Warning over celebrity drug use’.

Davis, Aaron. (2007). The Mediation of Power: A Critical Introduction (Communication & Society). New York: Routledge.

Shapiro, H. (2011). The Media Guide to Drugs: Key facts and figures for journalists. London, DrugScope.