From: "R Pearson" <spectres-AT-innotts.co.uk>
Subject: M-I: Fw: Harvey the heretic/01-17-97
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:05:27 -0000


An interesting mail from the RCP- Not Harvey the postmodern Marxist
geographer, but Brian Harvey of the pop group East 17 who defended taking
the drug ecstacy and spurred a pre-election moral panic in the UK.
Comments please!
Russ
----------
> From: Living Marxism <lm-AT-junius.co.uk>
> To: Multiple recipients of <LM-commentary-AT-www.junius.co.uk>
> Subject: Harvey the heretic/01-17-97
> Date: 17 January 1997 21:17
> 
> We encourage debate and discussion on these commentaries. If you would
like
> to discuss further the ideas in this commentary, go to:
> 
>             <http://www.junius.co.uk/interaction$forum/LMC>
> 
> LIVING MARXISM COMMENTARY
> 
> Harvey the heretic
> 
> Neil Davenport and Andrew Calcutt defend singer Brian Harvey, but
recognise that 'safety first' is the watchword of both sides of the ecstasy
debate
> 
> In an interview with Independent Radio News on Thursday 16 January, Brian
Harvey (22), lead-singer of pop group East 17, made a fairly sensible
statement about ecstasy: 'Really in the long run it's a safe pill and it
ain't doing you no harm. I don't see the problem.'
> 
> He is right. There are instances of physical damage and even death after
taking ecstasy, but these are exceedingly rare. When you consider that up
to a million people take ecstasy every weekend, the estimated toll of
ecstasy-related fatalities, at around 60, comes way down the scale of risk;
and most of these deaths have resulted from heat stroke, fluid loss or
complications involving other substances. Some commentators have already
suggested that statistically you are more likely to die from swallowing a
bayleaf than from taking ecstasy, or perhaps from swallowing huge amounts
of water as a result of misleading 'safety advice' addressed to drug-users.
> 
> Harvey was right about there being nothing much wrong with ecstasy. What
he did not know is that these days you just cannot say that sort of thing
in public and expect to get away with it.
> 
> Judging by the panic reaction to what Harvey said, anyone would think
that he had threatened to 'do a Dunblane' inside Buckingham Palace. The
prime minister John Major condemned his comments in the house of commons,
eleven radio stations banned East 17 records (was it all a misguided
attempt to make East 17 cool?), politicians prophesied that Harvey would
have the drug-related deaths of 'impressionable young fans' on his
conscience, and in scenes reminiscent of the Inquisition, he was made to
eat his own words.
> To top it all, he was finally sacked by the band for 'reasons of
> unacceptable behaviour'.
> 
> When we rang up to request an interview, pointing out that we were
broadly in sympathy with his original statement, Harvey's record company
informed us that he 'would not be doing any interviews, no.' Instead a
statement was issued by 'Harvey' (we wonder how much of it was really his)
in which he was made to retract everything he had said before. Shortly
afterwards the poor lad was forced to act out his retraction for the
benefit of Carlton tv cameras. His grovelling apology - I'm sorry if I
offended Leah Betts' [who died after taking 'E'] parents, I realise I was
out of order and I'm horrified to think that I might have influenced anyone
- was broadcast on London Tonight. The whole
> charade was a theatre of humiliation: Harvey had sinned against the new
religion of restraint and he was made to make a public confession of his
heresy.
> 
> While this melodrama was being played out, a new Bill passed through
parliament unopposed. Introduced by Tory MP Barry Legg, the Public
Entertainments Licenses (Drugs Misuse) Bill endows local councils with
sweeping powers to close down nightclubs in which illegal drugs are alleged
to be on sale. Fuelled by the panic over Harvey, and propelled by an
eight-page anti-drugs feature in the Daily Mirror, this Bill now enjoys the
support of Tory and New Labour MPs. Unlike most private members' bills
which fall by the wayside, it is almost certain to become law.
> 
> In the nineties, 'restrain thyself' is not just a piece of
take-it-or-leave-it advice; it is a commandment which must be obeyed. Those
> in the public eye who flout this stricture can expect to be lined up in a
gallery of modern-day heretics (also featuring pornographers and
> sex-offenders).
> 
> While there is nothing altogether new in anti-drugs panics accompanied by
a law 'n' order drive, what is unprecedented is that both proponents and
opponents of the E-related 'counterculture' are using the same terminology
and identifying the same priorities. 'Safety' is the buzzword on both sides
of the fence.
> 
> Harvey stands accused of risking the lives of young people by promoting
an unsafe drug.  Meanwhile, those who advocate taking E do so on the basis
that it makes them feel safe. Harvey himself indicated this when he
referred to the drug as a means of 'increasing the love' between people who
have taken it. Other commentators have noted the E-effect of reducing
antagonism and anxiety, and creating an aura of community and cooperation
among its users. The chroniclers of E as the drug which induces a feeling
of safety include journalists Bruce Eisner and Douglas Rushkoff, novelist
Thomas Pynchon, as well as the man widely known as the 'guru' of E culture,
> Nicholas Saunders.
> 
> In the nineties safety is the ultimate high. Gone are the days when the
'politics of ecstasy' meant attempting to go beyond yourself; the merit of
E, according to its proponents, is that 'it allows you to take your ego
with you' into a chemically-induced community in search of a few hours rest
>from today's exaggerated sense of being at risk. Avoid E, say the
anti-drugs campaigners, don't risk it. Take E, its advocates say, it's the
pill that frees you from the feeling of risk. Both strands of opinion are
driven by a panic reaction to society and its problems; and they are both
sufficiently imbued with fear to concede that safety is the most valuable
commodity in 'risk society'.
> 
> 
> +++
> 
> If you are not on this mailing list and would like to join, create a mail
>from the address you would like to receive the commentaries:
> 
> To:         macjordomo-AT-www.junius.co.uk
> Subject:    <none>
> Body:       Subscribe LM-commentary Yourfirstname Yourlastname
> 
> You should receive a confirmation explaining the commands understood by
the
> list.
> 
> +++
> 
> To unsubscribe, create a mail from the address at which you are
subscribed:
> 
> To:         macjordomo-AT-www.junius.co.uk
> Subject:    <none>
> Body:       Unsubscribe LM-commentary
> 
> +++
> 
> Back issues of LM-Commentary can be accessed at:
> 
>             <http://www.junius.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/>
> 
> 
>  


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---