october, and the pigeon-pecked puddles of puke that literally spring up overnight on Holloway road remind me of various indigestible aspects of B.P. that I feel I must give vent to.

Firstly, let it be known that I approve of the notion of a magazine as a forum for entertainment and debate among the drug-taking classes. However, I found the tone of this organ (however well obscured by the window dressing of “Informative, free-minded, neutral, non-judgemental yada yada yada”), with its consolatory apologia and absence of confrontation with regard to the whole junkie bullshit game, intolerable.

Thus I feel duty bound and compelled to issue a few measures of bile to the various Frankie Teardrops, Johnny Too-Bads and Typhoid Marys of the inebriate persuasion I would imagine make up your readership.

Firstly, despite what B.P. may infer/imply, drug addiction is not a valid “lifestyle choice” to anyone but a pure natural dolt.

It is a betrayal of yourself, of your loved ones, of your potential, and a betrayal in terms of (don’t laugh, I’m being serious here) society as a whole.

The junkie option of partial or total non-participation is not and should not be depicted as a choice or option; it is a non-choice, and as such it is inevitably punished by man's, or failing that, nature's law.

Under natural law, everything happens or exists for a purpose. Drugs are effectively one of natures “stupid traps” - existing to remove or occupy individuals who are basically a nuisance or a non-productive drain on society and the planet. Drug use is fairly stupid… Drug addiction is fucking asinine to the point of being against nature, and is as such punished brutally by natural law.

It is the continual skirting of this issue by Black Poppy, and the appeasement and reassurance it offers to the addict and his/her deathstyle and the promotion of the ever-attendant “victim culture” and its various constructs such as “harm reduction” that I find hard to swallow. Why should an addict expect anyone (who? - the nanny state?) to “reduce the harm” they inflict on themselves?

For the most part these “harm reduction tips” are nothing more than half-baked common sense. I mean, if you need telling how to use clean works and rotate injection sites you probably need removing from the gene pool like the drowning insect that you are.

These “tips” (Christ, we’re not talking about gardening or photography here - injecting needs little tuition and much less any promotion… ) on subjects such as how best to hide your tracks, appear alongside the highly fetishised colour photographs of people fixing and spoons full of rich, golden junk-juice.

Alongside this “drug porn” are reassuring articles on prominent historical figures that may have used junk... (don’t feel too comfortable, kids - there are periods of our history when just about anyone who could afford it used junk in some shape or form).

This is not a subject on which “tips” should be offered… (Predicated scientific fact, maybe. One can obtain this at any GP’s surgery, library, or drug service - anyone wanting it can be privy to this information) Use the BP’s tips by all means, children, but don’t forget to check the disclaimer on page 1 first...

We all know what “harm reduction” means in terms of using drugs. It means stopping - or using less - drugs.

When one is administering drugs to oneself, either IV or otherwise you are administering an unknown quantity in any terms. Jesus, any talk of reducing harm by such measures as “wetting your filter before using it” is an act of tokenism of which the only analogy I can think of would be re-arranging the corpses at Belsen to make the place look tidier…

The whole notion of “harm reduction” serves only to indulge the junkie in delusions of adequacy and facilitate the mental processes which give rise to and appease the oxymoronic lie of “the right minded, well informed addict” - struggling against the injustice and victimisation of the “war on drug users” (BP #9, p32).

Bullshit. No such war exists. The fact is that in this country you are basically allowed to take whatever drug you wish, as long as you don’t make a nuisance of yourself. Hell, you can even celebrate it in a “drug lifestyle” magazine...

We all know (or should know) what constitutes “a nuisance” or “anti-social behavior” and what attracts the more physical aspects of law enforcement. The notion of the police “targeting individual users and their friends, using at home and causing no distress to anyone and no harm to anyone but themselves” (BP #9, p6) is hysterical nonsense... As is the idea that “a phone call from an irritated neighbour could set the whole wrecking ball in motion” (BP #9, p6). I found that piece of paranoid gibbering particularly fucking entertaining. I love people.

Nor do I believe that there isin fact any real misunderstanding of drug issues, other than the wilful, deliberate “misunderstanding” of the addict by those who oppose him or her.

We all know what constitutes anti-social behaviour. Likewise, we all know what constitutes a crackhouse. You can’t exactly confuse them with other houses, for chrissakes. And harm reduction? In the context of crackhouses, this is what neutron bombs were invented for…

This entire “war on drugs” scenario is a self-important construct on the part of the user who wishes to lay claim to the coveted role of the victim. In the course of twenty years' dedicated research in the field I have come across numerous “victims” - usually and for the most part victims of one person and one person only: themselves. My gums bleed for them.

I have never met a junkie who (if truth be known) didn’t go into the whole thing with his/her eyes wide open. YOU (the addict) created the situation - so deal with it. Don’t expect anyone to help you reduce the harm YOU did. Grow up you fucking baby - there is NO international rescue.

Perhaps this magazine should be entitled “Approval, Reassurance and Support for the Enfeebled” but it doesn’t have quite the same darkly romantic ring to it as “Black Poppy".