So I was thinking of how to continue the trend of spreading it about a bit, there's the usual politics and social commentary, then we covered a bit art yesterday, books, music and film so what else am I passionate about that I can turn into a post? Oh yes, drugs, lovely, lovely drugs.

Now I've spoken about polarisation before and in particularly about the quite horrific dangers it poses. One of the ways I've tried to explain my life long obsession with the number three is that it's a good way to avoid polarisation.

The main danger, about which I've written at length in the past, is that we fall into the trap of thinking that two opposing arguments cover the whole gamut of an issue. It's a deadly trap that kills from the head down, fooling people into thinking that there are no other positions to adopt and so, at best, restricting their thought to a narrow field or, at worst, making thinking at all seem redundant.

A good example of this are the two main attitudes towards drug use. Now if you hit the READ MY WORK tag and find my article 'Prohibitive Costs', (nationally serialised when it was written thank you very much,) you'll find a very detailed explanation of my views on this situation. For the purposes of this post however I'll just state my beliefs and leave you to read the grounding for them at your leisure.

So the 'drug poles' if you will tend, as if often the case, to run vaguely along political lines. There's the right wing pole which states drug use is morally wrong in of itself, and that by choosing to escape from reality drug users are shirking their duty to society.

Then there's the left wing pole which states drug use is a terrible affliction to which poor souls are driven by society's failings and that they can't be blamed for escaping so harsh a reality. Their absence is seen here as society's loss.

Now one aspect of all this that immediately leaps off the page for me is that, and this is very common with polarisation, these arguments have far more in common than they do to separate them. One way to see this is to consider both pole's ideal situation.

For both the right and left wing poles here, their perfect world would feature zero drug use. The right because all the users would be reformed or dead, the left because, what they perceive to be, the reasons for drug use would have been eliminated.

My own position, a third angle if you like, (the third of a potentially infinite list, a bit of thought is all that's required to find your own,) is that not only can drug use be a fantastically wonderful thing but that, actually, drug use is an inherent part of humanity and the key to the evolution of both our species and culture.

Now let me make it clear that I agree drug use can be very damaging, but then so can fire. Do we still huddle together in the dark for warmth and eat raw meat? No, we learned how to harness that raw power for our own ends.

The distinction between drug use and drug abuse, for me anyway, has always been the difference between wanting to be stoned or not wanting to be sober. If you doing it to enjoy it and to feel different then the physical costs are outweighed by the mental benefits. Doing it just to avoid facing up to your ordinary life is doomed to failure and has no real benefits meaning it's all cost.

Escapism, such as but not limited to drug use, is generally slammed as being 'non-productive' and feared for leaving the escapee vulnerable. It seems to me however, that the overall development of our societies has been to move away from hand to mouth and violence and towards long term security and comfort, ie. the conditions under which escapism can be undertaken safely.

A long time ago I wrote in a journal of mine that escapism is ok as long as you bring something back. Our evolution from 'animals' to 'people' can surely be defined in no better terms than the development of abstract thought, ie. thinking about things beyond the immediate physical.

From this ability has flowed everything we have. A fantastic lecturer of mine at uni, who I suspect was an actual, official genius, told us about what he called, 'the little bird moment'.

This is where the physicist, or whoever, has reached a limit and can proceed no further. Then, from out of the blue, it's as if a little bird lands on his shoulder and whispers in his ear. A tiny thought, a slight shift in perception and suddenly the great leap forward is made.

Although hard physical work and commitment are essential, it's ideas that actually change things. These ideas come from a place that is not physical and they are found when one escapes the physical world into that other place.

There are plenty of drugs I won't touch but that's for reasons of safety and / or personal preference, not because there's anything wrong with them in theory. Thanks to prohibition pills and powders can and usually do contain pretty much anything, not knowing what you're taking is not my idea of constructive drug use.

Stimulants are not really my thing either, I don't even drink tea, coffee or fizzy drinks but, as i say, that's personal preference. Hallucinogenics are my bag, and of course, the goddess herself, sweet, sweet Mary Jane. I love her and I love getting high and I owe most of what you read on here and most what I write professionally to her green guiding light.

Whether you agree with me, think I'm pretentious hippy scum or anywhere in between I guess the point here is just because two schools of thought come to dominate an issue doesn't mean that either are true, and it sure as shit doesn't mean they're right.

You can always have a think about it yourself and find your own path, bare in mind however that to do so makes you yet another escapee...