pipe

SocietyMay 4, 2018

Are we really teaching kids how to do P?

pipe

Earlier this week, a concerned parent shared photos of an NZ Drug Foundation pamphlet that was being used in a high school health class. Controversy, of course, ensued. But what exactly was the pamphlet? And what were the kids doing with it?

So, I’ve been hearing about this drug pamphlet telling kids how to do P…

Well, it’s not exactly…

What do you mean “not exactly”? I saw photos of it in the Herald.

Yeah, that’s true – a parent of a Massey High School student did send the Herald photos of a couple of pages of a 20-page booklet published by the NZ Drug Foundation that, among many other things, included advice for methamphetamine users such as: “When taking meth eat something every 4 to 5 hours, drink more water than normal,” “You can’t sleep on meth. If you want to sleep later don’t use it after 3pm,” and, “If using a glass pipe, clean the inside regularly to remove butt residue which could be inhaled.”

The last “tip”, the one the Herald called the “most shocking” reads: “Meth is illegal, it’s also illegal to own a pipe. Be discrete (sic) and only keep 5 grams for personal use.”

Why five grams?

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, if you are caught with more than five grams of methamphetamine, you are presumed to be possessing the drug with intent to supplying to others, which means you will almost definitely go to prison, probably for three-to-nine years.

Presumed? I thought we’re all presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Nah, not for certain offences, and definitely not for possession of a controlled substance over a certain amount. The presumption means that the person charged has to prove that they’re not intending to use the drugs to supply to others and that is, typically, so hard that it’s easiest just to think about it as if you’ve got five grams or more, under the law, you’re gonna be supplying it to others (which includes just giving it to your friends) it at some point. (While you’re here: it’s best not to keep more than an ounce of marijuana or, I dunno, a sheet of acid just lying around.)

So the booklet is telling kids how to evade the law?

I guess the difference between evading the law and simply not ruining one’s life (or ruining one’s life a little less, depending on the circumstances) is in the eye of the beholder. But you bring up an important point that should be addressed.

You say “kids”. The booklet, titled MethHelp, isn’t actually for “kids”. It has been published by the NZ Drug Foundation since 2010 to help methamphetamine users (who, as of 2015, make up a little less than 1% of the population) make safer choices in their drug use.

How did it end up in a classroom?

Massey High School requested some copies to use as one resource in a Level 3 Health class.

So those are kids though, right?

Yeah, sure. They’re 17- and 18-year-olds who are enrolled in an opt-in health class. This isn’t the mandatory health class where you put a condom on a banana and giggle at unsexy sex cartoons (do they still do that?) This is a class of about 30 students (out of about 1750 students in the school), most of which are taking the class because they are thinking of entering the medical/health industries.

Why do they need a booklet about how to take P and still be able to sleep at night?

The booklet was one of many resources the students had access to for research into a “New Zealand health issue” for an NCEA internal assessment project. The school assigned the topic of methamphetamine use by 15-24-year-olds.

Also, it’s important to note the booklet focuses on the negative impacts of methamphetamine use on the individual, relationships and society and includes advice on how to stop dependency and use. Read it here and see for yourself.

I guess that sounds reasonable. But shouldn’t we just be telling kids not to take drugs?

Well, we are. Or, I mean, schools are. Massey High School has been clear that it “does not condone illegal drug use, drugs on the school campus, nor does it teach its pupils how to use drug instruments”.

But still, you can’t just tell people not to do something. That doesn’t work. Abstinence-only education just doesn’t work. We’ve been telling kids not to take drugs for decades, yet 44% of New Zealanders will still try illegal drugs. (It doesn’t work for sex education either BTW.) And if you’re really worried about drug use, get worried about alcohol and tobacco. According to the NZ Drug Foundation, around 20% of the population drinks “hazardously” and 9% of physical health loss in New Zealand is attributed to tobacco use.

So what should we do about this all?

Legalise it! Seriously. Legalise all drugs. Carefully and deliberately. Treat drugs as a public health issue. Increase education and public health resources for testing and treatment. Begin the process of righting the wrongs of generations of discriminatory approaches to drug-related law enforcement. Recognise that people take drugs for all sorts of reasons (out of boredom, desperation, dependency, curiosity or, sometimes, just for fun) and we should allow people take drugs safely and without the intervention of criminal syndicates.

That’s NEVER going to happen!

Maybe not. But can we at least let people test their drugs (and not just at music festivals)? Fentanyl killed Prince and it’s killing New Zealanders too. You need very little of the drug to get people fucked up (100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times stronger than heroin, according to the U.S Drug Enforcement Agency) so it’s more easily smuggled into the country than most drugs so is cheaper and commonly cut into all sorts of drugs. People are going to take drugs whether you like it or not. Let them know exactly what they’re taking.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories and baseless innuendo from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now




Keep going!
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

SocietyMay 3, 2018

Does good grammar really matter?

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

The emphasis placed on formal written grammar in schools obscures the fact that English has many kinds of grammar – and they’re all equally valid, writes Waikato University senior lecturer in linguistics, Andreea Calude.

“But don’t you want your kids to get a job one day?”

There are almost 200 people in this room. It’s hard to believe that so many people want to come and listen to a talk on grammar and whether it matters. I get the distinct feeling many are dreading the awkward conclusion that after all is said and done, grammar does not really actually matter. But you are a mum, one will say. Don’t you want your kids to get a job one day?

The truth is that I have spent some ten years of my life thinking quite explicitly about grammar. I do not mean about ways of phrasing this or that. What I am talking about is sifting through language data, journal articles, and theory books about grammar, and trying to figure out when different formulations occur and why. Grammar has been quite literally my business for a good decade now.

So what have I learnt? And what would I want to teach my own kids about it?

Not one grammar, but many different grammars

When we talk about “grammar”, what we actually mean is “the grammar” and even more specifically, “the grammar of written language” as taught in schools. These distinctions are not made explicit; they remain hidden behind the veil of “proper English” and “a good education”.  To write properly is to write in the standard language form. To write otherwise is to show ignorance and a lack of status or intelligence.

Unbeknownst to many of us – I was already a third-year linguistics student myself before the penny dropped – there isn’t a single grammar out there, but multiple ones. I am not talking about the grammar of different, mutually unintelligible languages. I am talking about grammars of the same language. Like many languages, English has a grammar system used for speaking and a different – though largely overlapping one – used for writing.

There may be a standard grammar system used in formal language, such as in schools and universities, in legal documents, in certain media outlets, in non-fiction books, in high-brow newspapers, in research reports. And there might be a number of non-standard grammars used among family and friends, with local community members, by certain ethnic groups, in certain geographical regions.

As far as communicating itself goes, all these grammar systems are equal – they are equally beautiful, eloquent, logical and expressive. But socially, there is only one which holds the sceptre of social power: the grammar of standard written language. This social upper hand gives the grammar of written language prestige, and the capital to reign supreme over all others.

As soon as such a standard is born, suddenly all effort goes into mastering it. So much work is invested in acquiring this almighty powerful linguistic form that the grammars of other systems and their importance become overshadowed and ignored. Members of society show off their knowledge of the standard grammar of written language, like they would show off a fast sports car or an expensive house in a well-to-do neighbourhood. It becomes their passport onto the social ladder. So keen are some to show off their standard grammar that they sometimes overstep the mark and go further than the standard itself – a process linguist Bill Labov termed “hypercorrection” (the “try-hard” language user).

Photo: Pxhere.com

Speech and writing

The moment we equate “grammar” with “writing”, we forget that spoken language (or sign language for that matter) can also have a grammar, an internal consistency and structure of its own. Robbing spoken language of the privilege of having its own grammar means that writing becomes the yardstick by which we measure all others.

We assume that deviations from written grammar constitute the dirty little secret of speech and of other language varieties. These deviations are instantly labelled “bad”, “ignorant”, “uneducated”, “illogical”, kicking speech (or signing) further down the hierarchy of language status.

But how many of us learn to write before we learn to speak or sign? Speaking (or signing) is always primary (and necessary). Speaking is so natural that we do not even give it a second thought. Once acquisition is completed, we disregard it altogether like we do walking. How many times have you been congratulated on how well you are walking today?

Imagine what communication might be like if we all sounded like standard, formal writing. It would take some time for us to figure out what the main message is. Then, once parsed, we would need to have a think about how to formulate an appropriate response. Communication would become much slower, much denser, and not at all viable in real time. Language is adapted for speaking and for good reason!

The grammar of insiders

The same can be said for grammars of non-standard varieties of language. Take Māori English for example. To date, there is still surprisingly little known about this variety (or possibly group of varieties), but one feature which we think is rather characteristic of Māori English is the highly frequent use of the tag “eh” (it’s about time we get to know this variety eh). While other varieties use it too, Māori English just can’t get enough of it.

It has been suggested that “eh” is a bonding particle, a way to include the person addressed into the conversation and acknowledge their involvement. This preoccupation with inclusiveness is not atypical of non-Western varieties and it is a way of consolidating relationships, like a social glue.

There is no quicker way to become part of a community than to use the local forms of communication. Just as acquiring some German can be helpful in forming a relationship with locals in Germany, if you’re not Māori yourself then dropping in extra “eh”s may be a good way of gaining access to your local Māori English community.

The grammar of outsiders

What the grammar of standard written language can do for a speaker or a writer is very different. Using this form of language can allow one to communicate with people who are not part of their local community. Standard varieties act like ‘lingua franca’s across communities of speakers who still use the same language, but frequent different social networks, different geographical regions, or cross the divide of different social classes.

Viewed from this perspective, one might say that the grammar of standard written language is a bit like “the grammar of outsiders”. Handy? Yes! Better? No.

But don’t you want your kids to get a job one day?

If different language varieties are all legit, and we are all to become metaphorical grammar-hugger hippies, won’t language and grammar descend into a free-for-all, anything goes sort of chaos? No at all.

Speakers of English can easily spot when something is not part of the grammar of English (for the most part). A sentence like “There shoes the put I” is most definitely ungrammatical in all varieties of English, Māori English, Pākehā English, the Southern dialect of NZ English, and so on. What makes the other grammars distinct from purely ungrammatical use is the consistency in use of various expressions. This consistency is what helps form the regularity in the system (the patterns) and thus the vehicle which helps to guide the transfer of meaning.

Grammar does matter! The importance of studying and grasping grammar cannot be understated. Today, we know more about grammar and about how different grammatical systems work than we have done in the past, and so there is more grammar to teach and learn than ever.

So here is what I would tell my own kids. Their ‘home grammar’ (be it spoken English, Pasifika English, Māori English, and so on) is not wrong, any more than speaking another language is wrong – and we know speaking multiple languages can only be a good thing. All these systems are linguistically valid, but the contexts in which they are used matter enormously. Becoming a skilled communicator involves learning how to navigate these grammars and knowing how to use them in their appropriate contexts.

And then, hopefully, they can appreciate that getting a job may involve using standard formal written grammar. But actually doing the job may require them to use a larger repertoire than that!

Andreea S. Calude is a senior lecturer in linguistics at the University of Waikato.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories and baseless innuendo from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now