I want to label Adam Leigh as reactionary. I’m not sure the label fits. But was interested by the words meaning and etymology.

1. Based on the model of French réactionnaire. Circa 1840. From réaction.
2. Of. Relating to. Or characterized by reaction. Especially against radical political or social change.
3. A person opposed to radical change.
1. From re- “again, anew” +action. Modeled on French réaction. Older Italian reattione. From Medieval Latin reactionem.
2. A reverse movement or tendency.
3. An action in a reverse direction or manner.

I have to admit. When I first heard the word reactionary. I had it in my head that it meant the exact opposite. I am not the only one. I have come across several people since who have made the same mistake.


Drug eating insects

As I work though the ideas for a redraft of Carrion, it has become necessary to consolidate my understanding of the drug eating insect that are such an important part of the story.

One of the first ideas I had for Carrion was the image of insects eating drugs. Initially I though it would be enough to have a species just feed on drugs. I thought these insects could be either a naturally occurring or genetically engineered blight, eating their way through the stockpile of illicit drugs. I envisioned a plethora of subspecies, one for each substance, migrating from stash to stash, decimating the supply. I quickly realised this would probably end the war on drugs, and my story with it.

Then I read about cocaethylene. Cocaethylene is the drug formed in vivo when cocaine and ethyl alcohol are ingested simultaneously. Studies suggest that it may be more cardiotoxic, and possess a longer duration of action than cocaine taken in isolation. The thing I find most interesting about cocaethylene, is that it is only produced in vivo, in the body. From this small revelation, I quickly got to the image of insects feeding on drug users.

I had the notion that a species engineered to feed on drugs in vivo would plague drug users. Logic dictates that this strategy would limit attacks to those under the influence. Once they stop producing the drug, the insects would migrate to another user. While this provides more story, there still isn’t enough drama.

So while looking for a more dynamic scenario, I started to research the various insect species that might be spliced together. While I have been unable to find any species of insect that targets drugs in their refined state, I was able to find several species that attack drug precursors like coca, the source of cocaine.

Aegoidus pacificus lays it’s eggs in the plant bark. The beetle’s larvae then burrows into the stem, irrevocably damaging the plant.

The larvae of Eloria noyesi feeds on coca leaves. Capable of eating fifty leaves in it’s lifetime, an infestation eventually destroys the plant.

Stenocarus fuliginosus and Myzus persicae both feed on and destroy the opium poppy, the source of heroine.

As my research progressed I started to understand more clearly the role the insects would play within Carrion. In a previous post, Drugs as a tool, I described the insects as the “physical manifestation of prohibition. A tool that takes the ruthless unrelenting enforcement of prohibition to its merciless conclusion. The physical destruction of anyone who takes drugs.”

For the insect to have this quality, I realised they needed to be more aggressive. So I started to look for insects that might attack humans, insects that are carnivorous. The insects I found most intriguing are those species attracted to humans post mortem.

From the moment of death legions of insects start to feed on human remains. Calliphoridae (blowflies) lay their eggs around wounds and natural openings in the body. Their eggs hatch, and maggots move into the body secreting digestive enzymes, and tearing tissue with their mouth hooks.

As the rate of decay increases, the smell attracts more blowflies, and species of Coleoptera, including Staphylinidae (rove beetles), silphidae (carrion beetles), and Cleridae (checkered beetles). These late-arriving insects are predators, feeding on the abundant supply of maggots as well as the decaying flesh.

They’re joined by parasitoid wasps such as Brachymeria calliphorae, that lay their eggs inside the maggots, injecting venom into the host along with the egg. This venom is a highly complex mixture of chemicals, that not only paralyse the host, but also modifies the host’s tissue, making it more nutritious for the developing larva.

As the decaying body passes through the stage known a black putrefaction, the predatory insects become more abundant, until the body enters butyric fermentation, when the remaining flesh is removed, and the body dries out.

The reduction in soft food makes the body less palatable to the mouth-hooks of maggots, and the amount of predatory insects declines. The remains become more suitable for the chewing mouthparts of beetles. As the body enters the final stages of decay, mites, tineid moths, and bacteria feed on the remaining tissue.

All insects progress through one of two main types of metamorphosis, complete and incomplete. Complete consists of egg, larva, pupa, adult. Incomplete, egg, nymph, adult.

I envision insects going though the complete metamorphosis. The genetically engineered adults feed on drugs, then much like the parasitoid wasps, lay their eggs in the users. Employing a strategy know as polyembryony, a single egg continues to divide, cloning itself into a mass of individual larvae. These larva then hatch, and start to move around the host, feeding on the non-essential parts of the body, until they are mature enough to pupate.

After complete metamorphosis, the adult insects must then escape the host. I imagine a swarm gnawing free of the host in a bloody explosion. This image is the origin of the name Carrion. Infested users are the living dead, walking through the stages of decomposition, treated as carrion, destroyed by insects. The “physical manifestation of prohibition”.

I got an iPhone

I got a new iPhone 4s yesterday. I’m not a natural Apple customer. So this is something of an unknown for me. To date I’ve avoided all things Apple. My main discomfort with the mighty fruit, apart from the price, is that while Mr. Jobs products look wonderful. The whole top down, total integration, of Apple’s product line feels a little fascist.

I know that’s a bit harsh, and mostly it was said for effect, but it does feel bit like I’ve joined a cult. Someone said to me yesterday when they saw the phone. “They’re like crack cocaine.” I can only think he meant the iPhone will take over my life. A sobering thought as I am tied into this thing for two years.

Why choose an iPhone? I’ve been looking to get a new phone for while, and spent a long time weighing the pros and cons of a replacement for the dinosaur I used to carry. To date most of my phones have been supplied by Sony Ericsson. So I checked out their latest incarnations. While they were packed with features, and Android’s latest operating system, they were on the whole flimsy. They felt like they’d crumble over time. I had a look at a couple of phones from Blackberry. The build quality was better, but their screens are too small, and I knew that would become an issue.

In the end I took the plunge, and got the new iPhone. Out of the box it feels substantial. Its features and apps all seem intuitive. The first negative I’ve come across is the calendar app. For some reason you have limited control of repeat appointments. I want to repeat an appointment every twelve weeks, but find myself limited to every week, month, or year. I’m sure I’ll be able to find a replacement, but it’s still annoying that you can’t control appointments adequately.

The phone’s on-screen keyboard might take a little getting used to, but I’ve managed to write this whole thing without too much trouble. Cut and paste options are still hard to control. My fingers are imprecise tools, something more delicate is needed. Overall the whole experience reminds me a little of typing on my old Psion Revo, and I wrote a substantial amount of my first screenplay on one of those things.

It might not be such a problem once I get to grips with the Siri function. I tried it out yesterday with limited success, felt a bit of an idiot talking to myself. Amused my girlfriend though.

In the end I think I chose the iPhone because it seemed like the best choice from a quality standpoint. It feel like I’m holding something that will last. Still not a hundred percent though. Feels a bit like I’ve gone and drunk the cool-aid.


Carrion is the title of the screenplay I am currently reworking. I used it specifically because of it’s meaning and etymology.

1. From the Anglo-French caroine. Ultimately from the Latin carō. Meaning flesh.
2. Dead and rotting flesh.
3. Something rotten or repulsive.

I am specifically drawn to the word as something rotten or repulsive. It has an ambiguity that can be attached to either side of the war on drugs.

Civil war

One of the central ideas of Carrion is that the war on drugs escalates into a civil war. I don’t think it’s enough to simply say the two sides of prohibition start fighting. I need to understand the mechanism that might push prohibition that far.

First things first. What is civil war? I have seen it described variously as “armed conflict between sovereign and/or nonsovereign combatants within a single sovereign territory” or as a “sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1000 battle-field deaths per year”. The Romans gave civil war its name. Bellum civile, a war against cives, or fellow-citizens, fought within the city, or civitas. Interestingly the Geneva Conventions do not specifically define civil war, instead describing a criteria for acts qualifying as “armed conflict not of an international character”. Their criteria includes.

1. The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
2. The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
3. The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
4. The legal Government is “obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military.”

While these criteria might describe the conflict currently raging between the drug cartels and government forces in regions of south America. It doesn’t describe the situation here in the United Kingdom. Here in the United Kingdom, the war on drugs is a one sided conflict, that amounts to a campaign of suppression, allowing the government to police its citizens.

For the war on drugs to become a civil war, those on the wrong side of prohibition would have to fight back, and be recognised as a belligerent. That is, engaged in a legally recognised war. Which prompts the question, what would it take for drug users to take up arms against the government?

Putting that question to one side for a moment, I have to ask, why hasn’t this already happened? Why don’t drug users fight back? The flippant answer is, they’re too stoned to care. That adheres to a stereotype of drug users as feckless ne’er-do-wells who care for nothing but the drugs they take. I don’t think that shoe fits.

In my experience that the majority of individuals who use drugs recreationally are otherwise law abiding productive members of society. They get married, have children, hold down jobs, just like those in the sober world.

Could it be drug users just don’t see the oppression of the war on drugs. They live their lives, take their drugs, unaware of the acute oppression of prohibition. For them to start fighting back, they would have to feel that oppression more acutely than they currently do.

I also think it could be that drug culture is an illicit culture, that is defined as outside “normal” society. Those who take drugs do so in defiance of social norms, and by doing so, feel they’re already fighting prohibition. Could it be taking drugs means users are disengaged from society, and therefore have no interest in fighting it? For them to engage, the normal terrain of their lives would have to be changed, radicalised, before they would react with any kind of violence.

It could be that those who take drugs just aren’t aggressive enough. It is my experience that the majority of illicit drugs do not actually elicit violence in their users. Quite the opposite. MDMA is not called ecstasy because in makes people angry. The violence associated with the drug world comes primarily from the supply/distribution side of drug culture. Either between government agents and those supplying/distributing drugs, or between rival groups seeking to control the supply/distribution of drugs.

None of this answers the question, why don’t drug users fight back? In his book Drug Warriors and Their Prey, Richard Lawrence Miller “explores the process by which society can destroy an ordinary group of people.” His book describes the war on drugs as a process that seeks to systematically destroy drug users. The process he describes follows a series of distinct phases.

1. Identification.
2. Ostracism.
3. Confiscation.
4. Concentration.
5. Annihilation.

As I understand it, the war on drugs has already advanced significantly through the first three phases. Without a radical response from drug users, for civil war to happen in Carrion, the two remaining phases must elicit a violent reaction. That suggests a scenario in which this significant minority are forcibly removed from society, and concentrated in a specific place, but this still might not be enough to push drug users to take up arms.

Jews who suffered at the hands of the Nazis did not rise up when they found themselves corralled into places like the Warsaw ghetto. It was only at the point of annihilation, when the Nazis started to clear the ghetto, that they started to offer the kind of resistance you might categorised as civil war.

I am not trying to diminish what the Nazis did, or the Jewish reaction to their persecution. I’m only trying to reflect on how far a minority like drug users must be pushed before they react. I think it is only at the point of annihilation that drug users will fight back. They’ll be offered a choice, either fight, or die.

This suggests a scenario in which drug users are being systematically killed. How might prohibitionist do this? While the hard-liners might just say “line ’em up and shoot ’em” I imagine a more surreptitious approach. I envision a plague of drug eating insects attacking drug users, using them as part of their reproductive cycle.

In a previous post. Drugs as a tool I described these insects as “physical manifestation of prohibition. A tool that takes the ruthless unrelenting enforcement of prohibition to its merciless conclusion. The physical destruction of anyone who takes drugs”. Attacks by drug eating insects benefits from being a localised attack, specifically and exclusively directed at drug users. It also offers the government plausible deniability. They could argue, quite believably, they had nothing to do with what is happening to the drug users. Users brought this calamity on themselves. Again I return to the question, how would this escalate into civil war?

I think it will take a combination of two thing. First, the government denies drug users medical attention. They pass laws that stop those with a history of drug use getting access to the NHS. Second, drug users discover the plague of insects was initiated by the government. It is only at this point, at the point of death, when users understand specifically who their persecutors are, will they take up arms against the government.

Only at this point will the war on drugs escalate into civil war.


Came across Pareidolia Pics. A twitter feed that specialises in these phantom pictures.

1. The imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist. As in considering the moon to have human features.
2. From the words para. And eidolon.
1. From the Persian pāra. Literally. Piece.
2. A prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek. Most often attached to verbs and verbal derivatives. With the meanings “at or to one side of. Beside. Side by side.”
1. An unsubstantial image. Apparition. Phantom.
2. An ideal. Or idealized figure.

: )

%d bloggers like this: