Chameleon Magazine

Green Party deputy leader Zack Polanski has never sipped a pint, puffed a spliff, or popped a pill — and yet, he’s championing a full-blown legalise and regulate approach to drugs. Because nothing says “Let the people trip responsibly” like a man who won’t even touch a shandy.

🚫🍷 I’ve Never Partied — But You Totally Should!

On Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Polanski calmly backed a public health approach to drug reform while Sir Keir Starmer attempted stand-up comedy with the zinger, “High on drugs, soft on Putin.” That’s right — the Labour leader’s drug policy argument now involves jokes that would get heckled off stage at an open mic in a Slough Wetherspoons.

But Polanski? Cool as a cucumber in a kale smoothie.

“I’ve never taken drugs or drunk alcohol,” he said, while casually advocating for legal frameworks that would let others responsibly do just that.

Translation: “Not for me, but hey — fill your boots.”

It’s like the Dalai Lama opening a rave tent: “I shall not partake… but please, continue melting your face responsibly.”

And let’s not forget: this is the same Polanski who once hypnotised people and did not, to be clear, promise to enhance anyone’s body parts. Which instantly makes him more trustworthy than half of the self-help industry and 75% of TikTok.

💊 Controlled Freedom from the Guy Who Controls Himself

In a political world fuelled by champagne socialism and cocaine conservatism, Polanski stands out like a designated driver at a Downing Street party. And still — he’s the one calling for actual grown-up policies.

Why? Because legalisation doesn’t mean “Polanski’s personal weekend plan.” It means harm reduction, professional support, and removing drug policy from the sweaty grip of the tabloid moral panic brigade.

Let’s face it: you don’t need to have taken drugs to understand the system’s broken. You just need to have watched the news sober for five minutes. That’s the real trip.

🔥 Challenges 🔥

Can a guy who’s never touched the stuff be the face of sane drug policy? Does being straight-edge strengthen his case? Or are we too addicted to the “tough on crime” theatre to try an evidence-based approach?