Narrator / Host (mostly Dominic Sandbrook)

There's no evidence that he has... It's never alleged that he's... I mean, I would be surprised if he hadn't. I don't want to end up in a legal battle with Keith Richards. It's very unlikely. It has been known. He's no stranger to that world, shall we put it that way. So on the face of it, listeners may say, well, this is a very trivial story. But at the time, it becomes absolutely enormous.

There's no evidence that he has... It's never alleged that he's... I mean, I would be surprised if he hadn't. I don't want to end up in a legal battle with Keith Richards. It's very unlikely. It has been known. He's no stranger to that world, shall we put it that way. So on the face of it, listeners may say, well, this is a very trivial story. But at the time, it becomes absolutely enormous.

There's no evidence that he has... It's never alleged that he's... I mean, I would be surprised if he hadn't. I don't want to end up in a legal battle with Keith Richards. It's very unlikely. It has been known. He's no stranger to that world, shall we put it that way. So on the face of it, listeners may say, well, this is a very trivial story. But at the time, it becomes absolutely enormous.

And I think it becomes an enormous story because it's symbolic of deeper changes. So when the Rolling Stones were growing up in the 40s and early 50s, drugs just simply were never an issue in Britain. In 1961, a Home Office committee had been set up to look at drugs. And they basically said, there is no need for us to ever do anything about this.

And I think it becomes an enormous story because it's symbolic of deeper changes. So when the Rolling Stones were growing up in the 40s and early 50s, drugs just simply were never an issue in Britain. In 1961, a Home Office committee had been set up to look at drugs. And they basically said, there is no need for us to ever do anything about this.

And I think it becomes an enormous story because it's symbolic of deeper changes. So when the Rolling Stones were growing up in the 40s and early 50s, drugs just simply were never an issue in Britain. In 1961, a Home Office committee had been set up to look at drugs. And they basically said, there is no need for us to ever do anything about this.

There's no need for legislation or anything like that because there are no drugs. There really are no drugs in Britain. The only people who take drugs... are people who, at the very top of society, who spend their holidays in North Africa or something. Hashish. Yeah, opium addicts. Yes. But 99% of the population have no connection with the world of drugs whatsoever.

There's no need for legislation or anything like that because there are no drugs. There really are no drugs in Britain. The only people who take drugs... are people who, at the very top of society, who spend their holidays in North Africa or something. Hashish. Yeah, opium addicts. Yes. But 99% of the population have no connection with the world of drugs whatsoever.

There's no need for legislation or anything like that because there are no drugs. There really are no drugs in Britain. The only people who take drugs... are people who, at the very top of society, who spend their holidays in North Africa or something. Hashish. Yeah, opium addicts. Yes. But 99% of the population have no connection with the world of drugs whatsoever.

It is indeed. Drugs are forced into the headlines really as the 60s proceed. The cannabis conviction figures go up. reflecting a wider picture, clearly what's happening is, first of all, young people have a lot more money. They're going out more often. The market for stimulants is bigger than ever before. And there's a rise in cultural cachet because of the associations with music.

It is indeed. Drugs are forced into the headlines really as the 60s proceed. The cannabis conviction figures go up. reflecting a wider picture, clearly what's happening is, first of all, young people have a lot more money. They're going out more often. The market for stimulants is bigger than ever before. And there's a rise in cultural cachet because of the associations with music.

It is indeed. Drugs are forced into the headlines really as the 60s proceed. The cannabis conviction figures go up. reflecting a wider picture, clearly what's happening is, first of all, young people have a lot more money. They're going out more often. The market for stimulants is bigger than ever before. And there's a rise in cultural cachet because of the associations with music.

But also the supply is greater than before. People are taking more flights. They're going on ferries. It's much easier to import cannabis and cocaine from abroad. So people, particularly from Morocco or from Turkey, There's more demand for drugs and there are more of them. And people are beginning to notice by 1967.

But also the supply is greater than before. People are taking more flights. They're going on ferries. It's much easier to import cannabis and cocaine from abroad. So people, particularly from Morocco or from Turkey, There's more demand for drugs and there are more of them. And people are beginning to notice by 1967.

But also the supply is greater than before. People are taking more flights. They're going on ferries. It's much easier to import cannabis and cocaine from abroad. So people, particularly from Morocco or from Turkey, There's more demand for drugs and there are more of them. And people are beginning to notice by 1967.

So in 1964 and 65, the number of teenagers registered with the Home Office as addicts had gone up threefold. This is being reported. And I think what happens is that drugs becomes a symbolic issue. So it's an issue in and of itself, but it also stands for deeper anxieties about the family and The impact of affluence on established habits, on immigration, cultural change, all of these things.

So in 1964 and 65, the number of teenagers registered with the Home Office as addicts had gone up threefold. This is being reported. And I think what happens is that drugs becomes a symbolic issue. So it's an issue in and of itself, but it also stands for deeper anxieties about the family and The impact of affluence on established habits, on immigration, cultural change, all of these things.

So in 1964 and 65, the number of teenagers registered with the Home Office as addicts had gone up threefold. This is being reported. And I think what happens is that drugs becomes a symbolic issue. So it's an issue in and of itself, but it also stands for deeper anxieties about the family and The impact of affluence on established habits, on immigration, cultural change, all of these things.

Exactly. And I think no one's talking about that in 1964. No. But by 1967, people are talking about it a lot. It's in the media a lot. And of course, they're reporting the scenes from the counterculture in San Francisco and so on. I mean, the first reports of that are appearing in the British press.

Exactly. And I think no one's talking about that in 1964. No. But by 1967, people are talking about it a lot. It's in the media a lot. And of course, they're reporting the scenes from the counterculture in San Francisco and so on. I mean, the first reports of that are appearing in the British press.