Indeed, Farrimond sounds a lot like former US President Ronald Reagan, who gave a speech to high-school seniors in Chattanooga Tennessee about the dangers of drugs. Reagan told the kids that “drug use is still shown in a positive, upbeat way on our screens” and as a former movie star and president of the Screen Actors Guild, he wanted the film industry to be “part of the solution, not part of the problem”.

That was 1987 – fast forward 16 years and the film industry seemed like it might have been listening to Reagan’s plea. The 2003 screening of the cult classic Thirteen, depicting two teenage girls’ journey through promiscuous sex, peer pressure and drug addiction, was marketed as a means of therapy for young, drug-curious teens. At the time, The New York Times reported that brochures produced by the organisation DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) were being handed out at a Manhattan screening, while “family therapists and policy makers” had been invited to others. The film’s director Catherine Hardwicke claimed that she had wanted to create a form of “cinematherapy” by making a film “that could connect to kids and moms so they would realize they were not alone”.

Depictions of drug use on screen tend towards glamorisation or desperation. For every Scarface there is a Beautiful Boy – characters rarely toss back a few magic mushrooms to help fend off a boring Sunday afternoon. And even Scarface has nuance: screenwriter Oliver Stone has said he actually wrote it as a “revenge on cocaine” following his own addiction with the drug. Despite the decades-long panic about viewers taking their moral or ethical cues from what they see on TV or in the cinema, most people understand that drug abuse is not something to emulate. It’s impossible to watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street or series like Breaking Bad without understanding the dark and dangerous side of Class A drugs.