Charge of the Helmand Brigade

Next week in parliament is Afghanistan week.

There is a full debate on Thursday preceded by a roundtable discussion earlier with the new Foreign Secretary. David Milliband has proved he has a working brain and condemns the dangerous previous policy of a ‘war on terror’.

Gone is Des Browne and John Reid. Both believe in the previous cretinous Bush policy of a military victory. Although no one now says that a military victory is possible, the rumours of new US and UK troops surge are still hot.
Why?

Obama may be committed to this because of his election rhetoric. But he is too intelligent to believe that it will work. He has rumbled Karzai and his corrupt family and is talks with a group who may replace him. The election has been postponed until August because  ‘security cannot be guaranteed’.  That excuse can keep Karzai in power forever.

What options will David Milliband offer this week?

•    Troops surge. That will provide the Taliban with more targets. The price Britain is paying in blood and treasure will eventually destroy public support.
•    Propaganda on the terrorist threat. This is difficult for Milliband, as he has described as a ‘lie’ the line that all terrorists are the same. El Qaeda are a terrorist threat to the UK. The Taliban are not. The pretence that the UK is defended by the war in Afghanistan is piffle.
•    End corruption.  This was a policy pushed by the last crop of ministers. As foolish as trying to bomb people into democracy. Corruption has been the lubricant for business and politics in Afghanistan for centuries.
•    Winning hearts and minds. American bombs have lost hearts and minds by killing hundreds of civilians. Reconstruction is very difficult. It needed 3,000 troops and months of work to escort one turbine to a dam.
•    Call for more EU troops. The French, German and Italians will not be persuaded to send their soldiers in as sacrifices in an n unwinnable war. The French have no past colonial interest and public opinion was shocked by the deaths of 10 French soldiers in a single action.
•    Extend the war to Pakistan. A great folly to engage another unstable state-especially one with a nuclear bomb.
•    Deals with the warlords and Taliban. This is the only practical step that will bring our troops home. Deals have already been done successfully. The situation after 8 years of war is that the Taliban control almost as much territory as they did in 2001, Osama Bin Laden has shifted his safe base to Pakistan, there are 100 new millionaires among the Karzai supporters and drugs crops have had three record years.

Stoned or drunk?

The Drugs-Misuse Group in parliament, which I co-chair, has a knowledgeable expert addressing us on Wednesday.

Professor David Nutt, who chairs the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), says the risk to mental health from smoking cannabis is no greater than getting drunk. Men who take cannabis regularly have a one in 5,000 chance of developing a disease like schizophrenia.

"We've written three reports and read every paper published for the last 30 years. We do not believe the risks are going up," he said.

"When we look at the evidence, we have seen a huge increase in the use of cannabis but a fall in schizophrenia. Alcohol is probably more likely to cause dependence than cannabis.”

"It causes brain damage through vitamin deficiency and withdrawal can lead to psychosis. Overall the mental health risks of alcohol and cannabis are not dissimilar."

Not that the truth will stop he brigade of scaremongers from grossly exaggerating the risks. They include many MPs and Ministers. It would nice to see them at Wednesday’s meeting airing their prejudices. Not much chance of that, but we will invite them.

Comments

[patrick]

It's clearly pointless paying for advisory Councils, Independant Panels etc. All they ever do is study sound science and come up with good ideas for the government of the day to again ignore.
Governmental drug policy amounts to, let's take the knives off the streets but we'll leave the bombs and guns.
Nothing is ever funnier than the man in the pub with fag in one hand pint in the other complaining about "the druggies."
If we are ever to have a level playing field on drugs and as it is the 21st Century
then alcohol and tobacco need reclassification.
As both these socially acceptable, recreational drugs cause more deaths than all the 'hard' drugs combined is it not insane that both are legally available at your local store?

[John]

In the week that Cannabis was upgraded so that users now face a maximum of 5 years for its use we had the Government suggesting that children under 15 shouldn't be given alcohol. The outrage expressed at this Government advice from the Daily Mail to Any Questions was almost uniform. They spouted on about our rights and leave parents alone and the interferance of the nanny state.
Alcohol according to Professor Nutt if classified should be a class A drug and Cannabis should remain at C.
THe hypocrisy of these people that they demand the right to give their children alcohol but at the same time want to imprison adults for using a safer alternative is totally inconsistent and illogical.
It seems that the only danger of schizophrenia from cannabis is from those who have not used it but want to imprison those that do.

[Kay Tie]

Why, when professionals (like chief constables) know prohibition is a failure, and when anyone who cares to look at the evidence objectively knows it's a failure, do ministers and others insist on hyping up the evidence to back prohibition? I just don't understand why the dam hasn't burst yet.

"cause more deaths than all the 'hard' drugs combined is it not insane that both are legally available at your local store?"

I'm afraid it's the opposite conclusion you must draw: when I drink a glass of wine every day and suffer no ill effects, why should alcohol be illegal? Why should other drugs with no worse effects be illegal? Why should someone be sent to prison in the name of protecting them from themselves?

[patrick]

What i'm suggesting is in order to send out a clear and consistent message either alcohol and tobacco be reclassified as more dangerous than cannabis (which indeed they are) or alternatively cannabis becomes available at the newsagent.

[Huw]

Many people understand that prohibition does not work, after all we had the example of the U.S. prohibition on alcohol in the early part of the twentieth century.
It not only failed to prevent the problems caused by alcohol but also generated the levels of crime and violence in relation to alcohol that we are familiar with today in relation to illicit drugs.
As well as, of course, criminalising large numbers of ordinary people.
However while many people do understand this, many, many others do not and they are the ones who reward politicians who take what's known as a "hard line" on drugs.
It would be as an effort to get those many, many ignorant and thoughtless people to grasp the absurdity of prohibition to properly place alcohol in particular in its appropriate category in relation to other drugs.

As we know, those who love their pints or shorts, both the moderate drinkers and the binge drinkers, would suddenly find that they were not actually in favour of people being criminalised and fined or imprisoned
for simple purchasing or using their drug. Nor would they be happy to have the supplies of their drug of choice being controlled by gangsters and killers.

At that point, it would be possible to have rational legislation regarding the use of "recreational" drugs.

Of course, it is highly unlikely that any western government would ever choose to put alcohol in its correct context as a harmful drug and if they did, we know they would get it wrong and just repeat prohibition again.

Even when a government does try something new, they still feel the need to hold on to insanity. For example, the Dutch who I truly admire for trying a different approach made it legal to buy and smoke marijuana in "coffee shops" but even they did not have the sense to provide a legal route for coffee shops to obtain their stock.

I don't know why so many governments and politicians can get it so wrong, but I know that when they do if the electorate don't care then stupidity and irrationality magnify.

The question is, as always, what does it take to make the electorate care?

[patrick]

"The question is, as always, what does it take to make the electorate care?"

In order to get a decent number of people involved in important issues i put forward the following suggestion.
During the next series of X factor and following the really serious singing stuff we could have a series of tele votes on important issues.That way Chantelle and cameillia can vote on which drug should be legal or who to drop bombs on etc.

If you analyse the existing alternative -
Important vote - MPS sound off their dissaproval - Big Gordon does his Horse trading - Nearly all the rebels back off -
Government wins the day.

Bring on Vote Factor!