Laws that kill

It was nearly ten years ago that Channel Four broadcast a brilliant denunciation of drug policy by Nick Davies. The theme was almost identical to a new series starting tomorrow night at eight on Four - The Drugs laws are more deadly than the drugs.

I was involved in the first series  but I have no knowledge of the details of this one. The trailer is encouraging. I hope he includes the best argument that has appeared since 2001. The courageous politicians of Portugal has cut drug deaths by 50%. No other drug reform has achieved a similar reduction.

Operation Empty Vessel

While nothing much is happening in the vacuous publicity stunt of Operation Black Prince, an Afghan crowd in Kabul chanted 'Death to Americans' after an accident. The reported 'IED factory' discovered is likely to turn out to be someone's garage with a couple of bags of fertiliser in it. The embedded reporters are straining every sinew to say something of any substance about this non-event.

A well informed reporter claims that NATO has advance 20 kilometres in a year - at enormous cost in blood and terror. Helmand Province is three times the size of Wales. The Taliban occupy 70% of the land. Progress at this rate will achieve victory in 350 years.

Congratulations to the Dutch and Canadian parliaments. They debated and voted to withdraw their troops. Today for the Dutch, next year for the Canadians. I'm not optimistic but for the first time British MPs will vote in September. I hope all MPs will be lobbied to justify their votes.

Comments

[John]

Not only are we daily seeing the futility of the Afghan war the channel 4 documentary will highlight the ongoing total failure of the war on drugs that has been waging for 40 years or more.

Its premise reading the previews and interviews with the director is that at the cost of over £13 billion annually we are intercepting just 1% of currently uncontrolled drugs in the UK especially heroin.

I won't use the term illegal drugs because really it is a misnomer. If anyone reads the Misuse of Drugs act ( as successive Governments have failed to do )drugs themselves are not illegal it is the activity of the person that is illegal. A couple of things about the act that are important to know
The Act seeks to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects, to society and individuals, which may occur via the misuse of "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs".
In seeking to reduce or eliminate these harmful effects, the Act provides for the flexible regulation of property rights re "dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs".
All drugs capable of being misused are within the Act’s ambit.

In fact the MDA doesn't really proscribe for prohibition it asks that any drug liable to become a public health problem should come under the control of Government. We have controlled drugs like alcohol and tobacco and uncontrolled drugs like cannabis and heroin.

By perpetuating the state were we ahve uncontrolled drugs we have seriulsy increased their potential to harm as the programme says the prohibition of drugs causes more health problems than the drugs themselves.

Our politicians will ignore this as usual just like with Afghanistan they are so blinkered to the reality of the situation they have no credibility whatsoever. understands

[HuwOS]

Channel 4 carrying article about increased payouts for "accidental" killings of civilians by our troops.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/afghan+casualties+uk+payouts+for+civilian+deaths+apostrebleapos/3690482

"$875 (£584) was paid out last year to the family of a nine year old girl shot in the head.
$950 (£634) was paid for the death of a 10-year-old boy.

In one case the Ministry of Defence also paid out $300 (£200) for a lost mobile phone."

On that scale 3 phones = 1 child between 9 and 10.
While I am sure that the payment for the phone is particularly unusual, it is distressing to see how little we value the lives of others, even full grown adults are apparently valued at only around $4,500 dollars.

The predictable result of our actions on those we don't "accidentally" kill is,

"I hate them, [the foreigners], especially when I see them. I hate them every time, as I remember my family."

[Paul Flynn]

Those are chilling figures Huw.

[Paul Flynn]

I appreciate the point that you make John. However using the 'expression 'controlled drugs' for drugs that are obviously wildly out of control is also misleading.

[John]

Hi Paul you have not read my post correctly. Controlled drugs are alcohol and tobacco uncontrolled drugs are cannabis ecstasy etc.

If we started to use these terms instead of illegal and legal we could probably get past the knee jerk reaction to the term illegal drugs that our population has been conditioned into.

Noone wants uncontrolled drugs yet that is what the current state of prohibition allows

[HuwOS]

After all if vocal people were able to change the opinion on smacking of children from perfectly normal to being or practically being child abuse in the space of one generation, there must be hope that society can make the invasion and occupation of other countries along with the tens of thousands of deaths and maimings that go with them, also unacceptable.

But people really have to say so, quite loudly and a lot, even unpleasantly, perhaps even contemptuously.
To get the best feeling behind your comments, try to imagine, if you need to that the person defending those actions is talking about raping your wife or is explaining why they had to murder your children.

I know your view on this DG so I am aware you disagree and feel that people need to be led and encouraged to change their view.
There could well be room for that for some, but I feel it panders to them and is doomed to failure as it gives them excuses to stick to their positions.
In the past, rape was often excused as young men sowing their wild oats, we have a different view now, one that is not about gently leading people away from that belief but about the utter contempt we hold people in who try to justify rape.
Just as an example.

[HuwOS]

I think John makes a very good point Paul.
A good use of language to reframe the debate to reflect the reality as opposed to the fantasy.

Of course they already have used the term controlled substances to describe the uncontrolled drugs, perhaps you could suggest a correction in parliament Paul.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks John, I did mis-read your contribution. It's a good point.