« Where Bush still rules | Main | Sung Hero - Gordon Prentice »

January 31, 2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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!


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

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.

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?

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.

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?

The comments to this entry are closed.