« Mrs Avery beats the bullies | Main | Mea culpa? »

July 02, 2009


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

Paul Flynn

There is a great deal of truth in what you say John. There are a growing vested interest in the Anti-Drugs establishment. They include corrupted prison officers, an army of drugs advisers, educators, and experts who would be unemployable if prohibition came to an end.


Well said Kay Tie re harm and banning things. The fundamental reason that drugs less harmful than tobacco and alcohol are criminalised is because of moral puritism. Were they get the idea that one drug alcohol that kills over 8,000 year is not evil yet cannabis which has killed noone is evil I have no idea.
The huge alcohol and tobacco lobbies would hate cannabis which can easily be grwon at home to be legalised. The huge number of jobs in the prison , justice and police service that would disappear overnight is also another reason that illegal drug users are disriminated against and demonised by the Chardonnay swigging moral majority.
Shame on them

Paul W

Thought you would want to read some interesting analysis at The Register on the ID Card story this week. As I said on a previous comment its all down to marketing now from the Home Office and getting business to start asking for it as a quick fix for identification. Problem is none of the businesses will have readers and it will be a visual check meaning the card will be as easy to forge as the current driving license.


Kay Tie

"We have a better politician now in charge of these decisions. I will write to him with this information."

Of course, all these "harm" arguments are a mere smokescreen for banning substances: there are plenty of harmful substances not banned (e.g. paracetamol, peanuts, alcohol) and plenty of harmless ones that are banned. The real reason for banning is an innate puritanism amongst Anglo-Saxon cultures (the US led the UN prohibition treaty). Let's not kid ourselves that any evidence of harmlessness is going to change the status quo.

We must face the truth: there are screeds of politicians out there who would ban any harmless activity that people enjoyed simply to appeal to the curmudgeonly nature of the electorate. Just look at the attempts to ban computer games ("addictive! violent!"). They seem to enjoy puritanism so much that I do wonder if they are addicted themselves..

Paul Flynn

This is an outrage Tony. Don't you need a new bank. I do not get get nonsense like this from the Co-op even though I occasionally drift into the red.

Paul Flynn

Thanks John. That is great. We have a better politician now in charge of these decisions. I will write to him with this information.


Hi Paul I would like to bring this latest report to your attention. It hsows that there is no observable link between cannabis use schizophrenia and psychosis. Jacqui Smiths justification for upgrading cannabis was that we must not gamble with the nations health. Now that the science proves that there is no such risk is she likley to reverse her decision. I doubt it we all know that the move was purely political and bsed on pandering to the media and hypocrisy

Assessing the impact of cannabis use on trends in diagnosed schizophrenia in the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005.
Frisher M, Crome I, Martino O, Croft P.

Department of Medicines Management, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom.

A recent systematic review concluded that cannabis use increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects. Furthermore, a model of the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia indicated that the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia would increase from 1990 onwards. The model is based on three factors: a) increased relative risk of psychotic outcomes for frequent cannabis users compared to those who have never used cannabis between 1.8 and 3.1, b) a substantial rise in UK cannabis use from the mid-1970s and c) elevated risk of 20 years from first use of cannabis. This paper investigates whether this has occurred in the UK by examining trends in the annual prevalence and incidence of schizophrenia and psychoses, as measured by diagnosed cases from 1996 to 2005. Retrospective analysis of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) was conducted for 183 practices in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The study cohort comprised almost 600,000 patients each year, representing approximately 2.3% of the UK population aged 16 to 44. Between 1996 and 2005 the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining. Explanations other than a genuine stability or decline were considered, but appeared less plausible. In conclusion, this study did not find any evidence of increasing schizophrenia or psychoses in the general population from 1996 to 2005.

from here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900


I have just had a run in with the HALIFAX and their actions are a blind aherance to 'the rules'

I was overdrawn beyond my limit by £25 for 5 days and the bank charges are going to amount to £91

When you talk to them there is a fixed charge of
£35 for doing it
AND £28 x 2 for two months charging period because the overdraft crossed a month boundary

So whatever you say about the banks they have not changed and if anything are playing hard ball now on everything (they had been flxible in the past)

I'm not to accept this but I thought the HALIFAX might appreciate people knowing clearly what their policies are

Bankers eh?


I know this sounds funny, but I am from California and read the story about adorable Mrs.. Avery. I was glad to read that the bureaucrats at the council had back-pedaled and decided that she could enjoy her golden years sitting outside her kitchen window enjoying the 'fruit' of her labor. I intended to write the council an email when I read about Mrs. Averys predicament the other day, but was unable to find an address for them. I intended to point out to them that at nearly 90 years old, the wait for her allotment would likely not even be as long as the 15-20 year waiting list they claim to have, chances are, that with as green a thumb as she has, the lord will have an allotment prepared for her when she is called. Anyhow, I suppose you are wondering why a woman from California would read Welsh news? My g-g-g-great grandfather was born in Wales he immigrated in the early 1800's. I also have ancestors from 8 other UK counties, paternal and maternal, I know because I am my families genealogist, that is why I read news from Wales....

Anyhow, I know you are busy,

The comments to this entry are closed.