« Why 2014? | Main | Mannigham-Buller and me... »

July 19, 2010

Comments

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

HuwOS

In that article from the Telegraph, a mother is quoted saying
“There are children as young as 10 getting involved in drug use. Recreational drugs are addictive – that is why there are controlled.”

Why is it that people believe that the ban, means they are controlled. If I read the article correctly, her 14 year old son smoked cannabis but she still thinks the ban offers control and further she mentions 10 year olds are using drugs despite the ban.

All the ban does as I think most readers here agree, is abandon control, refuse control, refuse responsibility and creates a lot more problems than the drugs alone.

The misuse of drugs can an does cause problems, but dealing with those problems by criminalising everyone involved doesn't in fact deal with those problems at all while generating problems that would not otherwise exist.
It's lose lose and the sooner people face up to the real issues the better.

Sam

Posted by: HuwOS | July 20, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Sam

The right wing is going to shit many bricks over this, the Torygraph has already gotten the standard responses about "sending a message" and "these drugs are harmful" rolled out.

Really? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100047892/the-chairman-of-the-bar-council-is-right-to-say-we-should-consider-decriminalising-drugs/

That's a blogger through the Telegraph, not a Telegraph journo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7899254/Decriminalise-personal-drug-use-suggests-chairman-of-the-Bar-Council.html

Try that one on for size, sending a message, outraged MPs etc

Paul Flynn

KayTie, I live in hope that if a party leader came out for a sane pragmatic drug policy, many of their MPS would rally in support and say in public what they say in private.

HuwOS

I didn't post anything of the sort GMB old chap.
It is a misattribution, however I will not sue.

GMB

Posted by: HuwOS | July 20, 2010 at 01:59 PM
Sam

The right wing is going to shit many bricks over this, the Torygraph has already gotten the standard responses about "sending a message" and "these drugs are harmful" rolled out.

Really? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewmcfbrown/100047892/the-chairman-of-the-bar-council-is-right-to-say-we-should-consider-decriminalising-drugs/

Propensity

HuwOS,

Yes, self destructive.

Best Wishes!

HuwOS

Society hasn't failed them Propensity.
It has in reality deliberately acted against both their and it's own best interests.

Other than that, you won't find any argument here.

The savings to be made by legalisation and control, are enormous.
Apart from that there is the tax that could be generated from the legal sale of the least harmful substances, not something to sniff at, ahem, especially if balancing the budget is your goal.

Propensity

Society has failed those citizens who either take adulterated heroin or accidentally overdose. An appropriate dose of heroin, in its pure form is non-toxic. Society has failed those citizens who choose to snort 'plant food' or any other available 'legal high', because natural cannabis which has never killed anyone, is illegal.

The prohibition genie has been out of the bottle since the 'war on drugs' was launched by a prejudiced and morally bankrupt President Richard Nixon in order to be seen by the white middle middle class as 'tough on crime'.

Citizens in a civilized society would have access to controlled non-toxic drugs, without criminalisation. Citizens in a civilized society would have access to accurate information about various drugs relative harms. Citizens in a civilized society would have access to care if they are harmed, as with any substance, by these drugs. Citizens in a civilized society, given the choice, would choose a productive and rich life over oblivion.

History has shown that society can not prevent some of its citizens taking drugs, rightly or wrongly, for whatever reason, even when incarcerated in maximum security prisons.

Drug prohibition in its current form is indefensible on all but misinformed moral grounds.

HuwOS

Interesting to see Baroness Manningham-Buller say that in the preparation of the infamous dossier, "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence into it and we refused because we did not think that it was reliable."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10693001

It reminded me of the quote I heard that Robert Lindsay and Zoë Wanamaker refused to perform a script for "My Family" because it wasn't good enough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/3664078/Why-my-face-doesnt-always-fit.html

Amazing what passes the quality test for some isn't it.

Sam

The right wing is going to shit many bricks over this, the Torygraph has already gotten the standard responses about "sending a message" and "these drugs are harmful" rolled out.

HTTP Spy

interesting post! that's a quite surprising there. wew!

Paul Flynn

I live in hope KayTie. The new group on the Public Administration Committee are an interesting lot. They might surprise.

Kay Tie

Unfortunately, if the Coalition tried to do something on the War on Drugs the opposition would give them hell. It would be nice if politics could be taken out of this and have a free vote on a bill.

The comments to this entry are closed.