Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Legalise drugs

The Englishman reports that our One-Eyed King is determined to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug.
Cannabis is to be reclassified as a Class B drug after an official review this spring, The Times has learnt.

Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith are determined to reverse the decision to downgrade the drug when the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completes its report in the next few months.

While its recommendations are not yet known, ministers are already making plain that the Home Secretary is prepared to overrule the expert body if necessary.

What the fucking hell is the point of commissioning a bunch of so-called experts to produce a report if you are going to proceed with a course of action regardless of the recommendations?

If this is what Brown is going to do, will the monocular cunt pay the costs of the report out of his own pocket? Because, if he is not going to take its advice I don't see how he can possibly justify spending our money on it.

This is all bullshit; pay attention to police chief, Richard Brunstrom, because he's talking sense.
Call me the mad mullah of the police but drugs should be legal

Brunstrom refers to 20 substances listed in a “hierarchy of harm” printed in The Lancet last year. The league table is headed by heroin, closely followed by cocaine, with alcohol in fifth place, tobacco ninth, cannabis 11th and ecstasy 18th. If ecstasy, as he stated on Radio 4’s Today programme last week, was “far safer than aspirin” how does he respond to the parents whose children have died after taking a pill?

The policeman has a broad answer: “There has not been a single case of someone dying as a result of being poisoned by ecstasy.

“The most famous case is that of Leah Betts, a young girl who actually died of water poisoning in 1995. Because ecstasy causes you to be thirsty, she drank too much water. Her brain stem was crushed and her heart stopped. My advice to everybody is don’t take ecstasy in the first place. But why should it be a criminal offence? It may be stupid, but why should you be arrested and prosecuted?”

His latest campaign has prompted the tabloids to replay a peal of clangers by the 52-year-old Londoner. Notable was his decision to display photographs of a headless motorcyclist to a public conference without asking the family’s permission. There have been calls for his resignation, including a petition last year on the Downing Street website that attracted 3,000 signatures. Why has he invited such vilification? “Because it matters. I think I have a public duty to speak out.”

Legalise drugs, educate people about their effects, regulate the purity of the drugs. It's a very simple idea and it is the only reasonable one.


V said...

Anonymous said...

Hi DK they do it because they have to look like they are taking everyones view into consideration they have made their minds up on everything already like europe, iraq, the third runway at heathrow etc. they just have to look like they care about things although they don't.

I have found this with the economy especially they have decided that interest rates need to be low to decrease inflation but that means that people borrow lots which means that the price of everyting increases due to this demand especially house prices. This means that people have to get more debt to buy a house and have to work to pay off their mortgage this increases productivity because everyone has to work to get out of debt.

The economic situation is set up to control people and they have put together a load of rubbish papers to justify this and try to make out that the economy is stable buy cooking the books. it is the same as when they say that they have a interest in things to make it look like they are interested in improving things but the only thing that they are interested in is their power maintaining that power and controlling the mass populas.

The shame is that most people believe it and think that nothing else will work and fool thmselves that they will be in a good position in the future. This will not happen to very many people.

The only thing that people like you and me hve is the decisions that we make in our own lives like how we treat people and the respect that we show others. In time the politicians will lose power, get thrown out or die and then have nothing not even their self respect or the respect of other people, which is the only thing that really matters any way, the only thing that has any value is the relationships that you have will other people and this cannot be forced or bought only earned.

Anonymous said...

@anon 01:59

'the only thing that has any value is the relationships that you have will other people and this cannot be forced or bought only earned'

Better say this quietly. They will soon be locking you up not just for paying for, but even for 'earning', some relationships. :)

Trixy said...

And aren't prisons full? Class B drugs carry a maximum sentence of 5 years rather than confiscation of splif and, even worse, your packet of hobnobs.

Murderers in prison or a few dope heads? hmmm. Know which one I'd prefer!

anthonynorth said...

Overall I'm in favour of legalising drugs, but there are consequences that have always existed with drugs that are not often realised.
There is a distinct difference between middleclass usage and poorer people. With a relatively stable, affluent lifestyle, drugs, to the middleclass, can correctly be recreational without the same degree of dangers to those who's life is thought of as more pathetic.
Whether this is simply them being self-defeatist is irrelevant to the fact that they are more likely to see drugs as an escape from their life, and thus be more open to addiction.
I sometimes feel this isn't taken into account when the middleclass assess the subject.

Shug Niggurath said...

Funny subject, I've been both pro and anti legalisation over the years, and both an abstainer and taker too.

What's fucking difficult is being pro-legalisation when, no matter what, addiction leads to criminal acts to pay for that addiction. Then it stops being a freedom issue because someone elses freedoms are being abused.

Certainly if alcohol is available, with whatever health benefits and potential pratfalls it has, it seems churlish to ban so many other substances that affect the senses.

But as adults, we should be able to pick and choose our vices, and it's not good enough for the government to feel it needs to protect me from myself. I never asked them to do that, and to be honest, when they asked for my vote they never offered that service.

Anonymous said...

Nobody has the right to tell me what substances I may or may not put in my own body. End of story.

Why is this government still in power? Paramount war criminals and petty crooks have no business passing legislation.

The Sage of Muswell Hill said...

I remember the moral panic of the 60s when heroin became no longer available from any doctor but only available from a restricted list of clinics. This was due in part to one loony doc issuing precriptions as if they were sociology degrees. So successful has this policy - followed by progressively restrictive policies - been that, instead of having, what, 600 registered heroin addicts in the early 60s UK we have tens of thousands (?) of unregistered ones. Brilliant!

Anonymous said...

Surely the only reason drugs are illegal is because the government don't control the supply in the same way that they do say, tobacco. If the government controlled the supply they could regulate it, charge duty and get income and hey, presto, it'll be legal in a shot. Because they can't control who gets the dosh i.e them, they say it's illegal.

Anonymous said...

The idea that the consumption of mind-altering drugs is a purely private matter depends on the assumption of personal choice and personal responsibility - i.e. you do what you choose and you take responsibility for any negative consequences that may ensue.

But in Britain today we have a welfare state, which turns the consequences of private choice into a matter of public policy. So if we combine the legalisation of drugs with a welfare state we get a large number of unemployable and/or workshy habitual drug users who expect to be supported by the taxpayer, and a legion of bureaucrats who are only too happy to oblige them. This would quickly discredit any policy of drug legalisation in the eyes of most voters, as it would come to be seen as a free ride for wasters.

It follows that any general legalisation of drugs would only be practical after the abolition of the welfare state and the discrediting of the assumptions that support it.

Anonymous said...

andrew z.,
I will completely second that, and add reform of the criminal justice system that treats being under the influence in the commission of a crime as a mitigating rather than aggravating factor.

If one wants to instill "responsible" drug-taking, then the drug-takers should have consequences for the effects their behaviour has on others.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...