8 posts tagged “drugs”

The last question of the Q&A was an amalgam of 3 questions emailed in on drugs, mine(with a typo introduced) and two others on a similar theme - i.e. prohibition, crime and prescribing heroin to addicts.

And then after merging the 3 questions together they talked about addiction for a couple of minutes, and the need for more evidence before making diamorphine available by prescription.. for a handful of addicts.. cost 15 grand a year (but only because we have a monopoly supplier that charges 7 times more than the dutch pay).

Nobody talked much at all about how prohibition was causing problems, only the lady from the Prison Reform Trust mentioned the problem of criminalisation, and the fact that most addicts turned to drugs because they had other problems - essentially the drug addiction was the symptom of their problems rather than the cause, and how criminalisation makes that worse rather than better.

All in all a very very disappointing response, totally ignoring the 2 questions that asked directly about prohibition and decriminalisation, and Brian injecting random punctuation into my question.

Thanks to the amazing Ryan Cullen for leading me to it, answering my bitching about how hard it is to find any specific piece of information about what actually happened at conference.

Sometimes it feels like the name of our party is just a name, as meaningless or even misleading as when East Germany was called "German Democratic Republic"!

If only Chris Huhne and Nick Clegg had the guts to break the westminster taboo and making this an issue.

"adults should be free to make lifestyle decisions without the intervention of the state", it's hardly contreversial anymore if the Guardian to The Economist, as well as more than 50% of the public support the end of drug prohibition.

Really - Is "Liberal Democrats" just a name or is it a statement of our principles?

From a recent party mailing :

Monday 21st September (morning) - Crime Policy: Panel including Chris Huhne MP (Shadow Home Secretary), Jan Berry (Independent Reducing Bureaucracy Advocate), Juliet Lyon (Director, Prison Reform Trust) and Professor Larry Sherman (Wolfson Professor of Criminology, University of Cambridge)

Apparently I can ask a question even if I'm not present, so I thought why spend time working on a good question on our drug policy and have it be ignored, if I can get some other names and craft a better set of questions backed by a group of like-minded members?

I'd basically like to point out that despite the soundbites about 'wake up calls' from party leaders and spokespeople each time a report comes out, none of them have spoken out or even bothered to mention existing party policy from nearly half a decade ago, let alone revisit it - so surely the time has come to put together a working group to update our drug policy with the new information available now, from Transform's reports, to the successes and problems of decriminalisation in Portugal.

It's really time for the 3rd party to stand out from Labour and Conservatives and bite the bullet on an issue that the westminster bubble finds taboo, and be.. well.. Liberal.

The BBC Breakfast editorial team seem to really have an agenda on cannabis, once agin this morning they wheeled out a reformed cannabis abuser and his mum to say how it's horrible really and you shouldn't touch the stuff.

It's infuriating that anecdotes seem to trump science, they didn't even bother attempting balance - throwing softball or scripted questions, no doctor, no scientist, nothing.

We never get anything about prescription drugs, or alcohol, yes they continue to demonize cannabis.

God forbid that anyboy be allowed to use anything naughty in moderation - it's ok for the presenters to have a couple of glasses of wine a night, but drugs are *bad* and "even trying them will run your life".

.. Looks like this is tied in with the new homeoffice "talk to frank" campaign on soft drugs - the "impartial" service that's part of the home office and follows their bizarre logic on drugs - playing down the dangers of alcohol and playing up the dangers of anything the home office feels it needs to "send a message" on.

Have you ever seen any "talk to frank" ads about the dangers of underage drinking? No, of course not.

f**ktards.

How many scientific reports do we need before we can have the "science based" policy that Nick Clegg says we should have ?

Back on the 31st of July the Commons Science Select Committee released their recomended rating system as part of their report on drugs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/31_07_06_drugsreport.pdf).

Anything from our front bench..? No - Just Nick Clegg giving us more "we need more science" hot air and dithering.

Back in March Sir Menzie Campbell claimed that the report was "a wake-up call. Our current policies are clearly not working. We need a non-partisan debate about the way forward." that was when they were discussing the initial findings

So has the front bench woken up ?

It's been, what 4 or 5 years since the last drafting of party policy on drugs, how many reports from scientists, doctors and MPs have we had in that time ? 6, 7, 8 ?

So where is this debate ? None of the front bench are prepared to stick their neck out, even our "radical" new leader is solumnly silent or tries to avoid the subject - Jock barely getting a sentance from him on the subject in the blogger interview with him, and that was just hot air.

Both Nick Clegg and Menzies Campbell have had ample opportunities to make an issue of this and really show the failings of Tory and Labour party policies, but have failed - when Brian Paddick spoke out on the subject, Nick Clegg was quick to call his sensible and well researched suggestions "too radical" - which is crazy and backward, it was exactly what Nick and the shadow justice minister / home secretary should have been pushing.

It's crazy that a supposedly Liberal party is taking an attitude of "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, do nothing" on what is probably the largest social problem in the western world of the late 20th and early 21st century.

I know there are some illiberal lib dems who oppose sensible drug legalisation, but we are a liberal party and proclaim to base policies on common sense, freedom, justice and in this case "science", so WTF is going on ?

Apparently the Home Secretary isn't being Tough On Drugs enough for Tom Brake (LD MP for Wallington), so he sent a letter questioning why it's legal for shops to sell hookah pipes (which apparently can only be used for drugs like opium or skunk, and would be impossible to use, say cherry flavour or turkish tobacco in)..... because we need MORE LAWS CRIMINALISING SOFT DRUGS!!! WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???! .. sorry.

Cllr Jayne McCoy is organising a protest outside the shop and calling for parents ( WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???!... ahem) to come and make themselves heard. Because somebodies child could buy a hemp tote bag or sandals, or a joss stick stand or some oversizzed Rizzlas or THE HORROR a T-Shirt with a Cannabis Sattiva leaf on it, or worse SOME KIND OF SICK JUNKIE HUMOUR on it.

So Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales, has published a 30 page report advocating an end to drug prohibition. It builds on his experience, the experience of medical, police, social and scientific experts including the Royal Society, yet Nick Clegg thought it went too far.

Apparently he's "not persuaded that full legalisation is the way forward but what is necessary is that a more logical and evidence-based approach is needed" - hang on! ..we've had 3 reports now suggesting a logical evidence-based, which would be legalisation and regulation.

...perhaps he's waiting for some other approach that is logical, and evidence-based but somehow maintains the status quo of prohibition - perhaps rejig the classification system a bit. God forbid the liberal democrats should fail to sit on the fence on a major issue, even if it's the definition of liberalism. Some of the commenters on the guardian article today about the party are right - the lib dems aren't a socially liberal party after all.

To be honest, with the 2nd leadership election in 2 years, a total lack of socially liberal policies and a total inability to get a social liberal and social democratic message accross to the public and media I might as well join the Green Party - they might not elected either but at least they still have their principles!

To actually be tough on the causes of crime and immigration means doing almost exactly the opposite of Tory and New Labour's rhetoric.

Fortunately, even if it's only in one area, the Lib Dems are pushing something powerful through - if you legitimise those who entered the country illegally, but live productive and innocent lives here, then you cut off the lifeblood of the underground and criminal elements.

Taxation, representation, and removal of fear from reprisal turns the oppressed migrants into a powerful force against the system that encourages illegal immigration and illegal workers - the traffickers, the gangs, the dodgy networks organising sham marriages and finding work that pays well below the minimum wage and with no protection for workers.

Odd then that the Labour party that traditionally represented the workers, now targets them instead of the organised criminals that are the real problem.

The same kind of logic works well when applied to other key social problems that the electorate care about - drugs and prostitution : by legitimising and decriminalising, you remove these activities from the hands of organised crime, and can provide statuary protection and regulations, workers rights, safety / quality control, and reduce the resulting petty crime.

Hopefully, the Liberal Democrat party leaders will grow enough backbone to deal with drugs and the sex industry in the same mature, rational and sensible way as immigration. Daily Mail readers won't vote for a liberal democrat we would recognise anyway - why bother trying to get them on board - all we have to do is provide the public with enough facts and start a rational debate, there's no point trying to get the Diana-hugging-darkie-hating-middle-englanders onboard.