The Glass Box for Monday
is the place to comment on the content of tonight's programme.
Comments
- Labour 0.64% of popular vote s per seat
- Conservatives 1.05% of popular vote per seat, and
- Lib-Dems 2.3% of popular vote per seat.
In other words, it took 1.6 times as many votes to elect a Conservative MP as a Labour MP, and a whopping 3.59 times as many votes to elect a Lib-Dem MP.
Surely this shows a system in need of change. It can't be right that some peoples votes count more than others....
Tippers @ 29, did the Durham figure of 50% of accidents having drugs implicated in them include the drug alcohol? And did it include the legal, prescribed medical drugs that have been implicated in a fair few road traffic incidents in other places? I think that 50% sounds rather 'pat' to me, and I would want a proper breakdown of the figures before I took it as meaning that more people use illegal drugs than use alcohol plus piriton and all the rest. I'd also want to know whether the fact that anyone in either vehicle had been drinking meant drink was deemed to be 'related' to the accident even if collision was not caused by the person who had drink taken, which I know happens in other areas. People over the alcohol limit who have been rammed in the side by a sober idiot end up with the blame, sometimes.
Vyle Hernia @ 40, I would bet that your friend's son also ate meat, dairy products or wheat, probably all three? Drank coke, maybe, or milk? Had been prescribed a drug or two, or even bought them over the counter? You assert that he 'wrecked his mind with cannibis', but without rather more data about what the state of his mind was before and what other factors might be involved, I don't think that's necessarily good evidence. His mind went while he was also smoking cannibis, and doing a lot of other things too. Blaming cannibis is easy, and doesn't address any of the other problems that might leave any one else feeling perhaps a little guilty or inadequate.
The 'moralistic guff' is designed to show that something is being done about a problem, not necessarily that what is being done is helping. It is clear from the rise in all the figures about drugs, drink and mental diseases of one sort and another over the past fifty years that whatever is being done is *not* reducing the incidence of damage to people. Not only the number of cases but the percentage of the population being malaffected is rising, not falling.
I listened last night to Richard Brunstrom, and I think he did point out that what he was asked for was an off-the-wall take on the problem: so he gave one. I believe the current buzz-phrase is 'thinking outside the box'. All power to him. His is a more constructive proposal than the alternatives -- which clearly DO NOT WORK -- have looked so far.
Vyle (40),
"Glad to see the logic going out of the window on drugs."
Where's the logic in the "war on drugs"? Any successes to report from the front? When do we expect to be able to start bringing the troops home?
;-)
ed
Fearless Fred @ 49, how did you *do* that? your post seems to be about seven posts, and runs into its own complaint box and centres bits of it, and then goes straight into the post after it! Wow!
40 Vyle Hernia
In April of 2007, the American Association for Cancer Research published the following findings from researchers at Harvard University, who tested THC - the actice compound in cannabis - in both lab and mouse studies: They found the active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread.
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.
THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.
"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.
Well, you know what we think about it:
Chris (50) Are you suggesting that the ever-increasing availability of alcohol (longer hours, lower prices etc.) is improving the drunkenness situation? My interpretation of the evidence is otherwise, and I cannot see how treating currently illegal drugs in a similar fashion would have the opposite effect. There are plenty of adults prepared to supply alcohol to children...
I have heard that in Holland they queue up for their now-legal fixes, and it's a grim sight.
Vyle (48),
"Experts would probably say we could interpolate from the figures that if everyone eligible had voted, 45% would have voted Labour"
More of the same 'logic'? Can you explain?
Perhaps you're implying the 'experts' would be from the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office?
Salaam, etc.
ed
panic: can't find /
It's amazing how many people you could be friends with if only they'd make the first approach.
Tue Oct 16 13:05:00 BST 2007
Heh heh heh, Chris!(52) It's what you get when you play around with unordered list definitions in HTML :)
Well said Mr Brunstrom, man of uncommon common sense! I find his argument admirably logical. Free of hysteria, scaremongering and ill-informed panic. Not a new idea but one that has always been worth exploring sensibly.
To open up a related angle for debate, it isn't drug use that's the problem, it's drug abuse.
An enormous number of ordinary people take all manner of wierd and wonderful drugs to no ill effect. They hold down jobs, pay huge mortages and bring up nice, polite, well behaved children.
They're the weekend warriors: teachers, builders, solicitors, IT workers, farmers, engineers, retail assistants, students, dentists and doctors. Managers, Directors, Assistants, delivery staff and retired people. And they're aged anywhere between eighteen and a hundred.
This respectable, discreet and well behaved segment of society causes no problems for our culture as a whole. Nor for the police in particular. So why criminalise them?
Keep the debate hot! It'd be a shame if it died a death yet again...
Fearless Fred @ 56
Fiend!
:-)
Oddly the amount of text shown in bold varies between IE and SafΓ‘ri. What's it like in FΓrefox?
Fine in FF, Ffred. Just the sentence (with typo) about how many seats per % popvote in bold.
(quite appropriate)
;-)
ed
One measure of friendship consists not in the number of things friends can discuss, but in the number of things they need no longer mention.
-- Clifton Fadiman
Quote Vyle post 41 Why did a friend of mine tell me his son had wrecked his mind with cannabis?
Because he might well be right - my son used cannabis excessively as a teenager and now has paranoid schizophrenia. The sad thing is that there is an incrdible rigidity in th attitudes of his cannbis using friends. They continue to offer him cannabis, he takes it, it makes him ill again and he is back on a section. People have great diffilculty in accepting that its effects are different for different people.
Which is why it should be legalised - not because its safe because it very much isnt for some young people - but because until its legalised cannabis users wont acknowledge its downside. It should be legalised and regulated with all drugs - there should not be a special case for cannabis.
Mary (61),
I feel strong and warm support and solidarity for you and your son. You don't need to say more. Nor do I.
(((((((((frug)))))))))) (it's harmless)
ed
Listening to the Cheif of North Wales Police Officer I am stunned that their are people in such position able to see the wood for the tree's and advocate policy that actually makes sense and stands a chance of reducing - rather then increasing - the total human suffering caused by drugs. The war on drugs is a staggering failure and I'm tired of self serving politicians repeating the same old mantra simply because they are terrified for their positions - rather then wanting what is best for the people of this country. I also happen to believe in FREEDOM.
Well done Mr Brunstrom - you may be one of the true prophets of our time.
It's a shame the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is still in the dust - terrified for their cosey jobs no doubt.
in response to Vyle Hernia (40)
A friend of yours tell you his son had wrecked his mind with cannabis. Well thats very sad for him. A friend of mines son recently had a grand mall seizure while watching television. Television certainly triggered the seizor but was assuredly not the root cause of his epilepsy.
My point being that minds are very resilient organs and it takes a willful amount of protracted abuse to damage them if not previously flawed
.
Your friend's son didn't need cannabis to achieve his woeful mental condition and had , for the sake of argument, the war on drugs resulted in the extinction of the hemp phylum your friends son would be huffing glue, drinking fermented juice boxes, sniffing aerosols and eating instant coffee by the spoonful not to mention snorting nitrous oxide from cans of whipped cream or drinking nutmeg.
It is simply not possible by force of legislation to prevent people from being willfully destructive of their own health , mental or otherwise.
However were your friends son to seek help for whatever obsessive compulsive disorder / issue or plain stupidity that has driven him to switch from glucose to THC as the primary fuel for mental activity. Under the war on drugs system he would have no choice but to be criminalized first.
Very little human activity is risk free and I stand a far higher risk of premature death from having eaten pre CJD beef and gone to a school clad in asbestos and painted in lead then I do from my current lifestyle comprising as it does of a good diet and fair portion of exercise along side my continued use of cannabis.
Sure, inhaled cannabis smoke is most likely a carcinogen. I would however refute any comparison to cigarette smoke simply due to the vast discrepancy in volume inhaled. But any air borne irritant is carcinogenic.
Informed consent, personal responsibility and considerate behavior are moral issues. Whether one prefers a pint of beer or a joint are not.
Joe (64),
One of each, please
Slainte
ed
QOTD:
"In the shopping mall of the mind, he's in the toy department."
Mary @ 61, I am with Ed. Sympathy and admiration to you in a dreadful state of affairs. Whatever the substance, to have its effects ignored in such a way is horrible; if people deliberately gave sugar to a diabetic it would be a vile thing to do, yet somehow giving cannabis to your son is thought to be ok. That's horrible.
Vyle Hernia @ 54 wrote:
'Chris (50) Are you suggesting that the ever-increasing availability of alcohol (longer hours, lower prices etc.) is improving the drunkenness situation? My interpretation of the evidence is otherwise, and I cannot see how treating currently illegal drugs in a similar fashion would have the opposite effect. There are plenty of adults prepared to supply alcohol to children... '
I think that people having so little self-control that they get drunk all the time without shame is utterly deplorable, and was predictable from the start. You've put forward a reasonable argument on that particular aspect of matters, but it seems to me that aspect is not the only, nor the most important, one. (The solution to the problems with the availability of alcohol 24/7 is to reduce the hours during which it is available, on the grounds that this has had bad effects: it's an entirely different argument. If sugar made people behave horribly in the street, not selling it after midnight would seem a fairly obvious way to stop its sale and the bad behaviour, no?)
I think someone else's comment about the difference between use and abuse covers this one quite adequately, in many respects. The problem is not with the rules but with the enforcement of those rules, and the trouble is not with the alcohol per se but with the little scrotes abusing it. There are for example perfectly good laws against groups of people walking past my house at three in the morning pissed out of their tiny skulls, yelling, punching each other and passers-by, and urinating through letterboxes -- the police don't, perhaps can't, enforce these laws.
In the same way there are laws against driving a car 'without due care and attention' -- which covers being unfit to drive because of prescription drugs, looking for your map on the back seat, talking on a mobile phone, and all the other things that may cause you to ram someone because you had no idea they were in your car's path.
The difference is that you are not already a criminal for having taken a hay-fever or depression cure, bought a map, or owned a mobile phone, and these things (unsuitable for one specific situation, driving a car) do not of themselves lead to your being pursued by the police and possibly put into (very overcrowded) prison. If they did, the accidents caused by them would surely be used to justify there being a law against them: 'look at these evil mobile phones, they caused x accidents last year with death or injury!' But what has caused the accident? The mobile phone, or the fool talking into it whilst taking notes with his other hand as he drives at 80mph down the dual carriageway?
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to use even heroin without it making the user into a gibbering wreck; the same applies to many other 'hard drugs', and this has been the case throughout recorded history. Over-use, abuse, will incapacitate; proper use may just mean that someone's constant pain is reduced to a bearable level, for example, or that what he sings or writes is greatly enhanced. If you have no way to regulate the use of these drugs (and it's clear we haven't) you can't begin to deal with the abuse. With legitimacy, the people who have control of the drugs' availability can start to deal with the problem of abuse rather than simply punishing wholesale everyone who uses the drugs (for whatever reason) whether they are actually causing anyone else harm or not by that use.
You also say
'I have heard that in Holland they queue up for their now-legal fixes, and it's a grim sight.'
The people they otherwise rob with violence for the money to buy their fixes would be an even grimmer sight if they were put in a queue, think on. You find those in the A&E departments of hospitals, and on the wards, where perhaps they are a little less clearly in the public sight, though, so it's easier to ignore them.
A queue of people who abuse a legal drug, alcoholics, would probably be equally grim to look at.
Joe @ 64, isn't benzine carcinogenic? We add that to petrol...
This is a 2nd attempt to send, so beware of imitations.
As you know, due to time constraints I rarely write much here, but to try and answer a few drug-related points:
Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem.
Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems.
In answer to the point about those poor poppy farmers in Afghanistan, cannabis is now grown in the UK. The war was not about opium, but in attempting to reconstruct the country Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives.
Regarding cannabis and lung cancer,
a) its curative properties are not what I heard about; we seem to have conflicting information;
b) I was rather hoping that tobacco smoking would die out; anyone under 40 who smokes it has to be mad. It is appalling that the tobacco companies, faced with opposition from health promoters in the βWestβ have turned their attention to developing countries to push their deadly wares.
c) It seems rather ghastly to spend years and a fortune acquiring lung cancer with tobacco, then to smoke (?) something else to try and fix the problem. Or is this cannabis by injection? Of course, smoking tobacco causes many other diseases, including cancer of the throat, coronary heart disease, cancer of the bladder...
Chris (66) I wrote this before seeing your comments, many of which I agree with, and I have no objection to drugs on prescription for healing or pain-killing. Addiction is another problem.
This is the 6th attempt to post.
As you know, due to time constraints I rarely write much here, but to try and answer a few drug-related points:
Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem.
Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems.
In answer to the point about those poor poppy farmers in Afghanistan, cannabis is now grown in the UK. The war was not about opium, but in attempting to reconstruct the country Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives.
Regarding cannabis and lung cancer,
a) its curative properties are not what I heard about; we seem to have conflicting information;
b) I was rather hoping that tobacco smoking would die out; anyone under 40 who smokes it has to be mad. It is appalling that the tobacco companies, faced with opposition from health promoters in the βWestβ have turned their attention to developing countries to push their deadly wares.
c) It seems rather ghastly to spend years and a fortune acquiring lung cancer with tobacco, then to smoke (?) something else to try and fix the problem. Or is this cannabis by injection? Of course, smoking tobacco causes many other diseases, including cancer of the throat, coronary heart disease, cancer of the bladder...
Chris (66) I wrote this before seeing your comments, many of which I agree with, and I have no objection to drugs on prescription for healing or pain-killing. Addiction is another problem.
Vyle (your second attempt):
"Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem. Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems."
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the comparability. Does the experience in USA during Prohibition (seriously increased alcohol problems) not argue the contrary?
"Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives."
As Chris and many others have noted, it's abuse that destroys lives, and its destructive capacity is greatly enhanced by the illegality and cost of supply. Guns may well kill folk, but not without a human to fire them. They may also keep a family in meat.
Salam, etc.
ed
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
-- A. Camus
Wed Oct 17 13:34:20 BST 2007
VH @ 67/8, I have tried to post some six times and not got through, so if this doesn't make it I shall go on trying, and it will appear repeatedly: sorry.
The word you used was 'addiction', and I absolutely agree with you that this is the problem, though I used the word 'abuse'; are they not much the same in this context? As in, we need food, but if we always eat too much and ruin our health thereby that's abuse, and if we can't stop doing it that's addiction.
The people who abuse drink are a problem: always have been ('wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging' wasn't written because someone had a glass of wine with his meal!)
History shows that trying to ban alcohol did not solve anything; a lot of very nasty people in America in the 30s did rather well out of selling it in an uncontrolled way using violence if anyone tried to stop them, and people died from wood-alcohol. Now we ban drugs of various kinds, a lot of very nasty people do rather well selling them in an uncontrolled way using violence if anyone tries to stop them, and people die from the impurities of the wares peddled.
That's the drawback that I see when I look at prohibition. In the 30s in America drink carried crime in its wake -- not the crime of drinking, but the crimes of violence -- and in this society drugs carry similar crime in their wake.
Is that fair?
Vyle (your second attempt):
"Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem. Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems."
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the comparability. Does the experience in USA during Prohibition (seriously increased alcohol problems) not argue the contrary?
"Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives."
As Chris and many others have noted, it's abuse that destroys lives, and its destructive capacity is greatly enhanced by the illegality and cost of supply. Guns may well kill folk, but not without a human to fire them. They may also keep a family in meat.
Salam, etc.
ed
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
-- A. Camus
Wed Oct 17 13:34:20 BST 2007
Vyle (your second attempt):
"Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem. Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems."
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the comparability. Does the experience in USA during Prohibition (seriously increased alcohol problems) not argue the contrary?
"Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives."
As Chris and many others have noted, it's abuse that destroys lives, and its destructive capacity is greatly enhanced by the illegality and cost of supply. Guns may well kill folk, but not without a human to fire them. They may also keep a family in meat.
Salam, etc.
ed
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
-- A. Camus
Wed Oct 17 13:34:20 BST 2007
Multiple Ed,
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
-- A. Camus
I read that last word as 'camel', and it added a dimension to the whole thing.
Vyle (your second attempt):
"Alcohol is cheaper than itβs been for years. Opening hours are longer than ever. There is a big drink problem. Therefore, if other drugs are made more freely available, there is every probability that we will have bigger drug problems."
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the comparability. Does the experience in USA during Prohibition (seriously increased alcohol problems) not argue the contrary?
"Iβd be very hesitant about encouraging Afghan farmers to grow a product that wrecks lives."
As Chris and many others have noted, it's abuse that destroys lives, and its destructive capacity is greatly enhanced by the illegality and cost of supply. Guns may well kill folk, but not without a human to fire them. They may also keep a family in meat.
Salam, etc.
ed
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
-- A. Camus
Wed Oct 17 13:34:20 BST 2007
I have been using cannibis for 30 years, for recreational purposes but more importantly for medicinal use. I have siatica, high blood pressure, hypertension etc. The evidence is there to indicate the values of cannibis sativa to alleviate so many common medical disorders. From migraine to MS.
I have recently been charged for cultivating a class c drug for personal use. I have been criminalised for doing so. To grow ones own class c drug cost approximately Β£100 a kilo! To purchase this amount from a dealer would cost between Β£3200-Β£4,400 a kilo! Growing your own also results in true quality and the knowledge that you do not have to purchase adulterated inferior product. It is time to stand up for tolerance toward people who wish to self medicate through the use of cannibis. There are no victims.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Jane (?) from Chichester. Are you a perfect goddess or a pompous little madam?
Would you like hanging for clerical errors?
Do you expect a sensible answer when you ask people to guarantee that no human errors will be made in future.
Do enjoy the rest of your perfect life.
A noble effort, Sequin, but ...
You'll be lucky!
Good prog so far! Love the Archers podcast trailer...
intoxicated, adj.:
When you feel sophisticated without being able to pronounce it
Mon Oct 15 17:33:02 BST 2007
and another message from immovable types:
YOU DON'T EXIST!
xx
ed
I have just been listening to the Cheif of North Wales Police Officer (i think) and am pleased to hear someone speaking out in favor of a much more realistic drug policy.
Drug prohibition does not work, as is completely evident and legalization is the only way to regulate and take back control of our streets.
As was once said, The second you hand the distribution and production of substances over to criminals, it becomes more dangerous.
If drugs were to be legalized their strength and content would then be able to be controlled and regulated and their sale taxed. This would prevent rogue or particularly strong strains making it onto our streets.
Let me see if I have this right, Bruntrom, the Cheif Police officer who wants to criminalise all motorists, wants to decriminalise adictive hard drugs.
Has he lost the plot? You bet!
Regarding Richard Brunstrom. Some of his actions as chief constable may have appeared to the general public to be on the fringes of lunacy. However in this matter of drugs he is spot on. I had a chat with him shortly after he was appointed and I found him to be a very intelligent man with forthright views which were honestly held. I wish him luck in getting some sense into the whole sorry expensive mess of the way we treat drugs in this country.
I've just heard some silly woman on PM repeating the recent tabloid nonsense about cannabis leading to mental illness. The chairman of the drugs advisory panel recently pointed out that this cannot be so, and a Google search finds surveys in Sweden, Australia and New Zealand that have also come to the conclusion that drug use by psychotic patients is much higher than in the rest of the population but, as the overall rate of illness has not risen to match increasing drug use, the drugs cannot be the cause of the illness.
Does the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ have some new evidence of their own, or is this just poor journalism?
Drugs cause tremendous harm both to the individual and to society. The only way of reduce this harm is to control drugs. At present, drugs are not controlled. By legalising drugs, we gain control. Drug users would know the quality and strength of drugs. We would be able to target help to people to get off drugs. And the huge amount of crime caused by the illegality of drugs would become unneccessary. By legailising drugs you break the vicious circle that is causing so much damage to society.
Re: de-criminalising hard drugs. Suggested by a chief constable in response to home secretary's enquiry. I agree. Present policy is patently failing. Spend the money currently spent on trying to stop drug importation on teaching all children and students the lethal nature of drug use. Then leave it to them. It's their lives; we are a free country.
I think all drugs should leagalised and controlled.
How would you feel if your children could go into a pub and ask for a pint of alchol and not know what you are getting, we all know that a pint of vodka is more potent than an equal measure of shandy. addicts buying drugs have no idea what they are getting, if it's clean or not, if its cut with cleaning products, or something inert. The back street chemists don't care and the adicts don't see they have a choice without saying no and that will not happen without expensive help.
Legalise it, control it, sell it from chemists and keep records, use profits to run drug rehab units.
Larry Page
Drug regulation
I wholeheartedly support the proposal that the possession and use of dangerous drugs should not be a criminal offense. Of course I don't want to see my children or anyone else abusing drugs, but it seems obvious that the only way to achieve that is to remove the drug dealers profits. Attempts to do it by force and policing have obviously failed over decades and will never work as long as the criminals have a monopoly on supply and can raise as much money as they need to fight the law.
Undercutting their prices by supplying the drugs legally through licensed pharmacists and at the same time as policing illegal imports limits the resources the gangs can bring to bear against the forces of law and order and is much more likely to succeed.
Bringing users within the law also makes it much easier to reach them with rehabilitation services.
Make drugs legal and well under control.
Break the back of the black market.
24 hour confidential clinics for addicts where they will have to take the drugs safely on the premises will increase their safety, help stabilize society and allow the addictsβ health to be closely monitored.
24 hour drug clinics testing your urine,
Give 'em what they want when they do come in.
Smakin the arm and a powdered nose,
Free on the NHS WOW here we goes,
Free on the NHS, but, oh, only if it's found up your nose!
Re, the Parise pod
Who on earth are the campaign for "real" education??? where do you get these people from? Why couldnt this have been a nice story about how to encourage young people to believe in themselves and feel pride at their successes. Not sure its illinformed spokesman really added anything.
In modern industry its well known that (surprisingly) if you offer genuine praise to people they enjoy their work more and actually take more of an interest in it.
From the posts so far (up to no 11 visible so far) it appears that the majority so far are of a similar viewpoint, and it's one which I also agree with. By legalising and controlling drugs, this would allow the strength and toxicity to be controlled, as well as taking away a major source of finance for criminal gangs. I hope that it is considered by the government, rather than being dismissed out of hand, just because it doesn't fit in with the narrow, blinkered views of certain parts of the media (i.e. redtop tabloids).
Right on, top copper!
I'm with the flow here, and just want to remind us all that we could also save a considerable amount of the cost (in lives and money) being presently incurred as we try and stop poor farmers from growing poppies.
But we must not forget that our Great Leaders (and those to whom they owe major obligations) LOVE unwinnable wars. They're the best sort - warding off economic recession and lining the pockets of armament manufacturers and dealers, not to mention those benefitting from the drug trade (legal and illegal)
Which among us truly expects any change for the better?
;-(
Another good night not to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.
Majorities, of course, start with minorities.
-- Robert Moses
QOTD:
Money isn't everything, but at least it keeps the kids in touch.
Mon Oct 15 18:10:31 BST 2007
I have never responded to a story on radio 4 before despite being a commited listener but after the interview with the CPO from North Wales I feel compelled to get in touch. When the media is full of hype and scaremongering it is rare to hear the more pragmatic, rational and realistic side to the drugs debate. Thankyou for airing this story, in a time when for the exact reasons the Police Officer outlined there are confused and worried people that need real solutions, you have done a very good thing, and as an editorial team even when you brought up terms like defeatist it took nothing away from the points that he made. Never have I heard a more candid and courageous statement from a senior member of the establishment, hypocrites like Rosie Boycott and other people who muddy the waters of this debate should take note, and in my experience he didn't go far enough!! As someone who grew up with a constant exposure to drugs of all sorts through no choice of their own I feel the state has let me down and if it doesn't do something radical to change the status quo then it will be no better by the time my own children are in the same boat, this is not good enough and the more people speak out the better. Please continue to give them the time and oppertunity to do so, I was lucky, and through grace beyond my own resolve I never succumbed to an addiction but many people I know did and with devestatingly sad results! I believe that not only should we start to take back control of the drugs market and regulate it but we should stop wasting public money on chasing our tails fighting it. The money would be much better spent on regulation and healthcare for users, that way the black market value would be shattered and the life of addicts would be under the care of the NHS not the local dealer!! Oh and as so much of crime (including teenage gun crime) is as a result of the illegal status of drugs then we would see huge improvements there too, why we aren't doing it already is beyond me?
As a drug user (all types except heroin) with some thirty years experience, I feel I have some authority to comment on this subject. Prohibition does not work! All alcohol prohibition achieved in America was to make the big crime syndicates fabulously wealthy, and when it was finally repealed it was discovered that the "wealthy businessmen" who were pouring money into the campaign to keep prohibition were none other than the criminals themselves. My drug of choice was always cannabis, although I tried many others, I prefer C. resin but also smoke "weed". Skunk? it's as bad an idea as super strength alcohols, it DOES "mess with your head" to use the old hippy phrase. I have tried it and I most certainly don't like it! we all know where it comes from, seeds which have been hybridised in Holland and grown in the UK. So why is no one saying this out loud? The resin available today is of very dubious quality, often turning out to be what is known as "formula" or "soap bar" it isn't usually cannabis at all, or at least contains a very small amount of low grade cannabis mixed with any other available substance, such as henna, and a veterinary tranquilliser known as Stresonal. The only way to stop these activities, and make sure that everyone who chooses to take drugs get good quality and known strength is to legalise all drugs. I am married now with two children, so I gave up drug use some long time ago, except the most addictive and harmful one of all, NICOTINE
While Iβm not sure about Richard Brunstorms calls for the legalisation of all drugs and would certainly welcome partial legalisation. The current policy fails to reduce drug use or supply and actually provides incentives for increased crime due to the high profits to be made from the supply of controlled substances. Their illegal status also helps create an environment of mistrust between users and the authorities. Drugs are easily obtainable and I believe that nearly anyone who wishes to use illegal drugs is already using them, mostly in a responsible manner.
I would welcome an honest and mature debate on the use of drugs in society. I find it quite bazaar how the use of alcohol and tobacco is almost universally considered acceptable yet the use of any other drug is referred to as βdrug abuseβ by the media and the authorities. If the media differentiated between use and abuse then this would certainly be a good start towards an honest and mature debate about drugs.
So despite agism being outlawed in the work place, the MP's that gave us the protection show us it is not worth the paper written on. Poor Ming
I was Duty Editor on today's PM. I'm pleased the interview with Richard Brunstrom has sparked off such an interesting debate on the blog. We'll keep across it for future programmes.
A large chunk of our production effort today was spent following up the World At One's sequence on the Liberal Democrat Party leadership. There were lots of Liberal Democrats who wanted to talk off the record but not come on the radio. Then, after the programme, it all became clear when Sir Menzies resigned as leader.
Back half a century ago, opiates were legal and we had a few thousand addicts in this country. After prohibition, the dealers moved in and started building a market for themselves and their product. Addiction rates climbed until they've reached their present peak. About 1% of the population has a serious addiction problem and the majority of those people will likely have had to commit additional crime to fund their habit. Our prison system is full of those who are as much victims of addiction as they are perpetrators of offences to meet its consequences.
Legalising drugs means clinics could give registered addicts clean doses without them committing crimes to fund their acquisition - and take drug dealers right out of the loop. As a society, we would benefit enormously. The price? A load of indignation and bluster from the ill-informed. But populist politicians will never be brave enough to grasp the nettle of drug abuse in our society and will continue to misrepresent the issue as a moral one. In the meantime, tens of thousands of lives will continue to be wrecked, hundreds of thousands will continue to illegally use, and millions will be the victims of crime to fund the black-market purchase of dangerous substances from pushers and dealers.
Thank you Richard Brunstorm, a plod speaking sense at last. I have been appalled at the distortions and misinformation printed and broadcast as fact over the past few months, especially regarding cannabis.
Even in this interview, the interviewer was putting forward value laden comments such as "parents will be distraught" (at the call for legalisation) - what evidence did she have to say that?
Prohibition means illegal drugs are not controlled drugs in any commonly understood use of the word controlled. To control a substance the market has to be controlled. Under the present regime, the only qualification needed to be a dealer is unaccountability.
Cannabis probably does not cause mental illness, if it did there would have been a huge - massive - rise in psychotic illness over the past 40 years or so in line with the increase in cannabis use. However, we should play safe and if it is a risk to children we need to be protecting them by properly regulating the trade. Likewise problem users can't be identified or in any way protected. The present regime puts these vulnerable people in the firing line.
Legalise, control and regulate - protect the children and end prohibition.
Well done that plod, well spoken!
I am in complete agreement with Andrew on this. I should add that I used "pot" for over 20 years and have only stopped because I no longer trust where it is coming from. I also used cocaine (the way it was 10 years ago, not crack) and stopped because I did not like the way I acted under that influence. The alcohol reference is apt, for it is a stark example of what a "black" market brings with it! I also recently heard a Radio4 show about overcrowding in California jails, where they are stacked in gymnasiums with bunks 3 high and by race, to diminish fights. Bottom line: the "war" on drugs (like Iraq) is un-winnable, and only leads to predictable results. The only solution is legalisation, taxation and the monitoring of strength. That would probably also result in such a tax-windfall that income taxes could be reduced overall!
The Chief Constable for North Wales said, in the interview on tonight's program, that his proposals did not mean that drugs would be available at the local Newsagents. Why not? At my local Newsagent I can buy (the addictive and damaging drug) tobacco and (the addictive and damaging drug) alcohol. Why should his proposals mean that I will not be able to buy other (addictive and damaging) drugs at my Newsagent?
H.
As a (responsible) smoker of cannabis, I agree that the legal status of drugs, especially cannabis, matters not jot to the average smoker. Whether it's classed as B or C, the price doesn't change, and neither really does it's availability. It's about sending a message that drugs are bad mmmkay rather making a difference in tackling the problems that drugs can cause. Unfortunately the only message being sent out by the current government drugs policy is that it really doesn't understand the problems at all.
(Half the problem with the debate from a semantic point of view is that the debate usually lumps all illegal drugs together, which as well as tacitly going along with the idea that all drugs act as a gateway to other, more harmful drugs, it assumes that everything must be treated in the same way and with the same message/punishments, whether it be ectasy or marijuana or heroin.)
Sir Menzies resigning will be good for the Lib Dems. As has been pointed out elsewhere, no Lib Dem policy will make the news or spark debate because every policy announcement is greeted with "lol ming is old".
In 2004 ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary David Blunkett reclassified cannabis to Class C on the basis of its relative harm compared to similar illegal substances. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs had been recommending this since 1979.
In 2005 ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary Charles Clarke wanted to reverse that reclassification, and specifically asked the ACMD for advice about possible new mental health risks from alleged stronger varieties such as skunk.
Clarke found himself unable to reverse the reclassification, because, perhaps to his surprise, the ACMD reported that cannabis has not somehow become more dangerous.
Now ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary Jaquie Smith has put the matter out to consultation, and the sole reason for considering reclassification mentioned in the consultation document is her "concern about stronger strains of the drug, particularly skunk, and the potential mental health effects they can have".
Carolyn put the same concern to Richard Brunstrom on tonight's programme. In fact it's mentioned by almost every speaker on this subject. I think very few of them know what they are talking about. Mr Brunstrom suggested that what Carolyn said was nonsense, but he didn't say why.
Consider the following suggestions:
The active ingredients in cannabis haven't changed.
The effects of cannabis haven't changed. It has the same effects as it had in 1979, both the positive and negative effects.
It has always varied widely in potency, and is not labelled with its potency.
When it is stronger, people use less to get the same effect.
The strongest stuff you can get today has the same effect as the strongest stuff you could get 30 years ago. Specifically, "skunk" doesn't have any novel or unique effects. It's just another variety.
Throughout the last 30 years in the UK it has never been difficult to get hold of enough cannabis to have all the normal effects.
The notion of "superskunk" is more or less an urban myth. It's not hard to explain how people are taken in by it, but it does seem extraordinary that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Secretary is basing an important public consultation on such simplistic nonsense. Why do we have an Advisory Council if its advice is to be ignored in this way?
I'd like to encourage people who know what they are talking about to contribute to the consultation. It is open for the rest of this week, and you can do it quite simply through the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office website.
I'd also like to see the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, including the PM programme, give this question some serious attention, instead of either joking lamely about it or spreading simplistic misinformation.
In the absence of a furrowed brow (last one was way back on the 1st!), a bit of stop press:
Ming Campbell has resigned.
Not quite as interesting as Ming the Merciless resigning (would it put Flash Gordon and the Defenders of the Earth out of business?), but the reason is apparently because Gordon (the brown one, not the flash one) postponed the election...
That'll keep Westminster Village occupied for the next few months...
ming resigning will probably also be good for Gordy! After all there will now be an election just not a general one!
So we now have more evidence of Bruntrom's developing madness.
As Chief Constable of North Wales he has declared war on motorists and motor cyclist because of the horrors and deaths due to motorists (NWP own figures 2005 / 06 Killed or Serious Injuries = 256 Killed = 53) thus 1 killed per week.
Yes I agree 1 too many per week, but lets look at Durham Police study that identified that 50% of fatalities had drugs as a contributing factor.
So tonight Mad Max of North Wales spouted about decriminalising drugs!!!!! surly some confusion in his argument. But may be by scaring us all in to driving at 25mph to save our driving licenses he may have a cunning plan, once all us law abiding working persons are driving at 25mph his smack head or pot smoking mates can drive around playing bumper cars with us all, but at low speed we will not be killed (unless our children are walking), but we will pay because I would guess that pot smoking "Oh it doesnβt harm you mate" types probably donβt bother with road insurance.
Any way to cut to the chase please can the North Wales Police Authority spend less time discussing their Welsh Language policy and get down to business and sack their Chief Constable and recruit a real police officer very soon before the law abiding masses move out of North Wales and take their money with them.
Wow! Only one dissenting voice to the legalisation of drug use. That's impressive.
As a criminal defence lawyer I can attest to the expense of the criminalisation of drug use to the public purse. I wholeheartedly agree that drugs should be legally controlled. I might make a bit less money personally but it would be worth it not to see the sufferring that I do daily in my work.
On the subject of Mings resignation, shame! Now the Liberals are more interested in their image than in us. So no different from the other parties. Ah well, no real politics.
Mary
Beat me to it, Mary!
Something above 20 to one in favour of sanity. Will it make any difference? I doubt it. Too much money to be made under the present arrangements, and what would the CIA do for funding of 'black' operations?
Ming was one of the best, but fading. What we needed was his wisdom coupled with Charlie Kennedy's wit. I don't see any worthy successors from the ragtag lot of (mostly male) flock of folk.
Time for PR and ten to a dozen parties from Trots to Rightists and from Greens to Earth-rapers. Time for a proper rainbow politics and an end to 'majority' government by any party on the basis of a minority of the vote.
For anyone interested, see this:
and note on page 10 that we are presently governed by a perty which got slightly more than one third of the vote in 2005 (35.2%)
This is not democracy!
Salaam, etc
ed
Why does New Jersey have more toxic waste dumps and California have
more lawyers?
New Jersey had first choice.
Tue Oct 16 00:13:40 BST 2007
Hi
Listened 2 R4 Drugs Legalisation.
Chief Branston (North Wales) is correct on this one. I don't know about addicition as I only smoke Hashish. Done this over the 40 years but taken LSD in '70's so don't know probs with Powders + Crystals + Skunk (GM) crops that are coming out. I'm a local teacher so have an accademic connection + been in this job 4 30 years. No way has my Life Style changed this, as I'm always trying to give my best in encouraging my students to connect and advance in their studies to improve themselves + empaphise with the Planet in which they live. So natural Hashish from Asia (Afgan) should be allowed (not the heroin poppies that cause so much addiction).
Branston (N. Wales C Const) is OK as long as he could allow us to get high wih the natural resins.
Let the importation of Imports of Natural Hashish be allowed. Any contamination with unpleasant stuff could be checked by Import Customs.
So No Poppies from Afgan. Let Hashish grow.
Just for Tippers (29),
Smoking cannabis invariably slows down one's driving. it's a fact.
xx
ed
Life is a biochemical reaction to the stimulus of the surrounding environment in a stable ecosphere, while a bowl of cherries is a round container filled with little red fruits on sticks.
Tue Oct 16 01:18:11 BST 2007
I can see that most commentators agree with Richard Brunstrom.
There have been others before him (Judge Pickles comes to mind). Brunstrom however, is crying in the wind. For all the common sense he proposes, no politician in this country has the guts to do this.
Our politicians continuously try to out-tough each other to pander to our panic-monger media, both press and broadcasters. Convict more people, build more prisons, be zero tolerant is the only reaction they will ever offer.
Brunstrom referred to the American influence on our politicians (we all know where that can lead). The Americans are far more draconian than us. In some states simple personal possession of marijuana can attract a sentence longer than that for murder. This has led to various citizen campaign groups against this harsh punitive 'justice'.
If addiction is considered an illness the war on drugs is really a vindictive war on citizens. The law brutalises and kills far more of our people than the drugs themselves. The war on drugs is based on the lies of our politicians. When you are next mugged or burgled by an addict consider where the blame really lies.
So, Richard Brunstrom, well said. Bravo! I think the police, sick of enforcing a sad, stupid and dangerous law, were behind the declassification of cannabis. But on this one there is no chance of our lying, cloth-eared politicians even pretending to listen.
I often wonder for whom it is that politicians feel the need to hold a fig leaf of hypocrisy over their youthful indiscretions. To hear them talk one would be led to believe they had never so much as farted, let alone masturbated, drunk to excess, attempted carnal congress with partners who's full and given name will forever remain a mystery and smoked pot at university.
This last strikes a chord because even at a most generous estimate; 25% of them did at some point inhale while in those hallowed halls of learning.
And yet there they stand pontificating moralist guff, and this is particularly true of the United State where I live now, Perfectly happy to promote any piece of draconian mumbo jumbo to stuff their prisons to bursting in the name of sending the right message.
like a divorce e with a hairpiece buying a bright red Ferrari.
So I began smoking pot at 19 I'm now 40 , married to a lawyer and father of two fine children and I would hazard my smoking habits pretty much mirror the drinking habits of most men in my demographic: one or two joints of a Friday night, Saturday night and Sunday lunch.
At no point have I felt the apparent siren call of mental illness.
Bruntrom's comments are a breath of fresh air.
mittfh (27):
Re: Ming's resignation. Serves him right.
He who lives by the shady whispering campaign against his leader, dies by the shady whispering campaign against his leader.
If Ming hadn't encouraged the coup against Charlie Kennedy, the Lib-Dems would have been in a much stronger position than they are.
I'd certaily trust Kennedy even *with* his drink problem over Ming or any of the ambitious tykes coming up under him. I'd trust him even more than Blair, Brown or Cameron in fact.
Bring back Charles!
If this really is a democracy, then lets get some politician on the radio who can talk freely about legalization (and not some downbeat, but one who can actually make a decision) and defend his argument of keeping the expensive war on drugs on going.
How about a politician vs Chief of North Wales Police.
The damage done by drugs is a health issue. Drugs being illegal adds other dangers as well. This includes all of them - the ones described as hard like heroin, the ones called soft like cannabis and the legal ones tobacco and alcohol. They are all dangerous and if they are to be used - which is going to go in happening the war on drugs does not work - there should be proper quality control infomation about specific risks and safest use and regulated purchase. Street dealers dont offer any of this. And they sell to children.
I wonder if Richard Brunstrom is a Lib, he would probably make a good party leader as he seems to have more common sense than most people give him credit for!
Shame however that Ming jumped ship, I think he should have come down very hard on the young turks and given them a life lesson, age and experience DOES count.
BTW..Sequin and team well done, good prog.
Glad to see the logic going out of the window on drugs.
This morning we are told that 25% of middle-class adults are doing themselves harm with legalised drugs. This is not the first time the problems of alcohol have have been in the news.
The truth is that all this 'moralistic guff' is designed to promote the health of the people, not to spoil their fun.
Why did a friend of mine tell me his son had wrecked his mind with cannabis? Why are they now telling us that smoking cannabis is worse for lung cancer than tobacco? Could it be true?
Sir Menzies Campbell was far too sober to lead the Lib Dems.
The politicians are so behind the truth that the vast majority of the population with any sense know.
Prohibtion causes more damage to all levels of society in greater proportion than the drugs themselves ever could.
This Chief constable may have come out with some questionable views in the past but on this he is spot on.
It is immoral that we imprison many non violent vulnerable drug users in our society it costs us dearly both in money and our dignity as a caring society.We literally force them into crime by retaining there drug of choice illegality.It never worked with alcohol why are the politicians so nieve to think it will work with other drugs??
Inform,educate,regulate and control all drugs by the Government lets rip the spine out of organised crime and end prohibtion as soon as politically expedient.
Wow, I expected a barrage of anti-Brunstrom comments today but in fact its virtually all pro, and I would like to add my voice to those of his supporters. I totally agree with him - it is the prohibition of drugs that causes the real problems in society today. Well done for making such a controversial but brave proposal. It would be a very scary step to take but it is a leap of faith that we need to try - all other efforts seem to have failed.
Fiona
oh and meant to add my agreement also to Madmary and Ed I re Ming Campbell. Why should he be hounded out because of his age which is essentially what's happened. The Libdems have shown us that their image is more important than anything else it would appear.
I've never, thankfully, had to deal with the side effects of drug (legal or illegal) addiction until recently. From the little I know legalisation sounds like a great idea. Monitor and support the addicts, remove the criminal aspect from our society and maybe we can eradicate the problem; it reminds me somewhat of vaccination/immunisation programmes. Control and protect - or is that too simplistic?
Ed (31)
I think things are worse than you say. Yes, the current govt got 35.2% of the vote - but turnout was only 61.4%, which means they got less than 22% of the eligible vote.
Yes, I know the other (nearly) 40% could have voted if they'd wanted too. But there is something seriously wrong with our system when so many people see nothing in it for them to participate.
Lib Dems - 22% of the vote, 10% of the seats. How can that be right?
Sid
Stainless Steel Cat (36)
Don't make me laugh about bringing Kennedy back. If Charles Kennedy needed any further evidence that his position as Liberal Democrat leader was no longer sustainable - some 18 months ago - he only had to listen to the comments made by many of his senior lieutenants after his confession that he had sought treatment for alcoholism.
If my memory serves. "A dead-man walking" was the phrase used by Chris Davies, the party's leader in the European Parliament. Senior backbencher Nick Harvey said that Mr Kennedy's position was "untenable", and frontbencher Sandra Gidley questioned his ability to confront the "triple demons" of a resurgent Conservative Party, Labour and the bottle.
But these criticisms paled into insignificance compared to the letter of ultimatum issued by 25 MPs, more than one-third of the Parliamentary party, requesting Mr Kennedy. Either he quit or they would have withdrawn their support en masse. At the time they were certainly not the words of embittered MPs speaking anonymously. They were the on-the-record words of prominent, and respected, Liberal Democrats. And, in speaking out, they were speaking not just for themselves, but for the future of their party.
They knew that Mr Kennedy, despite his protestations to the contrary, could NOT lead a party when half of his Shadow Cabinet have signed a letter imploring him to consider his position. How would he be able to look them in the eye when they next met to discuss policy?
Not only that, Kennedy repeatedly denied his alcoholism. He lied to Jeremy Paxman on national television. He lied to the public. He missed meetings and couldn't remember his own policies. If he does not want to cause any further irreversible harm to the future prospects of the Liberal Democrats, I think he must stay away from any leadership contest - period.
Sid (45)
I entirely agree with your point about the number of electors. Experts would probably say we could interpolate from the figures that if everyone eligible had voted, 45% would have voted Labour and we'd have got the same result. It has been said that we get the government we deserve.
Sid (45) You don't have to persuade me that there's something wrong with the system! Looking at the data, this is what we find:
That means for every seat that the parties won they had to gain tohe following percentage of the popular vote: