|
« Pulling the plug on diplomacy
Main The selective reporting of Dr David Kay » |
January 27, 2004
How the UK government was doped
Daily Mail, 27 January 2004 He is hardly known for his liberalising zeal -- indeed, many of his critics would claim that he is the most authoritarian Home Secretary for years in his attempts to prove he is tough on crime. Yet now, by deciding to downgrade the law on cannabis, David Blunkett has scored a truly spectacular own goal. He has managed to unite a vast army of opponents -- doctors, police, teachers and parents -- in a ferocious backlash that is threatening his political credibility. So why on earth did he do it? Why has he reversed the tough approach to drugs of his predecessor, Jack Straw, and blundered into a crisis of his own making? And have no doubt that this is a crisis. By reclassifying cannabis from a class B to a class C drug, Mr Blunkett has thrown the law into abject confusion. Many now wrongly think cannabis is legal or safe. The police say they don't know what they are supposed to do with cannabis users. The UN’s International Narcotics Control Board has warned of ‘worldwide repercussions’ from the British initiative, which other countries fear will undermine their own anti-drug campaigns and encourage cannabis cultivation. Mr Blunkett remains defiant and insists that the change simply allows the police to concentrate on tackling Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine. But this is completely disingenuous. Concentrating on heroin and cocaine is already police policy. Cannabis has been off the radar for years -- as the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Andy Hayman, readily admits. ‘Seizures of cannabis have been decreasing and the number of cannabis users being brought before the courts has been reduced,’ he says. ‘Cannabis is not really a police priority.’ Nor is it a priority for customs. In 2000, a Cabinet committee secretly decided that customs officers would completely stop targeting cannabis smuggling -- again, on the grounds that heroin and cocaine mattered more. According to former customs assistant chief investigation officer David Raynes, all specific investigations of major cannabis traffickers were stopped, along with any operations to disrupt the trade. The only cannabis seizures made were ones discovered in the course of other investigations. So why does the government claim downgrading is needed to stop the police wasting time on cannabis? They have ALREADY stopped bothering with it. Indeed, reclassification is a consequence of the battle being given up. According to Mr Raynes, the decision to halt customs swoops produced a flood of cannabis onto British streets, causing the price to drop and providing a major boost to the overall drug culture. This then helped fuel a fashionable belief that cannabis was now so mainstream that it was wrong to penalise its users. In 2000, a report by the Police Foundation claimed that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, said the law was making things worse by jailing people for possessing it, and recommended that the drug should be downgraded. The committee chairman, Dame Ruth Runciman, says: ‘I’m not in any way a legaliser. What I’m interested in is increasing the credibility of the law. I’m against criminalising tens of thousands of young people where we can avoid it.’ Central to the Runciman approach was a belief that the liberalisation of cannabis in the Netherlands had been a runaway success, an impression assiduously peddled by Dutch authorities. The truth is that use of cannabis has more than doubled among Dutch schoolchildren since the soft policy began. Dutch young people have also become Europe’s biggest users of cocaine and ecstasy, and there has been an explosion of drug-related crime. Yet opinion within the British government has steadily moved the Dutch way. After leaving her position as Northern Ireland Secretary, Mo Mowlam was put in charge of drug policy before the 2001 election even though she was in favour of cannabis legalisation. Perhaps the most baleful and far-reaching influence, which was not revealed until last year, was the presence of Mike Trace, deputy to the then drugs czar, Keith Hellawell. To the astonishment and horror of international drug-enforcement agencies, Mr Trace was unmasked by the Daily Mail as the driving force behind a co-ordinated international effort to disband the world’s anti-drug laws by stealth. From British headquarters partly financed by the Open Society Institute, which is funded by the billionaire and drug legalisation campaigner George Soros, Mr Trace was pulling the strings of a huge operation in which international activists were agitating covertly to manipulate governments and public opinion. Their aim was simple: to subvert the UN laws which make cannabis and other drugs illegal. Mr Trace was in a position of unrivalled influence at the very heart of the British, European and UN drug establishments. Yet in his own words, he was a ‘fifth columnist’, working covertly to undermine drug laws he was supposed to uphold and being secretly paid to do so by notorious international legalisers. As Britain’s deputy drug czar, he was close to Mo Mowlam and had considerable access to ministers. The question must arise to what extent he shifted government thinking towards the legalisation agenda promoted by his international paymasters. But others were pushing the Government in this direction too -- in particular the drug charity Drugscope, whose former director Roger Howard was a key influence within the Home Office. Drugscope is a fervent proponent of ‘harm reduction’, an approach which holds that instead of trying to prevent people from using drugs at all, we should accept them as a way of life and minimise the harm they cause through education and treatment. Harm reduction has become the orthodoxy among drug charities, largely because of the dominance of pro-legalisation organisations massively funded by George Soros which promote this view. In their more candid moments, legalisers admit that ‘harm reduction’ is a cover for drug legalisation. Drugscope denies that it is promoting a covert legalisation agenda, but its arguments fall only a small step short of that goal. Moreover, it has links to the very network of international legalisers that Mr Trace attempted to co-ordinate. It belongs to the European NGO Council on Drug Policy (ENCOD), an organisation of voluntary drug bodies which ENCOD wants a legal framework to bring about the industrialisation of drug production. To achieve this, it proposes that public opinion should be softened up by ‘harm reduction’ policies which will pave the way to eventual legalisation. Whatever direct role these forces may have played in the development of the government’s thinking, the fact is that it has dramatically adopted their agenda. When he announced the downgrading of cannabis to the Commons in July 2002, Mr Blunkett promised that ‘harm minimisation will be given greater priority’. Last March, there was a private meeting on drug policy at Wilton Park in Sussex, organised by Drugscope and the Foreign Office. Participants from Third World countries who were anxious to learn how to combat drug use were astonished to find the agenda dominated by notorious drug legalisers discussing how to overturn the UN drug conventions. One of them boasted that harm reduction had spread throughout Europe and was now ‘irreversible’. ‘The flood’, he declared, ‘is already on this side of the dyke.’ Mr Blunkett is adamant that the Government will not legalise cannabis or any other drug. He insists that he is acting on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which recommended reclassification of cannabis in March 2002. But the Advisory Council has itself been accused of having a drug liberalisation agenda. The Lambeth MP Kate Hoey has claimed that at least 13 of its 32 members -- who include Drugscope’s ex-head Roger Howard -- are committed to liberalising drug policy. The council’s chairman, Sir Michael Rawlins, brushes the charge aside, but the fact remains that the council has been trying to get cannabis reclassified for 20 years. And now the insidious ‘harm reduction’ gospel seems certain to make the effects of that policy all the more damaging. Panicked by the backlash that downgrading has produced, the Home Office has spent £1 million on an advertising campaign which it says will tell young people that cannabis is dangerous and still illegal. But since most drug educators adopt the defeatist ‘harm reduction’ approach, that message will be subverted at every turn. Their view is that because most children take drugs anyway, education materials should not try to prevent them from doing so but should ‘minimise harm’ by providing them with ‘informed choices’. Mary Brett, head of biology at Dr Challoner’s grammar school in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, says this approach is dangerous and wrong. ‘By no means do all kids use drugs’, she said. ‘Maybe 30 to 40 per cent try them, but most give up after a puff or two. It's simply wrong to think drug use is inevitable. ‘As for safety, there is no guaranteed safe way to take any drug. There should be no choice for children -- we should tell them drugs are illegal. Do we let them “choose” to break the law by speeding or petty pilfering?’ Yet drug education guidelines provided by the Government's curriculum authority use the phrase ‘informed choices’ over and over again; even at age 11, children are encouraged to make ‘informed choices’. Drugscope, says Mrs Brett, constantly states in its information materials that cannabis is not physically addictive, which is untrue. Its website contains very few facts about the harm the drug can do. ‘One of the booklets about cannabis, distributed by Drugscope, shows a picture of two young chaps in a field of cannabis plants. One of them is wearing a cap with the logo, “Have fun, take care”. What sort of message does that send?’ Whatever Mr Blunkett thinks he is doing by downgrading cannabis, there is no doubt that a sea-change has taken place in government which has swung behind the ‘harm reduction’ agenda promoted by drug legalisers. This agenda has found a receptive audience because many think the law against cannabis has failed. What they miss is that enforcement of this law collapsed years ago -- as the result of deliberate government decisions. It is not the law that has failed, but the willingness of this society to provide a clear message that cannabis use is illegal, dangerous and wrong. Now Mr Blunkett’s downgrading appears to have produced the worst of all possible worlds -- chaos, confusion and a dangerous signal to young people that smoking cannabis is harmless fun. His officials say he wanted to make his name with his drugs policy. This cannot be quite what he had in mind.
Posted by melanie at January 27, 2004
Comments
The proverbial Martian given a listing of current concerns in the country could quickly surmise just which party is in power. Posted by: Romulus at January 27, 2004 03:57 PMMelenie I can never understand why people like you, who claim to be concerned for the well-being of others, are so determined to support downright anarchy. By opposing the legalisation of cannabis, you are ensuring it continues to be sold with no regulation or control what so ever. You are supporting a regime which means only unaccountable people trade in canabis, that its strength is uncontrolled, its purity uncertain and that it is freely avaiable to children. If this plant is even a fraction as harmful as you claim - and I don't believe for a moment that it is - then the case for controlled legalisation so that effective and workable restrictions can be imposed is made stronger. Cannabis may be dangerous, nothing on earth is totally safe as well you know. By keeping it illegal, you are ensuring that vulnerable people are put at the greatest risk. Shame on you. Derek Williams accept it melenie or deal with your inabitions, the british public are not behind you, cannabis isnt the nations decline is its cinical critics who are scared of change and cling onto failed pasts, youlle get over it, p.s when health needs come your way be grateful and if it is cannabis you need be all the more grateful you may depend on it one day so why judge now, Good one Mel, I loved the undercurrents of paranoia, the secret societies and machiavellian schemers manipulating governments and plotting to poison the nations youth with Demon Weed. You'd better look under your bed at nights, Mel, there may be demented cannabis legalisers hiding under there! Posted by: John Yates at January 27, 2004 04:54 PMDerek You're absolutely right, hand it over to the people who marketed Thalidomide; or others who have produced a million other forms of useless and dangerous medication that is prescribed by doctors who have been bribed at 'seminars' in exotic locations around the world at the ultimate expense of the taxpayer who foots the bill for the NHS. "Trust me, I'm a doctor. Now get out of my surgery, you hypochondriac, I've got to catch my plane to Phucket, courtesy Gladco, Krime, Botchem or whatever name the cartel is these days. Just take this script to the pharmacy, the proprietor won't be there, he's catching the same plane to Phucket, but his dispenser will deal with it!" When is all this reefa madness going to end, when will people stop trying to run our lives for us. Why should it be down to some person sitting in the houses of parliment which medication i should take. If it was not for cannabis i could be blind now, or i could have been putting painfull chemicals into my eyes for many years to come. Instead i get relife from my eye pressure from the use of cannabis. My father had to take these chemicals for years and his eye pressure has only just gone down unlike mine which went down almost stright away. Why should David Blunkett or anyone else for that matter tell me or anyone else what we can do to our bodies. Posted by: Trevor Smith at January 27, 2004 05:00 PMReclassification is nonsense. Why should cannabis users or anyone else be punished for actions that neither threaten nor harm others, just because some of them suffer mental illness - THEY need doctors, not policemen. POINTS IN FAVOUR OF CANNABIS LEGALISATION You object that cannabis is being reclassified, thus giving people the impression that it's safe and legal. I don't think you can have read the law concerned. Class C drugs are not legal, but they are deemed less harmful than those in class B. Cannabis is accepted by every credible authority to be less dangerous than those drugs in class B. Indeed, it is accepted by most that it is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. You also object that there is no need to re-classify as the police already treat cannabis as less dangerous than cocaine or heroin. Surely it makes sense for the law to reflect reality in this way? Surely the police, above all, should have the right to have the law to reflect reality as they see it. Posted by: Hugh Parker at January 27, 2004 05:30 PMActually I want handguns reclassified so I can have one. Fewer people were killed in Britain by handguns when they could be legally-held than now that they are all illegal. I want handguns de-criminalised. Posted by: Romulus at January 27, 2004 05:43 PMHugh Parker "Surely the police above all should have the right to have the law reflect reality as they see it" Reality?? Huh? No doubt you would like to see the tail wag the dog, too. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 27, 2004 05:46 PMPlease Melanie, you think anyboy listens to messages anymore! Most people do not. And more people will research things for themselves rather than blindly listen to the media and politicians. For as long as journalists like you write implausibly biased articles, we will seek the truth elsewhere. Posted by: eric at January 27, 2004 06:34 PMThe plot thickens! Melanie has added to her brilliance with an penetrating measure of investigative journalism to expose the hidden international agenda behind ‘harm reduction’. It may seem harsh to think that Blunkett has been duped, but now it seems he is party to the whole sordid mess. This permissive, most politically correct government appear to wish away so many constraints that have held society together. They have downgraded the family, given greater credibility to homosexuals, and now appear to be reducing protection for vulnerable youth by legitimating the use of cannabis. It’s a madness of considerable proportion that will ultimately make the socialist party unelectable. Posted by: Frisbee at January 27, 2004 07:35 PMIt's nice to see that Melanie Phillips' readers don't always agree with everything she has to say. But I am amazed at this outpouring of opposition. There should be more research to test the effects of marijuana, and any downgrading should wait for results of I'm really on the fence when it comes to marijuana. On the one hand, I'd hate to see young people get criminal records because of the possession of a little bit of the drug. On the other hand, I don't want drug use to rise, which would likely happen if the drug were legalized or were decriminalized to some extent. Posted by: Joanne at January 27, 2004 07:46 PMWhat is a "drugs czar" for? He is someone who can be fired, instead of the Home Secretary, when the Government's drugs policy is found to be failing. Posted by: KJN at January 27, 2004 09:54 PMI see that Ms. Phillips is up to her usual tricks. Again. What's wrong with you Ms. Phillips? Why do you feel this need to control other people's lives so? Can you not just live and let live? But then I suppose if cannabis is ever legalised, it would put scare-mongerers like you out of a job. What *would* the daily mail have to write about if cannabis was legalised? I wonder, Ms. Phillips, what are your qualifications in deciding for the rest of us that cannabis is so dangerous? You cite all these "studies" and "experiments", but you very rarely actually put the details in, such as who conducted the study, when, where and where they got their funding from. Well Ms. Phillips, I smoke cannabis and it's illegal. On the 29th it will still be illegal, and you know what? I'm going to smoke a great big joint in honour of you. I'm going to take your photo from the daily mail and I'm going to stick it on the "cannabis cigarette" (lol) and watch you burn whilst I get high off it. I don't care if it's legal or not, I will still smoke, secure in the knowledge that it annoys you. In fact, from now on, every joint I smoke, I will be thinking just how much it annoys you. And I will take great pleasure in that. Posted by: Matt at January 27, 2004 09:55 PMI happen to agree with Ms. Phillips. I went to college with too many people who indulged in reefer madness and watched how they went from being 'regular' people to ones who slept most of the time, only got up to eat, and then smoked themselves silly -and repeated the cycle all over again. Without proper scientific research, there is no way to say with that there is no danger. BTW, I live in the US. Posted by: zzx375 at January 27, 2004 10:47 PMzzx375 I think the lifestyle is par for the course when it comes to student life. I could say the same thing about my contemporaries at University except the drug of choice was alcohol. Posted by: Philip at January 27, 2004 11:26 PMzzx375, a cannabis user does not "indulge in reefer madness". The term 'reefer madness' refers to the attitude of people like Ms. Phillips, that it will turn you insane, make you violent, make you a heroin addict etc: that's where it stems from: A load of madness surrounding a relatively harmless plant. There has been proper scientific research. Would you like some links? Here, I saved you the effort of looking it up yourself, since you do not seem to have tried to find it. It really is very easy to find if you use Google:
http://www.cannabisconsumers.org http://www.briancbennett.com http://www.druglibrary.org/crl/pain/Richardson%20et.al%2098%20Hyperalgesia_%20JNeurosci.pdf http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/med.htm http://cannabiscoalition.ca/info/russo.htm http://safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm http://www.gwpharm.com/research_cri.asp and there are many more that I can provide for you. Posted by: Matt at January 27, 2004 11:26 PMPerhaps we should legalise the 1960s-style cannabis that apparently had only 10% of the strength of present-day varieties: these would have to remain illegal. The unfortunate man who poisoned himself on six reefers a day would have had to smoke sixty old-fashioned ones to have the same effect. Posted by: KJN at January 28, 2004 12:07 AMThe cannabis today is no more stronger, in general, than it was in the 60s. This is a myth. If you want, I can give you... oh heck, I'll do it now: It was the House of Commons debate on the declassification of cannabis in October 2003, and they addressed this issue. It was regarded as false. There are a couple of strong strains, I will grant, but this is phenominally expensive and as an average user, I have never come across them, and I've been smoking since I was 16. http://www.dancingborg.co.uk/downloads/sounds/uk_parliament_cannabis_debate_29thoct03.mp3 As for the man dying from cannabis, this has not actually been proven, dispite what Ms. Phillips writes in her half-truth-filled stories. The coroner was unable to determine how the man was killed. It was noted though, that the only foreign substances in his body were: Alchohol Inactive cannaboids can stay in the body for upto 30 days after injestion, but they do not affect the person in any way. These inactive cannaboids are soluble in fat, and hense are soaked up into your body (which has fat in it). He could have been stoned any time in the 30 days prior to his death and the test would be the same. It was not confirmed he was "high" the time of his death. That said, there has never been a single case of a death directly proven to be soley attributed to cannabis. Ignoring accidents (which are not a direct result, rather they are an indirect result), no one has ever died from cannabis. If this corenor (and I have spoken to him, I can provide the e-mails if asked to) had in fact found the first ever death in 6000 years of recorded history of cannabis use in humans, then he should be applying to the Guiness Book of Records. Posted by: Matt at January 28, 2004 01:01 AM"these would have to remain illegal." I have to ask a question here. Hypothetically speaking, if this man did die from a direct result of injesting cannabis, he is the first recorded death, ever in 6000 years of use. Alchohol kills tens of thousands per year, cigarettes - hundreds of thousands. Peanuts kill more people per year, bees kill more people per year. Sniffing glue kills more people per year as does electric shocks.
Surely, by that logic, we would need to outlaw immediately: Cigarettes, alchohol, nuts, cars, sports, electricity, WATER (you can overdose on water did you know?), sugar, salt, knives.... The list is endless. When compared to these common every day items, cannabis is benign. Here's an interesting article for you to read: Warning: dihydrogen oxide Dihydrogen Oxide (DHO) is colourless, odourless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people each year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHO, but the dangers of Dihydrogen Oxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. Not only is DHO dangerous to humans it is also extremely hazardous to the environment. It is a major component of acid rain, it contributes to the greenhouse effect, and is a common cause of erosion of our natural landscape. Worldwide contamination by DHO is reaching epidemic proportions. Quantities of the chemical have been found in almost every stream, lake and reservoir in Australia today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in the Antarctic. So far governments and environmental watchdogs have been indifferent to the problem. Despite the danger DHO is widely used as an industrial solvent and coolant, in nuclear power stations, as a fire retardant, as an additive in certain junk foods and other food products, and in a wide variety of other uses. Companies routinely dump DHO into rivers and oceans, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The Australian government has refused to ban the production, distribution or use of this damaging chemical due to its 'importance to the economic life of the nation'. In fact the U.S. Navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHO, and designing multi-billion-dollar devices to control and use it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly complicated underground distribution network. Many store huge quantities for later use. Act now to prevent further contamination. Contact your member of Parliament today.
H20. Water. Posted by: Matt at January 28, 2004 01:08 AMDoes cannabis affect your spelling? Posted by: Peter at January 28, 2004 01:50 AMPeter, to whom are you refering? You will find some of the answers here will be posted by teenagers that smoke cannabis, and these teenagers also spend a lot of time "texting" on mobile phones (nd tork lik thi5). I'm only in my twenties myself, but I like to think that dispite over 6 years of cannabis use (at least 4 times a week, on average) I have managed to keep a pretty good head when it comes to spelling. If you are questioning intelligence, the score I got on the last "Test the Nation" was a rough IQ of 148. I did the test whilst stoned. Choose to believe it or not. Lumping all stoners into a stereotypical image of long hair, can't reed or right[sic for those that are too stupid to notice irony], listen to bad music and generally are losers is a tad nasty. I could say that anyone who drinks alchohol is a wife-beating loud-mouthed council estate, welfare stealing lay-about. But that would be wrong since I don't know any of you. Posted by: Matt at January 28, 2004 02:50 AMAfter reading "Why I Am A Progressive", I tried to find out what a (British) Progressive is. I tried dictionaries, encyclopedias, political web sites and blogs. Seems like there are left and right political parties that call themselves progressive, mostly left and very far left. So, on the Nolan Chart below, where does "progressive" lie? My bet: somewhere between left-wing and communist. (Please forgive the rows of dots. I had to use them to get things to line up because of the web server.) Thanks. ...^ ............................ECONOMIC FREEDOM Posted by: Mark at January 28, 2004 04:37 AMMelanie, steve clements "Britain has the strictest laws on drug use in Europe and now has the worst drug problem and you think prohibition works?" Really? Who says so? Surely the point Melanie is making, and one with which I wholehearedly concur, is that the failure to enforce whatever laws we have has led to a perception among young and impressionable people that using cannbis is okay. The recent reclassification has reinforced this view. This in turn will lead to increased use of a mind altering dangerous drug. Most serious and informed medical opinion is that mind altering drugs are a menace and in many cases do permanent damage to the brain. My empirical experience since the 1950s backs up that medical finding and as I pointed out in previous posts that experience includes a career as a police officer and a subsequent long period in the National Health Service, dealing with the fall out from the police failure to contain crime. No law works absolutely, but that is a very poor excuse for repealing laws. When the police call for repeal of essential laws, it is usually because they have lost the wit and resolve to enforce them properly and are taking flak. If that attitude is allowed to prevail we shall finish up with anarchy. In fact one very senior officer is reported to have stated that he has a secret leaning towards anarchy. Would it therefore be unfair to suspect that this just may have an effect on enforcement policy? It is pointless making these arguments to people who are already entrapped in their habit and prefer to hallucinate rather than dealing with their inadequacies. Some seem to be in the throes of cannabis delusion and paranoia while typing their contributions hereupon. But for those visiting this thread who are "undecided" perhaps they consider first and foremost the predicament that visits the parents and siblings of youngsters bombed out on hashish, or other drugs that they have moved on to when their moral fibre has been destroyed by cannabis. Everyone who has served as a police officer, or on the front line in casualty departments of hospitals have had to deal with such VICTIMS of dangerous drugs. But those who have selfishly withdrawn into their hazy Nirvana don't give a shit, it's like .. way out man. Cool. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 28, 2004 09:57 AMMark Trying staying off it for a week, then read Melanie's bio again. It should become clearer, unless permanent damage has already been incurred ... Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 28, 2004 10:14 AMMelanie has added to her brilliance with an penetrating measure of investigative journalism to expose the hidden international agenda behind ‘harm reduction’. What do you mean? Has she exposed the crimes committed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair? Have they not committed great harm to others in the service of continued prosperity for us "westerners"? What exactly has she exposed? Instead she starts rants about nothing. Exposing nothing. Debating nothing and finally getting pats on the back from her loyal believers, extoling her nothingness.
Frank ...she rants ahout nothing! ...Exposes nothing! ...Deabtes nothing! ____________________ Try to be a little bit more intelligent than this? Or else, do us a favour and leave! Posted by: Frisbee at January 28, 2004 01:08 PMI agree with what Melanie's research implies completely. Cannabis is a dangerous drug and should be illegal. Furthermore the law should be enforced strongly. Melanie, your last two articles were excellant, keep up the good work. I appreciate all your research and the fact that you are prepared to make a stand on such an important issue in the face of hostility. I for one am completely behind you. Some of the posts here reflect the moral bankruptcy of Britain. Not because people disagree on this issue, but because people increasingly believe that they should be able to do whatever they want providing it doesn't harm anyone else directly. The notion of right and wrong seems to have been completely forgotten. Taking drugs is wrong. Government has a responsibilty to prevent it, to protect children from being exposed to it and to protect other people from the actions of those who would take it. This government is not doing its job, is failing the British people and has been for some time. Posted by: Richard at January 28, 2004 01:10 PMContinuing from the above threads and those of Melanie's earlier article, repeated claims are made about the alleged medical benefits of cannabis. The Christian Institute provides the following information: 8. “It is wrong to criminalise people who use cannabis for medical reasons.” "Cannabis is not a medicine. "The difference between cannabis in its street form and the medically useful cannabinoids, is like comparing the painkiller morphine, which is given under medical supervision, with street heroin which may cause death from an overdose, or may contain a fatal infection or may be mixed with anything from talcum powder to strychnine. The raw form is dirty and dangerous and of unpredictable toxicity. The other is a highly developed pharmaceutical product, administered in carefully regulated doses under medical supervision." Cannabis does seem to affect rationality. The contributor who took me task about air pollution overlooked the fact that I was referring to road safety, not vehicle emissions. His commendable stance on not using a car was obviously not shared by many of the 12% + of road fatalities who took the drug and wound up dead. Many of the pro-pot lobby contributors seem to be resorting to the ad hominem argument (i.e. slate Melanie) or evasion (e.g. Christian values are outmoded). This, too, is indicative of irrationality. To illustrate the folly of dismissing Christian principles, I allude to the 17th century street preacher confronted by an atheist who openly declared God didn't exist (the sort of view that Professor Dawkins might espouse). The preacher replied: "We read in the first verse of the Fourteenth Psalm [written about 1000 BC] that 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God'. Methink thou art a greater fool, thou proclaimest it out loud!" To Chris I say, stick to cycling, mate. It's good exercise and will help counter the effects of any kind of smoking but don't go out if you've had a joint because you're even more vulnerable than if you were behind a wheel. I think we're both agreed that neither of us would want to see you adding to the above statistics. Frank Pulley, at January 28, 2004 09:57 AM you posted: "Really, says who" in regards to the claim that britain has Europe's harshest drug laws and the highest drug use rates [amongsts teenagers]. Well, here's who says who: North Wales Police Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom
Paul Flynn, Labour MP
The Report that also states this can be found here: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/runciman/default.htm Chairman: Viscountess Runciman DBE By the Police Foundation.
THAT'S who says so. It's amazing you know: The prohibitionists here are happy to throw about claims and "facts" and figures, but no sources are found. I haven't seen a single link to a conclusive study. Just wild accusations and claims. I've done a lot of work here showing how these claims are wrong, pointing you in the direction of evidence, studies and reviews that show the opposite, and yet you all remain silent about this. Why do you not answer the direct evidence? Posted by: Matt at January 28, 2004 03:55 PMFrank Pulley - I’d be fascinated to learn how you think prohibition could be enforced. Do you think we need more police or should existing police be diverted from other activities? Should we build more jails to house the inmates and new courts to process the prosecutions or should we release other prisoners earlier and not prosecute other crimes? And if we need more police and more jails where will this money come from? Higher taxes? Less money for transport or schools? Richard, I fail to see the problem with “people increasingly believ[ing] that they should be able to do whatever they want providing it doesn't harm anyone else directly”. What gives you the right to decide what I, or anyone else, can do in the privacy of my own home or to my own body? Why should your morality be the only acceptable one? Matt You comment: "I've done a lot of work here showing how these claims are wrong, pointing you in the direction of evidence, studies and reviews that show the opposite, and yet you all remain silent about this. Why do you not answer the direct evidence?" It's debatable if we have or do not have the harshest laws in Europe. Remember, Paul Flynn and the Chief Constable of North Wales are expressing an opinion - nothing more. Other politicians and chief officers could and do take an opposing view. Meanwhile, down on the street itself, these so-called 'harsh' laws are hardly ever put into practice. The view is widely held that we have gotten soft on drugs which accounts in part for its abundance and all the deviant behaviour that follows from it.
I know you disagree - but there! Simply common sense should tell you to be cautious about taking any substance that inhibits your mental faculties and well-being, and yes, this applies equally to alcohol as well. It's nice to see Ms. Phillips engaging so vigorously with the users of her website. Posted by: anon at January 28, 2004 09:17 PMOh Mel, didn't go too well did it? 'Moral maze' Radio 4, highly recommended: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/religion/rams/ram_moralmaze.ram http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml congratulations Ms Phillips, for making so many people so happy by your tour de force on the wireless recently - the way you masterfully misquoted figures about the Dutch experience on the Jeremy Vine programme.........and then the moral maze........just too good -how do you manage it? - you do of course realise that these performances are now being replayed all round the world as classical of their genre, demonstrating wonderfully how not to make a point, telling barefaced lies, and being stupid enough to think noone noticed! Thank you dear, you've made my day! Matt I'm glad you quoted those three 'sources', you make my point perfectly. They are just intra-quoting each other and they are all therefore talking absolute bollocks! Moreover they have an agenda. Once again I paraphrase our famous Ducal hero, "If you believe them, you'll believe anything!" Dream on. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 01:32 AMDavid Crane, It is not 'Prohibition'. That much overused phrase was once applied to the Noble Experiment before both you and were born, and what those of us who have studied the Cosa Nostra refer to as the Nobbled Experiment. I could discuss the implications of that gigantic conspiracy, but I won't in the context of this thread. What you are referring to is ProSCRIPTION by duly passed legislation which is still on the statute books and should be enforced by the officers who carry the Queen's Warrant. For some reason many have now taken it upon themselves, aided and abetted by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, to abrogate their duty to enforce the law. This has led to large sections of youth (not to mention many old lags) to believe, correctly it seems, that they can break the law with impunity. Hence the exponential increase in drugs crimes. It seems to be a reasonable argument that people who commit criminal offences should, when detected, be prosecuted and if found guilty be sentenced appropriately. If they offend repeatedly, then the punishment should become increasingly heavier, if necessary by imprisonment. That way criminals are removed from the streets and others are deterred. It's so simple - break the law, suffer the penalty. Any other method is retrograde and stupid. What are the police for, if not just that? Those police officers who aver that it is not possible and that they are too busy to be bothered with it should resign and hang their heads in shame. I did it throughout my police career with no difficulty whatsoever. Unaided by the Crown Prosecution Service, from the street via the nick to the Magistrate next morning. Minimal paper work. If you want to know where the real problem lies, it's the CPS. A pointless. useless expensive obstacle to policing and a fabulously expensive white elephant. Good solicitors practice company law or acquire partnerships in lucrative private practice. Or become journalists! Those who have a political agenda, or aren't up to much, either become MPs or join the CPS. Do away with it. Give police back their prosecutorial powers and sack all the egregious police managers who have been nobbled by the leftist cultural hegemony that infests the police colleges or the crimonology faculties at universities. There is so much crap talked about policing these days that it makes me want to throw up. Give the streets back to policemen and force the top heavy layer of 'specialists' and managers back into the front line. Police offices are overpopulated and the streets are therefore under policed. Clubs are allowed to propagate drugs crime with impunity. It's madness.
Derek Williams If you are addressing Melanie by name, for God's sake spell it correctly. It's good manners! Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 02:26 AMWhilst driving home tonight I tuned into the radio and came across a discussion on cannabis. Melanie was on the panel, and, well, she's incredible really. I don't have a view myself on the cannabis issue (not having heard all the arguments) but this woman has absolutely no sense of what it means to 'discuss' an issue. I really had to laugh because I've never heard anyone so steadfastly refuse to listen to and consider what others are saying. She tries incredibly hard to sound learned & intelligent but when faced with a reasoned argument opposing her own views this quickly breaks down and she is unable to think outside her own rigid box. Posted by: RobJ at January 28, 2004 11:33 PM Says it all really. Posted by: anon at January 29, 2004 09:52 AMRobJ, not having listened to the broadcast I cannot comment, beyond recalling exactly what Howard Marks is notorious for....a little bit of Lexis-Nexis and Net fishing with Google might reveal that his recommendations are to be taken very lightly. "In the mid-1980's Howard Marks had 43 aliases and 89 phone lines. He was Britain's most wanted man. He had contacts with the IRA, the CIA, MI6 and the Mafia" "For 20 years, one man - Oxford-educated Dennis Howard Marks - was responsible for running an international drug market that shipped marijuana into the US by the ton. Frontline tells the story of the man who believed that he was too smart to be caught-and the DEA agent who was determined to prove him wrong" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/902.html Posted by: Romulus at January 29, 2004 09:59 AMMelanie, What part of "less harmfull if legalised and controlled,rather than prohibited ."Was it you didn't understand ? Cannabis more harmfull than heroin ?I agree with Howard Marks,cannabis does cause an imbalance of rationality.But only in those who have never used it. Posted by: M at January 29, 2004 10:04 AMFor the sake of argument let’s say we do away with the CPS and the mounds of paperwork which tie police officers to their desks. Let’s assume this releases all the officers we need to solve the many other crimes which plague society, with enough left over to catch users and suppliers of illegal drugs. The problem of prosecution still remains. I hope you’d agree the first priority of these officers should be to catch burglars, robbers, rapists, paedophiles and murderers. So already we’ve got thousands more criminals entering a stretched-to-breaking-point judicial system. On top of this we need a way of processing tens of thousands of illegal drug users. Where are these new courts and new judges going to come from? Where will we house persistent offenders whose behaviour is not changed by fines or community service? Where will we find the billions necessary to fund such an enterprise? Even if the money could be found this level of enforcement costs society in ways which cannot be measured in fiscal terms. And that is the cost of punishing people for private, consensual, behaviour which harms nobody else. It is the cost of enforcing one, disputed, morality on an unwilling minority. It is the cost of freedom and choice. For all of us suffer when we deny others the right to choose for themselves what works and what doesn’t. __________________________ I've just finished listening to the BBC programme about cannabis. What is remarkable is that all the speakers agree - CANNABIS IS HARMFUL Martin Baines, of Drugscope, went so far as to say that it is "...not safe to take cannabis." But then went on the push the "harm reduction" idea which considerably undermines the case for rejecting cannabis use. Terry Hammond, made a compelling case for the continued criminalisation of cannabis use based on his personal experiences. And as for Mr Nice, one Howard Marks, the only research he relied on was the Australian example. Taking the discussion in the round, the message that came across was that we need to continue our vigilance against all drugs, one of which includes the brown stuff.
On the BBC radio programme last night Howard Marks admitted that there was evidence for and against cannabis induced schizophrenia, why don't you admit that Ms Phillips? Why do you only see one side of the debate? Posted by: Chris at January 29, 2004 01:03 PMThe idea with harm reduction is to reduce the harm associated with something (geddit?) If cannabis was available freely: 1) More people would take it (thus increased risk) NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND HARM REDUCTION? Posted by: Doob at January 29, 2004 01:56 PMThe world health organisation in a leaked report published by new scientist in feb 1998 stated: "....cannabis is less harmful to health than alcohol or tobacco." How could anyone denounce the WHO? How can sustainable development be acheived in a finite resource economic global system? It can not be acheived because the resources we use are runni9ng out. However it could be if the world mass produced and processed cannabis hemp. Frisby, Frank Pulley You state that the links I provided are not valid or do not prove my point. How do you do this? By stating that they are opinion and thus not valid? Did you actually click on the links and read the evidence, because it does not look like you did? As I said above, the prohibitionists seem to just *ignore* the evidence and just go ahead regardless. You have not actually disproven the research, just stated that you don't like it and so you will not respond to it. Thank you for proving what I already said. Posted by: Matt at January 29, 2004 02:24 PMWhat's the betting that Melanie never, ever looks at these comments? I reckon the odds would be pretty good. Still, perhaps that's for good reason. She doesn't have the required intellectual acumen to see that the stoners are armed with facts while she is armed with rhetorical spitballs. Hell, to even experience such a devastating moment of intellectual clarity she'd have to rise to an altitude so far above the gutter her head would probably explode. Posted by: Chokehold at January 29, 2004 04:24 PMMelanie and other prohibitionists miss the point. The point surely has something to do with i) to what extent should the state interfere with the practices of its citizens EVEN if they are harmful? ii) how much time and effort should be put into aprehending dope smokers compared to all other criminals? There are some choices to be made. How would you, reader, prefer the police to spend their time? On arresting and charging people smoking dope (even if it is a fairly stupid and mind-destoying activity)? Arresting and charging people involved in 1) robbery 2) rape 3) violence...? Because, with the police being totally unable to cope with violent crime in society now, it is surely a travesty for them to be wasting time in apprehending people smoking dope. If that is the logic, then tobacco should be made illegal forthwith and smokers should be arrested and, if found guilty of giving a cigarette to another person, charged with endangering the other person with cancer. This would, of course, be farcical, but, ultimately, if, as adults, people choose to do dangerous things to their own bodies, it is their choice as well as their look out - but should have nothing to do with anyone else, unless it endangers the lives of innocent people Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 04:36 PMthis is the truth, cannabis is too bound up with international law "united nations treaty against narcotics" for any governnment of one single nation to declare legalisation, it is in the intrest of the government to legalise but they cant due to this international treaty, but as the netherlands and 6 other european nations have withdrawn from applying the rulings of the treaty and have decriminalised cannabis and in some countrys all drugs, these include spain , portugal, holland, germany,switzerland ect and dare i say , the u.k, where you get 20 hours comunity service for smuggling a kilo, makes it worthwhile, that is what the judges do and they are the judges we put thier to decide, are they all wrong or are the torys and their fachism looking for the dawning of the ditatoral u.k , british public have a million votes for labour on this one torys you aint geting power back, howard you make a good copper but you never be prime minister cos you need the public behind your party and that wont happen again in my lifetime thatherism destroyed the tory vote , we aint selling you britain again, yuppy puppys are now ganja gurus, we seen sense, and back new labour all the way into the next election so stick that in your prohibitional pipe and chock on that mel, from His Imperial Majesty LORD HEMP and dare i say Posted by: The Governer at January 29, 2004 08:23 PMBy removing our choice to do what we like to our own bodies in the privacy of our own home. This is fascist, tyrannical and undemocratic. Furthermore it is a restriction of human rights. the prohibition of marijuana causes many more problems than it solves as it did with alchohol - the more commonly used and more dangerous drug of choice for our country. Cannabis has been used for thousands of years with no evidence of increased schizophrenia and a section of society made of passive peace loving stoners can only be better than a string of violent destructive drunks. Posted by: Zach at January 29, 2004 09:09 PMThe right to grow and use a herb put on the planet for us, the self-determination to decide that a particular (free and unpatentable) remedy is the most effective at curing our ills, is that too much to ask? Is punishing people for doing it genuinely in the public interest? If an artist finds inspiration in it, by what right and for what purpose would anyone deny his or her right to do what works for him? I don’t drink, because my wife is a recovering alcoholic, but I know I have no place dictating or even judging whether another man may drink or not. Children need to be protected from harming themselves with drink or drugs, something controlled supply would help to achieve. Adults, unless deemed mentally unfit, are able to and should have the right to determine their own actions. Posted by: TD at January 29, 2004 11:34 PMMel is paid to write opinions like this.. what did you expect? That's why Daily Mail readers buy the Daily Mail...
Well this has certainly brought out the pot heads and blind libertarians. These ones will find any rationalisation for supporting a substance which is dangerous, demotivating and causes problems for years afterwards. I have dealt with may children/youths who have lost their way due to this stuff. I lived in Holland 15 years and Melanies account is much nearer the truth than the crticisms of the posters above admit. These posts show an intellectual immaturity. Posted by: gwilym bugail at January 30, 2004 10:50 AMGwilym, I agree to an extent. However, any serious analysis of whether pot should be down-graded cannot get away from the following type of analysis: 1) to whom is it a danger? The individual who takes it or to wider society? 2) if it is a danger - how does it rank in 'risk assessment' terms compared to other risks that individuals take? 3) Given the findings of the analysis of 1) and 2) - which risky activities should be illegal and which ones should be legal? 4) How much police time should be spent on controlling the activities listed in 3? Due to the lack of thinking outlined in stages 1-4 there is warped thinking based on lack of logic in many countries in terms of laws relating to activities that involve personal risk and the policing thereof. Just one example of where lack of logical thinking and rigorous analysis can lead: The European Commission has pushed through pan-European advertising restrictions on tobacco products whilst simultaneously giving grants to tobacco growers in Greece. This to me encapsulates the muddled and lack of rigorous thinking that is urgently needed in these debates and the policy forumalation and implementation that arises from them. Whilst I think that Melanie's articles on this subject are well-intentioned and do not deserve the scorn poured on them she is not good at assessing these issues critically and at arriving at workable solutions that will tackle the problems in an intellectually coherent manner Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 11:30 AMGwilym wrote: "Well this has certainly brought out the pot heads and blind libertarians. These ones will find any rationalisation for supporting a substance which is dangerous, demotivating and causes problems for years afterwards. I have dealt with may children/youths who have lost their way due to this stuff. I lived in Holland 15 years and Melanies account is much nearer the truth than the crticisms of the posters above admit. These posts show an intellectual immaturity." That's all well and good but you mustn't generalise too far outwards from your own experiences. I lived in Holland for twenty two years and still make time to visit at least twice a year since I moved back to the UK. I think Melanie's "criticisms" are, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, as pointful and relevant as an accordion on a duck hunt. As much as I dislike relegating people to the status of 'noise' in the signal/noise ratio, I must confess that I can't think of a more appropriate position for Ms Phillips. As it stands now, I am allowed to grow a bush whose berries, if eaten, will cause my child to becom sick and possibly die. I am not allowed to grow a bush which will, if smoked, produce a pleasently relaxed state where stuff is funny. This can only be the result of great heaping gobs of stupidity. Once you take into account the fact that all the cannabis horror stories are frienzied figments of the authoritarian zealot group consciousness it really does that imple. Posted by: Chokehold at January 30, 2004 11:48 AM"it really does that imple." Ugh, don't you just hate it when bad things happen to good sentences? That's supposed to read 'It really does become that simple'. Forgive me, I've evidently not had enough coffee. the idea that re-classification of cannabis to class C will make more people take it and then go on to harder drugs is utterly stupid, there are 3 million cannabis users in this country if i am correct there is less than 200,00 heroin users. As for the psychosis cannabis link there is evidence that cannabis does act as a trigger for those with a predisposision towards mental health issues which appears to be arround 10% of those who do use cannabis, AFTER significant heavy use for a long period of time .ie if OVERUSED. Therefore being more liberal on cannabis use would be beneficial to future psychotic candidates (who will try cannabis at some point anyway in the current situation) as users would become more informed of the dangers as opposed to feeling like a criminal. Surely keeping cannabis in the same class as amphetamines which are certain to cause psychosis is idiotic. I always thought journalists based their opinions on research, not out dated dickensian, middle class drivel that you (and the daily mail) seem to regurgitate at every oportunity. Posted by: this charming man at January 30, 2004 08:52 PMWell, well, well, so here we see an instance of truthful superior arguments being censored. That's right Melanie, you and Dr. Murray are lying about the Runciman Commission above, and I will continue posting this letter no matter how many times you remove it: Pubdate: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 CANNABIS AND MENTAL ILLNESS Sir, The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ( ACMD ) considered in some depth possible links between cannabis and mental illness ( report, January 21 ) and concluded that there is little significant evidence of a causal link, particularly with schizophrenia, although cannabis use can unquestionably worsen a mental illness which already exists. Most of Professor Robin Murray's research was known to the advisory council at the time it was producing its cannabis report. The council is of the view that any new evidence produced since does not affect the overall weight of evidence, or its conclusions about health risks. You quote Professor Murray saying: Unfortunately there were no experts in psychosis on the committee that advised the Government,implying that our report was not a comprehensive study. ACMD members are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds and areas of expertise. Both the sub-committee meetings of the ACMD, and the full council meetings at the time of the discussion on cannabis reclassification, were well attended by representatives from the fields of psychiatry and psychopharmacology. As far as I am aware, the BMA has not taken an official position on reclassification. However it has raised concerns over the public perception of the health effects of cannabis. The classification system for drugs does not mean that any of these substances are harmless. If they were, they would not be included in the Misuse of Drugs Act. Yours faithfully, MICHAEL RAWLINS, ( Chair ), Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, SW1H 9AT. January 21. Posted by: Harold Feely at January 31, 2004 05:28 AMThe reason Ms. Murray is being ignored is because she and this author are wrong. They are misrepresenting the conclusions of researchers on schizophrenia and marijuana use. The link I have given is for one of these studies, and it outlines aclearly that marijuana does not appear to cause schizophrenia: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/327/7423/1070-c#40671 Schizophrenia rates per capita have been flat for over a century as marijuana use comes into the Western societal mainstream. But, that fact does not appear to phase witch hunters. The bottom line is that every single drug policy study ever done in a century recommends decriminalization, most legalization of cannabis possession. All of them, and I invite the reader to peruse them: Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy More Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Senate of Canada: 37th Parliament, 1st Session Canadian Commons/Parliament Report on Drug Policy circa 2002: In fact, while we are at it, WebMD - Marijuana Unlikely to Cause Head, Neck, or Lung Cancer Here is the largest study ever done on mortality and cannabis use: Sidney et al., 1997, Marijuana Use and Mortality, Kaiser Permanente, Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons Under 65 Years of Age, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, Vol. 149, No.9 pages 794-800, 1999 One of the interesting conclusions of the drug policy report Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse circa 1973, was that the real drug problem was not heroin, cocaine, or marijuana, but the ignorance of our public officials who have never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject. That goes for all who would advocate arresting, prosecuting, and caging a marijuana user with violent felons. "Everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look [Well this has certainly brought out the pot heads and blind libertarians.] Such invalidations and character assassinations may make you feel better, but I am a drug policy scholar. Since my writing was censored, I have reposted it, and now I am going to do what I used to do in the old days. Kick some ignorant drug warrior asses. Wanna play? [These ones will find any rationalisation for supporting a substance] I do not support a substance. I oppose the regulatory policy being put forth. You support caging marijuana users and sellers with violent felons. [which is dangerous, demotivating and causes problems for years afterwards.] Poppycock. Illusionary correlation. I quote the Canadian Senate Report on Marijuana Policy, Volume One, circa 2002, page 165, "In total, based on all the data from the research and the testimony heard regarding the effects and consequences of cannabis use, the Committee concludes that the state of knowledge supports the belief that, for the vast majority of recreational users, cannabis use presents no harmful consequences for physical, psychological or social well-being in either the short or the long term." You see, I actually STUDY drug policy. You have obviously never read a major work in your life. Here, open book debate: Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy More Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy Senate of Canada: 37th Parliament, 1st Session Canadian Commons/Parliament Report on Drug Policy circa 2002: Support your views, attempt to support zero tolerance policies as regards regulating cannabis. [I have dealt with may children/youths who have lost their way due to this stuff.] Illusionary correlation. Just because two events coincide does not mean one caused the other. Believe it or not, people get maladjusted with or without cannabis use being present. It really does not even matter as regards effective regulations. It is under these prohibition policies that these horrible events you have observed have occured. [I lived in Holland 15 years and Melanies account is much nearer the truth than the crticisms of the posters above admit. These posts show an intellectual immaturity.] It would seem to me it is intellectually immature to ignore a century's worth of advice in scholarly drug policy works that ALL recommend decriminalization, most full legalization of marijuana possession. Do you agree that every drug policy study ever done recommends decriminalzation of marijuana possession? Chokehold; [This can only be the result of great heaping gobs of stupidity. Once you take into account the fact that all the cannabis horror stories are frienzied figments of the authoritarian zealot group consciousness it really does that imple.] I like this writing by Peter Webster, I think you will appreciate it: Part 1: Drug Prohibition: A Perverted Instinct? Part 2 - Drug Prohibition: A Perverted Instinct? mel The next 12 months will prove interesting as social order breaks down due to cannabis being reclassified class C. I'd recommend razor wire for your garden fence, a steel front door and bars on the windows. Id recommend that already, as I returned from Waitrose last night I spotted two teenage lads carrying a clearly incapacitated young girl between them. They had obviously taken mind altering intoxicants available on each street corner. The drugs were in a can marked "Stella Artois" and is called "lager". I think its disgusting that the drink laws have been so relaxed that children can get hold of it so readily. I agree with frank the ex copper, they should put a policeman in every off licence to combat this menace. Cannabis, dear Mel, is the very least of this countries ills. Posted by: kevin at January 31, 2004 02:27 PMMy son has been ADDICTED, yes, addicted, to the evil weed for nearly ten years. I have watched his suffering and his torment and have felt powerless to help, but kept trying nevertheless. I would cut out any article I could find giving information about the awful stuff to show him, in the hope that he would wake up to the world that is a much better place without it. Every article I read seems to be talking about my son! Cannabis has kept his life on hold for so long and is destroying him. I could write for days about his mood changes, his deep deep depressions. The times when I have been afraid to leave him on his own for fear of what he might do to end his suffering. His paranoia about many things, so much so that he has holed himself up in his room for days refusing to go to first college, then work. As I said earlier, I could go on and on. It has been heartbreaking, but I will never give up. There is hope on the horizon however, as a couple of weeks ago after a particularly heavy night smoking it, he had a bad bad experience of paranoia which frightened him. Since then he has cut down dramatically, he tells me, and feels much clearer thinking. He seems far more human, lovable, less moody and depressed. His intention is to try to quit so that he can start to live his life and take control. He has a huge mountain to climb but I will be with him every step of the way! He has even started to write a book with a very strong message to tell, in the hope that it will stop at least one person going down that sad path to hell. All you poor addicts out there, stop denying the facts, face them. Take control. Posted by: A mother who is trying to save her son!! at February 2, 2004 11:27 PMMiss Phillips, "My son has been ADDICTED, yes, addicted, to the evil weed for nearly ten years. I have watched his suffering and his torment and have felt powerless to help, but kept trying nevertheless. I would cut out any article I could find giving information about the awful stuff to show him, in the hope that he would wake up to the world that is a much better place without it. Every article I read seems to be talking about my son! Cannabis has kept his life on hold for so long and is destroying him. I could write for days about his mood changes, his deep deep depressions. The times when I have been afraid to leave him on his own for fear of what he might do to end his suffering. His paranoia about many things, so much so that he has holed himself up in his room for days refusing to go to first college, then work. As I said earlier, I could go on and on. It has been heartbreaking, but I will never give up. There is hope on the horizon however, as a couple of weeks ago after a particularly heavy night smoking it, he had a bad bad experience of paranoia which frightened him. Since then he has cut down dramatically, he tells me, and feels much clearer thinking. He seems far more human, lovable, less moody and depressed. His intention is to try to quit so that he can start to live his life and take control. He has a huge mountain to climb but I will be with him every step of the way! He has even started to write a book with a very strong message to tell, in the hope that it will stop at least one person going down that sad path to hell. All you poor addicts out there, stop denying the facts, face them. Take control. I wonder if this drivel will be censord along with our comments. Posted by: Andrew at February 3, 2004 01:28 AMDavid: I just took a peek at this thread to see how it was going and found the following paragraph from your post of Jan 30 at 11.30am. I could hardly believe my eyes: "Whilst I think that Melanie's articles on this subject are well-intentioned and do not deserve the scorn poured on them, she is not good at assessing these issues critically and at arriving at workable solutions that will tackle the problems in an intellectually coherent manner." Well intentioned! She is not good at assessing these issues critically! Or in an intellectually coherent manner! Really? How interesting. And this from a person who averred on another thread that he was intellectually superior; better read; better educated and better travelled than someone who had the audacity to disagree with him - it may even have been me, but I can't be bothered to track back to confirm it. One emetic per day is sufficient. I'm so surprised that a man of your intelligence quotient is wasting his time trolling on this blog arguing the toss with the proles. Not much exercise for such a brilliant mind, I'm sure. Or do you have a mission to improve our lives? And what do you do between your sessions of brain surgery and working on the next phase of Einstein's special theory of relativity? Oh, I forgot. You have a 'loving relationship' to attend to. Has he a similar IQ? And if he hasn't, are you as condescending and patronising(yes - I know, tautological, but I wanted to underline your self-esteem) towards him as you have been towards Melanie? And perhaps you could assimilate and analyse the last post from 'a mother who is trying to save her son.' Just in case we inferiors have not fully understood it? And why not pass on some tips to Melanie, I'm sure she's always grateful for assistance from a real expert. From Brussels, too, the very heart of the universe which you understand so well. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 3, 2004 01:30 AMDavid: I just took a peek at this thread to see how it was going and found the following paragraph from your post of Jan 30 at 11.30am. I could hardly believe my eyes: "Whilst I think that Melanie's articles on this subject are well-intentioned and do not deserve the scorn poured on them, she is not good at assessing these issues critically and at arriving at workable solutions that will tackle the problems in an intellectually coherent manner." Well intentioned! She is not good at assessing these issues critically! Or in an intellectually coherent manner! Really? How interesting. And this from a person who averred on another thread that he was intellectually superior; better read; better educated and better travelled than someone who had the audacity to disagree with him - it may even have been me, but I can't be bothered to track back to confirm it. One emetic per day is sufficient. I'm so surprised that a man of your intelligence quotient is wasting his time trolling on this blog arguing the toss with the proles. Not much exercise for such a brilliant mind, I'm sure. Or do you have a mission to improve our lives? And what do you do between your sessions of brain surgery and working on the next phase of Einstein's special theory of relativity? Oh, I forgot. You have a 'loving relationship' to attend to. Has he a similar IQ? And if he hasn't, are you as condescending and patronising(yes - I know, tautological, but I wanted to underline your self-esteem) towards him as you have been towards Melanie? And perhaps you could assimilate and analyse the last post from 'a mother who is trying to save her son.' Just in case we inferiors have not fully understood it? And why not pass on some tips to Melanie, I'm sure she's always grateful for assistance from a real expert. From Brussels, too, the very heart of the universe which you understand so well. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 3, 2004 02:17 AMYour thing on radio 4 was totally kick ass! I've never laughed at anyone so hard. Do you write this stuff yourself Mel? or do you just take it from script? You should do a show at the komedia in brighton. Me and all my mates would buy tickets for sure. Posted by: kraftycuts at February 3, 2004 05:45 PMWell, I've certainly learned something here. Ironic how the host (Ms Phillips) has facilitated such an enlightening forum. I wonder if her editors bother to read the comments here. What conclusion can be drawn from a 96.8% rejection ratio? Well at least it clearly proves something - the Daily Mail do NOT listen to their readers. One less customer here. Posted by: Willkor Croniker at February 3, 2004 06:13 PMI just listened to that Radio 4 Moral Maze show and wanted to thank whoever posted the url for it (now removed....I wonder why). Anyway that gave me the biggest laugh I've had for ages. Highlights had to be the disussion with Howard Marks, here's some transcripts for those that missed it. MP: With respect, we’re going round in circles MP: (quotes)… “cannabis Users never question their actions, they are unable to change. They cannot take criticism and feel misunderstood. Trying to talk sense to users becomes a futile exercise. Does that not very accurately describe you Mr Marks? And quote of the day: HM: “It(cannabis) does seem to cause this sort of imbalance and irrationality but only among people that don’t use it.” Priceless!
Frank, "Whilst I think that Melanie's articles on this subject are well-intentioned and do not deserve the scorn poured on them, she is not good at assessing these issues critically and at arriving at workable solutions that will tackle the problems in an intellectually coherent manner." Yes - I did post that and I stand by it. If you care to read the rest of the post whence it came you will see how I arrived at that conclusion. As to my other remarks in our on-line bust up I actually did regret in retrospect some of the things I said...because I descended temporarily to the level of the kind of remarks and put-downs you frequently make towards gay people posting on this site. However, I have 'moved on'...suggest you do too...(read the nice suggestions I made to you about a future trip to Brussels on another thread to see that I bear no malice).... Posted by: David at February 4, 2004 12:18 PMDavid How sweet you are! But don't pee down my back and try to tell me it's raining! I can smell what it is even when I'm not looking, and I have my raincoat on anyway. Many of your opinions are valid, often well thought out and I sometimes enjoy them, until you push your proclivity; or talk down to others, particularly your host, who stands head and shoulders above you intellectually. Self praise is no recommendation, as my old Granny told me whenever I got uppity. And by the way there is no malice on my part; it's just that a timely bollocking of a young upstart is sometimes necessary, even if it is by 'a stupid old fart' (paraphrased of course, but I think that captures your sentiments). And if you think people will 'move on' at your behest when you disagree with them then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land. But I forgot, you currently reside in Brussels. LOL. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 01:18 PMPS, David Thank you for your kind recommendations of hostelries in Brussels. If the Gramscians ever kidnap me and force me at the point of a gun to return to that odious city, I may look them up. Not gay bars I hope? Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 01:40 PMHere's that url again for the mp3 version of the Moral Maze radio 4 broadcast for those that missed it: Frank, What ARE you going on about?? Please don't come on like a street tough and then get a fit of the Victorian vapours when someone takes you on. (The same goes for Melanie who should realize that runnin a blog on which the host posts controversial views will be like a red rag to a bull for other bloggers. That said, I DO regard her as a good and well-intentioned woman - unfortunately you interpret that as patronising - a modern affliction indeed - and some of her writings are excellent. However, on some issues, she displays a lack of perspective, an inability to put matters into context, and workable solutions to the problems she highlights. I do wonder whether she might be in favour of making rock climbing illegal on the basis that it entails personal (and sometimes collective) risk). "Not gay bars I hope?" Yes, of course they are...I think your appearance there would lead to a night of hilarity LOL
"and workable solutions to the problems she highlights". should have read "and a dearth of workable solutions to the problems she highlights" Posted by: David at February 4, 2004 02:51 PMhi Posted by: jomno at February 4, 2004 04:13 PMDavid "Yes, of course they are...I think your appearance there would lead to a night of hilarity LOL" Rest assured that it wouldn't lead to anything else! LO vri L. BTW 'jomno' is trying to attract your attention - you may have better luck there! Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 06:13 PMMs Phillips - what right do you have to tell me what to put in my body? Posted by: Hugh at February 4, 2004 07:17 PMOi ya fascist cunt, why do you keep deleting the messages ? reality jump up and bite your saggy old arse ? Or just plain embarrassed that you couldnt your win point in your debate with howard marks ha ha Posted by: ihateyou at February 4, 2004 07:52 PMDear Ihateyou, For goodness sake go away and read some history about the real meaning of the word 'fascist' which is far removed from a host of a web site removing comments from her own site. I have no idea about the state of Ms Phillips' backside, but I would suggest that a far more important part of her body - her brain - is in a better state than yours. Posted by: David at February 5, 2004 09:22 AMIs Frank Pulley:- When will you narrow minded people stop deciding what is good for me and all the other people who decide to use cannabis? I have used cannabis for almost 25 years, have four children and a lovely husband, a nice home and a good quality of life. Cannabis really fucked me over didn't it? Get real Melanie, do more research next time you decide to enter a cannabis debate, AND have the decency to allow freedom of speech(Stop deleting all the excellent PRO cannabis posts please) Oh and one more thing Thanks Posted by: Sarah Chalk at February 5, 2004 10:39 AMThis thread has run its course. Can we have some jokes about Ian Huntley or something? Oh and any Harold Shipman jokes not about boxing and "his lethal jab". Or about he and Gareth Gates can't finish their sentences. First one to make a quip about the latest photogenic white girls to be murdered gets a fatty boombatty. Posted by: Paul Cobourn at February 5, 2004 06:07 PMWhat's the difference between Dr. Harold Shipman and Tony Blair? Dr. Shipman actually did something about NHS waiting lists. Posted by: Propaganda at February 5, 2004 10:41 PMDavid: "Dear Ihateyou, For goodness sake go away and read some history about the real meaning of the word 'fascist' which is far removed from a host of a web site removing comments from her own site. I have no idea about the state of Ms Phillips' backside, but I would suggest that a far more important part of her body - her brain - is in a better state than yours. If he is one of the people who spent time writing a reply just to come back to discover all that days comments have been deleted, i think his anger is justified. Posted by: Richard at February 6, 2004 03:43 AMoh and i just looked up “fascist” in my Oxford dictionary and it says its “any right wing or authoritarian person." Posted by: Richard at February 6, 2004 03:48 AMHi Mealnie, |
