Melanie Phillips's Diary

Howard's soggy centre

The new Tory health and education spokesman Tim Yeo gets gentle treatment in this Torygraph interview, which allows him to claim that he is now a 'stronger and possibly nicer man' after the personal and political difficulties which sent his career into eclipse until he was rescued this week by St Michael Howard. But a hint emerged from this interview which is not altogether encouraging to those who believe the duty of the Conservative party is to conserve and defend liberal values and social order from the assaults being waged upon them.

His son, who apparently found that cannabis had helped him over the effects of cancer treatment, has apparently been lobbying him over cannabis use. Now, of course one has sympathy with people desperate for some relief from the horrible side-effects of treatment. But cannabis itself causes cancer, along with brain damage -- not to mention the social destruction it leaves behind. And both Yeo and his son have form on this issue.

'...Yeo announced at a Tory conference several years ago that his son had smoked dope and that Yeo himself had enjoyed it as a student'. To which the newly non-arrogant, caring, inclusive Yeo now has this to say:'The party has grown up since then. It's foolish getting hung up on such minor issues'.

So there you have the new face of the Tories. Cannabis use, with all the personal and social devastation it wreaks, is to be dismissed as a 'minor issue'. Clearly, for the touchy-feely Tory tendency, there is still no such thing as society.

Posted by melanie at November 12, 2003

Comments

Um, so you would deny cannabis and its beneficial affects to cancer and other degenerative disease suffers just because there are some in society who abuse it? How caring and sharing of you. But then again, like most people you won't care about it until it actually affects you or someone you love.

Degenerative diseases are not inflicted, losers who get addicted did it to themselves.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 12, 2003 01:57 PM

"Cannabis use, with all the personal and social devastation it wreaks..."

I'm sorry, Ms Phillips, but this is simply absurd. There are far stronger arguments of this kind for prohibiting alcohol. That didn't work too well in the US.

Posted by: Jimmy Doyle at November 12, 2003 06:51 PM

Who cares if someone smokes cannabis? Sorry, but this scare-mongering against cannabis and other drugs is getting rather tiresome. Yes, they may harm some people, but so do alcohol, nicotine and most foodstuffs...

Posted by: Morgoth at November 13, 2003 12:50 AM

Guy's get real.
Increasingly, Coroners the world over are saying increased cannabis use is a major factor in accidents and crimes (involving other drugs).
They are clearly calling governments to stop and think real hard before legalising it for that reason.

It will always be a gate to other drugs, whether you agree with that arguement or not, it's true.
It's the breaking of a boundary that's the important social point.

The fact that the "you did so why not me" arguement is used doesn't make it any safer for young people.

On that note the physiology of adolesent brains are well documented as being more suseptable to damage.
www.drjudithreisman.com

Just because "everyone's doing it or want to" arguement isn't valid either.
For that doesn't make it safe nor justifies the action. Imagine people saying 'hey you've killed or raped or stolen or speeded in the past so why can't I.

Then there's "the other legal drugs cause hurt too" arguement. How does that justify legalising something that damages people and has consequences.

Give me a break, What we do now affects the next generation too.

Are we so selfish that we won't think of their wellbeing?

I hear so much of "society has changed, the laws must change with it" crap too.
This is usually allied with the "everyone's doing it anyway" arguement.

It may surprise you to know that there are some people in society who would like to screw your children and see nothing wrong with it.
I for one respect their right to think that.

However I am called to exercise my mind to desciminate (sort out, make sense of) my and others choices/actions for the larger and individual good.

Just becasue more people want to or are doing it doesn't make it right, fair or safe to allow that.

Even to assume the law will change in the future because of increased numbers of people involved is no justification to engage in something that is presently illegal.

Of course not.

There maybe elements in cannabis that aid sickness, if science is so great. it should be developed and quickly.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Every action or inaction (in Margret Hodges case) has consequences.
We are required to think of the unintended consequences of our actions too.
This is what one expects of a responsible member of society.

We owe it to our grandchildren or at least to others.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at November 13, 2003 01:19 AM

In vino veritas; in ganja gobbledegook!

Posted by: Frank Pulley at November 13, 2003 02:21 AM

Just out of curiosoity, are there any other 'medications' that have to be smoked in order to feel the benefits of the medication?

Alternatively, cannot the beneficial elements of cannabis (if any), be extracted for ingestion by other means, or is it the actual smoking that is the benefit?

Posted by: ernest young at November 13, 2003 01:53 PM

Cannabis does not have to be smoked to get its beneficial effects. It's not cannabis which causes cancer, it's the tobacco it's usually smoked with.

Posted by: Anna at November 14, 2003 10:22 AM

Hi, you can now downward an mp3 version of a BBC radio program featuring Melanie Phillips debating current cannabis law with ex drug smuggler Howard "MR NiCE" Marks.

HERE: http://www.ukcia.org/mp3s/moral_maze_cannabis_28_01-04.mp3

Posted by: Andrew at February 2, 2004 04:10 AM