A report from the Conservative Party's Social Justice Policy Group lists no fewer than four hundred different scientific studies that point to the links between cannabis and various forms of mental illness and destructive behaviour. According to a report in The Daily Mail the report highlights the fact that "heavy cannabis users make up the vast majority of new patients with a serious mental illness... Eight out of ten of those experiencing the first episode of psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia or similar mental breakdowns are habitual users of the drug."
Drugs is one of five main themes of the Tory social justice review. Other themes include family structure, employment, education and debt. The review aims to find ways of helping vulnerable people succeed in each of these five areas of life. This behavioural approach to poverty-fighting is inspired by William Galston's famous observation that only 8% of Americans who finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20 are poor. In contrast, 79% of those who fail to do these things are poor.
Added to the five themes is David Cameron's commitment to build the nation of the second chance:
"But we all know that however much we do to help people forge paths out of poverty, some will be left behind. We must never say to those people - "You've had your chance and you must live with the wrong choices you made". I want to build a nation that never writes any one off. A nation that says that it's never ever too late to start again. Never too late to realise those dreams you once had."
Building 'the nation of the second chance' is the subject of a policy subgroup chaired by former Tory candidate Orlando Fraser. The group is examining how to strengthen the voluntary sector's innovative and independent character.
Let's hope the temptation to revisit the embarrassing debacle of the 2000 Widdecombe-Hague 'get tough on cannabis' crusade, is resisted.
Not only do we not want to see a repeat of the shambles whereby half the shadow cabinet were forced to confess to cannabis use, there is ample evidence that middle class parents don't want to see their kids criminalised for smoking a joint.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 09:51
The problem with Cannabis, is that it is NOT the spliffs the old 60's rockers smoked. (Incidentally, there was a sad round up some time ago, of just how many of them have died prematurely) The "new" cannabis is a very different animal. Quite lethal! Street name of SKUNK. This mutation will definitely see you destroyed. It is ironic that the period when Nulab was merrily down grading its classification, coincided with the time the drugs trade was growing this deadly new variety.
I understand that the police are trying to locate and destroy these crops before they can be used. Perhaps a big publicity campaign to high light signs of a cannibus farm would speed the destruction. Not only are they growing the stuff, but they are stealing electricity to do so as well. It was the subject of a report in the press a while back.
During my drugs training 30 odd years ago, the police team showed us these lumps of brown "shit" and "grass" both fairly benign. It's NOT like that any more. This stuff could KILL you. You will become so paranoid, you will self harm. Alternatively, you will go on a rampage and injure somebody else.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 17, 2006 at 10:00
No let's not embarrass the middle classes. Much better that Gideon and Jocasta end up eating their own excrement in some mental ward than challenge their parents' liberal assumptions.
Posted by: Erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 10:03
I would agree with you Gareth that the Widdecombe cannabis fiasco was a low point for the Tory party although with hindsight I think she was right and many members of the shadow cabinet were wrong.
I guess most of our political views are shaped by our own experiences. As far as Cannabis is concerned I've known two people with very severe mental problems both were heavy users of cannabis. Coincidence?I honstly don't know.But as a father now I would rather not take any chances at all.
Posted by: malcolm | October 17, 2006 at 10:08
I wonder if a policy like that of speeding motorists will be suggested, whereby you can avoid points on your licence if you go on a stop speeding course, kids can avoid a criminal record if found with cannabis by going on a drugs damage course. Don't know how effective that would be though. Depends on the quality of the course.
Posted by: Andrew Woodman | October 17, 2006 at 10:19
And, of course, the classification of heroin and cocaine as class A drugs has caused their comsumption to fall and the drugs problem in this country to be brought well and truly under control ...
Yeah right.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 10:37
Based on Annabel's points, why not decriminalise the weaker varieties and seriously toughen the penalties for the stronger?
That way, surely, most people would gravitate to the lesser but still pleasant, less harmful, easily available high.
I'd love to see a similar sting to the one in Italy where they secretly tests their MP's for drugs repeated here. Come on, surely someone could easily do it.
Let's be realistic here. Most drug users are not addicts, they just take like to drugs.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 10:39
Annabel,
Thanks for that patronising bit of hyperbole. Skunk has been around for years and joins that list of the many, many things in this world that are bad for you. Our present drugs 'policy' (if one can dignify it with a term implying some sort of co-ordination) has been a complete and utter failure.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 10:44
We could learn lots from other countries with realistic approaches to drugs, like the agency in Amsterdam that will test kid's E's to make sure they are taking what they think they are taking.
Lots of people take drugs at one stage of their lives and move on quite happily or use them in moderation.
This "take them and you'll die/go mad/etc etc" approach fails because it is clearly not true.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 10:50
I'm shocked to come on here and find Chad talking sense.
Posted by: Deobandi | October 17, 2006 at 10:57
It would for once be nice to move away from the hysterical hyperbole that surrounds the drugs debate. The drug responsible for blighting thousands of lives in the UK is alcohol. If we are going to have a mature debate on drugs then we need to accept that we cannot just debate illegal drugs but must also take into account the impact of all drugs. For whatever reason people are going to make choices and whether you agree with their choice or not most likely depends upon your viewpoint. Personally I would prefer a situation whereby the whole lot was legalised and controlled. The single issue that exists with illegal drugs is one of control of distribution. Illegal drug dealers do not have restrictions on who they sell to, nor in fact do they care. The global impact of our current stance on this subject is enormous. Countries like Afghanistan and Columbia are dependent upon the drugs trade to feed their families. They are not going to stop growing the stuff and it is simple supply and demand economics. People want the stuff so there is a market. The profits are phenomenal. I understand that £1000 of cocaine has a street value of several million pounds. I would prefer that the Pharmaceutical companies or tobacco companies were responsible for purchasing and supplying these drugs as at least then we would have a method by which we could control sales and limit supply.
I appreciate that I will probably be shot down in flames for this but it has to be said. A sensible approach albeit it initially unpalatable would no doubt have a longer term positive impact. After all nothing else has worked.
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 11:02
I'm no expert on this, quite the opposite in fact. I managed to spend a year living in Amsterdam without being remotely tempted to sample the wares in a coffee shop.
However, I have a few simplistic musings on drugs.
1/ If a significant part of the problem surrounding cannabis is the developing of harder forms by drug dealers and of drug dealers tempting cannabis 'customers' to try harder drugs, then wouldn't some sort of legalisation and taking the cannabis trade away from illegal dealers go some way to stopping this?
2/ If part of the 'thrill' of smoking cannabis is the very fact that it is illegal and 'rebellious', wouldn't making it legal also cut down on that.
An old school friend of mine who dabbled in drugs told me he didn't want to see cannabis legalised as he could never imagine going into a shop for '20 Marlboro spliffs'.
Many things will harm you, too much of the wrong food, too much booze etc.
All we seem to achieve in our 'war on drugs' is making a lot of unpleasant people very rich and bringing misery to countless millions across the world through crime (made worse by high drug prices??) and gang warfare.
Posted by: Mike Christie | October 17, 2006 at 11:23
Anon, I posted on this a few months ago. There is a national shortage of medical quality heroin. ie Diamorphine. Essential to the alleviation of crucifying pain that comes with bone cancer, among other conditions. I suggested then that the NHS and other countries medical services could but it all up and use it properly. Everyone would benefit. The farmers get a good price, the drug runners are nowhere, as long as the thing is controlled and policed, and I too was shot down in flames.
I believe it will eventually come to this, but how long in the future, who knows.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 17, 2006 at 11:25
Oops! I meant buy it all up! Typo.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 17, 2006 at 11:30
Annabel. I remember your reading your post. If I recall correctly this very approach was taken with Turkey to eliminate some of the Heroin production that occurs in the eastern part of the country. I understand that the NHS alone could quite comfotably purchase the entire Afghan opium harvest to meet this years requirement.
What I wanted to draw attention to is the simple fact that the single biggest cause of all problems in the UK remains alcohol and if we have a debate on drugs then we must include it in that debate (I think alcohol was responsible for 100K of deaths in the UK last year but would have to confirm the exact figures).
With regards to how long this takes I think that many people are waking up to the fact that the war on drugs has been fought and lost for many decades now and it unlikely to ever actually be won. By opting to legalise then we not only reduce the "fascination" (I cannot think of another word) with illegal drugs but more importantly remove a large source of funding for criminals/terrorists etc.
Additionally if we legalised it and controlled it (possibly via the NHS) then we reduce the impact of petty crime (shoplifting, burglary etc.. to pay for drugs) freeing up police resource to tackle other issues.
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 11:37
Frank Field recentoly suggested that the NHS should buy Afghanistan's poppy crop, Annabel.
Posted by: James Hellyer | October 17, 2006 at 11:37
Annabel, I've seen that idea mooted before. On the face of it, it kills several birds with one stone. We deny supplies to drug dealers, increase supply of diamorphine and give the farmers of Afghanistan a legitimate outlet for the poppy crop helping to stabilise the country and defeat the Taliban.
Seems reasonable to me.
Posted by: Mike Christie | October 17, 2006 at 11:37
The first step Annabel is for politicians to accept that taking drugs does not make you an addict, any more than drinking beer makes you an alcoholic.
Most drug users don't need Cameron's "care" or got be "got off the streets", they are happy with their own drug usage.
Of course you should help the addicts just as we help alcoholics, but you should not demonise the majority, or see them as people with a problem.
Who that brave politician we be, or when they are given a national stage to make the case, it is impossible to say.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 11:39
We should nationalise the drugs industry and provide all drugs through special NHS clinics subject to an excise duty. Any amount of any drug for personal consumption.
We would use the power of the market to create an NHS monopoly by undercutting the street price permanently. Drug dealing would remain illegal to perpetuate the monopoly and we would drive every drug dealer out of business and out of England. Once the monopoly was established the excise duty would rise to choke back on consumption.
Addicts would get clean needles, uncut supplies and a lower price and would not need to steal and prostitute themselves. Recreational users would get safe supplies of their little habit and not risk prosecution. Society would get the end of violent drug dealing gangs, dramatically reduced crime rates, we could halve the spend on prisons and the police and the excise duty would pay for 10% of the NHS.
All that's needed is for us to sit on the Puritans. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s and it isn't working now. People who want to wreck their lives with drugs will go on doing so as alcoholics have done for years. You can't legislate against stupidity.
Posted by: Opinicus | October 17, 2006 at 12:21
Jonathan:
"We should nationalise the drugs industry and provide all drugs through special NHS clinics subject to an excise duty. Any amount of any drug for personal consumption."
Most drug users start before they are sixteen. So by your logic we should either:
a) use the NHS to supply narcotics to children
or
b) focus the activities of the drug-dealers exclusively on children the new Smack-u-Like NHS having taken over the adult market
Here's another idea. Instead of turning the British state into the world's biggest drug peddler let's actually bother enforcing our drug laws through effective zero-tolerance policing.
Posted by: erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 12:52
No, Prohibition encouraged the rise of the Mafia didnt it? Since the controlled act of around 1974, we have seen the rise of the drugs baron equivilent.
In 1957 one could but amphetamine at the chemists to use as a slimming aid. I believe there might have been a very mall number of people who had a problem with it, but miniscule compared with alcohol.
I cant remember what triggered the govt of the day to over react.
History tells us that a great many Victorians includingthe Dear Queen liked to indulge. Whatever happened to that outbreak? I cannot recall Queen V ever being banged up for drinking Laudenam!!!
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 17, 2006 at 12:55
Chad says that most drug users are happy with their drug usage.
Maybe, but then most UKIP members are happy with their UKIP membership.
Posted by: erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 12:56
That certainly helped the debate erasmus.
Shouldn't you be outside making sure everyone is locked up for doing things you personally disagree with?
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 12:59
..thank God I'm in a libertarian party! :-)
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 13:00
So UKIP's policy is to legalise all drugs is it?
Posted by: erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 13:22
Annabel if I recall correctly there was a change of policy in the mid to late 1960's when the use of drugs including LSD began to increase. Whether the prohibition of all drugs at this point increased usage or whether the 1960's themselves incouraged drug use is open to debate.
To take up Erasmus's point of enforcing zero-tolerance can you please point out where exactly this policy has been successful. In the 4 decades we have been fighting the drugs war can you name one year when this policy led to a significant reduction in usage of or distibution of illegal drugs.
This is an emotive debate which touches on the issues of personal liberty, and the right to make choices that may be harmful. I do not proport to know the answers but I can examine the facts. We have tried everything else so perhaps we must consider the alternatives however unpaletable?
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 13:37
"So UKIP's policy is to legalise all drugs is it?"
I thought this thread was about drugs?
Please keep to the subject erasmus, as it doesn't half disrupt things when people keep bringing up UKIP, no matter how well they are doing right now.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 13:48
The point is that we haven't fought the war against drugs -- just as we haven't fought the war against all sorts of other forms of crime and anti-social behaviour. We just throw up our hands in surrender when faced by minor crimes and then act suprised when we find ourselves faced with major crimes.
We have the laws but we don't enforce them properly.
Sweden is a good example of a relatively tough drugs policy that works relatively well. So strangely enough is Holland, which has in recent years closed hundreds of its "coffee shops" and consequently saw an improvement in the drugs situation.
Now how about an example of a liberarian drugs policy that has worked well in practice?
Posted by: erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 13:51
The key problem with Cannabis is that there are a large number of users - occasional & habitual - which makes use of the criminal law unpopular. I've tried it whereas I'd never try "Hard" drugs - almost everyone I know has tried it and some remain users (not habitual but occasional). So many citizens are criminals in law.
Cannabis, like alcohol and other drugs, does have sometimes severe physical and psychological effects and is for some, particularly habitual users, a dangerous drug. Decriminalisation would probably result in a group of permanently damaged individuals but continued criminalisation without enforcement damages the overall "war" against misuse of drugs. Enforcement would criminalise many otherwise law abiding citizens. There is a point where criminal law becomes ineffective or obsolete - laws against Blasphemy being an example - and the cannabis laws have been close to this for many years.
It seems to me better that we retain the current flexibility in enforcement - basically ignoring personal users - but that we need to highlight through a more effective educational programe the very real dangers of cannabis use and rob the drug of its "peaceful" mystique. It was reported that cannabis use has fallen recently - associating it with mental ilnesses, taking away the romantic and showing the reality will be the most effective way to reduce use.
Posted by: Ted | October 17, 2006 at 13:54
Chad: "I thought this thread was about drugs?"
yes and I asked you what UKIP's policy on this precise subject was -- a perfectly straightforward question related directly to the thread
Posted by: Erasmus | October 17, 2006 at 13:54
I doubt UKIP does have such a policy but, if they did, it would at least show that they had given some consideration to the problem. All this guff about 'zero tolerance' and 'enforcing the existing laws' wholly fails to take account of the explosion in drugs use in this country in the last 20 years, despite the resources hurled at preventing importation.
We can't keep drugs out of high security prisons FFS, what chance have we of keeping them out of an island like ours?
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 14:04
No problem Erasmus - I just try to avoid answering UKIP questions here as I then get accused of hijakcing the thread etc.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 14:18
"As with primary schools, we will still want to offer sex education (along with drugs education) but on an optional basis. Although the objectives of current sex and drugs education are supposedly harm reduction and prevention, the result has been the opposite. Based on the assumption that children will experiment, they supposedly encourage them to do so safely. Pupils should be taught the value of self-respect, as they cannot respect others until they respect themselves."
UKIP Policy on education, August 2006
Posted by: James Maskell | October 17, 2006 at 14:19
Sound bloody realistic and sensible to me.
I think the shift to a medical insurance approach would help people have more control over their choices, as they would need to bear the cost/responsibility of those *bad* choices, and that includes drug usage, alcohol, smoking etc, imho.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 14:37
So what's your proposed solution, Gareth....other than snide barristerial remarks? It must be such a delight to have all the answers.
You seem to think you have some monopoly of liberal opinion. Ted strikes me as pretty liberal but rightly points out that the dangers of cannabis have been relentlessly downplayed by certain journalists. I have some sympathy towards decriminalisation but I can't help noticing the double standards of metropolitan liberals who seek to legitimise drug use but demonise tobacco and(increasingly) alcohol.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 17, 2006 at 14:39
The finding that most patients with serious mental illness smoke dope is not new. For years there has been a difficulty in estabilshing causality. In a nutshell, does smoking dope cause schizophrenia, or is it simply that people who are at high risk of developing schizophrenia in the future exhibit personality traits (ie risk taking behaviours) which make them more likely to smoke dope. A third possible explanation is that schizophrenics find that smoking dope helps them manage their symptoms.
Its a real shame that despite the mountains of published research in the field, the nature of the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia hasn't been fully established.
Myself, I'm tempted to think that all 3 of the above explanations for the link play a part. I'd be tempted to play it safe for now and stick to a pretty stiff anti cannabis line.
Posted by: simon-M | October 17, 2006 at 14:43
Why Simon? Honest question.
Because you don't do drugs yourself? Cost to the NHS?
Why would you conclude that it is best to keep cannabis usage illegal?
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 14:53
've gradually been won round to the idea of legalising consumption, because it reduces the cheap thrill of doing something illegal. But what so far no-one has mentioned here is the insidious glamorisation of heavy drinking and drug-taking by pop culture for many decades now.
No, I'm not advocating State censorship, but heavens, I'd like to see some self-censorship. We see 'celebrities' more than happy to lecture us on green issues and poverty in Africa - let them try, through their own lifestyles, to demonstrate the attractions of restraint in all aspects of their lives.
And just in case anyone cites the pre-war bad behaviour of actors etc, at least it was covered up as far as possible, not publicised as an enviable lifestyle.
Posted by: sjm | October 17, 2006 at 14:58
Michael,
I am pretty liberal but the more I have read of the relationship between mental health & cannabis use the more I think there needs to be a way of reducing usage (I don't think in a free society you can ever enforce bans - it means regular drug testing of everyone, more cameras, more police etc).
It needs a viral campaign that associates the drug with naffness, failure, with shambling incoherent wasted individuals - perhaps use of YouTube & MySpace to make it unfashionable. It was jazz then Flower Power and Reggae (with images of happy Rastas, Cheech & Chong etc.) that created the "peace, man, peace" image. It can't be dealt with by normal Gov't campaigns and earnest MPs, Teachers etc but needs to be insinuated into popular culture.
Posted by: Ted | October 17, 2006 at 15:00
Sim, good point. What you are highlighting is that many modern "liberals" are in fact hypocritical puritans. They get a big kick out of bossing other people around, telling them how to run their lives and what they can and cannot say and believe. Regulating pleasure is a particular fetish, with tobacco having taken the place of the Demon Drink. At the same time, such people want a complete lack of restraint to indulge their own vices .....which are by definition superior.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 17, 2006 at 15:06
Ted, I agree with you. My brother is a hard-pressed South London psychiatrist who sees all these endemic problems, and worse, every day of the week. The links between mental illness and regular drug use (especially hard drug use) are simply too well-documented to be ignored, even if the evidence is often circumstantial.
However, how do you deal with hard drugs? You cannot rely on enforcement alone but total decriminalisation seems fraught with risk too?
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 17, 2006 at 15:13
There's too much wishy washy liberal thinking about drugs and the impact on society.
Drugs are bad, full stop.
Skunk and the stronger versions of weed are lethal when compared with the stuff that was smoked 20 years ago by many liberal thinkers and commentators.
This seriously needs to be addressed and dealt with. Bods like the North Wales Chief Commissar, Richard Brunsdon, need to get a grip on drugs and dealers not car drivers.
Posted by: George Hinton | October 17, 2006 at 15:23
"Skunk and the stronger versions of weed are lethal when compared with the stuff that was smoked 20 years ago "
Is is me or do I remember skunk being available 20 years ago, making that statement complete crap?
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 15:30
There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.
They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.
I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.
But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.
Know what I mean?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 15:32
There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.
They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.
I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.
But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.
Know what I mean?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 15:32
There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.
They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.
I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.
But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.
Know what I mean?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 15:33
Are you a Conservative Party member Stuart?
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 15:43
Hi Chad. Yeah I'm a member of the Scottish Party in Ayrshire.
Can't say Im very enamoured with the current leadership
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 15:55
having seen my brother sectioned for a short period following a psychotic episode triggered by cannabis use and knowing of other people severely harmed mentally following cannabis use it is a problem. Medical evidence shows that cannabis use can be a catalyst to scizophrenia and it needs to be made clear in a public campaign that cannabis can lead to depression, mental illness and isolation from society. most people come out after using drugs unharmed but its not so simple for those that are damaged by them
Posted by: Jimbo Jones | October 17, 2006 at 15:56
Michael,
Aside from invective, ("snide barristerial remarks?" etc. etc.), your principal rhetorical tool seems to be to label your opponents ("metropolitan liberals") and then tar them with views they don't have but which, for the sake of your argument, you would like them to have:
"the double standards of metropolitan liberals who seek to legitimise drug use but demonise tobacco and(increasingly) alcohol."
and:
"What you are highlighting is that many modern "liberals" are in fact hypocritical puritans. They get a big kick out of bossing other people around, telling them how to run their lives and what they can and cannot say and believe."
It's a truly bizarre way in which to conduct a discussion, a bit like playing scrabble with yourself: you make your argument then you make up the other side's argument as well!
In any event, I'm not insulted by being called a 'metropolitan liberal'. Quite the reverse in fact.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 15:59
Chad, skunk may have been around 20 years or so but the growing techniques used today are more advanced and are designed to increase the THC (the chemical that makes people high) content in the plants. the stuff available now can be 20 times stronger than what it was 20 or more years ago. It is grown indoors under very strict conditions and packs a lot more of a punch basically.
For more info you might want to type a google search in for seeds, THC and cannabis and see what growing kits and seeds you can buy online
Posted by: Jimbo Jones | October 17, 2006 at 16:06
Aah I thought so, but thanks for the note re the changes Jimbo.
20 years ago though most people from Southend where I grew up were popping lsd tabs not smoking joints as acid house began to build so perhaps the comparison isn't really fair anyway.
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 16:22
..not quite 20 years (before the pedants jump in) I know, 1986 was the year of the Beastie Boys!
Posted by: Chad | October 17, 2006 at 16:24
"I'm not insulted by being called a 'metropolitan liberal'. Quite the reverse in fact."
Well Gareth. Apart from the fact that your statement pretty well invalidates your complaint, we may be forgiven for wondering why you are apparently claiming to be a Tory
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 16:25
Oh dear Stuart. Do you really need to be educated as to the difference between liberals and Liberals?
And, in any event, my objection wasn't to the epithet, which I am rather proud to adopt, but rather to the assumptions which MM asserted flowed from that, all of which are nonsense in my case.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 16:31
Yes Gareth please do explain, if you can, why someone who says he is proud to call himself a "metropolitan liberal" (a phrase which has the same edifying appeal to normal people as "body odour" or "incontinence pad")might also consider himself to be a Conservative.
I don't think I'd define you as a Conservative, somehow.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 16:46
Erasmus I must admit to being slightly confused by your statement that we haven't fought the war against drugs. Could you please explain to me why then it is that we have frigates sailing around the world’s oceans looking for drug consignments on boats, why we have soldiers who are tasked with assisting the destruction of drug crops in Afghanistan, and why we provide support to the Government of Columbia in their work to destroy opium production?
Stuart, with regards to your statement that this has been done successfully in Singapore might I point out that Singapore is a tiny island with a coast line of 120 miles. This is smaller than that of Norfolk (124 miles). This makes it harder to smuggle goods into the country than in the UK. Given the well publicised problems with our boarders might I suggest that this is not a suggestion which is feasibly possible? As I have mentioned previously the profits from drugs are high enough that people will take the risk even if the death penalty is utilised (and I make the assumption that this is what you are suggesting with your "choice examples" statement).
Jimbo Jones, you are correct in your comments about THC content and the greater impact this has. However, is it not fair to suggest that legal controls (as we have with alcohol) would ensure that dangerously high levels would be prohibited from sale?
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 16:48
"As I have mentioned previously the profits from drugs are high enough that people will take the risk even if the death penalty is utilised"
Sure they will.
But dead men don't make profits.
Personally, if I caught the pushers who are destroying our children's lives I'd rip them to pieces with a machine gun on the spot.
Why pussyfoot around with scum?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 16:53
Well Stuart, fortunately I don't rely on you for affirmation of my Conservatism.
I'm a liberal just like Adam Smith was a liberal; and Robert Peel was a liberal; and in the same way Margaret Thatcher pursued 'liberal' economics and David Cameron describes himself as a liberal Conservative.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 16:58
Stuart at the risk of sounding pedantic could you provide some clarifiation as to how you would propose to protect our notoriously porous coastline to stop the drugs getting into the country in the first place?
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 16:59
anon, I wasnt offering a solution but i was just making a few points.
My personal feelings are that legalising this is a step in the wrong direction. regulating sale doesn't necessarily work and i think the worst thing i could imagine is an 18 year old telling their parents they can smoke as its legal and the parents then watching them decline. I appreciate that this is a minority of cases and most people just have a dabble for a time and its just a bit of fun.
Posted by: Jimbo Jones | October 17, 2006 at 17:00
there is ample evidence that middle class parents don't want to see their kids criminalised for smoking a joint.
Balls to the middle classes! In inner city aeras it's working class people who suffer the impact of drugs and the related crime.
Yes some people (middle class or otherwise) can have a joint at the weekend with no impact on the rest of their lives. But they are feeding crime higher up the supply chain. Legalaistion isn't the answer either- police have enough on their hands with the effects of alcohol.
I may be a lefty, but I'm socially conservative on drugs and crime- because it's ordinary working class people who suffer.
Posted by: comstock | October 17, 2006 at 17:04
Jimbo Jones I can understand the concerns about legalisation but isn't such a position better than the one whereby the child could be smoking the stuff without the parents knowing and the asumption that any changes in behaviour are "teenage mood swings"? I accept that only a minority are going to be susceptible to scizophrenia, but my current train of thought would be that if parents have a better idea what is occurring then they would at least be in a positon to offer help when it may still offer the chance of entirely destroying a life.
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 17:06
Should read not entirely destroying a life
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 17:08
"I'm a liberal just like Adam Smith was a liberal; and Robert Peel was a liberal; and in the same way Margaret Thatcher pursued 'liberal' economics and David Cameron describes himself as a liberal Conservative"
Yes we got the message that you're a liberal.
Peel and Thatcher each had an economic
"liberal dimension", true. On the other hand they also had many deeply Conservative convictions.
Neither are likely to have described themselves as "Metropolitan Liberals". That's a phrase that carries the rancid stench of Political Correctness.
Don't get me onto the subject of Cameron, puh-leese.
Have you got any Conservative views, Gareth?
Surprise me.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 17:13
Stuart,
Do you think cliche and hyperbole causes people to pay more or less attention to the points you make?
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 17:32
Dodging the question Gareth?
Now why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 17:37
Stuart. Talking about dodging questions would it be possible for you to provide me with a response to my question as to how you envisage protecting our notoriously porous coastline to stop drugs getting into the country?
Posted by: anon | October 17, 2006 at 17:41
Why dont we just keep a running tally of the number of cases reported in the media, of various nasty crimes "Committed while the suspect was high on drugs" Then, after a few weeks, this blog could produce a few statistics from the real world.
I bet it would equal the drink related agression etc.
It's a pity we dont have a "see your future" health machine. Then the heavy drinker could study himself bleeding badly from alcohol related "varicose veins" of the oesophagus, or his/her jaundiced self as they battle cirrosis of the liver, or the completely off his/her trolley of the alcohol related dementias.
That will do for starters, someone else with a psychiatric interest can describe the outcomes for cannabis/heroin/etc.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 17, 2006 at 17:51
anon, I take on board what you say and I do recognise families where smoking indoors has been accepted and that may be better than smoking in alleys, parks, streets etc.
However, I still think that the damage that can be done, totally at random with young people's minds especially is too great to say it is legal to do this. I accept that current law enforcement in this area is lacking and that pretty much any 14 year old could get their hands on 1/8th of weed/skunk/hash should they have the will to do so.
My own thoughts are that for too long Cannabis has been seen as "harmless" and something fun that makes you giggle and gives you the "munchies" unless you throw a "whitey". This view needs to be challenged severely long before any thoughts of legalisation go ahead. Only when that argument has been won and got across to the general public would i consider supporting any step to legalisation.
Posted by: Jimbo Jones | October 17, 2006 at 17:52
Stuart,
I simply refer you to my earlier post:
"Well Stuart, fortunately I don't rely on you for affirmation of my Conservatism."
Asking me whether I have 'any Conservative views' is as childish as your stuff about 'our children ...machine gun them .. drug dealing scum' repeat ad nauseam. Satisfying no doubt for you, rather dull for the rest of us.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 18:00
"Why dont we just keep a running tally of the number of cases reported in the media, of various nasty crimes "Committed while the suspect was high on drugs" Then, after a few weeks, this blog could produce a few statistics from the real world."
Golly. How empirical.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 18:02
"Stuart. Talking about dodging questions would it be possible for you to provide me with a response to my question as to how you envisage protecting our notoriously porous coastline to stop drugs getting into the country?"
Nobody can guarantee full protection. However Customs and Excise has spent centuries providing an efficient service against all types of smugglers. We do not abolish duties simply because a lot of smuggled goods get through.
So. We need to spend more on detection and capture and the ruthlessness of the criminals must be matched by a shoot-to-kill policy.
What's your solution then?
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 18:07
"Asking me whether I have 'any Conservative views' is as childish as your stuff about 'our children..."
Sorry Gareth, but "childish" or not it's a simple question and you haven't been able to answer it.
No need to say any more. We have our answer, and it comes as no surprise.
Sad really.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 18:11
"Thanks for that patronising bit of hyperbole. Skunk has been around for years and joins that list of the many, many things in this world that are bad for you."
No, Gareth @ 10:44 - Annabel was actually quite right and until I read it I was about to post the same thought myself. The old stuff was very weak compared to Skunk which does apparently make people go completely off their heads - rather than just make them sit gently saying things like "Hey Man I can see weird colours..." and then gently drifting off to sleep in the corner.... This stuff is far more likely to induce paranoia, violence and real mental illness. Not funny at all!!!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | October 17, 2006 at 18:14
Oh dear. In Stuart world a refusal to answer is the same as an inability to answer. Oh to live in a world where subtlety and nuance are absent, it must be so simple and pleasant.
Even if I were inclined to indulge such a playground question, how can one begin to answer a question about 'Conservative views'. The premise of your question is worthy of a treatise in itself, never mind the answer. Who defines 'Conservative'? You? How do you define it? Views on what?
Anyway, I've already cited Adam Smith; Robert Peel and Margaret Thatcher. Do these people not have sufficiently 'Conservative' views for you Stuart?
Ought you not to be doing your homework anyway?
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 18:21
Ohb dear Sally. You have rather missed the point haven't you? The point is not how good or bad skunk is, it is how one best copes with the fact that it can't be uninvented.
Posted by: Gareth | October 17, 2006 at 18:24
You of course, Gareth, have never been guilty of labelling any of your critics nor of playing the ball not the man. As for bilious invective, perish the thought. As for your supposed liberalism, you often keep it well-hidden. Too often, it emerges as secular moral dogmatism which no doubt plays well in the average students' union bar but which disappointingly seems detached from the complexities of the real world. Makes for good soundbites though.
And when all is said and done, what constructive suggestions do you have on the drugs issue? You never know, you might even find that liberals like me agree with more of them than I disagree.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 17, 2006 at 18:26
"Anyway, I've already cited Adam Smith; Robert Peel and Margaret Thatcher. Do these people not have sufficiently 'Conservative' views for you Stuart?"
The problem is, Gareth, that you don't appear to share their "conservative" views, and from what I've read of your posts you don't seem to share their "liberal" views, notably on minimal taxation and free speech v PC.
But we don't need to waste any more time on you. Let's turn to Sally's comments. They are spot-on.
The vast majority of Tories oppose drugs, yet when Ann Widdecombe spoke for the decent majority she was undermined by certain elements who have continued to subvert the party.
All drug-friendly elements should be flushed out of our party.
Frankly it's outrageous that these degenerates should seek to mingle with decent respectable people.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 18:28
Frankly it's outrageous that these degenerates should seek to mingle with decent respectable people.
What do you define as a decent respectable person? I know many potheads who are both decent and respectable and many straight people who are quite ghastly.
Posted by: renny | October 17, 2006 at 18:40
Stuart
Your last sentence undermines many of the points you make and we should be able to discuss things without insulting each other.
The problem is that, as Ann discovered, a lot of 'decent respectable people' have tried cannabis at some time. The issue is how to reduce demand without criminalising sectors of our population. We have failed dismally to reduce supply.
This will need multiple approaches - the reasons someone in inner city deprivation goes to the drug culture are very different from why Kate Moss did. It's not bleeding heart liberal to say that we need to understand the why to formulate how to deal with the problem. If it was simple then there wouldn't be a problem.
and there are worse threats like crystal meth to consider.
Posted by: Ted | October 17, 2006 at 18:54
"What do you define as a decent respectable person? I know many potheads who are both decent and respectable"
Well at least this rubbish tells us who Rennie's friends are, whoever he may be.
"The problem is that, as Ann discovered, a lot of 'decent respectable people' have tried cannabis at some time."
A lot of respectable people have done all sort of wicked things. The important thing is that they repent, then of course it is our Christian duty to forgive them.
That's how respectable people who have erred behave. People who brag about drugtaking are as bad as the pushers.
Ann Widdicombe was cheered to the rafters by that Tory conference. Huge support. Then for the benefit of the press the slime emerged to attack and undermine Family Values, purely in order to undermine Widdicombe for political gain.
Either this party stands for decency or it does not. Here in Scotland we cleave to the old values.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 17, 2006 at 21:31
So having run out of steam on the rhetoric, whats the conclusions??? Are there any?
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | October 18, 2006 at 00:38
"Now how about an example of a liberarian drugs policy that has worked well in practice?"
Portugal decriminalised all drugs a few years back, with no ill effects.
Anyway, the debate misses the point. Most research points to a conclusion that the legal status of drugs makes no difference to overall consumption levels. However, criminalisation clearly massively increases the most serious of side effects, such as when Sweden's drug death rate quadrupled in the decade of their supposedly successful "crackdown".
By sheer coincidence, prohibition in the 1920s did exactly the same thing, quadrupling deaths but doing next to nothing to consumption levels - in fact, in some cities people were complaining when prohibition ended that they suddenly couldn't get booze anymore .....
Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2006 at 03:32
"Here in Scotland we cleave to the old values."
Perhaps the fact we have the worst drug problem in Europe should tell us those "old values" are horribly counterproductive at dealing with drug abuse.
Posted by: Andrew | October 18, 2006 at 03:34
Annabel - think the answer is no.
There seems no answer - most comment seems more a search for harm reduction than prevention.
Posted by: Ted | October 18, 2006 at 07:57
Stuart if as you allude that your preference is to cleave to the old values then perhaps we should analyse the recent history of drug illegality within the UK.
In 1926 the Rolleston Committee defined the issue of drugs as being a problem of addiction. However, in 1965 the Brain committee modified the prevailing view of drugs from being one of addiction to that of a "socially infectious condition", and moved the emphasis from treatment to one of criminality. This change in outlook mirrored similar changes during this period over alcohol use, and the problems that occur in the absence of addiction (i.e. problem drinking), and the emphasis shifted towards addressing 'drug misuse' rather than dealing with issue of addiction.
In 1982 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs defined a ‘problem drug taker’ as anyone who, "experiences social, psychological, physical or legal problems related to intoxication and/or regular excessive consumption and/or dependence as a consequence of his own use of drugs or other chemical substances (excluding alcohol and tobacco)". This effectively placed us in the position we find ourselves in today.
By the mid 1980’s the increasing concerns about the wider social problems associated with drug use has resulted in competing solutions to the drugs issue. The increasing numbers of drug users with HIV and AIDS focused attention back towards the treatment of addiction, and the reduction of harm to the wider public health.
As a result the focus of health policy thinking has been to concentrate on health promotion and risk reduction, yet our law enforcement policy dictates that drugs are illegal. The net result is our law enforcement strategies and public health strategies directly conflict with one another.
In response to your question about how I would tackle this we first need to understand why it is that some drugs are treated differently to others. The reason of legality is historical rather than pharmacological. This does not mean that they are not harmful or linked to forms of criminal behaviour. Indeed both legal and illegal drugs are associated with various forms of criminality. In fact if we were to reclassify all drugs on scientific evidence then both alcohol and tobacco would be banned based on the weight of pharmacological evidence.
The question is do we accept that the issue of drugs is not only not going to go away, but perhaps more importantly it is going to evolve as newer drugs are developed that are more addictive and cheaper to manufacture.
If we accept the basic premise of supply and demand economics then we must be realistic in deciding a solution that offers the most cost effective yet supportive environment within which to address the problem. At present we are spending enormous amounts of money on what are in essence conflicting policy goals. My own opinion is that legalisation and the controlled distribution of all drugs is the most realistic approach. By removing the criminal element we reduce the knock on petty crime offences that occur to fund drug addiction, but also by removing the stigmatisation that currently occurs if an individual is arrested for drug taking we improve the opportunity for long term integration back into society. After all if we going to be serious about tackling this problem then we need to decide whether our long term aim is to reduce addiction and reintegrate individuals into mainstream society or whether we want to criminalise people and lock them up. However, it as many appear to advocate that we criminalise them for becoming addicted then we must ask what incentive is offered for an individual to return to an environment in which they will be permanently stigmatised with all the difficulties that this entails?
Posted by: anon | October 18, 2006 at 10:00
There seems to be a consensus here that prohibition isn't working but Legalisation legitimises the business of some very unpleasant people and gives the State's imprimature to a very dangerous habit and would certainly increase consumption and resultant harm.
My proposal, which has not been discussed in a wave of posts boasting how Liberal they are, would nationalise and control the industry whilst keeping it illegal to deal drugs or use them from an unregistered source. Sending a message to children that it is not clever or daring to take drugs but that doing so means you are sick is a very powerful message for that age group.
Erasmus, in your very emotive invective, you admit that children are already taking drugs. Would you rather they got them from their gun toting dealer or from an NHS clinic?
Posted by: Opinicus | October 18, 2006 at 10:28
I refuse to believe that Stuart's last hilarious post was made without the benefit of at least one intoxicant.
Posted by: Gareth | October 18, 2006 at 10:58
Jonathan, I believe that we are coming from a similar perspective. Perhaps I did not make it specifically clear but I would imagine legalisation functioning in a similar manner in which the pharmaceutical industry is currently regulated (i.e. available but only if the relevant processes are followed). This would ensure that the criminal element is removed from the process, maintain quality controls, whilst ensuring that as a society we move towards the treatment and reintegration of addicts. I will admit that I hadn't considered the additional benefits of the drug users as sick message to young children but agree that this is a powerful deterrent.
Posted by: anon | October 18, 2006 at 11:56
Jonathan, I think your post at 10.28 makes a lot of sense as a starting point.
I think we can summarise Gareth's "contributions" in five words: I sneer therefore I am.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | October 18, 2006 at 13:43
That was actaully quite humorous Michael. Well done.
Posted by: Gareth | October 18, 2006 at 13:48
That was actaully quite humorous Michael. Well done.
Although when someone starts calling the shadow cabinet 'slime' and 'degenerates' there are only rational responses: (1)to sneer (2) to inform the local asylum one of the inmates in missing. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by: Gareth | October 18, 2006 at 13:50
The obvious solution RE cannabis legality would be to make cultivation of a small number of plants legal (say 5)for ones own consumption. The sale and distribution should remain illegal. This would allow adults to make there own choices and not have to deal with the criminal fraternity. I think this has been carried out in certain Aussie states quite successfully.
I would however keep hydroponic operations illegal for their fire potential (dodgy wiring et al), its propensity to produce skunk hybrids (which are not good for mental health) as well as the negative impact on climate change.
Posted by: yetanotheranon | October 18, 2006 at 14:14
Watching this blog for some time I decided that those dubbed Cameroons were somewhat naive, if not juvenile and certainly very inclined to attack people personally rather than their views. But this thread has been an eye-opener.
I know all about the prevalence of drugs but to find those who aspire to be opinion-formers in the CONSERVATIVE Party being so relaxed and accepting of the shambles to which drugs of all descriptions have reduced our nation truly horrifies me.
I attribute this total lack of self-control to the dreadful generation - the "baby-boomers" - which was an indirect result of the war. Before anybody responds with the cop-out of alcohol I will assert that the two are not remotely comparable.
Those who become alcoholics are those who have the gene which produces alcoholics (I know - my brother was one. He took to alcohol as the only way he could escape from the horrors of fighting the battle of the Atlantic non-stop for 5 years solidly). The rest of us who enjoy alcohol have learnt how to live with it and enjoy to nobody's harm
I will accept that those who are now drug addicts need help. I also want the maximum possible punishment for anyone dealing in drugs - OF ANY KIND.. The Death Penalty is not too much for those who profit from destroying lives. - And if the EU doesn't like that it can get lost.
Posted by: Ratbag | October 18, 2006 at 20:10
"to inform the local asylum one of the inmates in missing. Wouldn't you agree?"
Too true Gareth.
Just let us know your whereabouts and we'll get them to send you a rubber room on wheels.
No charge.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 18, 2006 at 20:21
Anon argues his case in a civilised manner (unlike our friend Gareth) but sadly he does not convince.
Drug addiction is a social evil like slavery, drink-driving, and gun culture.
This country has waged war against all those evils with a fair measure of success. In like manner we need to wage unrelenting war against drugs.
Strange how the drug-friendly element bring up alcohol and tobacco. In fact tobacco smoking has been marginalised and personally I would like to see it eventually phased out altogether.
I also want our party to wage unrelenting war against the binge drinking culture. I make no excuses whatsoever for these disgusting degenerates.
Posted by: Stuart Raven | October 18, 2006 at 20:31
"All drug-friendly elements should be flushed out of our party.
Frankly it's outrageous that these degenerates should seek to mingle with decent respectable people."
"Ann Widdicombe was cheered to the rafters by that Tory conference. Huge support. Then for the benefit of the press the slime emerged to attack and undermine Family Values, purely in order to undermine Widdicombe for political gain."
"I also want our party to wage unrelenting war against the binge drinking culture. I make no excuses whatsoever for these disgusting degenerates."
Hmmm. How civilised Stuart. I particularly enjoy the juxtaposition of referring to 'Christian forgiveness' abd 'disgusting degenerates'.
I assume you're too young legally to drink in any event?
Posted by: Gareth | October 19, 2006 at 08:06
I do think it's ridiculous to say "half the shadown cabinet were forced" they did it deliberately to undermine widdecombe-v poor behaviour
Posted by: outsider | October 19, 2006 at 13:58
Of course they were forced. Had they not made their confessions the press would have been filled with revelations which would have made them look like hypocrites. The same would happen were this nonsense to happen again.
Posted by: Gareth | October 19, 2006 at 14:11