Cannabis non-story produces real progress in Tory drugs policy

The fact that David Cameron used cannabis when he was a pupil at Eton was always a bit of a non-story but it looks as though it has led to a very welcome hardening of David Cameron's public policy on soft drugs.  Today's Daily Mail reports a strong warning from the Conservative leader for young people not to follow his example:

"I would advise strongly against it. It's against the law, it's wrong. I have seen what's happened to contemporaries and constituents who have gone badly off the rails with drugs.  Doing drugs is a bad idea, and there is a real epidemic in our country and we need to do things about that.  I have been very clear about this. When they are young, lots of people do things they shouldn't and I was one of them.  I regret those things but people should judge me now based on the policies I put forward."

And the policies he is putting forward on drugs are increasingly robust as today's Telegraph notes.  Political Editor George Jones notes that "Mr Cameron believes cannabis should be reclassified as a Class B drug – reversing Labour's decision to downgrade it to Class C three years ago."  The Tory leader is in Sweden to visit the new centre right government of Fredrik Reinfeldt.  Sweden has a zero tolerance approach to drugs and makes no distinction between cannabis and so-called harder drugs.  Mr Cameron praised that approach yesterday.

Comments

[Chris]

"Sweden has a zero tolerance approach to drugs and makes no distinction between cannabis and so-called harder drugs. Mr Cameron praised that approach yesterday."
Hate to say it, but thats a complete U-turn on what was said during the leadership campaign where he wanted to degrade Ectasy, so as to make drug policy more credible.

Reclassification of Cannabis as a class B would completely undermine this idea. There is absolutely no way that people can argue that cannabis is in the same league as some opiates with serious mind altering qualities!

By all means if you want a harsher drugs policy change the penalties for class C misuse, or even better change the whole system. Many young people view Class C drugs as effectively legal, due to never having seen or heard of anyone being legally persued for possesion.

[TomTom]

There is absolutely no way that people can argue that cannabis is in the same league as some opiates

I'll let the chemists determine that one rather than someone called Chris

Meanwhile I welcome Cameron using this issue to address a policy based upon personal experience and admission of personal error

[James Maskell]

This whole situation would have ebeen solved much better and easier if Cameron had just given a straight answer at the time during the leadership election. Cameron didnt want to talk about drug policy yet and was pushed rather than jumping.

[Chris]

Number of recorded deaths from Cannabis: 0 (ever)
Number of recorded deaths from Codeine: 54 (in 2004)

I'm simply reiterating what the statistics are saying. I'm not trying to condone drug use, I'm just saying that the current system is such a mishmash of ideas that is no longer a viable system.

If Cameron wants to go hardline against all drugs then fine, but if he's just cherry picking cannabis because of the current headlines its horribly opportunistic, and displays a complete U-turn on what he was saying during the leadership campaign.

[MH]

I am worried that he is still inhaling. What policies?

[Gareth]

It's absurd to suggest we'll be revisiting the Widdecombe debacle of a 'zero tolerance' approach. Half the shadow caninet were forced to admit they'd smoked pot and we had the fastest U-turn in recent political history. There are no votes in it either - the middle classes don't want to see Tamsin and Quentin saddled with criminal records and chucked out of school/university for toting on a joint.

[Rudyard.]

All this really means is that someone who used to do drugs will always be known as "a former drug taker or user".

If the Conservative Leader David Cameron used drugs in the past,he then must surely be a former drug taker or user.

Quite simple really,how can he or anyone else deny it?

[mark]

'Number of recorded deaths from Cannabis: 0'

What a cynical crass statement, just try reading the story in the Mail this morning about a cannabis crazed van driver who deliberately killed a cyclist. The disciplined law abiding majority are fed up with this never ending slide into doped up anarchy.

[Chris]

I presume you also support the prohibition of alcohol then? Alcohol is a drug which is clearly visible in society, destroys peoples lives and is horribly addictive.

As for the story you are quoting, the man in question was mentally ill at the time of the accident. He had been admitted to a mental hospital and escaped. There has yet to be conclusive evidence proving a link between mental illnesses and cannabis, and I hope you'll apreciate there is a serious difference between having the odd joint whilst at uni, and spending all day smoking the stuff.

[Paul Kennedy]

You are right Mark 09:29.

Here is an extract from the article:

"A van driver who deliberately killed a cyclist in Islington, north London, whilst high on cannabis has been jailed for life.

Malachi Adam-Smith, 20, has smoked so much "skunk" that he had brought on a temporary mental illness, the Old Bailey heard."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=435727&in_page_id=1770

Of course what exactly "life" means is another matter, however I'm glad to see a prison place was available. ;)

[mark]

Yes, I absolutely support not being under the influence of alcohol when driving and would never do so myself, which in my case means virtually never drinking as I drive every day.
To quote directly from the Mail, "Malachi Adam-Smith, 20, has smoked so much "skunk" that he had brought on a temporary mental illness".
As for your last comment, anyone who has a backbone should have the self discipline to refrain from anything which is illegal and a threat to others in society.
Just go back and read the comments of the wife and mother of the victim in the story.

[TomTom]

I'm simply reiterating what the statistics are saying.

No you are not - you are presumably using Death Certificate data without realising Part 1, 2, 3 and its subsections are not filled out with great precision - AIDS is under-reported on Death Certificates which means we should cut funding for research. Rarely is cigarette smoking listed as a cause either -

Death Statistics are inane. The death certificates of David Bradley's aunt, uncle, and two cousins won't record cannabis addiction as a contributory factor to their murders simply because David Bradley who shot them to death is still alive and severely mentally ill after years of cannabis smoking.

I suggest you read up on the prescribed Categories as Cause of Death on a Death Certificate - Codeine gets recorded because it is a prescibed drug and gets recorded under Contra-Indictators.

[Gareth]

Posters seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a policy of 'zero tolerance' on cannabis (or any other drug) would lead to a reduction in its use. Why should this be assumed to be the case when the evidence in respect of Class A drugs is quite the reverse. More and more money has been lavished on the 'war' on drugs and yet drug use continues inexorably to rise. We can't keep heroin out of high security prisons, the idea that we can keep it out of the country is risible.

[mark]

"Posters seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that a policy of 'zero tolerance' on cannabis (or any other drug) would lead to a reduction in its use."

Yes but at least we will have tried, what I can't stand is this never ending retreat from what sensible people believe in. We always seem to fall back when faced with a problem, let's keep fighting and even if we fail we will have the satisfaction of saying we tried for the sake of those growing up in this slipshod country.

[Michael McGowan]

I would favour legalisation of cannabis together with a much-improved health awareness campaign. I don't believe it is safe (the links with mental illness are especially disturbing and yet there is lots of tendentious guff from the dope-smoking tendency telling us how risk-free it is). However, it strikes me as certainly no worse than tobacco and alcohol. Of course our moralising middle class puritans want to ban smoking tobacco but that simply shows them up for the bunch of illiberal killjoys and hypocrites that they are.

I am not sure where Gareth's last post leads us. Are you suggesting that life would be better if all drugs were decriminalised? I suspect that this would have some pretty horrible intended consequences which would not affect metropolitan social liberals but for which the rest of us would foot the bill in terms of increased crime, deprivation and sickness. Life just isn't that simple.

[Iain Duncan Smith]

Too much of the comment over the last few days has been ill informed. Too many of your bloggers have rehearsed political positions without a real understanding of the nature of the problem we face from the growing level of drug and alcohol abuse. In December the Social Justice Policy Group published a study of drug and alcohol addiction as part of the Breakdown Britain report. I summarised it in my Chairman's report as the D and A report is some 50000 words. It is the most comprehensive study of what has gone wrong and the enormous damage drugs and alcohol are doing to our communities. This is not a subject to be bandied around in the context of a 'moderniser' versus 'traditional' battle. People in parts of Britain wake up every day to the news that another child of theirs died of heroin or was admitted into care suffering serious mental illness. If the Conservative Party wants to be taken seriously it should leave the metropolitan beltway and the games they play there and understand that we in the UK have a crisis on our hands. It is not liberal v illiberal for far too many, it's life or death. DC is right to condemn drugs. Please read the report on www.povertydebate.com December 2006.

[Gareth]

Really Mark? Most sensible people, when faced with an approach to a problem which has been demonstrated beyond doubt to have failed, reconsider their approach to solving that problem. I thought that was the basis of technological and intellectual progress in western civilisation?

[CDM]

Mark, what's sensible about having an artificial distinction between alcohol and cannabis? Just because the former's been around for longer doesn't make it any less damaging to the human body or society.

[Gareth]

If only it were as simple as 'condemning drugs'. Nor is it safe to assume that those advocating a fresh approach to drugs policy are residents of the 'metropolitan beltway'. In fact, it's rather insulting to suggest that they are. For 8 years I represented a ward in South London which suffered drugs related murders every year - 3 shootings in my last year alone. It also endured one of the highest street robbery rates in the country - nearly all drug related. 60% of my constituents lived on estates and on many of those estates drug dealing was endemic.

These are the outcomes for people as a result of our present drugs policy.

[Valedictoryan]

" a cannabis crazed van driver "

The Mail does us no favours by reducing the argument to hysterical imagery. It instantly loses our credibility with anyone who’s ever had a puff and means that even true statements about truly dangerous drugs become disbelieved.

Policy regarding cannabis has to be decided with perspective and the real facts and health consequences at hand.

The link to mental illness may well exist and is enough to make me cautious, but it is far from proven and doesn’t seem to be replicated in countries where cannabis use is more widespread. That potential link aside, the risks from grass are probably less than the risks from the tobacco it is smoked with. Recently skunk has largely taken-over the cannabis market. There is far less information available about skunk but, since it is 30 times stronger than traditional cannabis, hallucinogenic and comparatively new, I agree that whole group of cannabis drugs should revert to class B.

Parents should be far more worried about binge drinking (which leads to accidents and sexual indiscretions) and cars. I bet that everybody here knows somebody who has died through alcohol and somebody who has died behind a wheel. For me, those dangers have claimed 5 friends. But far less will know somebody who has died through cannabis – even if calling it a gateway drug.

[CDM]

Am I the only one who finds it remotely amusing that IDS thinks he has the right to tell the Party what to do if "it wants to be taken seriously"?

[Chris Palmer]

Looks like a few of the drug-advocating idiots are out in force again.

I very much welcome what Mr Cameron has said. Isn't it refreshing to actually hear something sensible?

[Gareth]

"Looks like a few of the drug-advocating idiots are out in force again."

What a constructive contribution to the debate. Well done! You've really advanced the discussion.

[Michael McGowan]

CDM, Iain Duncan Smith has at least made a decent and compassionate contribution to this thread. Perhaps you and Gareth could do the same.....or would you rather just indulge in Portillista bile and rancour? I don't think that wholesale criminalisation is the answer but I am equally unconvinced that our self-styled social liberals have any convincing answers either. They have much to say on the shortcomngs of current policy (fair enough) but seem to lack a Plan B. It is of course much easier and more gratifying to abuse other people than to do the spadework whcih Iain has done.

[Chris]

"Looks like a few of the drug-advocating idiots are out in force again.

I very much welcome what Mr Cameron has said. Isn't it refreshing to actually hear something sensible?"

Not a single response today has advocated drug use in any form, there has merely been critiscism directed towards how a new drugs policy might be geared.

During the leadership campaign Cameron claimed that ecstasy wasn't a dangerous as other class A drugs and ought therefore be downgraded so as to give drug classifications more crediblity. Today, he is pressing for cannabis to be reclassified as a class B drug, despite no overwhelming evidence proving its more dangerous than any other class C drug.

I've repeatedly said that I have no issue with him getting tough on drugs, however singling out cannabis just seems ridiculous. If he wants to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug, then so should ketamine (Commonly used for pain relief in horses!), and all other class C drugs.

I'm not some hippy liberal saying everyone should just chill and smoke some weed every once in a while, I'm a conservative voter just asking for some consistency in our anti-drug mantra

[Gareth]

Once again, Mr McGowan, the facts are at odds with your assertion. I refer you to my post of 10.29am.

[Gareth]

Of the many wearying rhetorical tools in your arsenal Mr McGowan, by far the most tiresome is the frequently made allegation that those with whom you disagree have resorted to abuse. Given that this allegation is invariably followed by you resorting to abuse (cf "or would you rather just indulge in Portillista bile and rancour?"), I can only imagine that you either have a very ingrained sense of irony or are extraordinarily unreflective.

[Richard]

Despite being on the "hang 'em and flog 'em" wing of the party I confess I've done a u-turn on my attitude to drugs (and no, I haven't partaken of any!). Rather than retype all the familiar arguments I'll just link to this post which pretty much sums up a lot of what I think:

http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc017.htm

Naturally I should add that drug-takers should not be entitled to free treatment on the NHS unless the substances they purchase are taxed to fund it.

[Scotty]

"Too many of your bloggers have rehearsed political positions without a real understanding of the nature of the problem we face from the growing level of drug and alcohol abuse."
I don't think that is quite true, although I can imagine you coming to that conclusion when visiting this site and seeing every thread degenerate into a "moderniser vs traditional" bun fight. I am guilty of it myself.
I mentioned in a thread yesterday that I had attended a drug awareness course because of some youth work, and also because I am a parent. Drugs/alcohol are one of the biggest problems that parents have to be aware of today, and it is not something that is just caused by poverty. We are seeing abuse of both on the rise even in very affluent area's and I do think that it is much worse than the "experimenting" that went on with the younger generation even 20 years ago.
I have to admit that I was horrified at the amount/scale of class A drugs which are now available and easy to obtain.
Was very interested in this comment about Sweden in the frontpage newspaper round up.
"Sweden also has a punitive attitude to alcohol and drug abuse, with high taxes on drink and a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, even for casual drug abuse. - Guardian"
It would be something to look at, that and the mixed messages coming from this Labour government over the last 10 years coupled with a lack of planning or any real attempt to address the serious rise in addiction of drugs/alcohol. This is something which effects both family break down and crime which I think are the two biggest threats to society we face today.

[K Marsh]

The Academy of Medical Sciences is currently running an online consultation about the future of drugs and drug culture in the UK, to inform their policy in this area. Readers might be interested in expressing their views at http://www.drugsfutures.org.uk

[Michael McGowan]

Gareth, all I can say in response is that you are a pompous ass, rapidly becoming beyond caricature.

[Valedictoryan]

Richard, I'm going to try and persuade you to convert your U-turn to a full 360...

Sean Gabb's argument is very persuasive, but it leaves out one vital fact. Drugs dealers are market-makers. If you deprive them of one bit of trade (by making it legal), they’ll simply create a market in another drug. The legal market will never be able to keep up and legalising certain drugs will simply propel the illegal market towards ever more risky drugs.

For example we're all obsessing about cannabis, but that's not where the current market is at. Even "e" is now old-hat. Sell cannabis and e at the newsagent and the dealer outside will hand out the coke, PCP, GBH, roofies, etc.

[Londoner]

Just in case he comes back here to read the contributions after him, may I say how impressed I am that Iain Duncan Smith is sufficiently committed, and down to earth, to post on here? There are not many (any?) other politicians at his level who would do this and it probably pays a greater compliment to this site than it deserves.

Which is why I think some of the subsequent posters, particularly the fatuous comment of CDM, are incredibly rude. Presumably CDM thinks that the witterings of some of the regulars on here are more valuable than hearing from someone with IDS's experience, including long and recent study of this issue?

Iain, thanks for partaking in the debate on here. My only comment on what you have said is to support Gareth to the extent that it is wrong to set this up as a "beyond the beltway" London v. country issue as there are large parts of London which have suffered just as much (if not more) than anywhere else from the consequences of drugs. There might be some Londoners within a short walk of Sloane Sq who are insulated, but not out here. It may be fairer to point out the complacency of some parts of the liberal middle classes - but even with them, I suspect their attitude changes as their children start growing up.

I am unsure about "zero tolerance" but absolutely sure that no form of illegal drug use should be regarded with complacency.

[Michael McGowan]

Valedictoryan, good point. I think that this is the great weakness in the total decriminalisation argument: we are dealing with people who will sell anything, literally anything, to anybody however toxic....if given the opportunity. In his 10.29 post, Gareth described the mayhem in his former South London ward and then asserted that this was "the result of current drugs policy". In part no doubt that is true but I doubt that total liberalisation would make a huge difference. I am not sure what Gareth is in fact suggesting as an alternative.

[Praguetory]

Gareth - you seem to be suggesting we face a choice of utter decriminalisation and the status quo. Which Tories here are arguing for the status quo? Proper investment in drug rehabilitation, effective policing and a clear anti-drugs message from all in authority is what most Conservatives are arguing for and taken together would be a radical departure from where we are today and would radically reduce the harm resulting from the drugs menace.

[simon]

I bet the word 'cannabis' is in tomorrow's 'Witney Gazette'! Wonder whether it's worth a trip down to Ladbrokes!

[malcolm]

I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with the current drugs policy (although the reduction in the classification of Cannabis was a mistake) but there is a huge amount wrong with the way it is enforced. Drug taking and even dealing is tolerated in areas that I know by the police.We can all see with Pete Doherty the huge amount of police and court time that has been wasted by him and for what? I suspect that his experiences will have been replicated thousands of times.
Having said that the only country that appears to have made its drug policy work is Singapore which is much easier to police than Britain and to try and follow their example would be politically impossible.
As regards DC I'm very glad that we have DD responsible for Home affairs. I think it extremely unlikely that there will be any relaxation in drug policy with him in charge.

[Jonathan Powell]

Looks like a few of the drug-advocating idiots are out in force again.

Yeah, "idiots" like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr. How much more sensible to follow the policy advice of the Daily Mail...

It seems to me that drug legalization is a policy favoured by pragmatists and freedom-lovers, whereas the drug-war is supported by populists, theocrats and socialists. I think Cameron falls into the latter category...

http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm

[TomTom]

Yeah, "idiots" like Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley, Jr.

I don't see either of them as moral apostles. Friedman said much in his long life to be provocative rather than prescriptive.

Unfortunately the limited education of recent years has left irony out of the capacity of many and they take Friedman literally on all subjects rather than as an amusing and mischevious pixie in some areas

[Erasmus]

So are we going to legalise drugs for the under-16s (that when most people start)?

If yes, how are you going to distribute the stuff? In sweet shops -- or hand them out in school along with the free condoms?

If no, does this mean that the illegal trade will by definition be refocused on children?

C'mon libertarians, do share your pearls of wisdom with us.

[Denis Cooper]

As a pragmatic libertarian, I'm generally in favour of adults being able choose their own poison provided they do no harm to others, with regulation of the supply and taxation to cover the costs eg to the NHS, and I'm generally against criminal laws which are so difficult to enforce that attempts at enforcement actually do more harm than the crime itself. But NB the word "adults" - I don't extend the same freedom of choice to children, who should be treated as children, not as miniature adults, and those who provide classified drugs to children should be liable to severe punishment. That would include death for career criminals who deliberately target children - it would only need a few to be hanged and the rest would stop. And NB the phrase "provided they do no harm to others" - those individual adults who show that they can't use these substances responsibly should not only be liable to punishment for whatever harm they do while under the influence, but be forbidden from using them by a court order, and subject to testing for the rest of their lives. As a practical and necessary precaution stricter rules should apply to certain groups, eg train drivers, and any drug use in prisons should be entirely under the control of the prison authorities, not the prisoners. At the same time, while the use of these substances is still illegal it's wrong for politicians (or teachers) to give the impression it's "normal" to use them, and that those who refrain are somehow "odd". It shouldn't be considered "odd" to be law-abiding.

[ToMTom]

but be forbidden from using them by a court order,

You are joking I see. You would have to be smoking crack to make such a suggestion - a "Court order" - how droll.

[Tori]

Cannabis is a scourge of society. I've seen it ruin many people, who end up lazy and unmotivated and not wanting to do anything at all (apart from maybe live off Gordon Brown's benefit state?) Most regular cannabis users I know are going nowhere in their lives.

Reclassify it to category B and educate youngsters about its dangers (and likewise tobacco and alcohol). Often a lot of youngsters who start with cannabis move onto harder drugs afterwards.

[Denis Cooper]

Yes, TomTom, "be forbidden from using them by a court order, and subject to testing for the rest of their lives" - and (in case you don't know) if at any time when they were tested they were found to have breached the court order, that would be contempt of court and punishable by up two years in prison.

[Gareth]

I know, why don't we all give examples about people we've known who have/have not been addicted to cannabis/alcohol? It makes for such interesting, informed and constructive debate.

[Alex Forsyth]

It's absurd to suggest we'll be revisiting the Widdecombe debacle of a 'zero tolerance' approach. Half the shadow caninet were forced to admit they'd smoked pot and we had the fastest U-turn in recent political history.

They weren't "forced" to do anything of the sort. Widdecombe got a huge standing ovation from the faithful and Ainsworth and some other creeps immediately set out to undermine her.

Somebody obviously put them up to it, because Ainsworth isn't smart enough to have worked that one out for himself, however much he wanted to torpedo Widdecombe.

OK so Mr Ainsworth rolled a joint at his comp. Clap. Clap. A more interesting line of questioning would relate to those persistent rumours of his pre-Tory involvement with a certain rather controversial political party, and I'm not talking about UKIP.

the middle classes don't want to see Tamsin and Quentin saddled with criminal records and chucked out of school/university for toting on a joint.

Nice to see "Gareth" confirming our worst prejudices about uncaring Beltway Yuppie couples who inflict on their children the type of idiotic names that are likely to get their heads kicked in at school.

However, if Gareth were a father he would know that no parent ever believes that his little darling/s are going to end up in trouble with the law.

That's something that always happens to other peoples' children.

[Tori]

Gareth - first hand experience of a subject greatly influences your opinion on it.
And my first hand experience of cannabis addicts has caused me to be so against it. There's no point debating it in the first place if we don't know what we're dealing with.

[Tori]

Gareth - first hand experience of a subject greatly influences your opinion on it.
And my first hand experience of cannabis addicts has caused me to be so against it. There's no point debating it in the first place if we don't know what we're dealing with.

[matt wright]

Great to see IDS joining in the debate on this site,

Matt

[Gareth]

It's all rather pointless though isn't it Tori? You tell me your experiences; I tell you mine; Tom, Dick and Harry tell me theirs. You can hardly engage me in debate about my experiences any more than I can engage you about yours.

[Gareth]

It's all rather pointless though isn't it Tori? You tell me your experiences; I tell you mine; Tom, Dick and Harry tell me theirs. You can hardly engage me in debate about my experiences any more than I can engage you about yours.

[Valedictoryan]

Tory - I'd question whether you're being completely unbiased in your link between cannabis use and "going nowhere".

You probably know a good many people who are "going nowhere" but, only in the case of the cannabis smokers, do you attribute their lack of drive to what they smoke. Take away the cannabis and you'll probably find that the tokers are equally likely to go nowhere as those who don't.

[sjm]

Shouldn't we be looking at why relatively affluent people in a First World country would want to be smashed out of their minds on either alcohol or drugs? Talk of bans and penalties is addressing the wrong end of the problem.

We have a vacuous, shallow culture that celebrates 'celebrity' and stupidity - look no further than Big Brother, and appears to glamorise the excessive consumption of substances that can only cause damage or death.

[David Sergeant]

"Just in case he comes back here to read the contributions after him, may I say how impressed I am that Iain Duncan Smith is sufficiently committed, and down to earth, to post on here?"

Absolutely! With this level of commitment we could get somewhere. It seems to me that legalising or not is a typical British grasping at an "eye catching intiative" which gets in the media and propably makes the problem worse. So;-

"I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with the current drugs policy (although the reduction in the classification of Cannabis was a mistake) but there is a huge amount wrong with the way it is enforced " And;-

"Shouldn't we be looking at why relatively affluent people in a First World country would want to be smashed out of their minds on either alcohol or drugs? Talk of bans and penalties is addressing the wrong end of the problem"

I thought Ann Widdicombe was trying to make posession of small amounts of drugs a civil offence like speeding. In other words even the legal issue has different levels. Most problems are complicated and require complicated answers. Blairism's strength was to pretend that easy, media friendly, answers solved difficult problems. John Major's problem was he was unable to project complicated answers in a way people would bother to understand. This seems to me fundemental to the drugs problem.

[Philip]

A very welcome comment from DC.

May I respond to Gareth's comment (0922) about the "Widdecombe debacle of a 'zero tolerance' approach. Half the shadow cabinet were forced to admit they'd smoked pot and we had the fastest U-turn in recent political history. There are no votes in it either - the middle classes don't want to see Tamsin and Quentin saddled with criminal records and chucked out of school/university for toting on a joint."

Two points: 1) As regards "Tamsin and Quentin" and other middle-class children being given criminal records, I was not aware that Anne Widdicombe was proposing that new hardline laws would be applied retrospectively.

2) As for the shadow cabinet being forced to admit they smoked pot forcing a U-turn, it should be possible for someone to admit they did wrong, and they should be able discourage others from making the same mistakes. It is wrong to disqualify someone from public service or from taking a stand against people making errors they made in their pasts. We should accept their turnaround. It is what their ideas and policies are NOW that matter! And on this, Mr Cameron seems to be setting the right example by saying he did wrong, and speaking out against cannabis abuse and advocating reclassification to B.

[Nikki C]

The GOOD news about David Cameron's exposure as a teenage drugtaker is that he has at last been panicked into moving towards something like a proper Conservative policy on the war against drugs and as long as he is consistent in condemning Cannabis that's a move in the right direction.

Perhaps after all David can be integrated into the majority party. He wants to win after all.

I've written before about the life-destroying evil of drugs and was appalled to see some of the posts here. Also the abuse which as I said is mainly coming from people pretending to support David. No wonder there are hardly any women posting here.

I said this before and was immediately attaked by someone because I was a woman who dared to criticise these infighters. I think they want to misrepresent David as an extremist and drive away any normal conservatives who criticise them.

Finally re Cannabis. Yesterday came the news that a Cannabis-crazed junkie murdered an innocent gentleman for fun. Just the latest death in this evil toll.

[Gareth]

You can call drugs 'evil' until you're blue in the face. You can use cliches like 'the war on drugs'. You can even (why do SO many people think this is an acceptable form of debate?) resort to anecdote. Nut if you really think that all that is needed to curb the epidemic in drug taking is for people to 'condemn' cannabis, you're living in dreamland.

[Michael McGowan]

If they are living in dreamland, Gareth, then they have the misfortune to share it with you: I know of no mature democracy which has yet followed the erratic path you seem to advocate and others which have gone the other way (notably, Sweden). Of course, unlike your good self, the cleverclogs barrister, the people who govern these countries must necessarily be deluded bigots basing their approach on "anecdote". I never realised before that a Cambridge history degree bestowed such astounding powers of wisdom and foresight.

[Gareth]

Congratulations, you've discovered google. If you wnat a copy of my CV I'll send it. Otherwise, leave off the personal stuff and move on.

[Green]

Do barristers normally make lawyers feel insecure?

[Andrew]

" I know of no mature democracy which has yet followed the erratic path you seem to advocate and others which have gone the other way (notably, Sweden)."

The only notable points about Swedish drugs policy is that a decade's crackdown quadruplued the yearly death rate, without affecting levels of use. The same thing happens anywhere that follows said policies with addictive drugs - eg prohibition massively increased the number of alcohol deaths in the 20s, yet alcohol consumption actually increased while it was illegal.

All you can do with the legal bludgeon is drive the problem underground. The drug will still be freely available on the streets, as it is even in countries with the death penalty for supply. The real consequence then is on the severity of health effects.

[NannyKnowsBest]

Prohibition didn't work in America with alcohol . it created the same viscous gangsters like Capone currently plaguing our society today, it made the alcohol generally more concentrated (Whiskey not Beer) and additionally lack of proper production controls making it possibly contaminated with methanol leading to blindness and death from what we all know is *in moderate quantities* a fairly safe drug.

Prohibition maximized harm ,it allowed no control of sale to protect children. It put otherwise completely law abiding , hardworking citizens on the wrong side of the law.

That was a failed experiment largely motivated by religious temperance.Our current Drug War is ironically enough a failed experiment largely motivated by commercial profit from pharmaceutical ,fiber,alcohol companies , the interest isn't moral, its much more concretely fiscal and where there is vested money ,corruption and ignoring the facts surely follows. Christian moral objection to cannabis in particular should be referred to Genesis 1:29.

I dont understand why you as a party can't see this simple example and draw parallels and realize that a "zero-tolerance" approach is immensely counter productive even praising the Swedish approach as you do , has it actually actually worked ?. has it reduced the consumption of drugs at all ?.

The "War on Drugs" has failed on its own terms, I don't even need a specific example although there are countless ones . Simply look at any Drug War Policy in the last 30 years ,its stated objectives (normally the eradication of all drug use in the early days pragmatically changing to simply to reduce consumption in later years then decoupled entirely from the original goals to drug seizure targets which, ironically are more likely to be achieved the more it fails to suppress the market ) and if these where actually achieved once. The answer is no. It been repeatedly demonstrated actual real word drug use counter intuitively goes up with more enforcement of prohibition law.

So , please come up with just one argument that stands with logic and medial science on why prohibition for adults over 21 pre-educated on the risks and effects is a good thing.

heres some favorites that would not qualify as logical and are the equivalent of telling a child " because I said so"

"sending the wrong message" - do children learn from education policy or from schoolbooks and teachers ? if you want people to understand the danger of drugs , educate don't legislate. You make an ass of the law because it encourages experimentation and when it is discovered that the drug

"Drugs are bad , mkay" - ok , all altered states of consciousness are inherently evil, if you feel that way why don't you do the job properly, ban the lot, tobacco , alcohol ,cough syrup , pain killers, caffeine ,increase the penalty to death for possession of a tea bag.
That might work , but then it further cheapens life when the penalty for a consensual crime is the same as rape and murder the deterant effect for these heinous crimes evaporates and simply makes drug criminals more likely to shoot first and ask questions later.

"we cannot afford to be seen a soft on Drugs" - can you afford to be seen as utterly incompetent in controlling the harm associated with them , even to the point of magnifying that harm in the face of all evidence? can you afford to waste millions of Tax Pounds that could be spend on the NHS , Defense or any number of laudable objectives.

The Conservative Party resurrection from the ashes of Black Wednesday is almost there, your offering real solutions to repair some of the social damage Labour has brought on the country , the out of control immigration ,The break down of family and marriage the resulting semi-criminalization of separated fathers , the feral youth. The enormous tax burden recently stealth increased.

Anyone under 50 already knows the truth of this crazy backward unwinable war and this is why Widdecombe was widely ridiculed for her views, it was not as you suppose some smart political backstabbing within the Conservative party, in fact that actually kick started the last proper debate.
You appear vastly out of touch and with your current drug policy and you are alienating voters unnecessarily when the vast majority of your other policies make good sense.

Where is your libertarian voice gone ? Why not tax , regulate and license or have the courage of you authoritarian convictions and go full bore at all chemicals that cause altered states of body or mind ? you already have granny's being fined and convicted for medicinal cannabis recommended by her doctor under the current system when prescribed drugs made her ill , why not a cup of tea too ? shall we turn the country into one big prison ?

There are vast savings to be made in terms of taxation ,reduction in wasted police time, freeing prison places for real criminals such as murderers, rapists and fraudsters. these savings and additional revenue vastly outweigh the cost of treatment and social management and education of problem users. When drug users are pitied and seen as ill ,any glamor attached to them quickly fades and so we at last see the reduction in use through personal choice so long sought for by legislation.