Caroline Chatwin, a drugs policy expert at the University of Kent, said that while it was important for people such as Ainsworth to publicise their support for changes to British drug policy, "it remains regrettable that this public support is unable to be offered by those in a current frontline position".
She added: "Ainsworth states that he is only able to express these views now that he no longer occupies a front line position and Cameron seems to have abandoned his own relatively liberal standpoint on this issue now that he is prime minister. While this suppression of the opinion of those in power continues to be the case, Britain will not be able to participate in an open and honest debate on this subject and will not be able to effect a much needed evidence-based policy."
Unequal power and personal gain, are not suitable bedfellows of democracy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/16/legalise-drugs-former-defence-minister
If that pleases you, also check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/07/reefermadness
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd given the low public approval towards the coalition government at the moment it remains highly unlikely that these sorts of progressive, smart changes will be made. A staunch anti-drugs policy will always attract the popular vote and with few other cards on the table it would be unwise of the government to show sympathy for this cause. It's still not an appropriate answer though and the belligerent attitudes of politicians both in office and in the shadow cabinet when the suggestions were made last week appeared, at best, brash.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most significant failings of New Labour was to ignore drugs policy beyond continual blanket bans. Aside from the necessary work carried out by our lovely Vernon Coaker to make Crystal Meth “Class A”, New Labour's removal of psilocybin mushrooms, the reclassification of cannabis and the messy shuffle towards M-Cat's criminalization has left many parts of the UK home to dealers willing to sell with as much as a 97% cut in the most addictive drugs. This coupled with Harriet Harman's short temper towards drug interest groups and Alan Johnson’s gladiatorial approach to David Nutt’s “equasy” comments lead a path forward to make the U.K. one of the few Western states remaining hard headed on the war on drugs. Even though Prop 19 failed, few predicted that the U.S. would be leading the charge away from the conflict they started; they are now in part welcoming the weed that they were saying not but 70 years ago turned African Americans and Latinos into rapists and serial killers. New Labour’s firm conservative stance has crippled the chances of liberal drugs policy for years. I only make a comment on Labour’s shortcomings as I am sure we will never see a right wing government even take the time to talk on the liberalization of narcotics.
Through it all, the war on drugs is still a class war and a race war. To welcome the introduction of legal highs is to welcome the concerns of the people who use and sell them. For as long as government supports the bigoted, monopolistic conceit that brought the drug wars , they stand to fight against the generations of people and ancestors who fought them. But what should they care? They probably don’t vote anyway, the dozy stoners....
N.B. We've weighed up the options says Duncan Smith. We think cold turkey's fab. It goes great with chronic relapse and mayo http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/08/coalition-drugs-strategy-abstinence-recovery
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehaha! Fantastic stuff! It's not just an argument for marginalised stoners, it affects all of society! Oh well. I don't think the 'Conservatives' are going to bring in any change...
ReplyDelete