Let's End All This Reefer Madness |
Posted by FoM on July 02, 2001 at 13:22:28 PT By Deborah Orr Source: Independent At the start of Labour's last term there was a huge flurry of libertarian talk about cannabis. Various ministers declared themselves to have inhaled when they were young and silly. Various other public servants suggested that maybe the biggest dangers of hashish were first that it was pointlessly criminalising lots of otherwise blameless citizens and second that it was needlessly clogging up an already stressed-out criminal justice system. As the years wore on, the issue dropped further and further down the agenda. A Police Federation report calling for decriminalisation was swept under the carpet, despite calls for a Royal Commission from all sorts of disparate quarters. The special adviser on drugs, Keith Hellawell, decided to take the "gateway drug" line, whereby smoking cannabis sets one on the rocky road to heroin addiction by osmosis (because of a meaningless survey of 100 people in New Zealand). More generally, a refusal by Government to engage with the subject – possibly connected to the revelation of the sumptuary proclivities of then home secretary Jack Straw's son – was so successful in shutting down the dialogue that, despite their ubiquity, their social significance, and their huge influence on our culture's behaviour, come the election, drugs were no longer an issue for debate. Now, freshly post-election, the issue has magically risen again, propelled into the spotlight by an ex-minister who had declared herself a midnight toker the first time around, but who was too isolated in power to make a dent in the war on drugs rhetoric, even when she found herself the cabinet minister responsible for it. Mo Mowlam, now out of parliament, is not alone in speaking out about the nuttiness of our attitudes to pot, and suggesting that things have to change. Mr Hellawell, in his newly downgraded advising role, has now, quite rightly, reneged on his "reefer madness" position. It's not that there aren't connections between using cannabis and using harder drugs, it's just that they are casual rather than causal. Someone game to try one illegal drug, is more likely to be game to try another. Someone already involved in purchasing class B drugs,like cannabis is more likely to come into contact with class A drugs, such as heroin, and so on. It's rather like saying that cereal purchasers are more likely to be ketchup purchasers, simply because they're the guys in the supermarket. Further, someone who has listened to drugs education programmes, but has tried cannabis anyway, is likely to have discovered that the sky doesn't fall in after a puff (for that you have to go to the trouble of doing a few big hot-knives). There is then little incentive to believe further rhetoric about the dangers of harder drugs, because if one set of scaremongering about one drug is found to be exaggerated, then why on earth shouldn't all the rest? Borough Commander Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police, may or may not see that all this is common sense. He is behind the south London pilot experiment which started yesterday, whereby people found in possession of cannabis will receive only a formal warning and the confiscation of their stash. His logic in taking such a step is governed primarily by what he sees happening to charges made by the police when they get to the courts. "It is an extremely bureaucratic and therefore expensive process to get a conviction. As these figures show, having gone through all that bureaucracy people are being fined between £20 and £50 or being conditionally discharged," he said. Mr Paddick is interested in freeing up his force to tackle more damaging drug use, of a kind that can sometimes lead to criminal activity, despair, death and the full gamut of misery and destruction that addiction can herald. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, is "interested in the experiment" for the same reasons. "This fits in entirely with the emphasis on placing absolute priority on class A drugs," he said. Certainly, the emphasis is not on class A drugs at the moment. While nine-tenths of drugs charges are possession cases, 75 per cent of these involve cannabis. Again, there are purely practical reasons for this. A wrap of cocaine disappears in minutes at a party, while a few Es are swallowed in the queue for the club. Crack and heroin are often consumed with equal promptness. But cannabis users drag their bag or their lump around with them for days or weeks on end, a spliff here, a toke there, a joint's-worth handed over to a friend. There's little voracious greed to keep on using till there's none left and everyone is lit up like Blackpool, but quite a bit more to talk expansively, have a small nap, eat some chocolate buttons, watch Father Ted videos and, in extreme and frightening cases, have a bit of a sing-song. Cannabis, as any punk would have told you in the Seventies, is in fact the drug of choice for quite mellow and gentle souls. In Brixton, the prime location for Mr Paddick's new approach, cannabis use is not even endemic, it's more or less compulsory. Every newsagent has king-size papers by the till, every ash-tray has a roach in it. It's apparently very simple to buy hash on the street, though speaking as someone who one bought half an individually wrapped liquorice allsort for £10 on Atlantic Road, I've never been too keen on that method. It would be wrong though to dismiss all of the criticism that is made of cannabis. For some people, dope can be a problem, causing paranoia or depression. These people tend to notice this quite quickly and avoid regular use of the drug. For others, the temptation to roll up upon waking up and keep puffing all day long, proves stronger than the need to go out and engage with the world. Like alcohol users or car users, cannabis users are not always in control. But since the illegal market is now so firmly established all over the country, the law as it stands does not protect the vulnerable minority from such pitfalls. And while Mr Paddick may or not believe that his experiment is likely to signal a wider sea-change in the general status of cannabis in our society, his relaxation of the rules has already been embraced with gusto. A couple of days after Mr Paddick's experiment was announced, the annual Free The Weed festival was staged in Brixton's Brockwell Park. Larger than previous festivals, and better organised, it hosted a large crowd stoned off their faces. Having fully embraced the coming relaxation of the law, perhaps a little over-eagerly, the assembled company were imbibing cannabis openly, and as they day progressed, selling it more and more flagrantly. In a large car park next to the park's cafe, a formidable cluster of police vans crouched over the event. Police patrolled in pairs, getting in more practice turning a blind eye than they'd so far had in their lives. According to Mr Paddick, once the dealing in crack and heroin and the related crime is dealt with, the present policy on cannabis will be re-adopted. Already all the signs are that this will be much, much easier said than done. E-Mail: d.orr@independent.co.uk The Fog of Hypocrisy Clouds The Debate On Drugs Editorial There will be few rational people who regard the Brixton police's experimentation with cannabis possession as anything other than sensible. Even the shadow Home Secretary, Ann Widdecombe, who famously destroyed her political career by proposing "zero tolerance" at last year's Conservative Party conference, could barely muster up any opposition to it when pressed to do so. Clearly, there are two things out of kilter here. One is the law; the other is the reaction of our politicians to drugs. Cannabis use is widespread among the younger generations, and not uncommon among the middle-aged; it will not be long before a majority of the country are, technically, criminals. The Brixton experiment – seeing what happens when possession of small quantities of cannabis is, in effect, ignored by the police – may help rationalise this most irrational of debates by giving us some genuine evidence, rather than the ludicrous assertions that routinely surround this issue. But why is leadership on this issue coming from the beleaguered police rather than from their political masters? We have in David Blunkett a Home Secretary whose attitude to cannabis possession is, at the very least, as severe as his predecessor, Jack Straw (who, it should be recalled, turned his son over to the police). Meanwhile, the Conservative Party is quietly flirting with a truly radical policy: legalisation. Much depends, of course, on who wins the leadership contest but there are indications that the Tories are prepared to make this bold gesture to underline how they have changed. Such a move would be welcome, since the worst aspect of this debate is the hypocrisy. Ann Widdecombe's credibility was destroyed by her Shadow Cabinet colleagues admitting to taking dope – Conservative MPs who have nonetheless supported the status quo for their entire parliamentary careers. In private, many MPs talk openly about the need for law reform; in public, most dismiss any such thing. What is that if it is not hypocrisy? It is not just Conservatives, of course. On Sunday, Mo Mowlam made clear her support for law reform. Would that she had had the honesty to do that when she was the cabinet minister responsible for the daft "war on drugs". Likewise, Keith Hellawell admits that cannabis might not be a gateway drug the second he is overthrown as the drugs tsar. The truth is that our policies towards cannabis are inconsistent, weak and wrong. Britain will never have the calm, considered debate that is needed until we grow up and recognise that it is not being "soft" to reconsider our approach. As a start, Mr Blunkett should show that he favours rational discussion above role-playing, and set up a Royal Commission on drugs. Note: 'Cannabis, as any punk would have told you in the Seventies, is in fact the drug of choice for quite mellow and gentle souls' Source: Independent (UK) Related Articles: Decriminalisation Is Far From Lambeth Mowlam Says Legalisation of Cannabis Could Help Cannabis Use Does Not Lead To Heroin CannabisNews Articles - UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #150 posted by Nneil on July 08, 2001 at 13:59:57 PT |
"...but when i mentioned that he was F***ing up, he blew me off..." Wouldn't it have been better to say, "fouling up" or maybe "messing up". How about "i mentioned that he was behaving poorly"? Wouldn't "i mentioned that he was compromising his integrity" be less vulgar? I think definition #2 defines it best, "2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use". Why do you defend profanity? Why foul your nest? Why degrade yourself or allow others to do so? How does that serve your cause? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #149 posted by dddd on July 08, 2001 at 13:53:46 PT |
...I am of the opinion that there are times when profanity is quite appropiate,and not disrespectful.Properly used,profanity is a valuable part of the english language.. I think Ashley in Atlanta gave us an excellent insight into the nature, [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #148 posted by A H Clements on July 08, 2001 at 11:40:05 PT:
|
Dear friends & honorable colleagues, (oh, & you too, Nneil) There are far more profane things than 4-letter words & astericks, like for example *your* post, Nneil. Figuring mayhap you don't know what a dictionary is, Nneil, here is the M-W definition of "profane": 1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : DESECRATE take care --- peace --- ashley in atlanta PS: Why don't we take this thread to private email PPS: My apologies to this forum for *my* post. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #147 posted by Nneil on July 08, 2001 at 10:57:27 PT |
LookInside--you should do exactly that to determine why it is that you have such a blantant disrespect for FoM. Didn't you see where she told you "NO PROFANITY". Why then do you write, "...but when i mentioned that he was F***ing up, he blew me off..." Do you think the ***'s somehow make it acceptable? Why insult the intelligence of everyone here while offending them with the foul filthy scribblings of your degraded mind? Get your mind out of the gutter and stop dipping your pen in the sewer. Have a little respect. Thanks. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #146 posted by lookinside on July 07, 2001 at 17:14:27 PT:
|
i can't argue the point because i happen to agree with you...unfortunately, the company i just left didn't use pre-employment drug testing... to make a long story short, after a few months with them i i posted about one of these individuals a couple months ago i guess the bottom line is that those companies that don't i wish i had an answer to this problem...i'd make a jillion if anyone has a solution to these problems, i'd love to hear [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #145 posted by Willy on July 07, 2001 at 15:56:01 PT |
Your company is somewhat sane in that they don't use random tests. I feel that even pre-employment testing is repugnant. Not only is it an invasion of privacy but drug testing only detects marijuana. Cocaine is gone in a matter of hours and so is heroin. I wonder if testing companies pay kick-backs to their customers. For a worker to feel safe companies should do as NASA does: performance tests. Nasa refuses to use drug tests because they are administered and run by scientists who know that drug tests are eyewash for the public. Work safe, say no to drug tests. Thanks [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #144 posted by FoM on July 07, 2001 at 09:12:37 PT |
Hi Everyone, I can't find any news but I'll keep looking. I'm not asleep at the wheel but actually I am I think. Thanks for being so understanding too. I appreciate that more then you could possibly know. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #143 posted by dddd on July 07, 2001 at 08:46:29 PT |
.....Well said Lookinside....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #142 posted by lookinside on July 07, 2001 at 08:39:43 PT:
|
you both make a point i must agree with...i've never had a DUI...i think the cops were afraid to be on the same road with me when i was drinking...and that was ALL THE TIME after my workday...in the afternoon i was hammered.... when i hadn't been drinking but was smoking, i was a bit more cautious...(it took me 4 hours to drive 17 miles once on a foggy night...) i never had an accident while intoxicated...the difference: alcohol made me very aggressive...pot made me paranoid and therefore overly cautious...i should have had a bunch of DUI's and feel that i was very very lucky... on the other hand, my wife is a MMJ patient and drives all now some of my concerns...i'm the father of 3 kids...the the point i've been veering toward is that i very much when they are legal, i want them treated as alcohol i'm a pretty middle of the road person on nearly every i think any group that resorts to extreme positions and [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #141 posted by dddd on July 07, 2001 at 01:01:21 PT |
.....better or worse,stoned-ness is relative to the stoneworthyness of the stone-ee behind the wheel.If you hack down reefers all day,then you will be normal driving,,if you get stoned for the first time on some prime Hawaiian,and get behind the wheel, you might have a problem navigating the vehicle in a safe manner. ,,I'm not proud of it,but in years gone by,, dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #140 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 07, 2001 at 00:25:49 PT |
But, I would say that I am a better driver stoned. Trust me, I have done the experiments. I am more careful, and I am more courteous. As to your workplace horrors, sure, I worked in shipping for a factory once, I know what hitting the local bar at noon entails..But I dont think cannabis is the problem. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #139 posted by dddd on July 06, 2001 at 23:49:38 PT |
I just had to let you know that your "animated Disney films/brandy and cubans" followup made me howl....I killed off...it totalled me...Thank you,it made my nite.... Laughter is the best medicine.....dddd [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #138 posted by lookinside on July 06, 2001 at 23:46:06 PT:
|
i guess you didn't get my point...it involves SAFETY...if you feel you are safer stoned driving home, that is your choice...i speak from personal experience...if you choose not to take my post as a whole garment, so be it... [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #137 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 06, 2001 at 23:21:18 PT |
But please be sure to take public transit home, unless the driver smoked a joint in the last 30 days...Go to bed FoM. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #136 posted by lookinside on July 06, 2001 at 23:06:45 PT:
|
i mentioned that i had to submit to a pre employment drug test... i would be quite happy if i wasn't required to...as long as i have some very good reasons why i submit to it... i work in heavy construction...when i first got into this my particular job involves my being on foot very near the when pre-employment drug testing came up, i quit smoking we don't have random drug testing...we test when hired, or i don't care what my coworkers do at home...i just care that i strongly believe that no matter what laws are on the i also think that if a person has a very safe job, like [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #135 posted by FoM on July 06, 2001 at 22:55:23 PT |
CongressmanSuet I know. There were so many good comments but the thread was so large that I couldn't edited it without a lot of work. It's in html and that is much harder for me to do. Everything comes together with lots of little codes that you have to know about and remove or not remove. Thanks for understanding. I'm hoping I can call it a day after this post. I'm really tired. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #134 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 06, 2001 at 22:48:42 PT |
Que Sera, Sera! I have to admit, I did save it. SWAMPIES Jethro Bodine impersonation was a work of art, and dddea's offer of canned goods and monetary help was priceless. So many excellent refutations thrown to the wind...oh well, I do understand. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #133 posted by FoM on July 06, 2001 at 22:43:41 PT |
Hi Everyone, I minded removing the thread too. It was really getting vicious so I didn't have a choice. Maybe some of you are use to all this but I have many readers that don't post and I'm trying to think about them too. I'm already sick. This is just making me sicker. I'm coughing and coughing as I type this but I will survive. I think! Thanks Everyone for caring and I hope understanding. Thes are the rules that were established when Ron Bennett created this web site. I thought the rules were very fair. I hope everyone else does too. So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #132 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 06, 2001 at 22:31:52 PT |
I know you are a sensitive person, and all this hateful gibberish is upsetting to you, but please dont let it get you sick. I have been on the Internet for 7 years, and Ive seen this kinda thing many times. Like Kap, I stopped going to alt. groups along time ago. But have no fear, this group could never be turned into anything that it isnt just because of the postings of one individual. Ive never seen such a dazzling display of eloquence and humanism anywhere else. This is not going to turn into anything else just because of the jabbering of a poster. You have worked hard, and it has paid off. Take a deep breath and relax. The only way we can lose this battle, is if you remove this completely. Than we have all lost something. Me, Im just having fun, and maybe its not right, but sometimes the targets are just SOO easy[not you dddd, I laugh WITH you, even though I do hold you personally responsible for Gores defeat]. This place isnt like other discussion boards. We have been lucky to be insulated abit from all the garbage that usually surfaces on websites such as this, but hey, 2001, cant be non-infected forever! Where else can you get such an illustrious group speaking intelligently on freedom issues that seem to like each other? I have total respect for the posters here, DanB., Kap.,Lehder,Observer[where are you, I like the indepth analysis] Lookinside, SWAMPIE[by the way the only person who can shout at me and I dont get a headache]Im leaving a small legion of names out, but the point is, you need to relax and not take this so seriously that it has a negative effect on your health. Dont worry, with a group as good as this, there will be a great resitance to an infection like this, which means to me no direct responses. So, the solution as I see it isnt to shut down the thread, but rather for us to show our maturity, and just IGNORE. This is just gonna sprout up somewhere else, thats the nature of it. IGNORE is the only thing that works. Gee, I hate losing the material... [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #131 posted by SWAMPIE on July 06, 2001 at 22:27:06 PT |
I agree with you FoM,that this is ,has,and was going nowhere!I apologize for my use of the F-word,but I will not take back my feelings about what this ignoramous is trying to accomplish by throwing a wrench into a box of turning gears!I do not believe that in a polite society,that one is never expected to vent once in awhile!However,others as well as myself tried to defuse this moron,and it only got worse,rather than better.Again,my humble apologies to ANYONE whom I may have offended,except NEIL!!!! ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG!!! SWAMPIE [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #130 posted by FoM on July 06, 2001 at 21:59:49 PT |
Thannks lookinside, This is unreal. I hope I get some sleep tonight. I'm so tired and much sicker with the infection I'm trying to get over and this isn't helping me one bit. Oh well. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #129 posted by lookinside on July 06, 2001 at 21:56:14 PT:
|
perfect. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #128 posted by FoM on July 06, 2001 at 21:46:54 PT |
test [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |