Comments on: Drugs policy descends (further) into farce

By: Pastorius

Pastorius — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:21:28 +0000

For a government that wants to send out clear messages, they’re missing by a long shot. It couldn’t be much more confusing for a kid to hear “This is wrong and dangerous and as bad as speed, and WORSE than ketamine” then to actually try cannabis and realise the law is a joke.

Irrational policies breed contempt for the law.

By: tokerdesigner

tokerdesigner — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:14:48 +0000

“What the government have done is to provide drug users – never mind drug law reform campaigners – with the evidence they’ve always suspected was true – that our drug laws are based on nothing other than the prejudice of politicians.”

1. In the otherwise good report I must take issue with this: rather than the “prejudice” of politicians it is the politicians’ fear of Big Tobackgo which motivates them to take a stand against anything (such as a better or safer “drug” than tobacco) which threatens to compete against tobacco or against the hot-burning overdose cigaret.

2. Because Ecstasy may compete with alcohol, this possibility must be raised: Big Tobackgo also wants to protect the famous and beloved “tradition” of drinking parties and binge drinking, because many youngsters lose track of how much tobacco they smoked while drunk, or inhaled (sidestream) while passed out at some party. Then a week later, struggling to catch up with their schoolwork and needing to stay up all night “cramming”, they reach for a cigaret… A Habit Is Born.

By: phrtao

phrtao — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:30:28 +0000

The government is now obliged to say why they disagree with the ACMD. They cannot simply say that they ‘disagree with anything that …’ and not say why. A refusal to explain looks bad but a debate on the principals of law enforcement would lead to all sorts of awkward questions about the role of the law in this aspect of our society.
Really for someone who wants to send “clear messages” they don’t shout very loudly and that is because the press do not like this kind of drugs story. They only want the ones where someone seems to be ‘going soft on drugs’ to appear since that is a way to attack a politician or public figure and we live in a society that finds a story about inappropriate behavior more interesting than one about anything else. This leaves a politician with the simple rule of “don’t appear soft on drugs” – if you stick by that you will be alright. Of course the supposed merits of this approach are often re-enforced in the media with some news item about the dangers of drugs. (The harm is usually real but often the drugs cannot be conclusively blamed for causing it)
This time though it does seem as though the government have overreacted when maybe the prudent course of action would have been to leave well alone under the guise of further investigation (before taking such a big step). After all fewer politicians support tobacco smokers rights than that of drug users but hardly any would support re-classification of tobacco products under the law to deter use. So it must suit some one to tighten the laws on other drugs and they make sure the negative stories keep appearing in the press just as it was with Anslinger in the 1930s America.

By: JustLookin

JustLookin — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:10:42 +0000

Yet another excellent report. Cheers for the update.