Libdem MP Tom Brake – one reason not to vote Libdem.

Politicians are probably the reason most people don’t vote. They have a very bad reputation which is well deserved and no-where is this more apparent than when politicians talk about drugs. Whereas most  people who try drugs enjoy them  – even if they don’t end as hopeless addicts – the politicians who dabble  almost never do. Almost uniquely amongst the population politicans are persuaded by the law never to touch them again and worse are grateful for that. They are mostly hypercritical of course and few of us really believe their piety. Perhaps a dislike of drugs is a premorbid indication* of an emerging political career?

So we have a dire situation in the UK where both the major parties, Labour and Conservative are trying to “out tough” each other when it comes to drug laws, with both of them believing in and promoting a system of prohibition despite all the evidence showing it doesn’t work (see last weeks blog). Drugs policy for the two main parties is a matter of faith, not of evidence. With a few notable exceptions come hell or high water – or even the most compelling of studies – it looks like politicians will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into some kind of law reform.

So it has always been a relief to know that at least one fairly major party  – the Lib Dems – have a more enlightened view regarding drugs law reform and of cannabis law reform in particular.  A quick google for “libdems drugs” takes you to a document on the libdem national website entitled “Honesty, Realism, Responsibility” (**this link points to the Transform website, the Libdems seem to have taken the original which was here offline – December 2008) which reads like a breath of fresh air. Here we have major UK political party facing up to the realities of drug law prohibition and suggesting new ways forward.

• Maintaining the classification of cannabis as a Class C drug in the short term, but issuing policy guidance that it is not in the public interest to prosecute individuals for possession of cannabis for their own use, cultivation of small numbers of cannabis plants for their own use, or social supply of cannabis.

and

• In the longer term, seeking to put the supply of cannabis on a legal, regulated basis,
subject to securing necessary renegotiation of the UN Conventions.

Note the bolded text about home growing of a small number of plants. Notonly that, but in 2001 the national conference voted in favour of cannabis legalisation, as the BBC reported at the time

The Liberal Democrats have voted in favour of the legalisation of cannabis – the first main UK party to support such a radical move.
The party’s leadership had recommended decriminalising the drug but delegates went a step further and chose legalisation, at the spring conference in Manchester.
They also voted for an end to imprisonment for the possession of any illegal drug – including heroin and cocaine – and backed the downgrading of ecstasy from a Class A to a Class B drug.

So for a party that supports drug law reform vote Libdem then? Well, no, not now it seems.

Sadly the Libdems have politicians and as with all politicians it seems that when it comes to drug law reform,  despite the evidence, despite the parties stated intentions, they can’t be trusted. At least one Libdem politician sees brownie points in being “tough on drugs”. So it was that the Libdem Tom Brake – MP for Carshalton in Surrey – has introduced a 10 minute rule bill in Parliament to try to ban the sale of Cannabis seeds, which just proves that the Libdems are not to be trusted in that they say one thing and do something completely different.

This is all a part of  MP Tom Brake’s personal campaign against his local headshop, to which end he’s set up a facebook page to promote this bit of non-libdem policy. You can find this grubby little page for yourself, UKCIA isn’t going to link to it because it doesn’t give you the opportunity to be critical.

So what is the problem with banning seeds? well, if, as the Libdems claim, they want to build a policy based on harm reduction and proper control of the drugs market (especially for cannabis) then controlling the seed trade is the way to do it. If you are seriously concerned about the availability of certain strains (remember the skunk panic) then you need to control what strains are available and you do that by controlling the seed trade. Forcing it underground won’t stop seeds being available and certainly won’t affect major crim-ops who grow from cuttings anyway, all it’ll do is make it harder for small scale home growers to buy seeds of known type. The internet will ensure the trade continues, but banning will simply remove one of the few options for control that still exist and will make it all just a bit more risky and uncertain. Remember, the libdems claim they don’t want to target home growers of small numbers of plants.

Interestingly one of the most outspoken supporters of Brake’s idea is Chief Constable Tim Hollis, who we quoted in last weeks blog as saying:

One way of freeing up much-needed cash is to divert funds away from the prosecution of small-time users – indeed, once young people enter the criminal justice system, there is strong evidence to suggest that their risk of descent into serious drug use is greatly increased.

Only to add

That doesn’t mean we should ignore the softer, so-called “gateway” drugs such as cannabis. I fervently believe that because of its detrimental effect on mental health – particularly that of young people – cannabis should be reclassified as a class B drug

Belief overriding evidence as always with these people, as well as logic being in short supply. Tim Hollis being one of the leading voices calling for reclassification to B, the only effect of which is to increase the rate of prosecution of small-time users.

But probably and most importantly what, we ask, is the point of a national party membership voting quite clearly for a certain policy, the party publishing intelligent documents like “Honesty, Realism, Responsibility” (**this link points to the Transform website, the Libdems seem to have taken the original offline – December 2008) if nasty bits of work like Brake can go off and do something totally different in the name of the party? Do the Libdems not stand for anything or do they allow their MP’s to make things up as they go along?

There’s probably no point in mailing the MP himself, he’s unlikely to take any such representation seriously, but if you’re bored you can tell him what you think of him here

Probably better is to contact the party itself nationally by e-mail,   or phone them on 020 7222 7999. Let them know that you support drug law reform and oppose Brakes personal campaign. Ask them why, if they allow their MP’s to do this sort of thing, should you ever vote Libdem again?

———————–

*A “Premorbid indication” is a term used by doctors to describe a symptom or trait which shows before the illness develops.