'Why is it only 'formers' who want to talk about drugs?'

[wilf789]

With the amount of activism and coverage on the issue of drug legalisation/regulation in America compared to what it usually gets in the UK, I am proud to post what I think is a very good article from the BBC website about a story developing over here.

It stems from another good piece of news today coming from a parliamentary drugs conference, where the ex chief of MI5 (think M from the James Bond films, but real) called for a debate on cannabis regulation in particular. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15770842

"There is a presumption that the current policy is the best we can do," she said.
Policymakers needed to look at "politically uncomfortable" evidence about current approaches and consider alternatives, including whether the UK "should follow Portugal's fascinating example and focus on drug use as a health issue rather than a crime issue?"

Aside from some questionable views about removing 'the components most dangerous to mental health' - by which I assume they mean THC, or perhaps meaning limiting its percentage, as they might be doing in Holland - it's all pretty encouraging stuff.

Except that it's all the same that we've heard a load of times before from a load of 'ex' something-or-others - and will front-line politicians actually give a damn and do anything about it?

The article I was referring to in the first line was posted in response to the Baroness' speech: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15771029

This afternoon in the House of Lords there will be a former President (Switzerland's Ruth Dreifuss), a former chief of the US Federal Reserve (Paul Volker) and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Nigel Lawson).
They will be among many other retired establishment figures lining up to say that we need to launch a global and national search operation for a workable alternative to prohibition.

The question that leaps out, of course, is why didn't any of these people make their argument before they retired from the day-job?

A glance at the members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which today presents its manifesto in the Palace of Westminster, reveals the same story: four former national Presidents, a former US Secretary of State (George Schultz) and a former UN Secretary General (Kofi Annan) are among hundreds of thousands of signatories to a petition calling for health-oriented, cost-effective drugs policies based in scientific evidence and human rights.

But why didn't they say anything before?

The answer, it seems, is that the towering walls of political orthodoxy made it impossible.

Again you might say not necessarily original - but it's certainly a new stance for one of the most internationally renowned and balanced news organisations in the world to be touting.

He goes on to say:

It would seem to be a weakness of our democracy (and political conviction) that we are denied a rational and candid examination of drugs policy because front-bench politicians are terrified of being labelled as "soft" or "liberal".

Liberals have fought more bravely for more change - often unthinkable to many - over more centuries than people ever give them credit for, and pushing the boat out on the debate over drug regulation would be another fine example, if only one of the ones still in power actually had the balls to do anything about it!

- Apologies for the long post, I've been following the BBC my entire life and an article like this got me rather excited

 

[VWFringe]

I believe a dominant narrative in the media has been to think ill of drug users, so a politician who came out against the status quo would probably look like they were speaking in tongues. Not the way to get re-elected, which seems more important than doing what's right.

I feel ya'

I can only hope since Turette's Syndrome has gained some public empathy, that the same will happen for ADHD, which may allow for a shift in the dialog towards the science and statistics, instead of how it works now, hell bent on protecting family values no matter how many families are torn assunder.

 

[Abysmal Vapor]

http://translate.google.bg/translate?sl ews%3D3021
The President of the country is admitting that he is using illegal substances.. on government money.. while other go in prison for a few g of weed.
He does that as a duty in favor of better communication with other leaders and he says he will stop USING as soon as he gets off the president duty: lol:..
I guess it is fine to use MJ if you are a president.. But if you are not you better be a "former".
I can imagine years later he get caught and he will say.. This is professional deformation.. serving my country made me an addict.. MJ is very very bad drug...

 

[wilf789]

Another good article from the Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/13/drugs-cameron

Makes relevant points about how it is only when big money/business gets involved that we are likely to see front-line politicians actually shifting their policies.

But it is looking increasingly unlikely that it will be politicians who spark a debate about a new approach to the failed war on drugs. The winds of change will not likely be driven by politics, health or morality, but by economics. Business will be the prime mover...

When the debate changes substantively both here and in the States it will do so because, while politicians may keep their counsel and remain silent, money talks.

People just don't seem to care that 40,000 people have died in the last 5 years in Mexico alone. That is a statistic that gives me chills every time I read it - and even more so when I think about the lack of attention it gets in the mainstream media/political circles.

It is unconscionable for the leaders of the largest drug-consuming nations the US, UK and Spain to remain silent any longer. The habits of their citizens are not only directly responsible for the wasted lives of many Latin Americans but, as President Santos says, are now culpable in the destruction of the Amazonian rainforests as coca producers move to ever more remote parts of Colombia to harvest the raw material of cocaine.

The war on drugs has failed. When policies fail it is incumbent on our leaders to look for new ones. They show no signs of doing so even as Latin America's body politic is threatened by the tentacles of the narco gangs who pay off politicians, judges, journalists and policemen or just kill them, so that they can better transport drugs to us.

Prohibition has failed. As we noted last year: "If the purpose of drug policy is to make toxic substances available to anyone who wants them in a flourishing market economy controlled by murderous criminal gangs, the current arrangements are working well."

 

[VWFringe]

As troubling as that thought is, I truely believe there's something huge in that idea, as far as where marketting and activism may be being mis-placed. Convince the leaders of business, and the government will follow, is probably correct.

 

[wilf789]

The Prohibition of alcohol was repealed for a variety of reasons, but the most important were firstly the increasing pressure applied on the government by the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment led by the incredibly wealthy captains of industry Pierre du Pont and John J. Raskob - even John D. Rockefeller, a staunch teetotaler, and one of the most powerful and rich men in the nation, called for Repeal by 1932 - who spent a shit load of money on their cause.

Secondly, and most crucially of all, the Wall Street Crash put millions of people out of work and created a massive income shortfall for the government - it didn't take long for unemployed workers and senators alike to start calling for a revival of the liquor industry and the jobs and taxes it provided.

Over-generalising the similarities between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition can be slightly shaky ground, but there can be little doubt that a similar amount of pressure applied by similar leading figures might have an effect today. And with the world economy in the toilet, although not at all on the scale of 1929, I have been harbouring hope that policy makers might start to see sense - alas I feel I may have been premature in this!

 

[J.R.R.Tokin']

We can only hope that the debate is brought to the public/political arena in the UK but, with the coalition government in the state of disarray they are currently in, it is unlikely to happen. It would need the ruling political party to be stable and have positive public backing for them to even consider bringing this controversial debate to the Commons. Because as stated above, re-election is always the decision maker on how they will act.
I agree that there is a possibility the debate will be 'pushed' into the arena if we go into another recession and the government decide to capitalise on possible revenue/jobs generated by the MJ market. Fingers crossed.
However, on the point that if leading business figures apply pressure the government will listen I'm not so sure. I would call Richard Branson a leading business figure and his appeals have fallen on deaf ears so far.

 

[wilf789]

Yep agree with that mate!
I had Branson in mind when I wrote my previous post, I know he's been supportive for a while now but he does have a bit of a kooky reputation still. With alcohol prohibition, du Pont and Rockefeller in particular were viewed as unimpeachable in their character, and so their support for Repeal shocked many members of the establishment.
To be honest I'm not sure there are even such figures around today - just had a brief glance at the top ten richest in the UK and only recognised the names of two of them, and Abramovich is hardly what you'd call unimpeachable!
I suppose Warren Buffet/Bill Gates might be suitable but considering a lot of the anti-drugs pressure comes from pharmaceuticals we'd probably need the CEO of Pfizer to come out in support of regulation.