Home Drink & Drugs
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Another twist in the Mo Mowlam story

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
I was browsing through The People today (don't hold it against me, it was lying around the house) and came across an article regarding the Mowlam one.

She's sensationally called for the legalisation of ALL drugs- even cocaine and heroin <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
We need to legalise all drugs. We can then regulate the trade, tax the drugs and decriminalise the whole process.
I think this is the most effective way because in the end I don't think you could ever stop it.

How can she go from her previous views to this?? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. I know most of us here would like to be cannabis and the like made legal but I'm not sure if I'd like to see heroine and cocaine made legal also. These do a lot of damage and I think she's going too far. It'll definately infuriate her colleagues anyway.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kurt:
    <STRONG> I'm not sure if I'd like to see heroine and cocaine made legal also. These do a lot of damage and I think she's going too far.</STRONG>

    Actually, there's a good argument for the legalistation of both. Remember that legalistation will not automatically mean more users.

    Anyway with Mo Mowlam being so popular amongst so many people this is just another step in changing how drugs are viewed by the public. Despite the constant anti drug message in the press, recently it has looked increasingly likely that were heading for a system like the Dutch. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Good! Good!

    [ 28-04-2002: Message edited by: 'Skive ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But what do you think caused this dramatic change of view? Especially as she was recently destroying anyone who opposed her previously.

    I hope they were listening to her arguments at the time cos they'll need em now <IMG SRC="cool.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe she took a pill! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    I think that cannabis should be legalised, ecstasy downgraded and prison sentances for personal possesion abolished, for any drug.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by J:
    <STRONG>Your thinking of Anne Widdicombe, Mo Mowlam is sound compared to the other old hag.</STRONG>
    No, it was Mo Mowlam. She's gone down in my estimation with this one.

    [cynic]
    Probably because she's got a book to sell <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    [/cynic]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    No, it was Mo Mowlam. She's gone down in my estimation with this one.</STRONG>

    I don't hink that's what J meant. I think Kurt was getting the two mixed up.. then again I might be wrong. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Mo Mowlam has always had a sound approach on drugs. She used to smoke it up in college, and I remember reading an interview with her in Loaded. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Anne Widdicombe was in favour of giving an instant fine of £100 to anyone caught in posession of any drug. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't hink that's what J meant. I think Kurt was getting the two mixed up.. then again I might be wrong.

    Ach, you got me. I got my wires crossed and I apologise! Still a tasty piece of info tho.

    And Kentish, you'll never believe it but she actually DOES have a book coming out! Cunning woman <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by 'Skive:
    <STRONG>I don't hink that's what J meant. I think Kurt was getting the two mixed up.. then again I might be wrong. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Mo Mowlam has always had a sound approach on drugs. She used to smoke it up in college, and I remember reading an interview with her in Loaded. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Anne Widdicombe was in favour of giving an instant fine of £100 to anyone caught in posession of any drug. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>
    Whatever, Mo Mowlam is reported to have said that she would legalise all drugs.
    <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">


    Don't believe me?

    [ 29-04-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by J:
    <STRONG>And that's what has brought your opinion of her down a few rungs of the political ladder?
    </STRONG>
    Yes. In a word.
    I disagree with her, and hence my opinion of her has fallen. Doesn't take a genius to work out <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    <STRONG>Maybe she wants to concentrate on policies that will work, and that will actually benefit the country?
    Most, if not all of the problems associated with illegal drugs, are probably a result of prohibition?
    </STRONG>
    I disagree entirely. The way to get people off drugs (especially hard drugs: heroin, cocaine etc) is not to make them legal.
    What's the point of a crime-free society where everyone is too drugged up to do anything constructive. To me, that's worse than what we have at the moment.
    <STRONG>It doesn't take a genius to see this does it?</STRONG>
    Apparently it does. Please prove me wrong <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    [ 29-04-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The way to get people off drugs (especially hard drugs: heroin, cocaine etc) is not to make them legal.

    But it is quite clear the current approach has failed in getting people of drugs, hard or soft. Is it not time to admit the war on drugs is an absolute waste of time, effort and money ? The case for legalisation is well documented and although i'm not a supporter yet, a new approach is neccessary and suggestions from people like Mo Mowlam can't be a bad thing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by eb:
    <STRONG>But it is quite clear the current approach has failed in getting people of drugs, hard or soft. Is it not time to admit the war on drugs is an absolute waste of time, effort and money ? The case for legalisation is well documented and although i'm not a supporter yet, a new approach is neccessary and suggestions from people like Mo Mowlam can't be a bad thing.</STRONG>
    Hey, I'm open to discussion on that. But looking realistically at the drug problem, removing the illegality of drugs won't suddenly make all the social problems that surround the current drugs market disappear.

    What I don't want to see is a fully liberated drugs culture where anything is acceptable, and then end up with a population with mush for brains.

    The facts remains that illegal drugs are illegal for a reason. They were made illegal long before the impurities were added (eg rat poison, glucose powder). Therefore cleaning up the drugs by introducing government control will not solve the health issues that exist even with the purist drugs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    removing the illegality of drugs won't suddenly make all the social problems that surround the current drugs market disappear.
    </STRONG>

    No but it's makes the social problems alot more accessible to solution. Instead of forcing heroin addicts into slums and corners you can provide 'shooting galeries' like in Holland where addicts could go, thus taking them off the street and into a more controlled enviroment. The illegality of any drug is a nonsense because if it's there - people will always do it, by prohibiting something you are boxing people off and turning them into criminals.

    If I want to try heroin, I can do - it's legal status dosnt affect my decision. Legalising all drugs is the way we need to go, but no politician has the guts to do it at the, <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">, Mo-ment.

    <img src="http://www.shropshirevts.com/greentag.gif&quot; alt="image">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenfields:
    <STRONG>by prohibiting something you are boxing people off and turning them into criminals.
    </STRONG>
    Like murder? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    <STRONG>If I want to try heroin, I can do - it's legal status dosnt affect my decision.</STRONG>
    That's not an argument for the legalising of all drugs <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    Like murder? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>


    Yes suprisingly the UK justice system does in fact box people off and turn them into criminals for taking drugs. It also does the same as you pointed out for killers. Same thing? Nope.

    And why should someone get arrested for a smoking a joint in their own home anyway?

    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    That's not an argument for the legalising of all drugs <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    My comment about taking heroin does not directly support the argument for legalising drugs. It opposes the claim that by legalisation there would be more users.

    <img src="http://www.shropshirevts.com/greentag.gif&quot; alt="image">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by J:
    <STRONG>To get them off hard drugs? So you mean they have allready taken them? But they are illegal aren't they, so what is there to get them off? <IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    </STRONG>
    J, I'm not naive (or stupid) enough to believe that drug taking doesn't take place. Of course people are addicted to illegal drugs. I simply disagree that legalising drugs will help the people currently addicted, and wanting to stop, or those who are drawn in through peer pressure.
    <STRONG>When Mo Mowlam speaks of legalising things like Heroin, I'm sure she's talking about legalising them for medial uses, not to be sold over the counter at Tesco's.
    </STRONG>
    You're sure? Great, we're saved cos J is sure!
    Come on, she's not talking about medicinal uses, she's talking about illegal drugs. This is bigger than cannabis <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    <STRONG>By legalising these things we can take a majority of it off the streets and lock them away in pharmacies, available on a prescription only basis to abusers under the watchfull eye of experts.
    </STRONG>
    Again, your fudging the issue. This isn't about medicine, this is about sociology. People don't take drugs to relieve symptoms or cure disease.
    <STRONG>When they've changed this law they should then increase the penalties for dealers that go behind the governments back to supply these drugs illegaly. What that would result in is less drugs on the streets for people to get started on, but safe well manufactured supplies available for people who need to be weened of them.
    </STRONG>
    So you want all drugs legalised, but still think people will want to be 'weened off' them? Why would they if drugs are safe enough to be provided by the government?
    <STRONG>Drugs like Cannabis and ecstasy should be totally legalised and manufactured, in the case of ecstasy, by reputable companies to certain standards and sold in government licensed outlets to people over the age of 18 for cannabis, and 21 for ecstasy.
    </STRONG>
    I've never denied the desire for cannabis to be legalised, or at least re-examined as an illegal drug.
    But why the random age restrictions? When did you first take cannabis/ecstacy?
    <STRONG>These proffesionaly manufactured pills should be branded and sold with some kind hollogram on the packet maybe, that would distinguish them from illegal pills. The laws regarding possesion should then be stepped up for illegal dealing of things like ecstasy, but abolished for the dealing of Cannabis to persons over 18. If someone is then caught dealing cannabis to an under 18 year old they should be dealt with fairly severely. Penalties for dealing pills that do not carry the hologram should be the most severe as these pills could contain anything, dealing of pills that do carry this hologram etc, should be dealt with more favourably, it's simply re-selling, allthough it takes away the age restriction controls that would be in place if sold in a licensed outlet.
    </STRONG>
    Why would these drugs be sold on the black market if they were legalised and distributed by the government.
    <STRONG>Money made on tax from this should then be spent on drug education and an extra effort to stop illegal importation of these substances.
    </STRONG>
    Drug education? Surely by legalising all drugs, you are advocating their use. WHy the need for education? Do we educate people on how to take aspirin? Because surely if all drugs are legal, then they are as safe as aspirin?
    <STRONG>Cannabis wouldn't be taxed much as the side effects don't very often need treating, the tax that it did collect could be spent on cancer research etc.</STRONG>
    Cannabis is worse for the lungs than tobacco, so I don't know what you think you are talking about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In fairness to Mo, she was following the party line in the past.

    She is now rather embittered by the spin that was placed on her departure from Government, but I think that she is now representing her own views rather than those of New Labour.

    She probably held these views while in charge of the Governments drugs policy but simply couldn't vocalise them. While she says the Governments line in the first person (i.e. "I will stamp out drugs") she probably should have said it in the third person.

    In any event, while I agree that decriminalising drug use and regulating distribution won't solve all the problems associated with it, it would make the wider use of drugs a lot safer, and provide funding for a safety net to those that would get badly involved if it was legal or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cannabis worse for lungs than tobacco?

    A heavy tobacco smoker will damage their lungs alot more than a heavy cannabis smoker simply because you cant smoke 40 joints a day.

    <img src="http://www.shropshirevts.com/greentag.gif&quot; alt="image">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenfields:
    <STRONG>Cannabis worse for lungs than tobacco?

    A heavy tobacco smoker will damage their lungs alot more than a heavy cannabis smoker simply because you cant smoke 40 joints a day.</STRONG>
    But one joint contains as much gunk as 20 fags.
    You do the math <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by J:
    <STRONG>I can't see why she would want to legalise heroin other than for medicinal purposes? If she does then I apologise for my ignorance
    </STRONG>
    It already is legal for medicinal purposes: morphine.
    <STRONG>I was talking about use of heroin for medical purposes, so it isn't fudging the issue at all. Heroin users need to be weened off of it using heroin, for doctors to be able to do that it needs to be legal for medicinal purposes.
    </STRONG>
    As with all addictive medications, the dose is gradually reduced, i.e. patients are already weened off the drug.
    <STRONG>I'm talking about pre-existing users of drugs like heroin. In theory if you legalise it for medicinal purposes, and keep it illegal for any other use then there will be just the same amount of users, but more help for for people to give it up.
    </STRONG>
    There are already rehab centres for existing addicts.
    And, again, the 'medicinal purposes' argument doesn't wash.
    <STRONG>Why the age restrictions on alcohol? Because these are the ages where people are grown up enough to make decisions on drug taking. The possible consequences for taking E are higher than that for cannabis, therefore the age limit should be higher. Common sense really?
    </STRONG>
    There are consequences from taking E? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
    <STRONG>Because the perpetrators can sell pills containing things like talcum powder and make good money from it.
    Also for the same reason that alcohol and ciggaretes are smuggled into the country, to avoid taxes therefore increasing personal profit.
    </STRONG>
    If the drugs are always going to be sold on the black market anyway, whats the point of legalising them?
    <STRONG>Yes we do. There are labels on the packet describing what dose should be taken. We all know that taking too many asprin will kill us. Think about alcohol for example. Surely you were educated to some degree on it's effects and how to drink safely whilst at school? If not then this is a seperate law that should be passed?
    </STRONG>
    I don't think I've ever been told how much it is safe to drink - thats something that I've discovered for myself.
    And lets not forget that illegal drugs are much more potent than alcohol.

    There's a fine line between education and encouragement. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>[/qb]
    I don't think I've ever been told how much it is safe to drink - thats something that I've discovered for myself.
    And lets not forget that illegal drugs are much more potent than alcohol.</STRONG>

    More potent? Depends if your drink shandy or vodka i suppose. Overdosing on alcohol is much more dangerous than smoking a bit too much cannabis and ecstasy overdoses are very rare.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kentish:
    <STRONG>
    But one joint contains as much gunk as 20 fags.
    You do the math <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"></STRONG>

    Twenty times huh? thats a nice round easy to remember number
    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> , of 'gunk' as well I see. Your quoting _very_ vague early government backed rumour.

    Ummm, yeh and the buzz you get when high is actually your brain cells being destroyed <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> ...so kids just say no. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    Even if your unsupported claim that cannabis is more damaging than tobacco per gram, it rarely will be more damaging as it is smoked less.

    Edit: if you visit,
    http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml

    you'll see it's not quite as simple as 20 times more gunk.

    <img src="http://www.shropshirevts.com/greentag.gif&quot; alt="image">

    [ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Greenfields ]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Skive:
    <STRONG>More potent? Depends if your drink shandy or vodka i suppose. Overdosing on alcohol is much more dangerous than smoking a bit too much cannabis and ecstasy overdoses are very rare
    </STRONG>
    More potent because it's easier to overdose on illegal drugs (cannabis excepted) than alcohol. Even with vodka, you have to drink an awful lot before you kill yourself, and you'd throw up long before that.
    Originally posted by Greenfields:
    <STRONG>Twenty times huh? thats a nice round easy to remember number
    <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> , of 'gunk' as well I see. Your quoting _very_ vague early government backed rumour.
    </STRONG>
    20 times, 10 times, 300 times, it doesn't matter. All I said was that a joint is worse for the lungs than a cigarette. That's all.[/QB][/QUOTE]

    BTW, I'll put this in now: this thread isn't about cannabis. We know each others' views on cannabis: you smoke it, I don't object to that. It doesn't interest me, but it's your choice. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">

    My posts refer to the nasties: heroin, cocaine etc...
Sign In or Register to comment.