If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Do drugs matter?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Does it matter that David Cameron may have used Class A drugs?
Considering the broader issue, do personal factors matter at all in respect of who we vote for?
Considering the broader issue, do personal factors matter at all in respect of who we vote for?
0
Comments
He should have said right from the start, yes, I smoked pot a few times at uni, it wasnt for me, I havent touched it in 15 years.
That way there would be no story to it at all, this way the story is him not answering.
Yes and no, I think it depends on their political stance. You can't be denouncing drugs as ruining society whilst snorting cocaine, people won't stand for it. I think it comes down to the public's confidence that the politician isn't a complete hypocrit.
It would only matter if David Cameron were to suggest that anyone who have ever taken drugs should be punished by the law. But otherwise, it shouldn't matter one iota.
The whole episode is one sad session of dirty tricks anyway.
The Labour Party will not believe its luck.
He cant say now, he has to stick to his refusal to answer, but when the first question came up he should have admited to using it a few times at uni (who hasnt?) and that would have been the end to it.
So he shouldn't say. Fuck the Daily Mail and any other newspaper that thinks they should have the ultimate say on what people do and say.
It's not as if journalists have never touched the drug anyway... in fact they put rock stars and fashion models to shame :rolleyes:
I disagree.
His past experiences will make a difference to his policies now, although I suspect that the family heroin issue has had more impact and may have influenced his "rehab" position.
Where I do agree is that it shouldn't be held against him. It doesn't undermine his position rather the contrary, he speaks from experience and from a position of strength of knowledge.
I would actually be interested to find out what may have informed Davis' more draconian approach... is it informed or is it playing to the age-old politicians pissing contest style "who can appear tougher on crime" approach...
And I disagree with your disagreement :razz:
Whilst finding out what shaped his policies may be of interest, we do not need to know it. Just what his policies are now. We are all shaped by our past and have things which we did when we were young, feckless and stupid that we wouldn't do now.
If he took cannabis when he was younger and now doesn't that should be the end of it. if he was a regular pot smoker now that would be a different matter.
Seeing Cameron on question time I must admit to being impressed with how he handled it (and also with Ben Bradshaw decling to make cheap political shots).
(though Davis said he didn't think someone who had previously taken Class A drugs would be fit to lead the party when pressed on the issue)
He's actually got one of the most intelligent and well thought out positions on drugs of anyone in politics today, if you were bothered enough to look into it.
I think he was stupid to avoid it for so long when he should probably have realised that most people would have assumed he had done it because he had been to an affluent public school and then Oxford. Now there's a drugs hotbed...
Which shows he's a complete buffoon - treating drug addiction and the associated problems could be far more successfully approached if policy was radically liberalised.
Do you have anything to substantiate the allegation I think you're making - that Cameron took Cocaine?
Have I missed an admission?
I still disagree
Knowing why a politician takes a viewpoint is important to understanding their viewpoint. Particularly on such an important issue as this.
Like I said before, I personally believe that if is views are the result of personaly experience, this can only be to his benefit. It's gives strength to his stance. We know that it isn't just rhetoric for once.
For example, I'm much more likely to listen to the opinion of a former homeless person on the subject of homelessness than I am to Prince Charles' opinion. Not because his opinion isn't valid but because experience of an issue brings a different perspective than an external view.
I agree with this part because it then goes to his ability to do the job, a different matter entirely.
Their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny - their position is largely based on ignorance and false morality.
But that is a different debate.......
But he is setting an important precedent by refusing to answer the nosey, irrelevant questions of the gutter press.
Does anyone else picture BS frothing at the mouth when posting on here?
I'm not sure it is. And even if it is true its a bit of leap to suggest that because he had some dope when he was at University this is the only eason he's relatively liberal on drug laws.
Well the homeless person might be able to give a better view of what its like to be homeless, but they aren't likely to be able to neccessarily give better views on what should be done to stop it. I have probably a more informed viewpoint than Blair of what it was like in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s when the IRA were busily gunning down anyone who stood against their 'vision', which probably would make be a very bad person to negotiate the Good Friday agreement. Having experience can be useful, but it sometimes make you too close to the problem.
when we loose that bit ...we;ve lost all the bits.