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.
Another twist in the Mo Mowlam story
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 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">
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.
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.
0
Comments
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 ]
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">
I think that cannabis should be legalised, ecstasy downgraded and prison sentances for personal possesion abolished, for any drug.
[cynic]
Probably because she's got a book to sell <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[/cynic]
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">
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">
<IMG SRC="tongue.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Don't believe me?
[ 29-04-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
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>
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. Apparently it does. Please prove me wrong <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
[ 29-04-2002: Message edited by: Kentish ]
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.
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.
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" alt="image">
Like murder? <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> That's not an argument for the legalising of all drugs <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
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?
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" alt="image">
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>
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>
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>
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>
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>
Why would these drugs be sold on the black market if they were legalised and distributed by the government. </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? Cannabis is worse for the lungs than tobacco, so I don't know what you think you are talking about.
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.
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" alt="image">
You do the math <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
It already is legal for medicinal purposes: morphine. </STRONG>
As with all addictive medications, the dose is gradually reduced, i.e. patients are already weened off the drug. </STRONG>
There are already rehab centres for existing addicts.
And, again, the 'medicinal purposes' argument doesn't wash. </STRONG>
There are consequences from taking E? <IMG SRC="eek.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> </STRONG>
If the drugs are always going to be sold on the black market anyway, whats the point of legalising them? </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">
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.
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" alt="image">
[ 30-04-2002: Message edited by: Greenfields ]
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. </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...