• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

House of Commons debate on UK Drugs Policy today

She was actually asking you which sexual positions you find uncomfortable, Scotch. Both physically and morally.

I've met her. I know what she's like. I apologise on behalf of Manchester.
 
swampdragon said:
Blimey. I don't know who Stephen Phillips is, but he certainly knows his stuff and just talked about entactogens.
Click to expand...

He also spoke about the "Rat Poison" Ecstasy that I was discussing with someone in PD the other day. I was compelled to write to him immediately on facebook, to advise him that no-one has ever actually found "Rat Poison" in an Ecstasy tablet & that this bullshit stoy comes from a 90's Police bust where they caught some knob trying to sell Warfarin tablets as Ecstasy. Warfarin is a blood thinning agent for blood-clot sufferers & was once used as a poison for rats. In overdose both humans & rats bleed to death.

Stephen wrote back as soon as the debate finished & apologised to me for "propounding what is clearly an urban myth". Respect.

edit - for anyone who would like to see this debate. I suspect that the cross-party support expressed towards yesterday vote (unanimous though of course, hardly a full house) means that there really will be a review of policy regardless of who wins the next election. Norman Baker said at the end of the debate, "the genie is finally out of the bottle & it won't be going back in". The genie is the myth that drugs laws alter behaviour, as reported extensively in the media yesterday.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16212&player=smooth
 
Last edited:
Si Ingwe said:
I suspect that the cross-party support expressed towards yesterday vote (unanimous though of course, hardly a full house) means that there really will be a review of policy regardless of who wins the next election.
Click to expand...

I admire your optimism, but I'm afraid I don't share it.

Pretty much the same message as back bench MPs have been putting out for decades, except this time it actually made it to a Commons debate, bolstered by a Home Office report. Which is progress of a sort, but hardly a guarantee of a policy review.

There have been several efforts by the Canadian government to reform drug laws, but one phone call from the White House has scuppered each and every attempt. Do you think the UK would fare any better?

I suspect it'll woo back a few disillusioned Clegg voters, which is just marvellous. We've seen how he's a man of his word and all.
 
Last edited:
Sammy G said:
Which is progress of a sort, but hardly a guarantee of a policy review.
Click to expand...

Anything is positive. I suspect public opinion will be far behind on such matters though, which will make any significant progress unlikely. People have been indoctrinated on drugs for so long that it would be horrifying for most to imagine any major u-turns in drugs policy.

The government won't be quick to admit they went down the wrong route as a whole on top of that. That's politics for you. 8)
 
it's not about government or political parties though, the support for the review was cross-party. Maybe I am being overly optimistic but I have never seen anything to be optimistic about from our government or from any MP's like this before.

The vote was for policy review, Sam, so I can assure you, whether or not the review falls in our favour, that there will be a review of current policy.
 
Si Ingwe said:
Don't be such an old moaner
Click to expand...

It's my nature. I'm sorry. :)

In a nation where we still have 26 unelected bishops in the upper house, this really isn't going to get much further in a hurry.

Si Ingwe said:
The vote was for policy review, Sam, so I can assure you, whether or not the review falls in our favour, that there will be a review of current policy.
Click to expand...

The consensus (not vote) may have been for policy review, but look at the paltry turnout and do what our American cousins charmingly call 'the math'.

It will take a lot more pressure than a single, sparsely-attended Commons debate in order to guarantee a policy review. Cameron's already thrown out the idea, so don't expect it anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Si Ingwe said:
it's not about government or political parties though, the support for the review was cross-party. Maybe I am being overly optimistic but I have never seen anything to be optimistic about from our government or from any MP's like this before.
Click to expand...

In my mind, a debate is an opportunity for the fringes to come out to try & change the masses opinions but if a review comes around, politics will come into it in a major way.

I don't really follow politics much anymore, so that may not be the case but it's my impression.
 
Sammy G said:
It's my nature. I'm sorry. :)
Click to expand...

No, I apologise, that was uncalled for lol

I agree there's a long way to go. What has impressed me is that we appear to be moving in the right direction for a change.
 
part of me wishes that i'd seen the debate another part is glad i didn't. I just hate seeing sensible stuff said and nothing being done about it. all a load of old wind these politicians and the like. If only they knew and if only we knew their truths...Icouldn't care less really but help me please I'm addicted to news though i know that it is all absolute rubbish and they even tell us that this is so.
 
I watched a lot of the debate and it was nice to see a load of cross-party agreement and I'm optimistic that Si is correct. But the cynical side of me agrees with Sam.. hopefully something will come out of it, though.
 
pinkpapaver said:
part of me wishes that i'd seen the debate another part is glad i didn't. I just hate seeing sensible stuff said and nothing being done about it.
Click to expand...

You need to see this one - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mv5hq/house-of-commons-30102014

The debate is pretty long, but worth watching. Most of those engaging agree with Lucas apart from Diane Abbott, who was still pro the review & pretty easy going about cannabis, & Diane Johnson, Shadow Home Secretary (Labour), who appeared to be of the Cameron ilk & seemed to suggest the present laws were just fine & drugs use was decreasing, at which point she was jeered by the rest of the MPs present.

Caroline Lucas initial statement to the house has everything you need within it. It's superb. Easily & by far the most sensible things I ever heard from anyone in government say about drugs.

Broadly, the following facts appeared to have been establised.

1 - The drugs laws have failed to reduce usage, harm or dependency.

2 - Drugs that are illegal are readily available despite the law.

3 - Lots of people take them without any obvious harm.

4 - It's hypocritical to allow a doctor to prescribe diamorphine whilst heroin is the most illegal drug on earth, & doctors are unable to prescribe cannabis, probably the safest drug on earth.

5 - Drugs that are illegal are more likely to be dangerously dosed or include deadly (though not RAT POISON ever!) ingredients

6 - The laws against drugs are driving an RC/Legal Highs explosion that they cannot control.

7 - The law aganst cannabis is so ridiculous that it causes disrespect for all aspects of the law in alot people.
 
Another interesting point was that it was acknowledged how harmful tobacco and alcohol are, compared to illegal drugs like cannabis.
 
swampdragon said:
Another interesting point was that it was acknowledged how harmful tobacco and alcohol are, compared to illegal drugs like cannabis.
Click to expand...

Indeed! A major point thats been accepted in the House as far as I'm concerned as fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top