I will be frank that I do not understand the classification of drugs. My own party claims that cannabis should be reclassified back to where it was a year ago because it has led to confusion in people's minds as to the relationship between classification and danger. Confusion? I do not think that many people knew what the classification meant either now or a year ago.Whatever else the Lib Dem position of wishing to legalise cannabis would be very wrong.
So I find my self in agreement with Noddy Clarke that we need a new system. I am sure he would not adopt my system because I would have three classifications: dangerous, very dangerous and deadly!
So I find my self in agreement with Noddy Clarke that we need a new system. I am sure he would not adopt my system because I would have three classifications: dangerous, very dangerous and deadly!
7 comments:
And in which categories would you place nicotine and alcohol?
...as now they would not have one.
Are they not as "dangerous" as cannabis? Certainly more so, in simple terms of the number of people killed by them every year?
Given that by its nature drug taking is a somewhat underground activity I am not sure we can make that assumption.
Well, Health Statistic Quarterly records around 15 cannabis-related deaths in England and Wales compared to a conservative estimate of 120000 deaths caused directly by tobacco (though other estimates range from 200,000 to half a million) and an equally conservative estimate of 5000 deaths caused directly by alcohol, though again other estimates vary upwards quite considerably.
Surely you're not suggesting that medical statistics underestimate cannabis-related fatalities by a factor of ten thousand?
Of course it is also true that cannabis can trigger or exacerbate certain mental health problems and be addictive if taken in sufficient quantities but equally many non-fatal but very serious health conditions are caused by tobacco and alcohol, both of which are also addictive; nicotine very highly so.
Yet you seem to be implying that neither are "dangerous, very dangerous or deadly" but that cannabis is?
So because something completely different is considered harmful, you are proposing to legalise something else which is harmful? If fewer people died from gun crime than cannabis would you legalise that? If there were less incidents of cars knocking down pedestrians than people dying from Cannabis abuse would that be legal? It's just daft mania from the Liberal Democrats to try and get in the news by 'being different' and saying something different to everyone else. It's like dealing with a rebellious teenager sometimes.
Given that more and more scientific studies are highlighting the dangers long term of cannabis, what is your reason for legalising it? (and please don't just point to the 'well we do other bad stuff' argument.)
Ps How's the Lib Dem leadership swingometer looking?
Just legalise the lot and make available at sensible prices.This will destroy the dealers as their is simply no point in buying from them.
All drugs would then be clean in the sense of uncontaminated.
The police could,perhaps, be persuaded to patrol the streets both day and night to rid us of the anti social scum so evident in almost any neighbourhood nationwide.
Persistent anti social addicts would however need the intervention of tough private sector medicos whose brief will be to use an iron hand to effect a "cure".
All those below 30 who persistently re offend must be conscripted and sent to Kabul,after training,to fight the naughty men and destroy the poppy fields:two years service would suffice.
Potential new addicts will be so turned off by simply indulging in a legal activity that they wont bother to start.It simply wont be cool anymore.
Post a Comment