The great drugs debate

Controversial drugs comments from a senior policeman have set the blogosphere chattering, but where's the respec'?

The new year began with furore splashed over the middle market front pages over reiterated comments made by the chief constable of North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, promoting the legalising of class A drugs. The debate spilled over the blogosphere.

Lib Dem AM Peter Black believes it is right to bring the debate to the fore as he also argues drugs are as big a blight as Brunstrom states, but he does not go along with Brunstrom’s methods. He concludes: “My view is that the debate on drugs policy is long overdue but we cannot have it in isolation ... Unless we can argue on the facts and put personalities to one side then we will never make any progress.”

Nick Colbourne, the Labour Wrexham councillor, finds fault with the way Brunstrom calculates ecstasy as less dangerous than aspirin. He argues, if you judge danger based on number of deaths without adding the total usage to the equation, “one could argue that BASE jumping is safer than cycling, given the tragic number of deaths each year. Well of course that’s not true, but then neither is his ridiculous claim.”

Jon Bright at OurKingdom links to a Daily Mail article which attracted a large volume of responses, mainly calling for Brunstrom’s resignation. The more important issue, Bright argues, is not the classification of drugs, but how the public’s perception of democracy is interfering with public debate. He writes: “My point is not necessarily that legalisation would definitely be a positive move - though this is my opinion - but rather that the extension of democracy into the problem of drug use serves to suffocate debate about this issue.”

Meanwhile, the day after David Cameron announced he would make the Conservatives the party of the NHS, he declared Andrew Lansley would be Health Secretary should he win the next general election. As is pointed out at ConservativeHome, Lansley joins George Osborne as the only Tory frontbencher to be publicly offered a job in any future Cabinet. This led to suspicions at UK Daily Pundit that Lansley had threatened to resign were he not offered a top job.


Finally, over at Comment is Free, Rupa Huq chronicles the demise of the word “respect” from the lexicon of razzle-dazzle politics over the past two years. She concludes: “‘Respect’ always sounded like a word more suited to an Ali G monologue than a serious political agenda. Today it is a thoroughly discredited term. Like flared trousers, Take That and the Mini Cooper, it may well experience a revival but for now it looks like a prize turkey."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

treborc
13 January 2008 at 10:53

I think our Police chief is looking to end his Police career and become a politician , perhaps he wants all the drug dealers to vote for him.

stinky
21 January 2008 at 20:16

There are law officers in the usa who share the

same opinion, LEAP law enforcement against

prohibition. Having a closed ill informed mind does not help. Politicians have done things their way for decades and the same issues remain, proof another way forward needs to be explored..................

Pat T
26 January 2008 at 00:04

In my country, the US, drug laws are just a proxy for prosecuting other crimes.

There are supposedly a few million prison inmates who are in prison for "non-violent drug offenses" but are they "non-violent offenders?" No, almost all of them are significant dealers in not for possession but distribution, and almost all of them are gang members.

Neither college professors smoking pot with their students nor Wall Street high-riders snorting coke to stay awake long enough to work until 10PM are languishing in our prisons.

Some people see in this an economic injustice - the poor and the wealthy doing the same drug, a different result.

Except that a drug habit costs $300/week, which means you can't be poor and have a drug habit unless you're getting that money through committing other, not-so-victimless crimes.

In a perfect world would we make the effort and take the time to prosecute those crimes? Sure. And maybe that's what we should do. But the notion that people whose only crime was to roll up a pinch of plant matter in an e-z-wider paper and take a match to it are languishing in our prisons is patently false.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Gay pride and prejudice

03 July 2009 20:25

More corruption, more laws

26 June 2009 16:50

Mesopotamia on the mind

22 June 2009 16:14

Still the mad parliament?

12 June 2009 13:43

Will Sir Alan fire Gordon?

05 June 2009 15:58

Euro-ignorance and opportunism

01 June 2009 11:25

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Newsletter

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team

Vote!

Will the Iraq inquiry be a 'whitewash'?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 - 2009

Tracker