Nick Clegg on drugs

"Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape. Here, karate, same thing. Either you karate do 'yes' or karate do 'no.' You karate do 'guess so,' get squish just like grape. Understand?"

- Mr Miyagi

It's a shame Nick Clegg is the classic example of a politician who breaks promises because his new stance on the UK's drugs laws, reported here by The Guardian, should be applauded:
Divisions between David Cameron and Nick Clegg over Britain's "war on drugs" emerged on Friday after the Liberal Democrat leader said that current policy was not working and accused politicians of "a conspiracy of sience".
Committing his party to pledging a major review of how to tackle the drug problem in its 2015 election manifesto, Clegg claimed Britain was losing the war "on an industrial scale". He said Cameron should have the courage to look at issues such as decriminalisation or legalisation of drugs.  
Clegg - not big on committments
Unfortunately "committing" is not the first word that springs to mind in relation to Clegg. I first heard the word "quisling" in relation to him and ironically this was before the election. Google it if it's new to you. His party will be rendered irrelevant by the next election and I strongly suspect simple demographics will sweep Labour to victory again[1].

I've been publicly advocating decriminalisation since at least as far back as 2002. On air I would use the wise words of Mr Miyagi to illustrate the point that our middle-of-the-road policy is incredibly dangerous. It's depressing rather than gratifying to be annually proven correct. The recent edition of The BBC's 'Question Time' perfectly illustrated two alternative solutions to the so-called war on drugs. On the one hand you had Peter Hitchens. His suggestion is to 'actually make it a war' as, according to him, decriminalisation has happened in all but name. So, he argues, lets try actually locking people up for even the most minor infringements of the narcotics law. In that world even so much as a scratch of cannabis under your fingernails would get you hard jail time.

In pre-austerity Britain I used to find it tricky to argue against such logic. Will Self attempted to nail the opposing point of view but his words were, I think, discredited by his widely-known drug problems which he felt the need to reference. The truth though is this issue is not about "liking drugs" it is about "funding criminals". I don't like the dangerous nature of extreme sports but I have no desire for our Government to attempt to ban them. If we had the money to follow Hitchens and pander to the moralistic whims of The Daily Mail that would be one thing. In reality we do not. So, over the next few years, this problem will continue to become more and more damaging for our wider society as criminals inevitably become proportionately richer than us.

Personally I believe the London riots were mainly carried out by "street gangs" and, as one of the journalists credited with first reporting the story, I feel qualified to comment a little. At the time it was obvious social media was being used to organise people into acts of violence. These low level organised crime outfits are almost entirley funded by the £billions made in the illegal drugs market, particularly from so-called soft drugs. In my opinion not tackling this problem puts more riots into our future as we walk on down the middle of Mr Miyagi's metaphorical road. Next time though the rioters will be more aware of their combined strength and I don't doubt our politicians will be on holiday again.

If not in actuality then certainly metaphorically.

"Squish" indeed.

Nick Margerrison.

[1] Tory supporters have been outnumbered by Labour supporters who, over the years, generally have more children. I don't vote for any political party. None of them impress me and I'm not inclined to do as most people do by voting "for the lesser evil". I do not want to support evil thanks.

Further reading: How about constant democracy?


David Hill said…
Clegg and all our politicians operate under a cloak of deceit when it comes to the British people in addressing the growing hard drug addiction epidemic in the UK and where it is now the official drug capitol of the EU. In this respect they have known since 2004 about the humane 'CURE' from Vietnam that had now been introduced into their NHS. The reason for this is that behind closed doors (most probably in Downing Street) our political leaders with the giant pharmaceutical companies have blocked its introduction because it would hit the bottom-line considerable, as their 'maintenance' system (not a curative system) based on Methadone et al, would be wiped out. Therefore the government would rather pay out billions every year of taxpayer's funds in supporting this utterly stupid
strategy of maintenance that affects over 3 million British people directly and indirectly by the family suffering also whilst their loved ones are addicted. In a modern world how can this be possible, but it is.

The strategy that government stopped and that would get 100s of thousands off class 'A' drugs is

Clegg does not realise that 'big' pharma wants class 'A' drugs legislation to be relaxed as then they would have more business coming in with so-called treatments and not cures - increased profits. For drug companies are in the business of treatments and not cures, as if they produced cures, they would kill the fattened calf that produces billions every year in revenues. Basically they are not in the business of cutting their shareholder's throats and even where it would stop the suffering of millions.

Clegg and our politicians have not realised that they are
being misled by big Pharma and their senior civil servants through their vested interests and over the wishes of the people and the people and the British voter.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation

Popular Posts