tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post3630591254418831412..comments2023-09-20T11:15:28.673+01:00Comments on Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog: Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conferencejanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15263261726046054614noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-29783813947088779722013-11-15T15:04:05.787+00:002013-11-15T15:04:05.787+00:00If a lot of the drugs were legalised it would solv...If a lot of the drugs were legalised it would solve a lot of issues the world over!!<br />Bath Bepothttp://www.bathdepot.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-71769031375119071112011-08-29T19:18:38.248+01:002011-08-29T19:18:38.248+01:00It would be better listening if we were hearing so...It would be better listening if we were hearing something other than what has been repeated for the last 40 years, imo.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13797800191322281145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-53914669560778311222011-08-29T18:07:48.858+01:002011-08-29T18:07:48.858+01:00Correction anonymous. Culture and historic reasons...Correction anonymous. Culture and historic reasons may give rise to the thinking that creates a maladministration but that is a separate issue and there is no exemption in the law for this misconstruction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-83767626247853232232011-08-29T16:49:15.654+01:002011-08-29T16:49:15.654+01:00talk all you like - but try listening aswell.talk all you like - but try listening aswell.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-27146947941239781592011-08-29T16:18:13.037+01:002011-08-29T16:18:13.037+01:00Anonymous, the POINT is that they have painted on ...Anonymous, the POINT is that they have painted on an "illegal/legal drug" thing to the Act when this concept does not actually exist in law. They are misusing the Act as an Act of prohibition. It is an Act to protect health. They leave the majority using the most harmful drugs out and jail the rest using a fictive notion that objects (regardless of people's actions) can be made illegal under an Act that does not mandate prohibition. Transform ignores this very very important fact and we are aware of it. They can't rightfully, according to what the law actually says, make an object illegal. Steve Rolles is dismissing this as not worthy of a basis of a political platform. That is the topic here. And this oppression does not stop at borders it is all over the world based on the UN templates. The problem is rightfully expressed as the treatment of people unequally before the law not this fetish on drugs or any other object. So we have to stop making a fetish of drugs and start to understand what the real issue is (inequality before the law..the treatment of people before the law) and make that the issue. This should be the platform. Steve Rolles is disagreeing. So now I have clarified the topic dismissing versus not dismissing as subject of a campaign..Must all conversations end at the point that Steve Rolles decides should end?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-14725646526349836292011-08-27T20:13:24.701+01:002011-08-27T20:13:24.701+01:00@ Bud Oracle, this is really funny, even you fall ...@ Bud Oracle, this is really funny, even you fall into the 'legal' / 'illegal' thing.<br />They are using cultural and historical precedent to maladminister the MDAct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-37359315711026120972011-08-27T20:10:44.953+01:002011-08-27T20:10:44.953+01:00Amanda, you are on repeat. Steve has told you that...Amanda, you are on repeat. Steve has told you that he understands the point.<br />I think he came to the correct position, to just let you get on with it. <br />Until everyone agrees with your point you will not be happy and just keep posting ad nauseum ... "I disagree", why do I get the impression you say that a lot?<br />Maybe push it along in your own country 'eh? ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-19165054314215763632011-08-26T16:22:43.815+01:002011-08-26T16:22:43.815+01:00Amanda is correct. The trouble with your perceptio...Amanda is correct. The trouble with your perception is that you fail to understand that you are repeating unsuccessful history. I have been an activist since the mid sixties. This is old hat that the transform policy guys are talking about and has been proven to fail because it is a political avenue which requires a majority consensus. This is not a solution to people being denied equal rights under the law and will create further problems of misdirection as one group inserts its moral interests over another over the years. There can be no moral/personal values inserted into policy if it is to be effective. The solution must hang on something that doesn't shift with the vagaries of public opinion. See how effectively our rights are denied with present policy in the law? We must enshrine the solution IN LAW too. You haven't learned much about this decades long oppression if you can't see that. They are USING THE LAW to oppress us, we must turn that on its head.<br /><br />Yes of course we must convince people of our cause politically, that we are no different than any of the legal drug users, but this will come about like a bolt of lightning after a few weeks / months of seeing that control and regulation will produce peaceful use that benefits everyone and doesn't cause the sky to fall.<br /><br />The only achievable solution, IMO, is in a court of law showing them that they are breaking the law based on a false premise - illegal drugs - it's people's actions which should be the subject of criminal law nothing else.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13797800191322281145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-10880002324573665192011-08-26T15:29:31.629+01:002011-08-26T15:29:31.629+01:00I disagree. There is a misapplication of the Act t...I disagree. There is a misapplication of the Act that violates people's rights on the one hand and a lot of overblown rhetoric on the other. This is the problem, the misunderstanding of "illegal drugs" which underpins the misapplication of the Act. The entire problem is created by misapplication of the law and its solution is in a correct application of the law. To misdirect the focus is to repeat the errors we've made to this point in time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-815337123143682162011-08-25T21:24:52.140+01:002011-08-25T21:24:52.140+01:00@Amanda
Maybe you need to read what Steve has post...@Amanda<br />Maybe you need to read what Steve has posted again?<br />I cannot see how you could possibly misunderstand him. He has a perfect understanding of your point and that of Sunshine Band's, he has said he understands the point many times here.<br />Some people seem to just want an argument instead of a debate....<br />Steve and the whole Transform team are doing really excellent work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-86188904972769346792011-08-24T16:47:39.137+01:002011-08-24T16:47:39.137+01:00Pssssst. Damon, this is a dialogue. Not a populari...Pssssst. Damon, this is a dialogue. Not a popularity contest. Please use precise language when addressing my points regarding users rights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-25052721894676388462011-08-23T21:41:17.738+01:002011-08-23T21:41:17.738+01:00@Amanda
A rather unfair appraisal of the discussio...@Amanda<br />A rather unfair appraisal of the discussion above. And you're attacking the wrong person - one of the few who will engage in this line of argument. And he has done for some years now. Speaking from experience it’s also one he has raised outside of this forum genuinely seeking people’s input.Damon Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17466057180121481966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-16274012776988760312011-08-23T05:19:51.000+01:002011-08-23T05:19:51.000+01:00Then I will take your invitation to have the last ...Then I will take your invitation to have the last word, it is not that I misconstrue you there is nothing you have actually said that is there to misconstrue. Your responses are dismissive without reason. You lack depth. To say "illegal drugs" is to say something not true that misleads people about what the law says. To speak this truth, particularly if one faces the wrath of the courts, takes courage and all of those qualities that your vacuous responses indicate you are lacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-10115169920173105642011-08-22T22:36:00.276+01:002011-08-22T22:36:00.276+01:00you seem determined to both misconstrue what Ive s...you seem determined to both misconstrue what Ive said and have the last word - so you can.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-58386023931948551232011-08-22T21:34:49.703+01:002011-08-22T21:34:49.703+01:00What you call a distraction, my pointing out that ...What you call a distraction, my pointing out that "illegal drugs" is a misconception, that in fact their thinking drugs themselves are illegal is the problem is to me the point of greatest concern and worth the energy and effort. It's a small thing to change this reference. I find the mistaken idea that persons can be rendered objects deeply offensive along the lines of calling someone a racial slur. We have all learned over time not to use such loaded references in our language this is no different. With each use of the mistaken term "illegal drugs" you are helping to entrench it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-58630679282025221442011-08-22T19:01:57.198+01:002011-08-22T19:01:57.198+01:00Im not censoring anything - your writing this on a...Im not censoring anything - your writing this on a forum I moderate for gods sake. <br /><br />Like you, Im stating an opinion. For the last time - Im NOT disagreeing with the argument or anlysis. I get it. Im disagreeing with the prioritisation of it as the focus of a political strategy or campaign for leveraging change. I dont think its useful and I think its a distraction from more important wotrk the DEA could be doing. thats all. dont misread what im saying.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-61985620473400692392011-08-22T18:13:39.788+01:002011-08-22T18:13:39.788+01:00Scouring the internet I see no endless repetition ...Scouring the internet I see no endless repetition of the phrase "drugs are not illegal" rather I see in the Supreme Court records the misconception "illegal drugs" is often cited. To uproot any misconception so entrenched more than one repetition is necessary. To censor the repetition of such a foundational truth is unfair. It is on this misconception "illegal drugs" that they have built the entire propaganda of the war against some people who use some drugs. That's why we have to repeat it to shake their tower of lies. Whose energy is being wasted? Why block people from knowing the truth? You're making out that our intellectual capacity is so limited that people can't conceptualize a deeper understanding which may result from unpacking the phrase. This phrase "drugs are not illegal" means that policy is enacted as though drugs themselves were illegal and results in inequality of persons before the law. This phrase means that the law governs people (not drugs) and must distinguish between people who are acting peacefully and people who are causing harm with respect to their drug property. Also, it is the Minister that makes policy as though drugs themselves are illegal but this is not law. It is a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Act based on not understanding this very point that you say is being repeated too often so that we are all what...bored? Wasting energy? Tell that to those imprisoned based on the misunderstanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-68310014416860458962011-08-22T17:39:31.237+01:002011-08-22T17:39:31.237+01:00Im disagreeing with the focus of political energy,...Im disagreeing with the focus of political energy, not the actual idea. Please dont misunderstand me. I think their work is important - I think the focus on that specific line of argument is misguided - not because its 'wrong', but because its not useful in the way they think it is - and its endless repetition in myriad forums has become actively counterproductive. IMHO ofcourse.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-72531180927702251312011-08-22T17:33:59.874+01:002011-08-22T17:33:59.874+01:00I can only speak for myself but I value my freedom...I can only speak for myself but I value my freedom of thought as the precursor to all civil liberties and for that reason I cannot consider a complete understanding of both rhetoric as it relates to the law "counter productive and a waste of energy." And I absolutely object to having this decision made for me by someone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-84714996739633167252011-08-22T17:12:28.043+01:002011-08-22T17:12:28.043+01:00As I have said - I agree that the DEA analysis of ...As I have said - I agree that the DEA analysis of the act is useful, in the UK atleast (less so in the international arena ofcourse where different legal systems operate). My point is around the specific emphasis on the argument that laws regulate people not drugs - and the line that flows form this that there is no such thing as an illegal drug. I dont disagree with it by definition, but I do disagree it is a useful political tool or campaign platform for the reasons given. The difference between the way the government and its agencies deal with users of certain drugs(cannabsi ecstasy etc) and others (alcohol and tobacco) is very clear and points to a fundamental injustice. Highlighting that disjuncture is useful, as is exploring and promoting alternatives. <br /><br />Endlessly repeating something obvious as if it is the key to ending that injustice isnt useful - it is counterproductive and a waste of energy.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-176034340474665332011-08-22T16:45:07.688+01:002011-08-22T16:45:07.688+01:00I apologize if that re visiting Vancouver seemed ...I apologize if that re visiting Vancouver seemed condescending. I am skint, work with people with disabilities and cannot envision flying across the world that often. But look here’s the point, it is very difficult for people to assert their rights if they do not understand the law or the Act. A careful analysis of the Act such as what the DEA offers is a valuable tool. I think it is important that we allow debate in public forums to encourage people to think critically about this issue whatever views are put forward because otherwise, as Friere understood, people are vulnerable to mass manipulation. It’s the antithesis of all we are fighting for to censor this debate. For example, I see you are aware that legislating for culture failed here. Supreme Court of Canada found there is no discrimination against a minority. But that judgement was flawed in many ways and the judge had a failing argument before him based on prohibited grounds of discrimination. The judge could only decide on what was before him, a failing argument. It is rather that they have opened the door to discrimination by violating the Rule of Law principle of equality. These nuances in understanding are not so difficult to grasp but understanding is impossible if discussion of the law is always censored and people kept in ignorance and the law manipulated by a monopoly..the law societies. Many people here think the whole case re culture was a scam that hindered our efforts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-53133655550991760642011-08-22T08:33:16.764+01:002011-08-22T08:33:16.764+01:00Weve never claimed any kind of shangri-la. Bluepri...Weve never claimed any kind of shangri-la. Blueprint actually specifically makes that point - regulation will improve outcomes, and reduce harms - not create a perfect world. <br /><br />Govt regulation is onlyone element of policy - there are many others, in wider drug policy and social policy more broadly. Obviously you cant legislate for culture - but you can at least create an environment that doesnt destroy healthy social norms - but rather nurtures them. this point is in Blueprint too. <br /><br />I have visitid Vancouver many times, have studied it and have good friends there.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-68724681378737034112011-08-19T16:08:09.952+01:002011-08-19T16:08:09.952+01:00I agree that your proposals for policy in BluePrin...I agree that your proposals for policy in BluePrint are well written. But I live in Vancouver, Canada. We have seen that policy is a very changeable thing. People have prescriptions from their doctor and there is another level of licence that comes from the federal government. All of these groups wait with fear through each election to see what the next government will do in terms of policy. People are harassed by police, refused housing, and treated badly because their status, being dependent on policy, is never secure. We must recognize the constitutional right of a person who is not causing harm to be peaceably left alone and the only way to do that is to pay very careful attention to what the law says. Whatever policy that ensues from a constitutional right once recognized will provide safety for the user. If you think that changing policy alone leads to some sort of shangri-la you are mistaken. Come and visit Vancouver, BC, and you will see the error of focusing entirely on policy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-59554640312626494592011-08-19T10:11:26.160+01:002011-08-19T10:11:26.160+01:00Amanda - re your second point - please tell me wha...Amanda - re your second point - please tell me what isnt crystal clear about what is being advocated in Blueprint and the reasons given for so doing. How could is possibly be any clearer?Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28543539.post-3545043253593626102011-08-19T10:09:45.649+01:002011-08-19T10:09:45.649+01:00I really dont want to have to say this again - I u...I really dont want to have to say this again - I understand and agree with the concept - i just dont agree with the level of importance placed on that very specific line of argument *relative* to the wider point about contrasting responses between drugs and maladministration - which is far more important and has great political potential. I dont think this narrow psemantic point is 'the key', and i think its failure to gain any traction reflects that. Its something for a blog post or maybe a journal article - not the focus of a political campaign. Its unltimately counterproductive to put so much energy into one tiny and not especially important part of the DEAs work. As a catchphrase its just not useful. I also dont want to have to discuss this and have it clogging up the forum every single time we say 'illegal drug' (not to mention every other discussion forum). Its moving from dialogue to more like trolling. <br /><br />No one can accuse us of not giving it due consideration - we have. honestly and at length. That you dont agree with our conclusion should not reassure you of your rightness. It should make you at least reconsider the focus of your gernerally very valuable efforts. Its really not a big deal but you make it one by being so dogmatic / repetitive about it.Steve Rolleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11487781869462634203noreply@blogger.com