‘Allo, ‘Allo

Vivien

It's strange that the government wants to save money by cutting down on the police force, while giving many millions in aid to India - which has a space programme! We give millions to China too. I suppose we get something back - a toehold in those countries - but it does seem unfair that UK taxpayers have to fork out for this.

Nicholas

I fear you may be conflating uniformed policing and criminal investigation, as well as deterrence and response, which seem to be common confusions in discussing the police these days.

And please don't underestimate the effectiveness of traditional watch and ward policing ("walking about"). It is the cornerstone of many less "progressive" police services across the world and it does indeed reassure their communities, especially where it is deployed multi-tiered and intelligence based. It is fashionable these days to decry it as old fashioned and of no relevance but that is because in Britain the lunatic asylum is being run by the deranged inmates.

SUSAN HILL

Nicholas.. I take the point. But I had a harangue from a Chief Constable about the pointlessness of beat policing which swayed me. I feel reassured if I see two coppers walking along but I wonder if criminals are deterred ? Petty thieving probably goes down.
Yes, I know the difference between uniform and CID..and I also know a lot of work goes on behind the scenes - for example, in tracking down internet paedophiles. It's very important and a few cops in fast cars could go before these units are undermanned.
VIVIEN. I feel a blog about international aid coming on. !

Fergus Pickering

One of the things policemen are for is to make us (reasonably) law-abiding folk feel better. And them walking about in helmets does just that. I think that old TV series with Thaw and Waterman shows you what is wrong with the present lot. They want to be like that, you see. Cowboys and bloody indians. I wouldn't give tuppence for crime figures. They are effectively made up. Decriminalising drugs would certainly bring them down. And if theer were no laws at all then there would be no crime. We'd be like Somalia. I don't suppose they have crime figures. And I think people dosing themselves with dangerous drugs is plain wrong. And no, I don't think booze and fags are dangerous drugs and nor does anyone else except a few mad lefties.

Nicholas J. Rogers

Susan, I completely agree with you on decriminalising drugs. Vast amounts of manpower and money are wasted on the phoney war on drugs which could be better used elsewhere.

Not sure if you've watched 'The Wire', but season three is all about an experiment to decriminalise drugs. Very interesting indeed.

Nicholas

Susan Hill any Chief Constable who thinks beat policing is pointless deserves to be sacked. To come to that viewpoint means he (or she) is far removed from the primary concept of effective policing and has probably never walked a beat or felt a collar. The fact that people like that are directing police services explains a lot.

To measure the effectiveness of beat policing is to measure intangibles like prevented crime, prevented disorder and increased public confidence (which translates into better police/public co-operation). No wonder it doesn't appeal to the tick box mentality of modern management styles. Successful beat policing operates on so many levels that it cannot easily be wrapped up in a couple of soundbites about petty crime. Society has changed since Peel's day but last time I looked people still lived in houses on streets that they regularly have to walk on and still feel most intimidated in their houses and on those streets by low-level crime and disorder. Frank P sums it up admirably in a post on another thread. Who controls the streets? The villains and petty criminals, the loutish youth gangs, the noisy drunks - or the patrolling, confident and swift to act policeman in plain and reassuring view? The patrolling, uniformed officer represents the visible manifestation of the contract between public and police to maintain the Rule of Law, to operate as an integral part of everyday life rather than divorced from it, to be vigilant to disorder and wrongdoing, and to pre-empt it rather than just respond to it. The public deserve this reassurance - it is why the police were established in the first place. And the incremental removal of this patrolling deterrent has never been the subject of public debate or parliamentary sanction.

Adrian Sells

At the risk of continuing to lead this comment section off at a slight tangent, I have to concur with the view that de-criminalizing drugs should be a long-term policy objective. The war on drugs doesn't work and for very much the same reasons that prohibition didn't work. It is expensive, wholly ineffective and morally dubious.
Incidentally, Susan, I think there are several quite bright senior policeman who recognise this - so don't despair. The problem is with the knee-jerk "Daily Mail" community who have never thought the issue through. For those who think us dangerous lefties (nothing could be further from the truth), go and read Milton Friedman on the subject.

SUSAN HILL

Glad I`m not alone on the drugs issue. At least they should think about it again. Nicholas J. I haven`t yet seen The Wire - though it is in the house and the daughter in New Orleans is word-perfect on it.
But I have met David Simon, author of The Wire, and he and I had a decriminalise drugs conversation - he is pretty clear that it can`t make things any worse and is an experiment worth trying. Prohibition didn`t work, it just gave a lot of money to bootleggers.

Simon Stephenson

Decriminalising drugs is a difficult one, isn't it? One may believe that the current policy does little to marginalise drug-taking, and that the complication of the transaction between supplier and user is directly responsible for triggering an enormous quantity of crime. Even so, advocates of decriminalisation must answer, amongtst other things, these questions:-

1. What will the criminal fraternity do if their well-oiled income from drug supply is taken away from them? Might they not move into creating dependencies amongst the weak that are even more socially destructive than the drug culture is at the moment? If we are to deflate the poisonous drug culture through decriminalisation, do we not simultaneously need to work actively at ways to prevent the refocusing of criminals on something worse?

2. How much public confidence is built around the belief that the ultimate panacea to unsociable behaviour is authority's use of prohibition? And how much will this confidence be undermined if the public is forced to accept that the use of such a policy on drug-taking has actually been a failure?

EC

"What will the criminal fraternity do if their well-oiled income from drug supply is taken away from them?"

Without 'the state' controlling price of drugs by effectively nationalising their acquisition, distribution and supply then the 'criminal fraternity' will ensure that prices are kept high by restricting supply themselves. In which case no reduction in crime from addicts in need of a fix would be forthcoming.

SUSAN HILL

I agree that it is a difficult one to solve. The main reason why young people start taking drugs, other than peer pressure, is boredom. Young men who have no work, no prospects, no money, no outlet for their physical energies, are cooped up in flats and small houses, go out onto the streets because they are bored and to fnd excitement they nick cars and race round in them, go on petty thieving forays, attack innocent passers by, get drunks and take drugs. In Elizabethan England such gangs of lads were called 'roaring boys' which is a great name for them. I do think some sort of compulsory national service to use up their surplus energy, give them some training and the possibility of a future is the answer. I don`t know how it would be organised but if they are running across country and climbing up and down mountains they are going to physically exhausted, if they are learning a trade such as mechanical engineering, say,their brains will be engaged and they may have future job prospects. They will also learn to live with others without causing them grief and to consort with their mates without causing other people trouble. I don`t think this should sort of programme should be soldier-fodder though if any of them showed interest in joining the military they could be encouraged. And if they were only to understand that a life without being either high or stoned on drugs is possible and can be enjoyable, we might make a start on diminishing the drug culture.
It's nothing new but I wonder who would take it on ?

Richard

Since the Government are to cut Police budgets and expect the Special constabulary (50,000 at the last count) to take up the slack, they need to think about how they would impliment this as Special Constables are not required (unlike the TA's) to respond.

So if a Public Order incident kicks in, Specials need not respond; not to mention the fact that they are not trained for such eventualities.

Unless of course they place Special Constables on an 'oncall' system like the TA's including a bounty.

Love em or hate em - Specials are going to be the last stance if cuts go ahead. The Government thinks that by using them they will save millions - true - but the trade off is that Specials are not subject to Home Office regs i.e. cannot be summoned to duty.

Gaw

Lots of good sense here on the ridiculous 'War on Drugs'. And you hear this sort of thing in lots of very different places. With the right leadership quite a powerful coalition might be developed in favour of legalising - but then licensing, I would argue - drugs. Where's the politician to take it on? A high risk but possibly a high reward venture for a budding pol.

Frank P

What illicit drug/s did you 'experiment' with at school/college, Susan? What prescribed drugs do you take now, that in your heart of hearts you know you really don't need? What percentages of pharmaceutical products that are prescribed are really needed by the patients for whom they are prescribed? How many people are hooked on painkillers that they can buy over the counter? Are the Pharmaceutical Companies who make millions out of quackery as culpable as the illegal drug barons who peddle narcotics/ hallucinogens/ amphetamines/ tranquillizers? These are matters I have dwelt upon for many a long year. I'm an Anthony Daniels fan (late of this parish and sorely missed) - you should read his book on the subject; its terrific!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Junk-Medicine-Doctors-Addiction-Bureaucracy/dp/1905641591/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278035868&sr=1-12

It seems to me that people from all walks of life take illegal drugs for a wide variety of reasons. They do so to achieve or heighten pleasure or relieve pain. Quite often sexual lust (or inadequacy) triggers this bizarre behaviour. Or they simply hate themselves and need to be numbed in order to look in the mirror, to shave or put lipstick on (or both). Some take drugs to give them the bottle to commit other serious crimes.

All of the drugs that are 'classified' (i.e. illegal - except on prescription for dire illness) are very dangerous, not only to the user/abuser but also, because of the ramifications of addiction/dependence/brain damage, to society at large. That is why no government will ever legalize illicitly supplied and acquired drugs, though many have foolishly semi-legalized some dangerous drugs by default (failing to rigorously enforce against both the supplier and the supplied - who are equally culpable and often fall into the same category).

The 'war on drugs' is mythical and about as effective as the 'war on terrorism' - a charade - and for similar reasons, because 'normal society' is riddled with drug abusers of one sort or another, just as 'normal society' in now riddled with terrorists who support Islamic jihad; they are often, sad to say, indistinguishable from 'normal' people. I met a few bank robbers in my time who were similarly indistinguishable. They made a point of it - until they tooled up.

Although interdiction (a word used by the modern fuzz, apparently, I used to call it 'nicking 'em) is very difficult in most serious crime, it would be utterly impracticable to legalize the distribution and use of dangerous drugs on demand - as disastrous to society at large, as removing the proscription of any form of serious criminal behaviour or negligence would be, including terrorism (for whatever religious or political agenda).

Where 'decriminalization' experiments have been tried, they have failed abysmally.
Of course we cannot comprehensively and successfully enforce the law against any form of serious crime. But to suggest that because that is so, we should stop trying is both childish and wicked.

We must always try harder and with more vigour and ingenuity. 'Decriminalization' = defeatism.

This can be remedied in part by treating users as harshly as suppliers. Both commit serious crimes and should be punished as serious criminals. Far too many people blatantly break the law under the cover of the 'decriminalization' smokescreen (ha). Sanctions are not nearly rigorous enough and too easily avoided by pleading victim-hood.

As for the Big Pharmas, they run the whole fucking world, so I doubt much progress can be made in curbing their evil progress, but someone should try.

But I was only a 'drugs warrior' for fifty years or so in one role or another, so what I know? But those who continue where I left off have my full support, God Bless 'em!

And don't even get me started on who was behind the political movement to undermine western culture through a mélange of subversive wheezes, including widespread distribution of dangerous drugs. They explained it all to me when I was 'under cover' and they were boasting of the Long March and its complex tributaries. Many finished up in government, so it's not surprising that you're a little confused about how to deal with serious crime - ennit?

Have a word with Melanie, Susan. She'll straighten you out. Very good on this topic is our Mel. Oh boy! Do the cannabis trolls love her! Both on account of her apostasy of the Left and as one of the finest journo drugs warriors in the trade. You should join her crusades (so to speak).

Frank P

Btw Susan - who was the Chief Constable? You weren't very persistent, were you?

Adrian Sells

Frank P - Do I understand that you think those taking prescription medicines are virtually indistinguishable from illegal drug abusers?
Your third paragraph is an eloquent description of the human fallibilities that lead people to addiction/usage, and yet then you advocate treating users as harshly as suppliers in your ludicrous war on drugs.
So shall we bang up all the people who take the occasional aspirin as well? And what about Mr Pickering's smokers and drinkers? Soon there'll be nobody left in your world. Certainly there'll be no semblance of freedom - you might have been happier under the old Soviet system.

Simon Stephenson

Frank P : 3.09am

"All of the drugs that are 'classified' (i.e. illegal - except on prescription for dire illness) are very dangerous, not only to the user/abuser but also, because of the ramifications of addiction/dependence/brain damage, to society at large. That is why no government will ever legalize illicitly supplied and acquired drugs ..."

Beyond the fact that one is currently illegal and the others aren't, is there anything in principle that separates drugs from, for example, alcohol, tobacco, rock climbing, horse-riding, motor-cycling(totally), and non-essential car usage?

Frank P

SS

Ahhh, the rock-climbing, horse-riding shtick!

You're obviously a disciple of the aptly named Professor Nutt. Stephen Sackur sliced him wide open in Straight Talk recently.

All I am advocating is that the criminal law should be enforced by police officers, effectively (and the harm done to society by illegal drug trafficking and abuse makes it a high priority); that the judiciary should mete out suitable punishments to serious criminal offenders. Not too much to ask is it? Contravening the various Dangerous Drugs Acts and the bastardised amended versions is still a serious criminal offence - for very good reasons, just a few of which I have listed above.

Had some of the 'experimenters' in college campuses and schools known that if they got caught, a half-stretch awaited their first offence, is it not likely that they would have thought twice and maybe not dabbled? It sure deterred me and many like me in my yoof as I know from personal testimony, when curiosity was tempered by fear of the police and even more so by the thought of ostracism and disgrace that followed criminal behaviour if one was caught in those days. There is no ostracism of perpetrators these days. On the contrary, popular culture lauds their criminality. HMQ has honoured many of the debauched bastards, who are now role models for kids who think it is part of the 'celebrity' to which far too many aspire these days, at the cost of real achievement through application and hard work.

The politicians and politicised police chiefs intent on currying favour on their way up the greasy pole went soft on street enforcement of drugs laws in the Eighties, thus fully facilitating those who I mentioned above: the subversives who knew what they were doing and who had infiltrated the corridors of power during the never ending (it seems) Long March.

You can use other yard sticks of behaviour if you wish, but I was talking about the serious crime of contravening the Dangerous Drugs Acts and the increasingly complicated 'lesser' legislation involving illicit drugs. Spare the rod ...!!

I suppose I have the advantage of remembering what it was like before the rot set in and Leftist Academia had its way with the flower of our Youth. I would also point out that, in common with most youngsters, I suspect, who performed National Service after the war, I completed that stint without ever seeing a single instance of illegal drug abuse. Moreover, very few of us could afford enough NAAFI beer to get us tipsy. My BAFVS were usually spent supplementing the cook-house deficiencies.

Duty Officer visiting o/r mess:
"Who called the Cook a c**t?

Squaddie at the back of the mess:
"Who called the c*** a Cook!

Frank P

Adrian Sells.

Ahhhh; advocating law enforcement by police officers is akin to the espousing totalitarian Communism. I see what you mean. You're absolutely right. I can see it all now. I shall retire to a hermitage and repent for my remaining days.

Am I to assume that Adrian Sells what I would refuse to buy - strictly for legal reasons?

Adrian Sells

Frank P - well don't answer the question then.
I've rarely read such incoherent drivel.

Frank P

Then you're obviously new to the site. But weigh in, there's always room for more.

Simon Stephenson

Frank P : 12.49pm

"All I am advocating is that the criminal law should be enforced by police officers, effectively ... that the judiciary should mete out suitable punishments to serious criminal offenders. Not too much to ask is it?"

No, it's not too much to ask. But you're dealing with enforcement here, which is a completely different topic from whether or not there should actually be anti-drugs legislation, and it is the latter, I think, that Susan Hill addressed.

EC

Frank P,

"Moreover, very few of us could afford enough NAAFI beer to get us tipsy.

My brother, who is the same age as you, says that the lament at Cambridge went, "It takes a lot of lolly to get jolly on Tolly." (Tolly Cobbold)

Frank, have you noticed a distinct lack of civility on here recently? I use to enjoy your gentlemanly discourses with Hayward(Howard) Mayberley. You know, the TV quiz winner and retired Pickle magnate from Bury St Edmunds. You must remember him...

I can personally confirm that motorcycling is totally addictive - but I've never robbed a bank which, I have read, gives a more concentrated adrenalin rush.

All of which reminds me that I need to log on to Cleggy's site and suggest that is imperative that we outlaw the nazi pedal cyclists of Surrey - the dangerous arrogant bastards!

Frank P

Simon S (5.47pm)

And my point is very definitely that proscription of drug supply and abuse should not only remain on the statute book, but be enforced with determination and persistence (in case I didn't make myself clear during my somewhat jocular approach to this latest round of agonising; it's the same old, same old crap, regurgitated decade after decade). It just surprises me and saddens me that otherwise intelligent people have swallowed the propaganda of the last half century or so. Society has to protect itself against wilful subversion and the agitprop that facilitates it. An even more laissez faire policy on drugs would lead to horrors obviously beyond Susan Hill's imagination, but not beyond mine, which feeds off the experience of direct confrontation with those who plot to destroy the Western 'democracy' in favour of an internationalist agenda of the Left. The collusion of naive or hedonistic law breakers in pursuit of 'recreational' drug abuse (albeit often in ignorance of what they are involved in, in the bigger picture) is destructive: to themselves, to their families, to their country and to Western Civilisation at large. Large numbers of senior police officers have now joined the clamour for the decriminalisation 'solution' because they find it too hard to deal with the problem. It lets them off the hook and on to the golf course. It's a slippery slope. We have already allowed the left to bankrupt future generations; I suppose it follows that society may have to dope them all up to withstand the deprivation and misery that will follow. I remember a prescient TV series many years ago, called The Guardians, (or some such) which laid out the scenario and remarkably accurate it was as it turns out.

It is the politics of defeat that I abhor most. It is being applied in many other fields of crime, too, where the perpetrators become victims and the victims are demonized as reactionaries if they complain about seeing their loved ones being mugged, raped, or murdered . Fight back and you are labelled 'bigoted'and 'right wing'.

As for the disgraceful circus of drug dealing in prisons; it beggars belief. Who last got sacked for allowing it to proliferate? So called libertarians and 'liberals' are dreamers. I'm for small but effective goverment. But it is there to protect us, with due process, not hand us over to alien interests like trussed turkeys and relinquish our sovereignty in the bargain.

The freedom to self destruct and take civilised society down with you doesn't make any sense to me. If the government's job is not to proscribe dire anti-social behaviour by legal sanction, then what am I paying taxes for? Let's have anarchy instead and I'll protect my family and my property as I see fit and ally myself with people of like mind. It is quite clear to me that the meek will not inherit the earth. The strong, the corrupt and the wicked already have it sown up at this moment in time. We either fight them or become oppressed by them. Fight back is all I ask of the next generation. Anything less will lead an unholy alliance of totalitarian socialism with Islamic jihad - until they turn on each other. Whatever the outcome of that most of us will be in Dhimmitude of one or other. I can only do it with my fingertips now (as the Bishop said to the Actress); but there was a time ...

HM Constabulary needs to grow some new cojones. It has been pussified beyond belief. More political overlays on what is really a very basic duty - to enforce the law without fear or favour - are unnecessary and retrograde. If the police can't deal with the detritus of human interaction, then who in hell's name can? The bleeding hearts brigade will get us even deeper in the shit as history already records.

Vivien

Susan - I agree that some sort of national service for young unemployed people would be good, maybe based on community service, stream-dredging (against floods), snow-removing etc, rather than military service unless some wanted it. But can you imagine a government at the moment forcing people to do this? There'd be years of squabbling with "freedom" groups. There was a scheme like this mooted (by Ian Duncan Smith possibly?) but it was conceived of as voluntary, so that many young people living in households with three generations of unemployment probably wouldn't apply. I can't see the government setting up a scheme to mobilise all physically able young people unless there was a national emergency.

In many discussions about youth unemployment no-one mentions that fact that our manufacturing industries have dwindled so much - another elephant in the room!

Frank P

EC

Yes, Hayward did brighten our days long ago. Wasn't that on TDA though? I'll Google him up and see what he's been up to.
Later. Uruguay just stuffed Ghana on penalties. Adrian Chiles and his tepid crew of biased pundits are in deep mourning, apparently.

SUSAN HILL

Frank P. I take your point entirely about political motives behind the desire to hook people on drugs. But I think the criminal-pusher/stupid user stuff is far more prevalent.
Drugs at school and University ? You have to be joking. Nobody in those far off days had HEARD of drugs outside of hospitals. I have never in my life so much as seen an illegal drug.
I take precription drugs but that is an entirely separate issue. I am not addicted to them as they have no effect other than to make the rather rare chronic medical condition I have tolerable. That some GPs over prescribe unnecessary pharmaceuticals I have no doubt. But that is a whole separate issue.
I don`t think I have fallen for any sort of propaganda - I make up my own mind. At the moment a lot of police time is wasted on running after small time users. I just wonder if there is another way.

Frank P

I thought you were much younger, Susan. Didn't realise you hailed from the comparatively 'substance free' era, like me. ;-)

The amount of 'police time wasted on running after small time users' is grossly exaggerated, I assure you. Much more time is wasted in so many other less important matters. The fact, and the way that, you are writing about drug abuse indicates that you think it is serious social problem. So why would you think it is a waste of police time? An illegal drugs deal has four elements: a producer, a wholesaler, a retailer and a user. To qualify the culpability of each is a mistake from an enforcement point of view. They are all conspirators in contravening the drugs laws and it should be viewed with that level of seriousness in the case of all involved. It is up to the courts to take mitigating facts into account - and imho they are far too easily gulled with sob stories anyway. (As I said, read Dr. Anthony Daniels on the subject). When the police, the general public and the judiciary took a far more serious stance on dope there was far less drug trafficking. The subversive political input starting from the early 60s in the UK (much earlier over the pond) ensured that the level of opprobrium heaped on those at the demand end of the business was lessened by portraying them as them as victims and medically/mentally ill, rather than predominately co-conspirators in contravention of the Dangerous Drugs Acts. This was gradually successfully achieved and the trade expanded exponentially as a result. Where there's a demand there will always be a supplier.

The unholy alliance between leftist subversives and drug barons was mutually beneficial; street operatives were provided with legal advice and representation by leftist lawyers (I crossed swords with most of them while still in harness) who profited both financially and ideologically and as a result our heritage and culture has deteriorated concomitantly over the years. Moreover, funds were injected into the equation from the sino-soviet for the agitprop groups that operated in the squats and blighted premises of Notting Hill/Dale during the protracted construction of Westway Flyover Extension, when agitators from all over the world from both ends of the extreme political spectrum descended on that patch to help stir the pot (so to speak). The race issues of the day were also deliberately exacerbated for this reason: most fallacious nonsense - but fomented along with provocative street violence for both political and financial ends.

In any illicit trade the demand side must be addressed, because the ultimate movers in supply side are often so insulated by so many layers that they are often untouchable. Some say therefore legalise the activity and tax it, cutting out the illegal barons. As with booze. How does that change the harm? It would certainly increase the use. There are millions who do not abuse drugs because it is illegal to do so. At least a proportion would experiment were it to be legalised and the harm to individuals and to society at large would therefore increase too. If you cut the police and the prison system out of the equation, then you increase the burden on the NHS, already under pressure from the illicit drugs culture in so many ways (nor least because of abuse by some staff, let alone stroppy patients) and social services. It's a mess. But it won't be improved by a more liberal approach. Whenever this has been tried in the past (and I was reluctantly involved in some of the experiments) it merely exacerbated the problems (for example, vide the notorious cases of Dr's Petro and Swann circa 1965). There were others that received less publicity. These and many other matters that your Chief Constable should have explained all detract against the deluded idea that wiping out the Dangerous Drugs and Misuse of Substances Acts and all it's muddled amendments would make everything hunky-dory. None of it would prevent the disgusting propagation of abuse of harmful substances and it's depressing to think that the Pharmas would be responsible for producing and pushing addictive and toxic substances for non-medicinal reasons and that the treasury would benefit from the misery caused by the phenomenon. As I said in my post above, they profit enough by doing it already for spurious medicinal reasons, with the collusion of GPs who just want to get hypochondriacs out of their surgeries asap. And what about children, even if you subscribe to the view that adults should be allowed to abuse themselves if they wish? The drugs barons are already into supply of youngsters in schools, that would expand rapidly if you legalised use for adults. And what about junkies with children? And parents with children who are junkies? Do the police and judiciary then abandon these unwitting victims completely. How do you protect employers with junkies on their payroll if abuse becomes legal? What about prescribed drugs - is it proposed that they are deregulated too?

Policing is hard work and always has been if it is performed diligently. Crime prevention is what we pay the police for and for detection and apprehension of offenders when crime is committed. Those cops who think it is all too difficult should find another job.
And to suggest, as some do, that because the prisons have become centres for distribution of dope we should decriminalise the abuse of it, seems to be somewhat bizarre. More a good case for sacking the Prison Governor , not to mention the Home Secretary, perhaps?

Adrian Sells

Dear Frank,
Reading your post of 2nd July 9.37 pm, I reached the conclusion that you must have been smoking something - something meriting at least a good ten stretch.
After your latest missive, it seems to me that there is little point in engaging in debate about this issue because there is absolutely no chance of changing your very entrenched opinion.
However, I do want to raise one minor point I hinted at earlier. You seem to equate liberalism with being left wing and this is misguided. At the heart of all intelligent Conservative (right wing) thinking is surely a belief in trusting people to get on with their own lives and leaving them to do so as long as their behaviour does not interfere with the freedom of others to do likewise. It is about keeping the state small and as out of our affairs as much as possible. This is why the last thirteen years and the endless stream of new and ridiculous laws have been so pernicious.
Laws should exist to protect people from each other (robbery, assault, murder etc) and not to protect people from themselves. In your support for the status quo on drugs legislation, you are at best endorsing the nanny state and at worst something totalitarian. When I suggested that you might have been happier under the old Soviet system, I meant it: you seem to belive that the state has the right to control the way in which people lead their lives. This is at the heart of the socialist/communist mindset - that the state knows best.
Believe whatever you like about drugs, but don't think you're on the right politically.

Frank P

Adrian Sells

To quote your post at 9.50am:

"After your latest missive, it seems to me that there is little point in engaging in debate about this issue because there is absolutely no chance of changing your very entrenched opinion."

Thank you for taking the trouble to word my reply for me, I couldn't have expressed it more clearly myself.