Labour MP and all round idiot Chris Bryant comes up with some super policy-based-evidence.
Yes, agreed that drugs can cause harm to the user, as can hang-gliding, pot-holing, DIY, taking legal medication. But the vast majority of the harm is caused by the fact that certain drugs are deemed illegal, which is easily fixed.
Maybe fellow Labour MP Harry Cohen could have a word? Explain the whole concept of evidence-based-policy?
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
"Brunstrom drugs views dangerous"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Best wishes for 2008 Mark.
I have an allergic reaction whenever I hear the name Brunstrom, but concede he is quite correct on this one.
I do though think that as Chief Constable he should really keep his head down and enforce the law (but lay off motorists) rather than shoot his mouth off about the law. Perhaps he could enter politics when he retires as Chief Constable.
MW
All the best for 2008.
I happen to agree with Brunstrom on this one but WTF is a policeman doing commenting on whether a particular activity should be lawful or not? His job (as gregg beaman writes) is to apply the law not to tell us that such and such a law should or should not be enacted. OTOH his professional view of the efficacy of any particular law is welcome: what is unwelcome is his reported "campaigning" to have the Misuse of Drugs Act repealed.
Brunstrom has served a useful purpose in his assiduousness in applying the speeding laws. Such assiduousness and the results of his efforts (casualty rates far higher than in Durham where there are no speed cameras as reported here) have illustrated the nonsense of much of the enforcement aspects of anti-speeding legislation.
Concerning drugs, I would not suggest creating a "Bohemia" in N Wales where drugs would be legalised by non- or lax enforcement of the law. Quasi-legal "tolerance" zones actually increase contempt for and uncertainty as to the law cf effective legalisation of cannabis in Brixton. However, I don't think Brunstrom is suggesting this route. He is suggesting something nearer out-and-out legalisation. Even so, it would be refreshing if MPs like Bryant checked their backsides before speaking through them.
GB, U thanks, best wishes for 2008 to you too (we'll need it!).
'Decriminalisation' and 'tolerance' are of course beyond my sphere of contempt. AFAIAC, most drugs should be legally available from chemists, off-licences or GP's (depending on quite how dangerous they are), suitably regulated (quality controls, safety instructions) and taxed (yes, they have social costs, so tax them).
They'd still be a lot cheaper than at present (so less associated crime, prostitution etc); it'd take billions out of the hands of criminals, and put a few hundred million into the Treasury to cut taxes elsewhere. Hurray, everybody wins.
Nah, Mark, too simple. There's jobs to be created (for the boys) somewhere here. Until NuLiarbore work out how to create them, it won't happen.
Post a Comment