Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
By larrylargesse
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
Now TEN cabinet ministers admit: 'We smoked cannabis'

its that Now again.. ... rtComments

some sensible comments made but afew head scratching bonkers ..

A quick question. If, as seems increasingly evident, cannabis affects the brain, how can we be sure that MP's and ministers, many of whom admit to cannabis use, are mentally fit to govern us? If athletes, et al can be tested for drugs, surely we can have the same test for politicians.

- Peter, London, England

and emloyees of the Daily Mail aswell...
By tuber
Membership Days Membership Days
I was fairly irked by this article: Woman behind 'soft' policy on cannabis has addict relative.

Dame Runciman chaired a report in 2000 recommending that cannabis possession no longer be dealt with as an arrestable offense. But one of her relatives has a drug addiction. I don't know which drug, the article doesn't say, but just about halfway down it acknowledges in parenthesis that is not cannabis. The blurring of cannabis and any other substances (except alcohol and tobacco, of course) into the immoral category of substance, "drug" is the first thing to start me off.
Dame Ruth Runciman has never publicly admitted that she has a family member whose life has been affected by drugs, despite her liberal stance on cannabis.

But on the day the Government formally starts a review which could upgrade cannabis to a class B drug, the Standard can reveal that a relative has fought drug addiction for years.
Secondly, I don't like they way they say "admitted", as though it is something she needs to hold her hands up. I think it is irrelevant to anything she has said publicly, and I agree with Dame Runciman when she says asking about it is "remakably intrusive".

My third niggle might just me being pedantic:
Runciman, who believes no users of illegal drugs should be imprisoned, insists that ...
She actually believes drug possession should not be an imprisonable offense. It's a subtle difference and most people would probably figure out her actual position but it bugs me. I don't know if it is an attempt to deliberately mislead, or just bad journalism.

My fourth ache concerns the whole article and a general level of hypocrisy. Columnists in the Daily Mail love to tell us how our politicians are diconnected from the real problems, they don't see the impact of the laws they make from the vista of their ivory towers. But as soon as someone has a personal situation that is remotely related, they use it as a knife to attack them with.

Fifth, there are no comments published alongside this article in spite of the ones I have posted, and I know others have posted too. This is what I posted but has, for some reason, failed moderation:
I cannot see how Dame Runciman's opinions on one drug could be compromised by her experiences with another entirely different drug. It's like saying my opinion on crack cocaine has been influenced by my alcoholic father.
Last edited by tuber on Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By tuber
Membership Days Membership Days
Richard Branson admits: 'I smoked drugs with my son'

Some good comments here.
Totally irresponsible, methinks.

I seem to be alone, apart from my beloved in being out of step with modern culture - smoking splifs. Alas I have to admit that I smoke the occasional demonised illegal fag (I know I shouldn't) and even worse, than that I have been known, occasionaly to indulge in strong alcohol, serious stuff indeed.

Alas the splif eludes me, always has, always will.

- Drew., Castle Douglas, Dumfries & Galloway.
Well this should stop young people smoking cannabis and doing coke and E. Far from being a trend setter it's well known that when oldies like Branson do drugs it's no longer cool.

So grow up Richard. You're in your 60's now for goodness sake.

- Stephanie James, London, England
Yes Richard grow up, a mature person would never be honest when asked a question by a journalist.
Why is everyone jumping on this owning-up-to-drugs bandwagon? Is it to appear cool? Or is it to gain some street cred? It's a complete mystery to me. I indulged in the odd spliff in my youth (not that long ago, thankfully), but I have no overwhelming urge to broadcast it to all and sundry.

- David, Brighton
stop broadcasting then
Maybe this is ok and you have plenty of money; some people have to get up the next morning and then go to work. This is not a good example Branson has been less than wise...

- Mike May, Egham
It doesn't seem right, telling one of the world's most successful businessmen that some of us have got to work, you know.
By tuber
Membership Days Membership Days
This is actually from the Telegraph, but it really shouldn't be in a serious newspaper. It's by ex-Mail columnist and wine-lover Simon Heffer, and it's called Cannabis smokers need to be locked up.

His arguments are ludicrous
They [people that say alcohol is worse than cannabis] also ignore the fact that people do not get bopped on the head in the street and robbed because a mugger desperately needs money to buy his fix of dry sherry: but they do get bopped because someone wants to get the cash to buy some drugs.

They ignore, too, the link between using cannabis and going on to use something harder. Many of us have drunk alcohol for years without feeling the slightest urge to use illegal drugs as a result.
His conclusion is extreme
I have mentioned here before that the Chinese way, of taking out convicted drug dealers and shooting them, has something to commend it. Sadly, that won't happen: instead we shall have drugs gangs going around shooting each other, as happens now in our cities all the time.
The feedback is negative by a vast majority
Will Lewis, I believe you are editor. Please read this article and review the comments below it.

The credablity of your newspaper has been damaged because you alowed such an atrocious article to be published.

I started reading this newspaper fairly recently. I love the online content. I was never a Telegrah readers before.

If I ever read any article that is filled with such apalling journalistic standards and ignorant views then I wll never read this newspaper again...

Shame on you Mr Lewis for letting this be published... It is your responsibility...
Posted by Garry White on July 28, 2007 5:26 PM
He should go back to the Mail where this sort of thing would be well received.
By famaf
Membership Days Membership Days
man I get so sick of all this shit...yeah prob not good for you but there is positivity to be gained from toking ganj..
...let's face it, if they made tennis illegal you'd get paranoid everytime you played cos you may get arrested.
So could argue in those circumstances that tennis makes you paranoid..

And all this bullshit about supposed new breed of super-strength skunk turning everyone into raging psychos murdering their grannies - ya know the stuff they've been producing meticulously in Amsterdam for 20 years... much fuckin ignorance around on this subject at present, especially all this "new breed" skunk stuff, it's really pissing me off at the moment
By daveinbrum
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
From yesterday's Guardian letters page...
Skunk too strong? Use less! We drink pints of lager, but shots of whisky, for a reason. The hysteria around stronger strains of cannabis is a scare tactic. Buy a smaller bong, man.

Chris May
Hebden Bridge, West Yorks
You don't get letters like that in the Mail...
By jonboy
Membership Days Membership Days
I finally read that article (albeit a week late). It was a dreadful article, inflammatory (Re: Chinese methods) and grossly misleading. However, the one thing that was very refreshing was the reader backlash. By far, the vast majority have derided him (and the paper/editor) for publishing it, and have seen through his mail-esque style. The comments are sensible asking for statistics and questionning Heffer's logic. You would not find that level of debate in the mail, nor would you find such dissent allowed. Finally, credit to the telegraph for not (it appears) censoring the comments.
By Beats
Membership Days Membership Days
They [people that say alcohol is worse than cannabis] also ignore the fact that people do not get bopped on the head in the street and robbed because a mugger desperately needs money to buy his fix of dry sherry: but they do get bopped because someone wants to get the cash to buy some drugs.
I just picked this part out, despite reading the whole article and seeing so many judgemental and shit-stirring rants. The part with this quote that annoys me is that many of the DM reading types seem to think that when they read a story about a granny who was mugged in order to buy money for drugs, or a shop that was raided to pay for drugs, they immediately think of it when the cannabis discussion arises. From my experience, and from reading reliable news sources, I believe that stoners do not go out and rob people to get a fix. If a crime is drug-related, it is usually people with crack or heroin addictions that are stealing to pay for a fix. Also, he doesn't explicitly use the word 'cannabis' but instead "but they do get bopped because someone wants to get the cash to buy some drugs" - almost admitting the fact that he is spuriously concocting his argument.
The Trump Presidency

Four days and counting.

The Tories, Generally

Must be a Black Country thing; I've got a mate f[…]

Shaun Bailey

The WM Mayor is a good candidate, an outsider wi[…]

Priti Patel

Back in the days when ministers had honour, I wond[…]