07 May 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Jacqui Smith is a goddamn hypocrite  
Jacqui Smith, the home secretary who admitted to smoking cannabis a number of times during the '80s whilst attending Oxford, has decided to change cannabis back to a class B drug. Apparently, cannabis smoking has "given her the experiences to understand that she wants crime tackled". Well, I'm glad that you had that opportunity, Ms Smith. Aren't you lucky? Now, how about leaving that opportunity open to others so they can have the set of experiences in life that they desire, rather than threatening to kidnap (arrest) them? If you're willing to break the law in order to try something new, why the fuck do you expect anyone else to pay attention to it, you nanny-statist bitch? Are you the only one who gets to break the law in order to have a good time?

There's a quote from one of the Drugs Council's members (the drug council that advised keeping it class C) saying "The government may want to take other matters into account. That's their right. They are the government." NO. You don't get to make random, staggering, idiotic decisions completely unfounded in evidence simply because you're the government. That's complete bollocks, and it really worries me that anyone on a supposedly independent council would say anything like that.

It seems that Gordon Brown is at least as retarded as Jacqui Smith. Either he's a liar or a moron as, in a recent interview, he described cannabis as "lethal". Mr Brown, if you can point to a single case in the world's medical literature in which anyone died as a direct result of cannabis consumption, then I'll take all this back, but I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you'd like to take it up with Dr Lester Grinspoon, Associate Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Med School, who doesn't seem to share your opinion. Or you could take a look at your own government's death statistics. Perhaps you don't want to, because you know you're a goddamn liar and you don't care as long as you can get some votes from people who also have no idea what they're talking about. Either way, you're not qualified to be making this decision, which compounds with the fact that nobody in this country has voted for you to be in power. The one thing you've managed throughout your pathetic stint in office is to make me long for the at least mildly endearing lies and spin of Blair. Reason explains more.
 
 
( Post a new comment )
mister_jack[info]mister_jack on May 8th, 2008 12:41 pm (UTC)
I think you're being unfair on the representative of the advisory body. What he was saying was that his remit was limited to look at certain issues (harm mostly) and Government was free to take other issues into account. He's right about that.

Of course, the Government's reasons are retarded but that's another matter.
Laurie Pycroft[info]sqrrl101 on May 8th, 2008 10:43 pm (UTC)
The other issues mentioned which were not part of their remit were "the message conveyed to the public or the impact on policing". When it comes to "the message conveyed to the public", I really don't think that civil liberties should be undermined (in this case, cognitive liberties) in the name of sending a good message. When it comes to the policing, the government is still making a nonsensical decision, and even if it wasn't the committee's remit to say that, the committee member should have damn well said so as a private individual. The association of police chiefs is refusing to act on the government's upgrading of weed, because they realise that it'll waste thousands of man-hours and clog up the system with non-violent "criminals".
mister_jack[info]mister_jack on May 9th, 2008 08:12 am (UTC)
I disagree. He was not speaking as a private individual but as a representative of the committee. As such, he should respect the role that they have.