*Guns/Crack: The Commander - your opinion please? [Archive] - Page 2

Trotboy

20-02-2002, 14:02

Firstly let me congratulate Brian for having the balls to do this. It does go to prove what we all know, but rarely see; that Police Officers are human beings.

I have seen Brian perform at Lambeth Police Consultative Committee meetings, and again, he's very good. HOWEVER the problem is that, as Brian evidently realises, the Police are at the end of the day agents of the State. In order to change things conclusively we first have to change the State itself.

Tinkering with drugs laws will only provide small-scale and short term solutions. Indeed, 'zero tolerance' methods will only have the same result in the end. New York may have dealt with street crime for the time being, but the contradictions within US society that create such hopelessness and despair remain.

Firstly, to Brian I'd say keep up the fight, we will support you in every way possible to change the attitude of the Police. However, I don't think your stand will be tolerated for long, particularly in the period we are moving into. Also remember that others have done similar good work in the past, but it can be undone just as fast. In Devon & Cornwall in the late 1970's and early 1980's, John Alderson was a massively progressive chief constable, who made great strides in introducing 'community policing' and transforming the Police force. Almost all of the progress he made has since been undone.

Secondly, to people in Brixton, I'd say don't expect too much. Brian is one man within a system. His presence does not stop racism within the force, cannot change overnight the 'canteen culture', and as we have seen already, does not stop such events as the shooting of Derek Bennett, the heavy handed policing of the following demonstration, or the death of Ricky Bishop. Certainly Brian can make a small difference, and we should support him in that, but we will still have to defend the community from the Police as well.

Thirdly, on the specific issue of Drugs, there are massive social problems caused by drugs, obviously. We are all aware of the issues, but decriminalisation solely in the Brixton area is not a long term solution, only decriminalisation NATIONALLY can start to solve some of the problems. Local decriminalisation leads MORE white middle class drug takers to visit 'the Ghetto' to score drugs off the dealers, for one thing.

Brian says the Council want to work with him to fight the social problems around drugs. But I see very little evidence of this. New Labour's agenda seems to be one of gentrifying Lambeth and pushing the problem somewhere else. Selling off Council Housing, bringing in big business at the expense of the community, cutting public services, all these point to Lambeth wanting anything but to deal with the issues.

The Socialist Party makes the following demands; which would help the situation, but the Council and the Government will never implement unless we fight for them:

* Community control of Policing through democratically elected committees of residents, tenants and trades unions.

* Effective Trades Unionisation of the Police Force, with democratically accountable command structures.

* Increases in funding to recruit new Police Officers and improve training of Police, with recruitment emphasis on local community.

* Affordable publicly owned housing for all, with massive injection of cash into existing Housing stock and the buiding of new council housing.

* High quality comprehensive education available free locally to all

* Legalisation of drugs under a free prescription programme for addicts, with facilities provided for addicts, and properly funded programmes to re-integrate addicts into society.

* production of all drugs, pharmaceuticals, alchohol, tobacco and cigarettes to be nationalised under democratic control of the workforce.

* Massive programme of funding into the Prison service, with emphasis on rehabilitation of offenders.

These are just a few things that would help to change the face of Brixton, and to reduce criminality and drug dependency throughout society.

TopCat

20-02-2002, 14:22

The Socialist Party makes the following demands; which would help the situation, but the Council and the Government will never implement unless we fight for them:

How do you propose to fight for your demands??

I am all ears...

adi baby

20-02-2002, 15:56

Hi people

Brand new to urban thx to the Standard and The Sun. Love the level of debate especially our man Brian - wot balls! And Im not talking big salty chocolate balls!

My main point where did all the NY baddy business go - elsewhere or have they just lockked everybody up cause they certainly aint solved the underclass situation - and secondly how many baddyboos in Brixton are property owners - none!?

Lets face facts youre either in or your out!

a mate of mine bought a flat in Oct and he's already 'earnt' £20,000 without having to do jack - and if youre out like most kids in brixton are, you are just gonna go out and get it one way or another - full stop.

Crime wave - you aint seen nothing yet!

yours in sadness eeking a living in UK Plc

Bookere

20-02-2002, 16:08

Welcome to the Boards Adi and what a very good point to start with.

Have a look around the boards and you will find a lot of support for this anticapitalist stance.

edgarlesty

20-02-2002, 16:27

Adi,

I did some work in NY in 2000 on urban governance and attended an NYPD working group at 6am one morning through which the zero tolerance policy was implemented. The same system which is consistentlyt vaunted here as a possible solution.

It was through these team meetings of officers that "hotspots" of crime were indentified and subsequently officers concentrated in that area to deter other "criminal" acts.

The point you make is an interesting one r.e. the underclass and economic inequality as Giuliani and zero tolerance did "well" in clearing street crime from Manhattan Island (for London read Chelsea/Knightsbridge etc) and shifting it out to the Bronx/Jersey areas.

However, many of the people I spoke to In NY, including prison reformers, homeless workers in Harlem seemed to think that the supposed "success" of zero tolerance in reducing crime levels was actually more likley attributable to the general economic upturn in the NY and US economy rather than heavy-handed policing tactics.

capitalism thus taming (to some limited extent) the beast of inequity and frustration it had itself unleashed.

adi baby

20-02-2002, 16:46

thx for the welcome bookere and thx for reply ed - just to say hey isnt it great this site and what a rush getting replies - everyone should try it!

My first reaction is Oh Gosh Am I an anticapitalist just because the causes of crime seem so totally obvious to me?

The second reaction is gulp these people are all pretty damn sharp so i better watch my step but hey i am here to participate so bring it on!

re ed's comments on NY zero tolerance - yes it all sounds like pieces of the puzzle but i like the summing up ' zero tolerance = zero understanding'. no ghettos in the UK - it just will not work cause of our geography ( 2 small ) and our cultural history ( the blitz, all people).

power 2 the people!

Bookere

20-02-2002, 17:08

Its an interesting reaction to think "Oh gosh, I'm an anti-capitalist"

To be honest I don't consider myself an anti-capitalist. I see a huge number of faults in capitalism, but I can't deny I benefit from it as well. The simple answer is I don't know what the alternative is.

adi baby

20-02-2002, 17:14

maybe ive always kind of thought that socialist capitalism is good vs market dominated capitalism which is bad. a point brian made about police discretion seems apt that everything can be used or abused even capitalism!

hipipol

20-02-2002, 17:26

All this frenzy about a cop who thinks about shit, then rejects and returns to upholding law an order- not the kind of geeze I want round my hopuse fer tea, I can assure you of that!!!!!!
Fuck, him an his main squeese are on hols, lucky git, good timing eh?
Still least he thought about it a bit, before ordering the back stairs re-greased!!!!!!!!

Trotboy

20-02-2002, 17:27

TopCat,

We fight for these demands and others consistantly, in Lambeth and well beyond. Tonight we will be at a meeting of Tenants on the Ethelred Estate about Lambeth Council's 'UDP' - their masterplan for gentrification, we will be there with other Tenants who are fighting against the 'New Deal' on the Clapham Park Estate.

Tomorrow night we have our regular weekly meeting at 320 Brixton Road, 7.30pm, the main speaker is a comrade from our sister Party in Israel, who will be speaking about the situation there. We will also be discussing further how we take the ongoing fight to the Council.

Saturday morning you can find us on our weekly stall outside KFC, opposite the Town Hall, where we will be petitioning, leafletting and selling our weekly newspaper; the Socialist.

We are no strangers to fighting against cuts in Lambeth. Before we became the Socialist Party in 1996, we were known as 'Militant' and had three surcharged councillors in the 1980's when the Council fought against Thatcher's cuts. Our councillors were later expelled from the Labour Party for their stand.

If you want more information feel free to e-mail me, or pop along and see us on our stall, or to our weekly meeting.

TopCat

20-02-2002, 17:34

I would rather stick needles in my legs than attend one of your paper sales. An attitude that I am sure you find is quite common amongst local people. As for Ted grant, well please don't hold him up to be a champion of the working class as I remember the things he actualy did whilst in power...

Tourn

20-02-2002, 18:55

Giuliani's exact words were as follows: "Marijuana caused a lot of the violence we had, I would encourage the police to arrest as many of them [drug users] as possible."

Giuliani is a charming nazi. He was absolutely wonderful in the wake of the Sept 11 terrorist attack in NY City but his police department has been repeatedly sanctioned for brutality and corruption.

The much ballyhooed drop in crime in NY City happened throughout the United States. Crime rates here are at a 30 -35 year low

During Giuliani’s tenure, the Mullen Commission found, after a two year investigation into police coruption > New York City's "finest" had a "litany of manufactured tales" for nearly any occasion… They commit perjury in front of grand juries and at trials as casually as they'd tell a fairy tale to their toddler.

In 1996 Amnesty International, after an 18 month investigation , found: "the information gathered suggests that police bruta-lity and unjustifiable force...is a widespread problem, with a pattern of similar abuses occurring over many years."

All of this was ignored. Then we had the specter of Abner Louima, a Haitian immigrant, being openly tortured in a NY City police station and an attempted cover-up. Followed soon after by a completely innocent , unarmed, immigrant being shot 41 times by undercover police while he was standing in the vestibule of his home.

I could go on and on here but one more example. Last year the NY City police department arrested 59 thousand individuals on marijuana charges. An undercover officer, attempting to by marijuana, shot and killed a completely innocent individual he accosted on the street in an attempt to buy drugs.

The officer would not take NO for an answer and an argument developed ending in a death.

Duncan

20-02-2002, 18:59

I served as a detective at Notting Hill police station under several senior pseudo-detectives (the Met. seemed to have a knack of sending senior dross to B.H. [Notting Hill], both uniform and CID), including "Brian-the-Iron", now known to one and all as Commander Brian Paddick. In fact, DCI (sic) Paddick as he was then known, authorised me to visit Jamaica in order to track down the financial assets of an arrested Jamaican drug dealer.

I find it hard to believe (though perhaps I shouldn't) that someone of Commander Paddick's experience a) is unaware whether the British Secret Service is now involved in the drug war and b) can mention cocaine and poppies in the same paragraph: ".....where poor people are duped into carrying cocaine condoms in their stomachs. You won't get any of these millionaire vermin drug barons swallowing this stuff. Maybe a squirt of weed-killer on the right poppies would help?"

If Brian (The Commander) is in fact Commander Brian Paddick of the Metropolitan Police service, well, the residents of Lambeth should be questioning the Mets. wisdom of sending a bafoon to oversee the policing of their part of London.

adi baby

20-02-2002, 19:28

class A point dunc!

popslut

20-02-2002, 19:47

These days I'm awoken at 6:30 am every morning by next-door's chickens - better that than being awoken at 3:30 am every morning by next-doors crack habit.

But...

When I moved to Brixton in 1995 I was kind of aware what I was moving to - a crowded inner city neighbourhood, entirely encased in concrete, apart from the dog-shit strewn oasis that is Brockwell Park. I lived in a flat just on the corner of Effra Road and Brixton Water Lane between a crack house and a knocking shop and was paying £750 a month for the priviledge. I knew better than to fit a stereo in my car, as I knew it would be ripped off in days, as happened to several of the people that visited me. I knew better than to leave my place unattended [or apparently unattended] for more than a day/night as the block I lived in was plagued by break-ins.
Later on I moved to a dismal flat in Tulse House [at the top of Tulse Hill] which received no natural daylight as a result of abysmal planning, and which came with a delightful collection of refuse, used condoms, overflowing skips and burned out cars through which i had to walk to get to my poorly lit stairwell. I would be awoken every night by the shouts and screams of my neighbours beating the shit out of each other, and by the constant blaring of Police car sirens whizzing past my window every 5 minutes.
During this time I was smoking about an ounce of dry skunk a week.
In 1999 I was diagnosed with depression - aggravated by chronic cannabis psychosis. Surprise surprise.
My solution was to get the hell out and move to Somerset - where I currently rent a delightful detached 2 bedroom house for less than half the amount i'd be expected to pay for a miserable studio flat in a shitty part of London. The air is clean, light and noise pollution are virtually non-existent and I chat with my neighbours in the street. And guess what - I've had a stereo in my car for 2 years. I rarely bother to lock the doors. I haven't had the urge to spend all day every day smashed off my face on skunk since I left London.
Sorry to sound like a smug bastard - its not my intention.

The point I'm trying to make is this;

If you choose to live in a sewer, don't be surprised when it turns out to smell of shit.

;)

Furthermore;

* Its no surprise that people tend to lean on drugs when you consider the extreme discomfort that city-dwellers on low incomes are expected to live with on a daily basis.
* Where there is a demand, there will always be people ready to supply, regardless of policing methods, laws or media polemic.

Attempting to chase the dealers out of Brixton smacks of NIMBYism - they're going to set up shop somewhere! It'd be like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Likewise the "tolerance Zone" idea. "johnwisehammer" summed it up rather nicely thus;

[I]I've always thought that non-policed zones were a shit halfway-house for dumping social problems on the poor - but I wouldn't object too much if they had it in Belgravia as it's "such a good idea".

The Police are empowered only to try to tackle the symptoms of the problem, rather than the underlying problems themselves.
All the time 1% of the world's population control 99% of the wealth etc etc...
All the time The Sun and The Daily Mail are the loudest voices in the country etc etc...

Lastly, I hear often about weed is the harmless and benign intoxicant. I beg to differ. Whilst I believe that the "War on some drugs" is a total farce, and that what I put in my body is my business, I meet a lot of people younger than myself who are convinced that they can smoke kilos of "harmless" weed with impunity, forever. Not so. I don't mean to preach - but cannabis psychosis is fucking scary and not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

hatboy

20-02-2002, 20:21

Can't stop now, but just a quick response to a couple of points above.

Duncan - does it matter if Brian Paddick gets a technical point about drug origin/manufacture wrong while making a jokey remark about it if his motives are good/heart is in the right place?
I'm not necessarily Mr Paddick's greatest fan, but I'm impressed with his honesty and I'd like him to stick around so Brixton can see how the situation developes. The very fact that so many other Police don't like him is a big feather in his cap to me.

Popslut - I'm sorry your experience of Brixton was so negative. It doesn't sound like your housing situation was very good and that's important to a persons well-being. But, come-on! If you think Brixton is a sewer then you can't have got to know it very well. I always feel that, despite it's problems there is much more good than bad around here. I personally have never lived in a more friendly, neighbourly place. You may well be someone who simply prefers the different (not better or worse) style of life a rural location offers. But don't write Brixton off because of that. It isn't a sewer, despite the complete mis-representation in the Sun today.

William of Walworth

20-02-2002, 20:29

Lastly, I hear often about weed is the harmless and benign intoxicant. I beg to differ. Whilst I believe that the "War on some drugs" is a total farce, and that what I put in my body is my business, I meet a lot of people younger than myself who are convinced that they can smoke kilos of "harmless" weed with impunity, forever. Not so. I don't mean to preach - but cannabis psychosis is fucking scary and not something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

No-one's really pretending it's harmless though popslut. The point was its relative harmlessness compared to other drugs, in terms of the effects of dealing and trading on people in Brixton. And it was a question of prioritising in terms of Police policy given the very flawed drug laws as they now stand.

Duncan

20-02-2002, 21:27

Hatboy: Does it matter????!!!

This idiot, if it is Cmdr Paddick, is a senior officer in the Met. Police dictating - one way or another - how the residents (you) of Brixton shall conduct them/yourselves. Of course it matters. If this guy can not distinguish between the coco plant and a poppy plant, how can you take his comments seriously? I'd go one further, how can you take the Met. seriously promoting such a guy and giving him such command?! I've known Brian-the-Iron since he was a PC living in Islington. I hope I'm wrong, and it's someone masquerading as Paddick, but if I'm wrong - God help society. Thank Christ I live out of the MPD.

When I fly, I expect the airline pilot to know the difference between a runway and a motorway. Likewise, the residents of Lambeth should expect, and demand, someone with an iota of intelligence.

popslut

20-02-2002, 22:03

hatboy

Didn't mean to give the impression that my entire experience of Brixton was totally negative - it wasn't. I had many blissful breakfasts in the Phoenix Cafe on CHL and I had no qualms in walking thru the town at ungodly hours alone or with friends - I never encountered a moments aggro in all the time I was there.
Went out, got wasted, had lots of laffs and felt thoroughly metropolitan
Before Brixton I lived in Hackney and before that, on Shacklewell Lane in Dalston - both areas favoured by the press/TV as "centres of iniquity and crime" but both, in fact, friendly and good fun places to be.
My thrust was more to do with the discomfort of living in crowded concrete planning nightmares plagued by noise, air and light pollution, and with little or no influence over your surroundings.
Where I live now, crack and heroin addiction and their associated social fallout are virtually invisible. Sartorial faux pas, however, are endemic. Who would be brave enough to walk into Bar Humbug attired in bushy sideburns, tweeds and folded-over wellies?

Also, I didn't mean to describe Brixton as a sewer - you'll have to forgive my somewhat juvenile metaphor.

Maybe what I should have said was this;

"If yu choose to live in a crowded inner city neighbourhood, entirely encased in concrete, don't be surprised if the people around you, who find themselves at the bottom of the social and economic pile, behave in ways which reflect the discomfort of their situation."

Not as concise, admittedly, but less open to misinterpretation. ;)

William of Walworth

Dunno about you, but I've met and talked with many people all convinced of the "relative harmlessness" [isn't that an oxymoron?]of smoking weed - some even asserting that smoking spliffs serves to "clean out your lungs"!! I was one of them for 15 years, until it came up and bit me on the arse.
I do know that people dependent upon drugs will take any opportunity to rationalise and justify their addiction and present their particular tipple as a harmless panacea. Like I say - each to her/his own, but forgive me for feeling the urge to warn anyone who cares about the nasty effects of overdoing it.

:)

I believe that no amount of progressive Policing and legislative reform is going to make the slightest bit of difference to the "crack/guns/gangs of moody yoots on street corners" problems of inner-city life. Pathetic as it may seem, I think MTV has more influence upon all this than any number of Community Initiatives. When Val Doonican becomes cool again, tha kidz will all be out drinking Guinness, smoking St Bruno and mugging each other for their rocking chairs.

Lastly;

Will everyone [not necessarily just the contributors to this forum] please stop propping up that most offensive of euphemisms - "ethnic" when what they actually mean is "non-white".

"Ethnic [adj.] Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage."

Thats all of us. Isn't it?

Or;

"Ethnic [adj.] Heathen"

Yuk!

Even worse is the qualification "ethnic minority". Is it just me or does this suggest a kind of insidious cultural superiority?

Johnny Canuck2

20-02-2002, 22:03

Cannabis psychosis?!

popslut

20-02-2002, 22:12

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Duncan
[B]Hatboy: Does it matter????!!!

"Of course it matters. If this guy can not distinguish between the coco plant and a poppy plant, how can you take his comments seriously?"

**Cough**

And, conversely Duncan, if you can not distinguish between the coco plant and the coca plant, are we to deduce that you too are talking out of your little brown eye?

Rhetorical question Dunc.

[smn please explain "rhetorical" to Duncan would you...]

Your insistence on referring to your erstwhile colleague as "Brian the Iron" says more about you than the tag on your toe ever could.

hatboy

20-02-2002, 22:43

Thanks for that much more reasonable take on Brixton Popslut. Yes, ideally it would be good if Mr paddick knew all about how every street drug was made, but I still think it's not hugely important. He's dealing with the other end of the supply chain. After all most of us know what a destructive force alcohol can be but if you asked me how absinthe (or most drinks to be honest) was made I wouldn't have a clue. And I don't need to know to know how pissed it can get a person and how that affects your behavior and people around you.

By the way I accept your argument about "cannabis psychosis". Everybody knows how paranoid smoking strong weed can make some people and I know that if you have a tendency to say, schitzophrenia (sp?) it can be exaccebated by weed. But probably only if you smoke all the time, or too much for you. I think alcohol should remain legal, but that's not saying everyone should be pissed all day.

Clapham Omnibus

20-02-2002, 22:59

Duncan
What does it matter if Brian Paddick don't know the difference between a coco plant and a poppy plant!
I bet he cannot tell the difference between a Browning 9mm and a Colt 45 auto either.
Except the last two will most definatly kill you.

the_voice_999

20-02-2002, 23:12

popslut is dead right.
but if you think you can get rid off the gun/crack/smack cultcher by getting rid off the dealers and users you all may be nieve.
like an illness you have to start at the begining.
there was not a prob. until the govenment made smack ileagle in 1967. from that point on the use has gone up over 1000 times.
if the users got smack from the doctors it would be pure and the health risk would be very low. dealers would not be able to make money so would be out of bisiness. users would not have to comit crime to bye drugs.
makes you think the law might be wrong

popslut

20-02-2002, 23:13

hatboy

It was "Duncan the Divvy" who made the point about coco [sic] plants and poppy plants.

I was merely quoting him.

:)

Rowland.

20-02-2002, 23:41

Hmm. Interesting stuff.

Adam: apologies for misattributing words to you. This Web interface makes it pretty easy to cock up like that (I'm more used to Usenet, where it's a lot easier to keep track of things); I'll take more care in future.

But... You're right when you say that not all drugs can be lumped together - provided that means *for all purposes of consideration*; I think there are some commonalities in some cases, though, but obviously caffeine is hardly comparable to crack and you'd look very strangely at anyone who suggested that, wouldn't you? I was trying to consider the likely consequences of legalizing more recreational drugs and looking at what might be learnt from past experience If one were thinking of legalizing any given recreational drug, you'd have to think carefully about exactly how to do it, simply because of the different problems attached to the different drugs (there aren't *any* drugs - used medically, recreationally or, whatever which have *no* problems. Did you know that oxygen is considered a dangerous drug in certain situations by the medical profession?).

Some thoughts: *given current society* (by which I do mean specifically the sort of societies we have in our inner cities; while I've never lived in *inner* London, I did once live in Hulme - central Manchester - before it was demolished and rebuilt; that was an experience. I'm essentially a suburbanite: I like cities, but I also like peace and quiet at home), I wouldn't be happy with completely open access to powerful, addictive, and potentially very dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine (in any form) - but what to do? Alcohol is a powerful, addictive, and potentially very dangerous drug: are the sort of controls on that drug adequate for something like heroin? I wouldn't presume to have much of an opinion myself, beyond noting that alcohol (ab)use (being very widespread) causes more social problems than heroin (ab)use as far as I'm aware. Cannabis might not be addictive, but does it make sense to have *that* drug no more hard to acquire than fags are nowadays? - the potential psychological effects of cigarette smoking aren't in the same league as those of cannabis, are they?

All tricky stuff (and I'm aware that there's a huge list of common recreational drugs which I've ignored), which is why I'm interested in what happened in the past: why make a blind leap into the dark based on purely here&now predictive guess-work when we *might* be able to apply lessons from the past? - just to make the guesses more reliable. I can't see that much can be learnt from the `distant' past to inform decision making on something like crack cocaine, but as for drugs which have been around for a while? Why not? btw, (regarding someone else's comment) I was thinking of Oscar Wilde's time for sure, but before that too.

One of the points I was trying to make about legal/illegal drugs is that if you have a legal supply of a drug, the illegal supply tends to dwindle: that's one reason why hardly anyone distills potcheen.

Aussie88: one thing about the experimental relaxed attitude towards cannabis in Lambeth is that it was approved in advance by the politicians, who are studying the results with a view to learning from them and informing future policy. This is *not* a case of the police deciding what to do on their own - if it were, I suspect that the predictions about Brian Paddick not lasting long in his job might be right.

Our current home secretary (more or less the bloke in charge of this sort of stuff) is unusual in that he doesn't appear to have been turned into a fascist bully-boy on contact with the home office, which is what normally seems to happen (or am I missing something?)

Duncan: you've had harsh words for Brian Paddick because he mis-attributed the source of cocaine. Fair enough - you might have a point there. But you've done the same thing - so are you the sort of idiot you're calling him?

There is a big difference between intelligence and knowledge. Brian Paddick is clearly very intelligent with a lot of knowledge in *some* areas. But where does it say in the rule book that policemen have to know everything about everything?

The way I see Brian Paddick is this: he's a copper. He's supposed to have expertise in policing and to me, it looks like he has that expertise. He's stated that policemen aren't the people to advise people on drugs and whatnot, because (in short) they're not experts in the field: leave it to the experts - that's a very sensible point of view, isn't it? And sure enough, we have some evidence that Brian's not an expert in recreational drugs. That's fine: he's clearly a very intelligent chap who's here to *learn*, and he will learn. If he makes a minor technical slip like that, by all means correct him. Does it matter from the point of view of his ability as a policeman that he once stated (flippantly) that poppies are the source of cocaine? I don't see that it does: from the point of view of policing in Brixton, it just doesn't matter, does it? What matters in this context is understanding the effect that different sorts of drug sales and drug use have on individuals and the community: this seems to be what Brian Paddick is concentrating on, and what he appears to have some expertise in.

If Brian thought, as that maniac in New York appears to think, that cannabis was a cause of violent crime, *yes* we'd be right to ridicule him - but he's more on the ball than that, isn't he? He can see and has learnt what the various different drugs really do (I expect he has some mistaken ideas, as do we all) and has learnt about the social and personal consequences. Good on him: he wants to learn, and he is learning.

Let's face it: once upon a time, *all* of use knew nothing at all - when we were born. Since then, we've all be learning. Some of us have learnt about different things to other people. Why criticise someone just because they have learnt different things to you? I've got a physics degree: should I ridicule you because you don't even know what vector calculus *is*? Of course not - in fact, I'm used to people pointing ridicule at me because I do (and, erm, have forgotten almost everything about how to use it... It was a few years back.)

If he'd been expressing ill-informed opinions about policing, or about Lambeth, or about any other area in which he is *supposed* to be an expert, then you might have had cause to call him a buffoon. But he's not done that, you've got no cause based on what you have presented (which seems to be nothing more than a personal dislike of the man - and anyone with half a brain can figure out that an openly gay officer in the Met is going to have a lot of *that* to deal with - the fact that Brian *is* apparently dealing with it successfully - look at his rank - ought to indicate that he's a *very* bright boy in some ways at least), and... How can I put it? If you're going to accuse someone of being unintelligent and a buffoon, you really should spell buffoon properly.

If you've got intelligent, informed remarks to make in the debate,that's fine by me (who cares about that, though?). I don't see that personal abuse is any help at all.

Johnny Canuck: cannabis psychosis? Well, the term is a new one on me. Cannabis is certainly a very powerful psychoactive drug, and you can't expect to hit your mind with lots of anything like that for long periods and not have *some* strange things happen.

Now I think about it, I have met a few people who have described initial experiences with cannabis in terms which now make me apply the word `psychotic' to the state they ended up in briefly. Whatever the technical details of it, I don't think there's any doubt that some people do end up seriously screwed up by the stuff.

As for the idea (from someone else) that smoking spliffs can clear out your lungs: it's daft, but not *completely* out to lunch. Once upon a time, a single cigarette in the morning used to be recommended for asthmatics: fag smoke contains chemicals which do open up the tubes in your lungs (bronchiodilators if you want the fancy name), and it was thought that the coughing which the fag induced helped clear out the muck - which is probably did to an extent, but at what overall cost? Doctors now take the line that any asthmatic who smokes is getting it badly wrong.

popslut: I'm entirely with you on `ethnic'. Worse to my mind is people who refer to `ethnic minorities and other minority groups such as women' (yes, I've really met that one).

If you mean non-white, say so. If what you really want to do is refer to disadvantaged sections of society, do so. Don't be sloppy about it.

But... While I'm with you entirely on ethnic and I do think that `ethnic minority' does tend to have that `cultural superiority' angle to it - is it *that* bad a thing to think that we live in a reasonably superior culture? For all the problems of these septic isles, they're pretty civilised: I think that means we've got a pretty good culture, and why *not* be honest and admit that means it's a superior one? No, I don't say that this culture is the One True Perfect Culture or that we can't benefit from outside influences (I happen to hold the view that British culture is as good as it is *because* of all the outside influences, immigration, and suchlike) or that other cultures might not be better in some ways: just that here&now, we've got a pretty decent place to live in, all things considered.

Johnny Canuck2

21-02-2002, 00:36

I asked about cannabis psychosis because, having been aware of the issues surrounding cannabis culture for at least a couple of decades, I hadn't heard of it before.

Cocaine psychosis, yes. Psychotic states are usually associated with the stimulant type drugs, and often have a sleep deprivation component.

Because the mechanism of operation for cannabis is different from that, it was somewhat surprising to hear of a new psychosis associated with it.

popslut

21-02-2002, 00:43

Originally posted by Rowland.
Hmm. Interesting stuff.

But... While I'm with you entirely on ethnic and I do think that `ethnic minority' does tend to have that `cultural superiority' angle to it - is it *that* bad a thing to think that we live in a reasonably superior culture? For all the problems of these septic isles, they're pretty civilised: I think that means we've got a pretty good culture, and why *not* be honest and admit that means it's a superior one? No, I don't say that this culture is the One True Perfect Culture or that we can't benefit from outside influences (I happen to hold the view that British culture is as good as it is *because* of all the outside influences, immigration, and suchlike) or that other cultures might not be better in some ways: just that here&now, we've got a pretty decent place to live in, all things considered.

Jesus H Christ on a bike!!

I can only suggest you go away and ruminate upon the concept of "cultural superiority" and its repercussions with regard to recent World history.

A. I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning with regard to the whiff of cultural superiority inherent in the phrase "ethnic minority" - think about it.

B. Are you seriously labouring under the misapprehension that you are somehow part of a 'superior culture'?!?! Why not pop overseas and do some work educating Johnny Foriegner in the error of his savage ways? I'm sure they'll thank you for it.

"(I happen to hold the view that British culture is as good as it is *because* of all the outside influences, immigration, and suchlike)"

Yes - they all have natural rhythm don't they. Marvellous colourful culture. And aren't the children sweet?

Gah!!

popslut

21-02-2002, 00:45

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck2
I asked about cannabis psychosis because, having been aware of the issues surrounding cannabis culture for at least a couple of decades, I hadn't heard of it before.

Cocaine psychosis, yes. Psychotic states are usually associated with the stimulant type drugs, and often have a sleep deprivation component.

Because the mechanism of operation for cannabis is different from that, it was somewhat surprising to hear of a new psychosis associated with it.

We learn something new every day don't we..?

;)

Mrs Magpie

21-02-2002, 00:45

I have read something about Cannabis Psychosis in a book by Dr Dorothy Rowe. If I remember rightly, she puts forward the idea that it was invented by White Male Psychiatrists as a way of locking up West Indian men that they couldn't label with anything else. According to Dr Rowe it is very difficult to get diagnosed with this unless you are Male and West Indian and that it doesn't really exist. If I find the correct passage I'll transcribe it and post it here.

popslut

21-02-2002, 01:14

Mrs Magpie;

Far be it from me to question the wisdom of the esteemed Dr Rowe [who?] - I speak only of my own personal experience.

If you'd like me to go into more detail regarding my experience of cannabis-related psychosis I'd be happy to - although I think that maybe a little off topic. Feel free to PM me.

For what its worth, I would love to be able to smoke weed again - unfortunately 2 hits on a spliff and i'm staring into the abyss for 5 hours, sweating and panicking and terrified that I'm going to end up trapped behing that sheet of frosted glass again.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from enjoying a spliff - a more enjoyable pastime I would be hard pressed to imagine. I can think of nothing which enhances food, company, sex, music, or just staring out of the window more than a nicely rolled spliff of good weed, and were my kids to come home and say "Dad - I've decided that booze is fucking horrible - could you get me some grass?" I'd be more than happy to oblige.

What I would counsel against, however, is doing what I did and smoking an ounce of skunk a week for 15 years.

Like i said before - i'm not trying to preach. It would be a bit selfish of me to discover a pitfall like this and not tell anyone though wouldn't it?

The ppl that are interested will go "Hmm - food for thought."

The ppl that aren't will go "**click** - next post."

Thass all.
:)

Mrs Magpie

21-02-2002, 01:46

Dr Dorothy Rowe is an internationally acclaimed Australian Psychologist who works in the UK. She has written about a dozen books that go into edition after edition. She is hugely sceptical about Drug Companies and Psychiatrists. She believes that caring about and listening to works better and most labelled mental illnesses are actually extreme distress that are caused by real events or circumstances. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with her, or in any way trying to diminish your experience, it is just I have only come across this term in something she wrote, until I read your postings, that I just posted it in a general info sort of way. She has thousands of web pages devoted to her if you want to find out more about her.

Tourn

21-02-2002, 01:52

Rowland>> I was trying to consider the likely consequences of legalizing more recreational drugs and looking at what might be learnt from past experience <<

It’s not the UK but for what it is worth, 19th century America has been labeled a Dope Fiend’s Paradise. Once you know about it, you realize how stupid our present policies are. For the most part, based on myths and half truths.

In the U.S. there have been a dozen or so drug policy studies (Government & Private). Several of them have histories of drug use and are very informative. You can find them on line at the drug library

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/index.HTM

The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine at

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

is very easy to read and just packed full of information.

Clapham Omnibus

21-02-2002, 07:56

The_voice_999

Nice idea giving Free drugs via doctors to users.
But!
Who Pays for this?
Can you imagin the Health Secretary standing up in The House and saying that NHS resources are being used for this.
Sorry old lady waiting in the hospital corridor.
Sorry Mr hip replacement man
Political suicide

William of Walworth

21-02-2002, 08:24

One last thing on cannabis psychosis, I just want to agree with hatboy really, who summed it up admirably.

By the way I accept your argument about "cannabis psychosis". Everybody knows how paranoid smoking strong weed can make some people and I know that if you have a tendency to say, schitzophrenia (sp?) it can be exaccebated by weed. But probably only if you smoke all the time, or too much for you. I think alcohol should remain legal, but that's not saying everyone should be pissed all day.

"Only if you smoke all the time" being the key phrase.

Streathamite

21-02-2002, 09:47

This idiot, if it is Cmdr Paddick, is a senior officer in the Met. Police dictating - one way or another - how the residents (you) of Brixton shall conduct them/yourselves. Of course it matters. If this guy can not distinguish between the coco plant and a poppy plant, how can you take his comments seriously? I'd go one further, how can you take the Met. seriously promoting such a guy and giving him such command?! I've known Brian-the-Iron since he was a PC living in Islington. I hope I'm wrong, and it's someone masquerading as Paddick, but if I'm wrong - God help society. Thank Christ I live out of the MPD.
Sorry, Son, you're wrong, and seriously ahtofawder;
1) I don't think Brian is an idiot. I am wary of him, as indeed I am wary of all OB (they belong in jackboots), but his comments on this thread seem to me to betoken an unusual level of intelligence, reasonableness and - astonishingly for senior OB - understanding of the issues facing SW2/9. And I say this as a veteran OB-hater.
2) Poppy/Coca - slip of tongue, hmm?
3) The best reason to take him seriously is that he has made a radical and positive difference to police/community relations on his patch. Alack, I no loger live in SW2 (I work in Harrow,and I'm a lousy traveller)-but most of my mates and my social life is still down there, and I think he has brought something vaguely approaching sense to the situation. AND hard drug busts are well up (and my views tend to chime with the venerable PK on this one)
4) Brian-the-Iron. My, have we got a nasty, bigoted little homophobe in our midst, mayhap? or why else would you raise the issue of his sexuality?
5) For the umpteenth thousand fucking time, YES IT'S PADDICK. THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY IS AWARE OF THIS BY NOW. I'm guessing blind here, but I would surmise that your meejah tastes err towards the redtop end of the spectrum. So read the fucking front page,dummy. Or, if you want, I will forward to you the confirmatory email I have in my personal MS-Outlook file.
6) I'd rather have Padick than the tossers we have round our way. Now they really ARE assholes.
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Streathamite

21-02-2002, 09:52

WoW; Quite, and absolutely!
You and I have smoked enough in our time (both of us being ageing hippies) to replant the Scottish Highlands, but we'd have to go a HELL of a long way further to get to that state!

Kameron

21-02-2002, 10:56

Originally posted by Clapham Omnibus
Nice idea giving Free drugs via doctors to users.
But!
Who Pays for this?
Can you imagin the Health Secretary standing up in The House and saying that NHS resources are being used for this.

Well, I personally don't believe that anything should be entirely free on the NHS for those that can afford to pay and I believe there should be serious incentives to encourage people and companies into private medicine. But that's by the by.

These drugs are today sold at a huge profit with amounts of mark up in price that most businesses can only dream of. The drugs are dirt cheep to produce and free from any patents! This means that the can be sold at a far smaller mark up by pharmacies who will make a great deal of money from the deal, some of which can be siphoned off by the govt. of the day to pay for the problems created by drugs.

So i admit there are going to be problems, people who can't you recreational drugs responsibility, who are going to harm themselves. However I believe that both the numbers and severity of the problem will decrease exponentially following a dramatic fall in price, a removal of the criminal element from the deal, and a gentle softly softly, if you will, approach to the regulation of all pharmaceuticals.

Try and read this as two separate bits and don't judge my views about drugs on the basis of my views about the health service or vice versa. Dam I really shouldn't mix my radical ideas.

Trotboy

21-02-2002, 11:01

TopCat,

I think you're getting a little confused, Ted Knight was the surcharged leader of Lambeth Council, and was not a supporter of Militant. Ted Grant was formerly involved with Militant, but left in 1991 to form another group: Socialist Appeal, which still remains in the Labour Party. Our councillors didn't agree with everything Ted Knight did, by a long chalk, but he didn't engage in the kind of swingeing cuts in services we've seen since.

No-one's saying you should 'attend one of our paper sales' I said feel free to stop by the stall and say hello if you want to know more. Which I suspect you don't.....

corporate whore

21-02-2002, 11:32

Popslut's description of her time in Brixton depressed me - I'm in agreement with hatboy on the area and its good points outweighing its bad points, but I can see how someone could feel disenfranchised and disillusioned, and having the Motherfucker Family living next door can't help any.

If you're still here, popslut, I hope you're enjoying Somerset. It's where I'm from and it's a great place to live BUT 'hard' drugs (smack, crack) are just as much of a problem in those small, peaceful towns as they are in London SW9 it's just the dealing isn't as blatant. Which brings us back to Brixton, eh?

For what it's worth, I feel it would be a fucking shame if Paddick were to be shuffled off somewhere else within the Met because of what's been going on here. He's taking positive, sensible steps in Brixton and you just know he'd be replaced by someone who thinks the sun shines out of John Stalker's arse.

:(

TopCat

21-02-2002, 11:39

A little confused? Well if you mean I find it hard/ can't be bothered to keep up with the splitting tendancies of the trot groups in the uk then your right. tad Grant was a shit though, for what he did and the discrepanceys with what he said he would do....

Trotboy

21-02-2002, 12:10

TopCat,

You're still confused. Ted KNIGHT was the leader of Lambeth Council. Ted Grant never had any position on any Council and therefore was never in a position to promise anything or deliver anything.

I say once again, Ted Knight never had anything to do with Militant. So please don't tar us with the same brush due to your own confusion.

TopCat

21-02-2002, 12:25

TrotBoy... It appears you are confused..

You said:
Ted Grant was formerly involved with Militant,

Then you said:I say once again, Ted Knight never had anything to do with Militant

How do you reconcile these two posts?

Further:Ted KNIGHT was the leader of Lambeth Council. Ted Grant never had any position on any Council and therefore was never in a position to promise anything or deliver anything

He was leader, did make promises and then shat on the people of Lambeth...

Clear your head, take a nice deep breath and try some logic ok?

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 12:26

Originally posted by Kameron

Well, I personally don't believe that anything should be entirely free on the NHS for those that can afford to pay and I believe there should be serious incentives to encourage people and companies into private medicine. But that's by the by.

These drugs are today sold at a huge profit with amounts of mark up in price that most businesses can only dream of. The drugs are dirt cheep to produce and free from any patents! This means that the can be sold at a far smaller mark up by pharmacies who will make a great deal of money from the deal, some of which can be siphoned off by the govt. of the day to pay for the problems created by drugs.

So i admit there are going to be problems, people who can't you recreational drugs responsibility, who are going to harm themselves. However I believe that both the numbers and severity of the problem will decrease exponentially following a dramatic fall in price, a removal of the criminal element from the deal, and a gentle softly softly, if you will, approach to the regulation of all pharmaceuticals.

Try and read this as two separate bits and don't judge my views about drugs on the basis of my views about the health service or vice versa. Dam I really shouldn't mix my radical ideas.

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 12:36

90 % of of the kind of the crime in your area is down to drugs, who pays for this. It is all of us through our taxs and insurance.
the real cost of street drug at source is much lower than the street price.
A 1/16 of pot costs between £5-£7.50 on the street the drug barrons pay at souce £3 a Kilo. this is almost the same with harder drugs.

TopCat

21-02-2002, 12:42

the drug barrons pay at souce £3 a Kilo.

Oh yeah?

Trotboy

21-02-2002, 13:17

TopCat,

I'll try once more, and let's see if you can understand English, OK?

TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE:

Ted GRANT

Leading theoretician of Militant, left in 1991 to form a new group: Socialist Appeal, because he and a few people around him argued that we should stay in the Labour Party (Although most of us had been expelled) Ted GRANT has never held any elected public office.

Ted KNIGHT

Labour left-winger, who was the leader of Lambeth Council until being expelled from office and surcharged in 1985. NEVER a supporter of Militant, but an associate of Ken Livingstone; the two of them lauched 'Labour Herald' a newspaper in 1981.

Has this now cleared up your confusion?

TopCat

21-02-2002, 13:27

Yes my most humble apologies for confusing the two teds.....

Chuff

21-02-2002, 14:02

Nice idea giving Free drugs via doctors to users.
But!
Who Pays for this?

As already said, We are already paying for this, Thousands of pounds detaining dope smokers every DAY, Insurance premiums etc etc.

Heroin costs what 17p a gram to produce Say every addict gets a gram a day, take off the cost of the crime commited by SOME addicts, evens out, prehaps your even in prophit.

Plus counciling, therapy treatment becomes less stigmatised, easier to administer, People are able to work and hold down jobs while on prescription..

Who looses out? Oh mobile phone companies don't sell as many phones to replace stolen ones. Police budgets are cut as crime is less of an issue, What percentage of crime is drug related again? and some very nasty criminals some in political office are forced to look elsewhere for cash.

The healthservice benifits, from the reduction of uneducated drug use, Hep, h i v, and many other drug related excasabated illnesses decline.

Prostitution dramatically reduced.

And on and on and on

Opps some powers of random search, seisure of information, and general criminalisation of sections of the population become unnecissary...I knew there was some reason why it didn't happen years ago:p

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 14:25

Originally posted by TopCat

Oh yeah?

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 14:35

Originally posted by TopCat

Oh yeah?

£3 a kilo is an approx figer given by govenment agentcies.
In moroco 5 years ago this was the price you would pay in sterling. you have got to remember the countries where the drugs are produced are third world. wages for one week are the minimum houly wage in this country. think again if you think this is bull.

johnwisehammer

21-02-2002, 14:39

Who pays for heroin/addictive drugs on the NHS in an addict treatment model?

Well, we all do, obviously - but it's a damn sight cheaper than the present system. I don't know whether you heard about it or not but a few days of a go a study was released saying that a tiny number of drug addicts were responsible for a hugely disproportionate amount of the costs of the criminal justice and health systems already - a figure of £11,000 per drug abuser was produced. I don't want to get too attached to that figure (I'm not an expert and I haven't read the report itself) but if even half of that money was spent on treatment and administration of drugs (heroin costs piss all to synthesise, so we're really talking about health professionals' labour costs) that stopped junkies/crackheads niucking stuff, we (in our taxpayer hat) would be saving money anyway.

Secondly, there's a lot of evidence/studies around which show that a quid spent on drug treatment with users up front is worth five quid spent on cleaning up the mess caused by drug addiction down the line. It's cheaper. (Can't give any references, sorry, jusrt off the top of my head).

Finally, even if the above didn't work, it would be worth it just to get the smack and crack dealers off London streets, wouldn't it? When you think about it, it's fucking outrageous that anyone should feel unsafe walking down busy and well-lit streets in London because of dealers and addicts - decent people are being put under effective curfew.

I agree with you that it would require a politician of integrity, honesty and vision to push for it - I'm not sure whether we've got any of those at the moment. :(

(NB apologies if your initial point wasn't "it wouldn't work" but was "all politicians are too cowardly to do it" - in which case, ignore all of the above - I'm agreed).

TopCat

21-02-2002, 15:01

I have been to morroco and the price per K was at least £200 and that is twenty years ago...name your source...

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 15:15

If you bye dpoe in the turist resort then you are paying the going street rate. the barrons don't bye of the street they own the fields it is produced in.

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 15:22

sorry cliffchuff i sent my reply to you mail. if you could send it to this page. i can't be arsed to write it againg. still lerning how to use this site.

TopCat

21-02-2002, 15:29

Do these Barons also own Baron John the modern mans clothes shops?

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 15:40

they prob. do. drug barons own a lot of food and gambling outlets to clean up thier money so why not.

newbie

21-02-2002, 15:41

Finally got here- why do I always break webboard registrations? Radio 4 sent me, so firstly I apologise for helping flood your discussion, _but_ I've lived in Brixton since the 70s, at this house for 15 years, and no-one has ever asked my opinion, so I guess barging in is required:)

Popslut got one side of Brixton, generally I've had the other- the shit has happened to others, that's why I'm a very respectable person these days. Hey Brian, your ploy worked, in the way that I gave up booze when I turned 18, I've (virtually) stopped smoking dope since you liberalised it around here.

The arguments in this thread are very real, very Brixton. I'm writing this to say that as respectable, responsible tax paying parent I'll be outraged if Brian is witchhunted away because he's prepared to talk. I've spent 25 years watching 'them' treat the people of this area as a disease to be controlled, so somone who'll engage in debate with anyone and everyone is to be welcomed.

While I've been reading this a fox has been wandering around. A very poorly fox with a lame leg, no fur on it's haunches and a completely bald tail. Not a pretty sight. A bit like the girls at the end of the road. They've been around for a year or two, since the cameras pushed them, and their dealers, away into the sidestreets . Brian, what are your policies doing to protect them, to make their lives safer, maybe even to rescue them from the evil scum that run them? I've seen them being hassled, bounced elsewhere, occasionally lifted, which to me looks like policing the symptoms not the cause.

Chuff

21-02-2002, 15:48

the_voice_999
Junior Member

Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 8
re: cost to us
90% by gove. figures. it doesn't cost £1000 a day more like £1'000'000 a day.
17p a gram is less than a packet of crisps.
If a user wants to buy £ 10. worth they would have to steal £50 worth of our property to make this money or mug yours or my grandmother or may not servive the attack.
also good side to giving the drugs is that there would be no pushers standind out side the school gates to push these drugs onto our children, which means the amount of users would not go up. after all there is no point in selling it cheep to get you hooked if your not going to bye from them in future.
the proof? i hear you ask. who would go out of there way to comit crime when you can get it for nothing. especailly a user.

Um, Thats sort ofwhat I was saying, Sorry if the irony missed you:p ;) Jwh....Sad but true, theres too much dirty money preventing legalisation, though you'd think the big chemical companies would be at leasta bit interested in distribution.

Danny K

21-02-2002, 18:19

Of course pharma companies want to make money from legalised drugs. They're itching for legalisation and may well be putting money into campaigns anonymously.

George Soros is the biggest single well known financer of decriminalisation and when someone like him gets behind a project its destiny is sure.

Legalisation isn't a 'what if' scenario, it's all a question of when. Global prohibition will not be in place in twenty years time and the other question is what do we do in the mean time? And it is mean...

In my opinion we work with allies in the process including the wonderful Brian Paddick and others of his ilk.

The way I see things we will see the opening of coffeeshops over the next year or so and increasing prescribing of heroin to dependent users. I agree with those who question why some should get their drugs free on the NHS. It's not an easy one though. I think that each case should be treated on its merits.

Ultimately we need to break out of the medical model of addiction and find other ways of viewing tolerance, withdrawal and dependency. It'd be interesting to see if you could get into residential rehab for tobacco addiction for instance...If anyone wants to give it a go I'd be happy to advise them. It'd really put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Next, as is happening in Switzerland and Holland, politicians are turning their attention to legalisation (control and regulation of the supply side). Switzerland may well completely legalise dope next year.

What I'd like to see is people putting some energy into campaigning for change to the drug laws in whatever ways they see fit. The tide has turned and fortress prohibition has been shown to be very vulnerable to attack.

With some effort from activists we can hasten the end of one of the stupidest and most counterproductive pieces of legislation currently in existence by years.

Legalisation would benefit the lives of millions of ordinary people from Brixton to Bogota and if anyone wants to get on the anti-prohibiton bus, there are a stack of links to various campaigns on our website.

Great debate. Keep it up.

Respect
Danny

Transform Director
www.transform-drugs.org.uk

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 19:06

thanks Danny for your comments and support, I will visit web site and check it out. I'm glad you brought up the laws in Holland.
Back in the late 70's they de-crime you use of dope.
This had an unexpected effect on the use of smack. In 1978 the average age of a smackhead was 26 years old, but only 4 years ago in 1998 the average age had gone up to the mid 40's.
the reason being it took dope out of the hands of the dealers so when the dopeheads went to buy, they no longer came into contact with the harder stuff, leading to less new users. so even if we only go half way and decrim dope it would be a start.
Bye the way if any one is woundering I'm not a dope head. I gave it up very easely, but unfortunatly I was left with a very nasty adiction to tobacco which I have not been able to kick, even after five years of trying.

Clapham Omnibus

21-02-2002, 19:11

Kameron
the_Voice_999
CliffChuff

Free Drugs to Users

I read your comment along with others with interest. I like you believe in those that can pay should. Infact this capitalist had private medical insurance.

However

I would have thought the people in real trouble with crack and other class 'A' drugs havn't got two pennies to rub together.They probably have even less in the way of a true friend. Therego they will be on the NHS. I agree with you and as discussed in the forum. That Cocao and popies are grown in S.America, The East and other countries for a pittance.
Can you imagine Tony Blair going on a trade boosting trip to these countries? Somehow I very much doubrt it. With a lot of countries seeking to destroy the crops, I doubt the rest of the world would be happy bunnies either. HMG Plc would be the biggest drugs buyer as this would have to be taken onboard nationaly. Think what that would do to demand and supply never mind the price. With every junkie and his dog wanting to claim asylum in Brtain, I doubt if Kew Gardens would be happy or able to cope with demand.

Iam afraid Kameron an the_voice_999 a pipe dream.

Looking at the news it may be that Brian Paddick will have financial matters to deal with when he gets back. With the traffic cops in Lambeth shortly due to go back to base. The way the funding is going they may find their BMW's have been sold and they have to use mountain bikes. (They probably would get round London faster anyway.)Highly and expensivly trained specialist Traffic police doing beat duties. What will we have next. The Air Training Corps,Army Cadets, Girl Guids and Boy Scouts doing 'Juvenile'? I suppose the MPA would have a role for the Brownies and Cubs as well.
Possably the safest place would be in hospital if things get as bad as last nights TV film 'Marked for Death' thats where we all end up anyway. Only if we are lucky . (At least the Health Service is getting some money. Not to detract their increased funding. As they are up shit street as well.)
How can the old bill fight crime with one hand tied behind his back. Alright they are slowly increasing numbers. The police officers in London are not even half the 49,000 the cops in New York.
Thats why I admire Paddicks comments. I think his comments should not only be taken in the context of Brixton but similar areas thought the country.
Obviously there has to be a public/police partnership to fight crime. If in Brixton and other areas heads are stuck in the sand the problem does not go away. We hav't seen what the Eastern European criminals have in store for us yet. I bet its not nice.
Keep the faith Brian

Platinum

21-02-2002, 19:18

I like your Fox analogy newbie, I saw many Foxes go down the trail of destruction. It is all well and us in our comfortable houses to pontificate about the rights and wrongs of drug law or policy. the problem is far deeper, and the solution has more to do with addressing deep ills in our community/society. This seems like a mammoth task, but each of us can make deep inroads everyday. A story was once told to me; ' A young child in a primary school was given a jigsaw of the world to complete. The teacher returned a little time later to see how the child had progressed to find the child had completed the puzzle in record time. "How did you manage to do that so quickly" asked the teacher. "Well" replied the child, "on the reverse was a picture of a man, I put the man together, and the world came together by itself.". If we can try to do one small thing a day to help each other, however small, like talking to that begger even tho' we can offer no money, then we can hope for a more cohesive society as a result. If people feel part of the collective then they are a part.

river

21-02-2002, 20:33

Originally posted by the_voice_999

[...]
Bye the way if any one is woundering I'm not a dope head. I gave it up very easely, but unfortunatly I was left with a very nasty adiction to tobacco which I have not been able to kick, even after five years of trying.
So its true, dope does lead on to something more serious

tobacco

.

johnwisehammer

21-02-2002, 21:44

"Highly and expensivly trained specialist Traffic police doing beat duties."

This is, incidentally, quite a common view within the police - the work that has the most contact with the public is the least desirable. I was a witness on an identity parade not long ago and the coppers there were telling me, "I'm so glad we got stuck with this job for a week - otherwise we'd be walking around town with high-visibility jackets!" - it was obvious this was about as important to them as cleaning the cell toilets. It's sad, really.

popslut

21-02-2002, 22:17

I can just see the red-tops and Tory "Grandees" queueing up to go purple with rage at the notion of "free drugs for welfare scroungers" whilst 85 year old Grandmother Mrs Ada Scrote waits 18 months for her hip operation.

Despite the fact that the current model of prohibition has been thoroughly discredited, and the existence of stacks of irrefutable evidence that the "war on some drugs" is totally counter-productive, the Widdecomes and the Yellands and the Hastings' of the world don't seem too easily swayed by good sense and a desire to make places like Brixton and Hulme and Easterhouse a better place to live.

And guess why...

Cos they don't bloody live there, thats why. Neither do 98% of the rest of the country.

Down here where I live, drug-related crime and all the associated misery are virtually invisible. Thats not to say it doesn't go on, but not in anything like the kind of concentration and with anything like the visibility of the less well-off, densely populated areas of the country. My neighbours are entirely indifferent to the plight of a few thousand crack-heads and smack-heads and the tactics of the dealers and everything that goes with it - because they don't have to deal with it.

If you're waiting for them to start caring - don't hold your breath. Stick 3p on a gallon of unleaded tho' and watch them turn out to man the barricades and wave the placards!

These are people who can find no compassion for people who have fled their countries for fear of being murdered - don't assume for a minute that they are ever going to give a toss about Mary and Bill Skaghead - let alone countenance letting any of their sacred tax money go towards paying for their stash!!

:rolleyes:

Once you make the front bench of any of the political parties, you are probably able to buy a nice house somewhere agreeable in Surrey or Hertfordshire, and have a nice smart man in a Daimler pick you up for work in the morning. You can probably command a reasonable fee as a non-executive director of some company or other, and its probably quite comfortable.

How many of them do you imagine are about to jeapoardise that by trying to sell Mrs and Mr RedTopReader the concept of "your taxes to pay for free drugs for layabouts"?

I should bloody cocoa...

Newspapers only print what they think their target audience want to hear, and what their advertisers want to be associated with.

Politicians only tend to act upon what the newspapers and focus groups tell them is popular, or will make them popular.

The Police are empowered only to act upon laws created and ratified by politicians.

Ulk!

I don't believe for a second that Anne Widdecome is motivated by a desire for social justice.
Nothing will convince me that Max Hastings is more interested in the plight of the marginalised inhabitants of some inner city borough than the opportunity to print another article about Liz Hurley.

Liz shifts 'news'papers - junkies do not.

So - who [ apart from Brian Paddick] is going to stick their neck out?

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 22:24

I think it'a about time for the highly respected Brien Paddock (for speaking his own mind not that of the less Respected Tony and sidekick/sleeping partner Alister) came back and told us his opinion on the debate so far.

I'm sure where ever he is on holiday he has been keeping an eye on the debate.

Trotboy

21-02-2002, 22:32

Popslut,

Sorry, but I find your last post a typical piece of Liberal, hand-wringing drivel.

Firstly, lets scotch the notion once and for all that the westcountry is full of straw-chewing reactionaries who are all racist bigots and hate anything and everything. We have a Socialist Party Branch in DORCHESTER for chrissakes! I myself am from Tiverton in Devon, originally.

It's true that the countryside has its own unique pressures, that its still largely in the grip of the green welly landowning brigade, who incidentally do NOT read red-tops! That's an ECONOMIC grip, in their enslavement of the agricultural working class and their ownership of the land. Consequently they tend to have a political monopoly as well.

There is just as much anger at the system in the countryside, and if you think the movement against price increases in fuel was reactionary, THINK AGAIN! It was our comrades manning pickets of refineries in Scotland, the North East, North West and Wales alongside the farmers and hauliers.

There are just as many reactionaries in Lambeth as there are in Devon, reactionaries are everywhere, they are just better hidden in the City, their circles are so far removed from ours. In the countryside, they rule the roost, and strut about. Here in the City they are content to exist within the confines of their class.

OPEN YOUR EYES, and try to live outside your cosy liberal middle class world a little, you might learn something!

Platinum

21-02-2002, 22:46

Trotboy, leave middleclass liberals alone. I'm Liberal by choice, and middle class by default. My comfortable upbringing makes me symphatetic to those who may not have had the leg up I recieved, and its my Liberalism that has lead me to investigate other politics than my own. I own no means of production, and exploit no worker. (Other than the workers I exploit by partaking in Capital)

the_voice_999

21-02-2002, 23:23

There are a lot of us out here who do care, nearly 40% of us did not vote in the last Election because we now who ever we vote for don't give a toss about our views.
Bye the way I come from a small town where we are seeing the same things starting to happen, maybe not on the same scale as the inner cities but the cities have had 30 years head start.
But some of the larger town are catching up fast.

I used to live in Bognor Regis (W.Sussex) a nice small holiday town or so it would seem. But drug related crime is growing faster than appathy for politics and they have also had several shootings over the last cupple of years. This may seem small to Brixton but when you take the 50'000 population into the frame compaired to Brixtons very large population (I don't know that figure) I think the smaller towns are not to far behind.

Also as you say with the eastern block barrons coming in, the market is moving into the suberbs. I have never had to live in Brixton but I have friends who do, so I have always felt quite stong about this issue. I can't be the only one.

So the more of us that talk, the more people will listen.

Maybe Transform should start a politcal wing, we could all vote for them, better than wasting a vote.

popslut

21-02-2002, 23:39

Originally posted by Trotboy
Popslut,

Sorry, but I find your last post a typical piece of Liberal, hand-wringing drivel.

Sorry - I'll try to type slower so you can keep up.

[i]Firstly, lets scotch the notion once and for all that the westcountry is full of straw-chewing reactionaries who are all racist bigots and hate anything and everything.

Fantastic leap of reason there Trotboy, but I'm afraid you appear to have attached a slant to my post that wasn't there when it left my modem. My point had nothing to do with the West Country - it just happens to be where I live. I was more alluding to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the British Isles who live in cosy, well lit, comparitively affluent little towns where the problems of burgling crack-heads and drug barons seem a million miles away. Having lived in a quiet Surrey village for the first 18 yrs of my life, some of the less affluent areas of London [Dalston, Hackney, Brixton..] for the next 12 years and Somerset for the last 4, I reckon I have a fair basis for a comparison. The majority of the people of Godalming [in my experience] are less concerned with the plight of the inner cities than the people of Sandringham Road E8. Guess why...

Moreover, its the cosy suburban Mondeo Man who swings elections - follow me?

We have a Socialist Party Branch in DORCHESTER for chrissakes! I myself am from Tiverton in Devon, originally.

How foolish of me to doubt your credentials!! :rolleyes:

There is just as much anger at the system in the countryside, and if you think the movement against price increases in fuel was reactionary, THINK AGAIN! It was our comrades manning pickets of refineries in Scotland, the North East, North West and Wales alongside the farmers and hauliers.

I fucking bet it was. And did you notice how public opinion was firmly on the side of the fuel protests until Mondeo Man realised all the garages were shut and he couldn't get any unleaded for his lawnmower? Self-interest ruled the day Trotboy. Those noble farmers and hauliers are the same people who profited from shipping live calves around Europe in disgusting conditions. I bet your "comrades" were out in force then too.

There are just as many reactionaries in Lambeth as there are in Devon, reactionaries are everywhere, they are just better hidden in the City

Not entirely sure how YOU define "reactionary" - not a word I tend to find a use for.

their circles are so far removed from ours.

Oh - how cosy. Which "circles" would these be? I would hazard a guess that you and me move in entirely different circles Trotboy.

In the countryside, they rule the roost, and strut about. Here in the City they are content to exist within the confines of their class.

"Oh there you go Dennis - bringing class into it again." Sorry - couldn't resist the Monty Python quote.

"Class" only exists if you want it to Trotboy. Not keen on the concept myself - feels a little - umm... feudal. Not that I would attempt to deny you the freedom to belong to any class you see fit - whatever helps you to feel like you occupy the moral high-ground i suppose.

OPEN YOUR EYES, and try to live outside your cosy liberal middle class world a little, you might learn something!

I suppose you've earned the right to be patronising - you've probably had a hard day going round painting big 'A's on walls in white paint. "Smash the System" :rolleyes:

I'm sorry I don't share your text book sixth-form Socialist views Trotboy - wouldn't this all be so much easier if everyone adhered to the new orthodoxy of Left-wing slogans and Socialist posturing?

I'm afraid the lo-res spatial metaphors of "Left good/Right bad" mean very little to me - I tend to form my opinions as I go.

Describing me as a "Liberal" probably helps you to compartmentalise me and saves you the bother of actually working out what I'm trying to say - although by my interpretation of the word liberal - [note:small 'L'] i can only take it as a compliment. I've been called far worse.

sonicdancer

21-02-2002, 23:43

Rowland any post here that any senior copper should read which backs Brian for posting here its probably yours. However you are by admission a surbanite and I doubt from your post get get exposed to the desperate chaotic drug users that feed the crack dealers in inner cities. Corporate whore however rightly pointed out there is smack addiction in all parts of the country., <so don’t get to comfortable> It wouldn’t be a free for all ,

I wouldn't be happy with completely open access to powerful, addictive, and potentially very dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine (in any form)

yeh scary thought isnt it ??!! BUT prescribed hard drugs to registered addicts is what is the majority vote here. It is only one method of attack as others have pointed out (adam) the global <poppies for rice> picture having to be the other issue addressed.

But... While I'm with you entirely on ethnic and I do think that `ethnic minority' does tend to have that `cultural superiority' angle to it - is it *that* bad a thing to think that we live in a reasonably superior culture? For all the problems of these septic isles, they're pretty civilised: I think that means we've got a pretty good culture, and why *not* be honest and admit that means it's a superior one? No, I don't say that this culture is the One True Perfect Culture or that we can't benefit from outside influences (I happen to hold the view that British culture is as good as it is *because* of all the outside influences, immigration, and suchlike) or that other cultures might not be better in some ways: just that here&now, we've got a pretty decent place to live in, all things considered.

Agree our culture is better for the outside influences that we have allowed in our history but we don’t have anything to be superior about that is a tired argument – watch moronic English hooligans abroad who still hav’nt really understood for the ugly face value of this * culture * And as popslut has pointed out just try selling that to johnny foreigner. Pretty decent place to live, I really think not, damn right dangerous and inhospitable yes.

Clapham_omnibus said

Nice idea giving Free drugs via doctors to users. But! Who Pays for this? can you imagine home sec saying he want dosh for this ??

Actually I can imagine that – i have a belief that an arrangement between the rest of the world and the 3rd world countries who produce the drugs that benefits everyone and does not lead to one side capitalising over another could be the way ahead>> ??? Cliffchuff and others we are already paying, hadn’t realised that !! but it makes sense.

Futuristic visionary unworkable but then we are already paying so the leak is plugged??? , but an avenue to be explored none the less. Its easy to be sceptical about what will happen because we are conditioned by our history, which has led us to this world of fear that we live in – look forward -- think out of the box.

Danny K 20 years ?? yeh reckon so. Still my life time anyway :)

Can you imagine Tony Blair going on a trade boosting trip to these countries? Somehow I very much doubrt it. With a lot of countries seeking to destroy the crops, I doubt the rest of the world would be happy bunnies either. HMG Plc would be the biggest drugs buyer as this would have to be taken onboard nationaly. Think what that would do to demand and supply never mind the price. With every junkie and his dog wanting to claim asylum in Brtain, I doubt if Kew Gardens would be happy or able to cope with demand.

Governments would be the BIGGEST but also the only buyers on the planet the rest being prescibed / controlled. I don’t see the smack head emigration to Britain a realisation or achieveable move whatsoever. Not if everything is in sync.

I admire Brian Paddick for this <it gives me hope for the future> and his open sexuality in a homophobic society and even more homophobic profession and hope he can cope with it all when he returns.

Popslut don’t hold your breath…it could be quite a while before he posts here again but post he will there is no doubt.
;)

edited because I quoted myself !!!

Clapham Omnibus

22-02-2002, 00:19

Honest Politician

Johnwisehemmer.

Sadly to say you probably are right. I for one don't believe in such a fantastic mythical being as an honest politician. Just the same as I don't believe in the tooth fairy.
Perhaps we could get Popslut to have a word with the farmers and scientists in werzel land to grow a GM model.
If she got six or seven hundered of them and sent them to London we would't know what to do with them.I for one would think the beast was an alien. I suppose we could send them down Coldharbour Lane to meet the Russian Mafia when they arrive. Such freaks would stop the Russians in their tracks as they would think that they had landed on a different planet.
Seriously though I think Ken Livingstone should be given more power to sort London out. I think he has been cured of the dreaded Red Ken disease that was going about in the 1980's. For instance take total control of the Met and the Underground. Not that we would have flshing blue lights coming out of the tunnel ont the Victoria line. An integrated and coherent policy for London is what I want anyway. Then we could start to get somewhere. At the moment too much energy is expent on political pulling and pushing. No wonder Coppers like The Commander speaks out. When are we going to see people in the Health Service and Fire Brigade 'comming out'. I am sure they have views as well.

editor

22-02-2002, 00:48

think it's about time for the highly respected Brien Paddock came back and told us his opinion on the debate so far. Why on earth should he? He stated that he was going away on holiday weeks ago, and he's as much right to enjoy a work-free break as anyone else.

johnwisehammer

22-02-2002, 01:25

"If you're waiting for them to start caring - don't hold your breath."

But of course, you have to pitch it to (mythical middle England's) self-interest - it's not "give me money so I can send junkies on aromatherapy courses and Caribbean cruises", it's "let me spend money on drugs doctors so I can halve government spending on crime and give you big fat tax cuts, with the added bonus that you won't trip over so many crackheads next time you go to the opera".

I don't know whether you've come across John Farrell's book Things can only get better but one of the things he says in it is that Labour's criticisms of privatisation in the 1980s totally failed to grab the public's attention because they were too abstract - what they should have said (he writes) is simply say to everyone, "Privatisation is going to be bloody expensive, so if you vote for us, we'll save you enough money for a big telly and VCR".

I agree that trying to convince the Daily Mail and its readership that drugs laws ought to be reformed because they're oppressive to black and poor people is hard - much easier would be to pitch it as "drugs laws should be reformed because they're costing us wodges of money in tax that we could be spending on nice cardigans".

popslut

22-02-2002, 01:46

johnwisehammer;

Absolutely bang on mate.

"let me spend money on drugs doctors so I can halve government spending on crime and give you big fat tax cuts, with the added bonus that you won't trip over so many crackheads next time you go to the opera"

Totally effective, and given the added credibility of Trotboy and his SWP mates all shouting "Sellout!!", guaranteed to succeed.

"Privatisation is going to be bloody expensive, so if you vote for us, we'll save you enough money for a big telly and VCR".

You know - when i read that, i actually found myself sitting thinking "Hmmm - big telly - VCR - nice..."

People - unite behind us - we shall prevail - we shall march on and conquer - and this shall be our slogan;

"Drugs laws should be reformed because they're costing us wodges of money in tax that we could be spending on nice cardigans"

johnwisehammer

22-02-2002, 01:57

Sorry, I've got no clue as to whether you're being sarcastic or not there. Could you be a bit more obvious? I'm not being precious - just confused.

popslut

22-02-2002, 02:03

johnwisehammer;

No - really - yours was one of the more intelligent posts I've read during my time on this thread.

The last few years has really proved - its not what you do its how you present it that counts.

I'm searching for that John Farrell book as we speak.

:)

popslut

22-02-2002, 02:13

johnwisehammer;

Oh, and re: London, Summer, '92

Fucking magic mate - moved into my first squat in Holloway Road with 2 weed dealers and a DJ - it was a magical year let me tell you!!

Wireman

22-02-2002, 04:11

It's John O'Farrell. And it's the best critique of New Labour I've ever read.

Dean Becker

22-02-2002, 05:15

I live in Houston, Texas, the gulag city of the gulag state of the gulag country, the US.

I admire what the commander has done here and those posters to this forum who have joined in his call for major drug reform and restoration of dignity to so many peoples lives.

Certainly prohibition has never done anything but harm society and any improvement, let alone the extraordinarily logical and enlightened ideas shared by Brian seem as if a gift from above.

I created a series of chats and forums that run in the US. One is on the NY Times Drug Policy Forum http://www.nytimes.com and the other is at Drugsense http://www.drugsense.org/chat. We feature online Q&A sessions with governors, Nobel prize winners, Judges, doctors and many others. Reform is such a hard sell in the US. Transcripts of each visit is stored on site for easy access.

I would like to join in your conversations here, and perhaps send a few more over from the US to discuss ways we can work together to bring about productive, appropriate changes to this insane, seemingly eternal war on drugs.

In the way we, (the US) helped destroy the Reich in WWII, today we need your help to tear the "moral high ground" from the grasp of the maniacal despots like Bush, Ashcroft, Barr and Souder.. and too many others.

The schedule is not too full at the moment, but you can see the next few guest appearances at: www.cultural-baggage.com/schedule.htm

Too bad I did not find this place sooner. Just yesterday, we had your MEP Chris Davies as a guest.

Please keep up the good work and of course when Brian gets back I will want to invite him to guest with us on Drugsense and the NYT.

Till later.

Rowland.

22-02-2002, 06:02

Popslut: you've responded to my comments about cultural superiority in an unfortunate way. I *did* do what you suggest: `ruminate upon the concept of "cultural superiority" and its repercussions with regard to recent World history.' - *before* I posted. Would it help if I mentioned that my dad's best friend (now dead) did a runner to Britain from Hitler in 1936 and was then deported - an exiled German Jew, no less - to Australia as an enemy alien? I've been thinking about this sort of thing for decades because it's very close to home.

You say:

A. I think you may have misinterpreted my meaning with regard to the whiff of cultural superiority inherent in the phrase "ethnic minority" - think about it.

Well, I did think about it before posting and, well, what *do* you mean? If you think I've misunderstood, could you explain a bit?

But stop and think a minute. If you look abroad at `Johnny Foreigner' as you suggest. No, don't do that: look at the *cultures*. I'm not talking about *people*, I'm talking about *cultures* - the social frameworks created by people which structure society and within which we live. Look at the structures - such as they are - now in place in Zimbabwe. Look at what Rwandan culture lead to in the very recent past. Look at the filthy mess in the Balkans - driven by very sick cultures.

Do you seriously think that it's reasonable to say that (say) Serbian culture is as civilized as British culture?

You also say:

B. Are you seriously labouring under the misapprehension that you are somehow part of a 'superior culture'?!?! Why not pop overseas and do some work educating Johnny Foriegner in the error of his savage ways? I'm sure they'll thank you for it.

It's not a misapprehension: British culture is clearly far superior to most others. Look at what we've got here: a reasonably civilized country in which most people can sleep in their beds at night without fear of attack, arbitrary arrest, dispossession, and all the other things -cause by sick cultures - which are endemic in much of the rest of the world. That is the *only* thing I mean. Britain is uncommonly civilized for all its many faults which we could spend days listing.

(Yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of problems here and there in Britain, not least the uncounted poor sods without a bed at all)

Don't you think it'd be good if some aspects of British culture could be exported? The absence of attempted genocide is one aspect of British culture I'd like to see in all the rest of the world - or do you think that's unacceptable cultural imperialism? I don't - it's not something exclusively British, and it is something which all cultures would benefit from.

I don't mean that British food, music, literature, etc., is obvoiusly superior to all others (it's not - that's a lunatic assertion): just that, the way things are now, Britain is one of the most civilised countries on the planet. Yes, there are more civilized countries and *YES* we've got big problems here - but compare Britain to the rest of the world.

As for your parting comment:

`"(I happen to hold the view that British culture is as good as it is *because* of all the outside influences, immigration, and suchlike)"

Yes - they all have natural rhythm don't they. Marvellous colourful culture. And aren't the children sweet?

Gah!!'

I'm 100% pure English (that is, born and bred in England - no, it's not something I'm proud of, it's just an accident of birth and upbringing). None of my grandparents were English. Think about that before you make remarks like that to *anyone* again. *MY* recent ancestors are some of the outside influences I was talking about.

(I occasionally get worked up about things, and this is one such thing. Why? In part because I grew up with the evil of racism in the 1970s around me - skinheads at school openly going off `Paki bashing' and suchlike. Black kids at *infants'* school coming in for shit because of the colour of their skin - that blew my mind when I was 5 years old. All this dehumanising shit which I've been passionately opposed to since - partly because, as my dad's Jewish friend found out the hard way, if that sort of thing gets out of hand, you end up with industrial scale murder and precious little help from anyone. And even when it's not that bad, it's still awful. And whatever *you* might think of me, I've got it right. Just one example: I used to be a teacher (no longer: I got mentally ill and haven't recovered yet). I was surprised one day to have some of my Asian-origin students ask me if such-and-such a teacher was racist. I was surprised and gratified - clearly, I had done my job properly. No, I'm no campaigner: I'm just trying to do the right thing myself. Rant over.)

We're living in a mongrel nation which has had immigrants pouring in from all over for time out of mind. The way I look at it is this is good: the more outside influences, the better - that's *it*. Influences to disturb the rut societies tend to get in if they don't have those outside influences. `Natural rhythm? Colourful culture?' What? I've no idea what you're referring to.

*I* was thinking of, well, ill-defined effects in part: when you've got lots of outside influences, you've got a broader base of ideas to draw on. That broader idea base can help with *everything*. And I do mean *everything*: farming, industry, commerce, social life (I suppose that's where `natural rhythm' comes in), art, the *lot*.

We're all of us enriched by this sort of thing, aren't we?

How can this be anything but a cause for rejoicing? And how can you possibly think there's anything bad about saying it's a Good Thing? Or do you think that the fact that Britain really is multicultural is a Bad Thing? - of course you don't, but one might get that idea from your words.

I wasn't really thinking of anything specific, but we're all enriched by the multiculturalism of this country. Do you dispute this idea? If so, *why*? Isn't it better to rejoice in multiculturalism than to be a `little Englander' wishing to `preserve the ``purity'' of English culture'? Of course it is - you know that, don't you? And that's what I'm trying to do. Please don't mistake me for some patronising Colonel Blimp.

Rowland.

Clapham Omnibus

22-02-2002, 08:25

Comming out

In using the term it was not a swipe at gays but a two edged term. Mr Paddick is well known within the force.
My terminology was referring to the fact that he spoke out about what is happening to policing in London. I think other members of the Emergency and Health Service's should equally speak out and be heard.
Perhaps they in the Big House in Whitehall might listen for once.:p

Rowland.

22-02-2002, 09:44

Tourn: thanks for the links.

sonicdancer:

`Rowland any post here that any senior copper should read which backs Brian for posting here its probably yours.'

Thank you :-)

sonicdancer:
`However you are by admission a surbanite and I doubt from your post get get exposed to the desperate chaotic drug users that feed the crack dealers in inner cities.'

Not these days, I don't. However, while I was brought up in Harrow and now live in a suburban part of Merseyside, I *have* lived in rough bits of Manchester. Crack didn't seem to be much of an issue back then (late 80s-early 90s), but I've seen an armed car chase with real shooting, lived with a rock band in the flat above me, dogshit and piss in the stairwells, permanently broken lifts, had a mate mugged on his way home, and so on. No big deal, but I've lived it.

sonicdancer:
`Corporate whore however rightly pointed out there is smack addiction in all parts of the country., <so don’t get to comfortable> It wouldn’t be a free for all , '

(I've only ever come across heroin addiction in suburban London myself)

I doubt that it would - but the question to my mind is this `How *exactly* would the supply of currently illegal recreational drugs be handled?' - I'm all in favour of legalizing some recreational drugs (all? I wouldn't suggest that unless I had detailed information about them all), but once you've done that, what do you do next? It's easy to imagine a disasterous free-for-all, so what *exactly* are we going to do? I don't have any answers, so I'm asking questions.

sonicdancer:

`quote from Rowland:
``I wouldn't be happy with completely open access to powerful, addictive, and potentially very dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine (in any form)''

yeh scary thought isnt it ??!! BUT prescribed hard drugs to registered addicts is what is the majority vote here. It is only one method of attack as others have pointed out (adam) the global <poppies for rice> picture having to be the other issue addressed.'

Sure - I think that's a good idea too, but when I said `completely open access', I was thinking about having the stuff on sale like Cadburys' Creme Eggs. I'm wondering what controls would be appropriate on which drugs - I don't think I'd raise many hackles by suggesting that it'd make sense to have cannabis under fewer constraints than heroin, for example.

Just one thing: I'm a looney (well, not really: I suffer from clinical depression and anxiety) and I've been sent to see several different psychiatrists. The one decent consultant shrink I've met was one of the few in the country happy to prescribe heroin to addicts.

sonicdancer:

` ``quote from Rowland:
But... While I'm with you entirely on ethnic and I do think that `ethnic minority' does tend to have that `cultural superiority' angle to it - is it *that* bad a thing to think that we live in a reasonably superior culture? For all the problems of these septic isles, they're pretty civilised:
[snip]''

Agree our culture is better for the outside influences that we have allowed in our history'

<wicked grin> *Allowed*? You think the Celts, Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, and so on turned up with invitations?

sonicdancer:
`but we don’t have anything to be superior about that is a tired argument – watch moronic English hooligans abroad who still hav’nt really understood for the ugly face value of this * culture *'

Oh, I know about the downsides of British culture, but - well, why not look at the bad bits *AND* the good bits? And then compare here to elsewhere? Do you recall, as I do, boarding houses with signs up saying `No blacks and Irish'? They're gone - but go to Germany *now* and you can see exactly the same sort of thing if you look: signs up in similar places saying `No foreigners' which usually just means `No Turks'. We've got racism in Britain all right, but it's a lot less bad than a lot of other places. A lot worse than a few, mind; but I reckon better than average.

If you take any odious aspect of British culture, I can point to somewhere else in the world where there's something similar but much worse. I think I recall hearing about some minor attacks on synagogues a year or so ago in England, and haven't there been a few fire bomb attacks on mosques? Not good, but a damned sight better than the official Indian government action of completely destroying the main Sikh temple - the Golden Temple at Amritsar.

`And as popslut has pointed out just try selling that to johnny foreigner.'

Well, I'll stick my neck out a bit: our culture *has* been sold to `Johnny Foreigner' who rather likes it in many cases - why else do people keep wanting to emigrate to these septic isles? No, I don't think that our culture is the only one with any worth and I *like* the idea of different parts of the world being different (I certainly wouldn't want to see British culture everywhere - but even in the old days of empire, that was never the idea, was it? The British Empire never did anything similar to what China has done to Tibet, did it? Yes, the British Empire did modify the cultures it ran, but do you see anything wrong with making female circumcision illegal in the Sudan? Or banning suttee and thugee in India?), but our culture does seem to have an attraction for lots of people and I don't subscribe to the ridiculous tabloid line that it's because `they're' coming over here to scrounge on the dole.

Umm... Rather than bang on too much on this subject here, how about reading what Billy Bragg has to say on this sort of thing? His view is similar to mine in some ways:

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/interviews/story.jsp?story=120023

sonicdancer:
`Pretty decent place to live, I really think not, damn right dangerous and inhospitable yes.'

Hmm... Okay, some examples. This country is far safer to live in than Russia or China. Unlike Russia, Britain's not in the grip of organized crime (nor do we have endemic anti-semitism) and does have something approximating a working economy, despite the best efforts of our government. Unlike China, Britain operates under a rule of law - that's a *very* good thing in my book.

Britain is also a lot more hospitable to foreigners than, say, France: how are North Africans treated over there? And look at how Turks are treated in Germany. The legacy of slavery is still strong in the USA. But which was the first major developed nation in the world to ban the slave trade and then slavery? Britain, which abolished it from the entire British Empire - but it's back again in India.

Britain has no death penalty either - a big feather in our cap in my book.

We've got police who more-or-less stick to the rule of law most of the time (yes, we've all got tales we could tell), and that law really is mostly pretty okay - unlike, say, that in Turkey where those opposed to the government are regularly locked up and tortured (with British torture equipment - sickening, isn't it?).

Yes, there's room for improvement - but I still say that despite the recent upsurge in racial violence Britain's pretty decent. For every member of the BNF, there's a thousand like you and me who just don't give a shit about the colour of someone's skin and speak out against bigotry.

Put it another way: would you rather live in Britain or Pakistan? We've got the NHS, a welfare state, our country is stinking rich, we've got a not too distant approximation to democratic government rather than a military dictatorship, and don't have a big dangerous country with nukes apparently run by fascist bully-boys next door - and if you think Thatcher was bad, what about when India had a BJP-led government not so many years ago? Anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh bigotry was open government policy then. For sure these septic isles reek of all sorts of badness, but look at the rest of the world if you will. For all the defects of this country, it compares very well to the rest of the world if you actually look at the details.

sonicdancer:

'Clapham_omnibus said

''quote:
Nice idea giving Free drugs via doctors to users. But! Who Pays for this? can you imagine home sec saying he want dosh for this ??''

Actually I can imagine that – i have a belief that an arrangement between the rest of the world and the 3rd world countries who produce the drugs'

Last thing I heard, the largest producer of opium poppies for legitimate herion production was Tasmania. I can't help feeling that legalizing heroin wouldn't change this much.

sonicdancer:
`that benefits everyone and does not lead to one side capitalising over another could be the way ahead'

<insert cynicism> In *this* world? I can't see it. The drug firms will get involved straight away, and they're hard-nosed capitalists interested in making as much money as possible.

Rowland.