Thursday, April 03, 2008
More Chaos at the Home Office
Now, let's see if I have got this straight. The government wants to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days because they say the Police want it (which they don't). Yet the government refuses to reclassify cannabis to class B saying the Police don't want it (which they do). Spot the inconsistency. Or perhaps it should be spot the consistency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Well said Mrs Dale.
Nothing more to add.
No, you haven't. the BBC reports: ' . . BBC News has been told that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs believes that cannabis should remain in the lowest category, Class C. But the prime minister's spokesman said such reports were premature. He said the PM stood by earlier remarks about the need to signal that cannabis use was illegal and unacceptable . . ' So it is the government's advisors, who are retained to look at the evidence pro and con before they decide, who have recommended the non-reclassification, NOT the Government itself.
I've never understood the near obsession with extending the detention times.
The police don't want it, say that they've never needed anything even up to the current limit, so why does this gov't keep on trying to increase it ? Makes no sense.
There is undoubtedly chaos at the Home Office, but its the dichotomy between the govt and its appointed advisors.
The police want pot reclasified,
Brrroooon says he wants it reclasified but the govts own advisors say no and (apparantley also say it does not cause psychiatric problems - amazing).
the words "rod back making own for" spring to mind
I think you're a little out of touch with policemen Iain. Most want to legalise cannabis so that people don't have to go to dealers for it and therefore won't get pulled into harder drugs, plus they don't want to waste their time policing a drug which is less dangerous than alcohol.
Trevor, he's the Prime Minister for Christ's sake. Do you think Maggie or Blair would have let some Guardian reading committee dictate to them?
A marvellous quote from our esteemed Home Secretary on Andrew Marr program, after telling us 6 times that "senior police officers" told her they need 42 days (ie a 14 day extension) she was then confronted with the recent early release of convicted terrorists, her riposte "well that was ONLY 18 days early". D'oh!
Advisers advise. Ministers decide. That's how it should be. Especially as at least 50% of the advice you receive is wrong.
Travis Bickle said...
She was then confronted with the recent early release of convicted terrorists, her riposte "well that was ONLY 18 days early". D'oh!
One had been sentenced to 3.5 years and was released 18 days early. Not much of a reduction, bearing in mind he would be kept under close supervision on release.
The other had been sentenced to 6 months for possessing an explosives manual. I have got one somewhere.
"The government wants to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days because they say the Police want it (which they don't)."
From The Times October 2007:
"This month Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said that a detention period of 50 to 90 days would be “sensible” if there were judicial oversight."
Doesn't sound like the government are refusing to reclassify cannabis to class B
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown was set for a showdown over cannabis after his drugs advisory board was reported on Thursday to have voted against his desire to tighten the law against it.
The BBC said the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) had concluded that cannabis should remain on the lowest "C" classification of restricted drugs.
Brown announced in July that the government was considering whether to return the drug to a class B substance, after concerns about the potential mental health effects of stronger kinds of cannabis such as "skunk".
This is sloppy seconds Iain. If the police don't want longer detention they've changed their tune. But what is your source? If the police do want reclassification of cannabis they have also changed their view. What is your source?
I'm agin the 42 days, but in favour of letting dope stay as is.
Some chief police officers appear to want cannabis reclassified so it's easier for them to get their brownie points, without having to get down and dirty dealing with real criminals.
The evidence quite clearly shows that usage has GONE DOWN since the last reclassification to class C. What do you think will happen when it's reclassified as class B?? It's reasonable to assume that usage will go back up again.
If you accept that smoking cannabis is a bad thing (which personally I do not, but obviously you do) - then you should accept that it's current legal status is causing less people to smoke it and I would think that you would think that would be a good thing.
The govts INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC advisers have advised GB to leave it alone, but his moral compass (which has obviously been affected at some point by a strong magnet) will force him to re-classify, I bet you £10!
Do me a favour, have a word with David Cameron and tell him he's a t*t, leave cannabis and it's users alone. We've had enough of authoritarian b@$tards running this country, telling us what to do all the bloody time.
Do you really want to criminalise 10% of the population for doing something pretty much harmless? (Well that's arguable, but it's /certainly/ less harmfull than alcohol or tobacco).
Holy smoke, I agree with Chris Paul again, that's twice now!! ;)
Zorro.
Post a Comment