Let’s do drugs

Drug policy in the UK has been fairly consistent over the last 30 plus years. It is essentially one of opposing the legalisation of practically all the drugs of abuse.

To briefly summarise the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act:

Class refers to severity of punishment for possession

Class A: Heroin, Cocaine (including Crack), Ecstasy, LSD
Class B: Amphetamines
Class C: Cannabis, Tranquilisers

The only recent change has been to reclassify cannabis from B to C, though this may be reversed.
Although drug prevention measures such as Just Say No are less favoured and a strategy of education about effects and harm reduction is now in vogue few seem to be prepared to advocate decriminalisation of drugs apart from people like the North Wales Chief constable Richard Brunstrom. He drew a storm of criticism though with his apparent love of publicity and recent problems with insensitive use of images of accident victims to bolster his views on road safety, Brumstrom is not in a good position to start a rational debate; and as such the messenger may have been as much the problem as the message.

Certainly his comments about aspirin being more dangerous than ecstasy are patent nonsense for a variety of reasons including the fact that most people do not take aspirin in overdose and in appropriate dose it is quite safe; also of course the bottle of aspirin in my house has a dose (300mg) which is in contrast to ecstasy tablets which clearly do not have stated doses. In addition there has been evidence suggesting the danger of long term neuropsychological damage from ecstasy.

The argument that cannabis is not very toxic is also very dubious with data suggesting a danger of schizophrenia and depression.

Cocaine is associated with heart attacks and strokes.

Heroin is obviously well known to cause death centrally due to stopping breathing. Most dangerously the tolerance to the pleasurable effects increases over time but not the resistance to the effects on breathing. As such the safety zone between euphoria and death gradually narrows. In addition due to varying purity the next does could easily be fatal.

My personal view (and not because of my religious beliefs) is that the current policy though highly imperfect is better than the alternatives. I am unconvinced that the Dutch model can be applied to the UK (or Ireland) and it seems that the Netherlands may be rowing back on its policy which is not as liberal as it is often perceived to be. I do feel, however, that these are issues, which should be openly debated, as simply ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

  • Mark McGregor

    Let us know when the links work.

  • Turgon

    Mark,
    Apologies to all fixed now.

  • Bemused

    Why the state insists on interfering in what I decide to do to my own body is absolutely and utterly beyond me. It’s up there with the continued British occupation of the North in the irrationality stakes. Abandonment of either absurdity would save the British exchequer Billions if not Trillions of pounds.

  • DC

    In many ways the legislation matches the dangers.

    Thankfully, but with every drug there is a risk and the legislation does support that risk but in contrast people do take drugs regardless because the State is not a community organisation in this respect anyway.

    I recall when Jonny Adair got out of prison the street value of Es across Northern Ireland plummeted. In this sense the paramilitaries or criminal gangs were working hand in hand with public demand to get the supply right and for next to nothing.

    The same way ‘good-coke’ is in the west of the City, wonder why?

    The notion of pushers is very dated in terms of wider demand at least re recreational drugs; the world is not black and white as the Christian politicians would make us believe it should be, even if the ethics are sound the fundamental realities are out of kilter with that very stable environment.

    Ultimately the gateway drug is alcohol, give me a bottle of vodka after suffering a very bad life situation and well I bet me along like many others may well be looking an ’emotional’ out or break; even if not drink opens up the way to partying and clubs and brings down inhibitions.

    People laid down their lives for freedom many times throughout field of battle in Europe, we thank them for that freedom so we can party and enjoy ourselves, knowing the risks at hand too.

    Education is the best way, pushing up starting age of taking a first drug and thus making sure the ending of the drug taking remains shortened or shorter.

    Reducing the risk by shortening the period of drug taking is key through campaings and counter-peer leadership. In the end community organisation can help this too and get people out of any ingrained habits which are becoming all drugs and no life balance.

    At least for those non-addictive recreational drugs, like Ecstasy

    As for heroin, totally different, there is this natural drug ‘Ibogaine’ which is known to kill addiction acting as a ‘reset’ and can stop the urge for very prolonged periods. Well worth a look in.

  • DC

    Must hasten to add, to those who believe in prohibition then I would fall into line if this is the case with alcohol where it all starts.

    Many of the arguments with that can likely be transferred to the those other drugs and such takers.

    For example maybe heroin should be available on the NHS to problem users who are looking a manageable life in terms of being able to return to work and obtaining a potential way out from the drug via stepped reduction.

    The Government should look at such measures via research and if Criminal Justice stats drop/improve because of it.

    Alternatively, the economy is key in that higher wages and educational attainments would reduce the decisions whether there is a need to sell and even take certains drugs, ah ya could go on and on.

    Look what you’ve made me think about Turgon!

  • wild turkey

    DC

    Ibogaine? WTF? Seriously?

    Haven’t heard mention of that in 30 years!

    According to world renowned pharmacologist and field researcher Dr Hunter Thompson, Ibogaine was responsible for the meltdown of the Muskey 1972 presidential campaign.

    It also ranks right up there with adrenochrome as the drug of choice for the criminally insane.

  • kensei

    View it as an economic problem for a second. Stopping demand is almost impossible, because the drugs are often extremely addictive. Stopping supply has been demonstrated to be impossible, because the price is so high that it is always worthwhile to take the risks. Cutting off imported drugs simply increases domestic supply and vice versa. Even if you manage to significantly disrupt supply, the only result is an increase in the street price.

    What is the result? We are passing billions and billions of pounds to scumbags. We artificially inflate the price which causes crime when crack heads and heroin fiends need a hit and do anything to get it. We have had tough drug laws both here and in the US since the early 80’s. Has their been a significant decrease in drug use? Has there been significant increase in difficultly in getting hold of what ever illict substance you like? Have any less lives been ruined by drugs? No, no and no.

    I do not believe drugs should be legalised so they can be pushed and advertised. But I think they should be cheaply available on the NHS. Street price effectively zero. Make sure every time they buy they are offered a way out. People can manage to have functional addiction to an extent (and don’t kid yourself, there a lot of functional alcoholics floating about). The glamour and danger is removed. Legislate where appropriate for associated crimes e.g. driving under the influence, giving it to kids, etc.

    Typically objections are

    1. You are facilitating people hurting themselves.

    They can and do worse by going into a chemist and buying any number of substances, for example glue and aerosols. If people are determined they will

    2. Cost

    Cheaper the huge the amount resources going into treating this as crime

    3. Lives will be ruined by easy access

    Look around. Lives are being ruined now. In the worst case, you can always go back to prohibition.

    The only thing that seems clear to me is that current policy has failed, and failed totally.

  • BfB

    WT

    I have recently reread Hunters’ book on the ’72 election. The stuff of legend. Ibogaine, indeed!

  • DC

    It always came across as being a bit rich of the State to say ‘ah-ha look at you caught with drugs – 2yrs’ yet the State as well has really failed too in protecting the market from drug infiltration via supply-side. To pick off the visible ticks from a larger body is not going to win much confidence nor improvements.

    Yet many conservative politicians think that by being able to sound hard on the matter means that the realities some how reduce the more times they speak hard and loud on the subject. Not so.

    To arrest one person and let the other chain of command remain seems a little incompetent and heavily weighted in a way that lets such circulation continue without protecting access. I.e. a little bit pointless.

    Face value and lip service, it’s not fair to blame the police and I suppose many politicians either but the facts remain that, as you say Kensei, existing policy is underperforming when increases in usage and supply-side is recorded. Especially cocaine use becoming wider, is that due to more wealth, more circles of friends with even more circles of other friends all moving to get the drug, greatly outperforming the anti-drug services, etc?

    Who knows, but hearts and minds are not won over through legislation which may go to show that politicians on this issue are seen as being a cut-above ‘joe public’ or perhaps generally trusting politicians on lifestyle matters is something no one entertains.

  • DC

    Ibogaine has been documented recently regarding supervised treamtment of heroin addicts, many of whom have praised it, especially over methadone and the problems with that.

    Much of the problem with it is research and funding such research and production because it cannot be reproduced in the labs or copied synthetically. So no cash no real interest.

    I haven’t read that book you refer to so don’t know what you are trying to imply.

    It is stated that Ibogaine is not a recreational ‘trip’ because its effects are morally challenging and not really enjoyable nor pleasurable, but still very profound to the taker.

    Failing that get Heroin on the NHS drop methadone if stats back it up as bringing in benefits to the health and criminal justice sectors.

  • DC
  • heck

    Bemused

    i have to agree with you. The solution to the drug problem is to legalize, tax and regulate it. There may be a state interest to keeping drugs away from minors but what gives the state the right to tell an adult what he can and cannot put in his body?

    What is the difference between going to a party on a saturday night and smoking a joint and going to the pub on friday night and getting drunk? Yet the state makes one illegal and the other the norm.

  • Bob

    A very interesting piece, and perhaps this subject of drug legalisation is not without some tentative political support here in Northern Ireland. I remember reading this piece from the Young Unionists: http://www.youngunionists.org.uk/2007/08/tarred-and-feathered.php
    regarding the drug dealer who was tarred and feathered in the Taughmonagh estate a few months ago, and the piece does appear to be more than a little pro-drug, indeed to quote it “In many ways drug dealers are just like prostitutes and investment bankers – all simply providing a good or service at an extremely over-inflated price.” It would appear that the young unionists would favour a liberalisation on this issue.

  • DC

    Yea right.

  • Bob

    DC,

    I wouldn’t mock the idea, sure most of the Young Unionists are drug users themselves from what I understand…… well, you’d have to be high to be in the UUP!

  • DC

    And your point being?

  • Siphonophore

    The Netherlands is rolling back its liberal drug policies solely because of pressure from other EU governments.

    In the 90s Switzerland carried out a study where they selected a group of long term heroin users. This group was given access to unlimited amounts of heroin on the condition that they went to the doctor’s office and were injected by the doctor enrolled in the study. The theory was that junkies spend their entire time trying to get money for drugs and operate under the belief that if they could only get enough drugs then life would be ok, as their lives were constantly a struggle to find enough drugs and failing. The study provided enough drugs to test this belief. Within several months to a year the vast majority of the participants realised that even with enough drugs life still sucked and they opted to enter rehab voluntarily. Five years on either 60% or 75% (my memory fails me) were clean and sober which is unheard of in rehab. It was hands down the most effective drug rehab program ever.

    Just like prohibition under the Falstaff act in 1920s USA the modern day drug prohibition funnels billions of dollars, pounds and euros into the hands of criminal organisations that have no compunction in murdering each other and the bystanders that get in their way. It swells the prisons (50% of prisoners in USA are there for non-violent drug offenses). The money the gangs have allow them to purchase, and need, ever greater firepower which make life even more difficult and deadly for the police. This environment results in the increased usage of SWAT teams and no-knock warrants which result in the unintended deaths of innocents when police make mistakes. The amount of money flowing corrupts police forces, the judiciary and politics. Nixon initiated the drug war in 1972 and 35 years on drugs are cheaper, purer and more easily available and the number of addicts has remained static. Prohibition does not eradicate drugs and the costs to society are staggering. It is time to abandon this failed policy, decriminalise and treat the problem as a disease not a crime – the criminalisation approach has failed.

  • Reader

    heck: There may be a state interest to keeping drugs away from minors but what gives the state the right to tell an adult what he can and cannot put in his body?
    Either legalisation or prescription has one big risk – when the adult market for illegal drugs fades away, won’t the pushers just shift their efforts to selling to children?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Just like prohibition under the Falstaff act in 1920s USA

    I’m wondering how you got “Falstaff” from “Volstead”.

    Reader:

    Either legalisation or prescription has one big risk – when the adult market for illegal drugs fades away, won’t the pushers just shift their efforts to selling to children?

    It didn’t take long for someone to use the “think of the children!” argument. The drug pushers are already targetting children. There is very little that can be done to protect them, and there’s no evidence that prohibition actually helps.

  • cormac

    Reader – what pushers? Seriously, I’ve used all sorts of drugs and have never had any ‘pushed’ on me. It’s a poor dealer that has to resort to pushing.

    Dealers supply a demand that will always be there. May as well legalize and regulate an industry that isn’t going anywhere.

    Politicians sometimes get a little full of themselves and think that all they need to do is pass legislation and peoples’ behaviour will automatically change. But this isn’t the plastic bag tax we’re talking about here – most people who know anything about drugs don’t really see a problem with occasional use of e, mushrooms or pot.

    When people talk of a drugs problem they are really talking about a heroin problem, a substance that most sensible people avoid.

    Back to your point, though, Reader – legalization and regulation makes it a little more likely that children will be kept away from drugs. I bought my first hash at 13, and nobody asked me for ID.

  • Reader

    Comrade Stalin: It didn’t take long for someone to use the “think of the children!” argument.
    So why shouldn’t it have been you instead? Though your namesake seems to have missed a few unintended consequences too. I am generally in favour of spectacular liberalisation of the situation, so I am not looking for an excuse.
    But if/when liberalisation occurs, the income stream of many thousands of selfish and ruthless people dries up. Where they target children now, it’s to build up their client base, to get real money from them as adult addicts. When children are their only clients, what will they do? Do you really think it won’t get worse, as pushers try to get their victims to start earlier, and to start paying real money earlier, before they disappear off the market at 18?
    I can’t see an answer to that problem. For me, though I am instinctively liberal on this issue, it’s a deal-breaker.

  • turgon

    Like all those who support prohibition you claim legalization or even the Dutch method would not work in the UK and Ireland, but give no reasons why, beyond I presume it is obvious or your own ignorance. Well to me it is not obvious, if you cannot give us a reason why it will not work, with respect you should keep your thoughts to yourself as you are making a bad situation worse.

    Prohibition of narcotics has been disastrous throughout the world, just look at Afghanistan today where british troops are attacking farmers with 21st century weaponry for growing what they and their forbears have done for centuries, and the numbers of harmless souls in US/UK jails for drug offenses

    Why was the policeman incorrect, he was simply pointing out more people die from an aspirin overdoes than ecstasy

  • andy

    Some good points being made here.

    Drug prohibition has probably been the single most disastrous social policy adopted in the western world. It never works – but virtually all the politicians lack the balls to say so!
    Not overly surprising as when someone does state the obvious they get lynched by the gutter (and not so gutter) press.

    Adults should be allowed to do what they want to their own bodies.

  • andy

    Reader
    No offence – but if you were that liberal you’d view the whole prohibition thing as a deal breaker not some extremely hypothertical problem which may occur in the future.

    If drugs were legalised the vast, vast bulk of the illegal drug market would disappear. The market provided by children would be miniscule. I find it hard to believe they would be able to fund the size of criminal empire which corrupts policeman and cusatoms officers, pays for cargo tankers, supports networks of suppliers/ informants etc. I dont think so. Furthermore I dont think it is a market capable of much development- how much money can a child get hold of compared to an adult?

    Also can we please stop with this ridiculous term “pusher”. I’m afraid it smacks of real ignorance. I dont know how many drug dealers you actually know, but the dozens that I have met were more concerned with coping with the massive demand from their clients rather than “pushing” or promoting their wares to people who initially werent interested.

    Truly addictive drugs only make up a small part of the spectrum of now illegal drugs.

  • kensei

    Reader

    Kids don’t get cigarettes from cigarette pushers. they don’t get alcohol from sinister alcohol pusher types. They get them from the same place everyone else does, by a variety of methods. If drug laws are legalised, then they will get the drugs in the same way. Not from pushers.

  • eranu

    people who’ve never taken recreational drugs tend to miss the point.
    imagine if strawberry ice cream was illegal. people would be saying that it was bad because it hurts your teeth and you’ll end up going to the dentist to get fillings. but people who actually tried it would say that its really nice and enjoyable to eat and if its done in moderation you’ll be ok.
    thats what its like with drugs. those who have tried them have experienced an entire other half of life that vastly out weighs the bad effects, and experienced the capabilities of the mind that would otherwise be missed. on an old fashioned pair of scales you would have an elephant representing the good effects and a grain of salt the bad.
    those who havent tried them, but are anti recreational drugs, are just afraid of what they dont know or understand.

    its a pity that ecstasy has declined so much in quality, its miles better than coke. Es of the early 90s cost £20 and had about 100mg of MDMA. the feeling produced was accurately described by the name ecstasy. sometimes your lower jaw and lower lip would tremble as a result of this amazing good feeling flowing from the very core of your body and tingling over your skin. nothing is even close to the feeling of mdma. its also very sociable as you lose inhibitions and become friendly and chatty.
    imagine people from the shankil and falls mixing together, often on first name terms. thats how it was in the early rave and club scene, because of the ‘loved up’ effect of E. Orbital even called one of their tracks ‘Belfast’ when they came here and discovered the positive sectarian free atmosphere in our clubs.

    if it was legalised and quality controlled you would see a vast reduction in weekend fights and A&E;drunks. it would reduce the cost for the health service and also be a good tax income for government. people would happily pay £20 for 100mg of MDMA. personally id pay £100 ! tablets sold these days for £2 are just full of junk chemicals and produce no feeling whatsoever. quality nose dived around 1999 or so.

    MDMA has been used to treat depression. its also an appetite suppressor. anyone who was into the rave scene in the early 90s will laugh when they remember trying to eat mums sunday dinner 🙂
    forget the slim fast plan. MDMA will have the weight falling off you!

    you can buy ‘legal high’ pills on the web that give a bit of a buzz. you can also buy legal herbs that have strong psychedelic effects. its only in the 20th century that hysterical pc society has banned some drugs. its just fear of the unknown.

    the biggest problem with drugs at the minute is quality. i think thats why you get alot of overdose deaths. you cant really get to that ‘high’ with todays low quality drugs, so people take more and more and get into difficulties.

  • Mayoman

    Some of the points on here echo my own. In essence, the biggest friends the dealers have are the politicians. It is the politicians that create and maintain the market thorugh prohibition laws. The dealers must love those politicians so much. The politicians who seriously address decriminilisation are the ones who will end up on the big boy’s hit list!

  • patrique

    The only reason cannabis is illegal is because the large pharmaceutical companies would lose millions if it wasn’t. If people could have cannabis, they would not be taking those habit forming dangerous drugs, such as valium and tamazzapan and mogadon.

    And the pharmaceutical companies are well placed on those boards of industrialists who run the world.

    When it was downgraded scientists employed by the companies came out with all sorts of nonsense. These are the same scientists who told us smoking was harmless, when they were employed by the tobacco companies.

    Also, legalising cannabis would remove drug dealers from the streets, and cut out 95% of inner city crime, and would curtail funds to terrorists/freedom fighters.

    However, the government wouldn’t be able to blame all societies ills, crime, unemployment, sickness, house prices and all the rest on drugs. They just might have to blame an unequal society. Couldn’t have that, could we?

  • Mayoman

    Patrique, as someone who has worked extensively in that industry, I can confidently say some of your comments are pure school yard level rubbish. So now every scientist that has ever worked in a pharmaceutical lab has concluded smoking wasn;t dangerous?

  • patrique

    Schoolboys are not as gullible as you. If the firm pays the scientist he/she will report what they want to hear. It has been happening for ages, and is perfectly logical.

    However some people are that daft they believe politicians, even qualified accountants and former finance ministers who didn’t know that “gifts” were subject to state tax.

  • Reader

    Andy: No offence – but if you were that liberal you’d view the whole prohibition thing as a deal breaker not some extremely hypothertical problem which may occur in the future.
    I described myself as instinctively liberal – not as an ideological liberal. So utilitarian or pragmatic might be a better description.
    Andy: Also can we please stop with this ridiculous term “pusher”.
    I have been offerend the chance to buy illegal drugs, but I have never sought them out. The people who approached me were pushers.
    Andy: how much money can a child get hold of compared to an adult?
    Everything they can steal from their parents, plus everything they can steal from their neighbours. Addict/thieves tend to be desperate multiple offenders, not master criminals. I don’t think youth is really an obstacle to that MO, especially in the mid-late teens.

  • eranu

    pusher really is an inappropriate word for dealers. someone must have coined it years ago for a newspaper article to conjure up an image of a boggeyman or something.
    if someone asking you if you “want any smoke?” is a pusher, then someone asking you in the street if you “want any Christmas wrapping paper?” must also be a ‘pusher’ ??

    fact is, people want drugs because they like them. thats all. any time ive been offered drugs and i didnt want them, i just say no and thats that.

  • Mayoman

    Patrique, AGAIN, so EVERY scientist that has EVER worked in pharm lab says smoking isn’t dangerous? You’re right, I’ve overstimated you in comparing you to a schoolboy!

  • andy

    Reader
    I appreciate you coming back to me. I take your point on being offered them (presumably in a club, dodgy parts of a major city) but I would argue they are a fairly low proportion of dealers. Anyway, I imagine you said no and they made no sale – demonstrating pro-active retail of narcs aint neccessarily a lucrative activity.

    Regarding the children issue, I think it was William Boroughs who outlined how bad kids would be as customers. No proper income stream of their own (how long could they steal things from their parents?) and even more unreliable than adults in terms of breaking down under interrogation, getting caught etc.

  • oh yeah22222

    mayoman, just because telegraph poles come from family trees in mayo, that dosent give you the right to bully patrice . you shouldnt treat girls like that. its bullying and not nice

  • patrique

    I never said EVERY or EVER, just as well one of us can read.

    Not EVERY scientist works for tobacco or pharmaceutical companies.

    School children question, many adults do not.

  • Siphonophore

    Comrade Stalin,

    I’m wondering how you got “Falstaff” from “Volstead”.

    Oof, brain fart, must have been channeling Shakespeare or something. Thanks for the catch

  • Damian O’Loan

    A note on the Afghan opium situation.

    To attempt to defeat the Taliban, the British government (among others) armed and funded rival warlords. The Taliban, despite their intrinsic wrongs, had almost decimated poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The country now provides, without exaggerating, virtually all the heroin in the world. Aside from your position on invading Afghanistan, this is a spectacular failure that is costing lives every single day. And not just in Afghanistan, obviously, though that problem isn’t enough to raise an eyelid in certain quarters.

    Foreign policy often has tragic domestic conclusions, and this is one failure Government has taken no responsibility for.

  • Mayoman

    Didn’t think I was bullying (know much about geneaology in Mayo, oh yeah? Even at telegraph poles, its a step above the sawdust in your head ;)). Just trying to point out the idiocy of believing there is one big group of people called ‘scientists’ who rule the world and switch every now and again between medical research and tobacco cos!

  • kMac

    “It is time to abandon this failed policy, decriminalise and treat the problem as a disease not a crime – the criminalisation approach has failed”

    Personally i would rather be described as a criminal
    than someone who is “diseased” just for enjoying the odd toke. Under current law most people i know are “criminals”, and have been all of their adult lives.

  • joeCanuck

    I’m not a user (over 20 years since I last had a drag on someone’s toke) but I’m up there with those that say it should all be decriminalized. Every society has always had some sort of relaxation “drug”.
    The “war” has been a spectacular failure and all measures of productivity etc keep rising.
    Time to end the nonsense.

  • patrique

    As an honorary Mayo citizen, famous in the greater Louisburgh district, I am a bit embarrassed.

    Read my post. I didn’t say scientists ruled the world, don’t be daft, how much wealth do they create? The groups that run the world consist of the OWNERS of multi-nationals, including pharmaceutical firms, media, and all the rest. Like the Bilderburg group, who pick and chose presidents and prime ministers, like Clinton, Thatcher and Bush.

    They even make films about this sort of thing nowadays, like the one with Russell Crowe, or the Julia Roberts, Albert Finney one.

    Are you going to deny that for years scientists employed by tobacco companies said smoking was harmless, and they are still doing it in the Far East, the new market.

    I bet you thought motor racing and snooker were going to the far east because it was popular, and not because you can advertise cigarettes in that part of the world.

    I need a joint to calm down.Must get down to Doolough and get some stuff.

  • BfB

    I’m wondering how you got “Falstaff” from “Volstead”.

    http://tinyurl.com/294zr7

    Dreadful stuff.

  • Patrique

    Cannabis is now more evil than the Nazis and smoking the drug is worse for the brain than watching Richard Madeley on television, new research suggests.

    Cannabis is now worse even than Richard and Judy
    During the Sixties smoking dope was hardly evil at all, and the drug was more playful and slightly naughty, but in a nice way, a bit like Kenneth Williams.

    In the Seventies and Eighties marijuana briefly became totally harmless and could be smoked by future Cabinet ministers up to the rank of Home Secretary without any effect on their brains whatsoever.

    However, a massive increase in the strength of the drug since politicians all stopped using it has now made it more nasty and brutish than the combined evil of the Third Reich.

    Professor Tom Booker, head of drug research at Glasgow’s Clyde University and the man who conducted the latest lengthy study into the drug, said: “Yeah, whatever.”

    A spokesman for the University said: “The Nazi’s were very bad people but even they could not make a middle class white boy adopt dreadlocks for a hairstyle, or make a highly intelligent middle aged man crawl around the floor of his laboratory in his underpants weeping with laughter about nothing at all, and then eat his own weight in marshmallows.”

    Following the promotion of cannabis to the top spot in the evilness rankings the top ten most evil things in the world are:

    1. (-) Cannabis
    2. (2) Tobacco
    3. (4) Debt consolidation ads featuring Carol Vorderman
    = 5. (1) Richard and Judy
    = 5. (3) The Nazis
    6. (-) Heathrow Airport
    7. (5) Prince Phillip
    8. (7) Joseph Stalin
    9. (-) Noel Edmonds
    10. (10) The Devil and all his minions

  • Patrique

    Wonderful, although by placing that dirty donkey nazi Prince Philip so far down the list you may well be getting a letter from Michael Mansfield QC, as you are clearly in the pay of the dark forces that surround the British royal family.

  • PaddyReilly

    Also, legalising cannabis would remove drug dealers from the streets, and cut out 95% of inner city crime, and would curtail funds to terrorists/freedom fighters.

    Patrique, I cannot believe this. You think inner city crime is committed to finance cannabis habits? Actually, most of the bag snatchers etc in Bow Street Magistrates Court test positive for opiates. Which cannabis ain’t. To cut out inner city crime, you need to go back to registered Heroin users.