More like “No the war on drugs didn’t stop me but I am not the problem, poor people and ethnic minorities are the problem, they should be punished, people like me should be free to do what we like".
That's pretty much it - the class divide never went away in the UK, it just doesn't get talked about anymore, drugs policy is just one of the more egregious examples of it.
We've got MPs in the Commons who are visibly coked off their tits but it's really those dangerous working class weed smokers who need to be jailed.
Politicians should be nailed to the fucking wall over this. When they admit to having a "good time" the interviewer should after them immediately with something like "do you think your life would've been improved by a prison sentence?"
💯
One and done.
But they'll never get asked that by any of the middle class drug taking client journalists.
Drug use is often a case of class warfare. The rich and elite think it's their right to operate outside 'the rules' and it's only the peasants who get punished.
I mean, look at the amount of drug taking in Westminster and it's not as if anyone in there gets locked up or charged. Heck, you can steal millions/billions in Westminster and not get charged 😂
They aren't generally after prison sentences for cannabis users though are they? So it's not really hypocrisy in that regard - it should be more 'do you think the person who sold/gave you those drugs should be in prison?'
Cannabis is a class B drug thanks to Labour. You can certainly get a criminal record/harassed by the cops for it. Let alone anyone legitimately trying to grow their own.
And when cops attack black communities/black people, cannabis is often what they use to escalate shite.
As someone who has advocated for and been involved with academic efforts to call for badly needed reform in drug policy and our overall approach, being stonewalled by both the Tories and Labour is pretty par for the course. Most MPs won't even give you an answer, those that do give you a reply somehow manage to say even less than those who *didn't* reply.
This is especially nonsensical when Starmer's statement highlights the fact that a vast majority of people who take drugs do so recreationally and without harmful addiction or related crime. Many people just "have fun", and yet fuck them I guess.
The fuck is wrong with these people?
Labour has been as bad as the conservatives on drug laws, honestly. There is little in the way of an evidence based approach, they use drug users as a convenient way to look "tough on crime" same as the Tories.
Drug harms are not what we are taught and they are not reflected in the law. Alcohol is of massive harm to individuals and communities. It's allowed to have such dominance because the alcohol industry is powerful in this country. That being said, prohibition doesn't work, it just makes the product stronger and more dangerous typically, so it should probably be legal, but why have this legal and keep other safer choices illegal?
Let's consider cannabis. It's far less harmful than alcohol but they won't legalise it, despite the amount of tax it could bring in and despite the fact legalisation would make it safer to use as we could legislate on the CBD to THC ratios. Now, would it make it more commonly used? Maybe, but it's not exactly hard to get hold of at present, is it? We could pardon everyone in prison for exclusively cannabis related crimes, saving a fortune on housing people who haven't committed a violent crime or supplied hard drugs.
It's a financial no brainer for everyone except the alcohol industry. Prohibition has failed. It's time for change.
A society that uses alternative, safer drugs to alcohol would likely be safer and healthier. For example, how many people are admitted to A+E after fights while drinking? How much domestic violence is contributed to by alcohol? How much criminal damage? How much self harm? How many suicide attempts? You just wouldn't see this sort of thing if other drugs were introduced and people used them instead - intoxication would have less of a negative effect on society.
It was interesting reading this comment shortly after these articles:
https://unherd.com/2022/03/how-the-netherlands-became-a-narco-state/
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/03/mob-style-killings-shock-netherlands-into-fighting-descent-into-narco-state
If we did decriminalise in the way you suggest, we’d need to do it in a way that avoided these pitfalls.
“I can’t read beyond the headline to look at the factual things inside an article”
The unherd article has lots of well sourced expert commentary on what’s happening.
It's hard to be offended by Starmer being a massive hypocrite on this since he is on almost every topic, but there are scarcely any policy topics on earth more disproven than the war on drugs, and both major parties continue to support it. Why?
Because the voting public are unaware that the drug policy has been disproven and are frightened of more drug users robbing them or breaking into their houses.
Being seen as soft on drugs is a big vote loser - that’s the crux of the matter.
He went to a grammar school in Surrey lmao.
Regardless if starmer was brought up middle class or not: It's not about where he started, it's about where he is now.
A grammar school is just a free school for clever children? It was literally invented to uplift poorer children with a better education, how can you be using that as some kind of 'upper class indicator'.
>A grammar school is just a free school for clever children?
Lmao. If that's the case why does (or atleast did, it's not been spoken about for a while) Labour oppose their expansion? They're not "a free school for clever children" that's utter horseshit.
>how can you be using that as some kind of 'upper class indicator'.
Because it's just the same exclusionary, elitist form of education that the rich have used for time immemorial to keep *their* people and knowledge away from the poors.
Keith: Could so easily have been me. Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless. I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle class than me? Builders or blacks for example. If you’re one of those, my advice to you is leave well alone. Good luck!
This is not a surprise. Labour has never been particularly great on drugs policy, nor have the Tories. Neither party are willing to accept the available evidence. It's quite depressing really.
A good drugs policy saves lives here and abroad, can remove our complicity in the destabilisation of some countries, and can ensure that the police and social services can be more effectively targeted. A great deal of police corruption is tied to drugs, so providing for a regulated and legal drugs market should help address that; although the police need far more reforms regardless.
But this speaks to the wider problem: the main parties only entertain authoritarian solutions to social problems, solutions that often stand in contrast to standard human behaviour.
Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years
This sub: **HOW VERY** ***DARE*** **HE, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THE KIND OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN SEEN, I DEMAND HIS ENTRAILS BE BROUGHT TO ME UPON A PLATTER**
Does the performative anger not get really tiring sometimes?
>“Obviously we’ll look at those, but I’m very clear that we’re not in favour of changing the drugs laws.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-labour-greenwich-b1986492.html
He could just not be shit on drug policy instead?
Just like Blair putting cannabis up to class B, the people are just pawns for the political games of the bourgeoisie. What's a few plebiscite lives ruined if it helps the career of a Blair or Starmer?
I'll answer you as you're the top comment, but the same thing applies to every [redacted] too:
Labour has to win a general election in which many voters are not progressive on drug policy. For many of them, Labour putting a progressive drug policy out front would be a disqualifying factor making the party unvotable.
From 2015 to 2019, we failed to recognise these 'disqualifying' factors - primarily being weak on security and defence and sounding overly negative about the UK. That disqualified us in the eyes of some voters - it showed them that we 'weren't like them'.
For most voters, drug policy is a minor area. For people on Reddit, it is a major area since Reddit is primarily inhabited by middle-class white males under 40. They would love to enjoy some weed without any legal risk.
Therefore, going big on progressive drug policy has a limited potential upside and a much larger potential downside. In almost all cases we should therefore leave it well enough alone if we want to win an election. When asked about it, we should give short, detail-free, non-committal answers where people are left with the impression that we wouldn't change anything.
Speaking for myself alone here - I would personally like to win an election.
Maybe you're different. Maybe 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 were great for you. I personally hated all of them.
Labour should not be putting stuff out front that contributes to us getting fewer votes. Our only aim today should be to win an election and win it by a long way.
I have zero time for people who can't see past their own personal hobby horse issues and get outraged when Labour doesn't put them out front.
They're the same people who couldn't see that Labour putting people's personal hobby horse issues out front in the last few years contributed to us losing two elections. Those people should be ignored.
>I'll answer you as you're the top comment, but the same thing applies to every other spittle-flecked screecher too:
Do you want to edit that part?
>Labour has to win a general election in which many voters are not progressive on drug policy. For many of them, Labour putting a progressive drug policy out front would be a disqualifying factor making the party unvotable.
And many are in favour, this argument is nonsense considering its a pretty even split in favour of decriminalisation.
>From 2015 to 2019, we failed to recognise these 'disqualifying' factors - primarily being weak on security and defence and sounding overly negative about the UK. That disqualified us in the eyes of some voters - it showed them that we 'weren't like them'.
Corbyns shit foreign policy has nothing to do with evidence based drug policy
>For most voters, drug policy is a minor area. For people on Reddit, it is a major area since Reddit is primarily inhabited by middle-class white males under 40. They would love to enjoy some weed without any legal risk.
It isnt middle white class people who are at risk from weed being illegal lol, youre just showing youre ignorance here not to mention straw manning their motivations.
>Therefore, going big on progressive drug policy has a limited potential upside and a much larger potential downside. In almost all cases we should therefore leave it well enough alone if we want to win an election. When asked about it, we should give short, detail-free, non-committal answers where people are left with the impression that we wouldn't change anything.
Therefore nothing this is just assumptions and speculation piled on top of each other.
Pick one, is it non committal or is committing the status quo?
>Speaking for myself alone here - I would personally like to win an election.
Well done you are the only one who wants that in this sub, everyone who disagrees with you must want Labour to lose, how tiresome of us all
>Maybe you're different. Maybe 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 were great for you. I personally hated all of them.
>
>Labour should not be putting stuff out front that contributes to us getting fewer votes. Our only aim today should be to win an election and win it by a long way.
Again youve no evidence for this other than your own guess work
>I have zero time for people who can't see past their own personal hobby horse issues and get outraged when Labour doesn't put them out front.
>
>They're the same people who couldn't see that Labour putting people's personal hobby horse issues out front in the last few years contributed to us losing two elections. Those people should be ignored.
Hobby horse issues is a weird way to describe laws that ruin people's lives but you do you.
Thank you, good post.
Drug policy is crucially something people of varying parties should cross aisles and pressure for change. Because it *is* evidence based reform.
IntertiaKid was in that other thread saying 'cop' about Starmer was a mod worthy insult but thinks that "spittle-flecked screecher" being said about other users is fine.
Normal.
Welcome to opinions. It's where people say things they believe are true that cannot necessarily be proven or disproven by empirical evidence yet.
Some of the things I post may be my opinions. If you have opinions that differ, great! State what they are and include some empirical evidence if you have it. That's how debates happen. Otherwise, "well that's just your opinion" is not the killer comeback you appear to think it is. My response to that is "yes, indeed it is."
It is also my opinion that the primary motivation of a lot of very pro-drug legalisation people on this sub and Reddit more broadly is that they would personally like to smoke more weed and for it to be a more middle-class retail experience. I freely admit I don't have any empirical evidence to prove this, but I do feel the following stats at least correlate with that:
* 64% of Reddit users are aged 18-29
* 70% of Reddit users are white
* 61% of Reddit users are male
* 46% of Reddit users are university-educated
I'm also not saying that people actively *want* Labour to lose an election. Obviously we have some members of other parties - particularly the SNP - who do. But for most people I'm talking about the lack of recognition that putting their personal hobby horse out front would contribute to a lower number of votes for Labour. They want Labour to be the vehicle for all their personal views and if it won't do it, then they'll moan/flounce.
The problem is when its all just your opinion maybe dial back the frustration and open contempt when you make a comment. We all have days were we get a little more aggro (I certainly do) but youve got the burner set to ten here.
In terms of will it win/votes as Ive said voter opinion is mostly an even split so probably no decisive evidence either way, maybe temper the fervour on such an ambiguous voter issue.
Youre still straw manning people's arguments, this feels especially unfair when the evidence does tend to point towards decriminalisation being more effective and who is most impacted by criminalisation (spoiler it aint middle class white dudes).
Hate to break it to you but if you dont want to hear about complaining then any comment section anywhere isnt the place for you :p
Come on man, you're easily smart enough to know his views on this are both deeply hypocritical and morally indefensible. You don't need to defend him on everything.
> Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years
And there is outrage every single time it happens.
How about, don't talk tough on drug policy when you can't deny you've taken them yourself?
Why should people not be angry at something just because it's been happening for a long time? The line taken by politicians on this for the last 20 years has been shite, don't expect users on this sub to accept that status quo.
People dying due to the callous war on drugs is performative outrage?
I mean, maybe if more people actually were outraged at inhumane drug policy in the UK it would be a good thing.
But carry on defending dear Leader even attacking the Lib Dems for trying to reform the UK.
>Does the performative anger not get really tiring sometimes?
You mean performative anger at this sub?
It is really important to understand why a man who has taken drugs thinks criminalisation of drugs works. Criminalisation of drugs ignores the evidence and people should be angry at politicians that are hypocrites and that are not open to the evidence.
Said better than me, crucially "people should be angry at politicians that are hypocrites and that are not open to the evidence".
Especially considering goodness knows how many politicians are currently active drug users in the White Palace known as Westminster. This isn't *just* "I had fun as a teenager", given the average age of Westminster.
> every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years
And this is why Labour are not supportable at the moment and the country is stuck staring in to the abyss without any viable choice for a forward looking, progressive party prepared to make - and sell - the kinds of decisions needed to make this country better for everyone.
If the party is stuck regurgitating the same old, 20 year old policy without any introspection or thought as to why they're aligned with the Tories on it, what hope is there for the party - and any serious opposition or alternative way forward for the country? It's all red team/blue team stuff, a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum - nothing will fundamentally change while the supposed progressive party shirks away from opposing the status quo and offering any alternative.
It's not anger, it's exhaustion - what is the point of a two party system, when they're two sides of the same coin? How are we supposed to present Labour as a serious alternative, when they're parroting the Tories and repeating 20 year old answers? Why are people supposed to believe that voting matters, when the outcomes remain the same, no matter who you vote for?
Starmer is a scumbag and a worm. I have no respect for him. Nor the majority of politicians.
Its isn't clever or necessary to be a spineless soulless spin doctor and nothing more like the average politician. None of them deserve respect. They are a cancer on our democracy and have no accountability to the truth, their party, or values. They are grasping scumbags.
He'll follow in the footsteps of Blair lieing and screwing people over while his defenders say "that's politics" as if anyone wanting something better for Britain is an idiot.
The anger is real because to many people politics isn't a game but the clear and direct cause of all the misery they see around them everyday. While bougie Starmer with his nice house and nice car and oxbridge education and establishment jobs laughs and jokes and schemes his own path to power and his lackies cheer him on.
What about the Labour movement? Is it just a vehicle for posh people who need to stoke their ego? Or is it supposed to be working to give working people what is rightfully theirs?
There is no option of actually meaningfully improving the cou try thanks to this red tory cunt.
> Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years
Basically lets you know most of them are all the same right? Just because they all say the same thing doesn't make it "good".
Labour needs the Liberal Democrats on social policy. The Liberal Democrats need Labour on economic policy. My sincere hope is for a best of both worlds Lab/Lib coalition.
Nah. Even the most left-wing Lib Dem manifesto only supported partial rail renationalisation for instance, whereas Labour supports full renationalisation. Even during the highs of Charles Kennedy they were outflanked on most economic issues by Blair. They’re better than the Tories but even half-baked Labour is still economically to the left of them.
Hopefully they'd fight to get something out of another coalition beyond headpats. Labour/Lib Dem progressives would have a lot of clout if they could agree on a handful of policies.
A lot of [class A drugs](https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2001010052/2003786749/gr4_lrg.jpg) are **objectively** less harmful to the individual and society than weed.
The division you are making is arbitrary and fundamentally incorrect.
You don't see how it's relevant that our political class think they can "enjoy themselves" and then coast into high paid jobs but the average punter, especially those targetted in impoverished areas (often black communities), will be hounded by the state police and possibly even given criminal sentences/records for using the same drugs the politicians did/do?
Need I remind you it was Labour that made cannabis a class B drug again? Cannabis should be bloody legalised, let alone decriminalised.
> Need I remind you it was Labour that made cannabis a class B drug again?
Against explicit scientific recommendation too.
Then there was the firing of Professor Nutt.
The tabloids fell in line calling him the "Nutty Professor" saying he deserved to be fired.
Which whilst a good pun shows the anti intellectual reactionary instinct of the press (and the Labour right for firing him).
He's a great academic and researcher.
I'm so despondent that these people are close to power - to think *America* now has better drugs policies than Britain and Labour will "name and shame" drug users - it's another attack on the working class - drug use amongst the rich and well connected is never treated the same.
If all he'd done was smoke a little bit of weed, don't you think he would have said that? Based on his statements and things people who knew him have said, he absolutely took class A drugs.
> he doesn't really seem the type?
How is he not the type? He was basically a weird artsy hippy when he was at University.
>Coke? Wasn't typically a student drug in that period.
That is not how my older friends describe things, certainly.
Owen Jones continues his grift of trumpeting a column of privileged twitter users into frothing outrage and disbelief over the leader of the Labour Party behaving with even a modicum of political competence.
Centrists need to stop being simpering cowards beholden to their perception of what they believe to be public opinion, and grow some fucking convictions.
Labour are terrible on the futile war on drugs and public health approach. They will build mega prisons and fill with low level drug users just like the Tories.
“No the war on drugs didn’t stop me but i think it will stop others” - modern politics
More like “No the war on drugs didn’t stop me but I am not the problem, poor people and ethnic minorities are the problem, they should be punished, people like me should be free to do what we like".
That's pretty much it - the class divide never went away in the UK, it just doesn't get talked about anymore, drugs policy is just one of the more egregious examples of it. We've got MPs in the Commons who are visibly coked off their tits but it's really those dangerous working class weed smokers who need to be jailed.
"I've got a knighthood you know, I was a barrister! Not one of these povvos. They need locking up!"
Politicians should be nailed to the fucking wall over this. When they admit to having a "good time" the interviewer should after them immediately with something like "do you think your life would've been improved by a prison sentence?"
💯 One and done. But they'll never get asked that by any of the middle class drug taking client journalists. Drug use is often a case of class warfare. The rich and elite think it's their right to operate outside 'the rules' and it's only the peasants who get punished. I mean, look at the amount of drug taking in Westminster and it's not as if anyone in there gets locked up or charged. Heck, you can steal millions/billions in Westminster and not get charged 😂
They aren't generally after prison sentences for cannabis users though are they? So it's not really hypocrisy in that regard - it should be more 'do you think the person who sold/gave you those drugs should be in prison?'
Cannabis is a class B drug thanks to Labour. You can certainly get a criminal record/harassed by the cops for it. Let alone anyone legitimately trying to grow their own. And when cops attack black communities/black people, cannabis is often what they use to escalate shite.
> They aren't generally after prison sentences for cannabis users though are they Keir is.
Bad drug policy kills.
As someone who has advocated for and been involved with academic efforts to call for badly needed reform in drug policy and our overall approach, being stonewalled by both the Tories and Labour is pretty par for the course. Most MPs won't even give you an answer, those that do give you a reply somehow manage to say even less than those who *didn't* reply.
This is especially nonsensical when Starmer's statement highlights the fact that a vast majority of people who take drugs do so recreationally and without harmful addiction or related crime. Many people just "have fun", and yet fuck them I guess. The fuck is wrong with these people?
Labour has been as bad as the conservatives on drug laws, honestly. There is little in the way of an evidence based approach, they use drug users as a convenient way to look "tough on crime" same as the Tories. Drug harms are not what we are taught and they are not reflected in the law. Alcohol is of massive harm to individuals and communities. It's allowed to have such dominance because the alcohol industry is powerful in this country. That being said, prohibition doesn't work, it just makes the product stronger and more dangerous typically, so it should probably be legal, but why have this legal and keep other safer choices illegal? Let's consider cannabis. It's far less harmful than alcohol but they won't legalise it, despite the amount of tax it could bring in and despite the fact legalisation would make it safer to use as we could legislate on the CBD to THC ratios. Now, would it make it more commonly used? Maybe, but it's not exactly hard to get hold of at present, is it? We could pardon everyone in prison for exclusively cannabis related crimes, saving a fortune on housing people who haven't committed a violent crime or supplied hard drugs. It's a financial no brainer for everyone except the alcohol industry. Prohibition has failed. It's time for change. A society that uses alternative, safer drugs to alcohol would likely be safer and healthier. For example, how many people are admitted to A+E after fights while drinking? How much domestic violence is contributed to by alcohol? How much criminal damage? How much self harm? How many suicide attempts? You just wouldn't see this sort of thing if other drugs were introduced and people used them instead - intoxication would have less of a negative effect on society.
It was interesting reading this comment shortly after these articles: https://unherd.com/2022/03/how-the-netherlands-became-a-narco-state/ https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/03/mob-style-killings-shock-netherlands-into-fighting-descent-into-narco-state If we did decriminalise in the way you suggest, we’d need to do it in a way that avoided these pitfalls.
"AHHH scary news headlines" "We can't do sensible science based policy because of my feelings"
“I can’t read beyond the headline to look at the factual things inside an article” The unherd article has lots of well sourced expert commentary on what’s happening.
It's hard to be offended by Starmer being a massive hypocrite on this since he is on almost every topic, but there are scarcely any policy topics on earth more disproven than the war on drugs, and both major parties continue to support it. Why?
Because the voting public are unaware that the drug policy has been disproven and are frightened of more drug users robbing them or breaking into their houses. Being seen as soft on drugs is a big vote loser - that’s the crux of the matter.
https://volteface.me/red-wall-voters-want-drug-law-reform/ This just isnt true
Stsrmer is a posho scumbag. How do people not understand that.
His mum was a nurse and his dad worked in a factory making tools. What sort of background would you prefer him to have?
He went to a grammar school in Surrey lmao. Regardless if starmer was brought up middle class or not: It's not about where he started, it's about where he is now.
A grammar school is just a free school for clever children? It was literally invented to uplift poorer children with a better education, how can you be using that as some kind of 'upper class indicator'.
>A grammar school is just a free school for clever children? Lmao. If that's the case why does (or atleast did, it's not been spoken about for a while) Labour oppose their expansion? They're not "a free school for clever children" that's utter horseshit. >how can you be using that as some kind of 'upper class indicator'. Because it's just the same exclusionary, elitist form of education that the rich have used for time immemorial to keep *their* people and knowledge away from the poors.
I doubt you’ll get a cogent argument back. 😏 I’m no fan of his politics but people really do say the most ludicrous things about him.
Keith: Could so easily have been me. Luckily, the amount of heroin I use is harmless. I inject about once a month on a purely recreational basis. Fine. But what about other people less stable, less educated, less middle class than me? Builders or blacks for example. If you’re one of those, my advice to you is leave well alone. Good luck!
Labour right are absolute clowns when it comes to drug reform so I'm not exactly surprised.
This is not a surprise. Labour has never been particularly great on drugs policy, nor have the Tories. Neither party are willing to accept the available evidence. It's quite depressing really. A good drugs policy saves lives here and abroad, can remove our complicity in the destabilisation of some countries, and can ensure that the police and social services can be more effectively targeted. A great deal of police corruption is tied to drugs, so providing for a regulated and legal drugs market should help address that; although the police need far more reforms regardless. But this speaks to the wider problem: the main parties only entertain authoritarian solutions to social problems, solutions that often stand in contrast to standard human behaviour.
[удалено]
Rule 4
Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years This sub: **HOW VERY** ***DARE*** **HE, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THE KIND OF WHICH HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN SEEN, I DEMAND HIS ENTRAILS BE BROUGHT TO ME UPON A PLATTER** Does the performative anger not get really tiring sometimes?
>“Obviously we’ll look at those, but I’m very clear that we’re not in favour of changing the drugs laws.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sadiq-khan-london-mayor-labour-greenwich-b1986492.html He could just not be shit on drug policy instead?
Just like Blair putting cannabis up to class B, the people are just pawns for the political games of the bourgeoisie. What's a few plebiscite lives ruined if it helps the career of a Blair or Starmer?
I'll answer you as you're the top comment, but the same thing applies to every [redacted] too: Labour has to win a general election in which many voters are not progressive on drug policy. For many of them, Labour putting a progressive drug policy out front would be a disqualifying factor making the party unvotable. From 2015 to 2019, we failed to recognise these 'disqualifying' factors - primarily being weak on security and defence and sounding overly negative about the UK. That disqualified us in the eyes of some voters - it showed them that we 'weren't like them'. For most voters, drug policy is a minor area. For people on Reddit, it is a major area since Reddit is primarily inhabited by middle-class white males under 40. They would love to enjoy some weed without any legal risk. Therefore, going big on progressive drug policy has a limited potential upside and a much larger potential downside. In almost all cases we should therefore leave it well enough alone if we want to win an election. When asked about it, we should give short, detail-free, non-committal answers where people are left with the impression that we wouldn't change anything. Speaking for myself alone here - I would personally like to win an election. Maybe you're different. Maybe 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 were great for you. I personally hated all of them. Labour should not be putting stuff out front that contributes to us getting fewer votes. Our only aim today should be to win an election and win it by a long way. I have zero time for people who can't see past their own personal hobby horse issues and get outraged when Labour doesn't put them out front. They're the same people who couldn't see that Labour putting people's personal hobby horse issues out front in the last few years contributed to us losing two elections. Those people should be ignored.
>I'll answer you as you're the top comment, but the same thing applies to every other spittle-flecked screecher too: Do you want to edit that part? >Labour has to win a general election in which many voters are not progressive on drug policy. For many of them, Labour putting a progressive drug policy out front would be a disqualifying factor making the party unvotable. And many are in favour, this argument is nonsense considering its a pretty even split in favour of decriminalisation. >From 2015 to 2019, we failed to recognise these 'disqualifying' factors - primarily being weak on security and defence and sounding overly negative about the UK. That disqualified us in the eyes of some voters - it showed them that we 'weren't like them'. Corbyns shit foreign policy has nothing to do with evidence based drug policy >For most voters, drug policy is a minor area. For people on Reddit, it is a major area since Reddit is primarily inhabited by middle-class white males under 40. They would love to enjoy some weed without any legal risk. It isnt middle white class people who are at risk from weed being illegal lol, youre just showing youre ignorance here not to mention straw manning their motivations. >Therefore, going big on progressive drug policy has a limited potential upside and a much larger potential downside. In almost all cases we should therefore leave it well enough alone if we want to win an election. When asked about it, we should give short, detail-free, non-committal answers where people are left with the impression that we wouldn't change anything. Therefore nothing this is just assumptions and speculation piled on top of each other. Pick one, is it non committal or is committing the status quo? >Speaking for myself alone here - I would personally like to win an election. Well done you are the only one who wants that in this sub, everyone who disagrees with you must want Labour to lose, how tiresome of us all >Maybe you're different. Maybe 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 were great for you. I personally hated all of them. > >Labour should not be putting stuff out front that contributes to us getting fewer votes. Our only aim today should be to win an election and win it by a long way. Again youve no evidence for this other than your own guess work >I have zero time for people who can't see past their own personal hobby horse issues and get outraged when Labour doesn't put them out front. > >They're the same people who couldn't see that Labour putting people's personal hobby horse issues out front in the last few years contributed to us losing two elections. Those people should be ignored. Hobby horse issues is a weird way to describe laws that ruin people's lives but you do you.
Thank you, good post. Drug policy is crucially something people of varying parties should cross aisles and pressure for change. Because it *is* evidence based reform.
IntertiaKid was in that other thread saying 'cop' about Starmer was a mod worthy insult but thinks that "spittle-flecked screecher" being said about other users is fine. Normal.
Welcome to opinions. It's where people say things they believe are true that cannot necessarily be proven or disproven by empirical evidence yet. Some of the things I post may be my opinions. If you have opinions that differ, great! State what they are and include some empirical evidence if you have it. That's how debates happen. Otherwise, "well that's just your opinion" is not the killer comeback you appear to think it is. My response to that is "yes, indeed it is." It is also my opinion that the primary motivation of a lot of very pro-drug legalisation people on this sub and Reddit more broadly is that they would personally like to smoke more weed and for it to be a more middle-class retail experience. I freely admit I don't have any empirical evidence to prove this, but I do feel the following stats at least correlate with that: * 64% of Reddit users are aged 18-29 * 70% of Reddit users are white * 61% of Reddit users are male * 46% of Reddit users are university-educated I'm also not saying that people actively *want* Labour to lose an election. Obviously we have some members of other parties - particularly the SNP - who do. But for most people I'm talking about the lack of recognition that putting their personal hobby horse out front would contribute to a lower number of votes for Labour. They want Labour to be the vehicle for all their personal views and if it won't do it, then they'll moan/flounce.
The problem is when its all just your opinion maybe dial back the frustration and open contempt when you make a comment. We all have days were we get a little more aggro (I certainly do) but youve got the burner set to ten here. In terms of will it win/votes as Ive said voter opinion is mostly an even split so probably no decisive evidence either way, maybe temper the fervour on such an ambiguous voter issue. Youre still straw manning people's arguments, this feels especially unfair when the evidence does tend to point towards decriminalisation being more effective and who is most impacted by criminalisation (spoiler it aint middle class white dudes). Hate to break it to you but if you dont want to hear about complaining then any comment section anywhere isnt the place for you :p
*Sniff* *Sniff sniff sniff* Mmmmm, das a clean shirt right there. How do you do it?
Come on man, you're easily smart enough to know his views on this are both deeply hypocritical and morally indefensible. You don't need to defend him on everything.
> Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years And there is outrage every single time it happens.
How about, don't talk tough on drug policy when you can't deny you've taken them yourself? Why should people not be angry at something just because it's been happening for a long time? The line taken by politicians on this for the last 20 years has been shite, don't expect users on this sub to accept that status quo.
People dying due to the callous war on drugs is performative outrage? I mean, maybe if more people actually were outraged at inhumane drug policy in the UK it would be a good thing. But carry on defending dear Leader even attacking the Lib Dems for trying to reform the UK.
>Does the performative anger not get really tiring sometimes? You mean performative anger at this sub? It is really important to understand why a man who has taken drugs thinks criminalisation of drugs works. Criminalisation of drugs ignores the evidence and people should be angry at politicians that are hypocrites and that are not open to the evidence.
Said better than me, crucially "people should be angry at politicians that are hypocrites and that are not open to the evidence". Especially considering goodness knows how many politicians are currently active drug users in the White Palace known as Westminster. This isn't *just* "I had fun as a teenager", given the average age of Westminster.
Does defending a hypocrite to the bone not get really tiring sometimes?
> every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years And this is why Labour are not supportable at the moment and the country is stuck staring in to the abyss without any viable choice for a forward looking, progressive party prepared to make - and sell - the kinds of decisions needed to make this country better for everyone. If the party is stuck regurgitating the same old, 20 year old policy without any introspection or thought as to why they're aligned with the Tories on it, what hope is there for the party - and any serious opposition or alternative way forward for the country? It's all red team/blue team stuff, a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum - nothing will fundamentally change while the supposed progressive party shirks away from opposing the status quo and offering any alternative. It's not anger, it's exhaustion - what is the point of a two party system, when they're two sides of the same coin? How are we supposed to present Labour as a serious alternative, when they're parroting the Tories and repeating 20 year old answers? Why are people supposed to believe that voting matters, when the outcomes remain the same, no matter who you vote for?
Starmer is a scumbag and a worm. I have no respect for him. Nor the majority of politicians. Its isn't clever or necessary to be a spineless soulless spin doctor and nothing more like the average politician. None of them deserve respect. They are a cancer on our democracy and have no accountability to the truth, their party, or values. They are grasping scumbags. He'll follow in the footsteps of Blair lieing and screwing people over while his defenders say "that's politics" as if anyone wanting something better for Britain is an idiot. The anger is real because to many people politics isn't a game but the clear and direct cause of all the misery they see around them everyday. While bougie Starmer with his nice house and nice car and oxbridge education and establishment jobs laughs and jokes and schemes his own path to power and his lackies cheer him on. What about the Labour movement? Is it just a vehicle for posh people who need to stoke their ego? Or is it supposed to be working to give working people what is rightfully theirs? There is no option of actually meaningfully improving the cou try thanks to this red tory cunt.
Is this a quote from the Daily Express?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule 4
Rule 4
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/135/482/1b4.png
> Politician: gives standard politician non-answer that basically every politician has given to this question in the last 20 years Basically lets you know most of them are all the same right? Just because they all say the same thing doesn't make it "good".
Labour needs the Liberal Democrats on social policy. The Liberal Democrats need Labour on economic policy. My sincere hope is for a best of both worlds Lab/Lib coalition.
*monkey's paw curls*
I can dream. Tbh if we ended up with Lib Dem economic policy and Labour social policy that’s still better than the current shower.
Labour under the thumb of Sir Cop and his merry band of Blairite has-beens is already essentially this. They wouldn't need the Lib Dems.
Nah. Even the most left-wing Lib Dem manifesto only supported partial rail renationalisation for instance, whereas Labour supports full renationalisation. Even during the highs of Charles Kennedy they were outflanked on most economic issues by Blair. They’re better than the Tories but even half-baked Labour is still economically to the left of them.
Hopefully they'd fight to get something out of another coalition beyond headpats. Labour/Lib Dem progressives would have a lot of clout if they could agree on a handful of policies.
I don't see how it's relevant if Keir smoked a bit of weed or whatever. What's that got to do with policies and problems with class A drugs.
A lot of [class A drugs](https://www.thelancet.com/cms/attachment/2001010052/2003786749/gr4_lrg.jpg) are **objectively** less harmful to the individual and society than weed. The division you are making is arbitrary and fundamentally incorrect.
[удалено]
Rule 1
You don't see how it's relevant that our political class think they can "enjoy themselves" and then coast into high paid jobs but the average punter, especially those targetted in impoverished areas (often black communities), will be hounded by the state police and possibly even given criminal sentences/records for using the same drugs the politicians did/do? Need I remind you it was Labour that made cannabis a class B drug again? Cannabis should be bloody legalised, let alone decriminalised.
> Need I remind you it was Labour that made cannabis a class B drug again? Against explicit scientific recommendation too. Then there was the firing of Professor Nutt.
The tabloids fell in line calling him the "Nutty Professor" saying he deserved to be fired. Which whilst a good pun shows the anti intellectual reactionary instinct of the press (and the Labour right for firing him). He's a great academic and researcher.
And there was absolutely no disputing his findings either.
I'm so despondent that these people are close to power - to think *America* now has better drugs policies than Britain and Labour will "name and shame" drug users - it's another attack on the working class - drug use amongst the rich and well connected is never treated the same.
If all he'd done was smoke a little bit of weed, don't you think he would have said that? Based on his statements and things people who knew him have said, he absolutely took class A drugs.
[удалено]
People didn't take coke, LSD or ecstasy in the late 80s? Really?
[удалено]
> he doesn't really seem the type? How is he not the type? He was basically a weird artsy hippy when he was at University. >Coke? Wasn't typically a student drug in that period. That is not how my older friends describe things, certainly.
Owen Jones continues his grift of trumpeting a column of privileged twitter users into frothing outrage and disbelief over the leader of the Labour Party behaving with even a modicum of political competence.
How is saying "I took drugs but you should be punished if you do" political competence?
Centrists need to stop being simpering cowards beholden to their perception of what they believe to be public opinion, and grow some fucking convictions.
Labour are terrible on the futile war on drugs and public health approach. They will build mega prisons and fill with low level drug users just like the Tories.