Worcester man handed 12-month community order for supplying cannabis from car

Worcester News: ‘Hard working man’ caught in drug deal ‘Hard working man’ caught in drug deal

AN off-duty police officer called in back-up when he believed he witnessed a young man dealing drugs from his car, a court was told.

Christopher Cox, aged 21, of Kingston Avenue, Worcester, admitted possession of cannabis with intent to supply when he appeared before magistrates in Worcester.

Peter Love, prosecuting, said an off-duty officer was in Perdiswell skate park, off Droitwich Road, Worcester, on September 27 at about 4.20pm when he noticed a Vauxhall Corsa about 20ft away from him.

“He saw two young women approach the vehicle and the male driver was seen to pass some packet to the women in exchange for something which appeared to be money,” said Mr Love.

“From what he saw and from all the circumstances, he suspected this was drug dealing he had witnessed.”

The officer called for others to attend to assist.

A search was carried out under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Although they did not find anything, a dog and handler was called in to search the car.

Mr Love said: “Mr Cox said ‘I’m not going to lie to you – it’s under the driver’s seat’.”

Officers found a bag containing seven small, clear plastic bags, containing a quantity of cannabis.

Related links

The cannabis was seized and he was arrested.

Cox told police a female passenger who was with him had nothing to do with it.

Mr Love told the court: “He said to the police he hadn’t been smoking it – he said ‘I just sell it to make a profit because I owe people money’.

“That was recorded in an officer’s pocket notebook which Mr Cox later signed.”

Cox was also searched at the police station, where he produced another bag of cannabis, hidden in his sock.

He told police he owed £1,000 to various people and that he had got the drugs from someone in Diglis who had bought 14 packets of cannabis for £120 and planned to sell the bags for £10 each.

The seven bags contained 5.94g of cannabis. The eight wraps, including the one found in his sock, weighed 6.28g.

Sarah Brady, defending, said Cox had no recent convictions and said her client was a “hard-working young man” from a decent family.

Both his parents were in court to support him.

She said he struggled at school, leaving without any qualifications, although he did go on to gain some qualifications at college.

He has secured work through an agency on a zero hours contract in Defford and there was some prospect of it becoming permanent.

She said: “I would suggest this is a young man who has learned his lesson.

He bitterly regrets this and he assures the court it won’t happen again.”

He was given a 12-month community order, during which he must complete 150 hours of unpaid work.

He was ordered to pay costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £60.

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:34pm Wed 18 Dec 13

alfiepie says...

12 month community order to someone dealing drugs right outside a youth club and a skatepark used by boys and girls as young as 6 or 7? Sounds to me that Chris Copson knew EXACTLY what he was doing - My 9 year old son frequents both of these premises and this tells me that if I happen to 'bump' into Mr Copson then we shall be having stern words........
12 month community order to someone dealing drugs right outside a youth club and a skatepark used by boys and girls as young as 6 or 7? Sounds to me that Chris Copson knew EXACTLY what he was doing - My 9 year old son frequents both of these premises and this tells me that if I happen to 'bump' into Mr Copson then we shall be having stern words........ alfiepie

7:28pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Weezy1 says...

alfiepie wrote:
12 month community order to someone dealing drugs right outside a youth club and a skatepark used by boys and girls as young as 6 or 7? Sounds to me that Chris Copson knew EXACTLY what he was doing - My 9 year old son frequents both of these premises and this tells me that if I happen to 'bump' into Mr Copson then we shall be having stern words........
Firstly who is Mr Copson? Haha...
I happen to know this young man and it's been a wake up call for him! He wasn't selling anything to children....
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: 12 month community order to someone dealing drugs right outside a youth club and a skatepark used by boys and girls as young as 6 or 7? Sounds to me that Chris Copson knew EXACTLY what he was doing - My 9 year old son frequents both of these premises and this tells me that if I happen to 'bump' into Mr Copson then we shall be having stern words........[/p][/quote]Firstly who is Mr Copson? Haha... I happen to know this young man and it's been a wake up call for him! He wasn't selling anything to children.... Weezy1

8:21pm Wed 18 Dec 13

alfiepie says...

so why was he dealing drugs in the car park of a youth club?......scum of the earth plain and simple............
so why was he dealing drugs in the car park of a youth club?......scum of the earth plain and simple............ alfiepie

8:47pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Weezy1 says...

Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..
Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation.. Weezy1

11:26pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

Weezy1 wrote:
Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..
Obviously has been caught dealing now, and is now a "bad kid"
[quote][p][bold]Weezy1[/bold] wrote: Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..[/p][/quote]Obviously has been caught dealing now, and is now a "bad kid" Dr Martin

7:18am Thu 19 Dec 13

Guy66 says...

Weezy1 wrote:
Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..
Are you for real "the people taking the drugs are to blame" not the dealer. OMG! He should have been given a short but sharp sentence inside 6 months at least. That is a WAKE UP CALL!
[quote][p][bold]Weezy1[/bold] wrote: Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..[/p][/quote]Are you for real "the people taking the drugs are to blame" not the dealer. OMG! He should have been given a short but sharp sentence inside 6 months at least. That is a WAKE UP CALL! Guy66

7:35am Thu 19 Dec 13

Weezy1 says...

Guy66 wrote:
Weezy1 wrote:
Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..
Are you for real "the people taking the drugs are to blame" not the dealer. OMG! He should have been given a short but sharp sentence inside 6 months at least. That is a WAKE UP CALL!
Did I say the people taking the drugs were to blame? No I was merely replying to the comment that said Chris was the scum of the earth (from alfiepie) and said no actually it's the people taking the drugs that are the scum of the earth - I haven't once mentioned blame above. I wasn't saying for one minute he's not to blame... If you've committed a crime you've committed a crime... But come on, prison for a first time offence..... I think merely the thought of given a prison sentence is a wake up call especially when your from a decent family.
[quote][p][bold]Guy66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Weezy1[/bold] wrote: Like I said this has been a wake up call for him... He's not a bad kid... Never has been and he's clearly not the scum of the earth... If anything the people taking the drugs are the scum of the earth.. And there's always going to be drug takers! End of conversation..[/p][/quote]Are you for real "the people taking the drugs are to blame" not the dealer. OMG! He should have been given a short but sharp sentence inside 6 months at least. That is a WAKE UP CALL![/p][/quote]Did I say the people taking the drugs were to blame? No I was merely replying to the comment that said Chris was the scum of the earth (from alfiepie) and said no actually it's the people taking the drugs that are the scum of the earth - I haven't once mentioned blame above. I wasn't saying for one minute he's not to blame... If you've committed a crime you've committed a crime... But come on, prison for a first time offence..... I think merely the thought of given a prison sentence is a wake up call especially when your from a decent family. Weezy1

8:12am Thu 19 Dec 13

psychoflump says...

A £60 victim surcharge. Really? If anyone can identify a victim here please enlighten me.
A £60 victim surcharge. Really? If anyone can identify a victim here please enlighten me. psychoflump

8:19am Thu 19 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

His customers?
His customers? Dr Martin

9:44am Thu 19 Dec 13

MJI says...

His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs! MJI

9:53am Thu 19 Dec 13

Hwicce says...

So he got 14 bags for £120 and was going to sell the at £10 each, that's a whole £20 profit if he sold the lot.

He'd make more money shelf-stacking at minimum wage.

If he's planning to pay back £1000 he'd need to do this 50 times!

So either he's not very bright at maths or was planning on a long term career as a drug dealer.
So he got 14 bags for £120 and was going to sell the at £10 each, that's a whole £20 profit if he sold the lot. He'd make more money shelf-stacking at minimum wage. If he's planning to pay back £1000 he'd need to do this 50 times! So either he's not very bright at maths or was planning on a long term career as a drug dealer. Hwicce

10:25am Thu 19 Dec 13

Andy-Apache says...

Weezy, you're surely not for real!

OK, so he might be a nice kid who's made a howler of a misjudgement, and hopefully, this might 'wake him up'. I agree that if this is a first offence, then a bloody hard slap on the wrist is the best option, but your inference that 'drug dealers aren't the bad guys, it's the people who use them' is just plain ridiculous.

Think about the dealers in the big cities. Chaps in nice Range Rover Sport's, with WAG style girlfriends and big houses guarded by nasty dogs, getting desperate people to sell crack to kids for them. Who's the bad guy?
Weezy, you're surely not for real! OK, so he might be a nice kid who's made a howler of a misjudgement, and hopefully, this might 'wake him up'. I agree that if this is a first offence, then a bloody hard slap on the wrist is the best option, but your inference that 'drug dealers aren't the bad guys, it's the people who use them' is just plain ridiculous. Think about the dealers in the big cities. Chaps in nice Range Rover Sport's, with WAG style girlfriends and big houses guarded by nasty dogs, getting desperate people to sell crack to kids for them. Who's the bad guy? Andy-Apache

12:28pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Weezy1 says...

Andy-Apache wrote:
Weezy, you're surely not for real! OK, so he might be a nice kid who's made a howler of a misjudgement, and hopefully, this might 'wake him up'. I agree that if this is a first offence, then a bloody hard slap on the wrist is the best option, but your inference that 'drug dealers aren't the bad guys, it's the people who use them' is just plain ridiculous. Think about the dealers in the big cities. Chaps in nice Range Rover Sport's, with WAG style girlfriends and big houses guarded by nasty dogs, getting desperate people to sell crack to kids for them. Who's the bad guy?
I wasn't implying that drug dealers aren't bad people.... There are alot of bad ones.... I was just merely commenting to say this lad isn't the scum of the earth! I'm glad you agree that prison isn't the answer for a first time offence.... clearly some people don't realise that are prisons are over crowded as it is...and simply locking someone up for six months isn't always and shouldn't be the answer - each case on its merrit! There are worse people out there!!
[quote][p][bold]Andy-Apache[/bold] wrote: Weezy, you're surely not for real! OK, so he might be a nice kid who's made a howler of a misjudgement, and hopefully, this might 'wake him up'. I agree that if this is a first offence, then a bloody hard slap on the wrist is the best option, but your inference that 'drug dealers aren't the bad guys, it's the people who use them' is just plain ridiculous. Think about the dealers in the big cities. Chaps in nice Range Rover Sport's, with WAG style girlfriends and big houses guarded by nasty dogs, getting desperate people to sell crack to kids for them. Who's the bad guy?[/p][/quote]I wasn't implying that drug dealers aren't bad people.... There are alot of bad ones.... I was just merely commenting to say this lad isn't the scum of the earth! I'm glad you agree that prison isn't the answer for a first time offence.... clearly some people don't realise that are prisons are over crowded as it is...and simply locking someone up for six months isn't always and shouldn't be the answer - each case on its merrit! There are worse people out there!! Weezy1

1:44pm Thu 19 Dec 13

the truth man says...

one thing that's not be said the impact on the lad is for the rest off his days now as a drug dealer he is now in a world of sh,, as to his work his travel and so on so maybe he did not get off so light as some one who got a conviction for £1 pound worth (.oo2 grams) over 25 years ago I can tell you a pounds worth of cannabis has made my life a lot harder been turned down so many jobs travel is a nightmare legalize it then there be no dealers over 21 only make it so you have a licence to use 1 pound a gram... no dealer can get there price that low so no dealers in our kids parks and for the under 21 court with it find some thing better for them to do a week in a s a cancer ward perhaps ! look at the rest of the world waking up to this we have lost the war get it !! there will always be a dealer some where near you cant wait for the feedback on this I to have kids and I here the stuff they tell me collage schools just glad my kids don't but if they did and got court then a better punishment to put the fear off god in to them not to mess there lives up any way look forward to the neg feedback :( or :)
one thing that's not be said the impact on the lad is for the rest off his days now as a drug dealer he is now in a world of sh,, as to his work his travel and so on so maybe he did not get off so light as some one who got a conviction for £1 pound worth (.oo2 grams) over 25 years ago I can tell you a pounds worth of cannabis has made my life a lot harder been turned down so many jobs travel is a nightmare legalize it then there be no dealers over 21 only make it so you have a licence to use 1 pound a gram... no dealer can get there price that low so no dealers in our kids parks and for the under 21 court with it find some thing better for them to do a week in a s a cancer ward perhaps ! look at the rest of the world waking up to this we have lost the war get it !! there will always be a dealer some where near you cant wait for the feedback on this I to have kids and I here the stuff they tell me collage schools just glad my kids don't but if they did and got court then a better punishment to put the fear off god in to them not to mess there lives up any way look forward to the neg feedback :( or :) the truth man

3:25pm Thu 19 Dec 13

alfiepie says...

all drug dealers are the scum of the earth in my humble opinion - especially ones caught dealing drugs in a youth club car park - I make no exception for their background, upbringing or how nice their family is - if you choose to deal drugs so blatantly near kids then you are scum - simples;-)!!
all drug dealers are the scum of the earth in my humble opinion - especially ones caught dealing drugs in a youth club car park - I make no exception for their background, upbringing or how nice their family is - if you choose to deal drugs so blatantly near kids then you are scum - simples;-)!! alfiepie

3:50am Fri 20 Dec 13

ideas4all says...

Decent family what does that mean .if ur parents are still together does that make them decent and you getaway with a slap on the wrist .do u believe that he got caught the first time and was only making £20 either he is very stupid or the judge has been swayed by the fact he's from a middle class background .I know many ppl caught with much less get a custodial sentence
Decent family what does that mean .if ur parents are still together does that make them decent and you getaway with a slap on the wrist .do u believe that he got caught the first time and was only making £20 either he is very stupid or the judge has been swayed by the fact he's from a middle class background .I know many ppl caught with much less get a custodial sentence ideas4all

4:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

ideas4all says...

alfiepie wrote:
all drug dealers are the scum of the earth in my humble opinion - especially ones caught dealing drugs in a youth club car park - I make no exception for their background, upbringing or how nice their family is - if you choose to deal drugs so blatantly near kids then you are scum - simples;-)!!
Well said u took the words out of my fingers.hardworking? Everyone who works r hardworking even ppl who r on benefits and don't break the law r better ppl than these dealers .those who got nothing constructive to say don't bother with the thumbs down no awards r handed out
[quote][p][bold]alfiepie[/bold] wrote: all drug dealers are the scum of the earth in my humble opinion - especially ones caught dealing drugs in a youth club car park - I make no exception for their background, upbringing or how nice their family is - if you choose to deal drugs so blatantly near kids then you are scum - simples;-)!![/p][/quote]Well said u took the words out of my fingers.hardworking? Everyone who works r hardworking even ppl who r on benefits and don't break the law r better ppl than these dealers .those who got nothing constructive to say don't bother with the thumbs down no awards r handed out ideas4all

10:26am Sun 22 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

MJI wrote:
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
Doh! because they are legal
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs![/p][/quote]Doh! because they are legal Dr Martin

11:35am Sun 22 Dec 13

jon jon doe says...

Occasionally I read something that really gets up my nose. People nowadays forget the past very easily or they are ignorant. Canabis has been used for centuries. Its medical properties are nothing short of fantastic. It is a very good treatment for stress, sleeplessness, depression, hyperactivity, pain, and many other ailments including cancer. One of the main reasons it was outlawed back in the 1930's, was from pressure from the big pharmaceutical companies, that wanted to sell their wares. Canabis was a big problem for them, because canabis was natural and free, and they wanted people to buy their drugs instead. The government knows this, but don't want to change the laws because of fear of not winning votes, and so, not staying in power. And now, look at what you have, especially in england, and all paid for by the taxpayers.
When I was a young man, I was a welder with a good future ahead. I sold a little canabis to my friends. No big deal, until an undercover cop asked my friend to get a few kilograms for him. It was a sting operation by the west midland serious crime squad (who were later disbanded for corruption) I was put in winson green prison where I met many big criminals and also quite a few people that were innocent. I went on to make quite a few mistakes and spent eleven years in all in prison. I believe it would never have happened if I had not been put in prison where there were many bad people. I met many people that a young man from the country should never have met. I would not have supplied eight kilograms of canabis if the cops had not asked us to get it for them. Nowadays I live in a quiet place a long way from england. People here say hello in the street, many people don't lock their doors, and crime is very low. I only have contempt for the english government and your english laws. I respectfully suggest most of you need to look at a little history before posting your judgements on a young man flogging a bit of canabis.
Occasionally I read something that really gets up my nose. People nowadays forget the past very easily or they are ignorant. Canabis has been used for centuries. Its medical properties are nothing short of fantastic. It is a very good treatment for stress, sleeplessness, depression, hyperactivity, pain, and many other ailments including cancer. One of the main reasons it was outlawed back in the 1930's, was from pressure from the big pharmaceutical companies, that wanted to sell their wares. Canabis was a big problem for them, because canabis was natural and free, and they wanted people to buy their drugs instead. The government knows this, but don't want to change the laws because of fear of not winning votes, and so, not staying in power. And now, look at what you have, especially in england, and all paid for by the taxpayers. When I was a young man, I was a welder with a good future ahead. I sold a little canabis to my friends. No big deal, until an undercover cop asked my friend to get a few kilograms for him. It was a sting operation by the west midland serious crime squad (who were later disbanded for corruption) I was put in winson green prison where I met many big criminals and also quite a few people that were innocent. I went on to make quite a few mistakes and spent eleven years in all in prison. I believe it would never have happened if I had not been put in prison where there were many bad people. I met many people that a young man from the country should never have met. I would not have supplied eight kilograms of canabis if the cops had not asked us to get it for them. Nowadays I live in a quiet place a long way from england. People here say hello in the street, many people don't lock their doors, and crime is very low. I only have contempt for the english government and your english laws. I respectfully suggest most of you need to look at a little history before posting your judgements on a young man flogging a bit of canabis. jon jon doe

11:44am Sun 22 Dec 13

jon jon doe says...

Occasionally I read something that really gets up my nose. The comments here. People nowadays forget the past very easily or they are ignorant. Canabis has been used for centuries. Its medical properties are nothing short of fantastic. It is a very good treatment for stress, sleeplessness, depression, hyperactivity, pain, and many other ailments including cancer. One of the main reasons it was outlawed back in the 1930's, was from pressure from the big pharmaceutical companies, that wanted to sell their wares. Canabis was a big problem for them, because canabis was natural and free, and they wanted people to buy their drugs instead. The government knows this, but don't want to change the laws because of fear of not winning votes, and so, not staying in power. And now, look at what you have, especially in england and america, and all paid for by the taxpayers. You would prefer to take a pill if you can't sleep instead of using a little canabis.
When I was a young man, I was a welder with a good future ahead. I sold a little canabis to my friends. No big thing, until an undercover cop asked my friend to get a few kilograms for him. It was a sting operation by the west midland serious crime squad (who were later disbanded for corruption) I was put in winson green prison where I met many big criminals and also a few people that were innocent. I went on to make quite a few mistakes and spent eleven years in all in prison. I believe it would never have happened if I had not been put in prison where there were many bad people. I met many people that a young man from the country should never have met. I would not have supplied eight kilograms of canabis if the cops had not asked us to get it for them. Nowadays I live in a quiet place a long way from england. People here say hello in the street, many people don't lock their doors, and crime is very low. I only have contempt for the english government and your english laws. I respectfully suggest most of you need to look at a little history before posting your judgements on a young man flogging a bit of canabis.
Occasionally I read something that really gets up my nose. The comments here. People nowadays forget the past very easily or they are ignorant. Canabis has been used for centuries. Its medical properties are nothing short of fantastic. It is a very good treatment for stress, sleeplessness, depression, hyperactivity, pain, and many other ailments including cancer. One of the main reasons it was outlawed back in the 1930's, was from pressure from the big pharmaceutical companies, that wanted to sell their wares. Canabis was a big problem for them, because canabis was natural and free, and they wanted people to buy their drugs instead. The government knows this, but don't want to change the laws because of fear of not winning votes, and so, not staying in power. And now, look at what you have, especially in england and america, and all paid for by the taxpayers. You would prefer to take a pill if you can't sleep instead of using a little canabis. When I was a young man, I was a welder with a good future ahead. I sold a little canabis to my friends. No big thing, until an undercover cop asked my friend to get a few kilograms for him. It was a sting operation by the west midland serious crime squad (who were later disbanded for corruption) I was put in winson green prison where I met many big criminals and also a few people that were innocent. I went on to make quite a few mistakes and spent eleven years in all in prison. I believe it would never have happened if I had not been put in prison where there were many bad people. I met many people that a young man from the country should never have met. I would not have supplied eight kilograms of canabis if the cops had not asked us to get it for them. Nowadays I live in a quiet place a long way from england. People here say hello in the street, many people don't lock their doors, and crime is very low. I only have contempt for the english government and your english laws. I respectfully suggest most of you need to look at a little history before posting your judgements on a young man flogging a bit of canabis. jon jon doe

12:51pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

sounds like we are better off without you
sounds like we are better off without you Dr Martin

1:48pm Sun 22 Dec 13

jon jon doe says...

Dr Martin wrote:
sounds like we are better off without you
Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: sounds like we are better off without you[/p][/quote]Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better. jon jon doe

1:52pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

jon jon doe wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
sounds like we are better off without you
Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.
than what?
[quote][p][bold]jon jon doe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: sounds like we are better off without you[/p][/quote]Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.[/p][/quote]than what? Dr Martin

4:24pm Sun 22 Dec 13

Harry2nd says...

Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens!
Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens! Harry2nd

6:22pm Sun 22 Dec 13

copierman says...

Harry2nd wrote:
Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens!
Are West Mercia Police reading this last post?
[quote][p][bold]Harry2nd[/bold] wrote: Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens![/p][/quote]Are West Mercia Police reading this last post? copierman

6:22pm Sun 22 Dec 13

copierman says...

Harry2nd wrote:
Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens!
Are West Mercia Police reading this last post?
[quote][p][bold]Harry2nd[/bold] wrote: Try walking up Trotshill Lane West, Warndon Villages. Most nights cars are parked up doing exactly the same thing but even though its been reported nothing happens![/p][/quote]Are West Mercia Police reading this last post? copierman

4:22pm Mon 23 Dec 13

Dukey123 says...

Perhaps a public Birching would make this ruffian see the error of his ways.
Perhaps a public Birching would make this ruffian see the error of his ways. Dukey123

11:19am Tue 24 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

Dr Martin wrote:
jon jon doe wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
sounds like we are better off without you
Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.
than what?
I repeat perform better than what?
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jon jon doe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: sounds like we are better off without you[/p][/quote]Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.[/p][/quote]than what?[/p][/quote]I repeat perform better than what? Dr Martin

3:29pm Tue 24 Dec 13

MJI says...

Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
Doh! because they are legal
So what?
.
The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.*
.
Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax.
.
* Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs![/p][/quote]Doh! because they are legal[/p][/quote]So what? . The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.* . Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax. . * Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal. MJI

4:09pm Tue 24 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

MJI wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
Doh! because they are legal
So what?
.
The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.*
.
Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax.
.
* Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.
I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug.

Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience?
[quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs![/p][/quote]Doh! because they are legal[/p][/quote]So what? . The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.* . Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax. . * Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.[/p][/quote]I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug. Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience? Dr Martin

7:33pm Tue 24 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

jon jon doe wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
sounds like we are better off without you
Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.
someone who is ignorant gets up my nose......
[quote][p][bold]jon jon doe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: sounds like we are better off without you[/p][/quote]Dr, I'm sure you're one of those who believe a square wheel would perform better.[/p][/quote]someone who is ignorant gets up my nose...... Dr Martin

2:35pm Wed 25 Dec 13

jon jon doe says...

Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
Doh! because they are legal
So what?
.
The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.*
.
Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax.
.
* Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.
I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug.

Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience?
I'm in my late fourties, I've known many users of canabis and I've never known it make anyone depressed or hallucinate in the true meaning of the word, perhaps ocasionally a little anxious, or a little paranoid, but no big deal. Hey, and don't don't forget that nobody ever died from using canabis, nobody ever rotted their liver or died of lung cancer using canabis.
The only reason that tabaco is still sold is because governments make money from it. No government in the foreseeable future is going to outlaw tobaco, the real controlers have their fat fingers in too many pies, or their coconspiritors' bank accounts. How many of you sit down and drink a beer and light a cigarette and scorn those who like canabis?
Look at what a state half the developed world is in. Prisons can't be built fast enough to keep up with the ''business'' of prisons, and it is just that- a business. Drugs should be decriminalised. Everyone with a little knowledge of the drug business knows that this ''war on drugs is long time lost'', just the same as prohibition was in the u.s.a. Incidently, henry ford's model t was originaly designed for running on alcohol, but then the goverment outlawed alcohol, so everyone had to do business with the oil companies- food for thought.
I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised and the money that is saved by the governments can be used to help those that seek it. For those that do not want to stop, then give them their drugs in the form of prescriptions. And I think one of the most important factors to consider is education. It is paramount that the kids growing up know the differences between the drugs and their effects. Pictures and videos of some of the screwed up junkies injecting herion and seeing what it does to them would make many kids make the right decisions as they are shaping their lives.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs![/p][/quote]Doh! because they are legal[/p][/quote]So what? . The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.* . Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax. . * Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.[/p][/quote]I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug. Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience?[/p][/quote]I'm in my late fourties, I've known many users of canabis and I've never known it make anyone depressed or hallucinate in the true meaning of the word, perhaps ocasionally a little anxious, or a little paranoid, but no big deal. Hey, and don't don't forget that nobody ever died from using canabis, nobody ever rotted their liver or died of lung cancer using canabis. The only reason that tabaco is still sold is because governments make money from it. No government in the foreseeable future is going to outlaw tobaco, the real controlers have their fat fingers in too many pies, or their coconspiritors' bank accounts. How many of you sit down and drink a beer and light a cigarette and scorn those who like canabis? Look at what a state half the developed world is in. Prisons can't be built fast enough to keep up with the ''business'' of prisons, and it is just that- a business. Drugs should be decriminalised. Everyone with a little knowledge of the drug business knows that this ''war on drugs is long time lost'', just the same as prohibition was in the u.s.a. Incidently, henry ford's model t was originaly designed for running on alcohol, but then the goverment outlawed alcohol, so everyone had to do business with the oil companies- food for thought. I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised and the money that is saved by the governments can be used to help those that seek it. For those that do not want to stop, then give them their drugs in the form of prescriptions. And I think one of the most important factors to consider is education. It is paramount that the kids growing up know the differences between the drugs and their effects. Pictures and videos of some of the screwed up junkies injecting herion and seeing what it does to them would make many kids make the right decisions as they are shaping their lives. jon jon doe

5:22pm Wed 25 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

I work in a psychiatric unit and see many people who use cannabis either before they became unwell or after they became unwell, The unpleasant effects that I stated come from people who know more cannabis misuse than the majority of us; the Royal College of Psychiatrists http://www.rcpsych.a
c.uk/healthadvice/pr
oblemsdisorders/cann
abis.aspx

When I personally hear the pro pot lobby say “no one has ever died” from using cannabis I consider it to be a lie, from the stoned driver who kills another, the gunman who killed 13 in Washington D.C, or a poor soul who jumps of a motorway bridge, and cannabis is listed as the main reason on 18 death certificates in England & Wales in 2012
Personally I don’t smoke and rarely drink alcohol both are filthy substances and much worse than cannabis in their harms whilst those two are legal it doesn't justify legalising another

I personally don’t think he war on drugs is lost heroin and crack usage is falling most other drugs (apart from Cocaine) are either fallen or stabilised, good educational and treatment programs along with legal framework will work better than a lets legalise everything policy.
I work in a psychiatric unit and see many people who use cannabis either before they became unwell or after they became unwell, The unpleasant effects that I stated come from people who know more cannabis misuse than the majority of us; the Royal College of Psychiatrists http://www.rcpsych.a c.uk/healthadvice/pr oblemsdisorders/cann abis.aspx When I personally hear the pro pot lobby say “no one has ever died” from using cannabis I consider it to be a lie, from the stoned driver who kills another, the gunman who killed 13 in Washington D.C, or a poor soul who jumps of a motorway bridge, and cannabis is listed as the main reason on 18 death certificates in England & Wales in 2012 Personally I don’t smoke and rarely drink alcohol both are filthy substances and much worse than cannabis in their harms whilst those two are legal it doesn't justify legalising another I personally don’t think he war on drugs is lost heroin and crack usage is falling most other drugs (apart from Cocaine) are either fallen or stabilised, good educational and treatment programs along with legal framework will work better than a lets legalise everything policy. Dr Martin

1:41pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

jon jon doe wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
Dr Martin wrote:
MJI wrote:
His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs!
Doh! because they are legal
So what?
.
The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.*
.
Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax.
.
* Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.
I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug.

Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience?
I'm in my late fourties, I've known many users of canabis and I've never known it make anyone depressed or hallucinate in the true meaning of the word, perhaps ocasionally a little anxious, or a little paranoid, but no big deal. Hey, and don't don't forget that nobody ever died from using canabis, nobody ever rotted their liver or died of lung cancer using canabis.
The only reason that tabaco is still sold is because governments make money from it. No government in the foreseeable future is going to outlaw tobaco, the real controlers have their fat fingers in too many pies, or their coconspiritors' bank accounts. How many of you sit down and drink a beer and light a cigarette and scorn those who like canabis?
Look at what a state half the developed world is in. Prisons can't be built fast enough to keep up with the ''business'' of prisons, and it is just that- a business. Drugs should be decriminalised. Everyone with a little knowledge of the drug business knows that this ''war on drugs is long time lost'', just the same as prohibition was in the u.s.a. Incidently, henry ford's model t was originaly designed for running on alcohol, but then the goverment outlawed alcohol, so everyone had to do business with the oil companies- food for thought.
I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised and the money that is saved by the governments can be used to help those that seek it. For those that do not want to stop, then give them their drugs in the form of prescriptions. And I think one of the most important factors to consider is education. It is paramount that the kids growing up know the differences between the drugs and their effects. Pictures and videos of some of the screwed up junkies injecting herion and seeing what it does to them would make many kids make the right decisions as they are shaping their lives.
BTW, the model T Ford was designed to run on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol (alcohol), gasoline became cheaper anyway
[quote][p][bold]jon jon doe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Martin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MJI[/bold] wrote: His only crime is not paying tax, this is why supermarkets and newsagents can sell their drugs![/p][/quote]Doh! because they are legal[/p][/quote]So what? . The drugs they sell in supermarkets behind the counter are pretty good at killing people, get some nice lovely lung cancer.* . Until tobacco is treated correctly I will say the only crime is not paying tax. . * Yes I suppose losing relatives due to cancer caused by smoking is fine because it is legal.[/p][/quote]I would not argue against Alcohol and Tobacco’s harms unfortunately just because they are legal it does not justify legalising another harmful drug. Cannabis is pretty good at making people depressed, confused, hallucinate, anxious and paranoid and you want to allow that to be available to a wider audience?[/p][/quote]I'm in my late fourties, I've known many users of canabis and I've never known it make anyone depressed or hallucinate in the true meaning of the word, perhaps ocasionally a little anxious, or a little paranoid, but no big deal. Hey, and don't don't forget that nobody ever died from using canabis, nobody ever rotted their liver or died of lung cancer using canabis. The only reason that tabaco is still sold is because governments make money from it. No government in the foreseeable future is going to outlaw tobaco, the real controlers have their fat fingers in too many pies, or their coconspiritors' bank accounts. How many of you sit down and drink a beer and light a cigarette and scorn those who like canabis? Look at what a state half the developed world is in. Prisons can't be built fast enough to keep up with the ''business'' of prisons, and it is just that- a business. Drugs should be decriminalised. Everyone with a little knowledge of the drug business knows that this ''war on drugs is long time lost'', just the same as prohibition was in the u.s.a. Incidently, henry ford's model t was originaly designed for running on alcohol, but then the goverment outlawed alcohol, so everyone had to do business with the oil companies- food for thought. I believe that all drugs should be decriminalised and the money that is saved by the governments can be used to help those that seek it. For those that do not want to stop, then give them their drugs in the form of prescriptions. And I think one of the most important factors to consider is education. It is paramount that the kids growing up know the differences between the drugs and their effects. Pictures and videos of some of the screwed up junkies injecting herion and seeing what it does to them would make many kids make the right decisions as they are shaping their lives.[/p][/quote]BTW, the model T Ford was designed to run on gasoline, kerosene, or ethanol (alcohol), gasoline became cheaper anyway Dr Martin

3:16pm Mon 30 Dec 13

jon jon doe says...

Doctor, generally, I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying however, if you are really interested in what I wrote about the model t, then you could look at this link I happened accross a few moments ago to double check what I was going to write before I answered you.
http://www.mtfca.com
/discus/messages/29/
15018.html?114926389
9
I read your link with interest, and I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who have mental health problems as a result of canabis use already have a mental health problem ''in the post''. One or two of the statements in it I find highly improbable, such as what was said of the stronger strains of skunk: ''They may be used by some as a substitute for l.s.d. or ecstasy''. In fact that statement is rather laughable I think. To quote another: ''If you decide to give up cannabis, it may be no more difficult than giving up cigarettes.'' I've never seen ''withdrawal'' from canabis, only a few days of perhaps being a bit **** off, irritable so to speak, depending on the person. (withdrawal?) For me, when I was in my late teens I smoked cigarettes, at least a packet a day, but I quit. Now that is what I call difficult. Herioin is less addictive than tobaco, but that is another subject. Knowing what we know now, can you imagine someone trying to introduce tobaco on society now, if it wasn't already here? Me, nowadays, very occasionally I will smoke a little canabis, but only without any tobaco, and sometimes I drink a little red wine with a meal. When I was in my twenties I smoked it everyday. In the last 14 years I've lived in holland france spain and the philippes. I've seen a lot of life and believe I'm well qualified to judge drugs and there effects. I'm still here and I'm not crazy. I have a good job welding that I love and I pay my taxes.
Doctor, generally, I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying however, if you are really interested in what I wrote about the model t, then you could look at this link I happened accross a few moments ago to double check what I was going to write before I answered you. http://www.mtfca.com /discus/messages/29/ 15018.html?114926389 9 I read your link with interest, and I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who have mental health problems as a result of canabis use already have a mental health problem ''in the post''. One or two of the statements in it I find highly improbable, such as what was said of the stronger strains of skunk: ''They may be used by some as a substitute for l.s.d. or ecstasy''. In fact that statement is rather laughable I think. To quote another: ''If you decide to give up cannabis, it may be no more difficult than giving up cigarettes.'' I've never seen ''withdrawal'' from canabis, only a few days of perhaps being a bit **** off, irritable so to speak, depending on the person. (withdrawal?) For me, when I was in my late teens I smoked cigarettes, at least a packet a day, but I quit. Now that is what I call difficult. Herioin is less addictive than tobaco, but that is another subject. Knowing what we know now, can you imagine someone trying to introduce tobaco on society now, if it wasn't already here? Me, nowadays, very occasionally I will smoke a little canabis, but only without any tobaco, and sometimes I drink a little red wine with a meal. When I was in my twenties I smoked it everyday. In the last 14 years I've lived in holland france spain and the philippes. I've seen a lot of life and believe I'm well qualified to judge drugs and there effects. I'm still here and I'm not crazy. I have a good job welding that I love and I pay my taxes. jon jon doe

7:35pm Mon 30 Dec 13

Dr Martin says...

Since prohibition didn’t start until 1919/20 so I don’t think prohibition had much affect on the fuelling on the model T ford which was first sold 12 years earlier.
Psychiatrists will have more knowledge of the harms of many licit substances and have seen more people who have suffered from its affects; it is of course your right to dispute what they say, I think their collective knowledge somewhat more than yours

Heroin less addictive than nicotine?, really? Please provide a link to that, All the links I can find, albeit mid 90’s, seem to disprove your point.
Since prohibition didn’t start until 1919/20 so I don’t think prohibition had much affect on the fuelling on the model T ford which was first sold 12 years earlier. Psychiatrists will have more knowledge of the harms of many licit substances and have seen more people who have suffered from its affects; it is of course your right to dispute what they say, I think their collective knowledge somewhat more than yours Heroin less addictive than nicotine?, really? Please provide a link to that, All the links I can find, albeit mid 90’s, seem to disprove your point. Dr Martin

10:32am Sun 5 Jan 14

jon jon doe says...

http://salaambombayf
oundation.blogspot.f
r/2009/01/tobacco-mo
re-addictive-then-he
roin.html

http://www.nytimes.c
om/1987/03/29/magazi
ne/nicotine-harder-t
o-kickthan-heroin.ht
ml
''Heroin addicts say it is easier to give up dope than it is to give up smoking,'' says Dr. Sharon Hall, a psychology professor whose research at the University of California's San Francisco medical school centers on methods of curtailing drug abuse.

Right, I've just been looking for some revelant info, to give some credit to what I'm saying. I just been reading these links that I've put here, I'm sure you'll be interested to look at. I've looked at many more and I'd say from the medical quarter, there is nothing clear cut, and the medical opinion seems somewhat divided 50/50.
I have been speaking here from personal experience. I have known many heroin addicts and I have known a few ex-heroin addicts, both smokers of it and injectors but I have never met an ex heroin addict that doesn't smoke tobaco.
http://salaambombayf oundation.blogspot.f r/2009/01/tobacco-mo re-addictive-then-he roin.html http://www.nytimes.c om/1987/03/29/magazi ne/nicotine-harder-t o-kickthan-heroin.ht ml ''Heroin addicts say it is easier to give up dope than it is to give up smoking,'' says Dr. Sharon Hall, a psychology professor whose research at the University of California's San Francisco medical school centers on methods of curtailing drug abuse. Right, I've just been looking for some revelant info, to give some credit to what I'm saying. I just been reading these links that I've put here, I'm sure you'll be interested to look at. I've looked at many more and I'd say from the medical quarter, there is nothing clear cut, and the medical opinion seems somewhat divided 50/50. I have been speaking here from personal experience. I have known many heroin addicts and I have known a few ex-heroin addicts, both smokers of it and injectors but I have never met an ex heroin addict that doesn't smoke tobaco. jon jon doe

3:06pm Sun 12 Jan 14

jon jon doe says...

And for those of you with interest the following makes some interesting observations (link to original: http://politics.co.u
k/comment-analysis/2
014/01/10/comment-hi
dden-in-a-strategy-d
ocument-the-home-off
ice-admits ):
Comment: ''The Home Office admits it has no idea if the war on drugs is working''

Ian Dunt:''They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it''

They sneaked it out in December.

The Home Office report is called 'Drug Strategy 2010 Evaluation Framework – evaluating costs and benefits'. It is not the sort of title which seduces the attention, but inside you can find a fascinating, topsy-turvy, down-the-looking-gla
ss world of hopeless causes.

The purpose of the document is to set out the kind of evidence you'd need if you wanted to work out whether the government was getting value for money with its anti-drugs programme.

On its own, that's a creditable aim. The more we look into the spending on anti-drug programmes the more we highlight the chasm of financial and human waste which constitutes prohibition.

What we get, of course, is nothing of the sort. Instead, lodged innocuously in the middle of the report and couched in impenetrable language, there is a startling admission.
.......
It reads:

There are challenges in other areas, however, particularly around developing a suitable counterfactual, or measuring impact on actual behaviour. For example, establishing the conditions for a robust counterfactual for enforcement is difficult and as a result, little robust evidence of impact is available either nationally or internationally.
........
What this adds up to is that the Home Office has no idea whether it has achieved anything with its enforcement programme against drugs. That's a remarkable thing to say given independent estimates suggest it spends up to £3.655 billion a year on enforcement alone. The figure rises sharply when you include initiatives such as early intervention or treatment.

Imagine any other area of life – in public service or the free market - where you were spending billions a year and were unable to show any evidence of achieving your objective.

Even when it comes to areas such as early intervention ("a lack of evidence of long-term outcomes") or information services like FRANK ("little is known about how this translates into behaviour change") the Home Office has no idea what, if anything, it is achieving.

The hypocrisy is astonishing.

For 'education and information approaches', the document says:
.......
These interventions centre on the logic that if rational individuals are aware of the dangers associated with drugs, they will choose not to take them.
.......
That must ring hollow with former Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs boss David Nutt, who was sacked from his position when he dared to speak the statistical reality about the minimal dangers of ecstasy use.

But the Home Office pleas about the difficulty of collecting accurate data ring particularly hollow given that they have previously tried to cover up evidence about how useless their policy is.

When Transform tried to gets its hands on the Home Office's value for money study in 2010, officials discussed keeping it out the public eye because it would help those campaigning to end prohibition.

Luckily - and with the Home Office's usual capacity for incompetence – they accidentally sent the internal memo to BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum. It read:
......
The release of the report entails the risk of Transform, or other supporters of legalisation, using information from the report to criticise the government's drug policy, or to support their call for the legalisation of drugs and the introduction of a regulated system of supply. These risks should be considered in reaching a decision on whether to release the report, as recommended.
......
It was a particularly disgraceful affair, given it went against guidelines saying that FoI requests should be dealt with 'blind' – not considering who was requesting the information. Instead, civil servants were making FoI decisions on the basis of how damaging they thought the information would be to ministers.

If the Home Office really cared about establishing the financial costs of the war on drugs, they would have paid rather more attention to the home affairs committee's request that a royal commission be set up which could evaluate the wealth of evidence flowing in from experiments overseas.

We are in a prime position to see how various systems of drug reform work, with Portugal replacing criminal penalties for a new emphasis on treatment, the legalisation of cannabis in Washington and Colorado, and the introduction of a state monopoly cannabis production system in Uruguay.

Lib Dem Home Office minister Norman Baker is visiting some of these areas, but the opportunity for full-scale monitoring of the experiments being conducted around the world has been ignored.

There's plenty of pre-existing international evidence as well, from governments who still think it sensible to sometimes base their actions on evidence rather than mania.

The Czech Republic removed punishment for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs towards the start of the post-Communist era. In 1999, it reintroduced criminal penalties for certain amounts of drugs, but the controversy around the law meant the government actually studied the impact of the measures.


With a level of progressive insight evidently beyond the abilities of the Home Office, the Czech government consequently decriminalised possession again.

Of course, Portugal, Uruguay and the Czech Republic are not the same as Britain, but that does not mean we can't learn from them, rather than closing our ears to experiences overseas.

The Home Office won't look at these historic examples or assess the current ones because its attitude to drugs is based not on evidence but on quasi-religious anti-drugs fervour and total capitulation to the Daily Mail.

Instead, it will publish more despairing evaluation reports, into which it will sneak in the indisputable truth: They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it.
And for those of you with interest the following makes some interesting observations (link to original: http://politics.co.u k/comment-analysis/2 014/01/10/comment-hi dden-in-a-strategy-d ocument-the-home-off ice-admits ): Comment: ''The Home Office admits it has no idea if the war on drugs is working'' Ian Dunt:''They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it'' They sneaked it out in December. The Home Office report is called 'Drug Strategy 2010 Evaluation Framework – evaluating costs and benefits'. It is not the sort of title which seduces the attention, but inside you can find a fascinating, topsy-turvy, down-the-looking-gla ss world of hopeless causes. The purpose of the document is to set out the kind of evidence you'd need if you wanted to work out whether the government was getting value for money with its anti-drugs programme. On its own, that's a creditable aim. The more we look into the spending on anti-drug programmes the more we highlight the chasm of financial and human waste which constitutes prohibition. What we get, of course, is nothing of the sort. Instead, lodged innocuously in the middle of the report and couched in impenetrable language, there is a startling admission. ....... It reads: There are challenges in other areas, however, particularly around developing a suitable counterfactual, or measuring impact on actual behaviour. For example, establishing the conditions for a robust counterfactual for enforcement is difficult and as a result, little robust evidence of impact is available either nationally or internationally. ........ What this adds up to is that the Home Office has no idea whether it has achieved anything with its enforcement programme against drugs. That's a remarkable thing to say given independent estimates suggest it spends up to £3.655 billion a year on enforcement alone. The figure rises sharply when you include initiatives such as early intervention or treatment. Imagine any other area of life – in public service or the free market - where you were spending billions a year and were unable to show any evidence of achieving your objective. Even when it comes to areas such as early intervention ("a lack of evidence of long-term outcomes") or information services like FRANK ("little is known about how this translates into behaviour change") the Home Office has no idea what, if anything, it is achieving. The hypocrisy is astonishing. For 'education and information approaches', the document says: ....... These interventions centre on the logic that if rational individuals are aware of the dangers associated with drugs, they will choose not to take them. ....... That must ring hollow with former Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs boss David Nutt, who was sacked from his position when he dared to speak the statistical reality about the minimal dangers of ecstasy use. But the Home Office pleas about the difficulty of collecting accurate data ring particularly hollow given that they have previously tried to cover up evidence about how useless their policy is. When Transform tried to gets its hands on the Home Office's value for money study in 2010, officials discussed keeping it out the public eye because it would help those campaigning to end prohibition. Luckily - and with the Home Office's usual capacity for incompetence – they accidentally sent the internal memo to BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum. It read: ...... The release of the report entails the risk of Transform, or other supporters of legalisation, using information from the report to criticise the government's drug policy, or to support their call for the legalisation of drugs and the introduction of a regulated system of supply. These risks should be considered in reaching a decision on whether to release the report, as recommended. ...... It was a particularly disgraceful affair, given it went against guidelines saying that FoI requests should be dealt with 'blind' – not considering who was requesting the information. Instead, civil servants were making FoI decisions on the basis of how damaging they thought the information would be to ministers. If the Home Office really cared about establishing the financial costs of the war on drugs, they would have paid rather more attention to the home affairs committee's request that a royal commission be set up which could evaluate the wealth of evidence flowing in from experiments overseas. We are in a prime position to see how various systems of drug reform work, with Portugal replacing criminal penalties for a new emphasis on treatment, the legalisation of cannabis in Washington and Colorado, and the introduction of a state monopoly cannabis production system in Uruguay. Lib Dem Home Office minister Norman Baker is visiting some of these areas, but the opportunity for full-scale monitoring of the experiments being conducted around the world has been ignored. There's plenty of pre-existing international evidence as well, from governments who still think it sensible to sometimes base their actions on evidence rather than mania. The Czech Republic removed punishment for possession of small amounts of illegal drugs towards the start of the post-Communist era. In 1999, it reintroduced criminal penalties for certain amounts of drugs, but the controversy around the law meant the government actually studied the impact of the measures. With a level of progressive insight evidently beyond the abilities of the Home Office, the Czech government consequently decriminalised possession again. Of course, Portugal, Uruguay and the Czech Republic are not the same as Britain, but that does not mean we can't learn from them, rather than closing our ears to experiences overseas. The Home Office won't look at these historic examples or assess the current ones because its attitude to drugs is based not on evidence but on quasi-religious anti-drugs fervour and total capitulation to the Daily Mail. Instead, it will publish more despairing evaluation reports, into which it will sneak in the indisputable truth: They're pouring money down the drain and they've got nothing to show for it. jon jon doe

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree