It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cameron and drugs, why it matters.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
David Cameron is a candidate for the UK tory party's leadership and by extension a prospective Prime Minister of the UK (however slight that prospect).

He has been repeatedly asked (and has so far refused to give a straight 'yes' or 'no' answer, repeatedly) whether he has ever taken a 'class A' drug.
(in the UK that would mean coc aine, heroin, crack, opium etc etc)

He has made a lot of what he describes as his right to personal privacy and the ability of young people to 'get it wrong' and yet not find themselves disbarred from a full life later on
(ie he really means that if he did take drugs when he was young and foolish he should still be able to be PM if he wants to).

I cannot help but wonder if this old Etonian is terrified to give a straight answer (by which I mean the, till now, usual politician's straight out 'no') because he knows there are more than a few who saw him take drugs during his college days (or maybe beyond?) who may later appear and call him as a liar very publicly and very embarrassingly.
Career wreckingly, no less.

In any event; whilst this man has a right to a private life as a private citizen I think the matter alters somewhat when he wants a career that entails passing or amending laws criminalising - and drastically affecting, if not ruining - the lives of any other young people caught for the self-same type of behaviour he may well have indulged in, the only difference being that he got away with it, one way or another.

IMO it's blatent but typical tory hypocrisy.
They'll whine at length and scream down the heavens in persuit of their own rights to privacy and their own their own private lives and yet they're a hell of a lot less animated in the persuit of ours, the 'ordinary people's'.

No doubt he'll not be sparing a moments thought for those whos' lives have been ruined when they did no more harm than he may have once done.
You'll hear zero comment from him about any of that side to this 'debate'.

.....but my bet is that up and down the land there are more than a few with a minor cannabis (etc) conviction when they were in their late teens (as happened to pals of mine) which profoundly affected their lives (a criminal record is a lifes' blight, for many) who will look on this episode with disgust at the spectacle this hypocritical episode has become.


[edit on 15-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I wish all politicians would actually take a serious and real world view when it comes to drugs. In many cases, the actual physical affects are no worse than Alcohol (in the case of Cannabis, the effects are far less dramatic).

for those drugs of an addictive nature, the Governement should look at cure rather than prevention. getting addicts into rehab and giving them skills to enable them to get back into society. But at the moment, there are only places for a few thousand addicts to go into rehab every year on the NHS. This forces others to continue to fund their habit by whatever means they can, many turning to crime.

To actually have a sensible and caring approach, rather than one of punishment, you could also drastically reduce crime levels, such as burglary and robbery.

For cannabis, I believe it should be legal. Why the hell not. every time I get into this debate on ATS, I get alot of (christian mostly) people saying:

"Drugs are bad....mmmkay?...Drugs are bad....."

But offer no sensible reason why cannabis should remain illegal. Get a man who has had 5 pints and a man who has had 5 spliffs. I guarantee you that after 5 mins with either of them, you will realise who you would rather be with and it won't be the pissed bloke...... thats even if you realise the stoner is in fact stoned....

For harder drugs, they should be prescribed to those that need them until they can be rehabilitated, but remain illegal for general consumption, as some of them are very dangerous and can be socially damaging.



[edit on 16/10/05 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I just dont get this at all. Cameron took drugs at Uni, therefore he is a hypocrite? Or because he wasnt convicted (like millions of people who have never been convicted)?

Sure, if he was campaigning on a tough on drugs stance, but he isnt.

And he is certainly not the first MP to have taken drugs and never be convicted, just look at the front bench of Labour! Over half of them have had various stories of drug taking during their University years. None of them ever confirmed or denied the stories too. And they will still condemn drug-taking like any other MP.

Much ado about nothing!



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by squarepusher
I just dont get this at all. Cameron took drugs at Uni, therefore he is a hypocrite?


- If he did take drugs and has subsequently kept that secret whilst voting to criminalise those who have taken the self same drugs he took (which he would now claim did him no harm) then yes, I'd call that utterly hypocritical and something the people of this country have the right to know about if he is to stand as potential PM here.


Or because he wasnt convicted (like millions of people who have never been convicted)?


- He seems to think that just because he didn't get caught and get himself a criminal record for any drug taking he may have done that that is somehow morally different (and a completely private to him) compared to those whos' lives have been publicly blighted for being caught doing the self-same thing.

I don't think so.

No-one is going to retrospectively nick him now but I'd say that before anyone lets him stand as potential PM we have a right to know the whole story about all of this.


Sure, if he was campaigning on a tough on drugs stance, but he isnt.


- I suggest you check his voting record; he may not have been the usual tory 'mouth-almighty' about drugs but you'll find a fairly typical 'conservative' in there.
ie ultra liberal as far as business and commerce goes and pretty up-tight when it come to personal behaviour and morals.

I also suggest you consider his complete silence as the UK tory party and their mates in the tory press have been recently calling for the 're-grading' of cannabis from a class c drug to a class b.

The guy is not without 'form' whether it be his actual actions or his incativity and total silence.


And he is certainly not the first MP to have taken drugs and never be convicted, just look at the front bench of Labour! Over half of them have had various stories of drug taking during their University years. None of them ever confirmed or denied the stories too. And they will still condemn drug-taking like any other MP.


- You'll be able to back that up I take it?

Get real squarepusher.

Contrast the Labour approach.
Mo Mowlem, for instance, used to say, she never denied trying it, thought it probably wasn't the smartest thing to 'get into' and was all for a far less punitive and much more supportive process of state involvement to help people out of it.
Where is the similarity, inconsistency or hypocrisy in that?


Much ado about nothing!


- The 'ado' is all about the typical 'fudging' of the issue.

Cameron won't come clean about his own personal behavior yet expects others to put him in a position where he can pass and amend law regarding the private personal behaviour of others.

Had he actually come out and said his 'yes' or 'no' then he could have claimed it was all a long time ago, a private matter, hardly the worst thing in the world etc etc and had some dignity on the issue.
That really would have been the start of some sense in this spat.

IMO he has been appallingly advised.
This waffling he is currently engaged in is just ridiculous and actually destroying his chances.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Using Mo Mowlam as an example of the current Labour party?! Besides the obvious, towards the end of her life she had all but left the party. The Labour party we have now is nothing like it used to be, certainly not the Labour party that I voted for. People like Mo were pushed to the edge of the party, they were/are certainly not the norm.

Just look at Charles Clarke! Who needs the Tories in power, when you have Uber-tough Clarke! Here are a couple of links to comments of interest:

Charles Clarke orders re-think on Classification of Cannabis
AND
Charles Clarke used to be a Toker?

Seems that during Question Time in 2001 Charles Clarke admitted to have previously smoked cannabis.

...

Cameron actually said, when asked whether he had taken drugs "I had the usual University experience"(what more does he need to say?). And since then he has not elaborated. I still believe that to be the right thing to do.

This is all just a smear campaign, by the old-school Conservatives. It is exactly what happened to Portillo when he was running for leader (Section 28 etc) The difference being, Portillo elaborated and lost all support. If Cameron did the same, he would spend the rest of the leadership contest answering questions about it, and the grassroots would not dream of voting for him.

I know you dont want to see the Tories back in power SP, to be honest I dont either (not in its current form anyway), but I would like to see a more modern Tory party. One that can at least put some pressure on a Labour party that has no real opposition.

As I said before, Much ado about nothing (Sunday papers seemed to have not gone for Cameron's jugular, perhaps tomorrow will be drug-story free?)



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Charles Clark (like Blunkett before him) is simply doing the Home Secretary tough guy routine, it's sadly not so much about leadership but purely about keeping 'middle England' on board.
(Clark might well order a look again at the cannabis reclassification but don't hold your breath on anyone doing anything of substance and changing it anytime soon.
It's been too popular a move and all this is is an inquiry to kick this into the long grass and placate the Mail readers who are supposedly so concerned about it)
Such are the political realities today, sadly.

Laudible politic beliefs without the power to effect them are pretty pointless.

However, Labour is not the same as the tories.

The very fact that they did actually downgrade cannabis at all proves the matter on this issue alone!
(Can you really imagine an alternative tory gov anytime since 1997 doing that? I honestly can't.)
Along with the shift in emphaisis toward treatment and help for users what more do you want?

As for what Portillo's example showed I think you are much mistaken over how long that went on and what was said over the (almost 10yrs) years.
IIRC once again it was his long history of silence, theatrical posturing, denial and diversion that demonstrated his personal hypocrisy and lost him so much credibility when he finally came clean.
(which was years after the stories had done the rounds)

If he'd been prepared to be honest and stand his ground on that honesty IMO he would have done far far better.
Especially as the country had obviously got there long long before the tory party that wants to represent the country as it is today, supposedly.

Even if it took a little time for the tory party to come to terms with and recognise the reality of how (some) people (publicly) honestly are these days and it took Portillo a 2nd bite at the cherry.

I think Cameron is making the same mistake as Portillo on this.

I think the British people are far more reasonable in their outlook when people are straight with them from the begining but pretty turned off when it is obvious that they are being spun a line.....especially if the person concerned later tells what they really should have done at the start.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Personally I don't care whether Cameron has taken drugs or not, but I respect his stance of wanting to keep his private life..erm...well....private.

This whole episode is from those right wing Tory's seeking to discredit Cameron and thus boost the support for David Davis or Liam Fox *shudders*



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
i would rather have a politition who knows the effect of drugs either through himself at collage or his cousin, i think, who still is on drugs



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Why mik0001000?

What consistant public stance has Cameron (as an MP) ever taken that indicates or implies his personal or familial experience is giving him the slightest insight or enlightenment regarding the drugs issue - other than his demand that he be allowed to stand for potential PM, whether or not he did 'hard drugs' (coc aine) at college/university?

(I'd also say his recent ridiculously lame "I have never done drugs since becoming an MP" denial is going to dog him from now.
For someone who is supposed to be the 'bright young tory hope' that was an especially dumb thing to say.)

You see, if he did actually have a record of standing for various things that were positive on the drugs issue, I wouldn't be complaining about his demands for an easy ride over this; but, he absolutely does not.

He simply seems to think that because he 'may' (ha ha ha) have done it some time ago and wasn't caught or prosecuted in any recorded way that that should be the end of it.

There is, IMO, nothing but a selfish wriggling hypocrisy in that stance and certainly nothing I can see as in any way 'good' or to be applauded.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
im just saying living with a family member on drugs gives him more insight into the affects of drugs rather than another mp that hasnt taken drugs or has a family member on drugs, how can they judge when they havent seen first hand the affects it can cause on a family and therefore society eg by making total unrealist bills



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mik0001000
im just saying living with a family member on drugs gives him more insight into the affects of drugs


- I think the more accurate term would be 'an insight'.

It doesn't make one a completely informed person on the entire matter and sometimes the particular experience itself can skew a persons views in an unreasonable manner.

Would you not agree?


how can they judge when they havent seen first hand the affects it can cause on a family and therefore society eg by making total unrealist bills


- Well like I said if you can point me towards anything Cameron has ever said or done on this sunject as an MP with any consistency (other than say nothing or spout the traditional stuff tory MPs usually come off with.......or demand that his personal history has nothing to do with him wanting to become a potential PM) I am all ears.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join