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
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.
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.