Party Vibe

@hat 445069 wrote:

so is this all like a conservative thing? were labour more lenient? and what are the lib dem’s attitude towards it all? not that i’m ever gonna vote for them wankers now i’m gonna have to pay £9k+ a year for my sodding degree. just curious.

Labour were briefly more lenient but this might simply have been Blair having things on his mind, and a coincidence of better economic times making everyone chill out a bit more. I think Blair was too busy trying to keep cheap oil flowing to be bothered about relatively minor criminality back home, especially when there was enough slack in the UK economy to tolerate lunched out drug users. They did make cannabis class C for a few years but brought it back to B after public complaints and a rise in foreigners (often illegal immigrants) growing the stuff.

There was in the late 90s and early 2000s a softer approach adopted (for instance Talk to Frank used to credit us in official documents for giving good drugs advice despite our blatantly pro-drugs attitude) but it always stopped short of decriminalisation as even many middle class lefties were against it as their own kids were overdoing drugs, and when Brown got in things became harsher again.

Some of the Lib Dems claimed to support decriminalisation but this all evaporated as soon as they got a bit of power – these more libertarian politicians have now been sidelined. The only political party which has openly supported decrmininalisation are the Greens and even they don’t make as much of a fuss about it as they once did. Unfortunately the popular consensus is now moving not just against illegal drugs but even alcohol and tobacco – for instance a lot of my friends (even young ones who are into art and other “cool” stuff) drink less than ever before, few smoke and they don’t (or rarely) touch drugs as it might affect their work performance/careers.

Even a lot of todays younger pop musicians and artists are way more socially conservative in their views than my generation was – which might seem unusual but as life becomes more ruthless and competitive (and the media have been very effective at stalking and bringing to judgement the 1990s hedonist musicians, including clearly passing info on them to the Police) its perhaps not surprising…

@hat 445074 wrote:

gaaaah thinking about this is making me angry. people are able to make up their own minds on what they want to do with their life, leave them to it. grrrr. let’s ban food too, cos some of it is bad for you. and let’s ban video games because they’re addictive. and let’s driving because it’s dangerous and you shouldn’t be allowed to choose what to do with your own life. and ban turnips while we’re at it cos i don’t like them.

unfortunately people are also able to make up their own minds to vote, and in this country have (with some exceptions) consistently voted against legalisation in this country (unlike places like NL and PT). It could be far worse, some other nations are dominated by their faith groups (like much of the USA and the Middle East) who are even more entrenched in their views.

These days there are loads of regulations about food (including turnips), some video games are censored and you need a license to drive cars (in the 1930s you didn’t even need to do a test!). Peoples individual liberty has always needed to be limited to protect others – its not acceptable to have people selling poisoned food or driving dangerously.

in EU law Drugs are actually controlled rather than banned outright – which is why for instance in NL they can get away with allowing drugs testing and begrudgingly tolerating a certain amount of drugs use.

What does worry me though is why a large proportion of younger people seem are less liberal minded than my generation.

Outside the rave scene most work colleagues in their 20s do not want to see any change to drugs laws, and many support the Police in enforcing them. If you ask them they often relate actual instances where a drug user has caused them or a loved one some sort of harm, or caused problems within the family, and the effects of that hurt are strong enough to make them reject any sort of leniency.

@hat 445078 wrote:

but what’s it to do with them? it doesn’t affect them, why should they care? if they don’t like it, don’t do it. it’s so simple, sometimes it actually irritates me that people can be so illogical. it’s like sexual orientation, it’s a choice. [/quote]

Whilst it is irrelevant if someone is straight or gay as they can and usually do become a productive and useful member of society and their personal choice does not affect others – a lot of drug and alcohol users become greedy, selfish and impulsive and do end up passing burdens onto others, whether its lunching out work, or needing expensive medical treatment, or even getting involved in impulsive criminality/violence.

With alcohol a large amount of tax is taken back to compensate for this (although it doesn’t always pay back the costs) – at present there is a moral dilemma in doing this with drugs and the dealers would still try and evade it such as what happened in the Netherlands with the coffee shops.

Quote:

and i agree with you, almost everyone at my college is really anti-drugs. bit of a strange one. they’ll all go out and get bladdered until they’re rolling around in their own vomit though.

by and large (at least here) people do this until they are in their early to mid 20s and unless they become a full on alcoholic then simply revert to moderate drinking. Even the young drug users all seem to give up by their mid 20s and the moment people have kids many seem to become total hipocrites and actively support authorities stopping their kids having the same fun they did.

As this area isn’t as dependent on leisure industry than London – they are also actively clamping down on badly run nightlife venues, several have already closed, and those being blatantly drunk and disorderly end up in the cells and gettiing a big fine (and the cells are about 7 miles out of town now and I think those arrested have to find their own way back home!)