Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation – Sham And Deception

with 20 comments

Today I started to prepare my submission to the Home Office in response to its Drug Strategy consultation.  I am sorry to say but it appears to be a complete sham, a deception and merely a sop to public opinion.  The strategy is already decided.  It is not a Drugs Strategy,  it is a Drug Prevention Strategy.  It will create death, misery, suffering and crime.  It is a disaster in the making

At the beginning of the document it says:

Ministers have agreed the new strategic vision and broad themes for the Drug Strategy which will set the framework for the future delivery of drugs policy…The paper sets out the key objectives and themes of the government’s vision for drugs policy…The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to prevent drug taking, disrupt drug supply, strengthen enforcement and promote drug treatment.

That’s right, despite Cameron’s and Clegg’s progressive statements in the past, nothing is to change.  It is an authoritarian, big government, top down approach.  It is the precise opposite of the values which The Big Society is supposed to stand for.  It’s a stitch up and completely undemocratic.  Most important of all, it flies in the face of all the experts, all the experience of the last 30 years and is completely out of step with Europe, America and most of the rest of the world.

In fact the only people who will be supporting this farcical exercise in misinformation will be drug dealers, organised crime drug cartels and countries like China, Singapore and Malaysia that execute people for drug use.

Trying to “prevent drug taking” is like asking King Canute to hold back the tide.  It is a completely hopeless and unachievable goal.  Man has been using mind-altering substances since the dawn of time and no government or strategy is going to change that.  What the new Drugs Strategy should be doing is setting out to regulate drug use in a way that will minimise harms.  All the experts agree on this.

Shame on you Cameron!  Shame on you Clegg!  Only four months in and you’ve hit moral rock bottom already.

Cameron, Clegg and Canute.  Three of a kind

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. yup have to be careful in how you put things one of the questions and loosely can be interpreted as . ‘its okays for us to go to war over drug control.


    We will strengthen enforcement by targeting all points along the drug supply chain from disrupting street level dealers to tackling organised crime groups.

    C5: Where do you think we most need to target enforcement efforts to reduce the supply of drugs?

    hmmm Afghanistan ?

    oh what a leading question an invite to war

    John Ellis

    August 24, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    • The whole document is nonsense John. It’s worse than a sixth form project first draft. I really can’t quite believe how bad it is. Appalling!

      Peter Reynolds

      August 24, 2010 at 7:04 pm

  2. This is just ridiculous, how can the politicians not realise that prohibition is creating more problems than it is solving? What do we have to do to make them see sense. I don’t want to be a criminal!


    August 24, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  3. I’ve been thumbing through it, and I am not impressed or inspired.

    The wording is flimsy and it is just more of the same old *insert swear word here* with no actual ways forward from the same old same old.

    I fear the worst, I feel the apathy and malaise that is currently being shown by our government is going to be the breaking point of society.

    The Conservatives have been proclaiming “Broken Britain”, but I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

    What’s it going to take, are we going to need to go down Mexico’s route before messages are received?

    Jason (HomeGrown Outlaw)

    August 24, 2010 at 10:06 pm

  4. it is time for a REVOLUTION in the uk…


    August 24, 2010 at 11:58 pm

  5. I suspect politicians really are ineffectual feather-bedders who make little difference for the good in our lives. There’s a quite interesting book by Stephen King (a banker- you can get the gist in a BBC Hardtalk) that describes the inadequacy of our economic-political model). If we are going to do anything about “drugs” we have to start from a new basis. I’ve long known ‘consultations’ are useless, other than in pretence.

    Drugs are first of all a currency of somekind, and this situation can only be maintained by prohibition creating scarcity and a black market. This is not per se and argument for legalisation, but probably is for decriminalisation. This is not an easy argument either, for the obvious reason that almost no one wants to live near scumbag users and dealing networks. This is less to do with the drug-taking than scuzz behaviour and problems generated in the processes. Druggie loons who don’t feed their kids and set them out in the street, blare music, get violent and destroy the enjoyment of others, and the general abuse of medical systems and so on are the problem. In this sense, first cousin marriages are a similar problem because of the drain on health services.

    Consultations, as Peter is pointing out, seem to prevent us getting into problem definition. If someone wants to stick heroin in his arm, fair enough – though I’d stop my own doing this if possible. Asking me to pay for later treatment, put up with shit and then find I can’t get legal drugs I need because the money has gone ain’t fair.
    Pubs in my town are now so dull, empty and crass not to be worth drinking in. One reason is drug competition and price – 3 pence a pint at the factory gate up to £2 – £4 in the pub (and one £5 bag will put the tyro out well ahead of £25 spent on pub booze). Maybe we should bring back the opium den? Economics is at the back of this, possibly from Peter Dale Scott’s ‘drugs, oil, war’level,down to a complete failure to provide meaningful work on a fair basis that doesn’t make us slaves to rent or mortgage.
    Decent cops doing vocational coppering to make sure drug issues don’t become antisocial would be a good thing, but the current lot can’t be trusted.


    August 25, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    • An excellent contribution as usual. Thank you!

      My Drug Strategy:

      1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million citizens)
      2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
      3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
      4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
      5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue

      Peter Reynolds

      August 25, 2010 at 12:54 pm

      • Had you gone to Specsavers the frames would fit the bridge of your nose and competently prescribed lenses would have enabled you to discern *your strategy* as the copyright of others.


        August 25, 2010 at 8:22 pm

      • I wrote it myself without reference to any other written material. It is an accumulation of my knowledge. If there is another similar strategy then I expect I would agree with it!

        What do you mean? Your message is a deliberately obscure reference to something which you avoid stating.

        You are welcome to contribute but please be direct. Do not be snide.

        Peter Reynolds

        August 25, 2010 at 8:58 pm

      • @ MTG Obviously with the issue raised in this blog there will be some crossover between ideas, as hopefully those who are against drug prohibition as it exists in Britain today would probably think in sort of the same way. Why criticize somebody who is doing so much to bring to light the ridiculousness of current drugs policy? Facts should be shared as much as possible, and people should be shown in full glory the sham that is the nation as a whole’s current views on drugs.

        Nuff said.


        August 26, 2010 at 11:50 am

      • I’m still waiting, with interest, for MTG, or “Dr Melvyn – Banned From Most Police Blogs” as I also know him, to tell me whose strategy I’m supposed to have pinched!

        Come on Doc! This isn’t a police blog. I don’t ban people. Speak your mind! Say your piece!

        Incidentally I’m trying to get David Bailey or Mario Testino to do a new pic but the old specs’ll still be slipping. It’s sort of a trade mark now. Maybe you’d like to come and art direct the shoot Doc as you’re so appreciative of my style?

        Peter Reynolds

        August 26, 2010 at 12:29 pm

  6. I’ve been reading through some of your articles, and I must say, very good work. Always a ‘to the point’ read and on a subject I share strong opinions on.

    Now despite my views on the subject directly, I like to read everything in a totally unbiased manner and remove all opinion to get at the facts. And what I see from this article doesn’t seem to me to be all that bad.

    It seems to me that your drug strategy :

    ” 1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million citizens)
    2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
    3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
    4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
    5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue ”

    could still fall within the realms of the quoted document:

    ” The Home Office will lead the new Drug Strategy to prevent drug taking, disrupt drug supply, strengthen enforcement and promote drug treatment. ”

    though their statement is a little broad.

    Even if your strategy was employed, there would still be significant need for regulation and enforcement, especially considering this is a global issue. And there would still need to be situations or scenarios whereby criminal law would have to play a part.

    Since this is a global problem with global implications, I think it’s more appropriately dealt with by the UN rather than the UK government alone. And as such perhaps the pre-emptive persecution of Cameron and Cleg for decisions not yet made is a little unjust (though totally understandable) when their hands are tied to some extent.

    But think of it this way, if it was a strategy employed today, with the state Immigration laws/policies in the UK as they are, imagine how things would be 5 years from now. When residents from the worlds drug producing countries find out that their trade is legal in the UK.

    One thing I am eagerly anticipating though is confirmed policies relating to cannabais in particular, rather than drugs in general. It’s such a hot topic at the moment that it can’t be ignored. And with the growing global tolerance towards it, now would be a good time for them. After all, the legacy of being “The leader who legalised cannabis” will be as great as any who took us to war. (Ok, maybe not Churchill)

    Anyhoo.. Brainfart over 😉


    August 25, 2010 at 11:53 pm

    • Thank you WeedSeed! Expect a little purchase or two from me soon!

      An insightful comment. Don’t be deflected by the UN convention argument though. It provides for governments to derogate from the treaty if it is in their national interests to do so. It is also aimed at drug traffickers, not at personal use. When politicans say thay can’t do this or that because of the UN treaty they’re using it as an excuse. It’s not true!

      Peter Reynolds

      August 26, 2010 at 10:33 pm

  7. […] consultation document too.  It needs some intelligent correction and adjustment as well.  See here for more information on what’s really a very silly game of charades, fibs and […]

  8. Peter, you may be interested to read of Casey Hardison’s threat of judicial review of both the Home Secretary’s and the ACMD’s blatant refusal to even consider the possibility of controlling alcohol and tobacco under the MDAct, an Act that does not mandate prohibition but controlled regulation of production, supply and possession, etc.

    After 5 years of communicating with them on their rank hypocrisy, he finally got fed up and decided on a square confrontation over their sacred drugs.

    His 25 August 2010 letters before claim are available at:

    They have an obligation to reply to his letters within 14 days of receipt. I’m sure their responses will make it on to the drugequality site shortly thereafter. Mx


    September 2, 2010 at 3:44 am

  9. THose of us with not even long memories will remember the Labour Governments Drugs your Community Your say. Over 600,000 of these consultation documents to libraries community centres etc You could also complete the form online. Even before the results where collated Gordon Brown had already said that cannabis was going to be upgraded…so why the consultation..just as in this case because it gives the impression that we are consulted…this is a sham.
    The final results where interesting 40% wanted cannabis to remain at class C and an almost equal amount around the mid 20’s wanted either cannabis to be legalised and regulated or moved back to B. So an overwhelming majority wanted cannabis to remain at C or legalised but we all know what happened.They never listen they say they do but if what we say isn’t wnat they want to do then they just ignore us.


    September 8, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    • I think you’re absolutely right John. However, I still think it’s important to respond to the latest consultation and put all the arguments across

      Peter Reynolds

      September 8, 2010 at 4:38 pm

  10. I agree with you I’m realistic to know that my contribution won’t make a differance but if we ever fall silent they will tread on us even more


    September 8, 2010 at 7:27 pm

Leave a Reply to adhd Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: