|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 13, 2014 23:56:41 GMT
Parliament isn't a feckin' Tent though is it. Nieave analogy. It's a closed shop, the zip is firmly zipped up to most folk, unless they've got the support of the main parties under the First Past the Post System. A mate of mine got elected as a local Labour Councillor, but because he was young and a bit too Socialist he was subjected to a smear campaign from within his own party, and unfortunately decided to retire for his and his family's health and well being. That was on a local level, on a national level it's even worse. Brand has the benefit of fame and location, but what chance has a Potter Oik of being elected into the tent on an independant ticket? Fuck all chance... Better to cut the guide ropes and smother the self interested and bloated fuckwits. They can always book into the Elms for the night if they need shelter.
On the one hand I fear for the future under Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Leader of the Opposition Nigel Farage, but on the other hand I think it may just precipitate the Revolution... Bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 14, 2014 0:57:18 GMT
That's the way it's always been freeze...No matter which Party you vote for....The Government ALWAYS gets into Office.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 14, 2014 11:39:14 GMT
Change can only happen at the ballot box that's the system in this country. Wether people like it or not If you don't vote - no change Encourage people not to vote - no change Same old political figures and choices - no change It's very easy to point out what's wrong with the country, easy to criticise. A lot of what he says is cliche and not new, we all get that but mostly he's on his soap box quoting problems but no solutions We can't change the system so we need to change the people in the system Different people prepared to put themselves forward and serve. It can be done. Ukip being an example regardless of wether you agree or disagree with what they say, both labour and Tory have to revist policies because of the rise of Ukip Wizard is right. If brand went far right most of the people nodding would continue to nod, It's a shame he doesn't run. Parliment is crying out for some independents using the platform to get their views heard nationally. Another cliche, better to be in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in If you take the time to view his "trews" channel on youtube you'll see he does make suggestions for change, check out his interviews on the keiser report also. If there was an opportunity to put a cross in a box for "none of the above" at a general election I think the results would be surprising. I am interested in what people you feel should stand to "change the people in the system", would you stand yourself? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 12:01:26 GMT
Change can only happen at the ballot box that's the system in this country. Wether people like it or not If you don't vote - no change Encourage people not to vote - no change Same old political figures and choices - no change It's very easy to point out what's wrong with the country, easy to criticise. A lot of what he says is cliche and not new, we all get that but mostly he's on his soap box quoting problems but no solutions We can't change the system so we need to change the people in the system Different people prepared to put themselves forward and serve. It can be done. Ukip being an example regardless of wether you agree or disagree with what they say, both labour and Tory have to revist policies because of the rise of Ukip Wizard is right. If brand went far right most of the people nodding would continue to nod, It's a shame he doesn't run. Parliment is crying out for some independents using the platform to get their views heard nationally. Another cliche, better to be in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in If you take the time to view his "trews" channel on youtube you'll see he does make suggestions for change, check out his interviews on the keiser report also. If there was an opportunity to put a cross in a box for "none of the above" at a general election I think the results would be surprising. I am interested in what people you feel should stand to "change the people in the system", would you stand yourself? If not, why not? It's for Huddys reasons above that change doesn't have to happen at the ballot box. Did Martin Luther King have to be a politician to successfully campaign against the civil rights movement? No he didn't. I can also give you may other examples of where campaigning has led to change. You don't need to be a politician at all to influence change at all.
|
|
|
Post by localloser on Dec 14, 2014 12:08:19 GMT
Martin Bell saw off Neil Hamilton and his sleazy behaviour.
On the other hand Gideon Osborne is the present incumbent of that selfsame constituency so......
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 14, 2014 12:37:44 GMT
Change can only happen at the ballot box that's the system in this country. Wether people like it or not If you don't vote - no change Encourage people not to vote - no change Same old political figures and choices - no change It's very easy to point out what's wrong with the country, easy to criticise. A lot of what he says is cliche and not new, we all get that but mostly he's on his soap box quoting problems but no solutions We can't change the system so we need to change the people in the system Different people prepared to put themselves forward and serve. It can be done. Ukip being an example regardless of wether you agree or disagree with what they say, both labour and Tory have to revist policies because of the rise of Ukip Wizard is right. If brand went far right most of the people nodding would continue to nod, It's a shame he doesn't run. Parliment is crying out for some independents using the platform to get their views heard nationally. Another cliche, better to be in the tent pissing out than outside pissing in If you take the time to view his "trews" channel on youtube you'll see he does make suggestions for change, check out his interviews on the keiser report also. If there was an opportunity to put a cross in a box for "none of the above" at a general election I think the results would be surprising. I am interested in what people you feel should stand to "change the people in the system", would you stand yourself? If not, why not? if you can't see that Russell brand MP Standing outside parliment telling the public the "truth" isnt a good thing then what's the point of it. If you want to get elected as an independent you need a bit of fame from the start as most people pick the party not the candidate. It would give his views a credibility The move to primary elections for main nominations wouldn't be a bad thing either
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 14, 2014 12:59:54 GMT
Martin Bell saw off Neil Hamilton and his sleazy behaviour. On the other hand Gideon Osborne is the present incumbent of that selfsame constituency so...... Similarly the GP in Kidderminster who beat the sitting MP standing on a "no to Kiddermisnter Hospital" closure. So the argument that it can't be done is palpable nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 13:14:31 GMT
If you take the time to view his "trews" channel on youtube you'll see he does make suggestions for change, check out his interviews on the keiser report also. If there was an opportunity to put a cross in a box for "none of the above" at a general election I think the results would be surprising. I am interested in what people you feel should stand to "change the people in the system", would you stand yourself? If not, why not? if you can't see that Russell brand MP Standing outside parliment telling the public the "truth" isnt a good thing then what's the point of it. If you want to get elected as an independent you need a bit of fame from the start as most people pick the party not the candidate. It would give his views a credibility The move to primary elections for main nominations wouldn't be a bad thing either Again Salop Martin Luther King didn't need to be a politician or stand for election for his views to have any credibility or to influence change. Neither have countless other campaigners so I'm sorry but saying he needs to stand to be taken seriously isn't true. I think Russell Brand standing for election would be a good thing, I'd like to see him give it a go. Clearly he's not the finished article yet as shown by his QT performance and he's got a few things to learn before he should seriously consider it but there's no reason why he can't.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 14, 2014 13:35:28 GMT
if you can't see that Russell brand MP Standing outside parliment telling the public the "truth" isnt a good thing then what's the point of it. If you want to get elected as an independent you need a bit of fame from the start as most people pick the party not the candidate. It would give his views a credibility The move to primary elections for main nominations wouldn't be a bad thing either Again Salop Martin Luther King didn't need to be a politician or stand for election for his views to have any credibility or to influence change. Neither have countless other campaigners so I'm sorry but saying he needs to stand to be taken seriously isn't true. I think Russell Brand standing for election would be a good thing, I'd like to see him give it a go. Clearly he's not the finished article yet as shown by his QT performance and he's got a few things to learn before he should seriously consider it but there's no reason why he can't. Civil rights movement was different though. Different circumstances different era At least Dr king did it full time Not fleet in and out as it suits him
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 14, 2014 13:51:40 GMT
Martin Bell saw off Neil Hamilton and his sleazy behaviour. On the other hand Gideon Osborne is the present incumbent of that selfsame constituency so...... Similarly the GP in Kidderminster who beat the sitting MP standing on a "no to Kiddermisnter Hospital" closure. So the argument that it can't be done is palpable nonsense. No-one has said it's impossible but it is very difficult and rare. he was one of the few to get a second term The guy in Kidderminster was local and campaigned on a local issues. You need more like him. Prepared to stand up and be counted and actually do somthing. Who knows brand standing would encourage a lot more credible independents
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 13:53:42 GMT
Again Salop Martin Luther King didn't need to be a politician or stand for election for his views to have any credibility or to influence change. Neither have countless other campaigners so I'm sorry but saying he needs to stand to be taken seriously isn't true. I think Russell Brand standing for election would be a good thing, I'd like to see him give it a go. Clearly he's not the finished article yet as shown by his QT performance and he's got a few things to learn before he should seriously consider it but there's no reason why he can't. Civil rights movement was different though. Different circumstances different era At least Dr king did it full time Not fleet in and out as it suits him There's loads of examples where campaigning has had an influence though, even in modern times. He's clearly having an influence, look at the New Era campaign which wouldn't have got anywhere near the coverage it did hadn't Brand been willing to support their cause. The argument you're trying to put across is an absolute non-starter. He's also not fleeting in and out as it suits either, he does a new 'Trews' every day. Again another non-starter. Next
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 14, 2014 13:54:19 GMT
Again Salop Martin Luther King didn't need to be a politician or stand for election for his views to have any credibility or to influence change. Neither have countless other campaigners so I'm sorry but saying he needs to stand to be taken seriously isn't true. I think Russell Brand standing for election would be a good thing, I'd like to see him give it a go. Clearly he's not the finished article yet as shown by his QT performance and he's got a few things to learn before he should seriously consider it but there's no reason why he can't. Civil rights movement was different though. Different circumstances different era At least Dr king did it full time Not fleet in and out as it suits him Going 'full time' is a bit of a spurious argument. Very few MP's are 'full time', they tend to go to hustings between their other 'interests'. {eg Kandy Krush}.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 14:00:01 GMT
Civil rights movement was different though. Different circumstances different era At least Dr king did it full time Not fleet in and out as it suits him Going 'full time' is a bit of a spurious argument. Very few MP's are 'full time', they tend to go to hustings between their other 'interests'. {eg Kandy Krush}. Again a great point, look at how many MP's have other business interests. 71 current MP's are set to benefit from further privatisation of the NHS. They don't dedicate all of their time to politics, in fact the only time they all show their faces is when they're on about pay rises for MP's. I'm all for fair criticism but there's some absolute nonsense being brought up.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 14, 2014 14:15:31 GMT
Going 'full time' is a bit of a spurious argument. Very few MP's are 'full time', they tend to go to hustings between their other 'interests'. {eg Kandy Krush}. Again a great point, look at how many MP's have other business interests. 71 current MP's are set to benefit from further privatisation of the NHS. They don't dedicate all of their time to politics, in fact the only time they all show their faces is when they're on about pay rises for MP's. I'm all for fair criticism but there's some absolute nonsense being brought up. It's pretty clear a fair few on here do not like Russell Brand and no amount of reasoned response is going to change their views.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 16:27:38 GMT
Again a great point, look at how many MP's have other business interests. 71 current MP's are set to benefit from further privatisation of the NHS. They don't dedicate all of their time to politics, in fact the only time they all show their faces is when they're on about pay rises for MP's. I'm all for fair criticism but there's some absolute nonsense being brought up. It's pretty clear a fair few on here do not like Russell Brand and no amount of reasoned response is going to change their views. It's fine to have different opinions when there's solid logic and reasoning behind those opinions. Also some are guilty of misrepresenting Brand's views deliberately or through ignorance and it's for these reasons that I've been so vocal. When challenged most of these arguments against Russell Brand are falling flat.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 14, 2014 19:56:41 GMT
The thing is though edge, that your opinion of somebody will affect your interpretation of what they say. Without getting into the metaphysical arguments, it is impossible to be truly objective.
I don't particularly like Brand so I will interpret what he says with scepticism. He did not impress me much on Question Time & how he let Farage get away with his totally disingenuous comments about Grammer Schools ( where the children of middle class degree educated parents go..not the most intelligent children) was dissapointing. On the other hand he did warn the audience about how dangerous Farage is and I admired him for that. UKIP are, what John Lydon described as a 'political black hole for the naive to fall through' and he is right. A very nasty little party full of strays and unwanteds.
At the end of the day though at least Brands making a stand against injustice in Society and irrespective of where you come from, that can only be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 14, 2014 20:40:19 GMT
It's pretty clear a fair few on here do not like Russell Brand and no amount of reasoned response is going to change their views. It's fine to have different opinions when there's solid logic and reasoning behind those opinions. Also some are guilty of misrepresenting Brand's views deliberately or through ignorance and it's for these reasons that I've been so vocal. When challenged most of these arguments against Russell Brand are falling flat. Perceiving someone as a self seeking self serving publicity junkie and hypocrite who loves the sound of his own voice is a perfectly valid reason for not liking him. Surely if you went to a party and one person talked loudly all evening without letting anyone else get a word in - about subjects where their knowledge is limited, and showed a vast amount of arrogance and a total lack of humility even you might end up disliking them. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the views expressed during their boorish rant ?
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 20:41:12 GMT
The thing is though edge, that your opinion of somebody will affect your interpretation of what they say. Without getting into the metaphysical arguments, it is impossible to be truly objective. I don't particularly like Brand so I will interpret what he says with scepticism. He did not impress me much on Question Time & how he let Farage get away with his totally disingenuous comments about Grammer Schools ( where the children of middle class degree educated parents go..not the most intelligent children) was dissapointing. On the other hand he did warn the audience about how dangerous Farage is and I admired him for that. UKIP are, what John Lydon described as a 'political black hole for the naive to fall through' and he is right. A very nasty little party full of strays and unwanteds. At the end of the day though at least Brands making a stand against injustice in Society and irrespective of where you come from, that can only be a good thing. You talk a lot of sense wizard
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 14, 2014 20:52:51 GMT
It's fine to have different opinions when there's solid logic and reasoning behind those opinions. Also some are guilty of misrepresenting Brand's views deliberately or through ignorance and it's for these reasons that I've been so vocal. When challenged most of these arguments against Russell Brand are falling flat. Perceiving someone as a self seeking self serving publicity junkie and hypocrite who loves the sound of his own voice is a perfectly valid reason for not liking him. Surely if you went to a party and one person talked loudly all evening without letting anyone else get a word in - about subjects where their knowledge is limited, and showed a vast amount of arrogance and a total lack of humility even you might end up disliking them. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the views expressed during their boorish rant ? That reminds me of Mark E Smith out of The Fall...what an absolute twat he is..I've even seen him wading into the audience at the Hacienda (RIP) fighting with hecklers...but I still love his music :-(
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 22:06:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 14, 2014 22:29:21 GMT
That's an interesting read edge..I'll have to digest what it says before commenting.
You might be interested in BBC3 tomorrow at 9.00 pm when Mr Brand presents a programme about UK drug use/reform.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 14, 2014 22:37:04 GMT
It's biased same as the similar telegraph or mail articles on the same subject. The telegraphs view won't make you change your mind on brand the man and this one won't make me change my mind Nothing wrong with the message just the messenger
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 14, 2014 22:48:07 GMT
That's an interesting read edge..I'll have to digest what it says before commenting. You might be interested in BBC3 tomorrow at 9.00 pm when Mr Brand presents a programme about UK drug use/reform. :-) I'll be tuning into the programme, I've watched one of his previous documentaries on drugs and I think that due to him being a former drug addict he talks a lot of sense when it comes to drugs.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 15, 2014 0:04:05 GMT
That's an interesting read edge..I'll have to digest what it says before commenting. You might be interested in BBC3 tomorrow at 9.00 pm when Mr Brand presents a programme about UK drug use/reform. :-) I'll be tuning into the programme, I've watched one of his previous documentaries on drugs and I think that due to him being a former drug addict he talks a lot of sense when it comes to drugs. Russell Brand knows fuck all about drugs.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 15, 2014 23:00:21 GMT
I'll be tuning into the programme, I've watched one of his previous documentaries on drugs and I think that due to him being a former drug addict he talks a lot of sense when it comes to drugs. Russell Brand knows fuck all about drugs. The documentary is well worth a watch for those that haven't seen it. It was interesting to hear that 10 years ago David Cameron was an advocate of drug reform and that he now holds a different opinion. I'd be interested to find out if he has genuinely had a change of stance or if it's because he thinks that advocating drugs reform would make him unpopular with the voters. I think it's the latter. Although I don't rate Nick Clegg highly I thought it was refreshing to hear someone of his standing be as open as he was regarding his attitudes on drug reform. It's pretty clear based on the evidence that the 'war on drugs' and criminalisation doesn't work and we should at least give alternatives a try. The way I like to think about it is this. If you were to find out your child/children had a drugs problem would you rather they were sent to prison? Or would you rather they were put into a program that provided help and care for what I deem to be a mental health problem. Of course there is always a degree of personal responsibility to not take drugs in the first place but there is more to it than just personal responsibility after all not all people who take drugs become addicts and for me the thing that differentiates them is the state of their mental health, along with other contributing factors.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 15, 2014 23:48:29 GMT
Read Jeffrey archers prison diaries for a good account of drugs in prison.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 16, 2014 5:45:52 GMT
I 'modified' my views about Brand after watching this documentary. I think he came out of it looking like a genuinely decent bloke. However having done a bit of work with drug users myself I found Brands grasp of the subject a bit tenuous.
We heard Brand tell us what he was against but he didn't really go into the specifics of what he was for. Most people think re-hab is the anwser..well it isn't. It is extremely expensive about £25,000 for a 12 week programme and it has a failure rate of about 90% (about 9 out of 10 people taking part are back 'on the gear' within 6 months). Lifestyle is the main problem with drug users and unless you change the lifestyle, in my experience, nothing changes.
I also find it (and this is only my opinion) morally wrong to be spending that amount of money on drug users when there is much need elsewhere in the health service.
My view..ground out of reality..is that some drug users actually enjoy their lifestyle and don't want to change. They are totally resistant to change. That is their choice but as a society we shouldn't just continue chucking money at them. At some point they have to accept the consequences of their actions.
The real difficulty occurs, where there are children involved. Some addicts have children. This is a point that is very rarely mentioned by those sympathetic to drug users. For addicts drugs come first...children are brought up in chaotic lifestyles surrounded by drug paraphenalia & illegal substances & other drug users. At some point the police & social services get involved and an Initial Child Protection Conference is held. This all costs time and money. As we can see there is a 'knock on' effect...ripples in a pond.
Some babies are even born with heroin addiction. What do people sympathetic to drug use have to say about that?
People who advocate decriminalisation of drugs need to consider this. Are people responsible enough to use drugs safely? And what choice do there children have?
Drugs are not the anwser..they don't solve anything they just make matters far worse. Sweeping a problem/problems under a carpet or trying to blank it out via drugs doesn't make it go away. It just makes the problem worse.
People advocating/sympathising with drug use..in my opinion..in some ways..are part of the problem not the solution.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 16, 2014 14:45:25 GMT
Read Jeffrey archers prison diaries for a good account of drugs in prison. Co Cain & Abel? {apologies: shite pun, but couldn't resist.}
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 16, 2014 17:48:59 GMT
I 'modified' my views about Brand after watching this documentary. I think he came out of it looking like a genuinely decent bloke. However having done a bit of work with drug users myself I found Brands grasp of the subject a bit tenuous. We heard Brand tell us what he was against but he didn't really go into the specifics of what he was for. Most people think re-hab is the anwser..well it isn't. It is extremely expensive about £25,000 for a 12 week programme and it has a failure rate of about 90% (about 9 out of 10 people taking part are back 'on the gear' within 6 months). Lifestyle is the main problem with drug users and unless you change the lifestyle, in my experience, nothing changes. I also find it (and this is only my opinion) morally wrong to be spending that amount of money on drug users when there is much need elsewhere in the health service. My view..ground out of reality..is that some drug users actually enjoy their lifestyle and don't want to change. They are totally resistant to change. That is their choice but as a society we shouldn't just continue chucking money at them. At some point they have to accept the consequences of their actions. The real difficulty occurs, where there are children involved. Some addicts have children. This is a point that is very rarely mentioned by those sympathetic to drug users. For addicts drugs come first...children are brought up in chaotic lifestyles surrounded by drug paraphenalia & illegal substances & other drug users. At some point the police & social services get involved and an Initial Child Protection Conference is held. This all costs time and money. As we can see there is a 'knock on' effect...ripples in a pond. Some babies are even born with heroin addiction. What do people sympathetic to drug use have to say about that? People who advocate decriminalisation of drugs need to consider this. Are people responsible enough to use drugs safely? And what choice do there children have? Drugs are not the anwser..they don't solve anything they just make matters far worse. Sweeping a problem/problems under a carpet or trying to blank it out via drugs doesn't make it go away. It just makes the problem worse. People advocating/sympathising with drug use..in my opinion..in some ways..are part of the problem not the solution. You've raised some interesting points as ever Wizzard. I agree with you that for some its their lifestyle that causes the issue, and its for the exact same reasons you've given that I think criminalisation doesn't work. An example of the type of programme has the best chance of working was the lady who wasn't funded by the government who had houses that recovering addicts could live in in order to get away from the bad environment/lifestyle they had previously. I'd be really interested to see if that works on a larger scale. Before I go into things any further given your experience Wizzard what do you believe is the best way to combat problematic drug use?
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 16, 2014 19:23:42 GMT
For what it's worth...
I was disappointed that the TV programme didn't start by differentiating between different kinds of drug use/mis-use. I suppose it's difficult to cover everything in an hour {as it is in a post on a forum.} To concentrate on Smack and Crack, shooting galleries, and such meant it fell into a bit of a sensationalist trap for me.
I watched it on I player- it struck me that if the parents of someone who had just started to experiment with the odd joint had been watching, it would have struck fear in their hearts, I'm sure Brand didn't intend that.
I'm suspicious of over medicalising drug mis-use; partly as it fails to properly address structural/societal issues, and while rehab may offer a bit of respite it just churns folk out into the same circumstances. Furthermore it often swaps one drug dependancy for another, and when people don't fit the programme they can soon become institutionalised psychiatric patients. Drug user to labelled loony in a short space of time. Madness is often a rational response to an irrational world. There's loads of money being made from rehab.
It's a minefield, full of complexities and contradictions: you can be arrested for buying a few weekend happy pills if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, and yet get a month or two's worth of Prozac etc from the quack if you're a middleclass miserabilist. I've seen a worrying increase in steroid abuse, and as Brand pointed out you'll most likely hear a bit of sniffing coming from the House of Commons bogs.
I'm a fan of drug-fuelled creativity from DeQuincey, Burroughs, Thompson, Velvet Underground to whoever, but also acknowledge the misery such a lifestyle can entail. I'm all for freedom of choice but recognise that children and the vulnerable need a certain amount of protection.
There isn't a 'fit all' solution to problematic drug use. The Burton Project and Kid's Company are two excellent examples of more holistic approaches that have tangible benefits, and they should form part of a panoply of responses. {Unfortunately if such projects receive central funding they often get hamstrung by bureaucracy and inspections etc.}
Fairly simple things like a decent home, a job, or a boyfriend/girlfriend, or befriender are often far more successful at changing behaviour than prison, rehab, or Subutex.
A starting point would be to have a less paranoid approach to so-called gateway drugs. The suppliers of weed will often offer more dangerous stuff {including the Superskunks}, if that progression was managed better I'm confident that the over all situation would improve. Perhaps a Pub and Off Licence model could be trialed, treat the gateway drugs like we do alcohol. {Managed, not available to the U21's} with profits going towards 'treatment' initiatives for the more hardcore. {There was a pilot scheme run by a GP who was prescribing heroin, and providing a safe and clean place to use, which seemed to be addressing some health and petty crime issues in the area. I'll have to google around to see if it's still going, but I've got a feeling the funding was cut before the results could be analysed properly.}
There'll never be a drug free world. Reducing the harm to the user and the wider populace has to be key, and it's important that open debate takes place rather than the continued marginalisation and fear which informs policy. For the moment 'Drugs' generate loads of income and industry, from health professionals through to the stormtroopers, much of it self serving, and apart from the odd outraged headline, I'm not sure there is that much of a desire to do owt.
|
|