Tag Archives: cameron

Aside from an assault on The Human Rights Act, the new Tory government are in the process of removing their citizenry’s freedom to experience non-ordinary states of consciousness through the use of mind-altering substances.

The proposed legislation can be found here.

Key Points

  • The bill makes production supply, offer to supply, possession with intent to supply, import or export of any psychoactive substance illegal.
  • The bill lists various “legitimate” forms of mind altering substances: alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and medical products.


  • This legislation is tantamount to a prescription of approved psychological states: working, consuming, and self-abuse with alcohol/tobacco are the only options available to British citizens from now on.
  • The exception of alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco make it clear that the “legitimacy” of given substances has nothing to do with harmfulness to individual users, but compatibility with current social norms and economic needs.
  • Banned substances will, presumably, include ALL ENTHEOGENS , regardless of their history of use, their spiritual associations, and their mind-expanding qualities.
  • Substances are banned are to be banned solely on the basis of whether or not they are psychoactive: regardless of any research or understanding of the potential harms or benefits of a given substance.
  • Controlling neurological states is a clear infringement of our right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion: given that all religious, cognitive and emotional states can be correlated with (and are widely believed to be caused by) neurological states.
  • With other countries making progress on the march against prohibition towards a free citizenry, Britain regresses into cognitive fascism.

Watch this space for a petition and protest information.

david cameron drug meme prohibition ganja warcameron david drugs prohibition weed cannabis memeI take as my evidence two articles reported on by the BBC:

Cameron ‘smoked drugs at school’

Cameron pressed on drugs question

So, let’s get this clear. David Cameron is just a man: he was born with exactly the same inherent value of you and I. Yet, through an elaborate conbination of Eaton/Oxford social networking, wealth, acting, and an insufferable knack for cunning PR escape acts, he is now in a position to tell you what you can and cannot do with your mind and body.

The above articles show that this man, our Prime Minister, David Cameron, used cannabis. Cameon’s PR strategy was to distance himself from his past, to remove its relevance to the present moment: but how can that be possible?

Does Mr.Cameron think it would have been justice if he had, at the time, been busted? His political career would have been totally derailed, for nothing!

I wonder if he is the only politician who has ever dabbled? I wonder how many UK politicians were themselves once guilty of the same “legal transgretions”? The very same behaviour they are happy to sit idly by and watch others go to prison for.

Maybe one of those prisoners, doing a decade for a drug related crime, can announce that its “just in the past” and be allowed on their merry way?

Hypocrisy! It is pure hypocrisy, that the leaders of the UK and the leader of the US, sit on their thrones and oversee a system that criminalises human beings on an industrial scale, all guilty of the same crime they once broke. It derails lives, where their own lives were not derailed.

If these two individuals, who like others to think that they contribute to society so so much, once smoked cannabis, and in Obama’s case used cocaine, why not allow others who wish to contribute to society to use drugs as well?

Then there is the more subtle hypocrisy. How many politicians drink? Yet isn’t drink just another drug? Compared to cannabis and some other substances, isn’t it, in many ways, a far more damaging drug? A drug more harmful both to individuals and society? If altering consciousness is some kind of inherent moral wrong, it would seem most of Britain is guilty of it.

It seems hard to justify a law that is so widely-enforced, without assuming there must be some kind of moral wrong inherent in drug-use: but if that is so, why is alcohol exempt? Of course that assumes that the foundation of law is (and should be?) about morality: “social engineering” is the official term for the real goals of drug prohibition, morality is nothing to do with it.

Then there’s the class issue.  Apparently it’s kinda OK that thousands of poor people get their lives messed around by “drug-law enforcement procedures”, but the Eaton old boys network can smoke a number on the cricket lawn and it’s all just fine.

When these VIP’s smoked it, when they were younger, did they think:

“Now I understand why it must be criminalised! What a terrible evil this stuff is!”?

I’m sure it happened just like that! They know that it’s no big deal: so why is there this complacency? Why do they sit idly by and do nothing to change unjust laws?

Well, there are many possible explanations for it. It’s actually quite a fascinating mystery, there are so many theories as to why the state is so irrational and stubborn when it comes to the issue of drugs.

One thing to consider is that, this “war on drugs” was never really our war. This hysteria, this witch-hunt, this inquisition: it was America, this war is their game, not ours. America’s obsession with driving out supposed “evils” from society is always what progresses its march of over-criminalisation.

They imprison 1% of their population, over 25% of their prisons are private, we as a nation do not want to become that.

There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the way that works: the time is right to experiment with relaxing drug laws in the UK and around The World.


“If Obama had been busted for marijuana under the laws that he condones, would his life had been better?” Penn asks. “If he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard fucking time. And if he had done time in federal prison — time for his weed ‘and a little blow’ — he would not have been President of the United States of America.”

Penn’s Rant About Obama Marijuana Policy Goes Viral

By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~ in Culture, Legislation, News
Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Video footage of Penn Jillette and Michael Goudeau’s “Penn’s Sunday School” chat about the President’s marijuana policy and previous drug use has gone viral online.

Sir Richard Branson has published an article which makes the case for radical reforms to the UK drug policy in The Daily Telegraph (Link).

Last November, the entrepreneur was one of a number of public figures to sign a letter calling for drugs to be decriminalised.

In December he spoke up about the issue on his blog.

Today he appears in front of the Home Affairs Select committee’s enquiry into drug policy. (Link)

Sir Richard Branson, defender of space cadets...

The committee’s previous inquiry in 2002, when David Cameron was on the committee, said drug use was a “passing phase” for many young people which “rarely results in any long-term harm”.

Speaking more than 10 years ago, Mr Cameron added that the UK’s drugs policy had “been failing for decades” and he hoped the report would “encourage fresh thinking and a new approach”.

Branson is clearly hoping that with Cameron in charge, this could be an opportunity to make some real changes.

Cause for hope and celebration? Not really…

The 2002 committee concluded that ministers needed to lobby for the loosening of international treaties which prohibit withdrawing.

Since drug-policy has only become stricter since the 2002 committee, and UK politicians have taken no steps to remove the star-spangled phallus from their mouths, we can assume the current committee will achieve nothing since the UK is still bound by various international treaties which prevent us changing our own laws.

The United States will not let us withdraw from the War on Drugs, no matter how disastrous it is for our country and the civil liberties of British people. Cameron is not an idiot, he must recognise the truth of Sir Branson’s words… but he is a coward, and he will not change a thing.

No matter how many committees you hold. No matter who speaks in them. Nothing will change because America will not let it change. In ten years time we will have another committee, who will repeat the same solid arguments, with even more evidence, and I think I can predict the outcome already.

The Home Office has stated that it has no intention of ending prohibition… no matter what evidence it is presented with, no matter how strong the arguments for decriminalisation, no matter how many people suffer because of its bad policies.

100,000 people arrested in Britain each year, with 75,000 of them being given criminal records – business as usual in the 51st state.

%d bloggers like this: