INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on May 25, 2007, 03:51:02 AM
-
I keep trying to write a letter to my MP about my gripes with the current drugs legislation, but I can never stay focussed on it for long enough or intensely enough to get anywhere with it. :(
-
Have you done a google search for political groups who have the same gripes you do? They sometimes have example letters to send to your MP that you could use for inspiration. ???
-
This one I wrote myself. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.
Dear Jim Murphy
I laud the recent ban on smoking in enclosed public places, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. Tobacco, which contains the potent and highly addictive narcotic nicotine, is the leading cause of death among all intoxicating substances and the principle avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK, killing 106,000 people every year in the UK according to the UK Department of Health [1]. Judging by the standards applied to other intoxicating substances, many of which it is a grave offence to possess, produce or sell, yet which cause far fewer deaths, I can see no logical reason why tobacco should not be legislated as a class A drug. For comparison, MDMA, a class A drug, causes 10-30 deaths each year, out of an estimated 500,000 regular users in the UK [2], about two thirds of which occur when MDMA is used in conjunction with other drugs [2], and cannabis, a class C drug, has not yet been shown to have a casual link to increased mortality in users.
I also propose that cannabis should be reinstated as a class B drug, since it serves as a gateway to tobacco use, as tobacco is often mixed with cannabis to improve it's combustion properties when smoked. I urge you to work to increase public awareness of this danger inherent to cannabis use, since there are many reports of individuals becoming nicotine addicts after starting out on cannabis.
As for alcohol, I find it baffling that it's still being sold across the country when it's been well established that alcohol is a leading cause of violent crime, and there were 8,386 alcohol-related deaths in 2005 [3]. Aside from the slow degradation and eventual failure of the liver which is an established outcome of long-term alcoholism, alcohol also has the frightening ability to kill with just one drink, as the first drink lowers the inhibitions and self-control of the alcohol user, thus leading to the consumption of additional drinks and eventual death through accident or acute poisoning, or even the death of an innocent bystander through alcohol-induced aggression. Indeed, several times when travelling through Glasgow on the bus at night, as the clubs have been emptying, I've witnessed intoxicated alcohol-users head-butt the window of the bus I was riding in, and I've witnessed several fights among alcohol users, one of which resulted in one individual being taken away in an ambulance. With alcohol, there's no such thing as a safe dose, and I would like to see life sentences given to dealers who supply this menace to otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Hopefully you'll be able to draw attention to these two glaring oversights in the current drugs legislation.
Your sincerely,
Peter MacKenzie
[1] UK Department of Health, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/Tobacco/index.htm
[2] http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2002/drugs.htm
[3]National Statistics Online, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091
-
now we need to debate.
-
now we need to debate.
Are you going to start it?
-
now we need to debate.
Are you going to start it?
no.
-
now we need to debate.
Are you going to start it?
no.
Why not?
-
Minor edit.
Dear Jim Murphy
I laud the recent ban on smoking in enclosed public places, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. Tobacco, which contains the potent and highly addictive narcotic nicotine, is the leading cause of death among all intoxicating substances and the principle avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK, killing 106,000 people every year in the UK according to the UK Department of Health [1]. Judging by the standards applied to other intoxicating substances, many of which it is a grave offence to possess, produce or sell, yet which cause far fewer deaths, I can see no logical reason why tobacco should not be legislated as a class A drug. For comparison, MDMA, a class A drug, causes 10-30 deaths each year, out of an estimated 500,000 regular users in the UK [2], about two thirds of which occur when MDMA is used in conjunction with other drugs [2], and cannabis, a class C drug, has not yet been shown to have a casual link to increased mortality in users.
I also propose that cannabis should be reinstated as a class B drug, since it serves as a gateway to tobacco use, as tobacco is often mixed with cannabis to improve it's combustion properties when smoked. I urge you to work to increase public awareness of this danger inherent to cannabis use, since there are many reports of individuals becoming nicotine addicts after starting out on cannabis.
As for alcohol, I find it baffling that it's still being sold across the country when it's been well established that alcohol is a leading cause of violent crime, with the perpetrator being reported by the victim to have been under the influence of alcohol in 40% of all violent incidents [3], and there were 8,386 alcohol-related deaths in 2005 [4]. Aside from the slow degradation and eventual failure of the liver which is an established outcome of long-term alcoholism, alcohol also has the frightening ability to kill with just one drink, as the first drink lowers the inhibitions and self-control of the alcohol user, thus leading to the consumption of additional drinks and eventual death through accident or acute poisoning, or even the death of an innocent bystander through alcohol-induced aggression. Indeed, several times when travelling through Glasgow on the bus at night, as the clubs have been emptying, I've witnessed intoxicated alcohol-users head-butt the window of the bus I was riding in, and I've witnessed several fights among alcohol users, one of which resulted in one individual being taken away in an ambulance. With alcohol, there's no such thing as a safe dose, and I would like to see life sentences given to dealers who supply this menace to otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Hopefully you'll be able to draw attention to these two glaring oversights in the current drugs legislation, and protect the public from the evidently great dangers of alcohol and tobacco.
Your sincerely,
Peter MacKenzie
[1] UK Department of Health, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/Tobacco/index.htm
[2] National Institute for Medical Research; Drugs and addiction, ecstasy and cannabis, http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2002/drugs.htm
[3] Home Office, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/alcohol-related-crime/
[4] British Criminal Survey, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf
-
Peter, I think the advice about finding out if others/groups feel the same about these issues is the way to go.
Unfortunately, I know what happens to a lot of these letters, they will get some nong to write you a letter back saying thanks for your suggestion, blah blah.
There's only pull in numbers and they think they will lose a lot of votes on an issue.
Send the letter for sure, but don't kill yourself thinking they will send you a reply that has been as well thought out as your letter.
-
Thats a very good letter, Peter. I personally don't agree with all your proposals, but your concerns are very valid.
I work in a political office and if your MP is as good as the one I work for, you should receive a reply within a week, two weeks maximum.
However, a lot depends on the personal views of your MP, so he may not actually agree with what you are saying. You might like to look up the guy on the internet and find out more about his views.
Or alternatively, you could do as others have suggested and look up other interest groups that share your concerns. What happens where I work is we often get a whole load of letters or a postcard petition all sent in the same time from a particular group of people. E.g. our last big one was about Trident, and it was organised by Cambridge Stop The War. Hundreds of people sent in letters, and the MP had to deal with it as an urgent priority.
-
There is nothing wrong with the letter, but probably with the recipient of it. You need to have thousands of other people supporting your letter to have the slightest hope of achieving anything with it. Alas. :(
-
This is my MP: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2078122.stm
He has since been notable for his work in Eastwood: holding hundreds of constituency surgeries, spearheading an anti-drugs campaign and even sending Christmas cards to thousands of his constituents.
-
Thats a very good letter, Peter. I personally don't agree with all your proposals, but your concerns are very valid.
I work in a political office and if your MP is as good as the one I work for, you should receive a reply within a week, two weeks maximum.
However, a lot depends on the personal views of your MP, so he may not actually agree with what you are saying. You might like to look up the guy on the internet and find out more about his views.
Or alternatively, you could do as others have suggested and look up other interest groups that share your concerns. What happens where I work is we often get a whole load of letters or a postcard petition all sent in the same time from a particular group of people. E.g. our last big one was about Trident, and it was organised by Cambridge Stop The War. Hundreds of people sent in letters, and the MP had to deal with it as an urgent priority.
What work do you do? And are written letters treated preferentially to emails?
-
A "snail mail" is definitely better than an email. Write on your computer but print it out and sign it with your own hand writing.
-
Thats a very good letter, Peter. I personally don't agree with all your proposals, but your concerns are very valid.
I work in a political office and if your MP is as good as the one I work for, you should receive a reply within a week, two weeks maximum.
However, a lot depends on the personal views of your MP, so he may not actually agree with what you are saying. You might like to look up the guy on the internet and find out more about his views.
Or alternatively, you could do as others have suggested and look up other interest groups that share your concerns. What happens where I work is we often get a whole load of letters or a postcard petition all sent in the same time from a particular group of people. E.g. our last big one was about Trident, and it was organised by Cambridge Stop The War. Hundreds of people sent in letters, and the MP had to deal with it as an urgent priority.
What work do you do? And are written letters treated preferentially to emails?
Typically, in my country MP's have set response times regardless of the way the correspondence is received - does he have a website, most do...it may give you more insight into his views...
As suggested, definitely do your research to see what his 'soft spot' is to pitch for...
-
One problem with campaigning for something like Peter is that the government gets a lot of money from tobacco and alcohol sales, so making them illegal isn't something they're ever likely to want to do.
You have managed to take me by surprise with your views on this though Peter, with you recent posts about legal drugs I never would have thought you'd want to extend the nanny state culture further. Whilst I might not agree with your views on this I'm still going to give you a karma point for surprising me like that.
-
One problem with campaigning for something like Peter is that the government gets a lot of money from tobacco and alcohol sales, so making them illegal isn't something they're ever likely to want to do.
You have managed to take me by surprise with your views on this though Peter, with you recent posts about legal drugs I never would have thought you'd want to extend the nanny state culture further. Whilst I might not agree with your views on this I'm still going to give you a karma point for surprising me like that.
The letter isn't what it might seem; it's just my way of making a comment on the inconsistencies of current drug legislation in a way that would make it past the concious censorship of someone engaged in the 'drug war', and someone to whom voicing support for my actual position would be political suicide. I'm not really in favour of banning tobacco and alcohol, but I'm happy to use them as a comparison to far less harmful but highly illegal substances to further my real agenda. If they really did make tobacco a class A substance though, I'm sure it would raise hell and spark some serious debate on drug policy, and to that end, I'd be happy to see it banned.
-
And who said aspies weren't sneaky :laugh:
I like the idea- but I think the government is unlikely to ever consider doing so seriously- they'd lose out on too much money- so unfortunately its unlikely to spark the debate you would like. No harm in trying though.
-
In some ways, it's a shame the Scottish Christian Party didn't get elected, since I could have had no end of fun with them by posing as an extreme-o-fundie and making them look completely rediculous.
-
I've written letters to among others the former Swedish Attorney General and "between the lines" told him that I think Sweden is a great joke and that he's an idiot. I don't think he got the point, though.
-
The way I see it, drugs legislation is like a ratchet; it's easy to make things illegal, but extremely difficult to downgrade or legalise something that's been made illegal, and thus the only way to have things legalised en masse is to push the ratchet to the point where it's no longer a marginalised minority that's suffering, but a significant portion of society, and thus to provoke a large public backlash against the system of prohibition, and to push it as far and as quickly as possible to maximise the shock value, since people adapt to gradual increments of prohibition.
-
That goes for all legislation. Guns were restricted very easily but will never or very unlikely be less restricted, not to mention totally free again. Same goes for drugs.
-
The masses are slow and stupid and will only react really powerfully when shocked into doing so 100% correct. :agreed: :plus:
-
Some info on him.
Jim Murphy is the Labour MP for the East Renfrewshire (previously Eastwood) constituency, just outside Glasgow in Scotland. Murphy was a former president of the National Union of Students.[1] He holds the possibly unique distinction of having been condemned by a House of Commons Early Day Motion for "intolerant and dictatorial behaviour" shortly before being elected to the Commons [2].
Whilst NUS President, Murphy managed to completely reverse his position on higher education funding within two years [3]. In early 2006 Murphy helped pilot the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill through Parliament, a Bill which critics claim will seriously weaken Parliamentary democracy.[4][5] One report states that, "According to Oliver Heald, when asked why the Bill did not contain the orginal recommendations concerning business regulation, Murphy replied 'We have wider ambitions than that'." [6]
...
...
...
Yet by 1996, less than two years later and with a Blair victory looking inevitable within months, Murphy was playing a key role in securing the union's support for a graduate tax to fund higher education. According to Shiraz Rustom, at that time the student governor of Queen Mary Westfield College, Murphy suspended Clive Lewis, the convenor of the Black Students Campaign and NUS vice president, for having spoken in favour of free education.[19] The suspension prompted eight Labour MPs, including Tony Benn, Alice Mahon and Dennis Skinner, to sign a Commons Early Day Motion condemning the "intolerant and dictatorial behaviour of the President of the NUS." [20]
-
I think it's a terrific letter, Peter. :plus:
-
I like your letter, Peter. It reminds me of "A Modest Proposal."
-
There is one misspelled word:
principle avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK
should be spelled:
principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK
http://www.answers.com/topic/principal
USAGE NOTE Principal and principle are often confused but have no meanings in common. Principle is only a noun and usually refers to a rule or standard. Principal is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, it has specialized meanings in law and finance, but in general usage it refers to a person who holds a high position or plays an important role: a meeting among all the principals in the transaction. As an adjective it has the sense of “chief†or “leadingâ€: The coach's principal concern is the quarterback's health.
-
I like your letter, Peter. It reminds me of "A Modest Proposal."
You just gave me an idea. I've stuck it in the subject line:
26th May, 2007
Dear Mr Murphy
A modest proposal...
I laud the recent ban on smoking in enclosed public places, but I feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. Tobacco, which contains the potent and highly addictive narcotic nicotine, is the leading cause of death among all intoxicating substances and the principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK, killing 106,000 people every year in the UK according to the UK Department of Health [1]. Judging by the standards applied to other intoxicating substances, many of which it is a grave offence to possess, produce or sell, yet which cause far fewer deaths, I can see no logical reason why tobacco should not be legislated as a class A drug. For comparison, MDMA, a class A drug, causes 30 deaths each year, out of an estimated 500,000 regular users in the UK [2], about two thirds of which occur when MDMA is used in conjunction with other drugs [2], and cannabis, a class C drug, has not yet been shown to have a casual link to increased mortality in users.
I also propose that cannabis should be reinstated as a class B drug, since it serves as a gateway to tobacco use, as tobacco is often mixed with cannabis to improve it's combustion properties when smoked. I urge you to work to increase public awareness of this danger inherent to cannabis use, since there are many reports of individuals becoming nicotine addicts after starting out on cannabis.
As for alcohol, I find it baffling that it's still being sold across the country when it's been well established that alcohol is a leading cause of violent crime, with the perpetrator being reported by the victim to have been under the influence of alcohol in 40% of all violent incidents [3], and there were 8,386 alcohol-related deaths in 2005 [4]. Aside from the slow degradation and eventual failure of the liver which is an established outcome of long-term alcoholism, alcohol also has the frightening ability to kill with just one drink, as the first drink lowers the inhibitions and self-control of the alcohol user, thus leading to the consumption of additional drinks and eventual death through accident or acute poisoning, or even the death of an innocent bystander through alcohol-induced aggression. Indeed, several times when travelling through Glasgow on the bus at night, as the clubs have been emptying, I've witnessed intoxicated alcohol-users head-butt the window of the bus I was riding in, and I've witnessed several fights among alcohol users, one of which resulted in one individual being taken away in an ambulance. With alcohol, there's no such thing as a safe dose, and I would like to see life sentences given to dealers who supply this menace to otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Hopefully you'll be able to draw attention to these two glaring oversights in the current drugs legislation, and protect the public from the evidently great dangers of alcohol and tobacco. I'd go as far as saying that these two substances should be the top priority in anti-narcotics efforts, given the enormous death toll and cost to society that result from them.
Your sincerely,
Peter MacKenzie
[1] UK Department of Health, http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthandsocialcaretopics/Tobacco/index.htm
[2] National Institute for Medical Research; Drugs and addiction, ecstasy and cannabis, http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/MillHillEssays/2002/drugs.htm
[3] British Criminal Survey, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr3503.pdf
[4] Office of National Statistics http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091
-
There is one misspelled word:
principle avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK
should be spelled:
principal avoidable cause of premature deaths in the UK
http://www.answers.com/topic/principal
USAGE NOTE Principal and principle are often confused but have no meanings in common. Principle is only a noun and usually refers to a rule or standard. Principal is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun, it has specialized meanings in law and finance, but in general usage it refers to a person who holds a high position or plays an important role: a meeting among all the principals in the transaction. As an adjective it has the sense of “chief†or “leadingâ€: The coach's principal concern is the quarterback's health.
Fixed.
-
I wouldn't use the "modest proposal" line.
It's overused. Plus, as your proposal is not
total satire, it is mistaken to do so.
-
.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My response:
Thank you for your reply; it was very kind of you to take the time to address my concerns. I must, however, debate some points.
If there is a penalty of 14 years imprisonment for supplying a substance which causes a poorly quantified increase in the risk of schizophrenia, why then is there no custodial term for supplying a substance which is well established as being addictive, causing profound and irreversible brain damage in heavy chronic users, causing many cases of death through acute poisoning each year, causing liver failure through heavy chronic use, causing a host of birth defects when taken by pregnant women and inducing violent and dangerous behaviours in a wide range of users, from addicts to first-time and casual users?
I understand that there is a strong cultural and economic aspect to alcohol that is difficult to counter, but the efforts outlined appear very meek given the danger and the socioeconomic inertia that must be overcome. A more rigorous policy is needed to wean society off this drug, which has long been a major cause of domestic violence and other social problems, apart from it's very obvious detriment to the individual user.
I also disagree that people must take responsibility for their own alcohol use. We as a society decided long ago that people were not able to take responsibility for their use of intoxicating substances when we started proscribing those substances. We simply haven't yet taken that line of thinking to it's final conclusion in which alcohol and tobacco, along with various other substances in common use, will be criminalised. 'Sensible use' by a majority was no defence for cocain and opium, which used to be readily available in pharmacies as medicinal preperations and were only abused by a minority, and it shouldn't be a defence for alcohol, and certainly not for tobacco, the use of which appears insensible from the start.
I'm glad to see, however, that tobacco is being taken somewhat seriously, and hope that controls on it continue to tighten with a view to eventual prohibition. Already I've noticed more people attempting to quit their addiction as a result of the inconveniences imposed upon them, and I doubt very much that tobacco, which is by any account a very poor substance for recreation, would find much traction in the black market under prohibition if there weren't so many pre-existing addicts.
-
:plus:
Good response, Peter. They seemed to totally miss your pont, however.