Drugs and the Tories

[DaBeeeenster]

Is it just me, or does anyone find the "defence" that David Cameron and some of his tory compatriots are making regarding their drug taking somewhat pathetic.

They defend their right to privacy by arguing that what they did in their youth is not relevant to their positions today. This would be all very well and good, but the problem is their party policy against drugs.

If they were members of a party that wanted to legalise and control the drugs that they took, I could completely understand their position. As it is, they are members of a party that states that people in possession of the very drugs that they have clearly taken are criminals.

Clearly this is just another case of Tory elitism and snobbery. They dont seem to understand that their position, in the context of their party policy, makes them baseless hypocrites.

Thoughts?

[Moby-Dick]

you mean a politican is taking one rule for themselves and one for everyone else ?

surely this can't be the case - I've always known all politicans to be honest , taxpaying , model citizen , who would no more break a law than their childs ankle.

[DaBeeeenster]

What I dont understand is that no-one has said this. Everyone's making it out to be a question of privacy, which it isn't.

[Moby-Dick]

hmmm if they were advocating policy which stated that if you had ever possed controlled substances in the past then you'd be punished for it ( in the same way that if you had committed other offences in the past ) then would you have a stronger arguement ?

[Kaine (AoD)]

Some things you can understand, Ive not looked in to this much but i did hear something about chemical based drugs which I do not agree on. Everyone has a right to there privacy yea but if you are that high up in the system and you go along takin chemical based drugs something is bound to go wrong.. they are MENT to set an example to alot of us (us being the younger generation ) but what are 13-14 year olds ganna think when the guys on TV are takin these things =\ they just ganna think "oh they can do it so can i"... well not all of them will think that but you WILL always get the few that will think it =\

[DaBeeeenster]

Some things you can understand, Ive not looked in to this much but i did hear something about chemical based drugs which I do not agree on. Everyone has a right to there privacy yea but if you are that high up in the system and you go along takin chemical based drugs something is bound to go wrong.. they are MENT to set an example to alot of us (us being the younger generation ) but what are 13-14 year olds ganna think when the guys on TV are takin these things =\ they just ganna think "oh they can do it so can i"... well not all of them will think that but you WILL always get the few that will think it =\

How do you place alcohol in this context?

[megah0]

Some things you can understand, Ive not looked in to this much but i did hear something about chemical based drugs which I do not agree on. Everyone has a right to there privacy yea but if you are that high up in the system and you go along takin chemical based drugs something is bound to go wrong.. they are MENT to set an example to alot of us (us being the younger generation ) but what are 13-14 year olds ganna think when the guys on TV are takin these things =\ they just ganna think "oh they can do it so can i"... well not all of them will think that but you WILL always get the few that will think it =\

Sure if they took them now, but isn't this supposed to have happened years ago, I mean who hasn't done things in the past that they regret/wish they hadn't done?

[Kaine (AoD)]

t'is true =\ If it was many years ago why bring it back up now, they may have only just found out about it but the past is the past and although I dont really agree on these type of things theres not much you can do about the past..

How do you place alcohol in this context?

I dont understand brains a bit dead today

[TheAnimus]

how many of us have done naughty things which if found out about would be held against us?

I for one have done many things which my boss wouldn't belive if someone told them. It is a matter of privacy when people start getting all high and mighty about it, when other parties will use it against you.

I should expect that its the minority of polititions who haven't used drugs after all.

And why can you not be anti-drugs having taken them in the past? surely it makes you much more credible in your beliefs!

[DaBeeeenster]

And why can you not be anti-drugs having taken them in the past? surely it makes you much more credible in your beliefs!

Er, I'd say it makes you a hypocrite.

[Moby-Dick]

Er, I'd say it makes you a hypocrite.

I'm going to disagree wtih you on this one. Surely having taken drugs , you are in a position to point out to someone the positive and negative aspects of (ab)use of them.

I dont think everyone has had a 100% positive experience as Mr Hicks.

Who would you trust more , someone who says " Don't take drugs becuause I've read they might be bad for you" , or someone who says "Don't take drugs becuase I tried and they where bad for me" ?

you woudn't trust either of them ?

fair point - I'm all for freedom of choice , but would that choice be better of made knowing both sides of the story ?

[autopilot]

Er, I'd say it makes you a hypocrite.

I also must disagree with that

I would say that not being able to learn from your experiences and change your opinions would make you a closed minded person and not someone i would want leading my country.

At the very least, it may well give him a better take on the situation and make him better qualified to talk about drugs than some other toff born with a silver spoon in their mouth and has no experience with the real world, in which most people have experimented with drugs of some form. I would actually listen more if they know what they are talking about.

It's really not an issue for me, it what people are doing now and what they plan to do in the future that counts.

All i want is openness and honesty. I don't think i know a single politician that can offer this though.

I think attacking someone and making out you are a better person than them, just because they made a mistake years ago is a form of elitism and snobbery. I don't really care if someone took a few drugs or smoked a few spliffs as a student. If everyone who did was not allowed to have a job, more than half the country would get laid off.

But if they lie about it, thats a different matter. But it's a matter of trust, not drug use.

[DaBeeeenster]

Cameron didn't believe that the law applied to him when he was younger, but he expects that law ought to apply to others?

Sorry, but that's clearly a double standard, and utterly hypocritical.

Either you are for freedom of choice or you are not. Whether or not you have had a positive or negative experience of drugs is utterly irrelavent.

[Goberpiles]

I think they should leave it alone unless they suspect he is a junkie now, bringing a family member into the fold who has quit or trying to quit isnt right.

How many people here have done stuff in their past, which if asked at that perfect job interview 10-15 years later would say "I havent done that"

[Moby-Dick]

I think people do know that the law applies to them , but they break it knowing full well what the risks are.

[Rave]

Cameron didn't believe that the law applied to him when he was younger, but he expects that law ought to apply to others?

Sorry, but that's clearly a double standard, and utterly hypocritical.

Either you are for freedom of choice or you are not. Whether or not you have had a positive or negative experience of drugs is utterly irrelavent.

Yeah, this is also my position. However, it's kind of irrelevant anyway, as IMO any politician who claims to think that the 'war on drugs' will ever be effective has already proven himself to be an irredeemable tard.