----The Daily Prevail #1 - Drug sentencing guidelines!

Hello people of the internet. This is my first blog post and I will mainly be posting blogs about cannabis and drug-related posts from the UK. This first post called "The Daily Prevail" is going to be the first of many. It is simply somewhere that I can post my thoughts about the lies and deceit in many of the Daily Mail articles. Hopefully then with comments from all of you, we can have a small collection of the truth behind most articles at the Daily Mail.



Okay, so this first blog is on this article by Kathy Gyngell:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2091500/Drug-sentencing-guidelines-A-door-route-drug-decriminalisation.html

It is simple talking about the new sentencing guidelines that the courts and police officers are now going to be abiding by. If you don't know about them already then go to facebook, search for "cannabis law reform" and then go on the CLEAR facebook page. The information on this will be there somewhere! If it's not, then ask on there! But to put it simple, people that are not directly related to organised crime will be not as targeted as much as the actual "criminals". This means that if you are someone who has been forced or intimidated to be a drug mule or you are just smoking a few spliffs, then you won't be treated like you are the scum of the country anymore.

So, this is obviously a good thing... but for some odd reason Ms Gyngell thinks that this is a step in the WRONG direction?!? Yeah Kathy... Because this system at the moment is working perfectly! In fact,  I think we should waste, Err, invest more money and police time into catching these dangerous drug users and small-time dealers! (The new guidelines suggest not concentrating on small-time dealers and go for the people at the top of the chain... So that means small-time growers wont be as targeted either - It means we can actually get the criminals off the street).

Personally, I can never understand WHY people write this stuff and think it's right to publish it? Not to mention that the comments on these articles are filled with people disagreeing and simply laughing at the articles.. So, I located the writer of this article, Kathy Gyngell on facebook and decided to ask her to defend her words and to enlighten me on what she knows, and I don't!! Here is my message:

"Hello Kathy! 

I just read your article on the new drug sentencing guidelines and just have a few points to raise. I am hoping that you will simply co-operate with me as I am interested in what you think about it. I am not just trying to argue, I want to know your side of it.

First of all, you say that our misuse of drugs act protects the public from harmful, toxic and addictive substances even though this isn't true? It doesn't prevent the public from getting it nor helping the public overcome it. Instead if you do fall "victim" to the illegal drugs market, you are targeted and are punished for doing so... Is this really helping people? Wouldn't a system where people are fully educated and helped if they need it be better? (Remember - This would free police time, Produce more jobs? Be Cheaper AND more effective...)

Then you say that the "bulk of the public" agree that the current system is fine. But wasn't it in the 1930s when the bulk of the public in Germany agreed with the views of a certain Adolf Hitler? Just because the large majority of the public agree with something, it doesn't make it right and you shouldn't use that to justify the current system when it is irrelevant! I mean honestly... How much of the public actually know the details of the current drug policy? (and how many of them that DO know...actually agree with it!?)

And then you start rambling on about the prisons... No one is saying our prisons are full, it is simple said that police time is being wasted on these "criminals". May i remind you that there is not as many officers as there use to be. I think it was said somewhere that they spend 20% of time on drug issues... Although Im not sure how accurate that is! So, don't you think that police should spend more time on real crime? 

Now I am reading about the US having a good system? What about countries who have handed over the drug issues to their health departments... They are A LOT cheaper and more effective than any system that deals with it by making criminals out of victims! Im sure you have seen the home affairs committee with richard branson! Don't you think that it would make sense to listen to what Branson had to say in that?

That is my main questions with your article. Please don't just ignore this. At least make some attempt to defend your words. 

Thankyou Very much!"