oneampfuse

Charles Clarke: Just like Blunkett, except without the liberal instincts.


Ever wondered how anti-drugs legislation is made? New Home Secretary Charles Clarke has a crash course.

Read the debate in the House of Commons, 18 January 2005. A black day for Labour.

Selected quotes:

Mr Jon Owen Jones: .. magic mushrooms will be made more illegal than they are currently. What benefit will that bring?

Mr. Clarke: We are looking in detail at the position on that—

Pretty basic question, right? ‘We are looking in detail at the position on that’. What, AFTER you’ve submitted the legislation? First instinct, as much thought as a jellyfish: BAN IT!

Mr. Clarke: I have obviously been guilty of misstatement if there is any doubt in the hon. Lady's mind: I am wholly against, without qualification, legalising drugs. If I was unclear in what I said, I reiterate it clearly from the Dispatch Box

Without WHAT? Paracetamol is in my bathroom cupboard, you asshole. Every year, it kills more people than all the magic mushrooms in the history of the world. People like me take it sometimes because they think it makes their life slightly better. It is not illegal. Nor does it scare me, as it is not controlled by gangsters, but by me.

Probably he meant to say: "I am wholly against, without qualification, legalising illegal drugs or illegalising legal drugs, except as chosen at random by the 'wheel of castigation'" .

Or maybe, "I am wholly against, without having the slightest idea what I'm talking about".

And in case we’re in any doubt:

Mr. Clarke: We are addressing the status of magic mushrooms in particular
because the chemicals inside them are class A drugs—they have an effect. As
a result, people are preparing products using a brand of magic mushroom, and
taking approaches designed to bypass the existing legislation, which is why
we are addressing the matter in that way.

"bypass the existing legislation" - as i am 'bypassing' the current money laundering regulations by not laundering money. There is apparently something so wrong about ‘not breaking the law’ that, as a matter of principle, it needs to be dealt with by primary legislation.

And this is the most disgraceful thing ever said in the House of Commons:

"Let me be quite candid. There have been two or three interventions from Labour
Members and from the Opposition that suggest a tolerance or understanding of
people who use those drugs for their own pleasure, or whatever they do. I do not
share that view in any respect whatsoever."

So some people are harming noone, carrying out a centuries-old pastime, not breaking the law, and you are outraged by your colleagues showing “tolerance or understanding” towards them? Fuck you right back to the hole you crawled from Charles Clarke. Can we have the other lunatic back please?