Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Any Lib Dems here on TSR? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm writing a policy motion regarding the Psychoactive Substances Act and drug reform, and I'd like some thoughts and feedback from some other Lib Dems. You can view the draft here:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

    Any feedback is helpful, whether you think I've missed out something important, mentioned something that's not important, not covered the issue deeply enough or whatever.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Bump, there must be some Lib Dems here! Alternatively you don't need to be a Lib Dem, just someone who's interested in drug reform and could give some suggestions for arguments or policies to go in the motion above!

    The policy will hopefully be put forward at the Lib Dem conference in Autumn, and if successful will lead to new Lib Dem policy. I'll need 10 Lib Dem members to support it before I can submit it, and obviously only Lib Dems will be able to go to Conference and vote, but feedback from absolutely anyone is welcome, both regarding the arguments to convince people in favour for reform, and the policies that we'd like to see put in place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Extremist Centrist here, will check it out after university today, marking thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bump

    Right okay so I agree with the Lib Dems on this issue, If it were me I'd want all substance abuse to be decriminalised (not suppliers) because it prevents those in need of help from finding help.

    I think a lot of people misunderstand the line between legal and decriminalised, they think that if we decriminalise a drug that it will be in shops and everywhere on the streets.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheNote)
    Bump

    Right okay so I agree with the Lib Dems on this issue, If it were me I'd want all substance abuse to be decriminalised (not suppliers) because it prevents those in need of help from finding help.

    I think a lot of people misunderstand the line between legal and decriminalised, they think that if we decriminalise a drug that it will be in shops and everywhere on the streets.
    Thanks for the input. Personally I believe these substances should be fully legalized with supply regulated, but that's not realistic right now. I agree that most people don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalisation, and I also think that teaching people the difference and campaigning for decriminalization would be a more practical goal. I've made a few changes:

    X) Legalization and decriminalization of substances do not mean the same thing, but people often believe that they do.

    I) People may be more willing to support decriminalization than legalization of substances.

    4. Campaign to educate the public in the facts regarding drug criminalization, such as the findings of the aforementioned report, to shift the debate away from speculation and emotional arguments. Make clear the difference between drug decriminalization and legalization.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    All drugs should be decriminalized with most being legalized.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lib Dem member here :five:

    I think it's a good motion, but I question whether it's not possible to simply amend the act to deal with the uncertainty inherent in it (that you note). For example, by changing the definition of a psychoactive substance to including an exhaustive list of those substances primarily responsible for the bulk of the 60 deaths a year, as opposed to not banning any at all, because some of these substances are downright dangerous.

    However, I am a bit split on the issue, as I don't really think it's for the government to be policing what humans can and cannot inhale/put into their bodies, so I would support the legalisation of most drugs. But maybe the above can just a pre-emptive criticism that others might make, as opposed to liberals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    Lib Dem member here :five:

    I think it's a good motion, but I question whether it's not possible to simply amend the act to deal with the uncertainty inherent in it (that you note). For example, by changing the definition of a psychoactive substance to including an exhaustive list of those substances primarily responsible for the bulk of the 60 deaths a year, as opposed to not banning any at all, because some of these substances are downright dangerous.

    However, I am a bit split on the issue, as I don't really think it's for the government to be policing what humans can and cannot inhale/put into their bodies, so I would support the legalisation of most drugs. But maybe the above can just a pre-emptive criticism that others might make, as opposed to liberals.
    Thanks for the feedback.

    I agree that the argument could be made to amend the act. But I think that would still leave a lot of problems - the ineffectiveness of these types of laws, pushing people to illegal and unsafe dealers, and making it even harder to get any real drug reform. I'm hoping this will be enough to convince people that the whole act needs to be repealed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Thanks for the feedback.

    I agree that the argument could be made to amend the act. But I think that would still leave a lot of problems - the ineffectiveness of these types of laws, pushing people to illegal and unsafe dealers, and making it even harder to get any real drug reform. I'm hoping this will be enough to convince people that the whole act needs to be repealed.
    Those same arguments apply to the criminalisation of class A drugs, and (less so, but to some extent) assault rifles, do they not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    Those same arguments apply to the criminalisation of class A drugs, and (less so, but to some extent) assault rifles, do they not?
    They definitely apply to the criminalisation of class A drugs, but I haven't seen any evidence that they apply to assault rifles (and comparing gun crime in the US to anywhere else in the West, I'd assume they don't).

    I don't think that's necessarily something that could be used against this motion though. If anything it's a good opportunity to demonstrate that criminalisation in general doesn't work.

    That said, it's probably a criticism we'd face. Can you think of a counter argument?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    They definitely apply to the criminalisation of class A drugs, but I haven't seen any evidence that they apply to assault rifles (and comparing gun crime in the US to anywhere else in the West, I'd assume they don't).

    I don't think that's necessarily something that could be used against this motion though. If anything it's a good opportunity to demonstrate that criminalisation in general doesn't work.
    I meant in general the argument that the criminalisation of something creates a black market for the supply of that thing can apply equally to the criminalisation of guns as it can to the criminalisation of cannabis.

    The logical conclusion of adopting your stance is that no drugs should be criminalised?

    That said, it's probably a criticism we'd face. Can you think of a counter argument?
    That depends on your answer to my question above.

    If no, then you can argue that you have to draw the line for criminalisation somewhere, but then the onus is on you to satisfactorily distinguish between the drugs you think should be criminalised, and those that you think shouldn't.

    If yes, then, as you mention, perhaps focus on the decriminalisation/legalisation distinction to justify the logical extension of that stance. Should we adopt a rehabilitative or retributivist system re: drugs policy? Does the current retributivist current work (i.e. is it a deterrent)? Does public opinion support this stance?

    Just my two cents.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    Lib Dem member here :five:
    You're dead to me. :slap:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Our friendship is over. :slap:
    Don't get me wrong, I disagree with a lot of their policies, and I strongly dislike Tim Farron, but they're the party I can tolerate the most.

    I can't stand Labour because they just pander to the uneducated and under-achieving, I can't stand Conservatives because they're morally Conservative, I can't stand UKIP because they're a single-issue party and I can't stand the Green party because... Well, that one goes without saying.

    The Lib Dems strike the right mix of social progressivism (autonomy > paternalism, support for free speech, gay marriage, etc) and fiscal responsibility. They don't always get it right, but they reach a better balance than any other party.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    Don't get me wrong, I disagree with a lot of their policies, and I strongly dislike Tim Farron, but they're the party I can tolerate the most.

    I can't stand Labour because they just pander to the uneducated and under-achieving, I can't stand Conservatives because they're morally Conservative, I can't stand UKIP because they're a single-issue party and I can't stand the Green party because... Well, that one goes without saying.

    The Lib Dems strike the right mix of social progressivism (autonomy > paternalism, support for free speech, gay marriage, etc) and fiscal responsibility. They don't always get it right, but they reach a better balance than any other party.
    Yeah, I agree. Will most likely be voting for them in the Assembly election next month, because all the other parties on offer are worse. :sad: They sent me a letter asking me to put this in my window:

    Spoiler:
    Show


    I won't. :five: :mwuaha:
    Why not just vote for them, instead of being a party member? :holmes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Yeah, I agree. Will most likely be voting for them in the Assembly election next month, because all the other parties on offer are worse. :sad: They sent me a letter asking me to put this in my window:
    Spoiler:
    Show


    Why not just vote for them, instead of being a party member? :holmes:
    I forgot you live in Wales. I hope you don't have a god-awful Welsh accent... :afraid: If you do, all I can say is that I am sorry.

    I used to have a Lib Dem logo thing outside my door at university last year. :mmm:

    That's a good question tbh. :dontknow:

    PS. We are derailing the thread, bad Hydeman. :slap:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    I forgot you live in Wales. I hope you don't have a god-awful Welsh accent... :afraid: If you do, all I can say is that I am sorry.
    Don't worry, I don't.

    I used to have a Lib Dem logo thing outside my door at university last year. :mmm:
    Such a partisan hack, you are. :pierre:

    PS. We are derailing the thread, bad Hydeman. :slap:
    y u do dis :emo: We're just talking about membership of the Lib Dems, which is tangentially related to the subject of the thread. xD
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    y u do dis :emo: We're just talking about membership of the Lib Dems, which is tangentially related to the subject of the thread. xD
    I don't think the OP had this in mind when he wrote in the OP "I'm writing a policy motion regarding the Psychoactive Substances Act and drug reform, and I'd like some thoughts and feedback from some other Lib Dems".

    PS. I just realised you edited "our friendship is over" to "you're dead to me" earlier, merely repudiating our friendship not a sufficient step in the face of my public declaration of support for the Lib Dems (the party you plan on voting for)?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    I don't think the OP had this in mind when he wrote in the OP "I'm writing a policy motion regarding the Psychoactive Substances Act and drug reform, and I'd like some thoughts and feedback from some other Lib Dems".
    Who knows, I might join and help that become party policy. :innocent:

    PS. I just realised you edited "our friendship is over" to "you're dead to me" earlier, merely repudiating our friendship not a sufficient step in the face of my public declaration of support for the Lib Dems (the party you plan on voting for)?
    Precisely. (And I'm only voting for them because the alternative would be not voting, which is worse. xD)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Who knows, I might join and help that become party policy. :innocent:
    He asked for thoughts and feedback, not for help in voting it through. And he specifically stated "you don't need to be a Lib Dem" (he even bolded it) to give said thoughts and feedback.

    Dismissed.

    Precisely. (And I'm only voting for them because the alternative would be not voting, which is worse. xD)
    Tbh, is not voting really worse? In a safe seat especially. The standard response is 'oh, but if everyone said that...', but that's *******s, probably because of some logical reason pertaining to a prior assumption made that amounts to a fallacy, but I cba to think it through rn. Still *******s, regardless.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by AJ KO)
    He asked for thoughts and feedback, not for help in voting it through. And he specifically stated "you don't need to be a Lib Dem" (he even bolded it) to give said thoughts and feedback.

    Dismissed.
    Alright, Mr. Policeman. (Funny that you chastised me for doing exactly this on a different thread some time back. )

    Tbh, is voting really worse than not voting? In a safe seat especially. The standard response is 'oh, but if everyone said that...', but that's *******s, probably because of some logical reason pertaining to a prior assumption made that amounts to a fallacy, but I cba to think it through rn. Still *******s, regardless.
    Well, in my case not voting would be worse. As the Lib Dem flyers keep telling me, Labour won this constituency by only 38 votes in 2011, so it's pretty tight.

    Also, Assembly elections use an additional member system whereby every voter gets to cast two votes, one for their constituency and another to express a preference -- the second vote is used to elect 20 members on top of the 40 elected from constituencies and these seats are allocated proportionally, so it's worth voting for that reason, even if one lives in a safe seat.

    (And, I suppose, there's also the fact that, four elections in, we've never had a turnout hit the 50 percent mark, which is just shameful. :getmecoat: I think people in Wales underestimate just how much power the regional government has, which would explain why they don't give a rat's ass about this election but still bother with general elections.)
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.