Finding laws that will fit new drug use

From: Roger Howard, chief executive, UK Drug Policy Commission.

YOUR Editorial “All change” (Yorkshire Post, May 16) misrepresents our new report on why we need to reform control of new “legal highs”.

Last year, 41 new substances were created and sold in Britain for the first time. Some of these may be quite harmful, and some of them may be less so.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

When mephedrone (“miaow miaow”) grew in popularity in 2008, many people appear to have chosen to use it instead of cocaine, which had previously been their drug of choice.

Following this, it would seem that fewer people died as a result of using cocaine. After mephedrone was banned, cocaine use and cocaine-related deaths both appear to have started rising again.

Despite media reports at the time, there is limited evidence about the negative health effects of mephedrone. We need to become much better at understanding the effects of new drugs like mephedrone, so we can identify whether they reduce the dangers people face when they choose to take them instead of other substances.

Some of your readers will hope for a world where no-one uses mind-altering substances. But is that realistic? Even after 40 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act, one in three British adults has taken a controlled drug. Nor is there any convincing evidence that users of controlled substances take any notice of whether a drug is labelled as class A, class B or class C. Most users’ information comes from their friends and the internet, not from what the law says.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Instead of trying to apply old laws to new drugs, we need to recognise that some substances are more harmful than others and build a pragmatic drug control system that can take this into account.

Establishing a control system for some new drugs that can be proven to be less harmful, by using trading standards powers, offers a new way forward that avoids the drawbacks of laws passed for another era.

Delicate art of Aussie barbie

From: Phil Lazenby, Park Way, Pool in Wharfedale, Otley.

IF Brian Sheridan (Yorkshire Post, May 16) ever visits Down Under, he had better watch out if he expounds his views on the iconic “barbie”.

In answer to his question why is it the bloke who dons the apron the answer is obvious – only a bloke can manage the delicate art of cooking snaggers (sausages to you Brian) until they are just right.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

That means black on the outside with the inside barely defrosted. A proper meal! And all this while he and his mates get though half a dozen cold beers and enliven the occasion with anecdotes featuring Sheilas and sport.

Meanwhile, the women get on the with the menial tasks – buying the ingredients in the first place, preparing the accompanying salad and side dishes and clearing up afterwards.

We might have beaten them at cricket but Aussie blokes can teach us Yorkshiremen a thing or two about priorities. Be a real bloke, love your barbecue.

From: Tim Mickleburgh, Boulevard Avenue, Grimsby.

I WAS bemused by Brian Sheridan’s view of barbecues (Yorkshire Post, May 16). I’ve always wondered about the enthusiasm for eating over- or under-cooked meat, especially as the same people would send back such a meal if served in a restaurant.

Vital point of the NHS

From: Elaine Johnson, Lincoln Road, Welton, Lincoln.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

HAVING listened to relatives in both Australia and the United States, the whole point of the NHS is that it is not only “free at the point of use” (Letters, Yorkshire Post, May 16), it is also free and available to everyone.

The young man hit by a bus in last week’s 24 hours in A&E on television would almost certainly have died, had it happened anywhere else in the world. The majority of people in this country have no recollection of a Health Service that was not instantly accessible.

Given the millions who use it every year, yes, things will go wrong, but many more succeed.

I know where I want to live when I need medical care and I think that will apply to most of your correspondents.

Moments of overload

From: Mrs Maureen Hunt, Woolley, Near Wakefield.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

MY sons tell me that I was always a bit dizzy, even when young, and would go through a list of names, including the dog’s, before arriving at one of theirs. Consequently, I suppose it is not surprising that, having reached the late autumn of my life, I am becoming even more forgetful.

However, there is good news for those of you who, like me, believe you are experiencing an increasing number of “senior moments.” I have been informed, on good authority, that this is not so. But, we are suffering “intellectual overload.” Isn’t that a relief? It sounds so much better.

Why I choose to abstain

From: G Ellison, Hawthorn Avenue, Dronfield.

Why is it only in England where the majority of the electorate daren’t vote for smaller parties and keep most of the Tory councils?

In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they vote for who they think represents their views. Here the gutless English stick to the mainstream, pro-EU, pro-migration, pro-anti-English parliament, low pay and job cutting policies, the reason why New Labour won three elections on the trot.

I abstain and only vote for PR in EU elections. By abstaining, you still have the right to comment, as the mainstream parties don’t represent my views.