Greens to Vote on Legalising Heroin Because Prohibition is “Racist”
The Green Party is set to vote on legalising heroin and all other drugs in an attempt to make society more “inclusive”, with leader Zack Polanski suggesting prohibition is racist. The Telegraph has more.
A motion drafted ahead of the party’s spring conference aims to update its existing policy and call for an end to the “prohibition of drugs”.
At the last General Election, the Greens promised to set up a commission that would produce an “evidence-based approach” to changing the law around substance use.
However, Zack Polanski, who became the party’s leader last autumn, has since gone further and said he wanted to legalise all drugs. Heroin and cocaine are included in the motion that calls for a blanket legalisation.
The motion reads: “To end the prohibition of drugs and create a system of legal regulation to minimise the harms associated with drug use, production and supply as part of an inclusive, supportive, socially just society.”
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg earlier this month, Polanski declared he wanted to see a “system change” on drugs policy despite never having taken a drug himself.
He said: “I’ve always liked dancing without taking drink or drugs. If anyone wants to do it and they’re doing it safely, fine. I’m glad people are having a good time. But we know lots of people aren’t doing it safely, so let’s make sure they get the support they need.”
Challenged on the message that legalising drugs might send, Polanski responded: “I think the danger is happening right now, which is where we’re pushing it into street corners and a black market.”
He also suggested the continued criminalisation of drugs was racist, adding: “This is very racialised, in fact often it is young black people who are stopped and searched on the street, particularly in London.
“Eight times more likely than their white peers, despite the fact there is no evidence they are any more likely to be holding or taking drugs.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
GB News is reporting that a Green Councillor and her young daughter will be visiting Crowborough to deliver Valentines cards to the illegal invaders. Presumably this Green representative is aware that Valentines Day celebrates sexual coupling. The Green Party is perverse, pernicious and intellectually barren.
Maybe that Green Councillor should leave her daughter behind for a few hours so that the illegals can show her their love too. Then she will realise why the vast majority of us don’t want an illegal immigrant camp within a million miles of our home.
Young? Over eight?
I’ll bet she’s cut from the same cloth as this woman, who voted in favour of men with a paraphilia and sexual predators who don a dress and declare themselves as female to be given access to women-only spaces. These individuals are disgusting traitors to fellow women indeed. She then has the bloody nerve to go on about ‘gender equality’ in this speech, having just screwed over her own sex. But am I surprised there’s no shortage of women stabbing females in the back? Not at all. Communists have always been available in male and female form. But isn’t it interesting that nobody ever mentions: ”Transmen are men”, as if FtM trans people don’t exist? All strangely one-sided..
”A woman celebrating the erasure of women on the altar of an illogical ideology is something I thought I would never see. So confident in her position she has the comments turned off. Absolutely pathetic, Maria Walsh MEP. Shame on you.”
https://x.com/jubbyjub7/status/2022210534519779804
This lunatic has said that the cards will be anonymous so her grandchildren will not be at risk because they won’t know who they are. Brilliant you stupid, thick POS, you have put every child and woman at risk, then, because some or all of the illegal migrants, who already use the defence that they don’t realise that the culture of this country prohibits underage sex, will look at all of the women and children and be wondering which one loves them and sent them the card.
I have grave reservations about the state regulating what adults put into their bodies so I tend to favour legalisation at least in theory. In practice maybe it would render society so hellish that I would quickly recant, though I tend to think that the reason most people don’t do heroin is not that it’s illegal but because they realise it’s a bad idea, in most cases. But I completely disagree with all of the reasons that Zack Polanski (born David Paulden) gives.
I expect lots of people will disagree with me. FWIW I don’t do illegal drugs, just booze.
The “war on drugs” is a complete failure, probably caused more harm than moderate use of the drugs themselves.
Regulate and tax might be a more effective approach, not that I would trust the government to get anything right, especially difficult delicate stuff
Indeed
What war on drugs? That is a myth these days trotted out by drug fanantics. For a real war on drugs, anyone caught dealing drugs is strung up with piano wire.
These freaks are dangerous and seem to have no moral foundation or regard for society.
What would the consequences of legalising more recreational drugs? Perhaps some people would escape prison? Perhaps more innocent people would be killed by drugged drivers in accidents?
But perhaps the biggest consequence would be criminal gangs searching for an alternative way of making money. Kidnapping, home invasions, extortion, smuggling? Or office invasions to steal computer memory (it happened back in the eighties when ram was expensive).
There seems to be a natural balance about how much illegality is acceptable over time. Reduce the illegality of recreational drugs and illegal actions will pop out elsewhere. So if you make changes, introduce them slowly.
I was a police officer in a major city, and my personal experience makes me disagree with his assertion about who might be carrying drugs and who might not be.
There is no crime under the sun that could not be eliminated by making it legal. How next to weaken society? More Soma anyone?
Well yes but I tend to think crimes ought to have clearly defined victims. Taking drugs if you can afford it and don’t become a useless criminal parasite doesn’t have a victim. The “victim” is “society” but only if there are people who cannot handle it. There are lots of legal vices that render some people useless. I guess you could argue that doesn’t mean we should legalise more of them. I just get suspicious of justifications for things based on “society”.
Does speeding have a victim if there is no incident/no one is hurt?
Not having a go, just making a point.
No offence taken
I believe in freedom of speech and honest debate
Relative to many, we are all on the same side
I think speed limits are too low and tend to think they should be advisory. If you cause an accident and you are going too fast, the law should come down on you like a ton of bricks. Doing 60 in a 40 zone when conditions are perfect and there is little traffic – what’s the problem. I don’t break speed limits other than the stupid 20 zone in my neighbourhood that everyone ignores.
Indeed. There are laws against dangerous driving, and due care and attention.
Do we actually need speed limits?
I do sometimes wonder how many of our politicians limp from day to day on cocaine, such is the boorish nonsense they manage to trot out.
Isn’t it racist to suggest that a greater proportion of ‘global majority’ folk than native Brits use and/or are dependent on currently illegal drugs?
I wonder which race(s) they have in mind?
This man has got sh*t for brains and is a liability. Can you imagine if he was your Prime Minister? He’s a loose cannon, he opens his mouth and a load of retarded, woke guff comes out, just because he wants to appeal to people. He’s a bloody fantasist.
I don’t think heroin is legal anywhere, so this prat wants to set the precedent for the entire world? 🙈 Nutter. I wonder if he’s ever personally known a junkie or had to care for one.
There’s a reason opioid meds for chronic pain patients are strictly controlled by doctors. Highly addictive, you quickly build a tolerance and they’ve some very unpleasant side effects. You would not want this stuff to be as easily available as alcohol.
Well, decriminalisation certainly worked well in British Columbia.
Oh no, wait a minute…
The dumbing down continues unabated.
I agree with Polanski provided anyone who commits any crime whilst under the influence of drugs is terminated. No second chances
How can the use of something like heroin or cocaine possibly be regulated? Are you telling me there will be standard-size packets of white powder being sold on supermarket shelves or off-licences? Are these dangerous, Class A drugs going to be prescribed as pain medication on the NHS?
It is ridiculous to suggest you can regulate the intravenous injection of a hard recreational drug. The only solution is to tackle the problem at the source, i.e. prevent them entering the country in the first place.
Legislation against opioids etc has a long history and it seems unlikely that the perfect solution will ever be found because there will always be people who crave their short term benefits, if you will pardon the term. The damage done by addiction is bad enough at present. ZP is guilty of simplistic populism and gross political irresponsibility.
Try Singapore for a successful solution.
The GREEN FREAK SHOW. Actually they are the RED FREAK SHOW ——but ssshhhh maybe no one will notice.