THE POISON GARDEN website      Arum maculatum berries on a Cannabis leaf 


This free script provided by JavaScript Kit

Pontifications on Poison

Being some ramblings on events associated with poisonous plants.

Friday 16th March 2012

It’s been a busy week for those involved in drug policy. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) has been holding its annual meeting in Vienna and, on Tuesday evening, Intellgence2 held a debate, in London and streamed live, on the motion ‘It’s Time to End the War on Drugs’.

CND ‘reviews and analyses the global drug control situation, considering the interrelated issues of prevention of drug abuse, rehabilitation of drug users and supply and trafficking in illicit drugs’ according to the UNODC website What that means is its annual meeting is a chance for the UN and individual countries to go on about what a great job they are doing implementing the UN conventions as they relate to psychoactive substances.

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) runs an ‘as it happens’ blog from the meeting and that is, probably, the best way to get an idea of what happens. Mostly, what happens is the usual nonsense. Yury Fedotov, the executive director of UNODC, gave his opening address without any mention of the spread of HIV amongst injecting drug users (IDUs) who cannot access clean needles. Then, when challenged on this omission, his defensive response was to say he didn’t need to mention it in his speech because everyone knows UNODC’s position. If it were true that there was no need for established positions to be presented than the CND would last five minutes not five days as it is all about repeating entrenched views.

Countries have displays in the venue so delegates were able to marvel at Iran’s claims about how much good it does for the world by executing drug users without due process. The Russians accused a charity trying to reduce the spread of HIV by providing clean equipment of illegally selling methadone, a claim the charity denies and says comes about because the Russian authorities turn their backs on the problems of IDUs.

And Guatemala made no reference to changes in international drug policy in spite of its president calling for just this only a week or so ago. It’s hard to determine tone in the short format of a tweet but I think there was a triumphalist tone to Kevin Sabet’s tweet saying ‘No mention of decriminalization or anything close to it from Guatemala’.  I was pleased Transform Drug Policy Foundation (TDPF) come straight back with a tweet about what USA VP, Joe Biden, must have said to Guatemala during his visit to central and South America in order to shut them up.

If the CND was effectively a rerun of all previous annual meetings then the debate organised by Intelligence2 was something new. A live debate being held in London, streamed via YouTube and with participants from around the world making their contributions via Google Hangout. Prior to the start of the debate an online poll gave people the chance to vote on whether they agreed that it was time to end the war on drugs. A similar poll was held in the hall. Online 92% of people agreed with the motion and in the hall the figure was 60%.

That meant the whole event was, to an extent preaching to the choir, and, perhaps due to an anxiety to show off the technology, there were too many contributors for the time available meaning points had to be made in sound bites with little chance for a contentious claim to be disputed.

A good example of this occurs at 1:54:15 when Peter Hitchens interrupts Sir Richard Branson. Hitchens is very fond of making ad hominem attacks so I shan’t follow his lead. It would be easy to describe him as stupid but it is far worse than that. He is a very clever man saying stupid things. It’s hard not to conclude that he is well aware that what he says is stupid but he is clever enough to know when to say it so as to fool some of the people.

In this case, he trots out the canard that cannabis is decriminalized in the UK simply because the police don’t go out hunting down users. The format does not allow for this point to be challenged with evidence of which there is plenty. My own local paper reported on Thursday the case of a man who invited the police into his home to follow up a road accident and, as a result, now has a criminal conviction because the police smelt the one cannabis plant he was growing for his own use.

There is an even better example of Hitchens’ technique. It’s worth watching  from the question at 1:48:28 to see the sort of personal abuse Hitchens deploys but the point I want to highlight is at 1:49:40 when Hitchens describes cannabis as ‘especially dangerous’. Now, it is true that earlier in the debate, more than once in fact, it was pointed out that the UNODC’s top estimate suggests there could be 225 million people in the world who used cannabis in the past year without coming to any harm at all but it really needed someone to challenge Hitchens’ assertion immediately. Due to the format that was not possible.

You might be led to wonder why Hitchens participated in this event. The audience, clearly, had no respect for anything he said. My view is that Hitchens knew exactly what reaction he wanted to get so that, when he returns to his own constituency, he can tell it that those in favour of reform are scornful of common sense and uninterested in reason.

Like a lot of journalists, Hitchens is not concerned about having a logically consistent approach. Speaking from the audience, early in the debate, he chastised Russell Brand for, in Hitchens' view, seeking to blame other people for his problems with substances and failing to take personal responsibility for his actions. Later, once he is on the platform, he ridicules Julian Assange's argument that individuals should be free to choose what to do with their own bodies by claiming that personal responsibility is not acceptable when it comes to drugs.

But the flaws in the event itself did not prevent some interesting points emerging.

In part, the prohibitionist arguments were ones that have been heard before; there is no ‘war on drugs’, the existing regime is working and legalisation would lead to an explosion of use. There was, however, one angle that was new to me and, given that a number of prohibitionist contributors used it, I think it was deliberately aimed at the expected audience.

This new point was to suggest that the reform argument is being made by large companies who want to exploit the opportunities for profit that a free market in substances would create. That part we’ve heard before but the new angle was to suggest that these companies are part of the 1% seeking to take advantage of the 99%; in other words the prohibitionists were trying to align themselves with the Occupy movement.

Steve Rolles of TDPF cut that argument down by pointing out that no-one was suggesting a free market. Rather, as set out in TDPF’s ‘Blueprint for Regulation’ a non-prohibition model would be based on discouraging harmful use not promoting it.

I wasn’t able to watch the whole debate; my broadband turned it into a jerky farce after about 85 minutes so I caught up with the rest later. I had read that the after debate polls showed online support up from 92 to 97% and support in the hall up from 60 to 65% but it was watching the recording that told me that the ‘anti’ vote in the hall increased by 15%.

This means that the 25% ‘undecideds’ before the debate spilt three to one in favour of maintaining prohibition. Of course, it is impossible to know how many pre-event ‘undecideds’ were actually in favour of prohibition but willing to listen as opposed to truly being on the fence. It is, though, worrying that the unchallenged assertions and blatant lies of the prohibitionist contributors seem to have been accepted by some of the live audience.

I expect there will be more such events but, I hope, that the organisers will, at least, limit the number of participants so points can be developed in more detail and, perhaps, limit the topic to a particular aspect of drug prohibition so that broad generalisation can be replaced by careful consideration of evidence.

It is a somewhat unfair comparison, given that one was a two hour debate and the other a full day conference, but the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston Texas event entitled ‘The War on Drugs Has Failed. Is Legalization the Answer?’ that I wrote about a week ago provided a much better opportunity for examining the situation in detail. YouTube now has all the content available.


Full Entries


Tuesday 25th October 2016
Saturday 20th August 2016
Sunday 6th March 2016
Wednesday 3rd February 2016


Saturday 28th November 2015
Friday 27th November 2015
Monday 17th August 2015
Wednesday 15th July 2015
Friday 26th June 2015
Thursday 25th June 2015
Thursday 30th April 2015
Wednesday 29th April 2015
Wednesday 11th March 2015
Tuesday 3rd March 2015
Saturday 28th February 2015
Sunday 22nd February 2015

November 2014

Monday 24th November 2014
Saturday 8th November 2014

October 2014

September 2014

Wednesday 24th September 2014
Monday 1st September 2014

August 2014

Tuesday 26th August 2014
Saturday 16th August 2014
Tuesday 5th August 2014
Friday 1st August 2014

July 2014

Sunday 27th July 2014
Wednesday 23rd July 2014
Sunday 13th July 2014
Sunday 6th July 2014
Tuesday 1st July 2014

June 2014

Wednesday 25th June 2014
Tuesday 24th June 2014
Sunday 22nd June 2014
Monday 9th June 2014
Wednesday 4th June 2014

May 2014

Monday 26th May 2014
Sunday 18th May 2014
Wednesday 14th May 2014

April 2014

Sunday 13th April 2014
Saturday 5th April 2014
Thursday 3rd April 2014
Tuesday 1st April 2014

March 2014

Monday 31st March 2014
Tuesday 25th March 2014
Friday 21st March 2014
Monday 17th March 2014
Sunday 16th March 2014
Tuesday 11th March 2014
Tuesday 11th March 2014
Thursday 6th March 2014
Wednesday 5th March 2014
Saturday 1st March 2014

February 2014

Thursday 27th February 2014
Monday 24th February 2014
Wednesday 19th February 2014
Monday 17th February 2014
Thursday 13th February 2014
Monday 4th February 2014
Monday 3rd February 2014
Saturday 1st February 2014

January 2014

Thursday 28th January 2014
Thursday 23rd January 2014
Friday 17th January 2014
Wednesday 15th January 2014
Monday 13th January 2014
Thursday 9th January 2014
Tuesday 7th January 2014
Wednesday 1st January 2014

December 2013

Monday 23rd December 2013
Friday 20th December 2013
Tuesday 17th December 2013
Friday 14th December 2013
Thursday 12th December 2013
Sunday 8th December 2013
Wednesday 4th December 2013
Sunday 1st December 2013

November 2013

Friday 29th November 2013
Wednesday 27th November 2013
Tuesday 26th November 2013
Friday 22nd November 2013
Monday 18th November 2013
Friday 15th November 2013
Thursday 14th November 2013
Sunday 10th November 2013
Thursday 7th November 2013
Wednesday 6th November 2013
Friday 1st November 2013

October 2013

Thursday 31st October 2013
Sunday 27th October 2013
Wednesday 23rd October 2013
Monday 21st October 2013
Friday 18th October 2013
Friday 11th October 2013
Wednesday 9th October 2013
Tuesday 8th October 2013
Monday 7th October 2013
Tuesday 1st October 2013

September 2013

Monday 30th September 2013
Saturday 28th September 2013
Friday 27th September 2013
Monday 23rd September 2013
Sunday 15th September 2013
Monday 9th September 2013
Tuesday 3rd September 2013
Sunday 1st September 2013

August 2013

Sunday 8th September 2013
Tuesday 3rd September 2013
Sunday 1st September 2013

Tuesday 27th August 2013
Sunday 25th August 2013
Monday 19th August 2013
Friday 16th August 2013
Tuesday 13th August 2013
Friday 9th August 2013
Friday 2nd August 2013
Thursday 1st August 2013

July 2013

Saturday 27th July 2013
Sunday 21st July 2013
Wednesday 17th July 2013
Monday 15th July 2013
Saturday 13th July 2013
Friday 12th July 2013
Thursday 11th July 2013
Wednesday 10th July 2013
Tuesday 9th July 2013
Saturday 6th July 2013

June 2013

Friday 28th June 2013
Tuesday 25th June 2013
Friday 21st June 2013
Thursday 20th June 2013
Wednesday 19th June 2013
Saturday 15th June 2013
Sunday 9th June 2013
Saturday 8th June 2013
Saturday 1st June 2013

May 2013

April 2013

March 2013

February 2013

January 2013

December 2012

November 2012

October 2012

September 2012

August 2012

July 2012 blog

June 2012 blog

May 2012 blog

April 2012 blog

March 2012 blog

February 2012 blog

January 2012 blog

December 2011 blog

November 2011 blog

October 2011 blog

September 2011 blog

August 2011 blog

July 2011 blog

June 2011 blog


The POISON GARDEN website is not connected with Alnwick Garden Enterprises Ltd and/or The Alnwick Garden Trust.