´óÏó´«Ã½

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

interesting, in the context: "World Health Organization global Cocaine Project Study suppressed by the United States for 13 years"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Fairly compatible with the normal ´óÏó´«Ã½ approach: it's illegal but it's not illegal because lot's of people are doing it.

There's been decades of this mixed message, not just from you but in schools etc, so it's not really surprising so many of your listeners are off their heads on drugs.

I have no problem with covering isues like drug use on radio 1. But if your target audience is 15 - 30 year olds then why is the output so patronising?

Do you think young people are stupid? I am 29 and have a keen interest in politics and current affairs, so why is it newsbeat words things as though i am stupid? Why the term newsbeat at all? To make it some how 'hip'? Its very very patronising.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Any chance you could get someone from the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.) to take part in a debate on the issues ?

It'd be nice if the general public could see it's not just the ageing hippies who want to see the end of prohibition and the members of L.E.A.P. have many decades of experience of dealing with the front line on the "War on Drugs" and have some very interesting proposals for the future of drugs in our societies.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"Fairly compatible with the normal ´óÏó´«Ã½ approach: it's illegal but it's not illegal because lot's of people are doing it."

So completely unlike "It's illegal but it's not illegal because lots of MPs are doing it?" Avoiding tax and falsifying expenses claims.

The decades of mixed messages come from the people who made the cultivation & use of Cannabis illegal in 1971, whilst continuing to allow the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco. Yes, it's no mistake, 1971. First evidence of cannabis use? 10,000 years ago.

No it's never anyone's job to judge is it? Never mind that your failure to condemn drug use has helped it grow into a voracious monster that is consuming our children and our society. People are quick enough to condemn certain evils, such as the rise of the BNP, but given the much, much bigger problem of drugs, you all turn touch-feely and understanding. Why is it so wrong to oppose the insidious spread of the drug culture? Do the Radio1 team feel they have to ape the behaviour of their target market or risk losing listeners? What is more important here? Society should be seen to stand firm against drug use and condemn it in all its forms, not pander to people who use them. They simply do not or will not, undertand, that their listeners are young and impressionable. That the 'cheeky' references to drug use and the failure to condemn it are seen as a green light to use. There is more, much more to do to combat drugs than simply presenting young people with the facts and letting them make up their own minds. If only it were as simple as that. But we are dealing with an increasingly infantilised society, more geared to selfish hedonism than to growing up and taking responsibility. If you don't condemn, then you condone by default.

The ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not need to take market share for profit. It has the luxury of being able to take an unpopular viewpoint for the sake of the greater good. It does not need to pander to its listeners like the newspapers do with their readers. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ used to use this power for sake of our society. Sadly, like everyone else, it just doesn't seem bothered any more, and it's such a pity.

LippyLippo #14.

"Society should be seen to stand firm against drug use and condemn it in all its forms, not pander to people who use them."

so, no alcohol, no coffee, no Ibuprofen? LOL hypocrite.

whilst it is difficult to disagree with your view of "..an increasingly infantilised society..", I don't think you have thought any of this through, you appear to lack an education because there's no evidence of historical awareness.

Why don't you start from the point of view that you don't WANT people to take illegal drugs? And for that matter, alcohol and fags as well. As a public broadcaster, surely you owe it to your (young) audience to either not mention drugs (especially in the context of pop stars, DJs etc), or toe the official line of 'don't take them' / 'don't binge-drink'. Any other message is just wrong and dangerous. Yes, drugs, alcohol etc. are ubiquitous, but that's no reason to make the matter worse by giving them the oxygen of publicity, or making them sound cool. I'm sure you wouldn't broadcast people saying how great it is to murder or abuse someone, because although they might have a point of view too, it's not one anyone should be hearing. I listened to some of your broadcasts open-mouthed at the general laissez-faire attitude. Heaven alone knows what message a 13-year old child might have taken from the coverage. Really, ´óÏó´«Ã½, if you won't help make things better, please at least stop making them worse!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Given that we now live in a society where 10 year-olds are told (even by the Government) to go and have sex provided it's protected, that popping E's as if they were Smarties is perfectly normal and that whilst under Guardianista double-standards a Big Mac is eeeevil and must be banned (especially if it makes you fat, in which case you too are unacceptable), weed is a perfectly natural way to relax; the tenor of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of this issue is just about right.

Of course, sociologists would probably have a field day with the chicken-and-egg question posed by the continued liberal coverage given to recreational drug use since the 1970s. But the fact is that none of it really matters, because as with so many facets of what we call 'modern life' the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. All you can do is use our money to hold up your 'non-judgmental' mirror up to a wrecked society, after all the liberal media exists in a vacuum and none of what is reflected back is any of your doing, right?

BoobieCat #16.

oh dear, yet another "foaming-at-the-mouth" illiberal! how I hate being put in a position where I have to defend the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

nevertheless, here goes:

"As a public broadcaster, surely you owe it to your (young) audience to either not mention drugs (especially in the context of pop stars, DJs etc), or toe the official line of 'don't take them' / 'don't binge-drink'. Any other message is just wrong and dangerous."

as a PSB, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ "owes" all of us fair and impartial portrayal of any given issue, if you find yourself disagreeing, well, tough.

"I listened to some of your broadcasts open-mouthed at the general laissez-faire attitude. Heaven alone knows what message a 13-year old child might have taken from the coverage"

what message, do you think, your hypothetical 13-year old will get from reading 'The Sun' newspaper with its famous headlines and its even more famous Page 3 images of young women? what message from listening to career politicians twisting the meaning of the very language we use? what message from the 'Think Soldier' advertisements?

you say "The ´óÏó´«Ã½ does not need to take market share for profit. It has the luxury of being able to take an unpopular viewpoint for the sake of the greater good."

exactly, even when you, personally, cannot see it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So you like to be non-judgemental? So you want to study the habits of your audience and get to know who they are? But hey, you have already assumed that your 15 to 30 year old audience is representative of ALL 15 to 30 year old people before you even begun your study!

How do you know what happens in the "no-go" areas where young people are much more likely to make their own music than listen to the "uncool" ´óÏó´«Ã½? Has the use of crack and heroine really dropped off or isn't it likely that these young people are just a touch more savvy than you think and were not the biggest risk takers on the planet anyway? Or is the ´óÏó´«Ã½ admitting that the biggest drug problem the UK faces is amongst its middle classes with fairly hefty disposable incomes?

But, of course, there is a recession and drug habits (especially those that use chemicals not noted for addictive value - alcohol perhaps) become a little more geared towards reality. If Radio One really wants to perform a service shouldn't it at least try to treat its audience as if it has a modicum of intelligence?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Thumbs up for the very well good jobs. But, I don't why I love so much ´óÏó´«Ã½ - Media Player, enjoy listening the latest updated news and radio-talk program. Always ON while working at my computer. Keep it up, Cheers!!! I love ´óÏó´«Ã½.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Deaths total worldwide over all of recorded history:-
Cannabis - 0
LSD - 0
I think this speaks for itself.

LippyLippo
"Society should be seen to stand firm against drug use and condemn it in all its forms, not pander to people who use them. They simply do not or will not, undertand, that their listeners are young and impressionable."


This is laughable, I used to be a bartender at a very posh private club when I was a student and almost all of the bankers, lawyers, businessmen and so on who used to frequent the club were prolific drug users.
Every weekend there would be a scrum in the toilets as all of these middle-aged, middle-class men were trying to get a flat surface from which to snort their cocaine & amphetamines.
The balcony was always full of people smoking spliffs and drugs were passed around like sweeties.

People from all sections of our society are using drugs on a regular basis but it is only the young or the poor who are ever condemned for it.

Prohibition is the main cause of the problems related to drug use, the drugs themselves are no more damaging or dangerous than many other, legally available, drugs and activities.

Prohibition is the cause of the gun & knife culture that is developing in our nation, just as prohibition of alcohol in America caused the rise of criminal gangs who used the profits of their alcohol sales to buy guns to "protect" themselves, the prohibition of drugs has seen the rise of criminal gangs who distribute & sell drugs, using the profits to buy guns & knives to "protect" themselves.


Answer this for me please:
If Heroin were to be legalised tomorrow, would you start using it ?

I'm guessing that you, like 99% of other people, would answer no.
The legal status of a drug does not influence the decision people make about using it, all it does is drive the distribution & sales of the drug underground and into the hands of criminal gangs.

Legalisation, regulation and taxation would solve most of the problems we have associated with drugs but closed minded attitudes like yours ensure we are condemned to a life of crime, misery & death as the profits from drugs are now going straight into the hands of criminal gangs.