Peter Reynolds

The life and times of Peter Reynolds

The Most Dangerous Man In Britain

with 38 comments

James “Broken Britain” Brokenshire

The vile, evil, utterly disgusting policies that this man pursues are succeeding, according to him.   He claimed in the drugs debate on Friday that it is a measure of the “success” of his policies that drugs on the streets of Britain now contain more adulterants than ever before.

He said:

“The quality of cocaine on the streets is, in some cases, as low as 10% in purity at the moment. That shows some of the very effective work that is taking place.”

This is a disgraceful and despicable attitude.  It is more than irresponsible.  It reveals the deliberate pursuit of harm to drug users.  Brokenshire has now ducked well beneath any standard of decent behaviour.  He must be removed from office.

Some of these adulterants are far more dangerous than cocaine itself.  They also mask the strength of the cocaine and so make overdoses more likely.  This is what Brokenshire regards as success.

According to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the following adulterants are found in cocaine in Britain:

Benzocaine, Boric acid, Caffeine, Creatine, Dilitiazem, Dimethylterephthalate, Hydroxyzine, Lignocaine, Mannitol, Paracetamol, Phenacetin, Procaine, Sugars and Tetramisole hydrochloride

James  “Broken Britain” Brokenshire is the most dangerous man in Britain.  He must be sacked as a minister in order to protect the safety of young and vulnerable people.


About these ads

38 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is terribly irresponsible. Firstly the Home Office slur harm reduction, citing “forcing abstinence” as their “radical new approach” now they embark on the exact opposite policy, “harm escalation”. This man has blood on his hands and is smug enough to admit so on record.

    Ed

    December 19, 2010 at 2:27 pm

  2. He just spouts more death=success… I’ve heard similar stories during the USA alcohol prohibition where the blindness, death and suffering from drinking adulterated alcohol (often deliberately BY the govt) as a sign of the ‘success’ of the policy.. the same argument as the tens of thousands killed in mexico… It is dishonesty and mis-representation of facts at its worst. So much for the minister for ‘crime prevention’…

    p.s. check out http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/james_brokenshire/old_bexley_and_sidcup, note “Voted very strongly against equal gay rights.”. If Britain is ‘broken’ I sure as hell don’t want to know what ‘fixed’ means!

    Jake

    December 19, 2010 at 3:09 pm

  3. I note he met up with Maryon Stewart in June this year:

    Idlepenpusher says it all about her:

    http://idlepenpusher.blogspot.com/2009/08/maryon-stewart-prohibition-legal-highs.html

    I would have thought that (traumatised) “victims” are the very last people we should listen to regarding public policy issues, drugs or otherwise.

    Scouse Billy

    December 19, 2010 at 3:27 pm

  4. I sometimes despair at the lack of understanding of history, economics and sociology of those who support the war on drugs.

    We need to have a serious debate about the legalisation of drugs, one based on hard, scientific, evidence and not one based on fallacies, prejudices, ill-founded arguments or just sheer ignorance.

    Gart Valenc

    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Gart Valenc

    December 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm

  5. How can it be a success if they are still finding the substance, irrespective of the quality?

    And surely the more adulterated it is the more dangerous it becomes?

    Until all drugs are off the Street, they work of the Police and Special Branch/Drugs Squad is not complete.

    I worry about this Country: indeed is their a future here?

    We are no better than Amercia (and that is saying something).

    The Debt Collector

    December 19, 2010 at 5:06 pm

  6. This article is partizan rubbish. I don’t have the time to go into detail so I shall restrict my comments to two basic points.

    The author writes, “This is a disgraceful and despicable attitude. It is more than irresponsible. It is the deliberate pursuit of harm to drug users”. Firstly an “attitude” cannot be a deliberate pursuit of anything. Broadly speaking an attitude is a low-level mental state that may lead to a course of action, but is not in and of itself a course of action.

    Secondly, the drug policy to which Reynolds alludes was not “a deliberate pursuit of harm to drugs users”. The possible harm caused to drug users by the policies implemented by Reynolds are only contingent upon those policies, not the *motivation* for those policies.

    This mistake is repeated later on in the article when the author writes, “Some of these adulterants are far more dangerous than cocaine itself. They also mask the strength of the cocaine and so make overdoses more likely. This is what Brokenshire regards as success”. Again Reynolds is not suggesting that the increased percentage of adulterants in street drugs is in and of itself a success, but rather a sigh of success. Namely, that their drugs polices have restricted the volume of illegal street drugs present in the country and that as a result drug dealers have had to decrease the purity of their products to maintain profits.

    I am not actually in favour of Reynolds policies, but if your going to disagree with them at least make your argument coherent.

    Patrick

    December 19, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    • I shall pay you the courtesy of addressing you as Patrick or Mr White. Please mind your manners if you comment here again.

      It was not I who suggested that impurity was a sign of success. James Brokenshire said that himself.

      I am gratfied that however much you may think my article “rubbish” it has at least moved you to comment. Also I think it is self-evident that my article is at least more “coherent ” than your response. I refer to your last sentence. Whose policies? What do you mean?

      You nit pick and play with semantics but you do not address the substantive issue at all.

      Thanks for your comment Patrick,

      Peter Reynolds

      December 19, 2010 at 5:54 pm

      • With regard to mistaking you for James Brokenshire, I plead guilty. That is an embarrassing mistake. And I also concede the point about politeness, although I hardly think that is a “substantive issue”, to adopt your own phrase.

        With regard to your other points however, I strongly disagree. Firstly, your assertion that your article is self-evidently more coherent than my comment because I do not explicitly describe the policies to which I refer is hypocritical. You also refer to those same policies without defining what they are: “The vile, evil, utterly disgusting policies that this man pursues are succeeding, according to him”.

        With regard to nit picking and playing with semantics, I think it is important to point out that semantics are important. Semantics is the name we give to the meaning of words, amongst other things, and hence are the only substantive issue we can address. If I were to comment upon the spelling or grammar, or the *syntax*, of your article then your tacit accusation of triviality would be well placed.

        Furthermore, the function of my article was to attempt to push you to address the substantive issue, rather than mis-characterise Brokenshire’s assertions and then demonise him. My point, in brief, was that Brokenshire was not saying that the increase in adulterants was a success in and of itself, as you argue, bur rather that it was only a sighn of success. Interestingly, you inherit this very distinction in your comment:”t was not I who suggested that impurity was a *sign* of success. James Brokenshire said that himself”. I think this this slippage reveals your cloudy thinking on the subject.

        Patrick

        December 19, 2010 at 8:34 pm

      • What’s your take on the drugs debate Patric? Are you for or against prohibition? What are your reasons and why?
        Just out of interest obviously.

        Nik Morris

        December 20, 2010 at 1:09 am

      • I think, Patrick, that the point is that Mr Brokenshire has declared that increased harm to drug users is a price worth paying for a decrease in the availability of drugs – which means that he has in effect admitted that the ultimate purpose of our drug policy is not to minimise the harm caused by drugs, but to (presumably) minimise the use if drugs irrespective of whether that is actually effective at reducing harm – that is to say, that the motivation behind our drug policy is not a pragmatic aim to improve public health, but rather an ideological crusdade to punish private, consensual behaviour he disapproves of. Mr Reynolds is merely flagging up the fact that this is clearly unethical, even if it is a success in Brokenshire’s terms.

        David

        December 20, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    • “Namely, that their drugs polices have restricted the volume of illegal street drugs present in the country and that as a result drug dealers have had to decrease the purity of their products to maintain profits”

      If we’re in the business of inferring conclusions, I can offer another twist on your conclusion;

      _Perhaps_ the War on Drugs has failed so badly that, as you say, demand far outstrips supply. Not, as you claim, because the dealers can’t get enough into the country. But because such a volume of people now demand these substances?

      Either stance is probably utter rubbish, but it’s amazing what you can do when you start speculating rather than sticking to cold hard fact isn’t it? This, incidentally, is exactly what the Government have been doing with many of their drug policies.

      FFAAnon1

      December 19, 2010 at 6:09 pm

      • Fair enough; that is the substantive issue, or it should be, and my conclusion is, as you rightly say, very speculative. I should have signalled that this was not my own theory but rather a way of making sense of the claim in a Brokenshire friendly way. Playing Devil’s advocate, if you will. The underlying point being, to repeat, that Brokenshire was not claiming that his drugs policies were successful because it led to the increase in adulterants but rather that the increase in adulterants was a sign of the policies success.

        The grander motivation for this was that your article obscures the real issue, which is a very complicated one indeed, one that I have not the ability to formalize here, that you absolutely crucified Brokenshire in your article, and that this was neither productive with regard to the substantive issue — as you put it — , and not very fair to Brokenshire. Accuse me of pedantry if you will, but I think this justifies my criticism.

        So with regard to your new question, yes it is very possible that your alternative foray into the realms of speculation is as plausible as mine. But this is not the real point.

        Aside from this, I should say that my instinctive response to drugs legislation is that *all* drugs — with the possible exception of crystal meth and crack cocaine — should be legalized and governmentally distributed.

        I was also appalled by the whole professor Nutt scandal and am firmly on the side of scientific opinion, rather than Daily Mail style fear mongering.

        Take care, and it was interesting debating with you.

        Patrick

        Patrick

        December 20, 2010 at 12:44 am

    • Very pedantic, but where’s the substance?
      Let’s boil it back down to the spirit the article was written in and get things back on track.

      Brokenshire’s words: “The quality of cocaine on the streets is, in some cases, as low as 10% in purity at the moment. That shows some of the very effective work that is taking place.”

      Do you believe Patrick that Brokenshire is correct, that increasing the level of adulterant in street cocaine is a sign of “effective” policies and enforcement?

      Usage is undeterred, demand is unaffected. Profits for criminal dealers increase and harm to the user is greatly increased.

      If the government’s aim is one of protecting its public, as it often claims in sensationalist tones when defending prohibition, the above cannot be credibly defended as a sign of effectiveness.

      Ed

      December 19, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    • Your vision is clouded sir if you believe that adulteration is anything to do with the success of Brokenshire’s policing.

      It is in one respect but,not how you think. The current policy of prohibition aids real gangster/criminals handing them on a plate an unregulated, untaxable, gold mine of a business….Better than oil because this will never, ever run dry. Thats where it stops. Adulteration is nothing short of greed on the part of these criminals. Its certainly not due to the law stopping maybe 5-10% at their very, very best getting through.. The streets are awash. It will be adulterated on more that one occasion as it passes down through the various levels of the distribution network. Its all greed..each criminal stretching it just that little bit more as its passed from one to another. Nothing to do with the police at all rather, policy. Regulation and legalisation would reduce the damage to society and the individual user. Our current prohibition is medieval in its approach. Science states these facts clearly and human nature creates an unstoppable demand. So, there is only one intelligent approach, damage limitation. Also, just one last thing..if your having a pop at a blogger or indeed anyone for that matter, get the bloody names the right way round otherwise, you’ll only look like a tit.

      Nick

      December 20, 2010 at 11:58 am

      • Brokenshire is claiming that the levels of street drug impurity are his success. No one else.

        Peter Reynolds

        December 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm

  7. A simple question for Mr Brokenshire then;

    If I present you with two bags of Cocaine, one at 1980′s level purity and one bought today, which would you feel safer taking?

    Of course, a politicians answer would be “I would take neither”, but that’s a clear dodge of the question. It was never said that he had to take it, just which he believed to be safer.

    Sadly, it’s ignorant attitudes held by people like this that ensure drug users come to harm. The thing I always find most odd, is the way that things are both assessed and justified.

    Think of the home secretary telling Prof Nutt that you can’t “compare the harms of a legal activity with an illegal one”.

    Think of Heffer saying that Drug users are criminals, as if it were a natural state and not the result of prohibition.

    And now the fact that drugs are more unpredictable and dangerous (because you don’t know what they’ve been cut with) is proof that prohibition is succeeding?

    To me, it’s clear that the ‘war on drugs’ is now more about ego than it’s original aims. If this was truly about reducing the potential harm to users, then a 10% purity rate would be a sure sign of failure. Scarily, they’ll still be claiming success when ‘cocaine’ actually consists of 1% cocaine and 99% something else

    FFAAnon1

    December 19, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    • I think the “war on drugs” is less about ego than profits, FFA.

      Who’s on the take is the real question.

      Scouse Billy

      December 19, 2010 at 6:21 pm

      • I’d agree there’s a definite financial angle elsewhere in the prohibitionist system (it seems very apparent that’s why Cannabis became ‘controlled’ in the 1920′s), but I try hard to believe (for my own sanity) that we couldn’t possibly have the endless chain of bent politicians that a purely financial motive would require.

        That said, when I talk about a politicians ego, I generally mean their desire to stay in office. That can easily be motivated by a financial motivation.

        We’ll know the battle is almost won when the Govt start defending prohibition in terms of the Pharma’s income. Long way off yet though!

        FFAAnon1

        December 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm

      • The endless chain was broken by JF Kennedy. Um….

        Julian

        February 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm

      • Nope, he was part of the chain too.

        Varnsbury

        February 14, 2011 at 1:47 pm

  8. While I do agree with you, Patrick, in that we need to make our arguments coherent and precise, let’s not loose sight of the fundamental point: the length some people are prepared to go in order to justify their War on Drugs policies. We need to opposed these policies and promote a serious debate about the need to legalise the production, distribution and consumption of drugs.

    Gart Valenc

    http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    Gart Valenc

    December 19, 2010 at 6:07 pm

  9. [...] Firstly, hat-tip to Peter Reynolds for covering this story. [...]

  10. Logically, the government must therefore believe that heroin contaminated with anthrax is also testament to an effective drugs policy.

    Varnsbury

    December 19, 2010 at 7:23 pm

  11. An interesting angle on this:

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/91579

    It seems that some banks are only being kept afloat by drug money. Of course, Brokenshire was a banker before he went into politics.

    Peter Reynolds

    December 19, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    • Interesting reading! It’s almost tempting to see if there were any large seizures in the months running up to the recession!

      Not quite sure whether I see this as in our favour or as something that could be twisted to use a stick to beat us.

      I’m still of the opinion that our current policies breed criminals. Not only do they take away the ‘chances’ of life if a youngun is caught, but they ensure that criminality can be a _very_ profitable career choice.

      It’d also be interesting to know what the cost to the NHS would be if we all gave up the weed and relied only on prescription medication. I’ve a feeling it could (long term) cost more than the current war on drugs!

      FFAAnon1

      December 19, 2010 at 7:37 pm

  12. My comments are not getting through?

    Gart Valenc

    December 19, 2010 at 8:04 pm

  13. Let’s not overlook the connection with terror and the intel community:

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretgoldtreaty/deepblack.htm

    Scouse Billy

    December 19, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  14. 15 years in prison for murder would be worth it to know that this disgusting, evil little man could cause no further harm.

    Anonymous23

    December 19, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    • You’d get about the same for dealing

      Ed

      December 19, 2010 at 11:12 pm

  15. “How the ‘war on drugs’ can kill”, by Jennifer Abel

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/26/war-on-drugs-prohibition

    “During prohibition, the US government poisoned alcohol. Such punitive zeal is seen in today’s ‘war on drugs’”

    danielcarter

    December 19, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    • Thanks for that Daniel.

      Peter Reynolds

      December 20, 2010 at 11:38 am

  16. Peter! I won’t warn you again.

    What have I said about posting pictures of that odious little creep?

    NobblySan

    December 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

    • Aww! You’ve spoiled my Christmas present now! I was sending you a dartboard with the handsome chap’s face on it!

      Peter Reynolds

      December 20, 2010 at 11:37 am

  17. “Introducing Mr James Brokenshire! Sure to break Britain and as useless as Tits on a Bull!!!

    More shame and misery while the less informed shaft us all again…….

    What a pullhard!

    Architect

    December 20, 2010 at 7:55 pm

  18. The politician who celebrates increasing harm to his constituents.

    James Brokenshire is a true sadist.

    Sam

    December 20, 2010 at 8:23 pm

  19. I do think that those of us who believe that the War on Drugs is an obscenity and should be stopped can make our opinions count by demanding that Parliament debate the need for an Impact Assessment of Drug Policy (IADP). Log on to http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

    to see what an IADP is all about.

    Gart Valenc

    Gart Valenc

    December 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm

  20. [...] of his career when he claimed that the adulteration of street cocaine had reached record levels and this was a huge success.  This in the full knowledge that the Border Agency records the adulterants used in cocaine are [...]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 160 other followers

%d bloggers like this: