How a politician should react to drug allegations?

New Tory MP Louise Mensch (until recent marriage Louise Bagshawe) was confronted by a journalist asking if she'd make a comment about allegations she took drugs in her 20s. She has promptly replied by publishing both the request for comment and her amusingly honest reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Journalist

Whilst working at EMI, in the 1990s, you took drugs with Nigel Kennedy at Ronnie Scott’s in Birmingham, including dancing on a dance floor, whilst drunk, with Mr Kennedy, in front of journalists. Photos of this exist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reply by Louise Mensch MP

Although I do not remember the specific incident, this sounds highly probable. I thoroughly enjoyed working with Nigel Kennedy, whom I remember with affection. Additionally, since I was in my twenties, I’m sure it was not the only incident of the kind; we all do idiotic things when young. I am not a very good dancer and must apologise to any and all journalists who were forced to watch me dance that night at Ronnie Scott’s.

---

:haha:

Good to see a politician be perfectly frank and honest. Takes the sting out of the story. Should a politician be upfront and honest like this or deny or come up with contorted "I smoked but never inhaled" responses? I saw her recently taking on Piers Morgan regarding the hacking allegations, I think she is someone to watch in the future.

Be honest about it; my first reaction is that I couldn't thinks of a better way to handle allegations than the way Ms. Mensch did. The sooner we accept that drug use is common and doesn't always lead to death and horrible people, the sooner it becomes less taboo and fewer people abuse and we can move past the issue.

How about ritual suicide?

Probably good PR to handle it the way she did, but unless (or until) she's willing end drug prohibition, she's just a hypocrite who's unwilling to follow the same legal code she's charged with crafting. By all rights, she should be punished by the criminal courts for her drug use and have her future ruined with a drug conviction. The fact that she's powerful enough to laugh off the normal consequences of her behavior isn't exactly an admirable quality, IMO.

"Young and stupid" drug users here don't generally have their life ruined here. Unless you're dealing, the odds of incarceration in this country for using is miniscule.

The consequences she's facing now (embarrassment) is probably all the consequences most people will ever have.

(Not referring off course to any negative consequences brought on by the drugs themselves, addiction etc, etc)

If there's no real [legal] consequences to drug use over there, then why are there consequences to commerce with drug users?

I suppose it's a good thing that drug use isn't a serious felony other there, and thus that this MP isn't being a total hypocrite, but that double-standard of punishing only one party in a consensual transaction has always bothered me (whether it's prostitution, drugs, gambling or any other morality legislation).

Honest, but not too credible. She could have left out the part of giving the self-serving excuse that "everyone made mistakes when they were young"... ugh.

Quote:

---

always bothered me (whether it's prostitution, drugs, gambling or any other morality legislation).

---

With limited resources it's much more effective to go after the suppliers.

On this case, if it was a long while ago, I don't think she should be punished for it, or even held in any negative light now of days, especailly if it's a distant past, people change, circumstances change.. just becaues she was young and dumb, and in that energetic youthful environment, doesn't mean she's prone to do the actions now, or would have the same mentality/decision making now, which is all that matters to me (both legally and morally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

With limited resources it's much more effective to go after the suppliers.

---

Which doesn't make it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

On this case, if it was a long while ago, I don't think she should be punished for it, or even held in any negative light now of days, especailly if it's a distant past, people change, circumstances change.. just becaues she was young and dumb, and in that energetic youthful environment, doesn't mean she's prone to do the actions now, or would have the same mentality/decision making now, which is all that matters to me (both legally and morally).

---

Indeed. And the only reason my dealer is dealing drugs is because he's young and dumb, in an energetic youthful environment, and it's not like he'd do it if he was forty, so why are we locking him up for 15 years? :|

The argument cuts both ways and really just illustrates how much hypocrisy we tolerate in our legal systems. The reason Lady Justice is blindfolded is so she doesn't have to look at all the atrocious injustice carried out in her name.

15 years for drugs? :bored:

We don't incarcerate even more serious criminals anything like that :(

You need to be moving 10,000lbs pounds of pot in Florida to reach that kind of sentence (or do it within short distance of a school).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

15 years for drugs? :bored:

We don't incarcerate even more serious criminals anything like that :(

---

Welcome to America - federally mandated minimum sentences for drug offenders are how you end up with a stiffer jail sentence for engaging in consensual commerce than you'd get for raping a child. Yippie, democracy!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You need to be moving 10,000lbs pounds of pot in Florida to reach that kind of sentence (or do it within short distance of a school).

---

Or 8 (?) rocks of crack-cocaine, which is less than a day's worth for someone with a heavy habit. For that matter, any street-level dealer peddling drugs (other than pot) is going to be holding enough quantity to get 7 years minimum, under federal sentencing guidelines... and that's not even the most fucked thing about federal drug laws, just the thing that makes me do a little happy dance every time a federal agent is killed in the line of tyranny duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

just the thing that makes me do a little happy dance every time a federal agent is killed in the line of tyranny duty.

---

Celebrating the death of a guy just doing his job because you disagree with legislators in another part of the country. Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Welcome to America - federally mandated minimum sentences for drug offenders are how you end up with a stiffer jail sentence for engaging in consensual commerce than you'd get for raping a child. Yippie, democracy!!!!

---

That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism. Whereby legislators buddy with their biggest campaign donors---to create laws that favor dragnets, drug testing, medical chemistry labs, private prisons, public police forces, liability insurance companies.

Quote:

---

Or 8 (?) rocks of crack-cocaine, which is less than a day's worth for someone with a heavy habit. For that matter, any street-level dealer peddling drugs (other than pot) is going to be holding enough quantity to get 7 years minimum, under federal sentencing guidelines... and that's not even the most fucked thing about federal drug laws, just the thing that makes me do a little happy dance every time a federal agent is killed in the line of tyranny duty.

---

That's fucked up and disgusting. Federal Agents are just as much victims as the dealers or users. Doing a little happy dance when one is killed in the line of duty is as fucked up as celebrating every time a US soldier (or CIA or FBI) is killed doing their jobs, in other nations, under questionable national policy "missions". :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Celebrating the death of a guy just doing his job because you disagree with legislators in another part of the country. Nice.

---

The job they chose, with full knowledge of what it would entail. You going to use the same argument to defend an organized crime enforcer? He's just doing his job, following orders too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's not democracy, that's crony capitalism. Whereby legislators buddy with their biggest campaign donors---to create laws that favor dragnets, drug testing, medical chemistry labs, private prisons, public police forces, liability insurance companies.

---

No, it's still democracy. The fact that you don't like the result doesn't change the fact that this shit is result of our democratic process. You can't have it both ways, and trying to is part of the problem. This is the result of unrestrained democracy, which contrary to popular opinion, is a bad thing. This is exactly what our constitution was supposed to protect us against, but doesn't, because the vast majority of people would rather use the law to punish behavior they disagree with, than use it to protect the rights of everyone. The attitude that anything "undemocratic" is inherently bad is at the very root of ignoring or bypassing constitutional protections. It is the inevitable result of the type of populist garbage you spew out on a near daily basis.

Welcome to the tyranny of the majority, and we hope you enjoy your stay in hell. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That's fucked up and disgusting. Federal Agents are just as much victims as the dealers or users.

---

How's that, now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Doing a little happy dance when one is killed in the line of duty is as fucked up as celebrating every time a US soldier (or CIA or FBI) is killed doing their jobs, in other nations, under questionable national policy "missions". :down:

---

Soldiers, CIA officers/operatives and FBI agents are all "federal agents," dearie. The first two are a great deal more tolerable, at least, since they don't try to cloak themselves with self-righteousness and nobility while extorting money from the American people. And, at least, soldiers and spies take on armed opponents who want a fight. Law enforcement, not so much. Oh, the LEA union will get together and threaten to "strike" ("blue flue, work slow downs, etc.) over an officer getting fired for executing an unarmed civilian or blatantly violating citzens' rights, but they have no problem (and are even down right enthusiastic about) using military tactics against unarmed drug users, political protesters, or anyone else they can come up with the thinnest excuse for using deadly force against.

If cops actually had any desire to "protect and serve," instead of using their political power to protect criminals with badges, they'd use it in defense of the rights of their fellow citizens... but they don't, because that's not what modern "police" work is about, and that's not why most recruits become police in the first place. It's about self-interest and the arbitrary exercise of power more than anything else, neither of which are admirable or even respectable goals. Give me a mob enforcer over a cop any day. At least the mob enforcer is honest about who he is and what he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

The job they chose, with full knowledge of what it would entail. You going to use the same argument to defend an organized crime enforcer? He's just doing his job, following orders too.

---

That wasn't a comment to me, but you're still full of shit. You know quite well that many who choose military or police careers do so when they're 17 or 18 years old. Young, eager, idealistic, perhaps even naive. Oftentimes they're downright desperate for immediate work and income, hoping their service will translate into a more "affordable" college degree down the line. Comparing them to organized crime, the mafia or mob (or even your thinly veiled hint at something more heinous of just following orders tyranny) is paranoid lunacy.

It's also creepy and twisted how you managed to group yourself in with the very people you claim to loathe....the volunteer soldier....while placing yourself above them. Glad you're a lowly civilian now, you sound too dangerous to be in our military. :donkey:

The rest of your rant doesn't even deserve to be quoted. If you have anger and control issues then do the rest of us a favor, as you suggested earlier about the bridge jumper. Go shoot some random targets with your weapons, kill some starving deer in the woods, use a pick axe to attack clay soil, join a boxing gym, punch your fists into your own drywall....but don't drag the rest of society down with you, just because you generally hate people, and specifically authority figures with some "power".

Don't feed the troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

That wasn't a comment to me, but you're still full of shit. You know quite well that many who choose military or police careers do so when they're 17 or 18 years old. Young, eager, idealistic, perhaps even naive. Oftentimes they're downright desperate for immediate work and income, hoping their service will translate into a more "affordable" college degree down the line.

---

Compared to gangbangers, who don't turn to crime (or violent crime) until they're middle aged, successful and financially stable, right?

And, in point of fact, you missed the top method (in America, at least) of selecting a law enforcement career... which is prior military service. But I'm sure it's just "paranoid lunacy" to correlate increasing levels of police militarization and violence (including lethal violence) with the fact that police forces are recruiting "peace officers" from the ranks of trained killers. But, really, that's who you want interfacing with unarmed citizens. Who better to write up traffic tickets and subdue unarmed "criminals" than someone who's gone through intense indoc and training to become as lethal as possible. :rolleyes: (Provided they don't score too high on an IQ test, of course, because our police forces can't tolerate anything resembling intelligence.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Comparing them to organized crime, the mafia or mob (or even your thinly veiled hint at something more heinous of just following orders tyranny) is paranoid lunacy.

---

How? Lay it out for us. Enforcers for organized crime use violence to collect money for their bosses, and choose their morally questionable employment while they're still young and impressionable. And police... well, what's the difference, aside from the uniform and the shiny badge? Mob enforcers only collect debts entered into consensually (such as from gambling or drug purchases), where as cops'll extort money from anyone they can get their hands on? Mob enforcers knock on the door, while cops kick it down and rush in with weapons hot? What?

Actually, the biggest difference I can see between mob thugs and police is that there aren't thousands of videos of "mob enforcer brutality" on youtube. EDIT: My bad, "About 48,900 results."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's also creepy and twisted how you managed to group yourself in with the very people you claim to loathe....the volunteer soldier....while placing yourself above them. Glad you're a lowly civilian now, you sound too dangerous to be in our military. :donkey:

---

Well, since you brought it up...

Iraq Veteran Gets Tasered & Beat Down @ Airport

The good news is, that if I'm too brutal and dangerous to serve in the military, at least I have a bright future ahead of me in Law Enforcement! But anyway...

Interesting interpretation, there... to go along with an interesting and unfounded assumption. Let me say it plainer for you, since you seem to have had problems getting it the first time. Spies and soldiers, at least, don't make a habit of using lethal force on unarmed civilians. They fight other armed men, who are looking for a fight. Cops, on the other hand, routinely use military tactics and lethal force against unarmed civilians and [unarmed] petty lawbreakers. That's the difference. Being a soldier doesn't involve routinely preying on the weak and unarmed. Being a cop, does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

The rest of your rant doesn't even deserve to be quoted. If you have anger and control issues then do the rest of us a favor, as you suggested earlier about the bridge jumper. Go shoot some random targets with your weapons, kill some starving deer in the woods, use a pick axe to attack clay soil, join a boxing gym, punch your fists into your own drywall....but don't drag the rest of society down with you, just because you generally hate people, and specifically authority figures with some "power".

---

Nice projection, there. But, no, I especially hate the strong preying on the weak. Police brutalizing the civilians they're allegedly there to protect, executing unarmed "criminals," using their authority and weapons to extort money from the population under the guise of public safety, "testalying," "contempt of cop" offenses, and so on and so on... in essence, the entirety of police culture and SOP that makes it somehow acceptable to shoot first, and have the police union make sure you don't even get docked pay for pumping 21 rounds into the back of an unarmed suspect. Nice to see your true colors, though. We don't have a problem with police abusing their authority, or police brutality, we have a "not deferring to authority figures" problem.

And, yeah, the fact that the "average" citizen's response to police brutality is to blame the victim for "having it coming" or take the police line and try to justify executing an unarmed man, or just plain not give shit that it takes two squads of armored cops with fully automatic weapons to deliver a stack of parking citations... well, yeah, that pisses me off too, and gives me all the more reason to hate the rest of humanity. It's an abhorrently contemptible attitude, and the fact that it's so widespread and socially acceptable is an indictment of society and the average human being.