<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.jockcoats.org.uk" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Jock&amp;#039;s Place - Quelle Surprise: if you&amp;#039;re a rich influential crackhead... - Comments</title>
 <link>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Quelle Surprise: if you&#039;re a rich influential crackhead...&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>It&#039;s worse than the double standards...</title>
 <link>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead#comment-2266</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Jock &amp;amp; Mark,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think it&#039;s worse than just double standards.  Take the music industry, for example.  Organised crime doesn&#039;t get to put up billboard posters saying &quot;How difficult can it be to clean a hospital&quot; [... err... no.. just got that billboard flashback] ... I mean &quot;Snort cocaine and you&#039;ll be a party animal&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Instead, they get all their marketing done for free, thanks to the music industry, and the collusion of the press.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If we&#039;re going to continue with the legal status of most drugs, then we should at least put in a law that is equal to all, but proportional to the message given out: if you&#039;re convicted for possession, then you get banned from appearing in the media for a year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I somehow think that the music industry would make far more of an effort to look after their assets if this were the rule!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:33:52 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Neale</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 2266 at http://www.jockcoats.org.uk</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>It&#039;s the double standards</title>
 <link>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead#comment-2264</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#39;s the double standards that gets me.  It&amp;#39;s the very people, at the bottom of the shit heap, who would benefit most, themselves individually and their communities, from legalization who bear the heaviest burden of enforcement.  But yes, good for them.  The point remains though, you are more likely it seems to be treated this way at the other end of the pay scale by the very people who would probably hang and flog the lesser mortals for the same thing.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jock</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 2264 at http://www.jockcoats.org.uk</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Good for them</title>
 <link>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead#comment-2263</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;What&#039;s the class war angle to this? Sure, drugs should be legalised for all, but the fact that they were let off is cause for cheer rather than otherwise. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mark Wadsworth</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 2263 at http://www.jockcoats.org.uk</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Quelle Surprise: if you&#039;re a rich influential crackhead...</title>
 <link>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
I don&amp;#39;t suppose they were referred to the local DAAT (Drug and Alcohol Action Team), or SMART (Substance Misuse Arrest Referral Team), nor will the &amp;quot;formal warning&amp;quot; likely include a Drugs Testing and Treatment Order (DTTO). They&amp;#39;re unlikely to have a probation officer who needs to send their details to the Employment Service to get their benefits stopped, but what the hell - they&amp;#39;ve got off basically...
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;table border=&quot;1&quot; cellspacing=&quot;5&quot; cellpadding=&quot;5&quot; width=&quot;80%&quot;&gt;
&lt;tbody&gt;
&lt;tr&gt;
&lt;td&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
			&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/29/ukcrime3?gusrc=rss&amp;amp;feed=uknews&quot;&gt;Drugs charges against Tetra Pak heir and wife are dropped&lt;/a&gt;
			&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
			Drugs charges against Tetra Pak heir and wife are dropped Elizabeth&lt;br /&gt;
			Stewart and agencies guardian.co.uk, Tuesday July 29 2008 Article&lt;br /&gt;
			history Drugs charges against the heir to the multi-billion dollar&lt;br /&gt;
			Tetra Pak fortune and his wife have been dropped, it was announced&lt;br /&gt;
			today. Prosecutor Martha Godwin told a hearing at City of Westminster&lt;br /&gt;
			magistrates court that the charges would be dropped as part of an&lt;br /&gt;
			arrangement that will see the couple given a formal police warning
			&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/td&gt;
&lt;/tr&gt;
&lt;/tbody&gt;
&lt;/table&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
...one rule for the few, and one for the many. Britain&amp;#39;s drugs laws...useless, counterproductive and deadly...but usually only if you are poor.
&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <comments>http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/quelle_surprise_if_youre_rich_influential_crackhead#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/jocks_categories/crime_and_punishment">crime and punishment</category>
 <category domain="http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/jocks_categories/drugs_laws">drugs laws</category>
 <category domain="http://www.jockcoats.org.uk/jocks_categories/prohibition">Prohibition</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:40:42 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Jock</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">917 at http://www.jockcoats.org.uk</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
