Feeds

back to article MPs to go clubbing in cocaine inquiry

MPs are to go nightclubbing in London to get the bottom of the cocaine trade and how it's affecting Britain. The Home Affairs Select Committee, led by Keith Vaz, want to see "everything in action" and according to the Telegraph have taken advice on the "best club to go to in London". This follows the committe's recent jaunt to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge
Pint

Hey, here's an idea...

The civil service is one of the biggest employers in the country, if not the biggest.

Just perform a fully anonymous poll from them - they're a reasonably cross section of society, everyone from bin men to permanent secretaries.

You'll get the data, without having to look like a complete tool.

My fee? You can have that one for free, but next time, I'll have half a million, ta.

Steven Raith.

2
0
Thumb Down

Eh?

Surely they could just pop next ddoor to the House of Lords?

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

No Abba

"One Police source apparently told the Telegraph, "I imagine some of these MPs haven't been to a club since the 70s – and it's a long way from the Bee Gees and Abba these days.""

I dunno, never been to Club De Fromage?

Maybe they could try an alternative approach tho. The latest "drugs are bad m'kay?" advert I've seen complains that if you do partake in a bit of the devil's talc, your nose will end up destroyed "because of all the chemicals" - what, you mean the chemicals that get put in it to cut it by dodgy dealers? Because ironically they call them "controlled substances" where there is no control over what gets put in it? Maybe instead of trawling nightclubs they should try listening to their drugs advisers.

Oh God, I've just realised this post is just a "what about taxpayers money!" away from being on the Daily Fail comments board

1
1
ket

Drug Scanners?

Huh? There are scanners that detect drugs? Surely the scanners are just metal detectors checking for weapons. Can you really detect a bag of chaz that's stuck in someone's shoe/bra/underpants?

So people are happy that they can safely get their tablets/powders inside without having a normal body search. And there won't be a nutter with a blade in there either.

3
0
Megaphone

Any excuse

To get it paid for on expenses.

1
0
Badgers

drugs mkay?

Everyone knows if you take them before you go in that no amount of scanning or patting down, turning out of pockets and searching of bags is going to reveal anything.

Then you just drink and dance til they kick in and four hours later it's time for a kebab and a taxi.

Sorry if that ruins anything for any MPs but it should save the taxpayer some money.

2
0
Happy

Eh?

"What struck me was that the young people seemed very happy to go through the scanners and that they wanted a night free of the problems you get with drugs"

Or possibly a night free from the problems you get with knives and guns, because unless they've created magic new scanners that pick up on illegal substances I'd bet the kids were more than happy to go through them.

Smiley face, because ACIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!!! (though, thinking about it, more than one of El Reg's icons could be used as a logo for a drug!)

0
0
FAIL

What a great example

Instead of pooling all the great research already done from the police to pedro the dog mule adverts they chose to go themselfs. Whats this telling the public; if you want to know about drugs, ignore all the advice we give you and go try it yourself.

Seriously how can a MP in a nightclub not stand out more than some undercover cop. bit like having a emu at an orgy, nobody is going to get it out on show.

Why dont they just send them the security camera's from the toilets inside a nightclub, oh wait , no they might see drugs in use then.

This is not research its about rubbing your electoral peen and going look peeps I know drugs, Even Neo made an effort with Kung-Foo :).

1
0
Pint

People take drugs for the same reasons they drink

> "What struck me was that the young people seemed very

> happy to go through the scanners and that they wanted a

> night free of the problems you get with drugs," he told the

> Beeb.

What an idiot!

Most of the problems with drugs are caused by the prohibition of the damn things! It is obvious, but this MP seems to be unable to see it.

Most people, funnily enough, want to avoid problems when going out, but still want to get wrecked at the weekends. That is why they seem to accept intrusion with scanners - it is better than dealers having weapons in clubs (they do mean metal detectors by scanners, right?).

There is demand for drugs, and there always will be: fighting it is futile. When you then ban drugs you spawn an uncontrollable black market, where you get unpredictable products (variable strength and quality), full of people willing to use violence to settle market disputes.

I'm sure the MPs understand why people go out on the weekends and get rat-arsed, so what's there not to understand about going out and getting high? People do it escape the world where we slave for our banking overlords (does not most of what you earn go on rent or a mortgage? And is this not the same for virtually everyone you work with?), it's just drugs offer a subtly different escape than alcohol. I should think that the MPs are treating the drugs as somehow different to alcohol because that is what their rhetoric has spewed for years.... but the differences between alcohol and illegal drugs are rather meaningless in reality - alcohol is just a drug itself. The differences only persist because of the profits to be made through prohibition of some drugs: alcohol has competitors removed, there is a constant supply of users and small time dealers for the police to keep themselves busy with, the legal industry make plenty both prosecuting and defending this steady supply, and the big time organised criminals make huge profits, totally tax free.

Getting rid of prohibition would kill the profits to be made in the black market, making it less attractive for the immensely greedy. It would also mean that quality control can be enforced on drugs, making them safer.

No one in their right mind suggests we prohibit alcohol, so why do people think it would work for drugs? The only people who support prohibition of drugs do not know their history, or have not learnt from it.

7
0
Thumb Up

@ac

Making drugs legal and improving the quality (British High-as-a-Kite Mark?) would deny large swathes of the criminal fraternity their incomes. What would happen to these leeches then is anybody's guess but I suspect that they might have to work for a living.

Think about it, if you lived in a high-unemployment area or were constantly being told/given an excuse that you were useless/disadvantaged by teachers, social workers and politicians, and you saw a lifestyle that you wanted and could get fairly easily by selling drugs, wouldn't you take it?

Take that avenue away by making drugs legal, high quality (making them far less addictive as well as safer) and reasonably priced, and you end up with far fewer people able to make a living from smuggling, distributing and selling drugs in the first place.

The profits from selling the drugs (and taxes levied on them) could go to paying NHS staff a decent wage and providing clean and safe places for our elderly people to comfortably end their days, as well as clean and safe places for real addicts to get real, properly funded help.

This won't happen though, as NuLab has outlawed learning the lessons of history along with common sense, and there are too many people employed at all levels who's reason for being in that position depends on high crime and drug addiction rates. It would be like turkey's voting for Christmas.

0
0
FAIL

boracic?

"If you were boracic, there was always Evostick." I assume you mean brassic?

0
1
Gold badge
FAIL

There's FAIL there alright.

Boracic lint = skint.

Presumably "brassic" is the Essex pronunciation....

2
0
Welcome

re: Hey, here's an idea...

No, the NHS is the country's biggest employer - third in the world, after the Chinese army and the Indian railways - though as a proportion of the national population, it is the biggest anywhere (unless the Pope is the only resident of Vatican City, in which case he wins). Also, a lot of NHS staff already have hands-on experience with pharmaceuticals...

I for one welcome our coked up House-of-Overlords

0
0

Keith Vaz?!?

he used a glue gun once, for some simple DIY, and he thought he saw the black dog!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipCfGqNZN8

this is, an outrage!

0
0
Why
Coat

Wipes out brain cells...

Aye glue were very cheap but I was told that it wiped out brain cells...

Anyhow, I can tell you never sniffed, it was spelled Evostik... /pedant. Or Evo for short. I realise this is the seventies and it was a very long time ago now.

What about thixofix? That was another one, we called that, "the glue for people with lisps."

:coat icon

Mine would be the one with the stuck together polythene bread bags in the pockets...

1
0
Pint

People take drugs for the same reasons they drink

> "What struck me was that the young people seemed very happy to go through the scanners

> and that they wanted a night free of the problems you get with drugs," he told the Beeb.

What an utter dick!

Most of the problems with drugs are caused by the prohibition of the damn things! It is obvious, but this MP seems to be unable to see it.

Most people, funnily enough, want to avoid problems when going out, but still want to get wrecked at the weekends. That is why they seem to accept intrusion with scanners - it is better than dealers having weapons in clubs (they do mean metal detectors by scanners, right?).

There is demand for drugs, and there always will be: fighting it is futile. When you then ban drugs you spawn an uncontrollable black market, where you get unpredictable products (variable strength and quality), full of people willing to use violence to settle market disputes.

I'm sure the MPs understand why people go out on the weekends and get rat-arsed, so what's there not to understand about going out and getting high? People do it escape the world where we slave for our banking overlords (does not most of what you earn go on rent or a mortgage? And is this not the same for virtually everyone you work with?), it's just drugs offer a subtly different escape than alcohol. I should think that the MPs are treating the drugs as somehow different to alcohol because that is what their rhetoric has spewed for years.... but the differences between alcohol and illegal drugs are rather meaningless in reality - alcohol is just a drug itself. The differences only persist because of the profits to be made through prohibition of some drugs: alcohol has competitors removed, there is a constant supply of users and small time dealers for the police to keep themselves busy with, the legal industry make plenty both prosecuting and defending this steady supply, and the big time organised criminals make huge profits, totally tax free.

Getting rid of prohibition would kill the profits to be made in the black market, making it less attractive for the immensely greedy. It would also mean that quality control can be enforced on drugs, making them safer.

No one in their right mind suggests we prohibit alcohol, so why do people think it would work for drugs? The only people who support prohibition of drugs do not know their history, or have not learnt from it.

1
0
(Written by Reg staff)

Re: boracic

Look it up.

0
0
Gold badge
Alert

Heinsenberg's uncertainty principle in action?

'....have taken advice on the "best club to go to in London".'

There's no point. By definition it'll be one of the ones that isn't full of MPs trying to score coke that night.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I will happily

take them all out, get the ripped to the tits on coke and e and then put it all through on expenses.

how can you police something unless you understand it?

0
0
Nev
Bronze badge

IIf they want to find out about cocaine abuse...

... why not go and hang out with a few tabloid "journalists"?

They have a reputatuion for being voracious coke-hounds, no?

0
0
Stop

Ion Trackers

Drug scanners do exist, they are called Ion Trackers. They will tell the police on a molucular level what you have been touching.

For all those who lambasted said MP because of their own lack of knowledge, pwned.

0
1
ket

Mass Spectrometer

Ok, I had to go and check what an "Ion Tracker" is. Turns out it's a mass spectrometer. I assume it's the same device they use at airports for checking for explosives, when they swab your bag and then stick in a machine.

Seems they might be a little too sensitive according to this article, where a welsh assembly member asked for a demo and tested positive to canabis himself, as did another assembly member.

"You could pick it up from anywhere couldn't you?" she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4096562.stm

So does that mean when they do the swab thing in the airport they'll know that I've been touching weed the night before? Or they just ignore that spike on the graph and only stop me if the semtex one is high?

1
0

Also...

If they're talking about so called 'puffer' machines, they're massive and very, very expensive, not something that would be in the budget of a night club. Their power supply is rather special too, if I recall correctly pulling a hundred plus amps. Let's face it though, if a club wants to scan you for anything, it's a weapon and if they wanted to check you out for drugs they could use a passive drug dog.

You can get none-police passive drug dogs, their major disadvantage is that they only tend to work for about 20mins at a time before needing to be rested.

0
0
Jobs Halo

I wonder how many mp's remember

The iconic phrase "Turn on, tune in, drop out"

In their case it's more likely to be turn up, clock in, drop to the pub on tax payers expenses"

0
0
Gold badge
Happy

hi-robb

"In their case it's more likely to be turn up, clock in, drop to the pub on tax payers expenses"

More true than you imagine.

MP (or their lordships) do not have an actual employment contract. Their *only* obligation is to turn up (and I think their Lordships don't have that) sign in they turned up and, well that's it.

Nice work if you can get it. And there will be a few vacancies coming up.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@ Annihilator

Hydrochloric acid is what eats your nose....it's in the coke by design, to enable the drug to be water soluble.

The baby laxative / chalk / vim on the other hand....

Cocaine! The cherry on any cake! Makes anything feel more exciting, and for that reason is the most boring drug ever invented, for everyone not taking it. Designed for people that want to feel like they are off their heads on something, but could still handle a copper / their mum walking into the room.

0
0

why on earth do a i have to add a title to this? i'm replying to a topic not starting a new one

I think it is a good sign that this chap is showing an interest in understanding the 'problem'.

However, i do wish that he would listen to the advice of those that know about these matters. Instead of staying quiet while that idiot of a home secretary that we have to put up with until the inevitable ousting of labour in favor of the equally as bad conservative party, went ahead and sacked the chief advisor on drugs - for not agreeing with him.

AC 4th December 2009 14:04 GMT is bang on the money with this one. The cause of the most of the perceived problems with drugs are their legal status. Arghhh it is so blindingly obvious that it makes me want to fine an MP and shake him until he understands.

What worries me most is that these people, the same people who refuse to accept the blatantly obvious are running our country / lives, what other painfully embarrassing and dangerous mistakes do they make on a daily basis ?

i was going to give him a thumbs up for trying but now he can go fuck himself for not listening to what has already been said a million times.

0
0

Keith Vaz.... Mr Teflon himself.

He's been banned from Parliment for a month.

Helped people get dodgy passports.

Forced a rename of a local site to his MUM's name.

Built a housing estate for a particular population group...... got upset when a different group moved in and built a second and only sold to the group HE wanted.

And there have been so many "unexplained" fires at listed buildings where large companies wanted to build. Which have then been deemed to expensive to repair.

Oh and he had almost £80,000 in four years in expenses.

I hate to use WIki but for once I know it's accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz

I'm sure he didn't have an ulterier motive.

0
0
Silver badge

@whomever

NHS is the worlds 4th largest employer I believe ... I read that the Walmart acquisition of Asda meant they overtook the NHS.

0
0
Grenade

Gwyn Prosser- what an arse

"What struck me was that the young people seemed very happy to go through the scanners and that they wanted a night free of the problems you get with drugs,"

Surprised that young people don't want to get shot or stabbed?

problems you get with drugs- like not being able to get hold of them? or fending off sweaty cuddlers? or is he talking about alcohol fuelled agression ending in a trip to A&E?

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.