C.E.P.T.A.
The CAMPAIGN for EFFECTIVE PREVENTION and TREATMENT of ADDICTION.
7b. Why Drugs Czar Keith Hellawell Was Never Given a Proper Chance.
The Mole in the Cabinet – and a Trace of Weed in High Places.
It is a fact of life that many users of intoxicants are liars. So people in high places (particularly politicians who have to ‘keep in’ with the voters) will often withhold the fact that they are doing something which they know is disreputable.
In those countries where it has been tried, drug legalisation has totally demonstrated that such a policy can be relied upon to quickly and hugely increase drug usage by that nation’s citizens for numerous reasons, amongst them being:
i) because supplies circulating in the community are more plentiful and easier to
obtain (which also makes easier supply availability for under-age drug usage),
ii) because legal supplies have to be much cheaper in order to make it
uneconomical to bring in illicit supplies (again also boosting youth usage),
iii) because those individuals who would not normally break the law feel that,
under legalisation, it is then OK to do so, and,
iv) because those who fear the effects of drugs, start to consider their fears are
groundless because: “Well, if the government says its OK, it must be”!
In the UK and other countries, the escalating consumption of legal alcohol and tobacco both demonstrate that any form of liberalisation not only leads to increasing consumption, but also to increasing violence, tax evasion, addiction, debt, illness, deprivation and even poverty and death.
As the Cabinet Minister to whom the Drugs Czar reported, Mo Mowlem was assigned by the government to resist the proliferation of drug use which would be engendered by legalisation of drugs, and she joined with the Prime Minister when he gave assurances that no drug would be legalised on his watch.
Keith Hellawell, whose work over decades had confirmed the dangers of legalisation on any grounds, was ardent in supporting the Prime Minister in this regard, which was why drug-users and psycho-pharmaceutical industry moles in government departments saw to it that he was moved sideways and then was moved out of his position as U.K. Drugs Czar, when it was recognised that he was likely becoming too effective for the U.K. legalisation lobby.
Mo Mowlem was a brave individual as well as a courageous politician. She confessed to having used cannabis at university, but it is only recently that it was revealed that she was sufficiently committed to legalisation to have quietly started writing a book to be titled: “Legalise Drugs”. There is no suggestion that she was under the direct influence of the psycho-pharmaceutical industry (except in respect of her anti-cancer chemotherapy) and it seems clear that her opinions on legalisation were based on her own personal experiences with drug usage rather than on any sort of pressure or persuasion from vested interests.
However,
the same is not true of Mike Trace, the Deputy Drugs Czar who ostensibly
reported to Hellawell, but also had a direct line to Hellawell’s boss and
Cabinet Minister – Mo Mowlem. Trace is also a confessed cannabis user,
and was also subsequently exposed and disgraced by the revelation that he was
covertly employed to work for the legalisation of drugs, against the expressed
policies of his Drug Czar boss and Tony Blair. Trace’s alleged supporters
in this regard were said to have been the rabid legaliser George Soros and the
more innocently but honestly dedicated
Clearly Trace exercised influence over Mowlem who, as an ex-user, already had difficulty in seeing eye-to-eye with Hellawell’s anti-legalisation views, so that Trace and Mowlem could figuratively cry on each others’ legalisation shoulders, which some observers believe gave Trace the chance to plot Hellawell’s political demise.
However. Politics aside. Look how the decision-making of just one or two self-confessed drug users who, to avoid being branded as criminals, give their support to the legalisation of drugs – even against the intentions of their bosses and Cabinet colleagues. Look what they will seek to impose on the whole U.K. population in order to justify their own personal preferences and drug monitored bias.
In attempting to implement the exclusion of failing psycho-pharmaceutical ‘treatment’ practices from our society, this is the sort of counter-intention we are up against amongst civil servants, MPs and lobbyists - in numbers sufficiently large to be able to influence or bypass the normal governmental decision-making processes.
Individuals (who may or may not be drug users, individuals who may have been gotten-at by expert lobbyists like Trace or even by humble family members or friends) when occupying the sort of posts occupied by Mo Mowlem can have a far-reaching and disastrous effect on all members of our community – especially when they are someone who cares, as Mo did - but sometimes about the wrong things.
On the other hand, when individuals are furthering personal preferences and ambition on behalf of and with the financial support of vested interests, we have a deliberate, controlled and targeted activity within government which is designed to bring down the whole process of democratic endeavour. And there is much more than just a Trace of such individuals evident in British political circles.
Those who work in the drugs field have known for some time that Mo was sympathetic to liberalising drugs, but many suspect that her book - written under the influence of two years of anti cancer drugs - is likely a posthumous slap in the face for the anti-legalisation Prime Minister who demoted her from Northern Ireland Secretary to what she described as “tea-lady”.
What a joy for a spider like Mike when he finds a juicy fly like Mo in his web
© Copyright C.E..P.T.A. and E. Kenneth Eckersley, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 & 2005. All World Rights Reserved