Steve Uncles – English Democrat confirms he has the toughest Drug Policy in Kent at Canterbury Hustings
At the First Kent PCC Hustings, all six candidates made statements saying that they would be “Tough on Drugs” but the test came when one student from the University of Kent in Canterbury, asked the opinion of the Candidates as to their policy on the personal growing of Cannabis Plants for personal use.
Of the six Candidates four including the Conservative Craig MacKinlay, made statements saying that “Growing drugs for personal use is OK”, Ann Barnes, confirmed the Law in that even growing Cannabis for personal use is against the Law, but Steve Uncles of the English Democrats confirmed that his policy was Zero Tolerance on all Illegal Drugs in Kent, to make Kent into a “Drugs Free Zone”
Mr Uncles was the only candidate to confirm that “Zero Tolerance” meant absolutely no toleration of Drugs in Kent, by the Kent Police under his administration, his rationale for this policy he justified by the terrible affect that addictive drugs have on users lives, once they are addicted, the Crimes motivated by drug use, and the revenue stream for organised crime from the drug trade and drug dealing.
Mr Uncles concluded “If you wish to vote for candidates who have a liberal policy on drugs, then you have several choices, but just to make it clear, when the English Democrats say ‘zero tolerance – a drug free zone’ that is exactly what we mean, here in Kent“
However, perusal of the English Democrat's manifesto, to which he refers readers in an earlier post, states this:
2.14.1 English Democrats believe that government should encourage a healthy lifestyle which makes the minimum use of "recreational" drugs of all kinds and only reasonable use of alcohol. The Government's drug policy is failing to control the use of illegal drugs and its alcohol policy appears to be making the problems worse.
2.14.2 The English Democrats favour an independent and open minded, English enquiry into alcohol and drug abuse. This should consider, amongst other issues, the pros and cons of legalising the use of cannabis and its health and social consequences. The enquiry should consider health and social consequences. We recognise that there are good arguments on either side. What is needed is a proper conclusion to the debate for England so that it is possible to move on with an agreed stance and suitable measures.
Clearly the manifesto is not worth the paper it is written on.