"Q: What do you say to those people who are unhappy but are pulled the other way by feelings of loyalty?

A: Examine their consciences. Take a good look at what is going on. If they agree - ok. If not then speak out."  - Fourthwrite interview with Brendan Hughes


Tonight TPQ runs another piece by Gemma Murray where she continues to explore the attiudinal response of former IRA volunteers not of the Sinn Fein mould towards the continuing use of arms by republicans. In this piece Gemma Murray interviews former blanketman Gerard Hodgins. It initially featured in today's News Letter, 23 December 2013.

Gerard Hodgins reinforces the calls made earlier this week by fellow former blanketmen.

*****

Former hunger striker Gerard Hodgins last night joined three former IRA men, who also spoke out in the News Letter, to ask dissident republicans to “reconsider” their so-called campaign.

Last week former senior figures in the Provisional IRA, Richard O’Rawe, Anthony McIntyre and Tommy McKearney separately called for dissident republicans to call a halt to their activities.

Mr Hodgins, from west Belfast, said:

I would like to ask them to reconsider the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness, of what they are doing. And to try and come up with a non-violent alternative because there is no appetite or support for a violent conflict in this country among any significant number of the population.

Mr Hodgins was first imprisoned for IRA activities when he was 17 years old, spent 20 days on hunger strike before it was called off, and was imprisoned a second time in the 1990s for the alleged kidnapping of a police informer (the conviction has since been overturned).

He said that since 1996 'I have not bothered with any of it', referring to the IRA.

'The dissidents today who say they are still at war seem to have the mindset that to be a republican you have to be fighting a war and can only express yourself through bombs and bullets,' he said.

Republicanism is not a war philosophy, we did go through a conflict but it came to an end. Part of the reason why it came to an end was a war weariness and there was sufficient infiltration to help steer the IRA to where they (the Government) wanted it to go.

I would have no doubt the intelligence and security agencies, having penetrated and been able to deliver the IRA, would have no problem in winding down the dissidents.

At the minute they [the dissidents] are not going to advance republicanism and the only thing they will achieve is getting their own people to spend long periods in prison.

Mr Hodgins said the other “big lesson” the Provisional IRA learned during the Troubles was 'that you need to persuade unionism by words rather than by actions.'

Former Hunger Striker asks Dissidents to Reconsider

"Q: What do you say to those people who are unhappy but are pulled the other way by feelings of loyalty?

A: Examine their consciences. Take a good look at what is going on. If they agree - ok. If not then speak out."  - Fourthwrite interview with Brendan Hughes


Tonight TPQ runs another piece by Gemma Murray where she continues to explore the attiudinal response of former IRA volunteers not of the Sinn Fein mould towards the continuing use of arms by republicans. In this piece Gemma Murray interviews former blanketman Gerard Hodgins. It initially featured in today's News Letter, 23 December 2013.

Gerard Hodgins reinforces the calls made earlier this week by fellow former blanketmen.

*****

Former hunger striker Gerard Hodgins last night joined three former IRA men, who also spoke out in the News Letter, to ask dissident republicans to “reconsider” their so-called campaign.

Last week former senior figures in the Provisional IRA, Richard O’Rawe, Anthony McIntyre and Tommy McKearney separately called for dissident republicans to call a halt to their activities.

Mr Hodgins, from west Belfast, said:

I would like to ask them to reconsider the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness, of what they are doing. And to try and come up with a non-violent alternative because there is no appetite or support for a violent conflict in this country among any significant number of the population.

Mr Hodgins was first imprisoned for IRA activities when he was 17 years old, spent 20 days on hunger strike before it was called off, and was imprisoned a second time in the 1990s for the alleged kidnapping of a police informer (the conviction has since been overturned).

He said that since 1996 'I have not bothered with any of it', referring to the IRA.

'The dissidents today who say they are still at war seem to have the mindset that to be a republican you have to be fighting a war and can only express yourself through bombs and bullets,' he said.

Republicanism is not a war philosophy, we did go through a conflict but it came to an end. Part of the reason why it came to an end was a war weariness and there was sufficient infiltration to help steer the IRA to where they (the Government) wanted it to go.

I would have no doubt the intelligence and security agencies, having penetrated and been able to deliver the IRA, would have no problem in winding down the dissidents.

At the minute they [the dissidents] are not going to advance republicanism and the only thing they will achieve is getting their own people to spend long periods in prison.

Mr Hodgins said the other “big lesson” the Provisional IRA learned during the Troubles was 'that you need to persuade unionism by words rather than by actions.'

49 comments:

  1. Are there any dissidents left that want to carry on the good fight-

    Wonder who is in the newsletter tomorrow-

    ReplyDelete
  2. Michaelhenry,

    but you have to admit it makes for much better reading than what we get in the Jimmy Simple column in the Irish News.

    ReplyDelete
  3. WHY DID the dissedents in the 30s 40s 50s 60s and seventies keep up the fight .

    ReplyDelete
  4. AM-

    The dissos have just opened up at
    Lisnaskea police barracks tonight-
    they must have missed todays newsletter like they missed the cops-

    ReplyDelete
  5. MH
    Wonder who is in the newsletter tomorrow

    Beat me to it MH, I was going to pose that question myself.

    All this clambering to the Newsletter is like a mirror image of the Jimmy Simple column.

    Why did Hodgie go to the Newsletter at this point?

    Aside from the in's and outs, rights or wrong of taking drugs whether it be grass or anything else, for somebody who usually I would listen too and read, for that person to allow himself to be so photographed as appeared in the Sunday World puts a big Question mark over his judgement and his foresight.

    I know people who take Ecstacy and who say it doesnt do them any harm and helps them unwind at the weekend. Similarly, young people have argued methadrone is ok too in the right way and dose.

    Why would or why could anyone blame BS or whoever and the Sunday World for the debacle? It was a spectacular own goal. Who would look such a gift horse in the mouth?

    ReplyDelete
  6. ps
    Hodgie might be lucky his interview was carried in the 23rd December copy of the Newsletter, and so, because it is the Christmas period wind down the Sunday World article (or reference to it) might not be carried in the Newsletter today.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The thing is michaelhenry those who speak out against the continuation of armed struggle all played an active part in the past, while you did what exactly?

    You became just another parrot in Adams' menagerie.

    Someone he likely doesn't even know exists. Someone who could be replaced tomorrow without a second thought.

    Thats who you are michaelhenry...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Gerard Hodgkins. There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by violent means. The recent pointless, random half baked shootings and bombings serve only to reinforce the Good Friday Agreement and British rule.

    There is an urgent need for greater organiston of peaceful, progressive and intelligent opposition to British rule in Ireland.
    The current sporadic, pointless, unprovoked and

    ReplyDelete
  9. thelight -
    certainly not just to maintain the fight, so that today's dissidents could too do their part to keep up the fight.

    Methinks the dissidents need to remember the words of Terence MacSwiney "It's not those who [attempt to] inflict the most, but those that endure the most, that shall prevail"

    ReplyDelete
  10. The will or the ability to mount any sort of effective military campaign by republicans just does not exist,never mind the tacit or logistic support from a section of the population,its a stark reality those of a military mindset must accept,it is possible to carry out a limited campaign and even the odd spectacular but as said before cui bono?militant republican republicanism at the moment is subsidising the the bigots in Stormont,those faceless men of Mi5 and those in their pay,everyone else is a loser, quisling $inn £eind continues to rule the roost in these areas safe in the knowledge that a vice like grip on these communities will go unchallenged whilst the energy of those who could possibly mount an effective opposition are engaged in futile acts of violence, a truthful appraisal of the situation here would surely show that indeed the very existence of MI5 here is entirely dependant on violence,my solution is let them earn their money elsewhere,put our energy into community issues and rebuild a stronger community based opposition to those quisling charlatans and carpetbaggers who claim to represent us now,in the words of John Lennon "give peace a chance" the biggest losers will be those who need violence to support their lifestyles.

    ReplyDelete
  11. eddie

    I had thought the same as you; why would GH be outraged by the SW when he openly admits that he uses/abuses illegal drugs? But in the actual article the Journalist uses a lot of conjecture and speculation to sound knowledgeable far beyond GH's public/personal use of illegal drugs.

    Perhaps one reason behind GH's polite call to down arms could be motivated by his intention to stand for election? Realistically I think he would have the foresight to realise that from canvassing one door to the next the question of concern to most people will be the sporadic and reckless use of violence; -lets face it even if those shooting at a police station last night had actually hit the building what would it have achieved? No more than had they accidently killed everyone in the station.

    Or, just maybe, GH has realised after all these years is that his former comrades in SF will never encounter any viable or effective challenge so long as violent dissidents run amok in attempt to destroy lives -even if only their own and their families.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tiarna,

    I doubt if Gerard gives one toss about the pot smoking charge. He has never sought to hide it. Like many of us he thinks it should be legalised just like alcohol. His real issue is, as you alluded to, the false charges.

    As for his view that republican political violence is not the way to go, in my view it is probably for the same reasons as your own - the sheer futility of it all, the grief and suffering it brings. I doubt elections feature in his perspective even if he endorses electoral intervention by republicans. He has been expressing his opposition to armed force for a quite a while.

    Best to you at Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Am, you said something in one of your comments recently I think it was in response to ardoyne republican when you asked him about the rights of civilians. In doing so you got me thinking it is often something glossed over or joked about in my circles. I was brought up in a republican household and our attitudes were simple we were right, historically right, morally right and geographically right the 32 counties were ours. When it came to victims of republicans my attitude was fuck em if I am being honest. Although that no longer can be the case. when the provies were active the end justified the means I was told but the end was capitulation so the means cant be justified. I admire ex prisoners speaking out against violence because you will get no thanks for it, abuse from all sides is more likely. I have said before I find it hard to criticise republicans who put their liberty on the line for Ireland. However after reflection maybe our criticisms will make them see the futility of their actions. to high of a price just to strengthen the brits hand. Maybe out of all this squabbling, name calling we will get a political republican movement worthy of the name and sacrifices. Anyway am slobbering here, Merry Christmas ya shower o mad bastards

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi Tiarna, All the best to you and yours for Christmas and the New Year.

    Your paragraph one
    I dont buy or read the SW as a rule and only heard of the article through the Quill and was able to source the item thereafter. Normally I can easily dismiss SW articles regardless of who maybe the subject of SW's conjecture and speculation because conjecture and speculation is the SW way. His admiting of taking illegal drugs is, I feel, something away and above all else that was in the article and probably his drug taking was an enabling factor that allowed the SW to print the other allegations. Even if he had an absolute fortune at his disposal to take SW to Court Hodgie would probably lose because of his admittance of drug taking. So Hodgie really is the author of his own misfortune.

    Para 2
    Hodgie standing for election? I dunno, - maybe he should tell us if he had such plans. Certainly he would have had my vote before SW published thon photo, I would probably still vote for him but I wouldnt have the same enthusiasim. Was his polite call to "lay down arms" motivated by his intention to stand in elections? Possibly, if he so intended and the polite call had been made before the SW item. Now he would have more to be concerned with being castigated for drug taking in any future electoral campaign than the pros and cons of armed struggle at the present time and situation.

    Para 3
    "Or just maybe, GH has realised after all these years is that his former comrades in SF ....."
    When I first read that and given what the Newsletter 3 had written this past week I thought you were going to say Hodgie (and the Newsletter 3) had realised that the SF analysis was right all along.

    I dont think the IRA was defeated and I think it was terribly wrong of AM to say so and especially in the Newsletter were it was greeted with derision. The family's of all the dead volunteers deserve better than that. A small micro part of the IRA capitulated because the heat was being turned up on them and in more ways than one. I didnt believe either the great firebrand orator Marie Drumm that the IRA would literally overwhelm the British Army and drive them into the Irish Sea. Rather I thought the IRA would be a flea in the ear of the British and to the point it would make it so uncomfortable for them to want to stay. I think thats how most people saw it. As to today I dont feel as much concern for the restaurant owners who lost their profits or the public who missed their slapup meals recently, I would be more concerned about the way prisoners are being treated in Magahberry and whether they should be imprisoned at all.

    I dont and would not encourage anyone to be engaged in armed actions and I let this be known as I come across people who express such views. I most certainly would not try to do so via the Newsletter and cant figure out how anyone could think it a good idea or of any benefit at all to use the Newsletter to call for others to state that the IRA were defeated

    ReplyDelete
  15. AM

    "I doubt if Gerard gives one toss about the pot smoking charge" I don't know the guy but from what he wrote I thought that he expressed himself very well on the matter. I took his point 'so what...'. as he meant it and how the Article had no legs other than based upon his lifestyle choice and not SW's made up MI5 secret squirrel stuff.

    Eddie

    I would agree with you that the IRA was not actually defeated. While I am aware of the relationship between SF and the IRA what I am often confused about is men/women swore an oath of allegiance to the IRA and not SF how does that oath transfer by default to SF? I suppose it's just some sort of republican technicality that those who know know how that works and its on 'a need to know basis'.

    And yes GH opens himself up to criticism/debate that he uses drugs -that is very much a personal thing but the difficulty arises when he is seen as a republican spokesperson. It's a debate he seems well prepared and able to take on.

    I was not making a statement that he was going to stand for election I was only speaking hypothetically.

    I have heard others refer to ways in which it should be 'properly' communicated to violent dissidents that they should stop; 'constructive criticism' was the phrase. After all these years they have not listened.

    There is nothing pleasant, cute, or noble that they will send their own people out to kill or be killed or destroy. If killing a single policeman or soldier will achieve nothing then it is wrong to kill one. They will destroy the lives of their own families and the families of their enemies for nothing. What they are doing or trying to do is wrong and futile and that message should reach them from every medium if necessary.

    Happy holdidays to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eddie, merry christmas. I think the reason people would state the IRA were defeated is simple republicans never achieved our ultimate objective. As time goes by and we realize the extent of the brits infiltration, the knowledge they acquired would suggest they could have incarcerated our whole army council if they wanted, the fact they did not suggests they were happy with proceedings.

    ReplyDelete
  17. David,

    that is a frank acknowledgement you make in relation to our attitude towards civilians. It is hardly isolated. I just don't think we ever give a great deal of consideration to the idea that people had rights against us. I think we took the view that out rights would be asserted come what may.

    I guess age and reflection help us see things differently.

    Merry Christmas

    ReplyDelete
  18. From the OP:
    'Mr Hodgins said the other “big lesson” the Provisional IRA learned during the Troubles was 'that you need to persuade unionism by words rather than by actions.''

    This is indeed the big lesson. It is not the British Government/Establishment/State that prevents a United Ireland, but the British people of Northern Ireland, the Unionists.

    That truth seems to have been overlooked by Irish Republicans from the 20th C. on. They worked with the fiction that it was the Brit State that manipulated the Unionists to oppose Home Rule, and that once the Brit State was removed the Unionists would become Irish.

    I gather that now and then a Republican would concede that it was the Unionists who were the real problem, but they could be militarily defeated and forced to become Irish or immigrate.

    But Unionists had no intention of rolling over. Sure, if massive military might was imposed by Britain and the Republicans, we might have been forced to submit. However, we thought our chances were fair that we could resist anything the British Government would be allowed by the nation to do to us, and to bring the Republicans to at least a stalemate. 1912-14 and all that.

    Same applied in our latest Troubles - it's not the Brit State that prevented a UI, but the Unionists.

    Now we can ask why the Unionists do not see the benefits of a UI. Because the Brit Government told us lies about the Irish? Not at all. As far as we can see, the Brit Governments would all have been glad to see us in a UI.

    Was it a psychological/pathological addition to Her Majesty? No, for folk like myself who would be equally happy with a British Republic also do not support a UI.

    Was it a desire to dominate the Irish minority of our citizens? No, for I'm a Christian who doesn't want to dominate anyone, and most Christians I know say the same.

    So what keeps Unionists from wanting a UI? It is our reading of the nature of Irish Republicanism.

    We do not see it as libertarian or democratic, and it offers us much less freedom than does our British nationality.

    We see history teaching us that our fathers were right when they said 'Home Rule is Rome Rule' - the history of the Irish Free State and Republic demonstrated that an ingrained Catholicism directed the soul of the Irish nation. And those who were free of that were just as captivated by a socialism more in line with East Germany than British Labour.

    Given the chance to show us that Ireland could be free for Protestants as well as Catholics, the Irish nation failed.

    Why should we think it would be any different next time? No, safety for our freedom of religion and civil rights is much more certain in the British nation than in the Irish one. At least for now.

    There is no reason a new mentality could not take root in the Irish nation and it become a haven for civil and religious liberty, just as Britain may well become intolerant of the values we hold dear. But we need to know that such a change is there. We will not be assured by promises and aspirations alone.

    That's the big picture. The gerrymandering and discrimination of the NI State from its inception was just a symptom of the tension of an unagreed State. An agreed State would be able to avoid such things.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wolfsbane,

    as a good Christian I thought you would be wishing us a merry Christmas instead of giving us a political lecture!!

    To you and yours have a nice Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two points about the use of drugs, firstly when did true Irish republicans adhere to English laws?

    Secondly some of those who have commented need to catch up and stop dancing to the neo liberal elites tune.

    Across the world people are recognising it is not the drugs themselves which do the most harm to individuals and societies but the prohibition laws.

    Yes people who take them can harm themselves, but the damage done by tobacco and alcohol is far, far worse. The overwhelming majority who experiment with drugs come out of it unharmed, most simple grow out of it. Those who do not need to be treated in a sympathetic manner not stuck in jail.

    Thankfully no one today talks about making alcohol illegal now, as we have the disastrous experiment with US prohibition as a warning from history.

    The same with Gambling, yet when it was legalised, in the blink of the eye, it went from the preserve of the Mob to become just another money making arm of the multi national corporations.

    The same goes for the liquor industry, and when it happens, and illicit drugs are legalised, which they will be as it is only the power of the USA which stands in the way, and that is waning, this is what will occur.

    Mankind will look back at just how stupid we ordinary folk have been in believing all the crap about drugs, whilst ignoring those who propagate it the most, have a vested interest in prohibition.

    The world will look back with horror at how this law stifled and destroyed so many lives. Why is the question they will ask, as for centuries human kind felt absolutely need to make drugs like Morphine/Heroin, blow and cocaine, etc, illegal and the world did not end.

    Finally on this, the sheer hypocrisy of the war on drugs is astounding, as someone once said, "the war on drugs was a war on our children."

    The very illegality makes narcotics attractive to young people, the fact these laws are broken every day by millions of people around the world should tell any thinking person this law is an ass.

    On Gerard and the photo, etc.

    When I read people condemning Gerard for "his drug taking I think what hypocritical shit. Do they drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, drink coffee; need I go on, as I said gross hypocrisy never lurks far away when people condemn other peoples drug taking.

    As to that photo, it is a guy having a laugh, taking the piss out of himself, as he said he has been a free man since 1996, who has no interest in asking the permission from the Connolly House sensors before he goes on Facebook, lighten up, look at it, me I am still laughing about the whellies.

    Although if he were going to stand for office, which I doubt, as every politician needs a peg to hang their campaign on, I would suggest an Armani suit topped off with the whellies.

    Remind me what is worse, this photo of Gerard or the one of Martin McGuinness standing beside a senior British police officer and calling on people to turn folk in.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AM, that too! And a very happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  22. AM
    Worried about civilians in a bombing campaign and the population not being consulted about such a campaign?

    Organised Rage
    "The war on drugs was a war on our children"

    Just a few doors from me a young lad of 21 is being waked after committing suicide. The dealer who sold him his first bit of weed also supplied him with methodrone. This is a young man who before drugs was an A student and was a naturally happy go lucky
    Lad.

    I suspect that the £20 weed deals financed this dealers methodrone and cocaine orders. What about this dealers war on children or the effects of his drug dealing on this population
    and this bereaved family in particular.

    Where are your weed deals coming from? Do you care? Is your £20 being used to finance anything else?

    Kid yourselves all you want with your claptrap but the only ones you are bluffing are yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Very we'll put Mick from start to finish

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have taken drugs in the past so I am in no position to lecture people on the subject except to point out the health risks should be explained and until drugs are legal you can't be 100% sure of what you're taking. If there is horse meat in beef burgers in the legal arena what is hidden in the MDMA or LSD or other synthetic drugs you buy off a dealer. Dealers aren't philanthropists, by and large they sell to afford a little extra for themselves to take or to make money.

    Above and beyond this the suppliers are making fortunes. It is a highly lucrative business and it is built solidly on the misery that goes along with drug use. Cannabis has it's dangers too- many recent studies show it is more cancerous when smoked than tobacco, can cause psychological and more serious illnesses.

    I would argue that all drugs should be legalised. Firstly to maintain a healthier quality of drug. Secondly, legalisation would make it easier to provide proper education and information on what people are thinking of taking. Thirdly, many drugs depending on how they are legalised are taken less often and by fewer people (particularly the harder ones). Lastly, it would stop criminal gangs from making huge profits and it would lower drug-gang related crimes.

    As I said it is a lucrative business and those who control the trade are necessarily ruthless as it is unlicensed and illegal and they need to use violent means to protect their profits.

    I finished reading "No Dope Here" a couple of weeks ago as it is a subject I have an interest in.

    Republicans have by and large resisted the temptation to go into the drugs business. I mean you only delegitimise the struggle by linking it to drugs. People died to show they weren't criminals but if your organisation is funded by drugs you have criminalised yourself and you have no moral or ethical basis on which to fight. (assuming such a basis is there in the first place).

    Apparently Jimmy Brown who led the IPLO into the drugs business had good intentions but look how that turned out.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Simon,

    I agree with legalising it for all the reasons you said. I have been persuaded by those people who were police chiefs in the US and others that the war on drugs was never going to eradicate drugs. They argued that if it is legalised the useage would decrease rather than rise. But I remember arguing in some piece for AP/RN almost 20 years that the gangs that supply them are a problem more than drugs. I can't for the world of me see why pot should be banned but whiskey not. I know a hell of a lot more people who died from drink than I do who died from drugs. That is not to detract from the very real loss and grief in the house close to Eddie. I have been at those funerals too and there is nothing uplifting about them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mick,

    I endorse the Sean Bres comment about your contribution. Very well put.

    Merry Christmas to everyone. I am off to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. When Organised Rage said "The overwhelming majority who experiment with drugs come out of it unharmed, most simple grow out of it." Speaking from life experience, which is never a scientific measure, I would disagree. I knew over a hundred people personally who took drugs (hell in my class in school only 5 out of 30 hadn't tried marajauna) and I am basing my response on what I have seen and been told over the years. But there's no doubt the harder drugs are more harmful. As for the world not ending there has always been slavery too - it doesn't mean it should be legal. There are reasons for legalisation but that isn't one of them.

    Anyway, Merry Christmas to all on the Quill! Stay away from the yellow snow.

    ReplyDelete
  28. AM
    In light of the tragic death due to drugs in Twinbrook yesterday (suppose its fortunate that we are not talking about 5 deaths), I was wondering if at sometime in the near future you could give us your take and analysis on this incident that we might hear a resonse from the likes of Organised Rage, Sean Bres, Simon and Hodgie himself and hopefully others as well?

    Simon
    Very measured and well put responses to those who would argue otherwise. Interestingly no one came back to dispute the points you made, must be Christmas or something.

    However you and I might be wrong and there maybe drug dealers with scruples and dealers without scruples.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eddie,

    feel free to write the article. I don't need to tell you it will be more than welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thanks very much Eddie. I guess there would be drug dealers with scruples but scruples only go so far as you are only as good as your product. If drugs were legal at least people could scientifically test the product.

    As for the tragic deaths in Twinbrook my first thoughts are of the unnecessary and irretrievable loss of life. I know it is a cliché but it's a cliché for a reason and that is at this time of year in particular deaths like that hit hardest. My natural reaction to news like that is anger and a sense of hopelessness.

    If Republicans are responsible for selling the drugs (although there is no suggestion they are) or anyone else they are just as bad as the Loyalists or Security Forces during the Troubles as they are killing us. The natural reaction therefore is to be angry and to despair.

    With legalisation there would be better education on the risks and the quality of these drugs would be better also. Another thing to realise if they were legal the manufacturers and sellers would hold a duty of care towards the user and would be held responsible if things went wrong. To that extent they would try their hardest to make sure the drugs are safe.

    The sellers of the Speckled Rolexes can only be held responsible if they are caught and it is a risk they are happy to take. When I was younger the people who sold drugs would have been friends of the users, selling to afford a little extra for themselves. Very small scale. Maybe someone would have smuggled 100 acid tabs back from Amsterdam at 40p each and sold for £3 each.

    Today it is a bigger problem with more organised gangs arranging things. Arming themselves to protect their profits. You still have the ones with more scruples who aren't in a gang but maybe smuggle back significantly more than the example I gave.

    Something has to be done as you can't have a war on a noun. Like the War on Terrorism the War on Drugs is something that can never be won.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks AM I know it would. And I would write myself only for me it is a straight forward issue, drug dealing is wrong. full stop, and for two good reasons - the recent suicide death of a young neighbour and the death in Belfast last evening. So I wouldnt have any other interesting points to make.
    The deaths aren't one off's or unusual. Taking those Quill locals who did respond to the Hodgie and his drug thing article - if they are representative of the typicsl Quill poster and they seem to be - then I am in the wrong boat.

    I would find it very hard to take people serious in other issues or arguments if those same people thought it was ok to partake in drug dealing regardless of the drug involved.

    If my stance on the drug thing was definetely the minority view on the Quill then it would probably be better all round if I didnt take part in the Quill again. I thought if you or somebody of similar weight, sorry, you know what I mean, had made the argument we could have let one another know where we stand on this particular issue.

    For the overwhelming most part I enjoyed reading the Quill and I will miss it but sure we will all survive, hopefully, for the most part. All the best to you and yours and for the New Year.
    Eddie

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eddie,

    you have been in worse places for people not liking what you had to say than the Quill and you survived!

    People will disagree with us wherever we go and we get used to being in a minority.

    I don't think anybody has made the case that drug dealing is fine, the opposite would seem to be the case: the need to legalise it to get it away from the dealers.

    The blocks were full of pot smokers Eddie.

    Funny enough, I looked up that Twinbrook thing after you mentioned it. My ma liveed in Thornhill Court the whole time I was in jail. .

    My own view, you should have stayed and made your case. You are more than capable of holding your own. But, it is up to you. I'll miss your wry comments but c'est le vie.

    Best to you and all your loved ones for the New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Liked the opening lines referencing the new deity called Hughes......what an oracle of political wisdom he was!!!! Funny how all you atheists now worship a deity who once protected a paedo....reminds me of another religious order that you are all so vociferous in your condemnation of......

    ReplyDelete
  34. Eddie- " it is a straight forward issue, drug dealing is wrong. full stop, and for two good reasons - the recent suicide death of a young neighbour and the death in Belfast last evening. So I wouldnt have any other interesting points to make."

    Those two reasons are all the argument you need to make as they are powerful and impossible to argue against.

    I took drugs in the past but I always knew it was wrong to deal. I suppose it's an oxymoron in a way, similar to my view that someone who decides to be a prostitute isn't wrong ethically or morally but for many reasons and on many levels the client is wrong.

    I never dealt drugs and it was only due to Republicanism's stand that I didn't. It molded my mindset and in every way I am glad of this. I feel guilty because, as a prolific user my example wasn't good but I try to make up for it by advising people to stay clear. I am thankful that I never sold the stuff.

    I hope you don't mind me saying that I'd hate to see you go, Eddie, as you are a voice of reason. I read that alot of cannabis was smoked in the blocks and it left me wondering about Republicans standpoint on the drugs issue. I mean if any drugs of any sort were proven to have been used in the jails it would have made a mockery of Republicanism's anti-drug stance. People going to jail for killing a drug dealer only to discover drugs being used. Although I can't judge anyone and although it wasn't exactly a shock it was thought-provoking.

    That is why your voice is necessary and important.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Simon,

    a hundred too many.

    Why do they not include drink or cigarette related deaths under the drugs category? Alcohol and nicotine both give rise to addictions and are responsible for way in excess of 100 deaths a year.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AM- I believe they have separate figures for Tobacco and also alcohol related deaths. I suppose without figures of numbers of users (I'd guess the numbers of users of legal drugs like Tobacco & alcohol would be overwhelmingly higher than illegal drugs) and the number of times or occasions a legal drug is used by someone would also be substantially higher compared to illegal drugs.

    Within that there are obviously more dangerous drugs than cannabis like Ecstasy and worse again like cocaine and again like crack or heroin. I guess heroin use in Ireland is higher than that of crack. If you knew the risks which seemingly none of us know in detail it would go a long way in discouraging illegal drug use.

    If you knew you had the statistical probability of the downsides of drugs like addiction, illness, psychosis or death and what these downsides mean in practice it wouldn't put everyone off but it would certainly reduce the number of users overall and the number of deaths as well.

    I don't know if people are put off by the fact that cannabis is more cancerous when smoked than tobacco or can cause psychosis but if there was a universal education programme I guess it would be worth it if it made potential users' quality of life better.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Simon,

    I think the emphasis on illegal drug use is in itself a problem when it sems to me that more fatalities and health issues arise from legal drug use - alcohol and tobacco. The pot smoker is labelled in a way the tobacco smoker or vodka drinker is not. I think education in all thre areas in respect of the consequences is essential. I don't think drugs should be made legal because I think they are any more a positive attribute than drink or fags but because legalisation might help combat the ill effects better than what is currently happening.

    There was a quite a bit of pot use in jail. I think the screws once closed down Cage 12 in 1978 after discovering cannabis in one of the huts.

    Republicans could justify it to themsleves on the grounds that it got them through the night!! I know one guy who was permanently stoned in the place.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Simon,

    many of the younger ones coming in to jail in the late 80s early 90s had a much more liberal view towards it. They would have smoked more than the older crowd. At least that is how I read it at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. So while the Provisionals on the 'outside' where knee capping or handing out beatings in nationalist areas to kids for smoking a spliff, their comrades in prison were happily smoking pot....Double standards.

    As for smoking related deaths in the o6c..From the BMA
    Estimates suggest more than 2,300 people a year die from tobacco-related illness in Northern Ireland

    Simon
    If you knew the risks which seemingly none of us know in detail it would go a long way in discouraging illegal drug use.

    People know the dangers of tobacco and they still smoke. And the harm the pills doctors push on to patients are a lot worse in a lot of cases than smoking a spilff and more addictive.

    I don't know if people are put off by the fact that cannabis is more cancerous when smoked than tobacco or can cause psychosis

    I can reproduce reports (that aren't gov. funded) that say the opposite.

    Why do people not look at the 25,000+ by products that can be extracted from hemp? Foods, oils, clothes...a lot of the products that are made from plastic today where not so long ago made from hemp...Think of the jobs that could be created, taxes raised...
    And the thing is, some of the people in the corridors of power who make the rules are probably smoking a spliff or doing a line of Peruvian flake while deciding what is and what what isn't legal.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I suppose you can't judge people who use it to get through the night but health professionals always say never use it as a means of escape as if you have stress or other problems smoking cannabis is more likely to lead to psychological damage.

    Using it as a crutch in prison is perhaps even more likely to lead to ill health as the stress and pain of incarceration and it's accompanying problems would put alot of pressure on the mind.

    I suppose in prison a smoke or two makes it easier in the short term but if it risks in the longer term being incarcerated with a psychiatric illness it wouldn't be worth it. Time would be hard to do.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Frankie-
    The link between cannabis and psychosis is well established

    I remember tobacco smokers years ago denying its cancerous effects. Now that is you.

    2,300 people might die from tobacco in Northern Ireland but many more people take tobacco and more often than those who take illegal drugs which caused 100 deaths.

    I am not saying cannabis smoking kills people in the same way as ecstasy or cocaine or heroin or misuse of prescription drugs but it has a proven link with cancer. Yes, even (believe it or not) with the research which isn't "government funded".

    The above research was carried out by respected and reliable academic and health bodies. I suppose the British Lung Foundation is really bringing out false reports to bolster some minister's hard-on against cannabis. I also suppose the moon landing was faked and JFK and Elvis are downstairs in my kitchen eating my cornflakes.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Simon,

    I don't know. This was on my of my Alternet feeds a few days ago and I saved the link.

    Why Does the Myth of Marijuana and Schizophrenia Persist Despite Numerous Debunkings?

    ReplyDelete
  43. I would initially be suspicious of someone's balance and partiality when his bio states "Author and editor Jeremy Daw became involved with drug policy reform after graduating from Harvard Law School in 2008. He is the editor of TheLeafOnline.com and Cannabis Now Magazine, and the author of Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit (2012), a history of 400 years of North American cannabis policy." I also assume he is a lawyer and not a scientist?

    I also would suggest that quoting conflicting studies from centuries ago is misleading in that current peer reviewed studies are the more weighty in proving or disproving a thesis. I know he was showing the history of the debate but he did so in a misleading way.

    The Harvard study he mentions concludes that "The results of the current study suggest that having an increased familial morbid risk for schizophrenia may be the underlying basis for schizophrenia in cannabis users and not cannabis use by itself." Nobody disputes that cannabis is more likely to lead to schizophrenia in those with genetic predisposition but people with this predisposition are less likely to suffer schizophrenia if they didn't smoke in the first place. It's not as if they all would have developed schizophrenia anyway.

    There are also other illnesses apart from schizophrenia that can be triggered from cannabis smoking like drug induced psychosis and schizo-affective disorder. The way this author is selective in his examples and places emphasis on parts of studies that suit his argument in the pro-cannabis lobby makes a mockery of his complaint of others having a self-fulfilling prophecy when looking for a link between cannabis and psychiatric illness.

    Nobody is saying all research points towards a link between psychiatric illness and cannabis smoking but the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed modern research does just that.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Simon,

    good points.

    But as I am not au fait with the peer reviewed material and there seems to be so much less opposition to what is claimed in the Alternet article than there is to the arguments citing no demonstrable link between cancer and smoking tobacco, I am left feeling that the jury is still out.

    On balance I tend to feel there is harm associated with pot just as there is with tobacco and drink. Even food being abused leads to obesity. But I would no more go on a moral crusade against one rather than the other. The libertarian in me says people need to have total autonomy over their own bodies. But even then there are social effects and consequences that we have to take into effect.

    If people want to take a joint or a vodka, then it is up to them but I think they cannot cite later that nobody told them.

    I prefer an educative approach to a prohibitive one.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Frankie,

    it was smoked below the surface and not up front and certainly without the approval of the command structure. I remember Bik once saying to me that he heard our wing was like the Marrakesh Express with so much pot smoked on it!

    ReplyDelete
  46. As to psychosis and cannabis smoking the link I put up explained that the Labour government's own advisors concluded that cannabis played only a "modest" role in the development of psychotic illnesses. If we had a breakdown of the risk involved in percentage terms then people would be aware of the risk they take. One person might have a different interpretation of "modest" than another. The same argument stands for education on the risks of tobacco and alcohol use.

    I think we are pretty much in agreement though as I would prefer the legalisation of drugs but ensure there is adequate warnings and education on the dangers and a disincentive to use illegal sources as opposed to safer legal ones. If you take tobacco for instance when more people became aware of the dangers the numbers of users dropped. I suppose with the prevalence and availability of illegal drugs today you couldn't make them more widely available even with legalisation. Legalisation would bring more control and with that less harm.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I also meant to say that I'd have more respect for campaigners for legalisation of drugs if they admitted the downsides but argued for decriminalisation on other grounds rather than arguing there are no dangers with cannabis for example or when they gloss over or understate the downsides.

    Particularly when quoting scientific studies in a partial manner. We all know there would be no need for studies if they all pointed to the same conclusions. It's science so we can only go with the most sound results based on the majority findings of all the reliable research not make conclusions on a piecemeal basis to bolster bias. A bit of honesty goes a long way when it comes to giving credibility to a campaign.

    I remember reading some articles in favour of cannabis smoking when I smoked it as a youngster which explained the health benefits of cannabis, like helping anorexia sufferers, pain sufferers and the like. Why do people invent arguments when there are many sound bases to prove a point?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Simon,

    if they are to be legalised then you are right: all the facts need to be known. We like cars being legal but do need to know if the steering or brakes are faulty. We need to be sceptical of a judge in their own cause

    ReplyDelete