Green Party leader Zack Polanski has called for a "public health approach" on drugs as he reiterated his backing for the legalisation and regulation of drugs.

Speaking on the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Polanski said this approach would ensure someone with a "problematic relationship with drugs" could get help from a medical professional.

Polanski added that he has never taken drugs or drunk alcohol as it "wasn't for me".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c1lz6p7ng0do

1. I'm sorry but there is something wrong with a man who had never had a drink or tried a herbal relaxant, as it were.

   I mean look at Donald Trump, a loony.

2. He wants to legalise all drugs. There's enough crack addicts and junkies on the streets in the UK begging passers-by for money as it is. What a plonker. Some folks think he's the best thing since sliced bread, sorry wholemeal sourdough bread, but I reckon he's going to turn many 'nice' middle class folks off The Greens.

I thought the article was about Roman Polanski. Who is this clown? Is he related to Roman?

The embrace of some people for this man and the party will result in more unqualified people elected to Parliament and even more of a mess at Westminister.

-His education is in "drama". He has never worked in the private sector creating jobs or adding value. Nor has he any experience in social services, not as a provider nor as a manager.

-Although he has been in a domestic relationship with another man for 6 years, he does not have children and may not have a particularly strong grasp of the concerns of families.

-He has participated in the Extinction Rebellion protests that saw hundreds of thousands of commuters inconvenienced as public transit was blocked.

-He is opposed to Heathrow's expansion.

-He wants free bus travel for anyone under the age of 22, an abolition of university tuition fees, and that asylum seekers should be given places in council housing despite waiting lists for millions of people.

-He favours a more liberal approach to immigration, and increased taxation.

His party is where many Labour voters will park their votes in the next election.

49 minutes ago, bannork said:

Polanski added that he has never taken drugs or drunk alcohol as it "wasn't for me".

And how would he know that if he didn't try?

I've heard people make excuses for not getting high since I was a teen, the usual defense is that "I tried it once and it made me think I could fly and I would have jumped out of the window if my friend didn't stop me." I consider this the "dog ate my homework" defense, was popularized by a US television personality (Art Linkletter) said his daughter jumped off a balcony whilst under the influence of LSD.

51 minutes ago, bendejo said:

And how would he know that if he didn't try?

I've heard people make excuses for not getting high since I was a teen, the usual defense is that "I tried it once and it made me think I could fly and I would have jumped out of the window if my friend didn't stop me." I consider this the "dog ate my homework" defense, was popularized by a US television personality (Art Linkletter) said his daughter jumped off a balcony whilst under the influence of LSD.

Nothing wrong with being teetotal.

So you're thinking about trying crack and heroin, to see if its for you? I've never tried either, but I know they're not for me.

Each to their own, no problem. What I was going after is those who steal other people's excuses.

Also, when people come out with declarative statements like "I've never taken a drink in my life" it's good bet that it's b.s. Sometimes it is funny, but the teller probably will not appreciate your laughter.

8 hours ago, flaming dragon said:

I thought the article was about Roman Polanski.

Havent heard about that Child sexual abusing hero of the Hollywood Crowd in a while. Is he even still alive?

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Havent heard about that Child sexual abusing hero of the Hollywood Crowd in a while. Is he even still alive?

Yes, and feted by the Liberal/progressive elite. Funny how they're the same lot that appear in the Epstein files.

Sad that FR, PL & CH protect criminals from being extradited to serve their sentences. At least RP plead guilty to 1 charge, (plea bargain out of 5 others) and can't really blame him for avoiding prison.

The Hollywood crowd have a pretty low bar on morality.

17 hours ago, bendejo said:

Each to their own, no problem. What I was going after is those who steal other people's excuses.

Also, when people come out with declarative statements like "I've never taken a drink in my life" it's good bet that it's b.s. Sometimes it is funny, but the teller probably will not appreciate your laughter.

I can declare I have never smoked a cigarette, a cigar, smoked a pipe, partaken in consumption of psychotrophic drugs. How is saying "alcohol and drugs are not for me" stealing someone else's excuse?

Whats the issue here? In the interview he gave to the BBC, he voiced support for a policy, that's not terribly controversial view, expressed by those on both the left and right of politics, to relax the law on illegal drugs, specifically, legalisation and regulation, to take a public health approach. Not new, not novel. I think there are issues with it. But his comment about his personal experience of alcohol and drugs, was in retort to the Prime Minister, who from the Despatch Box, accused him of "high on drugs, soft on Putin", a rather hackney and corney joke, but one that could be seen as offensive. What's even crazier, is the PM came up with that line in response to a question from a Green MP that had nothing to do with drugs or Putin. The MP asked aquestion about strengthening legislation about pollution offences originating from agricultural run off (this is a really serious issue; in the South East of Engliand, Blue Baby syndrome has for for decades been considered due to contamination of the drinking water supply by fertilizer run-off (in South East England, most of the tap water is recycled, which has lead to escalating levels of nitrates)). Surely a question that most members of the house would fully support. Bizarrely, Starmer's response was "we inherited a mess" (agricultural contamination of drinking water predates changes to the old Water Boards), and then he decided to reference the Green Party's policy on heroin (again, a stance that has been expressed by many MPs over the years. For instance, David Cameron at one time took the view that heroin should be made available in "shooting galleries. The former Police Chief of Gwent called for legalisation). And the reference to Putin was about Polanski calling for the UK to leave NATO (not a view I would support, but these days, its not an uncommon view), for the US to evacuate its bases in the UK (again, don't agree with the view, but these days, its not an uncommon view) and for the UK to work towards nuclear disarnament through negotiation (which literally has been the cornerstone of Western defence police since Detente and the SALT talks). Again, we might disagree of the implementation, but these days, few would disagree that the world these days feels a hell of a lot less safe with all these nukes around, with some politicians now openly talking of "winning" a nuclear war.

In opposition, Starmer could be capable of accurate, forensic questioning of government. In government, he's incapable of that, and in the example, failed to answer the question. You didn't even realise the context of Polanski's statement, and attacked that, rather than attacking a Prime Minister answering a question about polluted rivers with references to heroin and nuclear weapons.

The problem is the unattributed original article was actually very misleading.

9 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

I can declare I have never smoked a cigarette, a cigar, smoked a pipe, partaken in consumption of psychotrophic drugs. How is saying "alcohol and drugs are not for me" stealing someone else's excuse?

Whats the issue here? In the interview he gave to the BBC, he voiced support for a policy, that's not terribly controversial view, expressed by those on both the left and right of politics, to relax the law on illegal drugs, specifically, legalisation and regulation, to take a public health approach. Not new, not novel. I think there are issues with it. But his comment about his personal experience of alcohol and drugs, was in retort to the Prime Minister, who from the Despatch Box, accused him of "high on drugs, soft on Putin", a rather hackney and corney joke, but one that could be seen as offensive. What's even crazier, is the PM came up with that line in response to a question from a Green MP that had nothing to do with drugs or Putin. The MP asked aquestion about strengthening legislation about pollution offences originating from agricultural run off (this is a really serious issue; in the South East of Engliand, Blue Baby syndrome has for for decades been considered due to contamination of the drinking water supply by fertilizer run-off (in South East England, most of the tap water is recycled, which has lead to escalating levels of nitrates)). Surely a question that most members of the house would fully support. Bizarrely, Starmer's response was "we inherited a mess" (agricultural contamination of drinking water predates changes to the old Water Boards), and then he decided to reference the Green Party's policy on heroin (again, a stance that has been expressed by many MPs over the years. For instance, David Cameron at one time took the view that heroin should be made available in "shooting galleries. The former Police Chief of Gwent called for legalisation). And the reference to Putin was about Polanski calling for the UK to leave NATO (not a view I would support, but these days, its not an uncommon view), for the US to evacuate its bases in the UK (again, don't agree with the view, but these days, its not an uncommon view) and for the UK to work towards nuclear disarnament through negotiation (which literally has been the cornerstone of Western defence police since Detente and the SALT talks). Again, we might disagree of the implementation, but these days, few would disagree that the world these days feels a hell of a lot less safe with all these nukes around, with some politicians now openly talking of "winning" a nuclear war.

In opposition, Starmer could be capable of accurate, forensic questioning of government. In government, he's incapable of that, and in the example, failed to answer the question. You didn't even realise the context of Polanski's statement, and attacked that, rather than attacking a Prime Minister answering a question about polluted rivers with references to heroin and nuclear weapons.

The problem is the unattributed original article was actually very misleading.

Polanski has gone on record saying he believes all drugs should be legalized.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20e20rzje2o

But legislation of hard drugs is very unpopular with the British public.

Six percent of Britons think that possessing hard drugs – such as heroin or cocaine – for personal use should be legal.

Seven in ten Britons (70%) think that the possession of hard drugs should be a criminal offence, with significantly more Conservatives (85%) than Labour voters (60%) backing this.

The YouGov Big Survey on Drugs: Should possessing or selling drugs be legal? | YouGov

Imo, policies such as that, and leaving NATO, will go down like a lead balloon at the next general election.

The guy is obviously an idiot , he even looks like an idiot , so its no surprise he's the leader of a political party. He says the legalisation of drugs... "would ensure someone with a "problematic relationship with drugs" could get help from a medical professional. what a ridiculous thing to say , professional medical help in that respect is widely available, for those who want it.

Has he even begun consider what the other side effects for the UK might be if becoming the only country in Europe to legalise all drugs ? bearing in mind that the UK is incapable, or unwilling ,of controlling who enters the country these days, is he prepared to welcome the druggie scum that will inevitably and quickly gravitate there. Just the appearance of lax law enforcement is enough to attract this detritus and they flock together like flies round a dog turd.

Look at the state of some of these low lifes in Birmingham and there is no legalisation of drugs to blame for the infestation but there is a complete lack of law enforcement and I think that might have something to do with it

I don't particularly believe his assertion.

41 minutes ago, bannork said:

Polanski has gone on record saying he believes all drugs should be legalized.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20e20rzje2o

But legislation of hard drugs is very unpopular with the British public.

Six percent of Britons think that possessing hard drugs – such as heroin or cocaine – for personal use should be legal.

Seven in ten Britons (70%) think that the possession of hard drugs should be a criminal offence, with significantly more Conservatives (85%) than Labour voters (60%) backing this.

The YouGov Big Survey on Drugs: Should possessing or selling drugs be legal? | YouGov

Imo, policies such as that, and leaving NATO, will go down like a lead balloon at the next general election.

You're an American. You have no sense of what the British people think any more that what British know about how Americans think. We can debate politicians' positions, based on what they say and do. But I fear, Americans, despite their debating socieities, and the dirge that passes for TV debates, don't know what that is. hence confident American speakers regularly get ripped apart by 18-19 year olds at the Cambirdge/Oxford debating societies.

The Prime Minister was asked about river pollution. And he answered back with a cheap joke about drug and defence policy. You think that's ok, apparently, to dodge the issue about water pollution, and instead indulge in a bit of cheap character assassination. That's how debate is handled in the US. Dodge the question, character assassinate.

Transcript for the hard of hearing:

Laura: Ok, lets talk about another issue then, because the Prime Minister had a pop at you at prime minister's questions this week. He said you were high on drugs and soft on Putin. Uh, you called that disgraceful and disrespectful, but isn't that part of the, you know, the pretty brutal banter of prime minister's Questions?

Zack: Its absolutely part of it, but I would note that I wasn't there to reply. So I'm glad to be on your show now, which I would argue has a bigger audience. Um, that was beneath the office of the Prime Minister. Lets start with the drugs comment. First of all, there are thousands and thousands of unecessary deaths from drug harm and from dangerous drugs. And actually what we need is a Public Health approach. That's not me saying that. That's the experts who work in the National Health Service who say this just isn't working. So when I talk about legalizing drugs, the key bit is about legalizing and regulating. If someone has a problematic relationship to drugs, then surely the answer is to make sure they are seen by a medical health professional, who can help them. But to have Kier Starmer make cheap jokes, delivered badly by the way, from the dispatch box, was pretty pretty disgraceful. And on Putin, this is the Prime Minister who is subservient to Donald Trump. A man who says he admires Vladimir Putin, while shaming Zelensky in the White House. Again, defence is a really serious issue. There is no bigger number one priority for a government or for a leader of a political party, than to defend the people of this country, and to make jokes about Putin and Russia I think is pretty vile.

Laura: Lets just stick with your drugs policy, because its different to all of the other political parties. So you do say you would legalize all drugs, including class A substances, heroin and crack. There are some health professionals who say that might be the right approach but that's not a united view. Isn't there a real danger you send a message to, particularly, to young people that the use of dangerous drugs is okay?

Zack: Well, first of all we could talk about alcohol, which can sometimes be one of the most dangerous drugs. And actually we need a public health approach to that too.

Laura: But we're talking about other drugs here. We're not talking about alcohol. I'm just asking you, isn't there a danger that you send a message to young people, if you legalized all drugs, the message there says its okay to use drugs?

Zack: Well, the Prime Minister of this country, by the way, made a joke about taking drugs in university. And what we see is this is very racialized. In fact, very often it is young black people who are stopped and searched in the street, particularly in London, eight times more likely than their white peers, despite the fact that there is no evidence they're any more likely to be holding or taking drugs.

Laura: The question is, do you see that there might be a danger if you legalize, that it would send a message to young people that its okay to take drugs?

Zack: I think the danger is happening right now, which is where we are pushing it into street corners and into a black market. There's an organisation called Anyone's Child, who is, uh children, grandchildren, brothers and sisters who died to the so-called war on drugs. And they are saying very clearly with one voice we need a national conversation about how the war on drugs is not working. In fact its making drugs more dangerous. And actually what we need is a grown up conversation based on evidence, taking a public health approach, that looks at prevention, intervention and making sure that afterwards people can get the support they need.

Laura: You say there that the Prime Minister joked about using drugs at university. Did you>

Zack: Um, I've actually never taken a drug in my life, or even drunk alcohol, but I still don't sit here as the fun police. I very clearly believe that people should be able to do what they want to do. It just wasn't for me. But this is about the system change that we need. This is about what is happening from government that is clearly having a hypocritical approach, when we've had ministers from both the Labour government and the Conservative government who have openly said on record that they have taken drugs, yet they are incarcerating, i.e. putting in prison people who have taken drugs and very often, again its disproportionately young black and brown people.

Laura: I think people listening might wonder why you've never had a drink, never touched a drop of alcohol. Why is that? A position of principle or what's that all about?

Zack: Not at all. I just grew up in a school where a lot of my friends were drinking and in fact taking drugs and often it felt like someone needed to be sober. I've always liked dancing. And in fact thats how the interview started. And I've always liked dancing without taking drink or drugs. As I say though, if anyone wants to do it, and they'e doing it safely, I'm really gld people are having a good time. But we know lots of people aren't taking it safely, so lets make sure they get the support they need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMmDM_PvHyc

Americans don't understand when political leaders try and explain policy to the voters. It doesn't matter that Polanski's policy might be unpopular; we will find out at the next election (I believe drug dealing should be a public hanging offence, drug possession should be a flogging offence, but that's just my view, which will not come into being. My views on the area being somewhere right of Ghenghis Khan's). But he's there trying to explain it, in a grown up fashion. Nothing he is saying is particularly original or novel. But that doesn't matter. He's got about 3 years to persuade me, and borrow my vote. I doubt I will be persuaded, but lets see.

You have no right to lecture me about what you think the British people think. You have no idea. You are an American. I have no idea what Americans think. There are polls telling me that Americans are thinking in one way. But then I look at the current incumbant, and he tells me what Americans were thinking, a lot of them, in November 2024. I might conclude that you are a bunch of lunatics. But I might also conclude, as here, you lack comprehension, and you don't listen.

Again, the quote coming from Polanski isn't about Green party policy; that's old news, and I don't think its really changed from whenever. The quote is Polanski's response to a sinking Prime Minister's cheap jibe that he is "high on drugs", as a way of showing he had no response to a question about agricultural waste pollution in waterways.

Teetotallers should never have to apologise, nor explain themselves.

At the next election, I doubt there will be a NATO. The US will exit the organisaton, and it will cease to be a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Its what the Boomers wanted all along.

49 minutes ago, connda said:

I don't particularly believe his assertion.

Why do you, and who cares what you think.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

The guy is obviously an idiot , he even looks like an idiot , so its no surprise he's the leader of a political party. He says the legalisation of drugs... "would ensure someone with a "problematic relationship with drugs" could get help from a medical professional. what a ridiculous thing to say , professional medical help in that respect is widely available, for those who want it.

Has he even begun consider what the other side effects for the UK might be if becoming the only country in Europe to legalise all drugs ? bearing in mind that the UK is incapable, or unwilling ,of controlling who enters the country these days, is he prepared to welcome the druggie scum that will inevitably and quickly gravitate there. Just the appearance of lax law enforcement is enough to attract this detritus and they flock together like flies round a dog turd.

Look at the state of some of these low lifes in Birmingham and there is no legalisation of drugs to blame for the infestation but there is a complete lack of law enforcement and I think that might have something to do with it

So in Thailand you are fully behind closing down the cannabis shops, and general prohibtion.

I think drug users should under go some sort of public punishment and drug dealers put to death. Remind people that addiction to chemicals is a sign of a weak character, and therefore to be shameful. People don't feel shame anymore.

If there were no drug dealers, the issue will be sorted. Plus ban booze. Its not needed.

10 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

You're an American. You have no sense of what the British people think any more that what British know about how Americans think. We can debate politicians' positions, based on what they say and do. But I fear, Americans, despite their debating socieities, and the dirge that passes for TV debates, don't know what that is. hence confident American speakers regularly get ripped apart by 18-19 year olds at the Cambirdge/Oxford debating societies.

The Prime Minister was asked about river pollution. And he answered back with a cheap joke about drug and defence policy. You think that's ok, apparently, to dodge the issue about water pollution, and instead indulge in a bit of cheap character assassination. That's how debate is handled in the US. Dodge the question, character assassinate.

Transcript for the hard of hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMmDM_PvHyc

Americans don't understand when political leaders try and explain policy to the voters. It doesn't matter that Polanski's policy might be unpopular; we will find out at the next election (I believe drug dealing should be a public hanging offence, drug possession should be a flogging offence, but that's just my view, which will not come into being. My views on the area being somewhere right of Ghenghis Khan's). But he's there trying to explain it, in a grown up fashion. Nothing he is saying is particularly original or novel. But that doesn't matter. He's got about 3 years to persuade me, and borrow my vote. I doubt I will be persuaded, but lets see.

You have no right to lecture me about what you think the British people think. You have no idea. You are an American. I have no idea what Americans think. There are polls telling me that Americans are thinking in one way. But then I look at the current incumbant, and he tells me what Americans were thinking, a lot of them, in November 2024. I might conclude that you are a bunch of lunatics. But I might also conclude, as here, you lack comprehension, and you don't listen.

Again, the quote coming from Polanski isn't about Green party policy; that's old news, and I don't think its really changed from whenever. The quote is Polanski's response to a sinking Prime Minister's cheap jibe that he is "high on drugs", as a way of showing he had no response to a question about agricultural waste pollution in waterways.

Teetotallers should never have to apologise, nor explain themselves.

At the next election, I doubt there will be a NATO. The US will exit the organisaton, and it will cease to be a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Its what the Boomers wanted all along.

Oh dear, you got that one wrong.

I grew up in Hull, UK City of Culture 2017, lol, though I left there 44 years before that 'auspicious' year.

Still, I never forget to leave out definite articles when speaking to a fellow Tigers supporter - 'Eh up, kid, saw yer down pub las night.' etc, etc.

I'm not lecturing you about what the public thinks- simply showing you the results of polls of mine and your fellow countrymen and women.

.

On 2/6/2026 at 1:27 PM, bendejo said:

And how would he know that if he didn't try?

I've heard people make excuses for not getting high since I was a teen, the usual defense is that "I tried it once and it made me think I could fly and I would have jumped out of the window if my friend didn't stop me." I consider this the "dog ate my homework" defense, was popularized by a US television personality (Art Linkletter) said his daughter jumped off a balcony whilst under the influence of LSD.

It's called being Straight Edge and he is in good company. Jr. Mascis, Billie Eilish, Palmer Luckey, and an additional billion+ people who have a lifestyle which also eschews alcohol and other recreational drugs. One doesn't need to have had an electric shock to understand that it can be dangerous.

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Billie Eilish,

is that the same billie eilish who made a fool of herself at the Grammys? Nothing she thinks is of any relevance

8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

So in Thailand you are fully behind closing down the cannabis shops, and general prohibtion.

I think drug users should under go some sort of public punishment and drug dealers put to death. Remind people that addiction to chemicals is a sign of a weak character, and therefore to be shameful. People don't feel shame anymore.

If there were no drug dealers, the issue will be sorted. Plus ban booze. Its not needed.

no i am not in favour of closing down any cannabis shops. Education is the way forward regarding drugs

Starting with people like you, who should be reminded that cannabis is not addictive,

8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

and who cares what you think

you should ask yourself the same question