rah

his beats unmatched

LOL

Theresa May was all about drug control because her husband is high up in a company that pretty much has a monopoly on medical cannabis export.

It looks like you're confusing Theresa May and Victoria Atkins:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44109060

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/41519/did-the-husbands-of-theresa-may-and-victoria-atkins-then-british-pm-and-drugs-m

It's also worth noting that Theresa May (whose father was a Christian minister) introduced the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, which criminalises the production or supply of any substance whatsoever that effects the nervous system which was a huge power grab, essentially taking control of and criminalising the deliberate altering of consciousness by human beings. Her concerns were far broader than just cannabis.

New labour, in the early 2000s, made moves to be more lenient on cannabis, and they were absolutely hounded by the conservative press for it, which then prompted them to reverse track.

No. New Labour under Tony Blair didn't just make moves, they changed they law in 2004 and reclassified cannabis from class B to class C. This was fine and even up until 2006, the Blair government stated that they would not be reclassifying cannabis to class B. Then, after Gordon Brown (whose father was a Christian minister) became prime minister in 2007, his government changed the law again in 2008 and reclassified cannabis back from class C to class B, based on lies which they themselves produced.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the conservative press had anything to do with it. This was entirely the doing of Gordon Brown (whose father was a Christian minister).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_classification_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi1Zuni57Rc

True but I found it interesting reading positive drug stories in The Mirror.

give me a dirty look

QED. A dirty look doesn't convey happiness.

they’re people too

This does not accord with my experience.

They generally don’t care on a personal level

Again, this does not accord with my experience.

except pearl clutchers

You mean like mini Hitlers who get nervous when people don't Follow The Rules? AKA police officers?

Alcoholic drinks are the blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

if they were to stop everyone like that they’d have their hands full

Just because they have to prioritise, doesn't mean they're happy about people using cannabis.

FYI:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mums-whose-children-died-ecstasy-16201475 ( https://archive.is/bLmoB )

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/i-lost-15-year-old-8514650 ( https://archive.is/Cm52V )

Why won’t they just take the shot?

Religion. Many people (like Theresa May, whose father was a Christian minister and Gordon Brown, whose father was a Christian minister) see taking drugs as inherently immoral. Many see getting out of your head in any way whatsoever as immoral.

I think the government/police are generally happy to ignore it

I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

That's what I find confusing.

I don't follow. What is it you find confusing?

I think what I want is data

Unfortunately, due to the way time works, nobody can give you data from the future.

You're saying famine in Chicago

Yes.

full on North Korean style society?

I don't know what you mean by that.

I'm sorry but this is what I'm talking about.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean. What is what you're talking about?

How did you reach these conclusions, if you know?

Firstly, the accelerated pace of global warming compared to predictions; we've already exceeded 1.5C globally for a short duration and things are getting worse not better, fast. It looks like we're going to go well beyond 2C and we're going to get there very quickly. The greatest fears of climate scientists 10 years ago now look like optimistic pipe dreams.

Secondly, the inaction from society as a whole. The time to have acted in order avoid the issue was 60 years ago. We're now well into the situation where people are dying and billions, even trillions of dollars of damage is being done by extreme weather and yet there are people in governments who are still literally in denial about the scale of the problem or even whether the problem exists at all. And most critically, the populace is not holding those people to account. Governments are still issuing new oil and gas drilling licenses. Airports are still adding runways. Our civilisation continues to increase CO2 emissions which is the wrong direction if you want to save humanity.

As a civilisation or perhaps species, it seems that we do not have the capacity to deal with this problem. The reality of the situation seems to be beyond the grasp of most people. We don't, as a society, have the means of identifying and fixing the psychological shortfalls that inhibit most people from acknowledging the scale of the problem. It's like the problem is so big and its consequences so dire that people cannot bear to look at it with their eyes open. They would rather keep their eyes closed, even if doing so reduces the likelihood of them and their children surviving. Humanity is like a rabbit, frozen in the headlights of climate change.

I have a suspicion that many governments have already concluded behind closed doors that they cannot prevent global calamity and so are just trying to put off the inevitable downfall of their respective societies and live in comfort for as long as they can.