Ann Stoker – promotes life without the use of ‘illegal drugs’
Posted In: Alcohol, cannabis, Drug education, Drug prevention, NDPA
Comments: 5 Responses
Ann Stoker works with her husband Peter at the National Drug Prevention Alliance. Their aim is to reduce ‘illegal drug’ use through education. In this interview Ann talks about what lead her to work in the field and reveals a deeply personal experience which informs much of her work.
* Use the left and right arrows mid way down the screen to skip to the previous(<) or next (>) section of the interview.
* Hover over the bottom of the image and a series of thumbnail images will appear with the titles of the ‘segments’ of the interview. You can click on any of them to watch instantly.
* Use the lower left and right arrows to move to the next / previous set of thumbnails
If you are viewing this on a mobile phone or prefer to watch the interview in one piece – use the link below.
TRANSCRIPT COMING SOON
Disclaimer: All reasonable measures have been taken to ensure the quality, reliability, and accuracy of the information in this interview at time of filming. Some details may have been changed in the interests of protection of others. Know Drugs is a platform for airing opinions and experiences and the views expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the views of Know Drugs. Know Drugs content is provided for general information only, and should not be treated as a substitute for the medical advice of your own doctor, psychiatrist or any other health care professional. Know Drugs is not responsible or liable for any diagnosis, decision or self-assessment made by a user based on the content of its interviews. Know Drugs is not liable for the contents of any external internet sites listed, nor does it endorse any commercial product or service mentioned or advised on any of the sites. Know Drugs is a hub for discussion and does not advocate illegal behaviour of any sort.
This woman is deeply prejudiced, deranged, misinformed and her attitudes are as discriminatory and reprehensible as any racist, homophobe or perpetrator of any hate crime.
No one objects to debate and reasonable discussion about drugs issues but for you to give this monster the oxygen of publicity is a dreadful and irresponsible mistake.
This woman should be regarded in the same way as Islamic extremists, padeophiles and the BNP. It is unacceptable for you to allow her to publicise her hatred adn bigotry.
Peter, she is really a victim of the ‘some drug user war’ propaganda herself – I think the death of her child led to this path and it has just taken over her life as a crusade – yes her ideas are monstrous, but she is likely to be suffering from some kind of psychosis or OCD – all this is likely to be rooted in a grief that she cannot close the door on whilst the rest of the world goes on courting cannabis as a legitmate choice. She is more deranged by circumstance than evil.
Only one thing more tragic than losing a child, it’s giving that child a terrible legacy. So, we now see why Ann who never understood drugs, and was excluded from the giggling groups who had tried cannabis, was unable to advise her young daughter to started experimenting with cannabis. When the child died at 15 from a stroke, it seems as if Ann was perfectly understandably desperate to make sense of it all – I really feel for any parent in this terrible situation, but sadly Ann with her complete ignorance about drugs and science ended up irrationally blaming what she never understood, and what her daughter truly loved, cannabis.
Seemingly Ann has trawled through junk science to come up with some simplistic ideas about how drugs affect the brain, yet she quite happily supports the use of alcohol which is much much more dangerous as it’s not a drug, it’s a beverage (cue Brass Eye). Now she has made it her life’s work to add to the hatred and persecution experienced by persons who choose more interesting and probably safer drugs than the one’s she approves the moderate use of. Little does she appreciate that it is her who is contributing to the cause of harm to drug users, creating a hostile and criminal environment for some drug users. Ann snipes at critics by reducing them to obvioulsy being drug users and having no respect for the law. It’s quite absurd to use existing legal status as an argument in the context about how we should control problematic drug users, yet, I have to pity Ann for her story is truly tragic – she has dedicated much of her life to a folly following a personal tragedy.
Wow, some totally skewed logic on the whole “alcohol as a beverage thing”. Earlier on she said that kids now binge drink, therefore they are drinking to get a high. It’s a ridiculous argument. What about mushrooms used as a beverage, or cannabis as a beverage. And people can have one or two joints with very little effect too.
Interesting video.
I note that Mrs Stoker bases her entire position on children. Her concerns that the law will send the wrong message if we reformed. I would like to point out that – with a regulatory frame work – legal possession for an adult would mean illegal for a child. The law would still act as a deterrent to children if adults were credited with choice.
I further note that the language is distorted, alcohol is not ‘legal’ it’s simply not a controlled substance as per the MoDA. Despite call after call for better alcohol control, we still let the industry self regulate. If we’re comparing “eggs and potatoes” then this point needs addressing by Mrs Stoker.