If Ashfield DeVent thinks he's had a hard time getting people to listen to his complaints about Bermuda's drugs laws, he should spare a thought for Delaey Robinson.

Mr. Robinson — a Progressive Labour Party backbencher between 1998 and 2003 — banged the same drum himself a decade ago, long before gun violence had become the norm it is today.

But Mr. Robinson says his colleagues were so shocked by his suggestion to decriminalise cannabis, by the look on their faces you'd have thought he'd physically attacked them.

The former St. George's MP contacted The Royal Gazette yesterday to congratulate Mr. DeVent for pushing for a debate on the issue, and looked back on his own call in vain in 2000.

He recalls taking to his feet during a United Bermuda Party motion demanding drug testing of MPs, keen to share research he believed showed the Island's drugs laws desperately needed reforming.

"I saw it as the one opportunity I would have to say what I felt about the drug scene in Bermuda," said Mr. Robinson.

"I came equipped with piles of information and stood on my feet for about an hour."

Before those 60 minutes were up, three notes had been passed to him by party colleagues, one of them warning him: "If you don't sit down you are going to cause us to lose the motion. We are losing MPs because they are walking out the Chamber on you."

Mr. Robinson said yesterday: "It sounds a little less radical now, coming out of the mouth of Mr. DeVent. I wish him luck, all these many years later.

"Hopefully, attitudes will have changed. I'm sure the man on the street is much more sympathetic to the idea of reducing the harm caused by drugs laws.

"All I have heard is he wants to debate the issue. That's a good idea. It brings it out in the open; at least they are talking about it. That's the first step; if it only achieves that, that's positive. One would hope to see some change in policy."

He said he found the conservative attitude of MPs frustrating.

"There are very few liberal thinkers there," he said. "Then you have the church, which is extremely conservative.

"I tried to change the attitude of PLP colleagues where I thought I had a snowball's chance. That's what it boils down to: changing people's minds before you can get anywhere.

"It was so bad with politicians, the only way you can get anywhere with these things is to work outside of politics and get other people involved. It's an uphill struggle in the House, because everyone's so conservative."

Mr. Robinson said drugs were a constant issue on the doorstep as he canvassed ahead of the 1998 General Election.

He said after investigating what went on in other jurisdictions, he learned of heroin addicts being prescribed drugs from their doctors — leading to crime rates being cut and users no longer needing to make cash by pushing drugs themselves.

Heroin addicts were routinely dumped in prison, he said — making it no surprise that drugs found their way into Westgate — while people ended up on the stop list for possessing minuscule amounts of cannabis they wouldn't be prosecuted for in the States.

However, such flaws in the system were overlooked by a public which bought into propaganda from the US-influenced so-called "war on drugs".

"It's a question politically in Bermuda of setting aside some of the misinformation and actually dealing with the problem," said Mr. Robinson.

"The place is very conservative. People clutch onto these frankly dangerous views that are not backed up by any knowledge or even any kind of logic.

"People have just been sold down the river on the 'drugs war' and taken it lock, stock and barrel. How much have we lost by people not being able to further their education in the US because they're on the stop list? It's absolutely absurd."

He said decriminalising cannabis would remove much of the profitability.

"That's always been the case; it's simple economics," he said. "If you prohibit the substance you cause the supplier more agony, more risk; the price goes up and that attracts new people into the market.

"The sad thing is that these people look at this problem without a view to reducing the harm. It's more, 'How can I punish these people?

"If you approached it from, 'Let's reduce the harm,' you would see a much better chance of success of altering some of the suffering."