22 January 2004

Find out what you had to say about the topics discussed on Question Time, broadcast on 22 January from Nottingham.

The topics discussed this week were:

• Cannabis
• Top-up fees
• Sperm donors
• George W Bush
• Zimbabwe cricket tour
• General comments on the programme

Cannabis laws

INTERACT WITH QUESTION TIME Digital Satellite, Freeview and Cable viewers press red Text your comments to 83981 Read comments on Ceefax page 155 Send and read comments on the website Guide to getting Digital TV

Audience question: Is Michael Howard's proposal to re-classify cannabis back to a Class B drug, more proof that the Conservative Party is living in the past?

You said:

Many of the contributors to QT last night mentioned the need for education of young people about cannabis and the law. It therefore seems entirely inappropriate for the DfES to cease funding for Local Education Authority School Drugs Advisers, the people whose job it is to support schools in delivering drug education.
Terry Brown, Milton Keynes

Text: Whoever keeps altering how crime is recorded should lay off the cannabis!
Anna, Newcastle

It's great to see the natural elixir cannabis plant being separated from its man-made chemical cousins.
Jim, Brighton

The laws on cannabis are all very well based on the "oh it's only a joint or two" belief but do they take into account that most of the cannabis available in Britain today is of hybrid varieties that are far more powerful, harmful and addictive.
Johanna, Carnoustie

I am surprised at the "Tory" stance on this issue. If cannabis was to be decriminalised, the tax raising potential from it would be nothing short of incredible, giving due consideration to the widespread use/misuse of cannabis throughout the country. Alcohol causes much more of a problem within our society than cannabis. Yes, I agree there are health risks, both physical and mental health, but party politics cause anxiety and depression too.
Ken, Fife

Why can't cannabis be sold and taxed like alcohol?
Alan Patrick, Milton Keynes

Text: People are too stupid to be trusted with anything less addictive or obnoxious than alcohol.
Alex, Milton Keynes

I have smoked cannabis for over six years now in various places up and down the country and have found most cannabis dealers are just harmless users who don't and have not touched any Class A drugs and the only thing that makes them dealers is the fact they buy more then they can smoke, so sell the rest to pay for their own cannabis.
Mr S Rice, North Wales

Text: Is anyone else bored of this argument?
Chris, London

Does it mean that once cannabis will become a Class C drug that the government will cash in on selling it themselves legally as everything's legal where the government is concerned once they sort it out?
Brian, Kent

Text: Either make it legal or don't. Simple as that.
Andrew, London

As the panel admits that cannabis use is endemic in our universities, does it mean that Labour's push to increase student numbers implies greater dependency?
Jonathan Harrison, Shropshire

Text: I think the Tories have made a real hash of it.
Tim, Bude

Spend that money on fighting crime and also taking the drug dealers off the street corners.
Ian McGregor, Plymouth

Cannabis, who cares, this is more nannying - wasting tax payers money.
Gary Dawson, Cambridge

Text: Legalise it and control it.
Liz, Bristol

Is cannabis four times more carcinogenic than cigarettes? If so, is it irresponsible to re-classify such an obvious killer?
Colin, Newcastle Upon Tyne

Text: Cannabis should be available on prescription for pain relief.
Sarah, Derbyshire

Text: Cannabis will disappear after a generation of top-up fees.
Ric, London

Text: Would it not be better to outlaw smoking?
Rosaleen, Glasgow

Text: No matter what class it is people who want to use it will do so regardless.
Steph, Lincolnshire

Text: Cannabis will mess with your life and will cause paranoia and depression.
Phil, Rayleigh

Text: Legalise it and the government will have another thing to tax.
DC, Bradford

Text: Relaxing the laws on cannabis will make harder drugs more accessible.
Adam, Stratford

Return to the top of the page

---

Top-up fees

Audience question: In regard to top-up fees, wouldn't you have to agree that it is wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on an issue that does not affect their country?

You said:

Text: The amount of tuition fees to be paid back is based on the parents' ability to pay and not the graduate's! Add 1 or 2% to income tax for graduates.
Rob, London

With regard to top-up fees, if we accept that ALL graduates, regardless of background, will only have to pay their top-up fees once they have secured a job earning £15,000 or greater, why do graduates from poorer families receive a £1,200 fees subsidy?
Anthony Newstead, London

Text: England has been involved in Scottish matters for years. Is it not about time to turn the tables?
Jen, Scotland

After years of being taxed to the hilt by Gordon Brown and the introduction of several stealth taxes, why does the government need to introduce top-up fees for students? Where is all the money going, because standards in public services (health, education, transport) are no better.
Neil Wade, Manchester

Text: Scots can vote about Scotland but they have no business in England.
Jo, Poole

Text: Top-up fees will only eventually widen the class boundaries.
Tom, Stoke on Trent

The devolution situation is a fudge. What kind of democracy allows Scottish MPs to vote on English issues and issues affecting the UK as a whole, but does not allow English MPs to have a say on Scottish issues? Devolution should be reversed as soon as is practical.
Steve, Bracknell

England has been ruling Scotland and Northern Ireland for centuries. Now it's our turn to speak out for ourselves!
David, Glasgow

Text: Please not top-up fees again!
B Collins, Wiltshire

Let's just abolish the idea of top-up fees, then we won't have to worry about the Scottish MPs voting.
Dan Bertman, Doncaster

Text: Education should be free providing the student completes their studies. They should pay only if they drop out.
Ian, Plymouth

It is hypocritical for Michael Ancram to complain re Scottish MPs voting on English subjects, it was he and his compatriots who voted for the poll tax to be brought into Scotland a year before it was introduced to England. Didn't English MPs help to vote that in?
Noreen, Perth

Text: By introducing top-up fees we will soon see who is there to learn and who is just passing the time.
Pete Thorpe, Leicester

If Scottish MPs can vote on top-up fees in England because they may have constituents going to English universities, should this not be reciprocated for English MPs that may have constituents going to Scottish universities like Edinburgh or Aberdeen.
Martin Gregory, Kent

Text: Make the students pay. Nobody forced them to go to university!
Malachy, Salford

Text: If graduates earn more, surely they pay more tax. Top-up is unfair.
Mike, Oxford

Text: Scottish MPs can represent English people who live in Scotland.
Alex, Newcastle

Return to the top of the page

---

Sperm donors

Audience question: Is it right, that in the future, sperm donors may receive a surprise greeting of "Hi Dad"?

You said:

Being a parent is about bringing the child up and loving the child - too much emphasis is on the "natural" parent. I have two children who aren't biologically mine, so does this mean I can't love them the same? When somebody donates sperm they are doing it to help somebody create a family - would it matter to a child who has been brought up by his parents to find out 21 years later that they haven't got the same DNA? I don't personally think so.
Steven Kenealy, Lancs

I don't believe that sperm donors should waive their anonimity. They are just giving a couple the chance to have a child, or to make a bit of cash. In addition, if a child were to find that donor, the donor would not have an emotional connection either the child or their parents. I don't think a child would want to find someone who didn't care to know them in the first place.
Victoria, Worcester

With the concept of cloning, will the sperm donor become history anyway?
Ken, Glenrothes, Fife

Imagine a child attempting to trace their father and learning that he is a dope smoking, debt ridden, post-graduate who donated sperm to make a few quid.
Ken, Glenrothes, Fife.

If sperm donors can be identified, surely the spem donor has the right to know about the history, parents and background of the genetic offspring. In that case there are a lot more considerations on protecting and securing the privacy of all concerened that the bill does not cover.
Ken Moore, Redhill, Surrey

If you are unable to produce and nurture a child through a loving relationship then you should accept that you are unable to produce a life and IVF should not be an issue.
Fiona Stirling, London

What would happen in the event of the death of the egg or sperm doner, would the child resulting from the donation be able to claim on the estate of the doner? Bearing in mind that if the doner dies intestate, their offspring from the donation would be able to prove his or her descent from the doner without the need for DNA tests. And even if they were required they have the right DNA from the doner.
Marlon Hill, Lincoln

I do not think donors are choosing to have a child, they are giving someone else the opportunity to have a child they would otherwise be denied other than by adoption. If a child is conceived by the normal processes and the parties decide they want it adopted, then I think they have a responsibility to the child. However someone who deposits some sperm into a plastic tub can hardly be called a child's father. I think if you follow that logic, then possibly the person who invented the process could actually be called the father of all of these children.

I do not understand why people feel it necessary to potentially damage a perfectly normal person who has had no doubts about who their parents are for 18 years or so and then be told, because of legislation that in fact their dad is not actually their dad. Why would anyone want to inflict such potentially devasting information on an individual. It could not only be devasting for the child but for the whole family.
Jim Nulty, Warrington

Text: Quite right. They just want to know their dad.
Jenny, Glasgow

Text: Will the mother and/or child want maintenance from the father through the CSA? Is that fair to the father?
Mike Perry, Ilkeston

Return to the top of the page

---

George W Bush

Audience question: Would it be in Britain's best interests if George W Bush wins a second presidential term?

You said:

I think George Bush winning a second term would be in Britain's best interests. I do think in many ways it is "better the devil you know". I did not like some of the candidates I saw the other day on television. From what I saw we and the world will be better of if the current President was re-elected. He is at least more statesman like than the candidates I saw the other day. What has to be remembered is that the way the American system works, is that he can only serve two terms anyway. We will have to see change at the end of his second term.
Steve Fuller, Hove, East Sussex

I fully support George Bush. He has been forced into this war on terror, and didnt go looking for it. The 9/11 attacks were the trigger for this, and this tough stance on international terrorism must be continued in a second term.
Elliot Van Emden, London

If Bush wins a second term, the only people I think it will be good for are the corrupt cronies he employs as his staff now.
Dan, Doncaster

Text: Another term would lead to a vast increase in terrorism.
Bob, Motherwell

Text: Bush's foreign policies mean disaster for any allies of a Republican US Government. We must stand up to the 'Evil Empire'.
Dave, Hull

Text: Still beating about the Bush!
Brian, Leicester

Text: Bush will rekindle growth in the world.
Alex, Lincoln

Return to the top of the page

---

Zimbabwe cricket tour

Audience question: If the cricket board decide to cancel the tour of Zimbabwe will this be seen as a political decision or a moral one?

If the Government really meant what they said at the recent Commonwealth conference they would put their money where their mouth is and support the cricketers even if this means paying for any fine imposed on the team for not touring.
Rob, Oldham

England should tour Zimbabwe this winter. If Mr Boycott was chairman of selectors, he would kick their bloody backsides, tell them to stop whinging and play some bloody cricket.
Stephen Lal Bhatia BSc, Stafford

I understood that the ECB gave a commitment to Zimbabwe some time last year that England would tour Zimbabwe if they toured England. If that is the case, what has changed in the past year that means that the "deal" that was made then is unacceptable now? Mugabe certainly has not changed!
Simon Swanston, Harrow

The cricket tour should go ahead. Great Britain allowed apartheid to interfere with a British Lions rugby tour. The Moscow Olympics in 1982 was boycotted by nations bcause Russia invaded Afghanistan. What if competing nations boycotted major international sporting events because the USA and UK (and Commonwealth countries) invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq? Sport is sport. Politics are politics. Don't mix them.
Ken, Glenrothes, Fife.

Why was boycotting sport OK against apartheid, but not against the even more brutal regime in Zimbabwe?
Andrew Gordon, St Helier, Jersey

I'm from South Africa. It was trade sanctions that brought down SA, not rugby. All the sports boycott did was make us angry with the UK.
Alan Patrick, Milton Keynes

Text: Sport is sport and politics is politics. The two should be kept separate.
Tim East, Yorkshire

I believe that this is ridiculous! Do you remember when England had to play South Africa during apartheid? There was no question that England would play cricket or rugby, they obviously did. I don't agree with the situation in Zimbabwe but what is the difference?
Steven McNamara, London

Text: Not cricket. The programme is boring enough.
John, Brigg

Text: The safety of the cricketers is the most important consideration.
Steve, Bude

Return to the top of the page

---

General comments on the programme:

You said:

Whose idea was it to have Ann Atkins on Question Time? How does she get on to these programmes? She never has anything useful to contribute and never fails to refer to her boring family at every opportunity. Please, please BBC send her off into outer space!
Mary Kallagher, King's Lynn

Why on earth was Norman Jay invited on to the programme? His contribution could have been replaced with a lettuce.
Harry Breakwell, Exeter

The panel gets worse - only one woman. You should get rid of the sexist chairman. The female could only get one sentence out before she was interrupted by the chairman three times. Deplorable.
Eileen North, Winslow, England

Norman Jay was a jewel amongst a pile of dross on the programme. He came over as a very grounded person with the same gut feelings as many in the UK today, and really stood out against the usual, boring political pointscoring panel members.
Dixie, Bath

I am becoming more and more dismayed at the chairman not allowing full debate. Has he a problem with Michael Ancram, because he doesn't allow him to answer any question I would like to remind Mr Dimbleby, if he wants to give opinion he must vacate the chair.
Diane Fuge, Swansea

Why does the chairman persist in deflecting a panellist from her/his answer by asking supplementary questions often tangential to the original question? please stick to the point - the chair can hardly expect panellists to do so when he causes drift from the original question.
Bryan Hall, Liverton

Did anybody else notice the way that Agony Atkins winced when the black guy said the word "whitewash"? I'm sick of the "it's only a black guy or two" condescending attitude (funny it's a black guy on to talk about reefers). She should be ashamed of herself!
Casey, Rockall

What is the point of Lib Dem MP Matthew Taylor? Desperate for a clap, he agreed with everything, everyone and had nothing to add. He really topped off a poor panel - with the notable exception of Michael Ancram, who remains real class within the Conservatives.
Antony, Norwich, UK

Now that Panorama has lifted the lid on Hutton in full detail, how refreshing to have Norman Jay on the programme, someone who represents real people.
Mike Puxley, London

The BBC as a non-commercial (well sort of) organisation should be able to have a few outspoken and controversial panellists. There are far too many panellists with the same tired old view and party political arguments. Why not put on more people with no political experience, or allegiance, but who have specialist knowledge? Say, Tony Martin and a retired police chief. So long as there is balance in the panel, I would like to see less political spin now and again.
Sean Magee, Burnley

Why is it all the panellists are politicians, journalists, well known figures from various walks of life? Why not an ordinary member of the British public, a prison officer for example. We have a valid point of view as well and I for one would relish the idea of putting forward an ordinary point of view without political balance. Who knows it may catch on.
Clive Webster, HM Prison Service, Stourport

The question is when will we have some fun guests? Look at them!
Julie, Swansea

Question Time is great, very useful and educational. Good work - keep it up.
Nikhil Shah, London

Why are the Green Party not represented on the show?
Steve, Purley

Text: What a boring panel.
Paul, Edgware

Return to the top of the page

---

Disclaimer: The BBC will put up as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be published. The BBC reserves the right to edit comments that are published.