Just a quick one today as I'm supposed to be painting the upstairs bedroom. Finally got some sleep last night and woke up today feeling exceedingly fuzzy. Sat downstairs for a bit, drinking water and watching the end of Trisha while I woke up. And wake up I did as she royally pissed me off.

The topic of the show, (or the bit that I saw,) was the supposed link between cannabis use and mental illness. I've heard Trisha talk about weed before but always just stating her opinion, which is obviously cool. What got on my tits today was that Trisha stated that there was definite medical evidence that heavy and prolonged cannabis use can cause mental health problems such as depression.

Well I've just emailed Ch5 and the Trisha show to demand that she prove her claim or retract it. I've spent several years researching and writing about cannabis and know of no legitimate study that that makes this claim. Yes there are studies that have produced statistics suggesting a causal link between cannabis use and mental health problems, such as the two papers mentioned by Charles Clarke in his recent open letter to Sir Michael Rawlins the head of the ACMD.

I have copies of both those papers right here and while they do suggest such a trend even one of their authors admits that it is not currently possible to definitely determine whether using cannabis gives people mental health problems or whether people with mental health problems self medicate with cannabis. They should have asked Trisha obviously because she has apparently closed the book on this chicken or egg debate.

I've experienced depression since early childhood and my doctor recently diagnosed this as a simple chemical imbalance in my brain, probably inherited. I have smoked cannabis for over ten years now and truly believe that it has been invaluable to my development into a sane and productive adult. I also believe, by the way, that the cannabis plant has evolved closely with human beings to serve purposes exactly like this, (eg. the ratio of fatty to amino acids contained in hemp seed is EXACTLY that required by the human body making it one of the most nutritious seed crops known to man.)

What really annoys me is that it's flippant comments like this can mould the public's opinion on an issue. If a well known TV presenter states that medical science has proved something how many viewers will go and research that claim to check its validity? Very few, most people will simply believe such a claim at face value and then later repeat it as fact.

Even though we hear about the decline in people’s interest in democracy, (in the west,) and the death of community etc it would be very dangerous to think that public opinion has become any less influential. My medical condition does not make me depressed it simply makes it more difficult for me to feel happy. The depression that grew over the years before I was diagnosed came more from the feeling of isolation and frustration. Why couldn’t I be more like my friend’s, what was wrong with me, etc. All very teenage angst, except it started long before I was teenager and has stayed with me since.

My mum used to work as a receptionist at a doctors surgery and she told me once that about a third of all the patients on their books were on Prozac. A third! Now during the recent scandal over antidepressants, GPs were criticised for relying too heavily on such drugs. They responded with the valid claim that they have nothing else to offer as pastoral services in the NHS have long been overlooked and neglected.

Surely this is at least in part linked to the social stigma of mental illness. Depression? Just pull yourself together! Just get on with it! It’s not a real illness, it’s just whinging! All very good, but it doesn’t work, it’s not that simple. Had I been informed about depression at younger age it may well have altered the way in which I saw what was happening to me and how I felt about myself.

A recent article in ADBUSTERS pointed out that depression is more prevalent among certain social groups, namely women, young people, the poor and ethnic minorities. Basically, anyone who isn’t a wealthy, middle aged white guy is far more likely to experience depression and other mental health problems. Maybe, they suggested, this is because society is mainly run for and by wealthy, middle aged white guys. The rest of us just don’t fit.

This sounds a little hard to swallow at first but then, look at the House of Commons. Is the British population really represented in that chamber? Does the percentage of MPs from ethnic minorities reflect the number of voters from ethnic minorities? What about women? Surely if the Commons were truly representative about half of all MPs would be women and we all know that that is nowhere near being the case!

Thinking about this it occurred to me that the way in which I have interacted with society may well have helped change a lack of happiness into active depression. When I go the shop I take an old plastic bag instead of getting a new one, the guy behind the counter looks at me like I’m crazy. An economist on the BBC the other day suggested that the recent downturn in highstreet takings could be due to ‘irrational’ behaviour such as people just not wanting to buy stuff.

You see? I’m crazy for wanting to recycle and irrational for not wanting to buy anything today. I don’t fit, ergo there must be something wrong with me. Now I’m not blaming society for my problems, I’m an adult and I take full responsibility for myself, but surely we have to question a system that is apparently making people ill.

This is a massive issue that goes to the very roots of what our society is all about and I certainly don’t for a moment blame Trisha for all the world’s ills. No, that blame lays squarely and evenly across all our shoulders and I have no doubt that the problem will remain until we solve it together.

Can you hear that? That low whooshing sound? Is it the wind? Is it a gas leak? No it's UK politicians of every colour and their collective sigh of relief at the result of the French referendum. Contingency plans and strategies can be tossed neatly onto the back burner as the deadly issue of Europe is dodged once more.

(You'll have to forgive me if I appear somewhat cynical today it's just that, well, I'm a very cynical person... and I haven't really slept for several days just to give you some perspective.)

Of course Blair will have to find another redemptive exit now but even he, with the hand of history upon his shoulder etc, would surely have seen Europe as a tough song to close with, fat lady that he is. Even the those Conservatives who were, publicly at least, desperate for a referendum here because, right now, they felt they could win it; even they will secretly admit that the whole thing just going away is the best outcome for them.

The recent UK general election saw many gains for the Conservatives by which they managed to pull themselves up to a much more respectable rank of humiliating defeat. Any ideas of progress or positive development for the party have quickly been overshadowed however, by a return to the farcical in fighting which is now the only thing the Conservative Party is universally recognized as being good at. They don't really need another brawl over Europe as well.

Just as with the French referendum, our noble 4th estate are already spending hours on a story that hasn't happened yet. (Remember, speculation = news, there really isn't anything else more important going on in the world, honest.) Who will lead the Conservatives to their next defeat? That is the question that very few people really care about, receiving a whole load of attention. But what the hell? We all sell out from time to time, so let's get down in the mud and roll with the pigs.

First up let me describe my own personal Conservative leader nightmare which I have espoused for many years now, namely, Michael Portillo. Quite frankly, the guy scares the shit out of me and here's why. People like Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin serve only to reassure me by being, as they are, such blatant fascist bastards.

Anyone who remembers Thatcher's reign with cold dread can sleep easy in their beds with men like these at the Conservative helm. Regardless of just how far Blair pushes his luck, and I swear, the guy has no limits, he stills comes across as the lesser of two evils. Much as I love Steve Bell, the Howard-is-Dracula caricature does Howard far less damage than the fact that the guy always looks like he has a stick up his arse.

The same can be said for many of the other potential contenders for the Conservative leadership. The thing about Portillo that makes my blood run cold is that, if I'm not very careful, I find myself quite liking the guy. He comes across as a genuine person who is at ease with the media and appears to have, for a politician anyway, a reasonable feel for the concerns of the public.

Let's make no mistake here, let's be absolutely clear: Michael Portillo is a Conservative, he believes in right wing values that would, given half a chance, finish the job of destroying this country. What freaks me out is that when I here him arguing a point it occurs to me that, hell, that's what I'd say if I had to defend his position.

Ken Clarke inspires a similar feeling but luckily, even with the French referendum pickling the Europe issue for now, his views on that subject will probably keep him out. Clarke filled in for Portillo on the weekly late night political review show, 'This Week' the other day actually, and I couldn't help but warm to him. (Apparently it was Portillo's birthday, happy birthday Michael, you scary bastard.) Anyone else suffering this affliction should keep reminding themselves of Clarke's involvement with BA Tobacco and the oppressive regime in Burma.

So that's it, my nightmare vision, the Conservative party is finally so desperate that it'll forgive anything, Portillo takes control and finally provides an alternative personality to vote for. The Conservatives take power and anyone with a working class or regional accent is immediately stripped naked and beaten with sticks.

A broader, and perhaps more sensible, issue is that the slow implosion of the Conservative Party is but a symptom of a much bigger sickness in UK, (western, even world,) politics. BBC Parliament recently ran an add featuring Tony Benn in which he speaks of what he calls, 'sign posts' and 'weather vanes'.

According to the white haired pipe smoker, a signpost is someone who maintains their political direction constantly, while a weather vane changes direction to match the flow of public opinion. Of course the politician's role in democracy is to represent their constituents and so, at first glance, the responsive weather vane is the preferred model. Unfortunately that's rather what we have now, and it isn't working.

Many people would read that last sentence as, 'parliament has no value what-so-ever and should be burned to the ground', so before their self righteous anger bursts their swelling chests, let's just clarify. Our political system does do a whole lot of good but that doesn't mean it couldn't be a whole lot better.

The problem with a weather vane is that they perpetually change their minds and are driven, in the end, by popularity. That's not to say that the weather vane lacks principles, rather that they prioritise electoral success as it is their only opportunity to do what they believe needs to be done. While this is an effective means of political survival it inevitably brings with it a loss of trust and respect.

This can be seen in action by looking at some of the inconsistencies between Labour manifestoes and policies. Having been elected on the manifesto, the practical policy is changed as a concession in order to keep power and thereby the ability to deliver the rest of the manifesto.

The signpost, on the other hand, can be relied upon to stay their course. Their direction is determined by the set-in-stone belief that it is the best way forward for everyone. Vote for a signpost and you'll get what you asked for. Even those who disagree with a signpost will often respect it, and voters are more likely to understand and trust its direction.

Thinking about it, politicians as signposts serve democracy far better. A wide selection of signposts allows the voter to choose a direction and follow it. If it turns out the direction was wrong, or is no longer right, then another signpost can be chosen and the journey continues. Rather than being there to win votes the politicians could simply provide their own unique options to the best of their ability and allow the public to decide.

Of course the down side to being a signpost, for the individual politician or party, becomes painfully apparent when public opinion is not with you. This is the tumour eating at the heart of the Conservative Party. The fundamental problem they have, as demonstrated by their forthcoming leadership battle, (and it will a battle, brutal and bloody,) is that they are torn between begin true to themselves and being electable.

It isn't policies or personalities that keep the Conservatives from power at the moment, it's simply that their beliefs are not shared by the majority of the country today. Now parties don't have to stay the same, but driving a political movement to evolve is, to say the least, a tricky business.

There is a line between adapting the way in which you apply your beliefs and changing your beliefs themselves, and it is an almost invisibly fine one. It is this line, however, that the new Conservative leader will have to find if he wants to be elected and take the party faithful with him. (Yes HIM, don't expect another female PM for a long time and thank Thatcher for that too.)

So there it is, following the mass media yet again, don't you feel dirty? The last thing to say is that, if you're Conservative don't hang up your blue ribbons just yet. The roads a country follows shift all the time and there's no reason to think that we'll never find ourselves walking in your direction again. You'll know when that's happening because I'll be too busy hitching to Holland to be writing this shit.

So today the French people, or at least some of them, will cast their vote on the EU constitution, yes or no. Our media have managed to spend hours upon hours reporting this story that still hasn't quite happened, mostly asking an apparently endless stream of people to predict the impact of a 'French No'.

If you were interested in the first place you're probably sick of it by now, at least it will all be over by this time tomorrow. That's not to say that there's nothing of interest to be said about the French referendum, just that there's nothing of interest being said about it in the media, but what's new?

Far more interesting than the way the French will vote are their reasons for voting that way. There's the right who fear a lessening of sovereignty and the left who fear a lessening of social justice, but there are also those who are just pissed off with Chirac.

It's been said that a referendum on the constitution here would be a referendum on Blair just as, for some people, the UK general election was a referendum on our invasion of Iraq. Now Chirac made his desperate plea for people not to cut of their noses to spite their faces, this vote was about France not him and, in principle, he's right.

If the voter allows feelings over a larger or unrelated issue to affect their vote on a specific issue then the whole point of the referendum is lost. The only way the system can work is if people cast their vote responsibly and focus only on the question at hand: Do you want this constitution? Is this party the best to run the country?

Of course this doesn't happen, mostly for two reasons. Firstly, people just don't feel sufficiently represented. Yes we have democracies in Europe and we're ever so proud of them, even to the point of using them to justify changing other people's way of life to match, but what do you and I actually do as part of this grand system that supposedly guarantees freedom and justice?

Well, every four or five years roughly half of us vote to elect people to do it all for us. For a system by which the people are supposed to govern themselves there is an obscenely small amount of interaction between the tax payers and the tax spenders. It's not really surprising then that people use the few influential opportunities they do get to send the message most important to them.

The second reason people don't necessarily answer the question they are asked in the booth, is that many don't know or understand the question. The EU constitution is a perfect example, how do people know what they're voting for? Has anyone actually read this document? Have you? It was free to download from the 'EU bookshop', (go to http://bookshop.eu.int and look at the 'Key Publications') however when I tried to do just this a few days ago it crashed and now claims to be unavailable.

The point is that every single piece of information we get about what this thing actually contains comes from people with a vested interest in one outcome or the other. We have no impartial, trustworthy account of the document and no access to the document itself, (besides shelling out for a hard copy.) So how do we make the right choice?

Even if none of this were the case, even if we felt fully understood and noticed by our leaders and each had a solid understanding of the text, our only input into this thing is to accept or decline this particular version. Amid the tepid coverage of this story various pundits, (a former Blair aide and a French journalist were two,) pointed out that the 'big discussion' considering the point and direction of 'the European Project' had not taken place in France.

The only form such a discussion has taken here in the UK has been to prove so divisive an issue that none of the three main parties dared raise it during the election. This being the state of the national consciousnesses on this topic, it seems fair to say that while the peoples of Europe may have been represented in the production of this constitution, they have actually not been, or felt, involved in it. Maybe if they had then many of the reservations people now have could have been laid to rest long before polling day.

The last thing to say about the EU constitution that isn't really anything to do with the EU constitution, is to mention one particular YES argument, namely the idea of Europe as a 'counterbalance' to the US that could end that country's penchant for unilateralism.

Well, ending US unilateralism does sound good but looking just a little deeper things don't seem so rosy. Let's pretend the cold war didn't happen and that the idea of achieving world peace by balancing two superpowers didn't turn out to be an almost earth scorching failure.

Instead, let's consider this: If the EU were to become a single country, or otherwise come together, it would have a greater population than the US, be geographical bigger and, I think, financially richer. To counterbalance the US these features would need to be exploited in one, or both, of two ways.

First, if you can turn all those people into full time western consumers then you're providing a bigger market than the US. Second, match them gun for gun , bullet for bullet. Basically we're talking about a Starbucks every 25 feet from the west coast of Ireland to the east coast of Russia and massive, massive arms proliferation.

(Don't forget the more guns you make, the lower the unit cost, so if you want to pay less for your guns get as many other people, 3rd world dictators for example, to buy them too. More guns for us means more guns for everyone, but that's ok because guns don't kill people, people kill people, with guns...)

Anyway, maybe that's a little extreme but the point is that it seems we're being told that to counter the US we have to become just like them only bigger. As if instead of being cunning, and good with a slingshot, David should have joined a gym, done some 'roids then gone back and threatened to rip off Goliath's head so as to shit down his neck.

Can anyone say they really want this? There are many people in the UK who seem to think we still have an empire, that we’re the cosy little island at the centre of the world. Obviously this isn’t true, eventually we’re going to have to hold our noses and get onboard with Europe or become the US’s 51st state, (they offered at the end of WWII you know.) Europe has the potential to become something new and pretty cool if we can just go about it the right way.

These are worrying thoughts and hopefully they'll stay just that, but maybe we're selling ourselves short, Europe isn't the US, we do things differently here. I mean, their constitution, written in the name of 'the people', was actually drawn up by a relatively tiny group of very privileged individuals, whereas ours on the other hand...

So ID cards are back, and this time they mean it! Even with a reduced majority and a threatened back-bench revolt, you wouldn't bet too much against the government getting them through, and why not some would ask. Apparently 11th September 2001 created a premier league of terrorism that can only be faced with new and drastic measures. We didn't introduce ID cards during the troubles with Northern Ireland but of course those (often US funded) atrocities have been retrospectively relegated to mere first division terrorism, (though I doubt the families involved would agree.)

Being a lefty, alternative type, my gut reaction to ID cards is to squeal about infringement of civil liberties. As long as I don't break the law, I should be allowed to go wherever I want, whenever and not have to reveal my identity. That's a little abstract however, so then I'd probably calm down a bit an turn to a more specific infringement.

At the moment we have the right to remain silent if arrested, this in turn means that we have the right not to tell the police who we are. If obliged by law to carry and produce ID cards then we lose this right. Again though, this is true but it seems almost pedantic to fuel outrage with such a technicality.

If you want to leave the country or drive a car you have to pay for a document to do so, and with good reason. It's important to know who's coming in and out of the country and important that people driving cars are fully qualified to do so. It also seems reasonable to charge for the documents, they have to be paid for somehow.

The thing is that if you don't want to travel or drive you don't have to buy a passport or driving license. Compulsory ID cards, (retailing at around £90 according to the BBC,) would be a license to leave your home that you would be legally required to purchase in order to go about your everyday life.

Unfortunately, as well intentioned and truly felt as all these arguments are, they are pretty much useless as debating tools. Arguments founded on moral principle are invariably a matter of opinion. Simply put, if you don't already agree with these ideas they're not going to change your mind and I fear that this kind of thing is all we will hear from opponents of the scheme.

A much more useful debate to have, concerns the practicalities of these cards. The counter argument to all the above of course is that the security ID cards would bring is worth all the drawbacks listed but what I have never heard explained, by anyone, at any point, is specifically how ID cards will stop international terrorism.

Let's put aside the fact that the terrorist groups we are being warned against are run by multi-millionaires and pretend that they won't find someone to forge the ID cards. Instead let's consider the point of the cards themselves: to stop terrorists using false identities to enter and move about the country.

Ok, so we're all carrying our ID cards to prove we have nothing to hide while the terrorists are without theirs, showing that they're up to no good. The only way the cards can have any effect is if they are inspected by the police. It has to be compulsory to carry or the terrorist just claims his card is on the dresser at home and you wouldn't expect him to follow an order to produce his card at his local police station either.

Now much has been made of the biometric data stored on the cards and the increased security, (and price tag,) it brings. But how will the police check this data in the street? Are they going to be issued with mobile iris recognition units? The only way the ID on the card can be verified as that of the carrier will be to visit the police station, but if the carrier has not committed any crime will they obliged to go into custody?

Of course if the police don't want to take every carrier they check down town, and I'm pretty sure they don't, then they'll just have to go off the picture and details listed on the card. These details can easily be forged and such reliance renders the much celebrated biotech useless.

The thing is that even if our police could be furnished with sci-fi style equipment that enabled them to check the data on site, not all terrorists are foreign! Plenty of the people considered dangerous enough to be incarcerated indefinitely without trial, both here and abroad, would have been able to get valid ID cards had the system been in place before they were whisked away.

These practical issues seem to have fallen by the wayside and the approaching debate smells like a familiar exercise in hysterical polarisation. Naive pacifists vs ignorant bigots, choose your camp. There will be no middle ground, no sensible discussion, just this weird kind of tribalism that erupts every time we get scared.

I wouldn't bet against the government getting ID cards through, but I'll put a fiver on getting through the whole process and not hearing anyone explain exactly what good they'll do us.

Having completed the housework, the DIY tasks and fed the cat I'm left with nothing to do but actually work on my novel, except, no! A blog! What a brilliant way to avoid doing any real work while feeling like doing something worthwhile! Maybe in the future I can focus on specific issues of the day but, for a start, let's just have a good rant.

Are you proud of Liverpool? Who could help but be impressed by their achievement. It was the epitome of what we British like to think of as our national character, plucky determination in the face of overwhelming odds, that grim and gritty stubbornness that sees us through to victory etc etc.

Such events kindle that beautiful little flame we all secretly like to see, the idea that sometimes, just sometimes, harsh reality really can be subverted by golden dreams. Occasional surprises, especially nice surprises, actually give a sense of security, reassurance that the world still holds some mystery, that not everything runs according to 'the rules'.

Recently, however, the unexpected has become abundant. The very architects of 'the European Project' seem set to jack the whole thing in, (though let's wait and see.) Underlying the desperate media attempt to make story from speculation on how the French will vote on Sunday is a begrudging sense of surprise. Wasn't our referendum supposed to be the big hurdle? Weren't we supposed to be the ones to make or break the constitution?

Consider our summer so far. We currently find ourselves floating in a kind of stalled confusion. We know change must be coming, but not when. The season appears to shift back and forth within the course of day leaving us slightly dazed and thoroughly confused. Seeing the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, our Government and our Opposition all limping towards the end of their time in power adds to this sense of uncertainty.

We're apparently overrun with yobs, terrorists and deadly viruses yet, looking out of your window, you don't find horses eating each other or any of the charred chaos and you might expect. Instead you find it sunny and raining at the same time with the vague sense that the whole of society is secretly and slowing unravelling. Can you feel it? That nagging sensation that there's no-one at the wheel?

Yes, yes, all these things will be resolved one way or another, and soon. There's no need to start hoarding food or hiding in the cellar, but there is something missing. Today scientists announced the development of a so-called 'fat vaccine', an injection to limit people's hunger thereby enabling them to lose, or avoid gaining, weight. While this vaccine will no doubt make someone a lot of money, regardless of how effective or dangerous it is, it treats only the symptoms of the 'obesity epidemic' that apparently grips us. There is far less money to be made in addressing the cause of addiction, be it to food or anything else, namely a lack of willpower.

It is this void into which we feel our hearts sinking when we consider the varieties of strangeness surrounding us today. Willpower comes from belief and only personal moral strength can drive someone to choose the right thing over the easy thing. Now fewer and fewer people vote not because they don't care, but because they have lost faith in the ideals and subsequent systems they are presented with.

Just like the George cross, ideals and willpower have been hijacked by idiots leaving people uncomfortable under their banners. Being a human adult, and technically sane, I am capable of being proud of my country without having to hate anyone else's. I'm English and the George cross is my flag, but somewhere along the line we have abandoned it to a tiny minority of right wing losers.

Similarly, idealism and willpower are inherent facets of humanity and yet various lunatics, religious and political, have used these facets to justify so much pain and death, that feeling strongly enough about something to want to make a difference is now seen as being stupid and/or dangerous.

Funnily enough this isn't such a problem for people outside our western bubble. Look at any 'less developed' (whatever that means) country and you'll find passion is not so uncool. I guess if you're kids are dead in your arms, either because you can't feed them or they've been blown up, a sense of the importance of right and wrong is easier to find.

So look out of your window, no the sun isn't falling from the sky and no the world isn't coming to an end. That nagging feeling you've got hasn't come from TV, it's come from the part of you that can hear much more distant screams and knows we should be doing something about it.