Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bullshido in the war on drugs? Surely not...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Bullshido in the war on drugs? Surely not...

    I just read this article on the BBC news website and it made me laugh: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334774.stm

    Basically the head of the UK government's scientific drugs advisory panel, who is a professor of psychopharmacology, recently made a statement to the effect that the government's reclassification of canabis from a class C drug to class B (basically making it more illegal again after a short period of being a little less illegal) was flawed on the basis that it wasn't supported by the scientific evidence. This has resulted in him being sacked from his advisory position.

    A good quote from the sacking letter the relevant minister sent to the professor is "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me...".

    I thought the point was to taylor the policy to go with the advice, not the other way round.

    #2
    Figures. Maybe if enough drug users weren't unproductive slobs then it'd be harder to vilify them, and less "sexy" for politicians to go after them.

    Comment


      #3
      I can't say that I'm surprised. Saddened, but not surprised because the role is provide supporting evidence where possible and STFU when necessary.

      Comment


        #4
        A lot of productive people use too, they just have to be more subtle about it so as not to lose their well paid, responsible jobs.

        It's true that people who are obvious druggies are generally wasters, but that's at least in part due to the preconception of drug users as wasters. In other words, when looking for obvious drug users people essentially just look for wasters. People who self identify with drug culture enough for it to be recognisable will be wasters precisely because the image of the drug culture(s) is that it's (they're) made up of wasters.

        You wouldn't know if your doctor smoked weed, because if it was public knowledge he'd lose his job. You know the hippy who mows lawns for a living smokes because he's obviously stoned all the time. Imagine if the perception of alchohol was based entirely on the cider-swilling, piss-smelling early morning drunks in the park.

        Comment


          #5
          SURPRISE!!!!
          Originally posted by OnceLost
          Actually, I don't do it because I don't want people to be scammed - I do it because I enjoy kicking down the doors of Lies and Deceit and then forcibly fucking Fraud with the dildo of Truth.
          Originally posted by It is Fake
          I don't care if they gave it to him because, he tickles butterfly butt-holes while wearing a pink frock.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Zapruder View Post
            SURPRISE!!!!
            Yeah, this is old news, except for that beautifully idiotic quote.
            I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me...

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by permahudef View Post
              Yeah, this is old news, except for that beautifully idiotic quote.
              I know, it happens in some form every time a scientific study disagrees with government policy, which is pretty much whenever such a study is done. This one is just particularly high profile.

              Comment


                #8
                Well, in Finland we have this thing called drug law which makes it illegal to own any tools that can be used for making drugs.

                Yes, really. You could be convicted and fined for buying flower pots.
                Curiosity killed the cat. But damn it had a blast.

                Comment


                  #9
                  4 people in my office smoke weed fairly regularly you would never know which ones did and did not by talking to all of us.

                  it's a shame that my coworkers cant come out and say "yeah i do mortgages and shit, and i get lit on the weekends, now what?"

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by galois View Post
                    A good quote from the sacking letter the relevant minister sent to the professor is "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me...".

                    I thought the point was to taylor the policy to go with the advice, not the other way round.
                    You're smarter than that Galois. You know it works more like this:

                    YouTube - The Hollowmen - Vulnerable to attack
                    YouTube - The Hollowmen - We need a crackdown (1/2)
                    Last edited by Nicko1; 10/30/2009 7:56pm, .

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by galois View Post
                      I know, it happens in some form every time a scientific study disagrees with government policy, which is pretty much whenever such a study is done. This one is just particularly high profile.
                      Ah, that makes sense.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The illegality of drugs has always been more damaging than the drugs themselves. To bad this fellow had to be the one to point out the silliness of these laws and get fired for it. The opium wars, prohibition, the current drug war...historically governments banning drugs has resulted only in societal discord and rich criminals.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          The point is drug laws are not about protecting the public. They are about fear and reassurance. "Fear this...stuff out there. But it's all right, because we've got a plan. The opposition doesn't have a plan. They're soft on drugs. Not like us, we're tough. Vote for us."

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Nicko1 View Post
                            The point is drug laws are not about protecting the public. They are about fear and reassurance. "Fear this...stuff out there. But it's all right, because we've got a plan. The opposition doesn't have a plan. They're soft on drugs. Not like us, we're tough. Vote for us."
                            This is true. Last year another drug report was published urging a shake up of the UK's classification laws. It was known before publication that the paper came to this conclusion so the minister reassured the public, before he'd read the thing, that he wasn't going to act on its advice.

                            This is coupled with the fact that many government ministers have admitted to having smoked weed in the past http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6907040.stm.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              I think you need to ignore that this is about a sensitive subject like drugs for a second to see how stupid the situation is.

                              First they make a policy decision, then they comission a study. The study doesn't agree with their decision, so they throw away the findings, and implement their original plan. Why did they waste everyone's time comissioning the report in the first place?

                              Now they're firing somebody just for doing their goddamned job. Brilliant.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X